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...

Upside Down or Right Side Up

There’s always two sides to a story. We’ve all heard that line at least a few times, especially when we didn’t want to see the other side. However, sometimes those two sides are polar opposites.

Ambigram Examples

The link above leads to a website filled with ambigrams. Unfortunately, I can’t copy and paste them all here to show you exactly what they look like, but by rolling your mouse over the pictures, the image will automatically flip over to expose the other side. As you will see, an ambigram is a special design that spells out one word, but when the design is turned a different direction, looks completely different. It may spell out the same word, a different word, or may have words hidden in it, but regardless, a different way of looking at the design will give a different interpretation of the word.

When I read this article, I felt that the two opposing sides, Adorno and Fiske, represented the two different ways of interpreting an ambigram.

Adorno looks at media as a “commodity” and we choose from a “limited range presented by the culture industry” (20-21). They view media as more of propaganda against the masses which doesn’t care as much about the idea behind so much as selling as many as possible. They also believe that since we are so immersed in media there is “no opportunity for resistance to develop” (22). This belief leans more towards the side that media has the power.

However, on the opposite side, Fiske argues that the audience maintains more of the power. He says that “the power of the audience to interpret media texts, and determine their popularity, far outweighs the ability of media institutions to send a particular message or ideology to audiences within their texts” (23). He believes that what is popular is popular by choice; the audience decides what it likes and doesn’t like, what it will watch and ignore, and what will dominate in a culture and what won’t.

It is clear that neither side of the argument is entirely right; however, each side does have some validity. When it comes to power in the media one side will read it as “media” but if you flip it over, the other side will read it as “audience.” This ambigram will never read the same upside down and right side up.

Guys vs Girls

Are men and women really different or is it just portrayed that way in American media?

Friends: The One With The List

Growing up, my favorite show was Friends. The show was special because it came out at a time when television was redefining family as not just mom, dad, brother, and sister, but as the people closest to you. however, the male and female dynamic showed us the numerous differences that exist, or that America perceives exist, between men and women.

The girls went through their own problems, as did the guys, but more importantly, America saw the other side’s perspective. In this classic example, Ross and Rachel have just kissed for the first time. This was a huge climactic moment in the plotline and the guys act very differently than the girls do. Because of this, we can see that media represent women and men differently.

Over the years, these images have changed to continue to mirror the ways in which society has looked at gender. According to the reading, “men used to know their place, as provider for their family… but today… this provider role becomes diminished” (7).

According to our idea of masculinity, men should not be into details. They should not care too much about what kind of kiss it is or how it felt. They are only interested in the main points. However, the women are portrayed as very into every little detail of the night.

This change shows a shift in the roles of men and women as well as the desired traits they should have. From media texts, like this and many others, Americans get a sense of their personal identity in relation to gender. Accurate or not, these images get built up all around us through all sorts of media avenues. They shape and mold our views of society in some way or another. Be we resistant to them or signing up for them, we take a stand on them and this helps to create who we are.

Braided Into Society

Ideas seep into our culture, consciously or unconsciously, through media texts. Sometimes they are very apparent while other times, they somehow just seem to show up when we least expect them.



It is suggested that “the most potent effect of mass media is how they subtly influence their audiences to perceive social roles and routine personal activities” by Philip Elliott (62). As a culture slowly shifts and changes in accordance with these new influences, the ideas become ideologies. As ideologies compete for cultural norms, they fight for hegemony, “the power or dominance that one social group holds over others” (61).

New ideas are continually brought into society as old ones are pushed out. As the popular items change, ideologies and then hegemony follows. This creates an endless cycle of consent and popularity that result in an ever-changing society with constantly shifting ideals.

Now, I don’t truly believe a hairstyle can change the beliefs and values of a culture; however, this particular hairstyle is a relevant example of how one moment in media can seep into society.

Lauren Conrad is a main character on MTV’s The Hills. Lauren began to wear her hair a particular way time after time. Then, all of a sudden, when I look around, this hairstyle starts showing up on Facebook, in classes, and, in general, all around me. Now, I’m not in anyway being judgmental against those who’ve done their hair like that, because if my hair were longer I probably would have too, but this example goes to show that one element of media can begin to seep into our everyday culture.

Although a hairstyle is a simple and what seems like a practically meaningless example, it shows the permeation of an idea into a culture and how it can quickly make itself known in subtle yet impactful way.

