Meaning, Motivation, and Message

I have an Asian sibling, 4 Asian cousins, 2 Puerto Rican cousins, 1 Dominican cousin,
4 black and latino in-laws and 5 mixed babies in my family.
They say I can't wear white shirts, because Im so light it looks like Im naked.
I ask them how they can see through their chinky eyes.
They say that I lose when we play cops and robbers at night because I glow in the dark.
I give them a hard time when it takes them an hour to get one knot out of their hair.
They merciless taunt me when I come back looking like a lobster after being in the sun the first day of summer.
I yell "chino!" They yell "casper!"
And the family portraits drawn by the little kids are hilarious.

Its the way it is. We love each other, but I'm sure that every single day at least one person says something" racist" to someone else. That leads me to question whether racism is less an issue of words, but rather motive. Even when we do impressions of each other, I'm sure we do things that "racially-sensitive" souls would cringe at. We aren't maliciously bashing each others' "foreign-ness", though. We are comically pointing out our differences.
There's nothing wrong with that, because our message is ultimately one of care. Of course we give each other a hard time, but that doesn't mean we do anything out of the attitude that one of us is better because of our DNA structures or the color of our skin.
We understand that love and family surpasses all that.
I guess the point I want to make is that as we go through our daily life and "racist" comments, words, and images bombard us, we should look below surface level and try to find the true motives present at the time. Certain things have very potent meanings, but sometimes the ultimate message a person is trying to convey could be different that the typical connotation that that thing carries. I'm not trying to excuse or justify anything, only to challenge everyone to look a little deeper before they pull the racist card or get offended.

the N-word

Race issues seem to come up a lot in my daily life because of where i was born and who I am around most of my life. I am used to being surrounded by blacks, Latinos, and Asians in inner city settings. One of the biggest issues that comes up is the use of the N-word. Honestly, most people have wack ideas of the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the word. The people I respect are those who deem it inappropriate for all or appropriate for all.
I just don't get it when black people just throw around the word all day long, use it about and direct it towards white people and then get really mad if a white person even thinks about using it. Now, I'm not ignorant, I know that the N-word has extremely negative connotations and has been used by whites very wrongly in the past. I just don't get why the black population seems to want to keep the term in circulation so bad. Even more so, I don't get why the black population will use it right to their white friends faces, but then get really angry when their white friends use it back in a completely amicable way? When a black person has a white friend or girlfriend or wife and he calls her the n-word in a joking, kind context, why is it a mortal sin for her to do the same? It just seems inconsistent. To me, if you use it with some, you should allow them to use it with you. And if it offends you so much when you hear some people say it, you shouldn't be cool with furthering its use yourself.

Nasty, but needs to be questioned

lyrics (abridged version)
http://www.moron.nl/lyrics/lil-wayne/lollipop-lyrics.html
I Said he's so sweet
Make her wanna lick the rapper
So I letta lick the rapper
She she she lick me like a lollipop
She she lick me like a lollipop

[Chorus:] Shawty wanna thug (thug thug)
bottles in the club (club club)
shawty wanna hump and
ooo i like to touch ya lovely lady lumps

[Verse 1:Lil Wayne]
Okay, lil mama had a swag
like mine even wear her hair
down her back like mine
i make her feel right when
its wrong like lyin
Man, she ain never had a love like mine
but man i aint never seen a ass like hers
that pussy in my mouth
had me at a loss fo words
i told her to back it up like erp erp and
make that ass jump like shczerp shczerp
and thats when
she she she lick me like a lollipop( oh yeah i like that ) s
he she lick me like a lollipop ( oh yeah i like that )

[Verse 2:]
Shawty said the nigga that she with aint shit
Shawty said the nigga that she with aint this
Shawty said the nigga that she with cant hit
But shawty ima hit it(hit it) like i cant miss
And i cant do this and i dont do that shawty
needa a refund needa bring that nigga back
Just like a refund i tell her bring that ass back
and she bring that ass back (because i like that)

