February 2011 Archives

As Patricia pointed out, I also found it problematic that all of her dancers wore the same "flesh-colored" costumes, regardless of their different skin colors. This analysis of her performance explains that the theme was an homage to Alvin Ailey's "Revelations" and that the costume choices were his. It's also a very interesting read of her performance and the roots of the choreography, lighting and costuming.

http://gagajournal.blogspot.com/2011/02/2011-gagalations.html

This week's readings extend discussions from last week by framing children's toys as cultural and ideological "teaching tools." By drawing on examples from the readings and from your own experiences, in what ways and to what extent do you think cultural products aimed at children "groom" them to perform socially-situated normative gender roles?

Okay, for this post, I'm gonna be referring mainly to Clark's "Commodity Lesbianism."

I agree to some extent with Clark's analysis of the relationship between queerness and advertising. I think her most convincing point is the consumer's ability to make the sphere of capitalistic marketing a space for action, interpretation and creativity. I think this is a sentiment that has been missing in much of our reading of capital so far in this class. We are not simply mindless drones, always complicit with the way that our identities are portrayed in media.

However, though Clark's article was published in 1995, I find it to be quite dated.

Here is what I interpret from her article: marketers do not acknowledge queerness, but provide a space where queer shit could be enacted without the knowledge of the general consumer. The obvious ads that come to mind are brands under the Abercrombie&Fitch corp that knowingly market to gay men via super-homoerotic shirtless rugby-inspired prancing through wet fields. (Admittedly, I used to work there, so no judgement). The homoeroticism is (apparently?) only visible to those that wish to see it. So straight men can be like "MAN. AMERICA. It's just guys bein' guys." and not exclusively straight men can be like "Oh hot damn, wet t-shirt contest on the rugby field? count me in."

What I think Clark is leaving out is the explicit references to queerness now available in media (especially television commercials). However, these commercials define queerness on terms decided by the media (you'll remember that Snicker's ad from the Super Bowl like two years ago?). Queerness is invited into the sphere of television, but then is counterattacked by a spectacle of masculinity (which could be considered equally as queer). The media defines these two identities in opposition to each other and strips the queer community of the ability to define itself in a way that exists outside of hegemony.

Anyway, what this all makes me think of is the Hayes Code and one of the greatest movies ever "The Celluloid Closet." No room for a summary, but you gotta watch this. When queerness is not openly acknowledged in media, the queer community is given fuckloads of space with which to create their own identity and coding systems and not be bothered to like decide which wedding cake is more classy. It's like "okay well you're not this, what are you?" and we get the chance to decide for ourselves. Once queerness is incorporated into mainstream, we are suddenly given all of these expectations and social roles. Like this: now when I'm at the mall, suddenly I have the last say on what shoes are best. (This is probably a bad example considering I have exceptionally good taste in women's shoes, but you get the idea). Our identities are commodified. In the case of gay men, we are given the roles of Expert Consumer.

I'm way over on words. xxo

To commodify an identity is to make that identity a commodity in itself, an image that is easily recognizable and can be used to sell products or ideologies. An interesting example from the readings was the image of Native American women, who were either seen as "squaws" or as "Indian princesses." Both images of Native American women were tied up in American colonialist and imperialist mythologies and were bound by media stereotypes. These media representations of Native American women do not represent them as anything beyond the confines of what is signified by "squaw" or "princess." Even though including media representations of Native American women can be seen as progressive, representing Native American women within stereotypical roles reaffirms colonialist and imperialist ideologies that ultimately reinforce white, European hegemony. The diversification of mainstream representations matters because the ways that specific groups (gays, African Americans, native Americans, women) are portrayed in the media can influence the ways in which they are seen and treated by other members of society. Stereotypes and limiting identities that work to dehumanize minority groups through media representation are not only negative but also work to dehumanize those groups in real life. Representations of Native American women as either "squaws" or "Indian princesses" deny real Native American women a say in their own representation as well as deny that these women are real people with real problems and have complex identities. Media representations of Native American women are not constructed by the women themselves but rather by white male writers and media executives. These media representations are a product of colonialist and genocidal oppression rather than a way to combat it. Those who construct media images of minorities are more often than not also members of dominant groups and control the ways in which minorities are represented. It is important to allow peoples to construct their own media representations as a way to combat systems of oppression and as a form of empowerment.

The dictionary defines commodify as " turn into or treat as a commodity." I think all our readings have explicit connection to how society commodifies each group they are written on. The way I look at it the readings dealt with how mainstream tries to include other groups and diversify itself. What they do is misrepresentation though . In BF Julia Serano says "Media encourages the audience to see trans women as living out a sexual fetish.But sexualizing their motives for transitioning not only belittles trans women's female identities; it also encourages the objection of women as a group." Media represents groups incorrectly in order to have them fit into societies general norms. By treating trans as individuals that are just hiding in the other sex than it still allows them to fit in our neat dichotomous categories. Obviously they are still deviating from norms by not representing themselves as the gender that corresponds with their sex , but mainstream would rather that be the case them representing them as people who in reality create havoc to some of the dichotomous categories such as sex and gender. By misrepresenting it also allows for stereotypes and hierarchies to be perpetuated. While doing the Chonga reading I kept thinking about how I know plenty of causation girls who dress as the Chonga's do if not worse , but they are just called words like hoe and ect. The word Chonga has cultural implications, that being Spanish and hoeish is even worse. That just by the color of your skin you are automatically worse than others. Obviously the word Chonga was also created and its use perpetuated by members of the group ( Cubans ) who also want to differentiate themselves from these "low class" individuals. The misrepresentation of other groups ,is a touchy subject , as we touched on before in class discussion about Asian actresses representing cultures they weren't born in and non-trans gendered representing transgendered. I believe until these groups are truly represented than there representation does not benefit the group because the mainstream perpetuates stereotypes and hierarchies about them.

Reading Danae Clark's article "Commodity Lesbianism" really brought new ideas to my attention about advertising and identities. I think that it is a little difficult to dissect this article because there is so much to say about advertising and identities, respectively. Advertising is only concerned about money and power. The power of purchasing and how much money they can make from the consumer. Because these ideals are omnipresent choosing whom to target can become a struggle. Lesbians are an especially difficult group to target due to the fact that they are not a homogeneous group. This group is diverse across income, race, and age and is intimidating for advertisers to make a profit off of. Advertisers also need their ad's to appeal to a large crowd so having an ad that is targeted directly to a group that is marginalized by society will not make the product appealing to the privileged. In order to achieve this advertisers use sly techniques such as dual marketing to encode their message to the gay consumer so that heterosexual will not notice. Advertising is really one the more frustrating things in pop culture for me. It is the one thing you cannot get away from. It is pretty easy to not have a t.v. or not subscribe to internet or radio, but avoiding advertisements is impossible. They are on every street, bathroom stall, and store. It seems that advertising is a hopeless medium when trying to create change and equality.

When discussing commodifying identities I am little confused as to why we are specifically targeting identities that are marginalized. If commodifying is something that is turned into a product then wouldn't any identity that appears in advertising become a commodity? I guess as I am working through this on the blog it makes sense that those that are already considered not the "norm" are being put into boxes and made into commodities even further.

As a culture, I think we often become disillusioned by the range of bodies and identities that appear in the media. Simply because "other" identities have become more visible in our white-dominated media culture does not mean they are represented in a positive or accurate way. The presence of diverse or minority populations in pop culture has the potential to exacerbate stereotypes about these groups of people instead of providing portrayals that are realistic and empowering. A great example of this is Disney's retelling of the story of Pocahontas. Because this story is shrowded in the colonial history of America, the simplified cartoon version provides an opportunity to examine the way in which the story is told from a white American perspective. First, I would like to acknowledge that Pocahontas in her animated Disney character is portrayed as strong and intelligent, which I believe is a positive step forward for Disney, regardless of the fact that several steps were taken back. While Pocahontas is portrayed as smart, she is also, like all other female Disney characters, painted as very sexy and beautiful. Why must we enter ideals of women's sexiness into movies targeted towards children? Furthermore, the Disney movie greatly romanticizes the relationship between the colonists and the Native Americans. Pocahontas is skeptical of the white men who have invaded her land but, and perhaps most importantly, she is empathetic toward them (for reasons unknown). This is a quite unlikely scenario that I believe minimizes the devastating effects of colonialism on the lives and culture of American Indians. This is but just one example of the supposed representation of diverse populations and it is in itself quite problematic, especially so because of the history that it is giving to young impressionable children.

I thought the piece on trans' was very interesting. I guess I have never thought about the lack of tran's represented in the media. The only transgendered person I can think of was the character on real world. This caused an up rise with some of the other characters and a lot was said behind her back, and this only happened because she was trans. When trans people do come into the media their identities are all about, "the man in the dress" (p.86.) The stereotypes that people use to classify each other are the ones that advertisers use to target their buyers. Tran's don't have certain distinct characteristics to be classified by. Its not like they all walk around in hyper feminized outfits to reveal that they are trans. No, even Serano said that the reporter got mad when she showed up as a normal guy, wearing a t-shirt and jeans. When looking at trans in the media, they are commidified as hyper feminized sexual individuals. It's sad that Julia Serano had been asked to be in so many interviews and documentaries, but only of interest to show the transformation process and not the politics of what it's like to live in a Tran's world.

In this sense, to be honest I did not know what "commodify" meant. So, I looked it up and as it turns out, it means "to treat (something) inappropriately as if it can be acquired or marketed". Now this I can understand. Mainstream culture has done this with many things and many cultural groups. On any pop culture medium such as TV shows, movies, and magazines, you can always tell they are trying to add diversity into the mix of mostly white actors and models. Sometimes this is forced, and movies/TV shows/fashion shoots have the token diverse figure. On the TV show Glee, they essentially have a hodge podge of every minority they could find including someone in a wheelchair, white, black, asian, dumb, smart, popular, jock, ect. I believe this is important because when different groups are represented in the media, they pay attention more because they see personal relevance to the product. In the article "Commodity Lesbianism" it talks about how the lesbian culture has typically not been a hot market for advertisers. Now that sexual orientation is beginning to matter less and less, this is changing. Fashion outlets and retailers have started targeting the lesbian population (whether they realize it or not) with female models dressed in mens-inspired fashions. This is diversifying the mainstream also. However, this can replicate old stereotypes because it can seem like the company is going out of their way to include these particular culture groups. Using the example Glee again, it has been criticized for having "too much diversity" (as if that is ever possible) and going out of their way to obviously include social groups that are typically neglected. In doing this, it is again setting these groups apart since they had to go out of their way to include them. This is treating this minority as a commodity and treating it inappropriately to market that they include those who are different.

"Commodifying" an identity basically means that pop culture creates an identity for a group of people and says that you have to fit the identity we give, or you are not part of this group. For example the Skirt Chasers article which discussed how some magazine no longer wanted to do an interview with a transgender person when they realized that he was not wear a dress and makeup. Pop culture has commodified the identity of transgender people by only publishing works about the specific individuals that happen to wear lipstick. Where does that leave transgender people who don't dress in drag? Another example is the Chonga girls article. By marketing videos such as Chongalicious a message is being sent out to the mainstream that this is what is means to be a Mexican girl and if you don't fit this description then you are something else. This matters because these types of messages create identity issues and stereotypes. For example, if I am a Mexican girl but not a chonga, what pop culture is telling me that I am actually not Mexican. So what am I? There is a feeling of "well, where do I belong?" And a stereotype is generated that all Mexican girls are sloppy eaters that wear cheap tight clothes and are "slutty". How are Mexican women going to be able to be successful in our society if this is the image that the mainstream has? By commodifying the identity of Mexican women, pop culture has shoved them all into one group which strips them of respect from society but also robs them of their personal identity. You may think, "oh it's just a youtube video" but this is how Latinas are always portrayed in movies and television. They have an accent, dressed in a sexually suggestive way, hoop earrings, loud, big attitude. It's either that portrayal or it's the old grandma in a traditional flowered dress with a long braid. Images like this "teach" society that this is what "these people" look and act like. This is can only be fixed by changing the way groups are portrayed in pop culture.

"Commodity Lesbianism" addressed the problems with advertising to lesbians because they don't meet the criteria of being identifiable, accessible, measurable and profitable. They also exist across race, income and age which are groups advertisers use to distinguish for their ads (Clark 143). Because lesbians are so different and are not easily identifiable, advertisers somewhat ignore them. On the other hand, advertisers do not ignore gay men; they use "gay window advertising". Advertisers actually accept them because they are well-educated, white and well-paid and they spend money. Advertisers accept homosexuals only in the sense of being consumers but do not accept them for who they are in terms of loving the same sex and I think this is why they sneak in their "gay" type ads.
Savoie talked about how "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" is an example of how mainstream television is advertising gay men. Even shows and movies that do not normally advertise gay men are having gay men appearances on their shows but on the women side of things butch women are barely showed on television and "lipstick lesbians" are shown often but in both of their situations, there are more negative connotations toward the characters. Transgender women and men are shown on television but also in a negative way. The shows or movies either expose their sometimes not-so-obvious secret and have people in the scene act appalled or the shows or movies have too obvious transgender people that are in that scene as more of a joke. These representations the television world are sending are not good for the gay, lesbian and transgender people and they are showing us more of the negative side instead of a positive side.
These shows and many movies also show the stereotypes of what people have of gay men and lesbian women. The gay men on these shows are girly while the same goes with the butch women being portrayed and advertised with short cut hair with loose clothes. These pictures show us the obvious way we look at typical gay men and butch women. On the "Tyra Show", Isis advertised her transgender experience and because she was not born with female parts, the world classifies her as a male. The world puts her in a male category still because she still has male parts but that shows me that there are stereotypes of what the world thinks about what women should have/do/etc. and what men should have/do/etc.

Commodifying an identity is targeting a specific consumer group (lesbians, women, the middle class, etc.) through advertising or fictional media representations. It only makes sense for advertisers to focus their attentions on groups that are economically powerful, as those are the ones with the most purchasing power. As Danae Clark's "Commodity Lesbianism" explains, a group must be easily identifiable, accessible, measureable, and profitable. Groups that do not meet these specifications lack representation in the media and advertising world. This idea that certain representative groups are more profitable than others may very well be at the root of sexism and racism in society. For example, white males are a more profitable group than Mexican males. Because of this, a producer is more likely to fund a movie in which the hero is a white male, rather than a Mexican male. This will make the movie more appealing to white males, who hold more purchasing power.
While economically wise, this presents one major issue: Where is the Mexican male? He is most likely a janitor, store clerk, or absent from the movie completely. This constant lower-class, underdog representation of Mexicans hinders their social status and covertly breeds and sustains racist views, making it harder for Mexicans to receive good jobs, houses, etc. A vicious cycle is created: their general economic status hinders their representation in the media, which hinders their social status, hindering their opportunities to improve their economic status. The only way this cycle can ever be broken is if mainstream representations in the media become more diversified. With this diversification, Mexicans would have more opportunities to be depicted in a good light, rather than a shady one. As the positive depiction of Mexicans became more common and mainstream, people would come to accept that Mexicans can do everything a white person can do, resulting in less racism and more equal opportunities. However, cycles do not break overnight. Mexicans (as well as any other minority consumer group) are going to have to put up a very strong fight in order to be better represented in mainstream pop culture.

