More Post Secrets!

I keep finding more and more post secrets that relate to our class. The two that I am posting from this week have a lot to do with the idea of a secret. In our society, there are some things that we just don't advertise because they aren't normal. Post Secret allows for people to voice these secrets anonymously. I think the fact that the content of these two post cards are "secrets" speaks a lot about what we consider to be "normal" sexually. It isn't normal for a guy to have tits and it isn't normal for someone to be attracted to Dr. Frank-N-Furter because he is androgynous and ambiguous.

Of Gender and Genitals and Ch2 and and 3 of Middlesex

Fausto-Sterling discusses in Of Gender and Genitals, the pressure that is put on parents to choose a sex for an intersex baby as quickly as possible and the different kind of "fixes" such as the prenatal fix, the surgical fix, and the psychological fix. Regardless, the choices made have effects beyond the "immediate medical realm." (Fausto-Sterling, 73). These choices are culturally influenced as we feel uncomfortable not knowing the gender of a person. Therefore we try to erase and correct what makes us feel uncomfortable and label it as abnormal.

What I thought was interesting about Books 2 and 3 of Middlesex was how there were many parallels drawn in other ways regarding the discrimination that intersex individuals face. For example, Lefty's needed to become more "American" to maintain his job at Ford. Contrastingly, Desdemona had to be more "Turkish" and less "Greek" in order to get the job at the silk plant. This fit in nicely with the polarizing male vs. female sex system and the pressure to fit into one of the categories. It seemed so blatant that there was discrimination in Lefty and Desdemona's jobs because of their nationality. It was reflective of a "melting pot" where they needed to leave behind what made them different and unique (their nationality and heritage) in order to neatly fit into society's culturally accepted idea of "American". Similarly, these prenatal fixes, surgical fixes, and psychological fixes, are ways in which contemporary American society creates another proverbial melting pot and force people to give up what makes them different and unique and challenges our culturally decided "mainstream American" ways and perceptions.

Another parallel was when Desdemona was trying to get the job at the silk plant. She needed to lie about her heritage or exaggerate her heritage basically to survive because she needed to feed her family. While intersex people aren't necessarily facing the exact same problem of survival, they are exaggerating qualities of theirs in order to fit into society's accepted 2 sex system. They are in a sense lying about and exaggerating their identity, which seems so ridiculous given that this is America where people are greeted with the Statue of Liberty who says "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" When I was in grade school, we were taught to think of America as more of a salad bowl where we mix together people's identity rather than a melting pot where we melt away what we don't like and then combine it, but it seems to me that little progress has been made. As many of our immigrant ancestors faced that "melting pot" we continue to make each other face the "melting pot" and less of a "salad bowl."

Perhaps when we can accept people as they are and let them "Be" however they are, we will move closer to that proverbial salad bowl.

Middlesex Book 1 & That Sex Prevaileth from Sexing the Body

I found the way the protagonist of Middlesex describes the two genders inside his body as interesting and reflective of the way our society polarizes male vs. female. First of all, Cal can “repress” the Calliope. Calliope is manifested through “a hair flip, or checking her nails”. I don’t think either of these actions is a result of biology or genetic programming, perhaps they point to women traditionally being less secure and body-focused, and thus Cal categorizes those actions to femininity because they reflect insecurity. Despite socialization as a boy, Cal finds much more safety and confidence in masculinity, saying that doubled breasted suits make him feel better. Calliope’s influence is like being “possessed” and he says that she has little hands, chimp’s feet, a girlish walk, nervous habits, adolescent despair, and causes him to feel “desolate and gossipy sympathy for girls” (Eugenides 42). Instead of identifying as intersex as a cohesive hybrid of two genders, it seems they are polarized and each has a traditional role in the body. The man is confident and dominant; the woman is weak and anxious.

The male-female division reflects our society’s desire to put people into strict roles or categorizations. As Fausto-Sterling writes about in Sexing the Body, this presents an issue because while the “state and legal system has an interest in maintaining only two sexes, our collective biological bodies do not” (Fausto-Sterling 31). The emphasis on biological gender differences between men and women which resulted from increases in medical knowledge created no space to allow for intersex to exist. Instead of embracing an “in-between” biology of sex, there must be a choice to be either male or female, despite cases which indicate that an intersex person can be content with their sexual status.

I think one of the biggest things that prevents intersex individuals from being completely accepted into our society is that our gender pronouns allow for little flexibility. I was very confused about whether to refer to Cal as “he” or “she” because each term has a lot of implications and each is very fixed and rigid. Societal response to confusion and worrying about being political correct results in the intersex simply being left out of the dialogue because the subject is uncomfortable.

Post Secret

I found this image on Post Secret, which is a website connected with the published books. The author of those books posts the cards that they get in the mail every week on Sundays as "Sunday Secrets". I think it's a really creative way to explain a lot of the pyschology of the hook up culture specifically at Colgate and the cyclic nature of how our actions affect each other in a society with male and female actions, especially when we talk about how everyone's interactions play into the patriarchal society.

The Construction of Gender and Sex: Readings for 2/15

I found all of the reading for Tuesday very eye-opening and thought provoking. I think all authors want readers to understand that the way we look at gender is too simplistic. Gender and sex cannot fall into clear black and white (or more accurately, pink and blue) categories. Like Fritz Klein’s grid with seven variables, we should measure gender and sexuality on a scale, not as an either-or. As Fausto-Sterling writes, “A body’s sex is simply too complex. There is no either/or. Rather, there are shades of difference” (3). In “One Bad Hair Day Too Many” a little girl asks her dad if the author is a boy or a girl. Sometimes, the answer is more complex than boy or girl. This idea was exemplified in Ariel Levy’s “From Womyn to Bois” chapter. In this chapter, Levy shows that there is a wide spectrum of women that identify themselves as lesbians. Julien Rosskam, transitioning from Julie Rosskam, expressed his frustration at being placed in a category: “I don’t like when people feel the need to put people into categories like that. If you had a line of women we could put them on a spectrum from the most femme to the most butch, but everything in our world is set up as a dichotomy and I just feel like that’s so limiting” (126). I think this dichotomy that Rosskam speaks of is very prevalent in our lives, even in ways that we may not realize. Oftentimes, we are spilt into boys and girls. I can’t count the times in elementary school that we were divided in this manner: boys versus girls in four square, boys answering question 1, girls answering question 2. Bathrooms, department stores, and locker rooms are all divided into female and male. It is hard to think of public places where there is not a clear split.

