Whose beauty is it?

Dove is a company that has made strides recently to reshape the image of beauty it presents. Their campaign "real Beauty" has made headlines and been complimented on many fronts. I came across their ads and watched a few including the one above. I felt that something is still missing. The add above calls the transformation of the model "evolution." Are they saying that to evolve means you must conform to a standard beauty. That you are only better, how we interpret the word evolved, if you are more beautiful. As I watched more of their videos I feel that even with the best attempt what they are portraying still presents a single story of beauty. The other ads would begin and end with white girls, the idea that interspersing other ethnic groups meant they weren't the focus and that Dove still falls short.

This idea of a single story of beauty can be seen in many feminist writings. Kathleen Le Besco talks about beauty and body size. One of the things she mentions is that when looking at the preference presented for body size the assumptions must be questioned. When talking about the conclusions drawn about perfect body type she says that:

"-a conclusion that begs feminist deconstruction for its overreliance on male sanctification of female bodies."

Her idea that beauty has become a social construct that is used to marginalize most women and limit their potential propels the issue of body identity into the realm of feminist issue. Amelia Richards agrees and asserts that body image is third wave feminism's central issue. Even the dove piece using the word evolution is pushing the assumption that possibly only thin white women with clear skin and perfect figures are those who should be given equal opportunities. IS THAT REALLY EQUALITY?

So what? What if feminism did get involved. What if society was transformed to embrace full lips, almond shaped eyes, darker skin? Margaret Hunter in her book, Race Gender, and the Politics of Skin Tone, suggests this very thing:

“No one knows what a feminist insurgency against the beauty regime would look like, but it might include a more public and lively discussion of beauty rituals and a possible rejection of many coercive beauty rituals.”

So what does this mean? This means that we become honest with ourselves about how we define beauty first. We choose to name our assumptions. Just like the person who is racist can not break free of their bias until they acknowledge it, women can not see past the commercialized beauty until we name it and acknowledge what we are accepting is a created image. A de-evolution of tolerance and sisterhood instead of an evolution. If third waves feminism’s call is on the onslaught of ideal body image then we need to face that we have bought into and perpetuated a single face of beauty.

I am not sold on the fact that beauty is the issue that needs and should unite third wave feminism, but maybe the larger issue of living in a false world in the US should unite us locally. Maybe the uniting issue of all the topics discussed so far is that we need to be real. We need to be real about who we are, where our products come from, what the actual costs are of the decisions we make and who profits. We need to be real in how we view each other and what assumptions we make. We need the real us to embrace other people so that in our own lives we are naming the stereotypes and resisting the value judgments that are tied to them. This even extends to our reactions about beauty. We need to all embrace the reality of a multitude of faces being beautiful. If you decide to not wear make up and I decide to get plastic surgery we need to bolster each other while being aware of the ways in which our decisions are shaped. We need to recreate tolerance in a world where only one image of beauty is presented.

Towards the end

For my final project I have desired to write a theory piece that explores the issues of intersectionality, essentialism and the possible difference and agreement between the two. I hope to explore how those topics affect coalition building and political activism. I may use globalism and western views of feminism to explore these topics. I hope that my piece would be able to add to the discussion for any groups hoping to make changes. My goal is that this piece would be relevant to diverse groups of people trying to organize around a common agenda. This piece would ideally be useful to help these groups think about their differences and how all people can be included. This piece would most likely be best placed in a current journal or magazine that explores feminist thought.
To begin this project I researched identity politics in the article database. The articles I plan to use help form my thoughts are:
“When it suits me: International students negotiating feminist representations” by Alison Dahl Crossley.
This piece explores the experience of 13 international students reactions to feminism and the ideals it holds. The goal of the piece is to be able to break through stereotypes of feminist thought and create a global context for the women’s movement.
In reflecting on the women’s statements about feminism being unnecessary in today’s world Crossley writes:

“However, we must consider interpretations of feminism from more of a nuanced perspective in order to recognize changing feminist identities. Although the women refuted feminism in many ways, they were certainly critical about inequalities and social injustice.”

