This was a very interesting read for me as it was a the first, pure 'cultural analysis' (my designation) that I've ever really read. And to my Professor's credit, it was extremely well done. 'The Exile' explores the ways in which we, as consumers and as a culture, have contributed to the rise, downfall, exile, and comeback of Spears.
Perhaps the most interesting facet of this book was chapter 10, titled 'The Ease of Digestion.' We usually don't recognize our investment in our interests until long after they've come and come. Along those lines, this chapter looked at the way we took in Britney Spears and ate her up. She infiltrated us and we never really realized how overtaken we were, let alone how much we were contributing to the very person she was. Digestion is a natural process that just happens, and we rarely notice or pay attention to it. Our consumption with Spears just happened, without us really noticing.
Another aspect I found intriguing in this book was Smit's chapter titled, 'Motherhood.' He has some very insightful points here.
"Consider how we change the formula for her, and maybe other female child celebrities: things get tricky because we don't want her to mature, but we do want her to become a woman. We want to stunt the growth of her personality, we want her to stay innocent. But we also want her to have the breasts of a woman. We want to sexualize her but we want her to stay a child."
The way we have shaped Britney by our own desires for her has made her incompetent as a mother. We formed her in such a way that she doesn't have the skills (or desire?) to put in the work required to be an adequate parent. Its easy for us to solely blame Spears for her troubles as a parent. But then again, we didn't set her up to be a good parent in the first place!
My only criticism of the book, if you can even call it a criticism, is that Smit places the blame for Britney being who she is on us. I recognize that we, as society, as culture, as consumers, are largely responsible for much of her image and behavior. But I feel it is quite profound, perhaps too profound, to leave no responsibility to Spears. She is an actual human being, and we might even go so far as to say she's a grown-up. So why would we exempt her from her behavior and the choices she's made? It seems to me like it goes too far by not laying any 'blame' on Britney herself.
Questions to ask...
Why is Britney not responsible (at least partly) for Britney?
Do you (Professor Smit) believe culture's consumption shapes most celebrities into who they are?
Links to videos, articles, etc...
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/s/britney_spears/index.html
http://www.drphil.com/articles/article/179
-Dr. Phil gives his advice on how to get over an addiction to a celebrity (quite laughable)
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
"Interacting with Computers"
Domestic Violence and Information Communication Technologies
This was a very intriguing piece of work to me. ICTs are something we interact with almost more than other human beings. Yet, I've never even thought about their role in a domestic violence situation. Not only can they hurt a person while they're in an abusive relationship, but they can still hinder them after they get out of that relationship.
The biggest thing I thought about as I read this was "Wow, have the times changed or what?" I was thinking to myself what a paper on domestic violence would have looked like 20 years ago. What would have been the X factor (so to speak) back then when none of the technology we have today existed in its current form.
Reading Diamond, Fiesler, and Bruckman's work, I was shocked at the inability of the survivors to progress forward in the absence of ICT. Things like a cell phone and computer profile are critical to finding a job and keeping in touch with loved ones (ones who truly loved back). Yet, it was the progress of this technology that often held them back.
One women believed she would be tracked because her abuser had very savvy computer skills. Somebody's knowledge (or claimed knowledge) of ICTs kept this individual from communicating and from progressing from her situation.
One of the most telling parts of the article was this quote. "Violence is often perpetrated against those who do not conform to heterosexual norms or just by being a member of a particular ethnic group, in addition to being a women." I couldn't help but think that its the hegemonic masculinity that perpetrates such violence.
Questions to ask...
What would a report like this have looked like 20 years ago? In other words, what would have been in place of ICTs in the realm of domestic violence?
If ICTs are supposed to help individuals advance from their situation, yet continually pull them back in, how are they supposed to get out?
What are the top reasons for abuse against women?
Links...
http://www.ywcawcmi.org/dv-services.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSl3lhxwhDo
This was a very intriguing piece of work to me. ICTs are something we interact with almost more than other human beings. Yet, I've never even thought about their role in a domestic violence situation. Not only can they hurt a person while they're in an abusive relationship, but they can still hinder them after they get out of that relationship.
The biggest thing I thought about as I read this was "Wow, have the times changed or what?" I was thinking to myself what a paper on domestic violence would have looked like 20 years ago. What would have been the X factor (so to speak) back then when none of the technology we have today existed in its current form.
