Anne Summers review of Natasha Walter’s Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism was published in the Australian’s Review section on the weekend.
In the review, titled ‘The tyranny of self-perfection’, the long-time 
Australian feminist campaigner for women’s equality admits she had “no idea” about how bad things were for girls in a hypersexualised culture:
…This reviewer has to confess a comparable ignorance….I had no idea.
For feminists such as me who have been preoccupied with statistics and watching public indicators of progress such as women breaking barriers in politics, in business and other public domains, the cultural revolution that has enveloped girls and young women during the past decade or so was completely off my radar.
I kept fobbing off questions about whether I thought raunch culture was incompatible with feminism: how relevant was that, I thought, compared with the important stuff….?
So Walter’s book was quite an eye-opener.
She documents a culture in which sexual allure is equated with empowerment and girls are driven to strive for an air-brushed perfection that is as artificial as it is unattainable. Every aspect of the culture seems to reinforce this message, from the normalisation of the sex industry via the explosion of lap-dancing clubs throughout Britain to magazines directed at girls that “relentlessly encourage their readers to measure up to a raft of celebrities whose doll-like looks are seen as iconic and whose punishing physical regimes are seen as aspirational.”
Girls today, says Walter, think sexual confidence is the only confidence worth having and will do anything to achieve the mandated appearance… the information I found most distressing was how young women feel obliged to shape themselves according to the expectations of the idealised female their boyfriends have acquired from pornography…
All this is especially germane because 10 years ago Walter wrote a book The New Feminism that argued that feminists should not be concerned about the growing sexual objectification of women…Walter has now changed her mind. Big time.
Summers goes on to say that she finds the material in Walter’s book “sobering” and “challenging”.
While I find it somewhat difficult to understand how so many prominent women actively working to raise the status of women failed to notice the wrecking ball impacts of a pornified culture which constricts the freedom of women and girls by reducing them to sexy dolls while dressing it all up as ‘choice’, I am glad they see it now.
But while Summers started so well, her conclusion is unfortunate – and wrong.
She writes: “No one — not Walter, not me — wants to be thought a prude, so no one is going to actually take on the hypersexualised culture that is supposedly spoiling the life chances of girls today…”
Summers had “no idea”, as she says, about what was happening. But is seems she also has “no idea” about the global movement against it.
No one is going to take on the hypersexualised culture? That’s a big call and contradicted by the facts.
There are many of us who have taken it on. Some key players appear in my book Getting Real: Challenging the sexualisation of girls (one of a number of books on the subject in recent years, including Living Dolls, The Sexualisation of Childhood, The Lolita Effect, So Sexy So Soon, Pornified, What’s Happening to Our Girls?, Female Chauvinist Pigs, Bodies, etc). Then there’s Kids free 2B Kids, the Australian Council on Children and Media, The Australian Childhood Foundation, Choices for Children, and the dynamic new counter cultural agitator movement Collective Shout: for a world free of sexploitation (www.collectiveshout.org).
Then there are individuals who have come together to lobby for change, including Julie Gale, Maggie Hamilton, The Hon Alistair Nicholson, Steve Biddulph, Dr Michael Carr-Gregg, Noni Hazlehurst, Professor Clive Hamilton, Dr Emma Rush, Professor Louise Newman, Dr Cordelia Fine, Dr Renate Klein and others. We are all part of a global movement against sexualisation/objectification, led overseas by activists, advocates and academics such as Dr. Jean Kilbourne, Dr Diane Levin, Professor Gail Dines, Professor Ros Gill, Professor Catharine A. MacKinnon, Dr Melissa Farley, the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood in the US, Object and Pink Stinks in the UK, and many others. The American Psychological Association’s Taskforce on the sexualisation of girls took the issue on, with a major report, and more recently, the UK Home Office, with a compelling examination of the problem.
Propelled by evidence of harm, all have acted together to bring about change. They haven’t given a stuff about being labelled “prudes” or anything else, recognising the vested interests at play that would try to shut them down.
Given the major battles Summers has engaged in over decades, I would have thought she was made of sterner stuff.
April 26th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Another great piece Melinda. It is remarkable how far behind some feminist academics and writers are on this subject. Let’s hope they catch up real soon and step up with the courage others have on a grassroots level as well as those you have listed.
April 26th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Great post Melinda.
Re Anne Summers comment:
“No one — not Walter, not me — wants to be thought a prude, so no one is going to actually take on the hypersexualised culture that is supposedly spoiling the life chances of girls today…”
I’m glad she has switched her radar on…but prude shmude.
Could we just be done with this tired argument about women not wanting to be seen as prudes. It’s a crack up! I really find it utterly amusing.
Once and for all we need to recognise that ‘taking on’ the sexualisation of young people is not about the adults. It’s not about moral panic. It’s not about wowsers.
It’s about the mental health and wellbeing of the kids. That’s what child development professionals say and that’s what increasing research informs us.
Fearing judgment from others is a perfectly self absorbed excuse for non-action.
Would being thought of as a slut hold a woman back? Maybe. Perhaps that’s why the supposed new wave libertarian styled feminism has constructed a new paradigm for us.
