my take on The Blind Side

I'll be honest - I had a ton of preconceived notions before I went to see The Blind Side last week. On the car ride there I was telling my mom exactly what to expect regarding race representation (in retrospect I feel kind of bad about that because I think she just wanted to go see a heart-felt movie. oops). And as I sat down in the movie theater I was a total media & society student - ready to pick apart every single aspect of the film and how it related to race representation. I would say that I was in a pretty cynical mood...definitely feeling very "politically correct," and totally priding myself in that.

But then, pretty much from the moment the movie started, I felt my heart begin to soften. Okay, maybe I didn't completely fall for the "tear-jerking, win over your cold heart" aim of the film (or, maybe I did!), but I definitely gave up on my cynicism and (overly) political correctness. I realized that whatever the race representation in this film may be, I refuse to be that person I hate...the person that picks apart every single aspect of what *might* be racism or sexism or ideological etc. etc. Ugh. I never want to be like that, in the same way that I don't ever want to be on the other end of the spectrum as a naive spectator of media effects and race representations.

So before I even get into what I thought about the film, I learned something really important about myself. I never want to be an angry, pessimistic, "set in my ways" person when it comes to the media, politics, race, ideology...none of that. Maybe I am being that naive spectator in saying this - but I'd rather be optomistic and hopeful that humanity and even the media is taking steps forward with all of those things I just mentioned. And simply the act of going to see this film helped me to realize that.

OKAY, onto the film. Honestly, I really liked it. I stopped myself from picking apart each scene and just tried to enjoy the movie as a whole. Yes - of course there were race representations present. There is really no denying that. But given the story about a young, homeless black man from the inner city moving in with a rich, white family a) there was really no way around these representations taking place and b) I think the film did a fairly decent job handling them (I'm fully prepared to have tomatoes thrown at me right about now). Oh, and before I continue...I just have to say that I was SO glad when Mike said he didn't like being called BIG MIKE because if I heard someone call him that one more time I was going to scream!!!!!!!!!!!

Ahem, anyway. In class we talked about that fact that just because it was a true story it doesn't mean representations can't be created/changed/manipulated, and I kept that in mind throughout the entire film. And yes, I would say that certain representations were not exactly "positive." But here's what made me like the film. At the end, I did not get the sense that a white woman (family) sacrified herself to save a poor, helpless black boy. Rather, I left the theater thinking that in the end race really had nothing to do with their relationship. Leigh Anne truly loved Michael as her son, and he loved her as his mother. The pictures of the real-life family during the closing credits reinforced this for me. In fact, those images moved me more than the rest of the film. Seeing the real "Big Mike" and Tuohy family made the story so much more real to me, and I could see the love between them. I'm not saying that race was never a factor in the relationship. In the world we live in, it had to have been. But it seems as though they overcome that, and that is pretty encouraging.

Okay, it totally sounds like I drank the koolaid. And maybe I have! That could mean one of two things. The Blind Side is a true story that portrays the positive way that race relations can and should take place, or, the creators of The Blind Side did a really good job of convincing white people that "love" can overcome anything, even racial differences. I think that there is truth in both of those. And, unfortunately, the latter could potentially make a lot of people assume that race isn't as important of an issue as it really is, if that makes sense.

I know that this entry has mainly highlighted the positive things I thought about the film, but the truth is that I found some negative aspects as well - mainly regarding the "white family saves the day" concept. And like we talked about in class the other day.....even if that *is* truly the story that took place, and all of the right intentions were there, it is still important to look at the effects that this movie could/will have on our society regarding race relations and representations. Some people might view it as a step forward and some may see it as a step backward. So, which is it?! I really look forward to discussing that as a class, because as of right now my only answer is, "it's all relative."

my local highschool WOULD be the "Redskins"

Almost every Saturday morning my family and I have pancakes for breakfast (whole wheat with dark chocolate chips is my personal favorite, yum!). And yes - we use Aunt Jemima pancake mix. [I just checked the fridge to see if we use her syrup as well, only to find "Mrs. Butterworth's." Woops!] Anyway, it never really fazed me that Aunt Jemima was, well, black. I mean, if you asked me what race she was I would know, but I never really had a second thought about what that meant. When I googled "Aunt Jemima images," I was shocked to see what she used to be portrayed as.

The stereotypical image of the black mammy - especially combined with the type of language used in the blurb - is definitely racist. Just because her image has become more politically correct over the years (she's prettier and lost weight) that doesn't take away from what Aunt Jemima originally stood for. However, the use of race (or gender, lifestyle, etc.) seems to be kind of unavoidable if we're going to use images of people on products or advertisements. I'm not saying that that justifies the racist image of Aunt Jemima. But, for example, wouldn't it also be considered sexist to have an image of a housewife in an apron making the pancakes? Although Aunt Jemima is an obvious example of stereotypical representation in advertisements, others might not be so clear. As a society compiled of many different races, ethnicities, and lifestyles, advertisers are going to constantly try to relate to niche markets. So if representations of people continue to be used, this sort of stereotyping seems almost unavoidable.

With that being said, it's obviously not an excuse for racist representations to be used. So - moving on to Native American sport team names. I personally don't even see why there is an argument here. I mean, if the majority of Native Americans (81% according to the optional-reading article) are offended by these team names/mascots why is it even a question? Whether these sports teams' names are honorable and courageous or racist and disrespectful is not for the white majority to decide. UGH!! I'm actually doing my race essay on Native Americans' representation in the media, and the main theme that I've found is that their story is and has continually been written by the White mainstream society. And this subject of mascots just reinforces that.

I actually live right down the street from my district's high school, and they are the "Neshaminy Redskins." I've heard talk for a few years now that they are going to change that, but I'm not sure if that has happened yet. I'm going to look into that, actually. Speaking of which - redskins is definitely the name that irks me the most. I mean, how can you NOT see the racism in that? Ugh!

Wanting to be a part of the hip-hop culture is something that I can personally relate to. I've pretty much lived in the suburbs all of my life. However, my church/school was located in Northeast Philadelphia. Although that is still quite suburbian, a good amount of my classmates were from more inner parts of the city. Because of that, I was able to experience more diversity than I would if I went to school where I live in Bucks County. Most of the kids that were from the city were a part of this hip-hop culture. Well, they at least walked and talked the part of it. Some of them were black, but most of them weren't. Three or four of these students just happened to be the cutest and most popular boys in our grade, and that seemed to be the case in other grades as well. So starting in 6th grade, it seemed as though my entire school tried to transform into being part of the hip-hop culture.

Throughout junior high and the beginning of high school things just intensified. Rap was everyone's music of choice. All of the boys wore their baggy jeans, diamond earrings, and chain necklaces. The girls wore big hoop earrings and scrunched their hair to make it curly (or just crunchy). And everyone who was anyone had a pair of Timberland boots. On the weekends my group of friends hung out at the Palace roller skating rink, where the truly hip-hop kids hung out. I remember trying so hard to "play it cool" to fit in with them because they were like...celebrities to me. This trend, I guess you could call it, stuck around all through high school. My close friends and I phased out of it just as we entered into high school, but there was certainly a huge majority of my classmates that remained as part of the hip-hop culture.

Okay, so it looks like I went off on a tangent. Woops! I guess I needed to fully remember what those days were like to get where I'm going. When I think back, I can honestly say that the main thing that led to this desire to fit in to the hip-hop culture was the fact that it was part of the counter-culture (although I didn't realize that at the time). As a blonde haired, blue eyed, Christian white girl from the suburbs, it made me feel less like a goodie-two-shoes and more like a cool, rebellious teen. And the more I was in on the popular clothes and music, the more empowered I felt. It was almost like there was a competition between everyone as to who could be the most genuinely hip-hop. It's so weird to come to that realization, but that's really how it was.