Reading Diamond, Fiesler, and Bruckman's work, I was shocked at the inability of the survivors to progress forward in the absence of ICT. Things like a cell phone and computer profile are critical to finding a job and keeping in touch with loved ones (ones who truly loved back). Yet, it was the progress of this technology that often held them back.
One women believed she would be tracked because her abuser had very savvy computer skills. Somebody's knowledge (or claimed knowledge) of ICTs kept this individual from communicating and from progressing from her situation.
One of the most telling parts of the article was this quote. "Violence is often perpetrated against those who do not conform to heterosexual norms or just by being a member of a particular ethnic group, in addition to being a women." I couldn't help but think that its the hegemonic masculinity that perpetrates such violence.
Questions to ask...
What would a report like this have looked like 20 years ago? In other words, what would have been in place of ICTs in the realm of domestic violence?
If ICTs are supposed to help individuals advance from their situation, yet continually pull them back in, how are they supposed to get out?
What are the top reasons for abuse against women?
Links...
http://www.ywcawcmi.org/dv-services.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSl3lhxwhDo
Douglas, The Rise of Enlightened Sexism, chapters 6, 7 & 10
Chapter 6: Sex R Us
Douglas discusses two main ideas in this chapter: pornification of the media, and the expert.
Their is an increase in the sexualization that we see from the media...in advertising, in TV shows, etc. Douglas seems to give pornification the nod as a continuation to white power. Through this increasing element of media, roles and expectations for gender are established. Women are often seen as a reward or prize. They 'accessorize' the sexual male. At times they are shown as wild and 'animal like.' As for men, there is virtually no portrayal of a male who is not physically ripped and sculpted. They are the dominant figure over the female. Through the lens of pornification, gender is shown to be static. It is very black and white. Gender is this & this, but it is not this. It is this and nothing else.
Douglas also tells us about the introduction of the 'expert.' They are constantly trying to look and act sexy. They are a makeup of female empowerment and objectified women. They usually aren't of lower class, meaning they at least come from the middle class, but usually from the upper class. Very few of them are not white and they typically spend a lot of time paying attention to pleasing men. She talks about the effort of the persona to be on equal grounds with men. Sexuality was to be seen as normal...but then again, its the media.
Chapter 7: Reality Bites
This chapter is all about reality television. In short, its all about the non-reality of reality television. Representation and portrayal is reality television is skewed. First, we have 'the gaze', i.e. the act of looking. The screen is constantly filled with scenes about the female gaze towards men. Yet, at the same time, the scenes are shot with a lens that seems to act as the eye of a male. We are further bombarded with misrepresentation and underrepresentation as well.
Douglas then gives us her ten examples of enlightened sexism in reality television.
Chapter 10: Women on top...sort of
In Douglas' final chapter (and my favorite), she gives an expose' of the feminism surrounding 4 high profile women of the recent past (and still very visible today); Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, Katie Couric, and Martha Stewart.
We get a dose of two very different types of feminism in Palin and Clinton.
Palin was this 'pit bull' feminist. She was the mother of 5 kids (a number of them still young), governor of Alaska, and she was successful. She was a political calculation and (for a while) seemed to strike a chord with the audience John McCain needed to reach.
In the traditional feminism corner is Clinton. She dressed professionally and acted in a very diplomatic way. She was on-par with males in every was possible. She served in the House of Men (the US Senate) and had taken on issues like health care while she was first lady (first ladies typically write children's books and plant gardens).
We're also introduced to Katie Couric, a high successful news personality. That is, until she took over a position typically 'reserved for men.' And we also meet Martha Stewart, who was also highly successful. Although, the media tends to highlight her as a bitch and a crook.
Questions to ask...
What would a female presidential candidate have to look like (not just physically) in order for the media not to constantly criticize her? (In other words, what is the ideal female candidate look like for the media?)
Does Douglas see characterizations like 'pornification' and 'sexpert' as reversible? Or are they here to stay?
Links...
Douglas discusses two main ideas in this chapter: pornification of the media, and the expert.
Their is an increase in the sexualization that we see from the media...in advertising, in TV shows, etc. Douglas seems to give pornification the nod as a continuation to white power. Through this increasing element of media, roles and expectations for gender are established. Women are often seen as a reward or prize. They 'accessorize' the sexual male. At times they are shown as wild and 'animal like.' As for men, there is virtually no portrayal of a male who is not physically ripped and sculpted. They are the dominant figure over the female. Through the lens of pornification, gender is shown to be static. It is very black and white. Gender is this & this, but it is not this. It is this and nothing else.
