A parallel to this argument is society’s expectations of how feminists should look and act. When feminism was thrust into the limelight in the 60’s and 70’s, a negative caricature began to surface almost immediately. The bra-burning, man-hating, hairy lesbian was born. In the years since, the feminist monster has taken on an ever fluid and changing identity. Today, more things have been added to the façade of the typical feminist. She, because this person is never a man, is a humorless, anti-family, baby hating, social health care touting, vegan. This representation of the typical feminist has been shaped and molded by society’s standards. One of the reasons she is picture as anti-family is in response to radical feminism and the idea that structural inequalities are borne from familial inequalities. She is seen as baby hating because she is pro-choice. And more recently, she is seen as a socialist because she believes in socialized health care.

Now, it is quite obvious that this caricature of feminists is ridiculously exaggerated. Feminists exist in all shapes, sizes, political affiliations, and all food preferences. What this stereotype illuminates, however, is our society’s expectations of feminism and feminists. Though there have been many different issues and facets to feminist beliefs the feminist stereotype has acted like a chameleon, molding itself into new forms as new information arises.

This grotesque representation is felt by the whole of the feminist community. When the term feminist is uttered, the feminist stereotype immediately jumps into people’s minds. From being asked if one is a lesbian, to men being told they are not “real” feminists because they are men, the stigma is felt by all. This notion is damaging to the feminists of the world. Not only are they subjected to statements that argue their credibility (such as “well you wear make-up, how can you be a feminist?) but they are also made the target of endless jokes. They are constantly in a state of battle. The feminist grotesque is used as a tool to cut down people who identify with such a “radical” movement. Women and men (and all in between) alike are hurt by this false representation.

The carnival theory has been used to describe many different people and caricatures. What I argue is that even if the grotesque representation is fictional, it can still be damaging. However, it is extremely hard for feminists to combat this position as doing so oftentimes conforming to dominant beauty ideals. For instance, a woman who is being accused of being a lesbian because she is feminist is put in a very precarious place. She can either denounce lesbianism and proclaim that she is heterosexual, furthering heteronormativity, or she can attempt to explain that though she may not be a lesbian, there is nothing wrong with being one. These attempts to explain certain concepts, however, often fall on deaf ears.

It is important to feminists of today to be aware of the feminist grotesque in order to formulate arguments that refute the need for such a narrow definition. 

Getting back to carnival theory, what can be seen from these unrealistic expectations on women’s bodies is that it creates a narrative of ideal beauty. Because this narrative exists, it is free game for people to subvert. Russo explains that a grotesque body is a mirror of societal expectations. They operate as a text in which certain appearance ideals can be read. They take from our culture aspects of appearance and exaggerate them to an extreme. These types of performances highlights the ridiculousness of these expectations. In essence, the grotesque body reads cultural narratives, and then mirrors them back as a caricature, or as Russo states, “the grotesque body is connected to the rest of the world.” (Russo 325) This grotesque body is also a product of its environment. In Shakespeare’s time, the grotesque body would take form in a woman who dresses as a man to gain certain social status. As is portrayed in multiple Shakespearian plays, women don multiple different male qualities in excess in order to be viewed as male. Though this might not be seen as a grotesque body in today’s times, as it is quite common for women to dress in men’s clothing, the environment and ideals of the time defined how a grotesque body would look.

In modern day times, the grotesque body looks much different. Drag queens, male-bodied people who dress like women, are a prime example of this grotesque and reflexive being. Drag queens must present themselves as utterly feminine to be considered a successful spectacle. She must wear exaggeratedly thick and feminine makeup, she must have perfect (read humongous) breasts, be in extremely huge high heels or platform shoes, and scantily clad or provocatively dressed. What can be seen in this display is the expectations of women today. Women are expected to wear makeup, high heels, flattering clothing, and have perfect breasts. By showcasing a costume that is perfectly mirrors our societal expectations, the drag queen becomes grotesque. The symbols of beauty that are supposed to make a woman more attractive make this person even more of a spectacle. 

There is much talk in our society of the shaming of women. Unfortunately, this is not a solely male-initiated phenomenon. What Mary Russo highlights in her article Female Grotesques: Carnival and Theory that women often talk of other women as if they are “making a spectacle” of themselves. (Russo 318) Though this might seem as if it is purely related to ideas of feminine beauty, Russo suggests that it has a basis in carnival theory.

A woman who makes a spectacle of herself, as Russo explains, is a woman who is not following ideal feminine standards and has somehow fallen off the beauty boat. For instance, women who expose too much skin, show bra straps, or (heaven forbid) show that they have less than perfect bodies. (Russo 319) Our society sees these women as grotesque and not fit for public consumption. When looking at tabloids and magazines it is obvious to see that this idea still holds true.

