Who is in control

I found the articles very interesting in that they explain the American culture. If we are not manipulating we are lying, if we are not lying we are false advertising. In the article Brumberg's Body Project, and Steins Sex Lies and Advertising, reading about women and their ability to not be able to think for themselves really struck me. It also struck me that women are being tricked by their own people in order to define who they are as individuals. I found it interesting to read about how women became socially constructed to wear bra's. This really made me think about the ways in which american society is controlling every aspect of peoples lives. In the article it explains how girls were tricked into shaping their bodies according to how america wanted them to be. Yovoun's personal essay real touched home to me. This is really true as to how women begin these mass diets and looked to manipulating people for advice. I found the article very heartbreaking because women have had a hard time living their lives as they envision themselves. They are always adhering to a higher power. This is a very hard issue because people in society are just robots, never looking out side of whats normal. People need to start taking responsibilities for themselves because ultimately at the end they control their life decisions.

Voices that need to be heard

To say the least the article about the "Hook Up" culture in pigs in training needs a little less thought. It is not important to waste countless time trying to stop a culture that has been created by a our media culture. Obviously these upper class boys and girls no what they are doing. In the chapter, evidence in the book showed that abstinence has not been taught right or even at all. Lying to young teens only fuels the fire even more. As an experienced person on sexuality letting those girls do what they want until they figure out the actual consequences is necessary. I can not believe that girls these days are selling themselves short when guys do not care what they wear. It is also shocking to hear that these girls like doing oral sex for nothing. After reading I could not hear Levy's solutions or why this is even a interesting topic of discussion. What is more important is helping young girls like Emile Morgan who have been branded for life because people of our country have not posed consequences for men who partake in such sexual violence. Reading that article only made me sick. Reading Levy only made me more mad because obviously no one is teaching these girls what real life is. How can our current patriarchal society allow this to happen. This is devastating that not only do women this for men, but for themselves. I am at a lost for words with this right now. What I can say is that women should find something like Rebeca Walker did. They should find something that gives them security. They should also do it to protect themselves from the harsh country. From reading these articles nothing can protect women except themselves. This a harsh reality but, what more can you ask for when you live in one of the most embarrassing hypocrisy in the world. Not everyone is created equal according to the articles we have just read.

Childbirth: Industrial v. Domestic

For this week’s reading we get to look at a doctor’s biased history of the progress of pregnancy in the past 500 years or so. Alongside that article we also have a critique from a non medical perspective. I think both articles have valuable points on different aspects of childbirth but reading these two articles more than anything just made me unsure about childbirth.
Gawande’s article made a number of points which I thought were interesting and worthy for any family expecting a baby. He narrates a story of the Rourke family’s pregnancy while giving us a long detailed history of how far childbirth has come. His ongoing narrative of Rourke and everything she had to go through was really a strong point in the article. We weren’t forced to read a long article about scientific childbirth jargon but had a remarkable and I’m assuming true story for relief. Gawande gives us fact after fact about childbirth and it all seems valid yet overwhelming. His main point of the article is how childbirth has become a meticulous form of art through all the new advancements in technology. A woman has so many more choices now of how to have her baby and according to Gawande they are for the better. He specifically claims that “almost nothing else in medicine has saved lives on the scale that obstetrics has”. Gawande’s point really hits home when Rourke, who all along wanted an au natural childbirth, was saved after 40 hours of labor through the new technologies of today.
Goer on the other hand seems to believe that the old way of doing things is the best. After reading all the facts about the new industrial childbirths of today, Goer gives us a counter argument for all of it. While it is called a “deconstruction” and Goer certainly does have somewhat of an angry undertone, she gives us numerous facts and numbers that work against Gawande’s argument. She definitely did her homework with close to half of the entire article being statistics on childbirth.
After reading both of these articles I really didn’t know what to think. I want to trust the doctor who should know what he is talking about. But Goer does such a good job contradicting Gawande I was left without closure. Technology is without a doubt something good and many of us might not be here today if not for all the medical advancements in the past century. I also believe that doulas and other methods Goer talks about can be very useful in childbirth. Much like the abortion topic we discusses on Tuesday, I think that every woman is different and the choice is ultimately hers. Bodies react differently and different doctors might have different styles. The best a woman can do is research and learn as much as possible and hope for the best.

