The White Standard

Richard Dyer and bell hooks both discuss the impact of whites being in the dominant position of society. While Dyer looks at movies and their portrayal of blacks and whites, hooks looks more towards her real life as inspiration for her beliefs about race.

As history shows us, whites have generally been in the dominant role of society. Because of this, they have become the standard to which all other ethnic groups are measured. As a result, hooks notes in Black Looks that white students are surprised when black students give thought to whiteness because “most white people do not have to ‘see’ black people (constantly appearing on billboards, television, movies, in magazines, etc.) and they do not need to be ever on guard nor to observe black people to be safe, they can live as though black people are invisible, and they can imagine that they are also invisible to blacks” (168). I take from this chapter that she believes that because white people have never had to worry about what their race implies to others or whether or not they were represented, or represented correctly to society, whites do not understand the uncertainty and fear that a black person feels in a white dominated society. As a result, the relations between blacks and white are very complex. She later goes on to discuss the implications of an “institutionalized white supremacy” in her life (168). She talks about the fear and terror that blacks feel because they are living in a world that is dominated by another race.

I think that I would agree with her in that as a white person, I don’t understand what it’s like to be a black person in America. I don’t know what it’s like to live in a society which still has remnants of a culture that once considered people who look like me to be less than human. As a result, she notes and I would agree that the “inability to conceive that [her] terror… is a response to the legacy of white domination and the contemporary expressions of white supremacy is an indication of how little this culture really understands the profound psychological impact of white racist domination” (177).

After reading that, I thought of the many instances where black/white relations are a joke in the country, when, clearly, there are those who still are greatly and deeply affected by the racism that exists in America. One comedian, Daniel Tosh, holds nothing back. He makes light of almost every single taboo social issue, sometimes crossing the line. In his Comedy Central special, he jokes about racial issues in America and this one in particular stood out to me.

After jabbing Kobe Bryant, he makes a suggestion to change the scoring rules in college basketball to be based on race. Although an outlandish suggestion, I believe he does hit on a very real and underlying problem in America. First, he makes the age-old joke about blacks being better at sports than whites. But then, he takes it a step further to put whites above blacks in yet another area of society. He brings up the injustice that blacks and whites doing the same job are not paid the same. Although a serious issue, he brings it up in a humorous way showing us that race relations really aren’t, as hooks points out, as pressing of an issue as they should be in this country. If they were, they most likely wouldn’t be found in a stand up comedy act. This also implies that white is the standard, the better version, no matter how well the black athletes do. Why is it that whites are the standard? Is this remnants of the white dominated era that has preceded us? He goes on to make fun of whites who believe the injustice of unequal pay is acceptable to say “you reap the benefits, you just don’t like it thrown in your face? Uhhh I hate making more money for no reason.” If we really were working towards a better racial harmony in America would we really be able to laugh at these jokes or would be they hit as close to home as I assume these remarks would hit hooks?

Intercultural Hollywood

In a time when the world is growing more and more globally connected, how can American media be growing more and more selective of its images?

In Sanjukta Ghosh’s article “Con-fusing Exotica” the ideas of the selectivity of American advertising images towards Indian minorities is discussed. Ghosh explains how Indian culture has been completely morphed by the dominant white power structure by representing “Indians in contemporary advertising… through absence” (276). By removing them from the mainstream, this gives dominant white America the option to choose what elements of Indian culture will be shown, what will be considered acceptable, and what it will be known for. Everything else will become an otherness that is not well received. No matter the true image of an Indian American, the image that is selected as correct will be shown over and over again. Ghosh believes that this image shows the same mean again and again: “either an exoticized and commodified spiritual realm or the well-spring of primitivism” (277). This image will be shown even to the point where Indians are no longer needed to convey the ideas behind it. Ghosh notes that “in ad after ad, Indian products are appropriated, even robbed, and then represented as works of haute couture designers whereas Indians are airbrushed or erased out of the picture” (278). By completely taking the Indian out of its own culture, America is burdening its own people by continuing the ignorance and egocentrism that we have become known for.

When discussing Indian culture and images, I thought of actor Kal Penn. Most recently seen as Kutner on House, Penn has been emerging throughout Hollywood. He has been seen in movies such as the Harold and Kumar series as well as Van Wilder and its spin-off The Rise of Taj. What I found most interesting was that when I looked on imdb.com at his filmography, many of his characters have a stereotypically Indian name. Whether or not these characters fit into the caricature that American media has accepted, I wonder how often he is chosen to play a character because of his descent or how many times a character’s name is changed based on Penn’s appearance. Does this further the belief that people from the Middle East need to have names that don’t look the same as the American John or Joe that we’re used to in this country?

However, Kal Penn is currently playing Kutner on House where he is seen as equal to the other members of the diagnostic team. The cool young kid, Kutner is not seen as an outsider to the team, but rather one who contributes fully. Is this progress towards an intercultural Hollywood?

Lost In The Shuffle

With the hustle and bustle of our day to day lives and the rush to get only the most important and pertinent news what do we sacrifice? What gets lost in the shuffle?

Stephanie Larson discusses in her book Media and Minorities the coverage or lack thereof of social movements of racial minorities as well as its effects on society. Did the media coverage change peoples’ views? Did the coverage reflect existing views? Larson critically examines the Civil Rights Movement as well as the Native American, Chicano, and Asian American Movements.

She begins by examining the nature of social movements and their dependency on media coverage. Without media coverage, the movement practically doesn’t exist. On page 146, she says that “the idea here is that even if politicians are willing to ignore an intense minority of people, they will not dismiss the will of the majority” so if the minority protesting can create enough stir to be put on national news, gain supporters, and become the majority, then how could those with political power to create change ignore the pressing need? However, many times the only way a social movement can get coverage in a national attention is if there is “conflict, violence, familiarity, and novelty” (147). Otherwise, the news may not even cover the story, and if it is covered, it may not get the attention it necessarily deserves.

Larson continues by examining the Civil Rights Movement, as well as the Native American, Chicano, and Asian American Movements. As I was reading, I was not as shocked in the Civil Rights Movement section, as I felt I generally knew a lot of the events about which she spoke; however, in the chapter regarding the other movements, I felt so ignorant because in many of them, I did not recognize the events let alone their effects on society. While it was interesting to learn about the effects of the events in the Civil Rights Movement, I felt like I couldn’t even begin to understand the effects of the other Movements because I had never even heard of some of the events. I believe this furthers her point that the Civil Rights Movement is the main and central movement remembered not only in American classrooms but also in society as marked by a specific holiday (178).

I believe that although Larson brings light to the issues that have been lost in the shuffle, society and the mass media are definitely not pushing for more coverage of these issues. For example, the issues in Africa, especially in the Darfur region took years to hit the mainstream media and, while the name is now, hopefully, recognizable, the full extent of what is going on in that area may never be known. While injustices occur all throughout the world, our media still does not cover the issues unless someone dies in the riots around it. Larson explains that in order for an event to be covered it needs to have “drama, tension, and the ever present whiff of real and threatened violence, all concentrated into a manageable geographic area and relatively brief time frame” (164). Too bad for all those other social movements. If you don’t fit the criteria, good luck making it into Americans’ priority list.

Ax or Ask?

So I found this video online after we discussed ebonics in class. It's an interview about a book called "Ax or Ask? The African American Guide to Better English" by Garrard McClendon. There's a lot which I agree with and definiately some things I disagree with. I thought I'd post it and let everyone see for themselves. There are rather racist and discriminatory comments writen all over the page which I definately don't agree with. I just thought McClendon raises some interesting points.

