The Good Girl Revolution: Young Rebels with Self-Esteem and High Standards

by Wendy Shalit

Across the country, there’s a youth-led rebellion challenging the status quo. In Seattle and Pittsburgh, teenage girls protest against companies that sell sleazy clothing. Online, a nineteen-year-old describes her struggles with her mother, who she feels is pressuring her to lose her virginity. In a small town outside Philadelphia, an eleventh-grade girl, upset over a “dirty book” read aloud in English class, takes her case to the school board. These are not your mother’s rebels.

Drawing on numerous studies and interviews, the brilliant Wendy Shalit makes the case that today’s virulent “bad girl” mindset truly oppresses young women. She reveals how the media, one’s peers, and even parents can undermine girls’ quests for their authentic selves, and explains what it means to break from the herd mentality and choose integrity over popularity. Written with sincerity and upbeat humor, The Good Girl Revolution rescues the good girl from the realm of mythology and old manners guides to show that today’ s version is the real rebel. Society may perceive the good girl as “mild,” but Shalit demonstrates that she is in fact the opposite. The new female role models are not “people pleasing” or repressed; they are outspoken and reclaiming their individuality. These empowering stories are sure to be an inspiration to teenagers and parents alike. Join the conversation at www.thegoodgirlrevolution.com

Genres: Nonfiction, Christian, Parenting, Womens

352 pages, Paperback

First published July 8, 2008

Reviews

[L** · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really wanted to like this book. I agree with many of her assertions:

Females are more than their bodies.

It really is NOT empowering to flash one's "boobs" or engage in girl-on-girl action for male approval.

The pressure to meet beauty norms is overwhelming, especially because in today's culture, those beauty norms are largely about looking sexy.

The pressure to look sexy is accompanied by pressure to be sexy. That means embracing public displays of our bodies and sexuality-- often rooted in male sexual desires.

The idea that adult women are supposed to be sexy has filtered down, sexualizing females at ever younger ages.

Women shouldn't be criticized for waiting for marriage for sex or for dressing modestly. Such females are not necessarily frumpy, hung up, anti-modern, or took a wrong turn from the compound as they drove to the grocery.

Most young people are better off waiting for sexual relations until they are in loving, respect-based, supportive relationships. One may not have a terribly emotional response to sex, but some people do. In general, people are better off making sure they are in a relation “space” that provides support and ensures respect for feelings and body to better ensure consent. (Actually, Shalit says sexual activity is only permitted within marriage.)

All of these are things Shalit argues, and with all this, I wholeheartedly agree (note exception above). But the execution here, well, is more than problematic. Before I get into my concerns, let me say a few things:

1- You may find spoilers. This isn't fiction so it isn't like you'll find the "butler did it" equivalent. Rather, what you'll find are comments about the content.

2- Trigger warnings apply. I will be discussing some of her material that touches on issues regarding consent and rape culture.

3- I'm not concerned with some of her arguments because I'm defensive about my life. I tend to dress modestly and have had one sexual partner. But even if I had been promiscuous, no one's opinions should be written off because someone else disapproves of their lives. And that is, incidentally, one of my problems with Shalit in this book and "Return to Modesty." For what approaches some "shoe-banging" about why no one appreciates virginity and modesty and mocks women who embrace these values, she herself condemns women who have sex before marriage and wear revealing clothes. She even praises one mother who applauds how her daughters demean other girls for their provocative clothes.

With the warnings out of the way, here we go. Grab a coffee and towel. I pretty much guarantee soap.

First, I'd like to note that a few things don't fit that well into the book. Because she reduces girl-violence and mean-girl issues down to rivalries over boys or trying to degrade a girl for being more desirable, she misses what numerous scholars consider a complex social phenomena. Of course, rivalries over boys and jealousy over looks (etc) are parts of the dynamic, but there's much more going on here than those factors. Also, the chapter on emotional repression and on-line friendship seems oddly placed as well. I agree that these are problems, and that emotional repression fuels casual sex and hook-up culture, but Shalit seems to view emotionality as inherent for females. She doesn't seem to get that females are socialized to be more affectionate, more emotional, and that telling women that it is, in fact, OK to NOT be emotional, to be detached is actually pretty revolutionary, just as it is to tell boys and men that it really is OK to cry and show emotions when they aren't playing sports or attending a funeral. But then, Shalit doesn't really have a problem with gender essentialism or patriarchal structures. And here is where I actually start with what is some very problematic content and messages to females about what makes them worthwhile humans.

