The Body Project and Advertising

The outline of the origins of various “body projects” throughout the 20^th century in “The Body Project,” by Brumberg is an interesting perspective, because I think that contemporary obsession with body image is taken for granted because it is so prevalent. At the beginning of the “century of svelte,” in the 1920’s, the fashionable body type was slender with long legs, and a relatively flat chest (Brumberg 99). That time period also saw an increase of female mobility and autonomy due to increased entertainment options and proliferation of the telephone and automobiles (Brumberg 101). This increased independence marked the beginnings of where self-esteem became based more so on external factors instead of inner qualitie

s, “such as strength of character and generosity of spirit.” (Brumberg 101). The story of Yvonne Blue demonstr

ates just how malleable one’s “image” was perceived to be, even at the beginning of the 20^th century. The descriptions of her intentional modifications of her image and her fixation on her worth as determined primarily by external factors is not all too unfamiliar, even though it was almost 100 years ago. Perhaps most importantly, the idea embodied by Yvonne’s purchase of a tight-fitting silk dress, that the body no longer was solely something to be kept private, provided the basis for the immense influence of media and other cultural messages. In the 1950’s, the fash

ionable body type shifted to glorify those with larger breasts, partly in response to popularity of movie stars such as Marilyn Monroe, and thus began the commercialization of bras (Brumberg 108). Gradually, the rationale for the necessity of bras as we know them for ad

olescent girls had both a medical and so

cial basis, with advantages such as preventing “stretched blood vessels and poor circulation” being increasingly cited as time went on (Brumberg 112). This mode of “figure control” was associated with a better life, being prettier, and having more friends through advertisements (Brumber 114). By the 1970’s and 1980’s, the idea of fitness and of a lean “body with visible musculature” became normative (Brumberg 123). This ideal is reinforced not only through celebrities such as

Madonna, but by fashion trends, such as tight-fitting pants and mini-skirts.

Much about the way we perceive our bodies is shaped by the media, especially currently given the increasingly consistent immersion in popular culture due to technology. In “Sex, Lies, and Advertising,” Gloria Steinem describes how advertisers can strongly influence the content of magazines such as Ms. and in many cases have strict stipulations for the desired associations between their products and services and the ideas and topics contained within the magazine. The omnipresence of body image concept is even alluded to by Steinem, who points out that “dress for success” women in 1960’s advertisements were thin, white, and beautiful. In the 1920’s, women’s magazines gradually transformed into catalogs due to advertisements, thus changing the focus to creating a desire for, and teaching women how to use the products that were advertised. In terms of health and beauty advertisements, they surely reflected the ideals and trends described by Brumberg. Though Steinem’s article focused on advertising mainly as an instrument that often presented itself as an obstacle to the feminist image and messages projected by Ms., the general idea of how advertising as a form of media can manipulate other forms of media, which together manipulate consumers of media.

My primary thought on these articles, primarily that of Brumberg, was how similar many of the ideas and woes surrounding body image and dieting from the turn of the century are to today. Today I think that the idea of dieting and body image is taken to another level, with the self-consciousness beginning at an earlier age. In a slightly different vein, the part of “The Body Project” specifically about bras concludes with statement that the development of training bras begin sexualization of the body at an earlier age. Thus changes in fashion have not only blurred the distinction between what is public and what is private with regard to one’s body, but also has narrowed the gap between what is considered juvenile and what is considered adult in fashion. Brumberg contends that fashion reflects behavior by acting as an “interpreter” to onlookers and so dressing young girls in bras and other “adult” clothing articles implies “adult” behavior which translates to marking younger girls as sexual objects (Brumberg 118). Of course, this immediately made me think of raunch culture and Ariel Levy – perhaps a historical prequel to Female Chauvinist Pigs would trace this blurring of the public-private boundary of the body and extend Brumberg’s contentions to be a historical foundation for how our culture got to where it is now with the many ways that people display their bodies.

"Gender, Sex, and Social Construction II"

Since there was a lot of reading in both Middlesex and Sexing the Body, I could not summarize or comment on the entirety of both readings. Thus, I focused my blog on what I found to be the most interesting and most important.

When reading Books Two and Three (more so Two) in Middlesex, I found that I had a hard time separating the past from the present. The constant back and forth between the different generations confused me. This was a similar problem that I also faced when I read Book One. However, the reading became easier to follow in Book 3 because it focused more on Callie’s personal life. It was interesting to read about Callie’s adolescence. I found myself wondering how her gender had gone unquestioned for so long. It is understandable in her younger years, when the body is less developed that things could go unnoticed. But between her baptism, missing period and growth of a mustache, one would assume that someone in her family, or even doctor, might question her overall body development, or for that matter, lack of body development. As a reader, I sympathized with her, for in the reading it came across as if her family didn’t pay that close of attention to her. I think I felt even more sorry for her because of Fausto-Sterling’s statistic that only 1.7% of all births results in intersex babies (51). This statistic further showed me just how alone Callie must be. “Can you see me? All of me? Probably not. No one ever really has” (Eugenides 218).

Throughout Book Three Callie refers to the fact that she has never been naked in front of others. She would wet her hair instead of taking team showers with her field hockey team. “I wasn’t naked for a second…At the nearby drinking fountain, I pressed one finger over the hold, making the water squirt high in the air. I put my head into this stream. Coach Stork always touched our hair before letting us leave, making sure it was wet” (Eugenides 299-300). As time passed, Callie refused to show her body to others. It wasn’t until one of the final chapters of Book Three, “Flesh and Blood”, when Callie finally comes to terms with the fact that she is different. “…For the first time [I] clearly understood that I wasn’t a girl but something in between” (Eugenides 375). From this point after Callie has recognized and accepted who she really is and has become more comfortable with herself and her body.

Middlesex is an example of a coming-of-age novel however; it is not the typical story. Thus, I found it interesting to learn that HBO is set to develop Eugenides’s novel into a one-hour series. I think it will be interesting to not only see this book come to life, but also see how it is perceived by the public. Since it is being produced by Rita Wilson and is going to be aired on HBO, it is sure to garner a lot of attention. Thus, I am sure the media will comment on it, I just wonder how so.

There is a significant difference between Middlesex and Sexing the Body. Eugenides’s novel is easier and more pleasurable to read since it is a fictional story whereas; Fausto-Sterling’s chapter “of Gender and Genitals” focuses more on scientific research. Fausto-Sterling’s reading really gave me a better insight into Callie’s life. Since I do not have that much prior knowledge on the topic of intersex, “Of Gender and Genitals” provided me with a basic understanding of this subject. The thing that stuck out most to me was the visual imagery, especially those dealing with “fixing”. The figures of the surgical fixings were explicit and somewhat disturbing. I think these images further exemplify how serious a process it is to go from an intersex to one specific gender.

"That Sexe Which Prevaileth"

In “That Sexe Which Prevaileth” within the book “Sexing the Body” by Anne Fausto-Sterling, we learn of the history of hermaphroditism. Interestingly, even beyond the mythical origins of the word and concept, though European and American cultures abide by a two-sex system, the way in which different cultures regard intersexuals has been quite varied. For example, Plato proclaimed that there were three sexes, male, female, and hermaphrodite (33) while “early medical practitioners…understood sex and gender to fall along a continuum” (33). Galen too believed that hermaphrodites belonged to an intermediate sex and that there is “no stable biological divide” that separates male from female (34). The French tried to strictly control the activities of hermaphrodites, while the English simply frowned upon them, and Italians didn’t seem to care all that much, judging by the story of Daniel Burghammer. However, ultimately, a hermaphroditic individual was expected to “choose” a sex, that which manifested itself most prominently to the individual, and stick to it. Interestingly, the early scientific views of hermaphrodites and how they were regarded, the fact that early medical practitioners were not fazed by the concept, contrasted with political and legal aims. Essentially the structure of political and legal systems abided (and still abide) by a two-sex system making it such that despite the awareness of intermediate sexes that it is in the best interest of political bodies to enforce the two-sex system.

