Our Bodies, Ourselves

Unlike Ariel Levy and some of the other feminist authors we have read throughout the course, the Boston Women’s Health Book Collective (BWHBC) recognizes the relative homogeneity of the group they represent. In doing so, they are overcoming a boundary that many other feminist activists have stumbled over…“In short, we are both a very ordinary and a very special group, as women are everywhere. We are white middle-class women, and as such can describe only what life has been for us.” (p. 355) This understanding that the BWHBC can only generalize their claims across groups of women similar to them is the first step to achieving the truly universal sisterhood that so many authors have spoke of. Moreover, they “realize that poor women and non-white women have suffered far more form the kinds of misinformation and mistreatment that we are describing in this book.” (p. 355) This is a critical realization because it opens the door for all women, regardless of class or race, who feel lost in the ignorance that has been forced upon them by patriarchal oppression. Finally, the BWHBC makes a very poignant claim…“In some ways, learning about our womanhood from the inside out has allowed us to cross over the socially created barriers of race, color, income, and class, and to feel a sense of identity with all women in the experience of being female.” (p. 355) The idea that women are all fundamentally tied together due to anatomy is nothing new, but the perspective that this idea can help individuals and groups overcome issues that have divided women is certainly revolutionary. In class discussions and readings alike, we have seen so many feminist groups fall to destructive nature of class, race, and ethnic conflict. However, the BWHBC takes a brilliant approach in attempting to explain that even though they are a homogenous group and therefore can’t truly understand the plights of other minority groups, they are still able to teach and learn from other women because they are all women at the most significant and fundamental level.

Of Gender and Genitals

In this chapter, Anne details the problems she sees with the medical establishments process of "creating" male and female infants. She brings up a number of very good points. First, the medical community has made it a practice to decide within the first 48 hours of a child's life the sex which it will have for the rest of its time in this life. I think that this is clearly a poor way to handle inter sex infants. When deciding the rest of a person's life, it should take more than 48 hours to come to a decision. Furthermore, many parents are not given access to the proper information or support groups to inform their decisions. One of my criticisms of Anne is her seeming belief that these children should not be operated on. While I understand and agree with her critique of our ideals about what male and female should be, we must admit that regardless of our personal beliefs, we do live in the society we live in. In an ideal world people would treat each other kindly and consider others emotions and feelings. Yet, if anything, this class and world events has shown that this is not the case. I think that she is somewhat idealistic in her beliefs, and that preserving a child's reproductive capability should be the most important factor in these decisions. I think that by giving parents more time to come to a decision and giving them the information they need to come to an informed decision on what path they would like to take, I believe that these issues will be better dealt with, instead of the arbitrary judgments made by many medical professionals. However I suspect that many parents would opt for surgery in the end.

Sexing the Body: Of Gender and Genitals

Should we, as supposedly responsible adults, “fix” intersexual babies in order to make either male or female? Do surgeons, and even the parents of the child for that matter, have the right to assign an intersex child to a particular sex based upon opinion or societal norms? These questions are just two among many about intersexual births that plague doctors and the medical industry. As Anne Fausto-Sterling explains, “rather than force us to admit the social nature of our ideas about sexual difference, our ever more sophisticated medical technology has allowed us…to insist that people are either naturally male or female.” (Sexing the Body, p. 54) Here, Sterling brings up an increasingly critical point about the relationship between modern medical technology and intersexual births. Every time a surgeon assigns an intersexual child to that child’s allegedly intended gender, that surgeon is unilaterally making numerous decisions that are meant to be made by our society as a whole. That surgeon is perpetuating the traditionalist ideology of a strict two-sex system. And from the support of this idea, stems the continued thought that heterosexuality is inherently normal, and that homosexuality is inherently abnormal. That’s quite an array of complex decisions for a surgeon to be making with the end of a scalpel. However, there is another side to this coin. If surgeons do not assign an intersexual child to a specific gender, then it is entirely possible that the child will be forced to live life as a social outcast and a sexually confused person who feels like a freak that does not belong. The psychological health and development of a child is arguably far too important to leave up to the possibility that an intersexual child will or will not be shown tolerance and acceptance by the outside world.

Growing in Opposite Directions

The chapter entitled "middlesex" in Book Three paralleled Callie with her Grandfather. Her grandfather presumably had Alzheimer's and began forgetting his short-term memory, thus progressing him into various younger stages of his life. This coincides with Callie, who though she is young, is starting to understand the perspectives of both genders on the world. Since Lefty had a stroke, the connection between Callie and her grandfather was mostly emotional and understood. Lefty could not speak but that did not damage his relationship with Callie. Thus, it seems understandable that as Lefty lost memories, it is almost as if Callie gained memories from his male perspective. Lefty eventually did not remember marrying his sister or any of his life's accomplishments just as Callie began to realize that life is not strictly confined to a two-sex world as society advocates. This will become a complete parallel later in the novel as Callie will decide to be male and shed her feminine past just as Lefty decided to marry his sister, thus shedding their previous relationship and leading to the genetics that caused Callie's middlesex.

Fausto-Sterling: That Sexe Which Prevaileth

“If nature really offers us more than two sexes, then it follows that our current notions of masculinity and femininity are cultural conceits. Reconceptualizing the category of ‘sex’ challenges cherished aspects of European and American social organization.” (Sexing the Body, p. 31) In the section of Sexing the Body, entitled “That Sexe Which Prevaileth,” Anne Fausto-Sterling is breaking down the differences between the categories of sex and gender. She is drawing a stark distinction between the two, whereas traditional views dictate they are one in the same. However, as Fausto-Sterling explains, sex is biological and determined by nature, but gender is a socially constructed concept that has virtually no factual basis. In recent history, our society has been shocked by the forced realization that sex is not comprised of two extremes, male and female, but rather exists on a continuum that includes transgender, inter-sex, and even transsexual people. Society has always preached a two-sex system as a means to control that which is different and that which we don’t immediately understand. Moreover, Fausto-Sterling examines how the system of heterosexuality/homosexuality as a means of forming identity is murky and complex because someone’s sex is not always stable. She argues that a major problem with our culture is the fact that it is based upon three assumptions: 1. There should be only two sexes. 2. Heterosexuality is normal. 3. Gender roles define the psychologically healthy man and woman. These assumptions are not only hugely prejudicial, but they are entirely unrealistic. For the people that exist on the sexual spectrum in between male and female to be truly accepted, they need to be readily recognized by society as equally legitimate sex categories.

