THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, September 17, 1995 TAG: 9509150089
SECTION: DAILY BREAK PAGE: E1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY ANN G. SJOERDSMA
LENGTH: Medium: 83 lines
NO SOONER had the United Nations' Fourth World Conference of Women in Beijing, China, ended than 50 young lovelies strutted their ``equal'' assets down an Atlantic City runway in pursuit of the 75th Miss America crown.
While delegates from 189 nations toiled last week over, among other symbolic exercises, an ``agreement'' concerning women's right to ``control'' their sexuality, 50 giggly beauty contestants toiled over their hair and makeup in self-promoting exploitation of theirs - the better to merit a scholarship, of course.
Ah, sweet progress. We American women have now had just as many years of perky ``Miss America'' as we have of suffrage. Yet, despite this obvious irony, we still think of ourselves as ``global'' leaders who can talk about ``equality'' between the sexes as if it were not only absolute, but desired by all women. If ``equality'' does not play in Peoria, how's it going to play in China, Saudi Arabia or Africa?
The truth is as old as Confucius. Until women refuse to accept, and men stop giving them, preferential treatment, based largely on sexual appeal, so-called equality advocates are just banging their heads against a Great Wall.
Sex-neutral ``equality'' of human rights and economic opportunities already exists in this country, notably in the Constitution and in federal laws - and, of course, it should. But the same concept in ``real-life'' America is more difficult to define and dependent on individual thought and behavior, which ranges broadly from, shall we say, ``primitive'' to ``enlightened.''
The sex-based double standard that feminists bemoan continues in our sex-ploitative culture in part because women capitalize on it. And why do we capitalize on it? Because it's easy and sometimes flattering, and we can. It may not build character to call on feminine ``charms,'' but it does give some women, unequal as we all are, a ``competitive'' edge, one that we're taught from girlhood to cultivate.
But that edge is two-sided and can drop off steeply. This is the argument that politicized women should be advancing. The rude awakening.
Asked her opinion on whether the swimsuit portion of the Miss America spectacle should be eliminated, 71-year-old Bess Myerson, the 1945 titlist, said recently: ``I would have been disappointed had I not been able to wear the bathing suit, because I looked so great in it.''
Fine. Bess was a knockout at 21. But how great did Myerson look when, decades later, she was indicted on criminal charges that she tried to influence the judge who wAS handling her lover's divorce? Or how about when she was convicted in 1988 of shoplifting $44 worth of merchandise?
Good-lookers have always garnered favors that not-so-good-lookers cannot even imagine - the most unfair being jobs and promotions that they did not otherwise deserve. But for many, like Myerson, there's a catch to all that preferential treatment: a price exacted in self-respect, integrity and independence.
It often takes a long view, however, to appreciate this, something that is generally lacking in instant-gratifying America.
A woman who lives primarily by her sexual appeal can suffer dearly for it. We all know about the pretty wife who forgoes education and self-development for husband and home, only to be ``replaced'' in middle age by a newer model. Is she prepared to take care of herself?
Until she became a drop-dead gorgeous corpse, Nicole Brown Simpson enjoyed a lavish lifestyle and financial security that few other shallow, uneducated, young women can claim. Belatedly, she learned the price was her freedom.
Hollywood - need I even mention it? - is filled with so-called actresses (Sharon Stone, Kim Basinger) who posed nude before they were ``discovered'' on screen. When they later complain that they cannot get choice roles, how can they be taken seriously? Not only do they compromise themselves with bare-all skin pics, but they help to shorten the careers of their more talented peers, who ``age'' out of leading-lady roles.
We live in a delicate, unbalanced yin-yang culture in which preferential treatment is more often a trap than an advantage.
The U.N. conference statement on women's ``control'' of sexuality speaks of ``equal relationships'' between men and women in matters of sexual relations and reproduction, including ``mutual respect, consent, and shared responsibility.'' Admirable language. Far-reaching. But it does not begin to address real male-female sexual dynamics and social interplay.
Once again we have equality on paper, but no sense of its price and who is willing to pay it. MEMO: Ann G. Sjoerdsma is a lawyer and book editor for The Virginian-Pilot. by CNB