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.