Media Analysis

You Gotta Love a Company That’s Sexist

Posted on by Former Student

Feministing – www.feministing.com

           During 2017 Super Bowl, Mr. Clean released an ad entitled “Cleaner of Your Dreams,” adding the brand to the growing list of companies using sex appeal to sell their product. In the commercial, a white, seemingly heterosexual woman – a wife named Sarah – is cooking and spills on the stove. Suddenly, Mr. Clean walks into the kitchen with a tight shirt revealing abs and a smug look on his face. He flexes his muscles as he squeezes out a sponge. Next, Mr. Clean begins to dance near, essentially on, Sarah. She then begins to dance in a sexual manner, suggesting that she is turned on by Mr. Clean’s cleaning. Finally, Sarah’s husband reappears, calling out “Sarah, Sarah!”, pulling her out of her trance. The viewer is meant to assume her husband was cleaning the entire time under the Mr. Clean fantasy. She becomes excited and runs to him, kissing him and pushing him onto the couch. This action conveys how a woman’s sexuality is used as a reward for a man’s ‘good behavior’, which to the stereotypical white housewife is helping her clean.

            While the “sex sells” rhetoric in television ads has a long history in the media and is not surprising, one would not think that the target audience for this ad, middle-aged women, would be attracted to this message. Not only does Mr. Clean’s ad include a man coming to a woman’s rescue, but it also reinforces the stereotype that is it not normal for men to be cleaning the home. The commercial ends with the couple having sexual relations on the couch as the screen blurs out, and the slogan, “you gotta love a man who cleans,” appears. While a woman is likely to appreciate her partner’s help in cleaning their shared space, this commercial portrays the activity of a man cleaning as an unusual, angelic behavior that women will yearn for.

            The music in the ad further works to portray this message. As Mr. Clean walks in, the music plays, “girl what you want, not what you need… be your fantasy … I’ll be your ecstasy”. The song choice blatantly makes clear Mr. Clean’s stance on the woman’s role in the home – her purpose is to clean, and she does not “need” a man to help her. She can only “fantasize” about a husband willing to clean. When he does help her to clean, however, it is so pleasurable it is comparable to a drug-induced high.

            On another note, Mr. Clean is quite sexualized himself. The purpose of his tight-fitting clothing and dancing is to arouse Sarah, as well as the target audience of middle-aged women. Comments by YouTube users following the video emphasize this point – one user commented “I’ve watched this an unhealthy amount of times”, while another said, “Oh no he’s hot”. While these comments are most likely jokes, they indicate that the commercial’s goal of making Mr. Clean into a sex symbol was successful. Another wrote, “I want someone to look at me the way Mr. Clean looked at Sarah”. Not only did Mr. Clean dance on Sarah and attempt to arouse her, but perhaps by cleaning and doing a chore she typically does, Mr. Clean made her feel seen and appreciated. It is inherently sexist, as well as symbolic of traditional husband and wife power dynamics, to presume a woman’s only desire is to feel appreciated by her husband for her work in the home. Where the commercial went wrong, however, was in assuming and suggesting that a woman’s immediate reaction to these emotions is to have sex with her husband. Perhaps the creators of the commercial accomplished their goal of creating a sexually attractive, ideal male body that catches women’s attention, but did they really reach the goal of selling their product to this audience?

            The commercial portrays a white, cis, heterosexual, presumably monogamous couple. The connection between white heterosexual couples and traditional husband and wife power dynamics could not be more obvious. As argued by Jonathan Katz in The Invention of Heterosexuality, heterosexuality has been the unchallenged societal norm of sexuality for most of history. After World War II, women were confined to the home and their work was limited to domestic tasks of caring for the family and home (Katz 237). Mr. Clean’s commercial supports the stereotypical role of women as the caretakers of the home and men as the breadwinners. Clearly the commercial creators do not agree with that time period’s conservative approach to sex which attempted to reconnect heterosexual sex with the purpose of procreation (Katz 237). In fact, the commercial encourages men to help their wives clean in order to be rewarded with sex. While the intended audience for this commercial may have been the middle-aged women, more specifically wives, Mr. Clean seemingly crafted this commercial with the entertainment of white, heterosexual husbands in mind. Thus, the sexualization of this commercial creates a disconnect people the intent of the ad and the experience of the viewer.

            The racialization of the commercial also works, perhaps unintentionally, to limit Mr. Clean’s audience range and customer base to the binary of being white and heterosexual. Representation of diverse relationships in terms of race, class, and sexuality would have extended the message of this ad to a greater audience. As a result, many potential customers may refrain from buying this product targeted at white, heterosexual, middle-aged women.

            As a company selling cleaning products, the Mr. Clean franchise should be well aware of the stereotypical, misogynic implications their commercial has for women. Not only are they selling their product, but also the ideals of the white, heterosexual traditional husband and wife dynamic with the wife as the caretaker of the home. Brands with influence in the media must stop establishing the standard that women must take on this role and reward their partners with sex. Rather, they should represent more diverse relationships, not only to reach a wider audience of consumers, but to also stop integrating messages of sexism, racism, and homophobia into everyday commercials.

“Mr. Clean | New Super Bowl Ad | Cleaner of Your Dreams – super bowl 51.” Youtube, 9 Feb. 2017. Web. 25 Sept. 2021.  <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozuWoZITX3Y>.

Katz, Jonathan. The Invention of Heterosexuality. New York: Dutton, 1995. Print.

Latest on Desperate Housewives: depiction of women with assumptions and stereotypes

Posted on by Former Student

by Yuncong Hu

Written for Autostraddle

Last week, Desperate Housewives just released episode 9 of season 3, named “Beautiful Girls” after the character Gabrielle Solis’s plotline in this episode. Since 2004, when its first season started airing on ABC, the show has been positively received for its exploration on the inner dark sides and complicated personalities of the ordinary upper-class housewives, in contrast to the traditional plain, dour mother/wife figures on screen. Surprisingly in this episode, Gabrielle’s story isn’t technically boundary-breaking, and instead, it is borderline-misogynist.

For those of you who haven’t watched Desperate Housewives, Gabrielle Solis is one of the four female protagonists, all of whom are close friends and neighbors living in a fictitious suburb are called Wisteria Lane. Gabrielle has a Mexican heritage, and the other three housewives are white. In S309, Gabrielle’s divorce is finalized. With the failed attempt to go back to her modeling career in last episode, Gabrielle accepts the fact that she is becoming an unemployed divorcée. In need of a distraction from her empty life, she accepts invitation from her gay personal shopper, Vern, to coach young pageant girls for his new beauty pageant consulting firm. While she reluctantly takes the offer, she later finds herself enjoying coaching the girls as her modeling expertise is incredibly idolized by these younger women. However, when she is reminiscing on her old modeling days, she accidentally tells the girls about some ill-advised weight-loss methods such as sticking fingers in throats and smoking. Later on, some girls are caught by their parents smoking and vomiting, and Gabrielle is fired. She then comes to the mothers of the girls, confesses to them that beauty pageant coaching is now the one single meaningful thing in the life of a woman without husband and family, and makes a subtle offer to give illegal diet pills to them. The parents give her a second chance.

It is noticeable that Gabrielle’s conversation with the girls in this particular scene demonstrate how fat stigmatization is socially institutionalized in popular culture. Specifically, Gabrielle starts with the warning “You would not believe all the horrible things model do to stay skinny” and “I never did it” before she introduced the kids into smoking and vomiting as weight-loss methods. The children, though aware of “smoking will kill you”, still ask “Do you have to be skinny to be a model?”, to which she answers, “When was the last time you saw a fat person on a magazine cover?” This is a highly representative example of anti-fat beliefs being passed on by someone elder and experienced to a younger generation, thereby creating an invisible social structure that is constantly renewing and strengthening itself. In her introduction to Fat Studies Readers, Marilyn Wann comments on this structure, “Every person who lives in a fat-hating culture inevitably absorbs anti-fat beliefs, assumptions and stereotypes, and also inevitably comes to occupy a position in relation to power arrangements that are based on weight,” The power relationship in this narrative is clearly the contrast between professional fashion models and some 9-to-12-year-old who wish they could be beauty pageant girls. As a result, Gabrielle herself, without realizing it, teaches the girls about the established beauty standard that discriminate against fat people. Her expertise, just like the enormous power of social norms behind beauty standards, is invisible and very restrictive, as the girls immediately accepts the norms and attempt to fit into them. Even worse, when she acknowledges that the methods she mentions is “horrible”, she is also explaining the conventional rules for fat people, that they need to suffer to lose weight, that being fat is even more dreadful than being unhealthy. These rules are internalized by the girls and soon, they start to punish themselves for being fat.

There is more to the fatphobia side of this episode. While it gives us an example of how fat-stigmatization transforms into social structures, it fails to offer any critical resolution towards it. This presentation of this story, which primarily focuses on weight and beauty standards, chooses to continue conforming to anti-fat beliefs and misrepresenting fat community. In the last scene, a sharp contrast is made between Gabrielle and the parents:

Eva Longoria, as Gabrielle, is intentionally put into better clothes, hair, accessories and make-up in this scene, while the other actors are clearly not. Gabrielle is wearing a full-length, Versace-styled ball gown while holding a clutch. Her hair is curly and silky, and she has full-makeup on. The other ladies are all wearing dowdy clothes, much less make-up and three of them can definitely be considered as fat. These women quickly changed their idea about firing Gabrielle after she mentions she has “highly effective non-FDA approved diet pills from Zurich”, and claim that “I guess the Christian thing is to forgive her” without admitting that they are attracted by the pills in reality. The plot and lines intuitively assume the beauty standards between two binaries – fat and thin, and coveys the implied message that thinner people do look better to its audience. Moreover, it falsely represents fat people by portraying them as automatically desiring losing weight at any cost. Therefore, it inevitably represents another effort to normalize weight-loss and anti-fat health promotion by making an assumption that fat people need to lose weight. In doing so, they neglect the group of audiences who belong to the self-accepting fat community.

