I love this class and I realize what the purpose is, but sometimes we are too critical of the media. At some point we need to acknowledge that the media is changing for the better. Yes, the media is still full of stereotypical images, but it is impossible for stereotypes not to exist. The show, Will and Grace, presents two best friends and the male lead happens to be gay. The show isn't always about his sexual presence and he is a lawyer who happens to be gay. This image of gay man was widely accepted. The media industry then places a similar character in many other shows. Is the "Will" character another stereotype of homosexuals? It depends on how one defines stereotypes. It may have become one but, only because it has become another common image in the media. This is why stereotypes will continue to exist. As soon as the media industry latches on to a new type of character it becomes so common that it appears as another stereotype. Will and Jack represent two types of homosexuals. I have met gay guys just like the both of them, so they are not just stereotypes, but perhaps truthful portrayals of what some gay men are like. Someone in the class made a comment that stereotypes are present everyplace. The way a Latino person is portrayed and the way a Caucasian person is portrayed are both stereotypes. It is impossible to present every single type of person in the world, thus we are only able to get a small taste of different kinds of people through the media. Jack is a more common image in the media, but we must give credit to the media for making this image acceptable to the public. Would this image have been accepted 30 years ago?
We have to think about how we draw the line between stereotypes and valid representations of people. When do stereotypes not exist? These are two questions, which we must consider before being so quick to judge TV shows or films for attempting to slowly make a change, while keeping in mind economic interest. Will and Grace has done a good job at presenting more then one type of homosexual in order to demonstrate that a gay man may not always act as flamboyant as previously portrayed across the media.

Sexuality on MTV's The Real World

This week’s discussion in class about homosexuality in the media made me think about the way in which homosexuality and sexuality in general have been depicted on MTV’s The Real World. In all twenty-two seasons that have aired since the show’s inception, there has always been a gay cast member to appear in the house. In doing some research on the topic, I discovered that The Real World was the first reality show to portray the life of a homosexual on national television. In 1992, during the first season of the show, the gay cast member’s coming out was first seen as a shock; however, as his fellow cast members and viewers at home got to know the gay male on a more personal level, they were able to relate to him as a person and not just single him out as “the homosexual”. The trend that The Real World has continued to use since its first season over seventeen years ago is to lure viewers into the lives of seven strangers, with each season bringing with it the promise of a new gay or lesbian character that the viewers will come to know.

While there are overt similarities and differences in the way homosexuality on the show has been portrayed, the portrayal has definitely evolved. During the third season in San Francisco airing in 1994, the show gained a lot of attention with cast member and AIDS activist Pedro Zamora. Zamora’s life was featured significantly, highlighting his character as someone living with AIDS. He was one of the first openly gay men with AIDS to be portrayed in popular media, and after his death on November 11, 1994 (mere hours after the final episode of his season aired), he was lauded by then-President Bill Clinton.

More recently, the twenty-first season of the show in Brooklyn, was the first season to include an openly transgender cast member. The show revealed that she first realized her gender variance in high school and began living as a woman at seventeen. She began her transition almost five years prior to moving into the Real World house and completed her gender reassignment surgery in Thailand in July 2008, only a few months before the season began filming.

While some seasons have featured the gay topic more heavily than others, it has always been a theme that has brewed conflict on the show.

'A-typical act of juvenile delinquency'

Last week one of my roommates showed me and interview of a 10 year old boy,Will, that is refusing to stand up and join in the reciting of the pledge of allegiance. He is only in 5th grade but he is greatly troubled participating in the act until America lives up to ideals in the line of "liberty and justice for all". He claims to want to be a lawyer, therefore he analyzed what he was truly saying when reciting the pledge. He states that "gays and lesbians cant marry, there is still a lot of racism and sexism in the world". Will refuses to "swear" that gays and lesbians have the same rights that all heterosexuals do. Until he feels like the country is changing and there really is equality for all human beings he will sit down silently while the rest of the class stands to say it. When his teacher finally was fed-up with his behavior he told her"solemnly with a little bit of malice in my voice, ma'am with all do respect, you can go jump off a bridge". Of course this had repercussions and he wrote a letter apologizing, but it did add to the impact of his protest.

In doing this he has constantly been called gay himself by his peers at school, which he is not, but it seems that clearly in our society men, or in this case boys, aren't generally portrayed to support gay rights unless they are in fact gay themselves. He claims that this is so important to him because "I've grown up with a lot of people and I'm good friends with a lot of people that are gay". There is a sense of irony in this statement considering he is only 10 years old but with his flamboyant vocabulary and eloquence it is easy to respect him and understand that he genuinely believes in what he is standing up for.

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

Disney in Shanghai

In Chapter 10 of “Practices of Looking” Sturken & Cartwright explain the increase of global marketing in key American brands in recent years. Disney is an example of a company that is increasingly promoting itself globally, despite sometimes vast cultural differences between the company and the country in which it develops. Just a few weeks ago, it was confirmed that China’s planning agency approved plans for a Disney theme park in Shanghai, China’s biggest city.

Disney has been trying to expand their brand all over the world (and are often accused of forcing their products in international markets and thus contributing to homogenization), but originally had trouble with China because of the restrictions that the government enforces on the media throughout the country. Still, to lay the groundwork for approval, Disney had been exposing the Chinese population to Disney film, television, and products for years. Disney obviously wants to grow in China to capitalize on the large population and the economy in the country, and hopes to entice the population to frequent the parks

What I think is most interesting about this venture is that Disney represents American “social values” that differ greatly from those in China. Obviously, the rides and classic attractions will be slightly altered to fit Chinese culture, and they will most likely create new rides to incorporate Chinese stories and history. Still, Disney is considered a very “American” brand, and China if known for being very strict and strategic with what Western views can be exposed to Chinese culture. For example, only 20 non-Chinese films are allowed to be shown per year in China, and even those are often altered to make sure they fit governmental standards.

The NY Times explains that, “Throwing open its doors to such a uniquely American - and permanent - entertainment experience is a milestone for China, which has aggressively protected its culture from Westernization in general and Hollywood in particular.” This is a great example of a brand in corporate America becoming global and thus contributing to the global flow of visual culture on an international scheme.

Funny and Not So Funny

In this commercial for Manix condoms, a young man and woman are having sex while intense classical music plays in the background. You see nothing but clothes flying from under the sheets onto the floor and exaggerated gymnastic movements. It's all laughs till, cut to: her pregnant and giving birth. Next thing you know she's walking with a baby stroller down the streets of Paris and sits on a bench, looking stressed and rocks the stroller. Enter stage left, an attractive young man holding a cigarette comes to her and ask for a light. He points to the baby as if to say "is it yours", she motions yes. Uninterested in her now that she's a mom, he runs off at the speed of light, frightened. At first first view this commercial is hilarious and seemingly open minded, but the moment it gets to this part I flipped my point of view. I recognized something wrong. Why did he run off? Because she has a baby, she's no longer attractive? The girl starts freaking out and makes strong jesters toward the child, violent, and then the clip goes in fast speed reverse.

So now part two: The girl is back in bed before the original act. The man comes to her and eager to get it on, now pause. Waving her hand at him she motions to back off and says "do you have a condom?" End clip. The logo and "You'll need them more than you think" scrolls across the screen.

What this says to me personally is...it's not about STD's or AIDS it's solely about pregnancy. First, if the woman doesn't ask the man to wear a condom he might not take the initiative--even though it's a huge risk, that will end in a difficult choice for the woman if it's unintended. Second, choosing to have the baby is her responsibility for her irresponsibility and she pays for this by no longer being desirable to other men.

