More and more over the last few months, Object has been making little ‘blip’ noises on my radar. Not only have they been working closely with the student movement on campuses across the UK, but they appear to have established a working relationship with some socialist entities like Counterfire, the re-launched website of disaffected and disciplined Socialist Workers’ Party members and sympathisers. But this alliance is problematic to say the least.
What’s wrong with Object?
Object are distinguished from most other (ostensibly) feminist groups by their single-minded obsession with issues of “pornification” and “sex object culture”. According to this worldview, almost every injustice suffered by any woman can be traced back to “sex object culture”, which essentially seems to mean the sex, beauty and advertising industries. Plastic surgery, eating disorders, Playboy-branded stationery… All of these are identified as aspects of the “sex object culture”.
But let’s take a closer look at what exactly this as-yet-undefined “sex object culture” is, and its effects. In Object’s own words:
“You only have to go to your local corner shop or supermarket, turn on MTV, jump on a bus to get to school or work, and you will be bombarded with images of women in highly sexualised poses and with vacant expressions being used to sell products, music and films”.
Unfortunately, this does little to answer the question. The key features of sex object culture appear to be that we are “bombarded” with a bizarre marriage (spot the pun) of “highly sexualised poses” and “vacant expressions”. That the same is true of men’s representation in the media seems to be lost on Object. In fact, they explicitly state that there is “little parallel for men” – a quick image search for “Calvin Klein” pleads otherwise.
Moralism dressed up as feminism?
So, is it the “highly sexualised poses” or the “vacant expressions” that Object find so Object-ionable? (We’re on a roll with the puns tonight, n’est pas?) Perhaps there is something peculiarly undesirable about vacant-sexualised images, but this doesn’t seem to be Object’s concern. Consider the following statements:
“As pornography saturates mainstream culture and the line between what used to be considered hard core and what is sold in newsagents and supermarket becomes increasingly blurred, the rape narrative which originated from porn has become increasingly acceptable”.
“Even if we could establish that it truly was a genuine and empowering choice of a woman to go into one of these industries, the harmful impact that their normalisation has on society makes the issue much bigger than one of individual choice”.
Forget for a moment the spurious nature of the porn/rape narrative/more porn/more acceptable rape narrative chronology (ancient erotic literature was heavy on the rape narratives, which were a great deal more acceptable to contemporary audiences than they have ever been since), or the quasi-fascist potential implications of the latter quotation. The clear contention here is that it is a sexualised culture per se which is at the crux of these issues, not a particular breed of misogynistically-sexualised culture.
Moving back to the question of rape narratives, Object once again show their moralistic Victorian hand:
“In fact, Maxim (2006) even tells teenage readers that ‘a lot of women fantasise about things like being raped’…”
Maxim is quite right. A lot of women do fantasise about being raped. Whether this is a peculiarly modern feature of the hypothesised “sex object culture”, or a relatively a-historical phenomenon, is anyone’s guess based on the evidence before us. But surely nobody is suggesting that the very fact that these women have such fantasies is a problem any more than the fact that a lot of women fantasise about firemen? As a level-headed pro-sex woman once put it to me, “Fantasy and reality are completely different things”.
Uneasy bedfellows for students and socialists.
Not only do Object appear to be on a moralistic anti-sex crusade masked behind feminist language, but they’re content to use any tactics at their disposal to do so. As well as imploring supporters to be as personal and emotional as they like when writing in support of the Policing and Crime Bill, their website features the following gems:
“Over half (54%) of all women around the world say they first became aware of the need to be physically attractive between 6 and 17 years of age”.
“At every End Violence Against Women Coalition consultation event members have raised the sexualisation of women in the media as a factor in violence against women and girls”.
“It is long established that the overwhelming portrayal of women as sex objects in society plays a role in maintaining inequality between women and men. This has been recognised at the international level by the United Nations Convention to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) which calls on States to take decisive action to tackle objectification – which it links to stereotypes and prejudices based on gender”.
The first two of these “statistics”, as Object refers to them, are clearly not evidence for Object’s claims (despite being filed under “The Facts” on their website). Glance at the first statistic and you may well be shocked – “6 year olds under pressure to be attractive!” – but read to the end of the sentence and you’ll get a much more sedate view of the situation. It’s hardly surprising that slightly more than half of 17 year old girls are aware of the need to be attractive. By that age, they’re legally entitled to be engaging in sexual activity in this country – I’d be amazed to find someone who wouldn’t say they were “aware” of a “need” to be “attractive” (all quoted terms are highly ambiguous, mind) by that age, and if anything it’s stunning that the figure is so low!