In addition, the underlying assumption about Gabrielle’s social class is striking. She is a wealthy woman who can afford a personal shopper even after losing her steady income – her ex-husband. Her motivation for this job is not for survival, but only spiritual fulfilment. Just like Gabrielle, her other friends share the same social class and work motivation: they are married to lawyers, doctors, managers, etc. Essentially, the depiction of women’s struggle is mainly about upper-middle class, white women’s struggle (Gabrielle is the only POC protagonist in the show) A vast majority of women are already excluded in the production of this episode, as well as the whole series.

As the only non-white protagonist, the character of Gabrielle also indicates conformity to racial and gender stereotypes prevalent in America. She is undoubtedly, even in the script description, the most attractive housewife of all four, and a Latina ex-supermodel. There is a hyper-sexuality attached to her with her race, a form of over-sexualization of Latin women. The character has no choice but to be a gorgeous stereotype like a lot of other Latin women on screen, while diversity is allowed in white women. The same thing is applied to Gabrielle’s background. She is the only one who has a background story: she comes from a poor family, goes into modeling at a very young age, earns a new life through her new social circle, marries a rich husband and retires from fashion industry. Interestingly, Desperate Housewives does not introduce the backgrounds of other three white protagonists. They are assumed to be raised, educated and married normally as if they are in a standard white family, while Gabrielle needs an explanation of why she lives in a rich, white suburbs neighborhood. In other words, The abnormality in the life of a female, like Gabrielle, is highlighted and associated with her racialized background.            

Above all, the series Desperate Housewives does have many things to complement about: it gives a space for more female-centered narratives in the male-dominating media world, and it strives to tell stories from women’s points of view. Still, one must not neglect the problematic assumptions and stereotypes of women that it displays in only one episode. The production team need to inspect its work with more consciousness of preventing prejudices and assumption. And the audiences, while enjoying the marvelous episodes, should be aware of these problems.

Works Cited:

Wann, Marilyn. Foreword To Fat Studies Reader. NYU Press. 2009

Why can only white men drink beer?

Posted on by Former Student
A Budweiser beer advertisement from the 1950s

What do you first think of whenever you look at this ad? Budweiser is a very popular beer company, so it particularly stands out. When I first looked at it, I thought to myself “Hmm, this advertisement is probably from the 1900s”. Budweiser created this advertisement in the 1950s and the intended audience of it seems to be pretty clear: white men. The purpose can also be quite clear: sell Budweiser beer to white men. These are the things you can decipher when you just take a slight glance at this advertisement. 

As you dive deeper into the symbolic art that is presented in the advertisement, these things unearth more purpose and intention from the advertiser. Let us talk think about and analyze the actions of the two people in this ad. For instance, looking at the white man, he holds a hammer. As he is holding this hammer, it seems he is working hard on building something and we can assume this is either something for home or it is a part of his job. When looking at the white woman who we can assume is his wife, she is pouring him a glass of Budweiser beer. There is nothing hardworking about what she is doing, she is just simply acting upon her husband’s needs. This image sparks more controversial topics. In the 1950s, they would say “Well that is the role of a women, isn’t it?”. They would assume that the role of the women is to take care of her husband and fulfill all of his needs. Whenever we compare these two actions of the man and the woman, it really reflects those assumed and assigned gender roles that society claimed to be “right” in the 1900s. The typical woman staying at home, tending to her husband, the breadwinner. In contrast, the husband is the hardworking spouse in the relationship who has a job, does the “handyman” work at home, and acts upon all the “masculine” things society expects him to do. Just by looking at the actions of the two in the ad, it easily already brings those gender assumptions to the audience’s minds. However, when looking at the advertising techniques of Budweiser, you can question them on why they ignited these prominent gender roles in the ad. Well, since it was the 1950s, it was assumed that after a long day of hard work, men needed to decompress, so their wives could pour them some Budweiser beer at the end of the day. 

These points can also be proven by the facial expressions of the man and the woman in the advertisement. By the looks of the man’s face with his wrinkled forehead lines and his subtle yet irritated facial expression, he seems to be stressed out and tired from a long day of labor and responsibilities. Let’s remember, the 1950s were times when gender roles were prominent. Where the golden standard was the men working and laboring during the day while the women stayed at home with the children. So, because men are stressed out at the end of the day, this is why Budweiser aims at this audience of white men who have jobs. Budweiser tries to convince you that alcohol, specifically their beer, will help you decompress and relax at the end of the day. Now, looking at the intended audience of the advertisement, it sparks conversation on the assumptions of gender roles. For example, why is Budweiser assuming that only white men drink beer? Why can’t they advertise it to women or even non-white men? This question does have an obvious answer which has to do with the time that the advertisement was released, however, this only shows how prominent these gender stereotypes and standards as well as racial issues were during the 1950s. It shows how companies and businesses convinced society that men have specific roles and women have specific roles. It shows how there was so much assumption on what race was superior during the time and which were inferior. Moving on, let’s start looking at the women pouring the Budweiser beer for who we assume is her husband. She looks so content while pouring the beer. She looks as if she has no problems in this world. That may be true, or it may not be. Budweiser is trying to convince the audience that since it is the 1950s where women are at home while men are working during the day, the least they could do for their hardworking husbands is pour them a glass of Budweiser beer. Budweiser is trying to force these couples into these roles in order to advertise their product.  

Looking back at the advertising strategies that Budweiser tried to use, it may have been effective during the 1950s. However, that does not make it necessarily “right” to advertise in the first place. When people look at the advertisement in modern time, there are so many gender, racial, and class issues within the ad. However, we can learn to appreciate that advertisements such as this one was produced in history, because we can now analyze them and learn from them. That is the major takeaway we can obtain from media that occurred a long time ago, and that is what we need for social justice. 

Writing for Feministing / www.feministing.com

Celebrities: That Doesn’t Look Like Me

Posted on by Former Student

With social media, more specifically editing tools like photoshop, at the tips of everyone’s fingers, being a teenager today is hard. There is a constant feed of images that have been altered to fit society’s misconstrued beauty norms: airbrushed skin, whitened teeth, any ounce of fat pinched in or smoothed out. These images, mainly of or posted by celebrities, generate unrealistic expectations that collide with the very foundation of what it means to be human: having blemishes, curves, and for goodness sakes – everyone has fat on their bodies – it is normal. This “standard of beauty” often goes uncontested, but known body positivity advocate and celebrity, Zendaya, had no problem taking a stance against the editing done to one of her own modeling photos for Modeliste Magazine.

In the screenshot above, you are able to see not only the two images she has juxtaposed, but you can see her caption, likes, comments, and even how many followers she has. I think it’s safe to say that at 108 million followers, she has quite an audience and at 839,310 likes, that her post was well-received. The right image in the post is the beautiful, unedited image of Zendaya. She is wearing a black leather jacket with high-cut bottoms that flatter her curves and she is working a subtle, soft smile with her curled hair framing her face nicely. This gorgeous image makes it puzzling that someone would even think that there are aspects of it that need to be “perfected.” Yet, thanks to what society has falsely deemed as “beautiful,” the image was edited (left). By placing these two images side by side, it makes it glaringly obvious that multiple things have been “touched up.” Starting with the most noticeable, her skin has not only been airbrushed, but a filter has been placed over the initial image, altering both Zendaya’s skin tone and hair color. Next, editors have made her hair “smaller,” by pinching it in closer to her face and flattening it out. Another evident edit is that her waist and hips have been made smaller. 

The irony in the photoshopping of this photo is that Modeliste Magazine prides itself as being an authentic source for emerging fashion and beauty trends. However, their heavily retouched photos of Zendaya scream many things – none of those things being authentic or along the lines of what “beauty trends” should be. In addition to the way Zendaya juxtapositioned these two images, her caption speaks volumes regarding her important message. At 19 years old, she describes her shock, having images posted of herself with the realization that they did not look like her at all. She quickly noticed that her hips and torso had been altered (as she describes in her caption) and points out that “these are the things that make women self conscious, that create the unrealistic ideals of beauty that we have.” She then goes on to explain how important it is for her to represent “honest and pure self love.”

While Modeliste later took down the edited images and worked with Zendaya on publishing the complete unedited images, I think that there are multiple take-aways from Modeliste’s initial publication and Zendaya’s response. The magazine’s initial publication speaks volumes not only of society’s need to take away the uniqueness within beauty through photoshopping, but also the beauty norms that are implied as a result of this photoshopping. It implies that there is a standard for beauty and that the standard is thin, airbrushed, and lacking a single imperfection. As a result, people often don’t feel good enough and if we cannot feel at home in our own skins, where else are we supposed to go (Wann)? The amazing thing about beauty is that there is no standard. Zendaya makes it clear through both her post and caption, that beauty is more about self love and being real. Beauty is fat and thin and happy and natural with blemishes and so many other things. Beauty is all encompassing and inclusive. Photoshopping within these large platforms try to make beauty small and singular, whereas it is something that is limitless due to the diversity within the world we live in. Additionally, Zendaya’s response was empowering – not only for her, but for everyone who looks at social media and is overwhelmed by unattainable and unrealistic beauty norms. She makes it clear to her audience that the real her is beautiful and does not need to be edited. Her post radiates body positivity and breaks down the walls that confine beauty to be a singular thing. 

