Mediating 3rd Wave Feminism

Response to "Mediating Third-Wave Feminism: Appropriation as Postmodern Media Practice" by Helene A. Shugart, Catherine Egley Waggoner, and D. Lynn O'Brien Hallstein

According to this article there is a new type of feminism in our society and that the older version of feminism, about equality for women, is completely outdated. This new wave of feminism is all about diversity and celebrating each other's differences. It rejects labels such as race and sexuality and appreciates the fact that people can have multiple labels and cannot be easily defined. This new feminism is about empowerment in individualistic terms  and having the power to make choices. This new wave of feminism can be found in the media as well. Such as singer Alanis Morissette whose lyrics reflect a theme of confrontation which is an example of third-wavers' "in your face" assertiveness. In addition, her songs "reject the role of the sorrowful, wronged woman as pathetic martyr;" instead they promote "this women [as] angry and aggressive" (Shugart, 199). Another example is supermodel, Kate Moss, who blurs gender lines and completely disregards gender labeling, characteristic of third-wave feminism, in her Calvin Klein advertisements. 

Shugart, Helene, Catherine E. Waggoner, and D. Lynn O'Brien Hallstein. "Mediating Third-Wave Feminism: Appropriation as Postmodern Media Practice." Critical Studies in Media Communication 18 (2001): 194-210.

Television's World of Work in the 90s

Response to "Television's World of Work in the Nineties" by Nancy Signorielli and Susan Kahlenberg

This article was incredibly hard to get through, mainly because it was filled with facts, numbers, and charts. I felt like if I was reading the results of a science experiment rather than an analysis of American culture. However, once I was able to comprehend exactly what all these numbers meant they presented some pretty interesting results. Something I found particularly interesting was that the marital status of a female character in a television program was an important predictor of that woman's employment. On the other hand, the marital status of a male character did not restrict his employment in any way. According to the study, "more single and formerly married were portrayed as working outside the home than married women" (Signorielli, 14).  However, marital status was not a strong predictor of work status for men. In addition, these single and formerly married women have gender-neutral or traditionally male jobs. You might be thinking why these facts are even relevant to our culture. But the truth is it is important that we understand what the television is portraying to us as a society. Television in today's society has replaced books and storied told around the campfire. Television is considered the new "storyteller." Through these stories, television is raising our children, just as parents and peers do, and teaching them "common world views, common values, and common perspectives on how men and women should think, behave, and act" (Signorielli, 4). This should be a major concern to our society because the images portrayed in television often do not reflect the reality.

Signorielli, Nancy and Susan Kahlenberg. (2001). "Television's World of Work in the Ninties." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45:1, p. 4-21.

Prime-Time Representations of Women and Victimization

Response to "Television's 'New' Feminism: Prime-Time Representations of Women and Victimization" by Lisa M. Cuklanz and Sujata Moorti

Cuklanz and Moorti: "This ecumenical presentation of sexual assault criminals echoes the feminist slogan that rape is not sex but is the assertion of power" (310).

GP: I found this theory very interesting and also very true. Over the years rape has always been portrayed as a violation of one's body, however in reality it has nothing to do with sex. Rape and sexual violence is all about power over another individual. A person wants to gain control or power and as a result they can violate a person sexually to make the victim completely vulnerable and thus the rapist can have total power over them. The motivation in sexual crimes has always been to gain power. This is incredibly true and could be a reason why victims feel so powerless afterwards and are often scared to report the crime or seek help.

Cuklanz and Moorti: "We find that Law and Order: SVU's representation of violent women present in female power in the domestic sphere as not only dangerous, but as a cause of crime in general" (311).

GP: As I stated before, rape and sexual violence is all about power and the only place where many women have power is in the domestic sphere. Violent crimes where the women is the criminal often take place in the home. However, when depicted in television this can be a major problem and could cause the audience to develop a stereotype against women. This stereotype being that it is dangerous for a women to have too much power in the home because she can use that power and manipulate it to become violent towards her family, even her children, in the home. This danger of a woman having too much power in the home was referred to in the article as the "monstrous maternal." 

