commercial 1
commercial 2
commercial 3

The sexiness of a sneaker

Courtney Miller

Media Culture Project

Advertisement comes in many forms. It’s the billboards we see on long drives, magazine ads, television, radios, websites, and even commercials. When it comes to projecting what people want or what people think they need, advertisement companies can create incredible things through the lenses above. As for women, it is through advertising that we are told who we are and who we should be. And this ideal is based on absolute flawlessness. Whether it’s clothing, makeup, exercise, whatever have you, women are projected as Caucasian and ageless--with no scars, wrinkles, blemishes, or even pores. These are all qualities women strive to have because it is projected to the public as the perfect, ideal woman. And these ideals are strived for by men as well—advertisements make them want to see these qualities in potential girlfriends or wives too. This sex appeal that make men lust over you and women want to envy you can come from the strangest of places—like harmless sneaker commercials. The following descriptions of commercials advertising “Reebok Easy Tone Sneakers”, reveal that advertisers know how to real women in—that, as Susan Douglas claims in Enlightened Sexism, “through sex and sexual display women really have the power to get what they want” (Douglas, 156).

“Better legs and a better butt with every step.” This is the closing line of every Reebok Easy Tone sneaker commercial. In this first commercial, what the advertisement tries to get across is that the sneaker works. And clearly, based on the camera’s angles, we are definitely aware of the effects of this sneaker. Another assumption the audience makes is that the cameraman is in fact, a man. This is a valid assumption considering that twice during the commercial, the camera moves from the woman’s face to her legs and butt. The camera man is visibly so distracted by the beautiful set of legs and butt standing before him that he can’t seem to concentrate on filming the actual commercial. The objectification of a woman’s body through a male lens is what this commercial alludes to.

In the next commercial, women are viewed in their homes, at work, working out, on the beach, dancing, cleaning, cooking, walking the dog, all wearing the easy tone sneakers. The one thing that sets this commercial apart from let’s say, a jewelry commercial, is that this one contains only shots of women from their waist down. Not Hispanic women, black women, or any women of color. It shows white women’s’ legs in all these aspects of our every day lives, wearing these sneakers and feeling empowered. The idea of the fit, beautiful, sculpted, Caucasian woman, is alluded to in this commercial.

The last commercial is the one I personally am the most offended by. Let’s keep in mind that these advertisements are for sneakers. Shoes, that people wear usually to work out in…not when we are lying in bed. This commercial is in black and white, on a bed, with a woman completely naked minus the fact that she has spanky pants on. The camera slowly travels down her body in a seductive way, as it describes how this kind of workout is “28% more of a workout for your butt, 11% more for your hamstrings and calves, so 88% of men will be speechless…” and finally ends at her feet, and of course, as she’s lying in bed, she is wearing these easy Tone sneakers which are the only things in the commercial that are not black and white. This commercial alludes to the sexiness of the sneaker. The sexiness of a sneaker? Who would ever think this was possible.

There are several aspects about these commercials that can be analyzed through the lens of our class readings from earlier this semester. Particularly, in Susan Douglas’s Enlightened Sexism and Joan Brumberg’s, “Body Projects” from The Body Project, we are more than able to break down each commercial from their perspective and see how Reebok easy tone sneakers objectify women. The first commercial is one in which men would find particularly funny. They see this camera guy lose focus who is clearly mesmerized by this woman’s legs and in particular, her butt—something especially these days, men find particularly sexy on a woman. Women want to feel empowered—they want men, like this cameraman to lust after them—and by buying these sneakers, women can be awed at in the same way. Douglas tells us, “true empowerment comes from buying the right things and using the right products to look irresistibly attractive”(Douglas, 102). This commercial is showing women that if they want their thighs and mostly their butts to be lusted for, she will have to buy the sneakers to get these amazing results.

Along those same lines, these commercials are clearly accentuating the lower half of a woman’s body. That is the common thread amongst all these three commercials. Brumberg says, “Our current below-the-waist orientation is reflected in a national discourse about female thighs that has generated new products and procedures, and also increased female insecurity and dissatisfaction with themselves” (Brumberg, 125). Women are getting the wrong idea about fitness and exercise—that it is based on looks and not health. And on top of that, the commercial applies to one class of women and that is the “ideal woman” in advertising. “This persona of the sexpert is almost always white, young, heterosexual, slim, beautiful, and middle – or upper-middle class” (Douglas, 157). The racial and class implications of this commercial exclude a major portion of our country’s audience. But again, it is through advertisements like this one, that make women feel as though they need to look like the women in this commercial, because that is the “ideal.”

The last commercial is by far, probably the one that sticks out in my mind the most. How is it that a commercial for sneakers, involves a half naked woman, lying in bed, with sultry music playing in the background? None of these things correlate with sneakers, or fitness for that matter. This commercial implies that fitness and exercise is once again, not about being healthy, but about how your butt gets 28% more of a workout, and you can clearly see this by the incredibly sculpted half naked butt viewed perfectly in this commercial. I think this is a commercial that the Reebok advertisement company wanted to apply to men as well as women. The fact that the sneaker is the last thing we see or hear about is a terrible advertising technique for any other circumstance. However, they have enticed both sexes and made the sneakers something that every woman wants to buy, in order to obtain a sexy body like the one shown. (If I weren’t so offended by the subtle objectification in these commercials, I would want a pair after seeing this last one too!).

