So, we've finally reached the end of the semester and now it is time for the last post. While going through topics to talk about I was not really sure how to end this blog or what would even be a good end topic.
Looking back over the course we've learned a lot of different things and expressed a lot of different ideas. It's important to create this open dialogue and it's important to try and see where people are coming from. This class has been informative and important in the discussion of how media affects our lives and what role the media should have in our own private lives and that of the public.
I would like to end this semester by talking about:
Lady Gaga
Now some of you may be wondering why I have chosen Lady Gaga and that's a good question! I picked Lady Gaga because not only is she a strong female performer but she is the optimality of what we have been discussion. If there is one thing we have learned in class is that mass media is everywhere and that mass media is swirling into one large object that dictates our lives, our ideals, and the way we communicate.
Lady Gaga burst out onto the scene in a flurry of glitter and in your face viral pop. Playing off aspects of Queen, Bowie, and Madonna she quickly picked up a number one hit with "Just Dance" and released a number of viral videos shot in French expressionist style as she created her "House Of Gaga" in which she played with Gay and Lesbian subcultures where groups of outcast would live in "house" with a mother as the head.
Example:
Now why is this important to mass media? Sure Lady Gaga isn't a diplomat, and no she isn't a politician but she got us talking and for that I respect her. She has played with and exploited this new face of media where to get famous there has to be a gimmick, a show, a full frontal assault on all of our senses. Now the media has to work its way into every aspect of our lives and it has. Now it no longer means anything to have talent (though she has it), but the way you package. We found this out when we pitched our cartoon creation since we had to make a kid friendly cartoon yet, we also have to think about pitches and marketing.
By being outrageous and over the top Gaga has created that "IT" factor as a performer that we look for. By spreading rumors and being crazy she has created a persona that makes us want more. Yet, she also keeps herself at arms length for rumor magazines, by controlling this tight knit image she makes it hard to really spread anything or everyone would believe it, thus making it hard to damage her career.
Thankfully Gaga has found the special ingredient for making it in the American pop scene and that to always keep them guessing. I hope when you see artist like Lady Gaga you think about mass media and the effect it has and that by manipulating it you can raise to stardom too.
Now, I know I talk a lot about ad's and that we've moved on from advertising and how advertisers prey on women's insecurities to sell products, yet, I wanna talk about a certain commercial that just gets me heated.
Recently Reebok had put out a series of commercial that advertises for their new shoe line, easytone. Now the purpose of the shoe is that it is suppose to tighten and tone your hamstrings and improve the way your butt looks. I get it. What women wouldn't want her butt to look nice and sexy as she tries to impress everyone else around her~! Yet, what does this say? That it conveniently fits into our easy and instant gratification culture to just walk around and look fabulous? What does it show to young women who see these commercials and think that this is the way that their bodies have to look?
It would be easy to understand if Reebok appealed to women who wish to look "sexy" but these commercials don't even try to hide the fact that they are objectifying women bodies! They use "voyeuristic" frames to stare at the women and never come in to focus on faces, giving the feel that the womens individuality is not important, just her body. They do not focus on health and fitness but vanity and that being slim is more important than improving your health and that by being slim you are instantly better than other people.
Here are the three commercials produced for line so you can see for yourself:
Maybe it might be a bit crazy to get so upset over something so "harmless" and to not see where the advertisers are coming from but it is hard to over look the messages that they are sending. It also is important to note the messages that are being sent about being sexy and the importance on sexuality in the foundation of "you". That without being sexy you really are not worth anything. It's horrifying to know that advertisers now a days are so brazen in their attempts to sell shoes that they are not even masking the sex anymore.
For last week and this week reading, both articles focused on the effects of TV, specifically children programming, on creative childhood play and classroom dynamics.
The first article, entitled The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers reflected on the harmful effect of the TV show Power Rangers, and what teachers felt of the show and the consequences that they had personally witnessed from the shows impact on younger viewers. The article is very one sided in its representation of the show and sides with the teachers growing concerns that the Power Rangers promotes children to play violently and that it stunts their creativity in play by giving them a force script. The authors even go on to act like teachers know everything there is to do with children and their well being, stating that "As the Power Rangers have entered the lives of children, families, and schools, we are seeing the voices of teachers continue to go unheeded." (p. 364)
Yet, the second article we read Lay Theories of Media Effects uses a very smart and sophisticated way of look at schools and the effect TV has on them. By looking at class and socio-economics of the three schools, the author Ellen Seiter presents a much clear picture of how TV shows and film media are now entering schools and public/private daycare centers. By not just looking at the larger picture, Seiter is able to look at different factors that make up the children’s backgrounds and level of educational funding.
Children in the higher socio-economic class had been denied TV media and most film media but only because the teacher was afraid of this new media threatening her status in the class as the leader and the rule enforcer. Yet, children in the lower socio-economic classrooms had been allowed to bring in TV media and choose from a larger library of films their teacher already had. Why is this? It may be because the lower socio-economic teacher was use to dealing with these new forms of media because children in her daycare parents could not afford “higher material” and so she became forced to confront TV.