Click on the book, watch the clip, and let me know what you think!

Native Americans Without a Voice

I think it’s safe to say that the media definitely does not do an amazing job of presenting minorities in the appropriate way. However, the Native American image is a huge problem.




In Media and Minorities, Stephanie Larson talks about how the news portrays Native Americans. One of her most profound arguments is that “stories about Indians rarely include their voices. They are talked about, rather than talked to” (108). By not including the voice of the Native American, the news media portrays the image that they are an other group that have nothing valuable to add to society. Also, this gives all the power to the white mainstream media. By completely excluding voice, it continues to allow white culture to dominate in America. While in the past Larson notes that the media gave Native Americans two options good Indians and bad Indians, and “who was ‘good’ and who was ‘bad’ depends on how much trouble particular Indians were giving whites in power at particular times,” (109) she says that now, there are “some more varied representations are joining the stereotypical ones even in the national press” (112). Progress is being made, although it is not perfect.

For example, the show Family Guy did an episode featuring Native Americans and they sarcastically looked at the image of the Native American in mainstream media. This is the only clip I could find and it doesn't really illustrate all of what I'm talking about, but it does give some examples of how the show uses stereotypes. It’s titled “The Son Also Draws” and basically this is what happens (although I’m a little fuzzy on some of the details, so forgive me): While taking a road trip, the main characters, the Griffins, end up on an Indian reservation where there is a casino. For one reason or another the Griffins find themselves in trouble with the heads of the casino, who are also supposed to be heads of the tribe. In order to get out of trouble, Peter, the husband, pretends he is also Native American. To prove it, the men in charge of the casino send Peter out for a spiritual journey of some sort which is a true Native American custom, although the men are portrayed as simply trying to come up with a daunting task that Peter will never complete so they can keep the car they towed from the Griffins. They say that they themselves have never completed this task and hardly know anything about it; they just want the car. Anyway, Peter is sent on a spiritual journey where the Native American is sent out into the wilderness to fend for himself until his spiritual guide, an animal or other such element of nature, speaks to him. The Native Americans who whole-heartedly believe in this tradition believe that the spiritual guide will speak to the person on the spiritual journey and that is the moment he becomes a man. The heads of the casino send Peter out on this journey and he takes his son with him and the two fend for themselves in the wilderness for several days. After a while they don’t return and it comes out that the heads of the casino really didn’t know what they were doing and someone has to go in search of the two. As all episodes go, it ends with a happy ending: the family being reunited, the ‘terrible’ bad guys getting what they deserve, and the family driving away into the sunset (or something equally as cheesy).

However the point is that the Native Americans are being portrayed as greedy casino owners who have forgotten their own traditions in exchange for the white man’s beliefs. All the while, the Native Americans are using their heritage as a way to maintain the casino and make money. These stereotypical images are constantly seen on television today and are generally the only image we have of Native Americans in our culture. Because they are not even interviewed when we talk about them in the mainstream, I think it is safe to say that the Native American has been one of the worst cases of symbolic annihilation by the mainstream mass media today.

Dann Cuellar

Every night before I go to bed, my dad and I look to see what story Dann Cuellar will report on. The headline reporter for channel 6 ABC news, Dann always gives the most intense look at the hot issue of the night. After watching so many of his stories, my dad and I refer to him as if we know him personally. No matter what, we always look to see what Dann has to say.

In Media and Minorities, Stephanie Larson discusses the effects of having minority personnel as journalists. She says that “to succeed and advance in predominately white organizations, minority journalists must conform to norms and perspectives” (86). In doing this, the minority can lose touch with its original culture, Larson fears. She explains that to add to this separation between the cultures most “tend to be college educated and middle class. Thus, their familiarity with new immigrants, non-English speakers, and the lower class may be similar to that of white middle-class journalists” (87). By not being able to completely identify with their culture, having minority journalists may not be as profound it may have once seemed.

After reading this and watching Dann Cuellar, I wonder how true this really is. How much did Dann really have to give up in order to become the headlining reporter in the field? I then began to wonder how much of his presentation style affected my interest in watching him. If he would have presented the story differently, in a style I wasn’t used to seeing, would I not enjoy his reporting? My dad and I joke about how he uses the stereotypical reporter voice. Did he do this because that was the only way he felt he could get ahead in the industry?

I believe that Larson presents some very interesting questions. Do we look at a person’s race when they subscribe to the our cultural ideas? Does race even matter as long as the person acts in accordance with what we believe to be the best course of action? Does race supersede all of these questions and continue to dominate our society?

A Sample of Dann's work can be found here:

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/video?id=6513450

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/video?id=6507359

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/video?id=6505370

Is the future a one way street?

Can one race ever be culturally aware enough to be able to speak on behalf of another race? Can we ever have a politician that can work for the benefit of the majority and the minority? Does his/her race matter in that ability?

In my hometown of Reading, Pennsylvania, the city is set up in a way very similar to other cities in that one way streets are everywhere. Unlike the suburban and rural areas where two-way streets are the standard and it almost shocking to find a one way street anywhere, city streets tend to be one way, at least in Reading. This can be really frustrating whenever I try and travel through the city because I get confused and lose my sense of direction when I have to continually use one way streets. It’s so much more work making three left turns in order to make that right turn. And if I miss the left I was supposed to make in order to turn right, then I have to wait until the next one way street going left is available in order to turn around again because the every other road is a one way in the opposite direction. This may seem unnecessary and highly confusing, which it is, but its reasoning is not as much. When Reading was a booming town in the early days of railroads, there was much more delivery activity for the thriving businesses. Although this does, in part, remain true today, it is not as prevalent. However, when delivery trucks would have to stop in front of a store to unload product, the effects on traffic could have been detrimental. If a two lane road had a delivery truck double parked on the right hand side, the entire street would have been cut off to any drivers who needed to get past. So the streets were made two lanes wide, but going one way. This way, when a delivery truck would stop, cars could easily pass this truck and continue using the road. Therefore, the majority of the roads were set up in this fashion. As a result, the majority of the city is set up with one way streets.

When I was reading in Stephanie Larson’s Media & Minorities: the Politics of Race in News and Entertainment, I began thinking about these one way streets. While she critically looks at the news media’s portrayal of race in political elections, the point that stuck out the most to me was in the section where she discusses the ideas that are presented as to whether a minority candidate can have the interests of the majority white. Larson talks about how using the “race card” in an election can have pros and cons to it. However, she says that “by focusing on black candidates’ and politicians’ positions on racial issues, the media serve some white candidates’ strategy of suggesting that their black opponents will only represent blacks to the exclusion and detriment of whites” (213). In other words, she is saying that if the black candidate makes a point of discussing race, he is immediately questioned as to whether he can understand the white perspective simply because he understands the black perspective. However, I cannot remember the last time a white candidate was questioned as to whether or not he could appropriately lead a country filled with minorities. Apparently it’s a one way street for minorities; they can only see in one direction.

Along those same lines, I began to question how black leaders are looked at in the mass media. When Martin Luther King, Jr. began to speak about issues other than the suffrage of blacks, he was called out for speaking where he didn’t belong. The media boxed him into a label “black civil rights leader” and apparently that meant that he couldn’t have an opinion on anything else. When Jesse Jackson was running for president 20 years later, he was constantly portrayed as “the black presidential candidate” which, as Larson says “may have enforced an impression among whites that Jackson was a candidate only for blacks” (213). It almost feels as though we have simply covered up the idea of racism to show that it doesn’t exist, but ideas like these and questions like “Are you a black man who happens to be an American running for the presidency, or are you an American who happens to be a black man running for the presidency?” being asked of then presidential candidate Jackson, make me feel that we may have covered it up, but when we try to begin writing the American story on this paper we’ve used to cover up racism, we come to find that the racism appears again, but simply in a different form. Like the leaf rubbings, I used to make in my elementary school art classes, the shape and the outline of the leaf would appear on the paper I colored because of a leaf underneath. If we continue to see racism as a thing of the past and pretend that by covering it up we’ve actually fixed it, then we will continue to see race as a one way street where people of the opposite race could never begin to understand the culture of the other, and we will never be able to have reconciliation as a nation.

