From the time of my teenage years, since the very first seeds of social consciousness were planted, I have been aware of the issue of gender inequality. More specifically, I found myself repeatedly spinning in the argument of media responsibility and the portrayals of women in film, print, and (later) on-line forums. Always jumping on the bandwagon of blame, my senior thesis in high school was a scathing (or so I believed) review of Hollywood and its repeated depiction of female victims to male saviors. The damsel (always beautiful, for therein lied her value) in distress to be saved by the male hero (usually older and less attractive) was the ever-seen highly damaged continuation of sexism in America, and the media was to be blamed.
Recently, I have begun to question my own finger pointing. I have started to ponder responsibility, and to wonder, given that the mass-producers create only that content which we tell them we will consume through the distribution of our dollars, who is really at fault? Perhaps the problem is not the magazine covers and the portrayals of women on television and in film. Perhaps . . . just maybe . . . systemic sexism in print and on-screen is merely a symptom and not the root cause. What if we – individuals – are fundamentally to blame? And not just for our sexist consumerism, but entirely at fault for creating a society which reinforces, from a very, very young age, that a woman’s value is a physical-beauty based commodity.
In a recent, and shocking, letter to Santa Claus, blogger Kasey Edwards wrote to jolly ole’ Saint Nic and asked him to treat her daughter the same way he treated her son. Within, she points out that Santa (i.e. everyone), when interacting with a little girl, comments on her beauty, her pretty dress, her outward appearance (particularly in relation to other little girls). When conversing with little boys, he (we) asked him about his interests, school, and what he liked to do with his time. We laugh at his precociousness and praise her demureness. My mind was blown because I, a self-professed feminist fighter, do exactly that. I treat little girls differently than I treat little boys.
I tell a little girl she is pretty. I ask a little boy what he likes. From the age of 2 or younger, we are teaching our women that their value lies inherently in their looks. Equally destructive in its seeming harmlessness, we are raising a nation of sexist men who watch us treat these women differently. They, too, are taught that a man’s value lies in his accomplishments and a woman’s in her ability to attract him. No wonder we have inequality in women’s pay in this country. In the 1980’s we crouched down to enlighten little five year old girls and boys to this gender hierarchy, and those little kids grew up to be today’s 30-something old misogynist workforce.
Recently, there was a mild media explosion when Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie allowed their child (born female) to walk a red carpet in a suit and asking to be referred to by a boy name. LGBT activists and their bigoted counterparts took to the internet, waging a war over this child’s right to be trans. The conversation (an extremely necessary one, as trans people in this country are horribly treated at every turn and in every forum) exploded with such fervor that something very important was missed – perhaps the most vital event of it all. Ms. Jolie did not come out swinging for her trans child. Instead, she stated that she allowed her child to dress in a suit because her child is a child. Making no statement on whether her born-as-male kid would grow up to become a woman, these superstar parents quietly gave us a lesson that most of missed: What a little kid wears is irrelevant. Their freedom to express themself, in any forum in any way, is vital. The issue, to these parents, was not whether or not their child was/will be gay, straight, trans, etc. The issue is that their child, still a child, did not need to be forced into a box just because that’s what people expect little girls to do.
I do not think the paparazzi are innocent. The media should absolutely be held accountable. Scrutiny of those who produce anything for mass consumption is a healthy and vital part of a progressive society, and I applaud, as I did at age 17, the ongoing inquisition into the images and messaging of the media conglomerates. But have we pointed and yelled and accused to such an extent that we have absolved ourselves of our own responsibility? Are we not, also, to blame?
Magazine covers do not sell themselves. Misogynistic movies marketed as romance do not exist in a vacuum. Inequality does not thrive in a society in which its members thwart said injustices at all turns. We have raised nation of sexists, and we are shocked by images, policies, and ideals those now-adults create and put forth in the world. The worst part of it all is that we are still doing it.
Next time you have the chance to interact with two children of different genders, listen to yourself. Check in and see if you repeat the same questions to each child, or do you tailor your female questions to her prettiness and your male questions to his abilities and interests. Find out if you are part of the problem. And if you are – change that.
