Having learned about the suffrage movement, women's liberation and some aspects of the condition of women today - Lily Ledbetter, advertising - you are charged with determining what the next feminist movement should look like. Consider advancements, and the lack thereof, in economics, social factors, politics, religion, education, behavioral norms and expectations and determine who should lead this new movement, how and to what end? Should it be like the NWP - single platform, NAWSA, N.O.W., Ms., Paul, Sanger, Friedan, Steinem?
You are charged with looking further into these women, movements and eras, looking into the conditions of in/equality today and determine who and what should lead the new charge, and HOW!?!?
Feel free to use these resources and encorporate your own!:
the pill, 40 years on
women pay the price for health insurance
abortion rates fall
The Wage Gap
Gapminder
The First Lady
Gender Ads
When We Hated Mom
Sex Discrimination
NOW on Walmart
CSM Walmart
Global Gender Gap Index
Leading Women (Thanks Krim)
I believe that the focus of the next women’s charge should be primarily about women in the work place. It is said that with a collage degree one will have 33% more income then those who do not. However with basic service jobs, for example secretaries earn 17% less than males who do the same job, regardless of their degrees. Women as a minority are at a disadvantage when it comes to pay, so one would think that transgender would be at even more of a disadvantage, however this to me was shocking, there was a study at NYU about people undergoing sex changes and seeing how it effected their pay, "men who transitioned to women earned, on average, 32% less after the surgery. Women who became men, on the other hand, earned 1.5% more". Even when a mans mind is not changed by a sex change, because he is now a women he must be treated differently. This confused me because I thought the reason that women were being paid less are treated differently in the work place was because we think differently from men, knowing this is now not the case I am left with no clue as to why women are treated differently and negatively. Seeing no good reason to treat women differently I believe that it should be the next focus of the woman’s movement because women have proved that they are just as smart as men by getting the same collage degrees as men. Due to the fact that students don’t get paid for going to collage it is an opportunity for women to shine and be treated equally as men when taking the same exams as them. I believe that this equality should transfer with them from collage to the work place.
ReplyDeleteI'm posting this in two installments because the blog site won't let me post it since it's too long. I will do another post, however, and I'll try to keep that one shorter. Sorry for the confusion.
ReplyDeleteThe movements in the past have been largely preliminary, a sort of rising up from absolute inequality. The two largest feminism movements, the Suffragettes and the one in the 60’s and 70’s, both only achieved partial equality, as we can see by our society today. In advertising, women are constantly portrayed as objects, as unintelligent, or as weak. Take, for example, an advertisement for a Volkswagen car, which depicts a car with a crashed front and reads, “Sooner or later, your wife will drive home one of the best reasons for owning a Volkswagen.” The ad is insinuating that women are incapable of driving correctly and will inevitably crash. This stereotype of the incompetent woman has seeped into American culture to a very large extent. It has forced women into being the “weaker sex”, creating a culture where passiveness in females is looked upon as desirable, a quality that every “real woman” should have. Once again, advertising and the media play a large part in the purveyance of this label. An advertisement in People magazine for a television show depicts a woman with slightly too much makeup on getting choked “sensually” by a disembodied male hand. This type of advertisement not only normalizes female passivity, but it also creates the illusion of gender violence being a social norm. These advertisements show that the previous women’s’ movements have not created full change of any sort, but have instead laid the groundwork for a modern, all-encompassing movement.
The question then becomes: if another feminism movement is on the horizon, what will it look like? In this aspect I disagree greatly with Emily. I believe that the answer is what it always has been: social reform must occur before any other change can happen. Political change will not make a difference if women do not feel that they themselves are qualified enough to hold office, nor will economic equality make a difference if men and women alike do not respect their female coworkers. Social reform, the idea that men and women are equal in mental and physical capabilities, is a prerequisite for the other two major areas. This reform can only come from changes in the advertisements and influences that bombard us at every minute of every day. Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, a Russian scientist, demonstrated the power of constant repetition to the mind in his classic dog experiment. In this experiment, he rang a bell every time food was served to the dogs. The dogs eventually, after a few days of this, started to salivate at the sound of the bell, even if food was not brought. This shows us the power of repetition and how it affects our minds. For example, if I were to tell you every day for your whole life that the sun revolved around the Earth, and then another person told you that it was, in fact, the opposite, you would think that person to be insane, purely because of your own preconceptions of the idea. The same is true for gender equity. When we see every day, from childhood to adulthood, advertisements that depict weak women, stupid women, and sex objects, we end up thinking that that is the norm, that things are the way they are. This is what needs to change.
This is the second installment in my blog post.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is not the media itself that must change; it is us. The advertisements are only showing us what we want to see, what grabs our attention and makes us want to buy the product. We, as citizens of a collective world, must stand up and tell the industry that we don’t want sex inequality, but that we want equity in gender roles. This is, however, a largely unreachable goal at this time, for the chicken or the egg syndrome is in full effect: for the media to change, we must change it, and for us to change our outside influences (i.e. the media) must change us. Unless the world is proverbially set on fire, there will be no change, and equity will remain stagnant.
The modern feminism movement must address this challenge, and it must raise awareness for itself through advertisements and the media. In effect, the movement must control the media itself, or else society will not change. The modern feminism movement must be the spark, the voice in the crowd that stands out and sets the whole world on fire. For this reason, gender revolutionists must look to the old NWP and Alice Paul, to the British Suffragettes that hid in Parliament coat closets, and to the peaceful demonstrations of the Civil Rights movement under Martin Luther King Jr. so that they do not overstep their bounds. We are a world community, growing larger every day, so there’s going to need to be a pretty big spark if the world is to be lit ablaze.
Prior to this unit, I fell credulous to the belief that women and men were for the most part on the same level. However, it has become increasingly clear to me that, like Charlie said, feminism movement’s only achieved partial equality, and there is still a long way to go. The ad video has opened my eyes to the fact that women are still sex objects in today’s world, and while I don’t agree with all of Jean Kilbourne’s beliefs about certain ads (for example the way she assumed certain ads had underlying messages promoting violence), I think it is certainly true that women are objectified. I agree with Charlie that the media plays a huge role in portraying women as passive and weak, and making that appear normal. I think that moving forward into the third wave, women should work to become less of “objects,” and prove that they are just as strong of a sex as men are. I think that the way on TV, for example, women are always appearing commercials for household items and childcare products while men are always in the car commercials greatly impacts the stereotypes that we associate with males and females. The reason the media has such an influence is because it is what we see constantly. Everywhere we look in our world, we see advertisements. People aged from children to elderly people are influenced. Today, despite efforts in feminism movements, it is still rare and seemingly odd that a man would stay home and be “Mr. Mom.” I think that in the third wave, women and men’s job in a family should be interchangeable without question. A dad should be able to stay home and raise the kids while the mom works without being judged.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDuring the first wave, or the suffrage movement, women fought specifically for the vote. Then, during the second wave, or the liberation movement, women fought specifically for the right to move out of the domestic sphere. However, the third wave does not have as specific a goal. Women are still fighting for power politically, as we have not yet had a women president. As we learned from “Killing Us Softly,” the discriminatory messages sent through advertisements are unbearably objectifying to women, to such a degree that it can be best described as scary. And according to the New York Times, there is an “unbridgeable chasm between the size of the paycheck brought home by a woman and the larger one earned by a man doing the same job.” Lily Ledbetter brought her individual problem regarding this discrimination to the Supreme Court, but even that was not enough to get equal pay for equal jobs. Though I did not even know this was possible, the Supreme Court refused to take on the Wal-Mart case because it was “too big.” True, these problems have gotten extremely out of hand, but that doesn’t mean we should give up hope and will to fight.
ReplyDeleteWhen we discussed the issue of advertisements in my quarter group, Max was a strong believer that capitalism is the biggest factor contributing to the discrimination. I agree with him on that point because the advertisements are created for the buyers. So, when a makeup company creates an ad that features an extremely airbrushed girl wearing nothing but mascara, that is supposed to make women buy the product because it will make you look that great too. But, I think it is safe to say that when any girl sees that ad she is not only thinking about the makeup, but the fact that she cant look like that, and spends a few moments in her head hating herself for it. This is not a message that should be spread, and though I know it would be difficult, one of the only ways I see working to get rid of this problem would be to boycott the product. If people don’t buy these things that make them feel awful, that would force the company to change something. While not everyone can do this, we need women in power to take a stand and use their stardom to spread the message. For example, Ellen DeGeneres is a model for Cover Girl makeup, and if she talked about this problem on her talk show, then featured an ad of her wearing the makeup and not one bit “touched-up,” this could be the spark that ignites a bigger movement.
