This is a general message, but it's something I really want decision-makers in the nerd community to hear: stop assuming what men and women want. It's getting old.
Game developers assume their audience is mostly white, heterosexual teenage boys, so they cater to what they THINK that demographic wants. Vendors at conventions use booth babes because they assume the (presumably male dominated) audience wants to see. Anime club officers will mostly show anime aimed at men, because they assume that the women won't care if all the club watches is robots and pantyshots and the men won't want to watch anything that remotely appeals to a female audience.
Fact is, men don't necessarily need to see impossibly hot women in impossibly skimpy outfits in order to enjoy a video game. A poll on the PAX website showed that convention attendees preferred to have knowledgeable people working at booths rather than just attractive women who don't know much about the product. Statistics show that many male gamers actually prefer to play as women in games where they can choose to play as a man or woman, because the male option is so hypermasculine that they actually relate to the woman more than the man (not to mention the female avatars tend to look more human than the male options). Plenty of male gamers find it refreshing and therefore interesting when the hero in a game happens to be a woman. Plenty of guys enjoy watching Studio Ghibli movies, many of which feature strong female protagonists. When my anime club watched anime featuring female protagonists, or just had a strong presence of women, they guys didn't run away screaming, their junk didn't fall off, most of them ENJOYED the series.
Now, I wonder what the actual standards are for what constitutes a strong female character. I feels like female protagonists are often under a lot of scrutiny and are expected to be nothing less than superheroes with hearts and minds of steel, with very little femininity to speak of. There's still this femiphobic idea that a woman cannot be both feminine and strong, she has to be one or the other. I also get the feeling that female leads have to be REALLY awesome in order to win the attention of male viewers. BUT the fact remains that men don't have quite the aversion to female characters that a lot of executives seem to think.
Ultimately, decision makers in the nerd community need to do a little more market research before just assuming what their male and female demographics want. Because as it turns out, they're not always correct.
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Twilight and the "Girl Improvement" Narrative
This isn't a new narrative really. It's a classic fairy tale formula - a woman, either an average pretty girl or an actual princess - meets a prince who takes her to his castle, dresses her up in fine clothing and either makes her royalty or makes her qualified to rule through marriage. Either way, she is improved merely by being with him.
Now we do see movies where the opposite is true, a woman strives to make her boyfriend or husband shape up, takes him shopping and buys him nicer clothes, and motivates him to get a job. However, the woman who does this is typically framed as a bitch, or a ball-buster, the guy complaining that her efforts to shape him are emasculating. Of course, the woman usually only intervenes in his life if he's in really bad shape and needs her help - unemployed, dirty irresponsible, plays video games all day long and dresses like homeless man. Rarely does the female character intervene when he's doing all right.
The girl improvement narrative, which I am hereby coining on my own, is a little different. Rather than a woman improving her male partner with her femininity, her partner improves her femininity. He takes her in and improves how she dresses, how she talks, how she carries herself, etc., even if she's doing fine on her own This is often seen in Disney movies, but Twilight takes it to a new degree, trading the sparkling tiara for glittering skin.
Bella draws a lot of criticism for being bland, clumsy, lacking in ambition and any real ability to make up her mind. However, had she not found Edward she probably would have grown out of her awkwardness and matured, personally I give the girl a break for being human and only a teenager. But that's just it, she's only human. Edward swoops in and saves her from her human flaws, and in fact, her very humanity itself. Before they marry he gently works to "improve" her, practically making her apply to various schools, helping her with her homework, in the book he put shiny things in her hair for prom. Though I shouldn't be too harsh on him, at least he doesn't criticize her character flaws or teach her how to walk, sit, and speak like in the Princess Diaries.
The Cullens are like royalty, their mansion a castle. They are wealthy, well known in school, accomplished and well spoken. Bella is afforded every luxury when she is with them - a glamorous birthday party (and later a lavish wedding), beautiful dresses to wear, a luxurious bed to sleep on when she has to spend the night. The couple spend their honeymoon on a gorgeous private island. This is all in stark contrast to her human life, where she lives in a small house and takes care of her father - if this is starting to remind you of Beauty and the Beast, you're not alone. It really is like a modern rags-to-riches fairy tale, where her life is drastically improved just by being his girlfriend. This is not always addressed when critics point out how incomplete she is without him.
Finally, after they marry and she dies in childbirth, almost ruined by the result of their partnership and intimacy, he turns her into a vampire, giving her new life. This is also rarely addressed in the common critiques about the abusive relationship she has with Edward. After enduring his controlling nature for over a year, she finally commits to him forever, gives him her virginity and as a result wakes up covered in bruises with a monster growing inside her. The birth, which to her credit she does choose, kills her. This may remind the reader of the way abusive partners destroy the souls and selfhoods of their victims so they can build them anew, making their victims into what they want them to be. In Breaking Dawn, the Bella that Edward creates by turning her into a vampire is beautiful, sparkling, coordinated and strong - just like the rest of the Cullens. Not to mention that in becoming a vampire, she is forced to cut off all contact with her father and her human friends, and she isn't supposed to be friends with Jacob but at least he is in on the secret so eventually it's okay.
But this isn't about the escalating abusive nature of the relationship. This piece is about how by being his, Bella is transformed from a normal girl to a dazzling princess- I mean vampire. This age old narrative has drawn criticism for the messages it sends to girls, but I want to focus on the message it sends to guys and the behavior it normalizes. These stories subtly tell guys that it is their job to improve the women that they're with, rescuing them from their mere mediocrity. I've known young men who have internalized this, one who did feel it was his job to have a paternalistic relationship with all the women in their lives, giving them advice and making them "better" whether they wanted his help or not. When I rejected his unsolicited guidance he vilified me for being ungrateful, saying he wouldn't help me at all ever again. To him it was absurd that I wouldn't want to improve (I did, I just wanted the improvements to be of my own doing), that by being happy with who I was I was merely settling, and that a mature woman would be happy to accept his improvements.
This used to be the rationale for allowing men to hit their wives. In fact, it is still the rationale behind Christian Domestic Discipline marriages. The idea is that women require guidance from their husbands, and that by correcting bad behavior through spanking, he improves her very character.
The "girl improvement" narrative in various fairy tale, rags to riches movies only normalizes the condescending, paternalistic, borderline controlling way too many guys treat their wives and girlfriends, acting as though it is their duty to make them better women. Twilight is by no means the only example of this narrative that women need to be improved by their male partners, it's just a glaring example.
Now we do see movies where the opposite is true, a woman strives to make her boyfriend or husband shape up, takes him shopping and buys him nicer clothes, and motivates him to get a job. However, the woman who does this is typically framed as a bitch, or a ball-buster, the guy complaining that her efforts to shape him are emasculating. Of course, the woman usually only intervenes in his life if he's in really bad shape and needs her help - unemployed, dirty irresponsible, plays video games all day long and dresses like homeless man. Rarely does the female character intervene when he's doing all right.
The girl improvement narrative, which I am hereby coining on my own, is a little different. Rather than a woman improving her male partner with her femininity, her partner improves her femininity. He takes her in and improves how she dresses, how she talks, how she carries herself, etc., even if she's doing fine on her own This is often seen in Disney movies, but Twilight takes it to a new degree, trading the sparkling tiara for glittering skin.
Bella draws a lot of criticism for being bland, clumsy, lacking in ambition and any real ability to make up her mind. However, had she not found Edward she probably would have grown out of her awkwardness and matured, personally I give the girl a break for being human and only a teenager. But that's just it, she's only human. Edward swoops in and saves her from her human flaws, and in fact, her very humanity itself. Before they marry he gently works to "improve" her, practically making her apply to various schools, helping her with her homework, in the book he put shiny things in her hair for prom. Though I shouldn't be too harsh on him, at least he doesn't criticize her character flaws or teach her how to walk, sit, and speak like in the Princess Diaries.
