It’s Time to Stop Beautifying Violence Against Women for Fashion

In the Time magazine article I was disgusted with the number of horribly photographed situations that can so easily be related back to the rape of the India girl.  This bothers me because I know that there must be so many more images like this out there relating to her rape.  However, I am even more bothered because I know there are millions of more images and ads that subjectivity women as objects for men's enjoyment.  
The image of the India women fending off a group of men on the bus bothered me specifically because of what it was called, "The Wrong Turn".  This title makes it appear as though it is the woman's fault, or that she was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.  How can that be acceptable?  How as a society can we teach that women are not objects and should not need to be concerned about their well being every second of the day?  I am baffled as to how the photographer, Raj Shetye, was able to not feel morally guilty for his actions and publication of the image.  The fact that Nirbhaya the 23 year old from New Delhi was fatally gang raped on a bus and then his ad glamorized the situation.  I am glad that women's rights activists caused outrage on Twitter, however, I am bothered that situations like this have and will continue to happen again and again.
I am concerned for the future generations, they see glossy magazine covers and ads but don't think of the greater meaning, the struggle that could have influenced the shot.  Because of this I believe that what the girls father said was correct- "they should be ashamed of it, what is the photographer trying to show to the juveniles and youths of the nation?  He should be punished".
I feel that we as a society need to educate current and future generations to not make women feel as though they are the ones that are the problem.  In school girls are told that they cannot wear SO many things because it will be a distraction for boys education.  When in fact it is the girls that spend so much time worrying about if what they are wearing will get them in trouble instead of being able to focus and learn.  We need to change the way media and ads portray women and we need to stop believing that violence can be beautified.

Gendered Slang-Language

We live in a world dictated by gender.  The world we live in is comparable to a middle school dance.  Boys on one side- eating, talking about sports while girls on the other side- gossiping, hoping a boy will approach  her.  THIS IS A PROBLEM!  There is no reason that we need to live our entire lives as middle school students that cannot grow up.  There is no reason that women need to be approached by a man in order to feel accepted or 'allowed' to do something.  There is no reason that men need to all be lumped under a category of baboons.  Our language is gendered- so gendered that the word firewoman is not considered a word (as it is underlined red as I type this).
Colloquialisms are words or phrases that are stated in society and influence the way people speak and act.  Growing up as a female I have been taught from an early age that there are 'boy things' and 'girl things', 'boy colors' and 'girl colors'.  This differentiation of boy to girl roles has gone as far as 'boy jobs' and 'girl jobs'.  Think of a doctor, a construction worker, the police, a sports player, a member of the military, the president, a boss of a company.  All of these occupations have been taught to be a 'man's job'.  Think of a nurse, a teacher, a caregiver, a secretary, a flight attendant.  All of these occupations have been taught to be a 'woman's job'.
Our language is divided to male words and female words.  Male words are powerful and female words are objects.Woman are stuck in a world that is gendered so far to the point that even the words feMALE and woMAN are influenced by the presence of male or man.  Woman are unable to escape these gendered words and are taught at an early age through typically taunts that there are things for men and things for women.  For example, "you throw/run/kick/punch like a girl" is a bad thing.  This means you're a 'wimp' and not good enough.  However, for girls we are simply being ourselves, and as usual, in our gendered society, being ourselves is not enough.  We need to "act tough" and "man up" making man the highest form of power.
This needs to change, we need to grow up from taking sides at that middle school dance and meet in the middle.  This can start by teaching those middle schoolers that the middle of the dance floor is a good thing.  Maybe then the next generation will be able to demonstrate respect and progress- eliminating  this gendered language world.

Adultolescence

Adolescence and technology have become immersed into a very overlapping category.  Because of the ability and availability of technology to EVERYONE, children are growing up faster.  Since children are learning more about the world at an earlier age the stage of adolescence and discovery has become lessen and the time frame of 'being' an adult has shortened.  This time between adolescence and adulthood has been termed- adultolescence.  Technology has changed the ways families interact and has made some parents resort to allowing technology educate their children instead of themselves.  This is dangerous and allows children to be exposed to ALL that the internet has to offer at an early age.  Being exposed to so much so early taints with the idea that Rousseau said, "children must be shaped into active and thinking beings."  This age of adolescence, typically dictated by puberty is even occurring on average six years earlier than it did in 1850.  It says, "puberty is not so much a fixed physical state as it is a complex sociological experience".

Despite children growing up faster there is an increase in the age in which people marry.  To be exact the age has increased by 5 years. "The average age at which couples exchange vows is now 25 for women and 27 for men."  Also increased is the age at which women first give birth, this number is now ages 30 and up.  Technology is changing our lives an allowing us to live longer.  This allows for life events like marriage and pregnancy to happen later in life.  This technology also changes family dynamics and can allow from a younger age for children to be open with modern family forms- as the article states, "to remain relevant to the twenty-first century, the economics of the family will need to push beyond the production of children and traditional notions of specialization."

