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.