Looking back on my particular group of friends and social environment, mostly all of us where white. There were maybe 5 black kids in my grade at school, and even less when we would go to the hip-hop Mecca - Palace roller skating rink. It really was as though the hip-hop culture was transformed into a white institution, at least where I was coming from. But at the same time, there was that knowledge that what we were wearing and listening to was certainly derived from the black community.

I agree with Kitwana that my group of white friends did not want to be black. We didn't have anything against black people - they were in fact the people that we were trying to emulate. But the hip-hop culture (the one that I grew up in, at least) did seem to promote whiteness. Like I said earlier, there were not many black people to counter this, so the hip-hop trend was actually more of a "white" thing.

Okay, so I failed miserably at providing an image or video to analyze. But I really wanted to give my two cents since I've "been there," sort of. One last thing. I few months ago I ran into the cutest, most popular boy from junior high that I mentioned earlier. He looked completely different. His attire was straight out of a Gap ad. I couldn't believe that our "king" of the hip-hop culture from junior high and high school made such a transformation! But then we started talked, and I realized that although his clothes were different, the way he talked and acted was definitely still hip-hoppish. I can't really explain how or why, but it was. I find that interesting because it kind of shows that the hip-hop culture doesn't just lie in what a person dresses like or the music they listen to. It's kind of a whole demeanor or lifestyle. And once again, I think that that comes back to the feeling of empowerment that comes with the hip-hop culture.

Okay, so Hooks article was shocking. But besides the title of the article, it wasn't exactly the language used that I found shocking - it was the realization of how sexualized black women really are. I feel so naive! While I do realize that most representations of black women are very sexual, I sort of assumed that that was the case for all women. But the difference is that while many white woman are sexualized in this way, we are also provided with many *other* images and representations of white women.

Take the music industry, for example. Sure, there are the Britney Spears' and Madonnas who many people would argue are the queens of sexploitation. But then there is a large number of (very successful) white female artists who are considered wholesome, "the girl next door," or even motherly figures - i.e. Barbara Streisand, Celine Dion, Carrie Underwood, etc. I do think that mostly all women artists are pushed at least in some point of their career to sexify themselves. But - it seems as though white women have more of a choice in the matter than black women do.

My favorite black female music artists are Rihanna, Alicia Keys, and Beyonce, all of which have either been sexualized from the start or moved towards that image as their career progressed. Beyonce was sexualized from the moment she stepped onto the scene as a member of Destiny's Child. She was in her teens at the time. Unlike Britney Spears, who went from the seemingly girl-next-door image to dressing like a dominatrix (literally), Beyonce was portrayed as a sex-symbol from the start. As I've watched her career progress, especially with her most recent performances and music videos, Beyonce's sexualized clothing and (more specifically) suggestive dance moves are certainly in line with Hooks' stance on black female representation. In fact, in the first image below, notice that the members of Destiny's Child are wearing a jungle-woman sort of costume - that exoticism that Hook often refers to.

And then there is Rihanna, who seems to have started out in a much more wholesome way than Beyonce did. If my memory serves me correctly, her first few songs released (when she looked like the first image below) were not entirely successful. However, around the time that Rihanna became more sexualized and had more edgy songs and music videos, her career took off. What is interesting about Rihanna is that her image was not just sexualized, but it was done in a very fantastical way. She became visually appealing in the sense that her sexual presence was extreme and quite bizarre. I feel like that kind of emphasizes Hook's point about the otherness and almost distorted-ness of the black female.

Although the following quote is describing black models, to me it also related to Rihanna's new image: "Reinscribed as spectacle, once again on display, the bodies of black women appearing in these magazines are not there to document the beauty of black skin, or black bodies, but rather to call attention to other concerns....their features are often distorted, their bodies contorted into strange and bizarre postures that make the images appear monstrous or grotesque. They seem to represent an anti-aesthetic, one that mocks the very notion of beauty. Often black female models appear in portraits that make them look less like humans and more like mannequins or robots."

race and comedy, a perfect match?

I really enjoyed reading Acham's article because it was an easy read, and it was related to aspects of media that I am familiar with. Specifically, I can remember Chris Rock's rise in popularity. At the time I was too young to realize the importance of his representation and talk about African Americans. But now that I look back, I realize that he seemed to pave the way for many other black comedians to take on issues of race.

With that being said, Chris Rock definitely took a more blatantly political/ideological stance on race issues. He still used comedy, but he was also like an activist of sorts. Although I am not entirely caught up on comedy these days, it seems as though most comedians still take a strictly comedic stance on race issues. However, the presence of racism against other African Americans is definitely still prominent.

A black comedian that I am familiar with is Katt Williams. If my memory serves me correctly, he often pokes fun at other African Americans. But while I was searching for videos of him on YouTube I came up with a video from Guy Torrey. I must admit I've never heard of him or seen his comedy, but the video I found does seem to provide an example of what I'm talking about.



Interestingly, Torrey makes fun of African Americans by comparing them to white people. He basically says that black people spend their money on things to look good, i.e. a nice car and nice clothes, but in reality they are still poor and living in their grandmom's basement. He also makes fun of white people for the opposite offense: white people are rich and have nice houses but they don't give a crap about what they look like. Although he is making fun of both races, it seems to me that the assessment of black people is more harsh. Maybe I just feel that way because I'm white - I don't know. It just seems more insulting to say that black people are not only bad with money but they also pretend to be more wealthy than they are. And isn't it reinforcing the stereotype of black people being poor and lazy? I would think so. And I feel like many white people, whether subconciously or not, use this type of comedy to support their preconceived assumptions about black people.

I wonder what Chris Rock would think about this type of comedy. I mean, it seems as though he's the first person to admit that there are black people who fit into certain stereotypes. But what about the issue of black comedians sort of reinforcing that? Is Rock guilty of that as well? To be honest, hearing some of the things Chris Rock says and stands for does reinforce some of my own preconceived notions. And to be completely honest, while reading Acham's article I caught myself thinking, "wow, Chris Rock is thinking like a white person." I hate that I thought that - even if for a split second. It really is such a touchy subject. Like, white people making fun of each other isn't even questionable, it's fine. And black people making fun of white people is okay too. It's usually hilarious. But when it comes to black people making fun of each other - well, is our society ready for that yet? Obviously they have every right to do so, but is it in turn making white people think it's okay to hold those views of black people as well now?

Did I do that?!

Reading Coleman's assessment of Blacks in the media has been a very interesting and sometimes shocking experience. I feel naive to never realize how distorted the images of black people in the media are. Watching that documentary in class about black people in film just added to my dismay. No wonder discrimination and prejudice is still present today! And the sad part is that many people don't even realize that they are engaging in racists behaviors and mindsets, and I myself am guilty of this. I'm sure of it.

I liked the second part of the Coleman reading because it was closer to my lifetime, so I could more easily follow what she was saying. I have watched many of the Black sitcoms she spoke about. Shows Family Matter, the Cosby Show, and Fresh Prince of Bel Air were all watched by a large white audience. I mean, I can't say I know statistics or anything, but mostly all of my white friends enjoyed those shows - in fact, they were some of their favorites (my best friend Leah watched Cosby every day, without fail!). I personally would list Family Matters as one of my favorite TV shows, alongside with Full House, Saved by the Bell, and Step by Step. And interestingly, I never really realized that the Winslows were actually black...

So my question is, is the portrayal of black families as being seemingly exactly like white families helpful or harmful to society? I would assume that it could be helpful in the sense that it may have helped break down barriers between blacks and whites. From a young age, shows like Family Matters showed me that not only are black people just like me, but they're even funnier and more fun than my family is.

