Madonna and Britney get down at the MTV Video Awards. Cue worldwide shock.
I'm getting to grips with some really tough topics at Gay Star News these past days. Forget the Israeli elections and impending in/out/shake-it-all-about Eurogeddon. Put aside rampant un(der)employment and the destruction of the welfare state.
Instead, I present to you a gritty investigation into performances of same-sex desire in the British public sphere. Otherwise known as:
Today it was literally my job to watch clips of Jodie Foster movies on Youtube. I mean, I may not be being paid, but I'm certainly being allowed to sit in an office and assess the merits of (now openly) lesbian film stars. Who else knew that Jodie Foster was Lindsey Lohan in the original version of Parent Trap? Not me. This important morning's work became the literary tour de force, 'Jodie Foster's six greatest moments':
I also wrote a news piece about the 'Protest Transphobia @ the Observer' demo, taking place tomorrow afternoon. Do I need to mention Julie Burchill again?
Also, it turns out that queer women have to go for cervical screenings because lesbian sex is real, just like other sex. I think that the speculum may be irrelevant to smear tests, really. They do it just to punish women:
Mothers beware! This advert could influence your teenager to purchase tie-die.
Urban Outfitters has been in the news as the target of a campaign by homophobic, optimistically titled hate group "One Million" Moms. The reason? A catalogue photo depicting this exceptionally chaste kiss between two flouncily-clad women. I hate the idea that tie-die is in fashion again, but apparently that's not the reason for the protest. Apparently One Million Moms campaign against "immorality, violence, vulgarity and profanity." That they have decided to make this ad a focal point for a campaign suggests that this "picture of two women kissing in a face holding embrace!" (as they call it, complete with exclamation mark) falls short on one or more of these points. It must be the old "immorality" chestnut.
As queer adverts go, though, "two women kissing in a face holding embrace!"is pretty tame on the immorality scale. Not even a 2 out of 10. Its nice to see some lesbian-ish (who knows, they could even be bisexual, or just good friends) action, but it's not inflammatory enough to get me out on the streets looking for the nearest straight child to forcibly convert. Of all the queer adverts that One Million Moms could have picked on, some are far more risque.
Relatively few adverts depicting same-sex attraction between women exist, but those that do seem to fall broadly into two categories. The first, and this is by far the biggest, is the shameless lesploitation genre. These adverts may feature same-sex activity between women, but they have about as much to do with self-defining queer women as Margaret Thatcher has to do with feminism. This ostensibly-lesbian-but-actually-lesbophobic-and-misogynist Jim Beam ad - which makes me want to sick in my mouth - is a prime lesploitation candidate.
Ignoring the poor dress choice, I think that the Urban Outfitters' "face holding embrace!" advert falls into another, second category. Its a normal scene (if your version of normal heavily involves Urban Outfitters Spring/Summer 2012), in a normal room, between two normal (if exceedingly slim, white and pretty) women. Unabashedly, it's a consumer capitalist image, but at least for once the content is aimed at the demographic it depicts. It's pleasingly devoid of gratuitously oiled-up nudity. It's a women's same-sex image, aimed primarily at women.
Unfortunately, One Million Moms' immorality klaxon doesn't seem so tolerant as to enable any consideration of subtlety in intent or representation. Obviously not. If their main worry is that their kids might catch gay from a picture, or that they might be influenced by some queer subliminal messaging sneakily inserted into a handbag advert, then of course they couldn't care less whether the imagery does anything good for queer visibility or not.
All the same, if they're looking for some other quite nice representations of queer women in advertising to protest, I've found my favourite five:
1. KY scoops the lesbian audience
Ok look, I obviously hate the idea of orgasms as "that big moment", but actually this is pretty cute observational comedy. There's even a sneaky cat in the top left corner. I can imagine lesbian couples seeing this, then buying lube. Works for me (the depiction, not the lube itself. I haven't tried the lube. Yet).
2. Lesbian cruises for lesbians: "It truly does change your life."
An ad made by queer women, for queer women, featuring queer women? Also advertising an niche lesbian service, I know, so not attempting to corner a widely commercial market. But still, stop the press, butch lesbians have made it into an advert!