Then, and only then, you can yell and scream and shout at our sexist media. Until then, you are throwing forth a boomerang that is swinging back and knocking our children down and pinning them in the present, unjust, world. Mass media companies are counting their coins as we raise another generation of unchanged, sexist, consumers. The cycle goes on, until we break it.
It is not their responsibility. It is ours.
Recently, I have begun to question my own finger pointing. I have started to ponder responsibility, and to wonder, given that the mass-producers create only that content which we tell them we will consume through the distribution of our dollars, who is really at fault? Perhaps the problem is not the magazine covers and the portrayals of women on television and in film. Perhaps . . . just maybe . . . systemic sexism in print and on-screen is merely a symptom and not the root cause. What if we – individuals – are fundamentally to blame? And not just for our sexist consumerism, but entirely at fault for creating a society which reinforces, from a very, very young age, that a woman’s value is a physical-beauty based commodity.
In a recent, and shocking, letter to Santa Claus, blogger Kasey Edwards wrote to jolly ole’ Saint Nic and asked him to treat her daughter the same way he treated her son. Within, she points out that Santa (i.e. everyone), when interacting with a little girl, comments on her beauty, her pretty dress, her outward appearance (particularly in relation to other little girls). When conversing with little boys, he (we) asked him about his interests, school, and what he liked to do with his time. We laugh at his precociousness and praise her demureness. My mind was blown because I, a self-professed feminist fighter, do exactly that. I treat little girls differently than I treat little boys.
I tell a little girl she is pretty. I ask a little boy what he likes. From the age of 2 or younger, we are teaching our women that their value lies inherently in their looks. Equally destructive in its seeming harmlessness, we are raising a nation of sexist men who watch us treat these women differently. They, too, are taught that a man’s value lies in his accomplishments and a woman’s in her ability to attract him. No wonder we have inequality in women’s pay in this country. In the 1980’s we crouched down to enlighten little five year old girls and boys to this gender hierarchy, and those little kids grew up to be today’s 30-something old misogynist workforce.
Recently, there was a mild media explosion when Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie allowed their child (born female) to walk a red carpet in a suit and asking to be referred to by a boy name. LGBT activists and their bigoted counterparts took to the internet, waging a war over this child’s right to be trans. The conversation (an extremely necessary one, as trans people in this country are horribly treated at every turn and in every forum) exploded with such fervor that something very important was missed – perhaps the most vital event of it all. Ms. Jolie did not come out swinging for her trans child. Instead, she stated that she allowed her child to dress in a suit because her child is a child. Making no statement on whether her born-as-male kid would grow up to become a woman, these superstar parents quietly gave us a lesson that most of missed: What a little kid wears is irrelevant. Their freedom to express themself, in any forum in any way, is vital. The issue, to these parents, was not whether or not their child was/will be gay, straight, trans, etc. The issue is that their child, still a child, did not need to be forced into a box just because that’s what people expect little girls to do.
I do not think the paparazzi are innocent. The media should absolutely be held accountable. Scrutiny of those who produce anything for mass consumption is a healthy and vital part of a progressive society, and I applaud, as I did at age 17, the ongoing inquisition into the images and messaging of the media conglomerates. But have we pointed and yelled and accused to such an extent that we have absolved ourselves of our own responsibility? Are we not, also, to blame?
Magazine covers do not sell themselves. Misogynistic movies marketed as romance do not exist in a vacuum. Inequality does not thrive in a society in which its members thwart said injustices at all turns. We have raised nation of sexists, and we are shocked by images, policies, and ideals those now-adults create and put forth in the world. The worst part of it all is that we are still doing it.
Next time you have the chance to interact with two children of different genders, listen to yourself. Check in and see if you repeat the same questions to each child, or do you tailor your female questions to her prettiness and your male questions to his abilities and interests. Find out if you are part of the problem. And if you are – change that.
Then, and only then, you can yell and scream and shout at our sexist media. Until then, you are throwing forth a boomerang that is swinging back and knocking our children down and pinning them in the present, unjust, world. Mass media companies are counting their coins as we raise another generation of unchanged, sexist, consumers. The cycle goes on, until we break it.
It is not their responsibility. It is ours.