Cynthia Enloe’s piece “Being Curious about Our Lack of Feminist Curiosity,” displays her rationale for the reasoning of why women have shown little feminist curiosity. Enloe goes on to inform the reader that such explanatory variables regarding this lack of curiosity, include laziness, lack of motivation, distractions involving other focuses in life, etc.She also explains how cultural and “traditional” practices deter women from engaging in this curiosity. I personally believe her piece which displays her own experiences of laziness makes her argument much stronger. This enables the female readers to relate or kind of believe that her theory is sound. She offers up to the reader some possible solutions to this laziness, which I believe many of the past authors we have read did not propose enough of. Following her argument she attempts to shed light on the way women should try to explore all forms of patriarchy and seek change.
In our other reading from Enloe “The Surprised Feminist,” she begins her chapter stating that, “Predicting nevr had been my professional vocation,” which I perceive as a weak way to start a novel. However, when I continued reading I began to see how she strongly presents her book. As always, I have a few objections, but they are not large enough to be discussed in this post. Her take on the “Nike Indonesian women sneaker-factory workers,” brought me back to the lessons of a month ago in class. However, showing these hard working women in-a-way takes away the power and legitiamacy of her other chapter, “Being Curious about Our Lack of Feminist Curiosity.” Enloe argument moves in the direction which depicts her biased opinion on the matter as well.
All three readings for today celebrates women's activism in the world and presents only a small portion of the women's role in instigating social change. I felt the three authors joined hands together in activism, be it political, social or religious. I got a sense that their desire to become social activist was mainly sparked by a sort of almost life changing incident during their lives - a friend's comment, their upbringing, or the classes they took in college.
Atenello's "Leading Outside of One's Community" presented some of the more striking ideas to me, mainly because I grew up Honduras and was in touch with the realities of Latina women, like the ones Atenello organized and led. I empathized the internal conflicts she experienced at some point during her activist role in Unidad de New Brunswick. Her interactions with the Latino women reminded me of my first semester at Colgate when I decided to volunteer for the Mohawk Valley Latino Association, an organization that celebrates hispanic heritage. Their mission is to educate community members and immigrate, and to improve their lives conditions. I signed up for this program mainly because I closely identified myself with the community in terms of race and language. Would I have done it otherwise if I didn't speak Spanish or grew up in Honduras? I would like to believe I would have done so, despite the differences I would encounter. I loath the fact that Atenello suggested that she couldn't play a leadership among these women because she did not identify herself with them at any level: race, language, ethnicity, class status or education. She said, "I have no shared experiences to connect me to those needs, I was unfit to serve as a leader." To support her argument she explained, "I was reproducing exploitative power structures by acting as a white, educated authority speaking for a minority group." For some reason, I get the feeling that she wouldn't have said the same thing had she been presented with the actual agenda she thought she was going to get: Be the leader of Unidad de New Brunswick in order to combat rape and address Latina women's lack of resources...food for thought indeed.
One of the most disturbing experiences that any human being could encounter is rape. According to Dictionary.com, rape is defined as the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. Essentially this means the act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. What is interesting about this definition is that it implies that women are always the victims and cannot rape men. Most people in society agree with the general definition and that rape is unacceptable but problems arise when the woman becomes pregnant as a rape victim. Many would think that out of all cases, the only acceptable time to have an abortion would be when it comes to rape or if the mother’s health was in jeopardy. Without a question, the mother should be able to have a choice in these situations if she would like to have her baby. In most instances this has been the case, but recently Republicans are looking to make this change in order to save a few bucks. The government has been able to manipulate the definition of rape so that the only rape that Medicaid would cover would be “forcible rape” indicating that statutory rape or “date rape” would not count. Due to the new definition of rape one can argue that this new law will prevent many women from being able to have an abortion. A newspaper article in “The BG News” titled New Definition of rape to limit women’s access to abortion by columnist Kate Noftsinger that was written this past February does a good job explaining the new definition of rape that the government is trying to implicate. Essentially, the government is basically re-defining the words of something that was originally self-explanatory. According to data collected in 2007, nearly 12.6 million women (approx 61.6 percent) of adult female Medicaid enrolees were of the childbearing age. Looking at this number, none of these women have legal rights to have an abortion unless they are able to pay for the procedure out of their own pocket. This means that Medicaid does not pay for any sort of abortion. The legislative branch believed that this was too harsh and that Medicaid can still be used for abortion when it comes to rape, incest or to save the mother’s life. To any civilized person, this would seem more than reasonable. The article argues though that if you are a woman that is dependent on the government, you do not have the right to choose unless you are a victim of a crime or if the baby is causing harm to your own health. The bigger issue here is the fact that statutory rape would not be covered and that for incest victims, coverage would only be provided to those who were under the age of 18 years old. What does this imply? That since the victim is over 18 it is not considered bad because they might get pleasure out of it? This sounds ridiculous because incest is incest. Why is age a factor here? But then you begin to realize their main motive. Money. People who are over the age of 18 years old have a greater chance of earning enough money to pay for an abortion on their own if needed. Thus, less need to spend taxpayers money on abortion. Due to these changes, many women that are on government help may not be able to have an abortion. The wording of the new definition of rape is tricky to evaluate because there is no set in stone way of determining if a certain rape instance applies or meets the new criteria. How is “forcible rape” determined? If you asked a person on the street what rape was, probability suggests most would agree with the dictionary definition that rape is the act of having sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. Others would agree that statutory rape is definitely considered rape and should be a part of the abortion act. This is very disturbing and many people that are pro-abortion and pro-choice are not impressed with statutory rape being removed from Medicaid. Personally, removing this type of rape from the abortion act boggles my mind because the victim is not even fully conscious of the event. The victim has been drugged with some illegal substance and has been taken advantage of, and in the end if she becomes pregnant it’s her responsibility to either pay for the abortion, have and raise the baby, or put it up for adoption. The article argues that since the definition is so problematic and if this term is allowed to impact legislation, than only a fourth of these rape crimes would qualify to receive proper legal and medical attention. Noftsinger argues that this is unjust and that every victim deserves to be handled with care. An interesting statistic found by the National Center for Victims of Crime, suggests that 77% of all rapes are acquaintance rapes indicating that women are mostly being raped by people that they know. Also, the article further indicates that these rapes are hardly ever reported to the police. This idea is very scary and makes women always alert. Susan Brownmiller in Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape states that women are trained to be rape victims and that unless we watch our steps it might become our destiny (EFR, 313). Ironically, Brownmiller argues that there is no such thing as forcible rape. She believes that due to the notion that men rape in the name of their masculinity, they believe that women also want rape done in the name of their femininity (EFR, 314). This idea suggests that no women can be raped against her will implying that there is no such thing as forcible rape. Thus, if there is no such thing as forcible rape then the new definition of rape would not be valid. In the end, in order for women to be able to make changes they have to stand up for their own rights. In 1971, a group of 343 French women announced publicly that they all have had an abortion and that they demand the right to free abortions for every woman (EFR, 357). In order for the new definition to be changed, women need to protest like those in 1971 so that those in power do not take away anymore of our rights.
