Who Owns The Female Body?
Wow has this been fascinating! As much as people are accusing me of instigating all of this attention, I can only tell the truth, that I never, ever, in a million, jillion years dreamt that anyone would care about those pictures or be interested in seeing them or want to talk about it for months on end. But they do. The hits to my flickr site have topped 700,000. No, seriously. How funny is that? 700,000. I just continue to be amazed--AMAZED--at what's happening.
As I said, there wasn't some master plan: "Hey, I know, I will write an inflammatory editorial and then 6 months later post 3 topless pictures on my flickr site and then make sure that people who hate me find out about my web site and then hope that they get all obsessed with every aspect of my existence and link from the web site to my flickr site and then find those pictures and then tell the whole world and then I will be on the news! Moooo-hoooo-ha-ha-ha-ha!"
I mean really, in terms of a strategy, it's a pretty dicey one. Nonetheless, that's basically what's happened, and I don’t mind, but now I am dealing with being, well, a human Rorschach test. Everybody seems to project onto me whatever she needs to see. Need a crazed feminazi? At your service. Need a hypocritical prude? Here I am. Need an incompetent academic? Right-o. Need an arrogant exhibitionist? C'est moi.
I cannot tell you how fascinating it is to watch these various condemnatory narratives about me spin around in cyberspace. Of course there's also the other versions of me circulating, that I am a woman comfortable in her own skin; working for social justice; owning her own power; resisting sexism; asking valid questions about our values and beliefs; behaving with compassion; showing courage in the face of massive criticism-- of her looks, including her breasts and entire body, as well as her politics, intellect, pedagogy and sanity. (Needless to say I prefer these latter versions of Dr. Diana, and I again thank those of you who have written to tell me I inspire hope. That's all I want to do. Period.)
So anyway a friend sent me a link yesterday to yet another website where folks are holding forth about me and it seems what's become my posse, another topfree teacher and someone who threatened a toddler. Huh? I have no idea what that means—the toddler threatening--or why I am lumped in with her, because honestly I didn't read it. It’s none of my business. But I did skim through the myriad comments about me to see how I am being represented.
As usual, there's the "oh-it's-not-the-topless-photos" disclaimers, which just kill me, because OF COURSE IT IS. What's it feel like to have to talk out of both sides of your mouth? I don't know, because I work really hard on being authentic. My choices are conscious, my belief systems well-scrutinized, my actions examined--by me, I mean, the one person I am answerable to. So I don't have to run around saying one thing and then doing another. I like it this way, and I do wonder what motivates people to have to be so hypocritical. “It's not the topless pictures but let's talk endlessly about them and attack her for her choice to post them to her site.” Sheesh.
Obviously no one wants to cop to being uptight about the pictures because that's just so uncool. We're all educated, sophisticated adults, here, right? We understand the body isn't in and of itself corrupt or fallen or undignified, right? We know that only this culture at this time makes the breasts taboo and then having thus fetishized them operates obsessively to cover up and expose them, right? We know the difference between a commercial sex site and someone's personal construction of self, right? Right, right, right, right, right.
So why does everybody give such a HUGE-normous Flying Flip about those few pixels in the shape of titties? I am glad you asked, because I happen to know the answer.
It's all about control. Of what? Women. Control of the female body. Control of female sexuality. Control, control, control. Oh, it's perfectly fine for Hooters to sponsor the baseball game I went to last night. It's perfectly fine for women paid to dress up as servile objects wearing outfits designed to eroticize their bodies to walk around and hand tee-shirts to little children. It's perfectly fine for everyone to see the female breast deemed a HOOTER, and for that derogatory name to be splashed all over the baseball field and the women's chests and the shirts they are giving away.
Why? Because "Hooters" is a space designed by men, for men, for male pleasure, and thus promotes the control of the female by first turning us into things, reducing us to mammaries, then taking those mammaries away from us and putting them into male--er--hands, as it were. Hooters is all about the male gaze; those young women prancing around in short shorts and tight tee-shirts last night were NOT doing it for their own pleasure. They were doing it for money, for the money controlled by men—who hoard all the resources in this culture in case you haven't noticed.
There's a difference between defining your own eroticism and having it defined for you. There's a difference between being forced to expose yourself for commercial reasons and doing so as a form of expression. There’s a difference between being reduced to a thing and having sexuality integrated into your full identity. These differences are not at all hard to understand, and so I believe firmly that those who pretend to not be able to tell the difference do so because it promotes their ideological agenda, which is nothing short of control of women.
