Course Description

At the core of the course is the question how feminism has become a demonized and ridiculed “F-word” in an age when issues of gender and sexuality are at the center of constant, often explosive political debates. These debates often connect media representation and political representation but tend to do so in simplistic ways that bypass or distort decades of sophisticated feminist theory and practice. We will trace back such representations through the decades around case studies that encompass film, video, television and new media practices. The case studies come from the United States and beyond, taking into full account the global interconnectedness of media production and consumption as well as the transnational travel of feminist ideas. The main goal of the course is to evaluate how useful feminist thinking is to understanding the relays between media and political representation; and to develop a lasting critical apparatus to analyzing the politics of gender and sexuality in the media.


Monday, September 16, 2013

Feminist approach and victimzed men



In “Women and representation: Can we enjoy alternative pleasure” Gaines examines the gaps between feminist approach in terms of suggesting a new relation of the gaze on screen and the pleasure of women- spectators. As Gaines points out, feminist film theory in an attempt to struggle for the equality of the sexual representation in mainstream cinema and television suggests an alternative representation of woman; rather than being represented as “to-be-looked-at” object, women should be the subject of the gaze. While film feminists have intellectually pursued the “correct” formula for film practice, it is the fact that women – averaged spectators- enjoy the traditional representation of themselves and are not ready for an alternative representation because the former has brought them pleasure. Therefore, Gaines concludes “the “correct’ formula for alternative feminist film practice, the rearrangement of the “relation of looking,” and the rejection of closure offer feminists a rather tight-lipped satisfaction.”

Gaines’s work productively engages with Negra and Tasker’s article, Neoliberal frames and genres of inequality. Their focus in this article is on the gender representations in the two sub-genre, recession – era chick flicks and male-centred corporate melodrama. In these genres, men are usually represented as victims; they are in economic and emotional crisis and ask women around them for help. The images of victimized men can be found in the two shows that we watched in class -  Ray in Hung and the nurse’s boyfriend in Parks and Recreation. Their redundancies are comically exploited in the favor of feminist senses. While enjoying the feminist quality in the representation of men as victims in these shows, I cannot help thinking that women like the poet and Ray’s wife in Hung and the nurse and Leslie are also victims because they have to “forced” to be heroes for men. To understand my feel, it might be helpful to turn to Gaines’ point: as a female spectator, I am not ready for the subversion of the representation of women; so I did not have the “pleasure” in its true sense when watching the shows.

No comments:

Post a Comment