Living Dolls... again

Today I came across a fantastic passage in the book.

"...women and men are still not meeting on equal terms in public life. And the mainstreaming of the sex industry reflects that inequality. It is still women who are dieting or undergoing surgery on their bodies; still women stripping in the clubs while the men chant and cheer; still women, not men, who believe that their ability to reach for fame and success will be defined by how closely they conform to one narrow image of sexuality."

I like this because it's not saying that women ought not to be strippers, or that women ought not to be objectified, but is rather asking why it is ONLY the women doing this.

Someone raised a good point the other day about how men are equally objectified, as seen in women's magazines and Hollywood movies (take Prince of Persia for example), but I have to argue this point, as the male objectification and hypersexualization is still mostly confined to the media.

Every day I see and hear of Dunedin girls wearing skimpy clothes in the freezing weather, doing hours at the gym, dieting to the point of starvation, getting fake tans and going out of their way to look like celebrities in order to impress the men - whereas it is rare to find a man in "the real world" who would go to such lengths in order to impress females. I know women who have had breast enlargements and nose jobs in order to satisfy their partners, yet I do not personally know any men who have gone to such lengths. Nor do I know of any strip joints for women, and when I look at the magazine section at the dairy, the only pornographic material is aimed directly at men.
You could of course argue that places like Stiletto's can be enjoyable for both men and women of all sexual orientations, which is true, or that most pornography can be equally enjoyable for both genders... But there's still the looming fact that both are directed at men. What's more is that despite all the 'equal rights' crap that everyone talks about, there are still girls I know who won't go near places like Stiletto's because of what people will think of them. They won't admit to viewing porn either, because it is viewed as a male pastime, and there is still the idea that any woman who enjoys that sort of thing is either a raging dyke or a nymphomaniac, unless you only associate with liberals.
The point about glamor modeling is also an interesting one. Women will often take their kit off in front of a photographer free to 'gain publicity' or just to 'feel sexy'- it is scantily clad women all through the magazines, yet it seems to take a massive amount of coercion or money to get a male to pose in the same way. I wonder if this is perhaps because of the "gay" aura that lingers over the whole male modelling industry, and the homophobic tendencies of society. The stereotype of a male fashion model is that of a feminine man, and as soon as the words 'male glamor model' come together, one instantly pictures homoerotic material - because lets face it, there are bugger all straight guys modeling nude for women but the gay pornography industry is huge. Perhaps it is this stereotype that keeps the men away from modeling, as they fear that it is not going to be a sexy woman getting aroused by their pictures.

Andy Warhol

I'm going to begin by saying I've never liked Andy Warhol. I've never gone out of my way to look at his work, yet he's one of those artists who is unavoidable. We've all seen the Campbell's soup can, we've all seen his print of Marilyn Monroe, and we all know that his work is known as pop-art.

What I didn't know is that while creating my print-type repeated self portrait image, I was blatantly ripping off Warhol. I had definitely seen the Marilyn Monroe picture beforehand and acknowledged some influence there, but I do not recall having ever seen THIS version where Warhol has used my favored 3x3 presentation format. Perhaps it was stowed in my subconscious, perhaps I'd never seen it before, either way, the similarities are undeniable. .

Just when I though my copycat predicament couldn't get any worse, I discovered that Warhol has also created an image that looks like the second version of my work (which in this case I'd DEFINITELY not seen prior to creating my copycat version!)

I guess the most important thing for me here is to acknowledge the differences (however subtle they are) and analyze the similarities, all whilst trying to get over the fact that I accidentally created a piece of art based on an artist I've never liked (although now I understand his work a lot better I'm beginning to take a shine to that time traveling, idea stealing twerp).

One of the main differences between Warhol's work and my own, is that I do not consider my work pop-art. Although it looks the same on the surface, my images was not taken from the media or popular culture, but was simply the product of one of my school projects. The themes remain similar though. It is said that Warhol's images deal with "sex, money, power, success and failure" which are all key elements in the images I have produced, as I am dealing with the idea of power, money & success and the pressure on modern women to use sex in order to attain these ideals.

Reading a bit more of 'Living Dolls'

I finally finished the first segment today, ending on the note of biological programming.
Accoring to Simon Baron-Cohen's book "The Essential Difference", having a 'female brain' or a 'male brain' will effect the way you play as a child, and also influence your choice of occupation as an adult. Eg. Girls will play with dolls and generally have more social skills as adults, thus they become nurses, teachers, therapists etc. Whereas boys play with building blocks and plastic tool sets, making them ideal engineers, scientists, tradesmen, etc.

