10 Things I Hate About You

Today in class as we talked about masculinities on the OC, the role of women on the show came up. In the OC, and many other shows and movies like it, despite the portrayal of a woman being stong and powerful (whether negatively or positvely), they are always dependent on a man. One movie that came to mind immediately was "10 Things I Hate About You" with Julia Stiles and Heath Ledger, based on Shakespeare's "Taming Of The Shrew". In the movie, Julia Stiles' character, Kat, scares away guys. She has strong ideals and morals, and she in the movie she is portrayed in a feminist light; she thinks that women aren't given enough power. But, despite all her self-confidence and life goals, her hard demeanor is softened by the affections of a man. Her whole life, Kat has been about breaking the stereotype. But, her life is incomplete without a man by her side. In the end of the movie, Kat ends up with a guy, and those around her seem to be happy for her. But, has Kat compromised all her values just so she can conform to society's standards for happiness and a complete life? I think that many movies and TV shows with "happy" endings like this can both simultaneously build up the role of women in society, and break it down.

Diet Can Crushing Too "Girly"?

Many advertisements are obviously gendered, whether they place dominating men in strong relation to passive, submissive females or whether they simply aim to market their product either to men or to women. That being said, we can usually recognize whose gaze advertisements are trying to appeal to—perfume for women, sports items for men, etc. But what about soda? Are sodas gender-specific? Do women enjoy some sodas more than men do? This advertisement for the new soft drink, Pepsi Max, reads “The first diet cola for men.” But since when has diet soda only been a drink for women and (in the words of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger) “girly men”?

The advertisement pictures a can of soda against a black background. What makes this ad different from most drink ads is that the product has been annihilated, obviously crushed by the fist holding it. Since this is marketed as a “drink for men,” the advertisers thought it would be appropriate to incorporate the ever-present connection of masculinity and violence into the ad. This soda is “for men,” because the person who drank it and crushed the can was obviously a tough, muscular (and therefore masculine) man who doesn’t stand for buying anything “girly,” including his beverages. Even if he enjoys the taste more (this happens oh-so-frequently at bars and restaurants), a man will not buy a drink that society has labeled as “girly” or “feminine.” At bars, the “feminine” drinks are mixed, fruity concoctions, and apparently, in the soda world, all diet sodas (prior to Pepsi Max) carried the same connotations of femininity/emasculation.

Thanks to Pepsi creating a “diet cola for men,” you can rest easy and drink diet freely, men! No one will judge you anymore. We know you are tough enough to drink the diet cola, and then display your manliness by smashing the aluminum can afterwards.

four smart single women taking charge of their own lives!

After reading "Masculinities in the OC," I began thinking about the representation of men and women in the HBO Series "Sex and the City."

The show follows the lives and loves of four women living in New York City in the late nineties/early 2000's, tracing the endless mishaps and insights that come from failed relationships, brand-name outfits, and NYC hot spots. And while the series innovated sexual discussion on TV, as the admittedly promiscuous girls openly chat about blowjobs and condoms ("I once dated a guy with the funkiest tasting spunk,") the depiction of women seems not-so-innovative.

Indeed, though Carrie, Samantha, Miranda, and Charlotte are all presented as successful, independent women - a fact so continually emphasized that it was mentioned in a mad tv parody of the show ("four smart single women taking charge of their own lives!"... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohqNf5e4D1k) - they all search desperately for men. Indeed, the show revolves around this six-season man hunt, including Carrie's on-and-off relationship with

Big, a millionaire

who betrays her numerous times yet is the one she ends up with. The paradox is clear: the women are independent, successful, and smart, yet they search for a man to 'complete' them, are unsuccessful in life when they fail in doing so, and, all the while, act stupidly when it comes to relationships (perpetually de-constructing every word their lover says to them: "he signed the card 'best'...what does that mean?!")

Men, meanwhile, exhibit either hegemonic or subordinate masculinity. For instance, in the final episode of the series, Big comes to Paris and whisks Carrie away from her Russian lover who has recently betrayed her (betray, in this case, meaning he is busy with his work...smart/independent women are okay but men should free up some time for their girl, no?) In fact, his name isn't even Big - it's John (which we find out in the last episode after meeting him in the first season;) this nickname reflects the glamorized masculinity of a big man that can take care of a women, rescuing her from her own neurotic mind.

On the other hand, gays (who often enjoy and relate to the show just as much as women) are everywhere in the series: planning weddings, working PR, owning clothing boutiques. They fit the role of the fun, gay friend who can hook the women up with great relationship advice and to-die-for shoes. This may or may not explain why every gay man today is expected to fulfill the role of shopping buddy and secret-keeper who can be trusted because of a high-pitched voice and/or pink polo. Nearly every gay man is at least reasonably attractive; even the "ugly" one somehow ends up dating a model (after being "rejected by everyone in town.") Hence, the myth of the beautiful, fun, socially adept gay man is perpetuated, and homosexuals across the country better live up to this expectation, lest they disappoint their female comrades. Personally, I've yet to see a show that depicts gay men as actual human beings - rather than flamboyant comedic reliefs - but Sex and the City, at least, pulls gay men out of their 80's AIDS-ridden gutters and puts them at the front row of fashion shows.

Overall, while the show seems to pioneer a new way of looking at gender roles, not much has changed: women still need men, men are still the keys to happiness, and gays are still behind the scenes, keeping the world sparkling.

Lotus Blossom or Dragon Lady

In class we’ve been discussing the overarching views of African American Women as portrayed by the media. Words like “Wild,” “Untamed,” and “Object” are frequently used to describe the African American women that we see on billboards, in commercials, and on television. To expand on this stereotyping of minority women, scholars have found that Asian American women also suffer from reoccurring generalizations. In the media, Asian American women must fit two differing roles: “Lotus Blossom” and “Dragon Lady”.

“Lotus Blossom” is the perfect Asian American partner, the ideal object of the white-man’s affection. She is quiet, demure, submissive and very agreeable. Her exotic looks provide her with a sense of primitive innocence, and it is the man’s duty to teach her how to think, act, and behave. I’m sure we all remember that clip in “Memoirs of a Geisha,” where one graceful glance from a pair of almond-shaped eyes should be enough to knock a man off his bike.

