And what of Teen vogue?

When it comes to communication, Liberal, radical and socialist feminists share the same sentiments regarding the media. Media seem to be the ‘main instrument’ when it comes to "conveying stereotypes, patriachal and hegemonic values about women and femininity" (Zoonen). Hegemony being the values of a dominant social group.
One of the main media culprits mentioned by Zoonen responsible for conveying certain messages to young and middle aged women were magazines. I have cousins who are in middle school right now and are very much into teen magazines such as Teen Vogue with their mom a Vogue subscriber. Zoonen talks about how liberal feminists say we learn to accept these “norms” through women’s mothering, in this case, my aunt seeing nothing wrong with Vogue and therefore subscribing her daughters to Teen Vogue.

A quick scope into this month’s topics in Teen Vogue were Fall Fashion, The skinny for fall (talking about jeans), Let 'em rip! (also talking about jeans), 10 most wanted-Get in touch with your girly side and of course the usual 10 things guys want most section. However, while looking through the magazine, the pictures seemed to intrigue me more. Below is a picture under the fall trends entitled:Little Ladies. What made me really think was what it said under the picture in bold-Bright Young things. My first question being “Who’s a thing?” and “Why are they things?”

What about this look entitled “Boy Crazy.” Is it named that because in order to get a boy you have to be looking like you’re in your underwear, or maybe you just have to act as dumb and uncertain as possible like the girl in this picture.

In further asking my cousins what all this meant to them, the response was of course, “it’s just for entertainment and fashion exposure.” This resonated with Zoonen’s point that in interpreting media texts, we either accept it as reality or see it as “common sense.” In reality, I do believe that these magazines have certain ideologies that they want to share. Young female readers rarely see the distortion of the pictures or text within the magazines. It’s deemed cool and from their point of view, “everything is questionable these days” so I should just relax.

To be a man...

This past summer, my girlfriends and I went to watch "The Ugly Truth" played by Gerard Butler and Katherine Heigl. Normally, we would never watch a movie that appears to be very degrading for women but we were intrigued since the movie had been well advertised everywhere and this guy, Gerard, seemed so much like an idiot we had to go and critic it for ourselves. The movie of course lived up to my low expectations. It portrayed an overly “masculine” view of men. However, I used the word masculine here very carefully because this according to Barker is a socially constructed term. To be a man in our culture is to be an idiot, for lack of a better word. Gerard Butler does a really job of this.



Men in our culture are portrayed as impersonal, controlling, insensitive people. Things devalued by them are “relationships, verbal ability, domestic life, tenderness, communication, women and children” (Barker). What then happens if a man is tender, has great respect for women or values relationships? Is he then less of a man? Our culture seems to think so. Barker states that the problems that men face are an outcome of the “incompatibility between notions of ‘masculinity’ and what they have to do to live happily in the social world”. Reason, control over other people and themselves is contemporary masculinity according to Barker. It also involves straying as far away as possible from “feminine” (again more of a social construct) ways of doing things. It’s a very confining place to be.

Basically, most men aren’t meeting the standard for the typical “masculine” man because the bar is so low. The media and what we have pushed to be masculine is disgraceful and degrading. It’s awesome that so many rally for the equal rights among women, but it’s time we stepped it up for the men too.
So this movie should not be “The Ugly Truth,” but rather “The Sad reality of what our society thinks men are like.” Rather long, and sad, but true.

Realtiy show crackdown

As soon as I began to read the article by Gaye Tuchman and the "Symbolic Annihilation of women," I instantly thought about reality shows and how women are portrayed in them. Annihilation is an understatement when it comes to shows such as "The real world," "The Simple Life" "Flavor of love," "Rock Reality show," and even "The Apprentice." The list of shows is endless, and I could think of more that portray women as either victims, incompetents or inferiors, as Tuchman points out.
Tuchman talks about how the media "structures its citizens' priorities" and then of course gives us what "we" like to see the most, thus Agenda setting. Reality shows on todays TV's involving women, work with stereotypes. They limit women to certain looks," skills, behaviors and self-perceptions" (Tuchman). I also agree that these stereotypes are "confining." It doesn't help in the work place when it comes time to get a job, or even in relationships. A show like "Rock Reality" for example shares a message to its viewers that in order for a guy to pick you over the next girl, you have to show your chest a little more, or a little leg. What are these shows teaching our younger generation? What are they learning about women and how they should act?
The increase of these kind of shows tells me, something is wrong with our nation. We need to restructure the way we view women, and make it a priority so that the media does too.






In Gauntletts chapter about "Representations of gender in the past," I wasn't at all surprised about the imforation. He mentions things like men being more assertive that women on TV and women being victimized, weak, laughable and ridiculed. It's a shame that this is also evident in the shows that children are watching, but then again not surprising. If this is what our society deems women should be, especially when it comes to submissiveness, this is what they are going to teach the next generation, as Tuchman pointed out and Gauntlett reiterated.
Something has to change NOW to stop this!

Go Green and buy something too!

Question? The last time you watched a favorite program,how many commercials did you watch telling you to "Go Green?" How about this. How many times did you question the genuineness of the source?
Earlier today, after reading from David Gauntlett's book "Media, Gender and Identity," something dawned on me that surprisingly related to what I was reading. I then decided to switch on the TV. for 30 minutes and discovered that 1 out of every 4 commercials that I watched were about "Going Green." Nothing wrong with that right?

