Peeing, Hair, and Gender, Oh My!

            As the semester comes to an end it is amazing to realize the impact that this class has had on my viewpoints of all things media.  I was already a critical consumer, however, after completing the course packet and throughout the semester, I have noticed that my viewpoint has become even more critical.  Although my critical viewpoint continues to grow, it has also become more thoughtful, and more hopeful for change.

            Throughout the semester we have read several articles, including Sloop’s book, Disciplining Gender, in which one of the main topics of discussion in terms of gender is what haircut the person has and which restroom they use.  Do they stand up to pee or do they sit down, that is the ultimate question.  It is interesting to see how transfixed our society is on simple things that we claim distinguish if a person is man or woman.  Until we completed all of the readings, I had never realized how important these factors are to our society.

            One of the most popular and award winning shows on television right now, Game of Thrones, only reiterated how gender is distinguished through hair and peeing.  In the second episode of the second season, one of the main characters, Ayra, is performing as a boy in order to stay alive.  In the opening scene of the episode, Ayra is shown squatting in a stream urinating.  Later on in the episode she is conversing with one of the other men in her group and he claims to know that she is a girl.  Outraged, she says that she is not, which then leads to him telling her to pee in front of him to prove that she is a male.  She refuses which proves her friends point, that she is female because she will not whip out male genitalia and pee in front of him.

            Not only to Ayra need to pee like a boy, but in order to “fit in” with the Knight’s Watch, the commander cuts her hair so that she will be less distinguishable.  While he is only looking out for her welfare, there are several male characters in the series that have longer hair. It is arguable that she is a younger character, therefore her gender needs to be reinforced by these established norms, however, there are several other boy’s in the series that have longer hair.  The actress who plays Ayra does not have any stereotypical distinguishing feminine qualities.  It is interesting that even in this fictional place in a medieval time period, hair is a determining factor of gender.

            I love this show.  It has strong female characters who challenge the normal gender roles.  They are powerful, they are in control, and a lot of times they do not need a man to help them.  They are conquering kingdoms and vying for the crown that so many of the lead male characters lust after.  However, despite all of these progressive traits for the female characters, I still find it disturbing that the young girl Ayra is confined to the gender stereotype of short hair equals boy and long hair equals girl.

If Ayra was a person existing in our society today, her hair would most likely be a large topic of discussion in the media, especially once it was discovered that she is a girl posing as a boy.  I am sure that there would be discussion and interviews of her peers, much like the discussion surrounding Brandon Teena, about whether or not they saw her pee with them, which obviously distinguishes her gender.  However, unlike Brandon Teena, I do not think that Ayra would be villainized in our media, solely because she is a young girl trying to stay alive.  Her deception has purpose outside of her “selfish” gains to find love.

After this class, I know that I will never consume media in the same way.  I see gender norms and am frustrated by it in every television show, every movie, every media outlet that I enjoy.  There is no going back, and I think that is a good thing.

            

Third Wave Feminism or Just Plain Mean?

I just wanted to share this link with you all about the hatred between Kelly Osbourne and Christina Aguliara.  I thought it was interesting to take into consideration, especially after last weeks class discussion. Enjoy!

http://jezebel.com/5901296/formerly-fat-kelly-osbourne-doesnt-regret-calling-out-xtinas-weight-gain

Activism in Action

As I delve deeper into my final project—looking at ways the LDS church positions women through their new “I’m a Mormon” campaign—it has become glaringly obvious to me that I cannot be a passive feminist in this culture in which I exist.  While there are inherent risks to being known as a feminist as a Mormon, I have come to learn through the course of this class that I can be both, and that each distinct category contributes an essential element to my identity.  However, having this “feminist awakening” as my sisters on the “Feminist Mormon Housewives” blog call it has left me wanting to do something with this newfound knowledge and identity.  I have watched over the course of the semester on this blog and the accompanying Facebook group as many of the rhetorical options presented by Sowards and Renegar employed by the women who are vocal in this arena.  Until reading this article, I had never considered these things “activism” but do now realize some of them are. 

