Heteronormativity and Gender Norms - Assignment Example

Do editor’s letters in magazines reflect and adhere to heteronormativity and gender norms? This study was conducted to identify gender normsand heteronormativity in letters from editors in magazines. After reviewing two magazine’s editor’s letters, I reviewed them for gender biased language and adherence of heteronormativity. After analysis it was decided that these two magazines, one aimed at women and the other aimed at men, did in fact contain harmful gender-biased language. Introduction The use of language conveys much more than merely what is said; anything from a person’s socio-economic background, education level, ideological beliefs, to a person’s attitudes towards issues of gender. The goal of this essay is to investigate heteronormativity and gender norms within letters from magazine editors. The magazine editors are the gateway for all of the content that goes through their magazine. In this way they ultimately they decide the tone of the content for their respective magazines. Any assumptions that the editors make about gender would be apparent in the content of their magazine. In the editor’s letters section, which is the only place they use their own language, their language can be examined to ascertain whether or not they adhere to heteronormativity or gender norms in their own use of language. As the magazines reviewed for this piece are widely read, they carry a large amount of influence in the way people will be viewing gender. If these magazines carry harmful gender assumptions, then this should be noted and attempts to persuade these magazines to carry more respectful language can be made. After a reviewing previous literature in this field, I will then explain why I chose the particular magazines for this study, describe my findings, and analyze and discuss them. Literature Review Mary Talbot, (1992) in her article “A Synthetic sisterhood: False friends in a teenage magazine,” comments on the way that magazines targeted at young females attempt to build a false relationship with their readers by attempting to appear as their readers’ friends. Stating that part of any person’s needs are to be able to identify with a particular group in order to have a sense of belonging, the author states that these magazines are assert false images in their readers’ minds about the ways that females are supposed to look, and states that these magazines are guilty of leading readers into this false sense of friendship in order to sell magazine: “The beauty feature is not a piece of sisterly advice or an exchange of sisterly secrets; it is covert advertising, a consumer feature.” Carrie Paetcher (2003) writes in “Masculinities and Femininities as Communities of Practice” that treating masculinities and femininities as localised communities of practice is a helpful approach to the questions concerning when certain gender forms are performed at certain times. Taking the Judith Butler view of gender, the author sees gender as a performance, and in this performance are different ways in which people act given differing circumstances. The author then discusses the implications of this to our identities as reified markers of masculinity and femininity (69). Ken Hyland (2005) states that there has been much written about the ways in which texts can be viewed as an interaction between the author and the readers. By presupposing the role of active addressee, the writer projects a stance in the materials addressed in the text. By reviewing two hundred forty texts, the author attempts to fill in gaps left by previous studies in this field. Using stance and engagement as models, the author examines the ways in which preferences in the methodologies of discourse construct both writer and reader. Methodology The magazines reviewed were FHM Men’s magazine, British edition, and Cosmopolitan Ladies’ magazine, ladies edition. These two magazines were chosen because they had a similar price range and were targeted at similar demographics in the two sexes. They are both monthly magazines targeted at a younger age range. In order to establish the gender normalizing taking place with these two letters, it was necessary to read through them carefully considering the gender of the individual writing these letters. It was then important to identify key use of language that surfaced defining societal views on gender. Each of the two letters held a specific element of language that was key in pin pointing assumed gender roles. Data and Results In the letter by the FHM editor, Anthony Noguera, (2008) there is a direct comparison between women and a piece of meat (a filet mignon, to be exact). There is also reference to the editor’s puzzlement as to why a man would cheat on Cheryl Cole, holding her up as a standard of beauty. Referencing another article in the magazine, the editor drew attention to the idea that men must diet and exercise in order to appear attractive to the opposite sex. In the Cosmopolitan letter by editor Louise Court, (2008) Scarlet Johansson is held up by to be a standard of beauty. There is also a scale in which the editor placed most women as desiring to look like Scarlet Johansson. The letter states that it is refreshing that Scarlet Johansson felt that she was flawed, but that these flaws were acceptable because they are acceptable flaws. The letter ends by mentioning an offer for tickets to a Katherine Heigel movie and 20% off for manicures. Analysis The language in these letters does adhere to gender norms and heteronormativity. These letters assume that the readers are heterosexuals that have the same values as the creators of the magazine. The language of the FHM letter is especially sexist. In attempting to explain why a man would cheat