Douglas also tells us about the introduction of the 'expert.' They are constantly trying to look and act sexy. They are a makeup of female empowerment and objectified women. They usually aren't of lower class, meaning they at least come from the middle class, but usually from the upper class. Very few of them are not white and they typically spend a lot of time paying attention to pleasing men. She talks about the effort of the persona to be on equal grounds with men. Sexuality was to be seen as normal...but then again, its the media.
Chapter 7: Reality Bites
This chapter is all about reality television. In short, its all about the non-reality of reality television. Representation and portrayal is reality television is skewed. First, we have 'the gaze', i.e. the act of looking. The screen is constantly filled with scenes about the female gaze towards men. Yet, at the same time, the scenes are shot with a lens that seems to act as the eye of a male. We are further bombarded with misrepresentation and underrepresentation as well.
Douglas then gives us her ten examples of enlightened sexism in reality television.
Chapter 10: Women on top...sort of
In Douglas' final chapter (and my favorite), she gives an expose' of the feminism surrounding 4 high profile women of the recent past (and still very visible today); Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, Katie Couric, and Martha Stewart.
We get a dose of two very different types of feminism in Palin and Clinton.
Palin was this 'pit bull' feminist. She was the mother of 5 kids (a number of them still young), governor of Alaska, and she was successful. She was a political calculation and (for a while) seemed to strike a chord with the audience John McCain needed to reach.
In the traditional feminism corner is Clinton. She dressed professionally and acted in a very diplomatic way. She was on-par with males in every was possible. She served in the House of Men (the US Senate) and had taken on issues like health care while she was first lady (first ladies typically write children's books and plant gardens).
We're also introduced to Katie Couric, a high successful news personality. That is, until she took over a position typically 'reserved for men.' And we also meet Martha Stewart, who was also highly successful. Although, the media tends to highlight her as a bitch and a crook.
Questions to ask...
What would a female presidential candidate have to look like (not just physically) in order for the media not to constantly criticize her? (In other words, what is the ideal female candidate look like for the media?)
Does Douglas see characterizations like 'pornification' and 'sexpert' as reversible? Or are they here to stay?
Links...
Monday, October 29, 2012
The Rise of Enlightened Sexism
Douglas, The Rise of Enlightened Sexism, Chapters 1-5
How has the experience of feminism changed in the last 10 years?
It seems to me the last 10 years have changed in that feminism is no longer (mainly) clamoring for equality in image and perception. For example, Douglas spends a lot of time talking about the rise of feminism in TV shows. Popularity with certain shows soared and many of them portrayed females in roles that had once been reserved for men.
I can't recall the exact quote or where it was located, but the creator of one TV show said he (I think it was a he) was tired of the slasher films where females were always the victims. So, his TV creation portrayed the main female character as fighting evil and coming out on top as the heroine.
So how has this changed? After the ending/termination/retirement/cancellation/whatever/etc. of a number of these shows, the portrayal of females went back to heavily rely on sexuality and now feminism has changed its fight to decrease the presence of women in this role.The increasing rise of MTV, VH1 and shows like Desperate Housewives and The Bachelor.
This time around, female figures/characters are highlighted for their sexuality and the quality of an experience in bed with them as opposed to their ability to fight against 'evil.'
So, instead of pushing for their image to be built up in a way that was typically unassociated with females, feminism is now trying to combat the 'new' way the female figure is portrayed in pop culture.
How have these changes effected communication?
In terms of institutional communication, it is very common for women to be the blunt of sexist remarks and sarcasm that typically get passed off as though somebody is "only kidding." It is as though their sexuality is made into a mockery and set up as typical and ordinary, instead of something we should view as holy.
I think back to my high school days and the time I spent with my guy friends eating lunch in the halls at school or hanging out on Friday nights. The type of interpersonal communication that went on concerning females was anything but personal. It was usually objectified. I sat through I-don't-know-how-many conversations about how certain girls looked as they walked by or who they'd 'done stuff' with lately. Especially for me, interpersonal communication within my male group of friends was heavily dominated by the subject of females. The exact same perception of sexuality that feminism is trying to eliminate is exactly what infiltrated conversations for many years.
What communication events came to mind while reading?