Myhre: One Bad Hair Day Too Many

In her essay, Jennifer Myhre, delves deeply into the complicated universe of gender and sexual identity and norms. Myhre is a woman whose identity as a woman is not determined in any way, shape, or form about her appearance. She makes numerous strong points about gender roles in our society. As she says, “ Some of us come to feminism because of abuse, harassment, eating disorders. I came to feminism because I hated shaving my legs.” (Listen Up, p. 85) Here, Myhre is acknowledging the astronomical amount of time and money that many women, and men as well, spend on grooming themselves for the sole purpose of appearing in a socially acceptable manner. She argues that these resources could be spent in far more productive ways. Particularly poignant is her discussion of how easy it is for men to fool other people into believing they are women merely by having long hair and wearing dresses, lipstick, and high heels. Myhre is highlighting the fact that our society simply defines femininity as a set of clothing, accessories, and cosmetics that create the portrait of what a woman ought to look like. Further, Myhre points out that woman gain nothing substantial from their constant attention to their appearance. All they are rewarded with is the acceptance and approval of those in power, who want to perpetuate the stereotypes and prejudices that trap so many women. Myhre concludes her essay by talking about she and other supposedly masculine/butch women are radically unfairly judged and labeled because they have short hair or don’t shave their legs. These women are seen as feminazis by society. They are labeled as butch and masculine because other women are threatened by their independence and courage, and men are upset that these women are challenging the traditional power structure they have created; a structure that is maintained by women’s compliance to gender stereotypes and societal expectations. As Myhre explains, we need “a world in which people are attracted to me not because of what sex I am (or appear to be) but rather because they find me fascinating. I imagine a world in which I am at home.” (Listen Up, p. 88)

More than Two Sexes

We discussed in our last class meeting the difference between the term sex and the word gender. We claimed that sex was biological and gender was a facet constructed by society. However, in today's world the terms seem to overlap and have become almost completely synonymous. Fausto-Sterling claims that in America's initial years, transgender was entirely an issue of human rights. "If the state and legal system has an interest in maintaining only two sexes, our collective biological bodies do not." It is unfortunate that know, transgender, though rare, is no longer an issue of voting rights but basic acceptance into society. So much of modern society is built around gender stereotypes and falling in line with expected gender roles. This obviously becomes frustrating and cloudy to transgender people in the United States, but I cannot even imagine what it means for transgender people in countries in the Middle East where gender roles are practically law and potentially stepping outside of them can be a matter of life and death.

From Womyn to Bois

I thought Levy provided an interesting perspective on the current state of lesbianism, however a particular point of feminist history seemed puzzling. Levy references (on page 20) a publication entitled The Furies that advocated lesbianism as not a sexual preference or natural quality women are born with but rather a political rallying cry to promote women and "end male supremacy." This seems so far removed from current political discussions on gay marriage where homosexuals are praying for people to understand that their sexual orientation is a trait one is born with. Today gay people advocate for marriage rights because they presumably want to show a commitment to their partner but The Furies completely combat that argument in 1972 by claiming they merely want to make a political stand and change the culture of society from masculine-based. I wonder what current homosexuals publicly advocating for marriage rights would say about such a statement. Also, it would be interesting to see how current conservatives claiming gay marriage is unnatural would incorporate such a publication in 1972 into their argument or opinions.

News Flash: Boink: College Exposure

This article describes the rise of sexually explicit magazines produced by college students for college students. Sporting names such as H Bomb and Boink, these magazines are an interesting reflection not only the changing face of society, but also have important implications about gender roles in modern society. Boink, a magazine printed by students at Boston University, is run by students and designed to be viewed by students. During its short time in publication the magazine has only had female editors and depicts both male and female models, being designed for male and female audiences with both heterosexual and homosexual preferences. Similarly, H Bob is not only has sexually explicit photographs, but an assortment of articles about sex, sexuality, art, and other work which pertains to the human body.
Ariel levy and Andrea Dworkins both vilify pornographic material as a step back for the feminist movement (Schneir, pg 420). Yet the ideals of these aging feminists are coming into conflict with a new wave of women who have drawn different conclusions from the sexual revolution of the 70’s. One of the founders of Boink, Andrea Oleyourryk, states in the article “Nobody could accept that it was for entertainment value. Why is that not O.K.? It’s just so unsettling, it seems, for people, that it’s just like, Oh, it’s porn for porn, enjoy it, masturbate to it, whatever.” She goes on to say “A body is a body is a body, and I’m proud of my body, and why not show my body?”. This view seems to capture the beliefs of many women in their 20’s today. If women are equal, than why should they be ashamed of their bodies? Oleyourryk defends her work, pointing out that the models in her magazine are normal, natural women whose photos are not photo shopped or altered in any way. “We don’t put makeup on them, we don’t do their hair, we don’t Photoshop them. We aim for honesty and truth”. Her goal was not to show the “surgically altered” women who are depicted in mainstream porn. Perhaps the stigma which Levy and Dworkin’s attach to pornography is not as prevalent or as negative today as it was in their time. Oleyourryk explains “It’s not, like, ‘The Scarlet Letter’ anymore”. This is in contrast with Levy’s critiques of modern feminists. Levy explains “Woman are now doing this to ourselves isn’t some kind of triumph, its depressing” (Levy, pg 44). Yet this view is inherently biased as it centered on the belief that there is something inherently wrong when women choose to depict their bodies in sexually provocative ways.
But perhaps the idealistic views expressed by many of these young women are flawed. The author of the article delves into the lives of a few of these men and women who whose picture was taken on the magazine. One of the male models depicted in Boink reported that “I’m a guy. There’s a lot less stigma attached to it. A chick, people think ‘slutty,’ whereas a dude gets associated with male bravado.” This seems to indicate that the ideals expressed by today’s feminists are not perhaps a true reflection of society today. One of the female models said that while she was proud of the artistic nature of many of her shots, she was unhappy that “her image was associated with some other, more explicit shot.” that occurred during her shoot. These real life experienced seem to indicate that the mantra expressed by the third wave feminist editors and photographers of these college sex magazines really doesn’t account for the experiences of those who are actually depicted in the magazines. The negative connotations associated with women who are featured in these magazines is clearly still an issue. Furthermore, the fact that men had a much different experience after being photographed than women has important implications for gender issues. It is clearly sexism at work, yet the problem lies not in what the women do and think, but the men. It is men who label these women as “slutty”, and unless their patterns of behavior and thoughts are changed, than it would seem that little progress can be made through such publications. While many of the women interviewed explained that they were more interested in the artistic nature of the photographs, the interviews also showed that perhaps this artistic side of the magazine was lost to many.
Yet these magazines are different in that they are not the traditional pornographic magazine. First, they are designed for college students of a particular university and are for the most part disseminated within that university. Thus they are not mainstream pornographic publications. Instead they are more tuned for the small intellectual communities within which they are created. Furthermore the stated goals of the magazines is to move towards breaking the stigmas surrounding the human body and pornography. Furthermore, magazines such as Boink depict both men and women and are designed to satisfy people of all sexual orientations. Interestingly enough, Boink won the approval of Boston University’s Women’s Center and many of its feminists because it catered to all. The President of the Boston University’s Women Center explained “It was sort of alternative. It kind of equalized it: gay men could look at it, women could look at it, and that was great.” This modern view of sexuality clashes with many of Ariel Levy and Andrea Dworkin’s view of feminists and sexuality. Both Levy and Dworkin’s do not seem to think that there is some for of equality that arises from both genders being able to participate in what Levy would describe as “raunch” culture. But maybe their views are clouded by their own experiences and views on the role of feminism. Harvard professor Marc Hauser noted “Nowadays, what constitutes porn? What does a 21-year-old think porn is?”. It is important to question whether these explicit images mean the same thing to the last generation as they do to this generation. As each generations experience and outlook on life is different, perhaps the view of today youth of pornography is much different than that of the last generation. Levy is quick to criticize other women for taking on male traits in the office and participating in other “male oriented” activities such as pornography, yet this view seem to be limiting. By attempting to define male and female characteristics and behavior patters, these feminists are falling into a trap. Is not true equality the belief that anyone should be able to act in whatever manner they want without being criticizing as long as they are not harming others? Individuality must be praised and fostered as freedom of individual expression is the means through which equality is gained. In the case of these magazines, there does seem to be some sort of equalizing factor if these magazines created to please other audiences besides males. Levy criticizes much of modern pop culture as being media which is created through a male lens and then distributed to female audiences. By creating “porn” which is made through a number of lenses, the stigmas surrounding sexuality in modern culture can be addressed.
One of the important messages that I took take away from this article is that media is interpreted by the individual. Thus, since the same image can mean vastly different things to different people, it is hard to understand exactly what effects and implications result from pop culture. A man who has been taught to treat women as objects will likely use pornographic images to reinforce their beliefs, just as men with a more liberal view of sexuality will likely view pornography in a much different manner. Similarly, the experiences of the feminist movement show that the controversy surrounding sexual expression among women will not end soon. Women, too, view all the media presented to them through their own individual perspective and thus each piece of media has a distinct and unique meaning to each viewer. While there are clearly system wide forces affecting media, I believe that media and art are much more open to the individual’s interpretation.

