2/22

In Fausto-Sterling’s chapter "Of gender and genitals" i found it very interesting to think about the decisions that are forced to be made by the parents of an intersexed child. The uncertainty that comes along with change is a continuous problem that comes with our society. When i read this chapter i think about how ridiculous it is to put such pressure on the reconstruction of a perfectly healthy childs sexual organs. Sex is something that we only want to see when it is perfectly constructed, whether it just strictly between a man and a woman, with perfectly constructed genitals; the woman being viewed as pure and tight and the males masculinity being associated with the largness of his penis. We want to view these ideas of perfectly binary sexual beings as the norm whn really not everyone fits into those distinctive categories, there is a continuum between the sexes and everyone in society fits somewhere along that continuum. unfortunately it would take an extreme change in how we have viewed society for so long in order to be on with such a continuum and as we have seen thoroughout hstory that is not something that easily occurs.Instead we stigmatize those people as being less man of less woman and then go even further, with many different surgical procedures, to make sure that those who more obviouly dont fit into the selected categories can be transformed into one. Being born intersexed is treated as if the child has to be treated for a disease and becomes imparative to immediately weight the options. after spending time reading this chapter and the Middlesex, i think that it is obsurd how much pressure we put on changing a perfectly normal human being into something that they are not however when i think about what i would do if i was a parent it becomes a more complicated issue. I cant look at the parents and the doctors and think negatively upon how much pressure they put on this because it is society that lays the pressure. i absolutely would want my child to have a "normal" life (by societal measures) so if that ment choosing the replace the more "appropriate" genitals for my child then i would do so and would have a hard time telling them why and how i chose to come to that decision besides the fact that society would prefer someone to be a changed, confused, and often not sexually pleased human being in order to not face the truths of reality.

Intersex

The chapter “That Sex Which Prevaileth” in Sexing the Body by Anne Fausto-Sterling focuses on the social and cultural stigmas attached to hermaphrodites. First focusing on the history of sexes and how two main sexes have been put into to place to define "normality" in our society and that now that we have MADE these categories it is difficult to see the world as being normal any other way. In fact it has become so important for one to fit in either one category or the other that there are numerous surgeries involving anything from changing the shape and/or function of everything involving sexual organ and outer appearance. If you really think about it, what makes someone more man or more woman? Is the typical girly girl less of a woman if she has a slighly larger clitoris or has a slight mustache? or the hegemonic male less powerful if his penis isnt large enough? these arent even situations of a male or female being hermaphrodites however we often treat them in similar respect with confusion and judgement. Therefore it only makes sense that we have come up with so many different ways to fit everyone into two COMFORTABLE categories, and it is even hard for me to say that because who is it comfortable for? We tend to focus on only the opinion of the majority and ignore how those decisions that we make affect ourselves or our society as a whole. Like Emma for example who is forced by society to fit into a world by ignoring her pleasure and happiness.

In book one of Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides we see a greater inside on Cal's own feelings on being intersexed. After deciding to become a boy it was interesting to read about his search through his ancestory to figure out what mutations in his chromosomes lead to being born a woman with male parts. This idea is very disturbing to a lot of people and you see it on TV with celebrities or on talk shows and it almost seems unreal because ill admit that even i was conditioned to think that there is hardly anyone in the world who is both male and female. We are so sheltered to the truth because we are afraid of it and majority of the time these children are altered at birth. Even so many different doctors and psychologists have so many different opinions on how this should be handled, whether they should wait till the child is older, let them decide, let the parents decide, or just handle it at birth and we forget that these are actual human beings who are made to live that way.

