Follow Up

When a child is born intersex there are an exponential number of questions that run through the minds of parents and doctors. However, they have a mere 24 hours to decide the sex of the child. You can either make the child a boy, or a girl. But, it is not that easy. Sterling writes, “If making a boy is hard, making a girl, the medical literature implies, is easy. Females don’t need anything built; they just need excess male subtracted. As one surgeon well known in this field quipped, 'You can make a hole but you can’t build a pole (59).'” You can get rid of a penis or a clitoris and create a hole, but it is much more difficult to build a penis.

When the sex of the child is determined it is very important that the parents are behind the decision and the sex of the child one hundred percent. “A child’s body parts had to match his or her assigned sex. While such anatomical clarity was important for the young child, Money, the Hampsons, and those who followed their lead argued, it was even more important for the child’s parents. As Peter Pan might have said, 'they had to believe' in their child’s gender identity to become real. Hampson and Hampson write: “in working with hermaphroditic children and their parents, it has become clear that the establishment of a child’s psychosexual orientation begins not so much with the child as with his parents (64).” Parents are a support system, and if they do not fully support their child’s gender then he or she will grow up unsure about who he or she is. Kids listen to their parents, they rely on them and if parents of an intersex child do not support their child’s gender then he or she will be faced with many issues throughout his or her life. If parents believe in the gender, then there is a good chance that the child will believe in his or her gender as well. The child needs to be raised as a single sex, not as both male and female. Sterling says, “Nurture matters a great deal more than nature (46).” If the child is raised as one sex, with no questioning, then there is a good chance that he or she will believe in his or her sex.

Most people are terribly concerned with their physical appearance, how others see them. So if a child is born intersex it is more important that the genitals look right rather than function correctly. “Can the surgery convince parents, caretakers, and peers—and, through them, the child him/herself—that the intersexual is really a male? Most intersexual males are infertile, so what counts especially is how the penis functions in social interactions—whether it 'looks right' to other boys, whether it can 'perform satisfactorily' in intercourse. It is not what the sex organ does for the body to which it is attached that defines the body as a male. It is what it does vis-à-vis other bodies (58).” If a boy were to go into a bathroom and not be able to use a urinal like other boys, then he would know that he was different and other people would surely recognize it. Also, if a girl were to go into a bathroom and use a urinal people would immediately know something wasn’t right, that the girl was different from other girls. In order for someone to feel male or female, he or she must have the correct parts even if they are not entirely functional. In the case of intersex people, appearance is more important than function.

It’s not fair for society to classify male or female. To put a person into a “cubbyhole” and define people by their gender isn’t right. Colleen says it perfectly: “There would be no need to classify sexual or gender identities, if not for tendency to marginalize those that deviate from the norm.” Simply because someone doesn’t fall into a gender category shouldn’t mean that he or she is not normal. We should be accepting of everyone no matter his or her gender.

22 Feb: Gonads, and Gender and Genitals! Oh my!

(photo from PostSecret)

Fausto-Sterling’s chapter on how gender and sex are linked (or not) raised interesting issues about the ways in with intersexuality both undermines and upholds the two-sex system and the implications that system has had on the development of gender identities. Again, Fausto-Sterling points out the ways in which, although intersexuality suggests an alternative to a sex binary, its status as an abnormality that must be fixed only reaffirms the two-sex system. Its existence subverts the system while also galvanizing society’s desire to uphold it.

However, as Fausto-Sterling points out, one of the problems with ‘fixing’ intersexuality is arbitrary nature by which the ‘solution’ is chosen and the consequences inherent in the complexities of gender and sexuality. In particular, she takes issue with the use of sex-assignment surgery on infants in the name of social convenience, especially when those surgeries can have unintended complications once the child reaches puberty and attempts to construct his or her own gender identity. While such surgeries claim to be saving the patient from years of feelings of being freakish or like an outcast, it could also needlessly condemn them to a life in which their body does not match their gender identity.

Of course, the easy way out would be to unravel the social constructs that make intersexuality ‘freakish’ in the first place. However, such attempts bring up important questions about the nature of gender identity. Fausto-Sterling cites scientists who argue whether children are socialized into a given gender identity or whether that identity is essential to them. While the reality is probably some compromise between the two, that some intersexuals who are assigned and socialized as one gender, but continue to manifest traits that are stereotypically linked to the other seems to undermine the importance of nurture and instead acknowledges the existence of an innate sense of self.

We argue and accept that most gender norms are socially-born—that is, boys behave the way they do because they’re told that’s how boys behave, and girls behave the way girls are told that they’re supposed to. This assertion begs the question: how is it possible for a person of a given sex, who is socialized as the ‘correct’ corresponding gender, to identify with gender identity characteristics that belong to the opposite sex? Is it a matter of wanted to express oneself as the ‘other’? Because mainstream views of gender and sex are essentially binary, does a person who feels ill at ease with their body adopt and identity of the opposite gender because it is the only option they see open to them?

The more I think about this issue the more I realize that it is endlessly complex. However, it is further complicated by the existence of ‘feminine’ males and masculine ‘females’—be they heterosexual or homosexual—who have developed their identity without the ambiguities of intersexuality and against the grain of the norm. Again, gender identity seems to be essential to a person, despite the fact that gender norms as we understand them are definitely socially constructed, and unique to a given culture. Even when people are obviously transgressing gender boundaries, those transgressions are often limited to—and can only be defined in terms of—the gender norms that we understand.

And yet these gender norms have been created by labeling certain characteristics of either masculine or feminine. For example, a girl who plays aggressively or does not exhibit nurturing characteristics is said to be boyish, while a boy who enjoys playing with dolls or getting dressed up may be seen as girly. However, are any of these traits essentially, biologically masculine or feminine? Is it possible to see oneself as a women despite not displaying typically feminine characteristics? Does that make you boyish or less of a woman than those styled in a more classic definition of femininity?

Fausto-Sterling takes these questions a step further, by including the question of sexuality. Some of the studies she cites seem to suggest that intersexualism is only ‘cured’ when the patient is ultimately heterosexual and able to perform ‘normal’, heterosexual sexual acts. Indeed, the very basis of some sex-assignment surgeries is on whether or not a boy would be able to perform as expected in heterosexual intercourse because that is seen as the privileged form of sexual expression. However, is there anything inherently masculine about being attracted to women? Or inherently feminine about being attracted to men? All this categorization is hugely problematic because it is so marginalizing. It suggests that lesbians are not real women because they are sexually masculine and gay men are not real men because they are sexually feminine. Of course, this excludes all sorts of sexual and gender identities, such as classically feminine lesbians or masculine gay men, as well as straight women who are more masculine than feminine or any other combination of sexual and gender identities.

However, at the end of the day, all these classifcations would be essentially meaningless if not for the hierarchy in which they are embroiled. There would be no need to classify sexual or gender identities, if not for tendency to marginalize those that deviate from the norm.

Follow Up

From the very second we are born we are declared either a girl or a boy. We are put into a pink onesie or a blue onesie. The baby’s crib and room will be decorated for a boy or for a girl, and presents from family and friends will be picked out based on the gender of the child. Boys will most likely receive toy trains, cars, footballs, baseballs, and trucks—things that are defined as masculine. On the other hand, girls will receive presents such as dolls, dress-up clothes, stuffed animals, jewelry, and play baby carriages—things that are regarded as feminine. As Meghan pointed out, in her post, there are only two boxes that one can check—male or female. And you can’t check both.

