09.11.2012 Views

SexualizationofWomen.. - Department of Psychology - York University

SexualizationofWomen.. - Department of Psychology - York University

SexualizationofWomen.. - Department of Psychology - York University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

eing victims <strong>of</strong> commercial sexual exploitation.<br />

Childhood sexual abuse puts girls at risk for prostitution<br />

(Nadon et al., 1998; Silbert & Pines, 1981, 1982).<br />

Intrapsychic Contributions<br />

Many parents as well as marketers would likely argue that<br />

girls want the clothes and accessories that make them<br />

“sexy” and that it is difficult to convince teenagers and<br />

younger girls to make less sexualizing choices. As girls<br />

participate actively in a consumer culture (<strong>of</strong>ten buying<br />

products and clothes designed to make them look<br />

physically appealing and sexy) and make choices about<br />

how to behave and whom to become (<strong>of</strong>ten styling their<br />

identities after the sexy celebrities who populate their<br />

cultural landscape), they are, in effect, sexualizing them-<br />

selves. Keen observers <strong>of</strong> how social processes operate, girls<br />

anticipate that they will accrue social advantages, such as<br />

popularity, for buying into the sexualization <strong>of</strong> girls (i.e.,<br />

themselves), and they fear social rejection for not doing so<br />

(Brown & Gilligan, 1992; Nichter, 2000;Tolman, 2002).<br />

A focus on physical attractiveness is not new; over 3<br />

decades ago, Unger (1979) argued that physical beauty can<br />

translate into power for girls. But the definition <strong>of</strong> attrac-<br />

tiveness differs depending on the tastes <strong>of</strong> the culture.<br />

Whereas yesterday’s culture may have equated “domestici-<br />

ty” with attractiveness in women, today’s culture equates<br />

“sexy” with attractiveness (Wolf, 1991). Moreover, there is<br />

evidence that physical appearance was not always the<br />

prime currency for girls’ social success. Brumberg (1997)<br />

examined diaries <strong>of</strong> adolescent girls in the United States<br />

over the past 100 years to explore how they discussed<br />

self-improvement.Whereas girls <strong>of</strong> earlier eras focused<br />

on improving their studies and becoming more well-<br />

mannered, in the last 20 years that Brumberg studied,<br />

girls almost exclusively described changing their bodies<br />

and enhancing their physical appearance as the focus <strong>of</strong><br />

their self-improvement.<br />

Girls sexualize themselves when they think <strong>of</strong> them-<br />

selves mostly or exclusively in sexual terms and when they<br />

equate their sexiness with a narrow standard <strong>of</strong> physical<br />

attractiveness.They also sexualize themselves when they<br />

18<br />

think <strong>of</strong> themselves in objectified terms. Psychological<br />

researchers have identified self-objectification (Fredrickson &<br />

Roberts, 1997; McKinley & Hyde, 1996) as a key process<br />

whereby girls learn to think <strong>of</strong> and treat their own bodies<br />

as objects <strong>of</strong> others’ desires. In self-objectification, girls<br />

internalize an observer’s perspective on their physical selves<br />

and learn to treat themselves as objects to be looked at and<br />

evaluated for their appearance.Though portraying oneself<br />

solely as a sexual object to be looked at is sometimes<br />

viewed by girls and women as exercising control over their<br />

sexuality (e.g., at some social networking Web sites), pres-<br />

entation <strong>of</strong> the self in this way can be viewed as a form <strong>of</strong><br />

self-objectification.<br />

There is ample evidence that self-objectification is<br />

common among girls and women. For example, Slater and<br />

Tiggemann (2002) found that girls as young as 12 years old<br />

placed greater emphasis on their body’s appearance than on<br />

its competence. In addition, many studies have demonstrat-<br />

ed that girls and women self-objectify more than boys and<br />

men do (e.g., Fredrickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, &<br />

Twenge, 1998; Strelan & Hargreaves, 2005).<br />

Most studies have focused on European Americans, but<br />

one study <strong>of</strong> ninth- and tenth-grade girls showed that most<br />

girls, regardless <strong>of</strong> race, engaged in self-objectification<br />

(McConnell, 2001).That is, they internalized an observer’s<br />

standard <strong>of</strong> appearance and engaged in activities designed<br />

to enhance their sexual attractiveness. In addition, African<br />

American and White girls did not differ in the amount <strong>of</strong><br />

time they spent enhancing their physical appearance,<br />

although African American girls spent more time on their<br />

hair and White girls spent more time on their makeup.<br />

Nichter’s (2000) study, however, suggests that the time<br />

African American girls spend on their appearance may have<br />

more to do with creating an individualized and ethnically<br />

derived “style” (i.e., one that involves personality and<br />

Report <strong>of</strong> the APA Task Force on the Sexualization <strong>of</strong> Girls<br />

attitude, in addition to physical appearance) than with<br />

adhering to the narrow vision <strong>of</strong> the “ideal girl” depicted<br />

in the media.Thus, ethnic differences concerning the<br />

meaning attached to self-objectifying practices may exist.<br />

In addition to making sexualizing choices regarding<br />

clothing, hair, and makeup, girls and teens sometimes “act

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!