Gender and the Military

          Having no prior experience with military friends or family, I consulted several articles on the subject of being a military spouse.  In fact, I searched the Internet using ‘military spouse’ in an effort to gain a sense of how military wives’ experiences could differ from those of military husbands.  At first, I was transported to the 1950s The Donna Reed Show on a website called Military.com, where I found practical advice on how to furnish a military household by selecting durable china patterns (for resilience when packing for new deployments) or choosing a color scheme to complement the neutral walls in military housing. In addition, Tips for Newbies at Military.com offered advice on how to be “the most successful military wife” by maintaining a positive attitude, retaining hobbies and other interests, and bonding with the other wives (http://www.military.com/spouse/military-life/newbies-and-brides/tips-for-newbies.html). Gender bias on Military.com assumed the military spouse was the wife and guided her on how to be supportive to her husband’s career.  However, MilitaryOneSource.com had an article which underscored that life as a military husband can “clash with identity as a male” and be “challenging in the military setting, which emphasizes traditional ideas of masculinity” (http://www.militaryonesource.mil/health-wellness/marriage?content_id=274612) especially if the husband assumes the role of caregiver. This article made me realize that military wives hold a more traditional role than military husbands.  Also, while both men and women suffer from loneliness while the soldier is deployed, the military husbands may also encounter difficulties due to role reversal.  What struck me as most unusual, though, was the advice for the military husband – as it was geared toward curbing violent reactions to being a military spouse – in dealing with alcoholism, anger, drug abuse, and jealousy.  Aren’t military wives also subject to emotional reactions or dependency?  Of course, they are! Yet, the advice for military wives deals with housekeeping while the advice for military husbands deals with curbing anger.
           Contrary to this emasculated military husband, ads for joining the military convey an experience steeped in “heterosexual sexism, military masculinity, and imperialistic aggression” and “real manhood” (Dines 266). Ads to attract women to the military seek to influence them to rise beyond their treatment as weaker than or reliant upon men, making themselves self-reliant, strong, and independent through military service, and in fact, masculine in posture, appearance, and demeanor.  The Army recruiting posters (see below) are great examples of this.  Yet, despite making it appear that women can look and act like male soldiers, there is a double-standard in that ‘equal but different’ physical standards exist for women in the Marines. What this means is that the military wants women to join and is willing to lower the fitness standards for them to serve.  In her article 2008 article Sexuality, Gender and the US Military, author Melissa Trimble asserted that there “are real physical differences between men and women” which will play out in that “fewer women than men are physically and psychologically suited to combat, but it does not mean that all or almost all women are unsuitable” (http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/05/gender-equality-a-double-standard-for-women-in-the-military/2/).  If there is to be equality, then it must follow that whoever does the job must be so qualified.

Summary of Pussy Riots in Translation by Sophie Pinkham and The Birth of Puzzy Riot by Masha Gessen