To commodify something is to turn it into an object that you can sell, and that there is a demand for. The article "commodity Lesbianism," talks about how lesbianism and gays are being marketed as commodies in mainstream society. I was very surprised at how little lesbians and gays are portrayed in society. I also thought that it was interesting to learn about the "dual marketing" strategies that are used to market to gays/lesbians. The article talks about how they design advertisements that "will speak to the homosexual consumer in a way that the straight consumer will not notice." I think that it would be interesting to look at certain advertisements and to see if you can notice this marketing strategy in any of them. I would have never thought that how the male was positioned in a picture could change the picture from just targeting straight men but also gay men as well. I never would look that detailed in the picture, and probably would never have noticed, if it wasn't pointed out. After this article, I think that I am going to try to look closer at advertisements and see if I can notice and subcultures that the advertisements are trying to secretely appeal to.

I also think that it would be interesting to compare the "Miss, You Look Like A Bratz Doll" article to the show Jersey Shore. I don't know if anyone is Jersey Shore fans, but the whole time I was reading that article, I kept comparing everything they were talking about to the people on the show. I think that it would be interesting to look at the way "chungas" are portrayed and how the "guidos/guidettes" on Jersey Shore are portrayed in similar ways. I think that it would be interesting to look into how the terms are often identified as "bad" subjects, and how they commonly have a bad association with them. However, at the same time, I think that culture is infatuated with their culture and that is why the show is such a hit! Did anyone else think about Jersey Shore while reading the article?

So, from an economic standpoint, it makes no sense at all not to explore the homosexual market. As stated in the Commodity Lesbianism article, homosexuals sometimes have even more purchasing power than heterosexuals. The problem, however lies in the unfortunate implications of 'coded' advertising for homosexuals. The fact that overt advertising for homosexuals is not seen as profitable, and that it occasionally can even cause heated backlash does not surprise me, but it is kind of sad. In June of 2010, French McDonalds' lauched a commercial titled 'Come As You Are', showing a exchange between a gay son and his father inside the restaurant.

The commercial had a quite a bit of backlash from both the gay and straight communities, and even made national headlines. The problem the gay community had with the commercial was basically that the young man is still in the closet and does not correct his father when he assumes that he is straight. While this might be slightly off -topic for a women's studies class, I believe it is a great example of what advertisers probably see as a great hurdle in attempting to woo homosexual audiences; the attempt to commdify an identity without alienating the target group. Which leads back to the implication in coded advertising that the homosexual audience is not worth explicitly advertising to.

To Commodify, is a means of advertising material items so that they appeal to many stereotypes, thus making the item a commodity. The diversification of mainstreams representations matters because they will appeal to more people. Advertisers try to appeal to specific target consumer groups of which are all different. Each of the target consumer groups is all identifiable in different ways. Therefore, to appeal to all these different target consumer groups, the advertisers need to diversify their representations in a way that will appeal to all these different target consumer groups. As stated in Commodity Lesbianism, "advertisers are increasingly striving to create a duel marketing approach (Clark, p.142)." Old stereotypes and hierarchies are visible in mainstream pop culture because of they include and diversification of bodies and identities. For example, bratz dolls are of visible multi-racial descent and the way they are presented is stereotypical of women of these ethnicities. The dolls are dressed in short skirts and heavy make-up. Since they are marketed to young girls, the stereotypes are beings picked up by the younger generations. (Hernandez, p.64) This is one way in which old stereotypes are viewable in mainstream culture. Another example of an old stereotype that has been viewable in mainstream pop culture is in American Indian women. As stated in Tales of Difference, "American Indian women have continued to appear in a limited, narrow range of roles (Bird, p.91)." Therefore, the American Indian women are playing roles that they fit into stereotypically in the media. Old stereotypes are replicated in much of mainstream pop culture and they can be seen in everyday media.

The diversification and representation of people in pop culture matters because without a large foundation of knowledge about different people, different appearances, and specifically different sexual orientations, the U.S. population will be susceptible to ignorance. People will be ignorant as to what is acceptable in the modern day society, which should be a diverse group of people, living to their heart's desires. However, society isn't this way-- not even close. Why is that? I believe it is because of the way people who are not a white middle class male are represented, or not represented, in the media. As Keely Savoie suggests in "Screen Butch Blues: The Celluloid Fate of Female Masculinity", butch females, lesbian or not, are not in the mainstream media. There are sometimes "wait, I blinked" butches, who are on the screen for only a moment, but this is not a fair portrayal of butch women. On the rare occasion that a butch female does play the lead role, she ultimately dies in the end, suggesting that people like her do not have a place in this world, which is obviously false. This false portrayal of butch women inevitably makes people who haven't had real interactions with butch women have false assumptions about them. The same goes for any other group of people whether they be gay, Muslim, or blonde-- it doesn't matter who you are, you will be judged. For this reason, the representation of people's differences in the mainstream media is of the up-most importance.

The notion of commodifying identiy was most apparent in the Hernandez article and in the Tyra episode. In the case of the Tyra episode, Tyra herself utilizes Isis's transgender identification in an attempt to diversify the mainstream representations of transgender people. The only thing that Tyra managed to do in this particular episode was draw on who Isis used to be, and who she would actually become if she had surgery - as if the actual physical embodiment of female sex organs would do it. Tyra's focus on Isis's past "maleness" and her comments to the doctor about her past surgery suggest that these people are not actually women. This representation, then, succeeds in bringing the simple idea of a transgender woman to the mainstream, but fails to detract from the negative connotations and othering that goes with it in American culture. In fact, one could even argue that it upholds it.

Hernandez's analysis of Chonga women in Miami and the youtube video Chongalicious (which I screened) was particularly problematic for me. This is a different type of commodification, at least the way that Hernandez presented it. Chonga women seem to be a commodity to be laughed at. And the girls in the Chongalicious video attempt to embody Chonga cultural stereotypes in a way that is hegemonic and frankly disgusting. These two girls are clearly of the upper crust (look at the background of the video!), and Hernandez's only real commentary is that it brought Chonga culture to the mainstream...in a good way. While failing to address the classist ideologies perpetuated by these two youtube girls, Hernandez sees the video as a way to bring Chonga culture into the mainstream - that Chonga women represent a "fuck you" to the oppressive sexual ideologies of our culture and encourage young female exploration. I can't agree. I think Chongalicious did nothing positive for Chonga women. It instead reduces them to caricatures of low class, "slutty" Cuban-American women.

According to my ideas of commodification and what I gleaned from Clark's "Commodity Lesbianism," capitalists can commodify an identity by realizing the existence of a certain "group" and finding marketing strategies that will make their product seem more appealing to members of that group. Essentially a company identifies a group that seems to collectively share similar values/lifestyles and, seeing lucrative opportunities, decides to advertise in ways intentionally geared toward that group. In doing this, however, the capitalist defines and categorizes the group. The company can only advertise to the group in ways that the company perceives the group to be or think. The company also assumes that all members of the group operate in the same way, and thus are one marketing subject. Commodifying an identity can occur from both sides, that is, the members of the identity can be both marketed to and the objects of marketing. The group is now part of a non-self described/identified entity, which can only be detrimental to how the group is distinguished by the mainstream or dominant view. It can only offer a limited, dehumanizing view of members of an identity. Diversifying representations in the mainstream shapes the way in which the mainstream views the subjects being represented. The problem with this is that the identity as perceived by the mainstream still does not belong to the subjects of the identity. The groups will be diversified as per dominant categories. Ultimately, commodifying an identity is yet another disgusting part of capitalism. Everything in our lives has become a source/form of capital. Commodifying an identity becomes a form of oppression by those upholding the dominant view, which probably stems from a fear of the "other" not conforming to the accepted "traditional" lifestyle. Unfortunately, it seems that no non-white male identity is safe from this commodification that degrades any identity that can be deemed as "other."

To commodify an identity means to use stereotypes about a group to market those views to the socially dominant group. S. Elizabeth Bird's chapter on American Indian representations in popular culture really struck me in a way I hadn't thought of before. She points out how dominant views of American Indians are reflected in mainstream films, television, and literature. First it was the savage warrior then later as Indian culture was mystified by whites, the Indian in media became a mystic, stoic, earth steward. I like the Western genre, especially in literature, and in reading Bird's piece, I realized I haven't been a very good cultural critic of those books and the messages contained in them. We see whites in a variety of roles but American Indians are usually pegged into a typical role and their characters never develop as much as their white counterparts. Giving those roles some depth would help discredit a lot of false stereotypes and open up dialogue between yet another oppressed people and the dominant social hierarchy they live in. The important thing, as Bird points out, is to put Indian producers, writers, actors, directors, etc. in charge of making these books, movies, and shows in a way that will break down the barriers and create some new viewpoints for media consumers to consider.

I also thought Danae Clark's chapter on Commodity Lesbianism was interesting in that it pointed out how mainstream media representations of lesbians have typically been these androgynous models that can appeal to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. I suppose non-gays would be in an uproar if some magazine put a picture of a butchy lesbian riding a motorcycle in their ad-space and certain lesbians might take offense because obviously not every lesbian is butch. That kind of advertising would certainly replicate stereotypes about lesbianism. So it's a pretty interesting catch-22 for advertisers who want to appeal to homosexuals without upsetting the social hierarchy by including some atypical representations.

As an Econ major, i am baffled by the lack of homosexual targeted advertising. If nearly 1 in 10 people is homosexual, think about how much money could be made targeting the gay community. However, I think it is hard to target gay and lesbian people without assuming and using the typical stereotypes. In order to truly capture the attention of viewers, an advertisement must subtly relate to the audience. Because gay and lesbian people differ so much from one another and rarely play out the stereotypes our society has given them, I think the advertisers are confused as to how they can attract the homosexual focus in a positive way. I have rarely seen an ad that targets the homosexual community, and the couple that I have seen just play into stereotypes. For instance, I saw a billboard with two men on it that promoted STI testing. Homosexual targeted advertising is still very rare, but I hope that advertising firms soon realize the potential audience they have been neglecting.

Diversification of mainstream representations matters because it shows that a society is going somewhere; specifically in America when we add to the mix we know that progress is being made on the equality front. It is important to be diverse in the representations of all groups so that everyone feels included, and it is also necessary to make money. At this point in time, it is not "cool" to be intolerant of different races and sexual orientations. By not including all types of people networks are doing themselves a disservice. However, when trying to diversify the television to include shows that are less like The Brady Bunch and more like Transgeneration something gets lost. Both of these shows are the extreme ends of the spectrum, and I have never seen Transgeneration so I cannot make an educated statement, but I can make an educated guess. I imagine that Transgeneration does not put men and women into little boxes, but rather lets them be who they are. Enough about that because I am talking in circles. What I mean to articulate is that even when media is diversified, the characters still stay within the limits of what is acceptable. For this argument I am drawing mainly on the article Screen Butch Blues. When lesbian women are characters on TV, they are most often "butch" which is what the stereotype requires. When gay men are characters, they are generally musicians or artists or dancers. When straight women are portrayed they are generally seen as very feminine such as Bre on Desperate Housewives. The point that I am trying to make is that even when groups other than heterosexual whites are portrayed, they tend to be portrayed as what the stereotype dictates which is almost counterproductive to the idea of diversification breaking down walls because diversification of the media is only encouraging people to see only as what is already known.

What I took from the assortment of readings that we did was that to "commodify" an identity was to make it presentable in a way to make it profitable. A very important part in business and marketing is knowing who your target market is, and how can you appeal to this target in the best way in order to bring in more money. Gotta love a capitalistic economy! To appeal to this market, research needs to be done on them in order to get the desired response. What will they respond to? How will they respond? Positively? Negatively? Neutral? All of these questions are important when trying to appeal to the masses.
That's exactly what "commodifying" an identity does. Popular culture takes a very well known identity such as women, men, African-American, Latina/o, Asian-American, Caucasion, American Indian, etc., and uses this identity to make a profit. The sad truth is that when these identities are "commodified," stereotypes and social power structures are reinforced. The stereotypes and power structures are perpetuated because when these identities are used, they're made to relate to consumers. The easiest and most widespread relation to use is an already existing stereotype. An example used in "Tales of Difference: Representations of American Indian Women in Popular Film and Television" is how the identity of American Indian women is used in one of two contexts: passive princess, or squaw. These two images have been used since the 19th century, and have been perpetually used even up to the turn of the 21st century. These stereotypes have become known to identify with American Indian women, even if they are wrong. When it comes to making a profit however, being politically correct doesn't always make the most money.
Diversifying mainstream representations of identities is important economically because then a business can appeal to a wider variety of consumers. However, diversifying these representations in order to include more identities comes at the cost of perpetuating these stereotypes and social power constructions. Commonly these advertisements are meant to be viewed from the white, heterosexual, male gaze, and this enforces the power structure of putting hetero-normative white males at the top.

So it all comes down to our capitalist economy. Making a higher profit takes priority over being politically correct and holding oppositional views of the current power structure in society.

As a heterosexual, white, male, I have to admit I've always been pretty content with the advertising I've seen. This is yet another example of advertising catering entirely to my issues, and I guess my accepting it just shows I'm willing to buy into the corporate machine without stopping to question their motives.
This made the article on the lack of marketing to the lesbian community particularly interesting to me; I've never been in the position of and "outsider" in the sense that I have always been the group that advertisers target. Being in this position must be a challenging experience, knowing that you will ultimately have to spend money on some company's product knowing that they have failed to even acknowledge you as a target group. The close mindedness of the general population, some of whom try to describe this group as non existent, frustrates me to no end.
There was one question I had that went unanswered by the article; is it possible for advertising directed at heterosexual females to be appealing to homosexual males or for advertising directed at heterosexual males to be appealing to homosexual females, especially when the product be advertised could be used by a consumer of any gender. Since the decoding of advertisements is completely determined by the person taking them in I would assume that it is possible for some overlap to occur.
It seems like this market goes largely untouched and that any true capitalist would be eager to tap into its potential. Since these big wig execs are always trying to get every last dollar from the consumer's wallet into their own, I'm shocked that they are so steadfast in their resolve to not advertise to people of any sexual preference. I guess this goes to show how engrained these homophobic ideas are in the minds of some people, and also how completely idiotic it is to hold fast to ideas like these and how dangerous it is not approach something with an objective mind.

