Sunday, April 15, 2007

If You've Got It, Flaunt It? A Literature Review

Although most feminists would agree that patriarchal societies have suppressed female sexuality for centuries, feminist thinkers have formulated a wide range of opinions regarding how women should experience themselves as sexual beings. In order to assess multiple feminists’ thoughts about women who choose to publicly experience themselves as sexual beings by flaunting their femininity and sexuality, I scoured the Internet for literature on this topic. The ten sources I located, a few of which I have already discussed in previous postings, are evidence that feminist scholars and thinkers have been conflicted about issues surrounding female sexuality for decades.

In their 1998 book Feminism and the Female Body: Liberating the Amazon Within, S. Castelnuovo and S. R. Gunthrie argue that the female body is an important vehicle for female empowerment because both women’s minds and bodies are sites of patriarchal oppression, and that women may most effectively assert control over their bodies through physical discipline. The authors advocate bodily strength and wellbeing over the weak prettiness and “restrictive body beauty norms” that they perceive “mainstream feminists” (131) to encourage, and they reference female bodybuilders and martial artists as women who experience physical and mental liberation because of their engagement in “empowering physical practices that challenge the feminine body beauty discourse” (62). Castelnuovo and Gunthrie are proponents of women finding power within themselves and meaning in their lives not by adhering to traditional norms of beauty or by emphasizing their feminine sexuality, but through mastery of their physicality. This concept does not claim that women should look or behave like men, but instead encourages females to develop their own unique physical strength.

Holland, Ramazanoglu, and Sharpe similarly claim in their article Power and Desire: The Embodiment of Female Sexuality that society wrongly assumes the female body to have a fixed essence of femininity; the body is socially constructed, according to the authors, which causes women to feel pressure to adhere to a prescribed ideal of physical femininity. However, other women have embraced patriarchal notions of female physicality by practicing oversexualized behaviors usually reserved for erotic dancers. According to the post “Housewives, Pole Dancing, and Empowerment?” from the blog Feministing.com, middle-aged suburban women across the United States have recently embraced a form of aerobic exercise based on pole dancing. The craze has so thoroughly penetrated the nation that The Sopranos and Desperate Housewives have both displayed characters engaging in this type of aerobics, and pole dancing itself has become normalized to the point that mini-poles can now be found at extravagant bat mitzvah parties (Feministing.com).

The females who participate in this activity claim it to be empowering because groups of women do it together for fun and for each other’s gazes only. Joan Price, author of Better Than I Ever Expected: Straight Talk About Sex After Sixty (2006), explains that she and other proponents of pole dancing aerobics do not find the activity to be degrading because of the clear difference between women choosing to strip in front of men to avoid poverty, thereby putting themselves in demeaning and potentially dangerous situations, and middle-class women throwing single-sex pole dancing parties.

Ariel Levy, author of Female Chauvinist Pigs, disagrees with this mindset. According to her, many women have internalized men’s objectifying views of themselves and now strive to embody these fantastical ideals to feel empowered. This has led to the rise of what Levy labels a “raunch culture” in which women harshly critique each other’s bodies and strive to exude sexuality; however, raunch culture fails to empower women, Levy states. For females to truly experience bodily empowerment, she advises that women invent their own forms of sexual expression not based on the male gaze.

What could be a reason for the increasing number of females willing to have an oversexualized appearance? According to Claire Hoffman, reporter for the Los Angeles Times, modern American popular culture is saturated with sex and exhibitionism thanks to media sources. In her article “Joe Francis: ‘Baby, give me a kiss,’” a story on the mastermind behind the Girls Gone Wild soft-core porn empire, Hoffman describes that, after speaking with many scantily-clad young women in clubs who bared their breasts for the GGW crew, she realized that today’s youth—accustomed to cheap video technology and reality TV—consider the camera a source of validation. Many American women seem to believe that striking racy poses for a film crew may “catapult them to Paris Hilton-like fame” overnight (Hoffman). Young females may also feel validated by receiving a man’s selective sexual attention; as one GGW participant named Jannel Szyszka explained, “Whoa—Joe's, like, trying to talk to me, like, out of all the girls in here” (Hoffman).