What happens when that line is blurry? What happens when a child is born neither a female nor a male? It puts both the doctors and the parents in a confusing place. Should the baby be labeled a male or female? What happens if they pick the wrong sex and the child grows up and feels like a female but has the parts of a male? Then what? Eugenides writes, “I was born twice: first, as a baby girl, on a remarkably smogless Detroit day in January of 1960; and then again, as a teenage boy, in an emergency room near Petoskey, Michigan, in August of 1974 (3).” The confusion that would come with this is immeasurable. To be born one gender and feel like another must be the scariest thing in the world. You don’t know what to do, your parents don’t know what to do, and you’re different than everyone else.

When I was in elementary school there was this girl in my grade who looked a lot like a boy. She had short hair, and a masculine-looking face. She often played sports with all the boys during recess and was constantly mistaken for a boy. As time went on and we all grew up this girl began to dress in a more feminine way, do more girly things, and play less with the boys and more with the girls. Society constructed her. While this girl clearly had a vagina, and wasn’t born a hermaphrodite, she still struggled when she was young. Teachers would constantly be unsure if she was a boy or girl. They were confused about which bathroom to take her to. So while the girl grew out of it, she still seemed to struggle with gender confusion when she was young. While this is nowhere near as extreme as being born with both female and male genitals it’s still a tough way to grow up.

The harassment that gender-confused children, as well as adults, go through is terrible. He or she all ready has enough to deal with; there is enough confusion in their life. They didn’t choose this for this to happen; they were born this way. We should be helping them, embracing them, not making them feel as if they’re not normal. There’s no such thing as normal, anyway.

Intersexuality and "Multiple Births"

Society has engrained in us that there are only two sexes: male and female. We can only check one of these boxes; we are one or the other. However, a greater continuum or spectrum of sexuality exists, which can be difficult for us to comprehend. What does it mean to be intersexed? Jeffrey Eugenides’ Middlesex tells the fictional tale of Calliope/Cal, whose individual narrative will help us to place the societal and personal ramifications of intersexuality into context. Cal, who currently identifies as a man but was born as a girl, introduces his condition: 5-alpha-reductase deficiency syndrome. He clarifies: “I’m not androgynous in the least. 5-alpha-reductase deficiency syndrome allows for normal biosynthesis and perhipheral action of testosterone, in utero, neonatally, and at puberty. In other words, I operate in society as a man” (Eugenides 41). However, even in his life as man, he must take precautions in order to protect himself from other people’s (likely negative) reactions: “I use the men’s room. Never the urinals, always the stalls. In the men’s locker room at my gym I even shower, albeit discreetly” (41). He also shares that are moments where he is plagued by his past: “Suddenly there she is again, doing a hair flip, or checking her nails. It’s a little like being possessed…” (41).

The disorder is autosomal recessive, so Cal traces his family history to explain inbreeding may have contributed to the presence of this genetic mutation . What will be particularly interesting to see unfold is what Cal refers to as his multiple births: his initial birth as a baby girl, a second as a teenage boy, and now possibly a third as a grown man. How can Cal navigate these transitions within a society that is so unwelcoming of difference?

Anne Fausto-Sterling, author of Sexing the Body, offers a more academic approach to this issue of sex as a binary system and considers the manner in which different cultures throughout history have addressed intersexuality. She explains that European and American cultures have long been devoted to this idea because the state and legal systems demand such a divide: distinctions based on who is male versus female determine who can vote, own property, claim inheritances, etc. As a result, medical history shows that many intersexed individuals have been coerced into surgery to “fix the problem.” Fausto-Sterling explains: “the individual him/herself shared with medical and legal experts the right to decide which sex prevailed but, once having made a choice, was expected to stick with it. The penalty for reneging could be severe. At stake was the maintenance of the social order and the rights of man (meant literally)” (Fausto-Sterling 36). How do you choose what gender to be? How is Cal able to change his identity from female to male? What will the reactions of his family and peers be? What will it mean to his personal identity development?

After explaining the various definitions of “hermaphrodite” that have existed throughout history and the corresponding political and social underpinnings, Fausto-Sterling concludes on a slightly different note. She writes: “Deepening understandings of the physiological bases of intersexuality combined with improvements in surgical technology began to enable physicians to catch most intersexed individuals at the moment of birth. The motive for their conversion was genuinely humanitarian: a wish to enable individuals to fit in and to function both physically and psychologically as healthy human beings” (Fausto-Sterling 44). This crusade against intersexuality was waged with (some) good intentions: people have a strong desire to fit in and to be a part of the group. History has shown that these individuals who are ambiguous in terms of gender have been met with confusion and sometimes disgust; is it crazy to want to help people avoid such a lifestyle? However, Fausto-Sterling continues: “But behind the wish lay unexamined assumptions: first, that there should be only two sexes; second, that only heterosexuality was normal, and third, that particular gender roles defined the psychologically healthy man and woman” (44). We are still trapped by these ideas of norms. Instead of forcing people to fit into one of two narrowly defined boxes, why can’t we expand the options and being to accept people as they are?

News Flash!: 'Real' Bodies

Every day, women in the Western world are exposed to images of impossibly perfect female bodies. Pert breasts, taught stomachs, lean legs; they permeate our culture and guide our discussions about beauty and body appreciation. However, this ‘ideal’ body image shepherds women towards a narrow standard of beauty that is often impossible to achieve. No where is this more obvious than in print images, where women’s bodies are manipulated and distorted to achieve an ideal image. Thanks to the pervasive practice of extensive Photoshopping, the ‘ideal’ body is no longer be bound to the limits of how a real woman looks.

As a result of the impossible bodies that advertisers and magazines constantly flaunt, women are told to aspire to a standard of beauty that does not even exist in a flesh-and-blood form. Recently, however, French parliament member Valérie Boyer proposed legislature that would require all advertisers who use retouched photos to mark the images as such. According to a New York Times article , Boyer proposed the regulations after she considered how images of perfect, computer-sculpted bodies affect her teenage daughters. "Today, we are forced to imitate bodies that do not exist, and this affects people, especially women," she notes, adding that the ultimate goal of the legislation would be to make obvious the unrealistic nature of these images.

Through this law, Boyer hopes to soften the impact of these perfect images by revealing them to be essentially unattainable. They are fantasy, and as such are not legitimate goals for flesh-and-blood women who live in a decidedly real world. However, opposition to the proposed legislature argue that it is precisely this sense of fantasy that allows the image to transcend reality, to offer a kind of paradise that elevates it above the everyday. The ability to retouch a photo, they argue, is just one tool in the artist’s arsenal and to take it away would be to undermine the validity of that art form.

While this rhetoric is compelling—and I can certainly understand the use of artistic retouches in certain contexts—it ignores the fact that the photo retouching this legislation seeks to expose does not attempt to make an artistic statement, but rather attempts to sell a perfected facsimile of reality as reality itself. It is the retouching that is subtle enough to not undermine the realism of the photo that is most problematic because the image masquerades as reality. For example, this ad by Dove, entitled ‘Evolution’ shows the extensive transformative efforts put into a more or less realistic image of a an attractive woman. The final image is constructed in such a way that the hours of labor put into achieving it become invisible. As a viewer, we do not see the work by the hair and makeup crew or the Photoshop effects employed to make her eyes larger and her face slimmer. Instead, we simply see an attractive woman. When used in advertising, this image performs the role of an idealized self—what we could be if we were a little thinner or wore the right makeup or had the right hair products.

