How do we live in a contradictory world?

While flipping through the recent issue of Marie Claire with Reese Witherspoon on the cover, I was faced with a dilemma. Marie Claire has launched a "What I Love About Me" campaign where women around the country submit entries about the unique flaws and features they love about themselves. The goal is to make women feel confident inside and out. I think this would be a great campaign if the page wasn't situated next to an image of Jessica Alba, advertising for the newest makeup product that will "blow you away." It is also problematic that the best submissions are featured in the magazine. Who determines the flaws that are better than others?


If inner beauty matters so much, then why am I also reading an article in the magazine titled, "Ankles Away. When Samantha Marshall learned that a cosmetic procedure could vanquish her 'cankles,' she stepped right up, dreaming of dainty new ankles in kitten heels. But could it really be that easy?" This article describes a woman's insecurities about her "cankles" and subsequent plastic surgery procedure. This $4,000 to $6,000 procedure gives Marshall "elegant ankles" and her ankles are no longer a source of ridicule from her boyfriend. The cover image for this article is an image of a woman's legs. As I discussed in my previous post, this image has been overdone and makes women into objects.


For a final project last semester, I posed the question: How do we live in a contradictory world? The question came out of my frustration at the mixed messages my favorite magazines promote. Should I love my body or try to "transform" it with makeup, plastic surgery, and a new exercise routine? 


These conflicting messages are present in commercials, such as Sofia Vergara's Pepsi Zero campaign and her Kmart campaign. Check out Vergara's first commercial for Pepsi where she strips off her clothes before reaching the drink stand and the behind the scenes clip for Diet Pepsi's "Skinny" campaign. These commercials are selling the product as well as Vergara's figure. Yet, Vergara's Kmart campaign shares a different message. She advertises for her new line with Kmart by showing her clothes in many body types. She transforms into these women, suggesting that her clothing line is accessible to more women than the usual size two to four population brands like Abercrombie target. Vergara tells her audience to be sexy and proud of who he or she is. Take a look at the commercial and an article discussing the campaign.


The messages in popular magazines and commercials are not all positive or all negative. A woman can wear makeup to enhance her performance while feeling empowered and confident in herself. Women live in this contradictory world by taking what works for them and challenging the messages that don't. I don't want to try the toughest workout in America (No thanks, Marie Claire!), but I do want to check out the magazine's tips for skin care that is safer and more effective.

Sofia Vergara at the 2011 Golden Globes.

(http://www.fashionfame.com/wp-content/uploads/2011

/01/sofia-vergara-2011-golden-globe-awards.jpeg)

What do movie and television posters say about their female leads?

I love watching films and critiquing them. I've been thinking about how movie and television posters portray their female leads. This poster sparked my interest:

In terms of romantic comedies, I think this movie is one of the best ones I've seen in years, so when I saw this poster I was bummed. This image is problematic because Marisa Tomei is reduced to a pair of legs. Steve Carrell is also pigeon-holed into the sex-crazy male with that goofy expression on his face. The "legs as framing" technique is overdone, particularly in hip-hop music videos. For more information on this, you can consult the Media Education Foundation's website and documentary, DreamWorlds. The videos on this site are great for educators to use in their classrooms. They're currently producing a documentary of Jessica Valenti's, The Purity Myth. I read this book last summer. Valenti discusses sex-education in the United States, "purity balls" where young women creepily promise to stay faithful to their fathers before marriage, and she calls into question where this concept of "virginity" came from. Take a look at Valenti's book!

Another promo for a television program that caught my attention:

And:

So "Don't let the name fool you", just judge me based on the slip dress I'm wearing?! What's going on in these pictures? The last one caught my attention because she's not looking at the viewer. While she is powerful and strong, this ad reminds the viewer that she is "feminine" and a woman with the heels and sexy, black dress. There isn't anything wrong with women looking sexy, but there is a problem when she is reduced to that one image. What about these images says that she's strong?

I then looked at this image:

This image fits with many other promos ABC has created. Desperate Housewives was one of the worst offenders with images like this and this. It's playing on an old double-bind that women need to be innocent, as shown with the white clothing, yet sinful and dirty with the slogan "they're not saints." Anyone else notice that while the show tries to incorporate some diversity, they are "whitening" this image. I find that ridiculous! This image will attract male audiences, but I find it problematic and disheartening that these images of women are recycled over and over again. When will this change?

Media education is important in an age where young people and their parents watch on average four hours of television per day. I'm currently reading Catching a Wave: Reclaiming Feminism in the 21st Century edited by Rory Dicker and Alison Piepmeier, and the first chapter begins with a call for media education. I think this starts small by questioning the images that have become so ingrained in our minds that we perceive them as normal. It is not NORMAL that women are portrayed as body parts instead of people.

