November 2012 Archives

Jersey Shore: A Positive Light

| 4 Comments

Alston's views are pretty negative to the Jersey Shore. Most of his points I do agree with. For most people the show is stupid and represents poor taste. The show also has negative connotations towards Italian Americans and Jersey Shore probably shows negative stereotypes internationally. With all of these negative views, shouldn't there be just a few positive aspects of the show? I guess my view would be that one person's "trash" entertainment might be another person's love. Everyone has their own opinion on entertainment and that's what makes America great. We live a country where even bad taste has a voice. I really could care less what other countries think about America. There are already so many negative things that one more show isn't really going to hurt anything. Sometimes I think other countries are jealous because there aren't obscure minority that have a voice. In many situations the majority is what is seen and in a case like the Jersey Shore, the minority has a big spotlight. I really don't believe that there is anything America can do for other countries to change their viewpoints. My sister's German exchange student had many stereotypes. She thought I was going to be a violent person because of my love for sports. In her part of Germany, most people believed that anyone that like sports like football, were automatically violent. So in the end I think it is very hard for Americans to change the viewpoints of people internationally. The Jersey Shore might be distasteful and terrible television, don't watch it. Some people enjoy it and maybe the show helps those people escape reality and get through their lives. Everyone is different and that makes America strong.

Blog 11/29

| 1 Comment

I can't stand Jersey Shore. As I mentioned in class they are getting paid to party. However, half of the crew was pretty smart with their...situation. Snooki got pregnant and became a tabloid reservoir, with her train wreck friend Jwoww. But DJ Pauly D is the 7th high paid DJ in the world. That's crazy. Also, as mentioned, Mike has made money by doing a backwards sponsorship through Abercrombie and Fitch. So these "regular" people are handed an opportunity which half of them took it and ran with it. So as much as I get mad at the show, at the same time I would love to get paid by Abercrombie to not wear their awful smelling clothes.

When we were talking about participation between the consumer and the media, I thought about another DJ: Skrillex, who is #2 highest paid DJ in the world. He teamed up with Bob Marley's son Damien and made a reggae electronic song. They then released all the files/sounds that were found within the song. Their (successful) goal was to have everyday people do their own version or remix of the song, then from that, the two artists would choose their favorite. I also thought about every code on the bottom of bottle caps, where you are sent to the website of the company.

jersey shore

| 3 Comments

This week in class we discussed the television program 'Jersey Shore' and the way it represents Italian-Americans, and in many cases, our generation of Americans in general. I think for those of us in college, we were old enough to be able to differentiate between seeing the value in the show as a spectacle and the value in appreciating these individuals, but this is not always the case. I distinctly recall visiting my high school after this show got popular and seeing high school kids idolizing these characters as if they were the type of person someone should try to be. One of my neighbors bragged about how many times he went to the tanning salon per week. He eventually had to go and have early signs of skin cancer removed. I think we need to reevaluate the way we portray these individuals to younger audiences. The content should be seen as a spectacle that is ridiculous and not something that one should strive for, but as something that is on television because it is so far from the norm. Young teens are always going to watch what the eighteen to twenty four year old demographic is watching, it's natural that they want to be like those more independent but still young. We just need to make sure they understand that the people on Jersey Shore, for example, don't lead healthy, enviable lives. There will be consequences for their actions and they need to prepare for the future if they want to end up living a successful life.

Nike ID

| 1 Comment

I thought that the discussion on Monday shed light on to something that is easily overlooked with the way consumers interact with their purchases and become producers. I felt silly that I hadn't noticed it before we are being surveyed in what we prefer. The question came up in class as to whether that is legal. I think that it is. All stores track the purchases being made. I don't think that they can go as in depth as something like the Nike ID can track but maybe they can. I know that Target tracks what items in their store get purchased together so that they can put things near eachother that will get purchased to encourage more buying. I would imagine all stores do something similar. When you think of how much you are getting analyzed by your purchases its scary. You are the one choosing to go into the store and purchase it and technology has provided a way to turn that into a trend. Nike ID makes you feel special that you have the customized shoes and Nike gets to see whats cool. Its a win win.

comment from last week

| No Comments

I think that its interesting that it was popular in your country becuase it was American. Did they try to make the Barbie culturally accurate to Japanese people? Does Barbie really represent American women accuratly? I dont know many women that look like Barbie and have that awesome of a body. I think that goes into what we learned in weeks previous with little girls being told at a very young age that this is what they were supposed to look like. Did it have the same affect in Japan? Did little girls grow up wanting to look like the American looking barbie?

Reality TV

| No Comments

I thought our discussion on Thursday about the Jersey Shore was extremely interesting. I think how much we struggled with identifying solutions to the negative aspects of reality tv just goes to show how dense and unsolved this problem is. At the end of the day, I'm not sure that anyone will ever be able to come to an agreeable solution. So, I was thinking on Thursday about what we could do to manage the problem instead of trying to erase it completely. I think we brought up some really great ideas in class. First, I think we must discourage ourselves from consuming products or media that we do not believe in. This standard will be different from everyone. In my case, I try to establish what is acceptable and unacceptable and resist the urge to consume whatever I consider to be unacceptable. Second, we must serve as advocates for change when we believe something is wrong, while still respecting the freedom of an individual to choose. I'm not sure that this is a perfect formula, but it is a start. I really hope that shows like the Jersey Shore start to diminish eventually. Call me an old soul, but I would much rather watch reruns of I Love Lucy or old comedy/variety shows. Humor was so good back then!

Blog 11/29/2012

| 1 Comment

Interactivity in the marketplace has become a prominent strategy that corporations are now integrating into society. In the modern economy, business have shifted towards a trend of focusing on consumer expectations. Increasingly more businesses are focusing their technology to research what consumers desire. For example, the integration of customer relationship management into business solutions shows that companies recognize the importance of customer relations to their futures. The use of this information allows companies to better respond to expectations with new products and services. Instead of subjectively estimating expectations, this allows companies to substantiate their investments with real evidence. Companies use this information to provide products that are completely customizable. For example, NIke produces Nike IDs which allows the customers to choose the colors and style of their shoes. The use of technology also allows them to see an image of the product before delivery, maximizing customer satisfaction.

Jingyan Jiang-Blog Twelve

| No Comments

Jenkins's article about the participitary culture is super interesting, and I personally agree with his idea.

My previous company is an image licensing company that works closely with arts and designers in different manazines and advertising agencies. We had a competition once among different universities in Shanghai, China, and all the students who participated in the competition can use images from our company with no charges. The theme of the competition is about environmental friendly city, and students can use our images as elements in their layouts to illustrator their ideas. But the reason for our company to hold such a competition is that we want to reach out to designer-going-to-be earlier, and cultivate their behavior and make them get use to use images from our website. By doing so, they will be more likely to use our images in their future work when they entered the real work force. The event was really successful, and we got feedbacks such as they feel we provide a nice oppotunity for them to participate, and give them chance to gain experiences. The participation in the competition is the key to the success it since we sell our product softly and earlier by cultivating our future user's image searching behavior.

Jersey Shore

| No Comments

I really enjoyed the discussion that we had last class about Jersey Shore. I think that this really is a complex issue and has no simple answer as could be seen by our discussion in class. Does this show represent American culture? it clearly does not show a typical american but rather an extremely small minority culture. The majority of americans work a nine to five job during the week not party almost every day. Given that, does this show still reflect us as a culture? I would say that yes it does because what a culture chooses to watch shows what type of behavior it is willing to accept. As seen in jersey shore we are perfectly willing to accept binge drinking, partying and overall very inappropriate behavior. I think that it reflects on our culture but not necessarily in a bad way. Everyone knows that not all people act like this there are just some people that choose to live a lifestyle like this. That does not mean that it does not give people an idea of things that we like to see, which is a reflection of our culture. take for example the ancient romans who would watch gladitorial matches and watch hundreds of brutal deaths. I do not think this reflects poorly on their culture because they certainly had their philosophers as well but i do think that it provides an interesting commentary on what their culture was willing to watch and accept.

Blog 11/29

| No Comments

The discussion we had yesterday indicated how image of reality TV show affect people living in America and foreign countries. In the first episode of Jersey Shore, young people reveal their trashy-talking, vulgar attitude, and "I do not care attitude"; I thought typical young Americans behave as they did in the show if I had watched this show in my home country. In fact, when I watched American programs which focus on intense crimes in the U.S., such crime cases were really strong expressions. In addition, it just took police officers' usual job without entertaining contents, so it depicted crime as realistic phenomena in America. Therefore, I thought the U.S. offenders were so dangerous: typical offenders carried out crimes with guns and they easily shoot people.
As the phenomenon above, I think people get so many perceptions toward America, but it is narrow media resources. Jersey Shore, intentionally focused on Italian American, can lead people to assume typical Italian American is like cast of the show, especially people in foreign countries.
As the general criticizing 24 in the Alston's article, people recognize this case. If they do so, why mass media intentionally use such ways to depict characters? I believe that is because it is more obvious expression that can make viewers understand situation more deeply. The labeled characters show clear behaviors and attitudes that viewers can understand that without evidences and reasons. Thus, this phenomenon embraces danger of causing miss perception, but it is helpful for making media products.

Reality (?) TV

| 1 Comment

I think it is funny that we talked about reality television in class. Recently my girlfriend and i got into a discussion about the movies and television she watched. And that transformed into the kind of TV other people watch. All we did was trash-talk the kind of things we thought were garbage (Jersey Shore and Honey Boo-Boo to name a couple). We thought it was amazing the kind of things people watch for entertainment.