Cuklanz, Lisa M. and Moorti, Sujata. (2006). Television's "New" Feminism: Prime-Time Representations of Women and Victimization. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 23:4, 302-321.

Mediating Hillary Rodhman Clinton

Response to "Mediating Hillary Rodham Clinton: Television News Practices and Image-Making in the Postmodern Age" by Shawn J. Parry-Giles

According to Shawn Parry-Giles, "politics in the postmodern media age is a struggle over images" (Parry-Giles, 375). I completely agree with him; whether the candidate is male or female the media always scrutinizes them based on their images and visual appearances. This statement is especially true for women. What was especially interesting to me is that Hillary Clinton is "depicted as a career woman turned feminist, a sometimes all-powerful First Lady who becomes a more traditional 'good mother,' and a 'stand by your man' wife who is victimized by a cheating husband. As Hillary Clinton's image shifts from a strong, independent feminist to a good mother and sympathetic wife/victim, her public opinion ratings improved" (Parry-Giles, 376). I don't understand why the media and society treat women in this manner. In a political candidate I would expect most Americans would want to elect a strong, intelligent, independent individual. However, this is apparently only true for male candidates. When a women is in the public eye and is portrayed as an independent feminist she is scrutinized, strongly disliked by the public, and even considered a "bitch." When the media began to portray Hillary Clinton as a good mother and a victim of her husband's extramarital activities, society began to love her and approve of her. They even went all the way as to support her when she decided to run for president this past year. But once again the media began to portray her as a strong, independent woman, with a mind of her own. The people would just not accept this image in a female candidate, however it is something they look for and even admire in a male candidate. Giles even stated that news networks such as CNN, ABC, and MSNBC promoted the stereotype that "we are to fear women with power, yet admire women with the status of victim, [such] images reward women who do not challenge the vows of marriage regardless of the circumstance while sending an ominous message to women who aspire to a position of power" (Parry-Giles, 387). I found this very disturbing and it made me begin to think: could the reason that Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign was due to the fact that Americans feared a woman in power and that the media was portraying her in a negative image because she was an independent, opinionated, strong woman? Americans were not very fond of Hillary Clinton when she first became the First Lady in 1992 since she was a very powerful First Lady and was portrayed as a feminist by the media. However after the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and the media began to portray Hillary Clinton as a good and loving mother and a wife who "stands by her man," Americans began to love her and her approval ratings shot through the roof. This is true not just for Hillary Clinton, but I think for all woman that are under the limelight. The news media has a tendency to follow this stereotypical portrayal of woman and this stereotype has made a huge impact on how Americans view the candidates and their opinions on them in this 2008 Presidential election. 

Parry-Giles, S.J. (2000). Mediating Hillary Rodham Clinton: Television news practices and image-making in the postmodern age. 375-389.

Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt

Response to "Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt: Advertising and Violence" by Jean Kilbourne

Kilbourne: "Sex in advertising is pornographic because it dehumanizes and objectifies people, especially women, and because it dehumanizes and objectifies people, especially women, and because it fetishizes products, imbues them with an erotic charge... The poses and postures of advertising are often borrowed from pornography, as are many of the themes... pornography can be considered mainstream." (Kilbourne, 456-457)

Gaby P: In advertising, companies often want their product to seem desirable and erotic. They do this by objectifying the models, especially women, in a sexual manner. This is a problem in our society because when you objectify a human, you make her less than human. You make her an object. If a woman becomes a sexual object it can be a serious problem because then men will begin to view her as nothing more than just that. Which can lead to such serious problems as aggression, domestic violence, and even rape. 

Kilbourne: "Jackson Katz, who writes and lectures on male violence, often begins his workshops by asking men to describe the things they do every day to protect themselves from sexual assault. The men are surprised, puzzled, sometimes amused by the question. The women understand the question easily and have no trouble at all coming up with a list of responses." (Kilbourne, 465)

Gaby P: I was very shocked when I read this, but then when I thought about it a little it actually makes a lot of sense. I even asked a male friend of mine this very same question and he chuckled and said nothing. But when I ask myself this question, I find that I give a list of precautions that I take everyday. Although it just "makes sense" that a man is stronger and bigger and can naturally defend himself while statistically a woman is more likely to be attacked. However, when these statistics are enforced by advertisements, there is a serious problem in our society. 