Barbie

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/barbies-next-career-computer-engineer/?scp=2&sq=barbie&st=cse

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2010/02/15/barbie-becomes-computer-engineer/1


Amanda Eccleston

Barbie has been and will continue to be one of the most important and enduring toys within the doll industry. Since the 50’s, when Barbie originated, women have been fighting for the rights of equal rights and respect while one of the most influential toys for young girls is programmed to say things like “I love shopping.” There has been much controversy over this “role model” for your girls not only in what the figure represents but also in the lack of diversity that it represents, when it comes to race, class and body shapes and sizes. Some would argue, however, that Barbie has gradually changes with the times and one of the most recent articles that would justify this was in the New York Times on February 12, 2010 and was titled “Barbie’s Next Career? Computer Science.”
The Article, by Claire Cain Miller, begins with a famous, degrading quote that Barbie has become known for, “Math class is tough.” Throughout history this toy has played into the stereotypes of women and in this instance, draws upon the absence of women in math and engineering related majors and professions. Men have dominated these fields and there have been few women to break into them and there is no clear reason as to why. Previously, Barbie worked in very gender divided professions however recently there has been a push to move Barbie from an aerobics instructor into more high powered professions so that young girls might be influenced to be more. In this article it was recently discussed how Barbie’s new profession was chosen by over half a million fans to be Computer Science. And although there has already been debate over the attire and accessories, Mattel makes a point to say that it was all chosen with the help of the Society of Women Engineers and the National Academy of Engineering. This career move has thrilled the women of the profession with the argument that “We can use any sort of positive influence that we have, because the number of girls studying programming is abysmal,” This article does an interesting job at looking at the positive side of this article and although it is a positive thing to see progression in an industry that have proven to be extremely sexist, I want to draw on the comments section to show how far we have NOT come.
Many women in this field were happy to see the way this profession was represented by Mattel however was not taken very seriously by the readers of the article. First of all there was a very negative reaction to the style of dress that this Barbie was wearing. “Computer Engineer Barbie still has her trademark cascade of blond hair, impossibly small waist, feet frozen on tiptoes to slide into her high heels and a whole lot of hot pink.” Baumgardner and Richards would not argue this as something negative, they would see this as successful, intelligent women embracing the girly culture by allowing traditionally feminine things to be seen as powerful. Through this the women in the Engineering field who chose their attire could be seen as using these stereotypical colors and beauty trademarks to empower what is naturally womanhood. However this could be viewed much differently because what these women see as a means to promote femininity in the profession is seen as merely a joke or as sexual objects by men in that same field. Majority of the comments to the article consisted of sexual comments by men, from simple comments like “she is hot” or “hubba hubba” to one guy who actually made a porn plot out of the thought of an attractive women working in computer science and then finished it off by saying, “Then their system suffered a serious hard drive failure which resulted in a huge order from an important customer was lost costing Ken's company millions of dollars…You see Mattel what happens when you put hot chicks in IT jobs!” His attitude is the reason why women need to act like men in order to survive in a successful job because our patriarchal society makes it impossible to get past the stereotypes that go along with having feminine qualities. It is comments like this, however, that make it hard to believe the arguments of Johnson that men’s attitudes are a product of our society as well because such blatant ignorance cannot be justified in a societal sense. However it could be easily argued that because the women in this profession want to be viewed as sexy and smart that they over feminized the appearance of the doll and therefore succumb and are trapped in the very system that oppresses them. They strive for the male approval and it is so subconscious that they think they are making these decisions that will benefit women when really they are accomplishing the opposite. It is hard not to completely agree with Levy in that it is hard for women to break out of this mold because we are so imbedded in society that to go against the norm is detrimental to status and how both men and women see you. One man posted a comment that said “hahaha representative of a real [female] computer engineer….closer to reality perhaps http://www.damnfunnypictures.com/weird/14000/fat-barbie-doll/” In some sense we can look at Computer Science Barbie as a step in the right direction for promoting and showing women that they have the same opportunities as men, however on the other hand it proves how quick we are, still, to sexualize or make a joke out of anything that involved a woman and success. It is not the Barbie at all that represents the gendered struggles in our society; it is the male and often female response to these very serious issues that need to be noticed and restructured.

