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, October 21, 2013

Representation in Television: Are you a “Woman”?


All of this discussion regarding representation in the media has got me thinking about all of the different definitions that come to mind when we use the word “woman”. From the classic 1950s housewife, to a character like Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids, it is clear that the term “woman” can be made applicable to a huge variety of subjects. How can a term be so vague and resemble so many different personalities and character types? In answer to this question, I have a quote from lecture last week that I believe to be quite insightful: “Representation is equated with recognition and validations that different social groups in society exist and that their stories are important”. This is in essence stating that representation is acknowledging all of the sub groups under the term “woman”, and that these sub groups are all equally as important as one another.  “Gender and Family in Television’s Golden Age and Beyond” by Andrea Press, describes how television has control over representation of minorities as it can show anything from lesbian relationships in The “L” Word, to the female figures in Sex and The City who find empowerment in acting like male counterparts. Sex and The City shows women who pride themselves in being career focused and far from the submissive relationship-obsessed female stereotype, whilst The “L” Word shows lesbians as a group of people, rather than “others” and helps to normalize the gay community. Despite this vast range of television representations, an issue with these post-feminist responses is that they all resemble middle class white females. The term “woman” on television when it comes to representation almost never refers to an African American leading role, or a female representing any other minority; this representation ignore the fact that there are lesbians in the world from absolutely every race and background. So in response to this, how can all of the sub-groups under the term “women” be equally important to one another if some are hardly ever represented? In my opinion, prime-time television shows are focusing too much on appealing to a target audience and making people believe that they are progressive in their representation techniques, whilst not being realistic by narrow-casting the typical middle class white woman. I find it most interesting that they can have so many different types of “woman” on television, without paying equal attention to every race and background purely based on the fact that this wont get as high of a rating. 

No comments:

Post a Comment