Also, I very much like to read the blog Bitch, Ph.D. and find she's a very thoughtful feminist writer. Here is a partial of one of her posts that I found really interesting about perceptions and what raising a feminist child means. (also, check out the fabulous picture in her masthead!)
I'll remind people that feminism is defined by the dictionary as:
feminism
n 1: a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women 2: the movement aimed at equal rights for womenRead on...[ I should menion that PK is Bitch, PhD's son, and this is an anecdote at the end of a great entry on her blog]
Which brings me to my PK story, and I promise to the end of this talk. As those of you who read the blog know, PK has long hair, and is often mistaken for a girl. I’ve also written about how he is starting to come home from school complaining that one or the other of the girls in his kindergarten class has said that “fingernail polish is for girls” or some such. I’ve caught him and one or two of the boys in his class chanting “boys win, girls lose,” and scolded them soundly. The point is, he’s at the age where kids start to notice and enforce gender difference, and so, we talk about it.
So yesterday, as I was walking him home from school telling him to hurry up because I had to leave to come to this conference, he told me that two of the boys in his class had somehow had Spiderman chocolates. And that the teacher’s aide had said, in passing, how lucky the boys were that they had chocolate that day. One of the girls--a little girl named Karen, who often got in snowball fights with PK after school this winter--had said, obviously in order to tease PK, that John and Simon had gotten Spiderman chocolates because they were boys. This was obvious, she said, because none of the girls had Spiderman chocolates, and PK didn’t have one either, because he has long hair and is therefore a girl.
“Aha,” I said. “So what did you tell her?”
“I told her that boys can have anything girls can have, and girls can have anything boys can have,” said PK. “And that if she doesn’t agree, she’s just wrong. And then I turned away.”
“Good for you!” I said.
PK looked puzzled. “Why is that good for me, Mama?” he asked.
Puzzled myself, I said, “because you were standing up for yourself.”
“No, Mama,” PK explained. “I was standing up for the boys. And,” he continued, after a pause, “the teacher, who said they were lucky to have chocolate.”
Now, as I interpret this little dialogue, PK is not reading the exchange with Karen about the chocolate the way I read it, which was as an attempt to tease him by calling him a girl. Surprisingly, he didn’t seem to be offended by that at all. I think it’s awesome that he didn’t, and I hope that the reason is that he doesn’t see being a girl as a bad thing (notwithstanding the “boys win, girls lose” chant). Instead, I think he saw Karen’s statement as implying that Spiderman chocolates are somehow inferior, because they are boy chocolates; and he thought, accordingly, that he was defending the validity of Spiderman chocolates, the good fortune of John and Simon in having them, and the good sense of the teacher’s aide in explaining that having Spiderman chocolates was a lucky thing.
And for all I know, that is what Karen meant. But the point is that, regardless of what Karen meant, that is how PK saw it. And his seeing it that way--and telling me the story about it--helped me see, yet again, the ways that feminism is helping him. And my listening to his story helped him see the important point at the heart of feminism: that his story matters. Because even though it is only a cute little anecdote about a kindergarten kid, it says something about the structures that little kid sees in his world, and the different ways that we can see those structures: as places where we can talk, and tell stories, and stand up for ourselves, and for little boys and girls, and for kindergarten teachers’ aides whose small but significant personal actions and stories create the world we live in. Because they matter.
Thank you.
7 comments:
I read the photo essay... and it seemed to me as though the author had already drawn his/her conclusions before writing and then searched through a stash of magazines to find pictures that supported that conclusion.
First of all, I dismissed the male vs. female posing at the beginning as nonsense, since the males are obviously not trained models and the females are. This makes all the difference in the world when trying to determine if someone looks "silly" because a trained model knows how to project an attitude to the camera. These male models, unaccustomed to being posed, might have felt quite silly themselves and did not have the skill or experience to mask that feeling.
Most of the rest of the essay is filled with photos of "women aware they are being looked at". Where are the photos of men that are not aware they are being looked at? How does the reader know that male models in the same situations would stare defiantly into the camera? Again, a lot of the author's conclusions seem to be drawn on false research. Most commercial figure / fashion / product photography seeks to show the positive qualities of something (say, the beauty of the model, the colour or texture of the clothing, etc) while playing down the method of display. For example, if you are trying to sell facial makeup, you want to show off the colour and texture of the skin, and demonstrate the visual impact of your product. The pose of the model is adjusted accordingly, in order to avoid drawing attention away from the featured items. However, in order for the photo to be viewed in the first place, there must be something about it to draw the viewers attention - a connection of sorts. This is the reason that most professional models seems to be looking 'at you'. It's because they are trying to get you to look at them, and once you do, they 'look away' so that your full attention is focused on the featured product.
