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)