I posted this yesterday on my blog, and the flurry of comments and email responses has been kind of engaging. I'd be interested to hear what others think.
___________________________________
I have to admit I'm feeling a bit confused by all the hubbub surrounding the allegedly racy pics of anti-gay-marriage spokesperson and current Miss California Carrie Prejean. I guess there are a number of issues at play here:
1) It's unclear to me why women like this are expected to parade around in teeny tiny bikinis on stage during pageants, but posing in a bikini bottom with no top is thought to be morally unacceptable. Seriously? What's the real difference between being photographed in a bikini and being photographed topless? That (maybe) 4 square inches of fabric contained in her bikini top is really that important? Like you can't already see every feature of her body when she's strutting around on stage in a bikini? Seems like a distinction without a difference to me.
2) We're told that according to pageant rules, Miss California could lose her crown for being "photographed in a state of partial or total nudity," which is deeply ironic, given the fact that she earned her crown by being photographed in a state of partial or total nudity. Perplexing.
3) And I don't get this whole "I'm a Christian and they're persecuting me because of it" shtick. I guess the story goes like this: Good conservative Christians oppose same-sex marriage on the basis of biblical teachings; I'm a good conservative Christian so I oppose same-sex marriage; My oppressors don't like my view on same-sex marriage, so they're trying to call my Christian credentials into question." The problem with this is that the conservative Christians I know believe it's immoral and "worldly" for a woman to parade around on stage in a bikini. Good Christian girls are demure and modest. They wear simple one-piece suits when swimming, and only when swimming. They are not supposed to flaunt their bodies or their sexuality. They're not supposed to get plastic surgery in order to conform to the beauty standards of the world, as their bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. And in this worldview, we as a culture have a responsibility not to sexualize girls and women, but to value them for the creatures that God made them to be: self-sacrificing helpmeet, mother, cook, maid...
None of this means that publishing the photos, or saying a lot of things that have been said about her, is appropriate either. It's just that this is all really confusing to me. And I don't think it's just me. I think there are deep and pervasive contradictions involved here that tend to be very prevalent in our culture.
This story is cut from the same fabric as the Britney-Spears-is-a-virgin shtick. Or the Miley-Cyrus-took-a-purity-pledge shtick. I can't comprehend why it would matter that these creatures who are sexualized from their heads to their toes actually have teh sexx or not. When every ounce of your physical being is sexualized, what's the function of virginity? In fact, I don't understand the concept of taking a purity pledge at all if you're going to make your living by flinging your flesh around the stage in as sexual a manner as possible. If the implicit message of everything you do is "I am a highly desireable being whose sole purpose and value is sexual," then why would you refrain from sexual activity and from nude photos? It doesn't make any sense. The only people for whom a purity pledge actually makes sense is for the uber-humble, uber-modest, long-skirt-wearing daughters of the Duggar family and their ilk. I mean, I might disagree with all of the most fundamental aspects of their worldview and their values, but at least they're consistent. You wouldn't catch one of them extolling the virtues of Christianity and modesty and virginity while arching her back in order to shove her tits and ass out for the camera.
Just sayin'
___________________________________
So here's a brief addendum I'd like to add based on some of the email responses and comments I've gotten:
1) I'm not trying to shut-slame anyone here. I'm interested in the tension between the sexualized construction of femininity and the demand to be sexually pure in our culture. People like Prejean and Spears and Cyrus are simply (unthinking) victims of this system as far as I can tell.
2) I'm also not trying to bash anyone's religion. But I do think that critiquing a person's sincerity and motivations can be appropriate in this context. As I said in one comment: "What I don't respect is casually claiming to be a Christian in order to garner the respect and support of one segment of the population while not seeing yourself as being obligated to live out the principles of the Bible in any way, shape, or form in your daily life. To me, faith is only faith if it runs deep, if it affects your life in some way, and informs your behavior. From what I've seen, that's not the case with people like Prejean, but I could be wrong. But I cannot stand hypocritical opportunism, and I would bet you the cost of a boob job that Prejean only claims to be a Christian because of the 'good girl' image she gets from it." Of course, I don't know Prejean and I could be wrong about her, and nobody's perfect. But if you claim a conservative Christian stance, it seems like basic consistency and integrity would at least prevent you from choosing jobs which require such profound sexualization and immodesty. That doesn't mean I think it's inherently wrong for anyone to pose for nude pics or anything like this. My point is simply that if you're going to judge others based on your beliefs, then you ought to be prepared to live your life according to those beliefs.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Beauty Pageants, Chastity, Religion, and Hypocrisy.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13578
When every ounce of your physical being is sexualized, what's the function of virginity?
Why, to appeal to the fetishization of virginity in order to become more sexually desirable, of course!
"Why, to appeal to the fetishization of virginity in order to become more sexually desirable, of course!"
Haha, has anyone seen the first season of True Blood? That is exactly what the entire season was about, though at least it was pretty explicit about it. Well, of course there are a million examples in pop culture, but that was the first thing I thought of.