[Chorus:] Shawty wanna thug (thug thug)
bottles in the club (club club)
shawty wanna hump and
ooo i like to touch ya lovely lady lumps
Shawty call me so i can make it juicy fo ya
Call ca call me so so i can get it juicy fo ya
Call ca ca call me so so i can make it juicy fo ya
Ca Call me so so so i can get it juicy fo ya
Ca Call me so i can make it juicy fo ya

I get her on top she drop it like it hot
and when im at the bottom she Hilary Rodham
then we in the bed givin gettin head ( givin gettin head givin gettin head )
said mmmm i like that said
mmmm i like that i said mmmm i like that
yea i like that mmm mmmmm
Call me so i can come and do it fo ya
Call me so i can come and prove it fo ya
Call me so i can make it juicy fo ya
Call me so i can get it juicy fo ya
Shawty wanna li li li li lick me like a lollipop
She she lick me like a lollipop (lollipop)
Said he's so sweet
Make her wanna lick the rapper
So i let her lick the rapper

So even posting these lyrics on my page is making me sick to my stomach. I really don't even know where to begin. I hate this song. I think its demeaning to women. I think it has absolutely no message except one of trashy selfishness and it bothers me even more that it has become a hit. But, honestly, I'm not even gonna focus on the gender issue.
The biggest question I have is if this music video is a picture of what the black community wants to promote as the black man: a guy with a limo-van filled with half naked women all wanting to give him oral sex? Its weird, but I feel like if a white man were to put out this same video, he would be looked more at like a disgrace. I don't think he would be gettin repped as much. However, when a black man puts forth this image, he is mad popular and he gets mad money. Why? Do black people have a certain unspoken leniency? What is it more approved of of black music artist to talk about such themes in such language and its not looked down upon by the majority of society, but instead acknowledged as a man doing big things?
Maybe I'm just not seeing something, but there seems to be a double standard. In this case. seemingly to the benefit of black males, but I think to the detriment of black culture as a whole.

The RACIST napkin

So, last year my friends had this thing where they would hold up a napkin with the word RACIST written on it every time they felt like I made a racist comment. Apparently, this happened frequently enough that they actually began to carry around napkins with them where ever we would go.
Let me explain that the crew was usually all black kids except for me.

I am a very inquisitive person and I am not afraid to say what I'm thinking or voice any questions I might have.

One night we were all in the cafeteria and one of our mutual (black) friends was talking to us and said that he had to run over to another building real fast. I immediate thought of the countless comments from my friends about the way I walk and the way "white people" walk in general. "Like they are running" they said.

I wanted to clarify something.
Working off of the "non-racist" comments that white people run when (to me) they are just walking, I asked my friend when he said he had to "run" over to that building, whether he meant he was just going to walk really fast.
I wasn't trying to be smart.
I was genuinely curious.
The words barely got out my mouth and the napkins were whipped out and pushed in front of my face.
I don't get it. Why can black people make statements and there is never any grounded offense, but a white person asks a question and everyones accusing you of racism.
What do you think?

Racial (slurring) Privilege

Watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-bA9FYB8HY&feature=related

Rush Hour is an interesting movie when it come to comedy, audience and race. At first glance does the movie have racist elements? Chris Tucker makes fun of Jackie Chan's Asian character a lot, assuming that he couldn't speak English when he first meets him, and assuming along with other things that the martial arts are just something for show that "your corny ass does." But when Tucker and Chan go into a bar and Chan greets the bartender by saying "Whats good, my nigga" he gets beat down (not by Tucker but by others). To me, the way stereotypes and racial bashing go in this movie, just goes to show how black tension underlies the majority of racial tension. Its ok for a black guy to knock other minorities and its sure as heck ok for him to knock white, but when it come to anyone even accidentally knocking blacks, they get beat down quick. The audience should think about this.
What is the most correct and moral way to navigate the racial ladder of our society?
The question is, do movies like this help in healing racial wounds and improving the underlying tension or does it just reinforce and promote preexisting negative feelings?

