Yesterday I watched Spike Lee's film Bamboozled. Damon Wayans plays Pierre Delacroix, a black television show creator who is irritated at the pressure from his white boss to create a stereotypical "black" sitcom. In an effort to point out the underlying racism at the network, Delacroix decides to pitch a horribly offensive idea that they should create a minstrel show in the fashion of early 20th-century blackface comedy. He hoped the show would be so horribly offensive that the reactions would get him fired, but his plans backfire when audiences make "The New Millennium Minstrel Show" a huge success. On the show, instead of white actors dressing up in blackface, black actors make themselves even darker with makeup and imitate the "buffoonery" of old racist television and stage shows.
This film was extremely difficult to watch, and made me feel extremely uncomfortable the whole time. It is almost physically painful to watch Delacroix's white boss, Thomas Dunwitty, interact with his black employees, thinking he has the "right" to use the n-word. He is completely oblivious that Delacroix is mocking him when he pitches the idea for the minstrel show, and Dunwitty just releases this sick pleasure in exploiting black stereotypes. It was also really hard to have to watch the black minstrel show actors have to paint themselves in blackface each time before going on stage. I can't imagine how it would feel for those actors to have to invoke the awful history of that kind of stage performance, in a time where African Americans were subhuman in society.
Bamboozled made me think about the suppressed racism that probably exists in America today. The scene in the writer's boardroom is interesting, yet also disturbing. Delacroix tells the white writers to unleash their inner racists, and sets them off by mentioning the O.J. Simpson trial. It's hard to identify the amount or level of racism (I know, those are very abstract terms) in America today, but it seems that it could definitely be similar to how people act in Bamboozled (although it is obviously exaggerated for the point of the movie).
Overall, I think Bamboozled is a very important film to see, because the discomfort at watching the extremity of stereotypes really forces you to question the prevalence of racism. I think too many people dismiss that it is real anymore, but the idea of white audiences accepting a new minstrel show in the film leads to serious questions about what reactions would be like in the real world. Bamboozled also was a glimpse into how damaging something like blackface was to African Americans in the past, and helps put current trends (like models using blackface for "fashion's sake) into perspective.
After reading an article about race representation in advertisements ("Advertising and People of Color" by Clint C. Wilson II and Felix Gutierrez) I remembered the new ad campaign by Levi Jeans. Minorities have a history of either stereotypes perpetrated through commercials (Latin Americans in Taco Bell commercials), or being ignored altogether (using Native American names for products but leaving actual Native Americans underrepresented).
I keep seeing these "Go Forth" commercials in the time before a movie starts in the theater and their racial diversity is actually pretty striking. I'm so used to stereotypes and racial exclusivity that I usually just block out ads, but this commercial (using a Walt Whitman poem as the voice-over) caught my attention:
The first image after the "America" sign on the screen is a young black girl, so you could assume the advertisers are using her as the image directly associated with the U.S. The ad continues with a mixture of black and white Americans with actually a broad range of [arguably stereotypical] representations of urban black youths and a successful white executive to an apparently middle-class interracial group of hipster friends.
I think this is an interesting step forward for an advertisement, since it gave a relatively broad range of black and white representations. It doesn't ignore the obvious reality of urban life, but it doesn't confine the races to certain economic classes either. One issue could be the lack of inclusion of other minorities of the American population, since there aren't any obviously Hispanic or Native American actors, but there is at least some progress with one American ethnicity [Other versions of this commercial actually do include a woman that appears to be Hispanic]. Anyway, I really think that opening image is especially important, because it doesn't have a middle-class white person as the first thought after "America." It isn't exactly a radical change in race relations to have a racially inclusive advertisement, but I think the more diverse representation is actually pretty inspiring (which was probably the intent of advertisers appealing to the younger generation).
Women of all ethnicities are highly sexualized in media today, but the image of the black woman is especially exploited by the white male-dominated industry. bell hooks writes about the dehumanization of black women, which originated in the slave trade hundreds of years ago. She says that today, black models and celebrities are "objectified in a manner similar to that of black female slaves who stood on auction blocks while owners and overseers described their important, salable parts..." When you look at the women that flaunt certain body parts, like their butt, it seems as though the value of African American females is still reliant on the commercial value of their sexual parts. I think this is true for white women as well, but there is an actual history of slavery and selling black women that makes this exploitation particularly intense.