Newsflash: Asian Countries and Women Leaders

Link to article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/world/asia/08iht-asiawomen.html

“This is still a man’s world, and you have to adapt to the men’s environment.” With these words, Dewi Fortuna Anwar, director for programs and research at an independent policy institute in Indonesia, encompasses the main plight of the woman in power. In this article from The New York Times “Family Vaults Women to Leadership in Asia,” reporter Seth Mydans looks at women in power in Asian countries and how that power both comes about and plays out. Although women in Asia have managed to gain positions of power in recent years more than any other region of the world, the article states that most of these women have gained these positions only through family connections and, furthermore, have not ruled any differently than their male relative predecessors. In reality, this article presents a legitimate concern for women in power and the privileges that they must have in order to reach such positions, though by questioning the missing female “different perspective,” (Mydans 1) the article is in fact also perpetuating some gender role labels.

Though many Asian countries—India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, the Philippines and Sri Lanka, for example—are more often thought of as places of female oppression rather than empowerment, they are all also places that have recently boasted female leaders. Some of these leaders include Sri Lanka’s Sirimavo Bandaranaike (who became the world’s first female elected head of state in 1960) and Indira Gandhi in India in 1966. Today, two women are in power: : President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in the Philippines and Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh. Most of these women, however, have had some sort of previous family connection to power and politics that Mydans believes accounts for their access to such positions. Along with revealing this injustice, the article discusses what these women have done differently from their male counterparts—namely, nothing. Advancements in women’s rights, something that most would assume to be a prime focus for a female leader, are usually not present or ever addressed. There can be a myriad of different explanations for this, but Mydans attributes it to the tentative position these women find themselves in. There seems to be “a glass ceiling that holds back women from reaching the very top purely on their own merits, and a political context that may limit their room to maneuver as leaders” (Mydans 1). It all comes back to the same challenges that women in any workplace are facing—the pressure to “act like a man” in order to succeed.

Ariel Levy talks about this plight in Female Chauvinist Pigs when she says that “women who’ve wanted to be perceived as powerful have long found it more efficient to identify with men than to try and elevate the entire female sex to their level” (Levy 95). A woman leader is the ultimate personification of “powerful,” so it can probably be assumed that the pressure for them is even more substantial, especially in these highly patriarchal Asian countries. Dewi Fortuna Anwar recognizes this, saying that these women leaders “need to be more manly, [they] need to show that [they] don’t cry in public, [and that they] are tough enough to order the military around” (Mydans 1). Stereotypes and prejudices make it so that conventionally, a woman is seen as less strong-willed, less able in matters of state and war, than a man. In order to gain the image that she needs to retain control and power, she has to behave as a man would. The whole idea behind this is really that being a woman and having feminine qualities is inferior to being a man and/or having masculine qualities. In fact, when speaking of the two Asian female leaders in power today, Mydans himself says that, “both are known for their toughness and combativeness” (Mydans 1). He says this as if women shouldn’t be known for such qualities. In that way, even Mydans, who is pointing out the injustices in this situation, is falling into the traps of stereotypes and expectations. It is probably not a deliberate action, but simply a norm that has become unconscious. This is closely tied with the patriarchal system that rules society—both America’s own democratic society, and these Asian countries’ alternate societies.

Though it might seem as if women gaining power is a step forward in challenging the patriarchal society, in fact, “the rise of female leaders does not seem to reflect any change in the patriarchal nature of Asian societies. Rather, it demonstrates the power of a name and the persistence of political dynasties, whether they involve women or men” (Mydans 1). The reasoning behind the elections is, in this case, more important than the election itself. Both patriarchy and privilege play a part in this phenomenon. Without the privilege of a connected family, a women most likely will not have any chance to even try for a position of government power, and patriarchy keeps women who are elected from ruling the way they perhaps might want to as opposed to the way men before them have previously. Johnson in “Patriarchy, The System” talks about the “path of least resistance” which describes “to go along, and unless [you’re] willing to deal with greater resistance, that’s the choice [you’re] going to make” (Johnson 4). Women in power can’t afford to deal with the greater resistance because their positions are already tentative. If they were do deviate from the previous paths set by men, their gender would be blamed for the change and they would probably lose their power. If a change is made because of this, it might seem worth it, but women in power are no different from men in power: “they are just as egomaniacal, in many cases, or just as intent on holding on to their own power and to heck with the next bunch that comes along as anybody else” (Mydans 1).