All in the Family

The nuclear family includes the stereotype of a stay at home mother, a working father, and two and a half children.  The gender roles of the woman was to stay at home and care for the children and their pick-fence home.  The woman would go shopping and bow down to the man's demand while cleaning up and taking care of the children when they came home from school.  The man would go to work and then on the weekends do yard work that included climbing high up on ladders and building things with tools.  The children included a girl- who would wear bows, dresses and help her mother in the kitchen or dust the home.  The boy would go outside and play ball and then come in with scraped knees.  The roles of everyone in this nuclear family has been modified in some way for the modern age we live in.
For the inclusion of the modern family, there is at least four types of families that immediately come to mind (however, there are many more that I acknowledge as families but will not be comparing to the nuclear family).  There is the typical family- woman, man, and child/children.  There is the gay family- two women or two men and possibly children.  There is the mixed family- an older man or woman with a younger man or woman and possible children (either of their own or from prior relationships).  There is the divorced family- a split in any of these types of families.  There are so many more and so many different types of family dynamics in this modern age that I am personally not surprised from any combination of people.  Even with the make up of genders in these families being different there is even greater change in the working aspect of the modern family compared to the nuclear family.
The greatest difference in the modern family to the nuclear family is the role reversal of who works and who stays home.  Today there are families where both spouses work and families where it is the mother that works and the father that stays home.  In the article, Working Mother, it is the father, John, who "does the dishes" and the mother, Christine, who supports the home financially.  The recession changed the way roles and family dynamics work shuffling around the nuclear family.  Today (2008), 51% of workers on payroll are women, however, when the nuclear family existed in 1969 is was 33%.  Also today (2008), 31% of working moms earn just as much as their husbands compared to 11% in 1967.  The gender roles are changing- either making woman work while men stay home or having both spouses work and split the home duties.  The modern families have come a long way from the nuclear white picket fences.  It is refreshing to see the number of woman positively impacting the work force and the number of men that are emotionally confident to care for their family.

Cornrows and Cultural Appropriation

Social appropriation is sadly not a new pop culture issue.  However, because of famous celebrities such as Fergie, Gwen Stefani, Heidi Klum, Paris Hilton, Justin Timberlake, Jared Leto, David Beckman, and, more recently, Lena Dunham, Kendall Jenner, Kylie Jenner, and Kim Kardashian, the list goes on and on.  This issue of cultural appropriation is popping up in magazines and feeds all over.  The issue of cultural appropriation stems further than a celebrity wearing their hair in braids.  It is important to remember what things mean to the culture and the people in the culture, "...cornrows, it is symbolic of a cultural identity that does not want to be homogenized...".  Cultural issues are becoming normalized in society- mostly seen in college age students.  Most retable seen in party themes, the media has allowed for cultural appropriation to seem insignificant as it has gone un-noticed and unpunished.
"Whether it’s a hairstyle or jazz music, there’s a difference between honoring a culture and stealing from it."  The difference between enjoying something from another culture and using it to make a statement are two very different things.  People everyday are living their lives everyday with what you are "using" to make a statement.  The identity of individual's are being harmed because of negligence and stupidity.  Even 'asking' someone from the culture's if you can use their style is not an acceptance from the entire culture.  However, some may say that bringing about another culture to the mainstream is a way of immersing the culture into America's "melting pot".  This could at first be seen as a positive, however, not in the minds of corrupt businesses as the article states, "it feels an awful lot like slavery to have others profit from your efforts."
It's important to remember there is a difference between stealing and enjoying.  Enjoying and appreciating another culture's music, dance, clothing, food, etc. is acceptable and allows for people to become more cultured.  But it is important to remember there is a line that must not be crossed- the line or cultural enrichment and cultural appropriation. 

Modern Love

To me love means that you unconditionally trust, care for, rely on, and believe in a person.  I believe that you know that you have 'found' love when you are able to happily put that person ahead of yourself- and that that other person does the same.  My feelings on love are comparable to the Corinthians verse.  "Love is patient, love is kind.  It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.  Love never fails."  However, in terms of media and pop culture's representation of love, love and dating are taboo.   Between the fear of true communication and the mindset of needing to be the best, media and pop culture has tainted what love is for the millennial generation.