Despite the fact that I am now familiar with many different viewpoints regarding female sexuality, I still believe that women should not strive to find empowerment in an stereotypically "sexy" feminine appearance. Women who dress and act in oversexualized ways could profess to be reclaiming activities originally used to please men in order to mock or show apathy towards patriarchal ideals—a strategy similar to that of African Americans who refer to each other as “nigger” to lighten the word’s racist connotations—but this intention may not be apparent to men or even other women. For instance, a woman who claims she likes to wear a short skirt “for herself” when she goes to bars is probably not coming across as a sexually empowered woman to male strangers; instead, her appearance is most likely encouraging others to view her as a consumable object.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

The "Friends with Benefits" Phenomenon

Teenagers may have adults baffled by the relatively new form of relationship they have embraced that combines friendship and sex, sans the commitment: the "friends with benefits" relationship. According to the article What’s Love Got To Do with It? Exploring the Impact of Maintenance Rules, Love Attitudes, and Network Support on Friends with Benefits Relationships by Hughes, Morrison and Asada, a “friends with benefits relationship” (abbreviated “FWBR") is a relationship between two friends of the opposite sex who participate in sexual acts but who do not consider themselves as being in a romantic relationship. The authors conducted a study to understand how people who engage in FWBRs perceive love, seek support from and communicate with their same-sex friends about these relationships, and decide on rules for their FWBRs.

The study's findings reveal that both men and women are quite open to talking about their FWBRs with their same-sex friends; they even seek advice from friends regarding friends with benefits relationship maintenance. Also, the results show that FWBRs are more stable than “hook up” and casual sex relationships because they combine the benefits of both friendship and sex while discarding the responsibilities and commitment of a typical romantic relationship—friends with benefits have sex or engage in sexual acts purportedly without emotional involvement.

Furthermore, the authors discuss the fact that a FWBR may form out of the ruins of an ended romantic relationship. Two people who experienced manic (possessive, obsessive and dependent) love together are especially likely to develop FWBRs because the two ex-lovers desperately want to cling to the remains of their relationship. Concerning gender and FWBRs, women were previously thought to associate the concept of love with sex, whereas men were seen as being able to separate the two. The researchers have concluded, however, that this may no longer be true because women in FWBRs are now reportedly engaging in sex without the presence of love more than ever before.

This last piece of information about the similarities between male and female perceptions of friends with benefits relationships is interesting—are modern women truly adept at separating feelings of emotional attachment and love from the act of sex? Unlike Hughes, Morrison and Asada, other researchers have claimed that women are biologically predisposed to become attached to sexual partners in order to commit to the mates who will provide for them and their children. The answer may lie somewhere in between these two assumptions, or the answer that these three authors suggest may, in fact, be based on a lie; perhaps women, in an effort to increase their senses of personal autonomy and independence inspired by the notion of women's liberation, are convincing themselves that they are able to separate sex and emotions as their male counterparts can so as not to feel needy or appear vulnerable.

Thursday, April 5, 2007

Femininity, Sexuality and the Workplace

Because of the intense social pressure to be physically attractive that is encouraged by the existence of stylish celebrities and anorexic models, American women often believe that flaunting their bodies and accentuating their sexuality is the most effective way to entice others—both men and women—to like and respect them. Females feel that they must correct the "flaws" in their appearances and draw attention to their most attractive qualities by employing makeup, hair dye, high heels, certain clothing, and even plastic surgery.

Although these tactics may seem to attract positive attention on the street, especially from men, they have the opposite effect in the workplace. According to the ABC News article "Can Sexy Women Climb the Corporate Ladder?" by Eric Noe, if a woman is interested in holding a position of power, she will be looked down upon by coworkers of both sexes for emphasizing her sexuality or putting blatant effort into improving her physical appearance; this is because people often immediately judge women who obviously strive to appear attractive as being unintelligent and promiscuous. Unfortunately, when a female has lower status in the office than others—such as a woman in a secretarial position—far fewer of her coworkers will care if she presents herself in a highly sexualized way or not (Noe). In fact, a woman in an inferior position may be expected to exude femininity due to social norms and traditional gender roles.

The experiences of the title character from the film Erin Brockovich (2000), based on an actual woman, provide a key example of this phenomenon. Erin, who becomes passionate about law because of the injustice occurring in her community, begins working with a seasoned male lawyer to challenge the corporation at fault. Although Erin’s work is incredibly thorough, the male character chastises her several times at the beginning of their relationship because of her revealing clothing. Instead of seeing Erin as a dedicated coworker and person—in which case, gender should not matter—the man is constantly distracted by Erin’s overt display of her femininity. Similarly, the conservatively dressed female corporate defense attorney makes a negative remark about Erin’s clothing upon their first meeting. The corporate defense attorney could not respect Erin for her ideas because the attorney, like Erin’s male partner, was shocked by an appearance she perceived to be inappropriate.