By TV becoming a dominant persistence in every day homes, she is forced to confront these shows head on and evaluate their educational merit and purpose unlike the other teacher at the Montessori Pre-school, whose children parents, could afford them “educated” items. There now is a debate over this class status of what is “educational” and not and certain items become “high culture” and “low culture” even in the classroom because of this social class divide presented in the comparison of the Montessori Pre-school, which uses “high brow” material, and Gloria’s Family Daycare, which uses “low brown” material.
TV should not be seen as “educational” or “non-educational” but for what it is: entertainment. TV is to entertain and provide an escape from real world problems, just like with movies that grew in popularity in the Great Depression because they were a way to get people’s minds off the state of the economy. TV should not be presented as educational in my opinion because when you claim TV is “educational” it then is deemed to prosecution in the argument of whether it is appropriate or not or is “high brow” or “low brow”. If TV was “educational” than more studies would come out about this “good media” and its effect on the growth and development of children, like stated in class, the Baby Einstein line is being recalled because it serves no educational purpose. If we look at TV as pure entertainment than I believe, it be easier for parents to regulate the amount of TV children watch and what kind of entertainment their children watch. By labeling TV “educational” it makes it easier for TV to become a bigger presence in younger children lives, thus allow them to be a bigger marketing target to advertisers. Though I will admit that if there is any TB that I have found to be “educational” it be the use of Sesame Street, which was revolutionary for its time and helped in providing educational PBS programming.
So where does this leave The Power Rangers?
I think the issue with the Power Rangers has to be one that should be looked at culturally, for too long have we worried about race, class, and gender when studying media but we forget a crucial aspect, which is culture. Our culture makes up who we are, and the things we find social acceptable.
The Power Rangers is actually a cross over hit that was imported from Japan and remade with American actors. While not all of it is, but most of its action footage was made with Japanese stunt actors. This is not something that was ever mentioned in the top two articles nor something taken into account in my opinion as teachers were voicing concerns or different groups were doing different studies. If we forget that something is of a different culture than we forget to look at its broader social impact that transverses the globe and makes impact globally.
The genre that Power Rangers falls in is what is known as Tokusatsu, which literally means "special effects" when translated. The genre of tokusatsu is known for its use of superheroes and special effects as it pits good versus evil. A popular version of this is the well known Godzilla film franchise that uses this over the top spectacular type of filming to create dramatic effects and explores this dichotomy of good versus evil.
The Power Ranger was originally known as Super Sentai in Japan which literally refers to the use of what is known as Mecha (machines or robots in Japanese culture) and sentai which means task force. The series actually starts out with a group of people gaining magical powers that allow them to transform into magical super heroes. Each super sentai then became its own season, which would include a new cast and a new story line. The first series of this sentai franchise was Himitsu Sentai Goranger in 1974. The original story plot was that when world peace is threatened by the emergence of an international secret society of evil called the "Kuro Juujigun" (Black Cross Army/Black Crusaders), the United Nations sets up an "EAGLE" (EArth Guard LEague) (Kokusaiteki Heiwa Soushiki Iiguru) to combat the threat. This special army is distributed to various parts of the world (designated as "Blocks"). One of the largest "Blocks" is Japan and as this secret society goes about destroying its "targets" a group of individual rise up and fight for the cause.
Now this story plot relies heavily on Japanese mentality and culture. In Japan it is more popular to work for the good of the group. This group mentality is reflected in its social norms and accepted behavior so it is easy to see why this type of show would be popular in Japan yet, how does this relate to America and the U.S. cultural norms? Why would we miss the point of the group dynamic and focus in on the violence?
I want to show an example of both shows by featuring a clip of the Japanese version compared to the English U.S. version. Can you see differences? Or does it look similar?
So, if there doesn't seem to be much difference in the structure of the show than why all the uproar? Because these shows use live actors to film some of the stunts?
I think instead of just blaming the power rangers for "violent" play we should look at cultural and structural issues that cause these problems. Even if we just banned Power Rangers would the problem solve itself? Or would something else just take its place? If we regulate children TV and marketing to children under the age of 17 I think a lot of these problems would start to solve themselves. By marketing to children we create these structure play be it from the Power Rangers to "educational" material like Sleeping Beauty. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
Or maybe it's just because I grew up with Power Rangers and never experienced this kind of play. Who knows? Maybe it's me just being a grumpy old grandma trying to protect the things she grew up with.
It is not surprising to find politicians often use fear as a tactic to win political campaigns. Fear has always been a strategic tactic in convincing others to follow you, which can be seen in examples like WWII, the American occupation of Iraq, and the Cold War to name a few. Fear is such an important emotion to humans and crucial in our need for survival and order; it is no wonder that political parties would use it for their own gain.
Recently women’s health has become a battleground for conflicting ideologies between political parties. By using scare tactics, they can play on the fear of women who face such life altering diseases like cancer and their survival to sway voter’s opinions about issues like health care and health care reform.
This happened recently with an ad ran by the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF), a nonprofit organization that considered themselves both conservative and Republican. This group recently ran an ad that uses fear tactics to try and sway women to vote differently on the health care reform bill. By using a breast cancer survivor as their spokesperson they comment that if Washington offers a federally ran health program then thousand of women will die from diseases like breast cancer. They also comment that countries like England, which has a public health care option, has a higher death rate than the United States, which is irresponsible and false.
