Monday, February 22, 2010

Should Physicians Play God?

Anne Fausto-Sterling explores the birth of intersex children within her chapter, “Of Gender and Genitals.” She explains that the birth of intersex infants within the United States is often characterized as a medical emergency, even though there rarely are physical complications. Fausto-Sterling questions current medical treatment and societal bias that often advocates for “fixing” intersex babies at birth or in utero. Fausto-Sterling seems to suggest the individuals should wait until the child can make an informed decision. One of the most difficult decisions for a parent of an intersex child is to determine the sex. Medical research and genital examination can greatly assist in making determining an infant’s sex. Unfortunately, a review of case histories has shown that there are limits to a doctor’s knowledge. Doctors are unable to evaluate an infant’s psychological gender preference.

An advantage of picking a child’s sex at birth is that gender reconstruction can be performed immediately. With the determination of an infant’s sex, a name can be decided. This child would most probably experience less ridicule and isolation if he/she looked “normal.” While the advantages are evident, there are significant drawbacks. Parents and doctors are too often wrong when picking the sex of an infant. This being the case, it seems worse for a child to grow up as the wrong sex than to wait until a more valid determination can be made. If I were the parent of an intersex child, I would want the opportunity to talk to a several intersex individuals and their parents in order to gain insight. The best way to learn about this problem is to talk to those that have experienced it first hand. Too often this is not an option. Societal bias should not cause a parent or physician to rush to a conclusion that may potentially harm the infant’s growth and psychological development.

Reading Middlesex and Fausto-Sterling’s book, Sexing the Body simultaneously is advantageous. I gain clinical information as well as insight into a fictitious case history. Middlesex offers the opportunity for the reader to experience the life of an intersex individual, Cal, from a fictional standpoint. Chapter two and three offered the coming-of-age story of Cal and her ancestry. Birth and rebirth are major themes throughout novel although Cal is infertile. “Like most hermaphrodites but by no means all, I can’t have children. That’s one of the reasons why I’ve never married” (Eugenides 106). It is also worthy to examine the Greek myths referred to within the novel. One chapter is titled, “Minotaurs,” while another is titled, “Tiresias in Love.” Cal, an intersexed individual of Greek descent, is compared with a Minotaur and Tiresias. A Minotaur was a Greek creature with the head of a bull and body of a man. Tiresias was a blind prophet of Thebes who was punished and transformed into a woman for seven years. Is there any less punishment when a doctor or parent determines a child’s sex at birth? While it is often painful to wait for a child to make this decision, perhaps it is optimal. Even the god’s knew that changing an individual’s sex is a punishment.

spectrum

I also have begun to think of gender/sex as a spectrum as opposed to separate categories of male and female. However, as displayed by our readings and discussions, its going to be a while before this notion is accepted, if ever.

 

I found it interesting the emphasis that was placed on the importance of the parent’s comfort towards their child’s gender. Countless cases, including that of Joan/John display some sub-conscious knowledge on the part of the individual of their maleness/femaleness. Clearly the child’s comfort is not a top priority of the doctors who are choosing to perform these operations directly following birth. I believe that to be very problematic.

 

As we have seen throughout this course, the very idea of what makes a “man” male what a woman “female” is very hard to define. We so desperately seek to put these ideas in boxes and categories but too man “anomalies” exist. Just think about how many women you know, who are completely “female” in the sense of having female genitalia etc, but are very “masculine” in their likes/dislikes and appearance. Every one of us probably knows at least one or two women who fall in this category. If we gathered all those women in a room, whose to say they are the not-normal ones. They are all “women” so why do their traits have to be defined as “masculine” if they’re clearly exhibited by so many humans who are not male?

 

I reassert my statement of my last post, the feminist movement, the homosexual/bisexual/lesbian communities, and the intersex/transgender/transsexual communities should join forces. There is no problem with a lack of communication in our world today, the vehicles are out there, its not hard to get ones voice heard and point across as long as you’re willing to put in the time and effort. 

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Are there only two sexes?

Anne Fausto-Sterling's book Sexing the Body makes one realize that gender and sex may not be so different as we thought. It seems to be a two way street both affecting the other. "That Sexe which Prevaileth" was incredibly interesting and made me wonder if there really are only two sexes? The history of hermaphrodites/intersexuals pushed this idea. History shows in different cultures and different times the acceptance of intersexuals varied. I did not know that there was a creation story that says Adam was both male and female and after he/she had fallen from grace did he/she split into two different beings. I'm beginning to think that there is a continuum of biological sexes.

In recent history, Europe and North America- specifically America and Canada- have pushed the idea that there are only two genders and thus society and everything that makes up cultural norms have abided to this idea. Challenging this idea challages what is the norm and what is considered right. It is interesting how we moved from an area of acceptance to an area when the person must fit one or the other. At the end of the chapter it seems like we are starting to move away from this idea. This is happening very slowly, but more and more doctors are making or giving parents the choice to wait instead of doing surgery to "fix" the baby. I see this as being good, because maybe our cultural concepts are not right and this issue forces us to rethink what we take as the norm.

I feel like this week has been truly eye-opening. I've been pushed into a world I know nothing to very little about and it is forcing me to rethink the way I perceive gender and sex.

least resistance

So I hate to be the girl who relates tv shows to class discussion, but I'm going for it. In an episode of ABC's new comedy/drama series "The Deep End" the subject matter of our recent readings/discussions arose. A young female tennis player, on scholarship at a prestigious university, was suing (the show is about young lawyers) her university because they revoked her scholarship and kicked her off the squad for reasons they would not divulge. Later one we find out that a teammate of hers accused this girl of taking steroids. So the board did medical testing and in the process discovered a Y chromosome. They revoked her scholarship (disabling this girl from paying for the last two years of college) because it is specified that it must be given to a woman. The girl was taunted by her classmates, her boyfriend broke up with her, and no sympathy was given by the board of administration. In the end, because of all the publicity, the girl was offered the opportunity to go professional, make some money, and then pay for her own schooling. True to most sitcoms, this girl saw a happy ending. But for me, the most interesting part was seeing the actress who played the intersex tennis player. I've now done a considerable about of reading on this topic, but being able to actually see the person as this pain unfolds was quite different. Clearly this was just an actress but somehow the visualization but it all the more real for me. 

I found the section of the chapter in Sexing the Body about the ways that different cultures have handled intersex human beings very though-provoking. I believe this displays how imbedded in cultures our views on gender truly are. Our class discussions last week centered around the notion that it is wrong that we view women and their "innate" traits negatively because of the way our society in structured. Many women espouse this idea but continue to follow the "flow" of society because its the path of least resistance. I believe the same rings true on this topic. It is so deeply embedded in our culture that there must only be two sexes. This belief is all around us. If its possible for women to dismantle this notion, then the movement to accept the fact that there aren't just two genders should piggy back on that effort. We were discussing in class how the women's movement doesn't have a distinct issue to follow and thus has become a bit scattered. As seen through the connection of the civil rights movement, having two movements work together can be very effective. The science is on their side, all we have to do is get people not to fear the path of least resistance.

