Susan Douglas: too far?

So far, I have been thoroughly enjoying Susan Douglas' Enlightened Sexism. I think her often witty commentary and her continued use of relevant current issues/examples make the book engaging, unique, and accurate. I particularly enjoy her idea of the issues of "enlightened sexism." This is a contemporary problem which modern women have to come to terms with and address. According to Douglas, Enlightened Sexism can be described as a subtle, yet pervasive, form of sexism which asserts that the goals of feminism have been reached and thus a feminist movement is no longer required. This idea (which is based in fiction) tends to create media misrepresentations of women. Either they are placed in retrograde images of gender roles and femininity or (and equally harmful) women are characterized as totally living above sexism in a world where they can be CEOs and District Attorneys, etc.

Generally, I agree with Douglas' assertion that Enlightened Sexism is a major problem, especially in the media's representation of the modern woman. Her examples of Clueless, Xena: Warrior Princess, and The Spice Girls all struck chords with me that made me agree with Douglas' postulations. However, in the reading for Thursday, I began to have some issues with Douglas and found myself struggling to go along with her theory.

In particular, Douglas explores the role of women in the show Ally McBeal. It is possible that my struggles with her interpretation come from the fact that I have never seen the show, but i found myself getting frustrated with Douglas and thinking she was stretching her argument too thin. She begins by describing each character, specifically Ally. Ally seems to be a dominant, focused, driven woman fighting to be the best lawyer she can be. At times, Douglas would praise Ally, and the show, for promoting a strong woman's character in a way which seemed not to ignore the struggles of women in the workplace. The fact that Ally had to leave her original firm to to continued sexual harassment from her boss clearly indicates to me that the show was not trying to give the audience a sense of a perfect, bias-free, world in which Ally could thrive as a woman. Instead, it told me that although many areas of her new office promoted equality of the sexes (i.e. co-ed bathrooms), the women depicted on the show struggled to reach their levels.

What frustrated me the most, is how Douglas pointed out that it was both a feminist and anti-feminist show. By promoting women, yet also showing their vulnerability and desire for relationships, Douglas loses sight of the better images it portrays. I understand the frustrations of feminists who were watching and hoping that Ally could rise above the stereotypes of being flighty, emotional, and seeking a man, but I also would like to remind Douglas that no show on television, staring men OR women, have been successful without indulging in the personal, and often times sexual, relationships of its lead characters.

While I agreed with many of the things she said, I still think the show was a leader of its day and fought to promote the best image of women possible. In fact, I think I would have appreciated the contrast of the sometimes vulnerable woman at home and the go-getting, take-no-shit lawyer in the court. I think that image could feed into the stereotypes that women face and turn it on its head by asserting that although some women are emotional and want to be in a relationship, they can still perform high skill, high stress jobs just like the boys.

Maybe I was reading Douglas in a particular mood tonight, but I think her argument went a little too far and denigrated a show which could be embraced as a good example of an accurate, endearing, professional representation of women and home and women in the workplace.