Ostrich Media

It's been a pretty good couple of weeks in terms of casual conversations blowing up into full-on philosophical debates. First, there was the gender-sex work-science-oppression-empowerment thing from last week. And now, I've been inspired to blather about the role of news media in society (actually, that came up in last week's posts, too).

Before we start, some full disclosure: I am a journalist. Set your bias metres thusly.

A friend suggested last week that the publication I work for should stop writing stories about the sad state of the economy, stories about companies laying off workers, reducing budgets and things like that. His rationale was that, by adding to the endless wave of negativity, media outlets were only adding to, and prolonging the misery. Better, he thought, to write stories of a more positive nature and demonstrate to readers that there is good reason to go on living well and working hard.

I see his point. The economic crisis is, after all, at least partly a crisis of confidence. But my friend is still absolutely, unequivocally wrong about the job of a journalist. Which is to say, a reporter has to report on what happens. If General Motors lays off thousands of workers, that's big news that affects stakeholders ranging from employees to investors to business partners. People may wince as they read about the cuts, but they need to know about them. 

I certainly can't imagine that many reporters out there aren't depressed and bored from constantly writing about this topic. But it is the single most important and widespread issue out there right now. It affects just about every type of publication and individual journalist. If you're a political reporter, you're writing about the terrible economy. Same goes for business and even sports reporters. I'd include entertainment reporters, but if you're an entertainment reporter, you've probably already lost your job.

In other words, a journalist couldn't ignore this issue if he or she tried.

But he or she shouldn't try too hard, because then he or she would be shirking his or her responsibility. Whether reporting on bad news (the economy) or controversial news (for example, the sex research referenced in last week's blog posts), a journalist has no duty protect jobs or stock markets or political ideals or feelings. The only duty is to the truth.

Post-script: Sontag Gets the Last Word

A final (for now) addendum to last week's posts about gender, sexuality, science and the various waves of feminism. The late Susan Sontag, whose journals I have not read, was tackling these questions in her private thoughts way back in 1962. 

Some of those thoughts are excerpted here.

The gist, as it pertains to last week's posts? Sontag felt that while women may indeed get off on being the object of male desire, this was the product of conditioning, not an innate difference between genders. 

So is nothing innate when it comes to gender-specific differences in behaviour? That seems unlikely. And that's what makes this stuff so maddeningly interesting - trying to determine what's nature and what's nurture when we know elements of both are in play.

Sex, Science and the Pursuit of Knowledge

Okay, this is the third and last in what has become a series about sex (in every sense of the word) and science. 

The whole "prostitution/stripping/porn ALWAYS equals oppression/sexism vs. prostitution/stripping can SOMETIMES be viewed, by the prostitute/stripper as empowering" argument got me thinking about the so-called waves of feminism. A little googling confirmed my dim memories that Second-Wave feminism, at least as espoused by the likes of Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, tended toward a victim theory of women and sex work/pornograpy, while Third-Wavers rejected these propositions, dismissing them as, in their own, probably less objectionable way, stereotypical, reductive and puritanical (essentially, not dissimilar from the anti-sex views of conservative, patriarchal churches, even if coming from a different rhetorical place).

Phew. That was one easy-reading paragraph.

Anyway, defining feminism in terms of monolithic "waves" is itself reductive, and obviously very few women would define themselves by either term. And, of course, the argument over the meanings of these terms continues to rage. 

For example, witness this (admittedly outdated) exchange between feminists, one a sex worker and the other a women's study professor. Regardless of where one falls in the argument, the emails illustrate how fallacious it is to presume someone else's motives - and also to presume that sex workers are necessarily uninformed about feminist theory. 

Erroneous presumptions are just one unfortunate consequence of people being so guided by political principle that they miss out on contradictory truths. It's been suggested to me - not directly, but that's the inference I gleaned - that research like the kind I've referenced in the last couple of posts is dangerous because it could be interpreted as a justification for the continued oppression and objectification of women. I get that, and I get that, as a man, I have the luxury of considering these things in purely philosophical terms. But the notion that experiments should not be undertaken, or not reported on, because the results might upset our political beliefs, is deeply disturbing to me.  