Initially I never would have thought about classification of a binary sex system as related to political and legal structure, but after reading Fausto-Sterling’s explanation it makes sense that it would be so. What better way to control people than by forcing them to mold to a pre-existing, static system? Yet at the same time it does not make sense, because if intersex individuals dates back to the Greeks and even before, then why wouldn’t the historical roots of politics and law also reflect it? Perhaps the incidences were few enough that intersex individuals could be viewed as anomalies, whether extraordinary or freakish. Perhaps the statistics then made it easier to form a binary system, for intersex individuals, as Fausto-Sterling describes, can have a wide variety of sexual organs and secondary sex characteristics. Regardless, the assumptions behind modern medical treatment of intersexuality, that there should only be two sexes, that heterosexuality is what is normal, and that certain gender roles defined the psychologically healthy male and female (44) appear to be stricter opinions when compared to those of early physicians.

The Female Gender

Myhre, Fausto-Sterling, and Levy all investigate the complicated process to figure out what it means to be a female in these three readings. Fausto-Sterling takes a novel approach to feminist issues, considering biological and physiological differences. She distinguishes the differences between sex and gender as “sex” represents the body’s anatomy and physiological workings” and “gender” represents “social forces that [mold] behavior” (4). Sex differences are complicated today by choices of certain people to manipulate their bodies. Levy refers to these individuals as “FTMs” (female to males), or individuals participating in the “butch flight” (127). Similarly, the issue of gender is complicated even more so with different sexual orientations and choices. Fausto-Sterling describes that while there are only two identifiable sexes (male and female), there are several more genders. There are heterosexual men and women, gay men and lesbian women, and bisexual men and bisexual women (11). Acknowledging these differences helps create a more comfortable identity for people who do not fit in with the status quo. “Transsexuals, transgendered people, and... a blossoming organization of intersexuals all have formed social movements to include diverse sexual beings under the umbrella of normality” (15). However, no matter how many differences experts pick up on, I would argue that one major dichotomy still remains. Although you may not just be a “man” or a “woman” anymore (you might be a woman who is a lesbian/boi), society will still decide whether or not you are “normal”.

For this reason, people like Myhre, who decide to go against what is seen as a “normal” girl, will continue to be ostracized and alienated. Not unlike many of the bois Levy described in her chapter, Myhre’s short hair sets her apart from the entire female gender. Myhre’s described that, “Giving up my ‘feminity’ was my first act as a feminist. I didn’t consider myself any less of a woman, but not working at looking like a woman meant that most people considered me masculine” (86). Here, Myhre shows that although she considers herself one thing (a strong female), the rest of society saw her as something different (more along the lines of a weak male). In addition, the bois and femmes that Levy describes may feel comfortable in their communities that she describes, such as San Francisco and on online websites such as Craigslist, but once they leave their comfort zones, the rest of society is probably not as welcoming.

In the end I agree with Fausto-Sterling that, “Ultimately, the sex/gender dualism limits feminist analysis” (21). It will be interesting to learn more about the biology of sex and gender as we read more in “Sexing the Body”, but I am not sure how pertinent the information will be to the general public. Figuring out the physiological differences seems less of a pressing issue than finding a better way to deal with those who outwardly reject their gender. I hope to move towards being able to embrace people like Myhre who point out that her choice to dress in a masculine fashion only reflects dignity and self respect (88).

News Flash: Skis, Sex and Snowboards

Link to Article: http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20100202/NEWS/100209971/1062/rss

Selling a product is not always an easy task, especially in today’s struggling economy. In order for a company to make a profit, it needs to successfully market its product. The best way to market a product is to appeal to the primary consumer. When it comes to marketing snowboards, the dominant consumer is men. According to U.S. News journalist, Katy Marquardt, men comprise 75 percent of the 5.1 billion snowboarders (Marquardt 2009). As a result, snowboard manufacturers market their products almost exclusively to men. What is the best way to market an item to men in their 20s and 30s? Sell the product through sex.

At first, snowboards were advertised by scantily clad women, but now this industry has taken using sex to sell the board to the next level. Before a young boy was eager to buy a $300 snowboard because a beautiful blonde posed with it in an ad. Now, these beautiful women are no longer bound to selling boards through magazine ads and other advertisements, now these women are directly on the snowboard. Julie Sutor’s article, “Sex Sells Snowboards in Denver”, not only covers the 2010 SnowSports Industries America (SIA) trade show, but also exemplifies how the most successful marketing tool in America today is a half-dressed woman.

Sutor acknowledges that sex was overwhelming present at this years’ SIA show. Female models patrolled through the convention wearing next to nothing. Their clothing for the trade show consisted of barely there flight attendant and cop outfits. (These outfits are a direct replica of what women wear on Halloween.) Any person, snowboarder or not, is not alone in wondering what flight attendants and cops have to do with winter sports? It may seem like a trick question, but the answer is nothing. There is no relation or relative reason why women at SIA are dressed up in police force or stewardess costumes.

However, while there is no direct relationship between the costumes and snow sports, there is a reason why these women are wearing very revealing ensembles, it is about advertising. According to Tom Reichert, author of The Erotic History of Advertising, “There’s research showing that in advertising to young adults, versus older adults, you’re more likely to see sexual content. One reason is hormonal- they’re probably at their peak in terms of testosterone. They’re very tuned in to sexual information, especially of the opposite sex” (Sutor 2010). Ski and snowboard companies at the SIA are trying to appeal to all of the consumers, the majority of whom are young males, and what better way to grasp the attention of a college male than through a beautiful woman wearing a dress composed of as much material as that of a napkin. This is a direct example of Johnson’s description of patriarchy, which shows “the standards of female beauty” (Johnson 7). Is this mode of marketing exploitive of women? Yes. However, is it successful? Yes. Reichert further aggress that “From a marketing standpoint, is it smart? Yes. Is it socially responsible? Probably not” (Sutor 2010). However, since it is a patriarchal culture, exploiting women in this manner becomes acceptable.

However, the main point of these companies is to make a profit. In order to be financially successful, companies have to be able to tap into their target market. “These companies are right-on in terms of trying to appeal to this target audience” (Sutor 2010). Thus, is a company able to justify exploiting and objectifying women in order to make a profit? Morally, the answer is no, but unfortunately, in the 21st century the concept of morals and values no longer exist. Thus, using women and their sexuality to sell products is seen as normal by a majority of the population. Americans have become desensitized by sex because the exploitation and objectification of women is everywhere in today’s society.

Not everyone approves of the marketing technique of using half-naked women to sell snowboards. In fact, both people within the snowboarding community, as well as, outside of the snowboarding community disapprove of this technique. However, there is one particular group that many Americans are trying to protect from viewing these sexual, racy images, and that group is children. Keeping children from viewing these provocative images has become a main concern of many women’s rights groups. Young boys and girls do not need to be subjected to seeing images of scantily clad women. Yes, youths today are exposed to much of raunch culture. The concern is subjecting children to more sex and raunch than they already face in everyday entertainment and advertisements. Thus, since skiing and snowboarding is considered a family activity and children participate in it, controversy has developed over the snow sports industry, predominately the snowboarding sector’s, using of sex to promote products.

