Fairfax Fail

At the moment I'm reading Judas Rose, the second in the Native Tongue series by Suzette Elgin. One central idea running though the series is that language shapes reality. I'm enjoying these books in that way one enjoys reading things that reinforce beliefs one already holds. For many years I've been of the opinion that the language we use reflects and shapes how we think, and that changing that language can help change the way we think.

As such the language used in the media relating to women really freaking shits me off. This piece of Fairfax reporting was a real corker.

Let's start with the headline "Girl sells sister, 7, to gang rapists in flat 13C". The active voice used for the 'girl sells sister' sets up the blame for the rape on the 'girl' (15 year old sister), while rapists remain passive to the rape. It's almost as if those gang rapists were sitting around minding their own business in flat 13C until some 'girl' came around to barter with them, and heck, there was nothing else to do so they bought. Can we think of a better headline? How about 'Men gang rape sisters', because if you actually get past the victim blaming in the article, you see they were both in fact raped.

The first half of the article is full of shock-horrors that the 15 year old could do such a thing, and wanting to get her tried as an adult, because she was 'paid' for her sister's rape. It's all set up as the big nasty sister sold the child, and isn't she evil! No one seems all that concerned that actually raping children is evil, that the men who committed these crimes are evil.

When you get through all that you finally read that the sister was also raped. But that's not mentioned, no, apparently she 'sold sex'. Deep breath, here we go again Fairfax, having sex with a child is rape, whether they 'consent' or are paid or what. The age of consent in New Jersey is 16 (if the other person is over 18), since both 'boys and men' were involved, I think 'was allegedly raped' would be a better term than 'sold sex' for gods sake!! The big sister in this story sounds like a messed up kid who was abused by a group of men, it's rape.

So we have two girls, one older, one younger. The older one is already being abused by these men, then they abuse the little sister too. Does no one bother to wonder what situation the older sister was in that this is where she ended up, with her little sister? What actual agency did this girl have? What actual power did she have in this situation? Not much I'm betting.

It is of course not the job of the news reporter to speculate on this sort of thing, but the way the whole article is set up puts the focus squarely on the conduct of the 15 year old child, instead of the goddamn rapists. The article reads like the rapists are periphery to the whole thing, passive, just doing what men do.

Because feeling beautiful is central to women's self worth?

Jennifer Hawkins, former Miss Universe, appeared naked and unphotoshopped on the cover of Marie Claire. She had a crease on her waist *gasp* and apparently some cellulite. It was meant to raise awareness about eating disorders, and help your average woman feel better about herself. Anyway, not only did the feminist blogosphere go mad, but a large portion of the general public weighed in to the debate. In my opinion they rightly pointed out that the picture didn't really make much of a point because a) she's not an average woman, she's a supermodel, and b) she doesn't really look any different when she IS photoshopped, cos you know, she's a supermodel.

There has been a lot of talk about how they should have put on an un-photoshopped image of a woman who doesn't fit perfectly into the current cultural ideal of female beauty. Part of the problem is that we are exposed to so many images of one ideal, and so few positive images of anything else. A positive image of a fat chick for example, may have had a good impact on women seeing that even though they don't fit the ideal, they are still beautiful.

Marie Claire's actions, and the response, was largely predictable. It's been analysed until the cows come home. But as I've reflected, something else has stood out for me....

The whole argument seems to revolve around how a naked picture of Jennifer Hawkins does not make other women feel beautiful, in fact it makes them feel unattractive, which in turn makes the whole thing deplorable because it was supposed to be fighting eating disorders. A positive image of a 'real woman' ('real woman' - that's a whole other side to the debate) who doesn't perfectly fit the cultural ideal is advocated because this, it is presumed, will make women feel beautiful.

I'm going to assume it is believed that women will feel beautiful if they see a naked picture of an average woman because they will appreciate that the female body is quite beautiful even when it doesn't fit a cultural ideal, and that despite media saturation only genetic freaks fit the cultural ideal, so we should all stop worrying.

I think this is a fair enough statement. Working in a bikini shop and seeing women's bodies all day, I did in fact grow an appreciation for the beauty of the female body in all its diversity. But what irks me is that the implication coming across, including from those working to fight eating disorders, is that we must do everything we can to make women feel like they are physically beautiful. The goal is to redefine beauty so that more women fit it because 'feeling beautiful' is seen as centrally important to a woman's perception of self worth.

This is a fundamentally counterproductive approach to women's empowerment in general and eating disorders in particular. Sure, attempt to shift the goal posts so more women fit into the 'beautiful' category, there is merit in that particularly when ideals promote unhealthy behaviours. There is merit in expanding ideas about female beauty to appreciate women's bodies with their cesarean scars, womanly dimply thighs and flabby stomachs. But what would really benefit all women - conventionally beautiful, butt ugly and everything in between - would be to reduce the focus on women's bodies entirely.

Only when female physical attractiveness, however defined, is taken off its pedestal will we get somewhere with equality. And as men are drawn into this appearance obsession, we are not only risking equality of the sexes but a general healthy, mentally and physically, society. Seriously is it that difficult to imagine a society where being fat or ugly isn't the end of the fucking world? My sense of humour isn't to many people's tastes, but its not the end of the world, I just tend to consider the people who do appreciate it as connoisseurs of a fine brew.

"But being fat is unhealthy! And a drain on the health care system!" - it's true, it is. But so is cigarette smoking and sodium intake and not getting pap smears. But smokers, fish 'n' chips lovers, and women with creepy doctors do not center their entire self worth and behaviour around these issues.

I'm gonna put it out there - it's more acceptable for a man to fugly than a woman. Some women would say that's unfair and they resent being expected to hook up with ugly guys, and that's a fair point of personal taste. But drawing men into this insanity is not the answer, what a perverse equality that would be. A promotion of a wider variety of female beauty would be beneficial, but more importantly maybe we should all realise that being, or even feeling, like the opitomy of sexual attractiveness is not the be all and end all of existence.