Prom is still nearly a month away and I feel as though the "prom drama" is already in full swing. It's hard to walk three steps without hearing some discussion of prom, and I know the "real" drama (however "real" any issues concerning prom can actually be) hasn't even kicked in yet. People are gloating about the cute way their dates asked them, lamenting that they haven't been asked yet, beginning diets and cleanses, hastily scouring stores for a unique yet stunning dress, planning their limo group and fighting about who is going to be left out, and of course probing other girls to find out what gossip they've missed out on. You'd think that the Oscars were rapidly approaching within our community given the amount of discussion prom is receiving.
Cattiness is slowly growing, as it always seems to do around this time of year. I'm not sure why that happens around big events, but girls seem nearly incapable of human tactfulness once a certain day hits. "So-and-so is going to be left without a date," I've head girls whisper about others, with an evil yet sickeningly pleased glimmer in their eye.
However, the most common snide comment that I hear is about the dresses. One senior girl started a Facebook group for all upperclassmen to post photos of their dresses so that nobody buys the same dress as another girl. I've seen similar groups with other schools and my friends in different cities, yet I still think there's something a little bit pointless about it. I've yet to hear a positive comment about a single dress posted in the group. Girls don't point out when other girls have selected a gorgeous gown, but are quick to point out the tacky dresses and the ones that are going to be unflattering. Wolf states that this could be because "beauty thinking urges women to approach one another as possible adversaries until they know they are friends" (Wolf 75).
Another thing that comes with prom is incessant spending of money. Girls put down hundreds of dollars on dresses yet it's still a lose-lose situation. Girls are looked down upon if they don't spend enough on a dress ("It's cheap, tacky, classless") but are also ridiculed for overspending ("what a snob, it's not even that pretty"). Also, prom preparation is costly. Although it's unclear who they are trying to impress, the girls, the boys, or their audience of Facebook stalkers, girls spend hours primping and pay to get their hair and nails (and sometimes even makeup) professionally done. The ticket itself is the equivalent of about 150 dollars too.
"Somehow, somewhere, someone must have figured out that they will buy more things if they are kept in the self-hating, ever-failing, hungry, and sexually insecure state of being aspiring beauties" Wolf says, however what she doesn't mention is that it isn't just advertisers and men who are causing this mindset, but other women, and even high school girls are just as guilty (Wolf 66).
Monday, 23 April 2012
The Role of the Homemaker
The stereotype of the housewife is something we overlook rather often, yet the homemaker is one of the most fixed roles in our society.
To start, women's culture, whether through literature or media, is almost always regarded as more trivial than male culture, feeding into the common ignorant viewpoint that the house is the proper place for women to work. Women's magazines began in the Victorian ages and were "catered to a female sex virtually in domestic bondage" (Wolf 62). They were an outlet for women in otherwise rather dull and demeaning everyday lives.
Wolf also argues that religion has taken on a similar role in the Victorian times. She mentions female piety and says, "From a male-dominated society's point of view, it kept educated, leisured middle-class female energies harmlessly, even usefully, diverted from rebellion..." (Wolf 92).
Culture today caters towards stay-at-home women. Being a working mother is getting increasingly difficult, and many women are choosing (or being forced, depending on how you look at it) to stay home and raise children after giving birth. If this is a choice, I find it at admirable one, as being a mother is perhaps one of the hardest and most noble professions. However, if women are being forced into this role either for economic or social reasons, this is despicable.
Advertisers and media executives feed into this cycle and Wolf points out, "Newspapers relegate women's issues to the 'women's page'; TV programming consigns 'women's stories' to the daytime" (Wolf 71).
Wolf quotes Betty Friedan as saying, "Why is it never said that the really crucial function... that women serve as housewives is to buy more things for the house?" (Wolf 66).
Even on some of my favorite television shows, women are portrayed as housewives and homemakers, and although their responsibilities are often highlighted, I think that as a society we often overlook equally the hardships of a housewife, but also the obstacles that working mothers and wives face.
