I Can't Get No Satisfaction: Female Sexuality in the Sixties

 

A quick glance at the discography of the revered English rock band The Rolling Stones shows that they were never the ones to toe the line when it came to their extremely topical and anti-conservative lyrics. From Paint it Black and its bleak description of grief-bound sorrow to the apocalyptic nature of Gimme Shelter. It is especially prevalent in Sympathy For The Devil, in which lead singer Mick Jagger proclaims himself as the devil – the architect of many of humanity’s bloodiest and most tragic events.

It’s of no surprise then, that their hit song (I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction caused quite a bit of upset with listeners. Released in 1965, the main narrative of the song is of a man who is tiring of the monotonous commercial life that he is living: ‘and the man comes on the radio and he’s telling me more and more about some useless information supposed to fire my imagination’.[1] If you could see his eyes in the recording booth, you can imagine a rock star like Jagger rolling them at the prospect of such a menial life. More prominently though, the third verse of the song starts to become more sexually oriented, and one line went almost entirely over critics’ heads: ‘Baby, better come back later this week, ‘cause you see I’m on a losing streak’[2] This line, spoken from the perspective of a woman, was revealed by Jagger to be a euphemism for menstruation.[3] Jagger’s explanation of the line emphatically summarised the changing views on such taboo topics like female sexual desires and menstruation: ‘It’s just life. It’s what happens to girls’.[4] Even today, I have to imagine songs referencing menstruation, even subtly, would be questionably received by radio stations.

The titular song is perfect to describe the emerging female sexual discourse that was beginning to emerge in the Sixties. However, the study of sex as an experience of pleasure and not simply reproduction started years before this. In 1948, Alfred Kinsey published his first report Sexual Behavior in Human Males, and a female study followed five years later. Kinsey was a biologist whose specialty resided in the study of gall wasps, not sexuality.[5] He met much opposition in his attempt to forward these studies, notably from academics who equated sex education with moral education, and condemned masturbation and premarital sex.[6] Kinsey’s research was extensive; there were 18,000 interviews, 8,000 of which he conducted himself.[7] With regards to the study of female sexuality, Kinsey pioneered the debunking of female asexuality, one of the most controversial aspects of his research. His research revealed that over 75 per cent of women had experienced orgasm after one year of marriage, 25 per cent had orgasmed before the age of fifteen, and 64 per cent before marriage entirely.[8] 

Alfred Kinsey

Kinsey’s efforts to demystify female sexuality in the 40s and 50s paved the way for the second-wave feminist movements of the Sixties, who could use his evidence to create their own self-agency and encouraged further studies of sexuality, without the backlash Kinsey face in his own day. To this end, it wasn’t just men who were wanting satisfaction, but women too.

-- Liam McKerral

---

[1] The Rolling Stones, ‘(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction’, Track 7 on Out of Our Heads, Andrew Loog Oldham, 1965, Digital

[2] Ibid.

[3] TIME, ‘Rock ‘n’ Roll: Going to Pot’, 01 July 1966, http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,835889-2,00.html (Last Accessed 18 March 2021)

[4] Ibid.

[5] Vern L. Bullough, ‘Alfred Kinsey and the Kinsey report: Historical overview and lasting contributions’ The Journal of Sex Research¸ Vol. 35, No. 2 (1998) pp. 127-131 (p. 128)

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., p. 129

[8] Ibid., p. 130

A Review of The Feminine Mystique by Betty Frieden

Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: Norton, 2001).

This book is seen as one of the pioneering works of Feminism and is seen as the Academic work that encouraged the Second Wave of Feminism. In 1963 when the book was first published many were pleased with the book. Jessie Bernard says that it ‘gave a much-needed shock to those who have unwittingly perhaps encouraged women to surrender their claims to identity as Human Beings’[1]. Sylvia Fleiss Fava also adds to this by explaining the book allowed Betty ‘to put her finger on the key problem of American women today: recognition as individuals’[2]. Both points help to stress how Betty’s book was a key part of recognising the problem in American society regarding women and also helping in allowing Women to gain a voice in society.

