When is a selfie a selfie? And when does it become act of war?
Over at mamamia.com, Bec Sparrow has the answer. When the selfie is of six-packing fitness-blogging Norwegian Caroline Berg Eriksen posing in tiny underwear four days after giving birth, it's an act of war.
Caroline Berg Eriksen's infamous selfie, posted four short days post-partum. Instagram
Sparrow recognizes the hostile intent behind Eriksen's Instagram posting. What she does not seem to recognize quite as clearly is that her exasperated article is another act in the same war. And that for all their salvos against body-image stereotypes and everything having to be sexy, sites like mamamia.com are part of the fight they claim to be trying to end. A war in which women are the main combatants and the principal casualties.
Much thinking about sexism and the judgments people make about women's bodies implicates men and the male gaze. Women are objectified by men who desire them, or by women who seek to emulate them and, in turn, be desired.
Challenging men's behavior has helped break down objectification. But the very real oppression many women feel in the face of wall-to-wall sexy images and -- especially -- improbably skinny actresses, celebrities and models remains. Some even claim it is getting worse.
Perhaps we need a transfusion of new ideas to help make sense of the mess? You may not be surprised to learn that I think I know just where to go: evolutionary biology.
Choice and competition
Evolutionary biologists study, among other things, how sexy traits evolve by a process called sexual selection. That's just a form of natural selection in which traits that give an individual a mating advantage tend to be retained and embellished. Why? Because those individuals who enjoy mating advantages become the parents of the next generation, bequeathing their sexy genes to their offspring.
Sexual selection happens in either of two ways: members of one sex choosing among members of the other, or members of one sex competing with one another. Biologists have long tended to concentrate on competition among males (think of antelope clashing with their horns) and of females choosing the most decorative males (think dowdy bird-of-paradise hens being wooed by the most extravagantly plumed cock).
The study of human mate choice has also paid much more attention to competitive males and choosy females than the reverse. Although we've known for some time that both women and men choose their mates, and that women also compete with one another for good mates and for resources.
Competition among women is enjoying a surge of attention right now. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London recently hosted a special issue on female competition and aggression, with some of the highlights profiled in the New York Times. And The Atlantic got involved too, with a piece provocatively titled The Evolution of Bitchiness.
According to the New York Times article:
Now that researchers have been looking more closely, they say that this "intrasexual competition" is the most important factor explaining the pressures that young women feel to meet standards of sexual conduct and physical appearance.
Perhaps the most important development in this area comes from psychologist Roy Baumeister and an assortment of his collaborators who have pushed a body of ideas they call "sexual economics." Pregnancy, menstruation and menopause mean that most women spend fewer days (across their lifetimes) willing and able to engage in sex than most men do. As a result, at any time there are more men than women participating in the "market place." As a result, sex becomes by-and-large a commodity supplied by women and demanded by men.
Likewise, in most societies men have more access to the resources families use to raise their children. The truer this is, the more incentive women have to control the supply of sex, and to exchange it for male-controlled resources. Women get the best "price" for sex when they restrict supply. Which is why, Baumeister and his collaborator Jean Twenge argue that women, rather than men, are the main culprits when it comes to suppressing female sexuality. They marshall much circumstantial evidence that women drive those customs that keep other women from behaving promiscuously, from slut-shaming, to criticising other women's bodies and dress-sense, to female genital mutilation.
I can never bring myself to trust black-and-white answers to tricky social and political questions. I've considered Baumeister and Twenge's paper at some length, and their argument is convincing. But I'm also dubious that the entire blame for suppressing female sexuality and judgments of women's appearances can be shifted from men to women. The key idea that new evolutionary and economic thinking has brought to the study of cultural phenomena like the suppression of female sexuality and the incentives to appear attractive is that female-female competition is an important and long-ignored piece of the puzzle.
And my regular peeks at Mamamia.com convince me that columnists like Bec Sparrow and Mia Freedman are far from passive correspondents in the war over women's bodies and their sexualities. They are combatants.
Madonna-bloggers and whores
Bec Sparrow's outrage over the four-days postpartum selfie was, in my opinion, raw and righteous. Carrying a baby to term and giving birth imposes profound demands on a mother's body. The last thing any new mother needs, amid a fog of sleep-deprivation, isolation, mastitis and post-natal depression is the sense that returning to her pre-baby size and shape should be first thing on her to-do list.
