When I was in the Marine Corps, I did not believe that Women
or Homosexuals should be allowed in combat positions.And to clarify, after years of reflection, my
viewpoints have changed; however, reading chapter 3 and chapter 4 made me
realize the true systematic implications of interpreting a group of people in a
specific way.Moreover, with the
constant use of Facebook (and other social media devices) the term “media” is a
lot broader than it used to be.
Let me explain.With
the recent ending of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and the inclusion of women in
direct combat, my Facebook newsfeed has been inundated with comments from my
fellow Infantry Marines.Some post
pictures of women who are represented to be of the weaker sex; others just post
articles and quotes about the “inefficiencies” the military is now promoting.
Like I said before, I no longer agree with this sentiment,
but I find myself not eager to fight against the sometimes-inappropriate
representation of women.The two
chapters, especially chapter 3, made me question why.I always assumed I was avoiding
confrontation, but now reflect on my past beliefs and how they may affect my
current beliefs.
Going along with what the two chapters discussed, the
overwhelming amount of pornographic material available in the male-driven
military might represent the misrepresentation of women in submissive
roles.The Male Combat Marine, who sees
himself as a protector of freedom, or a warfighter would easily attach himself
to a dominant position in a gender role and would see the opposite gender as
the home-provider and the “the person being protected.”
Now before the announcement of the inclusion of Women in
combat, there was no mention of this issue in my Facebook newsfeed; however,
after the announcement, the “media” interpretations began to filter, recreate
and distort the image of women – the role of women in the military (in my Facebook
feed), even though women have served in combat zones before, changed due to the
altered perceptions - Just like the changing role of the picture of Marilyn
Monroe.The Marines who feared the
changing of the Status Quo (in my feed), only used representations that are
negative and sometimes pornographic in nature; the one who no longer believes
this (maybe not just me – hopefully not just me) didn’t say a thing – more than
likely due to the fear of similar labeling.
The Power and Control Wheel was created in 1984 to illustrate the pervasive patterns common to violence against women, all of which revolve around power and control: coercion, intimidation, emotional abuse, isolation, minimizing/denying/blaming, children, male privilege.
The wheel's been modified thousands of times as a teaching tool to analyze different manifestations of the ways power and control are negotiated in various contexts. Gendered Media kept reminding me of the Cultural Power and Control Wheel:
The wheel is a successful metaphor because the giving and taking of power and control are at the heart of all systems. Whether that system is a family, a culture, a nation, or a global economy, power and control are the gears that make it run.
As Ross illustrates, we have plenty of other tools at our disposal to look at the tensions between power and control in gender issues: turn on the TV, read a newspaper or magazine, have a simple conversation, look in the mirror.
We have made progress but like Ross keeps reminding us, Western culture is still overwhelmingly normative.
Particularly when women are sexual, successful, powerful, assertive, or manifest other behaviors out of sync with accepted norms, it's assumed they are fair game:
Oscar host Seth McFarlane on 9 year-old nominee Quvenzhané Wallis:
“to give you an idea of how young she is, it’ll be 16 years before she’s too young for Clooney.”
Tweeet (one of many) ridiculing the appearance of Brittany Howard during Alabama Shakes' SNL performance:
Slate's Daniel Engber on Girls episode "One Man's Trash," and the fact that "rude," "ugly," "sexually ungenerous," "defiantly ungraceful" Hannah has a fling with a handsome doctor, played by an actor whose girlfriend is apparently a great deal hotter than Lena Dunham made it too difficult for a seasoned television critic to take seriously.
Stardate 2013: Spent much of day reading book Gendered Media: Women, Men, and Identity Politics. Now have urge to live even further under rock.
Page 7: I enjoy how this book opens right away with describing third wave, postmodern feminism as "politically bankrupt." Way to not pull any punches and ensure you offend an entire section of your audience who might associate with that movement for perfectly valid reasons.
P. 14: Some women are saying FCUK? It'd be nice to know what this means.
P. 15: Curious why they used a secondary source for this quote when it should be easy to find the primary.
P. 22: The argument on the top of this page, which is basically that magazines shouldn't be sexist because children might be able to access them at some point, is complete bullshit. There is already a huge amount of sexism available freely to children, and there are already a ton of reasons why magazines should shape up, but using the "BUT THE CHILDREN" line is just an unnecessary appeal to emotion that hurts your overall case. THANKS DISNEY FOR COVERING THIS ALREADY.