Another (very timely) example of the Beauty Myth being put into practice in religion and politics, is with some stances by the Republican party in the build up to the 2012 election. Republican candidate Mitt Romney stated that he listens to his wife's advice when it comes to making his policies, however she "has never worked a day in her life" and therefore is in no way qualified to make decisions representing the American female public. On the other hand, Romney's opposition, Rick Santorum, has his own views when it comes to women. Although I would define my political beliefs as rather moderate leaning towards liberal (but in no way completely left-wing) I find Santorum to be a terrifying individual. Not only has he spoken out about opposing abortion and wishing to ban it, but he has openly expressed his views that the workplace is not the proper place for a woman and that women should be homemakers, as that is their true calling. The fact that a man, and a politician and presidential hopeful no less, could be this misogynistic and ignorant makes my blood boil.
To start, women's culture, whether through literature or media, is almost always regarded as more trivial than male culture, feeding into the common ignorant viewpoint that the house is the proper place for women to work. Women's magazines began in the Victorian ages and were "catered to a female sex virtually in domestic bondage" (Wolf 62). They were an outlet for women in otherwise rather dull and demeaning everyday lives.
Wolf also argues that religion has taken on a similar role in the Victorian times. She mentions female piety and says, "From a male-dominated society's point of view, it kept educated, leisured middle-class female energies harmlessly, even usefully, diverted from rebellion..." (Wolf 92).
Culture today caters towards stay-at-home women. Being a working mother is getting increasingly difficult, and many women are choosing (or being forced, depending on how you look at it) to stay home and raise children after giving birth. If this is a choice, I find it at admirable one, as being a mother is perhaps one of the hardest and most noble professions. However, if women are being forced into this role either for economic or social reasons, this is despicable.
Advertisers and media executives feed into this cycle and Wolf points out, "Newspapers relegate women's issues to the 'women's page'; TV programming consigns 'women's stories' to the daytime" (Wolf 71).
Wolf quotes Betty Friedan as saying, "Why is it never said that the really crucial function... that women serve as housewives is to buy more things for the house?" (Wolf 66).
Even on some of my favorite television shows, women are portrayed as housewives and homemakers, and although their responsibilities are often highlighted, I think that as a society we often overlook equally the hardships of a housewife, but also the obstacles that working mothers and wives face.
Another (very timely) example of the Beauty Myth being put into practice in religion and politics, is with some stances by the Republican party in the build up to the 2012 election. Republican candidate Mitt Romney stated that he listens to his wife's advice when it comes to making his policies, however she "has never worked a day in her life" and therefore is in no way qualified to make decisions representing the American female public. On the other hand, Romney's opposition, Rick Santorum, has his own views when it comes to women. Although I would define my political beliefs as rather moderate leaning towards liberal (but in no way completely left-wing) I find Santorum to be a terrifying individual. Not only has he spoken out about opposing abortion and wishing to ban it, but he has openly expressed his views that the workplace is not the proper place for a woman and that women should be homemakers, as that is their true calling. The fact that a man, and a politician and presidential hopeful no less, could be this misogynistic and ignorant makes my blood boil.
"The Beauty Myth" and its Presence in Movies
This weekend I found myself at the movie theater with one of my best friends on a rainy Saturday afternoon. We decided to see The Hunger Games, not because either of us had read any of the books or had an obsession with the franchise (as many girls our age seem to), but rather because it was rainy, we were bored, and the movie was playing.
I knew close to nothing about the plot and the movie in general as we entered the theatre, armed with a bucket of large popcorn and monstrous Diet Cokes. However, what I was shocked to witness was that the Beauty Myth, as Naomi Wolf describes it, actually manifests itself in movies quite glaringly.
