Parenting With Style

Each article worked to incorporate how issues surrounding gender exist within all aspects of the media industry. Specifically, within “The Magical Vulva of Opportunity,” the reader is given a firsthand look upon how gender inequality exists among writers of television shows. Pamela Ribon describes her experience of being a minority in the television industry, solely because she is a woman, and how she must work extremely hard to overcome the stigma that surrounds her. When she is told that she is only a “mid-level female writer” it significantly affected her self-esteem, so much so that she felt the need to express her feelings through her blog. Through one individual’s comment to another person, it can significantly impact their self-confidence and self-esteem levels. This scenario made the “Sabrina, The Teenage…?” article resonate with me once again. It reminded me of how the media can have such a strong influence on viewers, and we as the audience are unknowingly affected by these messages every day. Though Sabrina may not have known she was impacting many teenage girls during the time of the show’s airing, she was a positive role model for many.

Within the article, “Women Watch TV Like This, But Men Watch TV Like This,” James Poniewozik discusses television shows that are created to be geared to one audience, yet instead attract a different demographic. Particularly, I found his opinion of Up All Night interesting that he believes it may speak to women more and appeal to a predominately female audience. He did not elaborate as to why he thought this, yet the “What Makes A Show Aimed At Women?” article picks up where Poniewozik left off. Alyssa Rosenberg believes the show will appeal to either sex, but mainly to women because many are struggling to balance a career and a family, making Reagan a relatable character. I argue that the show could relate equally to men because the character Chris could appeal to men like Reagan appeals to women. As seen in the image, Reagan is not playing a traditional female role, but instead is acting as a strong role model for women, much like Sabrina did. She is able to maintain her sense of femininity through her impeccable fashion sense, yet is able to dominate the corporate world by being a successful career woman. Chris acts as a stay-at-home father and supports Reagan from the home. He can be viewed as a role model for men by proving it is still a noble, enjoyable profession to raise children. Male audiences may be able to relate to the nontraditional role Chris plays, making the show desirable by both sex demographics. As Poniewozik notes, “It’s just worth remembering that when you assume that a show is ‘aimed at’ one gender, you may be pointing at the wrong target.” Though a show may be designed to appeal to more women than men, or vice versa, each article discusses that the media industry is highly unpredictable.

Calling Kim Possible.

           From the articles we read I found it very difficult to pinpoint just one topic that stood out to me about women both behind the scene and on-screen. However, I do believe I have a lot to say on the subject as a whole. Starting with the article by Adam Dawtrey (“Scandis Wage war against bias”), there was two quotes that I found particularly interesting: the first is in reference to the Danish perception of gender in media production, “we find that it doesn't make sense for gender to stand before the quality of the script." All I can say to this is YOU ARE SO RIGHT. It honestly does not make sense to me why there is a gender variance when it comes to writing or producing shows or films because isn’t the ultimate goal to have a successful production? Why let something like biological anatomy or societal constructs like gender get in the way of doing a job? In order to change this we have stop assuming that women can’t do men’s jobs and men can’t do women’s jobs. It seems so simple but why is it still so hard? There are so many television shows out there that show women as being more “manly” or that send the message out that women actually do have power, but why is no one listening? So many questions that are unfortunately left unanswered. Charlotta Denward is quoted in Dawtrey’s article saying: “Being a director is being extremely egocentric.” I don’t know about everyone else, but I know plenty of women who could fill that criteria. Having to be egocentric or tough or forceful shouldn’t hold anyone back from creating great work. Maybe all these failed programs that we have seen are because there have been too many men being too forceful! Pamela Ribon explains her experience being told that she is lucky to be going from “failed sitcom to failed sitcom”, but what if more women were on staff for those failed programs, maybe they wouldn’t have failed. (Sorry guys, I don’t mean to blame you…but it had to be said!).

            Aside from the behind the scene gender drama, long-term discussion has occurred about the way in which women are portrayed and represented in the media.  A crucial point is brought up in the article “Why is Television Losing Women Writers?” Jill Soloway states, “there is no brand that would be willing to be associated with the idea of such an anti-heroic woman." Thus women will always be portrayed as being the hero of [blank], saving [so-and-so], or being the best at [whatever]. Why can’t she just be normal? Nearly every female protagonist is in actuality an idolized fantasy brought into real-life form. They say this is to bring in specific audiences, especially male ones but even in shows that are suppose to be directed toward women, they are actually directed toward men because of the way the female character is depicted—but here’s the kicker, female audiences end up gravitating toward these shows. Now isn’t that a nice plot twist! Take New Girl for example, Jess is suppose to be the “adorkable” roommate that helps her male friends solve all their problems, as Rosenberg so cleverly puts it. But this show, which was catered toward men, has a 60% female audience. Huh? Interesting…. so if they want a show to be geared toward men, should they make the male character an idolized female fantasy? Even Kim Possible couldn’t figure this one out!

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.

Women: Powerful or Pathetic?

          Upon examining content analysis, this quantitative form of collecting data has been particularly useful in regulating how men and women are portrayed within the media and to document the narrow and restrictive range of stereotypes used to depict both sexes. Content analysis constructs a coding scheme to decide how to analyze a specific text and allow the researcher to effectively compare multiple texts to one another. This form of research was employed within the YouTube video sensation, “The Bechdel Test.” Within the clip (shown during class), the main woman narrating the video explains that though it may appear women are gaining more equal roles in television shows and films, they are still either underrepresented or represented as passive, dependent, and/or over sexualized objects. She is analyzing the content of popular media texts and grading based upon how they measure to her coding scheme. She states that the text must (1) have at least two women in it, who (2) talk to each other about (3) something besides a man. She concludes that allow the media has begun to include more women in general, females are still being demeaned based upon how their characters are portrayed.

