Representations of Whiteness in the Black Imagination

This article was fascinating to read. While I am aware and acknowledge that there has been racism in this country for years, I never thought about it from the viewpoint of an African American, about how they must feel or how they view whites. Is the reason I don't really see it as overly prevalent because I would not be affected by the racism? In our INST 150 class, we have the freshman read an article titled "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" which talks about the somewhat ignorant bliss whites live in because they are never affected by their race. This article lists all the privileges whites hold and they are broad, covering issues of politics down to not worrying about bandaid colors matching our skin. The link online is here: http://mmcisaac.faculty.asu.edu/emc598ge/Unpacking.html

Hooks discusses the terror blacks have felt in response to white supremacy for years. Even though times have changed, that terror is still prevalent. "In contemporary society, white and black people alike believe that racism no longer exists. The eagerness with which contemporary society does away with racism, replacing this recognition with evocations of pluralism and diversity that further mask reality, is a response to the terror. It also has become a way to perpetuate the terror by providing a cover, a hiding place. Black people still feel the terror, still associate with whiteness, but are rarely able to articulate the varied ways we are terrorized because it is easy to silence by accusations of reverse racism or by suggesting that black folks who talk about the ways we are terrorized by whites are merely evoking victimization to demand special treatment" (176). She talks about an experience she had going to a cultural studies conference where she felt white domination within the conference itself, down to even the way the speakers were arranged on stage. Upon feeling the all too familiar terror, she overhead some white women mocking her terror and attributed that to their ignorance: "Their inability to conceive that my terror is a response to the legacy of white domination and the contemporary expressions of white supremacy is an indication of how little this culture really understands the profound impact of white racist domination" (176). Am I guilty of not understanding the terror African Americans feel because I happen to be white and therefore ignorant of this?

Hooks specifically cites the book by Toni Morrison, Beloved, talking about the impact black terror has on the individuals because it is so deeply wounding. She cites a specific incident within the book, where "the memory of terror is so deeply inscribed on the body of Sethe and in her conciousness, and the association of terror with whiteness is so intense that she kills her young so that they will never know the terror" (176). This entire concept both fascinated and embarrassed me. Have I been like those ignorant women making light of feelings some people have had? Have I just overlooked them? Since I am not in the "minority" group, does that mean I only see white ways? Definitely gave me something to think about.

Confusing Exotica

Ghosh opens this chapter talking once again about mass media being a major contender in determining and establishing stereotypes of racial groups. She also mentioned the danger if a group is not included within mass media because that only reinforces opinions about the group's values. Citing the Indian group specifically, Ghosh talks about the images that the media portrays of this group tends to be "narrow and cliche" because they point out that these minority groups are not seen within the dominant culture so its not important to overly represent them within the media. She calls the Indians "soujourners rather than immigrants and people needed for their labor, not for their lives" (275). She goes on to say that the most frequent representation of Indians in the media is their absence (276), "reinforcing their position in the power structure, establishing an us versus them concept, and code them in negative terms". Ghosh talks about the "exotic-ness" of India and their culture, especially within the fashion industry. Our culture paints India as a nation and culture so far removed from our own but one we love to imitate within fashion, but using American models. Ghosh ends the chapter saying American culture has " constructed India soley as mythological, sanskrited India" and the importance of moving from that view to one that sees India as "an identity that is continuously in flux, changing as the political and economic climate changes. They need to move away from pictures of a Hindu India to a more complex, complicated version of what India truly is" (280).

Obviously India is all over the news because of the terror attacks just a couple days ago. This nation that tends to be absent from American media is now all over every TV, website and newspaper. What kinds of images are getting conjured up in the minds of Americans about the Indian people? Will the fact that we have now been affected by a terrorist attack bring us together or just continue to enforce the us versus them distinction? I know many Americans get confused about the many religions and will they be able to sense the difference between the Islamic terrorists and Hindus of India? Ghosh mentioned that we need to begin to seeing India as the diverse nation it is, but will this major world event affect that from happening?

The Power of Television Coverage

Stephanie Greco Larson opens this section with a chapter on social movements and the media, saying "social movements try to use the mass media to broaden the scope of conflict" (145). She goes on to discuss the different ways social movements are executed and the impact media has on its success. Larson mentions that social movements are not important news coverage She then makes an interesting point saying that "an ideological explanation for why social movements do not get the kind of coverage they seek is that their goals are critical of the values held by the mainstream media" (147). She also mentions the "issue attention cycle" which she says helps explain the changes in coverage. "There is an inevitable cycle of attention paid to issues in the media and by the public....the public's interest is stimulated by the media's alarmed discovery of a problem. Enthusiasm in the public and the press for finding a solution to the problem is intense and short lived, lasting until they grow discouraged and bored and move on to another problem. When social movements organize events that are considered newsworthy (during the discovery and euphoria phases), they have a better chance of getting coverage" (150).


In the next chapter, she moves into the impact of the media on the civil rights movement."Research into news coverage of particular civil rights events reveals a messier version of the media-civil rights movement relationship than which has been mythologized. Systemic content analysis of national and local media illustrates that actions seen today as unambigiously right or wrong were not presented that way at the time. While some coverage promoted black activists' goals and actions, much of the news ignored, criticized or even demonized them...Not only did the parallel and mainstream press differ, but so did national and local coverage. At times, the three major national news magazines, Newsweek, Time and U.S. News and the World Report interpreted events differently" (152). Larson talks about the importance media held in the civil rights movement because TV was able to put faces and pictures to the stories heard round the nation and got the word out about the injustices experienced by African Americans. She said that with these images "it forced Congress to act".


In the chapter entitled "Native Americans, Chicanos, and Asian Americans", Larson claims that "media coverage of other racial minority groups movements is not remembered according to a particular conventional wisdom" (178). She makes an interesting point that other than the civil rights movement, Americans don't realize there were other social movements involving minorities. Discussing the Native American movement, Larson talks about the stereotypes that played into news coverage, as news depicted Native Americans as "militant"and how they also typically avoided any events that took place on reservations (179). The biggest event in the movement was the Battle at Wounded Knee. This event had the most coverage, Larson saying that "it received more coverage during the first week than Indian activism had received in a decade" (182).The media portrayed the Indians as violent, categorizing the group into one blanket stereotype. Larson mentions next that not much is known about the Chicano movement, because there was not enough coverage of the event. And the same was said of the hispanic movement, that little coverage was given. She wraps up talking about the dramatic love of the media and how they will focus on the events that bring more drama or put some twist on them to make them more dramatic.

I just found this news article entitled "Huxtable Effect Key to Obama Win?"

http://www.comcast.net/articles/tv/20081112/TV.Bill.Cosby/

Thats the link. Check it out, its pretty interesting and completely relevant to what we are talking about.

Representations of Racial-Minority Mass Publics in the News

Stephanie Greco Larson opens this chapter with a quote that agrees with everything we have learned in this class:

"All news that includes minorities (or gender) conveys messages to readers and viewers that help them develop, reinforce or challenge assumptions about race"(82).

So media is highly responsible for the views we have of certain races and the ways we respond to them. Larson talks about the inclusion of whites within American newspapers, and the exclusion of minorities. "This exclusion reinforced their low status and "signified exlusion from the American society, because the function of news is to reflect social reality"(82). The exclusion of minorities caused problems, but the inclusion of them also causes problems. Typically, if a minority is mentioned on the news, it is for negative reasons. 'Hard news that treats racial minroeis as the main subject focuses on their threat to the social structure and their opposition to whites" (82). She goes on to mention that even when minorities are acting within the law, the media portrays them as threatning, such as the "prescence of Native Americans was seen as thwarting Western expanison. Chinese laborers in the late 1800's were percieved as threatning whites' employment oppurtunities, as have Mexican immigrants been more recently" (82). Another interesting quote she has is that "when news includes racial issues, coverage emphasizes confrontation and uses an us-versus-them frame, with the assumed us being white" (82).

Larson goes on to explain the power of stereotypes saying that they create a general image that is applied to every member of the group. She also says that stereotypes are so powerful, it can cause people within the group to conform to that expected image.

Examining strategies of new coverage, Larson mentions that news shows want to cater to the dominant group, which is often assumed to be white. So as such, the stations, news, advertisments and all, they talk to the whites. She also says that when talking to a source who are seen as "credible, important and accessible, most of them are white" (85).

