Women's History Month

          Why are programs, such as Eve Ensler’s The Vagina Monologues and Lunafest, moving?  Is it because they show strong, independent women offering consciousness-raising and gender-defying subjectivities?  Is it because women share real stories outside the male gaze – exploring, re-evaluating and reshaping the unspoken and the familiar?  Perhaps it’s because these skits/films compel us to deliberate on how gender defines women’s treatment, drawing on the emotional and empathetic.  My answer is a resounding ‘Yes, to all of these’! These Women’s History Month programs spoke to the power that our culture wields over women, and how their lives are shaped and oftentimes disturbed by it. 
          I have to admit being unsure, perhaps even suspicious, of what I would encounter by attending The Vagina Monologues.  Unlike the other Women’s History Month events shown on our WGS assignment on Canvas, there were no details about the author or her work.  Not knowing, I presumed it would take a documentary approach, like “Miss Representation,” which revealed through a quantitative approach (e.g., only 16% of writers, directors and cinematographers are women while 97% of telecomm and advertising firms are headed by men) how the lack of women’s representation in key fields like politics, advertising, and the mass media industry, reinforces America’s patriarchy whereby men, who dominate these don’t challenge the hegemonic masculinity, but instead replicate in media what they know.  I thought that documentary and interview style of “Miss Representation” was what I would encounter when attending The Vagina Monologues.  Instead I was treated to varied vignettes and storytelling: poignant and humored, jolting and thoughtful.
          Instead of a discourse on how women are underrepresented, Eve Ensler’s monologues take the approach of sharing women’s stories.  I immediately thought of Linda Jin Kim’s doctoral thesis “Feminism without Feminists” (2010), where he revealed how the television series Sex and the City utilized female subjectivity  and confessional discourse, popular in women’s magazines and talk shows, to “privilege issues important to women” (8).  Eve Ensler’s The Vagina Monologues evinced the power of storytelling – with revealing sketches ranging from the angry vagina to a provocative vignette of the word ‘cunt.’ These individual recitals unified into one program and validated Rachel Kutz-Flamenbaum's contention that, "Performance of one kind or another is always integral to protest" (Code Pink).
          My favorite monologue was one that explored the standards by which women’s bodies are monitored and disciplined.  The discussion centered on the need to shave pubic hair.  The monologist spoke of not wanting to shave it; yet, she did and regretted it.  Her husband’s insistence reminded me Jane Caputi's discussion of objectification in her article “Pornography of Everyday Life” in which the author defined it as “to use them as a tool for their own purposes, to act as if they are a thing that you own…” (Dines 377). Given this, wasn't the woman in this monologue treated as an object – regardless of stating valid objections for not shaving, her husband insisted she was 'dirty'? More so, changing her body to fit her husband’s need to ‘remove the clutter’ spoke to women existing in the male-judging gaze.  This topic was explored in Rosalind Gill’s article “SuperSexualize Me! Advertising and the Midriffs” whereby the author asserted that midriff advertising encourages the male gaze by creating “representations of idealized beauty” (Dines 286).  Caputi, Gill and the monologue were in-synch, speaking to the disempowerment of women at the hands of following the “slim, toned, hairless body” (Dines 282). 
                The Vagina Monologues departed from discourse offered in our earlier course readings in that it was not a perspective of how male superiority and dominance subjugate women through acts of verbal condemnation. For instance, author David Nylund talked about how Tony Rome’s radio program reinforced social inequality, homophobia, and sexism thereby promoting misogyny, violence, and heterosexual dominance” (Dines 230) referring to women as ‘skanks’ and ‘tramps.’ Also in Dines’ text, author Tricia Rose emphasized in “There Are Bitches and Hoes” how rappers, like Snoop Dogg, utilize demeaning phrases which fundamentally exploit women, such as ‘bitches ain’t shit but hoes and tricks’ (Dine 387).  Clearly, these words not only incite and offend, they assert hegemonic masculinity.  However, rap musicians and talk radio hosts do not have a monopoly on words that instigate.  The Vagina Monologues used its share of evocative wording to shock us.  One monologue was fraught with the word cunt.  Another spoke of the angry vagina and the mother f***ing instruments that affront it.  Overall, while The Vagina Monologues digressed in format and attitude, each was provocative in its own unique use of media space, creating a powerful experience. 
          To be acceptably feminine, women must conform to conventional gender practices.  However, Lady Parts, a Lunafest film, entertained with an unconventional job – a woman running an auto repair business.  I thought about how this deviated from Helene Gurly Brown’s image of a woman’s success as published in her 1962 book, Sex and the Single Girl.  In it Brown targeted the growing demographic of single, working women, encouraging them to improve their social status through relationships with men – specifically by exchanging sexual favors for commodities they wanted.  Brown advocated sexual liberation for women, removing the earlier stigma of premarital sex, as a tool to advance their standing with suitable men.   In “Inventing the Cosmo Girl: Class Identity and Girl-Style American Dreams” author Laurie Ouellette contended that when 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 to improve their social status (Dines 260).  Nothing could be further from the approach taken by Mae de la Calzada, the entrepreneur and owner of Lady Parts Automotive, a repair shop in California designed by a woman for women.  Mae spoke in the film about her “inspiration, duty, pull” to help single moms.   Her objective is to “help people find a way to make things happen for themselves.” Wow!  That is the ultimate message of personal empowerment, and the dipolar opposite to Helen Gurly Brown’s message to women that women need to use their sexuality to attract a man and use his resources.  This was my favorite Lunafest film.
          The Women’s History Month presentations demonstrated the interconnection among the objectification of women, the impact of their marginalization in society, and physical violence; underscoring that "masculinity and femininity are social constructs that work together to produce a gender system that is fused with inequity, hierarchy, and violence" (Dines 367).  Vagina Monologues and Lunafest celebrated and criticized how our culture contributes to women’s identities, and by doing so, compel us to pay attention to messaging that each of us must play a part to change.  The Vagina Monologues and Lunafest are programs that emphasized a sharing of experiences, reinforcing the need to contribute to a highly-interactive society that incorporates the broad and interesting spectrum of personal choice and self-expression.