But at the same time, do these shows portray reality? I really don't know. I'm sure there black families that are like the Huxtables and the Winslows. But they aren't all like that, in the same way that all white families aren't like the Tanners (from Full House). In that sense, we're never going to get a full portrayal of reality through television shows. *But* I do think that there's a difference between getting a realistic view of white people and black people on TV because, well, have we ever really gotten a realistic portrayal of black people through the media? Once again, I don't know. It's actually very disheartening to realize that as a white person, the majority of my ideas about black people are from the media, which, based on the Coleman reading is very distorted.

I find it really interesting that the character who made Family Matters especially popular, Steve Urkel, was a huge nerd. I could be wrong about this, but aren't nerds usually a white stereotype? It makes me wonder if having the character of Steve the nerd was a purposeful move to draw in a white audience. It sure worked for me, because for some reason I thought Steve Urkel was the funniest character ever! And I remember growing up having "did I do that?" being a humorous term often used by my family members (especially my dad...haha, duh dad!). And embarrassingly enough, I actually wrote a fan letter to Urkel and received this postcard in the mail:

Even more embarrassing is that I actually had that picture uploaded on my computer, haha!

Once again, I kind of feel like I have no right making these assumptions because they are just that...assumptions. And sometimes I feel like all the research and expert opinions in the world couldn't really answer my question(s) about race in the media. But at least I'm trying to learn. That's gotta be a step in the right direction, right?

Geez, Louise.

Okay, so I admit it. I really only watched Thelma and Lousie because I knew a (half-naked) Brad Pitt was in it. And for the extra credit points, of course!

But I've got to say, I liked the film a lot more than I anticipated. I always thought it was a chick flick for middle-aged...chicks, but I never realized the political/ideological aspects of it. I found myself really rooting for the two women, especially because they were so royally screwed over by men throughout the film. I mean, even the polite, young Brad Pitt who finally showed Thelma a good time and seemed like he could do no harm turned around and stole their money...then turned them in to the cops. Ugh!

The rape scene was obviously the most difficult part to watch. I caught myself gasping and almost covering my eyes. I don't even have to explain why. I'm sure most women would say that they don't blame Louise for shooting that bastard. I personally would've shot him in the leg or something, but that's just me. I also would've turned myself in right after the shooting occured, but that's only because I have the optomism (or, naivity) to think that the authorities would believe me in saying that he attempted rape. When Louise pointed out that no one would believe them (since Thelma was dancing with him all night, no physical evidence) my heart dropped because I knew she was right. What a horrible, frightening thought.

While I can't condone the decisions the women made after that, I can't at all say that I blame them. It's like, once you've killed a man, why give a crap about anything else? Especially if no one...including your own husband...gives a crap about you. In that sense, I feel like the film itself is like a metaphor for the feminist movement. There's comes a point where we can't just sit around and hope that society will begin treating us as equals. It's no wonder that some forms of feminism have become so radical - it's because of losers like Darryl and Harlan...because YES, those men actually do exist.

I think that the ending was very fitting. Thelma and Louise knew that they had to end things on their own terms. They were never going to get a chance to explain themselves anyway, so why give themselves over to dozens of male police officers? Clearly their actions spoke way louder than any words could have - words that they probably wouldn't have even gotten to say.

"He could be a crackhead"

I'm sure by now pretty much everyone has seen the YouTube video of "Leprechaun in Alabama." It's probably one of the most popular YouTube videos out there. It's even been featured on one of my favorite television shows, The OReilly Factor :):)

The video shows the people of Mobile, Alabama who are convinced that there is a leprechaun in their town. What makes this video so funny is that it seems as though these people truly believe that there is a leprechaun. Their reactions make it easy to make fun of them.

The problem lies in the fact that every single person in this video, with the exception of the male news anchor, is African American. I don't know whether Mobile is a predominantly black town, but the video gives that impression. The video also gives the impression that these people are naive and unintelligent. So is this video harmful to the Black community? It is supporting a previously held stereotype or creating a new one?

It's hard for me to say this about this video because I do find it to be humorous - and that has nothing to do with these people's race. However, I would really like to hear the perspective of an African American person. Clearly this video provides a false representation of black people. Although most people would consider it to be harmless because it's for humurous purposes, I think it would be quite ignorant to assume that this video is not promoting a certain stereotype.

Now, if this exact video included all white people, I would still find humor in it. I also wouldn't be upset that it was giving a particular representation for white people. But - that's easy for me to say because "hicks" or "white trash" are not the typical stereotype of Caucasians. African Americans, however, have constantly battled the stereotype that Barker provided. "Within the west, people of color have often been represented as a series of problems, objects, and victims....unable to think or act for themselves, people of color are not held to be capable of inititating activity or of controlling their own destiny" (264).

Like I said, I really need the perspective of African Americans on this one. In fact, I want to know what they think about their representation in the media in general, whether it's videos like this or the "good" examples like the Cosby Show...

I've got to admit that I am one of those people's who sneaks into the self-help book section in the bookstore from time to time. I can't help but love reading about tips on how to decrease stress, increase happiness, and find my "passion" in life. There's just something so encouraging about reading self-help books. They cause me to feel empowered to take control of my own life. I feel as though the general theme of most self-help books is that it isn't life's circumstances that determines happiness - it is your attitude that will help lead you to a happier, more successful life.

The book that instantly popped into my mind was "He's Just Not That Into You" by Greg Behrendt. I think that nearly every woman of my generation has either read this book or at least heard of it. It isn't just the book itself that has become popular - it is the general attitude conveyed that has really transformed the way women view relationships, men, and even themselves. Let me explain.

The basic premise of the book is that if a man does (or does not do) A, B, or C, then he simply is not interested in you. Plain and simple. This concept revolutionized the way women think about dating and relationships. At the same time, Behrendt made it a point to speak to women readers as though they were way too good for this sort of treatment. He refers to the reader as "hot stuff" and "super fox" (corny, I know...but effective!). It causes the woman to feel empowered because she can now pick up on these ques from men, avoid being hurt, and move on as her sexy, confident self to find someone who will treat her the way she deserves to be treated. That's why this book has become so enormously popular and was even turned into a movie. Up until Behrendt revealed this straightforward, simple, "just the way it is" mentality, women would constantly make up excuses and exceptions as to why men treated them certain ways. We just needed someone to show us the light, so to speak.

"He's Just Not That Into You" conveys almost all of the messages that Gauntlett believes is present in women's self-help books: it gives a planned approach to specific life problems (don't waste your time with that loser if he doesn't call you), self-esteem is important (you super fox, you!), don't make excuses (he is NOT intimidated by you, he just doesn't like you), and women have "no problems inside as long as they can be confident; with self-assurance and a positive approach...anything can be achieved" (p. 245). Wow, I could swear that Behrendt read that list before writing his book, haha!

I think that self-help books in general are a good thing for our society. There certainly can be a danger if the author is making unhealthy prescriptions *cough* Oprah and her "new age-ness" *cough* or purposely trying to make bank on people's insecurities (which, I assume is unfortunately an all-too-common occurance). But we as humans are constantly seeking to improve our lives and our happiness, and if self-help books can help achieve that, well than I'm all for it.

The readings about men's magazines definitely helped me to gain a better perspective on what the men's magazine is all about (which, is a really good thing because I'll be needing that insight for our upcoming paper!). What I found to be particularly interesting is that there doesn't seem to be that huge of a difference between men's and women's magazines. At first glace it would seem that men's magazines and women's magazines are a world apart. Men like cars, women like make-up. Men prefer being communicated through irony and jokes, women enjoy the how-to's, emotionally charged stories, etc. And, I could be wrong about this (I'll have a better idea after doing some more research...) but I tend to get the sense that in the bigger picture, the realm of men's magazines and women's magazines are not all that far apart. And here's why.

