New Ratings System Against Gender Bias?

Wanted to share this article I just read, about how Sweden will be implementing a new ratings system to measure gender equality onscreen...definitely provides some food for thought! Does this actually measure bias? Is the ratings system itself flawed? Or is this the necessary and pragmatic first steps we are seeing towards more inclusive and equal cinematic representations...?


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/06/swedish-cinemas-bechdel-test-films-gender-bias?CMP=fb_gu

Teaching Project Topic: Popular Music and Post-Feminism

Izzy Albert and I are collaborating on a teaching project that focuses on the relationship between popular music and post-feminism. Please let us know if you have any suggestions or if you would be interested in collaborating with us.
 

An article by Kelsey Wallace at Bitch Media in 2009 raised the question: "Are there any pop stars out there right now who are holding it down for feminism? Where have all the riot grrrls gone?" She then refers to an article written in the Houston Chronicle that mentions the association of artists like The Veronicas, Katy Perry and Lady Gaga with a "post-feminist" label "without there being much evidence for the claim."

In our teaching project, we will address Wallace's question outright by first exploring feminist icons of generations past and the reasons behind their their feminist associations. Then, we will address icons that are frequently associated with post-feminism today (Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, Beyonce) and address potential aspects that have often placed them within a post-feminist mindset. Lastly, we will look to the class to assist in establishing a profile of what a musician must accomplish in order to accurately represent the post-feminist outlook and create a list of artists who may uphold that profile.

"Where Have All The Riot Grrls Gone? Pop Music And Post-Feminism"
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/where-have-all-the-riot-grrrls-gone-pop-music-and-post-feminism

-Marisa Okano

PR and Feminism

            As a public relations major, I found that our last class discussion hit very close to home. Public relations is dominated by the female labor force. Every single internship I have had during my college career, I have had a female boss. If I’m not working with females, I find myself working with gay men. Why does PR have this feminine dominance? I’m not sure. However, Samantha Jones from “Sex and the City” certainly springs to mind. Her job is portrayed as going to extravagant parties, looking good and having a lot of sex – not much knowledge required there. Because the field is usually portrayed in the media as all play and no work, (which, trust me, it’s not) I propose that society deems it more acceptable for women to join this field and move up in rankings.

            The idea of a free female labor force also strongly applies to public relations. I have taken on three unpaid internships – mostly because the communications industry is notorious for not paying their interns. Yet, I have had to pay for the classes required to get internship credit, the gas for my car and daily parking. At my current internship, I see exploitation occurring everyday, mostly due to understaffing. For example, the four people on my team that I work with (both assistants and executives) work from 8:30am to 6:00pm plus late night screenings and events (which occur almost everyday). Just last weekend, they worked from 9 to 6 on both Saturday and Sunday as well. (I also was asked to work these days as an intern, which left very little time for any type of school work). I find this exploitation of female labor unfair. It leaves very little time for any type of personal life or social interaction beyond the scope of work.   

Most recently, the publicity industry in particular has been dominated by social media. As we discussed in class, it is not only an option but a requirement to have almost every type of social network if you want to make it in this field. I believe this form of branding and self-promotion can be very useful to an extent. You can tell a lot about a person from looking on their Facebook or Twitter accounts. However, this form of self-branding only works when you are completely aware that you are self-branding. Just one picture on Facebook can tarnish your image. What’s more, is that even when you un-tag yourself from an image, the picture is still out there floating around in cyber space. Yet, I think that building your own brand, on your own time, as a woman is empowering, and social media has been a key medium that has helped women advance in the workplace, especially in PR.

We like Leslie Knope, right?

