Fall 2002 Issue ,
Elizabeth Tassaro Stereotypes and Ideals: Femininity in the Media
Intrigued by the concept of gender, Elizabeth Tassaro initially intended to conduct an in-depth exploration of just that. With contemporary society’s conflicting ideas of what is to be male or female, however, her essay quickly took shape as a discussion of stereotypes and ideals. Considering media as perhaps the most pervasive communicator of culture, this essay focuses on what several media sources present as ideal in terms of gender. Drawing upon her own content analyses and other scholarly writings, Elizabeth found an interesting, and at the same time disturbing, account of our society’s stereotypical gender ideals. What she found were ideals for both masculinity and femininity that were seemingly desirable, yet ultimately unattainable. The negative effects of prolonged exposure to such ideals were Elizabeth’s primary concern, inspiring her to pursue this topic. She hopes that her account would provoke thought and consideration, leading people to desire a change in media presentations of gender.
Various sources indicate that female body images presented through models, mannequins, and even Barbie dolls are strikingly deviant from the actual female form. One such example occurs in the January 1998 issue of Marie Claire magazine, which states that the average American woman is 5’4” and a size 12. She has a 37-inch bust, a 29-inch waist, and 40-inch hips. A mannequin is 6 feet tall, a size 6, with measurements of 34-23-34. A life-size Barbie doll would be 7’2,” with bust, waist, and hip measurements of 40-22-36, respectively. A woman of these measurements would have to walk on all fours to balance her disproportionate body. Considering that Barbie’s physical characteristics are outrageous and ultimately unattainable, how has she come to be an “icon” of femininity (duCille 101)? Girls and women across the country look to Barbie as a beautiful ideal, and strive for a body like hers. As a result, many battle endlessly with dieting, eating disorders, distorted body images, and low self-esteem. In addition to physical standards put forth by Barbie, models, and mannequins, girls and women must also comply with given gender norms. Not only must they achieve an ideal body type, but also ideal femininity. As a result, several points must be addressed. Primarily, one ought to consider gender as an inherent biological distinction versus gender as an ongoing fabrication due to one’s actions. Although evidence may be provided to argue that gender is an innate characteristic, I will show that it is actually a result of one’s actions, which are then labeled masculine or feminine according to society’s definitions of ideal gender. Furthermore, I will discuss the communication of such definitions through the media, specifically in music videos, TV, and magazines, and illustrate by means of a content analysis exactly how prevalent ideals are in the media. The harmful implications of ongoing exposure to these unattainable ideals, such as low self-esteem, eating disorders, unhealthy body image, and increased acceptance of violence, make urgent the need for change. How does a society go about changing such long-standing norms? In light of its pervasiveness and highly influential nature, the media may be the proper place to begin changing gender stereotypes.
When considering issues of gender, one must first consider how and where differences in masculinity and femininity come about. Although masculinity and femininity are achieved through various actions, some attribute characteristics of gender to innate, biological criteria. David G. Myers comments on such attributions in “Social Psychology,” when he writes that “the persistence and omnipresence of gender stereotypes leads some evolutionary psychologists to believe they reflect innate, stable reality” (337). Anthropological and evolutionary studies show that even the earliest societies supported the same gender hierarchies as those evident in today’s culture, many of which are based on biology. Interestingly enough, studies show that males have consistently dominated such hierarchies. As S. Goldberg writes in “Feminism Against Science,” “[A]mong all the thousands of societies on which we have any sort of evidence, there have never been any Amazonian or matriarchal societies. The hierarchies of all societies have always been dominated by males” (4). Furthermore, Myers writes that in “the world around, from Asia to Africa and Europe to Australia, people rate men as more dominant, driven, and aggressive … [I]n essentially every society, men are socially dominant” (182). Historically, males have always been dominant over females, and whether or not a direct result of biology, females were (and are) seen as the weaker sex. However, does this fact necessarily mean that women are inferior, or simply that they fulfill a different role? Perhaps in support of the latter, Myers writes that, “Men tend to excel as directive task-focused leaders, women as social leaders who build team spirit” (183).