The New Meaning of Equality

"Underlying this equal-opportunity offensiveness is the notion that "teasing" an entire racial group by invoking some of its most pernicious stereotypes is no different from making fun of people who like to ski--a notion that willfully ignores the fact that racism and sexism are still very much a part of American culture. The line of defense--"We're all treated equally now, so we had no idea people would be offended!"--is in some ways more insulting that outright bigotry, which at least doesn't hide behind a pretense of equality" (Rachel Fudge, Bitchfest).

Is it just overreacting for Asians to get mad at shirts like this? A lot of people answered yes when the Abercrombie & Fitch controversy was underway. I think its very important for white critics to remember our place in society. Some claim that "we should all be equal. Anybody can make fun of white people, so we should in turn get to play with the stereotypes of others." These people need to wake up and realize that we are not equal and even though political rights are becoming more equal, societal rights aren't. Even after generations of races interacting on a more equal plain in our modern society, there will still always be a legacy of racism that can never be erased. People try to use the justification of how much progress we've made to print and sell t-shirts like this. This progress and illusion of equality are just that--illusions--excuses to be just as racist as ever and an attempt to use "equality" against those who have suffered from inequality for so long. Its a low blow and the White Man of America just needs to man up, stop playing games, and begin to give everyone "else" the equality they deserve.

A Funny Compromise

"In the mid-1980s good pitches or show ideas presented to producers, began to be defined as those appealing to both "urban" and mainstream" audiences. NBC, in particular boasted crossover hits such as The Cosby Show (the nation's number one program for five seasons), A Different World, and The Fresh Prince of Bel Air" (Kristal Brent Zook).

Ok, so everyone can agree that Fresh Prince and The Cosby Show were both a huge success. Black people and white people alike loved and still love them, watching and re-watching re-runs to this day. The thing about it though is that the families of the Huxtables and the Banks were not your typical "black families." So, some people may get mad at me for saying this and say I'm being racist and stereotyping, but the truth of the matter is that they both had mad money and unrealistic lives. The average black family does not have the mother as a lawyer and the father as a doctor and time to just have fun with the 5 kids. The average black family does not have a butler who cooks, clean, and answers the door to their mansion. Now this is not true for just black families, its true for white families too. If these same family were white with as much money and a butler and everything like that, the audience would view them as more upper class, but thats not the case. Mainstream audiences are able to relate to these families. It is because the families were black, they had to overcompensate by being super rich to be able to get on the same level as mainstream white audiences?

I'm not saying that either of these shows is a sell-out. Will definitely brings a street element to Bel Air as does Cockroach and other characters in the Cosby Show, however, its a strange mix of two world that ends up in a seemingly happy, but foundationally weak compromise.

Watch this clip of some of the "funniest moments" from Fresh Prince.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUSR1PZ3meE

What are the situations? Will is in trouble for wrecking a car, he runs away with $20 bucks he tricks from his uncle, he and Carlton break into a house while Carlton is wearing all black and a ski mask. Carlton doesn't realize Wills already inside and he urgently says, "Will! There's a big black guy in the house!" Will is always roping Carlton into different schemes, hustling people, getting him to talk street, to act not as proper. These are the funniest moments on the show. Something just seems inconsistent. I can't exactly figure it out. It just seems like the wealth, the huge house, and nice neighborhood is the pass to be accepted in the white eye and the skin color and street element is what makes them "such successful black shows." They're funny shows and I love them, but when all is said and done, it does seem a lot like a funny compromise.

Racism in Horton Hears a Who?!

Meet Vlad . . .