I found “Dueling Dualisms” in Sexing the Body by Anne Fausto-Sterling very interesting because although I knew that socially, gender and sex could have varying degrees, I wasn’t very familiar with the sex scale that can occur on a physical and medical basis. It is boggling to me that doctors alter sexuality at birth to fit into our sex norms: “Surgeons remove parts and use plastic to create ‘appropriate’ genitalia for people born with body parts that are not easily identifiable as male or female” (27). I look forward to getting farther in this book and finding out more about how sex is constructed.

"The Green Strings Tying Women to the Home"

            Elizabeth Badinter, a French feminist, recently published a book titled Conflit, La Femme et La Mère, which means Conflict, the Woman and the Mother. The theory of the book is that the green movement has placed a burden on women to be ideal mothers by providing them with a specific set of instructions of the “right” way to be a mother and wife. The result is a reversal of the liberation that the 2nd wave of feminists fought for and relapse to more traditional, established gender roles. 

            Badinter, age 65, is a philosopher/writer and one of the most prominent and controversial feminists in France. One of her most radical statements came from her book L’Amour en plus (1980) where she “famously argued that maternal love was not an innate quality of women”. (http://www.JWA.org) She has written extensively, often in collaboration with her husband, on the issue of gender roles and specifically their deleterious impact upon men. In 2003 she caused debate within the feminist community when she criticized the essentialists, who argue that women and men are inherently different, for perpetuating the idea of women as victims. She argues against the wearing of headscarves in public schools by Muslim women and believes the hijab to be a form of sex discrimination. Badinter has three children, and has been married since age 22.

            The Times Online article paraphrases the thesis of the book as “the green movement is the enemy of feminism because it relies on women doing endless worthy chores – such as washing cloth nappies, in the quest for an organic, eco-friendly, planet-responsible lifestyle” (Times Online). I would guess that Badinter does not mean that there is anything inherent about the green movement itself that harms women, but that aspects of the movement have been placed on women’s shoulders and developed societal expectations of one correct way to act. Being green implies a certain morality, which women must uphold especially in the home. In addition to raising a family, the woman now has the burden of global climate change.  Many aspects of environmentalism are in the traditional women’s sphere, such as cooking, cleaning, and managing the house. Badinter argues women are turned into domestic slaves and must sacrifice having a career in order to fulfill obligations like breast-feeding for a certain amount of time, home cooking, eating only organic food, and recycling. The issue is that women are not making the independent decision to breast feed because they think that is the right personal decision for them and their baby, but that they are guilted into it because it must be the right thing for their baby.

            Badinter also cites examples of the banning of plastic utensils and disposable diapers, which would result in greater time doing manual labor. With the vast array of specialists that women receive instructions from, there becomes a greater consensus on a specific course of action which the mother is obligated to follow. She says this new idea of good motherhood “imposes new duties that weigh heavily on those who do not keep to them. It contravenes the model we have worked for until now [and] which makes equality of the sexes impossible and women's freedom irrelevant. It is a step backwards”.

            Badinter’s arguments are similar to the sentiments of Betty Friedan in The Feminine Mystique. Friedan argued that women felt trapped into a meaningless, empty life of housework and devotion to the family, which was not only unrecognized as a problem but ignored in the celebration of the American woman having an ideal lifestyle. Similarly, Badinter would argue that an eco-friendly lifestyle is creating a set of demands that all women might not find meaningful. What provoked the second wave of feminism was not the fact that women were overworked, it was that their work was meaningless. This presents a potential flaw in Badinter’s argument, because the requirement of women to not use disposable cutlery is not a huge labor imposition. The problem is not the time or energy required in a certain environmentally friendly action, it is the fact that the action is a moral imperative and not an elected decision. 

            The eco-burden fits in nicely to Marilyn Frye’s metaphor of the birdcage. Each small requirement is not in itself a huge burden, the sum total of the expectations, or bars, amounts to a cage for a mother. One expert who espouses the benefit of breastfeeding isn’t oppressing women, but the accumulation of these guidelines and their placement on women’s shoulders presents a significant issue. An article in Parenting.com called “Pregnancy Dos and Don’ts” provides an example of one bar added to the birdcage. In response to “Can I do yoga during pregnancy?” the guideline is:

Yoga can be very beneficial during pregnancy -- it calms both mind and body. So take prenatal classes. But don't do any poses on your back after the first trimester -- they can reduce blood flow to the uterus -- and avoid inverted poses during the second and third trimesters. (Though some experts say that second trimester inverted poses may be safe if you've practiced yoga for a long time; ask your doctor.) Steer clear of Bikram or "hot" yoga; it'll heat your body excessively. (Parenting.com)

            So the woman is expected to do a certain specific exercise class, which is not a particularly easy one to pick up, as it requires a certain studio and is relatively expensive, but be careful not to do certain part of the exercise at certain times during the pregnancy. The result of their action or inaction is a healthy baby or reducing blood flow to the uterus. The gathering of scientific information about biology and psychology of motherhood and parenting is both a blessing and burden. Unfortunately, the side effect of the green movement is that a woman is now expected to save the planet while she maintains the perfect family.

            This issue also reflects the idea of patriarchy as a system, not cases of individual misogyny. Women participate just alongside men in reinforcing certain ideals of a “good mom”. It also shows the division of 3^rd wave feminism, because just as Friedan was criticized for only reaching upper to middle class white women, the women Badinter discusses are an even more select group: the women wealthy enough to be able to have concern for the environment and the resources to eat organic food instead of worrying about just getting any type of food on the table.

            The real question is the motivation behind the eco-friendly actions of women. Are the “endless worthy chores — such as washing cloth nappies — in the quest for an organic, eco-friendly, planet-responsible lifestyle” being completed because it makes women feel happier to help the planet, or because they feel conscripted to perform certain tasks due to societal standards? Women who are passionate about the environment and clean floors should gleefully scrub away with eco-friendly soap, but other women shouldn’t feel guilty about using plastic forks.

News article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/india_knight/article7026222.ece

Other sources: http://www.parenting.com/article/Pregnancy/Health/Pregnancy-Dos-and-Donts-1199832063709/1

http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/badinter-elisabeth

The Uneven Female: Male Ratio on College Campuses: Who is to blame for the hook up culture?

