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.  

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.

Excuses, excuses

         The article “The Politics of Negotiating Public Tragedy,” which discussed the media framing of the Matthew Shepard murder, reminded me a lot of the previous article/book we read about the Brandon Teena murder. In both of these cases, the media looked for motives behind why people could resort to killing another human being.  In the Brandon Teena murder, the media made it seem as though Brandon was dishonest, and “tricked” the poor women from that city. So it was only natural for the two men to do what was necessary to stand-up for those women. And what else could they possibly do but murder Brandon? He was different from them, and what is different is obviously dangerous. In the case of Matthew Shepard, the media explained that the men’s behavior had to do with their overall intelligence. The men dropped out of high school, which apparently makes them more likely to kill. It seems as though the media was setting up the argument that dropping out of high school equates to lower levels of intelligence, which equates to less responsibility for their actions.

The defense team for the murderers also tried to make the claim that the men were homophobic and were uneasy about Matthew being a homosexual. The fact that a lawyer would try to argue that in court, as if that makes it okay, is just mind blowing. The main point that I am trying to make is that the media makes an awful lot of excuses for the actions of those in power. The men who murdered Brandon Teena were rednecks from a small town who were trying to protect the women who Brandon took advantage of. The men who murdered Matthew were homophobic cowboys who were uncomfortable with someone who was different. In addition, Lynndie England, a soldier who helped carry out the scandal at Abu Ghraib, experienced problems as a child and was sexually deviant.

Why do any of these things matter? Someone who performs a brutal act should pay the price, no excuses. But the media needs to provide the public with some type of resolution and some type of answers. The public needs to know why these murderers deviated away from “normal” behavior. And yet, it is easy to notice what all of these aforementioned individuals have in common: they are white, and thus they have power. Brandon Teena’s murderers, Matthew Shepard’s murderers, and Lynndie England are all members of the white class. I wonder if these excuses would be made if these individuals were not white.

It is interesting to examine the way that the media frames stories and provides excuses for the behavior of certain individuals. But I ask, do individuals who have created such horrific acts of violence really deserve our understanding? Can their behavior ever truly be explained away? I certainly hope not, and thus I will continue to be a critical observer of media. 

Women Soldiers at Abu Ghraib; Leadership essay

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA43BhdXUmw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9yxdKolSkg&feature=endscreen&NR=1

 The Abu Ghraib scandal that came to light in April 2004 was a powerful and horrific display of human brutality orchestrated by several of America’s soldiers in Iraq. The article, Gender (In)Visibility at Abu Ghraib, by Marita Gronnvoll, examines the media presentations of the story and how gender played a role in this coverage. The media focused most of its attention on Lynndie England and her fiancé Charles Graner. England and Graner, among others, forced Iraqi prisoners to pose in sexually explicit photographs, often with their heads covered. England and Graner appeared in many of these photographs, either smiling or holding a ‘thumb’s up’ sign. Gronnvoll organized this reading into different sections that focused on different aspects of how the media covered this scandal. Gronnvoll began by examining the contrast between the way the women and men involved in these incidents were portrayed. Previously, in this class, we discussed the work of Simone de Beauvoir in The Second Sex. In this work, Beauvoir noted that “Women are defined in gendered terms, but men are simply defined as universal humans” (p 374).

Gronvoll goes on to give numerous examples where the women involved in Abu Ghraib were described as “women soldiers” rather than just “soldiers.” It is as though their gender had to be qualified by adding in that they are women, not just soldiers. The norm for soldiers is male, so the women automatically differed from the norm. The media also had to provide some kind of explanation as to why a woman would behave in such a masculine manner. England’s physical body was called into question, and she was described as tough and as a tomboy, in order to prove her abnormality as a woman. However, no media outlets called the physicality of the male soldiers into question. Gronnvoll makes another connection to previous class readings when she discussed Sloop’s book, stating, “this binary gender system leads us to expect as normal particular behaviors from men and particular behaviors from women” (p 377). Gronnvoll goes onto explain “the media coverage of England’s behavior at Abu Ghraib focuses on her failure to behave as a women should, whereas the media coverage of Graner’s behavior focuses on his failure to behave as an honorable soldier should” (p 377).