9 Seconds.. Fast or Slow?

As the world changes and evolves, so do our ideas and perceptions of life. In the past century alone, the idea of fast has progressed into a whole new dimension, let alone the past quarter century. With this new pace, society has been whipped into an ongoing effort to redefine instantaneous.

Before I begin, I want to say a few words about my “case in point.” I have chosen a selection of Dane Cook’s stand-up comedy special as seen on Comedy Central. There is swearing in this clip, some of which has been bleeped out. However, if you do not feel comfortable watching the video, I have written out the part of the standup that pertains to the section, excluding the profanity. I do not believe the swearing is imperative to grasping what he is saying nor am I trying to be disrespectful in choosing this segment. I just wanted you to know before you saw it.

Dane Cook Comedy: Beginning at 3:27.

“The DMV, I’m gonna go early. I’m gonna get there at 6:01. You get there and there’s people sleeping in sleeping bags outside. 400 people waiting. Nobody’s talking either. You walk inside and everyone’s just standing there. Everyone is dead quiet, but you know everyone is thinking the same thing. AAAAAHHHH!!!!! GOOOO!!!!! GOOOOO!!!! You know what they should do, when you walk in the front door, they should have somebody hiding and just punch you in the face cause at least after, you’ll be like ‘alright, well waiting in line’s not so bad after the punch in the face. You punched me in the face.’ In the year 3000, everything will be instant. Everything. Just get into a teleporter, ‘bye.’ ‘What do I want for dinner? [he motions that it magically appears]. But the DMV will still take like 9 seconds. ‘9 seconds? Come on! I have to be at work in 3 seconds.’”

The key point that Dane raises up is that we have become accustomed to speed in our lives. Just using the internet as the obvious example, we can now talk to someone across the globe, shop for someone’s birthday, read our mail, pay our bills, and get the latest local news over our lunch break. We have faster cars, faster business transactions, faster relationships; everything is just faster than ever before.

Our society’s entire concept of the word fast has changed. Even in sports where new world records are set across the board, speed has become much faster than before. Bizarre as that sounds, the definition of fast in the 1900s was by far very different than our definition of fast. Dial up internet was the fastest connection of the nineties and is now being replaced with an even faster DSL. The cycle just continues. As soon as the bar is placed, someone is reaching above it.

So what? Just because my internet connection is faster doesn’t mean anything else has changed. That’s where it gets sticky. How do the fast become the fastest and, maybe more importantly, why do we continue to have our newest versions become antiques with a new model coming out faster than we can pay off the old one? Is it our faults as consumers or their scheme as producers to get us to keep buying the newest, fastest model?

Somewhere along the way slow and steady no longer won the race in America. Instead, regardless of any other feature, the fastest tool gets to be America’s new “it” to have. That idea must have come from somewhere? Americans didn’t just go to bed one night and wake up wanting the fastest thing they could get their hands on. These items came from economic powers that play an integral role in our American ideologies. We are a free market, or capitalist, society. This plays into creating a quicker-paced society; however, there’s no way a company would make something at high speed if we did not want to buy the next fastest thing.

In this way, speed is not only a part of American ideology, but it has become hegemonic. As Americans, we now expect a certain pace or rhythm. It’s ‘common sense’ or a discourse: “values and identities are contained, prevented or perhaps encouraged by the day-in, day-out practices and (often unspoken) rules” (126). Like all hegemonic ideas, we don’t even question the concept. When the internet takes longer than several minutes to load up, we find ourselves highly inconvenienced. If it’s out for a day or two, there’s practically a riot. This is all because the powerful companies have tapped into the internet’s power so that we, internet savvies who want to have the world at our fingertips, can use it. “Hegemony is a lived process” and without the fast paced internet within reach we feel like we cannot survive. By integrating speed into society huge companies and the masses have worked together to change the definition of fast. And in the year 3000 when we are standing in the DMV we can look back and remember those days where it took way longer than just 9 seconds.

Another Feeny Lesson

Sometimes we’re all searching for an answer that just doesn’t exist. Then, just when we think we’ve found it, someone finds another compelling piece of evidence and our theory is blown to shreds.

Part One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsXZxb-GHXI
Part Two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28GOShDs4FI&feature=related
Part Three: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls33-GM2GxY&feature=related

As soon as I read today’s passage about media criticisms and effects, I immediately thought of a Boy Meets World episode. Strange. I know. But I think it works.

