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.”  

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.

Passing in our own way

Reading about Ellen, Matthew Shepard, and women at Abu Ghraib was more than an intellectual exercise for me in the politics of “passing” and the concept of visibility and invisibility.  This collection of articles caused an emotional reaction as I reflected on the different areas in my life in which I “hide” or try to “pass.” 

In Bonnie Dow’s article on Ellen, she includes a discussion on Ellen Morgan’s relationship with her mom.  When her mom mentions that she misses the “old Ellen,” the response is, “Which Ellen is that?  The Ellen that used to keep her feelings bottled up?  The Ellen that used to lie to herself and everybody else?  The Ellen that could have spent the rest of her life alone?” (p. 126).  I was surprised at the emotional response I had, as it paralleled an experience I have had with my own mother about my own mental illness. 

However, reading Ott and Aoki’s analysis of the media framing of the Matthew Shepard murder caused me to think of my religious affiliation, my thoughts and my feelings about the way the media frames our members.  This is something close to my heart, and the media framing of my church is something fresh in my mind as I am doing my final project on a related topic.

Early in our church’s history, members had moved to Missouri.  Fear and misunderstanding resulted in an extermination order being issued by Missouri Governor Boggs essentially legalizing the murder of members of my church.  The “cultish” stigma and misunderstanding is something still faced today.

When I first moved to Indiana, I was nervous about how I would be accepted because of my religious affiliation.  I knew that because of stereotypes perpetuated through the media, the blogosphere, and simple word of mouth, I would need to be vigilant in recognizing and combating the stereotypes.  Because of this, I was so careful about the language that I used in talking about my background.  My background soon became evident, however as many of my life choices reflect my religious affiliation.  I remember the first time a classmate “found me out.” 

I was completely terrified of how I was going to be viewed now by my peers.  I related with much of the anxiety described by Dow in the Ellen piece.  However, unlike the controversy that Ellen faced, I was not met with the resistance I had been anxious about.  I was met with acceptance.  This acceptance surprised me at first, as I had been so anxious about this.  However, I also experienced the relief also described.  I was no longer “pretending.”  I could just be myself and not have to worry as much what I said or how that would affect others’ perceptions of me. 

In conclusion, even though our readings focused on issues of visibility as it relates to gender and sexuality, there are other areas not yet explored—two of which being mental illness and religion.  These seem to parallel many of the same feelings and emotions described by Dow, Ott and Aoki, and Gronnvoll, are relatable to the human population as we try to “pass” in other, less visible areas of life.  

Cristina Yang and Female Masculinity

Inspired by Cooper’s look at female masculinity in the case of Boys Don’t Cry, a movie that followed the case of Brandon Teena, a female to male transgender, I seek to explore the implications of female masculinity in one of my favorite television shows, Grey’s Anatomy.  To do this, I will explore one of the female protagonists, Cristina Yang. 

Cristina Yang exhibits many of the typical masculine characteristics.  She is very task-oriented, driven, and seeks to be a world-class surgeon.  She is known by colleagues as having an impersonal bedside manner.  In one episode, a fellow intern, George O’Malley, requests Dr. Yang to be the intern assigned to his father’s case.  When Cristina seems annoyed by this, George explains that he picked her because she is a “machine.”  She seems to show few emotions, a characteristically masculine trait.

In the first season of the series, Cristina experiences an unplanned pregnancy after having sex with one of the attending physicians.  Feeling that she could not obtain her professional goals while pregnant and raising a child, she schedules an abortion.  She needed an emergency contact person, so she confides the pregnancy in fellow intern Meredith Grey.  When Meredith presses Cristina to talk about the pregnancy, Cristina refuses.  These actions go against traditional femininity by challenging the notion that females want to discuss feelings and thoughts, and that females ultimately desire motherhood.  While the abortion never happens—Cristina experiences an ectopic pregnancy before the abortion occurs, she is heavily criticized for not wanting a child and placing her career before her family. 

In season 7, a very similar situation happens with Cristina.  She finds herself pregnant.  This time, however, she is married.  Again, she goes against the traditional feminine response by wishing to abort the pregnancy.  Her husband, trauma surgeon Dr. Owen Hunt, wants Cristina to carry the pregnancy.  Ultimately, Cristina decides to abort the pregnancy, again reaffirming that her career is more important than a family, falling in line with traditional masculine ideas.  The abortion causes conflict in her marriage, as every argument or disagreement shown seems to have roots in the fact that Cristina had an abortion.

Throughout the show, the moments that Cristina shows traditional feminine characteristics, she is portrayed as vulnerable.  One example of this is when Cristina is to marry her attending-boyfriend, Dr. Preston Burke, at the end of the first season.  She is reluctant to engage in any of the traditional bridal activities, and does so only at the insistence of her mother and her soon-to-be mother-in-law.  However, when the wedding day finally arrives, and she is reluctantly about to head down the aisle, the wedding is called off by Preston, and Cristina is hurt and angry for much of the next season of the show because of this.

In conclusion, female masculinity is an interesting construct to explore.  One character that seems to exhibit female masculinity is Cristina Yang in the contemporary prime-time soap opera, Grey’s Anatomy.  One way that this is portrayed is through the unplanned pregnancies that she experiences, and her decision to not carry either of the pregnancies to term.  Another way this is expressed is through the vulnerability and hurt that inevitably seems to occur when she expresses any traditional feminine characteristics.  

Context is Key!

For those of us who are COMM 210 instructors, this past week meant that we taught our students about the SMCR model of communication.  This model explains that communication is a process and there is a Source, Message, Channel, and Receiver.  It also explains that there are different types of noise that can interfere with the communication, but perhaps most importantly for the purposes of this post, it explains that all communication occurs within a context. Throughout the Kellner and Durham article, the prevailing theme was the importance of context.

In their discussion of ideology, Kellner and Durham assert that ideologies force readers to perceive cultural texts as having biases, interests, and embedded values as well as reproduce the perspectives of the producers, which often reinforce the values of the dominant social groups (p. 6).  As communication scholars, we must recognize the ideologies that we hold.  In doing so, we must realize that the analyses that we study throughout the course of the semester will be shaped not only by the ideologies of the author, but that our understanding of them will be shaped by our ideologies.  In doing so, we can recognize the context in which our own understanding originates.  This will allow us to deconstruct our awareness, examine the pieces in light of new or different ideologies, and then rebuild our perception into one that is more complete. 

Kellner and Durham explain that critical theorists assert “to properly understand any specific form of media or culture, one must understand how it is produced and distributed in a given society, and how it is situated in relation to the dominant social structure” (p. 9).  Like the student who only hears part of the teacher’s instructions, studying cultural artifacts without an understanding of the context in which it is situated, is going to result in an incomplete analysis.  Ignoring the context also bypasses potential messages and meanings that only surface with the contextual understanding.

Looking at cultural artifacts from a political economy standpoint not only answers the questions of who, what, where, when, why, and how, but also looks at the system of culture in which the artifacts are produced and distributed (p. 19).  Whereas critical theorists look at the artifact first, and investigate the context to broaden their understanding of the artifact, political economists look at how the context produced the artifact.  While these two approaches seem to be in direct opposition, Kellner and Durham suggest that the divide that exists is an artificial one, and the two approaches can be complimentary. 

Overall, this reading has provided us, the scholars of COMM 614, the context in which our class fits.  Through discussion of the history of media and cultural studies, we know where scholars have been, some of the different perspectives taken, and a foundation upon which we will build our own scholarly work.  While we work to find our academic voice, regardless of the theories and perspectives that resonate within us, one thing is absolutely certain.  Context is key.