Finally, I'll touch on the last image, which the author hopes will someday be less "unusual". It is not unusual at all. The model is doing exactly the same thing as the models in most of the other ads. She is using her eyes to attract the viewer. The only difference here is that attention is drawn to her product (the shirt) by the black and white lettering "I AM ESPRIT" instead of by her pose.
So, to sum it up - female models are not out to "get power through male power, rather than on [their] own", they are actually "controlling your gaze" in order to *sell you something*. Whether they are advertising a beauty product or clothing or a movie or even an idea (hello, valentine's day) they want to you look at what they have to offer. And no matter the gender of the model, if they are good they'll be able to do it to you. And if they are bad, they won't.
Now, I'm not saying that there is no truth in this essay. I'm just saying that if there is, it's a coincidence because the author really comes across as having an axe to grind with nothing to back it up.
First off, thanks for reading and commenting, Al.
I read your response a few times, so hopefully I have the gist of it.
I tried to imagine a male (professional) model striling the poses that the female actresses or models took, i.e. bent over their sitting selves, head half-cocked with a semi-smile, head downcast but eyes upcast and it all seemed really dumb, and I can't picture it selling anywhere near the same. Maybe if the person who wrote the essay searched and searched they could have found some examples of ads like this one (probably not successful, men aren't often successfully portrayed as demure and attractive at the same time in pictures), but I know he could find all the female examples in the first 20 pages of any one single magazine. And I think that's the problem.
This essay can't be dismissed because it doesn't have a null hypothesis and pictures of all kinds of poses for males and females, because that's not what an essay is. The author found ample pictures of poses that *I recognized* from countless magazines. Would a male Abercrombie and Fitch model sell a t-shirt with the same pose as a female one? Of course not, and don't confuse the idea that technically, they COULD...because they DON'T. The male model will be running up the beach in the t-shirt and shorts playing frisbee or something, and the female model will eiher be running up the beach (except in a bikini bottom, natch) getting tackled by said male and loving it or posed by a driftwood fence (in a bikini bottom, natch) leaning up and doing the head down/gaze up thing. Or bent playfully over in mid-laugh.
So yes, they are professional models portraying an image to sell the shirts, and it is for sure a skill, but the essay's point is to show the flaws in society's constructs of beauty, and if you look first at the sheer numbers of female models over male models (which I think proves the notion of how men look at women, and women look at women being looked at), and the strikingly different trends in poses women and men take to sell the same product (think perfume ads: ever see a male model naked, oiled and draped over granite or something? Yes? Well then I bet you've seen 15 females in the same position, even to sell men's scents) then I think he essay has strong legs.
I think writing a contrasting essay would be very difficult to write. Female models show power through print ads? Just because they are smiling doesn't mean all is well!
(It makes me think of how I head that during the summer olympics a while back the female beach volleyball medalists were told they had to wear their uniform (bikini bottoms and tankini) while the male medallists were allowed to wear their team track suits.)
Again, thanks very much for the thoughtful comment Alan!
Okay, so maybe the evidence was a little thin (I noticed the male model wasn't a professional, too). But I think the point of the essay is that women are objectified. Rather than being valued for who we are, we are valued for what we do, or what we look like. This can be seen in how we traditionally praise our children. Girls are told "you are so pretty" or "she is such a good cook" or "she gets straight A's". Boys are praised based on who they are (not what they do), for example "he is so thoughtful" or "he loves soccer" etc. When we watch TV, we see countless examples such as Vannah White and sexy women draped over cars in advertisements. Why? Because women are there to be looked at. Women are looked at. Why is this wrong? Because we are then taught (consiously or not) that it is okay to value women based on their looks. Little girls see these magazines and ads and realize (again, not necessarily consiously) that they are valued based on their looks, or how they look. When you are constantly being looked at, you have to be aware of that at some level. And you don't want to dissapoint. And you learn that tilting your head and cracking a half smile, or whatever, gets you attention, just like the chicks in the magazines. Think of the typical bar scene...the women lure the men with their sexy poses, making eye contact and looking away. I can't for the life of me picture a man doing that. Women deserve to be valued as equals, for who we are. Advertisements that display women in submissive poses teach girls, boys, men and women that women are valued for what we do, and what we look like. Also, women who aren't submissive are seen as bitches, or strong-headed, wheareas men are assertive. Women who speak out are frowned upon, men are listened to. Think of a feminist woman speaking out about an issue. She is "going against the grain". Now think of a male feminist speaking out about an issue. He is a "hero", a great guy for speaking out on behalf of women. Our perceptions are all fucked up, and the last thing we need is a billboard subconsiously telling a population that good women are submissive and pretty. The fact is, women don't represent 50% of the population in politics, marketing or business (or science, management etc etc). Why not? Well....stitch n' bitch, here I come! :)
Hi Carolyn thanks for replying as well!
