Redskins

Mascots have become a sore spot for many Americans. Some claim that they are a battleground for race relations, while other think everyone should lighten up about it and “take it with a grain of salt” (King 72). Schools across the nation, from Los Angeles to New York, to Dallas, have banned the use of mascots that stem from racial identities--Native Americans to be specific.

Personally, I think this whole debate comes down to intention and interpretation. Let’s talk about intention first. The questions that need to be asked are some of the following: Was the mascot created out of respect and admiration for the culture? Are desirable qualities (honor, courage, strength) the ones being highlighted in the portrayal of the mascot? Is it in any way damaging or offensive to the group of people from which it was derived? If the answer to any of these questions creates suspicions of the intentions behind the mascot, it should be done away with.

This is a sticky subject because even if the intentions of the creators of this mascot were pure, it could still offend people of that race depending upon how it is interpreted. The example that comes to mind for me is the Redskins. I have always perceived it to be a mascot that embodies the positive qualities of the Native American culture. The small picture of a Native American on the logo is not one (from my point of view, that is) that mocks the rich cultural heritage. But, the name “Redskins” doesn’t exactly sound respectful in my book. How would a Native American feel about the mascot and the name “Redskins”? I think that is where the answer has to come from on whether or not it is appropriate.

I believe that the minority opinion is always marginalized. Some people might think detractors need to “lighten up,’ ‘to get over it,’ ‘to grow up,’ ‘to get a life,’ ‘to get a grip,’” (King 72). But this is a perfect example of the status quo being questioned. Those who are bringing the issue of mascots into the forefront of the struggle for equality are possibly representing an opinion that has been silenced in the past.

Stealing or Sharing?

"...Hip-hop is a Black thing and whites have historically stolen Black culture..." (Kitwana, 3-4). This is what a Black girl insinuated in one of my classes a few weeks ago. I was pissed. We were watching an advertisement on youtube that had been on TV for awhile. It's called the "Slap Chop Rap." As lame as it is, the advertisement caught people's attention. After the clip had finished playing she raised her hand and said, "The only thing I noticed was that it is a whole rap/hip-hop commercial without one single Black person. Everyone in this advertisement is White. Hip-hop was originally a Black thing, created by Black people, and part of Black culture...." I remember walking out of class trying to get my head around what she was saying. To me, it was no big deal. There's tons of all Black music videos, why can't there be one that's all White?

After reading Kitwana's article, I think I understand where she's coming from. Kitwana argues that the reason White kids were drawn to hip-hop is because it captures the frustration of the youth without a voice and the struggles they face in life. And because the lyrics are so explicate, rife with themes of the street life, crime, drugs dealing, and so on, hip-hop is often made the scapegoat for the decline in American values and society as a whole. So although it's endorsed by the White youth of America, and is a huge presence in our media (MTV, BET, countless magazines, and even newspapers covering the hip-hop scene) it has this double-edged sword effect. The White youth want to embrace it and their parents want to blame it.

If I were a Black person, this would frustrate me. It takes White people's endorsement to make it popular, but then they want to put all the blame for societal problems on it, and then turn around and steal it? Although I do agree that the lyrics are not anything close to positive (the majority of the time), I don't think it's fair to put all the blame on hip-hop. Kitwana addresses this by saying, "Our country stands at a crucial crossroads...//...We're not placing great enough emphasis on educating or listening to the voices of American youth. Our public schools and quality of life for a significant number of our young are in serious decline" (Kitwana 9). Hip-hop is something they can relate to, not what got them in these situations to begin with. And although White kids have really latched on and embraced this Black culture, "no matter now mainstream hip-hop gets, it will never duplicate rock and roll's metamorphosis--becoming more strongly associated with white Americans than Blacks" (Kitwana 2).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st3nmjTJmVk

Exotic, Erotic, and Expendable

Hook's article was shocking, yet informative. At first I thought she was over-analyzing things and took takes a stretch of the imagination to validate the connections she was pointing out between media representations of women and the themes of racism she discusses. However, she backed every point she made so solidly with historical evidence that the truth of her accusations become undeniable, unavoidable. I felt so uneducated about racism reading this article. She did a great job of giving LOTS of examples of simultaneous racist and sexist media representations from various sources, present and past: movies, music (Tina Turner), modeling (Iman), slavery auctions and it's effects, and simple material items on display (chocolate boobs).

Her main premise about black female sexuality is that since slavery, their image has been one of expendability and eroticism that can be taken advantage of whenever and however. She writes, "Just as 19th-centry representations of black female bodies were constructed to emphasize that these bodies were expendable, contemporary images (even those created in black cultural production) give a similar message...//....the Tina Turner story reveals that she was anything but a wild woman; she was fearful of sexuality, abused, humiliated, fucked, and fucked over." (64/67).