After reading the articles and readings for today’s class it really made me wonder how I would feel if I was an Arab, South Asian, or Muslim American and experience the increase of hatred that has risen since 9/11 towards this race. I feel that a lot of white Americans take their freedom for granted and do not understand or realize some of the social and cultural pains that some immigrants face. It blew my mind when Ibrahim wanted to interview five young Iraqis and believed that this process was not going to be an issue. She soon found out that because she is now an American most people viewed her as an outsider and not an “authentic” Iraqi. The reason why these candidates were hesitant to participate was because they did not understand Ibrahim’s motivation for conducting these interviews and they felt that their safety could be jeopardized. Being an international student myself, even though I am only from Canada, I could not even image how it would feel to go back to your homeland and be rejected by people of your own kind and nationality let alone how it would feel to be rejected by people of other nationalities. It frustrates me that after 9/11 there has become this norm and racial stereotype towards Arabs. It is outrageous how Ibrahim was held in customs for six hours and asked questions about things such as her thoughts or view of the Iraq war. What does this have to do with customs? Personally, this is disturbing especially because she considers herself an American, and that her home is in New Jersey not in a foreign country.
The article depicts the peculiar hardships women have to go through at war. Having read the report, it seems to me like women couldn’t spend a day on base without being propositioned by some men or provoked with sexual remarks, causing endless distress. All complaints were useless because they fell on deaf ears. Is this the inevitable consequence of training young men and women to be as aggressive as possible and putting them together in close quarters under stressful circumstances? Does this mean the military is a reflection of our society, where the best and worst is brought out in men? I dare not assume that this is the case. However, I do agree with one particular comment in the article: Women serving in the military isn't the problem (and neither are homosexuals who serve). The problem is adults who can't take responsibility for their poor behavior. To a certain degree, the military is a reflection of society. Afterall, the military is a gathering a civilians, people that come from a civilian life and are as apt to sexually assault or harass someone. Yet, for some reason I am not willing to buy this story entirely. It is hard for me to think that this military command, an institution of high integrity, would tolerate sexual assault or sexual harassment. Are we unfairly besmirching the military? Of particular interest is the case of CPT White. She is a Captain who reported being harassed by a Warrant Officer. Although I have no doubt that women like her can be a subject of sexual assault in the military, there is also a possibility that women recognize and use their sexuality to move to higher ranks. Yet, this side of the story is not frequently heard of either.
In Chapter 8 of “The Curious Feminist” we see that soldier’s sexuality is determined by their uncontrollable drives and that ultimately if their sex drives are not met their fighting effectiveness becomes jeopardized. One can argue that this idea supports why the commander of Borislav Herak unit ordered his soldiers to rape and murder women. At first It really amazed me how this semi normal person who basically just had an interest in looking at pornography and no passion towards politics or his country end up in the militia. The dialogue of Borislav Herak in chapter 7 along with the statistic that during the 1991-93 war in Yugoslavia between three thousand and thirty thousand women were raped by male combatants blew my mind away. In the interview Borislav reveals that he committed 16 cases of sexual abuse on other women. He argued throughout the interview that he did feel guilty for completing these crimes but that he was ordered to do so and in the end it was for the best interest for the soldiers to gain a scene of morale. Raping these women gave these men a sense of power and masculinity that they used on the battlefields. In the end, it is ironic because Borislav argued that he completed the crimes because he felt like he did not have a choice. He was forced to abuse these women with the threat of being sent to the worst front line or even possibly jail. Ironically, this was not good for Borislav’s morale because at the end of the day he was still sent to the front lines. He further argued that the best boost for his morale or felt the most connected to the other soldiers was when they all ate and drank together.
It is not “our youth” or “our teens, it’s our sons,” are you kidding me Gloria Steinem? Although I cannot truly think of a school shooting or bombing that involves our daughters, would she like a tour of a women’s prison? I am sure she will come across plenty of mixes of daughters and youths, that instead of being obedient to the laws of our country decided to shoot, stab, bomb, etc. biased-biased-biased! This article is another example of a feminist activist who instead of utilizing proper rhetoric and passing a strong message without providing information which includes biased opinion and slanders the male gender, in this world we have racism and reverse-racism, in this case instead of sexism we have reverse sexism.
Personal concerns that I have regarding the activists who wrote these past two articles (last rape article/Supremacy Crime) involve their committing of the same discriminatory injustices on men which they preach immediate diminishment for against women, is it wrong to suggest hypocrisy? If Gloria Steinem believes that all these crimes are committed because heterosexual men want to show that, “I am superior because I can kill.” Perhaps she should consult a psychotherapist who focuses on the criminal mind. Her examples regarding murder are disgusting men who committed horrible unlawful acts against women, but the common theme derived here is a slandering of an entire gender and I will not stand for it. Although, Steinem goes on to ‘cover her back,’ if you will, by stating that “men of color and women,” can also commit these crimes, the fact that her onset of this piece involves the entire male gender does not escape my attention.
I feel like the reason I get so worked up over this whole situation is because when I was in the military I learned a very particular skill, if you will, that I will carry with me for a very long time in my life. That being said, this ‘skill’ is being able to tell someone “i have a problem with you,” for lack of a more slanderous term involving two words that are not appropriate for writing a blog post, the two words have four letters in the first words and three in the second (I think we see where I am going here), in a very educated or respectful rhetoric. Therefore, if these female activists can pass their message on with statistics involving the majority of murders, which consequently provide a stronger background to the stories in their articles (more than four), than perhaps I would consider their case or argument as scholarly and true. In other words, do a little more research. Steinem’s piece has way to many suppose for me to handle, therefore, Gloria “suppose” you attempted to pass your message with facts backed by actual statistics of your case, here is one answer for you, yes there have been dozens of cases simply through my research following this read. Below I have provided a few cases involving these threats made by women on schools.
Following my research of about an hour at most I was able to find these cases….
“Fla. Woman arrested for threatening schools- Some 300 Broward County schools, with about 275,000 students, were placed on lockdown when an email said “something big” would happen at a government building in Broward County, maybe a school”
I understand I might seem a bit dramatic about my response to Steinem. However, after reading these past two articles for today and Tuesday, one can only take so much….
I posted this Monday evening I do not know why it was taken down...
Patrick Campbell
In Susan Brownmiller’s piece “Against Our Will; Men Women and Rape,” she states that “A world without rapists would be a world in which women move freely without fear of men.” That being said, I believe that this quote is a bit far-fetched, especially because of the numerous cases involving men’s cultural practices which impede on women’s lifestyles that do not involve sexual activity. Do not get me wrong I completely agree rape is horrible and criminals should be prosecuted at the highest levels. Personally I would break a man in half if I ever witnessed rape or heard of a man speaking in regards to committing such a disgusting inhumane action.
Rape is disgusting in all manners and is never a justifiable act. However, the way Brownmiller expels some of her arguments are a bit of her own biased opinion on the matter. Suggesting that the majority of men consider rape to be “a woman’s fault” throws me for a loop. When a man is born with a larger build muscularly and skeletally, it is not rational to suggest that rape could be considered as a women’s fault because these simple genetics and physics, enables the sick and twisted rapists to impose their will against women because of physics. For the smaller population of fault displacing men I would suggest punishment at the highest levels without any chance at bail or parole.
How does silencing work? It robs people of ideas and stifle their voices. Silencing can be expressed in many ways. The worst way to silence someone is by not taking their speech seriously. The author draws a comparison with the experience of professors in a classroom and that of political actors in a country, particularly Asian democratizing countries. One of the central themes revolve around the idea that what is personal becomes political. For instance, a woman giving a public discourse challenges the so-called authority of gender-policing concept. Because of her gender (personal), a woman’s ideas on political issues cannot be taken seriously given that it is not respectable for a woman to participate in the public spheres. The question to ask is, what is respectable? Who decides what is respectable? Do you think that women nowadays still feel in some extents, silenced because their actions might still be deemed “unrespectable” or “undesirable” in the eyes of the public? Only by understanding to what degree our opinions and voices are silenced can we finally realize what are the things we trivialize - such as with violence against women.