However, over the years The Feminine Mystique has been criticised regularly. For example, Susan Levine states ‘her book articulated underlying discontents among American Women – in particular, white middle class women’[3]. Katherine Turk supports this by saying ‘emphatic and nuanced descriptions of the frustration that gripped many white middle-class women in the early 1960’s’[4]. Both points have support in an article made on the Atlantic Website by Ashley Fetters who declares that Betty Frieden’s book was racist and classist[5]. This is a good example of the criticism given to the book. Another condemnation of the book is one of the passages that referred to Americans home as ‘comfortable concentration camps’[6]. This was ‘one of the most shocking passages’[7]. Betty would later retract this statement in public, but it showed again that this book was not as fantastic or as great as it seems. But maybe she had a point. David Horowitz adds a third issue when he explains ‘Friedens portrayal as so totally trapped by the feminine mystique it was part of a reinvention of herself’[8]. This suggests she was trying to escape her own life and that she herself felt trapped by her own domestic environment. Finally, Nancy Whitter adds another problem of the book by affirming ‘a book cannot single-handle spark a social movement. But it can contribute to change’[9]. Therefore, the book did not kick start the second wave of feminism it only contributed to invoke change and new thought.

What the previous four examples of criticism underline is that the book is not perfect, and it has several major issues with it. The use of comparing the home to The Holocaust in the Second World War and the fact it has slight racist tendencies makes the book quite controversial and confrontational. Nevertheless, it was revolutionary for women as it allowed them to see a new future instead of the same old way. As Cynthia Fuchs Epstein says ‘it argued against cultural mandates that it was best for women and society for them to leave the workplace at marriage become housewives and mothers of multiple children and support their husband’s careers’[10].  It was a book that ‘acted as a catalyst for the Western Feminist Movement’[11]. That, though all its controversies, is what it should be remembered for. It helped to create that second wave of Feminism so women could have more individual rights and a freedom of choices.

---

[1]Jessie Bernard, Marriage and Family Living, Vol.25, No.3 (1963), pp.381-82 (p.381).

[2] Sylvia Fleis Fava, American Sociological Review, Vol.28, No.6 (1963), pp.1053-054 (p.1054).

[3] Susan Levine, ‘The Feminine Mystique at Fifty’, Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, Vol.36, No. 2 (2015), pp.41-46 (p.41).

[4]Katherine Turk, ‘“To Fulfil an Ambition of [Her] Own”: Work, Class, and Identity in The Feminine Mystique’ Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, Vol.36, No.2 (2015), pp.25-32 (p.25).

[5]Ashley Fetters, ‘ Four Big Problems with the Feminine Mystique’, https://www.theatlantic.com/world/, (2013), https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/02/4-big-problems-with-the-feminine-mystique/273069/. (Last Accessed 19/03/2021).

[6]Kirsten Fermaglich, ‘"The Comfortable Concentration Camp": The Significance of Nazi Imagery in Betty Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique"’, American Jewish History, Vol.91, No.2 (2003), pp.205-32 (p.206).

[7] Ibid.

[8]Daniel Horowitz, ‘Rethinking Betty Friedan and the Feminine Mystique: Labour Union Radicalism and Feminism in Cold War America’, American Quarterly, Vol.48, No.1 (1996), pp. 1-42 (p.2).

[9]Nancy Whittier, ‘Everyday Readers and Social Movements: Considering the Impact of The Feminine Mystique’, Gender and Society, Vol.27, No. 1 (2013), pp.112-15. (p.113).

[10]Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, ‘Revisiting "The Feminine Mystique’, Sociological Forum, Vol.29, No.3 (2014), pp.763-68 (p.764).

[11]Rachel Bowlby, ‘“The Problem with No Name”: Rereading Friedan's “The Feminine Mystique”’, Feminist Review, No.27 (1987), pp. 61-75, (p.61).

Soviet Response to the Civil Rights Movement 1963

https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKNSF/295/JFKNSF-295-016 

This article produces a document that looks at the response of America towards Soviet coverage of the Civil Right Movement in America in 1963. This is quite interesting because the Civil Rights Movement is not usually associated with the Cold War and the Soviet Union. The document includes four points that the Soviet Media are making of American Society and its reaction to the Civil Rights Movement but according to America the points are nothing but pure propaganda. The first point is basically communist ideology and therefore can be seen as Propaganda. It states American Capitalism leads to Racism and that ‘Racism can only disappear when capitalism disappears’[1]. But the next three points do question America and its policies to minority groups. The second point states that the inaction of the US Government is leading to the support of the Racists in the south of America[2]. The third point questions how America can be seen in the Free World as the leader when its claim to democracy are ridiculous ‘when 20 million Negroes are denied fundamental human rights’[3]. The fourth and final point that is made asks how other continents like Asia and Africa can ask for support from America when it is denying basic rights to its own people. It also asks ‘“if America’s rulers can act like slaveholders towards millions of their own people what can the nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America expect of them’[4].