Whether you believe that men and women are innately different are not, society does see these differences and does exploit them to the disadvantages of women. In Asia, women may be gaining positions of power, but because of the privilege required and the inability to deviate from “man’s” way of ruling, there really are very little strives being made. To change this, these women would have to take a path of resistance and risk their power, which isn’t something anyone has been willing to try yet. Until they do this, however, the patriarchal system will continue to win.

Speak Up!

Reading through the Lorde, McIntosh and Miles articles, I found myself considering the issues that divide—and have always divided—the women’s movement. Is there a way to fight for a cause in a world where gender, race, age, economic status, and so many other factors play a role in dividing us? These issues are the very things that caused key dividing problems in the history of the women’s movement, but is there a way to learn from that history? It’s not an easy question to answer, though I think that all three readings make some good points about it.

Perhaps the most important thing I got from these articles came from Lorde, who seemed to be advocating less for what to do, than for what not to do—don’t remain silent. Lorde, as a Black lesbian feminist, knows what it means to be marginalized. She has every reason to feel alienated in a society that favors and privileges everything that she’s not. However, rather than taking what she can get from the movements that already exist but barely include her, Lorde urges for us to start bridging the gaps of our differences by speaking, “for it is not difference which immobilizes us, but silence.” This might seem like a weak solution, but I really responded to the simplicity of it. The fact is, things like race and sexuality and gender are such big, complicated issues, and because they all interconnect in so many different ways in so many different people, there’s never going to be a universal answer. In this modern society, I—a white, heterosexual, upper-middle-class woman—will probably never fully grasp what it’s like to be Lorde. However, backing off from addressing some of these things that I can’t fully understand is the wrong way to go about it. I like how Lorde says, “I have come to believe over and over again that what is most important to me must be spoken, made verbal and shared, even at the risk of having it bruised or misunderstood.” Saying nothing is so much worse than saying something and then having to defend it. You can learn to say something that’s right by saying something that’s wrong and then being corrected.

By speaking about her experiences with Harvard’s “The Rag” magazine, Miles gives a good example of what not speaking up can do. “The Rag” was so concerned with keeping everything equal and communized that they failed to take into account the differences and inequalities that eventually tore them apart. By the time they broke their silence, it was too late. As Miles pointed out, they had the history and should have learned from it, but they paid it no attention.

The truth is, though Miles does list a series of things they could have done to prevent the difference lines and tensions from exploding at “The Rag,” I’m not certain if they can ever be erased entirely, there or in life. The problem is with the system, as has been pointed out in earlier readings, but it’s unfortunately not as easy as saying, “Let’s change it, then.” History is a very powerful force, and this system has its roots in it. For now, I would have to agree with Lorde in saying that one of the best things we can do is just keep opening our mouths about the problems. It’s a small step, but an important one.

