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.


Sunday, September 15, 2013

Parks & Rec & Representation

I have to say it was a bit of a surprise to go back to the pilot of one of my favorite shows, which I hadn't seen since it first premiered, and seen how far it's come. I suppose that's one of the great things about television- at its best, you can see it evolve into something that gets better and better. When the pilot started out, my first thought was of course how striking a difference there was between Leslie Knope and Mrs. Nelson, the leading lady of the show we had just finished watching. Here was a woman who was a happy representative of the government, a far cry from Mrs. Nelson's happy home turf. As the show got going, though, I wondered what sort of point it was trying to make about women in government. Leslie's big accomplishment is getting a drunk man out of a slide ("We did it!"), and when she is later about to begin an assembly, the lights cut out on her before she can get going. We next see her meeting has been crammed into an elementary school classroom. I couldn't help wondering if this was supposed to be symbolic: Leslie first being seen as ineffective, then childish. Each of the male characters fall into the popular stereotypes of the day, some of which are mentioned by Diane Negra and Yvonne Trasker in their article: there's Andy the man-child, Tom the pervy funny guy, Ron the man's man, and Mark the nice guy. While I still laughed at a lot of the jokes in this episode, it was weird to see how much these characters' attitudes towards Leslie have changed (for the better). For instance, it's funny to think that the Ron who called Leslie "insatiable, like a little dog with a chew toy," would later walk her down the aisle after forging her a wedding ring. I think Ben is a nice change from Mark, whose role seemed to be the guy who felt bad for Leslie and pulled strings behind her back so she could feel good about herself. (This is an interesting contrast to the lead in Hung, at least: neither of them initially remember having slept with the female lead, while Leslie is portrayed as slightly-obsessed about it and Tania is likewise a horny weirdo.) I appreciated Sady Doyle's article for showing how Leslie has progressed from being the butt of the joke to the heart of the show. I'm not quite sure yet how I feel about the revelation that one of the show's writers is a raging misogynist creep. It's usually pretty easy for me to separate author from content, but I can't help feeling like Doyle would say I'm putting blinders on. Maybe that writer works on Tom, who I have to say has never been my favorite character. That would make sense.
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. UnknownSeptember 15, 2013 at 3:43 PM

    I had a very similar reaction to watching the Parks and Rec pilot, in that I was taken aback by how much the show has changed since it first aired. While I thoroughly enjoyed it, I couldn't ignore the stereotypical roles both the men and women play in the episode. From Leslie being wrapped up in a man who doesn't remember (or care to remember) having any kind of relationship with her, to Ann making food and dealing with the household tasks for her lazy boyfriend, it made me question whether the show's female lead was the only "feminist" aspect. Like Chelsea, I also took into consideration how much the show has progressed. Leslie, who in the pilot is represented as a joke and essentially useless, transforms into a powerful woman, respected by those around her. However, many of the other females in the show don't, in my opinion, have the same kind of character development. For example, Ann Perkins begins as the dutiful girlfriend and becomes a single girl, desperate for a child and on a dire search for a man to grant her this wish. But maybe I'm reading too into it, as other females, such as April, are dominant in their relationships with men. I also find that it's hard in comedies such as this to recognize whether or not gender stereotyping is an unintentional result of our society, or if it's purposely included for the sake of irony and humor. For example, in The Adventures of Ozzy and Harriet, the woman as the homemaker was obviously to be taken seriously, as it was a reflection of reality in the 1950s. But in Parks and Rec, is Leslie being obsessed with a man who doesn't care about her supposed to be recognized as an funny, ironic stereotype? Or is it meant to be recognized as reality? Either way, even if it is meant to be laughed at, I'm still not sure that that makes it okay or progressive.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)