The idea of a changing feminist identity is part of what intrigues and perplexes me. Looking at feminism through the eyes of women from other countries helps me identify in myself the parts of feminism that cause me to wonder if it is a movement that represents and includes me.
I also chose a piece titled: “Beyond Identity Politics” by Alison Assiter.
Assiter critically looks at the book Identity Politics. This piece gives and overview of the book and also explores some of the questions of human rights associated with a global view of feminism. The book Identity Politics by Lloyd discusses the issues of essentialism. In this quote Assiter discusses Lloyd’s view of the perceived need of a uniting identity in order to take political action:

“There is, she argues, no essential nature. Claims that this nature constitutes mothering or feminist reasoning or women’s reality have all been questioned and shown to be flawed. Rather than rejecting essentialism, however, Lloyd suggests that we should accept that there is a plurality of essentialisms. All identity, she argues, is contingent, but it may sometimes be appropriate to affirm a version of essentialism. “

The idea that without a unifying identity political action is hard to take rings true with me. At the same time I see how important it is to include and accept all people. When fighting not be excluded can actually exclude others and limit our focus?
I have chosen this topic because I feel like for me the one question I have been navigating this summer is: “If every feminism represents all groups can it be effective or does it become watered down and immobile?”

Women of the world, unite!...Or not!

In looking at the work of feminists as an American citizen it is clear how it applies to me and how the achievements and goals of the feminist movement impact my daily life. Since I am able to make these connections does that mean that what I call feminism is biased and egocentric?
The question becomes is this Feminism or is what we think of as feminism just a western movement for western women? And if it is then is that allowed? Can we as women accept that and support it, or should we fight for sweeping reforms.
Winnie Woodhull argues that feminism needs to be universal. That women in the western world need to link their causes to women around the globe. She asserts that women in the western hemisphere often turn a blind eye toward the plight of women in other places. She argues that this is vitally important because our world is becoming globalized. We are becoming linked with other countries, through better communication, media, and also through the move of countries to produce in other countries and become multinational corporations. In speaking about the process of globalization that has included moves like NAFTA and production of products for US consumption in other countries. Woodhull argues that in response to globalization feminism needs to:

“…take seriously the repressive effects of that process [globalization], which stem from the operations of exploitative multinational corporations and traditional institutions…”

I agree globalization has some horrid effects and women suffer to a great deal. The I Live Here projects novel about Juarez, Mexico reveals some of these atrocities such as the disappearance of many girls, and the hand that big business has had in changing the landscape of Juarez. Martha McMahon explores the effects of globalization on farming and how food is now an industry. In speaking globalization in this sector she states that:

“...modern globalized agriculture is a closed, raced, and gendered project that produces inequality, hunger, and environmental degradation.”

While all this sounds great it does not necessitate that women in the western hemisphere need to dictate an agenda for the world. I beg to differ with Woodhull. The answer can lie within a western feminism. I do not mean to diminish the importance of embracing and supporting our sisters in other countries, but part of doing that is to demand more at home. It not up to us to determine the most important causes for other women. But, we can slowly become more global by making choices that work within the western system to demand the same treatment we expect at home from the companies in our countries. If the western feminist movement strives for a living wage then we need to not accept less for all women. That may mean working to change the practices from our domestic companies that employ women in other countries in deplorable conditions. We as women can strive for our sisters by refusing to buy food from the multinational machine. By demanding that jobs be given out locally with standards that support living wages, good working conditions, and equity we can marry the needs of women to the burden and distraction of focusing on our own economies. We can be advocating for these women by not accepting that companies act unjustly elsewhere to feed our materialistic demands. The goals of western feminism may be egocentric and narrow, but we betray womanhood by accepting products that are created in conditions that we would boycott in the US. That is the first step of a global feminism. One that does not accept less just because the women being harmed are not our same nationality.

A look at how globalization affects women abroad:


Even if you don't agree with me on the points about feminism there are still steps you can take locally to fight globalization of food:
Farm fresh delivery in Cincinnati supports local small scale agriculture and reduces farmings environmental impact.

Malawi

I really enjoyed reading the stories about Malawi in the anthology I Live Here. As much as I enjoyed it and it made me think I wasn't sure where to begin this post. In searching about activism and the current state of things I came across a video about Malawi tourism.

Malawi is a country that has a beautiful landscape. In the video the people are described as simple and caught between centuries. This video was a little shocking after reading the anthology which describes the poverty, disease, and pain of Malawi residents. I think the deep sadness that I felt in reading these stories makes posting on the book seem very difficult. I did quite a few searches on different activism groups. The I live here movement is still in touch with the Kachere prison for boys and has implemented a creative writing program. One Love is an organization dedicating to fighting the transmission of HIV in Southern African nations. On their website I found out more information about the HIV superhighway. This video describes the superhighway as being concurrent overlapping sexual relationships that increase the rate of transmission of contracting HIV. This is different than the US where people commit serial monogamy. Serial monogamy slows transmission because it is only passed to one person at a time. With overlapping relationships the disease can be passed quickly because there is an immediate interlocking network of sexual relationships. Also the video points out that HIV is more easily passed on shortly after it is contracted.