To start, I think that to any viewer, regardless of their gender and whether or not they are familiar with The Hunger Games, will agree that Jennifer Lawrence, the actress playing the starring role Katniss is stunningly beautiful. The cast as a whole is comprised of handsome, muscular male characters and gorgeous females. This isn't unusual of a movie geared towards a teenage audience, yet viewers are still complaining. One major complaint that people have is the producer's choice to have Lawrence star as Katniss, lamenting that she is "too fat" to play someone coming from a province that is supposed to be in a state of poverty, constantly starving. This is horrendous. Not only is Lawrence far from overweight, she is thin. In one scene in the movie, she is wearing a sort of leather jumpsuit and her waist is so tiny that it appears as though you could fit two hands around it. People complain about models being too skinny, yet when a healthy, slender girl is selected for a movie, people are still not satisfied.
This brought me back to an argument that Wolf makes in the Work chapter, where she mentions the Professional Beauty Qualification. Wolf defines the Professional Beauty Qualification (PBQ) as "a parody of the [bona fide occupational qualification]" and says that "beauty is being categorized, in professions and trades further and further afield from the original display professions..." (Wolf 27).
The double standard that women are held to also applies to this situation. Wolf puts it quite eloquently:
Additionally, the film mocks the influence that advertisers have on our lives. Katniss, although a tough and far from "girly" girl, must go through a serious of female tortures such as waxing in order to be camera-ready and get sponsors for her appearance in the Hunger Games, which is not a beauty contest but rather a fight to the death. "Women are kept "beauties" in men's culture so that culture can be kept male," Wolf says, and this certainly holds true in The Hunger Games, as the boy's preparation focuses solely on their strength, tactics and skill, not their physical appearance (Wolf 59).
I knew close to nothing about the plot and the movie in general as we entered the theatre, armed with a bucket of large popcorn and monstrous Diet Cokes. However, what I was shocked to witness was that the Beauty Myth, as Naomi Wolf describes it, actually manifests itself in movies quite glaringly.
To start, I think that to any viewer, regardless of their gender and whether or not they are familiar with The Hunger Games, will agree that Jennifer Lawrence, the actress playing the starring role Katniss is stunningly beautiful. The cast as a whole is comprised of handsome, muscular male characters and gorgeous females. This isn't unusual of a movie geared towards a teenage audience, yet viewers are still complaining. One major complaint that people have is the producer's choice to have Lawrence star as Katniss, lamenting that she is "too fat" to play someone coming from a province that is supposed to be in a state of poverty, constantly starving. This is horrendous. Not only is Lawrence far from overweight, she is thin. In one scene in the movie, she is wearing a sort of leather jumpsuit and her waist is so tiny that it appears as though you could fit two hands around it. People complain about models being too skinny, yet when a healthy, slender girl is selected for a movie, people are still not satisfied.
This brought me back to an argument that Wolf makes in the Work chapter, where she mentions the Professional Beauty Qualification. Wolf defines the Professional Beauty Qualification (PBQ) as "a parody of the [bona fide occupational qualification]" and says that "beauty is being categorized, in professions and trades further and further afield from the original display professions..." (Wolf 27).
The double standard that women are held to also applies to this situation. Wolf puts it quite eloquently:
"The most emblematic women working in the West could be visible if they were "beautiful," even if they were bad at their work; they could be good at their work and "beautiful" and therefore visible, but get no credit or merit; or they could be good and "unbeautiful" and therefore invisible, so their merit did them no good" (Wolf 35).This is what we see with Lawrence and her critics that she is too plump for Katniss - probably from the same people criticizing models for being too thin for the runway.
Additionally, the film mocks the influence that advertisers have on our lives. Katniss, although a tough and far from "girly" girl, must go through a serious of female tortures such as waxing in order to be camera-ready and get sponsors for her appearance in the Hunger Games, which is not a beauty contest but rather a fight to the death. "Women are kept "beauties" in men's culture so that culture can be kept male," Wolf says, and this certainly holds true in The Hunger Games, as the boy's preparation focuses solely on their strength, tactics and skill, not their physical appearance (Wolf 59).
