Teaching Project Reading - Women & Nation

Hello everyone!
(This is a re-post with our UPDATED reading, sorry about that other link before!)

For our CTCS 412 Teaching project, our group will be focusing on the representation of Women & Nation in media. We will be exploring major themes such as Women & Nationalism, Women & The Government, as well as Women in the Modern World. 

Here is the reading that we ask for you to read before our presentation on Monday, 12/2/2013. Since there aren't very many short readings that focus on women in media from multiple countries, we wanted you all to please read this article with the focus on the concept of Women & Nationalism (based on the Third Word history background). This reading is about the Feminism & Nationalism in the Third World, particularly focusing on South East Asia. 

Please click on the title link as it will direct you to a academia site. You may experience a pop-up asking if you'd like to download a PDF version of this reading, you may if you wish, but you could also just exit out that screen and there will be a digital online preview as well.

TITLE: "A Great Way to Fly" Nationalism, the State, and the Varieties of Third-World Feminism

AUTHOR: Geraldine Heng

Thank you class! 

Sincerely,

Qui Ha, EunSun, & Ting Ting

Despite learning so much this semester, I still can't define Feminism (read: no one can)

"If we were to concede the claims that [critiquing] articles make about feminism, then a feminist is someone who cannot be ambitious at the same time that she must be and all the while as she alienates women of color and women in low-income brackets." Gloria Yu

A friend of mine from NYU wrote this article about how it is so difficult to write about or discuss levels of feminism because the term itself is inherently undefinable and not static.  I completely agree.  I think that part of the reason celebrities deny that they are feminists or evade the question is because they either don't really know the meaning of the word or know how muddled the general consensus of the term is and do not want to fall under any negative connotation.  

The part of the article I don't necessarily agree with, or truly understand, is the theory Yu discusses that feminism is only for white women.  Perhaps, as a white woman myself, I have not noticed the term as being particularly ethnically divided as it stands in use today.  That is not to say that I have been oblivious to the constructs of the term: that most waves of the movement evolved in first-world urban communities and were largely led by well-off caucasian women.  However, I don't think the term inherently is any more black or white (double meaning intended).  As I understand it, feminism aims to further the progress of women regardless of race or socioeconomic background, even if those leading the movement at each of its stages were not making strides conducive to the betterment of ALL women. 

In general, I do not think the term aims to intentionally exclude anyone.  Yu goes on to say that "There is no convergence over whether feminism is in itself is ostracizing precisely because nobody knows what the word means."  So, are we all off the hook then? Or is this a call to action for society to finally make an understandable definition that includes all women of all types?  

Link to the article:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gloria-yu/giving-feminism-meaning_b_3857033.html

Consumerism and Feminism Teaching Project

Hi guys! Hope everyone had a relaxing Thanksgiving :).

Below are our required (brief, we promise!) readings for our teaching project!

Article on Tina Fey:
http://www.blogher.com/tina-fey-fallen-feminist-icon-or-just-what-we-need?from=bottom

Article on Miley and Lily Allen:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/leave-miley-and-lily-alone-the-shock-new-faces-of-feminism-8944619.html

We may update this with more suggested readings and questions to ponder before our presentation.

Also, if you have time on the plane, train, or automobile, check out the documentary "Miss. Representation" available on Netlifx (and possibly iTunes and Amazon), which is a very interesting perspective on consumerism and women in the media, particularly regarding pop culture icons and politicians.

Thanks!
Leilani and Natalie

After seeing the Queerbaiting Lesson,

Growing up in Korean culture, the appearance of queer characters on TV was something that really shocked me when I first came to the states. As I became used to American culture, I thought that America is generally open to queers and that their representation on media proves that.

However, after the lesson on queers in media this week, my thoughts have changed again.
I now see how most of the queer characters in the media are in this 'stereotype' of being the main character's best friend or something along those lines. Now I realize it but I don't think I have ever seen a mainstream show where a queer character was the main character. And for the shows that the main character seems to be gay, like the Razoli show that the group shared in class, they never mention being queer and they never openly state what they really are. The phrase that "gay characters are always the ones being laughed at, not laughed with" struck me and I wondered how I never thought of that and could blindly think that American media treats queer characters equally.