But these kinds of programs, is it anyone's fault for it to be available to watch? And if it is, whose fault? The consumers? Or the people that make it available? It can go either way (Josh made some valid points). So an analogy: people that smoke, is it their fault they smoke (if they happen to think it is a bad thing, or if other people see it as such), or the cigarette companies who CHOSE to add nicotine (the chemical that people get addicted to). Sure, they both chose to do something, but can anyone be held at fault? It isn't a perfect analogy, but I think it can help put the television idea into perspective. A lot of people, even those who watch it, will agree with each other that a lot of the shows are garbage (who can argue Honey Boo-Boo provides anything substantial to audiences?). It has to come down to something else, something deeper. Are people searching for something (relief from their own life? base entertainment? something that makes them feel better about themselves?)? Something deeper has to be working here (for most people. Maybe some people WANT to live the life the people on the Jersey Shore or Honey Boo-Boo live). So what is it?

I don't know, but I just wanted to point out that now I can see there may actually be some other point for people to watch what I think is bad for people and society as a whole. But this brings something up. What if people who spend these countless hours watching these shows where you get absolutely (or almost) no real value out of watched something on PBS? What if they read a book? Sure we all have vices and guilty pleasures, but maybe people need something else. Just a thought.

Jersey Whore

| No Comments

I am really glad that our discussion on Wednesday really focused on values and what kinds of life decisions people make that influence the kind of lifestyle they choose to live. When we watched the first episode of Jersey Shore, it really put into perspective how some people actually live their lives...every day. Can you imagine just going on a forever-day bender? I don't know how or why they do it, but the cast of Jersey shore really just makes me sad. I think of how hard we, and by we, I mean students work in school to become educated, graduate with some credibility (a degree) and 95% of us will not be rewarded or financially make even close to what many of the cast members make on the show for abusing their lifestyles. Cops, doctors, teachers, attorneys, our military, and other government workers perform so many selfless acts and really do so much for our country. So many of them go unrecognized on a daily basis for all of their hard work, and to me that really undermines the sense of appreciation that we have for these people as a country. I look at the girls on Jersey shore and the guys too, and I think of what was mentioned in class about if/when they have children, what will their kids say? I really don't think you could keep (even if it was or has only been a couple years) that part of your life a secret forever. It's pretty gross to watch some of these girls go out to the bar and seek out random hookups and all of the other messy stuff that comes with it. Where are the values? Where is the dignity? What will their liver be like in 5 years or sooner? Watch this clip from SNL; it's a weekend update with Seth Meyers. Bobby Moynihan is dressed up as Snooki and "she" and Seth have a conversation about the second season of Jersey Shore.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/149657

Reality TV-Sanneh and Alston

| 6 Comments

Please post your discussion questions on the Sanneh and Alston pieces below.

"The Reality Principle" by Kalefa Sanneh
www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2011/05/09/110509crat_atlarge_sanneh

"America's New Icons" by Joshua Alston http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/22/america-s-new-icons.html

Henry Jenkins and Mark Andrejevic offer two very different assessments of interactivity and participatory culture. Please post your discussion questions about these positions below, using the following as a guide:

1. What does Jenkins mean by the terms, "convergence," "participatory culture" and "collective intelligence"?
2. What is the role of individuals' "active participation" in convergence culture, according to Jenkins? Do you agree?
3. What does Jenkins mean when he describes media convergence as both a "top-down corporate-driven process and a bottom-up consumer-driven process"? As such, what are the possibilities and limitations of media convergence for democracy, according to Jenkins? Do you agree?
4. How does American Idol demonstrate these possibilities and limitations? What are some examples from the show? Can you think of examples from other media?

5. How does Andrejevic's perspective on media participation and interactivity differ from that of Jenkins? Does he believe that interactivity offers democratic potential? Do you agree?
6. Andrejevic reflects on why individuals are drawn to interactivity, discussing its "promise" and appeal. What are some of the reasons he notes? What is his assessment?
7. Why does Andrejevic question the kinds of "freedom" accessible through interactivity?
8. What examples does Andrejevic offer to demonstrate the limitations of the "freedom" accessible through commercialized forms of interactivity? What do you think of this? Can you think of other examples?

Barbie of the East

| 5 Comments

After the lecture on Monday I was very intrigued by the synergy created by Mattel. Creating international products is very important the to the growth of a company. Mattel does a great job at globalization and I think the article misses some of those positives. Perhaps, some people of Indian took offense to the Barbie doll, but it seems that the majority approved of the doll. Huge companies like Mattel know what they are getting into. Mattel is an established brand name when it comes to making toys and they knew what type who to target when it came to selling dolls in Indian. I think this is where the term economic globalization comes into play. This goes deeper than just creating an "Indian" Barbie doll. Using an iconic figure in Barbie instantly creates some type of hysteria in young girls no matter what the nationality. Parents will buy the dolls even if they might not necessarily agree with company and their actions. This creates a whole new market and if Mattel does a good job, then their brand name instantly becomes the biggest. This will help in selling other products not just toys. Their message is what the people of Indian get to see and experience. In my opinion, this is everything. If you control a particular market, you control everything. Advertisers cater to what you want and the idea of supply and demand is swayed to your side. I think this could be the ultimate goal of economic globalization.

Traveling Barbie

| 2 Comments

This article piece was particularly very interested for me because I had similar experiences with Barbie. It talks about how Barbie in India was consumed and how it affected in the context of transnationalism and economic liberalization. Being grew up in Japan, and I have experienced that other culture, especially from U.S., has widespread in my country and kind of transformed the original culture and recreated a new culture. I think this was the transnationalism that the author is talking about, and similar things happened to consumers in India. In case of Barbie, the general Barbie was marketed in my country, different from the Barbie in India, but still it gave us the sense of "buying of America." As the world is becoming more and more global, we now see lots of transnationalism in every culture. I think that transnationalism through economic liberalization, and through consumer subject is a good thing for each country to represent their culture and exchange it with one another.

Traveling Barbie

| No Comments

This article piece was particularly very interested for me because I had similar experiences with Barbie. It talks about how Barbie in India was consumed and how it affected in the context of transnationalism and economic liberalization. Being grew up in Japan, and I have experienced that other culture, especially from U.S., has widespread in my country and kind of transformed the original culture and recreated a new culture. I think this was the transnationalism that the author is talking about, and similar things happened to consumers in India. In case of Barbie, the general Barbie was marketed in my country, different from the Barbie in India, but still it gave us the sense of "buying of America." As the world is becoming more and more global, we now see lots of transnationalism in every culture. I think that transnationalism through economic liberalization, and through consumer subject is a good thing for each country to represent their culture and exchange it with one another.

Blog #11

| No Comments

Global brand looks trying to frontier new market out of their mother country. The brands don't hesitate to adjust in different cultural nations. There is example about bobby doll in India. These kinds of examples are also in Korea. If you go to McDonald's in Korea, you could find few more menu like Bulgogie (Korean BBQ) burger, and tomato bacon burger. This phenomenon is not special today. In case of Wal-Mart couldn't success in Korean Market because they managed same as they did in America. Failure to adapt and innovate will lead to obsolete buildings and obsolete companies. On the other hand the Hollywood movie "Kung fu Panda" was banned in China last few years ago. The most reason they banned the movie "Kung fu Panda" was about difference of culture. Hollywood movie cooperation has treated another kind of culture such as African, Asian and Russian. However many times they made film in the view of their perspective. For example, to enforced capitalism put on the animation movie might make some Chinese uncomfortable. As you know, in recent years the Indian Diasporas have been targeted as investors in the Indian liberalization programs and as consumers of Indian products. The world is changing. If any companies enterprise without understanding about the circumstance and culture , they cannot persuade to sell their commodities and cannot get success.

Blog: Life and Debt

| No Comments

The film "Life and Debt" was interesting to reconsider for understanding what the globalization brings to the world. I think many people consider globalization as a good effect and should be prevailed, but this film warns one side idea causes serious problems. In Jamaica, the globalization brought them a free trading market, but extremely cheaper products disturbed the market, and domestic businesses got serious damages.
For maintaining the domestic employment rate, the Jamaican government made the free-zone that appeals to foreign companies to enterprise. However, the free zone became just an advantage of multinational corporations for achieving cheap labors. When I learned about globalization, I always see just positive effect of it. For example, there are solving large scale problems such like climate change, human rights, and terrorism.
Anyway, this case is similar problem as the expectable problem of ongoing the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is tax free treaty among participating countries. TPP abrogates tariff and non-barriers to trade in the countries, and which is estimated as a system that maximizing economic growth. Main countries that signed this treaty are Singapore, Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, America, Australia, Vietnam, and so on. However, the expectable problem of this treaty is that developed countries or stronger businesses also exploit developing countries and smaller businesses as Jamaica's case.
Thus, we need to be careful about what globalization cause: it is not always good influences.

Jingyan Jiang-Blog Eleven

| 1 Comment

Grewal's article about the traveling Barbie is quite interesting since I experienced Barbie's "travel" in Shanghai, China years ago. The flag store in Shanghai was located in one of the busiest shopping and business locations. The store had three level: the street level, second floor and the third floor. THe street level is designed to be the show room, or somewhat like an small Barbie musume. The second floor was used to show the available Barbies, and an asian-style Barbie was shown in that floor. Unlike the Indian Barbie, the asian doll is the asian stereo type in western's eyes. The doll is pretty skinny, tanned skin color and her eye makeup makes "she" has a flying eye due to the technique used to her eye liner. The third floor is used as customer service floor, in which you can have your idea heard. But the Barbie's business was not successful in Shanghai, China, and that flag store closed in roughly three years. I think the main reason is that the company didn't run an integrated marketing campaign. I didn't see any TV commercial, and the only "news" I see is the PR campaign shown on TV to promote the new store.

