QotD: “Action against sexual harassment in schools is more about protecting the male orgasm than girls”
How much pain and suffering is the male orgasm worth? Is there ever a time when a man’s right to access hardcore pornography is outweighed by the rights of young women to feel safe?
I am wondering this in light of today’s Women and Equalities Committee Report into sexual harassment and sexual violence in schools. The way in which young men see their female peers is tainted, poisoned by broader cultural narratives about what female bodies are for. Boys are not born with a need to hurt and humiliate for pleasure, but they are acquiring it, and fast.
The findings of the report are dismaying, if not altogether surprising. It states: “A number of large scale surveys find girls and young women consistently reporting high levels of sexual harassment and sexual violence in school.”
Data published in September 2015 found that over 5,500 sexual offences were recorded in UK schools over the course of three years, including 600 rapes. Almost a third of 16-18 year old girls say they have experienced unwanted sexual touching in school, while 41 per cent of girls aged 14 to 17 in intimate relationships reported experiencing sexual violence from their partner. Sexual harassment starts in primary school, with lifting up skirts and pulling down pants, driving some girls to wearing shorts under their school skirts.
One obvious conclusion to draw might be that boys do not like girls very much. They see them as objects to sneer at, flesh to grab at, holes to penetrate. They don’t see them as people, at least not in the way that they see themselves.
The report claims that, “boys and young men . . . are adversely impacted themselves by a culture of internet pornography that has become so prevalent amongst young people”. The images they are seeing distort their beliefs not just about what women want, but what women are.
Of course, it’s not as though sexism and rape culture are products of the internet. They have been with us for millennia. We tell ourselves that we are making progress. Eventually – not in my lifetime, though, nor even in my children’s – such things should not exist. Yet it seems that as soon as one channel for hate disappears, another emerges. The report posits “a correlation between children’s regular viewing of pornography and harmful behaviours”:
“The type of pornography many children are exposed to is often more extreme than adults realise . . . The government should immediately update its guidance on SRE [sex and relationship education] to include teaching about pornography. The new guidance should offer advice to schools about how to approach this topic in an age-appropriate way. It should also include suggestions of how schools can work in partnership with parents to address the impact of pornography on children’s perceptions of sex, relationships and consent.”
While I don’t disagree with any of these recommendations in particular, there’s something about the whole enterprise that makes my heart sink. It’s as though pornography is a natural disaster, something terrible that cannot be avoided, or some strange, dark offshoot of youth culture – a modern version of painting your walls black while listening to Joy Division – around which the grown-ups must tiptoe and fret.
You’d never think it was something created, paid for and used by men of all ages and classes, as part of the way they systematically dehumanise, objectify and exploit female bodies. You’d never think it was a multibillion pound leisure industry in its own right. You’d never think that violent, abusive pornography only exists because huge numbers of men want it to.
I understand the arguments. It’s here now and there’s nothing we can do about it (other than make more of it, harder, faster, crueller, the lines between consent and coercion increasingly blurred). The only thing we can do now is hope that SRE (sex and relationship education) lessons at school – followed up by consent lessons for those in higher education – will counteract the worst effects.
It’s as though misogyny itself is not something to be eradicated, but something young men must learn to enjoy in moderation. Grown men can handle it, we tell ourselves (after all, it’s not as though they’re sexually harassing and raping anyone, is it?). It’s the young ones you’ve got to worry about. They just don’t know the difference between fantasy and reality. Unlike the punter who can magically tell whether the person he is penetrating has been coerced, or the viewer with a sixth sense that informs him whether the rape he is watching is real or fake. We’re genuinely meant to think it’s only children who are at risk of not seeing the humanity in others.
I am tired of this. I do not want my sons to grow up in a world where watching violent pornography and paying to penetrate the body of someone poorer than you are seen as a perfectly acceptable recreational activities as long as one is over 18. Where watching scenes of choking, beating and rape – without knowing how much is acted, how much is real – is justified on the basis that nothing that gives you an orgasm ought to be stigmatised.