Works Cited

“Fashion Trends, Celebrity NEWS, Influencer STYLE, Beauty Tips, Luxury Travel.” Modeliste Magazine, 8 Sept. 2021, https://modelistemagazine.com/. 

Wann, Msrilyn. “Fat Studies: An Invitation to Revolution.” Fat Studies, pp. Forward XV. Zendaya. “Instagram.” Login • Instagram, 2015, https://www.instagram.com/zendaya/?hl=en.

Zendaya. “Instagram.” Login • Instagram, 2015, https://www.instagram.com/zendaya/?hl=en.

The Fresh Prince Takes a Future Look into Fatphobia

Posted on by Former Student

Written by Trey Messer with Autostraddle, 1991

Scenes from Fresh Prince of Bel Air Season 2, Episode 8: She Ain’t Heavy

The hit sitcom The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air has been a blessing to our eyes as we watch Will Smith work his magic, entertaining the audience with his wittiness and colorful nature, as well as addressing some important issues that Black people in America face such as racial profiling, gun violence, and the struggles of growing up in rough neighborhoods. Season 2 looks to continue to this trend with new episodes tackling other issues of our society. In Season 2, Episode 3, the Fresh Prince is forced to address his own flaw of body shaming, an ideology that many men (including myself) struggle with resisting.

Throughout Season 1, the sitcom makes it clear that Will’s character is undoubtfully a ladies’ man. The “She Ain’t Heavy” episode even includes a flashback of all the fine honeys that Will has gone on blind-dates with—black, beautiful, elegant, but most noticeably, skinny. As Will gets excited to see who his potential blind date will be to the Lakers basketball game, his expectations are far from met when hip-hop artist and actress Queen Latifah walks through the door of the Banks residence. Latifah, who plays the role of “DeeDee” in this episode, is noticeably plus-sized compare to Will’s previous female acquaintances. The cameras cut to Will standing in shock and disbelief (in the comedic way only he knows how), serving as an slight at her body. The insults get worse when Will comes up with the excuse not to go to the game with her, stating that she wouldn’t fit in his packed car. He immediately realizes the fault in his words and recovers with “Not just you, anybody.” The scene ends with DeeDee walking out after telling Will and Carlton that she planned to be screaming her number at NBA superstar Magic Johnson, which Will replies behind her back: “I hope Magic ate his Wheaties.”

As the episode progresses, Will and DeeDee bond over their shared sense of humor and common interests, but Will is too afraid to ask her to the dance knowing that his friends make fun of him for hanging out with her. As they are seen in a restaurant together, Will’s classmates suggest she is “tons of fun” and even claims “the babe got more buns than a day-old bakery”. Will then asks his friend the question: “Now how you trying to play me? Now you’ve seen the honeys that I had up in here”. DeeDee, eavesdropping, hears this and storms out. The two end up going to the dance with separate dates, have a horrible time, and eventually make up. The crowd got one last laugh, however, when the king bed collapses in the final scene as every character sits on it watching a home cooking show. As funny as it was watching it the first time through, I’ve realized that the episode portrayed many important issues regarding society’s assumptions about weight and our social interactions with people we define as “fat”.

Scenes from Fresh Prince of Bel Air Season 2, Episode 8: She Ain’t Heavy

To start, the jargon and jabs used in the episode are very relatable to the reality to our assumptions about fat people. Euphemisms like “heavy”, “big”, and “husky” are substituted for fat in conversations, giving a “false positive spin on a negative view of fatness”. For those who use such words, they try to convince themselves by placing positive connotations on the idea, but the truth is they do not find it as acceptable. The fat synonyms also change the focus of the word, ultimately changing the relationship to one’s body. “Obese” and “overweight” –what Marilyn Wann would call the O-words—puts a medical gaze on the body, convincing people that being fat is something that is medically fixable (assuming that it’s a problem in the first place, rather than just being a bodily difference and variation).

The reason fat jokes and slander is so popular today is because of the power structure that we are subconsciously participating in through societal norms and expectations. In Wann’s foreword to “Fat Studies: An Innovation to Revolution” she claims, “Every person who lives in a fat-hating culture inevitably absorbs anti-fat beliefs… also inevitably comes to occupy a position in relation to power arrangements that are based on weight”. Weights and body shapes, effortlessly, assign women rank in the social hierarchy as the standards of “body goals” continues to become skinnier waist and wider hips.  When people don’t live to such expectations, we ignore, shame, bully, and ostracize them for not conforming to the standards that we force ourselves to do. The power we exercise to separate ourselves from those below us in the hierarchy is what Michel Foucault calls “productive power”—shaming others in attempt to encourage them to change their ways of living to improve their social status. In this perspective, corporations practice productive power by encouraging weight loss programs, expensive dieting, and weight loss medication.            

What makes this episode of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air so unique is how ahead of its time it is. Body positivity is relatively a new concept that gets confused with fat activism, which is barely even an ideology at this point. While body positivity encourages us to accept who we are and “love ourselves”, fat activism will force the public to stop discriminating against bigger bodies and to accept them for who they are. The episode effectively shows how we shouldn’t focus on the body or size of people we get into relation with, but more so emphasize compatibility and personality that we desire. Will Smith and the rest of the writers of the show reveal their agenda of promoting change and education to an audience swarmed by the anti-fat beliefs of society. I hope to see more episodes like this that continue to challenge my own understanding of the world and how it affects the relationships around me.

What is Mick Fleetwood’s Obsession with Balls?

Posted on by Former Student
Fleetwood Mac’s Rumors Album Cover

It’s been almost 50 years since the release of Fleetwood Mac’s Rumors (1977), but this album is still as popular as ever. From song versions sung by the Glee cast to a viral TikTok trend involving cranberry juice and “Dreams,” teenagers and adults alike fangirl over this influential record. They live for the drama, the ethereal energy, and the tack piano. But why, oh why, is there a pair of balls dangling between Mick Fleetwood’s legs, and who draped Stevie Nicks across Fleetwood like a damsel in distress? This blog post is an analysis of the album cover to Fleetwood Mac’s magnum opus and what it says about power dynamics between genders. 

If you’ve ever watched Superman, you know how much power superheroes exude solely from their stances. On the Rumors album cover, Mick Fleetwood stands tall and proud, one foot resting on a stool. His chest is proudly stretched, and his hand rests firmly on his hip. He’s set in place, grounded as he holds a crystal ball. On the other hand, Stevie Nicks is anything but steady. Her body is positioned closer to the floor, and her arm flexes behind her as if she’s turning (or possibly falling). She lacks balance, utilizing Fleetwood’s leg for support. At first glance, their stances are nothing to consider. However, this contrast of poses creates a clear power dynamic between Fleetwood and Nicks: Fleetwood is an object of power while Nicks floats along with little structure, reliant on Fleetwood’s body. These same power dynamics have dominated modern-day family and economic systems. During the 1950s, the cult of domesticity established the prevailing trend of male breadwinners. Even today, men are still seen as financial providers and political leaders of whom women are in desperate need. 

Along with posture, the juxtaposition of masculinity and femininity is apparent in Nicks’ attire. Nicks dons a black flowy shawl and is dressed as Rhiannon, the Welsh witch known from the song of the same name from Fleetwood Mac’s eponymous 1975 album. Throughout history, witches have been one of the most widespread images of female empowerment and resistance to patriarchal norms. Persecution of witches has existed as early as the creation of the Bible; the witch trials in The United States (most famously Salem, Massachusetts) and the United Kingdom merely dispersed witch hysteria throughout the world. Witch hunts often punished powerless women who were on the fringes of society: women of color, women that spoke against the man, outwardly sexual women, etc. Essentially, women – generally speaking, people – that didn’t conform to expectations set by society and the patriarchy were susceptible to being charged with witchcraft. Witchcraft’s connection to the feminine is also apparent in a witch’s connection to nature. While nature isn’t necessarily feminine, much of the discourse around women and motherhood connects to the Earth. Furthermore, women and the Earth alike have been subject to much exploitation, oppression, and destruction. Witches communicate with these forces of the environment, blurring the line between humans and nature. Now, what does this have to do with Stevie Nicks or Rumors? For much of the ‘80s, tabloids and haters alike speculated that Stevie Nicks was a witch. Rather than run from these harrowing accusations, Nicks embraced the identity – she embraced Rhiannon. Nicks even appeared on American Horror Story as the “White Witch.” She became this mystical, feminine icon in the male-dominated genre of rock, a “fuck you” to both the industry and patriarchy. This begs the question: if Nicks is a model of feminine power, what does the Rumors album cover say about the relationship between man and woman? Why is Fleetwood holding a crystal ball, Rhiannon’s median of art? Has he taken it, are they sharing it? Why is Fleetwood towering over Nicks, positioned as if he’s Captain Morgan overpowering the feminine? Is he part of the witch hunt? Expanding on the analysis of their gender dynamics from their posture, the cover art suggests an imperial conquest of wild and unruly women, i.e., witches. 

