Public Enemy No.1: Advertising

Having recently watched Killing Us Softly 4 by Jeane Kilbourne, I am even more convinced that the majority of what is stated in the Beauty Myth is true.

While advertising may be the bane of our existence, we must unfortunately remember that it is a core, irreplaceable part of capitalism. Personally I think capitalism is a good thing, but advertising is one of the most irksome things about it.

We say that capitalism allows us to be free and prosper as individuals. But this simply isn't true! Capitalism creates divides between people. It categorises and stereotypes people as being rich and poor. Capitalism relies on the existence of poor people because everything is seen as commodities in capitalist economies. Poor people are less valuable as commodities and are easily exploited for the benefit of the rich.

The socio-economic stand of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat still exists today just as it did when Karl Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto in 1848. But what has happened is that as media's reach extended, the socio-economic stand has in part transformed into a socio-gender reality instead.

Throughout history, "women are shown either to receive less than men, or to get nothing at all. That is still true" (49, The Beauty Myth). Everywhere we look, women are poorer than men. A study in 1984 showed that, "women still earned an average of only .. 64 percent of .. (what) men working full time earned" (49, The Beauty Myth). This is largely because of gender stereotypes that have been reinforced by  the advertising industry.

According to a documentary called Miss Representation, "the average American teenager consumes ten and a half hours of media (in affect advertising) every day" (Miss Representation). Advertising has never has such a wide spread of influence. It's a fact that we cannot escape it in our daily lives and that it is impossible not to be influenced by it.

Advertising reinforces two gender stereotypes in particular. That men should aspire for brawn and that women should yearn for beauty. Brawn simply means that men should be strong, fit and domineering. Be confident enough to be noticed when they enter a room.

Beauty on the other hand means to be attractive. Women aspire first to be physically attractive and secondly to be socially attractive. What stands as being physically and socially attractive is ambiguous, as it is set by the media and changes periodically.

The key difference between brawn for men and beauty for women is that brawn is achievable, while beauty is something that you are born with and is only something that the minority have. Women, rather than men become insecure because advertising tells them that they must be beautiful in order to be feminine.

Women therefore feel compelled to buy overpriced cosmetics as a substitute for their lack of natural beauty. This is where advertising and the media begin to make their money.

Beauty has been monetised by the media and by capitalism. While this is wrong, it is necessary. Advertising needs capitalism just as much as capitalism needs advertising to function. Until we find a better economic model, I'm afraid we're stuck with capitalism.

Mass Steralisation in Uzbekistan

Link to the BBC radio report.

Last week a BBC report has revealed that women's reproductive organs have become "the new target of one of the most repressive regimes on earth" (Forced Sterilisation in Uzbekistan). Uzbekistan's plan to counter their population growth is to sterilise women without their permission. Most shocking is that "a woman can be sterilised without knowing that she has been sterilised" (Doctors in Uzbekistan).

Natalie Anteleva explained how this was possible. For "most women, the procedure is done after they give birth" (Doctors in Uzbekistan). This is particularly the case with women having caesarean sections, since the women are already heavily anaesthetised, unaware of what is happening and unable to stop anything that is being done to them. This is how women can be sterilised without ever realising.

According to Natalie's sources, doctors "are given quotas each month for how many women they need to sterilise" ranging "from one... to eight women a week" (Doctors in Uzbekistan). This is not something happening to a minority of women. It is affecting the vast majority, thousands of women are becoming victims. Some of Natalie's sources claim that over 80% of women in labour are having caesarean sections, many unnecessarily. Doctors really do seem to use caesarean sections as a way of sterilising women.

One particularly chilling story is of a young woman called Nigora who,  "is among many for whom forced sterilisation is a reality. She had an emergency C-section. A day later she was told she had been sterilised. On the same day, her newborn died" (Secretly Sterilising Women).

Several women during the report mentioned how they struggled to understand why their government took such drastic and costly measures to prevent population growth. They asked why the government couldn't try much cheaper methods methods like education campaigns which many believe would be just as effective.

