Sex Roles

, Volume 66, Issue 11–12, pp 718–724 | Cite as

Beyond “Empowerment”? Sexuality in a Sexist World

Feminist Forum

Abstract

The subject of girls’ sexual empowerment is a fertile area for feminist debate. While most feminists are committed to the promotion of diverse and egalitarian sexual possibilities for girls (and women), we differ in our views on how to hold an aspirational vision alongside paying attention to real world constraints on its unfolding. A specific instance of this tension is posed in considering how relevant claims to individual empowerment are within a broader context that remains broadly sexist and limiting as well as saturated with racist and other forms of discrimination and inequality. In this paper, I join the dialogue opened by Lamb and Peterson (2011) to explore some of these questions. I argue that the concept of sexual empowerment, as taken up in these debates, might be too flexible to do the work we require of it. In particular, I suggest that it is unhelpful to fix our lens on claims of individual empowerment, if and where this involves eliding the broader sociocultural conditions of possibility for “intimate justice” (McClelland 2010) for girls and women; and, where it leads us to over-ride the psychosocial complexity of all individuals in ways that distract us from attending to ambivalence and understanding the “cruel attachments” that can bind us to injustice. Rather than seeking to offer an “‘expert’ view of empowerment,” I argue for the value of reflexive, empathic, and respectful feminist critique of the cultural conditions of possibility for such a thing.

Keywords

Sexual empowerment Feminism Postfeminism Sexuality Girls Cultural critique 

References

  1. Berlant, L. (2006). Cruel optimism. Differences: A journal of feminist cultural studies, 17, 20–36. doi:10.1215/10407391-2006-009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bordo, S. (1997). Twilight zones: The hidden life of cultural images from Plato to O.J. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cahill, A. J. (2009). Sexual violence and objectification. In R. J. Heberle & V. Grace (Eds.), Theorizing sexual violence (pp. 14–30). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Collins, P. H. (2005). Black sexual politics: African Americans, gender, and the new racism. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Coy, M. (2009). Milkshakes, lady lumps and growing up to want boobies: How the sexualisation of popular culture limits girls’ horizons. Child Abuse Review, 18, 372–383. doi:10.1002/car.1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Donaghue, N., Kurz, T., & Whitehead, K. (in press). Spinning the pole—a discursive analysis of the websites of recreational pole-dancing studios. Feminism & Psychology. Google Scholar
  7. Evans, A., Riley, S., & Shankar, A. (2010). Technologies of sexiness: Theorizing women’s engagement in the sexualization of culture. Feminism & Psychology, 20, 114–131. doi:10.1177/0959353509351854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fahs, B., & Delgado, D. A. (2011). The specter of excess: Race, class, and gender in women’s body hair narratives. In C. Bobel & S. Kwan (Eds.), Embodied resistance: Challenging norms, breaking the rules (pp. 13–25). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fine, M., & McClelland, S. I. (2006). Sexuality education and desire: Still missing after all these years. Harvard Educational Review, 76, 297–338.Google Scholar
  10. Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the “postsocialist” condition. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Gavey, N. (2005). Just sex? The cultural scaffolding of rape. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Gavey, N., Antevska, A., Pollard, W., Tanzer, A., Govender, M., Woods, K., et al. (2010a). Dancing in cages: Gender, sexuality and identity in relation to youth “raunch” culture. Unpublished interview data.Google Scholar
  13. Gavey, N., Antevska, A., Govender, M., Pollard, W., Ravlich, A., Tanzer, A., et al. (2010b, November 17–19). Dancing in cages in postfeminist bliss? Reflections on gender, identity, and sexuality at an Auckland “after-ball”. Paper presented at Contemporary Ethnography Across the Disciplines, Hui 2010, Hamilton, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  14. Gill, R. C. (2007). Critical respect: The difficulties and dilemmas of agency and ‘choice’ for feminism. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 14, 69–80. doi:10.1177/1350506807072318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gill, R. (2008a). Culture and subjectivity in neoliberal and postfeminist times. Subjectivity, 25, 432–445. doi:10.1057/sub.2008.28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gill, R. (2008b). Empowerment/sexism: Figuring female sexual agency in contemporary advertising. Feminism & Psychology, 18, 35–60. doi:10.1177/0959353507084950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gill, R. (2009). Supersexualize me! Advertising and “the midriffs”. In F. Attwood, R. Brunt, & R. Cere (Eds.), Mainstreaming sex: The sexualization of culture (pp. 93–109). I.B. Taurus.Google Scholar
  18. Jagose, A. (2010). Counterfeit pleasures: Fake orgasm and queer agency. Textual Practice, 24, 517–539. doi:10.1080/09502361003690849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kalish, R., & Kimmel, M. (2011). Hooking up: Hot hetero sex or the new numb normative? Australian Feminist Studies, 26, 137–151. doi:10.1080/08164649.2011.546333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lamb, S. (2010a). Feminist ideals for a healthy female adolescent sexuality: A critique. Sex Roles, 62, 294–306. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9698-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lamb, S. (2010b). Porn as a pathway to empowerment? A response to Peterson’s commentary. Sex Roles, 62, 314–317. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9756-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lamb, S., & Peterson, Z. (2011). Adolescent girls’ sexual empowerment: Two feminists explore the concept. Sex Roles. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9995-3. this issue.
  23. Levy, A. (2005). Female chauvinist pigs: Women and the rise of raunch culture. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  24. McClelland, S. I. (2010). Intimate justice: A critical analysis of sexual satisfaction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 663–680. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00293.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McRobbie, A. (2008). Pornographic permutations. The Communication Review, 11, 225–236. doi:10.1080/10714420802306676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peterson, Z. (2010). What is sexual empowerment? A multidimensional and process-oriented approach to adolescent girls’ sexual empowerment. Sex Roles, 62, 307–313. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9725-2.
  27. Smith, J. (2009, August 22). Parents hire cage dancers for school afterball. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10592447.
  28. Stuart, A. & Donaghue, N. (in press). Choosing to conform—The discursive complexities of choice in relation to feminine beauty practices. Feminism & Psychology, in press.Google Scholar
  29. Tolman, D. L. (2002). Dilemmas of desire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Walter, N. (2010). Living dolls: The return of sexism. London: Virago.Google Scholar
  31. Whitehead, K., & Kurz, T. (2009). “Empowerment” and the pole: A discursive investigation of the reinvention of pole dancing as a recreational activity. Feminism & Psychology, 19, 224–244. doi:10.1177/0959353509102218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations