Bring on the Bling

I have noticed Silverman's idea of a woman’s responsibility to show her husband’s wealth in the display of a woman's wedding ring. Instead of focusing on the beauty of the couple getting engaged, it seems so much attention is put on the size and price of this piece of jewelry. I noticed this especially with celebrity engagements in which there are full page images of a woman and her new ring. It's interesting that something that should be a symbol of love has become a symbol of wealth.

Although I agree that women can typically use their ornate dress to show their status or wealth, I argue that there are still men in many parts of society that "depend upon the gaze of the other" and are fundamentally exhibitionist. Famous rappers are drawn to purchasing the biggest, most expensive pieces of jewelry they can find and parade them all together as an over the top display of wealth. This image has became a part of the culture of the music industry and seems to represent success of the artist. The idea of the more bling the better demonstrate's the strong male desire to gain someone else's approval.

Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse

Kara Silverman’s Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse is a unique and detailed analysis on how we perceive fashion in today’s society and how it has evolved over time. One point that I thought was fascinating was the clothing we wear makes us makes our bodies culturally visible. This statement is very valid in the sense that we are constantly judging each other by the clothes we wear. We buy certain clothing to impress or attract the opposite sex, even seen through advertisements that depict how their clothing should be worn and who would normally wear it. When relating our clothing to how gender is portrayed, today’s clothing seems to fit with one’s sexual identity. Both women and men’s clothing seem to extenuate physical features that attract the opposite/same sex, and the clothing that doesn’t is considered to be “ugly”. In addition, it was interesting to read that literature tended to focus less and less on physical attributes rather then the materialistic side of beauty.

I must disagree with the author when she expresses her opinion that clothing is no longer a means to establish class but rather on gender distinction. It is important to note as well that this article dates back to 1986, where movements in “gender” were fresh new ideas that slowly became more and more popular. In my opinion we tend to link how someone dresses to ones social-economic status rather than a certain gender classification. In the 21^st century we have a very open and unique mixture of how people dress, with women and men wearing clothing that would normally be worn by the opposite sex. This idea goes with the author’s reference to Laplanche who states that our clothing is our envelope in which our ego and body is contained. Clothing has always been seen as a means for self-expression, and this idea that how we dress should reflect on whom we are is certainly true today.

A Three (Fashionable) Discourse Meal

Firstly, my title honestly doesn't have much to do with what I'm going to say, I just thought it was clever.

Secondly, I think much of the value in Silverman's essay is the fact that it analyzes something which we greatly take for granted; our vision. By inviting the reader to consider the power that our gaze, and specifically the gaze of a male towards a female, has we are engaged on not a pitying and sympathetic level, but rather of someone who is closely affected by and deeply involved in what the author has to say. So then, what does the author have to say? A lot of things, but what I feel is most interesting is the origin of how the male gaze has come to take on such significance in our society. I held the assumption that it was of course relative to a woman's sex appeal and the objectification of a woman into being something purely for a male's viewing pleasure. However, Silverman explains that it is actually more relative to money and class than either of these. What this insinuates is that women were not always necessarily seen as sexual objects but rather just objects to be adorned and utilized in the same manner one would their home. Although this is also a terrible way to see a person, which despite popular belief women are, it calls into question which is better, for a woman to be a sexual object or just an object?

It's a difficult question to answer because a woman is in both not allowed to be a full fledged person. However when one looks at the purpose behind either, to be a sexual thing or just a thing, although being only a thing allows you the malleability to perform many tasks/purposes it also separates you from being something with a pulse, which being a sexual object doesn't. When one considers this, it appears as though it might be better to be objectified sexually in that it at least gives a woman the right to be a biological being and gives her some sort of physical characteristics, albeit only erotic. In that sense, this drives the question as to whether the male gaze and the objectification of women has somehow progressed from it's simplified beginnings. If looked at logically, it seems as though the answer is yes, though that doesn't necessarily mean one shouldn't hold their applause. For if we socially can only allow women to be something if they are satisfying our sexual cravings, that we honestly haven't gotten that far. Perhaps it is time for final (dis)course (yayy my title does have something to do with what I wrote!!) and I would suggest we order the sweet taste of equality.

