This piece in the Melbourne Age by Michael Scammell manages to hit nearly all my hot buttons at once. It includes generation-game garbage, postmodernist apologias for the advertising industry, support for exploitation of workers, and heaps of all-round stupidity. The background to the story, it appears, is that a clothing store called Westco required its female staff to wear T-shirts carrying a lame double entendre. One worker refused, and the Victorian Minister for Women’s Affairs, Mary Delahunty protested, with the result that the company abandoned the promotion. Scammell attempts to set Ms Delahunty straight on the subjects of postmodernist irony and the recent discovery of sex.
The headline (not picked by the author, but a direct lift from the article) is Sex sells. Gen X knows this. MPs don’t. I know every generation is supposed to imagine that it invented sex, but not even the most self-indulgent of baby boomers would have the chutzpah to claim this insight as their own. Vance Packard was making hay with this kind of thing back in the 50s, and it was tired old stuff then. In any case, this discovery predates the wheel. Hasn’t Scammell heard the phrase “the oldest profession”?
Then he claims that the slogan on the T-shirt “stop pretending you don’t want me” represents ” a dollop of knowing post-modernist irony”. If this is post-modernist irony, I’ll stick with the modernist version, or better still that of the classics like Dr Johnson.
But for all-round stupidity you can’t beat Scammell’s observation that it must be all right because “Westco reports a significant public demand for the T-shirt despite its seemingly offensive message”. Can’t he see that there’s a big difference between wearing a provocative T-shirt to advertise your own wares to members of the opposite (or perhaps your own) gender, and being made to wear one to flog the wares of your employer, who is doubtless offering little more than the minimum wage for the privilege. Obviously the Westco worker who refused to wear the shirt and made a fuss about it could see what the score was. (In a non sequitur that’s typical of the piece, Scammell asserts that since this worker was willing to stand up for herself, there can’t have been a problem in the first place).
Scammell goes on about “grid girls” at the Grand Prix, and near-naked models at fashion shows, but these workers know what they are offering from the start and (at least in the case of successful models) are paid accordingly. If he wants to work out what’s going on here, Scammell would be well advised to go back to school and learn some old-fashioned class analysis instead of the 1990s postmodernism he apparently thinks is still hip.
{ 28 comments }
Maria 04.02.04 at 2:04 pm
The ‘we’re all past that stuff now’ defence against sexism drives me crazy. And his sneering assumption that if the Minister was half as hip as Scammell is, she’d have been much too cool to get upset about workplace sexism.
But this kind of ‘argument’ is so common, particularly amongst women writers for Cosmo and the like. It seems to imply that we don’t need any of that feminist stuff any more because ‘that’s all fine now’, i.e. there was some magical moment in the not too distant past when the aims of ‘the struggle’ were realised, and we can all move on now. And now we can focus on such essential post-feminist concerns as manolos and multiple orgasms. I sometimes wonder what planet these people live on.
John Isbell 04.02.04 at 2:27 pm
I’m thinking of sending him a t-shirt saying “Fuck me up the ass.” If he doesn’t want to wear it at work, I’ll write a piece about what a prig he is.
John Isbell 04.02.04 at 2:34 pm
I’m sorry for my obscenity, but Scammell seems not to find it incongruous that male employees were not required to wear the shirt. I think he should have the courage of his principles, and take a moral stand.
miss representation 04.02.04 at 3:27 pm
John: no need for apologies. Just think of yourself of the Dale Peck of media criticism (and that is offered in jest. I liked his DFW comment). I’ll make the shirt for you of you like. We can sell it to CT folk as a fundraiser and put The Age and Westco logos on the back. They will appreciate the joke, don’t you think? It’s so post-post-irony.
Keith M Ellis 04.02.04 at 3:43 pm
Well, I think a very sex-positive feminism is possible and a Good Thing. Unfortunately for Mr. Scammell, this doesn’t appear to be it.
John Isbell 04.02.04 at 4:54 pm
Hmm. Miss R., I see I’ll have to google Dale Peck. My comment reminded me of Matt Taibbi.
The shirts would certainly be eye-catching.
novalis 04.02.04 at 5:25 pm
Speaking of shirts, why doesn’t CT have t-shirts?