I do not want my sons to attend the “sensible, grounded sex education” lessons being proposed by Women and Equalities Committee chair Maria Miller if all they learn is how not to be too “laddish”, how to keep their misogyny at an acceptable level for polite society, how to pretend women and girls are human without truly seeing them as such. Because then this is not about equality at all. This is about etiquette. The gentrification of misogyny: down with lad culture (so vulgar!), up with hardcore porn on the quiet. No rapes until home time, this is a serious establishment.
It’s not good enough. Girls are suffering, horrendously. Their self-esteem – their very sense of self, their belief that their bodies are their own – are being destroyed. What if the cost of ending their suffering would be to say “Enough. The male orgasm is not sacrosanct”? There is nothing liberal or enlightened about promoting an age-old system of exploitation via the cum shot. Men – adult men – could end this if they wanted to. Surely a first step would be to stop pretending otherwise.
Walker has come up against a fair amount of hostility while promoting Dietland. During a live radio interview in Australia, the novelist Will Self, also a guest on the show, went full werewolf on her. “He basically derailed my whole interview,” Walker says, with an upset sort of laugh. He didn’t just trot out the usual “fat is unhealthy” stuff, but helpfully mansplained that humans are evolutionarily programmed to find fat people ugly. Self was being so abrasive, Walker recalls, that after the interview another guest asked if she was OK.
The run-in wasn’t the first time Walker faced overt abuse from a Brit. She lived in the UK for seven years, on and off, and says: “London was the most fat-shaming place I’ve been in my entire life. It was on a scale like nothing I’ve ever experienced.” In the US, Walker says, fatphobia would manifest itself in subtle ways: she’d find herself excluded from things. In London, however, strangers would say horrible things to her face. “I’ve lived in New York, Paris, Boston and the western US – and that just doesn’t happen.”
One reason, Walker suggests, is that “women’s bodies were on display in London like I’ve never seen. In the phonebooths with those pictures of naked women, and on Page 3, and in those tabloid newspapers with half-naked women on the cover. It was like the whole city was a red-light district.” She contrasts this to her native US, where “we have fashion magazines with scantily clad women but you don’t see those kind of porny images in public as much. I felt part of the reason I got harassed in London was because there were messages everywhere that women’s bodies are public property.”
Walker channelled her London experience into a chapter of Dietland in which Jennifer forces British tabloids to feature naked men on their covers. “London was being renovated,” writes the author, “and the wallpaper covering every surface of the city was no longer decorated with women.”
Hello! I’m Anita Sarkeesian. In 2012, I launched a modest Kickstarter campaign to fund a small video series deconstructing representations of women. In an astounding, humbling turn of events, Tropes vs Women in Video Games drew international attention—both positive and negative—and Feminist Frequency raised over twenty-five times the amount we sought. We put it to good use: in the four years since, Feminist Frequency has transformed into a non-profit organization devoted to critically engaging with media. Our videos have focused on examining the way women are represented in popular culture, and reimagining the world of video games as a more inclusive place.
Starting today, we’re doing something new: a video series called Ordinary Women: Daring to Defy History.
Rather than heroes, leaders and innovators, women are often depicted and treated as secondary characters in history, objects of affections, damsels to be rescued, or merely the wives, mothers and assistants to the men who achieved important things. Instead, we’re taking a look back at the amazing women throughout history who defied gender stereotypes and changed the world, to remind us that the stories we tell about women—in TV shows, comic books, video games and in real life—often reflect the limitations placed on them, rather than the world-changing feats they’ve already achieved.
With your help, we can bring their stories to life and give these incredible women the attention they deserve.
The fantasy of porn is not fully depicted, it is not identical with the ‘content’ of representation, it is to be completed by the active subject, the viewer-hero of the representation.