This lesson made me think a lot afterwards, and I think the way I view these characters in media would change from now on. But since I do think that queer representation in media is increasing, I think it would be interesting to see how their role develops in media over time.
Thanks for a great lecture!

The Makeover in Reality Television

Hi all,

For our group project, we'll be focusing on the makeover in reality TV shows. We'll be discussing wardrobe makeovers as well as more drastic cosmetic surgery makeover programs. For Monday's class, we would like you to read the article "You Need a Makeover!": The Social Construction of Female Body Image in "A Makeover Story," "What Not to Wear" and "Extreme Makeover" by Amanda Hall Gallagher and Lisa Pecot-Hebert.

Here's the link to the article: Article 

Questions to consider:

1) Is the makeover a gendered phenomenon? Why or why not?
2) Can the notion of a makeover be perceived as empowering?
3) The authors argue that women are increasingly appropriating feminist rhetoric to justify plastic surgery and physical cosmetic alterations. How might we interpret or problematize this conceptualization of feminism?

We'll also have a class discussion focusing particularly on The Swan. If you haven't already seen the show, we strongly recommend you watch the clip below.

Queerbaiting: Some Afterthoughts

After the class teaching presentations delivered last week, the subject of "queerbaiting" has come to mind a couple of times since. Before the term was presented in class I had never heard it used and quite frankly I'd love to analyze more examples of this phenomenon aside from "Rizzoli & Isles."

To be honest, my initial reaction to the dynamic between the two female leads in the series was positive. The fact that this series is one that intends to "keep you guessing" seems like it could have much more of an effect on viewers than to simply exploit the idea of a same-sex relationship. Yes, the sexual attention built between the two characters may be a ploy on behalf of the writers to reel in a homosexual viewership. At the same time, however - I feel like there is some positivity to be gleaned from the fact that it is never truly revealed on the series whether or not Rizzoli and Isles are actually engaged in a sexual relationship.

By pandering to curiosity and never making the idea an integral part to the show's storyline, I feel as if the writers behind "Rizzoli & Isles" could be introducing an element of acceptability to same-sex partnerships for viewers who would typically be opposed to a series with same-sex themes (i.e. "The L Word"). Granted, I have never viewed an episode of the series nor have I viewed any other episodes accused of "queerbaiting" in the past. However, if done tastefully, I feel as if the term "baiting" could be a bit strong to describe this plot-writing technique. Again, if approached respectfully this type of storyline could have the potential to create a more inclusive world for characters of all sexual orientations on television.

-Marisa Okano

Censorship of Sex Over Violence

I am very intrigued by the fact that sexual content is considered less appropriate for people of a certain age than sexual content, especially since violence is usually illegal while sex is not. This is not the case for all countries, especially European countries. For example, even in countries like Germany with a history of violence there is more censorship of violence then of sex.  Often times in the US, you can find a PG13 movie with a good deal of violence, but once sex is thrown into the mix, that rating often changes to an R. 

I am still not a hundred percent clear on why this is, but after some research it seems that it is largely due to our country’s religious roots and the idea of keeping children “pure”. What interests me more than why it is the case that the US censors sex more than violence is the affects it has. 

I feel that the absence of consensual sex in popular forms of media for children/teenagers/young adults implies that sex is a bad thing or even that it is something that as a male you have to fight for from a female. Meanwhile, images of violence are normalized, perpetuating violence as an accepted part of our culture. 

I read something on an online blog that the key to ending a culture of rape is to demystify some of what sex is. I believe the best way to achieve this is to allow sex and sexuality to be discussed more openly, whether it be in household conversations or through what we see in television and movies. When a child grows up with violent images rather than images of consensual sex, he or she might have a more violent approach to sex. 