Sparrow has a point when she fumes "I'm beginning to feel like women posting post-labor photos of themselves is the equivalent of men flopping out their johnsons to see whose is the biggest." Only I don't know many men who do that.
But I get the metaphor.
Bec Sparrow would rather know how the new mother is feeling:
Are you coping okay? How are you feeling about being a mum? How are you feeling about your new baby? Connected? Disconnected? Nothing? Are you feeling traumatized about your labour? Did you end up with or choose to have a cesar (sic)? Has your milk come in? Having breastfeeding issues? Wanting to bottle feed but feeling alone? Wanting to cry all the time for no particular reason?
But then I'm not so sure that her readers would find that quite as fascinating. In fact, "minor web celebrity discusses how she feels postpartum" doesn't make much of a story now, does it?
What does get under the skin of Mamamia readers -- a very maternal demographic -- is a piece fulminating over how sexy post-baby pictures, be they in glossy magazines or on Instagram, are a sign of all that is wrong in the world. Even better if, at the same time, those articles implicitly criticize the flat-bellied subject's maternal skills.
Sparrow's Eriksen piece reminded me of an article by Mamamia publisher Mia Freedman herself, not six weeks ago, criticizing a selfie by an altogether more famous new mom. With Kim Kardashian: Are you a mother or a porn star?, Mia joined the online rush for the slut-shaming cover of the Madonna-whore dichotomy. Either you're a good mommy or the shameless strumpet who got famous because of a strategic sex-tape.
The Kim Kardashian selfie that got the Internet and Mia Freedman all animated.
You won't get a defense of the sisters Kardashian from me. And yet I wonder about the purpose of outrage at those women whose career trajectory has been propelled by sexy images when they dare to try regain that trajectory instead of (or as well as) joining a play-group. Is this kind of story likely to affirm readers who are grappling with the challenges of motherhood? Will it genuinely dampen the intensity of competition among women to be sexy?
What if the outrage at mothers who have the temerity to flaunt their sexiness is a symptom of sexual competition itself? Make it impossible to reconcile sexy and "new mother" and you'll never have to feel inferior at mother's group again.
Glamour magazines and websites seem awfully preoccupied with "having it all." They gush about celebrity couples too surgically enhanced and PR-airbrushed to ever be attainable role models, about those couples' massive engagement rings, faux-mantic proposals and awkwardly named babies. Mamamia.com hardly opted out of the psuedo-news of one Kim Kardashian's engagement to one Kanye West.
Nearly everything in a magazine like Cleo or Cosmo, or a website like Mamamia.com fuels the competition among women: to be hot, to be thin, to be well-dressed, to keep an impeccable home, to succeed in a career, to marry a man wealthier and more successful than yourself and - the cherry on the top -- to be an unimpeachable mother.
That is not to engage in the hollow pursuit of media-blaming. The acts of war by Mesdames Eriksen and Kardashian were self-published social media shots. And the thousands of individuals, mostly women, who retweeted or commented on the pictures committed small foot-soldierly acts of war too. As did the many columnists, including Sparrow and Freedman, and their commenters in turn. The competition among women to make the best life for themselves, with male (and female) partners and colleagues who value looks, and wealth and success is not going to disappear any time soon.
Rhapsodizing about fairytale engagements, red-carpet gowns, bikini bodies, perfect mommies and the like only creates the ecosystem in which the four-day post-baby-selfie can thrive. And so, when a mother tries to be the woman she was -- be it by flaunting her sexiness or returning to her career -- there seem to be legions of other mothers willing to block her path to the mythical land of having-it-all.
It's not my place to take sides here*. From where I view it, evolved urges to compete with sexual rivals operate mostly beneath any deliberate intent. But they can be stoked or doused. And publishers -- especially ones who want to opt out of harmful stereotyping -- should be aware of which one they are doing.
* Though, of course, that cannot be helped. Like Sparrow, Freedman, their commenters and everyone who retweets a baby-body-selfie, my comments form part of the same endless battle.
Rob Brooks does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.