Thinking about Solutions

We have spent a lot of time talking about the problems pregnant women face in the U.S., both legally and socially. Examining these issues are important, thinking critically about how to create change is even more so. Shifting mother-as-incubator requires valuing women outside of their reproductive organs and as individuals. Respecting women, all women, is the first step--but how can we do this? Perhaps a good start is through social media. How do we view pregnant women on TV? Well, we have the Duggar family on their 20th child, Teen Mom with young girls reflecting on their decisions and I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant, reflecting on real women's experience in a way that almost makes them seem irresponsible.

These shows are extreme. Not in subject matter (though that can be debated) but in their focus children vs. mother. Often the mother has given up her youth (Teen Mom), or body (Duggars) for her child. The focus is on the change they will have to make in order to provide for the child. This is great, but why hasn't anything been done to prevent this? Because we view young pregnant girls are irresponsible instead of misguided. Many of the girls didn't know there were preventative measures, and a lot of them didn't have access to birth control. This is where law and educational services can swoop in. It costs money to hire people to teach students about sexual health, but it costs more to have a child and provide for them. If there were more laws focused on making sure everyone has the proper education rather than restricting abortions, the conversation would look a lot different. Also, funding birth control so that it can be more readily accessible is also a solution that has to happen on a large scale, not just town by town.

Why isn't more done for women? Because women can be so irresponsible that they don't even know they are pregnant! (sarcasm) The emphases is on the wrongs of women, on their lack of knowledge, instead of the reform that needs to happen in health care, education system and laws. What other solutions can we come up with?

ESPN Body Issue

These two shots are almost identical; almost the same position, same woman, same skill. Alicia Sacramone is an olympic gymnast chosen to pose for ESPN's Body Issue, an honor that few athletes are granted. This means big bucks, and big exposure for the price of nude or semi nude photographs. The body issue is meant to highlight many athletic and vastly different bodies, from bowlers to hurlers to jockeys. Sure, many people will tune in to the Body Issue just for the naked men and women, but many will look at it as a celebration of athletic achievement. Others will go as far as opposing these photographs by calling them pornographic or oppressive. The real issue isn't the magazine, its the divided ideologies claiming nude photographs of athletic women are either empowering or repressive.

Heywood and Dworkin explore this schism in "Bodies, Babes and the WNBA" and argue for a different viewpoint that meets somewhere in between the ideologies of old school feminists and new age feminists. Photographs have to be put into context, always. The position of the body weighs heavily on its meaning. On page 84, they talk about facial expressions that read as either inviting or assertive and how interpretations are what create meaning. An inviting facial expression or position can be read as "feminine" which translates to oppressive because we have been hardwired to believe so. An assertive one can read as "masculine", which in the case of women can mean lesbian or powerful, depending on who is doing the observation. All of it is subjective, though perhaps learning how to read photographs and how to develop your own understanding of them can be helpful.

The images above are magnificent. They do not offend me or make me turn away. They aren't exactly inviting either. They are performance, not just for the camera, but for the sport. Alicia Sacramone's skill is undeniable, does the fact that she is naked change that? Why does it matter? Some "old school" feminists will say she doesn't have control over her body once she poses for the camera, and that is a hard argument for me to support. She chose to pose, she probably had some control over what her body will look like, and she's not posing out of the ordinary--this pose is her job. It isn't hyper feminized or sexualized. To say that it is, is to say that gymnastics as a sport is hyper feminized or sexualized and those are muddy waters to tread in, my friend.

Another argument against women posing in "sexy" ways, is that they are doing it for the money. That isn't really a problem, except that they are paid way less than men. Most women's sports are underfunded, thus leading them to find endorsements and other means of making money. Perhaps many wouldn't think these women are victims if they were paid equally, because it wouldn't seem like they are doing it out of necessity but because they want to. Either way, gaining exposure is important-- as long as they are willing and in control. Again, it can be argued that they don't control their body but then I'd ask, who does?

Reclaiming Breasts

Breast cancer isn't just about breasts, though slogans like "save the boobies" make it seem so. Survivors are constantly portrayed in terms of what they lack: hair, breasts, etc. Centering a campaign on breasts alone, diminishes female survivors. We should want to save more than just their breasts; lets try to save their lives.

Garland-Thomson wrote, "Breasts almost never belong to the woman to whom they are attached", and I was moved. Breasts are sexualized, I knew this. I know that a woman's nipples stir commotion because they are "only" for sexual intimacy or nursing. But thinking of a woman's breasts as a commodity for others is unsettling. Saving "the tatas" and not the woman to whom the breasts belong, exemplifies this idea. Ignoring the woman behind the breasts, ignores the actual cause. When survivors reclaim their breasts, or lack of, they are making a statement; my breasts are for me first.

