December 2007 Newsletter

Special Issue on Women and Sex
SUSAN B. ANTHONY WOMEN’S CENTER
NEWSLETTER
ISSUE 4
MCLA
December 2007
Inside this issue:
Inspiring Woman:
Annie Sprinkle
2
Too Complex for Television: The
Invisibility of Queer Women of
Color
3
The Myth of the Slut
4
Sexualization Manifestation
Revelation
5
A Promise of Purity
6
SUSAN B. ANTHONY WOMEN’S CENTER
SPECIALISSUE
ISSUEON
ONWOMEN
ADOLESCENTS
WOMENAND
ANDSEX
STRENGTH
SPECIAL
Page 2
Inspiring Woman:
Annie Sprinkle
by Sigourney Wendt
Annie Sprinkle: porn star, performance artist,
or feminist? Can she be all three? Many, who have
avidly debated Annie Sprinkle and her “motives”,
have deemed her nothing more than a sex worker,
who is capitalizing on bringing pornography to the
stage (The New Criterion). While Annie Sprinkle, herself, does not deny her past of illegal and taboo activities, she has consistently used her experiences as a
basis for teaching others about the pleasures of human sexuality, the dangers of unsafe sex, and the importance of demystifying the human body
(anniesprinkle.org).
Born Ellen Steinberg in 1954 to her academic
parents, Annie Sprinkle never considered herself a
particularly open or sexually expressive child. Her
shy and timid ways, however, soon changed after she
became a cashier in a porn theater at the age of eighteen. She quickly developed an interest and curiosity
in sex, moving on to become a prostitute and later, onset assistant for and actress in various pornographic
films. By the early 1980s, Annie Sprinkle had starred
in over 150 pornography loops and 50 pornography
films. Motivated by her experiences in the adult film
industry, Sprinkle decided to write and direct an adult
film that would later change the standards of pornography. Her film, which became the second bestselling adult video in 1981, was one of the first to show
women in sexually aggressive roles, enjoying the
pleasures of sex (anniesprinkle.org).
Thereafter, Sprinkle made it a point to openly
discuss her feelings and thoughts about sex and the
porn industry. She took a sex-positive position—
upholding the value of expressing one’s sexuality and
pornography’s initiative in expressing sexual fantasies, while identifying the conservative/negative sex
culture of the United States and the downsides of the
porn industry. Sprinkle’s decision to leave the mainstream porn industry in the 1980s and to further advocate the positives of sex and female liberation was not
surprising, especially after her attempts to promote
safe-sex and awareness of AIDS in the porn industry
were ignored (anniesprinke.org).
Following her love of art and pleasure, Sprin-
kle sought out the stage, where she could seemingly
engage in both, and confront many of the issues concerning sex and sexuality. In one of her infamous performances, “Public Cervix Announcement”, Sprinkle
actually inserted a speculum into her vagina on-stage
and invited the audience to look at her cervix with a
flashlight. Her performance didn’t end here, however, as she later engaged in a “sex magic masturbation ritual”. While Sprinkle argued that her actions
were meant to personalize and demystify the female
genitalia, and openly speak out about the liberation of
sex, Republicans denounced her artistic performance
on the Senate floor. Many of the Republican senators,
particularly Jesse Helms, were enraged by her performance, which they considered to be pornography,
notably because this performance had received federal funding from the National Endowment for the
Arts. As the Senate argued over whether controversial
art should receive federal funding, Sprinkle continued
to write, direct, and perform in various theater pieces
(anniesprinkle.org). Performances such as “Annie
Sprinkle’s Herstory of Porn: From Reel to Real” and
“Post Porn Love”, which discuss the myths and truths
behind sex and sexuality, are two of Sprinkle’s performances that are currently touring.