The roots of these different types of leadership lie in the earliest evolutionary processes of natural selection, which may be the source of current gender stereotypes. A human being’s most natural instinct is to reproduce. Because “physically dominant males gained more access to females,” the natural yearning to produce more genes was successfully fulfilled when males were physically dominant, and traits of physical dominance therefore carried through generations (187). As Myers goes on to explain, “men everywhere feel attracted to women whose physical features, such as youthful faces and forms, suggest fertility. Women everywhere feel attracted to men whose wealth, power, and ambition promise resources for protecting and nurturing offspring” (188). These natural attractions are possible explanations for today’s ideals regarding masculinity and femininity. Media portrayals of men stress wealth, power, and ambition, while those of women stress physical youthfulness, attractiveness, and submissiveness. In contemporary society, many see these portrayals as derogatory toward women, although some argue that they may simply be the results of a natural instinct toward characteristics best suited for reproduction.
Although one could argue that gender is a biological determination, greater evidence supports the idea that gender is more a result of one’s actions, and the labeling of those actions as masculine or feminine according to society’s definitions. As Joe Gow writes in “Reconsidering Gender Roles on MTV,” “Traditionally viewed as reflecting innate biological differences, gender roles are increasingly seen as social constructions” (1). In accordance with Gow’s idea of gender, West and Zimmerman write in their essay, “Doing Gender,” that “Rather than as a property of individuals, we conceive of gender as an emergent feature of social situations: as both an outcome of and a rationale for various social arrangements” (476). People act out femininity or masculinity according to those actions society deems acceptable for either classification. Furthermore, they justify their actions in accordance with given norms. For example, femininity is often acted out through displays of open sexuality and submission to males’ authority, while masculinity is acted out through achievements of dominance and success. According to Gow, stereotypical TV depictions of the sexes indicate that “a male should strive for power and aspire to highly prestigious occupations; to do so, he can be aggressive and break rules and has to be smart, stable, [and] persistent, and remain unemotional” (2). Males may act this way in attempts to prove masculinity, and then justify unfair or aggressive actions by viewing them as proper in terms of gender definitions. A female, on the other hand, “should strive for marriage, and to attract a man she must be warm, sensitive, altruistic, and attractive” (2). These gender ideals lead women to display their physical attractiveness and submit to males’ aggressiveness. Unfortunately, such ideals may also lead women to view the resulting eating disorders or compliance to males’ violence toward them as acceptable because, in terms of society’s gender norms, such submission is proper.
In further discussion of gender as an accomplishment, West and Zimmerman point out that “both gender role and gender display focus on the behavioral aspects of being a woman or a man” (476). According to this statement, gender role and display differ from classifications of sex and sex category. To clarify the different definitions, West and Zimmerman write, Sex is a determination made through the application of socially agreed upon biological criteria for classifying persons as females or males. … Sex category is achieved through application of the sex criteria, but in everyday life, categorization is established and sustained by the socially required identificatory displays that proclaim one’s membership in one or the other category. … Gender, in contrast, is the activity of managing situated conduct in light of normative conceptions of attitudes and activities appropriate for one’s sex category.” (477)
West and Zimmerman show here that “identificatory displays,” which may constitute either physical appearance or outward actions, lead to one being identified as either male or female. It is when one deliberately molds his or her actions to fit society’s definitions of proper gender, however, that one may be labeled as masculine or feminine.Because of physical standards (Barbie, supermodels, etc.), and personality characteristics (submission, passivity, etc.), which society leads women to believe are proper, many women feel that in order to be feminine they must act to achieve these body and personality types. As duCille writes in her essay “Dyes and Dolls,” “If Barbie is a monster, she is our monster, our ideal” (114). She views Barbie’s image “as a gendered, racialized icon of contemporary commodity culture (97). That it is possible for a simple doll to become an icon of femininity “may be able to tell us more about ourselves and our society—more about society’s attitudes toward its women—than anything we might say about the doll her—or, rather, itself” (113). It may be concluded that gender activities both “emerge from and bolster claims to membership in a sex category,” and those actions considered normative in a particular category (West and Zimmerman 477).
