Blurring the Lines, by Ruby Hoare
When I first saw Robin Thicke’s infamous ‘Blurred Lines’ video, I was not happy. It’s very easy, as a woman and a feminist, to see nearly-naked women dancing around fully-clothed men, pretending to be animals and scream, ‘DEGREDATION! How dare you demean me?!’. But before we leap into attack, let’s examine our reaction, and we will see how it can actually be more damaging to women than helpful.
Robin Thicke’s defence of his actions, if I understand correctly, was twofold, and went something along the lines of: a) the women in the video were happy to be involved and did not feel at all exploited, and b) he enjoys this kind of cheeky behaviour when really he respects women, has a wife, etc. All this would be fine, had the video been produced and shown only among a small group of friends, perhaps, who all knew the context and could see first-hand that the women in the video were in fact happy, independent volunteers, and not the voiceless, submissive dolls they appear to be. But it wasn’t; far from it.
The video was projected into to a world where far, far too many people really do think that’s all women are good for. In a world where women in Saudi Arabia are banned from driving, women in India are treated as sexual buffets, and women in so-called ‘developed’ countries are subject to all manner of sexual, physical and emotional abuse frequently and casually, it was irresponsible in the extreme to produce and publicise this video. While many of us ‘enlightened’ folk could take it safely as a joke and carry merrily on with our lives of sexual equality and liberation, many more will have let this bolster their impression that women are there primarily to be appreciated as sexual objects, literally dancing to the beat of a man’s drum
Robin Thicke’s defence of his actions, if I understand correctly, was twofold, and went something along the lines of: a) the women in the video were happy to be involved and did not feel at all exploited, and b) he enjoys this kind of cheeky behaviour when really he respects women, has a wife, etc. All this would be fine, had the video been produced and shown only among a small group of friends, perhaps, who all knew the context and could see first-hand that the women in the video were in fact happy, independent volunteers, and not the voiceless, submissive dolls they appear to be. But it wasn’t; far from it.
The video was projected into to a world where far, far too many people really do think that’s all women are good for. In a world where women in Saudi Arabia are banned from driving, women in India are treated as sexual buffets, and women in so-called ‘developed’ countries are subject to all manner of sexual, physical and emotional abuse frequently and casually, it was irresponsible in the extreme to produce and publicise this video. While many of us ‘enlightened’ folk could take it safely as a joke and carry merrily on with our lives of sexual equality and liberation, many more will have let this bolster their impression that women are there primarily to be appreciated as sexual objects, literally dancing to the beat of a man’s drum
In a world where women in Saudi Arabia are banned from driving, women in India are treated as sexual buffets, and women in so-called ‘developed’ countries are subject to all manner of sexual, physical and emotional abuse frequently and casually, it was irresponsible in the extreme to produce and publicise this video.
When Miley Cyrus (poor Miley, your sanity appears to be fast eroding) made her very public display of twerking on Robin Thicke’s groin, clad in an outfit that I can only assume was deliberately designed to simulate nudity, there ensued general uproar, to put it mildly. My own mother declared Cyrus’s actions ‘disgusting’, and lamented how she was a puppet to male desires, damaging beyond repair our standing as women. She was not alone.
I have several problems with this reaction to Miley’s performance (not the least of which is that to assume Miley’s actions were pandering to male desires is to underestimate and undermine her independence of thought, thus indirectly encouraging the idea of male dominance). The biggest of these is the same as a problem I have with Robin Thicke’s video, and with the way women are consistently perceived and treated in society as a whole. That is, why is it that what one woman does should affect other women? Why is it that the women in ‘Blurred Lines’ or Miley Cyrus on stage, appearing to demean themselves, should demean me? Because we share a sex, and are therefore closely associated? Anyone would agree, surely, that this is an idiotic idea.
It seems to be a widespread misconception, however. In a Huffington Post article on the Cambridge University ‘Rear of the Year’ awards, a spokesperson from the Cambridge Feminist Society was quoted as bemoaning the ‘misuse and appropriation of women's and other minorities' bodies.’ I’m sorry – when exactly did women become a minority? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure it’s more or less a fifty-fifty split across humanity. Her mistake demonstrates the way we perceive women as having far more to do with each other than we actually do. I am even uncomfortable with the word ‘we’ – it is nonsensical to lump half of the population into one word based on an attribute as arbitrary and inconsequential as sex.