News Flash: Lindsey Vonn

Lindsey Vonn is arguably the most dominant skier in United States history. Yet, as a woman, she is forced to deal with issues that her male counterparts seem to easily bypass. Less than a week before her first scheduled Olympic run, Vonn revealed to the world that a training accident on February 2nd produced an “excruciatingly painful” deep shin bruise that could dash her hopes of entering the pantheon of Olympic legends. No U.S. Alpine skier has ever won more than two medals in a career, and Vonn has the opportunity to take home five from this year’s Winter Olympics. She is even favored to win gold in two of the events she is scheduled to compete in. NBC, in a desperate quest for high ratings, has hyped Vonn as this year’s Michael Phelps. But as soon as she released the news of her injury, the networks own “Today” show immediately questioned whether Vonn was merely using the injury as an preemptive excuse for a potentially underwhelming performance. Vonn quickly shot down the allegedly preposterous theory…“This is in no way trying to give myself an excuse if I don't do well.” Regardless of her sincerity, suspicions still circulate throughout media outlets about whether Vonn is trying to lessen the effect of the blow to come if she falls short of the monumental goals set before her. It is because she is a woman that the pundits have argued that Vonn is buckling under the pressure, and has overemphasized her injury in order to maintain an easy scapegoat in case she doesn’t live up to expectations. If Vonn were a man, sportswriters would be setting the stage for a Cinderella-esque come back story, much like they did for Willis Reed, Tiger Woods, and Curt Schilling after these athletes gave extraordinary, championship winning performances following serious injuries.

In addition to her trials and tribulations on the slopes, Vonn has also been bombarded with concerns about her activities outside of the Olympic arena. Vonn was one of four female Olympians to be showcased in Sports Illustrated’s highly contentious swimsuit issue that features a section entitled “Olympic Stars”. Along with Vonn are Claire Bidez and Hannah Teter, both snowboarders, as well as Lacy Schnoor, a fellow skier. Vonn and her colleagues all appear in skimpy swimsuits on Whistler Mountain in Canada, but because of her expected success, Vonn has been the most scrutinized by the media for her decision to participate in the highly publicized pictorial…“She gazes at us…wearing a two-piece, red-and-white number that successfully sells her sexuality…an all-out swarm intended to combine her telegenic looks, Midwestern background and estimable ski talents to transform her into America's golden girl and medals machine at the Winter Olympics.” Vonn has been criticized not only for appearing scantily clad in Sports Illustrated, but also for having a husband that is nine years her senior, and even worse for weighing more than her many of her competitors…“after she won three races in Europe, Austrian coaches said Vonn had an advantage over other racers because she was heavier at 5-10, 160 pounds.” Vonn responded with fiery competitiveness, “I just think it's pretty ridiculous and it definitely irritated me and it definitely gave me a little bit of extra motivation on race day. If weight were the key to success in ski racing, then everyone would be stuffing their faces with food.” Some have suggested that it is exactly this kind of criticism that motivated Vonn to participate in the swimsuit spread in order to prove that she is in optimal Olympic racing shape. Because Vonn is a woman, and an extraordinarily successful one in a traditionally male arena, she is subject to disparaging remarks in reference to issues that her male counterparts wouldn’t be noticed for. There must be hundreds of male athletes with wives significantly younger than themselves, and yet journalists do not bat an eye, let alone write about it. Moreover, if Vonn were a man, her weight would certainly not be a point of contention, but rather one of admiration as she would probably be lauded for being more muscular and a finer physical specimen than the competition.

