Stupid Girls: Be a subject, not an object
Posted April 11, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Post-recovery, I started to try and respond to the most recent comment in the intellectual dishonesty thread. I typed up a few paragraphs, and debated about a comparison to religion and abortion before thinking better of it, and just trashed my response.
But watching yesterday’s Oprah got me thinking about this in a different way. It occurs to me that some of the angst about weight loss may be represented by Pink’s “Stupid Girls.” In the song and video, Pink dings Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, and Jessica Simpson for playing dumb in order to succeed in our celebrity-crazed society.
But Pink isn’t arguing that girls need to go back to the days of Peyton Place (after all, look how well that worked). But instead, she’s arguing for something more powerful:
My point is not that sexy is a bad thing. My point is that sexy and smart are not oil and water and that you don’t have to dumb yourself down to be cute.
This resonated with me a lot re the issue of fat politics and weight loss. And I think it has to do with the issue of being a subject versus being an object.
A couple of weeks ago, I talked about the issue of power, desire, and overeating, and mentioned I really liked this quote from Mark Epstein’s Open to Desire (emphasis mine):
Freud’s perennial question, “What does woman want?” was not phrased correctly … The question is not what do they want, but do they want, at all. Do they have their own desire? Or perhaps the question might be more correctly stated: Can women be their desire? The challenge for women … is to move from being just an object of desire to becoming a subject: she who desires.
This concept of subject and object came up on Oprah as well in the context of young girls emulating celebrities like Lohan and Simpson:
Dr. Robin: We have been socialized again by men to be objects … to stroke their egos. Their sense that they are big and we are small. The more we stroke that, the less we exist.
Oprah: So what people are saying as the definition of stupid is … any time you have to play yourself small.
Dr. Robin: Absolutely. You play yourself small because you are scared. You are scared that if I don’t play small, then I’m going to lose out. I won’t be invited to the party. Guys won’t want me.
Oprah: I won’t be accepted.
Dr. Robin also said she might not use the term “stupid” to refer to this phenomenon Pink sings about, but rather, she’d use the expression “lost.” The point is that in trying to gain someone else’s approval, you easily lose who you really are.
In that vein, I’d argue you can approach weight loss from the perspective of either a subject or an object. From the object perspective, weight loss is about the future. In the future, I’ll be thin and then I’ll be happy, because I’ll fit in. Men will like me. I’ll be accepted.
But there’s another perspective. For me, the point of being a subject is that it is a position of strength, i.e., you’re not doing harmful things in order to gain someone else’s approval. Instead, you’re “finding yourself” and learning how what you eat and how you move can improve the quality of your life.
It’s about being sexy and smart.

April 11th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Dear god woman, how do you find time to post these thought-provoking essays??? I feel like my brain is little better use than silly putty. Although, again I’ll reccomend The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir, something I read often when I was younger and had more brain cells. Not meaning to harp, just wanting to share it with anyone who didn’t read the other post.
I’m glad to see some backlash against the Paris Hilton phenom. There’s an issue I have with the “pro-slut” images I see these days, and I haven’t been able to articulate it. I’m such a feminist that it’s not an open-and-shut case; female sexuality has been so suppressed and male-dominated that it’s hard for me to express any value judgments without feeling like I’m betraying my own beliefs…
April 11th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Ooh, ooh, and I wanted to mention this:
A short article on Hugh Hefner’s 80th birthday, and it’s not Hugh who says something wonky, it’s the female author of the article. I was just… STUNNED when I saw this:
“But for some women [Playboy] provides an insight into how men perceive them (or want to see them). Knowledge is power, and only once women understand what’s going through men’s minds can they counter their behaviour.”
How about saying “The HELL with men’s perception of us, how ’bout we live our lives as we wish REGARDLESS??” Oh, I so wish I were as articulate as you are, and could clearly describe why this pisses me off so much.
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=405
April 12th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Marla, thanks for the great comments! This topic could be the subject of a blog all its own. BTW, I meant to mention that Oprah also had the author of Female Chauvinist Pigs on her show. Her book is all about why women are not only buying into this “raunch culture” but are now a driving force behind it.
April 12th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Such a wise and thoughtful post, Beth. And I’m so glad you mentioned the Female Chauvinist Pigs book. I read it and it really is worth a look. I think women’s sexual empowerment is a wonderful thing. Again, as long as you are the subject in that and not the object. But a lot of women, I call them “stripper-pole feminists,” think they are being subjects, when they are really still being objects. It takes a huge amount of self-awareness and thought to avoid that trap, and to avoid becoming an object (even if you think you’re being or trying to be) a subject in weightloss.