The face of Fashion: Sex Appeal
Ever since the 1860’s Western European physicians have contested about the nature of homosexuality: innate or socially produced (Terry 42). This topic of discourse, like that of the discourse about the one and two sex model overshadows the strife to maintain societal structural control at its foundational level. Medical and scientific research has much autonomy in provoking or inciting the general population to have fears about health matters on a local, regional, and nationwide scale. These institutions that have the power to publish writings on sexing are “situated in relation to cultural anxieties about protecting and managing modern democratic societies from disturbing incursions, inversions, and perversions (Terry 71).” To protect society from “disturbing incursions” a hierarchal power structure is necessary to maintain the powers of the government, followed by medical and scientific institutions. This power structure encourages prejudice towards those lower in the pyramid and creates tension within the layers of social groups.
Our democratic government has the authority to create, curb, amend, and eradicate laws that influence our decisions to change our lifestyles. We have seen the difficulties of transitioning laws into material reality during the Civil Rights movement and we are currently still debating about the issues of abortion with the emphasis on the impacts of the illegalization and the legalization of it. Therefore, the government can only maintain its power through helping to support sentiment that is already in place or growing. The problem with sexing in medical and scientific discourse was determining when it was appropriate to shift from one perspective to another. Science in general is about “discovery,” and “learning about the natural order,” and this, can very much conflict with already grounded cultural beliefs about sex and assigned gender roles. The government could not mandate laws to support already grounded cultural beliefs nor the growing beliefs, but medical and scientific institutions could mediate discourse through coming up with scientific evidence to support grounded cultural beliefs and dissenting views.
How does class fit into this platform? It so happens to be that women progressed from the one to two body model through the representation of being the alternate male (having the same organs as men, i.e. female penis and the “penis like” vagina-Laqueur 64) and then to being the comparative figure to men. How can this serve to “humanize” women, if women were seen as the “imperfect man (Laqueur 92)” subject to investigation to search for what makes her inferior? A purpose was already established and what was needed was material evidence; her uterus, the cradle of generation. The removal of ovaries for too much and too little sexual appetite were said to be the causes for barrenness, so how can oppositional claims serve to explain one thing (Laqueur 177)? The non-sterile surgical operations (Laqueur 181) without knowledge of when ovulation occurs (Laqueur 182) served to prove postulates that were rooted in cultural beliefs of female inferiority. If it is assumed that conception only occurs from female orgasm then this connotes that women can only achieve happiness or elation from becoming a mother. This popular notion in which biologist couldn’t easily dismiss (Laqueur 185) heavily fixates biological reproduction as the foundation of society, in which the reproduction of persons creates a society to produce a distinct civilization. Our distinct civilization was founded upon the Puritan ideals which gave men the political sphere and women the domestic sphere to revolve within.
The establishment of two sexes spurred the “beginning of a long research program to find sexual reproduction everywhere (Laqueur 172).” Laqueur had insisted that plant biology was “so extremely gendered at its core (173).” The reproduction of the biological sex is still replicated in contemporary mainstream advertisements today. These advertisements ranged from clothing lines to food advertisements. Although today’s advertisement does not seek to advertise for population increase, advertisements promote their products through “sex” appeal. These advertisements seek to reflect the norm of heterosexual relationships, in which women increasingly play the seductive roles. Advertisements are supposed to reflect our desires, but it also “teaches” viewers how to exert appeal to the opposite sex or how to act. If these advertisements are supposed to be a reflection of ourselves then how “real” are these depictions if commercially beautiful actors are hired to sell products? How would we react if we saw more fiesty looking men than women on commercials? Was there a time in which women had a different face in society?
Woman or Man Enough? Lets take a Vote eh?