Ultimately, people are infuriated over the graphics that companies have chosen to use on their snowboards. People see these images as objectifying women. “When you really think about it, it’s a young man standing on top of a naked woman’s body” (Picchi 2009). The protests against these companies goes against Johnson’s belief that people take the path of least resistance. In this particular instance, individuals are willing to “deal with greater resistance” because they are taking a stance for what they believe is morally right (Johnson 4).

Currently, there are two companies that have graphics of half-naked women on their boards. Both Burton and Nidecker are at the center of this controversy. Sutor’s article focuses on the backlash that Nidecker (NDK), a Swiss snowboard manufacturer, is currently facing over its new line of snowboards, which have provocative images on them. NDK recently announced that its new line of snowboards, will feature graphic images of Pamela Anderson wearing nothing but lingerie. According to Nick Boville, a representative for Nidecker, he believes that Nidecker will “sell a crap-load of these to guys in their 20s and early 30s because Pamela Anderson’s picture is on it” (Sutor 2010). Nothing promotes snowboarding like Pamela Anderson in a bra and underwear.

However, NDK was not the first company to plaster images of naked women on their boards. In 2008 Burton partnered with Playboy and launched a new line of “limited edition” boards, labeled Love (Picchi 2009). These boards featured vintage images of semi-naked women from the 1970s. All of the images have been featured in Playboy magazine (Picchi 2009).

Ultimately, Burton was hit with a large wave of criticism over this particular line of boards. The largest, and probably most shocking negative feedback of the boards came from the manufacturer’s home state, Vermont. However, what was Burton’s response to the backlash that the Love boards faced? They stood by their boards and claimed that they supported freedom of artistic expression. “Both Burton and Playboy were founded on principles of individual freedom, and the collaboration has resulted in boards that reflect this attitude. The imagery on the boards is tastefully done, and we believe that they will be collector’s items” (Burton.com). However, not only did these boards display images of naked women, but they also came with an extremely sexual slogan. “My name is Love and I’m on the market for someone who’s looking to score serious action, no matter where they like to stick it” (Burton.com). Does this marketing line truly represent individual freedom or just pure sexism?

There is a difference in the individual freedom that Playboy represents and that a Love snowboard signifies. Ultimately, Playboy represents the First Amendment of sexual expression. However this magazine is not viewed by the entire population, but only is viewed by those who purchase it. If one chooses to look through a Playboy, one must first purchase it and often remove a plastic cover or ask for it from behind the counter of the store. Thus, those who do not wish to view the sexual images do not have to see them. Yes, the media will sometimes display certain images from the magazine however, due to censorship laws, the very provocative and racy images will never be shown in public. Thus, most importantly, children are protected from being subjected to these exploitive images. However, the graphics on snowboards are far less private. Snowboards are on public display and cannot be shielded from the eyes of children. Thus, the biggest problem that protesters of the Love line have is the fact that children are exposed to images that degrade women.

Thus, not only does the Love line and NDK’s Anderson line subject innocent bystanders to images that one does not wish to see, but also these images carry a more public message on a snowboard then in a magazine. It can be argued that nude pictorials of women, like those found in Playboy can be referred to as art, since photography, which is often over-looked by the art world, is ultimately, a form of art. While yes, a Playboy photograph is not nearly as artistic as a Diane Arbus photograph, , it is nonetheless still a piece of art. However, once that image is stripped from the pages of a magazine and placed onto an object, the artistic value of the image diminishes. The image of the naked woman is no longer considered a photograph, but rather, it is now just a tool used to sell products. In other words, the female in the graphic image has turned into a product that is used to sell something. Thus, what does this technique of using women say about society’s treatment of women? It clearly states that women are not held in high regards. In fact, women are seen merely as objects that can be used at the discretion of men. Women are clearly seen being exploited by men.

The increase of sex in the world of snowboarding is another example of today’s raunch culture. Levy would be quick to place the blame for today’s raunch culture on the women posing in these suggestive photos. However despite both Levy and Johnson’s belief that the individual is to blame, the system is at fault for the rise in raunch culture. Ultimately, it is the advertising industry that is promoting and publishing these photographs. An individual is a mere pawn in the system; the manufacturer has the final say in what image and product is produced.

In conclusion, the marketing industry has been successful in using women and sex to sell products. As a result of the constant use of this marketing technique, Americans have, to an extent, become desensitized to the objectification of women. However, while most people might be used to seeing advertisements of women in bikinis on television or in magazines, a large portion of the country is not ready to see these women plastered across everyday items, especially products that are used by children. Ultimately, in her article, Sutor shows how the snowboarding industry has a very specific group of consumers. In order to maximize profit and bring in the highest revenue, snowboarding companies have decided to forgo catering to all of their clientele and have focused on marketing to their dominant consumer, young men. As a result, the snowboarding industry is to blame for exploited women. It is degrading to reproduce Playboy images onto snowboards. Ultimately, like other sectors in America, the snowboarding industry has subjected women to being nothing more than a pretty face and good body, in other words, a mere object.


Bibliography:

Burton
2008 www.burton.com
Johnson
Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them or an Us
Levy, Ariel
2005 Female Chauvinist Pigs.
Marquardt, Katy
2009 King of the Hill in Snowboards. U.S. News and World Report. http://www.usnews.com/topics/subjects/sports
Phillipps, Dave
2008 No Love for Burton Boards at Work. The Gazette. http://outthere.freedomblogging.com/20 08/10/30/no-burton-love-boards-at-work/2977/
Picchi, Aimee
2009 Edgy Snowboard Graphics Test Liberal Vermont. Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2009/01/05/edgy_snow board_ graph ics_test_liberal_vermont/?page=1
Sutor, Julie
2010 Sex Sells Snowboards in Denver. Vail Daily. http://www.vaildaily.com/article/2010020 2/NEWS/100209971/1002

Newsflash: Girls and Guns, Defying Gender Roles

As soon as parents find out, “It’s a girl!” images of cute and cuddly fill their minds. Pink and purple clothes and toys fill the dressers and shelves in the new nursery, no doubt also painted a similar color. In a few years, these images will evolve into a teenage princess armed with a handbag, make up, cell phone and lots of gal pals. In extreme cases, teenage girls are only associated with long trips to the mall, phone conversations with outbursts like "Oh my GOSH!", and sports like ballet and cheerleading. While at the same time, boys move along on separate paths altogether. Starting from blue and green baby gifts with frogs and balls, boys eventually leave behind trucks and action figures to enter the sports arena or video game realm. Stereotypes in society form the dichotomy between masculinity and femininity that hold females back from exploring new things. In fact, these “pink” and “blue” ideologies commonly perpetuate themselves without hesitation, holding back both men and women from exploring new things. Masculine and feminine traits are rarely questioned… until someone steps out of line.

In the November 2009 issue of “Seventeen Magazine”, Jessica Press examined a rising phenomenon, “Girls and Guns”. The title of the article catches the reader’s attention with its step away from the typical “girly girl” topic that is usually covered in the magazine. Girls and guns? Those two things do not belong in the same sentence! What happened to the cute and cuddly? Although the hobbies of shooting and hunting have been around for an incredibly long time, passion for weapons and guns causes more of an uproar when the interest spreads to teens. With school shootings unfortunately more prevalent today, there is good reason to become sensitive towards gun safety. However, in my opinion this article does not address safety issues. Instead of analyzing the safety issue appropriately (which would have addressed both genders), the question that headlines the article only addresses girls. Jessica Press writes, “Girls and guns: With girlfriend-getaway hunting trips and pink-handled pistols for late-night protection, more girls than ever are getting into guns. But is that a good thing—or a deadly accident waiting to happen?” It seems that since some girls are taking bold steps away from “normal” girl attributes, and choosing to step into an interest more common to boys, people are confused as to whether this is acceptable. Is shooting an interest that is acceptable for females to enjoy?

