Pop culture has taught us to view rape as something that occurs in dark alleyways, during out of control parties, or at knifepoint. We traditionally think of rapists as psychotic rather than average men (and certainly not as our significant others). While rape certain occurs in the remarkable fashion that is most commonly presented, these instances are the exception and not the rule—rape encompasses much more than we often imagine. Susan Brownmiller writes that rape “is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” (Schneir 272) and that “the typical American perpetrator of forcible rape is little more than an aggressive, hostile youth who chooses to do violence to women” (274).
When we begin to recognize that rape is not some rare phenomenon, we begin to realize how often it really does happen. Emilie Morgan writes of the THREE different times she was raped. The second time she was raped, she explains, occurred on a date. She describes, “he didn’t overpower me like the man who had raped me three years earlier. He simply didn’t stop when I told him to” (Findlen 36). Society has not always taught us that this is rape, but according to the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center, a national study reported that 75% of all rape survivors know their attackers. Simply because the act is not consensual, it most certainly is sexual assault in the form of rape. However, our (patriarchal) society has encouraged us to downplay these events. We are told we did not speak up for ourselves loudly enough, it was just a misunderstanding, our significant other didn’t mean to hurt us. The experience of women is thus delegitimized.
Worse, women are even blamed for their own rape. After discussing the self-confidence and self-assuredness that learning self-defense gave her, Whitney Walker writes, “And then there’s the double standard that comes from the same sources that advise against self-defense. If you get raped, the first question is “Did you fight back?” “No.” You must have wanted it.” No other crime victims are accused of encouraging the attack… the male robbery victim does not get blamed for keeping his wallet in his back pocket” (Findlen 131). Women who dress, flirt, or otherwise act sexually or suggestively supposedly want to get raped—they asked for it. Some even go as far as to claim that the woman enjoyed herself. I can’t even fathom such a statement—being raped is an enjoyable experience??
This culture revolving around sex (and thus to a certain degree, rape) is affecting today’s youth. Younger generations of girls are being taught that they need to submit to sex and the desires of men. Says Ariel Levy, “about a quarter of girls between ages fifteen and nineteen describe their first time as “voluntary but unwanted” according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. The only message that seems to be successfully transmitted to girls about sex and sexiness is that it is something they need to embody to be cool” (Levy 163). The pressure and examples set by the greater society are thus taking away women’s choice and control over their own actions and decisions. In regards to this, Whitney Walker asks, “Why is a woman’s right to control her body constantly threatened? Whether referring to reproductive rights or sexual violence, the answer is to take control back” (Findlen 131). For Walker, the way to do so was self-defense, but there are certainly other ways to combat a culture of rape. Solidarity between women and sharing of experiences can promote healing, and efforts like “Take Back the Night” can help promote awareness. Most importantly, we first need to acknowledge the many ways in which rape (and other forms of sexual assault) happens. Once we recognize the experience of women, we can begin to “take back control” and change it.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Lead post for 3/25
Atul Gawande's article describes the birthing process for Elizabeth Rourke, who was forced to deal with uncomfrotable contractions for almost an entire day because it was the rules of the hospital that contractions needed to be five minutes apart and last for a minute. This article is a good transition into Henci Goer's article, "How Childbirth Went Industrial: A Deconstruction."
So far, we have discussed the intricacies associated with pregnancy and the decision of whether or not go to through with having a baby. The ins and outs of the emotional, mental and physical aspects of abortion (or not) are extremely complicated. Birth, however, is often seen as simply a miracle. "The miracle of life," though we know it is painful, is often viewed as both mysterious, and consistent from woman to woman. This, however, as Goer proves, is not at all the case.
Gawande states, "human birth is a feat involving an intricate sequence of events." The choices assoicated with these events and the sometimes false beliefs can often put women at danger, while completely demystifying the birthing experience and turning it into a technical process. The need for our society to keep peogressing and becoming more efficient seems to have interfered with a process that is completely natural, and made it far more difficult to understand. Goer states, "Contrary to Gawande's claim, at no time has the routine or frequent use of obstetric interventions improved newborn outcomes" (Goer). Goer also discusses Gawande's claim that cesarean sections are necessary for saving lives at the first sign of difficulty during a birth. In reality, more women (according to a 2004 systematic review of the research), die from problems directly assosiated with C-sections.
Goer states, "What happens during labor and birth has little to do with the condition of the woman or her baby, and everything to do with her caregiver's philosophy and approach." Unfortunately for many women, this means undergoing major surgery for reasons that to another doctor may not seem justified. So what do we do to deal with all this? All women do not have access to the kind of knowledge necessary to make medical decisions during birth, and all doctors are going to have different views on what is appropriate and safe. How do we ensure that all women are safe, without forcing them to undergo a painful process that may not be necessary?
Overall, I found these articles interesting because it shows just how complicated birth really is. While is is magical, mysterious and definately a miracle each time, there is much more that goes into it that is not so pleasant. I guess I see this as another reason for women to have the ability to make their own reproductive choices. Birth is not as simple as many people believe, and women should not be forced into a situation they are not ready for simply because it is illegal. Choice is the most important aspect of all of these things; whether or not to have a birth, how to go about it, etc...which is why choice needs to be valued above most other aspects of pregnancy, birth, and motherhood.
So far, we have discussed the intricacies associated with pregnancy and the decision of whether or not go to through with having a baby. The ins and outs of the emotional, mental and physical aspects of abortion (or not) are extremely complicated. Birth, however, is often seen as simply a miracle. "The miracle of life," though we know it is painful, is often viewed as both mysterious, and consistent from woman to woman. This, however, as Goer proves, is not at all the case.
Gawande states, "human birth is a feat involving an intricate sequence of events." The choices assoicated with these events and the sometimes false beliefs can often put women at danger, while completely demystifying the birthing experience and turning it into a technical process. The need for our society to keep peogressing and becoming more efficient seems to have interfered with a process that is completely natural, and made it far more difficult to understand. Goer states, "Contrary to Gawande's claim, at no time has the routine or frequent use of obstetric interventions improved newborn outcomes" (Goer). Goer also discusses Gawande's claim that cesarean sections are necessary for saving lives at the first sign of difficulty during a birth. In reality, more women (according to a 2004 systematic review of the research), die from problems directly assosiated with C-sections.
Goer states, "What happens during labor and birth has little to do with the condition of the woman or her baby, and everything to do with her caregiver's philosophy and approach." Unfortunately for many women, this means undergoing major surgery for reasons that to another doctor may not seem justified. So what do we do to deal with all this? All women do not have access to the kind of knowledge necessary to make medical decisions during birth, and all doctors are going to have different views on what is appropriate and safe. How do we ensure that all women are safe, without forcing them to undergo a painful process that may not be necessary?
Overall, I found these articles interesting because it shows just how complicated birth really is. While is is magical, mysterious and definately a miracle each time, there is much more that goes into it that is not so pleasant. I guess I see this as another reason for women to have the ability to make their own reproductive choices. Birth is not as simple as many people believe, and women should not be forced into a situation they are not ready for simply because it is illegal. Choice is the most important aspect of all of these things; whether or not to have a birth, how to go about it, etc...which is why choice needs to be valued above most other aspects of pregnancy, birth, and motherhood.
Monday, March 22, 2010
A woman's Choice
Abortion has been, and most likely always will be, a heated topic. It’s debated in government and in people’s everyday lives. I strongly believe that every woman should have the right to control her own body. Abortion is a very personal choice, and it should be no one else’s choice except for the woman who is pregnant. I am absolutely pro-choice.
Allison Crews, author of “So I Chose, ” writes, “Being pro-woman, being pro-choice, means being supportive of any reproductive choice a woman makes for herself. Women, of any age, in any social situation, have the right to bear children. We have the right to choose when, where, with whom and how we bear children. We have the right to abort a pregnancy, for whatever reason we may have. If we have no money, if we have no support, if we wish to continue our education or career uninterrupted, if we are being abused, if we are raped, it is our right not to bear a child (148).” A woman should never be forced to carry a fetus if she does not want to, no questions asked. She is carrying the fetus, it is her body, and it is her choice. No one should have the right to control someone else’s body. A baby transforms a person’s life and if that woman is not ready to have a baby or does not have the funds to provide for the baby, then she should not be forced to carry the baby. Whatever the reason is for aborting a pregnancy, it is no else’s choice except for the woman carrying the baby. Yes, the father of the child can have an opinion about whether or not to keep the baby, but in the end the woman has the final say. It is her body and she has the right to do what she wants with her body.