          Is Pussy Riot a band, a feminist art form, or an expression of bravery in the face of tyranny? From reading these articles, it is obviously all of these.  The original members of Pussy Riot had been schooled in political protest by their prior membership in VOINA (http://en.free-voina.org/about), an activist, performance art group aimed at drawing attention to injustice and discrediting corrupt practices of the establishment. From Masha Gessen’s article on The Birth of Puzzy Riot we know that Nadya Tolokonnikova became involved in feminism from her readings and research, presenting these to a gathering of Russian opposition groups in fall 2011.  The empowerment and values of feminism appealed to the splintered factions gathered at that presentation and further fueled Nadya and her colleague Kat Samutsevich.  Combining VOINA’s activist techniques with punk-rock performance flair and re-dubbed, anti-government empowerment lyrics, Pussy Riot found a method and venue to communicate its beliefs.  However, Pussy Riot’s “punk prayer” in early 2012 at Moscow’s Orthodox Cathedral, which was brief and interrupted by security guards, did not directly stimulate recognition or publicity.  What did prompt their notoriety was international media’s attention to the trial of Pussy Riot’s members Kat, Nadya, and Maria Samutsevich and the severe judgment exacted by their two-year prison sentences.  The trial became the medium for Pussy Riot to become known as a force for change – speaking out against the conditions, tyranny, and gender inequality in Russian society.
          Kat Samutsevich and Nadya Tolokonnikova were not newcomers to social transformation having devised earlier protests, including one against Russian police violence.  Targeted at highlighting corruption and oppression, the campaign was called Buss the Buzz; it involved kissing an unsuspecting member of the police, which was filmed.  The resulting video went viral.  With the success of this campaign to fuel her, Nadya wanted to advance with a movement that was simple, accessible to the masses, and mocking of the strictures of the Russian establishment.  When she spoke at a 2011 summit of other groups opposed to Russian conditions, Nadya presented feminist art, history and theory, compelling the assembly to recognize that feminism had never taken root in Russia but would be a worthy movement to organize further social and political change.  Given the lack of feminist background in Russia to build upon, Masha Gessen asserted in The Birth of Puzzy Riot, that “If they wanted to show something radical, feminist, independent, street-based and Russian [Nadya and Kat] would have to make it up.”  That was the fledgling beginning for Pussy Riot, which began to challenge civil rights violations and gender inequality in Russia.
          At first the group was called Pisya Riot, rooted in the children’s word pisya, which is a non-specific reference to either male or female genitals. They added band members and instruments, and then sought a proper venue to perform – identifying Moscow’s Metro stations as an appropriate stage.  Recognizing the need to add showmanship to their performances, Pisya Riot added bright makeup and costumes, including colorful balaclavas (knitted ski masks) to conceal their identities, and props. Since they were not capable of creating their own music, Nadya and Kat added lyrics to an existing song, creating an original piece they called “Kill the Sexist.”  Armed with its only song, Pisya Riot was on its way to becoming a feminist punk rock group.  Its most notorious performance, however, was in 2012 when members stepped-up to the alter at Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Savior church.  Their performance last only a minute, but as Sophie Pinkham asserted in Pussy Riots in Translation, the impact of their protest – played out in the courtroom and later in prison – allowing Pussy Riot’s message to be heard in the international arena.

Intelligence vs. Icon

The stranglehold of hegemonic masculinity in the United States exploits female sexuality to promote consumerism, but typifies female intellect as emasculating to men.  Hollywood moviemakers actively participate in this social domination of women in the entertainment industry.  Decades before advertising utilized ‘midriff’ ads of showing women as “desiring sexual subjects, who seem to participate enthusiastically in practices and forms of self-presentation” (Dines 280) studio heads were leveraging starlet’s active sexuality to sell movie tickets, using actresses like Marilyn Monroe.  Monroe was a talented actress who duped the public into believing that she was a merely the blonde bimbo, whom she portrayed in her movies, when in reality she had raw aptitude.  Monroe did not benefit from the kind of intelligence that Harvard-educated actress Portman has, but instead possessed the knowhow to become a sought after entity in the movie industry, who furthered herself by connecting with influential and academic people who advanced her skills and knowledge.  In her own right, Monroe was a captain-of-industry, like John Rockefeller, uneducated and with no financial capital, who used her knowledge of an industry to capitalize on it and become as synonymous with success in 1950s motion pictures as Rockefeller was with petroleum products.
          While she did not live long enough to read Cosmopolitan while Helen Gurley Brown was its editor-in-chief, Marilyn was the epitome of the ‘pink collar’ woman who lacked formal education and a good family background, but used her looks and sensuality to advance her position in society by connecting with men of power and influence.  After all, gentlemen prefer blondes.  At least that’s the message from one of Marilyn Monroe’s most famous movies: the 1953 movie with the same name.  In its musical number, Diamonds Are a Girl’s Best Friend, Marilyn courts diamond-offering men with lyrics: “The French are glad to die for love/They delight in fighting duels/But I prefer a man who lives/And gives expensive jewels.”  The lyrics demonstrate the message – women need not look for love or attempt to improve themselves, but instead should trade sexual favors for items of concrete value (diamonds).  The song reinforced the message that women sought to please men and were to be satisfied not to be powerful in their own right, but to accept whatever they could get from men using their sexuality.
          When Sut Jhally asserted that “…gender (especially for women) is defined almost exclusively along the lines of sexuality” (Dines 245) he was directing this toward advertising. Yet, Jhally’s point is applicable to the entertainment industry just as strongly.  Women whose brand of sexuality is identifiable to audiences will succeed. Thus, Marilyn Monroe became advantaged by the popularity of her sexual imagery.  She became known for it both on and off the screen, in effect advertising her brand of sexuality by carrying it through to publicity of her private life. So it follows that if Marilyn openly displayed her intelligence, she would have obstructed the media image that made her movies popular.  At a primal level, it would have disturbed the illusion that men could possess her because she was vulnerable and vapid.  From a societal perspective had Marilyn shown her intellect, it would have run counter to hegemonic masculinity, which continues to be a driving force in today’s entertainment media by maintaining that men are dominant and therefore women cannot be competent or intelligent.  Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s 2012 documentary on media’s depiction of women aptly stated the framework that sustains this inequality, “Studio chiefs see the world, but don’t challenge it, replicating what we know” (Miss Representation).  Marilyn was a product of these studio chiefs, and while she profited from it with her popularity, she suffered it too, by hiding her intelligence and being belittled for her ‘dumb blonde’ façade.