A third option. How lucky. Not a liberated prude or restrained slut. Something entirely different. The…wait for it… ‘sexually empowered’ woman.
Wow, gee, I want to be her.
Because obviously I’m not. I’ve spent the past 3 ½ years speaking out about the sexualisation of children and young teens.
I’m one of the anti –sex….sorry ‘anti –sexualisation’, ‘anti-everything’ brigade so eloquently described recently by Mia Freedman. (who, like Anne Summers is apparenlty definitely absolutely NOT a prude. Phew for that!)
Yes, us ‘prudes’ have done the hard yards getting the message out about harm to kids.
Prudes like Psychologist Steve Biddulph, Professor Clive Hamilton, The Hon. Alastair Nicholson, Dr Michael Carr-Gregg and Dr. Joe Tucci.
April 26th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
“Prude shmude” exactly! Good on you Julie Gale (and others mentioned) for tackling this topic in your work to see hyper-sexualisation brought to its knees!
The view of Summers may cause a ripple effect of doubt amongst groups who linger on her every word. However, I refuse to believe that the increasing evidence of the effects of a sexualised culture will go un-noticed, un-challenged and un-changed.
Shame to Summers for the indication of doing nothing at the risk of being labeled “prude”. Where is the backbone that has faught for the rights of women over decades? Clearly if Summers did have some idea of what was happening she would use her inflouence to encourage a fight against hyper-sexualisation, rather than promote apathy among her listeners. Has Summers’ ‘go-getter’ attitude taken a back seat to the opinions of on-lookers?
April 26th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
I agree with you Julie. There are many who are concerned and who care about our children’s welfare.
As a child advocate I have met Mums, fathers, young people, professionals etc who have huge concerns about the issue and they are speaking out, writing, blogging, campaigning, researching on the issue.
Deliberate ignorance regarding the issue of the sexualisation of our children is getting harder and harder to justify. Of course there will be some who will continue to do so.
There will always be the likes of Freedman who will sway opinion on the issue, but there will always be individuals, groups, professionals, who care and will do what they can to raise awareness.
I am not a prude, I just care about the welfare of our children.
April 26th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Whenever there is an article or book published on this issue, you can always count on someone to write a letter to the editor saying something about the “anti-sex wowsers” being in control and creating a “nanny state” because we’re all “prudes.” It’s getting old, they really need to get some new material.
For those concerned about being labelled a “prude,” you need to understand that it’s not about you. If you speak up on this issue, you will be labelled, people will attempt to silence you. Make a commitment to not be silenced and join those who choose to laugh at such ridiculous labels and insults. And remember what the purpose is, to create a better culture for us now and for our next generation of young people.
There is a growing number of people who won’t be silenced:
http://www.collectiveshout.org
Join us!
April 27th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Summers is great, and she is right in a way that the ‘prude’ label silences many people. (when will an opposition to the exploitation of sexuality stop being confused with an anti-sex position!)
I like the opening of Nina Power’s new book One Dimensional Women (Zero book, London, 2009: 1-2)
Where have all the interesting women gone? If the contemporary portrayal of womankind were to be believed, contemporary female achievement would culminate in the ownership of expensive handbags, a vibrator, a job, a flat and a man – probably in that order. …. But how has it come to this? Did the desires of twentieth-century women’s liberation achieve their fulfiment in teh shopper’s paradise of ‘naughty’ self-pampering, playboy bunny pendants and bikini waxes? That the height of supposed female emancipation coincides so perfectly with consumerism is a miserable index of a politically desolate time. Much contemporary feminism, however, particularly in its American formulation, doesn’t seem to be too concerned about this coincidence, and this short book is partly an attack on the apparent abdication of any systematic political thought on the part of today’s positive, up-beat feminists. ….
Then she goes on to write:
‘Don’t be misled: The imperative to ‘Enjoy!’ is omnipresent, but pleasure and happiness are almost entirely absent. We can have as many vibrators as we like, and drink as much booze as we can physically tolerate, but anything outside the echo chamber of money-possessions-pleasure is strictly verboten. Communes, you say! Collectives! Alternative models to the family! What are you, mad?’
She is very funny!
I would add there has been a creepy childification of consumer feminism, because isn’t there something a bit kidult about imagining that being a hot, fun loving, sexually self-empowered dildo waving biatch is really going to rock the system??
April 27th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
I’m not sure that Dr Summers is not ‘made of sterner stuff”. She may not have had time yet to absorb all the material about this and she made need time to think about it. I hope that’s the case. Let’s give her time to digest the data. Terry
April 27th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
In response to Terry I want to say that Dr Summers is a feminist of long standing. However, as a liberal feminist her focus has always been on ‘equality’ issues’, wage gap between women and men, the glass ceiling, unequal laws etc. All important stuff but there have always been the messier issues like prostitution, pornography, objectification and violence against women, and now the sexualisation of children, predominantly girls. When liberal feminists comment on these issues it is often under the banner of ‘choice’: you don’t have to do it (eg be into pornography, be a prostituted woman, objectify your body), but if some women want to do that – let them. It has always been radical feminists who have taken on the violence against women aspect in pornography and prostitution and we have been severely reprimanded for it as ‘censors’ or prudes, or wowsers, and worse. Having said all this I find it nevertheless amazing that Anne Summers hasn’t noticed the pornified culture we live in. Seems to me it’s around every corner, so it’s inconceivable to me how one can not see it – especially as a feminist! And I agree wit Julie ‘Prude Shmude’ exactly – we will keep bringing these issue to the fore and fight them. But Julie it’s not just about kids, it’s about adults too. When girls grow up with the idea that ‘slut is best’ they will turn into women ready to serve men as hookers, pole dancers, prostitutes. Why would they know differently? in exposing the sexualisation of girls we are working to stop the exploitation of adult women. Now and in the future.