Betwixt Between

Anne Fausto Sterling’s book, Sexing the Body, and Jeffrey Eugenides’ novel, Middlesex, complement one another. Angier explores the concept of sex through the multifaceted lenses of scientific, medical, and popular belief as well as examines numerous case studies. Eugenides presents the idea of an androgynous gender within a fictional narrative. Together, these works focus on genetic composition in order to explore the difficulty in labeling an individual as either male or female. Society is often unaware of the complexity in determining an individual’s sex.

Sterling’s chapter, “That Sexe Which Prevaileth,” explains how European as well as American culture often falsely accepts the idea that there are only two sexes, male or female. State and legal systems have enacted legislation on the presumption that there are simply two sexes. Sterling explains that biological composition is complex and directly categorizing individuals as either male or female is not always feasible. “If nature really offers us more than two sexes, then it follows that our current notions of masculinity and femininity are cultural conceits. Reconceptualizing the category of ‘sex’ challenges cherished aspects of European and American social organization” (Sterling 31). The author follows this by explaining the history of Hermaphrodites, aging back as far as the ancient Greeks. She explains that Plato discusses three sexes, male, female, and hermaphrodites, but that the third sex has become lost throughout the years. Angier’s chapter transitions nicely into Middlesex, a novel that focuses on the often neglected “middlesex” of individuals, who are neither just male nor just female.

The narrator, Cal, opens the story with an explanation of her three births. She explains that she was first born as a baby girl, named Calliope Helen Stephanides, on January of 1960. Cal explains that she was born with the recessive gene, 5-alpha-reductase. In order to correct this, she was born a second time as a teenage boy in August of 1974. At age forty-one, in 2001, Cal feels her third birth is approaching. Cal has now chosen to write her autobiography. The story then rewinds to three months prior to her first birth. Cal’s grandmother predicted her gender by holding her magical spoon above Cal’s mother’s belly. Her grandmother’s prophesy, which was correct the past twenty-three times, was that the child was going to be a boy. This prediction turned out to be only partially accurate. The author takes the reader back to her grandparent’s history. The reader learns that her grandparents, as brother and sister, fell in love and later married in order to immigrate to the United States. This incestuous relationship foreshadows Cal’s gender identity conflict.

When I signed up for this class I initially thought it was solely based on women’s studies. I became aware that one couldn’t study women without studying men. To further complicate this issue, I now recognize that it is not always possible to accurately label an individual as exclusively male or female. Therefore, a middle ground must also be examined. Unfortunately, the classification of individuals may often defocus us from the primary importance of achieving equality for all human beings.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

First Time Dealer

I really have to agree a lot with what Cait wrote. THis is the first time I have ever really dealt with these issues before. I have to say at times I was a bit confused. I didn't exactly understand all the differences between all the different labels and it seemed to me that many of the speakers identify themselves as being either a femme, boi, butch, trans, so on but are all kind of saying a very similar thing and that confused me. I have no problem with anyone identify themselves this way. That is there choice and I have no room to judge. I would just like more clarification on the differences so I could better understand and not be an outsider looking in confused who may come off judgmental because there is no judgment here.

My favorite piece we read was "One Bad Hair Day Too Many or the Hairstory of an Androgynous Young Feminist" by Myhre. I thought her story was very interesting. And in a time of Raunch Culture, as Avreil Levy sees, this article at first baffled me. Here she is a feminist yet throwing away all her famine traits. Yet, at the end of her story she gets her message across that she does not want to be labeled or box by an outsider. She is being her own person and being happy doing so. Her comment really struck a cord with me when she said, "we base judgement of gender on people's appearance... a woman's attractiveness to men is the primary measure of her worth." She is right!!! Raunch culture plays up a women's beauty and gives her "strength" and "power". I loved that Myhre is trying to break down, or at least does not follow the societal norm, and is showing, whether she means to be a role model or not, that women and men can all be strong and powerful just by being comfortable with themselves and not living up to some societal norm.

Monday, February 15, 2010

Please Check One: Male or Female

Jennifer Reid Maxcy Myhre, Ariel Levy, and Anne Fausto-Sterling, explore gender identity within society. For years, there has been two accepted gender classifications of individuals, male or female. These three authors offer unique perspectives that educate the reader to the concept of androgynous groups. Myhre explores her own transformation in her essay, “One Bad Hair Day Too Many.” She explains that she was tired of taking care of her hair, applying make-up, and shaving her body. She moved outside the world in which she found herself entrapped. “So to christen my feminist rebirth, I quit shaving my legs. I threw away my high heels and my tight skirts, my makeup and my jewelry. I grew out my armpit hair, and I talked like a woman with a mission” (Myhre 86). She explains herself as androgynous instead of either male or female. She discusses accepting comments by young children to their parents asking her gender identity but resents adults who label her as monk, “fag,” and dyke. The other two authors focus on gender identity within the community instead of solely their own sexuality.

Levy examines lesbian communities, primarily in San Francisco, within her chapter, “Womyn to Bois.” Levy observes customary male sexual stereotypes that have developed within these lesbian groups. She explains that the lesbian population has adopted heterosexual gender positions. This subgroup is further divided into: butches, femmes, and “bois.” Levy’s primary focus is the “boi” culture that has developed and expanded. Members of this group mimic teenage boys in appearance. Some “bois” have mastectomies in order to fully emerge within this subgroup. It is often difficult to differentiate between the negative attributes of this female “boi” group from the negative attributes of their male, teenage counterparts. Both groups, at times, treat women with disrespect and negative animosity. Biases from the male culture are now being replicated within the lesbian community. Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, in her book, The Anatomy of Prejudices, discusses the bias hatred within sects of the lesbian/gay communities. “Masculine” gay men often abuse “female” gay men. The noted homophobia within the gay and lesbian community is a tragic replication of the biases within the heterosexual world.

Fausto-Sterling explores factors which determine one’s sexuality within her chapter, “Dueling Dualism.” She examines the evolution of Olympic testing to label participants as male or female. She explains that until 1968, female Olympic athletes were told to undress themselves in front of the judges in order to prove biological gender. After numerous complains from female participants, this system was changed. An obstacle that developed was that simple chromosome testing was not always reliable. Fausto-Sterling discusses Olympic athlete, Maria Patino, in order to illustrate her point. Mrs. Patino showed all physical attributes of a female but testing showed that she had a Y chromosome. This emphasizes the author’s point that determining one’s biological sex is a complex task. Labeling someone as male or female is not always valid yet is deemed necessary within competitive, athletic sports.

How do individuals, in today’s society, gain comfort when they feel entrapped in the body of the wrong sex? Cait clearly explained that women often find themselves caught in daily lives in which they have no desire to participate. Women and men should be free to explore their sexuality with themselves or other consenting adults in their own, private domains. Biases within these subgroups as well as society at large should cease. A name caller in one incident may become a victim at another point in time. Individuals may not agree with another’s gender choice, but that is no reason to ridicule it.

confused

A few semesters ago I took a queer studies class. It was about homosexuality and religion, and we dealt with many of the same issues that tonight's reading discusses. Before this class I had never read so in depth on this topic. I've never known a lesbian (or tranny, boi, butch, femme etc) personally and this knew very little on the subject. I find it very difficult to understand. I'm not disturbed by it, it doesn't make me uncomfortable, I am in no way offended by it.  What confuses me is the people who denounce it. The people who point at these women and stare and ask rude questions or make snide comments. Why do they care? I can't say I know half of the pain these people go through on a daily basis, but I fully sympathize with their dislike of those who so desire to put them in "boxes" with "labels". Its baffling to me that these people have to endure so much cruelty. And then to have other nay-sayers claim they are doing it for attention and their sexual orientation isn't inherent? Why would anyone put themselves through such pain for no reason? It makes no sense. Close-mindedness doesn't seem that terrible of a characteristic at first glance, but after my queer studies class, and after doing tonight's readings, I've begun to see how awful it truly is. 