News Flash: The image of the Drag Queen

http://www.vh1.com/video/rupauls-drag-race-2/full-episodes/episode-2-starrbootylicious/1631762/playlist.jhtml

http://orvillelloyddouglas.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/rupauls-drag-race-logo1.jpg

http://www.poolparty.com/quotes/images/2007/04/28/rupaul.jpg


Amanda Eccleston

News Flash: The image of the Drag Queen…
About a week ago I was watching VH1 and this show called RuPaul’s Drag Race came on and the name of the episode was Starrbootylicious and immediately I began to draw conclusions to Middle Sex. For those of you who have not seen the show, it is a combination between Americas next top model and project runway however the contestants are mostly gay men who dress in drag. In this episode the challenges consisted of; transforming a Barbie doll and I quote “from a lady into a tramp”, learning how to dance on a pole and performing it, and using their bodies to sell cherry pie in the streets. Falsetto-Sterling’s discussion about the difference between sex and gender is very apparent in the ways gender norms are reformed by these men. Everything from appearance to attitude was magnified and did prove the points that sex and gender are much less socially constructed then we want to believe. The episode was absolutely hilarious and I have even watched a few episodes since, so initially I thought that it was extremely positive for promoting differences and to see something that is so controversial getting such great reviews is amazing. However as I continued to watch the show I saw a few major issues with how women, gay men and black men were being portrayed and how Levy would have a field day with the ways in which this shows perpetuates the female raunch culture and is still working within the male dominated system. Drag Queens often put on an elaborate show filled with drama and stereotypical behavior that has been shown to have a negative effect on the image of the LGBTQ community and women in general.
This portrayal of the LGBTQ is not representative of the majority of the community yet it is one of the only ways in which the mass society will be exposed to difference. Is this the way we want our already ignorant society to view gay, especially minority, men? Many people don’t know the difference between a Drag Queen, a transsexual, and someone who is intersexed so much the flamboyant actions of the drag queen often equate a negative image and continue stereotyping about members of society who were born with male and female organs or felt like they were in wrong body or simply gay men who don’t want to be women and still obtain very masculine qualities. Often transgendered women are stereotyped as Drag queens and the over the top impressions that are put on them as if they chose specifically to act and look a certain way. This over the top impressions is referred to as creating a ‘freak show’ in order to make people feel more comfortable watching and experiencing something that are very touchy in our society today. Immediately I drew references to Middle Sex and how it was hard to decide if the story reinforced strangeness or allowed us to further understand and become emotionally connected to a different lifestyle. Reading the story of Cali makes us feel comfortable with the fact that incesed is a choice so therefore being intersexed couldn’t happen to me…right? Just like being a Drag Queen is a choice so that is equated with intersexed being a choice. The extremity of these caricatures that are portrayed in the media either are allowing for the continuance of stereotyping or by staying away from normalcy, actual differences become much less apparent because we are exposed to only the extremes.
The definition of a Drag Queen is a man that dresses and takes on qualities and personality traits of a woman. This portrayal of femininity is extremely problematic towards the progress of women in society. Although in the Manifesta it could be argued that men embracing girly culture and the traditional female traits is empowering towards women levy would argue that it is working within the system to do the exact opposite. In class we often discuss patriarchy and the ways in which male dominance controls our society and the roles in which men and women have to fit into. Watching this episode it was interesting to me to think about how unusual it was for men to give up their power by dressing and acting like women. Throughout the entire episode the men were addressed as ladies or bitches and all feminine stereotypes, body image issues, and sexualization were magnified. The opening shot of the film was a close up of one of the contestant’s thong as he was getting dressed in the morning and that was literally only the beginning. When split into groups they were referred to as the pretty and skinny bitches and the other group said they were all about the titties. Majority of the scenes were either the contestants putting on makeup, getting dressed, or being overly emotional in some way. The main challenge was a pole dancing contest in which they were judged on who could make the most money from an audience of men. Levy would argue that this is a negative portrayal of women and how they “act” because sexual pleasure is about yourself and it should not be liberating to use sex as a performance. In order to be successful these women needed to be sexy and with that idea the power stays with the men because although they feel as though this is liberating it is actually false power. However it was interesting that throughout the show men in the audience and along the street were constantly being referred to as a “piece of meat” rather than women for a change.
Although there is some empowerment that comes from RuPaul and the publicity that the show have created, I think that it is seen as a joke and a way for people to make flamboyant “freaks” out of actual peoples lifestyles. It was even stated by some of the contestants that they did not want to be seen outside like they were and it is still a very private and difficult experience for many Drag Queens, transsexuals, gays and lesbians to come out and be open in public. Yet, on this show it is only emotional because the men are “bitches” to one another, not because we get to see the actual experiences and hardships that the LGBTQ members and women face to this day.

