Representation of Women in Media

While searching the internet I came across this video which shows negative representation of women in the media. While I just saw someone has already posted this video on the blog, i still think it's important to discuss as it directly relates to our class and my term paper. While so much progress has been made in society and in media including characters like Olivia Pope and Carrie Mathison, females are continuing to be sexualized in the media. In my paper I discuss how women are able to be more sexual on screen than the were able to in the past, however in recent media females are taking it to the next level as demonstrated in this video. Also, this video briefly touches on when a woman voices her opinion and defeats a man in an argument, the woman is told she is hysterical and needs to calm down. This reminded me of the "Mad Woman" presentation in which all powerful woman in television shows are represented as crazy, mad and hysterical.

https://www.thisispersonal.org/how-media-failed-women-2013?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=link&utm_term=fb_20131206_how-the-media-failed-women-in-2013&utm_content=womens-interest&utm_campaign=this-is-personal&s_src=ThisIsPersonal&s_subsrc=fb_20131206_how-the-media-failed-women-in-2013

What we CAN learn from Disney Princesses

http://www.babble.com/disney/11-lessons-we-can-learn-from-the-disney-princesses/11-things-we-can-learn-from-the-disney-princesses/

I found this article recently and found it to be a fun and interesting read, especially after the Disney Princesses class session.  Although it is true that some of the portrayals of Disney princesses is frustrating in the sense that Disney can really play up stereotypes, there are important lessons that girls and women can take away from Disney films. As long as the viewer can see past some of the character flaws, the overall message in Disney films can teach great lessons. Especially in the film Aladdin, in which Jasmine stands up for her rights as a woman. She says, "How dare you? All of you!  Standing around deciding my future. I am not a prize to be won!" The article explains the great message that the movie preaches: "Women are more than a prize to be won, and Princess Jasmine was not afraid to speak her mind about it. She refuses to be tied down to the old traditions that she feels are barbaric and no longer applicable to her. She wants to marry only for love. Princess Jasmine is free-spirited, confident, and ready to discover the wonders outside the confines of her palace walls."

Social Media creating negative perspective of beauty

I found very interesting the topics of visibility that we discussed in class later in the semester. As i will be talking about in my essay, l plan to show how media outlets, such as Facebook, twitter, instagram have created a misleading image and message of beauty and body image. Within our society, today almost everyone has a Facebook, twitter or is on some form of social media. Our world today is greatly adapting and evolving towards a social media world. These media outlets and progressiveness are very beneficial to society but they do bring very noticeable harm to young women today. When we take a picture, we assume that it will be visible to everyone because we know it will be uploaded online. Many young girls, including myself focus more on looking good in the picture and posing the correct way to look the skinniest and prettiest than actually being in the moment of the picture. Such public media, that these young girls are growing up in today is helping stimulate this wave of superficialness and negative awareness on the body. This stimulates a negative perspective of beauty that these young girls carry. Also with Instagram for example, because it is public and anyone can choose to follow you, girls feel that they have to upload only pretty pictures of themselves in order to get the most likes and followers. This evolving image n=of beauty needs a quick makeover before young girls get too far obsessed with their appearance on social media

women in 2013

I found an interesting clip about women in 2013 in the media so i thought i'd share! Enjoy!

 http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/12/05/how-far-we-havent-come-all-of-the-terrible-ways-the-media-treated-women-in-2013-in-one-video/?utm_content=bufferc4c0d&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

If A Man Asks What Women Have Been Asking For Centuries, Will Men Finally Listen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlb4Pu23kqw

I've provided a link to a video in which a man recites a poem calling action to other men. The issue at hand is the rape and mens participation in it. The poem touches on a couple key issues: 1) that women are so often blamed for being the victims of rape, "what was she wearing? Was she walking alone?" 2) that gender violence is not only a woman's issue, it is also a mans issue 3) that when rape is mentioned it is so often received with a response of silence 4) our silence can in turn perpetrate rape culture, as we are not doing anything to stop it 5) men can do something to stop it.

What was disappointing to me was reading the YouTube comments under the video in which some comments read "this is a feminist issue" or "rape is not my issue" or even hinting that the man reciting the poem must be gay since he is tackling a "woman's issue." So can a man urging other men to take action really be a catalyst for change? Will men really listen? It seems like on an issue like rape, it's so hard to get men to take action. Many people have made the argument that we shouldn't teach our daughters not to get raped, we should teach our sons not to rape. I think this video speaks on the issue well, but the problem will always be that as long as men think rape is a "woman's issue" that it will be hard to get them to take any action on it.

Disney Princess Readings Response

What is it with our culture's fascination with princesses? Is it the idea that the ideal living situation is to marry rich and live life free of care (and purpose)? Culturally speaking, yes, I understand where and why the princess image was so popular in the past considering dated female gender roles and clearly there is still a very high interest in the princess image when one observes the societal obsession with Prince Harry and his commoner wife, Kate. Is it time that we retire the word "princess" or would it be more beneficial to redefine the word? A princess is next in line to become queen, a ruler and woman of power, yet we don't see it that way. 

Disney princesses have always been a hot, controversial topic for feminist. Many women grow up with these films and fall in love with the beauty, glitz, and glam that comes with royalty, however, there are many different factors that question whether or not these are ideal role models for women. There is always the over sexualization of princesses as well as feminization. Mulan, who spends a majority of the movie disguised as a man fighting to save China, ends the movie subservient to her husband (her general during war, hegemonic masculinity propaganda at its finest) and back in her feminizing wardrobe. Pocahontas, who is real life was 12 years old and had no romantic interest in John Smith, is also turned into a mature sexual temptress whom John Smith finds the need to westernize and dominate (although I do love her for turning him down in the end to stay with her family). In the history of Disney Princesses, there has only been one who has not been sexualized nor invest in a romantic relationship. However, this princess, Merida from Brave, was the most criticized for being too outspoken and angst. She has even been called out to the the "bitchiest" of all the princesses, despite singlehandedly saving her family and clan from danger. 