The magazines and media of today focus more on women’s bodies and how they are not ideal, and how to fix these bodies, than any other topic. For instance, after the huge charade of the royal wedding this past year, Kate Middleton began to be plastered on magazines for being “too skinny” to bear children. For months these same people had touted her beauty and poise in anticipation of the upcoming wedding, and then as soon as the event was finished, her reprieve from body shaming ended. But this does not end with Kate. Myriad of other stars have been subjected to the critical eye of our society.

What this does is instructs women on what bodies are acceptable. Women are taught to avoid these certain aspects of appearance at all costs. And if a woman looks like one of the bodies they are so adamantly against, she is disciplined not only by the masses of information stating she is unsatisfactory but also by herself. Adding this additional layer of surveillance creates a panoptic environment in which women are never free from ridicule.  

Another point that surfaces when talking about the sexualizing of women’s breasts is the secondary nature they play in actual intercourse. Outside of the bedroom a woman’s breasts are a visual symbol for sex. Inside the bedroom, however, a woman’s breasts are relegated to the act of foreplay. Because the male gaze has women as only sexual objects, and not subjects themselves, the idea of using breasts to heighten the arousal of a woman is only important if the end result is penile penetration. As Young states, stimulating a woman’s breasts is “a pleasant prelude after which the couple goes on to ‘the real thing.’” (Young 183) This creates a paradox in which a woman’s breasts are highly prized outside of the bedroom, and yet almost completely ignored within it, leaving women with little or no sexual pleasure from their breasts.

Bras also perpetuate the normalization of women’s breasts. Bras are designed to gather the breasts and give them the shape that is most desirable. What this does is create an outward norming that in effect erases the many differences of women’s breasts. Not only does this create a false image of uniformity to men but also to women. Again, the simple act of putting on a bra can create, for some women, an environment of inadequacy if your boobs do not look like they do in a bra.

Lastly, male gaze that so tightly fixes women into a box of perfect breasts also runs, no, sprints away from women’s nipples. One of the very important aspects of a bra is to hide a woman’s nipples. Nipples, if we see women’s breasts as only for sexual pleasure, are the place where only a woman’s partner may see. The reasons behind this are two-fold. The first reason why women’s nipples are taboo is because they are seen as only serving a reproductive function. Women’s breasts can be manipulated and lusted over by men, but the nipples are almost solely seen as a reproductive organ. The second reason behind this fear of nipples is because they create pleasure for the woman.

The fear of nipples because of their reproductive function is due to the fact that they are seen as purely for an infant. These vessels bearing life are hidden from view because they are not for sex. If one looks through the male gaze, they have almost no sexual purpose (as stated earlier). Now, the only nipples that people see are of women in pornography and because these women are often of one (ideal) type, this creates the idea that women all have the same nipple shape. This, as with most else I have discussed, furthers the normalization and inadequacies that women face.

The second reason why our society makes nipples taboo is because they create pleasure for the woman. As Young states, Freud has a great deal in how our society views sex today (whether good or bad). As is the case with the clitoris, women’s nipples have been basically erased from our understanding of a woman’s sexuality. Though it does not begin with Freud’s insistence that the mature female orgasm emanates from the vagina, this view has played a part in the dismissal of the nipple.

What I am calling for is a revolution in thinking about women’s bodies. We need to start “cranking out” literature, media, and programs that focus on women’s breasts as parts of themselves, and not tools of the patriarchy. If we increase the number of media that celebrates women’s breasts it will begin to change the way in which women relate to their bodies. 

As Young states, a woman’s breasts are not hers, they belong to “her husband, her lover, [or] her baby.” (Young 182) What ties into this idea are the new campaigns for breast cancer awareness. Many of these new campaigns are focused on getting more men involved in the fight against breast cancer. For instance, many slogans like “save a life, grope your wife” have been used to encourage men to join the cause. However, this only perpetuates the idea that women’s bodies are only worth saving because they fulfill a sexual desire in men. 

Though this may seem like it is helping women, it is really only furthering the sexual aspect of women’s bodies. In fact, the whole campaign of “save the tat as” is centered on the idea that women’s breasts are important because they are sexual. This might seem like it is saving lives, as it helps men join the fight for women’s health. Unfortunately, the real consequences of this movement damage women and their perceptions of their bodies.