Media today reveals a transformed sense of objectification of young women. It is commercials like the ones above that I want to end, but know it won’t. White sells, a nice body sells, and sexiness sells. Feminists today have yet to find a solution to this newfound objectification because there isn’t one. Sure, we have made plenty of progress because of feminism; sure, full equality has been achieved, so now, is it okay to resurrect sexist stereotypes of girls and women? No, it is never okay, but that is Enlightened Sexism, and these are the problems women are facing every day.

MEDIA PROJECT: Emily Messing

The media is full of written and spoken messages about what a women needs to do in order to be successful. “There are also rules so clear they needn’t be written down: For instance, an overall ‘look’ compatible with beauty and fashion ads. Even ‘real’ non-model women photographed for a women’s magazine are usually made up, dressed in credited clothes, and retouched out of all reality…The point is to be ‘upbeat’” (Steinem “Sex, Lies, and Advertising”). Cosmo especially, has been notorious for promoting this unrealistic image of how women should look. In addition to a modified version of a celebrity plastered across the cover, the reader is bombarded with an array of headlines that encourage us to be proactive about our body image and our actions. As Douglas states, “Cosmo isn’t for passive girls waiting for the right guy to find them; it’s the magazine for the ‘Fun, Fearless Female’ who is also proud to be, as one cover put it, a ‘Sex Genius’” (Douglas 4). However, it is important to also recognize that the “Fun, Fearless Female” that Douglas is referring to is mostly “white, young, heterosexual, slim busty, beautiful, and middle-or upper-middle-class” (Douglas 157), the group that Cosmo primarily targets. These are the types of women that have the resources and the desire to embrace Cosmo’s advice on how to gain power. The August edition of Cosmo, featuring Britney Spears, supports the skewed image of what means are available to women living in the twenty first century in order for them to gain power and respect, specifically their body image and their willingness to please men.

Girls raised during this generation have been taught that their body image is their greatest means for obtaining power. Therefore they have experienced an overwhelming amount of pressure to fit into what is considered an ideal mold of the female figure. It is no surprise then that bolded on the Cosmo cover is a headline that reads, “Inhaled the Whole Pizza? How Not to Gain Pounds After a Pig-Out.” This headline grabs the attention of the reader, who themselves, is lusting for that ideal body type. Society has engrained the belief that “real power [comes] form having a slim, young, hot body” (Douglas 215) into us; that dieting to obtain this ideal body shape, has almost become second nature. As Sittenfeld points out “you and your friends go on a thousand diets, and you don’t say anything else as often as you that you’re fat” (Sittenfeld 5). Achieving a thin body will in turn prove that a woman is powerful, and not susceptible to the cravings that normal women experience, such as the need to pig-out during stressful times. Douglas takes that belief one step further by noting how it is not that women are not expected to eat. It is actually the opposite. We are expected to eat away our emotions; because of course women are victims to their emotions, and then to be a real women with power, take the initiative to make sure we don’t gain a single pound from that binge. And as Cosmo reminds us, having a slip up every once in a while is acceptable because Cosmo has a cure for covering up your vulnerability. This sort of power that women desire to achieve from dieting “has to do with getting men to lust after you and other women to envy you” (Douglas 10).

Although society would like to believe that it is only older teens and women who are exposed to the messages that Cosmo is conveying, that is simply not the case. The cover of a magazine is exposed to anyone who walks by and once girls are old enough to understand the meaning, they too will internalize these societal beliefs. Valdes notes the statistic that “In [a] study fifty percent of nine-year-olds, and nearly eighty percent of the ten- and eleven-year-olds, had ‘put themselves on a diet because they thought they were too fat’” (Valdes 26). Additionally with the overwhelming number of eating disorders plaguing girls today, one would expect that the media would have started to drift away from its obsession with women being thin. However, as Douglas notes, one Magazine editor defended their decision to feature extremely thin models by claiming, “to be slim and fit is healthier than to be seriously overweight and ‘out of shape’” (Douglas 221).

The image of Britney Spears that Cosmo chose to feature on the cover of the August edition makes it clear that women’s magazines have no intention of altering their perception of how women should appear. Spears is dressed in such a way that accentuates her feminine figure, but conceals just enough so that the cover cannot be deemed inappropriate for display. By leaving a gap between her top and jeans sends the message to the reader that if they follow the advice given in the “How Not to Gain Pounds After a Pig-Out” article’s advice, we too could have a body like Britney’s. Cosmo’s editors have mastered the talent of making the celebrities on their covers appear to have “conform[ed] to the Barbie aesthetic of femininity and [walk] the razor-thin line between sexy and slutty” (Douglas 146). In addition to Spears computer enhanced body, the placement of her hands seductively on her pants transmits the message to the reader that she is a women who has embraced her sexuality, is not afraid to be know as a “sexpert.” However, it is important for Cosmo readers to remember that when they are viewing this picture of Spears that “if the media are mirrors, they are fun house mirrors” (Douglas 18). All of the celebrities featured on the cover of Cosmo have been enhanced and altered to give off the perception that “the perfect” body is actually achievable.

