Media Culture Project: Who Skyy Vodka Advertisements Are Really Selling To

As exhibited by the three above magazine advertisements, Skyy Vodka clearly sexually objectifies women in order to appeal to their male clientele; however it is interesting to note that these ads are aimed at women as well. By portraying women as sexually desirable, Skyy is selling the supposed power that comes with controlling the male sex’s attractions. Although all three of these women are depicted as happy and confident, it is clear this confidence comes from their physical beauty. Skyy vodka’s advertisements are a clear example of portraying the illusion of women’s power and control over men through sexual appeal and objectification of women’s own bodies. Advertisements such as these illustrate the media’s influence on our acceptance of portraying females as sexual objects. Instead of being angered by these blatantly sexist representations of women, we seem to embrace them under the assumption that they are an exaggeration and therefore untrue portrayals of modern women. These advertisements are clearly aimed at both men and women; however only the females are sexually objectified in the pictures while the men’s faces are not even shown.

Douglas explains that the media gives us the illusion of women’s modern day success through pointing out the women in high level positions as lawyers, CEOs and politicians. These “fantasies of power” however, “assure girls and women, repeatedly, that women’s liberation is a fait accompli and that we are stronger, more successful, more sexually in control, more fearless, and more held in awe than we actually are” (Douglas 5). This illusion of female advancement, Douglas argues, makes it acceptable to portray women in this sexualized way because feminism is dead and no longer necessary. Women are now equal to men and therefore they should actually utilize their sexual appeal to further their gain of control and power in the world. At first glance, these advertisements are clearly an example of the sexual objectification of women; however this myth of female power serves as justification of the ads being acceptable and successful in our society.

All three advertisements show a woman’s face and part or all of her body interacting flirtatiously with a faceless man. Skyy vodka is undoubtedly shown in all of the ads; however the primary focus of the pictures is the sexually charged interaction between the man and woman. In ad #1, the woman is standing in a seemingly powerful stance over the hidden man sitting in a chair in front of her. It appears as though he is either toasting to her or holding his glass out for more; however either action gives the illusion of the woman’s power over the man. What you might not immediately notice in the picture is that the straw in the martini glass on the table is pointing to the Skyy Vodka while the straw in the man’s glass is aimed at the woman’s crotch. These subliminal messages are not always noticed by the viewer; however they clearly influence the impact of the image. Although the ad tries to show the woman’s asserted power, she is dressed in a very revealing backless long black dress with excessive cleavage and an extremely high slit up the side of her leg facing us. She is clearly thin and has the body Douglas describes as Pamela Anderson’s breasts on a 12 year old boy’s body. Ad #2 has many similarities to the first ad; however the sexual interaction between the two characters is even more pronounced. The man stands sexually over the half-naked woman while holding two martini glasses and a full bottle of Skyy Vodka. The large-breasted woman appears to be peeling her sunglasses off of her face as she contemplates giving the man her attention. Although it seems as though the woman has the ability to choose whether or not she wants to continue interacting with the man, he is standing in a very aggressive stance while straddling her. While the ad doesn’t explicitly show violence toward the woman, the man’s natural physical size and position in relation to the woman implies the man’s control. The third advertisement is also very similar to the first two in its portrayal of the two characters; however the man is serving the woman as opposed ad #1. The female figure is seductively opening her mouth to receive the fruit the male is feeding her. Her large breasts are blatantly shown in the attempt to attract the man sitting across from her and the ocean in the background helps to portray as this interaction as blissful and utopian. All three ads, however, clearly show the sexuality of the woman’s face and body and yet none reveal the man’s face.

The faceless man in all three of these ads could be replaced by anyone viewing the image, serving to universalize the ad to everyone. This “male gaze” puts the viewer in the position of the man when looking at the picture, further contributing to the message that Skyy Vodka brings the consumer power. Enlightened sexism explains that “through women’s calculated deployment of their faces, bodies, attire, and sexuality that they gain and enjoy true power” (Douglas 10). These pictures advertise power to both women and men. Men want the power to attract these beautiful women while women in turn want the power that supposedly comes with this impossible body. Since both the men and the women are holding the drinks, these images advertise power and happiness to both men and women through the acquisition and consumption of the vodka.

All three of the settings of the images are ideal and picturesque, insinuating that happiness comes along with the vodka as well. In ad #1, the man and woman are in a large, beautiful, expensive apartment overlooking a bright lit up city at night while ads #2 and #3 are set on a beach, suggesting an idyllic vacation. Douglas describes how “under the guise of escapism and pleasure, we are getting images of imagined power that mask, and even erase, how much still remains to be done for girls and women, images that make sexism seem fine, even fun, and insist that feminism is not utterly pointless” (Douglas 6). Both men and women view this advertisement and feel like Skyy is offering them power and influence. Since the media tells us that women are now equal to men in today’s society, there is no apparent problem with portraying women in such an openly sexual manner. We are told that women should be allowed to utilize their sexual appeal to increase their influence in the world just as men often use their strength and masculinity. Hyper-femininity is viewed as completely acceptable because it is simply taking the power men give us and extending it into all aspects of our lives.

As these ads show, women are told that what they really want is to attract men. Enlightened sexism tells us that women can finally fulfill this desire because we have proven ourselves as equal to men in every other aspect of our lives. Although these ads portray both the men and women as powerful characters, the females are only able to gain this influence over men through their sexual appeal while the un-pictured men are clearly able to have this control without the necessity of physical attractiveness since their faces are not even shown. As Douglas explains, “it’s through sex and sexual display that women really have the power to get what they want” (Douglas 156) and these advertisements clearly support this notion. Since the women are only able to gain power through sexually asserting themselves over the men, this supposed power is in actuality nothing more than a fantasy. The media has shifted our perceptions of women’s equality in today’s society resulting in the increased objectification of women throughout the media. The illusion of women’s equality has made it acceptable to make women into female sex symbols and “it’s actually a joke on the guys (Douglas 13).

The rise of the sexpert, a female sex whiz, originally came from the desires of young women for sexual freedom and the ability to enjoy sex without judgment. The sexpert, however, emphasizes that the goal of the female life is to get men to lust after you while getting other women to envy you (Douglas 10). By representing women in a hyper-sexualized manner, females’ power is actually belittled and minimized to solely sexuality and beauty. This illusion of female power and equality is actually hindering the advancement of women in modern society instead of helping it. These faceless men could be any man the female viewer imagines, giving further credibility to the illusion of women’s power. The contentedness that has arisen surrounding feminist groups due to these fantasies of power has resulted in a common perception of feminism itself being sexist. Since feminism stereotypes certain women and denies them their full range of opportunities, many people disregard it as being an unnecessary movement in a society where men and women already are actually equal and any attention drawn to inequalities is actually a backwards movement in women’s fight for equality.