When I first started reading Susan Brownmiller’s piece on “Against our Will: Men, Women, and Rape” I thought that this chapter was going to be a very sensitive one that would make me feel uncomfortable but instead it kind of frustrated me. I feel that her points and comments go too far to some extent and she makes the whole male population look like “terrorist guerrillas”. Brownmiller seems to contradict herself because she states that she believes that rape was not a feminist issue but an individual crime. Throughout this chapter we see evidence of her arguing that the threat of rape supports male dominance by keeping women in fear and also reliant on protecting themselves from the opposite sex. The first opening paragraph is very strong and implies that males use their genitalia as a weapon and that ultimately because of the fear of rape all women have this embedded intimidation towards all men. I do not agree with this statement as I am a woman and do not have these feelings towards ALL men as stated. Brownmiller argues that a world without rapists would be a world in which women moved freely without fear of men. What also frustrates me is how many people feel the need to critique and analyze fairy tales or Disney movies and try to convince the general public that there are hidden meanings throughout the story lines. I can see where Brownmiller is coming from when analyzing Little Red Riding Hood, but can’t decide if I agree with if I feel the theme of rape is trying to be portrayed by the original author of the fairy tale.
At the onset of the course, I informed Professor Simonson and the class that I come from a very patriarchal background, due to the fact that I have four brothers and two male dogs. That being said it is fundamental to suggest that the world of Women’s Studies and feminism was a completely original experience for me. During one of our earlier classes we discussed what the class’s visual perception was of a typical feminist. Responses varied and included stereotypes such as, women with cut-off t-shirts, cut jeans, lesbians, short hair, and a few others. This assignment focuses on our ability to apply our studies thus far to a media “object.” Although the example I am using for this assignment may appear as questionable, due to the way society views this show, South Park is a very relevant media “object” which depicts many of the mal-practices and abuse of men towards women of today’s society through popular culture. The makers of South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, utilize this show to illustrate their educated beliefs regarding all modern things of the world today (wars, popular culture, celebrities, politics, economics, race, feminism, etc.). However, many of the methods they carry out to convey these personal beliefs are very questionable, unorthodox, and has caused for some serious objection in today’s popular culture. This paper will analyze two of these very questionable examples regarding Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s production methodology.
As previously noted, at the beginning of this course we discussed what/how the class stereotypically perceived a feminist in today’s world. Besides the lesbian response, which was so fundamentally prominent, we saw an array of visual descriptions which is a way the complete contradiction of what a man would perceive their ideal women as, if you will. The South Park episodes “D-Yikes! and Stupid Spoiled Whore” all are very relevant media “objects” in today’s world. Parker and Stone address the issues we have discussed in class involving the few listed above and the way celebrities and the way they dress ultimately effect the youths of our female population. However, as previously noted, their methodology may appear largely extreme with the way they attack these issues.
In the episode “Stupid Spoiled Whore’” there is a young feminist in the show, and her name is Wendy Testaburger. In Wendy’s school there is a large trend change that is occurring, following the high popularity of the celebrity “Paris Hilton.” The show depicts Paris as a traveling celebrity who preaches things to young girls like, “what’s more to life than partying, I’m pleased to be here in Gouth Dark to announce the opening of my new store, a store where girls can buy everything they need to be just like me-a Stupid Spoiled Whore.” Like I said, there methods are extreme, but they are shedding light on the fact that little girls are being corrupted and dressing far beyond their years, due to the celebrities and what is considered cool or hip. Which is proven when Wendy turns to her parents and says, “Mom, Dad, I’m growing concerned about the role models young women have in today’s society.” That example including the feminist response from Wendy, sounds just like Susan Douglas in her piece “Sex ‘R’ Us.” Especially when Susan illustrates that “young women” felt that they “were suppose to dress like call girls and had to start doing this at an even younger age.” That being said, it is rationale to suggest that Parker and Stone clearly passed the message to their viewers of this concern in today’s popular culture. Celebrities like Paris Hilton need to understand that their actions and way they go about behaving, consequently influences the youth of our nation in a bad manner. In other words, I perceive these celebrities as advertisers, because they are exuding what they stand for and suggesting that it is the correct or best way for people to handle their lives, so how can we blame the youth when they are the ones who are being exposed to this on a daily basis. Therefore, I completely agree with Gloria Steinem when she states that, “advertisers-not readers-have always been the problem.”
"South Park's creators actually get and love the subcultures they lampoon. The amazing thing about this week'sSouth Parkis how detailed the observation was. The lesbian bar was a classic — it was clearly created by people with actual and acute knowledge of what lesbian bars are like — and there were many hilarious shades of recognizable dykiness in the cartoon figures. In fact, this week's episode was a landmark in mainstream depiction of lesbianism. It didn't rely on any hoary stereotypes that spring from ignorance and fear; it created stereotypes based on knowledge and fondness."—After Ellen Website
The South Park episode “D-Yikes” fundamentally originated from the word dyke.There is another point in the episode where we see this play on words, if you will, the bar pronounced by the characters as “Laa Bose” is actually spelled outside the bar as “Les Bos,” which happens to be a slang word for lesbians. This episode starts off by portraying Mr. Garrison; who recently has a sex change to a female named “Janet,” as a moody, short-tempered, emotional roller coaster. This was the creators’ way of poking fun at a female’s physical battles during her menstrual cycle, enter another group of men slandering women for something that they cannot control. Another example of slander occurs when the characters enter the lesbian bar. However, this slander does not include language or lingo it is a visual slandering of women. As they enter the bar I realized that every single description we stated in class regarding the stereotypical feminist came out through the physical features of all the women in the bar. Including larger butch women with wife beaters on, short militant haircuts, cut up jeans etc. Due to Susan Douglas’s high focus and interest in popular culture, I personally believe that she would be furious at this South Park episode but on the other hand, would be able to see the big picture which is depicted in the “Stupid Spoiled Whore” episode. That is said because in a way, Susan Douglas condones the active sexy female character in feminism, but she would definitely disagree with the character “Paris Hilton’s” behavior.
All in all, there are many episodes and instances throughout the life of South Park that call for serious objection and attention. Women and feminist activists across the globe have voiced their disagreements and objections regarding to the way these creators perceive women and slander them throughout the years. Although it is rationale to object to their methodology in most cases, if people wold open up their eyes a bit more they would be able to see the true picture that these geniuses are trying to portray. That is not to say that Parker and Stone do not simply make episodes just to slander and make fun of people, because that is what they are best at. However, when there is a true message behind their episode, they consistently paint a clear picture for the viewers to witness because it has a significant value to American society. As states, their description and methodology seem radical, but it must be promising for some feminists to see two influential men creating episodes on one of the best shows in the country, involving such topics that are of concern to the female and feminist community.
Both episodes are available on the website SouthparkStudious.com
.The Shallow Lesbian Dating Pool and the Lesbian Bar:Most of the women at the "girl bar" (which is called "Les Bos," ha ha) have slept with each other. And most of them have bad haircuts and listen to "Closer to Fine" when they drink beer — and to "Come to My Window" when they kiss. In the ladies' room.