“Dragon Lady,” on the other hand, is defined by her power. An interesting character, Dragon Lady is characterized by both her hyper-sexual air, and her asexual tendencies. She is fearsome, strong, yet always alone. In this case, her exotic looks provide a sense of ultimate-sexuality, which Dragon Lady will use, to attempt to dominate over the white male (she has no emotions, and this is ultimately her downfall). She is often the villain, perhaps the one who captured innocent Lotus Blossom, and the white man must be careful not to be blinded by her sexuality. When I think of Dragon Lady, I think of Lucy Liu in Kill Bill.

Many modern television shows claim to be diverse, adhering to a projected level of political-correctness. However, Lotus Blossom and Dragon Lady inevitably emerge. Sandra Oh’s character in Grey’s Anatomy is a perfect modern day Dragon Lady, fearful, exotic, asexual, and devoid of emotions which constantly limits her to “side-kick” to main character Meredith Grey. Glee, holds an interesting character, where the only female asian Tina has the appearance of Dragon Lady, yet is internally a Lotus Blossom with her inability to speak and submissiveness to the club (there is never an instance where she is the center of controversy). Even looking at media representations, figure skater Kim Yu-Na was featured as a very Lotus-Blossom-like athlete. Submissive to her coaches, innocent by her lack of opinion on any topic outside the field of ice skating (she is rarely quoted saying anything other than the pressures of her sport), and demure glances and smiles broadcasted by the Media. 

It seems that in the media, being a woman is second-class and being a minority is ostracism. However, being both meaning limiting yourself to the most narrow categorization presented by the Media. 

Deena and "The Dreams" (not Diana and "The Supremes)

This week in class we read Bell Hook's article which talks about the representation and objectification of Black women in media. Hooks talks about Black women represented in the music industry, and I can't think of any media that better represents this objectification than the 2006 musical film "Dreamgirls" starring Beyonce as Deena Jones, lead singer of "The Dreams." The film follows Deena, Lorell (Anika Noni Rose), and Effie (Jennifer Hudson) as they struggle to break into the white-dominated pop charts of the 1960's and 70's. The women continually change their image and their "sound" to appeal to the music industry. Aside from the fact that Beyonce (already famous for her amazing figure) LOST 20 pounds to play the role, the film showcases different stages of the girls shaping their image to fit the tastes of white music consumers.

The first example of this is when the girls sing with Jimmy Early (Eddie Murphy) when he first headlines at a white club (about mark 39:45 in the link below). The girls have quite obviously changed their hairstyles to a lighter, straighter style to appeal to the white image o

f what a star should look like. Also important to mention is the change in song style from the previously more wild songs of Jimmy Early.

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=PIU03BWH

The next, and maybe most important example is when "The Dreams" manager tells the ladies they will be separated from Jimmy to start their own act... the only catch is Deena will sing lead instead of Effie (mark 43:54-45:50). The scene shows that even though Effie has the better voice, Deena will sing lead because she is skinnier and more beautiful than Effie--2 qualities that will be most important while appealing the white audiences.

And here's the real clincher (mark 49:00-52:40), in "The Dreams" debut performance Curtis spells it out for everyone when talking to Deena's mother, when calls Deena "a product." A product! The whole point of the movie, and Hook's article is so bluntly phrased by Curtis. For a female, African American group to appeal to white audiences they need to conform their image and sound to that of the pre-established image and sound of the music industry.

Effie eventually leaves the group when she is not getting the credit her voice deserves, but is quickly replaced by the slender and beautiful Michelle (Sharon Leal). From this point on we see "The Dreams" constantly transforming, the climax of which is shown in both the performance and lyrics of the song "One Night Only " (http://videos.sapo.pt/ZaSYldm7JjIBY4pk0PMy). The group is hyper-sexualized through their lyrics:

"I have no doubt that I could love you forever,

The only trouble is I really don't have the time,

I've got one night only, one night only, come on big baby come one,

One night only, we only have til dawn"

The group has taken on the image of the "wild and untamed" black female perfomer (Tina Turner-esque) in their dance moves, big hair, and tight clothes.

Inadvertently, this film is a tribute to Hooks' article, and so clearly displays the objectification of black women--implying that their whole career was/is based on the desire to fit into a white mediated culture.

Controlling Body Image

In our discussion this week, we considered Bell Hooks' criticism of media that black women, because of their exoticism, are portrayed as creatures of sexual desire and animalistic behavior. Clearly, in contrast to anglo features, other ethnicities occupy the realm of "other". A piece I believe directly opposes the power of objectification is Yoko Ono's 1965 "Cut Piece". Yoko Ono, a recognizable Japanese face, sits on a stage as members of a white audience approach her and one by one snip off pieces of her clothing. The crowd strips her of her sweater and her tank top and one man finally snips her bra straps. Yoko Ono actively submits herself to this kind of objectification. She sits with a stoic expression as strangers strip her of her clothing. Still, she is in control; she organized the show, she sat silently without moving, she offered herself to the audience. I understand how Hooks sees the forced exploitation of characters such as the slave made a spectacle of for her endowed back-side as demeaning, it was very much so. However, by means of the media . Ethnic groups choose to participate in advertisements and televisions shows as Ono chose to stage "cut piece". No longer is anyone forcing them into this advertising, they have the power to walk away. Perhaps by celebrating their sexuality by choice, ethnic groups empower, rather than devalue or animalize, themselves. They invite the audience to view them, interact with them, because it brings attention to their cause and demonstrates that they can control themselves and their bodies and do with them what they please. 