Women are buying into the idea that Skyy Vodka will make them more attractive to men while men are buying the vodka that will in turn attract these beautiful women. The real message of the ads, however, is that the women are merely objects to be bought and sold the same way Skyy vodka is. The subliminal messages that accompany these advertisements, including the direction of the pointing straw in Ad #1, clearly show that the ads are not simply selling vodka. According to Douglas, advertisements send the message that “your body is your central, crucial resource in establishing your net worth as a female” (Douglas 216). The perfection associated with these women’s bodies insinuates that Skyy vodka is also a form of perfection. Enlightened feminism reconfigures antifeminism as feminism by emphasizing women’s false impression of their status and power in society.

Skyy advertisements are a clear example of Douglas’s theory of enlightened sexism and its role in shaping both men and women’s perception of the female in modern society. By telling us women have already achieved equality in all or almost all aspects of life, the media opens the door to advertisers overly sexually objectifying females as shown in these three ads. These advertisements appeal to both sexes because of the promise of power that both sexes desire. Only the women, however, are overtly sexualized while it is clearly men who have the true control in today’s society.

Media Culture Project: Female Sexual Objectification in Dolce and Gabbana Advertisement

Dolce & Gabbana, an Italian designer company, released an advertisement in 2008 that stunned viewers due to its provocative and extremely sexist images.  The advertisement portrays a scantily clad woman being held down by a half naked man, while four other men stand nearby watching.  The image denotes that objectifying women as sexual objects is acceptable, that men should have all the power and control in relationships and society, and that men want a certain physical type of woman.  These themes and images work to police women’s sexuality and thus keep them from being threats to male dominance and male sexuality.

The Dolce and Gabbana advertisement blatantly denotes that women are sexual objects by placing the female model in such a compromising position.  Since the 1990s, there has been an unbridled return to sexually objectifying women.  Women are told that their sole merit is their sex appeal and they are simply things for men to use as they please. Society views and places woman in such demeaning manners in order to prevent total sexual justice as female sexuality is seen as threatening.  Furthermore, as Susan Douglas notes in Enlightened Sexism, society constantly conveys that female power can be achieved through sex and sexual exhibitions.  The preeminent way to gain authority and influence is to gratify and cater to what men desire.  Women are told that they should enthusiastically select and rejoice being sexual objects.  Thus, women accept and actually welcome the role of a ‘sexual object’ as they believe it will ultimately empower them.  A woman’s main advantage or skill, therefore, becomes being able to ‘strut her stuff.’  Catering to men’s desires through high heels and short skirts and buying into male sexual fantasies become a source of power.  Yet, in all actuality, it is not a source of power.  It is demeaning and ultimately, it is a way to keep women in their place.  As sexual objects, they are viewed as mindless and idiotic.  They cater to men and not to their own desires.  Thus, their sexuality is kept in check and cannot threaten male dominance and male sexuality.  By diminishing women to their sexuality, it damages their campaign for full equality.  Women become less than people (Douglas 154-187).  Curtis Sittenfeld in ‘Your Life as a Girl’ comments on this phenomenon, saying “you wear spandex shorts that make you feel like your legs are pieces of sausage…Men stick their heads out windows of their cars and hoot at you…then you realize that they aren’t seeing you, not as a person.  They are seeing you as long hair and bare legs, and you are frightened” (Sittenfeld 6).  A fear factor is created, working to keep women frightened of men and thus, keeping them in their place.  This fear becomes a part of being a woman as Emilie Morgan remarks in ‘Don’t Call Me a Survivor’, saying “I am not sure which was harder: being gang-raped, or having the sudden realization that this is what it means to be a woman” (Morgan 36).  Sexual objectification and violence harness women’s sexuality and ultimately keep women from being threats to male dominance and sexuality. 

The designer advertisement also implies that men should have all the power and control in relationships and society by having one of the men stand over the woman and hold her down, while the other men look on menacingly.  Female power is seen as a very threatening and real issue in society.  Douglas points out that people believe that women will lose control or go ‘wild’ if feminism and women gain power.  She cites three different cases: Lorena Bobbitt, Tonya Harding, and Amy Fisher.  Each of these cases demonstrates the result of female empowerment as violent and terrifying.  The media used such rare cases of female aggression to incite the necessity of harnessing female power and sexuality.  The media issued out the message that men need to remain in control; the patriarchy must be maintained.  Otherwise, there will be disastrous consequences.  Janet Reno is another common example used to keep women from seeking empowerment.  Reno was a powerful woman who occupied a traditionally male role.  She refused to act ‘feminine’ and cater to her gender role and thus, was perceived as a threat.  The media reduced Reno to her sexuality and made her out to be a massive joke.  She became a regulating device for other women, showing them what would happen if they acted out of place or tried to gain power.  Gains in political or societal success will result in steep costs to personal status.  Any woman who acts out of place will be controlled, either by the media or society (Douglas 54-75).  Sittenfeld cites a personal example, saying “you cannot hear everything they say, but you make out your name and the word ‘nagging.’  You have overstepped your boundaries, and they have put you in your place” (Sittenfeld 10).  Thus, this advertisement also works as a regulating device, by visually showing women that men are in power and have control over women. 

The advertisement also paints a picture of what the ideal woman should look like.  The woman in the ad is clad in tight, body-hugging black spandex that is shaped like a bathing suit, hugging her crotch and revealing her long, naked legs.  She has extremely high, pointy heels on, boatloads of makeup, and tan skin.  She is tall, extremely slender and although her cup-size is not evident, one can guess that she has fairly big breasts.  According to the ad, this is the ideal woman.  This is what men want.  Yet, this body type is rarely found in nature.  Very few women fit the profile of a ‘lanky twelve year old boy with Pamela Anderson’s breasts” (Douglas 217).  Thus, the media ultimately tells most women their bodies are not normal or attractive unless they meet these standards.  Such unrealistic expectations result in eating disorders, low self-esteem, and low self-confidence.  It becomes impossible for a woman to be satisfied with her body.  This lack of satisfaction actually is used to financially benefit corporations.  The policing of women’s bodies results in women spending all sorts of money in order to make their bodies ‘ideal.’  Thus, the ideal body is about capitalism as corporations (pharmaceutical, cosmetic, film companies etc.) ultimately benefit.  This image also gives one meaning to ‘sexy.’  It tells women if they want to be sexual and desired, they have to look exactly like the woman in the ad.  By giving a concrete and bounded definition of ‘sexy,’ female sexuality is again policed.  The creation of an ideal woman that is inaccessible to most women serves as a regulating device.  Joan Brumberg writes that “[young women], their self-esteem began to have more to do with external attributes than with inner qualities, such as strength of character or generosity of spirit” (Body Projects 101).  Women start to judge or rank themselves in regards to an unreachable physical body image.  Thus, they can never be really happy or satisfied.  They will never be perfect or good enough.  This keeps women from gaining personal empowerment and confidence.  It works to control female power and thus keep patriarchal society and masculine prerogatives safe (Douglas 214-241). 