The use of excessively retouched photos in advertising reveals how impossible standards of beauty tie into a capitalist ideology. As Levy writes in Female Chauvinist Pigs, “hotness has become our cultural currency, and a lot of people spend a lot of time and a lot of regular, green currency trying to acquire it.” (p. 31) As such, it makes sense that advertisers would opt to use heavily re-touched photos to promote their product, especially in beauty or athletic industries, which capitalize on the public’s concern with obtaining a certain image. These industries advertise themselves as being able to provide women (and to a lesser extent men) a means to attain desirability as it is defined by mainstream culture. However, by defining the look of desirability with an image that is unattainable (i.e. retouched), they also ensure that that standard will never be met and thus perpetuate the need for their product.

Those opposed to the proposed legislation, however, are quick to reframe retouching in a softer light. In this CNN piece, Elle creative director Joe Zee argued that he “would never drastically alter someone's body, change their hair color, move a neck, or whatever it is. It's really about cleaning up skin tones and looking beautiful.” While French fashion photographer Dominique Issermann refuted claims about the dangers of retouching by pointing out that she actually added weight on to waifish Kiera Knightly for her Chanel photoshoot. (Erlanger, 2009) While both Zee and Isserman maintain that they do not retouch photos drastically or to achieve an overly slender look, they fail understand the issue with the principle of retouching. Whether it adds curves or removes blemishes, it still manipulates a real female body, only to turn around and sell that manipulation as reality, without any disclosure as to its falseness.

By increasing public awareness about the extent to which photos in print media are manipulated, it may be possible to reveal the fantasy of ideal beauty and thus ease anxieties about reaching that standard. However, I feel that Boyer’s proposed legislation is treating only one symptom of a greater problem. The fact remains that, whether or not they are retouched, the women we see in print media conform to a narrow definition of what it means to be physically attractive. By idealizing this particular brand of attractiveness, other styles and body types are marginalized. For example, many women—even in their peak physical condition—will never have the same body type as the tall, thin models that pervade most advertising. Whether these images are Photoshopped or not, they perpetuate an ideal of beauty that is unattainable for a good number of women.

Ironically, the very media outlets that reinforce these narrow standards also voice the rhetoric of inclusiveness and self-confidence. Pick up any women’s magazine and you’ll see headlines about being confident in your skin alongside articles about how to slenderize your stomach and tighten your jiggly thighs. The messages women recieve about their bodies today are a schizophrenic jumble of girl power confidence boosters and beauty manuals with an appalling subtext of body shaming. While Boyer’s proposed legislation is a step in the right direction, it remains only a small move towards a more inclusive view of beauty and sexual attractiveness.

References

Erlanger, Steve. “Point, Shoot, Retouch and Label?.” New York Times. 9 Dec 2009. < pagewanted="1&_r="1">

Evans, Tom. “Von Furstenberg: ‘Beauty is Health’.” CNN. 11 Feb 2010. <>

Levy, Ariel. Female Chauvinist Pigs. New York: Free Press, 2005.

Response

How far is too far? Is there such a thing as too much feminism? In my eyes, I entirely respect Jennifer Myhre, but I do think that her actions were a bit drastic. Myhre writes, “So to christen my rebirth, I quit shaving my legs. I threw away my high heels and my tight skirts, my makeup and my jewelry. I grew out my armpit hair, and I talked like a women with a mission (86).” While this act is absolutely fantastic and took a great deal of courage, it seems a bit extreme. I strongly believe that women should have the same rights as men, that gender should not play a role in how men and women live their lives. But, I do not find it necessary to grow out my leg hair and armpit hair. I can have the same beliefs and support women’s right while wearing makeup and jewelry and high heels. I do not need to look masculine to support gender equality. I love high heels and pretty dresses and getting my nails done, but I also love gender equality. Just because I like doing “girly” things does not mean that my beliefs are any less important than someone who does not enjoy doing “girly” things.

Our culture is filled with sex. In many ways, sex is our culture. A person’s sexual orientation defines them, and also has the power to define their life. Ariel Levy writes, “But in the scene, what you like and what you do and who you do it to are who you are (120).” The world that we live in is so focused on who were hooking up with or who we’re sleeping with that often times sex becomes the most important thing in one’s life. Here at Colgate, hooking up is casual, where people hook up with numerous people in one night. When I wake up Saturday morning, after going out Friday night, the first thing my friends ask one another is, “Who did you hook up with last night?” They don’t ask how their night was or what they did, just who they did. And you hook up with apparently tells a lot about who you are and what you’re standards are. We should not be so concerned with who we’re doing but rather what we’re doing. There are so many things that are more important than sex; that’s what our time and energy should be focused on. Makeup and hair and sex are little things-- gender equality is what’s important, it’s the most important.

Lead Post 2/16: The Many Shades Between Black and White

The readings for tomorrow’s class were very interesting, and showed how complex and confusing sex and gender can be. I have learned in many classes how sex is biological, and gender is socially constructed. Though gender is, without a doubt, socially constructed…these readings also indicated that sex isn’t always so black and white, male or female.

Specifically for lesbians, coming to terms with a certain type of identity is far more complicated than I ever realized. Ariel Levy introduces us to “bois” who, she says have “nothing to do with goddess or sisterhood or herbal tea, and everything to do with being young, hip, sex positive, a little masculine, and ready to rock” (121). Unlike those who are butch and seen as manly and responsible, being a Boi is seen as more of a “boy,” who hasn’t grown up yet and is instead ready to party and hook up. Bois are more similar to teenage boys who are toying with their identities…the label is far more flexible than other labels before it. While most people are used to either very femme lesbians or very butch, a producer for Dyke TV stated that “everything in our world is set up as a dichotomy and I just feel like that’s so limiting” (127).

In the article “One Bad Hair Day Too Many” by Jennifer Reid Maxcy Myhre, Myhre discusses the experience of shaving her head, which she says is a “constant slap in the face to those who believe that the boundaries between masculine and feminine are clear and rigid, inherent and right” (86). Myhre discusses how even some lesbians feel as though she gives them a bad name. In our society, dichotomies are truly everywhere. Myhre brings to light that there isn’t always straight/lesbian, butch/femme, or even male/female. There are so many levels of in-between that need to be accepted just as anyone else.

The first chapter of “Dueling Dualisms” takes a practical approach and reveals how even biology cannot even explain male and female differences. Sterling states, “The more we look for a simple physical basis for ‘sex,’ the more it becomes clear that ‘sex’ is not a pure physical category” (4).

Overall, these articles show just how difficult it is for many people to know their own identities because society is constantly trying to categorize everything and everyone. If a girl who is not yet “mother-age” cuts her hair short, she is immediately assumed to be a lesbian. If a college aged male chooses to carry a bag instead of a handbag, he must be gay. Labels are everywhere and we can’t help but assign them and try to find universal truths and patterns…but this is exactly what gets us in trouble. We need to learn to see people as individuals, not members of groups. If we are able to do this as a society, then differences won’t be differences anymore…they will just be characteristics that make up individuals…and perhaps things like sexism, racism and homophobia will cease to exist.

News Flash: "Of Sex and Soulmates"

Click here to read the story!