Crenshaw's essay " Mapping the Margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color" was an interesting read. Intersectionality, a feminist theory that studies the relationships among different social relationships and their inherent multiple dimensions, is coined by her. Crenshaw suggest that we should study social inequality not as a independent phenomenon, but rather, as a system constructed by categories such as gender, race, class, etc that are socially and culturally different. The multiple interactions and simultaneous exchange of information between these different categories is what creates a system of oppression.
I thought the example she gave of the latino battered woman who ran away from her husband in search of a safe shelter best exemplifies the complexities of intersectionality. The woman, despite being in a desperate condition and living literally in the streets with her son, was refused a shelter in the organization because she could not speak english and therefore would be of not use amongst the group of women. Even though the son could have translated for her, the "rules" could not be bend and she was not welcomed. This woman did not only suffer because of her gender, but also because of her class and race. Like many Latinas in the US, she must have depended solely on the income of her husband. The fact that she cannot speak the language makes her more a more vulnerable victim for attacks.
All this reminded me of an article I read titled "Racist, angry? The answer may be in a pill." In this news article, they reported that science has advanced to such a high degree that a pill capable of changing people's morality is already being engineered. Apparently, this pill is hailed to be the cure of racists thoughts. The combination of chemicals will be able to enhance their empathy, reducing their aggression towards other groups of people. This drug can affect moral behavior and pharmacologically induce altruistic behaviors - a quality the people at the shelter described by Crenshaw desperately needed.
Will the pill, then, be the answer to the inequality of women, rape and sexual assault? Sounds too ludicrous to me.
Throughout this semester our Women’s Studies class has engaged in thorough conversations regarding women in the workforce. However, our recent discussions focused on major corporations such as Nike and Forever-21 who partake in the use of sweatshops In America and abroad. Following class presentations, a common theme derived from our study of these companies’ included the vagueness of their codes of conduct, employment of illegal immigrants in America, hazardous working conditions, low-wages, and excessive working hours. After this study of the sweatshops and the codes of conduct, our class discussed the employment and experiences of women in America applying for jobs and their actual experience of working for their employer. In class, Professor Simonson informed the class that she had knowledge of women who “choose to take their wedding ring off prior to an interview in fear of female discriminatory questions and implications from their employer; to improve their chances of being hired.” A wedding ring can symbolize a number of things that an employer might perceive as detrimental to employment, such as future pregnancy, child-birth costs, and providing paid maternity leave. Furthermore, Professor Simonson also stated that she had knowledge of individuals who would “plan their pregnancy during times which were advantageous to raising their child with an abundant time off work with paid leave.” This part of the discussion made me believe that these types of women are adding on to pre-conceived discriminations against women and consequently hurting feminist movements. However, following class readings and research, I see that this predicament involving male employers discriminating against women is a much larger problem in America and abroad. The fact that women have to think about such things as taking off their wedding ring when applying for a job and basically hiding their identity or livelihood for a better chance of employment is blasphemy. This newsflash aims to assess such experiences and provide a broader picture of how women are forced to act to achieve some kind of equality amongst men in the workforce.
Didi Kirsten Tatlow’s piece “For China’s Women, More Opportunities, More Pitfalls,” involves a highly educated woman named Angel Feng and her experiences during job interviews in China. Angel Feng is “fluent in Chinese, English, French, and Japanese” and is a “graduate of a business school in France (Tatlow). Just by looking at her résumé, an employer should hire her because she is completely qualified and shows true promise regarding future performance. Due to this type of mal-practice we see women like Jan Oosting Kaminsky who refuse to settle for a position in the work force that might culturally be perceived as a female populated profession to gain respect in this patriarchal society. These are the reasons we see the high levels of gender-shifts in hospitals. Angel Feng is another woman who aimed to pursue her career at the highest level “in the private sector, where salaries are higher,” because her academic background yields such a standard in the business world (Tatlow). Feng’s journey in search of a job included interviews “between January and April with a half dozen companies in Beijing” (Tatlow).
As previously noted, women in America and abroad would remove their wedding rings prior to a job interview. This following quote hits the nail on the head regarding women’s justification for acting in such a manner. During Feng’s job interviews she states that, “the boss would ask several questions about my qualifications, then he’d say: ‘I see you just got married. When will you have a baby?’ It was always the last question. I’d say not for five years, at least, but they didn’t believe me” (Tatlow). This example is cut-and-dry evidence of males trying to find excuses to not hire qualified people just because they are female. That being said, I believe this is an outrage and it explains why some women, including those who are already employed, are forced to plan their pregnancy through work, instead of letting nature takes its coarse as it should. I understand why maternity leave could be considered as a threat to an employer. However, to ask such personal questions during an interview which should include a discussion regarding qualification for employment and a person’s accomplishments, is truly crossing the line.
Anuradha Shyam’s piece “Safe Keepers and Wage Earners,” discusses these types of struggles concerning the working experiences for women.Shyam’s piece shows how women are forced to manage numerous aspects of their life while still having a solid commitment to their job. In addition, her piece articulates the challenges facing women in the workforce attaining advancement in their companies and promotions because of their gender. This article directly relates to Feng’s experiences during her interviews. The types of discriminatory activity that goes on in her interviews, shows how all of her accomplishments and achievements are easily overlooked and undermined due to her gender. This struggle that Shyam is exuding in her piece intricately illuminates these common threats (if you will) that all women in society are facing. Consequently, women develop insecurities about their gender when entering the work force, like the wedding ring scenario, which I see as blasphemy, immoral, and inhumane. Women like Carol Mendez should be praised for their perseverance and determination through their trails and tribulations, such as the previously noted examples, not discriminated against because of their gender. That is said because an employer’s first question should state, do you posses any leadership abilities? Instead of these personal questions like, are you married and when do you want to have a baby? Modern day women have made extreme advances in the workforce and in the global spectrum. Therefore, employers should stick to what makes their business run positively, instead of wasting their times creating these “cultural traditions that value men over women” (Tatlow).
Actions have been taken to remove or at least lesson this cultural tradition by female activists. Due to the fact that the “law stipulates that employers must help cover those costs (maternity leave and childbirth costs), and feminists are seeking a system of state-supported childbirth insurance to lessen discrimination” (Tatlow). Discriminatory actions have developed these insecurities for women in the workforce which affects their entire livelihood. This following piece portrays this exact development as a result of discriminatory actions.
“The main issue we face is confusion, about who we are and what we should be,” said Qin Liwen, a magazine columnist. “Should I be a ‘strong woman’ and make money and have a career, maybe grow rich, but risk not finding a husband or having a child? Or should I marry and be a stay-at-home housewife, support my husband and educate my child? Or, should I be a ‘fox’ — the kind of woman who marries a rich man, drives around in aBMWbut has to put up with his concubines?”---Tatlow
(If we consider ourselves a moral society or even a society who cares.. Than after reading something like this and seeing the position our cultural practices place the women and mothers of our children in, suggest an immediate change???!!!!)---I say absolutely!
Despite Feng’s highly qualified background, these types of traditions forced her to work for a lower level company. Her salary was extremely low and she received zero benefits. Personally, it is truly disheartening to see someone who worked so hard academically being rendered such low recognition and wasting all of her good qualities and knowledge. We must stop this outrage as a society or we will lose some of the greatest people in the world who are forced to live in mediocrity, because these cultural practices performed by employers render them no other choice.