As far as the job discrimination, women need to stand up for themselves and should not settle for a paycheck that does not match up to a man’s. I can’t help but think about the new movie called “Think Like a Man, Act Like a Lady” when I talk about this because that is exactly what women should start doing. Though women have not been getting the highest positions, they certainly hold crucial ones and have the right to ask for what they deserve. This is the same power women need to establish and use in order to get stronger positions in the government. Obama appointed a woman to the Supreme Court after his election, but that we can still do better. Switzerland could be described as one of the most ideal and happy countries, and with a “female-majority cabinet…appointed in 2010,” they are running more smoothly than ever.
There is no doubt that this wave is the most difficult to fight through. But the way I see it, we need to use powerful women to spread the word and encourage other women to take a stand. It could mean boycotting products that objectify women, or it could mean asking (or demanding) for a raise. Whatever it is, women need to feel comfortable with themselves and realize that they have the power to make a difference, just as they have done so in the past.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSince women have already won the vote and had access to the Pill, which were two very big achievements, the one thing that women in the third wave should focus on is the perception and idea of women. From the moment babies are born, they are already categorized into the “pink” or “blue” section of the hospital ward. From then on, children are raised with this idea that there are things specifically for boys and other things only for girls. For example, only a girl would wear a skirt or dress, while it would be frowned upon if a boy would. Of course, I’m not saying it’s not weird to see a boy in a mini skirt, but that proves just how implanted it is in our minds about what a boy or girl should look like or act like. Nowadays girls can wear pants or wear “boyish” clothing and get away with it, when way back in the 1800’s-1900’s, girls couldn’t wear pants at all. Today, boys absolutely cannot walk around with a dress and not get criticized for it. It makes sense only because we’ve been raised to think so. It becomes our normal. On the other hand, with this misconception about women and feminism, women are underestimated and still not treated equally. I do not think that full equality will ever be reached, but the best women can do is improve the perception of themselves. This is nearly impossible with the generations subtly teaching their children about the categories they are in. For example, boys are given action figures, while girls play with dolls. Girls are given much brighter, pinker colors to wear, while boys wear darker colors with light blue being the exception. It is these subtle hints that stick to children as they grow up into adults.
ReplyDeleteI feel that there is another perception of women that is both uplifting and yet demeaning. There is this perception that women need to be taken care of or just simply not bothered. I remember when I was in elementary school, one of the biggest rules was, “don’t hit a girl.” I remember that some girls would be somewhat pleased about this rule. Many woman like chivalry from a man, even if it is just simply pulling out a chair for them. These are probably just small acts of kindness, but never have I seen a women pull out a chair for a man (unless maybe it was your father), which makes me think that it’s not. Women have always had the inferior position in any kind of relationship with a man, and are always the one who needs help or assistance. So while men can treat a woman very well, it can also come off as that the woman needs a man for help and for her own happiness. I just think that women need to create a better image of themselves rather than going for full equality.
Before now, I have fallen into the trap of believing that men and women are completely equal this generation, but after reading the very frustrating Schlafly, she shed light on a particular aspect of sexism (that she tried to justify) that no one seems to acknowledge. It is one of societies smallest, yet extremely annoying “rules” that actually circulates among women and female teenagers, it’s this word called feminist. Society has given this word negative connotation making women embarrassed or scared to say that they’re feminists. Why it’s a bad thing to advocate the rights for your own sex is beyond me, but then again, women belittling themselves by following this rule, is also beyond me.
ReplyDeleteLike many of the previous students who have already posted, one of the biggest obstacles for women’s liberation is the very deeply carved societal norm of what every woman should be like. This description of wafer thin, beautiful, ageless, and powerless is easily seen as ridiculous when it’s put into writing, such as this blog, but when it’s disguised through ads? Well, that’s much harder to notice. What’s funny is how women are perceived as incapable, yet we’re expected to never age and defy the impossible, I’d like to see men try that, but I won’t, they’re not expected to. All anti-wrinkle lotions are designed for females with pink writing, pretty letters and curvy lines… even observing what type of products our instinct is attracted to is embarrassing.
One thing that really stuck with me from the film, Still Killing Us Softly, was when Jean Kilbourne talked about intimate ads between men and women that cannot be classified as a sign of aggression or passion. Not being able to tell the difference between violence and love shows how in our society, sometimes there is no difference, “Every 2 minutes, someone in the U.S. is sexually assaulted” (Rainn). When I was looking through the website, Gender Ads, I read “exposure to media depicting women in degrading and subordinate situations, even if not explicitly sexual or violent in nature, will lead to increased violent behavior of men against women in society.” It would seem pretty obvious that explicit pictures of women being passive would increase violence, but when pictures are not even explicit and rape remains a frighteningly common threat to women is shocking. Or not even that shocking when you begin to look closely at the overwhelming number of sexist ads we see everyday.
This leads to my final point, what do women do about this? I support Gabbie’s idea on boycotting the products that display sexism. Companies need consumers, but if their demand dropped so would their money, and that is when they would notice the change necessary for their products to be successful. I also agree with Charlie when he brought up the chicken and the egg issue, and how media will not change, but we can change media. Of course going against the grain of a capitalist society will be a challenge, but creating an infectious movement would only be the beginning to women’s third wave of liberation. No longer can women wait for society to change, it won’t; society is based off the people who live in it and who, as a whole, set the rules.
I believe that women feel that they are equal enough in their social position in society to fight for political and economic rights. After receiving the vote their political state in society increased, and nothing happened to their home life. Women were still having babies and tacking care of kids, but simply do so with the added privilege and responsibility of voting. Women could handle it. Then the pill came along contributing to their social role in society. They still have families and love their children but they now got the privilege to choose when to have kids. The human race didn't end because women were having as many babies, again it was a responsibility that the women took on and succeeded with. The aspect of life that has been left out is how women are being treated in the economic parts of life. In my peers arguments many have talked about the video “Killing Us Softly”. While women in adds are seen as submissive and vulnerable, the girl in those adds are making the educated choice to act that way. Sexism has always been a problem, one which I believe is impossible to eradicate entirely so instead of all women refusing to be in adds like the ones shown in the video, they are at least taking control of the situation by staying in the adds. Women have a lot better chance of creating a better image for themselves if they are the ones controlling the image rather then people creating the computerized version of a women like we all saw in the video. Women are well aware of their social standing in society and while they can't get rid of sexism, they can try and improve conditions in other aspects of life such as in the work place, which is why I believe economics should be the next focus of the women’s movement.
ReplyDeleteI think that Charlie’s opinion on the fact that change in gender equity must start on a social level was interesting on a couple of levels. I didn’t really like his assertion that political change will not change without social change because the women themselves will not feel that they are qualified to hold office. While I do agree that the third wave of the women’s movement should focus on social equity, I disagree that women themselves will not feel qualified to hold office. I think that many women have and do run for office, and that it is the fear of others that women are incompetent that is causing them to not be voted into this position. Other than that one point, I really liked your argument!
ReplyDeleteI think that Emily’s point about how people who choose to switch genders see changes in their income was really interesting. This wasn’t really a point that I would have thought to look into, so I’m glad you brought it up! The thing is, after a person has a gender change, employers might not realize that the person used to be a member of the opposite gender, and therefore the coordinating views of the new gender would be attached. It might be different if the employer knew the person before the gender change.
One thing that I wanted to talk about was the website on advertisements. I think it is wonderful that so many people have brought awareness about the potency of the advertisements that we are all surrounded by constantly. The movie that we watched in class, Killing Us Softly, really brought me to realize how bad the problem of objectification of women in advertisements is. According to the movie, the average person is exposed to nearly 300 advertisements per day. Although you think that you aren’t being effected by them, this is not the case—and the messages that these advertisements are sending are far from wholesome. Last week, when we were told to find advertisements that send out negative messages towards women, I found one from Gucci that more or less looked like gang rape. Not only is this disgusting, but it is also really troubling; it is making violence against women more acceptable.
The really hard part about advertisements is the whole “chicken or the egg” conundrum. Like Charlie said, neither group is going to want to be the first to change. I think that the third wave of the women’s movement should focus on social reform because if the people have a change in tastes, advertisers would be less prone to producing advertisements that have such a negative impact on society. One example of when this worked was with the movie Supersize Me. This movie really brought awareness to the American public about how bad fast food was, and helped to spark many discussions on obesity in this country. We have watched this movie several times in school, and each time we have watched it, it has grossed me out. I think that it would be fair to say that as a result of the book Fast Food Nation and the movie Supersize me, less people go to fast food restaurants. While there are still a lot of people who eat fast food, the effects of this movie (and book) cannot be understated.
I think that if some kind of book or movie regarding the horrors of advertising was brought to the eye of the American public, then the views and tastes of the American public regarding advertising would change, and companies would then have to change the advertisements that they were releasing.
