My Time as a Tomboy

So, after reading "Little Butches: Tomboys in Hollywood Film", I got to thinking about my own Tomboy phase which occurred through the second and third grades.

Hatch discusses a few possibilities in which the Tomboy phase was used in film through the 50s and the 70s. It seems to me that Tomboys were mostly used as a means of symbolizing prepubescence and girlhood innocence as well as a face for feminism.

Personally, my phase was a little different. I clearly remember wearing black turtle necks with my short haircut (similar to my style now) and playing cops and robbers with the boys in my class on the jungle gym along side my girlfriends. But the moment that any of the boys paid more attention to one of my girlfriends, I was super duper jealous. This means that my Tomboy phase was simply a means of meeting boys and flirting with them without seeming like I actually like-liked them (cause we all know that was icky).

This made me think further.

My favorite quote from this reading is this: "gender is not a product of clothing and hair style alone but is predicated on a set of behaviors that bolsters a system of male dominance and female submission" (79). Which got me thinking about my Tomboy phase in general. Could the Tomboy phase be a normal, socially constructed part of femininity? It seems like it definitely could be.

Here are my reasons. We discussed gender as a social construct, an act that is performed based on our desire to be normal. Yes, the Tomboy phase, according to Hatch, is a part of growing up for young girls before they understand sexual desire, but that wasn't the case for me or my girlfriends in elementary school. No, we didn't understand what sex was yet but the reason we played cops and robbers with the boys was because we inherently wanted their attention. We had crushes. So for me and my friends, and I understand that it wasn't the case for everyone else, our Tomboy phase was the beginning of our desire.

Does this make the Tomboy phase a necessary part of our performed femininity? Let's Discuss.

Also....I understand my experience in terms of Hatch's theory that the Tomboy phase was simply a phase before young women discover heterosexual desire but I do not understand its connection to masculine domesticity. That is something that I would like to discuss further with the class.

Why Do I Enjoy New Girl?

I agree with literally everything that Sonia Saraiya says in "Is 'New Girl' Secretly Feminist?". I don't like the fact that I like New Girl because the main character Jess drives me up the wall. For example, not being able to say the word penis, or in the most recent episode, saying that she is "twirly" instead of being horny. However, I find myself enjoying the show for how she interacts with the guys in her apartment and how they interact with her. I also find myself disagreeing with the first article. As we discussed earlier there is a "knowingness" that they portray with Schmidt. Although he is sexist, he is sexist in an embarrassing way so we laugh at him and the audience knows it's not right. There are also a few moments in the show where you see a nicer side of Schmidt that you can connect with. So you are connecting with the positive and mocking the negative side of the character. I believe the show is feminist because there is a give and take relationship. Jess is too infantile and the guys are teaching her not to be. However, Jess is not always the one being pushed around. In the Christmas episode she convinces to the guys to go knock on doors at 2 in the morning to ask people to turn on Christmas lights. Jess may be obnoxious but she is also a strong character. I may not like the fact that I like the show, but people should not be angry because the show isn't feminist.

New to New Girl

Before completing the reading on Zooey Deschanel and New Girl, I had watched half of one episode, so I really had no opinions either way on the show. After reading the articles, I gathered some conflicting view points, and I wasn't sure which side I should agree with. So, I decided to watch an episode on Hulu to gain further insight. I chose the episode "Naked" mentioned in one of the articles, and I thought it was hilarious. I thought there were several great characters that each brought something different to the show. However, I could still find bits and pieces of both arguments that were made. From the first article, they made a point that the show relied on themes of "Big Boys teaching the Little Girl how to be a "woman."" In the article "Is New Girl Secretly Feminist?", they talk about how Jess is heavily infantilized. I thought these were interesting points that tie back into the impossible beauty standards placed upon women. Women are supposed to be youthful and innocent, and the fact that Jess can't say the word 'penis' really highlights that. Also, in the interview with Liz Meriwether, she mentions that Fox totally supported having the unique, odd, quirky, etc. girl as the lead to the show, but how odd is she really? As mentioned in "Is New Girl Secretly Feminist?", weird or not, she's still a "hipster goddess." In the first article, they point out that she is "clearly attractive by Hollywood standards." Perhaps this is why Fox supports Jess' character so much?