Link to Yoko Ono's "Cut Piece" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2IgqYiaywU 

Media Warfare

In the article "The Subject of Visual Culture," Nicholas Mirzoeff discusses the concept of media warfare. According to Jonathan L. Beller, "tele-visual warfare [can be described as] the spectacular intensity of destruction as well as the illusion of its collective sanction creates certain subjective effects - a sense of agency and power which compensates for the generalized lack of these in daily life' (Beller 1998: 55-56). Mirzoeff continues: "War is, then, the subject of these images but it is also a means of creating subjects, visual subjects" (5). Mirzoeff writes that the United States experienced firsthand media warfare after the attacks on September 11, 2001. For the first time, the United States was on the "receiving end" of Beller's "tele-visual warfare" (5).

The sense of empowerment described by Beller was experienced by many Palestinians, who celebrated in the streets of East Jerusalem after hearing that thousands of Americans were killed in the attacks. As Americans, we are simply disgusted by these celebrations as so many innocent people were killed. Perhaps we experienced a similar sense of empowerment when the United States attacked Iraq in 2003 by bombing Baghdad. What we have to remember is that many innocent lives were lost then, too. Mirzoeff concludes his section on media warfare with a warning: "The globalization of culture turns out to be less predictable and far more dangerous than had been supposed" (5).

Black Women in Fashion

Black women, in particular, have historically been portrayed as sexual objects to justify slavery, rape, sexual abuse and denial of respect and opportunity.

The public display of Black female sexuality is still prevalent today; instead of taking place in the museums, it is happening everyday on our fashion spreads or advertisements.

Black models who are featured in advertisements usually portrayed in ways that emphasize their "other-ness." In many cases, black models are in a theme about white clothing or bold color templates. Other times, they are dressed in exotic attire or photographed in jungle of a desert. Black women's exuality has been portryaed as aggressive.

In one attached photogrpah, the black woman is leashed. Her hair is short like men's; it represents her loss of identity as a woman rather a sex object. She poses like dog.

In another photograph, a black woman looks wild like an animal. There is an warning attached to a cage:Do not feed the animal. There is also a chunk of meat beside her.

In the other three photos, all black women are almost naked while white models are not.

This clearly shows racism in fashion industry.

The black female representation on media was the main topic this week, and I found out some common things about black females on media. They are similarly represented by using their sexuality and wildness. One of the popular female singers, Beyounce, is revered as the icon of the sexiness. Her copper-colored skin makes her look sexier, and her voluptuous body shape and line attract many male fans. While Beyonce takes advantage of being the icon of sexiness, it is true that Beyounce is somewhat represented as an only sexual object.
Not only black women, but also asian and white women are sometimes objectified. For example, on the music video of Benny Benassi, “Satisfaction,” white, black, and asian women emerge and start to dance following the rhythms. However, their movements and actions are more than dancing. Their motions seem to imply something sexual. Men are viewed as powerful, strong figures who can take control over women. These women also wear very gaudy clothes which make them more objectified figures. A more interesting fact in this music video is that women use tools to attract males. It is unusual for women in music videos using utensils to show their sexiness. However, women in this video follow the motion of the tools, and this is very awkwardly sexual. Also, women’s lips, breasts, and hips are nakedly shown, which proves they are absolutely represented as sexual objects. It is true that women occupy a great portion in media these days compared to the past; however, they are still being seen as objectified (usually sexy) figures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWB5TUGF7vo

Representation of the Black people

The topic about the representation of the black people.
The story about Sara Baartman was quite shocking to me.

Her "abnormal" bodily features fascinate the European viewers. Her difference does not meet their cultural classificatory system so she was excluded from their culture, society. She was treated as other even though she lived there and might think she could be one of their society; she was a "taboo", "forbidden" so she was attractive and interesting to European viewers . Even after her death at the age of 25 years old, she remained an object of the entertainment for the Europeans. She was not even treated as a human in Europe throughout her life and even after her death.

I can not believe one human being was treated like an animal, beast for some people's enjoyment.


Hall says, the difference is important because we can think about the meaning depending on the difference between opposites.
Black/White, for example; the "white" is so invisible that we can think about the meaning compared to the opposite black.
But he also says that here, the meaning is oversimplified. We tend to think about each meaning in the reductionist way, and the one of the opposites often has a negative reduced meanings, negative stereotypical features because there is a gap between the power of the opposites such as the white dominant over black.


Many people tend to think that the representations or stereotypes of the black people are modified. But the black people's stereotypical images subordinate to the white people still continue today.



In advertisements especially, even though some advertisements seem to express the diversity of race, the white people are mainly shown to send good images of the brand like high ending, luxurious, leading the edge etc, whereas black people, especially woman (but including men), are portrayed as wild savage and fetishized. There are still on-going image of white people = good, modernized, superior etc while black = bad, evil, wild, primitive, dangerous and so on. Still, how people see black people is sort of similar to how Europeans looked at Sara Baartman. When could black people feel they are part of "Americaness" or "Britishness", when would they be able not to double consciousness as black and American; when could people start not to mark "black" such as "black president"and "black actress"?

The dangerous thing that today's stereotyping of minorities have is how subtle and widespread is. We do not usually see the negative images of the black people that those ads connote if we do not see them critically. People are raised with these stereotypes so they do not question it. But it is not easy to get rid of all these stereotypical images. Probably, what this problem can be done might be that people first acknowledge the problem and moderate the negative with more positive images.

Is it still prevalent?

On Wednesday class, we talked about the black representation, and discussed for a few moment about the problem related to racism. To be honest, I do not know the seriousness of racism. I grew up in a single-race nation, so I have never experienced the race problem. But as learning English and getting to know the society of U.S, I learned that the racism is one of the most prevelant problems in the country, but also learned that with the efforts of a lot of (black) people, the problem has been solved somewhat and the condition is getting better gradually (nowadays, outrageous racism can not be (also must not be) found). However, the Old Navy advertisement was a suprise.