Barbie, the world traveler

| No Comments

Grewal's article this week was interesting, because it addressed a popular product that originated in the United States that has been marketed in other areas of the world with the intent to uphold American culture but intent to integrate into foreign, in this case, Indian culture. My focus for my post will really examine the one way street of promotion that Barbie tries to accomplish in India versus the idea that if India tried to send over a product to the United States the effect or lack of it would have in America. Let's take a look at the slogan on page 169 that describes Barbie's latest arrival into India, "Dressing in an all-seasons classic saree with exotic borders, Barbie is totally at home in India." First off, this description sounds a little superficial/fake, because it uses words like all-seasons, exotic and totally, which really just sounds like a lame American phrase that sounds like Mattel is obligated to try and integrate Barbie into a diverse realm of culture. I can actually picture this particular phrase being uttered by Barbie herself--a blonde, ditzy, shallow woman. But moving on from Barbie's attempt of integration into India, can you even imagine if the roles were reversed? In other words, what if India tried to market one of their dolls, we'll use the name Raji, for instance in the United States? Would Raji even stand a chance? No--no way, no how--ask anyone. There's not a media in the world that even comes close like the one in America. Our advertisers, companies, media agencies are the best and know how to sell and reach their targeted audiences. We're a world power for a reason. Our media is better, stronger, and we have the resources and the money to capitalize on a product, like Barbie. Moral of the story being, if you have resources, like the funds, and the talent, you will beat your competitor every single time. America has a way of implanting a hot commodity and having it take off regardless of the location.

Blog 11

| 1 Comment

I felt as though watching the movie Forrest Gump in class allowed me to be able to better understand the reading. I thought it was very interesting that Forrest became an all-american role model citizen. He was an all-american for alabama football. He was a war hero and won a medal. He made a successful business out of blue collar work with his shrimping business. And he "got the girl" in the end and had a son with her. I also found it very interesting that the woman in this movie was often rescued in situations where she was partaking in radical behavior. The theme in the second half was Forrest Gump doing what he was told and doing what he believed to be right and it happened to always rescue Jenny from her own destruction. Like going against the status quo has results similar to Jenny's. We talked in class about how this can be misleading. Yes, there are many cases like Forrest's, but there is also many cases where listening to what you are told results in you becoming a pawn for someone else's persuasive efforts. So I believe this is the message you are supposed to get in the movie and it just doesn't measure up to reality, and it is also beneficial for citizens to critically think and challenge the structures of our society to see where we fit.

Please post your DQs on Grewal's essay "Traveling Barbie: Indian Transnationality and New Consumer Subjects" below, using the following to guide your reading:
1. How has economic liberalization produced new consumer subjects in India?
2. What does Grewal mean by "transnational localism" and what is its role in the production of subjects? (802)
3. What do you think about the discussion of the "subject of transnational consumption" (803-804)? What is the relationship of this construction of the consumer to the marketing of things like Barbie?
4. What do you think of Grewal's discussion of Mattel's simultaneous production of difference and universality in its marketing? Why is it important to consider the persistence of global inequalities in this context (808)? In other words, how is diversity incorporated into Mattel's toys? Why does this fall short, for Grewal? (809)
5. Grewal states: "Mattel continues to seek lower costs and to increase its visibility globally. While it espouses a discourse of universality of children's play along side American values of heteronormative, gendered racism as marketing strategy, its practices in India suggest that it relies on localized gendered formations to succeed. In their transnational localism, American values remain but become modified" (806). What does she mean in this passage?
6. How does Mattel view the world? How does it view the appeal of its products? And how does it view the desires of its target consumers? Why is the relevant to understanding the subjects of transnational consumer culture? (809)
7. How and for what reasons was Mattel's marketing a struggle in India? How has it been a struggle to turn "many classes of children into active consumers of global brands" for transnationals? What, in your opinion, is at stake in this process?
8. How is transnational consumer culture participating in shifts in gendered and classed subjectivities?
9. Why is it crucial to think about transnational capital when making sense of these cultural shifts?
10. What does Grewal mean by the "Indian cosmopolitan subject"?

Forrest

| 3 Comments

The whole article was very interesting. I having seen Forrest Gump many times, had never looked at the movie in that way. The way that each scene can be connected to a major event in history, is an interesting point. I would personally like to believe that the makers of the movie did not do this on purpose, but know that this possibly was their hidden agenda from the beginning. I find it interesting that producers use movies and other forms of media to send such strong or one sided opinions. While I do not agree with this way of attempting to get your point across, the point made in the article about the movies focus on social known facts from the past where some points that can be found as a learning tool and not just one side an an opinion. When talking about the different life styles that Jenny goes through, I while watching the movie would not have made the connection to the time periods. The fact about Jenny's death is one that I would not have known without having to go looking for an answer. The article shows that movies can be just as influential in political and personal views as news reports, television shows, or books. What are some other movies that we can look at as a influential movie like Forrest Gump, but is also able to be viewed as possibly just for entertainment? and What do you think the directors agenda was for that movie.

Forrest Gump

| No Comments

I have never looked at the movie Forrest Gump fromt the perspective that was brought up in the reading. I think that Jenny represents what happened to many people that lived through those times. I do think that she represented probably the cliches of what historically happened. I don't think that Forrest Gump's story is that realistic of all the things that he stumbled apon. Even though he had so much good fortune by accident you still feel bad for him. I also wonder how would we preceive the story differently if the gender roles were changed. The special needs person was female and the person who was portrayed as rebellious and wordly was a male. Would we think that it was more ok because rebel males are commonly portrayed in media and think that it was less cliche of all the situations that the character experienced? Would be more disgusted that a special needs female was having sex with a non special needs male?

Discussion question for last week

| 1 Comment

think that people naturally feel bad for people with disabilities. My sister has epilepsy and she hardly tells anyone because she doesn't want them to treat her different. Is a main reason that they are misrepresented in the media because disabled people naturally evoke emotion that may not be otherwise intended or wanted?

Blog #10

| No Comments

After watching the movie "Forrest Gump" in class, I watched full story of the movie at home, and read "The Face of America" again. I was interesting about Forrest's part of citizen. There were very famous world events in the movie, and that happens were important American history. Almost happen was not related with Gump, but some happen was related with Forrest Gump. It is interesting in that there is no ideological and political view into that happens. In the movie the name of Gump looks defines "normal". According to the author of "the face of America" Gump defines "normal" through the star's traumatized survival of a traumatic national history, which effectively rewrites the traumas of mass unrest if the last few decades not as responses to systemic malaise, exploitation, or injustice, but as purely to the dead, the violent, and the violated. The other point was the two different type of life style between Jenny and Forrest.
Jenny's family was very conservative, but Jenny didn't want to do like her parents. She want free. Actually she was influenced by hippie and tried to do freely life from the world. However she lived worse than before. She was wandering in the world. In the contrast, Forrest was doing totally different life. His life was on being normal, average, common, ordinary, standard, typical and usual in America. He applied for U.S. ARMY. That was pretty typical life style in 1960s. It was totally different way with Jenny. Paradoxically, Jenny's life was completely different life she wanted. Adversely the world she showed was more cold, and narrow. Also it was exclusive by her ideology. On the other hands, Forrest He kept plowing a lonely furrow regardless of what others think, and it show people the possibility of success in the world. Even though he was disability citizen, he could get success when he lived by principle the world want.

The Face of America

| No Comments

This week's reading was also a little difficult to understand what the author was trying to talk about... But after I watched the movie, "Forrest Gump" during the class, I really enjoyed it and it made me to understand better. When I first watched this movie, I did not put the meaning on this movie too much like Berlant stated on her article. But I think the author over analyzed a lot of thing about this movie. Maybe Berlant's main point that she wanted to deliver in her article was what political message Forrest's intelligence level. I believe some points that she claimed about the movie such as the government aspects were true but the other arguments was didn't make me to understand why she pointed out and made me more confused. I do not know I am right track on this article or not, I believe that the face of America has changed and still currently changing. I understood why she pointed out about 'The face of America' after watching Forrest Gump and discussion in the class, but it was real difficult topic to me read, especially for me, as a non-American citizen.

Blog Post, Week 11

| No Comments

I thought our discussions this week were extremely interesting and everything we discussed hit so close to him. As a sign language student, I have come to develop a different understanding of the word 'disabled'. I think it is important to remember that labeling someone as 'disabled' simply because they fit into a particular category, is doing them a great injustice. I think it is important to remember that we have the ability to create equal opportunity without pitying. Watching moves like Forest Gump and Temple Grandin are perfect examples of how someone who would normally fit in the 'disabled' category are in some cases even more successful than most individuals surrounding them. Disabled often translates over to being more abled in other ways. All in all, I think these movies are extremely important to helping shape awareness. That being said, I thought it was very interesting to see how these individuals often were removed from most social constraints. Gump leads a much easier life than Grandin does. Here it becomes very important to be a critical media consumer.

Our discussion on disabilities

| 2 Comments

I think it is very beneficial that we took the time in class to discuss a minority group that is largely overlooked when it comes to civil rights. Many people with disabilities wish they could go about the normal activities of their day without being treated as if they were different. This seems very obvious on one level, they have had to alter the way they do almost everything on a day to day basis in order to function in a world not specifically designed for someone with their disability. Feeling like an outcast, ostracized from the rest of civilization would be brutal for the basic human need of acceptance. I think if we present people with disabilities more frequently on television programs, without defining them by their disability, our society can move towards one in which people are not defined by their situation. In terms of the idea of deafness, I personally would consider this to be a disability. I know when we discussed this in class, the consensus was that these people have learned to adapt and don't wish to be viewed as disabled. In reality, I think that a lack of one of the most commonly used senses would qualify as disabled. I'm sure there is a certain amount of pride that goes along with being able to live without hearing in a world not designed for someone with that condition, but it would certainly make life more difficult and I think we should still be accommodating, though that does not mean that these people should be treated differently.