Not only is Spears the focus of the cover, editors have strategically placed the largest headline which reads “Feel Sexier Instantly 50 Quick Tricks” right in the center of the page and allowed it to cover the picture of Spears. All of the other headlines are placed to the sides, and are slightly set behind her, but the overall message that Cosmo is conveying in this edition is placed front and center, so there is no way that a reader can misinterpret what Cosmo plans to do for them. This huge message across the front also serves as a way for Cosmo to pull the reader in. We have been taught that sexiness equals power; who wouldn’t want to find out more about how to get quick results which in our minds would mean it would ultimately lead to respect?

As well as promising the reader a way for them to obtain their desired body image, Cosmo also promotes the belief that females can be sexperts. Douglas defines the sexpert as “[a women] whose main capital in the marketplace of relationships is her shapely, well made up, and femininely dressed body, her sexual knowledge, and her sexual skills. She must juggle all this, however, with not being remotely threatening to men” (Douglas 162-163). The headline “The Sex Angle That Intensifies Female Pleasure” reminds its readers that women can enjoy sex too. This supports Douglas’ statement that “Cosmo has been the pioneer in addressing young women as confident and obliging sexperts” (Douglas 161). Cosmo is able to draw readers in by giving them a false sense of security and confidence by encouraging them that they now have this new freedom to enjoy and embrace their sexualities. The reason that the image of the sexpert that Cosmo is promoting is unrealistic comes from the double standard that is still present for women today. Therefore the key to a women being “powerful” is that she still needs to appear submissive to males.

Cosmo endorses the belief that although they are encouraging women to be sexually liberated, they need to ensure that they are not crossing any boundaries that men would not be pleased about. Therefore it comes as no surprise that directly across from the headline that is promoting the image of the sexpert are two headlines that have to do with pleasing your man: “It’s official: We Got 2,000 Men to Reveal, ‘Do this, Not That’ in Bed” and “Together Forever? How to Still Flirt with Him?” Women are presented with conflicting messages about what the appropriate way to look and act is. However, I think that most of us know which messages are the dominant ones, the ones about respecting male power. Women are permitted certain freedoms as long as they don’t allow those same women to become more powerful. As Douglas points out, this conflicting advice pieces that are scattered throughout women’s magazines are “suggesting a lethal correlation between female achievement and lasting love” (Douglas 139). Just by the two headlines on this cover, we are being told that if we can please our men in bed, we can keep our man, and just inches down the cover, it is further emphasized that if we can also act in a way that pleases him, he will stay with us “forever.” This idea of having a man forever and being able to obtain the perfect body is what is supposed to make us “happy.” Which ultimately leads to the thought that if women are happy with their place in society, then the patriarchal system we have in place will remain unopposed.

The August edition of Cosmo featuring Britney Spears has a number of implications about what women’s role in society should be. The most prominent is the ideal body form, but additionally that their role in society should still remain subordinate to men’s needs and positions in that same society. What Cosmo and so many other women’s magazines have encouraged is a view of feminism that can be referenced as enlightened sexism. Society is under the impressions that since women have been given the rights that they requested such as voting and access to educational institutions, that it is acceptable to exploit their body images to convey an overwhelming message of what the appropriate position of women in society is. As long as women remain less powerful than men, then the traditional societal order is maintained. As Douglas notes, “the moral from the media…was that it was now accepted that some women could have power…as long as they did not threaten existing regimes about the marking and performance of femininity” (Douglas 75). By featuring an idealized image of a celebrity on the Cosmo’s cover and surrounding her with headlines that convey conflicting messages, women will remain focused on complying with men’s wishes on what the “perfect” woman is.

Work Cited

Douglas, Susan J. Enlightened Sexism. New York: Times Books, 2010. Print.

Sittenfeld, Curtis. "Your Life as a Girl." Listen Up. Ed. Barbara Findlen. Emeryville: Seal Press, 2001. 3-10. Print

Steinem. “Sex, Lies, and Adverstising.”

Valdes, Alisa. "Ruminations of a Feminist Fitness Instructor." Listen Up. Ed. Barbara Findlen. Emeryville: Seal Press, 2001. 25-32. Print