--Jheanelle G.

Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse

In Kaja Silverman's article, Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse, two concepts stood out to me.

In the article, Silverman states that "gender has replaced class as the primary distinguishing marker within clothing over the past two centuries". I had never really thought about clothes as labeling an individual as a certain class or as a certain gender--it was more of an expression of one's personality and how they felt. However, after thinking about it, I found Silverman's statement to be true especially in society today. When people look at how others dress, they cannot say much about the social or economic class of others. There are those who flaunt their wealth, and those who do not, and there are also those who wear expensive designer clothes even if they are not all that well-off. I have several friends who are considered pretty well off, but just by looking at their clothing, they just look like an average middle-class person. However, when people observe the clothes others wear, they make a decision whether verbally or mentally, that "that girl is a girly-girl" or "she is a tomboy" or "he is more feminine". For example, when a girl wears dresses and skirts with heals or nice sandals, she is considered more feminine than a girl who wears jeans, a t-shirt, accompanied with vans.

Another idea that stood out to me from the article is Silverman's reference to a statement made by Quentin Bell that "'the history of fashionable dress is tied to the competition between classes'". This is very relevant in society today. The competition is not necessarily between the higher economic class and the middle economic class, but more so between the higher social class and the middle social class. The fashion trends are usually worn and made by people in the higher social class, for instance, celebrities. The lives of celebrities are portrayed as glamorous and many average middle social class people strive to be like them, copying what they do, eat, and wear. The situation usually goes like this: people in the high social class are the ones who wear clothes that end up getting labeled as trendy and as "in", and the people in the middle social class see this whether it be in magazines or on TV, and try to copy what they see. In other words, it is the higher social class making trends, and the middle social class striving to become like the higher social class. However, this is a never-ending cycle because as Silverman states, "that by the time most people have access to to a given 'look', it will no longer be really 'fashionable'".

Fluctuating Female Fashion

While reading Kaja Silverman's Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse, an idea that really stuck out to me was that the sexual center of the female body is less stable than the male body.

"Female dress, on the other hand, has undergone frequent and often dramatic changes, accentuating the breasts at one moment, the waist at another, and the legs at another. These abrupt libidinal displacements, which constantly shift the center of erotic gravity, make the female body far less stable and localized than its male counterpart. I would also argue that fashion creates the free-floating quality of female sexuality"

After thinking about this for a moment, I realized how true it really was. Even in modern times, female style is frequently changing: one minute it's belly shirts, then miniskirts, then back to crop tops. The constant change is insane and does exemplify the uncertainty in female sexuality. For men, there will always be something mysterious about women, and perhaps it is this ability to change what attracts men so frequently. As Silverman goes on and quotes Flugel, he introduces the idea that the entire female body is sexualized (rather than just one part), which definitely explains why fashion is constantly changing. The curvature and softness of the female body is nice to look at from many angles, therefore men's ability to be attracted to women will remain constant, even as the focus of style changes. Perhaps men get bored with focusing on one part of the female body, and therefore influence the changes in fashion for their own pleasure.

Although this is positive for men as women will always be dressing to please them, this constant change is difficult for women. Not only does the idea of whats fashionable for clothing change, but also the most attractive body type. In the past, women wore padding to make their behinds look bigger, but now everyone wants to be skinny, but not too skinny, just healthy looking. It's all so confusing and it seems as if women are constantly being objectified and controlled by magazines and other forms of media to look a certain way. Although to some extent men feel a similar kind of pressure, all together women are more often seen as sex objects, therefore making this idea of what is 'attractive' or 'beautiful' much more difficult to constantly fill.

Fashionable Discourse: The Need To Be Judged

"In order for the child to continue to "see" itself, it must continue to be (culturally) "seen.""

