Of Gender and Genitals/Middlesex 2 and 3

Several things caught my attention while reading Fausto-Sterling’s chapter, however I think that most profound point that she makes is that if these sexual and anatomical differences are occurring in society and we are eliminating them with surgery, how are we ever going to progress and see sex and gender on a continuum instead of two distinct categories. At the beginning of the chapter when she was describing what happens when an intersexual baby is born and the many decisions that parents are faced with, it sounded like she could have easily substituted “intersexual” with “life threatening disease” or “severe mental disorder.” Fausto-Sterling describes the hospital environment almost as being a disaster. She writes, “While anatomical clarity was important for the young child, Money, the Hampsons, and those who followed their lead argued, it was even more important for the child’s parents. As Peter Pan might have said, ‘they had to believe’ in their child’s gender identity for that identity to become real. (Fausto-Sterling 64) By eliminating the different variations of sex organs we are choosing to endorse our current system of gender and sex identification. These practices are causing us to regress instead of seeing things on a continuum.

I also found the discussion of “Phall-o-metrics” to be pretty interesting considering that it seems that even in these instances the stereotypes and cultural traditions of being more of a man is correlated to penis size. I think that the discussion of how intersexual males are usually infertile is also very interesting because it shows that it is ingrained in our minds that a man has to have fully functioning sex organs in order to be considered “masculine.” This is touched on in Book Two of Middlesex when Cal is talking about how he cannot have children and this is why he has never gotten married. I think that this is profound because people are often “legitimized” in society when they get married or have a baby. These are events that hold enormous significance in people’s lives, and the fact that intersexual people cannot have children and may never get married due to their discomfort with their sexuality shows how alienated they can feel as a result of what is considered to be the “norm.”

Middlesex, Book 1 and Fausto-Sterling

I first read Middlesex around the time it came out in 2002, and I was only in eighth or ninth grade. While reading Book 1 of Middlesex for the second time, now in the context of our recent discussions of gender and sexuality—and, in particular, in the context of Anne Fausto-Sterling’s Sexing the Body—I couldn’t help but notice several details of the book that I did not notice during my first reading. Moreover, I began to question whether or not certain components of the book were purely creative, or, instead, if Jeffrey Eugenides made deliberate literary choices in constructing his characters and plot.

For example, in “That Sexe Which Prevailith,” Fausto-Sterling discusses at length the history of hermaphrodites and intersexuality, which she claims to have spawned from Ancient Greek mythology. Fausto-Sterling argues that there are at least two Greek myths that incorporate the idea of transgendered individuals; one, she claims, tells the story of Hermes and Aphrodite, who “produced a child so thoroughly endowed with the attributes of each parent that, unable to decide its sex for sure, they named it Hermaphroditos.” (Fausto-Sterling, 32) Interestingly enough, Desdemona and Lefty, the incestuous grandparents of Cal in Middlesex, come from Greece; in reading this again, I couldn’t help but question Eugenides literary choices and whether or not he considered the history of Hermaphrodites in relation to Greek myths.

In a similar vein, I never once thought to question why Eugenides chose to make Cal born a girl, who then later chose to become a man; why not the other way? Fausto-Sterling cites a study conducted by a Johns Hopkins urology professor which revealed that most hermaphrodites ultimately choose to identify as male. Indeed, Fausto-Sterling quotes a hermaphrodite named James who said, “It is easier to be a man, You get more money (wages) and you don’t have to be married. If you’re a girl and you don’t get married people make fun of you” (Fausto-Sterling, 42). Again, Fausto-Sterling’s observations and arguments present an alternative way of looking at the construction of the various characters and plots in Eugenides’ Middlesex.

Dualism, Bois, and The Hairstory of an Androgynous Young Feminist

I particularly enjoyed how our three readings - Fausto-Sterling, Levy, and Myhre - built not only off each other, but also off of the commonly held conceptions that most hold with regards to gender. Fausto-Sterling begins her piece by discussing how the second-wave feminists viewed gender; to them, the social institutions that we have constructed around gender, "themselves designed to perpetuate gender inequality," in fact "produce most of the differences between men and women" (3). Yet, as Levy points out, these social constructions are not only played out between men and women, but also can be seen occurring within the lesbian and transgender communities as well.

I was quite intrigued by Levy's observations for several reasons. There is a commonly held belief that in lesbian couples, there always is the butch partner and the more feminine partner: think Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi, Melissa Etheridge and Tammy Lynn Michaels. However, as Levy's observations reveal, there is a clear sentiment amongst butch (and boi) lesbians that femmes are inferior. Acting like a man, as the bois are described as doing these days, is looked upon favorably, but what I believe is very telling is the use of the term 'boi' to begin with. These new generation of lesbians appear to be acting in many ways like stereotypical men, yet they clearly see the need to separate themselves from heterosexual male. Instead, by calling themselves "boys", they appear to be stepping into a role that they can claim their own and dominate. Additionally, Levy points out, "the confusing thing, of course, is why somebody would need serious surgery and testosterone to modify their gender if gender is supposed to be so fluid in the first place" (127).