Looking at factchecker.org (link refdirects to original article), a project of the Annenberg public policy center, they actually spoke to an epidemiologist with the cancer society told us that the way the figures used in the ads were calculated "really faulty” and
In addition, they stated:
-The ad uses outdated survival rate statistics. More recent numbers show England’s survival rate to be closing the gap with that of the United States.
-Experts with the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute told us that mortality rates provide a much more accurate comparison.
-And the mortality rates for breast cancer for the two countries are similar.
Here is the ad in question:
Now why do you think they would use women as a way to win votes? Also do you think it is fair for political parties to use ads like these to push their own agenda? In fact who are we really hurting with ads like these? We hurt the thousand of women who battle breast cancer and the programs that would help in finding a cure. it's horrible that they would use such a serious issue as a way to end the health reform bill.
For this semester, I am currently taking a film class and as our semester carries on our coursework has moved into films from the 1960s and the "counter culture" that questioned the so called "establishment". The films that were produced during this area have been nicked named "The Youth Pic" which usually had at its center a rebel anti-hero who doesn't play by assumed norms presented by society.
Yet, something else took shape during this time period that would alter the way women in films were created. This shift came after the rating system was put in place in Hollywood, this rating system basically allowed films of different types and genres to be made, unlike the 1940s for example, where films had to pass a certain code before they could be shown.
This change that occurred was the overt sexual contextualization of females in films. During the 1960s the second wave of feminism was given birth and as women gained rights in things like abortions and birth control, these rights were quickly switched into that of the Sexual Revolution and a masculine tone in films. This in my opinion is basically what started this objectification of women in modern films.
While I love the film, Barbarella would be a classic example of this:
The story is about a young female assigned by the President of the United States to retrieve Doctor Durand-Durand from the planet SoGo. Sadly, the rest of the film is basically loosely scripted so that the character can be placed in erotic situations and that's it. So while they are showing a strong woman they are also still putting her into this overly sexual context. The display of the body now became the tone of the woman's liberation movement.
This has happened to almost all women in film where the audience is treated to sneak peaks of their bodies, or they are shown as just a sexual object to the male protagonist and in his ability to access the power he is shown to naturally have with him (think comic books).
This still happens today with the genre of films known as "animal comedies" which include such titles as American Pie, Porky's, Fast times at Ridgemont High, and Bachelor Party to name a few.
Why do you think these films still exist today? I believe that objectifying women has become a common theme in our society because of our behavior towards women and the human body. By casting these things as 'dirty' and 'obscene' we only fuel the fire that centers around the need to be 'perfect' and 'attractive' that creates the emotional projects and discourse that we see now in today's culture.
This year former Saturday Night Live performer and actor Al Franken was sworn in as the Senator of Minnesota. This liberal Democrat then went on to tackle his first big political hurtle of his new career. You may be wondering what this is?
His Anti-rape Bill.
In simple terms this bill would make it so that the government would no longer provide federal funding to federal contractors and civilian contractors that used arbitration as a way to cover up sexual and physical abuse cases involving employees.
Now arbitration's is when a employee signs away the rights to sue a certain company, this would allow the company to settle the manner out of courts and hide away the fact that they ever had a problem in the first place.
Here is Al Franken's speech to congress about the bill:
So this should totally be a no brainier? There could possible be no way that anyone could argue against it! I mean come on, there could not be anyone who would actually think that companies have the right to settle rape clauses privately so no legal repercussions could come to these corporate rapist....
....wait a second. In fact 30 different Republican senators voted against the bill. I present to you the list of the 30 men who thought that an anti-rape bill was pointless and a waste of time. Now this is not to just bash republicans but it is ironic that not only was this protested against the more conservative side but a group of all males who more than likely will never face the cruel realities of rape in their lifetimes.
Jeff Sessions (R-AL) Richard Shelby (R-AL) Jon Kyl (R-AZ) John McCain (R-AZ) Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) Johnny Isakson (R-GA) Mike Crapo (R-ID) James Risch (R-ID) Sam Brownback (R-KS) Pat Roberts (R-KS) Jim Bunning (R-KY) Mitch McConnell (R-KY) David Vitter (R-LA) Thad Cochran (R-MS) Roger Wicker (R-MS) Kit Bond (R-MO) Mike Johanns (R-NE) John Ensign (R-NV) Judd Gregg (R-NH) Richard Burr (R-NC) Tom Coburn (R-OK) Jim Inhofe (R-OK) Jim DeMint (R-SC) Lindsey Graham (R-SC) John Thune (R-SD) Lamar Alexander (R-TN) Bob Corker (R-TN) John Cornyn (R-TX) John Barrasso (R-WY) Mike Enzi (R-WY)
I think it is important to mention this because not only is it pathetic that someone would vote for protecting big business rather than rape victims but do so because it helps protect the "free market" and big business rights.