While researching for my class presentation on Mad Women, I read Emily Nussbaum's article in The New Yorker about the "hummingbird." And since we watched the pilot of Parks and Rec earlier this semester I have subsequently caught myself up to season five of the series. I am hooked (and think that Amy Poehler is a goddess) and can't stop watching, laughing, yada yada. But it got me thinking about Leslie Knope and her hummingbird qualities: needy, manipulative, but with only good intentions. She is selfish when it comes to her personal capabilities, such as stating her confidence as a candidate for city council, but she is not a selfish person. She is a wonderful friend and honestly cares and puts in an incredible amount of effort in the lives of those she loves. She's annoying and incessantly perky, yet a woman to root for.

And being a critical studies student doomed for eternity to overanalyze anything I watch, I started to think about what this representation of a woman means. It is positive in some ways (re: Leslie Knope): she's confident, assertive, unafraid to stand up for what she believes in. Yet, it also feels negative: perky, annoying, "idealistic feminist dreamers whose personalities are irritants," says Nussbaum. While the hummingbirds are trying to do well for themselves and those around them, they almost can't be taken seriously. Nussbaum asks near the end of her article about male hummingbirds--which could be seen as Rob Lowe in Parks and Rec but not as strong of a case as Leslie Knope (they also must be protagonists Nussbaum says). It seems almost impossible that a male protagonist would have this personality and personal drive. Is the hummingbird inevitably feminine? And does that make it a bad thing? Are we containing female drive and success within this representation to make it easier to understand and cope with? I think it's too early to say. I'm unsure exactly the implications that arise from the hummingbird archetype but in the meantime will keep watching Parks and Rec and keep you posted.

Disney Princess Presentation

Saw this and thought it might be interesting for those doing the Disney princess class presentation!

http://www.womenyoushouldknow.net/flatten-heroine-artist-puts-disney-princess-filter-10-real-life-female-role-models/

Merida Made Over

While doing some research for our group's teaching project (on Disney Princesses), I came across the controversy that had occurred this past May-- when Merida, the red-headed heroine of the Pixar animated film 'Brave' was officially crowned Disney's 11th princess. 
Having watched the film when it had first come out in 2012, I remember noticing right away that this particular Disney film, unlike past ones, actually sent a decent message to young girls-- one that didn't follow the all-too-well-known clichés of 'just look pretty,' 'find yourself a prince,' 'damsel in distress,' 'happily ever after,' etc. It was refreshing to see such a novel break away from the traditional line of Disney princesses. Sadly, I find out today that Disney's supposed new sense of 'female empowerment' was nothing but a short-lived fantasy. 
I'm a little late joining the band wagon and had not been fully aware of Merida's 'royal induction' until now. But like many others, I'm extremely disappointed to see that Disney has once again copped out-- making a once unique, vibrant, and realistically looking girl over into a flawless plastic looking one with the eyes, hair, and body type of any other ordinary pretty princess. As Brenda Chapman, co-director of the film puts it in her interview with IndieWire, Disney has "betrayed the essence of what [they] were trying to do with Merida -- give young girls and women a stronger role model." The makeover is just another "blatantly sexist move to make money."

Here's a link to one of the many posts on the story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/merida-brave-makeover_n_3238223.html

… Just something to think about.

-- Pamela Chan

Editing out Female Masturbation

I recently read on article on bitchmagazine.org. about an episode of a new TV show called Reign, where a scene of a female masturbating was edited out. However, the rest of the show is peppered with violence, profanity, rape and graphic sex. Why is female masturbation considered to be such a taboo? Why is it unhealthy for viewers to witness this, but not to witness all the other atrocities shown on the show?

The comments section on this article provided many interesting views on this issue, and very divided opinions. This division emphasizes the absurdity of demonizing female masturbation before other activities that are clearly more detrimental to society, such as rape. One comment said that they believed that female masturbation is taboo because it involves a female pleasuring herself entirely independent of men and this makes it intimidating to men. I believe that this is a valid argument as it involves a woman taking charge of her needs and wants and catering to this without the help of a man. 