Videos on this Topic:
This Video Gives a Background on this topic in California
In the text Leading The Way, Carol Mendez talks about how being a victim of domestic violence has had a huge impact on making her become an activist in helping and educating the public about immigrant inequality in health care. I was really interested in this chapter because I am actually doing an independent study in the SOAN department about the inequalities immigrants face in the health care system. I felt that Carol Mendez’s story was really inspirational, especially how she grew up living with her two-year old cousin who was diagnosed with meningitis due to tuberculosis which made her realize at such a young age the need for bilingual physicians. For her and many other immigrants there is a struggle between being an activist and also dealing with the fear of being deported. Activism is key when dealing with these issues because it educates our communities about health risk factors, modes of prevention and the importance of early screening. Mendez was able to survive as an undocumented student, go to medical school and able to live in this country under what she feels is her American dream.
Jan Oosting Kaminsky’s piece “Choosing Nursing,” discusses her own personal career and how she pursued it. Kaminsky states that her “road to the nursing profession was definitely nontraditional.” She attended “John Hopkins University School of Nursing” to attain her second-degree in nursing. Kaminsky articulately shows the “interconnection of feminism and nursing.” Historical evidence shows that feminist movements aimed to direct women to obtain male dominated positions. This could be the reason why a high gender shift has occurred regarding male to now female dominated population of physicians in hospitals. I found it truly interesting that these female nurses took it upon themselves to not only perform their occupation but to better the community through their activist ways.
Carol Mendez’s piece “Acting on a Grander Scale,” discusses her trials and tribulations regarding her activist ways. Mendez is a woman who was not blessed with a wealthy childhood and was consequently rendered a minute amount of resources to better her life and those around her. However, following her persistence she was able to set up classes to educate women on how to live better lives. All in all, Mendez’s story, which truly portrays someone going above and beyond, should be used as an ideal model for the leader of feminism going forward.
Judth Arcana's piece examines motherhood with the theme of abortion. It paints a broad picture that being a mother is not an easy job, not to mention being pregnant. Motherhood is a complicated and Arcana argues that abortion not only implies a pregnant woman but a child that is growing inside her. Arcana compares the decision to carry out an abortion to a mother's decision to send the child to school or not. Although both circumstances differ in degree of importance, I think Arcana's point is that abortion is a choice a mother makes while keeping their child's well-being in mind (whether or not the mother can provide a safe and good home for them, nourish them, whether or not the child can survive and succeed, etc). Hence, Arcana defends motherhood, particularly women who have chosen to relinquish their child, as the most responsible and hardest decision a woman can ever make. Therefore, she urges the public not to view abortion as evil or put the woman in shame, rather, we should try to empathize with the hard times they confront.
The article "How it all began" discusses the efforts of a German woman to fight for the rights of abortion. By joining on this movement together, women in Germany were united more so than ever before. According to the author, women should be allowed "to determine their own destiny" and should not be forced to cowardly pursue in help and abortion behind the law. Thus, the author makes clear that abortion is a right, an action that even if it is termed illegal does not mean that it is not practiced. So, for the sake of helping women in this world, there should be a movement to demand the right for abortion, a step that will unify women.
This Women’s Studies class has provided me with a different perspective regarding abortion in America. Prior to this class I thought it was just used as a way for young men and women to fix their mistakes or mal-practices through this medical procedure. Following further education I see now that abortion and what it entails goes much farther beyond the procedure itself. Judith Arcana’s piece “Abortion Is a Motherhood Issue,” is one of those articles that truly broadened my perspective of the topic in focus, abortion.
Arcana articulately analyzed all the aspects of motherhood and abortion including her-own experiences and feelings on the matter. What I found truly interesting was her explanation regarding the differences of titles regarding pregnancy. Arcana states that “when the pregnancy is deliberate, or accepted, we say baby. When the pregnancy is an accident, or rejected, we say fetus or embryo, a mass of cella and tissue.” However, when she states that, “choosing to abort a child is like choosing to send it to one school and not another,” I find to be completely wrong in two instances. First, she calls the baby “it” which I found to be utterly disgusting because she is making it seem like the baby is an object and not a potentially living person. Secondly, for me as a reader to believe that aborting a baby is comparable to making a decision on whether or not he/she should go to a particular school, is ridiculous. Arcana brings up many valid points in her argument, however, there are a few objectionable statements that she makes which are detrimental to her cause, as previously noted.
In today’s society, many women face a huge dilemma. They struggle with having the desire and dream in becoming a successful woman which ultimately competes with the norm or expectations from society to settle down and start a family. Women are faced with a lot of challenges in their life that men often either do not experience or simply do not sit down and worry or even have to think about some things. Educated women are often faced with the reality that if they want to become a successful women, the likelihood of doing so and raising a family at the same time is slim if not impossible. Looking at the evidence from some blogs online and class readings, women in today’s society are struggling to find the balance between building their careers and having a family. In the first blog that I came across, the author is discussing the struggles that women face in their lives. This blog was created by the Transcend Strategy Group and they discuss the importance of getting to know employees through client workshops which define tough personal dilemmas that people go through day by day. Companies use this strategy to strengthen their teams because it creates sympathy for one another and good group communication. Transcend Strategy Group discusses how they notice there is a reoccurring dilemma with women in their classes. The first, is having the feeling of needing to do too much with not enough time in a day to complete. Women are constantly struggling and they feel torn between work and family. The blog emphasizes how women struggle with dealing with commitments to their husbands and children along with their career goals and job demands. As seen in “Stories from the Sidelines” by Megan Pinand in Leading The Way, women constantly work very hard to maintain their professional stature at their job while also balancing their responsibilities and obligations that they have at home. Ultimately what happens is women feel like their lives are insufficient when they are not able to fulfill or meet the expectations of a particular area in their life. An interesting fact that was mentioned in this post was the fact that since 1972 American women are generally less happy according to the General Social Survey of the National Opinion Research Council. Ironically, despite the fact that women are becoming less happy, in recent decades men are actually becoming the complete opposite. Men are often seen as being more joyful, especially as they get older. Maureen Dowd explores the phenomenon and finds that children actually make people less happy. This theory applied for both men and women. Other issues were sex role differences, emotions, mixed cultural messages, and choice. Choice is a huge factor that puts a lot of stress on women. For the most part, women face an unhealthy amount of choices when coming to meeting expectations and excelling as a worker, wife, and mother. I totally agree with Dowd’s statement in the piece when she commented on how women become very stressed when they take job positions that are placed for male-dominated realms because they put more demands on themselves. As seen in Douglas’ Enlightened Sexism, women are becoming more dominant in the work force and are no longer taking the traditional female roles of being a stay-at-home mother who cleans and maintains the house. Women are already self conscious enough and are dealing with judging themselves about their looks to taking care of their kids to how the house looks to arranging dinner plans etc. Stressing about issues such as grad school or completing office deadlines, on top of all the above becomes very overwhelming. Part of the reason why I thought this post was useful was how the author described these dilemmas. Essentially it all comes down to balancing the needs of oneself vs. the needs of the family, home and work. This blog organized the demands and dilemmas into a chart like format: Basically this chart is a guide for women to ultimately be in the ideal situation or balance, which is according to this chart, high family and high career which means you are putting in enough effort to be a successful woman in the work force but you are not hurting your family bonds and relationships. As a woman, you have reached a point where you can balance both the demands you face with work along with ones at home. When women are really focused on their careers they become what the diagram refers to as “super career woman”. Most of their time and effort