Saturday, 21 April 2012
Killing Us Softly
The movie we watched today in class, Killing Us Softly 4, created by Jean Kilbourne, is a shocking documentary about advertising and about the detrimental effects it has on women (young and old) and their self esteem.
Some of the topics Kilbourne mentions are the painfully thin images we see of women themselves who don't even look like that without the aid of photoshop. She features one Ralph Lauren model whose body is re-created to be so tiny that her head is wider than her pelvis, who was later dismissed from her job for being too fat, bringing back into play the "Professional Beauty Qualification (PBQ)" that Naomi Wolf speaks about in The Beauty Myth. She quotes stunning Cindy Crawford as saying, "I wish I looked like Cindy Crawford," then shows two images of her, enhanced and natural. Although undoubtedly beautiful in both, the difference is alarming.
Other models we see, I was intrigued to learn, don't even exist. Lucky Magazine, which in my opinion is a normal, respected women's magazine, ran a photo of a model composed of a few women. Editors selected body parts of each that they liked and used software to mix and match these features to create their ideal woman. On the contrary, she also mentions a German magazine that banned professional models from its publication as editors had grown tired of having to edit the images to look healthy rather than emaciated. Unfortunately, this is newsworthy. In our society, this is not the exception, not the norm as our society has an "obsession with thinness" that is "about cutting girls down to size."
In addition to using overly thin models, Kilbourne also mentions the use of nearly pornographic images to sell products. Some of these include jeans ads, in which the model is naked from the waist down, or a Gucci campaign in which a man is kneeling in front of a woman whose pubic hair has been groomed into the Gucci "G" logo. This actually disgusted me. We've all heard the expression that sex sells, and it seems as though advertisers are taking this seriously. Sexual themes and images were applied to things I've never even thought of as being remotely sexy. A woman's breasts pouring out of her bra are used to sell fishing lines, and a Burger King ad for their seven inch sandwich alludes to oral sex in a glaringly overt way.
However, what I found to be the worst thing that the advertising industry does to women was the dehumanization. "Women's bodies are constantly turned into objects," Kilbourne says. Women's body parts are featured cut up and severed, or a model's ample cleavage and long, smooth legs are featured without a face to go with them. Sometimes, women even literally turn into the products, such as a bottle of alcohol. Kilbourne says, "We see this with racism, we see it with homophobia, we see it with terrorism. It's always the same process. The person is dehumanized and violence becomes inevitable. And that step is already and constantly being taken against women."
Some of the topics Kilbourne mentions are the painfully thin images we see of women themselves who don't even look like that without the aid of photoshop. She features one Ralph Lauren model whose body is re-created to be so tiny that her head is wider than her pelvis, who was later dismissed from her job for being too fat, bringing back into play the "Professional Beauty Qualification (PBQ)" that Naomi Wolf speaks about in The Beauty Myth. She quotes stunning Cindy Crawford as saying, "I wish I looked like Cindy Crawford," then shows two images of her, enhanced and natural. Although undoubtedly beautiful in both, the difference is alarming.
Other models we see, I was intrigued to learn, don't even exist. Lucky Magazine, which in my opinion is a normal, respected women's magazine, ran a photo of a model composed of a few women. Editors selected body parts of each that they liked and used software to mix and match these features to create their ideal woman. On the contrary, she also mentions a German magazine that banned professional models from its publication as editors had grown tired of having to edit the images to look healthy rather than emaciated. Unfortunately, this is newsworthy. In our society, this is not the exception, not the norm as our society has an "obsession with thinness" that is "about cutting girls down to size."
In addition to using overly thin models, Kilbourne also mentions the use of nearly pornographic images to sell products. Some of these include jeans ads, in which the model is naked from the waist down, or a Gucci campaign in which a man is kneeling in front of a woman whose pubic hair has been groomed into the Gucci "G" logo. This actually disgusted me. We've all heard the expression that sex sells, and it seems as though advertisers are taking this seriously. Sexual themes and images were applied to things I've never even thought of as being remotely sexy. A woman's breasts pouring out of her bra are used to sell fishing lines, and a Burger King ad for their seven inch sandwich alludes to oral sex in a glaringly overt way.