I found Jennifer Myhre's essay to be particularly thought provoking. I really enjoyed what she had to say about how much time women put into their appearances. Personally I believe a woman should do as she pleases. A lot of women like to get dressed up, they enjoy the process and they enjoy the product. On the same token there are plenty of women who loathe said process. As well, plenty of those women participate in this process because they feel as if they have. Thats the part I take issue with. Unfortunately not enough women have the same gumption as Jennifer and thus feel trapped their whole lives in these roles that they have no desire to fill. The pressures of society are overwhelming. But if enough women took the risk to defy the bounds of society, then they would inadvertently rework the system as we know it. Who cares what is acceptable and what makes people comfortable? People say what they mean alarmingly infrequently. There are clearly countless people out there who are putting on facades in an effort to go "with the flow" of society. These facades perpetuate the boxes and labels which try to make everyone fit into a category. I have never desired to be in a category, I want to be my own person. So why would I desire for anyone else to be in a category? I just don't understand.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

News Flash : Driving Harassment Away?







   I stumbled upon the article I’ve chosen to write about by sheer luck. I was sitting on the couches outside of our Women’s Studies classroom, flipping through this month’s “Bust” magazine issue. I’d never heard of this publication but I decided to read on. I skimmed the glossy pages until my attention was caught by a photo of brilliantly pink taxi cabs lining an urban street. The title of the article below the photograph read: “Sex Drive: Mexico’s Pink Taxis Give Women a Ride on the Safer Side” by Liza Monroy. I’m immediately intrigued. As I continue to read I learn that these pink taxis are a newfound effort by women in Puebla, Mexico to combat male sexual harassment, specifically that which occurs between taxi drivers and young women. This article is clearly praising the movement, and is condoning its message. But briefly in the final paragraph, skepticism arises. This skepticism is in line with that of Allan G. Johnson and other more radical feminists who see working “within” the system as a remarkable waste of time. The nay-sayers in this article are of the opinion that, though a valiant effort, these taxis are merely sugar coating the ever present issue of male chauvinism in Mexico, instead of combating it head on. I found Johnson’s article to be one of the more profound essays I have ever read, and therefore must align with the nay-sayers in Monroy’s article on this particular issue. I do believe the pink taxis are an innovative and helpful idea. But they act as more of a “bandaid” than an actual solution. They are helping a situation gravely in need of attention, but it’s not a permanent solution to the problem of harassment.
The Pink Taxi Company is privately owned and is currently operating only in Puebla, Mexico’s 4th largest city. A female drives each taxi and they will only pick up females. The taxis have a GPS, a satellite tracking system and a panic button which contacts police authorities directly. The drivers of the taxis are just as well equipped as their vehicles. Each female driver must undergo extensive training in order to prepare for this job. The training includes 180 hours of defensive driving, self-defense, first aid and basic mechanics. The women employed by the Pink Taxi Company are not only happy about this new steady job opportunity, but they are also proud of their work as they feel that they are doing a service to their community. “Rocio Nava, 35, one of more than 60 women the company employs says, ‘it gives women trust to know that another woman is driving’”(Monray,2010). The female drivers also feel empowered as they break into a heavily male dominated field. A woman who was interviewed in the article stated, “I was eager to use pink taxi, not only because its safer, but also as a way to support other women who are trying to improve their economic situation”(Monray,2010).

The establishment of the Pink Taxi Company was brought on by a tremendous increase in complaints of sexual harassment by male taxi drivers. In Mexico the notion of “Machismo”, or excessive masculinity and chauvinism, is prevalent. A 17 year old student living in Puebla stated, “Mexico is going through a difficult time; insecurity is part of our lives”(Monroy, 2010). But with the establishment of this company has come a rise in awareness of the issue. Though it isn’t directly reprimanding the harassers it is inadvertently hurting them through a monetary medium. The popularity of the pink taxis is growing drastically and they plan to raise the number of cars from 35 to 300 by the end of this year.
The merit of this company is undeniable. But where can this effort really take us next? The company can grow to meet the demands of the women, but then all we end up accomplishing is a gender divide. If we continue following this route then all the females will ride home in pink taxis and all the males in the yellow taxis. Doesn’t that feel as if we’re going backwards instead of forwards? Many women’s rights activists are espousing this idea. “Painting a cab pink and putting a woman behind the wheel does not address the larger issue of sexual harassment… the city should do a better job weeding out harassers”(Monray, 2010).
This article is a clear example of the current debate amongst gender-equality activists of whether or not it is effective and most productive to work inside or outside the system. In Johnson’s essay he concludes that these issues will never be resolved unless we rework the system, as we know it. I believe he would see this pink taxis as arbitrary, as a sugar coating on a bitterly painful issue.
“That’s the path of least resistance in any system. Its hard not to follow it, given how we depend on society and its rewards and punishments that hinge on going along with the status quo. When privilege and oppression are woven into the fabric of everyday life, we don’t need to go out of our way to be overtly oppressive for a system of privilege to produce oppressive consequences, for, as Edmund Burke tells us, evil requires only that good people do nothing”(Johnson, 2000).
Johnson notes how deep seeded these notions are embedded in society. Though these cabs have the façade of combating this issue, they are in fact facilitating the very system that promoted their establishment. In a sense these women are running (or should I say driving?) away from the issue at hand.
If we want to be equals we cant hide from the issue. We have to face it. Before we pour money into cures we must ask ourselves what is the cause. At the root of the problem is where we will find our answers. After reading Johnson’s article I’ve realized that our society gives far too much credit to nature. Too often is the claim made that a behavior, practice, or tendency is “natural”. I’m no longer willing to accept the excyse: “ That’s just the way men are”. It’s almost embarrassing that I’ve fallen for that patriarchal myth for so long. The truth is men are they way they are because we let them be that way. There are not enough pink taxis in the world to make up for every woman who has been harassed on her way home. I don’t believe the Pink Taxi Company should be done away with; its merits are tangible and can continue to be a safe haven for women during this long journey to freedom from oppression. But this company’s helpfulness should not be confused as a solution with permanence. The invention of bandaids didn’t stop people from getting cuts and bruises. In an ideal world, we wouldn’t need a bandaid to heal our wounds, just like we wouldn’t need pink taxis to feel safe on the way home.

Football and Lingerie?