He's Merciless,

He's Rentless,

And He's Clueless!



watch clip: Clulesshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ylfIm6k1AU&feature=related

I was so excited to go see this Dr. Suess movie. Call me a nerd. I unashamedly counted the days til I could buy my ticket, sit right in the middle of the theater, and watch the story about an elephant saving a WhoVillage. Honestly, the last thing I could've thought about was that there was going to be racism in this movie. It struck me as kinda funny--but really not. The "bad guy", the only character in the movie who is never redeemed, has a thick Russian accent, is named Vlad, is cruel, aggressive, not that intelligent, and has no friends.
What is the message that the producers of this G-rated children's film are putting forth? What ideas are they putting in little kids minds? Why is Vlad the only character who doesn't reconcile with the other characters (like Kangaroo and the Wickashim brothers do in the end)?
This was such a funny movie. I LOVE Horton and I LOVE Jo-Jo the Who, but it was so frustrating that in the end my appreciation of this movie had to be tainted with the knowledge that this one character would make every kid who left this movie a little more unconsciously racist. That was really frustrating. Even my 15 year of brother didn't pick up on it. I had to spell it out for him and then eventually, he saw what I was talking about. So if a 15 year old high schooler isn't even aware, whats that say about the teaching that 6 and 7 year olds are getting? The unnecessary racism smack in the middle of a great movie was really disturbing, especially in light of "how far we've come."

My, oh My, What a ??Wonderful?? Day

Zip-a-dee-doo-dah zip-a-dee-ay
My, oh my, what a wonderful day!
Plenty of Sunshine headed my way.
Zip-a-dee-doo-dah zip-a-dee-ay
Mr. Bluebird's on my shoulder.
Its the truth. Its actual. Everything is satisfactual.
Zip-a-dee-doo-dah zip-a-dee-ay
Wonderful feeling. Wonderful Day.

click to watch clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47ak4vjiNzw

Zip-a-dee-doo-dah is a great song. Almost every little kid (and adult) can sing it a the top of their lungs, especially when they're having a really good day. However, this song has come to be taken (and perhaps made to be taken) way out of context. I actually never realized it was from the animated movie ,"Song of the South." Disney no longer officially sells this movie. It is indefinitely out of circulation because of the huge racial controversy promoted in the film. Some argue that it is more an issue of historical placement. It is set right after the civil war and so the blacks in the movie aren't slaves, but sharecroppers on a white plantation. However, the movie portrays their lives as this happy, carefree one in the care of their kind white master. The blacks are portrayed as subservient, kindly, entertainers who enjoy their life and who's goal is to serve the white people.
The question is, should we be disturbed by this harmless, quaint historical animation?
The answer is, yes.
But the reason is deeper than just the historical setting.
In that time, its a fact that blacks were not very well educated. That was a result of white man's laws. The improper speech presentation could theoretically be justified that way. But where the most racist messages come through, I believe, is through the actual animated characters. Uncle Remus tells a story to the little white boy who is trying to run away from home about Brier Rabbit. All the characters in the story are black--represented by black voices. And they are all shown to be slow, foolish, inebriated, or conniving. So what if the historical context consisted of the blacks not being as educated? What does that have the do with "black" animal cartoon characters?
The message of the film seems to be at a very base level, that not only are blacks less educated and informed by whites, but simply less intelligent. That is why at its core "Song of the South" is a very racist misrepresentation that should be understood very carefully and not just watched for entertainment purposes.
The message is not as carefree as the song would have you believe.

Classifed What?

The images and clips shown in Classifed X were disturbing to say the least. The biggest thoughts that may come to mind are . . . Does it really matter today how blacks were portrayed by Hollywood 60, 70 years ago? Why can't we just move on and not think about it? The movie producers and directors of that day are not the people of my current generation. Yeah, those people were mad ignorant. Why do we have to be subjected to see how blacks were belittled, undignified, and disrespected?

When watching this film, you might be frustrated at having to see how "these people" (i.e. the actors, directors, producers and audience) promoted such a bigoted and ignorant view of blacks. But when it comes down to it, you (possibly like me, as a white person) may be subjected to 50 minutes of these painful images but can you understand what effect decades upon decades of these painful--personal--images have done to the black population? I think there is something to be said about the awareness that we as a society need to have today. Something that particularly caught my attention is how Van Peebles was explaining the idea of the "new Negro" and then the "action black." He commented that when Hollywood began to give blacks some ounce of dignity, it was only as an athletic, military type or as an entertainer. I asked myself, have we really "progressed" as much as we claim? What are the top "black people movies"? They are action films and comedies. When does a serious drama come out with the main or majority actors black? Films that Denzel Washington has played in come to mind, but many times, there is a huge amount of action in the films. Blacks are still not portrayed with the same amount of intellectual or economic ability as whites in film. They are still portrayed and athletic people with rhythm, a sense of humor, and the ability to make the jokes "other people" are frowned on for making.

