Lead Post: Challenging Our Thinking

So I did the readings and I really didn't know what I wanted to blog about. I mean, I see the same occurring themes: genitals obviously don't determine the gender, gender is more complex than genitals, etc, etc. This information I pretty much knew. However, I realized how much the readings put these themes into perspective....and how much I keep learning. Before taking this class, I was ignorant to intersexuality. I was ignorant as to how gender and gender roles played such a major factor in determining one's sex. Then I realized how many people out there must be ignorant like me. I mean, intersex, gender, and genitals aren't exactly dinner conversation (although with my group of friends it is). Sterling offered so many facts and views on intersex, discussing as how it was seen as a defect, how it needs to be "fixed". Why does it need to be "fixed"? Yes, it's different from the so called "norm", but if a intersex baby is healthy, then what does it matter if itheir genitals don't prescribe to a specific gender? Then, I thought how different it would be if our society became educated about intersex, and how common it actually is. Sterling provides evidence that shows it is not a rare condition as we think it to be. She even offers that it could be linked to genetics (as we see in Cal in Middlesex). Yet there is the idea of fixing, which, if we came to realize, there is actually nothing wrong. Sterling discusses how technological advances have made it possible to screen out a particular gene, CAH, which is linked to intersex, Spotting this gene early could help "correct" the genital "defect" of the baby. Many parents choose to have the "correction" take place. This is basically due so that the baby can prescribe to one of the two genders. It's all done in the name of gender. It's amazing how much gender plays a role in our society, in our lives. Even in Middlesex, we see the power gender as between Zismo and Lina. Zismo believes that it is his wife's duty to give him children even though Lina isn't ready (Middlesex pg. 91). Our society has become so constructed around gender and gender roles that if one cannot identify to one specific gender they are the outcast. They are seen as deviant from societal norms and must be fixed. Well, maybe they aren't deviant. Maybe they're nature's way of challenging our thinking and bringing us to our senses.

The History Behind Intersexuals!!!

Fausto-Sterling discusses the history of hermaphrodites and how different countries dealt with this issue in “That Sexe Which Prevaileth.” Both European and American cultures were focused on preserving the 2-sex system. When the sex cannot be easily determined it creates confusion, our societies try to eliminate the confusion by using surgerical techniques to “fix the problem.” Fausto-Sterling argues for a sexual continuum because “if nature really offers us more than two sexes” then male and female are just social constructions (pg. 31). Hermaphrodite is not a new term; its use begins back to the days of Plato, who thought that hermaphrodite was the third sex in addition to male and female. Aristotle and Galen also had different views about this intersex. Aristotle believed that underneath their anatomy, hermaphrodites were one the two sexes, however Galen disagreed and placed them into an intermediate category. Even though the sexual continuum was held up during the middle ages, this willingness did not main social acceptance. European countries treated hermaphrodites very differently from strictly regulating them, seeing them as distasteful, or not caring all that much; the French, English, and Italian, respectively. In the late 1700’s to early 1800’s there was various classifications that evolved. Saint-Helene accounted that “nature is one whole” and that embryonic abnormalities were to blame for hermaphrodites and other birth abnormalities. While Klebs stated that gonads were the true determinant of sex, quite of bold belief. Some physicians began to biopsy the gonads to determine the sex of the tissue, while others start to listen to their patient’s requests. Dr. Young for example acknowledged that Emma, a patient with large clitoris and a vagina, did not want to be fixed. She said she was happy with her husband despite not experiencing any pleasure because that is what her girlfriends are for. Fausto-Sterling concludes by stating three reasons why intersex people cause commotion: there should only be two sexes, heterosexuality is normal, and gender roles define what a man and woman are. She infers that without these narrow-minded beliefs there would not be as much controversial.

The first book of Middlesex describes a personal story of a fictional hermaphrodite through the eyes of Calliope Helen Stephanides, who was born as a girl and then 14-years later as a boy. This first book mentions Cal’s family because a mutated gene of chromosome 5 has appeared in many generations. Both of Cal’s grandparents, Lefty and Desdemona, are carriers of the gene, which is an issue because they marry each other. It will be interesting to hear more about Cal in her early years and what were the main reasons why she wanted to become a he?

I wonder if our society will ever be able to look past labels!

Women and Men: It isn't that simple.