The conditions of women today are so much better than they were just 50 years ago. It’s amazing how so much has changed in so little time. From being “just housewives” to being in the workforce and respected. However, this new equality only goes so far. Women are still not on the same level as men in any aspect of our society. Women are seen as either weak, little creatures or ball-busters whereas men tend to be seen as strong and powerful. From birth kids are given distinct characteristics, like Sara and Casey both said, pink for girls and blue for boys. Girls are usually seen as sympathetic, caring, weak, etc, creatures and men are seen as big, intelligent, strong, etc. Neither sex has bad qualities it’s just that they’re taken as the only qualities of those genders. We see these qualities in ads everywhere all throughout our lives, a never ending stream of what women and men are. Women are usually portrayed as objects, weak, highly sexual, 1950s housewives, body parts where men are strong and domineering in most ads. In children’s ads the girls are always playing in a pink wonderland of dolls and jewelry in some room, but boys surrounded in grey, green, or blue playing with monsters, trucks, and active activities. I remember this article a few years back about a picture of a women painting her son’s nails pink in a magazine. Everyone completely freaked out saying it was wrong, how could she do that. Truthfully, even I did that. I couldn’t understand how she thought it was appropriate. It was just wrong in my mind. Pink and nail polish was for girls. I can now of course see how completely close-minded I was. It would be another story if the boy was crying hysterically trying to get away, but he was having fun and besides, who cares if he wants pink nail polish? How is it right for any society to put so much pressure on parents about what is the right toy or piece of clothing to let your child use?
ReplyDeleteBecause of this ingraining from ads our society has pigeon-holes for each gender which leads to inequality in jobs where men get paid more and get the better, higher-up jobs. The only reasonable reason would be that women are the ones who get pregnant which means taking time off and even quitting. For some companies why spend so much on someone who will likely end up taking a lot of time off due to the birth itself and then child sick days, etc. But then there’s the other problem for women. Women are the ones expected to take the most care of the child. If it’s between the husband or wife who takes the day off to take care of their kid it will usually be the wife. If you think stay at home parent you usually think it’s the mom. I know in my house my mom is a stay at home mother. I’ve been raised in that type of household so for me it’s natural for the mom to be home with the kids. When I was younger I fully expected to grow up, live my life for awhile (preferably till around 30), get married, have kids then quit my job and take care of them. That dream has definitely changed over the past few years into I’ll see what happens when the time comes.
The new feminist wave’s focus needs to be more equality of pay and position in the work force, equality in politics, less emphasis on what traits belong to what gender in ads, and less stress on who should be the breadwinner/homemaker. Change needs to start with consumers. Only then will ads be forced to change, the gap between women and men will become smaller (and hopefully gone), and women will be able to move up in companies and politics. I don’t believe it can start on the political level because there would still be so much prejudice against women caused mainly by ads which help in large part direct societal norms.
The first wave of the women’s rights movement was categorized by individuals like Carrie Chapman Cat and Alice Paul but also groups like NAWSA and NWP all fighting for (mainly) women’s right to vote. In the second wave, after suffrage was granted and after the great depression, women were fighting to obtain the rights they assumed would be given to them due to the vote and were still not “equal”. Instead they were considered weak and frail, just like before, and they were bound to having countless babies until they perished from the effort of rising upwards of 15 kids. With the birth control “revolution” women were able to become free by gaining control of the frequency of reproduction.
ReplyDeleteThen in the “third wave”, the period after birth control had been introduced and accepted, women lost that freedom. While they were able to chose when and how many kids they have and they were no longer frail, a new stereotype emerged. Because of their newfound sexual freedom women became sex objects, yet another form of control men used on women. Women were expected to embody the sexual image that was created and painted across every television screen, newspaper, and store window that ever existed. Women were being sucked up by the image men created for them to be and felt that they needed to become that perfect woman when in fact, it was pretty much impossible. Although women might have been more liberated they couldn’t escape the prejudices that were (and have been) created… but this issue wasn’t just “then” it is still happening now.
I agree with Emily in the fact that the workforce needs to be adapted, but forcing that change on people (especially people who believe they are not in the wrong) would increase the chances of rejection. I also agree with Charlie when he says that we need to have social reform before we attempt political changes; however, social reform can’t even begin when women and men alike are being bombarded with images of the perfect woman and how they should look and behave. If the media could change this would be a huge step in the right direction but that is incredibly unlikely. So how are we supposed to tackle social reform when the media is bringing us in the wrong direction?
For one, we could take a look at the countries with success in equity for women. Toping the list are Iceland, Norway, Finland, and Sweden. Iceland is working towards equality by “gender mainstreaming in all spheres of the society,” “working against wage discrimination,” “enabling both men and women to reconcile their work and family life,” “increasing education and awareness”, “changing traditional gender images, and working against negative stereotypes” (Iceland Ministry of Welfare). While this is not all “social reform” Iceland’s government is taking the right steps towards equality. A lot of their success has to do with their advancements in their political sector. With the first female prime minister and an equal government of men and women in 2009 their government is able to set an example for the Icelandic people to follow.
Unlike Iceland the United states is not so advanced. However we can follow Iceland’s success; Ricardo Hausman, director of the Centre for International Development at Harvard University stated on this topic, “Progress will be achieved when countries seek to reap the returns on the investment in health and education of girls and women by finding ways to make marriage and motherhood compatible with the economic participation”. By making women and men able to inhabit both the domestic sphere and the work place equality will be easier reached. However, putting this into action is easier said than done, but I think that this is the natural next step in the feminist movement.
I believe that the focus should be mainly of woman in the workplace because this is specifically where woman are being discriminated against not because of their knowledge, or their economic situation, but because they are simply female and do not have the same genetic features as men do. To me this is absolutely preposterous. According to a 2011 survey of directors, executives, board members and chairmen, woman are under-represented on boards for a variety of reasons “7% because men tend to recruit men, 7% because of a lack of opportunity, 7% because of traditional bias, 12% because of maternity issues, 17% because of male dominated culture and poorer networking opportunities, and 20% because of issues of maintaining work life balance such as raising a family”(Leading Woman). I believe that if woman were able to take control of high positions in their work place, there would be an instant growth of feminism in society and that .75c that woman are making to that $1.00 of men would increase and this would further promote woman to occupy political positions such as president. I believe that for so long men have felt in control and it has been the traditional factor that when woman get pregnant they are the ones who are expected to leave work and sacrifice their careers—not to say this is a bad thing but it is hard to determine how much of a “maternal instinct” this is, or how much society inflicts this continuation of the woman staying at home. I believe that the way for woman to succeed is to take the men out of their positions of power, and instead put a more feminine touch on our society—I believe that by targeting the work forces and the positions of power such as being the head of a certain advertising company, this would lessen the amount of advertisement that are degrading and unbecoming to woman. These advertisements are the source of what the youth is looking through and they are subconsciously seeing images of men showing their superiority. To stop this we need to go to the source of the problem and fix the head positions because honestly if woman were in charge of certain magazine ads then woman would be less viewed as these “sex objects” and lesser than men.
ReplyDeleteFirst women became equal or mostly equal politically and then the same could almost be said socially for the second wave, the next logical step is to advance women economically. Many people who are either uneducated or maybe just bigoted would argue that the feminist movement has created gender equity but the mere fact that there is a feminist movement shows that equality has yet to be reached. There has never been nor will there be a white mens equality movement or anything of the sort because caucasian males are in a position where everything has been handed to them on the facsimile of a silver platter. Women have however always had to climb up from beneath men, figuratively of course, and even as they have been climbing up the socioeconomic ladder they have been consistently stopped by the glass ceiling which prevents them from truly succeeding. This glass ceiling is reinforced by the fact that women make just 76 cents for every dollar made by that of men which is of course quite the obstacle in arguing equality due to the fact that last time i check 76 is less than 100, I've been wrong before but I mean thats pretty much black and white sexism.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Casey about third wave being more about changing perception and idea of traditional woman. Women have already gotten the vote and access to the Pill, so now women need to work and focus on changing society's stereotypical and ideological view of women. Women will never treated equally unless the society changes its view on women. We (girls) are raised and taught that we need to be good mothers and good wives to our future husbands. We are not raised to one day become presidents, because we and the society accepted the fact that a woman cannot and will never be a president so she should not even think about it. I read a quote by Marilyn Monroe, which states that women and men will never be equal because women lack ambition. I am still deciding whether I agree with it or not. But I think that the only reason that she would say that and other women agreeing with that would be because they accepted that men are more ambitious about becoming presidents. But what if we, women, were raised or encouraged to become presidents, then we might actually have a chance to become one. But we all know that the society wants women to be wives and mothers and give birth to children and take care of them. We are vulnerable and weak just like Killing Us Softly movie shows the female models as people who are very vulnerable and gentle. Even though, the movie is very bias, the movie makes a strong point about devaluing women and their potential.
