I really can't say I didn't enjoy Thelma and Louise. So much so that I wanted to blog about right after watching it, which is now. It had so many different aspects to the movie that I thought needed to be brought up, especially in 1991 when the movie was released and had such great success with nominations for 6 Academy Awards and then ultimately winning best screen play. I can see why it appealed to so many in those days.
This movie for me represents women's liberation from patriarchal control. Running away from the society that conforms and limits them because of "being a woman." Thelma, who begins the movie wearing a dress with many layers to it, strips this image as the movie progresses. She strips herself away from her idiotic, controlling, abusive husband and discovers a world with Louise were she doesn't have to listen to any man. Even when her husband tells her on the phone to come back home after she's been missing for a couple of days, she lays it on him with the F bomb and hangs up the phone.
Louise in a way is transformed too as she denies the proposal from her boyfriend, realizing finally she doesn't need to be married to be happy. Essentially, she had run away to teach her boyfriend a lesson, but slowly she realizes that to be happy you don't need a man. And so maybe a change of ideology occurred with her.
OH the truckers. I loved how they explicitly made sure they addressed this problem. Even today, running outside for me means knowing i'm going to get all kinds of whistles, beeps and silly cat calls. WHY?? So unecessary and degrading. Many times school bus drivers do this to me the most. I wish they understood just how low you feel when you're beeped at or followed down the street with someone's head halfway out the window saying "who knows what" to you. They addressed this quite nicely very much. I just wish they could make every other man on the face of the planet who STILL does these things to apologize too.
I agree, the male representation sucked and not all men are misogynistic barbarians but for this period I think it's okay to cut some slack a little. In a time when raped women weren't being believed, sexism was at a high, violence against women was high, and women were represented in just the homely motherly light, this movie did more than liberate women...it gave them a louder voice.
It’s not a surprise to most of us what David Gauntlett points out when one looks through a men’s magazines at first glance. Stereotypes are reinforced concerning what generations of us all have been taught men like and dislike. Gadgets and gizmos fill the pages often beside the scantily clad woman; sports and other outdoor activities are heavily featured. Something I hadn’t thought about however, are the way topics are talked about in male magazines. Jackson et al talks about what she and her team saw while examining these magazines for their book.
I believe she brings up some very good points to talk about such as how men are talked to in male magazines, often in a jokingly way or with an air of silliness. This supposedly protects men’s masculinity because of an apparent stereotype that says men don’t like being told what to do. Gauntlett disagrees with this rash statement saying that most men are pretty aware of the messages they are receiving through the jokes and irony. I would disagree. I don’t believe the average man is aware of the fact magazines are trying to “protect their masculinity.” I do believe that these magazines are quite successful Through asking my boyfriend what he saw in different messages in male magazines, he seemed oblivious to what was taking place in the script. Oblivious of the underlying assumption, that is. I know this is just one persons opinion, but I really did need one smart man to prove my point. Of course there is the process of selective reading, but to assume that everyone reads the magazines in such a manner is false.
Jackson also talked about sexism in mens magazines and how it’s still very present. Gauntlett brings out the argument that men are present in womens magazines as well in very provocative poses, and so it’s thus not fare to pick out one magazine and say that sexism is present but forget it’s also present in the other. Gauntlett even begs the question subtly: For how long are we going to use the oppression excuse? I would say, forever. Women have a history of being oppressed, and though it is true that women and men both show provocative pictures of each other in magazines, it’s never “the same” kind of oppression because of the history involved with women.
In the picture below, we have a Maxim model and beside her a male model for Cosmo. Even their stance is different. He looks more assertive, confident and less submissive even though his shirt is off. How can we even begin to compare and say that womens magazines are on the same level as men when it comes to sexism. I disagree!
I like to call the era of the second appearance of John Whedon’s “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” the “Kick Butt Era.” I say the second appearance because clearly the first time we saw it on our TV screens it was not consistent with what we thought Whedons message was all about...a “feminine” (word used lightly) young lady who will not be taken advantage of. This run of “Buffy” resonated to what most of us admired most about third wave feminism. The addressing of “contradictions and challenging the second wave’s essentialist mindset that seemed to emphasize that there was somewhat of a “universal feminine identity.” A blonde, attractive girl can “kick butt.”