Actress Natalie Portman is an example of a modern-day celebrity who displays her sexuality, but does not boast her intelligence.  She won the Academy Award for best actress in 2010 for the movie Black Swan as well as two Golden Globe awards (Natalie Portman Awards).  She speaks multiple languages, graduated with the Bachelor’s degree from Harvard and has been published in scientific journals (Lamare).  She is among the smartest celebrities with an SAT score that may have been in the 1400s (10 Celebs). Yet, with all her accomplishments, look at the images below.  Portman is clearly promoting her sexual image.  Look at the quote attributed to her, “Smart women love smart men more than smart men love smart women.” Portman speaks to the issue at-hand:  Men do not appreciate female celebrities for their intellect.  So, rather than have photos showing Portman with her Harvard diploma or her Oscar, she is shown half naked(see below).  That says it all!

 

 

Works Cited

“10 Celebs with Amazing SAT Scores.” Best Colleges Online. 7 November 2011. Web. 14 March 2015.  http://www.bestcollegesonline.com/blog/2011/11/07/10-celebs-with-amazing-sat-scores/

Dines, Gail and Jean M. Humez. Gender, Race, and Class in Media.  Boston: Sage Publications, 2014.  Print.

Lamare, Amy. “12 Stars Who Are Smarter Than You Think.” Your Daily Scoop.
11 February 2014. Web. 14 March 2015. http://www.yourdailyscoop.com/12-stars-who-are-smarter-than-you-think/

Miss Representation.  Dir. Jennifer Siebel Newsom.  Virgil Films, 2012.  Film.

“Natalie Portman.” QuotesValley.com. n.d. web. 14 March 2015. http://www.quotesvalley.com/smart-women-love-smart-men-more-than-smart-men-love-smart-women-8/

“Natalie Portman Awards.”  IMDb.com. N.d. Web. 14 March 2015. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000204/awards

 

 

 

Summary of Supersexualize Me! Advertising and the 'Midriffs' by Rosalind Gill

          It’s hard to believe Rosalind Gill’s data that the average U.S. citizen sees and/or hears 3000 advertisements per day, which per Kilbourne’s study, extrapolated to three years of interaction with advertising in one’s lifetime.  What was not so surprising, however, was that advertising has been shown to have a comparable influence to education and religion, and that graphic violence and hyper sexualized imagery are two prominent methods for advertisers.
          The advertising of the 1960-1980s showed predominately subservient images of women – housewives, dumb blondes, and passive sex objects – who relied on knowledgeable men.  This reinforced Gill’s statement that advertisers rely on “crude, easily-recognizable stereotypes” (279) to command the fleeting bits of consumers’ attention, which in turn demonstrated men’s domination of women – the roots of objectification and thereby the initial phase of justifying violence against women.  Beginning in the mid-1990s, advertising modified its portrayal of women.  The sexually empowered female replaced the earlier portrayal of women as passive sex objects. 
          While the midriff literally refers to a woman’s abdominal area, the recent term ‘midriff’ advertising, which targets women in the 20-30age range, connoted a shifting focus on body, autonomy, empowerment, and sexualized representations.  Whereby supporting a woman’s household role was core to 1950s product advertising, ‘midriff’ advertising centers on selling products to create flawless beauty, and by doing so, altered women’s evaluation of self-worth from capability to beauty.

