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