3. Martina Navratilova: can't see past her incredible arms to work out what she's selling
Something to do with the supposed "pink pound"? I don't know. It's got Martina Navratilova in.
4. H&M does ambiguity
H&M are prime offenders in the sexism stakes, not least for their propensity to photoshop models' heads onto computer generated, identikit mannequin bodies. This ad, however, is part of a series of beautifully constructed ads using intimacy between women to sell to women.
5. Devin & Glenn: Overturn Prop 8 and Make Homosexuals Marry!
Self-evidently this has little to do with lesbianism, but it is my favourite gay ad ever. If One Million Mom's were to protest anything, it should surely be this. Join them and let them know here: http://www.onemillionmoms.com/register.asp
Wrongheadedly, I visited Anne Summers the other day. Hidden at the back of the store next to the 'Dominatrix' range (exclusively advertised with pictures of submissive women - I don't think they get it) was the section marked 'Porn for Women'.
A less interesting porn section could scarcely be conceived of. Whoever is designing this porn seems to think that women will descend in droves to purchase any porn which replaces the 'for men' signifiers 'slutty/anal/hungry/cock/bitch/fest' with the more delicate, pleasant, feminine word 'couples'. As if 'couples' is any draw in a film that conforms in every other respect to the male subject/female object binary.
I'm sorry for women if that's what porn 'for women' amounts to. Perhaps I shouldn't expect revolutionary female-driven narratives about sexualities and the female gaze in the Anne Summers porn section, but I would at least like to be slightly titillated. The barest hint of a sensation in the knicker department would be enough.
Still, it's only the most commercially successful sex shop 'for women', after all. In a more fringe way, women, or rather, feminists, have been conceiving of, directing and distributing feminist porn - or porn which tries to subvert the misogynist narrative - for ages. The downside is that the lack of mainstream market support results in small, independent distributors who seem to spring up and then go under (and not in the fun way, either). Last month, notably, saw the sad departure of Filament Magazine, billed wonderfully as the 'thinking woman's crumpet'.
It's a small relief that the Feminist Porn Awards are out there, attempting to give voice to the desires of those mind-numbingly bored by the restrictive fare conventionally on offer to women (let's not even get started on the soft/hardcore misogyny that passes for general/men's porn). The Feminist Porn Awards reckon that porn is feminist if it is hot and:
"1) A woman had a hand in the production, writing, direction, etc. of the work. 2) It depicts genuine female pleasure 3) It expands the boundaries of sexual representation on film and challenges stereotypes that are often found in mainstream porn."
Or, as Caitlin Moran succinctly put it, "I JUST WANT A MULTI-BILLION-DOLLAR INTERNATIONAL PORN INDUSTRY WHERE I CAN SEE A WOMAN COME."
That all sounds great, so why is it rare to find hardcore porn which fits these quite minimal criteria? There are, of course, commercial successes. There are the Anna Spans of the straight world (though her failure to look critically at mainstream porn is rather damning), and there are the Courtney Troubles and Shine Louise Houstons on the other end of the spectrum. But it isn't enough, it isn't available enough, and what there is doesn't do enough to undermine the free tube sites of the industry.
Isn't it strange that an activity which - much of the time - is something men and women do together, should be so invariably so distorted when put on camera? I don't think there is anything about the presence of a camera, or indeed a mass market, that necessarily turns sex into misogyny, but it is depressing when this is so often the case.
Lisa Saunders' interesting and well-argued anti-porn/pro-sex article on this website yesterday suggests that 'it's about as easy to get hold of 'ethical' pornography as it is to score 'ethical' cocaine.' My suspicion is that feminists will lose out if we completely write pornography off, forever, the end. The continued presence of feminist voices in other unethical industries hasn't created any feminist industries, but it has changed some things for the better.
The sustained critique of the industry and its wider cultural normalisation that anti-pornography feminisms provide are extremely persuasive, but I am reluctant to condemn all porn that exists or could exist on the basis of the industry as it stands. Women watch, and get off, on porn which doesn't cater to them, which is misogynist, racist, and unethical in every other respect. If this is the case with such rubbish porn, how much better could it be if feminist porn were to flourish?