An equality based on the suppression of knowledge, or even the suppression of attempts to gain knowledge, is a false equality. 

Let's Talk About Sex (Again)

Yesterday's post about recent sex research didn't quite come out of nowhere. The impetus was a conversation among friends over the weekend about female sex workers, including strippers. Some of us thought that just about anyone who worked in this field was a victim of some circumstance or another - drug addiction, sexual assault or just old-fashioned low self-esteem. My view was that, while these kinds of victims might be over-represented in the sex trade as compared to other fields of work, it's a mistake to view the people who make up that industry in such a uniform way. That women might have any number of reasons for getting into the business, and that many of them might throw a good and proper spazz if they were presumed to be helpless victims. After all, pity, when misplaced, is just well-intentioned condescension. 

The research I referred to in yesterday's post seemed to posit an alternative explanation for why at least a small percentage of women might get into sex work - namely, because being the object of desire is a potential turn-on. This dovetails a little too nicely with the male-fantasy view of female sex workers, and I don't think this theory represents a majority, or even a big minority, of women in the business. But it at least offers some reasonably scientific ammunition for the argument that women can find some form of empowerment, or at least control, in the sale of their own bodies.

But if I believe in this argument, then surely I can't have a problem with Natalie Dylan (not her real name), a 22-year-old American college student who's auctioning off her virginity online. And yet, this kind of grosses me out in a way that the business of ordinary strippers and hookers doesn't. Why is that?

Is it because of the money involved? So far, the top bid for Dylan's hymen is a staggering $3.8 million U.S. dollars, an amount that goes beyond what even the highest-priced call girls could make in a lifetime. But if I can believe that a woman can be in complete control of her choice to sell her body for a few hundred dollars per hour, how can I begrudge a woman who gets a better price?

A Salon writer wrestles with similar questions in this post, which is well worth reading.

As for me, I think I can identify what does make this feel different than the more familiar permutations of the sex trade. Mainly, Dylan's own explanation of the auction as empowering reeks of confused, youthful idealism. No matter how much she thinks she's turning the tables on the odd male obsession with virginity, it doesn't change the fact that whoever ends up with the winning bid is buying the patriarchal ideal of the untouched innocent, not the empowered woman. Her rationalization of this stunt as a feminist move simply doesn't hold water.

By comparison, the typical prostitute-john relationship at least contains a certain level of honesty. A man buys sex from a woman, knowing full well that she's done it many times before. The woman takes the money and gives up her body, knowing full well that it's neither an act of self-debasement or a statement of female power, but rather a basic business transaction. Neither party is delusional about the meaning (I'm talking here about what I assume to be the majority of these kinds of transactions...I know that there are all kinds of other, more dangerous permutations that take place).

Moving away from strippers and hookers, but sticking with the sex, here's an article that examines the work of Daniel Bergner - the same guy who wrote the Times articles I linked to yesterday. This piece deals less with gender differences than "deviant" sexuality, but there's some of the former mixed in as well. And once again, there's reference to experiments where subjects' verbal responses to sexual imagery don't match up with their physiological responses, which I think is fascinating.

Fascinating because it shows us how much we continue to be confused about human sexuality. We have our bodies, our minds and our interaction with other people and with mass culture, all of which creates a confusing jumble. We don't know what feelings come from where, or what to do with them. We just know that they're there, and probably always will be.

Your Vagina Is Lying

Or is it your brain?

An article in the Jan. 25 New York Times brings to light some fascinating research about female sexuality. The article's by a man, but the research he draws on is by a sexologist named Meredith Chivers. If you're looking for a quick read that encompasses animal porn, gender politics and rape fantasies, this is the piece you need to check out. 