The pleasure is more fully realizable under the sole control of the subject, through the total objectification of the ‘object’
Kappeler, S. 1986, “Subjects, Objects and Equal Opportunities”, The Pornography of Representation, Polity Press, Cambridge, pp.48-60 (digital edition)
QotD: “A feminist analysis of pornography must include a content analysis and a representational analysis”
A feminist analysis of pornography must include a content analysis and a representational analysis. While there is rightful outrage at the ever-increasing violence depicted in pornography, few have examined what pornography itself is trying to say. Experts might argue that real life violence is not pornography, but this is a lie. As Kappeler (1986) points out, the law deals in fact and representation related to fact and the arts deal with (almost) exclusively fiction; however, when the subject is pornography both parties claim to be experts while distancing themselves from it. When it becomes ‘real’ violence, the arts proclaim that it is not theirs and the law proclaims it is not real violence/not real pornography. But as Dworkin (1981) articulates, pornography is real and it happens to women.
Liberals are for it because it is ‘liberating’ and conservatives are against it out of concern for public morality, and feminists are forced to fit into this dichotomy (Kappeler, 1986). And so the rights of men (read: human rights) are pitted against the rights of women. Some fauxminists may claim that they are against the censorship of pornography out of concern for ‘free speech’. Some conservatives may claim they are against pornography, they use it in secret out of their allegiance to patriarchy.
The conviction of Nathan Matthews will focus attention once more on the threat posed to women and children by the viewing of violent pornography and sexual abuse online.
Matthews’s name can be added to the list of killers who apparently sought to act out perverted sexual fantasies on their victims, which were fed by the extreme pornography and abuse images they had watched on the internet. These include Mark Bridger, who killed April Jones, Stuart Hazell, the killer of schoolgirl Tia Sharp, Vincent Tabak who murdered Joanna Yeates, and Jamie Reynolds, who took the life of the teenager Georgia Williams.
All these men – like Matthews – amassed and viewed horrific images of abuse and violent pornography, often closely linked to the horrific acts they later inflicted upon their victims.
Hazell, for example, developed a sexual interest in 12-year-old Tia – the granddaughter of his girlfriend – and secretly filmed her. He had amassed images of child abuse and bestiality, often searching for pictures of girls who, like Tia, wore glasses. After Tia’s death, Hazell photographed her naked in a sexual position in an image he added to his collection. There was evidence that he had sexually abused her before she died.
Bridger, who abducted, sexually assaulted and killed five-year-old April Jones, kept explicit images of child sex abuse on his laptop. He had viewed a cartoon image of a bound girl being sexually abused by an adult just hours before April was abducted.
Tabak strangled 25-year-old Joanna Yeates in a sexually motivated attack in December 2010. Detectives found violent images of sexual abuse on his laptop – including explicit videos of a blonde woman being throttled. He also amassed indecent images of children, often involving pre-pubescent girls being sexually assaulted by adult men.
By the age of 22, Reynolds had collected 16,800 images and 72 videos of sexual violence. He wrote 40 stories about fatal attacks on girls and had drawn nooses on to copies of their Facebook photographs. He tricked 17-year-old Georgia, who was in his social circle, into coming to his house, pretending he was going to take artistic photographs of her. Reynolds had been watching extreme pornography immediately before Georgia arrived at his home, where he hanged her in May 2013. Photographs found on Reynolds’s hard drive show the last pictures of Georgia alive, smiling and posing with a red rope around her neck. The next series of photographs show her dead.
Giving evidence to MPs earlier this year, the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas, came close to directly linking the viewing of such images to sexual violence. The Reynolds case, he said, “left me in no doubt at all that the peddling of pornography on the internet had a dramatic effect on the individual … it played a real part in the way in which this particular murder was carried out”.
But there is no consensus in the published research on whether the viewing of violent pornography or child abuse images increases the likelihood of an individual carrying out contact abuse or even murder.
Dr Elena Martellozzo, senior lecturer in criminology at Middlesex University, who works with the Metropolitan police and specialises in studying sex offenders, said while there were certainly links between the viewing of such images and the violence an individual might go on to perpetrate, not everyone who viewed such abuse images would go on to commit violent sexual acts themselves.
“We have been working very closely with a number of sex offenders where once they have been arrested they were found in possession of a very large collection of indecent images of children,” she said. “But this is not to say that generally speaking, when people watch something particularly horrendous like this he or she may go on to commit an act of violence.”