Kilbourne, Jean. "Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt: Advertising and Violence." p. 455-475.

Gender Portrayal in Advertisements

A Response to "Center of Attention: The Gender of Sports Media" by Michael A. Messner

Messner: "A common theme in commercials aimed at boys and men is to depict women as capable either of humiliating men or affirming men's masculine desirability. And women's supposed masculinity-validating power is clearly linked to men's consumption choices: women will ignore or humiliate the man who is incapable of buying the right product or unwilling to, but women  become sexy and accessible 'prizes' for men who are wise enough to make the right consumption choices." (Messner, 480)

Gaby P: Sports media has always been characterized as a man's world. But I was shocked to discover that even the commercials that are aired during a sports program are male dominated. It is very rare for a woman to appear in the commercial and if she does, she is usually accompanied by a male. According to Messner, a male force is present in 96.1% of commercials aired during sports programs. What shocked me even more was that when a women did appear in a commercial she had a very distinct role. She was either used to validate the man or to be the man's prize. So therefore, even when the woman was in the commercial she was still defined in terms of the man. What I want to know is what we are telling the boys and young men, and even the girls, who watch these programs about our culture and our view of women as a society? I hope that these adolescents learn about gender from other sources besides sports programs because there is much more to women than just being the man's prize.

A Response to "Beauty (Re)Discovers the Male Body" by Susan Bordo

Bordo: "Berger discovered what he argued were a set of implicit cultural paradigms of masculinity and femininity, crystallized in a visual 'rule' of both classical paintings and commercial advertisements: 'men act and women appear.' A woman's appearance, Berger argued, has been socially determined to be 'of crucial importance for what is normally thought of as the success of her life.' Even walking on a city street, headed for their high powered executive jobs, women exist to be seen, and they know it. With depictions of men, it's just the opposite. 'A man's presence is dependent upon the promise of power which he embodies...what he is capable of doing to you or for you.' Thus, the classic formula for representing men is always to show them in action, immersed in whatever they are doing, seemingly unaware of anyone who might be looking at them." (Bordo, 190-191)

Gaby P: Art historian, John Berger, describes the classic formula in which males and females are portrayed in advertisements. In other words, the stereotypes of our society. His formula seems to be incredibly accurate because I have seen it in almost all the ads I have studied. All the way from the popular brand Ann Taylor to such expensive and wealthy brands as Michael Kors. Women are most often photographed looking at the camera with her sole purpose being to look good. Whether she's a businesswoman running a multimillion dollar corporation or a housewife waiting on her husband. The women are always in the ad to look good. In comparison, men photographed in ads do just the opposite. They are usually photographed in action, with their eyes away from the camera, completely oblivious to the fact that they look good or that anyone is looking at them. Although I know Berger is right in his analysis of art and commercial advertisements, I do not agree with it. I believe that not all women are that materialistic and narcissistic to be so concerned about their looks. Also, the majority of men, though they won't admit it, care about how they look and what to seem presentable to others whether they are going to work or on a date. 

Bordo, Susan. "Beauty (Re)Discovers the Male Body." Ways of Reading. 8th edition. Eds. David Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky, Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. 188-205.

Messner, Michael. "Center of Attention: The Gender Role of Sports Media." Introduction. Rereading America. 6th edition. Eds. Gary Colombo, Robert Cullen, and Bonnie Lisle. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's 2004. 477-487.

Sex and Gender: What Do We Know?