The Dolce and Gabbana advertisement is ultimately a way to police and regulate female power.  By sexually objectifying the woman and putting her in a submissive position, the ad harnesses female sexuality and implies the necessity of male dominance.  Images such as this one are seen all over the media.  These repetitive themes work to embed and engrain certain ideas into society so that they are not questioned or overturned.  These ideas include the danger of female sexuality, a celebration of female sexual objectification, and what it means to be sexy as a female.  Women become so focused and obsessed with fitting these unattainable ideals that they end up losing confidence and personal conviction.  Women also focus on only pleasing men and do not take into consideration their own sexual desires.  They see sexual objectification as empowering and thus work to satisfy men and not themselves.  Thus, women play a part in keeping themselves in a submissive position.  They play into the patriarchy of society and are a huge reason of why it is still maintained.  As Allan Johnson says, patriarchy is not all about men.  Everyone participates in the system.  Women support and buy into stereotypes and constantly follow paths of least resistance.  Until the entire system is questioned by both men and women, society will continue to think and run in a sexually unequal manner (Johnson).

References

Douglas, Susan.  Enlightened Sexism.  Times Book, 2010.

Findlen, Barbara, ed.  Listen Up:  Voices from the Next Feminist Generation, New Expanded

Edition.  Seal Press, 2001. 

Johnson, Allan G.  The Gender Knot.  “Patriarchy the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an

Us.”  Temple University Press: Philadelphia, 1997.

Morgan, Emilie.  “Don’t Call Me a Survivor.” Listen Up: Voice from the Next Feminist

Generation.  Ed. Barbara Findlen.  Seal Press, 2001. PAGES

Sittenfeld, Curtis.  “Your Life as a Girl.” Listen Up: Voice from the Next Feminist Generation.

Ed. Barbara Findlen.  Seal Press, 2001. PAGES

Response to 10/26 Readings

After reading Enloe's two chapters on third-world female labor, I agree with all of what Maria said about how the companies' slogans seem very hypocritical to me. At one point in the reading, Enloe pointed out the Reebok gave out humanitarian awards every year but did not even have their own human rights protection system in place. I have actually read about Nike's horrible treatment of their factory workers in 3rd world countries; however i never really thought about how they rely on the societies' social structures to require women to move to the cities and work prior to marriage. I had always just assumed that the workers in the factories were those who coudn't find a job anywhere else and the fact that many of them were female was simply attributed to the fact that women had a harder time finding work elsewhere. The fact that the companies organizing dating mixers to introduce the women to eligible men to marry really mad me mad. Companies like Nike and Reebok rely on the expectation that women in these countries like China and Thailand fulfill their duties as daughters and go to earn some money for their families. Living in America, we don't usually think about the fact that in other countries it is expected that girls go and work in order to help their family pay for their BROTHERS' education while the females remain uneducated and overworked. I found an interesting website that provides "facts" (I'm not sure how accurate they are) regarding Nike's treatment of its factory workers. A few of these facts include accusations that an Indonesian Nike factory worker claims he has to work over 40 hours a week OVERTIME in order to not starve. Also, the website claims that we pay over $100 for a pair of shoes that costs $5. Although some of these statistics could possibly be slightly exaggerated, the general point is clear. Nike mistreats its factory workers to an extremely unhealthy extent and yet nothing is done about it because as Enloe points out, Nike will just move to the country next door if the government or people try to fight the system too much. Interestingly enough, however, Nike's own website clearly lists out how they work hard to constantly improve the conditions of their factories. Companies like Nike and Reebok might try to publicize their attempts at improving their factory conditions in order to improve their public image but drastic steps need to be taken in order to put an end to the mis-treatment of factory workers in all industries in 3rd world countries.

Response to 10/26 Readings

After reading the two chapters from Cythia Enloe's book, my love of all Nike, Reebok (etc.) products has immensely diminished.  I have always loveeeed their commercials.  Nike commercials, especially, set a high bar for sports commercials.  They make ads that are inspiring, creative, and emotionally manipulative.  For instance, Nike's Michael Jordan commercial targets atheletes and non-athletes alike and sends a deep message that success cannot be achieved without some failures.  Thus, failing is okay.  All their commercials speak of freedom, success, emotion, drive, and inspiration.  Yet, all of their success is riding on the backs of a hopeless and depressing class of women factory workers.  The hypocrisy of these companies is disgusting and disappointing.  You think that finally the world is making huge strides towards equality and fairness and then you hear about something like this.  Fellow women are miles behind where American women were decades ago.  How different parts of the world could lack such equality is astounding.  Sometimes I feel like I'm in a bubble.  None of these facts are routinely publicized.  Society is 'protected' from these painful images and corporations are 'protected' from being criticized due to their influence and wealth. 
Enloe also speaks about how these corporations keep the women workers from protesting for more money and more rights.  They publicize and idealize a certain type of feminism: a daughter and fiancee who must make money to save for her family and marriage.  Also, many times a military presence at the factories keep women from voicing their real opinions.  I found this video on the "happiness" of female textile workers in the Democratic Republic of Korea. 
Another hard thing is that even if you want to protest against these corporations and not buy their products, what are your other options?  You can buy handmade shoes from local leather shops but that is extremely expensive.  Thus, these corporations will never go out of business.  A protests from the side of the consumer is almost unimaginable.  People are not going to stop shopping at places like Walmart or Starbucks even though they are aware of their use of 'cheap labor.'  Many people need places like Walmart because of its affordable prices.  Thus, even if they wanted to protest and boycott such companies, it may be unfeasible for them.  Here's another video on Walmart's use of Bangladesh workers and the awful conditions they have in the factories. 

10/21 Summary Post

The first of the readings titled “Sex, Lies & Advertising” by Gloria Steinem is a recount of MS Magazine’s attempt to change the traditional imagery in advertisements to combat the media’s attempts at selling sexuality and imperfection. Steinem describes how MS was trying to convince companies to do business in a very new and different way and therefore had to convince advertisers to pay for page space in MS. By targeting everything from car to alcohol companies, MS faced enormous resistance and refusal to comply with their advertising demands. Food companies and restaurants refused to advertise in MS magazine unless the ad was placed next to a recipe that would serve to further entice the reader to buy their products. MS, however, did not want to associate their articles with work or feminine house-wife duties; therefore they refused to conform to the advertisers’ demands. By publishing an article on the potential carcinogenic effects of hair dyes, MS alienated Clairol as a potential advertiser even though the company ended up changing its hair color formula in response. Their attempts to advertise wines and liquors ended up being somewhat successful; however the disproportionate number of alcohol related ads ended up calling into question the association of women and alcoholism. Airlines refused to support a magazine that featured lesbian poetry articles but credit card companies did eventually decide to advertise to women as well as men despite their long term fear of “having a ‘pink’ card”. Although the myth exists that advertisers “simply follow readers”, Steinman points out that it is actually the other way around.