To me, to commodify an identity means to attribute certain characteristics or attributes to that thing. It means people are supposed to act, dress, talk or behave a certain way based on their sexual orientation. For instance women are supposed to wear dresses while guys are supposed to wear pants, it's totally fine for a lady to get her nails done in a nail shop but it's not ok if a guy wants to do same. According to our readings, the society expects homosexuals to behave differently from heterosexuals. This is because we have a preconceived mind of how people should act. Most homosexuals are forced to behave in certain ways or develop a certain style of communication in order to be accepted by the society as a whole. Since they are minorities, they tend to be afraid to express themselves because they fear rejection.
Not being represented in the mainstream acts as a disadvantage to those who don't belong to the group. Even though advertisers sometimes might aim at the homosexuals, they fear losing their market from the heterosexuals. In as much as they want to sell to everyone, they want to keep the greater part of their consumers. If they want to create a market specifically for the homosexuals, they have to use a language that the homosexuals won't understand. This is because homosexuals are welcomed as consuming subjects but not as social subjects. Also, since homosexuality is not really accepted in the society, homosexuals rather prefer to disclose their sexuality for fear of being criticized, thus, it is hard to find homosexuals that are willing to advertise things that pertain to their sexuality.
They replicate stereotypes in that people have to be a certain way to be accepted by society. People are treated differently just because they choose to be homosexuals. This isn't any different from any of the rights minorities have been fighting for. We all as human beings are entitled to rights, thus we should be treated without discrimination. Everyone should be able to choose what they want to be or should not be judged based on their appearance or choices.

When considering what our society does for money, it's not a surprise that our identities have been turned into a commodity. Clark states it perfectly when explaining how contemporary advertisers are more interested in lesbian consumers than lesbian politics. The marketplace is too fearful of facing homophobes and losing a large population of consumers, therefore, instead of becoming involved in the politics behind homosexuality, or any minority for that matter, they spend large efforts trying to secretly appeal to lesbians and/or gays. I thought it was interesting how Clark described lesbianism as a fashion for self-expression. It's just like when I was a little kid, I wanted to look like a good basketball player. And as a girl I always fell for the "Ya, I play like a girl. Some things are better that way" shirts that helped me express my crazy girl baller skills. My attitude towards being a 'tom boy' was turned into a commodity by placing it on a shirt. This goes along with Elizabeth Ellsworth's term '"lesbian verisimilitude," or the representation of body language, facial expression, and general appearance that can be claimed and coded as "lesbian" according to current standards of style within lesbian communities.' It's really unfortunate that companies target GLBT consumers without giving them the encouragement to "come out of the closest," instead they invite consumers to be in the "in crowd" but still make it clear that their sexual identities are feared and the matter should stay silenced.

I was actually thinking about this during our small group discussion last week and Clark's readings pushed this even further. When Clark discusses how advertisers attempt to bring in gay audiences without "directly trying to bring in gay audiences" (my words), I was concerned with the fact that marginalized people are merely becoming spotlighted consumers In other words, we don't want to include you because you are gay but we do want to include you because you, like "us" can spend your money on what we deem worthy. I am confused on how this balance works? If we are all consumers, why attempt to shine any differences on us? Why don't the producers of what ever the good is try to market this as a "everyone needs this no matter who you are product?" I guess my main question is, why IS difference, as far as consumers go, so important? (I know this might be a side track but I couldn't stop thinking about this.)

I thought Clark's article also brought up something I've always been confused with, and an issue that never seems settled, the idea of inclusion. How can two forces that seem to be pulling in opposite directions, that of inclusion and equal rights, work side by side with the idea of individuality (we are different and we want to be recognized as different)? Is it possible to be both included in the whole while also (want to be) part of a separate sub-culture?

In today's culture, everything is turned into a commodity. Nature has been commodified through the earth's resources as capital...even religion has become somewhat of a commodity with artifacts and the power of the dollar. It seems entirely reasonable, in this environment, that our very identities--who we are--would be next. Reflecting on the readings for this week, I was particularly struck by the conflict between dominant and resistive cultures with relation to the overarching capitalist system. Oh man, that is a mouthful...in real terms, I'm interested in "big money's" intentions and methods to suck in every living thing--even those that it disagrees with.

The goal is money. The fear is politics. The money won't flow in without attracting the audience (GLBT consumers), but the audience unsettles dominant culture with its resistive interpretations of gender and sexuality. How do large corporations and media conglomerates negotiate these two, impossible aspects: money versus politics? Best answer--covert messages. Clark's Commodity Lesbianism discussion intrigued me, on the subject of advertising to the target GLBT audience. Companies never overtly exclaim their target, but include images, codes, that are popular amongst the GLBT community (such as the "bike dyke" example on page 146). Tricky advertising like this allows companies to reign in a greater amount of people, with the inclusion of the GLBT community, without alienating their original, heteronormative clientele. This really irked me. If a product is supposed to be targeted towards lesbians, or transgendered individuals, or gays, why can't the company just go out and say that? Keeping the ad's target message "in the closet" with hidden codes and covert ideas is just reinforcing the idea that a gay/lesbian/bi/transgender/anyone-not-fitting-the-standard individual is inferior to the straight standard. If the message is "in the closet," it tells these individuals that they best stay there, as well, because "real culture" is not ready for them yet. The whole idea of targeting GLBT people without actually shedding light on the matter makes me sick. I know it is a rosy-glasses type of thinking, but I wish the advertisers would just be real. "We want your money; we're scared of your...sex."

In line with previous weeks' discussion on the close-knit relationship between capitalism and popular culture, it is no surprise that gender identity is not exempt from this. Commodification is generally associated with attaching economical or material value to a good or service that is usually not described in such a way. For example, Isis King's experience on America's Next Top Model commodified her experience of trying to find the right body for her gender. Instead of coding a transgendered individual as a separate category of sexuality, the models' attempts to fit her into the strict group of either male or female is distressing for both Isis and them.

As Danae Clarke writes in "Commodifying Lesbianism", advertisers expand their focus to target this "invisible" group of consumers, but code these advertisements in terms of previously reinforced stereotypes of each gender. When advertisers create this subtle "gay window" that allegedly contains "subtextual elements that correspond to experiences with or representations of gay/lesbian subculture", it implies that this group is only accepted because they have purchasing power (Clarke 144). As such, there is a fundamental irony in which different sexualities are only valued for their ability to spend money, yet they are rejected politically and morally.

Advertisements are carefully constructed in order to include all possible markets to ensure maximum profit, and each advertisement is created to target such specific groups in order to make each consumer feel wanted. I suppose this is the reason why gays and lesbians are so difficult to advertise to; there is a lot of diversity in the way each one constructs his or her gender identity, and it is difficult to find a prototypical example of a homosexual. I find it very strange that advertisers must use a "gay window" in order to reach the minorities in sexual preference. This technique only serves to create an even greater divide between the heterosexual and homosexual communities under the guise of creating a more inclusive community.

After reading Jillian Hernandez's paper, "Chonga Girls and Sexual-Aesthetic Excess", it became clear to me what commodifying an identity really means. I realized that many associate Miami women with this "chonga" girl representation, although obviously this is not how every woman in Miami should be represented. Thinking about all my guy friends that will travel to Miami this Spring Break, I realize it is in part to be able to see these "chonga" women on the beaches and on the streets. This is why Miami is such a popular Spring Break destination. Essentially these women are selling their cultural expressions to the dominant culture. Marginalized groups, such as Latina women are seduced by this concept because of the promise of recognition and reconciliation. I believe they are successfully turning their identity into a commodity with an economic value. While some Latinos I'm sure are gracious that they are getting some representation in mainstream culture, stereotypes from pop culture are spiraling out of control when it comes to the Latino culture. As of today, I think a lot of stereotypes are stemming from MTV's Jersey Shore, where season 2 actually brought the cast to Miami Beach, a stereotypical reside for Latinos. The funny thing is that most of the characters on the show are actually Italian Americans. They have the similar term associated with them however, "guido". I think we need to be very careful in assigning these representations to marginalized groups of people. In Jillian's research she found that 24/31 respondents to her survey stated that describing someone as a chonga is negative.

From our readings, I started to see a real trend that critics find there to be a very thin line between including and diversifying images within pop culture. I'm thinking about Bird's piece, Tales of Difference, in particular. Including would imply that their images--or, perhaps, more aptly, their bodies--are simply being included in the grand picture; in the American Indian case, an example of this would be in Dances with Wolves or a large portion of the Western genre. Diversifying the images would both include their bodies and give them character; they go beyond a "cardboard cutout" and transform into representations of real humans. The two can come into conflict, for instance, with Pocahontas. It would be very easy for someone to say that the titular character of the film is the titular character, by which they assume this means that titular characters are not flat, they are given depth, and, what many may consider more important, they are given the limelight. But Bird's point that this is one of the few prominent roles for American Indian women, and the fact that it is a cartoon--"the ultimate in unreality"--does nothing to actually diversify the image or bodies of American Indian women, but simply includes them.

On this somewhat surface level analysis, I can really get behind the idea that including a diverse group of people in a singular work does not make the work itself "diverse". How we represent matters as well, especially on the grand scale of television and advertising. In the Clarke article, I found her discussion on how advertisers use codes to attract a gay audience without having to admit that's how they were attempting to attract very convincing, speaking to the very bare basics of all pop culture: that something has to sell. The assumption I take away from all these readings is that advertisers will only allows audiences to ingest a certain amount of the 'other' to appease criticism, but never so much as to scare away the mainstream and core audience. It is disheartening to say the least, but to be honest, I cannot say that it shocks me. Actually, it's something I feel we all know at some level.

The process of commodification of identities plays a role in consumerism, as described in the "Commodity Lesbian" article by Danae Clark. Clark describes the ways that advertisers have difficulty marketing to lesbians because lesbians as a group are often difficult to identify. Clark then discusses how advertisers can use subtle tactics, such as gay window advertising, to create an ad that speaks to both heterosexual and homosexual consumers and encourages both of these groups to purchase the product. Clark describes the ways that homosexuals are therefore accepted as consumers but not necessarily on moral or political grounds.
I find it very interesting that the advertising industry can accept a group only for their spending power yet reject them entirely based on moral and political reasons. Although this is an interesting fact, it is not one that surprises me in the least bit because I find the advertising industry to not care about their consumers at all; their focus being entirely on their ability to purchase products and therefore create a profit.
The diversification of mainstream representations of minority groups matters greatly because it can have an incredible effect on people's views of the said minority groups. Popular perspective of a minority group can have massive effects on substantial items such as laws being passed surrounding that group and general treatment of that group from the general public.
The fact that marketers can only market to a homosexual audience while using the gay window advertising techniques replicates the idea that homosexuals are an invisible and therefore less important group than their heterosexual counterparts. I find this interesting and ironic because of the fact that gay men have a higher than average amount of expendable income. The assumption would be that advertisers would in fact target that group more because of their greater spending ability and privilege.

When I think of what it means to "commodify" an identity, many examples come to mind, such as slavery and prostitution. I do not think it is possible to separate the idea of commodification from capitalism. Marginalization of certain identities is present due to individuals' sexual orientations and gender identities, including the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities. Thus, we assign value to this "otherness," whether it is positive or negative. The media needs to leave out stereotypical tendencies and to diversify the images of mainstream audiences in order to openly include these other communities. Because there is always the motivation to make a profit, the media is careful in their portrayals of gays, lesbians, etc. They must make sure that both homosexual and, more importantly, heterosexual communities will "buy it."

As Keely Savoie pointed out in "Screen Butch Blues," it is rather difficult to find examples of lesbians and butches on television. However, shows with gay males are everywhere. Will and Grace, for example, features two gay males, Jack and Will. However, there is little or no discussion regarding gay relationships or romance. Jack's character reinforces the stereotypical gay male. He is girly, flamboyant, has a high pitched voice, and likes to shop. Will's character, on the other hand, diversifies this mainstream representation. He is a successful Lawyer and does not have any of the stereotypical traits of a gay male. These two males are friends (not lovers) and they are rarely shown in romantic situations. The primary relationships are between the gay men and their heterosexual female friends. Thus, in many episodes, homosexuality is erased from the picture, making these heterosexual relationships the dominant subject. Although it is nice to see them represent a gay man in media without the stereotypical flamboyant tendencies, it's also important that we begin to introduce other identities, such as lesbians and butches, into mainstream media.

In my opinion, "commodifying" an identity means to apply certain traits or characteristics to a typically marginalized group of people, and then capitalize on the traits applied to them to the point where they make up the identity of their representation. An example of this is, say, gay men in a show like "Queer Eye For the Straight Guy." On the one hand, the show does feature several gay men as its stars, and does feature interactions between homosexuals and heterosexuals on multiple levels. In that regards, it is doing some good in getting homosexuals represented on television, and shows how they can be "assimilated" into hetero-culture. This become problematic, however, due to the fact that these men embody certain characteristics that are considered to be crucial in representing gay men on television. A number of them are flamboyant, they all know how to dress (one even being a fashion expert), they are coded as consumerist in they way the always go shopping, among other things. For awhile, it seemed like any homosexual man in mainstream media had one or more of these traits, because that's what was considered "normal" for a gay male to do based off of what "Queer Eye" represented. Therefore, many viewers of this text who may not know as much about the gay community may assume this is the "norm," the causing stereotypes to be created. While there are certainly effeminate men who have an interest in fashion and like to shop, this does not make up the entirety of gay culture. It even goes so far as to create a power system in which non-effeminate gay men and effeminate gay men are viewed differently in the community, with effeminate gay men being less desirable due to the fact that the media makes them appear to be a dime a dozen. (It is interesting to note that this also goes with the old ideal of men being masculine, as masculine gay men who can "pass" as straight are valued more.) It is excellent when a marginalized group gets some representation in mainstream culture, but we need to be careful to diversify this representation so stereotypes don't appear in the pop culture and spill over into daily lives.

Drawing upon specifics from the course readings, and your reactions to them, explore what it means to "commodify" an identity: In what ways does the diversification of mainstream representations matter? In what ways does the inclusion and diversification of bodies and identities in mainstream pop culture replicate old stereotypes and hierarchies?

The texts we have read thus far in class, especially the articles on "The Male Gaze," and Andi Zeisler's book, Feminism and Pop Culture, have exposed me to how much popular culture is produced directly for my consumption, especially being a white male. I hadn't been completely ignorant of this general idea (I didn't take too many James Bond films for me to start questioning why he always got the girl), but Zeisler's work exposed me to an abundance of subtleties that I think I would have never noticed had I not read it. From this perspective I think Zeisler's work should be commended. It presents many of the basic ideas of feminism very clearly with a timeline of examples. I feel this is doubly important in that it shows that the problems that exist have been constant for years, meaning society's current attitudes towards these ideas really haven't changed that much.

I feel that one of the dangers associated with presenting material with limited depth and great breadth is that sometimes the author can take advantage of this fact and create an unbelievably convincing argument by simplifying ideas, or by making some examples very general. I also see the importance of this in being able to convince a reader with limited knowledge of the topic, like myself, of the validity of their argument.

Don't get me wrong, I take just about all of what Zeisler had to say in her text as the truth and am excited to view pop culture in a whole new light. One of the generalizations I personally noted in her discussion was describing the film Easy Rider as a film only about "men on motorcycles," which I believe was part of Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper's intentions, but also clearly fails to grasp the entirety of the film's meaning. Just like critiquing Zeisler's entire text for an inconsistency as trivial as this would fail to grasp the entirety of what she is trying to accomplish with her writing.

