- JOURNAL REFLECTION -

After working on my journal on body images it is time for a final reflection. Trying to keep my critical eyes wide open to all kinds of body images helped me in calling the rigid norms of our society into question and to become more sensitive to things out of the “ordinary”. I mean out of society's idea of ordinariness. Furthermore, I've learned about the body as a mere shell, a slowly weakening, decaying container that restricts the mind's possibilities and makes the human being vulnerable. Nevertheless, we're dependent on the body and should care for it just as we care for our mind.

All of my journal entries dealt with the idea of conforming or non-conforming to standards and its consequences that determine us. Consequences of approval or disapproval from people we interact with. But for the system of our contemporary culture to prevail it needs our cooperation, our assistance. We need to function properly in the machinery of society, which is in itself a body and its limbs. This is why we're bombarded with images that graft the ideals of right and wrong, good and bad just as all of the other binary opposites. Thus we have a need for categorization in order to define ourselves and our rank in society. This conduces the desire to obtain control over the world we live in. A means of control is exclusion and marginalization for the purpose of securing of power distributions. Needless to say, this is rooted in our history and therefore in arbitrariness. It is as if someone declared it has to be just like this and from then on people followed. In my opinion, there is no deeper meaning behind it. Even deconstructioning culture now would be pointless. We're too dependent on it.

We can't help it, we all have more or less fallen victim to our own culture, which spreads discomfort for those on the receiving end, because it's all about ideals on how the world and we, the people in this world, should be. I don't mean we're all poor, pitiful creatures that suffer throughout our whole lives. I just wanted to point out, that everyone is influenced by cultural notions thus everyone can possibly feel a sense of incompleteness because of not meeting all requirements of the virtuous human being. There is a kind of burden closely related to this unfulfilment. 

Of course society's ideals challenge us, but maybe it is time to overcome commandments on how to be "proper" and bans on forming our own personality. We need to face problems of stereotype thinking, we need to face intolerance and contempt and finally to solve those problems reasonably.

Well, this is nothing but my ideal.

BEAUTY AS CONSTRUCT

What constitutes beauty? Somehow we can't precisely define it although we immediately know if something is beautiful when we perceive it. But we don't only have our own notion of beauty, which is dependent on our very personal senses; there is another one that is taught to us by culture. Whenever we consider someone beautiful at a first glance it is because of the outward beauty of the body. Usually, it is the face that appeals to us by one means or another. Of course beauty is also on the inside but this kind of beauty is - as far as I can see - detached from the cultural construct of external beauty, which I want to talk about.

 
Last year's L'Oréal campaign with the overly retouched Julia Roberts caused a big stir in the UK, which led to the ban of the ad. The issue was that her face looked far too unblemished after the Photoshop makeover.

No wrinkles, no rings under the eyes. The ad wants to make believe that Lancôme's product "Teint Miracle" makes Julia Roberts' face flawlessly perfect. In fact we have to thank Photoshop for this. Politics were concerned about the unrealistic portrayal of beauty this ad conveys, especially in view of the increasing amount of eating disorders in the past 15 years. Additionally, in this case everybody knows that the world-famous celebrity Julia Roberts does not really look like that.

Here is the real 42-year-old Julia Roberts:

Why does the media fool us like this? It's pointless. For her age, she is still a very beautiful woman. To me, the makeover (in all ads) just reveals that the beauty image the media serves us and we strive for is basically a generally accepted illusion. But nonetheless people fall for those illusions, break because of the lies they are told. Lies, that's what it is. A digitally enhanced beauty ideal that is unattainable. Neither cosmetic surgery nor any kind of magic cure is able to erase the signs of time in our faces and on our bodies. We can't modify ourselves in the same way Photoshop can. Wouldn't it be dull if we all were the same?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Sources:

The Daily Activist

Skinny vs Curvy

FACES OF METH

I have often wondered what it feels like to be on drugs. What does it feel like to be craving for the next trip to feel invincible for a couple of hours and then be kicked back into a vicious hangover with deep depressions and other withdrawal symptoms? What does it feel like to disconnect yourself, to have no control over your actions? Always attempting to exceed the previous ecstasy. I have really no idea. The closest I've come to addiction is candy. Being full up with food still making room for a dessert. I don't think that this could possibly bear any proper relation to drug addiction. But taking a look at those faces below, I know I won't ever try to figure it out.

2.5 years later                                   1.5 years later

2.5 years later                                   3 months later

Those four people are part of the U.S. "Faces of Meth" drug prevention project, which intends to display the horrifying effects of methamphetamine consumption. Methamphetamine, or meth, is one of the fastest self-destroying drugs there is and it has high dependence potential. Due to the fact that meth is very inexpensive it can be a hazardous starter drug. Especially poor people turn to meth easily.