The biggest event that came to my mind was Hillary Clinton's 2008 run for the presidency. Now, if a presidential campaign isn't a communication event, then I don't know what is. I was a freshman in high school the spring of 2008 when all the primaries took place. I don't remember reading headlines or listening to the political bobbleheads talking about Clinton's sexuality or what she was wearing, etc. I remember her being a legitimate candidate for the office. I remember seeing videos and pictures of thousands and thousands of people showing up to listen to hear speak. I watched returns on the night of primaries and saw the results as she took in millions of votes.
The context of this all? It happened during a time (especially according to my answer to question 1) when culture was high on sex, criticism, and objectification. From what we've read of Julia Wood and so far with Susan Douglas, they place a world of emphasis on what sexism did to Clinton instead of what Clinton did to sexism. And to note, that's another fault of culture/media. A favorite quote of mine goes like this, "The evening news is where they start by saying 'Good Evening,' and then they proceed to tell you why it isn't." So much energy could have been spent on the positives of the entire experience and campaign. YES, sexism was present and entered the picture, but why does it still have to be large portion instead of a thumbnail? Instances of sexism will never fully disappear, just as racism won't. We live in a fallen world. But this event, Hillary2008, was one that came to my mind as one that should have made great strides, yet I continually read otherwise.
Links to videos, music, etc.
Katie Couric's notebook, on Campaign Sexism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N4M3TIsGM0&feature=relmfu
Sexism in Music http://voices.yahoo.com/sexism-music-5228711.html
Sexism in Super Bowl commercials http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/post/super-bowl-ads-2012the-sexiest-sexist-ads/2012/02/03/gIQAJqyfnQ_blog.html
Discussion Questions:
How far does feminism have to go in pointing out sexism until they choose to focus on progress?
The media is high on sexism because it sells. Is there anything about our gender or sexuality that is not offensive that could make as big a wave in culture as sexism does?
How has the experience of feminism changed in the last 10 years?
It seems to me the last 10 years have changed in that feminism is no longer (mainly) clamoring for equality in image and perception. For example, Douglas spends a lot of time talking about the rise of feminism in TV shows. Popularity with certain shows soared and many of them portrayed females in roles that had once been reserved for men.
I can't recall the exact quote or where it was located, but the creator of one TV show said he (I think it was a he) was tired of the slasher films where females were always the victims. So, his TV creation portrayed the main female character as fighting evil and coming out on top as the heroine.
So how has this changed? After the ending/termination/retirement/cancellation/whatever/etc. of a number of these shows, the portrayal of females went back to heavily rely on sexuality and now feminism has changed its fight to decrease the presence of women in this role.The increasing rise of MTV, VH1 and shows like Desperate Housewives and The Bachelor.
This time around, female figures/characters are highlighted for their sexuality and the quality of an experience in bed with them as opposed to their ability to fight against 'evil.'
So, instead of pushing for their image to be built up in a way that was typically unassociated with females, feminism is now trying to combat the 'new' way the female figure is portrayed in pop culture.
How have these changes effected communication?
In terms of institutional communication, it is very common for women to be the blunt of sexist remarks and sarcasm that typically get passed off as though somebody is "only kidding." It is as though their sexuality is made into a mockery and set up as typical and ordinary, instead of something we should view as holy.
I think back to my high school days and the time I spent with my guy friends eating lunch in the halls at school or hanging out on Friday nights. The type of interpersonal communication that went on concerning females was anything but personal. It was usually objectified. I sat through I-don't-know-how-many conversations about how certain girls looked as they walked by or who they'd 'done stuff' with lately. Especially for me, interpersonal communication within my male group of friends was heavily dominated by the subject of females. The exact same perception of sexuality that feminism is trying to eliminate is exactly what infiltrated conversations for many years.
What communication events came to mind while reading?
The biggest event that came to my mind was Hillary Clinton's 2008 run for the presidency. Now, if a presidential campaign isn't a communication event, then I don't know what is. I was a freshman in high school the spring of 2008 when all the primaries took place. I don't remember reading headlines or listening to the political bobbleheads talking about Clinton's sexuality or what she was wearing, etc. I remember her being a legitimate candidate for the office. I remember seeing videos and pictures of thousands and thousands of people showing up to listen to hear speak. I watched returns on the night of primaries and saw the results as she took in millions of votes.