However, what I found to be the worst thing that the advertising industry does to women was the dehumanization. "Women's bodies are constantly turned into objects," Kilbourne says. Women's body parts are featured cut up and severed, or a model's ample cleavage and long, smooth legs are featured without a face to go with them. Sometimes, women even literally turn into the products, such as a bottle of alcohol. Kilbourne says, "We see this with racism, we see it with homophobia, we see it with terrorism. It's always the same process. The person is dehumanized and violence becomes inevitable. And that step is already and constantly being taken against women."
The Double Standard (Part II: Advertising)
I don't remember the last time I opened a magazine and wasn't greeted by the perfectly clear skin and symmetrical face of a model. Let me expand on that. I don't remember the last time I turned on the television, glanced up at a billboard, or drove by a bus-stop ad that didn't have the shiny eyes and perfect proportions of a model staring down at me.
Funnily enough, I remember the first time that I opened Vogue magazine. I was surely only about eight or nine years old and I was sitting in the dentists office with nothing to do, bored before my visit. I think the reason I opened the magazine in the first place was because the model on the cover was stunning, and probably reminded me of whatever Disney princess or movie character was my favorite at the time. However, the magazine confused me. I flipped through the pages and saw pages upon pages of ads. Perfume ads, ads for cars, clothing campaigns, beauty products. The list was endless but as a child in a dentists office armed with a magazine I was just confused. Questions ran through my head. Where were the stories? Where were the words? Why were none of of people wearing clothes?
In theory, I am not opposed to using beautiful people to sell products and I agree that yes people will be more likely to stop and examine a product if it is being sold by a figure with chiseled abs or shiny lips.
What does bother me, though, is the clear double standard portrayed in magazines between men and women. Men are not degraded to nearly the same degree as women, and advertisements in men's magazines still feature scantily clad women trying to sell men's products. If men are, by chance, featured barely clothed or in their underwear, they still stand strongly and powerfully. Their bodies are stronger than the average man's, not thinner and weaker. "Rape is the current advertising metaphor," Wolf says, which is certainly true (Wolf 79). Men are constantly powerful, strong, figures, whereas women are weak and submissive, important only for their bodies (and more often than not, the sexuality of their bodies: breasts, legs, cleavage).
Unfortunately, this has turned into sort of a trickle-down system. What I mean by that, is that Wolf argues that it is the advertisers who are perpetuating this vicious cycle and enhancing the prominence of the Beauty Myth in advertisements, and by doing so in society too. "Advertisers are the West's courteous censors," she claims which feeds into the production cycle of magazine (Wolf 77): ""What editors are obliged to appear to say that men want from women is actually what their advertisers want from women" (Wolf 73).
Renowned feminist Gloria Steinem agrees and has said, "Advertisers don't believe in female opinion makers" (Wolf 82).
This double standard in advertising has caused magazines to take on different tones too. Women who read magazines are constantly made to feel bad about themselves. Whether they are too old, too fat, too blemished, too lazy, or too plain, they are far from perfect and advertisers make sure that they acknowledge their flaws. Unfortunately, this means that "many readers have not learned how to separate the prowoman content from the beauty myth in the magazines, whose place is primarily economic" (Wolf 73). Women's self esteem plummets as they sit on airplanes flipping through the latest pages of Cosmopolitan or Vanity Fair, and the sad thing is they don't realize the harm they are causing to themselves. Women are belittled by the advertisements, that much is certain, but also by the wording, which Wolf argues is equally harmful and worlds apart from the way men are addressed in men's magazines, saying, "Hence the hectoring tone that no other magazines use to address adults with money in their pockets: do's and dont's that scold, insinuate, and condescend. The same tone in a men's magazine - do invest in tax-free bonds; don't vote republican - is unthinkable" (Wolf 84).