Obviously, if we continously hear news stories of murder, theft, and other crimes as committed by black men, we will start to associate crime with African American men. "Coverage of crime that prominently displays black men makes them convenient and convincing scapegoats for other people's crimes" (91). She even cites an example where a white woman killed her children and blamed it on a "fictitious black man" (93).

So what do these minority groups think of the images and messages that get said that target the whole group, each night on the evening news? "Black viewers, for example, have become very skeptical of crime news; studies show that seeing black suspects on TV actually leads them to 'lower their support for punitive criminal justice policies and reduce their willingness to accept negative characterizations of their group" (92). So why don't more groups fight back? Why don't minority groups as a whole join together and overcome this? Because they are just as susceptible of believing stereotypes they hear about other racial group and are less likely to join with them. Larson also mentions that if the group begins to believe what is said about them, they might begin to blame themselves for being discriminated against.

Since they are not being depicted correctly or are even being left out of mainstream news, many minorities have made their own publications to "construct their own communication infastructures, rituals and media in an attempt to build community and to influence mainstream social discourse" (93).

Its so sad that this is the condition our world is in. That we have to have an us-versus-them mentality. That groups of people are discriminated against because of one bad move by a member of their racial group. Its so easy to think that we have overcome all our racist attitudes, but then you read chapters like this and see just how far we have to go.

I know this was mentioned the other day, but I think the Office episode "Diversity Day" shows clearly the effect media has on our minds about race. The show each week portrays this ignorance and capitalizes on stereotypes present in America, I think mainly to make those of us who have these attitudes feel uncomfortable. In this clip, Micheal, in an effort to celebrate the ethnicities in the office, tapes a piece of paper to each person's head listing an ethnicity or race. Then the co-workers are instructed to treat each other according to the race listed on their head. And as usual, the activity doesn't work and everyone is offended.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrjxlDfAFzI

But if they weren't offended, would it be Micheal Scott?

News Coverage of Racial Minority Candidates and Politicians

This section could not have come at a better time, just as election season is finally closing. Stephanie Greco Larson opens the chapter discussing how news reporters choose to cover candiates and the results from their decisions. She claims that "the focus is one the candidates as personalities, rather than potential leaders with issue agendas, ideologies and party identifications" (196). She also mentions the truth of the more popular you are, the better coverage you will get. In this election 9and every election), the majority of the attention went to Obama and McCain. Larson claims that the lack of attention to any other delegates not in the Democratic or Republican party can "doom their campagins by preventing them from getting enough support to change their poll results and subsequently earn more coverage. Essentially, candiates argue that by not giving them coverage, the mediap prevent them from suceeding. Reporters agree that candidates who do not do well in polls are not viable enough to cover" (196). Media coverage of the candiates is important, that is the biggest way the parties get their message out and obviously, how sad would this election have been without SNL's weekly coverage of news from the trail? :) Larson also goes on to say that once a candidate is elected, its still important that the media continues to cover them, "they are in effort running a permanent campaign in which they are selling themselves and their ideas to the public, other politicians and the press" (197). So clearly, media coverage is vital to politicians but sometimes news reporters spin on the politicians can get them into trouble.

Larson then goes on to explore the coverage of black candidates in the media. She mentioned the typical issues, such as the fact that white candidates or politicans tend to get more coverage, over a black opponets but only when whites were running against whites. If there was a white candidate and a black candidate, there was no change in amount of coverage. There is also the issue mentioned that even when a black candidate is elected, they do not feel that the media takes them as seriously as white politicians. Larson then mentions an issue that was explored in detail during this election season, stating that "when campaigns are biracical, debate about ideology shifts to accusations of racism or reverse discrimination. Compaints also come from white candidates who say that the press applies a double standard that favors black candidates. The logic behind this allegation is that reporters do not want to appear racist so they resist critisizing blacks" (206). Is that true? Did Obama not get critisized for anything because he is African American? Or was he not as "bust-able" as Sarah Palin was?

She concludes by discussing the use of stereotypes in news coverage, even of politicians. She lists the stereotypes as dishonest and immoral(which I think is a stereotype of most politicans), dangerous and threatning (one particular stereotype used a great deal by some extreme conservatives in this election), and novel and different, making them the exception, not the norm.

As I read through this article, so many moments of "Decision 2008" ran through my mind. We made history by electing the first African American president in the United States. All through the campaign, the issue of race was so heavily embeded in the news coverage that sometimes it was hard to get past that and simply look at the issues Obama stands for. We may have come a long way since the days of slavery, but we would be stupid to say America is completely beyond its racist paths. Some serious racism came out through the election process, even one attempt at assisination. I think that so many people got so wrapped up in Obama being a black man and being in favor or opposed to it that they forgot to examine the issues. Since he was a front runner in this election, naturally news coverage of him and his family was at a great high, matching the coverage of his opponet, Senator John McCain. While I don't know of any news stations that held biases toward either candidate, the attitudes expressed by this chapter were definitely present within the people of America during this whole process. Larson concludes with a statement that I hope and pray is not true for our new President, whether we agree with him or not: "Even after they are elected, blacks are more likely to be presented as outsiders, lacking independance and power" (210). Obama did the camaign thing, he won the votes of America to hold the most powerful position in the country, but will he still be treated as an outsider, just because of the color of his skin? Is this going to be the change we've been waiting for, or is it going to reinforce some extreme racists attitudes contained in the country?

All through election season, my friends and I watched SNL to see what new thing Tina Fey would come up with or watch a spoof of the latest debate. On November 3, 2008, one night before the election, SNL held a Presidential Bash. Both John McCain and Sarah Palin appeared on the show, as well as countless parodies of their campaign trail. They also had both appeared on the show during the regular season. Barack Obama was not a guest throughout the weeks leading up, nor at the Bash. While there were a couple skits in which he was portrayed, there were a great deal fewer than any with McCain or Palin. Was SNL doing exactly what Larson talked about in this chapter, not giving as much coverage to the black candidate as they did to the white? Were they avoiding Obama as much as possible, as to not appear racist by poking fun at him and instead focused entirely on the Mavericks? There was even more spoofs about Obama's running mate, Joe Biden. that there was of our new President. Why? Its certainly something to think about.

Check out the link below, there are a bunch of skits listed...check them out for yourself!
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/categories/newest/p/2/

Show and Tell-Ethnicity and Race

Barack Obama elected 44th president

I was really trying to find some cool advertisement or episode of a show to represent contemporary ethnicity and race when it was in front of me the whole time. I think these pictures and words are a great example of a contemporary view of African Americans in the media. Barack Obama became the 44th President of the United States last night, the first African American to ever hold this office. Throughout the past 2 years, we have heard about Obama, read his views, listened to his debates and closely followed his progress. Many said this couldn't be done. But history was made last night. I realize that a great share of the reasons he won was because of his political stance on the issues and his ability to lead this country. But like I said, this has never happened before. Blacks have suffered through many years of racism and struggle. But last night, a black man won the votes of so many Americans that he now holds one of the most powerful positions in this world. This is a great step in American history for all of us, especially African Americans, and I think the best contemporary (very up to date) representation of this present and continuing change.

Borrowing from Obama's speech last night:

“If there is anyone out there who doubts that America is a place where anything is possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer,” Obama declared.
“Young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled, Americans have sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of red states and blue states,” he said. “We have been and always will be the United States of America.
“It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America,” he said to a long roar. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27531033/)

What Ever Happened to Predictability?

One of the reasons that I love this class and these reading is because so often I read about something that I ignorantly have never thought of and it opens my eyes to what is really going on in the world. These articles were just that. Growing up, I watched a decent amount of TV. Some of my favorites were Full House, Family Matters, Boy Meets World, The Cosby Show, Home Improvement and Sister Sister. I loved them all equally. Only now as I look and think about them do I see the distinct differences between them, mainly speaking of the races of main characters on the show. Full House, Boy Meets World, and Home Improvement have entirely white casts (with the exception of Angela on Boy Meets World later on in the series); whereas the casts of Family Matters, The Cosby Show and Sister Sister are completely African American actors/actresses. Since I loved all the shows equally and did not notice this difference until now, the races had no effect on me. I had equal crushes on Sean from Boy Meets World or Steve from Full House as I did on Stephan from Family Matters. Is that bad that I did not notice the difference...or good?