Aside from her work as a performance artist,
Annie Sprinkle has written several books, taught
classes and workshops, given lectures, and has been
an active member of many public service projects. In
2002, Annie Sprinkle became the first porn star to receive her Ph.D. when she received her doctoral degree from the Institute for Advanced Study of Human
Sexuality in San Francisco, in Human Sexuality
(anniesprinkle.org). Despite the controversy surrounding her work, Sprinkle has been recognized for
her honest and sincere approach to advocacy and
educating others about the often repressed and stigmatized topics concerning sex and sexuality. Annie
Sprinkle has certainly transformed American culture,
whether we agree with her efforts or not. She has avidly debunked myths concerning the sexuality of men
and women, and has tried to bring an open mind and
a sense of tolerance to sex, which is so often devalued
in our society.
Sources:
www.anniesprinkle.org
The New Criterion-November 2002
SUSAN B. ANTHONY WOMEN’S CENTER
SPECIAL
SPECIALISSUE
ISSUEON
ONWOMEN
WOMENAND
ANDSEX
Occupations
Page 3
Too Complex for Television: The Invisibility of Queer Women of Color
by Raechel Doughty
While women face a wide array of stereotypes
about their sexuality, women of color are ever further
maligned. Their bodies and sexuality are exoticized
and fetishized in our culture. Lesbians and bisexual
women also must deal with a more complex set of
judgments. When stereotypes about race, gender and
sexual orientation intersect, there are many layers of
false preconceptions. While quality, realistic roles on
television for women, people of color and GLBT (gay,
lesbian, bisexual, transgender) people are already
sparse, queer women of color become invisible under
these layers of bias.
According to an annual study done by GLAAD
(Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), cable
television is growing more inclusive. GLBT representation on cable TV has increased 60% in the past year.
The number of queer people of color as series regulars has doubled, from seven to fourteen, with quite a
few of these being women. However, the situation is
not as promising for broadcast networks, where only
1.1% of series regular characters in the 2007-08
broadcast television lineup represent GLBT people.
This percentage has actually gone down in the past
few years. Of these GLBT characters, two are women,
and only one is a person of color. There are no queer
women of color series regulars on broadcast television.
In recent years, gay characters on TV have
multiplied due to very popular shows centered on gay
characters such as “Will and Grace” and “Queer as
Folk”. It is important to note, however, that these
shows represented affluent white gay males. Queer as
Folk’s ensemble cast featured only two lesbians, who
had much less screen time and plot involvement than
their male counterparts. They were also mothers, and
this aspect of their personas was emphasized to the
exclusion of their social and professional lives. They
were also white, as was the entire cast. “Noah’s Arc”,
which had two seasons on the Logo channel and is
now being turned into a film, was another ensemble
cast show starring gay characters - but its cast was all
black. The show was popular and a step towards more
diversity in GLBT programming, but it featured no lesbians.
The home of nearly half of lesbians on TV is
Showtime’s The L Word. This ensemble cast consists of
all women, and several women of color. Jennifer Beals
(of Flashdance fame) has played a main character
since the show’s inception, and one of the first storylines of the series focused on her biracial heritage in a
realistic and sensitive way. Although Beals’ father was
African-American, she has primarily played white
characters throughout her acting career. The show
also currently features a deaf character and a FTM
(female to male) character. Though it has made great
strides for visibility, it is not without its own set of
problems. Most of the characters are affluent, and
lead glamorous, melodramatic lives. Max, the FTM
character, was originally Moira, the show’s only butch
lesbian who was quickly scripted to be transgender.
While it is very rare to see transgender people on
television, some viewers felt the show fell into the trap
of binary gender that makes transgender people invisible in the first place - the only female with “male”
attributes, by default, became male and thereafter
adhered to aggressive male stereotypes, with nothing
between female and male represented. The show’s
Latina lesbian, Papi, is seductive and promiscuous, a
stereotype often directed at Latina women. The show
also has never had a Native American or Asian lesbian, but this is a problem everywhere on television,
where Native Americans and Asians are underrepresented in general.