If presented with the case of Lindsey Vonn, Ariel Levy would likely be again disappointed and disgusted with the American media and our society as a whole. Levy argues that, “Bimbos enjoy a higher standing our culture than Olympians right now.” The question that this statement poses in reference to Vonn is: would Lindsey Vonn be heralded as this year’s Michael Phelps and as America’s girl if she wasn’t beautiful? The answer, Levy would say, is that she probably would not. If Vonn did not agree to be featured in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, her popularity level would be significantly lower going into the Olympic games. Female athletes in America cannot gain superstar status simply by being the greatest ever in their respective sport, they have to be beautiful, and they have to show it too. Unfortunately, this mindset dominates female athletics in America; so how can anyone fault Vonn for appearing in the swimsuit pictorial? Furthermore, as Levy explains, “Not one male Olympian has found it necessary to show us his penis in the pages of a magazine. Proving that you are hot, worthy of lust…is still exclusively women’s work.” Levy makes an excellent point here; we have never seen the bodies of Michael Phelps, Tom Brady, or Michael Jordan sprawled out provocatively in the pages of a magazine. The reason for this is because male athletes are worshipped for their accolades on the field, and not for the way their bodies look in a swimsuit. Levy summarizes her discussion of female athletes by emphasizing the fact that the Olympians who were featured naked, or nearly so, in magazines, “had to be taken out of context, the purposeful eyes-on-the-prize stare you see on the field had to be replaced with coquettish lash-batting, the fast-moving legs had to be splayed apart,” to be viewed as both sexy and athletic. This is a tragic reality of the raunch culture in America that every female athlete who ascends into public consciousness must battle with. Vonn, having experienced the backlash from appearing in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, certainly understands how hard it is for female athletes to be accepted as both a great sports hero and as a woman.

If Vonn is able to bring home an unprecedented five medals in Alpine skiing, it is still likely that she will be more well remembered for the Sports Illustrated spread rather than her incredible Olympic achievement. For those who might doubt this seemingly outlandish prediction, one needs only to look as far as Brandi Chastain and the 1999 U.S. Women’s Soccer team. After scoring the winning penalty kick in the World Cup, Chastain fell to her knees and ripped her jersey off in celebration, exposing her sports bra to the world. To this day, when people discuss Chastain, her team, or even women’s athletics in general, it is this image that remains in the front of everyone’s mind. This is a major problem that stands in the way of female athletes reaching the level of praise and popularity that their accolades have proven that they truly deserve. As long as our society continues to be outraged by things like Chastain’s well-earned, unbridled joy, then, as Levy puts it, bimbos will remain at a higher position than even the most successful female athlete. Hopefully Vonn will overcome injuries, the odds, and our societal norms and thrust female athletics into the spotlight by overwhelming all her doubters in this year’s Winter Olympics. Maybe if Vonn is able to do what no other U.S. Alpine skier ever has, let alone a female one, people in America will finally realize that female athletes are too able to produce the kind of awesome performances that rally a nation and capture the hearts and minds of the global community.


Time Article on Lindsey Vonn--http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1963571,00.html

Fanhouse.com Article on Lindsey Vonn--http://jay-mariotti.fanhouse.com/2010/02/10/could-be-cheesy-games-if-vonn-sits-out/

Sports Illustrated Lindsey Vonn Swimsuit Pictorial--http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010_swimsuit/winter/lindsey-vonn/10_lindsey-vonn_1.html

Sports Illustrated Lindsey Vonn on Cover--http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/1002/olympics.winter.athletes.to.watch.women/content.1.html

Lindsey Vonn Injury Press Conference--http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bbGHRDnsEg

Lindsey Vonn--Get to Know America's Girl--http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI8scrxcnMM&feature=channel

Super Bowl Ads

In searching for a recent news story that would fit in nicely with our class discussions on gender equality and modern raunch culture, I thought it was the perfect time to reflect on the Super Bowl that occurred last weekend. As an avid football fan I truly enjoy watching the Super Bowl, but many people across America watch for the commercials. This year a thirty second ad on CBS during the game cost around three million dollars so not only could only large corporations market their products but also we presume that much time and money was invested in the marketing for these short advertisements. These companies strive to stand out and appeal to a wide audience through common attempts at humor and creativity. However, due to most Americans short attention spans and the rise in raunch culture that Ariel Levy discusses, many of the commercials were rather controversial.

Clearly there were many expressions of female sexuality and male masculinity presented in these commercials, as have been the stereotypes for as long as we can remember. Godaddy.com had several commercials with their spokeswoman Danica Patrick encountering woman who also want to be known for their bodies. Bud Light had several commercials of men being themselves while laughing and drinking a cold six-pack. These types of themes are to be expected considering the variety of the audience watching the super bowl and thus the desire of many companies to play it safe and show the natural gender stereotypes to appeal to the common American. However, this year’s set of commercials truly objectified women by poking fun at the institution of relationships, marriage, and everyday femininity in general.

The latter is exactly what Eric Ward discusses in his blog the day after the commercial. Surely, the Super Bowl commercials have a major impact on corporations and the American audience so they are covered by major newspapers but I believe Eric’s lack of corporate sponsors and possession of a personal blog gives him the forum to openly criticize many of the commercials from last Sunday. Ward begins by claiming that super bowl Sunday is the largest abuse and objectification of women every year. He comments on the sad truth that the dehumanizing of women through these advertisements stems from well-educated and wealthy individuals. Ward also rightfully claims that many of the people signing off on and paying for these short ads are primarily middle-aged, white men. He discusses the first quarter of the super bowl and how ads have come to the point of devaluing elderly woman and mothers. Ward references a Snickers commercial that strangely claims the only way to stop playing football like an old lady and be a man is to eat a Snickers bar. Another ad involved Tim Tebow tackling his mother as a symbol for anti-abortion.

The Tim Tebow ad sparked particular controversy leading up to the Super Bowl because it involved a political issue as opposed to a campaign for a product. Apparently Tim Tebow’s mother was having trouble during her pregnancy and was advised to abort her child but did not for religious reasons. The ad then claims that women should not abort because if they do, someone like Tim Tebow would never have been alive to achieve all of his accomplishments and make a mark in American history.

GoDaddy.com has become infamous for objectifying woman by showing female sexuality through their famous Nascar spokeswoman and very attractive Danica Patrick. During the super bowl, the company portrayed several ads of Patrick interacting with successful businesswomen who claim they would rather give up their jobs and be a “GoDaddy girl” if they were considered attractive enough. Such an advertisement would provoke a plethora of criticism from Ariel Levy who critiques women for expressing their sexuality to get ahead so a scene of women who have already succeeded without their looks would undoubtedly be thought provoking for her.

