Slut Shaming

This brilliant girl tells it like it is!

Girl receives plastic surgery for Christmas

I mean... really?

http://www.mnn.com/family/family-activities/blogs/human-barbie-british-mom-gives-daughter-plastic-surgery-for-christmas

This is just so horrendous, I'm at a loss for words.

Girl: Gender Marketing is BS

Check out this great video of a young girl who is exasperated by the gendered marketing strategy of toy companies:

Can we teach all our daughters to have such excellent critical thinking skills?

Betsy

If looks could kill

OK, rant time. Know what sucks? The way our society tells girls and women that are looks are what matter the most. I still get this from certain female relatives who shall remain nameless. First comment when they see me: "Oh, I love your [dress/earrings/shirt/hair]!" It pisses me off because, well... I like the attention. I like being told I look good. Including when it comes from men, because that's how I've been socialized. We learn to desire and seek that attention, and consumerist society gives us all kinds of ways to make ourselves pretty and sexy that generate mega corporate profits.

What really sucks is that the more we focus on our looks, the less we value our intelligence and other gifts and talents.

Case in point: this t-shirt recently made available by J.C. Penney, only to be pulled from its website due to the outrage of parents.

This almost makes me too angry to attempt a proper feminist analysis of how atrocious this is. "Too pretty to do homework" means my looks are way more important than my intellect. Why spend time doing silly homework when I can be trying on makeup or doing my hair? "So my brother has to do it for me." For frig's sake. Leave the thinking to the boys. They're better at it anyway. Go paint your nails, sweetheart. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

I came across a good article the other day on how as a society we really need to work on not dumbing girls down. The best part is how the author, Lisa Bloom, talks about ways of interacting with girls that shift the focus away from looks and towards what girls are thinking about. You know, like asking them what books they're reading. Or what they think about stuff happening in the world.

What if women and girls took all the time we spend on our appearance and invested it in rising up against this bullshit?

Female Sexual Autonomy Under Siege (Part 4)

Hypersexualization, violence against women and oppression 
 

Debates about consent notwithstanding, violence is a reality with which many women and girls unfortunately continue to live. What this discussion does reveal, however, is that the dominant patriarchal discourse in North America instills men with a fear of women and girls’ sexual power that serves as a basis for control and domination, creating an enabling environment for violence against women and girls. Without indulging in too many statistics, it is worth pointing out that most perpetrators of sexual assault are male and most survivors/victims are female. The rate of violence against women and girls in Canada is disturbingly high; “half of Canadian women have survived at least one incident of sexual or physical violence”, yet the vast majority of incidents of sexual assault are not reported to police (CRIAW 2002). Most times, violence is perpetrated by an intimate partner or someone else whom the survivor/victim knows and trusts (CRIAW 2002).

Hypersexualization naturalizes, encourages and eroticizes violence against women and girls (Kilbourne 2010, Dines 2010). Many studies have shown that hypersexualization is not a separate issue from violence against women and girls, but rather part of a broader picture of violence that includes sexual assault and harassment, physical, psychological and emotional abuse, structural violence (such as poverty, war and racism), cyberviolence (see Sidebar C), and the internalization of misogyny contributing to self-harm, substance abuse, eating disorders, and struggles with depression and anxiety (APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls 2007, Kilbourne 2010, Pipher 1992, Tolman 2002). All of these forms of violence help maintain the current social order that upholds male privilege, and the prospect of women’s sexual liberation threatens this order (Filipovic 2008). When hypersexualization and the less ‘visible’ forms of violence are not enough to keep this power structure in place, men use rape and physical violence (whether knowingly or not) to ensure the continued subjugation of women and girls.