The biggest one I have noticed is the first option mentioned by Sowards and Renegar—Leadership as Activism.  Not only do these middle-aged women provide leadership to those of us just beginning our feminist journey, helping us to reconcile our feminism and our faith, but they also provide stories of how they use this while serving in leadership capacities within their own congregations.  One woman mentioned her frustration with the lesson she was supposed to teach on Sunday, and sought guidance on how to “modify” the lesson, so as to still fitting within the purpose, but including a more feminist slant.  This is just one example, but this seems to be a somewhat common occurrence on the Facebook page.  If anything, each of these women talk about how to be a “Mo-feminist” (Mormon feminist) and talk of how they model things (like language choice) for others around them.  In line with Sowards and Renegar, “all individuals who call themselves feminists become leaders, moving from leaderless activism to an activism where everyone can play a role in leadership” (p. 62).  This is definitely the case with this group—always welcoming and encouraging us “newbies” to do more both in and outside of the group. 

The other option that is clearly seen within this group is “building feminist self-identity as activism.”  Because of the traditional Mormon culture, it is a risk to identify as a feminist within the general church population.  In the 1970s, many intellectuals and feminists were excommunicated from the church.  (This is essentially the worst thing that can happen in this life to a devout Mormon.)  These actions have caused feminists to go more “underground” and afraid to openly admit to this.  So, by openly admitting to be a feminist, this can be groundbreaking for the general Mormon culture and interpreted as a form of activism.

While I see many of these other options, such as sharing stories as activism and challenging stereotypes and labels as activism, these two seem to be the most salient over the course of this past semester as I have stumbled upon this group and found a home as a “Mo-feminist.”  

All the Single Ladies, Now Put Your Hands Up (Leadership Essay)

Anderson, K. V., & Stewart, J. (2005). Politics and the single woman: The "sex and the city voter" in campaign 2004. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 8(4), 595-616.

In this article, Anderson and Stewart (2005) examine the “Sex and the City Voter” in the 2004 Presidential campaign and the way in which this construct was meant to convey third wave feminism but in actuality was more problematizing to the theory. Anderson and Stewart discuss how the media enjoys placing a label on female voters, referring to them as the “elusive groups of swing-voting women”. By giving such labels as “Soccer Mom”, “Security Moms” and the “Sex in the City Voter” it allows for candidates and their campaign committees to create campaigns that pay notice to these women and potentially bring in their votes.

Hollywood photographers, producers, and actors created “The Sex in the City Voter”, but pundits, pollsters, and journalists dubbed the term. This new label was supposed to target a new population of women. According to Anderson and Stewart she was, “the young, unmarried, upwardly-mobile women primed to vote on domestic issues such as choice, the economy, and the environment” (p. 596). However these women were more likely to be, “white, middle- to upper-class professionals as consumers rather than citizens, and as sexually appealing and available” (p. 597).  

The authors continue on in the essay discussing how this attempt to get the vote of young unwedded women actually did not influence voters as it hoped. There was only a 4% increase of unmarried women that voted during the 2004 election. Anderson and Stewart contend, “this result is not surprising, insofar as the design of the image created a desire for a certain lifestyle more than it motivated its subject toward political involvement” (p. 597).

From here, Anderson and Stewart discuss third wave feminism as it relates to the Academy and popular culture and the ways in which the definition differs depending on the context the theory is placed. This was by far one of the best things about this essay in that the reader was able to understand what third wave feminism initially tried to do which was to, “incorporate the insights of poststructuralism, postmodernism, and postcolonialism into contemporary feminist theories” (p. 598). As well the ways in which popular media and culture of the 1990s moved passed young women opposing feminism and focus more one’s self which goes against the first two waves of feminism where women were seen working collectively and collaboratively in order to better the whole. Scholars believe that third wave feminism as discussed in popular culture illustrates the concern for self-only, sexual assertiveness, and a concern for the body and not social change. Moreover third wave feminism becomes compared to a thing for sale rather than a movement. Shugart, Waggoner, and Hallstein posit, “ certain tenets of third-wave feminism are appropriated, commodified, reinscribed, and ‘sold back’ to audiences” (p. 196).

After discussing how the media jumped on board with the “Sex in the City Voter”, Anderson and Stewart discuss the way in which this label clumped all women together in one category. The name “Sex in the City Voter” was created based off the much popular series Sex in the City, which showcased the lives’ of four well-to-do single, white, financially stable women living in New York. However, the problem with this title is that it did not fit the 18-64 year old women whose annual income was less than $30,000, whom had children, and were not single or highly educated. To make matters even worst ads to get women to vote starred high paid female celebrities as if they could influence the common everyday woman to actually vote.