In the book Media and Minorities, author Stephanie Greco Larson brings to the forefont stereotypes of African Americans within modern media today. She mentions several different stereotype distinctions that have appeared and are appearing in movies and TV of today: mammies, toms, coons, mulattos, black bucks, pimps and whores. She lists two "reoccuring themes in black film and television that reinforce the status quo: the first approach blames blacks and celebrates whites. The second denies racial inequality by focusing on individuals and ignoring social structures" (Larson, 31). Larson also mentions the "whiteness of black characters" in many films and shows, saying that "Black sitcoms are not Black in tha they exhibit an African American worldview or Black philosophy of life. Rather, they are black because the performers are black"(36). As I read this article, all I could think about was how when I sit down to watch a movie or a TV show, I know that there will be at least one (if not more) characters that look like me and act like me. I don't have to worry about severe negative stereotypes or even if the character is true to my culture. I think it is awful that African Americans still have to struggle, even when it comes to how they are portrayed in the media.

The article "Fox Network and the Revolution in Black Television" explores the phenomenon that took place when Fox started producing shows written by, or starring black authors/actors. "The Fox Network was unique, then, in that it advertently fostered a space for black authorship in television. It did this to capitalize on a underrepresented market, of course". "Fox was completely different from traditional networks in its early days. They wanted to be the rebel network" (Zook, 587). They did this to be different, to purposely cater to an audience that was not represented on television at this time. But what was their motive really? After Fox picked up these shows, all other major networks wanted in on this as well. But why? Was it really for the benefit of African Americans or was it for their own profit? "The only reason FOX, WB, and UPN get involved in black programming, is so that they can temporarily sustain themselves. The minute they can, they pull out. They build themselves up with black audiences, but once they're established, they dump us" (593). Is this still the case? Do networks only have shows with minorities to boost themselves and then dump them the minute they are successful? How far have we really come? I wish I could say that there is a significant distance from them to now for where we have come racially, but sadly I do not think thats the case. Instead I think many try to pretend things are better, but really its all for selfish reasons. A quote that finished up the chapter sums it up well and gives us a challenge :"This chapter bears witness to the internal contradictions of African American producers and consumers. While our collective yearning for the mythical American dream is apparent in virtually every episode of every black produced show, black Americans are stepping into a new century largely removed from the benefits of a global capitalist economy. Our challenge remains one of critical engagement. Because visual media colonize our imaginations, we must continue to strive for vigilant and sophisticated readings of television culture. We must continue to create transformative physic-and physical-spaces in which to have fuller, more just lives" (593).

Reading through these articles and struggling through these ideas, I could not help but think of the movie Hairspray. This movie is set in the 60's, at the time when the idea of integration of blacks and whites was just beginning. Just in case you have not seen the movie/play, click here for a full summary : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427327/plotsummary

I think that while this movie addresses an issue prevalent in the 60s, it is still addressing problems that we are having today in 2008. We just elected the first African American president, something that no one dreamed would happen. The mere fact that no one thought it was possible tells us that we are still trapped in a 1960's way of thinking.

I feel that in this movie, African Americans stay true to their culture, no one tried to "whiten" them up. The concept of integration becomes more of a reality throughout the movie, especially when Penny Pingleton (white female) and Seaweed (black male) fall in love in spite of a racist town and mother. The closing song is called "You Can't Stop the Beat" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw8ybll5SSc and one key line in the song sums up an attitude we all need to have today:

You can't stop today

No!As it comes speeding down the track

Child, yesterday is hist'ry

Be gone!And it's never coming back!

Cause tomorrow is a brand new day

And it don't know white from black

You can't stop

The motion of the ocean

Or the rain from above

They can try to stop ths paradise

We're dreaming of

You can't stop the beat!

Of all days, today is a new day. Things are changing and will continue to do so. We can do nothing to stop it. I hope this is a start of a great new chapter in American history.

The Whites of Their Eyes

In Stuart Hall's article, "The Whites of Their Eyes", he dives into exploring ideologies in the media about race. He breaks it into three parts, saying "First, ideologies do not consist of isolated and separate concepts, but in the articulation of different elements into a distinctive set or chain of meanings" (89). "Second, ideological statements are made by individuals but ideologies are not the produc of individual conciousness or intention. Rather, we formulate our intentions within ideology" (90). "Third, ideologies "work" by constructing for their subjects (individual and collective) positions of identification and knowledge which allows them to "utter" ideological truths as if they were their authentic authors" (90). He talks about media creating and recreating the ideas we have about race, and then mentions two types of racisim: overt and inferential". "Overt is "those many occasions when open and favorable coverage is given to arguments, positions and spokespersons who are in the business of elaborating an openly racist argument or advancing a racist policy or view" (91). Inferential is "those apparently naturalizeds representations of events and situations relating to race, whether factual or fictional which have racist premises and propositions inscribed in them as a set of unquestioned assumptions" (91). He explores the portrayals of blacks in the media, specifically in movies and TV saying that "one noticeable fact about all these images is their deep ambivalence-the double vision of the white eye through which they are seen. The primitive nobility of the aging tribesman or chief and the native's rhythmic grace, always contain both a nostalgia for an innocence lost forever to the civilized and the threat of civilization being over-run or determined by the reccurrence of savagery, which is always lurking just below the surface; or by an untutored sexuality, threatning to "break out"...."Is all this so far away as we sometimes suppose from the representation of race which fill the screens today? These particular versions may have faded. But their traces are still to be observed, re-worked in many of the modern and up to date images" (92).

Slavery may be a thing of the past, but we still have a long way to go. In the article, The Racial Chameleon, authors Entman and Rojecki talk about the difficulty blacks have in moving their way up, past all racist attitudes and attempts to keep them down. They say that whites see blacks as inferior still to this day and undeserving. BUT they do not think that the whites are not "incurably racist". They talk about the different situations in which whites feel animosity towards blacks and how that hinders any improvements that are necessary to take to help our world.

I'll admit it, I love the "Love Come Softly" series. I know they are so cheesy, but I can't help it. When I read this article about the stereotypical black characters, I thought immediately of a similar character in this story. If anyone has not heard/seen these movies, they are about the Davis family living in the 1800s, and the joys and trials the family faces on the frontier. It starts with Marty, Clark and daughter Missy and the series continues, following Missy as she grows, gets married and has children. The movie I am specifically thinking of is 4th in the series, Love's Abiding Joy. In this movie, Missy and husband Wille are settled into a new home, starting a cattle ranch and Willie hires 5 men to assist him on the ranch. There is Joe, Frank, and Henry who help with the cattle and then there's Cookie who is hired to help Missy in the home. Cookie fits the "slave-figure" within Hall's article, which is described as " dependable, loving in a simple, childlike way--the devoted "Mammy" with the rolling eyes, or the faithful fieldhand or retainer, attached and devoted to "his" master" (92). Cookie is that, completely. Cookie also happens to be my favorite character in the series because he is so happy and loving to the family. I know that the movie producers had to keep the characters and story line accurate to the time period but still. Cookie applied for the job, he was not kept as a slave which is an improvement but continues to enforce the stereotypes that we need to overcome.

Role Models

Celebrities are fascinating. Every time they step out of their house, we are updated on what they are wearing, who they are with, what they did, if they burped or cursed someone out, if their marriage is failing, if there is a hint of a baby bump, even if they did not put makeup on that day. They are just like us, do the same things we do, the only difference is that their lives are on public display, making the everyday things exciting and interesting. Since images and messages about celebrities are constantly thrown at us, naturally we become interested in them, and then develop favorites. Sometimes, celebrities become a role model to us. This usually takes place when we are kids, but it can impact us even as adults. We can admire qualities they have and want to imitate them. Or we can be somewhat shallow and want to imitate them for the sole reason that they are famous.

David Gauntlett explores the world of role models, focusing particularly on celebrity impact, defining a role model as " someone to look up to and someone to base your character, value or aspirations upon" (211). I had a couple role models growing up, they were usually the older kids in my youth group. But I know many friends that looked up to Britney Spears, the Spice Girls and Jessica Simpson. Today the popular role model for young girls is Miley Cirus. Are these celebrities good to look up to? Gauntlett explores the different types of role models:

The Straightforward sucess role model- had great sucesss in chosen field. Example: Brad Pitt

The Triumph over difficult circumstances role model- overcome adversity to achieve sucess. Example: Tiger Woods and Maya Angelous

The Challenging stereotypes role model: female action heroes. Example: Lara Croft

The Wholesome role model- great role model, but always the possibility that they can become an public disappointment. Example: Emma thompson...until she got pregnant out of wedlock.