The three girls interviewed in the article certainly think so, and they aren’t alone. Press explained that in the past five years, “The National Rifle Association (NRA) confirms that the number of pro-gun girls is on the rise” (121). In addition, social networking websites like Facebook are seeing “dozens of groups…for girls who love guns” popping up (121). Girls who participate in the groups cite reasons for their interest in guns as a means for protection, involvement in competitive sport and hunting. The three girls interviewed in the article say their reasons for using guns are: “It makes me feel strong,” “It makes me feel safe,” and “It makes me feel proud” (122-123). All the girls feel they are responsible enough to use guns since they have all had sufficient training. So for these three highlighted users, safety should not be an issue.

However even if they are comfortable with their hobbies, none of the girls can ignore the shock they cause when others find out they shoot. Kaylin, a 20 year old from Vermont, explained something that most people know, "Hunting is something most guys do" (123). After all, the first thing that usually comes to mind when someone thinks of a "hunter" is probably something along the lines of this guy-->… Not a 20 year old girl with long blond hair and nails painted red like Kaylin is portrayed in her picture. As a result of male dominance in the hobby, Kaylin says she has come to "love the surprised look on people's faces when [she] tells them [she hunts]" (123). For Kaylin, after the shock factor wears off she relishes in the "awesome" feeling of proving people who doubt her skill wrong (123). However, for many other girls, shocking people with such a bold move away from being "feminine" by traditional standards prevents them from thinking about shooting in the first place.


Sarah, another interviewee described that few people have the right idea of girls who shoot. She said, “When most people picture girls who like guns, they imagine cowgirls, gangster girls, or police officers.” (122). However, I beg to differ. When I think of a girl with a gun (and maybe it’s just me), I think of a “masculine” girl who I have trouble fitting into any other schema. Instead of having a gun to fulfill a role such as law enforcement, I tend to picture someone who is set apart by their possession of a gun. With this admission, I regret to realize that I am a victim of society’s programming. Throughout my life I have been convinced by the ideologies about feminism, and have rarely questioned them.


Ironically, Sarah also goes on to address people like me in her interview. She says, “I don’t think loving guns makes me any less feminine—if anything it makes me a stronger girl” (122). In addition, upon further research on Facebook I found the last picture included on this blog from the last girl interviewed. After reflecting on the article thoroughly I have come to respect all of the girls interviewed. Going against society’s expectations takes a lot of strength to do, yet all these girls were able to muster up enough confidence to defy typical gender roles. On top of choosing to participate in a hobby that is so often thought of as a man’s sport, these three girls were so passionate they spoke out about the issue in a magazine—nonetheless a magazine that most often talks about fashion and health. In the end, reading this article makes me realize the role I play in the perpetuation of masculine and feminine ideologies. Afterall, as I mentioned in the beginning, the reason “Girls and Guns” caught my attention is because guns and girls do not fit together in my own mind. Obviously, my first reaction was that it was not acceptable for girls to enjoy using guns.




However, combining what we are learning in Women’s Studies and my reaction to this article, I realize that in the end, this article fits in nicely with the other subject matter in “Seventeen”. Sarah and Kaylin, and the other girls who are causing the NRA’s numbers to increase are all beautiful in their own way. Instead of focusing on the right types of clothing to flatter particular body types, like Seventeen often does, Jessica Press is showing teenage readers another way to be attractive. Refusing to let gender roles stand in the way of what they want to do will improve the confidence of anyone. Whether they were choosing to shoot or play football, the feminist movement needs more people like these girls to break down the walls that divide gender. We need more “purple”in the world, instead of just pink and blue.

News Flash: The (Hottest) Women of the 2010 Winter Olympics

When I think of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, I think snowboarding, ski-jumping, and figure skating. I think about national rivalries, the opening ceremonies, and the chance to watch sports events that I normally wouldn’t get to see. But Jerry Thornton, author of a blog entry titled “The Women of the 2010 Winter Olympics,” put a significant amount of time and energy into identifying the “hottest women athletes” to provide a “guide” to get others ready to watch. In other words, rather than watching the Games for what they are worth – a display of some of the world’s most talented winter sport athletes, Thornton researched the teams, picked out who in his opinion are the most attractive, and then ranked them so that he and others can watch women compete based on attractiveness rather than national affiliation, sport, or level of talent. Male chauvinist pig? Perhaps. Yet a step away from a focus on his actions on the individual level suggests that this is a prime example of how patriarchy is manifested in popular culture.

I’ll begin with a disclaimer, that clearly the nature of Thornton’s blog is to be a place for opinions. However, the obvious parallel to our course lies not just in the content of the entry but in the principles conveyed by its existence. First, there is the issue that the featured women did not ask to be included in Jerry Thornton’s blog. In that sense, the topic of this blog entry is proof of Ariel Levy’s statement that “hotness has become our cultural currency…Hotness is not the same thing as beauty, which has been valued throughout history. Hot can mean popular. Hot can mean talked about” (Levy 31). The 19 comments to Thornton’s post, many of which debate the worthiness of some of his selections, reinforce the notion that hotness is something to be consumed. And so in the context of raunch culture, the way that Thornton and his blog readers regard these women is not out of the ordinary. This contemporary spin on sexuality implies that for these “select” female athletes, that their sex appeal, not necessarily their talent, is what makes them worthwhile. Yet Jerry Thornton is not unique by creating such a list. Other websites, including Sports Illustrated, made similar lists, but to the dismay of Thornton included “chicks” who are winter athletes but are not competing on teams at this years Winter Olympics.

A closer look at Thornton’s blog entry may shed some light as to why some of these athletes may have made “the list.” The divisions of “gold,” “silver,” and “bronze,” with “gold” being the group of the most attractive athletes, show a curious discrepancy of types of pictures featured. Only the “gold” and “silver” groups contain athletes who have posed in FHM, Maxim, or other magazines partially nude. Did posing in such magazines give them sex appeal? Or is having sex appeal what presented them with the opportunity of posing in those magazines? It is probably a little bit of both, but even though level of attractiveness is a matter of opinion, I found it intriguing that those considered the “hottest” followed a general trend of raunchy posing. Though we do not know what the reactions, if any, of the athletes are (given that it is an independent sports blogging site they very well could be unaware that they are featured), the reactions of the commenters are extremely objectifying. In response to those athletes who chose to pose in raunchy magazines, Ariel Levy would probably say that they brought it upon themselves to have their names thrown around like objects, but what about those who didn’t?

A comment that jumped out at me was one that referred to Hilary Knight, a US hockey player, as a “gorilla,” and another that demanded, “take the chicks that play hockey off, there is nothing hot about chicks who play hockey.” Coincidentally, I recently had a conversation with a male Colgate student who stated that he does not like girls who play hockey. When I asked why that is, his only response was that girls should not play hockey. There are different angles that can be taken on this. First, when examining Jerry Thornton’s pictures of US hockey players, it is worthwhile to note that both posed in their hockey jerseys. Hockey jerseys are large, and quite the opposite of form-fitting. When juxtaposed with women posing half-naked in Maxim, they do not immediately convey the type of attractiveness that we as consumers of a raunch culture have been conditioned to accept. But could it be deeper than just appearance? If Jerry Thornton selected pictures of those female hockey players that divorced them from their sport, would they still be referred to as “gorillas?” We might not ever know, but it is interesting to think about the connotation of the sport in this particular case.