Fausto-Sterling I believe would suggest that 'butch flight' occurs because regardless of how fluid these lesbians claim to be, we still are extremely offset by "bodies that are so unruly" and that "blur the borders" (8). This clearly can be seen in Mhyre's anecdote about her hair and rejection of 'feminine' upkeep. As Mhyre points out, her presence perhaps troubles onlookers the most because we are unable to categorize her into the social constructions that define gender. As Fausto-Sterling discusses, gender has always represented social forces that mold behavior, and when these behaviors are rejected but the gender is not parted with entirely, it leaves the onlooker extremely uncomfortable because we cannot place her presence into the precise category of woman, or butch lesbian, or transsexual, etc. But perhaps what disturbs those who hear Mhyre's story the most is that she is not a woman trying to play down her 'feminine' qualities and appear more manly. She simply is presenting her body as she is, leaving one to consider the role of gender as a social construction and the attributes we have always been told are associated with our own gender.

News Flash: "The New Math on Campus"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html

A recent article in the New York Times details the rising phenomenon of gender imbalances on college campuses—in particular, the sixty to forty percent ratio that exists at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. In “The New Math on Campus,” (William, 2010, p. ST1), Alex Williams explores the lives of young women at “just one of the many large universities that at times feel eerily like women’s colleges.” Williams initiates her discussion of this disproportionate gender representation with a summary of why this is occurring—citing reasons such as higher grades, retention statistics, and propensity to be a minority. Indeed, Williams is quick to acknowledge the good in this; women are disproportionately successful in early and upper level academic achievement in comparison to their male peers. Her real interest, however, lies in her extensive exploration of the effects of this gender imbalance. Williams believes that the overflow of women on college campuses has ignited a situation in which women are finding it “harder than expected to find a date on a Friday night” and guys are being placed in the position where it is acceptable and highly possible to “play the field” (Williams, 2010, p. ST1). Indeed, this is not the first encounter women’s studies—nor any college academic setting—has been introduced to the horrors of college “hook up culture.” However, I find Williams’ notion that gender imbalance is the ultimate culprit to be quite questionable. At Colgate University, a school with a slightly higher percentage of female students (52% female, 48% male), hook up culture seems to be elevated to unprecedented levels, which leads me to conclude that as there are several other (and more influential factors) that make “hook up culture” not only possible, but the norm.

Indeed, Williams suspects that “Thanks to simple laws of supply and demand, it is often the women who must assert themselves romantically or be left alone on Valentine’s Day, staring down a George Clooney movie over a half-empty pizza box” (Williams, 2010, p. ST1). Williams paints a discouraging image of young women attempting to “force” relationships out of random hook ups or, what seems even worse, allowing their male peers to get away with cheating (and other unacceptable behavior), simply because, in an environment where the datable men are far and few, “If you don’t let is slide, you don’t have a boyfriend” (Williams, 2010, p. ST1). Williams cites sociologist Kathleen A. Bogle’s interpretation of the impacts of this imbalance: “Women do not want to get left out in the cold, so they are competing for men on men’s terms,” she wrote. “This results in more casual hook-up encounters that do not end up leading to more serious romantic relationships. Since college women say they generally want ‘something more’ than just a casual hook-up, women end up losing out.” http://www.kathleenbogle.com/

While it is interesting to consider this perspective, I have found that there is a significantly larger number of factors playing into the situation that currently exists on a college campus such as Colgate. In response to the 2009 Campus Climate Survey, Colgate Sophomore Thomas Hedges recently wrote an incredibly controversial article titled “Sexploitation at Colgate” (Hedges, 2010) which detailed the unfortunate truths of the nature of “romantic” male and female interactions at Colgate. Hedges find that Colgate’s deeply rooted male chauvinist history—one that was late to admit females, minorities, and Jews—into its elite society, are at fault. Based on several interviews with female students, Hedges finds that Colgate is “male dominated” in the sense that men are in complete control of their interactions and relationships with their female peers.

http://www.maroon-news.com/commentary/sexploitation-at-colgate-1.1081493

In “Your Life as a Girl,” Curtis Sittenfeld indirectly alludes to the concept of a pre-college version hook up culture. In this case, Sittenfeld’s short story discusses the childhood and adolescence of a girl, plagued by constant male dominance and power and female inferiority (though often not explicit, but evident in all forms of daily life). In one section of the short story, Sittenfeld writes:

Friday night a boy next to you is feeling playful...The boy keeps saying he is in love with you. He rubs your shoulders and says ‘Your hair is magnificently soft,’ and everyone at the table cracks up. You say, ‘I forgot to wish you Happy Birthday yesterday,’ so he says, ‘Do it Now,’ and he sticks out his cheek for you to kiss. You say, ‘No way!’ You’re grinning ferociously, you’re practically hyper from the attention, and you think that if he offers you the option of kissing him, you couldn’t be that gross after all. And then on Saturday morning, when you pass in the hall, he looks at your exhaustedly and says not a word. (Sittenfeld, 2001).

