Has anybody heard of Wendy Shalit? She has a new book out called Girls Gone Mild. It reports from the movement headed by teenage girls who want to make modesty cool again, and reject the pressure to put out all over the place, or at least wear a t-shirt that says “Stacked Hottie.” There’s a favourable article about her in the Toronto Star.
In the late 90’s when Shalit was only 23, she wrote A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Value arguing that women’s attempts to liberate themselves sexually have really just taken the mystique and grace out of sex, and consigned women to dreary hookups and the loss of male honour.
At the time Shalit’s calls to women to cover up, hold back and wait until marriage were painted as staunchly anti-feminist. But almost ten years later, our culture has changed. In the time when the Pussycat Dolls are painted as the model of female empowerment (yes yes, I know I need a new target other than the Pussycat Dolls…) and Bratz dolls encourage two year-olds to wear thongs (okay, maybe an exaggeration), could it be that a little Shalit style modesty wouldn’t hurt us?
After all, Ariel Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs, though controversial, has been taken seriously by the feminist community. In it, Levy suggested that 70’s feminists’ attempts to sexually liberate women backfired, and instead created a generation of women who are simply complicit in their own objectification.
Jessica Valenti at Feministing.com though, isn’t buying it. She has a pretty searing critique of Girls Gone Mild here, where she suggests that Shalit has co-opted feminist language, and even faked some of the interviews with teenage girls, calling into question Shalit’s claims that teenage girls find the pressure to be “liberated” overwhelming. Has anybody read Girls Gone Mild, or do any of our teenage readers know anything about this underground campaign for ankle cover?
The huge problem with both Levy and Shalit, is that neither of their arguments make space for the fact that maybe not all women who are into porn, and happy having many sexual partners, are poor lost girls who are trading sex for validation. Neither of their arguments can sustain the fact that some women have a lot of sex or pursue a lot of sex because they just plain like it. And the thing is, while wearing thongs, making out with your best girls, and flashing the Girls Gone Wild camera crew are completely acceptable and even encouraged these days, I don’t believe that having a healthy and happy sexual appetite is. And until we get to the point where it’s okay for women to desire sex, are critiques that unwittingly beat down women who like sex really that helpful?
I tend to air on the side of no, it isn’t helpful, and if ladies want to pole dance, let’s support them in that. Except for one big little side story: there’s a reason why Girls Gone Mild registered on my radar. Once upon a time in 1999, I was an 17 year-old virgin who was planning to wait until I fell in love to get down. But the lack of suitable lovers around me meant I was getting older and older, and still hadn’t had sex. At the school I went to at the time though, that wasn’t exactly hip. I worried that when I got to university no one would want to befriend, let alone date, a no-good virgin. I anxiously tried to scheme up ways to hide my dirty virginity (red nail polish? lots of hairspray? push-up bras?). It was often on my mind. And then I found a copy of my parents’ Time Magazine, with an article about Shalit, which I managed to rustle up here (isn’t the internet amazing?) I remember being super comforted to learn that there were other virgins like me out there, or at least people who thought it was a-ok to wait it out.
Whether women are being pressured to cover up or to get down, it’s all bad news. Any kind of pressure to be sexual in a way that doesn’t express a woman’s own sexuality, is just proof that we’ve got a long way to go.
All this reminds me a little bit of the marriage debate: in the end, as a feminist, what I want is a world where ladies can do strip teases on their front lawns and sleep with all their neighbours, or get married to their first boyfriend when they’re 22, or wait until their late 30’s to get down, or do whatever the heck makes them happy - and be supported in their choices. Maybe I should give equal supports to Annie Sprinkle and Wendy Shalit - together they may just help us to get to that mythical world.



Digg
eight comments
That quote I posted before, where a girl in high school said "It's your choice if you want to cover up, be a feminist, and not have sex" was actually from a radio piece on Girls Gone Mild, and I too wanted to ask if anyone had read it, because I haven't either. Someone remind me, how did feminism end up being equated with the principles of Victorian England? Help.
Posted by Anna
July 26, 2007, 4:50 PM
"For a generation bombarded with news of pantyless celebrities, most of the girls we interviewed were surprisingly modest, more Hilary Duff than Lindsay Lohan."
-- Ylan Q. Mui, 'It's Not Just Parents Saying No to Skimpy Clothes,' Washington Post, June 4, '07
There you go - Duff is mild, and as we've already noted, not a feminist. So I guess this means Lindsay is one?
Posted by Stacey May
July 26, 2007, 6:25 PM
Thanks for posting about this, Thea. For two days now I've woken up to radio discussions about her book. I haven't read it, but something about her thesis makes me uncomfortable. First of all, I think it's the moral element she seems to ascribe to "self-respect," "personal dignity" and "good girls," which seems suspiciously like the empty arguments and the preachy tone of the religious right's good old family values that preach abstinence only and are firmly anti-abortion.
I'm also skeptical of this example in the Toronto Star article:
"In her new book, she interviewed, among other activists, Pittsburgh teens who started a "girlcott" against Abercrombie & Fitch, persuading them to stop selling "attitude" T-shirts that read, "Who needs brains when you have these?" and "I had a nightmare I was a brunette," and "Do I make you look fat?"
I remember that protest and was very excited about it, but not for the reasons Shalit is excited. She reads it as girls leading a "personal dignity" and "modesty" movement, while I view it as young women resisting the way a corporation is trying to make money by exploiting their sexuality; girls trying to be empowered and have a voice.