I'll start with the most egregious example of Shalit's misread of the situation. She recounts a case in which an adult woman made arrangements with her 15 year old daughter and adult boyfriend that the daughter would engage in sex with the boyfriend during the woman's 2 month recovery from a surgery. In exchange, the daughter would get various things she wanted (clothes, etc.) (38). (mouth vomit) Shalit's concern with this? "This is shocking, but in a culture so hostile to the idea of innocence, not entirely surprising." Really? the only thing she has in response is "hostile to innocence?" Her response was just as vomitous as the situation itself. Let me provide my response: this situation is galling for a range of reasons. 1st, we have a guy who believes he is so entitled to this woman's body that for about 8 weeks, he's likely to leave her because his access is limited, prompting her to make this "deal." So, what, he can't take some time for a nice self-induced old-fashioned in the bathroom for 2 months? They can't figure out other ways that they can be mutually intimate during her recovery? If his sense of entitlement to sex is so strong, you can bet that some of their sex is not consensual. Hostility to innocence-- meet hostility to consent.

Next, we have a woman who has bought into ideas that her worth comes from male validation and that she needs a man. Hostility to innocence-- meet hostility to the single independent woman. What we really need to condemn isn't sexual freedom (which Shalit does), but a patriarchal system that teaches men they are entitled to sex, and teaches women their value comes from and via men and they have a duty to satisfy those males that give them worth.

But Shalit really doesn't seem to mind patriarchy, nor does she seem to understand consent. She openly embraces the suggestion of Helen Vera who wants to contest Yale's hook-up culture and replace it with dating. As Vera wrote, guys need to take a risk and ask girls to go out. Girls need to accept those invites and should only decline if she has "good reasons not to." Shalit doesn't divulge what those "good reasons" are or if Vera even notes such. (75) (And here I want to make a structural comment. She includes 28 pages of notes, but there are no in-text references so it is very hard to find her citations and notes and connect them to the content.) So only GUYS get to approach women for dates. And women are basically OBLIGATED to accept. Here, Shalit endorses the age-old notion of female passivity, but I guess that was bound to happen with an author who asserts that women in Jane Austen's era were "not as sexually vulnerable" as women today (104).

...

Let's break that down-- women in the early- mid 1800s had more sexual protection than now. How does that work when marital rape didn’t exist because husbands had an absolute conjugal right to their wives’ bodies? In respectable circles (white, middle class), an unmarried female who was raped was generally blamed for stepping out from the protective umbrella of her home or chaperoned meetings/situations. Working class women and women of color and Jewish women were all viewed as so inherently sexual that rape was impossible. Females in domestic labor were little better than property and their bodies were routinely available to the men of the house. And slave women WERE property. Especially after 1808 when no new slaves could enter the US, rape of slave women was a standard practice, in part to ensure the number of slaves in service was maintained. Females in factory or other labor were subjected to sexual abuse by their typically male supervisors or by men as they journeyed to and from their homes and work. So. Women were only sexually protected if: they were middle class; they were white and Christian, especially Protestant; they always said yes to their husbands; they always had chaperones or were in public spaces with many other people around, or they remained under the protected roof of the home. Yup. That sounds like sexual protection to me.

