GWSS 3306: Popular Culture Women

Unfortunatly, we did not see many positive images in this magazine. For the question of racial variety in the magazine, there wasnt much. The ratio of white women to non-white women was alarming. Furthermore, when there was a non-white woman, she played down her differences. They were allowed to be exotic, but not TOO exotic. One of the most surprising images we saw was an advertisment for clothing with the headline "whiten up!". It was especially surprising because there were too white women in the advertisment. We assumed it was an ad for white clothing but the underlying messege was significant.
As for the notion of being a woman through the way her body looks, we saw many images telling girls to take exceptional care of their bodies i.e. excersizing, eating healthy and such. This isnt such a bad thing except for the fact that it emphasized the girl's looks only. For example, when referring to a women skier, it stated "a skier as hot as she is...". Also, there was a "got milk" ad that implied that girl should drink milk in order to look better, not to be strong and healthy or anything...Women should be healthy to feel better as well.
Lastly, there were many advertisments that associated products with sucess in life. Actually, there was a whole article that instucted girls how to be charming. It actually suggested "do anything" and "give people what they want" as solutions. It was rediculous, because some of the wording seemed like something you could take right out of those outdated charm books. We also noted ads and articles that implied a better life if you purchased thier products. For example, there was a shoe ad that stated "you are the queen of all you stand on". So, their shoes will make you into a queen? I dont get it...
In conclusion, Cosmo girl did not offer many positive issues to young women. This can be especially destructive because the majority of girls that read this magazine are very objective and moldable. It is dangerous when the media gives these girls negative images because they will probably adhere to them.

Posted by Alana Riemermann at 3:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We, group 3, looked at cosmo magazine. The lack of positive imagery was overwhelming. A few that we did find were Queen Latifah on the back cover for covergirl. There was a crystal light ad that featured a very natural looking ethinc woman, as opposed to the typical dolled up woman we see in most ads. In the health section there was a photo of an asian woman, and throughout other articles were photos of non-white couples.

As far as negative imagery went, most of it was over sexualized, or photos with little to no clothing. One of our favorites was a photo of a woman being served first at a bar, and having everyone else beind her look distraught and disappointed that they didn't get their drink. The woman who got served first was white! The two most recognizable faces were a black woman and a black man behind her.

The whole magazine focuses on heterosexual relationships. There were a lot of weight loss, make-up, perfume and plastic surgery ads. There was also an article on " How to Set A Really Cute Table".

As far as food went in the magazine there really wasn't any. There were pictures of women with alcoholic drinks, and there was one ad that was an "eating calendar" (lean cuisine and skinny cow ice cream, which could both be described as "dainty" portions).
We felt that this would effect(affect?) young girls, or readers in general to fit the ideal stereotype. This stereotype is rampant throughout the whole magazine as is the idea of being very sexual.

A lot of the ads fit into the "do it for him" or " do it to look pretty and be a good consumer". There was one ad for a plus size store Torrid, but the tag line was " now he'll notice you!" So sad.

Lastly, as I mentioned before, the magazine really focuses on sexuality, or maybe even over-sexualizing everything. There were sex tricks, how long to wait before having sex with a man-" A man loves a good challenge, as long as you dangle the promise of sex in front of him, he'll be fixated on you" and another quote " if you do it too soon, it could backfire.."
A few pages later it tells you how to reclaim the lustiness that may have left your relationship.." How to keep sex naughty!" I suppose sometimes there's a rut, but who needs a magazine to tell us how to fix that?

Overall, Cosmo definitely caters to a certain type of reader, I'm not quite sure who, but I am sure it's no one in our class.

Posted by Margaret Hanson at 9:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I thought I would write about images of women that were the exact opposite of what we talked about in class. In this months issue of Bust there was a short profile of the group Chubsters. They have a website, chubstergang.com and are devoted to combating fat prejudices that are out in the media. The Beefer as the founder is known was inspired to start a group after being used as one of the headless fat people that we see on tv all the time. Think of how damaging of an experience this can be...you're watching tv and while there's a report on obesity in America a faceless picture of yourself is used without your consent!! To get back to the article and the Chubsters, it’s a very proactive way to fight against body image. They group doesn't care how fat or skinny that you really are, anyone can join. Except if you are a "narrow fuck" (reflecting narrow-mindedness of course) as they call it, do not bother. The members of this group are posted on the website and are definitely going against the accept norm that has been instilled in many of us from the group. Kudos to the Chubsters for fighting fat phobia!!

the website: chubstergang.com

Posted by Rachel Anderson at 3:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

She’s regarded as one of sexiest women in Hollywood. Actress LisaRaye McCoy lights up the small screen in the new hit comedy series “ALL OF US�, executive produced by Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith. Ambitious, beautiful, and one of the hardest working women in showbiz, LisaRaye has catapulted her career from a hip-hop pin-up favorite to mainstream recognition on the silver and small screens. Fiesty, Fine and Fierce, LisaRaye is one of Hollywood’s“Hot Girls�. She’s not just a pretty face, no stranger to the stage and silver screen, LisaRaye can carry a dramatic role with authority, grace and depth For this assignment I had a female in mind that I wanted to talk about because I just feel that she is absolutely stunning. LisaRaye McCoy is my role model, 41 years old and she looks fabulous shes an actress, inspiring entrepreneur, loving mother and wife.
I look up to her because her beauty is natural, and she knows how to be sexy and conservative at the same time. I have yet to hear about any scandals involving her. She makes other African American realize that you dont have to have the fake boobs, or a(n) "apple bottom" to be sexy. I found my favorite picture of her along with a picture of her and younger sister Da Brat.
This is the link to her photo.
http://www.parkrose.k12.or.us/schools/hs/our_life/student_pages/04-05/8_tabeal/images/lisaraye45.jpeg
This link is to the photo of her and younger sister Da Brat
http://us.ent2.yimg.com/musicfinder.yahoo.com/images/yahoo/arista/dabrat/da_brat_lisaraye_0250.jpg
Although they are only half sisters the message that Da Brat sends just based off this picture is "Ladies show what you are working with" while LisaRaye is wearing something less exposing.
I recently got a magazine and on the front cover one of the articles was about the role that Hip-Hop plays on women. I will bring it to class to share on thursday.

Posted by Diamond Smith at 2:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I guess I don't really have a particular image in mind, but will all the talk of Oscars and Grammy's, feminity has really come into play. In every television program where they discuss what the stars are wearing and how they're wearing it, there's an inevitable reference to the way in which they are fulfulling their role as women. My biggest problem with this discussion is that there is so much contradictory nature involved in these conversations between, "fashion experts" and television hosts that I can' t believe people are willing to buy into it. The two examples of this that stuck out for me most was in comparing their double sided language of Reese Witherspoon and America Farrara at the Academy Awards ( I Think.)
The first of the two women to walk down the runway was America Farrara of, conveniently enough, Ugly Betty. The panel guffawed over her gown and her transformation from awakrad,geeky journalist to a fashion icon on the red carpet. But what frustrated me was that they couldn't leave it at that, they had to go on to talk about how she really dressed her full-figured body well and found a gown that countoured her "womanly" curves. Now, it's not that I am saying there is anything wrong with that, it's just that why couldn't see just be beautiful and leave it at that? Yes I think curves are a really good commodity to have as a woman, but it was as though they were using that kind of language to cover their real opinions about her, she's fat. And maybe I wouldn't have got that feeling if two seconds later, Reese Witherspoon wouldn't have walked down the red carpet,and the first words out of their mouth was how amazing she looked, but she had notably lost some weight. I'm sure most of you are with me when I say I didn't know that Reese Witherspoon had weight to lose? She had a slender, almost girly looking figure for the majority of her careeer in Hollywood. They also attriubuted this stunning weight loss to her newly found position as a single woman (divorced from Ryan Phillippee). Why do her looks need to be attributed to anything other than her own hard work, for her own benefit? Is it always for a man, or the public eye in general?
So which is Hollywood? Which message are you really trying to send? Big is beautiful or thin is in? Just because they use terms like womanly and curvy, it's not necessarily true that that's what is considered to really be the expectations of universal beauty. I'm sick of the love youd body messages that are being falsely portrayed by the media one day, but the women who show up on our magazines and the ones preaching it themselves are anorexic versions of what they seem to be advocating....

Posted by Erin Jensen at 1:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Check this website out: http://www.goddessnudes.com

As I was surffing the net for an image for this week's blog assignment I decided to do a search under beautiful and gorgeous women. With those two words that I decide to use, most of the things that pop up were mostly directing towards porn women and the bodies of model and celebrities. However, I cam across this site http://goddessnudes.com there are a few images on this site but yet I do not know how to transfer or paste pictures on her yet. So just check out the website above. Anyways what I would like to talk about in this website is that when I first entered or click on the site it directed me to a page that provides the definition of what a goddess is. Afther that it explains what their missions of the this website is supposed to be and there is a paragraph that clarifying that in our life women comes in all shapes, size and all forms that has help inspired them to crreate this website and such art form. But when I browsed through the pictures of the women in this site most of them are skinny, have a nice body shape and pretty much what society accepts as beautiful women. Therefore, I find the paragraph that is included in the site not true about what the mission of the site is trying to pursue. Because most of the women images on the site are nice, young looking women who are consider beautiful and gorgeous.

Posted by Alanna Yang at 12:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I am bored with celebrities. I like to see what normal people are doing to reinforce or subvert ideas. Instead of going with a holocaust-survivor headcase or perfection under the patriarchy, I decided to go with the girls who I know aren't taking any of that mainstream bs.

http://www.suicidegirls.com

http://www.myspace.com/suicidegirls

The Suicide Girls organization gives the finger to mainstream standards of beauty, because they choose pinup girls who have real bodies, piercings, tattoos, unconventional haircolors, etc., and who aren't plastic surgery whores. The site is pinup mania, designed to attract those who are sick of looking at the same airbrushed picture of the same airbrushed woman done 1000 different ways. These girls are glorified as-is, and the only airbrushing that goes on is the pasting of the SG logo in the corner of their pictures. Everyone who models for the site is completely in charge of their own objectification - they come up with shoot ideas, dress/costume themselves, take their own pictures, and put themselves out there for the world to see.

So, the reason that I picked the Suicide Girls as a whole is that everyone on that site rocks, and I couldn't pick just one. I discovered the site a few months ago and it's the only organization I've found that is so committed to helping women define beauty for themselves - there are no standards, just logistical photographic guidelines. These women are able to do what they think is beautiful in front of the camera, and show everyone how proud, confident and beautiful they are all on their own. I thought it was such an awesome idea that I was one click away from sending in some pics of myself. Although I conceded to my husband's not wanting compromising photos of me on the internet, I still think that they are fucking awesome, because they had the balls to flip off mainstream America, repeatedly.

Posted by kaylen_culotta at 12:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I've tended to notice a trend in mainstream movie stars where women who continue to act as female leads lose weight the further their career moves along. When a new star is introduced, she generally has a look of healthy beauty. This health seems to wain as the need to be thin and look perfect takes over these women's lives, not to mention the popular trend of plastic surgery.

Jennifer Aniston during Season One of Friends:

Jennifer Aniston now:

It's true she has also aged more than ten years, but it's impossible to ignore the obvious difference in weight that makes her face look gaunt and probably older than she needs to look.

In addition to Lindsey Lohan, who was already mentioned in a previous post, younger stars are also following this trend.

Hilary Duff early in her career:

Now @ 18 years old:

Ironically, in the same article that I found this picture, Hilary was quoted as urging her fans to "stay fit and eat right" because "what goes inside is eventually going to show on the outside." It appears to me as if Hilary is hardly eating at all.

Cameron Diaz at one point looking absolutely stunning:

And now just waifish:

Christina Ricci, always before thought of as heavier, before her drastic weight loss:

More recently:

Is this really what we are supposed to find attractive? Women starving themselves down to next to nothing, when they were already beautiful and previously, none of them, overweight? I makes me wonder where the pressure is coming from. Are these women actually being told that they need to lose weight, or do they starve themselves of their own free will? I remember watching one of Margaret Cho's standups in which she was talking about a sitcom she did that only lasted one season. The sitcom was supposed to be based on her life, and she was playing the main character, but when she met with the producers, they actually told her her "face was too fat," so she starved herself to the point where she was peeing blood. It makes me wonder if this is what these women are hearing from the higher powers. These women who appear so in charge of their own lives. Who exactly is telling us that we need to lose weight?

Posted by JC at 11:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

this was an obvious choice to begin my blogging endeavor, the google search. upon my search i discovered what the number one image being projected as beautiful. it was a naked woman (hiding her nether-reigons) on a pedastal. really. next is shanya twain. she's absolutely beautiful (at least i think so) but of course, she's showing skin as she usually does. next is some tasteless post card showing a naked woman from behind. then just a close up of angelina jolie's eyes. to round off the top five is a picure i'm going to concentrate on. www.womanthouartgod.com/ images/goldrearwhite.jpg is where the picture is located. it's a woman in a small white dress photographed from about her knees facing up. you can't see her face because the shadow covers it. the focus of this picure is her tushy. it is in the center of the frame. it's strange what googlers stumble on when looking for beauty.