I'm not sure I find the evidence to be thin, though. While it's very true that the first pictures of the men were obviously not male models, possible there WERE not such pictures to be found with professionals, or possible it could have been an exaggeration to make a point...even an attractive professional mimicking the female poses would have seemed silly, so I don't really feel that it detracts from the message of the essay. Maybe if they had the money to hire professionals, but in the circumstances, I think the authors did a good job of making their point.
These models are definitely selling something, but with these magazines it sure doen't seem like a product, specifically. It seems more like a matter of making the models fit the mold of what sells, and so what we should be looking at is not so much WHAT sells a product, but WHY that sells a product, you know? Why do we like women in most ads even though most are aimed at women? Surely there aren't enough lesbians and bi-identifying people to earn that. Why is it we like to see women in prone poses? Why do we like ads that have women sexualized when the product she's advertising is coffee? Why do we care to see airbrushed, leg-extended models when they look like *no-one* we've ever met before?
My mind boggles.
Alan, is this still a discussion!? :) I appreciate your putting out an opinion that you had to know I likely wouldn't share.
Anyone else?
Ok, let me rephrase some of what I said, and emphasize some other things. And, let me state for the record that I am an engineer, and a bit of a stubborn one at that. But, I fully understand that Evidence->Conclusion, Fact->Truth.
And one more thing - if you don't read my whole comment, please at least skip to the end. Thanks.
My biggest beef with this essay is that there's no focus. The authors keep trying to make a point and then heading off in another direction.
At the beginning, it's about how fashion magazines present a false notion of beauty, and that this notion "may be less about sex, less about actual human sexual behaviors, than it is about power." Fair enough, I thought, let's see what they have to say about it.
What followed was several pages of pictures trying to prove that men look silly when posed the same as women. I didn't (and still don't) see what this had to do with the authors' point.
Then, more examples showing that women in ads are often posed in a submissive way. Ok, that's fine.... I guess they're saying that submissive female poses sell? Ok, I can agree with that.
Next, they try to prove that female models are aware that you're looking at them. Yes. That's often the whole point. Male models would also show that they are aware that you're looking at them. But I totally disagree when they say that "The childish, submissive postures are represented as strategic, as a sign of control of the gaze" You can be in control of the gaze without being submissive and I'm sure the authors could have found many examples (female and male) to show this, aside from the one on the last page.
At this stage I'll concede a point to Captain_Pants about the sheer volume of female models vs male models. Granted, this makes the authors' job harder, but there is plenty of material out there to find examples of male models "controlling the gaze"
back to the essay: and another 90 degree turn in the focus.
"The problem is, however, that most women make less money and have less power than most men..." I fail to see the significance of this statement. I'm not saying it's not true - I think that's been fairly well proven in other areas. But what does that have to do with fashion magazines' particular notion of beauty?
Ok, moving on we get to the statement "Women are acculturated to look at themselves through the eyes of an imagined man because the ideal spectator is always assumed to be male." I disagree and agree at the same time. In any advertisement, the 'ideal spectator' is always assumed to be the *target audience*. Often, the target audience is a member of the opposite sex. For men and women. The model is always playing to the appropriate audience. However, for biological reasons, the ideal audience for a female will *always* be a male, for reproductive reasons. Likewise, the ideal audience for a male will *always* be a female.
this is getting very long, but I perservere.
The authors' conclusion"
"the problem is how beauty is being defined: as a means to male power through strategic deference." Where? This is really a stretch to me. Yes, there is strategic deference - the male population seems to find that attractive, for sure. But a means to male power? How does any of this 'beauty' give women male power?