The context of this all? It happened during a time (especially according to my answer to question 1) when culture was high on sex, criticism, and objectification. From what we've read of Julia Wood and so far with Susan Douglas, they place a world of emphasis on what sexism did to Clinton instead of what Clinton did to sexism. And to note, that's another fault of culture/media. A favorite quote of mine goes like this, "The evening news is where they start by saying 'Good Evening,' and then they proceed to tell you why it isn't." So much energy could have been spent on the positives of the entire experience and campaign. YES, sexism was present and entered the picture, but why does it still have to be large portion instead of a thumbnail? Instances of sexism will never fully disappear, just as racism won't. We live in a fallen world. But this event, Hillary2008, was one that came to my mind as one that should have made great strides, yet I continually read otherwise.
Links to videos, music, etc.
Katie Couric's notebook, on Campaign Sexism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N4M3TIsGM0&feature=relmfu
Sexism in Music http://voices.yahoo.com/sexism-music-5228711.html
Sexism in Super Bowl commercials http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/post/super-bowl-ads-2012the-sexiest-sexist-ads/2012/02/03/gIQAJqyfnQ_blog.html
Discussion Questions:
How far does feminism have to go in pointing out sexism until they choose to focus on progress?
The media is high on sexism because it sells. Is there anything about our gender or sexuality that is not offensive that could make as big a wave in culture as sexism does?
Monday, October 8, 2012
Wood, Gendered Lives, Chapter 11, & "Her Body, Himself"
Gendered Lives
Chapter 11
Whether you believe it or not, media affects our everyday lives. People may claim immunity (as most do), but the reality of reality is that we are each affected by media: TV shows, commercials, magazine adds, radio programming, etc. Media also shapes culture's expectations of gender and the relationships between the genders. Most programming and advertising will reinforce stereotypical roles for men and women, and only rarely will media challenging these norms be present.
These forms of media shape our views of self and gender by doing a few things. First, they tell us there is something wrong with us. We are not normal. Second, they tell us we can fix our 'wrongness' by buying product X, Y, and Z, and buy doing workout 1 and starting diet 2. The media is fueled by providing (in us) a false sense of security and non-satisfaction. Their goal is to get us to consume!
Perhaps the most anger-provoking facet of Wood's chapter is that on the continual sexualization of women. This is present is the ever increasing number of movies containing sexual innuendos and sexual scenes. Turn on the radio to a hip-hop station and the rap music is likely to contain prose about 'bitches' and 'hoes' and perhaps even how one can 'smack that.'
*I could continue to write more on this chapter but the result would just be one long rant, and that is not the purpose of this blog.
Her Body, Himself
While I admit this reading was not the easiest for me to follow, I can say I found a few things to be valuable. Playing right along with Wood's chapter on media (movies are media after all) is the sexualization prevalent in many of these horror, 'slasher' films. The killing and murder that is present is centrally located around (in many films) sex and other love scenes. It works, first of all, because media are bias toward sexualization any way and for the same reason that we are drawn most to those scenes, and that is when the unexpected happens.
Another facet I found interesting is the section 'Final Girl.' It comes to me as no surprise that women are the victims of violence. To note, both sexes are killed in these massacre movies. However, it is the preoccupation with women and struggle that dominates the screens and the concluding parts of these films. And even if she survives, it is the female who must go on living with the dreams and haunting memories of a violent past.
Questions to ask?
Why did Wood shy away from the fact that recently, 2 of 3 major network's evening news programs were anchored by women? I can list handfuls of women reporters...
Do feminists argue for equality across the occupational spectrum or just better representation for females?
Links to articles, videos, music, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FpyGwP3yzE
-Jean Kilbourne's 'Killing us Softly 3'
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/weekinreview/09abramson.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
-brilliant article titled, 'When Will We Stop Saying, 'First Women to ______?'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5pM1fW6hNs&feature=related
-Miss Representation Extended Trailer
Chapter 11
Whether you believe it or not, media affects our everyday lives. People may claim immunity (as most do), but the reality of reality is that we are each affected by media: TV shows, commercials, magazine adds, radio programming, etc. Media also shapes culture's expectations of gender and the relationships between the genders. Most programming and advertising will reinforce stereotypical roles for men and women, and only rarely will media challenging these norms be present.
These forms of media shape our views of self and gender by doing a few things. First, they tell us there is something wrong with us. We are not normal. Second, they tell us we can fix our 'wrongness' by buying product X, Y, and Z, and buy doing workout 1 and starting diet 2. The media is fueled by providing (in us) a false sense of security and non-satisfaction. Their goal is to get us to consume!
Perhaps the most anger-provoking facet of Wood's chapter is that on the continual sexualization of women. This is present is the ever increasing number of movies containing sexual innuendos and sexual scenes. Turn on the radio to a hip-hop station and the rap music is likely to contain prose about 'bitches' and 'hoes' and perhaps even how one can 'smack that.'