Posted by Kelsey Kehrberg at 10:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I found this great image of a pregnant woman binging on carrots, unfortunately I am unable to figure out how to get it to this site so you will all just have to imagine the image... pregnant belly.... big pile of carrots. And being I just spent way to long trying to move the image to this site and deleting twice the writing on it, this is the third and final abridged attempt.
Women often comment on not being able to wait to get knock-up so that they can eat anything that they want, you know you've heard it said. Even this being the case society through its watchdogs like talk shows and trashy magazines limit indulgent. Britney Spears and Kate Hudson are examples of this patrolling of weight and indulgence.
Further as Bordo writes in her article our Victorian legacy connects unbridled passion of both sex and food. Which is both a fear of women in general and a classist fear of losing the morals of the pure elite

Posted by Rachel Dow at 10:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While the show newlyweds dispelled beliefs that Jessica Simpson was always posed and graceful, when I look at this image I still think danty and proper. She is perfectly dressed and groomed. Her body is probably as close as it can get in terms of popular culture's perception of the ideal body type. She is engulfed in the arms of her man, she doesn't even have her arms touching John Mayer. To me this seems the opposite of independence. Basically this speaks to a norm that a woman needs a man. First it was her ex husband, who as we all saw, treated her like a child, partially because she acted as such and partially because she was dependent on him to make her decisions. Then there is her father, who essentially makes all of her career decisions as her manager. Jessica
is a multimillionaire but still always seems to be in the arms of a man. It is as if being solo is shameful. I feel that while she looks beautiful, this image only screams fallacies. No one looks like that all the time. Most women don't have an entourage to upkeep them every minute of every day. Therefore I feel that this image only sends a negative message to people who may look up to her, including young girls

http://www.people.com/people/package/redcarpet2007/gallery/0,,20006775_20011641,00.html
http://www.people.com/people/package/redcarpet2007/0,,20006775,00.html

Posted by Jessica Schrinsky at 8:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Dove-Campaign-C.article.jpg

(I'm completely computer illiterate, and still trying to figure out how to post a picture...)

Today, what is considered "large, curvy, or fat", was once considered a desirable trait amoungst men and men. In Dove's Campaign for Beauty, I found many different pictures and articles about loving yourself, and celebrating who you are. In finding this image, I initally thought it was halarious. Here is this woman, in her undergarments, recieving praise for something. An odd picture if it were to really happen, but shows how proud this women is of her body, and how other are proud of her as well. Images like this help to reinforce the idea that all people, no matter how large or small, are beautiful. That even a "larger" woman should be praised for herself. I find this image to be extremely positive, because it shows acceptance in a culture that is so unnaccepting of those that are not perfect, that don't have the perfect body, that don't have the perfect figure.

Posted by Jennifer Kaufmann at 8:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I could not figure out how to post a photo but I do know how to embed from you tube so here is a video of the ex-wife of a millionaire who paid thousands and thousands of dollars to look like a cat! What does this image say to us? My initial reaction to this image was sorrow. I feel sorry for her because whenever someone goes through such lengths to change themselves it is a statement that something is going on in their life or has happened in their life and instead of seeking help to change themselves on the inside, they began to work on outside appearances. My next reaction was a mixture between anger and disgust. What does it say about society? I think this image reinforces the negative idea and stressors of women to constantly look good regardless of age and circumstance. What does this image say to little girls? Hopefully it will scare them into being happy with themselves as they are! The sad thing is she was pretty before she underwent surgery.

Posted by Alicia Sims at 6:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I chose this photo of some type of painting of Britney Spears shaving her head as my image for this example because I think Britney's rapid descent into party hell is a classic example of what can happen when we put too much pressure on young women. I think her shaving her head is just her way of saying "I don't care what I should look like or what I should be doing, this is what I want". Her doing that actually made me like her more.

I like to think of Britney's life in three phases.

Britney One - Pop Princess people pleasing Britney. This Britney lived up to the image that was set up for her, she was clean, wholesome, ... gasp, A VIRGIN. This Britney displays the image of what young girls "should" aspire too. (I use the term should loosely). She was clean cut while still being sexy in that whole Lolita kind of way, which is an image that teen/pre teen girls often aspire too. I personally feel that young girls (Im talking like 16 and under here) should not emulate this phase of Britney's life, regardless of her wholesome appeal. She still dressed like a woman twice her age and was openly and blatantly sexual. But hey, at least she wasn't showing her cha-cha to everyone.

Britney Two - Paris Loving Party Britney. This Britney partied, drank, shopped, carried her kid into Trashy Lingerie and exemplified that "raunch culture" image of what it means to be a woman that we discussed in class. This Britney however, is clearly a reaction to Britney one. At least she is trying to form some image of herself that isn't prefabricated. This image of Britney as a woman is a classic example of the "celebutante" phenomenon that so many young girls are trying to emulate.

Britney Three - Bald head Britney This Britney is a direct reaction to the previous Britneys. This Britney is sick of having an image to live up to, this Britney is a cautionary tale for other women who try to be something that they are not. I think this Britney shows the danger that lies in giving women "norms", "personas", and "typical behaviors"to live up to.

I have never been a huge fan of Britney, but after seeing her like this I really felt sorry for her. She spent her whole life trying to be the "right" kind of famous girl/woman and be what everyone wanted her to be, and look where it got her.

Posted by Nicole Balistreri at 6:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

http://i.today.reuters.co.uk/misc/genImage.aspx?uri=2006-12-04T172220Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_2_HEALTH-OBESITY-BEHAVIOUR-DC.jpg&resize=w160

I'm afraid I'm not too savvy when it comes to posting images, but if you will copy and paste that link, you will see the image which I will discuss.

This is not a positive image. I found this image accompanying an article (Reuters, UK, as is evident from the link) about obesity and various ways to combat your body without starving yourself (totally). Now, while I do recognize real medical issues that go along with types obesity in some people at some periods in life, I'm desperately curious as to what this picture was to illustrate in this general advice column.

This picture is a beach setting, but as you can see, both people in the picture are women. Hmm, because only women care about 'health', right? And of course, the stark contrast between bodies, not faces or people, but bodies is evident through tanned/white skin, glistening/matte bodies, and size/weight. The thing is, neither woman IS obese...one is quite slender and athletic, while the other might -- MIGHT -- be a bit overweight. Yes, it is the compare/contrast incentive this image is supposed to offer to the Obesity Concerned Audience which is disturbing, but the most unsettling aspect are the women's gazes. True, the gaze is implied, for we cannot see either women's face, but the larger woman's face is turned towards the thinner, tanner, shinier woman in the water. As though this woman is observing what she, in her "obese" state, could attain (and in a swimsuit!) by following the advice in this column. And the slim woman with the strange bikini bottom is looking out into the ocean, the endless world of challege which she, as an embodiment of popular culture's standards of women's bodies' beauty, can face in a non-slimming two-piece.

Posted by Emma Furness at 5:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was looking for a picture for this blog, and I thought I would find a picture of a super skinny model dressed in barely anything, so when I saw this picture...

I was surprised and disgusted. Not because of the image. The image itself is a good, positive one. She's a pretty girl, she's sexy and happy and not whored out in skimpy clothes. As just the image this is great. Where I get my problem is with the headline that accompanied it and the website it was found on. BigCupid.com, and the headline was 'Big and Beautiful.' Okay...so why can't this woman just be labeled as beautiful? Why do we need to reinforce negative stereotypes and label things based on the fact that they're bigger than the mainstream media says they should be? Where do we go around taking pictures for the cover of Cosmo and labeling them "Stick Thin and Beautiful"? If you look at the image itself then it's a good thing, the way I see it is that all women are beautiful, but when you see where the picture came from I think it loses a lot.

Posted by Meagan Sogge at 2:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Why bother with all of these details about global beauty, ideal proportions, and such? Is it to make anyone who's not "perfect" feel perfectly lousy?
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art32169.aspThat link is the full website.

Society puts a lot of pressure on women and men alike to be ideal, and beautiful. Women seem to be marketed towards more. When we are marketed to, the channel in which this happens displays unachievable standards for a very large amount of population.
People have forgotten the "melting pot" that America is. People have forgotten that their parents determine their body type. Not everyone can be her:

I believe that displaying all types of women in the media would help diminish the homogenous look of the ideal woman of today. Perfection is only in books, movies and between glossy pages of vogue etc. This is their job to look that way, people forget that as well. Another point though, is that designers get paid to make these people look their best-it's called ridiculous amounts of photoshop and image manipulation.
The average public doesn't know how these tools work, so they get starry eyed with what they want to be when in reality their ideal weight and whatever else probably isn't even a healthy weight.
Personally, I find healthy attractive.

Posted by Margaret Hanson at 1:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It was hard to know where to start looking for images for this week’s blog assignment. So many possibilities… so I googled the phrase “the perfect body�, and the first image that appeared was this bikini-clad woman posing on a beach:

It was part of an advertisement for “medical tourism�, which means “Spend 10 days at the most beautiful sandy beaches in the world, and have a breast augmentation, a liposuction, or any other procedure you can think of, all for less money than in your home country!� Yeah, sounds like a really fun vacation. I can hardly begin to count the reasons why I find it disturbing. But I’ll try:

1. The idea of plastic surgery in the first place that isn’t for restorative or actual health purposes (like after an accident or a mastectomy, or a breast reduction or nasal breathing problem-related nose surgery).
2. That anyone would use their precious vacation time, a small and valuable commodity in America, to spend in painful recovery from plastic surgery.
3. As if one would really be enjoying the most beautiful sandy beaches in the world while they’re all swollen and cut open and probably can’t move around very well.
4. That anyone would be willing to risk their health over a cosmetic surgery in a country where it could be significantly cheaper, but they may not have the medical facilities we would expect here.
5. There probably isn’t much recourse for anyone who gets messed up by a botched cosmetic surgery in a foreign country.
6. Any surgery is dangerous! There is always a risk of infection, which if not treated properly, could potentially lead to death. And how awful if it were in a foreign country, away from loved ones, and embarrassing that it would have occurred essentially due to vanity.

The fact that women are willing to go to such extremes to attain perfection show that just like the attitudes discussed by Peril from the 50s and 60s, women should still be placing beauty above all else.

Here again it is reinforced that the perfect body is not a natural thing. A perfect body has nothing to do with a body’s own inherent beauty. It is instead something that must be fabricated, and at a great financial and physically painful cost.

The images we are constantly surrounded by in advertising are fake for many reasons, but most of the fakeness has to do with airbrushing the photos to make people look thinner, smoother, or whatever else. Now, even the beautiful live humans we see are often fake to some extent as plastic surgery becoming increasingly common.

This image is sexy, there is no doubt about it. The woman is young, thin, tan, hairless, and large-breasted. These are the standards of beauty in our culture.

However, I believe the image is negative because it holds up a standard that isn’t attainable for the vast majority of women. At least, not without the plastic surgery it is trying to sell, makeup, and probably extreme dieting.

Posted by Melia McCubbin at 1:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Over the weekend, it seems that Britney Spears decided to change her look. She shaved her head bald, and suddenly there is an uproar in the media. It goes to show how important the appearance of feminitiy is in our culture. Long hair is associated with feminine beauty in many cultures, not just our own. When a woman decides to do away with this association, especially in such a drastic and public way, it unsettles people. The article that the photo came from described Britney Spears as looking "bloated and greasy." I just ask myself; would there be this kind of a reaction to a man who grew his hair long? The emphasis placed women's looks is so great. Magazine articles and the press are often scrutinizing the way women look and dress, often ignoring their male counterparts.

Now, Britney may be seen as ugly simply because she is no longer conforming to societal beauty standards. Possibly as a reaction to this, Britney has been seen wearing a wig. Although is probable that this is a cry for help, if Britney decided to shave her head in a healthy frame of mind, that's her prerogative. Long hair doesn't need to equal beauty.

Posted by Melissa Green at 12:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

/private/Network/Servers/disserv3.stu.umn.edu/Users/ahoule/Desktop/42-17123353 - Fotosearch Stock Photography.html

/private/Network/Servers/disserv3.stu.umn.edu/Users/ahoule/Desktop/images-2.jpg

/private/Network/Servers/disserv3.stu.umn.edu/Users/ahoule/Desktop/images.jpg

Posted by Ardis Houle at 10:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I love Susan Bordo, and who better to illustrate her theories than Nicole Richie and her partygirl in crime, Lindsay Lohan....
First, they both started out healthy, then having pressure and using each other in a competitive fashion, they both became hungry and yearning (because as Bordo points out, women historically are depicted as always desiring and predisposed to temptation -especially by food). It is not so surprising that our celebrities are so keen to jump on the bobblehead band wagon. They are wealthy, and must show that they will not fall into excess. And they are in a constant popularity contest with all the other famous people.
I went to a Nicole Richie fansite where I was bombarded by images of the "new" nicole. the skinny nicole.. there were no photos of her pre-weightloss. There was however, a link to another site explaining about her diet and exercise regime. That's when I wanted to puke...
so here are my before and after images. (also note: the ones of nicole and lindsay pre-weightloss were very hard to find, and also, these were the most flattering ones- by hollywood beauty standards.

Nicole on The Simple Life: disregard the sexualization. She is still very pretty. But then again... there's Paris, her competition and Nicole has to be depicted as not only stupid, but fat...

I actually used to really like Lindsay.. here she is skinny but in a more healthy way. She also wasnt so scary eye makeup crazy...

Aren't these two cute together?... wait where are they?? if its werent for the red dress they might be invisible.

and here is nicole in all her skeletal glory:

I would almost say that being bombarded with images of these women durning their whole weight loss craze almost began to normalize their eating disorders. The more we see pictures of them at this weight the less we think about what they used to look like. They are most certainly negative images. They have fallen prey to that dainty ideal. You're almost afraid that they will break. It gives that strange sense that they need some form of protection... a male maybe???

Posted by Anna Scallon at 9:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.duke.edu/~jbw3/pps114R/calvin%20klein.jpg
I think that this image is beautiful, and I envy her. The ad is for underwear, but it focuses on the woman's body. That is what I see. I look at the woman first, then I glance at the bra. In this way, the image is negative. It is advertising the woman. The model is super thin. Agreeing with Bordo, this image equates slenderness with beauty. Her body is tight and lean. Most people do not look like this. Even if we know that the photo was photoshopped, and all her imperfections erased, girls still look at it, and want to be like her. Peril talks about make-up, and how it is used to attract men. Her make-up and her body is sexualized. The main norms that this advertisement reinforces is beauty, sexuality, and consumerism.