What puts someone up to take this drug? What puts people up to take drugs anyway?

There must be some point in their lives where they either made a deliberate decision to do it or their circumstances, their helplessness made them do it. 

Taking drugs means you intoxicate your body. On meth you feel self-confident, you feel communicative, you feel attractive and you feel invincible. You need neither sleep, nor food or drink. But this lasts only for a couple of hours. The more meth you take the more it will change who you are on the inside and outside. The drug will weaken your immune system; you will tremble, perspire and lose weight. Furthermore, it will cause skin inflammations, alopecia (loss of hair), tooth exfoliation, cardiac arrhythmias (heart problems), insomnia, paranoia and schizophrenia. You'll be aggressive. You'll become another you and this other gains the upper hand. You're not in control anymore. Meth will eat its way through your body, consume you to finally ruin you. From the pictures above one can see that those people are only the shadow of their former selves because the drug destroys them gradually. These pictures are from 2005. I don't know what happened to the people. All I know is this drug is fatal.

 

APPETITE

A lot of images we perceive in everyday life are images from the media. Media can be regarded as the cultural instance, which constantly attempts to manipulate us, the receiver, and therefore our worldview with its one-sided transfer of current social norms. Its purpose is of course to maintain and reinforce cultural constraints of male and female behavior.

This 2006 Burger King commercial features men's anthem to the Texas Double Whopper and their unrestrictable preference for meat. The message is simple, "EAT LIKE A MAN, MAN!" and decline "chick food". No small orders, no quiche, no tofu. This isn't male. 

Male appetite is animalistic since men "go on the prowl" for beef and their need is "incorrigible". Women have no power over men's diet as we can see when the singer is striding out of the restaurant at the very beginning of the commercial. They, women, are not allowed to tell what is good for men and what is not. The recipient of this commercial learns that men are permitted to snarf down their food, while women are by comparison almost "starving" due to their low diet. Male appetite is therefore not subject to the same cultural norms as female appetite. Men are free to choose whatever they'd like to eat, preferably the Texas Double Whopper, just because they are men. Well, maybe it's not choosing at all, it's rather an irrepressible claim for something greasy and beefy. No one can deny men to appease their hunger. Female appetite, on the other hand, is completely regulated from above to make women conform to society's ideal of attractive slenderness. In fact, females' constant denial of food, the permanent unfulfilled need of being sated can lead to serious disorders. The lack of contentment, hunger, is in such cases often covered up with the veil of a healthy diet to avoid obesity. This is also closely linked to the fitness trend. But for men, there's no reason to be slim, they can batten. It's a sign of prosperity. 

So, what is this ad for? None of the presented images are getting close to a balanced diet we all should strive for. Certainly, we have to accept this ad as nothing but an exaggerated portrayal of men's eating habits but it's nonetheless implying how appetite needs to be dealt with these days. We have two extremes, namely intemperance and disallowance and we are reminded what our tendencies are according to our gender. Males are supposed to tend to the one extreme and females to the other. Burgers are okay for men, not for women. 

I'd suggest we place ourselves somewhere in between the extremes but we still can't help keeping culture's guidelines in mind when it comes to our appetite.

At long last, this burger has roughly 1050 calories. No soda, no fries. Bon appétit!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Another commercial's instruction on how to be a man:

DON'T BE SUCH A PANSY

tomboy [ˈtɒmˌbɔɪ]  

- a girl considered boyish or masculine in behavior or manner

- a girl who acts or dresses in a boyish way, liking rough outdoor activities

How come there is no male equivalent to a tomboy?
Why is it that being a boyish girl is widely accepted but being a girly boy is always derogative and inextricably connected with accusations of being gay?


When it comes to performing gender it feels like women in general are freer these days than men are. Somehow they succeeded in transcending the confines of the historical idea of "woman" and added meaning to it. Presumably, our contemporary culture could only get rid of the housewife-image because there were women who actually performed more manly so to say, taking matters into their own hands apart from home (e.g. career women). This doesn't imply the process of adding meaning to reality was an easy one, since it was certainly derided, but people accustomed to it over time. Nor do I think that this could affect the rigid power relations between masculinity and femininity. What I want to point out is that while woman expanded their field of gender performance by gaining access to male domains, men's gender role seems to stay fixed, still denying them to show a sensitive, compassionate side. (Well, I have to admit that at least the men's attitude towards grooming changed partially.) However, there are nonetheless a lot more "don'ts" for men than there are for women in terms of their acting in society.