There are also local examples of this happening, in Maryland it was until the Governor's Gun Violence Act of 1996 that domestic violence offenders were legally required to give up their fire arms. For a long time it was seen that the 2nd amendment right to bear arms was more important than removing guns from violent offenders because it was more crucial to a person's "personal freedoms". While there's nothing wrong with owning your gun but if you are a violent offender why should you be able to purchase a gun? There should be no brainier about have violent convicted offenders give up dangerous weapons that could potentially kill another human being.
In our society we downplay the value of personal freedoms sexuality and up play the need for "free market" and the need to make a buck. Instead of caring about people who are victimized, we value the money that we could be making and saving face as a large corporation. What does this say to women? That they should not go to the authority? That it doesn't matter if they are raped or not? To hide in fear and shame of what someone else put her through? I think these issues reflect the change that is needed.
Now that this disgusting show of patriarchy in our federal government I bring you a bit of satire to help lighten the mood:
Senator Thad Cochran and defending himself as to why he voted no against the bill
To be completely honest, I must confess, as a woman I am completely fascinated by the pornography industry. Now, not to be confused, I am not so interested or fascinated with porn itself but the industry and how porn has become one of the most openly candid taboos of our society and what it says about us, as a society.
Every year the porn industry makes billions of dollars in America (in 2006, the US reportedly made $13.33 Billion dollars in revenue compared to China's $27.40 billion. For more info please refer to this website to see statistics of the United States pornography industry and other countries) But why does this industry come out on top every year? What makes pornography materials one of the best businesses to be apart of?
Even with the growing use of the internet as a source to find adult materials,porn seems to grow every year with hundreds of titles being churned out, each one catering to all sorts of fetishes and interest. Now one only needs to go down to their local video store to find stacks and stacks of porn that is available for purchase. No longer is it the days of Pussycat Cinema that use to be the only place that one could find a "XXX" rated film. Yet, we still treat sex as a taboo in our society. So why would mass media crave for sex yet scorn those who chose to make their living from it?
An interesting example of this is pop cultures fascination with the adult actress Jenna Jameson, born Jenna Marie Massoli, who is a top grossing porn industry player. This women began her journey as a stripper who then turned to porn which sky rocketed her to stardom. Through the porn industry Jenna was able to create ClubJenna in 2000, a production company of hers that creates not only a number of porn titles but also host numerous websites that rake in millions of dollars. Jenna has been features on TV and in movies and even has a best selling book yet, how? After all she is a porn star and when we think of porn stars we think of women being degraded by men for money and that the women in porn as being "weak".
This is a problem that has plagued the porn industry in my opinion. Many of the women in the industry now are very independent especially when it comes to their careers. Sure when they are first starting out they may face problems or do films that they would not normally do for the money. Does that make it wrong? No. After all they have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies and rights for women have expanded in the porn industry. Now women are becoming producers and CEO's of production companies.
I'd also like to make a reference to Pirates, one of the top grossing porno's of all time made by production companies Adam & Eve and Digital Playground. Like the title states this porno plays off the hugely successful Pirates of the Caribbean title by Disney and it supposedly had a budget of 1 million dollars to make the film, reinforcing that today Silicone Valley and Hollywood have in fact started to mesh together as a reflections of each other like the article Naked Capitalist that we read for class which comments on the dichotomy of the two.
The plot is simple yet refine, "In 1763, Captain Edward Reynolds is hunting pirates, or at least trying to do so. He does not consider himself a great commander, and neither do most of his crew. Only his first officer Jules believes in him. When they save a young woman named Isabella from drowning, she tells them that her husband's ship has been destroyed by the feared Captain Victor Stagnetti and his crew of cutthroat pirates.
Reynolds and his crew go hunting for Stagnetti, who tries to find a map that leads to a powerful secret on an island somewhere in the Caribbean Sea. Stagnetti finds the secret "staff" unlocked by Isabella's husband Manuel.
After the crew escapes the spawn of darkness summoned by Stagnetti, their ship engages Stagnetti's in battle, ending Stagnetti's reign as a pirate."
Which allows a bit of dialogue but doesn't require any technique training in acting which has always been the basic design of porn even from it's early days of "Deep Throat" and "Debbie Does Dallas", which are considered classic porn's.
An example of the film here:
(Side note: It also turned out that a small group at University of Maryland had planned to show the piece in a student union room but the event was pulled when a Senator planned to pull funds for the school if they went through with the event. I know personally that this is true because I was apart of UMBC's solidarity group, when I was attending there, which had been e-mailed to ask ways we thought we could support the groups first amendment right to show the piece. For more info please check out this article.)
I'd also like to address the film that we watched in class, The Price of Pleasure.
First, this is an opinion and I feel like I must state that very clearly because what I have to say may offend some people. This is after all just an opinion piece and I do not try to offend anyone or what they personally thing, but with that saying this blog may have adult materials regarding sex and sexuality. If these sort of things offend you then you may want to turn around now. I do plan to be frank and honest with how I see the pornography industry. Second, I am not trying to say pornography is right or push a pro-pornography agenda but I do plan to take the side that porn is normal, healthy, and is not as evil as everyone says it is but sadly it is like any business and has evil people in it.