Why did they show her with the baby? Why not showing her with the pain of choosing to keep the baby or not? Or perhaps her standing in an abortion clinic mortified, frightened, and sad. And the man absent, a message directed more to the men that says "this is no joke". Instead it's about her desirability to men and ultimately she regrets having a baby for this reason. This commercial has a lot of messages but the one that stands out for me is the denial of the woman, period. Having a baby is a beautiful miraculous thing no matter what. It says the unwed mother is bad in some way, and she will be punished for this primarily because she losses her appeal to men. Another sexist male gaze. This also sends a message to men that it's OK to abandon women because he is clearly not in the picture anymore.


http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=35900700202

Grey's Anatomy and the Lesbian Gaze

Referring to the Lewis article about the lesbian gaze, I think it's important to at least partially refute her argument by looking at the popular television show: Grey's Anatomy.

I felt that it was important to talk about lesbianism, as opposed to gay men, because they are woefully under-represented. Gay culture can be seen as a microcosm of the state of gender issues today: those of men are given much more importance than those of women. In short, it's becoming more acceptable to be a gay man than it is to be a gay woman.

Grey's Anatomy is one of my favorite shows, not just because of the great music, the excellent caste or the witty dialogue, but because of the way it represents people. They are shown as doctors, each with their own lives and issues to deal with; nowhere is the issue of race highlighted. Though it is obvious that the protagonists come from a variety of social and ethnic backgrounds, they are shown as human beings. This is why I wasn't surprised at the sensitivity with which Shonda Rhimes (the show's producer) handles the lone lesbian couple on the show.

They are not hyper-sexualized, they are not seen from a male's point of view, and yet they are among the more popular characters on the show. They have fun flirtatious moments, quirky conversations and relationship problems, just like the heterosexual couples on the show. In short, they are just another "normal" couple.

Through this remarkable display of forward thinking, Shonda Rhimes is helping bring lesbians into mainstream society and making them more "conventional".

The show does deal with the many difficulties that homosexual women deal with, even in today's "progressive" social setup. In addition to the usual "difficulties coming out to your parents", there are little scenes that allow me, as a heterosexual female, a glimpse of the everyday mundanities of being a lesbian that almost go unnoticed. One interesting such incident occurs when lesbianism is equated with divorce. In last night's episode of Grey's Anatomy, Callie Torres speaks with Miranda Bailey's father about cutting her some slack. Bailey did not tell her parents about her divorce, and when her father found out (when he surprised her with a visit), he told her that he was ashamed of her. Callie speaks with her father, and tells him that she is a lesbian, and that it took her parents awhile to deal with it, but they did. In this situation, being gay is equated with divorce. Though it is by no means the central theme of the episode, this conversation makes an overt statement about the fact that homosexuality is often seen as morally "wrong" and is equated with divorce, which is similarly frowned upon, especially in small-town America.

The scene is at 17:00 in the video below:

Palin on Oprah

I recently watched Oprah's interview with Sarah Palin that aired a couple weeks ago, and it was pretty interesting to watch. Half the purpose of the interview was to promote her new book, but it also painted a very different picture of the Sarah Palin everybody got familiar during the 2008 election. This interview showed a complete opposite side of her, a side that had nothing to do with the whole "hockey mom" routine. Of course she mentioned how she loved her family, but it wasn't really about that. A big thing with Sarah Palin is the way she always talking about being a victim of the media, and how she always felt like they joined forces to paint a negative picture of her. Oprah, who is generally sympathetic to all her guests, gave her a fair, neutral place to say how she felt. I'm always intrigued by how much of what we see in an election is scripted and staged. In this case, she was totally unscripted, and I found myself drawn to her and actually liking her even though I fiercely disagree with most of what she stands for. Media and politics are two fields that usually go together like oil and water, and while I'm glad that I got to see another side of Palin, I'm even more confused now. I'm less and less sure which personality is fake. She could easily be a redneck hockey mom and just happened to tone it down for Oprah, but she could just as easily be a normal person, and put on the polarizing republican hat to attract voters. It just shows how that in the world of politics, the individual has so little say in how they are portrayed.

True Representations in "True Blood"

Fans of the phenomenally popular HBO series “True Blood” may have literally saved Lafayette Reynolds’s neck. The fast talking, provocative, purple shadow wearing, and vampire blood dealing short order cook at Merlotte’s Bar and Grill, the fictional town Bon Temp’s local hangout, was doomed by author Charlaine Harris, whose Southern Vampire Series “True Blood is based on, in her second book, “Living Dead in Dallas.” However, Lafayette was spared his gruesome literary fate and his character will continue in the upcoming third season.

During this week’s class, we discussed how most representations of homosexual males on film and television share the following characteristics. They are white and are either affluent and rational or middle class (not rich but not without financial support) and flamboyant. They also tend to live in more liberal minded cities such as New York or San Francisco. Lafayette, on the other hand, is African American, lives in Louisiana, has rippling muscles, wears a mish mosh of male and female clothing, is rational yet speaks his mind no matter how taboo his sentiments are thought to be. And I have yet to read a single review of the show in which the writer expresses dislike towards him. On the contrary, many writers cite Lafayette as one of the primary reason why they enjoy the show which brings me to my question of how Lafayette has managed to break through so much of the red tape that the media has constructed concerning homosexual and African American characters.



Let’s begin by examining Lafayette’s character within the context of “True Blood.” Though Lafayette is no manner shy about his sexuality, the small town of Bon Temp accepts him as one their own regardless of his social deviance. I believe this acceptance is due to several major points. One, although Lafayette is gay, he is very muscular and in addition to being a cook, he is the town’s main drug dealer and works on the road crew with the main character, Sookie Stackhouse’s, alpha make brother, Jason. These aspects of Lafayette are traditionally associated with hegemonic portrayals of masculinity. Furthermore, Jason is the embodiment of the hegemonic male who rarely spends a night sleeping alone, and his friendship with Lafayette may lend the man to be accepted by Bon Temp’s other overly macho citizens.

Secondly, Lafayette is one of the most intelligent people in Bon Temp. He judges people by their actions rather than by their looks or rumors surrounding them. When a wake is held for Sookie’s grandmother, Lafayette advises Tara, Sookie’s best friend, to throw out the majority of the food brought by the gossiping neighbors. He says that the casseroles are filled with “bad juju” and that you can “taste the suspicion and hatred” in every bite. Later, when Sookie allows her boyfriend Bill, who also happens to be a vampire, to bite her and drink from her for the first time, the crowd in Merlotte’s is shocked and judgmental of her actions. Lafayette simply tells her not to worry about them, and that “it’s not possible to live unless you’re crossin’ somebody’s line somewhere.”

Thirdly, Lafayette is neither physically nor emotionally weak. He is completely secure with who he is and his way of living. When a rude patron at Merlotte’s sends a burger back, claiming that it has AIDS, Lafayette—who is not HIV positive—calmly brings the plate back over to the table and asks, “Who ordered the burger with AIDS?” The redneck man answers that he ordered a burger deluxe but with no AIDS. Lafayette explains that at Merlotte’s every burger comes with fries, a bun, tomato, lettuce, mayo, and AIDS then shoves the platter in the guy’s face, decks the guy's other two redneck buddies, and declares that if this person is going to order from his kitchen he is going to eat the food as it is served. As one final dig, Lafayette reminds that man to tip his waitress. It is hard to imagining either Will or Jack from “Will & Grace” behaving in that sort of manner.

