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

Third-Wave Feminism--Society Be Damned or Personal Choice Activism?

According to Sowards and Renegar (2006), third wave feminism is characterized by individual activities, rather than collective, allowing for a multitude of approaches that is recognized more by their lack of integration than by anything else. They argued that “rhetorical acts of contemporary feminism . . . might also include creating grassroot models of leadership, using strategic humor, building feminist identity, sharing stories, and resisting stereotypes and labels” (p. 58). Thus, a Mormon Mommy blog could be viewed as third wave feminism, as could the NudePhotoRevolutionaries calendar (Christensen, 2012)—polar opposites on the liberal-conservative scale. The connecting factor to both of these contributions to feminist thought is the expression of “personal choice” (Sowards & Renegar, p. 62) by women who have found ways to express their personal identity and self-autonomy. Women have rejected the “hegemonic feminist thought and theories of the second wave” (p. 65), finding expression at a personal rather than social level.

Is this a kinder, gentler feminism than has been expressed in the past? I know I always felt that second-wave feminists weren’t speaking for me with their rejection of the male half of society. The idea that my personal choices contribute to increased opportunity for women appeals to me.

However, other writers don’t view it that way. Some appear to view it as an expression of “nothing I do matters, so I’ll do what I want and society be damned” attitude. Greta Christensen (2012) wrote the following about her participation in the NudePhotoRevolutionaries calendar:

We can try to navigate the narrow, essentially impossible shoals of these contradictory expectations, and try to find that perfect, socially acceptable line between slut and prude. Or we can say, “Fuck it. There is no way I can win — so I’m going to do whatever the fuck I want. I’m going to wear overalls, or I’m going to wear high heels. I’m going to have sex with twenty strangers in a night, or I’m not going to have sex with anyone. I’m going to dress conservatively and professionally in public at all times, or I’m going to sell naked pictures of myself on the Internet if I bloody well feel like it.” And in saying, “I can’t win, so I’m going to do whatever the fuck I want to do,” we can create the beginnings of a victory. (para. 16-17)

Shugart, Waggoner, and Hallstein (2001) argued that mass media has co-opted feminism, repackaged it, and sold it back to us as kind and friendly—something we find in the local grocery store—as if we can buy our way to a better society. Anderson and Stewart (2005) agreed, extending the commodification to the political arena, where the votes of women can be bought and sold if the appeal to vote is packaged in the latest fashion.

Are women really that shallow? Have the ideals of second-wave feminism been bought and sold for a mess of pottage?

Or have we found that the variety of ways women have expressed themselves throughout history is bigger than a feminism wave can accommodate? I think of the quilters of the 19^th century who expressed themselves through their fabric, telling stories that only other quilters would understand. Their creative strength appeals to me as they reach out over the centuries speaking of courage and comfort in a timeless understanding that we need both in our lives. Were these third-wave feminists also? Are we only now rediscovering the activist nature that has always been among us, and are claiming it as our own? Is third-wave feminism just a name for the diversity of women everywhere?

References

Anderson, K. V. & Stewart, J. (2005). Politics and the single woman: The “Sex and the City Voter” in campaign 2004. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 5, 595-616.

Christensen, G. (2012, April 4). What I may do with my naked body: A reply to Azar Majedi about the #NakedPhotoRevolutionaries calendar [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/04/04/what-i-may-do-with-my-naked-body/

Shugart, H. A., Waggoner, C. E., & Hallstein, D. L. O. (2001). Mediating third-wave feminism: Appropriation as postmodern media practice. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 18, 194-210.

Sowards, S. K. & Renegar, V. R. (2006). Reconceptualizing rhetorical activism in contemporary feminist contexts. The Howard Journal of Communications, 17, 57-74.

Competing Narratives: Another look at the "Rosie the Riveter" of Gay Rights

In 2005, Helene Shugart analyzed “poster child” logic surrounding Rosie O’Donnell’s coming out and subsequent support of equal rights adoption. Shugart concluded that the mass-mediated interpretations of O’Donnell’s projected narratives—that of being simultaneously a maternal figurehead, as well as a childlike presence in popular culture—in conjunction with her politically charged stance on adoption, worked to reify an ideological division between heterosexual and homosexual parents. Shugart argues that the public’s understanding of O’Donnell as an outsider—a “misfit with a heart of gold”—who is concerned with the care and safety of similar misfit children, categorically marginalizes both these broken children and their gay (adoptive) parents. Essentially, because both are already in the margins of society, it establishes a view of gay parents as the only suitable “beasts of burden” capable of parenting troubled youth.