It's not just men who work to control us, of course. Women too work very hard to promulgate a sexist culture. We do so because we are promised a degree of safety and dignity and protection if we do. So it makes sense to be sexist, in a sense, even if you are female and that means you need to be working constantly against your own freedom and sanity and health.
I was one of these women myself until I actually read feminist theory and, thanks to the introduction of all those wonderful ideas no one had ever bothered to teach me in all of my years of education in patriarchal institutions, got the chance to think for myself. Most women don’t have this chance, haven’t read these books, haven’t talked to hundreds of other feminists as I have. So I was not surprised last night while reading that website that attacks me and other women to find that it is written by a woman, nor was I surprised that a number of the respondents were female.
What did get my attention though was what one of them said. Of course she starts off by saying that she doesn't have any problem with pictures like these. (See above for an explanation of why this bizarre disclaimer always comes just before the emission of sexist criticism of their existence.) Then, she goes on to say, she’s got no problem with pictures like these-- as long as they are KEPT IN THE HUSBAND'S WALLET.
To repeat: It’s ok to have pictures like these, as long as they are kept in the husband’s wallet.
No seriously, it says that. So as she sees it, women are allowed to be sexual beings, thanks, and even to create images of ourselves that include nudity and even eroticism, great--as long as these images remain the property of a male. Wait, huh? As long as these images remain the property of a male. Right there in his wallet with all of his other possessions. Reminds me of the commandment about not coveting thy neighbor’s wife, nor servants, nor animals, nor any of that STUFF that belongs to the other man.
Sorry sister. I don't belong to any man. Not at all. I am my own being. Totally and completely. I know it's scary, but you should try it some time. Then you can put pictures of yourself wherever you want. Just expect to catch all kinds of grief from total strangers for daring to have an identity that isn’t defined by male parameters. But you'll be able to handle it, because these selves we forge in the face of resistance are strong and beautiful.
Mazel tov.
Comments
"Obviously no one wants to cop to being uptight about the pictures because that's just so uncool."
I really love how these people don't mind using the word "tits" instead breasts. I guess thats just another sign of how hip they are, right? HAHA! It's hysterical really.
I have people that follow me all over the net trashing me. It's so interesting to be sought after in cyber space.
Posted by: Liz | July 15, 2006 12:41 PM
Go Dr. Diana. I read what "whats her tits" n(pum intended) had to say (Dr. Helen) and I find your perspective interesting. I never looked at it as a control issue in terms of men having it. Control, that is. I do remember discussing this very issue while I was pregnant. So many people, especially men, had an issue with my choice to give birth without medication. I kept telling them that I saw using meds in childbirth as a way for a Dr. to have control over me. Whether I screamed, grunted, made noise, lashed out etc. Fortunately I had a Midwife who supported me as well as a husband.
I appreciate your perspective on teaching feminism also. I'm not fond of many femisnists because they tend to villify men. I happen to like men. I just don't like how they behave in some cases. But, I had a professor in college who also warned students the first day of class. His came in a large, red warning on the front of his syllabus. It was intentional. It was to let students know that he would be challenging our ideas and making us uncomfortable. (I took 5 of the 6 classes he taught.) I found it interesting that it was the women who dropped his class. Hmmm, I wonder why? (note of heavy laden sarcasm) It was due to his challenging the conservative patriarchy in the society that I grew up in. (Utah, the heart of Mormon country)
I've let it be known on my blog that you are one of my heroines. Keep up your individuality, I want to grow up to be just like you. You Rock!
Posted by: Molly Sue | July 15, 2006 03:11 PM
Maybe women have more power that you realize. It is true, I was attracted to your site by the news item that a USC prof had bared her breasts on a website. Not ashamed of that, in a sense you exerted your power to get me here. I submissively took the hook to see your areolas. I was so impressed, not only with the pictures but with your message that you are now a shortcut on my screen. I am a daily visitor, part of the 700K hits. I was getting concerned while you were on vacation. When there is no new post I just visit "the" pictures.
With that many hits you need to start promoting a book. I hope it has a centerfold pic.
Posted by: Bushman | July 15, 2006 05:00 PM
In response to the post above, I don't think Dr. Blaine has "control over me" for being a woman, but rather I listen to what she has to say because she is confident and thoughtful. I don't think of her as a woman, in a sense, but rather as an intelligent person. One could come to the same thoughts as she without being a woman (indeed, I many times have).