        This video is an accurate depiction of content analysis theory because the narrator has studied texts based upon her coding system and drawn conclusions from the data collected. It appears male characters are still overrepresented and are often portrayed in a diverse array of roles and with various characteristics. In comparison, women are shown in a variety of roles and behaviors in the media, yet the trend of underrepresentation of female major and minor characters still persists. 

Below, I have attached a comic strip I found that can be viewed as another example of “The Bechdel Test.” These two women are depicted as having not seen each other in a significant amount of time, but within minutes, they turn the conversation to their love lives.

Your body needs to be loved!

Self acceptance is the theme of the 14th annual Love Your Body Day. This is a special day that is spent by women of all different colors, sizes, and ages come together to enjoy oneself and each other. It is a typical feeling by people that they are not beautiful, pretty, or sexy when watching ads and pieces of media that display an image that is characterized as 'unattainable.' Love Your Body Day is a wonderful day and should be celebrated all over the world, especially in the United States where we are a melting pot of every type of person imaginable. Whether these women that participate in this event are considered feminist is up for debate. I argue that it should not matter. For this type of occasion, people need to stop judging and provide support to the cause. Your body needs to be loved! It is the only one you will ever have. It should be treated with the utmost respect by both its owner and everyone around it. Rosalind Gill poses a question to her readers regarding women's image in media ads: Is it the shape you are or is it the shape you are in (Gill, 86)? Gill believes that the media believes in one, but if society can help shift that belief to the other, then the world can be a more loving place for women.

Love Your Body Day occurs in result to the negative media that forgets what pretty actually is. It is a refreshing feeling seeing more ads that are trying to reverse the norm of how women's bodies should be viewed and judged. For example, Cover Girl is using more plus size models and celebrities for its line of fabulous cosmetics. Recently, Queen Latifah was in a commercial and on the magazine's cover promoting her beautiful and voluptuous body. In her eyes, she is beautiful, and everyone else in the world should start to consider the message that she and Cover Girl is trying to send. Love your body and celebrate your image! 

Television Women

Reading about television women as analyzed by Tuchman in the 1970s was a lot different than what my impression of television women is today. To be honest, I don't even think about the kinds of women I watch on TV, and I watch a fair amount of TV. Tuchman makes the point to say that women dominate the soap opera genre and I don't know if that's suppose to be a "yay women!" or a "seriously? soap operas?" I took it as the latter because I am not particularly proud of the women in soap operas. What does it say about our society that the only forms of television females dominate are shows about rich, catty, delusion women who cheat on husbands, kill ex-lovers, and are horrible actors? I think that is a terrible niche to try and 'claim.' I understand Tuchman's other point that in regularly syndicated television shows (in the 70s) women were only seen as housewives and mothers, "incompetent, inferior, and always subservient to men." (16) I'd also agree with Tuchman and say yes, I do think that is a problematic representation and that it could indeed affect young women's perceptions on who or what they should be.

So where does that leave us lovely women today? Well, relatively in the same pickle. As I run through all the television shows I know and watch I can't help but noticed a trend in the 'inferior' female complex. Even when not placed in the household or in the family structure, there is most often a male counterpart to the female lead, most often the one that the female pines over (if even for an episode or two), and most often helps solve the mystery or get out of trouble for the female. Even something as trashy as Jersey Shore depicts the men as more put together than the women. There are at least two episodes that focus on the women's inability to cook a proper dinner and the men having to swoop in to save the meal. Not only does this say "these men are better than these women" it also says "women should know how to cook." So even while you say to yourself "I'm never ever going to be like these people and I don't want any one else to be like these people" the show's message still reinforces the gendered roles we are all to familiar with. How come Sammie keeps getting back together with Ronnie even though he treats her like dirt? Why is it a huge deal with Snookie sleeps with two men in a night but the Situation can take two women back home at the same time, have sex with both of them, then call up his back up for a 6am breakfast and roll in the sack? The point being that while the period in which Tuchman was watching television might be a little outdated on first glance, all of those issues are still present, just embedded in different types of programming.

There might be some hope though. My favorite show on TV at the moment is Modern Family. I am utterly in love with all the characters on that show. And while I know I could equally argue how Modern Family reinforces gender stereotypes, I want to focus on how this show is not doing what Tuchman would expect it to be doing. I believe that all the female characters in this show are very strong and challenge gender norms (with the exception of daughter Haley who is really just there as a way to comment on how stereotypical she is). Claire, as anal retentive and bossy as she is, is the backbone to her family and is set up as being way more intelligent than her husband. More importantly, her place in the home is celebrated and portrayed as equality as important as her husband Phil's real estate career. Gloria is also the one in charge in her home and while more sexualized than the other women, she comes from a background of being on her own and independent and still acts that way with her partner. Daughter Alex Dunphy is another cool example of a twist on the notion that girls can't be educated and book smart. While her sister Haley makes fun of Alex's lack of social skills, we see very often Alex doing just fine and often question whether or not Haley is actually even literate. And we all know in life, Alex has the upper hand. This may not address the under representation of women on TV that this particularly section talks about, and Modern Family may not even be a great example of how things are changing. But I do think that when looked at as a show, women are sort of dominating the family structure, the comic relief, and have some commendable qualities that I wouldn't mind being, or my daughter being, or even mind having represented to a worldwide audience (I might also secretly relate to Claire's neuroticism and really enjoy that there is finally a character for me on TV, but whatever. That's for another time.)

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!