                                                               WORKS CITED

Dines, Gail and Jean Humez.  Gender, Race, and Class in Media. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Pulications, 2014. Print.

Kim, Linda Jin. “Feminism Without Feminists: Gender, Race, and Popular Culture.” UMI Number: 3426140.  UMI Dissertation Publishing. August 2010. Web. 3 April 2015.
Kutz-Flamenbaum, Rachel. "Code Pink, Raging Grannies, and the Missile Dick Chicks: Feminist Performance Activism in the Contemporary Anti-War Movement." NWSA Journal.  
             Volume 19, Number 1, March 2006, ISSN: 1040-0656.  Canvas.  4 April 2015.

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

Boys, Girls, and Toys - Oh My!

          Open a toy catalog or walk into a Toys R Us and you will find that toys are segregated by gender to an extreme degree.  There are boys' toy displays and separate aisles for girls.  The result is pressure placed on children to conform to preconceived, stereotypic roles by sex.  Look at the image below as an example.  

 

          Playing with toys is a powerful method for children to explore, grow, and experience different ways of being.  As a result, children's interests should not be limited by their gender.  If girls are presented predominately with dolls and housekeeping toys while boys play with action heroes, weapons, and adventure toys, it reinforces traditional stereotypes.  In particular, girls are influenced to believe that their role is one of nurturing and caretaking while men are freer to experience competition and dominance.  In this way notions of how people see their roles in society are acquired in childhood because differentiated play leads girls and boys to develop different skills.  As a result, girls are prepared for domestic chores and cooperation, but are not encouraged through their play to learn the rules of how to compete and win – a definite drawback in the corporate world where they will need to understand when and how to be assertive.  Conversely, while boys are readied to explore technical fields (e.g., science and engineering) through science kits and chemistry sets, they are discouraged from playing with toys that reflect domestic life.  Later, this hinders men (and frustrates women) from participating in household responsibilities – especially in dual-income households where sharing chores is a necessity.  In contrast, these skills promote men to follow career paths in science, engineering, math, and science, where women hold a particularly low level of representation. Overall, it can restrict women’s educational pursuits and career aspirations into more nurturing paths, such as nursing and teaching, not into risk-taking positions, such as hedge fund manager, or those that require being forceful and confident, such as Chief Executive Officer.
          I spoke to my parents to get a perspective about how toy marketing has changed.  In the 1950s and 60s, [when they were kids] advertising showed girls and boys playing with a wide range of toys.  They remember Fisher-Price toys, like the airport, Ferris wheel, and play phone, packaged in only one version.  That is far different from today’s toys, like LEGOS Friends, which are packaged in dollhouse-style play sets.  In the past, toys were positioned in the store by type: a doll aisle, a bicycle aisle, or arts & crafts; but not today.  Now, toy stores have “girls” displays and “boys” displays – and the same product may even be packaged in pink or blue.  This practice is called, product segmentation, and it is purely based in profit-seeking.  Companies can sell more versions of the same item when they narrow the demographics.  The LEGO Company tripled its sales in 2012, the year they introduced LEGOS Friends for girls – with a beauty salon and doll house in the kit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JDmb_f3E2c). This is the crux of Riley’s complaint (in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OrMT8Wv9mI) that “The companies who make these [toys] try to trick girls into buying pink instead of stuff boys want to buy.”