Shugart’s conclusion, however, relies on a particular reading of O’Donnell’s narratives. While I agree with Shugart’s analysis and conclusions, I feel compelled to voice my concern for the supposed totality of this reading. Personally, at some points in the article, I perceived a disconnect with the author’s interpretation, and my own recollections about O’Donnell. As Shugart noted, O’Donnell’s performance

“could be understood as presentational, in a mediated context, it, too, ultimately is rendered representational, available for consumption and interpretation … by multiple audiences.”

It is this flexibility in interpretation that allowed (apparently) a large portion of the American population to perceive O’Donnell as a kind and caring figure. Many of the adults by whom I was surrounded in my youth did not share this view. Constantly, I can remember Rosie being talked about as a “loud bitch” who “used her celebrity to butt into people’s lives.” Shugart was right in some respect here, in that O’Donnell’s sexuality was “absorbed” by the context of her coming out—very rarely was her sexuality mentioned in these critiques. These acquaintances and family members to which I am referring were more traditionally conservative, and so O’Donnell’s tireless efforts to increase governmental regulations, including gun control, did not sit well with them.

            As I read Shugart’s article, I found it eye-opening as I lacked the frame of reference necessary for this interpretation of Rosie O’Donnell. However, as I continued to read, I was able to follow—and agree with—Shugart’s analysis quite well. I feel it should be made apparent that although this analysis is sound, without the reading of O’Donnell’s narratives that Shugart describes, it changes her whole argument. When she claims that the

“characterizations of O’Donnell as opportunistic, greedy, and deceptive were so far afield from her mainstream persona … that they quickly fizzled as fodder for discourse,”

it must be understood that not everyone felt these characterizations were completely off the mark. Therefore, this then deconstructs the “misfits caring for misfits” marginalization Shugart had established. To people, consumers, who do not share in Shugart’s narrative interpretation of O’Donnell, this application of heteronormative logic does not ring so assuredly true. This results in a separation of O’Donnell, and the parents for which she was fighting in the first place. O’Donnell, to some, was marginalized because of her highly publicized, brash, exploitative and “opportunistic” behavior.

            Granted, this interpretation is very possibly the viewpoint of only a few, but it altered how I read this article from the onset. What is interesting to note is that in the seven years since Shugart penned this piece, the visibility of queer bodies in the mainstream media has increased. While Shugart expressed a very real concern for the secondary and diminishing nature of queerness as represented by the media, we are seeing growth today. A cursory Google News search for “gay parents” resulted in over 2,000 results that trended more towards the positive. Research supporting family units—regardless of any member’s sexuality—as the key to happiness and positive development is becoming more widespread. Public discourse, especially with recent debates about the institution of marriage, is giving more attention to queer issues. While this does not necessarily change the media’s representations of queer individuals, it provides room for change. Maybe now, seven years later, is when we need a “poster child” as Shugart established O’Donnell, to rally the troops.

Misfits and Margins

Complimenting Bonnie Dow’s piece, “Ellen, Television, and the Politics of Gay and Lesbian Visibility” is Helene Shugart’s essay, “On Misfits and Margins:  Narrative, Resistance, and the Poster Child Politics of Rosie O’Donnell.”  In the former piece, Dow explores the coming-out stories of Ellen DeGeneres, as well as that of the fictional character, Ellen Morgan, portrayed by DeGeneres.  In the latter, Shugart analyzes the politics of the coming-out story of daytime celebrity, Rosie O’Donnell.

The first section of Shugart’s piece explores the differences between the public coming-out narratives of DeGeneres and O’Donnell as well as the resulting public reactions.  While DeGeneres’ revelation caused a controversy where people wrote editorials, boycotted Ellen and other Disney operations, and called in to radio and television shows, O’Donnell’s announcement went largely unnoticed.  Shugart notes that “Indeed, most curious is the profound lack of response to O’Donnell’s announcement” (p. 53). 