While there is no sexual interaction involved in this situation, Sittenfeld lends insight to what may be the root of hook up culture; that women (and even girls) have been programmed to understand—and blindly accept—that men will always control the course of their interactions and relations. Much like the women in Williams’ article who live in a world where “men have the social power” and “create a man’s ideal of relationships,” (Williams, 2010, p. ST1) and the women at Colgate who say “The men control the hook-up culture. The guys have the power to change it to a dating culture. But they choose 
not to,” (Hedges, 2010) this young girl accepts this idea—that whatever future interactions may occur is not her decision but entirely left to the male’s desires and preferences—as truth, as the norm, and does not even bother to question that fact.

Williams does, however, make a valid case for how gender imbalance on college campus is certainly playing into and impacting the rise of hook up culture. Indeed, one girl claims: “If a guy is not getting what he wants, he can quickly and abruptly go to the next one, because there are so many of us” (Williams, 2010, p. ST1). This young woman’s realization is indicative of the fact that gender imbalance is certainly not helping the growing prevalence of hook up culture, but I believe that there is more fostering this phenomenon and that it is necessary to look deeper into its origins. If girls as young as those described by Sittenfeld are accepting that males are meant to dictate male/female interactions, that this is normal and a given, it is no wonder that women are engaging in repeated meaningless sex when, in actuality, they want more out of their relationships. Men perpetuate the trend, but so do women, by accepting that it is up to the men to change it.

Works Cited

Hedges, Thomas (2010, January 22). Sexploitation at Colgate. Colgate Maroon News.

Sittenfeld, Curtis (2001). Your Life as a Girl. In B. Findland (Ed.), Listen Up (pp. 3-10). Emeryville, CA: Seal Press.

Williams, A. (2010, February 5). The New Math on Campus. New York Times, p. ST1.

News Flash: “Want to Be Happily Married? Go to College”

http://www.newsweek.com/id/232864

The article in Newsweek entitled “Want to Be Happily Married? Go to College” by Pat Wingert and Barbara Kantrowitz discusses how in the past women who have pursued a higher education were less likely to get married than women who did not pursue a higher education. The authors explain that this is partly due to the fact that our society has continually endorsed the idea that women need to act less intelligent in order to win a man over. Much of the reason for this is due to the gender role ideology that has been endorsed in our country that suggests that men need to be in control of a relationship and need to dominate their wives. However, the article explains that we have seen a tremendous shift today, as women who pursue their education are no longer victims of this ideology. Women go to college and challenge this concept of male dominance in society. Although there are still many strides to be made in regards to attaining full equality for women, this shift can be seen as an instance where women have worked within the system to transform their role in society.

Wingert and Kantrowitz explain how the norm of society during the 1950’s was for women to achieve a “Mrs. degree” instead of a bachelor’s degree (Wingert & Kantrowitz 2010). The norm was for women to sacrifice the pursuit of an education and to commit to a life of domesticity. As Johnson points out in his article on patriarchy, everyone in society perpetuates this set of beliefs and values, and he claims that they are programmed into people (Johnson 29). Women often married for financial security because it was considered “normal” for her to be dependent on a man. Furthermore, women were not seen as capable of providing for themselves and people in society were programmed to view them as emotional beings that were less capable than men. This was reinforced when women who attended college were unable to find relationships with men and had a more difficult time in finding a husband because they were challenging these norms.

However, as time progressed, and as Betty Friedan points out in her article, many women who were not pursuing a higher level of education were often dissatisfied with their everyday lives and craved something more (Friedan 572). After years of sacrificing their goals and independence women began to yearn for a life of their own. Wingert and Kantrowitz explain that we have seen a major shift in gender role ideology today as more women than men attend institutions of higher learning, and the women that pursue their education are no longer the ones who are excluded from marriage. In fact, they are more likely to be married by the age of 40 than women who do not go to college, less likely to get a divorce, and report being more satisfied than women who do not attend college (Wingert & Kantrowitz 2010). This shift suggests that men are less reluctant to view women as equals today than they were in the 1950’s because they support women who attempt to establish their own identity in society. The women who attend college today are also more likely to marry for love and companionship than they are for financial security. This further highlights the shift in gender role ideology since women are now capable of developing their own lives independently.

This shift in perception of gender roles in society underscores how individuals can work within the system to implement change. In his article Johnson mentions that in order for a change in ideology to occur, people need to do things on an individual level to challenge the patriarchy. This is a clear example of how many women went against the path of least resistance and chose to pursue a higher level of education rather than to fall into the trap of acting less intelligent so that a man would marry and dominate them. It is through institutions that individuals can make a difference in how these gender roles are constructed. By using college as a place to foster their independence and to redefine their purpose in society, women were able to challenge the preexisting hierarchies that were already in place in society. Although this shift in ideology has taken many years and still has many years to go before women are completely seen as equal to men in terms of relationships, it shows how individuals can take action within the system. In order for this change to occur women had to resist the norms of patriarchy.

