Hat tip to Helen who has a much longer rant about this op/ed in The Age today:
IS IT just me, or are other women troubled by the figure of Ja’mie, the schoolgirl character played by Chris Lilley in Summer Heights High, and the unnerving possibility that there is a connection between her extraordinary egocentricity and feminism?
I’m not suggesting a cause and effect relation, just raising the possibility that Ja’mie is an unintended consequence of feminism.
Yes, Jennifer, it is just you. Helen nails it:
Because, like, my go-ad, no WAY could she, or any of the other characters in these series, be an overblown caricature!
Dare I suggest that rather than Ja’mie being “feminism’s worst nightmare” it might be the fact that nothing sells an op/ed to Fairfax easier than some woman on the make (either with an academic title or the descriptor “young” implied in some way) touting a dumb-assed rant about feminism “going too far”? Maybe poor old Greg Sheridan could take comfort from this – the culture wars haven’t ended after all. It’s just that the always boringly predictable latte left mindsetters and trendsetters of the Smhage are fighting them with their own characteristically moralising and self-righteously agonising soft liberal tone. Whatevs.
Guess it might help to have watched the TV program, but, sorry, got no idea what this post or the longer linked post is on about. So many words, so little meaning. If you get my drift.
Any one like to decipher?
Kims post, this comment, and the California Bushfires are the final sign that Feminism has gone too far.
Fat Cat has whiskers
George Clooney also has whiskers
=> Fat Cat is George Clooney
jinmaro,
The character of Ja’amie is that of an egocentric super-achieving private school girl, who is arguably sociopathic in the scope of her “overblown caricature” of ambitious elitism. As far as she translates to any real world demographic, it is that shining symbol of the patriarchy, the socialite aiming to be a trophy wife. Hardly a character upholding any aspect of feminism that I’ve ever heard of.
Jennifer Sinclair does realize that Summer Heights High is a fictional program? Well, does she?
There’s a scary thought!
Lordy, where would you start with this one:
Right, no class based assumptions there? Aarrgghhh!!!
Fortunately we don’t need to critique it all because Helen put it all very eloquently. But there are two broader issues:
(1) It is true, seemingly, that The Age in particular is in the habit of publishing illogical ravings on the topic of feminism. What is it in their audience (or their editorial perception of their audience) that means this stuff pushes buttons?
(2) Summer Heights High contained a far more sophisticated social critique than you’d ever know from this article!
Anything on the internet that starts with “Is it just me” is an easy to pick troll.
And not just fictional, Shaun, but satirical as well. Not only not real, but also meaning the opposite of what it seems to mean.
Anthony, exactly. Clearly Ms Sinclair failed Logic 101.
Re ‘feminism has gone too far’ — too far for what? Comfort? Good. A return to teh good ole days? Good.
Is it just me, or are other people troubled by the use of the word “troubled”?
Looking forward to Andrew Bolt etc explaining how they feel male energy is disempowered, misdirected and emasculated by Ricky G. in the “The Office.”
No doubt as a result of them evil commies sapping our precious bodily fluids.
Jennifer Sinclair indulges in a spot of Manolo-munching:
In the regions of the world not encompassaed by your skull, Jennifer, an effect is also sometimes called a consequence.
Could do better, Jen.
Mark,
Agreed. “The Age” has hosted several mind-numbing op-ed pieces of late. Deveny the Obliterator, who loves to talk dirty & crass in her TV reviews, tucked away in the Saturday edition, has been loosed onto the Opinion pages. Apparently aiming to be the Andrew Bolt of “The Age”. But she can’t write as well as him, so her pieces are transparently ridiculous. They certainly stir the readers, and I too wonder if that’s all the editor wants.
Have a look at their online offerings. A year ago it was relatively straightforward, plenty of standard news: international, national, Victoria, sports, etc.
Now it’s heavily glitz/glam/youf/opinion/gossip/blogs/celebrity/trash talk/music scene/youf/hype/rock & roll/glib social comment/celebrity/fashion/gossip, etc. Did I mention celebrities?
I wonder if that part of their business is now seeping into their broadsheet?
cheerio
As Helen points out, it is remarkable that Sinclair doesn’t realise that criticising a self-centred character for being a self-centred *girl* falls into the kind of gender-based expectations that feminism criticises: her article is an indication of why we still need feminism. And this lack of reflexive understanding of her own argument in someone who teaches sociology at a university level is concerning to me, as a sociology/politics postgrad.
Past that, the characterisation of Ja’mie plays on the self-absorption and melodrama of adolescence. There’s a lot of criticism of the pampering of children and teenagers, a depiction of how feeling secure and popular can easily slip into acting callously, and a lot of satirisation of ridiculous ‘common sense’ pronouncements – wife-beaters and criminals come from public schools, etc. As far as gender and class goes, Lilley really targets the kind of culture that feminists criticise – hyper-sexualised culture that teenagers try to model.
Sinclair was ridiculously wide of the mark.
Kirsty m
well said. It’s as painful to watch someone misunderstand humour & satire, as it is to watch Jonah struggle with school and Ja’amie struggle with life.
Mr G can make us cringe, but…. how many self-centred and smug teachers are there? (Thousands is my estimate; outnumbered only by self-centred, primma donna academics.)
Lilley is brilliant.
Ciao, catch ya, message me, cop you later!
Many years ago, when I was a relatively young fellow first encountering feminism I might have got a bit paranoid about young J’aimie being some vagina-dentita type female. Paranoid being the operative word. I guess I’ve mellowed.
Feminism was not an ideology/philosophy that ever occured to me while watching the show. There may have been a touch of class consciousness, but mainly there was a delight in being made to squirm at the appalling behaviour of the three main characters. I suspect it may have been more of a critique of what living in John Howard’s Australia has done to our heads, but that might just be me.
