Is beauty really in the eye of the beholder?

In a May, 2000 edition of Newsweek  a 16-year-old girl was quoted as saying, "I took this picture [out of the magazine] because it shows the stick-thin and perfect bodies in the magazines that teens read. I think this is part of where the pressure to have the perfect body comes from. I was thinking about a girl I knew that had an eating disorder. I think they should put a few more 'realistic' bodies in the magazines to show teens that not everyone is skinny." Adolescence is an extremely hard time for anyone as uncertainty and self-doubt arise from many physical, emotional, and psychological changes. As these feelings fester, one’s sense of confidence drops at a constant rate. With that being said, strategies for fitting in and improving physical attractiveness become even more important to adolescents.

White adolescent girls are the most avid consumers of magazines, with three fourths of those between the ages of 12 and 14 reading at least one magazine on a regular basis (Klein, 1993). Remembering my days spent reading magazines such as Seventeen and Teen People, the content is highly based off of appearance and beauty. Although there were always the articles dealing with conquering anorexia or bulimia, maintaining a positive body image, and a stressing independence and uniqueness, it was very clear that most of the models in the advertisements were thin and beautiful. Based on this, one must conclude that the main message of the advertisements is that in today's society, acceptance depends upon fitting into this narrow conception of pretty. The content of advertisements in magazines targeted to young women send an array of implicit and explicit messages concerning physical appearances.

In both van Zoonen and Gill, the idea of content analysis is under much discussion. Content analysis counts the frequency of various occurrences and this raw data is translated into percentages and various other statistics. While it can be argued content analysis suggests that sexism resides in single images that can be counted instead of seeing sexism as a culture wide issue, there are still benefits of this research. I found an article that performs a content analysis on the top five selling teen magazines. Of those were Seventeen, Teen Vogue, Girl's Life, American Cheerleader, and M Magazine. 

As expected, those represented in the magazines represent girls that are flirty, carefree, tan, and beautiful. With so much content pushing such similar images, girls will inevitably internalize the idea that beauty means echoing and replicating what they see in the media. If this continues, what will this mean for the future of individuality and confidence?

Maybe Lego got it right...in 1981

I found these ad from 1981 marketed by Lego. I love this and I think this is the message LEGO should be striving for, not a marketing technique that others girls and limits their creativity.

What a girl wants. What a girl needs.

In class we have been discussing post feminism and the complications that accompany it. In no way is post feminism, and its relation to the media, and a cut and dry thing. Gill further expands on this notion in our most recent reading from her book. In this section Gill discusses the complex nature of media studies and feminism. Much like a cultural studies scholar will answer “it’s more complicated than that” to many queries about the relationship between media and society, Gill explains that in many ways the same response can be shared about many questions concerning the mediation of feminism.

This point is further supported by the NOW articles that show a range of activities being conducted by the National Organization for Women. While this Organization may present a more unified front, they are not immune to the idea of not always knowing the best way to go about doing this.

One of the NOW article addresses media’s unrealistic portrayal of women and the female body. This reminded me of an article I read about Adele.  A sensation in both Europe and the United States, Adele has broken many stereotypes that tend to plague the scene of female pop musicians. The article discusses how the journalist was surprised to find that Adele so thoroughly broke from the mold of the typical female artist, not just in shape but also in her attitude and drive. In many ways the article is arguing that Adele represents a positive mediation of women, she represents an image of the female body that NOW makes itself so opposed to.

However, nothing is as simple as that. Much like cultural studies, postfeminism, and the relationship between media and feminism are complicated entities, Adele as a pop icon is not simply breaking the mold of the typical woman. Another article discusses the way her smoking habits have impacted her tour and that she may potentially be ruining her career over this habit. When I went to the Adele concert in Chicago this past summer one of the things she said that surprised me is that smoking is one of her favorite things in the entire world. Yet she is still being criticized for maintaining a (legal) habit that keeps her happy (and that brings harm only to herself, not others)? It seems that women are still dealing with having to navigate a media that is telling them what to want and what to need. However, icons like Adele show that the mold is slowly changing…though really it’s more complicated than that.