Whatever choice is made about the pregnancy, the woman should be supported. She should not be ridiculed for her decision. Allison Crews writes, “Young mothers need to be supported in their choices, whatever they may be. Whether they elect to abort a pregnancy, to place a child for adoption or to raise their children, resources to help young women make and cope with their choices need to be readily available. Women must speak boldly and proudly of their choices, so that other women feel safe in making their own (143).” The choice to continue or end a pregnancy is one of the hardest decisions a woman will have to make, and no matter the final decision, a woman needs to feel like she did the best thing for herself.
Abortion is a personal choice. Women should not harass another woman for having an abortion, especially if she has never gone through the same thing. How would this woman understand what this woman contemplating abortion is going through? Until you experience something, you should not be one to pass judgment. Shouldn't we want a mother to want to care for her baby, to want to have the baby, to want to love the baby? If a woman is not ready to be a mother, then she should not have to be. Motherhood is a lot of work and responsibility, and if one is not ready for that step, she should not be forced to have a baby. Crews says, “She had the right to make a choice for herself and her future without being harassed and intimidated (145).” A woman should not make the decision to carry a baby based on what others think; she should not feel pressured to carry a child. Bearing a child is solely a woman’s choice, no one else’s.
Crews puts it perfectly: “Our bodies are our own, our futures ours to mold. No one should be allowed to interfere with them. Whatever our reproductive choices, nobody can ever deny us our right to them (149).” Our body is our own, and we are the only person who can decide what to do with it. If a woman wants an abortion or wants to have a baby then that is absolutely her right and her choice.
Allison Crews, author of “So I Chose, ” writes, “Being pro-woman, being pro-choice, means being supportive of any reproductive choice a woman makes for herself. Women, of any age, in any social situation, have the right to bear children. We have the right to choose when, where, with whom and how we bear children. We have the right to abort a pregnancy, for whatever reason we may have. If we have no money, if we have no support, if we wish to continue our education or career uninterrupted, if we are being abused, if we are raped, it is our right not to bear a child (148).” A woman should never be forced to carry a fetus if she does not want to, no questions asked. She is carrying the fetus, it is her body, and it is her choice. No one should have the right to control someone else’s body. A baby transforms a person’s life and if that woman is not ready to have a baby or does not have the funds to provide for the baby, then she should not be forced to carry the baby. Whatever the reason is for aborting a pregnancy, it is no else’s choice except for the woman carrying the baby. Yes, the father of the child can have an opinion about whether or not to keep the baby, but in the end the woman has the final say. It is her body and she has the right to do what she wants with her body.
Whatever choice is made about the pregnancy, the woman should be supported. She should not be ridiculed for her decision. Allison Crews writes, “Young mothers need to be supported in their choices, whatever they may be. Whether they elect to abort a pregnancy, to place a child for adoption or to raise their children, resources to help young women make and cope with their choices need to be readily available. Women must speak boldly and proudly of their choices, so that other women feel safe in making their own (143).” The choice to continue or end a pregnancy is one of the hardest decisions a woman will have to make, and no matter the final decision, a woman needs to feel like she did the best thing for herself.
Abortion is a personal choice. Women should not harass another woman for having an abortion, especially if she has never gone through the same thing. How would this woman understand what this woman contemplating abortion is going through? Until you experience something, you should not be one to pass judgment. Shouldn't we want a mother to want to care for her baby, to want to have the baby, to want to love the baby? If a woman is not ready to be a mother, then she should not have to be. Motherhood is a lot of work and responsibility, and if one is not ready for that step, she should not be forced to have a baby. Crews says, “She had the right to make a choice for herself and her future without being harassed and intimidated (145).” A woman should not make the decision to carry a baby based on what others think; she should not feel pressured to carry a child. Bearing a child is solely a woman’s choice, no one else’s.
Crews puts it perfectly: “Our bodies are our own, our futures ours to mold. No one should be allowed to interfere with them. Whatever our reproductive choices, nobody can ever deny us our right to them (149).” Our body is our own, and we are the only person who can decide what to do with it. If a woman wants an abortion or wants to have a baby then that is absolutely her right and her choice.
Newsflash: Enlightened Sexism
Laura Fitzpatrick’s article “The New Sexism” (Click for article) touches on many current aspects of feminism that have been discussed in class and by authors such as Audre Lorde, Ariel Levy, Allan Johnson and Joan Brumberg. Fitzpatrick’s article discusses the new book Enlightened Sexism and an interview by TIME with the author Susan Douglas, who describes sexism as more subtle than the blatant discrimination of the past, leading many people to think equality has been achieved or that “sexist messages are O.K. if couched in irony” (Fitzpatrick). Douglas describes those who engage in enlightened feminism to be O.K. with sexist messages in the media or on T.V. as long as they are seen as out of the ordinary and approached with a laugh, such as female behavior on shows like “The Bachelor.” She describes the reasons why society faces these problems, and suggests solutions that authors like Allan Johnson would agree with.
Susan Douglas describes the idea that there are two poles to feminism: one in which powerful, successful women are embedded into our everyday culture, and another where shows like “The Swan,” depict women as simply in need of physical improvement and the approval of men. Clearly, these contrasting ideas make it difficult for women of all ages to truly see both how far we have come, and how far we have to go. Ariel Levy and Joan Brumberg would agree with Fitzpatrick and Douglas, as Douglas’s ideas go hand in hand with what these authors would see as raunch culture and body projects. Levy would agree that many people see sexism as a thing of the past, making it O.K. for women to flaunt their bodies as a sign of their newly acquired freedom, often in a truly “raunchy” way. Some may see successful women on shows like “The Bachelor” as signs of female empowerment; women who leave their careers to show their stuff and follow their hearts. In reality, however, these women are fighting with one another for the attention of one man.
Shows like “The Swan” focus on what Jean Brumberg would call Body Projects. In today’s society, women’s success, self-confidence and overall happiness are inextricably linked with their physical appearance. Unfortunately, as Brumberg explains, this has been the case for many years and is only getting worse. She states, ‘The body is a consuming project for contemporary girls because it provides an important means of self-definition, a way to visibly announce who you are to the world” (Brumberg 97). Shows like “The Swan” are contradicting in the sense that they show women who are free to take care of themselves and express concern for their bodies, and yet, they are all trying to conform to a certain standard. As Brumberg said, “What American women did not realize at the time was that their stunning new freedom actually implied the need for greater internal control.” Susan Douglas would unequivocally agree with Brumberg about the dichotomy of freedom and body projects, as she describes contradicting trends that came about in the 1990’s: progressive girl power and the not-so-progressive aspect of female marketing. Fitzpatrick says, “teen girls were discovered as a market for all kinds of things: clothing, makeup, thongs, etc,” which reinstated the importance of female appearance despite the female empowerment what was characteristic of the 1990’s.
Douglas goes on to discuss the fact that the media portrays women as equal to men. However, although we have come a long way, we still have a long way to go. Many statistics support the fact that equality has not yet been reached, such as Douglas’s statement that “Of the top Fortune 500 companies in 2008, only 15 had a female chief executive” (Fitzpatrick). Consequently, since many more men than women have lost jobs during the current recession, families are now forced to rely on the (lower) wages of women. In addition, the median income for women was roughly 31 percent lower than men in 2006, while the amount women make out of college is about 80 percent of what men make, and that number decreases significantly over a ten year period. When asked what people can do to solve these problems, Douglas said, “I think the first thing is to become much more indignant about these cultural values and sexist imagery” (Fitzpatrick). Not only do women need to be indignant, but men as well. Everybody needs to become aware and involved of the subtle sexisms placed within our society, and see them as unacceptable, in order to make a change and further promote equality for women in all aspects of society.