Other than content related to hobbies and lifestyle, most magazine content remains the same among men's and women's magazines: relationships, sex, health, money, and oh yeah, sex. The men's magazines are trying to help men understand women, and the women's magazines are trying to help women understand men. For example, men's health magazines help men get the perfect six-pack abs (because women love them, of course) and women's health magazines teach how to put some bounce in that booty (because men love butts, duh!). Okay, so I'm being sarcastic. But my point is that...in my opinion thus far, at least...men's and women's magazines are interconnected in a way.

On a different note - I just want to point something out about men's magazines like FHM and Maxim. First of all, I can't say for sure whether or not I think that these images of women are sexist. I mean, don't we as women also enjoy looking at half-naked men? Anyway, instead of taking an analytical view on these magazines, I kind of want to integrate my personal beliefs into this one. I feel as though I am all too often trying to view media and gender studies through an academic's eyes, and that often overrides my Christian beliefs and values. Sexism and feminism aside, I think that magazines like FHM and Maxim are toxic to our society. As cheesy as this sounds - what would Christ think about these magazines? He'd be appalled, I'm sure. When God created women he did not intend for our bodies to be flaunted on the covers of millions of magazines...especially not for the sole purpose of exciting and arousing men. Whether she is in "control" of the man reading or not - screaming "sex" on the cover of a magazine is not where we as women should be. I believe that it is conveying the idea that it is okay for men to be obsessed with sex. Sex is meant for the sanctity of marriage, and these magazines have broken those boundaries...in a bad way. And yes, women's magazines are guilty of this as well.

Now, I'm not saying that articles about sex are necessarily wrong. Married people should have access to that information if they please (like there will ever be sex articles specifically for married couples...yeah, right!). And one could argue that it is not the magazines who are to blame for this but our sex-obsessed society. Sure, I get that, but there is no denying that these magazines feed that obsession.

Girls Kick Ass

I could fill an entire page listing female media figures that represent the modern concept of girl power. We've already talked about most of them; Gwen Stefani, Courtney Love, Buffy, Lara Croft...and then of course there's the Spice Girls. I remember holding up a peace sign and repeating "girl power" when I was about 12. I don't even think I knew exactly what that meant, but if Posh Spice did it then it must be cool.

In a way, it's unfortunate to see that feminity has indeed become a product of sorts. Or, it has at least become new form of marketing to young audiences. T-shirts with messages like "girls kick ass" and "girls rule boys drool" are not meant to be political or ideological statements - they are merely a new trend. I personally do not think that that's even arguable because to promote and sell clothes like that in stores where young girls shop (i.e. Justice, which is for girls under the age of 12)...well, clearly we're not aiming to make 8 year old feminists.

And then there are figures like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Lara Croft. They are not just female heroes - they are sexified even moreso than most female images on TV and film. Why is that? Is it because we have such a hard time accepting that the female can be the hero that we have to make her as visually appealing as possible?

Now, clearly I have a pretty cynical view of how feminism has been portrayed in the media. BUT - I've got to say, I think it's better than nothing. First of all, I'd rather have young girls being sent some form of message saying that they are strong and empowered than not. And since Buffy and Lara Croft became popular, female heroes are popping up everywhere. Maybe they are still sexified, and who knows if that will every really go away. But I think that the presence of "girl power" within our culture is a step in the right direction, and it seems as though most actors and music artists seem to agree.

I'm just a girl...but what IS a girl?

As someone who tends to lean towards the social construction of culture, Duke and Wald's article gave me some good insight on the effects that the media can have in shaping concepts of gender. I was particularly interested by the findings in Duke's study - that African American girls generally reject teen magazines due to their lack of "real" girls. The main reason they can overlook the information provided by the media is because their differences separate them from the majority. Even more, African American teenage girls actually have higher levels of self-esteem and more often view themselves as being attractive than White teenage girls.

What really stood out to me and I actually envied was the idea that the African American teenage girls were able to form their identity and "celebrate their 'Blackness'" based on their differences. In other words, instead of trying to conform to what magazines prescribe to teenage girls and letting their differences be a burden of sorts, African American girls embraced their differences and in a way used it against the media. Like I said, I envy that. Sometimes I wish I had something "different" about me that I could celebrate and bond with others over. But instead I'm just another blonde haired, blue eyed, White female who is (what others may view as) a product of the media. I know that that sounds kind of crazy. It's not that I'm not secure in my own identity because I am, it's just that I know I'm being directly targeted by the media, and sometimes I feel like there's nothing I can do to change that.

I was glad to learn that family and community played a large role in shaping the identites of African American girls. And not just because it affirmed my belief that social construction is stronger than media :) I could personally relate to that. I grew up in a very tight-knit family (extremely close to my mother, who is a great female role-model) and a close community in my church. I really do believe that that has shaped my identity more than the media has. I think that these days society is really lacking in having a sense of community, and family for that matter. It seems as though families aren't as stable anymore, and individuality is much more greatly valued than being part of a group. Television, the Internet, and video games have taken away from social interaction. Okay, I'm going off on a tangent now. But my point is that the social construction of culture, more specifically gender, is stronger than many people think. Although media is pretty sneaky in finding ways into our lives, I think that we greatly have control over how much and what types of media replace or social lives.

You know, now that I think about, the "Riot Grrrl" phenomenon that Wald discussed is actually kind of a weird combination of media influence and a social community. Hm. Like, the Riot Grrrl is an image portrayed by female music artists that can certainly influence other females' concept of gender, but at the same time it forms a social bond that is fighting back against the media. Weird. I think I just confused myself way too much. But that thought is causing me to wonder what other media entities result in the same social community...

Okay, back to Duke. I think that the combination of rejecting media and embracing family and community has helped these African American girls arrive at a much more healthy identity and idea of what it is to be beautiful. "In their eyes, personality, attitude, character, and style were the primary elements of real beauty" (p. 289). Later on Duke pointed out that "white girls knew to say reality is better, but their eyes led them back to the ideal - a reality only for the limited few who work hard enough for the look." So what is the difference between the African American girls and the White girls? Well, I guess it's the fact that teen magazines are targeting White girls instead of Black girls. But for me, that's just not good enough. If African American teenage girls can acknowledge that the models and content of these magazines are not "real" - and not just regarding ethnic diversity (but also stories about romance, fashion, etc.) - why can't White girls? I guess that's where the evidence of media construction of gender comes into play, and the ever-important education/awareness of media effects....

The Princess versus the Dutchess

I found Perry's article "Who(se) Am I?" to be extremely interesting. And as I'm writing this, I still can't decide where I stand on the issue of women in the music industry and how they portray sexuality. Should women hold back their sexuality as to not uphold the stereotype of being sexual objects? Or should womens' sexuality be something they should be proud of and flaunt?

The artist who first came to my mind when I thought about this is Lady Gaga. She blatantly flaunts her sexuality both in her appearance and her songs, but she does so in a way that doesn't seem like she's trying to appeal to the masses. It really seems as though she is simply being herself. I think that the reason for this is that she isn't JUST sexual - she is eccentric, unique, and quite bizarre! She is also very open about her sexuality as being a bisexual woman and her sexual escapades. Maybe it is all just a marketing ploy on her part. If so, I would say it's pretty effective because not only is she getting attention, but people really believe that that is how she is. The perceived authenticity of Gaga's sexuality is what causes it to be so acceptable and even respected by many people.

