The readings for today touched upon the issue of rape. While Susan Brownmiller in “Men, Woman, and Rape” provides her viewpoint of the meaning of rape, Whitney Walker in “Why I Fight Back” and Emilie Morgan in “Don’t Call Me a Survivor” provide first hand accounts of being raped and the implications it had for each of them. Also, on a separate yet connected subject, Levy in her chapter, “Pigs in Training” reflects upon young girls in today’s society and controversial issues surrounding their promiscuity and the importance of sex-education programs.
Brownmiller argues that rape had been defined by men rather than women. I agree with many of Brownmiller’s points specifically when she defines rape as an “exercise in power” that perpetuates male domination of women. She adds that it keeps women in a state of fear. This was certainly how Whitney Walker felt after she was raped, which inspired her to take up self-defense classes. Men feel in control and I agree with Brownmiller’s statement: “Men who commit rape have served in effect as front-line masculine shock troopers, terrorist guerillas in the longest sustained battle the world has ever known (282). However, I do think this comes off pretty strong, and I wonder what other reasons motivate men go through with this act.
Whitney Walker’s essay “Why I Fight Back” inspires women to be ready and willing to fight back. It brings up the question: How do both men and women defy “rape culture”? Can the system at large be changed? Whitney who took self-defense classes after an attack wanted to stop seeing herself as a failure. After the classes, she felt strong and stated, “I refuse to be weak” (129). She adds, “with self-defense, I am in control” (129). Women need to feel in control like Whitney in order to move forward in society. I think her main message is that when women realize they are in control and liberated to fight back, the system will in turn be changing. While it might take years before we see change, will small steps, it will gain more force.
I enjoyed reading Levy’s chapter “Pigs in Training.” It is important to make the comparison of the “Pigs in Training” to a “Female Chauvinistic Pig.” These “Pigs in Training” are as Levy writes, the girls who embrace raunch culture not because they find profit and empowerment through it, but because they do not know any other way to be. These young girls’ behaviors are outrageous—dressing in slutty, tight clothes, giving erotic performances for boys’ pleasure, posting nude photos and videos of themselves through the web, and hooking up with each other for male attention. I was also shocked to read that many girls were having sex without really feeling sexual; they did it because they feel it is what is expected of them. These girls are feeding right into Levy’s raunch culture where they are doing whatever it takes to gain access to the men and be seen through the male gaze. This is similar to the behavior of Playboy models and video vixens, which we have discussed in class.
After reading the chapter, I have gained a better idea of where these girls are getting these ideas from. The media constantly bombards these girls and women with raunch culture, leaving them without the tools to even make a knowledgeable choice about their actions. I found particular curiosity in Levy’s discussion of the Abercrombie and Fitch clothing line, which caters to American’s youth culture. In the past, I admit to shopping there, which in my school was the “cool thing to do.” However, I always noticed certain clothes with really inappropriate phrases on them and wondered why anyone would buy them. Phrases on thongs read “Eye Candy and “Wink Wink” and there is even a shirt that includes a picture of a girl opening her blouse and exposing herself with the saying “Show the Twins” (http://www.americandecency.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/showthetwins.jpg) and another one showing a female running nude, stating “Female streaking encouraged.” (http://www.americandecency.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/female-streaking.jpg) Yet, to my surprise, they were bought out by young teens. What is this teaching our youth culture?
I definitely think Abercrombie and Fitch has gone too far in advertising and promoting sexuality in their clothing line. Just take a look at their catalogue (http://www.johnrobertpowers.net/Locpics2006/stlouis_nickg3.jpg) which is covered in deliberate porn by featuring naked girls and boys. Furthermore, the label on the catalogue advertises its "mature content" and states that parental consent is recommended for youth under age 18. This is not effective at all from preventing young kids from reading it. Rather, I think this statement communicates to youth culture that “If you read me, you’ll be cool.” The warning makes the magazine all the more desirable and kids love to rebel. By purchasing the catalogue, our youth are buying into a lifestyle that encourages promiscuity. Overall, Abercrombie and Fitch along with other retailers such as Hot Topic as Levy mentioned should remove the clothing. While in the end I understand that it is all about making profit, look at what the repercussions on our youth can be. What does this say about the future of womanhood?
Another point that I found interesting in Levy’s chapter is her discussion on the longstanding debate over how best to prevent STDs and teenage pregnancy. This is particularly a controversial topic considering the “2010 Obama administration budget eliminated $170 million in funding for abstinence-only education after a series of reports showed these programs to be ineffective” (NY Times 2010). She addresses problems with Abstinence-Only Sex Education, which is telling kids that sex is something special and it should be saved for marriage. What are young kids supposed to think about that when nearly half of all marriages end in divorce?
However, a recent NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/education/03abstinence.html) showed quite the opposite and rather indicated for the first time that abstinence-only education helped to delay their sexual initiation. What was interesting about this study was that it only focused on 662 African-American students at urban middle schools. I am curious how the results will differ across socioeconomic, ethnic and racial boundaries. Also, I wonder how this would play out in different types of schools (private/public and urban/suburban/rural) along with other areas across the country. Seeing how conflicting results can be for the effectiveness of sex-ed programs, I agree with Levy that better sex education is needed. I also think that by analyzing more data, we will be better able to find out which method of Sex-Ed works best and then change our procedures accordingly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Girls today are being brought up in a culture that embraces the idea that women wear revealing clothing, pose in Playboy, and expose their breasts on Girls Gone Wild because they have earned the right to. Girls are being taught that skimpy clothes, nude pictures, and doing things simply to please men are acceptable. Girls should not be thinking that this behavior is appropriate, that it is okay to do something solely for a man’s pleasure.
ReplyDeleteStahl writes, “I was also shocked to read that many girls were having sex without really feeling sexual; they did it because they feel it is what is expected of them. These girls are feeding right into Levy’s raunch culture where they are doing whatever it takes to gain access to the man and be seen through the male gaze.” Girls should not be having sex just because a man wants it; sex should be an act where both people involved want to have sex. And girls are being taught that one of the most important things is to have a man, and to please him. These girls need to know that there are so many more important things than pleasing a man--like their own pleasure.