Lastly, aside from Lafayette’s personality and actions, what may cause him to be more accessible than the other characters on “True Blood” is that while he is what is commonly perceived as a social deviant, he inhabits a world filled with people that normalize him by comparison. Sookie, the pretty young waitress is a telepath. Sam Merlotte, the bar owner, is a shape-shifter. Vampires are now recognized members of society and synthetic blood is served up at bars and restaurants across the country. Other members of the town are shameless bigots. In a world swirling with the unusual and unexplainable, Lafayette serves as a voice of reason and his own unique attributes as a black, gay, semi-flamboyant male are diluted by comparison.

Now the question is can a character like Lafayette only exist in a world such as is constructed by HBO’s “True Blood” or can he carry over into the primetime comedies and dramas found on basic cable?

Link to the "AIDS Burger Scene": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=890ULiSXZSY

Gender Blender

An article titled "It's All a Blur to Them" from this Thursday's Style section of the New York Times, discusses the resurgence of androgynous-dressing men and women last seen in the 1970s. Although I think this "phenomenon" has been around for a while below 14th street, the Times claims that this time around it's the men who are digging through their mom's closets. Psychologist Diane Ehrensaft coined the term 'gender fluidity' to describe the idea that "younger people no longer accept the standard boxes. They won’t be bound by boys having to wear this or girls wearing that. I think there is a peer culture in which that kind of gender blurring is not only acceptable but cool.” The article continues and cites famous people who embody this image. Including Adam Lambert from American Idol, because he wears eyeliner, emo-rocker Pete Wentz and Johnny Depp. The author also notes how many couples seem to have similar, yet vaguely reversed styles such as the female in a relationship wearing a hoodie and a leather jacket and the male wearing a gauzy T-shirt and super-skinny pants. Although the Times makes some decent arguments, I think that as a whole there is a lot of misrepresentation in this piece. This isn't a new, it's Brooklyn.
For years you wouldn't be able to walk down a street south of 14th and not encounter male waifs sporting clothes that could have easily been worn by their girlfriends the night before. On a deeper level, the way in which young men adopt these 'feminine' styles that break gender boundaries are reminiscent of the methods used to put gays on television in the Shugart reading and the lesbian gaze in the Lewis reading. The fact that tight black jeans, and a long loose t-shirt worn by a man symbolizes femininity is a little problematic. It wasn't until the 1970's and '80s that it became permissible for women to wear pants in the work place. Up until that point, dresses and skirts signified femininity, and furthered the gender separation between women and men. Even though mens pants were never as tight as they are now, the "baggy" trend was seen as thuggish and inappropriate when it was very popular in the '90s. Furthermore, men have been wearing thin undershirts underneath their button-downs for decades. So really, this masculinized femininity style is original feminist style, both trying to rebel and prove women can be equal to men in all areas, repackaged as feminine style for androgynous males.

Your biological clock is ticking...

I wish I could actually find the commercial I am writing about because it is so hilarious (but also scary). I'm sure you've all seen those First Response pregnancy test commercials... Well, I recently saw one and I was blown away by how perfectly it lended itself to the curriculum. The commercial featured three women asking questions about their pregnancy. One of the women asked "have I waited too long?" I know that some women are concerned with their biological clocks, but this woman was 25, maybe 30 at the oldest, so her wondering if she had waited too long to have kids was absurd. This commercial promoted the hegemonic ideal that all women want to get pregnant/have kids and it creates the sense that ALL women should be concerned with the fact that our biological clocks are ticking away. Equally as interesting was the fact that it played during an episode of Say Yes to the Dress (don't judge!!!), a show that gives viewers a glimpse into the inner workings of a bridal salon. It only makes sense that First Response would air their commercial during a time slot that is sure to attract lots of women frantic to get married and have babies. Other commercials that tend to air during this time slot are commercials for shopping and jewelry. No wonder there are so many bridezillas out there!

For Gentlemen Only

Just recently Ketel One Vodka has expanded its ad campaign from the print ads to television commercials.  The commercial revolves around a group of upper-middle class, white men who are supposed to represent “real” men.  Other than the one woman sitting in the background of the scene, who seems very out of place, the entire commercial centers around men.  Even the narrator attempts to promote a very deep masculine tone.  The narrator states, “There was a time when substance was style. When men were unmoved by the constant current of the crowd. When they didn’t drink their vodka from delicately baited perfume bottles. There was a time when men were men. It was last night.”  It appears that the commercial is attempting to promote connoisseurship of those individuals, who I guess have to be male, who go against the crowd and drink the right vodka.  To be a true connoisseur one must distinguish between what is popular and what is truly good.  However to know the difference you have to be a man’s man.  In addition, the commercial states, “when men were men”.  This clearly does not explain what sort of man, attributes, characteristics, etc, hence it is insinuating that if you have to ask you probably are not one of them. 

I thought it was interesting how Ketel One was promoting its brand to one type of person.  The commercial showed no variety and almost didn’t want to include anyone outside of the very narrow upper-middle class, white male, as consumers of the alcoholic beverage.  This doesn’t really make sense to me because I would think that a company would want to appeal to as many people as possible.  Wouldn’t companies want more people buying their products?  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFj3FJlBT8Q&feature=player_embedded

New Moon double standard

I went to the midnight showing of New Moon last night and as I was watching the film, and gauging the response of the audience, I thought of some interesting points to write about. Much of the hoopla surrounding the film has to do with Taylor Lautner who plays the character of Jacob Black in the series. Every teenage girl is swooning over him and his new body (Lautner had to gain thirty pounds and chisel a six pack in order to keep his role as the teen wolf). What I have also been noticing, however, is that adult women are just as infatuated with him. The majority of the audience last night was made up of college-aged women or older. Whistles and cheers ensued every time Lautner appeared shirtless in the film. But the creepy part is Lautner is just 17 years old. Many of my friends continued to remind me that it's "legal in Canada" but I still find it disturbing that so many older women are expressing their obsession with a boy who would be a senior in high school. It seems to be a double standard in many ways, since the public is outraged when young female celebrities are objectified. When Miley Cyrus (who is the same age as Lautner) or Vanessa Hudgens (who is 22) is caught in some scandalous photo the media has a field day judging the young stars. Nonetheless, I think it is safe to say most people would be unnerved if they knew of twenty-something year old men staring at Miley Cyrus. Yet, somehow it is acceptable for women of the same age group to gawk at Taylor Lautner. Why is it that young female celebrities are supposed to hold on to some naive innocence while young male stars aren’t held to that same standard? I think it has a lot to do with the hegemonic expectations of men and women. Women are supposed to be reserved and well behaved; men are supposed to be strong and rugged. In effect, men are allowed to get away with much more in the media’s eyes. But why is the audience allowed to sexualize the image of young male stars, but not young female stars? Cyrus and Lautner are both 17, yet there is no one protecting Lautner from the gaze of all of these adult female fans. 

Tyra Responded!

Here's an article retracing the whole controversy of Tyra dressing up her models as alternate races.

I had a problem with Tyra's decision like a lot of other news outlets, not for putting her models in blackface (although I argue that it has similar connotations) but because she failed to realize that race is not physical a physical indicator of culture. We are socialized into the identities we subscribe to and it is wrong to tell people that by putting on some makeup and some clothing that you could somehow portray a person of another color. She claims that being blacks excuses her from any form of racism, but racism is in a sense a reductionist understanding of the world. No, Tyra, you are not a racist, but you a certainly a reductionist. You're basically playing up the exoticism and otherness of different races. Stop using color to guide discussions about toleration, and start using humanity as a uniting force for cultural understanding.