I think the genre of media today that most strongly conveys this image of black female sexuality is the music industry. In almost every single rap/hip-hop song that is released today, there is a negative reference to the female body. Even though the women are aware their images are being sexualized, they are unable to break free of this cycle that has suppressed them for over one hundred years! One might argue that there are white women (or Hispanic, in the case of Shakira and Christina Aguilera) who are sexualized in the same way, but it is a much stronger, more prevalent theme in the images of black female musicians.

I think Jennifer Hudson and Jordin Sparks are two of the few popular black female artists that came to mind when thinking of exceptions to this rule. But cultural icons? Chart-topping artists? Beyonce, Rihanna, Mary J. Blige, Ciara, Mariah Carey, Eve, Blu Cantrell, Lil Mama, Kelis, and LeToya....just to name a few. Sadly, the list of women who embody this image of balck female sexuality is much, much longer than the former.

"This poem speaks to the desire of black women to construct a sexuality apart from that imposed upon us by a racist/sexist culture, calling attention to the ways we are trapped by conventional notions of sexuality and desirability: ....it's a sex object if you're pretty and no lover or love and no sex if you're fat get back fat black woman be a mother grandmother strong thing but not a woman gameswoman romantic woman love needer man seeker dick eater sweat getter fuck needing love seeking woman" (65). This poem makes my heart hurt because I'm a white woman who has not experienced any type of suppression to this degree. This is the image black women are trying to break free from, the cycle they are struggling to break.

No Control, Censorship, or Limitations

Acham's basic premise in the conclusion of Televised Revolution: Prime Time and the Struggle for Black Power is basically that there needs to be more representation of black people on television. She calls for more diverse representations as well, along with more criticism of the Black community from within the Black community itself. I would have to agree with this. The problem with TV is that in order to get on the air and stay on, ratings and the number of people tuning in to view the show as an audience have to be really high. And if it only appeals to the Black audience, it's most likely to get canceled and taken off the air. However, as Acham argues, that's where cable television presents itself as a hopeful scene for Blacks to gain some ground in the struggle for representation.

The majority of the article sites Chris Rock as an example of....well, a lot of different things. My younger brother loves listening to Chris Rock's comedy sketches, and so I have listened to a few as well. Before reading this article, I was not crazy about him. I thought he 1.) used too much profanity, 2.) said a lot of offensive things, and 3.) had an annoying voice. But after reading this article, I've gained a lot of respect for him as a comedian and as a person. I realized he doesn't just write comedy because he's a funny guy (he actually studies comedy and is extremely well-educated). He has social issues he wants to address. He has aspirations of positive change for our society.

He is a Black man who confronts racism and issues within the Black community head-on, without apologies or worrying about offending other racial groups (White people, Asians, Indians, etc.). Through his humor, he is talking directly to the African American community. As a White person listening to his comedy, I felt offended and unsure of how to take the things he says. I felt afraid to laugh because there's not really anyone else in the media who confronts racism quite like Chris Rock: head on, calls his own community out for their mistakes, and makes people laugh while doing it.

There are TONS of White comedians who can say whatever they want about White people, and it's totally fine. So why am I, as a White person, trying to criticize a Black person for doing the same? Blue Collar Comedy Tour was a huge hit a few years ago. It featured four White, male comedians who said a lot of controversial things about White people and White sub-cultures (hillbillies, for example) but people loved it, and no one questioned what they were saying. As a White person, I think we need to stop trying to control what the Black community wants to put out there, and stop worrying that their depictions may being taken out of context. That's when true equality for representation will be achieved: when there are a multitude of Black representations, without control, censorship, or limitations from the White community.

The Cosby Show & Sister, Sister

Coleman has a very calm, reasonable approach to her research and analysis of the way Blacks are portrayed in comedic television shows. I really liked her style of writing and careful, yet direct, approach to the subject. I found it interesting that her "favorite" or what she considers to be the "most accurate" portrayal of Blacks in a comedic TV sitcom was The Cosby Show. A few years ago, we debated this TV show in class: two white kids, two black kids. I argued that it was finally an accurate portrayal of a lot of Black families that up until this point had absolutely ZERO media representation. I watched the show and loved it! The two Black kids I was discussing this topic with, however, were not from families like the Huckstables. They felt that The Cosby Show set that bar TOO high for (not themselves, but other young adults from their home neighborhoods) other Black people to reach. They felt that when they or one of their friends was unable to reach that standard, they backlash they would receive after from society because of this show being aired would be so much worse. To say the very least, they were not appreciative or receptive of this.

Even after hearing their point of view, my stance on The Cosby Show stands firm. It's a solid family, with good morals and values that are really irrelevant to the viewers race or ethnic background--but the color of skin of the character is so very important because the only roles they were given on television before this were degrading, demeaning, and reinforcing of so many stereotypes.