This quotation from Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse by Kaja Silverman was one of the most interesting quote from the chapter in my opinion. Basically, it references the Mirror Principle and means that people only see themselves by other people's perceptions of them. I feel that this line really makes a statement about how gender inequality is constructed. Since everything only exists because someone else sees it, the distinction between male and female is only apparent because humans differentiate between the two genders. So how does this clear separation come about? Silverman argues that "clothing and other kinds of ornamentation make the human body culturally visible." This point made me wonder about why people choose to dress the way they do. Do they really have control of the way they present themselves or are they merely mimicking what they see in order to gain approval and a sense of belonging? It almost seems that the need for verification of one's identity is instilled in everyone and can only be fulfilled once one is judged.

What is even more fascinating is when Silverman asserts that, "Even our visual access to the undressed body is mediated by the prevailing vestimentary codes." While it may be true that clothing has a strong influence on how humans see each other, even without fashion and material things, the bare "nature" of humans is still shaped by the definition of gender. The separation between the two genders has become so interwoven into society that nothing can be really be "gender neutral" anymore. Like Silverman expresses, the "wearer's identity has been shaped by decades of representational activity." Everything must have a label, everything must be categorized, everything must be judged in order to fully exist.

The Feminist and the Vintage

“Feminism would seem to be in the process of repeating male vestimentary history.”

In Silverman’s article, she posits that feminism, which is for advancing women’s rights, has become almost counter-productive in terms of fashion because of its imitation of male clothing. This not only made me question the innovativeness of feminism in terms of clothing, but it also made me question the feminist movement in general. I had never really considered women wearing jeans, slacks, or tuxedo shirts to be anything but equalizing between men and women. Not until I had read Silverman’s article did I consider feminist fashion to be something of a repeat, something hackneyed of what men have already done. This made me wonder, why have men never desired to “equalize” their fashion with women’s? Why is it that women had to be the ones to change their fashion, as well as their occupations in order to gain more rights? Probably the most feminist action that I can think of is when the father stays home to raise a child and therefore is not only “equalizing” the working spheres for women and men, but also by taking the job that has traditionally belonged to a woman. Therefore, feminism cannot truly advance in fashion until women stop repeating what a man wears, and either create a new non-degrading fashion for women, or instead taking the step to normalize men repeating what women wear. Fashion has still not become sexless, but feminism has attempted at such sexlessness by repeating men’s fashion.

On a different note, Silverman’s quote that “vintage clothing is also a mechanism for crossing vestimentary, sexual, and historical boundaries,” reminded me of my annual trips to Goodwill with my church youth group. Every year we go to church camp there is a dance on the last night that typically has a theme along the lines of “neon” or something equally gag-worthy. This past year, our youth group went to Goodwill to pick out outfits, and for some reason many of the guys flocked to the “vintage” dresses while the girls were drawn to the outrageous men’s suits. For some reason, in the presence of vintage clothing, we all not only felt the need to transcend the historical boundaries of clothing for the dance, but we also felt the need to cross sexual boundaries in dress. I ended up picking out some blue and orange striped pants, an orange dress shirt, and a white dress jacket. Reading Silverman’s article, I realized that the very presence of vintage clothing compelled me to transcend and explore such boundaries because I wanted to mock present day fashion (the “neon” trend) by not only wearing something completely outdated, but also made for the opposite sex. When it comes to fashion, the statement doesn’t have to comment on the past, but it can also be used to question the current trends. What do you find more ridiculous, a woman dressed in a colorful 80’s suit, or a girl following the trend of a neon v-neck and spandex?

Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse

I found these two photos in GQ Magazine. They are apart of Barneys new ad campaign. I thought these photos were interesting because it contradicts Kaja Silverman's belief about men's fashion and the "uniform of orthodox male dress." This is probably because it's not the 80s anymore, but I think that fashion is now, more than ever, quite androgynous. The mixture of feminine and masculine in both pictures is apparent from the all pink suit (a color that is known for being "the girl color") to the two men, one wearing loose and and the other wearing tight military style pants, holding hands.
Although the men are still wearing suit tops and one could argue that, in that way, they're still wearing their manly "uniforms," I would argue that women could just as easily wear all of the clothing above and be "in style." To be honest, I had to look twice and even peer closely to check whether these models were men or women. I thought that perhaps they were trying to trick me into thinking they're men when in fact they are women. But, I think they are definitely men. Perhaps Barnys is insinuating that distinct gender clothing is going extinct.

Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse

After reading this article i thought it was really strange that gendered clothing and the difference between men and women's clothing is a recently new idea. I find it really hard to picture men and women wearing the same thing and having no distinctions. This being said i know that today there are cultures and societies where it is acceptable for men to wear what we would consider to be women's clothing. One such example is an Irish kilt. While the kilt is a socially acceptable cultural tradition in Ireland, here in the United States a person wearing a skirt might be mocked, ridiculed, and even be subject to physical harm. However i feel that women have a more lenient dress code. I say this because while men are typically limited to wearing suites to formal events or for work women can wear suites, dresses, and skirts. This to me also brings something to mind. I feel that men are required to follow a much stricter and absolute formula in their fashion. However this is not just limited to their fashion.

Another thing that i found interesting was the idea of being culturally visible. However, one thing i believe is that clothing defines us within society through price tags and name brands. For example if one were to compare clothing from different department stores (macys and Nemin Marcus) the only difference between some of the clothing is the name on the tag, although other differences do exist among other pieces, such as material and style. However, the fact that it makes such a difference to someone where they shop says a lot about culture. For example if a person was to be a plain tee shirt some people wouldnt differentiate between the macys shirt and the nemin marcus shirt. However, other people who buy into the whole its the price on the tag that matters would spend 10X the amount on the same shirt. This to me says a lot about fashion and where clothing has gone from being a shield from the elements to being another factor in differing status.

Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse

Reading Kara Silverman’s Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse I found the concept of “The Great Masculine Renunciation” intriguing. It is interesting to think about why men decided to change their fashion from “voluminous clothing and elaborate wigs” to the modern suit and tie. The article mostly discusses the idea men are somehow less fashionable after this transformation than women. I do not believe you can make this claim however. Fashion is a very personal idea, everyone has their own interpretations. As well it is impossible to compare the fashion of women and men. A nice suit and watch are the pinnacle of men’s fashion. No one can say this outfit is any less fashionable than a dress and jewelry on a woman. You cannot compare apples and oranges. Just because men no longer wear wigs and elaborate outfits does not mean they are less fashionable, it is just a style and preference that changed over the years. In fact, to compare the two means Silverman believed the two fashions were similar, or more importantly should be the same. It is possible she believes in the idea of eliminating gender norms in fashion. At the end of the article Silverman talks about how feminists almost wish to imitate male dress.

Despite the similarities in the arguments, Silverman did not agree. She believed women should wear retro clothing. The reason for this is retro clothing allows people to make decisions for themselves. Today’s fashion involves reacting to what is popular and always trying to be up to date. This means people are imitating what they believe is cool and never make decisions for themselves. Retro clothing allows people to be independent. What this should mean is Silverman does not believe in fashion at all. Therefore, why does it matter whether men or women are more fashionable and what the consequences of changing popular fashion are? While her arguments are interesting, Silverman’s ideas just did not seem to add up.

What fashion statement is being made?

Having read Silverman's "Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse," I was amazed at how well Silverman incorporated very simple, well-known observations about the world into such an insightful, compelling argument relating to gender roles. While the saying goes, "Do not judge a book by its cover," the fact remains that we all do, and fashion is an integral part of our book-covers. Male or female, we have all learned that we must modify our cover for different situations, for our fashion explicitly represents us. While going to a job interview with a messy beard or unkempt hair and wearing shorts, flip-flops, and a graphic t-shirt is inappropriate, going to watch the football game in a suit is just as laughable. Fashion rules have been constructed based on social ideologies. Since social ideologies are fluid, so is fashion. 17th century Europeans who somehow visit contemporary United States would not be so surprised by men with long hair and dress robes, but they would be somewhat appalled by women wearing pants.