On Sunday, February 7, 2010, 106.5 million viewers gathered around televisions to watch the New Orleans Saints take on the Indianapolis Colts in Super Bowl XLIV. The Super Bowl is the culmination of the football season and highlights the two best teams from the league. Recently, a women’s version of the Super Bowl has arisen, known as the Lingerie Bowl. This sport divulges the “raunch culture” that women continue to participate in and society continues to endorse. Until individuals as well as society move away form typical norms and the path of profitability, this type of culture will continue. A CBS article, “Lacing Up for the Lingerie Bowl”, explores this indoor football league played by women, known as the Lingerie Football League (LFL). The Lingerie Bowl airs directly opposite the Super Bowl halftime show on Pay-per-view. Unlike NFL players, these girls’ uniforms consist of bras and panties. Their number, which is displayed on their rear end or bra, is barely visible. Players may be better known by their cup size than their number. What initially started as an alternative to the Super Bowl halftime show has now become a thriving sport.

Mitch Mortaza, commission and founder of the LFL, marketed the idea of women playing football in their underwear in 2003. Surprisingly, it was not until 2009 that this scheme escalated into a moneymaking “sport” with ten teams competing for a twenty-week season. The game is seven verses seven for two seventeen minute halves, with a fifteen-minute halftime. The field is fifty yards long, thirty yards wide, and consists of two eight-yard end zones. This field size is roughly similar to most indoor, professional football leagues. Kickoffs are used to the start the game and second half. There are no field goals or punts and a team must attempt to get a first down on every fourth down. After a touchdown, a team can either attempt a one or two-point conversion from subsequently harder distances. There are only two major differences between this sport and other football leagues. First, all LFL players are women. Second, these women wear scant, provocative lingerie “uniforms,” that often have wardrobe malfunctions during the games. These women’s “uniforms” consist of helmets, shoulder pads, elbow pads, kneepads, garters, bras, and panties. This game provides a mixture of pornography, sexuality, and athletic ability. It is interesting to note the salary differential between an NFL and LFL player. The average base salary of an NFL player for 2009 was $990,000 while the average base salary for an LFL player was $40,000. Even Victoria’s Secrets has not chosen to commercialize this sport.

Prior to the recent Super Bowl, a CBS newscaster examined the LFL. NFL players and women in the LFL were interviewed. Reactions varied. One player explained that he would find a different profession if he was asked to play in his lingerie. Another said, “I'm not trying to see another man in lingerie and I'm definitely not trying to tackle a man in lingerie - he can have all the touchdowns he wants!” (CBS 1) While certain football players endorsed this sport, it unlikely than any took it seriously, especially when teams consists of the Dallas Desire and the L.A. Temptation.

In order to gain an alternative perspective, Mitch Mortaza and LFL players were also interviewed. Mr. Mortaza explained the characteristics he and his coaches look for in these “athletes”. "First and foremost, you have to be beautiful. We have to be able to market you, which means you have to be in shape. And then you have to be confident. To play in your underwear in front of millions, there's got to be a level of confidence. And then, you have to be athletic” (CBS 1). It is interesting to note that Mr. Mortaza mentioned athletic ability last. Women within this sport claim that they are proud of their career choice and believe that their athletic ability is what truly keeps the fans in their seats. If athletic ability was the major factor, these women would be wearing jerseys and pants, similar to NFL players. Cornerback of the Chicago Bliss, Danielle Monet, shares her view of the sport. "I know the reason why people come and watch us is the lingerie, the sex appeal…but what keeps them in their seats is when they see the ability we have and they see our plays and that we're the real deal" (CBS 1). It is doubtful that LFL players will gain women respect and credibility on or off of the football field. Although LFL players claim to take this sport seriously, it seems naïve to believe that either male or female viewers feel the same. This is a “raunch” entertainment sport that is played on a football field. As in most aspects of “raunch culture”, the participants receive monetary compensation.

Ariel Levy examines “raunch culture” in her book, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Woman and the Rise of Raunch Culture. It is interesting to hypothesize Mrs. Levy’s view of the LFL. Within her book, the author expresses her disgust for women who claim they are participating in this industry as a form of empowerment. There continues to be a gender divide in society in which women flaunt their bodies in scant clothing and men remain fully clothed. “While Janet Jackson introduced Americans to her right nipple at the notorious 2004 Super Bowl half-time show, Justin Timberlake’s wardrobe managed not to malfunction” (Levy 33). Six years later, individuals continue to discuss Janet Jackson’s mishap. Ironically, if Janet Jackson had the same wardrobe malfunction on the LFL, fans would have applauded and no scandals would have been noted. If these LFL players want to prove that they are equal to men, why wouldn’t they play in the same attire?

Allan G. Johnson explores patriarchal society within his chapter, “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us.” Unlike Levy, Johnson places more blame on society instead of the individual. Society’s perpetuation of this culture causes leagues like the LFL to continue to prosper. The author explains that individuals often choose the path of least resistance. “In addition to socialization, participation in social systems shapes our behavior through paths of least resistance, a concept that refers to the conscious and unconscious choices we make from one movement to the next. When a man hears other men tell sexist jokes, for example, there are many things he could do, but they vary in how much social resistance they’re likely to provoke” (Johnson 32). Most often, a man would just laugh or allow for others to enjoy the joke in order to not create tension. When “raunch culture” is no longer profitable, it will stop. Each individual has a choice to make which can begin the halt this sex-based industry.

Johnson uniquely discusses the popular board game, Monopoly, in order to convey his message. He explains that Monopoly presents certain rules and guidelines that individuals must follow. Monopoly is a game in which players’ competitive desires to win encourage them to make selfish decisions. Such decisions often harm opponents. Games mimic society. Johnson blames society for much of today’s problems yet recognizes that change needs to begin with the individual. Johnson explains the individual change that he has made. “I don’t play Monopoly anymore-I don’t like the way it encourages me to feel and behave in the name of ‘fun’” (Johnson 34). Attending LFL games is optional. Once the stands are empty, the sport becomes unprofitable and dissolves. As Johnson stopped playing Monopoly, LFL players need to stop playing “football.”

When examining the physical attributes of athletes who partake in this industry, similarities are noted. These women are predominately white, with large chests, firm butts, and blonde hair. Once again, subgroups of the female population are excluded based on physical attributes. Society continues to market and popularize new aspects of raunch culture. As Johnson has purported, this is a problem at both the societal and individual level. Individuals need to start making independent decisions in order for equality to begin. Participants in the LFL, like many women in the sex industry, are often blinded by the attendance they receive, the sense of empowerment they feel, and profit they make. Until these women differentiate empowerment from derogatory exposure, this culture will continue.

Women excluded from the 2010 Olympic Games

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1963447,00.html

The Olympic games are a time of celebration where patriotism for one’s nation is seated next to good sportsmanship and friendly relations with other nations. It is a time to celebrate our athlete’s ability and admire the talent of athletes who are not from our country. Yet, the 2010 Vancouver Olympics does not evoke these feelings for a few possible Olympic athletes. The Women Ski jump does not exist in the Olympics and is the only sport where women are not permitted to compete.

Women ski jumpers have tried to get admittance into the games since the 1998 Nagano games. The International Olympics Committee (IOC) has denied them their opportunity for what it says a number of reasons. It is important to note that the 1991 notice that stated that all future Olympic sports must be opened to all-men and women, however the 1991 notice did not pertain to already existing sports, thus that is why ski jumping has not been opened up to women. The many arguments that have been given include: Host cities can only hold so many athletes- “when new events are introduced it reduces the number of athletes able to participate in other events, women’s ski jumping does not reach the necessary technical criteria and because of this does not warrant a place in the Olympics.” As the article states all these arguments can be refuted. There are at least 100 FIS-sanctioned ski jumpers and from that at least 30 top tiered jumpers from 11 different nations, so there is enough interest in the sport for it to be reasonable for the Olympics to add it to the games. Top ski jumper, Lindsey Van holds the record for the longest jump for both women and men! Thus the technicality issue is discredited.

