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!!