The readings for Tuesday touched on the many ways in which gender and sex can be classified. I found this to be the most interesting reading that we have had to do so far because I've had a slight intro into this topic in one of my other classes.
Anne Fausto-Sterling, author of Sexing the Body, starts out her first chapter with a story about one of Spain's top recruited Olympic athletes who had a hard fall from fame when she was denied the right to compete after failing a sex test. While she looked like a female, talked like a female, acted like a female, and was one hundred percent sure she was a female, she still tested positive for a Y chromosome. After fighting the IOC and trying to regain her status as the Olympic athlete she was before the test, she was finally cleared to compete as a female again, becoming the first woman to ever challenge and beat a sex test in the Olympics. Fausto-Sterling also explains the difference between sex and gender. She explains that sex is about the anatomical structure of the human body, while gender is psychological. I would have to agree with her on this one. I knew a woman who was born female, but tried to explain that she felt like a male on the inside. While she was born with the female anatomy, her true gender was male. After having a sex change, he said he had never felt so right in his life. His outward appearance finally matched what was on the inside.
In Myhre's piece, "One Bad Hair Day To Many", she talks about wanting to get rid of the feminine stereotypes. She no longer wanted to shave her legs or brush her hair, which left her getting harrassed for it out in public. She also made a bold clame stating that.. "A woman's attractiveness to men is the primary measure of her worth." I honestly feel incredibly bad for any woman who feels that this is true. Walking around Colgate it's really easy to pick out the girls that just try to hard. The ones who are orange/puke brown due to fake baking in the tanning salon, the ones with so much makeup you're not sure what they really look like underneath it all. I'm not sure whether these women change their bodies just to appeal to men, or because it is the only measure of their worth, but I do think that it has to do with the pressures that society places on women to look their best at all times.

NEWSFLASH: Lindsey Vonn on SI Cover: Sexists or Blown Out of Proportion? Raunch Culture at Work.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2010/02/08/lindsey-vonn-on-sports-illustrated-sexist-or-sporty-two-newsweek-writers-discuss.aspx


The cover of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2010 issue features Olympic skier Lindsey Vonn. She is featured in the photograph wearing her ski uniform while going down a hill in ski position. Looking at the photo, she looks like a normal skier. However, controversy has arisen over the photograph because of the stance that Vonn portrays in the photo. While she is in a ski move, her buttocks are lifted in the air. Some argue that the position she portrays in the photograph is sexually charged and sexist. However, others argue that the photo is not sexual in nature and that people are arguing over something that does not exist. While there are two different viewpoints reflected on Vonn’s photo, it is clear that raunch culture has played a major role in helping attack or defend it.

In her Newsweek article, Kate Dailey publishes the discussion that she had with fellow Newsweek writer Sarah Ball. Both women seem to have no trouble with the fact that Vonn is on the cover of Sports Illustrated posing a ski move. The issue they have is the pose that was captured seems to suggest a sexual nature. It comes as no surprise to them because women athletes are often displayed in sexual positions.

Is this photo sexist, or is everyone who says it is a hysterical buzzkill who needs to get a grip? You can make the argument—and Lord knows, people have—that this is a stylized image of a very common sports pose. Vonn is a skier, and this is what skiers do. But at the same time, you have to consider that these images don’t exist in vacuums—and when people who question this image raise their voices, they do so taking into account everything else they know about women athletes, women on magazine covers, and the seriousness which is paid to women’s sports. Of all the ski positions, the one that makes the cover is the one in which Vonn’s (super-strong, impressive) glutes are shoved over the masthead? Considering that women are on only 4 percent of SI covers, why does this one, intentionally or otherwise, have to resemble something like this?
[Dailey 2010].

Dailey expresses her frustration at the fact that women athletes are always portrayed sexually. While they support the Vonn being on the cover they question the pose as sexual implications and why another pose of her could have been featured.

Many would argue that there is nothing wrong with Vonn’s cover photo and that people are simply taking it out of proportion. Looking at the photo, it does look as if Vonn is skiing downhill. At first thought, there seems to be nothing sexual about it. However, looking at it from an analytical prospective, her buttocks are high in the air and the uniform does display the curves of her body well. The question that then arises is why and how can such an ordinary looking photo carry so much sexual objectification and controversy? How did it get to this point?

Ariel Levy would argue that raunch culture is to blame for Vonn’s pose on the cover. She claims that our culture has become centered on sex and it has become a mainstream phenomenon. Levy claims that sex has become such a part of our culture that any object has potential to be sexually objectified. She refers to this as a “disconnect between sexiness or hotness and sexiness itself” (Levy 2005: 30). Evidence of this is apparent in our vocabulary when we refer to ordinary objects has “sexy” or “hot”. These objects could have no sexual appeal at all, yet they have become sexually objectified under raunch culture. As Levy points out, “sexiness is no longer just about being arousing or alluring, it’s about being worthwhile” (Levy 2005: 31).