My biggest issue with Disney princesses is that they are completely over sexualized and independent. They don't celebrate the individual but instead groom the masses for the male gaze while "attempting" to sprinkle in "feminist" ideals and when they do finally create a character worth praising, she is demonized and subjected to criticism for not being like the rest. 

sorry i'm not sorry - do women apologize too much?

Below is an article describing anti feminist thoughts. In some, she apologizes for thinking/saying them. This sparked something in me. First, I thought the list was very interesting. Some I disagree with, others I have thought and then thought, oh should I not think that? Clearly feminism can be a complicated matter (although I don’t believe it has to or should be). So this led me to thinking, should we apologize for our behavior? In this article is says women dress for guys sometimes. I think that’s true. Should we shame ourselves for it? People have often said things like “sorry to sound like a femninist buuuut or not sound like a crazy pms girl” – does this perpuate the idea that we need to apologize and should feel bad for the way we think or feel? Someone is always telling us we are wrong. Either people hate us for not being an active feminist and supporting the fight outwardly or we identify as a feminist and get a bad reputation because of it’s negative connotation. We are identified as being man haters (which isn’t true of all feminists). Either way, we seem to lose? Another thing is that I’ve often heard people apologize for wanting to be stay at home mom. As though it’s a total regression for women and that it’s wrong. Personally, I want to have a career but eventually be a stay a home mom and raise my kids. Is that wrong? A large part about being a feminist to me is about choice. The choice to be a stay at home mom or not. The choice to marry or not marry. Women didn’t have the choice to work or not, we do. So instead of apologize for chosing, shouldn’t we rejoice that we can now chose? It’s at least a step in the right direction in my opinion. Overall, I feel like women in general apologize way to much for things we don’t need to be sorry for. We can live whatever way we want, and that should be ok.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/chelsea-fagan/2013/12/21-anti-feminist-thoughts-every-woman-has-had-at-least-once/

Progressive but also regressive tv shows

Earlier in class, we spent some time analyzing current so called progressive tv shows in which I saw an attempted progessive approach but with many setbacks in shows such as Sex and the City, Weeds, Girls, and even Orange is the New Black.  The major problem I noticed was tv and media's continued use of unrealistic women. Tv and Media still feels the need even within forward story lines to show women as white, tall and without any imperfections. Although the storylines are obviously progressive and a huge improvement to womens right and freedom from women portrayed in early tv, these characters are actually regressive to society with its superficial message that beauty is needed for success. In addition, within the show Orange is the new Black clearly showing a women single or in complicated relationships a reflection of the diversity within today's society, they use a very attractive lead character that most of us dont look like. Although this may be harsh, I can see this as its ok to be complicated or be a bisexual as long as your pretty. Tv and other media create and represent women as lead characters but this does not always mean it is progressive towards feminism. The show girls for example, shows very modern and addresses situations and conflicts that attract young people who understand and watch for enjoyment. Other than its humor with its shocking explicitly, the show however portrays women as nothing admirable as they continue to be unhappy and continue to make choices over and over again that keeps them unhappy such as their constant return to men they don't even want to be with or enjoy sexually.

Film Bodies Reaction

Williams makes a very interesting argument regarding the interchangeability of horror films and porn. In horror films, there is the inevitable sexualized female lead that, depending on how sexual she presents herself, either lives or dies. Typically, when the female is sexual yet submissive and passive, she lives, where as when the female character acts upon her sexuality and is sexually progressive, she is killed and the virginal character is glorified. In porn, there are two types of women as well, the virgin and the whore. Typically, both the virgin and the whore are dominated by the man, yet the whore is done so in a more demeaning manor with the idea that she deserves it because she is a whore. This is similar to horror films in that during the killing of the female whore character, it is very similar to the pornographic undertones of dominance over her because of her sexuality. The same kind of physical rush, a sense of ecstasy, is experienced when achieving orgasm and when watching a horror film and therefor, psychologically, one can subconsciously make a connection of the two without even realizing it. Porn has never been the only media in which is intended to be viewed through the male gaze. 

Nancy Fraser "Mapping the Feminist Imagination"

Through Fraser's article "Mapping the Feminist Imagination" in which he describes the growth throughout time and locations of women, it greatly made me question the future of women. He goes to say that "feminists throughout the world are linking struggles against local patriarchal practices to campaigns to reform international law". The result is a new phase of feminist politics in which gender justice is being reframed. This phase seeks to challenge injustices of maldistribution and injustices. Feminists he also states are targeting a newly visible meta-injustice which he categorizes as misframing. Misframing is a form of injustice that denies the poor and leaves them without the power to press transnational claims. This however has been emerging as a central target of feminist politics in its transnational stage. Fraser stresses its importance that by confronting misframing "this phase of feminist politics is making visible a third dimension of gender justice beyond redistribution and recognition. He calls  this third dimension, Representation, which is not only a matter of ensuring equal political vice for women in already constituted political communities. It also requires reframing disputes that can not be properly contained within established polities. Fraser's article taught me just how important contesting misframing within now and the future is in that it reconfigures gender justice as a three-dimensional problem in which redistribution, recognition, and representation must be integrated in a balanced way.

Pornification According to Actress Rashida Jones

http://www.glamour.com/entertainment/2013/12/rashida-jones-major-dont-the-pornification-of-everything

Actress Rashida Jones wrote an interesting little article for Glamour about how "pornification" has become the norm, and why she's not okay with it.