Posted by Nicole Henneman at 7:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I looked at advertising in several magazines for both positive and negative images of women.The ads for
Dove products had very positive images of women, even though they are selling skin care. These images
were of middle-aged women posing without clothes on, and with only minimal make-up. In additiion the women
had grey hair. What makes these images positive is that they represent average women. Because they are
nude, the photographs do not hide their imperfections. One of the women is overweight compared to the
typical model in ads. Also, make-up is not used to conceal wrinkles and make them look younger. The ads
are giving a very strong message that women do not have to conform to a physical standard that has been
created by advertisers and the media. The women in these ads appear to be confident and comfortable with
their appearance. I think that it is important for women to see images that offer a different definition of being
female than the ones that we are constantly being exposed to.
Another positive image that I found was an ad for a college. The woman in the ad was not glamorous
looking like a model. This offered a different kind of image of women than is usually portrayed in magazine ads.
It is significance because it is important to see women in ads for something other than fashion and beauty.
Higher education is very important for women, because a college degree will offer women more opportunities
for employment, and will improve their economic class.
One negative image I found was for Botox treatments. Two attractive women at a restaurant are holding
up signs for Botox. The copy for the ad explains that everyone is interested in these treatments. This is a
very negative image because if implies that these women are not comfortable with looking their age. In
addition, the message is that all women want to look younger, and are willing to have toxins injected into
their faces to achieve this. I think there is so much emphazise on looking young in our society, and it is
difficult to not be influenced by these ideas.
Another ad with a negative image was for a brand of Vodka. It showed a women walking down steps
off of an airplane. The upper part of her body is cut out of the photograph, so that the focus is on her legs.
A breeze blows her dress up and exposes her legs. I found this image to be especially troubling because
the woman is not being portrayed as a whole person. By not showing her face, she appears to be an object.
The advertisers are portraying this women in a provocative way to sell their product. I think that this can
affect the way that women view themselves and the way that men relate to them.

Posted by Mary Aronson at 8:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I looked at advertising in several magazines for both positive and negative images of women.The ads for
Dove products had very positive images of women, even though they are selling skin care. These images
were of middle-aged women posing without clothes on, and with only minimal make-up. In additiion the women
had grey hair. What makes these images positive is that they represent average women. Because they are
nude, the photographs do not hide their imperfections. One of the women is overweight compared to the
typical model in ads. Also, make-up is not used to conceal wrinkles and make them look younger. The ads
are giving a very strong message that women do not have to conform to a physical standard that has been
created by advertisers and the media. The women in these ads appear to be confident and comfortable with
their appearance. I think that it is important for women to see images that offer a different definition of being
female than the ones that we are constantly being exposed to.
Another positive image that I found was an ad for a college. The woman in the ad was not glamorous
looking like a model. This offered a different kind of image of women than is usually portrayed in magazine ads.
It is significance because it is important to see women in ads for something other than fashion and beauty.
Higher education is very important for women, because a college degree will offer women more opportunities
for employment, and will improve their economic class.
One negative image I found was for Botox treatments. Two attractive women at a restaurant are holding
up signs for Botox. The copy for the ad explains that everyone is interested in these treatments. This is a
very negative image because if implies that these women are not comfortable with looking their age. In
addition, the message is that all women want to look younger, and are willing to have toxins injected into
their faces to achieve this. I think there is so much emphazise on looking young in our society, and it is
difficult to not be influenced by these ideas.
Another ad with a negative image was for a brand of Vodka. It showed a women walking down steps
off of an airplane. The upper part of her body is cut out of the photograph, so that the focus is on her legs.
A breeze blows her dress up and exposes her legs. I found this image to be especially troubling because
the woman is not being portrayed as a whole person. By not showing her face, she appears to be an object.
The advertisers are portraying this women in a provocative way to sell their product. I think that this can
affect the way that women view themselves and the way that men relate to them.

Posted by Mary Aronson at 8:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The title of this blog is a quote taken from the Gilmore Girls. I don’t remember at all in which connection this was said but it stuck to my mind and I immediately thought of it again as I was reading the articles in the course packet and the chapter in Pink Think about charm and beauty. After reading the articles I knew exactly where to look for an image of a woman who speaks to these issues; the Victoria’s Secret website. On the front page of the site this picture was plastered to promote the arrival of their swim suit collection.

My reaction to this image is the same as my usual reaction to every picture there is in the Victoria’s Secret website and catalogues; wow. There’s no denying that this woman is gorgeous and that she rocks that swimsuit like there’s no tomorrow. Of course I know that she has been made up with tons of make up and body bronzer, photographed in the most flattering pose and retouched to perfection in pre-production but I still can’t help being in awe of this and all the other pictures in Victoria’s Secret (VS). I love flipping through their catalogues and browsing the website and do it almost every day. I think they are marketing geniuses. They sell perfection and do it so well by bombarding the shopper with, yes- perfection.

The reader of this blog might be surprised after all the praise I just gave, that I find this image to be completely negative. The effect VS has on me is probably the same effect it has on a lot of other women. When I leave the site or put down the catalogue I feel inadequate. Now, I’m not saying that I go and weigh myself or scrutinize my body flaws in the mirror after looking at these images but I never do feel empowered or happy afterwards. I may be happy if I have a couple of bras arriving in the mail in a few days but I’m still unsettled because I know I’ll never achieve the perfection they are selling. I bet not one girl can say they feel better after browsing the VS catalogue, if they do, more power to them, I just haven’t met one yet.

Let’s examine why.

Three Times a (proper) Lady

Poise
As she stands there, casually leaning up against a wall that must be frying; no one will mistake her for a non-lady. She looks as if she is completely comfortable with herself and that the world is at her feet. And why wouldn’t it? She’s a perfectly charming and beautiful girl. She is wearing expensive and perfect swimwear and accessories to match. Those accessories don’t look like they can handle water or a rough game of beach volley but that’s not an issue here. A girl like her does not play around… she’s the kind of girl that lies on the beach and gives girls like me insecurities about how I look in my washed-out tankini.

Body
Her body is perfect. Her thighs are slim and looks like they go on for ever, her stomach is toned and her breasts are firm and perky. While she is still curvy there’s no doubt that she doesn’t eat cheeseburgers or cheesecake that often because here and there bones are showing, especially around her collar-area. Of course this is the kind of body on which this particular swimsuit would look good on and I don’t blame VS for putting it on her but that still doesn’t make girls who can’t even look decent in a full suit feel any better about their body.

Beauty
She is perfect all around, from her even tan to the full bronzed lips. Make-up like that would probably melt in the heat of the sun reflecting on the sand but not on a VS-girl it doesn’t. Now, her eyes aren’t visible but I bet that those are perfectly lined, shadowed and with just the perfect amount of mascara on her long full lashes. She looks like a girl who always has the perfect made up face… I mean, if she has make up on the beach, where would she not have it? But not all girls have access to a make up artist everyday… some of us can’t even put on eye liner without stabbing themselves in the eyes…

But this is the ideal some of us girls feel we have to live up to and most often than not, we fail. Not only does this hurt our relationships with our body but we come to belittle our worth because in our society, no matter what people say, appearance is so important. Girls should come in the form of the perfect package... preferably.

Yes, I have a love-hate-relationship with Victoria’s Secret. While I am addicted to it, it also makes me realize that that kind of perfection will never be attained by me. I don’t feel fooled, though… I know that they have to advertise like this in order to sell their products… but still. Maybe I’m just torturing myself and should just stop looking. No one’s forcing me to look. But I love the things they sell even though they will never look on me as they do on the models… still I keep on buying.

It’s genius…

and evil at the same time

Posted by Karla Noreen Navera at 7:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This weeks readings from the course packet and Perils book, I found it difficult to think of any one person in the media who emulated the ideas concepts that were so prevalent in history. The readings focused on what makes a woman feel womanly and how she should present herself to the public. It was important to be charming and to show others that you respected yourself and them through demonstrating a "healthy mental attitude", by engaging in "unfailing service to others and always be involved in "some form of constructive activity" with these ideals in mind the first media personality that I thought of was Angelina Jolie. She is always very composed and confident and still very lady like in her decorum. She does a lot of time worthy charity work and is rarely found involved in scandals that end up in the magazines and she definitely has her priorities set straight, she knows that her family comes first and that doing good work and being respected by people in the industry is also a significant of presenting a positive image. I think that Angelina Jolie does an excellent job of demonstrating a positive image to all women. She reinforces good values as a part of her life and using her time effectively and accomplishing the most good.
The chapter also talks about beauty products and the roles that they play in a womans every day life. Peril says "In theory this means, makign up with a light hand...in practice, however it often meant making sure you didnt get caught with a naked face". I think that the shift over time is interesting because in the past men didnt like women to wear makeup, or at least they didnt want to know about it, and now days men dont seem to think the women are themselves wihtout makeup, looking plain with a clean face is out of the question for many women who refuse to leave the house without "their face on".

Posted by Brianna Green at 5:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was looking online for an image of a woman that speaks to the issues we are discussing in class. One of the first images i came across was a picture of Britney Spears with a shaved head. Britney Spears has had many different images over the years, and I never expected her to have an image with a shaved head. At first, I thought it was a joke or something, but then there were pictures of her without hair. Britney Spears is a well known figure in the media, and she went against the norm by shaving her head. She is supposed to be a positive role model for women today. I was shocked to see her do such a thing as shave her head. If it was for some charity event or for a specific puropse I might have different feelings about it. I understand that she might be going through a hard time, however she is a very public person and people are influenced be celebrities. It said online that she checked into rehab for a day and then checked herself out. It might be a positive thing for her to do, and I think her fans might look up to her for taking control of her life.

Posted by Jennifer Matthews at 1:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After reading Peril's chapter 6, I chose to key in on the subject she wrote about, "The Road to Happiness Is Paved with Beauty Products." All of the Proactivel commercials kept popping into my mind while reading; here is one of the commercials (this particular clip features Kelly Clarkson):

In my opinion, the commericals that Proactive make are pretty sad. The company takes advantages of a pretty girl by lowering her self-estemm (just to sell their products!) because of unclear skin - there is more to a woman than unclear skin. Regardless of her appearance, a young woman should feel good about herself. However, our society, as the Proactive commercials reinforce, focuses in on women needing to have pretty, flawless skin regardless of how they feel inside. Though I understand that these commercials are not always truthful, I feel that this is a negative image of women because, to me, self-esteem and confidence is much more important, beneficial, and ever-lasting than appearance.

Posted by Molly Wickersham at 1:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Did anyone check out the cover of Newsweek last week? I wish I would have seen it in time for class. Check out this link and read a pop feminist analysis of Lindsey, Britney and Paris and how they could be corrupting the youth of America. I haven't read it yet, but I will be sure to check it out. Let me know what you think....

If the link doesn't work, here is the citation information; you can look it up through ejournals:
"Girls Gone Bad"
Newsweek
Feb 12, 2007

Posted by Sara at 12:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Our group talked mainly about the two-sided expectations of sexuality for (heterosexual) women today.

We have emerged from the era described in Pink Think in which a woman is supposed to be sexually passive and pure until her wedding night. These days, hardly anyone expects to be a virgin by the time they marry. In fact, those who have taken virginity pledges, it was said, often end in divorce because one partner is looking for sex outside the marriage.

Back in the day, you were expected to be pure until the time you married, at which point you were allowed to get “wild� (which meant having sex within the confines of a heterosexual marriage, of course). Now, you are supposed to get the wild out of your system before you get married, then tone it down a bit once you are married. There is an expectation that you will have experimented with sex and know what you are doing with it by the time your wedding night comes.

There are still some remaining values left over from this era, such as in tv shows, when someone decides they are going to have sex for the first time, it’s a big deal. They usually wind up not doing it by the end of the episode, or if they do, they are disappointed, which makes sex out to be a bad thing you shouldn’t be doing. But these are of course usually written by middle-aged white men.

Although women are expected to be sexually free, there is still an expectation that we are supposed to want to get married and settle down. The wedding industry is larger than ever, and women are still indoctrinated into being consumers of increasingly elaborate wedding prep planning. There are billboards for conventions and thick magazines all about planning your wedding. Men aren’t supposed to give a hoot about that planning stuff, so it’s expected that the woman will be in charge of all such details and will WANT to be in charge of them.

It’s sort of an absurd expectation in our culture that a woman is supposed to be hyper-sexual, and outwardly so, only to a point where she is supposed to, practically overnight, tone it down and stick to one man. It’s like the inverse of what it used to be; that a woman was supposed to go from being a virgin on her wedding night to being a knowledgeable provider of all things sexual for her husband in their marriage.

Posted by Melia McCubbin at 11:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Based on our reading from chapter six in Lynn Peril's "Pink Think", 'Pink'n'Pretty: The World of Charm and Beauty' I did a search on Google, "Beautiful images of Women" and the first link to images were of scantly clad or nude women to be viewed as objects for 'Beauty' sake. Most of the pictures (links) seemed to be a means to an end enabling men to search for women to either look at or hook up with.

The first web site link was to The photo on the home page is a black and white nude of a women with red roses in her lap. The tag line says, "Body Shots . . . More then a portrait. Beautiful images of women, styled and photographed by women. The perfect gift for the man in your life and the woman in you." The message is that women's sexuality and beauty is based on a man's desire, interpretation and need for it, not our own.
The second website link was, It's simply a library of nude photos of women.
The clear message here is that women are simply the sum of their parts. They are objects, separate of any emotional or intellectual depth.