revolves around their job and solely their job. Thus, family life and other obligations begin to fall. People that are low in both areas of family and career are in a rut and their feeling of happiness is not found in the work place or at home. Women who are high with their family but low in career often are happier and feel more satisfied but in the end are poorer. When finding the ideal balance, Pinand argues that support in a women’s life is also important to achieve work and family balance (LTW, 205). Another post that I found online was actually posted a few days ago and is titled “Woman want a pay rise, men want a baby”. This post talked about a recent study by market research company which studied young people in their 20’s and results indicated that young women are increasingly finding their self-esteem and identity outside the traditional family structure of marriage and family. This post emphasized on the point that women are putting off having children because they are focused on their careers and that women prefer getting a pay raise or a compliment at work and feel this is more important than getting married or having kids. Ironically, the findings also showed the exact opposite for males. Young men would like to become dads earlier if they had the opportunity to find a woman who was willing to settle down. Overall, in the end, roles between men and woman are beginning to be reversed where women are the ones who want to be the ones that are successful while men are concerned about having a family. In Pinand’s piece, she talks about her experience and how in her first job after college her boss basically implied that it is impossible to have both a successful career and a happy life. Her boss explained to her that one or the other will suffer. At first, she did not agree with this point because she had grown up being taught that women can have successful careers and at the same time care for their children (LTW, 206). In the end, she agrees that her boss was correct and one or the other will eventually suffer. Women are constantly struggling when trying to find the balance between success and family life and ultimately in the end, most successful women would rather choose their career over having a family. Blog Links: http://www.transcendstrategy.com/?p=715 http://www.mercatornet.com/demography/view/8883/
As a commemoration of the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day, CBC conducted a special interview with three women from three different generations in Canada: Erin Cardone (25 years old reporter and columnist with the Victoria News), Suromitra Sanatani (47 years old strategic counsel with the law firm HB Global Advisors and former Vice President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business), and Ursula Franklin (89 years old celebrated physicist, feminists, and pacifist). Before the interview, the CBC co-host Anna Maria shared with the audience the findings of Kathleen Lahley, a law professor at Queen’s University who conducted a research on the wage gap between men and women in Canada. Her studies essentially revealed that between 1970s and early 1990s, women made a significant stride forward, earning approximately 72 cents for every dollar a man made. After 1993, however, women started to fall backwards again, earning only 70.4 cents on the dollar. Although for some people the difference might seem minimal, many are concerned that it is still increasing at a constant pace. After this brief introduction on the changing demographics and roles of women, Anna Maria gave an opportunity for all three, intellectually empowered women to express their opinions. Although they all agreed that the Feminist Movement was important, their unique generational gap sheds light on the disparity of feminist’s goal and their incompatible views on women’s participation in the work field.
So, what is the state of feminism? Ursula Franklin thinks the existing wage gap is not a surprising phenomenon at all. For her, it is important to realize that only a few decades ago, the major problem was not even about wages or wage gaps, but about the ¨access¨ women had to opportunities that would even allow her to earn such salary. In this respect, Ursula Franklin thinks women have made an incredible stride over the past few decades, urging us to acknowledge and celebrate such feat despite the warnings of Kathleen Lahley. Suromitra Sanatani agrees with Ursula, but suggested that we should not be complacent with our current state despite the successful advancement of women in the workforce. She cited her personal experience as an example. Suromitra used to be the only women of color in the boardroom. She explained that now there were two of them, but still not enough. Erin Cardone, the youngest women in the group, is by far the least concerned about the wage gap. According to her, men and women have been treated fairly equal and paid the same. She is confident that as the years go by, women will start running more companies and eventually advance their positions. She even exclaimed proudly that individual choice made it more acceptable for women to have a part-time job or a different work week than men. Does this mean that a wage gap is a choice gap then? According to Erin, men and women are inherently different and thus, it is natural for women to want to take time off from their work in order to care for the children. Erin pulled out the so-called “nurturing card”, suggesting how women are more superior, pure, peaceful, and domestic beings that should serve as a “moral compass” and be in charge of revitalizing the home. She is certain that there is nothing wrong with this image, a fact which disconcerts me because it seems like she is oblivious of the “birdcage” she is trapped into.
First of all, her confidence and optimism with the current state of gender equality at the workplace makes me think that she has been deeply influenced by the “female fantasies of power” and large doses of “embedded feminism” which makes her believe that feminists have reached their goals and that women nowadays can do it all. Although the education revolution did launch a record number of women into universities, more women today are continuously paid less than their male counterparts despite having the same degree and qualifications (2). For instance, in 1990, women with university degrees earned 86.8 per cent of what men with the same degree earned. In 2010, according to Statistics Canada, “women with similar degrees were earning 68.3 per cent of what their male counterparts were” (3). Secondly, she considers women’s preference to work part-time in order to take care of the children as a “personal choice”. Although there is nothing wrong with the desire to spend more time with one’s own children, Erin sees a woman’s ability to choose a different work schedule than a man as an advantage that suits her needs to do a job that she was told only a woman can do best. However, as Ursula points out, “Do we really want to live in an environment where men have the choice to take care of the family but don’t, but women should?¨ In a way, Erin’s comment feeds into the patriarchal system, described by Johnson, that identifies men as the norm and thereby the most important members of society. To what extent is choosing to be responsible of child rearing a free choice? Similar to our discussion about labiaplasty in class, do women really “choose” to undergo that painful surgery like the way they “choose” to work part-time simply because they can afford it? In either case, the women like Erin are tricked into believing that a choose of their choice mean that they have reached the pinnacle of feminism. Paired with “embedded sexism” then, it doesn’t matter if the woman wants to work half-time, have 10 children, get labiaplasty, and wear miniskirts as long as “they” chose to do so. Little do they know that it is only an illusion created by the external and subtle forces of a patriarchal system that traps women behind the invisible bars of “the birdcage.” Women ultimately undergo labiaplasty in order to please the man, to meet their desires of being normal and to look like a virgin because they are scorned and looked as deviant if they don’t. Likewise, women are penalized with a lesser wage for wanting to rear children.
Towards the end of the interview Erin concluded that “feminism is partly responsible for a contingent of overworked, overburdened, and overachieving, and therefore very unhappy young women today”, like her. She explained that there were too many pressures coming towards women to become good managers, good wives, good girlfriends, do child rearing, housework, etc. (like the “supergirl” described by Susan Douglas). Ursula responded astutely, saying that feminism was not “an employment agency for women.” Rather, the goal of the feminist movement was meant to find accommodations for women with a better pay than being merely a housewife. I agree with Ursula when she said that the real problem was that woman today are frustrated because they see themselves as infiltrating a system.This is why Ursula (and in a lesser degree Suromitra) urges us to examine closely at the social structures that are causing this tendency, making Ursula a radical feminist like Brownmiller who wanted “a total transfiguration of society- politics, business, child-rearing, sex, romance, housework, entertainment, academics.” Ursula sees the need of working outside the system.
The takeaway message from this interview created by the disparate values of different women separated by various generations is that “ there’s nothing wrong with women, but there’s a lot wrong with the rest of the world.” Despite the great strides women have made in history, we are still very stereotyped in the workplace. Personally, I believe it is crucial to understand why women are losing ground after decades of successful advancement. If, what Ursula says is true then, it must mean that we must demolish the system or work outside of it, rather than infiltrate it and working around it. The responses of Erin, coupled with our knowledge of “embedded feminism” really confirms the idea that women seem to be stuck in a vicious cycle where the forces of patriarchy always get the best of us.