Total Institutions

I would have to disagree with the claims of Both “Oppression,” by Marilyn Frye, and “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us". They both talk about the patriarchy system as if it can be fixed. To think about it in a greater context they are forgetting about who else this system is affecting. I am a black man and they have failed to put anything in words about race. Most of the article is speaking about white men and women that do fit into the system. They are white and are already privileged. They both speak about people coming together to create change, but from the looks of it nothing will change. Systems are put in place for reasons, meaning its selective for the people that are chosen. The solution that they have for the oppressed group is not at all a solution. I would have to agree with many of the perspectives that our country finding a solution is very untrue. He explains that patriarchal culture includes and involves people, but cannot be reduced to the people who participate in it because it is a system. What is not being fixed? The more marginalized people that really suffer from the system. Shame on the people who see the system but don't do anything to stop the perpetuation of it. Johnson argues that people who are in the patriarchal society should do something, but they are not. They can't because they love the power, with power comes money. This system trully reflects our current society. I would have to disagree with people who do not believe. To solve these problems of gender inequalities and racism, the patriarchal system must fall. Otherwise "normal "will never change and we will perpetuate the system as long as it will last.

Amanda Eccleston
2/4/10
Intro to Women’s Studies

Media Culture Project

The November Edition of the GQ immediately caught my attention with the cover page presenting a platinum blonde biker chick in a leather jacket unzipped all the way to the naval with popping red lips and pouty blue eyes. Her head is tilted down and her eyes slightly looking up and if she is a puppy anxiously waiting for her next orders to follow. Sadly enough she is a successful actress and in every months edition of the magazine they chose one up and coming young, female star to give the cover page and a five page article honoring their accomplishments. An all men’s magazine recognizing women, seems empowering for women? Well Levy would strongly disagree in fact she would consider what she was doing as Tomming because of the fact that in those five pages four and a half are filled with this successful, powerful woman looking at the ground in 3 different sets of lingerie with her legs spread and half page of writing consists of her answers to sexual questions. Levy would strongly disagree with this form of liberation for Ms. January Jones because she worked so hard to gain status as an actress and as a woman and that it was all lost with this form of pornography. Levy would see this section of the magazine as choosing to work her way up through sex and then prove her talent and intelligence later.
Surrounding her body are the featured articles in the magazine; “The GQ Power List”, “Rock N Rolls original bad boy”, “January Jones Unzips, modest homemaker”, “5 reasons to have faith in the future of cars”, and “the coat every guy looks good in.” This Magazine appears to be targeting middle aged, upper to middle class, mainly white males and is definitely emphasizing power. Just the photo alone sends the message of male dominance and perpetuates the fantasies of the subordinate housewife and stresses that a man in control could be lucky enough to “unzip” this woman as if she were an expensive bag. The magazine also highlights the importance of money because without extra spending money there would be no need to have “faith in the future of cars” or to care how to “survive winter in style” and the “50 most important people in D.C” would not be of any importance to you. An upper to middle class lifestyle is what these readers obtain or strive for. This magazine is sending the message that without the specific cologne, clothing, shoes and “toys” you cannot be sheik and classy. Why would anyone not want this power and society is telling women that to obtain this power you have to be an upper class male and to be an upper class male you have to encompass certain arrogant, dominant personality traits.
The major advertisements throughout the magazine are promoting a lifestyle; the most exclusive cars, foreign watches, classy suit, the latest electronics, top shelf liquor and expensive, celebrities colognes. In fact there are so many cologne ads that my hands reek for days after every time I look through the magazine. Yet it is not the actual ads that send the message of the importance of class it is the important question that is being answered, what is behind the desire to act like or be a man? For example underneath an attractive, white man in impeccable shape there is a saying “The style of your Life” and in small print on the side it states the prices of each piece and it added up to well over 800 dollars, so if you can’t afford to spend 800 dollars on ONE outfit what does that say about your life? Or a few pages later where there is a brand new Camaro and a half naked woman, the ad to the side says “You could live without it. If you call that living.” And throughout all the electronics ads like cell phones and laptops, international travel and connection in emphasized as if to show the power and exclusivity that these objects bring. A woman does need the “biggest cock in the room” to acquire this yet every ad goes against this by essentializing, in that the gender norms and stereotypes are showing men that they have what it takes to obtain that power and prestige and with that they can objectifying or own any women they please.
In over half of the ads, especially in the cologne and watch ads, there is a half naked woman holding, kissing or hopelessly staring at the man in the photo. Again Levy would directly relate this to the Raunch Culture. In these ads there were some interesting terms that I found were reiterated gendered norms and ideals; “The one”, “King”, “Master”, “Intelligence”, “Exclusively for men” and “Members only.” How could a woman feel empowered in these ads with hardly any clothes, underneath a man who is underneath one of those terms? They not only scream “no women allowed” but the honorary man is portrayed in one way or another on every page of the magazine and how there is a clear economic and political domination by an elite group of men and how it is ordered in the magazine; upper class men, then lower class men are completely absent and women are merely a piece of meat. Through this I would argue that Levy is wrong in saying that this term to “act like a man” is only detrimental to sisterhood and female companionship because in fact the definition of a “man”, especially portrayed in this magazine, accounts for very few people in society. So everyone who is not the upper to middle class white male is left out so therefore if they strive for this power does that make them a sell out too? I think that it does more for a woman, a race, class or sexual orientation to exceed through the discrimination and prove that they can make it to the top and by saying that being “talented, powerful, and unrepentant” are male traits is to degrade women in the first place.