The second “statistic” shows only that women perceive a link between the two things, not that the link actually exists. Of course, I’m not saying that such a link definitely isn’t there but Object seem to be suggesting that this is evidence for the link, when it clearly isn’t. If scientists claimed that smoking causes cancer on the basis that lots of people believe it causes cancer, sceptics would be justified in questioning the scientific relevance of the paper. The last “statistic” is the most despicable justification of the lot; not only is it untrue that the convention calls on states to tackle objectification, the word “objectification” never appears in the convention, and the word “object” only appears in the sense of “objective” rather than in the context of “sex object”. Is proper and honest evidence, not presented in a way that is likely to mislead, too much to ask of a major national campaigning group? Students and socialists, groups that should uphold high levels of factual accuracy and honesty, are out of place in a campaign that claims the authority of the United Nations by citing a document that never actually mentions the concept under discussion!
This is to say nothing of Object’s failure to account for the agency of workers in the sex, beauty or advertising industries; some women (and indeed non-women) do choose work in these industries for themselves and are content with their choice. Socialists in particular ought to know better than to take a paternalistic approach to models or sex workers. Students, feted as hedonists free from the intellectual shackles of previous generations, should know better than to judge young women (or indeed non-women) for “objectifying themselves” – read: engaging in sexual activity that Object and their kind disapprove of, whether that be erotic submission, creating amateur pornography, or indeed consuming mainstream pornography.
So what?
I’m not going to go into the more theoretical problems with Object’s approach – to do so would probably at least double the length of this post. I think the issues I’ve highlighted here are reason enough for readers to be suspicious of Object’s line on feminism. So, I’ll leave you with a quote from Penny Red, as she’s put it so well:
“I am not asking for us to pretend that raunch culture is unproblematic, or that it’s uncomplicatedly fun to be a Southend lap dancer. I am asking for honesty. I am asking for an analysis that is more rigorous, more grounded in an understanding of the gendered basis of capital, an analysis that is less focused on recalcitrant sexual morality. I am asking for an analysis that addresses itself to young men, who also consume and are affected by the brutally identikit heterosexual consensus. Most importantly, I want a consensus that actually gives a voice to young women, not just those who work as strippers or glamour models, but all young women and girls growing up in a culture steeped in this grinding, monotonous, deodorised sexual dialectic.”
An addendum – Object and sex workers.
The Anarchist Bookfair 2009 hosted a debate on sex work and feminism focusing on whether the Policing and Crime Bill was a step in the right or wrong direction; everyone knew the debate was likely to be heated and that very stark confrontations of opinion would divide the audience and panel. What we did not expect was to hear an Object member tacitly condone the rape of sex workers, causing a near-violent eruption of anger.
The panel included several sex workers and ex-sex workers in various parts of the industry, such as masseurs and prostitutes. These were largely aligned with the British Collective of Prostitutes and the International Union of Sex Workers, seeking to improve the working conditions of sex workers by organising them into trade unions and other associations through which they can exert pressure and make their voice heard, as well as take pro-active steps themselves and work together for their own safety. On the opposing side of the argument were various women, mostly of ‘radical feminist’ persuasion, some of whom were campaigning for certain provisions in the bill (such as those which criminalised many clients).
Among the problematic and derogatory comments that the Object supporter made to the sex worker speakers was that “[their] job is to be raped”. The speaker argued that by having sex for payment, prostitutes in particular legitimise rape. Obviously this makes little sense – the same logic would suggest that shopkeepers legitimise theft – but the more important issue here is the offence and hurt caused to many members of the panel and audience, and the real logic behind the argument.
To say that a sex worker’s job is to be raped is itself a justification and excuse for those who rape sex workers. If we care about the safety and rights of sex workers, we should stand very sharply against the idea that their job is to be raped, an idea which legitimises sexual violence against people in an often-already-dangerous industry.
This event was not just a one-off slip of the tongue; it is one instance of the systematic disregard and patronisation shown to sex workers by Object.
“At every End Violence Against Women Coalition consultation event members have raised the sexualisation of women in the media as a factor in violence against women and girls”
It’s worth pointing out that this “statistic” shows the mother of all sampler biases. The fact that the participants have all self-selected to participate may be correlated with traits that affect the study, making them a non-representative sample. This would hold true for the 54%-of-women-realised-that-the-letchy-PE-teacher-liked-the-pretty-girls-best claim too; would you sit through a lengthy survey on objectification if you didn’t feel particularly strongly over the matter? Given that, 54% sounds pretty fucking weak.