Continued p. 22: I have never heard of Promise Keepers, and I'm someone who consumes a huge amount of media. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to cover a more mainstream group? There are plenty of pseudo/neo-masculine Tumblrs and such.
P. 26: The analysis of Farrakhan affecting the Million Man March movement so heavily, and of journalism leaping to assassinate the messenger at the cost of ignoring the message really reminds me of the same thing going on with Assange and Wikileaks. The discussion about whether or not Wikileaks should be doing what they're doing is drowned out by Assange's personality/rape case. Of course, some of this Wikileaks does on purpose, they make Assange a lightning rod. It's sad, though, that they have to do this to remain feasible.
P. 27-28: Criticizing the fathers' group for their motto, which has a very tenuous at best connection to the dog motto (one I never would have associate the idea with, but whatever) is, again, a petty criticism compared with the more legitimate complaints to make.
P. 29: HEY FCUK IS NOW EXPLAINED. Editors should've moved this to the first reference.
P. 31: Lots of the modern references in this section are lost on me.
P. 37: This book has some really good writing, and it shines through in this section. The quote: "So we can see that cyberfeminism/s incorporate thinking about the poetics of the technoscientific woman-machine cyborg but also the regular woman in her living room e-mailing colleagues across the world with information about how to lobby their local politician." is positively poetic.
P. 42: Man, what happened to metrosexual anyway? It was everywhere for a few years, and I don't think I've heard the term outside of this classroom since I moved to Texas. Maybe that's the problem.
P. 46: This section is heavily repetitive from previous book and class discussions. Skimming.
P. 51: If this book had been published in the last three months, they could have discussed recent legislation in Israel banning models below a certain BMI. Of course, this naturally gets the feedback that WHAT ABOUT WOMEN WHO ARE NATURALLY THAT SKINNY but I assume there will be some penduluming back and forth on this issue for a few years. Israel also requires photoshopped pictures to be labeled.
P. 62: This section makes me worry about the blurry line between labeling and removing sexism and sex-shaming. (Note added later: The pornography section covers this debate extensively.)
P. 70: Did the congressman internalize their ideas, or ignore them? (re: Statement about why pornography should be legislated and its roots in feminist messaging).
P. 71: Interesting bit on pornography as power. Makes me think about sites, NOT THAT I HAVE EVER BEEN TO ONE, where pornography is shown for free but the cost is you put up with a lot of ads, some of which push into fetishes/images significantly different than what you're viewing. HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION - you're viewing some free porn and this ad makes it appear that a girl wants to chat with you about sex. EVEN IF THE PORN YOU'RE VIEWING is overall female-sex-positive, the advertisements probably won't be. CONUNDRUM.
P. 75: I have such a hard time following arguments sometimes. Would making porn-for-women shame women who enjoy traditionally-porn-for-men? Does it limit their acceptable repoire?
P. 82: I wonder the authors stance on cybersex addiction vs. Facebook game addiction.
P. 91: This section about the absence of females in journalism reminds me strongly of the recent rekindling of the abortion/rape debates and the lack of women involved in that discussion.
P. 96: Like Faith pointed out in class earlier this semester, the implication that men cannot control themselves and that women are asking for it should also raise disgust in male audiences. After all, why on earth would we want AN OVERWHELMING UNCONTROLLABLE URGE FOR SEX (actually usually urge for power, not sex) to be associated with MASCULINITY, and not just with RAPISTS?
P. 103: Racist reporting was "obliterated"? Am I reading that right? Uh.... Yeah, author lost me there. Also, she-devil seems a pretty weak example compared to tons of others available.
P. 105: I agree Palin and Clinton got undue attention to their physical appearances compared to their male counterparts, and that that sucks and should change. However, using the examples of Palin being charged with "abandoning" her children to pursue politics seems stretchy as being sexism-based. That campaign involved anything and everything being thrown at anyone and everyone--Obama has been shamed for taking family vacations and not being close to his brother, for example.
Gendered Media
discussed a few issues that I have always felt strongly about, yet have rarely
had the opportunity to discuss. The most salient issue, brought up often in the
text, is the concept of “third-wave” feminism and its possible ills. In my
experience, many women (including friends of mine) are very much in line with
the “third-wave” feminism approach. It’s basically a post-feminism, ironic attitude
used, for example, by “dancers” and burlesque performers and people like that.