The last narrative piece that brings this analysis full circle is how Fleetwood himself is accessorized: with a pair of balls that hang below his pelvis. Why is it so crucial that Fleetwood reminds not just Nicks but the listeners (and therefore the world) of his genitals? The answer to this question is simple. He wants everyone to remember that he has balls. He wants his power as a man – as a person with a penis and testicles – to be known. We live in a world where power systems predominantly benefit those with one set of genitalia, so images related to testicles or phallic symbols can also be correlated to potency and strength. Today, we see phallic imagery in areas related to power, such as swords, rockets, skyscrapers, and cigars. These images create a subconscious association in our minds with hegemonic masculinity, a constant reminder of who and what is in charge. Similarly, Mick Fleetwood’s balls generate a reminder of his position in society and in relation to Rhiannon.  

Does this mean you should stop listening to the silky melodies of Fleetwood Mac? Absolutely not – I’ll always need my daily dose of Stevie! However, you should study and recognize the many messages the cover art delivers. Rumors has one of the most recognizable album designs of all time, so dissecting images that circulate pop culture is vital to understanding the social contexts in which we live. That being said, the next time you add “Songbird” to your Spotify queue, analyze the different stories hidden within the album cover and question any resemblances to your own relationship to gender and power.

Written by Anaya Patel with Autostraddle

Heroes So White: Lack of Diversity in the World of Superheroes

Posted on by Jo (they/them)

by Jo Papadopoulou

Written for Autostraddle

One of the first images that comes up when you google “superheroes.” Notice the number of non-male and non-white characters. (Screen Rant, 2019)

I once asked my 10-year-old sister who her favourite superhero was. “Flash!,” she answered excitedly. When I asked her why, she looked at me curiously and said “Cause he is fast, he is so fast sometimes it looks like he is flying, and he is so strong too!” Simple enough answer, right? Well, I then asked whether she knew of any female superheroes with the same abilities as Flash and she couldn’t come up with a reply. When asked about female superheroes, she only knew to list three: Wonder Woman, Supergirl, and Catwoman. None of them were her favourite though. An indicator that she probably didn’t choose her favourite based on gender but based on the abilities she could identify with best (she likes running, so Flash makes sense). However, what if she chose Flash because that was the only one she knew? There are other superheroes who are not cishet white males and have the same (and even more) abilities as Flash. She chose Flash because it was who she was most familiar with. It Is who TV series and ads and video games show her.

And that is not true only for my sister. Most kids, most people, only know the white, cishet male, super fit (and usually rich) superheroes. But they are not the only kind of superhero that exists. That is certainly not the only type of people who exist. So why are they the ones mainly shown? How can this very specific, very excluding group of superheroes represent the whole of them? The answer is, it can’t.

Diversity in Superheroes

For many years, the only superheroes shown on television are ones like Superman and Batman, white fit guys who fight crime and get all the beautiful girls. Companies have been trying to appeal to teenage white boys by promoting a heteronormative, fatphobic narrative. For decades, these companies have been creating false, dangerous role models for children and adults everywhere. And while most turn a blind eye to this, some people have always known how hurtful these role models are. All black, gay, fat, Latinx, trans (and many more identities not reprented) folx know. We have always noticed the lack of representation when it comes to superheroes. They never looked like us. We could never fully identify with them.

The “Original” Avengers of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, some of the most well-known superheroes by one of the most well-known entertainment companies. (Cinema Blend, 2019)

White Dudes (it’s always them)

White male superheroes are still dominating our screens and comic book pages (e.g. Iron Man, Spider-Man, Superman, Deadpool, etc.). When non-white characters are shown, they usually follow old, hurtful stereotypes (for example, Mantis of Guardians of the Galaxy appears as a submissive Asian woman and her main power is lulling people to sleep). When the companies try to create a more diverse environment around superheroes they usually go about it by adding characters of colour (e.g. Black Panther in the Marvel Cinematic Universe) and most (if not all) times these characters have huge success due to the fact that there’s so little diversity. So, the question that comes up is, are the companies really being more diverse and inclusive for the fans or for the money? (Sadly, usually capitalism wins over us).

Genre as Old as Time

This struggle with diversity has its roots mainly to the fact that the superhero genre was created some 40 or more years ago and has seldom changed since. Most, if not all, of the creators back then were rich white males making art for almost exclusively white male audiences. Because of nostalgia, a general fear of change, or pure laziness, the genre is still marked by the “white guy hero” trope that was the staple when it started.

Fighting the Status Quo

Another reason superheroes are still white guys is because a big part of what these heroes do is fight the status quo (e.g. bank robberies, coup d’états, etc.). And it is always shown from the perspective of the powerful, that is rich white men. For example, Bruce Wayne (aka Batman), who is a rich white cishet man, is at the center of Justice League sidelining the female characters and (few) characters of colour.

Fatphobia

Apart from being cishet guys and white, the majority of superheroes are slim and fit. In comic books, their abs and excessive muscles are always visible through their suits and in movies and TV shows actors go through long periods of dieting and strict work outs to achieve a “superhero-worthy” body. Whenever fat characters are included they are usually viewed as something to laugh at (e.g. Thor in Avengers: Endgame) or follow hurtful fatphobic stereotypes.

Chris Hemsworth as “Fat Thor”, as he was named by the fandom, in Avengers: Endgame. (“Avengers: Endgame”, Marvel 2019)

New Superheroes

To create a more diverse world, instead of dismantling the pre-existing wider superhero world, new ones are created without the stereotypes of the old ones. Companies like Marvel and DC, big entertainment companies, are starting to release novels with new, more inclusive, more diverse characters. Some examples are: América Chávez (the newest Miss America) is a Latina and a lesbian, Doreen Green (the newest Squirrel Girl) doesn’t have an incredibly slim body with abs and excessive muscles, and Miles Morales (the newest Spider-Man) is half African American and half Puerto Rican. But while it is great that all these diverse characters exist, they don’t appear in the companies’ big cinematic universes, they appear in comic book series not that accessible or well-known to the wider public. While the creation and existence of these characters is a huge step forward, it is still not enough. This diversity needs to be made more widespread and not stay limited to a few comic book characters. We, the fans, need to keep asking for more representation and we can only hope that the companies will listen.

We all deserve to be able to see ourselves as heroes.

Audi’s Display of Sexism and Stereotyping

Posted on by Former Student

In 2017, Audi, a German car manufacturer known for its luxury vehicles, released an advertisement to its Chinese market that sparked much controversy around the world. In their attempt to promote used cars to potential customers living in China, the brand not only displayed apparent examples of sexism, but promoted racist stereotypes. This commercial starts off with an Asian heterosexual couple standing at the alter about to get married. Right before their marriage was officially declared, the groom’s mother interrupts the officiant and begins handling the bride roughly, attempting to inspect parts of her body. Only after the bride’s future mother-in-law examines some of her physical aspects, like her eyes, nose, ears, and teeth does she declare the bride fit to marry her son and gives her approval. The terrified bride is seemingly relieved after her future mother gives the couple her consent, until the mother’s focus turns to the bride’s breasts, bring her back to a panicked state. After this blatant objectification, the commercial’s narrator voices “An important decision must be made carefully” as a red Audi Sudan zooms down a highway (Greatdung 0:22-0:23).

YouTube, 17 July 2017

This sexist Audi advertisement centers around the objectification of a woman by not only debasing the bride’s value to just her physical attributes, particularly her facial features, but also by comparing her to something one can buy and own. By insinuating that marrying a living breathing person is an equivalent decision to buying a car, Audi turns the bride into an object that can be materialized and possessed. Not only is the bride objectified by her future mother-in-law, but with the attention shifting to her breasts, she also becomes sexualized. This overt objectification and sexualization of a woman not only advance the harmful ideology of women not being actual people and simply objects for the benefit of men, it can have dangerous consequences that go beyond these beliefs. The United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) makes this connection by declaring “The objectification and sexualization of girls in the media are linked to violence against women and girls worldwide” (UNICEF USA 2021). This treatment can also have a multitude of negative consequences on the targeted individual’s mental health that can last throughout a lifetime. With the massive platform stemming from the ability to air advertisements to millions of people, comes much responsibility to further notions of equality rather than ideologies that have the potential to cause an immense amount of harm. 

Not only is objectification based on gender a prominent issue in this ad, but race also plays a problematic role. The stereotype of the “tiger mom,” a term coined by Amy Chua which describes Chinese mothers as strict, controlling, and borderline abusive, is also deployed in this Audi advertisement. One aspect of this stereotype is the fixation Asian mothers have on the physical appearance of their daughters (Chua 2011). In this case, the need for the bride’s soon to be mother-in-law to examine her physical features, deciding whether they meet her standards prior to the couple’s marriage further perpetuates this stereotype. Most Asian mothers do not align with this parenting style and utilize a wide range of other strategies, contrary to popular belief. The bride also remains passive during this offensive interaction, exemplifying to this advertisement’s audience that this is the appropriate reaction in the face of maltreatment, which could be easily internalized by woman and child viewers. By displaying this inaccurate idea of what Chinese mothers usually place high value on, as well as the expectation of women staying passive, not only does Audi promote sexism, but also racist stereotypes.

Connecting these ideas, Audi exhibits how the intersection of both gender and race can work together, producing an even greater amount of discrimination for individuals like the bride in their commercial. On the basis of Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw’s concept of intersectionality, two social categorizations of the bride’s identity, being Asian and a woman, create a somewhat unique distinction of the discrimination she faces in this Audi advertisement. Unfortunately, this situation is not rare and many individuals who share these similarities in their identity experience this prejudice on a day-to-day basis. 