I found the Hays Code of 1934 to 1968 very interesting. I had never heard of it before and had no idea that any such code had ever been passed in Hollywood. It is an outstanding example of the media trying to enforce what is "good" and "right" while disregarding some glaring realities of life. One such reality is that people do not always uphold "ideal" standards of living, and these things must be shown, not hidden. Another reality is that women are strong, smart and independent - and they have strengths that don't entail cooking, cleaning, and mothering. I can understand how seeing women outside of the kitchen and behind a desk or committing adultery could seem threatening to men - but repressing images of powerful and independent women won't change the fact that they are powerful and independent. Censoring things such as divorce, homosexuality, interracial romance, and adultery is simply naïve and cowardly. These things exist, and will not simply go away if not depicted on the big screen. They believed these movies were inspiring immoral behavior - but the fact of the matter is, movies do not create things such as homosexuality or prostitution, they simply unmask them.

I am a person that watches a lot of TV, particularly popular sitcoms and bad reality TV. Because of this, I particularly like all of the references the book makes to shows that are still on today and reality TV in general. A part of the book I really liked was when they were talking about TV housewives and the "flawed" wife trend that shows have taken on. I liked this because it definitely shows how housewives have progressed in their portrayal over the years and how realistic they can be portrayed today. However, I do believe series like "The Real Housewives of...." Have set this back. As entertaining of a show that it may be, it is in no way empowering women and wives to be less stereotypical and more independent. It will be interesting to see where this role will be taken in the future.

What I was not convinced on was the claim about using feminism in advertising. This comes up a lot in the book, obviously because it is about feminism, but there were a few specific examples where I did not agree feminism was used in the correct way. This is present in the ad for Virginia Slims cigarettes where they purposefully use feminism words to sell their product. I am not convinced this is a successful technique to use, and I do not understand exactly what customers they thought they would get with this campaign. I don't think its worth looking too far into though, because ultimately advertisers want to make money and have no other motives behind creating ads and marketing campaigns. My question would be if there is any other motivation besides money that would get a company to advertise or market. Sometimes images become culture, but were not intended to do so, but to make money. When is something done for other reasons? I have been thinking about this and could not really come up with an answer, maybe further into this course I will get an answer.

I really enjoyed the section of Zeisler's book that discussed how women were portrayed in old movies. Last year, I took a very interesting film analysis class, where we watched many old movies and learned about the Hays Code. One thing that really intrigues me is the full circle which movies have followed in the last century. In the 1920's movies often contained sexual references, gambling, prostitution, etc. After the Hays Code was introduced in the 30's, movies become much more PG rated, avoiding anything dubbed as "immoral" at the time. Now, a full century later, we are back to the sex and violence themed movies that were so prominent in the 1920's. I guess when it comes to entertainment, it doesn't matter whether the year is 1925 or 2011, we still just want to see sex on the big screen.

So far, the most compelling aspect of Zeisler's "Feminism and Pop Culture" so far is the exploration of ad companies strategies to target women. The best example is her criticism of the Virginia Slims Advertisement that proclaims, "You've come a long way." Ziesler uses this to underpin the argument that after women's lib, advertisement companies began to weild "girl power" slogans to get women to believe that these products would aid in their own independence.

I would argue that perhaps women have become smarter, but ad companies are never far behind. I think that Zeisler is discrediting women too much; often criticizing women for falling into simple traps set by advertisement companies.

I mentioned in class that the best example of this appropriation is commercials that ask women to look beautiful for themselves. You know, yogurt commercials that promote independence and "me time" as well as offering a low calorie option to shed those extra pounds and "free yourself" from the scorn of your attractive male counterparts.

There was a comment made in class that "why can't women just look sexy for themselves?" but I think the heart of this question is the heart of the problem. Of course, there isn't anything wrong with doing things to please yourself once and a while, but the bounds of this indulgence are always already defined by culture. (In the same way that a previous article read for class referenced toy companies defining the bounds of childhood creativity). It is precisely commercials that define what being sexy is. In my opinion, looking sexy for yourself might be simply impossible, because "sexiness" always implies a viewer (assumed male) with which to entice. Even if you're not concerned with the gaze of another at all, you may be dressing up to "get classy with your best girlfriends" simply to show these girlfriends.how good you are at pleasing the opposite sex.

One of the aspects of Andi Zeisler's "Feminism and Pop Culture" readings that I enjoyed was Zeisler's description of women in the workforce in the 1950's. Zeisler describes the ways that before the war, women were encouraged to be stay at home moms: completing domestic tasks, being ideal wives and mothers to their husbands and children. The change came during the war when women were depicted in pop culture as needing to assist the soldiers and their country's by also enlisting in the armed services. Women were not only encouraged to represent the pin-up girl image that the media told them to be, but now they were expected to assist in the war efforts as well. I found it terribly ironic that after the war was over, women were once again called to the homes to be there for their husbands and to keep the house clean and organized. I found Zeisler's descriptions of these ironic events to be very informative and helpful. I also enjoyed the way that Zeisler described the pre and post Hay's code implementation and the effects that the Hay's code had on popular culture's depiction of women. Before the Hay's code was implemented, women were shown as strong and independent, often having affairs with married men and even getting divorces. After the implementation of the Hays code, the sanctity of marriage was strictly enforced and something like divorce would've never made the cut.

One aspect of the Zeisler reading that I didn't think she covered enough was the issue of race. She briefly touched on the topic of representation of black women in pop culture with an example of the first African American female Academy Award winner.

While Zeisler writes very cheekily about the ways that advertising has depicted women, I would've liked her to expand on the ways that advertising depicts women in the present day and the ways that images of women have changed.

As someone who particularly loves old movies, I found the section about the Hayes code particularly interesting. Lately a friend and I have been watching a few Hays-era sex comedies. Most recently, we watched Pillow Talk and Lover Come Back. Both of these movies were Rock Hudson/Doris Day comedies. Despite the prohibitions, they both dealt with sex quite cleverly.

The most interesting part of this is the veiled references to sexuality. When Pillow Talk was being made, just the use of the words 'bedroom troubles' nearly got the entire movie the ax. The subtle handling of sexuality leads to many paradoxes, not the least of which is that the actor is a gay man portraying a straight, who is pretending to be gay in order to sleep with Doris Day. This layering of perceptions of both gender roles and sexuality leads to a tangle of questions with no easy answers.

In these movies you can also see the rise of many now familiar stereotypes that are now in use. Day's best friend in the movie is a loud female alcoholic, a stereotype carried through today. She can be seen as the archetype for characters such as Karen from Will and Grace. The difference in the level of their sexualization might be huge, but the fact that they are the most sexually active women and mostly used for comedic effect strikes an important chord. Despite the fact that the Hays code is no longer in effect does not mean that today's media has outgrown the use of its' strict rules for women.

One of the most interesting things was when Zeisler was talking about how advertising embraced the new wave of feminism and decided to work with it so they could make a profit. I really did not have much knowledge on the history of feminism and/or advertising for that matter, so when she talked about how make up companies conceived the new "natural look", I would have never guessed that this new campaign resulted from women protesting. Using feminism as a sales pitch was a brilliant marketing campaign. This started to create a new "image" for women and those who were standing by on the sidelines of feminism perceived this as their liberation.
One aspect that I am not compelled by is Zeisler suggesting that women have not come a long way. I understand that the name of this chapter is a counter to the ad for Virginia Slims but there are undertones in her chapter suggest that we have not come a long way. I can see that this may be true in advertising or movies, but the quotes that were from the ABC VP and WV Senator prove otherwise. I cannot see these quotes ever being repeated today and I think that feminism has made gains. This can be debated based on the view you have of feminism. In my Family Policy class we discussed three views of a way to look at policies and this reminded me of Zeisler. Zeisler has a very impatient view. She wants change now and the change that has been made is not enough. The other two views that one can hold on this issue are sanguine and concerned. Sanguine would be the approach of we need to embrace the change that has occurred but still offer solutions for existing problems. The concerned camp feels that we need to go back to traditional ways and anything that is being done now to leave the traditional way of life is detrimental to society.

Throughout the reading, one of the most interesting topics was that of the popular female musical groups in the 1960's and 70's. While this really wasn't a compelling part for me, as it was looking at the historical figures of popular culture instead of how to deal with issues now, it was still interesting. Reading about how behind all of these women's popular music groups were created by men. Men played a huge part producing/writing the songs, and basically ran the show with their little stage-puppet women up front. A connection I drew from this was from the movie DreamGirls starring the absolutely AMAZING Beyoncé Knowles and Jennifer Hudson! Essentially in the movie, the exact same thing happened. Jamie Foxx's character controlled everything behind the women's performance, and eventually started to run their lives. Seeing how contemporary movies play on this history is interesting, as it subtly brings to light what happened.

What I definitely don't agree with is this concept that media producers and other officials say about women having a "choice." Okay, yes, we all have the right to choose what we want in our lives because we have free will, but that doesn't mean we aren't coerced or somehow heavily influenced. I'm in major disagreement with this. That's like the same old stupid excuse people make for date-rape. "Well they chose to have sex with me." Bullshit. Like it was mentioned briefly in the book about stripping, some women actually need to do it to get by, even if they don't want to. They make the choice, yes, but this was heavily influenced by factors such as poverty.

Zeisler touched upon the subject of post-feminism a little bit, but I'm still not completely sure about what all it encompasses. I think it was mentioned that it involved removal of the same dichotomies that have been discussed over and over again, and instead focusing on more action in another way. I'm kinda confused about this whole concept.

One thing that I found interesting was the comment that Zeisler makes in chapter 2 about how all the media encouraged women to join the work force while all the men were off at war. The media depicted women as anti-American and bad if they did not do this for their country but once the men came back they were depicted as bad because they were "taking a job away from a man". My immediate thought was, "Yes, just as they say now about supposedly undocumented immigrants (or anyone with dark skin and an accent) are taking jobs from citizens." It has gone from one oppressed group to another. Now that "it's not OK" to oppress women, media now has moved on to immigrants; at least in the job aspect.
I was also interested and would like to discuss more in class about how Zeisler mentions that all the new feminist magazines and singing groups were owned and organized by men. I never knew this and find it almost appalling. It doesn't even make sense that women would not run magazines for women and that feminist bands would not write their own music. How could a man write songs about the feelings of women? Are modern magazines for women owned and created by men? What about female singers?
One thing that I was totally not convinced of was the analysis of "Who want to marry a multi-millionaire?" First, I don't buy that the program convinced all these women to marry a man that not only wasn't rich, as they said, but was violent with women! That's ridiculous! Second, I don't think that the program is a good example of sexism. Zeisler claims that pop culture had all these women convinced that they wanted to make themselves beautiful to win the heart of a man. NO, these women were not victims of traditional sex roles. More, these women were greedy, gold diggers. They did all of those beauty pageant things to win the man's MONEY, not his approval or affection. They cared about what he thought only for his money and not at all for the sake of being accepted as beautiful by a man.

In Feminism and Pop Culture I was compelled by the section addressing MTV. I found it interesting that MTV was created to present music videos through a new medium, but it quickly became filled with reality television. Zeisler mentions that music presented in the 1970's produced by women addressed women's liberation issues. Lyrics can speak so loudly to the population. MTV was created to showcase the depictions of these lyrics. From this stance, my question stands, has musical lyrics become so meaningless that they are not entertaining enough for network television anymore? (Zeisler 81-87)

I was not compelled about the section discussing the Hay's code. I believe that sexuality should not be controlled because that makes it a form of social construction. Sexuality is something that is natural and people should not feel ashamed about. I understand the importance of controlling pregnancy and sexuality transmitted diseases, but I believe this should have been approached in a much different manner. By controlling sexuality on television, it only causes resistance. Therefore, I don't think that the Hay's code was a proper way of addressing the sexuality issue in the public medium. (Zeisler 28-35)

One thing that I'm confused about is the discussion of women on MTV. She discusses how MTV has empowered women. Although, I believe that MTV only contributes to the misogyny of woman and women exploiting themselves sexually. Does she believe that it is empowering for women to take control of sexuality?

Feminism and Pop Culture by Andi Zeisler was very interesting in the fact that it showed how women cam e into pop culture. I thought that the when Zeisler said that the Pop Culture is all about what women can and should, or shouldn't be was a great way of putting it. This still holds so true today too. With all the advice columns and self help shows on TV, little girls are starting early on creating their image. Toddlers in Tiaras is a great example. The little girls in that television show get everything from fake teeth to spray tans to hair extensions. If other little girls flip the channel to this program, they are going to see this show and want to be just like the little toddlers in tiaras too. I wonder what demographics are supposed to be targeted for this show. It makes me cringe when I watch it. If they are already being pressured to create an image that isn't even realistic for the average woman to achieve then think of all the trouble they are going to go through growing up to achieve that non existent image. The newest television show that sickens me more then ever, is the Bridal Plasty show where women compete with each other to have the best weddings and then are rewarded with plastic surgery. This is pretty pathetic because their husband should be marrying these women for who they are, but before the "I do" happens; these women are completely transformed into plastic machines. These images are the ones that get embedded in to women's heads of what they should be, what they should want, what is good or bad. I really have been quite critical of all the reality shows like these that have tried to poison women with these ridiculous images that aim to shape women of today's society.

I was really compelled by the differences I saw from chapter 2 of Feminism and Pop Culture to chapter 5, notably in TV. For my blog post I am going to compare pop culture in the 40s/50s to the pop culture of today by comparing the TV sitcoms "I Lucy Lucy" and "Desperate Housewives". I mainly want to address the fact that what we see in the media is what we consider a norm, and how the norms have changed from then to now. By comparing the elements in these shows, one can see what contemporary culture sees as socially acceptable, compared to the behavior that was socially acceptable during the popularity of "I Love Lucy".

The morals and values in 1950 were in some ways different and in some ways similar to the morals and values of today. For example in 1950, the value of having a loving marriage was something that Americans wanted desperately to have. Today, the value of having a loving marriage is still something that Americans need. Although a love-filled marriage has been valued in both periods, the morals are quite different. For example, "Desperate Housewives" frequently refers to Edy as the "slut." In "I Love Lucy," every woman was portrayed as a respectable housewife, and if they were single, there was no sexual reference made. This gives the impression that in 1950, it was not okay to be promiscuous, while today, "Desperate Housewives" is setting the example that promiscuity is okay. The value of materialism played an important role in both "I Love Lucy" and "Desperate Housewives." It seems as though materialism was just as important in 1950 as it is today.

This idea that promiscuity is OK, can be clearly seen by turning on MTV. Try watching "Jersey Shore," practically every scene is an act of promiscuity. And look at how society reacts; the most popular female Halloween costume of 2010 was "Snooky," the most promiscuous woman on the show.

While one can appreciate that women are portrayed on TV more than they were in 40s and 50s, it is hard to appreciate the acts that women on today's TV shows put forth. Jersey Shore and Desperate Housewives are just two examples.

I found Andi Zeisler's work to be very straight forward and interesting. However, although I understand that it was an introductory piece to feminism and pop culture, I was confused/misled by the fact that she did not mention class or age at all throughout the text. Because of my age, most of her earlier references and examples were a little dated for me. It was hard to grasp the ideas without the ability to view the advertisements, watch the television shows, etc.