When we talk about violence as a means of keeping women and girls in their place, we are really talking about oppression. The word “oppression” originates from fourteenth century Latin and means literally the “action of weighing on someone’s mind or spirits” (Online Etymology Dictionary n.d.). In contemporary times and in the contexts of examining human relations and histories, the word “oppression” is used to refer to the cruel or unfair treatment of one group by another. Feminist thinker bell hooks has developed a theory of oppression that identifies “imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy” as a system, or rather a system of systems, that enables a small group of people to dominate and exploit the majority (hooks 2004: 17). Her work reveals that there are many forms of oppression such as sexism, racism, classism, homophobia, ableism and colonialism, and they all intersect with and reinforce one another.

According to hooks, all forms of violence that exist in North American society are connected. While violence against women is “an expression of male domination”, she argues that

it is the Western philosophical notion of hierarchical rule and coercive authority that is the root cause of violence against women, of adult violence against children, of all violence between those who dominate and those who are dominated (hooks 1984: 118).

In other words, because our society believes in the right of those in power to abuse the less powerful, we tolerate and encourage sexist, racist and homophobic violence, as well as class exploitation, war and environmental degradation. This is reinforced by the fact that we tend to see relationships of domination and subordination as natural and even based on biological facts (e.g. men are aggressive and women are passive). Until we all challenge this way of thinking in ourselves and others, hooks argues that violence will never disappear and will likely worsen.

Resisting hypersexualization

As the literature shows, hypersexualization is but one form of violence experienced by women and girls in today’s rape culture. When one considers gender-based violence as part of a global context that involves multiple forms of oppression, it is difficult to know just where to begin to resist hypersexualization. Can we end violence against women and girls without ending all forms of oppression?

The answer to this question cannot be found here, but fortunately many others have asked the question and identified numerous ways of constructively challenging hypersexualization. Several of the authors featured in this review have offered up strategies for overcoming rape culture that range from policy reform to revolution, operate at multiple scales, and employ various disciplinary and creative approaches.

In the book Yes Means Yes! Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape (Friedman and Valenti 2008), Jill Filipovic highlights the ways in which women are challenging rape culture by promoting a model of “enthusiastic consent” that recognizes female sexual autonomy and women’s right to sexual pleasure and reproductive freedom. She explains that while it is absolutely necessary (and lawful) for men to respect women’s decision not to engage in sexual activity, the usual “no means no” message assumes that women do not want sex and that men cannot control their own sexuality (boys will be boys). Enthusiastic consent is about the right and the ability of women to say yes to the sexual experiences we want, and it fundamentally challenges the gendered paradigm into which most North Americans are socialized. In a broader sense, Filipovic (2008: 25-27) argues that ending rape means challenging  oppressive structures and discourses, educating men, asserting women's right to sexual autonomy and reproductive freedom, and promoting a “pleasure-affirming vision of female sexuality.”

The APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls (2007: 4) provides an overview of practical alternatives to (hyper-)sexualization that includes media literacy training in schools, healthy extracurricular activities, “comprehensive sexuality education programs,” creative outlets such as zines and blogs, and girl-specific groups that focus on empowerment. The report also recommends further research on the sexualization of girls, education and training of psychologists and teachers, advocating changes in public policy to address sexualization, and increasing public awareness of the issue.

The APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls (2007: 4) provides an overview of practical alternatives to (hyper-)sexualization that includes media literacy training in schools, healthy extracurricular activities, “comprehensive sexuality education programs,” creative outlets such as zines and blogs, and girl-specific groups that focus on empowerment. The report also recommends further research on the sexualization of girls, education and training of psychologists and teachers, advocating changes in public policy to address sexualization, and increasing public awareness of the issue.

 

According to Jean Kilbourne (2010), addressing hypersexualization requires setting in motion changes that are “profound and global.” She stresses that we need to think of ourselves primarily as citizens with basic rights rather than consumers. This paradigm shift must occur, she argues, if we are to have “authentic and freely chosen lives”. Kilbourne’s message is echoed by Jackson Katz, who in his documentary Tough Guise (1999) asserts that men are capable of breaking the cycle of violence against women and cultivating healthy masculinities. He emphasizes the importance of “break[ing] the monopoly of the media system,” which is currently controlled by wealthy, white, heterosexual men, in order to allow for a more diverse and healthy range of images and messages to be circulated in our culture (see Sidebar D).

