Women's Olympic Hockey Gold Medal Game

I'm currently watching the Women's Olympic Hockey Gold Medal game between Canada and the United States, and I've had to put the television on mute several times. The announcers are so condescending towards women that it is excruciating for me to listen to, as a woman and as a hockey player. They continue to refer to the American players as "American ladies" rather than just "Americans." On more than one occasion, they've described the oldest player on the American team, Jenny Potter as, "Jenny Potter, mother of two." Why can't the players simply be referred to as "Americans?" Would the announcers, Mike Emrick and Pierre McGuire ever say, "Oh, the Canadian MEN are doing a real great job out there"? Nope. Would they ever think of uttering the phrase, "Sidney Crosby, single and looking, on a breakaway!"? I don't think so. Then why is it necessary to identify these hockey players unnecessarily as women when they would never do it for men? One of the announcers even threw out a fun fact: Erika Lawler on the American team loves to get her team pumped up by dancing to "Single Ladies" by Beyonce before the game. Does anyone really care what Zach Parise does to get ready for a game? Then once again, why is it relevant to this particular game?

Can't these women be recognized as hockey players and as athletes, without having people ooh and ahh over how good they are at hockey, considering they're women -- because after all, how could a woman ever be awesome at a "man's game," right? It totally detracts from their talent, ability and hard work. I'm sitting here watching it with my roommates, felt compelled to put my thoughts on the blog because these women (Canadian and American) have worked so hard to get to the gold medal game for the past year -- and they have been reduced to nothing but being called, "American (or Canadian) ladies." Why can't they just be hockey players for the 60 minutes they're in the game, without the announcers patronizing them for being women who play hockey.

-A frustrated Canadian "lady" goaltender

Sterling's "Of Gender and Genitals"

Anne Fausto-Sterling’s chapter “Of Gender and Genitals” posed some very interesting and serious situations regarding the intersex newborn. Sterling outlines a lot of biological logistics, detailing several procedures that some intersex newborns are subjected to. What interested me, however, were the different angles that some doctors and researches chose to take on this issue. As we’ve started to discuss in class, all these issues stem from the fact that people are still generally uncomfortable with sexual ambiguity. This desire to fix “nature’s mistake” causes doctors to pressure parents to make a decision that can drastically affect their child’s future.

The first argument I found troubling was the fact that some researchers are primarily concerned with the emotional welfare of the parents, as opposed to the situation at hand. Dewhurst and Gordon tried to appeal to the emotions of people, labeling intersex individuals as “sexual freaks who are doomed to live in loneliness and frustration.” Their arguments lack the required sensitivity, and if I were a parent, there is no way I would be appealed to even finish reading their research. It is scary to think that some doctors pressure parents into making a decision, without even offering parents the necessary time to consult other parents with intersex children, or the time to do proper research.

Throughout the chapter, Sterling highlights various complications with gender reassignment surgery, as well as the consequences of doctors and parents “choosing” the wrong gender for their children. I guess my biggest question is while I was reading focused on the need to “correct” the sex of intersex newborns. If these babies are born healthy in all other aspects, why are doctors so eager to subject them to surgeries that in some cases can leave children with “densely scared and immobile penises?” The fact that some doctors caution parents to keep the information about the surgery from their children, highlights the fact that something is wrong. Why should doctors, who are trained in the field of medicine, want to hide a procedure from a patient?

I think reading Middlesex alongside of Sterling’s chapter definitely highlights our understanding of intersex issues. Although the book is fictional, it provides the psychological aspect of the scientific details discussed in Sterling’s chapter.

Correcting nature's mistakes

In Fausto-Sterling's article, "That Sexe Which Prevaileth" she brings up a few topics that we have began discussing in class, particularly the Western culture's obsession with categorizing people as either "male" or "female" and converting anyone who falls in between to fit into one of these groups. As Fausto-Sterling points out, throughout history, different cultures have embraced and rejected different ideas and definitions of sex and gender. Some thinkers, such as Aristotle and Plato, have accepted hermaphrodites as a type of sex, whereas others including Hildegard held a strong disapproval for what she considered unusual, including hermaphrodites. However as history has progressed and medical research and science have developed, the need to categorize someone as either "male" or "female" has only become even more embedded in American and European society. As Fausto-Sterling points out, "the possession of a [single] sex is a necessity for our social order, for hermaphrodites as well as for normal subjects" (42). Thus people have been programmed to understand that while humans may differ in many different types of hair-color, or height and weight or facial attributes, a definitive commonality we share is that we are either male or female. But are these well-sculpted definitions of sex accurate? Are there really only two categories of sex that we fall into? According to Fausto-Sterling, nature offers more than just two sexes, so why do we chose to "correct nature's mistakes" by converting those with both male and female attributes to the "sexe which prevaileth" or the sex that dominates one's personality, instead of embrace the idea that there are more than just two categories?

Fausto-Sterling makes another interesting point in reference to the development of sciences and medical research. As scientists have discovered new ways to study the physiology of people, which includes hermaphrodites, males and females, they have been able to identify at birth whether or not someone has both masculine and feminine attributes and thus are able to "correct" or convert these mixed-sex people to male or female. This is another subject that came up in class and as we discussed its implications, I thought about what I would do as a mother if my child had been born with both male and female attributes. Would I remove the "male parts" if she was really supposed to be a girl in order to follow the rules of society and give my child the opportunity to fit in? Probably. But how would this decision impact the child later in life?

The need to identify someone as "male" or "female" is deeply ingrained in our culture, to the point where the inability to identify whether someone is a man or a woman brings about an uncomfortable and awkward atmosphere often resulting in judgments and sometimes jokes or insults. But what about those people who do not fit into either category? This ties into Jeffrey Eugenides's character Cal in "Middlesex" who was a girl at birth, but was then born again as a boy 14 years later. Why is there a need to define Cal as either a boy or girl if by nature that's not what he/she is? As we concluded in class, I think sex should be measured on a spectrum as opposed to two strictly-defined categories, "male" and "female". Yet again we face the conflict of breaking the norms of society in the attempt to allow for the differences that naturally exist.

like a man..... or like yourself

The readings presented today were certainly interesting and eye opening.  I would have to say that I found "Womyn to Bois", and "Bad hair day" to be similar but totally different at the same time. In "Bad hair day" the reasons for the epic crew cut by the author was she felt the need to defy society, defy why women have to do so much primping and prepping in order to fit the attractive mold.  On the other hand, in "Womyn to Bois"  although it states "Lesbianism is not a matter of sexual preference, but rather on of political choice which every woman must make if she is to become woman-identified and thereby end male supremacy."I feel like Levy's writing is mostly about..... sex.  Her book takes butch as a totally different meaning than Myhre's article. She graphically depicts many relationships, and many certain individuals in her writing.  I feel like Myhre's writing was about showing her Independence, her free spirit, and her defiance against stereotypes.  Levy instead chooses to show a realm where the term "Play" and the carefree idea of hooking up in lesbian/transgender society has really shot off.  Levy shows the differences of Lesbian America, and that society has changed so non-commital sex is totally acceptable in that group.  She shows the carefree boihood world, where living is easy and fun without responsibilities of being a man. It shows these women, in their various appearances and preferences are doing what they want, but are doing it for the fun or playfulness of it all. They are also doing it for each other, wanting to impress whom they are attracted to. 