          Midriff advertising also demonstrated that women can use their sexual power for their own purposes – to vie for and attract men’s attention at their whim – not at men’s beckon-and call.  In short, women are in charge of their appearance, can use their sex appeal as they see fit, and by doing so, shift the balance of power by gaining control over men using their sexuality.  Rather than seeing herself as needing to please a man, the woman shown in midriff advertising ‘pleases herself’ – a double entendre for personal freedom and sexual liberty.  The midriff ads empowered women through use of products that allowed her to dominate men using her sexuality.
          While midriff ads focused on the playful, empowered woman who consumed the advertised products to please herself and dominate men, this advertising excluded unattractive women (old, disabled, ugly) and everyone other than the targeted heterosexual individuals.  Another downside is that midriff advertising euphemized painful beauty practices (e.g., genital waxing), ignored the exposure to violence associated with midriff’s actions, and commodified beauty as a ‘cookie cutter’ rather than an individualized style.
          The author points to this irony:  while midriff advertising appears to put women in control of what is important to them, they continue to be portrayed with sexuality and beauty as their focal points.  Further, Gill reflected on Douglass Rushkoff’s documentary The Merchants of Cool and agreed that midriff is nothing more than a glamorous, new wrapping on the old maligned, sexist techniques used to advertise products to women in the past.  In conclusion, Gill called for feminists to reject and resist midriff advertising in favor of broader gender spectrum in the advertising medium.  

Creative Midterm - Children’s Fiction Reader

Children’s Fiction Reader: Hat Hang-Ups

When does gender stereotyping occur?  A study published in 2001 concluded that “children have been observed to display toy preferences with gender stereotypes at 14 to 20 months of age” (Serbin). Learning to gender-type, a process wherein gender-specific behavior can be distinguished, occurs when children are between the ages of two and a half and three.  That is when children take an active role in developing an understanding of gender, rather than being “passive recipients of socialization” (Ryle 131).  Also, according to Weinraub, children between 2 and 4 years of age “become aware that there are two categories of people – male and female – and they also become aware of the category into which they fit…[they] discriminate individuals in one category from individuals in another” (1493).  Thus, to expose the constraints of the masculine/feminine binary, we must seek to influence children in their preschool years.  That is why the target audience for Hat Hang-Ups, a primer for expanded notions of gender socialization, is children ages 2 to 5 years. 

Hat Hang-Ups explored the experiences of Bailey, a bunny who was expected to wear a purple hat because he was a boy.  However, Bailey’s hat simply would not stay on his head, demonstrating that gender norms do not always fit according to plan when they are based on sex.  In Hat Hang-Ups, hats were a metaphor for expected gender norms.  In keeping with this, the book’s title anticipates two interpretations.  The first meaning draws literally from the hats that become suspended in the tree as depicted on the book’s cover.  More broadly, the title refers to a slang definition of ‘hang-up’, a preoccupation, with the hats serving as a symbol of the cultural fixation on gender norms – a binary system of expectations for what a boy should do and what a girl should do.  The process of learning American society’s behavioral expectations for a boy and a girl, as associated with one’s biological sex, is called gender socialization (Ryle 128).

Three aspects of gender socialization were illustrated in Hat Hang-ups – these are the interactional, institutional, and individual modes (Ryle 128). First, interactional issues were portrayed when Bailey failed to connect with others in play, choosing instead to read in solitude, an activity specific to the girl bunnies.  Next, bearing in mind that one’s family is a primary socializing institution, Bailey failed to fulfill his family’s expectations.  This was shown when his father yelled at Bailey to wear the purple hat – a metaphor for his father’s angst with Bailey’s refusal to follow gender norms.  And finally, gender socialization acts on the individual, contributing to one’s “internalized sense as male or female” (Ryle 131).  When Bailey tossed-off his purple hat, he was rejecting the male persona:  a symbol of his internal strife from failure to individualize his expected gender role.

How does Hat Hang-Ups reconcile Bailey’s lack of gender socialization?  Bailey’s gender identity was not so unique; he learned that there were other bunnies that were unconventional – that is, the ‘hat’ did not fit them either.  The underlying premise of Hat Hang-Ups was that individuals are happiest when permitted to embrace a gender role that fits for them by not being frustrated by society’s preconceived roles for males and females. 