I enjoyed reading Silverman's analysis of fashion and what it says of social ideology, especially in the realm of gender roles, as she validly points out that "Clothing and other kinds of ornamentation make the human body culturally visible." When she explained that women's fashion became a display of their husband or family's wealth, I could not help but think about the many times I have seen shows or movies where mothers criticize their daughters for wearing something inappropriate, following with a remark that is something along the lines of: "Don't make the family look bad." Our fashion not only represents our individual identities, but also our families and our culture as a whole. In fact, fashion probably represents culture far more than it does individuality.

Nevertheless, there are many examples of people who have utilized fashion against cultural norms and as a means of expressing one's identity. The first person that comes to mind is Lady Gaga. Her fashion, rather than her songs, is boldest marker that sets her apart from the masses. Lady Gaga has proven that an individual can use fashion to make statement instead of allowing fashion to make an individual a cultural statement, which as Silverman points out, has happened for centuries.

I found the point about the “inside-out structure of the gaze” to be really interesting and thought-provoking. I had never thought of a mirror as something that was used to see yourself from the vantage of the “Other” rather than the vantage of the self. But I think this idea is spot on. When you look in a mirror, you are seeing yourself the way that others see you. A mirror reflects your appearance from the point of view of other people. Essentially, you aren’t really looking at yourself, you are looking at how others see you. When I look in a mirror, I am checking to see if I look ok: is my hair messy, do my clothes match... I guess this new mirror idea emphasizes that I do this not really for my own benefit, but for that of others. The author explores the idea of the “function performed by the gaze of the Other.” This idea gives me a different perspective on the role that others play in shaping one’s own self-recognition. The reactions of others to one’s appearance strongly influence the way one views oneself. For example, if I am wearing a shirt and someone gives it a weird look or calls it ugly, I would be a lot less likely to wear that shirt again. The “gaze of the Other” has a much larger influence on one’s self-recognition than I had previously thought.

Another really interesting point that the author makes is about how clothes make us “culturally visible” in the eyes of others. Clothing plays such a large role in our culture because it is a defining mode of expression for people. It gives us a “meaningful form” to be able to chose to wear something, clothing or ornamentation, in order to be seen by others. Clothes make a big impression on other people. This idea of being “culturally visible” reminds me of some magazines, like People, in which there are rankings of photos of celebrities to determine who dresses the best. Our culture places a high value on the appearance of others based on their clothes. Those celebrities become seen by their clothing choices. This relates back to the importance of the gaze of the other. It makes one wonder if those well-dressed celebrities dress nicely for themselves/for their own benefit or for the opportunity to be culturally seen.

Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse

One of Kaja Silverman's main idea is that of the “male identification with woman-as-spectacle”. This idea is prevalent in the modeling industry today. Although there are male models, when most people think of the concept of a model, they usually associate it with a woman. With runway shows, it is predominantly women who put on the clothes, shoes, and makeup and walk down the runway essentially as a spectacle for the audience to see. Modeling in photos is the same. The photos are taken, usually of women with their hair and makeup done, and put in magazines as advertisements. This advertisement business is the epitome of the “woman-as-spectacle” idea in that the audience is such a wide range of people who just look at the woman and are persuaded to buy something. The audience doesn't see the woman as a real person with a personality and background, but instead just as a spectacle.

Silverman makes another thought-provoking argument in comparing clothing to an envelope that is necessary to articulate the body and thus psyche. To support this, she calls upon Freud's work, which describes the ego as "a mental projection of the surface of the body.” This idea is the fundamental basis of how people choose what clothes they wear. Their clothing often reflects their personality or or how they're feeling. Some people tend to wear brighter colors when they feel happier, or on the other hand throw anything together when they're rushed, possibly indicating stress. The style of clothing people choose also reflects how they see themselves. For example, when students here wear a USC shirt or sweatshirt, they show that they see themselves as part of the USC community and especially on football game days, it shows who they are rooting for and their pride for their school.