One section I found very interesting, and partly due to the fact that I am familiar with the more recent examples, was the section on empowerment and actualization (p 128). I had never thought of these reality television shows as "liberating" women. Shows such as Extreme Makeover, America's Next Top Model and What Not to Wear demonstrate that women need to change themselves and be sexy in order to become empowered. It is hard for me to understand how plastic surgery is therapeutic and can encourage a feeling of liberation. One show I immediately thought of was The Girls Next Door (a former obsession of mine). It seemed there was a comparison to note between today and the earlier periods in which the Mary Tyler Moore show and Roseanne demonstrated that women were capable of having power, autonomy, achievement, and competence. During these earlier periods (1970s and 1980s), there seemed to be a minimal focus on sex and sex appeal. Today, on the other hand, the dominant messages often suggest that a women's power comes from her sexuality. It seems that the more sexual women behave, such as on The Girls Next Door, the more they are rewarded with attention, material rewards, and monetary success. As the Virginia Slims slogan says, the concept of female empowerment has ``come a long way, baby.'' Although I disagree with this statement, it does seem that sexuality and the pornographic nature of televised programs surely has come a long way. Thus, it seems that empowerment went from autonomy and competence to "girl power" to sexuality.

Here are a few questions I was left asking myself: What does empowerment really mean? What does an empowered woman really look like? Do the empowered women in television shows align with what audiences believe to be empowering?

One aspect of Feminism and Pop Culture that I was compelled by was media literacy. Media literacy is "the ability to read, analyze, and contextualize information in a way that looks at its accuracy, its "framing," and where it comes from," (Zeisler 141). I have noticed in my everyday experiences that very few people are "media literate" and effectively do not (or do not have the tools to) actively evaluate or contextualize media that they consume. I feel that media literacy is an essential skill that has the potential to influence everything from what we consume to the ways in which we look at our bodies and those around us.
I was not convinced with the argument that Beatlemania teenage female fans represented "the first and most dramatic uprising of women's sexual revolution," (Zeisler 45). This does not seem very significant in comparison to many films made in the twenties and early nineteen thirties that represent unapologetic women who are openly sexual and often even nude on screen in popular films. Women in the popular culture of this time period are often portrayed acting relatively independently such as driving cars or going out at night by themselves as well as being sexual and desirous as men. I think that attributing so much power to the phenomenon of Beatlemania overlooks other important instances in popular culture in which women were allowed to gaze, to desire and to be sexual.
One aspect of the book that confused me and that I would like to further clarify was the postfeminism movement. From what I got from the text, the postfeminist movement is the concept that feminism is largely considered to be over because there are a few novel examples of women in positions of power. My take on the book was that Zeisler does not believe this to be true, and that it is important to still examine the ways in which systems of oppression still operate, such as sexism. I would like to know more about the postfeminism movement and how it affects the ways in which women view themselves and their positions in society and representations in popular culture.

One aspect of the book that you are compelled by/interested in. One of the most compelling aspects of the book to me is the use of examples it provides for the theories it proposes. The books use of examples for what it is trying to tell us is true in real life really helps facilitate the understanding of these messages. Some of the examples that i took time to note are the contradictions that women were feed. " Ladies Home Journal , had Elenor Roosevelt who was seen as a very important figure for women wrote columns for them, yet a lot of the other columns and ads idealized the stay at home wife. One of the better examples it gave was using beetlemania to explain the female gaze , and the true powers of a gaze , that we hadnt truly been given concerte examples of. Another aspect of the book that I found very compelling was the very clever writing it had in it , which gives very creative tag lines to create a little humor in a frustrating part of society. When referring how Hayes code was a negative thing for women in film the author uses says that the code effectively " Put the Genie back in the bottle , and the wife back in the kitchen", While describing the messages sent by some movies the author says. "You can't have it all , and if you're uppity enough to think you can , you'll be punished for it" . While talking about the cosmetics field and there attempt to sell to the feminist crowd she uses the phrase "Emancipation , cosmetics industry-style." Obviousy she is good at using humor to make the subject clear.
I just think overall what I really find compelling , is the way that she is able to articulate her thoughts , and not only articulate but make sure the reader understands her point by using very good examples.

Feminism and Pop Culture hooked my attention talking about the television shows like Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire? and The Bachelor. I remember watching those shows thinking that every person involved with those shows were dumb because how can anyone like someone they do not know within a month span of half way getting to know that person. When I thought about it, those shows had multiple seasons for a reason: people obviously watched them. It was funny how they tried to switch the roles from dorky male to desperate female to rich male to wonderful women only to give the show some variety but in reality; it was still the same concept. This reality television gave the world an expectation of how the real world should be and that is upsetting but it is interesting to realize.
I am not at all compelled by all of the talk about America's Next Top Model and The Search for the Next Doll. I know it was implied that these shows are only good for setting standards like a skinny girl in a bathing suit or a burlesque type singer being normal but it is disappointing to think about because it feels like not many other people also thing the same.
I would like more clarification about the Nike 1995 "If You Let Me Play" campaign. I do not understand why everything was made such a big deal about it when the Title IX Act was passed 23 years before the commercial came out. I would think that 23 years is enough time to let the Act settle and have everything equal between the males and females. Was the government not enforcing this Title IX Act and Nike decided to take a stand? Also, why Nike? Why would Nike make this commercial, risking their company and all of their sales.

My thoughts on "Feminism and Pop Culture":

I liked that the book covered a wide variety of pop culture...mainly because I was surprised by how many of the references I knew, must have been the '08 publishing date. I was most compelled, although ticked it was so short, by the small article on page 146 about women as presidents (of the United States). Here the book mentioned "Commander and Chief," which was a fucking good show until it was cancelled. I also liked that politics were considered part of pop culture (and not in the same breath as SNL). I also liked the discussion about single mother characters on television (Murphy Brown) and how they were seen as "disrupting family values"...what a shitty argument.

I was not convinced by the positive mentions of "feminist" pop culture. I thought the book should complicate the idea of existing in both the feminist realm and the world of pop culture. What implications come from being a magazine like Ms. or televisions shows that appear "pro-woman" (pg. 96 cited Xena and Buffy). I was also pretty pissed about the mentioning of Xena...her main article of clothing is a metal bra.

I am still confused about one (somewhat giant) theoretical issue. Does pop culture lack a rubric or guide for deconstructing itself? OR does pop culture deconstruct or at least critique itself? (examples, online forums, blogs, SNL skits, Jon Stewart, etc.) In something that is in the here and now and disposable, is it possible for pop culture to be self-aware and regulating?

The empirical evidence and Zeisler's commentary in "Do-Me Feminism and the Rise of Raunch," were both compelling and disconcerting to me after reading most of the book. I think this chapter juxtaposed with many of the messages implicit in the rest of the book make for an interesting depiction of the trajectory of feminism in American culture. Zeisler touches on the notion of a "female gaze" when detailing the rise of Beatlemania, and she draws on several other filmic and advertising examples wherein women begin to find their sexual power and independence; however the explosion of readily available pornography, and thus the ultra sexualized woman seems to take this "feminism" a step too far. And I think that Zeisler's commentary is illustrative of the reason that this extremism may have risen in the first place.
Throughout her commentary in the book, her criticisms of the media and the "place of a woman" throughout history often suggest that sexual power is an integral ingredient to independence and social power in general. We can have affairs?! We can get divorced!? Hooray for women! This attitude, as evident in much of the book, seemed to perpetuate the rise of this incredible spectacular feminine sexualization.. It seems that Zeisler herself has not completely negotiated this particular terrain. That is, near the end of the book, her once solid argument of the woman embracing her sexuality is in itself debunked because of the sexual extremism that our culture has adopted more recently. She is critical not only of sex workers but also of women who apply to be a Suicide Girl or a Pussycat Doll. While I do not disagree that these facets of pop culture are not necessarily fueled by positive forces, I also have to wonder if the various waves of the feminist movement (of which I am not particularly familiar), are actually at fault. Even throughout her analysis, I can't help but notice that Zeisler is so critical of the world of a woman as a housewife and mother - zero outward sex appeal - that this type of commentary itself is what brought some of this spectacular sexualization on in the first place. I think we may be doing ourselves a disservice by blaming only the "male gaze." Giving ourselves some of the responsibility for where we are today might shed some light on how we got here in the first place.

I really found the section of the book based on the sitcom, Roseanne was interesting. It is very interesting that the show was able to survive despite the fact that it meant none of the unwritten requirements for a "good" show. Roseanne the character was nowhere near perfect and Rosanne the producer fought to keep her that way. If Roseanne had aired a decade earlier I don't think that it would have survived. The show first aired in the 1980s when society was starting to accept realities other than Leave it to Beaver. If the show had first aired in 1972 or something in that era, it probably would not have been as successful. A prime example is the series Commander in Chief which aired sometime around 2006. It was based on the premise of a female president but was off the air after one season most likely because America was not ready for that reality since Hilary Clinton was one of the frontrunners of the 2008 election. Americans were afraid that the fiction would actually become a reality.
I was not too compelled by the section on Dove's "True Beauty" campaign. The campaign itself bothers me because I don't think that they are providing an accurate representation of women. The women are not anorexic models, but the models that are supposed to be plus size are only about a size 6 or 8 when the average American woman is about a 14. I don't think that Dove is being true to its campaign. The women have to be airbrushed because there is never any visible cellulite and it is fair to say that almost all women who are over a size 2 have at least a little visible cellulite. They also can't be real because of the evenness of the skin tone. There are never any blemishes or blackheads and everyone has those! We also cannot forget that Dove and Axe are owned by the same people.
The thing that confused me the most was pretty much anything to do with MTV. Sometimes I was under the impression that Zeisler was anti-MTV and other times I got the impression that she felt it empowered women. Which is it?

Andi Zeisler presents so many ideas in her book "Feminism and Pop Culture" that are very interesting, but I will focus on the Hays Code. The Hays code was specifically designed to address the representation of humans in general in the movie industry especially women. This code was against screen violence, blasphemy, long screen kisses, inappropriately dresses women, interracial romance, nudity and other sex perversions. This code was enforced for over 3decades. What I find interesting by Hays code is that, when we look back, we see that a lot has changed. IT seems as if everything the media shows now has to do with women's sexuality. Women are portrayed as objects not as people. Even though back then the code was seen as a bondage to the movie industry and how women were portrayed, I think it was a nice thing to do. If the screens had been kept that way, maybe women wouldn't be portrayed as they are today. At the time, the code seemed to hurt women's right but on the other hand, this was code was made to protect our identity as human beings instead of downgrading us as it is in most movies and adverts that air today.
Something that I was not convinced about is the idea of a woman being an "uncontested queen" or to have made a "maternal sacrifice". Women who had chosen to strive for their success instead of being a housewife were frightened by the idea that they were going against the norms and only bringing ill-luck on themselves. An example is giving of a woman who runs a successful restaurant thereby neglecting her motherhood duties and the consequences of this are her daughter goes from "brattiness to immorality, to, eventually, murder. I am not convinced that things like this ever happened; I feel they just made movies about this to scare women from attaining their rights, or making their choices in life.
Lastly, something that I need clarification about is why divorce rates spiked after WWII. I would expect women to be more considerate with their husbands who are just coming back from a hard life. I just don't get why divorce rates would spike given the fact that there are less jobs and it would be more reasonable for two people to strive over all odds than being single.

I found Zeisler's Feminism and Pop Culture both interesting and a little difficult. As a history, I thought it was very convincing and comprehensive, but as a critique, I couldn't help but think of it as being a little too presumptuous and eager to think that the reader will agree on everything. I didn't see much opportunity for argument within the text and instead thought it a little too demanding.

I'll start with what I found compelling: the history that the book shows is interesting and useful, popular examples of representations of women in all areas of culture. The shows, the ads, the video games: for each era, the book acted as a fantastic base for a jumping off point. These examples are exactly the examples we should be using in our discussion of cultural representations. I particularily found this true in the 70's/80's chapter, spanning cigarette ads, Ms. Magazine, blaxploitation films (a very obvious edition with the Bell Hooks article in mind), of course a mention of Woody Allen's films and ending with Madonna. If there is one quality this text has that others don't is strong base for argument.

What's so disappointing to me, then, is that it kind of panders the arguments it so easily could make. I'm not saying that it was the duty of the author to be persuasive, and less so without presenting the argument demandingly, nor do I think that Zeisler had to make any argument at all; in fact, I think it would have been just as effective of a text if she would have simply presented the works with no embellishment or commentary.

My problem, then, arises with how the work kind of rests in the middle: it doesn't try to make a claim (or at least a new one), but it also doesn't try to be objective in the least. It seems like Zeisler would state a work, then another one, make a comment, and then move on to the next work.

I saw this clearly, again, in the 70's/80's section of the book where Zeisler asks "Was having our own potentially deadly tobacco products really progress? (57)" While I see the dubiousness of cigarette companies and their ads, I do have to note that Zeisler does not beg these same kinds of questions of other pop culture entries such as Ms. Magazine.

Obviously all history and non-fiction works operate under bias, but I suppose I had an issue with this work because it tried to pretend to be simultaneously objective and subjective. However, I do believe its comprehensiveness overcomes that as a text to use for discussion.

I was really interested in Zeisler's discussion of women in TV and various family structures portrayed there. The excerpt stating that the "traditional family" never really existed was particularly interesting. Why and how did that structure become the "traditional" family portrayed on TV and, subsequently, a "desired" family? Was it a way to regain male dominance in the family after men had returned from the war? I think it's also interesting to compare TV families from this time with TV families of today. I also thought it was interesting that the only TV shows that involved working-class families (cited by the book, anyway) were minority families. Obviously only Jews, immigrants, and Black people work. Why is it necessary for any minority to be misrepresented and oppressed by pop culture?

I also find using feminist language to sell products outraging. Zeisler has a great comment in regards to the Virginia Slims ad: "Never mind sexism and the ungratified Equal Rights Amendment - we've got cigarettes!" It seems that this technique is just a trap to reinforce dominant gender roles and expectations while making the consumer believe they're empowering themselves, which is annoying and misleading. This reminds me that it is important to read all media through a cultural studies eye to determine what the real message is.

The main point I was confused about in Zeisler's book was the history of feminism. I know very little about the historical events concerning feminism, so her references to the waves of feminism and even postfeminism are hazy to me at best, for I don't know what any particular wave entails. Zeisler somewhat discusses the history of feminism, but I don't know which ideals/aspirations are associated with each wave. This is something I must discover more fully so that I may better judge media from different waves.

I enjoyed reading the section involving the outbreak of reality tv. I think all of the shows listed (such as: Who wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?, The Bachelor, For Love or Money, Joe Millionaire, and etc.) have been a guilty pleasure to a lot of young women out there, whether they are watching it for pure enjoyment or for entertainment. It is crazy to think of what women, and now men too, will put themselves through for "love". It's even crazier to think that they truely believe they will find love. What is this saying about us? The images and statements they are providing about themselves during the show kind of give me that, "uh, really?" feeling. I agreed with Zeislers take on the idea, and she had some interesting things to say.

