‘Roxy and the “sex sells” agenda of surf corporations a la Big Surfing are completely disconnected from what we know surfing to be about: freedom. We don’t want what you are selling’
When writing my column on the objectification of women in sport, I came across the writings of American surfer and Women’s World Longboard champion Cori Schumacher. I was impressed. Cori can both surf and write. I can only write. But she makes me want to surf! You’ll see why in this piece which she has given me permission to reprint in full.
Crossing the threshold from land to sea, the weights of gender and sexuality attached to the wings of my soul fall away. It is as if the ocean itself has the power to remove the stench of centuries from this form; a body I was born with, did not ask for but have found a way to cherish despite all the messages received from a world that would label me as second-class, nearly worthless, save for a tiny window in time if I were but to follow the intense pressures to submit to an ogling gaze that deems me worthy if I relentlessly give away my true power to embrace an ephemeral faux-power wrapped up in beauty and youth.
Let us be clear as to what this ephemeral faux-power of sexualized beauty entails:
“The answer to who has the power in these videos is blatantly clear.
We are the ones constantly depicted naked or semi-naked, in hyper-sexualized ‘biting-our-lips, batting-our-eyelashes’ demure, weak and submissive poses. It’s a position that signals vulnerability. You can’t be naked, while everyone else is clothed, and be in power. You can’t be naked and be the one in control. You can’t be naked and be the one choosing. To be naked is to be exposed; to be weak. Ultimately, it’s to be powerless.
Even when women are sold the story that their beauty is power over men, it is a deceptive and temporary truth. It’s baseless power. It is the kind of power that only exists in relation to a man’s desire. In this equation, women are defined only in relation to the men in their lives; only to the hard-ons they can incite. In these videos they’re always the cheerleaders to the male ego, standing on the sidelines, prancing around in panties, smiling with a come-hither, non-threatening look…” –Toula Foscolos
When conversations around women’s sexualization rise, the most eclipsing and ignorant of responses seeks to polarize our conversations between those who are prudishly opposed to a woman embracing her sexuality and those who are in-touch and empowered through their sexualized nakedness. Please. Women and men, our sexualities, our genders, our desires, how they are exploited and maintained, expressed and repressed, are far more complex than this simple polarization, both in the good ol’ USofA and abroad (yes, that’s right, even the French are engaged in this conversation). The conversation as it stands is due for expansion.
That is, an expansion in the conversation around the difference between the commodification of sexuality for the gain of profits and exposure for a few elite vs. the truly empowering freedom found in working to release both men and women from this circular conversation of a relentlessly disempowered binary that does nothing to celebrate our complexity as human beings.
Sex Sells (seriously, again?)
When I hear the hauntingly redundant “sex sells, so who is losing here” argument I wonder at the absolute lack of imagination and empathy this entails. Rather than argue abstracts, however, I find that it is much better to use specific examples to illustrate who loses when image and sex become the ideas sold rather than the promotion of agency, efficacy and non-image oriented achievement.
Anna Kournikova became the poster-child for sexualized female tennis beginning in the late 1990s. She inspired quite a bit of debate around image and achievement similar to the conversation surrounding Steph Gilmore’s recent trailer for the Roxy Pro. Though what was said regarding Kournikova cannot be said of Gilmore (exemplified by the use of the “Anna Kournikova” in the lingo of some poker card playing variations meaning a hand that “looks great but never wins”), we can look at the impact of Kournikova and the likes of Maria Sharapova in women’s tennis easily enough now that time has passed and draw parallels to who will lose when we allow this unimaginative and lazy rhetoric of “sex sells” to infiltrate surfing or other women’s sports, for that matter.
Marion Bartoli, who recently won the prestigious Wimbledon championship, has had to deal with the most disgusting and pathetic of the dark side of the sexualization of tennis. After winning her first grand slam trophy, BBC TV and radio sportscaster John Inverdale felt the need to comment that she was “never going to be a looker” to which Bartoli responded with the courageous comment featured in the above image. This however was light commentary compared to the “fans of tennis” who decided to let loose a tirade fit to inspire projectile vomiting. Even in the midst of accomplishing one of her greatest dreams, Bartoli has to deal with the sexism that persists for women in sport. This is a loss, not only for tennis, but for female athletes in the future who are no doubt reading all about this. Sexism persists.