Silverman progresses this argument well in saying that clothes create “rudimentary distinctions between self and other” In most TV shows and movies, when a female character sees another person wearing the same thing that she is, it usually creates a conflict. The female character essentially sees her clothes as defining her identity, so when she sees another person wearing the same outfit, she shocked at the loss of the uniqueness of her identity. One of the many examples of this happens in the show I Love Lucy. There is one episode where Lucy and Ethel wear the same fancy dress. They look at each other in shock and one of them says, “I thought you were going to take yours back!” Conflict then ensues as they tear apart each other's dresses. Looking at situations like this makes it seem like there is almost too much at stake with fashion.

Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse

This article was really interesting! One of the ideas that I found particularly intriguing is that idea the 'gender specific' clothats at one point never really exsisted. For me, it isreally difficult to imagine our world with no stereotypes about what one should wear because of gender. It is really interesting to think that at one time clothes were the way in which people defined social status and not the lens through which people were judeged, as often the case is today. Although clothing today may give others a clue about what class you belong to, fashions today for mand and women are much differend where as in the 16th and 17th centuries it was harder to distinguish. Although Silverman pointed out that more 'gender specific' clothing appeared as the "volunimous clothing and elaborate wigs of noblemen slowly dwindled," I still find myself asking the questions: Where did the sterotypes in fashion come from? Today, it seems as if clothing has become another way in which society presses its stereotypes upon individuals as some fashions are seen as accepted on only some genders. I also find it interesting to think about the fact that these 'normalcies' of fashion and clothing vary by country and culture.

Another section of this article which I sfound significan was the affect that clothing has on proclamtations of sexual identity. Silverman states that, "Clothing exercises as profoundly determining an influence upon living , breathing human bodies as it does upon their literary and cinematic counterparts [...] Dress in one of the most important cultural implements for articulating and territorializing human cororeality -for mapping out its erotogenic zones and for affixing a sexual identity." It is a really interesting reminder to think about the affects that clothing has on our society and how it is used by society to define aspects of our living. Clothing is used by society to define groups of individuals and make it easier for them to identify with eachother; clothing also play a role in declaration of sexual identity as clothing has become a way through which indeividuals both define and identify themselves. In our culture, it seems as if there are imaginare boundries drawn to define the clothing that can we worn by different genders; and it also seems that whenever those boundries are crossed, judegement and condemnation is immediate. Although I can see how the different catagories and definitions of clothing help us identify with eachother better and help humans organize themselves, I also feel that these seperations can have negative affects as well. But my question is WHY? Why is it acceptable for some people to wear certain clothes and not others? Where did the mindsets come from?

Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse

"Clothing draws the body so that it can be culturally seen, and articulates it as a meaningful form."

I thought this was the most important line in the entire essay, as it captures the essence of what clothing is really for in the eyes of many, especially females. Although I realize there are countless exceptions to this, I still believe that women are the main lovers of fashion. As Silverman says in her essay, this has been occurring for a long time, with girls always dressing to impress. However, regardless of the gender, clothes always stood as a status symbol, whether it be in the 18th century, with a man wearing a "black coat, cylindrical hat, spotless linen, carefully rolled umbrella, and general air of refined discomfort" proving that he was of a dignified class, or making it appear as though he is. Even if a person then was not of such a wealthy class, the way he acted and dressed displayed otherwise. I thought it was interesting that this habit still holds very true in today's society, but especially for women.