I didn't care for the short section that was discussing abortion in pop culture. I know there are a lot of other serious things on television, and you would think that abortion would be something more openly talked about, but it is so controversial and is apart of many peoples beiefs which makes it a challenging thing to showcase. I would have liked to hear more about what she had to say on this subject.

For me it was shocking to know what all Disney has control over. I had no idea that they were behind so much media. It confused, and worried me, on how this isn't allowing for very much diversity. Even though I've never had a problem with the name "Disney", it would make me feel better to know there is a bigger range in companies feeding us information and entertainment

There were many aspects of the book that interested me and I found it challenging to select just one aspect to discuss. I am always upset to read about the media's negative portrayal of feminism. I find it so disheartening and discouraging because the media plays such an important role in reflecting our attitudes and beliefs as a society. I think that one of the greatest examples of this is the media coverage of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the 2007 campaign for presidency. Like the demonstrators at the 1968 Miss America Pageant, Clinton was chastised not for her message or her beliefs, but for petty, irrelevant moments that demonstrated apparently unacceptable behavior for a woman, or conversely, for her "emotional moment" that obviously demonstrated her inability to handle presidency. This media vomit-fest makes me feel like I've traveled backward in time. Yes, women and people of color have come a long way. I believe it is important not to lose sight of the ground that has been covered. However, I do not under any circumstance feel comfortable pretending that all work has been completed. That is a social message that I think has become widely accepted and I find that very upsetting. Because feminism is "no longer relevant" increasingly important issues such as sexual violence and harassment, reproductive rights, and unequal pay, to name few, are continually overlooked. These issues have been tied to the naughty f word, and nobody likes the naughty f word. One of the most important things I realized in reading this book is that little steps in media representations of women are perhaps more pivotal than I had ever realized. An important part of pop culture today is the concept of pushing limits. I would not say that we have exactly achieved intellectual enlightenment, or even stimulation as consumers of pop culture, but I believe there is at least some promise in the fact that we are so aware of the rapidity of our changing world because of our connections with this culture. I think it is possible to create something positive from this. I am at a loss for how this can be done, but I firmly believe that it begins with media literacy.

In Feminism and Pop Culture, I was intrigued by the discussion of work in the sex industry. I have never quite been able to pinpoint my own feelings on the subject (female empowerment or objectification?), so it was great to read more and see the issue as multi-faceted, rather than black and white. One theory sparked my interest, claiming the sex industry "subverts heteronormativity [and is] offering dialogues about the intersections of race, class, and capitalism" (136). Women have the opportunity to take what has traditionally been a male-dominated field (sex) and reverse the roles to put herself in charge, so to speak. They can take their own bodies, flaunt them, and "own it" -so to speak. However, some women who "choose" this type of work do not truly have a choice in the matter. When poverty (not freewill) drives a woman to take off her clothes, is this a feminist statement? Or, rather, a statement of dire necessity and economic need? It's hard to draw the line where the adult industry turns from a feminist choice to a sexist space for the male gaze to run rampant.

This issue is raised in a documentary I recently watched, and highly recommend, titled "Live Nude Girls Unite," about women in the sex industry striking for unionization and rights in the workplace. Very interesting and thought-provoking...check it out!

On the flipside, Zeisler made me think a lot about Disney. She makes a point to mention that a handful of huge "media conglomerates" own virtually all of the airwaves. For example, Disney controls ABC, ESPN, Pixar, Miramax, and more... a lot more than just the princess-cartoon films that come to mind with the brand. Reading this section made me a little nervous about my media sources of information. With less and less diversity and local ownership, the public is being spoon-fed whatever large corporations want. The bottom line is the top dollar, I suppose. If our news stations, TV shows, political discussions, are all owned by companies that just want our money...who knows the outcome.

I was outraged by Zeisler's accusation that "Even today, you'd be hard-pressed to find a male music fan to give more than a perfunctory nod to Meet the Beatles. He would surely protest that the band's really valuable, artistic work came later, with The White Album..." Still looking for that male music fan to defend Meet the Beatles as more than perfunctory? I am right here.
For starters, choosing to illustrate her point with these two particular Beatles albums was a bad choice. Meet the Beatles does not reflect a true album as released by The Beatles; it is a combination of selections from the first two U.K. albums, designed by their American distributor to sell in America. It is a bastardization of these albums and does not represent the artist's original intentions.
Zeisler chose to say this album was "perfunctory," meaning it was done routinely, with little care. Wrong. Meet the Beatles contains the single "I Want to Hold your Hand." This song came into creation when Brian Epstein, the Beatles manager at the time, suggested they try to write a single to break into the American market where they were having less success than in the U.K. The purpose of this song was to try and bring their sound across the pond, hardly perfunctory. And hey guess what, it's their number one selling world wide single, had it been a perfunctory album, how on Earth could one of the singles have done this?
This is also one of the first Beatles albums to be recorded using four-track equipment. This meant they could combine multiple takes and mix it to their liking, a process they were interested in and had not been able to before. If it was perfunctory, I don't think they would have put this additional care into the album.
This album also represents the Beatles including fewer covers on their albums in favor of original songs. Writing a selection of your own original songs, and having them all sound like the same band, the same sound, the same writing style is a task that is hardly perfunctory.
Many of the topics Zeisler discussed I am not very knowledgeable of, but in this case where I have some knowledge I found her opinions and statements to not align with mine and to be inaccurate which raised my level of distrust with the author.

One thing I am compelled by in Andi Zeisler's book is the statistic of divorce rates spiking twice after World War II. I didn't realize that they rose at the end of the war and again almost ten years later. It's interesting to me that the way media portrays wartime families isn't how it actually works out. You always see men holding pictures of the women they left at home and women craving the return of their husband, but apparently that isn't the reality. It must have been confusing and frustrating for post-war women to literally drive the economy and the war machine for 5 years then to be told that the men needed those jobs so could they please just go back to being housewives. I can see how that dynamic would cause a lot of anxiety between the sexes about the role of gender workforce/gender issues.
I was not convinced by this idea: "More media and pop culture exists now than at any other time in American history. It's not a good thing or a bad thing; it just is. And pop culture has more and more come to define us." I can't buy that "it just is." Personally I do think it's a bad thing, and it definitely defines us. The things we see, not just about gender but class, status, race, and ethnicity are all really bad--to the point where I don't even want to watch anymore. I wouldn't want my kids watching those images and absorbing the messages being sold and I think that a lot of misparenting has led us as a society to this point. It doesn't take much for an adult to say to a kid, "Look, you don't have to sell yourself and objectify yourself to make a buck." People fall for what Common criticizes in the song I Used to Love Her that goes, "If she got an image and a gimmick/ She could make money/ And she did it like a dummy." Frankly it pisses me off that people are so stupid they fall for the same old horse shit time after time from an industry that's only after money.
That being said, I would like to talk about whether people think anything truly unique, personalized, and original can even be made in the pop culture realm anymore or if what we get from musical acts, TV shows, and movies is just the same representation repackaged in a different style. Do we all have to fall for the gimmick and perpetuate this ideal or is there some way for someone to break the mold?

The section in Chapter 2 of the Zeisler reading, titled 'Rebelling, in Music, and in Real Life' was especially interesting for me. The idea of a female gaze during the Beatles obsession was confusing. First it stated that for the first time women were looking at men for their own pleasure. I thought this was kind of strange and not really accomplishing any kind of gender equality. I understand that women were rebelling, but did that accomplish anything useful to women's rights? If anything... it seemed more like desperate action trying to get with a famous Beatle...

Also, further down the paragraph it says, "...Beatles in their early carnation still offered a sweet, lovesick androgyny for girls who weren't yet ready to cross the bridge between cosseted girlhood and sexual womanhood." This just reminded me of "Bieber Fever" in modern popular culture. Little girls obsessed with something they can't ever have... seems kind of silly and pathetic to me. Popular culture is now targeting younger girls, teaching them what they should want in their lives.

I again thing it's an interesting point to bring up that "feministic language" sells to women. Things like the Virginia Slims ad where it states that women have "come a long way", suggest that women have won. I really like this passage: "Never mind the sexism and the ungratified Equal Rights Amendment - we've got cigarettes!" Zeisler is making the point that even though these ads imply that women have come a long way, we really haven't... we just have ads that say so.

My main concern with Andi Zeisler's claims in Feminism and Pop Culture is that she and I have very different views of how an "empowered woman" looks and behaves. In Chapter 2, where she talks about the Hays Code, she mentions that socially and sexually empowered women who "held powerful jobs, had affairs with married men, birthed babies out of wedlock, and seduced other women" are hidden because of the Code. My question is the following: What the hell kind of "empowered women" are cheating on their husbands, having children out of wedlock?! These specific actions do not represent an empowered woman to me; in fact, the opposite. I agree that an empowered woman can hold a powerful job or date a woman, but have a child with another man other than your husband? I just don't see how empowerment has anything to do with that. An empowered woman can stand up for herself, get a divorce, and then date another man. She wouldn't hide her sexuality behind her husband's back.

In addition, Zeisler uses Wonder Woman as a role model for female empowerment in Chapter 3. Wonder Woman stands for all empowerment-- developed bodies, minds and social lives free from the male influence-- but her attire and attractiveness tells me that she has not escaped the male gaze. If she hasn't escaped the male gaze, how can she be considered a role model or hero who represents the "new" or empowered woman? Even though the creator of the comic, William Marston, dresses her in more appropriate apparel than what her costume would become on the CBS TV show, her sexual appeal is undeniable. Therefore, I think her credibility as a modern role model for empowered women is tainted.

One aspect of the Ziesler reading that I was completely compelled by was "American Dreams, Stifled Realities". This chapter provides a rough summary of the history of the feminist movement, including Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique. I was particularly interested in Ziesler's discussion of the significance of the Beatles' screaming fans in relation to the feminist movement. Not only had I never considered that point of view before, her analysis fits in very perfectly with Friedan's observations regarding women of that era. Instead of learning to become the demure, soft-spoken women that are defined in relation to their husbands or children, girls have finally realized that they too, can boldly look back, instead of being subjected to the Male Gaze (45, 47).

The Female Gaze, a phrase that Ziesler uses to describe the act of women looking back at men for their own pleasure, is certainly a fascinating point that Ziesler should have expounded more on (45). She only spent about a page on that topic, and nowhere else in Feminism and Pop Culture did she refer to this phenomenon. She claims that the Female Gaze "told of a restlessness and a stirring in women across America", without providing concrete examples of what she means (46). Furthermore, her idea of "empowered women" had affairs with married men and had children out of wedlock . I'm not sure where this claim came from, but it would certainly be worth elaborating on this rather controversial claim.

In light of Ziesler's claim that women are increasingly able to think of themselves as individuals and not in relation to others, I am not entirely convinced by the chapter, "We Have Not Come a Long Way, and Don't Call Me Baby". On one hand, Ziesler does have a point that feminism's role in society is far from complete. Since the "male gaze" is the dominant gaze in society, women still participate in their own oppression when they subject themselves and fellow women to the "male gaze". However, I find it difficult to believe that women "have not come a long way", considering the numerous rights that women have earned in society. Perhaps Ziesler needs to produce a better working definition of feminism in her text before she can safely make such a claim.

For this week's blog post I would like you to mainly address Andi Zeisler's Feminism and Pop Culture. Please focus your response around:

1) One aspect of the book that you are compelled by/interested in;
2) One aspect that you are not compelled/convinced by;
3) One aspect that confuses you and/or that you would like more clarification/discussion on.

Since this is a longer reading your posts will help me to direct class discussion around aspects of the book you are most interested in addressing.

There are many complex considerations and tools which we need to make sure we take into account as a cultural critic. I believe that point was made very easily when our first day of class we were introduced Saussure who believed each sign contains two elements, the signifier and signified . I think as consumers of pop culture many of us enjoy the messages we take from whatever it maybe, but we very often fail to take into account the person whose creating pop culture intent. This is very well demonstrated by the bitchfest article by Rita Hao, "And Now a Word from Our Sponsors: Feminism for Sale". Marketers very smartly use pro feminism commercials in order appeal to consumers now in a different way. I think most importantly this shows how marketers have become so clever and so determined to make the biggest bottom line for their customers , that they will effectively use any sign they can to send the same old message " they have something you need to buy". By appealing to the anti- they effectively construct a way of also making them apart of the whole pop culture phenomena. Rita also has a valid point that although it is progress to a certain point , in reality it can just been seen as society is just continuing to marginalize the minority by incorporating them into its structure . Susie O'Brien and Imre Szeman states in her article " The Politics of Representation", "Films serve as an emblem of already- achieved equality," but this only serve to further marginalize minority groups. She talks about this referring to some films which depict black and white friendships. This reminded me of Gregory Mantsios, "Media Magic: Making Class Invisible", by creating and promoting a fabricated state of black and white relationships it helps to normalize them so they are not seen negative. So it is easy to see that we need to have many different views when we analyze pop culture. We have to try to be as object as possible to not allow our own predispositions to alter our views. This does not mean that we can not enjoy pop culture but we also have to learn to view it objectively

Critiquing culture is a much more complicated process than one would originally think. To those who take culture at face value, like I did before taking this course, popular media and societal norms have little meaning beyond entertainment. However, when taking a closer look, there is a meaning behind everything in our culture, from where it originated from to the effects that it has had on our society today. Many of the media images we see are driven by money. Profit is the main, sometimes only, goal of a message being put out there. When investigating further and realizing what a strong impact and lasting impression these images and messages have, profit seems like an insignificant result. Some even base their sense of identity from these images, according to the Rita Hao article. Based off of this, cultural critics need to realize that some culture-producing agents like advertisers are putting out images solely to make money, and not expecting people to read too far into it.

Something else to take into consideration when becoming a cultural critic is to know and understand how certain signs and cultural norms are interpreted. People do not always interpret things in the same way, no matter how the producer of the sign intended it to be. The O'Brien and Szeman article outlines different ways that individuals can interpret media, specifically text. This can be interpreting the message in the intended way, to take the message and alter it with your own thoughts, or even to disagree with the message entirely. Oftentimes we take messages and blend them with our preconceived notions on how something is or should be.

In the end, to be a cultural critic, you have to understand that there really is no wrong way someone can interpret culture. The producers of culture and media don't always necessarily have ulterior motives behind putting out a message other than to make profit, so take messages at face value. Also, consumers will take messages in different ways, so a message may not have a universal meaning.

What I got from the readings is that it is important to keep in mind a couple of things when taking in pop culture: who created it, for whom was it created, why was it created, and how was it created. More specifically these topics get into who is represented, how, in pop culture and why. I really liked the Feminism for Sale article. I think is answers a lot of these questions for many pieces of pop culture. Women's desire to be powerful is exploited to get them to buy things. It's not that the producers actually care about the well being of women. Another "purpose" of pop culture is to keep people in their place. This was demonstrated very well in The Oppositional Gaze article when Bell Hooks discusses the representation of black women in the cinema. "She was there as a man in drag, as castrating bitch, as someone to be lied to...somone white and black audience could hate." This made me reflect on cosmo magazines where women are depicted as sex goddesses who need to be continuously updated about sex positions and make-up. Why? To keep women in their place of men-pleasers. This never occured to me before reading this article. From this, I would say the best tool would be the question, "Why is this being depicted the way that it is?" Also, in addition to who is being represented how, we also need to ask who is NOT being represented and why. Susie O'Brien discusses this with the issue of underrepresentation of blacks in the film industry. Just because they are the "face of basketball teams" doesn't mean that they are profiting from it. It's really the white owners who use the players to represent themselves.