While there isn’t too much male masturbation shown on television or in film, it is definitely more prevalent than female masturbation and referred to a lot more. When it is referred to, it is often joked and laughed about even on family shows and it is deemed somewhat acceptable because “boys will be boys”. This shows that it is not so much solo pleasure that shocks society, but specifically female masturbation.

I think to a certain extent this taboo extends from the retrograde notion that women are there for men - they are there to please them and look after them in all aspects of life. Traditionally, they are supposed to make a nice home for their man to live in, raise a lovely and obedient family and be a supportive partner and lover. Despite how progressive our society has become I think that masturbation, an act that is purely selfish, as seen being done by a women shocks society as we unconsciously still harbor some belief that women should be serving men. This solo act provides no service to men - in fact, it makes slightly irrelevant the thing they hold most dear; the penis - and I believe this can be intimidating and shocking to both men and women.

Everybody Is A Little Gay

Who knew pageant diva “Honey Boo Boo” was also a Gay rights activist? She’s an activist, at least, for her gay “Uncle Poodle”. Alanna states that “everybody is a little gay” and “there aint nothing wrong with being gay”. This scene in Here Comes Honey Boo Boo - when Alanna talks about her “Uncle Poodle” - shows a child that is so interested in her uncle because of his sexual orientation. We often see in society that people will refer to their gay friends, family, and other members of the community and say that they love them for who they are regardless of whether or not they are gay. However, in the clip from Honey Boo Boo, we see that she loves her Unlce BECAUSE he is gay. This line between acceptance “despite” and acceptance “because” makes Alanna/Honey Boo Boo, to me, a remarkable human being, and shows a young girl who – as we often see has absolutely no filter – is using her fame in a positive light, whether she is too young to realize it or not. 

Academic labors - bloggers, female facebook users and salers and feminism

                I want to highlight two aspects that I found particularly compelling (and related to my personal experience and interest) in this week's readings. The first is the issue of feminist labors using blogs and websites for self-presenting and self-branding in the academic areas. In their writing, Juhasz and Banet-Weiser claim that “if a person’s blog or website were considered part of their academic project, or if the job asked for proficiency in these technologies, then these practices should be included as alternative forms of scholarship.” (p. )  While I share with them the perspective that the internet offers feminists the place to gain “voice” and “visibility,” I hesitate to embrace their claim above. From the perspective of a graduate student who considers feminism as a field of my academic interest, I found a dilemma in this claim. On the one hand, feminists can earn benefits from the internet – a virtual space. On the other hand, to gain such benefits, they have to sacrifice their time and energy learning extra technological knowledge and skills to maintain their jobs in the workplace just as other white-collar workers in the media industries have to spend a large amount of time on social networks, such as Gregg carefully analyzed.

                Second, regarding social networks, I would like to bring up here an aspect of female laboring in these spaces. Van Zoonen proposes that  “the political new economy of the Internet hat primarily tends to construct women as online consumers” therefore, many companies encourage their employees to take advantages of friendships in social networks to develop their business (Gregg). In the sphere of online business, small-scale business taken over by young-mothers as a way to increase the income for family because of the economic recession should be examined. Within the past two years, the sudden emergence of personal business on Facebook has paralleled the dramatic inflation in Vietnam. It is worth noting that 19.6 million people, equal to 21.42 percent of population, 71,4 percent of them internet users, have Facebook accounts (from the Information Technology News website). Among about 500 friends of mine on Facebook, one fifth of them try to sell goods on Facebook. Most of them are young mothers; very few are men and single females. They either have separate Facebook accounts for their personal business or are using their own Facebook to promote products which includes wide varieties: cosmetics, clothes, medicines, food and ect. None of them are housewives; instead, they have their own jobs – usually working in governmental sectors with low income. In the grey context of the economy, both men and women face the salary-cut and hardly can find a substitute income for their family.  However, it seems that women have more chances to do small-scale business on  social networks because they have an available community that they share information and experiences with everyday. Furthermore, as Gregg points out, online business is somehow a type of “emotional marketing” which is more suitable for women. This phenomenon stroke into my mind as an example of the way social networks are not only constructed for female consumer-orientation but also for female-labor – orientation which puts more financial burden on women besides the heavy domestic workload that they already have to take care of. Ironically, their work have been not counted as a type of laboring. In this sense, these women are "invisible" and not being taken into account when the government assess their incomes and financial contributions.