Riley, How the Media Transforms Disability

| 1 Comment

I personally like Riley's piece about how the Media transforms disability, and it was really interesting to me because I never thought of this issue before. Also, the class discussion was a good opportunity to ask myself, "What defines disability". The article included the quotes from James Charlton which says that disabilities are socially constructed, and I agree with his points. Because there is more than single definition to "disability" and it may differ form society to society. As we discussed in the class, if society treats somebody as if they are disabled, then they are. In terms of constructing the idea of disability, media is also influential as same as the society. If media portray somebody to be disabled, then the audience will get an idea and generally percept the idea. As the movie we watched in the class, people, who have some sort of sickness and are generally considered as disability, don't think in the same way as how we think about them. So we, including those media which portray them in stereotypical way, should not assume and define what is mean to be disabled. Through the lecture and movie, I could get an idea that they are a lot different from what we think about them. And we should be careful when we perceive something from media, because media includes lots of biased toward a particular person or particular thing, which creates stereotypes. And this stereotypes that media created can influence us to create another stereotypes in the society.

Blog 11/15

| 1 Comment

I left from class to go to the Airport and as I walked onto the light rail and chose to stand, I looked down and there was a man in a wheel chair right infront me. I thought about everything we talked about in class. I looked up at a sign that read something like "Please allow persons with disabilities or elderly to use seating areas." There was a discussion question about having pity on the disabled, I thought the sign was unneeded. I read it and thought...duh. The fact that there is a sign there is putting pity on the disabled. Maybe it was because I went straight from class to the light rail but it was pretty eye opening.

In terms of Gump, I could talk for days. But what I brought up in class was that Forrest and Jenny were the two opposite sides of America. Forrest was the All-American Football Player, a purple heart recipient, a World-Champion Ping pong player, met tons of presidents and had a romantic moment in the most American place/situation possible with Jenny. However, Jenny was the opposite. She grew up with a dysfunctional family, a hippie phase, a drug phase, a black panther phase... Her and Forrest were the perfect opposite match for each other which showed both parts of American culture.These two representations of America show the culture of this era. I love this movie for the obvious humor but also, both the sound track and the events depict these decades in an accurate and entertaining way.

Jingyan Jiang-Blog Ten

| No Comments

I do personally love the film Forest Gump, and I remembered the question I had when I was watching the film, "How come he became so successful with all different incidents?".

I feel this is the power of movie and transcript writing, by which all the "accident" but "normal" steps that follow the principle of the American society lead to the success of Forest even with his lowered brain competency compared with some other people in the society.

I think such an idea of following the society norms in order to be successful is also prevalent in China. We have all been told to be a nice person and do nice things to others will bring us good luck in everything when we were little. The society norms in China are like following rules and try to be a nice human being and citizen. I don't really feel this is problematic since to me that are very basic. But the problematic side I feel is that we tend to everyone are tend to be similar, and the society is easy to be controlled by a single message since our "receptor" is the same.

Disabled?

| 1 Comment

This weeks lectures raised some really great points. We read about the stigmas that are placed on people who are, in our society, often referred to as disabled. I have to say that I feel as though it is not necessarily up to us to decide or label those who are disabled or not. Like the example shown in the "Switched At Birth" clip, deaf people are often times categorized in the group of disabled, when really that is not at all how they view themselves. It becomes almost offensive. Deaf view themselves as just a minority group rather. So if someone is a little slower, not exactly up to par, "not normal", does that mean they are disabled? I think with any aspect of life that people may not match up exactly like us, we are quick to put the disabled hat on them.

Disabilities in Media

| No Comments

I found the Riley article to be very interesting because he presented arguments that i really had not seen before and this really opened my eyes to different perspectives on disabilities. I liked how he said that disabled people cannot be "sadcrips" or "supercrips" meaning that poeple with disabilities should be treated with pity, or as a hero simply because of their disability. They should be treated perfectly equal as everyone else without disabilities are. i also really liked where he talked about how many people in the deaf community do not consider themselves disabled and i found it very interesting that it is non disabled people that get to decide who is disabled and who is not. He brings up that people should not be treated differently because of their disability but should just be recognized as part of a minority culture. I had never really though of this before but especially after watching switched at birth, and the scene with the school for the deaf, but there really are deaf communities and even outside of the community she could still interact just as well as someone who was not deaf would have been able to. There would be no real reason to consider her as disabled anymore. Im sure that it would be extremely hard learning to read lips and speak early in life, and at that point deafness would be a real disability. However after this skills are learned there is really no disability in being deaf, and deaf people do not need handouts, they are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.

Blog 11/15

| No Comments

The topic we discussed in this week is really interesting to consider. As "Heroes of Assimilation" indicates that mass media tends to depict disabled people mainly into two stereotypes. One is describing them through emphasizing sad, unlucky, in need of pity and charity. Another is praising disabled people's achievements such like plucky, hard, and spurious challenges. Those are designed for charity, raising funds to cure an illness or people who have inherent medical bent. In fact, I do not know any other mass media productions that describe people with disability with negative images without those expressions. Except some animation characters, such as Captain Hook from Peter Pan, but he is not inborn disabled guy.
Most media products I have seen are exactly same as this essay pointed out. Disabled people are appeared in as people who appeal to viewers something emotional. The common expressions that indicate are that they are living in harder life. I had a friend who had muscular dystrophy told me that he did not like people who think feeling pity on him is good for him. He always wanted people treat him as equal as other people do. Off course, he needed support, but he always tried to do by himself. On the other hand, mass media does is only showing them as people always need help. Such expressions describe real people as ambiguously same way, and lead other people to feel pity on them. However, they do not try to see how disabled people feel toward how others treat them. What I think mass media need is that the productions also need to make more diversified contents for releasing people from clinging pity view of disabled people.

Forrest Gump

| No Comments

I found the article about Forrest Gump interesting, though I am not what it says the film presents is what the creators were going for. It seemed to me that Forrest and Jenny were born into the same world that eventually took very different paths. Forrest took the path many Americans take, doing what society tells them to, and in many cases this works out for them. In Forrest's case, it works out very well. Much to his confusion and disbelief, he is rewarded intensely for simply being what society would call a "good citizen" and going with the flow. On the other hand, Jenny take the opposite path, she chooses to challenge the "national culture" by joining protests, living a nomadic lifestyle and believing that a peace is possible without war. Both paths oppose each other greatly but both paths are American. The two characters who represent these ideals are in love... symbolic? They have a child together and he is, to quote Forrest, "He's the most beautiful thing I've ever seen." The child is the symbol of what came out of one of the most challenging times in America in the 20th century. What I think Forrest Gump is trying to say is that America, learned from the 60s, from the Vietnam War and a new "national culture" was born. Whether or not this is true is definitely debatable.

Disability

| No Comments

I like the fact that we discussed ideas about disability and what we think as disabled. I thought about it for a while after leaving class and thinking about it. How can we put a solid definition on disability? We can all agree that anyone who is at a disadvantage in society as having a disability. But at what point does it no longer become a disability? When we think of someone in a wheelchair, we don't always think disabled unless there is something that they want to do that is completely unavailable to them based on things like ability to get there. But cognitively they aren't at a disadvantage, so is it still ok? I think cognitive disabilities are more serious than physical. Like with the deaf community, they are just a minority, not necessarily a disabled community. We all (in my opinion) have our own disabilities (physical, mental, reasoning. We have have strengths and weaknesses, can be thought of as minor disabilities). But we don't think of them as such because we think of things like PTSD and blindness and mental disabilities.

I think the idea should be more about answering a question like, "Can the person in question function in society with little disadvantage?" Sure, we still need to cater to differences (ramps, light signals on fire alarms, etc.)

I watched Rain Man with my roommate last night and I think it was good to compare that to Forrest Gump. Lt. Dan and Forrest are two interesting characters to consider. Lt. Dan didn't have use of his legs, but he still had the ability to function in society. Raymond (in Rain Man) is someone who is an autistic savant. While Raymond was so smart, he was not able to function in normal society, while Forrest, someone who has a childish innocence and brain power, was able to function well enough in society. While Forrest Gump by no means represents the typical case of someone in a similar situation as him, I think it is important to think about and realize when talking about something so grey (not black and white by any stretch of the imagination), we need to consider things by a case to case basis. I don't know, maybe this is just me rambling about a really long thought process revolving around two movies and kind of thinking about real life.
Once I thought about what I would think of myself if one day I couldn't hear a thing. I don't think I would consider myself disabled, but other people might think of me as disabled.

Disability: Operationally Defined, Social Construct

| 1 Comment

As I was saying lecture, to me the concept of being disabled really signifies as being disadvantaged. In society's eyes, those are considered disabled are at a disadvantage from the rest of the world. It may sound vague, and it should, just because having a disability could range from just about anything. For instance, some people may have a drinking disability. Superficially on the surface, they are fine, but emotionally they are at a disadvantage and drinking might appeal as the only satiable coping mechanism. I'm sure that when you think of the construct: disability you are more apt to think about a physical adversity, but the range is incredibly broad. People who experience attention deficit disorder may have a disability, because our society says that one who is unable to focus or have an efficient attention span has ADD. It was interesting to hear the discussion about disabilities in class. What especially stood out was deaf people: the mere fact that people who are deaf admit that there is nothing wrong with them is breathtaking, because to the rest of the world, those people are at a significant auditory disadvantage. Somebody may be missing one or more of their limbs but still consider their self an able bodied individual. Are they disabled? Are you mentally disabled for thinking that they are disabled? Personally, I believe it is at the individual's discretion to justify if they are disabled or at at least disadvantaged or not. Only you know yourself better than anyone else.