Another show Coleman did not discuss that I think comes close (not all the way, but close) to what The Cosby Show did for Blacks is the comedic TV sitcom, Sister, Sister. It's a show about a pair of identical twins who are separated at birth, one raised by a single male, Ray, and one raised by a single female, Tina. The two sisters meet up, and for the sake of the girls, Tina and Ray move the two families under one house, creating a new "family" (there is no romantic interest between Ray and Tina). The humor is clean, the girls are driven and active members of their school/neighborhood, and the "parents" are both working professionals. For me, it doesn't match up to The Cosby Show because there is no marriage between the "parents," and the girls are adopted. However, this may be the reality for many people out there (race aside), and so in that way, it is an accurate portrayal of the lives of those individuals.

The one critique I have of the Black sitcoms (and of the White sitcoms--Friends, my personal fav : )) is that it's either 100% Black representation, or 100% white representation. WHY??? In my life, if there were a sitcom about my family, it would be full of all different kinds of races and cultures interacting. The world we live in is not so divided and separate. I think it becomes so much harder to create a show with equal representation and positive interactions between races that writers would much rather stick to and all-Black or all-White storyline. Once this changes, and representation (no just among Black and Whites, but Latinos, Asians, Indians, etc.) becomes more diversified and equal in screen time (I don't know the specific term, haha, but the amount of time an individual is actually portrayed on the screen), THEN I will say we've made another step forward in the fight for racial equality.

Can I have your number?

Attitudes on racial discrimination are varying. Some think racial discrimination is at an all time high--worse than ever! Others, however, hold the opinion that we have made leaps and bounds toward a just society over the past 40 years. The media reflects the diversity of people's perceptions of racial tension through the huge array of depictions of racial minorities. For the sake of a more in-depth analysis (and because it was the focus of today's reading selections), I am going to concentrate on the discrimination of African Americans, and the attitudes of White people on racism today.

The Culture, Media, and the White Mind: The Character of Their Content article pointed out the fact that although Whites say their attitudes have become more tolerant toward Blacks, but their actions show little proof to follow. The Racial Chameleon comments on this paradox of racial progress saying, "We believe the majority of White Americans experience ambivalent thoughts and feelings about African Americans, a complex mixture of animosity and yearning for racial harmony...//...the current culture rejects the most overt claims of Black inferiority--and this ironically cultivates White impatience and hostility."

Let's look at the popular MAD TV clip that's become a hit on YouTube, "Can I get your number?" (The reason I found out about this clip is because my sister was dating a Black guy at the time, and he showed it to her, who then showed it to me--just saying.) To me, it's humorous because the guy has no idea how to take a hint: SHE'S NOT INTO YOU!!! It would be funny regardless of the guy's race. But the clip if jam-packed with racial prejudices and uses the major stereotypes of Black men as a central source of humor. That's where things get tricky. Yes--it is humorous because it would not matter if the guy was White, Black, Asian or Latino. However, it completely blurs the lines between the funny, innocent humor of the situation (the guy) and the racial stereotypes that become inseparably intertwined in what you're watching and laughing at.

One question I am left with after watching (and enjoying) something like this is if he guy that showed this clip to my sister laughed at it, does that make it okay for me to laugh too? I don't think so. I think this is part of the lack of change in our actions: we say we're all for racial equality, but our actions (for Whites and Black alike) say something completely contradictory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRbkkqZikx4

Hybrid Humanity

In Ethnicity, Race and Nation, Barker talks about different forms of racism, ethnicity and power, national pride, and so on. Basically, this chapter creates a solid foundation for our discussion of race and culture to be built upon.

Although it was broad and covered a lot of information, one concept that caught my attention was that of “hybridity.” Before reading this chapter I had never heard the word “hybridity” used in the context of race. When I hear the word “hybrid,” I think of cars. But that’s not quite what Barker was talking about. He says that cultures are not homogeneous, but that “each category is always already a a hybrid form that is also divided along the lines of religion, class, gender, age, nationality and so forth. Thus, hybridization is the mixing of that which is already a hybrid.”

The people who are able to function in more than one culture successfully are not so much faced with this huge process of culture shock. I mean sure, after having lived in Spain for nine months, I can personally attest that culture shock is very real and can be painful to go through. But just as I did, there comes a point when a person is able to function just fine in more than one culture; or as Barker puts it, “it is more valid to see these young people as skilled operators of cultural code switching.”