Works Cited
Allan G. Johnson, “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us,” in Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives.
Douglas, Susan. Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism’s
Work is Done. New York: Times Books, 2010. Print.
Marilyn Frye, “Oppression,” from The Politics of Reality.
Ahhh!! finally could log back in!! Here is my blog for today's class: In the “Mommy Tax” article, we see that Motherhood is now the single greatest obstacle left in the path to economic equality for women. This to me, seems pretty obvious because mothers are faced with dealing with issues that evolve around having children and these issues tend to interfere with work. Due to the fact that companies realize that these mothers cannot put all their energy into their paid work, mothers begin to suffer in their workplace. Today women equality is no longer about education or job opportunities; it is now more about family responsibilities. Women do not realize until having children, that leaving their current jobs to have children can cost more than half of their expected lifetime earnings. A very interesting fact that I never considered before and was astonished by in this article was if a husband and wife who earn a combined annual income of approximately $81, 500 if they decide to have a child they will lose $1.35 million. In my opinion, this blow my mind how much money this family is actually losing thanks to the mommy tax. It is also unfortunate that women who are well-educated and have higher incomes are the ones that get hurt the most when deciding to children. This is turning well educated women away from having children or waiting until their careers are fully established. I feel that more women are going to end up having either less children or none at all.
When Dalla Costa expresses her take on the “dishwasher,” on also has to take into account a family’s financial situation. Although the husband says a “dishwasher is unnecessary’” how are we the reader suppose to believe that some of his explanation for saying this has to do with a bad financial situation. This might seem easy to say, but, in regards to a husband saying it is “unnecessary” and suggesting that he is fully able to purchase a dishwasher, however he neglects his wife’s plea for one. Is it not fundamental to say that it is the wife’s fault for choosing a husband with bad character issues especially regarding her needs?All in all, the message I am trying to send here is that her statement is not universal, although she makes numerous points which could be applied to the majority of women.
A day does not go by, when I am living at home, that I do not hear my mother say, “I am NOT your maid, clean up after yourself!” Following that I always use-to say “ok settle down I do it.” However, now that I am the ‘Community Leader as appointed by Residential Life, of my household,” I am consistently being reminded as to how furious my mother could and should have been with me. Day in and day out I am cleaning dishes, floors, cabinets, and it goes on and on. I constantly hear people say, “it is not my stuff, I clean up after myself.” Like my mother I am constantly saying, “If you see it pick it up, it isn’t mine either but I am cleaning it, aren’t I?” In other words, what I am trying to expel here is that I agree with Shanshan that someone should not have to ask or plea for help, someone should see the situation and always lend a hand. Especially because through personal experience I see that another hand could cut the time in half or more. It is called common courtesy and common decency.
¨if I have money of my own in my pocket I can even buy a dishwasher without feeling guilty and without having to beg my husband for it for months on end while he, who doesn't do the washing-up, considers a dishwasher unnecessary.¨
When I read that statement in Dalla Costa's essay ¨A General Strike¨, I would have sworn that she borrowed those words from my mother if it wasn't for the fact that this passage dates back to 1974. As I walk down memory lane, I only managed to catch the sight of my mother standing in the kitchen, washing dishes at night ...after cooking dinner. She always said that she would rather cook the dinner and wash the dishes herself because if father cooked, the kitchen would end up like a nuclear disaster site and the cleaning she would have to do later on would exponentially increase. As a kid, I never questioned her role in the kitchen, in fact seeing her do the cleaning had a calming effect on me, for some reason it made me feel like mom had the control and everything would be alright. Through the years, the drastic workload imbalance in the house became more and more obvious. Despite my efforts to help around the house, my mother would always reprimand me for doing so. Whenever I tried to help her wash the dishes, she would say something like ¨you'll do plenty of this later, go study.¨ Hence, I must admit that doing housework never became a routine for me, instead, it was like an occasional occurrence similar to an eclipse. Now, everything makes more sense ...her occasional frets and emotional outbursts.
This past summer, I stayed on campus and cooked for myself. I did the shopping, cleaning, and cooking.Because the kitchen was a community kitchen with opened access to other 20 something people, dishes in the sink would easily pile up, stains on the floor were ubiquitous, and microwave was 9/10 filthy with cheddar cheese popcorn explosions. I remember cleaning up the kitchen every week, sometimes twice a week. I used to wash the dishes, clean the microwave and mop the floor. From that point on, I came to the conclusion that being a housewife was definitely one of the hardest jobs one could ever have. It is a job that is not paid nor respected. Often, it is brushed aside as unimportant despite being indispensable in our daily lives. Like my mother, I felt like a maid. Yes, in a way, I could have chosen not to do any of it and could have walked through the puddles of ketchup every day and be oblivious of the hair balls rolling around the countertops, just the way my mother could have refused to cook dinner and swipe and dust away from the couch. I could have asked others to help and mother could have delegated the job. The problem is, clean-up help wouldn't be needed in the first place if people were responsible enough to clean after themselves and my mother would have no need to delegate work if my father would have offered a hand. I guess this is why I find Mariarosa Dlaa Costa's call to action- demand for wages for housework - conflicting because it is like saying that my mother should have dictated my father to clean the house and that I should ordered my peers to pay for my services, when in reality this shouldn't be a fight that rest on our shoulders. It was wrong even from the beginning and now it bothers me that it is one more burden that women must carry around. I'm not arguing that demanding for wages for housework is bad, in fact, I agree to all Mariarosa said. It just pains me to realize that these are the kinds of battles a woman must go through.
Sex sells. We have known that for decades. The advertisement above is the latest viral video for Smartwater, the top selling enhanced water brand in the United States. The face of Smartwater is the acclaimed Hollywood actress and old sex-symbol Jennifer Aniston, who claims this bottled water to be the most pure, refreshing and best tasting water on earth. Armed with a heavy dose of viral-film-making elements including cute puppies, the Double Rainbow guy and computer generated babies who can dirty dance, Aniston embodies the stereotype of the perfect American woman to sell water. Like any other mass media, the marketing strategy of Smartwater does not consist of selling the actual product but the ideas and feelings that accompany it. The ad employs Aniston’s face, body, attire, and sexuality to pull every viral-trick in the book, painting a picture of seductiveness and beauty achieved by drinking Smartwater. Hence, the success of this video clip rest in its ability to sell the hope of satisfying a female’s desire of outer-beauty and, in the case of a man, the sexual fantasy of having a woman as beautiful as Aniston.
In the first 30 seconds of the video, the YouTube superstar Kennan Cahill is mouthing the words to a top hit when Aniston suddenly breaks into his room to ask him if he knew any song about water. Cahill is known for his eccentric lip-synchs performances that have garnered more than 18 million views on a single video and 200,000 subscribers. Moreover, Cahill is also known for his rare genetic condition (Maroteaux Lamy Syndrome) that makes him look like a dwarf even though he is 15 years old. Undoubtedly, his rise to stardom is as unique as Susan Boyle’s, whose dowdy appearance strays from the usual singers who sprung to fame. This, however, is the exception that proves the rule. Cahill may not have depended on his ¨good looks¨ to become an internet sensation, however, the person who embodies this smartwater ad is Aniston – an incredibly attractive blonde woman who can still bare a ripped stomach at the age of 41 – not an overweight black lesbian woman. As Susan Douglas would agree, the producers of this ad, like many others, gave preferential treatment to a particular type of women (mainly a skinny, light eyed, blonde model) over all the other non-white women, resulting in the delicate creation of ¨female fantasies.¨ Smartwater chose Jennifer Aniston because she symbolizes the highly-sought-after, perfect image of an ideal American woman that satisfies both female and male desires.