Berlant, "The Face of America and the State of Emergency"

| 12 Comments

Selections from: Lauren Berlant, "The Face of America and the State of Emergency"

Read the following sections:
a) "On Being Normal, Average, Common..." pp 180-182 (66-68 of the course packet, section on Forest Gump)
b) AND pp 209-220 (82-88 of the course packet, section on Michael Jackson's "Black or White" and the conclusion).

And please post your discussion question below, using the following as a guide:

1) Lauren Berlant points to the "privatization of citizenship" as a worrying trend visible across a range of media. What does she mean by the "privatization of citizenship" and why is it a concern? How do media participate in this tendency, for Berlant?
2) According to Lauren Berlant, what arguments is the movie Forest Gump making about public and private life and about "good citizenship"?
3) How does Forest Gump imagine "America" as a constructed national entity?
4) How does Michael Jackson's music video Black or White both participate in and complicate the "privatization of citizenship" and the related tendencies that Berlant observes?
5) In your experience, what kinds of arguments have you noticed media making about what counts as "good citizenship" and the kinds of "national life" good citizens ought to engage in? Do you agree with Berlant that this production of norms participates in the "privatization" of citizenship? If not, why not? If so, what do you think are the consequences?

SLUMPy class

| 3 Comments

I believe that the idea of the SLUMPy class that we discussed this week offers very interesting insight into the psychology of the people within our realm of society. It feeds on the idea that people want to 'feel' like they are making a difference as opposed to wanting the actual results to come to be. People volunteer all of the time and usually it is so they can feel good about themselves. Much of the time, with a point of reference, these individuals would be disappointed to learn how little an impact this is actually making. I am not saying all people are bad people for wanting to feel a sense of accomplishment for doing what they think is the right thing, but I'm saying that this as a primary motivator leads to a disconnect between effort and results. In the case of homosexuality, it is hip to be accepting and so people want to be hip. The primary motivator is not so much achieving actual equality as it is being the person who was 'cutting edge' enough to fight for the equality of other people. This is the impression I had throughout much of this campaign season with our proposed marriage amendment. The bill itself was flawed on many different levels and there were numerous reasons to vote 'no' (in my personal opinion), but the reason that seemed to resonate the most was 'vote no so Minnesota doesn't become one of those un-hip southern states'. The real discussion should have been based around the question 'why does the state have any say in what constitutes a marriage at all?'. I can not say that I think America is making moves to expand its middle class (as the term is loaded and any real results of this would be impossible to measure), but I think we are socially expanding our SLUMPy class at an exponential rate.

90's television

| 5 Comments

After the Wednesday discussion I realized how much different today is compared to the 90's. It is hard for me to understand any other decades because I wasn't even born, but I can examine the 90's fairly well. Television did really suppress homosexuality and the though being sexually different was comical for the slumpy class. I feel like people weren't ready to except homosexuality in every day television. Producers were looking for high ratings and putting openly gay characters on the screen would hurt ratings. Advertisers control everything in terms of economics. I really don't believe that advertisers would want people watching explicitly homosexual characters and situations. The white middle class wasn't ready yet and time eventually changed people's attitude. I can see the change in today's world. I watch shows with very non traditional attitudes and that gives me comfort. I would compare today's TV shows and the 90's TV shows as this: People in the 90's "laughed at homosexual situations" and people today "laugh with homosexual situations." The marriage amendment clearly shows this change in people's attitude. Non traditional view points are becoming prevalent and accepted. This should be recognized by critics. I know America is a long way from completely accepting multicultural people but strides have been taken and it seems America is on the right track.

Please post your discussion questions on Riley, "Heroes of Assimilation: How the Media Transform Disability" below, using the following as a guide:

1. Why are economics important to consider when analyzing the relationship between media representation and power?
2. Who, according to Riley, is responsible for the misrepresentation of disability in the media?
3. What are the three epochs of understandings of diversity? What do you think are the consequences of these?
4. How did civil rights fit into the discourses and policy-making surrounding disability? That is, what does Riley mean by a shift from "medical" to "civil rights" view of diversity?
5. What does Riley mean when he argues that disability is "socially constructed"? What is the media's role in this construction?
6. How have media represented disability, according to Riley? What examples of media representations of disability can you think of? Do your examples reflect what Riley is arguing? Why/why not?

blog 11/9

| No Comments

This article and the discussion were both a little confusing at first, but I feel as though I have a pretty good grasp on it now. The term "affordable" I thought was a great way to describe the concept. It makes sense in regards that it is easy to show gay culture without really approaching the problem of LGBT exposure in the media. It made even more sense when we discussed how in the late 90's there wasn't a lot of african american families portrayed in television due to the current economy. Which made a lot of sense to me. You can't have a show with a family in the projects, because that is depressing tv that most would not want to view, and you would think there would be backlash if there were a bunch of tv programs with black families that were well off. So by introducing gay characters and gay themes in shows it becomes affordable, as they can get the slumpy class and have a multicultural aspect. I believe in a time of incidents like the Matthew Shepard incident, having the mindset of affordability involving gay culture is a bit upsetting. It was almost as if they believe that it was the right time based off of the economy, not that it was the right time due to present culture.

Deborah, Blog Post, Week 10

| 2 Comments

Out of this week's readings, the reading on Constructing a Violent White Masculinity stuck with me the most. I find today's popular media often are intent on portraying the violence of males through news coverage and popular film and television. Often times, the female roles in television are perpetuated as victimized and abused. While there is some truth to this portrayal that could be construed as realism rather than feminism, there is also a rise in the amount of female on male violence that at times goes unnoticed because it occurs in far fewer numbers. Many times when discussion of feminist media and violence are brought up, scholars mention the movie 'Thelma and Louise' is brought up. In many ways, this is a great example because it shows a feminist uprising against oppressive and violent white males. However, in most of these demonstrations of female violence the women are responding to indiscretions that occurred to them while they were totally innocent. Very rarely is female violence shown as unwarranted where male violence is almost always unwarranted. Can you think of any examples that conflict with this observation?

Katz

| 1 Comment

I really enjoyed reading the article Katz wrote. It was nice to read about something new and that was very understandable. I was really interested in how he classified the different types that men are categorized as. I also enjoyed his examples of these types of men as well as the different groups they belong to, like the military or just how they are a "type" of man, athletic or not. I feel the article brought to attention that not just women are expected to act a specific way and that they are not the only ones with advertisements aimed at them. The fact that women are targeted in sometimes a sexual way or even in a negative way to make them want a product is not unknown. Many do not think about the fact that men are also being targeted, and when looked at the advertisements make men feel worse about themselves then most of the women advertisements do. As well as being told "they are not manly enough" advertisers tell them they can only be manly if they do this or that. Violence being one of the major ways to "become manly". I really enjoyed that Katz discussed this fact that men are also targeted and in many different ways, and his classifications of the different types of men.

Katz

| 1 Comment

I found Jackson Katz article on masculinity to be extremely interesting i really liked it because i could actually relate to it. Sometimes i have trouble relating to some of the other articles but this one i really liked reading. I agreed with almost all of his points and found them to be true to my own life. I also really liked that he brought up eminem simply because i do like eminem and i know about him and his image. However i would be interested to know how Katz would view eminems whiteness. Does this help him or hurt him? In other articles we have read whiteness was always invisible, it was viewed as the norm and other people are compared to that. However in the rap game the norm is being black not white. So in this case eminem was very visible because of his race, the opposite of what is usually the case. I do recognize that this is clearly not the norm but it would still be interesting to know what someone that is well versed in issues such as this would say about it.

Blog 11/8

| No Comments


I have said this before but I do really enjoy the structure of this class, being able to watch the content we are reading about. I am such a visual learning that even with Becker laying out the Seinfield scene via text, I obtained a better understanding through the 30 second clip we watched. The scene with Jerry and George pretending to be gay, then appearing gay, then denying being gay, was pretty interesting to me. It was almost like the gaze we talked about in the transgender readings. In my opinion, the two guys panicked and tried to tell the reporter they weren't gay because they were worried how they were looked upon by her, and then confirming it by saying they are not bigots. The way the dialogue changed in that scene correlated with the gaze. Same thing for the Will and Cop situation. The discussion that we had about who was gay or who was talking about which gay person was or wasnt gay....or whatever. I think that scene was so confusing because of the concept of the gaze. The establishment of power or stance in this scene and how the audience perceives it is exactly what Mulvey and Halberstam were debating. How the actors talk to each other and how we the audience becomes aware of it is pretty interesting to me.

Jingyan Jiang-Blog Nine

| No Comments

Becker's argument about the Slumpy Class and their misobservation of race, political, and economy inequility in the society is so understandable in today's U.S. media. The relationship between programming strategies and the target audiences are the key for developing new programs. It is all about get the attention of target audience, and influence their daily behavior, activity, thinking, etc. in order to monitor and direct their purchasing. Basically, it's all about money spent from consumers, and money spent by the advertisers to media producers.

I found lots of shows bring in gay charaters now, such as Sex and the City, The Big Bang Theory and Modern Family (just name a few). Certainly, these shows are different from gay-themed shows in early 90's as Becker talked in his article, it's so clear that gay character in Sex and the City has a fabulous job; Jim Parsons(Sheldon) is an open-gay in his real life but being portried as super smart and well-known in his field in The Big Bang Theory(as their slogan says: Smart is the sexy), and the gay couple in Modern Family is embracing the idea of Family that they adopted a child and seem to have a wonderful life.

But no real life issue is mentioned in any of those shows, which identicles Becker's idea that inequility is missed and never got mentioned. This is quite problematic to Becker and I feel it's troublesome as well since audiences can never have a chance to think about such issues, and no improvements can be made.