*I could continue to write more on this chapter but the result would just be one long rant, and that is not the purpose of this blog.
Her Body, Himself
While I admit this reading was not the easiest for me to follow, I can say I found a few things to be valuable. Playing right along with Wood's chapter on media (movies are media after all) is the sexualization prevalent in many of these horror, 'slasher' films. The killing and murder that is present is centrally located around (in many films) sex and other love scenes. It works, first of all, because media are bias toward sexualization any way and for the same reason that we are drawn most to those scenes, and that is when the unexpected happens.
Another facet I found interesting is the section 'Final Girl.' It comes to me as no surprise that women are the victims of violence. To note, both sexes are killed in these massacre movies. However, it is the preoccupation with women and struggle that dominates the screens and the concluding parts of these films. And even if she survives, it is the female who must go on living with the dreams and haunting memories of a violent past.
Questions to ask?
Why did Wood shy away from the fact that recently, 2 of 3 major network's evening news programs were anchored by women? I can list handfuls of women reporters...
Do feminists argue for equality across the occupational spectrum or just better representation for females?
Links to articles, videos, music, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FpyGwP3yzE
-Jean Kilbourne's 'Killing us Softly 3'
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/weekinreview/09abramson.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
-brilliant article titled, 'When Will We Stop Saying, 'First Women to ______?'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5pM1fW6hNs&feature=related
-Miss Representation Extended Trailer
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Wood, Gendered Lives, Chapter 9, & "In Re-Mission" & "The Paradox of Martha Stewart"
Chapter 9
Exploring gendered relationships (close), a number of differences are highlighted. For example, the male deficit model says that 'men are less skilled in developing and sustaining personal relationships' than women are. Another example is the alternate paths model, saying that gendered socialization is the root of differences between feminine and masculine styles of relating. It also says that masculine people do express closeness, but in a different way from feminine people.
This closeness is explored as feminine closeness tends to relate to dialogue, while masculine closeness tends to form in the 'doing' of different things. The sharpest point comes when Wood examines 'gendered power dynamics.' Society has defined roles and limits for each gender in terms of relating to the opposite gender. Non-traditional roles such as stay-at-home dads and female breadwinners are brought into focus. Numerous additional examples are included to show growing trends against the traditional norms.
In Re-Mission
Amy Harter attacks the article by Lynn Peters that women should only participate one way when having sex. Peters calls the missionary position 'a quarter pounder with cheese,' trying to portray familiarity, which Harter calls is an excuse for boredom, which sex is not and should not be. Peter's also says the missionary position is best because the women looks better and is less concerned with her appearance. Harter makes the claim that sex is about feeling good in your own body, so who cares what you are trying to disguise.
Harter's main criticism of Peter's is that she plays on the insecurities of the females; her need to look right and provide optimum experience for the male.
The Paradox of Martha Stewart
This article is a portrayal of Martha Stewart, a very successful businesswoman, publisher, author and television personality. Two mediums of the mainstream media are used to explain why Stewart, such an accomplished person, needs to be married in order to do what she does and to paradoxically explain why she won't ever get married.
In a 60 Minutes piece, Morely Safer repeatedly refers to the less-desireable characteristics of her personality. The way he portrays Stewart as a women garnering success from traditional masculine roles seems threatening. He also seems to say that if she doesn't have a man in her life, she just can't be happy.
The other media medium is the trash-magazine/tabloid the Globe. The magazine assumes that Stewart's success is hampering her on a personal level (like finding a husband!). Men also aren't attracted to Stewart because she displays characteristics that undermine the power males typically associate with.
Questions to ask...
"The Paradox of Martha Stewart" seems to support the idea that its the media who is upholding traditional roles of males and females. Do you think the media are the main upholders of traditional views?
How much consideration do you think peoples in relationship with each other give to power dynamics?
Links to articles, videos, etc...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125936,00.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pknw1wh-2-U
-The trailer to the movie 'The Pacifier'.....power dynamics anyone?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSS5dEeMX64
-"I'll Make a Man Out of You" from Mulan
Exploring gendered relationships (close), a number of differences are highlighted. For example, the male deficit model says that 'men are less skilled in developing and sustaining personal relationships' than women are. Another example is the alternate paths model, saying that gendered socialization is the root of differences between feminine and masculine styles of relating. It also says that masculine people do express closeness, but in a different way from feminine people.