In many mediums I think this message is still a new concept; it’s not an easy message to find. Let’s look at the travel channel. There’s tons of shows on other cultures (Samantha Brown’s Great Weekends, Anthony Bourdain’s No Reservations, etc.), but I think TV tries to really highlight the differences between cultures and portray them as homogeneous set of beliefs/unspoken rules, customs, a language, and a race that can only be understood by people of that culture. However, cultures themselves are a hybrid, and many people can function within two (or even more) cultures comfortably.

There many not be much representation on TV (like TV shows, I mean) for the “bicultural” lifestyle that is a reality for many of us, but one outlet of the media that has a decent amount of depictions of this is in film. Movies like "Sisterhood of the traveling Pants," "Spanglish," and "Bend It Like Beckham" are just three examples of many films with characters who function in two culture spheres with equal success. I think this is an important concept to highlight because humanity is constantly intermixing and changing. Race and culture lines are being crossed more and more, and I would argue that this is becoming more of a norm than an oddity.

Self-help and Disney: The Unquestionable Ones

Chapter 10 discussed the idea of role models and the phenomenon of “self-help” material in media. I never thought of the subject of self-help as part of the media...but it occupies a huge portion of our media material. There is the constant stream of messages we are fed that are tips on how we can improve our selves: physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, financially, etc. They come in almost every shape and form: books, TV shows, and even subtly in advertisements. Here’s a nike commercial that begins with the message “Everything you need is already inside,” suggesting that we can do it (whatever “it” may be), we just need to unleash our potential. Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ae3tFI8wXE

But back to the upfront self-help messages. In keeping with the gender representation theme, Gauntlett noted some of the major differences between the self-help material for men and for women. Men’s messages say that (1) men are not good at expressing their emotions, but they are definitely capable of change and improvement, (2) men place too much emphasis on work and do not spend enough time cultivating relationships and developing their home-life, and (3) they may be able to do what they like in society, but they won’t be happy without a balance of love and responsibility (Media, Gender, and Identity 242).

The women’s self-help messages, as Gauntlett writes, focus more on (1) self-confidence and being comfortable about what is already inside, no so much change, (2) not making excuses; taking control of their lives, and (3) suggest women focus on their needs and do not continue to do things because others say they should or want them to.

I found it really interesting that the third component I have listed above for both the men’s and women’s section recognizes the fact that men have the power to do as they please in our society, and that women “do as they are told.” It’s disturbing to me that in our self-help genre dangerous ideologies such as men’s superiority and right to power are being recognized and reinforced. Yes, they encourage change on both sides, but for reasons of self-fulfillment, not for a change in society.

Because of this, I think the self-help messages in our media today are an important source of subtle reinforcement of hegemonic ideologies that keep our gender struggle going. It’s kind of like the Disney concept--no one wants to question the “self-help” section or point out anything that might be wrong. Why? Because they’re about improving people and there’s no need to question their intentions or the implication of their messages.

The Heroine Standard

I’ve never watched an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Partly because I thought it was incredibly tacky (even as a young teenage girl when it came out), and partly because I have never had enough downtime or been bored enough to watch it. That being said, in this critique/analysis of “The Buffy Effect,” I am solely going off of what Fudge presents her in article. Buffy marches into dangerous situations--with incredible martial-arts skills, a smart mouth, a sexy body, a pretty face--and wins. Every time.

It’s hard for me to swallow because there is so much emphasis on her sex appeal, and in her day to day life, she’s a “wisecracking Valley Girl with blond locks and pink-passion lips...//...Buffy constantly treads the fine line between girl-power schlock and feminist wish-fulfillment, never giving satisfaction to either.” The “fine line” that she treads, to me, is one confusion. It marks a lack of strength and character to commit whole-heartedly to being a feminist or a valley girl.

Another female heroine who went from being a virtual character to a real-life, cultural icon is Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. The whole Lara Croft phenomenon scares me. People became so dedicated and enthralled by a character that was once part of a virtual, fantasy world, that they have brought her to life. Deuber-Mankowsky points out the level of involvement people have with this--lets not forget--virtual character.

For example, the poem of admiration/obsession at the beginning of the article (that guy’s a creeper if you ask me) shows how people felt a genuine connection to her. In addition, an official invented biography was created for her. And f

inally, fact that she’s was once a virtual character, but has become a character depicted by Angelina Jolie in the movies... !!!! Like Buffy, Lara Croft combines sexual fantasy, representation of aesthetic perfection, an unparalleled sense of fearlessness and confidence, and the-woman-just-kicked-ass ending people love to see.

Before reading the two articles for today’s class I was unaware of who Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Lara Croft were. Now that I have a better idea of who they are, I am still firm in my stance of disinterest. The problem i have with these two “heroines” is the fact that they’re doing all these physically incredible things and fighting for good...but looking like Sports Illustrated Swim Suit models before, during and after their battles. The same principle applies to the movie Mr. & Mrs. Smith. Angelina Jolie looks incredibly, unrealistically sexy doing some kick-ass fighting and shooting. To me, there is nothing wrong with embracing and showing our feminine sexual power. However, it’s the impossible standard women are being compared to today that I do not support. I cannot embrace a heroine, like the three mentioned here, that is so far from reality.