Now, I don't know about you, but when I think back to my childhood, I remember being in love with transformers, k-nex, lego and from as early as 4 years old - computer games. My friend and I used to spend maths class drawing blueprints for space ships and twinking over 'Mangere bridge primary school' on our ballpoint pens in order to replace it with out space company's logo. Does this in Baron-Cohen's book make me some sort of uber-dyke super-freak? I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only girl to not be 100% interested in dolls, and I'm pretty sure there were plenty of boys who were impartial to the odd dress up as well.
As for the career part, I've always found the idea of dealing with people (especially of the young variety) somewhat torturous. Why would I want to spend all day being ignored by rowdy children, or listening to some tool's problems for an average salary and the privilege of being bossed around by some control-freak? Especially when there's more interesting and highly paid jobs out there.

I was so taken aback by the fact that Baron-Cohen's work could be seen as anything but chauvinistic in this day and age that I even looked up the year it was published, only to be further astonished that it was released in 2004.
What stunned me further was the multitude of people (mainly male, funnily enough) who were virtuously defending the book, claiming that there is no sexism because science proves that women are better at reading emotion than men.
Once again I'm going to use myself as the example here... I have no ability to read emotion whatsoever. I normally don't realize that someones upset until someone else says "hey what was wrong with such'n'such?" to which I usually reply "huh? they seemed pretty happy to me..."
I also live with three men, all of whom always seem to be emotional about something, and all of whom seem to read each other and our extended network of friends with ease and the kind of intuition that I could only dream of having.
I'm pretty sure I'm not some kind of weird one in a million anomaly here, I meet plenty of people on a daily basis that share my traits. So how can someone like Simon Baron-Cohen draw the conclusion that 50% of the world's population operates on the same biological programming? It's pretty obvious that although playing with dolls and liking pink is the cliche, it's overwhelmingly common for girls to cross those boundaries. How can you say that men make better lawyers, or have better brains for science than women and get away with not being 'sexist' just by saying that women are made to read emotions and therefore are more suited to nurturing jobs?
As Natasha Walter states, it seems that the chauvinist views of 'women's work' aren't so dissimilar to fresh research.

Living Dolls (moved from workbook)

So recently I've started reading "Living Dolls" by Natasha Walter.
Now, I'm not a feminist, but this book raises some really great points about the growing hyper-sexuality of our time and the pressure on young girls to be super feminine, taking on extreme dieting and grooming routines in order to be successful.


Back in the day, Barbie was the doll of choice, and although she was often criticized for her unrealistic body, she was also admired for her aspirational qualities. She could be a pilot, an astronaut, the president, and she could look good doing it.

In 2001 a new series of dolls emerged and by 2004, began outselling Barbie in the UK. These dolls were called "Bratz" dolls, and they were all about all night mall parties and getting wild in Vegas. Margaret Talbot of The New Yorker describes the brats as having "large heads and skinny bodies; their almond-shaped eyes are tilted upward at the edges and adorned with thick crescents of eyeshadow, and their lips are lush and pillowy, glossed to a candy-apple sheen and rimmed with dark lip liner. They look like pole dancers on their way to work at a gentlemen’s club."

Margaret's full article can be found here and I found it very insightful, albeit a little long winded.

This all relates to the messages that are becoming more and more prominent in society. That a woman has to use her sexual prowess to become empowered, and that it is no longer desirable to achieve success through academic work or gaining positions of influence or power.
It seems that the majority of us concerned with this trend too, as there are a vast amount of blogs and comments sprawled over the internet speaking against bratz dolls and primary school kids wearing mini skirts while texting thier boyfriends on their own cellphones.

This all relates to my project through the connection between what ideals are being placed on females, and what they really want to do. It's about the tug of war between the private ideals and aspirations of the individual, and the public expectations of grooming and sexual exploitation, and how this all plays on the female mind. How failing to achieve the hyper-sexual ideal can result in loneliness and alienation, even if the individual is successful in their career or academic pursuits, and how fitting the ultra-feminine ideal really can open doors and bring social approval.
This is also about questioning the progress of society and sexual equality when such things are happening. Is sexism starting to move backwards into a dark ages? Will women once more be seen as mere sexual objects of desire or wives to produce children? And whats more, will it be the women who condemn themselves to this through aspirations of sexuality rather than financial and academic success?

The future of femininity...

This?

Or That?