As Rachel Fudge states in her article “The Buffy Effect,” hit close to home for a number of teens who liked her somewhat apparent “subliminal” messages. The “high school horrors” were all dealt with from what drugs can do to you to dealing with gangs. Surprisingly it even managed to hit home a little alluding to the problem of parents who “don’t understand.” As a whole, it did a lot for women everywhere, still very much living in a patriarchal society’s and giving us a little hope that we can “kick butt” too, not like men, but in our own way. I often avoid the term “just like men” because it seems to imply that men are the standard… that I aspire to be them when really I just want to be fully me. Rachel Fudge raises up really good points when it comes to what I call “the medias diluting” of a potentially incredibly strong message. Yes, Buffy wore tank tops, and lacy underlay’s, but that’s not all the Buffy “Kick Butt era” was about. As always, everything has to be twisted! Instead of people actually heading to the message of “learn to defend yourself, you can be beautiful, smart and strong willed, don’t let men take advantage of you,” it’s become a “let’s play pretend while wearing a tight see-through tanktop” movement. What young women think is making them look tough is actually part of a plot to keep them down. Sad!
It was interesting to read about the beginnings of Lara Croft and how she was appealing to both men and women, according to Astrid Deuber-Mankowsky in “The Phenomenon of Lara Croft.” I grew in the time of “Street Fighter” and “Teken 3” and both had representation of women in them but it always seemed the girls just didn’t have as much virtual power as the other characters. The guys didn’t normally want to fight with the girl fighter because her image was too “sweet.” Lara Croft, being that she was able to appeal to both sexes, transformed the virtual world. Her background also gives off a strong, independent feeling within any woman who may like her especially as she didn’t go with societal norms to marry and have children like her parents would have liked. Such is the case with many women today who are forced into situations because of societal roles for women. I also like the fact that her hobbies aren’t the ordinarily applauded hobbies that society deems fit for women, shooting and free climbing. Like Buffy, Lara Croft showed that women, even the animated ones, can be strong, beautiful, smart and not be a man to prove it.
The glittery shear makeup, the pale pink blush, the L’Oreal, Revlon and Clairol hair products fill teen magazines and these products supposedly are for “every girl.” These “must haves” will make a girl glow, light up her eyes, make hair soft and shiny. So you go to the grocery store and fill your basket with some of these products and upon applying the makeup, alas, you look ashy. Unexpected results, but maybe Revlon’s riveting shampoo will “give your hair that rich, moisture filled look you want.” Maybe not…your hair is officially fried and as dry as a bone. What’s a young African American to do with this dilemma? Or maybe she has to soon realize that the ads, the lifestyles presented, the makeup products along with the hair formulas, are not for “every girl” but for the white teenager.
Lisa Duke and her article entitled “Get Real! Cultural Relevance and Resistance to the Mediated Feminine Ideal” highlights some of these inconsistencies African American teens face when presented with teen magazines such as “seventeen” that talk about how the literature is for “every girl” when really the truth is it’s only for white teen girls. As the girls went through the magazines, they raised some of the same sentiments I’ve felt over the years. Can John Frieda really be my hairstylist? Probably not, not only would his products burn my hair, but I’d probably have to have a deep conditioner afterward after all the sulphates fry my luscious locks. None of the products advertised seem to be for African American hair. Even “Carols Daughter,” a top product for African American children and adults and whose products have been featured on the Oprah show seem absent from pages that supposedly can apply to “every girl.”
Not only are the products that are esteemed to have the “powerful punch” not ones that African American girls can use, it seems the lifestyles and scripts aren’t ones the average middle class African American can identify with either. They just aren’t real.
All girls are “presumed to have identical interests and an equal need and desire for such.” At one point in the article Duke asks, “If teen magazines imply any girl can be beautiful and socially successful with their help, what does the relative absence of black girls say?” This said after the girls in the study noticed just how absent black girls were in the teen magazines they were looking through. To me, it clearly shows the mentality of the 1950’s and 60’s when black girls/ women weren’t deemed to possess any real type of beauty. Nothing seemed inherently beautiful within them. This is what the absence of products, representation and cultural relevant scripts seems to be saying. It’s no wonder that studies show black girls rating themselves higher when it comes to their self esteem, which I truly believe.
When it comes to the 5 stage process of racial identity of preencounter, encounter, immersion/emersion, internalization, and integrative awareness, I think I identify with the internalization stage when a girls racial identity becomes “solidified and blended with her personal identity.” I’ve reached that point where I don’t have to be embarrassed or feel bad that I wear braids with extensions at times and at times I wear a fro, I can’t wear shear lipstick or gloss because it won’t show or will make my lips look ashy and that I put oils in my hair every other day. Teen magazines really need to step it up a little not just concerning diversity but product representation as well.