The Cullens are like royalty, their mansion a castle. They are wealthy, well known in school, accomplished and well spoken. Bella is afforded every luxury when she is with them - a glamorous birthday party (and later a lavish wedding), beautiful dresses to wear, a luxurious bed to sleep on when she has to spend the night. The couple spend their honeymoon on a gorgeous private island. This is all in stark contrast to her human life, where she lives in a small house and takes care of her father - if this is starting to remind you of Beauty and the Beast, you're not alone. It really is like a modern rags-to-riches fairy tale, where her life is drastically improved just by being his girlfriend. This is not always addressed when critics point out how incomplete she is without him.
Finally, after they marry and she dies in childbirth, almost ruined by the result of their partnership and intimacy, he turns her into a vampire, giving her new life. This is also rarely addressed in the common critiques about the abusive relationship she has with Edward. After enduring his controlling nature for over a year, she finally commits to him forever, gives him her virginity and as a result wakes up covered in bruises with a monster growing inside her. The birth, which to her credit she does choose, kills her. This may remind the reader of the way abusive partners destroy the souls and selfhoods of their victims so they can build them anew, making their victims into what they want them to be. In Breaking Dawn, the Bella that Edward creates by turning her into a vampire is beautiful, sparkling, coordinated and strong - just like the rest of the Cullens. Not to mention that in becoming a vampire, she is forced to cut off all contact with her father and her human friends, and she isn't supposed to be friends with Jacob but at least he is in on the secret so eventually it's okay.
But this isn't about the escalating abusive nature of the relationship. This piece is about how by being his, Bella is transformed from a normal girl to a dazzling princess- I mean vampire. This age old narrative has drawn criticism for the messages it sends to girls, but I want to focus on the message it sends to guys and the behavior it normalizes. These stories subtly tell guys that it is their job to improve the women that they're with, rescuing them from their mere mediocrity. I've known young men who have internalized this, one who did feel it was his job to have a paternalistic relationship with all the women in their lives, giving them advice and making them "better" whether they wanted his help or not. When I rejected his unsolicited guidance he vilified me for being ungrateful, saying he wouldn't help me at all ever again. To him it was absurd that I wouldn't want to improve (I did, I just wanted the improvements to be of my own doing), that by being happy with who I was I was merely settling, and that a mature woman would be happy to accept his improvements.
This used to be the rationale for allowing men to hit their wives. In fact, it is still the rationale behind Christian Domestic Discipline marriages. The idea is that women require guidance from their husbands, and that by correcting bad behavior through spanking, he improves her very character.
The "girl improvement" narrative in various fairy tale, rags to riches movies only normalizes the condescending, paternalistic, borderline controlling way too many guys treat their wives and girlfriends, acting as though it is their duty to make them better women. Twilight is by no means the only example of this narrative that women need to be improved by their male partners, it's just a glaring example.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Something Positive: Miss America
Now, I'm not a huge fan of beauty pageants in general. The swimsuit portion alone is enough to make me gag. Overall, I have a problem with giving women scholarships just for being pretty and feminine. But I have noticed one thing about the Miss America pageant that I actually like:
The question portion has become political.
No more "what's your favorite book?" stuff, no more vague questions that can be easily answered with "world peace" or "help feed the starving orphans." This year's questions focused on specific political issues, and were actually a little tough to answer. Our new Miss America came out in support of medicinal marijuana, and didn't outright oppose recreational use - she said she didn't know whether she supported it because it is addictive and causes problems for some families, which is fair enough, but the fact is she did not say something blatantly anti-drug. Last year's Miss America said birth control should be free and available to all women. I've been happy to see that at least one part of the pageant makes women use their brains rather than just their tits and smiles to win over the judges.
Of course, I would probably get really pissed off if, in the future, they crown a girl who rails against gay marriage or abortion. But in the past two years they've crowned women who have expressed liberal sentiments, and that's saying something. I'm also glad that, in the past, the question portion has helped to expose and draw negative attention to the ignorant, and often downright moronic answers some of the girls have given, which shows that we do, in fact, want a Miss America with a brain as well as beauty. Now if only her intellect was more important than her appearance.
The question portion has become political.
No more "what's your favorite book?" stuff, no more vague questions that can be easily answered with "world peace" or "help feed the starving orphans." This year's questions focused on specific political issues, and were actually a little tough to answer. Our new Miss America came out in support of medicinal marijuana, and didn't outright oppose recreational use - she said she didn't know whether she supported it because it is addictive and causes problems for some families, which is fair enough, but the fact is she did not say something blatantly anti-drug. Last year's Miss America said birth control should be free and available to all women. I've been happy to see that at least one part of the pageant makes women use their brains rather than just their tits and smiles to win over the judges.
Of course, I would probably get really pissed off if, in the future, they crown a girl who rails against gay marriage or abortion. But in the past two years they've crowned women who have expressed liberal sentiments, and that's saying something. I'm also glad that, in the past, the question portion has helped to expose and draw negative attention to the ignorant, and often downright moronic answers some of the girls have given, which shows that we do, in fact, want a Miss America with a brain as well as beauty. Now if only her intellect was more important than her appearance.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Dichotomies of Femininity in American Musical Theater
Since the birth of the American musical in the 1930's, there have been many shows which demonstrate dichotomies between female characters, mainly those relating to femininity and sexuality. The shows that come to mind first, at least for me, are Anything Goes, Once On This Island, and Avenue Q. In each show, two female characters are portrayed as being vastly different in terms of their behavior and personality traits, and these differences are often highlighted by gaps in socio-economic status, race, and the pitch and range of their singing voices.
I'll start with Anything Goes, the oldest of the three; this analysis is going off what I remember of my experience with the 1962 and 1987 versions. The show it set in the 1930's, and two leading ladies in the show are Reno Sweeney, a night club singer with a shady past, but who now uses her act to evangelize with her troupe of "angels;" and Hope Harcourt, a wealthy young woman engaged to Lord Evelyn Oakleigh. The two women are connected through Billy Crocker, a friend of Reno and Hope's former lover. Reno expresses that she has feelings for Billy, but Billy only sees her as a friend - perhaps because she lacks dainty feminine qualities most men found desirable in that time period. Reno is, in fact, loud, has an attitude, and despite her evangelical activities is the sexual character in the show; whereas Hope is the virginal one, the innocent, feminine one, and the one destined for marriage. The two vocal styles are vastly different as well, Hope's voice is more traditional, almost operatic, and her range is much higher than
Reno's, who still hits some high notes but in a more modern, belting style (bear with me, I'm not a theater major).
These women represent a classic virgin/whore dichotomy, which is best illustrated in two duets: "It's DeLovely," sung by Billy and Hope; and "Let's Misbehave," sung by Reno and Evelyn. Reno is also used as a sexual pawn in order to break up Evelyn and Hope, so Billy can be with Hope. There is another related dichotomy, and that is between ladies who are marriage material (Hope), and women who are just seen as dating prospects or objects of sexual desire (Reno).
Fast forward to Once on This Island, a show that opened in the early 1990's, but it's a little unclear when the story is supposed to take place. Or where, for that matter. My guess would be the 1950's, and I'm fairly certain it takes place on the island of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. What is clear is the racial and economic tension between the two sides of the island: on one side, the people are poor and "black as night." On the other side, the people are rich and have lighter skin, as they descended from the French colonists and their slaves - one song, summarizing the history of the island, mentioned a rich white man who married a pale, blonde woman but had sex with the black peasant girls who served him.