The Outsider role model-rejected by mainstream- culture and defies social expectations. Example: Marilyn Manson

The Family role model- includes members of own family, as well as celebrity parents. Example: David and Victoria Beckham. Includes being negatvely defined by those who label certain parents as innappropriate role models. Example: lesbian couple

(all taken from pages 214-215)

Gauntlett then goes on to discuss one of the most powerful celebrity role model of our time- the Spice Girls. These six British women hit it big, not only in record sales but in the admiration of thousands of girls all over the world. The Spice Girls exemplified their motto of "Girl Power". Gauntlett talks about this phenomenon:

"Girl power concept was a celebration of self belief, independance and female friendship, and whilst cynics muttered that it was an empty ideology-sneering that its goals were only the right to shout "girl power" a lot-it nevertheless dud seem to be empowering for young girls. Pop music expert Shelia Whitely notes that the Spice Girls were a challenge to the dominance of lad culture and they introduced the language of independance to a willing audience of pre and teenage girls".

The Spice Girls showed girls how awesome it was to be a girl and those girls really bought it. I was in middle school during the time of the Spice Girls and they really were role models. They made being a girl fun and lived the ultimate girl life. They dressed in ridiculous fashion and were pretty ridiculous themselves but promoted messages that were healthy and self confidence boosting. I think that is why so many felt a connection with them. They showed girls everywhere how to appreciate and love who they were. Their impact was long lasting. Just last year, they did a reunion tour and so many friends of mine bought tickets and were so excited about it, proving that girl power and the love for the Spice Girls did not die when the band broke up.

Who are today's role models? Who are the celebrities that get looked up to? Who has the "Spice Girls" effect on girls today? Is it Miley Cirus? Is it the Highschool Musical crowd? Is it the PussyCat Dolls? Culture is so different than it was when I was in middle school. The Spice Girls were considered "sexy" but not even close to the level that the PussyCat Dolls are considered to be. The Spice Girls were more about fun, the Dolls are about sex. The Spice Girls did not have completely modest dress but the Dolls barely wear clothes. Do today's role models promote anything healthy? I think the Disney crowd tends to focus more on healthy messages than MTV stars. I would classify many of the Disney stars in the Wholesome Role Model category, but unfortunately many have fallen prey to negative images along the way. Nude online photos are not uncommon for that crowd. Is that a healthy role model for kids to have? Kids are the ones watching the Disney channel and they idolize the stars, so what happens when the "safe" star gets busted for racy photos or a DUI? Placing a celebrity in the category of role model is questionable and always has been. We worry about kids growing up too fast in today's society but when we look at who they idolize and imitate, is it any wonder we're having so many problems? I think someone needs to bring back the days of the Spice Girls...we all need a little more girl power in our lives.

Mulan

I love the Disney movie Mulan. It was/is one of my favorites. And now here I am, re-evaluating my admiration for the movie, after reading the article "Destructive and Constructive Characterizations of women in Disney's Mulan" by Katherine Barnett. Is any Disney movie safe? Did I watch anything growing up that did not fill my mind with unhealthy views of women or different races?

Barnett's arguement in this article is that "Mulan presents a mixed bag of negative and positive portrayals of women, with negative representations dominating" (185). She then goes on to describe these negative representations within the movie, playing heavily on her background and culture. She begins by discussing the scene where Mulan's matriarch and other women in the family are preparing her to be a "good bride". Barnett has the opinion that "Evidently the only way Mulan can honor her family is through her ability to attract a man. Her worth comes from her physical objectification as a pleasurable stimulus for the desires of men" (186).

She cites specifically Mulan's relationship with Mushu the dragon, calling him " a symbolic patriarch" (188) and stating that whle Mulan "thinks independantly and acts upon her ideas, that action s followed by or paired with some intervention by Mushu, thus making Mushu a neccessary element for Mulan's success" (188). She also mentions the last scene where Mulan bows to Mushu to thank him for his help, further cementing herself as the lower gender, even to a god-like dragon.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this article. Disney is known for putting heavy emphasis on gender and racial stereotypes but I do not feel that this is one movie where that happens ( at least not heavily). I always loved Mulan because she defied the stereotype of a princess and more specifically, a Disney princess. She was trapped by her culture in an identity that was not her own. She defied that role by taking on a challenge most men would not. She went to battle and was sucessful. Mushu was along for the ride, giving her advice but who doesn't need a good sidekick? What she did was not allowed or supported and she did it anyways to help her family and country. And lets be honest. Mulan kicked butt. She was ten times better and worked ten times harder than all those men to prove herself, thus defying a gender stereotype that women are weaker. I think Barnett missed the whole point that most of the problems Mulan encountered were because of her culture. It wasn't Disney forcing Mulan to be the oppressed woman forced to wear a dress, be polite, prepare herself from marriage and stay away from the war. That was Chinese culture and Disney was trying to pull from that to make it accurate. Was it 100% true to Chinese culture? Probably not. If nothing else, Mulan was a story that broke down those gender roles. Mulan had a role to live up to because of her culture and she defied that by joining the army in disguise and proving that girls can be just as strong as men. Mulan proved to girls everywhere that they could be just as good as a man even in something that is stereotypically a man's job. She did end up falling in love in the end, but after defeating a powerful army so I think we'll let that slide. After all, it is still Disney.

So sorry Barnett, your arguement does not cut it for me. I think if anything, Mulan is the anti Disney movie. It stays true to Chinese culture and above all shows how kick butt girls really are. It shows them that they don't have to settle for fulfilling the stereotypical role of women, they can break through those images. Its also a great movie for boys because it shows them that girls aren't always about makeup and dolls, they can fight too. I told the story in class about the two little boys I babysit for telling me I couldn't engage in a lightsaber fight because "girls don't fight". Well I plan on watching Mulan when I babysit next to see their reactions. In her article The Buffy Effect, Rachel Fudge talks about the level of "girl power" in Buffy the Vampire Slayer enhanced by low tops and a beautiful face. She quotes the producer of Buffy saying "If I can make teenage bots comfortable with a girl who takes charge of a situation without their knowing that's whats happening, its better than sitting down and selling them on feminism" (5). Interesting.

My absolute favorite song in that whole movie is "I'll Make a Man Out of You". In this clip, Shang (the commander) is trying to get his men in shape for battle and all of them are pathetic. Mulan is on the same level as the men, without any previous training or skills. As the song progresses, the men and Mulan improve until the grand finish where they are finally ready and able to fight. Be a Man.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK7XwLbd-oI

The More You Subtract, the More You Add

Girls are insecure. I know you're thinking, "thank you Captain Obvious" and you're welcome. I think thats a phrase that we have come to resonate with, to know to be true and now we are so numb to it. That is sad. Girls everywhere (even those who look the way society tells them is right) are struggling with how they view themselves and we are almost immune to it. Its a part of life.

We also know exactly why girls have this issue: media. Media gets blamed for many things, but this one is totally their fault. As girls grow up, images are thrown at them daily of what a women should look like. Just a couple weeks ago in grow group, my student chaplain opened the night by asking what the perfect women looks like. And you know what the answers of college aged women were? Probably the same as ones a little girl would say, only more defined. This woman had medium length blond hair, blue eyes, was a size 4, great legs, decent sized bust, lack of cankles (I think I might have thrown that one in), amazing style, just the right amount of flirty, successful, and because she is so perfect: a gorgeous boyfriend. Where did we get this women from? Were we inspired by friends and family members? Maybe a little. Or do we see this women on the cover of every magazine, watch her on TV every day, or buy movies that she stars in? This women is plastered all over the media, with some different variations. In the article by Jean Kilbourne, she mentions that not only does the media impact girls, but their peers. I think that the media is impacting the peers who impact these girls. Its a vicious cycle.

Within the same article, Kilbourne lists statistics of women, girls actually, that are obsessed with matching up to what they see and hear:

"Some studies have found that from 40 to 80 percent of 4th grade girls are dieting. Today at least one third of twelve to thirteen year old girls are actively trying to lose weight, by dieting, vomiting, using laxatives or taking diet pills. One survey found that 63 percent of highschool girls were on diets, compared with only 16 % of men. And a survey in Massachusetts found that the single largest group of highschool students considering or attempting suicide are girls who feel they are overweight" (261).