This document therefore makes two good points. Firstly, as David Skrentny states ‘American racist practices therefore proved ample evidence that Americans did not respect the rights of People of colour’[5]. This turns to the second point to be made about this document. It shows how much of a major role the Civil Rights had in the Cold War. As Mary Dudziak states ‘Soviet manipulation of America racial problems would be an important cold war narrative’[6]. Robert McMahon supports this by saying that the administrations of Eisenhower and Kennedy recognised that ‘the south’s system of racial subordination and the denial of essential rights to African-Americans tarnished America’s Global image’[7]. The questions the Soviets poised about race in America were question that any nation would raise in a country that was allowing racial discrimination to take place but telling everyone that they were the land of the free and that they were leaders of the free world. It is no wonder there was a social revolution in America with Women asking for equal rights, African Americans asking for civil rights and students asking for the end of the Vietnam War.

But America’s racial crisis was one of a few inequalities and if you compare it to the Soviet Union, America still looked positive even though it had these few major issues. The Soviet Union was a dictatorship that supressed freedom and new ideas. As is stated on the website the Soviet broadcasts were trying to turn ‘global public opinion against the United States’[8]. Therefore, the two Civil Rights Bill’s that were passed in 1963 and 1964 showed America were now allowing freedom to people in America. This, therefore, turned the world attention back to the Soviet Union who were suppressing Eastern Europe into a socialist state that it did not want to be a part of. This would come to light in Czechoslovakia in 1968.   

---

[1] American Government, ‘Soviet Media Coverage of Current US Racial Crisis’, https://www.jfklibrary.org/, (1963), https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKNSF/295/JFKNSF-295-016, (Last Accessed 15/03/2021).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] John David Skrentny, ‘The Effect of the Cold War on African-American Civil Rights: America and the World Audience, 1945-1968’, Theory and Society, Vol.27, No.2 (1998), pp.237-285 (p.245).

[6] Mary L. Dudziak, Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002), p.250.

[7]  Robert J. McMahon, The Cold War: A very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p.117.

[8] Rebecca Onion, ‘How the Soviet Union used Our Civil Rights Conflict Against Us’, https://slate.com/, (2013), https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/07/civil-rights-coverage-how-the-soviets-used-evidence-of-racial-strife-against-us-in-the-world-press.html (Last Accessed 15/03/2021).

“Pop Goes to Northern Ireland” Series 5 Episode 1:1963-1968

 

The series “Pop Goes to Northern Ireland” is an overview of the events that happened in Northern Ireland from 1963 to 2002. As Declan Lynch says it ‘is their version of Reeling in the Years’[1]. Reeling in the Years is an Irish programme looking back at the previous years of the Republic of Ireland. Pop Goes to Northern Ireland covers the main events at the start, during and after the period known as ‘The Troubles’. But it also covers other areas of society giving a good accurate picture of how a society functioned under such extreme circumstances. In then adds to the background music that was in the charts at the time. As Gail Walker adds ‘how could this not be crass, disrespectful, tasteless, selective, nasty and embarrassing?’[2]. Gail Walker goes on to say it has managed to ‘navigate with some aplomb all the obstacles above’[3]. This statement is true and from other episodes that have been watched this is a true reflection of the programme.

Turing to the episode that was watched covering the period 1963-1968 which is seen as the period known as the origins of “The Troubles”. The events that are portrayed are the key points in showing how the conflict in Northern Ireland arose from the Division Street Riots in 1964 to the events during the Easter Rising celebrations in 1966 and then though to the Civil Rights Movement and their activities.

 However, there are two problems that can be seen from this programme. Firstly, it should have carried out the episodes in chronological order so the viewers could follow how events from one year effected the next year. Secondly, there should have been an episode to brief the audience of the background of Northern Ireland between its creations and 1963. The formation and foundation of Northern Ireland is crucial to understanding why Northern Ireland erupted into violence. Looking at historians who have studied this period, it can clearly be seen why it is necessary to understand the origins of Northern Ireland. Sabina Wichert starts her book in 1945 when looking at Northern Ireland[4]. Peter Taylor starts his book Provos The IRA and Sinn Fein by starting at 1916 when looking at the history of Northern Ireland and the IRA[5]. However, Thomas Hennessey begins in 1963 in his book when Terence O’Neil became prime minister which is similar to the series[6]. This is also the same as Thomas Bardon who starts in 1963 when looking at the origins of “The Troubles” in his book A History of Ulster[7]. But John Whyte asserts in his book ‘when the troubles broke out in 1968’[8].

The point that is being made is that the television programme only gives a small inside, especially the 1963 to 1968 episode, on the continuing tensions in Northern Ireland. It does not show the complex picture of Northern Ireland and its Society as it evolved as a whole. However, this should not take away how good the programme is. The programme is a good start for someone looking into the period known as “The Troubles” and viewing Northern Ireland and its society even if it is a simple portrayal.  