After reading the different articles there are many aspects of a culture that have to be put into consideration when analyzing that culture. I have categorized these concepts into four sub-categories. These four sub-categories are, who is involved, what is the situation or problem at hand, when is this happening, and where is all this happening.
Identifying who is concerned with a concept helps simplify the understanding of the audience. In almost all our articles,we had situations of white male versus the rest of the world (white female, black male, and other races). from the article, my understanding is that almost every thing potrayed in the media is based on the perspective of the white male, for instance In Bell Hook's "The oppositional gaze", he mentioned that when black people in the United States finally had the access to the media, all they could see was how supreme whites were, especially white males. In order to understand what the white male potrayed in the media, you must have had some knowledge of the roles white men play in the United States. Also, in the politics of representation, Susie O'Brian talks about black people taking awards for outstanding well played roles but they aren't the ones behind the production. Representation is much more than being recognized, but being able to define yourself where ever you are.
Secondly in order to analyize the culture of a particular system, you need to understand what their issues are. In our setting, racism is one of the issues people have to deal with on a daily basis. Also, some other issues addressed include how women are potrayed in the media. Rita Hao, in her article talks of how much women have progressed from the kitchen to white collar jobs, but it doesn't just end there. She make a mockery of women all these changes that have been made, but yet women aren't equally treated as males. They get about 70cents less pay than men, yet we talk of progress.
Talking about where all these claims about women and men are made, most fingers are pointing at the media. It's important to take note that most of these articles are based on the American culture. Almost every home, if not all have televisions that not only serve as a source of information, but influence our youth on topics such as violence and sexual activity. The same thing happens in magazines such as vogue,video games and even adverts. All these things influnce the people who we are today. Before analyzing a culture, it's very important to see what influnces them the most.
Finally, we also have to take into account the when factor. When analyzing a culture, we have to understand what the timing is. Even though the passed eventually builds the future, we cannot base all our assumptions on the past. Going back to Rita Hao's article, whe makes us understand that women have gone a long way from being under-represented. Even though we might not be equal to the man or we might not be well represented in the media, we have come a long way.

In order to be a cultural critic, I think that Susie O'Brien and Imre Szeman say what you need perfectly. If I am a cultural critic, I need to take a step back from any situation and let go of all of my thoughts that I already have about that situation or any situation related to it. I think that with going into any situation, humans have the tendency to have thoughts and opinions already made up. We need to drop all of those thoughts, opinions, and experiences that we may have that are related to that subject because then we can look at anything with an open mind and try to look at everything differently then we normally would have.

I also think in order to be a cultural critic, you have to be able to analyze or break down something in multiple angles or ways. This is a culture we are looking at here so when one person says something can mean this, another person can say that the same thing means something completely opposite. We need to be able to look at both people's angles and others also and be able to understand where they are coming from and why they say what they are saying.

Last week we talked about knowing the background information instead of just the final product. This may also help you in being a cultural critic. Doing so can maybe bring up the questions like "how something happened" or "why something happened". Asking these questions can get you thinking outside of the box and out of your ordinary. Either way, I think using any of these methods could get you further as a cultural critic.

Becoming a cultural critic is much more complex that I previously thought. There are many hidden aspects to the media and popular culture that I had never really considered. For instance, in the past, I simply judged the quality of a movie or a song based on whether or not I enjoyed it and if it had the qualities I was looking for (such as humor that was not raunchy, a good plot, likeable characters, etc.). I never took into consideration the motives behind producing said movie or song, what messages it was trying to send, if it was respectful to women, how it depicted minorities, how it was making me feel about myself, how it affected my confidence and self-image, etc. Once aware of all of these intricate elements, the media transforms from a source of mere entertainment to a culture producing, money making, deceptive black hole - and many are becoming lost within, their sense of identity thriving off of the images around them (as described in "And Now a Word from Our Sponsors: Feminism for Sale" by Rita Hao).

The assigned articles make one thing very clear, reading and critiquing culture is a task that is not short problematic attempts. The provided authors do offer a few ideas of how to make decode the vast amount of culture out there. A few of my favorites were: It is important to realize that counter narratives aren't always the solution to common stereotypes. As O'Brien and Szeman explain, these re-writings can actually "reverse the hierarchy." In their examples of pop-culture films this reversal can focus too much on individuals and not address the problem (racism, sexism, etc.) in a social context. I think this idea of "counter narratives" is especially important when looking at melodramas. Melodramas (or soap operas) were the first film genre where women were not only leads, but also the focus. The downside to ruling the melodrama genre, was that melodramas focused solely on individuals, so although a film may be the story of a woman leaving her abusive boyfriend and starting her own business, the story is that of only one woman and her relationships, never diving into the societal implications and issues that sexism played.
Bell Hooks also pointed out the uses of multiple lenses when reading culture. She explains that a female gaze, besides being separate from the male gaze, may also need to be extended into other categories such as, the "black female gaze." She brings up questions about crossroads of race and gender. It is important as a cultural critic to consider that not all views are included with the generic "feminist reading." I am interested in seeing how as a class we approach the problem of the individual (as the first article mentions) and the problem of grouping multiple lenses together when they ought be separate.

When considering inequality in popular culture, "Politics of Representation" explains that obvious representations of minorities or gender are usually addressing stereotypes. However, these stereotypes are only being exemplified in films and other media and in it's efforts to reverse discrimination, it's representing these minorities unrealistically. This article states "...the attempt to counter negative stereotypes with more positive ones reverses the hierarchy while leaving the codes of essential identity/difference intact. " By unrealistically portraying lifestyles of undereducated, economically disadvantaged people who "come back" in life, more complex and hidden issues of race and gender inequality are hidden. Therefore, this is an important thing to consider when criticizing popular culture.

In the article, "Encoding/Decoding", I thought the linguistic theory was interesting when defining denotation and connotation as analytic tools for distinguishing between "different levels at which ideologies and discourses intersect." This goes back to the attempt at addressing stereotypes. Literal meaning in certain popular culture may be complimenting the journey for race and gender equality, however, the representation of that message isn't "naturalized" or realistic of certain races, classes, and genders.

Media, specifically advertisements, seem to be using the idea of accepting feminism as a way to make money. In "And Now a Word From Our Sponsor", the author clearly states her opinion on how marketing and ads are using feminism. Instead of actually being a supporter of this movement, they are using it to make money. "It's all about the Benjamin's baby". I also thought the faux-feminist backlash advertisements were really interesting. This strategy is definitely a brilliant one, due to the strong emotion ties modern women have with feminism, it makes sense that backlash ads sell the best (even though they aren't interested at all in feminism... but making money)

As Stuart Hall sates, "If no meaning is taken, there can be no consumption." Whether participating in this class or surfing the web on your couch, we are all at one point or another criticizing pop culture. By forming views and opinions on different shows or celebrities we are finding the good the bad and the ugly, and are therefore forming meaning to each.
When critiquing pop culture on a conscious level, O'Brien and Szeman suggest that we look at what the reality of the representation is. Cultural critics need to dig a layer deeper and look beneath the visual. Asking yourself what codes are hidden in the message you are receiving is a crucial tool in analyzing pop culture. Hall's theory suggests that encoded messages will vary in meaning along the way of production even into the minds of the decoder. These messages can be altered through the different media and semiotics that the viewer decodes in. After being decoded Hall suggests that the critic responds in either a dominant-hegemonic, negotiated, or oppositional way.
The authors warn us that while Hall's theory provides great tactics for encoding and decoding, it cannot be taken subjectively. It is possible for two critics to watch the same movie at the same time, yet read them from two different positions. Our own cultural backgrounds, experiences, and identities will influence the way in which we decode and therefore will not be homogeneous. I think that this is a very important aspect for all of us to consider while decoding and analyzing messages. Thinking of how the message will be interpreted through someone else's eyes will also help to think critically about the message and what the hidden codes are saying. Realizing that some pop culture messages are only marginalizing certain identities even more can raise awareness to the issue and bring upon change.

I think it is important, as a cultural critic, to keep in mind that cultural texts ultimately derive their meaning from interpretation by those who consume them. It is important not to loose sight of one's own beliefs and values that might influence a critical examination of any text. The value and meaning of cultural texts are not qualities that reside objectively within them; they are instead determined in part by the audiences that consume them (O'Brien and Szeman, 85). Ultimately, it is the job of the audience to interpret any given text, and through this process individuals bring to the table any number of influences, perspectives or criticisms. The example given in Popular Culture: A User's Guide is the film True Lies that was considered a family film by Bob Dole despite its violence and sexual content. Ultimately, True Lies proves that it is up to the viewer to interpret any cultural text and that the scope of interpretations can be enormous.

A number of cultural texts that are often contested or interpreted in different ways are those of the infamous Lady Gaga. Many people have viewed her on television or listened to her music and consequently interpreted those texts in light of their own beliefs, experiences and values. My old roommate who was very religious interpreted Lady Gaga as being too permiscious, over the top and outragous. Her religious beliefs actively influenced her interpretation of Lady Gaga's media texts. Alternatively, I also have met a number of people who adore Lady Gaga to say the least and interpret her texts in a much different way. Similar to the example of True Lies, Lady Gaga's cultural texts are open to a wide variety of often conflicting interpretations. It is important when being a cultural critic to view any cultural text as possible of producing a wide variety of meanings and interpretations by any number of people who engage with the text as well as to acknowledge one's own positionality as a member of the audience.

When analyzing culture, it is most important to understand and consider that all "messages" or "signs" we encounter have been created under certain assumptions concurrent with typical social mores. As discussed in Hall's "Encoding/Decoding," signs are "encoded" through associations between the sign and certain denotations/connotations. Denotations and connotations are equated with certain signs by the receiver of the message, and the way in which the signs are interpreted are products of cultural norms. By realizing and evaluating the goal and background of the sign, we may deconstruct and reconstruct the message. It is important to not take any sign at face value; it is dangerous and ignorant to believe there is no harm or effect from mass media messages.

Along with recognizing the role of the producer of the message, we must also understand personal biases. What are our own demographics? How has the world we grew up in shaped why we think what we think and feel how we feel? It is not a matter of did my race/gender/class/sexuality/religion affect me, but how, because it undoubtedly did. The setting in which we develop and the way in which we function in this setting has a huge effect on our perceptions and interpretations of signs because of the type of media/social constructs we are subjected to due to these differences. It is then necessary to choose to accept or deny our "intrinsic/natural" feelings about the sign from our evaluation of our own prejudices and social reinforcements. In doing this, it is possible to experience a sort of cognitive dissonance. While we can recognize the effects of a message, the message may still "work" on us by encouraging the desired emotions, as we discussed in class in relation to Extreme Home Makeover. This involves discovering the agency and subjectivity of the image and spectator, as bell hooks discusses. O'Brien and Szeman also claim that it is important to have a "social realist perspective" so to not conceal problems by the "myth of tolerant individualism," which "acknowledges the role of culture and economics in shaping individual lives." Having a whole view of the factors is the only way to assess the truth of the message.

After we have considered coding from both sides of the sign, "encoder-producer and decoder-receiver", we may interpret what is the true effect of the sign and determine if the effect is positive or negative. This is crucial to being a critic of culture, as this is the goal of analyzing culture. Once the ramifications of a message have been scrutinized, there may be a change, if need be, for the better.

I think to be a good cultural critic, we need to be in tune to all the things these cultural artifacts and be able to analyze them from a number of angles. Who are the ones consuming these products? Why do companies feel that these products would be appealing to these group of people? Are we able to resist these images that are being forced on us, and is resisting just reinforcing? After all, our gender, sexuality, social and political position, economic status, education, etc. make up our identities, and companies are no doubt in tune to this when they produces the messages and images they project at us.

It's obvious that everything that's thrown at us is coded in some way, and companies calculate this accordinly. In Cultural Studies,Multiculturalism, and Media Culture Kellner talks about the process of ethnographic research where attempts are made to see how groups of people will react to a certain product and "shape their beliefs and behavior." I think, as not only cultural critics, but feminist cultural critics, we need to be aware of the detrimental effects of these types of studies and how they shape our culture. After all, studying how certain groups react to certain things not only classifies people based off of a few parts of their identity (note the "etc" earlier;there are so many different aspects that make up our position in the world that it's virtually impossible to list them all), it also places people in the role of "the other," or the object being studied. Marginalizing groups of people like this removes their power, which leads us to a whole new topic on how pop culture affects power relations between people.

While I do think we should be wary of any form cultural product, and be ready to analyze them, I don't think that even the most manufactured pop culture texts are bad. For example, when Kellner talks about Madonna telling girls to "express themselves," I don't think that it's a negative thing (versus the empty phrase "girl power.") However, I don't think we should let it take over our lives and make us blind to other issues. As O'Brien and Szeman put it, we shouldn't get to the point where "it's hard to stay focused on the problems of the environment and on the increasing corporate influence of government decision-making when there's so much good TV to watch."

I agree with much of what the other posts have to say in becoming a cultural critic. In order to dissect media examples of popular culture, and to look at these examples critically, one must look at culture from many different angles. Using various lenses such as race, gender, sex/uality, and class to not only view, but critically engage with popular culture can lead us to uncover more meaning and intention behind cultural examples. However, viewing and engaging with these multiple lenses is not enough for critiquing popular culture. Yes, we may have found multiple meanings for a certain aspect of culture, but how did those meanings get there and how do they affect different people?

In the Hall article titled "Encoding/Decoding," I found that he summed the concept of the meaning of a message rather well. Just having social messages in commercials, TV shows, movies, music, magazines, etc. isn't enough. There has to be a defined meaning behind it, and that's what the term "encoding" describes. To become a cultural critic, we need to realize that the emphasis of these encoded messages is not in the encoding, but in the decoding and practice of the messages perpetuated by the media. Many of the gender norms that are circulated throughout the media mean nothing if the public does not willingly receive meaning from the encoded messages. Furthermore, these decoded "meaningful" messages do nothing to perpetuate gender norms. This is where the important aspect of practice and consciousness that Hall describes comes into play. In order for the initial encoded messages to have any effect on us, we must first receive them willingly, then knowingly think about them or put them to use.

Becoming a good cultural critic involves paying attention to the details of what messages are in the media, but also that these messages have to be willingly accepted and practiced.

Not sure if this is the right place to post this but this is a link to a great analysis of the Telephone video!

http://gagajournal.blogspot.com/2010/05/referential-mania-analyzing-lady-gaga.html

One of the critical tools that we need to take into consideration when becoming a cultural critic is to be knowledgeable and mindful of the ways that race is portrayed in the media. In the, "Politics of Representation," article, the author points out that while yes it is an important effort to create more positive representations of African Americans in the popular media, the "black/white friendship movie" often does just the opposite. The author argues that by showing an example of "already-achieved equality" between the two individuals, racial inequalities are ignored and seen as eliminated based on the relationship represented in the film.