Another primary difference in the discourses surrounding DeGeneres and O’Donnell identified by Shugart is the politics surrounding their narratives.  DeGeneres seemed to come-out to “stay true” to herself, as the Dow article suggested.  However, O’Donnell’s coming-out was based on the issue of gay and lesbian adoption.  At the time O’Donnell came-out in March 2002, she had already been constructed in the public sphere as an adoptive mother, reinforcing the expected constructs of females as nurturers and mothers. 

Shugart then spends the next portion of her essay developing the discourses surrounding O’Donnell’s motherhood.  She explains that “O’Donnell fit into the American mainstream version of this ideological construct of motherhood—namely, suburban, middle-class, and largely white—very effectively” (p. 59).  In further explanation, Shugart continues to say that O’Donnell was a mother, represented as extremely nurturing, and embodied traits associated with traditional maternal femininity. 

With several examples to draw from, O’Donnell’s actions show that motherhood takes priority in her life.  From the nursery just off her office to the practice of cutting interviews off due to the needs of her child, O’Donnell made it clear that her career came second.  This reinforced the maternal discourses surrounding her in the media.

The positive tone of Shugart’s essay seems to come abrubtly to a halt as she analyzes the “narrative revision,” of O’Donnell, or in other words, of O’Donnell’s “coming out.”  It is this portion of the essay that I am most troubled by.  There are two main reasons for this.  I will first explain why I struggle with Shugart’s analysis, and then explain why I am troubled by the discourse itself.

Shugart explains that O’Donnell’s announcement about her sexuality is linked in public discourse to her background as an abused and troubled child.  This “troubled child” persona, as Shugart explores, is rationalized as the reason for O’Donnell’s child-like behavior, and thus rationalized as part of the reason O’Donnell identifies as a lesbian.  I feel that this link could have been explored and problematized in Shugart’s discourse instead of being mentioned, but not really explored.   To me, it is glaringly obvious that this discourse is problematic on many levels, and not just to O’Donnell, but for gays and lesbians everywhere.  Shugart does not seem to acknowledge this and that lack frustrated me. 

This link between abused and troubled child and adult lesbian is problematic because it continues to suggest that being lesbian, and by extension, being gay is a result of being “messed up” and suggests that homosexuality is a mental disorder.  Though homosexuality obviously differs from the heterosexual norm that does not mean that it is a mental illness.  This connection seems almost as absurd as suggesting that redheads have a detrimental health condition because their natural red hair differs from the neutral-shaded norm. 

Throughout the entire essay, Shugart explores the “poster-child” status of O’Donnell for gay and lesbian adoption.  One critical aspect of this discussion that seems to be missing, however, is the discussion of how the link between her troubled childhood and her sexuality could actually hurt, not help, this group of people that she seems to represent.  

These discourses of troubled childhood and child-like actions of O’Donnell seem to be in direct contrast to the discourse of nurturing motherhood that surrounded her.  Going back to the title of Shugart’s piece, “misfits and margins,” these seemingly competing discourses come together to put O’Donnell on the outskirts, or “margins” and label her as a “misfit.”  Her child-like actions do not seem to fit in the composed notion of the typical mother.  Announcing her homosexuality also put her on the margins of a heteronormative society.  However, the cliche “birds of a feather flock together” comes into play as Shugart seems to implicitly argue that the children raised by gay and lesbian parents are also misfits in some way.  Though she does not expand on this, one can only assume what requirements there would be to label a child as a “misfit” and therefore gay and lesbian parents are suitable parents. 

I think this hidden discourse in Shugart’s essay is one that needs to be explored more fully.  I do not think, at least, it is my hope, that Shugart would agree that gay and lesbian parents are only fit to adopt “misfit” children.  However, when she fails to explore this part of the narrative, I am left to wonder what she would agree with.  Having only some familiarity with O’Donnell myself, I do not know the circumstances surrounding the adoption of her son, and if her son would be categorized as a “misfit” in some way.  Shugart’s writing led me to assume that perhaps he had a physical or mental disability of some sort.  In doing some outside research, I cannot tell if this really is the case or not, but if it is not, I feel that Shugart should have explained and explored this avenue more fully. 