Creating Cultural Diversity Today

The representation of minorities on television is a continual discourse in the media industry. In her book Media and Minorities, Stephanie Greco Larson writes about the different portrayals, in particular blacks, on television and in movies. She goes through several exclusions and stereotypes that are consistently found in black characters.

She notes that systematic nature of the media industry does not allow for black actors and actresses to break into the industry. For example, she notes that “genres and narratives promote certain narratives. Entertainment genres (such as Westerns, horror movies) are predictable to audiences” and therefore the people that portray these images are also predictable (17). This system also encourages the ideas that “all men are created equal” and other such American ideals. In doing this, the responsibility to do well implicitly falls on the individual rather than allowing for closer examination of the system and related institutions.

Later, Larson gets into the different types of characters that Blacks are consistently boxed into and how these characters exclude Blacks from being represented in a well-rounded and complex way. Larson explains this as “selective exclusion” because it “[occurs] when people of color are included in films and television without any of their cultural distinctiveness” (16). She discusses how many times black characters lack a cultural identity, a family, or a unique quality (24-25). Many times the hero of the story is a white character with a black character supporting them furthering the idea that blacks in media are most often put in subservient roles. Larson argues that this forces blacks into a particular image outside of the mainstream media. Blacks are supposed to follow the social codes that are acceptable, such as being quiet and subservient, and these ideals are magnified in the mass media.

While I do not completely disagree with Larson’s perspective, I believe that she spends a lot of time discussing the negative images of the past. This is very important to understand and recognize. Knowing the history and being able to understand the magnitude of where we come from is a huge part of improving race relations. I also think that knowing what racism in the media looked like in the past can help us identify racism in the media today.

That being said, this book was copyrighted in 2006 and so far, there are very few references to current media texts. As I read these chapters, I was reminded of a quote that Isaiah Washington said in an interview on the Oprah Show. While I wish I could have found the entire quote and a video to go with it, I could only find the quote written on Oprah’s website. At the time, Washington was a member of the show Grey's Anatomy and he is discussing his views on the show and its effects in society. He says that:

I look at our show as that culmination, literally, of [Martin Luther King's] 'I Have a Dream' speech," he says. "Really, that's how I look at it. Because no one has ever walked up to me and said, 'Yo, bro' … They say, 'Mr. Washington, I love Dr. Burke.' And they've never questioned my race."

I found this to be quite profound. In this primetime series, there is a substantial portion of the cast that is a minority. While I have no statistic for it, as a viewer, I feel like many of the patients are from very diverse backgrounds. Even if not by race, their ideas and beliefs are greatly differing from week to week showing more and more diversity in a hit prime time show in America. While this in no way solves all the problems with race in the media, I do believe it is important not to just criticize those times when the media has failed, but to learn from the times when the media has succeeded and created an environment of cultural diversity.

Ambivalence in America

One of the nineties most popular shows, as well as one of its most provocative, was “Will and Grace.” Most people are generally familiar with the show, especially with one character, Jack McFarland. Jack is a gay man who all but defines superficiality. Most episodes consist of him waking up one day and deciding he wants to change his career or find a new boyfriend or start a new adventure. While he does end up with deeper character development, he generally can be found throughout the series creating grand schemes and becoming overly dramatic about particular issues that no one else shows any real interest in.

In one episode in season three entitled “My Uncle the Car,” Jack continues his search for his father. He gets a letter from his mother telling him “"Jack, I know this may come as a shock to you, but your father is a black boy. Gotta run. It's coconut shrimp night. Kisses, Mommy." After hearing this, Jack is instantly shocked. He immediately decides that he must “go out and find out what it means to be black like [him].”

The fact that Jack can say this sentence, shows that there is racial differences conveyed in America. Whether or not this is biologically true, it is clear that the general perception seems to be that there is some sort of difference between Whites and Blacks. In Entman and Rojecki’s discussion of race from their book “The Black Image in the White Mind” and Stuart Hall’s “The Whites of their Eyes,” it is clear that Americans tend to see differences between Blacks and Whites as a result of several influences, one of which is media.

Entman and Rojecki argue that there are several ways that people feel about race: comity, ambivalence, animosity, and racism; the majority of white Americans being ambivalent. The ambivalent perspective, according to Entman and Rokecki, means that “whies bring complicated combinations of assumptions, misinformation, emotional needs, experiences, and personality traits to their thinking about race” (21). In doing this, it creates confusion and dissonance in their perceptions of race in real life in relation to media. When asked about specific incidents and race, many of the whites interviewed had trouble stating bold generalizations because of conflicting viewpoints that were affecting their beliefs.

I found this section to be very interesting. I began thinking about the way I view race. Initially I immediately wanted to jump into the comity category where “a White person… believes it is not possible to generalize about African American individuals any more than Whites” (17). While the description goes on to explain that the comity end of the spectrum does not really see any difference between races in society, I feel like to be on the comity end of the spectrum is to deny that racism still does exist in this country. I think on an individual level, yes, it is very possible to not see a difference between the quality of a black person and a white person, but I think it is too much of a stretch to say that this can translate across the country. Then I began to look at the ambivalent perspective more. I feel like this perspective more closely relates to the status of American society. For every stereotype that someone can give me about a black person, I can find an example that breaks it. For every stereotypical white person someone can find, I can break it. I think that because of this, our society is at a loss for where to stand on race issues. While the media may be behind in portraying a broad range of roles for minority roles, society is advancing, slowly, to see that there are more roles than primetime sitcoms provide. While the media is pouring out stereotypes, our life experiences are pushing back with exceptions to the media’s powerful rule.


However, because the media has such power in our lives, the identities they show do have a surprising rule over our thoughts. Jack McFarland is a prime example of this. Jack’s character, throughout the episode, deals with his new identity. Throughout the episode he shows examples of what he thinks the black man must go through. Although nothing physically has changed, he believes that he now exudes blackness and his entire life has changed. Meant as a joke, Jack’s character uncovers what the media has been putting into society for years as to what a black man must go through. Because he is such a superficial character, he can show how much he does not really contemplate or reflect about what he really believes is his role as a black man. Instead, he, in my opinion, lives the life he thinks he’s supposed to lead “now that he’s black.” Considering there are no steady or consistent black actors on the show, it is obvious that he is not getting these ideas from real life examples. Instead, he is showing how the media can portray an image so strongly that it affects the perceptions and beliefs of the people who watch it.

Mulan... A Response

Rachel Fudge and Katherine Bartnett give two critical analyses to two very strong, independent women in the mass media. Fudge looks at Buffy from the television show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. While she does have immense physical strength and eventually does achieve the creator’s dream of having a girl be able to walk down a dark alley and not only not be afraid, but also be able to fight off whatever she finds, Fudge believes that Buffy could only succeed in the mass media because her physical self still embodied the gender role of femininity that society accepts. Bartnett gives a hard look at the Disney animated movie Mulan. She believes that this movie shows dissonance between Disney’s understanding that gender roles are shifting that conflict with the traditional roles that women still appear to be stuck in.