Media Project: A Picture’s Worth a Thousand Words

A Picture’s Worth a Thousand Words

Photography is art. It’s a medium that manages to wield more prestige and sophistication than most other forms of media by using artistic integrity and beauty to explain pushing the normal societal boundaries of taste. But when photography is used in mass media, do these same reasons hold? Is the true explanation behind that scantily clad actress a matter of artistry…or is it a testament to Ariel Levy’s theory of “raunch culture” which rules the lives and successes of these entertainment industry women? Today, there is perhaps no revered photographer working in mass media known better than Annie Leibovitz, a highly celebrated American photographer. Her beautiful photographs of celebrities grace the covers of countless magazines, including the two above. There is no argument on my part on the beauty of Leibovitz’s work, but rather the motive behind choosing to photograph certain celebrities—female celebrities, specifically—in certain ways. Using examples from Leibovitz’s photographs that have been featured in Vanity Fair over the years, Ariel Levy’s theory of women and “raunch culture” from her book Female Chauvinists Pigs becomes an issue as it becomes increasingly obvious that it is the female celebrities whose images require more artistic nudity than that of their male counterparts.

Compare the two magazine spreads of celebrities shown above. The first comes from a 1995 Vanity Fair issue featuring the “Hollywood Highest – The Class of 2000” (Jennifer Jason Leigh, Uma Thurman, Nicole Kidman, Patricia Arquette, Linda Fiorentino, Gwyneth Paltrow, Sarah Jessica Parker, Julianne Moore, Angela Bassett, Sandra Bullock). The second comes from a spread published close after, a 1996 issue of Vanity Fair featuring “Boys’ Town”(Tim Roth, Leonardo DiCaprio, Matthew McConaughey, Benicio Del Toro, Michael Rapaport, Stephen Dorff, Johnathon Schaech, David Arquette, Will Smith, Skeet Ulrich ). Both spreads are the work of Leibovitz. Neither created much of a public outcry or negative reaction. But what do you see? The obvious observation is that there is about as much skin in one photograph as there is not in the other. These ten women—talented, intelligent, strong and independent women—are all in various states of undress. Their poses are seductive and sultry. Nicole Kidman has her hands over her lady bits. Linda Fiorentino covers her bare breasts. Sarah Jessica Parker’s skirt is hiked up so high that it might be a girdle. As for the men, their poses are cool and casual. Out of all ten, Leonardo DiCaprio is the only one to be baring even the smallest patch of skin—the rest are in full suits and blazers. Yet, I would also call their poses sexy and seductive. Somehow, in order to capture the same strength and attractiveness, one group needs to be disrobed and the other does not.

