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] And Feminists We Shall Be

11/7/06

Hunger as Ideology is about misogyny. The author, Susan Bordo, eventually goes into eating disorders of both men and women but retains a specifically feminist point of view. She begins this section 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.” It’s clear that she is focused on a supposed “correct way.” In an earlier passage Bordo explains that in the Victorian era, women were instructed (literally, in booklets) to eat sparingly at meals and appear un-phased by hunger. Their desire for such an image came directly from men. A man of the same period sought a woman as close to bourgeois status as possible, so women concurrently sought to appear too sophisticated for food.

Women are placed, by men, in a position of servitude. They are supposed to feed a manly appetite and one or more childish appetites (both beastly to contend with!), and take little in return. Rarely do we imagine a ‘housewife’ being served dinner by her husband. The author shows that this configuration is purported and idealized in modern marketing. The women in our ads are represented as secretive in their eating habits. They only enjoy their own meal, usually fat-free or low-calorie or sugar-free, only after feeding the family and then stealing away to be alone. Susan Bordo’s article points out the cultural mechanism by which females have been suppressed into a pitiful relationship to food.

In the examples above, the author specifically appeals to an audience of women who are aware of the situation but have a hard time finding their footing. Knowing what is happening doesn’t necessarily lead to knowing how or why. In order for a woman to step out of societal normality (and eat like a real woman should), she must know how normality is being impressed upon her. The first quote, about men binging publicly, shows how gender separation is evident even when considering eating disorders. Bulimia and anorexia are most often the concerns of women. Men are supposed to be hearty and masculine so in order to take on bulimic behavior, public feasting is totally necessary to keep up a big-guy image (and consequently anorexia is very uncommon). Women, on the other hand, are expected to be withdrawn and apathetic about eating so they must hide their cravings. Not only does this put them at greater risk for developing a disorder in the first place, it allows such malnourishment to more easily go unnoticed. Gender separation endangers women in the face of eating disorders and decreases their power to overcome them – 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 what is expected of her. Being in such a state of humility and secrecy creates a weakness through which men can more easily control women. Once again, almost any young woman who read the article could relate a desire to undo this oppressive environment.

An essay written about misogyny, food-related or not, is of course a feminist essay. Bordo’s article is no exception. Interestingly enough, she does not go into great detail about how men have caused the situation. It is strictly meant to educate women about the current state of oppression. In order for a solution to come about people must be aware of the problem. After detailing a commercial where a woman displays obsessive and secretive cravings for a chocolate drink, the author 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 relationships between women and food: advertisements. 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 possibly see a way out, and a boy who thinks his ideal wife would be cooking dinner every night 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 they are observations taken outside the world of pure facts in order to communicate emotion to the readers. She does not dilly-dally with her own troubles or complaints about men. By noticing the connection between oppressive societal views and unhealthy relations with food, but also adding a subtle tint of sorrow for the victims, readers are 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 haven from the pains she discusses, it becomes assumed that she is at least mildly victimized alongside her audience. 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 represented 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 from preparing her signature meal for the family and hearing her daughter (Bordo, that is) ask to learn the preparation 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…” This defense 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 was a clever move on her part. Especially in the face of men who might shrug her off, she neither wants to appear as oppressed and weak nor boisterous and masculine. Looking like a pitiful girl would cause men to treat her like any other pitiful girl victimized by the issue at hand (which perpetuates the situation), and looking like a powerful revolutionary who muscled her way out of eating problems (and misogyny in general) does not provide much comfort and relation for other women. She also refrains from bashing men and assumes that women know what has been done (but not necessarily how) by the male portion of humanity. In this way Susan Bordo successfully places herself in a pseudo-neutral position from the subject, in order to keep the readers from being distracted from her message.