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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: www.crookedtimber.org
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.
I’m sorry for my obscenity
‘sOK. I think we only really have a problem with the c-word round here …
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]
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?
“I think we only really have a problem with the c-word round here … “
Causation? Catholic? Carnivore? California? Clinton?
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.
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.
“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?
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.
“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.
Not to ignore the weightiness of the issue being discussed here, but “the Victorian Minister For Women’s Affairs”- what a woebegone circumstance.
“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.
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.
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.’
“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.
“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.
Rea: I think the objectionable c-word is “Cockburn.” Or maybe that’s frowned upon at someone else’s blog.
With reference to John Isbell’s original comment, the correct slogan should be:
“Fuck me up the arse.”
We Australian’s don’t understand the relevance of having carnal knowledge with a donkey like creature
Michael Scammell is indeed a “wannabe stick poker” A former media officer for the US Consulate in Melbourne, he now works as a PR hack for the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. That’s when he’s not writing silly Op Eds for The Age, of which there’s been quite a few.On one hand, he styles himself as a classic libertarian
but hes equally happy to let fly with the odd shock-jock style anti-feminist rant I suspect that his latest piece is more cognate with the latter “bad Michael” than might at first be realised.
His dressing-up of the debate here as a generational one is all the more offensive because of the searing irony in Scammell’s being given a regular gig in The Age’s boomer-dominated Op Ed pages. AFAIK, he is one of very few regular writers without any institutional (academia, thinktank etc) oomph behind them, and he is almost certainly the only GenXer to have such a privileged freelance arrangement with The Age.
In other words, Scammell isn’t just a mediocre intellect venting his personal problems through the Op Ed pages. Hes a corporate lickspittle sell-out which means IMO he ain’t no GenXer, whatever his date of birth.
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.
“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.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review