They always want to say that being liberated in a post-feminist world means “doing
whatever you want,” yet this often means, as stated by Ross, performing
historically male rituals and/or sexualizing themselves or others. For a long
time, I have always wanted to say what Ross repeats in this book: “knowing” you’re
exploiting yourself doesn’t make it non-exploitative. Such theories, however, have typically been
met with a lot of resistance among friends of mine. I’m interested to see how
several of my feminist classmates feel about the “third-wave feminism” issue.
Perhaps I’m not giving these third-wavers enough credit, but I tend to agree
with Ross’ contention that this attitude is generally just an excuse for bad
behavior in individuals, and a crass way for the media (such as men’s
magazines) to promote misogynistic portrayals of women. A great example in the
book was when the men’s magazine publisher said, “we have thousands of women
waiting to pose for us.” While I’m sure this is the case, it seems to me a form
of undercutting what would be a typical feminist critique of such a magazine to
essentially say, “post-feminist women like it, so it’s OK.”
Based on reading Ross as well as some of the other materials
(such as the “FOX” article Dr. Pimentel sent us a few weeks ago), it seems to
me that the media is trying extremely hard to push feminism as both “radical”
and “out of date.” While the third-wavers would probably say that their brand
of feminism is the true “new feminism,” I would disagree. I think that
exploitative feminism has become the “new” feminism because it’s more palatable
to big business and western culture. It’s extremely crafty to tell women that
they’re “liberated” while jointly exploiting them for profit. The
counter-narrative of “radical feminism is no longer appropriate” espoused by conservative
and religious commentators is a similar, problematic approach. These pundits
(often women) cast feminism as a fringe movement, away from society’s
mainstream. If you watch television news media, you’re likely to see such ideas
as the dominant portrayal of feminism in the news. All these things greatly concern
me; feminism is being attacked from all angles and called irrelevant and out of
date. However, our society has not made significant strides toward true gender
equality, which makes these (in my view) inaccurate opinions and portrayals
quite harmful.
On a related note, I wholeheartedly agree with Ross re:
portrayals of people of color in media. As Ross says, very, very often, media
uses people of color who have more “white” or “western” features. To take a
couple of examples, Beyonce has been airbrushed to appear extremely pale and
light skinned in advertising, though such images do not closely approximate her
true skin color. I personally have noticed an uptick lately in interracial
couples in advertising, which is a positive trend. Still, one of the most
common such portrays is of a white male with an Asian female. Quite often, the
advertisers choose an extremely tall, light skinned Asian female for such a
role, making her almost indistinguishable from a white person if you do not
view the commercial closely. Many of the African-American women on television
are often portrayed as light-skinned, wearing wigs similar to “white” women’s
hair. While the move towards portraying more people of color on television and
in advertising is good, I am concerned by these portrayals, because I believe
that there is still a none-too-subtle background message of “white is right” going
on here.
BAH! I keep forgetting to blog my thoughts (I'm honestly not a blogger.)
The several sexions (sections) of the Gendered Media text we read for this week were ripe with entertainment and prospects for in-class discussion.
Several questions for consideration arise as I read though the "Sexy Media" section. As I read the "A Girl's Own Story" section in particular, I couldn't help but think of how the driving force of equality only perpetuates "the issue" of pornography. It is very interesting that Ross shows a timeline of pornographic acceptance: from sensual publications being straight up abhorrent, to a growing acceptance and availability culturally, to the blame game of male gaze and objectification, to the anticensorship argument, to the feminine answer to contemporary pornography in the form of feminized pornography.
As the text moves onward, Ross reveals unsurprising results of the feminine porn push. It turns out that (according to one study) women account for 40% of the adult Internet consumer market and that further studies are demonstrating that female porn use is leading to similar psychosocial problems exhibited in men. What's weird here is that the more that we talk about porn and accommodating genders, the more we talk about problems and social norms; the more we talk about problems and social norms the more confused I get about any addiction, use, or misuse of pornography being a "problem." It's hard to label what is problematic based on a socially normalized measuring stick. Furthermore, the "Sexy Media" section only nods its head at a greater issues of normalization: the division of gender into two constants. Yes, Ross mentions the complexity of venturing into the alternative sexualities in this discussion, but that's where things get ever the more confusing.
While driving along I-35 today, thinking about our class, I tried to conceptualize/realize/put-into-words that everything about humanness since humans have been suggests that gender was never meant to be so complex. (Keep in mind, this is an opinion/thought/argument.) Some might argue that this era is the era that "alternative sexualities" can finally be discussed without the socio-normative backlash of former times. I agree. It's a time when more things can be put on the table of discussion without anyone being sent to a faraway island for merely voicing their thoughts. But, when it comes to gender I wonder how much the world and its media will truly be able to accommodate the ever-growing spectrum of gender. Right now, it's "Porn sites and the male consumer" and "Porn sites and the female consumer." Can it be segmented further? Will there be studies for the notches in between these two polar points?