Across America, there are more women than men attending college. This is due to a number of reasons: women’s achievement in higher grades and more men entering the work force upon high school graduation are just a few. The New York Times published an article titled “The New Math on Campus” which discusses the gender imbalance on college campuses throughout America. Many American colleges and universities have an unequal female: male ratio and the disparity seems to be growing. This article examines how the gender imbalance affects college relationships or the lack thereof. I thought it was very appropriate for a News Flash because I think many of the concerns that are raised in this article are echoed here at Colgate. I know many of my single Colgate friends find themselves putting out and feeling pressured to act a certain way in order to “secure a guy” and constantly lamenting the Colgate hook up culture. The unequal male to female ratio at American colleges has resulted in a dating culture that is dominated by men’s rules but is a system that both men and women participate.

The laws of supply and demand at American colleges and universities are leaning in the men’s favor. As a result, women “are competing for men on men’s terms,” (New York Times) meaning that there more “casual hook-up encounters that do not end up leading to more serious romantic relationships. Since college women say they generally want ‘something more’ than just a casual hook-up, women end up losing out.” (New York Times). Consequently, women tend to do more than they feel comfortable just to “secure” the guy or hoping that those actions will lead to more than every other causal hookup. This illustrates system of patriarchy in which both men and women play a role according to the article “Patriarch, the System: An It Not a He a Them, or an Us.” As expected in a patriarchal system, men make the rules as seen on these college campuses and reap the benefits of having the numbers skewed in their favor. Not only are men reaping the benefits of being surrounded by six women at a bar and having many girls interested, but they are also able to get away with actions that would be less tolerable if the ratio was more balanced and especially if it were tipped in women’s favor. For example, Emily Kennard, a junior at Chapel Hill explained “As for a man’s cheating, “that’s a thing that girls let slide, because you have to. If you don’t let it slide, you don’t have a boyfriend.” (New York Times). This is an example of a way this patriarchal system causes girls to act in ways they might not act otherwise simply so that they don’t spend Valentine’s Day at home watching When Harry Met Sally with a pint of Ben and Jerry’s Chubby Hubby Ice Cream.

However, men are not the only ones to contribute to the system. Even those girls who according to Kate Andrew, a senior at Chapel Hill describes as those who “slip on tight-fitting tops, hair sculpted, makeup just so, all for the benefit of one another, because there are no guys” (New York Times) are perpetuating the system. When these many girls in their tight sequined tops crowd around a boy or two at a table, the boys continue to remain in control of the situation. And when these girls engage in the casual hook up culture, they continue to feed the cycle.

Swarming around men like bees and putting out is not the only way that women today are feeding the system. A trend that seems to be pervading these college campuses is women who are adopting stereotypical men’s actions in vying for the men’s attention. A junior at Chapel Hill shared an example of how girls act differently in order to be noticed when she said “I was talking to a friend at a bar, and this girl just came up out of nowhere, grabbed him by the wrist, spun him around and took him out to the dance floor and started grinding” (New York Times). Stereotypically, a man would make a move like that while the women remained more passive and reserved at the bar, but the gender gap seems to have sparked a kind of role reversal. Ariel Levy would look at this and point out that this situation is by no means a move toward equality. In fact, she would note that it is a perfect example of how in our culture today, we are valuing stereotypical men’s behavior and devaluing stereotypical female behavior. She would be pleased to see however, that women on these American college campuses are not calling this situation “empowering” or “liberating.”

Both men and women are participating in this system of patriarchy that is pervading college campuses across America. Women at Colgate are by no means exempt from this. It is not uncommon to walk into the Coop or in a conversation on a Monday morning between a set of friends to hear the tales of woe about boys and the hook up culture at Colgate. And if that weren’t enough, the Campus Climate Survey shed light on the very similar situation that Colgate faces. So as the administration struggles to figure out how to improve Colgate and correct these problems that students have voiced, they should remember that both men and women participate in perpetuating this cycle. Targeting one group will not correct it. Obviously the Admissions Office needs to start accepting more men than women to correct this problem, but in the broader scope of things more can be done. Women need to look at their individual actions at college. It is four years of their life and while it may be comforting to have a boyfriend, settling for less than they want or deserve continues to perpetuate the system and send signals that men’s behavior is acceptable. Men may not be actively perpetuating this system as the numbers just happen to be skewed in their favor, however they should be aware of the problem and know that what they can get away with in college with a much larger female: male ratio than in the world, that their actions will not have the same great effect in the real world where there is a smaller gender gap. But surprisingly, women while they are suffering the greatest problem here, also have a great deal of power to fix it. If women focused on themselves and what they wanted and their individual actions and stopped feeding into this system, the men would be left with fewer girls fawning over them and the laws of supply and demand would work and balance out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html?pagewanted=1&sq=gender&st=cse&scp=3

Ariel Levy: Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture.

Allan Johnson: “Patriarchy as a System”.

News Flash: Sexy Pose or Skiing Position?

With the 2010 Winter Olympics quickly approaching, Sports Illustrated has devoted their most recent issue to the games and features Lindsey Vonn, Team USA star skier, on the cover. The picture shows Vonn smiling in her colorful ski outfit, complete with gloves, poles, ski boots, and skis. She is smiling and a thick headband pulls back her long blonde hair. Vonn is posed in what is known as the “tuck” position to skiers. Yet it is this position, with Vonn’s derriere in the air, which has critics calling foul. While some see the pose as a simple ski position, others see the cover as overtly sexual. Columnists and bloggers disagree on whether or not this pose objectifies Vonn personally and women as a group. Although the pose may be a little risqué, it is important to consider the context and other factors about the photo. Firstly, this pose is a skiing pose, and it makes sense that Vonn would be photographed in this pose, as she is a skier. Secondly, Vonn is fully clothed and outfitted accordingly with skiing accessories. Thirdly, it is important to look at Vonn’s expression. Vonn isn’t doing some puckered lips, seductive eyes ‘come hither’ look. She is smiling in a friendly manner. Above all, this facial expression shows that this cover is not meant to seduce, but rather to draw attention to Vonn’s upcoming involvement in the Winter Olympics. Although the pose is a bit sexual, the intention was not. Thus, the criticism over this cover is unwarranted and unfounded.