That is crazy. Girls who are barely out of childhood are dieting and highschool girls are trying to kill themselves because they don't look a certain way and people are making fun of them for it and they think its easier to starve themselves, or die than to just be happy and healthy as they are.

So... where did this obsession come from??

Growing up, I had countless amounts of Barbie dolls. I loved playing with them for hours, dressing them up, doing their hair, making them go on dates, get married, have kids, the whole sch bang. They were a toy, a toy that I loved so when I got older and someone challenged me on the fact that my Barbies were the unattainable perfect woman, I was taken aback and somewhat offended. This person thought I was horrible for having such an awful toy...but then again, I was only 5 and I liked them. Whats the harm? Now that I look back, yes Barbie fits the "perfect woman" that I referred to above (minus her overly arched feet). No I look nothing like Barbie, but that did not bother me as a kid. There have been talks about making "fat Barbies" to make things more correct. I think by calling them fat, you have already killed any positive that you try to promote. Did some girls get unhealthy images of what a woman should look like from Barbie? Its possible. But I think there needs to be a better balance, and not as much extremes.

This problem of low self confidence in women needs to be fixed otherwise we will continue to hear tragic stories of little girls dieting, women killing themselves and all others not wanting to look in a mirror.

Some Things Never Change

In the article, Inventing the Cosmo Girl, Laurie Ouellette discusses Cosmopolitan's beginnings and its editor in chief, Helen Gurley Brown. Brown wrote the book, Sex and the Single Girl. She claimed it was "a self help credo for the girl who doesn't have anything going for her... whose not pretty, who maybe didn't go to college and who may not even have a decent family background"(117). Brown had had 18 secretarial jobs, got promoted to advertising copy writer and did not marry until the age of 37 (117), so this book was largely drawn from her own personal experiences. She gave advice on work, housing, budget, physical appearance and of course, on sex. "Brown guided women through encounters with men who were not their husbands, instructing them how to attract the best ones, date them, cajole dinners and presents out of them, have affairs and eventually marry the most eligible man available" (118). After her great success, she became editor in chief of Cosmopolitan.

Cosmo was "the first consumer magazine to target single 'girls with jobs' with feature articles, advice columns, budget fashions and advertisements for mainly 'feminine' consumer items such as cosmetics, personal care products, lingerie and clothing" (119). This magazine was almost targeted for girls who were in the working class, did not hold any degrees and were ultimately trying to survive the single life. There were articles about improving yourself, how to accept who you are, what it means to be 'natural', and other various tips. Brown also capitalized on "sexual protocol", featuring articles on "female orgasm, birth control, masturbation, casual sex, and sexual experimentation" (123). Cosmo eventually moved into feminism, although not entirely. Cosmopolitan was a magazine before its time, speaking of those issues not necessarily discussed and defying "normal" standards.

Cosmo definitely fits in better today. There are more magazines like it, though it does position itself above the rest. The themes it had back in 1972 (magazine on right) still hold true today. Articles about weight loss, dealing with men, fashion, personal appearance, and sex sex sex. The way it is portrayed may be different, but the message that Cosmo started off with is the same over 30 years later.

Macho Macho Man

"Hooligans, Studs and Queers" by Varda Burstyn was fascinating to read. Everyone probably has someone in their lives that they would put into the "hypermasculine" group, someone who is a tough guy and believes that their strength can dominate all others in all realms of life. A good friend of mine actually just married someone that jumped immediately into my mind when I read the first few sentences of this chapter. I personally think he is a little bit much and its not always fun to get into a disagreement with him or try playing games with him. But I digress....

Within this chapter, Burstyn pulls this concept of hypermasculinity into the sports arena of life, mentioning three examples of masculinity: "british football hooliganism, the cult of the black super-athlete and the convergence of gay culture with the athleticized body" (193).

First, he begins with the british football holiganism, in which he talks about the overzealousness of fans over any sport. He is mainly talking about the pro sport arena but I would argue that some of this could even be exhibited in children rec leagues. We have heard countless stories of out of control parents over kids who should be there to have fun. Burstyn cites specific incidents of murder when it came to pro sports victories. He explains a possible root cause for this: "The core identification that links municipal and national identifications for the football hooligan is expressed in a physically palpable celebration of masculine coercive entitlement on the streets of neighborhoods of cities affliated to rival teams. Through the ritual desecration this celebration involves, we see how the male fans need to confirm his masculinity and reclaim his manhood impart power to the other traditionally 'political' identification-local, racial, ethnic or national-the athletic contest is seen to represent"(198). These men are not even apart of the teams but they get so caught up and so when there is a loss, it is absolute devastation and when there is a win, it is the ultimate moment in their lives.

He then goes on to talk about the “cult of the black super athlete”, He makes references to Tiger Woods, Jackie Robinson, Isaiah Thomas, and Michael Jordan, saying “the media and the world of sports celebrated these events and the remarkable black athletes who had, in intervening decades, risen to prominence in all the major North American sports (with the exception of hockey) ( Burstyn, 201). He also goes on to say that “the black super athlete has been welcomed as a wholesome, healthy, successful role model. Indeed, the athlete’s triumph is felt by many to rehabilitate the image of the black male, so distorted and stereotyped by mainstream, racist culture” (202). He talks about how the dominance of black men and their success in the realm of sports and other prominent positions and the effect it’s had on the image of black males in society.

The last representation of masculinity Burstyn talked about was the “athleticization of gay culture” (213). He first mentions that the previous two forms are homophobic, while this is one is basically the absence of masculinity. He mentions that masculinity came to “be defined in terms of men’s sexual conquest of women and of the repudiation of ‘feminine’ (expressive and receptive) qualities in themselves and other men” (213). He mentions the fact that there are only a few gay athletes that have come out because even if they are gay, they keep it to themselves, “appearing to be heterosexual” (214).

In his chapter entitled Advertising and the Construction of Violent White Masculinity, Jackson Katz explores the portrayals of masculinity within advertising, specifically of white males. He talks about the "construction of dominant masculinity" (351), as made by the media and enforced in today's society. He cites advertising specifically as molding and shaping men's views of masculinity, calling an "omnipresent and rich source of gender ideology" (351).Connecting with Berstyn's arguement, he talks about the portraying men as masculine in magazines and advertising using characteristics such as "the angry, aggressive, White working class male as anti-authority rebel; violence as genetically programmed male behavior; the use of military and sports symbolism to enhance the masculine identity; and the equation of heroic masculinitywith violent masculinity" (352).

I talked about the hooliganism form earlier on in this blog. The best example I can think of for this is my own state. I live in MA, home of the Boston Red Sox, Boston Celtics, and New England Patriots. In the past few years, we have been winning titles left and right (we won't mention last February). When we win a title, the entire city goes crazy. People are hanging off the street lights, there is dancing in the streets, loud shouts of exclamations heard everywhere, hugging of total strangers, cars beeping horns, etc. I'm sure it’s no different in any other city, should the same happen, I'm just speaking from personal experience. When the Red Sox won the World Series for the first time in 86 years, it was the biggest party and the most trouble times 10. I guess I never thought anything of it, it was just what we did. This is what happens when we win. Boston teams are so dedicated to their teams so they feel Now for the flip side...

This year, our star quarterback on the Patriots, Tom Brady tore his ACL in the first quarter of the first season game and it was determined that he would be out for the entirety of the season. Talk about devastation. I talked to my dad a few hours after the press conference and he said that at the grocery store, all the men were walking around like zombies, only expressions of hurt and disappointment on their faces.

And as for the violence we also have the famous rivalry with the New York Yankees. I know all the history behind it, but unless you have actually been present at one of the two teams meeting, you cannot understand. Even when baseball is off season, or it’s another completely different event, sports or otherwise, it is not uncommon for a "YANKEES SUCK" chant to rise above the crowds. At mutual games, there is a heightened number of security to keep an eye on the inevitable fights that will break out. Not to mention the occassional fights that break out between the players on the field...

In all of these cases, while it is predominantly men acting this way, there are also some women that get quite into this as well. Is there such a thing as hypermasculinity hooliganism feminine style?

Fear or Fun?

