Alice Blogs Gender & Sexuality

An article published in the SMH, titled, Teenage girls trapped in a web of mixed messages, quite hypocritical on the Herald’s part.

It begins with the sell, “Raunch culture is a product of society’s double standards, writes Rachel Funari.” and proceeds to demonstrate the double standards of the Herald by making statements about the glut of sexual images in the media (the Herald being one such publication that offers a glut of sexual images of girls, particularly on its webiste, where young girls are probably more likely to access the news).

She refers to a book by Ariel Levy, titled Female Chauvinist Pigs, which argues that the rise of “raunch culture” is an indication that women are mistaking voyeurism for empowerment. One of Levy’s points sserts is that sexualised media images lead young women to mistaken the difference between their own sexual desire and their need to be liked and accepted. So, girls are having sex, not because they want to, but because it’s cool.

The article states: “Girls and boys receive a glut of sexualised images every day from advertising signs, television shows and commercials. It is continually reinforced that female power - financial and social - is garnered through the body, one that is desired, available and on display.” This statement implies that the sexualised images in the media have negative implications. But it seems hypocritical to me, when the Herald is one of those publications that portrays “sexualised images”. On the SMH website, displayed right next to the link to this article, was a large image of a faceless teenage model in low-cut hipsters pulling seductively at her shirt.

Although the SHM may not seem to be as sexy as other publications, like it’s Sunday equivalent, and The Daily Telegraph, I think it’s increasingly using sex to attract readers (see my entry on Sex Sells in the SMH for examples). See today’s Herald for more examples - the feature picture is of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, with the headline “Jolie and Pitt to have baby” - hardly seems like serious international news, and would be more suitable for a gossip mag like Who Weekly. And despite the fact that Pitt could be considered one of the most famous men and sex symbols in the world, he is only pictured in a small inset in the corner of the large picture of Jolie - I guess sexy images of girls sell better than those of men as they appeal to both males and females.

Another article featured on the homepage of SMH today pictures Britney Spears with the sell, Britney tops ‘worst dressed list’, with “over-the-hill Lolita” look. Need I say more?!

I guess the article by Rachel Funari does aim to provide “honest and comprehensive sexual discussion” to help young people gain a better understanding of sexuality, but I think the problem begins because attracting young people to a “serious” publication like SMH may require the portrayal of sexy images. And so, it’s a vicious cycle.