March 1, 2009
Trimble Part II
I’m still smarting about the treatment of Gail Trimble. Not helped by comment pieces such as this.
Here’s another take.
Last Monday Gail Trimble captained Corpus Christi to victory over Manchester in the University Challenge final. The match was gripping. Manchester led until the final 10 minutes, before Corpus unleashed intellectual thunderbolts to win decisively.
Much has been written about Trimble’s formidable intellect – and her looks. As Trimble herself has pointed out, it’s unlikely she would have been referred to as “Tasty Trimble”, or described as “very sexy” [cf Sunday's Observer article in main section] if she were a man. Actually, there’s proof of this. Last year’s winning captain, Christ Church’s Max Kaufmann, was arguably as smart as Trimble – but nobody passed comment as to whether or not he was “a mite sexy”.
So in 2009 one of the most intelligent people ever to grace our screens cannot be discussed simply in terms of her formidable intellect. Rather, some comment must be made regarding her status as on object of male desire. Indeed, Trimble has apparently reached the heights of approval for a society obsessed with presenting women as sexually available automatons for male satisfaction: it has emerged that “lads’ mag” Nuts offered her a nude photo shoot. [cf BBC Oxfordshire, The Independent]
On the subject of magazines and social attitudes, if asked what the main contributing factors to attitudes holding women to be ever-willing receptacles for male appendages, most people would probably cite lads’ mags like Nuts.
As it happens, I have a magazine on my desk. Opening it, I find a stunningly attractive woman in a white bikini. Turning the page there is another beautiful girl, her hair wet as she stares up at me longingly. Reading the articles, I find this: “Forget thigh boots, fearsome whips and scary spike devices. Fetish is going mainstream.” Another article intones “I’ve had erections in church. I admit it, I’ve had one on the Nemesis ride at Alton Towers, upside down, pulling G4s”.
What am I reading? FHM? Nuts? Maxim? Zoo? All wrong. It’s not a lads’ mag at all. It’s a mainstream “women’s lifestyle” magazine. You know the kind; glossy, small enough to fit in a handbag, stuffed with sex and shopping.
Such magazines repeat a series of core messages:
1) The object of a woman’s life is to find “the one” (translation: rich, good-looking man) and keep him. Everything else is secondary.
2) It is essential to always be sexually desirable. Ideally: large breasts and small waist. If you can’t meet this ideal naturally, consider surgery.
3) You must never show insecurity to a potential “one”, or he will flee. This means concealing many of your emotions despite being in a (supposedly) intimate relationship.
4) Never refuse sexual advances from your partner, or else he will go elsewhere. You can have no complaints about infidelity if you don’t put out.
Etcetera.
These magazines are written by women and read by millions more. Yet the message they convey is indistinguishable from lads’ mags: that a woman’s purpose and function is to be an object of male desire. Actually, they may be worse. Lads’ mags just have pictures of tits, these lifestyle publications provide direct written instruction.
There are those who will use my words as a way of attacking women and vindicating demeaning patriarchal attitudes. To do that is to argue two wrongs make a right.
What we have is a sorry state of affairs: a society where no matter what a woman achieves, she is forever subjected to the scrutiny of male sexual desire. Even a bona fide genius like Trimble is not exempt.
And this malaise runs deep. This is not a state of affairs forcefully imposed by men on women. It is one being wilfully perpetrated and endorsed by literally millions of women. Proponents of lifestyle magazines will claim they are liberating women, making them independent. What strange brands of liberation and independence they sell.
**************
Although it appears Trimble’s victory may be tainted by the revelation that one of her co-contestants was a fraud!
Grace said,
March 2, 2009 at 7:29 pm
I agree completely.
Actually, maybe slightly less than completely, as I think it’s a bit unfair to criticize magazines for conveying message number 3. A lot of (especially teenage) boys do find insecurity repellent, and think that “confidence is the no. 1 most important thing in a girl”. (unless the ones I know are unrepresentative.) So they could just be preparing girls for the attitudes they’ll face.
It seems like the majority of the general population’s reading material is either utter rubbish or a corrosive influence – eg the Daily Mail, the Sun (readership 7.9m!!!), “chick-lit”, girly/porn magazines, the Express (circulation of 700,000+. I just can’t understand how basic human decency didn’t stop them writing “a former Al Qaeda suspect was flown back to Britain on a luxury jet yesterday – at Government expense. Now taxpayers face a massive bill for his new life on benefits” – this is about someone who’s been TORTURED with Britain complicit! argh.)
The more I find out about politics the more depressed I get – how on earth can we hope to have a just democracy if so many people have disgusting prejudices and hatreds created and strengthened every time they pick up a newspaper or magazine?
Anyway I’ve just finished reading Dworkin’s “Is democracy possible here” and I really, really enjoyed it, even though I disagree strongly with his positions on social insurance and especially abortion. Though I suppose that’s constructive according to him, as I’ve interpreted his two principles differently. 1. Is that an ok book to read? Not too hard for a 16yr old/not academic enough? 2. If those sorts of books are fine, can you recommend any other similar books? -i.e. that level of difficulty, as I thought it was (very) thought provoking but still accessible.
Thanks
Gray said,
March 5, 2009 at 3:34 pm
“And this malaise runs deep. This is not a state of affairs forcefully imposed by men on women. It is one being wilfully perpetrated and endorsed by literally millions of women. Proponents of lifestyle magazines will claim they are liberating women, making them independent. What strange brands of liberation and independence they sell.”
It’s easier to influence people when you tell them what they can do as opposed to telling them what they can’t do. Throw the false idea of liberation into the mix and it’s even more powerful. I’m not saying that there’s some sort of conspiracy here, but society has deep seated ideas about how women should look and behave.
This can be shown when/if you analyse your own conversations about women and it can become concerning. You can go on to say it’s part of human nature but that to me is just a cop-out. As soon as you acknowledge that there is nothing you can do about the bad aspects of human nature you take one step towards justifying them.