The primary criticism about this picture comes from Dr. Nicole LaVoi, a columnist for the website, WomenTalkSports.com. According to their website, WomenTalkSports mission statement is “promoting and empowering female athleticism” (WomenTalkSports 1). The website was founded quite recently in 2009, when the three founders, Jane Schonberger, Ann Gaffigan and Megan Hueter, realized that women needed a place to discuss female sports:

As media professionals and athletes, the trio is keenly aware of the challenges facing women in sports. Visiting the myriad of (mostly male oriented) sports sites on the Web, it was clear that women needed a dedicated platform to celebrate their love of sports and the challenges they face. They (and the guys who love women's sports) also needed a forum to exchange ideas, to debate and engage one another. (WomenTalkSports 1).

This information is important to note because it gives a better understanding of where the woman who criticized the photo is coming from. LaVoi is coming from the standpoint that women have been overshadowed in sports for a long time, and female athletes have a hard time earning the respect of critics. To LaVoi, that fact that a female athlete is pictured on the cover of Sports Illustrated bent over is proof that female athletes are repressed. The mission statement of the group has to do with empowering and advocating for women, and LaVoi was presumably acting in accordance to her organization’s mission statement:

With the goal of promoting and empowering female athleticism, WomenTalkSports.com is an online network that connects the best blogs relating to women's sports. The site aims to raise the level of awareness of women in sport by providing comprehensive sport coverage, spotlighting outstanding achievements, and working with sporting associations on advocacy issues and empowering programs (WomenTalkSpots 1).

While it is admirable and important that women such as LaVoi are drawing attention to sexist issues in female sports, this picture doesn’t deserve as much attention as it has been getting. When compared to the pictures of other female athletes, such as Amanda Beard, there really is no comparison. LaVoi’s primary problem with the shot is the pose: “’In sport media research, we would code that as a passive shot. She is not actually on the slope skiing, with her helmet on. She is in a posed tuck position in an attempt to simulate what actually skiing would look like”’ (VictoriaTimes 1). While this may be true, there was never any debate about whether or not this picture portrayed Vonn actually in the act of skiing. It is clear that she is not.

LaVoi’s other problem with the photo shoot is that the same cover could have not occurred with a man: “’Picture this as a way to frame what I’m trying to get at: Picture a male ski racer in a similar pose on the cover of SI, smiling at the camera. Would we see that? How would you react to that picture, verses the picture of Vonn?”’ (VictoriaTimes 1). Yet as one commenter pointed out, a very similar cover did occur in 1992 with Olympic skier A. J. Kitt. He too is shown in the same bent over position. Granted, A. J.’s position is less exaggerated and it appears that he is actually skiing, not pretending. He isn’t looking at the camera. Still, a fairly similar pose with a man negates LaVoi’s point that this shot wouldn’t have occurred with a man, further hurting her validity.

LaVoi received a lot of criticism for declaring this cover sexualized. Criticism ranges from anger, to personally attacking LaVoi and WomenTalkSports, to utter confusion. One such confused reader, “John Parker”, commented, “Sorry, I don't get it. A posed photograph of a full-clad woman wearing shoes that look like deep-sea diving boots and carrying pointed sticks is a sexual turn-on? For who? Are those people dangerous? Do we need to keep them away from our kids? And for God's sake, don't ever let them get their hands on a Sears catalog!!” (VictoriaTimes 1). Although sarcastic and humorous, this comment shows that comparatively, this cover is not as sexual as it could be.

Another common remark in response to LaVoi’s criticism is the popular: get a life! Henry Blodget of the Huffington Post wrote an article about the controversy titled “People Whining About Sports Illustrated’s Lindsey Vonn “Sex” Cover Need to Grow Up” (HuffingtonPost 1). No need to read the rest of the article with a strong worded title like that. This sentiment and reaction to LaVoi’s article is similar to one that Ariel Levy mentions in Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture. Levy talks about the dichotomy that occurs when females react to raunch culture. Females either support raunch culture or don’t. When a woman does support raunch culture, it is cool. When a woman doesn’t support raunch culture, they become unpopular and uncool: “Nobody wants to be the frump in the back of the room anymore, the ghost of women past. It’s just not cool” (Levy 92). Regardless of whether this picture is actually an example of raunch culture is arguable, it is not cool or acceptable for LaVoi to criticize it.

Yet LaVoi is not the first woman to criticize female athletes for posing seductively. Levy too criticizes the 2004 female Olympians for their appearances in Playboy. Levy states that the seductive pictures in Playboy make it hard to keep their athletic accomplishments in mind, but maybe that is the point: “Bimbos enjoy a higher standing in our culture than Olympians right now. Perhaps the athletes felt they were trading up” (Levy 20). While Levy clearly has a strong opinion on female athletes posing seductively, it is hard to believe that she would consider this Lindsey Vonn picture seductive. Levy criticizes the athletes primarily for wearing next to nothing and sporting pouty seductive looks. Since Vonn does not do either, it is unlikely that Levy would consider the picture a part of raunch culture.

An interesting twist in the Lindsey Vonn saga is days after her Sport’s Illustrated skiing cover (and days after I started writing this paper), she appeared in the Sport’s Illustrated Swimsuit Edition spread. The shots show her in a tiny bikini posing with skis in front of various winter skiing backgrounds. It is safe to say that the people that complained about her original picture in which Vonn is fully clothed probably felt pretty silly about their criticism after they saw her much more scandalous swimsuit edition. It is unfortunate LaVoi and WomenTalkSports prematurely reacted to the first cover, because they could have had a really powerful article about the second one that would have made more of an impact. Now, if they do comment on the Swimsuit Edition, they will probably be viewed as “the boy who called wolf”. Although Levy probably wouldn’t have had a problem with Vonn’s first cover photo, she probably would have a problem with the swimsuit version, especially because Vonn’s reason for the swimsuit pictures comes off rather ditzy and shallow: “It was a good opportunity for me to show everyone what I actually look like, because I'm always wearing a helmet when I compete”’ (NYDailyNews 1). One would hope that more thought went into the decision than that, but on the other hand, maybe Levy wouldn’t have a problem with the pictures because Vonn never claimed it was feminism that drove her to pose in her bikini.

While it is admirable that LaVoi didn’t take the “path of least resistance” (Johnson 4) and stood up for what she believed in, it is important to choose feminist battles carefully. A feminist complaining about sexist portrayals of women is cliché to the point that people have begun to dismiss their arguments as yet another feminist rant. This is clearly seen in the reaction to LaVoi’s article with people telling her to “get over it” and “get a life”. Although Vonn’s ski pose on the cover of Sports Illustrated may be a little seductive, her smiling face and full attire of ski gear don’t make this photo nearly as sexualized when compared to other female athlete photos. Vonn herself proved the mildness of the initial photo three days later when her swimsuit photos were released. While criticism of her first photo is not entirely valid, there is potential for a lot of valid criticism in the second photo. Unfortunately, this criticism probably won’t be viewed with as much respect as it would have been if not for the overreacting about the first photo. Hence, when criticizing a portrayal of a female as sexist, it is important to make sure that this foundation of your argument is solid before adding subsequent conclusions.