Susan Brownmiller may argue that it is impossible to make true change within the system because the system is inherently sexist. Although there has been a great shift in how women are viewed in relationships and their role in society has progressed towards being equal to the role of men, there is still evidence of patriarchy at work. For example, we have been programmed to view women as emotional and irrational in terms of decision-making. In the 2008 primaries Hillary Clinton was portrayed negatively by the media for tearing up in a coffee shop while talking to some of her supporters. The media claimed that this reinforced some of the doubts that voters had in voting for a woman because she would not be able to rationally separate her emotions from her policies. These norms are embedded in our culture and will re-surface no matter what. Furthermore, although women have access to this higher education and are attending college at higher rates than men are, they are still struggling for equal wages in the labor force. Brownmiller makes a valid point in stating that it is often hard to work within the system because the system was made according to these beliefs of patriarchy.

Finally, I think that it would be unrealistic to claim that just because women who attend college are now marrying at the same rate as women who do not attend college that they have transformed their gender role completely in society. Women are still discriminated against and the norms of patriarchy are still evident in marriage especially when looking at domestic violence and the expectations of gender roles. However, the article by Wingert and Kantrowitz shows that it is possible for individuals to work within the system by standing up against the path of least resistance and challenging the gender role ideology that is in place. Despite the arduous effort to change the values and beliefs that have been ingrained in all of us, things like this show that it is in fact possible.

Transformation of Silence, White Privilege, and On the Rag

Although all three of these readings are presented in a different context, I think that they all have an underlying theme and some important aspects in common. I think that in some way all of them touched on the things that go unsaid or unnoticed in society and how these things can provide us with obstacles for change. The White Privilege article deals with "unpacking the invisible knapsack" that whites have in our society and discusses how privilege can be taken for granted and assumed until people are made aware of the unfair advantage that it gives them. The Transformation of Silence article explains how once the woman found out that she had a certain time period to live she changed her life; she was no longer silent or afraid of what might happen if she spoke up, or to take Johnson's phrase, or if she went against "the path of least resistance." On the Rag also talked about how the group's failure to take unspoken individual differences and motives into account eventually led to its demise. While all of these authors were making their arguments in different contexts, I think that this notion of things that go unnoticed and unchallenged can represent the things that are causing obstacles for people in society. These readings also show how race can intersect with gender and how both racial minorities and women experience similar battles in society but with individual differences.

While reading the White Privilege article I thought of the discussion that I had in my Power, Politics, and Social Change class today. We talked about this topic of white privilege in relation to affirmative action and how whites often view affirmative action as a policy that is advantaging blacks while simultaneously disadvantaging whites. However, another way of looking at this is that affirmative action does not put whites at a disadvantage, it simply no longer provides them with the unfair advantage that they have been provided with throughout history--it removes their "invisible knapsack." This can be related to the movement for women's rights because policies that are "putting women at an advantage and putting men at a disadvantage" are simply just attempting to take away the automatic power, privilege, and control that men have fallen into just because of their sex.

Allan G. Johnson: "Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us"

In “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not an He, a Them, or an US,” Allan G. Johnson agues that everyone—males, females, sexual offenders, “model” citizens—are involved in the makeup of patriarchal societies “if only by our silence.” He claims that misogyny and patriarchal culture are so deeply embedded into our current society that we are not to solely blame the “offenders,” or active proponents of patriarchy, of our current societal makeup. Rather, all individuals in compliance with modern patriarchal norms are to blame—this extends to females as well, Johnson finds, which is an idea highly reminiscent of Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs. Johnson further argues that only way to correct this deeply fixed and flawed system is through the participation of all individuals, who must actively resist the established norms order to advance real change. While Johnson proposes this slightly vague analysis of how society might correct its patriarchal establishments, his argument is flawed in that it fails to provide a concrete solution with attainable goals—a flaw that, again, reminds us of Levy’s work.

Johnson emphasizes that patriarchal society is so deeply set that as individuals in society; we do not have a choice as to whether or not we participate in this “oppressive system;” instead, our only option is to direct how we participate. In reading this particular idea, I could not help but be reminded of Neuborne’s article in Listen Up, titled “Imagine My Surprise,” when she presents the concept of programmed objectification/female discrimination.

Levy, Johnson and Neuborne each present, more or less (and whether they intend to or not) a feminist platform that stresses the importance of working outside, not within the system (a dichotomy we discussed in class). However, each piece leaves us without a concrete plan of action, and I am hesitant to accept these approaches as a feasible solution to feminist issues today without a solution in sight.

Media Culture Project: Kim Poses for Playboy

http://watchnewepisodes.net/keeping-up-with-the-kardashians-birthday-suit-season-1-episode-4/

Ariel Levy, in her book Female Chauvinist Pigs, focuses on the intersection between two revolutionary movements – women’s liberation and sexual revolution – that have had a “tremendous impact on the reshaping of American womanhood” (53). In doing so, Levy spends considerable time discussing the ‘raunch culture’ that has emerged over the past decade and argues that the provocative behavior that girls and women have begun to take part in cannot be considered as liberating nor as the next phase of the women’s liberation movement. Amongst her many arguments, Levy specifically discusses how posing for men’s magazines such as Girls Gone Wild and Playboy and acting in porn videos have come to be viewed as ‘liberating’ activities and are considered by many to be a way of taking control of one’s womanhood and participating in the world as equals to men: the mind-set today is that women can go to the strip club and enjoy it – that if men can do it, so can women (31). For this project, I decided to look at a specific episode of Keeping Up with the Kardashians, a popular TV show that over 4 million viewers tune in for (not including syndication). In this episode, Kim struggles with the decision of whether or not to pose for Playboy, and the viewer is able to witness a rather frightening transformation from when Kim proclaims that she is “not comfortable taking [her] top off” (9:11) to the end of the episode when she explains that she is “so extremely happy that [she] ended up posing for the shoot” (20:22). I believe that Levy would argue that this occurrence perfectly shows how raunch culture is not being used as a form of female liberation, but rather as a “litmus test of female uptightness” (40).