On the other hand, I felt that Jess was a very independent girl who gave just as much back to the boys as they gave her. While the guys were trying to help her with her awkward run in with Nick, she was trying to help Nick with his situation as well. Maybe it's from my limited knowledge about the show, but it seems like Jess definitely does her own thing, and she I'm not sure she should be so heavily criticized for being cute. I feel that Meriwether makes a valid point when she states, "That people equate being girlie with being nonthreatening... I mean, I can't think of a more blatant example of playing into exactly the thing we're trying to fight against." To me Jess seems confident and comfortable in her own skin, and what's wrong with that?

Tonight, I remain undecided, but hopefully tomorrow after watching some more clips and having a discussion I will be able to form a better opinion of which side I'm on.

Ribon's The Magical Vulva of Opportunity is one piece that I personally love because of its honesty. It is funny and true and so heartfelt to the point where I completely understand every word that she chose to write.

I believe that all women still feel the pings of sexism in parts of their everyday life whether it be in class, at work (like Ribon), or in their relationship. But I also believe that there are people out there that refuse to discuss it because they do not actually believe for one second that there is still sexism out there. I have heard countless men and women, and believe me it makes me cringe every time, that say "There should be no feminism because there men and women are equal".

WHAT???

Something that I have studied for almost four years and completely stand behind is that there is still a need for feminism and I think this idea is almost being communicated in The Magical Vulva of Opportunity without actually being said. Honestly if she kept going I'm sure she would have said something along those lines.

Ribon discusses the Boys' Club that sits behind the scenes in comedy and her experience being told that she is  "lucky" that she is relatively successful because of the fact that she is a woman. No, not because she is a good writer or funny for that matter, but a woman, basically a vagina. Ribon was being limited to her genitals, not even her wit.

To those people who I spoke of earlier who still think that women and men are completely equal:

WHAT???

That is evidence enough that there is still a need for feminism. What I mean by that is that there is still an incredible need for women and men to discuss and CHANGE the ways women are seen, in this case, in comedy. Women and men should never be limited to whether or not they have a vagina or a penis. Honestly what I propose to rid the world of this kind of prejudice is to teach our children that having a vagina or a penis doesn't make you better. If people are taught that women and men ARE equal then we can begin to actually understand that. (That is just the beginning)

Honestly, I hope everyone read Ribon's opinions in The Magical Vulva of Opportunity because it reminds those who have forgotten that there is still prejudice out there and it needs to change.

Taking Feminism for Granted

The quote that I found most interesting from the reading is one talking about Sabrina. After mentioning the recent (or at least it was recent when the article was written) explosion of shows about girls, the authors pull from Susan Orlean saying that Sabrina is a lot of positive things like assertive, “in the way that only girls who have grown up taking feminism for granted are able to do”. I like that quote because it is something I have been thinking about lately. It bothers me that we are still in a place where people get angry over shows that have some negative portrayals of women, or women that aren’t feminists. I first began to think about it when Erin posted an article about Parks and Rec to the Facebook group. First off, I completely disagree that in the most recent season Leslie has become less strong willed and has started to rely on Ben. But the part that bothered me was that if the author was looking for them to not use the damsel in distress act, maybe they should have looked at Donna. Donna is the exact opposite of a damsel in distress. She is an overweight confident black woman who has no problem “using and abusing guys”. In fact in one episode she even tells Ann “I have several men in rotation. One's waiting for me out in the car. Don't worry I rolled down the window.” Getting to my point, there are so many representations of men in the media that it doesn’t matter if they have a character like Tom Haverford, who makes men look like idiots. And I think that if television will continue to show multiple different representations of women that we will get to a place where girls grow up taking feminism for granted, because we are very close. However, we won’t get there if feminists continue to point out the negative, like calling out Leslie Knope for being a damsel in distress, instead of highlighting the positive, like the independent Donna. Side note. If you have never seen Parks and Rec, then I’m sorry for the confusing post. Also go watch it.