This closeness is explored as feminine closeness tends to relate to dialogue, while masculine closeness tends to form in the 'doing' of different things. The sharpest point comes when Wood examines 'gendered power dynamics.' Society has defined roles and limits for each gender in terms of relating to the opposite gender. Non-traditional roles such as stay-at-home dads and female breadwinners are brought into focus. Numerous additional examples are included to show growing trends against the traditional norms.
In Re-Mission
Amy Harter attacks the article by Lynn Peters that women should only participate one way when having sex. Peters calls the missionary position 'a quarter pounder with cheese,' trying to portray familiarity, which Harter calls is an excuse for boredom, which sex is not and should not be. Peter's also says the missionary position is best because the women looks better and is less concerned with her appearance. Harter makes the claim that sex is about feeling good in your own body, so who cares what you are trying to disguise.
Harter's main criticism of Peter's is that she plays on the insecurities of the females; her need to look right and provide optimum experience for the male.
The Paradox of Martha Stewart
This article is a portrayal of Martha Stewart, a very successful businesswoman, publisher, author and television personality. Two mediums of the mainstream media are used to explain why Stewart, such an accomplished person, needs to be married in order to do what she does and to paradoxically explain why she won't ever get married.
In a 60 Minutes piece, Morely Safer repeatedly refers to the less-desireable characteristics of her personality. The way he portrays Stewart as a women garnering success from traditional masculine roles seems threatening. He also seems to say that if she doesn't have a man in her life, she just can't be happy.
The other media medium is the trash-magazine/tabloid the Globe. The magazine assumes that Stewart's success is hampering her on a personal level (like finding a husband!). Men also aren't attracted to Stewart because she displays characteristics that undermine the power males typically associate with.
Questions to ask...
"The Paradox of Martha Stewart" seems to support the idea that its the media who is upholding traditional roles of males and females. Do you think the media are the main upholders of traditional views?
How much consideration do you think peoples in relationship with each other give to power dynamics?
Links to articles, videos, etc...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125936,00.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pknw1wh-2-U
-The trailer to the movie 'The Pacifier'.....power dynamics anyone?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSS5dEeMX64
-"I'll Make a Man Out of You" from Mulan
Monday, September 24, 2012
Wood, Gendered Lives, Chapters 3 & 4, 'And Now a Word from Our Sponsors', 'I Can't Believe its not Feminism'
Gendered Lives, Chapters 3 & 4
Chapter 3: There have been three major movements in feminism, with each incorporating its own unique interests while at the same time carrying over fundamentals from previous movements. Many different strategies have been used to promote ideals, equality, etc. such as conventions and speeches to public lobbying. Every individual holds positions regarding sex and women even if not classifying themselves as a feminist or anti-feminist. Throughout these feminist movements, (at least) two important trends have evolved. The first is the ignition of movement on the part of a group that feels left out (Black Women Organized for Action). The other is feminist backlash (National Association Opposed to Women's Suffrage, Fascinating Womanhood) pushing for, among other things, anti-suffrage and a female return to traditional roles.
Chapter 4: Sometimes its needed to remember that there are two sides to every debate, and in the case of feminism, its the men. There are men and men's groups who are feminist and fight for gender equality. They work with women on their behalf. At the same time, there are men's movements whose basis of formation is the threat they feel from women because of their push for equality. Men themselves are not alone in discrimination based on sex. Men are far less likely to be granted child custody in a divorce case and have you ever heard of a father receiving paternity leave? There are also movements that strive for the strengthening of the male's already dominant position, contradicting existing movements by returning men to 'traditional roles and feelings of strength.'
And Now a Word From Our Sponsors
The media has figured out that the best way to sell to the female population is to 'make them feel as if they are important.' If females are portrayed as successful and strong, it will make the viewer believe buying said product will turn her into that person. Wouldn't we all like to be the ideal person? This portrayal of women isn't meant to highlight the disparity in pay between men and woman or spotlight the blatant advertising schemes exploiting women. It serves one purpose and one purpose only; drive capitalism.
I Can't Believe Its Not Feminism
This is what feminism is. This is what all these people stand for. This is what they are doing. They are wrong. A host of feminists and ideals are examined but the one prevailing thought in the bash-and-break article is that they are doing it all wrong. Only at the very end does Julia Craig offer a bit of a let-up on what she spent 9 pages ripping into. After all her criticism, she offers a brief explanation that different views do serve to exploit where feminism is lacking and the areas where it can improve. However, in the end, each is glossed over as feminism, but 'proved' to be nothing of the sort.