In this documentary we watched the film makers tried to show the negative or evil side of pornography and the adult industry. They first interviewed people who had watched porn at a young age. Yet, is it porn's fault for these people being exposed to it at a young age? I don't want this to sound like a shouting match or that I'm being ignorant but it bothered me to show people who were exposed to porn at a young age because it's not really porn's fault for some of the problem that they later encountered. Really it is the person who owned the porn's fault for being careless to leave those materials out.
Porn is like anything else that is meant to be for adults, locked away. Like anyone who owns a gun or alcohol, if you are of age to own it, it is your responsibility to make sure someone young can't get to it.
I remember as a child that my dad would sometimes borrow dvd's from my Grandmother and they would be a set of special uncensored episodes of the show Cops or Jerry Springer. While, this might embarrass him for me writing about it but if there was one thing I can remember it's that I could never find them. I knew he would have them and I was curious because I was 13 and when you're that age you just wonder about things. There isn't anything wrong with that and I respect the fact that I could never find those dvd's because it was not wrong that my dad to watch them but it would be wrong of him to allow me to see them. As parents it is your job to teach your child from right and wrong and no one else. By socializing your child and installing morals in them you set them up for failure or success. TV can't teach them that. It's up to you to teach your child about sexuality and to be frank and honest with them, too long have we been white washing sex to young adults and expecting them not to engage in it.
I think it is easy for people to pick out porn because it has the taboo factor of it, in our society we are taught that we have sex for reproduction yet never because it is enjoyable for us as humans. Sex has been linked to relieving stress and releasing toxins that store up. Sex is natural and useful to us as humans yet we live in a society that tells us not to enjoy sex or that only one type of sex is the right way to have sex. For years Maryland had laws against oral sex and anal sex in place which discriminated against homosexual couples from housing, child care and job positions. Sex, that deemed "vanilla", is only common because we are told that this is the only sex we should be having. Most couples practice missionary because it's the standard set for what positions we should be having sex in. There is nothing unnatural about wanting something different and porn capitalizes on this in a capitalist economy.
I think porn should be seen as another area of revenue and a personal choice. I think that while there are disgusting pornographic material out there, pornography itself is not harmful or degrading to females and that as a society we should work on changing stereotypes and concepts about sexuality and the human body.
So, I didn't want to have to go here but I thought it was an important moment in pop history and I'm surprise that no one has discussed it yet. What could I be talking about?
Of course we all heard about this years MTV's Video Music Awards and the scandal that happened involving a Mr. Kanye West and poor Taylor Swift.
Yet,why is it important you might wonder? It's important because of the backlash that has occurred from it which has turned this event into a pop culture moment and a mass media blow up that event got the President of the United States involved.
This year at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards Taylor swift, a popular country singer, was awarded with the moon man for the best female video. Taylor seemed surprised and even shaken by the fact that someone who was not a "pop" artist would be considered good enough to win the award. I think it's important to note this lack of confidence by Taylor Swift since why would someone with talent think that she didn't deserve to win an award? Could it be the media who makes it seem like country artists are not mainstream enough or pretty enough or talent enough to win? While I am not a Taylor Swift fan or a fan of country music in general I really do not think anyone should question their ability to win at something, especially if they were voted to win the award. While this is not the important moment it is crucial to remember that Taylor was already nervous which may have added to the backlash from the event.
While delivering her acceptance speech Kanye West, another popular rap artist, jumping onto stage and stole the mic from Taylor Swift and then felt compelled to comment "Yo Taylor, I'm really happy for you, I'ma Let you finish, but Beyonce has one of the best videos of all time!" which turned quickly to a stunned and humiliated Beyonce and a booing crowd. To watch her response and her expression here is the clip of the event:
So why would something like a simple comment and a pop artist have to do with regards to the media? The backlash. The very night and next morning came a flurry of blog post, vblogs, and internet memes (which are units of cultural ideas presented through speech and pictures. For the internet it is visually based) and even the President Obama speaking out by calling Kanye an ass. But why would Kanye wish to put his career into jeopardy? Why would someone who is a multinational selling artist threaten his reputation just to let everyone know his opinions? I believe this ties into the concept of male masculinity and Kanye's need to feed his own ego by becoming a figure of anti-authority.
By jumping onto stage Kanye defied the rules and violated social norms about respecting people when they are talking. Instead of blogging or expressing personal opinions in private he choose to assert his masculinity by demanding the mic and embarrassing Taylor Swift in front of the nation. He used his own masculinity to present Taylor Swift as weak since she was not able to defend herself or comment back which was what his comment accomplished. So how does mass media react to this? By of course commenting on Kanye's comment! The internet exploded with comments from popular internet bloggers and vblogs and even nation wide TV programming in response to this famous saying. In fact the internet actually went to embrace Kanye's need to repeatedly act like an ass and made him into a meme. By editing and using this famous line people created new ways of commenting on the event by the use of humor. But what does humor do? Dose this make Kanye's actions ok? Like in the Jackson Katz video "Wrestling with Manhood" does using humor and entertainment make Kanye's need to push his masculinity perfectly fine? How can we as people and pop culture consumers stand for this? It's important to ask these kinds of questions since Kanye continues to be the anti-authority bad boy of the pop world.