Blog 11/8/12

| No Comments

The times have definitely changed when it comes to the integration of queer/gay culture into the media mix. In the 90's the emergence of the slumpy class, proved that society was beginning to become open-minded and it was seen as "hip" and "edgy" to have open beliefs towards ideas that were historically "uncomfortable". Originally when gay themes began to creep into everyday television sitcoms, it was a laughable topic, as it was still a new idea, and wasn't the norm. Looking at shows that are popular in this decade such as Glee or Modern family, it is starting to become normalized within our culture and has quite a different effect than our favorite 90's shows, such as Seinfeld, or Will and Grace. Gay characters are starting to become main characters in popular programs, incorporating that 'day to day' feeling, increasing the normalcy. I still think that incorporating gay characters in shows is a great marketing strategy for producers, as media consumers are still exploring this queer concept and it is interesting to watch. I sometimes wonder if in the near future, people will not think twice when seeing gay characters and it will become so normalized that producers will have to think of a new idea to attract the eyes of the public.

Blog #9

| No Comments

I read a article written by Jackson Katz. This article is very interesting for me. I never think that he is talking in this article. In the past few years, there has been growing attention paid in media and cultural studies to the power of cultural images of masculinity. This focus is long overdue. But historically, an absence of a thorough body of research and inquiry into the construction of masculine imagery is consistent with the lack of attention paid to other dominant groups. According to the Kartz's article, the target of advertising is white working class male. The rock, heavy metal, and rap-metal cultures of recent decades have produced numerous male artists who perform a White, working-class "rebel" masculinity that embodies all sorts of violent angers and resentments and seeks validation in the defiance of middle class manners and social conventions. Not surprisingly, advertisers have sought to use this young white man with an attitude in their marketing of products to young males. The appeal of violent behavior for men, including its rewards, is coded into main stream advertising in numerous ways: from violent male icons overtly threatening consumers to buy products to ads that exploit men's feelings of not being big, strong, or violent enough by promising to provide them with products that will enhance those qualities. Masculine figures such as Rocky, Rambo, and Conan the Conqueror, are great example of traditional western heroes. And we showed like above heroes nowadays in movie. For example the movie "the avengers", there are many kinds of here in the story, and their characteristics are pretty same in that they are masculinity heroes.

Becker, Gay-Themed Television and the Slumpy Class

| No Comments

This article and the class discussion was really interesting to me. Therefore, it was very surprising for me to see these kinds of episodes in the show or the TV programing. As Becker stated, the dramatic increase of gay material in the 1990s on the television indicates that network executives believed that including gay characters and gay-themed episode was just such an effective marketing strategy. I think that this statement is very true, especially when the gay- themed episode is represented as laughable stories most of the time. In order to get attention from the audiences, I feel like the gay-themed episode is very effective in a way that people would at lease pay attention to the story more than just a normal story. Especially in 1990s, this phenomenon could see more often that the today's programing. Now that our sexual identity has been able to freely expressed within the community, but I believe that the situation was a lot different in the 90s. So, I feel that the gay-themed episode was very standout and shocking and it was something that people would feel interesting. Now that I might be used to see the Gay-themed programs and see the contents about gays because I have lived in U.S. for 3 years. However, this topic is never discussed in my country, Japan, and the issue around "gay" or "same-sex" is still something that we cannot really talk about in public. I guess the shocking feeling when I first saw the gay-themed episode in the U.S was similar to those audiences in 1990s. The gay-themed episode programing might have been something that they cannot talk in public, but still interesting to pay attention. I feel like that those episode represented people's real interests and caught attention from them.

gay-themed television and slumpy class

| No Comments

It was really hard to understand the concept of this article and what Becker really tried to say. But after I reading several times and preparing for the discussion for the class, I now understand more than the very first time. Becker asserted that during the 1990s, Americans became increasingly familiar with gay people and culture. Becker is basically arguing that the representations did not challenge the status quo, and so were "affordable" for progressive middle class viewers. The author, Becker's problem is even though people in slumpy class became familiar with gay characters, it did not address economic inequality. A sort of reiteration of the '90s "Slumpy class" phenomenon as described b Becker in which what he called Socially Liberal, Urban-Minded Professionals (SLUMPYs) consumed gay programming as "a convenient way to affirm their open-mindedness." These representations affirmed the hipness of Socially Liberal middle-class straight people without questioning economic inequality.
However, I understand what Becker claiming about and the problem of gay-themed on the television (did not addressing economic inequality through use of gay-themed in the media), I believe that people reduced the barrier of sexual individuality such as gay-themed in nowadays society...

Blog Post 11/8

| 1 Comment

This weeks discussions have been very interesting. The theme of television with queer characters is a popular theme that we are seeing more and more of. I think we are seeing a huge progression in television and the roles of gay characters. In the 80's and 90's, even early millennium. Originally when we would see a character in television that was gay, it would be fairly stereotypical or kind of privatized. Now where we are at, is we see characters who are gay that are totally looked at as normal. I think a great example of this is Modern Family or Glee. Both shows incorporate gay characters into our ever day lives, which I believe is exactly how it should be. This discussion is very interesting to see our medias progress.

Blog 11/8

| No Comments

I thought the article "Advertising and the Construction of Violent White Masculinity" is one good certification of media feature. Jackso Katz describes that mass media provided White masculinity through violence expression. They provided iconic white characters such like acted by Arnold Schwarzenegger, Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis, and Chuck Norris; all actors are related with characters which has been idolized for taking down bad guys down with their massive bodies. What they expressed through their features was power, control, and dominance; the main target of this expression is working class male. I thought interesting point is that this strategy can influence upon people's perspectives toward the working class. For example, focus on the crime quality of working class. Most people concern that as people got to be poorer, people tend to commit crime more actively. Unfortunately, it is truth, and working class people tend to commit crime through more violence way (like robbery). On the other hand, white color crimes tend be more efficient money earning method (like insider trading). Actually, the media producers aim working class, but other factors also can be related like their academic level. Otherwise, it is a stereotypical perspective that we have toward working class. In fact, I have images of highly educated people commit something smart crimes, but poor people commit crimes driven by emotion. One thing I want to say from these things is that this targeting fact can connect to organize new stereotype, such as working class is getting so much influence from violence media productions.

Gay themed Television

| No Comments

I am far from being anything close to being a scholar on the topic of gay themed television programs, but I did learn a few things from the reading and the discussion we had.

I thought it was interesting the ideas about the slumpy class, but when it was discussed, it made sense. And looking back, I can only compare certain things to people acting a little bit like children. For example, In Seinfeld when Jerry and George were mistaken for being gay, they had a big overreaction (to present day eyes, or maybe just my eyes). Looking back, it is the kind of reaction you expect from middle school kids who are thought to be gay. But that was the way it was back then, there was marginal acceptance, but distancing from the crowd. THis is apparent in the "we're not gay, but there's nothing wrong with it"and constantly asserting similar ideas. It pretty much sums up the idea of being savvy and accessible to the viewers. THe problem is that at the same time it puts the gay community in their own little bubble away from the cast, and ultimately from the viewers. I think it is an interesting topic.

Does this idea still pervade in the media today? There are probably many views on this, but I think there is progress. No longer is gay a dirty word that people HAVE to be disassociated from. Most people at least. So I am interested to see where we will be in another ten or twenty years.

The Slumpy Class

| No Comments

Let's talk about the slumpy class and how audience members like them are some of the biggest viewers of comedy. My generation, in my opinion, will become a big part of the slumpy class. I know I consider myself apart of the slumpy class, fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. What really appears to be most appealing to viewers like us, is humor as well as affectionate friendships. Many shows from the 90s, like Seinfeld and Will and Grace are especially appealing, because they are constructed around a group of friends and they depict each other's every day lives. Will and Grace is also able to incorporate 2 gay characters into their show and have it still appeal to just about everyone who watches the program. The mindset of the slumpy seems to appreciate humor but still values...values, like friendship and loyalty. Gay themed television is able to intrigue viewers of the slumpy class, due to its socially liberal appeal. Pretty much anything goes, and in my opinion, members of the slumpy class seem to be the easiest to please when watching television. I generally feel that this group is very easy going and will allow themselves to connect with the show, as if they were actually a character in it.

Gay Themed TV

| No Comments

I thought todays discussion about gay themed television was very interesting becuase when you are watching shows like Friends and Seinfeld you aren't thinking about how they are putting the show together to appeal to you the veiwer in the slumpy class. I think that it is important to point out the progression that we have seen in society from the nineties shows until now. Back then the veiwer may not have been as comfortable with seeing a homosexual couple on tv acting out a normal life whether the veiwer was homosexual or heterosexual. I think that using comedy to make people love the gay character is one of the ways that these TV shows made the character more loveable. Another that we talked about in class that I thought was interesting is that they made them the affluent hipster like what we saw in the clip today. I think that in TV characters often play on preconceived stereotypes and I think that is still true today. The clip of the gay couple in modern family showed one of the characters as very dramatic and I think that character was playing up the stereotype that homosexuals are flamboyant. I don't think thats right but I think most characters on TV comedies use sterotypes to facilitate their humor.

Gay Themed TV

| No Comments

I thought todays discussion about gay themed television was very interesting becuase when you are watching shows like Friends and Seinfeld you aren't thinking about how they are putting the show together to appeal to you the veiwer in the slumpy class. I think that it is important to point out the progression that we have seen in society from the nineties shows until now. Back then the veiwer may not have been as comfortable with seeing a homosexual couple on tv acting out a normal life whether the veiwer was homosexual or heterosexual. I think that using comedy to make people love the gay character is one of the ways that these TV shows made the character more loveable. Another that we talked about in class that I thought was interesting is that they made them the affluent hipster like what we saw in the clip today. I think that in TV characters often play on preconceived stereotypes and I think that is still true today. The clip of the gay couple in modern family showed one of the characters as very dramatic and I think that character was playing up the stereotype that homosexuals are flamboyant. I don't think thats right but I think most characters on TV comedies use sterotypes to facilitate their humor.