I did the same search for men, "Beautiful images of Men". The first link to pictures had an assortment of photos starting with one entitled, 'Beautiful girls, handsome men". Then, 'Beautiful Women and Men". The sixth photo set was, 'Beautiful Latin women photos of 400 single women'. After that you have photos of men's clothing and jewelry.
The first link to a website was,
The first three photos were of fully clothed men, entitled "Solitude Man".
The one I thought was so interested was on of a man walking away from us down a long empty trail . . . presumably to contimplate life and to find answers for himself -- not to be saved by woman. However there is a lonely come fix me quality to the photos.
Primarily for men it is the symbol of the lone cowboy making his way in the world to conquer and achieve. Contrary to the images of women, who are in need of protection and clothes.

~Ardis

Posted by Ardis Houle at 9:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When I saw the assignment, it was much easier for me to think of women that held a much more negative influence on our culture. Thinking about society, there are plenty examples of women who push this ideology of the way women "should" look. We see the new norms changing from healthy, strong women of the 1920s and '30's to this increasingly slim, big boobed woman. How we got there, and why we let it escalate is beyond me, but when I looked at this assignment, I wanted to write about a woman who is, at the very least, just trying to slow this new norm down. I could of chose a woman like Nicole Richie or Mary Kate Olsen, or any other number of actresses/performers who seem to be trapped in this ideal of the way women are suppose to feel about their bodies. Instead, I wanted to write about a woman who would counter this, shining light on the hope that not all women are doomed to have to feel bad about themselves. I decided to focus this discussion on Kate Winslet, because I think she is a woman who, even though involved and a part of this Hollywood, glamourized ideal of living, has, in my eyes, remained a very level headed and strong woman about her point of view on issues concerning women's and young girls' boy images.

The image I want to discuss specifically, is a picture that was taken of Kate Winslet for a magazine cover that was digitally enhanced to make her look dramatically skinny. The picture was never shown, but if you go online and search kate winslet + role model, you can find articles that compare this picture to other, more real pictures of her. The reason it never was published, was because Kate fought against to have it put out. When I saw the picture compared to a normal picture of Winslet, I was shocked at the dramatic differences. Her waist was smaller, thighs suctioned in, arms more defined, and her hips were more rounded--she became this vuluptuous, more "womanly" figure. It made me realize that in our society, what's not perfect is fixed by digital adjustments; and if people don't look like they're suppose to be, they are "fixed." It really shows how much of our world is still absorbed by this ideal of perfection: the perfect body type, the perfect look, the perfect woman. The fact that Winslet stood up and said, "NO" to that picture being published, I think is proof that there are women still standing up for a more healthy, and realistic ideal of a body image for women. It seems there will always be women promoting negative/harmful images of what it means to be a woman, but with a handful of women who are willing to fight this norm, makes me proud to have the gender of females represented finally in a healthy light.

Posted by Carly Anderson at 4:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I just wanted to add another thought to my previous post, this one regarding makeup. It seems that masking the female face is the universal requisite to looking like a lady.
I guess I'm not a makeup history buff, but I'm pretty sure that it was Cleopatra that started this silliness, when she began lining her eyes with kohl around 50 BC, the time of the Roman Empire. And since them, women have found it a basic necessity to mask their true facial features, for fear that without cosmetics, their face might be hideous to look at. Everything about makeup is a mystery to me... I mean sure, I'll admit I look a little better with some on, but why is this? Its not like men would ever think that about themselves (i.e. "Oh gawd, it seems as though I got a blemish overnight, I better hide that." or, "Ugh, I really need to define my lashes").
Of course there is the claim that makeup accentuates the female face, and I suppose it goes back to the theory of natural selection-- we should be the picture of health in order to attract a mate. So I suppose defining wide, clear eyes are important. A flushed face implies that we have just gotten done running, maybe further implying that we are fit to reproduce, being that we are physically fit? And perhaps foundation to even out a sallow complexion assures a possible mate that we are not ill.
But why is it that makeup is never really questioned? Why is it that the addition of various goops to our face makes us appear more attractive?
I have never seen a female celebrity, or any public figure for that matter, go sans makeup. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Posted by Amanda Del Rosario at 7:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Being a young woman today means being bombarded by our society's preoccupation with beauty and fitness. Take a look at any magazine rack, billboard, website ad, television screen, or even newspaper, and you will come to find that the icons of today are not politicians, not religious figures, not activists or any figure that really makes a tangible difference to our world. No, our icons are thin, glossy, augmented actors, singers, and models. People whose only job is to entertain, to create an illusion. Their job is not to teach us, and they are not qualified to lead us, and yet they do. We follow them like curious children, watching them from a distance off the covers of magazines, and like children, we try to mimic their actions. We want to look like them. We want to look like women. And what does our celebrity culture have to say about looking like a woman?
That you must be:
ANOREXIC

and as Lindsay shows us here, to be beautiful, to feel beautiful, means giving up what makes you YOU, and in her case (and numerous other celebrities, models, etc) you have to die your hair out of its natural color to, well,
BLONDE

and hey, as long as you're thin, tan and blonde, if you really want to prove you're a woman, why don't you
TAKE OFF YOUR CLOTHES

because otherwise, how is anyone going to be able to tell which gender you are? You've got to make sure everyone can see your breasts and your nipped in waist, your waxed legs and curvaceous behind, because thats what makes you a real woman.
Right?

Posted by Amanda Del Rosario at 6:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Our group's list of standards for women in raunch culture:

*Moderate - be assertive, but not too abrasive
*Sexuality - again be assertive, but nothing else
*Manner - sexy, dumb, agreeable

That was the general list we came up with, that applies to all women under raunch culture. Here is a more detailed list, which is orientation - specific:

Heterosexual Standards:
- make yourself appealing and available to men
- assert your sexuality expressly to please your man
- anytime you are in a position where you interact with men, allow the man or men in the situation to assume the dominant role, and assume the subordinate role for yourself - no exceptions

Homosexual Standards:
- you may align yourself with any one of these four stereotypes:
- granola lesbian (see: http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/wilson935/1970slf.htm)
- butch or femme lesbian (see: http://www.butch-femme.com)
- lipstick lesbian (see: http://www.ourchart.com)
- engaging in competition is normal - how many ladies make up your lucky number?
- chivalry lives on
- embrace yuppie culture for all its worth, despite your stereotypical ideologies (see above links)
- you are to behave in a manner which is palatable to the dominant heterosexual community - in essence, speaking only when spoken to, never mentioning your homosexual - chic subculture, never making a homosexual reference, and most importantly, only using verbs, nouns and adjectives that the heterosexual community can understand.

These are just short lists, but it gives you a good idea of the impact that raunch culture is having on American women.

Posted by kaylen_culotta at 2:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As I read "Raunch Culture" earlier this week, one image ingrained in my memory kept resurfacing. I was thinking about the scene Madonna, Britney Spears and Christina Aguilara made at the 2003 MTV Video Awards. Corseted and scantily clad, the women kissed and pretended to grope each other. Clearly, the intent was to shock the audience but at the same time the women seemed to suggest a certain normalcy or acceptability to their actions. No doubt their target audience was primarily men, since the majority of men I spoke with the next day thought it was "awesome." But the women seemed to be oblivious to the fact that persons of all ages were tuned in that evening to watch their role models behave as anything but.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1477729/20030828/spears_britney.jhtml

Posted by Ruth Dickson at 12:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I walked through the Target toy section on one of my visits to the store. They have the girls and boys separated, with neutral toys -- primarily board games all together.
It was actually more interesting to see how their toys are marketed via their web site.
Baby's and Kids are separated by age, catagorized by two year increments. I suppose this makes choosing toys less confusing for gift giving. It's seems suspeciously contrived though.

Baby's 0-2 years of age is very neutral. There's not that much differentiation between genders.

Ages 2-3 you have the choice of choosing between the prescribed 'Girls toys' and 'Boys toys'.
Even the font color is pink for girls and blue for boys.
The toy catagories for toddlers 2-3 are things like, Princess, Dolls, Dress up. For the boys they have Dinosaurs, Cars & Trucks, Pirates.

Ages 4-5 you still have simular toys as listed above, however they have added Kitchens for girls and Construction & Tools for boys.

Ages 6-7 they have now added, Dancing and Singing for girls and Science & Sports for boys.
The one good thing in this catagory is that both genders have 'Tech Toys'. Sadly, the 'Tech Toys' are slightly different in focus. Girls have things like, "Barbie Electronic Purse Set" and the boys have things like electronic cars and robots.

Ages 8-9, Bratz are introduced. Girls also have Creative Activities. Where as boys have Superhero's.

Ages 10-12, The obvious catagories posted as "Girls Toys" and "Boys Toys" are removed yet instead you can click on 'Best Sellers' by gender and price. There seems to be more games for both boys and girls.
Ages 13-15 there is a resurgence of dolls for girls, like 'Tick Tock Gwen' complete with crown and cape. For boys there is still a lot of rockets and planes, along with electronic table top toys.

What's the facination between girls and horses? All ages for girls, except babies, had horse toys . . . !
~Ardis

Posted by Ardis Houle at 8:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Hi all,

This week in class, we will be focusing a lot of our attention on "Raunch Culture" and Chapter 4 in Pink Think--"Flinging the Woo". So, spend more time on those readings. Make sure that you still read all of the assignment, just do a closer reading of Raunch Culture and Chapter 4. (We will touch upon the other readings this week and then discuss them again next week).

One more thing: Here is Pink's Stupid Girls Video. We will be talking about the song (and the subject of her song--Paris Hilton et al) this week.

Posted by Sara at 5:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Though I was unable to make it to a toy store I did visit the website for Toys R Us. I was tricked into thinking that the toys were separated by age but was soon proven wrong. After clicking on an age group I was led to a page that offered toys separated by gender. Sadly, I was disappointed. The actual separation actual led me to see such a difference between the toys marketed at girls versus the toys marketed at boys. One thing I found under girls 12-14 was Wizard of Oz dolls. I know plenty of gay men that would argue they would love a beloved Dorothy doll. I also found that the younger the age group the more obvious that the toys were trying to be marketed towards a specific gender. Three-four year old girls need their first purses so they can act just like mommy complete with mirror and ATM card. The boys meanwhile needed their Alien Heroes. Even as young as 12 months the boys need their golf clubs and fire trucks while the girls were given their Sesame Street baby purses and pushed around in a pink buggy. The toys morst often found under the gender neutral category were board games. Sadly, I clicked on the Dirt Devil vacuum; I don’t know what exactly I expected. “Just like mom’s!� was the tag line and it made me realize that what I had hoped for wasn’t really true.

Posted by Rachel Anderson at 8:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Our group really focused on the negative connotations associated with the Bratz dolls. Dressed in short skirts and heavy make-up the words we used to describe this bobble head doll were slutty, sassy, and bitchy. The name itself already implies an attitude problem. The Bratz in a way are trying to claim their independence and aren’t tied down with an identity such as Veterinarian Barbie or Barbie the Teacher. Barbies are more mature. They are already grown up and children are to aspire to become just like them. The Bratz, however, are simply for dress up and fashion purposes. They don’t allow for imagination in the form of what a child can become. If a child is channeling him or herself through a toy it is detrimental to its well-being if the toy is so comical in appearance and pushes the limit on sexuality. It important that adult figures in a children’s’ lives particularly their parents over see what toys they play with. To a child a Bratz doll doesn’t mean much beyond a doll; they haven’t developed a full understanding of what this doll represents. To keep blaming companies for the products they produce would not solve the problem. They are only capitalizing on the market’s desire for products like these.

Posted by Rachel Anderson at 8:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I often go to Walmart at 3 a.m. with my sister and decided I may as well check out the toy section there. I found three parts within the toy section. The neutral sections include infant and toddler toys which are mostly toys for learning and are of primary colors. I did find that John Deer came out with some toddler toys of tractors trucks and farm animals. The tractors and trucks are all, of course green and yellow, with some brown toys also. Then there was the boys section which was mostly guns, vehicles and action figures. Hot wheels had its own section and the colors of the boys toys were moslty dark green, dark blue, red, and black. If you stood at the end of the aisle, it was really dark in comparison to the girls aisle. The girls toys were all bright yellows, blues, pinks, purples and whites. Everything was soft and sparkly and mostly dolls. I was stunned when I saw a cash register in the girls aisle, yes, a cash register complete with a microphone attached and all, in order for a young girl to dream of reporting a clean up in aisle 10!! There was also a set of sparkling pink and purple fairy wings though Halloween is 7 months away. In the bike section which I guess could be a fourth section I saw the classic radio flyer tricycle red and shiny just like it was when I wanted one when I was little. I remember how much fun it was and how, regardless of gender, both boys and girls would ride the shiny red bike. Further down the bike aisle I saw the same tricycle but it was pink and purple. This just reinforces the seperation of gender that is emphasized starting at early ages. I remember when my neice wanted nothing but Brat Dolls. Over the years she has collected almost every brat doll ever created, yet she no longer plays with them. What's more funny is now she is into basketball! I am glad because I think the dolls nowadays are horrible. Especially the baby brat dolls, they look like baby prostitiutes! None of the clothes the dolls wear cover their entire body and it is interesting how skimpy and tight the young girls have become, too. The toys enforce gender differences and separation. Boy is to Girl as G.I.Joe is to Barbie; as action figure to baby dolls, and as red and blue are to pink and purple.

Posted by Alicia Sims at 4:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Today we will talking about your critical analysis assignment. You can access it as a word document or a pdf.