A response to "Sex and Gender: What Do We Know?" by Margaret Mooney Marini:

Marini: "Parents treat infant boys and girls differently and grade-school teachers respond differently to male and female students. Thus, even sex differences observed in infancy and early childhood can result from socialization. Sex differences that emerge later can also have a biological basis because physical maturation is associated with hormonal changes that can produce sex differences. It can therefore be argued that sex differences appearing at any age can be a result of socialization, and sex differences that appear only in late childhood and adolescence are not necessarily free of biological influence." (Marini, 102)

 

Gaby P: I agree with Marini’s theory when she states that socialization plays a major role in gender differences in a child. Parents begin to influence a child’s gender from the moment he or she was born. Little boys are treated very differently than little girls, not just by the parents but in all aspects of their upbringing such as from teachers or fellow students. However, there can also be a biological influence in the child’s gender. I agree with Marini that the biological factor would not fully come in to play until the child reaches their adolescence and puberty occurs because this is when the secondary sexual characteristics begin to appear. I believe that socialization will affect a person’s gender and behavior for their entire lives and the biological factors will also play a role but mainly during a person’s late childhood as a result of hormonal changes. Therefore, culture and society play the major role in shaping a person’s gender.

 

Marini: “Studies of the evaluation of qualifications and the attribution of causes of performances in high-level male-typed jobs indicate that physically attractive women tend to be disadvantaged by their appearance, whereas physically attractive men are advantaged. This difference arises because physically attractive women are perceived to be more feminine and therefore less likely to possess the masculine traits required for success in male-typed jobs. However, display of certain ‘male’ traits such as aggression and competitiveness can cause women to be disliked and ostracized since this behavior violates gender role expectations and is not perceived as legitimate for women. By comparison, competitive status enhancement is legitimate for men since it is consistent with gender role expectations.” (Marini, 111)

 

Gaby P: Reading this passage deeply disturbed me. Why is it that women are treated so unfairly in the business world? And what exactly is a male-typed job; what makes a job more male than female? Although this study troubled me, I know that there is a little truth to it. Unfortunately, women are treated unfairly and unequally in the business world. Very often when a women tries to climb the corporate ladder she must be seen as independent and aggressive, which are usually seen as more masculine characteristics. As a result, that woman will be perceived as weird or not normal for not following the social norm and behaving more femininely. However, it is perfectly normal for a man to be aggressive when trying to qualify for a position because it is seen as natural for a man to be more masculine.

Marini, Margaret Mooney. "Sex and Gender: What Do We Know?." Sociological Forum. Vol 5, No. 1. Mar 1990, pp. 95-120

Response to "Becoming Members of Society: Learning the Social Meanings of Gender" by Aaron H. Devor

“We acquire gender roles so early in life and so thoroughly that it’s hard to see them as the result of lessons taught and learned. Maleness and femaleness seem ‘natural,’ not the product of socialization.” (Devor, 424)

            Gender roles are taught at such an early age that it’s very difficult to even see them as a lesson. It feels like that’s all there is and there isn’t anymore. You’re either a boy or a girl and that’s how your parents raised you. Your gender role as a male or female is just the “natural” way of doing things. If anyone diverges from their assigned role it is considered unnatural and even immoral by many. I agree with Devor’s opinion that gender roles are taught at such an early age before the child can even realized that they don’t have to follow these societal norms. I’m not saying that a person should be able to chose if they are male or female, you should just accept who you are and what gender you were born with. My point is that you should be able to chose your behavior as a male or female. Individuals should be able to decide for themselves if they want to be more masculine or feminine regardless of theirs gender. In addition, their parents should be supportive of their choices despite of what seems “natural” according to society.

 

 

“Children learn that they are both as they see themselves and as others see them…This ‘generalized other’ functions as a sort of monitoring or measuring device with which individuals may judge their own actions against those of their generalized conceptions of how members of society are expected to act… In this way, people can monitor their own behavioral impulses and censor actions which might earn them social disapproval or scorn.” (Devor, 426-427)

            I strongly agree with Devor’s point. Children often base their behavior and personality on their observations of those around them. Children can compare their behavior to see if they are acting “normally,” or at least what society considers as the norm. They will then adjust their behavior to fit those around them in order not to be ridiculed by others.  This is how children learn what is the proper way to behave; we’ve all done it. I can even admit to it. When you’re a little kid you look up to others to show you what’s the proper way to do things. This theory can also be applied to an individual’s gender role in society. A child learns how to behave appropriately according to their gender from others around them. Children learn to control their actions in order to avoid being made fun of or being left out in the playground.