Queer Identities

With the ever increasing amount of gay representation shown on television today, there has also been a dramatic shift in the way the gay or lesbian character has been showcased on prime-time television. In the beginning of gay representation, the gay character was stereotyped as "tragic," having gone through a major "coming out" moment full of initial rejection (such as Jack McPhee on Dawson's Creek) and eventually coming to terms with this "plague." It's nearly impossible to find LGBT characters that are already out and proud by the time their character is introduced in the storyline. However, this is changing in today's medium. Television is working towards "normalizing" the gay character and has been trying to do so through shows like Modern Family as well as coming out with programs targeted towards gay audiences such as Queer as Folk and The L Word (although these shows were never aired on network cable television) and networks geared specifically towards gays such as Bravo and LOGO. However, there is still need for improvement in queer representation (specifically in the gay male character). There are only two types of gay characters: the first being the witting, feminine gay and the other is overtly masculine. This said, the masculine gay is usually seen as a "special" character that only appears every so often or on a single episode. The overtly feminine (often described as "bitchy") gay is usually a regular and reoccurring character who is often seen as a pawn for setting up jokes regarding his sexuality. He is predominately laughed at and not with and therefor makes homosexuality a character flaw leaving the character powerless. 

Press and the Golden Age

After reading Press's piece on the "golden age" of television, it's hard to judge just how much we've progressed along the years. LIke the piece mentioned, it is almost impossible to think about early television (let alone early television feminists) and not like of Lucile Ball in I Love Lucy. Even as a 50s housewife, Lucy "never gave up her repeated attempts to escape the confines of her domestic situation to enter show business, start a business, get a job" and so on. Shortly after the reign of Lucy came the "golden age" of television where a more accurate depiction of women was replaced with a "plethora of white, middle-class families showcasing very simple problems (happy people with happy problems)." This is where we saw the Brady Bunch type of families. It wasn't until postfeminism television did views see a different view of family dynamic, and I believe the best example of this is Roseanne Barr's take of the modern family in her self titled television series. She was one of the first women on television to paint a realistic picture of the working class/blue collar family dealing with real issues. There was no veil or fake image of what a middle aged woman (who also happened to be a mother and a wife) should act like, but instead felt more relatable. It was as if she captured the image of the real working class woman and not this ideal image of what middle-class woman should aspire to be. Best of all, she portrayed this image through comedy, proving that women, in their realistic image, can be funny.  

McRobbie and Consumer Culture

While television is constantly changing and constantly being adapted to the feminist gaze, programing can only go so far until inherent ideals of feminism turns into ideals of consumption. Yes, television is changing with the times (women in Western cultures are becoming better educated, maintaining lasting careers, and delaying maternity), however, a show with feminist overtones may have increasingly stronger opposing undertones. The best demonstration of this is found with in the shows Sex and the City and Girls. 

Both shows are about living an idealistic lifestyle as a white, upper-middle class cis-gendered woman. In Sex and the City, the four main characters all start out as confident, single, working professionals, but the viewer leans that each character is inherently weak. To be successful you also must uphold this image that is attained only by living in New York City, being successful, and being a consumer. We should work hard so that we can purchase our Manolo Blahniks and our Birkin bags. You work hard so that you can afford all these consumer items that every woman wants and the most dignified and professional woman already owns. 

Girls is a very interesting show. It is written, directed by, and stars a woman, which in itself is a very positive step in the right feminist direction. However, the values are incredibly dated. Once again, there is no diversity; the show stars four educated white woman from upper-middle class backgrounds. Although they all have received a college education and live one of the most progressive cities in the world, their lives are consumed with the idea of finding the perfect man and living an unrealistic life adventure. 