Yet, contemporary culture engages in victim-blaming so frequently that many of these ideas, tweaked a bit, still hold, and Shalit endorses them. For example, any garment or activity associated with sex must, by definition, only be about sex. Thong underwear is only about sex; it could never be worn because it is more comfortable under a leotard, skating dress, or gymnastic shorts. Two piece swimsuits are about being sexy and showing skin; a woman or girl can’t possibly wear one because she has disproportionate sizes, or because it is easier to dress a wiggling toddler in 2 pieces, or because a little girl can dress herself easier or remove a wet 2 piece easier. I agree wholeheartedly that thongs with sexual sayings ARE about sex, and I absolutely do not think they should be marketed to children. But the garment in itself is not solely about being sexy and looking for sexy times. But Shalit really appears to want to give credence to the idea that if a garment is associated with sex at all, it is solely about sex and its wearer, by definition, is looking for sex. She feeds the idea that a woman is “asking for it” because cleavage, short skirt, tight pants.

But again, I guess this isn’t surprising from an author who doesn’t distinguish violence and sexual activity. She praises B. Hunsicker for challenging the book “The Buffalo Tree” as required reading because of its sexual content. The book remains on her school’s reading list, but it now has a content warning for violence. Shalit laments that it doesn’t carry a sexual content flag. The thing is—the book’s sexual content is almost entirely sexual violence in the context of juvenile detention. While I’d say the book should be noted for violence and sexual violence, Shalit should be embarrassed that she equates sexual activity in general to sexual violence (196).

Shalit is willing to call out cultural sexism, when it helps her case. For example, when B. Hunsicker challenged the aforementioned text, she was brutally mistreated by her school, school board, and class mates. And those individuals should be ashamed of themselves. (Shalit mentions the girl was damaged by reading the book, but she never established how or what kind of harm befell her from reading alone. Indeed, the damage seems to have been how people treated her.) Yet when a boy challenges a text (in this case “Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress”) for its sexual content, the school seemingly cheerfully complied. Problem is, by Shalit’s telling of the situation, the boy didn’t lob the complaint to the school; his mother did. He approached her with his concern, she agreed. She started a petition to other parents, got their signatures, and went to the school with the petition. The school complied (198). Perhaps the issue isn’t that society can’t handle a “good girl” anymore but ageism. But then, if age was the issue, Shalit couldn’t trumpet that we just can’t tolerate a girl who isn’t “down with” sexually explicit material.

This misrepresentation of the two textual challenges helps Shalit present her concern that girls are increasingly rewarded for approving of and engaging in sexual culture and if they speak out against it, they are quashed by social, cultural, or other forces. But here’s the thing: Shalit encourages female passivity and female quietness for almost everything else, giving females a public voice to only promote abstinence and modesty. She uses Chasidic Jewish culture as proof that modest girls are more outspoken and intellectually engaged than “immodest” girls. But Shalit never notes something crucial—Chasidic schools are sex-segregated. As numerous studies illustrate, girls in single-sex environments are more likely to speak out in classes and challenge their instructors or each other. It isn’t modesty that gives these girls voice. It is being away from boys and not feeling they have to perform socio- cultural narratives about female passivity and deference to males (long entrenched in American culture) that pervade co-ed classrooms. Sexism and patriarchy aren’t the problems to Shalit, the problem is women who like sexy clothes and sexy times. And our general raunchy hypersexual culture that condones and encourages women to sexually objectify themselves.

But she continually places sexual freedom as the cornerstone of the problem, missing the ongoing emphasis on female worth being located on appearance and validated by male approval. She does, to be fair, note both at various times [she humorously discusses appearance by concocting KUGEL parties, in which we strike out sex culture by eating so much calorie-rich kugel that we feel fat and ashamed of our bodies so we don't want sex (217- 218)], but her larger emphasis is on how sexual freedom and freedom to wear whatever are the problems. I'd also like to note that she conflates various forms of casual and too-casual-for-the-situation dress with dressing provocatively. Both overly casual dress and sexy clothes are concerns, but they aren't the same and have origins in different ideas and challenges to socio- cultural norms and values. But again, if she's equating pajamas with sex because they are close to lingerie, then even silly "Spirit Week" events like pajama day push sex to youth (140).