There is evidence that this elite media monopoly is indeed being challenged by women and girls who are creating alternative, non-hypersexualizing representations. For example, in Queer Girls and Popular Culture: Reading, Resisting, and Creating Media (2007), Susan Driver discusses the ways in which girls who do not conform to heteronormative expectations are capable of both critiquing and transforming mainstream culture, recognizing that it currently does not reflect the richness and complexity of their realities. With the rise of social media, it seems that new spaces are opening up for youth to redefine culture and our roles within it.  

Conclusion

What does redefining culture look like? This is an area where more research is needed, particularly with regard to alternatives to hypersexualization. While we have a variety of tools at our disposal for critiquing and deconstructing gender roles, overcoming hypersexualization requires a cultural process of constructing healthy masculinities and femininities, and a serious look at how we can redefine “sexy” so that it connotes both pleasure and safety for women and adolescent girls. The voices and stories of youth are crucial in this process of renegotiation, and supportive adults have an important role to play in opening up spaces in which these conversations can happen.       

References

APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. (2007). Report of the APA task force on the sexualization of girls: Executive summary. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved 03/30, 2011, from http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report.aspx

Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women. (2002). Violence against Women and Girls (CRIAW Fact Sheet). Retrieved 03/30, 2011, from http://criaw-icref.ca/ViolenceagainstWomenandGirls   

Dines, G. (2010). Pornland: How porn has hijacked our sexuality. Boston: Beacon Press.

Driver, S. (2007). Queer Girls and Popular Culture: Reading, resisting, and creating media. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Filipovic, J. (2008). Offensive feminism: The conservative gender norms that perpetuate rape culture, and how feminists can fight back. In J. Friedman, & J. Valenti (Eds.), Yes Means Yes: Visions of female sexual power and a world without rape (pp. 13-27). Berkeley, California: Seal Press.

Friedman, J. and J. Valenti (Eds.). (2008). Yes Means Yes: Visions of female sexual power and a world without rape. Berkeley, California: Seal Press.

hooks, b. (1984). Feminist Theory: From margin to center. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

hooks, b. (2004). The Will to Change: Men, masculinity, and love. New York: Atria Books.

Katz, J. (Director), Tough Guise: Violence, media, and the crisis in masculinity. (1999). [Video/DVD]

Kilbourne, J. (Director), Killing Us Softly 4: Advertising's image of women. (2010). [Video/DVD]

Online Etymology Dictionary. (n.d.). Oppression. Retrieved 03/24, 2011, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oppression

Pipher, M. (1994 and 1992). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls. USA: Ballantine Books, Mass Market Edition.

Tolman, D. L. (2002). Dilemmas of Desire: Teenage girls talk about sexuality. USA: First Harvard University Press.

Yes Means Yes: Visions of female sexual power and a world without rape. Berkeley, California: Seal Press.

Female Sexual Autonomy Under Siege (Part 3)

Masculinity and rape culture

It is important to consider that these messages do not only affect girls. The socialization of boys is just as critical to the reproduction of rape culture as the socialization of girls. From a very early age, boys learn to associate strength with dominance and gentleness with weakness and femininity (or homosexuality) (Kilbourne 2010, Newton 2007). Later on in life as adolescents, boys learn to view themselves as entitled to women’s bodies and to avoid or mask their emotional vulnerability (Kimmel 2000). These learned behaviors and attitudes are part of a discourse (the socially embedded ‘rules’ in language that influence what people understand as truth or common sense – see Foucault 1972) that contributes to rape culture. The discourse tells us that men are sexually active and women are sexually passive, that “boys will be boys”, and that as women and girls we need to protect ourselves from men’s unchecked sexuality (Kilbourne 2010). This assumption that men are more sexual than women, and that men cannot control their own sexuality, unfairly places the onus on women and girls to put safety before pleasure and to prevent rape (Tolman 2002, Friedman 2008).

