Summary Of Hunger As Ideology By Susan Bordo

Throughout the passage of time, individuals have been plagued with a falsified identity, more so in the likes of women than those of men. Contrived from birth to see oneself through a predefined definition of what it means to adhere to the socially excepted norm of your gender. Manufactured to see oneself has having a choice, of having an identity that is build from within; that you may desire to be whatever you want, accomplished what you seem fit, as long as your desire is to be a man, to be a woman. What rarely gets asked is why do we desire to be this, have the same thing, to be a man, to be a woman? Advertisements, the existence of freedom through personal sovereignty from consumption, and the ideological societal customs create an environment

of enslaved human beings, required to have an identity that reflects a canvas or face the tyranny of objectification and a sense of dehumanization. As can be noted as the benchmark for this hypothetical assumption: “Choice Theory: Gender Roles and Identity,” written by Sarah Gardner, “Hunger as Ideology,” written by Susan Bordo, “The Sexual Sell,” written by Betty Friedman, and “Are Sexualized Women Complete Human Being? Why Men and Women Dehumanize Sexualized Objectified Women,” written by Vaes, Paladino, and Puvia, perpetuates a greater understanding of gender role and societal norms.

“Choice Theory: Gender Roles and Identity,” leads a rectifying perspective on the topic of gender identity and gender roles, establishing the theoretical idea of sold identities. Through asserting our identity, we as individuals have an urge to make choices to satisfy our innate or predetermined needs. As we live in a capitalist society that is run by money, power, greed, and consumption, we as societal citizens and consumers are fed a conceived notion that fabricates what to consume, and what will drive us to success based on our gender. As Sarah stated, we as individuals are motivated by “survival or self-preservation, love and belonging, power or achievement, freedom or independence, and fun or enjoyment.” (Gardner, 2015). While these motivations assert a sense of having self-control, the Choice Theory “sees almost all human behavior as being chosen.” (Gardner, 2015). Putting into perspective that assertion and an equation of gender, role, consumption, and society, puts forth a context that is debatable. While we are motivated by the five factors, because of the wants creation and falsified satisfaction, making a reference to the “The Dependence Effect” written by John Kenneth Galbraith, the same concept of corporations creating the wants, which they then sell to us as ours, to what they later end up satisfying, provide the same context that has been the defining assertion of identity. While it is fair to state that gender expectations began within the home and religious teachings, it is through the effort of corporation who redefines the meaning, by manufacturing gender expectations, to what they will sell to us as our own, to only what they will end up producing consumption goods to satisfied and reiterate the standards. “Social media provide visuals about the type of products, clothing, and sexual attraction that are appropriate for each gender. Gender norms are something society created.” (Gardner, 2015).

As I further divulged in the topic of women gender roles, Sarah with a very debatable statement, but agreeable states, “Women did not control the moral codes and psychological mindsets in their environment or how other people would treat them.” (Gardner, 2015). Through the passage of time, women up until of late, choices were limited to what was expected by society more specifically the dominating group of white males. As they were expected to be the breadwinner achieving the motivation of; survival or self-preservation, power or achievement, freedom or independence, while the women stayed at home and took care of the children expecting to achieve love and belonging and fun or enjoyment. Through Betty Friedan, “The Sexual Sell,” she exploits what has become of women in the American economy, not just from a marketing perspective, but their underlying purpose in life, as stated “Occupation: housewife,” (Schor, Holt, 2000, p.26) creating a myth that women can assert a living through being a housewife.

In “The Sexual Sell,” Betty Friedan reiterates the already notion and defined fact that women are the prime household buyers because of their asserted title as being a woman. “Their only dream was to be perfect wives and mothers; their highest ambition to have five children and a beautiful house, their only fight to get and keep their husbands. They had no thought for the unfeminine problems of the world outside the home; they wanted the men to make the major decision.” (Schor, Holt, 2000, p.26). While this statement is very broad, it does assert the standard that is set by society for women, to say it’s a dream overlooks the expectation or the worth of women. What in actuality, is that housewives or women, in general, have become this experiment, where they have been given a task to complete, during each stage their monitored and manipulated into creating this idea that being just a housewife is boring, and that you are able to fulfill your needs and, of course, your families through consumption. In order to be satisfied and complete the equation governing their role as the housewife was to consume, and without a doubt companies were not only willing to satisfy their desire but go beyond to justify the role of being “Occupation: housewife.” (Schor, Holt, 2000, p.26) After all, “In all the talk of femininity and women’s role, one forgets that the real business in America is a business.” (Schor, Holt, 2000, p.26).