“Sex sells” is regurgitated tripe that should be divested of its cowls. Sex sold product when sex in our culture wasn’t visible. Now that sex is everywhere, it is easy to gaze at it as an artifact of creativity and innovation, and indeed, gazing is all sex-used-to-sell is good for these days. A new generation of consumers (whose views translate to purchasing, which is ostensibly what companies like Roxy want) is more attracted to values-driven companies than lifestyle-fetish fodder (as exemplified by the fact that Patagonia saw growth over the last recession by 25%-30% annually while companies like Quiksilver and Billabong continue to lose millions). Sexy marketing once was an innovative way to fill a vacuum only to be found in magazines tucked under the beds of adolescent males, but with this vacuum filled to overflow in the culture-at-large, it has become as redundant and banal as commercials for pharmaceuticals on television.
“There was this one time that I saw an ad that objectified men and it didn’t offend me…”
I suppose it would be just as impossible to explain what it feels like to be a woman in the world and how surfing can be a moment of respite amidst the sexist noise to some as it would be to explain to these victims of sex-trafficking how Steph Gilmore’s trailer for the Roxy Pro 2013 might exemplify Steph embracing her “power” as a woman.
Although some, like Dustin Hoffman, have honestly delved into this question with moving and resonant results.
Why do women run to the sea? Ask yourselves this. What does it mean to cross-over from a culture-land of trauma into a sea of freedom and how impossible will it be to get others to understand how hard some will fight to retain this space where we can release the weight of gender and sexuality imposed on us by our culture-at-large?
I have hope. Strike that. We have hope, for it must be understood that this is not simply about an “I” that states that “this makes me happy so, what’s the big deal” but a “We” that in empathy, asks if this is the right direction for each other, our kids and the future of surf culture. What must be understood is that this is a movement of women and men who understand the nature of the gift we have when we cross the threshold of land to sea to dance. Roxy and the “sex sells” agenda of surf corporations a la Big Surfing are completely disconnected from what we know surfing to be about: freedom. We don’t want what you are selling. Take it back to the drylands.
If you want to embrace the ephemeral, it’s your life. No one should tell you what or how to use your body. But don’t pretend we are empowering the future here or that it is good for anyone else. This trend shows a complete lack of regard for the health of future generations of female surfers and does not bode well for the future of men’s surfing either. Do you see it yet? The first rumblings of it in the bare-chested way the top 34 male professional surfers are being presented to fans during 2013′s ASP contests?
Cori has a petition against Roxy at Change.org Sign here
4 Responses
It’s not ‘sex’ which sells it is mens’ misogyny which sells and the advertising industry have succeeded in deluding innumerable women into believing being a males’ disposable masturbatory object is the sin qua of what it means to be a female human in a male dominated and male controlled world.
Ever wondered why advertising doesn’t commonly feature totally naked full frontal males? It is because males know being photographed totally naked is disempowering but having images of women totally naked reinforces male power because men are the ones commonly viewing such images.
Selling ‘sex’ meaning mens’ phallocentric notion of why women exist is all about maintaining male domination and male control over women. Forget mens’ lie that ‘being young, female and sexy is empowering for women,’ because once a woman has reached a certain age – usually 25 she is viewed by malestream media as ‘past it.’ Malestream media deems she is no longer of use to men and hence she must resort to mutilating surgery in a vain attempt to retain her childlike and powerless image.
Ask yourselves why men are terrified of women who refuse to conform to the misogynistic notion that ‘being young and sexually hot to males’ is the sin qua of female attainment? Because issue is all about maintaining and justifying mens’ power and domination over women.
Roxy claims it is a commercial company which specialises in producing surfing equipment/clothing for women and yet Roxy promotes the misogynistic lie that female surfers are merely mens’ dehumanised disposable masturbatory objects, not female humans who engage in surfing because they enjoy it. Real surfing is for the boys because surfing is a skill and that means only males have the skills and intellect to learn how to surf.
Women can’t surf according to Roxy because they must spend all their time on ensuring they are ‘young and sexually hot to men!’