---

[1] Declan Lynch, ‘Television Review: Power of Negative Thinking’, Irish Independent, (5^th Nov 2018), https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/television-review-power-of-negative-thinking-37486514.html (Last Accessed 14/03/2021).

[2] Gail Walker, ‘Pop Goes show could have got it so wrong, but its take on past hits right note’, Belfast Telegraph (13^th Nov 2018),  https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/gail-walker-pop-goes-show-could-have-got-it-so-wrong-but-its-take-on-past-hits-right-note-37522332.html (Last Accessed 14/03/2021).

[3] Ibid.

[4] Sabina Wichert, Northern Ireland since 1945, 2^nd edn (Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd, 1999).

[5] Peter Taylor, Provos: The IRA and Sinn Fein (London: Bloomsbury, 1998), p.8.

[6]Thomas Hennessey, Northern Ireland: The Origins of the Troubles (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 2005), p.ix.

[7] Jonathan Bardon, A history of Ulster (Belfast: Blackstaff Press, 1996).

[8] John H. Whyte, Interpreting Northern Ireland (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), p.3.

1966: The Year it Came Home

 

‘They think it’s all over, it is now!’

In the 2018 World Cup in Russia, my generation, and indeed my parents’ generation, saw England go within touching distance of becoming world champions for the first time in our lives. Gareth Southgate’s men had gloriously made it all the way to the final four, with a young squad with few expectations. In the semi-final against Croatia, Kieran Trippier’s scrumptious 25-yard free kick within the first five minutes had us all dreaming…but it was not to last, as England went on to lose 2-1 and were eliminated.

Though that was not to be, England’s one and only World Cup victory in 1966 has been immortalised in legend. It was extremely fitting that the tournament was hosted in England, with a royal opening ceremony and the commencement of the games announced by the Queen herself.[1] It was a chance for England to show off to the world that it was changing with the time and had broken free of its conservative shackles of previous decades.[2] It was an especially eventful tournament. North Korea qualified for the tournament as immense underdogs, submitting and entirely unknown team. Playing most of their games in Middlesbrough’s Ayresome Park, the Asian side became idolized by the local population after passing through the group stage with a giant-killing against two-time world champions Italy.[3] England’s final against West Germany was shrouded with controversy; the game went into added extra time at 2-2, when Geoff Hurst’s goal in the 98^th minute ricocheted off the crossbar and was adjudged to have crossed the line, though it was slim.[4] Fortunately, no VAR or goal-line technology existed then! Ironically, the opposite occurred in the 2010 World Cup, again against Germany, when Frank Lampard’s effort, again off the crossbar, which clearly crossed the line by a yard, was not considered a goal.[5] Nearly eleven years later, that poor refereeing decision still stings, though perhaps it is karma balancing out…Back to ’66, and as the crowd begins running onto the pitch to celebrate, Hurst scores again to become a hat-trick hero, prompting the iconic line ‘they think it’s all over…it is now![6]

Geoff Hurst's controversial second goal. It definitely
crossed the line...right?

This tournament was a first for the advancement of globalisation of football. Though Switzerland ’54 was the first to be televised in line with the more widespread availability of televisions,[7] the financial and technical investments made in this tournament represented a significant advancement in the field of televised sport. When assessing viability of stadiums, a venue’s ability to accommodate mass media centres became as important as spectator capacity and pitch size.[8] Football, already the world’s most popular sport, was growing into something much more – a business. The Daily Mirror claimed that over 400 million viewers tuned in for the final between England versus West Germany, the largest audience since the funeral procession of Winston Churchill, which it exceeded by over 50 million.[9] England ’66 was not only a display of England’s strong football heritage, but a performance to the world of its ability to adapt to the rapid changes that were brought on by the Sixties.

---

[1] FIFATV, ‘What Made England so ’66?’, YouTube Video, 1:39, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5qB6PXQ06k
[2] BBC Sport, ‘The Story of the 1966 World Cup’ 16 May 2014 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/27392991 (Last Accessed 12 March 2021)
[3] Tosh Warwick, ‘The FIFA World Cup, International Friendship and the “Mystery Men of the East”: When Middlesbrough Fell in Love with North Korea’ North Korean Review, Vol. 15, No. 1 (2019) pp. 51-72 (pp. 58-59)
[4] FIFATV, ‘Final Replay ’66, | 1966 FIFA World Cup | England v West Germany, YouTube Video, 2:20:50, 30 July 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3bcX8NaYW0
[5] FIFATV, ‘Germany v England | 2010 FIFA World Cup | Match Highlights’, YouTube Video, 4:59, 27 June 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v_t3NCDZG8
[6] FIFATV, ‘Final Replay ‘66’, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3bcX8NaYW0
[7] Fabio Chisari, ‘When Football Went Global: Televising the 1966 World Cup’ Historical Social Research, Vol. 31, No. 1 (2006) pp. 42-54 (p. 43)
[8] Ibid., p. 46
[9] Ibid., p.  49

