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...
No comments:
Post a Comment