Nurturing Nature: Finding the Unnatural in Media Essentialism

As the proverb goes, it was very unlikely that a fish discovered water. So too does culture often possess this illusive characteristic for those who are engulfed in its definitions. One of the most evident ways in which culture exerts its power is through the stories and scripts it creates to explain its constructions. By naturalizing cultural constructions, it is clear that oppressive forces—patriarchy and asymmetrical treatment of the sexes in advertisement included—take a paramount position within society, justifying the created and unnatural ways in which culture categorizes and privileges groups.

This point is particularly evident in the continually hypersexual nature of media and advertising and the message it sends about the genders. Steinem’s article illustrates the strong manipulation gender plays in choosing advertisement campaigns; with her experiences with Ms. Magazine, Steinem describes the difficulties the magazine had with securing companies to advertise their products in a feminist-oriented magazine when many of their campaigns featured traditionally misogynist themes. Of course, the feminist orientation of Ms. proves that there is nothing inherent in the nature of women in comparison to the advertisers it was courting. The advertisers clearly played up traditional women’s roles and associations in order to sell their product, but the issues with Ms. arise when it is made apparent that these roles and associations can and should be challenged.

A similar point is made in Rushkoff’s discussion of the blossoming of his masculinity with porn. Rushkoff describes the ways in which porn laid out the “appropriate” ways to view women and sex: as objects. More importantly, Rushkoff found himself initially unable to buy in to the sexual script that Playboy and other “skin mags” presented to him, and when he finally does, he finds himself categorizing individual women based on a few qualities rather than considering the women as whole human beings. Later in the piece, Rushkoff illuminates the many limitations in the masculine script skin mags offer to men, establishing them as entirely constructed despite their presentation as “natural,” and, indeed, coming-of-age “tools” for being a man.

Though the naturalization of constructed gender is particularly prevalent in these articles, implications of this phenomenon exist in other readings for this week and in certainly in the media at large. The biggest issue with this naturalization, of course, is that, like the fish, we are not always able to discern the “fiction” of culture from the “reality” of what actually is natural. For example, women may be (on average) smaller than men, but this “essential” characteristic not only does not account for women with larger builds, but also creates a picture of the ideal woman as impossibly small and fragile (marking larger women far from the cultural ideal of beauty), creating a dichotomy of preference—and from that, behavior—derived from what our culture defines as “natural.”

While this dichotomy may seem relatively innocent, the danger in naturalizing the categories culture creates is that individuals who fight back against the “system” not only have to stand up to cultural norms, but what is considered natural as well; indeed, it is often perceived that they are fighting against nature—and all that “nature” entails, including God—itself. Recalling the “Wussy Boy for Pussy Power” article reinforces this, along with Rushkoff’s discomfort and befuddlement about why his sexuality at age 11, which was perfectly natural in his eyes, was put under fire by his classmates who had already been enculturated to Playboy and company.

One of the most proactive steps we can take in defeating this construction-turned-nature phenomenon is to be able to decipher between the two. Construction is just what it sounds like: an unnatural, created definition. Nature and essentialism, however, should be treated with a bit more caution. While we can easily point out things about people that appear to be “natural,” we first must consider why we think this way (i.e. do we have underlying motivation for defining ideal beauty for women as impossibly small?) and avoid assigning value to the “natural” qualities we find in individuals. Taking this to the world of media will help to reveal the fallacy inherent in the essentialism provided by advertisements, television, art, film, and so fourth, creating a sharper “gendered eye” with which to take on the patriarchal world.

(Whose) Family Matters(?): Challenging the Cultural Ideals for the Sake of Reality

Family is an element of the human experience that everyone has a connection to; cross-culturally, “family” in some form or another has remained one of the “great universals” the world over. As such a strong element of culture, family has stood as a long-contentious, often politicized issue as individual families attempt to contend with the high standards established by dominant culture. Though the Western model of “ideal family” is only emulated through twelve percent of American families, the cost of deviating from the ideal remains high; mothers and fathers are considered unfit, relationships—both between parents and children and spouses (hetero-and homosexual)—are strained, and far-too-long-lasting prejudices stand in the way of functioning “dysfunctional” families. As is found in this week’s readings, the ideal of “family” cannot be considered “ideal” any longer; these readings help to expose the enrichment redefining “family” provides for North American culture, providing mothers, fathers, and children with far greater agency in defining their own ideal “family.”

In considering this week’s readings, a very clear-cut definition of the North American ideal family is made apparent. Just as we find individuals losing agency of their bodies in considering embodiment, “family” is taken away from the individual unit and measured up against impossible standards. Parents—mothers especially—must always desire their children, fathers provide for the family financially while mothers provide emotionally, parents shall be unconditionally in love and married, and all members of the nuclear family must live under one roof. Oh yea, and families are always white (apparently).