Color: black
Front: Header image for this site, perhaps with a bit more tree, and fading on all four sides of the tree.
Back: https://www.crookedtimber.org
Ophelia Benson 04.02.04 at 6:19 pm
What Maria said. Cubed. In triplicate. Then sent out as spam to everyone on earth with or without computer access, once an hour, from now until Doomsday.
dsquared 04.02.04 at 6:27 pm
I’m sorry for my obscenity
‘sOK. I think we only really have a problem with the c-word round here …
Ophelia Benson 04.02.04 at 6:38 pm
God almighty, that article is even stupider than John’s post indicates, or anyway than I had managed to imagine. What the hell does he think he’s saying?! “Look, duh, get a clue, the fashion industry hires pretty people and sticks sexist ads on them to sell their products so what the hell are you complaining about?!?”
I mean what is his point? What is his point? “Look, duh, the fashion industry is doing exactly what you’re complaining of for exactly the reasons you think it is using exactly the methods you think it is so why on earth are you so backward and ‘quaint’ and out of it and clueless and pathetic as to complain of it?”
[bangs head on desk]
Dan Simon 04.02.04 at 7:36 pm
Put this posting together with Belle’s previous one, and I think we have the makings a fine irregular verb: I’m drawing a clear line between innocent amusements and evil ones, you’re prudishly suppressing innocent amusements, he’s defending evil ones.
As far as I can tell, the line most people draw when defining sexual propriety is roughly, “do our sort of people like this sort of thing more or less than those other people who are not like us?”. Crooked Timberites and their ilk, for example, dislike commercialism and sexism, as well as traditional notions of modesty, more than the folks they generally detest. Hence, in their view, all too much fuss is being made about pictures of naked children, and not enough fuss is being made about sexist slogans on t-shirts. Michael Scammell is presumably on the opposite side of the fence/tracks/aisle, so his opinions of these things are likely to be opposite to the Timberites’–though equally arrogantly expressed. After all, we all know what decent people think, don’t we?
rea 04.02.04 at 7:49 pm
“I think we only really have a problem with the c-word round here … ”
Causation? Catholic? Carnivore? California? Clinton?
John Isbell 04.02.04 at 8:59 pm
Dan, I have no objection whatever to Scammmell wearing my t-shirt to work, on the beach, wherever. He can talk some more about how hip he is. And I’m not even compelling him to wear it.
In other words, I think you missed a bit.
Russell Arben Fox 04.02.04 at 9:08 pm
Dan, I’m by no means opposed to “traditional notions of modesty”; on the contrary, I think they are unfortunately violated much too often. It’s not inconsistent or classist to oppose the imposition of demeaning sexualized messages or styles, whether through a boss’s edict or the pressure of the market, while at the same time allowing for (or at least opposing overreactions against) context-appropriate “immodesty.” (I can’t believe I just used that word in reference to a baby.) The key is recognizing that different sorts of relationships hold in each case.
Ophelia Benson 04.02.04 at 9:31 pm
“Michael Scammell is presumably on the opposite side of the fence/tracks/aisle, so his opinions of these things are likely to be opposite to the Timberites’”
Uh…yeah. That’s kind of the point, isn’t it?
Dan Simon 04.02.04 at 11:24 pm
Russell–I agree that it is not inconsistent to “oppose the imposition of demeaning sexualized messages or styles…while at the same time allowing for (or at least opposing overreactions against) context-appropriate ‘immodesty.'” But then, neither do I consider it inconsistent to view the horror of child abuse as sufficient reason to err on the side of caution when judging images of child nudity, while simultaneously treating salacious slogans on t-shirts worn by (adult) saleswomen as an unserious issue. What concerns me is the blithe dismissal of opposing views in each case, as if those who disagree (and there are probably a lot of them) are not coming to a different conclusion about a difficult issue, but rather simply reacting with the benighted ignorance and crassness typical of some vaguely defined set of ridiculous people.
For what it’s worth, I tend towards the socially restrained end of the spectrum on most such issues, including both of these. But I recognize that I’m not always in the majority, that individual cases differ–sometimes in subtle but important ways–and that there are usually good arguments to be mustered on both sides of any specific instance. I only wish that more people would adopt a position of greater modesty–if not with respect to their bodies, then at least with respect to their opinions.