Following the brief appearance of Kennan Cahill, three geeky ¨Internet boys¨ (who sound like a speaking Mac and who probably never had a girlfriend before) corrects Aniston after she said she wanted to turn the video into a ¨virus¨, as if completely oblivious of the concept of ¨viral¨. To the untutored eye, Aniston appears to be a complete tech illiterate, an image the appeals to the public because it makes Aniston seem friendly, funny and quirky – in other words, someone you can trust. However, if we un-wrap this marketing plot, the female ¨fantasies of power¨ shine through. Here’s the odd: even though Aniston is often seen as a representation of female achievement and control, the ad carries the seductive message to women that ¨being decorative is the highest form of power.¨ The ad promotes the message that females are completely inadequate in the realm of science, a field highly dominated by men, and should only remain as an accessory that requires a man’s input to function. As the clip progresses, Aniston exemplifies some of the stereotypical femininity, filling the advertisement with sexual innuendos.
First, Aniston is surrounded by dozens of Labrador puppies with blue bows tied around their necks. Even though the background might not seem very sexy, the fact that Aniston is wearing a body hugging tank top and tight jeans is significantly sexy because the clothing wraps around her curves, shows off her flat abs and accentuates her butt. In addition, although sitting crossed-legged is very common, one can also interpret Aniston’s sitting position differently. Her open legs, together with several puppies trying to carry out what looks like a vagina attack, draws attention to one of the female’s most sexual areas of the body. These symbols are connected to sex and feed the secret desire that women have to become a sex goddess, or every man’s fantasy. After the dogs, comes the talking parrot who instead of advertising for smartwater says, ¨Rachel, I love your hair.¨ This reference is associated to the bouncy, square-layered hairstyleAniston’s character of Rachel Green wore in Friends. A survey conducted last year indicates that this cut is still the most popular among British women. This is an example of how the media perpetuates the exaggeration of certain kinds of physical attributes in a person, deeming them desirable while rendering other characteristics undesirable.
Second on the list are dirty-dancing, computer generated babies. When Aniston first saw the babies’ entrance she exclaimed amusingly, ¨Well that’s adorable, look at you guys!¨ Once they started dancing, she looks at the camera in disbelief and says, ¨wait…what are you doing?¨She tries to stop them but fails miserably against the internet guys’ comment, ¨this will gets us more views.¨ In response, she asks ¨where’s the mommy?¨The first time you see this, it is usually funny mainly because babies who qualify for Dancing with the Stars are simply unconceivable in real life. A closer look, however, reveals that enlightened sexism is at play here. Aniston`s comment on where are their ¨mommy¨, rather than ¨parents¨, implies how the role of guidance and nurture is closely associated with females. Aniston’s inability to stop the babies from acting inappropriately displays her lack of motherhood which closely resembles her real life. Despite being 41, she is still not married, has no children, and no plans of adopting either. Her incompetency at taking care of children and lack of intuitive motherhood may be seen as a tradeoff for her kick-ass shape, economic independence and professional achievement. However, we are talking about CG babies and the idea of babies selling sex is too immoral to even be considered a reality, therefore, one can laugh it off. It gives off the impression that we know what is right and what is better. We laugh at it because we know that babies cannot grind against each other in real life. Deep inside, we know that if they actually did it would be immoral and unacceptable. However, the question is: when did it became acceptable to joke about sexualizing women, not to mention babies? Although we might find it humorous at this moment, there will be a point in time that we might not realize it is a joke because the images have been so deeply engrained into our minds that our visions become blur.
The Double Rainbow guy lookalike also makes an appearance. As he bends down and opens his arms towards the sky emotionally exclaiming, ¨double rainbow across the sky¨, Aniston appears from the other side carrying a bottle of smartwater, totally emotionless. As the man is about to tear up, Aniston helps him stand straight and walks him out. After saving the guy who loves rainbows, Aniston kicks a fan in his privates and says, ¨sorry, that’s worth about 100 thousand hits.¨ The guy squeaks, ¨not for me.¨ This is a very interesting scene, because unlike seeing the dirty dancing babies, she feels no remorse or guilt about kicking a fan. Aniston is portrayed as a strong and bitchy (I am not at your reach) type of woman and the guy as a ¨helpless, ogling, crotch-driven slave.¨ This makes humor out of violence directed towards men. Aniston doesn’t feel guilty here because she is playing naïve, whereas the man appears as a weak soul at the mercy of a woman. This portrayal of a strong and accomplished woman overpowering a man feeds into the concept of embedded feminism because it depicts women as being fully empowered and confident while focusing on the use of their body as a tool for power and control.
Finally, Aniston tries to appeal to the male audience by drinking suggestively from the water bottle. At one point, she chokes, spills some water, giggles and says, ¨I’m fired.¨ Her comment suggests that she was aware that by objectifying herself as a ¨decorative¨ sexual object, she could sell the product. Rather than feeling shame about it, Aniston enthusiastically agrees with the ¨internet boys¨ suggestion of naming the video, ¨ Jennifer Aniston’s Sex Tape.¨ This makes the search word for the video extremely deceiving, turning it into an actual hit with over 1 million views in just a day.Needless to say, the producers of this ad are exploiting Aniston’s body and sexuality, rather than her brains to sell water. The fact that Aniston approves of it, confirms the illusion that one can use sex to get what one desires.
In the larger scheme of things, the ad is marketing bottled water but it never explains why it’s good. Truth is, bottled water is unethical and environmentally unfriendly. First of all, tap water has much more strict regulations than bottled water. Secondly, bottled water is marked up in price 2,000 times. Paying for a bottle of water is like paying $10,000 for a sandwich. Likewise, selling bottled water is like selling rain to the Amazonians and ice to the Eskimos. Not once does Aniston explain why smartwater is so good for you. The only thing she says is, ¨smartwater is the purest tasting water there is¨ (is the water made from tears of virgins or what?) Similar to the emergence of bras, bottled water is marketed as an essential commodity of life when in reality push-up bras are totally unnecessary and water should never have a price tag. With the emergence of standardized bras, women felt compelled to fit into a category, and became extremely conscientious of their bodies. The Smartwater ad has a similar effect not only because it portrays how an ideal woman should look like, causing women to envy Aniston’s body and see themselves as deviant only because they do not have a turkey neck, but also because the ad pushes towards consumerism, turning bottled water into a status symbol and marketing it as being indispensable if you wish to become someone nearly as sexy as Aniston. Given all of the above, the entire ad is “enlightened sexism¨ in action because it ¨claims you can have independence, power, and respectandmale love and approvalandgirly, consumerist indulgences all at once, all without costs.”
This is not all. In 2007, Coca-cola Co. (the world’s largest beverage maker) purchased the privately held Glaceau’s lines of water (Vitaminwater, Fruitwater, Smartwater and Vitaminenergy) for $4.1 billion in cash with the hopes of expanding its beverage offers and acquiring long-term profits. With such a powerful company marketing liquid cancer around the world, it is safe to assume that ads similar to this one will also be screened worldwide. Can you imagine to what degree these images will seep through people’s mind and change their behaviors? My only assumption is that 10 years from now British women will continue to request ¨The Rachel¨ haircut while sipping from a Smartwater bottle.
Works Cited
Douglas, Susan. Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism’s