The underlying answer seems to be that this totalitarian Uzbekistan government wants full control over their citizens, especially the women. The men, while possibly having their freedoms restricted are not exposed to the same sort of invasive treatment. The mass violation of women's bodies shows that the government fails to recognise that women own their own bodies. The government believes that they can sterilise women without permission, disregarding the terrible side effects that may occur.

TV: The Voice

The Voice

The Voice is a new show on BBC copied from the original NBC version in America. During the past few weeks it has become very popular, trumping previously concrete talent contests like Britain's Got Talent.


The show has just finished its 4 week televised audition stage. What makes this show so different from other talent shows like American Idol, Britain's Got Talent and XFactor is that the auditions are blind.

Here is a short clip from last night's show illustrating how the process works:

Jaz Ellington

The four judges: will.i.am, Jessie J, Tom Jones and Danny O'Donoghue have to sit with their backs turned during an auditionee's performance. Only if a judge commits to having them in their team by pushing their buzzer will they be able to turn round and actually see instead of just hear the contestant perform.

What I love about this show is that it is all about the voice. Nothing else. The judges and audience are encouraged to disregard anything else, including their age, appearance and physical beauty. In the audition stage this is especially true, since no judge is actually able to see a contestant before pressing their  buzzer of approval and committing to offering them a place on their team (About The Voice).

Jaz Ellington is the contestant in the clip shown above. While he is not unattractive, he does not have the obvious pin up poster looks that many producers would be looking for. Jaz said in an interview afterwards, "I feel like in the past, I have lost work because of what I look like" (Jaz Ellington). Many producers these days, particularly those focusing on the mass market want someone with not only a good voice but also good looks as well. This is because as a product, their looks may make them to sell to the mass market if they are good looking. 

This is often true for girls and boys. A book that I am currently reading called The Beauty Myth would refer to this as the 'Professional Beauty Qualification'. The PBQ refers to the fact that many employers in any service or arts based industry would in particular discriminate because of someone's beauty. Even if you are skilled for a job, an employer could legally fire someone who to their mind wasn't attractive enough for the job. Beauty is just one of the many legal loopholes of what "United States sex discrimination law calls a BFOQ (a bona fide occupational qualification) and Britain calls a GOQ (a genuine occupational qualification) (Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth).

I hope to discuss the PBQ more in a later post. But I'd just like to say how wonderful that there is something like The Voice in existence. By removing the PBQ out of the media, we can hope to remove PBQ worldwide and get rid of the problems presented by The Beauty Myth once and for all. 

Film: 'Legally Blonde' and Blondness

Legally Blonde

Oh what I have missed! Lacking sisters, I had never been exposed to films of this ilk before. My girlfriends (plural), aghast at my depravation, insisted on having an impromptu movie night.

So there I was, sweetened popcorn on my lap, sitting in between my, several, girlfriends. I should have been happy, but I wasn't. After all, I was being compelled to watch two very feminine films, a man's worst nightmare.

Legally Blonde was first. Looking at the blurb,  this was to be about a blonde defying all of the odds and her mishaps, to successfully not only win a place at Harvard Law School, but also blossom there as well. And all to win back a boyfriend! This was going to be silly.

Obviously this was going to be a pro blonde propaganda/anti-stereotype movie. And I have to tell you I appreciated it.

To anyone who doesn't know, the stereotype against blonde women is that they are dumb and superficial, while being hot, sexy and promiscuous. They are meant to be dumber and hotter than brunettes and redheads, who both have their own stereotypes as well. Brunettes are normally seen as smarter, while redheads are believed to have fiery tempers and be more witchlike (Living As A Redhead).

I wonder if it does affect the average person's thoughts about blonde women. This blonde stereotype's rise to fame is believed to be down to the performing arts. It can be traced as far back as the 1800's. In Les Curiosites de la Foire a blonde French actress called Rosalie Duthe was satirised for her long pauses before speech, making her look very stupid (Blonde Stereotypes).

The theatrical industry continues to satirise blondness, in part because people (especially men) still find it funny. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes are the American show, Three's Company are two good 20th century examples of this. But Glee is the most contemporary example. Think of Brittany Pierce, one of the members of the Glee club but also a cheerleader. Brittany is in affect a stereotypical blonde, dumb but very attractive (The Blonde Stereotype).