Breasts are a huge indicator of female identity, and losing such a core piece of physical identity can literally change who you are. Suddenly, you have been moved to a different category of woman: survivor. While there are prosthetic breasts that can hide the loss, women who bare their scars confront normalcy and demand recognition. Matuschka made "breastlessness a public spectacle" to stir conversation. She presented her body to prove that scars and breastlessness is a beauty that has been suppressed and ignored. She reclaimed her body by forcing the attention where she chose. We are meant to stare at her chest, and we are to be surprised to see a scar instead of a nipple. She wants us to stare so we can understand. She wants us to stare so we can talk about it.

Breasts are important, they are a part of many bodies, whether desired or not. The lack of breasts are equally important, and talking about both instances can reevaluate how we view bodies. Women can still be women without breasts, and reclaiming their bodies (regardless if through tattoos or scarification) is integral to their identity and self. As for breast cancer awareness campaigns, bringing women to the forefront instead of their breasts will no longer diminish them as women or categorize them in terms of what they lack. Perhaps this is a better method, no?

Only Shame is Ugly

If she was cute--and if anything could be believed, she was--then we were not. And what did that mean? We were lesser. Nicer, brighter, but still lesser (74).

This broke my little comped-out heart. This is how self-shame arises: comparing yourself to what you perceive everyone to deem beautiful. Maureen, a high yellow girl with pretty clothes, may be cute, sure. But her cuteness should not, in turn, make Claudia, Pecola and Freida ugly. Beauty is fluid and subjective, and this is where shame rolls its bulbous head, shifting its eyes towards the vulnerable. These girls were young enough to view the ways adults cooed at light skinned girls, but they hadn't thought of themselves as ugly because of it. After Maureen called them "black and ugly e mos" they realized that she wan't the enemy but "The Thing to fear was the Thing that made her beautiful, and not us" was. This "thing" is what tells you that you are lesser because of something you can't change. This "thing" convinces you to believe you are shameful in comparison to what "thing" boasts to be beautiful.

That "thing" is everyone and no one. It is the media, your family, the medical institutions, you. In this case, their blackness was now ugly. In Pecola's case with Geraldine, her blackness and poverty was now ugly. Ugliness can be inscribed on anything: body weight (both fat and skinny), skin color, hair texture, clothing, anything can be ugly. What must be avoided is believing this ugliness. It does not have to be claimed or owned; the shame does not have to be allowed in.

How can we convince others to realize this? That the only thing that is ugly, is shame?

Let's Play Devil's Advocate

WALL-E. Great movie. Full of sounds vs words--challenging communication in a time where human interaction is null and void. Very cyborg-like, which is a topic of its own. WALL-E demonstrates the dangers of living in a tech-only world, where everything is done electronically: relationships, games, activities, talking, you name it. Guess what happened to the humans when they relied on technology alone to live? They got fat. Really fat. So fat they couldn't move on their own, and if they tried, they would wobble and have a hard time recalling the strength in their muscles that slept while idle.

Farrell mentions that reviewers applauded the film for its "good message about the dangers of an overreliance on technology, encouraging kids to turn off the computer and go outside and play" (118). This is true. I too believe that good ol' fashion outdoor playing can lead to a lot of good: meeting new friends, learning games you wouldn't have before, using your bodies in ways you didn't know you could, understanding your surroundings and the world you live in... These are not bad things right?

Well, Farrell focuses on its portrayal of fat people instead, which does make sense for her book. She says that reviewers were blind since they obviously didn't care about the "depiction of fat people and the humiliation they face" (118). Hmm, I wonder what happens in a world were no one moves. Oh that's right, they gain weight. It makes sense. Everyone was fat. Not just select few, not just the tall ones or the black ones or the rich ones, but everyone. The biggest problem with the people in WALL-E was their lack of human interaction, not their weight. But Farrell thinks that this film shows fat people as a "devolution", as proof of a uncivilization (117). I understand this. I can see how fat people not doing anything themselves can be seen as a regression. But isn't there some truth behind this? Their actions (not weight) does give the impression that we shouldn't want to be this way. And perhaps being so fat that you can't move can be unhealthy. This is me playing devil's advocate.

An uncivilization. I think WALL-E does represent this well, it's a shame that everyone being fat renders its meaning in a different light. I'm not sure I can buy into either side, yet. Can you?