Basically, I do not understand the purpose of the advertisement. It is not an advertisement in 1960s (the time when the racism was relatively prevelant). But the ad contains quite obviously racist thinking. I even felt like they wanted to mock and humiliate the black. But however, if they really tried to humiliate the people, is the concept acceptable in the 21st century?? Did people accept this ad?? And one thing that Old Navy should know is that they should have thought about their main customer. Old Navy is not a high fashion shop. Rather, it is relatively cheap, and affordable. So,who might be their main customer? I am not making a racist comment (though it might seem to. I am sorry!!!), but rather than upper class white people, lower class people, including black people ( I am not limiting only black people to lower class. The class includes many different races, of course, but the ratio of black people in the class is relatively high.) would buy at the shop. But I am sure that Old Navy knew this, but I am still unsure that why did they make this ad even thought they knew that fact. This ad is a backward movement toward the racism problem (which has made an improvement really hard for 30~40 years).

Not Only..But Also

Bell Hooks makes the point that American society objectifies women of color by placing them in highly sexualized positions and casting them in promiscuous roles throughout the media..Not only, however, are Black women being portrayed in this dirtied lens, but there are women of other ethnicities who CHOOSE to ooze sex and objectify themselves. (ahem...Beyonce and the Latino community's prize possession, Shakira).

I love Shakira. Don't get me wrong the belty, pint-size singer is brimming with bubbliness, talent, class(?),culture (speaks 6 languages, travels frequently), beauty, intelligence (140 IQ and spoke at Oxford...acknowledged by the U.N for her organization, Pies Descalzos), humanitarian effort, and her world-reknown dancing (hips).
However....despite her seemingly perfect mirage, take note of Shakira's constant rebirths, renewals, new locks, new music direction, etc. too many metamorphoses !!!
Particularly, Shakira's videos are notoriously sexualized and the prop of a bed with her barely-clothed body, adorn our television screens. She clearly objectifies herself sexually with lyrics like in the song, "Wherever, Whenever" ("lucky that my breasts are small and humble so you don't confuse them with mountains"), or just the song title as it is, "Underneath Your Clothes." Shakira has no problem baring it all with her costumes (which can be argued are traditional for showing the movement of the body with her belly dancing)and her lyrics, wearing her heart on her sleeve. Is
Shakira giving the false impression that Latinos are sensual, horny creatures?

As quoted in Entertainment Daily, Shakira remarks: “I do think libido is the engine of the world. Forward or backwards. For good or ill. Sometimes when we repress our libido we regress. When we were in the Dark Ages, it was a question of humanity somehow managing to forget about itself. We put God in the centre of society, and people forgot about their own nature and desires. There was a huge deal of repression.”

Is it fair to say she is objectifying herself for publicity by CHOICE or is Shakira just living freely? She was once the little brunette, curly headed yodelling child star with darker, olive skin, and transitioned to THE BLONDE as she came to America and the rest of the world, her skin becoming lighter and her frame becoming less curvy as if to adjust to new standards.
So, here's an assignment: go look at Shakira's music videos and see how many times she is positioned with another man (as her prop, as if the only way to assert her leadership and dominatrix complex), in a bed, dances promiscuously, or uses sexual innuendos in her lyrics.

Just watch her newest video, "Gypsy" and decide for yourself.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/sy-68676375001/shakira_gypsy_official_music_video/

(disclaimer: I LOVEEEE SHAKIRA! DON'T TAKE OFFENSE TO MY CRITICAL ABILITIES TO LOOK INTO HER TRANSFORMATIONS! IT IS NOT PERSONAL!)

Sexy Chicks

In class this week, Sir Mix-a-Lot's classic hit "Baby Got Back" was used to showcase the stereotype of black female sexuality as hypersexual. Has anything changed since this song was released in 1992, almost twenty years ago? The evidence is scarce. Consider this video for rapper Young Money's "Bed Rock":

The women in the video are either sexual objects, seen to remain in bed all day at the behest of the men, or are serving food, again in order to please men. These men, on the other hand, can be seen counting enormous amounts of money, and it is understood that they are in control of the mansion that serves as the setting for the video. It is not just black women that are relegated to this fate; Asian and white women are also clearly displayed as subservient. Another example, in the form of Pitbull's video for I Know You Want Me (Calle Ocho):

In this video, a plot or story was deemed unnecessary, and the women just dance around Pitbull in barely-there clothing while he sings his song. This video has almost 111 million views on YouTube, so perhaps there is something of value that I am personally missing in this piece of...art.

Perhaps the lewdest example of all, David Guetta and Akon's "Sexy Chick"

A humorous counterpoint to this portrayal of females is female rapper Riskay's "Smell Yo Dick", which can be seen as an attack on male promiscuity and club culture. Here is the video. Interestingly, the female stripper that the man is seen with is white, a reversal of the role of the black woman as hussy or trollop. Riskay combats the idea of men as "players" and equates it with referring to a woman as a "ho".

Is Big Brother Watching From That Mannequin?

In Practices of Looking, the authors indicate that surveillance cameras constantly track consumers. (Cartwright 108). Cartwright and Struthers discuss the importance of “gaze,” how the public views objects, and the “looks” that emanate from those objects in return. The concept of an object returning a consumer’s gaze becomes very concrete after reading Stephanie Rosenbloom’s article “In Bid to Sway Sales, Cameras Track Shoppers,” because mannequins, ceilings, and department store dressing rooms apparently house cameras that give retailers information about consumer behavior. Companies defend this practice by saying that they are sensitive to privacy issues and that the technology is used to provide consumers with a more enjoyable shopping experience. By studying the photographs taken, retailers can find solutions to problems in their stores; they can install comfortable seating and activity areas to keep children happy while their mothers shop, or lower shelves and merchandise if items are out of reach.  More and more companies are employing surveillance technology to see how different people respond to various products. This makes sense, because in a recession, buying practices are important; stores need to know what items will attract attention and sell.