Funnily enough, I remember the first time that I opened Vogue magazine. I was surely only about eight or nine years old and I was sitting in the dentists office with nothing to do, bored before my visit. I think the reason I opened the magazine in the first place was because the model on the cover was stunning, and probably reminded me of whatever Disney princess or movie character was my favorite at the time. However, the magazine confused me. I flipped through the pages and saw pages upon pages of ads. Perfume ads, ads for cars, clothing campaigns, beauty products. The list was endless but as a child in a dentists office armed with a magazine I was just confused. Questions ran through my head. Where were the stories? Where were the words? Why were none of of people wearing clothes?
In theory, I am not opposed to using beautiful people to sell products and I agree that yes people will be more likely to stop and examine a product if it is being sold by a figure with chiseled abs or shiny lips.
What does bother me, though, is the clear double standard portrayed in magazines between men and women. Men are not degraded to nearly the same degree as women, and advertisements in men's magazines still feature scantily clad women trying to sell men's products. If men are, by chance, featured barely clothed or in their underwear, they still stand strongly and powerfully. Their bodies are stronger than the average man's, not thinner and weaker. "Rape is the current advertising metaphor," Wolf says, which is certainly true (Wolf 79). Men are constantly powerful, strong, figures, whereas women are weak and submissive, important only for their bodies (and more often than not, the sexuality of their bodies: breasts, legs, cleavage).
Unfortunately, this has turned into sort of a trickle-down system. What I mean by that, is that Wolf argues that it is the advertisers who are perpetuating this vicious cycle and enhancing the prominence of the Beauty Myth in advertisements, and by doing so in society too. "Advertisers are the West's courteous censors," she claims which feeds into the production cycle of magazine (Wolf 77): ""What editors are obliged to appear to say that men want from women is actually what their advertisers want from women" (Wolf 73).
Renowned feminist Gloria Steinem agrees and has said, "Advertisers don't believe in female opinion makers" (Wolf 82).
This double standard in advertising has caused magazines to take on different tones too. Women who read magazines are constantly made to feel bad about themselves. Whether they are too old, too fat, too blemished, too lazy, or too plain, they are far from perfect and advertisers make sure that they acknowledge their flaws. Unfortunately, this means that "many readers have not learned how to separate the prowoman content from the beauty myth in the magazines, whose place is primarily economic" (Wolf 73). Women's self esteem plummets as they sit on airplanes flipping through the latest pages of Cosmopolitan or Vanity Fair, and the sad thing is they don't realize the harm they are causing to themselves. Women are belittled by the advertisements, that much is certain, but also by the wording, which Wolf argues is equally harmful and worlds apart from the way men are addressed in men's magazines, saying, "Hence the hectoring tone that no other magazines use to address adults with money in their pockets: do's and dont's that scold, insinuate, and condescend. The same tone in a men's magazine - do invest in tax-free bonds; don't vote republican - is unthinkable" (Wolf 84).
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
The Double Standard (Part I: The Workplace)
I can honestly say that I think The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf is the first piece of nonfiction literature that I have ever read and fully enjoyed. From the introduction and definition of what the Beauty Myth is, I was hooked, not solely because of Wolf's bold statements and pointing observations, but because of how true everything is that she said. In addition to stark data to back up each of her chilling points, it was no difficult task for me to think of my own examples of things she was saying.
For example, Wolf describes television journalism, a career that I myself have considered at one point. She describes the typical broadcasting duo of a "avuncular male anchor joined by a much younger female newscaster with a professional prettiness level" (Wolf 34). Immediately, I thought of the Will Ferrell movie Anchorman. Ferrells character, a hairy, slightly chubby anchorman is joined by an attractive, intelligent, talented co-anchor - a woman. She is the only woman on the news team and is constantly the victim of cruel comments and cold treatment by her co-workers. The only other women on the staff work in the cosmetics department, and seemed stunned by her desire to work alongside the males. At first she is only given frivolous stories to focus on as her talent is overlooked because of her gender.