There is clear discrimination going on and British Columbia Supreme Court agrees. “In April of 2009, Van and nine other female jumpers sued the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC) for violating the on gender discrimination in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” Even though the court agrees they said they cannot do anything because the Olympic Games is an international organization and are not required to obey Canada’s laws and VANOC has no authority to tell them otherwise.

On top of all this, there are a lot of hidden undertones and threats coming from IOC members when talk about adding the sport to the next games. “IOC member Dick Pound said… ‘If in the meantime you’re making all kinds of allegations about the IOC and how it’s discriminating on the basis of gender,’ he warned, ‘the IOC may say, Oh yeah, I remember them. They’re the ones that embarrassed us and caused us a lot of trouble in Vancouver, maybe they should wait another four years or eight years.’’’ This is a threat, women are just trying to obtain their rights and compete and IOC is embarrassed and is hurting these women for voicing and exercising their rights. It seems every Olympic games has some sort of scandal and this year is no different. In the light of celebrating our athletes talents a sense of despair and complete discrimination.

All of the authors of our readings would be outraged by what is happening to this could be-should be Olympic female ski jumpers. From first wave to second wave to the now perceived third wave, they would all agree these women are being mistreated and excluded from a world where they do belong! First wave feminist worked hard to give women the right to vote so that they could participate in decision-making and have a voice. Second wave took it another step farther and demanded women be admitted in the work force and not in just secretarial or “female acceptable” roles and positions. They wanted out of the house and to be included and accepted into the labor force. Eventually their dream came true and by working within the system they began to change they’re destiny and the future for all women to follow. The ski jumpers are following suit and are trying to work within the system to acknowledge their right to be included in the games and to pave the way for future women ski jumpers. They work just as hard as the men and should be given the same respect and credit as their male counterparts. Unfortunately for these women there is no real system in which they can go to. International organizations are really under no jurisdiction and do not have to abide by any laws but their own.

It has to be incredibly frustrating for these women to know that they have the talent capability and are not given their rightful time to shine and show off all their hard work. Here is an example where working within the system does not work, partly because there is no system. So these women have to take other measures to obtain their rights. They are already doing this by going to news stations and media and raising awareness to their plight. If enough of the outside population feels compassionate and makes steps to help these women then perhaps there will be enough pressure on the IOC to change the current situation and finally admit women into the sport.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

The Rag

While reading this piece I felt bad for the women going through this experience. However, I do agree with the authors statement that with time she was able to look back and reflect on what really happened and why the Rag did not succeed. Due to this I do not think these women could have foreseen and fixed the problems before they happened. Yet, I was surprised that they did not realize that they were all different- they all had different background from their race to how and where they were brought up and how much money they had. Whenever bringing people together for a common good, those identities have to be addressed and either forgotten or somewhat kept in mind. I say forgotten because it no longer is about just each individual- they are now all working together and thus a new identity is formed. This new identity is the one that should be focused on. I guess the difference is that this group was a feminist group that began to realize that women are all different and instead of uniting on this issue it tore them apart.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

listen

Listen

Of tonights readings I most enjoyed that of Tiya Miles, “Lessons from a Young Feminist Collective”. It immediately sparked my interest because during my senior seminar today we were discussing how infrequently college-aged men and women read about college-aged men and women. The bulk of the literature we’re required has to do with very old dead people or young adults in the real world. So the fact that I could relate to the environment Ms. Miles is discussing made the reading more intriguing to me.

That being said, I think the importance of articles such as this one frequently goes under the radar. It displays many crucial points, namely that,
1. Young people are not as apathetic as everyone thinks we are, efforts are made but go unnoticed
2. We all need to start learning from out mistakes
I think one of the main reasons we don’t learn from our mistakes is because people don’t listen to one another. I’m willing to bet a considerable number of intro to WMST students who were assigned this reading will barely glance over it and the information they do process will go in one ear and out the other. I’ve seen many start-up projects like this one be attempted at my college and high school campuses, only to fail for similar reasons. The same mistakes keep happening because no one is listening. This is also evident within the “Rag” group at Harvard. As much as they all had similar goals and were trying to achieve them collectively, they mainly had their personal interest in mind. The white women weren’t really listening to the other members of the group. “The opportunity to voice and share these feelings motivated us to produce the journal and bonded us as a group. But this foundation of individual desire and need crumbled as time went on. Once we had expressed the thoughts that we had bottled up inside, our task seemed less urgent and our energy level waned. This static focus on our individual experiences and problems deterred us from seeking out and listening to other women’s experiences”(p.175) How can we expect the world to listen if we can’t listen to each other?

I believe Ms.Miles is espousing a similar viewpoint to that of the Johnson article we read for Tuesday’s class. When we view our experiences as individualistic, we inadvertently shut out potential common ground that can be empowering. If we brush off someone else’s similar experience just because they are, as an individual, different from us, we’re closing the door to an important opportunity. By listening to each other, and really absorbing what the other has to say, much can be done.

Monday, February 8, 2010

headaches.

I found Johnson's article to be rather profound. His opinions on the origins of oppression encompass much of what people think, but don't bother to say. Societal constructs are difficult to deal with. Accepted norms are not something many people like to tango with for a plethora of reasons. This is evident in the fact that for years and years and years we've tried, as a culture, to solve the problems of our people by working through the system thats in place. And we are dumbfounded when we get nowhere. In a recent class i espoused my view on the merit of radical action, namely radical feminism, in terms of its ability to produce lasting change. I believe Johnson would whole heartedly agree with this notion, considering he is suggesting re-working our society as we know it. The fact of the matter is people don't step outside of their comfort zones. If an issue isn't life-threatening, we are slow to act. To suggest that the very notion of chivalry is oppressive in its origin is going boldly against the flow. As individuals we are very concerned with our own lives and thus don't spend much time looking outside the box. The ideas that Johnson is promoting are difficult for many to accept because they are so radical. We have trouble wrapping our heads around the idea that we have to start from square one, as opposed to trying to glue little pieces back on as they fall off. In short, reworking our "system" as we know it would be too much of a hassle, too much of a headache for anyone to consider. That's pretty pathetic.

I especially enjoyed the references Johnson made to monopoly and war efforts. His ideas on our desire to follow rules and constructs regardless of what it does to us as human beings was frightening but eye opening. As well his references to the words; witch, bitch, crone, and virgin, and how overtime their meanings have been construed into something entirely different made me question how much I partake in the system. The amount that human-beings blindly accept ideas is incredible. We just dont want to deal with figuring it out ourselves, we don't want the headaches, so we accept mass culture and the ideas that are poured into our lives. Its a patriarchal society, of course everyone's going to tell us that men are better than women. But why is that? I hate to be the girl who references song lyrics, but one of John Mayer's lyrics speaks to this idea. "When they own the information they can bend it all they want"

boo the system.

