Thanks to the COM352 students for contributing a bunch of new pages! I'll be moving these pages into the main area of the wiki soon.

From UMassWiki

[edit] Rough Stuff

Hunger as Ideology is about misogyny. Although the author goes into eating disorders of both men and women, there remains a consistent observation from preceding sections as well. She begins by saying, “[Men] tend to binge at mealtime and in public places, whereas women almost eat minimally at meals and gorge later, in private. Even in our disorders (or perhaps especially in our disorders) we follow the gender rules.” These ‘gender rules’ have been instated by men. In an earlier passage Bordo explains that in the Victorian era, women were instructed to eat sparingly at meals, and furthermore strived for the un-phased-by-hunger image that the male bourgeois would fancy due to its boost of status. Women are placed in a position of servitude, where they tend to feed a manly appetite while taking little for themselves (and rarely being served). This difference is purported and idealized in modern marketing. “In the commercials I have been discussing, female eating is virtually always represented as private, secretive, illicit. The woman has stolen away from the world of husband, family, friends to a secret corner where she and the food can be alone.” Clearly the point made here by the author is that by cultural mechanism females have been suppressed into a certain pitiful relationship to food.

In both of the quotations made above, Susan Bordo precisely appeals to an audience of women who have a hard time finding independence and strength. The former, about men binging publicly, while not direct, shows how gender separation survives even when eating becomes part of a disorder. Such disorders are most often the concerns of women, especially bulimia and anorexia. Men are supposed to be hearty and masculine so in order to take on bulimic behavior, public feasting is totally necessary in keeping up a big-guy image (and thus anorexia is very uncommon). Women, on the other hand, are expected to be withdrawn from eating so they must hide their cravings. Not only does this put them at greater risk for becoming bulimic or anorexic in the first place, it also allows such malnourishment to more easily go unnoticed. Gender separation endangers women in the face of eating disorders and decreases their power to take a stand – something every girl and lady should be concerned about. The author becomes more direct when she notes that “The woman has stolen away from the world of husband, family, friends” because of societal norms and her trouble with food. Being in such a state of humility and secrecy creates a weakness through which men can more easily keep control. Once again, almost any young woman reading this can relate a desire to undo this oppressive nature.

An essay written about misogyny (food-related or not) almost always moves with feminists and against men who aren’t feminists. Bordo’s article is no exception, as it is addressed to educate good women and bad men about the current state of oppression. ‘Bad men’ is indeed a dangerous term to use, but truly the author would not disagree that while men may not have helped set up gender discriminations, they help keep them alive by not fighting against them. In order for a solution to come about people must be aware of the problem, and who better to educate than the victims and the innocent bystanders? After detailing a commercial where a woman displays obsessive and secretive cravings for a chocolate drink, Susan Bordo states that “These commercials hit a painful nerve for women…The talk of ‘obsession’ and ‘inner-most cravings,’ …the use of food to satisfy emotional needs, all suggest central elements of binge behavior.” We are shown a source of problematic female-food relationships. Furthermore, by saying “…women are not even permitted, even in private, indulgences so extravagant in scope as the full satisfaction of their hungers,” right after explaining how men are openly hungry and indulgent even in bulimia, the author tells us that females have been wronged in losing their ability to eat healthily the same way men can. A girl who has fought her way out of following this rule will have already concluded as such, and a man who makes sure to share cooking duties and encourage his spouse to eat well in public or private will realize they are making efforts against this sad fact. However, a woman in the midst of a terrible eating disorder will notice how she was ‘put in her place,’ and a boy who thinks his ideal wife would be an amazing cook will find that enjoying a woman’s nurturing is great but he must look out for her well being in light of cultural oppression.

Just as before, these statements are geared toward the audience. They tell us nothing about the author, and while obviously related to the topic they are observations taken outside the world of pure facts in order to communicate emotion to the readers. By noticing the connection between oppressive societal views and unhealthy relations with food, but also adding a tinge of sorrow for women who are beaten down by these problems, a reader is really caught in the teeth when Bordo speaks.

The most elusive aspect of Hunger as Ideology is unfortunately the creator of the article. We are well aware that she is a woman, and since she never claims to have found a way out of the pains she discusses, it becomes assumed that she is at least mildly victimized alongside those she addresses. However this is about as far as one can go. There is no inclination as to whether Susan Bordo is a traditional mother, a new-age yuppie, a professional gal, or whatever. At the beginning, she says “When I was a teenager in the 1960s, Twiggy’s mascara-spiked stare and long, spindly legs respresented our variant of the wide-eyed waif.” Here we have a recollection of the gone-past sixties with a relation of the super-model stereotype of today, but the author doesn’t say whether she actually wanted to look like Twiggy or not. Later in the article she does relate some personal experience in seeing her mother’s joy at preparing her signature meal for the family and having her daughter (Bordo, that is) ask to learn how to make it herself. “My analysis, I want to emphasize, is not meant to disparage caring for the physical and emotional well-being of others, ‘maternal’ work that has been scandalously socially undervalued…” is a huge tip-off that the writer does in fact relate with maternal instincts and seeks to keep motherhood on a sacred level where it belongs, allowing women to enjoy feeding their family as any other kind of care. However, as in the retrospective instance, she still does not display her own experiences or maternal values.

Keeping herself somewhat isolated from the issue seems like a mistake at first glance. Instead, it could be a clever move on her part. Especially in the face of men who might disagree wholeheartedly, she neither wants to appear as oppressed and weak nor boisterous and masculine. Looking like a pitiful lady would cause men to treat her like any other pitiful lady affected by the issues brought up (which perpetuates the situation), and looking like a powerful revolutionary who kicked the proverbial bottom of eating problems (and misogyny in general) does not provide much comfort and relation for other women. In this way Susan Bordo places herself pseudo-neutrally behind the subject itself, in order to keep the readers from being distracted from her message.