Many would argue that Vonn has become a victim of the raunch culture. Raunch culture has become so prevalent that Vonn could be a victim of sexual objectification. Her body is being sexually objectified in a way that is degrading to women. She is viewed as “hot”. When “hot’ refers to women, Levy claims that it means “two things in particular: fuckable and salable” (Levy 2005: 31). Vonn’s position in her pose is viewed has portraying just the meaning “hot”. Those who argue that it is controversial view it as a product of raunch culture that is offensive to women and the feminist movement.
The photo on the cover of Sports Illustrated could be an ordinary photo of a female Olympian skier skiing down a slope. It is true that our media is full of evidence where women are sexual objected. However, the raunch culture can be seen as a means of empowerment for women.

Consider the oeuvre of pop singer Christina Aguilera, who titled her 2003 album stripped, (the tour was sold out and pulled in $32 million), mud-wrestled in a humping fashion in her video Dirrty, and likes to wear assless chaps. “She’s a wonderful role model,” Aguilera’s mother proclaimed on a VH1 special about her daughter, “trying to change society so that women can do whatever men do” [Levy 2005: 31].


The raunch culture could be viewed as gain in power for women because it celebrates their sexuality instead of objectify it. It helps women to achieve the same sexual opportunism that is available to men. In this case, Vonn’s photo is actually an empowerment for women instead of a setback.

When looking at the photo of Vonn, two sides have completely two different viewpoints of it. One side claims it to be degrading while the other claims it to be empowering. Although the issue is not simple and clear, the commonality that exists between them is that raunch culture is ultimately a major factor of the issue. Raunch culture has accumulated power within the past few decades. One cannot ignore the impact, good or bad, that it has had on our society. Both sides of the controversy offer compelling evidence to support their arguments. Both represent different ends of the spectrum. However, within the midst of controversy, the one thing raunch culture can offer is a starting point at which a dialogue can begin to take place on the issues present within our society.

News Flash: Men are Marrying Wealthier Women!!!!

Article

In the New York Times article “More Men Marrying Wealthier Women” Sam Roberts discusses the recent findings from a nonpartisan research center. The Pew Research Center, which examines events or trends that shape America and the world, has recently released an analysis of census data that concluded a role reversal between men and women. Paul Fucito, a spokesmen for the Pew Research, stated “ ‘Men now are increasingly likely to marry wives with more education and income than they have, and the reverse is true for women.’” The study examined thirty to forty-four year old Americans because this group encompasses the first generation in which women have obtained more college degrees compared to men. The traditional image of an American housewife is now changing due to society’s acceptance of powerful women and men not being afraid to marry someone who is more educated. Despite, these improvements there is still progress to be made.

Since the 1970’s the increase in incomes has increased more for women. Stephanie Coontz, a professor and research director, explained that men have needed marriage for their physical and mental well-being, but it has now become essential to their economic health, as well. Intelligent women, like Dr. Rajalla Prewitt, are having a hard time “finding someone where there’s a meeting of the minds, where we can have the same goals and values.” Another woman believes it is harder for more educated women to find a husband because men consider these types of women as high-maintenance, since they do not need help taking care of themselves. In addition, Zielinski, who the story enters on, was told by her best friend, a man, “what man is going to want you?”

In 1970 20% of women were married to men who had less education, however, this statistic rose to 28% in 2007, further verifying men are marrying women with more education. This shift is a major change in the traditional gender roles, in which women were told that “only through marriage and motherhood” would they have a happy life (Feminism In Our Time 48). Women were supposed to live a fulfilled life, since they had a husband, children, and a house. However, many women suffered from the “problem that has no name,” according to Betty Frieden in The Feminine Mystique. This problem is simply that they do not feel alive or fail to have anything to look forward to. Instead of going to “college to get a husband,” (Feminism In Our Time 51) women now want to earn an education in order to have a job that would allow them to focus their time and energy. The article cited Professor Coontz, who discussed a similar notion of women attending college to marry a man who made more but was less educated in the mid-20th century.

Professor Coontz believes that even if men become more dependent on their wives, it is unlikely to see similar resentment against women that happened after the return of servicemen from WWII or during the Great Depression. Since it has been acceptable in today’s society for women to hold higher paying jobs and jobs with more prestige, I would agree with Professor Coontz. I do not think even if a woman’s husband got fired or laid off that there would be a nation-wide strategy to get men back to work as in the past. I believe that our society now accepts the fact that women are just as intelligent as men and are capable of succeeding in any occupation.