While I can agree with and understand Fudge’s point on many issues, I cannot say the same for Bartnett. Here’s why:

Bartnett begins by arguing that Mulan is a clear example of a patriarchal society. I agree that the plot line does take place in this hierarchy. However, I do not believe that this “reinforces a foundation of male superiority” that Bartnett claims it does (186). In this time of China’s history, it was a patriarchal society. Simply showing the time as the way it was does not mean that Disney is trying to push female inferiority. In the end of the movie, Mulan breaks past the restrictions that are placed on her as a result of this type of society showing that this society in fact does not account for the abilities of women. In making a film where the woman overcomes the obstacles of society to prove a woman’s worth, Disney is most definitely not condoning that society, and it is clear that Mulan’s abilities are not overshadowed by the initial box she is placed in by the society in which she lives.

Along these same lines, when Mulan’s mother and grandmother want her to succeed within the society she is in, I do not feel that this is necessarily condoning the behavior of a patriarchy. When these characters are “shown as passive, submissive victims” in this society, it is not because Disney wants to continue the circle of oppressing women. It simply was the case in the time that Mulan would have lived. Secondly, the conviction that Mulan’s grandmother can be erased from the movie because she is “senile” because she “covered her eyes and crossed a busy street to discover whether the cricket she carried was lucky” is unfair to me (187). Instead, I see this as an example of faith. While I don’t believe that a cricket is necessarily capable of controlling so much around him, I do think it is admirable the amount of faith that the woman has in her convictions. I believe this idea transcends the idea that she is senile and has no value in the movie. Furthermore, to criticize someone’s belief to the point that you feel they can be completely erased shows a real harsh criticism and exclusion of others on behalf of Bartnett.

Bartnett also believes that Mulan cannot succeed unless she has men in her life to encourage her, make her decisions, and all around save the day while she gets credit for their actions. Really? Bartnett’s first points out that “the only people who encourage Mulan are Mushu (who is actually a dragon) and her father” (187). If I remember the movie correctly, I believe her father is the one who flips out at her at the dining room table for being an inappropriate woman for speaking her mind. He tells her that she needs to learn her place in society. In the end, yes, I agree that he does support her and he is definitely proud for what she has done, but I do not agree that he encourages her throughout the movie as Bartnett does.

Bartnett also criticizes Mulan’s inability to make decisions without the help of a man. Her main argument is that Mushu actually makes a lot of the decisions for her or stands up against whatever decisions Mulan comes to. However, I don’t view this as a male domination in any way. Having a friend to bounce ideas off of, regardless of gender, is a good thing. In fact, many times, having someone who is of the opposite sex discuss your ideas with you can help give a more holistic approach to a situation because it gives you a different perspective to examine before making a one-sided decision. This is especially true in Mulan’s case because she is trying to live in a man’s world. Having a man to guide her in that path seems like a smart decision rather than an example of male domination. Bartnett also quotes Gilligan’s ideas of how women make decisions. She says that “women often make choices between right and wrong based upon their connections to people” as if that is a bad things (188). Why is it bad to look at a decision on a situational basis rather than one strict rule that applies to all situations?

Bartnett also takes issue with Mushu being Mulan’s sidekick throughout the movie. Her prime example is a scene where the Hun bird knocks matches out of Mulan’s hand preventing her from lighting the cannon to use against the Huns. To light the cannon, Muhu, a fire-breathing dragon, breathes on the canon to create the fire. Bartnett says that “despite Disney’s attempt as portraying Mulan as smart and resourceful, the fact that Mushu must light the cannon reinforces the idea that women need a man’s assistance to get a job done” (189). However, I think using Mushu is a creative idea. Again regardless of the fact that Mushu is a man, the idea is a good one and should be rewarded. With all of her attacks on Mushu, I believe that Bartnett commits a huge fallacy. Why is it that Mushu’s gender comes before the tasks he does and the friendship he builds with Mulan? Why is it that because he is a male he is, in Bartnett’s view, in the dominant position? Mushu does a lot of things to help Mulan and gets no credit from the Emperor or army. Instead, he must wait until he goes back to the spirit world before receiving the reward for what he did. I believe that judging his actions simply because of his gender is committing the same crime that Bartnett is arguing against.

While I have several other problems with this article, I think it is most important to simply step back and look at the film as a whole. I feel that she finds instances in the movie to support her article and does not really consider any other option for these events to occur. By closing our minds to other interpretations of these actions, we are belittling the minds of the children that watch these films because we assume that they can only interpret these actions in one way. A rather sophisticated interpretation at that. As viewers of media, the most important thing we can do is look at a media in context with the storyline around it and see what we can draw from it, rather than look at isolated incidents and make it fit with an argument we wish to make.

The Effect of a Woman

Both Jean Kilbourne’s article “The More You Subtract, The More You Add: Cutting Girls Down to Size” and Imani Perry’s article “Who(se) Am I? The Identity and Image of Women in Hip Hop” discuss the portrayal of women in mass media. While Kilbourne gives more attention to the size of women and the relationship between the media’s images of women and the number of cases of eating disorders and body image, Perry focuses more on the identities presented in these texts.

I want to focus on the issue that Perry raises about the image and identities of women in the music industry, particularly the hip-hop and R&B genre. As soon as she began discussing the women in this industry, I thought of Ashanti. She was a popular artist about five years ago. She was the female voice of Murder, Inc, a record label most known for rapper Ja Rule. She also worked with other male artists such as Fat Joe and Nelly. Bringing a “feminine side” to the male dominated genre, she held her own in a man’s world while still maintaining her womanhood. Typical rap and hip-hop videos created by men consisted of the exact image that Perry portrayed. Generally, they were considered degrading towards women because they showed them as sex objects. Perry puts it nicely saying
“women are commodified. They appear in the videos quite explicitly as property, not unlike the luxury cars, Rolex watches, and platinum and diamond medallions that were also featured. The male stars of the videos do not get these legions of women because of charisma or sexual prowess. Rather, they are able to buy them because they are wealthy.”

In many videos, the women are simply standing around dancing. They have no real purpose other than to be sexy to show how incredible the man rapping is. Many times, they are gawked at for their beauty and are usually wearing little to no clothing. They are literally symbols of sex. This image could easily convey the idea to young girls watching that women are to be looked at and judged based on their physical appearance alone.

As I was reading into this article I completely agreed with Perry. I do believe these women are being objectified and used solely for the reasoning “sex sells.” I also think, however, that having a woman be able to break into that industry, as Ashanti did, changes the way in which women are portrayed. As much as I thought this, I didn’t really know if it was true or not, so I looked at two examples of mainstream videos in this genre.

First, I looked at “What’s Love” by Fat Joe featuring Ashanti. In the video, there are many images of women dressed provocatively and dancing around as Perry suggests. However, Ashanti has her own crew of men dancing with her. The women dancing around Fat Joe as he sings are dressed with more fabric than usual and have male partners. Although this allows for sexual innuendos in the choreography, it at least is evenly portrayed. The video has some semblance of plot, although I have no idea what that plot has to do with the actual song. In general, I feel like this video shows the ideas that Perry brings up, but in a very mild fashion.

