As we dive into the last chapter of Gaunlett we begin reading about “role models.” I began thinking, who do I consider a role model and what exactly constitutes one? Gaunlett walks us through various types of role models, giving specific examples of people, their cultural roles and the way they might affect those who look up to them. I feel as though there are many differing kinds of role models. The term carries various connotations associated with Gaunlett’s definition of “the wholesome role model.” When a public figure who isn’t really all that wholesome still tries to appear as such, it’s to retain a certain image in order to be marketable to a particular demographic.

When pop icons such as Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers come out and tell people they are saving sex for marriage you know it’s because they are trying to convey a certain appeal to young girls/boys with parents who like to hear that sort of thing. Obviously I can’t judge the hearts of Miley Cyrus or the good ol’ Jonas Brothers, but since she was impregnated out of wedlock I have to ask myself when and where Britney’s beliefs fell by the wayside. I find it funny that these “role models” parade around wearing promise rings and vowing they don’t drink, smoke, or have sex in an effort to shine a positive light on abstention. Once they get older and their careers are firmly established, however they back off everything they previously believed and claim that they just want to live normal lives and be their own person. This probably sounds very cynical. I’m aware that even celebrities are human and can’t be held to an infallible standard, but I believe you should practice what you preach. If you have what parents might term “questionable morals”, don’t market yourself as an inspiration to the impressionable masses.

On pages 229-235, there are various excerpts of comments by fans who say that Britney Spears is inspiring because of her “ambition, positive attitude and relentless work ethic.” Wow. When I was young I idolized dead authors like Dickinson, Alcott and Austen. I didn’t really take part in the elementary school boy-band phenomenon (thanks in part to my older brother and sister). In reality, these so called “role models” would be ideal if they actually were in Gauntlett’s words “comforting figures who offer positive-looking examples of how life can be lived.”

In this week’s reading by Deuber-Mankowsky, ‘The Phenomenon of Lara Croft’, Mankowsky wrote, “The only thing distinguishing the main character of Tomb Raider from those of other video games were her sex and improved graphics.” I felt somewhat bothered by Mankowsky’s description of the international fame and glorification of this character. Growing up in a somewhat rural location, much of my adolescence was spent outdoors or buried in books. I never really understood the appeal of video games and the technology that gives them life. This obsession is borderline, no, IS quite disturbing when viewed through Mankowsky’s microscopic lens.
Through researching the contributing social, political, cultural and economic factors, Mankowsky dissects this character with rigorous force. “The problem that Lara Croft poses for feminist theory results from precisely those multiple means we saw celebrated in the opening line of her admirer’s poem: through them Lara has been able to span the gap between men’s sexual fantasies and women’s longing for supernatural agility. More than merely an object of male desire, Lara Croft became the first positive female role model on the computer game market. She opened up the virtual game world to a whole generation of young women and girls.” Okay, I’m on board with the fact that this character is the antithesis of the prototypical video game hero—the muscular, gun-toting ex-military man in combat boots is replaced by a hot girl who kicks ass for the benefit of the good. I believe that the portrayal of Croft as a strong, independent woman is positive, but I don’t know that I would call her as a “positive female role model”. What’s difficult for me to grasp is how a video game character could really be a positive influence on anyone.


This article isn't very well-written but does a good job of communicating the point.

http://www.helium.com/items/233252-role-models-or-eye-candy-the-portrayal-of-female-video-game-characters5

This week’s assigned reading by Jean Kilbourne, “The More You Subtract, the More You Add” disgusted me but it also affirmed that of which I am already highly aware. Kilbourne dives into several manifestations of those clever little messages that seem to pop up every time we see a movie, turn on a television, listen to music, drive by a billboard and the deeper meaning behind them. Eating disorders are something I have to deal with quite a bit and have had a lot of exposure to. I was actively involved in dance from the time I was 7 until I came to college. As a dancer I was reminded CONSTANTLY of how I looked. I spent every afternoon/evening/night dancing in a room full of mirrors. I was constantly craning my body and exhaustively repeating step after step until it was perfect. In addition to that I was surrounded by young girls who had full blown eating disorders. Girls openly exchanged information and tips on purging, starving themselves, the best laxatives to use and so on. Sadly, I never questioned it. I kept my head down during those talks and reminded myself that they were doing what they needed to be the best dancers they could be. It was none of my business. This behavior was for the most part perpetuated by our artistic director who was the driving force behind the attention to our body image. Daily reminders during and after class, she was the voice in our collective young minds that reinforced this type of behavior.

So what does this have to do with advertising and it’s sickening grasp on impressionable little minds that it takes such a large part in shaping? It’s simple. If you’re told the same thing over and over and over and over again you’re going to start to believe it’s true. Only the messages I received were primarily confined to my studio and the life I had there. With advertising, it never seems to end. “Advertising does promote abusive and abnormal attitudes about eating, drinking and thinness. It thus provides fertile soil for these obsessions to take root in and creates a climate of denial in which these diseases flourish,” Kilbourne says. Stop and think about the amount of money in the ad industry….now stop and think about the amount of that money is made of strategically placed ads that are designed to promote and instill feelings of discontent and inadequacy, particularly in our youth.