Posted by Sara at 10:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Even before I walked in the store, I was aware of how the toys were genered. One of the
front windows had knights with swords, helicoptors, boats, and cars This display showed action
and weapons. The other window had pink princess dolls, a doll house, a painting set, and a piano.
This display looked passive compared to the other. Inside, I noticed that packaging was used to
designate gender. One way that this was done was by showing pictures of boys on building sets and
science sets. Arts and crafts projects, cooking sets and doll houses pictured girls on the packages.
Color was another way that toys were gendered. Blue was used for toys for boys, and pink was
used for toys for girls. In additiion, toys were grouped together by gender. One section of the store had
dolls, doll houses, strollers, and cribs. This same section also had princess dresses, jewelry. and
p urses. Gro uping these items together creates a strong message for girls. It promotes the idea of
girls as mothers, wives, and caretakers. I t also stresses the importance of appearance. .Boys however,
are being encouraged to build, explore and to be active. Toy weapons and action figures promote the idea
that aggression is acceptable. They are not being encouaged to be fathers and husbands.
The effect of toys being gendered is that it reinforces the definition of gender roles that have been
socially constucted by society. Toy companies influence the decisions that parents and children make
about what is appropiate for each gender. Children are not being allowed to explore for themselves what
they are interested in, and this limits the choices they have. If girls are being influenced when they are
young about gender norms, I wonder what the impact will be on the decisions they make as adults.

Posted by Mary Aronson at 9:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As soon as I entered Toys R Us, I was overwhelmed not only with toys, but also with the ever so obvious segregation of boys and girls toys. In the "boys" toy area, the only colors saw were black, brown, green and blue. Most of the packaging, as well, included these colors. I was also amazed as to how easy it was to seperate toys into 5 main categories: 1. Army 2. Monsters 3. Cars 4. Action figures 5. tools. There were also sayings such as "A real man's toy" "Just like the real thing", and all sorts of rough and tough icons. In the girls area, there was more color than in the boys, but the most common color was definately pink. I also enjoyed how on the isle sign for the girls section were plastered with big, pink and purple flowers/hearts. Also in the "girls" area, i could separate toys into catergories: 1. Barbie 2. Bratz, 3. Misc. dolls 4. makeup 5. animals/fairy tale creatures. I also caught phrases such as "Make yourself beautiful!" and "Be a pretty pretty princess!" often on items in this area.

With these differences in boys and girls toys, it is no wonder that so many girls and boys believe they have to act a certain way, or pay with a certain item. it seemed that most of the boys toys were promoting either fighting, copying dad, or being the best. Similarly, in the little girls area, "being the best" was also seen by trying to be the first to find the best fashions, the newest dolls and look the best. In boys, these types of images give them the idea that being a boy is about being rough and doing manly things. For girls, these types of toys reinforce the ideas of looking good, being the best, and having the best things. In both boys and girls, these toy stores seem to promote being #1, and doing anything to get there. They also teach child to value themselves/each other on how they look, and how they act (good when like a "real" boy, and bad when their different.

Posted by Jennifer Kaufmann at 4:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The toy aisles at Target were divided into two separate sections, boys and girls. There was a very clear definition between the aisles, but about an equal number of both toys geared toward boys and girls. It seemed to me that that girl aisles gave off a different aura than the boy’s toys did. The girl sections were filled with dolls and Barbie’s and small dainty little figurines to collect and play with. There was obviously a lot of pink in the girl aisles, both in the signage and marketing of the toys and in the toys clothes and figures themselves. Pink is prescribed as such a feminine color that none of this really surprised me considering, I had been exposed to these sorts of concepts since childhood. Another important aspect of the girl’s aisles that I noticed was the fact that there were a lot of fake and miniature versions of adult items like makeup and cell phones and purses. Pink Think discusses how girls are constantly admiring their mothers and can’t wait to be grown up like them. This has been a phenomenon forever and is becoming dominant in our society as we see small girls grown up faster than they probably should.
The boy sections on the other hand gave off a more action packed and tough vibe than the girls. Most of the signage and marketing was in blue and black, in contrast to the girls. The boys toys were also geared more toward them doing manly things like fishing and hunting or racing cars and I noticed that there were a lot fewer dolls and action figures than in the girl aisles. I think it is important to remember what an important role society plays in gender and the roles it develops for children to learn. It is fun for children to play with toys that are based on adult activities but it is also important to remember that there are toys and games that show children that everyone can enjoy the same things and that there is not a clear line between what toys are meant for boys and which are meant for girls.

Posted by Brianna Green at 8:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I went to Target and looked at the different isles of toys for boys and girls. The boys isles were filled with the primary colors, like yellow, red, green, and blue. There were some orange toy dump-trucks. There were lots of violent-type toys like guns and swords. There were remote-control toys and trucks. Pirates, action figures, matchbox vehicles were also in the boys isle.
The girl isle was filled from top to bottom with pink things. There were easy bake oven things that help teach girls how to cook, little fake makeup kits, dolls wearing pink outfits with pink accessories, bratz dolls with full makeup, belly exposed little shirts, high-heel shoes,Barbie wearing pink clothes, pink everything. I noticed that the dolls, including Barbie and Bratz, had very happy faces, like all of them had smiles. I saw a pink videogame thing aimed at girls. There were talking dolls that said "mama" wearing pink dresses. The bottom line is you could not look anywhere without seeing pink. Polly Pockets, My Little Pony, and Littlest Petshop all had pink incorporated in somehow. If girls wanted to choose from a different color besides pink, they were outta luck. There is not much variety when it comes to girls' toys; pink, purple, pastel colors, are the choices girls have for toys aimed at them. I did happen to see a "Supergirl" action figure which is the female version of Superman. She is not dressed in pink and wearing an outfit almost like the male version, but I found her right under Superman in the boys isle away from the girls isle.
The toys that stuck out to me the most were the Easy Bake Oven accessories. Even though I never learned how to cook, it is supposedly the womans job, so they are startin them young i guess. This is one way that the norm is being reinforced by teaching young girls that they are female and its their duty to provide meals for their family.

Posted by Kristen Kramer at 11:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I was at Target a couple days ago and I went straight to the one dollar section, there I saw two labels of baby bowls that were label boys bowls and girls bowls. The girl's bowls were in a heart shape in pink and purple, while the boy's bowls were regular round bowl in green and blue. After I looking around the one dollar section I went to look at the toys section and there I found lots of primary colors on the boy's toys section while on the girls section there were lots of hot colors like pink, violet purple, light purple and light blues. Also the boys toys have a variety of toys ranging from cars, dinosaurs, animals, swords, super heros, and action figures that the girls don't have on their sides. On the girls side there were lots and lots of barbies, baby dolls, playful ponies, princess dress up set, and toys that deals with the daily life or a woman which was to cook and clean at home and lots of colorful toys the boys sections does not have. By the way a lot of the girls toys promotes sexy, slim, skinny, bling bling dress up styles that regular people don't have or do in real life. Plus, most of the toys in the girls sections promotes the attitude of girls growing up to be girly and be a housekeeper, and pleasing their men with sexy clothings.

Posted by Alanna Yang at 11:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A bit confusing... its hard to keep tabs on a flowing conversation...

In talking about the differences btwn Barbies and Bratz we felt as though Bratz presented very commercial ideals- the loved shopping and seemed more materialistic. We also felt that they were more "cool", "trendy", and even, "urban". They have disturbingly skinny bodies, accentuated by their big heads- seemingly promoting the celebrity "bobble head" phenomenon among hollywood celebrities.
Barbies too loved shopping, but we give these dolls credit for at least having aspirations. In relation to Pink Think- this doll however does present us with a more ladilike perspective of how women should be.
We found Barbie to be created mostly around white culture.

While we didnt think the dolls were good role models, we also posed the question of whether a doll can actually be a role model? We felt that moreso, they are a tool for children with which explore/ play/ and imagine.

We wondered why they had to make these dolls look as they do? Why so sexualized? Are the Bratz more of a teenage ideal? This outlook is a reflection on youth oriented culture.
In the case of Barbies, we felt women's careers were more feminized.
Neither doll reflected the image of a real girl- Did the producers choose the skinnier role model because of the media? Are they promoted this way because they ARE an ideal? we felt that 'yes' answered both of these questions. You can't strive to be a 'normal' person- these are fantasies... but then this brings us back to the question of if these dolls are role models, and do they provide appropriate fantasies?
Why did Barbie begin so sexualized? The makers claim that is what the consumers wanted- but times were different in the fifties- women's roles have obviously changed.The doll should have changed with the times. Advertising for these dolls gets even the strongest of feminist parents to cave. The doll companies don't have to create the dolls the way they do. Children adore them because of their popularity- if a less sexualized doll was promoted the way Barbie was, there might not be so much controversy... and since that obviously isn't happening, we felt as though parents should take a stand- parents should show a well rounded view of the world- no matter how hard it is.

At the end of class the question of which was better Barbies or Bratz came up- I had a different response. it seemed the general response was that they were both bad in different ways, however i feel like the dolls are both bad in the same ways... they are both sexualized, they are both materialistic, really, I think, it is their redeeming aspects that differ.

Posted by Anna Scallon at 10:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

every time i visit target, i am disgusted at how the toy aisles are either a sickening shade of pink, or an ominous tone of blue.

there is only so much 'pink think' you can take. just the fact that it pervades most of our society (and that most of the time women, as its most affected population, are oblivious to it, due to it's pervasive and unfortunately desensitizing nature) is bad enough, but the fact that there are such a visible, ostentatious representations of pink think available at our local Targets is manifestation of our unwillingness to change it. for all of the middle-aged men making marketing and product placement decisions, you can bet that there are more than a few women in positions of enough authority to subvert them. seeing as how these women, buying into it for various reasons (who of us would voluntarily agree to this type of subjugation?), haven't subverted or overthrown the wants of the middle class american male in the toy department, Targets stand as they are, open to our interpretations.

when you go to Target and look for the toys, what is the first thought that comes to your mind? perhaps because of this class you have a new (or renewed) interest in the pink vs. blue phenomenon, and have been conscious of the way it influences your buying decisions as you peruse the aisles. but without the idea that the gendering of people and things is largely a waste of some corporate peon's time, would you have thought twice about purchasing a ballerina barbie for your little girl, or a super-action-post-09/11-and-so-even-more-hyped g.i. joe for your little boy? i focus on the buy-in of women to the gender binary, here represented by toys, because it is one of the oldest forms of slavery still in existence today - and i do not know many women who would volunteer for a lifetime of slavery. think about it: what other class of persons are subjected to a stringent and unyielding system of obligations and restrictions, from birth? old-school slavery, feudalism and the like died out eons ago. why? because women were smart enough to subvert the systems. women advanced themselves and made life-altering decisions not to buy into systems where they were coerced into the servitude of men. however, men (and what women? ann coulter aside, i think she may have been transgender at one point) still try to propagate the "barefoot and pregnant" ideal for women, in forms that we are not always consciously aware of. so why aren't we looking harder at what is presented to us, and getting more proactive (i.e. loud) about our intolerance for their bigotry?

the word patriarchy is all you need to analyze our society. due to the way that the "stronger" biological male has been allowed to dominate the "weaker" biological female in one way or another since the birth of the human race, we are still subjected and in a lot of cases made subordinate to the wants and needs of men. popular media exploits women for who, other women? no. since the status quo in mainstream america is heterosexual, and since the biological male is still allowed (by us, take responsibility) to put their needs and wants above ours, popular media exploits women for the wants and needs of men. maxim and playboy exploit us for the gratification of their sexual "needs". Hollywood exploits us for the gratification of their emotional "needs". the government exploits us for their financial "needs". are we seeing a trend here? why would toys at target be gendered for any reason other than to prepare little girls for their inevitable subordination to little boys?

i am sure that women buy into this patriarchal monstrosity for reasons other than stupidity. fear and the simple fact that biologically they can enslave us far easier than we can enslave them are two of the most common. women are a lot more willing to let men come near them with their naked manhood than men are willing to let women come near them with a big sharp knife and a rubber band. the books "for women only" and "for men only", by shaunti feldhan, illustrate in clear form how the illogicities of pink think have manifested in modern society. they scream, "men! understand your women so that they will want to have sex with you. women! understand your men so that when you have sex with them they will love you." ladies, come on. it is ridiculous to me that literature like this can be found in any bookstore. why are we buying into the false and disconcerting ideology that we are weaker than they are? because they can open our cans? because we "need" them? because we "are in competition with other women"? it's ridiculous because a) mentally we are far stronger, illustrated by our capacities for communication, b) because you can definitely find a woman who can open your can quicker than any man and c) the only reason women compete with each other in this way is so that they can "snag" husbands (im sure a more watered-down version exists today, but you know what i mean). if your man didn't appreciate the way you looked, in comparison with other women, would you give a rat's ass? would you spend two hours before work every morning putting on makeup and doing your hair? would you buy the short skirt for winter in minnesota?

im not bashing men here, which i know is what some of you are thinking im trying to do. im not. im married to a man myself, and like him a lot. i am simply raising the bar for us, because it is stupid to voluntarily enslave ourselves like this. if you don't think you're being enslaved, consider the above questions, and then ask yourself: what restrictions are there on my life? why? which of these restrictions are related to the fact that i am biologically female? which of these restrictions are related to the fact that i am influenced by men or am not a man? its not about bashing men, its about asking women why we allow men to do this to us. of course some of them aren't aware that they're doing it; in our society it's considered to be the "nature" of masculinity, to treat women as the weaker and needier sex. it's considered to be the "natural" thing to do, for women to want to please men and raise their children. but, these are considerations and considerations only. we don't know if men really are the stronger sex, because women have never been given the chance! i think that if we stop accepting the "gendered" society we are handed, and get an active opinion about it, that we can have the chance. its just about consciously recognizing the binary, and then consciously rejecting it.