Sources

Ariel Levy: Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture.

Allan Johnson: “Patriarchy as a System”.

Chris Parry, Victoria Times: “'Sexualized' Sports Illustrated cover of U.S. skier Lindsey Vonn draws criticism, controversy”’

http://www.timescolonist.com/health/Sexualized+Sports+Illustrated+cover+skier+Lindsey+Vonn+draws+criticism+controversy/2532220/story.html

Henry Blodget, The Huffington Post: “People Whining About Sports Illustrated’s Lindsey Vonn “Sex” Cover Need to Grow Up”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/henry-blodget/people-whining-about-spor_b_451017.html

Women Talk Sports :

http://www.womentalksports.com/p/about

AJ Kitt photo:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_online/covers/images/1992/0127_large.jpg

Nathaniel Vinton, New York Daily News: “Olympic star Lindsey Vonn trades racing uniform for bikini in Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue”

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2010/02/09/2010-02-09_vonn_si_swimsuit_issue_olympians.html

Lorde, McIntosh & Miles

I’ve read the Mcintosh reading in another sociology class, but am now looking at it through a different lens. When McIntosh speaks of white privilege she makes it seem like the actual privilege that white people receive is something that takes away from other’s advantages. While I think this is true in many instances, I think that this perspective that she expresses in the beginning of the article doesn’t necessarily fit in with the list of privilege’s that she provides. I don’t think that the list that she provided is mutually exclusive to any race, gender, ethnicity or class. I think that it’s more important to make sure that these privileges are extended to everyone rather than taking anything away. I don’t think that it’s necessarily “unfair” for white people to have these privileges, but it is “unfair” for others to not have them. I think that there are definitely a range of privileges, some where the issue is just spreading that privilege to everyone without a cost to the rest of the population, and there are some where limited resources make this task more difficult.

I thought that the Lorde reading did a really great job of pointing out how there is still a divide in feminism today, whether it is based on race, sexuality or social class, and how that divide is often hidden in places where we think progression is occurring, but I think that The Rag article expresses the idea that when trying to include everyone, what is the best way to do that? When it comes to feminism it seems that one model can’t fit everyone’s needs. I wonder if there is any form of feminism or set of beliefs that will satisfy everyone and that can apply to everyone.

Johnson and Frye Articles

The main point I took away from the Johnson and Frye Articles for Tuesday's class is the need to look at the problems of oppression and patriarchy from a macro-level perspective. In class we have discussed how one of the problems in second wave feminism was that some women like Brownmiller felt strongly about working outside the system, whereas women like Betty Friedan tried to work within the patriarchal system (Liberal Feminism vs. Radical Feminism). It definitely seems that in the past, while there has been a clear goal, much of the lack of progress can be attributed to looking at individual and micro differences (anti-porn/porn, minimizers/maximizers etc). However, the two articles for Tuesday I thought did a good job explaining the importance of looking at the problem from a macro level. Every person regardless of their role in the system contributes to the patriarchal system in which we live Whether we are bystanders who don't speak up at inappropriate moments where we see something that degrades women or we play an active role in being the "oppressor". If we look at the problem on a micro level, it is so easy to lose sight of the goal which is a definite concern for 3rd wave feminism, but in looking at it from a macro-level, we can see "a network of forces and barriers which are systematically related and which conspire to the immobilization, reduction and molding of women and the lives we live...." (Frye). It is interesting to me to think about this on a broader level. Without limiting the scope to just women, I wonder if we keep that macro-level perspective if that can help to encourage people to challenge other systems more broadly like those regarding sexuality, race, and class. For example, if it can encourage people to stand up when there are anti-gay comments or anti-semetic or racist comments.

Media & Culture Project- The Devil Wears Prada

For my media and culture project I decided to look at how the movie The Devil Wears Prada relates to our class readings, specifically Levy’s evaluation of feminism in modern day. I chose two specific aspects of the film, the first being the transformation that the character Andi goes through with clothing and her work persona and the female work persona of the character Miranda Priestly, played by Meryl Streep. The movie focuses on Andi’s career at a high fashion magazine in New York City. Andi isn’t the only woman who competing in this world though, there are multiple women featured throughout the film that exemplify the female work ethic.
The opening of the movie focuses on a typical woman’s morning of preparation for a day of work. They show numerous women who wear expensive lingerie, make up and skimpy high-end designer clothing with four-inch heels to top off the outfit. These women are put in comparison with the protagonist of the film, Andi, who does not wear make up, wears conservative clothing that covers her body and sensible shoes for the subway trip to work. This opening scene shows the distinction between what is seen as successful in this industry. The women who spend hours primping themselves for work are seen as in control, on top of their game and put together, while Andi seems to make every wrong move before she even enters the building for her interview. The idea that clothes can empower women is seen in the Manifesta reading and the Ariel Levy reading in Female Chauvinist Pigs. Being able to be successful and look good while doing it is something that these women value, especially in the high fashion magazine industry.
When Andi lands the assistant position at Runway magazine, she doesn’t make the connection between her clothing and her job performance. She wears “last season’s poly-blend sweaters” and sensible shoes up until she is called into her powerful female boss’s office. While in her office, her boss looks her up and down and judges the clothing that she is wearing. Her clothing is equated to her worth as an employee. In this industry, being feminine is powerful, and playing up that role is what makes you succeed. At this point, we can all agree that Andi isn’t naturally inclined to fashion, or showing off her body. When Andi is upset that she isn’t immediately successful at her job, she gets advice from Nigel, a gay man higher up in the company with incredible fashion sense. He dresses her up like a Barbie, shows her how to do make up and tame her hair. The transformation of her clothing is equated with the transformation of her work ethic. In an instant, she is better at her job; she is taken seriously by her co-workers, and is seen as a capable employee. Her rise to power in the company is entirely attributed to her ability to pull her look together and act the role of feminine fashionista. In this situation, Andi does what is practical in order to succeed in the magazine industry. Being fashionable wasn’t innate to her and what she wears isn’t entirely her choice. Andi adopted the behavior of the people in her work atmosphere and is “acting” the role of successful, well dressed female.
Meryl Streep plays the ice-cold character of Miranda Priestly, editor in chief of Runway Magazine who is impossible to please. When she enters the office building, employees go into frenzy. The fear associated with Miranda is a fear that is associated with the fact that she doesn’t play into the normal female roles in the work place. She isn’t particularly sexy, but she has fashion sense, and her main male characteristic is that she doesn’t show emotion. Miranda isn’t willing to accept excuses from employees and her employees have to do everything exactly to her standards. Miranda plays into the male persona in order to be successful. She is competitive, deceiving and demanding. Miranda isn’t the character that we sympathize with; she is the cold hard bitch at the top of the company that the rest of the employees hate. Miranda is seen as unattached, unemotional and willing to do anything to get ahead, and this is seen in a negative light when Andi realizes that Miranda screwed over her friend in order to get ahead at her job. This exemplifies the idea that there is not camaraderie between employees and that there can only be one successful female at the top of the corporate ladder. This career move is seen by Andi as horrifying. It’s not compassionate, it’s not considerate and most importantly, it’s not feminine. The problem with this situation is that if a man were in Miranda’s position, these behaviors would be seen as normal, if not the signs of a successful leader. These traits cannot be innate to a woman in this fictional world.
At the end of the film Miranda talks honestly to Andi about her family life. She is getting another divorce from another husband that feels like he falls into her shadow as a woman in business. This section of the movie shows the failure of a woman to be the competitive, driven head of a company and also the devoted mother and wife. The fact that she has shed her identity as a woman in order to succeed is shown by her failed marriage. This is the first time in the movie that we see Miranda show emotion, and be a feminine character. This further proves the point that in our culture, a feminine character cannot naturally have “male” characteristics, and this has to be redeemed by her showing emotion at some point in the film.