What struck me as particularly interesting, is Rashida, the daughter of music mogul Quincy Jones is blunt with her opinion that it's no longer sexy or even exciting to see these women bare (almost) all. With such a prominent father in the industry, Jones could have had a career in music if she so desired but clearly her head is on straight and she sees the pitfalls of pop stardom. Her observations about what was considered sexy and provocative in music when she was growing up are also interesting points to compare to today's mega stars like Miley, Rihanna and Gaga.

Hope you guys find it as interesting as I did!


-Natalie Qasabian

Feminism and Pornography (A Response to Gaines)

Since studying gender and feminism, I've developed very conflicting thoughts about pornography. On a suffice level, I'm a huge supporter. I believe sexuality should be explored and widely practiced based on each individual's preference. In a sense, pornography is a healthy expression of sex and sexuality, however, a predominate amount of pornography is filmed through the male-gaze and can be demoralizing towards women, which can clearly be very problematic. First, porn, a fabrication and exaggeration of sex, has become a major tool for teenagers and young adults to learn about sex and sexuality, which becomes problematic when people develop unrealistic expectations of sex. Second, there is the issue regarding female arousal. What happens when women become attracted to and aroused by this median specifically designed by male satisfaction? A very strong reoccurring theme in porn is male-dominance over women, which can pose many issues when these aggressive sexual acts are transmitted from the film to the consumer's bedroom. Is porn in its current state detrimental to feminism? Why is there a significant amount of pornography with strict male viewers only intentions yet a incredibly small amount of porn made for a female audience? Essentially, the porn industry doesn't believe in female sexuality, other than her sole existence is to please her male counterpart. The biggest issue with porn is that it eliminates female sexuality and therefor allows men to create and develop one for her, making her a tool for his sexuality. 

Tina Fey and Mindy Kaling as Feminists

I have to admit that after the week's teaching presentations I still am quite confused as to what characteristics contribute to being a feminist, according to popular opinion. As demonstrated by the presentations on Tina Fey/Mindy Kaling and popular music, it seemed that the general consensus was that many of the women mentioned were indeed, feminist. Case in point: Tina Fey and Mindy Kaling. Yes, issues pertaining to women (including those pertaining to their interests and their dating woes) are subjects of interest in both 30 Rock and The Mindy Project. However I am still grasping for a concept of why both of these women can be considered resolute feminists by simply being professionals who have positioned themselves in the industry and within the context of their television shows as the female minority. It seems to be that over the semester, many of us have defined a woman's right to call themselves a feminist based on her individualized commitments to strengthening female equality. However, based on what was presented to me in the presentation I don't necessarily get that impression from the efforts of Tina Fey and Mindy Kaling. Yes, these women have been extremely successful in the area of comedy - which has been notoriously difficult for women in the past. Also, they present themselves in their television series as having powerful occupations that are less likely for women (TV exec and lawyer). However, I feel that these are just constructs of the characters they have tried to portray as opposed to evidence of their conscious contributions to feminism. It would be interesting to read a detailed paper that analyzes their qualifications as feminists, because honestly this is unclear to me.

- Marisa Okano

Moving Past the Princess

I really enjoyed this week's presentation on the Disney princesses and how their representation has shifted over the decades. I've been interested in the topic in the past, and think it is relevant to discuss because the changing princesses certainly reflect changing social paradigms. However, I wonder to what extent these changes should be seen as a step towards the empowerment of young girls. Tiana and Merida, brave and groundbreaking as they are, are still princesses. The message appears to be that "even a ___________ can be a beautiful, successful princess."

Might it be a better idea to create female characters for girls to idealize who are everyday girls and women that become extraordinary through their own merit? The idea of birthright and magic seems fairly out of touch, especially for girls today who shape so much of their identity through readily available information. I think one really awesome approach is the one taken by a mother who encourages her five year old daughter to dress up as historic women instead of Disney characters.

     

http://www.npr.org/blogs/pictureshow/2013/10/26/240899948/mother-and-daughter-play-a-remarkable-game-of-dress-up

"Women Don't Have To Be Fucked And Say Thank You"

Evan Rachel Wood is one of those fuck-yeah feminists and fuck-yeah people in general that I just don't really understand, but can't help but admire.  She is so determined and bad ass- I took a class with her private acting coach once. We were in a group, playing a tossing game to improve concentration and trust.  The teacher stopped us at one point after several drops of the ball and insisted that if Evan were playing she would've knocked us down and punched people to catch that ball and we had better get on it.

In her twitter feed Evan talks about how frustrated she is that a scene from her movie "Charlie Countryman" had to be cut because the MPAA was threatening to rate the film "X" with it in.  The scene supposedly involves oral sex on a female which Evan rightly points out would unlikely be an issue if the genders were swapped.  She goes on to say that juxtaposed with the violence of the piece, the shootings and murders heavily outstrip the sexuality in terms of being objectionable and, furthermore, if the male were also being pleasured it is unlikely the scene would have been as much of an issue.

I myself can only think of one instance of female pleasuring in a recent film I've seen: when Nick fingers Nora in Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist.  I remember thinking it was a bit brave and startling to have that in a rather tame film, though if I recall correctly they show no nudity and only allude to the act with sounds and innuendoes.  When I really think about it, how is that shocking at all? Because we just don't often see cinematic females being presented as sexual beings, as Evan mentions in her tweets.

However, I can think of several instances of male pleasuring or flat out intercourse that were rather involved (Basic Instinct for example?) and yet remained R. I think Evan has a good point, though I would reserve judgement after actually seeing the scene in question.  Nevertheless, it made me think about the lack of female pleasuring (not in conjunction with male pleasuring or mutual sex) seen onscreen.