The joke that “men are from Mars and women are from Venus” has been a popular one throughout history. It reflects our observation that there are often undeniable differences in the ways in which men and women act and interact. Newsweek science editor Sharon Begley recently discussed what she termed one of the most amusing sex differences to date: jealousy, and more specifically, what causes it. When men and women are in committed relationships, will they be more upset by emotional or sexual infidelity? As most people would likely predict, several studies have shown a split in responses that falls along gender lines: men are more likely to find betrayal in the form of sexual infidelity a worse offense than emotional infidelity, and women the opposite. In fact, women have even indicated that an extramarital affair is often something they can and will forgive. What can account for a women’s behavior in such a situation, and why does it differ so from men? The answer appears to be socialization and the ways in which we raise our children: we teach them to participate in a system that is inherently patriarchal and restrictive.

Initially, though, psychologists posited that biology and evolution was to blame. According to Begley’s explanation, men were considered “hard-wired” to be more jealous due to sexual infidelity, whereas women were hard-wired to be more jealous due to emotional infidelity. The logic followed that men would be less likely to pass on their genes (the end goal of natural selection and evolution) if their partner were to commit adultery and procreate with another man. However, a woman would be more threatened if her husband were to fall in love with another woman and consequently leave her to raise a family by herself. It is due to these different fears and environmental pressures that men and women supposedly evolved to have different triggers for jealousy.

This belief that evolution and thus biology are responsible for differential behavior patterns between genders is reminiscent of the faction of second wave feminists referred to as “maximizers.” Maximizers believed in “difference feminism”: they maintained that there are meaningful biological differences between men and women that cannot be ignored. However, as Anne Fausto-Sterling, author of Sexing the Body, explains: some second-wave feminists also “argued that sex is distinct from gender—that social institutions, themselves designed to perpetuate gender inequality, produce most of the differences between men and woman. [These] feminists argued that although men’s and women’s bodies serve different reproductive functions, few other sex differences come with the territory, unchangeable by life’s vicissitudes. If girls couldn’t learn math as easily as boys, the problem wasn’t built into their brains. The difficulty resulted from gender norms—different expectations and opportunities for boys and girls” (Fausto-Sterling 4).

Thus, based on similar arguments, the evolution-based theory is now falling out of favor. Researchers Kenneth Levy and Kristen Kelly of Pennsylvania State University instead offer a theory based on attachment. Attachment refers to affectionate and emotional bonds between people, and a person’s ability to form intimate relationships often depends on early attachment experiences with parents and other caregivers. According to Mary Ainsworth and her experiments involving the “strange situation,” people can fall into four main categories of attachment: secure, avoidant, resistant, or disorganized. Those who are securely attached are most socially skilled and able to form lasting relationships built on trust and commitment. However, those who are avoidant will likely either be dismissive or fearful of close relationships. In fact, Levy and Kelly have recently shown that securely attached people were more upset by emotional infidelity than sexual infidelity, regardless of their gender. The opposite trend, however, was found in those who were insecurely attached and dismissive of relationships. Therefore, the researchers conclude that “what looks like a gender difference is in fact an attachment effect.”

How can there be no gender difference, when we experience it in our daily lives and studies have confirmed it? There may not necessarily be a gender difference in terms of jealousy, but there is still a gender difference in terms of attachment style. Women are more likely to be securely attached than their male counterparts, and this is likely where socialization begins to play a role. Parenting style, whether it is warm and loving or cold and harsh, has been shown to be a major determinant of which attachment style a person adopts. How do parents treat their children? It depends on their gender. Boys are taught to be tough and strong but girls to be caring and nurturing. Boys should be rational and independent, whereas girls are emotional and in need of protection.

It seems necessary, however, to place children within a larger context; it is not just through their parents that they internalize these messages about what is masculine and what is feminine. Society as a whole is responsible. Allan G. Johnson writes: “the something larger we all participate in is patriarchy, which is more than a collection of individuals” (Johnson 30), and Marilyn Frye agrees, “…when you look macroscopically you can see it—a network of forces and barriers which are systematically related and which conspire to the immobilization, reduction and molding of women and the lives we live…” (Frye 4). Patriarchy is an ideology that has deeply permeated and structured our culture for practically all of history; it is a set of beliefs, symbols, and ideas about men and women that defines or regulates their behavior. Johnson adds that “patriarchal culture includes ideas about the nature of things, including women, men, and humanity, with manhood and masculinity most closely associated with being human and womanhood and femininity relegated to the marginal position of other” (Johnson 36-7).

So the question is as follows: how does a patriarchal society lead to gender differences in behavior, like attachment? Patriarchy teaches children the narrow definitions of masculine and feminine that they must learn to live by; adults, having been raised in the same society, have internalized these ideals and now pass them on. Young girls quickly learn their place when school teachers tell them boys are better at science and math and when visits to the playground teach them that they are not allowed to join their stronger and more athletic male classmates. However, while discussions of patriarchy often focus on the oppression of women, the system is equally damaging to boys. As girls are taught to be nurturing, boys are taught to be tough, and as girls are taught to be passive, boys are taught to be aggressive. These messages are everywhere: Children watch television in order to learn that boys are teased if they cry, and they listen to music in order to learn that girls are supposed to take off their clothes in order to attract a man.

Therefore, a boy learns that he is not to share his feelings; emotional intimacy is not for him. Instead, the boy learns to value a woman’s appearance. A man’s reputation is partly determined by his ability to court women, and evidently, this does not change once married. Men are applauded by their peers for their sexual capabilities and conquests, so it is no surprise that they continue to pursue them despite being in “committed” relationships. Considering that women are often willing to forgive them for such transgressions makes it even less surprising. However, a woman’s sexual infidelity is a threat to a man’s reputation of sexual prowess; it makes it appear as though he is unable to satisfy his wife or control her behavior. Such a challenge to his masculinity is significantly worse than a woman merely making an emotional connection with someone else, which is possibly easier to hide or at least easier to accept since it does not detract from the traits that define one to be a man.

Women, on the other hand, are taught to be emotional, to express their feelings, and to care for others. Therefore, when a man reaches outside his marriage to another woman to find emotional intimacy, it forces his wife to reanalyze the traits that she thought defined her. Sex does not have the same implications; it can be a purely physical act that does not necessarily require a personal connection. However, socialization also plays a role in explaining why women are so willing to forgive their husbands’ sexual infidelity. In this system of patriarchy, men and characteristics associated with men are valued, and consequently, women and characteristics associated with women are devalued. Such attitudes lead to the belief that a woman is weak and needs a man or a husband. Today’s women are validated by their relationships: it is unacceptable to be single for being single is a symbol that a woman has not been successful in being a woman, for her purpose or goal is to attract a man. Therefore, many women would not be willing to separate from their husbands unless absolutely necessary: after all, a flawed marriage is better than a failed marriage or no marriage at all.

Men and women are different; there is no denying it. However, it is inaccurate to explain away all of these differences as due to biology. Many of today’s gender divides are due to the different ways we socialize boys and girls; we create the differences and in doing so reinforce our patriarchal society. Blegley, though, is able to end on a positive note: because these differences are not hard-wired or predetermined, we have the potential to change them. Male sexual jealousy is a major cause of domestic violence, but these findings suggest that we have the ability to intervene in these patterns of behavior. If society is responsible for teaching the ideals of masculinity and femininity that result in different traits, reactions to infidelity, attachments patterns, etc., then certainly society has the capacity to redefine the norms, or even eliminate the idea of norms altogether.

News Flash: Superbowl Sexism

The Super Bowl is the biggest football game of the year--and the biggest television event as well. This year's game was the most-watched television broadcast in history. But the football game is not the only thing that viewers look forward to watching; the commercials are always an incentive to watch the big game. These commercials are supposed to be some of the most creative, funny, and whacky ads of the year. But a lot of them tend to be sexist—putting women down and putting men higher up on the pedestal than they already are.