There is also a unique stereotype about the "wildness", or exotic nature of black women that is evident in advertisements especially. Black models are often featured in jungle-like settings or with "untamed" physical characteristics, like the wigs of Tina Turner. bell hooks discusses Tina's relationship with Ike, who shaped her image into "...the black female as wild sexual savage emerged from the impact of a white patriarchal controlled media shaping his perceptions of reality."
When I think about the difference between exploitation of white women in media and black women, there seems to be a huge extra hurdle for black women. White females are conforming to men's perception of beauty, but the idea of beauty for black women goes through two filters: first the white man's, then the white woman's. They often have to imitate the white woman ideal (regarding hair type, lip size, etc.) which is already an artificial mold formed by white male executives. For example, black models with lighter skin are far more common in advertisements, and black female celebrities often wear wigs imitating white hair.
Why are black women conforming to these racist and sexist stereotypes? The door to success in media is very narrow for black women so only a certain image that sells will prevail in the industry. If a woman tried to have display her unconventional, and arguably more natural, beauty (naturally styled hair, facial features that aren't distorted by photoshop) then they probably just wouldn't be hired as a model, actress, or musician. Why isn't there diversity in the representations of what "black beauty" can be?
I recently read an article called "The Fox Network and the Revolution in Black Television" by Kristal Brent Zook discussed the black television shows that were added to the station's programming in the 80s and 90s. Shows like A Different World and The Cosby Show were added to basic channels when more affluent white audiences could afford to use cable or VCRs. It was responding to a new market that included more black viewers, and the result was relatively diverse representations of the black community. Many of these shows even addressed fairly controversial topics such as date rape and racism.
However, later on the station canceled many of these shows when the executives wanted the station to become more mainstream. While some of the remaining programs still had black casts, there was a shortage of minority-controlled programs. The creative and executive power still lies in mostly white hands.
I also just watched a documentary with Henry Louis Gates called America: Beyond the Color Line that used one segment to explore the issue of black representation in Hollywood. Gates interviewed several actors and other people in the film industry and asked them about racism in Hollywood, but I thought it was interesting that most people said its more about money than anybody's personal stereotypes. One director that was interviewed initially said he didn't think there was any discrimination when it came to casting, but then eventually realized that there was definitely less money made when two leads are African American. So, if there's more money to be made with white actors, then they want the money and will hire white people.
Bringing that back to the issue of television, I really think there are not many people, including Rupert Murdoch, saying they don't want black actors or programs or films. For the most part, it seems as though they are responding to public demand. Money is the ultimate goal for media executives, and if mainstream means white, then they will go that direction. But, this is a difficult situation because media could be an important vehicle for challenging certain stereotypes instead of reinforcing them in the search for money. Is it media's responsibility, or does the fault of a lack of representation lie with the audiences?
We already discussed the issue in class, but I think it raises some interesting questions that I wanted to ask on here. Traditionally, actors that painted themselves black were also terribly misrepresenting African Americans in order to entertain audiences. This "racial ridicule" (Coleman) involved exploiting stereotypes for the sake of comedy.
So what about the situations presented in this Daily Show clip? Apparently, the models that paint themselves black are doing so for the "sake of fashion" and to show the beauty of black skin. Is there a "beautiful women" exception for the rule about blackface? For me, the thought of invoking the exploitative history of the practice automatically makes the practice wrong to me. Also, why do these models have to pretend to be a different ethnicity in order to represent the beauty of different skin colors? I think a better approach would be for the modeling industry to use actually black women and open up a traditional idea of beauty to include other minorities.
Just because the supposed intentions of the fashion television show does not seem negative, I think its kind of insensitive and pointless to use black paint and pretend to be another ethnicity. Someone in class said that America's Next Top Model often has the models dress up in cultural outfits to "experience" another culture, but that is ridiculous. Dressing up in a costume is not a cultural experience by any stretch of the imagination, just like that newscaster in Germany could not have an authentic experience painting himself black . It's not a one-minute or one-day experience. Living in a culture or actually being a certain ethnicity is the only authentic experience, and I think it is not respectful to those people groups to assume otherwise.
For extra credit in our class a couple weeks ago, we watched the film Thelma and Louise to reflect on its representations of gender. I really enjoyed the movie, and it was so refreshing to see two women take center stage in a mainstream film without it being some cliche romantic comedy filled with gender stereotypes.