Shortly after this commercial aired, it received mass amount of criticism and backlash from the public. One commenter even voiced “The annoying thing about Audi’s used-car ad, besides its objectification of women, is that it thinks Chinese customers deserve only commercials like this” (Washington Post 2019). Others simply called the advisement sexist and disgusting. Many people initiated plans to boycott this company and convinced those around them to partake in this form of protest. Following this severe condemnation, Audi apologized for its ignorance related to this particular incident, assured the public an internal investigation would take place to avoid a mistake like this in the future, and removed this advertisement from television. Audi’s response to this backlash and quick withdraw of their commercial displays the power the public holds and how each individual’s voice matters when speaking out against discrimination. 

Unfortunately, this type of sexist and racist commercial is not the only one of its kind. These companies must continue to be held responsible for the harmful ideologies their advertisements promote and be hyper aware of the massive audience they have the ability to reach just through the commercials they release. These examples of sexism and racism through promoting stereotypes and targeting certain audiences unfairly in advertising must come to an end in order to create a more egalitarian world. These large-scale brands have the responsibility to advance impactful and beneficial messages to the massive audience they are capable of reaching, instead of carelessly feeding this harmful ideology to the masses. 

Works Cited: 

Chua, Amy. Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. Penguin Books, 2011. 

Greatdung. “Audi Used Car Commercial in China. Full of Sex Discrimination.” YouTube, YouTube, 17 July 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiBva8pEgTc. 

Smith, Jamiee, and Hannah Gould. “Not an Object: On Sexualization and Exploitation of Women and Girls.” UNICEF USA, 11 Jan. 2021, www.unicefusa.org/stories/not-object-sexualization-and-exploitation-women-and-girls/30366. 

Wang, Amy B. “An Audi Commercial in China Compared Women to Used Cars. It Didn’t Go Well.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 18 Apr. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/07/18/an-audi-commercial-in-china-compared-women-to-used-cars-it-didnt-go-well/. 

Harry Styles Likes Women’s Clothing and He Doesn’t Care Who Knows It (Not Even Candace Owens)

Posted on by Former Student

By Alice Berndt

Written for Jezebel

Vogue Online, 13 Nov 2020

On November 13, 2020, jaws dropped and 1D fans swooned when the cover image for Vogue’s December issue was released. The shot features former boy bander and current pop sensation Harry Styles dressed in a black and white lace gown and black cropped blazer, his hair swept to the side in an intentionally effortless flop. He is the first man to appear solo on the cover of Vogue in 127 years. As the cover reads, “Harry Styles makes his own rules.” [Vogue]

Framed against a sprawling green meadow and clear blue sky, the British singer squints into the sunny distance. He holds a blue balloon to his lips, mid-blow, showing off an array of chunky rings, including one in the shape of an “H” and another in an “S.” The photo is iconically Harry — sexy, androgynous, playful, and edgy. 

Since the beginning of One Direction’s seemingly eternal “hiatus” back in 2015, Styles has been making a name for himself as a solo pop rock artist. In addition to releasing hit singles like “Sign of the Times” and “Watermelon Sugar,” he has also become a fashion icon, breaking free from his 1D wardrobe of V-necks and skinny jeans and embracing more traditionally feminine styles like colorful blouses, bootcut pants, and dresses. For the most part, fans and the public have been accepting of his style transformation, which recalls music legends of the past including David Bowie and Prince. But for some, this Vogue cover took it a step too far. 

Screenshot: Twitter / @RealCandaceO

In a move that sparked contentious debate, conservative commentator Candace Owens retweeted Vogue’s post on Styles’ cover shoot and wrote:

“There is no society that can survive without strong men. The East knows this. In the west, the steady feminization of our men at the same time that Marxism is being taught to our children is not a coincidence. It is an outright attack. Bring back manly men.”

[Twitter]

Yowza. Owens received immediate backlash from liberals, feminists, and Styles’ fans alike who claimed she was being sexist and close-minded. She was criticized for her assumption that masculinity and strength (or lack thereof) are directly connected to wardrobe — a man cannot be “manly” if he wears a dress. 

This assumption stems from centuries of clothing acting as a marker of gender — men wear pants and women wear dresses and skirts. Period. But is Owens implying that the inverse is true as well — that women cannot be feminine if they wear pants? Certainly Owens herself has been spotted wearing pants on more than one occasion. Commentators wondered how an article of clothing could limit or “attack” masculinity and strength but not femininity or grace. 

Screenshot: Instagram / @harrystyles

In a reclamation of Owens’ derogatory words, Styles posted an image to Instagram from his cover shoot with Variety and captioned the post “Bring back manly men.” The caption combined with the cheeky photo — Styles in a powder blue pantsuit eating a banana — pokes fun at his haters, addressing the situation while also making light of it. 

Styles is certainly not the first celebrity to be criticized for their clothing choices, so why did this get so much attention? Perhaps because it’s far less common for a woman to publicly shame a man for his outfit than vice versa. We’re used to female celebrities being called out for “scandalous” or “overly sexy” clothing (Billie Eilish’s British Vogue cover, for example), but typically male celebrities wear what they want or what their stylists give them and that’s that. It also cannot be ignored that Styles has a massive fanbase that has grown alongside his career since the inception of One Direction in 2010 and is prepared to defend him regardless of the context.

In talking about gender and fans, we must engage in a conversation about privilege. A quote from Styles on the Vogue cover reads, “Anytime you’re putting barriers up in your life, you’re limiting yourself.” For Styles, a straight white male celebrity with a net worth of over $80 million, he has the comfort and freedom to express himself through his clothing without fear. [Vogue]

For many others, including female-identifying, LGBTQ+, and POC celebrities, what they wear is often the biggest target for ridicule, criticism, and objectification. These individuals must first break down the barriers placed in front of them by society before they can even consider those they may have built for themselves. 

With that simple act of reclamation via his Instagram post, Styles had, in the minds of many, “won” the argument. For many others — celebrities or not — the complexities of how they use clothing to express themselves is a never-ending fight, both internally and externally. [Vogue]

Vogue Online, 13 Nov 2020

Don’t get me wrong, I worship Harry Styles as much as the next Gen Zer and wouldn’t dare question his status as a cultural icon. As actress and director Olivia Wilde says of Styles, “It’s pretty powerful and kind of extraordinary to see someone in his position redefining what it can mean to be a man with confidence.” By breaking free from the societal binary of gendered clothing, Styles utilizes his privilege to pave the way for others. But his work is far from being done. [Vogue]

TikTok: Its Perpetuation of Gender-Based Stereotypes and Human Body Standards

Posted on by Former Student

Over the past few years, TikTok has become a mainstream social media platform. This application, available for most smartphones, uses an algorithm to curate content for users, effectively getting them addicted to scrolling on the app. There are many subcultures on TikTok… For example, people who like dogs might find that the algorithm has put them on ‘dog TikTok,’ because their ‘For You’ page is filled with videos of dogs. The same concept applies to gender and sexuality. There are many different points of view represented on the application, and once the algorithm figures out what yours is, it will show you a plethora of content to reinforce that exact idea. 

There is a large subculture (or really, a set of subcultures) on TikTok that perpetuates the gender binary system and all of the gender roles that come along with that. For example, this video is a representation of many of the different videos that are found on ‘straight TikTok’: 

When the individual speaking in the video says, “Men will choose a peaceful woman before a beautiful woman,” they are enforcing many of the expectations that are placed on female-identifying people in our society. Moreover, the speaker is implying that women must be ‘peaceful,’ therefore implying that often, women are not peaceful. This implication tells women that they need not express their emotions; rather, they should focus on being as passive as possible in an effort to be chosen by a man. 

Next, when the person speaking says, “Men seek for peace, and it don’t matter if you’re Black, blue, asian, Latina… they want to come home to a peaceful woman,” they are demonstrating a lack of awareness of the intersection between race and gender. This statement also reinforces the idea that men come home to women, therefore saying also that women should not be working professionals. 

On top of that, the speaker discusses the intellect of women and expectations in that area that men hold. They say, “He wants a woman that’s resourceful, a woman that can think on her feet. So when he can’t hold it down if he’s ill and he’s unable to pay the bills, she can be resourceful and have her intellect to make things happen.” The first implication I see in this statement is that the woman should just be intellectual as a safeguard… the woman will never actually have to use these skills unless it comes down to it. The assumption that men always pay the bills is harmful to all people, regardless of gender, because that is not the case for everybody. By the same token, the fact that the speaker is bringing this point up implies that women are, in general, less naturally intellectual than men. Drawing this unfounded connection between gender and intellectual capacity is harmful to society as a whole. 

Perhaps most disturbingly, our speaker talks about the ‘appropriate’ role of women in a sexual context. They say that men are “looking for a woman to supply their physical needs… A woman that looks good and proper and public but is a beast in bed” is the golden standard. First of all, in addition to ignoring the physical desires of the women at hand, this statement claims that the purpose of women is to fulfill mens’ sexual desires. This incredibly sexist ideology has the capacity to negatively influence the lives of many people. On top of this, the speaker is assuming a common definition of beauty… she is saying that women who have a certain physical appearance and demeanor are examples for what all other women should try to be when in pursuit of a relationship with a man. 

