Why are young, mostly blonde white women always with their backs to the camera in beautiful places in posts on Instagram? Back in 1972, John Berger wrote something like, and I’m paraphrasing: “Men are always depicted controlling nature, while women are depicted as
Very nice, Jesse! I found this to be a very fascinating look at how the dehumanization of a faceless woman promotes a view of women and nature as being aesthetic objects. And, of the parallels between free use of nature and free use of women. And while I agree that commercial photos of women framed in such a way capitalize on these myths about women as nature and nature as virgin or pure, I will invite a question about why women themselves might feel compelled to take photos like this. Is it simply that women want to get more "likes" or fit in to a social norm? Or might the symbolism of turning out or looking out into nature mean something different to individual women? What other interpretations are possible that might make women feel empowered in these poses and empowered in nature? I am thinking of how, for a very long time, women were confined to the domestic sphere and an image like this might not represent a turning of the back on the camera, but of a turning forward toward nature. Might one find agency in an image like this if turning out to a natural world represented in some way the turning out toward possibilities in historically male areas and turning ones back on the domestic sphere? Why do so many women feel empowered in nature despite the historical narratives of a virgin wilderness and the very real parallels that you drew here? Has nature emerged with a new meaning? How might the symbolism of the same image differ in different contexts? I will admit that this argument does not and cannot account for why it is so often white women, not black women or other women of color, that we see represented in this way. Beyond the commercialization of such photos and the deeply rooted ideas of what beauty is in America (white, blonde, thin), why do we see fewer POC women personally representing themselves in this way? If one might find a symbolic freedom from the domestic sphere in an image of themselves turning out into nature, why is it that white women appear so often in this way when the tradition of homemaking has fallen disproportionately on black women (think of the trope of a nanny). Might it say something about the ways that black women today are still more often constrained to a domestic life than white women that they do not have the opportunities to look out in such a way? Think of the broad differences in access (literal and cultural) to the outdoors, historical context of slavery and wilderness (see Kimberly Smith's Wilderness in Black Thought), differential access to health care (esp. women's health) and family planning, and much more that might make it much harder for women of color to look out into nature as a place of opportunity and to turn their backs on a culturally prescribed domestic life.
Very nice, Jesse! I found this to be a very fascinating look at how the dehumanization of a faceless woman promotes a view of women and nature as being aesthetic objects. And, of the parallels between free use of nature and free use of women. And while I agree that commercial photos of women framed in such a way capitalize on these myths about women as nature and nature as virgin or pure, I will invite a question about why women themselves might feel compelled to take photos like this. Is it simply that women want to get more "likes" or fit in to a social norm? Or might the symbolism of turning out or looking out into nature mean something different to individual women? What other interpretations are possible that might make women feel empowered in these poses and empowered in nature? I am thinking of how, for a very long time, women were confined to the domestic sphere and an image like this might not represent a turning of the back on the camera, but of a turning forward toward nature. Might one find agency in an image like this if turning out to a natural world represented in some way the turning out toward possibilities in historically male areas and turning ones back on the domestic sphere? Why do so many women feel empowered in nature despite the historical narratives of a virgin wilderness and the very real parallels that you drew here? Has nature emerged with a new meaning? How might the symbolism of the same image differ in different contexts? I will admit that this argument does not and cannot account for why it is so often white women, not black women or other women of color, that we see represented in this way. Beyond the commercialization of such photos and the deeply rooted ideas of what beauty is in America (white, blonde, thin), why do we see fewer POC women personally representing themselves in this way? If one might find a symbolic freedom from the domestic sphere in an image of themselves turning out into nature, why is it that white women appear so often in this way when the tradition of homemaking has fallen disproportionately on black women (think of the trope of a nanny). Might it say something about the ways that black women today are still more often constrained to a domestic life than white women that they do not have the opportunities to look out in such a way? Think of the broad differences in access (literal and cultural) to the outdoors, historical context of slavery and wilderness (see Kimberly Smith's Wilderness in Black Thought), differential access to health care (esp. women's health) and family planning, and much more that might make it much harder for women of color to look out into nature as a place of opportunity and to turn their backs on a culturally prescribed domestic life.