On the contrary, Myhres article is about what she wanted.  If barely even mentions sex.  Her message is simple, that she thinks that society shouldn't be so focused on the feminity of a woman, but the substance of her. She states that the fear of being butch scares us, and silences us because we are so concerned with what people think. She does not go through this radical change for anybody but herself. I particularly like her last line of the article.

Butch, femme, straight, gay, transgender, we can all take away something from this reading. I believe that these two unique perspectives can provide new light to what we sometimes fear. We can see from Levy's that there is a wide spectrum of preferences, and times have changed. People are more free to be who they want to be in life, rather than hide in the mold of a typical woman. From the other article we can see that perhaps instead of judging on appearance, we should try to change society by being attracted to other great qualities individuals have. 

News Flash: new importance.... same old mold

The State of the American woman. – Time Magazine

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1930277_1930145_1930309-1,00.html

Nancy Gibbs recent article What Woman Want Now found in Time magazine shows the actual change that the feminist movements have made over the years, but also highlights the areas that woman still are disadvantaged in. When reading, one feels almost proud of what has been accomplished, but at the same time realizes that there are things instilled in our economy that are hard to change.  The article shows that the woman is the backbone of financial planning in the household, and soon to overtake men in the majority of workers in America. With so much recent change, it is hard to determine if this changing of roles is simply because of the economic collapse, or an actual change that will be permanent in society and in the workplace. One of the questions this article presents though is, is the recent opinion of this growing equality not united among women?

Gibbs article brought up many solid points in her article, like how women are beginning to rise up and dominate, taking advantages and becoming prominent members of society.  She mentions how 40 years ago, the numbers of girls playing sports in school were small and the number of women graduating from law school were miniscule compared to what they are today. In fact, currently over half of the Ivy league presidents are women. With so much growth and progress in recent years, Gibbs hints that we have taken for granted the changes over the last forty years.   She also goes further to say “Gone is the notion that a woman’s rise comes from a man’s expense.” One has to argue, although recent change has seemingly economically placed women on top, is it simply because of the collapse of work for men out there?

Gibbs article is basically stating that in recent times, the fact is that men have lost their tight grip on the economy.  Jobs that rely on brute strength and are predominately male associated are less needed. Growth in labor areas generally associated with women (ex. Nursing) are on the rise.  Even with these changes, it is evident that in some places stereotypes still take place ( 98% of kindergarten teachers are female, only 10% of engineers are female), and overall a woman still only earns 77 cents to every male dollar. She also points out that during the recent recession, women are more vulnerable and conscious of money. Therefore, she has even more faith that women will come out of the recession with better pay, and more equality. She enlightens us by showing that although a man may still be a breadwinner in a family, the woman’s wary eye on finances and her contributes are just as important. I think Gibbs main message is, that the recent economy has showed the importance of the female, but it has also showed the importance of teamwork within a family/marriage.

 

I found Gibbs article very interesting, but couldn’t help but see the single point of view she was presenting.  She is strictly talking about middle-class, perfectly normal families. The word “Privileged” comes to mind when reading.  She indicates that the man is willing to be in the teammate role, or that a man is even in the picture. This of course is not the case for many families. Gibbs fails to mention anything about the vastly different families that the United States of America has, and the different women and their roles in these families. Gibbs states this revolution of the importance of the woman in the economy like it is a recent thing, when in fact for many women, a large number of different racial descent have been doing this tiring battle of working/ being financially in charge/ raising children for years and years.  This goes back to the readings of Lorde, Mcintosh, Miles, and Truth. Gibbs ignorance of the diversity of families, women and feminisms goals is exactly what these authors were talking about.  They were talking about the privileged perspective that white, middle to upper class have.  Gibbs major flaw is that she cannot grasp the fact that Feminism has many faces, not just the white picket fence kind.  Using the scope we have recently discovered using other articles such as On the Rag and White Privilege and Male Privilege we can see that although Gibbs article is concerned with feminism, it similarly is doing what Miles states in On The Rag, “ We were not aware of the need for individual self-analysis or for recognition of our own role in oppressing or silencing others” (p.177) Gibbs does not realize that by stating this as a major movement in feminism, so is strictly talking to a certain group of feminist women in America.

I also found Gibbs article to be what Frye might object to in her article Oppression because she might state that the recent economic change has forced women to be “forced” or “pressed” into general stereotypes. The fact that career paths that have been generally predominately female are now vital to the economy could be compared to one of her wires in the birdcage analogy. These jobs fit the nurturing, womanly stereotype. Jobs like receptionists and dental assistants were often considered demeaning and insignificant. When we focus on the fact that the importance of these jobs has increased, we forget that this is just a temporary fix. Frye’s analogy,  “It is now possible to grasp one of the reasons why oppression can be hard to see and recognize: one can study the elements of an oppressive structure with great care and some good will without seeing the structure as a whole, and hence without seeing or being able to understand that one is looking at a cage and that there are people there who are caged, whose motion and mobility are restricted, whose lives are shaped and reduced.” We have no idea what these jobs will mean after the economic downturn.

In Gibbs article, there is many ways to dissect and compare her opinions against those of the authors we have read.  The fact is that we are facing a situation that is new ground for many women of America. Although Gibbs neglects the views of every woman in her article, we cannot scrutinize her for having high hopes about the recent economic turn and the woman’s role in it.

News Flash: The extremes of femininity

Article: http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2010/02/gemma_ward.html

Our society is one that is obsessed with extremes. Glancing across news titles and news broadcasts it is easy to see how our obsession with gossip, celebrities and outer image plagues the news. This obsession does more harm than good, because it is one of the many facets that contribute to the current raunch culture that Ariel Levy outlines. Recently, on New York Magazine, an article surfaced about Gemma Ward. Discovered at a young age, Gemma Ward was an instant hit on the fashion scene, until recently when Gemma Ward sported her new image. Editors and fashion experts harshly criticized this new “bloated” Gemma. While anyone would agree that Gemma looks average and healthy, the fashion industry is shunning her new image. Although her new image does not necessarily fit into the raunchy-esque women that Levy describes, I think the industry’s reaction to Gemma describes the dichotomy that women are expected to participate in.

On February 11^th, New York Magazine posted an article titled the “Fashion Industry’s Disturbing View of Gemma Ward.” The article outlines Gemma’s “fallout” with the industry due to her weight gain. Various designers and editors were disgusted with Gemma’s weight gain, commenting that she looked unrecognizable. One editor speculated she had gained about fifteen pounds and as a result appeared “big, almost bloated.”

"It's an image-driven industry that doesn't take kindly to the girl who bucks the trend. Clients start saying, 'She's fat now, don't book her!' If you want to be cynical about it, looking that way was her job. She doesn't want to do what it takes, she's not going to get work. That's just the way it is."