The episode begins with Kim’s mother, Kris, telling Kim that Playboy called and they “really really really really really really” want her to pose for their annual December celebrity issue. While Kris clearly is excited by the prospect, telling Kim that it will be really “fun” and that it’s the December cover and a huge deal, Kim instead disagrees and tells the camera that she has to be really careful of how she is perceived, believing that “people are going to say all she’s good for is taking her clothes off, which is not something that [she] wants” (:58). After discussing the matter, Kim decides that she will do the shoot, but that “it has to be set in stone and in [her] contract that [she] won’t have to be nude” (4:05) It is clear from the beginning of the episode that Kim is strongly against taking her top off and not very excited at having to pose in the first place, so it makes the viewers wonder why by the end of the episode Kim decides to not only bare it all yet also proclaim to be so happy with her decision, telling an MTV reporter months later that posing for the magazine was “a really fun process for me.”

Levy explains, when describing raunch culture, that “the only alternative to enjoying Playboy… is being “uncomfortable” and “embarrassed” about [one’s] sexuality” (40). Although one can argue convincingly (simply from having watched the show) that Kim is in no way embarrassed by her sexuality, the entire build-up of the episode portrays her as being extremely difficult and conflicted (aided by a ridiculous host of sullen instrumental recordings in the background) until she finally decides to take her top off when she appears happy for the first time during the entire episode. For a large portion of the episode, we see Kim, even while at the photoshoot and in front of renowned photographers, saying ‘NO’ to all the requests to take her top off. The episode could have easily focused on Kim’s strong commitment to sticking with what she believes in, but instead it frames the issue as not having been resolved until Kim gives in to the demands of others while also proclaiming to “love” the process as well. While after watching the show just once on a random afternoon, the average viewer may remember the episode as Kim being conflicted at first but eventually making the ‘right’ decision to let loose, have fun, and pose for the magazine. However, it is difficult to come away with the same message after having viewed the episode several times.

On many occasions, it is made quite clear that Kim feels uncomfortable with taking her top off. In response to the requests of the photographers at her first shoot to undress, we witness her telling them that “I just don’t want to be so exposed in any of the shots (9:06) and “I’m not comfortable taking my top off (9:11), and finally telling her mother that she “needs someone to be like, no, she’s not taking it off. She’ll write you a check for double the money, and say fuck you and walk out of here” (9:36). Statements like these clearly show how Kim really feels on the matter, so why does she change her mind? Though Levy explains that some partake in these previously considered ‘demeaning’ activities either for the liberation or money, it obviously is for neither in Kim’s case. Throughout the entire episode, there are many people that encourage Kim to pose for the magazine, including her mom and sisters, who keep reiterating that being chosen to pose in Playboy was an honor and one that other strong, respectable women have accepted graciously before her. Even though Kim consults with a friend of hers (a Pussycat Doll) who warns her to “not show the goodies” (15:00), Kim eventually gives in to the overwhelming pressure to ‘get over her issues’ and ‘embrace’ her sexuality.

After the first photoshoot ends, Kim is rather annoyed with her mother for pushing her to consider taking her top off. She doesn’t think Kris has any idea how it feels to be in such a vulnerable position, so she decides to turn the tables and take Kris to a naked photoshoot of her own. Expecting to finally gain sympathy from her mother, Kim instead is shocked by her mother’s ease, telling the cameras that “I can’t believe my mom is so comfortable being naked” (13:40). Knowing that even her own mother finds posing naked to be a “blast,” we begin to see Kim considering that if her mother can do it, shouldn’t she be able to? This pressure is elevated once Kim goes and meets face-to-face with Hef after hearing that the magazine wants more skin. It is quite clear that the excitement of meeting such a ‘powerful’ and ‘influential’ man makes Kim verbally withhold her concerns about taking her top off even though when told by Hef that she is going to have to, she is visibly cringing (16:12). The final point of pressure that convinces Kim to give in is when Hef explains that Marilyn Monroe was the first December issue cover. The pressure of having her own mother comfortable with being naked and Hef ‘choosing’ her to be amongst the ranks of other famous and honorable women combines, and the frame closes by one of the male photographers leading Kim into the shooting room by holding her hand like a scared child (18:22).