On avert's website they bring up the issue of gender inequality and its affect on disease transmission. The inequality leads to a higher incidence of rape, forced sexual encounters, and has resulted in a disproportionate infection rate among women.
The AIDS/HIV issue in Africa is a prime example of intersectionality. Malawi is a poor underdeveloped country short on resources to fight HIV. It is also a country that has gender inequality that results in higher disease rates for women. Malawi also struggles with malaria and TB, making this a country where unequal access to healthcare resources occurs. AIDS and HIV are a problem that when all these factors are combined are like looking through a prism. Solving one part of the problem is not sufficient to protect the people.

I think the issue of AIDS is a real example to me of why many groups are needed to fight for one group's rights. This has been the theme I have most struggled with this semester. In looking at the issue in Malawi through that viewpoint I see that the feminist are not enough to fix the problem, they will only elevate the women and wipe out the portion of forced sex with infected individuals. Wealth is not enough, it will only provide better care and more access for people who are sick. Fixing the stigma attached to people with HIV is not enough, that will only allow people to be seen as full persons even if they are sick. It is only through the combined efforts of fighting AIDS on many fronts that a solution can be found.

Through my search I found a lot of information on the legalities surrounding women. In the Malawi constitution women have equality and are not to be discriminated against. But if the societal gender inequality exists then the law is just words.

I think that the I live here anthology is a wonderful expression of a country that is suffering on so many fronts. One of the stories in the Malawi chapter of I live here is a story about a woman named Miriam. This story touched me so deeply as the mother stated her daughter was her best friend. Miriam has described herself as one of those people with AIDS. It is so telling to me how far reaching the problem is in the last scene of the story. Miriam has had her one year old daughter tested. Mia Kirshner (the author) calls to see if the test results have come in.

Over the phone I can hear diesel trucks and the staccato thud of men's voices interrupting Miriam's breathing. She must be back at work.
"Miriam? Can you hear me?"
"She has it," she says drawing her breath in sharply.

It seems so frivolous to sit here on a computer with air conditioning blowing and know that a world away normal life is a situation where as you waste away you pump gas daily considered an other because of an illness that in the US does not limit life and options as it does in Africa.

It is all in how you look at it

Imagine a culture where women undress yearly, lay under a sheet, and have a medicineman or sometimes woman climb under the sheet and inspect, touch, and open the female’s genitals to inspect them. The women do not seem to mind and will annually undergo this ritual once they reach puberty. The older women in this culture go to have their breasts routinely smashed by metal plates in order that the inside of their bodies can be seen, although this has not proven to be completely effective in preventing illness.

Can you name that culture?

In the past many cultures have been boiled down by the observers judgements and viewpoint in order to be ridiculed or studied as alien and sometimes used in order that one group could feel superior. One example is the story of Sarah Baartman. In speaking of the motives of making Sarah Baartman a freak exhibit in Europe in the 1700’s an author explains the behavior by saying that:

Europeans were arrogantly obsessed with their own superiority, and with proving that others, …, were inferior and oversexed.

This attitude that the observer is superior is also seen in another article written on the culture of the Nacirema. In this article the author uses words like revolting, masochistic, and sadism. These words are meant to make the reader feel like the culture is an abomination. That the people are crazy and ignorant. The writer uses an ethnocentric view to examine the culture and expose it as below the culture of the reader. The word choice and descriptions are intended to fascinate and revolt the reader, which engenders a sense of superiority not so unlike the attitude of Sarah Baartman’s exploiters. At one point in the article, the culture of Nacirema are described as having:

General dissatisfaction with breast shape is symbolized in the fact that the ideal form is virtually outside the range of human variation.

This is stated to explain the reason why the women in the culture undergo rites to make their breasts larger or smaller. Appalling, huh?!? What type of ignorant person would do such a thing?

http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/b/breast_implants.asp

I am being a little ironic. I am of course describing American culture. It is amazing when we take a step back and try and look at ourselves from the view of future anthropologists what we may be seen as. Both Baartman’s contemporaries and Linton who studied the Nacirema saw their subjects as abnormalities. It is very easy to view others as atrocious when you examine them from where you live and what you believe. When you overlay culture and context onto your observations they sometimes change.