If this new role reversal holds steady for time to come, then our society’s norm of patriarchy may began to fall apart. Patriarchy, which is a male-dominated society, has been the norm in our society ever since women have been encouraged to stay at home and become a perfect housewife to their bread-winning husband. Allan G. Johnson, a male feminist, discusses patriarchy and how women given in to it because it is the “path of least resistance.” He states that patriarchy is about “masculine protectiveness” and the “primary importance of a husband’s career and the secondary status of a wife’s” (Johnson 39). Both of these statements are what traditionally have been hammered into children’s minds as they have grown up.

Despite the revelations that our society is slowly changing away from a patriarchy, there are still men out there who consider marrying a woman with more money or education is wrong because it puts them in an inferior role in the family. This inferiority that men feel tends to be more common when the man has a blue collar job or is raised in a setting where the family places high value on male dominance in the income category. Since our society in general is shifting away from this male superiority, more men will be comfortable with what they earn and this inferiority will not be as big of an issue. The way a child, whether male or female, is brought up will dramatically influence how they view this idea of who should be the “breadwinner.”

School is another place where children learn at a young age the typical jobs and responsibilities each gender is supposed to have. If a child has a teacher that stresses the female characteristics of “caring, tenderness, and vulnerability” and male “anger, rage, and toughness” (Johnson 39) then young girls will think they are supposed to be the care takers of the family and not allowed to have their own career. Moreover, boys in high school tend to pick on their female counterparts who do well in school, further promoting women to not do their best in school. However, this is changing every year as boys became to appreciate intellectual girls.

Furthermore, Johnson says patriarchy is “more than a collection of individuals” (Johnson 30), since it is something that we all participate in. Thus, in order for more change to occur in gender roles, individuals and society as a whole must find little ways to resist. This can be accomplished by the media displaying more successful women of all ages and races, who are also a part of a family, in their news and television shows. If shows begin to cast women in a “breadwinner” role, then it can become ingrained into the way our society thinks and acts towards women who hold power. When one compares television shows from today to those from a couple of decades ago, the shift in gender roles is apparent. For example, I Love Lucy compared to Commander in Chief, where women are portrayed as a housewife and woman President, respectively.

In addition to Johnson and Frieden, Frye also shows her resentment with patriarchy. She uses a birdcage to describe women in our society, in which a “network of forces and barriers…which conspire to the immobilization, reduction, and molding of women and the lives we live.” This quote relates to this article because decades ago there were barriers that caused women to feel inferior to men. Whenever they tried to move around them, they were looked down upon as not being feminine. However, as more of these restrictions were reduced/removed, women will advance even more in our society and more men will not be afraid of a more educated partner. This trend of men marrying wealthier women is just the beginning.

Maybe one day we will see equal pay for men and women!!!!
(Currently a woman makes $0.78 for every $1.00 a man makes.) From: Gender Wage Gap

What About Us? Excluded Groups Within the Feminist Movement

It was made clear from the readings that there are still groups of women who are left out of the feminist movement. The movement is still very much centered around heterosexual white middle class women. It has excluded women who identify as queer, black, poor, etc. Audre Lorde, a black female lesbian and feminist who talks about this exclusion in her article. She argues that American women differ in race, sexuality, and class, but these differences are never talked about and are often left out of dialogue. The identities of women are portrayed as very one dimensional. For example, under the patriarchal system, Lorde claims that the only identity associated with women is maternity. The differences of women are never discussed and are often overlooked my men and women. In fact, Lorde finds problem with the fact that these differences are not being acknowledged within the feminist movement. In her view, "difference is that raw and powerful connection from which our personal power is forged" (Lorde). Women do not embrace their differences. Instead they are either seen as a challenge, and according to Lorde, has served as "causes for separation and suspicion rather than as forces of change" (Lorde). I have to agree with Lorde. Looking at it, one must realize how we are socialized by society to ignore and devalue our differences rather than embrace them. This leads to oppression of groups and peoples just because they are categorized as "different" from the "norm." It also leads to exclusion. While the feminist movement is geared towards the rights of women, its main focus is still centered around white middle class heterosexual woman. Blacks, lesbians, and other oppressed groups are left out. Peggy McIntosh identifies just how even as a women, her white middle class status gives her many more rights over other women of different races, classes, and backgrounds. She lists 50 (and it could be even more) of her privileges as a white middle class heterosexual women. She identifies how her white privilege gives her so many rights - and how it was oppressing women who didn't have it. Even in the the article by Tiya Miles, we see how failure to acknowledge differences such as race, class, and background can exclude many women from the movement. The fact of the matter is that sexism is tied in with racism, heterosexism, classism, and many other -isms. Before any type of change is to be made, there must first be an acknowledge of the differences within the community and how these differences impact different groups in social life.Yes, the feminist movement can be for all women, but we must realize that a white woman's experience is different from that of a black woman. A heterosexual woman's experience is different from that of a woman who identifies as non-heterosexual. Each experience is valid, and we can't assume that one group's experience will speak for the rest. If we do, we are oppressing them as much as they are oppressing us. We must go from having a one dimensional outlook to having an array of viewpoints. It is then that we can truly begin a revolution for change.