England received a lot of scrutiny from the media and her character was frequently attacked. She was said to be sexually promiscuous and seductive, often baring her naked body for the camera. Graner’s behavior, however, was almost explained away by the media. His wife had an affair while he was off at war, making him heartbroken and angry. Whereas England was just a sexually promiscuous deviant who cannot seem to follow traditional gender norms. Gronnvoll also chose to discuss the sexuality of the male soldiers and the male prisoners in this story. She discussed how the male soldiers were never seen alone in pictures with the naked prisoners. I believe she included this section in order to make the point that “the ultimate humiliation is to be feminine” (p. 389). However, this is where I would like to insert my first weakness of the article. To be honest, I felt as though this is a critique of the soldiers, rather than how the media regarded these soldiers. Therefore, it seemed like an odd discussion to insert into the article, since most of Gronnvoll’s discussion was of the portrayal of the media, rather than critiques on the individual soldiers. She does bring it back full circle when she discussed that no media called for a review of the military’s demonizing of the feminine. I just feel that the reader could get a little lost trying to follow along waiting for her to get to her point during this section.

 One strength of the article is the amount of research that she brings in to examine. The reader was better able to see that Gronnvoll’s points are valid and real because there was so much evidence to back them up. Also, the research cited was from some of the most well known media outlets in the world (Washington Post, Rolling Stone, New York Times). Anytime research is brought in from such a wide range of highly respected media, it is pretty clear that the author has done his/her homework. Another strength is the ease of readability of the article. This article could be useful for both rhetorical scholars and curious laypeople alike. The article was written in such a way that draws the reader in, even if they have no rhetorical experience. And the points that Gronnvoll made were also backed up by numerous research from a variety of sources. Even though the text was small and contained many pages, it was still an interesting and insightful read. In addition, I admit with most of the points that Gronnvoll made in her discussion. Especially the points about how the media portrayed England as a “woman soldier” rather than just a soldier. There was so much focus on why she deviated from traditional feminine behavior, and how a woman could perform such horrific acts.

One news sources said that they actually expected a woman to know better. What I just don’t understand is why? Why do the media and people in general expect women to act so different than men? Gronnvoll asserted that it is because women are traditional expected to be more docile and nurturing. And it become unnerving and uncomfortable when a woman deviates away from this behavior. Throughout this reading I kept being reminded of the article we read about Brandon Teena. He deviated from typical feminine behavior and acted in accordance with more masculine gender roles. People around him did not know how to react and respond, so they turned to judgement. They called his character into question in order to try to explain why he acted the way that he did. This is similar to what the media did to Lynndie England in the Abu Ghraib case. As I previously mentioned, the media had a field day taking shots at England’s physical body, her history, her sexuality.

 The media had to provide some kind of explanation as to why she was deviating away from traditional gender roles. That is why the behavior of the males in this story doesn’t have to be explained away. Males are traditionally expected to be violent, going along with the warrior mentality. So, naturally, the men in this story were just doing what men do. That is why it was not nearly as shocking for the men to be involved in something so horrific than it was to see women involved. Interestingly enough, England does not see herself as the media sees her. In this interview clip from the Associated Press, she described herself as victim of love, doing what she thought she needed to in order to please her male fiancé. I see this as a way that England wants to prove her traditional female role; wanting to please a man any way necessary. She wants to get back in the good graces of the media and the public, and this is one “excuse” that positions her as a helpless female, powerless to stop the orders of a man.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vQ3pvi6JLY

 Overall, I really agreed with the points made in this reading, but was obviously sickened to read about such a horrific event. But I was also sickened to see how the media handled the coverage of this event. It frustrates me to see women constantly gendered and referred to as “women.” Yes, that is what we are: we are women. But why does that word have to qualify everything that discusses us? Women soldiers, women police officers, women doctors. In a world where the norm is to be male, women still make some people nervous. Especially women who are infiltrating traditional male roles.

Threats to Masculinity

Amy Yount

The two articles for this week (Domesticating Patriarchy: Hegemonic Masculinity and Television’s “Mr. Mom” and Boys Don’t Cry and Female Masculinity: Reclaiming a Life & Dismantling the Politics of Normative Heterosexuality) contained a common theme and that was the fact that men feel threatened by a lack of heteronormativity. In the first article, the stay at home fathers can almost be seen as a threat to masculinity because these “Mr. Moms” are not conforming to the typical gender norms of working hard and ‘bring home the bacon.’