Steinmen continues her article by pointing out that in 1965, Helen Gurley Brown brought the sexual revolution to women’s magazines through ads. Steinmen points out the double standard that many companies operate under: food companies place ads in People with no recipes and cosmetics companies buy ad space in The New Yorker even though there are no beauty columns. This expectation that women’s magazines need to support their advertisers in their articles is what Steinmen is largely arguing against. By the 1920’s, women’s magazines had basically turned into catalogs due to mass manufacturing. This trend has continued through today as companies advertising to women strategically place their products next to or in the hands or traditionally female associated items. Steinbaum ends by suggesting multiple ways that we could change this advertising cycle and ends with questioning us (the reader): “Can’t we do better than this?” Steinbaum urges us to reject magazines such as Cosmo and Vogue (which contribute to the sexualization of women) and instead join in her fight against advertisers.





In her article “The Body Project”, Brumberg chronicles the development of American female body image from the 1920s-1990s. The 1920’s began with fashion and film beginning to “unveil” the female body which resulted in the new freedom to display the body. With this freedom, however, came demanding beauty and dietary habits. Maria showed the progression of the idea female beauty really well in her photographs of women of different decades (see below post). Beginning in the 1920’s, the new fashionable figure was slender, tall and flat-chested, cutting loose from the traditional views of voluptuous beauty. Blumberg argues that as young women began to become more autonomous from their mothers, their self-esteem was more dependent on external attributes rather than inner qualities. It was no longer considered sinful or shallow to be vain, so girls began to focus their conversation around their hair, face and figure. The slinky “flapper” dress of the 1920’s “had begun to blur the distinction between the private and the public self” (107). The rise of the training bra further blurred this distinction and saw the rise of consumerism being aimed at adolescent girls. The transition from homemade bras to mass-produced bras further encouraged autonomy in girls because it took matters of style opinions out of the control of the mothers. The 1950’s witnessed the emphasis on women’s breast size, which promoted a general idea of “junior figure control”, in which mothers and doctors checked to make sure girls were developing correctly. This “budding adolescent body was big business” and these body projects of middle-class girls were becoming more intense as time progressed. The 1990’s witnessed a rise in the fear of “thunder thighs” and everyone began to hate cellulite. Brumberg ends her article discussing how adolescent piercings have become the ultimate representative of the sexual revolution and proclaim the ways in which “exhibitionism and commercial culture have come together”.

In her short article "Ruminations of a Feminist Fitness Instructor", Valdes describes how she originally took a job as an aerobics instructor at a young age and continued through much of her twenties. A self-proclaimed feminist, Valdes had many issues with her job since it tended to focus largely on women's physiques; however she was able to justify these moral dilemmas with telling herself that there was "a great deal of raw, primal energy and force in a room full of women moving together". Although this is true, Valdes eventually quit her job in women's fitness, went back to school (as she had originally planned) and recognized "the famle obsession with thinness and fitness as an extension of the hurt we suffer at the hands of patriarchal society".

Response to 10/21 Readings

Brumber's article on body projects was extremely interesting and appealing to me.  It is crazy to see how quickly 'fashions' change and its scary how obsessed/involved women get to fit the image of the time.  I looked up a quick timeline of pictures to really SEE the changes:

1900s:

1920s:


1930s:


1940s:

1950s:


1960s:

1970s:

1980s:

1990s:



These ideal women's bodies are what girls are constantly modeling themselves after.  The shape continues to change; one day bigger boobs, one day smaller boobs, bigger butt.  One day lots of makeup.  One day nude colored lips.  The ideal image is always shifting in order to give industries and corporations a constant influx of money from the female population.  By keeping women dissatisfied, they will keep buying products and changing their clothing etc.

From my own personal experience, this is very obvious and prevalent.  My opinion of clothing and what I want to wear changes almost each month.  One week I love a certain shirt.  The next week I hate it.  Thinking consciously about why I do that could be a subconscious reaction to what I see in magazines or what I see my friends wearing.  My friends do the same thing.  I constantly hear girls saying "I have nothing to wear!" when I know for a fact their closet is full of clothes.  In reality, what's in their closet isn't what they think is fashionable and desirable to wear.  It's expensive to keep up appearances.  Thus, the corporations win by policing female body image. 

Reading about bras and the rise of bras is another example.  One day, girls were making their own bras or not wearing them at all.  Now, its a massive industry.  Victoria's Secret is a store that mainly sells bras and is extremely lucrative.  All of my friends have bras ranging in color, material, shape etc.  One bra is no longer enough.  Bras are no longer just about support and shape.  They're about sexuality and desire. 

Linking Steinem in, the ads are what give us these ideas or keep women unsatisfied.  Women are subject to certain ads in a certain way in order to keep them under 'control.'  It's also crazy how certain companies won't publish ads in a women's magazine unless certain conditions are met.  But that's a whole other argument/story. 

Response to 10/19 Readings

Honestly, I found Fausto-Sterling's article somewhat useless and repetitive. Personally, I have never found PMS or any other feminine menstruation related topics a hindrance to my being respected or trusted by other women or men. Fausto-Sterling tried to make it out as though women are not given responsibility and are therefore subservient to men in our modern society largely due to the potential role of PMS and menopause on behavior. Fausto-Sterling compares the views of the 1800's that women "could not survive intact the rigors of higher eduction" (92) in part due to their reproductive systems to modern views of women today. Fausto-Sterling then continues to explain that "if menstruation really casts such a dark shadow on women's lives, we ought certainly to know more about it" (93); however my question if how much of an impact menstruation really does affect women's lives, both physically and in the eyes of men. She argues the society believes PMS makes monstrous women (as Maria mentioned in her summary); however I do not think this is actually true. Yes, women are still viewed as more sensitive and emotional than men in general; however i do not think it is at all pin pointed at PMS or the reproductive cycle. Fausto-Sterling then continues by going into great detail the studies that have been done on menopause and PMS and argues that more studies need to be done to fully understand these topics. I do not believe that we shouldn't attempt to find the cause of these symptoms; however I don't think it should be put at the forefront of the feminist movement. Focusing attention on this issue would take the emphasis on many of the other larger issues that still exist: in my opinion those that Douglas discusses in her chapter titled "Lean and Mean".