In general, context is lacking throughout the book. For example, the sex-positive movement, which she lampoons throughout, grew out of a moment in which women’s sexual pleasure was actively denied, women’s sexuality was viewed as solely existing for reproduction and male pleasure, and any sexual activity for women outside of marriage was condemned. It grew out of a moment in which gay men, lesbians, trans individuals, bisexuals were vilified, brutalized, blamed for any number of societal problems, and their voices erased. She presents sex-positivity as a ridiculous movement that tries to promote sex to younger and younger people without ever acknowledging what climate the movement grew out of or exploring what the movement is really trying to accomplish.

Furthermore, I really wish Shalit had examined some of the materials from the Abstinence Clearinghouse the way she explored things from various sex-positive forums. In crucial ways, forums like Scarleteen exist to counteract the demoralizing content(and often incorrect “information”)from AO organizations such as these descriptions of girls who’ve had sex outside of wedlock: mangled flower; licked lollipop; dirty tape; disgusting candy bar, and used wrapper— these are just few of the ways that various AC-approved speakers and texts talk about a girl after a single sexual experience. And much like Shalit’s world, no sexuality beyond cis-gendered heterosexuality exists in AO education. (She derides efforts to encourage acceptance of homosexuality on 234- 235 and 265- 267.)

Perhaps Shalit also needs to actually do her research about Purity rings as well, and to consider why some people think that Purity ring and Purity ball cultures turn girls into chattel (33). It isn’t being a virgin that constitutes the issue of chattel, which is what she notes. Rather, it’s the pledge-- that girls turn their virginity over to their fathers for protection and that fathers pledge to cover their daughters’ virginity to turn over to the future husband-- that turns girls’ bodies and hymens into transferable property.

Also, Shalit notes repeatedly that girls and women are ridiculed relentlessly for being virgins. That is true. ANY sexual choice a female makes is up for inspection and commentary in our world because we problematize female sexuality so much. BUT she notes that girls are never praised for their virginity. Really? How can she explain the love for the Duggar clan? Or Lolo Jones? Just 2 examples of the outpouring of support for virgins that basically shows us that we live in a polarized world that really has no idea of how to discuss and handle human sexuality, especially for females.

Shalit often notes that she—and a few others like her—is the lone voice for modesty and abstinence in a sex filled world. Problem with that is that she isn’t, especially if we look at when she wrote the book (2007), the height of abstinence-only education. Shalit, Erika Harold, Taylor Moore, and Amy Leer are hardly the only voices that promote modesty and abstinence, and question the excesses of our sex obsessed culture (208). Churches, schools, many (if not most) parents promote abstinence to children. One of her interviewees, Rashida Jolley, notes that if she ever had sex outside of wedlock, she’d best move “to another planet” (67) because of how much her father promoted and valued abstinence. Not only did she get a message of abstinence being the only acceptable choice, we can question how much of a choice she actually had.

Because Shalit locates a woman’s worth and moral qualities in her modest attire and intact-‘til-marriage hymen, she misses the many different ways women can do good works and be role models. Geena Davis wouldn’t qualify even though she’s been an award-winning actress, a champion archer, and an activist against sexism in film and the media. Katherine Heigl likely wouldn’t either, even though she’s been outspoken about sexist depictions of women in movies and the sexist treatment of women on the set (these criticisms seem to have derailed her career and turned her into a “too-difficult-to-work-with-woman”) and has started her own animal rescue organization that she manages and funds. When we reduce women to the virtues that Shalit has, we end up with young women like Cantice Green promoting women who work at crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) as heroes and role models (73). In other words, Academy Awards, calling out sexism, saving pets from shelters are discounted, while women who lie to girls and women are worthy of admiration.

I hate to derail this review with info about CPCs, but she brings them up positively at least twice (also 167), so it is worthwhile to explore what she tacitly is promoting. CPC employees have been caught on video and audio tape telling women the following (all of these can be found on the documentary “12th and Delaware”): that a baby will make an abusive man kinder (I just can’t even); that abortion causes breast cancer (it does not); that a 15 year old will probably die in an abortion (abortion is actually safer than pregnancy and delivery), and that the new way to convince women not to abort is to lock them for hours in treatment rooms, with no food, water, or toilet, surrounded only by the CPC’s literature until they agree not to abort (isn’t that unlawful imprisonment?). My feelings about abortion aside, I’m pro-honesty. It is horrifying to me that women who lie to and mislead girls and women at what is often a vulnerable moment are hyped as role models because Shalit and other likeminded people have such a narrow definition of what constitutes a “good” or “proper” woman or girl.