The act of having sex or expressing ones sexuality is far less alarming than abuse (both physical and verbal), murder, etc. I feel that many people must agree with this, yet there is a stigma surrounding sex and sexuality that has yet to be broken down. Yes, one could argue that allowing young people to see sex scenes will prompt them to go out and have sex, but what is more alarming is the idea that a young person so fascinated by images of gunfights and shooting will get their hands on a gun and use it on another human being. 

Eliminating sex on the screen has several major consequences, mainly shaming those who engage in sex (even when the sex is consensual) into feeling like they are doing some wrong or dirty or even worse, it replaces images on consensual sex with violence while further mystifying sex in such a way that perpetuates rape culture. 

Hollywood challenging traditional gender roles?

I stumbled upon an article titled "What Really Makes Katniss Stand Out? Peeta, Her Movie Girlfriend." This article talks about how the character of Peeta in the movie The Hunger Games does not fit the traditional masculine male opposite the leading female like most in Hollywood blockbusters. In fact, Katniss has the more masculine traits of being "emotionally unavailable, she fights, she kills, etc." Therefore, Katniss is defying the traditional narratives toward girls. In the Hunger Games, she is the heroine and Peeta is the damsel in distress who always needs saving. The article says the following about Peeta: "Peeta is Pepper Potts and Gwen Stacy, helping and helping and helping until the very end, when it's time for the stakes, and the stakes are: NEEDS RESCUE. Peeta is Annie in Speed, who drives that bus like a champ right up until she winds up handcuffed to a pole covered with explosives. Peeta is Holly in Die Hard, who holds down the fort against the terrorists until John McClane can come and find her (and she can give back her maiden name)." So, if Hollywood always has an inclination toward following gender roles, should we consider this a step forward? Having a strong female lead is no doubt a step forward for women, but does this have to come at a cost for the male counterpart? Is this the only way that the female lead can truly be better than the male, by having the "masculine" traits while he has the "feminine" ones?

Here is the link to the article: http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2013/11/25/247146164/what-really-makes-katniss-stand-out-peeta-her-movie-girlfriend?utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=nprfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook

Am I a F**king Feminist?

I have always questioned why it is that people have such a difficult time identifying themselves as a feminist. It always seemed to me that it is actually quite strange to not call yourself a feminist. I was very surprised when on Monday I learned during a group presentation that both Katy Perry and Taylor Swift do not identify as feminists. I recently came across a website that defined being a feminist the way I would: http://www.amiafuckingfeminist.com/. The website asks “Am I a fucking feminist?”. Below this question it poses the statement “I believe in the complete equality of men and women”. Underneath that, it allows the viewer of the website to click on either “Yes” or “No”. If you click “Yes”, it takes you to a page that says “Yes, you are a fucking feminist” and if you click “No” it says “No, you are not a fucking feminist”. The word “feminist” is hyperlinked and takes you to the Wikipedia definition of the word with the first few lines stating “Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women” (Wikipedia). I found the simplicity and directness of this site comical but also an accurate representation of what I believed one’s thought process should be when questioning whether or not they are a feminist. I began to research online articles and realized perhaps I am not acknowledging how loaded the term is, both  historically and socially. I was aware that some people saw the term as man-hating or embarrassing, reasons I couldn’t respect for not calling yourself a feminist. But after reading several articles I’ve realized there is more to unpack here and that perhaps there is a more justified reason why people (even people I would consider feminist) shy away from the term. Chelsea Fagan in her article “Women Don't Have to Call Themselves Feminists” stated: “From Susan B Anthony proudly proclaiming that she would cut off her right arm before letting blacks have the vote before white women, to radical feminists veiling their hatred for trans women with an interest in protecting us from male bodies, there are many women throughout history who have used the title in distinctly damaging ways”. The article asks the reader to consider woman of color who have been largely excluded from the feminist movement. Furthermore, often times we disagree with the actions or statements of self-proclaimed feminists that we see in the media (such as Miley Cyrus), and do not want to be associated with a title that we feel has been misrepresented. Others claimed that feminism alienates men from the conversation. While after looking into this issue further I will continue to call myself a feminist, I will now refrain from immediately judging those that don’t identify as a feminist. 