Classified X argues that change is only possible through directors having the resources and power to create their own films on their terms according to what the black population wants to see. The film ends with a note of hope that the time has finally come when those resources and opportunities are available. Slowly but surely, black actors and directors will begin the true representation of black people in America.

Devastatingly Diminished

Small and sexy. Thin is in.
Women and girls are bombarded with the megaphone of diminish-ment every day of their lives. Billboards, magazines, tv shows, and movies all advocate the message to be as small as you can be. For the life of me, I don't know why. I think the idea of beauty has become much too narrow. People ignorantly disregard the attractiveness of different body types and this obsession with weight is blind to so many other factors of true beauty. Jean Kilbourne discusses this phenomenon in her article, "The more you subtract, the more you add." She talks about how the media screams to the woman to diminish herself--to be beautifully barely there is the goal. Kilbourne carries those ramifications to an emotional and personal level as well. She describes how the media teaches us that the look in a woman's eyes, the shade of her lips, and the tone of her skin are how she ought to speak--not with words. She is never to be loud or assertive. She is to be seen and observed.
Silently stunning. Breathlessly beautiful. Devastatingly diminished.

Men as Meat

It's always been the women who are objectified, leered at, broken down asset by asset, and seen as mere sex objects. One of the newest phenomenon's of female "liberation" and the modern woman is the control and domination of her personal sex life. She is the one criticizing the bodies of the males in her world. She is the one who breaks them down with a lusting eye. And he is the object of her desire. This is championed by almost every mainstream woman's magazine in the U.S. and UK alike (e.g. Cosmopolitan, Company, Elle, More New Woman). "This approach to men, of course, is done with a smile, and knowingly treats men in the way that men have traditionally treated women" (David Gauntlett). The question is, do women get as much gratification out of such an approach as men have gotten? At the end of the day, are women satisfied with snagging that piece of meat and then going out on the hunt again?

The Perfect Lie

Make me beautiful...
Make me...
Perfect soul
Perfect mind
Perfect face
A perfect life

watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iwaQ2zi63c&feature=related

Is the message of our society really that if you are beautiful on the outside, everything will be fixed on the inside? If you have "perfect eyes" or a "perfect face," you will have a "perfect soul"? People are buying it. Every magazine is selling it. Why?

Beautiful Phony

Watch this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHLpRxAmCrw

Laurie Oullette talks about "the beautiful Phony"--the woman who spends her life creating the illusion that she is beautiful. When you take away the make-up, the lifts, the padded bras, the dyes and the color contacts, she is diminished to "nothing". Its so incredible to me how as technology has improved and products are so available, women can create almost any image they want, even if its 100% different than the one they were born with. Shows like 10 Years Younger and How do I look? demonstrate exactly how it works. You lose weight or get it sucked out of you, you get plastic surgery, go to a dental surgeon, you change your hair color, order different color eyes, apply 2 pounds of make-up and then smile for the camera.
The Youtube clip is from a guy who's using Photoshop, but it demonstrates exactly what America is doing.

Image of the Black Man: Improvement or Illusion?

Lebron James is only the third male to ever appear to the cover of Vogue magazine. He is featured in an article about the body maintenance of top models and star athletes. You may think,

"Wow, we have made such improvement in the area of racism and the image of black males. See, this man is on the cover of a woman's magazine with a white model."

In one sense, yes. But in another sense, the way he is being portrayed is not really that different that the base presumptions of who a black man is and where his value lies. As Varda Burstyn puts it:

"The black super-Athlete is the 'tough guy' par excellence, embodying the physical qualities of the laboring/soldiering ethos . . . This combined class appeal of black athletes - who have emerged from among the impoverished and downtrodden Americans - is both their major asset in commercial sport culture, and a supreme irony. For the presentation of the black super athlete is still, in many ways, continuous with the racist representation of black males in culture more generally."