Well whether you think he's an ass, an idiot, or whatever else I'd like to present to you some of the best Imma let you finish memes courtesy of the interwebs, I hope you find some of them a bit funny:
For this week's blog I'd like to focus on one of the articles we read for class, "Representing Gay Men on American Television" by Kylo-Patrick R. Hart. In this article Hart looks at the representation of gay males on T.V. by citing the premiere of Will & Grace, a sitcom that represented the daily lives of two roommates, Grace a straight heterosexual female and Will her best homosexual male friend. Hart looks and examines this programming and the differences that this sitcom presents compared to real life for homosexual males..
While Will is a main character he is often shown repressed in his sexuality as he is calm and cool. As a successful lawyer he is intelligent and articulate but never allowed to have lasting relationships through out the shows nor deep love for any of his male partners. Unlike Grace who is granted numerous boyfriends through out the show and even some that she was destined to married but parted with due to different reasons. She is happy and exuberant in her relationships and as being Wills "faghag" and a open minded heterosexual female.
In Will & Grace we are also presented with two different examples of gay males and socially expected behavior from them which is displayed by the Will and Jack character. Jack is the counterpart to Will's calm almost non-homosexual exterior by being flashy and over the top.
To quote Hart "Will remains so low-key about his sexual orientation that it has become almost inconsequential to the show, while Jack consistently presented as the stereotype flamboyant queen. In other words, Will and Jack are extreme opposites on the spectrum of possible media representations of gay men." (p. 597, para. 1)
This got me starting to think about representations of gay males in different shows. I want to explore and look at the way homosexual males are represented in sitcoms and TV dramas. Usually for sitcoms homosexual characters are used to create comical situations to make them seem less "scary" or alien to straight audiences which is a common theme in United States mass media products because it not only makes these ideas new and fresh but packages them for mass consumption. I think the best show to critically examine this homosexual character and archetype would be the Showtime's American remake of the hit British show "Queer as folk". Not only is Queer as Folk (QAF) made up of a primary gay and lesbian character cast it also tries hard to shed light on homosexual issues that face real adults in the GLBT community. I also believe it's a much better example of the community's representation on TV then the L word not only because it focuses on a mainly male only cast but because the first season of the L word used sexuality and the fetishism of lesbianism that occurs in our country as a way to promote the show before it contained any hard hitting plot devices.
In QAF there are many different story plots that resonate with the many different points in homosexual men and women lives. In the beginning of the show we are treated to the birth of lesbian partners Lindsey and Mel's baby boy Gus who they conceive with the help of friend Brian. Not only is this beginning daring because it shows that lesbians can be committed and have strong healthy loving relationship with children involved but it shows the changing face of the nontraditional American family that is more common in America's 21st century. It also touches on some of the most important moments in real life: coming out, falling in love, maintaining relationships, and most of all growing into the person you're meant to be. By giving each character a strong personality and making them just one shade of the multinational and multicultural community that makes up the glbt community.
It's also important to note that many of these gay males have strong loving relationships presented. An important example of this is the marriage between partners Michael and Ben as they bike ride into Canada on a national campaign to protest the ill legalization of gay marriage in the states.
In the clip below we see the two get married and even Michael's mother is very supportive of her sons choice to marry someone who is HIV positive esp. in a time where HIV is on the rise and many people are fearful of this once "gay disease". By having the character Ben the producers diminish the stereotype that people living with HIV's can not have happy or productive lives. By tackling this issue head on they provide a very positive character who is not depressed or dying from his battle with HIV's.
Looking at these examples of plot devices it's only logical to wonder how these change mass media's concept of homosexual characters? By being shown on a private cable provider the show is allowed to get away with much more and does use sex and drug use as an edgy way to push the show and boost ratings despite the fact that these problems do really face and hit the gay community through out America. I think by presenting a more mature and sexual side it removes the comical aspect of the community seen in shows like Will & Grace. It also gives a "mature" edge to allow other shows like it to push the boundaries of sexuality and gender on TV. It also directly affects the concepts of mass media about the community and opens up a frank and intelligent discussion of the similarity of homosexual and heterosexual couples and that they are in no way different from each other.
Who knows what will come next? Maybe there will be shows about cross dressers shown in a mature light or transsexual characters that battle with their concepts of gender compared to society norms? The mass media is slowly opening up these new interpretations of gender and producing new concepts of gender every so few years thankfully.
So far in our class we've focused on gender and the dichotomies of men/women but I also think it's important to look at how sexuality and sexual orientation plays into the mass media and the kind of advertising that are directed towards young males.
First let's take Mike's Hard Lemonade.
Mike's hard lemonade is a light alcoholic beverage brewed in the United States. It is also known as a "malternative" or flavored malt beverages which makes it not a beer nor a hard liquor. So, the main question is, how does Mike then advertise their product to men? How do they change this malt beverage from seeming "girly" or wimpy to hard and masculine. The main way that Mike's does this is in the same vein as Millers light beer. As referenced to Jackson Katz article "Advertising and the construction of violent white masculinity" Katz talks about how Miller light had to use this image of "masculinity" as being strong, powerful, and violent to make sure that men would not turn away from this new type of beer.