Reenforcement or a change?

Gayle Wald wrote an interesting article about the concept of “girlness,” as exemplified by Gwen Stefani in her band, No Doubt. Even today, Gwen Stefani is an influential musician/celebrity that many teenage and young adult women still idolize. Her look and message are totally contradictory. She lyrics (in “Just A Girl”) promote being an independent, I-can-take-care-of-myself kind of girl. It’s a great girl-power anthem. However, she is known for her mid-drift tops, killer abs (thin body, essentially), blond hair (that’s frequently in pig-tails), and red hot lipstick. She constantly flirts with the line of being cute (girlish) or being sexy. So while encouraging girls to stand on their own two feet and not back down to gender oppression or stereotypes of the incapable woman, her appearance--in a punk sort of way--plays into the stereotype of a girl being nothing more than eye candy. But some call this contradiction empowerment, or liberation, because she can be whatever she wants to be.

One thing I had never thought of that Wald pointed out in her article was that Gwen’s embodiment of “girlness” it has “ambiguous political effects” as far as race is concerned. Wald asserts that Gwen has made her definition of “girlness” synonymous with “whiteness.” I began to think: 1. Where does this girl-power battle cry leave women of other races?, and 2. Is it really reenforcing a hegemonic belief (that “girlness” is “whiteness”) that I have been completely oblivious to?

The next article for today’s reading expanded upon this idea that other races (african-american young women, in particular) are highly underrepresented in magazines today. Once I began considering Duke’s stance on the issue of underrepresentation, I began to agree. I’m a white girl, and so looking at magazines is a totally different experience for me than it would be for an african-american girl.

The one interview she listed in the article quickly put things in perspective for me. Kenya, an african-american girl just finished saying that she doesn’t know anyone who dresses like the girls in the magazine, and that she doesn’t wear make-up and cannot relate in that way, is asked: “And how about the shampoo and stuff like that? Kenya: Un uh. ‘Cause...my beautician washes my hair.” These readings made me think: Because I was unaware of the underrepresentation of african-americans and unrelate-ability (I just made up a word--go with it) of the content matter in magazines to these girls, am I taking for granted (and therefore reenforcing) the hegemonic representations of “whiteness” in our media today? Or, is the fact that I was unaware of this problem the mark of the beginning of change--that change being the fact that I don’t “see” race. To me, people are people.

I love high fashion photography. I can't afford the clothes, purses, or jewelry--nor could I justify buying them if I actually had the money. However, I LOVE the artistic style of the photographs, and have a great deal of respect for creative genius of the photographers and designers themselves. To me, high fashion and high fashion photography are art. In the Dines and Humez reading for today, Diane Crane writes: "Fashion has generally been conceived as a form of hegemonic oppression, exerting an obligation to conform that weighs heavily on the female population (Wolf 1991).... fashion photographers generate enormous dissatisfaction among women because they create unrealistic expectations that most women are unable to meet." I hate it that this is the "side effect" of one of my favorite forms of art. The photos below are an example: I love the colors, the lighting, the setting, the mix of rough and fine materials, the balance and use of space, etc. From an artistic standpoint, they're incredible photos. But let's be honest: I don't wear shirts down to my belly button with my breast showing, and I'm my body is does not look like hers.

But why do the models have to be SO skinny? Why can't they display these clothes on women with bodies who have proportions like the averaged size woman? I was watching an interview on TV a few months ago with a designer (I can't remember who it was!). Her answer to this question was that high fashion clothes are art--not necessarily meant to be worn. For her, the simple fact is that they look better on frames, not real-life, curvy bodies. This answer was sufficient for me because I look at it as art, not something to compare myself to. I know I will never look like the size 0 model posing in those incredible garments, and that doesn't kill my self-esteem.

For some girls though, it does. My younger sister had to stop looking at magazines and fashion advertisements for awhile because it got to her: she felt like she was over weight, not pretty, and had no "style." High fashion is such a controversial topic because of the effects it has on a lot of girls today. In the reading, one focus group found that younger participants thought it was natural to compare themselves to the models; "They were inclined to identify with the models and seemed disappointed when they were unable to do so" (Dines and Humez). My opinion is that we as women need to look at where we find our identity and what things we are trying to relate to. If it's not positive and constructive, then why are we trying to identify with it? I would like to see more advertisements with the clothes that are meant to be worn on regular women modeled by average sized women. This might help the complex many young women are facing today.