            Video analysis companies indicate that nearly every major chain, including Walmart and Best Buy, uses cameras. Cameras enable researchers to draw conclusions about things retailers and manufacturers want to know, like which shopping areas are the most and least popular.  After seeing shoppers struggle in specific areas, analysts might suggest that retailers widen certain aisles. Cisco Systems, a supplier of surveillance equipment, said that clients use cameras to see how long it took sale agents to approach customers. Cameras help retailers monitor the number and age of the consumers who pass, and to determine whether a display is more appealing to men or women. Videos inspired malls to create attractive seating areas on the theory that if men are comfortable, women will shop longer. Although retailers may want to know more about people’s shopping behaviors, the issue of invasion of privacy is very troublesome. Cisco is even experimenting with facial recognition technology. Much of the video footage can be intrusive and embarrassing, for example boys were photographed groping mannequins’ breasts. Also, one would obviously prefer having real privacy within a dressing room when undressing to try on clothing. Apparently, the public is unable to protect its privacy anywhere; cameras are pervasive and stores are just the latest frontier (Rosenbloom 5). Panopticism may well govern our behavior in department stores in the future; if a person knows he is being watched, it is possible that shame will discipline his “gaze.” 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/20/business/20surveillance.html

John McClane Is My Hero

After monday's reading: "Subject Of Visual Culture" and the discussion about new cinema, it occurred to me that not only do scenarios in real life make sense to us because we see them in movies, but vice versa. Many movies play upon social issues that are prevalent during the time period that they are made, and it allows the movie to pull in the viewer and make them see the story in a certain way. Recently I was watching Die Hard, and despite it being marketed as a big blockbuster action film, there are many subtleties throughout the movie that evoke certain emotions from the viewer, whether they realize it or not.

For example, in the movie, we want to sympathize with the main character, John McClane. He is a hard working NYC cop, and he has flown across the country (even though he is deathly afraid of heights) to try and work on his marriage with his wife who has moved to LA for her career. Right away the movie plays into soft spots because we should value his effort to fix his marriage, and we should feel bad for him because he is clearly so far out of his element in LA. We want him to succeed so he can put his family back together. And this emotional set up starts before any of the action has even begun.

When Die Hard was made in the late 80's, there was a prevalent fear of foreign companies, specifically Japan, infiltrating our country and bringing their corporations onto "our land". Naturally, in the movie, the corporation that has torn the family apart by bringing

McClane's wife across the country is a Japanese corporation. This further contributes to our support to John McClane's cause to win back his wife. The movie is clearly subconsciously playing into the protective values we hold of our country.

Then, to add to our fear of foreigners, the terrorists are from eastern Europe and are portrayed as very menacing and evil.There was also one American terrorist, but he was black, which plays into our country's longstanding issue with race. Obviously, we want McClane, our all-american hero, to defeat these evil foreign intruders and save our country. So even though this action packed movie was a huge blockbuster hit, there are underlying reasons that it was so successful. As viewers, we are affected by the world around us, and we bring those feelings and viewpoints into movies that we see. And that is why everyone that saw Die Hard could all relate to McClane and support his valiant fight, both with his marriage and against the terrorists.

WILD THINGS

Throughout the recent years society has pressed for a more aware and conscious way of speaking about races, ethnicities, and religions—the desire to be politically correct. In today’s modern culture, especially in the United States, a consciousness has developed within the way one speaks and represents people of different colors or cultures. It is not politically correct to call someone a nigger, spick, redneck, or chink; there is a form of speech that entails us to refer one another as African America, Latin, European American or Asian American in hopes of showing a dose of respect or awareness. Although many advertisements from companies like the United Colors of Beneton or J.Crew strive to embrace a mix of cultures, sometimes their representations fail to embody them in a politically correct way.

Some of the most beautiful and famous models are African American and still with their notorious experience and notorious career success they sometimes are doomed to the habits of the past. A famous spread featuring Naomi Campbell did just that when Harper’s Bazaar released the September 2009 issue. The spread was called Wild Things where Campbell was portrayed as one with the wild outdoors of an African safari landscape. Campbell is dressed in furs and animal prints as she runs with cheetahs and plays around with monkeys; she looks like an untamed animal—a stereotypical representation that has followed the African American woman long throughout history. Representations of African American women have long been categorized by the idea that they are untamed, wild, animal-like people who can be related to that of actual wild animals. The only times where black women are recognized as “white” blacks is when their hair is straight or have thinner features all over their physical anatomy whether it be thinner noses, lips, or body figures.

In this ad, Beyonce looks white. Her hair is straight with a blonde tint and her skin tone has been altered to look paler. Her behavior seems serene and poised as oppose to other advertisement that show African Americans as more “black” with untamed hair, sweat, and a more “savage look.”

The Token Black Friend

We've all seen it in countless television shows and movies. That's right, I'm talking about the "token black friend." According to Urban Dictionary, the token black friend (TBF) is defined as

The only african american in a group of friends.

This relates to this week's discussion of the cultural representations of blacks in the media. While not completely exclusive to black women, several black female characters often fall into the category of the "token black friend." This post expands upon this and explores the role of the TBF as portrayed by both males and females. It should also be noted that TBF does not necessarily have to be black, the more general token (any) minority character is also a familiar character role in the media as well.

We've also discussed in class that placing minorities within television shows or films with primarily white actors highlights their distinctive "otherness." Last semester in Intro to Media Studies, we dedicated an entire section of the course to examining the portrayals of blacks in the media and the evolution of on-screen racism (that is, racist messages present in the kinds of roles given to black actors as well as in the general portrayal of blacks in the media.) Since the overtly racist days of Amos 'n' Andy, "modern racism" has become the form in which blacks and other minorities are subjugated in the media. The TBF is a kind of modern racism, a kind of distinction made between races that is implied through the character presence, but not explicitly stated or mentioned. It appears natural that the protagonist of any given television show or film has only one black friend, and we as viewers internalize such a "fact" and take it to be true.

Famous examples of the token black friend include:

Dee from the Clueless series and film



Chad (as Troy's BFF) and Taylor (as Gabriella's) from the High School Musical movies



War Machine in the Iron Man comics



And my all time favorite: Brenda from the Scary Movie films. Obviously a parody of the TBF phenomenon, but too funny not to include.



"Ohhh!!! She about to get it aaawwwnnn with Shake-eh-speare!"

Oops, almost forgot: Beyoncé from Lady Gaga's "Telephone" music video

A Step Forward or Backward for Black Females?