I would have to agree with the arguments presented by the authors as they discussed single women as homogenous voters. The use of high paid actresses rather than common everyday women to sell voting was a poor choice by the media. Jennifer Aniston, Helen Hunt, and Christina Aguilera were poor representations of “young, unmarried, upwardly-mobile women primed to vote on domestic issues such as choice, the economy, and the environment” they were very much “white, middle- to upper-class professionals, as consumers rather than citizens, and as sexually appealing and available”. There is no obvious connection between these women and the intended target of the “Sex in the City Voter” concept.

I found it troubling that the concept wanted to channel third wave feminism yet it was stuck in more of the second wave era where white, middle to upper class women were the one’s gaining privileges and leaving women of color and women in a lower socioeconomic class behind to fend for themselves. This lends to the reason why minorities show up to the polls far less than any other because campaigns don’t feature people that look like them or shows how the election will make a difference in their lives’. In a sense it becomes a means of silence and illustrates how their votes really don’t matter anyway.

From here, the authors then discuss how single women were more like consumers than citizens. This arose from the fact that the “Sex in the City Voter” was more fashion forward and cared more about her outwardly appearance than which candidate she planned on voting for. The election became more of a new shiny thing to buy, as manufacturers began to promote the election on fingernail files, underwear, and drinks. Even more interesting is the way in which single female voters were characterized as sexually appealing and available. This group of women was depicted as if they were looking for a relationship rather than a president. Taglines such as ‘Single women, prepared to be courted’, ‘attractive resource’, ‘Ladies’ Choice: Presidential Hopefuls Might Want to Woo Sex and the City Single Females’, just to name a few made the election more like a dating service and the candidates were the escorts.

All of these instances made the “Sex and the City Voter” label void of any connection to third wave feminism if anything it set us back several years. Anderson and Stewart wonderfully put it, “women are seen as primarily sexual rather than political beings-a stereotype women have been combating since the first wave of feminism” (p. 609). All in all I think it would be safe to say that the authors saw the “Sex in the City Voter” successful in that a few more of the single women voted but for what reasons exactly. Was it because they used high paid celebs and gave drinks new names or was it because these women actually had a sense of what was going on in the election? The answer is pretty ease to guess. 

            This reading references the second reading for this week by Shugart, Waggoner, and Hallstein (2001) and adds to the idea that anything created with third wave feminism in mind can easily be altered and put back in the media as a blow to third wave feminism, the reason for this is partially due to postmodern culture. Postmodern culture thrives of media and thrives on multiple explanations for things and because of this what was meant to gain female empowerment was appropriated and was made a mockery and by doing so highlighted all the problems women still face. This leads me to ask just how successful were the first and second wave of feminism.

References

Borda, J. L. (2009). Negotiating feminist politics in the third wave: Labor struggle and solidarity in live nude girls unite!. Communication Quarterly, 57(2), 117-135. doi: 10.1080/01463370902880462

Bronstein, C. (2005). Representing the third wave: Mainstream print media framing of a new feminist movement. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(4), 783-803.

Fixmer, N., & Wood, J. T. (2005). The personal is still political: Embodied politics in third wave feminism. Women's Studies in Communication, 28(2), 235-257.

Lotz, A. (2003). Communicating third-wave feminism and new social movements: Challenges for the next century of feminist endeavor. Women & Language, 26(1), 2-11.

Maddux, K. (2009). Winning the right to vote in 2004. Feminist Media Studies, 9(1), 73-94. doi: 10.1080/14680770802619516

Renegar, V. R., & Sowards, S. K. (2003). Liberal irony, rhetoric, and feminist thought: A unifying third wave feminist theory. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 36(4), 330-352.

Shugart, H. A. (2001). Isn't it ironic?: The intersection of third-wave feminism and generation x. Women's Studies in Communication, 24(2), 131-169.

Sowards, S. K., & Renegar, V. R. (2004). The rhetorical functions of consciousness-raising in third wave feminism. Communication Studies, 55(4), 535-552.

Traister, R. (2004, April 12). Sex and the single voter. Retrieved from http://www.salon.com/2004/04/12/single_women_2/

Fun-fearless-females?

