“[Ads] create an environment – an environment that we all
swim in, as fish swim in water. And just as it’s difficult to be healthy in a
toxic physical environment, if we’re breathing poisoned air for example, or
drinking polluted water. So it’s difficult to be healthy in what I call a ‘toxic
cultural environment’ – an environment that surrounds us with unhealthy images….”
- Jean Kilbourne, Killing Us Softly 4
“Difference” exists in many forms: gender, race, age, intellect, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religion, physical appearance, character traits, professions, cultures, and personal preferences. Each of these differences denotes a way in which we are like or not like another person. People use these differences to assess themselves and others, as well as determine what is valuable and desirable and what is not. Unfortunately, these ideas of difference are cultural constructions rather than natural progressions of the process of the examination of self and other (Jhally 2009). As in most cultures attempting to assign categories for understanding various groups within and without, these constructions assign an image of “normal” that both alienates and deprives those who do not fit within these categories.
One group that continues to struggle with stereotypes, gender
assumptions and expectations and harmful attacks on body image is the female
athlete. Female athletes are a commodity, both in their gender and their
ability to perform and entertain. Female
athletes are objectified and criticized based on unfair and unrealistic
constructions of gender. Too thin, too tall, too heavy, too short,
too fat, too bitchy, too masculine, too muscular, too butch. These
criticisms reinforce one of the most common stereotypes of female athletes: lesbian. Our culture encourages us to be
uncomfortable with anyone who cannot fit into the socially prescribed
categories of male and female. The "natural" (or rather trained) response of female athletes is to conform to social norms of femininity by over-feminizing themselves. They have learned how to "send out the correct codes"(Jhally 2009) to be accepted.
Below are two sets of images depicting female athletes: the desirables and the un-desirables.
The Desirables. The first set is a collage of images of women whose bodies are physically fit, celebrated, powerful and sexualized. A yogi, a runner, an athletic supermodel, an athletic professional, a skier, a dancer, and a swimmer. Each exudes strength, agility, healthiness, flexibility, stamina, intensity, endurance, and excellence. They are also highly sexualized in their poses, glances and expressions toward the audience (Jhally 2009), and their attire that accentuates each woman's incredible physique. These are desirable, healthy, sexy women. Women that are strong and powerful. Together they exhibit an ideal female athlete by current cultural constructions: feminine, beautiful, but non-threatening. These women are images from current magazines.
The Desirables. The first set is a collage of images of women whose bodies are physically fit, celebrated, powerful and sexualized. A yogi, a runner, an athletic supermodel, an athletic professional, a skier, a dancer, and a swimmer. Each exudes strength, agility, healthiness, flexibility, stamina, intensity, endurance, and excellence. They are also highly sexualized in their poses, glances and expressions toward the audience (Jhally 2009), and their attire that accentuates each woman's incredible physique. These are desirable, healthy, sexy women. Women that are strong and powerful. Together they exhibit an ideal female athlete by current cultural constructions: feminine, beautiful, but non-threatening. These women are images from current magazines.
These same women now have been
overlayed onto an advertisement (that I manipulated) that depicts how culture has been taught to view them:
meat, an object for consumption with a price tag to be bought and sold at the
whim and fancy of the consumer, the viewer, the audience. Although the group is
much more intimidating than the singular images would be, as individuals they
reinforce cultural ideas about women as submissive and subordinate (Jhally
2009). Four of the women are looking directly at us. Two have hidden faces. One
is in profile. The women looking at us do so with what Jhally and Goffmann
identify as a "licensed withdrawal." Their eyes appear to be looking
in our direction but they are not paying attention to the world in which they
have been assigned or the viewer enjoying that world. The women who are not
looking at us are allowing us to look without the commitment of engagement, but
rather simply to admire what is before us. The placement of hands and poses of
their bodies indicate vulnerability as they serve no utilitarian function and
the poses are unnatural and (in some cases) distorted. Although these women are
confident, competent women within their field, they are reduced to images to be
dissected like cuts of meat.(in some cases) distorted. Although these women are
confident, competent women within their field, they are reduced to images to be
dissected like cuts of meat.
Lastly, these same athletic women are displayed with an
array of fresh, organic produce, the "natural choice." While their
poses, expressions, and engagement with the viewer does not change. What we
interpret and associate with the image does. These women are healthy and
athletic. Motivation and choice have shaped their figures. The positive
connotations of the background call to mind clean living and diets, in a time
when it is popular, trendy, and (fortunately) possible to easily live health
conscious lives.
The Un-Desirables. The second group is a lesser known group of
female athletes. These women do not appear in popular magazines. Their beauty,
physique, and femininity are not used to sell products. The poses in which they
appear do not render them vulnerable or sexualized. They are the undesirables.
U.S. Olympic weight lifter Sarah Robles (first woman) and Holley Mangold were
the the strongest women in the America in 2012. Robles could barely afford to
compete in the London Olympics due to lack of funds. Her physical appearance
deterred organizations/companies from offering her sponsorships. Despite their
overwhelming qualifications, the women below were denied sponsorships,
media coverage and equitable treatment due to their body types and the
misconception that "thin = fit and healthy."
The reading of this image is very different the first
"meat" image. The athletes are still a commodity. Superimposed over
the image of meat, these women are subjected to the harsh stereotypes assigned
to large women, women are appear to be unfit, or women whose body type isn't
"perfect." Regardless of the fact that all four of these women are
world class athletes that compete on the Olympic level, they are objectified
not for their beauty and femininity but for their lack of.
Are these women our "natural choice"? They are
real, unedited, nonconforming to the cultural expectations, healthy women.
Motivated by ambition, love of the sport, positive choices, these women refuse
to allow the perceived ideas of their bodies hinder or deter them from what
they want.
In the Codes of Gender, Sut Jhally states “there is nothing natural or
biological about gender or gender identity.” Women, just like men, are "athletes." The term "female" should not be relevant in their ability to perform and excel. What does a "female athlete" look like? All of these women. All women. Thin, tall, heavy, short, large, small, muscular, short hair, long hair... Appearance does not determine ability and skill anymore than biology determines gender.
Kilbourne challenges “get involved in whatever moves [you] to change not just these ads but these attitudes
that run so deep in our culture and that affect each one of us so deeply,
whether we’re conscious of it or not. The changes have to be profound and
global and they’ll depend upon an aware, active, and educated public—a public
that thinks of itself primarily as citizens rather than primarily as consumers.”
Resources:
The Codes of Gender: Identity and Performance in Pop Culture 2009, 73 min. http://pennstate.kanopystreaming.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/node/41623
No comments:
Post a Comment