What about in the marketing of clothing and consumer products? Will there be an era where department stores will no longer feature only men's clothing and women's clothing departments, but instead an array of newer, accommodating departments? Does there even need to be accommodating departments and clothing types, or am I just taking it too far? It's likely that anyone on the spectrum of gender can be satisfied with some kind of combination of items (or porn) from either side of the polarity. (Note: I've been careful not to to use the word "other" here, and instead opted for "accommodating" instead.)
I guess, what I'm trying to say with this stream of thought is that if the development of pornography—especially the recent feminized offerings—has led to more "problems," then maybe the solution wasn't accommodation to begin with? I know Ross's approach to this topic was just to examine the use of gender in media and that the Sexy Media section was just a glance into a more complex discussion, but it kinda seems our (increasingly sensualized) media and its connected outcomes are objectively testifying of a disintegration of not just the notion of normalization, but the notion of a collective stability that has sustained gendered humans for so long.
I like the discussion on gender. I'm undoubtedly a proponent of the aspects of feminism. But, before the discussion of gender gets to fomented, it might be useful to define and examine some terms/concepts. Like what should be considered a "problem" if our social acceptances are established upon normative ideals. Also, is the answer to the problem of pornography more of it and in a multitude of accommodating forms? Or is there a value in accepting sex for what it is and talking about it a little more openly so it's not some kind of closet sensuality that's exciting to talk about because it's taboo—especially among youth?
In line with that last comment of mine is a couple of videos from the unabashed Cindy Gallop, founder of the website Make Love Not Porn (dot) TV. Her mission is to discuss pornography at its core values/problems, consider its target audience, and solve the (so-called) "problem" of pornography by being more open about the inherent awesomeness of sex without the disillusionment caused by pornography.
It's all interesting. At the end of the day, I'm still trying to work out my understanding of these two sections of reading and how they relate to today's media and reality. I can't say my feet are firmly planted in any one spot, but I'm openly analytical to whatever might come up in our upcoming classroom discussions.
"Porn for women, made by women can wreak havoc with the male-ordered control over women's bodies and indeed those of other, subordinated beings, providing an alternative if not replacement set of knowledges about our sexual selves" (68).
"Relations between women and men are fundamentally about power and control, a sadly negative understanding which leaves no room for romance or intimacy. It is also an avowedly heterosexual prescription which takes no account of alternative sexualities, perhaps because same-sex abuse and rape remain invisible since to make it count would significantly complicate the much simpler notion of superior-subordinate relations founded on sex-based difference" (71).
I really like this book. A lot. I also thought, like some of the others, that it can be uncomfortable to read about some of these things (I don't really find it that uncomfortable, honestly), it's important to talk about and read about topics that are not in the spotlight and are often ignored because they are 'uncomfortable' to address. I also be honest that I felt some of the issues that came up in the text ignored certain things, and also talked about things like the Japanese comics without adequate background information to place it into context.
Chapter 3 focused primarily on pornography. It discussed issues that people have had with pornography including it's potential negative effects on men viewing women as objects as well as possibly contributing to the sexual violence against women. It also discussed how porn also has a female market now, and that a growing percentage of the porn viewers are women. The issue I found is first of all, it focused on large, money-making oriented pornography. This is the internet. Many people use porn ALL the time and it didn't cost them anything. Also, the fear with those sites is NOT just fear of being found out. Credit card fraud and viruses plague those kind of sites, some of them even "fake" porn sites, only interested in drawing people in with sexual content. A lot of porn that is accessible on the internet is made by other internet "consumers" and is free. I'm not necessarily trying to say "look at this, it's great", but it's not really all created by the desire for money. A lot of it is mutual sharing, especially in fanfiction communities. And this porn ranges from heterosexual to homosexual and from male dominating to female dominating, to pretty much everything you can think of.
Also the lack of information in the study about porn from Japan really lacked a lot of information I felt. It completely ignores that in actual society Japan is quite conservative about sexual issues. Media, especially manga and anime, uses a lot of sexual tropes to appeal to men and women, because it becomes a sexual outlet of sorts. Even many of their video games, especially visual novels, really contain a lot of explicit material. It left a lot out though: A lot of these games are not just flat out sex scenes. Many of the manga, anime, and games include narratives and character relationship building. Not all of them, but many of them do and it's not only titles directed at women. That's pretty standard for ones directed towards men as well. Also, it left out, which I think is particularly important, that Japan also normalizes homosexual porn as well, both gay and lesbian porn. It's not out of the ordinary. I guess I just felt like this section lacked a lot of information about pornography in Japan.