There are the infamous commercials with half-naked women acting all sexy trying to convince men to buy a product that is often unnecessary. There are the GoDaddy commercials that always consist of hot women in tiny clothes. Then there is the Bridgestone tire commercial when a man trades in his wife for tires. So what Bridgestone is ultimately saying is that their tires are more valuable than your wife. It’s ridiculous. While these commercials may have been the favorites in the past, something about the rest of the Super Bowl commercials this year was different. The fan favorites, which viewers vote on after the game, were not the sexist and offensive commercials. Rather, viewers gushed over commercials like the Doritos ad and the Snickers commercial with Betty White, commercials that are far from offensive. Misogynist commercials were not even ranked in the top twenty favorite commercials of the Super Bowl. Could it be that times are-a-changing? I’m afraid the answer is no.

While the favorite Super Bowl commercials were not the ones with half-naked women, the inappropriate commercials that belittle women were still shown on national television. Stuart Elliott, a columnist for The New York Times, wrote, “And women were objectified by the likes of Bridgestone, Bud Light, GoDaddy, Motorola and Vizio (Elliott).” Here are Elliott’s reviews of specific Super Bowl commercials: “BRIDGESTONE One commercial had a misogynistic punch line -- a driver gives up his wife rather than his tires -- that was reminiscent of last year's sour, stereotypical spot about a talkative wife (Elliott).” “GODADDY As tired and pointless as the ''sexy'' spots for GoDaddy were, CBS deserves plaudits for rejecting a commercial the company also wanted to run that some found homophobic. Shame on channels like Comedy Central for accepting the awful ad (Elliott).” These commercials show that we are still very much in the midst of Raunch Culture whether we choose to accept it or not. So just because people didn’t vote the racy commercials to the top of the charts doesn’t mean that our society is changing for the better. In fact, it may just be getting worse. It doesn’t really matter that the Super Bowl commercial favorites weren’t the ones with undressed women; it matters more that there are the commercials with the barely clothed women in the first place.

The Bud Light commercial for this year ' s Super Bowl showed a bunch of people stranded on an island after their plane had crashed. A young woman ends up finding the radio from the airplane and thinks she can make it work and eventually get everyone off the island. A second later a man interrupts her and says he found the Bud Light that was kept in the plane's beverage carts. Everyone immediately flocks toward the man and the beer, completely forgetting about the woman and what she had said. Next thing you know there’s a beach party on the island and once the woman gets the radio to work, a man comes over and basically uses it as a turntable for music—displaying that a man’s wants are more important than a woman’s wants. So while the commercial was an advertisement for beer, it also implied that if people had the choice, they would listen to a man and follow what he does rather than listen to a woman and follow what she does. The woman in the commercial was entirely clothed but sexism was still very much apparent for the duration of the commercial. Why did Bud Light find it necessary for the woman to be in charge of the radio and the man to be in charge of the beer? Is it because they believe that men are superior and dominant when compared to women? That people choose to listen to men over women when they have the choice? That’s what this undeniably sexist commercial is telling us.

The notorious, extra-raunchy GoDaddy commercials always involve extremely attractive women who usually end up with their clothes off. This year, Danica Patrick, the race-car phenomenon, asked the women who were “interviewing” her, how hot is too hot? Once this question is asked, one of the interviewees says in a seductive voice, “I can show you exactly how hot is too hot for TV.” The woman then proceeds to take down her hair, swing her head in a circle and rip off the suit jacket she was wearing to expose a tight GoDaddy tank top. The commercial wasn’t funny or clever or even the slightest bit creative; all it did was display attractive women.

Why did Danica Patrick feel the need to be in this commercial? Does she feel that she needs to prove to people that she is a woman despite the fact that she races cars with men? Patrick has given into Raunch Culture big time. Ariel Levy, the author of Female Chauvinist Pigs, would absolutely agree. Levy comments on Raunch Culture, “This is our establishment, these are our role models, this is high fashion and low culture, this is athletics and politics, this is television and publishing and pop music and medicine and—good news!—being a part of it makes you a strong, powerful woman. Because we have determined that all empowered women must be overtly and publicly sexual, and because the only sign of sexuality we seem to be able to recognize is a direct allusion to red-light entertainment, we have laced the sleazy energy and aesthetic of a topless club or a Penthouse shoot throughout our entire culture (26).” By starring in the GoDaddy commercials Patrick is supporting Raunch Culture; she is accepting and practically agreeing with the way in which society portrays women these days. She’s always been respected for her racing; no one made her do this. She most likely chose to do this because it would make her feel more feminine or make her more appealing and relatable to her audience. Whatever her motive was, it wasn’t a good one.

Riddle me this--if a sexy, built, handsome man was to star in a commercial with very few clothes on why is it that the product will not sell the same as it would if a woman with skimpy clothes was to advertise the same product? In my eyes, it’s because of the way we are taught to see things these days. Women are seen as a product, a way to sell things. But how did the view of women get so skewed? Why does a woman need to be a sexual object? Why can’t we do things with our clothes on? Viewers of the Super Bowl liked commercials when people had clothes on a hell of a lot more than they did when people had their clothes off. Maybe people are trying to tell our culture something—either that people are sick of the sexist commercials or more likely that people aren’t fazed by the sexist commercials anymore, that they don’t really see anything wrong with them, they’ve simply gotten used to them, they’ve chosen to give into the stereotypical ways in which men and women are portrayed.

So just because the Super Bowl favorites weren’t the ones that consisted of partially naked women doesn’t mean that our culture is on the right track to achieving gender equality. If society gets used to sexism, it will eventually be too late to turn things around, to make things just and equal. We need to make changes and we need to make them now.

Follow Up to Anna's Post

Critiques have been made in regards to each wave of feminism, but one of the most common seems to be that the movement, despite its emphasis on equality, was still only applicable to a certain subpopulation of women, generally white elites. Feminism is supposedly about fighting for the recognition of the full humanity of men and women (as well as the rights that correspond to that humanity). Certainly, there are variations in the definition, but I have yet to read one that specifies such stipulations of class or race. In fact, since the first wave was sparked from the abolitionist movement, it seems that feminism should be embracing towards women of different races and classes. However, as history has shown, the movements have often focused on the issues facing only its most well-off members. So, to be female and African-American is to have your rights or needs ignored by two groups, to have two strikes against you. Again, this raises the issue of sisterhood. When will women put aside individual differences, which will always exist in some form, and join together to fight for the common good? Without cooperation and a united front, will feminism succeed? The experience of women writing The Rag suggests it won’t, and frankly, so does the continuation of today’s social hierarchy.

So, the sad truth is that many women, lesbian and black women in particular, are still being silenced. Audre Lorde asks, “what does it mean when the tools of a racist patriarchy are used to examine the fruits of that same patriarchy?” and offers in response to her own question: “it means that only the most narrow perimeters of change are possible and allowable.” If the feminist movement is plagued by the same issues tas the greater society has, then it will not make any significant strides. Perhaps the movement should not be “the feminist movement,” because, as Anna points out, it is equality for all that is the goal. It is not sufficient to make men and women equal if black and white are still unequal: a hierarchy would still exist and that is truly what we are working to dismantle.