In conclusion, the ideology contained within this video is based on the idea that women are socially inferior to men, and that female sovereignty should not exist when it comes to romantic and sexual relationships. The central claim is that women should constantly be cultivating their personas to match what they think men are looking for in women, in hopes that they will ‘meet the cut’ for some man.

Similar to the last clip, this piece of satire brings awareness to many of the appearance-based expectations that our society holds for women, and the stark contrast between these expectations and those for men. The actor, mimicking a man, says: “Alright, so I want a girl with huge, but perky boobs, small waist, huge butt, flawless skin (but can’t wear makeup). And I like blondes, but I think she should also be brunette… because I get bored quickly, you know?” This statement encapsulates many of the body standards that our modern society has for women, and also touches on the normalized fact that men sleep around while women are expected to be loyal. 

In the caption of this video, the creator claims that this is how all men think. Although this is probably a sarcastic statement, it is representative of the way that many people think. Moreover, individuality is to be nonexistent: all men must act one way, and all women must act another way. Beyond pointing out, and perhaps reinforcing, the gender norms that are in place for men and women, this video illustrates the prevalence of the gender binary in our society. 

Content Warning: This video contains a real-life portrayal of surgical body mutilation. Use viewer discretion. 

In this shocking clip, we see a person that is identified as a man who has ‘overdeveloped’ breast tissue. His act of having the ‘excess’ tissue removed is labeled as life-changing. First of all, the video notes that this overdevelopment in the breast tissue of a man is an actual medical condition, which is known as ‘gynecomastia.’ Its causes are said to be “medications, drugs, testicular cancer, and hormonal imbalance.” 

Without looking into the history of this condition, it’s plausible to assume that this condition was developed in response to a bodily appearance that was not in line with society’s idea of what a man should look like. Moreover, this condition does not pose any medical risk to the patient; it is merely aesthetic. 

This video perpetuates a toxic standard of beauty, and is essentially telling men who have growth in their breast tissue that in order to be beautiful, they must undergo surgery. Explicitly, the caption says, “These [surgeries] literally change men’s lives.” In watching this video, men with growth in their breast tissue are inevitably going to receive the message that they are disgusting, and must go get surgery. 

In conclusion, the three videos I have analyzed here are examples of the many TikTok videos that enforce gender-based stereotypes and human body standards that are present in our society. This is not to say that TikTok is a problematic platform that should not exist; rather, this suggests that we as a society should critically examine the role that social media plays in perpetuating harmful gender-based stereotypes and expectations on a day-to-day basis.

Writing for Feministing | www.feministing.com

DirecTV Has No Strings Attached to Feminism

Posted on by Former Student

In the spring of 2014, DirecTV, a satellite television company, released a series of commercials on network television starring marionettes for the sake of advertising. The commercials, though eye-catching, did not garner much attention until one starred a white, sexualized female marionette wearing lingerie and standing in a bedroom.  The marionette, who exists as an object on screen, is placed in contrast to her human husband. She claims that ever since her husband signed up for DirecTV he keeps talking about how he doesn’t have to look at “those ugly wires”. The bashful marionette, who has her own set of wires, continually asks her husband, “do you still think I’m pretty?” to which her husband replies, “baby of course I do”. As a result, the marionette whips off her bathrobe exposing her lingerie beneath. She directs movements toward her husband while asking “do you like what you see?” as he lays on the bed and serves as a spectator. Not only does this commercial exemplify the male gaze and society’s limited acceptance of sexuality and outside the “norm”, but it also serves as a microcosm for women’s portrayal in media.

Through the actions of the marionette and her husband, this DirecTV commercial focuses on the concept of the male gaze. First coined by Laura Mulvey in 1975, it explains how society views women through a male’s perspective.  The marionette wife, dressed in a bathrobe, approaches her husband with concerns about her physical appearance.  When the husband squashes her insecurities surrounding her appearance she sexually takes off her bathrobe to uncover risqué, red lingerie hiding beneath. She proceeds to make movements and noises provoking sexual behavior in order to captivate her husband.  DirecTV plays into this concept of the male gaze by illustrating women as sexualized objects within a matrix of compulsive heterosexuality. The husband lurches up in bed once he lays eyes on his wife’s undergarments and scans her entire body up and down, further objectifying his string-puppet wife as a figure for show.  Once his wife asks a series of questions about her physical appearance, he quickly changes the tone of his voice to urge his wife to continue moving her body for him to see. This relationship portrayed on the screen is entirely based off of appearance with little focus on anything else—every dialogue between the couple pertains to her attempting to gain his approval and then showing him what she has to offer sexually. This theme of male gaze has been so prevalent throughout American history, especially in current day advertising, and the portrayal of the marionette continues to illustrate America as a “man’s world” with the wife’s only purpose to entertain the man.

Furthermore, although interventions into misogyny and patriarchy have been made, our society hasn’t been able to break beyond the heterosexual norm, which is illustrated through the interactions and stereotypes deployed in this commercial.  Katz examines heterosexuality, in The Invention of Heterosexuality, by exploring its changing definition throughout time. He explains how during World War II, the concept of the “cult of domesticity” prevailed. There was this “reassociation of women with the home”, which forced the “predominance of the hetero norm” and caused “an era of heterosexual hegemony” to ensue (Katz 237).  This DirecTV commercial is starkly similar to these concepts that emerged during the war, forcing us to question whether any progress for women in society has really been made throughout the years, as this commercial is covered in sexism and stereotypes which were hyper-prevelant throughout the 1950’s.  The marionette is placed in the bedroom, which alludes to women in the home.  Her blonde hair additionally plays into the stereotype that blondes are dumber than brunettes—thus this woman could not possibly be associated with work outside the home. Likewise, the husband is sitting, somewhat tired looking on the bed, as if he just endured a difficult day at his job. DirecTV is attempting to “play it safe” by staying within sexual norms that our society is comfortable with.

Moreover, the lack of intersectionality in this commercial is striking. Both the wife and husband are straight, Caucasian individuals in the upper-middle class due to the fact they can afford a cable plan in addition to an expensive TV and home. DirecTV wants to appeal to its viewers, and so we cannot only hold them accountable for this portrayal. They must think our society is additionally not ready to discontinue the heterosexual norm.

Women are repeatedly portrayed in media as sexual objects. This commercial is only one of the many times that women have been portrayed as “less intelligent”, “obedient”, “pleasing” beings compared to their male counterparts. The figure of the husband, moreover, helps to portray the wife as a being with the primary intent to serve her husband. Even beyond spectating his wife, the husband holds the remote with control of the channels to signify he additionally has control of the home. His wife is literally a puppet beyond the obvious—the husband holds the strings and decides what role she should play. The wife is not in control, she is at mercy of the husband, and strives to gain his approval, which is illustrated by her repeated questions concerning her appearance.

One journalist from Time magazine states, “our suggestion to the wired wife? Cut and run” (Time).  Using sex to sell is not a new concept in advertising.  Instead of evolving with the changing times, this method has persisted in current advertising. Even more shocking, this advertisement received more criticism about being “creepy” than it did about its sexist nature. The inhuman puppet-wife distracts the viewer from the sexist nature of the commercial—the viewer is unable to see the objectification of women as the problem in the advertisement. The sexualized wife embodies Sigmund Freud’s “uncanny” since she is strange, yet familiar to us because this type of advertising is ubiquitous in our culture (Freud 1). The wife should not have to gain affirmation from her husband about her looks nor should she have to be portrayed as a sexualized object in order to appease the male viewer.  Women should not have to be sexualized at the expense of a company trying to sell their product.  They are not synonymous with sex and it’s about time we cut the strings between this binary.

 

Works Cited

“DirecTV Marionettes Pretty.” YouTube. YouTube, 28 Apr. 2014. Web. 9 Sept. 2016. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noFdLFMvh3Y>.

Dockterman, Eliana. “Selling Sexism: Why the Latest Commercials Are so Misogynist.” Time. Time, n.d. Web. 8 Sept. 2016.

Freud, Sigmund. The “Uncanny” 1 (n.d.): n. pag. Web.

Katz, Jonathan. The Invention of Heterosexuality. New York: Dutton, 1995. Print.

The Making of Man?

Posted on by Former Student

Advertisements should ideally be smart and catchy, leaving viewers with an immediate desire to purchase that product. In the United States, some see the Super Bowl, with its hefty fees for commercial time, as the pinnacle of advertising. In 2014, an ad for Summer’s Eve Cleansing Wash appeared on screens across the country. The ad begins with a husband showering and using what he believes to be body wash while his wife brushes her teeth in the bathroom. When she realizes he is using the wash designed to douche, she explains the benefits of this brand to him – a quick sell of the product. The husband, however, ignores all the information his wife describes after she first mentions its intended use. His face sinks, as he feels his masculinity threatened, and proceeds to attempt an outrageous amount of tasks to assert his manliness, such as drumming like a true rock star and prepping for a boxing workout by eating raw eggs. He finishes these activities by jumping onto the couch next to his wife, crushing a beer can against his skull as she rolls her eyes, most likely intending to mirror the look on viewers’ faces as they watch this ridiculous sequence. Despite the silent, eye-rolling critique from the wife, this ad does not give a powerfully positive message about gender equality or inclusivity. Instead, on the largest stage in advertising, Summer’s Eve chose to display gender conventions. Specifically, while the creators of this ad intended to make the man look foolish and the woman look smart and realistic, a deeper analysis reveals this ad as more offensive than progressive.

