In the article “Fat is a Feminist Issue” by Susie Orbach,
She goes in depth about her opinion that being fat a issue only for feminist
(and no one else). She claims that woman predominantly have only two roles, which
are a sex object and then simply as a mother and house wife. Women can go through
both of these. First the woman must appeal sexy, thin, and simply a “sex
object” so she can later on be a mother. Basically she is saying that this is
the only way and if you fat or overweight (which 50% of woman in the US, says
Orbach) then it can get in the way of being seen as sexy and a sex toy. However
she also suggests that woman get fat can be understood as a “define and
purposeful act”, this means that she believes women will gain weight, eat
whatever they want, and get fat just o escape the stereotype or being a sex
toy, they are “challenging the sex-role and the culturally definition of
womanhood. As for the article “Having it his way” by Carrie Freeman and Debra
Merskin, they all go along the lines of feminist topics and what it is and how
society is following or creating the gender norms. Freeman and Merskin claim
that just something as simple as different types of food can relate back to a
man or woman, for example Meat. Meat is coordinated back to man and somehow
relates to men more than woman? They give numerous examples of fast food
commercials showing manly meats while they are promoting their food, like
burger king, Carl’s Jr, Jack in the box, and a few other fast food chains. They
all have in common meat and men selling it, for the most part there are not any
woman in these commercials.
In both passages the authors are trying to say (argument)
that eating and food can relate back to feminize and even way back to gender
norms. The examples of formats they use are commercials and real statistics and
their audience is everyone! Anyone who watches or has seen the fast food commercials
is a victim and didn’t even know it. But all three authors sole purpose is to
show us how everyday things like FOOD can relate back to gender norms and feministic
things.
I agree in the way you speak about these articles. Much of it from both authors seems to relate back to gender norms and how word association in society is a thing many of us unknowingly do. We hear words like diet and calorie counting and often think of women while hearing the words grilling or meat of any kind we think of men. Both authors wrote these articles in order to bring to light how these words even though they have no gender conjugation we still tie into a deeper meaning and both authors see it in a little bit of a bad light because why should fat be only a women’s issue and why should meat not be allowed to be a women’s word. Susie Orbach wrote her article with a tone of suggesting in that even though looks can matter they should equally matter and if anyone takes the time to get to know someone not based on looks that is truly when they will be able to know or feel if there is a true connection. Its almost like having a crush but being afraid to speak up because of what people might say about your preferences when it could be something not based on looks at all but rather the chemistry and emotional connection felt by both parties. Although I do not agree with her entirely when she says being fat is a sign of defying the womanhood and sexuality rules because this is more of an assumption than a fact. Many women could just have certain genetics or body types and it does not necessarily show the rebellion to the system she talks about, but it very much could.
ReplyDeleteI can agree with fact that food can play a role in gender norms and inequalities. Both of the authors make a point of the fact that the media has magnified the the associations of men with meat and women with vegetables. I do not see a problem with men eating more meat than women but the media has taken that difference and has ran with it. In Freeman's and Merskin's article, they showed the analysis of some fast food commercials. Researched showed that men monopolize these commercials with meat with objectified women in the background. These are subtle ways of deepening these gender differences. Although, some parts of the articles, I felt the authors were over exaggerating a bit. Orbach states that "fat expresses a rebellion against the powerlessness of the women." which i believe is total bs. Being fat expresses a rebellion against conformity. Being skinny is what society wants women to be so by not obsessing over what your size that makes you a nonconformist. A women being fat is not going to fix gender inequality; it will not give women more rights. In Freeman's and Merskin's article, they talked about ecofeminist perspectives on meat and patriarchy. I agree there is an connection between men, meat, and power, but i do not believe that is where the gender inequality lies. If men and women had the exact same diet, there would still be feminist fighting for gender equality. This not the battle women should be fighting.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what you are saying, but you have to look at who he audience is. Men will always be the audience in cases like this because as it was stated men tend to eat more and tend to eat in portions that show that they are men. It is and will probably always be a gender thing to where men will play the leading role in fast food commercials and women will simply be there just as the sex object. If you think about it, it’s more of how we view things. I mean if they were to portray the food as having sex with an animal we would see it as morally wrong but by making their audience men and trying to sell the product which is the food they make the sex object which in a man’s case would be a women then we see it as ok. By doing this they are putting in to play the gender norms that all men want is sex and all women are good for is sex. Even in “Human Anthropological Connections with Eating Meat” by Carrie Packwood and Debra Merskin they say that were seen as the revered sex for their roles as food gathers and procreators. Since men were the ones hunting for the food and they would search for the biggest animal to kill. This is why women wouldn’t be the buyer because they are seen as in capable of hunting their food but very capable of staying fit which is probably why they are mostly the cover for weight loss products.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of what you said. Susie Orbach’s article really kept my attention throughout the entire passage just because there were things I found to be a bit too much but still at the same time made sense. I think she focuses more on the content, like her point of view and how this effects others. The part that Orbach said that really frustrated me was “To get a man, a woman has to learn to regard herself as an item, a commodity, a sex object.” Being a woman, this was really insulting, so what it's saying is for me to find love I have to treat myself as a object and look in perfect condition all the time? That's not right. People can’t help their curves or characteristics. I still enjoy this passage just because as much as I disagreed with what she was saying I still found it easy to focus on. In “Having it His Way”, the author seemed to focus on format. The part where they say “we argue that heteronormative, sex role stereotypes promoted in fast food commercials are as unhealthy as the food itself” was a good interpretation of how advertisements are representing people negatively. They talk about things in life that attract people's attention. For example, the fast food ideas show how they relate to men eating meat and women eating more plant-like substances. Men are on meat advertisements usually and women don't tend to be on any. I do agree with your purpose, it seems like the main point of both these articles were to relate them to feminism and masculinity.
ReplyDelete