I personally don't think she redeemed herself, at least from these quotes. I couldn't find the full episode yet, but I imagine it'll be up soon. What do you think? (I'll update this week!)


CHECK OUT A PREVIEW HERE!

The Amish as a Study in Self-Awareness

To many, the Amish are a mystery. They shun modernity in the name of their religion, and isolate themselves from the temptations of the outside world by living in self-sufficient communities.

As I discovered in writing last week's paper, a little research yields a lot of information. I grew up in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, which is home to the country's third largest Amish population. That being said, I did come into the paper with some knowledge of their lifestyle and religious practices. The Amish tradition of Rumspringa, which translates to "running around" in Pennsylvania Dutch, is arguably the most studied aspect of Amish life and relates directly to the notion of self-awareness. At the core of the Amish Church is the belief that members should have the right to choose to be baptized. In the Christian Church, infants are baptized and thus are not able to chose their religious destiny. It was for this difference in belief that the Amish were persecuted in Europe and subsequently fled to America.

During Rumspringa, which begins at age 16, an Amish youth can experience the outside world - he or she can dress like non-Amish peers, drink, smoke, drive, party, engage in behavior otherwise considered sinful. This period can last for as long as it takes for the young person to decide if he or she wants to be baptized in the Amish Church and enter into a lifelong religious commitment. If an Amish youth decides not to join the Church, he or she is shunned by family and the Amish Community, and enters the modern world more or less alone. Though this is an abbreviated explanation of the practice of Rumspringa and the societal pressures on Amish youth, the point is clear: the Amish believe that by the age of 16, a person is self-aware enough to make arguably the most important decision of their lives.

Self-Awareness Among News Groups

For a while now I have been following an ongoing conflict in Tanzania, regarding the murdering of albinos for the sale of their body parts. My investigation often leads me to international news broadcasting websites, mostly because the story is rarely, if ever, tracked by United States news groups, such as Fox or CNN. My most recent finding is from SBS Dateline, a multi-award winning international current affairs program which provides stories for Australians about life beyond Australia’s shores. Upon watching the video report, I noticed some differences between SBS's manner of reporting, when compared to that within the U.S.

The SBS Dateline program is presented by George Negus, one of Australia’s most respected journalists, and is made up of a team of acclaimed producers and ‘video journalists’. Introducing their report on "The Skin Trade", Negus begins, "Good day, and welcome again to tonight—a focus on Africa, one so often bypassed by we media types."

The reason for why hearing Negus' introduction was so surprising to me, was because it illustrated a sense of self-awareness that is commonly absent among news groups, particularly those in the U.S. Essentially, Negus is admitting that world events, particularly those in Africa, are often neglected the proper attention they deserve by more "Western" news groups from the First World. Expressing this notion prior the story on the "skin trade" is extremely significant, because it is a story that evokes much sympathy and a desire to help. By introducing the story in such a way, Negus alludes to the idea that horrific situations, such as the one in Tanzania, occur often in Africa, and are just as often neglected by Western media, and therefore, the Western world.

Negus more objective style of reporting is common among international news groups, however often rare in U.S. media. This style is very refreshing because it expresses the truths of media coverage in the Western world. If the media's job is to inform, they seem even more credible when they take a critical shot at themselves. It is my hope that this sort of understanding can permeate media in the U.S., in turn, offering a more objective and worldly reporting of news.

The Corruption of Today's Youth by...Sesame Street?

This week when I was reading the news online, I came across a story addressing the fallacy of the "Bert and Ernie gay rumor." The article describes how the controversy is based on how they are portrayed in the show: "The share a room...They bicker like husband and wife. They frequently break out into song. One has a curious obsession with his rubber ducky." It also points out how even in the very first episode of Sesame Street "Ernie can be seen taking a bath with Bert in the background." In 1994, this scandal resulted in an evangelist priest calling for the characters to be banned because of these characteristics.
And Bert and Ernie are not the only two children characters facing this controversy, as "Anti-gay groups have accused SpongBob SquarePants and Tinky Winy of the 'Teletubbies' of harboring a homosexual agenda."
But what I don't understand is how can the Teletubbies promote homosexuality if they aren't even defined by a gender- the lat time I checked, they were just giant, creepy looking, blob like figures with no characteristics of gender. Critics accuse Tinky Winky of being a homosexual figure because "he" is purple and carries a "purse" but for all we know, maybe Tinky Winky is a girl. It is completely arbitrary. And while Spongebob may be portrayed as a sensitive character, I have definitely noticed some sexual tension between him and Sandy in the show. And in the article, Gary Knell, president of Sesame Workshop describes it perfectly: Bert and Ernie "are not gay. They are not straight...They don't exist below the waist."
However, I find it ironic that this controversy arises just because of the characteristics of these characters. And it is the media that perpetuates these characteristics as "gay," when in reality, they are not. There are plenty of straight men who are sensitive (although, maybe not that many, but they are out there); and if you look in college dorms across the nation, roommates are based on gender- it is not "gay" that Bert and Ernie live together, it is just a commonality. In fact, on Will and Grace, Will was gay and he lived with a girl. Thus, I think this whole concept of characters created to entertain the minds of 5 year olds as really characters carrying this whole different agenda, to be absurd.

http://www.sphere.com/2009/11/09/bert-and-ernie-arent-gay-muppet-rumors-and-scandals/

Framing of Foreign News

This week I wrote a paper on the framing of foreign news by media sources. It helped me realize the influences Media has on the way people perceive certain news stories. I read an article by Robert Entman which compared the two news stories that were exactly the same but were presented differently by the media. It was the story of the Korean Airline being shot down by the Soviet Union and how it was viewed as a murderous event. The same incident happened to the United States, where they brought down an innocent civilian plan and their actions were considered a mistake. While the Soviet were protrayed as Killers the U.S. was portrayed not responsible for the incident. The news organizations used images and language to portray each incident differently which the public believed. Now this was in the 80s but it seems like news framing is still happening today.
Fox news for instance is the most bias news corporation ever. News is supposed to be unbiased and factual for the most part, in order for the public to develop their own opinions about the events that are happening throughout the world. Instead they frame their news stories to fit the republican parties political agenda. The news reporters use vague words and use their own opinions in their news coverage.
I feel news framing will never end and we as the audience will always receive an altered version of the real facts.

George Lopez and Stereotypes

This week the new talk show "Lopez Tonight'' by George Lopez premiered on TBS. The show follows all the criteria of a talk show except that the guests of this show are mostly of Hispanic descent. What struck me about this show is the many stereotypical comments made by the host, George Lopez. As many of you may know, George Lopez is of Hispanic descent and many of his remarks follow stereotypes of Hispanic culture. Like for example, in one segment of his show he brings two people from the audience for a little game. the game consists of playing a video of a street interview where questions would be asked to people who belonged to minorities (mostly Asian and Hispanic people) and the people from the audience were supposed to guess the answers. I found this game highly offensive because they referred to many stereotypes made about the respective cultures of the interviewees. For example, they asked a Hispanic woman if she was pregnant and a black man if he had ever gotten shot. What I found interesting about this is the fact that he has not gotten any negative feedback from this. This makes me ask myself if the fact that George Lopez himself belongs to a minority makes it okay for him to make these remarks. For me, the comments by him should be considered as offensive as if they came from a White talk show host. Even though they are done in a funny connotation, they add to the stereotypes that are already made about Hispanics and other minorities. The fact that someone from an actual minority is making stereotypical comments about that minority makes these comments more legitimate and thought to be true. The consequences of this is affirming the beliefs and ideas other people have of minorities which makes the stereotype harder to vanish.