ReplyDeleteI’ll admit that I am someone who reads fashion magazines and tabloids constantly. Well, I’d probably be lying if I said that I actually read them. I look at the pictures. I think that most people focus on the pictures rather than the words, and up until last week when we began discussing this topic, I had not realized the amount of fake, airbrushed, inhuman pictures I have exposed myself to. I think it is so much a part of our culture that we cannot get out of seeing it. Take computers or smart phones for example. The Internet is filled with advertisements that we notice subconsciously. Just looking up articles for these blog posts brought me to sites that had a portion set off for advertisements. Its inevitable to see. I agree completely with Charlie’s comments on the social reform. It is true that the images we see on a daily bases make permanent impacts on us. Like Dancz said in class, reading magazines make girls feel awful about themselves because the ideals that we hold so importantly in our minds are undeniably unreachable. But in order to change this, we do need to change the media. How do we do this? I am still not quite sure. I think the first step would be to let girls know that what we see is not real, it is not healthy, and it should not be idealized. Though my guilty pleasure is the show “Keeping Up With the Kardashians,” my main enjoyment in watching it is laughing at them. This is what we should teach young girls to do as well. When a little girl picks up a magazine, she should not feel like she should look like the fake girl on the cover, but she should be educated enough to know that the girl was made up to look like that, and the little girl should feel confident that she looks pretty without all the touch ups. This should be taught from a young age through health classes or in social studies classes so that students learn to make fun of it and make it un-cool. Like Rebecca said, if this leads to people boycotting products, the companies will make less money and be forced to change. Charlie said that this is a chicken and the egg problem, but I disagree. The media will never change unless we do first.
ReplyDeleteWatching “Killing us Softly” was an eye opening experience for me. What I learned was that advertising and the advertisement industry is a sneaky one. Subliminal, indirect and blatant messages can be spotted in all walks of society, yet, we all deem ourselves immune to the powers that be. Knowing this, the third wave of women in the United States, in order to gain the respect they deserve, must deploy an aggressive and obvious attack.
ReplyDeleteHistory can be utilized as a successful tool for the world. It can tell us what worked and what did not. When one examines the long history of women it is clear that being aggressive and asserting force has been proven to earn respect. Take a look at the campaign of Alice Paul and her radical ways of doing things. Paul and her crew would refuse to take no for an answer and sought for change as they constantly paraded the streets with signs and protests. As women were obviously being taken advantage of back then, they are equally being done the same now a day, however this time more discreetly in the form of horrific ads portraying women as objects of men’s use. In my opinion the problem for women lays here: they are indirectly being taken advantage of, so protesting the streets would seem unreasonable, yet an aggressive attack is the only solution. That opens Pandora’s box, a question of how can one aggressively attack subtlety. I believe that the primary solution is for women to gain control in politics. What more is politics than controlled anger? Passive aggression at it’s finest? It is all these things, the perfect way for a powerful woman, someone by the likes of Alice Paul, Margaret Sanger, Steinem, to get into office and take let America know the truths about the modern day women. The Equal Pay act was sighed in 1963 and is still being attempted to be enhanced today, over 4 decades ago (Campaign Against Women 2). The new charge of women should be heard by the public from the voice of a female politician, but supported by the average women. A way to let society know what a real women is would be to have the charge led by one who perhaps does not way 120 pounds with long legs and a large chest. An aggressive movement by these everyday women, led by a leader in Washington could change the opinion of millions of Americans everywhere.
The exploitation of women in media and society, as mentioned by many of my classmates, is truly astonishing. It never occurred to me how much the advertisements I saw affected me until we were told to find ads with women in them and when I first flipped through my stack of nearly ten magazines, I couldn’t find any that seemed out of the ordinary to me. I flipped past an ad for a zit remover which read “Imagine a place where you can gaze into his eyes and forget to think about how you look,” as well as an advertisement for a new Oscar de la Renta perfume which read “The Spirit of Femininity,” and featured an overly photoshopped woman holding up a provocative, flower shaped bottle of perfume with only one of her perfectly manicured fingertips. To me these advertisements were normal, and I didn’t see anything different compared to them and any of the other numerous ads in my fashion magazines. Soon I realized that these ads that I was so used to and almost tuned out were exactly the ones that we were supposed to find, but that I had seen nothing wrong with them due to my overexposure to such ads in large quantities.
ReplyDeleteThough technology has clearly been a great advancement for society, it has also reverted the position of women, not back to homemakers, but to objects. Women in these advertisements are supposed to be perfect, setting an unrealistic standard for normal women and increasing rates of eating disorders and domestic violence around the country (“Campaign”). Women feel the pressure to be perfect and look like altered photographs of anorexic models, and though we know in the back of our minds that no one really looks like that, it is hard to shake the image and convince ourselves that we are not expected to be that flawless. Though there has been a recent increase in the exploitation of men in advertisements, I do not think that this form of abuse on both genders is a way of progression. Although there may soon be an equal number of men being overly sexualized in advertisements, I think that this will only leave us with a population desperately trying to achieve perfection when perfection exists nowhere.
This new stereotype of women has only layered upon those already existing. Though with the vote and the pill women gained political and sexual freedom, the belief that women are homemakers and should be in a separate, domestic sphere still prevails. On top of that, with the advancement of technology and increase in prevalent advertisements, the idea that women are weak, sexualized, and “trying to be perfect” beings exists. I do not think that this is more important than that the clear pay gap between men and women that many of my classmates have mentioned, but I do think that it is equally important and more relevant at the moment. The issue with a pay gap is that there has been one since women entered the workforce, and the idea that this should be changed is not a new one. But the new domain of women being exploited in advertisements is current, and should be addressed before it progresses and is merely another bottom layer on increasing stereotypes.
Therefore, it is clear that this relatively new perception of women needs to be addressed. With even more ways of advertisements existing on the internet, television, billboards, magazines, etc. it is obvious that there needs to be a change. Many people have started movements to increase the amount of "plus-sized" women in advertisements and to decrease the amount of photoshopping on these photos, but these have quickly faltered. We need a new revolution, with the face and leader of it being merely the “real” women of the world. These women are not stick thin and weak, but rather asserting themselves to fight for their right to be perceived no differently than men. If all the women who have been feeling bad about themselves due to the perception of women in advertisements and the media unite, there is no doubt that their voices will be heard.
Jean Kilbourne’s film and the discussions we had in class regarding the ads had been the sole focus of my first post, and I think I neglected to discuss the political aspects of this debate. I think Charlie is correct in his idea that social reform will lead to political reform, and I already addressed the need for social reform in my previous post. However, I think that there will not be as much of a significant difference between the two. I think that social and political changes can work together to create equality between men a women. As more females become integrated into working life or political positions, maybe advertising will choose to make them appear stronger and dominative. We can only hope…
ReplyDeleteBefore, I talked mostly about how I thought the role of women and men in the home should become interchangeable, and that women should be able to work while men stay home to raise the children. But, I didn’t really address how women in the workplace presents such an issue. Even women who are out in the workforce today aren’t treated equally as men, and I think this needs to change. Women need to be able to break through the “glass ceiling” like Ben said, and should take their cues from Lilly Ledbetter, who refused to settle for a lower pay than men who were below her at Goodyear.
I found it interesting that Sara brought up the idea of a woman president. I had totally forgotten about the prospect of this in our country one day, and it just goes to show how we have been raised in a society where that is thought to be unrealistic. I think Gabbie made a good point when she mentioned that Obama appointed a woman to the Supreme Court, but this is only a baby step in the grand scheme of things.
In my first post, I strongly supported the necessary change of society and how that would be the key factor in counteracting these sexist views, but my opinion has changed (as it does it many times in this class) and I now see the argument supporting the political focus. Although I still agree that people’s mindset in society need to change, I think political change and social change joined together would be a more powerful movement.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sara that the political and social changes can lead to one another and that a female president would be the most important feat for women to accomplish. Although Sara said that political would lead to social, I haven’t yet settled on which, I believe, would be the initial spark. The quote from Zinn about how laws can only go so far unless they’re actually enforced opens up to the idea that a political aim would not be promising for women and continues to pull me back to supporting social change. However, there have been instances in the past where a social movement combined with a political movement has achieved a goal. The march on Washington was a collective of people fighting societal limits and social restraints, yet zoning in on the government and demanding a change. Although it seems unrealistic and a second march on Washington would be difficult, if women formed a unified group with a single goal to gain respect as humans, then the government could not ignore it. The Supreme Court did shrug off the Walmart case, but if thousands of women actively participated, voiced the change they wanted to see and made sure that the public saw, then the government would be forced to acknowledge the movement. Just like the women did for the Pill by entering the Senate and physically placing themselves in front of those who oppressed them, women today have all the media available to ensure their fight goes viral. If women step up together and join forces instead of standing alone, more women will have the courage to speak up just like the housewives in the 60s and 70s did not realize that everyone was feeling similarly until they admitted the truth. I see this as a political AND social change; the more women stand up for themselves, the less society will portray them as weak. The political aspect is the direct confrontation to the government, I’m not talking about some small protest outside the capitol, it would only work if women educated other women, took on a less passive acceptance of their role, and stood up to the government.
this is the rest of my post.....