 In the perfect world, Shugart would have been able to explore these many different pieces of the narratives and discourses surrounding Rosie O’Donnell.  However, I also understand that there are real constraints of time, space, and text availability in writing a journal article.  And perhaps it is a strength in Shugart’s writing that this piece left me wanting more.  While I appreciated her comparison to Ellen DeGeneres, the development of the discourse surrounding O’Donnell’s motherhood, and the exploration of O’Donnell’s “coming out” narratives, I feel that the implications of her “poster child” status, as well as the concept of “misfits” needed to be explored more in Shugart’s writing. 

Breshears, D. (2010). Coming out with our children: Turning points facilitating lesbian parent discourse with their children about family identity. Communication Reports, 23(2), 79-90. doi:10.1080/08934215.2010.511398

Chirrey, D. A. (2003). ‘I hereby come out’: What sort of speech act is coming out?. Journal Of Sociolinguistics, 7(1), 24-37.

Clarke, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2005). 'We're not living on planet lesbian': Constructions of male role models in debates about lesbian families. Sexualities, 8(2), 137-152.

Collins, J. (2007). Challenging the rhetorical oxymoron: Lesbian motherhood in contemporary European cinema. Studies In European Cinema, 4(2), 149-159. doi:10.1386/seci.4.2.149_1

Herek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public Opinion Quarterly,66(1), 40-66.

Hogben, S., & Coupland, J. (2000). Egg seeks sperm. End of story . . . ? Articulating gay parenting in small ads for reproductive partners. Discourse & Society, 11(4), 459.

Hubert, S. J. (1999). What's wrong with this picture? The politics of Ellen's coming out party. Journal Of Popular Culture,33(2), 31-36.

Landau, J. (2009). Straightening out (the politics of) same-sex parenting: Representing gay families in US print news stories and photographs. Critical Studies In Media Communication, 26(1), 80-100. doi:10.1080/15295030802684018

Mason-Bergen, K., Suter, E. A., & Daas, K. L. (2006). "About as solid as a fish net": Symbolic construction of a legitimate parental identity for nonbiological lesbian mothers. Journal Of Family Communication, 6(3), 201-220. doi:10.1207/s15327698jfc0603_3

Shugart, H. A. (2003). Performing ambiguity: the passing of Ellen DeGeneres. Text & Performance Quarterly, 23(1), 30-54.

Skerski, J. (2007). From prime-time to daytime: The domestication of Ellen DeGeneres. Communication & Critical/Cultural Studies, 4(4), 363-381. doi:10.1080/14791420701632964

Spradlin, A. L. (1998). The price of `passing'. Management Communication Quarterly, 11(4), 598.

Rosie vs. Ellen

Blog Post #4

Amy Yount

Shugart’s article was particularly interesting for me because I had a completely different reaction to Rosie O’Donnell announcing that she was a lesbian. The focus of the article was discussing reasons why O’Donnell’s coming out did not see as much media attention as Ellen, and why Rosie saw a great deal of support for her announcement. The author discussed how Rosie was loved by much of her demographic because she was seen as a nurturing mother, even though she was very politically active. However, I have a completely different memory of the events that surrounded her announcement.

I am from a small town that has traditional small town values. Growing up, I remember hearing so much negativity surrounding O’Donnell and her political views. When she came out as a lesbian, that only provided fuel for the fire. There was no focus on her nurturing side, or even her comedy. The majority of the talk revolved around her “liberal politics” and her being a lesbian. So it was interesting for me to read what the majority of Americans thought about her coming out as a lesbian, and how the media portrayed her.

The author argued that even though Rosie came out publically as a lesbian, the majority of Rosie fans were still accepting of her. This was mainly because a lot of her viewers were mothers who could identify with her along the lines of motherhood and raising children. To me, the author is saying that her viewers could almost overlook her being a lesbian, as long as she put her children at the forefront of discussion. However, it honestly surprised me that her fans had such a neutral reaction to her coming out. Especially because, at the time, it wasn’t quite as popular for celebrities to be so open with their sexuality. Therefore, views about homosexuality were still pretty negative in some demographics. With Rosie being a mother, one would think that people would be even more opposed to her homosexuality and have an even stronger reaction. I just know that in my corner of the country, I heard things such as “I feel sorry for her children” and “She just uses her show as a platform for her politics.” So as I was reading this article, I had a hard time identifying with a lot of the points made by the author, because it was not consistent with my lived experience.

