Media, aka four Magazines: Female Genderization By The Media Female Gender, aka womanhood aka femininity
Genderization Or the process of becoming gendered Or more accurately, the process of how we come to view ourselves as gendered people That is, in the stereotypically normal cases: GI Joes, pants, and punching versus doll houses, skirts, and gossip Much of this happens when we are young, of course But we continue to genderize as we grow and change throughout our adult lives What then are the factors for genderization, female genderization in particular?
Factors: What I Think Happens Internal Processes (ie: Why we cannot come to a consciences) Inputs Impersonal Media Pressures Interpersonal Social Pressures Other Norm Inputs Consideration Internalization Rejection Acceptance Ignored Genderization Gender Identity Gender Expression External Forces
Factors: What Now? Internal Processes Impersonal Media Pressures Interpersonal Social Pressures Other Norm Inputs But these are too difficult to define, must less analyze! What to study? How to make sense of it all... External Forces But which ones? There are a great many of these – food for another time... Interpersonal relationships are themselves elusive and difficult to study Ah, but the media is all around us, an easy and capable subject Luckily, we already know of four Magazines that fit the description of Impersonal Media Pressures
So Lets Take A Look How do these magazines genderize? That is, what do they say about how women should be... women?
Cosmopolitan Sexual? Yes! But what sort of sex? Man-sex, that is, heterosexual intercourse! Not only that, but who is the dominate party here? Men, that's who! So, apparently, women are supposed to be very concerned about sex... with men... for men... Pink, really? And what is she wearing? Certainly not an outfit that demands respect...
Self Sexual? Yep, though fairly different from Cosmo. There is no mention of men, for example, though the implication is there. She is posed in a sexual and submissive manner, as well. But there is more... There seems to be a heavy focus on appearance, namely the 'right' appearance, and health. This isn't so cool if you are the type of woman who cannot have one of those 'acceptable' bodies. It seems that Self is much like Cosmo just with a little less overt sexuality and a little more talk about the proper sort of body.
Teen Vogue Marketed to a younger demographic, there is understandably less blatant sexuality, but there are still some implications. It appears that this is primarily a fashion magazine. Fashion may not be as extreme a prescription as body shape but it is a prescription as to the acceptable ways in which to express ones femininity nonetheless.
Psychologies Sexual? Sure, but it seems the power is in the woman's hands, and they are not specific as to who the sex is with. There may be a hint of suggestion in those eyes, and that is sex oriented make up but there is also a certain sense of power and confidence in her pose, an awareness suggestive of intelligence and capability. Mocking even? I like that...
So We've Seen... <ul><li>That each magazine portrays a different aspect of what may be construed as a female gender norm. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cosmopolitan: 'real sexuality,' an extreme concern with heterosexual male dominated sex. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Self: sexuality and fitness, the right sort of body. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Teen Vogue: attractiveness and fashion, fitting in with the norm. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Of the women on the covers, only Naomi Watts on Psychologies is not submissive, possibly suggestive, but not submissive. </li></ul><ul><li>Of the articles featured, only Psychologies was not dominated by gender-laden topics </li></ul><ul><li>And what does this mean for female genderization? </li></ul>
Nothing Good! <ul><li>There seems to be a certain inescapable sexuality, or sexualization of the feminine, if you will. There seems no way, if these selections are representative, to avoid the objectification that brings. The more intellectual European magazine at least treats its model with a little more respect. All of the models are, however, beautiful, suggesting that beauty (or a concern for) is a necessary mark of womanhood. Baldersash, if you ask me! There are too many prescriptive claims that may very well be unattainable or displeasing to a strong, independently minded woman... </li></ul><ul><li>If these media are used in feminine genderizing, then we should be worried for the state of our selves. These are not healthy concerns. </li></ul>