Thelma and Louise were basically the only females in the story, and they were really dynamic characters that set out on for a simple weekend trip that later becomes increasingly complicated. Their journey transforms into an escape from patriarchal society, where they had been raped, mocked, dominated, and trivialized in the past. The police force that is following them (after Louise shoots Thelma's attacker at a bar) is comprised of all men, and they are chasing down the two deviant women. Since most people have seen this movie, I don't feel bad discussing their decision to drive over a cliff rather than give up to the police and return to society.
During the group discussion after the movie, someone thought the movie was saying that when two women become deviants and find liberation outside traditional roles, there is no way for them to reintegrate. The only way they could remain authentic to their new liberated selves was to die. It seems as though either decision, driving off the cliff or turning themselves in, would result in a form of "death". Either they would be killing their new identities or their physical bodies. This film was filled with questions about women in society and oppression within a patriarchal system. I really enjoyed seeing a film like Thelma and Louise that broke out of stereotypical representations and had complex, multi-dimensional female characters that actually faced those questions with a controversial answer.
I wanted to continue the theme of my last blog post, African Americans on news stations, but with a little different angle. A few articles I read recently discussed media's perpetuation of the idea that African Americans are the "others" in our society. "When editors think 'an American person', they automatically think 'White'...Automatically, media personnel (most presumably White) think of the normal American as a White person". Only "when cued by the need to represent a group of Americans they realize they should add in some non-protypical types, they recognize their responsibility to reflect America's ethnic diversity."
While the article was referring to images on magazine covers, I think this can also apply to newscasters, correspondents, and politicians. On news stations, a reporter covering generic stories is most often white. However, when there is a story specifically about a race issue, a certain ethnicity, or a certain country being covered, then a minority is called in as an expert on the situation.
The Daily Show has a very interesting parody of this situation, and is a theme through several of their episodes. Whenever they have a story on a "race issue" (i.e. racist comments against Obama in the media, the arrest of Henry Louis-Gate, etc.) they have Larry Wilmore, their "Senior Black Correspondent." Or, if there is a story about the Middle East, India, or North Africa, Aasif Mandvi covers it. He covers any of these countries as the token "Middle-Eastern-looking-correspondent", while his actual ethnicity is unclear.
The media possibly has become more diverse, but I feel that minority correspondents and newscasters are still treated as the "other", and with increasing quantities of them, should start covering more generic stories in order to be seen as "experts" in fields other than situations pertaining to their race.
In Barker's article, "Ethnicity, Race, and Nation", he discusses the contradictory nature of representation of race. In media, minorities are often "characterized as at the poles of criminality and middle-class success." Images we see are usually opposing and confusing...their identities are usually either "good/bad, civilized/primitive, ugle/excessively attractive, repelling-because-different/compelling-because-strange-and-exotic."
After reading that section I immediately thought of the binary messages on TV news stations, where there are two extremes: the clean cut, very attractive African-American anchor (who is usually very fair-skinned) while the actual news coverage is often laced with subtle racist themes. Black subjects in the news are usually criminal or deviant, but are often simultaneously juxtaposed with the image of the successful Black newscaster.
Perhaps this conveys the message that the majority of African Americans have the ability to be as successful and assimilated as the one or two black newscasters, but instead choose to be involved in unacceptable criminal activity. It completely ignores the complications of economic and social hindrances to financial success.
What are military advertisements telling us about gender?
The subject of military advertising is very complex, as it raises issues of nationalism and state propaganda, but can also exploit gender stereotypes in a very intentional manner. Recruiters and other advertisers use the insecurities of the “new man”, who has to reform his identity in light of the changing social hierarchy (which now includes women and minorities in the power structure). Many men have begun to reevaluate what it means to be a “man” if the “others” are gaining more political and economic power, and societal roles aren’t as obvious.