Another aspect of the article was that of the “poster child.” This discussion reminded me of the article from last week’s class about Ellen and her almost unwanted status as a poster child for homosexuality. Ellen consistently made it noted that her show was “not a gay sitcom” and she did not feel the need to use her homosexuality as a ralying cry. Rosie, on the other hand, seemed to want to fight to become a poster child. It is my opinion that Rosie wanted to be seen as a poster child for gay adoption, and she turned herself into one. The article discussed numerous examples of when Rosie would discuss her children on the show, and even fought for the rights of homosexuals to be able to adopt. Her show allowed her the opportunity to discuss these issues on a public forum, thus almost catapulting her into the status of a poster child. I think this is one of the biggest issues that sets Rosie and Ellen apart.

But again, it is interesting to examine why Rosie and Ellen received different amounts of attention from the media upon their coming out. Rosie is much more political than Ellen, at the time of Ellen’s coming out. Rosie has a much more “in your face” attitude, so it would make more sense for Rosie to receive more attention upon coming out, even though the opposite actually happened. I know that people around me were more shocked when Ellen came out than when Rosie did, so again I state that reading this article was very interesting for me, because I saw how the majority of the public actually felt about Rosie vs. Ellen’s coming out and how it differed from my lived experiences.

The first rule of Fight Club is: Don't talk about homoeroticism

Brookey, R., & Westerfelhaus, R. (2002). Hiding homoeroticism in plain view: 
     The Fight Club DVD as digital closet. Critical Studies in Media Communication,  
     19, 21-43.

            Sometimes movies come around at exactly the right time. The first time I saw Fight Club, I was 13, and the movie’s “screw everything” mentality spoke to my overdramatic, jaded adolescent mind. Since then, it has been my favorite movie of all time. In retrospect, my love of the movie may have made me biased because I do not buy into Brookey and Westerfelhaus’ arguments about Fight Club’s homoeroticism. While I cannot deny that homoeroticism exists in the film, I believe the homoeroticism serves to show the narcissism of the narrator’s character rather than imply a homosexual relationship with Tyler.

            Brookey and Westerfelhaus argue that through the use of DVD “extra text,” namely the commentaries by the cast and crew, the principal players in Fight Club deny, dismiss, and distract from the film’s homoeroticism to help the film appeal to a more mainstream audience. The authors focus on four key segments of the film—Tyler and the narrator’s first fight, the first real Fight Club meeting, the narrator’s fight with Angel Face, and the film’s ending—highlighting how the DVD commentaries attempt to erase homoeroticism from Fight Club.

            First the authors analyze Tyler and the narrator’s first fight. The narrator calls Tyler after his apartment explodes, and they hang out in a bar. Tyler tells the narrator he should just ask to stay with him, and out of nowhere asks the narrator to hit him as hard as he can. Brookey and Westerfelhaus code the bar scene as a “coy, homoerotic flirtation” (p.33). The segment also calls attention to penises and male bodily functions multiple times as the narrator reveals that Tyler splices pornographic films into family movies and pees and masturbates into food while working as a waiter. Additionally, Tyler tells Jack his situation could be worse—a woman could have cut off his penis and thrown it out of her car window. Finally, Tyler enjoys a “post-coital cigarette” (p.34) after their first fight. While these flirtatious elements are homoerotic, Brad Pitt’s commentary treats the scene as a joke, essentially dismissing the importance of the moment, while Chuck Palahniuk calls the scene “weird” (p.34) because of its romantic implications. Director David Fincher simply ignores the content of the scene and focuses on the technical aspects of filmmaking.

            The second segment features Tyler listing the rules of Fight Club. Men fight without shirts, shoes, or belts, and are not allowed to speak of the club, implying that “these fights carry a sexual tension that makes them seem more than mere brawls; they signify a relationship that dares not speak its name” (p.35). In the commentaries, the actors and director ignore the homoerotic elements and attempt to distract the viewers by talking about other concepts related to the film. Fincher talks about how funny Edward Norton looks while Norton compares the film to The Graduate.