Posted by kaylen_culotta at 10:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Along with many others it seems, I too visited our favorite Target Corporation. Not so suprisingly I came away with a similar impression as everyone else. Most striking to me were the colors that covered the walls of each aisle. While the boys section sported a variety of colors, red, blue, green, grey... even pink- the girls section was limited to cute pink bubbles. Bratz and Barbies shared an aisle, and thinking back on the New Yorker arcticle, I picked up one of the My Generation Barbies which do bear striking resemblence to their skanky counterparts. The new Barbies look much more cartoony than the ones from my childhood.
Notably, the aisles tied in perfectly with everything in the Orenstein arcticle- there was an entire aisle devoted to princess gear- dresses, wands, crowns, accessories. It was strange to contrast the merchandise directed towards girls to that for the boys. The boy section had no sort of "dress up" imagination gear. On the same note, the only choice for girl's were the princess costumes. I guess I really wasnt too surprised by this. What I did notice though, was that the boys did have much more of an array of things to choose from (girls only had dolls and princess clothes)- all more masculine items- the dinosaurs, cars, construction sets, army paraphanalia mentioned by our other classmates. The GI Joe section is what interested me the most.

It was strange for me to think back on a point the Orenstein made in her arcticle- how mothers seem to have no qualms looking onto their daughters dressed in fairy costumes, but do not necessarily smile on little Bobby dressed in military fatigues. There is such an uproar about the images of violence provided to young males, but the ideas of completely feminising(/compromising the free will of) our daughters goes unchallenged. While boys are made to be agressive, it seems girls are meant to be completely non confrontational. Girls truly are bombarded by the princess phenomenon. That a girl child in the toy section is given three aisles, and two of the three are dolls and dresses is pretty outrageous- especially considering what these items symbolize as related to our readiings. I should also mention that the toys generally considered "non gendered" were on the other side of the boy aisles- it was almost as though these toys were made more difficult for girl children to find. It seems girls arent given very many options by corporate America- and if we want something different from what they put in front of us, we have to really search for it.

Posted by Anna Scallon at 10:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Being that I don't have a car, and it has been hellishly cold this last week, I took the initiative to browse Toys R' Us' online store. This turned out to be a pretty interesting endeavor, as right off the bat, toys are divided up for you into categories based on age and gender. However, there was a section on the list, first, in fact, labeled "both". It was good to see that they had made this option so easily accessable. I slowly worked my way up in age, beginning with birth to age 2, "Both", then the same for "Girl" and "Boy". What I found here was that the toys were pretty gender neutral at this stage; primary and secondary colors, playthings introducing children to shapes and sounds, animals and textures (stuffed animals with no gender distinction), and little scooters or mini jungle gyms. The next up was three and four year olds, in which the toys began to show little gender specific traits, such as more girlish colors like pastel pink, purple, and white featured on "girl toys" like baby dolls and, yes, kitchen sets, and more "boyish" colors like blue, black, orange, and green on "boy" toys like toy cameras and science kits such as "Transforming Alien Rocks". However, one thing I did see that challenged my feminist thinking was that when you chose the "Both" category, the mini Dirt Devil vaccuum, which was red, showed up among outdoor playthings and arts and crafts. So really, at that point, it shows that it's at the parent's discretion for whether or not they want to buy their little boy a vaccuum.
The age division that really showed segregation between how boys should play and how girls should play was at the ages of 5-7, where the choices between boy and girl toys were limited to three subsections; "Dolls and accessories", "Action Figures", and "Outdoor Play". Theres an obvious gender seperation here, as the images the web site used as a preview to what toys were in that category was a blond haired, blue eyed baby doll wearing a pink jumper, a Superman action figure, and a jungle gym, respectfully. It's quite obvious who those toys were marketed to, with the exception to the jungle gym, which apparently is gender neutral.
What I did like to see was that as the age divisions got older, there were more and more interactive toys being shown, such as a butterfly garden, where (in the picture) it showed both a boy and a girl playing with it.
So, what I'm saying here is that there is hope. I really think that it's on the parent to decide which toys to buy their youngster, since at that time in their lives, they're not the ones with the weight of decision on their shoulders. No, we don't have to buy our daughters princess dolls. No, we don't have to buy Bratz. Why not a "Kid Tough Digital Camera", or a "Secret Life Pet Hamster"? Why not buy your boy a vaccuum? Mix it up a bit? Lets quit bitching about how unfair it is in the toy section for little girls and little boys, and being blissfully unaware of the many toy options out there that aren't so gender based? They ARE out there and this little experiment showed that its not that hard to find them. If its really such an issue to you as to how your daughter is being gendered from a young age, my guess is that you won't be buying Disney Princess dolls for her in the first place.

Posted by Amanda Del Rosario at 10:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In walking through the toy section of Target, I saw confirmation of many of the points made in the articles we have read about boys’ and girls’ toys. There were a surprising number of traditional gender roles in the toys, even after reading the articles.

The boys’ toys mainly focus on doing more active things; i.e. tools, wrestling and fighting action figures, and mechanical things. And you know that these toys are for boys because the packaging only shows boys playing with them. The colors of the packaging are more bold and primary.

Girls’ toys, on the other hand, come in packaging colors like pink and lavender. They focus on more passive activities: needlepoint, beading, the EZ bake oven, makeup and fashion-type things. Although these activities are more docile, they are generally more creative as opposed to many boys’ toys - say, wrestling figurines or Hot Wheels.

Legos are supposed to be a gender-neutral toy, but they come in boy colors. I think it is easier for parents to buy girls boys’ toys rather than buy boys girls’ toys. I guess it kind of suggests being a girl is a bad thing, like being a boy is something a girl can aspire to, but boys should never want to be like girls.

As mentioned in the articles, female action figures must be sexy. One of the only female action figures for boys was a Batman character who was dressed in a leotard/tuxedo-type outfit and high heels, wearing lots of makeup, and of course had a tiny waist with big boobs.

There was a “video game� called Make Yourself Pretty which allows you to give a photo of yourself a makeover. It’s logo is “Now you can see who you can be!� Who you can be? So, you are your looks? As if who you can be has everything to do with what you look like rather than your character, skills, or what you want to do with your life when you grow up.

Also on the subject of who you can be: the Barbie “I can be…� line. The only three things Barbie can be in the aisles of Target were Baby Photographer, Art Teacher, and Pet Sitter. Barely one step away from homemaker in terms of docility. Barbie could not be a doctor or a scientist, a politician or a social worker?

In contrast, although the Bratz don’t have professions, there is a race car driver in their Sportz line. Barbie’s only car for sale at Target was for her wedding and had “Just Married� printed on the side.

Bride Barbie only came in white with blonde hair, even though her flower girls came in three different races. Only blonde is glamorous enough for being a bride? Also, the Fairytopia Magic of the Rainbow dolls (also from the Barbie line) were ironically all Caucasian. I’m not sure of the clientele’s demographics at this Target (downtown Minneapolis) – could be a toss-up, so perhaps their products are just representing the percentages of the races that shop there.

Barbie’s Totally Real House contained a washer and dryer in the kitchen. Doesn’t sound Totally Real to me, since I haven’t seen too many houses in which those appliances were located in the kitchen. It seems like they were trying to cram one more domestic household duty into what little girls play.

With the Barbie and her dog Tanner set, I see Barbie’s household duties have now extended to scooping up dog poop. Which is nice that it encourages responsibility in taking care of a pet, I suppose. I just can’t picture a boys’ toy that involves scooping poo. Then again, I never would have thought Barbie was capable of such a thing either until today.

The Easy for Me Barbie makes changing Barbie’s clothes and brushing her hair simple enough for a three-year-old, allowing toddlers to become indoctrinated with the consumerism fashion dolls promote.

One encouraging and surprising thing I saw were the Only Hearts Club dolls. They are designed to look like little girls, have realistic facial features and bodies, yet they wear cool and age-appropriate clothes. The best part is the character messages they promote about doing the right thing. However, they also focus on being “nice�, which can sometimes interfere with standing up for your own opinion. Also, five out of the six dolls in the line are white, including two blondes and two redheads. Why waste two dolls on basically the same coloring? They could have easily represented other races instead.

Posted by Melia McCubbin at 10:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I visited the Toy store at the Mall of America. It's on the third floor. I walked in, and was overwhelmed by the seperation of the store. Right side for girls, left side for boys. Stores generally are set up so you go to the right side first. This makes me think they make more money off the girls section than the boys.

As others have noted. The right side is full of pink! every single box has it on there somewhere. the hello kitty section was a welcome site because of the dashes of red and other colors. Even the male figures for the girls come in pink boxes.
In the middle of the store there was a few toys that could go either way, so I guess the way the store was set up made sense, consumer-wise. Toys stores for kids aren't really much different than clothing stores for adults( our version of toys?) There's the girls side, and the men's side. H&M, express, the limited, J Crew, just to name a few...
personally, as smeone who is interested in advertising and marketing as well as the way average consumer's and societal "norms" go... the way it's set up makes sense. i'm not saying whether it's good or bad.
I do think though that at the formidable age that these kids are at that are looking at the toys, and asking their parents to buy the toys for them, should have more neutral things than " pretty princess in a pink package" or " I'm gunna buy Johnny a tractor so he can be big and manly!!" Maybe even, something that didn't push society's "norms" onto them. It will most likely be a long time until that happens though.

Posted by Margaret Hanson at 10:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I went to look at the toy section at SuperTarget, and discovered that the toys were broken up into three main sections: boys, girls, and educational toys. The rows with girls toys were startingly pink. The kinds of toys present certainly reflected gender stereotypes. There were the fashion dolls like Bratz and Barbie, which are of course focused on beauty and appearance. This teaches girls that above all, their looks matter most. There were other toys as well. Things like E-Z bake ovens, tea sets, and house cleaning toys are designed as tools to prepare girls for domestic life. There were also toys that were babies, training girls to become mothers. All of these toys are still reinforcing the ideals of pink think, although slightly more subtly. Although women have made many social advances in the workplace and in other aspects of life, it is odd that the toys we give little girls to play with are still a reflection of Cold War feminine values.

The boys' toys were likewise gendered. The colors on the packaging were largely blue or other dark shades. Many of the boys toys revolved around traditionally male careers, such as G.I. Joes, police officers, firemen, and handy-men. These toys are preparing men for their future lives in the workforce, specifically jobs that are done by "real" men. Most of these toys also involve action and violence, while as the girl's toys are supposed to encourage passivity.

The learning toys were generally gender-neutral. Oddly, many of the gender-neutral toys were also geared towards infants and toddlers. It's strange that we give our children the same toys so early in life, and then suddenly decide that some toys are right for one gender and wrong for another.

All in all, toys for children serve to reinforce traditional values that fly in the face of modern reality.

Posted by Melissa Green at 10:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I could not make to a toy store this week, but I did go to Target and looked at the toy section. There are three aisles of toys. One for boys, one for girls, and one for gender neutral learning toys, and board games were on the back wall. Just having this seperation is telling children that boys and girls are different, and need to act different. The toys in the aisle reinforce this idea. It is interesting to think about 'learning' toys seperated and neutral. It reinforces the idea that boys are not smarter than girls and vice versa, but the other aisles (for when the children are a little bit older) completely fall away from this. In the girl's section, the main color was pink and there was a lot of sparkles. Girls can dress up as princesses, play with dolls, little animals, and do arts and crafts. This is socializing them to be homemakers and mothers. There are cooking and house stuff there too. In the boys section, the colors are mainly blue and other dark colors. Boys' options are dinosuars, building things, action figures, and cars. Mostly male figures are there. Boys attitudes are shaped by these toys. I argue that male dominated jobs in the real world are reflected in the toy aisles. Men are more likely to be mechanics, construction workers, and be in the army. The seperation of th etoys tells girls that they are not allowed into those occupations. Girls are still being flooded with Pink Think now. There are some efforts to slow this exposure, but they are superficial. The girls are still being taught to act nice, have manners, take care of others. The princess phenomenon relates to Pink Think because of the material wants. A princess doesn't work. She gets the parents or the prince to get her stuff. The whole learning how to flirt and control people plays a role. She is practicing for later in life. The princess also suggests that the girls need to be protected. They would have 'bodyguards'. The boys toys reinforces that they need to be protective also, and that they can use violence. The girls are learning that they need to be beautiful and do their make-up and wear the latest fashions.

Posted by Nicole Henneman at 9:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The main thing that I was taken aback by in the toy aisles at Target was the drastic differences in the colors that assault the eyes moving between the boys' and girls' aisles. The girls aisles are bright pinks and purples, and not much else. The boy aisles are much less jarring deep greens and blacks and blues, sometimes orange. The Target I was at had two full aisles that didn't seem to be very gender specific. One carried mostly toys for toddlers and infants, which weren't marketed for either gender. Then there was an aisle that had board and card games that had the occasional Dora the Explorer or Spiderman, but were overall ungendered.

Then I walked down the girl aisle.

Dolls and babies were almost all that could be found. Plus kitchen and cleaning toys. And all in pinks or pastels. It was the first time that I had actually taken a close look at the Bratz dolls in person, and one disturbing thing that I noticed about them was their eyes. With all of the dolls staring down at you, it becomes hard to ignore the half mast, sleepy look that the dolls' eyes have that make them look as if they are trying to seduce you with their gaze. I also noticed in the Barbies what the article we had read talked about, that the faces of some of the Barbies have changed to entice young girls away from the Bratz. Barbie has blantantly copied some of the facial features of the Bratz that gives her strangely proportioned eyes and lips.