According to one article by Jackson Katz called “Advertising and the Construction of Violent White Masculinity”, men who are experiencing these changes can be comforted by advertising’s use of clear-cut masculine roles. Those roles are characterized by men’s physical size and strength, and their "ability to use violence successfully." It is one definitive aspect of being a “man”. Military advertisements like the one below offer the military’s idea of what masculinity means, to entice male audiences to recognize a longing for this traditional role (even though that longing is, in my opinion, a social construct):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJRthpxDM10
This ad states a very clear message about the link between masculinity and how the military provides a very unique outlet for these characteristics. It glorifies the modern image of battle and links it to two of the most revered conflicts in American history: the Revolutionary War and D-Day at Normandy. They generally go unquestioned in regards to justification, and so this ad uses the comparison to inspire Americans into the military. But it also draws on that history in regards to gender roles, by relying on the traditional images of a violent and heroic man. In the ad, we see men playing football, protecting and nurturing a woman and child, flying helicopters and tanks, and shooting weapons. In an age of insecure identity (without gender-exclusive roles), the military offers a stable identity for young men to latch on to. They are saying, “Real men fight in battles for their loved ones, and have been for hundreds of years.” The ad offers young men a role model in past soldiers, yet naturally leaves out the complications of that comparison.
I wish I could know exactly how this advertisement affects its intended audience [Mike, want to post a response?]. It's hard for me to have an opinion about the effects, since as a woman I'm not the target audience. Are men really looking at this saying, "This is what a man is supposed to do"? I see this and it seems as though it could appeal to a large majority of the male population that finds glory in violence and feels fulfilled in saving others by imitating "heroes" like past soldiers.
I recently read a magazine article called “The Buffy Effect”, which describes the feminist messages in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer television series. Joss Whedon wrote and directed the show, and he intentionally created a strong female lead that “never denigrates herself, nor is her girlhood ever depicted as a detraction. By contrast, it’s the very source of her strength.”
I’ve never actually watched Buffy before, but I have watched Whedon’s other TV series called Firefly, which I now realize has very feminist characters. The show follows the adventures of a ship crew with cowboy-esque lifestyles in outer space. All of the women onboard are very interesting, intelligent, and strong (in both a physical and emotional sense).
There is Zoe, the second-in-command on the ship, who fought with Captain Mal in a past war. She is a beautiful warrior that is married to the pilot, who is clearly attracted to her despite potentially intimidating characteristics. Inara is a courtesan that is often on the ship, who is a good example of the difference between “sexy” and “sexist”. While the nature of her profession is controversial, she has taken control of her body and is never afraid to speak up against the men in charge of the ship. Kaylee, my personal favorite character on the show, is the ship’s mechanic. It was great to see a woman in such a traditionally male-dominated role and profession. Kaylee was an unsuspecting young woman that happened to have great intuitive mechanical skills and, while not particularly beautiful, was never “butch”.
Until reading this article Whedon’s feminist perspectives never really occurred to me (perhaps because the women he portrayed felt natural to me. Stereotypical women in TV and movies are actually way more distracting because I don’t identify with them at all). But his explanation of his intentions with Buffy also applies to his Firefly show:
“If I can make teenage boys comfortable with a girl who takes charge of a situation without their knowing that’s what’s happening, it’s better than sitting down and selling them on feminism.”
Cast of Firefly (http://bookreviewsandmore.ca/2008_02_01_archive.html)
After watching MTV or VH1 for any length of time, it is clear that many music videos are especially objectified representations of women. Hip-hop music videos in particular have potential to specifically effect African American women, as they are the most common sexual objects portrayed. We’ve all seen rap videos where a man is surrounded by dozens of half-naked women, and this is actually an interesting version of sexist representations. The men go beyond being a “Don Juan” (as Imani Perry describes in the article “Who(se) Am I?”) where women are used, yet still maintain some semblance of humanity, to being commodities on the same level as “property, not unlike the luxury cars, Rolex watches, and platinum and diamond medallions that were also featured.”
The image of African American women in these videos has implications for female viewers that perhaps watch them, taking ideas of “beauty” from the unrealistic images. “The beauty ideal for black women presented in these videos is as impossible to achieve as the waif-thin models in Vogue magazine are for white women”. For example, there are black women with very light complexions and long, straight hair that “contrasts sharply to the real hair of most black women”. For a long time young black girls have had, in general, better body image because they were represented less in the media and therefore had less people telling them what “sexy” is. Now, it is possible that the self-esteem of these girls might start to suffer because of the increased negative representations.
However, unlike a lot of music genres, there are quite a few female artists in the hip-hop industry that counter such images. The article used the example of Missy Elliot, who “presents a glamorous and stylish image but never is presented in an objectifying manner”. Also, the author talks about Alicia Keys, who seems to be very comfortable with her own identity without exploiting herself in sexual images in her music videos (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK8t0gP4isE). Apparently, this is a genre with extremes, from the women portrayed as property to very self-assured female artists.
