While I was growing up, I remember being consistently subjected to televised sports as entertainment during the week and on Sundays, even though my mom wasn’t what you’d technically call a sports enthusiast, however she tolerated and occasionally participated with my dad. Would you ever find him sitting in the living room in rapt attention while she watched one of her romantic comedies? Not likely. In exploring feminine viewpoints and their impact on the media, van Zoonen discusses the idea of a universal standard, based primarily around what is the generally accepted idea of men’s tastes and preferences. She quotes Harding, writing, “in virtually all cultures, whatever is thought of as manly, is more highly valued than whatever is thought of as womanly” (Harding, 1986: 18). Indeed, more often than not, women tolerate and become unwilling participants in traditionally male diversions, where men hardly reciprocate voluntarily and then are eventually forced by the shrill girlfriend or wife to see the latest Jennifer Garner/ Matthew Mcconaughey swill. In an effort to establish credibility and solidify an equal representation in television, the HBO series, Sex and the City turned four women into what was perceived to be the emotional, sexual and psychological equivalent of men. While this type of show was probably long overdue, it was still met with horror by men and women alike. Women were taken aback by the portrayal of women in such open and honest roles and men were indignant that women should behave as badly as they in sexual situations, and even worse, discuss it over coffee the following morning, detailing the inadequacies of their partners with hilarious accuracy. Although this seemed like a win for equality, instead of being viewed favorably as women who were financially independent, intelligent, liberated from traditional sexual expectations, SATC and its stars are commonly written off as “whores who kiss and tell” by critics of both genders. While the amount of sex and frequency of their encounters can be a tad overwhelming, the real-life application of women who remain single well into their thirties while their friends and peers marry and start families largely because they are still waiting for Mr. Right and enjoying themselves along the way is a message that should not be dismissed lightly.

In this chapter, Sex, Subjectivity and Representation, Barker explores sex, gender and the roles of men and women in contemporary societies. It first dictates the various feminist movements and their identifiable details. Barker goes on to explore the various facets of sex and gender and the cultural and social margins they are constructed around. What I got from this chapter is that whether it is biological predestination or through social limits, we are not really given a choice in the beginning. And whether our gender and sexual identity is already inherent in us when we are born is beyond me but I do believe from the moment we are born we are forced into a mold that is very much created for us so that we can adapt and ease into cultural expectation. From the moment we are born we are inundated with expectation and forced ideas about who we should be. Children are put in their respective gender specific themed bedrooms, the little girl is given the Barbie, the boy the race car and that’s pretty much it. Barker says, “Sexual identity is held to be not a universal biological essence but a matter of how femininity and masculinity are spoken about.” It’s not as much about how we are perceived but how we perceive ourselves and the cultural definitions that we cling to.

Here's LOOKING at you, kid.

Gauntlett’s chapter 3, ‘Representations of Gender in the Past’ definitely provoked intriguing thought and little bit of nostalgia. Gauntlett thoroughly details various representations of both men in women in media and the assumed roles they undertook. No matter the genre, the male role was usually some kind of superior physical and/or intellectual specimen. The female opposite was usually the damsel in distress or his comedic counterpart. These clichéd portrayals did not do a very good job of evolving over time. Throughout the decades of evolving technology, media and social definition, the characters on the silver screen retained very gender specific classifications. As an example I’d like to briefly examine the movie Casablanca.

This movie is a classic, loved by generations, and is one of my personal favorites. Three women have lines in this movie. Just three. Gauntlett also talks about the number of female roles in contrast to the number of male characters. These three women can be perfectly summed up in the words: helpless, emotional, dependent etc. Set to take place during WW II, Ingrid Bergman plays the female lead who is torn between two terribly successful, charming men: a) Humphrey Bogart, the alluring expatriate who runs a nightclub and b) her husband, who runs an underground political resistance. She is faced with two options. Staying with Bogart in Casablanca while he runs his bar, or following her husband, living as his support system while he continues in his work. Either option she is catering to the whims of each male lead. In the end she has to be coaxed like a child into getting on the plane with her husband.






Just once I would like to watch Casablanca and see Ingrid Bergmen say, “To hell with both of you.” These characters are all very cut and dry. If she’s not with one guy then she must be with the other. The feminist movement made pretty gigantic strides throughout the mid to late 1900’s. Why did the evolution of women in media not take a significant part in this progress?

"The Dreams That You Wish Will Come True?"

I really don’t think it’s a secret anymore that Disney isn’t what it used to be. This multi-billion dollar empire has taken over the globe and is expanding every day. It has become a multifaceted “entertainment” industry which is no longer channeling its power exclusively toward making youngsters believe that dreams really do come true. It’s now got a pretty tight grip on media in general, owning several major networks, production companies, television stations, not to mention the resorts and theme parks (next time you’re in Tokyo be sure to stop by Tokyo Disney!), let’s not forget the Disney stores and the awesome merchandise you can score there (I’ll give you three guesses at where 99.9% of Disney merch is manufactured) all while churning out its own TV shows and movies. The list could go on and on for a long time. Disney is a filthy, business swallowing, money making machine and they are good at what they do. But enough about what goes on behind the scenes. All the facts evaporate when those faces appear on screen and musical numbers start.