Plastic Surgery: Inspiring Confidence in You!

An advertisement celebrates female confidence and even shows a black woman: how empowering for women! NOT! Instead of promoting women's issues, this advertisement plays into raunch culture stereotypes: that confidence is based on appearance, appearance equals value, and overt sexuality is empowering.

The advertisement rests on the belief that confidence is derived from appearance; if you look good, you will project happiness and be outgoing. If you are ugly, you will lack confidence. Thus, it follows that being shy and not presenting yourself as sexual, you have no value. Confidence is not derived from intelligence or personality, but from outward appearance. The Harley Medical Group website even goes as far to say that "small breasts or breasts that have decreased in size following childbirth and breast feeding can be a source of concern or embarrassment to a woman. But breast enlargement surgery is one way to make you feel more confident and feminine again." It equates large, symmetrical breasts with femininity, implying small breasts are boyish and uneven breasts are unappealing. This narrow notion of beauty is problematic because the women held in esteem for their looks are completely unnatural. Just as pornography showing women in pain rather than pleasure distorts the public's idea of sex, idealizing the body of celebrities and proclaiming them feminine always will result in feelings of inadeqaucy for the normal woman.

This bus stop poster for Harley Medical Group, a plastic surgery business, represents how feminism has been distorted and used to justify a practice that confirms gender stereotypes, oppresses women, and reifies a certain strict definition of sexuality. While feminists and plastic surgeons agree that women should be confident, the two groups have vastly different agendas and motivations. Plastic surgeons benefit from women wanting to change their bodies from their natural state in order to increase their confidence. Feminists want women to be empowered and confident regardless of their outward apperance, and criticize society for valuing women based on their appearance and overt sexuality. Plastic surgeons have usurped the feminist ideas of self-determination and empowerment to meet certain business ends. The result is that women conform to societal pressures to look a certain way to assuage their feelings of body insecurity inadequacy in comparison to the valued body stype.

    

Levy would criticize this advertisement, and the industry it comes from, for playing into raunch culture’s focus on sexuality in relation to looks and performance. Breast augmentation is an act that changes one’s physical appearance only. Raunch culture has elevated the status of the breast to make its public accentuation represent feminine sexual expression. Bras now come with all sorts of contraptions to push, lift, separate, reveal, conceal, or any combination of these. Breasts have become a way to display ones sexuality, as exemplified at the extreme case of the flashing in Girls Gone Wild videos, but also on a daily basis because they are usually relatively clearly present no matter what a woman decides to wear. Yet the breast gives little sexual pleasure, especially with plastic surgery, which is a horribly painful and often dangerous process. Instead of representing female sexual pleasure, it represents pleasure for men, who are renound for their continual discussion of their affection for said body part. When large (often fake) breasts are shown as the icons of female sexuality, the rest of the "average" women have no hope to measure up except through extreme artificial measures.

While Levy might not criticize the entire discipline of plastic surgery itself, she would criticize it being rationalized as feminism. Feminists might say that the desire for larger breasts, while is our own desire, only stems from men's desire for larger breasts. Women are in a unique situation in which we love and seek the approval of our oppressors. Thus, the only way to make short term gain is to make long-term sacrifices.The way to fit ourselves into the accepted standard of beauty, gaining recognition and power, is to buy into the patriarchy’s ideals.  Mark Kelly, a plastic surgeon, was quoted in an article titled "Surgery Show-Offs" in the Daily Mail saying, "Surgery used to be regarded as vain and self-indulgent: now it's seen as a valid investment in yourself...Surgery has become part of a woman's legitimate resource for making herself more beautiful, persuasive and better able to lead an active, satisfying life." Again, both plastic surgeons and feminists would agree on the desire for women to create satisfying lives for themselves, but feminists would argue that a truly satisfying life doesn't include saline implants for the purpose of  conforming to stereotypical male desires. An article in Ms. Magazine titled "Has Artificial Beauty Become the New Feminism?" describes this phenomenon by saying "Under the dual slogans of possibility and choice, producers, promoters and providers are selling elective surgery as self-determinism." Yes, it is an elective choice that women make to undergo such procedures, but are they actually only making these decisions based on programming and not their true desires?

I hesitate to conclude that women who get plastic surgery are simply seeking approval and conforming to society’s ideal of beauty. It is difficult to separate the individual actions of specific women from the general trend. Women should be free to choose whatever they want to do with their bodies, but the question is whether plastic surgery in general is really what women want, or what is pushed upon them by societal standards. This is part of what divides women today, because women outside raunch culture criticize those who participate in it. The fact is plastic surgery probably does result in an increase in confidence. It garners attention from males and generally feeling more sexual because our society equates larger breasts with being sexually appealing. When a woman's identity has been reduced to sex life and sex equals power, it is logical that to increase power women would present themselves in a certain manner. Women are working to move themselves forward, but unfortunately our individual actions reduce women’s causes overall. Just as Katie Couric putting her legs on display is a way for her to become a successful woman on TV through portraying herself as a sexual being, women who feel ignored and lacking confidence can potentially gain “value” through larger breasts. But both of these acts reinforce a standard, narrow notion of sexuality which Levy criticizes.