on Cheryl Cole, who the magazine holds up as a standard of beauty, the letter compares cheating on a woman as beautiful as Cheryl Cole to eating filet mignon steak everyday and then deciding to eat McDonald’s for a change of pace. This is a direct comparison to a woman as a piece of meat. Generally, when men use language that objectifies women, making them feel less of a person and more like a lump of flesh, a piece of meat, it isn’t normally because there has been a direct comparison made. In this case there was. The language in this piece plays right into gender roles; men are supposed objectify women. Also, there is put forth the idea that men need to be “toned” in order to be appealing to women such as Cheryl Cole. The editor was merely making mention of another article in the magazine that featured extreme ways in which men diet in order to lose weight. This mention still played into ideas of physical beauty and heteronormativity. By placing Cheryl Cole as an example of what appeals to men and stating that he didn’t understand how any man could cheat on her, the editor was making the assumption that the readers of the magazine were all heterosexuals. There was no mention made about what a man that wasn’t attracted to women would think; he already stated that he doesn’t understand the idea. By stating that this was an idea that he couldn’t understand, he was placing heterosexuality as the dominant and correct way in which to think; it was abnormal if a man didn’t think that Cheryl Cole was attractive as he thought that she was. In this way he adhered to heteronormativity. By implying that the man shouldn’t have cheated on Cheryl Cole because she was being raised to a standard of beauty, the editor was placing her physical aspects as the most important part of her. This again is objectifying her. It did not matter if the man and Cheryl Cole’s personal relationship was good or not; the man should have been happy just to be lucky enough to be with a woman that is as attractive as Cheryl Cole. She has been completely stripped of her personality or anything that goes beyond her mere physical appearance. The Cosmopolitan letter, even though it was attempting to put forth the view that it didn’t require perfection out of women, also adhered to gender roles and heteronormativity. In addition, the article also placed being caucasian as the normative role in the letter. By stating that the majority of women would want to look like Scarlet Johansson, she is stating that Scarlet Johansson is a standard that all women, regardless of their race, would adhere to. This is the blonde ambition that theorist bell hooks talks about. Regardless of the race question, the letter by the editor put women on a scale of one to ten. This is just reinforcing the idea that women are to be judged and measured. Even though the scale was placing stating that women would want to look like Scarlet Johansson, it was still an indirect way to rate women; by saying that most women would want to look like Scarlet Johansson, this was implying that most women would not feel as though they measured up to her themselves and would wish to look like her because they also put her on a scale that ranked her above them. The ranking of women based on looks still places women in the role of being judged and evaluated. The letter even went so far as to place a woman on the bottom end of the scale “No way, I’d rather look like Dot Cotton.” The letter was written by a women, but the women obviously felt the need to fulfill and adhere to gender roles in which desirability to men ranked of the highest priority. The letter plays to the idea of heteronormativity. By stating that all women are alike in that they would want to look like Scarlet Johansson, the editor was stating that women had the desire to be objectified by men based on their looks. This states that the end desire of a woman is to be desired physically by a man. Her personality, intelligence, views, and beliefs do not come into account when taking this view of women. By adhering to norms set by men, that of rating woman and favoring physical appearance over other traits, this letter by a woman written for a women’s magazine plays right into the gender roles set up by a patriarchal system. This sets a bad precedent for women. In the same sentence that the letter states that Scarlet Johansson was intelligent, it also played up the idea that she was sexy: “Hurrah, the girl is smart, as well as sexy!” This places the idea that beauty and intelligence are not two things that generally come in a single “package,” so to speak. By discussing her physical features before discussing her intelligence, the editor was also placing an emphasis on the physical aspects of the actress. Also, with this comes the assumption that an ideal woman doesn’t necessarily have to be intelligent; it places intelligence as a bonus in the grand scheme of female features. Discussion Society places gender norms on itself and revisits those norms and roles throughout the media and through television. Those roles are reinforced continuously, even by women who should be actively trying to change those norms and roles. It is a social norm to assess women based on their physical appearance and to then find value or lack thereof in them, after assessment is complete. Ways in which this takes place is establishing rating systems, such was the case with Court, the editor for Cosmopolitan. It is also, not uncommon to compare women to meat or objects, such was the case with FHM’s editor. Much talk has been made to the way in which advertisements and articles adhere to gender norms. Considering how the editor is the person who decides upon the content and quality of the magazine, it is natural to assume that the same assumptions