Where, then, can we find realistic people of
color, women and GLBT people? It may be obvious, or
it may be surprising, but reality television does relatively well when it comes to diverse, accurate portrayals. Lesbians on unscripted television are wellrepresented and, naturally, more well-rounded than
characters. Although some "dating genre" shows aim
for sensationalism - for example, MTV's Shot at Love
starring Asian and bisexual entertainer Tila Tequilamany popular and longstanding reality shows allow
queer women of color to be seen as completely normal. The Real World, which is considered to be the
first reality show, has always included people of color
and GLBT people in their casting, and several queer
people of color have been cast over the years, including two women. The genre has flourished and unscripted shows like Survivor and America’s Next Top
Model regularly feature lesbians. An AfricanAmerican lesbian was a contestant in ANTM’s very first
season.
However, in a later season, the sexuality of
white, masculine-looking lesbian contestant Kim Stolz
was discussed over and over, while fellow contestant
Nik Pace, a feminine biracial lesbian, had her sexuality completely ignored.
(Continued on page 9)
SUSAN B. ANTHONY WOMEN’S CENTER
SPECIALISSUE
ISSUEON
ONWOMEN
WOMENAND
ANDSEX
OCCUPATIONS
SPECIAL
Page 4
The Myth of the Slut by Holly Huffstutler
What makes someone a slut? How do you tell a
bad girl from a good one? Why do we need to? Of all
the levels of inequality that women have had to deal
with, the sneakiest most pervasive one is that women
are split into two groups: the nice girls and “that dirty
slut who I heard screwed the whole football team. ”
The decision of whether a girl is good or bad is made
early and can define who she is for many years.
The presence of a “slut” in every junior high
or high school is the direct result of a general lack of
sexual knowledge. Kids entering puberty develop
their innate curiosity about sex, but they are often
scared away from freely exploring it because of pregnancy and STD threats. That unfulfilled curiosity about
sex, combined with its forbidden status, gets projected onto the girl or girls labeled as sluts. The girl
who gets the promiscuous label hung on her is usually
the one the pack identifies as different from them in
any number of ways.
The first “difference” often comes down to
skin color and body type. The possession of a certain
type of body is what often gets girls labeled as sluts:
the hourglass figure (large breasts, curvy hips, small
waist). It has been held up as a prime example of female fertility, ideally suited for child bearing and sex.
In her book, Slut! Growing up Female with a Bad
Reputation, Leora Tanenbaum discusses the many
ways in which a slutty identity is created, based on
anecdotes from girls she interviewed. Many of them
were assumed to be sexually active in their late junior
high and early high school years. “When everyone
else in class is wearing training bras, the girl with
breasts becomes an object of sexual scrutiny” (Tanenbaum: 8). This seems to be based on an
entrenched, almost medieval, and ridiculous belief
that a woman’s curves get curvier “under a man’s
touch,” instead of being the genetic accident that they
are.
A girl’s looks can be scrutinized in other ways
besides cup size. Girls who are prettier are often targeted out of jealousy alone. Some girls are marked as
sluts because they look more “exotic” than the rest of
their classmates. This often comes down to the stereotype of women of color, the “hot Latina” and so forth.
A fantasy that is held up as the contrast to the Victorian, yet disturbingly enduring, ideal of white women:
chaste and modest.
The designation of a school slut also carries
overtones of economic snobbery. “Regardless of her
family’s economic status, the ‘slut’ is thought to be
‘low-class’ and ‘trampy’” (Tanenbaum: xvi) and
poorer girls are often considered to be promiscuous
because of this connection. The situation is not helped
when their unsympathetic classmates interpret their
tight clothes to be a confirmation of their sexual desperation and availability, when in fact they are a byproduct of not being able to afford new shirts when
they grow, drawing more attention to their already
scrutinized breasts.
Family background can add to these reputations in other ways. Many girls who were labeled as
“tramps” several decades ago, were called that because their parents were divorced. The assumption
was, in the words of my mother who was assumed to
be “fast” in high school, that “If the parents slept
around…then I must too, right?”
If the reasons for being named a slut are many
and varied then so are the punishments that come
from the people who do the naming. They all seem to
fall under the umbrella of “slut-bashing.” This is when
the stories that make up their reputations get exaggerated and spread far and wide. Intriguingly, the
same bunch of stories seem to have been circulating
since the 50’s.
