Where are All the Women!?

In reflecting on Bielby and Bielby’s Women and Men in Film I couldn’t help but consider all the female screenwriters and directors that came to mind. While my mind was flooded with the names of men such as Michael Bay, and Martin Scorsese, two female directors did occur to me. First of which is Kathryn Bigelow who is best known for directing 2008s The Hurt Locker. In fact, in 2010 Bigelow became the first woman to win the Oscar for Best Director. As a fan of Twilight, the second woman who came to mind was Catherine Hardwicke. Along with Twilight, Hardwicke has directed blockbusters such as Red Riding Hood (starring Amanda Seyfried), Lords of Dogtown (staring Heath Ledger and Emile Hirsch), and Thirteen (starring Nikki Reed and Evan Rachel Wood).  While Bielby and Bielby discuss how women writer’s and director’s opportunities are limited to a narrow range of genres, these two directors illustrate how some (albeit few) women have excelled behind the scenes.  

As a self-proclaimed movie coinsurer I’m constantly analyzing my own movie and TV viewing habits. In both the Poniewozik and Rosenburg articles, the authors describe shows that are targeted at either women or targeted at men. This notion of “female media” or “male media” is flawed in my opinion for I think it is impossible to lump all of one gender together and say that this is what they should like. From my own reflection, I can undoubtedly say that I do not solely watch the shows “for women”. In fact, I much prefer the shows that are classified as “men’s media”. I’m assuming that many others are like me and don’t subscribe to watching shows that are stereotypically female or male. I believe that we would be better served if media focused less on what they think would be good for women specifically or men specifically and focus on making simply good media.   

From December 2010

Are you there, feminism? It's us the media.

It's "impossible to agree on which images [are] positive." (p.34)

This statement could not be more true and it is one that stood out to me in this reading. It is rare for people to admit that their way is the wrong way, or the way they view the world is not the only way to view the world. When it comes to representations of females and femininity in the media, how do we know what's a good image and what's bad? Much like the disabled people who fight against being equals to abled people, women fight for their choice to say what a positive image of a woman looks like in the media. It comes down to individual beliefs. The media has tried to incorporate a positive image of a modern woman in multiple ways but the portrayal is always contested, even if it is labeled as "pro-feminist." The character of Chelsea in Are you there, Chelsea? plays the role of the lady who chills with the dudes. She maintains femininity and sex appeal but can stand her own ground and isn't afraid to say what she thinks. So basically women are being told that in order to be seen as equal to men, you have to flaunt your sex life. On the other end of the spectrum we see magazines that teach women how to balance work and home life, because the modern woman does both. And since apparently a spouse isn't in this picture... women are expected to be the bread-winners AND the care-takers. Now, how is that fair? While the media can attempt to be more and more conscious of female image, we can expect that someone somewhere will disagree with what a positive image of a woman truly is. This fact is extremely important when analyzing mediated gender studies because there is no ideal image. Every image has flaws, just like every human has flaws. Until we understand that it is truly impossible to agree on a positive image, we cannot move forward as a culture that eliminates sexism in media. Which leaves me with one question- is it possible to have actual feminist media?

The Trouble with the Media

            Advertisements in the media play such an influential role on the ideas of feminism in today’s society.  However, no matter how these advertisements portray feminism, it all depends on the way the public interprets the situation. 

            The reading from Gill focused on cultural politics and feminist media activism.  This feminist media activism took many different forms including sticker campaigns, guerrilla interventions, positive images, calls for more women working in the media, etcetera.  The sticker campaign dealt with posting stickers to advertisements that were degrading to women and shown in public venues.  Similar to this were the guerilla interventions, which was people writing graffiti on demeaning billboards.  Both of these were ways in which feminists used advertisements to promote for a greater diversity of women in the media and as an attempt to get people to accept themselves and others, especially women. 

            Love Your Body Day is a day in which women of all shapes, sizes, colors, ages, and abilities celebrate self.  When I read about the “Love Your Body Day” from the NOW website it reminded me of the positive images section in Gill.  In Gill’s reading, campaigning with positive images was the idea that since “ . . .women were trivialized, condemned and symbolically annihilated in the media” (Gill, 34), we need to show more positive images of women in order to show a greater diversity and add a strong, optimistic touch to the campaign.  These positive images would make women feel more confident in who they actually are contrary to what the media says, which is exactly what Love Your Body Day is about.  However, the campaign ran into problems because there was trouble in what exactly a positive image of a women was.  Many women see models as positive and attractive, however many feminists see attractiveness in images of women with wrinkles and no makeup. 

            When I read the “Love Your Body Day” article, I agreed with the women of NOW.  I thought to myself that the way people feel about themself should not be affected by these either positive images or negative images that the media shows in magazines and in advertisements.  The media is affecting so many women into thinking that they are not “normal” and that they have so many problems, which is in turn causing a lot of women to be unhealthy.  People have to love themself before anyone else will accept them for who they are, therefore they cannot pay attention to the false messages the media is sending about beauty.  If women do this and disregard the media, they will become more confident in their own eyes and with their own body. 

The picture I added is very true and reminded me of the NOW article, as it is from the Love Your Body campaign, and Gill’s reading.  Because of what the media says, women are so concerned about what they look like to others that they are forgetting the most important thing in life which is to be happy with oneself.

Nothing But An Escape

Romance novels have never been my idea of "good literature." Even though I have very limited experiences with romantic novels, I have always thought them to be a little too superficial and unrealistic. To me, romance novels seemed to simply be an extension of society's flawed notion of romance and the relationships between men and women. I just didn't see the point of reading romance novels. Janice Radway's piece definitely gave me a slightly different perspective on the issue of romance novels and media consumption in general.

Before reading this piece, I had never even considered the idea of using romance novels as a form of escape from the realities of life. It had never occurred to me that the seemingly cliché characters and predictable story lines could actually serve as a way in which to immerse one’s self in an idealized fantasy world. Radway’s study of Dot’s clientele was very interesting to me because it gave the female readers of romance novels a chance to express themselves and to explain their love (or obsession?) with these novels. Although I do not plan to go out and start reading as many romance novels as I can get my hands on, I did begin to identify with the women on their use of this media as an escape from real life. For instance, I am an avid viewer of MTV’s Jersey Shore. As a fairly educated young woman, I am fully aware that the show’s portrayal of women isn’t the most favorable. However, I watch it because it provides a break from the stresses of college life. Once a week, I can watch other people party it up and momentarily forget about the giant assignment I have to finish.

The chapter in Gill concerning audience consumption was also very striking to me in the manner in which it analyzes different kinds of media consumption studies from different points of view. I was struck by the fact that things like differences in location could have such a profound effect in the consumption of media and the manner in which it is interpreted. As a very large consumer of media (especially electronic media), I was pleased to see that research was being conducted from the point of view of the audience; as opposed to the research done by academics without any consideration of the average audience.

Why I Took This Class

Let's be honest. While I didn't say it in class, the main reason I took this class is for the professor. She was just getting a bit too much love in class so I wanted to keep her humble. I was also interested in the subject after I wrote a paper on Two Broke Girls last semester, and I began to think about how that show along with shows like Whitney where there are lead female characters.

It's interesting to look at the history of gender in the media, and I am excited to see where we have come from. It is important to study it because, as someone who plans to go into the industry, to analyze where we want to take the portrayal of gender in the media. I am excited because at Denison there is never an agenda, so I hope to analyze what has happened in the past as well as what is happening today, in order to make an informed decision about where to go in the future.