Midterm: Under Armour "Protect This House. I Will" Campaign

When companies aim their marketing at teen girls, they tend to use sex and merchandising in their advertisements. This sends girls the message that “they must exhibit hyperfeminie physical traits and the proper logos linking this femininity to upper-class ranking” (Douglas, 17). This is present in the new Under Armour ads that now include female athletes alongside males. As a female wearing the Under Armour logo, you are showing to society that you are an athlete most likely of the middle- to upper-class rankings, since their cheapest shirt is about twenty dollars. By wearing expensive company clothes, we show those below us that we have certain unearned privileges that accompany such logos.
Companies today realize that women make up a majority of the market. Recently, Under Armour has aimed their new “Protect This House. I Will” campaign towards high school and collegiate female athletes. When we think of Under Armour apparel we tend to think of football and other typically male sports teams. The focus however has now come to incorporate both genders. These “team girls” who wear the Under ArmourWhen companies aim their marketing at teen girls, they tend to use sex and merchandising in their advertisements. This sends girls the message that “they must exhibit hyperfeminie physical traits and the proper logos linking this femininity to upper-class ranking” (Douglas, 17). This is present in the new Under Armour ads that now include female athletes alongside males. As a female wearing the Under Armour logo, you are showing to society that you are an athlete most likely of the middle- to upper-class rankings, since their cheapest shirt is about twenty dollars. By wearing expensive company clothes, we show those below us that we have certain unearned privileges that accompany such logos.
Companies today realize that women make up a majority of the market. Recently, Under Armour has aimed their new “Protect This House. I Will” campaign towards high school and collegiate female athletes. When we think of UA apparel we tend to think of football and other typically male sports teams. The focus however has now come to incorporate both genders. These “team girls” who wear the UA apparel are confident, competitive, tough, passionate, intense, and plays on a team or works out regularly. “Nothing is more sacred than your team’s bond” and “I will protect this house” is what UA uses as slogans to invite the team girls into buying their products for themselves and their teams.
The commercial depicts world-class female and male athletes in their daily training regimens. The girl clothes are stylish enough to wear on the street and durable enough to wear while working out. There is even a Facebook page called “Under Armour Women,” where members can post information and pictures and find out about new UA styles and gear.
Douglas would say that while these marketing strategies say “we [women] can play sports” it also states that “we must obsess about our faces… clothing brands, [and] decorating” (16). So even though most women buy clothes that fit well, they also, if they can afford it, buy clothes based on logos. And usually the “best” products are the ones that are the most expensive. Companies will zoom in multiple times on their logos during commercials in order to grasp their audience’s attention. It subtly puts the logos in our brain, which we then go out and seek in the stores. The only way for women to obtain power, according to the media, is “from consumerism and girliness” (Douglas, 31). When shopping we choose what we want and don’t want. And those who can buy the best, those of the upper-class rankings, receive unearned privileges. These UA commercials use “sex and merchandising” to gain girls attention. The athletes depicted have tight abs and are sweating while only wearing a sports bra or tight shirt and shorts. When women see these depictions, they think that in order to be as fit as these athletes, they have to buy and wear UA apparel.
I think Douglas would argue that the media and companies brainwashes teenage and collegiate girls into buying their products. Girls, especially teens, are the new target audiences who are walking billboards for companies. apparel are confident, competitive, tough, passionate, intense, and plays on a team or works out regularly. “Nothing is more sacred than your team’s bond” and “I will protect this house” is what Under Armour uses as slogans to invite the team girls into buying their products for themselves and their teams.
The commercial depicts world-class female and male athletes in their daily training regimens. The girl clothes are stylish enough to wear on the street and durable enough to wear while working out. There is even a Facebook page called “Under Armour Women,” where members can post information and pictures and find out about new Under Armour styles and gear.
Douglas would say that while these marketing strategies say “we [women] can play sports” it also states that “we must obsess about our faces… clothing brands, [and] decorating” (16). So even though most women buy clothes that fit well, they also, if they can afford it, buy clothes based on logos. And usually the “best” products are the ones that are the most expensive. Companies will zoom in multiple times on their logos during commercials in order to grasp their audience’s attention. It subtly puts the logos in our brain, which we then go out and seek in the stores. The only way for women to obtain power, according to the media, is “from consumerism and girliness” (Douglas, 31). When shopping we choose what we want and don’t want. And those who can buy the best, those of the upper-class rankings, receive unearned privileges. These Under Armour commercials use “sex and merchandising” to gain girls attention. The athletes depicted have tight abs and are sweating while only wearing a sports bra or tight shirt and shorts. When women see these depictions, they think that in order to be as fit as these athletes, they have to buy and wear Under Armour apparel.
I think Douglas would argue that the media and companies brainwashes teenage and collegiate girls into buying their products. Girls, especially teens, are the new target audiences who are walking billboards for companies.

Never look at sneakers the same again...

Sneakers, Silences, and Surprises certainly surprised me with the in depth analysis of female labor rights in other countries. South Korea especially, being a militaristic government between the 1960s and 1980s had a particular interest in suppressing labor organizing. What happens when women become enraged with this complete lack of respect? If a woman demands the right to organize, the right to decent working conditions, and a fair wage? In South Korea as well as other countries, these women are risking losing their jobs. I feel like these women are brainwashed into coming to cities to work. The government is pushing for women in the 1970s to migrate "from their small towns to cities"(60) and at the same time, parents were being encouraged to redine their daughters as "responsible daughters", and "marriageable daughters"--clearly only being able to do so by getting a job and living on their own. They put this pressure on women to uphold the true meaning of a "respectable woman". Brainwashing. And by doing so, they trick these poor women into low paying, undeserving jobs where they get treated terribly. Rather than upping wages (which were a ridiculously low wage at $1.89 a day), Nike and other sneaker companies think that these jobs are good opportunities for women. When they could be out "harvesting coconut meat in the tropical sun", according to a Nike spokesman. Now when I look at sneakers at a store, or even glance at my own...I will definitely see the lengths to which some woman had to take in order to make these shoes.