The Fractured Internet and Feminism

When reading that women are targeted as consumers and online-shoppers in the van Zoonen article, I immediately reflected back to a Political Science class I took a couple semesters ago called Campaign Messaging taught by Dan Schnur, the director of the Unruh Institute of Politics and a former political / campaign strategist. In the class we had to outline different messaging plans for political campaigns. When discussing social media as a political tool, the obvious sites were brought up (facebook, twitter, etc.), but the website Pinterest was discussed specifically as a way to target female voters. The reasoning behind this was because it is geared primarily as a site of consumerism.

I have a Pinterest account. I love it. No I do not have a wedding board. I did, however, log on and browse through the different users, only to find that it is indeed mostly occupied by female users. Putting the website into the context of post-feminism, which internet itself supports because of its potential of space--welcome to anyone, I find that it doesn't support the idea of women having a "choice" between remaining at home or joining the working class. There are boards for arts and crafts, cooking, photography, fashion, hair and beauty, and the infamous wedding board. In a way, the site tries to reduce the lives of women to various objects. Women pin the objects they like or desire and so are fueled into a consumer craze. Many a time have I repinned a new pair of shoes and then gone out that weekend to buy a pair in the same style.

Where does that leave feminism in the scope of the internet, then? If even politicians have gotten wind of the transferal of the female as TV consumer to Internet consumer, is there any hope for a female space untainted by patriarchal paradigms? The website Vitamin W comes to mind, which is another bookmark tab on my screen. The sites own description is as follows:

 VITAMIN W is a women-owned media platform delivering thoughtful news for professional women, from entrepreneurship to politics to sports, health, interviews, editorials, and more.

Wait a minute. Professional women? What about the women who remain at home? Are they relegated to Pinterest forevermore? Perhaps the internet is even more divided than we would have it believe, as Juhasz and Banet-Weiser discuss when they say feminism through the internet has become an individual venture. The internet has become, I suspect, as fractured as feminism continues to become. The only way for feminism to thrive, Juhasz and Banet-Weiser note, is through communal efforts.

-Victoria Hallebo

"Do What U Want"/ Self Branding

            After listening to Lady Gaga’s new single, Do What U Want, I immediately thought of our class discussions. As Lady Gaga has become a role model for feminists, even creating her own category of “Gaga Feminism,” I was at first shocked at the lyrics. Her lyrics state, “Write what you want, say what you want about me. If you’re wondering know that I’m not sorry. Do what you want, what you want with my body, what you want with my body.” Confused at the fact that Gaga would never merely sexually objectify herself, I began to analyze the lyrics further. I began to realize that Gaga was not literal when she was speaking “do what you want with my body”; instead metaphorically. Gaga is suggesting that she is more than just the “body” that the media seems to be focused on. She’s suggesting that the media can say/do whatever they want to this “body,” because they are simply just shallow.  

            This relates to Weisers article, “Feminist Labor in Media Studies/Communication: Is Self- Branding Feminist Practice?” Gaga has definitely made a self-brand of herself and a strong force in the feminist movement. The article states, “Feminism helps us to understand self-empowerment as a part of larger processes that move in three directions: toward building community (enabling other’s voices and connected varied forms of expression); speaking critique that is grounded in personal experience (the feminist adage of the “personal is political” is even more heightened in the neoliberal university); and making change accordingly.” I believe Gaga successfully has branded herself to achieve these three goals of feminism, as her lyrics express critique from her experiences, as well as creating a huge following, which shares and expresses her ideas. 

Self-branding in Media

Self-branding is one of many aspects that one can achieve through social media.
Almost everyone has Facebook, Twitter, or Youtube account and those who choose to use these as a mean of self-branding can find many ways to express oneself.
So far, most feminist movements were constisted of struggling for space "that has historically been inaccessible" (Weiser). However, through social media, self-branding has become more accessible.
In her essay, Weiser asks where the end of this "to-be-looked-at-ness" is since feminism seeks gainig space to talk and be heard.