Females are more than our bodies. More than our hymens. More than how we dress. Sadly, Shalit’s book is a treatise that reinforces the idea that, in fact, females really are just bodies, hymens, and how we dress. Rather than moving us to a place where women and girls can be intelligent, active, and valued regardless of wearing an ankle length skirt or a mini, or saving the 1st kiss until the edding or having had 10 sexual partners before marriage, Shalit says the modest, abstinent girls she interviewed for this book are a “gift… to uplift society.” (279) Perhaps the better way to uplift society is to view females as whole beings, each of whom is an individual and able to contribute to the world in diverse and unique ways regardless of sex, sexuality, and dress? THAT’S the kind of uplift I’d like, not the mean-girl judgments she proffers against women who have (gasp) made sexual choices that weren’t hers.

Ends soapbox.

[RJ · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ok so: I hate reviewing books I haven't read in full, or are clearly not written with an audience of me in mind, but I'm making an exception because this book is intentionally misleading, slapping a pseudo-feminist package over a conservative, misogynist message, and readers should know what they're getting into. The deal-breaker for me was when the author lied about the content of a Scarleteen article, steering young people away from one of the best, most comprehensive, non-judgmental, free resources on sexual health because... because why? It didn't advocate abstinence strongly enough, or in the specific marriage-centric way she wanted? There's nothing revolutionary here.

[AnnE · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really liked this book. I did feel that there were some parts that did not need to be so graphic. Especially if the target reading group is teenage girls.

[Erin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Such good discussion in this book. It made me ache for so many girls growing up today--Shalit does a good job laying out her case that feeling pressured to be bad and to rebel is every bit as oppressive as the "good girl=girl who has lost her authentic self" typology of years past. Maybe I'm naive (okay, it is likely that I am naive), but I hope things for teenage girls are not quite as bleak as she would make it seem--I wondered some times as I was reading if real teenagers out there would feel about Shalit's depictions the way I used to about teenage angst films by people like John Hughes in the 1980s (i.e. they might have some realistic elements, but were for the most part very exaggerated and didn't really reflect my teenage experience or that of the people I knew).

One quote from one of the girls she interviewed that was heartbreaking/pitiful was from a girl explaining why she thought some girls will make out with each other when a boy requests it, even though they don't actually want to or enjoy it. She says something like, "You just think that if you do it (kiss another girl) that he will think you are adventurous and willing to experiment and then he'll want to take you home instead of the other girls in the room. But really, all most girls are trying to do is to figure out how to make the guy fall in love with them." It made me think that beyond the debate over outcomes in terms of when people should start having sex and in what context, most parents would not want their daughters to have such low self-esteem that they feel compelled to acquiesce to some stupid teenage boy's porn-fueled request in the vain hopes that he will then somehow miraculously fall in love with her.

[Annie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thought provoking and great book club discussion. There is hope for our girls but it is scary that they face so much trash out there. The author is pretty good. There were parts that were a little too much or a little too lengthy but otherwise very interesting. And a part that I liked was that she offered specific solutions.

[Chase · Rating 3 out of 5]

not as good as a return to modesty, but I thought it was pretty ok. Good girl revolution was interesting because it focused on the next wave of feminists--girls that are now in their teens. it was encouraging to think that there is hope for the future of our young women.

[Ana · Rating 1 out of 5]

This may be the worst book I have ever finished reading. More on this when I have time.

[London Litchfield · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. Well written. Persuasive logic. Reinforces an uplifting way of life without compromising women's rights. Should be required reading for any mother of a daughter!

[Dave Intlekofer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting but a little repetitive. It was clear that Shalit cares about the issues, but she was clearly trying to be sensational with the facts. Unfortunately, much of it was not surprising.

[Sara · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thought Wendy Shalit brought up many good points about the consequences of what is considered normal behavior in society and how it hurts women more than it helps