We're In it Together (Response to Johnson)

Johnson does an excellent job in pointing out how we are all a part of the system of patriarchy. She challenges the notions that individuals or exclusive groups (i.e. men) are fully responsible for this system. She challenges readers to look past individualism. "...we have to realize that we're stuck in a model of social life that views everything as beginning and ending with individuals" (Johnson, 27). This does not mean that individuals are not held accountable; they are. However, we must look at the larger, whole picture. We all participate in social life through socialization (Johnson, 31). This socialization helps to form our identities and how they relate to other's identities in society. We follow these identities according to what we have been socialized to believe and do and thus drive on the systems that we so often blame for our oppression. Johnson also points out that we are quick to take the paths of least resistance (Johnson, 32). We do this because it's the easy way out and we will be socially accepted. I found Johnson's argument mind blogging and I agreed with her. Who ever knew or realized how much socialization plays a part in our society, how it forms so much of our identities and relationships between each other. It is where the systems of oppression, like patriarchy, get their power from. Yet, we are so quick to put the whole blame on individuals. We fail to realize our own involvement. It pretty clear....if we want to take down patriarchy, we need to have a new way of thinking. We have to challenge social life and its control over us. I'm not suggesting ridding ourselves of social life because our existence is dependent upon it. I am suggesting that we look at how it is structured and how we all play a role in it. Looking at it from individual perspective is only a piece of the puzzle. People run the system; the system doesn't run us (although this is popular belief). Once we come to this realization, we can begin to ask meaningful, deeper questions and search for solutions to our social problems. It is then that we can truly begin to challenge the systems of power and oppression present in our society and thus revolutionize it.

Can we ever leave Patriarchy completely?

“Oppression” by Marilyn Frye and “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us” by Allan G. Johnson discussed the notion of gender roles through oppression and patriarchy, respectively. Both authors conclude that examining the micro aspects don’t do justice to the issues at hand. Rather a macro perspective is needed.

I found Frye’s “double bind,” in which “options are reduced to a very few and all of them expose one to penalty, censure or deprivation,” very interesting because it made sense to me. Her example about young women and their sexual lives holds very true in today’s society. If a female is very flirty she is seen as a whore and without morals. On the other hand, if she is prude, people consider her uptight and sometimes even a lesbian. In the past I have definitely fallen victim to being a person who has called another girl a slut or prude just because of her actions. I feel like this happens a lot at college, especially surrounding parties at frats and the nights at the Jug. When someone sees a girl dancing all up on a guy they consider her to be a whore. However, this does not occur in reverse. Do you know any examples of when men are held to similar standards as females? People do not use words with similar connotations when referring to guys who participate in the same behavior. This is a double standard, which we have discussed in many of our readings thus far. This parallels Levy’s point about men feeling uncomfortable about being the object of a women’s attention. Frye states that this happens to women because they are caged in like birds, which cannot move throughout their cages without experiencing some type of barrier. No matter how a women acts she will receive criticism!

Johnson makes an excellent point early on in the chapter by saying “we can’t understand a system, then, just by looking at the people who participant in it, for it is something larger and has to be understood as such. “ This line shapes the rest of the chapter which goes on to discuss how a macro perspective is needed to truly understand how our society works. I found it very interesting when Johnson mentioned how our society sees men and women. Toughness vs beauty, protectiveness vs vulnerability, and a career vs child caring. If you look at many of the sitcoms and tv shows a couple decades or so ago the gender roles and identities are separated just as Johnson mentions. However, today’s shows capture a much wider range of emotions and characteristics that women were never connected to before. For example, women are now in power positions, Geena Davis played the US President in Commander in Chief, S. Epatha Merkerson, plays the Lieutenant on Law and Order, and Lisa Edelstein plays the Dean on Medicine and hospital administrator on House.