I have several problems with this reaction to Miley’s performance (not the least of which is that to assume Miley’s actions were pandering to male desires is to underestimate and undermine her independence of thought, thus indirectly encouraging the idea of male dominance). The biggest of these is the same as a problem I have with Robin Thicke’s video, and with the way women are consistently perceived and treated in society as a whole. That is, why is it that what one woman does should affect other women? Why is it that the women in ‘Blurred Lines’ or Miley Cyrus on stage, appearing to demean themselves, should demean me? Because we share a sex, and are therefore closely associated? Anyone would agree, surely, that this is an idiotic idea.
It seems to be a widespread misconception, however. In a Huffington Post article on the Cambridge University ‘Rear of the Year’ awards, a spokesperson from the Cambridge Feminist Society was quoted as bemoaning the ‘misuse and appropriation of women's and other minorities' bodies.’ I’m sorry – when exactly did women become a minority? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure it’s more or less a fifty-fifty split across humanity. Her mistake demonstrates the way we perceive women as having far more to do with each other than we actually do. I am even uncomfortable with the word ‘we’ – it is nonsensical to lump half of the population into one word based on an attribute as arbitrary and inconsequential as sex.
Why is it that the women in ‘Blurred Lines’ or Miley Cyrus on stage, appearing to demean themselves, should demean me? Because we share a sex, and are therefore closely associated?
Being a woman is not a choice; it is not a way of life; it is not some sort of sisterhood or religion or cult, something with rules and accepted ways of behavior that we all adhere to, although everyone seems to think so. How unfair, how unreasonable it is to expect one woman, especially a woman in the public eye since childhood, like Miley Cyrus, to take responsibility for how the world perceives all other women. It is the stupidity of anyone who sees one woman in a certain light and assumes this applies to other women that needs to change, not the way any one woman behaves. A woman should be able to do anything she wants without behind held responsible for perceptions of all women, and those who perceive all women as interrelated should have more sense. It is attitudes which need to change.
A woman is judged if she chooses to dress provocatively, or if she chooses to dress modestly (or even, perish the thought, ‘like a man’). She is judged if she plays up to her sexuality, she is judged if she ignores it. She is judged if she chooses career over children, and she is judged for doing the opposite. Everything she does is her doing it as a woman. Please, just once, forget about the sex? Why is it that it comes so far up on the list of defining features for a female? Unlike a man, she is a woman first and foremost, not just a person.
As people, we should see beyond the sex in a person, and realise how irrelevant it is the vast majority of the time. There was once a time when women were so oppressed that we did have to stick together, look out for each other, and fight. Now, thankfully, in the Western world, we are a bit further on, and can begin to let go of the significance of our sex. Perhaps Mark Renton was right when he said, ‘a thousand years from now there will be no guys and no girls, just wankers’. Perhaps now, when, in all parts of the world, in different ways, women are still being oppressed, abused and controlled, people, not women, will stand up for them. When sex fails to be such a prominent element in a person, and the two sexes become less distinct, then how is it possible for one sex to dominate the other?
Reference for the Huffinton Post article: (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/18/cambridge-university-rear-of-the-year-competition-copyright_n_4294874.html)
A woman is judged if she chooses to dress provocatively, or if she chooses to dress modestly (or even, perish the thought, ‘like a man’). She is judged if she plays up to her sexuality, she is judged if she ignores it. She is judged if she chooses career over children, and she is judged for doing the opposite. Everything she does is her doing it as a woman. Please, just once, forget about the sex? Why is it that it comes so far up on the list of defining features for a female? Unlike a man, she is a woman first and foremost, not just a person.
As people, we should see beyond the sex in a person, and realise how irrelevant it is the vast majority of the time. There was once a time when women were so oppressed that we did have to stick together, look out for each other, and fight. Now, thankfully, in the Western world, we are a bit further on, and can begin to let go of the significance of our sex. Perhaps Mark Renton was right when he said, ‘a thousand years from now there will be no guys and no girls, just wankers’. Perhaps now, when, in all parts of the world, in different ways, women are still being oppressed, abused and controlled, people, not women, will stand up for them. When sex fails to be such a prominent element in a person, and the two sexes become less distinct, then how is it possible for one sex to dominate the other?
Reference for the Huffinton Post article: (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/18/cambridge-university-rear-of-the-year-competition-copyright_n_4294874.html)