Page 962 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 17 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
One of the major changes EEO practice has brought about in the workplace has been the removal of sexist material displayed in the workplace. It is only a very short time since we recall seeing in almost every garage, for example, depictions of that nature; that is, material that demeans women and trivialises their position in society by depicting them as simply sex objects, often accompanied by ridicule and sexual commentary. It is well recognised that this practice was in direct conflict with equal employment legislation. How could we support the strides made by many on equal pay, access to jobs and child-care, whilst condoning this inequitable and demeaning portrayal of coworkers in our society? The removal and non-approval of these depictions in the workplace has had a profoundly positive effect on the self-esteem, dignity and confidence of women.
Why then is it seen as such a trivial issue that women and men are constantly barraged by sexist depictions in everyday society? I am not referring to images of sexual expression. I want to make that perfectly clear. This argument is not about showing body parts, or depictions of adults in sexual acts. They are the least offensive. In fact, if women are to control their own expression of sexuality we must ensure that the evangelists and moralists do not sully this debate with prohibition-type anti-sex red herrings that would take away the power of women to define their own sexuality in our society. Our society will never be free of sexual images, nor should it be. If sexual images are banned, women cannot redefine the media image of their sexuality themselves, and Consolidated Press will continue to do it for them.
It confuses the issue when X-rated videos, which are controlled by legislation and are not permitted to depict sexual violence, coercion or non-consent of any kind, and are limited in access to adults only who actively seek them out from designated outlets, are targeted in the same way as the material that abounds without these restrictions. I refer to the R-rated movies, many magazines available in newsagencies, advertisements on the screen, and publications freely available to all, which consistently portray women in demeaning, trivialised images, often the victims of sexual violence where the perpetrators are the heroes and not the villains, which blatantly contradicts all the moves made on addressing sexist practice elsewhere.
A movie released recently, enjoying huge box office success, serves to illustrate a sad indictment of society that accepts as normal that a hero can rape a woman, kill her, and then enjoy her undying devotion with her last breath. That this scenario was part of a plot is acceptable; that the perpetrator was hailed as a hero is not. Depictions such as this go a long way in ensuring that women are locked into sexist and disadvantaged situations in society. I put it to you that if the same treatment were given to a specific ethnic group or indigenous people the community would be outraged and scream, quite rightly, and one would hope loudly, "Racist". Only a small minority of perhaps neo-Nazis would support it.
Why then, in an age that recognises the power of advertising tobacco in encouraging smoking, where no-one would dream of using racist material in an advertisement, where public awareness campaigns have encouraged peers to police drink-driving habits, do we still treat as trivial the advertising and condoning of demeaning and violent treatment of women in our society? Why do we still avoid taking action that affects all of us in society?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .