Images of Women

http://shine.yahoo.com/beauty/teen-girl-petitions-seventeen-magazine-stop-airbrushing-models-130000558.html


Above is a link for an article about the 14 year-old girl in Maine who, this past May, petitioned Seventeen magazine in regards to them photo-shopping their models. She asked them to start featuring at least 1 untouched photo shoot each month. She also blogs on SPARK, a non-profit organization who demands an end to the sexualization of girls and women in the media. At the time of this article being published, only Glamour magazine had agreed to stop altering their images. And some celebrities recently, including Jessica Simpson, have offered to be photographed without makeup or retouching.

I think what this girl did was amazing! She took one of her passions and actually did something about it, instead of just talking about it. This is a wonderful idea for an activism project. These images in magazines, like what Dr. Kilbourne talked about, can greatly affect women's perception of themselves. We should not be holding ourselves to a standard we can never reach. And why can we never look like that? Because it's fake! Advertisements should show us a real image with the model wearing their product. Wrinkle cream, make-up, hair products- how do we know how they really look if they are digitally enhanced anyway? Along with that, it would be nice if clothing companies showed a wide variety of models in their ads. Different bodies and from all races and ethnic backgrounds. I also like what Dr. Kilbourne mentioned about having the photos labeled if they are photo-shopped. This way the consumers know that it may not be natural and we can stop having such unrealistic expectations.

I also love this photo of Marilyn Monroe. If only models looked like this these days. Dove is doing a pretty good job of showing "real" women in their current campaign. We can only hope that more will follow!

Hospitals running a business, or rushing a natural process?

I wanted to comment on a point that was brought up in class earlier this week in reference to the hospital scene in The Business of Being Born that showed the nurses writing on the board keeping track of the women in labor and which drugs they had been administered, how long they were taking to deliver, etc. In no way do I think that doctors or nurses are bad, and of course I agree that they need to stay organized and keep track of their patients. However, I think what makes that scene so poignant (especially for pro-midwifery) is that it shows the health care professionals treating all the women the same and not considering their personal needs. It's a very business like and determined by the medical professionals wanting to hurry the process up and free the rooms, rather than letting the birth process take it's natural course and happen on it's own time.

I believe that the female body- for the most part- is capable of giving birth successfully and does not need extensive medical interventions. There are of course exceptions to this, and the drugs are there for a reason. But I don't think everyone needs them and I think doctors are very quick to use them in order to push the process along. They do this in order to open up more rooms and, ultimately, make more money. For most businesses, that wouldn't bother me. But when it comes to birth- something to special and unique- I think women should be treated with the utmost care and respect. Their wants and needs should be respected and granted, if possible and within reason. I'm not doubting that some doctors and nurses that work in hospitals do care about their patients and are nice, hardworking people. But, at the end of the day, they have time restraints and will use interventions and other things they were taught in medical school in order to make the process go quicker. For such a natural process, it would be much more comforting if doctors allowed it to just happen on it's own and intervene only when completely necessary.

I think in order for this to happen, maybe nurses should be taught midwifery practices in medical school. Or perhaps doctors and nurses should not be taught about birth at all and leave that specifically to women who are trained in that and that only. It would be wonderful if more women knew that they have options and were fully educated on their choices. Midwifes have a bad reputation, and I would love to see them regain the field that is theirs, or at least bridge the gap between them and doctors and be able to work together. At the end of the day, women and their babies should be the priority. Not making money.

A Bit Disappointed...

The Jean Kilbourne  convocation speech was really fantastic, though I was surprised that it didn't deal more with body image and the expectations women are made to live up to. Yes, alcohol and cigarette advertising is atrocious, but as Kilbourne said, the advertising is really geared towards the addicts. Whereas the way that society presents women and body image affects virtually everyone.

The portion she did discuss body image was fantastic! She brought up important issues that everyone should really be aware of in today's society, such as how photoshop has taken the place of using real women's bodies for advertisements and how, due to the over sexualization of the woman body, the body is sometimes used as an object (i.e. date rape, pornography, etc).  The overuse of photoshop vaguely reminded me of The Business of Being Born. Most labors happen in hospitals, where the use of synthetic hormones are used to speed the process along, for women's bodies aren't apparently good enough or prepared to give birth on their own. The same thing is true for the female body in advertising: the natural appearance of a woman's body, no matter how thin or curvy or porcelain or ethnic her body is, will never be good enough to appear in a magazine. The body has to be manipulated using photoshop and other computer technology in order to be worthy of an advertisement. Kilbourne's examples drove home the absurdity of the expectations a woman's body must meet. When power over the body is being taken away from women, there is a real problem in our world.

My Reaction to Jean Kilbourne

After attending Jean Kilbourne’s  presentation I was left with sort of mixed feelings. I don't think she offered us information that we didn’t already know. Nor does she state explicitly what she expects us to get out of her presentation. I didn’t walk away from it saying advertising is bad. In fact, I thought that a lot of the advertisements were really clever. I think she failed to acknowledge the fact that while advertisements can "manipulate" women and men everyone has free will and possesses the will power to not buy a certain product. Corporations don’t have control over the individual so when one purchases a product that is their decision and responsibility. And how are people supposed to sell products otherwise? I think the media does use women to sell. Obviously. But they aren’t necessarily degrading them in doing it. I mean sure there are some cases. But sex sells because it’s a part of us so what’s the harm in using it? I think the brunt of the responsibility is placed on the individual to decide what they do and do not want to partake in , regardless of the pressure that advertising places on the consumer. 

Jean Kilbourne and Art Expression

I really enjoyed Jean Kilbourne's presentation. The part that really caught my attention was when she was talking about women in advertising. I liked how she brought up that the 'ideal' women that are portrayed in advertising cannot possibly be achieved. The part where Jean talked about how women are seen as things really, really interested me. Not only did she show us examples, she talked about how sometimes in advertising women's bodies are dismembered. With these dismembered body parts, women are being dehumanized. When people are dehumanized, violence is inevitable, said Jean Kilbourne in her presentation. I was really excited when hearing about the portrayal of women from Jean. This is because in my paintings, I focus on the dehumanization of women. My paintings are abstract views of the most sexualized parts of the female form (i.e. breasts and buttocks). I paint them in an unattractive manner and the colors that I paint with are meaty colors (i.e. reds). The point to my paintings are to shock and educate my viewers. I am trying to show people how women are often viewed and treated. My main focus is how they are treated during sexual assaults; however, I find that my concept does relate to other things as well (i.e. advertising). For me to be learning more and more about what I am trying to portray in my paintings is very fulfilling. My goal is to one day change the view of society with my paintings. In Stryker's book, there was a quote that directly connected me to my paintings. On page 6, Stryker says, "Some members of the minority group make art or write literature that changes the way others think of them and the issues they face." When I read this, I was stunned. I knew that this was what I was doing, and I really enjoyed that. Knowing that I am using my paintings to make such a strong statement really means something to me.

Repetition in Kilbourne's speeches

The day before we saw the Jean Kilbourne lecture, my Women in Global Cinema class watched her film "Killing Us Softly." I noticed during the convocation that a lot of what she said was a repeat and even her jokes were identical.  At first I kind of laughed at this because, well, why couldn't she come up with some new jokes? But as I continued to think about it, the way she repeated herself was useful.  It forced me to remember the points she made and I even looked for ads like the ones she was talking about. Kilbourne is such an intelligent woman and phenomenal speaker that I couldn't believe I would ever think she was anything else.

At work, right after the convocation, one of my co-workers was flipping through a bridal magazine.  We loved every single dress that was in the catalog.  After looking at a few models, though, I realized it was because of who was wearing the dress, how they were posing, and the way the dresses looked with the backgrounds.  Every single one of the models was definitely a size zero- there was not one plus sized model in the magazine.  This was really upsetting because the message is: unless you are a size zero, you cannot look good in a wedding dress.  This must be such a discouragement for brides-to-be.

We also noticed that many of the models in the catalog were extremely young- probably younger than twenty.  I remembered from the convocation and film that advertisers target young people on purpose.  They are saying that only young people look good in these dresses so if you are over the age of thirty, don't even bother getting married.  Even though wedding dresses are not cigarettes and alcohol, I think they target young people for the same reasons.  Young people can be easily convinced and also easily convinces their parents to buy them things that they want.  If a young woman is looking at a magazine, there are no dresses that are cheap.  She is being easily manipulated into wanting an expensive dress- and thinking that expensive is the only option.

Educating People on Those Outside the Norm

I feel that we as a society have never been properly educated on those who do not fit into the social norms, such as those who are considered transgendered. We at a very young age are told about the accepted categories every person must fall into, such as race and sex. When someone enters our point of view who refuses to fall into one of these roles, we often feel uncomfortable and make quick assumptions. My lack of education was made very prevelant to me in class on Friday and through the reading. I had no idea what the difference was between someone who was consdidered "intersex" or someone who is "transgendered" or the contrast between "sex" and "gender". Knowing these key concepts, I feel, is important for us as a society because it would help us to understand that their are a variety of people who don't feel comfortable in our accepted system. Further knowledge about thoses who are considered "different" would prevent descrimination and stereotyping. I think it would also normalize people who move away from their origional gender and make them better accepted in our culture.

Abercrombie and Fitch for Kids?

Jean Kilbourne's Convocation was a real eye opener for myself and I'm sure alot of other people there. Some of the things she mentioned were absolutely mind blowing to me, but yet made perfect sense. I mean why wouldn't advertising company's target young kids. They're young and can be easily influenced. One of their best selling points is sex. And lets be honest when you are first starting off middle school all you ever really want is to be accepted by your peers. The best way from what I remember to become apart of the in croud in middle school was to either look the best, or wear the least amount of clothing. This is all Abercrombie & Fitch promotes in their advertisments and store. They surround the store with this sex appeal that realistically cannot be achieved, and they target young middle school students for this reason. Their self-esteems are delicate and they become convinced that they need this clothing to be considered sexy or hot. All the men and women in these ads look as if they are having the time of their lives, an why shouldn't they be. Thier bodies look as if gods came down to eath and chizled them out of stone. The thing that kids don't know is that a lot of this is not even realistic for the models. So much photoshoping and airbrushing is done to make these models look the way they do. And it saddens me that this will be an endless cycle for the generations of  kids/teens that come after us. Middle school is already hard enough. Why do these store become such a toxic trend. I remember being young and falling into this trend. It was difficult to because my family like others didn't really have the money to be buying all my clothing from stores like Abercomebie and Hollister. I remember though not feeling good about myself in school unless I wore these name brands. The advertisments say it all. And without them I think a lot of young kids/teens could have been saved by their insecurities.  

Advertising Gender

In class we talked about all different combinations a person could be when it came to identifying ones sex or gender. Theirs gay, straight, transgender…etc., but I've noticed these divisions aren't really seen through advertising. When Dr. Jean Kilbourne presented, it seemed like she was mostly concentrated on woman and men in the media. Which makes since because as I'm sitting here writing this I can’t come up with any well-known gay or transgendered ads with perhaps transgendered models or even just having a ad that talks about the issue. It could be true that there are several transgendered models working but the fact that they are transgendered are not opening disclosed. Perhaps some people would want to just "fit in" with what society says is normal but I feel some people would want the chance to show the world that everyone is different and that we don't have to fit into these cookie cutter molds that history has made for us.

I feel the more we expose what else is out their for people the more people will become comfrotable with it. I know it will still take some time for certian people to believe that their are people that think, act and live differently then they do. Perhaps showing not the sterotypes of the world in the media will help people realize that their not alone. Real people dont look or act like the people in the magizines so why show them?

Pansexuality

Pan-sex-u-al adj.
Not limited or inhibited in sexual choice with regard to gender or activity

This is how Websters dictionary defines the term pansexuality. This is a relatively new term and while this is true enough, I don't feel like this really encompasses what it means to be pansexual. The definition that to me really encompasses what it means is this one from urban dictionary:
one who's affections, romantic platonic or sexual, are potentially geared towards anyone regardless of sex or gender identity.

I don't like labels and definitions applied to people but if I'd have to pick one, that would for me the best one. I find sexuality especially to be such a personal thing that no one should try to impose another label upon for you.
This was something I personally struggled a lot with in high school because even just three or four years ago the term pansexual didn't exist. You were straight, gay, or bi, and those were essentially your only options. I never really identified with any of them. I was raised in a home where I never really had gender imposed on me; if there was a toy I wanted, regardless of whether it was a girls or boys toys, I would get it. I was raised to accept everyone for who they were, not based on their appearance, so being raised like that, it had carried over into my sexuality. I felt like bisexual never really encompassed who I felt I was. But everyone is so obsessed with labels in high school so I had to be something. I also at the time didn't know who to articulate that I didn't care what you were packing in your pants, it had more to do with who someone was, what their personality was. I couldn't articulate this definition for myself when I was fifteen.
I don't think it's really up to anyone else to define someone's sexuality for them, and I would much rather someone asked me about it than they assume something that's not true or partially true. Usually people of different persuasions are very open and willing to talk about things if you are genuinely interested. A little bit if respect goes a long way.