According to Noe, people associate positions of power with masculine characteristics because men traditionally and most frequently hold these positions. Therefore, high-ranking women in the workplace who flaunt their femininity are immediately looked down upon; coworkers may assume that such women are not actually qualified for their jobs and, thus, are showing off their more redeeming qualities. As is the case when it comes to sex, the author of "Can Sexy Women Climb the Corporate Ladder?" points out that there is a “double standard” for men and women in this situation. A man who strays from the stereotypical image of a professional businessman, perhaps by looking slovenly in a wrinkled, partially-buttoned shirt, may receive scornful glances from his peers at the office; however, his intelligence, competence, and personality will probably not be doubted simply because of his appearance. For a woman, on the other hand, dressing too sexually, wearing thick makeup, etc., can severely harm her career advancement.

Women interested in climbing the corporate ladder must acknowledge the existence of this situation and dress accordingly. This does not mean that businesswomen must dress like men, but it does mean that they must dress and behave sensibly. Anything to draw strong attention to one’s gender, whether one is male or female, is inappropriate for an office setting in which a diverse group of people are trying to work together, hopefully without personal biases. If a man at work rolled up his sleeves and began asking people to squeeze his “manly guns,” coworkers would label his behavior inappropriate because it is lowering productivity—it’s a distraction to other workers—and is detracting from the sense of equality in the environment—women may feel threatening or harassed by his display of physical strength. Although coworkers might not feel harassed by a woman who is flaunting her femininity in the workplace, both men and women would be too distracted by her appearance to respect her as an office authority figure.

Disney's Ethnic Princesses: Positive or Problematic?

The Disney corporation is infamous for envisioning and creating gorgeous animated princesses that seemingly every little girl wants to be like. Each year, thousands of young American females dress up as Cinderella or Snow White for Halloween, throw "Disney Princess" themed birthday parties, or drag weary parents through Disney theme parks just to hug actresses wrapped in shiny polyester gowns.

Most of the Disney Princesses are Caucasian women, but there have been a few exceptions, such as Jasmine, the feisty daughter of an Arabian ruler; Mulan, a courageous Chinese warrior; and Pocahontas, a free-spirited Native American. Many Disney fans claim that these characters add much needed diversity to the Princess clan, and commend the company for such portrayals. Disney may have had benevolent intentions by developing ethnic female protagonists; however, I do not believe that the existence of these characters is solely positive.

These animated women, especially Pocahontas and Jasmine, tend to be extremely over-sexualized. Jasmine's appearance plays perfectly into the romanticized stereotype of the enigmatic Middle Eastern belly dancer: her thick black hair--crowned with a bejeweled headpiece--falls gently around her huge brown eyes and billows down her back, her long neck is adorned with a golden necklace, and her curvaceous but thin body is revealed by low-riding silk pants and an off-the-shoulders brassiere that poses for a shirt. Pocahontas is not depicted much differently. Animators drew this tanned Native American with flowing dark hair, and she wears a tight tube top dress made from animal hides. Her outfit, which accentuates the character's buxom hourglass figure and incredibly tiny waist, includes two wide slits up both legs that display a generous portion of Pocahontas' outer thighs. The most notable similarity between Disney's interpretations of Jasmine and Pocahontas is that both characters boast stereotypically attractive Caucasian facial and body features, just with "ethnic twists."

The problem with these depictions is that they may influence viewers--especially affluent white children who are exposed only to their own mostly homogeneous communities--to assume that all ethnic women are sexualized versions of white women. Furthermore, Disney's non-white Princesses, who look more like plastic toys than like humans, set an unrealistic standard of beauty for young ethnic viewers and females in general.

Disney's upcoming film debut of their first African American Princess seems to promise viewers with even more ethnic diversity, but images of this character prove that she, too, is an over-sexualized Caucasian woman with black skin. Her waist is as small as her upper arm, and despite full lips, her body lacks common African American female features such as a wide nose and hips.Although it may be admirable that Disney chooses to represent ethnic females at all, when will the corporation display ethnic (or even white) female characters that look realistic? Until that day comes, the line of Disney Princesses cannot truthfully be called diverse. Nor may the Princesses be called role models, for that matter.

Tuesday, April 3, 2007

Your Mom's a Total MILPH

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Who Has the Power: A Stripper or Her Customer?