Can feminist porn can break away from mainstream misogynist narratives? Are the criteria given by the Feminist Porn Awards enough to make porn feminist? Is there feminist porn which genuinely represents women's sexualities? Have you seen any that really stood out? What are your recommendations for feminist porn?
Good question. Tangentially relevant to this post.
My parents have been married for thirty years. I grew up in a semi-detached house in a suburb, one of three kids. The only surprise in the set-up is that we don’t have a picket fence. It was a Tory government’s wet dream of an upbringing.
Somewhere along the line, though, something went wrong. The conveyer-belt churning out endless, identical replications of this ideal kinship model hit a snag, shuddered and stopped. It turned out one of the slightly-more-than-2.4 kids was queer and at least one of the others didn’t really give a damn about marriage. Our predicted stable, nuclear futures wobbled as reality, in all its glorious diversity, failed to conform to ideology.
Thank god, then, for the government, who have announced the return, albeit in diluted form, of Thatcher’s Clause 28. Children in free schools or academies will in future be receiving heterosexist brainwashing instead of Sex and Relationships Education. Perhaps they can halt the cultural decline in straight people buying into holy matrimony by literally legislating for its ideological imposition?
How obnoxiously weird that a practice designed to institutionalise the exchange of women-as-commodities should, in 2011, be being brought back as if it’s the only excellent kinship model. Over one third of marriages end in divorce, we know that only about 50% of people get married anyway - why do conservatives insist on touting the myth that marriage provides a stability that other forms of relationship don’t? Could they actually believe it, or is this a Dorries-esque way of grooming the next generation’s prejudices against the rights of those who threateningly queer the picture?
Against all the evidence suggesting that other relationship models are also great, we are hugely invested in the ideal of marriage, in particular, in the importance of marriage to women. Popular, mildly-misogynist TV shows Don’t Tell the Brideand Four Weddings(both guilty pleasures, I admit) speak to this, camping up the ‘greatest-day-of-her-life’ aesthetic until it is too absurd to take seriously. Unless you’re Michael Gove, who presumably resolved to bring back Clause 28 during the Don’t Tell the Bride adverts.
Given how much pro-marriage marketing we receive, perhaps it is not surprising that our common cultural conception is that it is vaguely ‘best for children’ if they grow up with married hetero-parents. The viciousness of anti-single-mother rhetoric, returning time again to narratives of blame and failure, only compounds this problem. The government spectacularly fails to consider the possible impact of such negative socialisation on children growing up in single-parent households.
No matter. It is best for children to be brought up by married heterosexual couples , apparently, because two parents provide more stability than one. If an extra parent is so great, why wouldn’t it be better to have more than two? Why not four? Or ten? Why don’t we bring children up in communes, as envisaged by our feminist foremothers?
I want to know why a marriage certificate makes a difference, if it is not just to get couples bogged down in financial commitments to each other so that they can’t separate. I’d like to know, moreover, how it could be better for children to grow up the company of two parents who would really rather have gone their separate ways, and why it is thought to be right that parents abnegate those - potentially eighteen - years of their lives ‘for the sake of the children’. I’d like to know why gender is presumed to make a difference to that equation, why God is genuinely believed to have given a shit about anybody’s chromosomes.
Clause 28 is a case of cart-before-horse. There is nothing inherently better about nuclear families except the belief that they are better (coupled with tax breaks). If the children of hetero-marriages turn out to be better adjusted, whatever the hell that means, than those from other families, we need to look at the ways in which the former set of children are systematically culturally privileged and change the system accordingly. To conclude that therefore marriage is best and should be preached to kids is question-beggingly circular. It perpetuates the cycle, excluding those who can’t or won’t fit.
I have seen at first hand that a heterosexual marriage can provide a stable upbringing in which children can grow. But I would contend that if there is anything about my orientation which would prevent me from bringing up kids in just as good a manner, it is the attitude of Gove and co, who, through Clause 28, will attempt to make sure that the society my children will grow up in will be even more full of hate than the society we have now. Thanks Gove, you utter wanker.