Not all men are equally privileged through this patriarchal discourse. Heterosexual men, particularly those who enjoy other forms of social and economic privilege, are at the top of a hierarchy of masculinity that devalues and dehumanizes all others (Newton 2007, Taylor 2011). These men are the ‘subjects’ of the discourse, and subjectivity is dependent on to what extent one measures up to normative masculinity. Because of this, gay and bisexual men (or men who are perceived as such) are feminized and dehumanized, and therefore are also vulnerable to violence. Women and girls are – not surprisingly – very low on this hierarchy, as are lesbian and bisexual women, transfolk, women of color, working-class women, disabled women, and Aboriginal women. We all suffer from not being heterosexual males, which is considered the norm and the ultimate expression of humanity (Connell 2005, Taylor 2011).

Female sexual autonomy and consent
 

How does this affect women’s and girls’ lives and the way we experience our sexuality? According to Tolman (2002), what’s missing from the dominant, male-centric discourse of sexuality is the idea of female sexual autonomy or “sexual subjectivity”, which is the capacity to be agents of our own sexuality. Hypersexualization undermines female sexual autonomy because it sends the message that women and girls are sexual objects without a right to pleasure or safety. Heterosexuality as it is experienced through our culture is centered on male pleasure, and because female sexual desire threatens to destabilize this patriarchal value system it is often depicted as dirty, dangerous or sinful (Filipovic 2008, Tolman 2002).

Indeed, women and girls are subject to what many refer to as the “Madonna/whore dichotomy”  (Tolman 1994): our culture tells us to be chaste, gentle and faithful to heterosexual partners, yet we are also expected to be skinny, waxed, big-breasted (through surgery if need be), and heterosexually promiscuous. The problem is that neither archetype allows any room for female sexual autonomy or for acknowledgement of women’s wholeness as human beings. If we are well-behaved women, we are praised and celebrated but still expected to fulfill our role as homemakers and reproducers. If we perform the latter role, we are labeled as whores and sometimes even accused of ‘asking for rape’ (see Sidebar B).

 
So how do women consent to sex when our sexual subjectivity is so limited in our culture? We know from sexual assault awareness and prevention campaigns that “no means no”, but what does “yes” mean? It is easy to assume that “yes” means “yes”, but consent does not always entail a positive sexual experience for both partners. On university campuses in particular, the prevalence of (legally) consensual but regrettable sexual experiences has led to discussions around an issue that is hardly new, but only recently has been named as “unwanted consensual sex” (Cole 2010). According to Yale student and journalist Jessica Cole (2010):

“Unwanted consensual sex” is... a decidedly gray area. Unlike rape or sexual assault, it is not a disciplinary or criminal offense. At its core, the phrase refers to sex that may, for one reason or another, be regretted.

Understanding the issue of unwanted consensual sex requires looking “beyond yes and no” and viewing “consent as sexual process” (Kramer Bussel 2008). This means examining the context of sex, including how each person is feeling, what the power dynamic is, and the ways in which men learn to “manufacture consent” through various forms of manipulation (Atherton-Zeman 2006). It also requires an examination of the broader culture, including hypersexualization and the many ways in which women and girls are pressured to engage in sexual activities that they do not enjoy (Pipher 1992, Tolman 2002).

There is a danger, however, in the idea of “gray rape” or that it is hard to define rape when so many factors (such as culture, relational dynamics and alcohol consumption) are involved (Jervis 2008). The patriarchal backlash against anti-rape activism has taken the form of this argument, and feminists continue to struggle for the creation and maintenance of laws that hold rapists criminally responsible for their actions (Hakvåg 2010). Hedda Hakvåg (2010) argues that while backlash thinkers are correct in noting the difficulty in distinguishing between rape and sexual coercion, the “gray rape” discourse supports an anti-woman agenda because it suggests that rape is an arbitrary category and is thus impossible to criminalize. She calls for a feminist examination of “sexual coercion in normative heterosexuality”, meaning that we need to look critically at male power in heterosexual relationships, the ways in which violence against women is naturalized in our culture, and the internalization of misogyny that makes sexual consent difficult, if not (and this is a major debate among feminists) impossible within the current social order. 