Cosmo Girl Reigns

The creation of the Cosmo Girl was basically done single-handedly by Helen Gurley Brown, the editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan magazine from the mid-1960s until 1997. The objective of the Cosmo Girl and the reality of what it actually is are two completely different concepts. The objective, as Ouellette suggests, was that "she [Brown] articulated a girl-style American Dream that promised transcendence from class roles as well as sexual ones" (Gender, Race, and Class in Media). That doesn't sound bad, does it? However, the "Cosmo Girl" that Brown created as a prototype to accomplish this objective is not something I am in support of.

Brown wrote, "There are girls who...don't want to be that driven, to have that many affairs; they don't want more than one man or one dress at a time. They don't care about jewelry and they don't want a sable coat or Paris for the weekend...But 'my girl' wants it" (Gender, Race, and Class in Media). The reality of the Cosmo Girl is a woman who is very materialistic, a heart-breaker, sexually promiscuous (and unashamed), and able to rise and be successful in the workplace--with an emphasis on being flirty, flakey, and fun.

Clearly, it stuck. I think the majority of popular women's magazines today have used this idea of the Cosmo Girl and centered their messages around and magazine content around it. Why? Because it sells. Other feminist magazines such as Ms. are reaching an audience, sure...but not like Cosmopolitan. It's the dominant ideology that's being put out in our society today. Take this issue of Glamour magazine as an example. The cover reads: "25 Things You Do That Guys Secretly Love, What to Eat to Lose Eight Pounds This Month, Amazing Hair: The 1-2-3 Plan Every Woman Should Know," and so on. I must admit, I enjoy reading these magazines, even thought I do not fully embrace what they stand for, nor do I choose to live my life this way.

For me, it's a hard pill to swallow that even today women are still subordinate in the the professional work setting. I think Brown really understood this, which I give her credit for. She was an extremely intelligent woman. But she used the power feminine sexuality as leverage and told women it's how they will become successful--not through intelligence or talent or hard work. Her message reached and resonated with millions of women, who in then internalized the message of the Cosmo Girl, using it as a plan to transform their own life situation (economic, love life, social status--whatever it was). And the truth is that it's still being used today.

The Monstrous Regiment of Women

After watching The Monstrous Regiment of Women (by the Gunn Family) in class on Tuesday, I was speechless. Although I couldn’t figure out how to articulate why I felt the way I did, I knew what I was feeling: disgust, anger, disappointment, frustration, shock, panic, sadness, pity, judgement, compassion, embarrassment and ashamed. I’m not even going to touch on the level of emotional abuse this film used to try to force you into agreement. That could be a 15 page essay. I will say, however, that after watching this movie, I felt a piece of my innocence had been stolen. I felt violated.

The movie was made by the Gunn Family, a very conservative Christian family. It operates on many assumptions and premises: Christians cannot be egalitarians, womanhood is defined by motherhood, women should not be in any type of leadership position in society, etc. The one that stood out to me the most was their idea that women were made and destined by God to be wives, mothers, and homemakers, and nothing more. Period. End of story.

What was so sad to me about this movie was how it promoted such a singular, one-dimensional view of what it means to be a woman in God’s eyes, and what His intended purpose for us actually is. My mind kept racing to examples in my own life of, 1.) women who are excellent mothers, but also highly successful in the professional workplace and in leadership roles in society, 2.) women who are gifted in other areas (besides motherhood) and although they do not have children or families to take care of, they are still making a positive impact on society and influencing the lives of others. Are they fulfilling God’s calling and living a life dedicated to him? Are they still obeying God? The film’s answer would be a resounding NO.

The first clip of the movie is the mother dedicating this film to her new born daughter, and her other daughters. I felt pity for the girls raised in this insular society who feel such a pressure to conform. This has to do with how I was raised, and what my family background is. On both sides, my family is conservative Mennonite (like, super conservative--plain dresses and coverings). My grandparents had decided they were going to take a step away from such a conservative interpretation of the Bible, and my parents decided to take yet another step further. So although I was not raised with this type of mentality, I felt like I was watching my extended family in this film. What is so sad is that I have seen and heard of so many examples the girls and women becoming so frustrated with this pressure to conform and submit, that they end up rejecting the community and it’s doctrines, and ultimately their families and Christ altogether.

I felt like this movie made both “sides” (feminism and Christianity) look horrible. The feminists looked like the monsters who get pleasure from practicing partial-birth abortions, hating on men, and taking on masculine qualities while ditching or denying maternal instincts. However, the Christians (althought the Gunn family would disagree) looked like self-righteous, judgmental, Christian psychos because their beliefs are so radical. And yet this movie won a fucking award within the Christian community! It scared me that I identify with both groups, and I felt ashamed and to call myself either.