The protagonist, Ti Moune, is a young, black girl on the poor side of the island. She is sweet, innocent, and naive, and longs to travel beyond her village. When Daniel, a rich man from the other side of the island, crashes in her village, she tends to him, keeping him alive, demonstrating that she is also very loving and selfless. When Daniel returns to his side of the island, Ti Moune decides to journey there herself to be with him. The two of them have a relationship, and people gossip about them, implying that she is a slut. While she is sweet and innocent, she is assumed to be inherently sexual by the townspeople, and it is implied that she is, in fact, having sex with Daniel. It is true that intersectionality theory is critical to the full analysis of gender within this show, because the racial differences skew the sexual dichotomies. While pure of heart, Ti Moune is arguably sexualized because of her race, and the virginal woman is Andrea, Daniel's wealthy and fairer-skinned fiancee. Before Ti Moune meets Andrea, Daniel sings to her about how wonderful and fascinating she is - and that "some girls you marry, some you love." Again we see the marriageable vs non-marriageable dichotomy illustrated in this musical. Daniel loves Ti Moune, but he must marry a certain "type" of woman.
Again we see class coming into play. Both Hope and Andrea are both the wealthy, asexual, and marriageable characters in their respective shows.
Finally, there's Avenue Q, the most modern of the three shows. This show is also a special case because of its satirical nature, and the fact that two vastly different female roles are played by the same actress - when the two characters are on stage she'll operate one of them, but do the dialogue for both. It's a little bizarre to see her switch between the two roles so rapidly. The female lead is a sweet kindergarten teacher named Kate Monster. Then there's Lucy the Slut, whose name says it all. While Kate Monster does have sex with Princeton (the male protagonist) once, she still mostly embodies the innocent side of the sexual spectrum, opposite Lucy. Lucy is not only easy, but she's sexually aggressive, whereas Kate is more passive - she's drunk the one time they have sex. Lucy is also kind of a bitch, who deliberately tries to keep Kate and Princeton apart during the second act.
In this we see more modern dichotomies, which may be in a satirical context, but are rooted in real ways in which we label women. There's the bitch/sweetheart dichotomy, which was sort of in Once on This Island to a lesser extent, and basically means that if a woman isn't a perfect angel, she must be pure evil. There is a virgin/whore dichotomy, though Kate embodies a less extreme part of the "pure" spectrum - she's not chaste and asexual, but again, she only has sex once, and she's very passive. We see another dichotomy, and that is where a woman is either extremely emotionally invested in a guy, or she's cold to him and just using him for her own benefit.
There's another reversal in Avenue Q: hair color. In shows such as Chicago and Grease, the more innocent character is typically blonde, whereas the more sexual character is brunette. We even see this in modern pop culture, such as Taylor Swift's "You Belong With Me" video (don't get me started on that one). In Avenue Q, Lucy the Slut is blonde and Kate Monster is brunette. The hair colors of these characters are used to instead highlight (no pun intended) Kate's down-to-Earth personality against Lucy's identity as the male fantasy.
Of course, the shows analyzed above are in no way the "best" examples or the most classic, they really were the first that came to mind and the relevant shows I happen to know best. I almost covered Wonderful Town as well, as the two women being sisters makes it another interesting case, but I figured 3 was a good number. I've only seen the movies for Chicago and Grease, both of which are somewhat different from the original Broadway shows, but those two definitely have virgin/whore, bitch/sweetheart, feminine/not-so-feminine, etc. dichotomies in them. Wicked is another great example, with Glinda being blonde, rich, feminine, desirable, "sweet," and of course Popular, but the complete opposite of Elphaba. If you look hard enough, you can even see the polarization of femininity between Grace and Miss Hannigan in Annie. You don't, however, see these dichotomies in every show, especially shows that focus on male characters and don't have a lot of female characters, such as the Book of Mormon; or shows with more then two leading ladies such as A Chorus Line, or even American Idiot, where there are multiple female archetypes.
I'll start with Anything Goes, the oldest of the three; this analysis is going off what I remember of my experience with the 1962 and 1987 versions. The show it set in the 1930's, and two leading ladies in the show are Reno Sweeney, a night club singer with a shady past, but who now uses her act to evangelize with her troupe of "angels;" and Hope Harcourt, a wealthy young woman engaged to Lord Evelyn Oakleigh. The two women are connected through Billy Crocker, a friend of Reno and Hope's former lover. Reno expresses that she has feelings for Billy, but Billy only sees her as a friend - perhaps because she lacks dainty feminine qualities most men found desirable in that time period. Reno is, in fact, loud, has an attitude, and despite her evangelical activities is the sexual character in the show; whereas Hope is the virginal one, the innocent, feminine one, and the one destined for marriage. The two vocal styles are vastly different as well, Hope's voice is more traditional, almost operatic, and her range is much higher than
Reno's, who still hits some high notes but in a more modern, belting style (bear with me, I'm not a theater major).
These women represent a classic virgin/whore dichotomy, which is best illustrated in two duets: "It's DeLovely," sung by Billy and Hope; and "Let's Misbehave," sung by Reno and Evelyn. Reno is also used as a sexual pawn in order to break up Evelyn and Hope, so Billy can be with Hope. There is another related dichotomy, and that is between ladies who are marriage material (Hope), and women who are just seen as dating prospects or objects of sexual desire (Reno).
Fast forward to Once on This Island, a show that opened in the early 1990's, but it's a little unclear when the story is supposed to take place. Or where, for that matter. My guess would be the 1950's, and I'm fairly certain it takes place on the island of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. What is clear is the racial and economic tension between the two sides of the island: on one side, the people are poor and "black as night." On the other side, the people are rich and have lighter skin, as they descended from the French colonists and their slaves - one song, summarizing the history of the island, mentioned a rich white man who married a pale, blonde woman but had sex with the black peasant girls who served him.
The protagonist, Ti Moune, is a young, black girl on the poor side of the island. She is sweet, innocent, and naive, and longs to travel beyond her village. When Daniel, a rich man from the other side of the island, crashes in her village, she tends to him, keeping him alive, demonstrating that she is also very loving and selfless. When Daniel returns to his side of the island, Ti Moune decides to journey there herself to be with him. The two of them have a relationship, and people gossip about them, implying that she is a slut. While she is sweet and innocent, she is assumed to be inherently sexual by the townspeople, and it is implied that she is, in fact, having sex with Daniel. It is true that intersectionality theory is critical to the full analysis of gender within this show, because the racial differences skew the sexual dichotomies. While pure of heart, Ti Moune is arguably sexualized because of her race, and the virginal woman is Andrea, Daniel's wealthy and fairer-skinned fiancee. Before Ti Moune meets Andrea, Daniel sings to her about how wonderful and fascinating she is - and that "some girls you marry, some you love." Again we see the marriageable vs non-marriageable dichotomy illustrated in this musical. Daniel loves Ti Moune, but he must marry a certain "type" of woman.
Again we see class coming into play. Both Hope and Andrea are both the wealthy, asexual, and marriageable characters in their respective shows.
Finally, there's Avenue Q, the most modern of the three shows. This show is also a special case because of its satirical nature, and the fact that two vastly different female roles are played by the same actress - when the two characters are on stage she'll operate one of them, but do the dialogue for both. It's a little bizarre to see her switch between the two roles so rapidly. The female lead is a sweet kindergarten teacher named Kate Monster. Then there's Lucy the Slut, whose name says it all. While Kate Monster does have sex with Princeton (the male protagonist) once, she still mostly embodies the innocent side of the sexual spectrum, opposite Lucy. Lucy is not only easy, but she's sexually aggressive, whereas Kate is more passive - she's drunk the one time they have sex. Lucy is also kind of a bitch, who deliberately tries to keep Kate and Princeton apart during the second act.
In this we see more modern dichotomies, which may be in a satirical context, but are rooted in real ways in which we label women. There's the bitch/sweetheart dichotomy, which was sort of in Once on This Island to a lesser extent, and basically means that if a woman isn't a perfect angel, she must be pure evil. There is a virgin/whore dichotomy, though Kate embodies a less extreme part of the "pure" spectrum - she's not chaste and asexual, but again, she only has sex once, and she's very passive. We see another dichotomy, and that is where a woman is either extremely emotionally invested in a guy, or she's cold to him and just using him for her own benefit.