While there is no answer to where the end of this may be, I think these "to-be-looked-at-ness" will continue to grow as more people get their hands on social media. Since social media can be used for light purposes, it would be easier for people to express their opions in a more light way while still making a statement. In the past, one had to go through many hardships in order to attain more space for women and their place; however, the space is already given nowadays. Self-branding has become easier than ever. But my question is, what possible problems may be caused by self-branding through social media? Would it hold the same weight as branding oneself in formal, professional manners?
How can self-branding through social media help feminists to grow their power in society? How much growth is left for feminism?

New Media and Feminism: Emphasis On Content, not Form

      While reading this weeks assigned articles, one of the arguments Van Zoonen’s brings to the table sparked a thought about form versus content for me. While the author lays out the argument of the Internet as a feminine medium because the experience’s “immersion in its textual, virtual realities” is reminiscent of the “fetus of the womb,” I couldn’t help but question the point of the argument. The Internet has a variety of forms, from video clips, to blogs, to social networking sites, there are far too many variations of media forms within the form of the internet. As such, a focus on content is more important and accurate. While Zoonen’s argument addresses the overarching experience of browsing the Internet not the individual forms within the  Internet, it’s also somewhat invalid to umbrella the experience under such broad strokes because of the different forms within the umbrella term of “the Internet.” The Internet, at least in its current state, cannot be quantified and studied as precisely as other media content like television or magazines. Furthermore when analyzing content within a feminist framework, the emphasis should be on the content, not the form. Whether the Internet, on a Freudian psychoanalytical level is a feminine experience or not is irrelevant. The content being uploaded, streamed, commented on etc. and its gendered implications are where the focus of observation should hone in on instead. 

Self-Branding and the Internet

            Self-branding and the advantages or disadvantages of feminism and the Internet was the premise of this week’s readings. The question on whether or not the Internet has been more of an empowering place for women is a question I can honestly say I am still pondering. On the one hand, the Internet gives those who have access to it the freedom to express themselves in any way they choose. Women however, as Van Zoonen points in this week’s readings, are targeted as consumers and online shoppers. I for example, will admit to being a fan of online shopping. I log into my Facebook and on the advertisements on the side, will be ads for websites I visit, inviting me back to buy those pair of boots I have been eyeing, with free shipping of course if I click on the link on my Facebook home page. As traditional forms of marketing such as television advertisements is no longer profitable with the lack of commercial viewing, there is an obvious need to market consumer’s in another way. However, there is a palpable feeling that women are only seen as consumers despite the freedom the Internet gives to those with access.

            Also mentioned this week is this idea of self-branding and how women craft their identities in this current movement of online interactivity and post-feminism. As we read this week, all those things we put into branding products, we are able to employ ourselves on the Internet to self-brand. Through websites such as Twitter and Facebook, we construct ourselves as a brand with recognizable names, logos and through feedback from social media websites for instance. To put post-feminism and self-branding in conversation with one another, I think there is a certain pleasure that women have with this freedom to put anything online for global display that Sarah Banet-Weiser talks about in another article I read outside of class titled “Branding the Post-Feminist Self: Girls’ Video Production and YouTube” in which Banet-Weiser talks about the Internet environment, an environment that makes total sense for women to call themselves a brand. Banet-Weiser’s conclusion is that this new media landscape gives this promise that power relations between those who control the Internet and those who consume it are collapsed with the posting of videos on YouTube for example. However, I cannot help but think of the danger that comes with girls bodies becoming commodities in a situation such as the YouTube craze Banet-Weiser puts up in this particular article. Their bodies become a product leaving viewers of their views the power to give feedback on their bodies, which despite the freedom, is problematic.