References

CBC News. (2011). Judge's sex-assault remarks under review. Retrieved 03/17, 2011, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2011/02/25/mb-dewar-comments-review-judicial-council-winnipeg.html

Cole, J. (2010, November 17). "Yes" means "no"?: A workshop on unwanted conensual sex. Broad Recognition: A Feminist Magazine at Yale, Retrieved 03/30, 2011, from http://www.broadrecognition.com/sex-health/yes-means-no-a-workshop-on-unwanted-consensual-sex/

Filipovic, J. (2008). Offensive feminism: The conservative gender norms that perpetuate rape culture, and how feminists can fight back. In J. Friedman, & J. Valenti (Eds.), Yes Means Yes: Visions of female sexual power and a world without rape (pp. 13-27). Berkeley, California: Seal Press.

Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith Trans.). New York: Pantheon.

Friedman, J. (2008). In defense of going wild or: How I stopped worrying and learned to love pleasure (and how you can, too). In J. Friedman, & J. Valenti (Eds.), Yes Means Yes: Visions of female sexual power and a world without rape. Berkeley, California: Seal Press.

Hakvåg, H. (2010). Does yes mean yes? exploring sexual coercion in normative heterosexuality. Canadian Woman Studies, 28(1)

Jervis, L. (2008). An old enemy in a new outfit: How date rape became gray rape and why it matters. In J. Friedman, & J. Valenti (Eds.), Yes Means Yes! Visions of female sexual power and a world without rape. Berkeley: Seal Press.

Kilbourne, J. (Director), Killing Us Softly 4: Advertising's image of women. (2010). [Video/DVD]

Kimmel, M. (2000). The Gendered Society. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kramer Bussel, R. (2008). Beyond Yes or No: Consent as sexual process. In J. Friedman, & J. Valenti (Eds.), Yes means yes: Visions of female sexual power and a world without rape. Berkeley, California: Seal Press.

Newton, S. (Director), Sexism, Strength and Dominance: Masculinity in Disney films. (2007). [Video/DVD]

Pipher, M. (1994 and 1992). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls. USA: Ballantine Books, Mass Market Edition.

Taylor, E. (2011). Erasing the Feminine: The construction of masculinity in initiation rites. (Unpublished.) St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, NS.

Tolman, D. L. (1994). Doing desire: Adolescent girls' struggles for/with sexuality. Gender and Society, 8(3), 324-342.

Tolman, D. L. (2002). Dilemmas of Desire: Teenage girls talk about sexuality. USA: First Harvard University Press.

   

Female Sexual Autonomy Under Siege (Part 2)

Hypersexualization in the 21^st century

American feminist Jean Kilbourne has created a series of films called Killing Us Softly, which documents and examines the images of women that appear in advertising. There have been four installments of the film, the first released in 1979 and the latest released in 2010, and in each version Kilbourne delivers the same speech about the objectification and exploitation of women’s bodies in advertising, but accompanied by a set of current images. At the beginning of Killing Us Softly 4 (2010) Kilbourne says:

Sometimes people say to me, ‘You’ve been talking about this for 40 years. Have things gotten any better?’ And actually I have to say, really they’ve gotten worse.

Indeed, things have gotten worse. Since 1979 we have witnessed the rise of neoliberal globalization marked by a series of transformations in the direction of smaller governments, social program cutbacks, increasing poverty and inequality, and the religious fervor of ‘free-market’ ideology. Emerging from this period of transition was a backlash against feminism, the mainstreaming of pornography (Dines 2010) and the emergence of post-feminism. A product of this post-feminist and consumeristic environment was Girl Power, which began as a culture of young female empowerment but quickly became a vehicle for the depoliticization of gender issues, the commodification and co-optation of feminism, and the hypersexualization of women and girls (Gonick 2006).      