It wasn’t very funny, but it was entertaining.
Ah but you see, there’s the problem of satire; too many mistake the mirror for a window.
And the logical follow up to Sinclair’s piece; “Jonah is the unintended consequence of multiculturalism.”
To the charges of strawfeminism and lack of logic I will add that Sinclair’s writing is abominable:
Lolly McLol has enetered the building.
I’m blessed if I can remember the last time I read an op-ed on feminism which was based on good old empirical social science and rigorous argument as opposed to expressions of this or that prejudice grounded in impressions, anecdotes, personal grievance and/or dodgy/misreported/misunderstood research.
When I read the title of that opinion piece, I assumed the author was going to discuss the feminist implications of an actor, dressed as a young girl, ‘playing’ (classed, raced) dominant femininity as self absorbed, selfish and shrewish. Cos that might feed into the ‘feminism’s worst nightmare’ theme.
just sayin’
male actor, that is.
Just thought I’d copy and paste that sentence because it is so true and so well put.
anthony
Not that I doubt it particularly, but when I use that quote I want to attribute accurately. So…
I seriously suspect that Jennifer Sinclair doesn’t realise that the character ‘Ja’mie’ is played by Chris Lilley. You know, a bloke!
Apart from that small detail she is spot on.
You’re a good sport ambigulous and I tips me hat to you.
Didn’t she see Mean Girls? I’d hate to think of what she’d write about that.
I read that yesterday and I thought. “I should cut this article and show it to anyone that thinks that bloggers are not worth reading compared to stuff printed in newspaper”.
I read that yesterday and I thought. â??I should cut this article and show it to anyone that thinks that bloggers are not worth reading compared to stuff printed in newspaperâ??.
Snort! Yes Guido, it did cross my mind to ring the AGE and say “Hi, if you want a few hastily churned out paras of personal opinion, completely unadulterated by any supporting statistics and whatnot, why bother with a sociologist? I’ll do it cheaper in my spare time!”
“Before the suggestion is dismissed on the basis that Ja’mie is a caricature of class, rather than of gender, it’s worth bearing in mind that private schools are populated with the daughters of 1970s feminists, feminists who, having established careers, have enough income to be able to afford school fees.”
Well, if she wants to read it so, she needs to look at the characterisation of Ja’mie’s mother Jhyll King, who bears little resemblence to the 1970′s feminist she is so anxious to nab. If she watched the show for any length of time, she would have seen anything but an assertive feminist of the 70′s ilk. Rather Jhyll is passive woman with a cheque book, ruthlessly dominated by whims of her narcissistic daughter.
I think the major indicator of class satire is the spelling of the names which point to the idiocyncracies of the new moneyed classes and their proximitiy to the lower classes from which they originate (and which they negate – eg) Ja’mie and her thesis of the fuglies of the lower classes). Jodhi Mears used to be Jody once upon a time. And I was always amused by the spelling contortions of the workingclass wonderland that was the Leskie family – Bilynda, Jaidyn etc etc
Here is Jhyll, poor thing.Though you cant help feel she is being eaten by the spawn she moulded.
The Meares person changed her name because of numerology foolishness, don’t blame the working class for that!
But Amanda, Im really not blaming the working class for anything really. I was just commenting on Chris Lilley’s satirisation of class itself. And to certain representations of the working class in the media as well. I am aware of lovely Jodhi’s numerology reasons.(I suspect she may think it worked given her financial windfall throught the Packer venture) Same with Siimon Reynolds. Still, changing your name for new age benefits is not something thats in great evidence in the established upper classes, so what class is Lilley satirising exactly?. New money of the middle, surely. He taps into certain behaviour that is stereotyped and reproduced in the media and in conversation – eg, the bogan, the westie, the effie, the ja’mie, the jonah (the darling), the kev, on and on.
What I meant is that for the nouveau riche, there is often a negation of working class roots – here I think its evidenced in the desire to exoticise names, the way Jodhi did – something the older, established class doesn’t do. He may have married one, but I didnt see Jamie Packer changing his own name to, well, Ja’mie, for want of a better example.
Methinks we’re overdue for a TV satire based on what goes on in an op/ed editor’s office.
It’s been well over 10 years since the demise of Frontline, yeah?
I don’t like them peoples what have larnin’.
Helen – DO IT. DO IT NOW!
*coffee on keyboard*, oh thanks David. That made my day.
Except for this post from a blog I hadn’t seen before, Interbreeding:
Ja’mie and Miranda: Separated at birth!
Oh, why did I not see it?!
*More coffee on keyboard*
*Time to get new keyboard*
Plus, they already have Jim Schembri, right?
If you substitute “parents” for “feminists” and apply the argument equally to boys and girls, I think there’s a point in there somewhere. Contemporary ideas around both parenthood and education seem to be dominated by the notion that helping a child fulfil his or her potential is the singular goal. That seems fair enough, and if “fulfilling his potential” is also construed to mean “fulfilling his potential for kindness and caring”, then the policy becomes hard to argue with. Often, though (and this is reinforced through institutions like the VCE which force kids to compete against each other), the potential being talked about is really the potential to dominate over others. In girls’ schools (like the one that I teach at), the message probably seems particularly loud because there’s a sense of these children being among the first to claim their birthright (i.e. equality of opportunity to dominate over others). It’s this dominant ethic of competitive individualism that tends to create even nastier monsters out of already-narcissistic adolescents. The tendency has been long manifest in “high-achieving” boys’ environments, but it’s relatively new to girls’ schools. The boys have had their turn at a satirical working-over earlier on.