The horrified look on the husband’s face as his wife reveals the advertised nature of the product he is using re-emphasizes obsolete gender stereotypes, hinting that not only should women avoid talking about their bodies, but that men cannot even comprehend these conversations. As the wife begins discussing the benefits of her cleansing wash, the man immediately stops listening, more worried about his threatened identity, and, in the end, contributing to a woman’s lack of confidence in opening up a dialogue about her body. This ad, as many have before, manages to sell a product to women by shaming its key clients. In the Victorian Era, “True Women were defined by their distance from lust” and any sexual topics, and, in a way, this ad brings women back to that time period, suggesting many people, especially men, will not listen to a discussion as “inappropriate” as one about a woman’s bodily functions (Katz 232). In an attempt to deflect the conversation from a potentially uncomfortable topic, the husband physically leaves the scene and begins a new activity, leaving the wife appearing like a lecturer as opposed to a participant in a dialogue. While this ad is clearly targeted to women, portraying her husband as a child-like figure who ultimately discourages her discussion about her body, only further strengthens those dichotomous gender stereotypes.

The extremity of the activities the husband takes part in to recover his masculinity ignores any attempts to disrupt timeworn gender stereotypes, showing that any signs of femininity in a man must be eradicated. The husband karate chops wooden blocks, tows a car with his teeth, and even fashions himself a Spartan helmet, all in an effort to cleanse himself of any traces of femininity stemming from accidentally using the genital wash. While the man is clearly mocked in the ad for his excessive actions, this parody ultimately affirms the hegemonic structure that men are fundamentally different from women, and therefore need specific products. This ad exemplifies this facet of the marketing industry that “spend[s] massive amounts of time and money ratifying and supporting the versions of masculinity that we enjoy and trust,” (Halberstam 1). Validating a world in which men must be completely masculine, this ad “depend[s] absolutely on the subordination of alternative masculinities,” (Halberstam 1). The ad ignores the existence of men who can still enjoy playing sports while being the primary caregiver for their children or manicuring their appearance. Or even use a vaginal wash product manufactured for and advertised to women that, in fact, is basically just soap.

The characters in this commercial represent a white, seemingly upper class, heterosexual relationship, again omitting many other gender, sexual, and even race and class identities from the customer base of the product. Many ads today attempt to cast diverse actors, in order for their products to appeal to more people. This commercial not only displays traditional gender norms, but also portrays a stereotypical heterosexual relationship, which does not exist for many people, including those who might want to purchase the product. Even as scientists and sociologists alike release more information debunking previous assumptions about gender and sexuality, “a scientific fact, once established, may sometimes be disproved in one field, remain a “fact” in others, and have a future life in the popular mind” (Fausto-Sterling 169). While many more people today are realizing and accepting non-heterosexual and/or gender queer people, advertisements like these are still ignoring the emerging acceptance of these lifestyles. This ad, even while using younger actors who may be part of this tolerant generation, does not cater to those who identify outside of gender and sexuality norms.

Advertisements must balance between appealing to the masses and pioneering the portrayal of new societal trends, but this ad focuses much more on old and insulting conventions of gender roles as opposed to engaging people in the 21st century. The creators undoubtedly thought an ad, even one meant for a women’s product, playing during the Super Bowl, must connect with the typical audience of a football game, again making assumptions about the gender make-up of the audience. This targeting, however, not only excludes many people, but also makes gross stereotypes about those who enjoy sporting events. While not everyone today recognizes or accepts the changing discourse on gender and sexuality, advertisements have the ability to change public opinion. An ad created specifically for a women’s product, therefore, should best portray the shifting culture acceptance of previously undermined groups, like women and those who do not identify with traditional ideas of gender and sexuality.

 

Works Cited

Fausto-Sterling, Anne. Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. New York: Basic Books, 2000.

Halberstam, Judith. Female Masculinity. Durham: Duke University Press, 1998.

Katz, Jonathan N. The Invention of Heterosexuality. New York: Dutton, 1995.

Wilchina, Riki Anne. Quuer Theory, Gender Theory: An Instant Primer. Los Angeles: Alyson, 2004.

The Gender Binary in Relation to Dance

Posted on by Former Student

The music video Sergei Polunin in “Take Me to Church” by Hozier is able to reveal assumptions commonly held in dance around gender.

The camera work is steady. The video starts with a shot of the ceiling and then descends down to Sergei Polunin. For most of the video the camera is a short ways away, however, it’s focus is on him intermittently adding to the intensity of emotion in certain moments. For some shots the camera is close up and filming from almost beneath Sergei Polunin, this interesting style adds a dimension into how he is presented.

The white wooden church like structure Sergei Polunin is dancing in is expansive. The space is simple, there is a loft in a small portion of the second story but beyond that the space is open. The walls are incomplete, the frames showing, and the windows appear to be large holes in the walls. The floor is solid stone tiles of a light gray color, slightly dirty. The light beaming in is bright and glows in white fog that is rolling over the floor.

Sergei Polunin is dressed plainly in tight skin tone shorts and dirtied ballet shoes. He is wearing less than is generally worn for classical ballet. Additionally he is showing a multitude of tattoos. The tattoos are bold and dark on his stomach and sides. Sergei Polunin also has tattoos on his arms, wrist, hand, foot and chest. His hair is dark strait and growing out to be a little shaggy.

The song Sergei Polunin is dancing to, “Take Me to Church” by Hozier, has deep emotionality and is a great coupling with Sergei Polunin’s style of dance. Within the song there is variation of intensity that compliments the burst of action in the choreography.  

There is a dichotomy between his fully controlled spins and the moments where Sergei Polunin holds his head, his body seeming to break down. Sergei Polunin demonstrates an opposition and union of movement, one example of this is his ability to collapse all the way to the floor with grace. His movements are decisive and even as he is incorporating modern dance into ballet there is still form and structure to his movements. The motion of Sergei Polunin starts slow, tensioned and then unfurls into ballet spins and flashier choreography. Always returning back to ballet dance he is able to add emotionally charged moments that are almost theatrical in nature. There is an emotionality in his moves, particularly when there is a softer moment in the music.

In ballet there are many contrasts between classic female form and classic male form. The way Sergei Polunin holds his head is loose. He begins the piece with his hands on his hair bending his head down. His head is lifted but not tensioned. The way his head moves adds to the burst of motion he has and the emotionality. This contrasts greatly with the way female ballet dancers hold their heads which are generally very poised and tilted slightly up at the chin. The feminine head position is held with grace and firm ease.

The hands are important in ballet. In feminine form they are held softy with the second finger extended out just slightly. They remain smooth, slow changing and delicate. However in male classical ballet the hands are interrupted from delicacy often by lifting a women or focusing on quick burst of muscularity. Sergei Polunin has some form to his fingers during specific ballet moves but he also has flat hands for catching himself on the ground and curled finger pushing through his hair. He also at one point makes a fists with his hands which is something not often done by classically trained female ballerinas.  

The way Sergei Polunin expands his limbs through the space is mostly in quick fast points of movement where he is expanding and contracting often. There is a focus on concentrated muscular feats. He has a looseness of his limbs as certain points. Feminine classical ballet is different, the movements are generally supposed to be slow deliberate extensions that show off flexibility and endurance. The motion through space is graceful and full of very structured form.

Sergei Polunin’s movements come in explosive bursts, the focus on agility and strength. The motions are an embodiment of masculinity, protruding, angular and quick. This assertive action can easily tie into gender stereotypes in general and the conception that our contemporary society still holds about gender. In the gender binary men are noted for strength, assertive attitudes and loud demeanors. Differing from this, women are noted for grace, delicacy and consideration. Women have been expected to uphold this smooth action and water-like nature. Considering the role society has placed on women it is no surprise that femininity in dance is associated with smooth graceful movements. There is an emphasis on posture, detail, fluidity and rounding of the body.

Sergei Polunin’s movements, to “Take Me to Church” by Hozier, uncovers some of the gender bias and associations that are so deeply ingrained in our society, that are reflected in the form, movement and posture of dance.

#LikeALLGirls

Posted on by Former Student

Media Analysis: #LikeAGirl

If you watched the 2015 Super Bowl, it’s likely that you saw Always’ poignant advertisement endorsing a more nuanced definition for the colloquialism, “like a girl”. A teenage girl named Erin opens the advertisement with her interpretation of what it means to run like a girl, followed by a number of other similarly aged girls and a few boys. She takes her perfectly manicured hands and places them at her sides, with the palm outstretched perpendicularly to her legs. Like a clumsy doll, she proceeds to prance around the room, indicating that girls are unable to run in an athletic, masculine fashion. Immediately after, a set of young girls around the age of 8 introduce themselves and show their interpretation of what it means to run “like a girl”. Young and uncorrupted, these girls appear unfazed by the fact that “like a girl” functions as an insult in society, and they proceed to run “as fast as [they] can” (Always, 2015). Athletic, confident, and powerful, these young girls embody society’s future women, illustrating the uplifting possibility that today’s females may equate themselves to their male counterparts in adulthood if we continue to encourage their strength.