Even if one could get past all of the greed, the commercialism, consumerism that is typical of a multi-media conglomerate, what about what the movies themselves promote? In the article written by Henry Giroux entitled, “Are Disney Movies Good For Your Kids?”, Giroux writes, “Even more disturbing is the widespread belief that Disney’s trademarked innocence renders it unaccountable for the diverse ways in which is shapes the sense of reality it provides for children as they take up particular and often sanitized notions of identity, culture, and history in the seemingly apolitical cultural universe of the Magic Kingdom.” You could pick out almost any animated Disney movie and find very similar plot lines and strangely enough, this repetitive plot never really seems to deviate from the assigned gender roles that have emerged as the norm in Disney films. In the movie Snow White, our female lead is saved first by the hunter who warns her against harm. Fleeing from her “wicked stepmother” Snow White befriends the seven dwarves and sticks around to cook and clean for them, taking on the obvious role of home-maker/ house-wife in exchange for staying there. So while the dwarves leave to work in the mines each day, Snow White stays at home, baking and cleaning etc. Hmmm. Every portrayal of Snow White in this movie reeks of stereotypical female classification. Even the sound of Snow White’s voice when she speaks. It’s exceedingly high pitched, she sounds very timid yet sweet and her vocabulary is brimming with exclamations of “oh!” and “oh my!” You know what I mean. The lyrics to the theme song in Snow White are as follows, “Someday my prince will come, someday we'll meet again, and away to his castle we'll go to be happy forever I know… And wedding bells will ring, some day when my dreams come true.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0niwn2pOEno


I ask you, what does this say to young, impressionable girls??? You’re incomplete until you find Prince Charming? You’re going to be unhappy until he sweeps you off your feet and takes you away to his castle? Who knows. Don’t get me wrong, I was raised watching the old school Disney movies, back when they were good, and they will always have a special place in my heart. But reading this article has really made me examine what kind of positive influence (if any) these movies are having on the youth of today.

In this chapter of the handout, entitled Culture, Meaning and Knowledge, Barker explores language, culture and how they intersect with each other on a daily basis. Barker says, "Languages is the privileged medium in which cultural meanings are formed and communicated. Language is the means and medium through which we form knowledge about ourselves and the social world."

In contemplating language as our vehicle for self expression and explanation, I take measure in how it has evolved both in our daily lives and in the media. Political correctness is a term we've all heard a lot. It is this idea of what is "socially or culturally acceptable" to say in certain settings. I will admit that I sometimes filter what I say depending on where I am, who I am with and in what setting I find myself. Barker presents several theories in this chapter which parallel the concept of language as a "signifier." Foucault presents that idea of regulation and the idea that the meaning changes and is defined and "regulated" by context and situation. I'm not writing this to make a plug for verbal freedom in any and every situation. Sometimes you need to censor what you say depending on audience. But look at our cultural evolution in what is allowed to be said on TV, the radio, the internet, the list goes on. Our language can have a direct effect on perceptions of us when used in the wrong context. Although a little off topic, here is an example of a poor choice of language in a very poor setting making for one very pissed off America.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxHKSHvMRWE

I'd like to start this off by saying I swore I would never start a blog. I know they're useful to a lot of people and I'm not saying I don't read them. I just never considered my opinions important enough to want to send them out into the abyss for other people to comment on and/or judge. If people want to know what I think they can call me. However, since I wasn't really given a choice this semester I decided to dive into this with an optimistic outlook. Let's see if I can retain it throughout the semester.

So for this week's reading Gorham basically held our hands through the definition of the stereotype. Something we're going to be talking about A LOT. Gorham says, "The cultural stereotype seems to play an important role in how we process information about people from various groups regardless of whether we endorse it." In class on Thursday, some of us talked about the various ways that we ourselves are stereotyped everyday, simply because of race, class, maybe even hair color. This caused me to consider the various ways people might look at me and stereotype me ie: put me in a box, form their own idea of who I am based on the smallest type of interaction. There are the obvious ones, gender, race, class etc. However with the anniversary of September 11th coming up I started thinking about one of the components of my identity that could easily fall into certain "categories" or stereotypes and that is my nationality. Americans are perceived a certain way all over the world. You can find differing opinions depending on who you speak to. Lets think about the popular culture side of it. Our music, TV shows, movies and endless celebrity coverage is broadcast all over the world. This says something about our value system as a country.
What does it say about us when we invite Hannah Montana or the Jonas Brothers into our living room's to influence our youth and if nothing else teach them self absorbtion and materialism?




Then on the other hand, we are living with the negative ramifications of President Bush's administration and the harm that has done to our national image. I'm not looking to start a political rant but I can say this man's leadership did not enhance our image as a caring or compassionate country. I don't mean any disloyalty but this sense of disapproval, even hatred, is something I have experienced first hand. You can't dispute that the poor choices of elected officials reflect on us as citizens. Therefore when a wrong step is taken, the blame falls to all of us.




So what does this have to do with how stereotypes are portrayed in the media? I'd like to make this entry about how we portray ourselves. Sometimes people only know what they see. This is why the common perception of Americans is that we all lead glamorous, affluent lifestyles. "Stereotypes clearly don't give us 'the whole picture' of a group, as if such a thing is even possible, and they aren't neutral in their evaluations. Instead stereotypes give us highly edited and distorted images of groups that tend to support the way groups are treated in society," Gorham writes. I realize this post leaves much to be desired and there is a lot of room for push/pull here. This is just something I've been thinking about for a while.