Men’s hockey is quite different from women’s hockey, for in women’s hockey checking is not allowed. The physicality of the men’s game often leads to fights and arguably embodies stereotypes of masculinity such as physical strength and aggression. On one level, maybe this particular Colgate male and blog commenter dislike women’s hockey players because they play a game that to some degree eliminates much of the physicality, which is a defining element of the men’s game. In other words, maybe to them, the women’s version of the game removes certain aspects that they feel hockey requires to be hockey, yet the association remains because for the most part, the sport is the same. On another level, when comparing female hockey players to other winter athletes, one could argue that hockey outwardly appears less sexy. Unlike skiing, figure skating, luge, skeleton, or other such events, hockey players are clad in protective gear and large jerseys instead of tight fitting body suits. The exception to this is snowboarding, but Gretchen Bleiler, a US snowboarder featured in the blog list, posed in FHM thereby solidifying an association with hotness and raunch. In sum, this angle boils down to social constructions of gender. Ice hockey in particular has an association with masculinity, whereas certain elements of other sports, whether they be the uniforms, or actions of the athletes themselves, contain reminders that draw onlookers to their sexuality.

Nevertheless, the interesting part about this blog entry is that we don’t get the female perspective. It is solely about the male perspective; the author is a male and the people who commented, though their genders are not identified, give the impression that they are most likely heterosexual males. Again, the women did not ask to be put on this list, which is in contrast to other instances of raunch culture magazine features where the women posed on purpose. Thus, my first reaction was to criticize Jerry Thornton as a male chauvinist pig. Why did he feel the need to go out of his way to compile a list of the hottest female athletes for the purpose of creating a “guide” to watching the 2010 Winter Olympics? It seems incredibly distasteful seeing as their athletic talent is not addressed aside from the mention at the beginning that they are on Olympic teams. But when examining his blog within a larger context, it is possible to view it not even just as a product of raunch culture, but as a product of patriarchy. As Allan G. Johnson stated, “the something larger we all participate in is patriarchy, which is more than a collection of individuals” (Johnson 30). Rather, it is an ideology that reflects a set of ideals, values, and beliefs that comprise a culture that “includes ideas about the nature of things, including women, men, and humanity” (Johnson 36). Furthermore, “to live in patriarchy is to breathe in misogynist images of women as objectified sexual property valued primarily for their usefulness to men” (Johnson 41). As Johnson emphasizes, that is not to say that all men inherently objectify women or “hate all things female,” but that this overarching social system has conditioned us all, male and female, to accept the idea of hotness as cultural currency, among other pre-conceived notions of gender identity (Johnson 41). If you step away from examining Jerry Thornton’s actions as ones of an individual, it becomes rather obvious that his webpage is a reflection of patriarchal culture; just as Thornton’s actions contribute to perpetuating the culture, the existence of the culture shape Thornton’s actions.

It would be interesting to hear the athletes’ reactions to being on this list. Would they be dismayed that these men presumably view them only as sexual objects, or would they feel empowered by the male attention? As we have discussed many, many times, sex sells. So if these athletes’ sexuality draws them fans, will they complain because they don’t agree with the principle? Once the fans see these women competing at the highest level in their sport, one would think that they would have an appreciation for their athletic prowess. Yet if the appreciation of their athleticism comes second, then does it count? These issues do not have a clear answer, for as long as patriarchy remains the way it is, our behavior is shaped in such a way that even if we appreciate a person’s athletic prowess that they cannot necessarily avoid being judged for their looks.

The Dominant Group: White Privilege

I was very surprised and ultimately amazed as to how Lorde, McIntosh and Miles’s articles directly related to two of my other classes. Ultimately, what I noticed in the three articles was this idea that each person is composed of many different characteristics.

I admit that like the majority of women, I too I am at fault for ignoring differences within our society (Lorde). When one group is being oppressed it is very easy to gather together as a group and fight that oppression. However, as Miles points out in her article On the Rag, just because a group of people shares one specific characteristic does not necessarily mean that they share others. For example, Miles points out that The Rag was formed by a group of women who waned to create “the only feminist journal on the Harvard-Radcliffe campus” (Miles 173). However, this journal eventually discontinued as a result of conflicts within the group. Miles points out that “racial and class conflicts” led to the demise of the journal. What this article shows that even though people may have a similar characteristic with another person that does not necessary mean that they share similar experiences in their lives.

This idea is something that I have recently discussed in my Native American-Museum Studies class. We recently discussed the idea of how people group minorities together based on one characteristic. Specifically, we discussed how mainstream America, the white middle class, groups all Native Americans together. However, just because they share the same ethnicity does not mean that they share the same way of life. First off, there are over 200 federally recognized Native American tribes within the US. Then, once Native Americans have been separated by clan, Native Americans can be further stratified by gender, class, occupation etc. Ultimately, what my class came to discover was the idea that people of a certain minority, whether that be based on gender or ethnicity, are grouped into one category and people assume that they share the same experiences. However, what people forget is that other forces like class and race affects a person’s way of life.

“I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege” (McIntosh 1). When it comes to race, McIntosh’s article White Privilege attacks today’s issue of racism. She states that “oppression is unconsciousness.” People do not realize that others are being oppressed because there are no visible signs or acts. The idea of racism today is very different than that of the 1950s and 1960s. “In my class and place, I did not see myself as a racist because I was taught to recognize racism only in individual acts of meanness by members of my group, never in invisible systems conferring unsought racial dominance on my group from birth” (McIntosh 6). I agree with McIntosh on this issue. If I speak with my mouth full, I have never thought that people think I do this act as a result of my race. Thus, after reading these articles, as well as, reading the Collins articles for my Black Communities class, I have realized that women experience oppression in very different ways. Just because there is an advancement for women does not necessarily mean that all women experience it in the same way, or in that case get to experience the achievement at all. Race, class and gender play a role in how people live their lives. Just because two people are both women does not necessarily mean that they live and are treated in the same manner.

Oppression and Patriarchy 2/7

Both “Oppression,” by Marilyn Frye, and “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us,” by Johnson convey similar ideas that when analyzing issues of gender and gender relations, that the point of view must take on that of a “big picture.” In other words, both caution that a view that is too narrow can result in missing the point. Frye uses the analogy of a bird cage: “if you look very closely at just one wire in the cage, you cannot see the other wires. If your conception of what is before you is determined by this myopic focus, you could look at htat one wire, up and down the length of it, and be unable to see why a bird would not just fly around the wire at any time it wanted to go somewhere … It is only when you step back, stop looking at the wires one by one, microscopically, and take a macroscopic view of the whole cage, that you can see why the bird does not go anywhere.” Similarly, Johnson distinguishes the system of patriarchy from the individuals that participate in it. He explains that patriarchal culture includes and involves individuals, shapes individuals and is shaped by individuals, but cannot be reduced to the people who participate in it because it is a system. Thus, people who live in a patriarchal society are not all inherently consciously misogynistic, but are still affected by the omnipresence of symbols in popular culture that convey the defining elements of patriarchy. This relationship between the individual and the social system results in socialization, which is the development of a sense of identity according to the constraints of the system. Finally, individuals who participate in a social system will tend to choose the “path of least resistance” when it comes to making choices in daily life.