Annoyance in the Reading

Johnson argues that oppression and individualistic model of guilt of oppression are actually not oppressed at all because the oppressed play into the system. Johnson mentions the flip side of the coin being the sum of individual failings, but why are their failings at all? Somewhere these groups/races/people have been excluded, thus, of course they do not "know how to make something of themselves." I agree we need to now take responsibility if we want change than we need to change. Yet, I think Allan G. Johnson under plays the historical and cultural system that we, as a large group and society have played into.

He suggest that we must participate to change what is going on, but how is one to participate if their is no escape for them to be able to do so? For example men who beat their wives. If a wife has no or little money to her name because the husband and wife have shared bank accounts or because she is a stay at home mom, how is she to get out of the house and away from the beating? Shelters are often more unsafe due to theft and rape and are even costly. If there is not a system that provides these services for women to get out of their situation than the system is at fault. There is more at play than just "participating." Policy affects a lot, and right now- we like to think of ourselves as developed, but the truth is many American women are going through the same terrors that women of developing nations are. So yes, we need to participate-speak up and change the questions we ask and thus change the policy, but if women cannot get out of there position how is this to be done? How can this be a reality?

Johnson has some good points and some that are irrelevant. His scope is limited. Yes, we make the system and play into it but to stand up and oppose the system take a strong person. We would all like to think of ourselves as being strong and doing what is right but until that moment comes for us to show "who we really are", and "do what's right" no one will know. Fact of the matter most people do not stand up, which is why the system still exists. Example from a previous reading in Listen Up stated that a women who thought of herself as a strong feminist actually apologized for questioning her boss just for speaking her opinion. This exemplifies how the system affects us all. She believed herself to be strong and a good feminist but when the words I'm sorry slipped out of her mouth she was shocked and angry at herself. We may not be happy with the way we act or react but the system has a lot to do with it- we are programed- like it or not.

The Johnson piece is also limited or confusing because he uses words and explanations in two meanings. Participate and System are examples. On one hand he is saying we must participate to change and on the other he says must not participate into the system. System is what we make it yet not what we allow it to be or allow it to control. I understand what he is trying to say, yet he should have used different synonyms/words to reveal his two different meaning and make it more clear.

Frye, although places blame everywhere and does not take much responsibility, does see that there are many hindrances that make participating in the system difficult or make outcomes that we wish to see difficult to produce. There are many wires in the birdcage and these wires are representative of social constructs, policy, family, religion, ect. Just by removing one does not mean you can get out of the prearranged system. Yes it is a step but more needs to be done. I do not agree with her "door-opening" policy. I personally like when men "act like men" and are gentlemen and my own biases show what feminist choose to accept or not accept, label one way or another as not being treated equal. She may be right that men may not be helpful in times when help is really needed, but I still like having a door opened for me, I do not see how that relates. Also if a women need help there is no shame in asking. We are equals and all need help sometimes!

Society's Game

Allan G. Johnson explores the patriarchal culture that engulfs society within in his chapter, “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us.” It is interesting to note that the author is a man, unlike the previous material that was read for this class. Johnson appears to understand the oppression that women face on a daily basis. This chapter dose not directly bash men or ignore the oppression that exists to women, which is why it appeals to both genders. Unlike numerous authors, Johnson more often blames society collectively verses each individual for this systemic problem. Individuals participate in this systemic approach both consciously and subconsciously. He uniquely parallels this type of a society with the popular board game, Monopoly. Monopoly provides certain rules and guidelines that individuals must follow. It is this focus on winning that blinds the participants to the consequences of others. Throughout the game, as well as in daily life, individuals often choose paths of least resistance. The choice paths are often dictated by societal norms and greed.

Johnson focuses on the interrelationship between societal norms and the choices of individuals. How is it that bias laws have been removed yet oppression continues? Perhaps taking the path of least resistance is not the solution. Throughout his chapter he puts significant blame on capitalism. Individuals need to make choices that are beneficial to themselves yet are not destructive towards others. When one focuses on winning, “greed”, society is often punished. Individuals cannot look to current day “society” for the solutions. Each individual needs to make their own choices based on the effects towards oneself as well as others.

Marilyn Frye, in her article, “Oppression”, explores a similar systemic view of oppression. Instead of focusing on Monopoly, Frye offers the analogy of a cage. Frye agrees that oppression is a major societal issue. She explains that all individuals are locked in separate cages. In order to see these cages, individuals must step back and examine roadblocks within today’s society. Individuals become molded into the roles that they have been assigned by society. Frye focuses on the importance of the average individual instead of exceptions within the norms. My friend’s mother grew up in communist China. At age sixteen, Mao died. She had previously been assigned to be a field worker on the farms. With the disruption of communism pages, she made the choice to pursue her education. Today she is a professor of international business at a university in the United States. One can view her as the exception or one can view her as a woman who was freed when the cage doors were unlocked. It is often difficult to differentiate exceptions that break out of the cage from individuals who take advantage of opportunities. In either case, one needs to be aware of his/her environment and potential opportunities. There will always be Horatio Algers, individuals who move from rags to riches. These individuals are not Frye’s primary concern. Frye is concerned with the masses that remain in the roles that society has set forth. Throughout her argument, she is trying to distinguish between the oppressed and the oppressor. A systemic problem exists in which both the oppressed and the oppressor are locked in assigned roles. The communication between these two groups must develop and the doors of these cages need be open. The issue is to create opportunities which give all individuals the ability to make healthy decisions while not limiting others

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Barely Singing



Recently, musical lyrics, as well as their accompanying videos, have become more provocative and sexually explicit. Beyoncé Knowles, an R&B singer, songwriter, record producer, actress, and model, has fallen into this trap. This musical vocalist is often criticized for displaying herself more as a sex symbol than an artist. Her sensuous image and sexual stimulating lyrics occur in the majority of her videos. This paper will examine one of her music videos, “Ego”, and its perpetuation of “raunch culture.” Ariel Levy, the author of, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Woman and the Rise of Raunch Culture, discusses the “raunch culture” that is engulfing society but little if any progress has been made to limit this behavior since the publication of her book. Empowerment, money, and fame, too often entice women to participate in this culture. This type of behavior may bring temporary stardom or satisfaction but most often does not establish lasting credibility.

Ariel Levy’s book, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Woman and the Rise of Raunch Culture, examines and often criticizes women’s participation in “raunch culture.” Levy examines a wide array of topics, such as Girls Gone Wild, Paris Hilton’s promiscuous sex tapes, the growing popularity of breast augmentation and vaginoplasty, as well as the Playboy enterprise. Levy discusses how society too often embraces as well as markets female sexuality and promiscuity. "Because we have determined that all empowered women must be overtly and publicly sexual, and because the only sign of sexuality we seem to be able to recognize is a direct allusion to red-light entertainment, we have laced the sleazy energy and aesthetic of a topless club or a Penthouse shoot throughout our entire culture" (Levy 26). She explains that women often submit to perform for men as a vehicle to fit in with the “guys.” Levy argues that these women have misinterpreted power and acceptance. The author clarifies that the women who accept this type of “raunch culture”, such as Beyoncé, are gaining a false sense of empowerment and promoting an erotic sect of feminism.