For Levy, it’s not the fact that these women are being photographed in this way that’s the problem. Instead, it’s fact that the men don’t have to in order to produce the same power and strength. She discusses a similar phenomenon when she declares that, “not one male Olympian has found it necessary to show us his penis in the pages of a magazine. Proving that you are hot…is still exclusively women’s work” (33). Somehow, women have managed to tie their sexuality into their success. Levy says that “it is not enough to be successful, rich, and accomplished…women at the pinnacle of their fields, feel compelled to display their solicitude” (33). Leibovitz is not a man. She is not a “male chauvinist pig” who wants to objectify the actresses in this spread by forcing them to pose scantily dressed for her own “superior male” purposes. Most likely, she sees art and beauty in their bodies and wants to show them, seeks to create a sexy and powerful image. The problem lies in the fact that sexy and powerful have now become synonymous for women. These female actresses are guising this sexual objectification of themselves as pride in their femininity and sexual nature. A successful female cannot be powerful without being sexy. Levy states that “this is our establishment, these are our role models, this high fashion and low culture…being a part of it makes you a strong, powerful woman. Because we have determined that all empowered women must be overtly and publicly sexual” (26). Levy finds the problem comes from the system, and that men are not the only ones at fault for this “raunch culture” that has spread. Women have their hands in this, as well, and that’s something that needs to be addressed.

In general, I haven’t always agreed with Levy’s arguments, as I find some of them pigeonholing issues that cannot be put into such tight, neat boxes, but looking at these two photo spreads and thinking about the motivations behind them makes me believe that she does have her points. Why does Leibovitz choose to photograph the women in this blatantly sexual way, and not the men? Aren’t men’s bodies just as artistically beautiful as women’s? I suppose that you can argue many explanations for it, but I’m inclined to believe that it had to do—at least in part—with society’s need to consider these women sexy before they accept them as anything greater. And in order to consider a women sexy, she has to prove that she is sexual by indulging in this “raunch culture” that has her stripping down and proving it. In many ways, I think that women need the power that has grown to come only with sexual attractiveness to gain public acceptance. Levy says that women in the entertainment industry have to “appear that much more confident, aggressive, and unconflicted about [their] choices—she has to do everything Fred Astaire does, backwards, in heels” (94), and they do. It’s not enough to do what the men do. You have to become “one of the guys”—meaning be all right with this blatantly sexual image of woman. Embrace it, in fact—in order to compete in our patriarchal world. While this might not always be the case, there seems to be cause for argument in it here.


From these two spreads in the mid-90s, Leibovitz hasn’t seemed to change her ways much. In 2006, this picture of Scarlett Johansson, Tom Ford and Keira Knightley hit the pages of Vanity Fair. Both women are completely nude, while Ford merely shows some chest hair. And who could forget the scandal that erupted after 15-year-old Miley Cyrus posed with only a blanket for cover for a 2008 Leibovitz shoot? It seems that “raunch culture” finds its limit when it concerns teens (though Knightley was only 21-years-old when she posed for her entirely nude photograph), for Cyrus did not go unscathed for her choice to disrobe. Still, the fact remains that these young women found it both necessary and acceptable to pose for these photographs. Hiding behind the “it’s art” excuse can only go so far. There is a discomfort level that should have been there that isn’t. When I say this, I don’t mean that these women should be ashamed of their bodies or that it’s unnatural for them to enjoy the sexual or risqué. I truly believe that they have every right to express themselves and to enjoy their bodies as they will, but they also must acknowledge why they feel this way. Is it truly for them, or is it for others? Are they—unbeknownst to even themselves perhaps—playing under the rules that society has forced them into? Have they tricked themselves into believing that this is truly an act of feminine power and pride in their own bodies, or is it merely a way to gain acceptance from the men and women around them? It’s impossible to make a general claim that would prove one claim correct over the other, but I have a feeling that the truth lies somewhere in-between. Photography is art, but a picture’s worth a thousand words. Some of those words may not be the best when viewed under a feminist lens.