There's another reversal in Avenue Q: hair color. In shows such as Chicago and Grease, the more innocent character is typically blonde, whereas the more sexual character is brunette. We even see this in modern pop culture, such as Taylor Swift's "You Belong With Me" video (don't get me started on that one). In Avenue Q, Lucy the Slut is blonde and Kate Monster is brunette. The hair colors of these characters are used to instead highlight (no pun intended) Kate's down-to-Earth personality against Lucy's identity as the male fantasy.
Of course, the shows analyzed above are in no way the "best" examples or the most classic, they really were the first that came to mind and the relevant shows I happen to know best. I almost covered Wonderful Town as well, as the two women being sisters makes it another interesting case, but I figured 3 was a good number. I've only seen the movies for Chicago and Grease, both of which are somewhat different from the original Broadway shows, but those two definitely have virgin/whore, bitch/sweetheart, feminine/not-so-feminine, etc. dichotomies in them. Wicked is another great example, with Glinda being blonde, rich, feminine, desirable, "sweet," and of course Popular, but the complete opposite of Elphaba. If you look hard enough, you can even see the polarization of femininity between Grace and Miss Hannigan in Annie. You don't, however, see these dichotomies in every show, especially shows that focus on male characters and don't have a lot of female characters, such as the Book of Mormon; or shows with more then two leading ladies such as A Chorus Line, or even American Idiot, where there are multiple female archetypes.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Yoplait's Pulled Ad
Recently, Yoplait agreed to pull one of its ads after the National Eating Disorder Association raised concerns that it triggered and encouraged disordered eating. I'm sure plenty of you have seen it, it's the one where a perfectly slender woman is standing in front of a fridge trying to justify eating a piece of cheesecake (saying she'll only have a little, exercise it off, she's been a "good girl," etc.), and another slender woman pulls out some cheesecake yogurt, saying that she's been waiting for it all day.
I first heard about this on the Huffington Post, where the comments were mostly from people who thought the whole thing was ridiculous. No, not the commercial, the fact that it was pulled. People were being "too sensitive," "every woman does that," just because it hurts a few people doesn't mean it shouldn't be shown, and my least favorite, "maybe more women should do that."
Why yes, many women do go through that thought process. Many women do obsess over what they eat; it's taken for granted as a part of womanhood. But it's also disordered eating. Just because an unhealthy relationship with food is normal doesn't make it any healthier.
The fact is, Yoplait and other food companies both prey on women with that mindset, and they encourage it in other women in order to sell their products. You see it in other commercials, like the ads where a woman wrestles with her dessert cravings, only to instead chew a stick of gum. There are ads for low-calorie desserts that say "hey look, now you can eat [cookies/ice cream/cake/pudding/whatever the fuck else] and STILL be a good girl!" as if "good girls" don't typically eat those foods.
I'll be honest, that was a big part of how I developed a disordered relationship with food a couple years ago. It wasn't that I wanted to look like a supermodel, but that I was bombarded with media messages - in commercials as well as "healthy eating" articles in magazines - that encouraged me to obsessively restrict my diet in the name of "health." Even WebMD had me convinced that any fat on my stomach was bad for me and that I needed to lose weight. For the record, I was 115 lbs at the time, smack dab in the middle of the healthy weight range for my height according to the BMI scale - which is a bullshit method anyway.
That's another major problem, people - mostly women, but men as well - assign morality to eating behaviors. Who hasn't wondered if they should be "good" and get a salad or "naughty" and eat real food. Let's be real, a bowl of lettuce is a good side dish but is hardly enough sustenance to be considered a meal, unless it comes with a decent amount of grilled chicken. People also tend to sexualize women's indulgence in certain food, namely chocolate - the idea is that it's "bad," but it's soooo good. Thinking about food in terms of morality is not healthy.
And yes, this country has an obesity problem. The problem comes from our culture of extremes, where we have this one limited idea of what a "healthy lifestyle" is, and it's not really appealing to most people, so many people decide being healthy isn't even worth trying. The answer isn't to encourage more people to obsess over what they eat and develop disordered eating habits, but to assure people that moderation is okay, that there are ways to exercise that are actually fun.
I hope this sets a precedent, and that other companies will reconsider using such a harmful method of advertising to market their products. And I hope that we find a way to empower women to, at least once in a while, eat the damn cake.
I first heard about this on the Huffington Post, where the comments were mostly from people who thought the whole thing was ridiculous. No, not the commercial, the fact that it was pulled. People were being "too sensitive," "every woman does that," just because it hurts a few people doesn't mean it shouldn't be shown, and my least favorite, "maybe more women should do that."
Why yes, many women do go through that thought process. Many women do obsess over what they eat; it's taken for granted as a part of womanhood. But it's also disordered eating. Just because an unhealthy relationship with food is normal doesn't make it any healthier.
The fact is, Yoplait and other food companies both prey on women with that mindset, and they encourage it in other women in order to sell their products. You see it in other commercials, like the ads where a woman wrestles with her dessert cravings, only to instead chew a stick of gum. There are ads for low-calorie desserts that say "hey look, now you can eat [cookies/ice cream/cake/pudding/whatever the fuck else] and STILL be a good girl!" as if "good girls" don't typically eat those foods.
I'll be honest, that was a big part of how I developed a disordered relationship with food a couple years ago. It wasn't that I wanted to look like a supermodel, but that I was bombarded with media messages - in commercials as well as "healthy eating" articles in magazines - that encouraged me to obsessively restrict my diet in the name of "health." Even WebMD had me convinced that any fat on my stomach was bad for me and that I needed to lose weight. For the record, I was 115 lbs at the time, smack dab in the middle of the healthy weight range for my height according to the BMI scale - which is a bullshit method anyway.
That's another major problem, people - mostly women, but men as well - assign morality to eating behaviors. Who hasn't wondered if they should be "good" and get a salad or "naughty" and eat real food. Let's be real, a bowl of lettuce is a good side dish but is hardly enough sustenance to be considered a meal, unless it comes with a decent amount of grilled chicken. People also tend to sexualize women's indulgence in certain food, namely chocolate - the idea is that it's "bad," but it's soooo good. Thinking about food in terms of morality is not healthy.
And yes, this country has an obesity problem. The problem comes from our culture of extremes, where we have this one limited idea of what a "healthy lifestyle" is, and it's not really appealing to most people, so many people decide being healthy isn't even worth trying. The answer isn't to encourage more people to obsess over what they eat and develop disordered eating habits, but to assure people that moderation is okay, that there are ways to exercise that are actually fun.
I hope this sets a precedent, and that other companies will reconsider using such a harmful method of advertising to market their products. And I hope that we find a way to empower women to, at least once in a while, eat the damn cake.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Why "Dress For Your Body Type" Advice Is Problematic
At first glance, an article in Seventeen Magazine that instructs readers on what kinds of jeans to wear for every body type may sound progressive. "Look," you may think, "they're acknowledging that different body types exist!"
Well yes, they're not outright condemning body types that don't fit the beauty ideal, but if you look more closely, you'll notice that such advice usually encourages readers to dress in a way that makes them appear closer to that ideal. Too curvy? Wearing X will make you appear slimmer! Flat-chested? A Y top will make you look bustier! Too short? These pants will make you look taller! On and on and on.
It's a cycle, really. Girls who are too short, too call, too skinny, too curvy, too busty, too flat, etc. feel the need to dress in a way that will make them look "better" (read: closer to the ideal body), so these articles fill their need. At the same time, girls will see these ads and think "wow, I didn't realize there was anything wrong with looking too short," and start to feel like crap about themselves, hence creating a greater need for the ads.