Next, I looked up a video by Fat Joe without Ashanti’s presence to see if it had an effect on the women portrayed in the video. Looking at the video for “Lean Back,” I found that the sexual images in “What’s Love” were absolutely nothing compared to the images in “Lean Back.” Although the premise of the two songs are different which could explain some of the images seen in the video, I find this video to be unbelievably sexualized, so I apologize that it's so obsence. Almost every image in this video is a reference to sex, some more explicitly than others. I couldn’t find a clean version or MTV version of this video which makes me think it appeared as is on television and that’s a scary thought. This video is so close to the description of female images that Perry describes that she could have been describing this video when writing her article. There are random women wearing skin tight clothing that covers little to none of her body or is worn in a sexually explicit way simply dancing around or throwing money around. I do not understand the purpose of having a woman simply dancing in the same frame as Fat Joe while he is rapping. She does nothing other than show that he could pay enough money to get her to do that, as Perry suggests.

Although the content of the two videos is different lyrically, the fact that such differences could occur between the image and portrayal of women in two videos by the same artist baffles me. While there is a female rapping in the “Lean Back” video, I do not consider her in the same way that I do Ashanti, only because her lyrics could easily have been said by a man and the song would have been conveyed the same meaning. At least with Ashanti’s addition to the song, she provides a softer side with a different, in this case, feminine tone to the song. Now I am someone who believes that a woman can do anything a man can do and there is something to be said that the woman could rap the lyrics in “Lean Back” and it is okay; however, for this issue, I believe Ashanti does something different. Instead of just being physically a woman and doing exactly what the man is doing, as I would categorize the other woman, she is creating the element of a duet and giving a female voice rather than a continuation of the man’s point, as she did throughout her career. Instead of being exactly like the men around her, she gave the females a chance to have that same confidence and swagger, yet still remain feminine.

Independent Women

Magazines are all around us. It is hard to say that they can’t possibly affect us. But how?

They’re located in almost every grocery store line. They have entire shelves as bookstores, grocery stores, gas stations, and drug stores. Magazines are literally everywhere. A lot of times we flip through them at a doctor’s office or while we wait for someone to get ready. Because they surround us, it feels almost impossible to say that they don’t affect us at all.

In Media, Gender, and Identity, Gauntlett discusses the effects that women’s magazines have on females who read them. When he looked at these magazines, he found that in general, most women’s lifestyle magazines discuss sex, relationships, fashion, beauty, celebrities, and men (184 – 185). When looking closer, Gauntlett argues that women tend to look at men in the same way that men do women; however, they are not as harshly viewed like men’s magazines. He claims that because “men (as a group) have been doing this kind of thing for decades,” complaining or claiming it as objectification will not be seen in the same light as the feminist movement did. Also, women’s magazines tend to discuss sex very openly. While some view this as entirely inappropriate, some view this as a progression for women. Gauntlett states that “feminists never really suggested that having sex with lots of men was a goal in itself, but the rejection of passive femininity and the freedom to openly desire others, is feminist progress” (207).

I believe that Gauntlett is getting at a really important distinction. While women do not need to flaunt their sexuality or become promiscuous, the mere fact that they have the option to decide their own sex life is, for me, progress. I think that because women now have the same options as men once had sole claim over, there has been progress for the equality of genders. Even further, the opportunity for a woman to decide how she will use this option shows that she has some level of power because she can decide for herself. The idea that women can make decisions for themselves, run their own lives, live independently did not always exist and I believe its emergence greatly impacted American society.

In 2001, Destiny’s Child released a song that I think clearly and obviously shows this progress. Titled “Independent Women,” this song was released in conjunction with the movie Charlie’s Angels. The song talks about how a woman can pay for her own things, make her own decisions, and call a man when she wants to see him instead of waiting around for him to call her. They acknowledge that it’s hard, but it can be done. Later, they went on to dominate the mid 2000s with other such songs about being confident women who can control their own lives without the aid of any man.

Attention c'est la dance du Coup de Boule!

In both Varda Burstyn’s chapter “Hooligans, Studs, and Queers: Three Studies in the Relationship in the Reproduction of Hypermasculinity” in her book The Rites of Men and Jackson Katz’s article “Advertising and the Construction of Violent White Masculinity,” the idea that masculinity and violence are strongly connected breaks through.

Both examples reference sports as a way for men to exude masculinity through violence. Katz remarks that “Because violence establishes masculinity” which, on a personal note, is a bold statement, “Because violence establishes masculinity, if these guys (athletes) use traditionally ‘female’ products, they don’t lose their masculinity. Rather, the masculinity of the product – and hence the size of the potential market – increases” (356). While this statement may be very well true, Burstyn takes a different approach to looking at male violence and its connection to sports. She classifies three types of men and clearly shows their relationship to sports and violence.

1. Soccer Hooligans: these men show their masculinity through their association with a team. They are violent and tend to be associated with alcohol. Their dedication and loyalty to the team, the gang, gives them the chance to show male dominance over other teams, gangs, that threaten their territory. I instantly thought of the World Cup between France and Italy when France’s star player Zidane head-butted the Italian Trezeguet. This clear example of violence which could have easily been viewed as terribly wrong and out of line for a class athlete. However, the French culture and the soccer hooligans of the time embraced his actions even creating a song about Zidane’s infamous headbutt: Coup de Boule. Although it is hard to directly translate the exact words, they are at the bottom of the blog if you're interested. The verb rater which is used frequently in the song is directly translated as spoiled, but depending on the instance in the song, it's definition can change. In one sense it can talk about how terrible the Italian is playing, but in another sense it can talk about how much Zidane owned him by headbutting him. Basically, the idea behind the song is: Look how awesome Zidane is for headbutting our rival. Sure, people can see it as terrible and sponsers aren't excited about it but we are and so is Jacques Chirac. Let's celebrate that awesome headbutt!

2. The second type of man is the black super-athlete. Burstyn says that after such amazing male black leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr and Malcom X passed away, “successful black athletes took on an important role in the process of identity construction, becoming powerful collective cultural mentors” (204). These men can greatly influence the black culture because of their prominent status in society as a role models. Although she mentions that this is an extension from the civil rights movement and steps in the right direction, she believes that the playing field is still not totally equal in relation to race and athletics.

3. With such masculinities strongly presented in the mass media, Barstyn next turns to its effects on homosexuals. Since the soccer hooligans and black super-athletes and the like are all considered masculine because of the absence of feminine traits, she wonders where that leaves masculinity to be found in homosexuality. She discusses how differently men can behave when on the field in uniform versus off the field in regular clothes and the social norms that are accepted with each. She also talks about the changing image of gay culture in mass media; however, “the existence of a gay movement [has not yet] changed attitudes to ‘femininity,’ and hence to homosexuality, in the mainsream of sport” (217). As times progress, things will change, but for now, she notes that in gay culture, men will continually spend hours on end working to obtain a premier male form to counterbalance their masculinity with the ever imposing femininity that society is placing on them.