Look at the stance and facial expression he has: ready to pounce, exuding brute strength, extremely aggressive, with his mouth open like he's screaming. He really doesn't look that nice and he's grabbing this smiling white woman who is balancing on one foot inside his leg span. He is being esteemed by being on this cover. He is being esteemed for physical strength, brute, base qualities of masculinity. He is a black man and that is what he is good at and honored for: being able to play ball.
The perspective of the majority of Americans really hasn't improved that much. Its an illusion to think that the mere fact that this man in on the cover of vogue means much has changed.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0803/caught.in.the.act0314/content.3.html

The Object of Man's Passion

http://loveyourbody.nowfoundation.org/offensiveads.html

Ok, so its pretty much established that this ad is not necessary selling any products that are shown. This is not the typical man or woman modeling clothes or sunglasses. The ad is promoting a type of lifestyle/attitude apparently manifested in the consumption of Dolce and Gabbana products. The value in this ad is more one of shock value and the message is actually pretty ambiguous. On the one hand, you could say its an image of a woman who is just about to be gang raped. She is beautifully helpless and at the mercy of the five cut-up men surrounding her. But then again, the tone that the audience picks up on is not one of male passion for women. And its not clear if its of male passion for men. It's of passion in general.

The man standing up without a shirt on is looking at the man who is on the ground. Its not clear who the men in the background are looking at, but they really don't seem like they're waiting their turn to be with the woman. The men are dressed in a trim, metro style. they look like they take very good care of themselves. It seems as though they have worked very hard to chisel their bodies to near perfection. And it seems as though they haven't done any of this for a woman. They could have done it out of a passion for themselves.

Is this art? It's advertising. What are they selling? A new image.

In an article written by John Beynon, he speaks about "imaged masculinity" in the yuppie and gay cultures. "In this 'heterotopic world' young men engaged in what Mort (1996) terms as 'experiments in masculinity': 'For the most part these were organized along an axis separating heterosexual from homosexual behaviors. However, at moments more hybrid forms of identity were generated, as ways of being and acting mutated from one group to another' (Mort 1996: 182)."

This is an age of the new man--the one who lives to please himself. His pleasure could be in a woman, it could be in a man, it could be simply in himself and whatever he wanted in the moment. This new man sells. Because nobody wants to be put in a box; everybody wants to just be them. The funny thing is, thats exactly what Dolce & Gabbana are doing--putting the new man in a box and presenting him to the world. And they're buying it.

Body by Dance

watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7FkvzpEa5M&NR=1

I like this commerical a lot. It shows all these women in the hospital for plastic surgery to rearrange their bodies, enlarge or diminish certain parts, and fix all their "blemishes."

The empowering message is that if you are active and work your body to its fullest potential, you don't need any of that. So, dance. Its natural. It will make you beautiful because it is everything inside you working its way out. Its you not having to be cut down and put in a box. Its you released. Why should you let someone else put a black marker on you and tell you what you should be. You should be what you are. You should move and flow and then the way your body is, is the best you could ever hope for and the best its ever going to be--

natural, real, and beautiful.

Jus do It

Nike Commercial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb_O-U9O-M&feature=related

So we have 7 women on the national soccer team and 1 man--their PR manager. They are kind of portrayed in a typical "role reversal". The women are strong, athletic and competant. The man is not serious, ridiculous looking and pathetic. I guess this commercial shows what I've had to deal with in my life--guys underestimanting me, mocking the fact that I'm a woman, and writing me off as an athlete. So, I've learned not to talk, watch and be patient, take every opportunity, and jus do it. Talk is cheap from me and them. So, if most men would shut up and enough women would step up show them what they got, females maybe wouldn't be trapped in a negative stigma for the rest of time.