Since the 1990s there has arguably been an increase in the pervasiveness and intensity of cultural representations that have hypersexualizing effects on women and girls. The term ‘hypersexualization’ refers to the process through which images and messages that sexually objectify women and girls are circulated, experienced and internalized by members of society. In today’s hypersexualized culture, women and girls are pressured to conform to these images and invest an incredible amount of time, energy and money into our appearances. These images objectify and dehumanize women and girls, represent us as consumable bodies rather than as whole human beings, and normalize and eroticize male violence against women. They are often racist, heterosexist, and based on an unattainable standard of beauty. Corporations use these images not only to sell products, but as Kilbourne (2010) explains, to sell values, attitudes and ideas of what is ‘normal’.

(The hypersexualization of women and girls in the media often has a racist dimension. In Killing Us Softly (2010), Jean Kilbourne explains how Black women are frequently depicted in ads as animals, which serves to dehumanize them. We also see images that portray Aboriginal women as sexual objects and cultural ‘others’.)

Yeah, but we’re too smart for that, right? Hypersexualization as a cultural process with real effects on women and girls

It’s tempting to think that these images don’t affect us, or that their influence is merely superficial. Studies have shown, however, that hypersexualization has a very real impact on women and girls – and it’s not good. The American Psychological Association Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls released a report (2007) that explains the psychological impact of hypersexualization on women and girls including cognitive difficulties, negative emotions, eating disorders, low self-esteem, depression, poor sexual health, negative sense of one's sexuality, and the internalization of misogynistic (woman-hating) attitudes. The report also identifies a number of societal effects of hypersexualization including sexism, the limiting of opportunities for girls and young women, increasing sexual harassment, sexual violence, and the prevalence of child pornography.

How does this all happen? According to Jill Filipovic (2008), we live in a “rape culture” that normalizes violence against women through a patriarchal ideology that teaches men they are entitled to women’s bodies, and seeks to deny women the right to bodily autonomy and economic and social equality. This ideology, which is circulated by social conservatives including the religious right, helps maintain the patriarchal status quo which is threatened by anti-rape laws and the idea that men are responsible for preventing rape. Also threatening is the possibility of women claiming the freedom to make decisions about their bodies, families, work, finances and education – in other words, women enjoying the same human rights as men. Therefore, patriarchal society uses rape (or fear of rape) as a means of controlling women’s lives and maintaining male power and privilege.

Hypersexualization is part of this rape culture, and while cultural images and messages do not directly cause violence against women and girls, they certainly encourage and enable it through the dehumanization of women and objectification of our bodies (Kilbourne 2010). By making women feel perpetually inadequate about our appearance and sexual attractiveness, corporations profit from women and girls’ insecurity and contribute to a vicious cycle of depression, anxiety, eating disorders and self-harm. Moreover, the internalization of misogyny carries through into our careers and all other aspects of lives, making all women (in some way) survivors of hypersexualization. Kilbourne (2010) rightly names this issue as a “public health problem”.

Mary Pipher explores the effect of this problem on adolescent girls in her book Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls (1994). She argues that children are socialized into a “girl-poisoning culture” that makes it nearly impossible for girls to develop good self-esteem, positive body image and healthy sexuality. The book states that girls “are coming of age in a more dangerous, sexualized and media-saturated culture” and need to be equipped with better tools for navigating this culture (Pipher 1994: 12). While Reviving Ophelia made a significant contribution to understanding the dangers of growing up female in an increasingly misogynistic world, it has been criticized for portraying girls as passive victims and failing to situate their experiences within broader social, economic and political contexts (Gonick 2006).  