ReplyDeleteA more specific change in government would be a female president. Sounding like such a simple solution, but understanding the difficulty of it, is what proves how truly sexist our world is, or maybe country because Switzerland is currently “closing 76 percent of the country’s gender gap (Global Gender Gap). If the sexual ads aren’t enough proof, just look through history and count how many women have been president, the position considered to be held by America’s number one leader. Being the president calls for responsibility, leadership, intelligence (with the exception from 2001-2009), and power. Seeing that a woman has never been president, it can be assumed that they are perceived to be none of the above, or that they don’t see themselves as any of the above. Even being a first lady calls for numerous obligations and events she must attend in addition to those she also must go to when the president cannot, but it remains “that typical devaluing of the work women do generally, especially in the home and in supporting the spouse” (The First Lady). The repetitive role women play in supporting men and “coming in second” to men is what makes them the weaker sex. An interesting quote I read in the article, The First Lady, brought up the idea of the first lady position finally earning credit, but only after a man is in it, “It [will take] a man in that role to redefine it, and to push it and say, ‘What we do here is of value. It is richer than serving tea and cookies.” No matter what position men are in, it’s taken seriously if they do it. Women need to prove themselves, not to other people, but to other women that they can influence each other not just in their dreams, but in reality. There must be a drastic change in female positions that call for being the leader, not following someone else.
I think that Maddy’s opinion that gender equity needs to start in the political sector was really interesting, but I would have liked to see exactly what she thought should have been done. Like pretty much every issue this complex, deciding on a feasible plan of action is pretty difficult. In my opinion, trying to pass political laws that would result in change in the social and economic realms would be kind of unrealistic. There are many laws- i.e. equal pay act- that have tried to create equality this way, which obviously hasn’t worked out so well. So, while I thought that she brought up some really ideas, my opinion on how gender equity should be achieved hasn’t really changed. However, I really liked that she had evidence from a bunch of outside sources, and I really liked the last quote that she included. I think that this is a really complex topic, and obviously all of the different sectors (economic, political, social, etc.) are heavily intertwined, which is something that should be considered.
ReplyDeleteI think that an interesting topic that a couple of people brought up was the fact that a lot of our opinions as a society come from how we were raised. Like Eliza said, its’ kind of hard to know how much a mother (rather than a father) feels the whole “maternal instinct” thing when she’s staying home from work with a sick kid- does she actually physically feel the need to do this, or does she do it because it is a concept that has been installed into her mind from the time she was born? Personally, I would say that it is the latter.
The fact that the mother does not get credit for this act is what bothers me the most. Like Zinn said, in a capitalist society, work that is not paid for is not considered to be hard work. In the case of the stay at home mom, this is usually completely false. In the article “When We Hated Mom,” it says that women in the 1960’s spent 55 hours a week on domestic chores, which would have been longer than her husband’s work week. However, it is important to remember that things in this realm have gotten better, and “By 2000… almost one-third [of wives] said their husbands did half of all housework, child care or both” (When We Hated Mom). While it’s obviously not the 1950’s anymore, gender equity in the home is still a major issue. I still think that this issue should be solved starting in the social sector. Companies like Wal-mart are waist -deep in lawsuits regarding gender equity, something that would be pretty hard to solve if economic, but not social, reforms were made. If people working in Wal-mart had more respect for their co- workers, these issues would not be nearly as prevalent.
In response to Sara’s post, I’d like to comment on something Dancz said earlier in the year. It was about her or a previous student visiting Washington D.C. and seeing little onesies for babies, a blue one that said “Future President” and a pink one that said “Future First Lady”. When she told us the story, I thought the onesies were supposed to be a joke, kind of like all those super original kitchen jokes I got when I baked my boyfriend cookies for his birthday, but when I realized she was serious I got was pretty mad. I remember hearing that when boys and girls were little, around five, an equal percentage wanted to be president, but around ten, the percentage of girls who aspired to be president had greatly diminished in comparison to the percentage of boys.
ReplyDeleteSo now I wonder, is it the capitalistic society we live in that fuels this expectation that the boy is going to be president and the girl the first lady, or society making little girls think it’s wrong for a woman to be president, or that it shouldn’t be her responsibility/goal. I think it’s ultimately a combination of both, society and capitalism, and so the chicken or egg discussion is a little irrelevant, since no matter which one causes the other, they both lead to the big problem: we haven’t had a female president. That’s insane if you think about it, since of all the presidents there has only been on black president, the current one, and no woman. Half the population of the country is female, so how is that in any way reasonable statistically?
This is why I agree with Sara, we need a woman president for there to be any chance for young girls to see that they have just as much a reason to be president as young boys do, and to have someone to look up to. I read a NY Times article a few days ago about a picture in the White House of a little black boy touching Obama’s hair to see if it was like his, and it being so incredibly powerful because now that little boy sees someone in the president’s chair, the highest and most prestigious job in the country, who is like him, so that little boy knows that he could someday be president and be successful. For that same reason, having a woman president would show little girls that they don’t have to be first lady to get in the White House, that their position is determined by marriage or anything like that, but rather by their own ambition and hard work. They would have someone to look up to and that’s so much more powerful, in my opinion, than the oppression women face in America, the pink onesies, kitchen jokes, and nagging voice telling them they have to go play house. I think for a third wave of feminism to happen, little girls need to have a powerful role model to show them they too can be powerful and in control of their lives.
I want to know how you guys feel about this, whether social values and gender expectations or capitalism is the source of the problem, and how it’s even possible that we haven’t had a woman president, and how important a woman president is to the third wave.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere is a growing crisis around women’s reproductive rights in the United States. A significant group of conservative, Republican ‘tea party’ members are forming an attack on the funds that Planned Parenthood is receiving. In the course of the Republican primary campaign, Mitt Romney took pains to convince socially conservative activists that a right-wing media approach to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood was crucial for the country. Planned Parenthood’s origins dated back nearly ten decades ago, when Margaret Sanger, her sister, and a friend opened the first birth control clinic. This single agency managed to provide a medicine that enable women to gain control of their bodies, which marked the beginning of an exponential step for equality of women. These hard core Republicans that are trying to completely diminish funding to Planned Parenthood, prominently from their religious beliefs. Many members of the group view it as “unnatural” or “inhumane”. Planned Parenthood has been helpful to all women of all socio-economic classes because it provided an affordable resource to ensure that the amount of children women were having was controllable. It would be devastating to all women because it would be a drastic set back from 100 years of progress. If I were to predict what the next Women’s Rights Movement was to look like, it would most likely be a “grass root” movement, sprouting from local communities and expanding. The difficult part about answering the “what’s next” question, is that there really hasn’t been any response to the problem to date. It may require that women lose some rights before react. In order for the movement to occur, an individual would need to be deprived, and when and if it reaches that point, women will react. In my opinion, it will most likely start from a small group of educated women, ultimately, the movement will gain momentum through spreading their ideas at local events and hearings.
ReplyDeleteI think that the third wave for the women’s rights movement shouldn’t be just a wave, but the finalization and ensuring that women are equal to men. In todays modern day society, we have so much technology and knowledge, yet with this knowledge people, including women, are still left in the dust due to the neglect for civil rights. One major example would be the walmart case, in which women complained that even though they were doing the same job as men they were receiving lower pay. The case went all the way up to the supreme court, yet the supreme court said that the case was “too large” for them to take care of. This is completely ridiculous and ignorant of the supreme court to do. There is nothing bigger than the supreme court, so for them to go on and turn away a case because it is “too large” is ridiculous. For the 3rd wave of womens rights it should include a platform that is set to stay; meaning that there needs to be one last huge push to get everything accomplished. While taking things slowly and surely lead to results eventually, we should not have to wait centuries before everything is equal. It is given that people will need time to adjust, but since American thinks that we are already perfect and everyone is equal, why are people having such a hard time adjusting to change? Even the republican platforms, and the governors, are launching a “campaign against women”. They are taking a step in the opposite direction by stopping and cutting off all funding to Planned Parenthood, which was a major accomplishment in birth control and sex education. The third wave needs to happen as soon as possible, before the republican platform decides to undo every step forward that was made. I am by no means saying that all republicans are against womens rights, but there are individuals with major influence, such as governors, that are advocating for bills and laws against civil rights. This movement should not be led by upper class men who have never really been subjected in their lives. While those men, such as presidents and those same governors, do control the majority of the influence, in order to really have a third wave that would be efficacious, the actual voice of the people who want change need to be heard. Instead of making all executive decisions in a high security office by themselves, the government should ask the people what they want, and I bet that in unison an overwhelming amount of people would want equality. That is what I think would be an ideal third wave.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Gabbie. Everyday girls see ads everywhere that show completely unrealistic women that have been retouched to an impossible ideal. I am like all those girls, I see those pictures and ask, Dear God, why can’t I look like that? Then of course I go home, make a snarky comment to my mom covering my actual wishes and she then goes on a rant about how disgusting ads are these days. I’ve noticed recently all these celebrities and articles and whatnot starting to pay attention and say they want to fix the problem of retouching that messes with young, impressionable girl’s minds. That’s a great thing, but I’ve seen no change. I remember Dancz saying in class about some Fashion week thing where models were dying from starvation which forced people to set a weight limit. That’d be great, if I actually believed that it was a healthy limit. If it took girls dying and ruining their reputation than I doubt they set the weight limit too high. Besides, companies want people to buy their product and in our country disgustingly and unrealistically skinny has become “hot” and “attractive”. This then causes women everywhere to buy their product thinking that it will help them look as fantastic as the models when in reality the product probably won’t fit/look right on the person which then causes them to go out and buy more or diet more to fit the insane ideal ads have given our society. The only way to fix this problem is for consumers to demand changes, to, as Rebecca said, boycott their product so long as it sets a completely unrealistic ideals for women. I feel that this is a part of the third wave of feminism because we already see it in society, the unrest towards the retouching and the absurdly and impossible for the majority of women skinniness of models.
