By Natalie Zirngast and Larisa Freiverts
The latest assault on feminism comes from a woman who is herself billed as a "feminist". Wendy Shalit, interviewed by the Sydney Morning Herald on March 5, has written a book titled A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue. In it she claims that "the woes besetting the modern woman — sexual harassment, stalking, rape ... are all the result of a society which has lost its respect for female modesty".
Shalit believes that the partial liberation of female sexuality since the second wave of feminism in the 1960s and '70s has been detrimental to women's health and wellbeing. She states, "People accuse me of wanting to go back to the '50s, and I always say the 1850s".
Shalit's stance not only continues the debate about sexism and sexuality, it also raises the question of who can justifiably be called a "feminist".
For someone to be a "feminist", they must have some sense that women are oppressed as a group. If Shalit believes that things have become worse for women due to increased sexual freedom, does she also believe that women were better off confined in the home? While she does not explicitly state this, it is the logical extension of her "back to the 1850s" argument.
Labelling such conservative views "feminist" confuses the nature and aims of the women's liberation movement.
Women's control of their own sexuality has been a key demand of the women's liberation movement. Before the second wave, women's sexuality was only allowed to be expressed within the confines of the family unit.
Access to contraception and abortion were difficult and reserved for those who could afford their high cost. Until the 1970s, women in many parts of the work force had to resign when they married.
Women fought hard for the right to use the contraceptive pill, choose abortion and be able to control their sexual lives. These freedoms are a precondition for women's participation in further struggles for liberation.
It is true that the gains in sexual freedom haven't eradicated sexism. Shalit is concerned about the extent of sexual harassment, eating disorders and low self-esteem among women, but she doesn't see that these are the results of the sexism in society. Instead, she tells women these problems are the results of their own behaviour, and can be solved on an individual level.
An advocate of women's sexual freedom, Catherine Lumby, who wrote the 1997 book Bad Girls, makes a similar mistake. She argues that women can reclaim and express their sexuality within the confines of current portrayals of women in the mass media. She believes that criticisms of sexist images of women are counter-productive.
For Lumby, it again comes down to the individual. If you can't reconcile your sexuality to mainstream images, that's your problem.
Shalit and Lumby's ideas reinforce the sexist dichotomy imposed on women's sexuality by this society: all women are either a virtuous "Madonna" or a sexually available "whore". Neither author acknowledges that women are still not free to choose how and when their sexuality will be expressed.
Collective action by women and their supporters — not the rediscovery of Victorian moralism or the "reclaiming" of sexist imagery — is the only way to bring about more freedom for women. At a time when women's rights to abortion, public child-care and freedom from discrimination are being eroded, feminists must demand the extension of their rights in all areas of their lives, not a reduction in those rights.