My initial reaction to “Politics and the Single Woman: The Sex and the City Voter in Campaign 2004” was seriously?? I could not believe that this type of marketing scheme had saturated the American media, and women didn’t even see it coming. I myself am a young-single-female voter, and I know that I definitely bought into some of this hype of the cute/sexiness of politics. On the one hand, this is demeaning and demoralizing to single women. They were essentially told that their identity of beauty and “hotness” was directly tied to whether or not they voted. Which is kind of cruel if you think about it. What if the women wasn’t able to get out and vote that day? Well then apparently she is neither sexy nor cute. On the other hand, it is a really fascinating marketing scheme in order to try to pull in this niche market.

            Although, portraying women as the ultimate consumers isn’t a new concept, especially as it relates to female based media. The book I read for my book review was very similarly related to the idea of female consumerism. In the book “Neo-feminist Cinema: Girly Films, Chick Flicks, and Consumer Culture,” the author stated that popular culture, including cinema, magazines, and television, all instruct women in how to behave according to the traits assigned to them. Hollywood thus reinforces these traits and practices in the form of consumerism, encouraging women to exemplify these behaviors in order to feel like a true woman. The media also helped to set styles and steer fashion choices in one direction or another for female viewers. Films/television shows, such as Sex and the City, showed that it is important for women who look a certain way and wear a certain style of clothing in order to fit in, and be happy and successful. This can definitely be seen with the show Sex and the City and the women’s sense of identity being so closely tied to fashion, beauty, sex, and consumerism.

            So it is no wonder that the media dubbed these voters as Sex and the City voters. Many single women do wish that they had the lives of the characters on that television show. If these single women are being associated with Sex and the City, it is almost like women will go vote just so they can continue this association. If I vote, it means I am like the characters on Sex and the City, yippee! Although, I think these single women are missing the point. The media and these grass-roots political organizations are looking at women as putty in their hands. They act like women aren’t intelligent enough to make their own decisions based on the issues, but if we throw an offer of free conditioner in there, I’m sure women will flock to the polls. It’s definitely disturbing in a way, not just because of how women are being portrayed, but unfortunately by how effective these strategies are.

            All in all, I am almost ashamed to admit that I bought into this campaign, without even realizing it. I too wanted to be associated with the sassy fearless females of Sex and the City, and if voting was the way to do it, then count me in! As someone who is older, wiser, yet still single, I will definitely be more aware of how I am being targeted come this next election. I’m sure the media will be up to their old tricks again, but this time I’ll be ready for it.  

Voting, Labels, & Love

In the article Politics and the Single Woman: The “Sex and the City Voter” in Campaign 2004, Anderson and Stewart discuss the mash up of pop culture, politics, and third wave feminism.  The authors address the issues surrounding women voters and the 2004 presidential campaign in a way that I am torn between being completely and utterly appalled at how our society has exploited women and the notion of consumerism, and wondering if it is an ingenious ploy to force Americans to open their eyes and place more importance on our political system.

While I do feel torn, it is disturbing the extent that the media and political parties went to in order to pursue the “Sex and the City Voter.”  It is offensive that so many women were willing to embrace that label.  While the HBO television show is a hit among many women, it is hard to ignore the underlying messages that the show distributes.  Viewers follow four women who, despite being successful in their careers in NYC, still yearn for more, and that more can only be fulfilled through shoes, designer labels, and men.  The show almost never highlights the success of the women, and if it does, it is only to illustrate how having a blossoming career is not enough for the characters. Why do women flock to this show? Why do we want to be placed into this suffocating stereotype of only caring about our looks and finding a man to sweep us away?

Although this is a troubling category, Anderson and Stewart articulate that this is a category that pop culture and media pounced on when the 2004 presidential election rolled around.  Single women were a target group to get the votes in and what better way to recruit than through a popular television show that women believed (or wished) they could relate to.  The rhetoric that surrounded this voting campaign is what is the most troublesome.  Phrases and words like husband, hottest date, wooed, young, white, and single are all words that bind women to a certain category.  Anderson and Stewart state that in the view of third wave feminism, many women found this to be liberating, however it is hard to see how this is freeing and not confining, especially when the products that were being marketed to this group of women included thongs and specialized martini’s.  Instead of breaking away from the notion of being easy to win over, women were demonstrating that they could be bought. 