Fleshy Sexy Bodies

Sexy, fleshy women are deemed voluptuous, vixens with massive sex appeal. In fact, the entertainment channel, E!, dedicates airtime to go through the Top 25 "Most Voluptuous Vixens", which sometimes overlaps with their "101 Sexiest Celebrity Bodies". Sexy comes in many shapes and sizes, but-- they wouldn't dare call Scarlett Johansson fat. And why would they? Fat is undesirable, right? Fat needs to be controlled, which reminds me of Farrell's sub-chapter "The White Man's Burden: Disciplining the Venus Hottentot and the Fat, Female Body". Fat has been sexy before, once an indicator of "health and fertility" (68), but early 20th century media was able to re-route the sexy and turn it into spectacle. Ads that feature fat asses bending down, ripping the seams of a skirt, are highly provocative and sexual, yet they are supposed to incite laughter--Ha, she's so fat she's busting out! But those fleshy women are sexy. If they weren't, why would they be in such a position? A position that so clearly mirrors "female animals in heat" (69).

Turning the fat body into a primitive body, needing to be controlled, is horrendous-- though almost all bodies are controlled, aren't they? Lets think outside the fat box: thin women, who aren't naturally thin, will diet or go through great lengths to keep their frame, and for what? Or maybe, for who? "Civilized" men of the early 20th century expressed their "conflicted enjoyment" towards fat bodies through trying to "discipline the primitive" (74), but in doing so, they also set the standards for "civilized women" meaning, they must be thin. Obviously the problem is creating a hierarchy with bodies, but it is also setting up weight limits on women.

Then there are voluptuous bodies, bodies whose fat all seems to be in desirable places (otherwise known as curvy). These bodies are sexy, fleshy and need to be controlled sexually, right? No one would say Sofia Vergara or Salma Hayek are fat, but sexy. Is this the limit? Is this where fat draws the line? Or can fat be sexy? I'd hazard to say that fat can be sexy, but fat can also be sexy in places other than a woman's boobs or ass. This reminds of a reality show called Big Sexy, where fat or "big" women love their bodies and take care of themselves, unlike the stereotypes implied. They deal with hateful looks from "thin" people but still love themselves. These women are also plus sized models, so it isn't really your average batch of women. However, shows like this can be positive, without turning into spectacle.

"femininity" & other genders

I liked Kimberly, the pink power ranger who all the guys liked. Even Lord Zedd kidnapped her so that she may be his queen, but luckily was saved and eventually continued her relationship with Tommythelonghairedhottie. She was a valley girl with a heart that beat as hard as her fists. There was no reason for me to like her, considering I never wore pink, I wasn't hot stuff in elementary school and was more interested in sulking in my room with a pen and paper than kicking ass. Kimberly was the feminine girl, shining brighter than Trini (the yellow power ranger). And yet, Kimberly was feminine and strong...wait, is that possible?

Labeling yourself feminine has its complications as discussed in Serrano's "Putting the Feminine back in Feminism". A lot of the origins of femininity are socially constructed (duh) and, more importantly, man-made. Femininity can also be more than that, but what it definitely isn't is a "package deal of gender expressions, traits, and qualities that are inevitably bundled together" (320). Just because Kimberly was feminine didn't mean she couldn't summon the power of the Pterodactyl at times of trouble. How we discern feminine traits/expressions/qualities from masculine reveals a lot about our cultural, social and even class status. So the idea of femininity shouldn't be ingrained and rigid, but I still ask why femininity isn't seen as strong?

Maybe because masculinity already took that card. Or maybe because it is associated with plush-ness. Soft, fuzzy, satin, lacy, smooth stuff and other nice-feeling things are soooo feminine. But they are also comfy! I'd argue that a lot of people would rather wear soft cotton than rough leather on their "masculinehairynotsoft" or "feminineflowersmelling" or "neutralnotconformingtothebinary" bodies. [See what I did there? I used stereotypical notions of gender, get angry!] Lord (Byron) forbid that anyone be in tune with their bodies and dress it in nice-feeling things, or express how they feel because then its "irrational", and gasp, feminine (326). Why such accusations? That's like saying feminine people all want to coddle babies and gossip about celebrities--oh wait.