Gemma’s weight gain, which should be considered normal, is being unnecessarily criticized. When Gemma was discovered, she was fourteen years old, years before puberty would hit and curves would begin to develop. How come the industry has such a negative reaction to natural occurrences?

One of the more interesting aspects about this article is the fact that Gemma’s weight gain is not attributed to her body filling out as it naturally should, but rather the fact that she was once previously romantically linked to Heath Ledger. According to the article, sources are saying that Gemma’s “serious” weight gain is the result of emotional eating after Ledger’s death. “In the aftermath of Ledger's death, Ward retreated further from the fashion world. The supermodel put on a more noticeable amount of weight and gossips began to surmise that his death had been the trigger for her so-called "emotional eating.’” Amy Odell, the writer of the article, seems to pick up on the ridiculousness of this speculation, remarking, “Yes, any model’s weight gain past the old, old age of 18 must be emotional eating or rebellion.” Instead of linking Gemma’s weight gain to growing older, news reporters are overly eager to link her weight gain to her emotional issues over the death of Heath Ledger. Although it would be easy to argue that this linkage makes for “juicier” gossip and speculation, it demonstrates several of the problems we’ve discussed in class. After the death of a rumored lover, of course her weight gain is attributed to her emotional sorrows. Of course a woman cannot simply gain weight without the speculation of a man being one the main reasons.

The speculation behind Gemma’s weight gain highlights several of the old anti-feminist thoughts we learned about in class. Women are highly emotional. Women are unstable. Women are not capable of properly handling their problems. However, one of the better aspects of the article was that Amy Odell realized the absurd claims and countered the attack on Gemma with sarcasm. This reporter is starting to fight the path of least resistance. Instead of writing an article denouncing Gemma, Odell is pointing out the problems of the fashion industry. Holding these young women to such a high standard and extreme of thinness is definitely dangerous. These expectations are the breeding ground for eating disorders and insecurity problems. Young models become consumed with this notion that they have to remain thin in order to be “good enough” for the industry.

Essentially, women are fighting the battle to prove they are “good enough” on several fronts. Women seemed to be faced with two options to prove their femininity. You either flaunt your body and adopt highly sexual behavior or force your body to unnatural standards of thinness to represent the epitome of “woman-ness”. This dilemma is unhealthy on both spectrums: subjecting themselves to sexual objectification and deliberately putting their bodies in harm’s way. On the other hand, men don’t seem to be caught in this position. While women go through drastic measures the fight the aging process, men are considered “sexy” while they age. If a female celebrity does not marry, something must be wrong with her. If a male celebrity never marries, he is added to the list of “hottest bachelors.” These standards that women are held to are indicators that the patriarchal system is still prevalent and still an issue. Instead of embracing the natural aspects of being a woman, the aspects of being a woman are devalued and are being stretched the fit into an extreme spectrum. As Johnson writes, patriarchy is “about the valuing of masculinity and maleness and the devaluing of femininity and femaleness.” Unless the rules of patriarchy change, women will be subjected to these unnatural standards for many years to come. The ideals of fashion industries, for example, should celebrate women’s bodies instead of forcing them to contort to unrealistic shapes. Less emphasis should be placed on how much a model weighs, but rather on her skill of being a model. Considering how much has changed in the fight for feminism during the last one hundred years, it is sad to see such reactions to models like Gemma Ward. Hopefully in the future, attention will be paid to the skill of a model rather than how much she weighs.

Newsflash: What women are starting to want

Link to article: http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/765117--what-women-are-starting-to-want

It is generally accepted that the pornography business is a male-dominated industry, and women’s only place in the porn world is to take her “rightful place” as the object of lust in the gritty, explicit videos. However, an article by Nora Underwood in the February 14, 2010 issue of the Toronto Star entitled, “What women are starting to want” highlights Samantha Linton, an award-winning television producer and 42 year old mother of three, who just released “Man of My Dreams, her first sensual DVD for women.” Linton decided to produce Man of My Dreams as soft-core, non-explicit scenarios with no dialogue for women between 30 and 40 years old. She wanted to give these women in particular because they are “maybe curious about dipping their toes into the adult entertainment waters but who have been put off previously by some of the choices out there. [She is] providing them with a safe way in." Moreover, since the pornography industry is so dominated by men, the videos are often far too distasteful, demeaning and off-putting for many women; thus, Linton thinks that there is a sever lack of female-friendly erotica that women could enjoy or get pleasure from, and “that women deserve to have choice. We can't just present one type of sexy to the world's women.”

Author Underwood explains that women are no longer afraid to admit that they are fans of erotica or casual viewers because of the “boomers' more liberal attitude toward sex (thanks, in part, to the early feminist movement's belief in a woman's right to a full, fulfilling sex life)” and the creation of the home video – women do not have to feel ashamed or embarrassed entering into the local XXX theatre to watch hard-core porn; instead, if they desire to watch erotica, they can do it in the comfort of their own homes. Similarly, the University of Amsterdam conducted a study whereby 47 women watched man-made hard-core pornography, and then viewed woman-made erotica. The results were that the women responded very differently, both physically and emotionally, to the two vastly different scenarios depicted in each of the videos. The women described the man-made videos as “brothel-like,” “obscene, “ludicrous,” and “banal,” whereas they thought the woman-made erotica was “beautiful,” “arousing,” “sensual,” and “real.”

This article relates specifically to three readings we have studied so far in the course. First, Ariel Levy would fully support Samantha Linton’s decision to produce woman-made, female-centric erotica with the purpose of making women feel more comfortable about sexuality; as a result of Linton’s efforts, women are not forced to watch the gritty, rather disgusting imagery of man-made pornography and potentially feel put off by an inherent part of being human: their sexuality. Linton’s video is not an example of raunch culture, because to Levy, raunch culture is nothing more than “endlessly reiterating one particular—and particularly commercial—shorthand for sexiness” (Levy, 30). Linton’s video has the intention of “opening [women’s] minds to the possibilities and mysteries of sexuality” (Levy, 30), which is something that Levy can empathize with and appreciate. Linton found that women were generally put off by the cheesy, graphic nature of man-made pornography films, and instead “yearned for great love scenes with plenty of sexual charge but not necessarily explicit action” (Underwood). Thus, Man of My Dreams was not produced with the purpose of being just another “glossy, overheated thumping of sexuality in our culture” (Levy, 31); it was meant to make women feel like they can be sexy at any age, and disprove “the myth that sexiness needs to be something divorced from everyday experience of ourselves” (Levy, 44).