Although this is only a movie (and a comedy at that) and set in the sixties, similar conditions for anchormen and women still existed up through the 1990s when Wolf wrote her book. Although men are viewed as looking more dignified reading the news as they age, women anchorwomen go through "a real nightmare [...] because soon they won't be pretty enough to do the news anymore" (Wolf 35).
Not only is this a complete double standard, but it isn't a double standard of the past. This book was published in 1990, so a few of the references are slightly outdated. Nonetheless, basically every aspect of the Beauty Myth that Wolf mentions still holds true in today's society, twenty two years later. Women are still hired for their beauty, ostracized in the workplace for being too pretty or too plain.
Women are fired for not being attractive enough or not upholding their appearance and judges rule that it is "not sex discrimination but market logic" (Wolf 37).
I find this shocking. In a self-proclaimed free and tolerant country, women should not be held to a different standard as men. If women are required to dress a certain way for a job, men should be as well. If men harass female coworkers, they should be held responsible, not exonerated because, as Wolf says, "Beauty provokes harassment, the law says, but it looks through men's eyes when deciding what provokes it" (Wolf 45). Also, quite hypocritically, only 15 percent of women surveyed said they use their appearance to their advantage in the workplace, whereas 35 percent of men gave the same answer.
Additionally, while male models are certainly present in advertisements on TV and in magazines, female models are literally everywhere. With that, Wolf states that "the model fantasy is probably the most widespread contemporary dream shared by young women from all backgrounds" (Wolf 41).
The beauty industry and advertising companies can be partially blamed for that, where double standards run rampant...
For example, Wolf describes television journalism, a career that I myself have considered at one point. She describes the typical broadcasting duo of a "avuncular male anchor joined by a much younger female newscaster with a professional prettiness level" (Wolf 34). Immediately, I thought of the Will Ferrell movie Anchorman. Ferrells character, a hairy, slightly chubby anchorman is joined by an attractive, intelligent, talented co-anchor - a woman. She is the only woman on the news team and is constantly the victim of cruel comments and cold treatment by her co-workers. The only other women on the staff work in the cosmetics department, and seemed stunned by her desire to work alongside the males. At first she is only given frivolous stories to focus on as her talent is overlooked because of her gender.
Although this is only a movie (and a comedy at that) and set in the sixties, similar conditions for anchormen and women still existed up through the 1990s when Wolf wrote her book. Although men are viewed as looking more dignified reading the news as they age, women anchorwomen go through "a real nightmare [...] because soon they won't be pretty enough to do the news anymore" (Wolf 35).
Not only is this a complete double standard, but it isn't a double standard of the past. This book was published in 1990, so a few of the references are slightly outdated. Nonetheless, basically every aspect of the Beauty Myth that Wolf mentions still holds true in today's society, twenty two years later. Women are still hired for their beauty, ostracized in the workplace for being too pretty or too plain.
Women are fired for not being attractive enough or not upholding their appearance and judges rule that it is "not sex discrimination but market logic" (Wolf 37).
I find this shocking. In a self-proclaimed free and tolerant country, women should not be held to a different standard as men. If women are required to dress a certain way for a job, men should be as well. If men harass female coworkers, they should be held responsible, not exonerated because, as Wolf says, "Beauty provokes harassment, the law says, but it looks through men's eyes when deciding what provokes it" (Wolf 45). Also, quite hypocritically, only 15 percent of women surveyed said they use their appearance to their advantage in the workplace, whereas 35 percent of men gave the same answer.
Additionally, while male models are certainly present in advertisements on TV and in magazines, female models are literally everywhere. With that, Wolf states that "the model fantasy is probably the most widespread contemporary dream shared by young women from all backgrounds" (Wolf 41).
The beauty industry and advertising companies can be partially blamed for that, where double standards run rampant...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)