THE GAUNTLET! (pt 1)

In chapter one, the introduction, to David Gauntlett’s Media, Gender, and Identity he lays out the different topics covered in the book as well as how it is written. He says that we are influenced my media in some way just because of the constant intake we get. Men and women are for the most part equal today, but traditional attitudes still exist. He talks about how men are not necessarily in an identity crisis, but their roles are just different. Femininity is less present, and it’s often exploited. Sexual identity is less equal than gender, but it has been gaining ground in society. He then outlines the book, and says that the book doesn’t criticize texts as much as it analyzes how they affect our identities.

In chapter two, Gauntlett talks about different arguments on mass media. The first was on the production of media. Theodor Adorno agued that media is not influenced by culture, and that there is little range in the culture forms we watch. John Fiske’s point is the exact opposite. He says that we make the culture, and that the culture industry makes what they think we will take. Gauntlett then talks about the problems of media effects such as the studies done on media effects are done in an artificial setting not allowing one hundred percent accuracy. He then talks about gender identity and gender schema. This is when a person identifies with a gender, and then they seek the correct masculine or feminine response.

newsday.com
I hate to sound like this elitist "butt," but this is something I really don't understand. I didn't necessarily agree with everything Theodor Adorno had to say, but I strongly agree with him in respect to the music industry. There might be artists with political ideas or whatever, but that gets outshined when they pay their profits to their honcho record labels. The variety offered is neat and prepackaged. In an art that just needs to be the musicians why are there so many other people involved looking to earn money? I would find it hard to argue that the culture dictates the music culture. Whatever is out there is strung through the wringer to look like everything else.

This example is the band My Chemical Romance. They are a punkish band signed to Warner Bros records. Within the punk scene they aren't recognized as being anything, but outside of it they are one of the most engaging punk bands in the industry.

I think this is more than just stubbornness. When there are loads of bands like My Chemical Romance that no one within the scene recognizes aren't they on to something. There is something fake in the industry that Adorno talks about, and it's being sniffed out. I love when people look at bands like My Chemical Romance and think punk is dead. It's not dead it just isn't apart of that industry.