Response to Douglas' Enlightened Sexism

The words that were repeated numerous times in Intro to Sociology, “Find the strange in the familiar.” This is the key to being “socially mindful.” Susan Douglas took the perspectives I had on familiar things and flipped it upside-down. As my eyes glance through all the magazines in the grocery checkout line, I never noticed that all of Cosmo’s “101 sex tips” were all centered on male pleasure and all of the other examples Douglas provided. So, I took Douglas’ lead and thought about some familiar things on my own. In our culture, it is more respectful to address someone in an important position by their last names (professors, politicians). However, I often hear female politicians referred to by their first names like Hilary or Condoleeza, and even simply Connie.

Douglas also brought out all of the impossible ideals incorporated into what society’s package of a woman looks like. What society sells is a materialistic Miss Independent that is still feminine and able to gain the love and approval of men. I agree with Douglas that this image is a distraction and steers the interest from gender equality to things the market wants to see, things that rack up the $$$.

The media is the usual suspect for the creation and perpetuation of this image to which they defend themselves by insisting that the media is merely a mirror of society. However, it makes me wonder the validity of this claim. Is this image really being produced by society then packaged by the media and sold back out to society? This argument reminds me of the market feedback loop, first seen in the documentary of teen culture, Merchants of Cool. The media observes the girls and spits out a profitable image in which the girls mimic and sell back to the market and the loop continues. What fuels this feedback loop is society’s message to females that consumerism equates to freedom and empowerment. I don’t have to look far to see this message being sold. What is even more fascinating is that this message translates to all different cultures and races. Come Christmas or birthdays, my relatives are quick to introduce me to new fashion and beauty tips that will surely land me in front of a rich, handsome husband. There is no language barrier that impedes this image from spreading and spreading.

Main Post January 20th

Susan Douglas’s introduction to Enlightened Sexism, titled “Fantasies of Power,” aims to clarify the problems that face the genuine advancement of women in contemporary America. In particular, she focuses on the media and its spectrum of projected ideals and images as both the representation of progress and the main obstacle for future progress. Douglas observes how the media has distorted the reality of women’s status in American society in different ways over time, dealing differently with contemporary feminism than it did with the feminism of the fifties and sixties. Essentially, she argues that the media has created illusions that distort, and most often suppress, genuine recognition of how far women have come and how much farther there is to go. For example, in the fifties, when women were inarguably active and making progress, the media represented them in their ideal domestic spaces, and they were shown as happy to be there. In contrast, today’s media often represents the “new age” woman that is in a high-power job, not afraid to stand up to “the man.” Our media gives an image of achieved equality, when, in reality, there is much left to be accomplished.

Douglas begins to break down these issues by introducing the terms “enlightened sexism” and “embedded feminism.” These two concepts work with one another, according to Douglas, to create today’s very complex social climate. Enlightened sexism poses the problem of appearing to be feminist, and therefore, it does not garner attention as something needing to be critiqued or questioned. But Douglas tries to show that much of what appears to be progressive in our media actually disarms feminism by overstating women’s gains and rendering the feminist movement obsolete.

Douglas tactfully explains the complexities of this opinion by providing media examples and navigating how they are meant to be received by the general public. The most interesting example is her break down of what can be summarized as “trash TV.” She explains that the success of such shows is based on appealing to the audience’s ego by making TV that is so shallow that the spectators congratulate themselves for knowing not to take it at face value. She says, “The pleasure comes from feeling that you are reading against the grain, seeing through and deconstructing this media sludge.” The unfortunate result, though, is popular television shows like “My Super Sweet Sixteen” which pumps out images of stereotypical feminine hysteria and consumerism, no matter how tongue-in-cheek. “The Man Show,” as another example, gets by on appearing to be aware of how pathetic sexism is. By embracing their pathetic sexism, it becomes comedy; laughing becomes “okay” because the men of “The Man Show” can argue that they are laughing at themselves and the knowledge of their own base immaturity. It is this new layer of irony (#50 on the list at StuffWhitePeopleLike.com) that complicates the progress of contemporary women.

Overall, Douglas’s message in “Fantasies of Power” is to delve deeper and to question how far women have really come, and how much farther there is left to go. She does not want the media to continue to encourage complacency or to keep taking one step forward and two steps back. Throughout the rest of the book she will unravel these problems more fully and offer her own suggestions for overcoming them.

Adrienne Rich’s convocation speech at Douglass College is very similar to Susan Douglas’s message in many ways. Rich, however, is encouraging women to fight against the complacency felt in the academic realm rather than in the media. Although, Rich preaches about the same principles of questioning and challenging. She uses similar statistics and facts that show how under-represented women are at “the top,” regardless of the common message that “women have won.” Rich differs in that her speech puts much more emphasis on personal responsibility. Her purpose seems to be to inspire action through a fundamental change in women’s self-image; she believes that women who see themselves as worthy, intelligent, and opinionated will be the women that demand such respect from the rest of the world and induce the most change.

Response

“What you can learn here is how men have perceived and organized their experience, their history, their ideas of social relationships, good and evil, sickness and health, etc. When you read or hear about “great issues”, “major texts”, “the mainstream of Western thought”, you are hearing about what men, above all white men, in their male subjectivity, have decided is important. (Adrienne Rich)”

This quote from Adrienne Rich’s convocation speech at Douglass College in 1977 is extremely powerful, and I think it is worth discussing. Personally, I do not consider myself a feminist. I want women to earn equal wages as men. I also want the traditional stay-at-home mother/wife image to be eradicated in the near future, but I do not label myself as a feminist. However, Rich’s quote made me realize that most “great issues” in the world come from a male perspective, and I think this is unacceptable. In CORE classes 151 and 152 here at Colgate, we read many of “the classics”…written almost entirely by men (it probably depends on the professor, but mine included almost exclusively male texts). Hence, in many CORE classes, we learn about the past through a lens that has been created by the males of the world. Conversely, in my experience with psychology classes and other courses that I have taken (specifically, intro to P-CON comes to mind), I have found that many of the texts on the syllabus are written by women. This may be a sign that change is possible, and although most ancient texts that are taught at Colgate are written by males, newer publications are quite commonly written by females.

Now I want to focus on Enlightened Sexism. In the introduction of the book, Susan Douglas spends a lot of time discussing today’s popular media and how it reinforces sexist ideas. She focuses on television series that promote female power, such as Grey’s Anatomy and Law & Order. She also mentions multiple series that she believes are sexist: The O.C, Gossip Girl, and many others. She argues that girls from my generation (born in the late 1980s or early 90s) tend to watch these “sexist” shows in groups together, and they spend the time watching the show and ridiculing the “empty-headed and materialistic girls on the screen” (15). Douglas argues that this ridiculing creates a fantasy that the television shows are not examples of sexism, although they clearly are. When I was home over winter break, I stumbled upon a reality series called “Bridalplasty” on the E! network when I was at one of my girlfriend’s houses. We were both completely fascinated by this show, and watched the entire episode. The show is fascinating because it is so absurd: a group of soon-to-be brides live in a house together and compete for plastic surgeries. There is even a recovery room in the house, where women can relax post-liposuction, breast implants, nose job, etc. We did not watch this show because we thought it was about gender equality; clearly, it is a sexist show. My friend and I both knew this, but we continued to watch because it was entertaining. Although we ridiculed the girls on the show, we were aware that the show embraced sexist values. Therefore, I think that Douglas’s point about reality shows producing a “fantasy” that we have overcome sexism is incorrect, because I am fully aware that Bridalplasty is sexist.