The 1940’s wartime industries temporarily produced a culture that tolerated women working in the factories for the benefit of production. This shift to the model women as “Rosie the Riveter” was legitimate because although it may have been an abrupt shift to favoring the “working” woman, it was part of a wartime effort that inevitably would pass. When the government and people have a common enemy and purpose, the older cultural norms can be replaced by another norm that propels through society as more of a fad or trend. Cultural norms tend to outlast fads or trends. Trends describe fashion and “Rosie” appealed to young women as the strong, nationalistic woman who fought for her country alongside the men. Unsurprisingly, the language later used by society to describe women during the feminist movement of the 1960’s resembled that of the forties. The momentum of the feminist movement alongside the Civil Rights Movement pressed for publishers to use more masculine terms. The usage of similar words holds different purposes. First of all the words in the 1940’s coerced women into romanticizing about becoming heroes and could have easily been misinterpreted as the beginning of equal footing for young women who were already restless about their place in society. The 1960’s provided feminists a more supportive atmosphere for their efforts and that the language were from women who wanted equal opportunity and treatment within all sectors of life.
The history of homosexuality also suffered through scientific testimonies of contradictions, which continues to part of contemporary debate. The subject of what it means to be “man” and “woman” had already gone through a series of debates, in which the one and two sex model has connoted gender roles and so to have introduced the “discovery” of homosexuality in scientific discourse in the 1860’s proved to be an even more baffling ground that fed into scientific curiosity, but also moral disdain for many Americans. The third sex was a threat because it rendered men to lose masculinity and women to lose femininity by pursuing the same sex (Terry 46); hence, preventing the biological destiny of reproduction. Strangely, even though these men and women were considered to be in the “limbo” state of possessing dual characteristics of both men and women (Terry 54), homosexuality incurred from men becoming feminine and women becoming masculine. Do opposites always have to attract? If this is homosexuality, then how would they have categorized masculine male and feminine female homosexuals? The traditional male-female “biologically determined" attitudes of aggressiveness and passiveness were still perpetuated in the study of a group of people scientistists knew very little of.
To define how homosexuals fit into the power structure, we must discuss who were identified as “homosexual” in the late 1800’s to early 1900’s. Not all homosexuals were confined to the lower class status, so scientific discourse had to be sensitive when categorizing the behaviors of individuals. The lower class homosexuals were punishable because they were 'true inverts' who acted upon will and often put the bourgeois at risk of becoming homosexuals (Terry 52). To the contrary, affluent homosexuals were not punishable because they could be conditioned to become “normal (Terry 48).” The protection of the powerful in society and the punishment of the weak in the medical science establishes a couple of goals, even if there may have been no intention for the goals. The first was that homosexuality could be condemned with legal punishment and could be assigned as “immoral” on part of the homosexual even though it was believed to have originally stemmed from hereditary predispositions and unfavorable childhood experiences (Terry 50). The emphasis on limiting homosexuality through fostering “warm” childhood experiences was the responsibility of the parents, so how could “homosexuality” be a “willful act” according to the given reasoning? The second goal lessened the tension between public institutions and the affluent homosexuals in society. The affluent could be "forgiven" in return of having mutual relations with the government and the scientific community. How objective is this practice of diagnosis and treatment? Do we see similarities between now and then? What kind of decisions can be made to bring equal benefit to all people and can all of our decisions be manipulated by the government to maintain control?
Sources:
Laquer, Thomas. 1990. New Science, One Flesh. In Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud. Pp. 63-113, 149-192. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Terry, Jennifer. 1999. Medicalizing Homosexuality and Fluid Sexes. In An American Obsessions: Science, Medicine, and Homosexuality in Modern Society. Pp 40-73, 159-177. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sources of Images listed in order presented
Calvin Klein Continues to Turn Up the Heat-This time with Scantily Clad Eva Mendes." 2009. Image. Stylist. 8 July 2009. <http://www.stylelist.com/blog/2009/06/17/calvin-klein-continues-to-turn-up-the-heat-this-time-with-a-sc/>.
"Padma (Extended Version) Western Bacon Thickburger." 2009. Online vidoeclip. 8 July 2009. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzwxmy1TWNM>.
"Rosie the Riveter: Women Working During World War II ." Image. 8 July 2009. <http://www.nps.gov/pwro/collection/website/home.htm>.
No comments:
Post a Comment