Femininity seems to be a mix of both inherent qualities about one's personality and dress, is this right? Going back to Kimberly, even though guys liked her, she still had a life. She still played the guitar and supported environmental issues while saving the world and protecting herself and others, which is supposed to be a "masculine" quality yet obviously can transcend gender (328). Maybe some of these qualities aren't really just masculine or feminine but something within us that makes us who we are. I agree with Serrano that we should empower femininity so that it is equal with masculinity AND other gender expressions, but perhaps we shouldn't gender qualities about ourselves in the first place. Be feminine, masculine, neutral, etc with dress, but why should that also connect with expressions or thoughts? Maybe I am reluctant to agree that some aspects of gender is biological as Serrano suggests, that there are things about us that would be masculine and feminine anyway, but that excludes other forms of gender expression. Gender-bending would be nonexistent if we all were specifically masculine or feminine in our brains and clothing/body, so why exclude it from these conversations?

naked women in ads for men-wait what?

"Nude women seem to be in their natural state; men, for some reason, merely look underssed... When is a nude a nude? When it is male" (179).

Bordo didn’t write this, Josh Ashbury from the New York magazine did, but it still disconcerts me. He propels the ideology that a woman’s body is never nude or lewd since it is precisely that, a woman’s body, able to be gazed at. Borders around the gazed female is low, all can peer in, but once that same gaze is shifted onto men, it is unnervingly sexual. This is the argument I am getting from Bordo’s piece “The Male Body”, and I agree with most of her assertions. However, I find myself in a bind when it comes to whether or not it is okay to sexualize the male body like women’s bodies have been. Why? Because there are countless articles on how objectifying and sexualizing women’s bodies is problematic, why wouldn’t the same be true for men? I think the way in which the body is presented and sexualized is what makes it difficult, especially in advertisements.

She begins her article suggesting that (heterosexual) women can be turned on by nude pictures of men just as much as (heterosexual) men are turned on by nude pictures of women. Well, obviously. Then she pushes further and states that (heterosexual) women are just learning to be voyeurs since there isn’t a lot of material out there to appeal to them. Ok, I can agree with that, though being a voyeur is a nice way of saying a gazer. Then, the kicker, she says, “Perhaps, too, heterosexual men could learn to be less uncomfortable offering themselves as “sexual objects” if they realized the pleasure women get from it” (178). Hey, be less uncomfortable because you’re pleasing me! That’s how it works, right? Right? No, being uncomfortable as a sexual object is understandable. Why? Because being objectified implies a loss of self, you become just a body (object) to be lusted and gazed at. Being comfortable as a sexual person is one thing, being an object is another. The lines between object/body is hard when it comes to ads since we don’t know the person, and therefore have to look at body posture and placement to discern consent of being sexualized. That isn’t easy.

Now, I’m not against pornography or nude pictures. I am concerned about how these pictures present themselves and influence our culture/society/norms. A beautiful nude woman laying down seductively is one thing, put a man’s hands around her neck with her feet bound, and it’s a completely different picture. This leads me to the two ads for Tom Ford that I hope show up. One is for men’s cologne, though you wouldn’t know it since it’s just of a nude woman with a bottle in front of her vagina. The second is for menswear-- Lord (Byron) forbid they actually say clothes or fashion—with a naked sunglasses-wearing woman standing next to a fully clothed man with a beer in his hand. According to Bordo, this ad would probably lose money because it doesn’t satisfy dual marketing: “Dual marketing used to require a delicate balancing act, as advertisers tried to speak to gays “in a way that the straight consumer will not notice” (183). Firstly, understanding what is considered dual requires knowing what the gay/straight/fluid sexuality market even wants. But according to Bordo’s other descriptions of what the straight male audience (and presumably anyone attracted to women) wants, masculinity/i-love-vagina-see-I-am-with-a-naked-woman is it. And this ad, can be perceived as just that. The power dynamic between the woman and man is profoundly unbalanced. This woman can be anyone; her face and body are not facing the camera directly, while his is. And, she is naked and he’s not! Where the hell are they going/doing? What kind of party is this? Just because she has a smoke in one picture and is grabbing his crotch in another doesn’t mean she has control. Her head is thrust back as she exhales; she holds onto a wall for support as she crotch-grabs. Paired in that way, she is just an accessory to him. Ads like these make the first quote of this blog true; nude women=of course, just don’t look in control, nude man=hell no, put clothes on and give the camera your best face-off.

As for the cologne...I don't even know how to approach it. Since it is placed in front of the vagina, I'm going to play literal-consumer and assume it's intentions are to mask the smell of women's genitalia. That would be literal. Or, grab this cologne from her legs and you've got it all. Either way, placement makes it seem as if there is a correlation between a woman's vagina (sexual) and men's cologne (product). Buy me and you get her. Buy me and you'll smell like her? Ha, the possibilities are endless.

Help me out here, do you see what I see?