Examples of this can be found in the brilliant
movie about hostile teen life, Mean Girls. Incidentally,
every girl in that movie is defined by her sexuality.
The rumors that get whispered about all the girls
come to a head in the “burn book” sequence. One girl
(a “burn out”, what a surprise, she is one of the outsiders) reads that she “made out with a hot dog”. That’s
one of those ubiquitous stories like “screwed the
whole football team.” There’s another recyclable tale,
one that I’ve encountered. I was slightly oblivious in
high school; if we had a designated slut, I didn’t notice. But reading a story in Emily White’s Fast Girls:
Teenage Tribes and the Myth of the Slut made me remember the same story told to me in high school. A
girl reportedly had maggots in her vagina, because
she had pushed raw hamburger meat inside herself so
her dog would “eat her out”. It’s possible, of course,
that the girl from my hometown submitted her story to
White. But if that’s not true then this is just one of those
bits of slander that gets attributed to many of these
girls. Tanenbaum breaks down the subtext of these
rumored slutty exploits: “‘kinky’ sex isn’t normal, and
therefore ‘good’ girls don’t engage in it” (Tanenbaum:
89).
(Continued on page 7)
SUSAN
SUSAN
B.B.
ANTHONY
ANTHONY
WOMEN’S
WOMEN’S
CENTER
CENTER
SPECIAL
SPECIAL
ISSUE
ISSUE
ON WOMEN
ON WOMEN
ANDAND
SEXOCCUPATION
Page 5
Sexualization Manifestation Revelation by Brandee Simone
In February 2007, the American Psychological
Association released a monumental study entitled
“Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of
Girls.” This report has become the topic of much discussion, and has been followed by an endless assortment of response articles. The report defines what
sexualization means, presents evidence to support its
existence, and explores the consequences of sexualization in our culture, especially the consequences it
has on the lives of young girls. What is most disturbing about this article is that it brings to light that the
sexualization of young girls is happening in many
forms, which range from the very subtle to the overtly
obvious.
So what exactly is sexualization? The American
Psychological Association defines sexualization as occurring when a person’s value comes only from her/
his sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of
other human characteristics. Sexualization also occurs
when a person is sexually objectified, e.g., made into
a thing for another’s sexual use. Sexualization also
happens when sexuality is inappropriately imposed
upon a person, such as when elements of adult sexuality are forced upon children. This is much different
from healthy, age-appropriate, self-motivated sexual
exploration.
The APA report offers several examples to
clarify their definition of sexualization:
• “Imagine a 5-year-old girl walking
through a mall wearing a short Tshirt that says “Flirt.”
• Consider the instructions given in
magazines to preadolescent girls
on how to look sexy and get a boyfriend by losing 10 pounds and
straightening their hair.
• Envision a soccer team of adolescent girls whose sex appeal is emphasized by their coach or a local
journalist to attract fans.
• Think of print advertisements that
portray women as little girls, with
pigtails and ruffles, in adult sexual
poses.”
All one needs to do is take a stroll through a
mall or turn on the TV to see that sexual innuendo
abounds in advertising for children’s clothing, toys,
and dolls, as well as in the music, movies, video
games, magazines, and television programs that are
marketed to children. In April 2006, The New York
Times published an article explaining that the Hasbro
Company was getting ready to release a line of dolls
that was modeled after the markedly sexual R&B
group The Pussycat Dolls, whose hit 2005 single emphasized the lyrics “Don’tcha wish your girlfriend
was hot like me?” This line of dolls was to be marketed to 6-9 year old girls, and featured short, bottom-revealing skirts, heavy makeup, and cleavage.
This style of doll is not too far removed from
its predecessor, the Bratz dolls, which featured similarly scantily-clad females with coy looks on their
faces. A problem with such toys being marketed to
young girls is that they often serve as archetypal
models for them to imitate and look up to. One month
after announcing their intention to market the Pussycat Dolls toy dolls to 6-9 year old girls, which garnered immense public scrutiny, Hasbro decided not
to market them after all.