Putting myself into the position of a housewife, having to stay at home with five kids, clean the house, and make food, with very little opportunity of succeeding beyond. While I can argue that I would enjoy the fact of having kids, the argument ends there. Even if I have become aware of this narrative that “American housewives can be given the sense of identity, purpose, creativity, the self-realization, even the sexual joy they lack – by buying of things.” (Schor, Holt, 2000, p.28). Without a hesitation, I can say this imagined idea that I am better off, that I have somehow developed a more purposeful life through shopping, would fill the emptiness that I think I was missing. Having these fancy appliances, a gorgeous kitchen, and a beautiful home filled with lavish items creates a sense of being able to consume conspicuously, just like our male counterpart who are able to lead a fulfilled life of independence, and power. In terms of modern advertising and this neoclassical assumption I made about myself, while this is still evident in today's society this gender role classification “Occupation: housewife,” (Schor, Holt, 2000, p.26) has begun to shift to “Occupation: husband,” as more women enter the workforce, but the perception of consumption still resides on the women expanding beyond the likes of just home products, but to products purchased by men including televisions and cars.

While the mentality of “Occupation: housewife,” (Schor, Holt, 2000, p.26) has begun to diminish, what still remains is the objectification of body images and what is deemed suitable to consumed by each gender.

In “Hunger as Ideology” by Susan Bordo, she divulges into the concept of eating habits, uncovering both past and present societal norms, and what is expected of our future generation. This ideology that there needs to be a standard in terms of body images creates a societal problem of envy, preconceived notions, and discrimination. One of the most distasteful things in our society is the training of children at a young age to live a life with a certain body image in mind. As Bordo opens up, she begins with a television advertisement displaying two French girls “they are exquisite little girls, flawless and innocent and the scene emphasize both their youth and the nature sense of style often associated with French women,” (Schor, Holt, 2000, p.99). as one of the girls take notice of the others mother the conversation ensues ““Your mother is so slim, so beautiful! Does she eat?” the daughter, giggling replies: “silly, just not so much.” “Are you jealous?” “Not if I know her secrets.”” (Schor, Holt, 2000, p.99). This advertisement instills false images to children’s especially young girls, who must watch their weight in order to lead a life of success, in order to be a trophy wife in some retro sense. Through these advertisements promoting the use of diet pills, women watching their weight, the feeling of looking like the model, are not only selling a product but installing a set of behavior, one that grows and becomes planted in the consciousness of every child’s

mind.

As discussed throughout “Hunger as Ideology,” there is this significant distinction between what is excepted from female and male in society; as women and little girls are expected to have this petite appetite, males are expected to “have a hearty, even voracious, appetite.” (Schor, Holt, 2000, p.104-105). As a male consumer, I have been susceptible to this manufactured image of what I should look like and I have fallen victim to this marketing strategies, through the images of my friend, and my neighbors. In more ways than one, while I have never taken it upon myself to purchase diet pills, this stereotypical image of a men has influenced my shopping experience, in terms of the food I buy, and the clothes I wear, both in times of showing my sense of masculinity and hiding the fact it does not exist. The idea of becoming this obsolete figure and distancing yourself from this American mentality does create a disconnect between you and society, and many individual just do not want to adhere to the prejudice feeling of not being accepted. More than just providing a sense of relief, it allows you to be satisfied with this falsified image, which is where this false impression crosses over and becomes unethical; while it great to shape the statement should end there.

As I have gone through the various sources above and have divulged in how society creates standards to what is considered a norm for gender roles. The final article “Are sexualized women complete human beings? Why men and women dehumanize sexually objectified women,” written by Vaes, Paladino, and Puvia concludes my stance that in fact the relationship between identity and consumerism is problematic and dangerous. This is not only apparent from a cultural or marketing perspective, but from a genic and mental makeup. The article focuses on the dehumanization of sexually objectified women and men conducting three studies but for this purpose, I focused on two of the test. The first study “tested the extent to which objectified and non‐objectified male and female publicity photos were associated with human compared to animal concepts.” (Vaes, Paladino, & Puvia, 2011). The second test “looked at the female and male participants’ affinity with sexually objectified women.” (Vaes, Paladino, & Puvia, 2011). From the first studies, “only objectified women were associated with less human concepts.” (Vaes, Paladino, & Puvia, 2011). Meanwhile, the second test concluded that “women distanced themselves from sexually objectified women the more they dehumanized them, whereas men’s sexual attraction moderated their tendency to dehumanize female targets.” (Vaes, Paladino, & Puvia, 2011). These result reiterated this affirmative concept that woman more so than men are dehumanized, and this is the direct consequences of gender role assigned to women. Society has built us to become a form of disposable objects, day after day we are bombarded with these stereotypical, sexually objectified image and ideas of men and women. We have not only become a victim of this falsified connection between one another, we as individuals have become an integrated part of this manufacturing process. We not only consuming the product, but our bodies are used to sell it, more so in the like of women than those of men. Even though time has a process from the era of being “Occupation: housewife,” (Schor, Holt, 2000, p.26) women more than ever today has become this submissive figure.