In my last blog post, I was a little simplistic in my opinion of women's magazines like Cosmopolitan. However, after reading a chapter in David Gauntlett's book Media, Gender, and Identity and having a discussion in my media class, I kind of rethought some things.
First of all, I haven't really spent enough time reading a magazine like Cosmo to really recognize different nuances...I usually get frustrated after flipping through for a couple seconds and want to throw the magazine out. But today I actually spent a couple minutes looking at the articles and, even though I still felt frustrated, it turned out to be a little more complex.
I never realized that there are so many mixed messages in these magazines. This must confuse some readers, or at least make a homogeneous decoding of the material basically impossible. There are multiple articles about maintaining a healthy diet, being independent, and saving money to avoid debt. However, on the opposite page there are representations of incredibly thin women, articles about molding yourself into someone else's ideal "woman", or tips on spending money to buy fashionable clothes. So what are they really trying to say?
Guantlett describes this strange juxtaposition of messages by stating that "the magazines spell out the secrets of beauty, but then encourage readers to disregard it all in the name of emotional and physical health; but, in any case, it's true that these elements don't sit comfortable together."(Guantlett 205)
There is also a section of the chapter that displays a selection of women's personal interest in or reactions to magazines. These varied from what I suppose is the intended purpose of a magazine like Cosmo, feeling inadequate and dissatisfied with their current image and possesions, to reactionary feelings of superiority over superficial models. Some can simply read these magazines as a fantasy disassociated from their actual life and decisions.
I would have originally said that women's magazines have no effect on me, but during my class I realized that that is not entirely true. Instead, it must be a reactionary view of the magazine. Briefly looking at articles and images in these magazines, I sometimes decide exactly what I don't want to be because I'm so frustrated at how they represent women. It makes me so angry to see the shallowness of the magazine that I don't even want to touch it. I realize this is somewhat irrational because, as I mentioned before, a lot of women may just read it for fun and it doesn't dictate what they do every day. But still, just seeing someone flipping through Cosmo makes me want to turn around and buy Foreign Affairs.
I think it is important that we recognize that media can effect us in different ways, even if its the unintended outcome of the people encoding messages into the advertisements and magazine articles. I would hope the formation of my identity would be completely unrelated to a magazine, but sometimes it can happen in a roundabout way. Its not really being independent to form parts of my identity just because I'm reacting in opposition to someone or something telling me what to be.
Some women view Cosmopolitan magazine as a symbol of women's liberation, but is it really accurate to say that it supports feminism or equality for women? I don't personally see the appeal, even though I know a lot of people thinks it promotes a form of "independence".
Writers at Cosmo may think they are helping girls or young women to become upwardly mobile through their self-help and self-improvement articles, but what is the basic implication of this attitude? Laurie Ouellette in her article "Inventing the Cosmo Girl" states that from the beginning of the magazine "Expenditures on clothing, cosmetics, and accessories were presented as necessary investments in the construction of a desirable (and thus saleable) self (p 120)."
They still are promoting this consumerist mindset, as if you are only your absolute best when you buy certain things to create their constructed ideal. It may seem liberating to have a magazine dedicated to helping you become a rich and fashionable individual, but why is that a goal for so many people? Ouellette also called Cosmo "a framework that legitimated capitalism, consumerism, and patriarchal privelege (125)."
Even their supposedly empowering articles I find ridiculous, Like this recent article on "10 Things Women Do Better than Men" (which they call an ego boost):
Most of these things are incredibly trivial like "we evolve hotter than men", or "We're better at seeking comfort". Is that actually empowering someone, or treating them like insecure children that will find satisfaction in knowing they'll age more beautifully?
I personally see Cosmo's focus on sexuality, fashion, and consumerism as damaging to women, but is there anybody (I mean, anyone reading this blog) that disagrees? Why does the magazine appeal to so many readers?