Victoria's Secret on TV

As I was watching a bunch of shows on TV tonight (Survivor, Grey's Anatomy and Project Runway), I was faced with a bunch of ads from Victoria's Secret. They are pushing their new line called Miraculous Push-up. I saw the ad at least five times in the span of three hours, maybe more. Their tagline is "Hello Bombshell." It is obvious that Victoria's Secret is working very hard to launch this new bra, as they always do, and to get people to be interested and go buy! But besides the fact that I saw this ad so many times I also realized that every ad is very sexualized and the models wear practically nothing. Obviously the models are only wearing bras and panties, and since this is a push-up bra, their boobs are hanging out of the bra basically. It is actually kind of shocking that we allow these ads on TV, what would a young child think? I guess they shouldn't be up this late? I realized that I am basically desensitized to these images and am no longer shocked that the VS models wear practically nothing on TV. These images are appearing to us in an attempt to suck women into buying this new push-up bra and to get the men to go get it for their woman or suggest it. I'm always surprised and impressed by the number of men I always see when I go to the VS store. I think it is pretty brave to buy lingerie for your significant other, but obviously it is benefitting both parties I guess so men are willing to do it. The ads also appeal to any guy sitting on a couch because the models are good looking, very skinny and their boobs are basically hanging out. I just think it is interesting because we would never see a man walking in his underwear on TV. This just doesn't happen. Instead women parade around in their underwear but men don't get to. It is strange to me that it is ok for women to be partially nude on TV, but men never do it. I'm not saying they should, but then again I'm not sure it's appropriate that women do it either.

Here is the ad that I saw a bunch of times...it is showing us the new Miraculous Push-up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJiBsAjA22E

Boogie Night: Sex, Porn, and Gender Representations

I remember the first time I saw Boogie Nights. I thought the concept was fantastic—it’s about a pornographer who is convinced that he can make that industry one of “art” not just “sex.” It’s a film by P.T. Anderson that follows Eddie Adams, played by Mark Wahlberg, as he is transformed into the porn star nick-named “Dirk Diggler” by porn director Jack Horner, played by Burt Reynolds, who is trying to revolutionize the porn-industry by adding actual plot-lines and acting to supplement the sex in the films. I think this is a film that is interesting to observe gender representations in because one of the most blatant themes in the film is that of sex. The film centers around Eddie Adams, a high school student who is “discovered” because he is well-endowed. He enters the porn industry with trepidation, in part to spite his mother. In his first scene, he is “partnered” with Amber Waves, played by Julianne Moore, a strong female character who is a regular in Jack Horner’s films. She is confident in her sexuality and with her job and never feels exploited or used. She also, strangely enough, acts as sort of the mother figure on set and among Horner’s regular porn-actors. She takes on both male and female characteristics; male ones of being desensitized to emotions during sex and female ones with her caring nature and motherly instincts.

Meanwhile, Dirk becomes more stereotypically male as he starts to realize the power of his “manhood,” so to speak. As he becomes famous in the porn-industry, he gets caught up in the hype of it all and involved with all of the drugs and fame. When filming one scene, he tells Jack “You’re not the boss of me, Jack. You’re not the king of Dirk. I’m the boss of me. I’m the king of me. I’m Dirk Diggler. I’m the star. It’s my big dick and I say when we roll.” It’s interesting that the physical characteristics of being male readily contribute to his arrogant-male mindset.

The clip below shows Amber talking to Dirk right before they’re set to have sex on film—the first time for Dirk, a standard routine for Amber. You can see their business-like interaction about something so much more sexual. Amber’s sweet and feminine characteristics are also played up, but they make her appear stronger and more confident than Dirk. Overall, it’s an interesting gender dynamic, and if you haven’t seen this movie, you definitely should!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE50Khf_kJs

Transgender Roommate Called "It"

Katelynn Cusanelli of “The Real World Brooklyn” was the first transgender Real World roommate in the history of the show, and she had just gotten her transgender surgery in Thailand the summer before she entered the house. What’s interesting about Katelynn’s dynamic with her roommates was how the housemates all reacted differently and treated her differently depending on their own personal life experiences, gazes, and beliefs. By the end of the first episode, there was speculation amongst everyone in the house about whether or not Katelynn was a transgender, a boy, or a girl, but each roommate reacted to the situation in a different way.

Ryan, the Iraqi War veteran, is the roommate who struggled most with the idea of Katelynn being transgendered, and he couldn’t believe that Katelynn would cut off her penis. He even goes so far at one point to call Katelynn “it,” because he does not know how to categorize her. Ryan really represents conservative middle America, and him calling Katelynn “it” is a great example of transgendered people struggling to have a “place” in society. It seems easier for him to call her gay, a lesbian, or bisexual, but as a transgender person, she does not have any of those titles. JD, who is the gay roommate, immediately reprimands Ryan for these statements, and it’s clear that JD, being gay, is more open and understanding about Katelynn’s situation than Ryan is. The female roommates in the house all have no problem with Katelynn being transgendered, she is accepted as “one of the girls,” and they become very close with her and support her.

A theme throughout the entire season is Katelynn trying to explain to people that she is a female. She is a girl, she had identified with being a female her entire life, she has a boyfriend, and she finally became comfortable with her body after having her transgender surgery. While Katelynn was living in the house, she worked frequently with LGBT, and has really shed light on this situation on a national level. She has been deemed a pioneer in helping people to understand the transgender community, because her entire struggle was broadcast on television. She does not represent a stereotypical transgendered person that might be present in a sitcom, but she instead sheds light on the very real and genuine struggle of a person dealing with their transition, as well as society’s view of her as a transgendered individual. Towards the end of the season, even Ryan had begun to accept her as a girl, but the relationship between Ryan and Katelynn is a great example of people’s difficulty in categorizing transgender people.

Where are the accurate lesbian representations in media??

Recently Gossip Girl aired their scandalous threesome episode. The episode got some major heat from the Parents Television Council and it is a product of the male gaze and a poor representation of homosexuality in media. Not surprisingly, this threesome occurred between two women and one man and played completely into male fantasies. The scene at the end of the episode showed the two women characters kissing each other, while an eager man watched on. From this scene, people might think that sexuality is a fluid, constantly changing thing. Yes the characters on the show are heterosexual, but they also have no problem engaging in homosexual moments, especially if it is for the pleasure of a man.

Lesbian representation in media is more rare and more fantasized then representations of gay men. While gay men in the media are stereotyped as flamboyant, musical theater loving shoppers, lesbians are created for the pleasure of the heterosexual male. I do not watch The L Word but I cant think of one accurate representation of a lesbian on a television show today. When lesbians do make their appearance, it is usually for a girl-on-girl make out scene. Producers like to use the lesbian card to boost ratings and to appeal to a different audience. This season of Gossip Girl has experienced extremely lower ratings then previous seasons and is watched primarily by girls in high school and college. The executives at CW heavily advertised the shocking new episode so that they could increase their viewers and so that they could widen their viewer-ship, hoping that some young males would want to tune in for the scene.

These representations are absurdly unrealistic. I would imagine that few lesbians are amused by these representations of them in media nor would most find them representative of the homosexual culture. Television needs to work harder to integrate lesbian characters onto television shows, without them being temporary or used for male pleasure.

Us and Them

We are citizens of the United States, the “land of the free,” where “all men are created equal” and are supposedly granted the freedom of speech and religion among other things. It is because of its freedoms that this nation attracts a diverse range of people. With this free ideology then, why is it that minorities are often tolerated rather than accepted? Are those tolerated privy to the same inherit rights that the dominant, or general public has access to? Through analyzing these questions, we will develop a better understanding of how free our nation truly is.