Kim’s experience in this episode is exactly one that Levy would scream at. First, her statement to MTV saying that the shoot was a “really fun process” is completely absurd. Not only can the viewers easily see that the whole decision was quite difficult for Kim, but she even later admits that the photoshoot itself was in no way ‘fun’. In an interview with CW11’s Emily Francis, Kim had similar things to say about the shoot as Jenna Jameson did when reflecting on her early photoshoots for mainstream men’s magazines. Kim explained that posing was “very, very scary… you’re trying to hold your tummy in, keep your shoulders back, and still look cute and do everything at the same time.” Not “something you would do for fun,” Levy comments (43).

Secondly, Levy explains that if you partake in these ‘raunchy’ activities either for liberation purposes or for money, that it is fine as long as you know the real reasons why you are doing so. However, the problem, Levy points out, is this unspoken pressure that we witness in this episode that even celebrities can become victim of. The only family member who is against Kim posing in Playboy is Bruce, Kim’s stepfather, who at one point tells Kris that “it’s pretty scary that I am the only one to vote no on Kimberly doing Playboy,” adding, “please this is your daughter” (4:45). However, in the episode, Bruce is portrayed simply as being a hypocrite (having posed on the cover of Playgirl himself, though not naked) and being too old-fashioned. The family writes Bruce off as being too conservative (2:32), and as Levy explains, the only thing “worse than be objectified [is] being out of touch” (92). Therefore, Kim is forced to either side with her outdated stepfather and be perceived by the world as uptight, or go along with everyone else and let loose and have a ‘blast’ posing naked for the magazine.

The problem I believe Levy would have in this situation (which is in no way specific to just Kim) is that even though it is in fact the women in Kim’s life that are cheering her on to pose in the magazine (including her mother, sisters, and Hef’s girlfriends, Holly and Kendra), the real reasons she ends up doing so are for none other but a male dominated system. Though her mom at times tells her to do what she feels comfortable doing, most of the time the encouragement to do the photos is that they are going to be so ‘hot’ and ‘great’. But after having compromised her true feelings on the matter, and obviously having had no fun on the set, what is it that ends up being so great about the experience? Even more disheartening is hearing Kim in a recent interview, when asked whether she would pose for Playboy again, say that she would love to now that she is comfortable with doing so, but having a boyfriend now is what’s holding her back. I believe that Levy would argue that now, more than before, would be the appropriate time to do so if that is what she wants, but Kim’s comment about her boyfriend shows that the pictures in the magazine were never done for her, but solely for the male gaze and to be accepted into this world of raunch culture that we now live in.

It is entirely feasible that people may easily attack this analysis on the sole basis that the show is considered to be entirely scripted and thus maybe Kim’s hesitance was a complete act; however, I believe, and I presume that Levy would as well, that regardless of how true the episode was, it is still responsible for perpetuating a male dominant world for several reasons. First, it shows viewers (many of whom are young girls) that it is ok to completely be pushed out of one’s comfort zone, and that they will be happier for doing so in the end! In an interview with the The New York Daily News, Kim explained that she posed for the magazine “because I'm not one of those stick-skinny girls you see. I felt like girls today need to see a normal body” and when Sean Hannity’s asked whether or not she viewed herself as a role-model, she exclaimed, “Definitely!” Yet these reasons are never conveyed during episode and in reality, how many young girls are picking up a copy of Playboy to begin with? However, the most frightening part of this entire incident is that after being assured that all her parts were going to be covered once the pictures were taken and printed, the final photos (which E! fails to mention) are in fact not “classy” and “covered”; the photos show every single last bit of her. And whether or not this is because Kim is in fact an amazing actress and faked the entire episode, what remains is that the cycle of perpetuating ‘raunch culture’ for the male, and not the women, continues.

In our recent readings from Ariel Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs, we have been encouraged to consider the female sex symbols of our generation, or those who appear to embody the recent female descent into “raunch culture.” Levy’s book presents the obvious examples of Jenna Jameson, Paris Hilton, and the various women of Girls Gone Wild—women who have, in turn, generated our own discussions of their more current parallels, such as Heidi Montag. Throughout our various discussions of these emblems of modern “raunch culture,” I feel as though we have failed to address one, or rather, a few noteworthy characters—The Kardashian Sisters. The Kardashian sisters epitomize Levy’s painting of the female chauvinist pig, “women who make sex objects of other women and themselves” (Levy, 4). I intend to analyze one particular episode of Keeping Up With the Kardashians, entitled “Brody In the House,”

http://watchnewepisodes.net/keeping-up-with-the-kardashians-brody-in-the-house/

which presents repeated examples of how Kim, Kourtney Khloe and even Kris (their mother) Kardashian can be reduced to yet a few more statistics to support Levy’s claims regarding the new, “raunch” cultural norms and the emergence of the “female chauvinist pig.”

In her alternative feminist work, Levy argues that whereas women are claiming to experience power and liberation through the sexual revolution, this movement into the raunch culture is simply a coping mechanism for female objectification. An examination of this particular episode through Levy’s perspective indicates that the Kardashians are, indeed, a prime example of this particular means of coping with female subordination. However, while the Kardashians—as well as the many other well-researched examples provided by Levy’s work—do support Levy’s theory, she leaves us less convinced as to whether the average American women finds raunch culture liberating and is behaving as “female chauvinist pigs” in the context of daily life.