In class, we discussed the issue of Italian Vogue that featured all black models. The magazine’s editors were clearly not filling the pages with black women because of their beauty. Rather, for the purpose of political correctness that was discussed in bell hooks’ chapter from her book, Black Looks, black woman are represented so that “readers will notice that the magazine is racially inclusive” (71). This desire for Vogue to appear politically correct was evidenced by the fact that the first half of the magazine was filled with ads featuring all white models. If the magazine was actually trying to glorify the beauty of the black female, chances are she would have appeared in at least some of the advertisements.

Here is one of the images from the “All Black” issue of Italian Vogue.

This photo was taken by Dusan Reljin and is one of a series that he shot.

What is so interesting about this image is the fact that it melds perfectly with hooks’ assertions about black female sexuality and about black women in contrast with white women. hooks says that black female bodies and “features are often distorted, their bodies contorted into strange and bizarre postures that make the images appear monstrous or grotesque”, that black women “seem to represent an anti-aesthetic, one that mocks the very notion of beauty” (71). In this picture, the model looks hardly human. She is filthy and looks like she is covered in some sort of paint or oil, making her body look positively deformed. Her hair stands straight on end, making her appear to be almost some kind of futuristic woman, perhaps a robot, an automaton with no feelings or expression, which certainly meshes with hooks’ assertions about black women as objects, void of feelings or thoughts or personhood. Yet while appearing futuristic, she has the savagery and the wild look that hooks also cites as conventions of black female sexuality. The look in her distorted, almost frightening, eyes is fairly blank, yet still communicates some kind of sexuality. Her eyes, combined with one hand delicately clutching a lit cigarette and her other resting upon her half bare, dirty torso communicate a sense of savagery, freedom, and sexuality. Also, over her jumpsuit she is wearing some sort of shiny, plastic-looking overlay. My first reaction to this was that she looks like she is in a plastic bag, like something you would purchase, an object, a thing, not a person.

In fact, the only facet of this image that strays from hooks’ theory is the fact that the woman is painted darker than her actual skin tone, as can be seen from the few exposed patches of skin that are not covered in black paint. hooks says that black women are constantly portrayed so as to appear to be as close to “whiteness” as possible, that “darker-skinned models are most likely to appear in photographs where their features are distorted.” However, this model has lighter skin that is being made darker instead of being characterized as lighter and whiter. However, the fact that she is made to look a hue darker than her actual skin still proves hooks’ points, as the model is being presented as dirty, savage, and objectified.

What is really important here is that it seems much easier for an editor or publisher to use a beautiful black model and make her look like a dark, dirty mess than it would be for such a person to similarly use a white model. It seems much easier to mask the features of the black model so that image becomes about everything but who she is. If society had really overcome these racist notions of black female identity, then a specifically black issue of a fashion magazine would not need to published; black women would be displayed just as prominently, favorably, and frequently and considered as high-fashion and beautiful as most white models are. There would be no reason to specify that this issue is compiled of specifically black images, for specifying this only causes the women to have a greater chance of being subjected to the stilted and racist gaze and “myth of black female sexuality created by men in a white supremacist patriarchy” (69). Clearly, the undesirable conventions and stereotypes have not been overcome if we can not even recognize black as beautiful and fashionable unless it is labeled and sold to us by a big-name magazine.

Fight the Power

The male gaze has always been a dominating notion in our society for a long time now. In the media, and especially in movies, it is usually from the perspective of a white, heterosexual man. The camera never fails to linger at the slight curve of the woman's hip, the peek of her cleavage, and the fullness of her lips. The male gaze is objectifying and wrong on so many levels, and many feminists have had their say on the issue.

And the male gaze made people wonder: If there is a male gaze, why can't there be other perspectives? And this wonderment led to other gazes being created and integrated into society as well.

The Transverse Glance is one of them.

It means being constantly aware of the global dimensions to the work one is doing. It's not necessarily a gaze because it tries to resist the imperial domain of gendered sexuality.

In simpler terms, the subject turns him/herself into a visual subject so it is not a male gaze.
This is really interesting and seen in our progressive society today. It has actually been happening.
You can see it in Spike Lee's powerful opening scene of "Do the Right Thing."



Rosie Perez, a powerful expressionist, uses her body as a way of expression. She dances to "Fight the Power" by hip hop group Public Enemy. This song has largely served as the political statement of purpose for the group and other people. Perez is shown dancing for about 4 minutes to this one song, thrusting her body, shaking wildly, jumping up and down, gyrating her hips, and seeming untamed and wild. The dance is actually sexual; all of the outfits that she wears are tight fitting and most are cleavage bearing. The dance moves themselves are sexual as well.

However, Rosie uses her sexuality as a symbol of strength and endurance. She objectifies herself in order to serve a greater purpose. Because she uses sexuality as expression, it is not the male gaze rather a transverse glance that promotes power.

It's awesome to see a woman shaking what she's got in order to empower herself and other women.

Beyonce

In class on Wednesday we talked about the sexual objectification of black women that has been a feature of Western culture dating back to the days of slavery. This manifests itself in many ways in popular culture, and I think an example of this that we're all aware of is that of Beyonce. Beyonce, a 16 time Grammy award winner, is famous for her overt expressions of sexuality and her body, especially in her music videos. A great example of this is the video for "Single Ladies." This widely viewed video (at last count it has over 84 million hits on YouTube) consists entirely of Beyonce dancing to the song with two backup dancers. View the video and you can see it for yourself (if you haven't already)

In the video, Beyonce and her dancers present themselves as sexual objects. They wear black leotards that show off their long legs, mullet-esque hairdos that accentuate their heads, and stiletto heels that call attention to their legs and further the idea that they are objects to be observed rather than people. Throughout the course of the video they also spank themselves several times, giving off the impression that they want men to treat them like the objects that they are presenting themselves as.

Don't get the impression that I don't like Beyonce or this video. On the contrary, I enjoy both very much. I just find it worthwhile to examine these kinds of things in an analytical context that we probably don't do every time we type in "single ladies beyonce" on YouTube.