Yesterday in my Mass Media and Cultural Studies class, we viewed the film "The Monstrous Regiment of Women". It has won awards at an independent Christian film festival, and is becoming increasingly popular within certain Christian communities. Before I give my reactions, I just want to help you get a general idea of the film's content with this trailer:
Just to begin, I want to make clear the position from which I write this blog post. I am a committed Christian, and my understanding is that Christ's life and calling for his followers resists injustice and oppression in the world. I consider myself a feminist in that all women should have equal opportunities, education, and the ability to fulfill their own individual potential, which is DEFINITELY not limited to being a wife and mother (although I have ZERO problem with a woman who finds joy and fulfillment in that life). I see sexism still ingrained in cultures around the world (including America), I see this damage the lives of innumerable women.
Anyway, in regards to the film...
I decided to pick three main ideas and then explain how each is presented in the film, along with my own reaction to that point. There will be times where it sounds as though I am exaggerating the views of the filmmakers and those interviewed in the film. THESE ARE NOT EXAGGERATIONS (although I wish they were):
I. Feminism ideas are consistent throughout all those who ascribe to that label.
The filmmakers were very careful to only interview certain feminists that either appear irrational or exhibit (seemingly) radical ideas. Then, they apply that stereotype to ALL feminists and subsequently condemn them. For example, in the section on abortion, they interview a reformed employee of Planned Parenthood who explains that she used to encourage students into an active sexual lifestyle so that she could make money off of abortions. This is not realistic or representative of even a respectable minority of feminists...I can honestly say I have never met a single woman that would applaud horrific actions such as those.
The film concludes that all feminists support the choice to have an abortion, want more women to have abortions, and literally hate children. This then leads to a discussion on how these views are against Christian beliefs.
I wish I could even address the debate of abortion and Christianity, but all their premises for this "argument" are without any substance. Not all feminists are pro-choice, most wish women never had abortions, and I don't think its possible to find any person on the earth that actually hates children (although they equate not wanting to have children as hating their presence).
II. The practice of Feminism is unbiblical. (Their website, http://www.monstrousregiment.com, states that the film was created with the intention of "admonishing women and men for their role in the unbiblical practice of feminism")
Again, they do not state a case clearly enough to really argue. What is the "feminism" they are talking about? Education of women? Abortion? Women in leadership roles? Women with careers? Single women? Radical feminism? Liberal feminism? Socialist feminism?
They film makes it clear that the Christians involved in the production never accurately researched the history or development of "feminism", and therefore make ignorant generalizations. They interview a few radicals (or former radicals) which happen to fit into their stereotypes then generalize that the other millions of men and women that call themselves feminists would agree.
Granted, most feminists believe in having equal political, social, and cultural rights for women. However, there are many internal debates among feminists, especially about issues such as abortion. How can these filmmakers wage a war against feminist thinking if there isn't a consensus on most issues? I can't even address these arguments because I will not speak for all feminists. I could write full blog posts on every single issue, but only from my own point of view.
III. A woman's only and highest "calling" in life is to be a wife and mother. Her value is only as a homemaker, and women with careers or in any leadership position are abominations.
This was definitely THE overarching theme of the film. All the non-feminist interviewees were married women with multiple children, and used imagery suggesting that the most abhorred position for a women would be alone and/or without children. They referred to the institution of marriage as a protection for women (This was stated without reasoning as a throw-away comment. It was treated as a generally accepted claim, and the thought that marriage could be an equal partnership was not even considered).
Christian women in the film said that when feminists in the 1960s encouraged females to pursue careers they wanted women to abandon their families and destroy society and Christianity. They did not mention that most women just think women should have the choice to pursue a career. It was a reaction to an imaginary "monstrous regiment" that is forcing women into slavery of some kind.
Towards the end of the film, there was a comparison of the number of children totaled among the feminist interviewees and the Christian interviewees (there was never any overlap. No one was interviewed as far as I know that was a Christian and a feminist). Anyway, they said the seven feminists, combined, only totaled 10 children, while the Christian women interviewed had a total of 60 children. This was intended as measuring the "womanliness" or "Godliness" of the Christians in the film.
Therefore, the conclusion was that (1) no woman finds joy in being single, having a job, or being married without children, (2) God would never approve of a single or childless woman, and (3) there is a giant conspiracy among ALL feminists to make everyone miserable and ungodly.
Its hard to restrain my reactions to this relatively short blog post (relative to my ideal response), but I would definitely like to hear other peoples' reactions in the comment section. Has anyone else seen this movie yet? Do you think Christians can be feminists? If so, what should that look like? What is a woman's role according to the Bible? Is there only one godly path for all women?