Rating Female Roles

A recent article in The Week stated that cinemas in Sweden have introduced a rating system for female characters. This system rates how properly rounded the female characters are. In order for a film to receive an A rating for it's gender equality, there must be at least two female characters that have names and have a conversation about something other than a man.

This does not sound like particularly high standards, but the article states that most blockbuster films fail to reach this rating. All of the Lord of the Rings and Star Wars films and all but one of the Harry Potter series fall short of this. I found this really interesting as I love all of these films and they are generally considered to be great stories that are very well made. This limited female representation is usually overlooked by moviegoers.

I am wondering as to the reasons behind this - why are women shown as only being able to speak about men? Is it because, as Michael said in his presentation, that women on the screen have less credibility then men and can cause a show to not be considered 'quality'? All of those films listed are action oriented, and in most action films female characters are placed in the story as an accessory to add an element of sex and excitement. Is this why their roles are based entirely around men? It also got me thinking about the stand-out female role in Harry Potter - Hermione. She is great figure who is not sexualized and advocates strength, intelligence and disregard for other people's opinions. However, if there are no scenes of her talking to other females about anything other men, this makes her a token character in the series. She is not representative, she is rather an intelligent character who is made female for the sake of having a female in the group; she could just as easily have been male.

Overall, I wonder what impact this has on society, especially due to the fact that a large majority of people who go see blockbusters are rather young and impressionable. If they are repeatedly shown women who are represented as only concerned about men, this must leave a lasting impact in the minds of teenagers and children.

FCKH8 Tee Shirts

While on the internet I ran into this FCKH8 ad that really left me puzzled. I've included the ad picture which states that "The most fake thing about Ken is not that he's plastic. It's that he's 'straight'." True, there have been many videos and jokes made throughout the years about Ken being gay. However, FCKH8 is supposed to support equality for everyone and on their website they describe themselves in this way: "FCKH8.com is a for-profit T-shirt company with an activist heart and a passionate social change mission: arming thousands of people with pro-LGBT equality T-shirts that act as “mini-billboards” for change."So, if they are promoting social change then why do they have a shirt like this forcing gender roles? Women should dress one way and men should dress another? The way that Ken dresses has always been a big deal and one of the reasons why people point to why he may in fact be a "gay" doll, but it seems like this ad is saying "if you dress a certain way, then you must be gay." In fact, even Disney seems to be reinforcing this thought as can be seen in the Toy Story scene in which Ken is trying on a bunch of costumes and acting them out as well. Here is the link to the Toy Story scene http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBWdp-ubspo

GoldieBlox and The Beastie Boys

As a girl who attended an all-girls middle school with a large emphasis on math and engineering, I am thrilled to see products like “GoldieBlox” breaking into the market.  GoldieBlox is a product created by Debbie Sterling that hopes to “invade the pink aisle” at toy stores and inspire little girls to play with toys that challenge them to be thinkers and builders, rather than just princesses and ballerinas.  The toys are pastel colored and not flaming pink like many products typically marketed to girls ages 5-12.  They are designed as engineering challenges and building materials. 

Their most recent ad “Girls” has been viewed over 8 million times and is in the running to air during the Superbowl as part of an online contest.  The ad parodies The Beastie Boys’ “Girls” by saying things like “We deserve a range, cuz all our toys look just the same, and we deserve to use our brains.”  The song is incredibly catchy, but it is also now the subject of copyright infringement.  According to reports, The Beastie Boys agree with the message of the video, but did not approve the songs’ use for the video, nor do they approve its use to sell a product.  Interestingly, GoldieBlox is now suing the band for “fair use.”  True, one could call their use of the song a parody, much like Weird Al has parodied pop music for decades without the permission of the songwriters.  However, some argue that Weird Al changes the music in addition to the lyrics, something that does not seem to be happening here (according to critics). 

