How-To: Feminism

Chapter Five: Female Sexuality - A Catch 22

Female sexuality is a highly critiqued area amongst the general public. Often described as 'damned if we do, damned if we don't', the double standards in play are truly astounding.

Men criticise women who have sex and simultaneously criticise women who don't.

Women who have sex are considered to be promiscuous, 'easy', not 'wife-material', sluts, whores, tramps... the list goes on.

Conversely, women who don't have sex are considered to be 'stuck-up', prudish, frigid, and are labelled as pure, innocent, and 'wife-material' (this relates back to Fraser's theory of dominance and inferiority, where women are weak and such, are in need of men's protection).

Sex-workers in particular are consistently vilified. The ironic aspect of this vilification is completely ridiculous. Men are willing to pay for sex from these women but think of them as disposable when they're finished. (What a joke.)

The notion that a woman's worth is inherently linked to the number of sexual partners she has had is completely absurd. Not to mention the types of sex women are engaging in (whether that be casual, with multiple partners, non-heterosexual), the judgement and predetermined value of a woman is linked directly to male-to-female objectification.

Objectification theory works in two ways; through overt and direct experience, and/or internalisation and self-objectification as a by-product.

Numerous studies have linked direct experience with sexual subjectification with eating disorders, depression, and/or sexual dysfunction.

The psychological consequences of internalised-objectification are (but not limited to) appearance anxiety, body-shame, diminished internal awareness, reduced self-worth, etc..

The ideal feminine body has been recorded time and time again as one that is small, vulnerable, fragile, doesn't take up too much space, but is firm, hairless, curved appropriately, and with no blemishes on the skin.

All of these things equate to powerlessness and inferiority.

Hence, the societal femininity contradiction: for women to become successful, they must become less powerful.

There is also a gender hierarchy in place. Women who are bigger than others are perceived as undisciplined, lazy, careless. Whereas women who are smaller are typically perceived as ambitious, confident, careful.

The reward for being small is acceptance, social and romantic success, popularity, being viewed as normal, etc..

The punishment for being large is invisibility, ostracism, shaming, bullying, etc..

The self-surveillance that has been ingrained within each and every woman is not to make herself feel good, but to show everyone else that she is worthy.

And this is highly preyed upon within the advertising industry, continuing the cycle of sexual-objectification and reinforcing the idea that women are powerless.

Whilst the advertising industry also preys upon men's insecurities, they are not objectified in a way that denotes inferiority.

Male models are generally white, strong (six-pack abs), sharp jawline, intimidating stances, etc.. The portrayal of the ideal man (whilst also horribly wrong in its own way), does not encourage the idea that men can be physically weak.

The goal of these advertising campaigns pushes the idea that men are (supposed to be) strong, emotionless, and/or powerful, reinforcing the notion of inferiority and female submissiveness.

This brings us to sexual subjectification; not to be confused with objectification.

Whereas female sexual objectification focuses on pushing the idea of female inferiority through sexual desire, female sexual subjectification pushes the idea of the strong, empowered woman in sexual situations, reclaiming her sexuality.

So why is it that the sexualised presentations of what women actually want, look exactly the same as before?

The ideal feminine body reappears, only placed in a different situation. She's still small, still hairless, still blemish-free, but now she's 'taking control' of her own sexuality.

This leaves patriarchal gender norms unchallenged and remains confusing to women.

Men want me to look like this, so I should look like this. – Objectification

Women want to look like this, so I should want to look like this too. – Subjectification

In a warped way, subjectification does offer (some) women some sense of power. If you have the body of the ideal woman then you automatically become an object of desire.

This misguided sense of power achieves nothing. You are still conforming to what men have deemed the appropriate way for a woman to look, and the hatred of people who don't fit this standard is reinforced; thus, repeating the cycle.

The fact that women are essentially trapped within a 'Catch 22' situation can be confusing for feminists.

I don't want to be viewed as an object but I really like how these pants make my bum look.

I seem to fit the ideal body type; does that mean I need to change?

I like being submissive; is there something wrong with me?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of these things. It is vital that you know this.

What a lot of people seem to be forgetting is that feminism is about choice; the choice to wear what you want, the choice to act how you like, etc..

You don't have to stop doing the things you like or change your body in any way to be a good feminist. The only thing you should be aware of is the internalised hatred of people who don't fit into these categories.

You can like being thin, but don't hate people that are fat.

You can want to wear certain clothes, but don't critique others who wear different styles.

The main concept that is essential to grasp is that there is no ideal body type. No individual is the same, so why do we expect everyone to look a certain way?

Feminism is about being unique and about accepting everyone for their differences. We don't have to look, dress, act, appear, and/or speak a particular way to be worthy of compassion and acceptance.