The marketing pitch of Dodge Charger and Flo TV were possibly even more degrading to women by poking fun at the basic institution of relationships and the pains of spending time with women. Dodge Charger displayed an ad of a man going through his daily routine with a song claiming how his girlfriend makes him do terrible chores, listen to her complain, and plainly annoy him so he should at least be able to choose which car he buys. The ad basically claims the only way to avoid complete emasculation is to choose which car you buy. Thus, Dodge is advocating that being in a relationship with a women removes all freedom and takes away a man’s supposed claim to fame, his masculinity.

Flo TV hired popular sports commentator Jim Nantz to broadcast over a couple’s daily events the same way he would a football game. The ad shows a man shopping and eating with his girlfriend and pays particular attention to him helping her look for clothes. Flo TV claims that the only way to get through spending quality time with one’s girlfriend is to get a portable TV and Jim Nantz calls to the man to “put the skirt down.” While this may be a clever marketing technique, Flo TV basically claims that spending time with women is too unbearable without television to distract men.

In the second half of the super bowl, when ads are presumably even more expensive, Bridgestone showed an ad of a man in the future who is faced with a tough decision to keep his Bridgestone tires or part with his wife, to which he chooses the former. Clearly Bridgestone is trying to over exaggerate the value of their tires, but they do so by degrading the institution of marriage. Ward writes that he and his friends were so bothered by the commercial that they will never buy Bridgestone products again.

Personally, I believe Ward is being too extreme in that case and overall in saying that super bowl Sunday is the most prominent day of domestic violence against women. However, I do believe that the overall collection of advertisements from Super Bowl Sunday is a commentary on the current state of American society. Since the super bowl has the most viewers of any program across the country and unlike most football games the audience exceeds just men, we should approach the advertisements as a way to target the largest demographic. Marketing and advertising are one of the largest industries in the country and this is the biggest stage for their work. Thus, it is indicative of our modern society and its plunge into extreme raunch culture that these ads are aimed at men, women, and children across America. Previously we would expect beer commercials to portray female sexuality, but now companies across all genres are degrading women not just for their bodies but as people in general. As a twenty year old who has only grown up in the current state of raunch culture, I obviously participate and happily accept it. However, I do believe there is a strong difference between women choosing to express their sexuality in Playboy or Girls Gone Wild and marketing companies investing millions in portraying women as lesser beings to the entire country at large.

Levy, Ariel. Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/e/r/eric_ward/2010/02/super-bowl-commercials-throw-w.php?ref=mp

The Master's Tools

Lorde begins with a commentary on the conference she is invited to attend, and how the views of black women and lesbians seem second rate. Surely, she must have felt extremely isolated as Lorde belongs to both categories as black lesbian woman, but regardless such an injustice and lack of representation speaks volumes about the women's movement as a whole. throughout history, there has been a disconnect between race, sexuality, and class of women in the fight for equal rights. Many frontline feminists such as Betty Friedan claim to be fighting for the equality of all women and to create a society where there is no gender division. Clearly this is a lengthy goal since men across race and class are not yet equal in modern American society, but since women advocate for rights as a minority and oppressed group, we would like to thank they would represent their goals or at least problems of all women. One of our previous readings by Sojourner Truth explicated the differences between the struggles of black and white women in the nineteenth century and explained why many black women in the middle of the twentieth century choose to stay with civil rights groups over feminists ones. However, it is unfortunate to realize that there is still such a large gap between women in terms of class, race, and sexuality, especially at a conference designed for the progression of women's rights.

Tiya Miles/Audre Lord

Ariel Levy and other contemporary feminist writers often discuss an abstract, universal sisterhood that inherently exists between all women. They argue that it is this sisterhood that women ought to lean on in their struggle for equality. They claim that women should not compete with each other in the workplace because that is how the dominant patriarchy wins. However, Tiya Miles and Audre Lorde explain that this supposed universal sisterhood among women is rife with internal conflict and divisive factions. As both of these authors are black women, they are both very familiar with the way in which feminism has traditionally catered predominantly to the needs of middle to upper class white women. Lorde and Miles accurately highlight how women that do not fit into this narrowly defined group are often left feeling as though feminism cannot serve them, and herein lies a major problem confronting contemporary feminism. In order for a truly universal sisterhood amongst women of all backgrounds, ethnicities, and sexual orientation to be formed, those who have traditionally and are currently leading the modern women’s movement need to be aware of the need to incorporate those women whose needs and issues have been flagrantly ignored in the past. Lorde, being both a black woman and a lesbian, has a great deal of experience with various forms of oppression and is forced to fight through three separate boundaries in the way of equality in her life. As Miles explains in her depiction of the journal her and her friends started in college, women who are poor, minorities, or homosexual often feel that the because the women in charge are not similar to them in these ways that they therefore are incapable of identifying with or even caring about the needs of “different” women. In my opinion, women who are classified as “different” need to try and understand that the women in charge may have troubles identifying with their experiences; but also, those in charge need to recognize that not all women have the same needs and issues as they do because they come from different backgrounds and have had different experiences.

How I Met Your Mother Episode Links

Guys vs. Suits

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=Z6V6G9EG

Jenkins

http://www.megavideo.com/?d=FNANIXDV

Re: Oppression

The Oxford English Dictionary defines oppression as: an uncomfortable or distressing sense of (physical or mental) constriction; prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority, control, or power. Marilyn Frye does an excellent job off communicating this meaning to the reader in terms of feminism and the prejudice against women that persists in our society. Her discussion of barriers on either side of the issue of sex is particularly poignant. Frye highlights the fact that women are stereotyped and oppressed whether they are heterosexually active or not. However, I must take task with her over her extreme depiction and interpretation of male chivalry. Frye argues that the act of opening a door or allowing a woman to go first is merely a reaffirmation of the boundaries in front of women. She claims that this form of “help” is worthless and fake because women would much prefer to be helped in more practical ways, such as assisting in laundry or taking care of the children. While Frye does have a point about the practicality of these gestures, she is being completely unfair to those of us of the male persuasion who still believe in chivalry and good manners. Us gentleman do these things, often at our own inconvenience, because we believe that women should be treated a certain way and that these gestures are part of that very belief. From personal experience, if I am in the company of women and am remiss in opening a door, allowing them to pass first, or pulling a chair then I will quickly gain the reputation of having poor manners, regardless of the rest of my behavior or the intelligence of my conversation. Frye makes many good points, but just because she has lost faith in chivalry, it certainly doesn’t mean that we gentlemen out there will not continue on.

