Essay 2 Topic

I have to confess I haven't started writing my rough draft of this essay yet, and one of the main reasons is that I'm having trouble deciding what to write it on. I'm going in the direction of option 3. I think it would be interesting to write and explore how we push normalcy in our culture, because we really do. We even lie to ourselves about it... such as we say different it good... you should be an individual... as long as the way in which you decide to be an individual is in an accepted way that's normal. The assignment sheet says to pick one body-related issue to discuss, and I think gender roles and expectations would be very interesting. This is definitely seen in tv shows and advertisements. Gender roles have existed since the beginning of time, although some of the changes in our culture that have and are taking place make this an even more interesting topic, bc a lot of the new ideas allow for much more flexibility in one gender than the other, which leads to major questioning of what those normal gender roles now are.

"Cultural Fixions of the Freak Body"

As I read this essay, I kept going back the the statement that said, "Who’s exploitative, the critic who condemns the performer or the producer who pays him a salary?" I think this was a very interesting comment. The thing is, it is ultimately the choice of the performer whether or not they want to take the job, and be labeled as a "freak." I think it actually may be rude to assume that people who would not be a candidate for this show to judge those who are in it. They may be perfectly fine being called a freak. It doesn't necessarily have to have bad connotations with it. Obviously people pay money to see the interesting things they can do with their body... i think that's kind of cool. So the critics who wanted to get rid of the term "freak," may actually be doing their would-be-clients a disservice. They didn't ask for help, but the critics created a problem for them. If they want that job, and they want the salary, I feel like the critic is the one being exploitative, because they're the ones who gave the negative connotation to the word "freak," and the job these people have. It's just an interesting topic to think about, and I think an individual's view would definitely depend on their own personal experiences, but I definitely feel like the critic is doing the performers a disservice in this situation.

in response to Danielle's Post "What is Normal?"

I agree with Danielle about the movie "freaks" that we watched in class. I definitely made me think about the concept of normalcy, and that your personal view of what is and is not normal is based on your perspective. People from different backgrounds would definitely see all of this differently. Like Danielle said, we tend to judge people's "normalcy" based on how they look to us. If they have a characteristic that stands out to us as not the same as everyone else, we say that is abnormal. That characteristic should be respected though, and not criticized. We're all freaks, just in our own ways, some of which are more readily noticeable than others. People who look different on the outside still have the same potential to be decent people as people who fit into the "normal" category. The movie "freaks," shows us that these people who do not necessarily look the same actually turned out to be the decent human beings, who looked out for their friends, and helped those in need, and didn't take advantage of the situation. The "normal" people in the circus were the ones plotting, manipulating, taking advantage. I guess it just goes to show, don't judge a book by it's cover.

In Response to Christine's "Advertising"

I agree with Christine's thoughts on "Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt." This article and our class discussion really made me think about some of that tactics that advertisers may be using to get us to notice and purchase their products. Some of the ideas that the author had about the ads seemed a little ridiculous and like she was over analyzing what the ad was saying, but at the same time, we have to realize that these ads are gradually impacting our society and the way we think. If society sees certain things in magazines, although they may not agree with them, those things start to gradually become more and more of a normality and a thing of daily life. The first time we see a "riskay" type of message in an add it may shock us, but we won't believe it. However, as we see more of those ads, we are desensitized to the idea of having those types of ideas exposed to the public in the form of ads. It become okay to us bc it is the norm. We see it all the time. In this way, on individual ad is not destroying society, rather the reappearance of many different types of ads are gradually changing society's opinion of what does and doesn't belong in a magazine, or an a billboard.

"The Masculine Mystique"

This piece, is sort of an interview with Stallone about his new decision to become a different type of man. He's known to most from his boxing movies. He's a very masculine man. Is that possible? In today's society have have a certain set of perceived guidelines for how a male vs a female should look and behave. For men, i think it's probably a worse thing then for women nowadays. Men should be tall and strong. They should be unemotional and able to cope with whatever life throws at them. However, for women, we are not expected to be taller or stronger than men... actually we should be the opposite. Society says that we should be the more docile of the two sexes and that we should be more concerned with how we look and what people think of us. However it's much more exceptable for us to be emotional and vulnerable, whereas this is not ok for men. Stallone was the stereotypical strong, masculine figure... and this is also who he played in his movies. The very muscular, deep voice, ready-to-fight type person. The interview is about how he decided to change this. He wanted to be in a movie about a nobody type person, and had to put on a lot of weight (aka stay out of the gym and eat a completely opposite diet) in order to do it. What he realized, and says in the interview is that by being heavier, society doesn't treat him the same anymore. We have such a standard for how these people should look that we take a once respected actor and just because he has gained weight (even though its just for a movie) he has lost respect and standing with his fans. They don't want to come see him in his movies because he doesn't represent that strong masculine character that we all want to watch. I just think it's interesting to hear his point of view on this being someone who actually made the transition and has literally been on both sides of the fence. I guess our society wants what it wants.

in response to ellen's post about "The Combat Zone"

I agree with Ellen's thoughts on "the combat zone." overall, this piece had a strong, well meaning message, but i dont think it's one that many women can directly apply to themselves. Yes, women need to face the facts that the idea of female helplessness is not just a traditional stereotype. Men, on a whole tend to be larger and stronger than the majority of women in our population. Vigilance and self defense, especially in secluded areas or late at night, is a must. But i can't agree that all women should carry a gun as a means of an equalizer. As ellen mentioned, a gun can and is likely to be used against you if you don't know what you're doing. I feel like by carrying a gun you might become more paranoid about people following you, and being jumpy could cause you to pull out the gun in unnecessary situations. A gun should be a very last resort, not a first. It might be a much better idea for women who are concerned about their safety to take a class on self defense, and get into good shape so they know how to defend themselves. Preventative measures are the best.

those (unnerving??) ads using real women

These two articles that we have for Wednesday are really interesting. One is about the dove campaign for "real beauty" and the other is about men's underwear advertising. I have seen ads for the dove campaign before on tv, and i've of course seen the bill boards that they mentioned. I thought it was a really cool idea, and brave of dove to incorporate real women in their ads, rather than skinny 100lb 6 foot super models. I found the article "those unnerving ads using real women" annoying. This women rants about dove using real women, and how they're in the underwear on huge bill boards. I disagree with her. I mean, dove is a company, and they have the right to do whatever they want. The women in the ads are there by choice. It's not vulgar, and i dont find it disturbing in the least. Yes, i believe that at least in part the company is doing this for money, and because its a good advertising scheme. Of course they aren't doing it just to change peoples' images of themselves. but i think this woman is just making herself look insecure by criticizing the fact that average sized middle aged women will put themselves out there in their underwear. If you were to compare this ad to the women in tiny bikinis holding alcohol on billboards, im not sure the dove ad looks so bad anymore. I think its good for society to finally realize that real women are not sticks, and so i think dove's idea is kinda cool. these women are just putting themselves out there and saying here, are you a real person? our product is for you. we don't promise to make you look impecable, and we admit that all the people who use our product do not become super models overnight. if its raisesing their sales, good for them. big companies and their advertising have a big impact on the way that other people think, and so this is a much better thing for people to be seeing than a lot else thats out there in the media.