Body Image

I think that a good way to summarize these readings is how Joan Brumberg starts off her piece: "Body Projects." She says, "In the twentieth century, the body has become the central personal project of American girls" (97). And the sad thing is that there is no way for us to deny it. Girls become aware of their age at such a young age. As Valdes points out, · “In this study fifty percent of nine-year-olds, and nearly eighty percent of the ten- and eleven-year-olds, had ‘put themselves on a diet because they thought they were too fat” (26). What was so interesting to me was to be able to view the older generations views on dieting when it first became such a large fad. This new way of defining themselves was a way for women to redefine themselves in terms that did not necessarily go along with how men viewed them. However, they were willing to take more risks and show more skin, to the extent that would have been thinking able before the 1920s. Brumberg notes at one point that Yvonnes new self image was one that she had "read about in women's magazines and popular advice books" (107). This idea that women's magazines would be encouraging women to put themselves out there displaying more of a sex appeal would contradict the the overall message that Ms. was trying to convey. Ms. magazine avoided placing ads in their pages that would send the message that they were not meant to be taken seriously. However, it is clear that today the image that sells is one that can promise to make you thinner. Valdes notes in her book that she is able to work at all of these high end fitness clubs where wealthy women came to maintain their slim figures. However, she feels as though she is betraying herself and her ideals by making money off of encouraging women to be thin. She even goes as far as to note, that “Anorexics fill my classes like worshipers in church, and no one stares” (Valdes 31). Being thin has come something that is so prominent in our culture today that we hardly think twice when we see someone so thin. We are getting sent the message in numerous aspects of our lives. It was nice to read about a women's magazine like Ms. that was not interested in making money off exploiting women, however, as I was reading the article I was also not surprised to hear that Ms. was not making much of a profit. In order to make money in todays society you have to endorse what sells. And unfortunately today, making women skinny is what sells.

Lean and Mean

This chapter does a good job describing the trend/obsession of girls and women today. They all want to be as skinny and as pretty as the models while having big boobs. The messages, like "your body is your central, crucial resource in establishing your net worth as a female," pressure us into thinking that this is the only way to fit in and be successful (216-17). We are judged more and more "by the size, uplift, and cleavage" of our breasts (228). More and more woman today are going under the knife or getting injections in order to look younger and prettier. This was then associated with employability. But in the long run, these surgeries can lead to many complications. And even with the stereotypes of big boobs equaling dumbness still in place, women still think that that is what is sexy.
But what comes from looking so Barbie-like... "illegible-rage" (219). We focus so much of our time and energy on an image that is impossible of achieving in a healthy way. Most of the time, girls get skinnier through anorexia and/or bulimia. And this "food deprivation tends to make one irritable" (214). Our frustration then is directed towards other girls. While we may laugh when we see it on TV shows such as Gossip Girl or even movies like Mean Girls, we end up enacting it in our own lives. And this bullying doesn't just happen on school (or even work) grounds; online cyber-bullying has been making an appearance as well. The mean girl has now become an icon in our society, punishing those who do not live up to the "standards."

Thursday October 14

I think that it was interesting to do these readings and see how the idea of marriages and civil unions have evolved over a nearly twenty year span. Starting with Paula Ettelbrick's "Since When is Marrage a Path to Liberation?" which was written in 1989, I go the impression that she was strongly encouraging the concept of a Civil Union. Her main point against marriage for gays and lesbians was that it would "fource [their] assimilation into the mainstream" (306). And therefore would disregard the main ideals that the gay and lesbian community had been fighting for such as "the affirmation of fay identity and culture; and the validation of many forms of relationships" (306). She argues that the law does not provide any room for differences, and therefore gays and lesbians would have to conform to what a "typical" marriage function as, if they wanted to have the right to get married. Ettelbrick points out many reasons for why gays and lesbians should not be fighting for the right to marriage, but instead keep working to develop and enforce alternatives to marriage. I think that since gay marriage rights are such a mainstream issue, that it was shocking for me to read a piece that was so strongly opposed to marriage. I found it ironic, especially after reading "Gender and Society" by Nancy A. Naples and the Same Sex Marriage FAQs, that what it seemed like Ettelbrick was pushing for was a civil union. In the Same Sex Marriage FAQs we are again reminded of all of the rights that married couples are entitled to, such as hospital visistaion rights and social security benefits. Not to mention that marriage grants state and federal rights, whereas civil unions only grant couples state rights. As the facts stated "they are separate and unequal." Additionally, Naples points out that in certain states, same sex parents are able to adopt children but are not allowed to marry. And to go even a step further, at one point the article states that some parents are cautioned parents against applying for a civil union before the adoption process is completed because it could make the process more difficult or prohibit them from completing the adoption all together (682). However, we have to remember the risks that accompany parents who are not married that have children in the sense of the lack of legal rights that both parents have if they are not married. It was ironic for me to see how twenty years ago a civil union would be considered a large step in the positive direction, but today, a civil union is not enough.