Mike's does the same thing but with sexuality and it's relationship to masculinity. In their series of commercials that have been airing since '08 it shows two workers, whom we presume are either manager or advertising reps, and one other worker who is approaching them with different advertising ideas. While this wouldn't be a problem usually, there is because the worker who is always pitching these ideas is type caste. This worker who is repeatedly the same character is an emasculated blond male who never gets it right. By giving him female qualities this puts an undertone of the worker being "queer" since in the United States most gay men are seen as being over the top and "fruity" which allows them to be seen as comical and not as threatening. Mike's uses this same approach of having a lovable and laughable queer character as a way to approach guys that Mike's is made for real men and that these men who laugh at this queer character are real men because they are like the two ad reps who perpetually embarrass this character.
Here is an example of these Mike's commercials. Here we see the two ad reps approached by the "queer" character and the act of emasculating him through comedy.
The second example of "emasculation" in relation to advertising is not about sexual orientation but gender and it's play on cultural identity.
This ad along side with a TV spot was created for the new Burger King Texas Whopper. In this picture we see a tall "masculine" western dressed cowboy standing next to a little person dressed as a Mexican wrestler draped in a Mexican flag. In the TV ad's the two "companions" are seen as living together and helping each other out in every day simple chores. The tv ad wants us to view the Texas Whopper as being "all American" and compared to the good old days of the wild west. The tag line reads "the taste of Texas with a little spicy Mexican" as a way to show that it is the same old all American burger and fries just with a little twist in it. By using the act of "emasculating" the Mexican character BK also "emasculates" Mexican culture as a way to make it seem lest alien. Giving it feminine qualities makes the food seem passive and ok for American males to eat and that it wont go against their gender identity of hard masculine Anglo Saxons. Not only is the ad culturally insensitive it's also ridiculous that they use this marketing ploy to get people to eat more hamburgers. For more information on BK pulling the ad and to read reactions please redirect to here.
It is crazy that gender applies to food yet it does in our society. Many different food are associated with each gender and marketed this way. So is the way food is cooked or even seen as sexually. Sadly gender stereotyping and categorizing plays an important role in our lives and in the mass media's way of advertising.
The 21st Century has been a critical turning point for the United States. Not only has the events of 9/11 rock and shake the country around us but so has the need that arose to fight terror and stop terrorist that led to occupation Iraq Freedom and the following occupation and battles in the Middle East. The 21st Century has become a decade that is filled with hopes and unforeseen tragedies as we try to mend and fix foreign relationships and the state of our economy at home.
Yet, this has also become a turning point for women and their role in politics. On November 16, 2006, Nancy Pelosi was unanimously chosen as the Democratic candidate for Speaker. This made Nancy Pelosi not only the first woman ever to be speaker of the House but also the first Italian-American to become speaker also.
This election was important not just for Democrats or for those who were supporters of Pelosi's voting record, it was important for women because it showed you could be a woman and be a politician. Usually when we think of politicians as the mass media would have us believe we see the picture of the corporate white male. This image is all we see as "The Man" and someone who should be feared. By a woman being able to gain access and to break through the glass ceiling is critical for all the little girls out there who dream of becoming involved in politics. Why is Nancy Pelosi's election important then? It is when we discuss mass media because it is breaking mass media stereotypes and changing them but also conforming them with social norms because Nancy Pelosi must play along a thin line to appeal to different types of voters. Mass media helped in her election but it also can backfire in what she does once she has office. WHat other important women can we think of that are active in politics?
This year fans of the video game franchises Resident Evil were treated to news of the next game in the series. Released as Biohazard 5 the game was set and released March 5, 2009 and then March 13, 2009 in the states selling well over 2 million units alone.
For anyone who has not heard of the Resident Evil games they may have heard of the movie of the same name which is a spin off of the popular games and features Milla Jovovich as the main character; Alice. The Resident Evil movies follows the general story plot of the original games where the action is set in Raccoon City and a series of bizarre murdered have been occurring along side with strange signs of cannibalism. Because of this the Raccoon Police Department's Special Tactics And Rescue Service (STARS) are assigned to investigate the murders, which is comprised of two teams, Alpha and Bravo. Bravo Team is sent first, but after contact with them is lost, the city's officials deploy Alpha Team to investigate their disappearance. This is where you pick up and begin game play. The main action of the original game is placed within a huge mansion.
The plot is simple enough, after the first and second game and the code series the following Resident Evils has since spread out of mansions and have allowed players to investigate small towns and cities that are plagued with "zombies". An example of this is Resident Evil 4 which was placed within a small town in Europe. Through out the game players fight Hispanics townspeople who are plagued with a disease that makes them eat flesh after joining the cult Los Illuminados. The main objective of the game is to find and protect the president's daughter, Ashley.
Now the set of Resident Evil 5 plot revolves around Chris Redfield and Sheva Alomar (pictured below) as they investigate a terrorist threat in Kijuju, a fictional town in Africa.