The concept of votes being bought for labels that women love is an idea that has filtered through the years and to the Obama 2012 campaign.  While President Obama is not selling cute pairs of underwear or marketing cocktails after himself, he does have designer items for sale in his campaign store.  Tote bags that have been designed by Vera Wang and special t-shirts designed by Joseph Altuzarra.  While the t-shirt is listed as unisex, it is being modeled by a woman and is part of the “for runway to win” campaign.  Having high end designers support a presidential candidate subscribes to the notion of women band-wagoning behind a designer and therefore a candidate.

What is the most troublesome about this whole notion of making voting cute and sexy for women is the fact that politicians and the media think that it is the only way to get women interested in politics.  Instead of being progressive and forward, the marketing strategies are reverting back to mentality of the 1950’s.  If something is simple and pretty than a woman can understand it and want to participate.  Forget the fact that as an American citizen, voting is part of our civic duty.  That is a concept that apparently is too large for women to wrap their brains around.  Instead the media packaged this information and knowledge in an adorable little bundle and offered the prospect of being sexy like the characters on Sex and the City and the hope that by voting, you can find your dream man.  In the third wave of feminism we as women are aware that we are being objectified and marginalized and are okay with it, right?  As long as I get my prince charming all while wearing my designer heels with my designer bag draped over my arm.  

Big, Scary Comedians and Their Big, Scary Vaginas

            As a rampant consumer of entertainment news, I was disturbed to hear that Lee Aronsohn, co-creator of Two and a Half Men, one of the worst, most sexist TV shows of all time, Tweeted, “Enough, ladies. We get it. You have periods… We’re approaching peak vagina on television, the point of labia saturation.” Spurred on by shows like Whitney, Two Broke Girls, and Are You There, Chelsea?, a September 2011 New York Times article seemingly confirmed these sentiments, declaring the 2011-2012 television season “the season of the vagina” (Carter, 2011).

In their piece, “Mediating Third-Wave Feminism: Appropriation as Postmodern Media Practice,” Shugart, Waggoner, and Hallstein cite a Time Magazine article that wonders if female empowerment will devolve into “mindless sex talk” (p.194). Shugart, Waggoner, and Hallstein also note that confrontation and sexual expression are hallmarks of third wave-feminism. This article was written in 2001, so it is surprising that it has taken 11 years to see several female-centric, sexually frank television shows on the air at once. Whitney, Are You There, Chelsea?, Two Broke Girls, New Girl, and Suburgatory have all premiered this year and feature female protagonists who discuss sex (although the main character in New Girl cannot discuss sex frankly because she cannot say penis). It appears that these authors, as well as the Time writers, predicted that third wave feminism would move toward women developing crude senses of humor; however, the public is still clearly weary of them.    

Holmes (2012) wrote on NPR’s website that “anyone who spends any time in current popular entertainment who does not go substantially out of the way to avoid them is awash in penis jokes and has been for some time. Any woman who has been watching primetime television comedy for, say, the last 25 years has been up to her sweet potatoes in the male form in all its states and conditions.” In fact, major networks have recently allowed primetime characters to say “dick” on television, though I have not read any backlash regarding that decision.

Bridesmaids made headlines last summer for “proving” that women could write gross-out comedies as well as men, while all of the aforementioned shows have been criticized (mostly by men) for their numerous vagina jokes. Comedians like Chelsea Handler, Whitney Comings, and Sarah Silverman have built their entire personas on acting like boys—they joke about their binge drinking, their casual sex lives, and, yes, their vaginas. Bridesmaids is a particularly frustrating example because the film featured exactly one gross-out scene where the women contract food poisoning, and one crude character who made a few sexual references. One scene and one character do not signal the start of crass female humor, but the film was treated like a woman-centric American Pie by the media.  

Shugart, Waggoner, and Hallstein arguably predicted that female-centric gross-out humor could arise in third-wave feminism, and I believe it is perhaps its newest tenet. While I applaud women in pop culture for blurring the lines between male- and female-centered comedy, it is disturbing that so many people are surprised and seemingly put off by the number of current female protagonists. It is also disturbing that using the word “vagina” on television can make headlines in 2012.

References

Carter, B. (2011, Sept. 21). This year’s hot TV trend is anatomically correct. The New York

Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/arts/television/this-years-hot-tv-trend-is-a-word.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Holmes, L. (2012, April 3). A comedy showrunner’s lament and the status of lady jokes.

National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2012/04/03/149918490/a-comedy-showrunners-lament-and-the-status-of-lady-jokes