Now, I get it, it's okay to want to wear clothes that look good on you, and clothes that will give you a little boost of confidence. But if magazines really want to empower teen girls, articles like this do just the opposite, and pages upon pages of articles ordering girls to wear slimming clothes, cover their acne, make their nose look smaller, de-frizz their hair, tone up their butts, and tell them pizza is the devil, are not going to counteracted by one small page telling them to love their bodies. Most, if not all, of the magazine needs to encourage self-esteem.
Well yes, they're not outright condemning body types that don't fit the beauty ideal, but if you look more closely, you'll notice that such advice usually encourages readers to dress in a way that makes them appear closer to that ideal. Too curvy? Wearing X will make you appear slimmer! Flat-chested? A Y top will make you look bustier! Too short? These pants will make you look taller! On and on and on.
It's a cycle, really. Girls who are too short, too call, too skinny, too curvy, too busty, too flat, etc. feel the need to dress in a way that will make them look "better" (read: closer to the ideal body), so these articles fill their need. At the same time, girls will see these ads and think "wow, I didn't realize there was anything wrong with looking too short," and start to feel like crap about themselves, hence creating a greater need for the ads.
Now, I get it, it's okay to want to wear clothes that look good on you, and clothes that will give you a little boost of confidence. But if magazines really want to empower teen girls, articles like this do just the opposite, and pages upon pages of articles ordering girls to wear slimming clothes, cover their acne, make their nose look smaller, de-frizz their hair, tone up their butts, and tell them pizza is the devil, are not going to counteracted by one small page telling them to love their bodies. Most, if not all, of the magazine needs to encourage self-esteem.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Where's Our Luke Skywalker?
There seems to be a trend among epic fantasy/sci-fi sagas in the last few decades: for the most part, all the protagonists are men, and women assume secondary roles, and are often mere love interests of the supporting male sidekick.
Examples:
Lord of the Rings: Frodo Baggins is the protagonist, and the entire Fellowship of the Ring - Sam, Merry, Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, and Boromir - are all men. There are very few women in the movie: there's Lady Galadriel, who appears once and gives the men guidance and gifts, and her wisdom is heard later throughout the trilogy. Then there's Arwen, who hardly serves much purpose other than Aragorn's love intetrest. Finally, there's Eowyn, who actually kicks a good bit of ass and kills the Witch King (yaaay!), and we need to give her credit for that. But in the three huge books, three long movies, tons of epic battles, only one woman kicks ass? And she's hardly a major character. And of course, all three of these women are slender and hot, two of them become objects of Aragorn's desire, and Galadriel is desired by all men who look upon her.
Pirates of the Carribean: The movies center around two men: Captain Jack Sparrow and Will Turner. Jack is arguably the more prominent character, as he's still in the movies after Will has settled down with Elizabeth. While Elizabeth does occasionally cross dress and kicks a good bit of ass, she's still only a secondary character, and Will's love interest.
Star Wars: Luke Skywalker, a guy, is the protagonist. Throughout the series there is but one significant female character: Princess Lea. Again, very sexy, the object of every geeky guy's desire since the 1970's. Luke falls in love with her, then realizes she's his sister, and that love interests fizzles pretty quickly. Han Solo ends up with her in the end.
Harry Potter: Yet another male protagonist, Harry Potter. He has two best friends, Ron and Hermione, possibly one of the most awesome young women in mainstream fantasy literature. Hermione is the object of Ron's affection towards the end of the series, but is seriously awesome in other ways. There's also Ginny, another arguably powerful female figure, who ends up with Harry. It's important to note that the romantic storylines are significant, but only secondary to the main plotline.
It's interesting to note that in many of these movies, the male protagonist either doesn't have a love interest, or he does but doesn't end up with her, OR he does but it's not the main storyline. Women, on the other hand, are always objects of at least one man's affection, and usually end up with a guy in the end. And of course, the women are almost always thin and beautiful, objects created for the male gaze.
Again, there have been some pretty strong female characters in these movie sagas, you can't deny that. The problem is that they're always secondary characters, and pretty much always end up with one of the more significant male characters, either the protagonist or the male best friend.
So what do women have? Men have Frodo, Captain Jack Sparrow, Luke Skywalker, and Harry Potter, there has to be ONE mainstream fantasy saga with a female protagonist, right? Well, as of 2009, there is!
Problem is, it's Twilight. Bella Swan, the protagonist, is a one-dimensional character, a prime example of a Mary Sue - "a fictional character with overly idealized and hackneyed mannerisms, lacking noteworthy flaws, and primarily functioning as a wish-fulfillment fantasy for the author or reader." Rather than have a realistic relationship with a real person, she falls in love with a vampire who sparkles in the sunlight, and who is a creepy, controlling asshole who watches her sleep and sabotages her car so she can't see her friend, Jacob, a werewolf/shape-shifter who's also in love with her. The only way the gender roles are flipped is that the guys are unbelievably gorgeous, and Bella is merely plain (but in an attractive way . . .). Both guys serve to protect her from evil vampires throughout the series, because being human, she's too weak to fight them off herself. She has to be protected all the time, and when she runs off on her own, she ends up needing to be rescued. How much ass does she kick? None, she even breaks her hand trying to punch Jacob. She's nothing without Edward. Where Hermione kept being awesome long after the love of her life left her, when Edward left Bella all she did was curl up in the fetal position, went numb for months, and kept risking her life just to hallucinate and see Edward - who's always trying to tell her to stop being reckless. And of course, this emotionally abusive behavior is lauded as being romantic, he's the best boyfriend ever. I fear for the future.
And of course, while sagas like Lord of the Rings and Star Wars are universally beloved by the nerd community, Twilight is snubbed by most nerds - male and female - and its fan base is made up of mostly teenage girls. It barely counts.
That's all we get, girls. We're either ass-kicking love interests or lovesick protagonists with the strength and personality of a noodle. Take your pick. Or better yet, if you can write and tell a good story, write your own epic saga with a notable female protagonist who's actually worth reading about. Just an idea.
Examples:
Lord of the Rings: Frodo Baggins is the protagonist, and the entire Fellowship of the Ring - Sam, Merry, Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, and Boromir - are all men. There are very few women in the movie: there's Lady Galadriel, who appears once and gives the men guidance and gifts, and her wisdom is heard later throughout the trilogy. Then there's Arwen, who hardly serves much purpose other than Aragorn's love intetrest. Finally, there's Eowyn, who actually kicks a good bit of ass and kills the Witch King (yaaay!), and we need to give her credit for that. But in the three huge books, three long movies, tons of epic battles, only one woman kicks ass? And she's hardly a major character. And of course, all three of these women are slender and hot, two of them become objects of Aragorn's desire, and Galadriel is desired by all men who look upon her.
Pirates of the Carribean: The movies center around two men: Captain Jack Sparrow and Will Turner. Jack is arguably the more prominent character, as he's still in the movies after Will has settled down with Elizabeth. While Elizabeth does occasionally cross dress and kicks a good bit of ass, she's still only a secondary character, and Will's love interest.
Star Wars: Luke Skywalker, a guy, is the protagonist. Throughout the series there is but one significant female character: Princess Lea. Again, very sexy, the object of every geeky guy's desire since the 1970's. Luke falls in love with her, then realizes she's his sister, and that love interests fizzles pretty quickly. Han Solo ends up with her in the end.
Harry Potter: Yet another male protagonist, Harry Potter. He has two best friends, Ron and Hermione, possibly one of the most awesome young women in mainstream fantasy literature. Hermione is the object of Ron's affection towards the end of the series, but is seriously awesome in other ways. There's also Ginny, another arguably powerful female figure, who ends up with Harry. It's important to note that the romantic storylines are significant, but only secondary to the main plotline.
