Before reading your posts, I had little idea of what gender studies was. And when right wingers threaten to tear apart higher education, they tend to ridicule gender studies. If only they would read this piece, they might get it... well, a girl can dream.
The Calvin Klein ad revolution ... who woulda thunk it had "a history," and it was not some ad director...but Klein himself....realizing what he was doing. Wonder if the gay magazines featured men in these poses, but they didn't realize the meaning of it.
Darn, now I want to look at Hawley's book touting manhood. Hey. Think I will troll his fb account and accuse him of gender studies!
I just tried. I found him on Facebook, and the tsunami of over the top hatred and accusation of each post was revolting. I feel like I got slimed. Of course he is cheered by the maggots.
I will stay alert for when he is a news guest and comment then. My dream is that he is caught with gay child porn on his computer.
"One of the last taboos to be liberated is to revel in being objectified, and I feel like indulging in taboos sometimes is a way to liberate them.” Dita Von Teese
Susan, I have just read this new piece. I , like you, am a baby boomer, and used your writing in my teaching. You have done a masterful work of writing here. You are to be thanked and applauded. The question is how can what you have so clearly stated reach a varied and large audience? Susan Landgraf
Thank you so much! What lovely comments! Re. Reaching a wider audience, do you mean this piece? I try to circulate the substack as widely as I can on Facebook—and hope others will do the same on whatever social media (or other media) they have access to.
Another intriguing piece, Susan. I love your thoughts on this and I'm always forced to think again. That's a good thing! But about the posing of Martha Stewart: the idea that the poses say, "Do you think I'm pretty?" is no doubt exactly what Martha wanted. She does look coy and a bit sexy, and that may well be why she agreed to a cover shoot for Sports Illustrated in the first place.
I don't know what all this controversy had done to her confidence now, but I think she went into that shoot for her own reasons--most of which the rest of us couldn't begin to understand--and she'll be looking at that spread for her remaining years, remembering how they made her look and how she felt while doing it, and she'll be lifted by it. It really doesn't matter what the rest of us think.
All true, but hopefully I made it clear that my post isn’t about Martha or what she thinks or wants, but what the images convey. I find that too often discussions of cultural images don’t recognize that they have a history and life of their own, irrespective of the motivations or experience of the people who are “in” them. I don’t care, for example, whether or not the skinny models actually do “eat like horses” or not—as they sometimes claim. I’m interested in what those skinny bodies convey to the girls and women who idealize them. So what Martha Stewart feels or thinks is basically irrelevant to me in this piece. Another way of putting it: I “read” images of the body the way I read other cultural texts (like movies and television.) Sometimes, if I’m writing long pieces or a book I’ll go into more biographical information, have interviews, etc. with actors, writers, etc. But not in this piece.
Got it. Not to beat a dead horse (speaking of horses) but who would be influenced by Martha's photo shoot other than old women who are mainly past being influenced by anyone or anything anymore?
My point is I'm still surprised it got such negative play. It's really quite meaningless in the scheme of things.
It got so much play because the media (and Stewart herself) made such a big deal over an 81-year on the cover of SI. There were headlines everywhere, stuff on Instagram by Stewart. And then people got on their high horses (horses again) about it. I agree with you that—like so many things in our culture—people got all disproportionately exercised. Which is why I didn’t even write about it at the time. And in this piece, it’s not the main focus, but an example of how the Berger formula for depicting women extends—from young to old, across race, from slim to “plus-size,” etc. It’s not that Martha’s pic itself is so influential; it’s that the paradigm is so entrenched that it governs the depiction of even an 81-year-old (who has an extremely active life in reality!)
Yes, I get it. I admit I find these conversations confusing, I think because they've been going on for as long as I can remember. Sticking women into slots and then trying to unslot them by sticking them into other slots.
I'm not saying that's what you're doing. Far from it. Your explanations make sense.
But it seems women have to be made to fit in somewhere, whether they want it or not.
I think what’s confusing you—maybe—is the kind of criticism this is. It’s not about “women”; it’s about representations of women. And yes, they do tend to fall into certain archetypal patterns. (I think that’s what you mean by “slots”?) And despite the efforts of feminists, those archetypes keep getting revived, maybe with a little tweaking according the changing fashions, but essentially replicated. Some other time I’ll try to explain it better!
Thank you! I hadn’t heard that line. Does she mean “white women”? Even though it doesn’t work as neatly, makes more sense to say “boys will be boys and white women will be girls”!!
Before reading your posts, I had little idea of what gender studies was. And when right wingers threaten to tear apart higher education, they tend to ridicule gender studies. If only they would read this piece, they might get it... well, a girl can dream.