ReplyDeleteWomen can’t wait for society to change any longer. They have tried obtaining equality through political and economic fields and made progress there, but the equality they seek is only possible when society accepts it. So it is clear to me that the third wave of feminism should work on changing the social perception of women. One problem I see with this is trying to actually get this done. Most women aren’t radical feminists willing to protest and boycott until their demands are met. There’s even a point to be made that many women don’t know or care enough about their position to take action. It’s easy to overlook a TV add or newspaper advertisement and say it doesn’t affect you but it really does. Unless you really take a closer look there is no way that the viewer can escape unaffected. This brings me to a better option than radical feminism, simply making people aware that they are affected by the media.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Casey when she says that women need to create a better self image, and they can do it by becoming educated on the media’s affect on their perception of “normal”. The more women that understand increase the number of women involved. Eventually the idea of “normalcy” will be replaced with something more attainable. This is even happening now, although unsuccessfully. In magazines like Seventeen, they try to create a more wholesome view of a woman’s body (although, again, very unsuccessful). I assume that eventually, someone will get it right, but the effort is what counts. Getting the fact that being different is OK will help girls obtain their true potential, past being a wife. But what is an empowered, educated female to do when she is still treated unfairly? Unfortunately, not much.
In order to fix this problem, we need to turn not only to social concerns but also to political and economic. In my first post I mentioned Iceland’s success in equity, this, in part, was reached by an actual PLAN to tackle the issue. But even before that, Iceland’s first female prime minister (in 2009) provided major headway in the fight for equality. If there is a legitimate example for women to follow, a woman with children and an important job, then equity would be easier to visualize and women would feel empowered. Their needs to be some sort of an example set that can become the new “norm” for women, someone to look up to and become. However, there is one REALLY big problem people seem to miss… the men.
Women can’t do this alone! In Killing Us Softly the author notes that women had to change into “men” but men have never had to change into “women”. So basically, no matter how much progress women make, if the men don’t cooperate then nothing can be really accomplished. Also, its not even that men have to “cooperate” they must actually be willing to change their identities and become more feminine and the sad fact is, those chances are slim to none. While men still “rule the world” there is no conceivable way for equality to be reached. So that raises a whole new question… how can we create equality from a man’s perspective? It’s an even more daunting task than fighting from a woman’s side. Who in their right mind would give up the power that a man has over a woman? My suggestion is something that I actually already brought up with Iceland… putting more women in the political sphere. If we bring the women up to par with the men and create some sort of equilibrium we have a chance at becoming truly equal.
To add to what people have been saying so far such as Gabbie and Olivia, I forgot to mention in my earlier blog post that media has a gigantic influence on whether a third wave will happen and why it will happen. I agree with them when they say that girls grow up looking at advertisements, and constantly thinking that they need to be super skinny, super pretty, and to take a seat behind the men. We are influenced by what we see as children, so even the ads we see as young children and have no idea what they mean will follow us into later life. There are so many issues with the media that are so hard to control. First of all, their main concern in my opinion is not to objectify women to demean them. What advertisements are trying to do is simply to sell products and to make money, and making ads that are demeaning is the way they can maximize their profits. The hardest part of reforming our culture to be equal will be finding a way to made advertisements themselves be more equal. The companies aren’t going to just all of a sudden one day decide to change their whole marketing scheme. Companies won’t do this because they know that their ads won’t have such a great impact on people and won’t sell as many products if, for example, a man is using a vacuum machine. To go along with how in the 60’s tons of women because involved in the work force, however men weren’t staying at home, they were still at their jobs. I don’t think that in order to have an equal society we need to have men be the ones completely at home while women are working. In fact, the responsibility should be equal among the parents, so that the age old stereotype of the father working all day, coming home for a nice dinner and then sleeping while during the day the mom cooks and cleans, and watches out for the baby. If the stereotypes we hold about our lives today (and I know everyone believes in stereotypes some way or another whether we admit it or not) don’t change, then neither will the way our society functions. The change needs to start within the people, and as soon as we reform our own minds, companies will realize that different ads will still appeal to us, since we have changed our mindset. From then on, people should be influenced by ads that represent a society with equality, and then rapid change will occur like in my first blog post. Overall, phase one of the third wave needs to be reforming the way people think about the stereotypes of women.
ReplyDeleteIn response to like five people,
ReplyDeleteWhile it will be a huge accomplishment for a woman to be president of the United States, the title is a lot less meaningful than it sounds. While it would demonstrate the great efforts of feminists from past to present, and the dangers they endured just to make life better for women, presidency would not significantly affect all women around America. Although I didn’t agree with her original point, I became fond of Rebecca’s suggestion about a “second march on Washington”, sparked by an influential group of unified women. Regularly in this chapter, I remind myself of the main ideas in Chapter 24 of Howard Zinn’s A People’s History. Zinn often stressed the idea that if the 99% came together, no political power could silence their voices. If you look at the suffragists and activists in support of women’s reproductive freedom, they managed to accomplish their goals by creating communality and fighting for what they believed in. Groups like the NWP and The American Birth Control League sparked trends of revolutionary acts, which ultimately resulted in groundbreaking steps for women in reaching gender equity. This social drive will achieve economic and political highs for women, but only with initiation. Another place where initiation could start, aside from forming groups, is the work place. We often discuss in class the stereotypical occupations for women. In entertainment and media males may be criticized for working as a nurse or a secretary. One of the funniest (not “ha” funny) scenes from the movie Zoolander is just a whole skit of Ben Stiller’s in-laws ripping on him for being a nurse. While the writers made it comical and unable for a one-dimensional thinker to understand the significance of the scene, it is astonishing that the jobs women do are so harshly portrayed. I don’t know how this assumption of women in the workplace could be changed, but it’s all about perception and perception can definitely change.
I realized I made a bunch of typos - so here is my edited first post:
ReplyDeleteWhen I was three days old, my mom brought me home wrapped up in a pastel pink scrap of fabric that I fondly remember as “Bebe.” All four Banbury children were given these blankies as infants, identical to each other except for one thing: color. While me and my sister received the pink, both my brothers got blue. This is one of the problems that society faces today. From the day that we are born, specific gender roles start to become ingrained into our minds. From the color of the clothes that are parents dress us in, to the characters that we see on our favorite childhood TV shows. We know how we are supposed to act. However, this has a detrimental effect on the livelihood of women because it breeds generations of passive women who are raised to expect less.
All females are raised to fill the roles that media has created for them. All of the TV shows that my little sister watches contain young girls that are wearing short shorts, low shirts and massive amounts of makeup. They all giggle and obsess over boys. She is nine. The ads that are featured on television and in print are also very offensive – either portraying women so perfect the paragon becomes unattainable, or simply a women being subjugated or abused by a man. One of the more memorable ads depicts a completely naked women covered in food, as a group of men eat off her as if she is a table (GenderAds). But despite my unhappiness concerning these shows and advertisements, it is unrealistic to expect the media to change without significant social reform. The United States is a society based entirely on the capitalist system, and the media WILL NOT CHANGE unless the consumer changes.
So this is where I disagree with Charlie. I think that political reform is going to be a key part of the third wave of the women’s movement, and that the political changes will lead to social revolution. I feel like one of the problems that women currently face is that, similar to the phenomenon after the acquisition of suffrage, there is a lack of “feminist spark” in American women. A woman president would provide that necessary spark to really start the movement off. I know this sounds cliché, but I think a woman president would inspire women throughout the country. She would provide a good role model, instead of trashy celebs like the Kardashians of today’s tabloids. In addition, once people see that a woman is capable of becoming someone who is widely regarded as one of the most powerful people in the world, it would become much more difficult to discriminate against women. This sounds idealistic, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNot many people have brought up the overwhelming gender gaps, so I want to mention them.