It's interesting to note that in many of these movies, the male protagonist either doesn't have a love interest, or he does but doesn't end up with her, OR he does but it's not the main storyline. Women, on the other hand, are always objects of at least one man's affection, and usually end up with a guy in the end. And of course, the women are almost always thin and beautiful, objects created for the male gaze.
Again, there have been some pretty strong female characters in these movie sagas, you can't deny that. The problem is that they're always secondary characters, and pretty much always end up with one of the more significant male characters, either the protagonist or the male best friend.
So what do women have? Men have Frodo, Captain Jack Sparrow, Luke Skywalker, and Harry Potter, there has to be ONE mainstream fantasy saga with a female protagonist, right? Well, as of 2009, there is!
Problem is, it's Twilight. Bella Swan, the protagonist, is a one-dimensional character, a prime example of a Mary Sue - "a fictional character with overly idealized and hackneyed mannerisms, lacking noteworthy flaws, and primarily functioning as a wish-fulfillment fantasy for the author or reader." Rather than have a realistic relationship with a real person, she falls in love with a vampire who sparkles in the sunlight, and who is a creepy, controlling asshole who watches her sleep and sabotages her car so she can't see her friend, Jacob, a werewolf/shape-shifter who's also in love with her. The only way the gender roles are flipped is that the guys are unbelievably gorgeous, and Bella is merely plain (but in an attractive way . . .). Both guys serve to protect her from evil vampires throughout the series, because being human, she's too weak to fight them off herself. She has to be protected all the time, and when she runs off on her own, she ends up needing to be rescued. How much ass does she kick? None, she even breaks her hand trying to punch Jacob. She's nothing without Edward. Where Hermione kept being awesome long after the love of her life left her, when Edward left Bella all she did was curl up in the fetal position, went numb for months, and kept risking her life just to hallucinate and see Edward - who's always trying to tell her to stop being reckless. And of course, this emotionally abusive behavior is lauded as being romantic, he's the best boyfriend ever. I fear for the future.
And of course, while sagas like Lord of the Rings and Star Wars are universally beloved by the nerd community, Twilight is snubbed by most nerds - male and female - and its fan base is made up of mostly teenage girls. It barely counts.
That's all we get, girls. We're either ass-kicking love interests or lovesick protagonists with the strength and personality of a noodle. Take your pick. Or better yet, if you can write and tell a good story, write your own epic saga with a notable female protagonist who's actually worth reading about. Just an idea.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
"School is not a runway, girls"
Most girls hear it growing up - from parents, teachers, and principals: School is not a fashion show. You're here to learn.
Yeah, if only it was that simple. The sad truth is, no matter what clothing or makeup you ban, and no matter how much you lecture girls on the fact that school is for learning, not dressing up, it's not going to do shit about the culture surrounding teenage girls and appearance.
The most popular magazine for girls tells them to look cute at school. The first half of the magazine instructs girls on how to dress, how to do their makeup, how to style their hair, and that they should do all that before getting on the school bus.
Guys expect girls to look good. Girls expect girls to look good. Most girls would feel naked and exposed without makeup, and many would feel ugly and self-conscious if they did not look good in school.
And of course this isn't good, something that needs to be changed. Ideally, how a girl looked wouldn't matter in school. In fact, one would argue that the focus on how a girl looks while in school is a huge distraction. Girls wake up earlier than they need to just so they can do their hair and makeup and pick out the right combination of clothing. Why aren't girls eating breakfast before school? Because they only have so much time to get ready in the morning, and most would rather spend that time grooming than eating.
I wasn't completely exempt from this. I went through phases where I'd wake up an extra ten or fifteen minutes each morning so I'd have time to do my makeup - other times I slept in and didn't really care how I looked at school.
The distraction is multi-faceted. The most obvious form is girls putting on makeup during school - either in the bathroom or at the locker, in which case they may risk being late for class, or in the classroom, where they focus on their face instead of what's being taught. Then there's the mental distraction, the worry that they don't look good enough, they don't measure up to the other girl - when a girl worries about how she looks, she's not absorbing the material, or taking notes, or thinking critically. This contributes to the gender inequality in education.
And then, girls who do look good in school are demonized for distracting their male classmates. The idea that attractive girls distract boys is what motivates dress codes. Dress codes are about keeping the boys focused, not the girls.
It doesn't help that in movies, the girls who are valued most by the student body are the ones who strut down the hallway, wearing high heels and toting purses instead of backpacks, often not even carrying books.
The question is, how do we tackle the issue? Policies that restrict dress and appearance don't change the cultural pressure to look good. Gender segregation only does so much, because girls don't just dress to impress boys, they also dress to impress their judgmental and competitive female peers.
Answer: the culture as a whole needs to change. If women are truly valued for their intelligence rather than their appearance, girls will focus more on their performance in the classroom than how they look walking down the hallway. But that change can't come from authority figures. As Mary Pipher said in Reviving Ophelia, adolescents tune out their adult authority figures, even their parents, and instead look to their peers and mass media for their cues on where they fit into the world. The media - magazines, TV shows, commercials, young adult literature, movies, music, etc. - becomes their guide on how to act, how to dress, and what their priorities are; and these toxic cultural values are passed among adolescencts, and teenagers enforce these rules on each other. Parents and educators who try to intervene are ignored. The media needs to change, and it's not as simple as calling up the editors of Seventeen and the producers of Gossip Girl - the change needs to come from new media that's devoid of junk values.
Yeah, if only it was that simple. The sad truth is, no matter what clothing or makeup you ban, and no matter how much you lecture girls on the fact that school is for learning, not dressing up, it's not going to do shit about the culture surrounding teenage girls and appearance.
The most popular magazine for girls tells them to look cute at school. The first half of the magazine instructs girls on how to dress, how to do their makeup, how to style their hair, and that they should do all that before getting on the school bus.
Guys expect girls to look good. Girls expect girls to look good. Most girls would feel naked and exposed without makeup, and many would feel ugly and self-conscious if they did not look good in school.
And of course this isn't good, something that needs to be changed. Ideally, how a girl looked wouldn't matter in school. In fact, one would argue that the focus on how a girl looks while in school is a huge distraction. Girls wake up earlier than they need to just so they can do their hair and makeup and pick out the right combination of clothing. Why aren't girls eating breakfast before school? Because they only have so much time to get ready in the morning, and most would rather spend that time grooming than eating.
I wasn't completely exempt from this. I went through phases where I'd wake up an extra ten or fifteen minutes each morning so I'd have time to do my makeup - other times I slept in and didn't really care how I looked at school.
The distraction is multi-faceted. The most obvious form is girls putting on makeup during school - either in the bathroom or at the locker, in which case they may risk being late for class, or in the classroom, where they focus on their face instead of what's being taught. Then there's the mental distraction, the worry that they don't look good enough, they don't measure up to the other girl - when a girl worries about how she looks, she's not absorbing the material, or taking notes, or thinking critically. This contributes to the gender inequality in education.
And then, girls who do look good in school are demonized for distracting their male classmates. The idea that attractive girls distract boys is what motivates dress codes. Dress codes are about keeping the boys focused, not the girls.
It doesn't help that in movies, the girls who are valued most by the student body are the ones who strut down the hallway, wearing high heels and toting purses instead of backpacks, often not even carrying books.
The question is, how do we tackle the issue? Policies that restrict dress and appearance don't change the cultural pressure to look good. Gender segregation only does so much, because girls don't just dress to impress boys, they also dress to impress their judgmental and competitive female peers.