Coup de Boule Lyrics: In English:
Attention it’s the dance of the Headbutt !
(Headbutt, Headbutt)
Head butt to the right
(Headbutt, Headbutt)
Head butt to the left
Let’s go blue! Go! (The French refer to their team as the blue)
Zidane he hit him, Zidane he knocked him, Head butt!
Zidane he hit him, Zidane he knocked him, Head butt!
Zidane he hit him, Zidane he knocked him, Head butt!
Zidane he hit him, Zidane he knocked himThe rival, it was bad
Zidane he hit
The Italian wasn’t going well
Zidane he knocked The referee saw it on the TV
Zidane he hit
But the hit was spoiled (ruined)
One simply must laugh (Exactly, one must only laugh well)
Zidane he hit him, Zidane he knocked him, Head butt!
Zidane he hit him, Zidane he knocked him, Head butt!
Zidane he hit him, Zidane he knocked him, Head butt!
Zidane he hit him, Zidane he knocked himTrezeguet didn’t play well
When he played, he spoiled (was bad)
He made it all collapse
The hit ruined that
Marthez did nothing to stop it (I'm not sure who Marthez is, but apparantly he didn't do anything)
This is nevertheless complicated
The sponsers are mad
But Chirac speaks well of it
Zidane he hit him, Zidane he knocked him, Head butt ! 4x
Attention it’s the dance of the Headbutt
(Headbutt, headbutt)
Headbutt to the right
(Headbutt, headbutt)
Headbutt to the left
(Headbutt, headbutt)
Headbutt before
(Headbutt, headbutt)
Headbutt after
(Headbutt, headbutt)
And now penalty
Watchout it’s going to pull
One, two, three…. It’s spoiled!
Zidane he hit, Zidane he knocked (4x)
When you want a good laugh
Zidane and Trezeguet
The hit that spoiled it
Zidane and Trezeguet (2x)
And Trezeguet...and Trezeguet...and Trezeguet guet guet
Trezeguet (Headbutt, headbutt)
and Trezeguet (Headbutt, headbutt)
and Trezeguet (Headbutt, headbutt)
and Trezeguet (Headbutt, headbutt)
Trezeguet

The Man is The Head of the Household... but....

“The man is the head [of the household] but the woman is the neck and she can turn the head anyway she wants”

As soon as I read Gauntlett’s take on men’s magazines in his book Media, Gender, and Identity I thought of this scene from My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Gauntlett begins by addressing the various themes in men’s lifestyle magazines such as FHM, Maxim, and Men’s Health. After giving a content-based analysis of the articles, he discusses the basic types of writing that writers of men’s magazines use.

What I found most intriguing, was his idea of how irony is used throughout articles in men’s magazines. Basically, he says that men’s magazines are designed more to feel like a friend joking around with a friend. Instead of seeming like advice and tips that a man needs to know, men’s magazines are designed to give the reader the feel that he is just “flicking through the magazines and not taking them too seriously” (167). Humor and sexist jokes are sprinkled throughout the writing to make the articles seem less informative and more casual. Gauntlett explains that “man men want articles [concerning relationships, sex, health or other personal matters], but they do not want others – or even perhaps themselves – to think that they need them” (168).

This irony and humor felt very similar to the idea that the mother conveys to her daughter in My Big Fat Greek Wedding. In the scene I referenced above, the mother, on two occasions, shows that men simply need to be persuaded into the ‘right’ idea because they can’t obtain it on their own. The first example, when she says that a “women control the neck and she can turn the head anyway she wants” gives the impression that men are mindless. They follow whatever instruction is given to them in magazines. The humor and jokes are simply ways of getting them to blindly follow the magazine’s agenda. Later, the mother convinces her husband of who should go to work at the travel agency. Instead of suggesting the idea, she needs to make him think it was his idea. Here, she wants him to think he’s so smart to have come up with this idea and to creatively readjust where members of the family work. However, she knows that in reality it was her idea and she has only let him think he’s created the plan. Men’s magazines let men think they are just fiddling through a magazine and not seriously considering or reading any of the articles, but by creating a tone of “friendly, ironic and laddish” they can suddenly have a man reading the entire article all the way through and not just skimming headlines (167).

Since they are written in this humorous tone, it gives the impression that the magazines are to be taken lightly; however, since they are selling so well and topics are continually revisited, there is obviously a want or, in Gauntlett’s view, a need for them in society. He hints that as a result of feminism men are now needing to find a new gender role. He says that “[magazines’] existence and popularity shows men rather insecurely trying to find their place in the modern world, seeking help regarding how to behave in relationships, and advice on how to earn the attention, love and respect of women and the friendship of other men” (180). In earlier times when male roles were clearly defined, there didn’t need to be a how-to manual on masculinity; however, now that women are changing their roles, men must do the same.

The Many Faces of Men

In the same way that women have changed over time, men, too have changed. Their identities have evolved over time just as women’s’ have and their roles continue to be shaped by society as well.


John Beynon’s article in Critical Readings: Media and Gender discusses the various new masculinities that have developed over time. He shows the transition from the original industrial old man to the current new lad of today. Each one comes from the others with a particular change in relation to the world around them. He gives these archetypes so that we can understand the ways in which masculinity has been recreated as a result of feminism.

The old industrial man went to work for the family. He showed his physical strength and dominance by being the hardworking laborer and breadwinner. Like the mineworkers in this old movie about Pennsylvanian coal miners, the old industrial man worked hard and got dirty showing his physical strength and power over women.

As the feminism movement began to rise and factory jobs began to decrease, men had to find more dominance in the home and became known as, what Beynon calls, the ‘new-man-as-nurturer.’ He became the office worker who came home to his family where he was the man of the house. Like many of the characters in Mad Men, a television show about advertising executives in the 1960s, they worked hard in the office and came home to be the head of his household.

After this, factory jobs became the minority resulting in men having to find masculinity elsewhere. They began to show their masculinity in their dominance of what they could posses. They had style and could afford to buy it. This “‘playboy’ revelled in the acquisition of fancy clothes, fast cars, and beautiful women” (202). Consumerism became an activity a man could be apart of as well. Hugh Hefner practically put this type of masculinity on the map.

Stemming from that, yuppies began to emerge as men who could still maintain that consumerism but dominate in the workplace as well. With this new group, the old industrial man practically disappeared and if he still existed, it was not with nearly as much as pride as before. Currently, we are experiencing a new type of masculinity: the new lad. They are “able to behave badly and not worry about censure… building his life around drinking, football and sex” (210 – 211). These men, as seen here, are the quick-scheming, man’s men that exist today. Like many of the men in beer commercials during the Superbowl, they are interested in having a good time with the guys.

A Man's Man

Kenon Breazeale’s article “In Spite of Women” discusses the ways in which men’s consumerism, in particular to Esquire, is affected by gender roles and feminine influences. He begins by noting that traditionally women have been considered the “shoppers” of society. They are most targeted by advertisers because of this idea that they are consumers. With this obstacle, Esquire’s founders David Smart and William Weintraub had quite the challenge: to create a sense of consumerism in men as has traditionally been found only in women (232). To advertise to men, Esquire did two things: created the idea that women control the lifestyle of America and used visual images of women to maintain dominance over women.

Because it was so accepted that women controlled the lifestyle of Americans, Esquire wrote about how “American standards and taste are in decay, undermined by the pin-headed women who have come to dominate home and control pocketbook” (233). In essence, the authors began to write about what a man would eat, drink, and have that differed greatly from what a woman would generally suggest.

This idea still prevails today. There are definite ideas that are considered male or female. Take for instance this Hungry Man commercial. These “manly men,” as evident by their profession, are sitting around eating lunches consisting of yogurts and smoothies, typically considered more feminine. Then, they decide they should all go to the bathroom together, another typically female stereotype. On their way, they are confronted by a true “man’s man” who calls them out on their feminine actions. The voiceover, in his deep and manly voice, explains how men are to eat and to be full. True manly men are not influenced by those girly drinks. Instead, they eat their hearty meat and potatoes like men should.

Secondly, Esquire showed that men still had authority through visual belittlement of women. Using pin up girls with descriptive captions, Esquire provided “repeated, detailed guidance … as to the attitudes ‘you’ the Esquire Man, should bring to the illustrations and in turn take away from the magazine into your everyday reality” (238).