For example, there are several women that spends large amounts of money buying designer clothing and accessories with prices that are way out of their means just so that they can make it appear as though they do actually make enough money to afford these luxuries easily. I think its ironic that people would make themselves less rich to give the appearance of being rich. In the same way that a man would put on a hat and a black coat in the 18th century to impress, a girl today slips on a Chanel bag to make others think she's of that status. However, I think it's interesting that today, most men do not do this (at least from what I know) but women do it a lot.

Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse

     While Kaja Silverman accused Quentin Bell of failing to “address the psychic consequences of [the elimination of sumptuousness in male dress] or their implication for sexual difference”, she herself only touches upon the psychological concerns which arise due to the modesty of male dress as it pertains to man and ignores the mental repercussions relevant to woman. Silverman cites Quentin Bell who explains why the wife is now the representative for both herself and her husband when it comes to displaying wealth through clothes and elaborates as herself on how the change in male dress allows new insight into the male psyche, but Silverman never elaborates on how this shift places a great pressure on woman when the matter at hand concerns clothing or even physical appearance in general. This can be observed in Sylvia Path’s poem, "Mirror". The speaker of the poem is a mirror, mirror hanging on the wall. The looking glass, after describing its likeness and expounding the opposite wall and how “faces and darkness separate us over and over” in the first stanza, finishes the poem by talking about a woman:

A woman bends over me.

Searching my reaches for what she really is.

Then she turns to those liars, the candles, or the moon.

I see her back, and reflect it faithfully

She rewards me with tears and an agitation of hands.
            I am important to her. She comes and goes.

Each morning it is her face that replaces the darkness.

In me she has drowned a young girl, and in me an old woman

Rises toward her day after day, like a terrible fish.

The woman in question is frustrated: she believes that she is not attractive enough (for society’s standards through which she observed via commercials and popular culture such as television shows or magazines) but she continues to religiously check her reflection, anyways. She is devout in this practice, which is emphasized by the concluding lines in which the mirror reveals that the woman has spent her youth being obsessed with her exterior looks and that old age is inevitable despite the woman’s emotional efforts which have continued since childhood. Her fixation on semblance is due to the narcissistic and exhibitionistic desires common to most people, but these yearnings have gone unchecked, unlike the male, and in fact have been heightened. Pop culture is filled with urges for beautification as seen in commercials, but these advertisements are directed primarily toward females and typically involve a woman claiming that a certain product manages to give her confidence/power/comfort/etc. which is enough to get her through her day/situation/etc. Women are thus constantly exposed to the notion that looks determine a significant portion of individual worth and that such goods are mandatory for daily use, which makes for a shallow and superficial society.

               

     Another compelling argument listed in the essay was that scopophilia is “a defense against castration anxiety, and a means of mastering the female subject”. Janet A. Kourany, the author of Philosophy in a Feminist Voice: Critiques and Reconstructions, states that scopophilia can be traced to “a prearticulate level of consciousness and the experience of the infant looking at the mother while suckling” (i.e. scopophilia starts at a very young age and before one can reason). As one is forming an individual identity, one also realizes “that one is not a part of the maternal body and is forever separate from that experience of primal unity,” which leads to castration anxiety, an anxiety about “loss, separation, and absence.” Kourany then continues to write that while the image of woman instills castration anxiety since woman represents the lack of union with the maternal body and the lack of phallus, they also alleviate castration anxiety since they serve as an unconscious remembrance of the maternal body, which designates women as “objects of fetishistic pleasure”. By looking at women, men thus allay castration anxiety via scopophilia, which has developed into pleasure derived from looking at another. This explains the male gaze, the inclination of works to present female characters as “subjects of implicity male visual appreciation.” The objectifying stare can be seen in media such as films or literature. For example, in the film version of George Orwell’s 1984, Julia, who was resting in the room that is on top of an antique shop with Winston, rises and walks around entirely undressed for several minutes and the camera captures her whole body. Meanwhile, the camera, when shot at Winston, would should only his upper body, if not just his head. The difference in treatment is explained by scopophilia and by how mainstream American cinema is an industry dominated by males, which leads to the products being tailored for males and causing men to assume the role of “the one who looks at women.” Through this sort of means and other outlets of culture, scopophilia leads to the catering of male tests and the subjugation of female status. 