Honestly, I don't like religion in any way, shape or form and I can't stand the hypocrisy of those who "love Jesus" but persecute or deny others rights (or any of the non-Christian equivalences). However, to talk about the contradictions of Christians is a bit of a circular problem - the Bible itself is full of contradictions. I can't remember if the Ten Commandments came before or after the jihads God sent the Israelites on, but either way, he changes his mind about morality quite a bit in the Good Book. How is anyone who follows the Bible supposed to be able to follow everything in it without picking and choosing or, as some people I know do, completely disregarding the Old Testament altogether?
I know this probably isn't going to be a popular statement, but I have to say it anyway.
On the other hand, the Bible is pretty darn consistent when it comes to the requirements for women to be pure, modest, submissive, etc. And all of that does seem to be totally inconsistent with beauty pageants and modelling lingerie.
What about Esther? Or Song of Songs? Not very submissive in the first, and not very pure in the second. (I'm trying to think of an example of modesty, and all I'm coming up with are Vashti and Batsheva, and neither of those stories really make good examples here.)
Jezebel?
And I always got the impression that in Song of Songs that was in the context of marriage. Or at least safely anchored in a heteronormative structure.
Was Jezebel immodest? I remember her being a worshipper of idols, and that she had the Israelite priests killed, but I don't remember immodesty. Wasn't she intensely loyal to her husband? (There's a midrash that the reason the dogs didn't eat the palms of her hands and the soles of her feet was that the only good deed she'd ever done was to dance and clap for a bride at a wedding.)
As for Song of Songs, there's no mention of "husband" or "wife" in there -- it's always "my beloved" or something similar. It's definitely courtship, not marriage. Heteronormative, yes.
"I know this probably isn't going to be a popular statement, but I have to say it anyway. "
Actually, religion is pretty unpopular on Feministing, so your statement fits right in.
Though I'm not saying that's a good thing.
I could feel the subtle hostility coming across in this statement. Please don't take out your frustrations from the "feminism and the bible" post on here.
part of the reason they are so sexually desirable is because the women freely enter into a contract whereby they parade around in little bikinis, are forced to remain single and are chastised when they 'act out'. Men are aroused by these ownership dynamics - and so are some women. Pageants are horrible things, in my opinion. Pageants are like 'lifestyle S&M' in that the woman's subservience is woven into her identity; it isn't just some role she puts on to have sex. What's more, is that she considers pageantry to be an honor - and she enters into the pageant freely and willingly. No one forces her. There are scholarships and student loans if she wants to go to college. Now, obviously we don't have _every_ option available to us. I'm fully aware of discrimination and the wage gap, for instance. I'm just saying that these women have enough money to pay for pageantry - it can't all be about the 'scholarship'.
As we women fight for more rights, as we get more and more options for ourselves, the more interesting pageantry will be to some men, because pageantry represents the real-life equivalent of a particular male fantasy - the woman/girl whose entire identity (not just her sexuality) revolves around appealing to a particular male fantasy - ownership and domination.
I might predict that as feminism becomes more influential, pageantry will have more, not less appeal.
You're making a big mistake to call these women victims. (Cyrus, Spears, etc) They are making a hell of a lot of money, and nobody is forcing them to do it.
I'm a model, and a feminist, and I model nude, in my underwear, underwater, for photographers, painters, sculptors. I make great money doing it in less time than anything else (seriously, $100/hr). Now I have had the time to start my own business. I cater for weddings and special events! I have time to take care of my sick mother, it's provided the financial resources to help two dear friends beat heroin addiction (I am giving them a place to live away from bad influences).
Honestly, I think that everyone should at some point in life model for a visual or figurative artist. Have a portrait painted. Work with a sculptor. Pose for naked photos! It can be such a fun, liberating, confidence building, creative experience to abandon the shame of our bodies and sexuality that our society impresses on us.
Beauty pageants are hideously retarded. But does every conversation about the beauty of young women in photos (or sex workers for that matter) have to come down to portraying us as victims, bimbos, or if we have religious backgrounds, as hypocrites?
I understand the patriarchal influence in the industry, I am not defending beauty pageants (which i think are spectacularly retarded) or the idiocy of the beauty industry in general.
But I do think that having feminists involved in the beauty and modeling industry will create more change rather than just railing against it and hoping it will die, because it won't. People are drawn to physical beauty - whether it's a vase or a sunset or a building or a human. Let's not fight against the hedonistic but completely natural appreciation of beauty, but work to change the way we approach human beauty, especially of young women.
An important part of that is acknowledging that the women involved are not ignorant bimbo sluts, or submissive victims of patriarchy.
PS. Modern Christianity is full of hypocrisy, are ya'll REALLY shocked that Miss Prejean is as well? Lots of people struggle with this, personally, and it is a long and difficult voyage to separate from family upbringing.
I guess I don't really get why you think I'm claiming they're victims and bimbos or advocating against modeling. Are you perhaps thinking about a different post? I'm not really sure I understand your comments, as they don't really relate to my post at all.