Allan Johnson would agree that the concept of inequality and patriarchy is a system that all are involved in, whether it is a conscious decision or not. He states, “Patriarchy is a kind of society organized around certain kinds of social relationships and ideas that shape paths of least resistance” (Johnson). Patriarchy, as described by Johnson, is more than the mindset of a few people, but rather a system in which we all participate, further fueling the inequality of women in our culture. Douglas would likely see the media as woven into the patriarchal system in our society; the ways in which both men and women respond to the skewed representation and sexist images in the media are results of taking the path of least resistance.
At the end of her interview with TIME, Susan Douglas stated, “Women have a lot of work to do yet around pay equity, day care, paid maternity leave, sexual harassment, violence against women. [There's] a whole host of issues that are still the unfinished business of our movement” (Fitzpatrick). While this is clearly true, many feminists like Audre Lorde would see getting off the path of least resistance and fighting against patriarchy as encompassing far more groups than just women. Human rights as a whole must be improved, which includes those who are victims of racism, homophobia, ageism, etc. Lorde describes, after attending a New York University Institute for the Humanities conference, how she was assumed to represent only Black feminists and lesbians; issues like racism, sexism and homophobia clearly had to be separated, rather than united under the search for a common goal. 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” (Lorde).
Susan Douglas’s ideas seem valid, and are supported by many other feminists and those in search of equality for all groups of people. The opposing aspects of feminism (raunch culture and over represented women in power), make it very difficult for people to see clearly. We need to look past the media to the realities at hand in order to continue moving forward, and to improve the statistics represented in Douglas’s interview. We need to see shows like “The Swan” as what they really are: just another form of what Brumberg would call Body Projects. As Allan Johnson described, the only way to fight against patriarchy is to view it not as the fault of a few people, but as a system in which we are all involved. In order to reverse this system, both men and women need to have the courage to get off the path of least resistance and, as Douglas said, be indignant.
The only aspect of waking up to reality and moving forward that Douglas may have overlooked is Audre Lorde’s main argument: we have to see our differences as essential to progress and a way to unite all of those who struggle with some type of inequality or discrimination. Before we can put a dent in the patriarchal system that consumes our society, we need to get everyone on board, and by finding common ground and realizing the important of diversity we will be one step closer to that goal. If we want to see improvement, it is no longer acceptable to, as Douglas said, “resurrect retrograde, sexist images of women in the media, all with a wink and a laugh” (Fitzpatrick).
Susan Douglas describes the idea that there are two poles to feminism: one in which powerful, successful women are embedded into our everyday culture, and another where shows like “The Swan,” depict women as simply in need of physical improvement and the approval of men. Clearly, these contrasting ideas make it difficult for women of all ages to truly see both how far we have come, and how far we have to go. Ariel Levy and Joan Brumberg would agree with Fitzpatrick and Douglas, as Douglas’s ideas go hand in hand with what these authors would see as raunch culture and body projects. Levy would agree that many people see sexism as a thing of the past, making it O.K. for women to flaunt their bodies as a sign of their newly acquired freedom, often in a truly “raunchy” way. Some may see successful women on shows like “The Bachelor” as signs of female empowerment; women who leave their careers to show their stuff and follow their hearts. In reality, however, these women are fighting with one another for the attention of one man.
Shows like “The Swan” focus on what Jean Brumberg would call Body Projects. In today’s society, women’s success, self-confidence and overall happiness are inextricably linked with their physical appearance. Unfortunately, as Brumberg explains, this has been the case for many years and is only getting worse. She states, ‘The body is a consuming project for contemporary girls because it provides an important means of self-definition, a way to visibly announce who you are to the world” (Brumberg 97). Shows like “The Swan” are contradicting in the sense that they show women who are free to take care of themselves and express concern for their bodies, and yet, they are all trying to conform to a certain standard. As Brumberg said, “What American women did not realize at the time was that their stunning new freedom actually implied the need for greater internal control.” Susan Douglas would unequivocally agree with Brumberg about the dichotomy of freedom and body projects, as she describes contradicting trends that came about in the 1990’s: progressive girl power and the not-so-progressive aspect of female marketing. Fitzpatrick says, “teen girls were discovered as a market for all kinds of things: clothing, makeup, thongs, etc,” which reinstated the importance of female appearance despite the female empowerment what was characteristic of the 1990’s.
Douglas goes on to discuss the fact that the media portrays women as equal to men. However, although we have come a long way, we still have a long way to go. Many statistics support the fact that equality has not yet been reached, such as Douglas’s statement that “Of the top Fortune 500 companies in 2008, only 15 had a female chief executive” (Fitzpatrick). Consequently, since many more men than women have lost jobs during the current recession, families are now forced to rely on the (lower) wages of women. In addition, the median income for women was roughly 31 percent lower than men in 2006, while the amount women make out of college is about 80 percent of what men make, and that number decreases significantly over a ten year period. When asked what people can do to solve these problems, Douglas said, “I think the first thing is to become much more indignant about these cultural values and sexist imagery” (Fitzpatrick). Not only do women need to be indignant, but men as well. Everybody needs to become aware and involved of the subtle sexisms placed within our society, and see them as unacceptable, in order to make a change and further promote equality for women in all aspects of society.
Allan Johnson would agree that the concept of inequality and patriarchy is a system that all are involved in, whether it is a conscious decision or not. He states, “Patriarchy is a kind of society organized around certain kinds of social relationships and ideas that shape paths of least resistance” (Johnson). Patriarchy, as described by Johnson, is more than the mindset of a few people, but rather a system in which we all participate, further fueling the inequality of women in our culture. Douglas would likely see the media as woven into the patriarchal system in our society; the ways in which both men and women respond to the skewed representation and sexist images in the media are results of taking the path of least resistance.
At the end of her interview with TIME, Susan Douglas stated, “Women have a lot of work to do yet around pay equity, day care, paid maternity leave, sexual harassment, violence against women. [There's] a whole host of issues that are still the unfinished business of our movement” (Fitzpatrick). While this is clearly true, many feminists like Audre Lorde would see getting off the path of least resistance and fighting against patriarchy as encompassing far more groups than just women. Human rights as a whole must be improved, which includes those who are victims of racism, homophobia, ageism, etc. Lorde describes, after attending a New York University Institute for the Humanities conference, how she was assumed to represent only Black feminists and lesbians; issues like racism, sexism and homophobia clearly had to be separated, rather than united under the search for a common goal. 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” (Lorde).
Susan Douglas’s ideas seem valid, and are supported by many other feminists and those in search of equality for all groups of people. The opposing aspects of feminism (raunch culture and over represented women in power), make it very difficult for people to see clearly. We need to look past the media to the realities at hand in order to continue moving forward, and to improve the statistics represented in Douglas’s interview. We need to see shows like “The Swan” as what they really are: just another form of what Brumberg would call Body Projects. As Allan Johnson described, the only way to fight against patriarchy is to view it not as the fault of a few people, but as a system in which we are all involved. In order to reverse this system, both men and women need to have the courage to get off the path of least resistance and, as Douglas said, be indignant.
The only aspect of waking up to reality and moving forward that Douglas may have overlooked is Audre Lorde’s main argument: we have to see our differences as essential to progress and a way to unite all of those who struggle with some type of inequality or discrimination. Before we can put a dent in the patriarchal system that consumes our society, we need to get everyone on board, and by finding common ground and realizing the important of diversity we will be one step closer to that goal. If we want to see improvement, it is no longer acceptable to, as Douglas said, “resurrect retrograde, sexist images of women in the media, all with a wink and a laugh” (Fitzpatrick).
Fat Fear
The prolific issue of women’s body image has been linked to the ubiquitous presence of thin female bodies within the public sphere. Traditionally, feminine beauty is linked to being thin, and one need not look far to see evidence of the ‘thin is in’ mantra being perpetuated. Most women in the public eye are fastidious about dieting and exercise and go to great lengths to make sure they maintain a slender physique. Images of these thin women flood the media, and there has been ongoing concern about the impact those images have on the ways women understand their own bodies. Our cultural obsession with being thin has led to a skewed understanding of what an average, healthy female body looks like: the women we see every day on television and in magazines generally go to great lengths to stay slim, and as such images of ‘normal’ size women are relatively larger and labeled as such.