It is important to be able to differentiate between these positive and negative portrayals of minorities in the popular media so that we do not fall under the spell of ideologies such as "already achieved equality" so that we are lulled into a false sense of equality. It is also necessary to consider the ways that ideas of representations of minority groups or racial groups in the media can influence people's ways of thinking. The "Politics of Representation" article points out that racial profiling became more widely accepted around the time when shows like 24 and Alias were glorifying the CIA and boosting its image. The article points out the ability of representation to influence reality and the possibly dangerous effects that it could have.

We need to be considerate of the negative effects the media can have on children, such as violent video games and violence on television and in movies. Many acts of aggression and violence among teens and children can be linked to a large ingestion of video game or TV violence by the teen or child in question. While that is not to say that violence video games always promote violence, there is a considerable link between the two.

So how does someone actually go about studying culture? How can we be objective in seeing past the media ideals shot at us every five seconds on screen, on the radio, on billboards... in everything we do at any given moment?

A first step is identifying places where the critic (in this class, ourselves) holds a personal bias that may come in the way of objective observation. For example, I personally need to stop instantly judging a woman's portrayal of herself in the media. As exemplified in Shugart and Waggoner's "A Bit Much," some artists may intentionally play the role of the "hyper sexual" woman, such as Macy Gray and Gwen Stefani. If I would step back and view these artists with a objectively critical, rather than judgmental, eye, I may notice the women are almost pretending to be "women"--or at least the media's over-sexualized and stereotyped vision of such femininity. These women are employing a resistive interpretation of their gender as displayed in the oppressive media outlets through their paradoxical portraits of themselves via clothing, cosmetics, etc. to include masculine elements that seem almost "anti-feminine." Thus, taking a second look is vital to becoming an objective and unbiased cultural critic.

While it is vital to analyze the media's camouflaged resistance, as noted above, it is equally important to critically observe the blatant "feminist" messages portrayed as well. Sometimes the media attempts to empower women with feminist slogans, but the underlying message is as capitalistic and suppressive as ever: "Buy this. You need it to be/look/act better." The advertiser's feminist guise is false, desiring not empowerment, but another source of income. Rita Hau, in "And Now a Word from Our Sponsors," perfectly states the mainstream purpose as, "Capitalist feminism welcomes the woman whose Visa card will be accepted at the door..." From this I take a message of caution. In becoming a cultural critic, one must not take things at face value, in either personal judgments or media messages.

In order to be a good cultural critic, you need to realize how complex the meanings derived from popular culture can be. With such a large audience that all have different backrounds, exeriences, and cultures; you have to look at media from other people's perspectives. In the article "Representation and the Construction of Social Reality, it states that "how we respond to a given text will be different in different circumstances." I think that this is very important when looking into popular culture, especially if it is from a different time period. The media represents different parts of society, that often change over time. With the changes in society, there are also different changes in the media. Therefore, if you are looking at popular culture from different time periods, I think that it is important to remember the differences in society at the time, so you don't misinterpret any meanings. You not only need to take in account different time periods, but also different cultures. Each culture has different social norms or opinions on what is acceptable or not acceptable behavior. I think that it is important to be knowledgable of different cultures actions, so that you can ask youself how other people, not just yourself, would interpret these messages.

I also think that people's opinions on certain media's can change in short periods of time, so you have to keep in mind each individual's circumstances. For example, one week a video game with a lot of violence and shooting can be considered fun or entertaining. However, if there happens to be a school shooting or a violent act in society, the video game can go from fun to "inappropriate" in one day. I think that this goes to show that everyone perceives media differently and how sometimes it is hard to draw a line between what is real and what is not. For example, if you watch a scary movie with unrealistic creatures in it, most people are still
semi scared, even though the scenario in the movie is impossible.

Finally, I thought the section about the romance novels was really interesting. The article talked aout how these novels "provided a kind of escape that was both pleasurable and guilty" from their traditional wifey roles. It also talked about how these ooks might "help to make women aware that their needs are not being satisfied in their current situations." Although I do find these novels and romantic comedies enjoyable, I think that they often portray these perfect relationships with perfect men, that don't exist very often. I think that even the best relationships take work, and that they aren't always going to be great.

While reading this week's articles, specifically "A Bit Much: Spectacle as Discursive Resistance" by Shugart and Waggoner, it came to my attention that spectacle and excess are believed to be a form of resistance to popular culture. Having minimal knowledge about popular culture, I don't know whether I accept this claim or not. One part of me thinks that this couldn't be true because artists like Madonna, Lady Gaga, and Katy Perry wouldn't be popular if their crazy antics were a resistance to pop culture... Audiences love what these artists do so how could their behavior be a resistance to what the audience loves? However, the other part of me agrees that it is resistance because popular culture is constantly being redefined and the absurdities that these artists display constantly push (or resist) those boundaries of pop culture and in the process, pop culture is reformed to fit the new boundaries. It could be these new boundaries that the audience seeks and craves. After all, people don't like the same old thing over and over again. Here is where another one of my questions forms: If artists are constantly pushing the boundaries of popular culture and they keep doing crazier things to catch the target audience's eye, where is the point in which the excess becomes the norm? Will people get sick of absurdity like they got sick or boy bands or poodle skirts? I don't know the answer to these questions, but I just thought I would ask.

On another note, last week in class, a girl asked a question somewhere along the lines of "Can't girls dress sexy for themselves, to make ourselves feel good?" This question really intrigued me... I personally think we can, but at the same time, this idea of "sexy" that we have is completely defined by men. So even though we can dress to make ourselves feel good, the reason it makes us feel good is because it makes us look good by men's standards.

I found that readings required us to believe that, in order to be a good cultural critic, or more specifically, pop cultural critic, we need to be able to look at any instance of pop culture from all angles. Initially, I thought the structure of critique culture would be as simple as considering how the author intended a work to be viewed, then how the general audience will view it, then how the opposition sees it. It dawned on me, however, that there is no such thing as looking into something too deeply; there are always other layers. This is especially true in Hooks' article, "The Oppositional Gaze". The idea that the opposition is not just different by gender or race, but perhaps a combination of the two, or perhaps even further is an idea most audiences would not think to engage.

Which is what brings me to my next idea: to be a good pop culture critic, we have to simultaneously engage and disengage ourselves with the work; we must distance ourselves from a work while at the same time staying near to it. By this, I mean that we cannot judge something without watching it, listening to it, or examining it, but we also cannot allow ourselves to become attached to it completely, allowing it to by-pass examination. In order to be a critic, you must be a part and apart.

Finally, we must remember that no idea is produced in isolation. There is an abundance of influences on every work, every critique, and every person, and not one of them can be produced without the other. Ideas come from ideas, and those ideas in turn create more. To strip this explanation to its bare bones, I will simplify and say, "There are no wrong answers".

In becoming a cultural critic for this class I think it is important to look at whom the images of pop culture are being produced for and who is doing the production. Going back to the Frankfurt School and the theories of Horkheimer and Adorno I find I agree more and more with them that the parties responsible for pop culture production are faceless corporations who are motivated only by money. Because this is their primary motivation, it is important to remember that the messages placed in their advertisements might not (and probably doesn't) represent the companies actually beliefs, they're just promoting their product in that way because they know it sells.

Rita Hao touches on this point in "And Now a Word from our Sponsors: Feminism for Sale," I feel her main concern was that feminism was being used to lure consumers into buying products with feminist slogans, not because the company supports these ideals, but because they know they can use them to make them buy their product. Were the ideology of today to revert back to thinking of many people from the 40s and 50s I am positive that many companies would change all their advertisements to reflect this. They don't have beliefs or morals to follow, they just do what sells. I also found her conclusion where she suggests the importance of really knowing what you're buying and from who.

This same concern for self accountability is summed up well in Shugart and Waggoner's article, "audiences become compliant consumers of a world invented by others rather than actively constructing one of their own." Consumers do have the power to make companies more accountable, but the masses are usually blind to the sneaky ways companies sell things to them. If you find yourself having to buy something from one of these companies, please at least add your own personal meaning to the object which may not conform to why the company thinks you want to buy it.

In attempting to begin a critical reading of culture for this course, the most important element to take into account is context and the way it affects the reading and production of culture.

In O'Brien and Szeman's section titled "The Politics of Representation," the reader is asked to examine the way that context is used or subverted in the representation of a minority. The authors remind us that "realism" is not a synonym for "reality." A quote discussing violence does wonders to illuminate the way that cultural context creates and is created by mass media and pop culture: "In creating a climate of social fear, in which dominates myths about community, morality, race, gender, and age harden into "facts" (84).

bell hooks' article "The Oppositional Gaze," critiques the context of mainstream feminist critique by declaring that it consistently homogenizes the experience of "woman" in pop culture (erasing other intersectionalities such as race and class) and therefore reifies the patriarchal system and female -stance as object. "[Mainstream feminist criticism] also speaks to the problem of structuring feminist film theory around a totalizing narratve of woman as object " (99).

For example, if we are to read the context of production and consumption of television such as Gossip Girl, it may not seem odd that all of the main characters are porcelain, thin waifs with a penchant for designer clothes. The show is escapist after all, but if we look at the context of the show and the world it is produced in, it becomes clear that the "lower class" of the show are those living in an elaborate loft in Brooklyn and wearing clothing from brands like "Band of Outsiders" (from which a simple cardigan runs about $450, only slightly less than one month of rent for most of my upper-middle class friends).

In the show, the people of color (however few and far between) are there for sheer manipulation, quick plot development and shtick. What's worse is that these people stand as "credits to their race," allowing the audience to appreciate "how far race relations have come."

In cases such as this show, the extravagance is not a spectacle in the way that Shugart and Waggoner would imply in their article "Spectacle as Discursive Resistance." Nothing about the opulence of Gossip Girl comments on society in a meaningful way. Instead, the television show consistently reminds us what is beauty, success and happiness. Too bad none of us were born into it.

One must first open one's eyes to the visual, social, political and (especially for this class), gendered messages that are encoded into the rhetoric of the world around us in order to become a cultural critic. Deciphering the meaning of cultural texts is a complex process (O'Brian and Szeman). In fact, Hall proceeds to demonstrate the complexity of this process in Encoding/ Decoding, which can be summarized as such: Each stage in encoding and decoding has its own limits and possibilities; every stage in the circuit limits the possibilities for interpretation in the next stage. Encoding/ Decoding presents itself as a fantastic instructional medium for cultural critics.

The first stage, Production, demonstrates that ideological forms are imposed in the media when the writer or filmmaker "constructs the message", which is also "framed throughout by meanings and ideas... definitions and assumptions" (Hall). These writers do not form their ideas in isolation, they "draw on topics, treatments, agendas... and other discursive formations within the wider socio-cultural and political structure of which they are a differentiated part" (Hall). This shows that any ideas that a scriptwriter has must be a product of the sociological background that their writing stems out of. As such, feminist media is not truly radically feminist in nature, since it has stemmed out of a male-dominated society.

Circulation/ Reception is the second and most crucial stage in Hall's Reception Theory. This admits that "'moments' of the production process in television and are reincorporated, via a number of skewed and structured 'feedbacks', into the production process itself" (Hall). Here, Hall recognizes that there are hegemonic processes at work in order to produce a need for a message that is to be transmitted to the public; "gratifications are themselves framed by social and economic relations, which shape their realization at the reception end of the chain and which permit the meanings signified in the discourse to be transposed into practice or consciousness" (Hall). Not only is the message crucial in order to shape a revolution or to effect change, (what feminist popular culture attempts to do) the society must be ready to receive such a message. While the problem of trying to decipher the receptiveness of society will always be present no matter what medium is used, visual media is subtle enough to conceal its messages for those who are not yet receptive through the beauty of this art form, yet not so much that the author's original intent and meaning would be lost on those who are ready. As such, this encoding/ decoding process reproduces "a pattern of domination" (Hall). This means that even the most effective medium will face the problem of engaging its audience should the author try to push for too radical of an idea. For example, feminist thought is certainly promoted through popular culture, but only to a certain extent.

Finally, even though each stage is relatively autonomous from other stages, the coding of messages does control its reception to a point (Hall). Simply put, encoding a message into a medium, as in advertising, does not guarantee that this same message will be decoded once the audience receives it. Although there are limits to the interpretations for a certain image, the original message as expressed cannot possibly be translated perfectly into the audience's minds. As such, the biggest problem that feminism faces as it attempts to make a greater ideological impact is its ability to overturn the dominant "male gaze" view that society holds over women.

There are many complex considerations and tools to take into account when becoming a cultural critic. This is my first experience ever taking a class related to pop culture or feminism. Coming from a business background, I have found our readings very interesting and compelling. Becoming a cultural critic does not only include the visual images presented in our culture. There are social, political, and economic contexts, including language, which must all be taken into consideration. As O'Brien and Szeman indicated, along with Stuart Hall, making meaning of cultural texts is a complex process. Symbiotics, how (and by whom) the works were produced, how individuals learn and use our imaginations, and the context in which we see or watch various culture pieces all have an effect on our reaction and how we make meaning. As O'Brien and Szeman stated, we must "work to critique not just individual texts or ideologies, but also the codes that underwrite them" (O'Brien and Szeman, "The Politics of Representation")

I noticed in a few of the readings, largely in "The Oppositional Gaze" by Bell Hooks, the idea that a binary opposition is created in many forms of pop culture. We studied this idea largely in an American Studies class I took last semester. The way that we Europeans and Americans (the orient) tend to view individuals of the Pacific Islands often creates a binary opposition. We have a tendency to view them as savages, which is also apparent in our art work and photography, both forms of pop culture. There is also these ideas of the "male gaze" (as we discussed in class) and the "black female gaze." Is there a white female gaze or are we just objectified and dehumanized?

Another phrase that struck me was that of "social reality" (O'Brien and Szeman, "The Politics of Representation). Does social reality even exist? I was perplexed reading this passage. It seems that we are trying to recreate reality and the world we live in. However, are we recreating this reality through pop culture or is pop culture itself defining this idea of what constitutes reality and representation? As O'Brien and Szeman later discussed, do individuals really possess a mind independent of pop culture and other cultural forms? As Stuart Hall describes, identity is constituted "not outside but within representation... not as a second-order mirror held up to reflect what already exists, but as that form of representation which is able to constitute us as new kinds of subjects, and thereby enable us to discover who we are." Thus, we often discover ourselves through this representation by media and pop culture. Rita Hao ("And Now a Word from Our Sponsors," Bitchfest) also makes an interesting point about advertising and reality, although she doesn't necessarily call it that herself. She makes the point that advertisers, such as Nike, give you that self esteem and good feeling, which makes you rush out to buy the product. Then, we define and identify ourselves and our "reality" in terms of these brands and products.

As you can see, there are many interesting considerations and tools we can use when becoming a cultural critic, such as these ideas of social reality and representation. I'm looking forward to continuing to learn about this process and other methods of analyzing pop culture.