We've all heard the "You're so not the type..." before. Girls and guys alike. But who constructs this notion that there is a specific "type" for specific things? Was Laurel Gilbert, someone who loves the internet and horseback riding, not the "type" to get pregnant? According to her peers, no, she wasn't. She was bisexual, she was pregnant, and she was smart. Three things you don't necessarily hear very often. She noticed though that she was "no longer expected to succeed; [she] was expected to settle"(Gilbert, 82). Imagine living life knowing that no one expects anything from you. I don't think I could. Not to mention the fact that Gilbert brings up something very interesting. She says that there are people who deal with problems but who don't show it--(abusive parents, drug or alcohol abuse) so they aren't judged like her; someone who WEARS her difference...everyday. With the hep of Adrianna Rich's "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Experience", she was better able to put a name on the feelings she'd had her whole childhood. Rich encourages people to question heterosexuality as a "preference" or a "choice". She claims that by doing this it allows for a "freeing-up of thinking", the exploring of new paths, the shattering of another great silence, new clarity in personal relationships" (Rich,317). This is precisely what Gilbert had discovered. By merely questioning her sexuality, she learned more about herself than she could have imagined. Who says heterosexuality has to be THE natural inclination for women? Who says anything but heterosexuality is not normal? Why does society create such naive standards for the rest for the world? What is "abnormal"? "natural"? "Innate"? "preferred"? "Chosen"? I feel like I may just be rambling, but after reading these pieces I'm beginning to really understand where not only feminists, but female liberators are truly saying. All Rich wants is for heterosexuality to be seen as a political institution. Why must a lesbian existence be hidden from scholarly work or writings? People say if men were to take over child care and parenting that the imbalance between the power men have over women. But why? Because society makes it seem "normal" and "natural" for women to be the primary caretakers of children? So if a man decided to take over that suddenly the roles are switched? No. This is not the case and I honestly don't think this misconception will ever be changed. Women will constantly have that label and so will men and I don't know if anything will ever change that.

Image of one of the toddlers from TLC's Toddlers in Tiaras

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://x05.xanga.com/dd0f3af242430250405512/b198735639.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.momaroo.com/708539611/baby-beauty-queens/&usg=__NlkIjb2lPjYoHdozB5ejG3n3Akc=&h=400&w=263&sz=31&hl=en&start=24&sig2=jb_zegFkphj6lj8f0bTTAQ&zoom=1&tbnid=qah7j6stOm1CZM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=82&ei=s0GqTNLlLIG8lQeGzPWeDg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtoddlers%2Bin%2Btiaras%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1191%26bih%3D583%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C755&um=1&itbs=1&biw=1191&bih=583

Sex is everywhere

It was weird for me to read that this new sex in the media phase started mainly around the time I was born. In the 1990s, "the rampant return of the often degrading sexual objectification of women, and the increasing sexualization of children, especially girls" was prevalent (Douglas, 155). The sexpert and a sex-positive environment had emerged.
Douglas' chapter Sex "R" Us, talks about sex in the media. She says that the message is that "it's through sex and sexual display that women really have the power to get what they want. And because the true path to power comes from being an object of desire, girls and women should now actively choose being sex objects" (156). She then goes on to talk about Cosmopolitan and its "Fun, Fearless, Female" slogan along with its savy female depictions and articles. But is this magazine really telling girls that they are in control? Most of the articles are about pleasing males and to stray away from those habits that men dislike. Maxim on the other hand, is a magazine for men that "celebrates the 'guy lifestyle' of beer, babes, and sports" while "it shamelessly objectifies women and reduces them to their body parts" (165). This magazine also places women into the categories of hotties and worthless, saying that their only value is their sex appeal. Sex is not just in print media; it's in television as well. Shows like Sex and the City and Desperate Housewives show us that women can talk about and enjoy sex on a regular basis. And now with a rise in female rappers, we see black women moving from having to be "silent, mute, voiceless, only to be looked at" to becoming "aggressive women who challenges male authority" (179). Sexuality is being portrayed at a younger age now. We see celebrities like Jamie Lynn Spears and Miley Cryus being sexy at as young as 15 and 16. It's because we are living in an environment that "overexaggerates the centrality of sex and 'hotness'" (182).
But there is not enough information given out on sex to adolescents. Girls learn from a young age that their sexual appeal and behavior are what determines their value. That definitely means that they need to be educated at a younger age as well. Contraception is less likely to be used by younger girls who have sex since they don't know about it yet. And sexualization can lead to eating disorders, depression, and anxiety issues in girls. To educate these girls, abstinence-only classes shouldn't be the way. They need to know about the various forms of contraception to protect themselves from teen pregnancy and STD's.