Imagine a culture where women care so much about their health that they allow doctors to examine their most intimate parts so that they can do everything in their power to stay healthy. They undergo visual and physical examination of their genitals in order to avoid a severe disease in their culture called cancer, which is best treated early. Even though a procedure called mammograms is not perfect in detecting cancer it is the most reliable method they have available and so the older women who are more at risk subject themselves to this procedure annually in order to decrease medical costs and remain healthy and preserve their own lives.

Sometimes point of view and context change everything!

Questions for discussion

1. What steps have been successful in the past to engage people outside of the targeted group in fighting for rights? For example, what has been successful in engaging men in fighting for women's rights, or engaging heterosexuals in fighting for GLBTQ rights?

I ask this question because from my vantage point the women's movement that I felt so strongly about at the beginning of the semester is seeming, through the readings, to apply less to me as white, straight, mother, wife, woman. I understand when I read Fienburg's essay that we all must band together so that none of our rights are limited:"Your own choices as a man or a woman are sharply curtailed [when transgendered people are oppressed.] Your individual journey to express yourself is shunted into one of two deeply carved ruts, and the social baggage your are handed is already packed."

But as I read more and more in assigned writings I wonder where my place is. I can argue the facts intellectually and come up with the right answer. But as someone who is straight and white where is my place except for on the sidelines fighting for someone else under the banner women's rights. I mean this with so much respect and care as I believe we all must have equality, choices, and rights, but I can't help but feel a little left out. This brings me to my next question regarding differences that was brought up in Koyama's piece on the efforts of excluding others.

2. What are the largest differences in how transexuals perceive their childhood compared to those who are not transexual?

I was surprised to read in in Koyama's article that the perception is that transexual women are "fundamentally different." She states that the feminist argument is that transexual women are different "due to the fact that they were raised with with male privilege." I would imagine that transexual women did not enjoy the full privilege extended to them because they always felt different. I am interested to know how they perceived themselves as children. If they at an early age were able to fully embrace gender that was pushed onto them.

Living in mainstream culture

For those who live in mainstream culture, those who make decisions in line with the majority or cultural expectation, you may feel that tolerance, acceptance, and rights are something for those on the fringes of society to fight for. I feel this way at different times. It takes a lot of energy to embrace new concepts and open one’s thinking. It is hard to believe or agree with statements such as Leslie Feinberg who writes:

Your own choices as a man or a woman are sharply curtailed [when transgendered people are oppressed.] Your individual journey to express yourself is shunted into one of two deeply carved ruts, and the social baggage your are handed is already packed.

It makes sense on the surface but it is easy to take a “so what?” attitude. The ideal may be acceptance for all people but it may not feel like it is worth the energy, time, and effort fighting for others would require. The more comfortable one is in society the less they have to deal with failing to meet other people’s or cultures expectations. Expectations seem to be at the heart of issues of gender and tolerance. As a society we have silently agreed to accept that the sky is a color we call blue, that boys wear the color blue, that boys play with trucks and wear pants, and that boys grow to be men. Feinberg is pointing out that we fail to blur the lines of the norms we have created. We fail to embrace the intersectionality of the components and parts of identity that create each unique person. The ramification that is being asserted is that this desire to live with norms in societies hurts all. Even those that choose to live within gender roles held as ideal.
What is created with norms is the standard and expectation that each person will live up to an image that is asserted and associated with the roles they choose. Looking at it this way it is clearer why expectations, norms, and intolerance hurt us all. These things create boxes that each person is pigeon holed into. Even the woman who chooses to have children, wear dresses, stay at home, suffers under the expectations that go along with those choices. Extending this further these choices are not given the respect and admiration that they deserve. All choices should be seen as courageous. Even these women who are fitting the norm are diminished when we feel that of course they would make them, or that they are doing what they should. What we miss is AUTHENTICITY! When people make choices in lone with who they are and there mosaic of characteristics that make up their identity they are to be revered. It is no different for the “masculine female” a term Feinburg utilizes. The fact is that normative choices are seen as expected and non-normative choices are seen as threatening. To be on either end of the spectrum is to not embrace the person for who they are. Creating a society where all choices and expressions of gender or intersex are accepted creates a space where all people are valued. And that is where we should all want to strive and fight to live! I like Susan Stryker’s comment when asked to normalize the word Queer. She states:

…I don’t think any two people are the same about much of anything. The deeper and more intimately you know another person, the stranger they become. Which I find beautiful.

Let’s create a world where this beauty can flourish and unfold!