An interesting read indeed... Monroe, Grace Kelly, Desire, Narcissism, Objectification, Family Structures, Historical Relevance, and how it all relates to notions of Human Sexuality.
Human sexuality appears to be much more complex than its surface appearance will allow. Upon review of the Dyers literature on this matter, it seems as though our notions of sexuality are caught it a push/pull relationship between traditional family values and progressive ideas about the nature of desire, objectification, and gender differences in this area. Dyer's seems to dissect the issue of human sexuality from many different fields of study in relation to Monroe and other developments of the 1950's (such as the Kinsey Report.)
Families structures have been with us for a long time (despite varying forms across cultures), and it appears as though in cultures that benefit from monogamy, non-conforming ideas of sex have been a force that threatens the institution of marriage for many. Thus, figures like Monroe not only reveal the thin line between excitement and anxiety, but also draw ideological lines of what a culture defines as appropriate and inappropriate.
Monroe isn't just a representation of sexuality, she seems to have stood for it philosophically. As quoted by Monroe from the Dyer Reading, "But if I going to be a symbol of something, I'd rather have it sex" (Monroe). Monroe pushed the envelope and promoted the idea that sex isn't bad. She raised the interesting question (that remains controversial even today) of whether or not objectification is bad when a person desires it. She brought to light the contradiction between sex and American social norms.
Kantian thought offers us the idea that treating another as a mere means is unethical, and that we should treat others as ends in themselves. Thus, according to Kantian notions, objectifying another (whether is be sexually or otherwise) is morally wrong. But, is it more complicated than some universal law? Clearly, I think Dyer's would say that it might be. We can see this when desire comes into play. Let's take S&M for example. Often people who engage in S & M surely have a desire to be objectified, and many argue there is nothing morally wrong with S & M because there are two willing participants. This gets at an interesting idea. If some women or men want to be the object of a sexual gaze is it morally wrong to objectify them? This is the often uncomfortable question that Monroe presents and Dyer's illustrates.
Why is it Ok for men in our society to be sexual creatures, but not women. I must draw upon feminine theory, and say that it is because women have been given the responsibility of holding morality in our society. This is where the Grace Kelly star image comes into play. Industrialized men are sent into the cut-throat capitalist world of bottom-lines and profit margins, while women have traditionally been pushed to stay at home and guard the children. Ah the children, our little projections of innocence and morality. And, who is responsible for teaching the children about this morality? Grace Kelly not Monroe. Why? Are they not both attractive objects of the male gaze? And here we find the contradiction that Monroe so eloquently brings to light. The duality of femininity in our society, and it is virtually impossible to be both Grace Kelly and Monroe at the same time (Although I am sure the studios have tried to make many women appeal to both.) Good fathers/husbands only have to show up to be consider good, but good Mothers/wives are pushed to be so so so much more.
I think all of this is ironic. Society says mothers shouldn't be sexy, yet mothers by definition have to have had sex in order to be mothers (except for the Virgin Mary, go figure).
Questions:
1) Why do we make fun of mom pants for not being sexy? And, if they stopped wearing them would we be outraged?
2) Do working actresses that play characters representations of non-working mothers undermine their own existence?
4) Is it acceptable for women like Monroe to become mothers, and who would object?
No comments:
Post a Comment