It’s not a secret that during adolescence, many go through periods of feeling insecure, invaluable, and questioning their identity. It’s also not a surprise, mentions Jean Kilbourne in her article “The more you subtract the more you add”, that advertisers tune in on the “anxieties” that young people face and form what looks like strategies around these uncertain times. Though I refrain from putting a causal relationship between eating disorders and advertisements, I do question their impact and why advertisements are the way they are. According to the article, young girls are told what they should value as important-what they were, how they smell and how they look. What should stand out ultimately is their “sense of style, that speaks multitudes” says one add. I can’t help but zero in on Hannah Montana, I mean Miley Cyrus for second and how she grew up in matter of two years right before our eyes. She literally turned from a little girl jump roping and to young sex kitten. Her clothes too went from “innocent” (in its most minimal meaning) to scandalous and sexy with the launching of her new clothing line alongside Max Azria. Girls nationwide noticed this and liked it. Coincidence? I think not.
In a market that seems so uncertain, Miley Cyrus can’t afford to lose her fans so she does the next best thing and grows up with them, keeping up in front just enough of course to make her look cool. Many young girls at an early age develop brand loyalty, the article said, and what better way to do this than stick with her crowd and always seem cool to them. Even her sudden change from Hanna Montana to Miley implied something. Certainly we all gasped when Miley posed half nude in Vanity Fair, who could forget the frail, visible back boned image that made us all ask why? For the generation I grew up in, this looks an awful lot like Brittany Spears who captured us all.
India Arie has always been one of my favorite artists. I still sing along to the words of her song Video, “I’m not the average girl from the video, and I ain’t built like a supermodel. But I learned to love myself unconditionally, because I am a queen…my worth is not determined by the price of my clothes, no matter what I’m wearing I will always be…India Arie.” This song did a lot for me in terms of re-identifying myself as a young african-american woman and answering Imani Perry’s question “Who am I?” rather than whose am I. However, one that still makes me smile is “I am not my Hair” embedded below. African-americans go through a lot because of their hair. Yet again, it’s got to look like Beyonce’s weave, or the video girls sew in lace front wig…not a very realistic situation for the average african-americans whose hair only grows 4-6 inches.
I am an african-american young woman who respects her body, loves her tightly curled hair, has ambition and drive and who would rather have people judge me on my intellect than how I dress. It’s taken me 22 years to say that meaningfully. I question why? As a young child, I often watched videos with white women and thought nothing of it. They weren’t like me and therefore I couldn’t identify. Granted, it’s taken a long time for women of color to be represented on TV, but I often wonder if they should have stayed hidden, especially when it comes to music videos that bring african-americans down to such a low level. Perry talks about the statistic that states that young african-american girls have a higher self-esteem than white girls. I’m not surprised based on the latter information. As embarrassed as I am to say this, I often watched what these women in music videos wore and in some way or another, attempted to reinvent the look. Of course my parents weren’t blind so I didn’t get away with too much. I didn’t necessarily like what they were doing in the videos, but what they wore represented for me liberation and independence from rules and norms that governed my collectivist culture. In fact, I remember everyone who dressed, lived, sang hip-hop and wore the clothes they wore too. The term “women as commodity” expressed by Imani Perry is one that makes me the most frustrated. Everyone can see that the men in the music videos could care less about the human worth of the individuals. Why buy into this image? Being referred to as a “hoe” or “bitch” is not my cup of tea either. Not only are the words and images offensive, but the unrealistic appearance of the overly powdered african-american women with weaves and false everything gives of a very skewed view of african-american culture as a whole. Perhaps Jean Kilbourne was right in the former article as well as Corinne Bailey Rae, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” Apologies for a long blog…very passionate about this!
I'm sitting on the front lawn chatting and painting the toenails of the middleschooler I babysit when she begins sharing about one of her favorite magazines, SEVENTEEN. She then proceeds to bring out a copy which we criticize together, embracing every moment to sweep up any ideological trash that may have been imposed upon her. I'm a COM studies major on a mission. We do exactly what Elizabeth Frazer talks about after her study with teen girls on whether they "absorb the stories". Knowing full well she also comes into the media experience with wisdom from a well read mom and dad. Together we reach a consensus that most of the stuff is indeed bogus and that she doesn't have to get a boyfriend, or dress a certain way to be "in."
A week later, my sweet middleschooler comes to me in the kitchen and says. "Elaine, am I fat?" What went wrong? Didn't we talk about all this? It leads me look more into Dawn Curries study where she found that a certain age group may be susceptible to magazine ideologies more than older readers, this being the 13-17 year old age group. I certainly agree with Gauntlett that these magazines focus on the insecurities of this particular phase of life when things don’t make sense anyway. Humez in his article on Gender and Hegemony in Fashion magazines mentions that younger women view “images identified with hegemonic femininity” as a sign that they are the ones in the drivers seat “controlling” their sexuality. They don’t really see this as male ideologies of what females should be or look like.