I also noticed that the website Dr. Blaine linked to had another link to Cardinal Martini's website. He claims that Dr. Blaine discriminates against men, but I couldn't find that supported anywhere in her actual memos. She asks everyone in the class to have an open-mind, and not to shout out their own defamatory comments (like "the class considers all men pigs"), which is a very fine policy. And it is a feminism class--if one were so sure that feminism was wholly wrong, they must know a great deal about it, and thus wouldn't need to take the class.
Also, Dr. Blaine, if you read this, I would very much like to get in touch with you about your classes. I'm also currently speaking to Prof. Natania Meeker about her upcoming Feminism class.
Posted by: Sean N | July 15, 2006 06:40 PM
Brilliant analysis of your nude pictures vs. those women who show their bodies simply to please men. I always thought that it was some sort of control issue but was never able to sort it out as clearly as you do here. You are a large threat to those men who want to retain the traditional control than men had(have) over women. You do not have a man controlling your thoughts or your actions, which is wonderful because you are your own person, a real individual, but it is a threat to traditional men who think that women should be their submissive little kittens. Also many women have been brought up thinking the same way and are ashamed of accepting/enjoying their own bodies and therefore are threatened by you. All these people need to get the sticks out of their a**es and grow up! (note: obviously not all men think this way, and I am very grateful to those who don't)
Thank you for standing up to all this. You are an inspiration - it brightens my day, everyday, to know that you are teaching feminism to college students, trying to break through the pop-culture view of women and their bodies, and are fighting back to those who disagree with you.
I am very interested in reading feminist literature (already read Feminine Mystique), and am looking for other great feminist literature to read in order to educate myself more on it, so if anyone has suggestions, they would be greatly appreciated!
Posted by: chemist | July 15, 2006 09:33 PM
I posted once before about wanting to learn about feminism. I can't imagine how swamped you must be. I thought I might try once more though. I am interested in reading feminine theory. What books would you recommend?
Thanks.
anon
Posted by: anon | July 16, 2006 04:48 AM
Hey Anon--yes sorry if your request got lost in the storm! Anyway, there's tons of great stuff out there--maybe begin with a fiction like Marge Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time. This utopian novel imagines a world free from our "isms," including racism, sexism, and classism.
As to theory, bell hooks has a short little intro called Feminism is for Everybody. This text gives an overview of all the ways that feminist intervention can make our world better.
You've got me thinking that perhaps I can create a "course" on feminism available to the public. That way we can all study more in-depth material together, the kinds of readings that I assign in my class. Thanks for inspiring me this morning. Peace.
Posted by: Diana | July 16, 2006 08:44 AM
Ooh. That would be Great!
On-line Feminist Theory Reading Room!
I'm in!
Posted by: Louisa | July 16, 2006 11:00 AM
diana, my apologies for using your blog as a personal forum...
anon -
i saw your question on another post, and wanted to share my opinion, and i hope you dont mind. it is this: if you want your daughter to be strong and independent, set an example. this doesn't mean you must divorce your husband or that you must stay with him, but if you do stay, you must stand up to him on issues that are important to you. if he doesnt change, and behaves as you described, your daughter will grow up thinking that his is acceptable male behavior.
Posted by: pirate! | July 17, 2006 01:32 AM
I'm all for some online courses for the public on feminism! Like so many other areas of learning, it can be hard to find good intro books vs. good advanced books; and even good vs. bad scholarship.
Posted by: Janelle | July 17, 2006 10:34 AM
Diane, thanks so much. Your idea of an online course is fantastic!
Pirate, I don't mind you sharing your opinion. I hope I can be a good role model for my daughter. I am trying.
Posted by: anon | July 17, 2006 07:32 PM
Sorry. Diana. not Diane. I know a Diane so it was a tired fingers typo on my part. Time for bed!
Posted by: anon | July 17, 2006 07:33 PM
You inspire me every day. You give me hope every day. You teach me every day.
Damn, I miss having you in my life every Monday, Wednesday, Friday.
Posted by: Ernie D | July 18, 2006 12:21 AM
Well, here you go: shaving your armpits is not linked to breast cancer. Can't you make the point that shaving one's armpits is stupid without being a liar about it? Dolt.
This link to the American Cancer Society was updated January 31, 2006.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_6_1x_Antiperspirants.asp
Posted by: john | July 18, 2006 09:28 AM
Yes, I agree with the Dr. It is about control, and ownership. But once something is out in the public you no longer fully own it. Ask any celebrity. So your pictures are now, as I just read, visited daily by many, many fans. I sense from the post that you're a bit mystified by that. I’m not sure how I would feel in the same situation.