Throughout my study of media and in reading these 11 pages, I’ve seen that media critics are constantly trying to fit media texts into one confined simple box. But how can we confine something that has integrated itself into every aspect of our lives? From topics so crucial like how we define gender in our society to something as mindless as the post-elimination water cooler conversation, the American public has let media permeate into virtually, if not literally, every aspect of our lives.

Because of this infiltration, it has become a hot topic of study to say the least. However, each person seems to find their own unique take on it. Not just in the scholarly schools of thought, but even viewers find an individual way of looking at each element of media.

In my brief study thus far of media, and just by reading in these few pages, I can see that there are endless ways of critically looking at media. There is the political sense of how the media industry works: who should be cast in movies to guarantee success, which conglomerations will ensure popularity in society, and what topics will be controversial enough to attract attention without being pushed aside. The content itself can actually be studied not only as a numerical sense but also in a qualitative sense as to what is on television or in movies and what that means in our society. Then, it can be looked at from the audience’s perspective and how they react to the media stimuli that are coming at them. However, there is no right way to look at media.

In this episode of Boy Meets World, Mr. Feeny proposes a problem that does not have one right answer, or even a several right answers, but rather no answer. I think from this episode, it makes sense how all these elements of media studies and its effects on culture can be right to some degree. While Minkus spends the entire episode searching for one exact right answer, it becomes clear, as Mr. Feeny so wisely says, “in life, the right answer is that there isn’t one.”

There is no one way to look at media as there is no one way to look at Feeny’s word problem. As he says in the beginning, it’s all about how you arrive at the answer.

The reading gives an excellent example on pages 15 – 16 about a woman’s perspective female gender portrayals in media. Some women will be empowered while others will be offended by the stereotypical role that they have once again been placed in. While neither answer is right, neither answer is wrong either, because “the right answer is that there isn’t one.”

Thanks for another great lesson Feeny!

Optical Illusions

While first impressions are extremely important, looking deeper can sometimes bring more clarity. But it can also be a stretch and a total shot in the dark.

When I was growing up, a lot of my peers enjoyed playing with the eye trick books, officially known as stereograms, but I doubt I’d ever hear called that before looking it up today. The idea was that you looked at a collage of images and when you stared at them long enough or crossed your eyes or did some other kind of fun trick, magically the image would turn into something else. Book after book after book of all these hidden images.

I never saw them. Not once. All my friends would outline the invisible elephant on the page as I would nod and smile as if I could see what they were talking about when in reality all I saw was them drawing some invisible animal on the page.

To me, Henry Giroux’s article concerning the quality of Disney movies for children is exactly like these hidden image books.

Giroux explains that initially and on the surface Disney animations “constructs a dreamlike world of childhood innocence where kids increasingly find a place to situate themselves in their emotional lives,” but as the article continues, expresses that these movies are actually racist, stereotypical, and wrong for children in general (165).

While reading this article, I found myself saying “what” and “are you serious right now” rather frequently. I felt like I was having someone point out the invisible elephant in the hidden image book again. Although Giroux brings up some valid points, I feel that overall his article is a complete misrepresentation of Disney’s animated classics.

Criticizing the main female characters, Giroux believes that the movies “narrowly [define] gender roles” and make women “ultimately subordinate to men” (171). However, he makes no mention of Mulan, the Chinese girl who pulls her own weight in the all male army against the Huns. What about the strength of Ariel to leave her homeland in the sea to live her dream on land? Did we so suddenly forget that she wanted “to be part of that world?” How about the guts it took Belle to sacrifice herself so that her father could have a free life away from the Beast? While the female lions of The Lion King may have not been running Pride Rock, who was there with endless support for Simba as he took back Pride Rock from Scar? Nala, who by the way later became a mother. “So much for strong mothers and resisting women” (173).

With each example of negativity that Giroux points out, I just think of the heartwarming songs and uplifting moments when Disney’s characters pulled themselves up from the badgering and taunting by others, when they proved everyone wrong and did what they wanted, and when they achieved the impossible dream.

Can you point out that elephant again on the page because I still don’t see it.

Because Tom told me so...

Presentation is key. As much as we know that content is the most important, the way in which something is presented is almost as, if not equally as important as the actual content.

Top Chef is one of my favorite shows on television. At first, I hated the show, because I didn’t like that I could only see the food and not actually taste it. As much as head chef Tom Collicchio tells me the meat is under seasoned, the beautiful presentation that I see on my TV screen tells me otherwise. And when the chef puts out what looks like orange mush at a high end restaurant, even if Tom says it’s delicious, to me, it’s still orange mush. However, over time I’ve grown to enjoy the show a lot. I’ve gotten over my frustration with not actually being able to taste the food and can trust Tom’s judgment.