This example proves that the issue is more complex than Shalit and the Star article make it out to be, and that seems to be the thing that's missing from the debate about "girls gone mild" vs. "girls gone wild." While I am often horrified by the ways in which sexual promiscuity is used to sell us crap we don't need, and why women (of all ages) equate sexual availability with social and political power, I think it's dangerous to think girls are rejecting this behavior for "virtuous" reasons, and that all you can be is a “slut” or a “virgin.” The space in between those two ascriptions is vast and complicated, and I don’t think it should be framed, uncontested, in Shalit’s terms.
I think girls who resist falling into the oversexed bind do it because they want to assert control over their sexuality and their bodies, which is (part of) what it means to be a feminist, and which diverges with Shalit’s version of feminism, as Valenti points out. I think young women recognize the various ways in which our sexuality is exploited for someone else’s profit, and how that has been transferred into pseudo-empowerment and fake feminism, and we resist in many different ways that can’t be so easily captured with coming up with an idea of the “modesty movement.” Commentators like to seem leave to issues of power and exploitation out, they don’t like to address the way in which women are given conflicting messages from mainstream media (it’s hot to be sexy and dress sexy and be sexually available, but not to actually have sex), and they often write as if women live in a little bubble, isolated from social, political and economic life (hello, corporate capitalism! It’s hugely invested in particular images and ideas about women’s sexuality), not to mention influences of race, class, ability, religion and sexuality. I probably have to read Shalit’s book to comment more thoroughly on it, but the whole debate about the book has seemed to me, to miss the point.
Posted by Nicole
July 27, 2007, 10:28 AM
Anna: it is weird how feminism is now equated with Victorian values. It's strange since, in 1999, when Shalit wrote the book about how modesty is great, she was called anti-feminist. I wonder if popular conceptions of feminism sway as the culture sways. Feminism is the opposite of whatever the culture thinks is good? Hm...
Nicole: it's a great point you make, and I didn't even think of it (how embarrassing) - that when teenage girls resist the oversexed kitten image, it's actually an act of RESISTANCE, not necessarily a return to modesty. Seen in that light, it's much more than a movement towards modesty that's kinda interesting and unexpected - it's empowering and inspiring and demonstrates that people of all ages will find ways to reject exploitation. It's said but typical that as a culture we'd rather understand it as good girls vs bad girls than think about power and empowerment.
I didn't like the Toronto Star article either, it sounded too much like the writer had a crush on Shalit (and as I recall from the Time Magazine article, it seems like a lot of the attention Shalit gets, she gets because she's pretty. That's gross in and of itself - Shalit gets taken seriously because she's got a sweet face? Kinda depressing, both for us and Shalit). Her discussion of good girls and bad girls I think is supposed to be tongue in cheek, but at the same time I think she coulda come up with some better words.
Posted by Thea
July 29, 2007, 4:53 PM
Nicole, I think you nailed it with your attention to the difference between resistance and modesty. That's really what's been bugging me about this whole thing, but I couldn't quite put it into words - that identifying sex culture as objectifying and shallow does not necessarily mean you're anti-sex. Or to put it another way, sex and sexualization are not the same thing - you can be positive and active in the first without participating in its commodification or flaunting-ization or what have you.
Posted by Anna
July 29, 2007, 9:39 PM
.We have such a polarization when it comes to women’s' sexuality in this country. On one hand we have movies, shows, news, and other programs constantly reminding us how married women do not enjoy sex and married men never get any. While on the other hand we have countless porn sites depicting women as nymphomaniacs and whores. I feel like asking aren't you a whore you've stuck your penis in hundreds if not thousands of women, why aren't you a whore? The point being that there are no depictions of married, happy, sex loving women out there. I was a virgin when I got married so was my husband and in my culture this is a beautiful thing not something to be ashamed of. We have a wonderful sex life and sometimes I think I love sex more than he does. We need to change the way our youth views women and sexuality as well as virginity
Posted by Ruth
August 15, 2007, 5:33 PM
Anna, try reading about the Victorian era and you'll find that feminism was not an option. Also, if any of you read any conservative Christian republican books or web sites, you'd find that they equate being a feminist with being a slut.
Posted by Sexy Sadie
November 1, 2007, 4:51 PM
Ruth, don't overdo it.. "you've stuck your penis in hundreds if not thousands of women". Personally I can list only 3 and I'm already 27 .. so no, not all men and not even most men are like that. There are a certain number of "players" out there who, for whatever bizarre reason, a lot of women seem to be attracted to and allow themselves to be seduced by. Most reasonable, nice, nerdy guys have a terribly hard time getting girlfriends but you shouldn't let the stereotype perpetuated by a very small minority color everyone.
Prostitution, on the other hand, is a completely different kettle of fish. If statistics are to be believed, some 2/3 of men or even 80% in some societies, visit prostitutes. Since a large number of women who work in prostutition do so either under duress or because of poor social background and circumstances, that's a far far far more important issue to combat in society - I'm sure if we called them "sex slaves" instead of prostitutes it might open peoples eyes slightly more to the realities involved.
So, if you really want an example of male chauvenism and to an extent evil - thats the subject you should be looking at. Ironically, many women tolerate prostitution because they believe it leads to more satisfying and stable marriages and reduces the burden their husbands put on them for sex; when, actually, prostitution objectifies women and turns them into little more than sex symbols for guys.
I've never gone to a prostitute, but believe me I get flack from male coworkers about it; and especially for equating visiting a prostitute to rape - that really boils their blood because so many of them do it.
Posted by David
November 2, 2007, 10:32 AM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.