Below are links to the video as well as an article summarizing the conflict.  Do you think this constitutes plagiarism or is it a clever parody?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFpe3Up9T_g

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2013/11/25/beastie-boys-goldieblox-open-letter/3699397/

Lily Allen: It's Hard Out Here For a Bitch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0CazRHB0so

I suppose I should tell you what this bitch is thinking
You'll find me in the studio and not in the kitchen
I won't be bragging 'bout my cars or talking 'bout my chains
Don't need to shake my ass for you 'cause I've got a brain

If I told you 'bout my sex life, you'd call me a slut
When boys be talking about their bitches, no one's making a fuss
There's a glass ceiling to break, uh-huh, there's money to make
And now it's time to speed it up 'cause I can't move at this pace

[Bridge]
Sometimes it's hard to find the words to say
I'll go ahead and say them anyway
Forget your balls and grow a pair of tits

[Chorus]
It's hard, it's hard, it's hard out here for a bitch
It's hard, for a bitch (for a bitch)
For a bitch, it's hard
It's hard out here for a bitch
It's hard, for a bitch (for a bitch)
For a bitch, it's hard
It's hard out here

You're not a size six, and you're not good looking
Well, you better be rich, or be real good at cooking
You should probably lose some weight
'Cause we can't see your bones
You should probably fix your face or you'll end up on your own

Don't you want to have somebody who objectifies you?
Have you thought about your butt? Who's gonna tear it in two?
We've never had it so good, uh-huh, we're out of the woods
And if you can't detect the sarcasm, you've misunderstood

[Bridge]

[Chorus]

A bitch, a bitch, a bitch, bitch, bitch [x4]

Inequality promises that it's here to stay
Always trust the injustice 'cause it's not going away
Inequality promises that it's here to stay
Always trust the injustice 'cause it's not going away

I recently watch Lily Allen's new music video for her song, 'It's Hard Out Here', and I really loved it. I think it is provocative and bold and really tackles feminist issues head-on - all while still keeping a catchy tune!

The lyrics address multiple issues that women face, such as the completely skinny woman being the only ideal of beauty, how men can sleep around and not get labeled for it, how many women use their bodies to get ahead in the business and how it is truly difficult for a woman in the working world.
One line that particularly stood out to me was where she says "We've never had it so good, uh-huh, we're out of the woods". This sets Lily Allen aside as one of the few female pop artists willing to address the fact that feminism and women's right still have a long way to go. She is so bold in these lyrics and is adamant that women cannot just rest on their laurels now but have to keep on pushing until our goals are achieved.

I also particularly liked the satirical video set against this song. It starts with Lily Allen getting liposuction and music industry heads commenting on the way she looks, essentially saying that she is disgusting. It then changes to a clan of barely clothed, booty-shaking women dancing around a car who Lily Allen joins. She is making a strong comment about the sexualization of women and how women use their bodies not only to sell the products that they are advertising, but to sell themselves. Lily Allen is then seen in the kitchen with perfect hair and make-up, cleaning a car hub-cap. I got a true giggle out of the statement she is making her, mocking the image of the ideal woman for a man: the subservient, put-together woman who even cleans his most prized possession, his car.

I think that Lily Allen is a true example of a feminist pop star, and I love the fact that she is not afraid of negative press-backlash for her admitting to this and claiming her position in society as a celebrity and a role model for women.

Teaching Project - Music and Post-Feminism

Hello everyone! For our teaching project, we'll be discussing post-feminist figures in popular music. Please come prepared having read the following pieces:

Beyonce Calls Herself a Modern Day Feminist
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/beyonce-calls-herself-a-modern-day-feminist-20130403

Stop Hailing Women Good or Bad Role Models
http://jezebel.com/stop-hailing-women-as-good-or-bad-role-models-1459649358

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

And, if possible please revisit Angela McRobbie's "Young Women and Consumer Culture," as found in the BB readings for Week 9.

Questions to consider before class:
1. Who are present-day feminist icons in music?
2. If a public figure considers herself a "feminist" icon," what expectations would you have of them?


- Marisa Okano, Izzy Albert, Rachel Azoulay