Second, because this article focuses on the predominantly male pornography industry, there is a strong connection to Allan Johnson’s excerpt, “Patriarchy as a System.” It is not secret that the porn industry is a boys club; the purpose of girls in the business is to look sexy and feign pleasure so that male onlookers can get aroused while they ogle these women and fantasize about them. This industry plays to the desires of men – girl on girl action, threesomes, and beautiful women: what more could a guy want, right? Johnson would say that throughout history, both men and women have accepted the porn industry as a male-dominated business, and therein lies the problem. The porn industry is a microcosm of the more expansive system that is society; both men and women participate in the industry, and are therefore both stakeholders. Since they are both stakeholders in this system, they can both try to reform the system as they see fit. Most men probably would not see a need to reform the system, given that they get pleasure from pornography as is. Women on the other hand likely would like to see a change in the demeaning XXX videos that are produced by the men in the porn industry. As a participant in the system, Johnson would say that Samantha Linton is “empowering [herself] to take [her] share of responsibility for the patriarchal legacy that we’ve all inherited” (Johnson). By producing Man of My Dreams, Linton is changing the way she participates in the system of the porn industry, by giving women a choice in the matter The passion that had been absent from all XXX videos and man-made pornographic films seems to have been revived by Linton. She wants them to be comfortable with sex, and sexuality, and be passionate about sex, without having to feel like they are nothing more than objects of male fantasy and lust; she wants women to feel like complicit participants in sexual activity. In doing so, she is not only “changing [herself], but the world that shapes our lives” by changing the female perception of erotica and of sex, making it something inherently human, and beautifully real.

Third, Peggy McIntosh’s article, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” is closely related to Samantha Linton’s venture, not so much in content, but in perspective and purpose. McIntosh wrote her article from personal experience and from positive of power. It feels much more like an anecdote, or a conversation than anything else. She is not trying to act like the almighty or definitive authority on the matter of white privilege by any means, but she does make it clear that as a white woman, she is highly aware of privileges inherent in being white. Similarly, Samantha Linton is clearly not the authoritative voice on human sexuality; she’s a 42 year old, married mother of three who has won a few awards as a television producer. Most people would say, “Big deal. Who is this woman to tell me what sex is all about?” McIntosh would put down these naysayers in a way similar to Johnson, and declare that Linton is doing here part in reforming the existing system. As an award-winning television producer and freelance television executive, she does hold a lot of power; she has a lot of privilege. In turn, she is putting her privileges that she gets as a result of her career to good use. She has realized the way that sex is perceived by a lot of women her age, and wants to change these negative views. Sex is not a taboo; sex is not a bad thing. It is a fundamental right of being human and Linton wants to highlight that point with Man of My Dreams. She wants to bring the passion back to sex, especially for women her age; she wants to reignite the flame where it may have burnt out recently. Thus, McIntosh would support Linton in her efforts to “use…[her]…power to try to reconstruct power systems on a broader base” (McIntosh). In other words, Linton’s pursuit is driven by her desire to make sex something for everyone; she is giving a women a choice, opening them up to the possibilities and broadening their horizons in showing them that sex is not just for men, it is their right too.

In summation, the three authors discussed would all support Linton’s efforts to reform the male-dominated pornography industry by trying to bring some tastefulness and reality to sex. She is giving women the opportunity to see all facets of sex: in her video, they are not just bombarded with raunchy close-up shots, but they get to see the flirting, the foreplay and the intimacy of the act of sex and the gift of human sexuality. Linton’s ventures might be considered fairly radical given the obvious patriarchy of the current system and even seen as fairly meaningless as well, but it is important to recognize that small changes to the system such as the efforts of Samantha Linton could ultimately give greater empowerment and choice to women, and eventually add up to even greater changes over time to the current system.

News Flash: Redefining gender roles

http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/2009/0614/p13s01-usec.html

The news article from the Christian Science Monitor titled “How the recession is reshaping the American family” explains how the current economic recession is taking women out of the house and putting them into the workplace as a result of men being laid-off from their jobs who now must take on the role of the traditional housewife. While women have been experiencing lay-offs as well, the article states that “men have lost twice as many jobs as women” specifically in the manufacturing and construction sectors. Consequently, families have had no choice but to restructure their roles in order to provide for their families. As the article illustrates, many families have adapted well to these new changes and the men have embraced their new roles and have enjoyed spending more time with their children. However this new shift away from traditional family roles is not as easy as some families make it seem. For some families, mothers who have been forced back into the workplace would much rather return to their traditional role as a housewife and fathers would prefer to reassume their role as the man-of-the-house. Yet could this economic downturn indirectly pose a solution to the patriarchal society that has suppressed women and their opportunities? Now that women are in fact needed in the workplace to stabilize their families, will women gain a new sense of respect and value? However what happens when the economy improves and job opportunities for men resurface? Will the men who have been stay-at-home fathers return to the workplace while women return to the home? These questions all relate to the topics we have discussed in class and although it will take time to discover their answers, what we can take away from the article now is that women are undoubtedly given a real opportunity to take advantage of this shift in the patriarchal system and use this new power they have accumulated in the workplace to empower themselves and women as a whole.

This movement of women from the home into the workforce has been seen previously in history during the Second World War as men left their jobs to fight overseas. However once they returned, women were pushed back into the home to reassume their role as the traditional housewife. Yet as Betty Friedan points out in her article “The Problem That Has No Name” something was different for these women and “[they were] so ashamed to admit [their] dissatisfaction that [they] never knew how many other women shared it” (Friedan, 571). Although women have come a very long way since the 1960s, these traditional female values are still embedded in our culture today. As the article points out, some women who were forced to leave the home to go into the workplace hope that their new jobs will be temporary and long for a return to the way things were before the economic downturn. As one woman in the article put it, “I loved being a stay-at-home mom because everything was done around the house; I loved playing with them and watching them grow. I want to cherish all the time I have with them. But with the economy the way that it is, I feel like I’m robbed of that.” So here we are faced with a conflict: do women truly want to be traditional housewives and take care of the kids and clean their homes while the men are at work? If so, is it because women are inherently more nurturing and caring which translates into the role of a housewife? This touches on Levy’s concept of “essentializing” in which men are essentially one way and women are another and thus in order for a women to be accepted in the workplace, they have to exhibit behaviors that are generally masculine. However, I think here is the crucial point: the shift in this patriarchal system is that women are actually forced back into the workplace without having to act like a man, and thus can still act like a woman and also assume power in the workplace.

Before the economic recession pushed women into the workplace, Levy explains “women who’ve wanted to be perceived as powerful have long found it more efficient to identify with men than try and elevate the entire female sex to their level” (95). However the problem with acting like a man is that “even if you are a woman who achieves the ultimate and becomes like a man you will still always be like a woman. And as long as womanhood is thought of as something to escape from…you will be thought less of, too” (112). However, now woman have the opportunity to be perceived as powerful, by having a job, without having to act like a man. Thus women can still be caring and nurturing and take care of their kids in the time that they do have with them, but can also be professional and powerful in their jobs as well. Although it will be interesting to see what happens with these roles once the economy begins to redevelop, for now, women as a whole, not just married women with families, have a great opportunity to essentially balance gender roles and embrace their feminine qualities while also assuming positions of power instead of acquiring power through hiding or suppressing their womanhood.

