Hidden Values: Femininity In Soap Operas

The article by Fiske aims at looking at how TV creates masculine and feminine subject. The author examines soap operas for feminine narratives. Fiske looks mainly at soap operas, but he also looks at Charlie’s Angels when discussing female characters or the roles that they have in these TV shows. I found it incredibly interesting that in the soap opera narratives women cannot have a happy marriage or life. They end up having affairs because they are unsatisfied with their lives. Yet, the men in these soap operas appear to take on a more ‘feminine’ role. They engage in intimate dialogue and come across as more emotional and caring. It is positive to note that traditions “macho” men are construed as the villains in soap operas. It suggests that our ideologies toward how men should behave toward women are shifting. Yet, this is not consistent with the women in soap operas who also use their body to seduce a man to get what they want in the shows. This is unsettling to me because the ideology that women are supposed to want a happy home and marriage yet can never achieve it is always in the background. Also, that they only way to get what you want is to use your body as a form of currency. When looking at Charlie’s Angels, the idea of patriarchy is still heavily embedded in the shows narrative. I happen to love Charlie’s Angels and was really surprised and enlightened when reading this article. The female characters are the one’s who do the ‘job’ but they rely on Charlie and Bosley to tell them what they need to do and give them all of the tools they need. These women are only doing what they are told. They are not resourceful or independent. This article demonstrated that it might look   like ideologies are changing, but that the standards of patriarchy are heavily laced within the background of these media texts.

Sabrina the almost feminist role model?

I found the ideological analysis to be an interesting way to analyze not only gender, but also, all of media in a society. This form of analysis tends to take a Marxist position when it comes to analyzing meaning making. I would agree that meaning making is a result of power structures within our society. Whoever has political power or financial power is in a position where they can buy air - time and pay for a certain idea that they have to be portrayed. Media is also one of the easiest ways to convey messages, and if you have the means, you can easily spread out your ideas in a variety of media texts. I found it interesting to pair the ideological analysis approach to the show ‘Sabrina the Teenage Witch.’ This was one of my favorite TV-shows when I was younger and I liked it because Sabrina was so independent.  As described in the article there was gender equality portrayed in the show. Sabrina had a boyfriend, but did not obsess about it. She was also incredibly different from Libby the annoying cheerleader who ridiculed people who were different from societal norms. Sabrina is an example of how those in power (i.e. producers/screenwriters) can construct meaning and mass-produce it. Here they are changing the traditional roles from previous witch shows, like ‘Bewitched’ where she wasn’t supposed to demonstrate her talents, towards a new girl exploring her capabilities. I did, however, find it startling though to realize that the show was predominantly white. This is an issue that third wave feminism most likely noticed, but nothing was done in the series to fix that. I was startled that I had never really thought about that in the show until I had read about it in this article. The TV show ‘Sabrina the teenage witch’ did a phenomenal job in reconstructing and delivering an image of the ‘new woman’ but it still lacked important issues that feminism hopes to address.

Challenging Gender Roles is Only a Fantasy?

I really enjoyed Projansky and Vande Berg's article on Sabrina the Teenage Witch because it made me realize and understand things about the show I didn't quite grasp when I was a kid. When I watched the show when I was younger I loved Sabrina because I could relate to her but I also looked up to and admired her. She was kind of dorky but didn't really care, wasn't the popular girl but still had friends, she made mistakes but was strong enough to fix them. I loved that the show was a little quirky and weird but still relevant, and I think it took reading this article to understand why it was so successful.

One thing I didn't understand (or really couldn't because I was a kid) was how the show challenged gender roles. The article points out that Sabrina takes on many male roles, while her boyfriend, Harvey, plays traditionally female roles. I like how this was pointed out in the article because it made me realize how strong of a feminist character Sabrina really was. Even the small details like how she was good at math and science, or that she was the one saving Harvey from trouble, prove that a seemingly average girl could have really strong feminist qualities.

Another really interesting thing the article points out is how they relate the secret of being a witch to the struggle of homosexuality in adolescents. I found it really interesting how the way they portray Sabrina telling her grandmother she is a witch to be comparable to a teen coming out to their parents. This was something I wouldn't have been able to piece together when I was younger, but the show still taught their audience the importance of self-confidence and acceptance of others.

I was also really interested by the comparison of Sabrina's aunts Hilda and Zelda as a lesbian couple. They were at times concerned about what others would think of them living together, but the show also positively presented them as loving caregivers neither playing the mother or the father role.

Still I wonder if challenging these gender roles and presenting a young teenager as a strong feminist could only be done through the fantasy of a teenage witch. She lives in half a fantasy world, so would that suggest that two women can only live happily together in a fantasy world? Can a girl be stronger than her boyfriend only through magic? Is there another show that compares to Sabrina's character where magic is not used?

Danica Patrick Strips for...Feminism?

In Gill’s reading for today, she confronts the depoliticization of feminist media studies. She not only discusses the ways feminists challenge the media, but she also confronts the disagreements between the feminist perspectives. She discusses the qualities of “positive” images and whether or not “positive” can be a universal term.

As we’ve discussed over the past few classes, images are only that—images; the challenge is that people interpret the images differently. So, a commercial with a scantily clad woman can be seen as objectifying or empowering, depending on the audience member you ask. What I thought about while reading this section were the Danika Patrick ‘Go Daddy’ commercials.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_cSn3x5m-k

(first)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOBd2hs0uU8&feature=relmfu

(most recent)

Danica Patrick is the only female in the Indie car races, which is empowering and an incredible feat. Danica has entered a completely male-dominated sport; along with this achievement, she understandably has been called ‘hot’, ‘sexy’, and a slew of other things that can be considered either empowering or objectifying, depending on who you ask. Being the only girl in the sport, it is expected for her looks to be discussed, but this commercial takes it so much farther than it should. I can’t even tell you what Go Daddy! sells, and this commercial does nothing to explain the commercial. Is this effective marketing? Or shameless objectification?

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?