African American R&B artist, Beyoncé Knowles, released her hit song “Ego” on May 19, 2009. Beyoncé Knowles wrote and produced “Ego” with her male colleagues, Elvis Williams and Harold Lilly. The song was the fifth consecutive single from the album to reach top 40 on Billboard Hot 100, peaking at number thirty-nine. This song’s popularity seems to be reflective of the promiscuous lyrics and provocative music video that accompany it. A remix was later produced, featuring hop hop artist Kanye West, which was nominated for Best Rap/Sung Collaboration at the 52nd Grammy Award. Although Beyoncé did not win for this category, she did set records by bringing home six Grammy awards. This is the first time a female vocalist won six awards in one evening. This paper is not questioning the artistic talent of Beyoncé. The question is why such a gifted artist is promoting “raunch culture.”

“Ego” is filled with sexual innuendos throughout the lyrics. This song equates strong ego as manhood. This is evident in the fourth stanza.

It's too big, it's too wide

It's too strong, it won't fit

It's too much, it's too tough

He talk like this 'cause he can back it up



The title of the song, “Ego”, refers to the assumption that the strength of an ego often directly correlates with the size of a male genital or penis. Within the fifth stanza, this is further demonstrated.

He got a big ego, such a huge ego

I love his big ego, it's too much

He walk like this 'cause he can back it up

The word ego and penis are interchangeable. If a penis is necessary for a strong ego/identity, how do women gain psychological strength? Children and young teenagers sing Beyoncé’s songs with limited recognition of the words that they are repeating. “Ego” may be heard in middle school playgrounds, on school busses, and/or sleepovers. Young teens’ innocence is prematurely blemished. One would think that a beautiful, talented vocalist, like Beyoncé, has more to offer to her audiences.

The choreographed music video for “Ego” further displays the “raunch culture” that Ariel Levy discusses. The video starts out with a close up of Beyoncé in a nude colored dress that clings to and barely covers her body. At times the viewer may forget the Beyoncé is wearing anything at all. Her breasts are exposed as she dances and toys with the camera. As the video progresses, two other seductively clad dancers join her. All three women expose their derrieres for the audience and continue to flaunt their bodies. When a chair is introduced as a prop, Beyoncé, as well as the other two women, have the opportunity to tease the audience with their long, seductive legs and female genitalia. Beyoncé and her back up dancers are publicly inviting their audience to a private show. Beyoncé appears to be selling her body and not her music. An idea that Levy often criticizes.

Levy explains that society’s support of this type of culture has made it into a multi-billion dollar industry. Some women claim that they feel empowered as they gyrate for the audience. How can a gifted vocalist feel empowered when the audience is entranced by her seductive dance instead of hearing the lyrics which she is singing? Levy clarifies that numerous young girls develop poor body image when exposed to such culture. Egos of such young women may be crushed. Reactions may lead to eating disorders, unneeded plastic surgery, and poor self-esteem.

When one examines the remix video, featuring Kanye West, the double standard the Levy discusses is demonstrated. Nowhere in the music video does Kanye West reveal any part of his body or behave in a sexually provocative manner. Yet the footage of Beyoncé and the other two women accompanying her remains almost identical. Little difference begins to arise between a porn site and youtube? Levy offers examples of other women who display their bodies in addition to their talent. She explains that past Olympic athletes, such as Haley Clark, have posed in Maxim and Playboy to prove that they are athletic gifted but also sexually attractive. “Not one male Olympian has found it necessary to show us his penis in the pages of a magazine. Proving that you are hot, worthy of lust, and necessarily that you seek to provoke lust is still exclusively women’s work” (Levy 33). Until individuals stop producing sexually provocative material and women stop participating in this “raunch culture”, it appears that it will persist. It is naïve to believe that men will tell women to stop flaunting their bodies, posing naked in magazines, and/or baring their breasts for a mere t-shirt.

Beyoncé and Levy have conflicting perspectives with respect to “raunch culture.” Beyoncé profitably markets it while Levy wishes to stifle it. Her music video, “Ego”, is just one of her numerous works that combines sexual provocative lyrics and seductive choreography. Beyoncé’s reasons for participating in this culture are unclear. Perhaps she does feel empower by the size of her audience and the profitability of her videos. Perhaps she believes that a black a woman can thus be as sexual and famous as any other individual: male or female, black or white. Levy negates such behavior and recognition. Just as Beyoncé bares all to fit in with the boys, other women similarly wear costumes to be accepted by their male colleagues. Hillary Clinton dresses in her conservative pant suits to neutralize her femininity in a male dominated, political world. Hillary Clinton hopes to be heard by these gentlemen. Twenty-five years from now individuals will remember Rosa Parks, Maya Angelo, and Michelle Obama. How will Beyoncé be remembered? Seductive fame is often temporary. All women age. Exploitation of women will only stop when women refuse to participate and such material is no longer produced. Unfortunately, it remains doubtful that “raunch culture” will be eliminated in the near future.

The Pop Star










Add ImageShe’s everywhere. She’s on your TV, she’s on youtube, she’s your cell phone background, she’s your poster on the wall. In today’s celebrity obsessed world, the “pop star” sits on a goddess-worthy pedestal. Men (boys) want her and women (girls) idolize her. There is nothing wrong with a young girl succeeding in the music business, but there is certainly something wrong with the way these girls are achieving their success. In our world sex sells everything, it drives our economy. I’ve even seen sexy toilet paper commercials  (kudos America.) The same rings true with our music industry. For these “artists”, beautiful lyrics and breathtaking melodies will not bring them to the top of the charts, fewer clothes will.  In order for a young woman to be successful in the music business she has to sell her product with her body. And unfortunately, with time, this has caused sheer talent to hit the backburner. It’s more important for the “singer” to be sexy than to actually be able to sing.

   But most profoundly, this sex drenched music business is having severe repercussions with today’s youth. The young and impressionable look up to these glossy, airbrushed “musicians”, they want to be just like them. But in this “raunch culture” that doesn’t mean they aspire to be singers one day, it means they want to be able to use their sexuality for power as well.

   In 1983 MTV was born. Gone forever was the anonymity of the musicians we heard on the radio. Through MTV we got to see music on the television everyday and be fully immersed in these people’s worlds. But with time and with the rise of raunch culture came a shift in the music videos, a shift that has altered the way contemporary America views music today. Since the public was now able to see these singers as well as hear them, suddenly it mattered how these people looked. The focus of the music videos was shifted from the substance; plot, set, message, and onto the stars bodies and gyrating hips. Since the dawn of MTV the videos have become comparable to soft-core porn. The pop stars in these videos, along with their army of backup dancers, are no longer artists, but instead they’re eye-candy. They are scantily clad, adorning heavy make-up, suggestive dance moves and provocative eye glances. Their looks are what is making their songs popular; they might as well be gyrating to white noise.

  The Internet is bursting with examples of this phenomenon but I chose to focus on Britney Spears’ hit single “I’m a Slave for You”. In the video displayed below, one can see raunch culture at its finest.