Please post your discussion questions on Becker, "Gay-Themed Television and the Slumpy Class: The Affordable, Multicultural Politics of the Gay Nineties" below, using the following questions to guide your reading:

1. What does Becker mean by "an affordable politics of liberalism"? "Affordable" in what way and to whom? What kind of "liberalism" is he talking about?
2. How did 1990s gay-themed television fit into this "affordable politics"?
3. Why is this a problem, for Becker?
4. What are some examples of 90s television that offered this form of politics and how did they do so?
5. Do you think today's gay-themed television operates in the same way as that of the 90s? If so, how so? If not, what are some differences?

I really appreciated this article because I felt that Jackson Katz was able to make some difficult ideas and theories understandable and accessible within his article, "Advertising and the Construction of Violent White Masculinity." As he was discussing this establishment of the white, heterosexual, middle-class male as violent, I was struck by his identification of the rise and eventual prominence of these 'cultural heroes' as a result of the, "increasing economic instability and discoloration, the perception of gains by people of color at the expense of the White working class, and a women's movement that overtly challenged male hegemony" (pg. 351, paragraph 1). He identified this cause of violence as predictable because it displayed masculinity, coded through violence, as a power play over these groups that were threatening the economic status of these individuals. It makes sense to me that when one begins to lack dominance in a certain area, they seek to acquire it in another. Do you feel that men who are less economically stable are inclined to assert their masculinity through violence in this manner?

Enlightened Sexism

| No Comments

I think the video that we watched in class was a good example of enlightened sexism. They showed how women in high power roles or high profile roles are celebrated for being women in power but they are also scrutinized for things that are not related to their roles at all. Women who are widley known will always seem to be critisized for their clothing and style.When they are a woman that doesn't play up their girliness they are portrayed as a bitch like Hillary Clinton was versus Sarah Palin. I thought that the article that we read this week by Susan Douglas had a great example using male politicians. We don't look at the way they dress we just talk about what they are representing. Is that because mens styles haven't changed drastically like womens do? Men keep wearing suits granted the cut of suits has changed over time but its still a suit and looks very similar.Why are women slaves to trends and why do we care? I do think that Deborah brought up a great point in class that we are biologically trained to care what we look like and want to be attractive. Which leads into we want to look at attractive people. Why do the men get away with being fat and bald and the women are required to have the latest fashion? Maybe over time as women become more common in high profile jobs and roles their bodies and fashion will become less important.

Please post your discussion questions on Katz, "Advertising and the Construction of Violent White Masculinity" and Aaron, "Towards Queer Television Theory: Bigger Pictures Sans the Sweet Queer After" below. Use the following questions to guide your reading:

1. Katz begins his essay by pointing out the historical absence of attention to masculinity--and more specifically, class-conscious attention to masculinity--within discussions and debates surrounding gender in mass media, though recently this has begun to shift. What, according to Katz, are the consequences of this inattention? Why does he believe masculinity needs to be addressed?
2. What, in your view, are some areas in which masculinity ought to be addressed? How might this be done?
3. What does Katz understand as "hegemonic masculinity"?
4. What are some of the symbols that circulation around this concept in advertising? What are the cultural narratives in which hegemonic masculinity operates? Where do you see some of these narratives operating in your own experience with media?
5. What are some examples of images of hegemonic masculinity?
6. What do you think are the consequences of the circulation of these images?

7. Michele Aaron suggests three avenues that queer theorizing of television and film could take in the future: the "queer and now"; the "sweet queer-after"; the "queer re:." How do you understand each of these three possible direction? What do you see as the possibilities and limitations of each? Why does Aaron see the third of these paths as having the most political possibility at present?
8. Later in the piece, she suggests a fourth, the extraterrestrial. How do you understand this term? What do you think is its usefulness?
9. How does Aaron view the concept "queer"? How does this differ from terms like "homosexuality" in terms of its critical and political use-value?
10. For Aaron, why is it important to analyze "queer texts"?
11. Finally, how does Six Feet Under operate as an object for queer theorizing, for Aaron?
12. What does she see as the possibilities of its queerness? What do you think about this?
13. How, for Aaron, is queerness a frame for understanding not only the text--that is, the content of a television show or movie--but also viewing practices? What do you think about her suggestions for understanding viewing practices within this frame?

Buffy- She's powerful and attractive

| 5 Comments

After the discussion about the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I had many questions about feminism. I now understand the concepts of post-feminists and third-wave feminists but I still don't get why the ideas of past sexism are so problematical. I totally agree that as a society we need to be cognitive of those past sexist ideas but maybe it's time to move on. I really want to question the motives of Elana Levine. Why is it such a negative for a beautiful women to have power and be able to hunt vampires or fight bag guys in Charlie's Angels. I can see the sexist ideas but at the same time the shows are put together because they want high ratings. Buffy is a very attractive women and I personally would love to hunt vampires with her. She does fit the stereotypical "attractive" American female. She's blonde, fit and has a beautiful smile. Why is being attractive so bad? Like my mother always said, use what was given to you. It doesn't matter if your male or female. Use your abilities that you have and you don't need to be jealous of others attributes. I think American people do way to much comparing of each other. Every one of is different and that makes our society so unique. I feel like sexism, and racism would be way lessened if people just accepted their own positives and negatives. Humans are naturally insecure but we all have the choice to let our insecurities get the better of us. Yes, Buffy is a beautiful girl that hunts vampires, don't hold that against her.

Buffy and the New Girl Order

| 2 Comments


The video, "Buffy and the New Girl Order", Levine talked about representation of the New Woman through mass media such as drama and movie. Levine claimed that now, women characters in drama have to find the way to how to medium the meaning between newfound feminism and inherent femininity. In the movie, Levin mainly discussed about how these representations of the new woman are created and received by audiences. For example, in the movie "Sex and The City", the director showed four different New York City women who have different personality, and lifestyle. However, we learned media have great power to change individuals' perspective through the media. People are easy to absorb the idea through the television. As I compare to the characters in the movie and drama between past and present, I can see the huge difference between old and new. From the old movie, women often used to depict as only a housewife whereas a lot of career women in today's movie. But I feel sometimes, from now on, the film director should balance the theme of newfound feminism and original feminism.

Feminism

| 3 Comments

All the readings and videos we watched this week have showed me a lot about feminism. i never have thought about feminism and the different goals that they have always strived for. The video was the most informative and most eye opening for me. The fact that women have been sexualized in the media never occurred to me until pointed out the images of Sarah Palins legs or the focus on women in the media being handled as a joke was disturbing to me. What disturbs me is that I never saw how bad it was until taking these classes. I don't have a question as to what we have been talking about just that I hope that the next few classes we are abel to continue talking about women in media and feminism.

blog post 11/1

| 2 Comments

The discussion and video about sexism in the media was quite shocking. I knew that it was prevalent, but I didn't not know how much it affected the media to that extent. The clips of all the news commentators and politicians talking about women in terms of witch and cold and completely ignoring what they do as politicians was a real eye-opener. Most people today believe that we have crossed the barrier in regards to women's rights, but there is still an ideology that men are superior. It is noticeable in every position of power, as noted with the media giants employing women usually around 2 women for every 10 men. It is a slow progression though, and that is what people have to understand. As a society we just need more examples of women in power. It has been beaten into our brains for centuries that women are inferior to men, and it's just going to take some time to slowly sift that out.

perceived inequalities in talk news shows

| No Comments

Watching some of the clips in the Oprah special on sexism in media really highlighted some of the problems that go into talk news shows. The segment on political news stations making comments on females in the political spectrum presented some really disgusting and unbelievable sound bites about their attractiveness and other crude, rude, or false information meant to persuade audiences. While I think this type of 'journalism' should be abolished and never shown on television, I also think that sexism is not the only way in which these media outlets betray the values they are meant to uphold. Commentators such as Rush Limbaugh or Chris Matthews will do whatever it takes to attract viewers, failing to recognize the detrimental effect this is having on the way our country relates to its political system. They attack the gender of women for being in the minority of the political spotlight, but they also attack anything else that would lead to the trivialization of a human being and candidate for public office. Whether making a snide comment about someone's race, religion, gender, family, or physical attractiveness, this entire industry thrives off of slander and defining individuals by aspects of their person other than character or decision-making. I believe that there is definitely a case to be made about the perceptions in media and striving to be considered on equal ground regardless of sex or race or any other attribute, but separating these causes and trying to take down the powers that be as opposed to erecting competing powers that better portray the value of equality seems off to me.

Miss Representation

| No Comments

After I watched the documentary "Miss Representation", it made me rethink about how the mainstream media treats women. I have been interested in the depiction of women in the media, and the ideas that "Miss Representation" . I was conscious that media went too far when it comes to represent women in a certain way. As the documentary mentioned, these representation of women affects how people perceive and think about women. Sometimes, these perceptions affect women in a negative way. In the documentary, Hillary Clinton was perceived as a "bitch" and a sexual object. She is often judged by how she look and what she's wearing rather than their political accomplishments and contributions. The media created a stereotype that political position and leadership should be masculine occupations. I personally think that it is very true in a way that it had affected enough for me to create the stereotype that men are more likely to be a politician. It is not like I think men should be the only one who involves in politics. The other obvious examples of the perception of women are that the mainstream media depicts women in a hyper-sexualized way, which leads women to be seen as a sex object by men and even by themselves. I agree that it is a problematic that media portray women in a sexual way and women should be conscious about it.