Anna also raises the issue of what is defined to be “the norm,” which is male, white, and heterosexual in our society. However, we need to rid ourselves of this idea that there is such thing as normal or that only one thing can be normal. Lorde argues that difference is not just something to be tolerated; it is something to be celebrated for it is “that raw and powerful connection from which our personal power is forged.” She continues, “as women, we have been taught either to ignore our differences, or to view them as causes for separation and suspicion rather than as forces for change. Without community there is no liberation… but community must not mean a shedding of our differences, nor the pathetic pretense that these differences do exist.”

Recognizing our differences will then require recognizing the advantages and disadvantages that come with being white or black, male or female, heterosexual or homosexual. Peggy McIntosh uses the famous “invisible knapsack” analogy to illustrate the many privileges that are given to whites and to men simply because of their race or gender. White people have not been taught to see or acknowledge these privileges, but they are there and they are numerous. Instead, McIntosh writes that whites have been “taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work that will allow “them” to be more like “us.” This again speaks to the idea of something being normal (and thus valued) and something being different (and thus devalued). Until we can begin to recognize that people are different and that difference is okay, invisible privileges will continue to be doled out and voices will continue to be silenced.

It is one thing to know what needs to happen, but it is entirely another to know how to actually make it happen. Is education the answer? Legal change? Does affirmative action do anything to equalize the advantages and disadvantages or to put minority groups in positions that will allow them to create change more effectively? Do individual actions help to dismantle the system of patriarchy that restricts the bounds of change?

Equality for ALL

Racism was an issue far before sexism was; yet today we still struggle for equality in both departments. African-American feminists should not be discriminated against more than a white feminist. If we really want equality then we need to accept everyone no matter the color of his or her skin, his or her gender, or his or her sexuality. It can’t be that just women and men are equal; it needs to be that everyone is equal. If this does not happen then our problems will forever be problems. Lorde writes, “It is learning how to stand alone, unpopular and sometimes reviled, and how to make common cause with those others identified as outside the structures in order to define and seek a world in which we can all flourish. It is learning how to take our differences and make them strengths. For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. And this fact is only threatening to those women who still define the master's house as their only source of support.” We need to accept everyone in order to succeed. Both women and men must accept who they are and be happy with themselves, and it will be then when change and growth are truly possible.

“By ignoring the past, we are encouraged to repeat its mistakes.” These are the words of Audre Lorde and they just so happen to sum up why The Rag failed. Members of The Rag chose not to address issues within the group. Social and racial tensions were ignored, which ultimately led to the breakdown of the magazine. So much time and energy was solely focused on the individual rather than the group at hand. How did these women expect to change their campus and the world around them if they were only focusing on themselves? That never has worked. The feminist movement is so much bigger than just one person; it has to do with each and every one of us. The women in The Rag should have solved the problems within the group before moving on to larger issues. One cannot expect to solve other issues if he or she has not conquered his or her own problems. We should learn from the past, not forget about it. In fact, our past is one of our greatest resources; we can learn so many things from mistakes that have previously been made. We can take these mistakes and learn how to avoid making the same mistakes in the future.

One question that I find fascinating is why are white people seen as the norm? How and why did this happen? What would things be like if this was not the case? But, what-if’s do not matter in this case because we can’t go back in time and change the way things happened. Things are the way they are and only the people have the power to change the world. Peggy McIntosh writes, “Elizabeth Minnich has pointed out: whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work that will allow 'them' to be more like 'us.' I am a young white woman and I rarely have to worry about being discriminated against. I realized that I take my position in life for granted a lot of the time. There has never been a single time when someone has said something about my race as if it’s a bad thing. However, there have been times when people have made comments about my gender. Comments such as: Guys are so much better at sports then girls are and I got a better grade on this math test because boys are better at math than girls are. Those are just two examples and compared to how mean the comments could be, they’re not that bad. But, I have never been discriminated against my gender as well as my race. Both African-American feminists and white feminists are fighting for equality; neither should be discriminated against. We all need to come together if we want to achieve our goals. And in order to achieve gender equality all races need to be thought of and treated as equals. If not, our dreams of equality will never be fulfilled.

Newsflash: Disney Demons

Po Bronson’s article in Newsweek entitled, “Do Disney Princesses Make Young Girls Obsessed with Thinness?” discusses just that: the messages that young girls get from the Disney movies we all grew up watching. It is no surprise that young girls would get a patriarchal outlook from Disney movies…each movie centers on a lovely princess that is in some way or another rescued by a prince. In Snow White, for example (one of my childhood favorites), the main character is a lowly housekeeper until she finally is “awakened by a kiss” from the Prince and finally rides off into the sunset, happy and fulfilled now that she has found a man. In addition to portrayals of men as saviors, however, are even more subtle issues that are influencing young girls.

Bronson discusses his daughter’s excitement about the new movie “The Princess and the Frog,” because the princess is African American like his daughter. Having already discussed the issue of race with her starting at a young age, the author states “Because our daughter is already well-versed in racial tolerance, I’ve been concerned about something else…” It is interesting to me how when discussing an essentially feminist issue, the author feels the need to separate so blatantly the issue of race and his next concern (which is body image). Having recently read Audre Lorde’s “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House,” I am more concerned with difference as a whole. Lorde says about a conference where she is only asked to discuss black feminists and lesbians that “what this says about the vision of this conference is sad, in a country where racism, sexism, and homophobia are inseparable” (Lorde 1). Now, I don’t want to read too much into the author’s intent, but I simply want to bring to attention the lack of difference that is present in Disney movies in aspects more than just body image. There is hardly ever (until the Princess and the Frog), any characters other than Caucasians, NEVER homosexuals and hardly ever women who are considered true heroines without a male counterpart.

On to Bronson’s main issue with Disney Princesses: the obvious thinness and unrealistic body types of the princesses in the movies. After hearing his young daughter discuss vanity issues, he began to wonder if her obsession with Disney princesses were having a negative effect on her body image. The author then discussed a recent study carried out by Drs. Sharon Hayes and Stacey Tantleff-Dunn, who showed Disney clips to 121 girls from ages 3 to 6, half of which watched princess clips while the others watched clips from shows like Dragon Tales and Clifford. Despite the fact that many of the girls in the study were already concerned about their weight, their concerns weren’t shown to be affected by the princess clips and it “didn’t exacerbate their desire to be thinner” (Bronson). Clues from the experiment instead pointed to girls’ mothers as a reason why they saw being overweight as bad.

This is perhaps more reflective of the flaws in our culture, which stem not from fictional movies but from the messages children receive in their own homes. Alan Johnson discusses in “Patriarchy: The System,” how we feed into patriarchy on a daily basis, often without even knowing it. He says, “Participation in social systems shapes our behavior through paths of least resistance, a concept that refers to the conscious and unconscious choices we make from one moment to the next,” (Johnson 27). It is likely that when discussing complicated issues like body image, which is inextricably linked to patriarchy and the male vision of beauty, it is too difficult for parents to explain the true ins and outs of the issue. Rather than explaining how being fit is healthy and feeling good about yourself is important for reasons other than male acceptance, it is easier for mothers to simply say, “Being fat is bad.”

Though households often fail to step off the path of least resistance and instill feminist qualities in their children, that is not to say that outside influences like Disney princesses aren’t at fault as well. Po Bronson also revealed that the girls in the study felt as though it was easier to be a princess if they had blonde hair and white skin. In addition, another concerns expressed by the doctors who conducted the experiment was about the characters in Disney movies other than princesses; Characters that are bad or mean are often shown as fat or unattractive, while the "good characters often are depicted as beautiful and thin, and attractiveness is associated with sociability, kindness, contentedness, and success” (Bronson). Bronson also references “Beauty and the Beast,” in which Belle is seen as desirable because she is the most beautiful girl in the town and is therefore worthy of a prince.