April 27th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Ah and I forgot – now Anne Summers needs to read Getting Real!! So she can meet all the authors Melinda mentions earlier who are not afraid to be called prudes. Maybe she’ll join our campaign!!
April 27th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Hi Ladies and Gentleman,
I am a young woman aged 21, who according to your definition is ‘sexualised’ and has been for a while, having had Brazilian waxes since about 14-15 and worn short skirts since I was even younger than that. Can I please have the opportunity to speak for myself perhaps?
Okay, like older women dying their grey hair, I concede that some of this behaviour is tied to some internal sense of insecurity. However that is not an excuse to write me off as some mindless sex slave. Nor to write me off as so totally manipulated that I cannot make a rational decision for myself (I can and I do).
I am not here to say that the behaviour in itself is healthy, what I want to argue is that the patronising and disrespectful tone towards young girls and women is both unwarranted and unhelpful. I appreciate your concern for my welfare, and I am here to tell you how you can best help me (from my understanding of me).
Young girls want happiness, respect and abundance (and the power to get it). When asking themselves how to get it, young women then look at the women around them. In my case, my mother worked hard, however was hardly ever appreciated or celebrated. My mother although highly educated only got to satisfy her own needs once all of ours were met. That is hardly respect, happiness or abundance. I personally look around at other woman and find they are the meeting everybody’s needs but their own. I actually want my needs met once in a while.
Since women can’t find evidence of how to achieve happiness and fulfilment from the woman around them, they look to the media. The media depicts women who are powerful, command respect, have money and glamour and appear happy. Unfortunately these are not usually mothers, or even business women, they are doll like celebrities deriving their power from their sexuality. There the process is concluded, I get to be happy and feel powerful if I look like that.
As you can see, I don’t believe that girls are blindly following the pack. They are using the resources and knowledge that can compile to determine how to get what they want. This should not shock or alarm us, I am not even sure why this should surprise you any of you. I think that this is better than young women simply accepting a life of disrespect and well neglect by their partners, families and society. Unfortunately young girls being young are also naive. I clearly realise that looking like a doll is ultimately more trouble than it is worth.
I want to press upon you that young woman going out and trying to get what they want should be encouraged. However girls need to be shown that there are other ways to find respect. Respect come from academic, business and professional success. Happiness comes from equal relationships, not the relationships our mothers had, but relationships were men takes parental leave, and have an equal share in the household chores and child rearing. Power can be taken through strategic, calculating and careful planning. Women deserve all the fruits of their labour.
As a young woman I don’t see any of this. I don’t want to be condemned to a life where I my needs don’t matter. If I have to look like a ‘doll’ to get notice, and matter at all, well I will do it. I am not going to disrespected and ignored like the women of my mother’s generation. Other girls like me will stop when we have faith that our successes will be recognise, and we will be valued anyway.
What I am trying to explain is that sexualisation of young girls is a symptom of inequality generally. When girls are confident that power can come from other endeavours, and that growing up will not merely involve fading into a life of service and insignificance they will not go to extraordinary lengths to get noticed.
April 27th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Thanks Renate – re my comment: “Once and for all we need to recognise that ‘taking on’ the sexualisation of young people is not about the adults. It’s not about moral panic. It’s not about wowsers.
It’s about the mental health and wellbeing of the kids. That’s what child development professionals say and that’s what increasing research informs us”.
I agree with you it’s ultimately not just about kids.
I meant that the focus in the debate about the sexualisation of children should not be on whether an adult is a prude or not… I mean really… who cares…it doesn’t matter a scrap where the adult is coming from. If kids are being harmed, they are being harmed. In recent years some people have wanted to fob the issue off by saying that the adult is ‘old fashioned’ or ‘prudish’ or ‘behind the times’ etc. I thought we had moved on….and it surprises me that it still comes up.
May 3rd, 2010 at 4:25 pm
It’s a shame (but understandable) that Emma says that ‘if she has to look like a doll to get noticed’ then she will. The people who are doing the noticing (and by implication, in positions of power to offer jobs, promotions, positions on courses, social position etc), I would think are the same people dictating these destructive images.
However, when we realise that this ‘sexualisation’ is grotty, tawdry and ultimately demeaning to human dignity, hopefully people will cease to want the rewards that participating in it supposedly offers.
May 22nd, 2010 at 6:58 pm
[…] Anne Summers sees the light on hypersexualisation: but won’t go all the way | Melinda Tankard … […]