The Calvin Klein ad revolution ... who woulda thunk it had "a history," and it was not some ad director...but Klein himself....realizing what he was doing. Wonder if the gay magazines featured men in these poses, but they didn't realize the meaning of it.
Darn, now I want to look at Hawley's book touting manhood. Hey. Think I will troll his fb account and accuse him of gender studies!
Haha. Do it!!
I just tried. I found him on Facebook, and the tsunami of over the top hatred and accusation of each post was revolting. I feel like I got slimed. Of course he is cheered by the maggots.
I will stay alert for when he is a news guest and comment then. My dream is that he is caught with gay child porn on his computer.
Oh that’s not a good dream to have--there shouldn’t BE such porn available to be on anyone’s computer 😔
"One of the last taboos to be liberated is to revel in being objectified, and I feel like indulging in taboos sometimes is a way to liberate them.” Dita Von Teese
Susan, I have just read this new piece. I , like you, am a baby boomer, and used your writing in my teaching. You have done a masterful work of writing here. You are to be thanked and applauded. The question is how can what you have so clearly stated reach a varied and large audience? Susan Landgraf
Thank you so much! What lovely comments! Re. Reaching a wider audience, do you mean this piece? I try to circulate the substack as widely as I can on Facebook—and hope others will do the same on whatever social media (or other media) they have access to.
I am ashamed to say that I am just discovering you.
Don’t be ashamed. Just subscribe!!
I did!
Another intriguing piece, Susan. I love your thoughts on this and I'm always forced to think again. That's a good thing! But about the posing of Martha Stewart: the idea that the poses say, "Do you think I'm pretty?" is no doubt exactly what Martha wanted. She does look coy and a bit sexy, and that may well be why she agreed to a cover shoot for Sports Illustrated in the first place.
I don't know what all this controversy had done to her confidence now, but I think she went into that shoot for her own reasons--most of which the rest of us couldn't begin to understand--and she'll be looking at that spread for her remaining years, remembering how they made her look and how she felt while doing it, and she'll be lifted by it. It really doesn't matter what the rest of us think.
All true, but hopefully I made it clear that my post isn’t about Martha or what she thinks or wants, but what the images convey. I find that too often discussions of cultural images don’t recognize that they have a history and life of their own, irrespective of the motivations or experience of the people who are “in” them. I don’t care, for example, whether or not the skinny models actually do “eat like horses” or not—as they sometimes claim. I’m interested in what those skinny bodies convey to the girls and women who idealize them. So what Martha Stewart feels or thinks is basically irrelevant to me in this piece. Another way of putting it: I “read” images of the body the way I read other cultural texts (like movies and television.) Sometimes, if I’m writing long pieces or a book I’ll go into more biographical information, have interviews, etc. with actors, writers, etc. But not in this piece.
Got it. Not to beat a dead horse (speaking of horses) but who would be influenced by Martha's photo shoot other than old women who are mainly past being influenced by anyone or anything anymore?
My point is I'm still surprised it got such negative play. It's really quite meaningless in the scheme of things.
It got so much play because the media (and Stewart herself) made such a big deal over an 81-year on the cover of SI. There were headlines everywhere, stuff on Instagram by Stewart. And then people got on their high horses (horses again) about it. I agree with you that—like so many things in our culture—people got all disproportionately exercised. Which is why I didn’t even write about it at the time. And in this piece, it’s not the main focus, but an example of how the Berger formula for depicting women extends—from young to old, across race, from slim to “plus-size,” etc. It’s not that Martha’s pic itself is so influential; it’s that the paradigm is so entrenched that it governs the depiction of even an 81-year-old (who has an extremely active life in reality!)
Yes, I get it. I admit I find these conversations confusing, I think because they've been going on for as long as I can remember. Sticking women into slots and then trying to unslot them by sticking them into other slots.
I'm not saying that's what you're doing. Far from it. Your explanations make sense.
But it seems women have to be made to fit in somewhere, whether they want it or not.
I think what’s confusing you—maybe—is the kind of criticism this is. It’s not about “women”; it’s about representations of women. And yes, they do tend to fall into certain archetypal patterns. (I think that’s what you mean by “slots”?) And despite the efforts of feminists, those archetypes keep getting revived, maybe with a little tweaking according the changing fashions, but essentially replicated. Some other time I’ll try to explain it better!
I like duo lips line "boys will be boys and girls will bw women" x
I mean dua lipa of course
but great piece of writing, thought etc. Susan.
Thank you! I hadn’t heard that line. Does she mean “white women”? Even though it doesn’t work as neatly, makes more sense to say “boys will be boys and white women will be girls”!!
explain, please.
I’m not sure what you’re asking about. Did I misunderstand that quote from Dua Lipa?
ill get back tomorrow. suddenly sleepy!