Wild Women

In her book Black Looks which examines cultural representations of black women in media, Bell Hooks discusses the "wild woman" image that is often associated with black females. While describing pop star Tina Turner, Hooks explains her, "singing career has been based on the construction of an image of black female sexuality that is made synonymous with wild animalistic lust." This image of the black female as a "wild sexual savage" is still commonplace in todays media. The following ad for Wild Africa Cream Liquor depicts a black woman as a wild sexual temptress:

The tagline reads, "Unleash your wild side", as the woman in the ad is literally being portrayed as half woman half animal, seducing the man in the ad with her wild animalistic behavior.

This image of wild black women also appears in the fashion world. The December 2008 issue of Russian Vogue featured model Naomi Campbell in a perfect example of Hooks' depiction of the black woman as a "wild, sexual savage":

Here Campbell is portrayed as a primitive, savage, sexual object. She is naked, her only covering a plant and a piece of animal printed fabric. The picture evokes the idea of a native African tribeswoman, wild and untamed, an object of male fantasy and lust.

However, in contrast to the images of the women in these ads, Hooks describes that Tina Turner used the image of wild, animalistic, sexuality as a source of empowerment. In her personal life Turner was physically abused by her husband and in her professional career she, "appropriated the 'wild woman' image, using it for career advancement." This tactic may have proved successful for Tina Turner, but in my opinion the idea of a woman as a wild animal seems far from empowering.

White is the New Yellow

Before the start of Hollywood, white pale skin was considered beautiful because it meant that you were not a laborer working out in the sun all day. When Hollywood came around and everyone saw the tan the actors and actresses had due to filming in the Californian sunshine all day, they thought tanned skin was beautiful and this notion is still widely held today. Every spring, there are millions of women running out to the tanning salon, buying bronzers and self-tanners in hope of getting that gorgeous bronze skin before swimsuit season hits. Who knew that across the Pacific Ocean though, in countries like Korea and China, that women are not running to get dark, but are instead running to get white...

Growing up, I always though all Asian people have yellow skin, it’s what I saw on television, and it’s what my friends told me and it never seemed odd to me because I did see a golden tint to my skin while growing up. It was not until I took my first trip to Hong Kong and began exposing myself to East Asian culture that I realized all the girls there are pale white. Everywhere I looked, there were these pale sick-looking girls walking around the streets and in print ads all over the city that I realized: Asians aren’t yellow, they’re white.

Whitening/bleaching cosmetic products have been flying off the shelves in countries such as China, Korea, and Japan. Women are striving for the Michael Jackson effect as they walk down the streets with their wide-brimmed hats and parasols, shielding themselves from any potential sunrays. I think this definitely has to do with the “whiteness” Hook was describing in “Selling Hot ________.” Being white seems like a powerful beautiful thing to these women and that is why they are striving to get as close to that as possible. That is probably also why getting the eye-lid surgery is also a trendy thing to do in East Asia. Losing the infamous “chinky” eyes will make them “more” white.

Subtleties

In class this week, we’ve been discussion how races (specifically black vs. white) are portrayed in the media through film, television, advertisements, etc. We’ve discussed how minority races are often seen as the “other” in relation to white people and how hints of racism/racist ideas live on through the subtleties of modern racism. We’ve discussed how black women in the media are typically either overly sexualized, objectified, or compared to animals.

In this United Colors of Benetton ad (that was originally meant to break down racial barriers) we see a pair of naked black breasts—take note that her entire body is not shown— nursing a white baby. This campaign was an interesting way to attempt to dissolve racial separation, but the viewer should step away from the image and wonder: Why isn’t it a white woman bearing her nude body to nurse a black baby? The answer is this: black women have always been overly sexualized and objectified in the media for ages, whereas objectification of white women is relatively new; the separation of decency and indecency is different for women of different races. If it were a white woman nursing a black child, [I imagine] her breasts would be covered by a towel or blanket or by an obstructed angle, whereas, we don’t think twice about seeing a black woman’s body completely vulnerable and exploited in an ad.

On a side note, this ad recalls the days of slavery when black women took care of their white masters’ children. Would it be too ‘cutting edge’ to picture a white woman caring for a black child in an ad? The standards for representing white women and black women in the media are certainly not equal, but we are conditioned to not question the subtle racism in ads. We see it, but apparently, we do not mind it and do not challenge it.

Objectify or Empower?

"My butt is big" is part of one of Nike's new ad campaigns. They also have thunder thighs, chicken legs, hips, and scabby knees. Not only is this ad campaign geared to the new "feel good about yourself" trend going around (dove ads), but it also questions whether or not pointing out a woman's society-constructed imperfections is empowering or objectifying.

The ad reads, "My butt is big and round like the letter C and ten thousand lunges have made it rounder but not smaller and that’s just fine. It’s a space heater for my side of the bed. It’s my ambassador to those who walk behind me. It’s a border collie that herds skinny women away from the best deals at clothing sales. My butt is big and that’s just fine and those who might scorn it are invited to kiss it."

The ad could be read that the woman, although in black or white her race is indistinguishable, has a darker color than the white booty shorts she is wearing. This allows the viewer to think that the woman is black, especially since the stereotyped association of black women having big butts is present. I know I first thought that it was a black woman's butt. As discussed in class the white shorts were probably strategically chosen because they imply that white is pure and good. This could be taken as nike trying to take the black woman's large butt and making it more "white." This makes it a white trend and therefore more socially acceptable.

Also, if one reads into the ad she refers to her butt as her ambassador, or representative to those who walk behind her. This objectifies her butt to be looked at alone as an object and objectifies herself. The nike ad is playing into the fetishism of a black woman's behind by pointing out its beneficial factors. I think the message is good and empowering, but at the same time I am not sure if it sends the right message because in the wording she still mentions the herd of skinny women which shows the "norm." The stereotype of black women having large butts is being perpetuated still today, even years after the KhoiKhoi woman. When will be learn our lesson?