made about gender norms would be witnessed in the words of the editor. As Talbot noted, the magazine attempted to appear as a friend to the reader. Wanting to be viewed as just another person, the letter played upon the sympathies of its intended readership by pointing out the flaw that Scarlet Johansson felt that she had. The FHM piece did not go this far; he assumed that Cheryl Cole was a perfect woman. Even though the letter mentioned how she thought her “legs are too short and her face is too wide,” the letter plays this off as not really flaws at all, and adds this too her positive qualities to be strived for by a woman. In other words, not only should a woman strive to look like a particular celebrity, she should also be modest about the whole thing. In the end of the letter, after gaining the trust of the reader, the editor drew attention to the fact that there were contests giving away tickets to a Katherine Heigel movie and 20% off of manicure. Not only was this assuming that these would be of interest to women in general, but it plays into the whole idea of a “false sisterhood” posited by Talbot. In the end, the editor was just trying to sell something to the reader. As Paetcher noted, people tend to perform their gender roles based upon their situations. In the situation of writing a letter to the readers of a men’s’ magazine, the editor apparently felt the need to show a little bravado and do some chest puffing. He called the man that had cheated on Cheryl Cole a “little tit.” In this format, the editor did not have to worry about repercussions of having called somebody a name , so he felt the liberty to do so. Also, he was asserting his manliness; he implied that if he had been in the situation of being with Cheryl Cole, he would be able to adequately take care of her “needs.” Since the readers would be males, the editor felt that he needed to put on this show where he belittled the other man and placed himself in a position of superiority. Gender roles are also being performed for the basis of a female audience in the Cosmopolitan letter. It would be more appropriate for the editor to at least imply that the flaws of Scarlet Johansson made her more of a person. If the letter had taken a tone similar to that of the FHM letter, then the female readership would have been turned off. It important to at attempt to appear to not be fulfilling gender roles for the piece to have been more acceptable. By making the assumptions that the editors did, they played into Ken Hyland’s assertion that a piece of discourse is an interaction between the writer and the reader. The editors played their gender roles as they did because of the assumed values of the readers. By assuming what values the readers have, the editors then constructed their audience by assuming that they did in fact have these values. In this way, people that do have those values will be the people that read the magazine. Also, the editors approached the letters in a certain way because of the expectations of the readers. The FHM editor knew he would be read by males, so he constructed an image of himself that would be acceptable to a male audience. In this way the editor was constructed by the audience. The same goes too for Cosmopolitan. By assuming that the women are a certain way, the women that do happen to be of the views assumed by the editor would be the women that make of the readership. Also, knowing that her audience would be female, the editor took a certain approach to framing her discussion of Scarlet Johansson’s attractiveness that would not turn off her readers. In this way she too was constructed by the readers. Conclusion: As the editor ultimately decides upon the content of the magazine, then the editor becomes ultimately the person that decides upon the views towards gender and heteronormativity. These letters by the editors completely played to the expectations of gender norms. These were the predicted findings, as it would only seem obvious that the editors’ language would be consistent in fulfilling the gender roles that their magazines hold. The articles in the literature review predicted the outcome of this study. It is apparent that magazines still have yet to become any more progressive in their attitudes towards gender roles. To further study this particular aspect of the examination of gender roles in popular magazines, it would be necessary to see if both male and female editors would continue to uphold gender norms and heteronormativity by magazines that do not attempt to only a male or female readership. Without this sort of data, we do not have a broad enough view of the issue at hand. FHM and Cosmopolitan are two magazines that practically exist because of the current societal views of gender norms in the first place. It is difficult to decide whether they exist solely because of gender norms, or whether the magazines have helped to uphold the gender norms that can be found within their pages. That would be a more difficult question to answer, and perhaps the topic of another study. Works Cited Barry, Peter (2002) Beginning Theory: An introduction to literary and cultural theory. Manchester University Press. Court, Louise (2008) “Editor’s letter.” Cosmopolitan Ladies Magazine British edition, April 2008, pp. 15. Hyland, Ken (2005) “Stance and engagement: a model of engagement in academic discourse.” Discourse Studies, Sage Publications, London. Noruega, Anthony (2008) “Editor’s letter.” FHM Men’s magazine British edition, April 2008, pp. 8. Paetcher, Carrie (2003) “Masculinities and femininities as communities of practice.” Women’s Studies International Forum, vol. 26, no. 1 pp. 69-77. Talbot, Mary (1992) “A synthetic sisterhood: False Friends in a teenage magazine.” University of Liverpool. Read More