Firstly, her wardrobe; Brit is clad in a “shirt” that is nothing more than a bra, accented by jeans that appear to have been painted on and then accessorized with a hot pink thong worn above her pants. And if this isn’t enough, her sweaty backup dancers are constantly licking her face and rubbing her exposed body. In an effort to not come across as uber-conservative, let me emphasize that my issue is not with the fact that she is dressed provocatively. What’s troubling is the fact that she receives copious amounts of notoriety for only this. Britney has achieved immense fame, power and success, but she is talent-less. The public is obsessed with her because she is sexy, not because she has skills worth praising. I’d be interested in seeing a version of this video with out the added auto-tune and without the impeccable, sweaty, half-clothed bodies. How much airtime would this version receive?

  But the real issue lies in the message being delivered to the youth who watch these videos. The content of these lyrics are in defense of her sexuality, and in essence, raunch culture as a whole. She claims within the song that she’s not a little girl anymore and she wants to come into this world and be a woman. This video is supposed to display how much of a woman she is. So lets review, according to Brit’s song in order to be a woman I must:

  1. Have impeccable abs and bare my midriff as often as possible
  2. Shake my pelvis in the general direction of all males in the room
  3. Make grunty-moaning noises and try to pass them off as “singing”
  4. Once I’ve accomplished all above tasks people will want to lick my face

This message is intoxicating to young girls.  They see how the world is obsessed with

Britney and they desire that attention for themselves. So they mimic her wardrobe and her dance moves, they starve themselves to achieve her body, and they engage in the sexual activity present in the videos. 


   The raunch culture of Pop stars has altered what is desirable

for young women. They see celebrities like Jessica Simpson and Leighton Meester and they want what they have. But Ms. Simpson and Ms. Meester do not have talent, they have boobs and legs. This unfortunately sends a few profoundly negative messages. Firstly, if you’re blessed enough to have similarly desirable looks then there is no need for you to strive for anything more in your life. Sexy = Success so don’t you worry about that chemistry exam. Secondly, if you are one of the many, many young girls who are not a spitting image of Britney Spears, you are of no value within our culture, you will not succeed. This message is enhanced by the media’s cruel treatment of singers who do not fit in with the “Britney’s” of the business. For example, the first American Idol Kelly Clarkson.

Kelly, who is actually blessed with a beautiful singing voice, is attacked daily in the news-media for her appearance. She may be able to hit those high notes but until she wears a size 24, we should point and laugh. Or look at Jessica Simpson 5 years ago versus the Jessica Simpson of today. In recent years she’s gained weight and has since fallen off the radar of desirability. She certainly didn’t lose any singing ability, (since there wasn’t any to lose…) so all that appears to matter to us is whether or not she looks good in a bikini. Raunch culture is unforgiving, it leaves no room for flaws and this is instilling unrealistic and misguided goals for young girls.

    Ariel Levy’s main issue is that for women, success and power is deeply embedded in their sexuality. This is displayed by the public’s treatment of these “Pop stars”. Celebrities are American royalty. They’re who we look up to, who we aspire to be. We cant continue having these women be the role models for young girls. But all the blame does not lie with the Pop stars. The public fuels this trend, we continue watching, buying and listening, and the cycle continues. So what do we do next? Well for starters, download some better music.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Media Culture Project



Who is Kim Kardashian and what does she represent? From this photo and countless others where she is posed half or fully nude one would think that Kim is only a pretty face and body with no brains who has only become famous due to her unbelievable good looks and curvaceous body which she herself has exploited. Yet, E!’s reality TV show Keeping Up with the Kardashians has in some way, broken down this idea, however, I do not think Ariel Levy would agree with me.

For those of you who may not know who Kim Kardashian is (get yourself out from under the rock) she is most known for posing nude, sex tape leak, being the face for Bongo Jeans and Travis Barker’s Famous Stars and Straps clothing line, she has released workout DVD’s, she has her own perfume, and co-owns clothing boutique. Regardless of her accomplishments, I believe Levy would look at Kim as another girl who has just fed into raunch culture. Levy would say this because Kim has exploited her own body for her own personal goal and for her own fame. This according to Levy is not liberating. Kim Karadsian exudes sex and confidence, which is what raunch culture, is all about. She enjoys her body and showing it off. She is embracing the male dominant culture, as Levy sees it. According to Levy, Kim is playing in to this culture where showing your sexual preference or exuding sexuality is liberating-Kim is enjoying what men enjoy. Kim is working off of the minamizer theory, which ignores biological differences and sees men and women as equal. Anything a man can do a women can also do. The difference that Levy would point out is that you do not see men posing nude to exude confidence or sexuality. Women are supposedly equal to men, yet women and men are not doing the same things, and this is Levy’s problem.

I agree to some degree with Levy when it comes to what women choose to do to exude their sexuality. I think it is completely wrong to pose nude or exploit yourself in anyway if you are not doing it for your own pleasure. If you are getting something out of it, than who am I to say anything against it? In some ways I do play into this raunch culture, as Levy sees it. However, I think the difference is that when I dress up in skimpy outfits I do it for my own pleasure. I like the way I look and my confidence shines through. Yes, I am probably grabbing attention and the eye of men, yet my intention of the night is not to look promiscuous in order to bring home a guy at the end of the night, its to go out looking good and to have a good time with my friends. I think it is wrong of Levy to point fingers and say that these women are only posing. Yes, she does give good examples in her book, yet those are only a select group of people out of this category that she calls raunch culture.

Back to Kim, I think Kim is like me in regards to the fact that she participates in raunch culture for her own pleasure. You may disagree but I think her sex tape helps my claim. I assume that her sex tape was meant for her and her boyfriend at the time. I say this because when it was leaked to the media Kim took legal steps to sue those who leaked it. Eventually the suit was settled. Her sex tape is different than her nude modeling shots. She knowingly knows she is posing naked where everyone can see her, yet that does not mean she is only posing and performing sexiness.
Is Kim objectifying herself? Did she play upon her sexuality to promote herself and further her career? Kim comes from a wealthy family and really would have no need to do so. E!’s reality TV show Keeping up with the Kardasians illustrates that there is more to Kim than just a pretty face/body who is exploiting herself to reach a certain career path. In the show Kim is always with her family and the audience sees her and her family’s struggles and disputes as well as their compassion and love for one another. She has a strong background and good family values. The TV series also shows Kim in decision-making position when it comes to her co-owned clothing company as well as her modeling career. Levy would claim that she is acting like a man because when it comes making decisions because she is stating her ground and not letting anyone direct her against her gut. She is being powerful “like a man”, Levy would say this is a masculine trait. Yet, I do not agree with Levy. I think we need to strip ourselves away from masculine and feminine roles. Women can be powerful! I do not think this means women are losing themselves. In fact I think this mean that we are humans who have different emotions and exert those at different times and settings.

Overall, Levy has some really great points but I think she is narrow-minded and exerts her own opinions on the issues she discusses. I agree that women who participate in raunch culture can be exploiting themselves and may not be the best role models for young girls if they are just posing and not pleasing themselves. Yet, if women are happy then who is to say they are wrong? Why do we continue to see power as a male trait? I think raunch culture has in some ways allowed women to be sexually free and to express themselves and their sexuality. If participation in raunch culture is done for ones own pleasure than it definitely is sexually liberating and I think it does show that women can be sexy, confident and powerful on their own terms. Look at me I AM WOMAN!!!