chs 1-3 SGL

In the first few chapters of Stephanie Greco Larson's book, Media and Minorities, she talks about exclusion and selective exclusion of African Americans in media. Exclusion is there being no minorities on television. Selective exclusion is there few minorities in media, and those who are there are in smaller less important roles. They have no cultural identity or they are stereotyped. This is a problem because minorities aren't represented, and when they are only further marginalized.

I think television has done a poor job trying to fix the problems of selective exclusion. On main network stations there are few leading minority characters. One thing that happens in the mean time is that these representations are satirized. The Office does a great job with this.

The video above is of the show main character, Michael Scott, and the warehouse manager, Darryl. Michael constantly takes their relationship to be as stereotypical as possible. He doesn't know any black people so he takes his cues from stereotypes. Darryl sees this, and he uses it to make a fool out of Michael. Michael is Darryl's superior, but only in his job title. Michael is always made to look dumber than Darryl. This is different from the relations like this on previous shows. In other shows Darryl would be the fool. This satire of previous shows adds to the comedy of the situation. There is still selective exclusion happening. Darryl is one of two continuous black characters amongst a large ensemble cast. His character makes no strives in character development like the other characters, but to a degree his character is still pointing out the problems with previous representations which have been small and stereotypical.

FUDGE!

In Rachel Fudge’s article, The Buffy Effect OR, a Tale of Cleavage and Marketing, she discusses Buffy the Vampire Slayer and whether it is a great feminist role model or a stereotypical “Girl Power” figure. On the one hand Buffy is great character. Her “cosmology” combined with her slayer power create a great feminist characterization. She doesn’t lose her femininity to do her powerful job. She is a great model for standing up to others as a woman. This attitude combined with her in screen martial arts beat downs make her visually striking. The critique is in how limiting this can be. Her image is very one dimensional as an attractive hero. Her physical image can take away from what she represents. This realized by even the shows producer, but this is seen as a small price if it means teenage boy learning about feminism.

I want to start off by saying I’m aware this isn’t a direct example, but I think there are ten other examples, two of them are actually good, and they are all pretty much the same idea (action star who at some point is sexy). SO, my case in point is different and still somewhat relatable.

My example is the song “Just A Girl” by No Doubt. The song ironically talks about how the singer is just a girl. The video talks about the separation between girls and guys being unnecessary. They are separated in the beginning of the video. Then they join each other. I think this relates to the article in that Gwen Stefani, the lead singer, doesn’t want to be just called a girl. She thinks that stereotype isn’t true. At the same time she keeps her femininity in the way she dresses in a way that doesn’t largely sexualize her. Gwen is saying that music isn’t just a guy’s world in the same way Buffy takes over a the male hero role.

I think what’s happening in the video is a form of feminism as well. They don’t allow typical gender separation. I think this goes further than Buffy and other female heroes. They singularly invade a man’s world and women are proud, but men see it as an exception to the everyday image. I feel like gender equality is the main goal. This isn’t going to come from unrealistic characters like Buffy. They are making even representation, but not creating equality. I think this video makes real equality easier goal by saying that there are no boys and girls only club. Instead of an anything you can do I can do better attitude. It makes equality less of a big deal than it needs to be, and it is an effort that both men and women can participate in.

that's so gay...i think?

In Varda Burstyn’s article, ‘Hooligans, Studs, and Queers’: Three Studies in the Reproduction of Hypermasculinity, they talk about hypermasculinity. Hypermasculinity is, “the belief that ideal manhood lies in the exercise of force to dominate others,”(192). Varda looks at this through soccer hooligans, African American pro athletes, and athletic homosexuals. He talks about the homoeroticism of sports. How sports have been considered one of the manliest things to do, but at the same time they have many homoerotic qualities that are acceptable. However, they are only acceptable in the context of sports. Homoerotic images in particular have been asserted into advertising partly because of the acceptance of this athletic look. Having one of these athletic bodies has become apart of gay culture. It has also become apart of hypermasculine aesthetic values.

This above is an ad for Under Armour. It is a perfect example of how this has come into advertising. What is interesting to me is thinking about whether or not this would have been acceptable twenty or thirty years ago. I think it wouldn’t. So it’s interesting to think what exactly has changed. This is what is discussed in the article, but I think what is interesting is where this leads us.

May be this does nothing, and the lines of what is gay and what is just athletic masculinity stay clear. But, what if something else happens. What if the two continue to converge and start to blur? Will homosexuality become more acceptable to even the most homophobic beefcake? Will this image become rejected as masculine? Will there be a new idea of what is masculine and athletic? Times have changed since thirty years ago. I can only think they will continue to change. I really believe that in time either homophobia will become less of a problem, or masculinity within sports will be redefined.