Leading up to California’s highly controversial vote to ban same-sex marriage on November 4, 2008, an abundance of propaganda was sent streaming through various channels of media. One particularly influential piece of media that was used to support a “Yes” vote to ban same-sex marriage was a YouTube video titled, “Proposition 8 — Made Simple.” The video, created by ProtectMarriage.com, illustrates a “Plain English” description of the history behind the vote on Proposition 8, as well as a fictitious circumstance between a heterosexual couple, Tom and Jan, and a gay couple, Dan and Michael. In the ad, though Tom and Jan are neighbors and close friends with Dan and Michael, they decide to vote YES for Proposition 8 on the basis of family and moral values. The relationship between the two couples provides an excellent example of the use of tolerance as a façade for acceptance within society.

Tolerance is often a product of an interaction between two or more conflicting social groups. In the case of same-sex marriage and gay rights in general, there are those that are strongly against gay rights, those that are proponents for gay rights, and then there is an intermediary group described by Ann Pellegrini and Janet Jakobsen as the “tolerant middle” (Jakobsen and Pellegrini, 56). The tolerant middle essentially describes the group of people that represent neither parties of radically different views, but instead they are more equivalent to what is deemed the general public, or “‘middle America’… the assumed audience and the assumed subject of public address” (56). Within this piece of propaganda it is heterosexual couple, Tom and Jan, who represent this “tolerant middle.” The narrator of the video describes Tom and Jan’s “realization” that, “they can respect Dan and Michael’s lifestyle choice without affirming and embracing their lifestyle.” This essentially describes how they are tolerant of the homosexual relationship of their neighbors, however when asked to accept their relationship as one of equal value to their own heterosexual one, they are unable to do so. As a result, Tom and Jan are creating a clearly defined distinction between Dan and Michael, and themselves, where “tolerance sets up an us-them relation in which ‘we’ tolerate ‘them’” (50). The “we” within an “us-them” relationship directly refers to the general public and therefore poses “them”, or the proponents of gay marriage, as the minority within this community. The dividing properties of an “us-them” relationship in turn create a social hierarchy placing the “tolerant middle” at a higher status than the gay rights proponents. In doing so, the dominant public is often illustrated as being a group with higher, or at least more popular, moral standings that is able to reach down with the vehicle of tolerance to the lesser, minoritized group. One must ask however, if the illusion of acceptance through tolerance is wanted by those minoritized?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI-GjWY-WlA

Modern Family

I just started watching this new show called Modern Family. It airs on ABC, but I watch it on my laptop on Hulu (yay media convergence!). The show centers around this very dysfunctional family where three generations play a role in the plot. The grandfather is married to a hispanic woman who is younger than his daughter, his gay son and his partner have just adopted a baby girl from China, and his ex wife (played by Cheers' Shelly Long), tries to come back into the family to break up the marriage. The show deals with a lot of issues about representation that we have been talking about recently because the couples and relationships are all a bit unorthodox. A beautiful suburban housewife is married to a really dorky man with awkward social skills, a sexy Latina woman is married to a man twice her age, and the gay relationship takes a look at certain stereotypes of gay people. The show is funny because nobody can escape being represented - there is really something for everybody. Part of the humor of the show comes from the fact that it is a somewhat accurate representation of human nature, no matter how ridiculous it can be. The show is filmed as a regular episode, but has interjections of Christopher Guest-esq interviews with an anonymous interviewer. The characters sit on a couch and look just past the camera, but it serves to give us a better insight into their personalities. I think it's up to the viewer to decide whether or not ABC is making fun of these stereotypes in a malicious way, or if their poking fun at it brings the issue of representation to national attention.

Are American Girls really American?

It has become very clear that every aspect of our lives are affected by mainstream ideologies pushed onto us by the “establishment”.   The powerful do this by making certain aspects of society seem normal, they become so normalized that we don’t even realize, or think about these aspects of our lives. 

The fact that men are considered naturally more domineering, or whiteness has become the norm to compare all else are two examples of how we have become blind to the corruption in society because these issues become natural.

            This is exactly how the powerful rule with consent in the hegemonic structure.  With just a little education one can easily learn to critically analyze the media and its never-ending issues.  What I have found most interesting are the critiques on child products.  In Disney films, dolls, or toys in general they all are advertised to children and parents in a way, which encourage a strict division between girls and boys.   Or products that continue to treat minorities as others, not the same as whites but exotic creatures to study. 

            Meeting with my group last week we started on the subject of kid’s items.  It was interesting how we could find all these flaws with items, which appeared to be innocent.  I remember loving the American Girl Dolls.  The first one I ever received was Addie, the African American girl whose family was enslaved.  Then I was given Josephine, the girl from Mexico.   Then the there was Samantha the upper class Caucasian American girl, who was spoiled and bratty but somehow, grows and learns to be a young lady.  All of this you could learn about within the American doll books, but as a young child, all that mattered was whether they had hair long enough to braid or clothing cute enough to change the dolls.  I always wanted Samantha, but my parents made me believe that Samantha was boring and Addie and these other dolls of other ethnicities were more interesting and pretty.

  Yes, they had good intentions because they encouraged me at a young age to be open to people who are different then I am.   The problem was that all of these dolls represented the stereotypical representations of other ethnicities.  Josephine has a native shall, and a fan attached to her wrist.  She had a bun in her hair and white lace smock type shirt.  Her outfit was traditional and in away she became more of a spectacle rather then someone just like me.  Did I realize this as a young girl?  Of course I didn’t critically analyze my dolls, but I do believe I saw them more as girls from these strange unknown worlds. These dolls show stereotypical representations of women/girls from other countries. 

  Why wasn’t Samantha portrayed as being poor?   Through books you could learn about the dolls lives and all of the white dolls were wealthy, while all the minorities lived in the primitive and usually poverty stricken state.   The non-white dolls were treated more as exotic characters rather then girls just like the ones playing with them. 

  So who are buying these dolls?  Mainly people who have enough money to spend 100 dollars for a doll and another 100 for clothing.  This means middle to upper class girls are playing with dolls that are just like them or exotic dolls from another planet.  Why not make a white doll that is poor?  Or a Mexican doll that is rich?  The white wealthy upper class rule America and this is one way it is reflected in our society.  This company sold to parents the idea that kids could learn about other ethnicities, yet they still promoted mainstream ideologies. It may seem insignificant, but at that age we absorb things like a sponge.  I liked Samantha, because she had the nicest clothing, the prettiest hair, the best accessories and this starts to demonstrate the divisions between races and classes.  Of course I have learned to not fallow these beliefs, but many girls don’t become exposed to the same cultural experiences; opportunities I was fortunate to have.

Sex and The Fake NY City

All of these women live their lives in NYC and yet we never see minorities.  New York City is known for its diversity and people from all walks of life and yet we rarely see any example of this in Sex and The City.  I can think of only a few episodes with minorities or other nationalities, but these portrayals can easily be critiqued. 

            The first example is when Samantha begins dating this African American guy.  The attraction she has for him becomes more about the fact that he is African American and not because he is just a nice guy, or good looking or some other characteristic in which she judges Caucasian men she has affairs with.  Once again we see another race being compared to whiteness, which is the norm.  He is portrayed as being different and unusual because of his race.  She even changes the way she dresses when she goes to a club with prominently African Americans.  Why do this?  Right here she shows her dependence on a man and the fact that she is willing to change everything about her, because of a man.   It also emphasizes the difference between African Americans and Caucasians.  In this episode he is portrayed as exotic and overly sexual, stereotypes that have been present in American society for many years. 