New Film, A Dangerous Method, Causes Stir

As a psychology nerd, I'm excited about this film. It's based on the true story of Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and his patient Sabina Spielrein. Jung and Sabina begin a sexual relationship, and the film centers around the tension between Freud and Jung. It's a fascinating story. The film's causing some stir for a scene where Jung played by Michael Fassbender spanks Sabina played by Keira Knightley. Why is that necessary? Are the minds behind the film over-sexualizing Keira so more people will watch?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040739/Keira-Knightley-

A-Dangerous-Method-Sex-spanking-bitter-feud.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

What I've Been Reading

1. 20 Things You'll Regret Doing in College. 


Some highlights with my comments: 
Giving that person your cell phone number. Yes, why do I do this?
Wearing sweatpants in public. I will never regret this. I like being comfortable!
Never talking to that attractive person who seemed to be sitting just a few rows ahead of you in all your classes. Yes, I think we're all guilty of this! 


2. Italian Vogue cover replicates this image, left, of a woman with the world's smallest waist. 

Why is scary-skinny considered "fashionable"? These images are disturbing, and it bothers me that more people aren't holding Italian Vogue accountable for its cover.


3. Adolescent boys keep Deep Secrets. I read Dr. Niobe Way's book, Deep Secrets: Boys' Friendships and the Crisis of Connection, this summer, and I was happy to see that Feministing did a post on it a few weeks ago. Dr. Way is a developmental psychologist at NYU, and she's spent the past two decades doing research on male friendships during early and later adolescence. 


She found in interviews that boys in early adolescence have close friendships. They admit to needing close friends to share their feelings with, opposite to the stereotype that boys don't want to talk about their emotions. She noticed a shift in boys attitudes in later adolescence when male friendships dissolve and boys are stereotyped into only talking about girls, sports or video games.

Offensive. I've Decided.

#1 worst conversation to have with your child. 

Funny or Offensive? You Decide.

(http://cdn.buzznet.com/media-cdn/jj1/headlines/2011/06/

justin-timberlake-mila-kunis-mtv-movie-awards-2011.jpg)

Take a moment to consider what's going on in this picture... I was confused at first until I found this link. At the MTV Movie Awards, presenters, Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake shared with the audience that they have "never dated, are just friends, and are like brother and sister." This sibling relationship was demonstrated by touching each other on stage. 


Okay, I would NEVER do that to my brother. I don't think it's funny to do that in front of a live audience, and really Justin was it necessary to comment about the size of your penis afterward? Now that I'm processing this image, I am uncomfortable with it and the thought that young children were probably watching this show. I LOVE Mila Kunis, and I respect her for publicly speaking about her struggles to be a successful woman in the television and movie industries. Yet, there are aspects of her image that frustrate me. Is she a woman comfortable with her sexuality or is she putting on a show for her male fans? I think it's interesting that we read about celebrities' personal lives and view them in films and feel as if we know them. It is kind of creepy now that I think about it. You decide.

"Pretty is not enough" for Bare Escentuals Campaign

When I opened up my AOL a few days ago, an email from Bare Escentuals titled "Pretty is not enough" instantly peaked my interest. After some brief research, I found that Bare Escentuals, a company that promotes natural-looking makeup, has a new campaign telling women that pretty is important but being truly "beautiful" is the highest prize. The creators did a blind casting call where models ages 20-60 answered questionnaires. 

My first thought after reading the messages above was "Wait, what?! This doesn't make sense at all. What's the difference between being pretty versus being beautiful?" I'm still confused about what it is supposed to mean. It appears based on the website that this new campaign is meant to be a positive message about embracing inner beauty, but I'm not following.

Why does being "bold" have to be linked to being "beautiful"? Why does beauty have to be a prerequisite for having a bold, happy, "limitless" life? Also, let's consider the type of beauty Bare Escentuals is advocating for. A woman can only become a "force of beauty" if she uses the company's makeup, and her complexion is therefore flawless and conforming to society's perfect beauty standards. Isn't this ad just reinforcing the rule that outer beauty instantly transforms a woman's inner beauty? This is a real dilemma in a world where women are constantly told that the way they look is their greatest asset and source of self-worth. Let's take beauty out of the equation when we tell young girls that they can be strong, compassionate, independent, and spunky.

Links:

A fellow blogger questions whether this campaign is sweet or insulting.

An article from The New York Times describing the campaign.