The Telegraph published a comment piece on Natasha Walter’s criticism of the growing trend of young girls who aspire to be glamour models and to dress in provocative clothing (see my earlier post).
In it, Michael Deacon contradicts himself. In the third to last paragraph he notes that he thinks the girls’ motivation is to achieve a better life, avoiding the need for qualifications.
In the final paragraph, he says that he would not mind if his daughter became a glamour model. Deacon is a Telegraph journalist - therefore middle-class. His middle-class daughter would not have to aspire to a better life. She would have many opportunities open to her (having got the qualifications). She would not need to choose to be a glamour model.
The girls he speaks of are not exercising their freedoms. They have little freedom because they tend to have fewer privileges; the chance of being a glamour model seems to them - initially - very appealing.
Feminists are not complaining about the decisions of the girls. We are complaining about a selfish, apathetic society that allows this situation to persist. We are complaining about the people who have the cheek to suggest (and to con women into believing) that this exploitation of women's vulnerability - this degradation of our sex - is empowerment and equal rights.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I thought what he said about his daughter was quite telling.
ReplyDelete"I said if she were 18, she could do whatever job she chose, no matter what I felt."
He doesn't quite say "I'd be fine with it" more a resigned "well if it's her choice it's her choice".
Which kind of goes back to the age old defence "Well if women choose to do it then it's fine!" , completing ignoring any context of the choice - which as you say probably wouldn't be the middle-class context of his own daughter anyway.... How convenient for him.