          Gender segregation in toy marketing incites an unnecessary split in children’s play and reinforces antiquated stereotypes.  We should not limit children’s options before they are even old enough to know they even had any.

Summary of The Limitations of the Discourse of Norms by Jay Clarkson

This article could be titled:  ‘To flame or not to flame’?   Is it more effective to challenge the hegemonic norms through obvious demonstration of homosexual behavior or have flamboyant gay images become outdated and ineffective? That is the question!

What the Straight-Acting Gay Men Want:
Straight-acting men would argue that antigay sentiments, and even violence, results from outwardly effeminate behavior by gay men.  Straight-acting men want to tone down this outward demonstration and not highlight their homosexuality.  They rebuff the media’s representation of the effeminate gay image, proliferated by stock media images of unmanly appearance and behavior, because it inaccurately categorizes all gay men.  Straight-acting gay men are repulsed by these displays, preferring to assimilate more closely with the actions of straight men, especially in public.  They believe in doing so that they can avoid antigay sentiments and do not risk the homophobic reactions that ensue from flaming gay conduct.  The straight-acting gay men reject the creation of a norm for all gay men, contending that it promotes homophobia and subverts acceptance in society and disagree that “flaming” gay images in the media promote a level of visibility that abets acceptance for all gay men.  They believe the time for the gay pride parades, and the expression of outwardly flaming behavior, has outlived its effectiveness. 

What the Author Contended:
The author promoted the need to continue a high degree of visibility for “outspoken, disobedient, visible gay men and lesbians” (392).  While Clarkson admits that the argument for visibility is flawed, he submitted that it is a way for minority groups, such as gays and lesbian, to influence control and show strength.  The author asserted that the effeminate gay image, proliferated by stock media images of unmanly appearance and behavior, may inaccurately homogenize all gay men.  However, Clarkson stated that it is necessary in order challenge hegemonic values so that all gay people (flamboyant or straight-acting) are accepted and to increase recognition that there is diversity in the gay community.  Clarkson conversely asserted that straight-acting gay men, who advocate a quietly gay strategy, demonstrate a submissiveness that does not contest the dominance of heterosexuals in society.  

I think that straight-acting gay men do not want society to view the media image of unmanly gay behavior and assume that it is ‘one size fits all’ for anyone who is homosexual.  I liked the author’s discussion of degrees of transgression which I interpreted meant that not everyone who is gay will look and act the same – just because they are homosexual. The author stated that visibility for the outwardly “flaming gay” is necessary in order to push acceptance for all homosexuals, while the straight-acting gay men believe that a “quietly gay” mode of operation were adopted in lieu of the events like gay pride parades, whose usefulness, they believe, has passed.  I would agree with the author that there continues to be a need for visibility to flamboyant gay sexuality as a means of “exposure, the does of variation of life” (394) because homophobia continues to oppress the gay and lesbian community and fracture our society. 

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.