Just take a look at last year's Toemageddon

BLACK AND WHITE TWINS

A couple of months ago, I stumbled across the BBC Two report "Twincredibles", which gave an insight into the lives of mixed-race twins. The term mixed-race twins basically means that one child is dark-skinned, whereas the other one is light-skinned. This is extremely rare and therefore extraordinary. 

One set of twins shown in the report was James and Daniel Kelly, two very different brothers from South East London not only differing in terms of skin color but in terms of character traits. James being confident and academic; Daniel being shy and more athletic. But what struck me the most was the fact that Daniel, the light-skinned twin, fell victim to severe bullying at school because of his Afro-Caribean origin.
 

Everything went well until someone in school figured out that James was Daniel's fraternal twin brother. Then verbal assaults and physical attacks started. From that point on, Daniel was labeled black despite the fact he is obviously a white person. The big issue is that James was accepted by the bullies as a regular black man in a black man's body but on the contrary, they considered Daniel as a black man in a white man's body.
But, what is it that makes the white man white; the black man black? The explanation for the difference in the twins' skin color is very simple. The twins' father Errol passed on his African DNA to James and his European DNA to Daniel. 

I think people may felt threatened by him. Or even slightly cheated on? For they didn't notice any difference and they probably think they should have since, though on the surface Daniel is a proper white man, he is black on the inside. They regarded him as "dirty white", as the twins' brother Jordan put it. Here it's really not the skin color that identifies you, it's your genetic make-up and how others perceive it. So Daniel got marginalized by his white fellow students to make sure that he is not part of their white community because of him being the offspring of a black man that cannot be pure white. This whole distinction is ridiculous. To me, the idea of impurity proves that being black or white is nothing but a social construct. Somehow people desperately need to categorize others, need to identify the other in order to finally make sense of their own being. 

I wonder what it will be like when mixed-race couples get more and more prominent and what it would be like when this whole idea of purity collapses. 
Will we ever get rid of stereotypes and labels?
Will we ever stop considering "the other" as something alien?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Sources:
The Guardian
Youtube

CHILD BEAUTY PAGEANTS

Remember when you were little and people asked you what you wanted to be when you grow up? I guess, at least once, your answer was "I'm going to be a star" or "I'm going to be rich and famous". Of course you want to be famous as a child since the bright and shiny world of television leads you to believe that once you're a star, everyone will love and accept you. Now, how does your loving and caring mother help you to make your wish come true? - She signs you up for a beauty pageant!

How can a mother say she loves her daughter and at the same time force her to compete with other girls in a beauty pageant? How can she sincerely tell her that she's the most beautiful girl in the world and at the same time change everything about her? Fake tan, fake hair, fake lashes, fake teeth, fake smile plus flamboyant outfit and high heels if possible. Don't forget about the nose or ear correction! I'm sorry, but it's disturbing and insane. To me, these girls were transformed into their mothers' little Barbie Dolls who represent everything they could not accomplish themselves. Nevertheless, such pageants are still not banned, in fact they boom. Those parents teach their kids that (fake) outward beauty and winning at all costs is everything. Even at the cost of their kids' childhood. Since how are those girls supposed to be children if life is a perpetual competition for attention and appreciation? Will mommy still be pleased if a better clone version of her daughter wins the pageant? What about those who lose? Self-consciousness, lack of self-assessment, self-doubts? Frustration, depression, burnout? Probably an eating disorder? What about the danger of sexualization of those little girls?

I dare say that the girl's overall burden is her mommy's unbounded ambition to shape her own flesh and blood according to her idealized conception of beauty. That's what it's all about and unfortunately mommy can't let go.

I was wondering about a tangible definition of childhood. But, as there is no such thing as a perfect, ideal childhood, here is my notion of what it should be like:

• as a child you're childish
• as a child you love to play
• as a child you're curious
• as a child you lack maturity
• as a child you're not making life-changing decisions
• as a child you don't have a job
• as a child you lack the worries of the world

In the case of child beauty pageants, the participants hardly meet my expectations of being real kids. Somehow, they're somewhere in between. No longer child, not yet a teen nor an adult. Mere puppets whose masters are mad and infected with an bizarre ideology of beauty that leads to their own self-hatred, which can only be overcome by fully controlling the child's body to finally conform to this nasty, deceitful society. This is no act of devotion. At least this is what I think.

But what about real beauty? Isn't it a construct as well? Why do we smile for pictures? Why do we consider smiling pleasant anyway?

Would these cuties ever win a beauty pageant?

Sometimes the outside really can reflect our inner self and reveal the inner beauty. To me, beauty means variety and is, first and foremost, an individual perception. Due to culture, beauty is subject to change, but even if it changes, culture's stereotypical concept of beauty affects us all in everyday life. We can't help it - it's simply because it is deeply embedded in our minds.