Levy dedicates a large portion of her text to this notion of “Tomming,”(Levy, 106) a an idea that originated through the work of author Mary C. Henderson used to describe the coping mechanism employed by minority groups in order to deal with their objectification or suppression. The term, which refers to the character of Uncle Tom in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s renowned work Uncle Tom’s Cabin, can apply to female behavior in the modern raunch culture; Levy argues that women cope with male objectification by either assuming the role of the male, and objectifying other females, or taking on the role of objectified female themselves. For women, argues Levy, this entails “either acting like a cartoon man - who drools over strippers , says things like ‘check out that ass,’ and brags about having the ‘biggest cock in the building’—or acting like a cartoon woman, who has big cartoon breasts, wears little cartoon outfits and can only express her sexuality by spinning around a pole” (Levy, 107)

Indeed, an examination of the Keeping up with the Kardashian episode “Brody in the House,” through the context of Levy’s argument indicates that the Kardashian women are “Tomming” by behaving in both objectifying and objectified manners. The episode details Kim, Khloe, and Kourtney’s photoshoot for the Girls Gone Wild brand of swimwear, as well as Kris Kardashian and Bruce Jenner’s (their parents) debate as to whether or not the girls should participate in the shoot.

The Kardashian Sisters at the Girls Gone Wild Photoshoot

Kourtney, Khloe and Kim assume the roles of the “cartoon woman,” as described by Levy, throughout this episode. Upon learning about their potential appearance in a shoot for Girls Gone Wild from their close friend and GGW producer (often referenced in Levy’s work) Joe Francis, the girls’ immediate reaction is an enthusiastic “Yayyy!!!!!” much like the eager GGW participants described in the opening chapter of Levy’s work. Without question, the three Kardashian sisters are on board for this shoot. There is no evident motivation behind their enthusiasm—no money or personal gain—aside from the “brand” (Levy, 9) of Girls Gone Wild. Not only do the girls agree to the GGW shoot without any visible motivation, but the Kardashian sisters endure significant discomfort in order to perform the role of Levy’s female chauvinist pig, the woman who says “Why worry about disgusting or degrading when you could be giving… a lap dance yourself? Why try to beat them when you can join them?” (Levy, 93). When they receive the news about the shoot, one sister replies, “as soon as I get a bikini wax I’m on board”—a comment that is not to far from Levy’s description of skyrocketing surgical procedures/bodily transformations and manicuring that has accompanied the rise raunch culture. Moreover, the entire duration of the shoot is portrayed as a miserable process; the girls are incredibly uncomfortable and unhappy, as the uptight stylist, Amy Paige, demands that they have not yet achieved “the billboard look.” Levy draws upon several examples of female models and porn stars who have expressed the similar discomforts of this industry, pointing once again to this notion that there appears to be no possible benefit in sight to the sisters’ “performance.”

In a similar vein, Kris Kardashian and Amy Paige play the alternative role in this “Tomming” scheme; the role of the objectifying woman, “the cartoon man” (Levy, 107). Kris not only encourages her daughters to pose in the magazine, but deliberately lies to her husband—and Kim, Kourtney and Khloe’s stepfather—Bruce Jenner about the shoot, knowing that he will disapprove. When Bruce does find out and arrives at the scene, she accuses him of being old-fashioned and conservative, and assures him that the girls have behaved in a classy manner throughout the day. According to Levy’s argument, Kris, like several female chauvinist pigs, has chosen to out-do her male counterpart in assuming the more masculine, objectifying role of the two. By being more sexually liberal, more raunchy than her husband and approving of the objectification of her own daughters, Levy might argue, Kris is avoiding her own subordination and feeling as though she has gained some sort of feminine power.

Amy Paige, is in some way, the ultimate FCP: she assumes the dual role of objectifying woman, who can also be objectified herself. Throughout the duration of the episode, Amy marches around the shoot in a skimpy bikini as she directs the three Kardashian sisters to pose in a more or less erotic fashion. Amy embodies Levys’ description of the ultimate FCP:

“So to really be like men, FCPs have to enjoy looking at those women, too. At the same time, they wouldn’t mind being looked at themselves. The task then is to simultaneously show that you are not the same as the girly-girls in the videos and the Victoria’s secret catalogs, but that you approve of men’s appreciation for them, and that possible you too have some of that same sexy energy and underwear underneath all your aggression and wit. A passion for raunch covers all the bases” (Levy, 99).

There is no denying that the various characters in this particular episode are virtually cookie cutter images of the FCPs described by Levy. But just as we look at Jenna Jameson, Paris Hilton, Heidi Montag, and now The Kardashians, we must first consider whether or not this is real life, or merely a product of the warped entertainment industry of today. The faces of raunch culture desire money and fame, not the advancement of female power. While Levy offers countless examples of women in the media “selling out” (even female athletes and newscasters), we should ask ourselves if this is really a problem of American society, or a problem of American media. Is the average female seeking power by engaging in this “Tomming” behavior, or can this simply be a matter of the sad but undeniable fact that sex sells.