However, a recent trend has emerged that seems to celebrate larger, curvier women, including increased visibility of normal female bodies in the media. In particular, some people hope that by including ‘plus-sized’ models in advertising, this stigma against women who break the ultra-thin beauty mold and the body issues that accompany an obsession with thinness might be alleviated. However, according to this study conducted by researchers at Arizona State University, the University of Cologne in Germany and Erasmus University in the Netherlands, advertisements that include only thin models generally do not have a more detrimental impact to women’s self esteem than advertisements that include normal-sized models. Women with a low BMI reported feeling a boost in self-esteem when looking at both pictures of thin models and plus-size models, while women with a high BMI reported a drop in body confidence in either case. However, women with a normal BMI experienced a range of reactions. They reported feeling generally good about themselves after viewing a moderately thin model, with whom they felt similar in size, but were disheartened by images of moderately larger models because they feared they were the same size and also overweight.
While this may seem like evidence against the positive effects of different sized women in the media, I think the study grossly oversimplifies the ways in which women interact with images of other women. Namely, it glosses over how representations of women in the media at large are impacting how women perceive images of plus-sized models.
First and foremost, it is important to consider that images of plus-sized women are created and read in a culture that is still infatuated with thin female bodies. In this atmosphere, placing larger models in advertisements serves as the exception that proves the rule. Plus-sized models are often set off from the regular, ‘normal-sized’ models (whose bodies are arguably less ‘normal’ that those of their larger peers), which denotes them as a kind of body ‘other.’ Consider, for instance, that when larger models are used in magazines, it is often in special issues and almost never among thinner models. The subtext of this practice suggests that, while plus-sized models are beautiful, they are beautiful only when segregated from the ‘normal’ thin models, with whom they cannot fairly be compared. When most of the images of larger models appear in special ‘body confidence’ issues or advertisements aimed at depicting ‘real’ women (as opposed to gorgeous, glamorous fantasy models), they become segregated to a kind of cultural ghetto and are stigmatized despite increased visibility. Simply put, plus-sized becomes a qualifier: the models are beautiful for a larger woman, but could not compete against thin models. Until larger models enjoy the same integrated exposure their smaller peers do, larger bodies will always be seen as attractive only within their own niche.
This attitude only enforces the need for more integrated use of normal-sized women in the media. As Levy argues, the standard of ideal beauty has become endlessly reiterated to the point that deviations from that standard are seen as a less desirable other. In some ways, this phenomena mirrors the struggle of ethnic models to gain legitimacy in the mainstream. In America, the prevailing shorthand for sexiness is generally both thin and white, although that standard is certainly starting to chance. However, non-white models are often including in mainstream media in much the same way that plus-sized models are—as a nod to a niche demographic, rather than an integrated part of the diverse spectrum of women that exist in the real world. For example, Vogue has recently produced both a ‘Body Issue’ focusing on women of different sizes and a ‘Black Issue’ focused on black models. This practice makes apparent that the main way a ‘deviant’ body image gains visibility is through segregated media.
This continued segregation of larger bodies is especially problematic because the plus-sized models we see in print are not particularly plus sized. They are singled out as being large women, when in reality their bodies probably more closely mirror the average women’s than a 'normal' model’s does. Consider, for instance, these images of ‘plus-sized’ models Crystal Renn
and Lizzi Miller 
. Compared to the average woman, there is nothing ‘plus’ about them. In fact, the relative normalcy of their bodies invites the average woman to identify with them. However, their stigmatized place in the media makes this identification unwelcome.
Furthermore, while it is easy to dismiss excessively thin models as the product of extreme photo retouching and unhealthy weight loss habits, larger models seem more accessible and realistic. They seem, when compared to the ridiculous images of the female body we see every day, like an attainable beauty standard. It is easy to forget that they are models who were hired for their beautiful bodies and that the images we see of them have been shot in the most flattering light and likely underwent a litany of retouches. As such, when a woman looks at an image of a plus-sized model and feels her own body falls short of that fantasy, it is a double blow as she is falling short of an image that is already stigmatized as less attractive than that of the mainstream ideal.
However, I think it is important to make a distinction between plus-sized models damaging women’s body image because they are plus-sized models and understanding those body image issues in a larger context. At first glance, it seems difficult to believe that by embracing different body types as beautiful the media could promote bad self-esteem. Yet the context of those images, as stigmatized within the media as well as society, can make identifying with them unwanted. That this trend is tied into a culture that still sees a lithe body as the ultimate shorthand for attractiveness is apparent even within the study itself. Thin women responded positively no matter what sized model they looked at, while larger women always responded negatively.
Body diversity should be integrated into the mainstream, rather than relegated to marginalized ‘special issues’ or qualified as ‘plus-sized.’ I think the negative reactions to plus-sized models are based on the fear of identifying with an image that has been labeled as larger—and therefore less than—the ideal beauty. It is the context of a society that shames women who are not thin that inspires women to feel bad about their bodies, not the actual representation of larger, beautiful women.
However, a recent trend has emerged that seems to celebrate larger, curvier women, including increased visibility of normal female bodies in the media. In particular, some people hope that by including ‘plus-sized’ models in advertising, this stigma against women who break the ultra-thin beauty mold and the body issues that accompany an obsession with thinness might be alleviated. However, according to this study conducted by researchers at Arizona State University, the University of Cologne in Germany and Erasmus University in the Netherlands, advertisements that include only thin models generally do not have a more detrimental impact to women’s self esteem than advertisements that include normal-sized models. Women with a low BMI reported feeling a boost in self-esteem when looking at both pictures of thin models and plus-size models, while women with a high BMI reported a drop in body confidence in either case. However, women with a normal BMI experienced a range of reactions. They reported feeling generally good about themselves after viewing a moderately thin model, with whom they felt similar in size, but were disheartened by images of moderately larger models because they feared they were the same size and also overweight.
While this may seem like evidence against the positive effects of different sized women in the media, I think the study grossly oversimplifies the ways in which women interact with images of other women. Namely, it glosses over how representations of women in the media at large are impacting how women perceive images of plus-sized models.
First and foremost, it is important to consider that images of plus-sized women are created and read in a culture that is still infatuated with thin female bodies. In this atmosphere, placing larger models in advertisements serves as the exception that proves the rule. Plus-sized models are often set off from the regular, ‘normal-sized’ models (whose bodies are arguably less ‘normal’ that those of their larger peers), which denotes them as a kind of body ‘other.’ Consider, for instance, that when larger models are used in magazines, it is often in special issues and almost never among thinner models. The subtext of this practice suggests that, while plus-sized models are beautiful, they are beautiful only when segregated from the ‘normal’ thin models, with whom they cannot fairly be compared. When most of the images of larger models appear in special ‘body confidence’ issues or advertisements aimed at depicting ‘real’ women (as opposed to gorgeous, glamorous fantasy models), they become segregated to a kind of cultural ghetto and are stigmatized despite increased visibility. Simply put, plus-sized becomes a qualifier: the models are beautiful for a larger woman, but could not compete against thin models. Until larger models enjoy the same integrated exposure their smaller peers do, larger bodies will always be seen as attractive only within their own niche.
This attitude only enforces the need for more integrated use of normal-sized women in the media. As Levy argues, the standard of ideal beauty has become endlessly reiterated to the point that deviations from that standard are seen as a less desirable other. In some ways, this phenomena mirrors the struggle of ethnic models to gain legitimacy in the mainstream. In America, the prevailing shorthand for sexiness is generally both thin and white, although that standard is certainly starting to chance. However, non-white models are often including in mainstream media in much the same way that plus-sized models are—as a nod to a niche demographic, rather than an integrated part of the diverse spectrum of women that exist in the real world. For example, Vogue has recently produced both a ‘Body Issue’ focusing on women of different sizes and a ‘Black Issue’ focused on black models. This practice makes apparent that the main way a ‘deviant’ body image gains visibility is through segregated media.