In summary, Hat Hang-Ups illustrated Dines’ reference to feminist and queer theory which “argues against the taken-for-granted notion that there are only two genders, corresponding to biological maleness and biological femaleness…both gender and sexuality are ambiguous, unstable, and too complex to fit into an either/or (binary) model” and that “gender has had to be reconceptualized, as unstable and multidimensional (rather than fixed by nature and binary)” (5).  The message of Hat Hang-Ups was that rather than be constrained by an expected gender identity each individual must recognize his/her uniqueness and pursue what fits.   Only then can individuals be truly empowered to make productive contributions to our society. 

Works Cited

Dines, Gail and Jean M. Humez. Gender, Race, and Class in Media.  Boston: Sage Publications, 2014.  Print.

Ryle, Robyn.  Questioning Gender: A Sociological Exploration. Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage Publications, Inc.,  2012.  Print.

Serbin, Lisa, et al. “Gender Stereotyping in Infancy:  Visual Preferences for and Knowledge of Gender-Stereotyped Toys in the Second Year.”  International Journal of Behavioral Development. 25(1) 7-15. 2001.Web. 24 February 2015.

Weinraub, Marsha, et al.  “The Development of Sex Role Stereotypes in the Third Year: Relationships to Gender Labeling, Gender Identity, Sex-Typed Toy Preference, and Family Characteristics.”  Child Development. Vol. 55, No. 4. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. August 1984. Pp. 1493-1503. Web. 24 February 2015.

 

Summary of Inventing the Cosmo Girl by Laurie Ouellette

Why were women surprised when in the 1970-80s that they were not taken seriously in the workplace?  To a degree, the ardent followers of Sex and the Single Girl, Cosmopolitan magazine, and the men who watched their ‘pink collar’ secretaries maneuver in the 1960s workplace were to blame.  In the 1960s, Helen Gurley Brown, author of the bestseller Sex and the Single Girl and was editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan magazine.  These publications promised social advancement for working class women who were not advantaged by good looks, a good family background and / or a college education.  These women, whom Brown targeted, worked ‘pink collar’ jobs – largely created in the 1960s by the growth of the U.S. service industry – a trend in the American marketplace that marked the beginning of a decline in manufacturing and factory work. 

Brown’s book, Sex and the Single Girl, published in 1962, targeted the growing demographic of single, working women.  It encouraged them to improve their social status through relationships with men – specifically by exchanging sexual favors for commodities they wanted.  As a result, Brown encouraged sexual liberation for women, removing the earlier stigma of premarital sex.   In 1965 Brown took over as editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan magazine, which offered advice to “girls with jobs” on how to reflect upper-class style, use products to enhance their attractiveness, and entice men with sex more successfully. Brown filled this print media with notions of a better life for these women, whom she called the “working girl”, by targeting, dating, and marrying men who could improve their social status.  

In her article Inventing the Cosmo Girl Laurie Ouellette described Brown as “concerned with shaping and transforming the class position of the Cosmo Girl through a combination of self-management strategies, performative tactics, sexuality, an upwardly mobile romance” (269).  Brown advocated “an alternative way to get men to part with their disproportionate share of power and resources” (266).  Perhaps in the 1960s women sought economic elevation through men because they could not compete for the jobs and salaries that would improve their standing. 

Today, Cosmopolitan objectifies women.  While Cosmo writers may believe they are fostering better opportunities for women, but their articles and images make women an accomplice to the male ego, encouraging women to satisfy men.  Cosmopolitan creates a standard of beauty that women should obtain to gratify the male ego, enticing women to shape themselves as an object of men’s desires, neglecting their individuality.  It perpetuates femininity as defined by pleasing men.  It persuades women to accept male dominance by shaping themselves to meet male expectations, creating stereotypes of femininity.  If women truly want to be recognized for their ability to contribute equally in society, competently handling positions of power and influence, they cannot be eager to satisfy the desires of men.   

Women need to fulfill their own aspirations to command satisfying, empowering roles in society.  First, women are empowered with education.  By 2012, 71% of women enrolled in college immediately after high school compared to 61% for men (Lopez).  Next, women have powerful role models; Angela Merkel, Oprah Winfrey, Sally Ride, Hilary Clinton have led successful careers in politics, science and entertainment in the 21st century.  Last, women do not need to see their success as a function of satisfying men’s desires.  It’s counterintuitive. 