Although these particular dolls did not end
up being put in the hands of 6 year old girls, they are
just one out of the virtually endless examples of products and images that are, every day, put in the hands
and imprinted in the minds of young girls. The APA
Task Force reported on the consequences that these
types of marketing campaigns have on young girls
throughout their lives. Overwhelmingly, it showed
that in recent years, the levels of body image dissatisfaction, appearance anxiety, low self-esteem, selfdisgust, and internalized objectification have risen
dramatically as girls move from childhood to adolescence.
Between 2002 and 2003, the number of girls
under the age of 18 who had plastic surgery (such as
breast implants or nose jobs) nearly tripled. Additionally, research has linked sexualization to the
three most common mental health problems that occur in women: eating disorders, low self-esteem, and
depression. The rise in eating disorder rates among
young women is closely tied to the every day assertion of unattainable cultural beauty ideals extolled by
the media. The report aptly points out that eating disorders occur not only in individuals, but in the population at large. In addition to mental health, sexualization has also been linked to consequences on physical health. For example, studies have shown that the
onset of cigarette smoking in adolescent girls is
closely linked with body dissatisfaction.
On a more internal level, sexualization affects
the attitudes and beliefs of young girls, who are more
(Continued on page 8)
SUSAN B. ANTHONY WOMEN’S CENTER
SPECIAL ISSUE ON WOMEN AND SEX
Page 6
A Promise of Purity by Katie Hermance
“’You’re here to celebrate the idea of purity,’
intones the pastor solemnly. ‘You find people in the
sack all the time in the movies…But God has a better
plan.’” According to an article in The Economist, purity balls are springing up all over the nation. In a
world where women are objectified in everyday life
through media, movies, and music, the idea of
daddy’s little girl has ceased to be as prominent as it
was back in Beaver Cleaver’s day. Some evangelical
Christians are introducing what has become known as
purity balls, in an attempt to reinstate daddy’s little
girl.
It all started in the spring of 1998 when Randy
and Lisa Wilson of Colorado Springs began organizing with their Generations of Light ministry the idea of
a purity dance. According to Mary Strange, reporter
for USA Today, “Their mission is to preserve girls’
chastity by building healthy father-daughter relationships.” The ball, according to Strange, includes dressing up in prom dresses and tuxedos, vows from the
father and daughter, a symbolic purity ring, and a first
dance after which a wedding cake is served.
According to the Hollywood’s Youth Group,
fathers at the purity balls pledge to protect their
daughters’ purity and virginity as the “High Priest of
my home.” Meanwhile, virgins pledge to remain pure
declaring that “virginity is my most precious gift to
offer my future husband.” Young women who have
already had sex have their own pledge in which they
“repent” from their “impure” actions of the past.
Strange continues by noting that this past
year, people in 48 states and several other countries
participated in these events in which young girls,
starting as young as the age of eight, promise not to
have sex until they are married. The fathers, in return,
promise to protect their children’s chastity until they
marry. The so-called Purity Revolution has even produced “chastity couture” including shirts and underwear claiming the young girls’ pledge of virginity until marriage. Most teens, male and female, who pledge
not to have sex until marriage “will have sex—likely
risky and unprotected—within a few years of taking
the pledge. Close to 90% will have sexual intercourse
before marriage”, claims Strange.
The active relationship of a father and daughter benefits the child both mentally and emotionally,
Strange adds. Yet, many people agree that something
doesn’t feel right about a father imitating marriage
with a daughter. Strange goes on to criticize the purity
ball by declaring that “Many of these girls are pledging away something they don’t even understand they
have,” also that, “they are literally placing their sexuality in his hands (the father).”
The stereotype that sex is a taboo and that it is
“dirty” seems to be the message being sent to these
young girls. One might question where their mothers
are in all of this. Answer: sitting on the sidelines,
watching, silent. Strange brings it all together by saying that this “Purity Revolution puts women and girls
in their place, and that place is defined by, and subordinate to, the men in their lives.” The power that the
father, after the pledging, symbolically has over the
daughter is that of a patriarchal system that America
has not seen since before the Women’s Suffrage
Movement.