Through these two articles it was eventually made clear that you cannot always understand a system just by looking at the individuals who participate in it. And clearly, our current system of gender identity contains many inequalities. In Johnson’s writing, he explains that once the system is distinguished from the individuals, that it becomes clear why an issue such as violence against women is not solved by targeting the individuals who commit such crimes, because the actions of the individuals are not being carried out in a vacuum. So to solve this problem, the problems with the system must be solved, which requires that the individuals who participate in it must do so differently so as to re-shape the system that shapes them. Ultimately, it is the system that much change, for the system is socially constructed, as is gender – in another course I took we often discussed how sex is biological, while gender is socially constructed. Yet this all sounds quite ambitious. At the end of the reading, Johnson states that a later chapter will discuss ways to do this, but I am skeptical of how this could possibly occur on a large enough scale. One main point that I took away from the article is that everybody is involved in the system, that it does not have to be conscious. I think that this relates very well to our previously discussed ideas of “programming” as well as consumerism of raunch culture and hyper-sexuality. Perhaps people can be convinced to gradually change their behavior and say, not tell sexist jokes. Perhaps other people will catch on and there will be a snowball effect. But as long as people buy products, watch movies, and consume other elements of culture that convey patriarchal messages, whether we consciously personally feel victimized by them or not, I will still lean toward the pessimistic side of change actually happening. On one level its ridiculous that such messages are as prevalent as they are – you would think that if half of the population are female, and then there are some males who don’t believe in objectifying females, that eventually a “majority” should be established and people would learn not to perpetuate patriarchal culture. Of course that is an oversimplification, for then if we consider some of Ariel Levy’s arguments which apply well in this context, if women continue to objectify themselves and belittle “womanhood” in relationship to “manhood” then in many cases they are probably contributing to patriarchy and being counterproductive.

Fresh Prince of Bel Air

Girls in sexy poses and little clothing cover magazines that fly off shelves at grocery stores and newsstands while rap “video girls” are shaking their “moneymakers” all over music videos on the internet and on television. Music artists do not even bother trying to hide sexual innuendos in their lyrics anymore as songs like “F*** today” by Lil Wayne are rising on the billboard charts. The exposed, half-naked female body is no stranger to the American public—the interesting thing is that it is so exposed; it rarely jumps out at us anymore. The dictionary defines “raunch” as a “material or a performance that is sexually explicit or evocative”. Considering this simple definition, raunch is not just easy to find in the United States, it defines our culture today. However, in addition, raunch is defined as “lewd, vulgar or obscene”. It is this second part of the definition that does not seem to apply anymore. There has been a shift from raunchiness from seen as lewd/vulgar/obscene to being ordinary/standard/typical. As a society, we have accepted raunch as a main component of the American Culture. How did we get this way?

Some feminists believe that the rise in Raunch Culture is a result of females empowering themselves with more risqué career moves and snap decisions. Some even claim that, “Being a part of it makes you a strong, powerful woman” (Levy, 26). It is described as a “rite of passage” into an ongoing cultural phenomenon. These decisions have put women on the same level that men have been on for years and opened the doors for the entire American public to witness it. Raunch Culture is here and we could not turn our backs on it if we wanted to. However, the rise in popularity of Raunch Culture is not the result of the entire gender’s unanimous decision to empower themselves like some people argue. Ariel Levy, the author of “Female Chauvinist Pigs” feels that women who choose to participate in raunch and claim they have higher motives are kidding themselves and their audience. Sexually explicit or evocative performances may feel “liberating” on an individual level, but adding to the Raunch Culture that men ogle at does not help a feminist’s cause. And they should not be portrayed this way. Instead of a united movement on part of all females, Raunch Culture is difficult to navigate and happens on an individual basis.

A great example of negotiating whether or not to participate in Raunch Culture is shown in the “Fresh Prince after Dark” episode (The Fresh Prince of Bel Air- Season 4, episode 9) which aired in 1993. In the opening scene of this episode, Playboy offers Hilary Banks a chance to pose in their magazine. Before long, this opportunity affects more than just Hilary. The possibility of his daughter posing naked in a magazine infuriates her father, and he immediately disobeys her from attending the photo shoot. Where her father is livid, her mother is supportive and promotes her daughter’s ability to decide for herself. At the same time, it confuses her little sister, Ashley, who does not understand why Hilary would want to pose naked for other people. Last, the mere opportunity gives main character Will and his cousin Carlton the key to unlock one of their wildest fantasies, a day at the Playboy mansion. As Ariel Levy described in her book, “Female Chauvinist Pigs”, Will and Carlton’s admission into the Playboy mansion was the epitome of Raunch Culture. As seen from minutes 11:50 to 12:30 in the episode, the Playboy mansion is portrayed as, “A fantasy world dreamed up by teenage boys. A world of sun and sand where frozen daiquiris flow from faucets and any hot girl you see will pool off her bikini top, lift up her skirt… all you have to do is ask” (17). While Carlton drools and Will is incredibly happy, Hilary is bubbly with excitement as she meets legendary Hugh Hefner for the first time. In the end, after taking all of her family member’s reactions into account, Hilary must find her own way to negotiate between sustaining a stable family life and pursuing something for herself in Raunch Culture.

Hilary went back and forth on her decision of whether or not she should pose for Playboy. In the beginning, it seemed that she was just flattered to be considered. The opportunity may have been enough for her on a personal level. However, the idea appealed more to Hilary after her father erupted in disapproval. Although the producers of the show may have not wanted Hilary to been seen as a girl with both a brain and a body (1:38-1:45), Hilary did show a strong will in her protest to her father when she screamed, “I have a mind of my own, and opinions, and you never let me express them!” (1:30-1:37). Hilary’s empowered statement parallels the statement, “I’m taking control of how I look and the statement I’m making” (39) that Levy says Raunch Culture reinforces. Regardless, it is the outburst that gives Hilary finds the strength to disobey her father. This boiling point, although Hilary had trouble holding onto her train of thought, symbolizes the breakthrough that many feminists had in the early waves of feminism. Similar to many housewives who struggled with “the problem that had no name” in their attempts to make the household perfect, Hilary is challenged here with the strong, male, head of the household. Her decision, while not flawless in her reasoning, was successful in rebelling against the patriarchal structure that ruled her household. Hilary finds a new way to move towards her goals, and she finds out she doesn’t need her fathers’ approval to do so. This strength may be similar to what many feminists gained during the second wave of feminism, but her decision to go ahead and pose naked does not represent feminists as a group. Hilary’s ultimate decision to go through with the photo shoot came from within herself at the cost of potential negative consequences with her father.

In the end, Hilary decides to do it simply because she wants to. Although Levy has strong feelings towards Raunch Culture, I don’t think she would disapprove or criticize Hilary’s decision. Hilary did not claim her decision was to empower females; it was clearly just something she wanted to do. Hilary and Levy might even agree that the desire for popularity, fame and/or money were the things that motivated her to pose in Playboy. Levy does not disapprove of the display of female bodies, or the individuals who chose to expose themselves, she is clearly just frustrated with those who try to explain their decision to pose naked as an act of “empowerment”. Since Hilary did not cross this line, her motives could not be misconstrued for anyone. Even though Levy might still argue that “the only career for which appearing in Playboy is a truly strategic move is a career in the sex industry” (41), and she may frown on Hilary’s decision, I do not think Levy has a right to judge Hilary.

This episode did a good job of developing the complexities of factors that affect Raunch culture. It was important to see the story from so many people’s perspectives. Uncle Phil made the stereotypical, stubborn, male, head of the household look like just that… stubborn and hardheaded. Conversely, Hilary’s decision may have given feminists at that time (1993) a step in the right direction. After all, it was a big deal for Hilary to disregard what her father said. Although Hilary was not always portrayed in the best light, her best quality was her ability to think for herself. This episode showed us that Raunch culture should not be a go-to decision for everyone and that it requires more than an impulse’s decision. However, at the same time, it did a good job at not frowning on those women who choose to go ahead and pose naked. It even welcomes them.

Although, I cannot say I will ever follow in Hilary’s footsteps, I do respect her ability to make a decision for herself. Although Ariel Levy may not be pleased with the end result of this episode, I think it would benefit her and other feminists to take away the positive messages from this episode. After all, the movement needed to start somewhere; perhaps the third wave of feminism is still finding its way.