Walking down the boys aisle, I was a little disturbed by the weapons that some of the action figures had. I saw one GI Joe that had seven different kind of knives to fight with, and another with a machine gun. While Barbie and Bratz portray fragile pampered girls and young women, the GI Joes look as if they've been taking steriods and lifting weights every day. I was also startled to find WWF fighting champion action figures in the boy aisle.

There was one more aisle at the end of the Toy section that had "toys" for the technologically advanced generations following my own. It seemed to be mostly aimed at girls, and it had accessories for ipods, and ipod carrying "purses." There was no equivalent ipod carrier for the boys, which I found interesting.

I've been buying toys recently for a young niece and nephew, so I have been down these aisles a few times in the couple of years. I've been startled at things that I didn't used to notice as a child, but after last week's reading and discussion, I was much more alert to what I was looking at.

Posted by JC at 8:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Although it's been a long time since I've been shopping in the toy section of any retail store, the divided layout and the content in the isles have not changed. The store I visited conveniently provided by an excellent locating device that directed me with little arrows to the toys section. When I entered this area of the store, I questioned why the signs grouped Toys into one section. Clearly with the boy toys being on one side of the isle and the girl toys being on the other, one would assume these different sections would be worthy of their own title. After all, clothing gets their own department labeled by gender and age.
Anything pink, glittery, pretty or frilly is found in the girl’s section. For example dolls, kids who live in a cabbage patch, movie stars (Cool Gwen, Bananas Gwen, and even Holla Back Gwen) puppies, ponies, kitties, even mice (the mouse name is Angelina ballerina Talk and Twinkle) are all items that were in the girls section.
Anything dark, destructive, explosive, cars, construction is found in the boy’s section. For example, G.I Joe, Hellboy (this one was ridiculous), Superman, Zizzle Smoking Cannon, Transformers, Firefighter, Dog Alien Chestburster Plush (ok?)
As children, society, parent, extended family, teachers, friends, siblings, TV, movies, commercials, books, even bed sheets teach us what is appropriate to be like, what we should desire, and what we should value. Although we can not hide from the environmental influence that saturate our daily lives, we should start taking action to remove potentially harmful toys that teach of violence and toys that misrepresent the female and male figure.

Posted by Jennifer Loftus at 8:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

On a recent trip to target I only took a few minutes to look at the toy section, but what I did see was actually pretty alarming.

Girls toys tend to consist mostly of dolls, toys that simulate cooking and cleaning, and makeup and fashion dress-up oriented toys. This obviously is intentional, and I can remember as a child in Toys R Us wanting to look at the boys toy section because I had no desire to play cook or clean, although I did like Barbie. I was more interested in the boys "section" because I really liked science, and toys like remote control cars and dinosaurs that actually made sounds. They were more interesting and more fun to me.

This brings me to my next point, mixed in with the agression heavy toys and action figures in the "boys section" of the toy isles are cool science toys, little telescopes, and interesting and educational toys. What message does this send? That little girls aren't smart enough to like or play with those things? Or, more likely, that little girls SHOULDN'T play with those things because then they would get too smart and not learn how to be "proper women".

With toys, girls are clearly being groomed to become little mommies and boys are being groomed to be smart and agressive superheroes.

Lucky for me, my parents let me give away my easy bake oven to the neighbor and got me a really rad remote control car and a telescope.

Posted by Nicole Balistreri at 8:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Wandering through the aisles of a toy store makes me wonder why I never noticed the gender targeting. I guess it is because I was a wide eyed child, who didn't care for dolls but rather non gender specific stuffed animals. Characters like abu from aladin were my favorite. But on this particular visit I noticed that the same concepts are peddled to girls and women, the medium just changes. Girls learn from the toys in a store what the "ideal" body type is just as women watch fashion models. Both are unrealistic body types but they are still lead to believe that is the dream/goal. Not only that but there are a bevy of dolls that are supposed to foster what I can only be lead to believe are good nurturing skills. With toys created for everything from make believe kitchens to dolls that need to be changed. Boys play things are more engendered toward traditional masculine roles such as mock tool belts and army figurines.This is probably not much difference from a time before women were considered to be equals in our society, only barbie has more career options and more specifically more clothes. I do have to admit that there is one glaring difference between the toys of this generation and that of generations past. The technology aspect comes into play. I did notice a lot of ungendered toys meant for educational purposes and I must at least give credit to the toy industry for that advance.

Posted by Jessica Schrinsky at 8:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As I'm walking through the isles of the local Target, I begin to get a headache. The bright pinks, purples, and baby colors are bombarding the sides of me, yet as I move on to the next aisle, I am flushed with forest greens, blacks, browns, and firey reds. You feel like you are in a different world simply walking through these, perhaps five or six, aisles. Not even looking at the toys yet, one would be able to tell "whose" aisle they were in, just based on colors and the way colors have embedded on us which gender is which. Before even knowing what toys were in the aisle, I could tell who this aisle was directed at. It was a realization at the way simple colors have become major aspects of identifying genders, and the ideologies that come with those colors.
When it came time to actually look at the toys, and examine the differences between boys' and girls' toys...I was kind of afraid, to be quite frank. To actually face the way our culture still genderizes children based on old, even ancient, stereotypes, was something I think I just didn't want to face. As I went back to the first aisle, it was the shortest and most bare aisle of them all. It had toys that no child ever wants, but their parents might pick up, because they are meant as "educational" toys. It was the only aisle not completely fit to one gender, and all the toys were meant for both boys and girls. But, like I said, this aisle didn't last long, as it seemed to be smaller than the other aisles, and no child was in sight of that aisle. When I moved on, the next two aisles were crowded with Barbies, Bratz, baby dolls, kitchen sets, dress up cloths and accessaries for baby doll, Barbie, or whatever other doll type toy you could think of. From make up for 4 year olds to diapers for their baby dolls, the "girls' aisles" were filled with everything fulfilling the stereotype of Woman. What goes in to being a woman, and what it takes to be a woman, it seemed, was the thought process rolling in all these middle aged men creating the toys that were put onto these girls' aisles. An image of teen girly-ness seemed to promote one aisle, while an image of how to take care of a house, a child, a family surrounded the other.

In the boys' aisle, action figures (almost all male, of course), fake laser guns and water guns, lego's and other building/carpentry toys, and sport toys, filled the shelves next to me. I wasn't quite sure what aisle I'd rather be in--either I was being bred as a house wife/wild partying teen, or, I felt this heavy attitude of what manliness means hovering over me. Both areas reinforced cultural stereotypes and ideologies of boys and girls, and even the ways the aisles were set up seemed to push what it means to be a girl, or boy, as they grew up. In the girls' aisles, we start with the baby dolls, small teething toys and other miscellaneous things that as a child, you just want to light up and make loud noises. But, as you keep walking through the aisle, you see the toys get more mature and fit an image of the way these liltle girls should be growing up as well. Moving on from pretty lights and loud noises, we get to more sophisticated baby toys, such as bottles, diapers, and babies that cry, pee, and do all sort of crazy things! From there, we begin to see the Barbie, not to risky, but your basic Barbie. But, as we enter the last girl's aisle, we see all around us toys directed at tween girls. More risky Barbies, along with accessories, and the new generation of Bratz, along with all of their plus anonymities.
Although I have young sisters, I always try not to buy them toys, see it they seem to have so many already. So, coming into the toy section and seeing the ways in which they have changed and yet have stayed the same, was shocking, disturbing, interesting, and overall, assumed. There's a part of us that I think like to think our world is changing, creating more equal standings for all kinds of sexes, ethnicities, and sexual orientations, but come to a toy section, in any toy store/convenience store, andwe see our world has maybe not changed as much as we have hoped.

Posted by Carly Anderson at 6:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Green to the city, and especially city-driving, my toy store observations stemmed from not a toy store, but merely the toy section of the Store of Stores: Target. (*Angelic Chorus*) Oh, how the memories of walking my brother to the toy section of Virginia's Target, as reward for sitting in a car for an hour, came rushing back to me. It's true, I've spent my fair share in that aisle of toys which a boy aged 8-11 would be interested in. It's true, I've spent quite a lot of time scowling at the greens and grays of the merchandise, the abhorrent obsession with guns, trucks, and camouflage, and the grotesquely large muscles of the stoic/enraged plastic mini-men. For this reason, I think, my brother began requesting to be unaccompanied to his products of interest, as his selection would undoubtedly be greeted with my -- "Are you sure about that?"

If only I'd realized what the Toy Finding Mission would have been like if my little brother had been...a sister.

I'd like to think that she would not have been impressed that each Barbie and Bratz AND Princesses get their own walls to exhibit their glory. I'd like to think that she'd be more interested in the relatively ungendered crafty products, or even in the feminized crafty products (purple and pink sparkly boxes advertising make-it-yourself frames and necklaces) which take the lowest half-shelf. Even baby dolls! I should think I would be even content with the desire of baby dolls, which incidentally, are clearly in the 'girls' toy section and not in the 'boys' toy section. She would, however, fall into the fantastic glamour of these profit-dominating ladies' polyester gowns and chipped plastic crowns, I'm sure of it. The blazing hues of pink and silver glitter are hypnotizing! And with the promise of fashion, make-up, and attitudes just like those of these dolls, who can resist?

Yet, maybe my phantom sister would be like the little 7 - 10 year old girl on that Target Saturday afternoon, who asked her mother for a savings bank which mimicked an actual (un-gendered, un-pink, and un-camouflage) bank register. Her mother, who was looking at The Barbie Wall with me, related that even though the Barbies of her childhood didn't look like this, she kind of wanted one. So when her daughter came reeling excitedly around the corner with the plastic grey and yellow bank in hand, I guess I wasn't too surprised when her mother said, "Child, you pick out the strangest things."
And I, with three Barbies awaiting inspection in hand, smiled at her and thought --

"Rock on, sister."

Posted by Emma Furness at 4:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I decided to go to Target and Toys R Us to observe how toys are gendered. As i suspected, there are aisles for girls and aisles for boys. The girls sections were full of bright colors, especially pink. There were a lot of dolls, stuffed animals, barbies, plastic purses with cell phones, ect. It seemed that a lot of the girls toys were designed to make them look or feel older. There was some boxes of play makeup and hair accessories, and there was also some purses that came with car keys, a cell phone, a credit card, and plastic makeup. This was kind of mentioned in the book, Pink Think, where they it was stated that female children between the ages of six and twelve, King reported, "were as eager to do the graceful thing as their older sisters or mothers." I agree with Pink Think based on some of the things I observed in the toy aisles. One thing I also noticed in the girls sections were that there was some toy household products like pretend vacumes and dusters. In Pink Think, they talked about girls wanting to be housewives, yet now days a lot of men stay home. Its kind of stereotypical for household cleaning toys to be in the girls sections. It seems to me that the girls toys promote beauty, appearance, and what they want to be when they get older.
The boys section of the toy aisles were a little different than the girls. The girls sections were filled with the color pink, and the boys section was a lot darker colors like black, green, and blue. A lot of the toys had gun and or weapons. I know when my brother was younger he had lots of toys with weapons, I just just surprised that there were still so many toys with weapons. There were also lots of trucks, cars, tools, legos, and models. I felt that the boys sections promoted destruction and violence. This was also talked about in the article, "It's a Girl Thing." Violence seems to be visible in the boys toys, yet I didn't notice any kind of violent material in the girls section.
It was interesting to walk through the toys section of stores becuase i haven't been through them in a long time. I was surprised at how graphic some of the boys toys were and how some of the barbies and bratz dolls were so provocative. It was interesting to see how different boys and girls toys really are.

Posted by Jennifer Matthews at 7:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Rather than going to a specific toy store, I went to the Mall of America. I specifically sought out ‘Lego Land’, ‘Libby Lou’, the ‘Discovery’ store and the new Build-a-Friend workshop (I think that is the name of the store – it’s the one next door to Build-A-Bear). As I had suspected, these stores’ patrons were the same as I had previously witnessed: boys dominated the legos and discovery store, and the girls dominated Libby Lou and Build-a Friend.

Legos have always been a touchy subject for me as I grew up playing with them (due to having four brothers that had every set imaginable) but my girlfriends always had something to say to me. I distinctly remember my mom telling me that I couldn’t play with my brothers’ legos because she bought them for them and not me, that I should play with the Cabbage Patch dolls she bought me. With my experience, seeing Lego Land at the Mall of America dominated by boys did not surprise me but I do feel that it may intimidate some parents to bring their daughters in the area because of stereotypes that girls should be ‘girly’.

Libby Lou, on the other hand, is quite obvious; this store clearly caters to and draws attention from little girls. It is the epitome of the stereotype of little girls wants to be dressed up, made up, and beautiful. Will the little girls that visit this store time and time again grow out of the ‘princess’ stage? We may never know unless someone does the research.

The Discovery Store caught my attention only when I was walking by and overheard a family talking; the father and son went into the store with the daughter trying to go with, her mother was holding her back saying ‘that store is for boys. There is nothing in there for you.� I could not believe it! What is that mother teaching her daughter? Not to reach for her dreams? Not to ‘think outside the box’? Not to want discover things? I wonder how many other little girls do not dare go into the Discovery Store for fear of what their mother may say?!

Finally, Build-a-Friend was dominated by little girls. In fact, when I went inside with my cousin to help her build her friend, I noticed that there were only a handful of little boy dolls to chose from. I asked her if she wanted to build a little boy doll as a friend and she responded, “Boys are no fun to play with. I want a girl.� Where did this come from? Her other toys? I have no answers to this but I do say that not nearly enough little boys go into this store; if they did, I would expect there to be a larger supply of boy dolls to build.