Opposites Attract, Especially on TV

In class we discussed the idea of “otherness” by contrast of the majority. Many of the characters we see on TV are not simply defined by their race, but more implicitly defined by the races that surround them. In the age of early television where characters were not quite integrated, shows like The Cosby Show, Good Times, and The Fresh Prince of Bellair.

However, we now have a much more diverse and more closely integrated array of characters. Take Grey’s Anatomy for instance. Some critics might applaud ABC for producing such an ethnically diverse show, where race is simply an objective factor and episode encourage problem-solving teamwork versus culture classes. However, are these characters truly a representation of diversity? Or are the ethnic minorities simply defined as their otherness to other characters.

Let’s compare and contrast a few pairs of characters:

First, Meredith and Christina. Meredith is 100% female. She’s a woman, she has vulnerabilities (one most notably being men), she wears her heart on her sleeve although it may be hidden by a rather transparent cocoon, and she’s a fair-skinned dirty-blonde even-tempered doctor. She’s the main character, after all. Let’s contrast her to Christina Yang. Christina Yang is perhaps more masculine than a few male characters. She explicitly has no emotions, few weaknesses, practically asexual, and all her sharp edges make her last-runner up for a beauty pageant. This plays directly into the dragon-lady stereotype, a man-eating asian with a savage-like inability to emote. Now, I wonder whether or not Christina would look nearly as emotionless if she weren’t directly contrasted with her overly-emotional unstable counterpart. I wonder if Yang’s wavy long hair would mark her as a beauty, and I wonder if her emotionless would be revered rather than critiqued if her direct contrast, her foil, weren’t so explicitly presented to us as “correct.” Meredeth is the main character, therefore we are supposed to like her the most, therefore anything opposite we dislike the most.

Let’s take another example. Dr. Shepherd vs. Dr. Burke. Shepherd is known as McDreamy, he has luscious locks that seem to be the center of hospital conversation and he is as close to the Statue of David as Seattle Grace Hospital could hope to get. Talented but not stubborn, confident but still modest, and once again, fair-skinned. Now we have his supposed “best friend” in the early years before the Grey’s Character Fiasco (another blog for another time). Burke is stubborn, he blindly regards himself as the best. Yet he is soft-spoken, reveals quickly his vulnerabilities. He is one of the more effeminate characters on the show, quickly getting caught up in the hospital drama. Burke is much darker, much more internal, and much less intimidating than Dr. Shepherd. Oh yeah, and Burke’s Black.

It’s funny how opposites tend to attract each other on TV. Unless it’s the case of relationships. In that case, the two golden characters, the two icons of majority perfection become involved, while their two counterparts also get involved. I could’ve guessed it. However, I don’t remember the last time I had a best friend who was my direct opposite, or the last time I was attracted to a person who was exactly like me. If opposites really do attract, it seems like these allegedly diverse Prime Time TV shows are very strong, very widely broadcasted magnets.

women's power

The topic we discussed was on movies. What interested me the most was women’s power described in the movie. Two women are sitting down on the rock and the man approaches them. The women start to insult him as men are degraded human beings who objectify women. They scare him and even shoot his truck and make it exploded. Women at this moment are described as powerful existence, taking control over men who are used to be considered authoritative. I found women’s having power in movie many times. For example, wives are working, and husbands stay in home and take care of housework. Wives have control over husbands unlike old past prejudice that women should work home and men should work outside and should be the head of a family. As time goes on, movies frankly reflect social issues and viewers are either persuaded or show disagreement. Thus, as women’s power is reflected, women viewers agree with the theme and enjoy watching them. Not only women’s power changed over time but also other social issues progressing in these days are being reflected on movies and become pervasive.

http://www.popeater.com/2009/12/30/women-movies-chick-flicks/

Homosexuality and Double Consciousness

When the subject of double consciousness came up in class this week and in the article, it was mainly referencing the double consciousness felt by black people in this country before the civil rights movement when segregation was a major issue in America. The best example of this feeling in the 21st century, of being American and something else, would probably be being GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender). Many gays and lesbians feel that they do not have the same rights as their heterosexual peers do. In most states they cannot marry, and homophobia is still widespread in this country, even in places where gays and lesbians generally feel safe, like New York City and San Francisco.

Part of the reason why homosexuality is an example of double consciousness is because sometimes it feels as though once a person is gay, that is all they are. What I mean by that is that if a public figure comes out, be they a politician, a movie star, or an athlete, they are usually known as gay first and politician, movie star, or athlete second. Being gay is the first thing that everyone thinks when they think of that person. It's as if sexual orientation suddenly becomes a defining factor of their person, even though for straight people being straight only comes up if you're talking about things like weddings and having kids. For a famous gay person, they could be going to the bank and they're still thought of as that gay celebrity going to the bank.

The double consciousness of homosexuality made headlines this week in Mississippi. Constance McMillen, an 18 year old high school senior, wanted to take her girlfriend to the prom this spring. When she asked the school for permission to take her girlfriend, the school reacted in a pretty amazing way, in my opinion. Rather than let Ms McMillen take her girlfriend to the prom, the school cancelled the entire event. That's right, the school CANCELLED PROM rather than letting a girl take her girlfriend as her date. Ms McMillen was not trying to make a statement here. All she wanted to do was enjoy her prom, the quintessential high school ending event, with her girlfriend and have a good time. She never intended for this to happen. Now she, with the help of the ACLU, is suing the school. As she says, "this isn't just about me and my rights anymore -- now I'm fighting for the right of all the students at my school to have our prom."

According to Constance McMillen's high school, she is gay first and high school student second. Her school's decision is wrong on many levels, but I feel like this is the worst one. Because now, if her prom stays cancelled and doesn't happen, the entire senior class will look at her as that gay kid who got our prom cancelled because she wanted to take her girlfriend with her. People look forward to prom throughout high school and to take that away from them, especially for something like this, is outrageous. I only hope that the school realizes its mistake and reneges on its decision.

The CNN and Huffington Post articles on this story can be read here:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/11/mississippi.prom.suit/index.html?iref=allsearch

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/11/mississippi-prom-canceled_n_494555.html