Evan's Comments:
http://junkee.com/evan-rachel-wood-slams-censorship-accept-that-women-dont-have-to-be-fucked-and-say-thank-you/24424

Girl Scout Cookies: Food of the Devil (according to Right Wing extremists)

As a Girl Scout for over ten years, I have heard the slew of comments about it being a club for lesbians, a respite for the awkward and ugly, yada yada. I've heard about the rumored Planned Parenthood donation connections (but let me tell you, we learned nothing about birth control in our first aid units and the only rubber I ever saw as a Girl Scout was the band that held together my goals folder.)

Nevertheless, I was clearly part of a satanist, lesbian-agenda, communist, etc. group that aimed to *gasp* allow women to rise up in the marketplace?  Ok that last part might actually be true. Girl Scouts did encourage us to break through the glass ceiling, go into untraditional jobs (engineering and math being "untraditional" at age eight), and to stand up for ourselves in front of any gender.  But clearly, my years of selling cookies have just been a ploy to try to "put a Communist in the White House."  Sorry neighbors, those thin mints you bought are tainted with the sin of an unholy agenda.  But fear not! Read the end of the article to find out what the two talk show hosts suggest you do if you can't resist these delightful cookies.

Take a look at this article and see why Girl Scouts are just so darn evil:  http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/10/23/girl-scout-cookies-plot/

Here is the transcript of the radio show if you'd like to learn more:  http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/kevin-swanson-begs-you-not-buy-communist-lesbian-girl-scout-cookies

Women in Armenia

Mondays presentation “F Word à F World” struck me as particularly interesting and educational because we never had the chance to address Asian countries in class. It was particularly interesting to see the way women are viewed in China and compare that to my own Armenian culture. Although I have not been to Armenia, I attended an Armenian school till eighth grade and am surrounded by Armenian friends on a daily basis. The  “F Word à F World” caused me to reflect on all the cultural norms encompassed in being an Armenian woman.

First of all, in Armenia especially but also amongst the Diaspora, the home is still largely considered the woman’s territory. Even if a woman works, Armenian women have to cook like her husbands mother (if not better) look great and not speak back too often. Although this sounds like a lot many of the expectations for women in general, Armenian women are supposed to be virgins when they get married as well. The culture still looks down upon women who are in touch with their sexuality and explore it before marriage. Even more horrific is the treatment many Armenian receive at the hands of boyfriends and husbands. In Armenia there is a huge abuse problem. Although the World Health Organization estimates between 10%-60%, the large spanning percentage is because most abuse incidents to unreported because of the repercussions a woman would face if she reported the injustice.

So in case any of you were wondering at the end of this course if studying feminism is worthwhile or has a place in the world, remember a huge population of the world still remains in the dark about feminist concerns and the fundamental idea that men and women are created equal.  

-Natalie Qasabian 

A New Generation of Princesses?

We have spent a lot of time talking about the princess topic particularly the representations of princess. Typically, the myths of princess like pretty, gentle and obedient have been widely promoted for a long time and become the social and cultural norms. Recently, several mothers have tried to challenge the traditional norms. They have set up a different “princess culture” for their daughter.

One of the efforts that I have known is the project of “guardian princess” basically built on the principles of power, diversity and equity. 

Recognizing the power of media in shaping her daughter’s perception of the norm of princess, Setsu Shigematsu created the Guardian Princesses project. The members of this project try to collect money to publish a series of short stories about Guardian Princesses.  Each story is about a Guardian Princess who protects her people and a different part of nature. By focusing on the intellect over the external beauty, Setsu wants to introduce new types of princess for young girls. Although I highly respect Setsu and other mothers’ efforts, honestly, I am still skeptical about its success in the context that the commercial media has dominate in the society and there is no radical change in terms of policy. 

Here is the link of the video introducing the project

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-guardian-princesses

Here is the link of its facebook

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-guardian-princesses

Taking Our Female Leaders Seriously

A video recently going around Facebook on www.upworthy.com called “A Glimpse at How the Media Treated Women This Year is a Look At Way Too Many Cringe-Worthy Moments” got me thinking about the representation of females with government positions. The video starts with this year’s positive representations and included films like Gravity and The Hunger Games, TV shows like Orange is The New Black, and GoDaddy’s commitment to avoid sexual imagery and focus on humor in their two new Super Bowl commercials. The video then changes gears to the “cringe-worthy moments” such as axe body spray commercials, Miley Cyrus’s VMA performance and Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” music video. What was even more unsettling to me then the negative choices made by entertainers and advertisers was the representation of our female leaders. We are all aware of the alarmingly low number of our country’s female representatives (women make up 51% of the population in the United States but only make up 17% of Congress). Because of this reality, it seems to me that those female representatives should be admired by the media and respected. They, despite the odds of being a female leader in our predominantly white-male run society, have had to successfully prove their abilities, perhaps more than most men in government have had to. Despite all of this, our female leaders are continuously bashed. The video includes photos of articles such as “Fringe Factor: Wendy Davis Is Too Stupid to Be Governor”, “Fox News Commentator Calls Wendy Davis An ‘Abortion Barbie’” and “Somebody Spot Janet Yellen Some New Threads”. When Ashley Judd was considering running for Senate against Mitch McConell, the McConell aid who led a meeting said, “She’s clearly, this sounds extreme, but she is emotionally unbalanced. I mean it’s been documented”. A newspaper cover featuring a giant photo of Hilary Clinton in the middle of a passionate debate was headlined “No Wonder Bill’s Afraid; Hilary explodes with rage at Benghazi hearing”. Talk radio host Bryan Fischer said about Hilary “I just do not think the American public is ready to elect and old women to the oval office”. A female Fox News report described Hilary as looking “haggard” and “what, ninety-two years old?” on the air. In a Fox News interview with Sarah Palin, Palin was asked if she has gotten breast implants. These are just a number of examples of the ways in which people and the media assess women differently than men, pointing to “PMS” and “mood swings” as reasons why they can not be taken seriously. These examples have an overwhelming amount of name calling, focus on appearance, focus on their relationships with men, and perpetuate the idea that women are emotionally unstable. What makes this so alarming is that the media is so derogatory even toward the most powerful women in the country. If the media and society treat the country’s most powerful women this way, what does it say for how seriously any women can be taken? 