Would something be wrong if you knew that as a "consumer" you were intentionally being targeted by big companies that figured out that the idea of going green was appealing to the majority of Americans including you? So of course the best way to make sure you buy into their "commodities," is to lure you with what your culture is saying is the "cool" thing to do regardless of weather they truly are "Going Green" or not. This is what Theodor Adorno talks about when he emphasizes that the media have the power in the section "media power versus people power."



He mentions how products of a culture follow the values of a system already in place. In this case, "Going Green." We are all for it, and we all know that if we don't do this as much as we can, our planet is going to spontaneously combust or something like that. So how clever to get a point across attached to a commodity. The ad campaign screams, "Hey, Go Green, and while you're at it, get a new Prius, Covergirl green eyeshadow,New computer." The list is endless.





Though I agree with Gauntletts'view in chapter one about how audiences have changed and how people are more interactive, I think Adorno's point that we at times consume without thinking is true.
However, let’s not destroy our planet, really. Go Green!

Pocahontas..and Disney Ideology

Growing up I watched a number of Disney movies and I loved the Disney princesses. I would dress up and of course ask "Santa" for something during Christmas that was Disney inspired. It was awesome and very harmless, according to my parents. Every child deserves to imagine and have a little fantasy right?
This is apparently what Cultural Critic Henry A. Giroux thought too and also that these movies produced "an aura of innocence." He thought this however, until he watched the movies for himself since his children would often watch them.

Up until about a year ago, I hadn't watched Pocahontas yet, a fairly popular Disney movie based on the life of "Pocahontas," a Native American girl who falls in love with supposedly one of her "allies" who was a British soldier. Pocahontas basically falls in love with people who have come to rob her people of their riches so that they can bring them back to England. What really bugs me is not the story line since history tells of a tale similar although I'm quite sure John Smith was an old man. However, what disturbs me is how Disney makes this romance the best thing that ever happened to Pocahontas. This gives her means to of course rebel against her father’s wishes to marry someone else and in the process she helps the British and Natives to work together.

Giroux mentions how important it is that, "given the influence Disney has, “parents and other parental figures be aware of how Disney shapes children’s' values. Colonization was not a wonderful thing that warranted any reason for reconciliation between parties, especially ones that are trying to steal from you and invade your land. In one of the songs
ultimately, in examining the lyrics of the songs sung throughout Pocahontas 1 & 2, It is very evident just how much of Disney’s' Ideology is embedded within.

The video embedded to me is the ultimate injustice. Pocahontas finds herself in England, away from the New World, and she is ultimately transformed from the outside. Perhaps because the way she dressed before was uncivilized? Or is it because she was less of a lady before, according to Mrs. Jenkins, the lady who dresses her in the video. Or maybe, given the title of the song, "Wait till he sees you,"she needs to transform for John to love her more. Giroux talks about this idea of women being "ultimately subordinate" to men in Disney movies, and yet again this ideology comes out.

Picture taken from http://www.sompotboat.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/pocahontas_4.jpg

More behind the language..

I am a fan of

This idea of culture...

When I think about the word "culture" and what it really means, I find I agree with Raymond Williams concept of culture as "anthropological." This really implying that it centers on a particular societies way of life, values, etc. "Culture, therefore, refers to shared meaning"(Barker).
I stumbled on a" letter to the editor" of the New York Times from an apparently Asian man living in America responding to a letter that was written about dog eating in China.
He described how eating dog or not is not a matter of "uncivilized or undignified," but simply a "matter of different tastes."
The man then asked why dog meet is more undignified than eating beef. "Who decides what animal has more rights than the other?" Of course in my mind, the answer was as clear as ever. Our culture in America has a "shared meaning" that dogs are truly mans best friend. Dogs are pets that most of America owns our values lean more to preserving their lives. We value the lives of dogs more than we probably think about cows being taken to the slaughter room so we have our delicious steak.
Even though I will probably never eat a dog, I respect the people that do.
Bon appetit!
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/13/opinion/l-different-cultures-have-different-values-227889.html
New York Times Article above...
www.hugpug.com/sheba/2005/06/index.html

Talk about stereotyping!

So the other day, my wonderful boyfriend was given a DVD with a new and upcoming comedian called Kevin Hart. He was really excited for me to listen to it since he had already gone through the DVD earlier. When he put it in, I was to say the least appalled at the language. I'm not a fan of anything that overuses or unnecessarily uses profane language. So he pulled it out.
He then engaged me in a discussion about comedians and profanity among comedians. I thought that if the comedians were Christian, it would change everything. That's what I thought he should be watching. So Bobby, as this man I love is named, came to me with this clip. To say the least, I have no faith in any kind of comedians anymore.

Richard Dyer in his article on stereotypes mentions the fact that stereotypes aid us in "ordering" things as well as "expressing our values and beliefs." He also mentions in his article that the word is "today almost always a term of abuse." This guy, Bob Smiley, amazed me. In his act, he mentions how police officers can now catch gang members easily because of the fact that their pants are below their waist line...mmm. To stereotype a group of people just because they wear their pants below their waist is wrong. I agree with the article that the "effectiveness of stereotypes resides in the way they invoke a consensus." People almost put it in their heads that this is what this kind of social group is like and when I see someone for e.g. wearing baggy pants, they are in a gang. The average person will probably not go any further to find out more about an individual who dresses like this, and I can the imagine the average parent will warn their daughters or sons about befriending people who "dress like this." I agree that , as the article on stereotypes states, "stereotypes can be a shortcut," but to solemnly swear by a stereotype someone else has created, to me is wrong.
So much for a comic relief....