Chapter 4 focused primarily on news media and women who work as journalists as well as how women are represented in news media. It was crazy to think about some of the statistics that were mentioned. It also was saddening to see how the treatment of women as victims and the treatment of rape victims by the news media has probably caused a lot of women to not come forward when they are victims of sexual violence. Perhaps what is more disturbing is the fact that many of these women are made out to be liars or as deserving of what happened to them.
For the most part I really liked the discussion about Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. It really bothered me though, that on page 108, the discussion turned to Palin possibly running in 2012. It discussed that Palin was basically feeling that the conspiracy with her media experience was about class, or political "liberal" agenda, and how it wasn't hurting her then. But, even if she doesn't recognize it, or just doesn't name gender as a force driving her harsh media coverage, that means that it doesn't matter? It bugged me to see, "If Palin really does believe that the treatment of herself and her familyby the media is a consequence of a conspiracy perpetuated by the elite liberal corps of journalists--a class-based rather than sex-based analysis--then it's a conspiracy which is doing her no harm at all at the moment, as eyes continue to follow her tracks at a time when other presidential contenders such as Hillary Clinton have all but disappeared from view" (108). So what? So what if she's still getting "attention"? That doesn't mean that the gender issues go away or that they weren't a significant factor in her treatment on the media. Plus, as a Republican candidate, I don't think she could even get away with talking about gender as a factor, because she'd instantly be retaliated against because so many view her beliefs as "anti-feminist". I doubt it would work out for her if she did take that stance.
The blog for this week focuses on Gendered Media: Women, Men, Identity and Politics by Karen Ross. While
recognizing that gains have been made in gender equality in different types of
media, Ross stresses that the gains are not nearly significant enough to say we
have no more work to do in bringing about true equality. The author looks at
many different types of mass media, including chapters devoted to analyzing
news, television programming, the internet and pornography.
Her section on “masculinity in crisis” was interesting.
Growing up in the Christian church, I have witnessed this sentiment over and
over again, but of course never from a feminist viewpoint like Ross’. Why should
men necessarily have their identities only defined in the context of being
better than women? This reminds of a bit of art history. In Neo-Classic French
art, women were almost entirely excluded from nude painting in favor of the
male form. With the absence of women, men’s bodies began to take on more lithe,
supple, passive, and objectified forms. This relates, in my mind, because it
shows how constructed and dichotomous gender can be, and it also shows how men
and masculinity can take on other forms than the Promise Keepers would hope
for.
When Ross talked about women being “less than the sum of their
body parts” I could definitely picture the type of advertisements she was
referring to. These are accepted forms, and while I would object anyway to the
picture of the battered woman to sell, I don’t know if, unstudied, I would have
consciously been aware of the brokenness of women in mass produced images.
In the section where the author discusses pornography, she did
an excellent job of complicating the issue and presenting both sides of the
debate on (un)harmfulness of porn on women. On one hand, it encourages and
perpetuates violence against women. On the other hand, women should not be
denied their sexuality and freedom to choose for themselves what Ross termed “erotica
or porn.”
I was really surprised to hear the statistics on women in
the news. I don’t watch the news as much as I probably should, but the
drastically disproportionate representation of women to men in both stories and
news jobs was shocking. I was not as surprised to hear that many stories
featuring women portrayed them as simply victims. Certainly women are victims
of male crime, but that is not the sum of their potential contribution to the goings-on
of the world! And conversely, men perpetrating violent offenses against women
are abnormalized by making the perps seem monstrous, when really, sex based
violence is very common, especially among close family and friends.
I thought this book was very well written, both an engaging
and informative read. When I talk about any of my own research that suggests we
have not fully achieved social justice, I get a definite backlash. I have even
been told by an older woman that “we women have been too liberated,” and she
went on to describe how women are not being properly taken care of and
protected by men.
In my personal conversation with this family member I did
not take a very strong response. But in my scholarly work, I think information
like Ross has provided can be valuable evidence showing that what we accept as
feminist and liberal, like the encouragement of overly sexualized professional
and everyday clothing for (young) women, can really be seen as trappings of the
same old objectification and subordination of women.