In our second reading for this class, Douglas discusses female obsession with body size to a very unhealthy level. She points out that girls tend to fight with each other in order to take out their anger and aggression that is a result of being forced into this role by society. The rise of technology and media has also contributed to our obsession with body image. Every time I turn on the tv, open a magazine or go to the movies I am bombarded with unrealistically thin women with unnaturally large breasts. The media, however, tells us that these women have gained power from their attractive appearance and therefore we must look like them to be powerful as well. I also agree with Fausto-Sterling's connection between leanness and meanness. If our society believes that unrealistically unnaturally thin women are powerful, then these women will assume this role of authority as well. What Douglas touches on but doesn't explicitly discuss is how this girl-girl bullying is trickling down to younger and younger ages. As the younger sister in Mean Girls flashes the TV, we all laugh and disregard it as being comedy; however a recent NYTimes article argues that "mean-girl behavior" is now occurring at very young ages. Even kindergardeners and young elementary school girls are showing this behavior primarily due to the influence of our larger culture "from reality TV to materialism". As this article shows, Douglas is correct is pointing out not only the connection between leanness and meanness but more importantly our culture and media's role in continuing this closely knit relationship.

Summary for readings 10/18

In the chapter “Lean and Mean,” Susan Douglas comments on the female obsession with size and girl on girl hostility.  Women are told that the ideal beauty image (extremely skinny with huge breasts) is actually empowering as it makes men powerless and weak from their attraction.  Victoria’s Secret really advertises this female image by employing supermodels with tiny frames and enormous boobs.  Women are encouraged to try and make their bodies look like these supermodels as it will bring you ‘freedom’ and ‘control.’  Thus, the Hotness Olympics are established.  However, this body type: “the body of a lanky twelve-year old boy with Pamela Anderson’s breasts attached” is one that is hardly ever found naturally.  Thus, most women are disappointed and unhappy with their bodies, leading to huge rises in eating disorders.  Plastic surgery has also become a ‘fix-all’ solution for undesirable bodies.  This was heavily advertised in TV make-over shows. 

Women are putting so much energy and time into working on their bodies that they lose confidence and assurance.  By constantly obsessing about weight and diet, women don’t have time to focus on more important things.  Also, it is seen as more acceptable to have an eating disorder or hate your body than to be thought of as unattractive and thus unfeminine.  This female solidarity is seen as acceptable by society.  Also, in many female magazines, contradictory messages are thrown at women.  They are told that they should be accepting of their bodies and love who they are.  Yet, when showing different body types, magazines will use models who all are tiny and around size two.  

In the TV makeover shows, the message sent is that physical appearance will lead to success in life.  Thus, plastic surgery will empower you and make you into a better person.  Your interior will change when your exterior changes.  However, the Swan showed all the work women had to do to be considered attractive and revealed it to be agonizing, lonely, costly, and ultimately foolish.  Furthermore, the women didn’t even recognize themselves when they were finally able to see their new bodies and faces.  From the 1990s into the new millennium, there was a massive increase in cosmetic procedures.  People were being told that they should start having surgery in their 20s so that by the time they were 50 or 60, they would still look young.  People viewed these surgeries as a feminist way for women to wield power over their bodies and thus their futures.  However, there was a lot of danger attached to these surgeries as well.  Boob jobs could have massive implications. 

(before/after picture from The Swan)

Douglas also talks about ‘meanness’ and its connection to ‘leanness.’  Movies such as Mean Girl were showing girl on girl bullying to be a huge epidemic that had to be dealt with.  This malice was a direct result of the constricted and intolerant standards of femininity and beauty in society.  These criteria cause girls to monitor themselves and rebuke those who don’t live up to these ideals.  Thus, girls are “enforcers of their own oppression.’  This mean girl brutality is seen as more threatening than other much more important issues.  It is much easier and more concrete to be able to criticize and hate an image of a teenage ‘daddy’s girl’ princess.  In Gossip Girl this mean girl image is also displayed.  The message sent is that the new empowered girl has everything due to ‘girl power’ will turn into a monster.  This happens because girl power amplifies characteristics such as meanness, cattiness, greediness etc.

Fausto Sterling begins her article by establishing that many people think women are unfit to make decisions due to their hormonal physiology.  Their menostral cycles make them more frenzied and unpredictable.  Females are seen as dangerous.  However, at the same time, they are also seen as needing protection as their reproductive systems are easily susceptible to pressure. 

In the 1800s, scientists argued that women should have different education than men due to their reproductive systems.  Today, society still discriminates against women due to their reproductive functions.  Some jobs are not given to women as they might cause birth defects.  Women are believed to be worse at math than men because of their hormones.  Young girls are though to be sloppy and defiant due to their menstrual cycle. 

PMS also is thought to make women more incapable as it is thought to result in some sort of mental or physical incapacitation.  PMS is seen as a disease or an illness.  However, PMS varies woman to woman.  It cannot be defined.  Society has to accept that there is a range of menstrual normality.  It is also commonly believed that mood swings accompany the menstrual cycle.  Psychologist Parlee, in 1973, published a study on the menstrual cycle that divides premenstrual emotionality into four types: correlational, retrospecte questionnaires, daily self-reports, and thematic analysis of word lists.  Studies showed that many women had wrong information or ideas about the menstrual cycle.  Parlee’s study was informative however it still didn’t provide enough information.  More research has to be undertaken.  Koeske suggests several ways to approach such research.  It has to be accepted though that there is no perfect study that will illuminate everything about the menstrual cycle. 

Society also believes that menopause creates monstrous women.  Instead of liberating them from hormones, it makes these women even worse.  Menopause also is not simply a disease.  It is an industry as it leads to high sales of different drugs.  Some of the medication can be harmful and detrimental yet women still take it.  It is implied within society that menopause may be worse than cancer.  Women who are menopausal are seen as no longer real women.  However, during menopause, estrogen production is not completely ceased.  It is just gradually lowered.  Other hormone levels also increase or decrease. 

The inherent problem is that women are compared to men.  Men are seen as the norm and thus the male reproductive system is normal.  Thus women snub their biological individuality and see themselves as warped.  However, studies are finally being done in which understand that women and men have different reproductive systems of which both are normal. 