Sabrina the Teenage Witch: The Perfect Role Model

...Well, almost. I think Pojansky and Vande Berg do a fair job of explaining how Melissa Joan Hart's character in "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" as well as her two aunts provide girls with a positive role model. Sabrina is obviously different than most of her classmates because she is, obviously, a witch, and is raised by her two aunts. She shatters many gender stereotypes - for example, she loves math and science and is rarely ever passive or submissive. She is smart, independent, confident, and goes through what all adolescent girls go through as they mature into their teenage and young adult years.

Sabrina and her aunts, Hilda and Zelda, use their magical talents/powers (for the most part, with integrity) to achieve their goals. The three make the most out of their unique lives and living situations. Although girls watching "Sabrina" do not have the same magical powers as its characters, they will understand that they, too, can thrive on being different and use their unique differences to their advantage while gaining independence and confidence.

Although "Sabrina" may seem like it was a great "girl-power" program for tweens in the 90s to watch, it isn't perfect. There are very few characters of color that appear on the show, perhaps showing that only white, middle-class girls can be powerful and independent. The authors also point out that although Sabrina does possess these qualities of freedom, she often still gives into gender and relationship norms (such as appearing feminine to please her boyfriend, Harvey).

I think that the authors are taking "Sabrina" a little too seriously. True - if the producers of "Sabrina" sought out to make it a feminist text, then it could be seen as a bit contradictory. However, if Sabrina revolted against every norm and did not maintain some societal (mostly gender-based) standards, she would not have related to as many girls and the show probably would not have been as big of a success as it was.

Through the Linen Closet, Back to My Childhood

Firstly, this article was a real treat. Not only was I able to transport myself back to a time when sitting in front of my grandparents' TV watching TGIF was the best part of going to their house, but I was reminded of the reasons why I loved Sabrina so much as a kid. She's strong and independent, at the time I thought her to be the coolest and trendiest character on television, she had two quirky and put-together aunts, and of course, the witty banter that always took place between Sabrina and Salem. Melissa Joan Hart ended up being one of those actresses that you followed everywhere: Clarissa Explains It All, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, and oh hey--remember when her wedding was televised and my best friend and I treated it as if it were the royal wedding?

Sabrina was great, undoubtedly, and this article ascertains that further; but one thing that I can't get past in reading this article is that it seems as if the main component of Sabrina's (and her aunts') confidence, independence, and strong will is based in the fact that she/they is/are in fact magical. Frequently, she gets what she wants and that is due mostly to her strong character; she constantly one-ups Libby, but for the most part is Libby not trying to steal Harvey from her or reveal to the world that Sabrina is a "freak"? The show is centered upon a world that quite frankly does not exist, yet it somehow connotes the message of defying gender roles and empowering young women.

On page 15, a list of TV shows and movies are listed; those that really stood out to me were the ones that I remember as being the most popular, obviously. They were: Sabrina, Buffy, The Secret World of Alex Mack, Clarissa Explains It All, Sister, Sister, Daria, Harriet the Spy, Matilda, and the rerelease of The Wizard of Oz. Out of these nine productions, five have clear connections to the supernatural. Sabrina as a witch, Buffy as a vampire slayer, Alex Mack as some chick that was tainted by some weird gunk that gave her magical powers, Matilda as the most adorable witch around, and Dorothy as being whisked away into a land of Munchkins and Wicked Witches of the East and West. These characters are intended to set good examples for young women, but the worlds in which they live are simply fantasies it seems. Why must these shows be centered around the supernatural if they are to depict women as strong and intelligent and as independent of the good graces of men? Perhaps this will attract more attention? Obviously Sabrina wouldn't have been an interesting show if it weren't for the hysterical mishaps that occur on behalf of her magic, but it leads one to wonder...why were these shows so successful? Did they truly convey messages of self-empowerment to young girls? Or did we really only notice the magic? Just some food for thought...

Feminism in the City

There is a concept that really interests me that Gill briefly discussed in this section that I believe needs to be explained more and it is the both/and theory. In Gill’s case, she explains it in terms of representations of women in the media.

I honestly believe that Sex and the City is an interesting program that definitely takes the both/and concept into question.

Does Sex and the City represent and even empower women? Do Carrie Bradshaw and her girlfriends represent positive media representations of women? Is Sex and the City feminist? All of this can be answered with the and/both concept that Gill uses in the last few paragraphs of this section.