As uncomfortable it is reading and writing about sex, I can't wait for the discussion on this book tonight. The history about feminist rights in relation to pornography was interesting and frankly something I had not thought of. Maybe it is because I don't see pornography as something taking away my femininity but of seeing sex as an act of art. I understand the binary issues that obviously come along with the objectification, aggression, and stigma of porn. Ross discusses the female/male binary mostly in the book and I would say tends to focus more on the female side than the male. Her book alone, I would assume doesn't blur the line of the binary but reinforces it for her readers. Some of the issues I was interested in were female consumerism and women as a commodity. Ross said "It is not at all clear that women are less able to distinguish between the real and the virtual and therefore at greater risk from their online sexual activities than men (83). I think what Ross is trying to say is that women get sucked into online consumerism and are at a greater risk to believe (emotionally) that they some how connect to what they are seeing on the screen. This reality then turns women into a commodity and online media outlets pander to their needs and desires (Freud/Lacan). The reality of this is that women whether catered to or not are still being used a way to make money. I think that is what Ross was trying to get at in the porn section.
From the fourth chapter, over and over as I watch television/movies/internet women who are in trouble and have to be saved from the big knight in shining armor. The anecdote is always the same no matter if the women is the main/lead character there is always a man with whom she runs to in the end. This anecdote has been maintained in our patriarchy system and doesn't seem to change generation to generation. Men still want to protect, provide, and being in charge of women. No matter where I go I always see some aspect of this in action. It is interesting to look at this anecdote through a political lens and think about why media portrays the male/female binary in this way. Some interesting statistics about porn consumers: "40% of the 'adult' Internet consumer marker" is women (Ross 82). "Investigators say 30 percent of all web traffic is porn. The porn site, Xvideos, receives a staggering 4.4 billion page views and 350 million unique visitors per month. Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/322668#ixzz2MD4ePWPF" (Digital Journal).
Both of these statistics note that the viewers are neither male or female. However, on another site Purehope.net the statistics are focused primarily on men:
70% of 18 to 24 year old men visit pornographic sites in a typical month. 66% of men in their 20s and 30s also report being regular users of pornography. (First-person: the culture of pornography, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Baptist Press, 28 December 2005)
40 million U.S. adults regularly visit Internet pornography websites, and 10% of adults admit to Internet sexual addition (Internet Filter Review, 2006).
20% of men admit accessing pornography at work (Internet Filter Review, 2006).
The number of television sexual scenes has almost doubled since 1998. 70% of all shows have some sexual content — averaging 5 sexual scenes per hour compared to 56% and 3.2 scenes per hour respectively in 1998. (Sex on TV 4, a Kaiser Family Foundation study, November, 2005)
56% of divorces involve one spouse’s continued use of Internet pornography (Family Research Council, The Effects of Pornography, 2009)
Interesting Video: While watching Chelsea Lately last night, I saw a clip about a man and wife who have had their vintage porn collection stolen. The main focus was on the male but and included on a small portion of the woman talking about herself and her husband using the porn for themselves.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/344113
As interesting as the Sexy Media chapter was, Women in/and News was what really got me fuming. I'm actually showing my 1320 students Miss Representation today, so the timing couldn't have been better. What really makes me angry/disheartened though is that even with this information, so many people still a) don't think women are portrayed/represented unfairly in the media or b) don't have a problem with it. Some of my students last semester thought Miss Representation was an attack on men in general--now I'm all for an intelligent debate, but come on. It's that mentality that keeps the Fox News "War on Men" train running. Why are people so afraid to admit that there is something wrong with the way women are represented in the news and in the media in general? It reminds me of the goal behind the Obscene Publications Act passed in Britain in 1857: to prevent "the possibility of overthrowing patriarchy through women's emancipation" (67). (How sad is it that I can even draw a parallel between the attitude toward gender equality in 1857 and in 2013?) It seems as though every time it is brought up that women are not, in fact, treated/viewed/represented as equals, there is an immediate, tenfold rebuttal that we need to leave those poor men alone.
I'd say rant over, but not quite---this chapter gave me too much to work with (and so early in the morning too! Nothing like some gender inequality-fueled rage with my morning coffee). I highlighted this passage in the chapter where it discusses one disconcerting yet undiscussed fact about the under-representation of women in news stories: "There is never any acknowledgement that what we see, read, and listen to in the news is the result of myriad selection decisions which follow so-called journalistic conventions in terms of what constitutes a 'good' news story" (92).There is so much time and thought put into which stories are important enough to be aired, and the fact that women rarely make the cut as something other than victims is just sad. That reminded me, although not directly related (although isn't it all?), of one part in M.R. where they discuss how, in Nancy Pelosi's four years as speaker of the House, she never once appeared on the cover of a national magazine; John Boehner, however, appeared on five covers within his first four weeks. Men are consistently projected as holding positions of power. When women hold those same positions, however, it's sort of swept under the rug.