These Boots Were Made for Walking Video

Here is the link to Jessica Simpson's music video "These Boots Were Made for Walking".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPtfsk4ETjM

Sex, Sex, and More Sex

Sex sells. This two-word phrase might be one of the most cliché phrases of the 21^st century, however despite this, this phrase is true. The world has changed, some would argue for the worse. Today’s society is not the society that first-wave feminist activists, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton envisioned. The beginning of the 20^th century was the time of the women’s suffrage movement thus; the main concern of the women of the first-wave movement was being given the right to vote. Women are no longer fighting and campaigning for equal rights, but rather, it seems as if women have taken two steps backwards instead of moving forward. Women of the first and second-wave feminist movements sought to increase women’s rights and thus, ultimately empower and liberate women. However, fast-forward 100 years, is today’s modern woman more empowered and liberated than a woman of the 1960s? My answer echoes that of Ariel Levy, author of the novel Female Chauvinist Pigs, and that is no. Through the example of Jessica Simpson’s music video “These Boots are Made for Walking”, one can see how today’s raunch culture has not furthered the women’s movement, but rather has impeded it.

It is safe to say that, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were not campaigning for a world in which women’s liberation meant a sexual revolution. Thus, these feminists were not advocating for a world in which women could casually sleep around or wash cars in pink bikinis. Women like Anthony and Stanton were fighting to expand the voice and power of women. To these pioneers, having a voice that could be heard was liberating. However, third-wave feminists, not only differ from the women of the first-wave but also, from second-wave feminists. In fact, the third-wave is a direct rebellion of the very conservative second-wave movement. As a result of this rebellion, raunch culture evolved. According to Levy (27), prior to raunch culture the thought of being associated with sex, nudity or porn was something that would negatively tarnish a woman’s reputation. However, unlike prior feminist movements, raunch culture furthers those who have been involved in some type of sex scandal For example, one can look at how Paris Hilton became a household name after her sex tape graced the internet (28). “We [today’s society] have determined that all empowered women must be overtly and publically 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 2005: 26).

According to Levy, we are living in a society filled with raunch culture. This culture rather than promote women’s liberation, has done nothing more than degrade women. The various outlets of media are filled with women who are deathly skinny, cosmetically enhanced, scantily clad, and just oozing with sex appeal. Raunch culture claims that it is liberating and empowering for women to parade around in barely there outfits. These images of women are what today’s youth has to look up to. It is safe to say that these women do not resemble prominent feminist figures such as Abigail Adams or Susan Brownmiller. Today, young girls are shown images of hyper-sexualized female celebrities (Kobrin 2006:1). The fact is these images are endless. These “highly sexualized images are no big deal” for today’s teen, in fact, this has become the norm (Kobrin 2006:1). Thus, the image of Jessica Simpson strutting in her daisy duke jean shorts, or washing the infamous Duke’s of Hazards car in an itsy-bitsy bikini is not out of the ordinary for today’s raunch culture. The unfortunate issue about raunch culture is that music videos, like Simpson’s are so abundant that they have in fact lost their shock value. Society, especially the youth, are not phased by the lack of clothes and the amount of skin that female celebrities show.

“The truth is that the new conception of raunch culture as a path to liberation rather than oppression is a convenient (and lucrative) fantasy with nothing to back it up” (Levy 2005: 82). Thus, with a music video like Simpson’s, the idea that this in some way exhibits or promotes women’s liberation is simply untrue. Further, there is no one else to blame for this than Simpson herself. While yes, there are music video directors, agents, etc who help create this storyline for the music video, it is ultimately Simpson who objectifies herself. Women are quick to point the finger to men and state that they are objectifying them however; in this case Simpson, or in a broader aspect women themselves, have brought this situation themselves.

Ultimately, I agree with Levy on the issue of how raunch culture is degrading to today’s woman. I believe that raunch culture and the over sexualization of the female body has only further oppressed women. More so than ever before, women are viewed as sexual objects.

However, I do not agree with Levy on a whole. I think that Levy is narrow-minded when it comes to her definition of what constitutes a feminist. Levy is an essentialist; she attributes certain characteristics to members of certain groups, in other words, she stereotypes. While I agree with her that the image that Simpson and other similar female celebrities portray is degrading to women, I do not agree with her that a feminist needs to fulfill the stereotypical feminist look. I believe that a woman can still “go on strike against submission” without adopting a braless, unshaven, untrammeled approach to life (87). In Levy’s eyes, women who have waxed vaginas and wear push-up bras and heels are immediately placed in the same category as Simpson. To her, women cannot be both a feminist and a girlie-girl. Ultimately, Levy is quick to judge and criticize women for embracing the “girlie-girl culture”.

However, why is a woman not considered powerful and strong if she chooses to get a Brazilian bikini wax? In Female Chauvinist Pigs, Levy interviews Erica Long, a sex-positive feminist who sides with Levy on the idea that the way women portray themselves today is demeaning. “I think we have lost consciousness of the way our culture demeans women…The women who buy the idea that flaunting your breasts in sequins is power-I’m all for that stuff-but let’s not get so into the tits and ass that we don’t notice how far we haven’t come. Let’s not confuse that with real power” (Levy 2005: 76). My response to this quote by Long, is that one cannot judge a book by its cover. Just because a woman has unshaven legs and goes braless does not necessarily mean that her actions are liberating.

In conclusion, what constitutes being a feminist? The basic definition is a person who advocates political, economic and social equality of the sexes. Thus, with that being said how is Jessica Simpson empowering women by grinding on men wearing an outfit that looks like it has been torn to shreds by a tiger? The answer is, she is not. Both Levy and myself would agree to the fact that Simpson is just one of the many examples of how today’s society is filled with raunch culture. Simpson’s music video “These Boots are Made for Walking” clearly exemplifies today’s hyper-sexualized society. This image that she portrays in this video is something that Susan Brownmiller, a true feminist, sums up for women of raunch culture, “You think you’re being brave, you think you’re being sexy, you think you’re transcending feminism. But that’s bullshit” (Levy 2005: 82). However, while Levy is quick to throw all Hollywood types into raunch culture, I am not. I believe that women’s outer appearance does not dictate whether or not they are a part of raunch culture. Women can wear red lipstick and five-inch heels and still be powerful and liberated. Ultimately, it is a woman’s actions not her physical appearance that dictates whether or not she falls into the category of raunch culture.

Culture Project - ESPN The Magazine's "The Body Issue"

On October 9, 2009, ESPN The Magazine released the first-ever “The Body Issue” where over 30 athletes posed nude or close to nude. According to a video that investigates the making of the issue from the editors’ point of view, the purpose of “The Body Issue” is to show off physique, for the body is the main instrument with which the athletes perform in their respective sports. Athletes are shown on the field and off the field, and a variety of persons are depicted. Also acknowledged in the video is that ten senior staff members deliberately arranged the photo spread to provide what in their opinion was the best balance of gender, race, level of undress, and ethnicity to avoid criticism from viewers for featuring certain subjects or types of subjects over others. Furthermore, six subjects, three males and three females, were selected to appear on different covers for the issue. While Ariel Levy, author of Female Chauvinist Pigs, would disagree that an extensive photo spread of nude or semi-nude athletes alone is a celebration of physique as related to athleticism, I am not fully convinced that “The Body Issue” exists solely as a contributor to raunch culture. Though some aspects do appear to echo the consumerism of sexuality and objectification that Levy so deplores, I do believe that certain elements of how the photos were designed and where they were featured make it reasonable that ESPN did accomplish the stated goal of celebrating athlete’s bodies without insinuating that the purpose of the issue's existence is to objectify the sexuality of the participants.