ReplyDeleteI looked at the Global Gender Gap Index and Lesotho (I have never heard of this country) in Sub-Saharan Africa has a smaller gender gap the United States. That’s just wow, I realize we have problems in this country, but wow.
The Gapminder app was also very interesting, although it showed me what I had expected: as the amount of children a woman has increases, her life expectancy decreases. Now, that’s not surprising because the physical act of having a child is exhaustive and raising that child takes a great amount of effort, but also since women in poorer countries with lower life expectancies are more likely to have more children. Yet, some countries, such as Israel, with an average of 4.5 children, and Paraguay, with 6.5, have a relatively high life expectancy of 64 and 63 respectively, so it is possible for women to live a long life and have many children, although in most situations that is not the case.
Onto economic disparity. The first thing that jumped out at me was the little green dot to the right of the graph, which states that for physicians and surgeons, women make 40% less than men. It’s incredible that such a thing is possible, just as how I said earlier it’s incredible that there hasn’t been a woman president, since that job should not be one where gender is an issue at all, not that any should be. It really struck me that the jobs that women make the same amount of money, sometimes more, or only a little less than men is the jobs that pay less and are more service-oriented. Now, I’ve heard that women make 30 cents to the dollar before, but seeing that graph and realizing one day I might be making less than an equally qualified man is unbelievable, ridiculous even.
Looking at all these graphs and apps, I’ve come to realize that although a woman president is key, we really need some leveling on the economic playing field, as several of my classmates have said. The 30 cents to dollar ratio has been the same for a couple decades now, and that is a couple decades too long, for there to be economic change, women must demand it and be aware of what they are entitled to for their work.
Though I mentioned in my first post that gender pay inequity was not as urgent as a problem as the demeaning advertisements against women, after reading my classmate’s posts, I have changed my mind. Though the fight for pay equity has been longer and is not as “popular” currently, it still prevails. When I looked at the interactive site titled “Why Is Her Paycheck Smaller?” I immediately went to the profession that I intend to be when I am older. When I noticed that women lawyers make 22% less than men, I was outraged. Similar to the 76 cents to the dollar, it was outrageous to me that women doing the exact same thing as men could earn nearly one quarter less than them, solely based on gender. I then realized that though advertisements impact the self esteem of women, earning less than their male colleagues financially detriments women. As America is clearly in a fairly dire economic state, corporations will most likely not be actively willing to change what they have utilized for decades, as having equal pay would definitely decrease their own profits. Corporations will be the only ones losing money if they are forced to have equal pay regardless of gender, which to me doesn’t seem like the worst thing, as I am reminded of “Inside Job.” Especially in high paying jobs such as chief executives, physicians, and surgeons, the gap between male and female pay is the largest. Therefore, having seen how these corporations have tricked their customers into debt while only they have profited, I would say that it would be almost “karma” for them to have to repay their debts to women who clearly deserve it. There is blatant sexism in many corporations, like Walmart, who was let off the hook of an accusation of sexism as the case was “too big for the Supreme Court," or with Goodyear and Lilly Ledbetter, who never got her pay even after the Equal Pay Act, when she clearly needed it. Women would be able to financially support themselves more actively and have to rely on men less if their pay were equal, thus taking away another stereotype that women “need” men, while also increasing the chances that women would be able to bring in the income and not be the ones statistically as well as stereotypically staying home with the kids. This will not be easy to do, however, as the Equal Pay Act is obviously not being enforced because big business and politics are so closely intertwined. There needs to be a dominant campaign to support the equal pay of women, and though it will be difficult, it will be clearly worth it to gain equality between genders for the generations to come.
ReplyDeleteSubliminal messages can really and truly be the hardest ones to shake. When I say this I simply mean we really do not know what we are being exposed to unless we can understand all the messages being sent to us in advertising. “Killing Us Softly” really exposed this issue to me and almost explains why the division between sexes still exists. Until these subtle messages can be erased, I think there will always be sexism.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, because women give birth to their children, they are automatically attached to them in a different way than the father. I found that while reading “When We Hated Mom” it was clear that the term “stay at home mom” is because of birth, if males gave birth I am sure it would be the other way around. Through all these advertisements, women are constantly being expected to work at home and take care of the family. I found it shocking that “approximately 30 percent of wives said their husbands did no housework at all” (When 1). This means that basically one third of the husbands in America do nothing around the house and expect the mother to take care of the house like it is their literal job. I find this disturbing and a perfect example of why sexism still exists. All the adds with cleaning products are being directed at women because of this statistic, the only way to break this, is to change the adds. This way it is no longer feminine to “make the house sparkle.” It is clear to me that this sexism still exists and now the real question is how to get rid of it and what is the next move for women around the world?
I believe that the importance of a “revolution” really comes from the social aspect. When looking back at past rebellions, I always see a constant and that is communication. Well, now we have it easier than ever. I think this third wave needs to have an emphasis on breaking the chains of societies expectations. Women really need to come together. While reading the Supreme Court case about Wal-Mart, it really stood out that, “1.5 million female workers sue the nation’s biggest private employer for back pay and punitive damages that could have totaled billions of dollars” (CSM Walmart 1). I think that this needs to get more published. Mothers, like my own, would really back up this case if they knew about it. Showing America that the women of this country are willing to take a billion dollar case to court would be massive. This would show that the women are willing to fight back and will actually use social media to an advantage. These millions of women could start at this law suit, where women are being oppressed at work, and work all the way to boycotting and getting rid of sexist adds. Cleaning up society, one step at a time. It would not take that long for women to become extremely relevant when trying to get their ideas heard and I think it is the first step for the third wave. We need to get rid of the preconceived notions of society, so that people are not seen as a sex, but instead as a person.
I believe that the third wave of the women’s gender equity movement should be a single-platform, community driven cause. Following in the footsteps of the NWP as a single-platform movement creates a simple and concise objective that is easy for all to understand. A community driven movement would be the most powerful because of the power of sheer numbers and the ability of women from all sorts of backgrounds to partake.
ReplyDeleteI believe the platform should be wage equity, nice and simple. Women should make as much money as men for the same work. Women have accomplished so much in the political realm (suffrage), the social realm (the pill), and yet the economic inequality is still staggering. The fact that many women in medical fields make as little as 40% less than the average men is astounding.
If this one goal were accomplished, other issues such as sexism in the media could be dealt with more easily. Women who are able to rise up the economic ladder will have much more power in companies and the way they advertise their products. With economic equity comes the power to change the way the public perceives products in our capitalist society.
Accomplishing wage equity would also help women pay for increasingly expensive healthcare costs.
In this way, wage equity covers so many different fields that it should most definitely be the platform of the third wave. In our capitalist society, money can make one of the largest differences in a person’s life, for better or for worse. And the goal here is to take advantage of the role of money in our society and use it to close the equity gap between men and women.
After reading the posts by my peers, it has come to my attention that many of us think that sexism in advertisements must be the first to be dealt with. I respectfully disagree. Though the mass media creates impossible standards for women, thus destroying their self-esteem, one must really ask his or herself what platform would make the most difference. It is true that if the media displayed men and women on the same playing field, the social climate would improve; however, it must be noted that it would do only that. I have realized that changing the social climate would give women the confidence they need to be more assertive, but it cannot change the wage gap that affects the majority of women in the United States. As a math person, I think of social balance as a rectangle and wage equity as a square. While a rectangle is only sometimes a square, a square is always a rectangle. What I'm trying to say is that wage equity has a greater influence on social balance for women than social balance has on wage equity. That is why wage equity would be the best primary objective of the third wave: it would effectively hit two birds with one stone.
ReplyDeleteI agree with max in the assessment of the changing of sexism in advertisements not being the first step though I'd like to take it a step farther. I do not think that getting rid of sexism in advertising can even be considered part of the process because of the unrealistic nature of the suggestion. Sexism in ads has been around since before anyone in this class was alive and pretty much since ads were invented. Once we look past that I also agree with max that a far more important and possibly even manageable battle would be that against unfair wages between men and women. It used to be that women barely made half of men and now it is 76 cents to the dollar, who is to say that number is incapable of rising. Granted I am not a woman and I am also 5 foot 10 and 120 pounds so worrying about my figure is not an issue but i'm pretty sure making the same amount of money as men is a bit more important than having women feel better about themselves, which is possible through methods other than getting rid of ads.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading many articles I realized that just because men and women are physically different from one another, does not mean that they needed to be treated differently. I see that Max notices the point that there should be pay for work and not for sex. I really agree with this point. If someone was just based off of performance rather than sex, or background, then jobs would be a lot more competitive. I think that this would make jobs less about what connections you have and more about getting noticed because of great work. Society would still have to completely change in order to get this goal achieved.
