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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)