Men and women are different. That is no news flash. The areas where they different are vast but one area in particular stands out: men (in general) have a fear of commitment and are desperate to hold on to their independence, whereas women are so ready to surrender their independance in return for a lifetime of commitment and intimacy :) . In the chapter, Men's Magazines and Modern Male Identities, Gauntlett explores the world of men's magazines and the underlying themes that appeal to their audience.

Women's magazines are about relationship advice, beauty tips, latest fashion and how to shop without breaking a budget. While men's magazines clearly would not reflect the same, they do have similar traits. Men's magazines are full of tips about women, how to get one interested, how to ask her out, how to keep her and how to keep her happy. Gauntlett explores 4 men's magazines to pull out key aspects and target audiences:

FHM:
content: women in bikinis, advice on life.
typical FHM guy: good in bed, considerate, skilled, witty and happy in relationships.

Loaded:
content: sports, drinking, fashion, silliness.
typical Loaded guy: single, go out, laugh all the time.

GQ:
content: expensive clothing, style, decent article, scantily clad women.
typical GQ guy: smartly dressed, well read, married to attractive woman (i.e. Claudia Schiffer).

Maxim:
content: combination of FHM and Loaded with macho-ness added in.
typical Maxim guy: good at everything, has sex with lots of attractive women.

(all info above taken from chapter 8 of Media, Identity and Gender by David Gauntlett).

So just from 4 guys magazines, what conclusions can we draw? I think it shows that there are many different types of guys: the sporty, the intellectual, etc. It also shows different interests. All include women in some way. In these examples, its all about the "attractive" women, it does not say anything about any other facet of a woman, just her looks.

One quote I pulled from this chapter is "There is not a fear of intimacy, but a fear of anything that might stop you from enjoying yourself, which includes boring mates, police, illness and partners. Relationships are not feared" (175). I think marriage could be thrown into the mix. Marriage can be seen to some men as the old "ball and chain" which would stop their wild days and make them be settled and boring. Its not the case for all men but is a possible one for others. I think that is fascinating. Men want to have fun and they fear the day that the fun would stop. The cause of that could be anything from a common cold to a lifelong partner. That makes a lot more sense. Its not necessarily the woman. Its what the commitment to the woman is stopping: fun.

Going along on this theme, I could not but help but think of The Office. One of the biggest themes of the earlier episodes of the show, we learn that Roy and Pam have been together for years and now have been engaged for 3 years with no wedding date set. They live together and are not the picture of a couple so in love. Roy takes Pam for granted, talks down to her and keeps stringing her along with hopes of a future wedding. He has no intent to actually set a date. And why? Well, as I have just learned, its because Pam would stop some of the fun Roy is having. Roy is still technically single, able to mingle if he wants, kick back with the boys, be independent, etc. By marrying Pam, it means his autonomy would disappear, he would be committed to only one woman (not able to play the field) and would have someone else to be responsible for besides himself which clearly (in Roy's head) equaled 0 fun. Only after Pam dumped him, did Roy become caring and doting. Apparently Pam leaving also took away from his fun. Well Pam was done with waiting and his insincerity and went and found herself a good man! :) :) :)

Boys to Men in Reverse?

It's no secret that men have changed through the years. Where once was a tough, man's man, breadwinner man, has been replaced with a nurturing, dependent man. In his article, The Commercialization of Masculinities: From the "New Man" to the "New Lad", John Beynon points to the 1980s as a major point of impact for the way masculinity was treated and viewed. He's saying that men have gone through phases from "new man" to present day "new lad". Beynon first explores "new man as nurturer", talking about the impact feminism had on some men, causing men to desire to develop a more nurturing attitude. This included becoming more involved in "domestic arena (particularly in respect of child-rearing)" (200). He also talks about the men who were seeking to live a non-sexist life because they wanted equality. Beynon cites a study done that targeted these men to find the reasons behind this decision, and found that many of their early influences were parents who did not "conform to traditional roles", groups of girls primarily hung out with or the influence of feminism (201). Beynon then moves on to discuss "new man as narcissist", "the son of his father's 1950s and 1960s rock and hippy generation, with its interest in clothes and pop music and far removed from the demob-suited, carbolic soap and Old Spice-scented generation" (202). Beynon then moves on to discuss the "loss of the industrial man" talking about women coming into the work force, taking on more industrial jobs, experiencing "the feminization of labor, more like a smack in the eye" (208).

Beynon throws in the term "yuppie" in, as another representative of masculinity in the 1980s. "At his ,yuppie's> heart, was conspicuous consumption and a ruthless, cut throat determination to be seen to be successful, all 'driven by an excessive desire to spend money. Whether it was property, cars, clothes or personal artifacts, consumption was a dominant feature of the yuppie lifestyle" (205).

Now that the "new man" has been established, Beynon talks about the movement in the 1990s into the "new lad". He talks specifically about the men's magazine Loaded which largely highlighted "laddism". "Laddism was a celebration of the irresponsible, of unreconstructed young-men-running-wild reduced to their crude basics and promoted in Loaded through jockstrap humor and 'bikini style' photography" (210). Where earlier decades had highlighted the strength of the working man, Loaded brought a new man into the spotlight: one that had no responsibility, one who looked only to women and sex for fun, one with no morals, basically one who acted more like a boy (lad) than a man.

Men have drastically changed since the 1930's. To make this point, I am going to contrast John Boy Walton of the Waltons with Chuck Bass of Gossip Girl.

John Boy was the eldest of 6 siblings, placing him in a role of responsibility and expected maturity. He was a writer, and very dedicated to that line of work. Anything that he wanted needed to be earned, nothing was just handed to him. In terms of women, he was the utmost romantic and very respected and caring of any woman in his life.

Chuck Bass is a spoiled and selfish typical teenager. He gets whatever he wants when he wants it and it does not matter who he has to trample over to get it. He views women as mere sex objects and goes from girl to girl, sleeping with any that are willing. He treats his sister with less than respect. He is lazy and unmotivated.

I guess I would not call John Boy a man's man but he is characteristic of the hardworking, family man of earlier decades. Chuck Bass is the media's portrayal of today's man. Is this true for today's generation of boys? Are they more like Chuck Bass and less of a man because of it? What is the characteristic of today's man? Do we expect less out of men than we did back in the times of the Waltons? I would dare to say that it is different for everyone because there are so many more facets today than there were in the past. Feel free to agree or disagree, I'm still struggling with this myself.

In Spite of Women

The world of magazines is vast. There are magazines for women, for men, for children, for teenagers, for the elderly, for dogs, for gardeners, for hikers, etc. It seems to be clear who the magazines are intended for, their purpose and what will fill the pages. In this chapter, Kenon Breazeale talks about the fact that men's magazines tend to be a "magazine about women". He explores the magazine Esquire, primarily. When the magazine was created, its founder stated its target audience and cause saying "It is our belief, in offering Esquire to the American male, that we are only getting around at last to a job that should have been done a long time again--that of giving the masculine reader a break. The general magazines, in the mad scramble to increase the woman readership that seems to be so highly prized by national advertisers, have bent over backwards in catering to the special interests and tastes of the feminine audience. This has reached the point where the male reader is made to feel like an intruder on gynaecic mysteries" (Esquire, 1933, 4). Breazale calls this magazine "one of our era's most aggressively one-dimensonal representations of women have resulted from attempts to court men as consumers" (231). He discusses the impact this magazine and magazines like it have had on attitudes towards women. Most of these portray women as mere sex objects, making them less than valued. This impacts the male readers, causing them to see and treat the women in their lives as simply that.

I googled Esquire Magazine and was taken to its website. It has many tabs for fiction, style, video, best bars in America, a changing headline reel, and finally a tab entitled "women". After clicking on it, I found a bulleted list of various famous females, sex advice, etc. There are also article excerpts on the page, inviting to be clicked on. I was just disgusted by the base page for women without even clicking on any of the links. Just from the quick view I got, it clearly shows women as nothing more than sex objects. Its all about the beauty and the sex appeal. Even this month's issue has Angelina Jolie on the cover. This is a magazine for men and a scantily clad women is on the cover. Hm. They certainly know their audience.