Yet this idea does not only apply to women, as Susan Faludi shows in her essay “The Naked Citadel.” Here, Faludi explores the overall environment of the all-male military institution, and the actions of cadets attending The Citadel. When they are attacked and questioned for their almost barbaric acts of violence toward one another, Faludi takes on a sense of pity for the men of The Citadel because she, like Gow, West, and Zimmerman, sees how society’s distorted gender ideals also affect the men. Their violent actions are not the result of any biological trait but are the result of the need to fulfill gender roles dictated by society. As Myers writes, “[A] man who doubts his own strength and independence might, by proclaiming a woman to be pitifully weak and dependent, boost his masculine image” (355). Faludi’s essay illustrates what has become a “submerged gender battle, a bitter but definitely fixed contest between the sexes” (132). She points out that if men at The Citadel could not “re-create a male-dominant society in the real world, they could restage the drama by casting male knobs in all the subservient female roles” (132). Although referred to as submerged, this battle is a mirror image of what often occurs in the real world. It is a rather disturbing thought, but as Faludi notes, the fact that “they must defend their inner humanity with outer brutality may say as much about the world outside The Citadel walls as about the world within them” (151). Similar to society’s demands to conform to ideal gender roles, “the institution demands that [cadets] never cease to ‘act like a man’—a man of cold and rigid bearing, a man no more male than Tiffany’s Southern belle is female, a man that no one, humanly, can be” (151). Just as no human male could fulfill such a role, no human female could ever meet society’s physical standards for the ideal feminine form. So, whether with respect to males or females, evidence suggests that “gender and sexuality are social constructions, or ‘interactional accomplishments’” (Kalof Dilemmas 1). Because ideals for gender are unrealistic and ultimately unattainable, people continually try to act more and more masculine or feminine, which potentially leads to harmful results.
The realization that “ideological ‘codes’ for gender and sexuality are learned early in the socialization process, entrenched during adolescence and transmitted in large part by the popular culture” (1) makes it clear that a change must occur. In some cases, however, media influences may not be entirely detrimental, as one study by Donna and Eaaron Henderson-King found. Their research concluded that “stronger messages may prime gender-related social norms and expectations regarding physical attractiveness and may elicit resistance on the part of women who experience such messages as constraining” (1414). Some women feel that society and the media’s pressing of gender stereotypes and ideal body images on them is a threat to their personal freedom of choice. They feel that society is in a sense ordering them to achieve these ideals. As a result, when cues to act out proper gender are “made more blatant through, for example, accompanying verbal commentary, women may engage in active processing and be more likely to question and resist cultural norms” (1409). This may be true, but more often the media do in fact influence their viewers, imposing upon them harmful ideals and stereotypes.
Provided that such ideals are obviously prevalent in society, an attempt to change them must begin by identifying a primary source. The media is one area which portrays existing stereotypical gender roles. Not only do the media portray stereotypical roles; it seems as though the media encourage them. Is it justifiable to blame the media for encouraging these roles? Depending on one’s perspective, one may see it acceptable for the media to present these views. The collective media is a profit-seeking industry, and whether right or wrong, stereotypes sell. Music, TV, magazines, etc., have little choice but to make what will sell in a competitive world of commodification. Perhaps, though, the media could be a bit more sensitive. It is one thing to portray stereotypes, but quite another to exacerbate them—to make it seem as though fulfilling stereotypes is the only way to fit into society. Keeping in mind that images presented in the media may negatively affect both women and men, one must consider what exactly the media portray as ideal.
What are society’s ideals, and how are they communicated in the media? The music industry, specifically the visual image content of music videos, is one indicator of what society labels ideal in terms of femininity. For example, I observed on one episode of TRL (MTV’s Total Request Live) that seven of the ten most popular music videos of the day featured male artists, suggesting that males are more suitable to hold lead positions. In the background of most of the videos, women dressed in bra-tops and miniskirts catered to the needs and wants of the featured males, showcasing their looks and sexuality. Of the three solo female artists on the show, one was outfitted in a form-fitting backless dress, and the other two in midriff-baring tops and low-cut leather pants. As a whole, the show seemed to communicate that to be feminine is to objectify oneself, display as much of the body as possible, and to submit to a man’s authority—a symbol of his success. Similar to my own findings in this particular show, Joe Gow writes in “Reconsidering Gender Roles on MTV: Depictions in the Most Popular Music Videos of the Early 1990s” that “all too often—especially as supporting characters in the videos of male singers—[women are] played as bimbos. Dressed in fishnet and leather, they drape themselves over cars, snarl like tigers, undress in silhouette behind window shades” (3). One would think that with all the feminist movements and recent empowerment of women, this portrayal of femininity would not be acceptable. A study of 300 popular videos circulating on MTV found, however, that what was thought to be a phase of the ’80s and early ’90s is still prevalent today. Seventy-four percent of the videos “portrayed women in traditional, stereotypical roles” (Kalof Dilemmas 2). Furthermore, as Gow writes in his article, “television has engaged in … ‘the symbolic annihilation of women.’ With great regularity and throughout a wide variety of programming contexts the medium has suggested to its vast and heterogeneous audience that women are much less powerful and important than men” (2). During the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was found that women were not only underrepresented by more than a six-to-one ratio, but when they were given positions in videos, they were “presented as the scantly clad targets of men’s condescending actions” (3).