On the other hand is Britney Spears. Britney flaunts her sexuality just as much as Gaga does. And their music is really not all that different. Yet it seems as though less people would consider Britney to be the "artist" that Gaga is. Why? I would argue that Britney's sexuality seems to be more strategic. Sex sells, and she knows it. From the beginning of her career as a teenager, It appears as though Britney has embraced her sexuality over the years. But has she really embraced it, or is she just doing it for the popularity and recognition that comes along with being a sex sybmol? Most people would argue the latter.

And you know, like I said, Gaga's sexuality may be just as strategic as Britney's. In fact, she may have even done a better job because her strategy of using sex to sell records is more discrete. Whatever the case may be, I personally find it sort of disheartening that this discussion has always been and probably will always be present when it comes to discussing and analyzing women in the music industry (or any industry, for that matter). Whether it's at the forefront of a woman's career or not, sexuality will always be an issue, and that is not the case for men.

relatability or ideology?

I enjoyed today's reading because it included a lot of feedback from real women regarding how they feel about women's magazines, both the content and the images. I wasn't incredibly surprised to learn that women often pick and choose the information they find relevant within magazines (Gaunlett) because I would tend to agree with that. However, it was very interesting to read women's reactions to photographs of women within these magazines (Dines & Humez).

It seems as though the majority of women do not relate at all to the women they see in these photos. In fact, much of the feedback given showed that some readers actually have disdain for them. There's been plenty of chatter about how magazines rarely portray "real" and relatable women, and that that's what the audience desires, so why is this (below) all we continue to see?

This brings me back to our discussion in class on Tuesday about how the ads in Ms. Magazine were generally driven by ideology rather than the wants of the audience. I think that this is also the case when it comes to photographs of women in magazines. If readers are actively saying that they want to see more realistic images of women, than why wouldn't a profit-driven magazine listen? Maybe because these magazines are more driven by ideology. Think about it - if Vogue had images of size 6 models (which is still thinner than the average American women, mind you) it simply would not be Vogue anymore. And that goes for mostly all magazines, and ad campaigns for that matter.

What makes this ideology so strong? Why are we constantly fed image after image of edgy or seductive or thin or [insert characteristic here] women when audiences are clearly saying that they do not relate to them? Maybe I'm wrong, and I hope that I am, but I think it comes down to the fact that we haven't fully escaped a patriarchal society. And by saying that I am not blaming men. What I'm saying is that we still tend to view a woman's beauty through what men consider to be beautiful. One of the woman that was interviewed in chapter 9 of Gauntlett referred to Berger in saying that "men watch women, and women watch men watching women" (212)....(which, reminds me of the "male gaze" we read about a few weeks ago). I think that we're still stuck in that rut, and I don't know if we'll ever get out.

Women's Magazines = Identity Crisis?

As much as I enjoy reading most womens' magazines, my biggest concern with them is the (what some might consider to be overwhelming) influx of information provided for women, which I brought up in a previous blog post. I feel like many magazines, in an attempt to break stereotypes of female roles (i.e. housewive), have provided even more roles and characteristics that women should have in order to be a considered a good or successful in society. This can be a good thing for women who can sort through these messages and decide on their own identity, but for other women these messages can cause confusion and discontent if they don't meet all of these expectations. De Santis put it perfectly when saying "[magazine articles] stress the fluidity of female subjectivity, encouraging readers to make themselves over and even construct multiple selves, often to meet the demands and opportunities of prolonged courtship" (Dines and Humez, 120).

This magazine cover provides an example of these messages being sent. On the cover alone, women are told they can "reveal their best body" in one month, achieve "happier, hotter sex," be a "natural beauty" (probably with the use of make-up, of course), and do "at-home health checks." So at one glance women are provided with the idea that they should have a perfect body, sex life, and be their own doctor...all while looking naturally and effortlessly beautiful. Problematic? You decide.

Ouellette also argues that the Cosmo Girl is encouraged to be phony; to create the "illusion of beauty" with things like fake eyelashes and push-up bras. I think that this is definitely an unfortunate fact for women in our society. In fact, we don't even seem to realize that that's what we're doing. It's considered normal to wear high-heels because, duh, we want to appear taller and slimmer. And how dare we leave the house without mascara?! I'll be honest, I often enjoy engaging in these "illusions of beauty," and I think that the majority of females would agree with me. If you take even the most anti-conformist, feminist woman and put her on a make-over show, chances are that she'll be crying at how beautiful she looks and feels when the make-over is complete. Is that a bad thing? Well, yes and no. I'm not going to say that it's natural for women to enjoy these beautification rituals - it is certainly a product of our society, and that in itself is not a bad thing. However, if some women find that they don't fit in or are considered weird if they don't conform to these ideals, then that is problematic. And womens' magazines fit into this equation because they oftentimes prescribe how women should be rather than describe how we actually are. And that, my friends, is why I want to work for a womens' magazine one day and transform it into the amazing resource it can and should be for women around the world! :)

a quick take on "The Monstrous Regiment of Women"

I was able to watch The Monstrous Regiment.. this weekend, and it was not exactly what I expected. After sitting through the class' discussion on Thursday, I thought I was going to cry myself to sleep after watching it. But that wasn't the case...at all. I've got to be honest in saying that it didn't really affect me that much. I would agree with what Kim said in class - that it was difficult to feel emotion because these women and their beliefs are so distant from my own. It was easy for me to dismiss what they were saying because I know that they are mislead and misinterpreting what Scripture really says.

With that being said, I did feel at least some emotion. I didn't feel as much anger as I had expected, though. The main anger I felt was because of the fact that these women used the Bible to support their skewed beliefs. How dare you tell me that I'm not a godly woman because I want to have a family AND a career? That bothered me.

But more than anger, I felt sad for these women. They made it seem that they were happy with their lives, but how can you be happy with such a lack of freedom? I'm not saying that being a stay-at-home mom is any less important or fulfilling than having a career. In fact, I'm sure there will be a portion of my life where that's what I am, and I think that every woman should have the choice to do that. BUT women should have the choice to do *whatever* they want, even if that includes just being a housewife. I cannot imagine being told and truly believing that I have no other purpose in life than to be a wife and mother. I do believe that that is part of my purpose, but not even close to being all of it. I think it was Elise that mentioned in class how her heart goes out to these women, and I would say that that's what I felt towards them moreso than anger or disdain.

I was talking to my mom about the film (she wasn't able to watch it with me) and she pointed out that the Proverbs 31 woman was no Betty Homemaker. I quickly opened the Bible to read it, and I was so excited to see that this woman was a strong, wise, and busy woman. In addition to taking care of her family, she made and sold clothes (verse 24), and she also bought a piece of land (verse 16). But wait, isn't business and buying real estate only part of a "man's world?" I think not!!

Gender Representation at Bayside High

Today's reading was about gender representation in television and film. Gauntlett opened the chapter by giving a bunch of statistics about ratios of men to women over the past few decades of television, and basically concluded that men are always the majority, and things haven't changed much over the past decade.

I've got to say that these statistics actually surprised me. I started to think about the television shows that I watched growing up, and I could remember plenty of prominent female characters. However, now that I actually think about it, they weren't prominent at all. The females in mostly all sitcoms are either the wife, daughter, or sister of the main men characters (i.e. Full House - the only females are the children and Uncle Jesse's wife, Becky). And then I started thinking about one of my favorite TV shows growing up - Saved by the Bell. At first I thought, "well at least there were 3 males and 3 females." But then I started thinking a bit more about the roles of those females, and I got sort of discouraged.