This continued segregation of larger bodies is especially problematic because the plus-sized models we see in print are not particularly plus sized. They are singled out as being large women, when in reality their bodies probably more closely mirror the average women’s than a 'normal' model’s does. Consider, for instance, these images of ‘plus-sized’ models Crystal Renn
and Lizzi Miller 
. Compared to the average woman, there is nothing ‘plus’ about them. In fact, the relative normalcy of their bodies invites the average woman to identify with them. However, their stigmatized place in the media makes this identification unwelcome.Furthermore, while it is easy to dismiss excessively thin models as the product of extreme photo retouching and unhealthy weight loss habits, larger models seem more accessible and realistic. They seem, when compared to the ridiculous images of the female body we see every day, like an attainable beauty standard. It is easy to forget that they are models who were hired for their beautiful bodies and that the images we see of them have been shot in the most flattering light and likely underwent a litany of retouches. As such, when a woman looks at an image of a plus-sized model and feels her own body falls short of that fantasy, it is a double blow as she is falling short of an image that is already stigmatized as less attractive than that of the mainstream ideal.
However, I think it is important to make a distinction between plus-sized models damaging women’s body image because they are plus-sized models and understanding those body image issues in a larger context. At first glance, it seems difficult to believe that by embracing different body types as beautiful the media could promote bad self-esteem. Yet the context of those images, as stigmatized within the media as well as society, can make identifying with them unwanted. That this trend is tied into a culture that still sees a lithe body as the ultimate shorthand for attractiveness is apparent even within the study itself. Thin women responded positively no matter what sized model they looked at, while larger women always responded negatively.
Body diversity should be integrated into the mainstream, rather than relegated to marginalized ‘special issues’ or qualified as ‘plus-sized.’ I think the negative reactions to plus-sized models are based on the fear of identifying with an image that has been labeled as larger—and therefore less than—the ideal beauty. It is the context of a society that shames women who are not thin that inspires women to feel bad about their bodies, not the actual representation of larger, beautiful women.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Newsflash: A New Eating Disorder?
Click here to read the article!
In the past few decades, more and more attention has been given to those patients suffering from anorexia nervosa and bulimia, two commonly known eating disorders provoked by fear of being overweight. Both are commonly associated with teenage girls and women, as they are more likely than their male counterparts to engage in these behaviors to lose weight, including but not limited to: restricting food intake and dieting, excessive exercising, and purging. However, according to Time Magazine’s article “Can Healthy Eating Be a Disorder?” eating disorder experts believe they are beginning to encounter a slightly new population, one suffering from what they refer to as “orthorexia.” As with other eating disorders, women appear to be more prone to orthorexia than males, likely because of the inherently patriarchal structure of society and ever-increasing pressure to fit male-defined norms of what is attractive.
To illustrate the presentation of the disorder, Time Magazine contributor Bonnie Rochman describes the case of Kristie Rutzel, who, upon learning about food pyramids and healthy eating, “stopped ingesting anything processed, then restricted herself to whole foods and eventually to 100% organic.” This obsession with avoiding any foods deemed “unhealthy” by medical professionals is the hallmark feature of orthorexia. The list of forbidden foods is nearly endless as transsaturated fats, high-fructose corn syrup, and artificial flavors, colors, or preservatives are all prohibited. With such dietary limitations, severe health issues can result, including anemia and osteopenia, among many others. Some psychiatrists and doctors argue that orthorexia still classifies as anorexia, but lobbyists are fighting to have orthorexia entered into the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) that is used by mental-health professionals to identify and consult on disorders. However, the first draft of the DSM-V was released on February 10, and orthorexia was not included. Without recognition in the DSM, it will be hard for researchers to receive grant money in order to learn more about the disorder that is likely plaguing many women. It will also be hard for patients thought to have orthorexia (but not another eating disorder) to get insurance and proper medical care.
Feminist and author Joan Jacobs Brumberg would likely see the advent of orthorexia as yet another example of the “body projects” that girls and women commonly undertake. These projects are modifications aimed at controlling or enhancing the body in order to fit societal norms and can include simple transformations through undergarments, clothing, and hairstyles, or more severe and permanent transformations through plastic surgery, piercings, or tattoos. Some argue that these body projects themselves are not problematic: many women gain self-confidence and pleasure from a new dress, freshly shaven legs, or a nice tan. However, these “projects” too often become excessive and all-consuming, as is the case with orthorexia and other eating disorders. Both mental health and physical health are at risk. Rutzel is the perfect example of a body project taken too far. We have all been taught the importance and benefits of eating healthy, but eating a raw foods diet consisting of little besides uncooked broccoli and cauliflower, Rutzel became severely underweight at 5 feet 4 inches and only 68 pounds.
What explains this dangerous obsession with being thin? Why is it so much more prevalent in women than in men? In one word: patriarchy. 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. Allan G. Johnson explains 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). Patriarchy thus gives men the power to puts demands on women and force them to fit into a narrow definition of what it means to be feminine. Modern femininity, according to Brumberg, “require[s] some degree of exhibitionism, or at least, a willingness to display oneself of a decorative object” (107). Conforming to these ideals and achieving various body projects are thus one way of fitting into these definitions and putting oneself on display for men to see, ogle, and enjoy.
Brumberg also writes, “today, many young girls worry about the contours of their bodies—especially shape, size and muscle tone-- because they believe that the body is the ultimate expression of self” (97). External appearance is the first impression a person makes; it is the first basis for judgment. Living in a male-dominated world, girls and women feel the pressure to live up to the strict definitions of what is attractive. According to the media and the way we are all socialized, men want women who are thin; thin is the key to success, whether it is defined as being beautiful or finding a husband.
Debates arise, however, because women undeniably gain a sense of satisfaction from being thin. If women gain self-confidence from achieving body projects and if body projects instill a sense of pride and happiness, why are they so harmful? The answer is partly about motivation. If women are truly choosing to take part in these body projects (dieting and others), it is their prerogative. However, is their motivation truly stemming purely from themselves, or it is due to the influence of patriarchy? It is hard to separate what is a choice freely made from one that is made under the influence of society. Women have been socialized into accepting these ideals; it is hard to undo or ignore these externally imposed pressures.
Full blown eating disorders, though, whether it be orthorexia, anorexia, or bulimia, generally do not encounter substantial resistance: it is hard to look at someone who is 5 foot 4 inches and 68 pounds and conclude that they are healthy. This question is limited to less extreme versions of body projects. Is healthy eating, the foundation of orthorexia, bad? It sounds absurd to say it is. Is going to the gym bad? In moderation, it certainly is not. Is a diet necessarily bad? Again, if it’s well-controlled and temporary, it is not unduly harmful. Many women who are not diagnosed with eating disorders, though, still suffer from these preoccupations, so where do we draw the line? According to Alisa Valdes, studies show that 75% of adult women in the United States believe they are too fat, even though only a third of those women (25% of all women) actually are (Findlen 26). These statistics clearly show that these images perpetuated by our patriarchal society are damaging to the majority of women, even if only a fraction of those women eventually become diagnosed with a disorder like orthorexia.
This is precisely why a disorder like orthorexia deserves our attention and recognition: it is a symptom of the culture at large. We have distorted something healthy (a balanced and nutritional diet) to such an extreme level that it can now be considered a medical condition.
In the past few decades, more and more attention has been given to those patients suffering from anorexia nervosa and bulimia, two commonly known eating disorders provoked by fear of being overweight. Both are commonly associated with teenage girls and women, as they are more likely than their male counterparts to engage in these behaviors to lose weight, including but not limited to: restricting food intake and dieting, excessive exercising, and purging. However, according to Time Magazine’s article “Can Healthy Eating Be a Disorder?” eating disorder experts believe they are beginning to encounter a slightly new population, one suffering from what they refer to as “orthorexia.” As with other eating disorders, women appear to be more prone to orthorexia than males, likely because of the inherently patriarchal structure of society and ever-increasing pressure to fit male-defined norms of what is attractive.