NewsFlash: Emily Messing

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/nyregion/02witness.html?sq=sex%20trafficking&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=print

“A women in the military is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq” (Myers). That is a horrifying statement to hear. The fact that women who are overseas fighting for our country, are constantly faced with the fear of being killed in combat, in addition to being sexually assaulted by their fellow soldiers, is an indication that change needs to be implemented. In the article “A Peril in War Zones: Sexual Abuse by Fellow G.I.’s” by Steven Lee Myers, we are presented with the continual struggle that many women in the army face. Although this article is from the end of 2009, the issue of sexual assault and discrimination in the military is still pertinent today, as emphasized by the Senates recent block on the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy earlier this month. The role of women serving in the military is a type of embedded sexism that leads us to believe the illusion that if women are capable and permitted to fight alongside men, the goals of feminism have been accomplished.

In Steven Meyer’s article he argues that with the increasing acceptance of women serving in the military and occupying positions previously held by men, the military is confronted with having to deal with issues that arise from men and women working side by side each other (Myers). Although actions have been taken in order to deal with the issue of sexual assault within the military “the majority of sexual abuse allegations end with no prosecution at all” (Myers). Despite the lack of successful prosecutions, the number of reported sexual assault cases has been increasing dramatically over recent years. Meyers points out that the poor conditions that men are subjected to during war can create or even increase the risk of sexual assault of women. Additionally, “some military personnel indicated that predators may believe they will not be held accountable for their misconduct during deployment because commanders’ focus on the mission overshadows other concerns” (Meyers). Although war is a very serious time, it should not mean that instances of sexual assault are pushed to the side.

Unfortunately this is how some women who are assaulted view the circumstances as well. Captain White, who was repeatedly stalked and assaulted by a warrant officer, stated that she had feared coming forward because she feared disrupting the “tight knit military world” and the mission (Meyers). Another major fear that women had was that their accusations would not be taken seriously, and coming forward would only prove to be detrimental for their careers. For Sgt. Tracey R. Phillips that was exactly the case. She reported an incident of sexual assault and was later released from serving in the Army, while the person whom she had accused remained in Iraq (Meyers). With these common repercussions of reporting sexual assault it is no wonder that the percentage of reported sexual assaults in the military is about ten percent less than those reported in the civilian world (Meyers). As the country depends “more than ever on women when the nation goes to war” (Meyers) it would appear that the gender gap between men and women in the military is lessening. However, the common occurrence of sexual assault is proof that this is not true.

I think that one of the major issues that we struggle with when thinking about women serving in the military is that their role surpasses what we would commonly view as ‘feminine.’ These women are expected to take up arms right alongside men and fight as though they were all one. However, off the battlefield they are struggling because they are still finding that they have no voice. Women are striving to fit in as one and “sexual assault in the military breaks this bond” (Myers). It is as though men are reaffirming that they are the ones with power, and to ensure that women do not forget that. As Douglas says when referring to ‘female warriors’: “there is a heightened ever-present nervousness about gender roles, the danger of female power, and the pathos of emasculated men” (Douglas 56). It appears that women who are active participants in the military are challenging the constraints of gender roles, which can be viewed as a reason for concern.

This fear of female power is then transformed into degrading actions toward women. “Senior Pentagon officials argued that the increase in reports did not necessarily signify a higher number of attacks. Rather, they said there is not a greater awareness as well as an improved command climate, encouraging more victims to come forward” (Meyers). I have to disagree with this statement, however. Meyers states in his article that one woman did not report an act of harassment because “she feared that her commanders would have reacted harshly toward her” (Meyers). This act of keeping quiet reminds me of Ellen Neuborne’s article “Imagine My surprise” when she submits to a sexist remark by being silent (Neuborne 182). For women in the military, by not reporting acts of sexual assault, they are allowing it to continue. However as Neuman points out “When you are told you are causing trouble, and you regret having raised conflict, that’s your programming” (Neuborne 183). It appears as though the military women have been programmed to not speak up, since they have seen what happens to women who do. In addition to the forced silence that women in the military feel, they are kept from reporting sexual assault cases for fear of what the ramifications will be. It is not only as though they are programmed to not file complaints but subtly threatened. We have the misunderstanding that women have equal rights as men, since they are allowed to participate in the army. But is participating without a voice true participation? I do not think so.

As Douglas notes we believe that “because women are now ‘equal’ and the battle is over and we won, we are now free to embrace things we used to see as sexist” (Doulgas 12). We can see this thought behavior in some of the commanders in the army. Meyers states that the military’s attempts to change have sometimes been undermined by commanders who are “fearful that reports of abuse reflect badly on their commands” (Meyers). The message that they are conveying is that sexual assault is not a serious enough issue for them to risk being viewed as incompetent over. Additionally, the fact that “the majority of sexual abuse allegations end with no prosecution at all” is even more evidence that women’s rights are no longer viewed as an urgent issue. The military has modified articles to extend the Uniform Code of Military Justice to include more than just rape, but if little is going to be done to enforce acts then it is as though they do not exist at all.

Although the military has presented women with the appropriate resources for dealing with sexual assault cases, they are usually prevented from utilizing them. There are a number of invisible forces acting on them that keep women from reaching out to the much needed support systems. For women who feel like they cannot report cases of sexual assault, they are being forced to deal with the “emotional strains that sexual abuse causes” (Meyers) in addition to the already stressful conditions of being deployed. It is as Smith claims, “I was starving emotionally because in the midst of professional success, I’d found social disconnection and loneliness” (Smith 283). These women, having earned their way into the Army, were being forced to seclude themselves, in fear of their own safety. Captain White stopped drinking water at night, because she was too worried about running into the sexual predator out at night (Meyers).