When looking at how our society views breasts, one would think that all women love their breasts simply because they cause pleasure to men. What most women experience, however, is far from pleasure. Even when the sexual aspect of breasts are completely ignored, women still have to deal with the experience of having breasts on their body. For instance, when breasts are large, they can pull, hurt, and become uncomfortable. When they are too small, they can feel inadequate, shame, and even fear over breastfeeding. When we paint women’s breasts as simply for sexual appeal, we erase the lived experiences that women have with their breasts.

Women’s bodily experience is completely relegated by the fact that her breasts are sexualized. Her experience of her breasts is changed from something that is personal and unique to an event that outwardly defines her sexuality and maturity. By normalizing and sexualizing breasts, a woman is reduced to whether or not she fits into this standard of mammary beauty. In other words, if she has a “beautiful” body, but has breasts that are not, she is deemed not pretty. This discounts the wide variety of breast shapes and sizes and creates an environment where women cannot enjoy their breasts unless they are ideal. 

Though it might seem that I have poor grammar skills, I assure you that the title is purposeful. The topic of this week’s post will be women’s bodies, their breasts, and their experiences of their breasts in our patriarchal society. The article that I will be drawing from is Iris Marion Young’s essay entitled Breasted Experience, The Look and the Feeling.

One of the ways in which the article is framed is by the use of the male gaze. What this means is that everything that we see in society, from movies to magazines (and even ourselves), is represented through the men’s eyes. For instance, when looking at women, the male gaze sees something that he might posses, have sex with, or as a means to an end. (not that this is what most men think, just what the male gaze encompasses) In terms of women’s breasts, what this means is that they see women’s breasts as strictly for sexual purposes.

Something else that is mentioned in the article is the normalizing value that the male gaze expects. The male gaze evaluates women based on their closeness to the “norm” (or ideal) body type. What this means is that if you fall outside the norm, you are punished by whatever means available. However, what the normalizing gaze also creates is a spectacle of the women who do fit into this norm. For instance, women with “perfect” breasts are often the center of much attention because of their body shape. Women who do not fit this category are often subjected to names that denigrate the size of their chests: mosquito bites, ant hills, and droopers, to name a few. It is particularly interesting that there are more derogatory nicknames for small breasts than there are for big breasts. 

In today’s society we have begun to view women’s bodies not as separate entities, but as a sum of their parts. For instance, terms like “but-her-face” (where a woman’s body is pretty, but her face is ugly) or a “double bagger” (one is the condom, and the other is the bag to put over the woman’s face) illustrate the tendency for men to view a woman as unwhole if she has an unattractive feature. In countless instances across the media we can see women being broken up into pieces of beauty and pieces of ugly. Whether it is intended to sell women products or further indoctrinate men into the believing only one body type attractive, this practice is pervasive and damaging.

Martin also calls attention to Ludwik Fleck’s idea of the “’self-contained’ nature of scientific thought.” (Martin 183) To sum, this idea illustrates the tendency of scientific minds to find new innovations to fit their archaic ideas. For instance, in Cordelia Fine explains the “seductive allure of neuroscience explanations.” (Fine 171) While this idea deals with the area of neuroscience, this still rings true for the reproductive information that we have gained. 

Because scientists are using new information to shore up old ideas, they have begun to change their views on the reproductive functions of the egg. In complete opposition to the way in which the egg has been discussed throughout history, many biologists are now “flipping the script” and painting the ovum in a dastardly light. Martin states that the egg is now being painted as a “spider lying in wait in her web.” (Martin 185) This new portrait of the egg draws on the other archaic stereotype of “woman as a dangerous and aggressive threat.” (Martin 185)

To refer back to the movie The Little Mermaid, the dangerous and aggressive woman in this scenario is Ursula, the sea witch. In this scenario the villain who tricks the damsel is a woman who has taken on masculine traits (domination and villainy) is the ultimate of foes. Much in the same way, the woman’s reproductive germ cell is now being treated as the aggressor in the situation. Instead of this being a step to create an equal playing field for the germ cells, this is just furthering the ideal that a woman, no matter what her demeanor, is less than a man. Be it her passive, helpless nature, or her aggressive dominating tendencies, she is either worthy of saving or threatening.

What this all boils down to is that the medical body is treating a woman’s reproductive functions as a negative experience. The use of negative terminology in textbooks only adds to the detrimental outlook on menstruation in our society. Martin draws attention to the fact that feminists need to “wake up sleeping metaphors in science” (Martin 187) and challenge the idea that the reproductive functions of a woman are either passive or threatening. If we were to change the view of women’s role in reproduction in medical literature, a trickle-down effect would happen and at least get the ball rolling on making society’s view of menstruation a more positive one.  

