As a woman and a potential entrepreneur, I admire the success of women such as Sheila Nevins and Carrie Gerlach. I appreciate the gains they had to make to get to where they are now: at the top of international entertainment corporations, HBO and SONY, respectively. Levy portrays them as 'Female Chauvinist Pigs,' and I can see why, but I am not ready to label them completely as such. I think they are realistic, and frankly, are wise to identify their roles in the larger picture, that is, as the minority in a man's business world. I understand that I am reinforcing the stereotype of the inferior woman in the workplace, but better to admit honesty, I feel, than cover up the truth with a false sense of pride and/or anger. This is not as prevalent today as it was ten years ago (when these women were interviewed), as women have made even more successful gains in the business-realm in recent years. I am not satisfied with the perceived role of successful women as 'masculine'; I do, however, understand why it is that such women feel that they "get it." What does "getting it" entail? As Kellison of The Man Show so plainly puts it, "You take responsibility for your life" (Levy 116). A woman who gets it owns her role and does not fall victim to the stereotypes and criticisms imposed upon her. She embraces them, and in turn, uses them to her advantage. The women who produce the man show may reinforce a woman's role as a "Juggy," an exposed, jiggling dancer used solely for male viewer's pleasure. But they have assumed superior roles within their industry and are pleased with their positions. I do not condone their work, I do not particularly like their show, but I feel that I can laugh at it, because I get it. And I think that if a woman wants to rise to a level of influence in this particular field, she has to get it, to tolerate being 'one of the guys.'
...And yet, even after saying all this, I completely agree with Levy's point: that these women are only exceptions that prove the rule, the rule being "that women are inferior" (117). And so on this point--where do we go from here? How do we balance women who, as exceptions to the rule, only further the rule, with those women who live their lives as the rule?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This morning, University of Texas Woman’s basketball played a serious and intense game in light pink jerseys. As the camera man zoomed in on a very focused young lady I thought to myself, how could she be taken seriously when she is decked out head to toe in pink!? I then thought no, she is powerful in pink. I wonder if being powerful in pink is equally as respected as being powerful in blue.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the Manifesta piece made me realize that I consider Girlies kind of stupid. I like to play dress-up but when I want to be taken seriously, I try to be as asexual as possible. Just this weekend I went to D.C. for an interview and put on 3 tops at once to try to cover-up my boobs. I never think I can be respected while flaunting my reproductive organs; look at what my brain can do, not my body. The Girlies argument to play up the fact that women are different is radical. Most women like Sheila Nevins (and myself) try to play into the boy’s game and de-feminize themselves, make themselves one of the guys in order to gain respect. The Girlies fight to maintain their femininity (or the construct of such through consumerism) and then gain power. This would destroy the system of oppression as it stands. If accepted, I think it could be very affective, but I do not think the U.S. is ready for it. We could not accept Hillary Clinton because she had too many characteristics we value in men. I agree with Eileen that I am probably settling but the women in Levy’s chapter are trying to better themselves as individuals, even if they are chauvinist pigs, so who can blame them? We can blame the system, not the individual. How can you incite systematic change while still working the system to your best advantage?
I think Lindsey made an important point: FCPs are trying to be successful within a flawed system, while Levy's argument is that, if a system is flawed, it should be dismantled. And while ideologically that is certainly something I can stand behind, I think it is also a really difficult feat to accomplish when men still dominate the field. However, I feel like some of the women Levy talked to tried to ignore the fact that there was any problem with playing the 'man's game' and seriously devalued the possibility of being traditionally feminine and powerful at the same time. I think these powerful women could use their status as a way to at least admit that they are identifying with 'masculine' traits because that's what they have to do to get ahead, rather than act like they got because femininity is inherently inferior.
ReplyDelete