One of our discussions in class raised the question of how the next generation would react to raunch culture. If the messages children are receiving in their homes and on TV are all of this nature, it seems likely that raunch culture will only persist. If young women are learning that the only way to be worthy is to look a certain way, they will most definitely go to drastic measures to look like the princesses they once loved. This is unequivocally linked to the idea of male attention equating to power. In “Female Chauvinist Pigs,” a girl named Shaina tells Ariel Levy about Playboy, “You know all those guys are sitting there staring at you, awe-ing at you. That must be power” (Levy 103). Male acceptance is constantly seen as powerful for women, which is reflected in the media from Disney princesses to porn. On page 43, Levy also discusses the women in Playboy and how they seemed like Barbie Dolls. This is an interesting comparison, as it shows the transition of this body type being depicted as ideal from the time we are playing with Barbie dolls until we are old enough to flip through the pages of Playboy. As with Disney movies and Barbie dolls, most of the women in Playboy were thin, white and blonde.

Although the study discussed by Bronson alleviated his concerns about body image, it is likely that the girls in the study were not yet aware of the impact the princess clips had on them. Ages 3 to 6 is very young…I’m willing to bet that when those girls become teenagers and are working for male attention in middle school, the images they remember from Disney movies that show white, thin, blonde females as worthy of a prince will come rushing back to them. This brings me back to where I began, with Audre Lorde’s discussion of patriarchy and the separation of racism, sexism and homophobia. Not only are princesses and those worthy of male attention depicted as white and thin (racism and sexism), they are most definitely seen as heterosexual, and almost always filling the stereotypical female role of caretaker, mother, maid, etc. Even in movies as seemingly innocent as those concerning Disney princesses, these issues are prevalent and inseparable. Not only are young children learning that they need to look a certain way, they are also learning that they need to ACT a certain way; they need to find a man. What if one of those girls grows up and realizes she doesn’t want to find a prince, but instead to be a CEO? What if another girl grows up and realizes she would rather spend her life with another woman? These scenarios are examples of what would be the “other” in society…the deviation from the norm. What we really need to instill through Disney movies, family discussions and the like is the idea that there is no normal and no “other,” simply differences. As Lorde says, “Difference must be not merely tolerated, but seen as a fund of necessary polarities between which our creativity can spark like a dialectic.”

It is only fair when discussing differences to bring men into the picture as well. Looking at the princes and male leads in Disney movies, they are almost always tall, dark (but still white), and handsome. They are strong, never cry, and do “manly” things like ride horses and shoot bows and arrows or fight dragons. Young boys therefore must also feel a certain amount of pressure to lives up to their male stereotypes and be like the princes they see on TV. If they cry, they are seen as wimps. If they are gay, there aren’t normal. If they hold doors for women, they are seen as sexist. It is clear that young girls aren’t the only ones who may walk away from the movie theatre with images in their minds that may cause them discomfort in the future if they don’t become the stereotypical prince or princess they see on the screen. Though it may seem over the top to take something as simple as a Disney movie and make it into a feminist issue, that is exactly my point: issues concerning feminism and patriarchy are woven into even the most innocent and everyday aspects of our lives…and it is not until we realize that that we can learn how to make a change. I wonder what Heidi Montag’s favorite Disney movie is?

Follow Up

Marilyn Frye points out the difference between a woman’s tears and a man’s tears and how each is perceived. A man is apparently no longer masculine if he cries. On the other hand, it’s perfectly fine for a woman to cry. If a man’s biggest complaint is that he is thought of as less masculine for crying, then I say that men must have it pretty good. While women may not be criticized for crying, they, unlike men, still struggle for equality in a male-dominated work force. Women are thought of as bad mothers if they do not stay home every day and care for their children. So while women will not be teased for crying, they still have it so much harder than men. Men never had to fight for a right to play sports, men never had to fight to be in the work force, they never had to fight for the right to go to college. When it comes to struggles, men have had a pretty smooth ride.

Men also have it pretty easy when it comes to sleeping around. Men can practically do whatever they want and never get branded for it. If a man hooks up with a lot of girls, or sleeps with them, then he is thought of as a player. All of his guy friends look up to him and respect him for being so good at the “game.” But if a woman is promiscuous and gets with a lot of guys then she is thought of as trashy, slutty, dirty, a whore. It’s not right. A man can get with as many women as he wants and not get shit for it while a woman is a downright whore if she hooks up with a few people.

Frye also brought to my attention the act of a man opening a door for a woman. Yes, I do like it when my boyfriend opens my car door or holds the door for me at a restaurant but I am perfectly capable of doing it myself. In fact, if women really want to achieve equality, we should hold the door for men once in a while. We don’t need a man to protect us or keep us safe; we can do this on our own. In order to achieve equality, we need to stop depending on men.

Women have all of these expectations that they are supposed to meet. Dress this way, talk this way, look this way, take care of your kids this way, do your laundry this way-- it’s enough to make one go mad. The standards that women are supposed to meet are unrealistic. Then there are men, whose expectations are to supply for their family and keep his wife and kids safe. Johnson writes in her “Patriarchy, the System, “As I grew up watching movies and television, for example, the message was clear that men are the most important people on the planet because they’re the ones who supposedly do the most important things as defined by patriarchal culture. They’re the strong ones who build, the heroes who fight the good fight, the geniuses, writers and artists, the bold leaders and even the evil—but always interesting—villains. Even God is gendered male.” When one watches movies or TV it is almost always true that a man plays some sort of leading role and a lot of the time the woman in the movie is clothed in practically nothing, however this is not always the case. Women need to break the system, we need to break away from a patriarchal society, we need to break the stereotypes and start redefining what it means to be a woman.

So far, women have achieved the right to vote, the right to go to college, the right to work. But, it would not be at all fair to say that these things are done without discrimination. Women need to not be afraid to stand on their own two feet and take care of themselves, to stand up for what they want. If women never stand up for what they want, then they will never get it.

A Bigger Birdcage

The issue of patriarchy is indeed complex, as Marilyn Frye suggests in her essay “Oppression,” and I agree that to fully understand its scope it is necessary survey the ways in which a societal system affect and influence, either subtly or obviously, our daily lives. Johnson suggests a similarly macroscopic approach and asks us to look beyond the individual experiences of patriarchal oppression and instead consider the system as a whole, which interweaves our understanding of what is ‘natural’ with themes of domination and control.

However, I think it is unfair for Frye to assert that women are the only people who are truly bounded by the patriarchy. She advocates a broad view of the problem, but then focuses her essay to the point of exclusion. While I don’t disagree with the points she makes regarding the oppression women experience under the patriarchy, I don’t think it’s fair to ignore ways in which the patriarchy controls and limits ‘appropriate’ forms of masculinity. Frye argues that women and not men are oppressed by the patriarchy because women find themselves caught in a no-win situation. Sexually, they grapple with the Madonna-whore complex: if they are sexually inactive they are seen as asexual or, worse, prudish, while sexual activity puts them at the risk of being labeled easy or a whore. Similar tension exists in the ways that a woman is coerced by the patriarchy into perpetuating it. She cannot speak out against it for fear of being labeled too sensitive and making obvious her femininity, and so must, as Frye says, smile and become invisible.