To illustrate the presentation of the disorder, Time Magazine contributor Bonnie Rochman describes the case of Kristie Rutzel, who, upon learning about food pyramids and healthy eating, “stopped ingesting anything processed, then restricted herself to whole foods and eventually to 100% organic.” This obsession with avoiding any foods deemed “unhealthy” by medical professionals is the hallmark feature of orthorexia. The list of forbidden foods is nearly endless as transsaturated fats, high-fructose corn syrup, and artificial flavors, colors, or preservatives are all prohibited. With such dietary limitations, severe health issues can result, including anemia and osteopenia, among many others. Some psychiatrists and doctors argue that orthorexia still classifies as anorexia, but lobbyists are fighting to have orthorexia entered into the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) that is used by mental-health professionals to identify and consult on disorders. However, the first draft of the DSM-V was released on February 10, and orthorexia was not included. Without recognition in the DSM, it will be hard for researchers to receive grant money in order to learn more about the disorder that is likely plaguing many women. It will also be hard for patients thought to have orthorexia (but not another eating disorder) to get insurance and proper medical care.
Feminist and author Joan Jacobs Brumberg would likely see the advent of orthorexia as yet another example of the “body projects” that girls and women commonly undertake. These projects are modifications aimed at controlling or enhancing the body in order to fit societal norms and can include simple transformations through undergarments, clothing, and hairstyles, or more severe and permanent transformations through plastic surgery, piercings, or tattoos. Some argue that these body projects themselves are not problematic: many women gain self-confidence and pleasure from a new dress, freshly shaven legs, or a nice tan. However, these “projects” too often become excessive and all-consuming, as is the case with orthorexia and other eating disorders. Both mental health and physical health are at risk. Rutzel is the perfect example of a body project taken too far. We have all been taught the importance and benefits of eating healthy, but eating a raw foods diet consisting of little besides uncooked broccoli and cauliflower, Rutzel became severely underweight at 5 feet 4 inches and only 68 pounds.
What explains this dangerous obsession with being thin? Why is it so much more prevalent in women than in men? In one word: patriarchy. 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. Allan G. Johnson explains 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). Patriarchy thus gives men the power to puts demands on women and force them to fit into a narrow definition of what it means to be feminine. Modern femininity, according to Brumberg, “require[s] some degree of exhibitionism, or at least, a willingness to display oneself of a decorative object” (107). Conforming to these ideals and achieving various body projects are thus one way of fitting into these definitions and putting oneself on display for men to see, ogle, and enjoy.
Brumberg also writes, “today, many young girls worry about the contours of their bodies—especially shape, size and muscle tone-- because they believe that the body is the ultimate expression of self” (97). External appearance is the first impression a person makes; it is the first basis for judgment. Living in a male-dominated world, girls and women feel the pressure to live up to the strict definitions of what is attractive. According to the media and the way we are all socialized, men want women who are thin; thin is the key to success, whether it is defined as being beautiful or finding a husband.
Debates arise, however, because women undeniably gain a sense of satisfaction from being thin. If women gain self-confidence from achieving body projects and if body projects instill a sense of pride and happiness, why are they so harmful? The answer is partly about motivation. If women are truly choosing to take part in these body projects (dieting and others), it is their prerogative. However, is their motivation truly stemming purely from themselves, or it is due to the influence of patriarchy? It is hard to separate what is a choice freely made from one that is made under the influence of society. Women have been socialized into accepting these ideals; it is hard to undo or ignore these externally imposed pressures.
Full blown eating disorders, though, whether it be orthorexia, anorexia, or bulimia, generally do not encounter substantial resistance: it is hard to look at someone who is 5 foot 4 inches and 68 pounds and conclude that they are healthy. This question is limited to less extreme versions of body projects. Is healthy eating, the foundation of orthorexia, bad? It sounds absurd to say it is. Is going to the gym bad? In moderation, it certainly is not. Is a diet necessarily bad? Again, if it’s well-controlled and temporary, it is not unduly harmful. Many women who are not diagnosed with eating disorders, though, still suffer from these preoccupations, so where do we draw the line? According to Alisa Valdes, studies show that 75% of adult women in the United States believe they are too fat, even though only a third of those women (25% of all women) actually are (Findlen 26). These statistics clearly show that these images perpetuated by our patriarchal society are damaging to the majority of women, even if only a fraction of those women eventually become diagnosed with a disorder like orthorexia.
This is precisely why a disorder like orthorexia deserves our attention and recognition: it is a symptom of the culture at large. We have distorted something healthy (a balanced and nutritional diet) to such an extreme level that it can now be considered a medical condition.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
News Flash: Barbie Gone Bad
Most of us played with Barbie dolls when we were little. Barbie and Ken—they were the dream couple with dream bodies and beautiful faces. But when did the features of a doll become the ideal features for humans? It’s easy to make a perfect body and perfect face for a doll, but it should not be the body and face that men and women strive for, and most certainly not the body that little girls desire. "Toddlers in Tiaras" is a television show that is broadcast on TLC in which girls shave their legs, wear revealing clothing, get spray tans, have fake teeth, wear loads of make-up, and parade across a stage in a beauty pageant to win money, succumb to society, and please their mothers. But the girls are losing so much more than they are gaining by being in these pageants. They are losing their childhood, and they are being taught and practically forced to look one way—like a Barbie. Pageant girls are being taught that they only have one to thing offer, and that is their body. These girls are a product of raunch culture and if girls continue to be portrayed as sexual objects starting practically in the womb, things are only going to get worse.
There used to be a time when women didn’t wear make-up, do their hair, shave their legs and underarms, a time when the definition of beautiful was natural. That time is long over. Because the standards for looking good have been dramatically altered, girls are going out of their way and spending a frivolous amount of money to do whatever they can to look as good as possible. Jessica Bennett, a writer for Newsweek, writes, “On a recent Sunday in Brooklyn, I stumble into a spa that brands itself for the zero-to-12 set, full of tweens getting facialed and glossed, hands and feet outstretched for manis and pedis. Sounds extreme? Maybe. But this, my friends, is the new normal: a generation that primps and dyes and pulls and shapes, younger and with more vigor. Girls today are salon vets before they enter elementary school. They have spa days and pedicure parties. And instead of shaving their legs the old-fashioned way--with a 99-cent drugstore razor--teens get laser hair removal, the most common cosmetic procedure of that age group. If these trends continue, by the time your tween hits the Botox years, she'll have spent thousands on the beauty treatments once reserved for the 'Beverly Hills, 90210' set, not junior highs in Madison.” The media is corrupting little girls, advising them that looks are everything. Joan Brumberg, author of “Body Projects,” writes, “This elaboration of the ideal of beauty raised expectations of what adolescent girls should look like. It also required them to put even more energy and resources into their body projects, beginning at an earlier age (109).” Little girls who haven’t even gone through puberty are becoming sexual objects; it’s awful. If girls are taught at this young of age that their body is everything, then their entire life will be about looks instead of brains or other dreams that they have. It’s simply not right; life should be more than physical appearance.
Beautiful has been redefined, and not in a positive way. “Toddlers and Tiaras” is sending the message to little girls that if they’re not beautiful, well, they have nothing going for them. Kristen Shamus, a writer for The Detroit Free Press, says, “The behavior chronicled on 'Toddlers & Tiaras' is just plain sad. The message these poor kids are getting is that they're only worthwhile if they're pretty, and that the only way to be pretty is to cake on makeup and wear false teeth and revealing clothes. When children lose and go home crying, they also leave with the message that they aren't pretty enough, and therefore are no good at all.”
Little girls are not supposed to be wearing pounds of make-up and revealing clothing and spending their weekends strutting their stuff across a stage. They should be waking up on the weekends and watching cartoons. They should not have fake teeth to fill in the gaps where their baby teeth have fallen out. These girls should embrace the gaps in their mouth and anxiously wait for the tooth fairy to put a dollar under their pillow. Tears are often the outcome for everyone except the lucky winner of the beauty pageant. Society is instilling the idea that looks are all women have, the most important feature for a woman. This is preposterous; little girls should be taught that it is their personality and their goals in life that make them beautiful, not their skimpy outfits and fake smiles. Frankly, the winner of the pageant doesn’t even look like a little girl but rather a Barbie or American Girl doll come to life. Apparently, the plastic Barbie doll look is many a little girl's dream, or the dream of their mothers.