Media has reacted to feminism with interesting representations that create or maybe even perpetuate negative stereotypes. There are multiple forms of feminism, such as radical, liberal, or socialist feminism that shouldn't be confined to these assigned roles in society.
Liberal and radical feminism, for example, has become the mainstream understanding of feminist thinking and this negativity has been perceived by the media. Advertisements sometimes portray businesswomen as androgynous and could equate a feminist's struggle for equality in the workplace with attempting to be "masculine". The audiences could react either by believing women have to have certain "masculine" qualities in order to succeed, or the feminist movement could be dismissed as a bunch of crazy androgynous women.
An article titled "Feminist Perspectives on the Media" states that media reactions to liberal feminism by creating "a new stereotype of 'Superwoman'...magazines and advertisements portray her as an independent and assertive career woman, a successful wife and mother, who is still beautiful and has kept the body she had as a girl in perfect shape. Real women trying to live up to this image, end up suffering from serious burn out symptoms".
How can we accurately depict feminism and encourage women without forcing them into narrow stereotypes or forcing them to "burn out"?
Television is a very common medium through which individuals can learn about society and their role within it. Some studies reveal that by the age of 15, most children have spent more hours in front of the television than in the classroom. So if approximately half the human population is "symbolically annihilated" by condemnation, trivialization, and sexualization within television programs, it probably should raise some alarms.
Women have been historically misrepresented, or underrepresented in media, as a reflection of unfortunate dominant social values ("The Symbolic Annihilation of Women by the Mass Media" by Gaye Tuchman). But the values represented in television shows or advertisements are lagging behind factual truths about our current economic system...even while more women began entering the American workforce, television continued to depict them as confined to traditional roles of wife and mother. A good example of harmful stereotypes supported by television in its early days is the show "I Love Lucy". Lucy's only successful role was in relation to her husband, as a stay-at-home wife, and she only got into trouble if she attempted to venture out into the workforce.
Another serious symbolic annihilation of women in television is sexualization, which is a form of trivializing a woman's presence by belittling her into a sexual object to be used by men. Advertisements are clear examples of this, specifically those aired by companies such as Miller beer and Axe body spray. Here is one such advertisement:
This is an extreme example, but similar forms are far too common on television screens today. Television shows portray women mainly as either sexualized, successful only within the home, or as important only in relation to their male coworkers or relationships. Tuchman summarized it well by saying: "What can the preschool girl, the school girl, the adolescent female and the woman learn about a woman's role by watching television? The answer is simple...To be a woman is to have a limited life divorced from the economic productivity of the labor force."
The Disney corporation has an influential role in our culture, with an almost monopolistic hold on children's entertainment. Over the past few decades, it has evolved beyond production of films to what some call "public pedagogy". Henry Giroux, in an article titled "Are Disney Movies Good for Your Kids?", wrote that "these films appear to inspire at least as much cultural authority and legitimacy for teaching specific roles, values, and ideals as more traditional sites of learning such as public schools, religious institutions, and the family". Should we be allowing an animated film company to fill the niche of teaching authority, given the controversial messages relayed in these well-known movies?
Many people view Disney films such as Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, Pocahontas, and Beauty and the Beast as harmless stories with some great soundtracks. I would argue that this could actually be harmful given the racist and sexist overtones, which could possibly become part of the children's enculturation. I want to take a critical look at some of these Disney films and their promotion of negative stereotypes:
Beauty and the Beast is considered a Disney "classic" and is often cited as a favorite especially among young girls. On the surface level, Belle might appear as an independent and ambitious female, destined for a life outside of the "provincial town". She rejects a stereotypical chauvinistic man in search of her unknown dreams, so she MUST be a feminist!
However, there are problems with this shallow analysis if you attempt further interpretation. She is basically still reduced to female stereotypes since her "ambitious" plans still include a dreamy romance with a handsome prince (as portrayed in the song where her favorite literary passage is about such a future). Giroux, in his article, points out that this notion of Belle as a progressive woman is slightly skewed. "In the end, Belle simply becomes another woman whose life is valued for solving a man's problems". He is referring to how Belle's role basically consists of reforming the Beast by turning him "into a model of the 'new' man, who is sensitive, caring, and loving".