Sources:

http://www.harleymedical.co.uk/

http://www.alternet.org/story/63683/

Photo credit: Stephanie Bohar, taken in London, UK 2009

Hamburgers, Bikinis, and Raunch Culture

In May of 2005, fast food chain Carl’s Jr. was thrust into the media spotlight for their controversial commercial featuring Paris Hilton. The commercial, which shows Hilton in a swimsuit washing a car and eating a hamburger, caused both excitement and horror from people across the nation. It caught the attention of Parents Television Council, whose spokeswoman Melissa Caldwall commented: “This commercial is basically soft-core porn. The way she moves, the way she puts her finger in her mouth—it’s very suggestive and very titillating” (CNN 1). The PTC argued that unlike a television program, parents have no way of anticipating when this commercial will come on, and thus are unable to shield their kids from it. Carl’s Jr. CEO Andy Pudzer responded to these complaints by saying they should “get a life” and “there is no nudity, there is no sex acts— it’s a beautiful model in a swimsuit washing a car” (CNN 1). Pudzer’s message behind his statement to the PTC rang loud and clear: stop being so old fashioned and uncool. Get over it, and get into the modern age.

This interaction is not quite unlike the interaction between Sheila Nevins, HBO producer, and a woman who asked her, “’Why would a woman- a middle-aged woman with a child- make a show about strippers?”’ (Levy 291). Nevins, appalled at such a question, answered, “’You’re talking fifties talk! Get with the program! I love the sex stuff, I love it! What’s the big deal?”’ (Levy 91). The message here is the same message found in the Carl’s Jr. interaction. Being sexy is cool, and if you don’t think so, then you aren’t cool. As Levy states, “Nobody wants to be the frump at the back of the room anymore, the ghost of women past. It’s just not cool. What is cool is for women to take a guy’s-eye view of pop culture in general and live, nude girls in particular” (Levy 92). In this way, raunch culture is very black or white. Either you’re in or you’re out. Either you’re an uncool frump or you’re sexy and cool.

From a marketing standpoint, Carl’s Jr. certainly picked the right celebrity to sell their hamburger. Besides being blond, beautiful and rich, Hilton comes with a past history of controversy that boosted her to fame. In a way, the reaction to her Carl’s Jr. commercial (success because of controversy) is symbolic of her rise to the A list. After her sex tape release, Hilton went from blonde heiress to one of the most recognized and exalted celebrities on the planet. Levy points out that it was not the sex tape that made Hilton an instant celebrity, but our reaction to it: “The point, though, is not what she did, but what we did with it. The net result of these adventures in amateur pornography was that Paris Hilton became one of the most recognizable and marketable female celebrities in our country… Paris Hilton some disgraced exile of our society. On the contrary, she is our mascot” (Levy 28). This may explain why the website that Carl’s Jr. set up to show the commercial, SpicyParis.com, crashed after too many viewers flocked to get a glimpse of the action. Crashing websites and a rise to celebrity after an amateur porno certainly proves one thing: sex sells.

Hilton certainly has the right kind of sex appeal to sell a product because she looks sexy, but doesn’t show sexual pleasure. Much of the Raunch culture is about appearing sexy. Stripper shoes, poles, and outfits aren’t about feeling sexual pleasure, but about looking like you want to. Similarly, Hilton’s sex tape shows her enjoying being sexy for the camera but acting apathetic during sex: “Hilton looks excited when she is posing for the camera, bored when she is engaged in actual sex. She is the perfect sexual celebrity for this moment, because our interest is in the appearance of sexiness, not the existence of sexual pleasure” (30). In a way, it is sad that sex symbols like Hilton and Jenna Jameson represent the ultimate sexiness, when their careers in sex are based on faking it.

Since the Paris Hilton Hamburger video, Carl’s Jr. has added two more sexually suggestive celebrity commercials to their resume. In the second, Audrina Patridge from MTV’s hit reality television series, The Hills, lounges around on the beach in a gold bikini eating a huge burger. At the beginning of the commercial, the caption states that her body has been rated the best bikini body. Audrina says, “To look this hot in a bikini, I got to give up, like, everything. But there is no way I’m giving up that Teriyaki burger. I’m totally obsessed. I have to be a little bad. I call it my bikini burger” (Youtube). The first aspect of this commercial that is laughable is the thought that Audrina Patridge would actually eat a burger like that in real life. Besides that silly contradiction, the raunch culture in this commercial is very evident. Audrina poses in her little gold bikini that doesn’t leave much to the imagination, and her comment “I have to be a little bad” definitely solidifies the sexual nature of the commercial. The most ironic part of this commercial is the end slogan: “Carl’s Jr: More than a piece of meat” (Youtube). It makes me wonder, what exactly they are talking about, the hamburger or Audrina? Maybe Audrina doesn’t mind being seen as one piece of meat to sell another. After all, this is part of Levy’s definition of a female chauvinist pig: “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 of other women and of ourselves” (Levy 4).

The argument could be made that Paris Hilton and Audrina Patridge did not make these commercials to sell hamburgers to men, but rather as a way to empower their female selves. They look good in swimsuits, so why wouldn’t it make them feel good to show off their bodies? Although Hilton and Audrina may personally feel that these commercials are empowering, there are several clues that the intended audience is definitely male. First is the product that they are selling. Not to be stereotypical and divide foods up into male and female, but a huge burger is not exactly associated with females. Secondly, Hilton’s commercial also features a nice car, which again, is typically associated with males. It seems to me that this commercial is looking to seduce men, and maybe the occasional Female Chauvinist Pigs.

The Third raunchy celebrity commercial shows Kim Kardashian, who is promoting a grilled chicken salad. In the commercial, Kim wears a slinky robe and has a picnic on her bed with the salad. She says, “I’m such a neat freak. Everything has got to be clean, crisp and tasty. And while the best things in life are messy, it’s fun to get clean.” While she has her line, “and while the best things in life are messy” the camera shows a drop of salad dressing falling in front of her breasts. If this line and this image aren’t outwardly sexually suggestive, I’m not sure what is. And when Kim says “it’s fun to get clean” she is conveniently shown in a bathtub. With images like the bed and the bathtub, it is hard to ignore the raunchy nature of this commercial.