ReplyDeleteI also saw that many of my classmates recognized the fact that a political revolution would be needed and I disagree. For women to get their point across they need to go through society not the government. By going through society there would be more people to talk to, and there is a guarantee that people hear the cry for help. A political attack could very well get shot down like more than 50 percent of the bills passed in Congress. I do not think that there is a need for a women president because yes this would be a spark, but a man can get the same report from women, he just needs to listen to society when he heard women trying to break the chains of society. Sex discrimination comes from the workplace because it is seen throughout society. If women were able to boycott work and show how needed than they are in the work place, then this society rebellion would definitely raise the pay of women. The problem is, who has the time for a rebellion like this. I think for the 3rd wave of feminism their needs to be a juristic move that shows that women are ready to be seen as equal in society.
I think that the third wave of the Women’s Equality Movement should focus on taking an active stance on removing the stereotypes that we have in our society. They’re everywhere. To just name a few:
ReplyDelete• In school, a kid needs to go home sick. The nurse says, “What’s your mom’s phone number?”
• Have you ever seen a man changing a diaper in a diaper commercial?
• Women are itemized in advertisements
Think about these. I think that the next big goal of the Women’s Rights Movement should be to remove these stereotypes that are bound to women. It’s so prevalent in society, yet nobody seems to notice it because it’s the norm. In fact, this whole concept was only just introduced to me during the “Killing us Softly” video. Jean Kilbourne introduced me to this idea during her take on women in advertising. To truly be considered “equals”, women must be able to share the same roles as men in society, and be freed of the stereotypes that binds them to their less empowered past.
One thing people may say is: “So how do you instantly remove these notions? It’s not like the minds of millions of people are going to change overnight”. However, the way to achieve this is not brief. To remove a stereotype, you need a variant, one who differs from this notion and is able to break it. Women who empower themselves through their own acts will be able to advance women as an entire gender. Look at immensely popular figures such as Oprah or Ellen Degeneres. These women have broken the mold for the “typical woman” and have been able to accomplish great things. I think that this should be the goal for the third wave of the women’s rights movement. To shatter the social mold that has restrained women for countless years. Symbolically speaking, the previous movements have cracked the mold, and an upcoming movement could finally break it. I know most of you have already posted, but what do you think?
After reading the posts of my classmates, there are multiple people I’d like to respond to.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I’d like to respond to Eliza’s post. I love how she mentions that perhaps if women could advance in the workplace, then that 75¢ for women could turn into the $1 for men. I agree with everything she is saying, because if a woman were able to be equal in the workplace, they could be seen as more than just cooks, wives, and mothers. I would like to see a movement happen where women attempt to achieve equality in the workplace, because I think the benefit from such a movement would be tremendous. The ultimate way to achieve equality is by being independent from men, and speaking from a woman’s perspective, making a respectable salary is a very good first step. Instead of just being secretaries, or other “women’s jobs”, women as CEO’s and executives could prove to be a great advancement towards the equalization of women.
I’d also like to respond to Jennifer. I like what she says, partially because it is like what I said, and partially because of this sentence: “We need a new revolution, with the face and leader of it being merely the ‘real’ women of the world. These women are not stick thin and weak, but rather asserting themselves to fight for their right to be perceived no differently than men.” I really think Jennifer hit the nail on the head with this quote. This may sound dumb, but I’m actually shocked at how much her point makes sense. Someone like Oprah who is a “real woman” needs to lead the final push for women’s equality, not the stick thin models who weigh like 85 pounds. I think that for women to be truly equal, they must do exactly what Jennifer says. So I’d like to commend her for truly understanding what must me done.
Lastly, I’d like to respond to Chris (Toph). He says “Subliminal messages can really and truly be the hardest ones to shake.” This is a great point, because the messages about women in advertisements and stereotypes often go unnoticed. To destroy these messages, I think that women first need to publicize them. Just like Jean Kilbourne introduces, many people do not notice these subliminal messages. If people can be introduced to the stereotyping that generalize women, only then can they actually remove them.
Ideally, if all these ideas could come together at the same time, then I believe a third women’s rights movement could be happening in the near future. First, I think Toph’s idea needs to come true. The issue needs to be noticed before being solved. Next, I think that both my and Jen’s ideas should be carried through. They need a leader for the movement, to symbolize the real, the modern woman. Finally, all of the other women can come together and complete Eliza’s plan, but on a national scale. With this combination of strategies, I believe that a Women’s Rights Movement is inevitable, and once begun, unstoppable. I believe that should this occur, the ages old dream of women could finally be complete.
In my first post, I obviously felt quite strongly that social change had to happen first, but after reading many of your posts, especially Jennifer’s, I have come to see that economic change can be a catalyst for social change as well. I hadn’t thought about the fact that the wage gap reduces women’s self-sufficiency and thus forces them to be more passive, furthering that particular stereotype. In addition, if we look at the Global Gender Gap Index countries then we can possibly see if they have anything in common economically that would indicate that economy has a reflection on overall equality. The answer is a resounding yes: the top four countries on the list are all of the same economic style. Each of them has high taxes, a relatively free economy (Norway is the exception with a government controlled petroleum market), and is highly industrialized. The CIA website even referred to Iceland’s economy as a “Scandinavia-type social-market economy”, proving how similar the four countries are. If America and its government truly want to see economic change for women, then obviously we must change the whole structure of our economy. It’s no fluke that four countries with the same economic structure are at the top of the gender equality list.
ReplyDeleteThe other type of change that I mentioned would not jumpstart transformation across the board was political change. I am also beginning to rethink this one, although I have no actual proof for my claims. The only reason I am questioning my earlier claim is the thought of what would happen if a woman were president, put in my head by an earlier classmate’s post. If, for example, Hillary Clinton were to become President, how would that change the face of America? Not only would it encourage additional bills into Congress for women’s rights, but it would also give women a sense of empowerment in their job lives. The election of a woman to the presidency would give American women the opportunity to think, “If a woman can become President of the United States, I can ask for a raise in my job.” In addition, there may be more government funding put into advertising and awareness for women’s rights issues which would help erase the problem as well. I now feel that political change can foster economic and possibly even subsequent social change if it happens on a big enough scale.
After the economic status of woman levels out to men’s economic status, I believe this would be the time, which holds the most potential of changing the traditional perception of woman. When we watched Jean Kilbourne’s film in class, a new side of advertisements was brought up. Advertisements involving women (even little girls vs little boys) not only showed the girls silenced in some way with their hand over their mouth, but also turn to the side of in the background. The sexuality of woman in advertisements is completely abused because not only does it subconsciously affect what society entitles as socially correct or acceptable, but it also shines woman in a extremely negative light. “A writer in early 190, boosting the beauty business, started of a magazine article with the sentence “the average American woman has sixteen square feet of skin... American women are not spending even one-fifth of the amount necessary to improve their appearance” He went on to say that there were forty thousand beauty shops in the country, and that 2$billion was spend each year on cosmetics for woman—but this was insufficient”(Zinn). Woman are constantly seeing these perfected girls—with beautiful skin, hair, and teethe with extremely skinny bodies. Jean Jilbourne said in her film that there really are only 8 famous super models in the United States, so why is it that these woman who have these unreal and unhealthy bodies, are the leading pictures of magazines. Forcibly it can only make a girl compare herself and simply just think she is not good enough. If woman were in the positions of power regarding advertisements, then there would be a complete change in energy regarding the feminine energy and channeling down this sexuality and stereotyping we see in many popular advertisements segregating what men and woman do. Again there is a difference between male and females in the sense that woman do put on makeup so it is only natural that the advertisements would specifically target the woman, but for cleaning products and kitchen utilities, there is absolutely no reason that woman should be the only ones targeted.
ReplyDeleteLike many of my other classmates, before this unit I never thought of the sexism that goes on in the world, but we either can’t physically see it or we just ignore it. I think that the beginning of the next movement should focus especially on the media. I think it’s time to face the fact that media is one of the most prevalent things in today’s society. It basically controls our everyday life and things it should not be able to control. Before really thinking about it, I thought that equality should be reached within jobs, were women should get equal pay and treatment as men do, however as I looked into it I realized that before this happens, society needs to change the way they perceive women.
ReplyDeleteIn some cases companies have changed the way they advertise, to show women it is ok to be in their bodies. The Dove commercial is one of the few commercials I have seen that promotes being ok with the body you have. Even in TV shows or movies women rarely have a lead role, and when they do, they have a quality that is exaggerated. Showing women it is ok to be alright with themselves is only the first step. While looking at the advertisements my classmates brought in, I realized that in most of them, you saw women doing the more feminine things and the men doing more masculine things. The media could show that it is ok to be a stay at home dad, and have a working mom. Showing that it is ok for a dad to take the children to school, while the mom hurries off to work, could bring a new light to the media and potentially the world. The new normal could eventually be equality between genders.