BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Is Oliver James' writing sexist?

  
 
Peach Pie
09:11 / 11.06.05
Some of you may be familiar with the work of Observer in-house psychologist, Oliver James. He wrote a book entitled 'They F*** you Up' and seems to have carved himself a niche as 'the man who dares say it'.

This article gives an introduction to some of his regular topics, sexuality, promiscuity, and evolutionary biology.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,1046300,00.html


The articles I was really searching for were one celebrating the fact that teenage girls were having sex younger and younger because it meant they had a longer time being sexually active before their faces became wrinkled, and another apparently suggesting women were no longer sexually attractive after 30.

Are these sexist points of view?
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:27 / 11.06.05
I think you are going to have to spell out for me why you think it is sexist, sg.

His article is an argument *against* evolutionary psychology and some of its claims. He concedes that men prefer younger to older women - and here is where he compares a well known and widely accepted example of an a attractive woman, Kournikova to "a granny". The point being that common psychology has sufficient explanatory power and doesn't need evolutionary explanations to help.

As for other articles, I don't know. Does Oliver James really say that women over 30 are no longer sexually attractive? I find that pretty hard to believe.
 
 
Peach Pie
10:35 / 11.06.05
like I say - it was in another article entitled "girls have it their own way - but only until they're 30". i wanted to post it here verbatim so that you could see for yourself.

I think it might have been taken down from the website specifically because it created a reaction of mild outrage from female observer readers over the age of 30.
 
 
Peach Pie
10:59 / 11.06.05
I think you are going to have to spell out for me why you think it is sexist, sg.


I'm thinking principally of one of the other articles, which i can't find. There he stated that teenage girls becoming sexually active at an ever younger age was a good thing. I thought this was quite an egotistical stance - good for whom?

In that article, he also paused briefly to say that having sex might not be good for girls who are "shy or fat or ugly".

If a middle-aged woman were to wax lyrical about the joys of young boys having sex below the age of consent because they were still baby-faced, exempting boys who were "shy or fat or ugly", I don't see how anyone could doubt that she would be making sexist remarks.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:04 / 11.06.05
There he stated that teenage girls becoming sexually active at an ever younger age was a good thing.

Yeah, that does sound pretty dodgy....but it'd be good to see the article.
 
 
Peach Pie
11:24 / 11.06.05
Ok - here you are. Enjoy!

Sweet sixteen

Girls are losing their virginity younger than ever. But that's a good thing. By Oliver James

Sunday September 7, 2003
The Observer

Compared with the travails of spotty, gawky Adrian Mole, sex for the average teenage girl is as effortlessly obtained as a billionaire calling for more champagne.
From as soon as she comes into puberty, the eyes of both boys and men are drawn towards her face and body, like iron filings to a magnet. Where before they may not have bothered to listen to what she said or to seek her company, now they are queuing up to do so, even laughing at her jokes. Very suddenly, males shift from being a tiresome pestilence to girl-pleasing flirts.

While she may find the whole thing puzzling at first, sooner or later she grasps the fact that her nubility gives her considerable status. Whereas her male contemporaries either have not come into puberty yet or, even if they have, are anything but showered with potential mates, she has abruptly and unwittingly discovered the real meaning of pulling power.

On top of this age-old reality, she has untold freedoms compared with those of her ancestors, not the least being to actually have sex, as well as being an object of desire.

Although boys still start earlier, that age gap is rapidly diminishing. In 1964, five per cent of girls had lost their virginity before their 16th birthday. By 1974 that proportion had risen to 12 per cent and today it stands at an all-time record level of around 30 per cent.

This is not unmitigated good news. Talk of 'the over-sexualisation of the teenage girl' might sound like an oxymoron - nothing is sexier than nubility if the goals of beauty products (clear, unwrinkled skin, blonde hair) and gyms (lissom bodies with firm flesh) are listed. But the remarkably explicit magazines and books consumed by pre- and just post-pubescent girls (but not by their brothers) do create a good deal of pressure.

The creation of sexual pretensions among eight- to 10-year-olds just to sell clothes and magazines is especially worrying in a society which is supposed to be anti paedophilia. For girls who are shy or fat or ugly, it's very uncomfortable and even for the goddesses there is always a more enviable Diana. There are medical worries, too, for girls who have a lot of partners when young, including considerably increased risk of cancers of the reproductive organs. Our teenage pregnancy rate remains miles ahead of those in Europe, frequently with dire consequences for those concerned.

But enough whingeing and an end to moaning. Overall, the sexual liberation of the teenage girl, at least so long as she does not start too young and does not have too many partners, is a huge step in the right direction.

Sex is one of the few areas in the lives of middle-class girls where they can give full rein to their instincts and forget about the appalling academic pressure they suffer.

And, largely free from this risible exam fever, there has surely never been a better time in history to be a working-class teenage girl.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:38 / 11.06.05
Not to be a wet blanket, sg, but that article is pretty much what I'd expect someone like Oliver James to say and, to my ears, doesn't sound sexist. He warns of the dangers of sexual pressure and medical concerns but he phrases the positive in terms of sexual liberation. *shrug* I honestly don't see where the problem is.

