Cultures Ideologies Of Feminine Beauty example essay topic

Finding a simple or concrete definition of gender maybe near impossible. Gender roles are what men and woman learn and internalize as the way they are supposed to act. These roles are commonly thought of as natural rather than a construction of culture. Gender is thought to flow from sex, rather then being a matter of what the culture does with sex. This theory is widely and exhaustively debated, according to Wood "Sex is based on biology; Gender is socially and psychologically constructed" (Wood 19). This statement suggests that culture's discourses and ideologies form the complexities of gender and gender roles.

It is easy to say that girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice and boy are made of snips and snails and puppy dog tails, but we are actually more intricate then that. To understand gender, it is necessary to understand the distinction between sex and gender. Sex is defined by the physical body and is characterized by the initial biological structure from birth. The characteristics of each male or female body maybe different but the make ups are the same. Gender on the other hand according to Wood is unstable; it is a category or a means by which we understand the body. The cultures ideologies and discourses surrounding us make sense of the body and determine our gender in multiple ways.

It gives us a social, political, symbolic, and economic understanding of our bodies and how they are similar and dissimilar from other bodies. Because culture is a living entity and is always advancing it allows gender roles the ability to change with the culture. The idea of what a woman should be and how and what she can do has changed. Women are now able to do things such as vote and support their own families in our modern culture when in the past it was thought to be inconsistent with the expected behaviors of the gender.

Culture also varies greatly from one to another and there for so does the idea of gender throughout the world. Considering the evolution of what is considered acceptable gender behavior throughout cultures it stands as a reasonable conclusion that gender is neither based on or found in nature, but is rather constructed by its inhabitants. We are surrounded by ideologies and discursive examples that suggest how men and women should act and how they should look like in comparison to one another. These cultural discourses and ideologies are reinforced through visual representations found in the media which in turn become validated by the audience through the process of internalization. In relation to gender deLauretis states that "gender is not sex, but the representations of each individual in terms of a particular social relation which pre-exists the individual and is predicated on the conceptual and rigid opposition of two biological sexes" (deLauretis 1987). Commercials such as the Joe Namath pantyhose commercial in 1974 satirize the strict and rigid gender roles by changing the context and constructs of these roles.

Whether it's the 1970's or the 21st century, masculine heterosexual men still seem significantly out of place selling feminine image enhancing products, and unquestionably appear even more displaced modeling or posing in them. Oddly it is the strict and rigid definitions and constructs of gender roles that make the ad successful and understandable. Certainly an NFL quarterback has little, if anything at all to do with pantyhose, but by placing him not only in the ad but in the product itself it all ties together in a cohesive way. By 1974 Namath had long since solidified his masculine character by playing with and through pain, predicting his own Super Bowl success, and well publicized relational affairs. However, just as in the ad, Namath's own masculinity was not without apparent contradiction as he was seen on the sideline wearing fur coats and designer sunglasses; surely the nickname Broadway Joe had as much to do with his lifestyle as where he played football. Through his success on the field Namath was granted eccentricities not extended to the "common man" The concept of beauty refers to femininity.

Beauty as a concept can not be defined but it is understood in cultures and societies through the use of the symbols. Because beauty is so attached to the femininity the woman's body commonly gets dissected into parts and each part has a product that will enhance it. Woman view the representation of the symbols that tell them what each body part should look like and normalize them. If they do not live up to the normal concept of beauty then they must do something to change. According to Bor do the concept of beauty being so heavily attached to femininity, woman are often their own worse enemy for body image continuously painting their faces and plucking out hairs to try to live up to the cultures ideologies of feminine beauty.

Smooth flawless legs are an asset to woman who internalizes the concept of beauty and there for this ad although for the most part not containing woman most certainty solely focused on them. Typically masculinity and femininity are posed as opposites in relationship to each other where one is defined by what the other in not. From an early age boys and girls learn how to act and behave by purposefully avoiding conduct contrary to the gender roles assigned to them. In advertising, femininity is more commonly displayed in a sexual way and is often found in promotions that are clearly directed towards men with no recognition given to a potential female audience. Consider the countless and highly pervasive "beer and babes" ads that run the same predictable formula of using a woman's body to sell men products ranging from beer, to cars, to jeans, to almost any consumable product in need of a market.

Masculinity is put in the position to read the representations of the feminine form. Better ton said "Woman have an ambiguous relationship to the visual image. This is because they are represented so frequently with in images and yet their role as makers and viewers of images is scarcely acknowledged" (pg 3). The fact that the culture is so used to seeing woman on display is what makes this ad so subversive. When you realize that the person on the screen is a man you are surprised at such image so far from the norm. The culture is not normally put in the position to view a man in a sexual way.

When someone is viewed in a sexual way is it can give a sense of power to the viewer, as if the person being viewed is just a piece of meat. Seeing Joe Namath posing with pantyhose on switches the power roles, now he is on display in a sexual manner rather then a woman. The Namath ad relies on the deeply entrenched and prescribed values associated with each gender, and without the near universal understanding of masculine and feminine roles the ad would cease to make sense. The poignancy of the ad is made by displacement of character, gender, biological sex. When the ad starts at the toes of Namath (the model) the scenario is set for another image enhancing commercial for a woman's product, but when Namath's face appears on camera as the main and only spokesperson for the product there is an initial sense of shock and surprise that makes the message of the ad and the cognition's of the viewer converge and coalesce.