“Another common criticism of women’s magazines is that they make women feel bad about themselves. Their repetitive celebration of a beauty ‘ideal’ which most women will not be able to match, but which will eat up readers’ time and money – and perhaps good health – if they try, as well as the many pages of advice on how readers can improve their looks, sex skills or personalities, are likely to make some readers feel somewhat inadequate.” This is an excerpt from Gauntlett, chapter 9. Um, duh! Sometimes it seems as though magazines are designed to make women feel bad about themselves (maybe they are). Many women are constantly looking up to the next model or two-bit celeb to try and measure up to a morphed and distorted standard of our society’s definition of “beauty.” Yet the reason the magazine business is in jeopardy right now has nothing to do with the recognition that these standards are ridiculous and unachievable for any normal woman; rather it is because our country is in economic flux. There has been no real revolt against these impossible ideals and as a woman, I don’t see one coming anytime soon.To be perfectly honest, I thoroughly enjoy reading Vogue (the only reason I canceled my subscription is because I’m a broke college student). When I flip through the pages, I realize that real women are not supposed to look like this. In any given monthly issue you can open a Vogue and read about high-powered career women, succeeding in the corporate world, intelligently written articles by various high-ups in the fashion, art, entertainment, and business worlds. But you know all of these women aren’t naturally possessed of flawless skin, perfectly plucked eyebrows and enormous pouty lips; they are not naturally this thin. And herein lies my frustration. How and for what reason DID they get to be 105 pounds? "Clothes look better, in all our eyes, on people who are thin.” Alexandra Shulman said. Shulman has held the position of editor-in-chief at British Vogue since 1992. It is disturbing to me that this issue is not only unresolved but actually encouraged and sometimes demanded by significant decision-makers within the industry. This may seem like the most obvious statement in the world but we do in fact live in a society that has been shaped and molded in a way for each generation to place an increasingly higher value on physical appearance.

"Good girls go to heaven, bad girls go everywhere"

When reading the first piece, ‘Inventing the Cosmo Girl’, the same thing kept jumping out at me and that was the exchange of a kind of misinformation. This article brought up some great points and Brown did phenomenal things for the advancement of women and for helping to change our place in society. I am completely in favor the liberation of women who feel as though their only place in society is next to a man. However, in her attempt to liberate these women and inspire them, did she create something different than what was originally intended? “Brown’s advice spoke to major changes in women’s economic and sexual roles, while also constructing a suggested social identity for her “working girl” readers.”

Playing devil’s advocate here for a minute, there is a section in this reading entitled “The Beautiful Phony”. This took the movement one step further and instead of encouraging women to assert themselves and pursue independence it seems as though Brown was trying to create some other superior being all together. When breaking away from the cultural norm and societal construction, a new brand of working class women began. “Expenditures on clothing, cosmetics, and accessories were presented as necessary investments in the construction of a desirable (and thus saleable) self.” Women were encouraged not to enhance themselves and assert their intellectual equality, but to completely reinvent themselves and their identity. What did this accomplish? Who was this for? These women, ironically enough, were still catering to the whims of men and to add to this it became necessary to reach to a standard of unattainable beauty. And in the quest for social and sexual independence it's trading one illusion for another.

Ignorance at it's finest

This entry is erring a little bit on the side of personal. Aside from the outrageous philosophy and ideals of these women, their gross misrepresentation of feminists, and their blatant (in my opinion) misinterpretation of the Bible, this is something I find myself relating to in a way. Not because I subscribe to any of their views, but because I was raised very conservatively. Women did not lead my church and the female portion of the congregation was made up primarily of housewives/homemakers. In my church, there was a particularly conservative “clique” if you will of people who would probably identify with much of what was said in this documentary.


That being said, the women interviewed for this documentary, like the women I observed in my own church, fail to take into account the way the world has changed and evolved from what it once was. The ideas they purport are to me, sad and deluded. These women behave as if they have no personal worth, no value or confidence in themselves or their abilities beyond staying at home with their families. They believe women shouldn’t lead in the workplace, in politics, or even their own homes. The antiquated idea that men should have a job and provide for their families while their wives cook, clean and rear children holds no water when one considers that females have an equal amount to offer in other aspects of life. Women were created with brains equal to and in some cases, superior to, those of men. Put them to use and accomplishments beyond what any of these short-sighted women think are possible could be achieved.

Ponder this for example: what if women never entered the field of medicine? Perhaps it will be a woman scientist or medical researcher who will discover the cure for cancer. Maintaining that women should do nothing other than remain at home selfishly and effectively reduces and eliminates a large percentage of what could be in the field of the unknown. Limiting themselves only to the goals these women set for themselves does nothing to contribute to a productive and progressive society. This is what these women fail to acknowledge in their self-righteous assessment of the “correct” lifestyle a woman should choose for herself.


http://www.swrb.ab.ca/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm


This is a link to the original essay by John Knox, which the documentary takes it's name from.