            The only other examples of none American, Caucasian characters are Europeans.  They seem to always be portrayed as glamour, charming and beautiful people, who seem to have some strange aspect about them. In one episode Carrie runs into her European friend who she says is trashy.  She also mentions how this European woman lives a glamorous life style.  Carrie has a one-night stand with a gorgeous and charming French man (she meets through her friend) but he leaves her money at the end.  Thus, he treats her as if she was a prostitute. Europeans are treated as portraying some sort of strangeness.  They can’t just be like most people you meet, but they have to be extremes.  They are overly sexual, charming, good looking and with some major flaw which makes them seem odd.   

            Another words this show is about American, Caucasian people and the “others” who enter the main characters lives for brief moments. People of other ethnicities are insignificant in the world of Sex and The City, despite the fact that the show takes place in one of the most diverse cities. 

 

The End of the World - Except for Whites.

Today, the film 2012 was released to the public. After reading and discussing the article by Hall ("The Whites of Their Eyes") one can notice that most films or TV shows are through the "White eyes" perspective. For this film, the main characters are a white family, and most of the film seems like it is centered upon white people. Yes, there are snippets of other nationalities in it, but the main focus is on America, and its White people, even though the population of America is not only White Caucasians.

Just quickly looking at the trailer, it is easy to pass the movie as just a suspense film that might possibly be entertaining, but what does this truly say to us? Whites are superior and worthy of survival. Other nations will perish, but America and the White race will find a way to overcome the destruction of earth.

Also, the topic of an Apocalypse or the end of the world has been going around for a while, so it seems natural that someone would make a film out of it to scare the public. As Hall discusses in another article ("Representation") human beings find things troublesome if they do not fit in a category neatly. The unknown or the abnormal are all treated as something threatening or taboo, so this fear is directly reflected in the film. However, something tells me that this Columbia pictures film made for the public will not end in tragedy. In this capitalist society, movies must be happy-endings because that will bring people and money right?

Reebok EasyTone Shoes: The Female Body Really is an Object!

I realize that my last few posts have been a feminist tirade against sexism in advertising and other popular media, but this is very likely to be my last such post.

Reebok has recently launched an ad campaign for its new EasyTone shoes that tone your "butt" while you walk. This ad is obviously aimed at women (as is evident by the female protagonists as well as the subject matter), but is marketed from a male's point of view: women are viewed as objects (or, more accurately, as parts of objects- there value lies in the shape of their boobs/butt as these are the focus of the ads). Thus, while the product itself is for women, it is marketed to appeal to men.

The above ad shows the camera focusing on the main woman's buttocks, and she eventually sees it as a complement. She completely disregards the fact that what she was saying (i.e. what she actually had to contribute) was insignificant, and that her body is the main source of her appeal. She accepts that she is a sex object, not a person.

This ad, on the other hand, makes the sexism overt. The woman is no longer seen as a person, but as boobs and an ass. She is left voiceless, while her boobs "bitch" (because, of course, women contemplate nothing other than the downfall of others) about her butt, which they claim is getting too much attention.

These ads unnerved me particularly because of my recent visit to the "Journey" exhibit outside the Silver Center. This exhibit aims to showcase the plight of those forced into prostitution and to shed light on human trafficking.

http://nyunews.com/news/2009/nov/11/journey/

The view of women as less than human has been overtly expressed by Reebok, but it has been made socially acceptable due to its "comedic" nature.

Glee -- The New "O.C."

It has been six years since the “The O.C.” premiered on Fox. Since then a slew of “soap-edy” shows have tried to re-create the series’ glory days. In September 2009, one show seems to have succeeded: “Glee.” Praised for its snappy plotlines, sharp—at times ironic—dialogue, and musical numbers, “Glee” is being touted as the next big thing. Its cast is ethnically diverse and features one openly homosexual character (and mentions others) as well as one who was confined to a wheelchair at age eight. The show itself claims to be continually being light to the plight of the high school outcast. However, after reading Meyer’s Masculinities on the O.C., I realized that the categories of hegemonic, complicit, marginalized, and subordinate devised by R.W. Connell that Meyer places “The O. C.’s” male and female characters still apply to the characters of “Glee.”

The show’s predominate sexual relationships are strictly heterosexual. One of the characters, an African America girl named Mercedes, even falls for the obviously homosexual Kurt. He turns down her advances, explaining that he is gay but does not yet have the guts to come out of the closet.

With regards to hegemonic masculinity, the central male teenage characters of Puck and Finn encompass this gender identity. Both are considered to be attractive, athletic, and are show engaging in fights, some times even with each other. Though Finn seems to get in touch with sensitive side by joining glee club, he remains true to the football as well and parlays his social dominance as a tool for convincing others to join glee. However, when his girlfriend, Quinn, informs him that she is pregnant (not by him, but by Puck) he accepts the truth, and takes on the responsibility of fatherhood as his manly duty. Puck is the more violent of the two, and does anything in his power to cement his role as a dominant male.

During the episode, “Wheels,” Puck asserts his manliness by first punching Finn for not covering Quinn’s sonogram bill, and then vowing that he will take care of Quinn monetarily. He bakes batches of cupcakes with a dash of marijuana tossed in so that customers would keep coming back for more. Originally, the money is meant to buy a handicap accessible bus for the glee club’s trip to sectionals, but Puck steals the money to give it to Quinn in order to prove to her that he is a family man through and though. She turns it down, saying that the money belongs to the club. However, when Finn announces that he has gotten a job to pay for Quinn’s prenatal care, she accepts his charity.

The complicit male stereotype most accurately reflects the glee club’s teacher, Mr. Schuester. While Schuester is not violent, encourages the students to be true to themselves, and even tries to help them understand the difficulties of another—having the entire club spend a week in wheelchairs to learn how the disabled Artie feels—he never challenges his place as in the gendered world. Interestingly, Schuester is a victim to his wife Terri’s manipulation and lies. She undergoes a hysterical pregnancy, but once made aware of her condition she does not inform Schuester. Instead, she basks in the glow of his new found desire to assert his masculinity in order to be a good father while crafting her own plot to take Quinn’s baby as her own.

The wheelchair bound Artie occupies the category of the marginalized male. Yet, during “Wheels,” he blatantly states that although he has lost the use of his legs, his penis is still fully functional. He clings to the most basic depiction of masculinity to maintain his status as a man.

The subordinate category is occupied by Kurt, who comes out of the closet in the fourth episode. As in “The O.C.,” Kurt’s hegemonic male father struggles with this reality, and is unsettled when he receives an anonymous call declaring: “Your son’s a fag.” Kurt’s assurances that he is strong enough to handle the world’s prejudices put his father somewhat at ease, but the man admits that it will take time for him to develop the sort of mental defenses Kurt already has.

Lastly, the roles of the women on “Glee” test patriarchic society as the female roles on “The O.C.” did. The character of Sue Sylvester, the tyrannical cheerleading coach, is the most obvious representation of a woman being able to assert herself and stifle any demonstrations of her colleagues’ masculinity. Both Quinn and Terri are manipulating their significant other into believing that they are pregnant with Finn and Schuester’s child respectfully. They both state how dumb Finn and Schuester are and do not worry about being able to outsmart them. As for Puck, Quinn declares him a “lime-a-loser” and swears that she will keep pretending her baby’s Finn’s for entire life. The only two women who seemingly occupy the typical female gender role are Emma, the school’s guidance counselor, and Rachel, the glee club’s female lead. However, both these woman desire men whom are already spoken for, and continue to pine for them.