The mothers are watching and waiting, the
fathers are pledging to protect their daughters, so
what are the sons doing? The Economist Newspaper
article answers this question in at least one instance.
In Colorado Springs, a family has “created a private
‘manhood celebration’ for their 12 year-old son. He is
handed an engraved sword and urged to ‘grow into
the weight of manhood,’ which includes purity.”
The young girls are given a chastity belt and
the young boys are given a sword. If one were to ask
Freud what he thought about all this, surely he would
identify the sword as a phallic symbol. The weapon,
which is held by the male, is meant to overpower and
protect the obedient female. Psychologist Deak adds
that, “purity balls deprive girls of the critical judgment they need when the high-pressure moments arrive” according to Charlie Gillis of the Maclean Paper.
Another instance to notice, Gillis mentions, is that fact
that if in fact the young girl who made the promise to
her father ends up breaking that promise, the emotional damage of being a disappointment could be
devastating.
Gigi Stone of ABC News interviewed a South
Dakota mother who counsels youth at a local church.
This mother, Deanne Keegan, is afraid that teen pregnancies are going to sky-rocket because the teens
know so little about what sex is and how to protect
oneself. Brett Murkle, a firm believer in purity balls
responded that, “There’s a lot of temptations in life
and we’re trying to teach our girls to be strong against
those temptations and meet them with the appropriate
behavior” (ABC News).
(Continued on page 9)
SUSAN B. ANTHONY WOMEN’S CENTER
SPECIAL ISSUE ON WOMEN AND SEX
Page 7
The Myth of the Slut (continued)
If the girls labeled are so diverse, why do they
all get tacked with the same label? According to Tanenbaum, it’s not really about the girl. “’Slut bashing’
is about keeping sexuality in control…and an efficient
way to do that is to deal with one person at a time as a
kind of scapegoat. It’s a message to everybody, not
just a message to that one girl, though she is clearly
sacrificed in the process. That message is: ‘if you step
out of line, this will happen to you, too.’ Because
“good” girls can become “bad” girls in an instant,
slut-bashing controls all girls.” And the labels are uncontrollable, because it’s so rarely based on what you
do, only how you are seen. The actual level of sexual
experience of each girl is irrelevant; you can be a virgin and still get called a slut based on your cup size or
some other mindless reason.
If a girl thinks she can avoid speculation by
having sex within a monogamous relationship, she’d
likely be wrong. If word is spread that their sex is outside the norm or “kinky” then she’s still a slut even
though she’s not promiscuous. Why? Because good
girls don’t do “that”.
The reason why so many girls get labeled and
can’t see it coming even if they try to adapt to the
“good girl” standard, is that the rules for what makes
someone a slut are always changing. “The definition
has broadened; it changes from community to community and from school to school” (Tanenbaum: 88) and
conceivably from clique to clique. What’s considered
normal in one group of friends may get a girl ostracized in another.
The torments of slut-dom don’t stop at mean
girls hissing insults at you in the hall way or spray
painting “whore” on your locker. Punishment can go a
lot farther than that, and here’s where it gets horrifying. In the eyes of their judges, sluts deserve to be
taught a lesson, and this can often escalate to rape.
Her attackers believe the rumors about her promiscuity and decide they also should be having sex with
her. If she says no, they either write it off as playing
hard to get or they don’t care if she’s saying no.
While this assumption speaks to a wider problem of
not being able to distinguish rape from consensual
sex, it also assumes that once you are no longer a virgin, you are fair game, your body now belongs to
anyone but you. This is why defense attorneys in rape
cases examine past sexual histories of victims; if
they’ve been sexual, then they asked to be raped.
The problem with that is some girls get called sluts
because they were raped or abused. So, if a rape victim gets punished for her part in a sexual act by getting raped, that’s a pretty mind boggling vicious circle. Vicious is the operative word here.