Then we have our female news anchors, who do get attention but for all the wrong things. "Is she showing too much leg? Is her neckline too low? Are those implants?" The focus is always on their appearance. I hate to have to air my family's dirty laundry, but over Christmas break, I could hear my dad downstairs gawking at the television when I assume Fox News, his 24/7 source of information, was reporting on some woman who did not look like their usual cocktail waitress-esque "journalists": "Ughh, what's with her hair? She looks like she just got out of the shower!" No one talks about Glenn Beck in terms of his hotness. I guess it would be jarring to see a woman represented on Fox who doesn't look like she's about to compete in a beauty pageant.
I know, I know. I'm doing it too--focusing on the appearance of female Fox News reporters rather than hearing the words that come out of their mouths. But they look the way they do for a reason, and it's the same reason why Fox wouldn't touch Rachel Maddow with a ten-foot pole (despite the fact that she's liberal and wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole either). As the lovely Ann Coulter says, "All pretty girls are right-wingers."
This week’s reading from, Gendered Media, was centered on sex. As much as Ross tried to give the benefit of the doubt and represent all sides of the story, it was pretty clear Ross was already decided on the topics of pornography and women in the media. As a matter of fact, Ross is pretty much on a soapbox the entire time. Don’t get me wrong, what she has to say is important and I agree with the a lot of her statements, I’m just making an observation. It’s tough to write in this field especially when you feel as passionately as Ross. I’m not sure this text would have been as effective if it would have been written as dry as the Ott and Mack text, it just kind of seems to drag on sometimes. Well enough of my soapbox, back to the blog… Sex, you knew it was coming…In chapter 3, pornography is the main topic. Ross discusses the history and the primary argument that surrounds this billion dollar industry. She mentions that the turning point in “sexy media” came when these graphic depictions of erotic females caused individuals in Britain to question their morals and roles in society. Ross then moves into her conversation of fantasy versus non-fiction to support the use or dismissal of pornography. One thing that I started to think about when “they” couldn’t come to a consensus was that this situation of censorship is similar to the argument of how to classify violence in the Ott and Mack text. This notion of sex has various modes as explained by Ross’ example of Marilyn Monroe just like violence can’t be categorized in one static compartment. The image of fully naked woman in Scarface is a part of classic film making but the image of a fully naked woman in Playboy is erotic. It was interesting to me that Ross did not explore multiple combinations of reasons for participations other than (implied dominance or violence) such as sex for education (i.e. how to please your partner or something along that line) for example rather than simply highlighting empowering functions of “sexy media” for women. Like I said I’m not against what she said at by any means, I guess I wanted her to be more balanced but then again there’s probably a separate book just on this topic alone.
In chapter 4, Ross talks about women in the media and politics. This argument of sex is not as provocative as before, well not in the same sense at least. This discussion is the classic conversation of how woman are not males equals no matter how hard we work. We are always reduced to our sex, or gender. The primary argument used in this instance is the nurturer versus the bulldog versus the object. The media push women into one of these three roles and rarely do they embody multiple functions. If by chance a female does receive the chance to be in a position of power, she is hyper-scrutinized.
I love and hated Chapter 1 Project Gender. I have
been looking for answers and I am finding more questions, but it’s not really
Ross’s fault that I am irritated by the contradictions she has forced me to
recognize within myself. I am going to try to embrace this personal as
political since the reality is, the personal confusion has come from the large
of society, mostly media influences, and the social constructions they
validate.
I’ve been running around calling myself a feminist,
but I am a bad one.
I have been confusing feminist strength with the
attainment of the socially assigned status of the masculine and man. I know
this is a complex of mine, because I sometimes have dreams that I am a guy.
I think if I
can look hot wearing a tight dress and still throw a mean right hook that means I am
equal, I am man and woman, and I am whole. I am irritated when I try to pay for
my own beer, or meal and the guy I'm with feels it is his duty to pay, but I also get
annoyed when they don’t offer to pay and we go dutch when I haven’t insisted
that we do so. I like when a man can cry, but have started to consider
discussing my own feelings as weak. I am unhappy with watching men objectify
women’s bodies, but do so myself to my own body and others.
