Written by Katie Conlon

The earliest appearance of the infamous “feminist” nomenclature in American society can be traced to the early twentieth century and the women’s suffrage movement. However, over its 100 years of development, the term has morphed with each generation, taking on a meaning far from the original. In the third wave of feminism the term, and those who subscribe to it, have come under heavy scrutiny by the media. As everyone from undergraduate columnists to heavyweight government officials have weighed in,  it is nearly impossible to find a consensus on the topic. However, one thing is abundantly clear: the media heavily influences men’s and women’s views about feminism. Through its form, values, sources, politics, and rhetoric, American media is influencing a movement that has the potential to shape a generation of female leaders and to build upon the gains and sacrifices of earlier generations.

As such a hot topic in the United States, it is no surprise that feminism has received a plethora of media attention. A search for “feminism” in the LexisNexis database yields results indicative of this extensive coverage: 990 newspaper articles, 320 magazine articles, and 227 broadcast transcripts. Because it is such a politically and socially charged topic, most of the articles on feminism are editorials. It would be nearly impossible for a news outlet to present feminism objectively, hence the necessity for individuals to tell their personal stories and give personal opinions on the subject.

The 2012 presidential election sparked heated debates about feminism. One of the most recent catalysts in this ongoing political debate came from Fox News. The traditionally conservative news outlet published an editorial by Suzanne Venker, “The War on Men,” where she covered the extreme right-wing opinion by making outrageous, stand-alone statements such as “women aren’t women anymore…women are angry.” She ended with the ultimatum: “There is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature—their femininity.” Venker’s commentary on the state of present-day women outraged those on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Her editorial sparked dozens of rebuttals, articulating the liberal reaction to Venker’s conservative values.

Alexandra Petri’s editorial, “Feminists are Ruining America,” appeared in The Washington Post just days after Venker’s article. In a direct reaction to Venker’s opinion, Petri expresses bitter outrage at many of her assertions. Interestingly, Venker never used the term feminism in her article, but it appears in the very first sentence of Petri’s. Petri calls Venker’s values “straw feminism,” a fringe form of feminism that “blame[s] those terrible fire-breathing females [of] the 1970s” and refuses to acknowledge that contemporary feminism has evolved. However, Petri’s argument is so politically polarized and bitter that it loses most of its effect. So, instead of addressing the problem of redefining feminism, both of these women, and unfortunately most of the American media, do nothing more than feed a vicious, uncompromising political debate, fueled by the recent election, which proves to inflame the problem instead of mitigate it.

Fortunately, there is good news for feminism. Some media outlets are consciously trying to focus on understanding how the term has evolved over time, before political agendas beat it into an unrecognizable shape that fit their selfish re-election needs.

Two of these outlets, PBS and AOL, teamed up in February 2012 to create a documentary titled MAKERS: Women Who Make America. After a year of collecting interviews with over 100 women, the media series aired on PBS last Tuesday night. Makers focuses on the individual stories of women, and in so doing constructs a kind of quilt of feminisms. As Charlotte Bunch, an international women’s rights activist said, “When you take away the term feminist you have a hard time … The loss of the term and the political battle over terminology is a very powerful thing … and we are certainly facing the consequence of it being seen as a dirty word.”

By interviewing women from all walks of life Makers illustrates that there is no one definition or kind of feminism. To watch Makers visit www.makers.com or check out your local PBS channel.

Katie is a freshman at Ohio University studying history. Follow her on Twitter @kattcon or email her at kc411511@ohio.edu.

Image via StoryvilleFilms.org

By Matt Lardner

“It’s a close game,” encourages the advertisement for Astroglide lubricant. “Go into overtime.” The smoky-eyed, scantily clad vixen certainly appears prepared to extend the game. Her sexualized pose, shirt draped to cover but accentuate her breasts, and lacy panties are certainly fit for the bedroom. But one thing seems out of place: the eye black. In comparing sexual conquest to an adversarial sport, Astroglide attempts to hook the young male demographic. But the extended metaphor comparing football to sex comes up well short of the goal line. The ad’s interpretation of sex as a competitive battle is forwarding backwards and outdated perceptions about intercourse.