-Jeremy

Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse

One of the most intriguing arguments made within Kaja Silverman's essay “Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse” is her definition of men as “the one who looks at women.” This deduction of men serving the role as the on looker and women as the subjects provides support for the contrasting identities of men and women. This idea of men as “the one who looks at women” is present across society on a regular basis and is exemplified at large scale events. For example, in events like weddings and dances, it is a prevalent theme to fixate on the manner in which the woman dresses. The man is always the one anxious to see what the woman wears and how it will flatter her, just like when the man awaits his bride to walk down the aisle. This idea was seen on a global scale this past summer in the royal wedding, in which the anticipation to see how Kate Middleton dressed herself was tremendous. Moreover, when the wedding was filmed, the television companies made sure to capture the look on Prince William’s face when he saw her. By focusing attention on William’s reaction, his role as an on looker or as “the one who looks at women” was epitomized.

A second compelling argument made in Silverman’s essay was her idea about the constantly transforming female dress and wardrobe and the effect it has on the way they are perceived. Female style continuously switches between accentuating different parts of a woman’s body, which, in its entirety, is seen as incredibly desirable. A female’s body can be covered in parts and then left revealed in others and still be seen as desirable, while a man only has one real area that is believed to be wanted. Thus, it is interesting to think how female dress has the ability to be so versatile and oscillate between accentuating different body parts while men are left stagnant with no real options. This diversity of female dress constitutes the many different types of dresses, skirts, tops, pants, shorts, leggings, swim suits, etc., that have become available to women over the years, and the amount of times the style of what women wear has changed. The trends of female dress change constantly, like how Fall styles change yearly as different boots, sweaters, or colors are preferred that will accentuate the woman’s body differently. In contrast, male dress has not seen the same amount of change over the years that female dress has, due to the fact that they lack the ability to accentuate different parts of their body.

Coming Out BBQ at USC

"October is USC's Coming Out Month. Come kick it off at the Coming Out BBQ with the Queer & Ally Student Assembly.  There'll be friends, fun, and of course food (catered by Buddha's Belly).  Listen to music, eat some great food and celebrate the beginning of an amazing month of events.

Information: quasa@usc.edu"

Trans-posium at USC

Thursday, Oct. 6
RTCC, Room 450 (Forum Room)
11AM-1PM

"This interactive symposium, sponsored by the USC School of Social Work and LGBT Resource Center, will feature a panel of transgender activists, medical practitioners and distinguished faculty that will address critical issues affecting transgender individuals. The purpose is to provide students, faculty and staff members from the School of Social Work and special guests an in depth understanding of the transgender community that will create strategies for an improved working relationship.
Food provided!
RSVP: https://uscstudentaffairs.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8wFnSDHOyR2iilm
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=119466671490149"

Gender Conflict Story from Inside a Federal Prison

A story has been on my mind lately and I'm curious to see what you guys think about it.

Background info: My mom is a psychologist at a male federal prison in LA where she councils the inmates. People always ask her what's one of her best stories and she tends to bring up this one.

One of my mom's inmates is extremely muscular and very intimidating. So he sits down for my mom's routine session one day and says, "I'm a woman." This part always gets a big laugh. Then he tells my mom, "And I'm actually a lesbian woman." Everyone always says when they here that, "Oh my god that is so weird!"

Then my mom: "What does your wife have to say about this?"

Inmate: "Oh she's so happy about it! Because she confessed that she's a lesbian too!"

My mom: "And what does your daughter think?"

The inmate: "She's also a lesbian! We're one big lesbian family!"

People are always roaring at this point. Before this class, I would laugh too and agree that this is "so weird." I think it's interesting that after just one month of learning about gender conflicts I feel so different about it. It makes me sad that this story is considered entertaining and how just because this man isn't necessarily typical people laugh at him.