Similar to the stereotypical roles found in music videos, sitcoms, drama series, and soap operas also present women in subordinate roles far more often than they present women in positions of authority. Despite attempts to change these presentations, a study found that “while over the years soap opera content has changed, the change has been in the portrayal of sexual relationships and morality, not in the portrayal of gender roles” (2). Women continued to be portrayed as inferior to males. Concerning prime-time television and sitcoms, Joe Gow found that “women in prime-time programs have been more likely than males to act seductively, while men have been more likely than females to be aggressive. Women typically have been cast as housewives or in other traditional familial roles, while men usually have been shown out of the home, often in high-status occupations” (2). It is clear that soap operas, prime-time shows, and sitcoms all contribute to stereotypical ideals.
In terms of body stereotypes, magazines and advertisements found in magazines may be the most blatant communicators of extreme physical ideals. Through a content analysis of several magazines intended for women, I found that quite often advertisements make use of the ideal female form in attempts to sell a product. Spreads of thin, long-legged, full-busted models, with strikingly symmetrical, flawless facial features occupy entire pages. In the November 2001 issue of Cosmopolitan, I counted 116 advertisements total; of the 116 ads, 81 contained such models. Similarly, in the November 2001 issue of Glamour, I found that approximately 40 ads contained full-body images of female models. The September 2001 issue of Mademoiselle contained 66 advertisements total, with 42 of the 66 showcasing ideal feminine forms. Not only are feminine ideals emphasized in advertisements, but these magazines also featured many articles concerning how to perfect one’s body and achieve an ideal form. Of the 47 total articles in Cosmopolitan, 20 focused on weight loss or body improvements. Fifteen of the 32 articles in Mademoiselle did the same. If models can easily achieve this look, why do ordinary women spend so much time struggling to do the same? Victoria’s Secret supermodel Heidi Klum sheds light on this phenomenon. When asked by a Mademoiselle interviewer whether or not she wears makeup during photo shoots, Klum replies, “They put a little bronzer on for shows, but for photos, if I have a scar or something, they retouch the photos so much that they just take everything away” (Norwood 132). The ideal images presented to women through magazines are artificially enhanced. They are not real. Why then are women made to feel that they must achieve such ideals, when they are clearly unrealistic and unattainable?
In addition to the fashion magazines directed towards an older audience (for example, Cosmopolitan, Mademoiselle, Glamour, etc.), many magazines for teens and adolescents (Seventeen, Teen, YM, etc.) also relay harmful messages concerning body image and femininity. In her essay “What’s a Girl to Do?” Judith Timson points out that millions of mixed-message teen magazines “feature cover lines like: ‘Quiz: Do your looks scream sexy?’” (3). They include articles such as, “‘Do you have the newest eating disorder?’ (they ask, as if it's the latest handbag)” (3). As Timson writes, “Be yourself, be yourself, the magazines insistently croon, so long as your real self has a killer body and a starlet's face. Granted, the magazines also speak to ambition and self-worth, but the image rules tyrannically over all” (3). Even young girls are misled into believing that they must achieve the unrealistic ideals depicted in magazines. They are so misled, in fact, that they often do not realize how effective ideal images are in shaping their attitudes and self-esteem.