Society is manipulating these little girls into participating in these pageants. But society at large is not doing all the damage; a lot of it comes from the pageant mothers. It’s the girls' mothers who force them into it in the first place. Kids look up to their parents, they follow their lead; in a little girl's mind, her mother has the answer to everything. But moms are far from role models when they force their children into pageants. Nicki Britton, a writer for The Houston Chronicle, writes, “I won't go into the fact that emphasizing a girl's appearance over other talents, interests and achievements is demeaning and archaic. Or that forcing young children to perform for adults is misguided. My problem is that what your child observes you spending your time on is what she will believe you value. If you spend hours and hours each week, plus in some cases tens of thousands of dollars, prepping for pageants, you are signaling that's what you hold important. Those are hours spent not reading, not engaging in conversation, not exploring the world.”
If a little girl sees her mother dedicating her days and nights to pageant life and make-up and silly routines, this little girl is going to believe that that is what women should do, that it is what’s right. This is not what we should be teaching girls of a new generation -- it’s simply adding to sexism; it’s a step backwards in the feminist movement. We should be telling girls that they can do whatever boys can do, that they can be President of the United States if that’s what they want, that no dream is too big.
Girls should not be primping themselves during childhood, they should be immersed in school and play dates and finding out their likes and dislikes, not what nail polish color they prefer. However, pageant girls are spending their days in salons, as Nicki Britton says. They’re wasting their precious childhood getting their spray tan on and their hair done—simply to please their mothers.
Women’s priorities should not be their looks, but their brains. Unfortunately, that’s not the message that the mothers of these pageants girls are sending their daughters. Nicki Britton writes, “'Toddlers & Tiaras' is so gross it fails even as a guilty pleasure for me. Parading preschoolers in strapless ball gowns, hairpieces, fake teeth and spray tans past judges is at best a demonstration of poor priorities and at worst an attempt by the mothers to use their children to recapture their own fleeting moments of the past.” Mothers should be focusing more on what their daughters dreams and goals are, not trying to capture a dream of theirs through their daughters. Pageant mothers should not try to vicariously live through their daughters, but help their daughters create their own dreams.
While these pageant mothers may be trying to live through their daughters, society also plays a huge role in influencing these little girls to participate in pageants. Everywhere we look—commercials, movies, TV shows, billboards--we see another model, another perfect and skinny body. No wonder little girls want to look like that; those women are put on a pedestal. “Female Chauvinist Pigs” are starting at younger ages. Ariel Levy, author of the book “Female Chauvinist Pigs," writes, “ I believe that there is a porno-ization of the culture…what that means is that if you watch every single thing that’s going on out there in the popular culture, you will see females scantily clad, implanted, dressed up like hookers, porn stars and so on, and that this is very acceptable (19).” It should not at all be acceptable for little girls to look like hookers. Society should not be telling girls that this is okay, that it’s the norm. Having a 5-year old girl flaunt her body, and suggest that that is all she has to offer, is wrong. We need to move forward in the feminist movement, and it seems that we’ve only moved backwards, and starting at a younger age.
One of the biggest issues with the crude "Toddlers & Tiaras" is that it’s persuading girls to grow up faster than they should. Make-up and bras and pedicures are all fine, but not until a specific point. These pageant girls are practically being born with a manicure. Childhood is an essential part of life, a time when things are simple, and every human should have the privilege of experiencing it. These mothers are taking that from their daughters, robbing them of their innocence. So, girls, take off your make-up, your hairpiece, your skimpy clothes, your fake teeth, your spray tan, and forget about Barbie. Be a kid—a kid who is happy with her own body.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Contradictions
Rebecca Walker was a teenager who was not afraid to explore her own sexuality and she notes: “it is important to consider what happens when this kind of self-exploration is blocked by cultural taboo, government control or religious mandate. What happens when we are not allowed to know our own bodies, when we cannot safely respond to and explore our own desire?” (Findlen 22) She recognizes that her experience was rare and that she was lucky not to encounter any dangerous situations (physically or emotionally). Why aren’t other girls able to safely express themselves in a sexual manner, especially when boys are (more easily) able to do so? For teenaged (and even older) females, discussion of sex can be silenced. Girls are labeled and insulted for engaging in sex; in Walker’s words, “for giving our bodies what they want and crave, for exploring ourselves and others, we are punished like Eve reaching for more knowledge. We are called sluts and whores” (Findlen 23). What is most interesting is the contradictions evident in our society—sexuality in the media is ever present, yet discussions about sex (including safe sexual practices) are often non-existent. How are girls going to learn to accept themselves and create a healthy sense of sexual identity when they are bombarded with the images of raunch culture but simultaneously taught that sexual pleasure is not for women (because it makes them a slut, which for some women, can be the ultimate insult)?
This contradiction is further discussed by Patricia Hill Collins, who comments that “sexualized black bodies seem to be everywhere in contemporary mass media, yet within African American communities, a comprehensive understanding of sexual politics remains elusive” (Collins 35). The images of black sexuality as animalistic and wild are more than common in our society—from Destiny’s Child “Survivor” music video to rappers with names like Snoop Dogg. We constantly make reference to black women’s “booties” and males’ sexual prowess, but the community itself has also been silenced about issues of gender and sexuality. Collins asks, “How can African Americans be sexually “closeted” when Black sexuality itself serves as an icon for sexual freedom?” In this time of raunch culture, it again seems that sexuality is something to be expressed or performed, but not necessarily experienced.
This lack of open dialogue about sexuality also contributes to the strict definitions of what is normal. Our sexually repressive culture and the treatment of sexual education in our public schools confirms heterosexuality and white sexuality as normal, and anything else as deviant. Walker and Collins both seem to support the idea that our children instead deserve a comprehensive and open education about sex and sexual identity. Abstinence has shown time and time again to be ineffective, so it is time that we begin to accept that children as young as 11 or 12 are beginning to have sex and educate them accordingly. Sex is no longer connected only with procreation; it is something to be enjoyed, by both men AND women. Wouldn’t we prefer that our children are safe in their choices and prepared to deal with the consequences?
This contradiction is further discussed by Patricia Hill Collins, who comments that “sexualized black bodies seem to be everywhere in contemporary mass media, yet within African American communities, a comprehensive understanding of sexual politics remains elusive” (Collins 35). The images of black sexuality as animalistic and wild are more than common in our society—from Destiny’s Child “Survivor” music video to rappers with names like Snoop Dogg. We constantly make reference to black women’s “booties” and males’ sexual prowess, but the community itself has also been silenced about issues of gender and sexuality. Collins asks, “How can African Americans be sexually “closeted” when Black sexuality itself serves as an icon for sexual freedom?” In this time of raunch culture, it again seems that sexuality is something to be expressed or performed, but not necessarily experienced.
This lack of open dialogue about sexuality also contributes to the strict definitions of what is normal. Our sexually repressive culture and the treatment of sexual education in our public schools confirms heterosexuality and white sexuality as normal, and anything else as deviant. Walker and Collins both seem to support the idea that our children instead deserve a comprehensive and open education about sex and sexual identity. Abstinence has shown time and time again to be ineffective, so it is time that we begin to accept that children as young as 11 or 12 are beginning to have sex and educate them accordingly. Sex is no longer connected only with procreation; it is something to be enjoyed, by both men AND women. Wouldn’t we prefer that our children are safe in their choices and prepared to deal with the consequences?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
In defense of the gym.
Bodies have long been subject to a critical eye that seeks to make them cleaner and more perfect. It tries to erase their imperfections, smooth the cellulite, cleanup the breakouts. Consider how often we’re exposed to products designed to help the body conform to sterile ideals—we are sold acne medication, gym memberships, makeup and a myriad of other products designed to help erase the flaws that mark as us deviant from the ideal. Periods have long fallen under the “icky” category, and as we discussed on Tuesday, culturally we have done a lot to make such unpleasant problems disappear. However, while most of the grossness is pretty equal opportunity in regard to sex, menstruation is a burden specific to women.