At the end of the chapter Johnson mentions in relation to domestic violence against women “involves everyone who participants in the life of patriarchal society, even though only a minority of individuals may actually do it.” I saw this as a very bold statement because it looks past the individuals who commit the crime to the entire society. He believes that it is society fault that crimes like these occur so frequently. In order to allow change to happen, the society at a whole, a macro perspective, must be looked at. Since the way a society operates shapes the individuals who are a part of it, the beliefs of the society must be changed in order for the individuals to alter their actions. Thus for people to move away from a patriarchy controlled lifestyle, it needs to change at the top and then individuals will be affected in a trickle-down manner. This can be achieved by creating a wider distribution of female roles. I believe that our society has made progress since the feminism era, but there is still more that can be done. Furthermore, women need to use the idea of “sisterhood” and start holding each other accountable. Specifically in relation to women objectifying themselves and others by playing into raunch culture mentioned in Levy’s The Female Chauvinist Pigs. Every women needs to be on board before a complete shift from patriarchy can occur.

Damn, that's a sexy wii

So what’s the difference between a playstation 3 and a wii? Well, according to the advertisers of wii, the wii is apparently “sexier”. In the commercial, you see two different women. The heavier set woman who is wearing glasses, a long sleve shirt with a sweater vest, and slacks represents the playstation 3. The skinner, blonde woman who wears only what looks like mini shorts (I forget what you call them) and a bra represents the wii. Throughout this commercial, the skinner blonde woman is acting very sexually. For instance, around 0:33 when she is referring to buttons on a wii, there is a close up on her breasts and she grabs them. Apparently a connection between wii buttons and her breasts are being made. The commercial works to make the wii seem as “sexy”, “fun”, and “attractive” as the young blonde woman. However, the completely dressed, heavier woman is made to seem “unattractive” and “boring”. Apparently if you get a wii, you get a blonde sexy woman.

This commercial really made me think of Levy’s discussion is chapter one. She goes in great detail about the raunch culture and what could be argued as the sexual objectification of women in today’s culture. She gives evidence of this through the Girls Gone Wild productions. We are all familiar with those Girls Gone Wild infomercials that appear late at night on television. You usually see college- aged girls in their bikinis and bras stripping in front of a camera. The production has become so widespread and popular that girls will even show their boobs if only for a GGW hat. As Levy quotes one of the producers of GGW, “It’s a cultural phenomenon. It’s like a rite of passage” (Levy, 8).

It’s a rite of passage? I don’t know about all that but I do agree that it has become a cultural phenomenon. It’s the phenomenon of sex. As the saying goes, “sex sells”. This is obvious in the fact that the sexuality of two different women is used to sell a gaming system. And who is the audience you ask? Men. This is no surprise in seeing that most of our media that showcase the sexuality of women is usually centered towards men. This commercial was aimed at appealing to men just as Girls Gone Wild videos are aimed to a generally male audience. It pretty clear: if you want to get males to buy something, create an ad that has a sexy, blonde woman in it with hardly nothing on and then compare her to perceived less attractive heavier woman.

In chapter two of her book, Levy discusses the impact of sexual liberation during the late 70s. Women’s sexuality had become a women’s movement as well as the political movement. There were women who believed that women sexual liberation meant women being able to display their bodies without shame or constraints. Still there were those who argued that sexual liberation for women was more about stopping the sexual display of women’s bodies as a means of pleasure and entertainment. While both sides came from opposite ends of the spectrum, they seem to have well founded arguments.
Personally, I believe that sexual liberation for women gives them the right to do what they want with their bodies, to display it in any way they want. Some of you may agree with this. It’s their (women) body and they can do with it what they please. The fact that this girl showed her body in a sexually explicit way to sell a wii is her right and her decision. I agree with you to some extent. I would say that is was her right and her decision. However, there are few things I would challenge about that decision.

First, why is a difference made between the weight and clothing of the two women in the commercial. The skinner woman is obviously made to appear as the sexier one, thus skinny=sexy. The skinner woman’s body is being sexual exploited while the heavier woman’s body is being devalued sexually. How is this sexual liberation for either? If you look around this type of comparison and contrast is all around us. Throughout the media women are being told that to be considered beautiful, you have to be skinny and in some cases blonde or damn near close to it. Being of a heavier weight is seen as “unattractive” and “unappealing”. What is even more fascinating is that this issue of issue not only affects women, but men as well. To be considered sexy, men have to have those six packs abs and that broad chest.

Secondly, women see these advertisements and assume that to be considered beautiful, you have to be that skinny, blonde girl you see everywhere. Think about what affect this is having on the young girls in our society. Barbie is already telling them basically that to get that Ken, you better be skinny and blonde. This ideology is being reinforced through out media in publications, entertainment, and television, such as this commercial here. All around the country, girls are starving themselves in order to gain that goal weight and bleaching their hair with every chemical under the sun to get that golden blonde.