I don’t know if I recommend watching this movie. It is an eye-opener, that’s for sure. I agree with what Kevin said in a follow-up email: above all, we need to respond with love. He wrote, “One of the hardest things to do in discourse, I think, is to honor the humanity of an opponent who refuses (in our opinion) to honor the humanity of others. But if loving our enemy were easy, I imagine more people would do it.”

Here's the link to the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MNI3-oL4Ck

Social & Liberal...but Radical?

Three over-arching types of feminism today are social, liberal, and radical feminism. To varying degrees, each one’s imprint can be found through the media, especially in magazines. I love looking at magazines--there seems to be one for every interesting under the sun. I found as a read (in Feminists Perspectives on the Media by Liesbet van Zoonen) about each type of feminism, a specific women’s magazine came to mind that embodied what the social and liberal feminist approaches strive for, marking their progress in today’s media. I know, I know...there are hundreds of examples of women’s magazines that go against feminists efforts by reinforcing stereotypes of women. However, the following two strong examples are prominent magazines that have clear indicators of each type of feminism at work.

My mom is a subscriber to More magazine, and I’ve looked through this “over 40 and fabulous” magazine numerous times. There is a real emphasis on the working, professional woman, with a few tips on health, style, and home as well. This is a form in feminist media in that it is created by women, for women. Although it does not advocate outrightly the ideology of women taking up paid labor positions, this assumption is obvious by the representation of women in the magazine being almost completely working professionals. In social feminism, the basic core assumption that is challenged is the degree of hegemony, or normalcy, the dominant ideology of our society has taken on. More is a great example of what is called for by socialist feminism to fix this problem of hegemony: media reform, in the form of un-sexist language, or separate feminist media. More magazine is separate feminist media.

O magazine is a women’s magazine by Oprah Winfrey, with the tag line: Live your best life. O emphasizes constant change, motivation, and challenges that will improve you as a person, and your quality of life. There are sections about shopping, politics, literature, health, etc, etc, etc. This magazine is LOADED. I think it is a great example of liberal ferminism because Oprah herself does not fit the mold of the typical wife and mother (she’s single, yet lives with a man, has no children, and is inarguably a successful, professional woman). Her magazine covers these areas of wife and mother, AND a plethora of others. The ‘Superwoman’ complex is a problem that liberal feminists face, and I think it is exemplified in this magazine as well. Women are expected to be so much, to not lose their femininity, but to be working professionals who are successful in a “man’s world” as well. It can be exhausting. However, this wide-range of interests covered and the diverse audience appeal makes O magazine is a prominent example of the progress of liberal feminism in our media today.

I chose not to discuss radical feminism because I honestly could not find a great example of an extremely radical feminist magazine. This could be because 1.) I am not in support of radical feminism, and so I am completely unaware of any extremely radical magazines that exist, or 2.) when I looked for an example online they were really hard to find! I think this may have something to do with what radical feminism is all about: it asserts that “‘patriarchy’, a social system in which all men are assumed to dominate and oppress all women, accounts for women’s position in society, and it proposes that women should create their own means of communication

This in and of itself does not seem all that controversial, but when played out in society, it has become quite problematic for men and women alike. For men, “it is obvious that [they] have no place in radical feminist utopias.” So obviously, men are not going to be particularly supportive of the radical feminist stance. For women, the problem is that they encourage women to cut off all ties with men and form their own communities...and lesbianism is the obvious outcome of that. So whether it is my own ignorance in this form of feminism, or it’s lack or representation in today’s media due to the extremity of what is calls for, examples in magazines were hard to find.

Blurred Boundaries

For poststructuralist feminists, “sex and gender are social and cultural constructions that are not to be explained in terms of biology or to be reduced to functions of capitalism” (Barker, Sex, Subjectivity and Representation).

Everything that Madonna’s image includes pushes the boundaries of gender roles. There is always a tension of the crazy party girl/sex symbol, the feminist who is a strong example of an independent woman, to the devoted mother who has her own and adopted children, to the humanitarian who fights for the rights of children in third world countries. Madonna breaks the mold for how a woman is viewed and defined in our culture.

Baker points to Madonna as an example of a woman that is able to continually challenge the preconceived notions of gender roles. Specifically, he says that Madonna’s videos “seek to empower women by exhorting them to take control of their lives; play with the codes of sex and gender to blur the boundaries of masculinity and femininity.”

This concept of blurred boundaries is quite obvious in most of Madonna’s videos and photos, like the example posted. Her outfit is undeniably sexy and provocative--the lacy bra, the fishnet stocking, and tall leather boots. However, she is wearing a men’s top hat and rocking out with a guitar, like Kid Rock. This combination of masculinity and femininity is what makes Madonna’s persona such a loud statement and an example for other women, and an example of poststructuralist feminism.