The line, “It’s a close game,” could be interpreted in multiple ways. Of course, a close game refers to the imagined football clash that will take more time to climax and conclude. Sexually, it could be a nod to proximity; intimacy happens in close quarters, and many men see hooking up with women as nothing more than a game. A group of men, called Pick-up Artists or PUAs, believe there is a science to attracting women, and devote their lives to learning and developing methodology and techniques to get women to sleep with them. In the Internet-based communities, individual women are called HB# (Hot Bitch/Body preceding a rating of their appearance.)  There are obvious quandaries associated with seeing pick-up as a game; many PUAs report desensitization and an inability to achieve emotional intimacy with women. While viewing seduction as a game makes approaching women more fun, it promotes sexism and misogynistic mores among its practitioners.

In football, the teams are competing against one another to win the game. In the box of text, Astroglide promises to “give you plenty of ways to finish off the game with a big win.” It’s dangerous to adopt this attitude when considering sex. Are there winners and losers in consensual intercourse?  By redefining sexual initiation, we empower both sexes to enjoy carnal pleasure together.  It’s not about the man “winning” against the women, and getting her to reluctantly consent by wearing down her resistance instead of stimulating her. Women should be seen as sexual teammates, not adversaries. If sex is a game, it’s a cooperative one, with two partners working together to maximize mutual pleasure.

The woman in the ad looks to be dressing rather than undressing, an assumption corroborated by the insinuation that the regular “game” is over at this point. If she’s finished with the act, why is it being encouraged for the man to continue it? This hints at pushing against the will of the female, and may be saying that it does not matter if the woman feels done or not as long as the man is still craving more. The foot-in-the-door theory is a philosophical idea that once a person has already agreed with a request, they are more likely to accept future requests, even if they are more extreme than the initial one. Even if the woman pictured isn’t interested in more sex, she will feel obligated to consent because she already has once. If both partners do not want overtime, then it’s fundamentally wrong for the man to coerce a partner into sex when they do not want it.

Too often, male-targeted media objectifies women, fetishizing them as voluptuous sex dolls, or even as warm cavities. Empowered women aren’t marketable. Even the tag line presented in the bottom right corner furthers a promiscuous agenda. “Be open to fun. Be open to Explore. Be open.” There’s nothing wrong with a woman having any amount of desired, protected sex, but there is something wrong with trying to goad women into it. When interpreted literally, the ad is saying that women should open their legs. The insinuation is that men would never need to be talked into sex, but that a woman needs to be reminded to explore their sexuality. This view of females as a dainty and sexually hesitant gender does little to forward the independence of the modern, liberated woman.

If the use of eye black is supposed to make the model seem tough and empowered, it lacks effectiveness. No matter what you are wearing on your face, using your beauty to hawk a sexual product isn’t exactly liberating for feminists looking for respect. Eye black could also be seen as a reference to spousal abuse, a homage to a time when the man was more or less allowed to assert his dominance over his wife with his fists. Either condoning domestic violence or a misguided overture of female empowerment; now that’s a double bind that’s tough to negotiate.

Astroglide’s ad gets female sexuality wrong in a way that’s damaging to both men and women. Men are being wired to battle for sex, an effort to wear down the girl and win the vaginal prize. With this attitude, some men look to unlock sex through gaming women, winning them like sex is a quest with a bounty reward delivered under the sheets. It also hurts woman’s liberation. Pushing men to continue when a woman isn’t eager creates a gray area defining consensual intercourse against coerced intercourse. It invalidates a woman’s ability to refuse sex. The use of eye black is subverted by the fetishized model as well as conjuring a stigma of historic relationship abuse. The advertisement tarnishes perceptions of both genders, and is a socially malicious threat towards equality and feminism.

Matt is a sophomore at Ohio University majoring in  journalism. Follow him on Twitter @MattLardner or email him at ml508710@ohio.edu

Image via Ebay