Newsflash: Black Abortions are the "Darfur of America"

Abortion has been and still is one of the most controversial issues in America. Since the Roe v. Wade decision 37 years ago, pro-life groups and pro-choice groups have put out thousands of mediums of propaganda. Pro-life groups have done nearly anything and everything in their power to make abortion illegal. Abortion is still legal in American but pro-life groups have recently taken a different route to make abortion illegal. Although this battle has been a heated issue for years, it was not until recently another factor was added into the equation: about a month and a half ago, Georgia Right to Life and the Radiance Foundation brought race into the picture. This issue has gained strong interest by the media. I have chosen to include three different articles (ABC, AJC, AJC) all covering the same topic, all from different perspectives.
At the beginning of February the Radiance Foundation, funded by GRTL started putting up billboards in predominantly black neighborhoods of Atlanta that read: “Black Children are an Endangered Species”. The sign featured a black baby and at the bottom was the group’s website TooManyAborted.com. The website contains the statistics on abortions in America as well as in the state of Georgia. The most recent numbers were from 2006 and in that year there were an estimated 1.2 million abortions. With the U.S. population just under 40 thousand, 13 percent are black and are responsible for about 39 percent of those 1.2 million abortions. Another outrageous statistic on the website showed that there were about 16 thousand more abortions than deaths in 2006 among the black population. The numbers in Georgia are even higher with 58 percent of all abortions from black women. The statistics are numerous and they all support the anti-abortion cause.
If the statistics and billboard weren’t enough, the website uses the “Negro Project” and planned parenthood to their advantage. In the early 20th century Margaret Sanger started planned parenthood clinics. Sanger promoted eugenics and used her clinics to get black women to have abortions and thus decreasing the black population. Now almost a century later, pro-life groups such as GRLT claims the PPFA is still racist and endorses eugenics. Catherine Davis, director of minority outreach for GRTL suggests that these clinics are attempting “to control the birthrate of the African-American community” because of the lack of clinics in the suburbs. 94 percent of all birth control clinics in the U.S. are in urban communities where the population is mostly black. GRTL and the Radiance Foundation have thoroughly used the statistics and the “Negro Project” to put themselves out there as the “ the last line of defense against a widespread plot to wipe out black people”.
Following these provocative billboards have been legislation that would make it illegal for “a woman to have an abortion based on the race or sex of the unborn child.” I wouldn’t expect this bill to be passed for a number of reasons that are mentioned in the articles. The most important, as Lynn Hogue, law professor at GSU points out, the reasons behind a woman’s abortion are “constitutionally irrelevant”.
The goal of this Endangered Species Project is to eliminate abortion in America. Bringing race into the issue and specifically targeting black females is just as manipulating as what they claim the planned parenthood organizations are doing. Crews, Arcana, and Muscio would all agree that the bottom line isn’t about the propaganda, or statistics, but about the mother. Crews makes it especially clear that resources and information must be available and easily accessible to all women. Nowhere does she specify that the requirement to receive this information is that the woman must be white. It can be assumed that this idea of white privilege, as described by Peggy McIntosh, can also be relevant to these outrageous statistics regarding black women and abortion.
Often times, pro-life groups tend to portray their ideals as the “right” or “ethical” way of doing things. However, ridiculing women because of the choices they make, especially intimate choices such as abortion is nowhere near right or ethical. Women who get pregnant don’t want to be persuaded to have or abort the baby, they just need to be supported. Pro-life groups claim that women are “duped” by pro-choice propaganda, but by calling it “the Darfur of America” they do the same thing with guilt and shame.
Unless you have experienced what these women go through you can never know what it is like and how hard the choice can be. The website has abortionists speaking out how bad they feel for helping aborting so many babies but it still ignores what the actual mother went through. The two contributors are both well educated black people who have been very successful. While they are both black, they still may never know what it is like for the black population living in the projects struggling to survive.