It is in such instances, when ideals become so prevalent and women begin to unconsciously process them, that media has its most severe effects on viewers. As Henderson-King writes,An expanding critique of contemporary media points to the pervasiveness of idealized depictions of female attractiveness, which are difficult, if not impossible, to attain, and asserts that a psychological toll is taken by exposure to such images. The pervasiveness of such imagery, and the ongoing experience of failure to meet the unrealistic expectations established by these images, it is argued, result in increased concern with physical attractiveness among women and diminished self-confidence and self-esteem. …Because of their prevalence, these images are likely to be automatically, perhaps nonconsciously, processed. (1407-8)
DuCille provides another insightful perspective on these effects. Using Barbie dolls to illustrate her point, duCille describes the dolls (and any idealized images by extension) as “objects that do the dirty work of patriarchy and capitalism. … Barbie is not simply a child’s toy or just a teenage fashion doll; she is an icon” (101). The media, whether through music, TV, magazines, advertisements, etc., then sell icons, doing the “dirty work of patriarchy and capitalism” (101). It is understandable that the media must engage in capitalism to a certain extent, creating images that will sell, but must it exacerbate these ideals to such an extent that people begin to look to them as icons? When a certain person or image is made into an icon, ordinary women then feel the need to mirror this image. They begin to interpolate themselves into the lives of iconized people or images. Watching TV, listening to music, and reading fashion magazines are no longer innocent wanderings through the fantasy worlds of society’s ideals, but each of these become a “potentially damaging process not simply of imagining, but of interpellation” (101). To interpolate is to insert oneself into the fantasy worlds shown in media, molding one’s life to the lives of fantasy characters. It is the strong desire resulting from continued exposure to media to associate oneself with what Marguerite Helmers refers to in “Media, Discourse, and the Public Sphere,” as “representative characters” (255). DuCille’s Barbie dolls, TV characters, actresses, and fashion models are all examples of representative characters, which ordinary women wish to identify with. By means of publicized aspects of a representative character’s life, women pick and choose those aspects which also apply to their lives, and then strive to make those connections even stronger. As Helmers writes, the media provide people with “a certain flow of cultural material from producers to audiences, who in turn use them in their lifeworld settings to construct a meaningful world and to maintain a common cultural framework through which intersubjectivity becomes possible” (256). By imitating the lives of representative characters, women reassure themselves (although often falsely) that they are properly fulfilling society’s given roles. When fulfillment of these roles requires compliance to and achievement of extreme standards, dangerous results often occur. With thinness being one of the most common of these extreme standards, such results include eating disorders and diminished self-esteem.
In addition to the intrapersonal effects, media portrayals of gender stereotypes also have interpersonal effects, especially where violence in concerned. Kalof raises a crucial point when she writes that “the possibility that exposure to stereotyped images of gender and sexuality in music videos influences adversarial sexual beliefs has profound implications for American youth, the primary audience of music videos” (Effects 4-5). She found that in a study of 44 U.S. college students, exposure to sexual imagery in music videos had a substantial impact on attitudes toward sexual relationships. Interestingly, it was found that when considering women’s displays of sexuality in the videos, female viewers saw the displays as a result of indecisiveness and submission to a man’s pursuit. Males, however, saw the sexual acts as teasing. As Kalof writes, “Music videos emphasize sexual innuendo and suggestiveness, gender stereotypes, and implicit aggression” (1). The portrayal of women as objects, subordinate to men, insinuates that men have the dominant hand over them. Does this objectification give men the right to go so far as to physically abuse women? It certainly does not give them the right, but as Faludi says in her essay, it is society’s definition of masculinity which often leads to violence. Another such definition indicates that “within many societies, socialization of males tends to emphasize qualities such as dominance, autonomy, and aggressiveness” (Kinney, Smith, and Donzella 3). Perhaps so many males only resort to violence because their identity is being challenged as a result of a role created by society. When they do not feel as though they are properly fulfilling this role, they feel threatened and exaggerate characteristics of male dominance to ensure they are perceived as masculine. As one study found, “experiencing a self-discrepant state [a cognitive state created by the perception of not living up to expectations] should activate negative affect and trigger thoughts and memories associated with aggressive behavior” (4). Therefore, blame cannot be placed on males alone, but on society as a whole for ensuing unrealistic gender norms.
Therefore, as the responsibility of both women and men, the problem of gender role portrayals leading to violence toward women must be addressed. In her research, Kalof found that “adolescents view male-against-female sexual aggression as a typical, and sometimes acceptable, part of intimate encounters, and that younger women in particular tend to subscribe to the ideas that men will always be on the prowl and that women will always be treated as sex objects” (Dilemmas 7). Not only does exposure to sexual imagery increase “men’s acceptance of interpersonal violence against women,” but it also increases teenage “girls’ acceptance of teen dating violence” (Effects 2). It is becoming increasingly evident that “some segments of American popular culture negatively influence mood and attitudes by increasing feelings of anger, encouraging gender stereotyping, and promoting the acceptance of dating violence and rape myths” (2). Media has the tendency to objectify women into things, decorations, ornaments, etc., which is the first step to making violence against them seem acceptable. If a woman is seen not as a person, but as an object, it is easy for a man to justify treating her as such. For many media viewers, “merely observing another person being innocently victimized is enough to make the victim less worthy,” and in a sense, deserving of this treatment (Myers 366).