Mr. Mom refers to “the inversion of traditional heterosexual family roles such that the husband stays a home to care for the children while his spouse is employed outside the home to earn the family’s income” (p. 355). However, this inversion of traditional gender norms represent a straying away from the ideal nuclear family where either both parents work outside the home, or the father works outside the home while the mother stays at home to rear the children. And even more interestingly, in order to explain away this “threat” the media explains this decision for the father to stay home as a “choice.” Even if the father was laid off from work and that is why he is staying home, it is still a choice, a decision. However, if it was the mother who was staying home with the children, these same types of explanations would not have to be offered. It would be a much more logical and common decision to come to.

In the second article, the boys who murdered Brandon Teena were threatened by Brandon’s new brand of masculinity. Brandon was sensitive, and shy, and “different” from other men. That is why women fell for him, because he could offer them something different. However, this was a complete and total threat to the men in that city. Brandon felt he had to conform to the traditional ideals of masculinity, such as being aggressive and tough. When he acted just like the other men, he was accepted, even admired. However, when he strayed away from the aggressive behaviors of the other men, his gender was called into question. Because how could a man possibly dare to not act like a “man?” When he stopped acting like the other men, more women began to notice him, especially Lana. And when Lana started to notice him, the other men became jealous, because Brandon was different, and was taking their women from them.

It wasn’t just the individuals in each of these stories who felt threatened by these challenges to traditional masculinity, but it was also the media who felt threatened. This can be seen in the portrayal of Michael Keeton’s character (in the movie, Mr. Mom) as a incapable, almost humorous fool trying to do the laundry and take care of the children. This is almost the media’s way of saying, “see, it’s not natural.” The media couldn’t possibly portray this gender norm inversion as anything other than awkward and abnormal. And even more obviously this can be seen in the coverage of the Brandon Teena case. As we saw last week in John Sloop’s book, Brandon was portrayed as sinister and deceitful, trying to fool the poor innocent Midwesterners. The media has to convince the public that these cases are not normal, and are a threat to traditional masculinity. Unfortunately, mainstream America might seem to still agree with this view, but hopefully that will change someday.

Reproduction ability: The root of all evil?

In Linda Alcoff’s article, “Cultural Feminism Versus Post Structuralism: The Identity Crisis in Feminist Theory,” Alcoff discusses the differing methodological and philosophical views held by Culture and Post Structuralist feminists. In her discussion of cultural feminism she mentions the views of Mary Daly who asserts that “male barrenness leads to parasitism on female energy” (p. 408). She goes on to say that since men cannot physically have children, they become dependent on women for reproduction. In turn, men become insecure and want to dominate the women in their lives.

Alcoff states, “The only real difference, the only difference that can change a person’s ontological placement on Daly’s dichotomous map, is sex difference. . . her definition is strongly linked to female biology” (p. 409). Thus, Daly (as cited by Alcoff) is saying that the biggest differences between men and women lie not in the construction of gender, but rather in the physical and biological anatomy of the two sexes.

So then does Daly not believe in gender at all? Or is she merely saying that it is not as important as sex? This particular discussion within cultural feminism reminds me of the article, “The Evolution of Gender and Communication Research,” by Dow & Wood that we read a few weeks ago which said, “Cultural feminism, the goal of which is to celebrate a distinctive women’s culture that reflects essentialist views of femininity” (p. 14). So then what makes up this “distinctive women’s culture”, or even more specifically, what makes up a “woman”? It seems that some cultural feminists, such as Daly, believe that men are more dominate and powerful in society simply because they are ‘overcompensating’ for their lack of reproductive ability. But what if a woman is not able to reproduce? Is she automatically equal to a man because the man no longer feels threatened by her?

 It is an interesting perspective that Daly takes within cultural feminism. However, I feel it is not possible to talk about male/female inequality without taking gender into account. I believe it is the replication of certain gendered actions, such as those discussed by Butler in “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution” that make a woman a woman and a man a man. Alcoff, who quotes another feminist, Rich, states, “The ancient, continuing envy, awe and dread of the male for the female capacity to create life has repeatedly taken the form of hatred for every other female aspect of creativity” (p. 410). To me, this means that the ability to reproduce, or the biological sex differences, create the basis for hatred which then carries over into everything that is ‘feminine’ or gender related.  The foundation of this need for control and patriarchical hierarchy among men has its foundations in the male’s lack of ability to reproduce.

Cultural feminism is an interesting perspective that Alcoff discusses in her article. However, it is the view point taken by Daly that really captured my attention as an interesting explanation into the creation of continuation of feminism.