Dan Simon 04.02.04 at 11:33 pm
“Michael Scammell is presumably on the opposite side of the fence/tracks/aisle, so his opinions of these things are likely to be opposite to the Timberites’”
Uh…yeah. That’s kind of the point, isn’t it?
It all depends which way the causation flows.
john c. halasz 04.02.04 at 11:39 pm
Not to ignore the weightiness of the issue being discussed here, but “the Victorian Minister For Women’s Affairs”- what a woebegone circumstance.
John Quiggin 04.02.04 at 11:56 pm
“It all depends which way the causation flows.”
Dan, as far as I can recall, I’d never heard of this guy before yesterday. Certainly, I have no idea which side of the party-political fence he stands on, if any.
John Isbell 04.03.04 at 1:54 am
dan simon: “I only wish that more people would adopt a position of greater modesty—if not with respect to their bodies, then at least with respect to their opinions.”
Absolutely. I for one will welcome it when you begin doing just that, Dan.
Ophelia Benson 04.03.04 at 1:55 am
I said that in a confused manner. I wasn’t referring to party affliation or that sort of thing, but something more like, I don’t know, rightonitude. The way the guy seems to assume there’s something terribly benighted and pathetic and unhip and kind of ridiculous about objecting to sexism and worker exploitation. What Maria said – that whole ‘Oh yes we’ve done all that, yawn yawn, what are you so uptight about’ routine. That’s what I meant by ‘kind of the point.’
Ophelia Benson 04.03.04 at 1:58 am
“What concerns me is the blithe dismissal of opposing views in each case, as if those who disagree (and there are probably a lot of them) are not coming to a different conclusion about a difficult issue, but rather simply reacting with the benighted ignorance and crassness typical of some vaguely defined set of ridiculous people.”
Well said! That exactly sums up the tone of this Scammel guy, which is precisely why his squib is so irritating.
bob mcmanus 04.03.04 at 4:23 am
“rightonitude”
God I love it when y’all philosopher types coin new jargon. Especially when it makes me feel like pulling my lava lamp and black-light posters out of the garage.
Mr Ripley 04.03.04 at 4:51 am
Rea: I think the objectionable c-word is “Cockburn.” Or maybe that’s frowned upon at someone else’s blog.
darrons 04.03.04 at 8:03 am
With reference to John Isbell’s original comment, the correct slogan should be:
“Fuck me up the arse.â€
We Australian’s don’t understand the relevance of having carnal knowledge with a donkey like creature
John Quiggin 04.03.04 at 9:44 am
For background on who would write this kind of drivel, I’m indebted to commentator Paul Watson, over at my personal blog. Paul writes
Dan Simon 04.04.04 at 3:02 am
John–good thing Scammell turns out to be a jerk, eh? Imagine if he had had serious liberal, feminist credentials, or something–making him, you know, a respectable person–and actually turned out to have a serious argument concealed somewhere behind his smug tone. Wouldn’t that have been embarrassing!
Yes, I–like several commentators here–found Scammell’s style rather unnecessarily arrogant and ridiculing. It’s too bad so many of his detractors had to respond in kind. Thoughtful discussion of the issue he raised–which I assert is not nearly so cut-and-dried as both sides seem to think, although I’m personally inclined to favor the Crooked Timber position over Scammell’s–would have been so much more enlightening than all the ad hominem spitball-throwing.
Ophelia Benson 04.04.04 at 3:37 am
“John—good thing Scammell turns out to be a jerk, eh? Imagine if he had had serious liberal, feminist credentials, or something—making him, you know, a respectable person—and actually turned out to have a serious argument concealed somewhere behind his smug tone. Wouldn’t that have been embarrassing!”
No. It wouldn’t. Not in the slightest. In fact there are people who do have such credentials who do talk nonsense like that – “lipstick feminists” for example – and it’s not in the least embarrassing. It’s irritating and to some feminists surprising, but not embarrassing. Guess what – some of us already know that not everyone agrees about everything, even in cases when they have other things in common. So all this heavy irony is just thrown away. Is that embarrassing? Hope so.
Comments on this entry are closed.