So why does all this happen? Why does there
need to be someone terrorized as a slut in every high
school or junior high? Why do people still preposterously equate breast size with sexual experience? Why
is a girl who expresses natural sexual curiosity,
whether she pursues it or not, considered dirty? The
real reason is the scariest part, because there is a
deep, secret, unshakable belief that women are sexual objects, but they should not enjoy sex.
Sources:
Mean Girls. Dir. Mark Waters. Writ. Tina Fey.
Paramount, 2004
Tanenbaum, Leora. Slut! Growing Up Female with a
Bad Reputation. New York:HarperCollins,
2000.
White, Emily. Fast Girls: Teenage Tribes and the Myth
of the Slut. Berkely Trade, 2003.
SUSAN B. ANTHONY WOMEN’S CENTER
SPECIAL ISSUE ON WOMEN AND SEX
Page 8
Sexualization Manifestation Revelation (continued)
and more often nowadays exhibiting narrower perceptions of femininity, sexuality, and gender roles.
The more women are sexualized in the media, the
more real-life young girls are trained to see female
gender roles in a constrained, stereotyped way. The
APA report states: “The sexualization and objectification of women in the media appear to teach girls
that as women, all they have to offer is their body
and face, and that they should expend all their effort
on physical appearance.”
Boys and men are also negatively affected
by the sexualization of girls and women in the media. If boys and men are repeatedly exposed to narrow ideals of female sexual attractiveness, it may be
more difficult for them to find “acceptable” partners, so limited is their view of female beauty. According to the APA report, studies show that men’s
exposure to pornography leads them to devalue the
worth of their actual female partners. Sexualization
also affects older women, who find that the media is
telling them that they need to appear younger in
order to be more attractive and to fit the feminine
beauty ideal of how an older woman should look,
which is often to hide, cover up, or surgically reverse the signs of aging.
Not surprisingly, sexualized media images
of women and girls have become such a common
occurrence in our society that many young girls understand them to be the “norm.” A 2006 article by
the Women’s eNews reported on a study that was
done in which adolescent girls were shown hypersexualized media images of women, such as Jessica
Simpson music videos, and asked to respond to
them. Most adolescent girls reported that these images were “no big deal.” A 16 year old student involved in the study commented that “Women that
sell their sexuality on TV influences the way we want
to be. For girls that already have low self-esteem it
makes them feel even lower.”
So what can we do to help the young girls in
our lives, to somehow help reverse the negative impacts that these sexualized images are having on the
girls in our culture? Major emphasis must be placed
on teaching young people media literacy. Media
literacy is the ability to analyze, critique, evaluate,
understand, deconstruct, and think critically about
images, sounds, and messages from the media.
Many organizations are out there which help to promote media education and literacy. One example is
the Media Education Foundation, which produces
educational videos that aim to inspire viewers to
think critically about the structure of the media industry, the content it creates and perpetuates, and
its impact on our culture. The APA’s report also offers many suggestions of how to raise public awareness of the media’s sexualization of girls, and how to
educate and train parents, educators, health care
providers, etc, to help teach media literacy and
positive sexuality to children.
Sources:
American Psychological Association, Task Force on
the Sexualization of Girls. (2007). Report of the APA
Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved
from
www.apa.org/pi/wpo/
sexualization.html
“As Pop Music Seeks New Sales, the Pussycat Dolls
Head to Toyland” by Jeff Leeds, The New York
Times, April 17, 2006
“Hasbro Ends Plans for 'Pussycat Dolls'” author unknown, The New York Times, May 26, 2006
“Teens Call Hyper-Sexualized Media Images
'Normal'” by Sandra Kobrin, Women’s eNews, October 29, 2006, http://www.womensenews.org/
article.cfm?aid=2940
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Literacy
http://www.mediaed.org/about
Bratz Babyz, marketed to 3 year old girls.