It is clear that a change to the system is in order. As the women wrote in the “Declaration of Sentiments, Seneca Falls Conference, 1848” it is the duty of the people whose rights are being neglected to over throw such rule (Declaration). That is what the women who are being assaulted need to do. They need to speak up against their abusers and utilize the systems that have been put in place to help them. Sexual abuse is not an issue that only affects women, but a small percentage of men as well. By being silent, those individuals are allowing their predators to attack again. For Captain White, the reason her story came out was because her abuser was charged with 19 offenses against individuals. The only way to bring about change is to actively seek it.

Works Cited

Douglas, Susan J. Enlightened Sexism. New York: Times Books, 2010. Print.

Meyers, Steven Lee. “A Peril in War Zones: Sexual ABuse by Fellow G.I.’s.” The New York TImes 28 Dec. 2009: n. pag. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. .

“Modern History Sourcebook: The Declaration of Sentiments, Seneca Falls Conference, 1848.” 1848. Delaration.

Neuborne, Ellen. “Imagine My Surprise.” Listen Up. Ed. Barbara Findlen. Emery: Seal Press, 2001. 182-187. Print.

Smith, Taigi. “This Place Called Home.” Listen Up. Ed. Barbara Findlen. Emeryville: Seal Press, 2001. 281-287. Print.

News Flahs: [Prostitution and Feminism in Canada]

A shift in the way we viewed sex emerged in the 1960s with the availability of the birth control pill and abortion.  Sexual pleasure and sexual freedom were seen politically as a crucial part of life.  Hugh Hefner funded many court cases and gave grant money to NOW (the National Organization for Women).  He was credited as being “the hero of the sexual revolution” (Levy, 56).

            In 1956 Hefner created Playboy.  Playboy was and is a magazine that showed women in pornography as being “ornamental entertainment” (Levy, 58).  This built the double standard that still exists today.  It also caused a divide between feminists around the issue of pornography: the antiporn feminists versus the sex-positive feminists.  The antiporn feminist group Women Against Pornography argued that pornography (and rape/prostitution) degraded and demoralized women.  On the other hand, the sex-positive feminists argued “if feminism was about freedom for women, then women should be free to look at or appear in pornography” (Levy, 62).  They believed that women have the right to explore and choose their sexual freedom and understand their own bodies.

            Today there are still arguments for and against pornography and prostitution.  Canada has a prostitution law, which was struck down by Ontario Superior Court Justice Susan Himel on Tuesday.  The law declared that while you could be a prostitute, the act of performing prostitution was a crime and illegal.  Three sex workers claimed that the provisions, the prohibition of keeping a brothel, to the law endangered themselves.  They now had to carry out their business on the streets “under threats of arrest and violence” (Grinberg, 9/29/10).  The three sex workers challenged using the fact that while they can’t be arrested for their profession they can be arrested if they actively practice their profession.

            Sex-positive feminists oppose legal/social efforts to control sexual activities.  They believe that sexual freedom is a vital element of women’s freedom and rights.  I would think that they also would say that sex workers can have positive experiences and that prostitution should not be criminalized.  The three workers, Valerie Scott, Terri-Jean Bedford, and Amy Lebovitch, could have positive experiences if the law didn’t criminalize them.  By claiming their profession to be illegal, they are creating dangerous situations for prostitutes.  Prostitution already “carries a risk of violence and significant social stigma” (Grinberg, 9/29/10).  By making them work on the streets instead of inside, the risk of danger and violence increases.  Police officers “generally characterized sex workers as victims, commonly poverty-stricken and drug-addicted” and that “the level of violence on the street is worse than it is indoors, and that safety precautions can be taken in indoor locations to reduce violence.” (Grinberg, 9/29/10).  Working indoors ensures the safety of the workers as well as the prostitutes and creates stable prices and privacy in contact information.

            Feminists fought for women’s suffrage in the 1960s / 1970s order to get women in the workforce.  They believed that since women made up about half of the population, they too should be able to be rewarded for doing work.  Prostitutes in this way can be seen as feminists as well.  While they have used their bodies and sexuality, they have found a way to jumpstart themselves into a profitable career.  Feminism can be characterized as women having the choice to do what they want, whether that is a stay-at-home mom or a career-driven woman.  The prostitutes in Canada have chosen to become a pro in this particular profession.  Whether they have the privilege to stay at home or not, they consider having this job a lifestyle that they enjoy.  By resisting social stereotypes of women and being self-determined, they are embarking on a road of feminism.  They have demanded to have rights while being a woman.  This article proves to us that feminism is still alive and making a difference in the workplaces of women.

works cited

- Grinberg, Emanuella. "Canadian judge strikes down prostitution law." CNN Justice.  29 Sept. 2010. http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/09/29/Canada-Prostitution/index.html?npt=NP1

- Levy, Ariel. "The Future that Never Happened." Female Chauvinist Pigs