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.

Power

“Cultural studies can show how media culture manipulates and indoctrinates us, and thus can empower individuals to resist the dominant meanings in media cultural products and to produce their own meanings” (Gender, Race, and Class in Media, 12). I think this quote sufficiently articulates the reason why cultural studies has become such a prominent field of study in recent years. The media is a reflection of who we are as a culture, but it also can be manipulative and reinforce negative, longstanding ideologies that our culture is fighting against.

I’ll use the example of racism. The ideology that whites are superior to all other races was once accepted and upheld by American’s political, social, and economic systems. Throughout history and even today, we as a culture are fighting against it. But is the media helping or hurting the progress we’re making? In some instances, I think we are making real progress. The white, blond haired classic American looking individual is no longer the only type of person we see in our advertisements, news programs, TV shows, or movies. The Dove “Real Beauty” campaign ad is a great example of this.

However, if we look closely and critically at many articles of media, we can find blatant examples of the ideology of racism being reinforced and upheld in some of the most unexpected places. Henry A. Giroux analyzed Disney films with a critical eye towards themes of racism, sexism, etc. He writes, “Racially coded language is also evident in The Lion King, as members of the royal family speak with posh British accents while Shenzi and Banzai, the despicable hyena storm troopers, speak through the voices of Whoopi Goldburg and Cheech Marin in racially coded accents that take on the nuances of the discourse of decidedly urban black and Latino youth.”

Cultural studies is such an important field because of the power it has to disable or enable change in our society. Once people are aware of the ideologies being upheld by even the most (seemingly the most) innocent of media sources, such as Disney, the first step in changing societal norms has been completed. Cultural studies is in essence the tool that gives people the power to make significant changes in our culture.

Escape

Culture is the driving force behind every society. It is interesting, then, that although it has such a great influence on every one of our lives, the concept of “culture” is one of the most elusive words in the english language. “While culture is concerned with tradition and social reproduction, it is also a matter of creativity and change” (Culture Studies, Barker, p. 42).

It must be stressed that culture is ordinary. Everyone is an expert in their own culture, because their every move, every word and every thought is simultaneously the creation of culture and a reaction to culture. People from the same culture are said to “interpret the world in roughly the same ways and can express themselves, their thoughts and feelings about the world, in ways which will be understood by each other” (Culture Studies, Barker, p. 42). In addition to people living out a culture, it can also be recorded. It can be a piece of art, a song, a political campaign, or the state of the stock market. History is a huge influence on culture today.

The picture below is a photo of modern art by Bruce Nauman called “Human/Need/Desire.” Nauman created it in 1983. This is a perfect representation of how culture is created by people. Nauman thought of this idea, and created the physical piece of modern art. I believe that Nauman would tell you that to him, this piece has special meaning and significance. He had an idea behind it; something he wanted to express or convey. The flip-side of Nauman being the creator is that the viewers can interpret this any way they choose. So culture is created by people, and interpreted by people as well. Secondly, culture is recorded. This physical piece of modern art has been created and we can view it again and again through pictures or see it in person at the MOMA in New York City. Lastly, this piece of art is a link between our society today and 1983. What can it tell us about the culture then? How is it applicable to our culture today?

For me, the six words in neon lights represent things we struggle with and/or long for in our daily lives. They are thoughts. Thoughts about humans, desires, hopes, needs, and dreams. These thoughts are all sort of floating up and away, but connected by thick black cords to a white box. The box represents society, or the humdrum of daily life. We are undeniably connected to it, but we can escape this rigid, cold, institutionalize life we may be leading by our thoughts and creativity, if we use our minds. For me, this piece of art is inspirational. It's about a journey....an escape.

The field of cultural studies is a relatively new area of study. The professors and leading theorists have fought to keep away boundaries determining what cultural studies includes and excludes because the concept of culture derived from and effects every part of our lives. Therefore, the definition of culture is not singular. It is always being changed, revised, and rediscovered.

Stunning

Recently while driving into the city of Reading, Pennsylvania, I saw a pink billboard with black writing, and a black silhouette of a thin, yet curvy woman. The message read: "Be stunning. Yes, you can." I wondered what the billboard was advertising, "Curves? A women's support group?" Nope...a Plastic Surgery Center. I laughed out loud.

I consider myself to be a feminist. That being said, I often tire from the verbal tyrants and public petitions of feminists today. In addition, some of the feminists of today's time (Hilary Clinton, namely) I find to be over-the-top. To me, being a feminist means being in support of the following statement: "...asserting that sex is a fundamental and irreducible axis of social organization which, to date, has subordinated women to men. Thus, feminism is centrally concerned with sex as an organizing principle of social life where gender relations are thoroughly saturaed with power." (Culture Studies, Barker, p. 24) I appreciate the stand feminists took in years past and know that the rights I have today are thanks to their efforts. I also believe we still have a lot of fighting to do. However, I am more of a quiet, strong-willed fighter than an outspoken, in-your-face activist.

As a woman, I found this billboard to be completely repulsive and offensive. Why do you have to change your outer appearance to be stunning? Is the idea of "being stunning" solely based upon a woman's physical appearance? What does it mean to be stunning? Who teaches us this concept? I would agree that "this structuring of the human subject is not something we are born with; rather, it is something we acquire though our relations with our immediate 'carers.' Here the self is by definition fractured; consequently we must understand the unified narrative of the self as something we attain over time." (Culture Studies, Barker, p. 22)

Furthermore, I would be willing to argue that our "immediate 'carers'" to some extent are the media. How many children sit infront of the TV while the parents make a few phone calls? How many girls look at a TeenVouge magazine for fun? Consciously or subconsciously, we allow media to guide our perception of what it means to be a stunning woman. Sexy. Thin. Fashionable.

The advertisement above is for David Yurman, a jewerly designer. It is just one example of how over-sexed the media in our culture has become. Is the overtly sexual pose, the short dress, the blank, yet suggestive stare on her face necessary to sell jewerly? I am blown away that women have actually bought in to the idea of plastic surgery--changing their physical appearance to become more "attractive." Making women appear to be nothing more than thoughtless, sex symbols in media is just one example of how we are still subordinated in society today. It is a driving force behind the need for women to change their appearance to become "stunning."