Answer: the culture as a whole needs to change. If women are truly valued for their intelligence rather than their appearance, girls will focus more on their performance in the classroom than how they look walking down the hallway. But that change can't come from authority figures. As Mary Pipher said in Reviving Ophelia, adolescents tune out their adult authority figures, even their parents, and instead look to their peers and mass media for their cues on where they fit into the world. The media - magazines, TV shows, commercials, young adult literature, movies, music, etc. - becomes their guide on how to act, how to dress, and what their priorities are; and these toxic cultural values are passed among adolescencts, and teenagers enforce these rules on each other. Parents and educators who try to intervene are ignored. The media needs to change, and it's not as simple as calling up the editors of Seventeen and the producers of Gossip Girl - the change needs to come from new media that's devoid of junk values.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Kanye's Monster Video
I love horror movies. I love gory horror movies. I ate up every single Saw movie.
Even I find this video disgusting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyB2JvMYFfE
TL;DW: sexualized images of naked, dead, dismembered women murdered by Kanye and other male "monsters."
Don't get my wrong, I listened to the lyrics. I have no opinion either way because, quite frankly, I don't care for rap in general. But what I saw in the video was the senseless, sexualized killing of women. I say senseless because it has nothing to do with the song.
It reminds me of the photo shoot they did years ago on America's Next Top Model - sexy pictures of murdered women. The models were dead, and the pictures were gruesome, but they were also "fierce." Again, fetishizing violence against women. That is not okay.
Even I find this video disgusting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyB2JvMYFfE
TL;DW: sexualized images of naked, dead, dismembered women murdered by Kanye and other male "monsters."
Don't get my wrong, I listened to the lyrics. I have no opinion either way because, quite frankly, I don't care for rap in general. But what I saw in the video was the senseless, sexualized killing of women. I say senseless because it has nothing to do with the song.
It reminds me of the photo shoot they did years ago on America's Next Top Model - sexy pictures of murdered women. The models were dead, and the pictures were gruesome, but they were also "fierce." Again, fetishizing violence against women. That is not okay.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Hidden Toxins: Dissection of Teen Magazines
As a teenager, and even into my college years, I loved reading magazines. I read J14, YM, Cosmo, Teen Vogue, and of course the big one: Seventeen. Being completely uninterested in fashion and conventional beauty ideals, I typically skipped over the first half of the magazine and only read the health articles, relationship advice, real life stories, sometimes the embarrassing moments, and the horoscopes.
When I was 18 I began reading Cosmopolitan. A year later, I realized how toxic it was and put it down.
Over the recent years, I've realized the hidden dangers of these magazines, especially the ones aimed at adolescent girls. We can point out the skinny models all we want, that's not news. What people don't usually pick up on is the amount of articles on how to look good versus empowering articles on how to be confident, smart, and awesome. People fail to notice that the relationship advice subtly convinces girls that getting a guy means taking on a false self, and that once she has a boyfriend it's better to please him and try to resolve conflicts than to walk away when a relationship doesn't make her happy and hold out for someone who will love her for who she is, not who she is expected to be.
To go into greater detail, here is a breakdown of the messages in a popular teen girl magazine:
Before she sees even a table of contents, she is bombarded with in-your face advertisements for clothing and makeup. There is also a letters to the editor, which used to feature dissent from women unhappy with certain articles, often politically or morally motivated, and that was wonderful because it indirectly encouraged girls to have opinions and think critically about what was presented to them - now, however, all the published responses are those that praise the magazine for articles in past issues.
1) FASHION SECTION
The first section of the magazine commands the reader to go out and buy new stuff, update her wardrobe, and keep up with the latest trends. Labels are often heavily used to describe different looks (girly, classic, preppy, glam, grunge, sporty, rocker, etc.). From this section, girls may learn to subscribe to a certain label, or to dress to fit whatever style of clothing is in season rather than dress according to her own unique tastes. They also learn that they need to keep buying new clothes, accessories, shoes, etc., and that those are what they should be spending their money on.
2) MAKEUP AND BEAUTY
This section focuses on makeup, skin, and hair (both how to style it and keep it healthy). Headlines do not begin with "how to" or "ways to" but instead read like commands: "GET CLEAR SKIN NOW," "TAME YOUR HAIR," "LOOK CUTE ALL DAY." As with the fashion section, girls learn that they must keep spending money on cosmetics and hair accesories and products. From the bulk of these sections, which take up almost half the magazine and usually dominate the front page, girls learn that their appearance is extremely important and should take priority in their lives. There's usually an article every year on what makeup to wear to the beach or pool, as if women are merely supposed to appear at those places and look cute rather than actually go swimming.
3) HEALTH
This section does offer useful articles, such as those on sexual health and how to be safe on the beach. There's often even an article on loving your body. However, before any of that there's a section on how to eat (specifically, what foods to avoid because they'll make you fat), and a two-page pullout on fitness that boasts yet another commanding headline like "TONE UP YOUR THIGHS" or "GET A BIKINI BODY." While it's important to encourage healthy habits, these articles focus on how fitness and eating makes girls look rather than how such habits can make one feel. This introduces the mixed messages of the magazine: work out with the goal of slimming down and toning up and never eat fattening foods (boasted in big letters over multiple pages, reinforced with images of skinny girls throughout the magazine), BUT don't obsess over your weight (something whispered on one page, if at all).
4) DATING ADVICE
This section may cover all aspects of dating: from trying to get a guy's attention, to how to behave in a relationship, and finally how to get over a breakup. Sometimes there are empowering messages, but most of it is how to please a man. Articles list his turn-ons, what he expects in a relationship, what makes him cheat, and how to avoid a breakup. The message here is that dating rituals and relationships should be done on a guy's terms. Wear what he likes to see on you; act the way he wants you to act; don't say "I love you" first or press for a commitment, let him do that when he's ready; plan dates that he'll like; he only cheats if you're not good enough for him; and finally, getting dumped is a mark of failure, it means you didn't try hard enough. Women are under constant pressure to maintain good relationships with those around them, and in relationships with men, they're often expected to be self-sacrificing caretakers in charge of making the relationship run smoothly.
5) REAL LIFE
I always liked this section. Honestly, I don't have many complaints - it brings important issues to girls' attention and educates them about real-world problems they may face. My only issue with this section is when the story is about any kind of sexual issue (rape, sexting, etc.), there's always at least an undertone of victim blaming. Any time women are instructed to refrain from certain activities or take precautions to protect themselves, there's the unwritten reverse notion that if something bad does happen to you, it's because you put yourself in a bad situation where that could happen and therefore shoulder part of the blame.
There are smaller articles as well, that help girls with college, finding jobs, and navigating tough friend situations. The college advice is usually fine, though it does have an awful lot of focus on how to dress and date while in college. Aside from articles about possible summer jobs, the ones about internships and careers typically feature feminine career paths: designing clothes, planning weddings, or working in mainstream entertainment. Rarely does this section try to inspire girls to consider careers in math, science, politics, law, or finance. Articles on how to handle situations with other girls reinforce the deeply entrenched notion that girls should be nice to everyone and do whatever they can to avoid conflict.
6) EMBARRASSING MOMENTS
This isn't inherently a bad section, I used to read it with great amusement, and there's nothing wrong with being embarrassed by some of the material. However, a lot of these stories have to do with farting, or in some way revealing the fact that you're on your period. The message: passing gas is shameful, and having your period is something gross that should be hidden from view.
These messages are dangerous because the messages girls receive in childhood and adolescence often stick with them for the rest of their lives. The earlier and more often a message is hammered in, the harder it will be to reverse later in life. You cannot expect women to live by one set of societal rules and then automatically become strong, autonomous adults the second they turn 18. In fact, many girls who read magazines like the one dissected above usually go on to read adult versions, which are typically just as bad if not worse.
When I was 18 I began reading Cosmopolitan. A year later, I realized how toxic it was and put it down.