First there was Kelly Kapowski, who I desperately tried to identify myself with as a child. She was the most beautiful girl at Bayside, a cheerleader and homecoming queen, and more importantly she was the love interest of Zack Morris. Unfortunately, Kelly's character had little to no actual substance. The audience rarely saw a deeper side to Kelly. The closest we got to actually knowing Kelly was when she had an affair with her older, male boss, yet that just furthered her role as the show's sex symbol.

Then there was Lisa Turtle. Lisa portrayed another stereotype of females. She was the snobbish, materialistic diva. In pretty much every episode Lisa made at least once reference to shopping. She gives the impression that nothing else matters...certainly not the education she was receiving at Bayside. Instead, being beautiful and trendy was her calling in life.

And then there was Jessie Spano. Finally, a feminist character who we can all look up to, right?! Not quite. Yes, Jessie was certainly portrayed as an intelligent, strong-willed female. Yet she was also portrayed as being bossy, stuck-up, and downright crazy at times. Her intelligence and strength as a female was made fun of about 99% of the time. She was the bitch of the show who bossed around her boyfriend AC Slater. She often used the term "sexist pig," in fact. Of course, when push came to shove, he was the only one who could tame her and help her revert back to her "feminine" side.

Talk about a wake-up call! The female stereotypes on Saved by the Bell couldn't be any more blatant, actually. But I've gotta say, it did make the show pretty interesting. However, the fact that I never really picked up on these stereotypes and actually thought that they were normal goes to show just how much these gender-roles are engrained in our minds...especially when we're young. It also shows that it's not just the amount of females present on TV or film that require our attention, but the personality and role that the character is given. Gauntlett points out that things are beginning to progress in this area, such as with Ugly Betty and Charlie's Angels. However I don't think that stereotypes of females are ever going to completely disappear.

Oh Lady O

All of this talk about feminism brings me back to last semester when I wrote my senior thesis, which was about Oprah Winfrey. Although the focus was not on feminism, I did address issues of intimacy among women, Oprah's influence among women, and her spiritual prescriptions...for women. My point is that talking about Oprah in one way or another can't really be separated from the concept of feminism.

Through the research and writing process, I remember thinking how odd it was that Oprah herself barely mentions issues of feminism and gender roles. She is undeniably one of the most influencial media figures in the world even though as a black female she has gender and race working against her. She has broken down barriers for women and African Americans alike. One of the interesting things that I pointed out in my thesis is how Oprah is so different from how women in society "should" be: she's black, unmarried, childless, and the epitome of a working, career-oriented women. Yet she still finds a way to be relatable to millions of women viewers, a good majority of which are probably stay-at-home moms. In my thesis I argued that this was due to her use of self disclosure and "girl talk," but could there be something more?

It isn't Oprah's means of communication with her audience alone that causes that relatability (uh, not sure if that's a word...). It's the characteristics that result from that communication. In addition to Oprah's determination, strength, and intelligence (which are mostly considered to be male traits) Oprah's viewers see emotion, generosity, and vulnerability in Oprah. For example, most women can relate to the weight battle that they've witnessed Oprah go through for the past 20 years. Oprah herself admitted last year that she is embarrassed that that is still an issue for her; after all of her amazing accomplishments she still struggles with her own body issues.
I wonder why Oprah rarely makes it a point to talk about feminism. Maybe she think that simply talking about womens' issues (i.e. sexual abuse, working moms vs. stay-at-home moms, weight issues, etc.) is enough, and that each woman should make her own decision? That's hard for me to believe, though, because Oprah has no problem making spiritual prescriptions! I personally think that she doesn't address the issue often because it can be a touchy subject, and she might risk causing controversy. Or maybe she just isn't passionate about it? Who really knows...

If I had to guess, and based on her life's experiences, I would think that Oprah falls somewhere between a liberal and social feminist. I mean, she might not necessarily call herself that, but based on van Zoonen's description of liberal and social feminism I see Oprah fitting in somewhere around there. She has broken many stereotypes of woman, and also attained equality with men (although she's definitely a few steps above the majority of men as far as success goes!). She also addresses broader social issues regarding race, class, etc. Although Oprah has not often blantantly addressed issues regarding feminism, I think that her show in itself, being an outlet and realm for women, has helped move feminist issues in the right direction.

Cosmopolitan Magazine - friend or foe of feminism?

Feminism has got to be one of the most exciting yet confusing topics for discussion. Just when I think I know where I stand, I hear about or read another perspective and completely have to re-evaluate everything I thought I knew. I envy women who can clearly define where they stand on the issue of gender roles in society. I'm probably that female that no feminist would ever want to associate with because I'm just so fickle. I feel as though I'm the reason that there's so much frustration within the feminist community. It'd be much easier if I could just label myself as a liberal or radical or third wave feminist, but I just can't. There are aspects within all of those categories that I can certainly identify with, but others that I am quite opposed to.


Womens' magazines was a topic brought up in both of today's readings. It was pretty much established that womens' magazines generally contain stereotypical feminine topics, such as how to take care of the home, families, emotional matter, etc. Tuchman pointed out that "a woman's magazine is sex-typed in a way that is not true of men's magazines." In other words, many men's magazines can be read by women as well because they contain "American culture" content, whereas women's magazine simply contain female-related content. This is very true. No one would be shocked to see a woman read GQ magazine, but if you see a man reading Redbook then he's either gay or looking for a new way to please his woman (even then, it'd be considered an oddity). But then Cosmopolitan magazine is mentioned, and it almost seems as though Tuchman approves of that publication due to it's content about women in the workplace (although I wouldn't go as far as saying she's a subscriber to the mag...). Gauntlett also talks about how Cosmo was the first magazine to stray from the stereotypical female gender role, and instead it focused on womens' sexuality, freedom, and talk of the workplace. However, he is still critical of Cosmo and basically gives off the idea that it takes a half-assed stance on feminism. Well, that's the impression that I got at least. I think I'd have to agree.


First, let me ask this question: who defines what is or is not considered feminism? Some feminists might argue that Cosmo is just like any other womens' magazine but even worse because the explicit talk about sexuality and images of beautiful women is demeaning. But other feminists could say that the explicitness present in Cosmo is exactly what women need instead of being tied down by society's concept of the ideal, housewife woman. Part of me thinks that Cosmo, Redbook, Glamour, etc. have come a long way with embracing feminist ideas. I've seen articles about "how to get a raise at work" and "when to know you should dump his ass" and so on. These topics don't seem "passive" or "dependent" to me, as Tuchman believes (of course, her article is from the 70's). Sometimes I actually feel empowered after reading a womens' magazine....sometimes.


I am a reader of these womens' magazines, and I actually hope to work for one someday. But that doesn't mean that I don't have my disappointments. Sure, we've progressed somewhat since the days of Betty Homemaker. But is it enough? Something particularly disheartening to me was how Gauntlett talked about Cosmo as being full of contradictions, which I definitely agree with and have always noticed about most womens' magazines. I don't know whether he was being critical or praising the mag in saying this, but I especially agreed with the following: "It is not surprising that the Cosmo woman cannot escape contradiction, as she is expected to be so many things: sexy, successful, glamorous, hard-working; sharp and relaxed in social settings, powerful and likeable at work." At first I thought that the contradictions in these magazines could actually be a good thing in the sense that it is realistic for the magazines to understand these issues that women face. In a way, talk of these numerous expectations might help women try to adjust to the many roles we are required...er, expected of.

However, I think that the expectations these magazines portray are more prescriptive than descriptive. I don't get the impression that these mags' content is about how women really are, rather how we should be or should at least want to be. First of all, it is a known fact that the majority of women are not size 2's with large breasts and perfect skin. Yet how many images of "real" women do these magazines show? They might show women with flaws every once in a while, but not enough to match reality. Most of the time after I read a womens' magazine, I get the impression that I should look a certain way, eat a certain way, have a certain sex life, and...oh yeah, a career might be helpful. In fact, that is one of the reasons I would like to work at one of these publications. Maybe little old me could bring in some ideas that relate to ALL women, not just what we should all aspire to be.

you can gaze at me anytime.

