Thursday, February 2, 2012
Cosmo, People and Us
What if we became what we read? What would we, as women, become? What would it say about us? What would our purpose be and who would we be to others - more importantly, what would we see when we looked in the mirror? We would be creatures who live on minimal food, but thrive on fashion, beings who do little to empower themselves yet seek to please others. In our analysis of these "grocery aisle texts" we find a despicable version of ourselves. A version that cripples our movement for self-respect and equality, a version that feeds on jealousy, envy and superficiality. One that creates friendship on common hatred rather than a common cause. Bell Hooks writes, "exploitation and discrimination are words that more accurately describe the lot of women collectively in the United States" - why do we buy into it? Why to we buy a magazine that promises to teach us how to please our men, or slap a half-nude photo of Kim Kardashian on the front (or worse, recently the 17 year old Dakota Fanning). What are we doing? Why do we support this, instead of supporting each other? Is that section of every petty magazine really that necessary when they show us pictures to prove that celebrities really are just like us? Do we really elevate them to the point that shots of them in sweats buying groceries or holding their children are what make them human to us? Granted, Bell has a point in saying "we are not all oppressed, nor equally oppressed," since female celebrities transcend racial and gender-based classification in their ever-increasing socio-economic well being and popularity. But then why do we support their exploitation, or allow our own discrimination, to the point that we are used as creatures who exist merely to be art, audience or object. We should put down the magazine, become the artist, the actor and the subject in and of our own lives - moving and fighting for the right to be exactly who we want and deserve to be.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
i think Hume pointed out that the only reason why lower/middle-class people put up with upper-middle class luxury and privilege is because it signifies the possibility that we too, the lower/middle class members of society, can one day attain their kinds of success, fame, and wealth. This is of course a psychological argument and may not appeal to everyone but pop culture is arguably maintained by depicting and creating a constantly deferred wish, a wish that perfectly aligns with the interests of capitalists. Celebrities are reproduced because it provides a motivation for shopping and the like which capitalism itself CANNOT PROVIDE. There is nothing about capitalism itself that makes one want to go out and buy stuff. But if you create stars, you give people a motivation to shop and buy because commodities can represent status and entitlement and community. you create motivation by making people believe that change or salvation will come if they buy stuff associated with the celebrity. you need to create religious-like figures to stir up such irrational beliefs. In Freudian terms, celebrities kind of function like dreams, in that they both represent unfulfilled wishes. thus creating stars provides a stable environment wherein capitalist interests can be served.
ReplyDeleteI too hold pure disgust with tabloids, with the possible exception of People, which seems to report on actual people rather than gossip. I agree that these tabloids not only offer unrealistic expectations of beauty and possible attainment of status, but they also create divisiveness between women. These magazines are created in many ways for us to revel in their falls. This seems to reflect Hook's argument that infighting and tearing down from within is actually the largest threat facing the feminist movement. BY placing these idyllic images, which can never be obtained, strife necessarily is created.
ReplyDelete