Over the recent years, I've realized the hidden dangers of these magazines, especially the ones aimed at adolescent girls. We can point out the skinny models all we want, that's not news. What people don't usually pick up on is the amount of articles on how to look good versus empowering articles on how to be confident, smart, and awesome. People fail to notice that the relationship advice subtly convinces girls that getting a guy means taking on a false self, and that once she has a boyfriend it's better to please him and try to resolve conflicts than to walk away when a relationship doesn't make her happy and hold out for someone who will love her for who she is, not who she is expected to be.
To go into greater detail, here is a breakdown of the messages in a popular teen girl magazine:
Before she sees even a table of contents, she is bombarded with in-your face advertisements for clothing and makeup. There is also a letters to the editor, which used to feature dissent from women unhappy with certain articles, often politically or morally motivated, and that was wonderful because it indirectly encouraged girls to have opinions and think critically about what was presented to them - now, however, all the published responses are those that praise the magazine for articles in past issues.
1) FASHION SECTION
The first section of the magazine commands the reader to go out and buy new stuff, update her wardrobe, and keep up with the latest trends. Labels are often heavily used to describe different looks (girly, classic, preppy, glam, grunge, sporty, rocker, etc.). From this section, girls may learn to subscribe to a certain label, or to dress to fit whatever style of clothing is in season rather than dress according to her own unique tastes. They also learn that they need to keep buying new clothes, accessories, shoes, etc., and that those are what they should be spending their money on.
2) MAKEUP AND BEAUTY
This section focuses on makeup, skin, and hair (both how to style it and keep it healthy). Headlines do not begin with "how to" or "ways to" but instead read like commands: "GET CLEAR SKIN NOW," "TAME YOUR HAIR," "LOOK CUTE ALL DAY." As with the fashion section, girls learn that they must keep spending money on cosmetics and hair accesories and products. From the bulk of these sections, which take up almost half the magazine and usually dominate the front page, girls learn that their appearance is extremely important and should take priority in their lives. There's usually an article every year on what makeup to wear to the beach or pool, as if women are merely supposed to appear at those places and look cute rather than actually go swimming.
3) HEALTH
This section does offer useful articles, such as those on sexual health and how to be safe on the beach. There's often even an article on loving your body. However, before any of that there's a section on how to eat (specifically, what foods to avoid because they'll make you fat), and a two-page pullout on fitness that boasts yet another commanding headline like "TONE UP YOUR THIGHS" or "GET A BIKINI BODY." While it's important to encourage healthy habits, these articles focus on how fitness and eating makes girls look rather than how such habits can make one feel. This introduces the mixed messages of the magazine: work out with the goal of slimming down and toning up and never eat fattening foods (boasted in big letters over multiple pages, reinforced with images of skinny girls throughout the magazine), BUT don't obsess over your weight (something whispered on one page, if at all).
4) DATING ADVICE
This section may cover all aspects of dating: from trying to get a guy's attention, to how to behave in a relationship, and finally how to get over a breakup. Sometimes there are empowering messages, but most of it is how to please a man. Articles list his turn-ons, what he expects in a relationship, what makes him cheat, and how to avoid a breakup. The message here is that dating rituals and relationships should be done on a guy's terms. Wear what he likes to see on you; act the way he wants you to act; don't say "I love you" first or press for a commitment, let him do that when he's ready; plan dates that he'll like; he only cheats if you're not good enough for him; and finally, getting dumped is a mark of failure, it means you didn't try hard enough. Women are under constant pressure to maintain good relationships with those around them, and in relationships with men, they're often expected to be self-sacrificing caretakers in charge of making the relationship run smoothly.
5) REAL LIFE
I always liked this section. Honestly, I don't have many complaints - it brings important issues to girls' attention and educates them about real-world problems they may face. My only issue with this section is when the story is about any kind of sexual issue (rape, sexting, etc.), there's always at least an undertone of victim blaming. Any time women are instructed to refrain from certain activities or take precautions to protect themselves, there's the unwritten reverse notion that if something bad does happen to you, it's because you put yourself in a bad situation where that could happen and therefore shoulder part of the blame.
There are smaller articles as well, that help girls with college, finding jobs, and navigating tough friend situations. The college advice is usually fine, though it does have an awful lot of focus on how to dress and date while in college. Aside from articles about possible summer jobs, the ones about internships and careers typically feature feminine career paths: designing clothes, planning weddings, or working in mainstream entertainment. Rarely does this section try to inspire girls to consider careers in math, science, politics, law, or finance. Articles on how to handle situations with other girls reinforce the deeply entrenched notion that girls should be nice to everyone and do whatever they can to avoid conflict.
6) EMBARRASSING MOMENTS
This isn't inherently a bad section, I used to read it with great amusement, and there's nothing wrong with being embarrassed by some of the material. However, a lot of these stories have to do with farting, or in some way revealing the fact that you're on your period. The message: passing gas is shameful, and having your period is something gross that should be hidden from view.
These messages are dangerous because the messages girls receive in childhood and adolescence often stick with them for the rest of their lives. The earlier and more often a message is hammered in, the harder it will be to reverse later in life. You cannot expect women to live by one set of societal rules and then automatically become strong, autonomous adults the second they turn 18. In fact, many girls who read magazines like the one dissected above usually go on to read adult versions, which are typically just as bad if not worse.
SOLUTIONS
A quick fix could be to simply ban certain magazines, or regulate their material. I don't believe in censorship. Allow the magazines to exist, but try to drown them out with magazines containing more empowering material. If female empowerment and media literacy become more common among young women, they may be less likely inclined to buy magazines that put a huge amount of focus on appearance and relationships. Such magazines will have to either become more empowering to keep up with the trend, or fade into non-existence.
How do we do this? As of right now, there really aren't any empowering magazines for young women. The only publication that comes close is Bitch, which is not mainstream enough to be sold in drugstores, and is never displayed in the women's section of a newsstand - it's usually found in the special interest section next to the gay/lesbian magazines (I should know, I used to practically manage a bookstore newsstand single-handedly).
Adolescent girls need a magazine that encourages them to dress to express rather than impress. That they only need to be neat and clean, and that wearing makeup and perfectly styled hair need not always be part of that expectation. They need magazines that empower them to take care of their own needs in relationships, it's okay to be assertive (both with friends and boyfriends) and that it's okay to walk away from a relationship if they're not happy. They need to be told to love their bodies first, and only occasionally be reminded that eating fruit and taking a walk once in a while never hurt anyone.
Once such a magazine exists, parents and guardians should buy it for their daughters and encourage them to read it. Until then, parents should introduce other sources of positive influence to their daughters, and express concerns when they are viewing or reading negative influences. They shouldn't be simplistic or preachy - merely saying "this song is bad because it's about sex, and sex is bad!" they could say "this song is degrading because it defines a woman's worth based on her willingness to be sexual."
How do we do this? As of right now, there really aren't any empowering magazines for young women. The only publication that comes close is Bitch, which is not mainstream enough to be sold in drugstores, and is never displayed in the women's section of a newsstand - it's usually found in the special interest section next to the gay/lesbian magazines (I should know, I used to practically manage a bookstore newsstand single-handedly).
Adolescent girls need a magazine that encourages them to dress to express rather than impress. That they only need to be neat and clean, and that wearing makeup and perfectly styled hair need not always be part of that expectation. They need magazines that empower them to take care of their own needs in relationships, it's okay to be assertive (both with friends and boyfriends) and that it's okay to walk away from a relationship if they're not happy. They need to be told to love their bodies first, and only occasionally be reminded that eating fruit and taking a walk once in a while never hurt anyone.
Once such a magazine exists, parents and guardians should buy it for their daughters and encourage them to read it. Until then, parents should introduce other sources of positive influence to their daughters, and express concerns when they are viewing or reading negative influences. They shouldn't be simplistic or preachy - merely saying "this song is bad because it's about sex, and sex is bad!" they could say "this song is degrading because it defines a woman's worth based on her willingness to be sexual."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)