The Second wavers brought up this question in terms of media representations of women because it is difficult to understand that a woman who is conventionally beautiful or falls into the beauty ideal can actually have feminist ideals. Radical feminists believe(d) that in order for one to be a feminist then they needed to separate themselves from the beauty ideal, an ideal that is based on the male gaze and inherently sexist. But later, the third wavers put the idea of an either/or into question. Why can’t a woman be feminist and beautiful?

I have some reservations myself to answer this question with a yes but if the underlying message is extracted, then Sex and the City could be understood as a feminist representation. Yes, the show displays mostly heteronormative images of sex and relationships, and yes, the show consists of mostly white characters but the underlying message that women are our main allies and are the most important relationships in our life allows for a feminist undertone.

Do you think that Sex and the City is feminist? How does one define a feminist? I do not believe that there is a succinct definition but understanding feminism in terms of the both/and concept allows for a wider range of people who can consider themselves feminist. 

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.

The Gaps Between Groups

Beginning at a very young age, media representations of men and women and masculinity and femininity construct social norms of gender roles and create our perceptions of what is 'masculine' and what is 'feminine'.  In Van Zoonen's chapter, "A 'New' Paradigm?" she calls this idea, 'socialization', which is the way in which "individuals become social subjects".  This is a process that begins in childhood and is continuous throughout adult life; it shapes the way in which we view what is considered 'normal' social behavior.  Van Zoonen focuses on some of the gaps that exist in the representation of women in the media.  'Distortion' is the idea that the media does not represent reality, seeing as women make up over 50% of the population in the United States, yet only make up a small percentage of what is represented in the media.  Though it is impossible to use one group of women to define what a "realistic woman" would be, the small percentage of women who are shown in the media are not seen to represent "reality" according to the concept of 'distortion'. Something that Van Zoonen mentioned was the gap between feminist media critics and ordinary female audiences.  She brings up soap operas, romance novels, and women's magazines, which made me think of Radway's "Women Read the Romance".  It is difficult for me to decide the right way for well-educated feminists to approach the 'ordinary woman', because who is to say that ordinary women don't know what is best for them or why they consume certain media, just as well as a feminist media critic would?  At the same time, women who study feminism and create scholarly works should have more qualified ideas.  This creates two separate groups of women, so how can one group represent the other?

In the section of Gill's book for today, she mainly focuses on the complete lack of the representation of certain groups of women in feminism throughout its history.  During the early stages of feminism, only white, middle-class, first world women and their experiences were considered, and black feminists criticized feminism for completely disregarding the experiences of black women.  Gill points out the dangers of not representing certain groups.  For example, while feminists were campaigning for abortion, black women's views of abortion were disregarded.  Many black women during the time would have argued for their right to not have abortions that were forced on them because of racist policies.  There were clearly large differences between black feminists and white feminists, and it is apparent that grouping them together and calling it 'feminism' had harmful effects.  These effects caused feminism to focus on not only 'race' and ethnicity, but also on "class, age and disability", which, as Gill points out, were all factors that were completely ignored.  Just as white, middle-class women were the only group originally represented in feminism, male experience was treated as human experience until the 1990's when the idea of men as a "gendered group" came about.  Having gendered groups has changed the idea that only women in the media were studied and gender itself was studied in the media.  Different groups of men exist, just as there are many different groups of women.

Intro to Feminist Theory

In the first chapter of Feminist Media Studies, author Liesbet van Zoonen introduces her book by looking at feminism and cultural studies. Van Zoonen provides an introduction to feminist media and the relationships between culture, the media, and feminism. I enjoyed the way that she opened her introduction by clarifying that she, as a feminist, did not believe that the media of popular culture implies a negative representation of women. She wanted the reader to understand early that the book was not entirely about the negative portrayal of women in the media of popular culture.

When discussing her position on feminism throughout the book, van Zoonen refers to power and the importance of the element of power in feminist thought. She briefly touches on the difference of power of white women compared to black women. This power relationship connects to what Gill discussed in the section about black women. Gill discussed the conflict between white feminist theory and the exclusion of black women. Gill discussed how the frameworks of feminism had to be completely reworked to include different races, classes, and cultural backgrounds.