At first glance, it is easy to laugh off these commercials because the content is so ridiculous. What does Paris Hilton washing a car in a bikini have to do with a hamburger? Why is Audrina Patridge eating a Teriyaki burger that is almost as thick as her stomach? Why does a commercial for a salad involve a bed and a bathtub? Yet, after you are done rolling your eyes, you start to realize that the advertisers at Carl’s Jr. knew exactly what they were doing when they made these commercials. Quite simply, sex sells, and might even be able to sell a hamburger here or there. But the greatest success in these commercials was getting their brand name out into the public media. Being notorious and pushing limits was not frowned upon, but instead seen as a shrewd business move. And as Paris Hilton herself proved to the world, sex sells, being controversial is cool, and if you don’t come along for the raunch culture ride, you will be frumpily left behind.

Paris Hilton

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__HZmDsYK7Q&feature=rec-LGOUT-exp_fresh+div-1r-4-HM

Audrina Patridge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB2MDYzx5OY

Kim Kardashian

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYWQ5sX0-5Q

CNN Article

http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/24/news/newsmakers/carls_ad/

Media Culture Project

For my media culture project, I chose the revealing photos of Vanessa Hudgens from her 2007 scandal to examine through Ariel Levy’s perspective. I think Levy would look at this scandal as a prime example of the warped idea of empowerment that women today are buying into, and an example of the perceived need for sex and porn in our raunch culture.

Vanessa Hudgens, for anyone who does not know, is the actress who plays Gabriella Montez in the ever-famous Disney Channel Movie High School Musical. She is watched by millions of children and teenagers across the United States. In 2007, there were provocative pictures of Vanessa Hudgens leaked onto the internet. This stirred up some commotion and drew negative attention to the star. Parents of the children who watch her and idolize her were disappointed and some outraged that she posed so provocatively because of the influence and message it sent to their children.

At the peak of the hype surrounding these photos, Vanessa Hudgens came out with a statement saying that she was hoping to pose for a sexy magazine. According to Starpulse, an entertainment report website, Hudgens was also quoted saying, “I think being a woman and being able to show a sexy side is empowering. Being able to show we are comfortable in our skin is a good thing. I totally would pose for a sexy magazine. But not Playboy.” This is coming from the same teenager who was considering a $500,000 deal to become a Girl Gone Wild. In 2009, when another round of nude photos were leaked, Michael Sands, Hollywood’s lead imaging consultant reported to Fox News that “Vanessa wants to raise her visibility and become an 'A' lister, so by posing Vanessa is shedding her Disney image and becoming a serious actress. Vanessa feels her career is being held back and she wants to be ‘en vogue’.”

Why does to be ‘en vogue’ mean women have to pose naked or provocatively? Why do women have to wear less in order to be taken more “seriously?”

I think Ariel Levy would have a few things to say about the quotes from Vanessa Hudgens and Michael Sands.

First, I think she would look at Michael Sands’ quote and question why, like many other aspects of our raunch culture (GGW and Playboy), being naked comes with the territory of empowerment. She would argue that empowerment does not equal sex. Similarly, she would argue in response to Vanessa Hudgens’ quote that empowering does not need to be synonymous with showing “a sexy side.” Rather, her status and ability to be an “A-lister” should be determined by the quality of her acting or the success of her movie. Levy would suggest that Vanessa Hudgens represents many American women of that age who have what she would call a warped sense of empowerment. Her issue with Hudgens would be that she is using sex as power when there are so many other ways she would argue to have power. Likewise, she would question why Vanessa Hudgens is posing “sexily” for magazines when she is not getting any sexual pleasure from it. What kind of power does Hudgens really have when she is faking sexual pleasure for herself and simply giving pleasure to the men and other women who see her posing provocatively? Personally, I think it is ironic that in order to be taken more seriously, women of today need to wear less. When I think of someone I take seriously, I think of corporate executives, lawyers, doctors, and other highly educated people.

Levy would also look at the Vanessa Hudgens 2007 scandal as an example of the pornography phenomenon in American raunch media culture. Porn has become a way to “improve” oneself, and according to Vanessa Hudgens, it is a way to be considered an “adult” and taken more seriously. This is disturbing as it feeds into the sexualization of our culture, specifically the influence of sexualization on increasingly younger audiences. Levy would argue that Vanessa Hudgens is perpetuating the “disconnect between sexiness or hotness and sex itself” (20) because Hudgens is not getting any sexual pleasure from posing provocatively for pictures. She simply looks sexy. To Levy, Hudgens epitomizes how “sex appeal has become a synecdoche for all appeal” (30). When women pose like this they are objectifying themselves and are lying to themselves when they say it is empowering. That is not to say that men don’t play a role in this, but Levy would argue that women are objectifying themselves and calling it “empowerment.”

Vanessa Hudgens is the perfect example of how using pornography has become a sort of rite of passage into adulthood. Furthermore, Hudgens seems to be using it to gain acceptance and feel some sort of validation about her career as an actress. Rather than relying on the success of her movie, Hudgens is using her body for a feeling of acceptance and rite of passage into an “A-list” actress. I think Levy would be disappointed to see this and frustrated that she perpetuates this lie about what is empowering that our generation has bought into. I think when looking at the reasons behind our raunch culture, Ariel Levy would look back at the last wave of feminism and say that this is a rebellion against it

When I read the articles about Vanessa Hudgens’ 2007 scandal, I kept thinking how the idea of sisterhood could help the situation, and I think Levy would agree. Women like Vanessa Hudgens are role models for tweens and teens across the country. By posing provocatively in pictures, you are influencing younger generations who see this and will try to emulate it. We are therefore encouraging sexualization to a younger demographic. As the idea of sex appeal is projected on to younger girls, it is disconcerting to wonder if this will only magnify the porn phenomenon or if the pendulum will swing the other way and they will rebel against it.

Links to photos:

http://a6.vox.com/6a00cdf3aaad25cb8f00e398a9d4160004-500pi

http://a3.vox.com/6a00cdf3aaad25cb8f00e398a9b5eb0001-500pi

http://www.zimbio.com/Vanessa+Anne+Hudgens/articles/0KoPwLvvKv7/Vanessa+Hudgens+leaked+Scandal+photo