“In a
trenchant and well-argued analysis of raunch culture, Levy suggests that
although many women profess an interest in strip clubs, pornography, and
drinking men under the table, such behavior is less about being one of the
girls than about being part of the boy’s club.” (29)
When I read this, I really had to ask myself, is
this true? I have been known to defend strippers and porn, and most people know
how I feel about drinking. Is any of this really me, or has it been because I
am trying to join the boys club. I hate the idea of that being true, but if I
am going to learn anything I need to get rid of this ego that insist that my
perception of the world couldn’t be so cleverly influenced by media and the social
constructs, like gender, media reinforces.
Although, I do have respect for pole dancers because,
number one, doing fancy tricks on a pole is hard. I have seen some amazing
stuff, and the friction of being half naked does add to the control you have
when you are twirling your body around that metal. It can beautiful, physically
difficult, an Art. I used to say that all the time, I used to be so sure that that’s
how I felt, but now I’m asking myself if I am just encouraging, and myself,
objectifying women as a physically pleasurable object to watch. I think it is
the dancer inside of me that wants to defend it. I am reevaluating my
perspective. Refocusing. But I think it can be beautiful. And I’ve watched it
turn into an art. There shouldn’t be a negative undertow lingering behind the
idea of a pole dancing just because of its sexual charge.
This is a pole dance competition. Felix is by far
one of the most talented women I’ve seen. Her first dance still has the strip
club feel, with an extremely sexually charged vibe, but you see the talent, you see the strength.
The second half, when the music changes, so does the movements, the feel, the softer
art comes out but the sex is still there. I can appreciate it without degrading
it because it’s sexy. I respect it.
(I could be wrong, but her audience sounds like mostly women)
I know this is youtube, and this is a pole dancing competition,
so it feels like this isn’t the reality of the “strip club” experience. But the
only reason I ended up Youtubing such a thing as pole dancing is because I found
myself at a strip club for the first time watching my preconceived notions of a
stripper get crippled by a short, long haired stripper named Heavenly. She was talented.
Felix was also on the Tyra Banks show, where Tyra
makes it a point to remind you that SHE IS NOT A STRIPPER.
I am
always inclined to defend the collision of women’s physical strength and
sexiness when others claim it is as trashy, or try to turn it into some sort of
defect on women’s part. Apparently the thing Tyra tries to do is take away the
sexiness by taking away “stripper” as a label . Stripper has too much sexual
charge to it, and it’s true, Felix isn’t stripping, she’s dancing. But the sex
is there, the outfit, the heels and the fact that pole dancing came from the
strip club. There shouldn’t be shame in that, yet strip clubs started for the eyes
of straight men. It was a manifestation of the male gaze, and I might just be
trying to join the boys.
I do find sex and physical strength to be powerful,
but to what extent, in which situations is that really true for a woman? Sexy can be dangerous, dangerous for her,
which is why I guess I want the physical strength to accompany the sexiness. I
am confused now as to how I feel about sexy.
I will never call a girl a slut or hoe bag because of
their sexual ways or the way they dress. But I do pity women who wear heels to
look good since I know they are painful and they endure this pain for men’s
eyeballs. I have been trying to embrace women who are sexually active and expressive.
I do see a power in women’s sexuality, if its organic, if you can own it, if it’s
from within and not a reaction to the patriarchy. But that’s the hard part.
I have never said it out loud, or would I, to
another female,but there are instances where I see a girl, wearing something
tiny and flirting her face off and I know that my instinct is to call her a
slut. I have anger towards her. But it is this twister anger I have for her
because I see the forces driving her actions as uncontrolled by her. I don’t
think she is dressing and acting the way she does because it brings her
pleasure, but because it brings her the attention of other men, which she needs
to feel validated. I dislike her because she needs his eyes to feel worthy and she’ll
break her ankles in some stilettos to get that validation. I sometimes want to
accuse sexiness, accuse her, us, women, of succumbing to the male gaze. But what does that mean for a straight or women? That there is no sexiness with out a man looking? Can you validate your sexiness alone ?
I know it would be easier to stop
dissecting gender roles in the media and in life and just fall perfectly in
place with them. Things would be so much easier. But that’s not what I want or
who I am. I am a feminist, even if I am in the infant stages and throwing a
tantrum.
Tangent. Ross mentions Lilly Allen a
couple of times and I wanted to share a song of hers that seems appropriate,
not necessarily to my rant about pole dancing, but about some of the other things
Ross touched on.
