Brumberg’s issue with the “stunning new freedom” of new female fashion that implied a “greater internal control of the body” is an interesting take on the role of mass media and industrialization on female self-esteem (98). She notes that over time women regained control over their bodies by rejecting the corset but then had to diet to maintain the appearance the corset created. But why do women have to control their “unruly” bodies at all? This piece would have been more effective if it analyzed why all the diaries exhibited individual insecurities and not systematic trends. I wonder when it was published because I feel as a young woman I personally note my own insecurities as a result of the institutionalized control over female bodies. I’m almost sure that is a factor of the Women’s Movement and feminist ideologies.
Brumberg discusses the early sexualization of women’s bodies as a result of the new industrial market for underwear. “Training bras were a boon to the foundation garment industry, but they also meant that girls’ bodies were sexualized earlier” (118). Young women became a market with buying power but with this power came sexualization. This connection proves Levy’s Raunch culture; how economic power and independence from the family unit gave women the ability to leave the home but also subjected them to objectification. Other forces than family i
nfluences shaped their understanding of themselves. (Look at this picture to see how some women have asserted their individuality or how they have accepted and internalized industrialized notions of beauty.) However, women’s emergence as a economic power mass was fueled by advertising.
Gloria Steinem continues to discuss the role advertising plays in bringing women onto the economic market. However, since advertising has so much control over women’s economic power and ability, it oppresses progress and maintains order. The goal of Steinem’s magazine was to empower women and had nothing to do with sexualization per say. However, advertising had to control the articles published and therefore women’s understanding of themselves and the products they need to make themselves better. Just as in the bra case, Ms. lost its emerging power through the sexualization of women by being forced to publish stories about make-up, bras, etc or go under.
In tandem, both articles reveal the role of advertising in creating a beauty norm. With this norm comes the question of what is not a norm. Cal from Middlesex had a lot of trouble fitting into these norms and I wonder if women still made their own underwear, if Cal would have been able to confront and come to terms with her condition earlier.
Reading Brumberg and Steinem's articles this class made me think of other courses I am taking this year. Why, today, is being skinny beautiful?-Because in the past this was definitely not the case.
ReplyDeleteI am currently taking a Baroque painting class. In every painting I've studied the beautiful women in the paintings are quite large...to be frank, these beautiful women in baroque art of the 1600s would be considered fat in our culture.
Even a mere decade ago, the supermodels of the 1980s and 90s were far more "normal" than today's "heroine chic" models. Models like Cindy Crawford had healthy, curvy, athletic bodies. Today, models are so thin they look like aliens and a "pretty ugly" has been embraced in the high fashion world.
The picture of the corset laced into the girls body that Lindsey posted is quite disturbing but it gives a strong message. It's true, women must now make their bodies look a certain way with out the corset. We must make our bodies the corset.
On page 108 of Brumberg's article she talks about the importance of breast size. This is quite contradictory when being skinny is also important. Large breasts generally go hand in hand with curvier bodies, while small breasts are more common on skinny girls. All girls know that the first thing to get noticeably bigger when one gains weight is your breasts. Vice versa, all girls know that the first thing to get noticeably smaller when one loses weight is your breasts. So the idea of uber-skinny bodies and big breasts is just unnatural and absurd.
And to quickly address Steinem's article-I thought Professor Simonson's brownbag on advertising was really eye opening. For those who went to this brownbag, I'd love to discuss your reactions...
Both Regan and Lindsey point to the media as a source for female body image discontent, thus leading women of our culture to exercise control over their bodies via food intake and exercise. I was surprised to read in Brumberg that such socialized attention to female body image was noted as early as the 1920s, just as women began to exercise their rights in the public forum. Ironically, the very movement that opened doors for gendered social change also scrutinized those women in the light.
ReplyDeleteYvonne Blue, given the opportunity to attend college as a young woman of the 20s, felt social pressures of her time, that to be successful, a woman must be slim. The very problems that plagued young Yvonne resonate within our culture today. Looking to celebrities, those women portrayed in media outlets such as tv, film and magazines, as symbols of beauty and attractiveness, girls declare and recreate their identities as did Yvonne all those years ago. Women modify their hairstyles, handwriting and waist sizes in order to constantly prove themselves as different, "unusual and talented, instead of ordinary and boring" (105). This concept of exhibitionism to which Brumberg refers, that to be a modern woman, one must put herself out there as an object to be admired, copied, or envied, presents a conflict of interest. On one hand, such attention to self-worth seems powerful for apparently confident women of rising social status, able to assert themselves more easily in the workplace, with men, and on women's issues. Yet this scrutiny of women's external appearance, as evidenced by physical shape, clothes and the like, is but a product of the ad-based society in which women live, entrapping women as victims of popular culture, though they think they make conscious decisions to stand out of their own accord.
Steinem's article indirectly ties into this issue, for as the founder of Ms. Magazine, she strove to uphold standards of women's rights via journalism instead of ideal female images via swayed advertisements. As a result, her enterprise suffered capital losses in the late 1980s-early 90s. In order to run a women's magazine effectively, it seems that that outlet must feature ads and articles that promote 'typical' female interests- make-up, clothes, jewelery, cooking, 'how-to' gain men's attention, and the like. For magazines, like most media outlets, are for-profit ventures that need a certain market in order to thrive successfully. And so even the magazines that targeted 'working women' succumbed to the inclusion of such topics, and thus "they inadvertently produced the anti-feminist stereotype of Super Woman." Steinem raises an interesting point- where do we draw the line? Don't working women also enjoy reading about fashion, beauty and entertainment? (Entertaining and not completely unrelated fun fact: my mom graced the cover of Savvy Magazine in the early 80s).
Regan, I went to Professor Simonson's brownbag, too, and was particularly struck by her exposure of the 'crotch shot.' Wow.... The women she brought up on the screen shocked me in the context of that brownbag, yet I must admit, as I graze magazines and view commercials and ads throughout the course of my week, I think little of the exploitation of female bodies in such ads. Take the ad that essentially represents gang rape. Were I to see that in a magazine, I might think it strange and disturbing, but not altogether out of place in relation to other high fashion ads. (Another interesting fact, this one also about my mom: she writes to companies that feature ads offensive to women). Perhaps we should all take a cue from Ma and begin to voice our opinions on ads with which we don't agree. If we don't object to the blatant misrepresentation of women in popular ads, we surely won't see the trend change any time soon.
All, great thoughts this week; I'm glad that you were able to "use" the Brown Bag and found it helpful. Eileen, the "grazing" phenomenon you describe is common, and actually something that I think we all do all the time, even when we are aware of the ways images function. The question, in my mind, is how we can still indulge in this kind of reading while simultaneously remaining aware? And letters to companies with offensive ads is a great idea -- one of which Steinem would surely approve!
ReplyDelete