A headline written in a tabloid way without beating about the bush shows objectification of women in the verbal sphere. Summer is filled to the brim with such headlines, raising the level of medial indoctrination of women year by year, especially young girls. Most times they don't read about Jennifer Lopez starting another collaboration with Pit Bull, but about J.Lo's legs and breasts as if they were going places on their own. The artist while undoubtedly not being a paradigmed, weak, economically dependent on her man, patriarchal being is still being defined as her bottom and breasts, just like most women who are mentioned in tabloids. The semantic deconstruction is linked to depicting women as a collection of elements produced for a specific purpose. A purpose dictated in a hierarchic capitalistic world by men.
Within the confines of particular regimes, knowledge is created, shapes identity sets, of which the most common and unnoticed is the not so obvious, dichotomy of standards for men and women. As we know, in european culture the catalogues of opposites do not benefit from these goods equally. Representatives of female paradigm experience discrimination at provincial environment as well as at big city universities. The patriarchal family model in Poland is still leading, and it doesn't seem that it'll change anytime soon. How is it happening, that despite all these disgraces, biological women proudly accept the cultural role which is thought to be appropriate for them? Zbigniew Liber's film "How little girls are trained" illustrates this phenomenon excellently. The title on it's own says a lot about circumstances acompanying forming a role model in human consciousness - first of all, the person should show a high rate of absorption, which in most cases means they should be young. Then teaching them the optimal parameters for their role in capitalistic system, using a universal tool of discourse, should not be met with any resistance. Depicted character just a couple years old child, with a gaze implying that she doesn't understand the activities she's being subjected to, step by step she's marked with insignia of disciplinary rule, such as a necklace, earrings, a lipstick and most importantly in the end her hand is kissed by an unidentified man. At that moment it's hard not to think about her status being set up in the patriarchal paradigm. Within the duration of the film a certain scene, in which the main character (after choosing the attributes of a particular identity set, we shouldn't have any doubts about it, should we?) carefully looks at her reflection in the mirror, repeats itself. These scenes will most likely become a part of her daily life, because who else than a woman - assuming she's not planning to break out of the norms of society - in order to fullfill even her occupational ambitions, firstly must "look good".This film has been made in 1987, which makes it quite unusual and pioneering element of the countrywide gender discussion, which is still growing new threads and public discourse outside the big city. Beyoncé Knowles, contemporary R&B vocalist, whose fanbase definitely doesn't allow to define her as a "national" artist, showing- presumably- remarkable awareness of her social impact, also made an addition (obviously rather imitative) into forming cultural gender identity of her fans. Published in 2014 the song titled "Pretty Hurts" tells a story of a cultural female, of human kind, whose fate seems to be fixed from the moment, when it became clear how close her physical attributes resemble the then functioning beauty ideal. Hero's mother and caretaker used to say without questioning "You're a pretty girl. What’s in your head, it doesn’t matter. Brush your hair, fix your teeth. What you wear is all that matter". All of this garnished with an american beauty pageant vibe- which despite gaining some popularity with men in recent years- are still mostly typical for "girl's" dreams. The singer, despite also benefiting to a certain extent from and also- propably not on purpose- creator of said norms and ideals of how a succesful women should look, decided to work on lyrics to "Pretty Hurts". Would the said song achieve a response so wide if it wasn’t for the fact that it was promoted by a person who in 2012 was given the title of the most beautiful women in the world by "People" magazine? It's the apparent wordlview contrast that makes this combination remarkable in contex of foucaultian concept of "appropriating imagination" by current discourses, which are a product of knowledge, which is a product of authority. So Beyoncé turns out to be an excellent field for implications for a vision of life against the esthetic norms for women's figures. She manifests, that she'd gladly submit to it. However, that’s mentioned if the song has autobiographic elements, about a beauty standard which has changed, and partially thanks to no one else than Queen B. awarding her the given title by "People" magazine can be viewed as a turning point in glorification of emaciated bodies of white women- the previous standard. Completely straying away from that standard she managed to "conquer" the american music industry with significant covers and become a beauty icon. The latter can be seen as a cause for vogue for voluptuous buttocks, which was gladly taken over by white women- sometimes almost fanatically, like Kim Kardashian. This change, however, had at a certain historic moment an emancipating nature, since it has shown an alternative to a more enslaving almost anorexic standard (ex. Kate Moss).
How it usually happens, for an alternative, it lost its impact and became another almost fascist paradigm, leading to situations where women inject their buttocks with concrete in order to remain within the bounds of current standard. It is mostly caused by the upbringing which prepares, or rather "trains" young girls to become biopolitical objects of lust.