Another image that has been appropriated is that of the damaged and worn out ovary. It is common knowledge that women are born with all of the eggs that they are to produce in their lifetime. Now, because women have these eggs, their ovaries have to continually (every month) ripen and release an egg from its follicles. As Martin states, many people view an ovary that has gone through hundreds of cycles as a “scarred, battered organ.” (Martin 181) This description would not be nearly as harmful if the male equivalent, the seminal vesicles, were described in the same way. However, the vesicles are spared from this negative description. In this way, not only is the female reproductive system being looked down upon, but it is being depicted as something that, with age, is beaten and cut by its own host. How much more of a damsel in distress can you get?

 The next aspect of a woman’s reproductive process that is problematic is the view of menstruation as a failure to reproduce. For instance, there is a movement in Christianity called the QuiverFull Movement who “acknowledge [God’s] headship in all areas of [their] lives, including fertility”. What this movement promotes is the idea that a woman’s place is to have children. This attitude, however radical it may seem, is present in our society as a whole.This is exemplified by Martin’s claim that women who menstruate are seen as “wasteful.” (Martin 181)

To counterattack this argument of wastefulness, Martin calls attention to the fact that “[f]or every baby a man produces, he wastes more than one trillion (10¹²) sperm.” (Martin 181) However, a different paradigm in which to view this would be the cybernetic model in which “feedback loops, flexible adaptation to change, and changing responses to the environment” (Martin 185) govern the system of menstruation. An illustration of such processes is as follows: the woman’s body realizes that the egg will not be fertilized, in response, hormones are released making the uterus shed its lining, to rejuvenate its environment. In this instance, not only is menstruation treated as a system in which the body “talks” to itself but also as a positive experience that refreshes the uterus. 

In society today it is not mystery as to how people feel about menstruation. A class of Human Sexuality students, when asked how they viewed menstruation, came up with words like dirty, unclean, unsanitary, and unpleasant. Something that is not taken into account is how medical literature on reproduction perpetuates these ideals of wastefulness and uncleanliness. In Emily Martin’s article The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles, Martin delves into the world of medical terminology and how this affects our everyday understanding of menstruation.

Popular culture today is rife with examples of damsels in distress being rescued by a strong masculine character. This ranges from Disney movies, like The Little Mermaid, to more mature movies like Katherine Heigl’s The Ugly Truth. What is surprising is that these popular images of men and women have seeped into our understandings of the male and female reproductive systems.

With ova being seen as a damsel in distress the jump from a fair maiden to wasted tissue is easy to account for. For instance, if the prince in The Little Mermaid had failed to rescue Ariel from the dreaded sea-witch, would the story have been a success? The simple fact that the prince failed in his duties would make the story a failure as well. Much in the same way, when a sperm “fails” to penetrate an ovum and thus does not create pregnancy, this is seen as a waste. (sad egg!)

Another component of the Pretty Thin website is that there is almost no argument as to whether or not society causes the members to think this way. On the Beauty Pageant page they make parallels between these pageants that search for the complete “ideal” in women and that the women they present and possibly ideal (the contestants) are always skinny and frequently very skinny. What I think is a genius part of this website is that they do not proselytize about how this is extremely harmful and begin to demonize the people who participate in such events. They simply make a casual statement about an observation. This unassuming attitude may be what eventually helps these people with their illness. For instance, when trying to change someone’s mind about something, a rational and calm conversation is better than an angry heated one as the person you are talking to will most likely become defensive in a heated argument. Simply by slowly dropping hints as to where these people might find their collective monster might serve as a form of activism.

The last thing that I found on this website that caught my eye was the page entitled Thin Society. As stated earlier there seemed to be no discussion about who causes members to want to be thin (at least the moderator has no doubt on this subject). What is absolutely surprising is that this page is completely about society and how their views are being imposed on women’s bodies. “News at 8 - flooding in China and people killed in a train disaster. Celebrity gossip show at 9 - how you should look is you don’t want to look like a disaster.” With this clever little line the moderator sheds some light on how our society focuses on beauty (and weight) as if it were just as important, or more important, than things like natural disaster.

One of the major critiques of these sites is that they promote anorexia. Something the moderator points to is that the site zhe has created in support of people with this disorder is getting more criticism than the media for propagating these harmful images. The moderator has countless images from Yahoo’s news feed on their front page. These include “how to lose weight fast”, “[biggest] loser weight transformations revealed”, and “habits that can help you slim down”. And yet, does Yahoo get as much hate mail as pro-ana websites? I would think not. 

Through all of this discussion about whether or not these websites help people struggling with eating disorders, I would say that I am mostly pro-“pro-ana” websites. Though I still have much to learn about these sites as well as the people who participate in them, I believe I am coming to a new understanding about what their mission is and how they help people.