I cannot tell a lie, I was a teenybopper. I grew up listening to (and obsessing over) N'SYNC, Backstreet Boys, and 98 Degrees. My role models consisted of Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, and Jessica Simpson. My eighth grade year was spend daydreaming of JC Chasez and hoping one day a nice guy would "rub me the right way." Looking back, everything was so innocent and wholesome. But things change and people grow up. Unfortunately for my role models this meant a complete 180 degree change from their bubblegum image to a hyper-sexed "performer" (we all remember Christina and her Dirty video). Apparently, to be a successful female entertainer you have to show a little... well a lot of skin.
Last month's GQ shows that the trend continues with the girls of "Glee." Scantily dressed in mini skirts and underwear, while running around a high school locker room, the female stars of the popular show revealed a little too much. I shouldn't be surprised by the steamy photos, Victoria Secret ads are just as revealing. However, there was something about this photo spread that didn't seem right. Although the show is known for its "generous helping of pot-laced brownies, girl-on-girl- subtext, and choreographed dry-humping," I couldn't help but notice how different the male and female stars were portrayed. Cory Montieth, one of the male leads, is fully dressed, either in a long sleeve sweater or overcoat, and is shown playing a drumset. Dianna Agron and Lea Michele, on the other hand, are wearing close to nothing and are shown either straddling a bench or ripping a part their shirts.
My first thought, why isn't Cory shirtless? My second thought , why are the girls in their underwear? These questions can easily be explained with responses like it's a men's magazine- guys don't want to see guys shirtless, sex sells, and it's all for fun. But these responses still don't explain the extreme difference in how the male and female leads of Glee were portrayed.
In Good Girls Gone Wild Frank Bruni suggests that there is a cycle young female performers must go through if they want a chance at surviving in the "business." Female performers can start off naive and innocent, but must eventually break away from their bubblegum image if they want to appeal to the masses. Thus, to wind up somewhere in the middle, female performers must take drastic steps away from the image that made them popular. Unfortunately, unlike their male counterparts who can easily mature through their talent, female performers must show their maturity and talent in a more obvious way. Bruni explains,
for a child actress or singer looking to establish maturity, flesh is the fastest and most attention-getting route... for their male counterparts? In a sexist world, it doesn't work quite the same way.Of course there are some outliers, Taylor Swift, who seem to have avoided their "erotic emancipation." But what is the future of young female performers? Does success really require so much skin? More importantly, what kind of message are we sending our youth, especially the young girls who help make these female performers famous by idolizing them during their bubblegum stage? There are no clear answers to any of these questions, but there is hope that things may (start to) change. For various reasons, including the finding that media has become an integral part of youth's lives and three of the most common mental health problems among girls, eating disorders, depression or depressed mood, and low-self-esteem, are linked to sexualization of girls and women in the media, the legislature has introduced the Healthy Media for Youth Act. If passed it would provide grant money to promote media literacy and youth empowerment, provide reserach on the role and impact of girls and women in the media on youths' development, and created a National Task Force on Girls and Women in the Media.
6 comments:
I'd actually add a third step to this cycle- cleaning up and becoming a (moderately) "good girl" again. Xtina goes from wearing chaps to a classy retro look. Angelina Jolie goes from being a wild child to being Mother Teresa. US magazine touts how motherhood has helped get Britney Spears back on track. It's a constant swing between "virgin/good mother" and "whore" to keep the public's interest and sympathy.
I also think the messages are fairly mixed from the beginning. Chuck Klosterman talks about how early Britney Spears was marketed as a "wet-hot virgin" and Tony Sclafani has argued that talking about not having sex is just another way for teen stars to draw attention to their sexuality.
And even the "bad" girls are careful to distinguish themselves from those other "bad" girls. Katy Perry and The Like have both acknowledged that they present themselves sexily, while at the same time criticizing Lady Gaga for going too far.
The problem is not just that female celebrities are expected to sell sex- it's that they're expected to simultaneously deny or apologize for doing so.
As an initial matter, I was rather shocked by how provocative the GQ photo spread was. I don't actively read GQ, so I am not sure whether this particular spread was typical for the magazine, but I was always under the impression that GQ was a more tasteful magazine.
To me, the photo series is fairly devoid of any artistic merit. I don't watch Glee, but from what I know of it, it seems that it is a show that appeals to a sizeable segment of adolescents in America. To me, the photos basically amount to softcore pornography.