What Legally Blonde made me more aware of not only the general female stereotype but also that many women had to deal with stereotypes that were based solely off the colour of their hair! This has been quite an opener and it left me with two main questions. 

Firstly, why isn't men's hair stereotyped in the same fashion, to she same extent? Secondly, since blonde females are deemed to be the sexier and more attractive, does it make it harder for them to escape their female stereotype and problems similar to those presented by The Beauty Myth?

Keep following to here more about not only my thoughts on The Beauty Myth  and blondness but also my  movie night experience watching She's The Man!

Beauty Myth - Disproved?

Rise Of The Metrosexual

What about men?

This Beauty Myth is gradually becoming a debacle before my eyes.

To suggest that men are nowhere near as pent up and restricted by their own egocentric view of themselves seems ridiculous in 2012. Maybe in 1991 when it was published, but really Naomi Wolf?

Men are caring abou their self image more than ever before, which has lead to a boom not only in male fashion but malse cosmetics as well. With "leading luxury brands such as Jean Paul Gaultier, Clinique and Clarins scrambling to expand their lines to meet the boom in demand. Beauty for blokes is becoming big business" (Male Grooming Suits You Sir). From 2001 to 2006 the male cosmetic market has reportedly swelled by a staggering 800%, with the UK male grooming market expected to reach £1.5 billion by 2003  (MGSUS).

The fact that the average man is comfortable wearing make up highlights the tremendous shift that men have made.

There are multiple sources (especially the Daily Mail) reporting that men now on average spend longer on personal grooming than women do. Men spend around 83 minutes a day, whereas women only spend 79 minutes. Men are also on average spending only 19p less monthly on grooming products than women (Rise of the Metrosexual).

This change has also spread to the fashion industry, where male fashion is rising as well. A fellow blogger perfectly illustrates what is happening, "There has been a recent phenomenal up rise of men's fashion within the media and society as men are becoming more prominent on the runway. Many fashion events have been altered to include many more menswear opportunities than ever before and it seems that it is slowly competing with women's wear for the reign in the fashion industry"(The Recent Uprise of Male Fashion). The boom of male fashion is so dramatic that male fashion weeks are being created.


So I think it would be fair to say that men are at least as vain and self conscious as women since men actually seem to be beginning to surpass women in all the beauty markets of the world.

However there are other aspects of The Beauty Myth that I have failed to cover. Like, whether beauty is an actual requirement for women to get jobs.

I hope to talk all about this and more in one of my following blogs.

Roots of Female Oppression?

You may be wondering how sexist laws, like the ones I mentioned in my last post could have have ever been adopted. For me, the problem arises from what society regards as the social norm. In any country, it is their culture which primarily sets the social norms. I.e. If men oppressing women is deemed acceptable in a certain culture then it is bound to become the social norm, since men will not be perturbed from doing it meaning that it will happen very often.

Once something becomes socially normal, it will logically be transmuted into law since it is evidently supported by the people.

I want to know how the oppression of women became socially acceptable in the first place?

The basic, most well known theory is that it first became socially acceptable simply because of women's physical inferiority. This would have been reinforced by the fact that women would not have been able to work effectively in some of the more physically demanding jobs. It would have also been reinforced by pregnancy. This true physical weakness then evolved into men unjustly seeing women as wholly inferior. With the absence of laws, when women first began to be oppressed they would have been unable to physically fight back and demand equal treatment.

This theory is supported by the fact that in Western countries, women's status has risen exponentially. It is largely believed that this is because of Western world's mechanisation, which has replaced the need for brawn in jobs. This combined with the introduction of a child care system has allowed women access to the job market like never before.

However women's rise in the Western world could also be explained by Western world's part secularisation. Countries like America and France have completely secular state systems. In America for example, it is unconstitutional for a state school to highlight any particular religion. Even with Western Countries that aren't secular, it can be argued that many of them are not as focused on religion as countries outside the Western world.

So the question becomes, have certain religions supported/continue to support gender inequality?

In several of the women's literature books that I have read, including Jasmine and A Handmaid's Tale, religion seems to be a significant cause of women's oppression. I hope to continue this topic in one of my following posts.