One of the great challenges of the transformation of roles that this article briefly touches on, however, has to do with the roles in the bedroom. Now that men seem to be exhibiting more feminine qualities by staying at home with the kids and cleaning the house, as one man in the article puts it, “eventually it becomes self-emasculating” and consequently it is possible that men will begin to feel insignificant and women may miss having “the man” in her life. This concept poses two issues: First, now that men are assuming “the female role” and exhibiting feminine qualities by taking care of the kids and cleaning the house, are we still working within the same patriarchal system? Just because men are doing “the women’s role” and women are in the workplace doing the traditional “men’s job” these labels still exist which implies that eventually men and women will both reassume their rightful roles. I think Levy would argue that this is an opportunity for these labels to be erased and instead of having categorized roles for men and women they should each be able to take on whatever role is needed of them without having to feel emasculated or overly-masculine. Thus although these new changes will take some time to get used to, I think this is a very important opportunity to move away from “male roles” or “female roles” and instead give women a chance to experience the professional world without having to act masculine and give men a chance to spend more time with their families without having to feel emasculated. Levy might suggest that these changes should also translate to the bedroom giving women an opportunity to be the dominant one in the bedroom as opposed to the traditional sexual roles. However I think while men learn to adjust to their new roles of taking care of the kids and cleaning the house, they can use the bedroom to essentially balance their power and still acting as “the man” in their marriages.

The Unearned Advantages of White Privilege and Reconstructing the System

The readings from McIntosh, Lorde and Miles are all very subtly connected. As a woman, it's easy to see how men are unwilling to say that they get more than women, but are willing to recognize that women are disadvantaged. I can think of a pretty clear example as a female athlete at Colgate on the Women's Hockey Team -- it's not too difficult to tell that while we do get treated very well, the men's team usually does get a great deal of preferential treatment that they probably aren't eager to admit. Like I said, it's easy as a woman to see the male privilege, but I have never really been highly conscious of the privileges I am afforded to as a white person. I know this unearned advantage exists by virtue of the color of my skin, but I just simply never really acknowledged it, nor did I really identify whiteness as a racial identity until I read McIntosh's article. While some of the effects of white privilege seem really silly and not a big deal, like #46 (I can chose blemish cover or bandages in "flesh" color and have them more or less match my skin), it all starts with one stupid unearned advantage of white privilege to cause these effects to continue to perpetuate throughout society over the course of history -- which is exactly what has happened.

McIntosh suggests that those who benefit from white privilege's unearned advantages use this power to benefit others by trying to change the system. Like Lorde points out in here article, silence immobilizes us all, and what we will regret most at the end of our days is not the things we said, but the things we chose not to say. So, in relating these two articles, it's important for those who benefit from white privilege not to just accept these benefits without a second thought, but rather speak out and try to change things because these advantages are very much unearned and entirely unfair. On a similar note, those who do not get the relish in these unearned benefits, in other words people of color, need to speak out as well in an attempt to reconstruct the system that keeps affording undeserving people the power and conferring them all the benefits. It's a matter of transforming the silence that has plagued society for so long (in both white people and people of color) into language, and using language to raise awareness that undeserved advantages do exists as a result of skin color, and to ultimately redistribute power in the hierarchal system that currently exists.

Finally, in relation to Miles' article in Listen Up, the previous two articles really connected to this one in that the women of On the Rag did not recognize the differences between each other. White women thought their strife was the same as the black girls, and the black girls felt they faced the same issues as the Asian women, etc. None of the women completed any critical self-analysis in order to understand how each individual participated in the system oppression on a daily basis. To this, McIntosh would suggest that the women of color probably recognized the unearned advantages of white privilege, whereas the white women didn't even realize that there was an issue of white privilege within their group. Moreover, Lorde would say that these women had stayed silent on various issues surrounding femininity for quite sometime and had become paralyzed by their silence. Once it came time for them to open up, they realized that the issues that they cared about weren't necessarily the ones that everyone else cared about or where affected by, and thereby took issue with their fellow women.

In summation, these articles really provoked some critical self-analysis of my own. Am I more aware of the unearned benefits conferred to me as a result of being white after reading these articles? Yes. Do I think it's fair? No. Is there anything I can do to change it? Yes, I think so. It's now a matter of me either taking the "path of least resistance" and continuing to participate in the system, or trying to change the system by denying such benefits -- I can begin to reconstruct the system at the individual level.

On a side note, I thought it was really cool how Miles mentioned Lorde and Echols, two authors that we have studied in class.

Media project

CARLS JR ADVERTISEMENTS

If we look around us, the “Raunch Culture” Ariel Levy has described in her book Female Chauvinist Pigs is evident throughout all types of advertisements. Companies, brands and chains have managed revolutionize marketing by using women as props to sell a product.  Selling sex is a key component in today’ s industry, but selling sex to market a totally unrelated product is something that Levy would definitely define as “Raunch Culture”.  Advertisements by Carls jr , specifically the ones involving scantily clad, fame hungry, aspiring celebrities shows us that selling sex where sex shouldn’t be is simply aiding in turning women into sexual objects.

Carls jr advertisements involving Kim Kardashian, recently launched in the New Year, consist of her seductively eating a salad while showing off her curvaceous body in bed.  This advertisement is the most recent example of this restaurant chain using women to sell their food. However in 2005, this company launched a racy commercial of Paris Hilton eating a juicy burger while perching soaped up, half naked on the hood of a car.  This form of advertising rocked the media, garnering a huge amount of attention, which is precisely what the ads intended to do.  Last year, they released a commercial of Audrina Partridge (character on hit reality show The Hills) eating one of their specialty burgers while sunning her oiled body on the beach. Even the language in both the Partridge ad and the Kardashian ad refers to sex. The women purr out such comments as “I have to be a little bad” and “While the best things in life are messy, it’s fun to get clean.”  Meanwhile the camera sweeps over their bodies. This whole idea of using a woman’s body as a provocative tool to gain attention and generate interest for the product is undoubtedly smart. But is it right? Regardless of if it was for money, or attention, or because they simply felt liberated by doing it, they made themselves into sex symbols and continue to market themselves in that fashion.  They are sending the message that they do not care if they are being cheaply used to excite men into remembering the commercial, remembering the brand.

All three of these women mentioned have turned into fierce business masterminds, with each pulling millions of dollars in reality TV, fashion, fragrances, clothing as well as other endorsements.  Coincidentally (or not) each woman has also had a sex tape leak to the public.  Plastic surgery has also been linked to each of these women, Partridge being the only one to confirm that she has had a breast implant. Carls Jr was well aware of the scandals when they hired each of these stars, knowing that they are the objects of sexual desire for men around the globe. In fact Carls Jr does not even deny they only use beautiful, sexy women in their ads. The firm MendelsohnZien, an advertising firm based out of LA has been behind all of Carls Jr’s advertisements involving marketing with the women. In a recent article of QSR magazine about the company, the Carls Jr advertisements, specifically Kim Kardashians, were held to very different opinions.

In the article it states that the ad “appears to be targeting women, although there are components that no doubt appeal to the chains' target demographic of 18-to 34-year-old males” It also goes on to state that Kim Kardashian’s ad has garnered millions of hits on YouTube, they also credit this commercial as singlehandedly boosting salad sales at the restaurant to new heights. Surprisingly, the salad sales indicate that a large number of women are buying these salads, over 60% in fact. Spokespeople for the advertisement claim that Kim Kardashian is dubbed as a celebrity who appeals to both men in women.