Yet, March 2015 marks the 500th issue of Cosmopolitan magazine.  Why, according to Bauer Media Group, is Cosmopolitan “the most powerful women’s media brand” and “the most read women’s magazine in the world”?  Clearly, the opportunities for deeper levels of success through education, role modeling, and empowerment are available, yet Cosmopolitan continues to appeal.  It has been the best-selling magazine in college bookstores for 25 years (source:  College Store Executive), outpacing all its competitors in the college market as well as with well-educated women, working women with children, and career-oriented women (The Cosmo Effect). 

Cosmopolitan, Glamour, Vogue, Allure, Self, Elle, InStyle objectify women by reinforcing that their self-worth is tied to how they look and not what they are capable of achieving for themselves and contributing to society.  These magazines pressure women to conform to prescribed (men’s) ideals of beauty and sexuality, rather than reinforcing a pursuit for individual excellence in academics, careers, volunteerism and community.  This is a ‘chicken and egg’ dilemma – do women need to view themselves differently in order for these magazines to transform or do the magazines need to transform in order for women to view themselves differently?

Works Cited

Lopez, Mark and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera.  “Women’s College Enrollment Gains Leave Men Behind.”  Pew Research Center.  4 March 2014. Web. 28 February 2014. 

 “The Cosmo Effect.” Demographic Profile. Web. 28 February 2014. http://www.cosmomediakit.com/hotdata/publishers/cosmopoli2521681/categories/

Readership_Section.pdf

Gendered Slang/Language

           A colloquialism is a phrase used in informal speech. Consider this one: ‘Stick it to the man.’  In the 2003 film, School of Rock, Jack Black’s character taught kids that the essential message of classic rock was to ‘stick it to the man.’  Although it was derogatory to be “the man” [aka:  the establishment] in this context and “cool” to resistance authority, few of us would have considered this gendered speech, but actually it was because the embodiment of those in-charge are male.   Here’s another: "You da man!" Although positive, this compliment for an athletic accomplishment or other achievement is clearly gendered as well. 

So too do we blithely bypass the quotation, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him.” No one would stand up in church to identify this as the biblical genesis of male hegemony – the original covenant takes place between the supreme, heavenly being (a male) and the first earthly inhabitant (a man).  What’s more:  the bible holds that this was the moment God created mankind.  Much has been argued about this.  Was mankind created or evolved? For the moment the discourse is less about how our species came into existence and instead focused on the reference to mankind.  This is another subtle gender reference in our language.  Next, let’s look at how careers and academia reflect gendered language.

Time-honored professions that represent authority and power in our society – Congressman, policeman, chairman of the board – reinforce masculine hegemony.  Even those words that represent college levels – upper classman, freshman – were contrived when college attendance was male-dominated.  Compare this to the 2012 Forbes report of the male-to-female ratio in public universities:  43.6% male to 56.4% female. Yet, the reference to a freshman class still prevails.  It’s time to transform our language to the 21^st century, perhaps referring to first- year students as ‘neophytes.’ There’s nothing wrong with that…right?

After reviewing the slang timeline of both male and female genitalia, it would seem that while these slang terms had been specific to describing genitalia, now we use these insulting ways to describe people.  For example, look at Snoop Dogg’s lyrics [Bitches ain’t shit but hoes and tricks] as cited in Tricia Rose’s article, There are Bitches and Hoes, where the author explained the derogatory, gendered meaning as “women are bitches, and bitches are whores and prostitutes” (387).  Further, in Jim Rome’s commentary from David Nyland’s Heterosexism, Homophobia, and Sports Talk Radio, the talk show host referred to dancers at The Gold Club as skanks and tramps (230).  What do rapper Snoop Dogg and Jim Rome have in common?  Answer: They both exploit gendered, popular words to gain popularity and ratings, trickling these into casual speech, so that they carelessly surround us.  Today, words like “bitch” (typically said when men are off-put by an aggressive woman) and “dick” (oftentimes spoken by women to describe an insensitive man) are so mainstream they’re practically acceptable, tossed around freely on primetime sitcoms like Two-and-a-Half Men and 2 Broke Girls.  Gender slang has become so mainstreamed it’s as though we are anaesthetized to even hearing it anymore.  

Works Cited

Borzelleca, Daniel. “The Male-Female Ratio in College.” Forbes Magazine. 16 February 2012.  

          Web. 28 February 2015.