Obviously, this idea is also still in power today. I don’t think it’s necessary to give any links to the exploitation that can be seen in magazines, songs, television, and so on. I think we all know that it exists. However, what I do question is women’s’ responses to these images. Some believe that this is clearly exploitation. Others believe that this is an unfortunate example of the way in which women will fall prey to the domination of men. It can also be seen as evidence that women will use or sell their bodies to get farther in life or, even worse, to feel loved by men and find acceptance from society. However, some women believe that by being able to express themselves sexually, to be comfortable enough to discuss their sexuality, and the mere ability to be able to talk about sex in the same way that men have traditionally been able to while it was taboo for women is an example of the equal rights of women. It shows that feminism has allowed women to have an equally loud voice in a man’s society.

No Need To Pick Sides

What would the world look like if we weren’t constrained by our gender? What if we did whatever we wanted without regard to whether or not we were a male or female?

Michael Foucault and Judith Butler get as some of these questions in their theories about gender discourse. Both articles discuss how gender has previously been boxed in to a specific set of traits and tendencies. Women do this. Men do this. It’s just the role of that gender.

However, Foucault begins to take apart the idea by looking at power not as something that is tangibly held by a person or group, but rather a fluid idea that “plays a role in all relationships and interactions” (118). The power between relationships even seeps into the roles genders play and a personal identity as well as how we portray that person to society. Butler also believes in fluidity, but more in the sense that gender is fluid. She considers gender to be a performance, something we do that “can be turned on its head – or turned into anything” (140). Gender then is not a role we play but actions we take. The fact that some actions are geared more towards women and more towards men, according to these ideas, is not based on anything other than external forces.

Gauntlett made a great example in Media, Gender, and Identity when he said:

We already recognize gender as something of an achievement. If a woman puts on a new dress and make-up, she might declare, ‘I feel like a woman tonight’; similarly, a man who has put on overalls and picked up a power drill might see himself in the mirror and say, ‘What a man!’

As soon as I read this, I thought of Shania Twain’s song Man! I Feel Like a Woman. In the song, she talks about how she’s going to go crazy and break the stereotypes of what a woman should do and simply have fun. There will be “no inhibitions” and she “ain’t gonna act politically correct” and “go totally crazy – forget [she’s] a lady.” For me, I feel like she is breaking the idea of what gender is supposed to be according to the status quo. To further point out Foucault and Butler’s point, she describes how she will do whatever she feels like not according to what women should do. She basically shows the fluidity of gender. Instead of being bound by what is acceptable, she’s doing what she wants.

So what if everyone did whatever they felt like? What if gender was a fluid choice of actions rather than the stagnant categorical schema we all hold so dear?

It May Be a Man's World...

What happens when life doesn’t follow the traditional pattern? What are we left with as individuals when the expected path for our lives suddenly takes an unexpected turn?

These are the questions that Brenda, Elise, and Annie are left with in the 1996 film The First Wives Club. Each of them, for some reason or another, now find themselves divorced from their husbands after years of being together. At their age, they are unsure of how to go about life. They aren’t old by any stretch of the imagination; however, they certainly can’t keep up with the likes of their 20 something counterparts. In my opinion, they are like regular women trying to keep pace with the newer, younger superficialities of the generation following them. After reuniting at a mutual friend’s funeral, they decide to form “the first wives club” where they will go after their husbands, who left them with practically nothing after abruptly ending their marriages, and try to redeem themselves as women.

Growing up, this movie was very empowering for me to watch. In a male-dominated society, these women overcome many obstacles to show that they are not disposable women. Instead, they are forces to be reckoned with. In the end, they decide to start an organization where women who were pushed aside in their seemingly normal marriages can go to make sure they are not simply abandoned by their husbands as these three once were.

For me, this fits into Giddens’ ideas about creating self-identity. These women felt their self-identity was wife to (insert male’s name here). There basic identity was based on a man. However, when this label no longer fit, they were forced to find a new label, a new identity, without that man.

Gauntlett’s critique of Giddens explains that there are micro and macro levels of society that intermingle together to create society (93). For Brenda, Elise, and Annie, they lived their individual lives wondering where they would go since their divorce (micro) only to discover that their long lost friends are going through the exact same situation. Together, they form a bond of support and trust to help them deal with the situation eventually ending up with an organization to help women in the future (macro).

Giddens also talks about the change in traditional values in society in our modernist society (96). No longer are values so engrained in us that there is no deviation. He discusses the importance of choice in our self identity not just with how we identify ourselves, but also how we go about presenting that identity to others (96). For the women of the First Wives Club, they must seriously reflect on who they are, another important aspect of Giddens idea of self-identity, and find out who they really are. One character, Elise played by Goldie Hawn, finds her love of theater once again. She realizes that this is an important element of her life that has been slowly pushed aside. She returns to the theater in the end of the movie, though not without serious encouragement from her friends.

Each of the women needed to seriously reexamine their self-identity after everything they knew to be true about their lives suddenly disappeared. In the end, they find, not necessarily a new self-identity, but they are restored to their true self-identity. They break the mold and don’t follow the traditional standards that are set before them and, in doing so, inspire others to do the same. It may be a man's world, but these three show that women cannot be owned. Take a look.

Looking at It From The Other Side

As I've said before, I love the show Friends. I can quote practically every episode by heart. It’s actually pretty sad the obsession that I have with it. However, as evident in David Gauntlett’s Media, Gender, and Identity, Friends was truly a groundbreaking show in many ways, one of which was its representation of gender. The show examined relationships not only between genders but across them as well. In doing this, it changed the way men and women look at each other.

The closeness between Joey and Chandler was unlike that of any other guys on television. It showed the sensitivity that men could have without not being considered masculine, to put it bluntly.

Rachel, Monica, and Phoebe showed women’s strength and resilience when life didn’t give you the husband and kids right out of college. They worked hard to provide an independent life of their own without needing men at all times. Ross, was well Ross, and, in my opinion, was kind of a girl, but he showed that guys didn’t always need to be super macho with no emotions. He really cared for women, his career, and what he was doing, even if he did have some feminine tendencies.

Regardless, the show gave presented viewers the concept of gender in a completely different way. It showed men how women look at issues. It showed women how men look at issues. Most importantly, it showed the viewers how society looked at gender roles. Episode after episode shows how the series examined the idea of gender in such a brilliant way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptLWQ340r7c

Here, Joey thinks about getting his eyebrows waxed for his upcoming headshots and has to deal with the fact that getting one’s eyebrows waxed is generally a female’s activity.

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

In this episode, Joey decides to get a man bag as seen in some Ralph Lauren catalogs. While Joey thinks his man bag is suave and prepares him for an upcoming part, he is endlessly picked on for carrying a purse, something only a woman would have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrXeh0_jdHA

Chandler is discovering the finer points of taking a bath from his wife Monica. Typically something a woman would do, Monica has to buy a boat in order to make the bath more masculine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A772mKUD6Go

In this episode, Chandler has to get over his ex-girlfriend Kathy, but none of his guys are around. The girls don’t understand the “phases” that a man has to go through in order to get over someone and Chandler isn’t too keen about going through the phases with women.

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

This early episode shows the women trying to learn poker from the men. Here they are trying to show them how to play the “manly” game of poker.

And That Is a Scientific Fact

What is a woman’s place? Where does she belong in society? What does that role look like in the mass media?




As a result of the male dominated media society in which we live, women began a social revolution to redefine the way in which we view women. Known as feminism, these women work to totally transform the view of women. In her article “Feminist Perspectives on the Media,” van Zoonen explains that there are several types of feminism: liberal, radical, and socialist.

Liberal feminism strives to break down the gender barriers that prevent women from doing whatever a man is considered better suited for. They work to “[stimulate] women to take up nontraditional roles and occupations and to develop masculine qualities to acquire power” (35). By gaining this power, women can be in power and no longer pigeon-holed into one particular lifestyle, most commonly, the housewife.