I wouldn’t agree with the Chemist’s idea that the people who oppose Dr. Diana and her actions need to grow up, or suffer from "sticks in their asses." These are people deeply invested in the patriarchal traditions of our society. They are fighting for their way of (adult) life.
Women’s empowerment threatens not merely their way of thinking, which is not so much childish as ancient, women’s empowerment threatens them, culturally, socially, economically. The society in which we live is founded on (white) male supremacy and it has reproduced itself continuously to this day. The detractors are only trying to make sure their grandchildren will also enjoy the traditional privileges of male dominance, without the likes of people like Dr. Diana demonstrating to the rest of us how to challenge them and their power.
Posted by: Lisa | July 24, 2006 02:56 PM
You know, I have been checking this site regularly. I find it interesting to say the least. But, well, just today, I was sitting here reading something, and it hit me.....feminists are ashamed of being women. That’s all I have to say.
Posted by: B from MN | July 24, 2006 09:53 PM
This is regarding the comment left by "B from MN" who asserts above me that feminists are ashamed of being women. I totally agree! With one alteration: Feminists are ashamed of being the subordinate creatures that patriarchal society insists women are. Feminists are proud of being the hairy, sweaty, outspoken, intelligent, assertive, "insert favorite masculine adjective here," PEOPLE that women truly are. I am ashamed of the ideal that we strive (myself sometimes included) so desperately to attain. But I think that B from MN mistakes the ideal for the natural reality, and yes, we should all be ashamed of that.
Posted by: Merci | July 25, 2006 03:46 PM
what is the difference between telling a woman she should look like the ideal and telling a woman that if she does, she's a victim of media oppression?
i am thin and by most standards, fairly attractive. that said, im very tired of being told i dont eat enough or having people assume im anorexic because im thin. im not. and i dont care about how i look, and i dont understand your obsession with being accepted as beautiful. wouldn't it be better to ignore the media than to harp on about it? it seems that Diana wants to change the standard of what the media finds attractive, rather than abolish the standard all together.
parents have a responsibility to teach their children the difference between reality and fiction. if you can't accept the way you look, just wait around a while, and you'll die and then maybe you'll understand how little it matters. see.
Posted by: yawn... | July 25, 2006 04:44 PM
"Feminists are proud of being the hairy, sweaty, outspoken, intelligent, assertive, "insert favorite masculine adjective here,". I hate to say it Merci but you proved my point....you described a man.
Posted by: B from MN | July 25, 2006 08:54 PM
Merci, if you're a man, you are one of my FAVORITE "men." (You can tell the guy who called you that has never, ever, met you.... Rrrowww!)
See you at Burning Man, baby!
Posted by: Diana | July 26, 2006 03:20 PM
Hi Dr. Diana,
Great blog. Lately I've been feeling like I wasn't a feminist anymore, simply because I'm so fatigued by the sexism that so many women deliver towards other women! So I appreciated your insights about why women can be sexist as well as men and my interest in feminism has been renewed.
Posted by: alison | July 28, 2006 11:04 PM
I guess all you really might have wanted from the pictures on Flickr was the occassional "nice tits" comment, sorry to hear this got blown out of the water for no reason.
Oh and by the way...
"Nice tits"
Posted by: Glyn Clarke | July 31, 2006 10:02 AM
Great post about Hooters sponsoring a baseball game. It reminds me of my friend's birthday party at a strip club. Am I the only guy who thinks strip clubs are CREEPY? How can all these guys ignore the fact that there are a couple hundred guys sitting next to them. Guys who smell like guys. Guys with money. Guys who get attention because they have money.
A DJ once complained on-air about how he was done with strip clubs because all the girls want is money. They're nice to you so they can get your money. You can't start anything real with a stripper because all they want is money. How did he not know it was fake and all about money when he walked in the door?! What freaking planet are these guys on?
Of course, this didn't stop me from developing a major crush on the lesbian stripper at the birthday party. LOL
Anyway, back to the point... I think the money/control thing is damaging to men as well. It's shallow, lonely, devoid, deprived... they are implicitly taught they cannot connect with someone except through status/money/control. And women wonder why so many men are distant.
I think part of the reason a lot of men aren't drawn to feminism is the preconception that it's about female victims; and sympathy for people who can't seem to stand up for themselves is in short supply. But if these guys saw how escaping this objectification and control could free MEN, maybe things would be different.
Frederick Douglas made a similar argument over 100 years ago, about how you damage yourself when you own slaves. Gandhi and MLK, too, pointed out how oppressors free themselves when they surrender their grip on others.
Posted by: JT | August 3, 2006 09:46 PM