Oppression

In reading Marilyn Frye's essay I enjoyed her analysis of the overuse of the word "oppression" and how by that definition it is not limited to merely the female sex. Frye rightfully explains the definition of oppression as having to do with being mobilized by two restraining forces, which is similar to our definition of oppression as being constantly the lesser being. Frye provides an interesting example with young females who are basically scrutinized by both sexual activity and non-activity, and thus is being restrained by two forces. I enjoyed this example and do not disagree with Frye on that front but I do believe that oppression exists in society for both genders and it is not necessarily contained to her definition. Claiming oppression does not have to be two restraining forces, but the mere restriction to exhibit all human emotions regardless of gender. Frye lists male's inability to cry and woman's demands to be sensitive as false oppressions but I disagree and believe they are still a form of oppression. To be oppressed is to not live freely and behave in a humane manner due to societal constraints. I appreciate Frye's breakdown of "oppression" and her claim that it is overused, but I do not believe that only true oppression falls under the definition she gives.

Patriarchy and the System

Both of these readings do a great job of explaining the system wide effects which produce feminine oppression. Johnson's explanation was very interesting. Johnson explains how an individual bases his or her beliefs upon what they have experienced. yet these experiences happen within a system with certain characteristics. Thus, the system reinforced the beliefs of individuals who then act according to these unseen rules in their own lives. It is through this way that patriarchy affects the lives of men and women within our society. It also shows how hard it is to understand or fight oppression as many men and women are not aware of how social norms effect their lives and decision making processes. I personally think that the best way to combat this oppression is to continue to teach children that men and women are equal in every respect. In this way the underlying assumptions which produce the sexism which both the authors describe will be eroded. I think this is a better method than a radical attempt to change the way people think as it is nearly impossible to change the way people think about themselves and others after they reach a certain age.

Media Culture Project--South Park "The Ring"

Over the past twenty to thirty years, the American masses have grown more infatuated with sex than ever before. As usual, the mega-corporations in this country, such as Coca-Cola, Nike, and even Disney have realized this trend and have sunk their capitalist claws deep into the naughty side of the American mind in order to give birth to what Ariel Levy labels “Raunch Culture.” Virtually every major consumer industry has found a way to repackage their products in a way that allows them to penetrate the wildly profitable market for sex. Among the various tactics used by companies to market sex to the American public is a devious form of brainwashing. Seemingly wholesome media distributors, particularly Disney, have taken up the practice of selling sex to teenagers by packaging and advertising it as pure and clean. It is this very strategy that has helped Disney keep the Christian morality hammer from crashing down on them in reaction to one of their most profitable products, the Jonas Brothers. Through the use of the increasingly popular “purity rings” campaign, Disney and the Jonas Brothers have painted themselves as the pristine, taintless alternative to the likes of Justin Timberlake and other sex symbols in the music industry. The Jonas Brothers, a mediocre teenage boy-band, have been espousing their staunch belief in traditional Christian values for years now, and they wear what have been called purity rings to prove it. Regardless of the validity of their claims or even the merits of the purity rings campaign, the fact is that Disney has made tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars on the Jonas Brothers despite their horrendous music. Some may question how this is possible if the Jonas Brothers are really such poor musicians, lyricists, and singers. The answer, as Levy has taught us is almost always the case, is sex. The purity rings allow the Jonas Brothers to be sexually appealing to young girls, without seeming threatening to parents, particularly those that belong to the Christian majority. Disney, in an astoundingly underhanded way, has positioned the Jonas Brothers as the symbol of pure and innocent rock n’ roll that can and should be enjoyed by some of the most profitable groups of consumers in America, pre-teen and teenage girls.

Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the brilliant and highly creative masterminds behind the show “South Park,” have made millions of dollars on their ability to recognize the social and cultural anomalies that arise in America. In an episode from season thirteen, entitled “The Ring,” they use outlandish hyperbole and extraordinary wit to poignantly highlight the way in which Disney has recently been using the Jonas Brothers to sell sex to girls across America. The plot of the episode is basically that Kenny, one of the show’s four main characters, takes his new girlfriend Tammy to a Jonas Brothers concert in the hopes of becoming intimate with her. Kenny’s plan stemmed from Tammy’s comment that, “every time I see them [the Jonas Brothers], I get so tingly, I just lose control.” At the concert, the audience, with the exception of Kenny, is entirely comprised of screaming and crying girls jumping up and down in the aisles while the Jonas Brothers shake their hips and gyrate their pelvises to the music. One girl even goes as far to say, “my giny tickles.” Following the concert, the Jonas Brothers invite a handful of girls, including Tammy back to their dressing room to discuss their purity rings. During this interaction, the Jonas Brothers convince all the girls to wear the purity rings, effectively brainwashing them into being loyal Jonas Brothers fans, and more importantly cash cows for Disney. The episode takes a pointedly hilarious turn upon the entrance of Mickey Mouse, cast as the personification of Disney.

Mickey Mouse represents the source of the purity rings campaign as well as the duplicitous marketing strategy that enabels the company to sell sex to young girls. As he educates the Jonas Brother, “You have to wear the purity rings because that’s how we can sell sex to little girls.” Mickey elaborates by explaining that Disney can’t show images of girls reaching for the Jonas Brothers’ “junk” unless they wear the purity rings. In the episode, Mickey has hatched a master plan to hold a 3D Jonas Brothers concert that will be broadcast across the nation and make Disney millions of dollars in a single night…“Disney is calling it the most innocent and pure rock event of the millennia.” Before the concert, the Jonas Brothers admit their guilt about the purity rings, saying that “We shouldn’t be using a nice Christmas symbol for profit gains. We’ve all angered God.” Mickey doesn’t like this and his unbridled rage results in a revealing rant…“You think God is control here? I am in control, I’ve been in control since the 50’s in case you haven’t noticed…Where would you be without me Jonas Brothers? Your music sucks and you know it. It’s because you make little girls’ ginies tickle. And when little girls’ ginies tickle, I make money! And that’s because little girls are fucking stupid. And the purity rings make it ok to do whatever I want. Even the Christians are too fucking stupid to figure out I’m selling sex to their daughters. I’ve made billions off of Christian ignorance for decades now.” Herein lies the core of Disney’s devilishly cunning method for selling sex to young girls without feeling the wrath of the Christian moral majority in America. Parents, censors, and Christian activists all may be blind to Disney’s sexual tyranny, but South Park certainly is not. The Jonas Brothers and their purity rings are merely whores for Disney, espousing traditional Christian values while nonetheless peddling sex to young girls across America.