Experts say not to be confused, Denise Lee Yohn a business consulting pro states “Carl's Jr. has carved out a distinctive brand position with offerings and advertising squarely targeted to young males," she said. "Many of their past communications seem intentionally alienating to the female market —  e.g., Paris Hilton car wash, mechanical bull rider, etc. — and they’ve experienced a great deal of success with this approach. To now switch gears and try to also target women just doesn’t make sense."

This brand of advertisement works, but is it realistic? In all honesty would any of these celebrities eat their food the way it is depicted in the commercials?  In Female Chauvinist Pigs Ariel levy says “ That women are now doing this to ourselves isn’t some kind of triumph, it’s depressing. Sexuality is inherent, it is a fundamental part of a human being, and it’s more complicated than we seem to be willing to admit.  Different things are attractive to different people and sexual tastes run wide and wild. Yet somehow, we have accepted that as fact the myth that sexiness needs to be something divorced from everyday experience from being ourselves.” (pg 44) Carls Jr is creating an image that in order to be appealing to a man, you need to be awkwardly eating food while wearing practically nothing at all. Do they truly enjoy what they are seductively eating? Or is it just a show to please the viewer?

 These women chose to appear in these advertisements and had the confidence to do so. But yet feel unsatisfied with their bodies, at least enough for at least one woman to get plastic surgery. The times have changed, no longer do women care if they become the object of a mans desire, in fact many want that.  These particular celebrities have “Sold” themselves shamelessly, and are enjoying the rewards. This type of promotion is exactly what Levy deems is what is wrong with society today. This “Raunch Culture” is not freeing women and giving the options to perform this advertising, it’s forcing them to. The impact and response to this form of advertising makes one ask, How much longer can we continue to degrade ourselves at the expense of selling an object? How much further can we go?

 

http://www.carlsjr.com/company/releases/audrina-patridge-trades-the-hills-for-the-beach-in-hot-new-ad-for-carls-jr/

http://www.mzad.com/press/

Challenging the Path of Least Resistance

Some of Johnson’s ideas in “Patriarchy, the System…” are similar to theories we’ve already discussed. Johnson and Levy seem to share the idea that women partake in behaviors in society because if they don’t “they risk losing power, rewards, and recognition if they then challenge the same system” and “as a result they often serve patriarchal interests.” I think this notion of serving patriarchal interests is not something women want to do, but rather something they deem as necessary in order to be successful in a male-dominated society. Johnson’s article differed from Levy in that Johnson also viewed this patriarchal society from a man’s point of view. I thought it was interesting, that just as how it becomes ingrained in women that they need to be viewed as the “fairer” sex, men behave certain ways because it is expected and do not want to veer off the path of least resistance.

Johnson also points out that unless we start to examine our issues on a societal level, change will never happen. It is easier, as Johnson suggests, to blame sexual abuse and violence against women on mental illness or bad previous experiences, than to examine our society and how our society might actually perpetuate these behaviors. Until we challenge the path of least resistance, sexist behavior will never be challenged and will never be changed. In order to free ourselves from this oppression that Frye focuses on, it is important to question and examine how our society functions. Another problem stems from the fact that even today a large part of socialization focuses on gender roles. Instead of having girls grow up thinking that “men are the most important things as defined by patriarchal culture,” they should grow up believing they are just as capable as men.

Media Culture Project: So You Think You Can...Shake Your Ass?

The primetime television show “So You Think You Can Dance” is a reality show much like American Idol in which dancers compete to win the hearts and the votes of Americans to be crowned “America’s Favorite Dancer.” While on the surface, the show provides an opportunity for aspiring dancers to gain the recognition of renowned choreographers and the hope to build careers for themselves, behind the stunning performances and the excitement of watching to see if your favorite dancer wins lies a sense of Raunch Culture rooted in the role of female dancers. In the video clip posted above, the female dancers are dressed in very revealing and sexy clothing while the male dancers are completely covered. Furthermore, the female dancers perform very sexual moves like humping the floor while the men stick to relatively non-sexual dancing. However not only do female dancers enjoy wearing skimpy outfits and strutting across the stage showing off their sexiness and liveliness, but they actually embrace this role and try to be more sexy because that is what it takes to make it in the dance world. Levy would argue that these women are buying into this Raunch Culture because they are objectifying themselves and their bodies in order to gain the attention of both male and female spectators. However Levy would not put the blame on the women but rather the dance culture itself. Female dancers have historically been objectified and have flaunted their bodies as a means of self-expression and passion, and young women have strived to look and dance sexy because they have been programmed and socialized to think that successful dancers look and act this way. Levy would also stress that while these dancers may find this expression of dance liberating and empowering, or simply they do it because they like to, they are, whether intentionally or unintentionally, devaluing women by participating in this culture. As a result, even though female dancers may think they are being respected for their talent, by dressing themselves in hardly any clothing and dancing in a way that mirrors sex, spectators begin to pay attention to this sexiness that they portray rather than their dancing abilities.

Another important point Levy would point out is that in the clip you don’t see men wearing skimpy outfits or humping the floor, but instead they are fully clothed and do not dance in a way that imitates sex. According to Levy, the issue is not that women may enjoy liberating themselves through dancing and looking sexy to grab the attention of spectators which no doubt gives them an ego boost, but the problem is that men do not behave in the same way. In order for men to make it in the dance world, they do not necessarily have to be the most attractive or well-built guy, as seen by the male dancers on the video, but instead they are judged solely on their talent (and personalities for the sake of reality television). Women, however, must have very different qualifications. As seen in the video, most of the women are of about average height but are very skinny and look good in what appears to be a superwoman’s costume. Thus here arises a new conflict: are female dancers trying to be skinnier and sexier because that is what society tells them makes more successful dancers, or do female dancers just happen to be skinny and sexy because it is practical? This is essentially the debate between practicality versus selling out to the system. Are female dancers selling out to the system by agreeing to wear these skimpy outfits and dancing in a way that suggests sex or are these outfits and movements just the nature of dance culture? I find it hard to believe that Wonder Woman outfits which emphasize women’s breasts and butts is practical for dancing, but in all honesty, people, both men and women, would much rather watch beautiful women shaking their asses in less clothing than watching them dance in baggy sweat-suits. And while the dancers may say they enjoy wearing the costumes because it makes them feel sexy and powerful, the only driving factor behind these misconceptions of empowerment and attention is that our society associates sexiness with adoration. Thus when viewers see dancers that are considered sexy and hot, they will approve of them and cheer for them which consequently makes the dancers feel good about themselves. But why not let the talent of these dancers alone bring in the attention and feelings of empowerment? These dancers are already amazing only by their abilities to move their bodies the way they do, and putting them in skimpy and sexy outfits not only objectifies these women, but it takes the attention away from their dancing and onto their appearance.

