COLUMN: Women's lib has not ended objectification

by Casey Jacketta

Daily Utah Chronicle (U. Utah)

U-Wire

I have always considered myself a liberated and liberal woman. I credit that to the leaps made by the women's movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Negative messages that are directed at women and girls from the media have never really affected me, until recently.

I had come home from a long day at school last week and noticed that in my mailbox was the newest issue of Cosmopolitan. At first, I was ecstatic.

Finally I had something to read that didn't pertain to finals or any other aspect of school. I could relax, or so I thought. Once I opened it, I was sorely disappointed.

Cosmopolitan and other similar magazines pride themselves on publishing articles and features that appeal to liberated women. They talk frankly about sex, fashion and men -- everything that a woman is supposed to be interested in. They give readers tips on how to look good, work out and even advance their careers. How could a magazine be more complete? Actually, a better question to ask is, how could a magazine be more incomplete?

Upon further contemplation, I realized that the only reason I was looking forward to reading the glossy new issue of Cosmo was that it was mindless entertainment. In protest, I trashed my Cosmo and turned on the television. This vexed me even more.

I was pleased that my favorite show, "Law and Order", was on. Then, as I kept watching, I realized that the assistant district attorney, played by Angie Harmon -- a woman -- didn't say a word in court. This troubled me, so I changed the channel to MTV. This upset me even more! All I saw was a bunch of barely clothed women shaking their bodies for the male singer's pleasure.

Is this really how American society still sees women -- as objects for men's pleasure? Is this true even after the women's movement?

To further investigate, I dug the Cosmo out of the trash can and looked over the cover. All the stories revolved around men: "Ten Games You Should Play in a Relationship," "How to Make Him Ache for You," "Become a Bond Girl."

Why, in the 21st century, is it assumed that women's lives should revolve around men? And even more shocking, why do some women put up with it?

Everywhere I look, I see women portrayed as objects subordinate to men. We exist for men's pleasure, so hey, we might as well get some satisfaction out of the whole objectification deal anyway, right? At least that is the idea that magazines like Cosmo like to portray. But those magazines are dead wrong.

I was further mortified when I went down to visit my two-year-old niece that night. Her mom had placed "The Little Mermaid" in the DVD player and my niece was content to sit and watch. Normally, this wouldn't be a problem, but now it was. My niece was watching a video in which a talented and otherwise happy girl gives up her entire life and talent for a man. What message is my 2-year-old niece getting from this? Well, probably not anything since she is two years old, but nonetheless, the movie still sends the message that women have to give up everything to make men happy. This movie was essentially telling my niece that her happiness depends on a man.

The phenomenon of women's objectification may have less to do with direct misogyny than with a general obsession with sex in American culture.

Sometimes it's subtle, like when the Freshman Council sponsors dating auctions and kissing booths. Sometimes it's more overt, like when Cosmopolitan publishes articles on sex techniques. The problem is that when advertisers and media can get away with talking about sex, they can also get away with manipulating it. Advertisers play on women's sexual self-esteem to make money, and the result is that women's lives revolve around pleasing men.

Sometimes women confuse sexual liberation with sexual obsession. Magazines and media tell them that taking control of their lives sexually is the same thing as having lots of sex. Men get sucked into the same trap. Women are especially vulnerable, however, because of their historical subordination to men. "Liberation" becomes another way for men to take advantage of women by constantly emphasizing their sexuality to the point of objectification.

Within the last two weeks, my eyes have opened to an entire world of injustice that I never knew of. I never knew that I would have to fight the image of the Bond Girls, the hard-bodied and brainy women who wear next to nothing and always end up in bed with James Bond. I never knew that women are, in essence, still trapped in the Stone Age. For some reason, it had surpassed me that I live in a world in which pop stars use their bodies to get what they want, female assistant district attorneys never speak in court and women are expected to keep men happy by whatever means necessary.

After my run-in with Cosmo, "The Little Mermaid" and "Law and Order," I was left wondering how far women's position in society has really gotten. Sure, women are now CEOs in powerful Fortune 500 companies, but there are still date auctions and kissing booths on college campuses.

So, despite all of the progress women have met in careers and the professional world, society still sees them as sex objects. Looks like the only pop culture I'll be taking in now is CNN and "Oprah." Lucky me.