Am I looking in this too much? Am I blowing things out of proportion? Maybe, maybe not. However, this is the hardcore truth, at least how I see it. This is what our society is being fed on a day to day basis. It is at the heart of Levy’s book-the raunch culture. The problem doesn’t lay in the fact that it expresses sexuality, but in the fact of how sexuality is expressed particularly of women. If you look at the comments posted under this video under youtube, you will see many comments, which seems to be from men, who are referring to the skinny blonde in a sexual way. One of the subscribers made the comment that he woke up with a wii next too him in bed, signifying that it represented the hot skinny girl in a sexual manner. Another one referred to the women as “fat” and “anorexic”. If you look at all the comments, you will notice that the comments constantly refer to the gaming consoles and the women usually making some type of comparison or making a sexual comment. Levy’s critique of the raunch culture, while considered extreme by some, is not so far from the truth.

Yes, sex sells. But we should ask ourselves: what is it really selling? Is it a product? Or is it more than a product? What are we really buying into?

Media Culture Project: Creating a Name for Yourself

What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear the name Danica Patrick? Is it what originally caused her to become a prominent woman in the media (Indycar racing, a male-dominated industry) or the bikini photos of her in Sports Illustrated and FHM?





I think of her as a race car driver who has excelled in an industry dominated by men. However, I believe that many people would not know she is a race car driver, unless they watched the sport or ESPN. Furthermore, since she has been a recurrent model for Sports Illustrated’s Swimsuit Edition, I wouldn’t be surprised that people create mental images of her in these photos instead of her in an Indycar.

Danica Patrick is perfect to be analyzed through Levy’s The Female Chauvinist Pigs because she embodies many of the characteristics of other women Levy discusses. She fits right into the raunch culture that Levy discusses throughout her book. Raunch culture is the mainstream appearance of women exposing their bodies in order to gain some type of liberation and confidence. However, by posing nude and wearing skimpy clothes, women are objectifying themselves and other women and not receiving the empowerment they hoepd. This is especially interesting in relation to the first wave of feminism, in which women fought hard to gain equality with men. But this increase in the prominence of raunch culture in today’s society seems to be a step back compared to what the first wave feminists were trying to gain. Women are seen as inferior because they feel the need to exploit their body in order to gain similar attention as men. They are giving into what men want to see and allowing them to maintain their superiority by having the ability to control female behavior. Furthermore, “How is resurrecting every stereotype of female sexuality that feminism endeavored to banish good for women?” (pg. 4). I believe this question posed by Levy sums up her thoughts on the topic of raunch culture.

Many of the women Levy interviewed that aimed at arousing men cited various reasons for participating. Some felt that it made them feel empowered, liberated, approved, or gave them a source of income; well many engaged in these acts without receiving monetary compensation. I doubt that Danica posed in multiple bikinis for money. She makes plenty of that by racing and having dozens of sponsors spattered across her body suit and car. Maybe she followed the footsteps of some of the other elite women athletes in their respective sport? (Amanda Beard posed nude for playboy after being in the Olympics.) Or was she simply showing the world how confident she is in her own skin? No matter the reason Danica gives, Levy is not a fan. Levy believes that women who pose nude or in other sexual images are objectifying women by neutralizing the talent and power they possess. They are causing women to be looked as inferior, especially since you don’t see men of similar talents posing nude.

When I typed “Jeff Gordon”, “Rusty Wallace”, or “Dale Earnhardt Jr.” into Google Image, there were no pictures of them in skimpy clothes posing for a magazine. However, the entry “Danica Patrick” showed quite the contrary. Only four of the first twenty-one images, that’s right only FOUR, displayed her in racing gear. The rest of them involved her posing in bikinis in rather sexual positions. Why does Danica feel the need to pose in these types of magazine, when no one else in her industry participates in such behavior? I believe it might be routed in the tomboy image that label many female athletes. Danica began racing go-karts at the age of ten and by the young age of twenty-three (2005) she emerged onto the national scene in the Indycar Series. By 2008 she became the first women to win an Indycar race by taking home the Indy Japan 300. Throughout the next couple of years she set numerous other records for a woman in the racing industry, one that is dominated by men. Based on these childhood experiences and her chosen career path, many people would place Danica into the tomboy category. I believe that even though Danica is a very attractive female athlete, she still felt the tomboy label hindering how males looked at her. Therefore, in order to prove to the world that she is a female and possesses many of the ideal characteristics of a woman, Danica decided to begin her modeling career. However, Danica should never have felt the need to do so. I believe she was pressure from today’s society, one in which many strong and successful female athletes are seen as being unfeminine. By being competitive and aggressive, many people today still believe that women are not being feminine, but rather manly and trying to be just like the boys. Danica, similar to Amanda Beard and other female athletes, who choose to partake in modeling, participated in these opportunities to shed the tomboy labels.