Ariel Levy, author of Female Chauvinist Pigs, would most likely treat this magazine issue similar to her cited incidences of Olympians Amanda Beard and Amy Acuff posing in Playboy, FHM, Maxim, and other raunchy works. To Levy, the effect of a female athlete posing nude or next to nude is to draw attention away from their athletic prowess and toward their bodies and only their bodies (20). Levy criticizes the supposition projected by the athletes’ decisions to pose that to be both “sexy” and “athletic” that the female body must be taken out of context of the sport. To her, “if you really believe you were both sexy and athletic, wouldn’t it be enough to play your sport with your flawless body and your face gripped with passion in front of the eyes of the world?” (44). In effect, the creation of something such as “The Body Issue” may merely be a contributor to raunch culture. Though she may acknowledge that ESPN The Magazine intended something different, the omnipresence of sexuality and currency of “hotness” to her may make it inevitable that consumers view the issue as a display of sexy bodies as opposed to a display of sexy, athletic bodies.

However, there are three aspects of ESPN The Magazine’s “The Body Issue” that complicate Levy’s criticism, aspects that make me slightly more (but not completely) accepting of ESPN The Magazine’s mission statement. First, there is the sheer fact that it is ESPN The Magazine. Not Playboy, not Maxim, and not FHM. Though the athletes are still nude or semi-nude, the medium does not have the same association with raunch and sex that these other works have. As an aside, a lot of people probably hear ESPN and immediately think of Sports Illustrated, since they are competitors. A lot of comparisons can be made between ESPN The Magazine’s “The Body Issue” and Sports Illustrated’s Swimsuit Edition, but given that Sports Illustrated generally features models (as opposed to strictly athletes) and has a long history of development (it’s been published annually since 1964), I am choosing to discard it from this analysis. Instead, my points here relate strictly to the association between the athlete and the portrayal of the athlete’s body.

This leads to my second point. Unlike the image of Amanda Beard referenced by Ariel Levy in Female Chauvinist Pigs, the photos featured in “The Body Issue,” nudity aside, arguably aren’t suggestive relative to what is routinely feature in magazines like Playboy. More specifically, none of the images of posing female athletes appear to be accompanied by a “coy, naughty-girl pout,” or other means of suggestiveness characteristic of images found in magazines like Playboy. Instead, most of the athletes pose with stoic facial expressions or smiles.

Finally, there is the key observation that many of the nude or semi-nude athletes are men, which in my opinion draws the emphasis away from an exclusive fixation on female sexuality. This is notable because raunch culture seems to predominately feature objectification of female bodies and female sexuality. Levy criticizes objectification of females by females, whether they are objectifying themselves or others. To Levy, raunchy exposure is degrading instead of liberating, but here I think the context is different than the examples she has referenced. When discussing incidences of female elite athletes who choose to pose nude or semi-nude in various magazines, a comment that came up more than once was that male athletes apparently don’t feel the need to do the same. In “The Body Issue,” the men are no less nude than the women, and similarly are not posing very suggestively. To me, the fact that both genders are featured sways the message more toward that of empowerment based on the display of their physique than outright objectification. The men featured in the issue in my mind dismiss the accusation that the women sought to expose themselves for reasons other than the display of physique intended by the editors. In other words, by virtue of the involvement of male athletes, I don’t think it a valid argument to criticize only the females who pose, because it can’t be assumed that their motives were any different from those of the males for agreeing to appear in the issue.

A look at the cover photos of Serena Williams and Gina Carano (a mixed martial arts fighter) reveals some interesting contrast. While both are clearly missing key pieces of clothing, Carano’s picture features her with gloves on, kicking a punching bag, while William’s pose has absolutely nothing to do with anything athletic, aside from the fact that her muscularity is evident. A glance at other pictures in the issue show that this is the case throughout, both with men and women. While some pictures include props that have to do with the athlete’s sport, others are isolated naked or near-naked poses. This is the part that makes me slightly agree with Levy in that “The Body Issue” to some extent feeds into raunch culture. Even though most of the athletes are fairly well-known, the isolated poses seem to break the association of the body with the sport except for when the reader remembers that they are looking at ESPN The Magazine. Furthermore, even in the pictures that contain athletic poses or props, such as the cover shot of Gina Carano, why is it that they must be nude or semi nude to be showing off their physique? Why can’t Gina Carano pose the same way, but be wearing a sports bra?

There probably isn’t a clear answer to this question, but I can speculate that to some degree the sheer existence of raunch culture is at fault. Popular culture is so hyper-sexualized that it is logical that the nudity must exist in order for the issue to have the effect that the editors wanted, that is, to boldly reify the athletes’ bodies. The title of the main section of the magazine – “Bodies We Want,” reinforces this logic. Maybe we are so desensitized to exposed bodies that without nudity, the presentation would not make as big of a statement. From this point of view, then perhaps instead of “contributing” to raunch culture, as Ariel Levy would say, “The Body Issue” instead designed the photo spread to cater to consumers who are enveloped in raunch culture. But at the same time, doesn’t that mean that to cater to raunch culture consumers pretty much is to contribute to it? I say this because the defining elements of raunch culture to an extent are reflected or even reproduced in order to target the audience that consumes it (that is, the nudity). I know that this logic goes in a circle and doesn’t do much to distinguish how “The Body Issue” could exist in the midst of yet not contribute to raunch culture, but as I considered the question I found myself continually wondering, does nudity automatically have to mean raunch? Does the focus on physique automatically spell out “objectification”? Does the fact that these athletes took their clothes off by itself dismiss all hope of a message different than objectifying their sexuality?

Again, I don’t think that there will ever be a clear answer to these questions, but the editors probably say no, and so would triathlete Sarah Reinersten and Olympic softball player Jessica Mendoza. This too is a slight aside, but Reinersten appeared nude and she has a prosthetic leg, and Mendoza appeared in the issue while eight months pregnant. Mendoza explained, “I try to get young girls to see themselves as beautiful and to not feel insecure about their bodies, the more we can get more realistic bodies in front of them, the better” (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2009-09-28-espnmag-body-issue_N.htm). Clearly these are exceptions to the rule, for the “Bodies We Want” section is essentially a showcase of some of the “best bodies in sports,” according to editor-in-chief Gary Belsky (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2009-09-28-espnmag-body-issue_N.htm). Yet while sex sells, I am not convinced that ESPN The Magazine intended to just sell sex. In the context of current raunch culture, these athletes can be objectified by consumers whether the editors want them to or not; perhaps the focus on their bodies rather than their skills makes this inevitable, even though the mission was to “celebrate” their bodies rather than objectify them. But that raises the question: does celebrating a body make it an object if it is separated from its function?

It is hard to come to any concrete conclusions about the extent to which ESPN The Magazine’s “The Body Issue” is a reflection of or contributor to raunch culture. Nonetheless, I do think that ESPN showed off a variety of athletes’ bodies in a balanced way in terms of the types of people they chose and the varying degrees of undress. I am still a little skeptical as to why nudity had to be there, but I still didn’t look at “The Body Issue” and immediately conclude that it screamed “Raunch”. I have a difficult time comparing ESPN The Magazine to Playboy and FHM, and so believe that even if the focus on physique in a way objectifies the athletes’ bodies, that they are objectified differently than what Levy describes in Female Chauvinist Pigs. While the antics of Amanda Beard and Brandi Chastain in FHM and Gear seem to fall into the trap of raunch culture, I found it much easier to maintain respect for the athletes who posed in ESPN The Magazine. Maybe it’s the fact that it is ESPN The Magazine and not Playboy. Maybe it’s the fact that at least some of the poses involved athleticism. But in any case, I’m interested to see what other people think.