Radical feminism believes that women are so different from men that they could practically create their own society. There is no place for men in this world (36). The biological differences are so great between men and women; however, this does not limit the women in any way. In fact, women are encouraged to create their own lifestyles without men in radical feminism.

Socialist feminism “is distinguished by a much greater concern for the way in which ideologies of femininity are constructed in the media” (39). They also pay more attention to outside factors such as economic conditions. In looking at these conditions they notice that a middle class bias exists and that this could lead to a hegemonic, common sense or norm, idea of what a woman is (38-39).

I was intrigued most by liberal feminism in that it seems to me the most common, prevalent, and obvious inequality between men and women in our culture. van Zoonen argues that “for liberal feminism women are essentially the same as men but not equal” (40). I find this to be most true simply because a man is considered the norm whereas a woman can be seen as breaking barriers to complete a task that men may have already been working towards.

Anchorman clearly shows the level of inequality that once existed between men and women and jokingly illuminates those biases that exist when a woman enters “a man’s world.” In this clip, the men are explaining how terrible it is that a woman is breeching into their territory. The hegemonic idea of anchorman is so ingrained in their minds that they cannot see past her gender to even give her a chance, even claiming that it is a "scientific fact" that women cannot be anchors of a news station. Even the boss is biased because throughout the entire movie, she sits at the same bullpen desk that he gives her in this scene, regardless of the fact that her anchorman counterpart has a huge personal office with windows.

The outright discrimination the station feels towards her, just because she is a woman, shows the inequalities that exist in the workplace between men and women. While not at this blatant level, hopefully, these imbalances still arise in today’s workplace showing that liberal feminism is in no way, shape, or form a thing of the past.

I Bet You Don't Know Who This Is

Sometimes, breaking the mold changes the world forever. What once seemed like the standard can just as easily become the old-fashioned way in exchange for a whole new idea the world never thought possible.



I don’t expect you to know who is pictured in the photo above. Quite frankly, if you do, I’d be very surprised if you did; however, she is a huge inspiration to me.

Every year I attend a Christian event called the Passion Conference. I’ll save you the formal “what it is” and just cut to the chase. They have several worship leaders who always appear each year and have been apart of the Passion movement since its inception, all of whom are men. Now, I want to make it clear that I don’t think this is in any way intentional or making a statement whatsoever. I truly believe it’s just the way it happens to be by mere coincidence.

However, I did not notice that the only woman who ever graced the stage at these conferences was Beth Moore, a well-known female speaker in many Christian circles. The second time I attended the conference, a woman by the name of Christy Nockels came in as a guest singer in one of the worship sessions. It really excited me to know that a woman was breaking the mold of male worship leaders. Last year, she appeared even more on stage and has enhanced worship, for me at least, beyond belief.

I look up to her in so many ways because she has broken the mold that many people buy into that women cannot be leaders in worship. Even more than that, she has changed the way in which worship is led at these conferences. However, what I find most interesting is that had I not taken the effort to look up her name (which took a good bit of hunting online) I would have no idea who she is other than what I referred to her as before: that brunette lady with the gorgeous voice that sings in worship. Although she has permeated the once all-male worship team of the conference, she has yet to be recognized nearly as much as her male counterparts. Granted, they have much greater establishment in the Christian music industry – for lack of a better term - but even at the conference, rarely if ever is her name mentioned. Also, she always stands just behind whoever is leading that particular session; she never quite makes it in line with that person.

To me, this feels very similar to the change that occurred in the women’s revolution of the 1960s. In Media, Gender, and Identity, David Gauntlett discusses the transformation that has occurred in the mass media in relation to gender. On TV, in the movies, throughout magazines, and in advertising, women have not had nearly the same “air time” or been given the same roles as men. While the trend is changing and more and more women are being pictured less geared towards the stereotypical housewife role and more towards diversified members of society, the fact remains that this did not come easy. Even today there are still controversies and inequalities that arise, but we are definitely moving in a progressive direction.

There is one main event that instigated this serious change in the eyes of society: Cosmopolitan. This now popular and mainstream magazine began in 1964 with Helen Gurley Brown as editor (53). Gauntlett explains how this magazine moved on from the feministic tone of wanting equality and just began to show women as people who “get out there and enjoy [their] independence” (53). This trailblazing magazine changed the role of women in society forever.

As I attend the Passion events, I always will look up to Christy as a trailblazer in a similar way. The standard is for men to lead worship, not just at the conference, but in this nation and around the world. Intentional or not, it’s the way it generally appears. To see a woman leading and shaking up the stage inspires me, as I think it should inspire women in general, to start playing in the man’s world. While she may not get the same level recognition, she is making a difference. She is making huge strides because, for the first time that I know of, a woman is on the Passion Conference cd. Helen Gurley Brown started a magazine that changed the world, Christy sang a song that got all the way back to Eastern’s chapel last Wedensday, what else can one woman do?

How To Lose a Woman in 10 Years

How much of what we believe we can be comes from within? Are we self-motivated because of something inside us, or because we’ve seen others do it and we want it too? Who tells us what we can and cannot do?

As I grew up, my mother has always taught me that I can do whatever I want to do. No matter what it was, feeling that I couldn’t do it wasn’t an option. Having her in my life was an inspiration to achieve whatever I decided to set my mind to.

However, not everyone has such a great role model to look up to. In some instances and for whatever reason, parents, teachers, church leaders, brothers, sisters, whoever is not available for a young child. Instead, these children turn elsewhere for role models and this place in many cases in the mass media. Gaye Tuchman writes in Hearth and Home: Images of Women in the Mass Media about the effects that the mass media’s portrayal of women has on American girls. She argues that the sex roles, “social guidelines for sex-appropriate appearance, interests, skills, behaviors, and self perceptions” are greatly dependent upon the characters that are seen on television (3).

She discusses that women are not only underrepresented, but also given a very narrow and limited selection of roles. While men do the actual job, women are generally considered the support system: paralegals instead of practicing lawyers, secretaries instead of corporate officers, housewives instead of breadwinners (13). That’s just on television. Women’s magazines gear themselves towards a particular female role. As women’s roles evolve, magazines and television attempt to change their messages to reflect the culture; however there is a cultural lag, a time period in which the actual state of society’s view is more advanced than the portrayal in the mass media. Because of this, Tuchman wonders if we are only leaving behind a poor representation for the next generation who is growing up to the ideas of the past in the outdated mass media.

I found it very interesting when Tuchman explained how woman’s magazines create the “ideal woman [to be] passive and dependant” (18). The magazine knows full-well who is buying there magazine and what that person is like. They then specify what types of images and content they will place in their magazine based on the ideologies of these women. For example, “both [middle-class and working-class] women tend to insist that the men should be the breadwinner. The fiction in women’s magazines reflects this ideology” (19). If magazines are continually putting out that women fit a specific role, there is a greater chance that the mold will never be broken for future generations.

As I was reading this section, I was instantly reminded of the movie How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days. The main character Andie Anderson wants to write about serious issues: politics, environment, and international affairs; however, her boss does not allow this in her magazine. She claims that Composure magazine is about specific interests because that’s what women are interested in.

For me, if there is not a voice out in the mass media proclaiming that women can care about something other than which heel goes best with that dress than how will women who didn’t have people like my mom in their life know that there is more to life than what the mass media claims women need to be?

Tuchman suggests that children are highly susceptible to these sex-typing images in the media. What if in the first 10 years of life a girl only saw women as portrayed in the media...