Over the past 5-10 years media has influenced dating by bringing about online dating sites- too many to count.  There is a dating site out there for EVERYONE.  Which could be seen as a positive- bringing people together based off of common interests that could have never met before.  But for me, these online dating sites remove the true spark of love.  Whether you believe in love in first site and destiny or think it is a bunch of BS this online game of checking some boxes to find your soul mate is not the type of romance I wish to tell my family or future children.  My parents grew up around the block from each other and my mom was friends with my dad's younger sister in elementary school.  The two re-met years later when they happened to be working together.  My boyfriend's parents met in high school and have been together ever since.  Today's dating age is a mixture of wishing to have "#relationshipgoals" and wondering how long one should wait before responding to a text message.  This pop culture has made a 100 day Snap Chat streak the equivalency of meeting your significant other's family.  This is unhealthy and not in any way a true representation of love.  This 'modern love' made by media is focused on sex and degrades specifically women to become objectified objects.  Due to the impression medial and pop culture has on the millennial generation it is obvious as to why their interpretation of love and dating is so tainted.  

Feminism Without Feminists - SATC

This article, Feminism Without Feminists, demonstrates starting with the title that there are exclusions and separations in feminism.  This separation lessens the power and impact of women coming together for one another to promote change.  For example, feminists that were not white created their own form of feminism.  How is this okay?  If women of different races and ethnicity's cannot join forces and fight together, for one fight against gender equality, than how can other genders begin to take feminism seriously?  The feminist movement would have the ability to empower women everywhere, however, due to the lack of unity between women this societal progress was lessened.  This is evident in the first chapter of the article that focuses on the sociology of the television show, Sex and the City (SATC).  The article depicts the audience, fans, and race theories that could have either been on purpose or a mere accident.
On the positive the article points out how, "SATC has been praised for its feminist elements, such as showcasing female friendship, privileging female subjectivity, challenging dominate narratives, and encouraging frank talk about female sexuality".  This article points out how in television, popular culture is able to be discussed.  The article shows how through popular television touchy issues can be brought up and educated.  On SATC this is done through characters debate.  The characters show the pro's and con's leading the viewers to come to a conclusion on their own, or at least think about a topic that was otherwise brushed under the carpet.  For instance, SATC brings up an accidental pregnancy- a relatable topic to women questioning pro-life or pro-choice.  What helps allow for the show be radical is the fans and their ability to accept upfront talks about things like abortions and sexuality.
However, the overwhelming negatives pointed out through this article question if SATC gives a fully public spread of feminism.  For example, the women on the show although trying to demonstrate power to women only are comprised as "heterosexual, middle-class white" women.  Despite the positives pointed out by the article, the show still is not able to fully address feminism.  Even with having all female lead roles who demonstrate the power and ability of women, the show lacks inclusion from characters of race and ethnicity.  This lack of cast leads to lessening the ability of showing the power of women and pushes for those opposed to feminism to question the lack of diversity in the show instead of the empowerment of women.

YouTube, I Tube, We All Tube

The role of gender in these videos is viewed very stereo-typically.  The focus is that boys are good at throwing, running, kicking, etc. and that girls simply are not.  However, the second video goes on to defy these stereo-types put on girls.

“You play ball like a girl” – The Sandlot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrG5UBzSJ-U

 

“… like a girl” – Always Commercial

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjJQBjWYDTs

The YouTube clip that I found that portrays stereotypical gender roles is from the movie, The Sandlot.  In this scene two groups of boys are at a baseball field and fighting about being “an insult to the game”.  The two leaders of the group go back and forth with comebacks at each other.  This comebacks start as simply insults to one another such as jerk, idiot, and moron and escalate to saying, “you play ball like a girl”.  This final comment despite the countless before is the one that stops the fighting and silences the fight.  However, this silence is not due to a mutual understand of how inappropriate, wrong, and disrespectful the comment was but because that comeback is viewed as the most hurtful to the group of boys.  This demonstrates hegemony, as stated on page 39 of our textbook. “Hegemony is the power of dominance that one social group holds over others.”  This difference in power among boys and girls is immensely strong in the lives of people today. The target audience is all boys- young, old, and in between.  Comments and comebacks such as “you play ball like a girl” is taught to boys at an early age to be a negative and something/someone that one never wishes to be compared to.  This comment is sadly effective in reaching the audience because boys, of all ages, can relate to this and know that they do not want to ever be compared to a girl- especially when it comes to a situation involving sports. 

The second YouTube clip, takes this comment and others like it one step further.  This video asks both girls and boys to do acts “like a girl”.  For example, running and throwing.  Both girls and boys that have reached puberty mimic these acts to dictate a negative connotation.  However, when asked the same things to children, the girls run and throw just as they normally would- as girls.  The target audience is girls, however, the video also speaks to all genders.  This is seen by asking a boy if his imitation would insult his sister, he tries to say not her but other girls.  How is this okay?  The goal and effectiveness of this video reaches a wide spread of diverse audiences.  This is effective because even throughout the short clip the view and stereotype of how women treat themselves changes.  If only more young girls could see that doing something “like a girl” is not a bad thing than maybe the men in the world could better begin to realize that doing something “like a girl” is not a disability.