One final thought: Madonna is powerful icon and force not only in American culture, but worldwide. When I was living in Sevilla, Spain last year, Madonna come to play in concert. The show was sold out, and she was “the talk of the town” for weeks prior to and after the concert. I think it is interesting that the things women are struggling with in our culture (how to define ourselves, what is femininity, in what ways can we break the mold, etc.) are more universal than we think. Women in Spanish culture see Madonna as a role model to a modern, independent woman as well.

Cosmo Girl

Gaye Tuchman takes a bold (and in my opinion hyper-sensitive and over-reactive) stance in saying that women are “symbolically annihilated” by the mass media through their portrayal, or lack there of. He argues that the way women are portrayed shows that “women are not important in American society, except perhaps within the home. And even within the home, men know best, as the dominance of male advice on soap operas and the use of male voice-overs for female products, suggests. To be a woman is to have a limited life divorced from the economic productivity of the labor force.” (Tuchman, 17). Below is a picture of an advertisement from the 1970s. The text reads “The MiniAutomatic. For simple driving.” A ditzy looking woman is pictured. Enough said.

However, after reading this, I was put off by Tuchman’s aggression toward the whole subject. I guess I have to keep in mind that she was studying the mass media of the 1980s and earlier. And since I wasn’t alive then, maybe my reaction of an exaggerated eye roll and the thought “Ha, over-react much, Tuchman? I’m a women too, and but I don’t feel that way!” are an indication that the mass media of today has really come a long way and that it does portray women more accurately. But how did we get from a place where women were “portrayed as ‘incompetents and inferiors,’ or having ‘trivial’ interests,” (Gauntlett, 48) to a portrayal women through the mass media that I am somewhat (meaning more than Tuchman) comfortable with?

The Cosmo Factor! Although not single handedly, a major reason the media was forced to change this tradition of symbolic annihilation was because the magazine, Cosmopolitain, pushed the boundaries of the social norms of women. “Cosmo’s assertion of women’s right to enjoy sex, and talk about it, was quite radical. // Cosmo girl might have owed a lot to feminism, but she was unlikely to identify with it; she just wanted to get out there and enjoy her independence” (Gauntlett, 57).

Thanks to Cosmo’s nonchalant and somewhat entitled attitude about the way women can act freely, speak openly, and identify themselves as what they please, we have made strides of progress from the 1970s advertisement for “simple driving.” I think this Cosmo Girl (to some extent, haha) is the type of woman I am. Like the Cosmo girl, I am full of contradictions because I am expected to be so much--butI rise to the challenge and make no apologies for who I am. I owe a lot to feminism and appreciate it, but I am ready to get out there and enjoy my independence.

TOCA TOCA

My initial reaction as I began today’s reading for class was: Wow, this guys is really out there. David Gauntlett, the author of Media, Gender and Identity begins his discussion of men and women today by saying, “The sexes today are generally thought to be ‘equal’, to the extent that the cover of Time magazine wondered if feminism was ‘dead’ in June 1998. There is even a noisy minority who argue that feminism has ‘gone too far’ and that it is now men who have the worst deal in society.” How could someone have such a disillusioned view of the sexes today? Women are still fighting for every inch of equal ground we rightfully deserve! What about the concept of the glass elevator in the workplace? And what about our image in the media today--OH, that’s right. It’s written by a man. However, as I begrudgingly continued to read, Gauntlett redeemed himself. He explains that all the examples of the stereotypical gender roles being discarded are simply “a change in attitudes. The reality of actual behaviour is somewhat different.”

I was confronted by his argument that femininity is no longer an existing core value for women, “instead, being ‘feminine’ is just one of the performances that women can choose to employ in every day life--perhaps for pleasure, or to achieve a particular goal.” I realized that I am one of these women. In developing my own personal identity, realized I have abandoned this concept of “femininity” altogether, not wanting to be associated with it’s connotations of a weak, passive, and brainless woman.

I see proof of this in what I am interpolated by in the media. The first time I watched the music video (the link is attached--skip to 1:00 to view), Toca Toca by La Mala Rodriguez, I loved it. I thought it was a strong yet sexy portrayal of a woman. I love dance and artistic, edgy portrayals of women. But, after reading the two chapters of the book, I see the music video in a whole new light. The women are dancing with such forcefulness, it’s almost like they are physically fighting. They have hardened expressions on their faces, and confront each other with intensity.

So I am left to ponder this: Is it wrong to identify with a more masculine portrayal of a woman? What is femininity? Am I incomplete as a woman if I do not incorporate femininity into my identity? My gut tells me that there is nothing incomplete or lacking in my life. I am not less of a woman because I cannot identify with the frilly, air-headed connotations that the word “femininity” implies. I express and identify with femininity in other ways than this traditional, old-school view.