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.

            

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.  

Blurring the Lines or Re-enforcing Labels?

Cooper, B. (2002). Boys Don't Cry and female masculinity: Reclaiming a life & dismantling the

politics of normative heterosexuality. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 19, 44-63.

            In previous discussions surrounding the media and the portrayal of the transgendered community, there has been a lot of negative discourse.  Often the media attempts to spin transgenderism in a way to justify it and make it fit into the heteronormative values of our society.  A common theme that surrounds this discourse is the portrayal of masculinity, both female and male.  A film that has sought to break those boundaries and cause disturbance in America’s view of masculine heteronormativity is Kimberly Peirce’s version of the Brandon Teena murder in Boys Don’t Cry.  In her article, Brenda Cooper seeks to expose how Pierce’s depiction of Brandon Teena broke down boundaries and fought against the heteroideology surrounding masculinity that plagues our society.  Cooper presents four main points in her essay: to dismantle the myth of “America’s heartland,” problematize heteromasculinity, center on female masculinity, and the blur the boundaries of female masculinity.

 In her attempt to dismantle the myth of “America’s heartland,” Cooper discusses how the Falls City that was portrayed from Peirce’s perspective seeks to shatter the idea of the pre-established American dream.  Instead of seeing happy heteronormative family units behind white picket fences with 2.5 children and a dog, viewers of Boys Don’t Cry are exposed to the darker side of living in the Midwest.  Lana’s mother is neglectful and a drunk who has befriended two ex-convicts.  Candace is a single mother who also drinks too much and works at a bar.  Lana is a young woman who is wasting away at a blue-collar job working in a factory.  “In Peirce’s view, Falls City is not a place where good-hearted people are content to live their lives; it’s a place where most are desperate to leave but fear they never will” (p. 50).  Cooper discusses how this portrayal of Falls City helps to break the notion that Brandon Teena was the dark and deceptive cloud that fell on a wholesome and happy-go-lucky town.  This portrayal also helps to fight against the heteronormative family unit that is so often depicted in the media.

            Cooper’s second point, to problematize heteromasculinity, discusses how in the film, John Lotter and Tom Nissen are to serve as the picture of masculinity; however Peirce shows a darker side of the men.  They are both ex-convicts with short tempers and who use self-mutilation to help quell their inner rage.  They are alcoholics and abuse drugs.  John is a single father of a young daughter, but is depicted as being negligent and ultimately a bad father.  He becomes upset when his daughter wets herself and soils his pants and he also attempts to give her beer.  Lotter and Nissen assert their masculinity through “committing acts of violence as their natural birthright” (p. 52).  Instead of portraying Lotter and Nissen’s masculinity in archetypal ways that the media typically defaults to, Peirce takes a darker turn, again to expose viewers to the dark side of masculinity.  Cooper states that Peirce chose to depict Lotter and Nissen in this light to make “it more difficult to see their response to Brandon’s ‘deception’ as some kind of ‘panic’ and thus somehow ‘defensible,’ or to condemn Brandon’s masculine performance as ‘sick,’ which has typically been the case when individuals refuse to occupy their biologically assigned gender” (52-53).  Instead of excusing Lotter and Nissen’s actions as a response to being deceived like other media outlets have, Peirce is challenging viewers to sympathize with Brandon and not his killers.

            Cooper centers on female masculinity by juxtaposing Brandon’s interpretation of heteromasculinity to the masculinity that was performed by Lotter and Nissen.  Cooper discusses how Brandon first idolized the two criminals and was delighted to be considered one of the guys in their motley crew, however once he became infatuated with Lana, he realized that he would have to put his own spin on the masculine traits he was mimicking.  “…when Brandon is interacting with women, it is with shy sensitivity and tenderness that helps redefine what it means to be a man.  As Brandon pursues a relationship with Lana, he exhibits a new form of masculinity—he’s the boyfriend young women dream about” (p. 54).  The fact that Brandon is able to connect with Lana on a different level eventually gets him into trouble.  Lotter, who is extremely territorial of the young woman, begins to question Lana and what she seems in Brandon, which ultimately leads to his exposure as a transgender male.  However, despite this exposure, Brandon had successfully convinced his friends in Falls City that he was a man’s man, and that he was man enough to get the girl, all while biologically being female.  Ultimately this ability to perform heteromasculinity as a female is what disturbs and confused Lotter and Nissen and pushes them to their breaking point.