Response to 10/14 Readings

After reading Ettelbrick's article "Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation", I really disagreed strongly with the article. I believe that she put too much emphasis and responsibility on the gay and lesbian community to change the entire social structure of the modern western society. She emphasizes that simply giving same-sex couples the right to marry simply denies them even more power and independence by forcing them to conform to our current standards and expectations of marriage. At one point, Paula claims that "the gay and lesbian community and laid the groundwork for revolutionizing society's view of family" (308). Although this revolution would most likely be a good and necessary thing for our society, I do not think it is fair that Ettelbrick puts this expectation on the gay and lesbian community. One of the primary goals of many same-sex couples is simply to be treated equally in our society, and allowing them to marry is a clear step towards gaining that equality. In addition, if the homosexual community does not continue to fight for marriage, then they will clearly be left without many of the rights that are outlined in the Human Rights Campaign article on "Why do same-sex couples want to marry?" and "Why aren't civil unions enough?". The many rights and protections listed in this document (including hospital visitation, social security, family leave, home protection and multiple others) clearly show that same-sex couples are missing out on many privileges granted to "traditional" heterosexual couples. Ettelbrick starts her article by describing marriage as an "institution that provides the ultimate form of acceptance for personal intimate relationships" (305-306). She, of course, speaks of this as a negative thing; however I honestly don't have that much of a problem with it. The patriarchal emphasis of marriage, I do agree, has a negative impact on women's role in modern society; however the actual institution of the holy/civil marriage between two people still seems like a good thing to me.

I agree that now, marriage defines some relationships as more valid than others; however if same-sex (or marriage between ANY sexes) marriages were legalized, then I actually believe this inequality would be more leveled out. We live in a society that currently MUST have a norm and those people and relationships that fall outside of the norm are often not accepted. The more we are able to "normalize" same-sex relationships (by allowing marriage), the more accepted these people and relationships will be. Paula emphasizes that gay and lesbian couples will only be accepted and supported DESPITE their differences from the dominant culture; however I don't completely agree with this. Marriage being between a man and a woman is a culturally accepted norm just as marriage between two similarly aged people (usually 20 years or older) is currently the norm. Many generations ago, however, women would be expected to get married at the age of 13 or 14 to much older men (often 30 years or older). In our current society, these marriages are not even legal since the girl would not even be 18. The same shift in the views of marriage can occur to come to accept same-sex marriages just as shifts occur in the acceptance of the appropriate age of marriage.

response to 10/14 readings

Each of these three assigned readings really resonated with me in a different way.  The first one created a sense of panic and urgency in me.  The coparent in a same-sex relationship who is not literally 'birthing' the child can have serious problems becoming a legal part of the child's welfare.  If anything happens to the biological mother during this process, the coparent can lose all rights to the child in a court of law.  That is frightening because most opposite sex couples do not have to deal with this same fear.  They can get married and thus have protective rights over their children.  Same-sex couples who can't get married don't have the same security and options so having a child can be a scary process.  However, the author noted that legal change is not the 'save-all.'  Legal change on its own will not 'create acceptance or transform dominant cultural values.' 

The reading by Ettelbrick really upset me.  I strongly disagreed with the article.  Yes, marriage will not change and fix everything but it CAN fix severe, immediate issues that need to be addressed.  Ettelbrick argues that society needs to change its way of thinking first.  But while society changes (which could take a hell of a long time), same-sex couples STILL won't have many fundamental rights that they are entitled to as a couple.  Marriage would give them these rights (which the third reading outlines).  Also, Ettelbrick says that homosexuals are different from heterosexuals and should not be treated equally by fighting for equal marriage rights.  Again I strongly disagree.  Just because one's sexuality differs, does not make the person different in any other sense.  A homosexual couple also wants healthcare benefits and social security benefits.  Just because their sexuality differs, does not mean that what the couple wants is different.  I do understand that marriage rights won't make everything 'better' but its a real good start.  By simply passing same-sex marriage, this would show a change in general opinion towards acceptance and understanding of same-sex relationships.  A small shift in general opinion could lead to bigger changes which could ultimately change and shape society's opinion on marriage and thus create true alternatives and reorder our view of the family.

response to 9/7 readings

In reading the article 'The Body Politic,' I started thinking about how prevalent eating disorders are in our society.  Off the top of my head, I could name at least twenty or so friends who have struggled with or are still struggling with an eating disorder of some sort.  It is scary how many of my beautiful, smart, talented friends resort to eating disorders to gain control over their bodies and to achieve the image of the 'societal ideal.'  The more I thought about things, I began to think about false accusations.  Since eating disorders are so present in society, many girls get unfairly blamed.  I myself am an offender.  When I see a real skinny girl I automatically assume she has an eating disorder.  It is the first thing that pops to mind.  I don't think healthy eater.  I don't think marathon runner.  I think eating disorder.  I know a lot of my friends do the same thing.  Walking around the beach, for instance, friends will point at small girls and say 'oh she's definitely anorexic.' 

Now, as I reflect on this, this is not the right thing to do.  Yes, it is important that if you have friends with confirmed eating disorders that you work to get them help.  But unfairly labelling a girl with a disorder is not necessarily helpful.  My own sister, actually, has a really small frame.  She is an insanely healthy eater and exercizes once a day.  She has always been tiny due to a fast metabolism and a healthy lifestyle.  I know for a fact that she does not have an eating disorder.  I watch her eat good size portions of food and enjoy her food.  She does not go throw it up after or feel bad about such actions.  I wonder if people label her with an eating disorder.  If they did, it would bother me.  She works hard to stay healthy and in shape and she was born with a small bone structure.  That does not make her an eating disorder candidate. 

I know in the media a lot of women with small figures are constantly attacked by the public for having eating disorders without any outside evidence.  Teri Hatcher, for instance, has been repeatedly accused and has angrily slammed back.  When is it ok to accuse someone with an eating disorder?  I think there's a very thin line.  If someone actually does have an eating disorder and you ignore it, that's bad.  But if someone doesn't have an eating disorder and you repeatedly attack them, that's bad as well.  When is it alright to ask, to accuse, to get help when the evidence isn't overwhelming?  Because as Chernik talks about, eating disorders are very dangerous and helping a friend address one can potentially lead to death.  So where is the line?

10/7 Summary Post

In the Adrienne Rich's essay, "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence", she starts off by discussing how there is a common assumption in today's society that women are innately sexually oriented only toward men and that the lesbian is simply showing her hatred of men. She emphasizes that feminists can no longer avoid this issue by simply tolerating "lesbianism" as an alternative lifestyle. She goes so far as to describe how heterosexuality needs to be studied as a "political institution- even, or especially, by those individuals who feel they are, in their personal experience, the precursors of a new social relation between the sexes." (313). She continues by raising the question of whether the search for love and affection by both sexes doesn't actually originally lead toward women. She cites Kathleen Gough's eight characteristics of male power in contemporary societies. She explains that "characteristics of male power include the power of men 1) to deny women [their own] sexuality 2)or to force it [male sexuality] upon them 3) to command or exploit their labor to control their produce 4) to control or rob them of their children 5) to confine them physically and prevent their movement 6) to use them as objects in male transaction 7) to cramp their creativeness 8) to withhold from them large areas of the society's knowledge and cultural attainments. Rich suggests that it is actually the enforcement and continuation of heterosexuality that is the real problem, not gender equality. It is this heterosexuality that is used as a means of ensuring male power in today's society. Rich believes that we should all exist on a "lesbian continuum": that we should not view ourselves as simply lesbian or heterosexual but instead moving in and out of this continuum. She points to historical traditions, such as the Western tradition, that asserts that women are tragically drawn to men and that women need men as social and economic protectors. She also references the lie that is frequently spread that women only turn to lesbians out of pure hatred for men. By unearthing lesbian existence, Rich argues that the results can be potentially liberating for all women, not just lesbians.