Just who do you think you are

This subject is very difficult to take on. Who are we to tell people what should and shouldn't offend them? But, at the same time, them not being offended might be a sign that they have lost respect for certain parts of their lives or themselves and have just started to accept the media that is being force-feed to them.
Gill's chapter looks at the confusion within feminist perspective and about feminism as an scholarly movement that involves esoteric language. When it comes to questions of empowerment versus objectification, we all have personal opinions. The problem is, if two people that say they are coming from the same position are disagreeing, it discredits the position as a whole. When media consumers see to feminist disagreeing on a personal opinion they think it has to do with a problem with feminism instead of a difference of opinion that reflects personal ideas about empowerment. Feminism seems to get caught up in a mess of personal opinion which in some circumstances ends up working to discredit it.  It would definitely be more advantageous for feminism to reach out to non-educated people so that they can understand that feminism means and is different things to different people. I think it is frustrating and unfair that media is producing pro-feminist ideas in programing while within the same program doing the opposite. This adds to the confusion of the general public in terms of what is actually acceptable and what is not. In an ethical perspective, I think we should all question what is harming are ability to respect each other and ourselves in a way that allows us to see people for who they are. Now here come the kicker; who are we and what have me become? Media has infiltrated into our personal lives and has even changed are personalities and are ability to communicate in a non-prejudice way. Our goal should be to use education as a counter weight to media exposure in order to gain an identity our ourselves as human beings before media has the opportunity to change us into categorized subsets of people with requirements that have nothing to do with who we are.  

Danica Patrick Strips for...Feminism?

In Gill’s reading for today, she confronts the depoliticization of feminist media studies. She not only discusses the ways feminists challenge the media, but she also confronts the disagreements between the feminist perspectives. She discusses the qualities of “positive” images and whether or not “positive” can be a universal term.

As we’ve discussed over the past few classes, images are only that—images; the challenge is that people interpret the images differently. So, a commercial with a scantily clad woman can be seen as objectifying or empowering, depending on the audience member you ask. What I thought about while reading this section were the Danika Patrick ‘Go Daddy’ commercials.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_cSn3x5m-k

(first)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOBd2hs0uU8&feature=relmfu

(most recent)

Danica Patrick is the only female in the Indie car races, which is empowering and an incredible feat. Danica has entered a completely male-dominated sport; along with this achievement, she understandably has been called ‘hot’, ‘sexy’, and a slew of other things that can be considered either empowering or objectifying, depending on who you ask. Being the only girl in the sport, it is expected for her looks to be discussed, but this commercial takes it so much farther than it should. I can’t even tell you what Go Daddy! sells, and this commercial does nothing to explain the commercial. Is this effective marketing? Or shameless objectification?

Feminism in the City

There is a concept that really interests me that Gill briefly discussed in this section that I believe needs to be explained more and it is the both/and theory. In Gill’s case, she explains it in terms of representations of women in the media.

I honestly believe that Sex and the City is an interesting program that definitely takes the both/and concept into question.

Does Sex and the City represent and even empower women? Do Carrie Bradshaw and her girlfriends represent positive media representations of women? Is Sex and the City feminist? All of this can be answered with the and/both concept that Gill uses in the last few paragraphs of this section.

The Second wavers brought up this question in terms of media representations of women because it is difficult to understand that a woman who is conventionally beautiful or falls into the beauty ideal can actually have feminist ideals. Radical feminists believe(d) that in order for one to be a feminist then they needed to separate themselves from the beauty ideal, an ideal that is based on the male gaze and inherently sexist. But later, the third wavers put the idea of an either/or into question. Why can’t a woman be feminist and beautiful?

I have some reservations myself to answer this question with a yes but if the underlying message is extracted, then Sex and the City could be understood as a feminist representation. Yes, the show displays mostly heteronormative images of sex and relationships, and yes, the show consists of mostly white characters but the underlying message that women are our main allies and are the most important relationships in our life allows for a feminist undertone.

Do you think that Sex and the City is feminist? How does one define a feminist? I do not believe that there is a succinct definition but understanding feminism in terms of the both/and concept allows for a wider range of people who can consider themselves feminist. 

Empowerment or Objectification?

In this section of her book, Gill discusses the depoliticization of feminist media studies. The ability to read media's representation of women in different ways has made it very difficult to take a concrete stance in about these representations. For example, a character such as Samantha from Sex and the City can be considered empowering to women due to her sexual conquests or a way of symbolically annihilating women by representing women as little more than sexual objects.

I found this point to be particularly interesting because it is a conversation I have often had in my own household. My mom and I frequently have debates about Beyonce's image and its implications for young women like myself. My mom adamantly believes that Beyonce has a very toxic image that teaches young women that the only way we can succeed in life is through the use of our bodies. I, on the other hand, believe that Beyonce is very empowering to women my age by showing us that we can take a stand and declare our independence and go after what we want. Although, I do see my mother's point of view as well.

Sex Object?

Or Empowering Figure?

This dual interpretation of her image is what the author talks about in her book and, according to her, is the reason that feminist media studies have become so divided. It is impossible to point out positive and negative media representation of women because the interpretations of these representations vary greatly depending on the audience.