The F word

I ran into this video talking about the word "feminist" in particular. Joss Whedon in this video talks about how he specifically hates the question "Are you a feminist?" Which made me think of how much we have talked about how some people refuse to call themselves a feminist because of the negative connotation that often comes with the word. Just like in the presentation that talked about stars like Zooey Deschanel referring to herself as a feminist, so often the phrase I'm a feminist is said in this way "I'm a feminist, but..." or even the opposite "I'm not a feminist, but..." Why does it always have to come with an exception? Joss tells us in his speech that what he finds most problematic about the word feminist is the "ist" part of the word and here is why:

Let's go back to this ist, okay. Let's rise up a little bit from my obsession with sound to the meaning. Ist in it's meaning is also a problem for me. Because you can't be born an ist. It's not natural. You can't be born a baptist; you have to be baptized. You can't be born an atheist or a communist or a horticulturalist. You have to have these things brought to you. So feminist includes the idea that believing men and women to be equal, believing all people to be people, is not a natural state. That we don't emerge assuming that everybody in the human race is a human, that the idea of equality is just an idea that's imposed on us. That we are indoctrinated with it, that it's an agenda.

Here is the link to the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDmzlKHuuoI

Men Get Secrets and Women Get...?

Doing research for my project and paper I came across a Huffington Post article, "On TV Dramas, Men Have Secrets, Women Are Crazy", which articulated a very valid point that I had not yet linked across currently popular dramatic television shows: the male protagonist hides a massively dangerous secret that drives the majority of the narrative. And one of the most significant people he hides it from is his wife (at least for season one and probably two and three). Breaking Bad, Mad Men, and Homeland all carry this structure emphasizing TV's representation of a clear dichotomy in gender roles and perceptions about marriage and the family. I've decided to slightly change gears in my paper on quality TV wives to focus on this point. I believe "the secret" is a narrative device that illuminates cultural beliefs and perceptions on the family, marriage, and most importantly gender roles.

The secret is always largely the husbands "work" whether that's being a meth cook, domestic terrorist, or a successful ad man. Despite the wife's eventual discovery of this secret over the course of the show, her initial exclusion from it (and general exclusion thereafter) elicits the dichotomy between the woman's world and the man's. In all three of these shows the wife (Betty, Skyler, and Jessica) are mothers as well as women; however, being a mother becomes their defining characteristic. While that doesn't mean it necessarily limits them to staying at home (Breaking Bad) it still is one of their most significant aspects--their husbands getting to explore darker, deeper, and more serious themes outside of the domestic sphere. Further, as the wife (especially while they still aren't aware of their husband's secret) they are further distanced from participating in the "serious" work of their husbands placing them in a safe environment that they, as women, are capable of handling. And because of their repression from being apart of "the knowledge building community [their husband's world] their testimony is not valued" says Sharon Crasnow in her essay on Mad Men, "Why Does Mad Men Make Us So Mad?" I plan on elucidating these points further with academic resources to deconstruct the myth of progressive representations on TV and America's nostalgia for the conventional family structure.

Age Old Question: Can Women Have It All?

I have been thinking a lot recently about the age-old question "Can Women Have It All?" and I have come to the conclusion that this is a silly question. Define "all". I think a more important question is "Can all women have what makes them happy?". My reasons for disliking the original question "Can Women Have It All?" are these:
A) It groups women into one category under the assumption that they all want the same thing. Instead, "Can all women have what makes them happy?" infers that there are hundreds of thousands of types of women, rather than just "women", as there are clearly many different people in the world, and more importantly many different women.
B) There is no real definition for what "all" is. Many would read it as a stable job, a full wallet, a loving husband, and the perfect children. Though my issue with this is many women don't want this. There are women who I know personally that would rather travel the world solo and meet hundreds of new people than be stuck at home with the same man, likewise there are women who would like nothing more than to stay in and be a mom. In asking the question but replacing "all" with "what makes them happy", you open up a whole world of options. Although "all" could technically be anything, society has made us think that this word has come to mean wealth, work, and a family.
C) My final issue is that I find the concept of this question sexist. This is a question that we have quoted numerous times this semester, but why have we never asked "can men have it all?". The fact that this is such a commonly used question that it rolls off our tongues without us thinking about it first it clearly problematic. Why, after so much progress in the world of feminism are we still differentiating men and women in a way that hinders the idea that women have to "not have something".
Although I am sure I am reading into this single phrase too much, I think it is important that we consider the words we use very carefully, so as not to present the idea that either we as women all want the same thing, or that we as women are striving for the impossible, because we don't want it all, we just want everything that makes us as individuals happy. The future of feminism lies in viewing females as individuals, rather than "women", and I think this phrase is one thing holding us back.
Ultimately, we are all superwomen and can have whatever we want.

Disabled Mannequins

Recently I came across a video in which a sculptor had taken store mannequins and re-shaped them to resemble the bodies of those with disabilities - in particular those with muscle dystrophy and missing limbs. Before watching it I had an adverse reaction to this idea - why would anyone want to measure these people and recreate their figures, showing them further proof that they are different? Then, after watching the video, my whole impression was changed. The idea of this video is to do the opposite - to show that these people are not remotely different to anyone else. It didn't occur to me before watching this that every single person - with or without a disability - who walks past a shop window looks absolutely nothing like the mannequin modeling the clothes. None of us have legs that slender, tummies that flat, and are over 6 foot 5 all at the same time, so why should one person be considered more "perfect" than another. This video shows that in non of us being perfect, we are all perfect. The expressions on the faces of these models as they reveal their mannequins is priceless, and gives a whole new meaning on what perfection is. This video takes a stab at the consumerism that makes people - especially women - feel as though they are not good enough, it redefines the word "model, and embraces the idea that we are all a perfect array of shapes and sizes.
Here is a link to the video, and a screenshot of one of the models:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2518194/Pro-Infirmis-advert-creates-mannequins-based-bodies-disabled-people.html

Gender bias in film info graphic

Please find a link below to an info graphic about gender equality in film. We have talked about many aspected of being a woman in film and tv both on and off screen and I think this graphic speaks to that. It's a good way to put numbers and statistics to our discussions which we haven't done much of. It's also a good way to organize so many categories.