Identity Theft

We have talked endlessly about the impact media has on the way we view the world. Michael Foucault calls our "ways of talking about things", discourses. Playing off Focault, David Gauntlett says that "the ability to influence a certain discourse is a form of power that can be exercised (although power is not a property held by a particular group, but is something that flows through social processes and interactions)"(133). The discourses that have the most impact are sexuality and identity. Media is a huge influence when it comes to shaping one's views about sexuality in general, and other people's sexuality. In just the past decade, homosexuality has become more talked about and has almost become less of a thing to be judged for and one to be more accepted. In terms of identity, images of body, sexuality, style, personality, etc. are thrown at us each day in the media from all angles. The power the media has is strong. What we see in the media translates into what we believe about ourselves, about others and about our world.

We are all human. We are male or female. Biologically, that is evident. But what about those mannerisms and specific qualities that each gender is suposed to (or not suposed to) posess? Who tells us how to behave depending on our gender? The media (once again) plays a HUGE role in reinforcing this. How we act as individuals largely depends on how we have been taught to act. In chapter 7 of his book, David Gauntlett talks about queer theory, which he says is " a radical remix of social construction theory and a call to action. Since identities are not fixed-neither to the body nor to self- we can perform gender any way we like" (Gauntlett). Queer theory basically says that your identity is a combination of social and cultural traits, that gender is a performance, that people can change, that masculinity and femininity is a social construction, and that we should challenge these traditional views of the genders.

How others see us, our culture and what we learn from the media are huge detemining factors in our identity. When I was younger, my mom dressed me in pretty dresses, put bows in my hair and gave me dolls to play with. That is a traditional view of femininity. Girls are suposed to be dainty, pleasant, have tea parties and play with dolls. Boys are suposed to love sports, get messy, play with trucks and baseballs and burp all day long. What happens when those roles get crossed? What about the girl who loves sports and hates pink? Or the boy who plays with Barbies, does not like to be messy and grows up to be a hair dresser? How does that translate into our culture? Considering this, I feel as though its more accepted if a girl defies "girly-ness". She is labeled a tom-boy but its not exactly frowned upon. If a boy defies his "manliness", he is labeled gay. What is the difference? Am I right, are girls allowed to get away with more than guys are? Although, on the same note, if the concept of a tom boy was so accepted in today's society, why are girls not allowed to be on men's teams? Why do there have to be separate teams for girls and guys, when it comes to sports?

For my case in point, I will use one of my own irritating assumptions. I have thought that Ryan Seacrest was less than manly since American Idol started. He is a small man, a metrosexual, and does not seem like the type to kick back with the boys with a tackle game of football. Simon even makes fun of him for it on the show. Does this mean he is gay? I know I have questioned it quite a few times. But why? Is it because Ryan does not fit the image of man that the media has shaped for me? I don't see anything wrong with a guy that likes to look nice, but if he is obsessive, then something is wrong. It bothers me that I think this way, but I feel like its something that has been so drilled into my head. I'm not the only one who thinks this way. He has been questioned on this numerous times. I googled this and got 626 thousand hits. What is it about him? He's had girlfriends and even then the rumors are flying. Is Ryan Seacrest gay? I'm going to try to stop making my own assumptions and just wait and see.

A Rare Ideal?

"Information and ideas from the media do not merely reflect the social world, then, but contribute to its shape, and are central to modern reflexivity".

That quote comes from the book Media, Gender and Identity, by David Gauntlett. In the chapter on identity, Gauntlett spends a chapter exploring the ideas of Anthony Giddens about the impact media truly has on the public as a whole. Giddens talks a lot about the individual and the impact media, more specifically social forces, has on each person in their relationships; personal, professional, acquaintances. In the quote above, Gauntlett is saying that what the media puts out to the public does not just mirror society, but adds to it. So media impacts society and society impacts media. Hm.

Going deeper, Gauntlett gives an example of how the media and society have changed the way individuals view and treat relationships. He talks about the high divorce rate, the idea that you should be with someone until they drive you crazy, then divorce them and move on to the next person. There is no idea of commitment or monogamy. Going on, he writes "The mass media is also likely to influence individuals perceptions of their relationships. whether in a serious drama or celebrity gossip, the need for "good stories" would always support an emphasis on change in relationships. Since almost nobody on TV remains happily married for a lifetime-whether we're talking about fictional characters or real life public figures- we inevitably recieve a mesage that monangomous heterosexual stablility in at best, a rare-'ideal' which few can expect to achieve (98)". So every time we turn on the TV, we see shows or hear news stories about ever-changing relationships. Many people joke around about how celebrity couples can't stay together but with the divorce rate at the level it is, we are no different than those whose lives are always televised. Seeing marriage and commitment to one person as a "rare-ideal" is only going to push the divorce rates higher, making people believe that they can never achieve a happy life with one person and should keep moving on until they do.

Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey are the perfect example of this celebrity happiness turned bad. They were married for 3 long, blissful years until they simply decided to "part ways". They claimed to both have mutual respect and love for each other until the divorce got ugly. So what went wrong? They were so in love, Nick wrote a song claiming to never stop loving Jessica, they had their lives watched by millions on the show "NewlyWeds" and constantly showed their affection for one another when in public. They were dedicated to one another until it got hard, until rumors of cheating came up. So instead of trying to work it out, they accepted the fact that they'd never be happy together and ended things. Now Nick is with Vanessa Minillo (after numerous rumors of other women) and Jessica is finally (after a few bad relationships) settled with Tony Romo. Are these relationships going to work or are they going to be good until life starts getting to be too much? These are the stories we hear about, the doomed relationships. We never hear about the couples who are celebrating 10 years (a feat for a Hollywood couple). They are out there too, but somehow rarely mentioned. Our priorities are skewed and until we see pure healthly relationships in the media, our own relationships will continue to suffer.

Gender Correct?

Media has to change with the times. Back in the earlier days, gender representations upheld the the stereotypical male female roles. Males were strong, powerful and women were nurturing, and somewhat weak. Times have changed and the roles in the media obviously have to change to keep up with the trends. While it still has areas to work on, at least the genders are more diverse than the once black and white roles portrayed.

I loved the quote in David Gauntlett's Media, Gender and Identity about this change: "But in the past ten or fifteen years, things have been changing quite considerably. Men and women are seen working side by side, as equals, in hospitals, schools and police stations of television land. Movie producers are wary of having women as screaming victims, and have realized that kcik-ass herioines do better business. Advertisers have by now realized that audiences will only laugh at images of the pretty housewife, and have reacted by showing women how to be sexy at work instead. Gay characters have slowly started to be more prominent on TV and in the movies, and discussions the rights of marginalised groups have also surfaced within popular culture" (56).

Writers, producers, companies and others are taking note of this ever changing idea of gender and are doing all they can to keep up with it. As I read the first few pages of the chapter, an example of this immediately came to mind and then it was actually mentioned within the chapter.

Friends was one of the first shows to redefine what it means to be male and female in modern society. There are 6 main characters; 3 male, 3 female. All have typical stereotypical traits of their gender but also possess some non-gender like qualities as well:

Ross:

job: palentologist.

male qualities: strong, responsible, intellectual, good job, decent amount of money

feminine qualities: tenderness, nurturing, sensitive.

Rachel:

job:waitress for first few years until decides she wants a "real" job and goes to work for department store as an assistant buyer.

feminine qulaities: beautiful, vain, ditzy, interdependant.

masculine qualities: strong, strong willed.

Joey:

job: actor

masculine qualities: physically strong, "chick magnet".

feminine qualities: sensitive, interdependant, weak emotionally.

Phoebe:

job: masseuse/musician

feminine qualities: sensual, flirtatious, always looking for a man.

masculine qualities: intimidating, strong.

Chandler:

job: accounting

masculine qualities: independant, responsible (somewhat), prestigous job.

feminine qualities: physically weak, sensitivity, interdependant.

Monica:

job: chef (sometimes seen as a masculine position)

feminine qualities: beautiful, sensitive, emotional.

masculine qualities: competitive, physically strong.

All the qualities I listed above could be male or female. Where we run into problems is when qualities or aspects of a person get categorized as strictly one gender or another. When we expect a certain quality to be present in a person of a certain gender and it is not, or vice versa, we can get uncomfortable, confused and possibly question that person's solidness in their individual gender.

Feminism

Whenever I hear the word "feminist", I cringe. Not because I have any problem with women standing up for themselves. Not because I don't think women needed to be treated better than they are. I cringe simply because I have encountered many feminists that have taken it too far. Girl power is one thing but when women hate all men because of the choices of some, that aggravates me. Its true that women in our society are definitely not always appreciated but being angry and hating all men does nothing to help our cause.