Newsflash: This is a Problem. Period.

Link to Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/business/media/16adco.html

Link to Kotex Commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpypeLL1dAs

For most people, even the simple words ‘period’ or ‘menstruation’ are causes for cringing. For something that is so natural, there is a distinctly unnatural reaction that comes along with any mention or discussing pertaining to the topic—even females’ responses to the subject are reduced to giggles and uncomfortable groans. But why is this? And what role, if any, does the media play in perpetuating this idea? Only this past week, a new ad campaign for Kotex, a feminine care brand, has been seen on various television stations. The commercials in the campaign poke fun at the unrealistic clichés and often times uncorrelated images that have been portrayed in feminine care campaigns, using the tagline, “Why are tampon ads so ridiculous?” In this article, “Rebelling Against the Commonly Evasive Feminine Care Ad” from The New York Times, Andrew Adam Newman looks at this new ad campaign and recognizes the deeper problem that Kotex is now—albeit, jokingly—revealing. Why are feminine product ads so vague? Though it may seem like nothing, this advertising trend is actually playing a role in continuing the societal idea that women’s natural body functions are something inappropriate and gross that should be glazed over and properly hidden.

The commercial opens with a women saying, “How do I feel about my period? I love it.” She talks about how she enjoys frolicking on the beach and dancing and adds, “The ads on TV are really helpful because they use that blue liquid, and I’m like, ‘Oh, that’s what’s supposed to happen.’ ” The irony and obvious humor of the commercial is enough to entertain audiences, but it got Newman and many others to thinking—why is this the first frank admission about the silliness of tampon ads? And how can this admission change things? Kotex is not just poking fun at other brands; they are poking fun at themselves, too. Previous ads of theirs have featured these happy women running on the beach and dancing around, never directly mentioning or showing anything with any menstruation authenticity. As Elissa Stein, co-author of the book Flow: The Cultural Story of Menstruation says, “Fem-care advertising is so sterilized and so removed from what a period is. You never see a bathroom, you never see a woman using a product. They never show someone having cramps or her face breaking out or tearful—it’s always happy, playful, sporty women” (Newman 1). But why aren’t these things shown? Newman reveals that censorship has a lot to do with it, as “that approach turns out to be a bit too frank for some networks” (Newman 1). Many television companies feel it is necessary to censor and will refuse to run blatant and direct feminine product advertisements. Kotex’s ads originally included words like “vagina” which was then turned into “down there,” both of which were rejected by television companies. Merrie Harris, global business director for the company that is responsible for these Kotex ads, puts it best when she says, “The whole category has been very euphemistic, or paternalistic even, and we’re saying, enough with the euphemisms, and get over it. Tampon is not a dirty word, and neither is vagina” (Newman 1). Kotex is trying to defy the stigmas that have been associated with women’s health and body issues. They are not “dirty” or wrong, but society is demanding that they be censored as if they were. Though they are relying on humor to make a subtle point to this, Kotex has done this deliberately and is “vowing to defy societal pressures that discourage women from speaking out about their bodies and health” (Newman 1). It’s a small step in the right direction, but someone had to make it so that later steps could follow.