The true brilliance hidden in Disney’s marketing of the Jonas Brothers is the fact they seem most appealing to more conservative, often Christian, parents, who after hearing their message of purity and innocence, support and encourage their daughters’ patronage of concerts and purchasing of albums. As Levy illiterates, “If the rise of raunch seems counterintuitive because we hear so much about being in a conservative moment, it actually makes perfect sense when we think about it. Raunch culture is not essentially progressive, it is essentially commercial.” (p. 29) Here Levy enlightens her readers to the fact that raunch appeals to progressive and conservatives alike because raunch takes no sides; the purpose of its creation was for it to be consumed plain and simple. However, Disney is not just selling sex to young girls, they are packaging it neatly in purity rings and distributing it through the supposedly clean Jonas Brothers. They are using the programming that so many parents have installed in their daughters; that sex is bad and they should stay away from sexually explicit material. Ellen Neuborne explains that this brainwashing “is the subtle work of an unequal world that even the best of feminist parenting couldn’t overcome. It is the force that sneaks up on us even as we thing we are getting head with the best of the guys.” (Listen Up, p. 30) Even though Neuborne is referring to equality in the workplace, her message still rings true in reference to raunch culture. The programming used by parents to keep their daughters away from sex plays right into the hands of Disney’s marketing master plan for the Jonas Brothers. Moreover, it has turned out to be the very device of these young girls’ downfall into consumption of raunch culture.

I have attached links to the South Park episode I have written about, as well as to two separate Jonas Brothers’ interviews in which they discuss their purity rings. These clips show us what is happening, and what is really happening.

Media Project- All The Single Ladies

Jackson B Latham

In her book “Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture”, Ariel Levy criticizes a number of issues and problems she sees in the third wave feminism movement. One of Levy’s main critiques of third wave feminism is the way these new feminists express their sexuality, especially through the media and pop culture. Specifically, Levy believes that many women in fact reinforce the view of women which depicts them as sexual object while claiming to be feminists. Levy’s prime example of this is the women depicted on “Girls Gone Wild”. Many of the women who are filmed by the GGW crew say they are feminists and because their comfort with their own sexuality and bodies led them to bare themselves before the camera without any feelings of shame. Levy disagrees with this point of view, believing that these women are, in fact, reinforcing the stereo type of women as sex objects, and furthering a culture that values stripper and porn stars. Thus, I will look at the music video “Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It)” by Beyonce Knowles through both Levy’s and third wave feminists lenses. The goal is to show that a single piece of media can mean greatly different things to different people depending on the perceptions and views of the individual.

Levy’s criticizes Raunch culture for depicting women as sexual objects and diminishing their other qualities. Specifically, she criticizes many of the women who have jobs in the pornographic and pop culture genres of the media. She claims that these women are not only false feminists, but that the messages they give other women are leading the feminist cause away from its original goals. Levy argues that women did indeed experience a sexual revolution in the 70’s, but that this sexual revolution was focused on gaining pleasure for the woman, not partaking in male oriented and male pleasing sexual performances. The women in Beyonce’s music video wear close fitting clothing which emphasizes their curves, highlighting their sexual attractiveness. Additionally, the entirety of the music video in comprised of the three dancers moving in highly suggestive manners, further highlighting the women’s attractiveness and increasing the overall sexual tension in the video. Levy would likely criticize this, just as she criticized such media productions as the Victoria’s Secret fashion show, the Desperate Housewives, and other such television media which further depicts women as sexual objects. The women in the video do not dress the way they do and dance the way they do for the benefit of women. Instead, they do so for the benefit of the male audience who ogle the performers. This is a betrayal, in Levy’s mind, to the ideals of the 70’s sexual revolution. She says “To aging hippies like my parents- they are all for free love, but none of this looks like loving to them; it looks scary, louche, incomprehensible” (44). Levy believes that it is a contradiction that women should claim to be sexually liberated when they still allow themselves, and in certain cases embrace the opportunity, to be depicted as sexual objects of male desire.

Levy would also likely criticize some of the lyrics in the song as well. One of the lines in the chores sings “If you liked it than you should have put a ring on it”. To Levy this line would likely seem like another step backwards for feminists. Feminists in the 70’s championed the individual women and rebelled against the pressure to marry. The link between sexuality and marriage would not please Levy.

Some parts of this music video, however, would please Levy. Despite the lines about marriage, the overall message of the song is of freedom of sexuality and independence. A few of the lines read “I got gloss on my lips, a man on my hips… I can care less about what you think.” Later on Beyonce sings “Don’t need no permission… you had your turn and now your going to learn what its like to miss me”. Levy would be pleased with the message of these lines. Here Beyonce relishes in her ability to get what she wants, and further explains that she has no time for a man who is not going to treat her the way she wants. Levy does not criticize sexuality; she specifically criticizes the commoditization of sex and sexuality in modern media. Thus, while Levy’s analytical lens would view the attire and performance of Beyonce and the other dancers as pandering to a male perspective media and as another video which furthers the image of women as sex objects, she would likely be less critical of the lyrics of the song.

Yet Levy’s way of analyzing this video is not the only way. A third wave feminist would likely draw far different conclusions from this video. While I am not a third wave feminist, as I am not sure a man can be a feminist, I believe I do have an insight into what points they would argue to show how Beyonce’s video and song is, indeed, a pro feminist piece of media.

While Levy’s takes the perspective that Beyonce and the other dancers are dressed the way they are and dance the way they are to please male audiences, a modern feminist would likely see the same video in a much different light. First, they would argue that she is not dressing the way she is to please a male audience. Instead, they would argue that she is merely trying to make a statement: that after her break up she is still strong, confident, independent, and can get any man she wants. Thus she is making a statement of feminine power. Furthermore, a modern feminist would not view the dancing as depicting women as sexual objects. Instead they would say that Beyonce is accepting the fact that she is a sexual being and attractive, and is ready to flaunt what she has as a reflection of her feminine identity.

Furthermore, the third wave feminist would likely view the lyrics much differently than Levy. They would likely view the line “if you liked it you should have put a ring on it” in a much different manner than Levy. Third wave feminists would likely view this as an expression of women’s power and independence in the modern era. Beyonce is demanding something of the man, and if he doesn’t live up to her expectations, she is ready to move on. Even more empowering are her words expressing her pleasure in being able to be single, sexual, and get what she wants. This is certainly in line with third wave feminisms acceptance of their sexuality and their embrace of what was previously thought of as male behavior.

My goal was to show that the same piece of media can be viewed in a much different manner depending on the perspective of the audience. This has been one of the most interesting parts of the course this far for me- identifying and understanding how different people view the same event. As a man, I need to be able to change my perspective to better understand the writings of these feminist writers. Thus, it is important for me to always try and distance myself from my own concepts of femininity and masculinity, as well as my own ideas about culture and society. Only then will I be able to understand exactly what these women writers mean in their works, as well as enhance my critical analysis of their works.