“How to kiss…the right way, Get your best butt, Is school secretly making you fat? (April 2007 issue). Among the many repeated topics in the issues of SEVENTEEN were body related concerning fat, makeup, hair and skin-all of which become major insecurities when adolescence hits. The magazines, particularly for teens, seem to celebrate (various versions of) beauty and yet continuously reinforce one kind with the pictures they choose and the way they decide to style their models.
I found this video on YouTube that I applauded, particularly the girls who made. Granted not a lot of girls their age would question some of these topics. The girls talk about “the media” highlighting SEVENTEEN magazine, probably a magazine they read, and how the images that are shown there affect them. What I found interesting is one of the girls, in talking about “what is beautiful” mentions how the women’s bodies in magazines are “perfect.” Really? Maybe not. Perhaps a slip of what she has been made to believe?
It often seems that most of the literature that is out there today for women holds most of the beliefs of Helen Gurley Brown, former editor in chief of Cosmopolitan magazine in the mid 1960’s. Instead of pointing to the shortfalls of todays society and cultural ideals, most women’s literature gives advice on how to “rework ones identity as a means to upward mobility” (Ouellette). A way to use ones assets and look good doing it. This is the Cosmo girl. Today, just like back in the 1960’s, most womens literature suggests a swap of “female insecurities” for a “future self” which are actually male ideals and visions of what a female should be like. Perhaps in an effort to empower women who may not have grown in a privileged household and had the education they needed or otherwise, the literature has women focused on how to swindle their way into a mans heart through his pants of course. Lucky magazine and allure are just a few examples other than Cosmopolitan that do this. This is even leaking down to our younger generation in Seventeen magazine as tips on “how to get a guy” and “dress to impress” suggest male ideals of the “perfect women”. When will things change? Gloria Steinem mentions in her article on “Sex, lies and advertising”how women were never considered in markets concerning things such as machinery and technology. Men just didn’t think that women were part of their market and when it came to cars, they just concentrated on the “upholstery”. I'm particularly surprised about the lack of interest in advertising in Ms. magazine even though the demographic of readers who were reading the magazine back in the day were people who could actually afford the products. I think the issue was beyond the "complimentary advertising" that the article suggests. I think it has more to do with ideologies and wanting to have editorial control more than anything. It makes me think about what other literature is out there that is disregarded and shunned by advertisers because of the magazines views. What of African-American magazines? What mysteries lie there?
At first upon hearing the title, “The Monstrous Regiment of Women,” one would think this documentary seeks to finally do justice to the millions of women who are abused, discriminated against, harassed and in the words of Tuchman “annihilated” before our eyes or even on TV. However, this documentary was not only disappointing, but showed what happens when a lack of research, hasty opinions and misinterpretations of biblical text combine, thus conceiving what we have right here.
As I learned from Zoonens article on “Feminine perspectives,” there are different kinds of feminists. Radical, Liberal and Socialist feminists, all of whom have different agendas and rally for different kinds of things. Radical feminists being more opposed to things such as marriage, male/female relationships and against women choosing to stay in the home is what I thought the documentary seemed to focus more attention on. It failed to talk about liberal feminism and how it supports women being stay at home moms as well as working moms if they want to. I questioned if research was done at all? I think more than anything, what offended me most was the way the bible was used as a pillar for their rash statements and conclusions. Does not the bible say that men and women are both given the privilege to fulfill Gods plan on earth? Galatians 3:28 says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". Are we not all called? I really do think that this documentary is a result of a misunderstanding about feminism. It reminds me of what happens when I write a paper and don’t research enough on it before making conclusions.
When you put so much emphasis on man being the one totally in charge, I feel as though it also opens up the doors for abuse. Not only does the woman then feel trapped because this is what she was “called to do,” but she feels that to leave the marriage, she would be disobeying God. What then happens in situations when the man, who is the sole breadwinner and provider of the family, dies? Is it then shameful to go out and try to find a job so you can provide for your children? Apart from the part about it not being right that women in the army are sexually abused, this documentary was a whole lot of nonsense.
I really can't say I didn't enjoy Thelma and Louise. So much so that I wanted to blog about right after watching it, which is now. It had so many different aspects to the movie that I thought needed to be brought up, especially in 1991 when the movie was released and had such great success with nominations for 6 Academy Awards and then ultimately winning best screen play. I can see why it appealed to so many in those days.