After seeing these Kotex ads myself and reading through Newman’s article, I think that this issue relates greatly to what we’ve been discussing in class. The idea that women’s bodies and functions are somehow wrong and dirty is an issue, and whether or not they have meant to do this, feminine product ads have been perpetuating that idea. Much of it has to do with this “elusiveness” that Newman points out. No one will speak about periods or menstruation or feminine products, so the silence makes it seem like it’s something to be ashamed of. Anne Fausto-Sterling acknowledges this in her article, “Hormonal Hurricanes: Menstruation, Menopause, & Female Behavior.” She says that menstruation is perceived as this “dark shadow” that is “cast…on women’s lives” (Fauto-Sterling 93), but the problem is that these female body functions are not understood! People—women and girls—are not told enough to know that what they are being taught indirectly by society’s silence is wrong. Getting your period shouldn’t be something that a female is ashamed of, but that’s the result of this silence. However, now that the silence is trying to be broken in some way, the efforts are being rebuffed. If Kotex commercials can’t say something as simple and frank as “vagina” or even the ambiguous “down there,” how can progress ever be made? It seems ludicrous to me that something like that could be censored, when so much on television is blatantly sexual and crude without any ramifications. This is not Ariel Levy’s raunch culture, this is a woman, her body, and its functions—there should be nothing dirty or scandalous about it. However, that’s not what society is advocating. They are turning menstruation into something that needs to be turned into a series of images of happy women in order to be made “decent.” And while yes, Fuasto-Sterling says, things like PMS and bloating and cramps happen, but they should not define these female functions and they shouldn’t cause menstruation to become something horrible. Another problem is that there is an inadequate amount of information and research sought for these things, which make them even more ambiguous and unspoken about. Until the judgments and censorship concerning women and their bodies is broken, how can anyone expect a female’s body image to be healthy? The truth is, I don’t think they can.

Kotex’s frank and humorous ads may seem like a frivolous jest, but they are actually a representation of an important issue concerning women’s health. When the product used to help women can’t even be explained or directly discussed, menstruation itself is never going to become a comfortable topic. The giggles and groans and cringes will continue until someone steps up and asks why they’re necessary. Kotex may only be calling out their own and their fellow competitors advertising follies, but their frankness could go a long way. Women’s health is not a small issue, so it shouldn’t be made into one with ignorance and shame.

3/11: Hey, Levy. Over here!

vs.

Reading through the articles for this week, I couldn't help but wish that Ariel Levy might pick a few of them up as well and give them some serious consideration. I don't mean to discount everything that Levy says or suggest that perhaps she hasn't read these articles or ones similar to it--I think that Female Chauvinist Pigs actually made several good points and had a basis in its skepticism, if not always a legitimate one. Still, the thing that always stood out for me while reading that book was the question of, "But what if sexuality is not about that? Can't it be for women?" In my opinion, Levy was too busy judging all of those who blatantly indulge in "raunch culture" to consider that majority of women who are just trying to negotiate self-happiness with themselves and their sexuality.