I *suppose* one could see it as a old man getting excited by the sexuality of young girls. But that would be an extraordinarily uncharitable reading of the piece. You also might point to the unexamined assumption that sex confers unique power on women and girls, at the start of the article. But that would be just be a blurring of the is/ought distinction, wouldn't it?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:56 / 11.06.05
he also paused briefly to say that having sex might not be good for girls who are "shy or fat or ugly"

I don't think he did, actually...

From my reading of that paragraph, what he described as "uncomfortable" for girls who are "shy or fat or ugly" was the creation of sexual pretensions among eight- to 10-year-olds just to sell clothes and magazines. NOT "having sex".

Not to say I agree with the guy, but I think you're being a little unfair with some of the parts you're criticising.
 
 
Unconditional Love
11:45 / 12.06.05
i think hes spotted a teenage girl he fancies and is trying to rationalise his longings and justify his reaction in a more broad manner than self justification, that hes human, male, heterosexual and finds a teenage girl attractive.

why he needs to write an article about it i dont know.
 
 
HCE
15:49 / 12.06.05
He seems to be stating that youth is seen as attractive (not exactly controversial)and that more youth is seen as more attractive. He gives examples of the negative consequence that this may have on very young girls: emotional distress, health problems.

Where do you see him endorsing any of this? Insofar as it makes any criticism of young women (and I don't see that it does), where does he say it's because they're female, rather than because they're young?

Ageist, perhaps. Not sure where you get sexist from.

The greater problems are that this article makes a not-very-novel point, offers no deep analysis of the issue, is simplistic or outright wrong on some points, and is not very fluidly written.
 
 
HCE
15:51 / 12.06.05
"i think hes spotted a teenage girl he fancies"

Why do you think that? Is there something in the article that supports, or do you know of some other source of information about this author?
 
 
Unconditional Love
16:27 / 12.06.05
i got to wondering why he would write the article at all, i started to guess his motivations, and guess is the operative word, its a guess at best.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
21:13 / 12.06.05
Reporting or discussing social trends in sexuality is not sexist. But I think you could argue that there is sexism against women in the article. I think it's in the style. For example:

Compared with the travails of spotty, gawky Adrian Mole, sex for the average teenage girl is as effortlessly obtained as a billionaire calling for more champagne.

He's using exaggeration and hyperbole to be entertaining- lots of writers do that. But- it's something about what's implied by the language, as if by indulging in flowery word choices he is indulging in the subject matter.

While she may find the whole thing puzzling at first, sooner or later she grasps the fact that her nubility gives her considerable status.

Suggests that she only cares about social status, which is actually not as true as the average teen movie would have it. Implies that she is not able to understand her own sexuality (puzzled). Use of she dehumanises subject.

It gets complicated later on. He finally mentions what the girl herself might feel: This is not unmitigated good news...For girls who are shy or fat or ugly, it's very uncomfortable...There are medical worries.

Then he throws that all away by saying:"But enough whingeing and an end to moaning...sexual liberation...at least so long as she does not start too young and does not have too many partners...is a huge step in the right direction."

Main points that suggest sexism:

The problems he mentions as throwaway "at leasts" are immense! I know many women who say that these problems outweigh any sense of liberation.

His definition of Sexual Liberation seems to stretch only as far as heterosexuality, failing to acknowledge that a truly sexually liberated person has the option of Homo-,Bi-,or Asexuality.

He doesn't mention that males have had this level of sexual freedom for millenia anyway; though this may be the subtext of his argument it isn't made clear.

In short, he isn't pro-women, or pro-teenage girls; he's pro female teenage sexuality.

As a writer, he comes across as someone who feels that by trumpeting loudly about a taboo subject he is breaking down social barriers. However, I personally think this particular peice is simply the opposite equivalent of a Christian Right pro-Abstinence peice, i.e. it fails to acknowledge that sexuality is a grey area.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
21:17 / 12.06.05
"i think hes spotted a teenage girl he fancies"

I think:

"He is aware of sexuality in very young women, feels atracted to them, feels residual guilt, and is now trying to get rid of that guilt by bringing the issue of teenage sex up in other people's minds because he assumes it will make them feel guilty, thus getting one back at them."

...might be true. It's basically what you said but with more clarification, isn't it?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
21:35 / 12.06.05
While she may find the whole thing puzzling at first, sooner or later she grasps the fact that her nubility gives her considerable status.

Suggests that she only cares about social status, which is actually not as true as the average teen movie would have it. Implies that she is not able to understand her own sexuality (puzzled). Use of she dehumanises subject.

I don't think he's really referring to social status, I think he was saying that when people regard you in a certain way it applies pressure on you to regard yourself in that way as well. Thus you are nubile because generally others believe you are nubile, that is not readily apparent to you as most people do not primarily see themselves in the physical sense at that age- you can't see yourself without a mirror. In the use of 'she' he is referring to all females of that age, not a specific one but he is talking about dehumanisation of yourself in your mind to an extent anyway I think.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
10:02 / 13.06.05
Fair enough. I think at the end of the day it's an ambiguous article. There are things that could be read two ways. The upshot being that he's discussing a sensitive subject in a rather loud and excessive way.
 