How I Met Your Mother

In reading Ariel Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs, I have not always agreed with her many critiques of raunch culture and more specifically, her attacks on public sexuality by modern women. However, I have relished in the fact that we are studying feminism and gender roles in a modern world. This is not to discredit past feminists like Betty Friedan; I just believe that so much has changed in terms of modern society and pop culture that to study current feminism in a past world would be an injustice.

Speaking of modern society, I have spent much time with my family watching television together as many modern families do. Before my Colgate career began, my parents and I would have a traditional dinner and then move onto the couch to enjoy the major networks’ primetime sitcoms. One of our favorites was the Monday night lineup on CBS because it featured a show called How I Met Your Mother. We liked the show so much, my dad and I were perfectly willing to watch it over Monday Night Football, which is saying something considering our propensity for professional football.

When I initially looked at this assignment I thought How I Met Your Mother would tie in perfectly due to the basic makeup of characters in the show. The show centers around a main character named Ted (who is in search of his future wife), his best friend Marshall and fiancée Lily, another friend named Barney, and another woman named Robin. The show initially lends favorably to a commentary on gender roles because Lily and Robin are completely embodied as “one of the guys.” Although Lily marries Marshall and Robin dates Ted, the whole groups of friends regularly socialize at a bar and openly discuss women in a sexual manner.

After reading much of Levy’s book, I realized that How I Met Your Mother truly syncs up with much of our class discussions on traditional attire and gender dynamics in the workplace. This became evident after watching two episodes from the previous season of the show, “Girls versus Suits” and “Jenkins.” The former focuses on the bar the gang frequently visits and the hiring of a new attractive bartender named Karina. Barney is known as a complete womanizer who always wears suits, whether or not he is at work or relaxing at the bar. He vows to hook-up with Karina but discovers that she hates guys who wears suits so reluctantly starts wearing casual clothes. This is such a struggle for Barney that he even sneaks to the bathroom to put on the suit for a moment, only to have it rip beyond repair and have the ashes put in an urn. Comically, Barney uses the ashes as part of a fib to get Karina to go back to his apartment where she discovers his closet full of suits. Karina then tells Barney to choose between her and the suits.

This scenario relates to our class discussion of how suits are the traditional symbol for male professionalism and masculinity. Karina initially does not like suits because she claims that her previous boyfriends wore suits and were insensitive jerks that worked for Wall Street. This shows almost an inverse of our typical outlook as in this case Karina is criticizing men for exhibiting masculinity. Barney’s impulse to put on the suit in the bathroom and his melodramatic decision to have the ashes put in an urn symbolize his inability to disconnect his own personality from the masculine image he tries to represent. It is almost as if without the suit, he would lose his masculinity and become feminized. Ironically, when Karina asks Barney to choose between her and the suits, he breaks into a musical number where he dances on the streets and pictures everyone in suits whilst claiming that every person, man or woman, should be able to wear a suit. This is a commentary on how both genders should be able to dress as they please but also feel the supposed power they give off. Levy would claim that such a scene would aim to prove that such power is intrinsically tied with masculinity but I believe the scene is contrastingly showing the need for equality between the genders.

Meanwhile, the perceived attractiveness of Karina plays into the other characters also, as they discuss how the bar was so packed because the normal bartender, Carl, was now replaced with an attractive female. This is clearly a case of a woman becoming successful off her sexuality to which Levy would argue frustratingly against. However, in today’s business world much of success is predicated on networking and opportunity as many intelligent people often miss out. Thus, it seems that Karina is merely on the practical side by using sex to her advantage as opposed to selling out. The group of friends also debates whether it is the position of bartender in itself that makes Karina more attractive, to which Robin decides to go behind the bar and prove such a theory. Robin is kicked out from behind the bar, thus proving that Karina does have a particular talent and is merely heightening her success by further playing out her sexuality.

The follow-up episode to “Guys versus Suits” is entitled “Jenkins” and continues in connection to our class discussions of femininity and the workplace. The episode begins with Marshall discussing how his new co-worker, Jenkins, is hilarious and tells funny anecdotes. He describes Jenkins getting drunk and stripping, smoking cigars at a club, and pouring food down their throat. Ted thus perceives Jenkins to be an overweight man until Barney comes over and explains how Jenkins is an attractive woman he wants to sleep with. The show originally showed a chunky man exhibiting these anecdotes and now shows the real Jenkins doing so. This could not be more closely related to our previous class discussion on woman in the workplace and the perception of “acting like a man.” Levy explains that women who exhibit such behavior do so because that is what they perceive it takes to be successful but that at the end of the day, they are still considered as women. However, the show portrays Jenkins as naturally being herself as she enjoys being the jokester and getting drunk often. This shows that some women who are perceived to be “acting like a man” to fit in and get ahead are actually just being themselves but are not naturally a “girly-girl.” In terms of raunch culture this example seems cluttered because women of raunch culture are perceived to be doing so to impress others but Jenkins is a true example of a woman who happens to enjoy such behavior. This should prove to us that these traits should not be perceived as masculine but just traits of human beings, regardless of gender. By the show exemplifying both an overweight man and an attractive female performing the same seemingly “masculine” traits, we should understand that the terms masculine and feminine are used too often. Instead we should just view such characteristics exactly what they are on the surface. Some women enjoy inappropriate jokes and public drunkenness more so than many men, so it seems questionable that these traits always be associated with masculinity or “acting like a man.”

FPC

After reading Levy's chapter, I find it astounding that many women feel they need to either completely embrace chauvinism and "act like a man" or completely reject it in the name of feminism. Modern culture has evolved to the point where women should be able to accept female displays of sexuality and raunch culture while still handling themselves intellectually in the business world. Levy discusses Carrie Gerlach who has risen up in Sony but admits to wearing provocative clothing an taking advantage of her looks. In the competitive business world, I believe it is perfectly acceptable and smart to use one's looks as a stepping stone regardless of gender. This does not demean their intellect or true talents, we just happen to live in a competitive society based on networking and taking advantage of opportunities. many qualified people never progress or meet there potential because they have missed out on an opportunity, not because they are unqualified. Women should fell encouraged to take advantage of her good looks while still pursuing an intellectual approach. Levy says that women on "The Man Show" degrade themselves but that men are still not surprised when they see a female doctor. This is because modern culture has seen the evolving of women who both embrace sexuality, laugh about raunch culture, and still aspire in the business world as well. That is a positive step in our society.