Gilbert's essay "You're Not the Type" describes her teenage pregnancy and her battle through constantly being judged and pitied for her teenage decisions. She is told she does not appear to be "the type" to get pregnant in high school; however she has actually made a success story out of herself by finishing her education. She describes how growing up, she could not truly identify with any real group of women because of her strong feelings of love and attraction toward her female friend Kris. It wasn't until she read Rich's essay (as outlined above) that she realized her so-called abnomality was shared by other women. She finishes by describing how she realized she is doing things she never thought were possible before. Not only was she able to become a student, teacher and a writer, she also able to see that it was possible to love both women and men. As she ends her essay she is "just the type" (83).

Chernik's account of her battle with anorexia, "the Body Politic" pointed out many of the serious issues that surround eating disorders today. She describes how the control of her body size and food intake was the only aspect of her life she thought she was able to maintain power over. By starving herself, she actually received the acceptance and compliments from people in society that she craved. Although she looked emaciated and sickly-thin, she recounts how a body fat testing employee weighed her and actually congratulated her on having only 10% body fat. Society actually preferred her as hungry, fragile and crazy; however she knew she was really only killing herself slowly. What I found most interesting about this article was how she noticed that friends will plead their anorexic friends to go and eat; however these same friends are starting dieting themselves at the time as well. The prevalence of eating disorders in today's society is a vicious circle that makes all women feel inadequate. Instead of embracing and loving your body for the way it is meant to be (beautiful the way it is), women "go hungry emotionally, psychologically, spiritually and politically" (110).

The final article we had to read today was called "Toward a Global History of Same-Sex Sexuality" by Leila J. Rupp. Rupp begins by pointing out that there are actually many examples of age differences structuring sexual acts as opposed to gender. In ancient Greece, the age difference between older and younger men determined the ways they engaged in sexual acts. In 17th century Japan, men were expected to engage in sexual acts with both women and boys and there were actually two different words that described the love of women and the love of boys. In some societies, transgenerational same-sex relations are completely common and accepted. Rupp argues that "our construction of these interactions as same-sex may be totally foreign to the people involved" (291). Our two gender society is also not commonplace in the rest of the world. Third-gender roles also excited in multiple Polynesian societies in the 18th century. In Brazil, the travestis are transgendered prostitutes who take female names and wear women's clothing to attract men. This connection between women's cross dressing and same-sex desire, Rupp argues, becomes tighter over time. "Same-sex sexuality" is simply the Western idea of sexual relations between individuals who are undifferentiated by age, gender, class or other factors. Rupp questions how we determine what is sexuality and what is "something else in these different interactions" (295). The question persists of what a sexual act even is. Were romantic friendships of the 18th and 19th century western world sexual relationships due to their passionate, intense, loving and physically affectionate relationships. It is possible that these relationships did involve sex (it is a commonly argued debate). After giving multiple examples of same-sex intimate relationships, Rupp questions which of the descriptions actually qualify as "sex". Rupp focuses on the problems that result from the term "same-sex sexuality" because the term allows us to raise many important questions about global and historical patterns of love and desire. She ends by emphasizing that "we would do well to remember that we need to consider carefully the ways that love, desire, and relationships are structured by differences or similarities, and the meaning of sex acts in their historical contexts" (302).

Short Response to 10/5 Readings

I really enjoyed how all four of these reading excerpts were very different, and yet all interconnected. "Why Black Sexual Politics" clearly focuses on African American women and their over-sexualized stereotype; however Douglas discusses this topic as well at one point in her chapter "Sex 'R' Us" when she mentions the Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction with Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake. She describes how "the real hypocrisy was that it was the violation of the 'beloved' sporting event, not the overexposure of an African American woman, that had people howling in outrage" (Douglas 178). Douglas also points out that black women were either the silent, voiceless objects in male rapper's music videos or they chose to profit off their own bodies instead of letting guys do so. Women objectifying themselves for money, however, doesn't seem very different from prostitution to me. Douglas ends her discussion of African American women's stereotypical sexuality by asking the question of whether Missy Elliot was reinforcing the stereotype of the hyper-sexual black woman or achieving control over her own sexuality? She concludes by saying, "damned if she do and damned if she don't" (181). In her article "Tight Jeans and Chania Chorris", Sonia Shah asks a similar question about her boy-crazy, attention craving sister. By clearly expressing her sexuality through wearing tight and revealing clothes, Sonia's feminist college friends told her that her sister was simply objectifying herself and setting herself up to be sexualized in all aspects of her life. What i found really interesting about this article, however, was at the end when Shah ultimately concludes that her sister was actually "seeking an appropriate cultural expression of her sexuality in a society that doesn't recognize anything outside of the monoculture of 'Americanism'" when she returned from India wearing a traditional but very revealing chania chorri. Rebecca Walker also describes how she was very experimental sexually from a young age and craved/needed the attention of boys/men to feel fulfilled and happy. She admits that at first she thought she was happy having a supposed "control" over men by having sex with them; however she soon realized that she wanted more pleasure for herself and more freedom (and decided she deserved and could get both). She emphasizes that sexual self-exploration is blocked by government control or religious tradition; however it is an important part of growing up. Young women, Walker argues, should be able to learn that sex can be more than just "pussy and dick and fucking" and outside of marriage and procreation. Sex can be more sensual, more spiritual and more about communication between two people. Rebecca is what Douglas would have called a "sexpert". She also happens to be an African American woman as well (relating back to "Why Black Sexual Politics").

I really feel like I connected with these readings because they all related so much to each other but in discrete ways. Instead of being stereotypically "feminist" in their writing styles, Walker and Shah concluded that young women should be experimental and sexually explorative. Instead of preaching against things, it really seemed as though these authors acknowledged both sides of the story. Collins recognizes that although Destiny's Child's "Independent Woman" album portrays many of the stereotypical images of black women being overtly sexual, it also encourages young women to seek independence and financial freedom from men. This problem is not simple and has no right or wrong answer and I really liked that all four of the authors acknowledged and took this fact into account.

NEWS FLASH #1: Are women REALLY equal in the workplace?