What I found to be one of the more interesting parts of the reading for today was the concept of the "male gaze," which is probably because I could not shake the image of Edward Cullen from my head. Whether you detest Twilight or not, Edward Cullen is arguably the poster-child for the male gaze. If you have seen the film, you know exactly what I'm talking about. If you haven't, let me explain a bit - about 75% of Edward's communication (especially with Bella) is through his eyes alone. It was almost as though they had formed a relationship with one another before verbally speaking. Edward's gaze lasted throughout the entire film. In fact, many girls would argue that Edward simply wouldn't be Edward if it was not for his dark and mysterious stare. Some may even argue that that's what captured Bella's interest in him so much. I always knew that there was something about Edward that made so many women fall for him (not me, of course....), and I was pretty sure that it had to do with the dark and mysterious vibe that he has. But now it has become clear that that is mostly due to his seductive gaze. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he purposely studied and decided on that aspect of his character...

Based on the fact that I've personally fallen victim to the male gaze, I've got to say that I think Laura Mulvey is pretty much on track with her argument. I especially agree with her idea that people are drawn to "scopophilia, a voyeuristic gaze directed at other people." Mulvey goes on to describe "narcissistic voyeurism - seeing oneself in a primary character and identifying with them." I think that this is certainly one of the main appeals of the Twilight films...especially for those who have read all of the books as well. There is this sense that any one of us girls could be Bella and have Edward fall for us. There is nothing particularly special or extraordinary about Bella so we can, in a sense, put her aside and claim Edward as our own.

In Twilight there is also the sense of the active male and passive female that Mulvey refers to. "Her role is to drive the hero to act the way he does," and this is certainly the case for Bella and Edward. Because of Bella, Edward shows his strength of being able to love a human and surpress his vampire urges and habits. Through Bella, Edward becomes even more so of what every girl dreams of. But like I said - Bella is nothing special, and each girl can easily replace herself into that role of being the one who tames Edward.

Up until now I really viewed Twilight as a mere love story in which Bella and Edward are the stars. In fact, reading the books through Bella's perspective almost made me feel as though she was the main character. But I've got to admit that she is somewhat....disposable. It is Edward who is irreplacable in the story. Sure, Bella goes through her share of transformation because of Edward, but he is viewed as the magical one. It is his mystique and sensuality that the audience reacts to, and it is his gaze that captures the viewer.

...but which came first?

Let me begin by saying that I, like most girls from my generation, am I huge Disney fan. The Little Mermaid is of course my favorite Disney film, and I've got the home video of me wearing green sweatpants (both legs in one pant leg, "mermaid style") in the bathtub singing along to my Little Mermaid cassette tape to prove it. So you can imagine my dismay when I began reading Giroux' article, which basically ruined my dreams of spending my honeymoon staying in the castle at the Magic Kingdom. Just kiddding....kindofbutnotreally.

I will admit that I actually loved this article...mainly because I hated it. What I mean is that the subject matter truly challenged me, and I sort of love the back-and-forth that's going through my mind right now. The "rational" and overly-optomistic-of-society part of me is thinking "this guy is nutso and completely over-analyzing Disney films." But then there's the student inside of me, who has learned to look at everything as critically as possible....and that part of me agrees with everything Giroux said, and it made me realize that I'll never be able to look at Disney in the same way.

With that being said, I can't help but think that Giroux is placing a bit too much blame on Disney for the racial and gender-role themes present in their films. Look, I understand that Disney is one of the largest and most powerful media corporations in the world. I get that. And I 100% agree that they should be held accountable for the messages that they provide us with. However, the roles and meaning that Disney films portray to the audience are nothing new. The subordination of women and racial stereotyping has had a place in our society long before these Disney films came along.

Giroux, in my opinion, is pretty much spot on with his criticism of these Disney films (I personally was more convinced with his assessments of Aladdin and Pocohontas, and not so much with The Lion King or Beauty and the Beast). And I do believe that Disney's portrayal of race and gender roles is harmful in contributing the the stereotypes we already have in place. It would be naive to think that a media corporation as large and influencial as Disney should not be held accountable for this. But like I just said - these are stereotypes that I believe have already been present in society before Disney came along. And I'm pretty sure that Giroux would agree with that, but I just don't think that he made that a strong enough point in his article. Instead, I came away with the impression that Disney is evil and Disney alone provided us with all of these skewed images and beliefs of race and gender roles.

In the article, Giroux compared Ariel to an anorexic Barbie figure (or something like that). Before I continue, can I just say that I find it very offensive when people refer to a thin person as being anorexic? Anorexia is a disease - not just the result of a vanity laden female. ANYway, this was one of his criticisms that I didn't find incredibly valid, and not because of his use of the anorexic term. The reason it didn't hold ground with me is because the image of Barbie is one that has been around long before The Little Mermaid was even released. Our society has been overwhelemed for decades with the image of the "perfect" woman, complete with a tiny waste, large breast, and curvy hips. This is nothing new. Sure, one could still argue that Disney is portraying Ariel's body shape as the stereotypical "eye candy" of a woman, but isn't that what we as society expect? In fact, isn't that what we desire? I would argue yes.

I belief that this applies to most of the other areas of Disney films that Giroux criticized - Disney used meanings and beliefs already held by society, rather than Disney implementing them onto society. I guess you could say I'm taking a post-structuralist stance on this. With that being said, I will be the first one to admit that many of Giroux' criticisms (especially that of the opening song in Aladdin) are indeed very troubling. I would like to hope and believe that it is not the Disney corporation as a whole that holds these racist views, and that people like Giroux will continue to hold Disney accountable. Although racial and gender based stereotypes have been accepted as being inevitable in our society, we cannot stop being critical of these media portrayals...no matter how much we want to defend our beloved Disney films, in this case!

"it's what separates us from animals"

My second favorite cartoon of all time has got to be Recess, which I watched faithfully every Saturday morning as a kid (it's second only to Doug, which is in an entirely different category of it's own!). Every episode of Recess provided a glimpse into what culture is and what culture entails. First of all, the kids of the recess playground all shared a set of rules and principles, most of which were put in place by King Bob. According to our reading, that would be an example of hegemony, which Gramsci defines as "a situation where a 'historical bloc' of ruling-class factions exercises social authority and leadership over subordinate classes. This is achieved through a combination of force, and, more importantly, consent" (p. 66). Although the kids sometimes have their qualms with King Bob, they generally abide by his rules without much argument. In addition to the ruling of King Bob, there are also other forms of power within the recess playground, such as the sixth graders having power over the younger grades, and so forth.

What I'd like to focus on most, though, is the ideology that is present on the recess playground. I remembered the perfect episode to illustrate this, titled "Jinxed."



In the very beginning of this episode, we're introduced to the concept of the "kids' unwritten code of honor," which includes rules such as not being a "taker backer," not stepping on cracks, etc. One of these codes, which is what the entire episode is about, is that when you are jinxed you cannot talk until you are unjinxed (which, occurs when someone annouces that you've been jinxed). Anyway, long story short, Gus gets jinxed by the Ashleys and can't talk because of the unwritten code of honor, blah blah blah.

