I’ve been trying to formulate a response to Enlightened Sexism by Susan J. Douglas for the last five days, ever since I finished reading it. It wasn’t the most enjoyable read: the topic matter is, understandably, disturbing and Douglas bombards the reader with media and pop culture references, occasionally losing her own train of thought. Not an easy read then, but a relatively quick one and certainly interesting, even if many of the arguments and examples have been heard before.
Something about this book never quite clicked for me. I agreed with most everything Douglas said and yet at no time did I feel the excitement I usually do when following an argument that intrigues me. I think it might have been a case of too many examples and not enough analysis. It felt like Douglas got so caught up in her case studies that she forgot to tie them back to the points she was attempting to illustrate. Yes, the information presented was interesting, but what did it mean? Even her initial definition of enlightened feminism seems indistinct, beginning with a relatively clear statement (see below) but then dragging on for several pages:
Enlightened sexism is a response…to the perceived threat of a new gender regime. It insists that women have made plenty of progress because of feminism – indeed, full equity has been achieved – so now it’s okay, even amusing, to resurrect sexist stereotypes of girls and women. (p. 9)
I was able to tolerate Douglas’ use of Valley-Girl speak throughout (it was, like, really annoying) but I lost some respect for her when, while discussing the Sex and the City franchise, she made a sweeping generalization about the show appealing to all women. Seriously? No wonder I found the rest of the analysis confusing – even the author can’t remember that she’s supposed to be arguing against the stereotyping of women.
Two chapters particularly stood out for me: one was “Sex ‘R’ Us”, which turned my stomach with it’s details about how sexualized products are marketed to young girls, the other “You Go, Girl”, which discusses the portrayal of African-American women in the media. For me, and most Canadians I’ve talked to, race and religion are probably the two most confusing things about the U.S., the issues where our generally similar cultures differ the most. As soon as you cross the border, even into the Northern, liberal states, as an outsider you’re immediately aware that sensitivity to or at least consciousness of race relations saturates the culture and a natural mirror of that is the media. Douglas’ survey then, of stereotypes of black American women on television, was fascinating, but I really had no cultural frame of reference.
Unfortunately, one of what should have been the strongest chapters was the weakest for me, analyzing the portrayal of women with power, taking as examples Sarah Palin, Katie Couric, Hilary Clinton and, my favourite, Martha Stewart. Douglas’ argument isn’t particularly exciting or inventive:
It was the news media and its coverage of prominent, successful women that provided a Rorschach of lingering, jittery anxieties about women and power. Here, in the news, there remained a deep, unyielding contradiction between and discomfort with “female” and “power.” Forty years after the women’s movement, “female” is still equated with being nice, supportive, nurturing, accommodating, and domestic – not compatible with anything that might involve leadership. “Power” is equated with domination, superiority, being tough, even ruthless. These two categories simply are not supposed to go together. If some woman seeks to meld these polar opposites, our cultural magnets start spinning out of control, screaming “incongruous” and, even louder, “inappropriate.” (p. 272)
More importantly, I didn’t feel her examples were sufficient even for this tired old argument. Stewart and Clinton as symbols of power, absolutely, but Couric? Again, my cultural frame of reference may be skewed here, but does a news anchor really have that much power? She isn’t shaping government policy or running a business empire, she’s providing nightly news to a rapidly decreasing band of elderly viewers. Couric was the first woman to anchor an American evening news program on her own, granted, but is her power then granted simply by having been a pioneer in what many already view as a dying trade?
Obviously, not my favourite book of the year and not the book I’d hoped for, either as a student of media studies or of feminism, but still an interesting read for those interested in either topic. An essential read, perhaps, for the women of Generation Y, those who were just a bit too young for Ani DiFranco and Alanis Morissette, fading emblems of the last feminist push, and but who were just the right age for the mainstream swell of enlightened feminism, the post-Spice Girls fallout if you will.
The Captive Reader 
Interesting review! I love books like this but I find many of the more recent books on feminism have been light, fuzzy and badly argued, using the stereotypes they claim to be fighting against. It frustrates me. I find American focused books hard to identify with as well – despite the similarities between our own cultures the UK is very different when it comes to race, religion and media figures and I don’t always understand the relevance of arguments or whether I agree with them because I don’t get the cultural context. It’s interesting to hear that Canada is markedly different to the US in that respect too.
Yes! I definitely agree with you about the kind of feminist literature that has been published recently. But, on the other hand, the older literature can also be difficult to read, by being too heavy rather than too light, by being too extreme rather than too accomodating.
Having lived in the UK and spent significant time in the US, UK culture has always seemed to me much more accessible through literature, with social norms and codes much simpler to grasp. A large part of this may be childhood training: Canadian schools still use more British books than American ones in English classes and all Canadian literature (even from Quebec) has been influenced by our history as a colony, by the education system and values that shaped those writers, rather than by our neighbours to the south.
As always, it’s a been a pleasure reading your review. The part about Canada vs. US when it come to religion and race rang especially true.
I’m European and lived in the States for a while, in Atlanta. Race is even more of an issue in the South. I’ve never been so aware of my skin colour as back then. For the first time in my life I had to fill documents stating my race. It even took me a while to figure out if I was Caucasian or Latina (I’m Portuguese and considered part of the European Latin culture).
Don’t despait about a revived feminist push. Maybe the likes of Lady Gaga will surprise us yet!
I have to admit that I had no idea who Lady Gaga was until a couple of months ago. Even now, I’ve never heard any of her music. Clearly, my books have served to isolate and, perhaps, protect me?
Isn’t filling in your ethnicity weird? I’m not even remotely comfortable with sharing that information but they always say that the form can’t be processed correctly until all sections are completed. One of my friends once had to fill out a form where one of the options included was ‘Irish Traveller.” She’s from Shanghai, but that’s still the option she chose. Another friend, applying with the same form, chose “Roma”, though she’s Scottish as can be. We clearly have strange ways of defying authority…
I think I enjoyed this one just because I loooove TV, and I like reading about gender issues on TV shows. But I can understand your frustration, and I enjoyed her examples from real life far less (and found them less compelling) than the other parts of the book.
I went back and reread your review after finishing the book: one of the things I love most about book blogging is being able to see a book from someone else’s perspective like that. I liked the media examples, but I really do think there were too many. They were well picked, but I would really have enjoyed more thoughtful consideration of them.
I’m really intrigued by the fact that there’s a new wave of feminist books out (or at least it seems that way) and yet the majority have had mixed reviews at best. I think that points to the conflicts and contradictions at work in the Western world over women and their place in culture, and that we haven’t really unraveled them at all. Great review – very clear and engaging.
I absolutely agree – we’re still confused by the post-feminism role of women. I really did enjoy Douglas’ quote that I included above about women and power and, what’s more, I agreed with it. It’s certainly a field that’s crying out for more serious literature (rather than the frothy, media-studies-disgused-as-feminist-literature that has been published recently.)
Glad you enjoyed the review.
When I came across this post in my Google Reader I saved as to be able to pay it the attention that I felt it deserved. The title and cover of the book looked like a book just up my alley. Having read your review I’m not so sure anymore. Yet, I have to confess I’m still curious to see what I feel about it if I read it.
I’d definitely encourage you to read it for yourself and see what you think. I’ll be interested to hear your opinions!
I loved your review – I think I’d feel the same, reading this book. I agree with Iris – I would have been interested in reading this but now, not so much. Your comment about race and religion in the US – since I moved to Canada and come into contact with so many US bloggers and been exposed to more US tv, it’s really noticeable. And a bit scary!