King Louie and the Subject of Race: My View

The legacy of Walt Disney is a contested one, particularly with regards to race. Many maintain he held dubious views of Jews and of African-Americans, though there exists an equally unequivocal lobby that insist he was no more racist or racially insensitive than the mass of white Americans of the 1960s. The record as regards his films is similarly disputed. Though such films as Song of the South (1946) and Dumbo (1941) are a focus of this debate, this blog focusses on The Jungle Book, produced much later in 1967, and which is the subject of a blog post below.

The aforementioned post relies on two articles: one by by Greg Metcalf; and one by Cory Lund. The latter is, in my view, an intemperate rant, so I shall deal in the main with Greg Metcalf's article.

Metcalf applies the issue of racism (and prejudice in general) to a great many characters; including Mowgli, whom he decrees as a stand-in for white Americans by virtue of his skin having only a 'darker tan' and having an apparently similar storyline to white characters like Pinocchio.

He declares that it 'would not be going too far' to suggest that Shere Khan is a stand-in for communism with no evidence proffered, whilst Cory Lund attempts to attach the "yellow peril" trope to a character named Khan (associated with Mongol invaders). The fact that Shere Khan is clearly an allegory of Shir Ali Khan, ruler of Afghanistan, a very real menace and not at all a trope, seems not to have troubled Mr. Lund.

But the accusations of racist characters in the film gravitate towards King Louie. At first glance, this may hold water: An exaggerated, stereotypical, character with a fondness for jazz. However, appearances I would argue are deceptive. Both Metcalf and Lund ascribe his name to Louis Armstrong but this is a bold lie: Not only was Louie voiced by Louis Prima (an Italian) but his apparently African-American voice, mannerisms, swagger and lyrics were all directly inspired by Prima - not black musicians as is so often alleged. In fact, Armstrong was considered for the role, but was replaced by Prima over concerns that a black man voicing an ape would appear racist! Far from an example of racism, the voice of King Louie is an example of the opposite, something Metcalf appears to have overlooked.

Metcalf also suggests that the setting is a slum, reminiscent of Watts (of Watts riot infamy). This is about as convincing as trying to draw a link between Watts and Angkor Wat just because of the name: For you see, the temple-setting was modelled on Angkor Wat which far from a slum is one of history's great marvels, and an icon of human civilisation.

Discussion of the monkeys wanting to be white is a nuanced one, but is predicated on the monkeys being a stand-in for blacks which I reject. Aside from the behaviour of the monkeys, which as I said was modelled on an Italian-American, not an African-American, other of Metcalf's evidences I find similarly unconvincing. He cites a monkey appearing (somehow) like a black manservant - though that character spoke in a Caucasian accent and I saw no similarity in appearance, much as I saw no scene resembling Metcalf's allegations over bananas symbolising marijuana (neither did Alex Wainer, also cited). In similar vein, the bizarre noises of the monkeys were not in fact planned (to make fun of African-Americans), but entirely spontaneous & absent from Disney's script, playing on the utterings that were a trademark of the musicians involved. - DANIEL A. RUSSELL.

Sources:

·      Metcalf, Greg, "It's A Jungle Book Out There, Kid!": The Sixties in Walt Disney's "The Jungle Book", Studies in Popular Culture Vol. 14, No. 1 (1991).

·      Lund, Cory, I Wanna be Like You: Racial Coding in Disney’s The Jungle Book (https://sites.williams.edu/f18-engl117-01/uncategorized/i-wanna-be-like-you-racial-coding-in-disneys-the-jungle-book/) accessed: 12/03/2021.

·      Wainer, Alex, Reversal of Roles: Subversion and Reaffirmation of Racial Stereotypes in Dumbo and The Jungle Book (https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/links/essays/reversal.htm) accessed: 12/03/2021.

·      Scott, Mike, For 'Jungle Book' purists, you just can't spell primate without 'Prima' (https://www.nola.com/entertainment_life/movies_tv/article_0bf96fd4-8f8d-57ca-b59b-ce813d1c6f77.html).

·      The Jungle Book: The Making of a Musical Masterpiece (Documentary, 1997).

·      Weinert-Kendt, Rob, Cutting Through a Cultural Thicket (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/theater/the-jungle-book-comes-to-the-stage.html?_r=0) accessed 12/03/2021.