Off the rails journalism
Sometimes I read an article that is so idiotic that I've got to wonder how the journalist responsible manages to get out of bed in the morning without hurting himself. There are some journalists (eg Piers Akerman) that produce nonsensical gibberish so often that I don't even have to wonder how any respectable newspaper would publish their rantings. Well, it seems that the Age, which usually displays some sense, has a star of their own.
An article by Michael Vaughan titled "We don't need feminism to fight inequity" takes the idiotic tripe cake. Before taking a closer look at the article I can't help but question who it is that Michael refers to when he says "we"? Sure he doesn't need feminism to fight whatever inequity he may be facing, but going by his name, he's not the one feminism is fighting for. Either Michael is pretending to be one of the girls or he's presumptuous enough to think that he knows what women need, in which case he should probably reveal the basis for his omniscience.
The hypocritical headline aside, the rest of the article is an example of what you get by mixing complete lack of understanding of the subject matter, illogicality and poor writing and pour the product onto a newspaper page. The article is an attempted critique of an opinion piece by Karen Murphy titled "Blame women for the death of feminism". Karen laments modern women abandoning feminist ideals and heading back into "slavery" and sexualisation.
Whether you agree or disagree with Karen's views, she raises a serious social and political issue, one that requires a considered response from someone who knows what they are talking about. If Michael Vaughan thought that described him, he was dead wrong. Just because Michael claims to be a great believer in equality and because he has a female boss (so what one might ask?), he thinks his commentary has some sort of authoritative status. Hmmm. So lets see what sort of equality does Michael believe in.
Karen specifically singles out for criticism certain types of women and activities that betray feminist achievements. Michael comes back with a "brilliant" equality argument - some men do it too, therefore, it's all good, we are all equal. Let me list some of the activities and illustrate why his position in nonsensical.
- lap dancers, strippers, topless barmaids and well-educated prostitutes who do it for the money
Yes, Michael, there are male prostitutes, strippers etc. But if there is one male prostitute or stripper for every hundred women, that isn't equality. It's a sign that the use and abuse of women as sexual objects is much more widespread and, dare I say, acceptable, than similar use of men. And yes, Michael, men do go "topless for many reasons" - sun baking may be one - but a topless woman and a topless men aren't quite the same. The catch is in the sexual nature of the act.
- participating/degrading oneself in pornography
Yep, men do it too, but for some reason whenever I come across those foul pop-ups or ads on the web, they always describe, graphically or otherwise the sexual degradation of women. Men do participate in pornography, but usually as ones doing the fucking/degradation of the woman. When it comes to degrees of degradation, the equality is just not there, Michael.
- model in degrading advertisements for money.
I haven't seen many ads where men are posed with half open mouths near another man's (or woman's) crotch, in a position clearly implying acts of fellatio, but maybe I've been looking in the wrong places. The key word here is "degrading". Perhaps Michael can name a few ads as degrading to men as the Chivas Regal or the Windsor Shoes ads (to name a few) are to women.
- have cosmetic surgery and breast enhancements to make themselves desirable.
Ah yes, my favourite one. Michael must know lots of men who pump silicon into their breasts (or should that be boobs, knockers, tits - those things that men stare at on the train?). Does he spend a lot of time wishing that his B cup was a D, so that he's more attractive to the opposite sex? Is his desirability or identity defined by the size of his boobs? Enough said, I think.
In fact, Michael does nothing to address the key point of Karen's article - that women are increasingly sexualised and defined by their sexuality and that they are complicit in that definition. He prefers to pick on her grammar or expression and imply that the only way for her to know about sexualisation of women is to admire pornography, while claiming that he doesn't take cheap shots. Yeah, those are really killer points Michael - very convincing. Just a tip for future improvement - you might like to try an actual argument once in a while, it helps. Because if all you can do is pick on someone's grammar, your audience may conclude that you don't have any valid points to make.
And when it comes to his claim that Karen must have "taken the time to watch (look at, scan, ogle or admire — your call) all of the things you mention. How else would you be authoritative enough to comment" - Michael, what Karen talks about is all around you. It doesn't require research, just opening one's eyes. And one's mind.
RSS