A different approach to understanding girls’ experiences is found in Deborah L. Tolman’s Dilemmas of Desire: Teenage Girls Talk About Sexuality (2002). Tolman’s research involved asking adolescent girls to speak about their desire, a question that girls are not usually asked since we live in a society that fears, seeks to control and therefore renders taboo female sexuality. She framed her study with the understanding that:     

Girls live and grow up in bodies that are capable of strong sexual feelings, bodies that are connected to minds and hearts that hold meanings through which they make sense of and perceive their bodies. I consider the possibility that teenage girls’ sexual desire is important and life sustaining; that girls’ desire provides crucial information about the relational world in which they live; that the societal obstacles to girls’ and women’s ability to feel and act on their own desire should come under scrutiny rather than simply be feared; that girls and women are entitled to have sexual subjectivity, rather than simply to be sexual objects. (Tolman 2002: 19)

The stories of the adolescent girls Tolman interviewed revealed that girls do indeed experience desire, but in order to express this desire they must navigate a complicated world in which their pleasure and safety do not always coincide. While Tolman identifies many of the same risk factors (such as violence and sexual coercion) that Pipher does, she also emphasizes the positive experiences girls have with desire and pleasure, all within an analysis that considers the socially constructed nature of gender relations. Perhaps most significantly, Tolman’s book involves adolescent girls telling their own stories in their own voices, generating knowledge that gives readers a deeper understanding of their multifaceted experiences.

While adolescence is a particularly challenging time for girls and their struggle with hypersexualization, the messages and images that shape our sexuality and sense of self are introduced at a very early age. (Case in point: the Tinker Bell lunch bag.) We observe hypersexualization in way the girls are taught to enjoy dolls and dressing up while boys are sent outside to play. While boys learn that it’s important to be strong and active, girls learn to be passive and that their looks are what matters the most (Kilbourne 2010). Indeed, young girls are groomed for a future of sexual servitude through a “princess culture” (Orenstein 2010) that is as consumeristic as it is misogynistic, and is a precondition for the rape culture in which adolescent girls and women struggle to survive. The basis of princess culture is a simple narrative with which most of us are quite familiar: strive to be nice and pretty, and someday you will find a strong handsome man who will sweep you off your feet and you will live happily ever after.

 

For girls growing up today, however, the narrative is not so simple. In the past two decades, the messages that influence gender socialization have become increasingly sexualized and pornographized. The film Sexy Inc.: Our Children Under Influence (Bissonnette 2007) shows how corporations are invading the space of childhood by encouraging young girls and boys to consume images that sexually objectify women and promote dominant male behavior. Girls learn to value their appearance over other qualities, and they are compelled to mimic the latest adult fashion trends that include tight, revealing clothing, heavy makeup and sexy lingerie. This phenomenon, which would have been met with public outrage only a few years ago, is normalized through advertisements that both infantilize adult women and portray children in adult and even pornographic situations. As one speaker in the film summarizes this disturbing reality, “we are stealing childhood away from children” (Bissonnette 2007).     

 

(An image from Bratz, a company that markets dolls, fashions, toys and games to young girls.)

References

APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. (2007). Report of the APA task force on the sexualization of girls: Executive summary. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved 03/30, 2011, from http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report.aspx

Bissonnette, S. (Director), Sexy Inc.: Our children under influence. (2007). [Video/DVD]

Dines, G. (2010). Pornland: How porn has hijacked our sexuality. Boston: Beacon Press.

Filipovic, J. (2008). Offensive feminism: The conservative gender norms that perpetuate rape culture, and how feminists can fight back. In J. Friedman, & J. Valenti (Eds.), Yes Means Yes: Visions of female sexual power and a world without rape (pp. 13-27). Berkeley, California: Seal Press.

Gonick, M. (2006). Between "Girl Power" and "Reviving Ophelia": Constituting the neoliberal girl subject. NWSA Journal, 18(2)

Kilbourne, J. (Director), Killing Us Softly 4: Advertising's image of women. (2010). [Video/DVD]

Orenstein, P. (2010). Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the front lines of the new girlie-girl culture. New York: HarperCollins.

Pipher, M. (1994 and 1992). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls. USA: Ballantine Books, Mass Market Edition.

Tolman, D. L. (2002). Dilemmas of Desire: Teenage girls talk about sexuality. USA: First Harvard University Press.