Furthermore, due to the nature of the consultations, it’s not entirely unimaginable that the subject of sexualisation could be raised repeatedly by the same person/people.
Then again, this is assuming that anyone actually bothered to carry out a proper survey rather than just rely on anaecdotal sources…
It’s worth reiterating that this post isn’t an attempt to deny that there are major problems with the representation of women in our culture – if anything, I’m arguing it’s actually a bigger problem than Object think, because it affects non-women much more than they think it does.
That said, I agree with your points about the methodology of their evidence, Atomic Andy. The issue here is that we need to have some convincing understanding of where gendered issues arise from, and there is no logical link provided between Object’s fundamental claims and their extrapolation to practically everything. They haven’t even quoted the (oft-touted and rarely scrutinised) figures on how porn consumption is linked with rape, etc.
Hmm so some more thoughts on this having read it again, in no particular order:
1) whilst I don’t agree with the simplistic link that OBJECT makes between a variety of social ills and sex object culture, I do believe that objectification and SOME pornography does cause harm; it simply doesn’t cause it in the linear sense. Nobody watches a porn video and thinks, hmm, now I’m going to go and rape someone. But I do think that porn in its current form, with the reduction of woman to subservient receptacle, encourages a negative and ultimately destructive view of women that permits more abuse. This isn’t to say that porn always has to be this way and indeed many of the so-called “antisex” feminists called for more erotic images, videos, pictures and a greater exploration of sex and sexuality.
2) “some women (and indeed non-women) do choose work in these industries for themselves and are content with their choice. Socialists in particular ought to know better than to take a paternalistic approach to models or sex workers. ”
There’s a difference between taking a paternalistic view and recognising that our desires and choices are shaped by the cultural material conditions of our society. For one thing, it’s a small minority of women who have the economic luxury of choosing whether to do sex work completely unfettered by considerations of time, money, wages and so on. Are you really advocating promoting the experience of the bourgeois woman a la Diary of a Call Girl over the reality of the women who are forced into prostitution because of economic reasons?
I think there’s some valid criticism of OBJECT’s narrow and myopic focus here, but I think you go too far in understating the problems that raunch culture and sex work both represent and perpetuate xx
Hi Elly,
1) I agree that SOME pornography is problematic, but I’m not sure that there’s any evidence that the harm it does outweighs the good it does – to be clear, I’m not saying that it definitely does good or that it definitely does harm, I’m just saying once again that we lack any real evidence as far as I’m concerned. I’ve read the caveats of anti-pornography writers, but the problem is that by trying to divide things into “porn” (bad) and “erotica” (good) you confuse the issue rather than resolving it. It’s incredibly difficult to draw the line between sexual and non-sexual, let alone between “good” sexual and “bad” sexual, as these feminists aim to do. I also dispute the extent to which the sex industry represents women as “passive”, “objects”, etc. Again, these are things I will expand on at a later date.
2) Taking a paternalistic approach isn’t just about whether people are or aren’t allowed to do a certain kind of work, it’s also about how they are supposed to improve their working conditions while they are in work, how they are supposed to get out of that work if they want to, etc. I think Object have their heads in the clouds if they think that clamping down on the clients will improve the lives of prostitutes, for instance. This workforce would be helped immensely more by helping them organise themselves, demanding greater public spending on healthcare/the benefits system/etc. It is in fact precisely my concern for “the reality of the women [and non-women] who are forced into prostitution [and other sex work] because of economic reasons” that makes me worry about the effect of the Policing and Crime Act, for instance; if I was thinking about the more comfortable and financially secure sections of the sex industry, I would just think “oh well, they’ll survive”.
I’m looking forward to writing more and seeing what you have to say about it
OK, this statement is so wrong on so many levels, its not even funny:
“For one thing, it’s a small minority of women who have the economic luxury of choosing whether to do sex work completely unfettered by considerations of time, money, wages and so on. Are you really advocating promoting the experience of the bourgeois woman a la Diary of a Call Girl over the reality of the women who are forced into prostitution because of economic reasons? ”
This seems to be the standard brush-off for not taking a sex worker-rights perspective seriously at all. According to this perspective, the overwhelming majority of sex workers are either in the sex industry by physical force or at least such severe economic desperation that they essentially have no choice. Those that do say they choose sex work and defend their right to do so are demonized as modern-day Marie Antoinettes, characterized as “rich” or “bourgeois” women typified by Belle de Jour, and completely out of touch and uncaring toward the oppressed majority.