Enjoy!

http://www.indiewire.com/article/gender-inequality-film-in-infographic-form

Lilly Allen and Miley CyrusL opposite approaches to feminism

Below is an article comparing Miley Cyrus and Lily Allen, both who identify as feminists and who go about it in extremely different ways. As the group on Monday pointed out, I think the main issue is that no one knows what exactly being a feminist means, so isn’t everyone or no one a feminist? There is no right or wrong here so it seems each individual gives the word it’s own meaning. Personally, I believe Miley knows exactly what she is doing. However, as the article explains, each celebrities approach is problematic. Lilly allens video “hard out there” mocks Robin Thickes video and the way women are treated in videos. Miley takes the opposite approach as we’ve all seen and calls its “liberating.” However, in my opinion boths approaches are problematic. While miley think it’s freeing to do whatever she wants, society doesn’t work that way. Standards are in place for a reason. She is focusing everyone on her sexuality and absuridity and encouraging women to be sexualized if they want, which I don’t think is a good message. While women shouldn’t be afraid to express their sexuality, there is a time and a place (same goes for men). On the other hand, Allen tries to encourage women to not feel pressure about their bodies and not objectify themselves, but she shames everyone who does. Putting other people down for their choices won’t help either. Obivously this is a big debate and won’t be solved easily. I don’t know if it’s bette to not define yourself as a feminist if you don’t understand it or call yourself a feminist and be pro woman as you want. Maybe their intentions are in the right place? I’m not sure, I just know we have a long way to go.

http://theweek.com/article/index/252883/why-you-should-pay-attention-to-the-lily-allen-miley-cyrus-feminist-feud

Geena Davis Institute

First of all, a round of applause to everyone!
I was really amazed by all the teaching lessons, and I thought everyone did great! :)

On another note, one thing that I thought was worth posting about before the blogs are being taken off is to go back to a website that Prof. Imre was going to briefly show us in class. One of the earlier classes, I noticed Prof. Imre pulled up a website called 'Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media'. & It stood out to me because I actually work with a professor on campus, and her published research is part of the research of the Geena Davis Institute. The findings from the research study are rather fascinating, and I recommend everyone to take a look at it. We conduct a content analysis study on the Top Grossing Films of the United States yearly, coding variables measuring gender in relation to nudity/revealing clothings, in relation with occupation, and many more other variables. We even analyze what's behind-the-camera of every Top Grossing Film.

Here are two links to the PDF files of Key Findings & Executive Summaries that was published on the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media:

1) Gender Roles & Occupations: A Look at Character Attributes and Job-Related Aspirations in Film and Television

2) Gender Disparity On Screen and Behind the Camera in Family Films

Crouching Tiger, Hidden ... Subtext?

I found the presentation on transnational feminism very interesting and definitely informative - I admit I'm woefully uneducated on feminist issues in many other countries, and the shift away from American pop culture (emphasized in basically all our other groups) was an interesting change.

Something that I found curious was the American trailer for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. First of all, there's that word again - "princess"! In the movie, isn't she a governor's daughter? An aristocrat? Does changing her title in the advertising pique more interest, because we're more inclined to see her as more important, more dynamic, with that girly title? More frustratingly, though they do mention Jen (the princess/aristocrat), the trailer seemed much more focused on telling us that the film would be about Li Mu Bai and Lo - the men in the film. While they are certainly important characters, I feel like a lot more emphasis in the actual film is placed on Jen and Shu Lien's (female) characters, their struggles, and their relationship. I don't know how I feel about the assumption that it would be easier to advertise this movie by giving the trailer more of a male focus.

#FeminismIsForPeopleOfColor

In one of the recent blog posts somehow wondered how Feminism could be considered a White woman's thing when it is essentially about achieving equality for all woman. And while I definitely agree with that point, I'd like to direct any and all of you interested to the twitter phenomenon of #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen. It was spawned on the social network as a response to a perceived lack of concern on the part of mainstream White feminists for the issues of women of color. If anybody is interested in learning more about it here's a link to an interview with Mikki Kendall,  the woman who helped start this movement:

http://www.bustle.com/articles/3612-qa-with-solidarityisforwhitewomen-creator-mikki-kendall

Also related: Out of this exposure to the needs and issues specific to women of color, came another controversial hashtag: #BlackPowerIsForBlackMen. This aimed to critique the way men of color, including some of Black history's most revered figures (Martin, Malcolm, I'm looking at you) were/are complicit in oppressing women as well. Here's a link to a Jezebel post on the topic.

http://groupthink.jezebel.com/black-power-is-for-black-men-1131072274

Practicing Feminism Outside of the Classroom

I learned a great deal this from our course. Our class discussions have been invaluable in my (re)processing of the world at large. With that said, I often wonder what to do with all of this information. Is it enough to merely to criticize the problematic elements of media and culture? How do we enact change? Do we engage in Feminist discourse with those around us? And, if so, how does one go about it?

Unlike many of my male Feminist peers these sort of values were instilled in me at an early age. My mother is an academic, so I was reading theorists like bell hooks from an early age. I went to a super progressive liberal arts school that was three-quarters female and where nearly everyone (accurately or otherwise) referred to themselves as a Feminist. But often when interacting with men (and women) outside of this bubble I realize how different others see the world.