I found this episode to shed light on the concept of ideology, which can be somewhat confusing to understand (especially considering our reading gave about 20 different definitions of it!). According to Gramsci, "ideology is understood in terms of ideas, meanings and practices which, while they purport to be universal truths, are means of meaning that sustain powerful social groups...Ideologies provide people with rules of practical conduct and moral behavior..." (p. 66). Based on that explanation of ideology, I would argue that the "kids' unwritten code of honor" is certainly part of the ideology held by the recess kids. In fact, Gus holds this ideology as being so true that he nearly gets beat up by sixth graders, then caught by Ms. Finster, and the police even show up to take him away! Still, Gus never speaks until TJ unjinxes him.

One of the interesting aspects of ideology is that the group of people following it rarely ask the question of why those are the set of norms. Even in the wake of getting beat up, sent to detention, and taken away by the cops, Gus never questions the code of honor. And because of it, he becomes a hero of the playground in the end.

This episode of Recess and it's portrayal of the concept of ideology can be related to the ideologies we share in today's world. Everywhere we go there seems to be some sort of ideology, whether we realize it or not. It can be in the form of politics, religion, etc. etc. And all cultures have it one form or another. I don't think that there's necessarily anything inherently bad about ideologies as a whole, but I do think that it's very important to be aware that they are very much present within our society. I also believe that ideologies can be dangerous depending on who puts them in place and why. So being aware of the existence of ideologies can help us to make our own decisions about what we believe is right and true. Although, I probably would've done the same thing that Gus did because we all know how brutal kids at recess can be...!

music snob?

You know, the more I read about cultural studies, I realize how dead-on I was in naming this blog "It's All Relative." So far, pretty much every aspect of cultural studies totally confuses me because I can't help but think it all comes down to what perspective you're looking at it from, and I really hate that. My main concern with taking this course has been that I get really frustrated when I don't know what the answer or solution to a particular question/problem is. And the more I read about cultural studies, the more discouraged I seem to become! But maybe that's a good thing. Maybe some things in life really do just come down to what perspective you're viewing it from.

One of the sections in the reading addresses the issue of taste and aesthetic value within culture, which is kind of what I touched on in my previous post. The example used in the reading was soap operas versus fine art, or something like that. My mind automatically began to compare soap operas to the Mona Lisa, and I questioned which is a "real" form of art. Most people would argue that the Mona Lisa is, but why? Is it because that's what their culture has told them? Or because it's "weird" looking so it must be fine art? Or maybe it's because they're embarassed to admit that they're an avid One Life to Live fan. Although (as a former actor) I can't say I'm the biggest fan of soap operas, I would argue that they are indeed a form of art. Maybe not as "good" as the Mona Lisa, but who am I to say that? What constitutes art (or music, literature, etc.) to be "good" or "bad?"

Although some might not consider the arts to be as important as other aspects of culture such as religion and politics, I personally consider it to be a crucial part of culture and of humanity as a whole. Something that I tend to struggle with is being (what I refer to others as, but certainly not myself, haha) a music snob or a movie snob. For example, I like to think that I listen to "good" music, but do I consider it "good" because that's what I personally like listening to? Or do I consider it to be good because of the instrumental and lyrical value? For me, it's a little bit of both. I truly enjoy listening to and learning about music that is unique, beautiful, and challenging. So does that mean that my music preference is better than someone who listens to the Pussycat Dolls or LFO? Well.....yes and no :)

That's where my struggle is. A huge part of me thinks that MY music is better for a myriad of different reasons. But the person who listens to LFO could make a similar argument (...I guess). And then there's the question of entertainment value when it comes to music. While I am entertained by bands like the Smiths and the Arcade Fire, someone else might find it boring and/or "weird." And I am also entertained by artists like Lady Gaga and Britney Spears, which some MUSIC SNOBS might consider a travesty. Hm....I think I may have just answered my own question...

Bottom line: I certainly believe that some music (and films) carry with them a more advanced artistic value. But, I cannot bring myself to say that certain forms or art are better than others because, well, it's all relative. And, it's all a part of culture. For something to be a part of culture doesn't mean that it has to be the "Mona Lisa" of it's particular category. This is along the lines of the stance that Raymond Williams took when it came to the nature of culture - "...it is always both traditional and creative; that it is both the most ordinary common meanings and the finest individual meanings" (page 41). Now I know that I'm stretching it a bit by using music as the example because by "traditional" Williams is referring to the working man's everyday life patterns, but at least I know what I'm talking about (haha). I guess my point is that no aspect of culture is necessarily better or "more cultured" than another. Or, at least I think so....?? Ugh.

Anyway, to illustrate my thoughts, here are two songs/music videos to check out. I'll let you notice the difference. Which do you prefer?

turning over a new leaf.

Hi! And welcome to my new and improved blog. My name is Gracie. I started this blog about a year ago for personal use, which never happened, so it ended up being recycled into a film blog for a course called Art of Film. Please don't even bother reading those posts because to be completely honest, they're crap. I really didn't put the time and effort into them that I should have (I can say that now because I already got my grade in that course, haha!). So now this blog is going to be recycled yet again...even though the original title of "sassy and classy" doesn't exactly relate to the new subject matter :) Actually, I guess it could, if I really wanted to dig deep into how our culture defines the word "classy," and how it's generally used to describe a particular type of woman, but we'll save that for another time.

This blog will now be dedicated to material related to the media and cultural studies, i.e. race, class, gender, etc. etc. I'm really going to try to relate my posts to issues that I am personally interested in, which can range from politics to pop culture to religion to how to find the perfect pair of jeans. Oh, and p.s., my writing style is usually pretty conversational, so I am very aware that the past sentence was a very hideous run-on.

Okay, let's get to business. I just finished reading Barker's introduction to cultural studies, and it was incredibly boring. Informative, but boring. One of the general themes throughout the whole chapter, and of cultural studies in general, is the idea that social meaning is created through symbols and signs, aka language. This is a concept that I first learned in a Communication Across Cultures course, and it really changed my entire perspective of the concept of communication. Sure, communicating with other cultures is a difficult task, but it just amazes me how communication between human beings has evolved into what it is today. Whether it's words or numbers or hand gestures...every single "form" of communication we have has in one way or another been created by humankind. And then to top that off, different cultures have their different ways of communicating meaning, and, sometimes the meanings are all together different. Does that make sense? Well, here are some illustrations to sort of show one of the many aspects of how meaning is created through communication, rather than being universally static.

The picture above (from http://www.flickr.com/) is a portrait of a Venetian woman from the 16th century. She is clearly overweight and pale. Sorry for the bluntness, but it's true. That is what was considered to be beautiful during that time. Being overweight signified that one was healthy and had plenty to eat, which meant that they were rich. Being thin, however, showed that one did not have enough to eat, and hence they were most likely poor. Also, being as light-skinned as possible was considered beautiful, and (I believe) that dark skin was associated with slavery. (FYI, I didn't exactly research that last paragraph, it's all going off knowledge I've gathered over the years. So please correct me if I'm wrong!!)

Obviously we all know who is in the picture above. It's the dutchess of pop herself, Britney Spears. Yes, I am a fan, get over it. Britney is pretty much the posterchild for what we consider "beautiful" today. She is thin, tan, and promiscuous (I was actually thinking about showing a picture of Paris Hilton because she is even more thin and tan, but she's also kind of fug if you ask me). Anyway, my point is that over the last few centuries, the concept of what is beautiful has changed drastically. And changes like that take place all around us, all of the time. What do we consider to be good, or evil? What does it really mean to be smart, or successful? And my personal favorite, what does it mean to be politically correct?

It just goes to show you that communication between society is an evolving process, and many (including myself) would argue that the mass media plays a huge role in that. Hopefully through keeping this blog and taking this course I will be able to learn and uncover even more about this process! That's all for now, ta-ta.

(image of Britney Spears is from Rolling Stone Magazine, found it on a google image search)