Blog 11/1/12 Sexism

| No Comments

Watching the video in class on Wednesday was a shocking conglomeration of some of the sexist remarks towards females in the media. It's definitely eye opening to see this remarks one after another said by what should be respectable men in our media system. Society is at a standstill and believes that females are now created equal to men, but it is quite apparent that, that is not necessarily the case. Women in power, especially politically are not taken seriously, as most men concentrate more on their sexuality then what they have to say. Or in Hilary Clinton's case, they make it a point to criticize and tear her self-esteem apart with rude and hurtful comments about her appearance. We are failing to listen to their actual message, and as a society we are too concerned with superficial aspects as appearance. Women are also stereotyped into being moody and emotional, and are criticized if they show any emotion in the media. People automatically think that women are not capable of holding any position of power because of this. But if a male decides to get choked up during a speech, it is applauded, and shows real courage. It is a very backwards system, and I hope there are strides to a more equal future where woman are not only looked upon for their sexuality, but for their brain power. ,

Deborah, Blog Post, Week Nine

| No Comments

Susan Douglas introduced this idea of "enlightened sexism" as a freedom to return to overtly sexist portrayals of women in media so long as the portrayals are done in an over the top manner. Douglas discusses the sharp, inaccurate representations of women in media through two different forms. The first is the woman as a successful, powerful elite who can be seen in shows like 'Grey's Anatomy' where women are chief surgeons and in shows like 'Bones' where a woman is the lead expert in homicide cases. Contrasting is the second image, which portrays the woman as overtly sexualized and driven by her desire to attract men. These images are perpetuated through shows like the 'Jersey Shore' and 'The Bachelor.' These images fail to represent the actual state of women across the country. These portrayals also fail to address the existing disadvantages women face on a daily basis. In this sense, the identity of the common woman is misconstrued at the hands of media, which is largely facilitated by males. The movie Miss Representation discussed the importance of women to create or retell their own stories in an effort to level the media playing field. These readings leave me wondering about the future of female characters in media and the merits of current female characters in media. I feel that a lot of work needs to be done to accurately portray the common female.

Jingyan Jiang-Blog 8

| No Comments

I am so impressed by Wednesday's video, which I feel I never paid attention before, not even know the existence of such an issue.

I am kinda shock to see that the glass-ceiling is still prevail in the U.S., and female in upper-level management team is still rare. I was talking to one of my friends the other day about her payment as an entry level analyst in Target, and she told me her basic salary. Then I told her, my other male friend got the same job as she does half a year before, and his salary is at least 15% higher annually than her. I don't know whether that is because of changing salary policy to college graduates or that's a sign of hidden barrier for females to get higher basic salary than men.

The other point in the documentary that shocks me is the female director said that she cannot direct some movies because her sexuality, even though she is skilled, full of experiences and famous. My previous experience as a SAE (senior account executive) in an image license company didn't give me such an impression at all. The Sales VP Asian Pacific is a female, our Operation Manager Asian Pacific is also a female, our Marketing Director is a female, too. So, I didn't feel barrier for female in workforce is so much. I feel I must prepared for encountering such a problem later in my professional life, and set up a strategy that I can use later for it.

I'm kinda confused about one concept that does all femininity issue relate to politician? Does the core of figuring such an issue out is dealing with female in political world? Is there anything to do with business world?

Blog 11/1

| No Comments


I thought the Beyonce video was a perfect choice of media to be exemplified for this topic. I was actually thinking about the song during the readings. I took a writing class on hip hop for a freshmen seminar and one week of class we discussed women in hip-hop, or in the current case media. Lil Kim was our example of breaking the trend of how women are objectified in videos and hip hop songs. She embraced it and did the complete opposite by almost bragging about what she does to guys. Completely different than Beyonces point in her song but it was just another way women finding power within media. In terms of women objectifying themselves, Beyonce produced quite controversial in her video. She talked about the power women have and almost lost it during the video. The lyrics are great but the dance moves send mixed signals. In terms of the lyrics, Girls...kind of....run the world. I just did a quick search and there are only 26 countries with women as their leaders (I think.) that being said we are living in an era with the highest ever total of female leaders serving at once, so I feel like it will even out soon. Also like I think Deborah mentioned, women like Helen of Troy could start a huge bad ass war just by the power of her love. Which made me think in class that guys are nothing without women, literally they wouldn't have been born, nor would humanity continue. Interesting discussions this week

Women in Positions of Power

| No Comments

Yesterday we started watching the film that was about feminism. Now, before I get started I would like to point out that I do NOT consider myself a feminist. But the clips they showed from the 2008 election regarding women, along with things that have happened in this most recent election regarding women in these positions of power really pisses me off. And this is why:

Political Pundits are almost exclusively male, which inherently isn't a problem; there may be other factors encouraging that. But when all we have to listen to are jack-ass pinheads like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity (the list goes on and on... and on), I think there is a problem. As a lot of people know, Limbaugh in his pig-headedness called a woman a slut for speaking her mind about equal rights and contraception. How is this guy supposed to be an "expert" when he uses his personal political and religious feelings to classify a whole gender? To classify men and women differently for the same action (such as crying on camera) is sexist. How is it a man is fit enough to run the country if he cries while if a women does it, it makes her weak and unfit? It is sexist and these pundits with mommy issues or power issues regarding women are just sexist and waving their dicks around for everyone to see.

I feel passionately about this, because this extends to my personal life too. Outside of politics, women have problems in the workplace (equal pay, management, positions wth clout). I was raised by a single mother because my father was nowhere to be seen (or trusted if he was seen around). My mother works for a printing company where she makes less than she should (and now we have no way to do change this thanks to Scott Walker and the whole Equal Pay for Equal Work). And this is because of MALES asserting authority over women. Which bears no cause.

Where am I going with this? Males basing opinions of women based on sexuality, stereotypes, and prejudices needs to stop. Its sets up women to lose in almost all situations. Hillary Clinton being bashed by male media because she spoke with authority was unfit to lead, whereas a women without authority is unfit to lead also. It is sexist.

Like I said, I'm not a feminist at all. I just think all those people are fucking stupid. Equality shouldn't be a dirty word, it should just be assumed (I mean, people like to think we live in a progressive and awesome country. I guess it is, for men.).

Blog 11/1

| No Comments

It was interesting to deepen my understanding of feminism and post-feminism ideas. Especially, what "Girls Gone Anti-Feminist" showed in the essay was intense for me. The author Susan Douglas points out that women have already achieved equal treatment as men, so using stereotypical character of women (being sexy) in mass media is decision depends on individual women. However, she criticizes that many women will happily choose such objectified character even they have freedom decision now, because it is cool and much popular for them. When I read this part, I thought many women faced a situation that they were forced to choose the popular character.
Think about when you were a high school student. I believe most people experienced that performing something popular styles or silly behaviors to be fit in your school environment, such like comedian, actor, actress, etc. In fact, I imitated then the most popular comedians' jokes in front of my friends, but I did it for being popular and making some conversation topics. I did not try such performances due to I purely like it, my friends were always expected providing something fun each other. In some environment, especially younger students face to do things that they do not want, but need to do that for interacting with other students. Such popular trend is really common for students, so using those is one effective way to keep communication with their friends. As the phenomenon, I believe there are many women who choose sexy objectified women character, but their decisions are not motivated from their pure wishes.

Enlightened Sexism...otherwise Professional Bitch

| No Comments

Wednesday's documentary was definitely an eye opener. I know that there has always been talk about the differences between men and women. Men always ask each other why it is so difficult to try and figure a woman, and 100% of the time we all say that it is impossible; they have a mind of their own. And I'm close enough with some of my girlfriends who will ask me, why men are so stupid and why don't understand they understand how women think. It's because we're different. We may be different, but we are all still people. Seeing how Fox and CNN's male commentators, like Bill O'Reily, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, and a handful of other news media males make such unnecessary comments about how women react more sensitive than men and making sexual comments are truly a poor sight to see. The most prominent example was when they showed one male politician cry about how underprivileged children were brought up and then one of the female speakers made note that if Nancy Pelosi reacted in the same way, she would be attacked as reacting too emotionally. As much as I don't care for Pelosi, the female speaker was exactly correct. Same with Hillary Clinton--again not a big fan, but she has been attacked just for being a woman and running against O'Bama. Former Sec of State, Condoleezza Rice even commented, and this is a woman who graduated from DU, Master's at Notre Dame, taught at Stanford, and speaks like 5 different languages about how political affiliation should take away any credibility from any of these women; they have accomplished a lot in a man's world. Enlightened Sexism doesn't work for these women, because they all have a big brain and not big breasts. The scale seems to be pretty black and white whether you're discussing enlightened sexism vs. professionalism. You really can't have it all. I mean even that gorgeous blonde woman on Fox is probably undermined still because she is pretty. She's smart, but I'm sure there are people who ask how she got where she was.

Blog post 11/1

| No Comments

This week's discussion has been very interesting when looking at anti- feminist and post- feminism ideas. I feel as though after class on Wednesday I gained a better understanding of what these two sides really stood for. I thought the CNN special that was done regarding post feminism and gender biases was extremely insightful. I had no idea how male dominant the media world is. I feel as though we do live in a generation that does have an uprising of female ladies that want to be viewed as powerful and strong and independent. But despite how hard they try it is still going to be a struggle to be that CEO, director, or even board member. So what keeps these norms going? Why is it so hard for females to climb to the top of the media ladder? I think that like everything in history, it will change. The longer we go time changes norms aren't so normal anymore. Women will continue to be heard until they feel as though they have reached the point of equality that they so deeply long for.

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from November 2012 listed from newest to oldest.

October 2012 is the previous archive.

December 2012 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.