While all these points are valid and true, many of the anecdotes Frye employs to get her point across—that women are exclusively and especially oppressed by the patriarchy—can be flipped to show ways in which the patriarchy also encourages men to express their masculinity in a narrowly defined way. For example, Frye argues that the ritual of men opening the door for women mocks them and suggests that a woman is incapable. In this way, a seemingly gentlemanly act actually subordinates women, who would be ridiculed for declining the courtesy extended to them. While that reading is certainly justified, I would argue that men are often expected to hold the door, just as women are expected to be grateful for their kindness. Their expected actions as a member of their gender are just as defined as a woman’s. Were they to acknowledge that the woman is capable of holding the door herself, they would be seen as impolite or ungentlemanly, while holding the door can make them seem patronizing or, worse, sexist. Both sexes participate in the patriarchy equally, although they no doubt engage with it in different ways.

I think Johnson is correct by asserting that both sexes are ultimately participating in an oppressive system. Patriarchy defines the ways in which both men and woman should behave, and as such leaves individuals who stray from those narrow definitions, whether it is because unwanted privilege is given to you unbidden or because your access to those same privileges is jeopardized, open to ridicule. As such, the real bind individuals who engage with patriarchy face is whether to go along with the path of least resistance and accept the system that continues to oppress them or to risk ridicule and social devaluation in order to affect change. In my opinion, realizing the extent to which patriarchy, as a system grounded in gender stereotypes and domination, affects all those who impact it is the only way to see the entire birdcage.

Cleavage Doesn't Make You an Empowered Woman

The second wave of feminism strove, among other things, to provide women with a viable and equitable role outside the home. At the inception of the movement, Betty Friedman penned a paper entitled “The Women Problem,” which addressed the growing dissatisfaction that women felt with their household roles. To paraphrase, it pointed out the disconnect between the happiness women ‘should’ feel because of their achievement of certain domestic goals and the feelings of dissatisfaction they were experiencing. Consequentially, the second wave of the feminist movement encouraged women to develop lives outside of the household—to, in effect, betray the image of the idealized domestic woman—and become part of the public sphere. Women, second wave feminists argued, were to be valued as more than housekeepers and babysitters.

This ad by Wonderbra rides on the coattails of this notion. The woman in it declares her independence from domesticity and appears unfettered by any ideas of domestic obligation. In this way, she appears to adopt the mantra of earlier feminist movements. However, although she distances herself from the image of the domestic woman, she does so without acknowledging the subtext that women should have roles as autonomous being, roles that do not rely on or pander to men. Rather, the ad reiterates the idea that women must have performed these domestic duties with an eye towards snagging a man, and proffers adhering to an image of sexiness as a suitable alternative.

Here is where the ad converges with and supports Levy’s hypothesis that the modern hypersexualization of women cannot simply be read as empowerment. Indeed, I would argue that the ad’s imitation of feminist rhetoric is insulting to the tradition it is mimicking. It twists the ideals of a movement that allowed women to move beyond the walls of the domestic sphere to betray one of its core values: that a woman does not need to appeal to a man to prove her worth. Instead, it suggests, the new modern woman does not need to be chained to domestic affairs because she can attract men with her sexual appeal instead.

To deconstruct the ad from a practical perspective, the trade-off between the ability to cook and sexy, perky breasts seems, if anything, a step backwards. Any independent person, woman or man, needs a certain skill set to thrive on his or her own. I would argue that being able to cook is among those skills, and should certainly feature more prominently than having extreme cleavage. However, the ad feeds on women’s struggle to escape domesticity and turns the ability to cook into a measure of female worth. It suggests an omnipresent (presumably male) judge; one that would hypothetically be displeased with her lack of culinary skills, but can be placated by copious amounts of cleavage.

In this way, the ad subverts its attempt at a feminist message because it subtly tells the (female) viewer that they are still obligated to impress a man. However, while our mothers and their mothers before them used domestic chores—here conjured by the ability to cook—to prove their worth to men in their life, we have broken free form the domestic. Instead, the ad suggests that our ability, our right, to flaunt our sexuality allows us a new kind of freedom.

It is this kind of rhetoric that Levy works to unravel, and I think her observations are also pertinent here. Although sexuality is played as a kind of power, it is a power that still operates within a thoroughly patriarchal framework. A woman’s sexual power as it is presented here is completely dependent on a man finding her attractive, and as such, she is obligated to appeal to certain standards of sexuality if she is to wield it. Certainly, the woman in the ad appeals to these standards: blonde hair, blue eyes, big boobs, and big lips. As Levy notes, the rise of raunch culture has led us to “endlessly reiterate one particular—and particularly commercial—shorthand for sexiness.” (Levy, p. 30) She is exactly the type of woman the Girls Gone Wild crew would deem a 10 and then convince to flash the camera.

Furthermore, the ad suggests that this porno-ized version of female beauty is an acceptable currency of self-worth. As Levy notes, “sexiness is no longer just about being arousing or alluring, it’s about being worthwhile” (Levy, p. 31), a sad fact that the ad has capitalized on. Although the ad makes a nod to the days when a woman’s worth seemed tied to the cleanliness of her house or the taste of the meal she’d just prepared, the viewer is invited to see that notion of femininity as old and outdated. New women, modern women, the ad suggests, have no need to for those domestic trappings—their sex appeal makes them irresistible and elevates them above such concerns.

Indeed, looking at the woman in the ad reiterates the equation of sexiness and power. Her stance is aggressive, not demure or coquettish, and she returns the viewers gaze in a way that weakens the illusion of voyeurism. However, in the context of the ad, her gave is more accusatory than alluring. The ad seems to feed on the anxieties of a presumably female viewer, one who seeks to prove her worth in a world where standards of physical beauty have morphed to become unattainable by many. ‘Can you cook?’ the ad seems to ask, and more importantly, ‘can you afford to not look this good if you can’t?’ As Levy points out, women are being shepherded to a narrow definition of sexuality and told that their worth as women and as sexual beings is tied to their ability to conform to it. Since the days of the domestic goddess have largely come to a close, the ad suggests that they must prove themselves in other ways.

Unfortunately, the ‘other ways’ that raunch culture suggests, and which this ad capitalizes on, consist mainly of becoming an object of eroticized visual pleasure. It is acceptable that the woman in the ad cannot cook because she instead offers herself up as a sexual object. Even the way her hands are positioned on either side of her breasts seems to be offering them up as proof of her value. Her breasts therefore become a symbol of fetishized sexuality, sexy even when removed from a sexual context, and the dehumanization of female sexuality is taken a step further: she is no longer an autonomous, sexy being, but rather an amalgamation of sexy parts. Her sexiness is removed from her sexuality and is instead articulated through eroticized images.

Levy argues that raunch culture can be defined by the way in which certain designations of sexiness have become the cultural currency of self-worth. This point of view, and the problematic implications it has for women, are typified by this ad, which posits that a women’s value is inextricably tied to her ability to fulfill a sexual role defined by the patriarchy. It offers the female viewer two options: be constrained by domestic obligation or become sexy enough to rise above it.

Unfortunately, the sexiness defined by this ad and raunch culture in general is exclusive to the point of being disempowering. The worth of a human should not be reduced to his or her ability to fulfill a designated, gendered role, just as one’s sexuality should not be reduced to his or her ability to fit certain standards of physical beauty. The sexual ‘power’ suggested by the ad is not in the hands of the female subject. Rather, it is governed by the men (and women) who defined the standard of beauty she perpetuates.

References:

Levy, Ariel. Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture. New York: Free Press, 2005.