All of this ignores the fact that sex work is not nearly as black and white as this. A *range* of class differences do exist in sex work, and the majority fall somewhere in the range between Belle de Jour and a beaten-down street prostitute. It also ignores the fact that, in many cases, it is in fact very poor women who are defending their right to do sex work, even while they acknowledge the fact that they are making the best of a bad situation. I’ll point to the highly-active sex worker rights movement in Cambodia and their campaigns against coercive rescue as a small example.
And of course, the problem of forced prostitution and those driven into the sex industry through economic coercion deserve utmost attention. But this is best served by *not* lumping it together with voluntary sex work, but rather by focusing efforts on the direct problems of coercive prostitution and forced labour.
If the the “abolitionists” and OBJECT-sympathizers actually wish to engage in serious discussion or debate, I say they drop the “tiny minority” canard and “Belle de Jour” strawmanning. Otherwise, it is clear that they are simply engaging in nothing more than spin and shouting down.
Pingback: The Big ‘O’ | OBJECT Watch
As someone who has been raped twice, at the age of 14 and then 15, I can speak with the benefit of experience of rape. My attackers, in both incidents, were not monsters, merely boys x 4 and then a man I worked with whilst doing a Saturday job, who thought their yes was worth more than my no. I got the impression that they simply didn’t understand that I wouldn’t come round to the idea of having sex if they kept going. This is a view perpetuated by the porn industry – hence the link. Monkey see, monkey do – and the proof – if you still need it, is the advertising and PR industry, both of whom use the media successfully to influence and change underlying attitudes to many things including junk food, drink/driving, cigarettes etc.
Vicki, I do still need “proof”, and I find an off-hand reference to the advertising and PR industries’ “success” relatively unconvincing as proof that porn is linked to sexual violence in the way you suggest. You might just as well suggest that horror films encourage otherwise normal people, “not monsters” to become serial killers (after all, “monkey see, monkey do”). I’d like to think that most people have a more developed sense of self and moral compass than most monkeys, after all! You may well be right to think that these men picked up the idea that they could ignore your ‘no’ from somewhere, but there’s no reason to think that it came from porn – any depiction of (even fictionalised, acted) rape in porn is actually so uncommon as to be non-existent, at least within the mainstream of the industry. And as I pointed out in the article, rape and extreme violence were actually much more common themes in ancient erotic literature than in modern porn – we can’t have one rule for internet paysites and another for Daphnis & Chloe.
With all due respect, while your own experience of rape may seem to suggest certain things to you, I’d argue that what you are actually doing is interpreting that experience in a certain way (perhaps through a pre-existing, or at least an easily-culturally-available explanation); after all, I know both men and women who’ve also experienced rape (ranging from ‘relationship rape’ through ‘date rape’ and up to ‘violent stranger rape’, to call upon the stereotypes) and none of whom are supportive of a censorial approach to the porn industry. They all respect the free choice of others to work as they wish and recognise the importance of working with pro-porn feminists, sex workers, etc in tackling those elements of the industry that do get things wrong (helping people not to ‘fall into’ sex work against their will, preventing rape and unconsented violence within the industry, etc).
The fact that many women fantasise about being raped isnt so much the problem here – the problem is, that Maxim are, in effect ‘advertising’ this to the male population.
Again, this isnt a huge problem either, but there are some individuals out there who may take this too literally, or act upon it. And because this idea is being published in mainstream media, it may make some people believe it to be more acceptable.
Its a small minority, but the danger is still there…
I understand that people might be uncomfortable about men being told this (particularly the average reader of Maxim!), but we can’t selectively release information to the public only when we judge they are ready for it and censor anything that is likely to be taken the wrong way. If something is true then there isn’t much we can do about it being an uncomfortable fact of life. Plenty of people (in fact, I would say the majority) completely misunderstand Darwinistic views of evolution and end up with Social-Darwinist or pseudo-Social-Darwinist interpretations, but that wouldn’t be a good enough argument for withholding scientific knowledge from the public. Similarly, while it could encourage problems, it could also provide the impetus or inspiration for a closer examination of taboo ‘feminine’ sexuality in a way that proves to be progressive and helpful. Censoring the truth is not a path that will lead to equality.
Nancy Friday, in her books of women’s sexual fantasies, collected many rape fantasies, though she said that she got more in the 60s and 70s than in the 90s, which may mean something and it may not. While researching her book of men’s sex fantasies, she wasn’t sent one rape fantasy.
I’ve found that French porn of the 70s does sometimes feature rape, but usually this is a fantasy played out by the characters in the film, and so not even fictional rape.
Pingback: Facebook – come clean on censorship! « The Great Unrest