Below is the link for the episode "Wheels." Enjoy!

http://www.hulu.com/watch/107036/glee-wheels#s-p1-so-i0

Males in Arrested Development

Arrested Development is probably my favorite television show ever. I became obsessed with it when it first came out on DVD and can quote far too many lines from the show. When we were talking about the masculinities and their portrayal in The OC in class, I thought of a show that portrayed men in a quite different light.

First there’s Michael, the character that all the others seem to center around and the most stereotypically male character. There’s his brother Gob, who is a crazy and dumb wannabe magician. Then there’s the father, Oscar, who is constantly avoiding his marital issues while hiding from the authorities who are trying to arrest him. There’s Buster, the younger brother, who, in his 30s is still a complete mama’s boy with absolutely no social awareness. Tobias is the husband of Michael’s sister Lindsey and self-proclaimed “analrapist” (pronounced “uh-nal-ruh-pist”), who is flamboyant and often the source of many jokes about his questionable sexuality. Finally there is George Michael, Michael’s son who wears khakis and Hawaiian shirts and screams and guards his face when a ball is thrown to him in catch.

What’s interesting to note is that although all of these male characters are portrayed as pretty out there and insane, the ones that have the least masculine characteristics are Tobias, Buster, and George Michael. Although Gob is absolutely ridiculous and embarrasses himself in situations, his overstated masculine qualities (his obsession with women and sex, for one), make him appear as a stronger character. Conversely, Tobias, George Michael, and Buster are all weak characters, often influenced and bullied by their more “masculine relatives.” It is also interesting to note that these three more effeminate males are all ruled by the women in their lives. Buster hangs on Lucille, his mother’s, every words and the majority of his actions are either to spite her or to win her approval. Tobias strives to prove to his wife that he is competent both in life and in the bedroom, and George Michael will do anything to try to win the affections of his cousin that he is secretly in love with. I put a YouTube video of a compilation of Tobias’s sexually questionable lines and actions. Watch it. And the show. It’s awesome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDSqcCPRsW0

Black Eyed Peas and Orientalism?

We're all victims of it. Assuming we know have that right to even pretend to know what other cultures are really like. Exoticizing places like Jamaica for their beautiful scenery despite the fact that residents of the place may actually be oppressed and unhappy. Even in our "post racial" society, orientalism continues to show up, unchecked. I would argue that it's the acceptable form of racism in our day that is just NOT okay. Take a look at this video by the Black Eyed Peas, "Meet Me Halfway". What in the world makes Fergie think she's so exotically hot, and really? Arabs on the moon? I mean come on, what is this video saying about positionality and the Western discourse of us vs the other? And this coming from the "socially conscious" Black Eyed Peas? I'm not so convinced.

The Gay Steryotype

I came across this interesting article in this weeks Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/222467) highlighting the most prominent group in subordinate masculinity: homosexuals. Flashback twenty years and you would not find a single gay or lesbian character on prime time television. The presence of shows like Glee and The L Word and gay and lesbian characters featured on popular shows such as Ugly Betty, Greys Anatomy and True Blood has changed America's opinions and familiarity with homosexuals. However, not all gay characters are necessarily helping homosexuals gain acceptance across the country. When the gay character first began to become mainstreamed the media portrayed a diverse group of people. For example, Dawson's Creek created a jock character who eventually came out as being gay and Will from Will & Grace hardly seemed "gay". Today, all the gay male characters on television seem to be deeply flamboyant and stereotypical. It seems like every gay male represented on television is a cookie cutter model of the Queer Eye For The Straight Guy men. Tim Gunn, Lloyd from Entourage, Marc from Ugly Betty and Jack from Will and Grace are all the same. Of course it is important that there be a homosexual presence in media, however the gay men that are today being represented are an unrealistic representation of gays overall. Some think that this may be translating to the polls where more and more Americans are voting against gay marriage legislation.

Lesbians on television are a different story. Besides for being less prevalent than males, they are also subject to the male gaze. Since men are often the people creating these characters, they often are a reflection of male fantasies: all seem to be super sexy and curvy. Additionally, lesbians are often depicted as being bi-sexual, another fantasy of the male producers.

While we have made many strides in the presence of minorities on television, particularly the homosexual population. The gay male stereotype needs to be expanded from its effeminate, glitzy and flamboyant cookie cutter and the lesbian characters should stop showing homosexuality as a choice or a phase for young attractive women.

Postmodernism and Modern Music

If the era of postmodernity can be traced back to the mid 20th century, then it coincides nearly perfectly with the conception of the modern music industry.

Modern music is a paradox - artists strive to create a niche, a new sound that will set them apart from thousands of other aspiring musicians. In creating a new sound, they inevitably employ sounds that have been used before. As music has existed for hundreds of years, this reuse is merely the nature of the art form. In this respect, modern music and the postmodern era are products of one another. Now, more than ever, artists are employing the technique of 'sampling' - using (with permission) anywhere from a single bar of a song to an entire chorus. Hip hop music was conceived from the sampling of existing songs.

I find this paradox extremely challenging when I'm at work, scouring blogs and websites in hopes of finding new musical talent. To find an artist who makes great music is not difficult. to find an artist who employs new techniques to reinvent a familiar sound and create something compelling, catchy, marketable and groundbreaking is nearly impossible. Additionally, finding new talent does not mean finding what will be popular now. Rather, predicting what WILL be popular 2,3 or 5 years from now.

Perhaps the only aspect of music that is creating and employing the new, rather than adjusting the existing, is the technological (aspect). The advent of synthesizers, vocoders, MIDI keyboards and programs like Logic 8 and Protools allow musicians and producers to create and arrange sounds in a way never before possible. As with all technologies, however, it is only a matter of time before such platforms are obsolete and technological simulation of instruments is so close to reality that they are one and the same.

The future of music and the era into which we will eventually (if we have not already) enter will only be evident in retrospect. Given the current cool climate within the music industry due to lackluster album sales, a cynical attitude and outlook towards the future prevails. Cynicism is a product of quarters and quarters of being in the red, but is also a quintessential quality of the postmodernist era.

Mad Men and Masculinity... SPOILER ALERT.

WARNING: If you watch the show Mad Men and haven't seen the Season 3 Finale, don't read this post.

Don't get me wrong, I love the show Mad Men. In fact, it's one of my favorite shows of all time (how about that finale... SUCH a cliffhanger). However, the one thing that I cannot stand is the way characters' masculinity is proven over and over again. Don Draper, Pete Campbell and Roger Sterling are typical men's men. All three assert their masculinity through their frequent affairs (all are married), especially Don Draper who will screw just about anything in a skirt. When it is revealed that a coworker at Sterling Cooper is gay, they mock him in a further effort to prove their masculinity.

Even more puzzling, perhaps is the way that the women on the show are dealt with. When Betty Draper suspects that Don is cheating on her, she is shown to be a "crazy" woman as she ransacks his office for proof of his affairs. When she finally leaves him for another man in the Season 3 Finale, he calls her a whore. Why is it that Don, who is as promiscuous as they come, is manly for his conquests while Betty, who leaves Don for a man who actually loves her, a whore and a crazy woman? Joan Holloway, your stereotypical sexy secretary, marries the man who date rapes her, sending the message that love (or rather being with someone) is more important for a woman than her safety.

I know that some of the sexism in the show is there because the show is set in the early 1960s, but I think that most of it is problematic and very troubling.