I thought it was interesting that feminism, just like American culture, has had to work through its own sort of Civil Rights issues with the inclusion of black women in feminist theory. The inclusion of black women in the feminist theory has forced feminists writers to shift their focus to a more global level and look at feminism in different cultural aspects.

Is "New Media" really making a difference yet?

The first thing that struck me, as I began reading the second chapter of Van Zoonen, was the mention of "new media".  Alberto Melucci coined the term which describes the type of media that publicizes existing conflicts and produce a symbolic challenge to the dominant codes of society (12).  Through this "new social movement", the media will have greater instances where the representation of society will go against the norms and expose the public to a new way of viewing ourselves as a society.  While many people would enthusiastically agree that this “new media” has already begun to permeate society, I have to ask that those who agree take a closer look at the content and subtext of this “new media”.

                Although there are several examples that could be conjured up, I will discuss a television show which I am familiar with: Modern Family.  For those who are not familiar, the show claims to display three families that are what truly make up Western society.  There is a “normal” family with a husband, wife and 3 kids, one is a male gay couple with an adopted daughter, and the other is an older man with a younger, beautiful wife.  I do not doubt that the effort is there, but I do doubt that the show is doing anything too dramatic to influence how media portrays women.  My first example is a conversation between Claire and Phil (husband & wife) who are arguing about who has the better idea/advice regarding a particular issue.  After Claire insists hers is better, Phil retorts with “Sure…I’ll take advice from a marketing major at a party school, psh.”  Although the comment’s intent could have been playful, it came off completely rude and disregarding of his wife’s accomplishments in higher education.  In further regards of higher education, one of Phil and Claire’s daughters is a “nerd” and is the smart, driven one.  Despite her occasional upper hand in arguments because of her intellect, it is much more prevalent that the audience sees her less intelligent, but popular, sister degrade her ability to “have a life” or get a man”.

 Lastly, in the latest episode of Modern Family, Claire decides to run for local office.  But in the episode during her press conference, her opponent immediately brought up a personal issue regarding her family.  This comment turned into a fiasco at the press conference that eventually led to her not getting the position.  We see this type of situation all of the time, where women in the spotlight continue to receive “cheap shots” by their competitors which many times leads to there failure.  Even when a politician looks like she gained weight or got breast implants, that’s the most important topic in question for the (mostly) male broadcasters who interview them.  By emphasizing such a scenario on Modern Family, I continue to be disappointed in the media’s progress towards better representation of women.  Does anyone else feel, despite my above argument, that Modern Family is indeed a good source of “new media”?  Are there other shows that I do not watch that do a much better job at portraying women, and therefore, contribute to the “rise of new media”? Please do share!   

Adventures in Pron Land

If you read the title above this post, you're probably a little confused. “Pron,what is pron?” Well if you unscramble the letters it actually spells out porn. Yes pornography is the name of the game here and I want to see what’s behind door number 3. I found this part of the second chapter in Zoonen’s book to be fairly compelling. I mean how many times do we get to talk about porn in an academic setting? Basically never, so I’m taking this opportunity to blog about something incredibly inappropriate and possibly awkward with much curiosity. Moving on….from pages 18-21 you can find various examples of how feminist view the media of pornography. 

While I myself do agree that at some times “pornography objectifies women for men’s pleasures” (18) I don’t agree with Dworkin’s statement “pornography exists because men despise women, and men despise women because pornography exist” (19) I think it is just unfair to place the blame for years of societal issues on one form of media and one specific gender. Last semester in my Issues In Feminism class pornography was the main topic of discussion for one class period. It honestly was one of the most uncomfortable moments here at Denison but we touched on a lot of issues, one of them being how we could make porn more “feminist friendly”. I personally thought maybe a solution could be switching things up. By displaying safer practices on screen such as an active use condoms and asking for consent, pornography could present a good set of ideals while still being gratifying. 

Basically what I think I’m trying to say is, you’re not going to get rid of porn. It’s a billion dollar industry that has been around and will be around for years to come. So since we can’t get rid of it why not try and change it. Make something that you may personally view as “disgusting” and make it tolerable instead.