The third segment, and perhaps the most blatantly homoerotic scene in the film, revolves around the narrator’s jealousy that Tyler has struck up a friendship with a young Fight Club member, nicknamed Angel Face. The narrator is envious of the attention Tyler pays to Angel Face and can tell that Tyler is planning something without him. In a jealous rage, the narrator challenges Angel Face to a fight and beats his face until he is unrecognizable, claiming that he wanted to “destroy something beautiful” (p.36). This is the only scene in the film where Fincher addresses homoeroticism; however, he denies it as a story of “self-love” rather than homosexual love, while Norton refers to the narrator’s emotions as “a brotherly jealousy” (p.37). Interestingly, though, the screenwriter concedes that the scene “obviously has homosexual connotations” (p.37); however, Palahniuk, the author of the book Fight Club, laughs off the suggestion, even though in the book, the narrator meets Tyler for the first time on a nude beach.

In analyzing the ending of the film, Brookey and Westerfelhaus argue that even though Tyler is the narrator’s narcissistic projection, the narrator is incapable of entering a loving heterosexual relationship until he destroys Tyler, coding their relationship as a metaphor for sexual confusion. Norton and Fincher dismiss the inherent homoeroticism by claiming that the narrator’s concern for Marla saved him.

            Perhaps my inner 13-year-old fangirl makes me biased, but there were a few weaknesses in the article, including one big oversight in its premise. Brookey and Westerfelhaus argue that “the supplemental material included on the DVD is used to make the product more marketable to mainstream audiences by framing the homoerotic elements of the film as homosocial behavior” (p. 22). However, in order to see these extra-text elements, one has to buy or actively seek out the DVD and be interested enough in the film to watch its special features. As the authors acknowledge at the beginning of the article, the film was intended to “piss off a healthy number of people” (p.21). From that argument, it is safe to assume that a healthy number of people will dislike the film and not seek out its bonus content. Only truly diehard fans will listen to the DVD commentary in the first place. Additionally, the film only made about $37 million dollars in the United States. This is not a mainstream movie, so why appeal to the masses now? The authors may be overestimating the mainstream appeal of DVD special features in general.  

            Additionally, the film undeniably has homoerotic content. The narrator is weirdly fixated on Tyler, and jokes that they live an “Ozzie and Harriet” life together. As someone who has watched and read Fight Club several times, however, the homoeroticism does not represent gay content. To me, the entire point of the film is that the narrator is a horrible narcissist. He invents this charismatic, hypermasculine alpha male alter ego who looks like Brad Pitt at the height of his attractiveness. The narrator is not in love with Tyler; he’s in love with himself. I had always assumed that was the entire point of the film. While some of the fight scenes with other men border on homoerotic, that is a natural side effect of featuring men fighting. All wrestling is homoerotic—the basic premise is that physically fit men have to writhe around on a floor together. Homoeroticism is inherent in any form of male-on-male fighting. (For more information, here is a link to a Village Voice article on the history of homoeroticism in wrestling: www.villagevoice.com/2000-05-02/news/grappling-with-homosexuality/). While there is certainly homoerotic content in Fight Club, I feel as though the authors read a bit too much into the fighting and not enough into Tyler and the narrator’s relationship.

            That said, the article has many strengths. In particular, the authors’ concept of DVD special features as extra-text worthy of examination is brilliant. Everything about DVD special features sends a message from the movie trailers they choose to include to the design of the menus to the DVD commentaries and interviews. While watching a 30 Rock DVD for my final paper, I saw an ad at the beginning of the DVD that framed Tina Fey as unattractive to men—which is one of the major themes in my paper. DVD content certainly has the power to frame readings of the text, and I applaud Brookey and Westerfelhaus for highlighting this.

            Finally, this article connects nicely with the readings from the past two weeks. Interestingly, like Bonnie Dow’s article on Ellen and Helene Shugart’s article on Rosie O’Donnell, Brookey and Westerfelhaus illuminate “the rules” for portraying gay characters in pop culture. In line with Dow’s arguments, they point out that in many cases, gay characters reinforce heterosexuality by serving as asexual or apolitical comedic foils. They are often defined most by their relationships to other straight characters. Additionally, the piece fits nicely with the theme of visibility and invisibility. If you buy Brookey and Westerfelhaus’ arguments, then the cast and crew of Fight Club work hard to dismiss, deny, and divert attention away from the visible homoeroticism in the film. They are implicitly hoping for the film to pass as a heterosexual (love) story. Like several of our readings this semester, it operates on the assumption that mainstream audiences are uncomfortable with homosexuality or homoeroticism.