Media Culture Project

Beyonce-If I Were a Boy

Britney Spears-Toxic

Ariel Levy’s book entitled Female Chauvinist Pigs views sex and gender roles in society from a unique perspective due to the fact that Levy discusses the role that women have in perpetuating stereotypes and sexism. Levy makes a very convincing argument stating that although women who take part in raunch culture claim to do so because it is liberating, it is actually perpetuating sexism in society and keeping men in the dominant role. She also argues that when women attempt to take part in male culture by “becoming one of the guys,” they are actually doing more harm than good because they simultaneously rejecting femininity. For this assignment I chose to compare two music videos, Beyonce’s music video for “If I Were a Boy” and Britney Spears’s music video for “Toxic.” I argue that both of these videos can fit into Levy’s argument that she makes in Female Chauvinist Pigs, but they do so in very different ways. Beyonce questions the gender roles that are in place in society by urging women to challenge their role in relationships by taking part in male culture while Britney Spears takes the raunch culture approach and attempts to appear as a sexually liberated woman.

Beyonce’s music video shows the role reversal of a man and a woman who are in a relationship and briefly gives the viewer insight into the expectations and gender roles that are assigned and expected of people in relationships in today’s society. Beyonce begins the video by listing words such as “intimacy,” “honesty,” and “commitment,” which are all thought of as common aspects of an enduring relationship. The video then shows the dichotomy of perceived gender roles in a relationship, however Beyonce plays the man and her boyfriend plays the woman. The lyrics of the song are all about how men who are in relationships are having a completely different experience than women are; men are in control, have power over women, and are able to “get away” with things that women are not able to. Beyonce switches the roles to accentuate this polarity between the gender roles and to bring attention to the fact that women are being treated differently. She serves as a role model in the video when she is “the man” by acting independent and standing up for herself, but as the video shows, at the end of the day regardless of how much women act like men they are still women. The role reversal in the video urges women to take a stand and to challenge the pre-existing role that they are supposed to play in a relationship.

One aspect of Levy’s argument in her book is that as soon as women agree to take part in this male culture they are embracing masculinity and are devaluing the behaviors that are traditionally associated with femininity. Although the video shows Beyonce urging women to become more “masculine” in a relationship and portrays her rejecting the idea of “femininity” in a relationship, I think in this case it is positive and that Levy would agree. I think that Levy would say that this video is empowering for young women to see because it does call for a change in the structure of society and urges woman to correct the fact that they sometimes do take a secondary role to men, especially in relationships. The music video and the lyrics of the song definitely bring up issues of the longing that some women may have for the power and control that men are inherently given in a relationship because society has always been that way. This made me immediately think of Levy’s argument about “being one of the guys” and why so many women strive to be the “honorary man.” By stepping into this male culture, women are able to gain back some of the dominance that is often lost in society and it allows them to feel as though they have some control. I think that although Levy might argue that videos like these may tempt women to fall into this trap of acting like men and leaving their womanhood behind, it can seen as a positive thing in this case because Beyonce is an artist who is known to still embrace her feminine side.

To contrast this music video, I also looked at Britney Spears’s video for her song “Toxic,” which I think relates extremely well to another aspect of Levy’s argument. To me, this video embodies the raunch culture that Levy is discussing. I think that Britney Spears attempts to portray herself as a sexually liberated female in the video, and this is the goal of raunch culture, however I am in agreement with Levy in the fact that this is doing more harm than good for our society. I do not think that Britney Spears rolling around on the ground essentially naked (minus a few sequins covering her breasts) is empowering, liberating, or helpful for women who are looking to achieve equality. I think that videos like these delegitimize the attempt to be seen as sexual in a positive way, which is how men are linked with sexuality, and I think that if anything it is perpetuating female objectification.

Some scenes in the music video show Britney Spears dressed as a superwoman who is in control and liberated from male domination, but then these scenes are undermined by her rolling around naked on the floor right after. I think that Levy would agree that this falls into the category of raunch culture and is seen as part of the movement to redefine sexuality by giving women more control over it, but like Levy I think that men who are watching this are not exactly getting this message. This is similar to the women that Levy interviews who pose in Playboy, and how they claim to feel empowered by posing naked, however as we discussed in class men are not doing the same; we do not see men possessing this urge to be in Playgirl because they want to feel empowered. The same is true for these music videos. Male artists are not required to roll around naked on the floor with sequins barely covering their genitals in order to be successful.

I think that these two music videos deal with two different aspects of Levy’s book, but they are both related because they can both have an impact on how women think and act in society. On one hand Britney Spears is taking the raunch culture approach and attempting to urge women to take hold of their sexuality and use it in a way that has never been used before, and on the other hand Beyonce is urging women to take part in this male culture by rejecting the role that is often ascribed to women in society. I think that Beyonce’s video is a more effective approach in attempting to redefine gender roles in society and will be more beneficial in causing women to change for the better. I am not suggesting that Beyonce is the new Betty Friedan or the new Ariel Levy, however I do think that it is important to realize that such a successful artist in the music business is able to rise to the top of the industry by taking a different approach to these issues other than raunch culture.