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/women-sue-goldman-claiming-bias-in-pay-and-jobs/?scp=3&sq=goldman&st=cse



On September 15th of this year, three former Goldman Sachs female employees filed a lawsuit against their prior employer on the grounds that the firm “systematically discriminates against its women employees” (Lattman). The lawsuit claims that Goldman intentionally pays and promotes its male employees more than females. The number of women in positions of power at the company quickly declines as ones moves up the corporate ladder. Goldman spokesman, Lucas van Praag, has already responded to the lawsuit by saying they, “believe this suit is without merit. People are critical to our business, and we make extraordinary efforts to recruit, develop and retain outstanding women professionals” (Lattman). This lawsuit, however, is not the first instance in which women have sued for gender discrimination in the investment banking industry. Three female Bank of America Merrill Lynch investment advisers sued the company for an alleged gender bias back in March as well as in 2004, Morgan Stanley paid $54 million to settle accusations that it had denied women promotions and raises and purposefully excluded them from company events. These lawsuits clearly emphasize the reality that even though many women are currently portrayed by the media as having succeeded in most top professional industries, they are still being discriminated against and treated unequally in the workplace.

Chen-Oster, one of the three women filing the lawsuit, gave a vivid account of how she was encouraged to attend a celebration of a male coworker’s promotion at a NYC strip club. At the end of the night, a male coworker escorted her to her boyfriend’s apartment and proceeded to aggressively pin her against a wall, groping and kissing her. The male colleague then reported the incident to his adviser the next day, resulting in increased hostility and marginalization for Chen-Oster at the firm. Ms. Orlich, another woman filing the lawsuit, claims to be purposefully not invited to frequent golf outings with her male coworkers due to her gender. She also describes how a managing director hired “scantily clad female escorts wearing Santa hats to attend a holiday party” (Lattman). All three women assert that they are paid and promoted less than their male peers because of their gender. Not only are these three women filing a lawsuit against a company for discriminating females’ pay and promotions on the base of gender, they also allege physical and mental abuse both inside and outside of the workplace. As Susan Douglas describes in the introductory chapter of her book Enlightened Sexism, the media has simply given us “fantasies of power” (Douglas, 5), or illusions of the female gender’s success and progress in today’s society. Many people now claim that women’s liberation has been accomplished and that women really can do anything and be anything they want because of these fantasies. The media has convinced us to “believe that any woman can become a CEO (or president), that women have achieved economic, professional, and political parity with men” (Douglas, 5). Women might be able to have jobs in the top levels of major banks on Wall Street in industries such as Investment Banking and on the Trading floor of the NY Stock Exchange; however they are still being discriminated against with regards to payment, promotions and general office environment.

Women can be doctors, lawyers, investment bankers, CEOs, or politicians; however their paths to these positions are still much more difficult and longer than men’s. Further, even once these women have “made it”, they still face enormous obstacles related to gender discrimination. These three female Goldman Sachs employees were all perceived by the world as having successfully worked their way up to positions of power and status in the financial field, but as the lawsuit clearly shows, they still were not in any way treated equally to their male counterparts. The entire lawsuit document has been released and an article on BusinessInsider.com describes “The Craziest 15 Ways Women Say They Were Harassed At Goldman Sachs”. The title of this article largely shows the extent to our society still thinks negatively of women in the workplace. Not only does the word “craziest” imply that the women are not taken seriously, it also suggests that these women’s allegations are unfounded. The title also insinuates that since women simply “say” that they were harassed, their word cannot necessarily be taken as the truth. These examples of harassment range from the previously mentioned strip club incident to disparities in pay between genders to being given generally administrative and secretarial tasks that were not given to men in the same positions at the bank. This lawsuit, however, probably will have little to no real effect on the financial world with regards to treatment of female employees. As Allan Johnson describes in his article “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us”, patriarchy is a system of values that we all maintain. Patriarchy is a “set of deeply ingrained beliefs, symbols and ideas about men and women and humanity that both permeate and structure our culture” (Simonsen 9/21 class notes). Since our society tends to value male characteristics more highly than female ones, society has a deeply ingrained preferential treatment of males that cannot be easily fixed or changed.
In the comments section of the NYTimes.com one read responds by saying, “well, this is no shock. These firms are old boys clubs and their arrogance makes them think they are above the law; the smartest guys in the universe” (NYTimes.com). The lack of shock associated with this lawsuit clearly shows society’s continuing perception of females’ role in the workplace. If women were really equal to men as the media tries to show, this lawsuit would be appalling to every reader. If the genders of the lawsuit were switched (men suing women for gender discrimination), the lawsuit would undeniably be much more shocking. If men and women were really equal, any lawsuit of this kind should be shocking since equality between genders requires respect on both sides. This lawsuit shows an inherent lack of respect of the men involved in their treatment of women in the workplace.

Goldman Sach’s response to this lawsuit gives interesting credibility to allegations of their creating an evidently sexist workplace. Lucas van Praag, who commented on behalf of Goldman, claimed that this suit is without merit and pointed out that Goldman Sachs makes concerted efforts to hire female employees. This comment, however, simply serves to silence the voices of the women who have chosen to speak out against the discrimination they faced. van Praag insists that Goldman Sachs makes “extraordinary efforts to recruit, develop and retain outstanding women professionals” (Lattman); however if they really are taking these steps, why would women be leaving the firm as they advance into more powerful positions? Another comment made by a reader of this NYTimes article responds by saying “can’t these ladies just lighten up?” (NYTimes.com). Despite women’s apparent ability to advance to positions of power in most of today’s top industries, they are still faced with double standards both in and out of the workplace. Women should not have to be encouraged to “lighten up” in the face of a serious gender discrimination case such as this one. Instead of simply dismissing the charges, maybe Goldman Sachs should look into the issue and actually attempt to make appropriate changes in their offices to make a more equal and female friendly work environment. Their “extraordinary efforts” obviously are not effective enough considering the unhappiness of numerous female employees combined with the declining number of women in top positions.

This lawsuit should be viewed as a wake-up call to everyone. Even though women have been able to maintain and advance their presence in the workplace, the expectations of their obedience and complacency to men still exist. The sentiment now seems to be growing that women can go to college, work for a few years after graduation but eventually settle down and raise children at home. Companies like Goldman Sachs try, or claim to try, to hire impressive and extraordinary young women out of college; however it is primarily assumed that these women work for only a few years before getting married and having kids or leaving to work in a less demanding field. Women clearly are still not being treated equally in today’s society despite the media’s portrayal otherwise. As Douglas says on the front cover of her book, too many people have given in to the “seductive message that feminism’s work is done”. This idea must be rejected before all people are able to work together to achieve actual equality both in and out of the workplace.