I think the societal observations of Alcestis' post and Kate's comment are very interesting - especially when considered together. I do agree with Alcestis' observation that generally, a large number of wholesome female stars do hit a transition point where their persona of wholesomeness or innocence gives way to sexual knowing. At the same time, I can see Kate's point that certain stars who have done this are able to again transition away from being solely a sex symbol.
It seems to me that a female star who is able to make this "third transition" probably has more "substance" to offer as an entertainer than just physical attractiveness. This is not to say that an otherwise talented entertainer would not still consciously choose to trade on sex appeal, but it also seems possible that an entertainer who solely trades on sex appeal may not have any more substantive talent.
I am a former (or currently closet, as I have a professional legal reputation I am trying to build at the moment) teenybopper as well!
Anyway, on the other end of the spectrum, or rather maybe on the same end of the spectrum because the problem stems from the same source still, is the fact that the general consensus, from my understanding of it, looks to me like female stars have a much more popular fanbase than males do because of the fact that they are being over-sexed in their media portrayals. Yet, it would seem odd to me if teenager male stars attempted to do the same thing. What would "over-sexing" the look and general image for a male star even look like? While a girl simply dresses more scantily clad to show off cleavage or just skin in general, a male showing up shirtless more often in photoshoots doesn't really seem to me as if that would lead to his popularity as much as the equivalent for a female star. In that vein, it seems to me as if there isn't even an opportunity for male celebrity to use the "quick fix" route of popularizing their status. They merely have to be objectively attractive or just take on some heartthrob role (read: be in a boyband, croon cheesy love songs, or star as the hero or knight-in-shining-armor in some trashy teen movie . . . or novel) and they seem pretty set.
I had a different take on the GQ magazine spread. GQ and other major pop culture magazines have always pushed the envelope with their celebrity photos. It’s really more of a business decision, to sell their magazines; they need to keep up with the demand. The demand today is exactly what it has been for the past few decades, Sex. Magazines have, in my opinion, become more and more sexual simply because it is now the norm. In the 1950s, a magazine like Maxim, which is far more provocative then GQ, would surly not be displayed next to the cashier at the checkout in a super- market. Today, however, there is no way to avoid these types of magazines, with their overemphasis on cleavage, in virtually any checkout stand in America.
Also, I think that as Celebrities age, they become more appealing to other markets, which essentially drives them to change their image. Miley Cyrus, for example, started out as a child star on the Disney network. She mostly appealed to the young teen market. As she is approaching the age of 18 and is becoming more developed, however, she has started to slowly shed her child star image so that she can be marketed for a more adult demographic, by doing more provocative movies and photo shoots. Essentially, to move between different markets, celebrities must often change their persona to conform to a new demographic.
I had a different take on the GQ magazine spread. GQ and other major pop culture magazines have always pushed the envelope with their celebrity photos. It’s really more of a business decision, to sell their magazines; they need to keep up with the demand. The demand today is exactly what it has been for the past few decades, Sex. Magazines have, in my opinion, become more and more sexual simply because it is now the norm. In the 1950s, a magazine like Maxim, which is far more provocative then GQ, would surly not be displayed next to the cashier at the checkout in a super- market. Today, however, there is no way to avoid these types of magazines, with their overemphasis on cleavage, in virtually any checkout stand in America.
Also, I think that as Celebrities age, they become more appealing to other markets, which essentially drives them to change their image. Miley Cyrus, for example, started out as a child star on the Disney network. She mostly appealed to the young teen market. As she is approaching the age of 18 and is becoming more developed, however, she has started to slowly shed her child star image so that she can be marketed for a more adult demographic, by doing more provocative movies and photo shoots. Essentially, to move between different markets, celebrities must often change their persona to conform to a new demographic.
Interestingly, I've heard a debate about Taylor Swift and whether she actually does fall outside of this stereotypical "good girl" "bad girl" "show a lot of skin" scenario. This debate centers around Swift's penchant for singing about being an outcast and sitting on the bleachers, but still being incredibly beautiful herself and perfectly put together. Of course, much of this goes towards what sells music and having a beautiful woman sing about having grown into her beauty, sells music to teenage girls. However, it is true that much of her music is about...boys. Isn't this just telling teenage girls that boys are what make you pretty?
For a more comprehensive look at this debate: http://www.autostraddle.com/why-taylor-swift-offends-little-monsters-feminists-and-weirdos-31525/
Post a Comment