After reading Bradley Gorham’s article “Considerations of Media Effects,” I am beginning to think that maybe trusting presentation or even someone’s interpretation of what I see may not be even close to the truth.

This article gives a detailed explanation to the way in which we receive information based on what order it is presented to us as well as the way in which it is presented. Using the ideas we already have preconceived in our minds about a topic, our schemas, we generally begin to “expect certain things once other traits of a category have been encountered” (Gorham 15). In other words, when I see a chef put carrots into a dish, I have an immediate idea of what a carrot is already in my mind. This taste is easily accessible because I have eaten many carrots and can instantaneously remember what they taste like. Known as a primed concept, the more I eat carrots, the more likely I am to be able to instantly remember what a carrot tastes like (16).

Later, as the chef adds more ingredients that I’m not as familiar with to the dish, the actual taste of the dish will begin to differ from what I am imagining in my head – one of the reasons I didn’t like the show to begin with. However, I can generally see that the dish would have particular flavors based on the spices that are added, the components of the sauces, and the meats and vegetables used. Although in the end I may not know exactly how this one dish tasted, I can get a general feeling for what it would taste like.

Or so my schema wants me to believe.

In the media world, we see images of people arrested for terrible crimes smeared across the news. Each time we see these images, we begin to create a preconceived notion as to what the next one will look like. With the emergence of crime shows, our notions are even more driven in. Like the treads that a sled makes after endless runs down the hill, the engrained images of what a criminal looks like. According to this article, these become the basis upon which stereotypes are created. When we see someone who looks like or reminds us of the person we saw on the news, we begin to associate that person with negative attributes like the criminal we just saw.

The same goes with the dishes on Top Chef. Although I’ve never tasted monkfish, I’ve seen it used so many times that when someone cooks it a certain way, or mixes it with a certain ingredient I can begin to assume what the judges will say afterwards. Not ever having experienced it myself shows that I am victim to seeing something that looks good and assuming it is or hearing that something tastes delicious and assuming they’re right.

Throughout the article, the author references numerous experiments that were done to show that the way we perceive the world depends on how it is presented to us. When it’s a person like us, we generally view them with more leniency than someone different than us. We build stereotypes based on those who are different than us from the media’s presentation of that type of person. Even if we don’t intend to, “the way our brains process information may lead us to think things we don’t even agree with” (Gorham 20). So when I see a similar storyline over and over and over again on the news, I begin to think that people involved in a similar storyline are going to be exactly like the people I saw on the news.

So as much as I know what carrots taste like, when a chef mixes them with monkfish, I can see the presentation and think it would be delicious, and hear that Tom Collicchio thinks it’s delicious, and everything can tell me it’s delicious, but until I’ve tasted it for myself, I can never know.


I think the media does a heck of a job telling us what to believe. Regardless of whether or not we know it’s true, hearing the same story over and over, seeing the same images over and over, and getting the same drone in our heads night after night on the news can easily lead us to believe that it must be true. We must be smart enough to see through the repetitious stories to find out if what we’re seeing is really true and find out what monkfish really tastes like before trusting someone else’s judgment.

Brand Name or Generic

Stereotypes are unavoidable. They are around us at all times. We use them, others use them against us. Sometimes they are positive, sometimes they are negative, but regardless, they exist. We can’t get away from them.

I come from a family where if you can get the same thing with a different name for a cheaper price, you bought the generic version instead of the brand name. In seventh grade, I wanted the Adidas striped shoes and I got the K-Mart version that was exactly the same, except they had an extra stripe and were half the price. I had the bottom shelf Lucky Charms or the store brand orange juice. Sure, we’d sometimes get brand name items, but it didn’t need to be in our house. Living on a budget, it was just the same to my 12 year old self to have something that looked like the original without it having to be. While there’s nothing wrong with wanting the brand name version, I’ve always been a believer in if it looks the same, and tastes the same, it is the same; no need to pay an extra couple dollars so the company can plaster its logo on what I’m buying.

My favorite example was at my church’s fellowship hour. We always advertised cookies and punch for Fellowship Hour. We put out “Oreos” but everyone knew they weren’t. We had the bulk brand that no one actually knew the real name of, but looked just like Oreos. Ok they didn’t taste exactly the same, but they were close enough for a snack between worship and lunch.