SUSAN B. ANTHONY WOMEN’S CENTER
SPECIAL ISSUE ON WOMEN AND SEX
Page 9
Too Complex for
Television:
The Invisibility
of Queer Women
of Color
(continued)
Whether she chose not to discuss it on the air or it
was edited out is unclear, but Stolz stated that it was
no secret to the rest of the cast and she suspects that
the producers didn’t want the show to be seen as
“the gay show”. The second season of Project Runway featured a more explicit example of producers
editing out a woman of color’s sexuality. The fact
that the show includes many gay men of many different backgrounds is no secret, and a discussion of
sexuality and coming out among several contestants
was shown on the air. What was not shown on the air
was any mention of African-American contestant
Zulema Griffin’s (pictured above) lesbianism. This
was in no way an act of omission on Griffin’s part she openly discussed her long-term relationship on
camera, and enthusiastically agreed, when directly
asked by the Bravo network, if she wanted to be
promoted in the gay market. An article in the prominent GLBT-centric magazine The Advocate discussed the gay male contestants, but not Griffin, before the season aired.
In an interview with the same magazine after
the show aired, she stated that this was most upsetting
to her, and she immediately realized she was going to
be represented inaccurately. She also expressed in
this interview that black people on reality television
are often treated unkindly, and the details of her personal life might have endeared the audience to her
when the producers wanted to cast her as a villain.
Men, white people, heterosexuals, and cisgendered people (those whose gender identity matches
their biological sex) see representations of themselves
constantly - they are on every network and can play
any number of roles. They can find happy, healthy,
realistic portrayals of people like them without even
trying, and often don’t even realize that lack of diversity in the media is a real problem. Realistic characters
on television that a person can relate to are affirming,
but also increase the general viewing audience’s
awareness and sympathy. More inclusive, accurate
representations of queer women of color could make
the world an easier place for them to live, dispelling
harmful stereotypes about what it means to be female
(or transgender), a lesbian (or bisexual), and a person
of color.
Sources:
http://www.glaad.org/eye/ontv/07-08/overview2007.php
http://www.afterellen.com/archive/ellen/People/
jenniferbeals.html
http://www.afterellen.com/TV/2006/10/realitytv.html?page=0%
2C0
http://www.afterellen.com/TV/2006/4/butches.html?page=0%
2C0
http://www.advocate.com/issue_story_ektid32599.asp
http://www.afterellen.com/TV/2005/5/qaf.html
The Promise of Purity (continued)
While supporters of purity
balls explain the dance as a time
when father and daughter have a
chance to begin a closer relationship
that will benefit both the child and
parent, in the long run, there are
many critics. Strange sums up the
critics’ view by declaring that “the
assumption that the father is the
Lord’s stand-in in the household is as
dangerous as is the idea that his
‘undefiled’ daughter is a princess” (USA Today).
Sources:
<www.hollywoodpurityball.com>
“Hollywood Goes Pure.” Hollywood
Youth Group:2007.
Strange, Mary. “A dance for chastity.” USA Today. March 2007. November 2007.
“In praise of chastity.” The Economist. 2006. Nov. 2007. 381.8504: 37.
Gills, Charlie. “Dad’s Your Prom
Date.” Maclean’s. 120.39. Oct 2007:
66-68. Nov. 2007.
Stone, Gigi. “Purity Balls Include Big
Night Out with Cake and Vows, but
No Groom.” ABC News. March 2007.
Nov. 2007. <abcnews.go.com>.
ISSUE 4
DECEMBER 2007
Mail to:
Phone: 413-662-5497
E-mail: [email protected]
Campus Center Room #322
MCLA
North Adams, MA 01247
Susan B. Anthony Women’s Center
Quiz: Women and Sex
Take this quiz to find out how much you really know about issues pertaining to women and sex.
1. What percentage of series regular characters in the 2007-08 broadcast television lineup represent GLBT
people?
A. 0.6%
B. 1.1%
C. 3.3%
D. 6.2 %
2. Research has linked sexualization to which of the following combination of mental health problems in
women?
A. Eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression
B. Low self-esteem, anxiety, and depression
C. Eating disorders, anxiety, and depression
D. Low self-esteem, depression, and obsessive-compulsive disorder
In how many states are people known to be participating in purity balls?
A. 8
B. 19
C. 36
D. 48
Answers: 1. B; 2. A; 3. D
3.