On the weekend, Australia’s deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard launched an attack on Suicide Girls. Well, perhaps not suicide girls specifically, but she did criticise both heavily tattooed women and young women with a proclivity towards being photographed in little clothing. Gillard’s attack was on the so called “raunch culture”; a term coined by Ariel levy in her book Female Chauvinist Pigs.

Critics of raunch culture describe it as the false empowerment of women through the commercialisation of their sexuality. Internet phenomena, like Girls Gone Wild is the pinnacle of this trend. The argument is that raunch culture is disempowering because it encourages young women to consider their value and worth to be attached to their sexuality and specifically, their willingness to be overtly sexual.

For anyone who’s not Australian, Gillard would be the Australian equivalent of the US Secretary of State. Like Clinton, she is considered by the media and much of the public (me excluded) to be a feminist. She lives with her male partner in a de facto relationship, is childless by choice and is arguably the most influential woman in Australian politics. Fairly meagre indicators of feminism, you might say, and you’d be right. However the fact remains that Gillard is supposed to be one of the spokespeople for progressive sexual politics in Australia. Things do not bode well for Australian women.

So what did Gillard say exactly? In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, Julia claimed that young women who became heavily tattooed were making a big mistake, and expressed her fears that "raunch culture" had gone too far.

Gillard said society should question whether it’s healthy for young women to be photographed “with next to no clothes on” and claims this is fundamentally disempowering.

It seems to me that the disempowering thing here is the concept that tattooed women who model for photographers are of superficial worth.

What’s disempowering...

On the weekend, Australia’s deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard launched an attack on Suicide Girls. Well, perhaps not suicide girls specifically, but she did criticise both heavily tattooed women and young women with a proclivity towards being photographed in little clothing. Gillard’s attack was on the so called “raunch culture”; a term coined by Ariel levy in her book Female Chauvinist Pigs.

Critics of raunch culture describe it as the false empowerment of women through the commercialisation of their sexuality. Internet phenomena, like Girls Gone Wild is the pinnacle of this trend. The argument is that raunch culture is disempowering because it encourages young women to consider their value and worth to be attached to their sexuality and specifically, their willingness to be overtly sexual.

For anyone who’s not Australian, Gillard would be the Australian equivalent of the US Secretary of State. Like Clinton, she is considered by the media and much of the public (me excluded) to be a feminist. She lives with her male partner in a de facto relationship, is childless by choice and is arguably the most influential woman in Australian politics. Fairly meagre indicators of feminism, you might say, and you’d be right. However the fact remains that Gillard is supposed to be one of the spokespeople for progressive sexual politics in Australia. Things do not bode well for Australian women.

So what did Gillard say exactly? In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, Julia claimed that young women who became heavily tattooed were making a big mistake, and expressed her fears that "raunch culture" had gone too far.

Gillard said society should question whether it’s healthy for young women to be photographed “with next to no clothes on” and claims this is fundamentally disempowering.

It seems to me that the disempowering thing here is the concept that tattooed women who model for photographers are of superficial worth.

What’s disempowering is the inability to recognise the artistry involved in modelling and the validity of artists who choose to use their bodies as their canvas. The failure to acknowledge this incredible commitment to art is an insult, not only to SG’s but to all models and anyone with half decent ink.

I met an aspiring SG on the weekend who was a vivacious, intelligent and creative person. We talked about a range of topics and surprise, surprise she was a multi-faceted and complex individual, despite sporting some ink and having the makings of a wonderful nude model. Pocketrocket is a professional woman, confident and independent. Our conversation provided me with some small insight into who she is as a person; her values and her self perception. I walked away with that glow you sometimes have when you meet somebody really cool for the first time and I could only wish that encounters with people like her occurred more often.

I wonder what Ms. Gillard would have thought of her, had she shared a beer with us in that bar. Would she have found her engaging and articulate or would she have seen a disempowered victim of the commercialisation of female sexuality? Even if she had seen the latter, who is she to tell young women what is and is not a mistake when it comes to their bodies?

Only a naïve fool, or a person in denial would fail to acknowledge the misogyny that was once prevalent in porn and similarly I would tender that much of today’s content truly is disempowering to women, but this only makes it more important to encourage ethical content. I think SG is one such example; there’s a whole site built around humanising the models so that they aren’t one dimensional, vapid facsimiles.

I could write more, but I won’t, because apparently naked, tattooed women are not that bright and probably have short attention spans too. After all, if they have to get their kit off to find validation, they couldn’t possibly be of the calibre of say, a female politician.

I would however, love to hear from some of our SGs and their fans about the wonderful and varied achievements they are proud to call their own. Perhaps an open letter to Ms. Gillard might open her eyes to the fact that ink and boobs do not equate to subjugated, disempowered women.