The article, and the research, is sure to get engines of controversy revving all over the place. For example, one subject it tackles concerns women's physiological response during rape, suggesting that the fact that women often become lubricated during an assault means that such a physical response is defensive measure against injury. Which, in turn, suggests that there may be a disconnect between women's brains and bodies when it comes to sexual arousal (the research also notes that women whose genitals were hooked up to special testing devices while they watched various kinds of sexual imagery reported different kinds of reactions verbally than their genitals themselves were reporting). Whereas men's brains and penises were more on the same wavelength.

But if there's a brain-body disconnect with women, how to explain rape fantasies. This Slate blog debates the question. And this Slate blog bats around the issues raised by the article overall (you'll have to scroll down for the relevant posts, but you'll find them).

Me, I'm caught between two kinds of skepticism here. On one hand, I reflexively cringe at the idea of men's and women's sexuality being so fundamentally different. But part of that is probably political and cultural wiring - I know what I'm supposed to think, in terms of being politically correct. On the other hand, I'm also skeptical of the idea that defined, biological, gender roles and responses exist throughout the animal world, but somehow humans are exempt, with human men and women equal in every possible way. Then again, humans aren't just like every other animal, are we, and the conditioning we get as we go through life can often trump natural or biological factors.

To find our way to the truth about sex and gender, we all have to wade through the dense forest of science, politics and culture. This piece of research might not solve all the riddles, but it's a reminder that the path is worth taking.

Of Presidents and Genital Landscaping

Funniest ad in a long time.

Simple yet cheeky. It was developed by the Australian wing of ad agency Sharpe Blackmore Euro RSCG (can't wait until they buy naming rights for a sports stadium) for consumer packaged goods giant Reckitt Benckiser, which markets the hair removal product line Veet.

Funny, but also illuminating in terms of the universality of negative feelings toward President Bush. Huge companies and ad agencies generally avoid partisan political gags, but obviously they felt safe with this one.

Then again, maybe they were just saying an innocent goodbye.

Oscar the Slouch

The Oscar nominations were announced this morning, and as usual produced a few surprises and a few obvious choices. On a personal level, though, I have to say they were disappointing. The Wrestler, Rachel Getting Married, The Visitor and Doubt didn't get nominated for Best Picture - four of the five best movies I saw this year. The fifth, Slumdog Millionaire, did get a nomination, and coming off its Golden Globe win might even take the big award. And good for it if it does, despite the inevitable backlash that has already started (Slate's movie critic called it the "grandma movie" on the ballot, presumably because it has grand sweep and ends on an uplifting note). But to my mind, no movie that includes the burning out of children's eyeballs, train robberies and a series of head-rattling M.I.A. remixes could possibly be a granny flick.

Great also to see Slumdog director Danny Boyle get his due with a Best Director nomination. From Trainspotting through 28 Days Later (even Sunshine, for that matter), Boyle never fails to be interesting, even when he fails (The Beach, anyone?).

Can't argue with the actors - especially cool that The Visitor's Richard Jenkins is among the nominees. And does it really matter who else is in the Best Supporting Actor category along with Heath Ledger?

The actresses are all okay, too - or at least I haven't seen enough other movies to have a quibble. Winslet and Streep are nominated by birthright, of course, but the Leading Role Oscar should go to Anne Hathaway for Rachel Getting Married. In the Supporting category, Viola Davis has only one scene in Doubt, but I'd be shocked if anyone did a better scene in any movie this year.

I haven't seen The Reader or The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Of the other three, I hope it's Slumdog or Milk. Frost/Nixon is interesting for political junkies and features great performances, but it's a little slight.

But who cares what I think about the nominations. What really matters is what stars think of themselves. Accordingly, I link you to this Newsweek roundtable discussion, in which the usual celebrity angst and pap about "caring about the work" is hilariously broken up by Robert Downey Jr., whose blunt honesty, free-associating thought-stream and unique pidgin language proves that he never needed drugs to be weird.