In the article Feminist Perspectives on the Media, Zoonen talks about the impact that feminism has on the various portrayals of women in TV, movies, magazines, etc. One sentence in the article that stood out was "Radical feminist strategies inevitably condemn women to a marginal position: they will be either oppressed suffering from false consciousness within patriarchal society which is supposed to be beyond reform. Or they choose to step out of patriarchal society being free and true to their naturebut remaining isolated and marginal, as for instance the lifecycle of radical feminist media illustrates" (Zoonen, 41). If women go to either extreme, they are oppressed and isolated. Who wants that? How do we fix these problems?

Truth is that women are absolutely portrayed as less than what they are worth. There is absolute pressure put on women by the media to look, act and dress in a certain way. I agree that it neeeds to be stopped. But what about the way men are viewed/treated in the media? Men are objectified as well. Men are also sometimes seen as stupid and unable to make their own decisions. Who is speaking up for them? Why are men not making a bigger deal out of it?

I don't see anything wrong with women sticking up for themselves. I think that we need to do it, but not at the risk of alienating ourselves from the men. We need to find a mutual respect for each other and then make it translate into the media. When someone is so extreme, they end up being almost ostrasized. They are labeled and everyone knows that label and will judge them for that before they even meet them.

Media definitely plays up the feminist stereotype. They go to the extremes to make fun of women who stick up for themselves and other women. The best example of this that I found was in the movie Shrek 3. When the kingdom is in danger of being overthrown, the ladies take matters into their own hands. Fiona decides that from now on, they will be handling things since the men in their lives were not helping whatsoever. At that moment, the princesses all rip off parts of their dresses, burn their bras, apply war paint and look anything but princess-like. This is a clear picture of what a stereotypical feminist looks like-extreme. Obviously not all women who call themselves feminists fit that mold. While it was stereotyping, I found it to be a funny, accurate (of assumptions), creative portrayal that fit in with the movie quite well.

Cosmo Crazy?

Redbook. Cosmo. Vogue. O. Women's Day. Lucky. Jane. Seventeen. Ladies' Home Journal. Self.

There are countless mangazines for women today. Magazines for all types of women's interests: sports, politics, fashion, makeup, sex, gardening, men, etc. You name it, there is probably at least 4 magazines for it. Out of all these magazines, the ones that push themself to the forefront are Cosmopolitan (or CosmoGirl- for a younger audience) and Vogue. These magazines are full of pictures and articles pushing women to be more sexy, to find a great career, and to get with the right man. They are extremely popular which is not surprising, considering the impressions media makes on us that they are the truth of what life is like. In her article "The Symbolic Annihilation of Women by the Mass Media", Gaye Tuchman examines the messages of magzines from the past with the messages of today. Neither is flattering. She talks about the magazines from the 1950's, where within them she found four roles that women fall into "single and looking for a husband, housewife-mother, spinster, and widowed or divorced-soon to remarry. All the women were defined by the men in their lives, or by their absence" (Tuchman, 19). In the 1950's women were defined by men. In the present day, women are defined by their men, appearance or sex appeal.

In another class, we discussed this issue and our professor gave us a sample from a women's magazine entitled "The Good Wife's Guide" from the 50's. I found it again online, and here is a brief excerpt (full article in link below):

Dated 1955, these tips are taken from Housekeeping Monthly and were headed "The Good Wife's Guide".

Prepare yourself. Take 15 minutes to rest so you'll be refreshed when he arrives. Touch up your make-up, put a ribbon in your hair and be fresh looking.

Be a little gay and a little more interesting for him. His boring day may need a lift and one of your duties is to provide it.

Over the cooler months of the year you should prepare and light a fire for him to unwind by. After all, catering for his comfort will provide you with immense personal satisfaction.

Prepare the children. Take a few minutes to wash their hands and faces, comb their hair and, if necessary, change their clothes. They are little treasures and he would like to see them playing the part. Minimise all noise. At the time of his arrival, eliminate all noise of the washer, dryer or vacuum. Try to encourage the children to be quiet.

Today's magazine articles, (taken from cosmopolitan.com) include titles such as:

10 Reasons to Watch Football
No matter which team you’re rooting for, there are hotties all over the field. Wearing tights. Need more proof? Check out these pics of our favorite men in uniform.

Cosmos' Secrets about Scent and Seduction

The Big Ring: Does Size Suddenly Matter More? Cosmo investigates the practice of putting price on love.

While there is a definite difference between the past and present (you don't often see articles about having all noises stopped when your husband gets home), there are also many common themes of how to get a man, and then keep him happy (with appearance and sex appeal). Maybe things have not changed as much as we think they have. Maybe deep down, the concept is all the same, its just the execution that is now different.

sources:

http://www.indusladies.com/forums/snippets-of-life/31164-being-good-wife-excerpt-housekeeping.html

www.cosmopolitan.com

What happened to June Cleaver?

Looking back through the years of TV, movies, magazines and books, roles of men versus women have dramatically changed. Back in the 50's, women were viewed as beautiful, submissive housewives. They spent their days cleaning the house, tending to the children and baking pies, without breaking a sweat, while eagerly anticipating their husband's arrival home from work. June Cleaver, from Leave It to Beaver, was the picture of the ultimate housewife: loving, dedicated, constantly catering to her husband, hardworking, not a hair out of place. The women's place was in the home. The man's place was at work, making the money to provide for his family. He was the head of his house, the king of his castle. While he loved his children, it was the mother's role to tend to them and if he was absolutely needed to hand out punishment, he was called on. This portrayal, while it seems to be exaggerated, was typical of families at this time. As time went on, the media seemed to follow the perceptions within TV, movies and books.

Familes have changed drastically since the 1950's. Men and women have changed drastically as well. In his book, Media, Gender and Identity, David Gauntlett examines the differences between men and women from the past into the present within the realms of magazines, movies, advertising and TV. Where women used to be viewed as the quiet, submissive but elegantly beautiful, they are now seen as independant sex objects. A quote from Janice Winship, Inside Women's Magazines: "Cosmopolitan is aware firstly, that being a woman involves constantly adjusting one's own image to fit time and place in an ever changing game of images; and secondly, that 'real life' is constantly thought through dream images" (Gauntlett, 54). Women today have it ten times harder than they used to. All the images and messages that get thrown at them daily tell them they have to look, act and dress a certain way to be a woman in today's society. Just wanting to be a stay at home mom is no longer a widely accpeted job. Women are seen as throwing away their education and lives if they choose to remain at home to raise their children.

Views of men through the years have not changed as much as women's have. Men were and are still often seen as the stronger gender. They are the ones who should make the most money, be the strongest physically and have a job that is the epitomy of masculinity. While that is still often true for men, some men are defying that stereotype. There are males in typically seen as female roles, there are men who are classified as 'feminine" due to ways of dress and mannerisms and shocker of all shockers there are actually men who have a desire to stay at home with their children while their wives go off to work. These men are often seen as less than a man for choosing these feminine paths. While it is still somewhat of a shock, it is becoming more of a norm.

The best example I can think of to describe the change between the time of the Cleavers to the present is one of my absolute favorite TV shows from the 90's, Full House. For those of you who have never seen it, Full House is the story of three guys (yes guys) left to raise three little girls after their mother dies in a car crash. The mother is never seen in the show, it opens a short time after her death. The three guys are Danny (dad), Joey (best friend of Danny) and Jesse (uncle and best friend). The three girls are pretty young so this is a huge undertaking. All three guys have careers- talk show host, stand up comedian and musician, but all make the sacrifices and efforts needed to raise these girls in a loving, stable but fun environment. Throughout the seven years of the show, Danny Jesse and Joey are the ones who go through it all with the girls--kindergarten, bullies, first date, broken hearts, prom, etc. Being raised by three guys brings an interesting dynamic, especially as the girls get older and all of the guys realize that. They never deny that a mother plays an important part in a girl's life, but do all they can to try to make up for it. Full House is one of the first shows of its kind to have the male parent doing the raising, without a woman's help. I love that show for many reasons, but one of them is that it shows that guys are just as capable of being the girl scout's leaders, baking brownies, shopping for dresses, and giving advice as women are. Like the opening line of the theme song, 'whatever happened to predictability"? The foundation of Full House is anything but predictable and it was liked that way.