As someone who played sports growing up and into college, it's disheartening to discover how embedded misogyny and rape culture have become in society. I've twice had to quit basketball teams because teammates of mine committed sexual assaults which my schools' athletics programs and (even worse) administrations were complicit in covering up. It's so pervasive that I feel like I can't be a part of those patriarchal, male-dominated spaces at all.

When I talk to other Feminists they sometimes say to use my supposed influence as a male to reach other males, but I'm not sure how effective that is. It seems to me that one dissenting voice in a locker-room or in a lecture hall isn't enough. How do you create a groundswell of opposition in men for something designed to benefit them? I ask all of this because I have no clue. It just feels sometimes like we're pushing a rock up a hill just to see it roll back down.

Feminism's Branding Problem: When Mansplaining Goes Horribly Wrong

I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with Joss Whedon. He's the man responsible for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly, The Cabin in the Woods, and The Avengers film. He also said some really stupid things last month at Equality Now about the etymology of the word Feminist. You see he doesn't have so much of a problem with the "feminine" root of the word (an issue for many otherwise purehearted humanists). It's actually the "ist" that bothers him. The "ist," he says, presumes that equality among the sexes, Feminism's chief goal, is not natural; that, not its demonized history, is why so many people are reluctant to take on the term. He even namedrops Kate Perry to prove his point. While his assertions are troubling on many fronts, it's perhaps most appalling in its negation of the work done by many Feminists to work towards equality. If Feminism and, more generally, equality don't seem natural, it's because people not unlike Whedon have made it that way.

Here's a link to an article about his speech. It also includes footage from it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/11/what-joss-whedon-gets-wrong-about-the-word-feminist/281305/

Female Representation in the Media

I recently came across this video which I think nicely explains why it is so necessary to take a class like this one. I hope you guys enjoy it too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NswJ4kO9uHc

Scandal

After listening to last week’s presentation on “Mad Women”, I started to watch the series Scandal, which immediately became my new favorite TV show. Olivia Pope’s character embodies a strong female in the political world. However, after the presentation I began to realize that all “strong” women represented in TV are not as strong as we think. After researching I came across an interesting article, “Olivia Pope and the Scandal of Representation” on The Feminist Wire. The article states that instead of the series focusing on the strength and power of a female protagonist it  “actually centers on the seemingly salvific protagonist of imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy and the lengths to which all people – women and men, black/brown and white, gay and straight, etc. – will go to preserve it.” It’s interesting to see that all of Shanda Rhyme’s shows express the ideals that all can survive in a patriarchal society as long as they “play the role demanded for them.” While Pope’s character is one of the first African American protagonist, which seems very progressive, the entire story plot is her obsession with the President, an extremely powerful and white character. What is also interesting is the lack of background information given about Pope’s character. The article states:

“The type of information we are allowed to know about Olivia is quite reminiscent of the ways black actors and actresses accent the story lines of white folks in television shows that do not claim to place them at the center of the drama. As a result of this sacrifice of significant character development, the character of Olivia Pope must rely on stale media representations of black women for the semblance of substance.”

Reaction to Disney Princess Presentation

I never really thought of Disney princesses as having a negative effect on young girls before. They're a phenomenon that you grow up with. This presentation in particular struck a chord with me, first and foremost, because it's a topic that I am fairly familiar with. I've been impressed upon by these characters, and, of course, my favorite Disney princesses are those from the first wave of Disney princesses - the Cinderella's, Snow White's and Sleeping Beauty's. My very favorite characters, however, were the Disney villains.

As mentioned in the presentation, many Disney princesses (especially the first wave princesses that I mentioned above) are portrayed in very much the same way - damsel-in-distress, Barbie-like young girls. They always manage to be saved by the handsome prince in the end. They are usually defined by their sexuality and fascination with pretty consumer goods and fluffy animals. Disney villains, on the other hand, are, ironically, also often portrayed as woman. However, I argue that they are much stronger than the Disney princess and portray a better role model for young girls. They are goal-driven, independent and are fascinated more by power than a horse-drawn carriage and glass slippers. Alas, the Disney villain is always defeated in the end (usually by the male figure who saves the princess), proving that (at least, according to Disney) a women who strives for greatness can never win.

I was also particularly fascinated by a quote from the New York Times article "What's wrong with Cinderella. Lyn Mikel Brown, author of "Packaging Girlhood," states "Playing princess is not the issue. The issue is 25,000 princess products. When one thing is so dominant, then it's no longer a choice: it's a mandate cannibalizing all other forms of play. There's the illusion of more choices out there for girls, but if you look around, you'll see their choices are steadily narrowing." Once again, the real damage done to young girls is enforced by consumerism. The idea that girls are bombarded by these images of the Disney princess gives the impression that this is the "right" image of a woman. Despite the fact that princesses are being portrayed as stronger and more feminist, Cinderella and Snow White are still prominent Disney figures. While I have not been to a Disney store recently, I would imagine that girls are being impressed upon by these classic characters as much as I was when I was a little girl.

Of course, at the end of the day, just as the sentiment that was expressed in the presentation, we love them anyways. After learning about these possible detrimental effects these characters can have on children, I would not stop my own kids from watching these films. They are a right of passage and (while prime examples of gender stereotyping) are entertaining for every generation.