So, what makes Resident Evil 5 so different that it's worth studying especially in a blog about media? Well the reason why this game is so different is because of the controversy surrounding the game before it's debut launch which started with the launch of the games official trailer seen below:
Before the game could even come out bloggers were buzzing with conversation over the setting of the game; Africa. While the game had never had a problem before when players were asked to shoot Hispanic or European zombies there now was a problem with players having to shoot African zombies. The main problem for many people was that in the game these African zombies were being shot at by a Caucasian male who was placed in an authority role, even though in the game Chris's counterpart is the African female Sheva. It's interesting to see what kind of conversations were happening over this slight change in location.
As stated by Kim Platt of Black Looks, an internet blog dedicated to the outlook of a strong independent and feminist Black woman:
"This is problematic on so many levels, including the depiction of Black people as inhuman savages, the killing of Black people by a white man in military clothing, and the fact that this video game is marketed to children and young adults. Start them young... fearing, hating, and destroying Black people."
Or the writer of The Black Sentinel, another blog who's author is a strong Black woman and mother of two as she comments:
"The game portrays a Caucasian in army fatigues as the so called hero or “savior” who is let loose to run roughshod over those diseased Africans. We know that there are people in the U.S. who are touting that in order to stave off AIDS we should start “exterminating” those with the disease in Africa."
Yet, I believe this is just some of the EXTREME view point of what the game is trying to do here. This game is after all a survivor game where the point is to survive from zombies. Where do zombies originate from? Zombies originated in the Afro-Caribbean spiritual belief system of Vodou, which told of the people being controlled as laborers by a powerful sorcerer. According to the tenets of Vodou, a dead person can be revived by a bokor, or sorcerer. Zombies would then remain under the control of the bokor since they have no will. "Zombi" is also another name of the Vodou snake lwa Damballah Wedo, of Niger-Congo origin; it is akin to the Kikongo word nzambi, which means "god". There also exists within the vodou tradition the zombi astral which is a human soul that is captured by a bokor and used to enhance the bokor's power. Looking at where the story of the zombie comes from it would only make sense that the creators would place the latest game in a place where these legends come from.
It's foolish to say that the makers did not chosen a touchy place to have as the location of the game but I do believe that it is ridiculous to say that the creators were trying to be racist. This is a case of institutionalized assumptions made not only about the game and the creators themselves but about how people view black people within media such as video games. What does this say about how people of color should view themselves in media? If we'd assume the game really was racist as these bloggers made us to believe then why include African soldiers who work for the government? Why include a strong black female role who you can play as? Why even care?
So I pose, is this really just a harmless video game? Or do you think the mass media of video games and bloggers are just keeping up and reinforcing stereotypes?
This has become an important question for us to ask, one that has only been asked and explored in the past decade or so. Once considered a "Disney degree" the study of media communications has become developed into a well rounded discussion that is important for our society to have. Looking at media is very important, especially in a society where media is so central to our every day lives. Now in our culture media helps reinforce social norms and concepts. Media is central to the image of ourselves and the outside world and how we interact with it.
Now, the face of media is changing as new media and technology comes out every few years. This merging of media and instant satisfaction has become a critical turning point in how media is viewed and marketed to younger and younger audiences. Today instead of reading newspapers we can get our news on internet sites like CNN and Fox. For T.V. we can browse and interface with thousands of sites that allow us to watch tv shows that are carbon copies of the same old, same old while we spend more hours at work to afford more and more superficial luxuries.
One of the major pioneers of this study was Herbert Marshall McLuhan. For those who do not know who McLuhan is, he was a Canadian scholar who taught and studied many different subjects such as English literature and communication theory. (For a full biography of him you can refer to this and this site, for the purpose of this blog I do not want to get into a long paragraph about the man himself so I can focus on his contributions to media studies) Two of the most famous concepts that McLuhan came up with was "the medium is the message" and "global village", these concepts have become some of the cornerstones in media studies and are studied even today in many media classes through the country.
Both concepts are critical in understanding how media has such a strong impact on us and society but I'd like to focus on "the medium is the message", this revolutionary concept refers to how the medium infuses itself into the message, allowing a symbiotic relationship to form where the medium it is presented in is actually more important than the message itself. McLuhan first presented this concept in his book: Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man in 1964.
McLuhan's main point was that the medium was important to study instead of just the message it carried. That the medium was what gave the message a way to come across and that while the message was important it was really the medium and the way it delivered it in society that we should focus on. How do these new characteristics of medium affect us and what does that reflect back on us as a society.
Here is a clip in which audio of McLuhan discussing his viewpoints and exactly what he is trying to explain in his theory is "mashup" with visual images to reinforce his points. It is a bit dry but I believe that McLuhan was brilliant in his view point of the society we live in. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did.
I hope in this blog I can explore more concepts of media and how specifically Mass media changes how things are explored and the way we see it. I hope that this blog also opens some people's eyes by helping them think of things differently or maybe gives them a new idea of how to interrupt things.
Thank you for your time and I hope you enjoy my blog!
This is a blog created for AACC's WMS/AMS 211 Gender and Mass Media's class. The intention of this blog is to create, brain storm, and inform outside viewers and visitors different concepts about mass media and how gender accompanies it.
It's important to understand that these constructive criticism are of one person and their own personal opinion.