In all, I find it disheartening that my suspicions were mostly true; little boys dominated the creatively dreamy stores whereas the little girls dominated the girly-playful stores. Little boys are being enticed to think big, develop new ideas and explore new things. Little girls are being centered on beautifying themselves and making faux-friends. This experience for me reinforces the idea that no matter what people say, stores and toys are definitely geared toward a certain audience and will focus on certain attributes of that audience. It is very disheartening!

Posted by Molly Wickersham at 5:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Toy Store
Walking in to the toy store you immediately see a gender division. There are “castle door�-like entrances to the “princess�-part of the toy store, big LEGO constructions encapsulating the LEGO shelves and the primary colors surrounding the part where all the board games are. I don’t mind this division. It makes is easier to find what you’re looking for but in terms of gender branding, it’s very, very bad. Now, I’ll admit it (even though I might anger some people) actually don’t mind that toys are very gender-specific. What’s wrong with girls wanting a fashion doll to dress up? And with boys wanting to crash toy trains and toy cars together? I really don’t see the big problem with all the pink tulle and glitter on toys that signals girlyness. I like the color pink and I’m damn proud of it. I don’t feel oppressed by it or feel that is telling me to be something I’m not. It’s pretty and that’s it. Anyways, with that out of the way, I do feel that it’s wrong for parents and society to forbid or look down on children who do want to play with toys that aren’t considered “appropriate� for their gender. However, that’s almost what is being said in the toy store, not only by the boxes where the toys are but also by the parents who dismiss a little girl for wanting a toy gun or a buy wanting a play cash register. However, the gender specific toys aren’t all over the plays. While in the aisle for baby toys, I noticed something...

The Toy Store
Walking in to the toy store you immediately see a gender division. There are “castle door�-like entrances to the “princess�-part of the toy store, big LEGO constructions encapsulating the LEGO shelves and the primary colors surrounding the part where all the board games are. I don’t mind this division. It makes is easier to find what you’re looking for but in terms of gender branding, it’s very, very bad. Now, I’ll admit it (even though I might anger some people) actually don’t mind that toys are very gender-specific. What’s wrong with girls wanting a fashion doll to dress up? And with boys wanting to crash toy trains and toy cars together? I really don’t see the big problem with all the pink tulle and glitter on toys that signals girlyness. I like the color pink and I’m damn proud of it. I don’t feel oppressed by it or feel that is telling me to be something I’m not. It’s pretty and that’s it. Anyways, with that out of the way, I do feel that it’s wrong for parents and society to forbid or look down on children who do want to play with toys that aren’t considered “appropriate� for their gender. However, that’s almost what is being said in the toy store, not only by the boxes where the toys are but also by the parents who dismiss a little girl for wanting a toy gun or a buy wanting a play cash register. However, the gender specific toys aren’t all over the plays. While in the aisle for baby toys, I noticed something...

Baby Toys
The early age toys do not seem to be affected by the same gender branding as the rest of the store. Early age toys include push around buggies and other transportation toys, educational toys, music instruments and mobiles. The toys come in the primary colors and are thus quite gender neutral. What’s more neutral than blue, red and yellow put together? I like that the toys are gender neutral and reminded me of something that was mentioned in Orenstein’s article. She mentioned that experts believe that while children are below the age of 6 they seem to be unaware of their fixed, unchangeable gender. Supposedly, children think they can decide whether to be a mommy and daddy. Maybe this is why the toys are gender neutral. And yes, I am aware that there are a few baby toys that are spruced up with typical boy and girl colors but I don’t feel it is as dominating as the toys for older children.

After Age 6… The Gendering Begins
The first very girly toy I studied after walking away from the baby aisle was My First Purse Which I saw on the internet after further research was in “Every girls’ favorite color; pink and purple�. Now, I don’t mind that it said that, ‘cause you can’t run away from the fact that pink is the ultimate signal for “girl� and that purple is slowly getting the same status. What really disgusted me was the description of the contents, namely make up, mirror, keys and debit car “just like mommy’s�. How’s that for raising a consumer? I actually thought, while reading Lynn Peril’s Kiddie Pink, that the days of raising little girls to be lean mean buying machines were long gone. I thought that as we live in a capitalistic world and there’s no avoiding being a consumer anyway. However, this toy angered me a little. Now, come on… a debit card? What’s wrong with play money? Not only is it insulting that toy companies assume that “mommy� only has a debit card but it is just completely wrong value to teach kids. And this is not the only purse. Sesame Street also has one. It is also pink and purple… While as their play electrical guitar is dark blue and black. I thought Sesame Street would know better but apparently this is what happens when one enters the realm of toys for older kids. Suddenly, even educational toys such as instruments are gendered. The truly gendered toys appear such as beginner’s ballerina set, pink jewellery boxes, toy guns and action figures appear at this stage. And transportation toys such as bikes and cars, which we saw in primary colors, are now branded with pink and blue hues.
Arts and crafts, which I would consider gender-free, I figure out is not. There are the generic paints and coloring books which seem neutral but as one comes toward the more advanced crafts, it seems to almost only appeal to girls. Forget the “make your own jewellery�-sets, those are and will always be for girls but other things like the “paint your own ceramic lamp�-set should have been more neutral. As I look at the box I do see that there are other varieties than the one the one that caught my eye which is the “Groovy Ceramic Lamp�. However, this is the only available at the moment; it has pink trimmings… need I say more?
The only really neutral toys seem to me classic or family board games but other toys that seem very unisex are given very distinct color. Toys like Speed Stacks and children’s digital camera come in different colors as to signal “Hey, both boys and girls can play with us! Buy us… now!� It is almost insulting that companies don’t give enough credit to parents… as though parents would only buy a certain toy if it has the true color for their little girl or little boy.
It isn’t only the color that gender brands a toy. Toys that should be gender neutral aren’t because they have a tie in with a certain character such as Dora the Explorer. She has her own cashier register and her face is plastered all over it. Now, I’m no child psychologist but I have a feeling that a little boy wouldn’t pick up this cash register, because he won’t be able to identify with the face looking back at him… even though she is a bit of a tomboy. And this is really sad because from experience, I do know that both boys and girls like playing supermarket… There are of course play cash registers that are more neural but the point is; you’ll never see a Superman cash-register. Which leads us to

Household Items
The playhouses I saw was divided between two categories; the tricked out ones that are pink and fancy, and the simple ones that were either wood-colored or tinted with primary colors. I’m not sure as what to think about the blinged out houses. On the one hand they are great for pretend which playing is all about- then again however, they do present wrong values and ideals for children. The less glamorous houses may not be all that exciting but they do offer one great thing and that’s neutrality. We like that. The kitchen sets are less pink than the ones Peril described in her article. They look like the real life ones and that signals that both boys and girls can play with it. The boxes in which these kitchens are in also display both girls and boys playing with the stoves and cupboards. However, the tea sets remain as girly as ever. Pinks and flowers cover the cups and plates however, household appliances look less “pink think� as I could imagine they did in the “old days�. They now look like the real appliances which mom and dad (hopefully) use at home. I do know that the fact they aren’t all decorated with flowers and rainbows doesn’t make the world a better and non-women oppressive place but I do feel it is a step forward in the right direction. And yes, I am aware that there are still pink house appliances… I’m just saying…

Princess
The princess stuff is very prominent and dominates with all its pink and flutters. There’s no doubt that this section is “No Boys Allowed� with all its pinks, pastels and frills that flutter. I am as opposed to Orenstein all for the princess. I’m no expert but I don’t think that little girls grow up thinking that they are supposed to be tall, skinny, wear long gowns and be in Technicolor. I give kids a little more credit. When boys run around pretending that they are cars, no one worries that they will grow up thinking that they’ll become a car or an engine. I feel that being a princess is just a fun and playful fantasy… I grew up playing princess with all my friends and I think we turned out alright. Anyways, what I wanted to get into was that no one ever makes a big deal out of the boys having their own special “thing�. No one complains when a boy plays too much baseball or basketball or wrestle each other to the ground. It’s always “boys will be boys�. But why can’t girls be girls?

Dolls vs. Action Figures
As Shari Inness has already touched much upon this, I won’t get much into it. She is right about the female action figures. There aren’t many on the shelves. I would however just point to the fact that action figures based on comics can’t help if there aren’t female figures. It’s not always that comics don’t always include female superheroes. However, I would like to criticize the WWE action figures. I’m sure there are more women in wrestling than the two they had as action figures. They had Fabulous Moolah (I’m not even sure she is a girl) and Melian (who was a part of a set). That was a bit off, I thought. The dolls are what dolls used to be. I can’t say much except that they really ought not advertise “Playing mommy� or “Take care of her/him just like mommy would� on the boxes. I think it’s wrong that there isn’t some indication that some daddies do take care of babies also. Not only mommies take care of babies.

Barbie vs. Bratz
Oh, and just a quick comment on Barbies and Bratz dolls before I end this rather long blog. I feel Barbies (the original ones) are better than Bratz because first of all Barbie is PC; she has a pooper scooper as accessory, dang it! � Second of all Barbies aren’t as “destructive� as Bratz because Barbies are supposed to look and be grown ups. Bratz aren’t which signals that kids should look like Bratz dolls do. It’s quite clear that Barbie is a figure kids would “want to become� later in life while as Bratz is a figure kids would “want to be now�.

Posted by Karla Noreen Navera at 4:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

I forgot to mention this in class yesterday: When you are writing about your experience in the toy store, also think about it in relation to the Inness article, "It's a Girl Thing!". This article is very helpful in thinking about how gender functions in toys.

Posted by Sara at 4:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If you are having any problems accessing the "What Wrong with Cinderella?" article, you can go to the library website and look it up manually through ejournals.

Here is the citation information:
New York Times Magazine
December 26, 2006
pages 34-40
"What Wrong with Cinderella?"

Posted by Sara at 3:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here is the sign-up sheet for your group presentations. If you have not already signed up for a day, please email me as soon as possible with a date, a role model and the names of your group members. If you don't have a group yet, you can add your name to someone else's group. There can be a maximum of eight people in each group. For anyone wanting to be in a new group, I have added two more slots on 2/15 and 4/26. One more thing, if you have already signed up for a date but have not listed the name of your role model, please email me with your chosen role model.

Posted by Sara at 2:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

On Thursday, February 2, our group sat down and discussed this new phenomenon of Bratz vs. Barbies. Here are some of our thoughts:
In this new age of the "Bratz," we felt that their whole idea was to promote this ideology of women and "going out." When you look at how they are design (the big heads, emphases on makeup and clothes/fashion) we felt that it promotes this ideal that as women, we should always be prepared to go out and have a good time. At least in some aspects Barbie had a few choices of a career (but of course never straining too far from this mold of what women "should" have as jobs) but these Bratz only seemed to be equipped with being ready to get up, and go out.
When asked about who holds more responsiblility towards our youth and the way they are influenced, our group thought of a similar scenario to the chicken and the egg. I think in many ways, of course the parents have the responsibility to control what they teach their children or give them. But, then again if we as a community do nothing to stop these companies from producing such items....what are we really telling corporate America?
I think the biggest conclusion we made while we were discussion this issue, was when we tried to think of how Barbie affected us when we were children. Even in the past ten years, our world has seen major changes and an enormous growth of the media in all forms. We concluded that even those ten years ago, when we were little girls playing with our barbies, it was a different time then. We didn't have role models like Brittany Spears or Paris Hilton on every magazine cover or on every television station. When we played with Barbie it was more of a way to fliter our fantasy lives/world onto the next, closest thing we have to life. We think today, there lays a larger danger in these dolls, because not only are they simply dolls, but they are suppose to be playing much larger roles in these little girls lives. These Bratz and Barbies are suppose to be "modern" and trendy, wearing the clothes the celebraties wear; and in return they pose as another reinforcement that such looks and acts are o.k. Little girls can see those girls in the media and act out what they see on tv or in a magazine on those dolls. In different generations there always posing new threats of what we are teaching our young girls; and it just so happens that in this one, it has become sex.

Posted by Carly Anderson at 12:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here are our group observations/comments about the movie clips shown:

Grease had a lot of very obvious gendering. The very different versions of the same senario that girl and boy recount to their friends is very much in line with male and female gender roles. In Sandy's version, their summer was romantic and sweet, and he was a perfect gentleman. The guys get a much more suggestive, or raunchier version of the summer though. And the questions each group asks is also telling. Girls ask, 'did he have a car', 'how much did he spend on the date' etc., while the guys ask, 'did you get very far' and my personal favorite, 'did she put up a fight'. The last one is very revealing as far as gender roles go. The women is expected to not want to have sex, or at least to pretend she doesn't. Boy then has to insist and 'fight' for sex.

The colors the girls were wearing were very feminin, light colors and lots of pink. Especially Sandy, who is all pure and innocent. However, the 'smart girl' was wearing blue, a color associated with boys. Also, the cynical girl who also gets pregnant at the end of the movie, wears black.

Legally Blonde portrays the epitome of girliness, of course the scene is set in a sorority. We see a pretty girl on a bike, with a flowy flower-print skirt. As she rides through the neighboorhood a group of guys call and whistle at her. Her response is to smile big. At the house, all the girls are exercising (on tredmills of course). They're all laughing and giggling. One girl is making out with a guy while she signes the card. There is so much pink, giggling, makeup and hair roller everywhere. It's just an explosion of girl. This scene portrays gender roles so well because of the irony. It's is portrayed in an extreme manner.

The opening scene from Devil Wears Prada shows gender roles for women by the daily morning routine. This is were a women is made! Right down to the lacy underwear that nobody will see, femininity is put on. Each one of these women have an image of themselves that they want to portry to the world. We can tell so much about them from how they get ready in the morning. And at the end of the scene when we have a face and a personality for the underwears, bras and shoes, it fits perfectly.

Posted by Hanah Berhane at 9:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)