My point is that as these lines continue to blur eventually a guy will be watching football, baseball, or wrestling and say, "that's so gay." What will happen then? As gay culture becomes more apart of the mainstream and traditional masculinity what will change about the male identity? I think that the current male identity is too weak for nothing to happen. So it could get interesting.

pic:www.bossip.com/.../under-armour-alreynolds1/

...respect the....i don't mean that

In chapter eight of Gauntlett’s book he talks about male identities. He describes different male magazines. Many of the magazines were finding a way to sell magazines besides Playboy to men. The way they did this is offer a magazine with women in them and also with advice and articles like movie reviews. The magazines use irony and humor to deal with their advice and problems, but at the same time these problems reinforce an unconfident masculinity. One person argues that the magazines look to keep men’s feelings hidden. In many ways the magazines help with un-talked about insecurities according to Gauntlett, but I don't know how much they really help.

I chose the character Frank T.J. Mackey from the movie Magnolia. Frank sells a self-help thing for men to seduce and have sex with women. He constantly stands as this confident guy who is just helping out all the other guys. There is a very macho feeling about the character, but by the end of the movie he is broken down. He is forced to deal with his repressed problems.

I tend to agree with one of the criticisms of men’s magazines that they tend to keep men’s feelings hidden. Frank Mackey not only hides his feelings, but intends to make feelings up in order to seduce women. Even if these magazines deal with feeling I'm not sure their goal is to make a better person. I think the real question becomes, is the masculinity enforced in the magazines real masculinity. I think it comes across more like Frank Mackey if only because of the pictures. I think what happens to Frank is a clue to where this masculinity can lead. They don't enforce anything good, and if this is where a guy draws his male identity can't that be destructive?

pic:madeinhead.org/anism/?p=253

mad men

In John Beynon’s article, “The Comercialization of Masculinities,” he talks about the changes masculinity has gone through. He talks about two strands of masculinity. The nurturer is a man that is close to the feminist movement. He accepts their ideas more than traditional masculinity. The other is the narcissist. He is represented by men who are looking for more style and have been sexualized in advertising. This has led to the yuppie. They are like the narcissist, but they are also characterized by their ambition for money and corporate power.
The “New Man-as-Narcissist” is displayed perfectly in the AMC show Mad Men. In the article Beynon talks about how this man was created by a steering away from the “normal” of wife and children. They were the Playboy image. The characters on the show completely represent this. Their characters could be summed up in three actions; drinking, smoking, and cheating on their wives. One of the characters has recently left their wife for a younger secretary. This is making his lifestyle public. Living the lifestyle is fine, but there is a struggle on the show to whether this lifestyle is publicly acceptable. It’s funny the more a character represents this image the higher their status in the company rises.
I think this show is a perfect example of this masculinity. It is presenting this culture to the viewers, but I think it is also representing that corporate power and narcissistic masculinity go hand in hand. I think that is the larger problem with this masculinity. It helps realize the importance of a nurturing masculinity.

pic:blogs.mediavillage.com

dude i guess?

In chapter 5 of Gauntlett’s book he talks about Anthony Giddens’s perspective on identity. Giddens says that there are boundaries in a society, but in the world we live in today these boundaries are to be crossed freely. Media do not just reflect the social world, but contribute to it’s shape, (98). The things we buy to ‘express’ ourselves impacts the way we think about ourselves, (102). We then develop “lifestyles” that make it easier to make a self. These lifestyles can come from all different places in media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyMSSe7cOvA

I started thinking where we get our lifestyles in the media. I think it's in advertising not the actual programing we want. The characters in film and television are mostly presented to be people who we should only really identify with on some emotional level. The people in ads are the ones we are directly presented to look like. Obviously. The more I see myself or something good in a person in an ad the more I think the product is something I should have, and or that's what I should be like.

This commercial doesn't necessarily depict a certain lifestyle, but it definitely builds on this sense of male self. This idea that I should be hip, I guess, and use words like dude as a main form of expression. Whether I buy the product doesn't matter in the end. If I do I buy it then I buy into the image that is being portrayed even more, but even if I don't buy it I still probably relate to it in some way. I don't know anyone near my age who has never said dude. Constant advertisements help shape what I do and don't identify with. Because I find the ad funny it conditions me to continue to use that slang so I can find that same humor in my own life that I relate to.

XXX Rock

In chapter 4 of Media, Gender, and Identity Gauntlett discusses gender in the media. Representations of gender on television with shows like Sex and the City. Masculinity is being redefined as being more loving as apposed to the total action hero, and women are getting tougher roles. Things are changing for gender representations. Representations of sexuality in gay and lesbian characters have also grown, but not as much.

tv.com
The show 30 Rock is great current example of gender representation. The main character of the show is played by Tina Fey. It is one of the few network television shows that feature a woman as the main character. It is even rarer because the show is a comedy and she doesn’t play a house wife. On top of all that the show is actually good. It’s my favorite comedy on TV, and it just won the Emmy for best comedy for the second year in a row as well as Emmys for writing and acting both going to Tina Fey.

Tina Fey’s character isn’t the perfect role model for gender representation. While she is unique she still struggles often with her looks and whether or not she is going to ever get married. These are problems that a male character might not deal with as often. I don’t think that is a bad thing though. Her character deals with these like real problems and the outcome is genuine. Her character went out of her way of what may have been expected of her as a woman to become a successful TV writer instead of settling for marriage. In many ways I think this is better than ignoring these clear issues. I think it helps representation much more to see a character deal with and overcome issues facing many women instead of pretending these issues are too weak for women.