Archive for June, 2011

  • Vampires and feminism

    A slight deviation from current politics…

    So, my dissertation paper has been accepted to an academic conference at the University of London’s Institute of Germanic and Romance studies. If you’re interested in literary analysis, vampires, Twilight or feminism, you should try and come! Abstract is as follows:

    ‘Love to her becomes a religion’: The Twilight saga, feminism and regression 

    Traditionally, vampiric stories challenge patriarchal proscription. This paper explores Stephanie Meyer’s deft use of patriarchal gender roles to buck vampiric philosophy’s tendency to challenge the status quo, resulting in putting the modern women firmly back in her subordinate place. Vampires are equipped with the power of penetration, and the dissertation explores this notion to female vampires in the series, and the significant factor of Bella Swan’s eventual vampiric superpower being self- restraint.

    As vampire philosophy often renders human beings weak and female, whilst vampires are strong and male, the paper will also be examining power and control between humans and vampirism in particular, Meyer’s fetishation of female victimhood, and romantic notions of female self-sacrifice using Simone de Beauvoir’s 1949 feminist theory The Second Sex to analyse Meyer’s regressive writings.

    Edward Cullen is presented as the monster with a heart, and the epitome of perfection.  Working with the theory of a vampire bite as a metaphor for the loss of female virginity, this paper applies Carol J. Adams’ feminist vegan critical theory The Sexual Politics of Meat directly to the texts in order to expose the close and dangerous relationship between the notions of love, lust, bloodlust, abuse, control, sex and violence- all used repeatedly in the Twilight saga to promote a false idea of romantic love.

    The conference is on the 2nd to the 4th November 2011. Provisional information can be found here– I’ll post up more details (prices, programme ) as and when I get it.

  • Leave them kids alone: On sexualisation

    A shorter version of this post is available on Liberal Conspiracy

    My four year old sister has a pink pair of plastic high heeled shoes. They are not the type of too-big heels that little girls tottered about in years gone by. They fit her little feet perfectly, and she clops about the house in them. She also has a red scooter that she rides along the street, picking up and collecting the elastic bands that postmen drop on their rounds. I ask her why she does these things (wears the heels, collects the bands). Her answer was the same for both. It’s fun. When my sister wears her pink high heels she isn’t vying for the attention of men or boys. She isn’t sexualising herself. Yet when I first saw her teetering about the house in these heels I panicked.  In my grown up mind, a high heel is a shoe designed to make the leg look elongated and sexually appealing. My instinctive protectiveness towards my sister made me want to snatch away the shoes, to dispose of them, to have her running around in trainers again. I didn’t want anyone looking at my sister like a sex object. But upon more thought, I came to the conclusion that the only person sexualising her was me. By assuming she thinks the same about high heels as my adult brain does, I was thinking of her as a being with a comprehensive understanding of sexual consciousness. She isn’t.

    At a recent friend’s family get-together, music was playing, and one six year old got into the spirit by imitating the dance moves she had no doubt seen on TV. She was quickly reprimanded by a fellow party goer who told her not to dance like that, ‘because little girls who dance that way grow up to be whores’. She didn’t understand why she was being told off, and started to cry.

    And yesterday on Question Time, Germaine Greer saw fit to brand little girls in sequined Jordan-pink jeans ‘tarts’.

    Over the past week, lots of concerned adults have seen fit to speak on behalf of children, caught up in the grasping fear that they are all being sexualised beyond anyone’s control. Amidst all of the arm flailing, hand wringing concerns over the sexualisation of children, there has been some blind confusion about exactly who or what is sexualising them.  Reg Bailey, author of the Department for Education’s review into the issue entitled ‘Letting Children be Children‘, is baffled. In his analysis of this increasingly sexualised society, he finds it hard to pin down any cause, admitting ‘it is far from clear how we arrived at this point’.

    Predictably, his much anticipated report was ultimately meaningless, based on emotional unease instead of quantifiable evidence, without even a distinct definition of sexualisation in the first place.  It’s almost depressingly comical to watch commentators and journalists alike repeatedly stumble over and miss the root of this dilemma.

    The perspective of this sexualisation is almost philosophical. Many news reports cite worried parents lamenting the loss of their children’s innocence, but I think it’s worth asking- lost innocence in who’s eyes?

    Children are not sexualising themselves. Adults are sexualising them by projecting adult morality on to them. More often than not, that adult sexual morality is entrenched in sexist ideals. The sexist ideals floated to the surface when that six year old girl was warned she would grow up into a whore if she continued to dance provocatively. Sexist ideals dictate to us that the way a woman or girl dances must reflect how much sex she has had, or wants. Sexism tells us that women don’t just dance for dancing’s sake- like every other female action and endeavour; it’s orchestrated for the benefit of men. Because after all, isn’t that why we function?

    What happens when you project your patriarchal adult moral ideals on to pre-pubescent bodies? The judging starts.  Suddenly little girls are called whores, tarts, sluts.

    This sexualisation doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and is indicative of the wider problem of objectification of women’s bodies.  Is it any wonder that these toxic gender roles are filtering down to kids?

    They imitate their idols and we shame and punish them for it. The female idols in question are often regarded with disgust for balancing on the knife edge between daring to announce publicly that they have sexual feelings, and exploiting their sexual imagery. Morality crusaders are quick to let us know that sex is all around us, and that sex sells. But that’s a lie. It’s not sex all around us, but the objectification and consequent marginalisation of women’s bodies, commodified into accessory status. But for some strange reason, nobody wants to talk about that. It’s too much of a stretch of the imagination to challenge patriarchy. It’s easier to wail about this sexualisation of our children, all the while colluding in the myth that all of these sexualising factors are immediately permissible once the girl in question turns eighteen.

    Regulation and legislation will not fix this. Equality will. Free women from these narrow, suffocating gender-fascist ideals of appearance and behaviour, and the girls will follow.