The more things change, the more they stay the same…

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!

Women/Girl magazines and female identities..

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?

When will things change?

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?

Beyond Disappointing: The Monstrous Regiment of Women

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.

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!