You don’t have to look far to see the ways the menstrual cycle is painted as something that should be remedied or covered up. Tampons, pads, Midol, birth control pills that promise to alleviate severe PMS symptoms—it’s no wonder having a period is considered such a drag. (aside: It kind of is.) However, as Fausto-Sterling points out, because it is a female-specific problem it has long been used to denigrate women are mentally or physically weak or abnormal. The female body has been considered a burden because it operates differently than men’s bodies do, and those differences have been used to categorically exclude women from personal and professional privileges. Sure women have cramps, bet men certainly have their own physical shortcomings (We don't have to worry about getting kicked in the balls, now do we??), and men have mood swings that aren't conveniently synced to a monthly cycle like some have argued women's are.
I think part of the urgency in “erasing” the fact of menstruation is the need to break down these differences, which have been exploited as a means to expand the power differential between the sexes. When women are disagreeable or emotional, it is often blamed on rampaging hormones, whereas the same behavior from a man would be chalked up to simply having a bad day. The very fact of being female—a powerful, life-giving, human-race-perpetuating fact—is being used as grounds to dismiss half the population as emotionally or physically unfit. Thus far this semester, we have considered the ways in which the female body is a burden: it must be cleaned up, kept fit, toned, bronzed and makeup-ed.
As such, I don’t think women should ignore opportunities to experience their bodies in pleasurable ways. Although the most obvious example might be sexual pleasure, I think it might be a good idea to re-think our demonizing of the gym. Valdés’ article, I think, made some valid points about the pros of working out, despite the constant retrospective dismissal of those very virtues. She argues that a focus on physical aspects is “just another painful way we are distracted from the serious business of our lives,” but I think, given all the negative press our bodies get, learning to enjoy them is pretty important business in and of itself.
Earlier in the article Valdés concedes that the gym was a place she felt powerful, it was a place she was competent, good at what she did, and respected for her talents. I don’t think it’s a stretch to propose that some women work out not because they want a slimmer waste or for their thighs to jiggle less, but because it’s a way to enjoy their bodies, to push their physical limits, to see what they are physically capable of. Fitness does not have to revolve around pleasing a male eye and the gym isn’t necessarily full of women being eaten away by their self-consciousness. I think for some women, being fit is a retort to the idea that being a female and having a female body is a burden.
In fact, I think it is arguable that some of the joy of working out—especially with other women, or in a group setting—is that it is a place where it is acceptable to embrace aspects of our bodies that we normally have to hide. It is a place we were are free to sweat, to get red faces, to push, to perspire, to struggle, to smell (hey, it happens). I think, in a culture that is constantly trying to clean up and objectify our bodies, we should welcome the chance to unabashedly connect with them as agents of our autonomy.
You don’t have to look far to see the ways the menstrual cycle is painted as something that should be remedied or covered up. Tampons, pads, Midol, birth control pills that promise to alleviate severe PMS symptoms—it’s no wonder having a period is considered such a drag. (aside: It kind of is.) However, as Fausto-Sterling points out, because it is a female-specific problem it has long been used to denigrate women are mentally or physically weak or abnormal. The female body has been considered a burden because it operates differently than men’s bodies do, and those differences have been used to categorically exclude women from personal and professional privileges. Sure women have cramps, bet men certainly have their own physical shortcomings (We don't have to worry about getting kicked in the balls, now do we??), and men have mood swings that aren't conveniently synced to a monthly cycle like some have argued women's are.
I think part of the urgency in “erasing” the fact of menstruation is the need to break down these differences, which have been exploited as a means to expand the power differential between the sexes. When women are disagreeable or emotional, it is often blamed on rampaging hormones, whereas the same behavior from a man would be chalked up to simply having a bad day. The very fact of being female—a powerful, life-giving, human-race-perpetuating fact—is being used as grounds to dismiss half the population as emotionally or physically unfit. Thus far this semester, we have considered the ways in which the female body is a burden: it must be cleaned up, kept fit, toned, bronzed and makeup-ed.
As such, I don’t think women should ignore opportunities to experience their bodies in pleasurable ways. Although the most obvious example might be sexual pleasure, I think it might be a good idea to re-think our demonizing of the gym. Valdés’ article, I think, made some valid points about the pros of working out, despite the constant retrospective dismissal of those very virtues. She argues that a focus on physical aspects is “just another painful way we are distracted from the serious business of our lives,” but I think, given all the negative press our bodies get, learning to enjoy them is pretty important business in and of itself.
Earlier in the article Valdés concedes that the gym was a place she felt powerful, it was a place she was competent, good at what she did, and respected for her talents. I don’t think it’s a stretch to propose that some women work out not because they want a slimmer waste or for their thighs to jiggle less, but because it’s a way to enjoy their bodies, to push their physical limits, to see what they are physically capable of. Fitness does not have to revolve around pleasing a male eye and the gym isn’t necessarily full of women being eaten away by their self-consciousness. I think for some women, being fit is a retort to the idea that being a female and having a female body is a burden.
In fact, I think it is arguable that some of the joy of working out—especially with other women, or in a group setting—is that it is a place where it is acceptable to embrace aspects of our bodies that we normally have to hide. It is a place we were are free to sweat, to get red faces, to push, to perspire, to struggle, to smell (hey, it happens). I think, in a culture that is constantly trying to clean up and objectify our bodies, we should welcome the chance to unabashedly connect with them as agents of our autonomy.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Redefining the Perfect Body
In today’s world, body image is a central focus for many women. No matter a woman’s age, looking good is almost always seen as a necessity. It seems that being skinny and attractive is a major objective for women. Unfortunately, looking good and losing weight are often a struggle.
Ever since I can remember the definition of looking good is far from what looks healthy. And the key to looking good is not always your boobs, your butt, or your legs, but your weight. Weight is often one of the first things that people notice about a person. Joan Brumberg, author of “The Body Project,” writes, “Yvonne eventually learned that a slender body was central to female success (Brumberg, 100).” Females have long been told that feminine is skinny. It is rare to see a large actress, model, or singer. Skinny is seen as the “correct” weight, at least in the U.S. A person’s success should not be based on his or her physical appearance. Unfortunately, that’s not the way things work today. In a lot of ways, appearance is everything.
When I look at a magazine or an ad on TV the female on the cover or in the commercial is always skinny. The way the media portrays women affects how young girls view themselves. If it was larger women in movies, in magazines, or on TV, then maybe that is what would be seen as the proper weight for women. But that is not the way things are. Girls look up to singers and actresses and models and because these women are often famous; girls aspire to be like them, to look like them.
Weight is a major issue today. It seems like a new dieting book comes out every day. There are so many more things that we should be worrying about than our weight. We should be more concerned with our health and less concerned with achieving the weight that is deemed acceptable by society. We need to learn to be comfortable in our own skin, to love our bodies. Both men and women die every year from eating disorders. People take these risks and do these things so that others can think of them as beautiful or good-looking. A lot of times people don’t transform their bodies solely for themselves, but more so for others. We are so much more than our bodies, than physical appearance, and we need to know that our personality and intelligence are much more important than our weight.
Women’s breasts are also a feature that has been criticized throughout time. Brumberg writes, “An adolescent girl needed a bra in order to prevent sagging breasts, stretched blood vessels, and poor circulation, all of which would create problems in nursing her future children. In addition, a ‘dropped’ breast was ‘not so attractive,’ Crowell said, so it was important to get adolescents into bras early, before their breasts began to sag (112).” There are such high standards for women to meet in order to be seen as sexy, that it is almost impossible to do so. So a woman’s breast sags a little bit, one is bigger than the other, big deal. No one is perfect. That’s what people need to realize today—everyone’s body is different. We need to break the stereotype of what the perfect body is, break the boundaries and redefine what a perfect body is. Actually, there should be no definition of a perfect body. Every person should be able to view his or her own body as perfect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)