And trying to prove that "omnipresence of images like the preceding" is cultivating "the craving to attract and captivate among women" just as hard as trying to prove that that same craving to attract and captivate is the cause of the omnipresence of images like this. Chicken, egg. Take your pick.
----- skip to here ---
Anyway, I'm not saying I disagree with the premise of the essay, just that I found the essay to be poorly executed. After all, you did ask me to tell you what I thought of it. I found that I can't really comment on the subject because I don't understand what the authors are trying to say. They touch on some important points, and I recognize that.
In addition, to Carolyn - you bring up many other good points... and I'm not sure if you were responding to my first comment or the essay at times :P
In fact, I agree with 90% of what you say. One thing that I didn't agree with was that women are praised about what they do and men are praised about who they are. Maybe you could give a few more examples?
quote: Girls are told "you are so pretty" or "she is such a good cook" or "she gets straight A's".
Aren't these things "who you are"?
you are pretty
you are a good cook
you are a good student
Another quote: "he is so thoughtful" or "he loves soccer" etc.
Aren't these things "what you do"?
he performs thoughtful acts
he plays soccer
Last quote: "Advertisements that display women in submissive poses teach girls, boys, men and women that women are valued for what we do, and what we look like."
again, I don't see the connection between submissive poses and being valued for what you do. I also don't see the connection between submissive poses and being valued for what you look like. However, I *do* see the connection between submissive poses and the impression of not being confrontational (ie, your strong-headed point), and I *do* see the link between being non-confrontational and being attractive. So... in conclusion, I agree with you because of some of your arguments and despite others...
All in all, this has been a very long comment. Did I make any sense?
wow, i've never seen comments so long.
my thought: for the most part, women care more about what other women are wearing than men do.
guys don't care about .. shoes, for example. when was the last time a guy friend of yours came up to you and commented on your shoes? or your outfit? or your make up? or the fact that you took 2.7 hours getting ready for a trip to zellers?
girls look good for other girls.
so the intended audience always being male, in my opinion, is just what females want to believe. we dress to impress each other.
----
and i fully agree with alan about the lack of follow-through with some of the arguments and points brought up in the photo-essay.
Hi again!
Alan, I'd like to respond to some of your comments. You said "However, for biological reasons, the ideal audience for a female will *always* be a male, for reproductive reasons". But I disagree. Why are magazines for women full of pictures of women? Why don't men dominate advertisements for dish soap and laundry detergent? Because women and men like looking at women. Men like looking at women because they're airbrushed and sexy. Women like looking at women so we can see what we should look like, in order to attract men, and be valued.
"How does any of this 'beauty' give women male power?"
Because women are valued for beauty, and not who they are, men have the power to judge them. In order to be valued, we must be judged by men, giving them the power.
"One thing that I didn't agree with was that women are praised about what they do and men are praised about who they are. Maybe you could give a few more examples?"
Yes. First, though an explanation of my previous examples. Being pretty, a good cook, and a good student do not describe who I am (but I understand the confusion, because I didn't define this properly before). My thoughts, opinions, behaviours, values, morals, loves and hates describe who I am. So when girls are told that they cook well or are pretty, they learn that doing things makes others value them. On the other hand, being told "you're so thoughtful" or "he loves soccer" encourage self-awareness, and value for who you are. Kids who are told this sort of thing learn to value themselves for who they are. I saw lots of examples in the classroom. Girls are praised for being quiet (a lot), and boys for participating and coming up with good ideas. In fact, teachers ask boys to speak about 75% of the time, without even noticing it. In classes where teachers deliberately pick girls to speak more than 30% of the time, boys complain that the girls are being favoured. I have references, if you are interested :) So, the phrase "just sit and look pretty" is still a reality in many cases.
Finally I'll respond to: "again, I don't see the connection between submissive poses and being valued for what you do."
The women in those poses are being valued for (a) being submissive (ie, what they are doing) and (b) being pretty (what they look like).
The main point, for me, is that men are not valued for being submissive, hence they don't pose in a submissive way in ads. We all know it's wrong, so why are women still posed submissively in ads? Why is it "okay" for that message to be transmitted? Why is it okay for men to value women for their looks?
Maybe feminism isn't seen as a "serious" issue. To me, though, seeing as women make up over 50% of the population, our thoughts and values ought to be represented at least 50% of the time, no?
Post a Comment