By the way males are not routinely reduced to dehumanised masturbatory objects because images of half naked males always depict these males as sexually dominant and autonomous human beings. No submissive poses for the men; no crawling around on all fours with the male rear on prominent display because this is female sexually submissive behaviour and males aren’t females are they? Instead these half naked males are arrogantly displaying their sexual aggression and dominance and the message being sent to other males is ‘you too can have a body like mine and you too will be able to sexually dominate and control women.’ Now that is real power, which is why men have to keep telling women ‘you aren’t human you just exist to be mens’ disposable sexual service stations.’
Sheila Jeffreys’ book Beauty and Misogyny analyses in detail how the male created fashion industry; beauty industry and of course male created pornography industry are all colluding in their endless misogynistic (read male hatred of women) propaganda telling women ‘buy/wear our products because the only (pseudo) power you have is being sexually hot to males.’
Finally name the issue as misogyny not ‘sexism’ because ‘sexism’ is now a meaningless term because it does not define who or what are engaged in hating/holding contempt for the ‘other.’ Misogyny names it as male hatred/male contempt for women which is why men have created that non-word misandry which doesn’t exist despite mens’ pathetic attempts to make their case.
Misogyny is the issue and misogyny has existed for centuries because men have always declared they alone are the autonomous beings and it is their lives and their experiences which are the definitive human ones. Women are still not human according to men but merely exist to serve men in whatever capacity men demand and now mens’ dominant misogynistic lie is that females exist merely to be males’ disposable sexual service stations/masturbatory objects!
“Ever wondered why advertising doesn’t commonly feature totally naked full frontal males?” you ask. Here’s an idea: Because women and men are wired differently, as much as angry feminists like you try to claim otherwise. Ask yourself why men aren’t interested in trashy romance novels. And why is it that, despite the bleatings of feminists like yourself, women are still attracted to male dominance? Ideas like yours have played a big part in the emergence of emasculated manginas- men who defer to women at every opportunity and show no leadership- and this in turn has given us record divorce rates and women with eating/ mental disorders. I hope you’re happy with the “enlightened” society you have helped create. People like you aren’t really interested in equality. Women like you want to rant and rave about the issue that is “maintaining and justifying mens’ power and domination over women.” yet turn a blind eye to all the advantages women are given over men in modern day society. You only have to look at the way our legal system and institutions like marriage are geared to suit women to know what I am saying is true.
People like you are the ones who want to moan about men’s misogyny and “rape culture” yet you go very silent when it is pointed out to you that places like strip clubs thrive on women’s manipulation of their sexual appeal to men with the purpose of coercing money out of men. Likewise, your type have no problem with women dressing provocatively with the intention of arousing men and appealing to their sexual wiring, but then want to complain about “rape culture.” You complain about men using their physical/ mental advantages to manipulate women, but when women use their physical advantages to manipulate men you have nothing to say about it because you are only interested in “equality” as long as it benefits women.
Most telling of all, when somebody (somebody male) points out logical flaws in your argument, women like you resort to jibes of “You have a small penis/ You can’t get laid/ You must be a virgin who lives in your Mum’s basement”- your hypocrisy is exposed when you are unable to make a counter-argument that doesn’t rely on sexually related put-downs. It’s all well and good to type angry words behind a keyboard, but be my guest to defend your view points via a live debate here:
http://manhood101.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=30
Are you game?
“Feminism is hated because women are hated. Anti-feminism is a direct expression of misogyny; it is the political defense of women hating.” -Andrea Dworkin
THIS GUY.
“Ever wondered why advertising doesn’t commonly feature totally naked full frontal males?” you ask. Here’s an idea: Because women and men are wired differently, as much as angry feminists like you try to claim otherwise.’
Here’s another idea: because everything involving women must be geared towards the ‘male gaze’, because men are the default audience, because we live in a patriarchy where women are seen as sexual commodities. We have an ad destined to women doing sport and the message is still about performing for the male gaze. But no matter how women will say this is not the message they want for them and their daughters, you’ll always have some men shouting over them, spouting male-biased nonsense about ‘wiring’. I do not know any woman who does not disapprove of this kind of sexism we regularly see in the media. Women are not interested in seeing women depicted like that. For that matter, they’d rather look at images of semi-naked men than women. But again, apparently, what women think and how women feel do not matter. Because patriarchy, or whatever you want to call it, or disguise it (”wiring’).