Of course, this ideal is rarely realized, and this is often for the better. There are mothers who do not feel comfortable “mothering” their children. There are fathers who don’t want to bear the financial burden alone and who would much rather spend time at home, just as there are mothers who find themselves emotionally drained after balancing the first and second shifts. Men and women of all ethnicities make responsible, loving, and attentive parents whether or not they are emotionally involved with the other parent. Furthermore, “family” doesn’t always have to include children just as it doesn’t have to exclude individuals who have been rejected by other family members (as was the case for Sharon Kowalksi and her lover, Karen Thompson). In this sense, “family” is not always something that one is “stuck” with, but something with which one has agency to change, challenge, and define.

Perhaps most crucially, examining family reveals the ways in which the classism, sexism, and racism inherent in the ideal image of family not only still “reigns supreme,” but hurts more than women alone. It is clear that North American society clings to the “Leave it to Beaver” definition of family, denying millions of North Americans for whom the reality makes it no further than their television screens. Even in contemporary television sitcoms that fiercely satire everything that the squeaky-clean “Leave it to Beaver” held most dear—“The Simpsons” and “Family Guy” included—feature white families with a breadwinner and homemaker, the ideal 2.4 (or whatever the statistic is these days…) children, and hours of ridiculous antics that end in familial bliss (neatly within a 30-minute time slot). Likewise, television sitcoms that have attempted to feature “ethnic” families have scarcely deviated from the Androcentric ideal; “Family Matters” of the early 1990’s featured a black family in suburban Chicago that focused on familial problem solving that would have made June proud. Similarly, the more recent “George Lopez” features the Hispanic comedian traversing fatherhood with wit, humor, and a daily dose of genre-demanding wisdom. Though shows like “Desperate Housewives” sometimes work to break the mold by featuring (gasp!) middle-aged, good-looking divorcees, many primetime television programs are a far-cry away from the reality of “family.”

Though it seems that television reflects a society that no longer exists, it can only be a matter of time before art begins to imitate life. As the definition of ideal family becomes more fluid and transitory to one’s personal proclamation by acknowledging the existence of less-than-“ideal” (though completely functional, caring) families, the collapse of long-standing oppressors such as racism, sexism, and classism (and their culturally-installed reinforcements) are certain to at least weaken, if not perish entirely.

Release the Vaginas! (and the breasts, and the love handles, and the thights, and the...)

Throughout my exploration of Women and Gender Studies as an academic pursuit, there is one definite rule that I've learned: nothing about gender is cut and dry. It is easy to say that women are objectified and oppressed; the average North American female is likely able to find at least one instance of personal experience with both objectification and oppression. While these moments should be hardly denigrated, exposing oneself to the ways in which women are objectified and oppressed around the world and within North America's own backyard expose the many horrific instances of sex-based abuse and silencing. Reflecting upon last week's focus on embodiment allows us to better understand the ways in which the female body is degraded and silenced, expanding this week's discussion of gendered abuses and attacks against the females of the world.
And there are, indeed, multiple ways in which this attack manifests itself. Ranging from the constraining lingerie that shapes "unruly" female bodies of discussion last week to the systemic control of women's reproductive organs via culturally-sanctioned prostitution and federally-sanctioned sterilization, it seems that patriarchy is forever battling against the agency of the female body. However, the battle extends from the inactive (though perfectly sculpted) female body to the body daring enough to act on its own accord, whether it be through deciding when to be sexually active to when it will begin the cycle of sexual reproduction.
As we discovered this week, the sex industry provides an economy to countries usually rivaled only by the illegal narcotics trade, spurring governments to remain relatively silent about child prostitution and the sales of daughters to brothels for economic gain. While this trade spurs the national economy, it reduces thousands of female bodies to the individual property of hundreds of thousands of individuals on any given night, be it the girls' pimps or "clients." The girls' bodies become capital that they have no control over, forcing them to completely disengage from their bodies on an emotional level at some point.
In this sense, the systemic sterilization and federal control of reproduction functions in much of the same way; women are no longer complete "masters" of their own reproductive organs and what they produce when. Instead, the very little agency women claim over their bodies is shaped by socioeconomic constraints that leave them with little choice (or no choice, in the case of Chinese women subjected to the One Child policy) at all. Just as examining ideal body types produces one¾namely white, thin, amply busted¾prototype for the female body, socialized understandings of "good" fertile women and "bad" fertile women produces one option for women who do not want to be viewed as parasites on society or, worse yet, offenders of national policy. In this sense, the womb and its functions are literally criminalized and, as the image illustrates above, is in need of restraint.
In considering how one goes about untying the bonds of the female body, it may be useful to think about how society goes about defining the female body; is it fundamentally a tool of the state, a potential producer of potential criminals, or a vital part of someone's identity (and something for them and them alone to exercise agency over and with)? Consciousness of embodiment is certainly the first step in releasing the female body from all of its constraints: political, social, commercial, and far beyond.