The Silent Message: Encouraging Self-Destructive Silent Reactions
I seem to recall that our journals [in the class Race, Gender, and Human Identity] are not supposed to be critical of specific people from class (or was that for Origins?), but I cannot resist. I promise to keep my microscopic look at an individual to a minimum, and to use it as a jumping board to a broader discussion.
The fellow in our class -the outspoken, opinionated one- troubles me. He reminds me of my cat, Lily, who will tuck her little kitty head beneath a table, but leave her kitty butt sticking out. She seems to think that, because she cannot see me, I cannot see her. Of course, that’s preposterous thinking - unless you’re a cat. Lily is a cat, so she’s right on target!
The fellow in class, however, is not a cat. Yet he seems to me to be have stuck his head under a chair rather than enter into a discussion about the effects of sexualizing and objectifying females. What we saw poking out from under the chair was his defiance of a reality, the part he was sure we could not see. Nevertheless, of course, many of us could see it - it was ignorance, defiance, and fear. This is not unusual behavior - I find that people often prefer to do the proverbial sticking-the- fingers-in-the-ears and singing “La-la-la!” loudly routine, rather than simply discuss an issue that might require that person to alter his or her viewpoints one way or another.
The fear, presumably, is that if one enters into such a discussion, and finds that his or her beliefs are challenged, then he or she may have to adjust one’s thinking. That takes effort and time and can be painful and even scary. Is it better, though, to remain in denial about issues, the effects of which have been proven? The idea that someone would choose the head-under-the- chair routine scares me.
Okay, so let’s look at the issue that brought this up: We were shown a number of advertisements that depicted women in various poses, primarily in provocative poses and often in various stages of undress, but some of the images merely mirrored what I consider old-fashioned ideals.
I’ll start with the latter - old-fashioned ideals. There was a Rosie the Riveter look-alike ad for a cleaning product. I don’t recall the exact words of the ad, but the message sent through that ad was in keeping with the ideal that cleaning is women’s work. (Even today on TV commercials, men are saved from their blundering attempts at cleaning by experienced women - never mind that the women are presented as superheroes; they are super heroes of the vacuum cleaner!)
In other images we saw, women’s bodies were used to promote products that we were not even sure of - were these ads for brothels, perhaps? No, it turned out that they were ads for products like cologne, shoes, and other items that were not always even included in the image. In some cases, the message seemed clear: “Buy this car and you will find yourself surrounded by busty babes in bikinis!” (But what if I want to buy the car and I am not a Lesbian or bisexual? What, then, is the appeal to me? More on that later - see the Silent Reaction.)
What do these images tell us? The ever-popular idea, mentioned above, that the buyer of a product will find him- or herself surrounded by just the sort of women shown in the ads is but one message. It implies that those women are “prizes” - these would be the ideals. Otherwise, why use their bodies to promote the products?
What is the result of that practice? Probably nobody truly believes that buying a certain brand of beer will render him or her desirable to women who look just like those in the ads. However, what does happen is a silent encouragement of ideals that already exist, and are perpetuated every day by advertisements, pop stars, and other mediums, such as film, music videos, and print advertising. Does an ad for cologne that shows a woman who appears to be having an orgasm -but fails to show an image of a bottle of the cologne- alter the lives of all women in the United States the minute that it’s printed? Not exactly. However, that ad makes it okay to consider women as sex objects first, and people second - maybe. The ads send the Silent Message that this woman represents the ideal woman -naked, wrinkle- and fat-free, and so uninhibited that she shares her orgasm with whoever happens to be watching.
When women are offered as prizes -imagined or not- for purchasing products, men are not the only ones who take a message away. Girls and women also receive the Silent Message that this woman, who is the ideal woman (because she is being offered as a prize), is how girls and women should be. Not every girl or woman responds in a drastic, immediate manner, of course. However, when we look at the rising numbers of girls who are bulimic and anorexic, and at the younger and younger ages at which they acquire these diseases, we can easily see a Silent Reaction to the Silent Message.
The results of such reactions include lowered self-esteem (because what 12-year old, much less 34-year old, can live up to that image?), self-destructive behavior (bulimia, anorexia, promiscuity, and so on), and a potentially life-long sensation of not being up to snuff.
Why, then, with just this little bit of discussion on the topic, is it so horrible an idea to look at another point of view? Why is it necessary to refuse to hear another’s thoughts on the matter, holding tightly onto one’s own as if one’s life depended upon maintaining that view?
Frankly, one’s life does depend upon maintaining that view, in a way. If one wishes to avoid a feeling of guilt, of perhaps participating in the Silent Message (and by default, the Silent Reaction), one must hold on to those thoughts! I can compare this to white people refusing to discuss white privilege. By discussing it, admitting that it exists, the white person might have to do something about it! Would that require giving away one’s white privilege? Of course not - one cannot give it away. However, by being aware of white privilege, just like being aware of the Silent Message, one can begin to view the other differently. Perhaps step up to the plate when sexist remarks are being made, or when a young female is clearly reacting to the Silent Message in a self-destructive manner. What is cute about a 12-year old girl who dresses like J-Lo? What was cute about Jon Benet Ramsey?
The Silent Message robs females of the opportunity to be people - people with thoughts, ideas, feelings, desires, and needs. The Silent Message promotes age-old ideals about women: they should be subservient to men, be attractive -in whatever is the fashion of the day- and they most definitely should not be so sensitive when being valued as objects rather than as people.