Her colleague Dr Jeffrey DeMarco, forensic psychologist at Middlesex University, added: “We do talk about it as being a potential risk factor. So viewing violent digital literature, photographs, videos, images arguably – if these actions are in the narrative of this particular individual – would mean there’s an increased probability that their behaviour may go on to be of a violent nature. But there are a lot of people that are exposed to these kind of images that do not engage in violent acts.”
What is unequivocal, however, is the dramatic proliferation of online images of abuse and violent sexual acts over the last few years, and the huge increase in individuals who are accessing it. According to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (Ceop) unit, the number of unique child abuse images in circulation on the internet now runs into millions.
In 2012, Ceop received 8,000 reports of indecent images of children being shared, featuring 70,000 still images and videos. It estimated there were about 50,000-60,000 individuals in the UK involved in downloading and sharing indecent images of children. A nationwide investigation into internet paedophiles that began in 2014 identified digital traces of more than 25,000 people suspected of viewing images of child abuse in the UK. It led to 660 arrests, but the National Crime Agency said it would never be able to pursue all those caught up in the inquiry.
The case of Matthews is as bleak and horrifying as all those which have gone before. As he faces a lifetime in jail, what is clear to investigators is that while online abuse images continue to proliferate at such a rate, the threat to children and young women remains significant.
Essena O’Neill is an Australian 18-year-old who attracted a huge number of followers on Instagram by posting gorgeous selfies. No. I’d never heard of her either. Last month, she re-edited her account, ditching many photographs completely and rewriting the captions on others. Pictures of herself were captioned with explanations of how long it had taken her to get ready, how many hours she’d spent getting a shot she was happy with, which brand has sponsored her to wear things. Pictures of food were re-captioned from vegan or Fairtrade perspectives. So, scrambled eggs and bacon became “chicken periods” and “pig flesh” and chocolate became “poison and violence”.
O’Neill’s aim was to tell the truth behind the images. She confessed various alleged sins, which amounted to a single confession: she’d been working as a self-employed beauty queen and had come to realise that her work wasn’t meaningful. O’Neill exhorted other teenagers to realise how superficial her posturing had been, how her actions had been prompted by insecurity, not confidence, and how none of it was healthy or useful. Now, O’Neill has announced that she’s quitting Instagram and will instead be running a website dedicated to drawing attention to the things that really matter.
It would be easy to suggest that O’Neill has found a new and improved way of feeding her ego, that just like the beauty queens of old, she’s in thrall to the attention she has attracted, and has come to believe that, as all those contestants in Miss World used to say, she can help to bring “world peace”. It would be easy. But it would be unfair.
Amid all the hand-wringing about social media, and its addictive artificiality and projection, it’s important to remember that all it does is magnify and intensify issues that already existed. Beautiful teenage girls have valued their “natural assets”, have sought to exploit them, and been exploited in turn for their pains forever. Anne Boleyn’s Instagram account would have been awesome.
Sure, anyone with teenage children of any gender will recognise that social media sharpens the insecurities of those who feel unable to compete successfully in this seething global arena. But that’s because the insecurities, if not the arena, are familiar memories from our own teenage years. As is the knowledge that most people make their accommodations and survive.
Will O’Neill survive her accommodations? Possibly. She’s already on her way to doing so. She could have carried on being a freelance model, endorsing brands, building her image and keeping her mouth shut. She’s decided to think and speak instead.
The important thing to remember is that it is the supposedly adult world that would reward O’Neill for staying superficial and pretty, and being prepared to work hard to attract empty and vacuous attention from her peers. It would be nice to think that social media has the power to break this cycle, rather than perpetuating it. Anyone who puts their hand up and tries to, even if it can be dismissed as simply a new way of seeking attention, is all right by me.
The latest video from Feminist Frequency:
What is particularly gross about the misogyny Sarkeesian documents, is the way pornography (specifically the Playboy brand) has embedded itself into the mainstream; several video games are shown to have Playboy magazines as in-game objects to collect, or even as practical objects to utilize (from approx. the 19min mark).
If you are not too interested in video games, you can skip to the 25min mark where Sarkeesian explains really well why this matters.