Questions to ask...
If each of the women in Julie Craig's article has feminism wrong, what is the right way to portray and pursue it?
If the feminist movement overshadows the rights men are trying to receive, what chance do they have of ever achieving them? And to what end must they go?
When John Boehner became Speaker of the House, he cried. He was called a cry-baby and over emotional. When Hillary Clinton won state after state in the Democratic Primaries of 2008, she was hailed as this phenomenal achiever. Both these situations went against societies traditional conceptions of male and female. Why was one applauded and the other scrutinized?
Links...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSqUtbbkVXg
At a town hall event in Africa, Hillary Clinton is asked what her husband thinks of the issue at hand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw4-1E4ooX0
George Bush and Geraldine Ferraro in the 1984 Vice Presidential debate.
http://www.mens-divorce.com/
This is a law-firm in Michigan dedicated solely to fighting for men's rights in divorce.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x64cy3Bcr98
I certainly don't advocate Bill Maher nor do I often care to listen to him. This clip does have profanity and other inappropriate language. I posted it because I think its interesting. Its Bill's rant against what modern feminism has done to America.
Chapter 3: There have been three major movements in feminism, with each incorporating its own unique interests while at the same time carrying over fundamentals from previous movements. Many different strategies have been used to promote ideals, equality, etc. such as conventions and speeches to public lobbying. Every individual holds positions regarding sex and women even if not classifying themselves as a feminist or anti-feminist. Throughout these feminist movements, (at least) two important trends have evolved. The first is the ignition of movement on the part of a group that feels left out (Black Women Organized for Action). The other is feminist backlash (National Association Opposed to Women's Suffrage, Fascinating Womanhood) pushing for, among other things, anti-suffrage and a female return to traditional roles.
Chapter 4: Sometimes its needed to remember that there are two sides to every debate, and in the case of feminism, its the men. There are men and men's groups who are feminist and fight for gender equality. They work with women on their behalf. At the same time, there are men's movements whose basis of formation is the threat they feel from women because of their push for equality. Men themselves are not alone in discrimination based on sex. Men are far less likely to be granted child custody in a divorce case and have you ever heard of a father receiving paternity leave? There are also movements that strive for the strengthening of the male's already dominant position, contradicting existing movements by returning men to 'traditional roles and feelings of strength.'
And Now a Word From Our Sponsors
The media has figured out that the best way to sell to the female population is to 'make them feel as if they are important.' If females are portrayed as successful and strong, it will make the viewer believe buying said product will turn her into that person. Wouldn't we all like to be the ideal person? This portrayal of women isn't meant to highlight the disparity in pay between men and woman or spotlight the blatant advertising schemes exploiting women. It serves one purpose and one purpose only; drive capitalism.
I Can't Believe Its Not Feminism
This is what feminism is. This is what all these people stand for. This is what they are doing. They are wrong. A host of feminists and ideals are examined but the one prevailing thought in the bash-and-break article is that they are doing it all wrong. Only at the very end does Julia Craig offer a bit of a let-up on what she spent 9 pages ripping into. After all her criticism, she offers a brief explanation that different views do serve to exploit where feminism is lacking and the areas where it can improve. However, in the end, each is glossed over as feminism, but 'proved' to be nothing of the sort.
Questions to ask...
If each of the women in Julie Craig's article has feminism wrong, what is the right way to portray and pursue it?
If the feminist movement overshadows the rights men are trying to receive, what chance do they have of ever achieving them? And to what end must they go?
When John Boehner became Speaker of the House, he cried. He was called a cry-baby and over emotional. When Hillary Clinton won state after state in the Democratic Primaries of 2008, she was hailed as this phenomenal achiever. Both these situations went against societies traditional conceptions of male and female. Why was one applauded and the other scrutinized?
Links...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSqUtbbkVXg
At a town hall event in Africa, Hillary Clinton is asked what her husband thinks of the issue at hand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw4-1E4ooX0
George Bush and Geraldine Ferraro in the 1984 Vice Presidential debate.
http://www.mens-divorce.com/
This is a law-firm in Michigan dedicated solely to fighting for men's rights in divorce.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x64cy3Bcr98
I certainly don't advocate Bill Maher nor do I often care to listen to him. This clip does have profanity and other inappropriate language. I posted it because I think its interesting. Its Bill's rant against what modern feminism has done to America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)