Because of its implications and recent feminist movements, the portrayal of women in popular culture is a highly controversial and widely discussed issue. It seems as though most of society recognizes the distortedness of gender depictions and the need for change; however, people have thus far been less than adamant about making that change. For the sake of women’s self esteem, and general well-being for that matter, some sort of change must take place. For example, as Henderson-King writes, “Given the pervasiveness of appearance-related messages in contemporary society, and given the apparent ease with which some women’s body-esteem can be diminished by these messages, our data suggest that the current social environment could result in many women experiencing unstable self-esteem” (1414). Perhaps if the media began to represent women in a more equal and realistic fashion, that representation would carry into society and help to change our cultural views concerning ideal femininity.
In light of its pervasiveness as a communicator of popular culture, the media may, in fact, be the proper place to start reforming gender ideals. In some cases, the media have already begun to make changes. One such example is the recent emergence of plus-size models. Contrary to society’s equating of thinness with beauty, Natasha Kassulke wrote an article in the Wisconsin State Journal stating that “Emme is a plus-sized model and proof that beauty comes in all sizes” (1). As “one of the more than 62 million women in America who are ‘plus-size,’ meaning that they wear a size 12 or larger, Emme’s goal is to be a voice for full-figured women—her preferred term—and to set a new standard for beauty” (1). Emme, who can be seen on the E! Entertainment Television network as well is in numerous women’s magazines, may be the first step in leading women to accept realistic body types, and to disregard ultra thin model types. As Kassulke notes, she is currently “encouraging people to make up their own minds about what is healthy, what they want to read, and which TV shows they want to watch” (1). Should the public take her initiative, society could make a gigantic step in straying from stereotypical gender portrayals. If consumers begin to demand more realistic images of femininity, the media will be forced to produce such images, and an overall change for the better may be achieved. Considering the long-standing nature of current stereotypes, this change would be monumental and exceedingly beneficial to women’s overall health.
_______________________________________________________
Works CitedDuCille, Ann. “Dyes and Dolls.” Shaping Discourses: Reading for University Writers. Ed. April Lidinsky, et. al.
Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2002. 97-118.
Faludi, Susan. “The Naked Citadel.” Shaping Discourses: Reading for University Writers. Ed. April Lidinsky, et.
al. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2002. 119-151.
Goldberg, S. “Feminism Against Science.” National Review. Vol. 43 Issue 21 (11/18/91): p30, 3p.
.
Gow, Joe. “Reconsidering Gender Roles on MTV: Depictions in the Most Popular Music Videos of the Early
1990s.” Communication Reports. Vol. 9 Issue 2 (Summer 96): p152, 11p.
Helmers, Marguerite. “Media, Discourse, and the Public Sphere: Electronic Memorials to Diana, Princess of
.Wales.” Shaping Discourses: Reading for University Writers. Ed. April Lidinsky, et. al. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2002. 241-264.
Henderson-King, Donna and Eaaron. “Media Images and Women’s Self-Evaluations: Social Context and
.Importance of Attractiveness as Mediators.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Vol. 27 No. 11 (Nov. 2001): 1407-1416. Copyright 2001 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
Kalof, Linda. “Dilemmas of Femininity: Gender and the Social Construction of Sexual Imagery.” Sociological
.Quarterly. Vol. 34 Issue 4 (1993): p639, 13p.
Kalof, Linda. “The Effects of Gender and Music Video Imagery on Sexual Attitudes.” Journal of Social
.Psychology. Vol. 139 Issue 3 (Jun. 99): p378, 8p.
Kassulke, Natasha. “Supermodel Wants to Set a New Standard for Beauty.” Wisconsin State Journal.
.SHOWCASE P. F5. 11 Nov 2001, Sunday. Copyright 2001 Madison Newspapers, Inc.
Kinney, Terry A.; Smith, Brian A.; Donzella, Bonny. “The Influence of Sex, Gender, Self-Discrepancies, and Self-
Awareness on Anger and Verbal Aggressiveness Among U.S. College Students.” Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. 141 Issue 2 (Apr. 2001): p245, 31p.
.
Leive, Cynthia, ed. Glamour Nov. 2001.
.
Myers, David G. Social Psychology, Seventh Edition. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 2002.
.
Norwood, Mandi, ed. Mademoiselle Sept. 2001.
.
Timson, Judith. “What’s a Girl to Do?” Maclean’s. Vol. 114 Issue 36 (9/3/2001): p44, 5p.
.
West, Candace, and Zimmerman, Don H. “Doing Gender.” Shaping Discourses: Reading for University Writers.
Ed. April Lidinsky, et. al. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2002. 475-501.
.
White, Kate, ed. Cosmopolitan Nov. 2001.