When Walter Lippmann coined the idea of stereotype, his originally did not intend to have it result in a projection based concept that would later result in thousands of blonde jokes. He noted that in order to handle the multitude of incoming messages that our brain had to process, we needed some way to organize them in a way that could make it manageable. He said that stereotypes were “an ordering process, a ‘shortcut’, referring to ‘the world,’ and expressing ‘our’ values and beliefs” (Dyer 11).

In our church, that would be the way we understood the cookies at Fellowship Hour. We knew there were a huge selection of cookies on the table, but when my parents would ask, I could easily describe that on that table there were Oreos, even though that’s not really what they really were. By indicating that Oreos were on the table, my parents can get an easy idea of what type of cookie is on the table without me having to describe them as chocolate cookies with a vanilla cream on the inside. Lippmann’s explanation of a stereotype as a way to take a short cut and refer to the world is how I would stereotype the cookies on the table as Oreos.

Later, the idea of a stereotype began to change into social typing. Now, when we think of a stereotype, we think of a negative projection on a person based on their connection with a group of people who have been stereotyped with a particular quality or trait. We can begin to figure out not what category they fit into our minds as stereotyping originally would state, but we can begin to figure out the function as well (13). Dyer says that “we surely only have to be told that we are going to see a film about an alcoholic to know that it will be a tale either of sordid decline or of inspiring redemption” (15). We can assume a great deal about a person based on the simple first impression that we get because we have grown to associate certain traits and qualities. Most times these associations are not positive in any way.

In the case of the generic cookies, these assumptions would be a positive. If I describe the cookies as Oreos to my mother, an Oreo lover, a lot of positive associations will be made and the likelihood of her now wanting a cookie will go up. She will know what to expect when she goes to that table because she has an assumption of what an Oreo looks like and won’t be remotely nervous about it eating it because, although this individual cookie is different, the Oreo concept is not. Also, she might be a little more forgiving on the generic cookie’s taste because she is finding all the links between the cookie and an Oreo instead of the differences.

In Dyer’s article it is also noted that when we think about someone or something, we don’t necessarily think of them in the form of a stereotype. It is always “the individual over the collective or the mass” (13). Although a stereotype may come to mind about someone or something, once we have experienced it, our opinion of it may change. We still may hold the same stereotype about different forms of what we’ve experienced, ironically enough, but we can now decide for ourselves if what we’ve experienced fits the stereotype or is completely different.

When my mom eats the generic cookie she can either think “Wow, this is an Oreo,” “Hmm , this Oreo tastes a little weird. It’s either really stale or not really an Oreo,” “This is definitely not an Oreo, but it will do,” or “Ew, this is not remotely like an Oreo.” Depending on her thought process she will either continue to eat the cookie or simply throw it away. This, however, does not change her idea of an Oreo. Just because this cookie does not fit the mold of an Oreo does not mean that she changes her entire concept of a cookie made of two chocolate cookies held together with a vanilla cream. After experiencing one generic Oreo she will make a judgment about that one cookie based on her experience with that cookie, not on all generic cookies.


In the end, I believe we all have stereotypes, probably and hopefully a lot more complex than the stereotype of what constitutes a good Oreo, but they do exist. They appear in television shows, movies, books, and permeate into real life. In the media world, being a point of comparison is a mark of importance in pop culture. If a television show character can create slang, start a movement, or end up as the punch line to endless jokes, that show has succeeded. These characters and their traits become the new stereotypes that we judge people. Blondes could have brains thanks to Elle Woods, teenage pregnancy didn’t have to be a terrible experience thanks to Juno, and cops didn’t have to be the mean guys as McLovin found out with Officers Slater and Michaels. By being able to reach this standard in pop culture, these movies have shown that stereotypes exist not from nowhere, but from media texts in our culture. In the same way that my mother has an idea of what an Oreo is because she’s experienced it, we come to have stereotypes because we’ve seen or heard enough times that a particular trait should be associated with a particular type of person. Yet, the degree to which we look at a person as a stereotype that we have or an individual with particular traits depends on how much we care to get to know them. As the receiver’s of the media’s stereotyped images, we need to be aware of what we see and more importantly, what we accept.

Text Reference:
The role of stereotypes from Jim Cook and Mike Lewington (eds) Images of Alcoholism, London: British Film Institute (1979)