Another problematic Disney film is Pocahontas, which is commonly praised for its cross-cultural love story. In fact, racism "is a powerful but subtle structuring principle" throughout this beloved movie. The writers reshape the horrendous exploitation of Native Americans (which led to the genocide of millions) and "colonial barbarism into a sentimental romance", disregarding most historical truths. In reality, John Smith was a violent and imperialistic racist that exploited the Native Americans for wealth. Now, it is not necessarily unethical to stretch the truth in order to make a good film, but the cultural implications of another inaccurate portrayal of Native Americans is not a good message for children. Public schools barely mention the genocide, and are fed lies through films like Pocahontas without any critical filter.
Giroux writes in his article that "the messages offered in Disney's animated films suggest that social problems such as racism, the genocide of Native Americans, sexism and crisis of democratic public life are simply willed through the laws of nature". The solution is not necessarily a ban on Disney movies, but rather approaching the films with a critical mindset. Children should not simply absorb a film's message without questioning the implications, and hopefully their schools and parents can offer guidance on interpreting those beloved stories.
In the field of cultural studies, there have been disagreements over the definitions of culture and its implications for society. In the past, the lifestyles and art of the general public were dismissed by elitist scholars as inferior to "high brow" culture of the upper class. According to Barker's Culture and Cultural Studies (that I mentioned in the last post), the term "popular culture" has been used to "refer to that which is 'left over' after the canon of high culture has been decided upon" and "to the mass-produced culture of the culture industries" (page 51). Some involved in cultural studies see this as damaging to an authentic culture on the grass-roots level of society, but others argue that this is simply "romantic nostalgia'. The author states that "contemporary popular culture is, primarily, a commercially produced one...however, it is argued that popular audiences make their own meanings with the texts of popular culture. They bring to bear their own cultural competencies and discursive resources to the consumption of commodities"(page 52).
I would suggest that there are many cases where popular culture is a compromise between the commercial manufacture of a media product onto which the public then accepts and projects their own meaning. A perfect example is the phenomenon of The Beatles and the world-wide frenzy they inspired. Watch this video of the band performing "Long Tall Sally" to a vast and perpetually screaming audience:
The band began as four leather-clad Liverpudlian "teddy boys" that got into fights and sustained themselves with alcohol and Preludin. Before they became internationally famous, however, they were molded by their manager and record company into clean-cut (minus the shocking hair-dos) pop group that wore matching suits and bowed politely at the end of every number they performed. So, in a major way The Beatles were commercially produced to appeal to mass audiences across the globe. However, the millions of hysterical teenage girls (as well as well-educated music lovers) clearly have added cultural meaning of their own to the band. The Beatles are a hybrid of commercial success and deeper cultural meaning. In this case, the Beatles did not lose their most creative freedom in writing music (although earlier their more pop-y singles were created with the intent of appealing to the masses). Their outward appearance was the most dramatic change and made them appropriate to present to audiences outside their own hometown. But as soon as the band began playing music, the masses were free to put their own meaning into the product and took possession of it.
I thought I would start off this new blog with a little bit of an introduction to the subject matter. I will be writing about media's role in portraying culture and identity in our society, with a heavy emphasis on race, gender, and class. Images and texts in our media convey a certain message about who we are, and here I will be examining that information and critiquing it with a "cultural studies" focus. In Chris Barker's book Culture and Cultural Studies, he discusses questions of race and gender (which will be significant themes in this blog) that I will later apply to media criticism later on. About feminism he states that the "subordination of women is argued to be evident across a range of social institutions and practices, that is, male power and female subordination are structural". I think our mass media is definitely one of those institutions that uphold female subordination. As an example, here is an advertisement for Skyy Vodka that I think is an obvious visual portrayal of male domination in our society: (http://www.usask.ca/art/a31701/site/britski/alcohol.html) Not only is the woman a sexualized object, but there is a domineering man literally standing over her, "keeping her down".
Another topic I want to introduce in this blog is racism, another commonly portrayed cultural practice in our media. How about this ad for Intel: (http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2007-08-10-IntelRacistAd.jpg) The bowing down of the African atheletes to the professional white male is a blatant representation of the racism embedded in our society. This is a serious problem if Barker's claims that "races do not exist outside of representation but are formed in and by it in a process of social and political power struggle".
Later on, I will be dealing with more specific issues of identity and our mass media, but this has just been a sampling of what the blog will be discussing.