Although a stripper may be seen as powerless to the whims of the men she is visually stimulating, many people argue that strippers are powerful because they are highly in control of their own sexualities and are able to captivate viewers. In her article The Dialectical Gaze from the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, author Alexandra G. Murphy recognizes both of these possibilities by discussing how strippers are simultaneously subjects and objects of the male gaze. She begins her article by describing various viewpoints regarding females’ degree of agency within the sex trade: radical feminists believe that female sex workers are hurting not only themselves but also all females by encouraging the objectification of women, whereas liberal feminists consider strippers to be “subjects with power” rather than “objects of power” (Murphy 308) and view sex workers as simply people looking to capitalize economically by selling their bodies. According to Murphy, however, strippers are constantly negotiating their power relationships in the workplace and therefore are neither completely powerful nor devoid of control.

Although females, when they allow themselves to become “sex objects,” theoretically cease to exist because they become the fictitious embodiment of male desires and fantasies, Murphy explains that strippers who men and outsiders view as sex objects are actually quite active in constructing themselves as being such. Women actively perform the role that they think men want them to play and are not intrinsically the “objects” men desire; therefore, women are not submissively allowing themselves to be objectified but are employing discursive strategies to maximize profits. Thus, men may seemingly exert control over strippers by making them the subjects of their gaze, but they are controlled by their own spectatorship because they are passive witnesses to the actions of their subjects.

Strippers develop complex methods of deception in order to maintain control over their customers—they build a false sense of intimacy with the men they interact with so that the male customers will tip more generously. In one stripper’s words, “I am making so much money off these guys that are stupid enough to spend it. That is power. What is more power than that?” (317) Furthermore, strippers, like their customers, employ gazing strategies; they are constantly watching customers to figure out which men have the most money to spend.

On the other hand, according to the author, “strippers are molded, controlled, and ordered to maintain a ‘proper’ performance in front of their customers, their managers, and their families” (313); in this way, strippers have little personal control and are forced to behave in specified ways in various situations both in and outside of the workplace. Also, in bowing to the whims of male customers, female strippers must put up with various inappropriate behaviors: “[men do] not have to be witty, nice or smart for these female bodies to serve and entertain him. To make money in this occupation, dancers must stand almost naked in front of fully clothed men and tolerate their insulting and degrading comments, daily sexual propositions, roving hands, and even some physical threats” (314). As Murphy proves, while exotic dancers may have some discursive control over their customers, they must pretend not to have any power and are forced to be extremely accommodating to the wishes of even the most brutish males they serve.

Monday, April 2, 2007

Objects Ready for Consumption

A woman's leg coils around an erect metal pole while dozens of entranced men stare at her greased body. A female teenager in a miniskirt and revealing halter-top struts past a group of drooling high school boys. A sorority member carefully coats her face with multiple shades of makeup because she considers the task art.

By passionately embracing traditional notions of feminine sexuality and allowing herself to be admired by others, is a woman obtaining high levels of social control and personal empowerment, or is she simply consenting to her own objectification? Postmodern feminists would argue that a woman who takes advantage of her powerful feminine sexuality harbors a great deal of control because she can easily persuade others--especially men--to give her exactly what she wants. On the other hand, traditional feminist thinkers may label this tactic mere manipulation, claiming that the best way for a female to obtain social and personal power is to reject traditional feminine aesthetic ideals and established gender roles. Postmodern feminist thinkers, in response to this viewpoint, may accuse traditional feminists of expecting women to adopt traditionally masculine characteristics and thus deny their unique feminine instincts, but traditional feminists would shoot right back that permitting others to view oneself as an object leads to both one's dehumanization and powerlessness.

Although both viewpoints have merit, I will take a position that is more similar to that of traditional feminist thinkers for Paper 3. While I do not endorse completely rejecting traditional feminine ideals of beauty and social roles--wearing mascara and deciding to stay at home to raise children are not problematic in and of themselves--I do believe that adhering to models of extreme femininity in dress, behavior, and speech is an ineffective method of gaining power because no one could truly respect the intellect and rights of a woman who, say, looks like a stripper. Since one of the keys to power is respect from both others and oneself, it is necessary for women to exercise their femininity moderately so as to appear and feel respectable. This does not mean that females must act like men to succeed in society; however, presenting herself as a feminized object ready for consumption will never earn a woman respect for her personality, her feelings and opinions, and her personal rights.