 
Cat Chant
21:15 / 13.06.05
I like it that someone's saying that it's a good thing that teenage girls have the option to have more sex, younger, should they want to. I like this a lot:

Sex is one of the few areas in the lives of middle-class girls where they can give full rein to their instincts and forget about the appalling academic pressure they suffer.

Or I would if it were true (cf Legba's point about the obstacles in the way of teenage middle-class girls who want to give full rein to their non-heterosexual desires). But my own main problem with the article as it stands is probably the fact that it casts all sexual attention from boys and men towards teenage girls as flattering, non-pressuring, and generally positive ("girl-pleasing flirts"), putting the blame for any negative "pressure" on remarkably explicit magazines and books, rather than on, say, those boys who might have decided that being "girl-pleasing flirts" is not the easiest or most effective way of getting a shag - or the boys that I certainly knew in my teenage years (I bet they haven't stopped existing yet, though I wish they had) who sexually taunted girls who weren't attractive or (hetero)sexually active or whatever. I mean, fair enough, it's not the case that teenage girls are all fluttering virgins who experience male sexual attention as an unwanted intrusion ("La, Sir Edward, why are you putting your hand there? You are making me feel quite faint"), but it's also not the case that all the sexual attention teenage girls experience is friendly, non-pressuring, and focussed around pleasing girls.

The most puzzling (and slightly disturbing) thing is the bit where he seems to confuse being sexy to men with the state of wanting to have lots of sex, saying that 30% of girls are having sex by the time they are sixteen, but

This is not unmitigated good news. Talk of 'the over-sexualisation of the teenage girl' might sound like an oxymoron - nothing is sexier than nubility if the goals of beauty products (clear, unwrinkled skin, blonde hair) and gyms (lissom bodies with firm flesh) are listed.

Um... nothing is sexier than nubility to look at, maybe (though I'm not entirely sure why being a teenager gives you blonde hair [these girls are not only all straight, they're all white - and all fair-skinned white, at that]). But what does that have to do with wanting to have sex?
 
 
Peach Pie
16:18 / 16.06.05
Hmm. Here's what I found unconvincing:

Where before they may not have bothered to listen to what she said or to seek her company, now they are queuing up to do so, even laughing at her jokes. While she may find the whole thing puzzling at first, sooner or later she grasps the fact that her nubility gives her considerable status.

By the author's own admission, men/boys who fancy a girl physically don't necessarily care what she has to say. How can you confer status on someone if you don't necessarily respect them?

In 1964, five per cent of girls had lost their virginity before their 16th birthday. By 1974 that proportion had risen to 12 per cent and today it stands at an all-time record level of around 30 per cent

Implication: that it's a good thing because lots of girl have done it. Some will have had a positive experience; but what percentage?

But the remarkably explicit magazines and books consumed by pre- and just post-pubescent girls (but not by their brothers) do create a good deal of pressure. Like Deva said, magazines are not created in a vacuum...

The creation of sexual pretensions among eight- to 10-year-olds just to sell clothes and magazines is especially worrying in a society which is supposed to be anti paedophilia. For girls who are shy or fat or ugly, it's very uncomfortable and even for the goddesses there is always a more enviable Diana.

Sorry Stoatie - I misquoted the context here. I still dislike the implication though: girls he supposes are "fat or ugly" should be against the sexual pretensions of pre-teens not because of the moral questions it raises, but apparently because they're in danger of being outshone...

There are medical worries, too, for girls who have a lot of partners when young, including considerably increased risk of cancers of the reproductive organs....But enough whingeing

*bites lip*

Overall, the sexual liberation of the teenage girl.... I don't see that the case has been made that it is liberation....

Sex is one of the few areas in the lives of middle-class girls where they can give full rein to their instincts and forget about the appalling academic pressure they suffer. Really? Even if the focus of their desire is some unattainable, famous figure?

And, largely free from this risible exam fever, there has surely never been a better time in history to be a working-class teenage girl.

But working-class teenagers suffer appalling academic pressure too...
 
 
All Acting Regiment
17:19 / 16.06.05
I agree with you in terms of school pressure, but I think middle class people are under more academic pressure than working class ones, aren't they? At least from their families. Usually the pressure in the working class family is more about getting a job as early as possible.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
20:09 / 16.06.05
I've got to rephrase that, sorry. Both middle and working classes ae under the same pressure from academic sources while at school, but often it's the middle classes who are under more at home, because of the family tradition of going to college and university instead of quitting school and starting work at 16.
 
 
Peach Pie
10:35 / 02.07.05
these girls are not only all straight, they're all white - and all fair-skinned white, at that

Yes. I await his appraisal of the Williams sisters.
 
 
Peach Pie
14:47 / 24.07.05
post scriptum

From then observer magazine's Q & A "ask the columnists" edition:

Q 'Stop being envious of others! Stop wanting more!' says the psychologist who probably earns top NUJ rates for regularly recycling the same misogynistic pulp. Were you a born hypocrite or did you go to classes?
J Turner

A I blame my parents for not having bequeathed me enough money.
 
  
Add Your Reply