The article that really stood out to me the most in this way was Rebecca Walker's, "Lusting for Freedom." You might hear Walker's story--a girl who'd lost her virginity at eleven--and instantly shake your head in regret, thinking of the bad things that must have come for her. No one would stop to think that exploring her sexuality so young allowed her a certain freedom from the limitations that older women face every day. I'm not promoting women going off and having sex at eleven--I think it's illegal for a reason. Girls that young usually can't understand the extent of their actions--but I think that Walker has a point in saying that women shouldn't be ashamed of having a sexual side. Sex in terms of women is so often judged, whether it's as Levy does it saying that women indulge in their sexual sides because of men and the system they live in so that it's actually an act of submission, or in terms of violence and disease. There is so very rarely a healthy in between. Walker sees this. If Levy does, she doesn't focus at all on it. Women's sexuality seems to be constantly termed in binaries: virgin vs. whore, rape vs. making love, lesbian vs. heterosexual, love vs. lust. People are so busy trying to navigate these categories that they don't take the time to explore outside of them, or in between them. Just like Sonia Shah's sister, who had to pick one kind of sexuality, Indian or American, and was judged for that, women are judged all the time for picking a side that, in all reality, they don't have a chance of avoiding. If they don't pick a side themselves, someone will push the label onto them anyway. Healthy views of sexuality don't stand a chance.

2/3 main post

in Fausto-Sterling’s article, “Hormonal Hurricanes" it was interesting to think about the limitations that menstration puts on a woman compared to a man. And that hormones could be the justification for believing why women were les competent than men. it made me think of when Hilary Clinton was running for president and almost everyone reason for why a woman wouldnt make it in the white house was because they are too emotional and couldnt handle the pressue. i used to laugh because we put these stereotypes on women based off hormones and mood swings that come with the menstral cycle but i have met more men that are emotional and unstable than i have women. And we say that a woman cannot be succesful because of this, and not only men but women believe that this is the case as well. It then was interesting to read Sextons poem that was celebrating being a woman and everything that being a woman entaled; even menstration. it was difficult to understand besides the fact that you should be proud to be a woman. I found Valdes representaion more interesting because it is from a more diverse perspective than most. her struggle to maintain being a feminist in society while also living as a woman was interesting because i think that that is a struggle for a lot of women. to be accepted we have to play into certain roles but how many of those roles go against us being feminist and fighting for what we believe in. i want equal rights and to be seen equally as competent to men however if i wear makeup and a tight skirt does that compromise that? am i being a hipocrite?

Body and Image: A Powerful Thing

In both the Gloria Steinem reading, "Sex, Lies & Advertising," and Joan Brumberg’s essay, “Body Projects” the one thing that really stood out for me was simply the power of an image, especially in the case of women. It’s really a vicious cycle—women see images of the “ideal” body and type and work to match that, which in turn perpetuates the exalting of this image, which makes advertisers want to portray it. Where does it end? And how much of it shapes our psyches. I would say it shapes it quite a lot. In my opinion, it really all comes back to just that idea of comfort with conventions and how tangled up conventions are with power. Is it possible to have a “bad” outer image and still succeed, or will you always be frowned down upon for your looks? I think it’s easy to say that we would never judge someone like that, but there’s probably very little truth in it. Cal’s discomfort with himself and his intersex condition is an extreme case of this. He knows that regardless of the person he is, he will be judged because he is not gender typical. The fact that he isn’t even sure if his parents could understand and is in fact glad in a way that his father never had to deal with his life as a man is proof of that. Whether a stranger or a parent, there is always going to be judgment when an image is broken.

Brumberg looks at women and their perceptions of body and the “ideal image” and wonders what we can do to stop this from happening. All it manages to do is breed an innate self-consciousness in females that seems to drive their every whim and decision. I don’t think that men are entirely an exception to that—image is universal to everyone—but it is certainly a much higher standard and a much bigger problem with women. And as Steinem points out, these advertisers working in “women’s magazines” are not helping. Is there any way to undermine this power that image is holding? If there is—which, honestly, I’m not sure about—I think you might even find that women would shy away from such a thing, so ingrained in them is that need to be the “pretty” or “skinny” one. The focus may shift from one aspect of the body or the image to another, but that doesn't mean that we are making progress to defying these things. Once again, it’s just the social norms. To break the connection between women and image would be to break down barriers of both history and society, and that takes a lot.