Class Presentations

I thoroughly enjoyed the different variety in the presentations that happened yesterday. Two of the presentations that made me really think about the perceptions of feminism were the Disney Princesses and Celebrity Feminists. The way that the Disney Princesses was broken really made me think about the evolution of the princesses personal journey and the narrative behind them. When it was brought up about the earliest princesses having a father figure in their lives versus the current group where it is most often not mentioned really made me start to think. Is this evolution a means to try and reduce patriarchy in Disney princess movies? In the early films there would most often be a father figure and then his role would be placed upon the prince charming to look after and guide the princess. She never really has a say in any action that she partakes in, it's already laid out for her. Yet, now these young women are defined by their personal traits and end up either saving the male figure or not needing one. Now it just makes me wary of when I have young girls which princess movies I want to show them, so they don't turn up with a "happily ever after" complex.

Then with the celebrity feminists, I think that the definition of feminism is so broad and has a negative connotation to it, it's hard to pinpoint who is and isn't. If one is defining being a feminist off of independence and female empowerment then there are plenty of role models. Yet, it's a slippery slope especially with pop stars to maintain a strong empowered female image, while still being their own individual and not the label's puppet. Being a feminist can encompass a lot of different aspects, which I think is the defining reason many people don't want to take on that title. So then just be an educated and self-aware female, that still loves men, but won't take crap for nobody.

Mindy Kaling: Feminist?

As a Mindy Project/Mindy Kaling fan, I found it really interesting to learn about the show and Kaling’s stance on feminism. Although she is a very well-respected screenwriter, actress, and public figure, I do not consider Kaling to be a feminist. It is true that she has gone great lengths to make people respect her, as she has faced much criticism all of her life for her weight, race, and gender. Although she is a well-respected OB/GYN doctor on her show, which perhaps is progressively feminist, her character is portrayed as a boy-crazy and obsessive woman who does not feel complete without a man in her life at all times. This aspect of her character bothers me, because it conveys the notion that although a woman can be successful in their career, she still cannot be complete without a man.

This also raises the question of whether The Mindy Project would attract the same number of viewers without Mindy being a little bit crazy and always on the lookout for her next great love interest. If Mindy was focused solely on her career, this would eliminate a huge part of the drama and comedy of the show. However, if the main character were a male doctor, the love aspect of the show would probably be trivialized and the women would be chasing after him rather than the other way around. Although it’s progressive to have a female doctor lead, the fact that she is constantly obsessing over men almost makes the show seem like a step back for feminism.

Reflection on presentations and discussions

Overall, I thought today’s presentations were very interesting and thought provoking. The final three presentations and discussions struck me the most and left me wondering about our make over culture, magazines, and who, including celebrities, actually know what feminism is. Although I am somewhat familiar with Zooey Deschanel’s work I didn’t know she identified as a feminist (although I was happy to hear that.) I thought the clip shown in class did a great job explaining that feminism can look and be many different things. Just because someone wears bows in their hair and loves pink doesn’t make them not a feminist. I think sometimes we all get so wrapped up in stereotypes we forget things aren’t mutually exclusive. Also, I think it’s important to note that when comparing celebrities like Lady Gaga and Beyonce to Zooey Deschanel and Tina Fey it’s important to recognize that they work in different mediums with different cultures. From my experience in the entertainment industry music is a much harsher world but also usually has a wider audience.

Also, while we talked about the burden of representation lightly in regards to Tina Fey and Mindy Kaling I wanted to elaborate. While I do agree that since there are so few successful female showrunners that have the power to choose how they are represented, I also think it’s important to keep in mind that is it a television show. Without conflict and controversy, tv would not exist. No one would watch a show about a perfect female who had no problem because it would be boring. (I doubt anyone wants to see a show with a perfect male, either). However, I do think it’s vital for females to be aware of how they are representing and they do need to acknowledge that they are role models and setting standards and expectations.

reaction to makeover presentation

The presentation today about beauty and the makeover really stood out to me. Personally, I was repulsed by the bridal show and the trash that is shown on tv. However, I think sometimes they are so extreme that most people don’t take them seriously or look to them as role models (at least I hope) but it is important to realize what stereotypes are out there and how they are influential. Although I don’t want reality plastic surgery shows, I do read fashion magazines, pin about fashion on pinterest, and read fashion blogs so to an extent I am influenced and I thought the presentation did a good job of creating discussion and made me think twice about what I learn from tv shows and fashion magazines. Later today I was reading this article about how a woman had to take 35 minutes to be prepped for tv while the man next to her took 3. I think that speaks to our society and values, but that is nothing new. However, she does argue that although she could refuse make up and look like a Walking Dead character as she references, she doesn’t. Instead, she politely asks for light make up because it’s a means to an end. She wants her voice to be heard and without the proper make up she won’t be allowed on TV or people will be too distracted to listen. While I don’t necessarily think this is true, I do think it’s accurate. Sometimes, the smaller flights like make up on tv aren’t worth sacrificing not being heard on a more important issue. However, does this reinforce the problem and keep women silence by choosing to go along with the 35 minutes of make up? If woman continue to stay silent for “a larger purpose” will the problem ever be fixed? 

Also, i dont think these shows about beauty make overs empower woman at all. It doesnt encourage them to do anything except take the easy way out and get plastic surgery or spend a large amount of money on certain types of clothes. So why do these shows exist? someone must be watching them? i think these shows are definitely targeted towards woman, probably with low confidence. The idea of societys standards of beauty is highly debated in todays world. I think shows like What Not To Wear could benefit from helping contestants find their own personal style in an appropriate way instead of telling them what to wear and that they loook awful. (i'm thining of episodes i've seen of overweight women showing too many body parts).

Todays presentation also made me think of the Dove evoltuion commerical that showed how an average person went through a complete transformation to become an add that we see daily. I think this clip shows really well how everyday people are manipulated and how what we see is being sold to us as an image and unrealistic ideal. I think it's great that companies like Dove raise awareness.

Below is the link to the dove commerical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hibyAJOSW8U

Below is the article I read today about TV make up.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/chloe-angyal/2013/12/mascara-lipgloss-and-other-wastes-of-time/