The events of September 11, 2001 had immediate political, national, and economical consequences. Some have been well documented, some speculated upon, some beaten-into-the-ground by the current Washington administration, but yesterday I heard one argument for the first time: that since the attacks, the status of women in society has slipped backwards.
The regression of sexual equality was cited by Susan Faludi in her new book, The Terror Dream. She says the fear created by the event made Americans—and especially women—feel vulnerable, which in turn “created a longing for the good old days of ‘manly men’” (Glamour Magazine, October 2007). Such a turnaround from the feminist movements of the midcentury can be seen in a least four recent social phenomenon, some of which are interesting, but some of which are not properly researched to provide evidence for the controversial claim.
Here are her examples (in italics) and my thoughts on them:
1. Female heroes were ignored. Faludi states that the presence of women was completely erased from any coverage of Ground Zero, with the many female police officers and firefighters ignored in loo of the larger-than-life-status of the male rescuers.
So I think this is a really good point. Since 9/11 we have heard umpteen stories of the wives of the firefighters (talked more about below), but very little about the husbands of the women who must have died saving lives at the same time.
However, not all women “heroes” have been overlooked. What about Jessica Lynch, a military private who garnered the cover of Time Magazine, the New York Times, and interviews on Dateline NBC for her amazing survival story in Iraq? That is one heroine that was certainly not ignored by all areas of the press after September 11, and though the male firefighter did become sort of a symbol of that day, perhaps that is just a reflection of the actual demographic of such units in big cities—more men are firefighters than women, therefore media coverage would natural capture more of one gender than the other.
2. Grieving widows became the feminine ideal and the perfect symbols of our grief—especially the ones who devoted their lives to the memory of their dead husbands. Faludi also mention the backlash against the group known as the Jersey Girls, who forced the creation of the 9/11 Commission (therefore asking for monetary retributions) and were then attacked as heartless opportunists.
The attack on the Jersey Girls is a good example of the double standard in this country, but I am not sure it is the product of 9/11. Men seeking money are ambitious; women doing the same are shameless. It has always been that way. But I think the point that these women were ridiculed for breaking the mold of the “grieving widow” is a good one—we wanted these women to be sad, almost “soft” in their grief, an image that does remind one of earlier generations.
Looking back, there does seem to be a lack of…a STRONG female presence during and after 9/11. Images of tears took precedence over images of strength which then spread to the general psyche of the nation: women=grieving, men=angry.
3. The media invented the notion of “patriotic pregnancy” which made us focus more attention on all pregnancies (especially celebrities) as a kind of natural “we must survive and have offspring” reaction to our sense of vulnerability.
Hmmm. Yeah, I don’t really think that after 9/11 women regressed their “baby maker” status of the 19th century. Faludi cites the covers of magazines like US Weekly, People, etc in her argument, saying that the plethora of coverage on “the baby bump” or “is she or isn’t she” in the tabloids shows how obsessed American’s became with having children after 9/11.
Really, I just think that those kinds of publications will always be obsessed with all physical attributes of female stars. This is nothing new. And I never heard a woman declare her pregnancy the result of patriotism. But maybe I am in the wrong part of the country…
4. Since 9/11 the number of women guests on political talk shows has shrunk by nearly 40%.
I think this is her most legit argument. Interestingly enough, it was after 9/11 that political shows began to focus on foreign policy—and the stigma against women when it comes to dealing with terrorism and the military cannot be denied. That is still one of the major arguments against Hillary Clinton and a female president in general: that they couldn’t—based solely on their sex—cope with the pressures of our current international situation.
America seems to think that women are too emotional, too sentimental to be in charge of the United States in a “time of war” even though there has never been evidence to support that claim—AND even though it is the images in the media that have propagated the idea of the vulnerable woman, as discussed above.
This to me is the biggest setback in terms of equality. Since 9/11, we have became much more focused on military action and protecting our country, and for some reason, “protection” seems synonymous with “man.” Because of this, women have never been able to take on the role of guardian and it because a kind of chicken-or-the-egg issue: We don’t know if women would be able to protect America, but out of fear, we aren’t willing to try.
In general, Susan Faludi’s book seems interesting, controversial, but perhaps a stretch. Maybe what 9/11 did was simply highlight the state of the genders in this country as they exist—with focus on women’s physical appearance, a desire for women to maintain some level of vulnerability, and a distrust that a female leader can really guide our country.
whereIstand Tags