Suga Suga

Suga Suga
by Baby Bash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6szDIy6SUs

So, I love this song. Its mad smooth, but I don't like the music video. I don't get it. Is this a man's fantasy world? Every woman portrayed in this video is barely dressed and they are labeled kind of like in a board game. Such as "the delivery girl", "neighbor" and "police officer." I'm trying to get to the core of the message. That women's value is only found in their physical appearance and sex appeal? This song and many times the video as well is very popular among the females I know. Do we just accept the way we are portrayed? I fell such a lack of respect, especially in the parts where the man is spanking the police officer on the butt with a stop sign--She's smiling and "playing" right along. Its such a joke. Another girl is shaking her hips and butt all around him with a carpenter's belt on. Ms. Tasty pop works at a food booth and he goes right behind her while she is bending forward and check out her ass. And you wonder why women pursuing professional careers have it so hard. This is a mainstream video that came out only a year ago. Why do we accept the ideology behind it?

E-Trade Superbowl 2008 commercial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMl839M5hKc

The message is that E-Trade is so easy, even a baby can use it. This commercial cleverly uses age to grab the attention of the audience. The immediate question though is why they used a white baby. Was it because the majority of people living in the states are white? Why didn't they use a black or latino baby? Is it because white is supposed to be symbolize universal man? This is an image from a mainstream, modern day media frenzy--the superbowl. How is man being represented? Is it accurate? Is it fair? Or are questions like these just "overthinking" it?

I was looking through a Cosmo magazine and it struck me that almost everything said, asked about, referred to, and pictured was about sex. And I had to ask, is it because the female audience consuming this magazine is really that into sex? A number of them probably are, but it just kinda struck me as funny, because the average healthy person has much more going on in their life besides sex. Now, there is relationship advice and some "daily tip" things, but everything is about "arousing him", "sex secrets", "what he wants, but wont tell you." There are countless articles about make-up and fashion, and it all comes down to one message. Be desirable for a man. Now, I'm not saying its a bad thing or a good thing. But basically, Cosmopolitan's billion dollar business is based on the ultimate question of "How to: be desirable and give your man what he wants." . . . and girls can't get enough.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/

"Irresistable to Men"

Click to view beer commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzAxWWL4wZA&feature=related

This commercial is interestingly making a statement about both women and men as also giving a message to both women and men. The statement about men is that they don't have enough self control to work in a beer factory, because it's just that good. They cannot be professional is such an atmosphere. The statement about women is that they can have enough self control, but look at how they are represented. Are they really half-dressed, looking that sexy for their female co-workers? The message to men is the appeal to their brute instincts. Basically saying, 'its ok. You can't resist this. Don't try to.' Plus they are putting the desire for alcohol right next to the desire for sex, blending the two. The message to women is that they can be just as irresistible. What woman doesn't want to be desired?

Bold statements. Loud messages. One product.

The "common woman"

Dove body product commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqSlSXqlRfk

This commercial appeals to "the common woman." Its trying to show that a lot of the key images in the media are misleading. The images put forth as the female "model," have been touched up, shaped, and glossed over to perfection. Dove is actually taking the opposite approach in their marketing. Instead of saying that if you use this product, you will look like this, they say, be real, nobody looks like this. Use this product, it will make you look like you. On the one hand, that may seem to appeal to many who are sick of never meeting the "media standard." But on the other hand, women have been trained to aim for that standard. Dove's sales arent always skyrocketing, because they have taken this different approach. Is this approach better? more truthful? less effective?

Break it down, Drink it up

Click this link to view a commercial for Pepsi that was aired during the superbowl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EEZLYKN8Fo&feature=related

Question: Why does taking off your clothes have anything to do with drinking soda?

Answer: it doesn't.

Reason: Pepsi needs to sell its product. A carbonated drink doesn't sell that well by itself. Sex sells. The most intelligent marketing move would be to record a blond girl in a bra dancing, flipping her hair everywhere, and making bedroom eyes as the camera goes close up.

Result: The audience pretty much forgets logic, sees the pepsi logo and because they have certain desires and feelings associated with such a sensual scene, they go out an buy a 6-pack.

Effective: Yes.

Constructive: No.

