Steinem's opening paragraph really caught my eye and really made me think. She says, "Suppose archaeologists of the future dug up women's magazines and used them to judge American women. What would they think of us--and what can we do about it?" Honestly, what would they think of us? Looking at the state of most women's magazines today even in 2010, it's all about fashion, hair, how to get guys, sex tips, how to cook for your man, etc. If an alien species learned about women in our culture by simply looking at this magazines, they would probably think we're nothing more than a bunch of superficial bimbos trying to land the right guy. It's no secret that most of women's magazines today lack substance and hard-hitting articles that don't just scratch the surface and go beyond the aesthetics of concealer and mousse. It's also no secret that most advertising companies, as Steinem points out, are pretty reluctant to place ads for their products in women's magazines. After all, women don't care about technology, cars, finance or alcohol, right?
Steinem's stories about advertising really resonated with me because they're so blatantly true, and I think often, very overlooked: using semi-nude women to make you want to buy a new Porsche, showing that if you drink Budweiser beautiful women will flock to you, or that when a salesperson tries to sell a new stereo system to a women, she isn't intelligent enough to decide on her own what brand to buy -- she needs her husband there to make the choice. I honestly don't know if the problem is with advertising, though. I think the problem with advertising is a byproduct of the real underlying problem: the content problem with women's magazines. What are we calling a "women's magazine?" What kind of content does it need to have to be targeted to women? As a woman, when I think of that term, I think of the quintessential, hair, makeup, men combination. It's embedded in my thought process and I have trouble thinking any other way.
So yes, Steinem makes a valid point is saying that making women's magazines as "ad-free as books" would help the credibility of these types of publications -- but is it enough? I think in the next sentence, she more correctly hits the nail on the head in declaring that it's about "changing the traditional practices of all women's magazines and in the marketing of women's products." It's about changing our culture, and exemplifying that women are not just "other sex," concerned with the simple pleasures in life, beings without any real substance or interests. We need to falsify those beliefs, and it begins with doing little things like the four suggestions Steinem gives on the last page. It will require a concerted effort to change advertisers minds, and I think the minds of people in general, proving that women do not suffer from a "lack of information, insight, creativity, and laughter," even though that may sometimes seem like the case in a lot of "women's publications." Ultimately, to answer Steinem's question: yes, we can do better than this. And it's not going to be easy, but it's like with many things in the women's movement, it will take a change in culture and a change in perception of women for us to say that we are "doing better than this," doing better than we currently are.
As Lisa points out, the problem with women's magazines and advertisements of women's products in general is that more often than not the advertisements portray women as pieces of meat to be looked at rather than humans with values and a sense of meaningful purpose. Yet I think another problem that arises with advertisements and the media is that it is mainstream and to a degree sets the standard for how we as a society view women and view their role. Since most magazines include beautiful women in sexy outfits and sex tips of how to please your man, the message that is being sent across society that people perceive as the "norm" or the "standard" is that women are meant to be something that is nice to look at or someone that is meant to serve the man. Because these are the images of women we see on billboards and on television and in magazines, these are the women that young girls aspire to be like and assume they should be like.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem here is that any progress women have made to counter this objectification and devaluing of women is concealed by the image of women in advertisements. Think of women who have made a name for themselves and proven themselves to be, as Lisa puts it, not just the "other sex" but a woman of substance -- names like Katie Couric, Venus and Serena Williams, Hilary Clinton and Oprah come to mind. And while these women may appear in Sports Illustrated or Time Magazine, they certainly don't appear in popular women's magazines. Thus I think to a certain degree, the successes of these women, and of women in general is hindered by continuing to depict women as hot bodies and great housewives. In reality, women have come so far throughout history in proving their sense of value and substance, however mainstream society still portrays women has something less than that. While I do think portrayal of women in advertisements still reflect our culture and the way many of us view women today, I think it also conceals any real progress that women have made to shake off this misconception of the objectified woman.
Just like Lisa, I was struck by Steinem’s opening lines. If archaeologists studied our magazines, I’m almost positive that what they would say is a far cry from the goals of feminists across history. Despite the fact that Steinem’s article was written in 1990, many of the issues she discusses are still prevalent today. As Jessi and Lisa already pointed out, a major issue stemming from advertisements in women’s magazines is the fact that women’s magazines are still plagued with printing articles that lack materials of substance. Magazines geared towards women, especially young women, often focus on issues that surround body image. I think these magazines only perpetuate the obsession with image and development body issues that Brumberg focuses on.
ReplyDeleteBrumberg’s chapter ties in perfectly with the commercial aspect that Steinem focused her article on. I thought that Brumberg’s argument was interesting and until I read it in this chapter, I never realized the commercial aspect of “growing of age” pieces of clothing like the training bra. I’m sure every girl can remember her first bra, and regardless of the fact if the bra was necessary or not, getting your first bra made you feel older. I think Brumberg was dead-on when she wrote that girls are beginning their bodily driven obsessions at a younger age. Around the time that Britney Spear’s sister was getting a lot of media attention for her underage pregnancy, I watched her show for a bit to see what the hype was about. Within a few minutes of the opening of the show, there was a scene of the girls eating lunch together. The girls are supposed to be around 14-15 or so, and while they were eating lunch, one of the girls panicked over the amount of calories that were in her chocolate cake. I was so surprised when I saw this! How could writers, who are aware of the age group of their viewers, willingly put this kind of dialogue in their show? Girls, like Brumberg pointed out, are starting to become all too aware of adult concerns. Industries, like undergarment companies, are capitalizing on this fragile and sensitive time period for girls. I think the fact that “girls bodies are sexualized earlier” also relates to many of the issues that drives Levy’s books. This early sexualized notion of girls bodies feeds into the raunch culture and the fact that women think they need to participate in this raunch culture.
I particularly liked how Lisa wrote about Steinems article because I found that to be the most interesting article out of todays readings.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading it I also found it to be similar to the message I was trying to convey with my media project. I wrote about how Selling sex where sex doesn't belong is exactly what is keeping our society in this state. I believe Steinems Idea for change are good, but its the viewers, the consumers who have to quit overlooking how we are being taken advantage of.
Brumberg's article didnt totally connect with me, and I think a large part of it is because I am an athlete. To excell in sport, it is sometimes neccisary to break the typical mold of "Raunch Culture".... instead of counting calories while eating, I would be thinking about what types of food would fuel my body, or help it recover. Being strong is part of sport, and sorry but you cant get that way by just doing cardio. I guess in many ways my life was alot different than girls consumed with typical bodily obsessions that other girls were. I agree with Brumberg, but I just feel like that is a really broad swipe at all girls growing up in this culture