            The analysis of female masculinity ultimately leads to the blurring of boundaries that Cooper claims Peirce does successfully in this film.  Cooper argues that because Brandon’s sexuality and gender were so ambiguous in the film and because Lana refused to acknowledge that Brandon was biologically a female but identified as male, the lines between gender and heteromasculinity became blurred for the viewer.  She specifically focuses on the last love scene between Brandon and Lana, which is a scene that has undergone scrutiny from critics.  Cooper claims, “I would argue that this scene is liberatory precisely because it refuses to conform to heteronormativity’s categorization of gender as exclusively male or female.  The ambiguity of Lana’s attraction to Brandon as a man on one hand, and her acknowledgement and acceptance of his biological sex on the other hand, subvert heteroideology and its inherent oppression of sexual difference” (p. 56).  The combination of Brandon’s confusion and Lana’s refusal to accept that Brandon was confused and love him regardless of how he identified, helps to make Brandon’s identity a little less confusing in the sense that Lana saw him as a person, male or female.  This confusion breaks the ideals that surround a heteronormative couple, making their relationship confusing to those who need to transfix upon the heteroideology that dominates our society.

            While Cooper presents two solid critiques in her first points of dismantling the myth of “America’s heartland” and problematizing heteromasculinity, her arguments surrounds female masculinity are rather limited.  Cooper’s referral to Brandon blurring the lines of female and male masculinity is problematic because Brandon did not identify as female, he saw himself as a male.  Cooper praises the last love scene between Brandon and Lana; however it could also be viewed as a cop-out on Peirce’s part.  Peirce and Cooper may view this scene as blurring the line between female and male masculinity and heteronormativity, but some scholars may view the scene as limiting.  Brandon in real life hated being classified as a lesbian and detested everything that came with being female.  If this was truly how he saw himself, it is hard to believe that he would be willing to allow Lana to view him fully as a woman and be vulnerable to the point to experience pleasure like a woman.  So while Cooper is praising Peirce one should question if instead of liberating Brandon did Peirce just place him into another category?  Were the lines really blurred or as demonstrated in Sloop’s book, did Peirce add that scene because as a society, we are just too uncomfortable to let Brandon just be Brandon, regardless of label?

Where is the love?

I have to admit that confusion is my default feeling after reading Chapter Two: Disciplining the Transgendered: Brandon Teena, Public Representation, and Normativity in the Sloop book.  This confusion is caused by several different factors.  First I think it is wise to acknowledge that the whole Brandon Teena case in itself is a complicated and somewhat confusing case study to analyze.  However, Sloop does not just focus on the case study itself, he branches out to analyze how the media framed this case and the discourse that it caused in society.  All of these layers of analysis within the chapter are enough to make one’s head spin (and I am hoping that I am not alone in this feeling, although it is okay if I am).

Throughout the chapter Sloop discusses how our society thrives on labels and boxes.  The fact that Brandon Teena did not fit into one box or adhere to one label was and still is troublesome to society.  We have discussed in previous classes how the fact that gender and sex is not a fluid construction in our society causes a great deal of trouble.  Sloop’s analysis of Brandon Teena just re-affirms that notion.  It also served to be eye opening as to how narrow minded our society truly is, which for me, is extremely disturbing.  What is even more troublesome for me is that only through the readings of this course and through the light in which Sloop discusses this case have I realized how narrow minded I have been when it comes to gender and sex.

One of the first things that Sloop discusses that caused me anxiety was when he analyzed the rhetoric surrounding the murderers and their motives for killing Teena. The media as well as the two men responsible for abusing and murdering Teena justify their actions by saying that they were hurt by the “deception” that they experienced.  While I can understand that people do not enjoy being deceived and lied to, I hardly think that is just cause for the brutal actions that both men inflicted upon Teena.  The fact that the media framed Brandon Teena as the one who was guilty of deception simply created an out for his two murders and gave society a reason to excuse the acts of violence and abuse that they participated in.  It is easier for our society to accept and understand something if we are able to relate to it.  Since majority of our society are unable to relate to Brandon Teena, the media needed to find a new spin on the story.  Everyone has experienced deception at some point and level in their life, thus the story becomes relatable.

The media makes this case relatable and accessible in other ways as well.  The audience is validated when it is revealed that there was something “wrong” with Teena, there was a deeper penetrating issue that caused his sexual confusion.  Either there was a hormone imbalance during his mother’s pregnancy or he was sexually abused as a child.  By exposing these tangible instances, it makes it easier for society to accept Brandon Teena’s actions.  We need to be able to create scenarios and instances to make it easier for the situation to accommodate our frame of reference instead of just accepting the fact that Brandon Teena thought he was male, wanted to be male, or whatever he believed. 

I also found it mildly horrifying that the media was so transfixed with determining what Brandon Teena’s true gender and sex was.  I understand that as a society, we need to be able to define the unknown in terms that we are able to understand, but it seems as if in the whole mix of all of this society and the media lost sight of the big picture: someone was sexually abused and murdered in what I see as a hate crime.  In all of the drama surrounding determining if Brandon Teena was male or female, gay or straight, transgendered or transsexual, we forgot one thing: despite what he was or how he identified, he was murdered, and shouldn’t that action in itself speak louder than defining his “true” identity?