Ideal? or Unreal?

http://www.msmagazine.com/jan01/hooked_jan01.html

"The image projected behind her, a larger-than-life Revlon ad, is of a woman who is neither breathless nor smiling, but instead presents a lacquered, doll-like blankness.'We are surrounded by such images of ideal beauty,' says Jean Kilbourne, reminding the audience—as she has in more than a thousand college lecture halls around the country—that we are all being judged against this porcelain perfection. And that when we are compared to such a standard, 'failure is inevitable.' . . . As one of the preeminent scholars on the effects of advertising, Kilbourne has shown, through lectures, films, and a book, how marketing has perfected the science of seducing us. How its glossy allure can leave us feeling somewhat less than human. In the ideal presented by advertising, 'our face becomes a mask,' she says to the assembled students, as she clicks through slides of cosmetics ads, all featuring flawless faces. 'And our body becomes a thing.' . . . Her voice is calm, even a little sad now that she's flashing picture after picture of women with impossibly smooth, overwhelmingly Caucasian features onto the screen. 'And turning a human being into a thing,' she continues, 'is often the first step toward justifying violence.' The next series of ads begins by showing women as props, intended to make cars or apartments more attractive; it then shifts to tight shots of butts and thighs, and finally mere parts. Dismembered limbs. Meat."

This article was written by Clea Simon for Ms. Magazine. The speaker, Jean Kilbourne, makes a very good point. The ads we see, especially those geared to women, present this insane ideal that is impossible to reach. They breed a culture of dissatisfied, over-achieving women that do everything they can to attempt to appear like the thousands of images of "beauty" that are thrown in their faces everyday. Its really ridiculous, though, when you analyze these advertisements and bring them to their logical conclusions. Women, dressed up so pretty, are seen as pieces of meat, used to get attention, sell products, and make money. This representation and view of women are products of our 1st world culture--our consumerist, "progressive" society.

The Women We See

http://www.ltcconline.net/lukas/gender/pages/roles.htm


"As we unfortunately see in all forms of media, the roles of women in print advertising are stereotypical and limiting. Studies such as Courtney and Whipple (1983) and Barthel (1987) confirm that the association of women and specific domestic roles has been solidified in popular culture, particularly advertising. Courtney and Lockeretz’s important analysis of magazine advertising (1971) indicated that women have been portrayed as domestic providers who do not make significant decisions, are dependent on men, and are essentially sex objects. A second study found that offensive ads had declined, but that women were still seen as belonging to the private sphere of the home (cf. Venkatesan and Losco 1975; Wagner and Banos 1973). The messages of popular culture also ironically reflect the multiple roles that women have to play in western society. Hochschild’s Second Shift is just but one dimension of the strains felt by women as a result of work and home duties. Wolf also addresses how some ads in women’s magazines reflect “the ambivalence that women feel about their stressful new roles” (1991:116). Role strain is exhibited in many situations in popular culture and advertising. The roles offered to women are very limited. Many involve a woman’s confinement to the domestic sphere—caring for children, cleaning the house, shopping for groceries and making meals for a husband. Nancy Chodorow makes the point that the maintenance of gender subordination in world cultures is very much due to the universal functions and values of the family (1974). Men too are the subjects of confusion and psychological conflict as the construction of the “good-provider” role is maintained in contemporary understandings of masculinity (Bernard 1995)."


This picture is used as an example in The Gender Ads Project by Scott A. Lucas, PhD. I'm not exactly sure what article this picture was being used for, but I think it's ridiculous. It is degrading to woman and only enforces the warped view that the dominant male world has on women. It depicts females as sexual objects that can only use their "assets" as ways in which to raise their position in society, in their career or to get what they want in life. Images like this, unfortunately, are very common. The reason I highlighted this particular one is because someone actually had the nerve to break it down: labeling her "career climber", and going on to describe "carefully calculated cleavage", "very visible panty line", "garter", "slit skirt". I'm beginning my blog series with this so that the viewer will have these particular words in their head while they see images that aren't so outspoken in the way they present women. Images that we see throughout our day and just accept as the representation of women in our "modern world of equality."