The two readings, “Body Matters: Cultural Inscriptions” and “The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology” both pose interesting insights into society’s bias regarding sexuality and science. In the article “Body Matters,” Segal illuminates female sexuality which is often confused with reproduction. Although many times the birth canal or vagina become the defining characteristic of females, Segal points out that women also have a clitoris whose function is only to create sexual pleasure. This distinction is not made in a commercial for FSD. This commercial focuses on relief for problems with the vagina, no mention is given to the clitoris. Thus, the commercial does not emphasize the improvement of female enjoyment during sex rather the health of the female reproductive organ. On the other hand, Segal also explores the representation of the male penis as both the reproductive and sexual-enjoyment organ that is always erect and ready for sex. This issue is well illustrated in a Viagra commercial in which a group of men celebrate their future as sexual beings with the aid of Viagra. Thus, Segal’s message that sexuality is influenced by societal assumptions is well supported by real-world applications such as commercials.
Similarly, the report, “The Importance of Feminist Critique” exposes societal biases in the field of science. This group gives several illustrations that are clearly influenced by the societal stereotypes of the roles of men and women. For example, one textbook describes cytoplasm (representing the female) as passive and helpless, waiting to be fertilized by the active and aggressive nucleus (representing the male). Additionally, the group gives several examples of how scientists’ relationship with wives or lovers affects their interpretation of the ovum and sperm relationship. One scientist who was a dominant husband again described the sperm as the active and dominant partner compared to the lazy and inactive ovum. Clearly, the group exposes bias in the scientific community. Both articles leave the reader with the message to be aware of biases everywhere.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Yes biases do exists everywhere so what do we do? Now that we are aware that standpoints influence how we interpret results or even the questions we ask, how do we go about refining our processes to control for our potential prejudices?
This comment refers to the original post.
As I have read this post and some of the others about the sexual dysfunction commercials that we watched in class, I started to think more and more about the companies that produced this work. With the rise in feminism over the past few decades and an increase in equality between the two sexes, I began to wonder what types of things influenced the creation of these commercials. Both females and males probably work on these ideas, yet there still exists a large gap between the two concerning the ideas of sexuality as they relate to men and woman. I began to ask myself how this can still possibly exist (where are the women and men workers who think that this portrayal of SD is wrong?). I assume and understand it to be the history of the sexuality in the US and the influence of the drug companies who fund these commercials. Drug companies in the US demonstrate so much power in many sectors, and this certainly applies to the medicines made to alleviate symptoms of sexual dysfunction.
Claire mentions how the commercials are a real-world application of Segal's message. As I begin to understand more about the history of this sexuality bias, I can only wonder where else it exists.
I wanted to continue the discourse on the Viagra and FSD commercials. It is really astounding that two commercials addressing similar sexual problems in different sexes could be dissimilar: one focusing on living life to its fullest and one on despair. Like KS said (sorry, I can’t put a name to your profile), presumably both men and women work on these advertisements. I would like to say Bravo! Good for the men and women who worked on the Viagra commercial. I have absolutely nothing negative to say about it. In my opinion, there is no better way to de-stigmatize and educate people on a topic as taboo as erectile dysfunction. When it comes to taboo subjects, an appeal to humor and nostalgia simply works. The creators were brilliant to put a sexual problem in the context of old buddies, having a great time over beer and a Viagra ballad. This commercial’s message says loudly and clearly: it’s okay if you have erectile dysfunction, many older men have your same problem and you don’t have to slow down or enjoy life any less.
But it pains me incredibly that some men and especially some women are thinking “let’s show a lady with FSD as lonely, hopeless, and incomplete.” I do not think it makes for a better advertisement. In fact, the commercial’s melancholy tone would only make me feel more ashamed of myself, and probably cause me to retreat from medical help. I can only guess at why these unhappy FSD commercials are still on the air. Perhaps women today are so conditioned to respond to guilt and isolation in relation to sexuality that this commercial indeed gets more women seek treatment for a “debilitating” problem.
Post a Comment