I think it is interesting to discuss why men in the racing industry and others don’t pose nude or in sexual manners. Levy points out that no male Olympian has ever posed nude for a magazine before and that many men cite themselves as uncomfortable if females enjoyed looking at their pictures. Therefore, why is it ok for women to be a sex object for males, but not the other way around? I am completely against women posing nude or in any other way that gives off a sexual vibe, but I believe that the problem has its roots in women supporting other women who participate. Throughout Levy’s book she describes women who are producers or managers on shows such as Girls Gone Wild and The Man Show and women who are apart of crowds chanting “Show us your tits.” I believe it is these women who are providing continual fire to raunch culture. They are supporting actions that objectify women and give into men’s pleasures. I found it especially interesting that the tour manager for Girls Gone Wild, Mia Leist, replied “definitely not” when asked if she would ever be in a Girls Gone Wild video. Doesn’t this seem contradictory to her job and what she is paid to do?

Danica Patrick, according to Levy, was once a successful women in a male-dominated industry, but ever since she gave into what men wanted to see, she became apart of raunch culture. In Levy’s eyes Danica is on the same level as strippers, pornstars, and models in Playboy. You may say the she never posed nude, but by taking off her racing suit and posing in binkis Danica became a sex symbol. Like many other female athletes, she felt “it is not enough to be successful, rich, and accomplished,” as Levy points out (pg. 33). Danica needed the world to see beyond her tomboy image. She was not confident enough to be in a male industry without showing her body off. She was not showing off her true beauty, but rather her “hotness,” how “fuckable and salable” (pg. 31) she is to other men.

Reebok and Raunch Culture Claim Many Victims

"I first noticed it several years ago. I would turn on the television and find strippers in pasties explaining how best to lap dance a man to orgasm. I would flip the channel and see babes in tight, tiny uniforms bouncing up and down on trampolines" (Levy, 1). The thing that Levy noticed some time ago was the newly rising raunch culture that has been affecting today's society. In her book, Female Chauvinist Pigs, Levy explains many issues that are brought about by this raunch culture and the negative ways in which it affects the female population.
"If Male Chauvinist Pigs were men who regarded women as pieces of meat, we would outdo them and be Female Chauvinist Pigs: women who make sex objects out of other women and ourselves" (Levy, 4). For my media project I chose to focus on a set of commercials that do just that. These commercials objectify women's bodies by using sex appeal to sell a product. They cause women to want to perfect themselves in order to rise above the others. These commercials don't advertise for risque movies, lingerie, or any other product that one would expect needed sex appeal to sell. These commercials advertise for Reebok. Yes, the use of sex appeal to sell shoes.



The woman in this commercial could be modeling the ugliest pair of shoes in the world and Reebok would probably still have billions of sales world wide. The sex appeal that is used throughout this commercial is one of the major factors for why women are rushing to purchase these wonderful shoes. As if the shot in the beginning of the woman in only a bra and underwear was not enough, the majority of this commercial is spent viewing the woman's breasts from different angles. While this visual is going on, the audio is of the two breasts talking about how they are being overshadowed by the appearance of the woman's butt. A few risque camera shots later and the scene is fading out with an image of the so called, "perfect butt" in view.
To begin with, it is very unlikely that men would ever buy these shoes, since they are made for women. But it is also very unlikely that men would change the channel when this commercial came on because after all, who wouldn't want to stare at a half naked woman being shot from different provocative angles for thirty seconds? The use of sex appeal in this commercial is almost troubling when you think about it, because how many other shoe commercials use half naked women as their models?



One could argue, why not? Why is it wrong for the women in this commercial to be showing off the bodies that they have worked hard to get ? Why is it wrong for women to want to obtain the sexy body that they see parading around in these ultra effective body shaping shoes? After buying these shoes women will achieve that perfect body, the confidence to show it off, and will eventually feel empowered. Isn't that what feminism is, being able to control the rights to your own body and show it off at your own digression? Wrong. I couldn't agree more when Levy states, " 'Raunchy' and 'liberated' are not synonyms. It is worth asking ourselves if this bawdy world of boobs and gams we have resurrected reflects how far we've come, or how far we have left to go" (Levy,5).