I generally tend to side with Levy, especially on her claim that the problem is so deeply rooted in society that a solution can only come from a change in social values and norms. Although dance is a form of art and dancers usually are acting these roles which in some cases may be an expression of themselves or some other character, dance still reflects culture, thus the way we perceive men and women in dance is very similar to the way we perceive them in society. Thus this Raunch Culture that appears in the dance world is inevitably a reflection of the Raunch Culture that exists in our society and as Levy would argue, the problem is not that women want to be successful dancers and will look and act sexy in order to achieve these goals, but that being sexy is the way to make it. However, now I’m forced to ask myself, do women really have any other choice? In a culture like dance where it is expected that women are comfortable wearing Wonder Woman outfits and straddling the floor, if aspiring dancers are not willing to dance like this or wear these costumes, they are simply kicked to the curb and replaced by another dancer. So for young girls whose dream is to become a professional dancer, do they really have any other choice but to buy into the system and embrace these roles that the dance world has defined to be acceptable? Even if a dance studio were to recognize the problem behind dressing female dancers in sexually-implicit costumes and tried to create dance performances where women were actually clothed and danced in a way that was not suggestive of sex, would their studio succeed? Maybe, but wouldn’t it be much easier for female dancers to just give in to the dance world and put on a skimpy outfit just so they have the opportunity to do what they love? I think this is where Levy wants to make her point loud and clear: second-wave feminists have tried to find a solution for women by buying into the patriarchal system and embracing the role of the strong, hot, sexual woman and celebrating this woman. However by giving into a system that pays more attention to the sex appeal of a woman than her talent still devalues women and consequently offers no real solution. Yet because these values and norms are so deeply rooted into our culture, the only solution seems to be to change the culture and thereby its values.

Flirty Girl Fitness; "What more could a gal ask for?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-TOKWEMXVY&feature=related

http://www.flirtygirlfit.com/successes.html#back

Media Culture Project

It comes as no surprise that today’s culture has become overly obsessed with image and perfecting one’s outer appearance. For years, women have been chanting that true beauty shines from within, although if one watches television for as little as fifteen minutes, that slogan will seem contradictory. While watching television with my roommates one night, we realized that every commercial was either promoting weight loss or pushing for the latest acne medication regimen. Just as we were talking about this, a commercial for Flirty Girl Fitness came on. Complete with a DVD kit and a “fitness pole”, Flirty Girl Fitness promised it was a “fun and sexy” way to lose weight and gain confidence. Despite the fact that Flirty Girl Fitness might be a more interesting way to lose weight as opposed to the mundane treadmill, how come women have to pose as strippers to “feel sexy and confident?” Do these behaviors perpetuate the raunch culture that is so prevalent today?

The beginning of the commercial displays women in workout clothes and words such as “long”, “lean”, “tight,” and “beautiful” are thrown across the screen. The women performing the workout are in great physical fitness. During the commercial “sexy” and “erotic” are mentioned several times. As one could argue, and Levy would agree, who are these women learning these stripper-esque routines for? Although it could be promoted as a routine to gain confidence, learning to wrap their bodies around stripper poles and dancing on chairs is primarily done for male gratification. The whole idea and method of this workout most likely came from clubs and bars where the majority of customers are men. The Flirty Fitness “fitness pole” has a weight restriction however, reinforcing the fact that while the commercial claims that it promotes confidence, it is not built for all women. After watching clips of the workout, it is easy to see that the moves are designed with men in mind. The description of the program certainly proves its hidden intent:

“Grab your pink feather boa ladies; it's time to put a fun sexy twist on your workout routine. Arch your backs, gyrate your hips, flip your hair and have a whole lot of sexy fun while you get your workout in. In fact, you're going to love this workout so much, you'll want to show it off to someone”

If women are learning these routines that derive from masculine desires, how empowering is Flirty Girl Fitness?

Searching through the Flirty Girl Fitness website, you can read many of the customers reviews and testimonials. Almost every woman interviewed on the website claimed that this workout routine was “empowering for [her] femininity and a great way to feel sexy.” Every woman claimed it unleashed her inner sexiness and one woman even went as far to say it awakened the “goddess” within her. One woman stated:

“Over the course of 3 months I experienced wonderful things… lost over 15 lbs. and approx. 25-inches, plus actually enjoyed the process!! WOW! The results speak for themselves but most importantly, the Flirty Girl Fitness program helped bring back my inner confidence and inner sexiness that had temporarily gone astray. Today, I’m very happy, successfully traveling my fitness path, in great health and dating an amazing man! What more can a gal ask for?? Always, always remember to never give up on yourself. Thank you Flirty Girl Fitness!"

It is interesting to note that this woman attributed her new “amazing man” to the workout regimen and followed her testimonial with “what more could a gal ask for?” Levy might argue that a gal could ask for a lot more, including the notion that feeling empowered and sexy does not need to come from learning how to dance like a stripper. When questioning the empowerment behind performing like a stripper, Levy responds, “spinning greasily around a pole wearing a facial expression not found in nature is more a parody of female sexual power than an expression of it” (p. 98). Promoting exercise workouts like Flirty Girl Fitness only perpetuate the raunch culture that we have found ourselves in today.

Women participating in these programs display the disconnect between raunch culture and sexual liberation. Much like the CAKE group that Levy discussed, many women say they perform these behaviors to feel empowered, but for the wrong reasons. “The truth is that the new conception of raunch culture as a path to liberation rather than oppression is a convenient and lucrative fantasy with nothing to back it up” (p. 82). In an interview in her book, Levy comes across several women who claim that stripping is empowering, yet they themselves would never strip. Stripping still carries with it a negative and degrading connotation, yet women are labeling it as empowering. This contradiction among women, as Levy discusses, arises from the fact that women need to prove that they “get it.” They need to view stripping and similar behaviors as acceptable, to prove that they are one of the guys.

Until raunch culture is separated from the idea of sexual liberation, I think one of the fundamental goals of feminism will never be achieved. Programs like Flirty Girl Fitness only make it easier for women to be stuck in this contradiction. Dancing like strippers to gain confidence and feel empowered is putting the source of their esteem in male hands. In order to truly be sexually liberated, women need to gain confidence from their own merit and not base it off the fantasies of men.

Media Culture Project: The Girls of Jersey Shore

http://www.mtv.com/videos/misc/458327/jersey-shore-trailer.jhtml

This is the only good link I could find that contained the Jersey Shore clips that I wanted to show. Youtube didn't have any because MTV takes them down due to copyright infringement. Anyways, here is my blog:

Ariel Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs denounces the belief that women must be overtly sexual in the way they look, act, dress and speak in order to feel “empowered” – the raunch culture that has taken over today’s mainstream society is nothing but a vale hiding the regression, rather than the progression, of the feminist movement. Today, women are being duped into pursuing sexual freedom, empowerment and liberation via scandalous clothing, sexy dance moves and promiscuous sex; this pursuit is nothing but an abandonment of the real empowerment and liberation and equality that the foremothers of the earlier waves of feminism fought so hard to achieve; they lobbied and persevered so that women could be considered equal to men, and now raunch culture has women looking like nothing more than mere objects for men to ogle and fondle. Such abandonment is present in various aspects of media, including the focus on this particular blog: Jersey Shore. Jersey Shore is a show on MTV that aired in late 2009 and quickly became a cultural phenomenon. It follows the lives of 7 Italian-American twenty-somethings as they spend their summer living in a house together on the Jersey Shore, drinking, partying and fist pumping all the while. Specifically, the clip I have chosen is the trailer that MTV aired for several weeks prior to the show’s premiere; even though this is just a preface to what the show actually entails, one can see that this show and the women in it align with Levy’s school of thought that women in today’s society are tricked into accepting the ideals of raunch culture as liberating and feminist, evident in the way that the female characters dress scandalously, dance provocatively and live promiscuously.

In terms of clothing, the women of Jersey Shore all have pretty much the same mentality: wear the least amount of clothing possible in order to expose as much skin, particularly cleavage, as they can. According to Levy, our current “establishment” has decided that scantily clad women are in fact the “strong, powerful” ideals to which we all must aspire (Levy, 26). Snooki, a self-proclaimed “guidette” who stands barely at 5 feet tall often wears tops that expose her breasts in order to attract men because her mission in life is to “marry a guido. [Her] ultimate dream is to move to Jersey, find a nice, juiced, hot, tan guy, and live [her] life.” Levy would say Snooki and the other women of Jersey Shore’s desire to be “overtly and publicly sexual” in the way they dress stems from the fact that we confuse “sleazy energy” with real human sexuality in modern society (Levy, 26). Since “hotness has become our cultural currency, and a lot of people spend a lot of time and a lot of regular, green currency trying to acquire it” (Levy, 31) the girls of Jersey Shore spend their money on hair extensions, fake tanning, clothing and makeup to achieve the “hotness” level required to be considered desirable by the opposite sex. In other words, they feel dressing “slutty” and looking sleazy way will allow for them to exude their sexuality or sexiness to the public, and to ultimately attract male attention, whether it is positive or negative.

When the residents of the Jersey Shore house go out to party, they aren’t messing around – the women are on prowl for their next victim, aka hook-up. The women of the Jersey Shore are aggressive predators who have an insatiable sexual appetite and they have no problem of making it known to the opposite sex; one of the girls, Sammi, stated on the show’s premiere, “Your No. 1 mission is to go out and find the hottest guido and take him home.” JWoww also had similar thoughts, proclaiming: “I’m like a praying mantis. After I have sex with a guy, I will rip their heads off. I have a bad habit of playing little emotional games with men. When they date me, it’s cool at the beginning, we do our thing in the first month, and then I send them on a roller-coaster ride to hell.” When the girls go out to clubs, they bump and grind with strangers – Snooki once declared, “I just let loose and fuckin’ kill it on the dance floor” – all night long, hoping the unknown men buy them drinks, and come home with them for to continue the night back in the Jacuzzi at the Jersey Shore house, and eventually end up in the bedroom with them. In the way the Jersey Shore girls act at the clubs and towards the opposite sex, Levy might say that they are “projecting a kind of eagerness, offering a promise that any attention [they] receive for [their] physicality is welcome” (Levy, 33). Is this liberation? Is this empowerment? Levy would say a resounding “NO” and suggest that these girls have become desensitized to their actions when they go out; they don’t think it’s a big deal to gyrate on the dance floor with strange men, or make out in public and take random guys home – to her the world has become “a pretty trashy place” (Levy, 35) and the girls of Jersey Shore are simply adding to the mess and have no intention of cleaning up after themselves anytime soon.

Furthermore, Levy would say that these girls are even going so far as to act like men, in that men are usually the ones on the prowl for women, trying to get them drunk enough to come home with them and have an uninhibited one night stand. While a lot of Levy’s focus on women “acting like men” has to do with the business world, I think it’s definitely an issue in the case of the girls of Jersey Shore. These women are trying to prove their worth and make themselves acceptable to the men they encounter at the clubs night after night. It’s like a reflex for them – they think it’s necessary for them to stand out enough in order to find a guy finds them sexy and wants to get to know them long enough that he wants to go home with them. To Levy, these girls are “tomming,” or “conforming to someone else’s—someone more powerful’s [men, television viewers, entertainment industry executives, etc.]—distorted notion of what [they] represent” (Levy, 106). They figure, “Hey, I’m on Jersey Shore, I need to act this way in order to keep up my reputation/image,” and hey buy into raunch culture because it’s how they’re going get attention and score with guys. And now, it’s how they’re going to pull a $10 000 per episode paycheck week after week when Jersey Shore hits MTV for its highly-anticipated second season.

On the other side of the spectrum, Levy’s detractors would say that the Jersey Shore girls are progressive, and they’re helping empower the female youth of America one fake tan at a time. Some would say that these girls are an abandonment of the Italian-American women often portrayed on television – either loud-mouths, housewives or daddy’s girls. They live their lives how they see fit; they do what they want, when they want and give a big ““FUCK YOU! If you don’t want to watch, don’t watch. Just shut the hell up! I’m serious. FUCK YOU!” (courtesy of Snooki) to those who think they are permeating negative stereotypes or setting poor examples by giving into raunch culture on international television each week. In fact, some might go as far to say that these girls are revolutionaries and a breath of fresh air – what’s wrong with girls knowing what they want to look like (fake hair, fake boobs, fake tan) and knowing what kind of guys they want (“Tall, completely jacked, steroids”), and going after both of these goals with a “I don’t give a f***” type of attitude? Levy’s opponents would say that these girls are sexually free, and are simply embracing their human sexuality for no reason other than it’s how they want to live their lives.

Ultimately however, Levy’s argument holds far more merit than those of her opponents and the Jersey Shore girls prove that accepting raunch culture as “normal” and living life according to this type of culture causes a regression in the feminist movement. After all, how could the likes of Snooki, Sammi and JWoww really be considered visionaries for the feminist movement? Simply put: they can’t. The girls of Jersey Shore make it seem okay to dress baring everything, leaving nothing to the imagination, dance like they’re having sex on the dance floor, and have sex with any guy that bats their eyelashes at them; they believe that by acting this way they are empowered in that they have control of their lives, but they have it backwards. In reality, they have no control because the way they are perceived by society is anything but positive – they are walking jokes around the water coolers in most offices, in the common rooms of dormitories and on most Hollywood entertainment talk shows. I also think that maybe it’s just their television persona, and they know that the way they act on TV is going to make them the most talked about characters around, so they do it for the popularity and for the money. We don’t really know who these people are, or what they’re all about – we only know what we see on TV, and for now I’m going to assume that what we see is what we get, and the girls of Jersey Shore are very much like the people we see on MTV week after week. Anyways, the men on Jersey Shore aren’t a step up from the women, but that’s another blog entirely. Yes, Jersey Shore is a cultural phenomenon and these girls have become overnight celebrities, but in the end, they are doing nothing for the feminist movement except allow for the acceptance of raunch culture and the devaluation of women to pervade throughout mainstream society.