While this advertisement attempts to reclaim and resignify the colloquial phrase “like a girl” to imply strength and power instead of weakness, rocking the traditional gender binary that represses female power, its efforts are futile. Unfortunately, the language and images the campaign promotes alienates a multitude of women who don’t identify with the heteronormative actresses on screen while also encouraging the categorization of society into two neat boxes marked male and female. According to Always, what it means to be “like a girl” is no longer weak, but instead feminine, dress-wearing, and cis-gendered, as Erin and her counterparts flash whitened teeth and flip their freshly curled locks (Always 2015), which is limited at best. Since the 1990s, feminist and queer interventions, two by Anne Fausto-Sterling, have helped us to understand how the very categorical descriptors of “girl” and “boy” subject human-beings as a species to a rigid binary that demoralizes instead of empowers. Furthermore, Foucault’s The History of Sexuality provides insight into how the employment of language, which is productive in nature, results in the subjectification and confinement of humanity to the gender binary that oppresses us (1997). Thus, as Always proposes a newfound strength in girl-dom, one that praises traditional female gender norms such as dresses, makeup, and hair bows instead of condemning them, it fails to empower and speak for women who transcend these norms. In this way, Always helps the gender dichotomy strengthen its grasp on society, for it excludes the all people who don’t conform to one extreme or the other (girl or boy).

Language is both an expanding and restrictive tool, which can reflect and reproduce a narrow understanding of the world around us instead of a thorough one. Anne Fausto-Sterling speaks to this power in her piece, Sexing the Body, which investigates the origination of a commonly accepted philosophy that biological sex determines gender (2000). As Sterling (2000) postulates, the medicalization of the human body in the 20th century resulted in the categorization of the species into two subtypes based on physical genitalia, when, in fact, many intersex beings with combined sexual organs transcend this rigid dichotomy. Always, instead of exposing gender’s abstract nature, encourages the binary by distinguishing “females” from their polar opposite: males. When the producer asks how a cis-gendered, female teen feels when someone says she throws “like a girl”, the actress responds by characterizing women as “strong” even though the colloquialism portrays femininity as “weak” (Always, 2014). However, in doing so, she undermines the commercial’s attempt to rock the gender binary by enforcing a distinction between men and women to begin with. She doesn’t say that people are strong, but that women are strong. In doing so, her language alone separates her kind of woman, a dress-wearing, makeup-using, cis-gendered female from the infinite other genders that truly exist.

While language in and of itself restricts our understanding of gender, a complex topic, to a limited, binary perspective, the manner in which it is employed further reduces our insight. Not only does this Always ad encourage the usage of dichotomous phrases such as “girl”, “boy”, “strong”, and “weak”, but it also subconsciously endorses a singular kind of normative woman. In a later clip, a girl wearing an effeminate blue dress and bright red lipstick states that “[she] walks like a girl and wakes up like a girl because [she is] a girl, and that is not something to be ashamed of” (Always, 2014). Through the voice of the blue-dress-actress, Always fights for unity amongst women but instead alienates the myriad of girls (the asexual, transgendered, masculine, etc.) who don’t walk and talk like the heteronormative actress. In campaigning for pride amongst normative females like Erin and her friend in the blue dress, Always actually oppresses the non-normative women that choose to transcend the gender/sexuality binary, for no genderless women were featured amongst the actresses representing the types of girls society is not “ashamed of” (Always, 2015). This line raises the controversial question of whether or not girls who break the heteronormative mold in fact do have something to be ashamed of, for they don’t dress or express themselves exactly as the Always spokes-girls do. Similar to the way in which the Victorian’s obsession with talking about and medicalizing of sex resulted in the production of sex, men, and women as subjects, this commercial engenders a subcategory of women within the female realm: the ideal woman (Foucault, 1979). Everyone else simply does not fit the mold and is treated as such.

While Always attempts to reclaim the colloquialism “like a girl” and reshape it to express a woman’s power and equality to her male counterparts, the company solely fights on behalf of the heteronormative female population, resulting in a very limited pursuit of girl power that subjectifies many non-binary women through the dissemination and internalization of the #likagirl campaign. When asked once more how to run “like a girl”, an African American actress with straightened hair, winged eyeliner, and highwaisted jeans explains she will “run like herself”, implying that she, a cisgender, heteronormative female, represents all girls (Always, 2015). Clearly this poses a problem for Always’ mission, for it suggests that an acceptable woman is one who conforms absurd beauty standards to satiate the male gaze that has an ever-present hold on female lives. As Always encourages females to pursue heteronormative behaviors, girls and women across the nation will internalize these values (the dresses, makeup, and curled hair) and succumb to a Foucault-dian productive power that prevents them from rising up against the rigid gender symbols forced upon them by our patriarchal society (Foucault, 1997). This sort of “productivity” is more oppressive than it is beneficial. Instead of proposing the explosion of the binary altogether and the reassessment of what it really means to be a girl—whether you are heterosexual or genderless—#likeagirl subconsciously suggests that only heterosexual, cisgender women should explore their inner power within the boundaries of the beauty/behavioral standards that our unyielding society is already accustomed to. How can humankind expect to move past the binary if it only recognizes one kind of woman—the type that wears form-fitting dresses to hug their breasts and show off their traditionally feminine sex characteristics?

Language has evolved since the dawn of time into an essential aspect of human relations necessary to converse, empathize, and understand one another. However, in the search for understanding we have limited ourselves by constructing rigid definitions for each word in our lexicon. Terms such as “boy” and “girl” meant to simplify and explain society subject it to a binary perspective with little wiggle room to explore the possibilities of a more abstract gender sphere. While Always pursued a female-empowering, binary-exploding campaign with its #likeagirl commercial, the language spoken throughout the advertisement (weak/strong, self-conscious/confident, boy/girl) not only encourages black and white binaries,  but also pits women against each other, as heteronormative, dress-wearing females are equated with “winning” while genderqueer women are not represented (Always, 2015) . While #likagirl successfully empowers heterosexual, cisgender females to embrace confidence and self-assurance through the use of heteronormative actresses wearing excessive makeup and traditional female sex symbols such as dresses and bright pink colors, it fails to empower all women. To take this campaign to the next level and fight for equality amongst all females and males, genderqueer women need a voice alongside their heteronormative counterparts. Redefining #likagirl as a more fluid, concept including feminine and masculine women alike will open the doors to exploding the gender binary and, ultimately, achieving a genderless society where #likaperson frames public discourse.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiL-v_G2ZrPAhVm2oMKHS8hADwQyCkIIDAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DXjJQBjWYDTs&usg=AFQjCNHXZLObKbGPG0DNeC8iHIsvRknCEw

Works Cited

Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000a). Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality (Revised ed. edition). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000b). The Five Sexes, Revisited. The Sciences, 40(4), 18–23. http://doi.org/10.1002/j.2326-1951.2000.tb03504.x

Foucault, M. (2012). The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

 

 

Philosotoddler Questions Gender Stereotypes

Posted on by Former Student

“Do I wear blue because I’m a boy, or am I a boy because I wear blue?” asks a perplexed young toddler, dubbed the “philosotoddler,” in a meme on a Buzzfeed Pinterest post.  A seemingly simple question that, once pondered, actually conjures up all sorts of questions, conjectures, and arguments in today’s gender culture.  The post, originally intended to be nothing more than a joke about the confusing life of a toddler, has no philosophical meaning when looked at in its original context by an average viewer.  The intended audience for this post is the modern internet-user, in particular a Pinterest user, which means it is likely aimed more at younger audiences, especially teens and such who are frequently on Pinterest.  Because the post was originally meant to be simple entertainment, many people have surely seen this meme and have thought nothing of it.  Most peple who see this post have likely grown up in the heteronormative, gender stereotype-enforcing culture in which we live today, therefore they did not read deeper into the meaning of the picture and merely laughed at the “philosotoddler’s” deep inquiries about life.  However, when the post is viewed through the probing lens of gender and sexuality, the reader can truly realize a much deeper meaning hidden between the lines.

This perspective first reveals that, by merely making the assumption that blue is masculine, the post abides by the heteronormative trends that have consumed society for hundreds of years.  The meme addresses the role of gender stereotypes and the idea that certain qualities or accessories are so associated with a certain gender that they are seen as identifiers of that gender.  For example, a baby wearing blue is typically assumed to be a boy.  He is a boy because he has male genitalia, and he is expected to eventually exhibit the qualities that are typically seen as being masculine.  This progression is the logic most people use in society even today, because these are the ideas of heteronormativity.  The baby has already been assigned the gender “male” because of his biological sex.  Almost automatically, the baby, not even old enough to speak or express his/her own identity, already has expectations to fill and assumptions to meet because of gender stereotypes.  These concepts were not part of the original poster’s intentions in discerning meaning from the post, but these topics, heteronormativity and gender stereotypes, are the main focus of this meme when analyzed through the lens of gender and sexuality.

Looking at the original post makes it clear that Buzzfeed originally posted the meme as a joke; along with this meme, there are many others with the same picture, but with different captions: “How did she turn the spoon into an airplane?”  “How can you really know something if you haven’t put it in your mouth?”  The point of the other memes is merely to joke about the “deep questions” of being a toddler, yet this meme in particular means much more than that, and many Pinterest users have noticed this idea.  For example, another user pinned the meme, stating, “It’s a good question to ask.  Gender stereotypes are so big for young children.”  Because such basic assumptions are made about gender in this meme, it means much more than Buzzfeed originally intended, and has a greater significance than many of the other amusing memes with the confused toddler.

Looking deeper into the meaning of the post through analysis from the perspective of gender and sexuality, one can find meaning in the use of a baby as the one posing this meaningful question.  The baby has not yet had a chance to understand gender stereotypes, yet he is already being influenced and even defined by them.  The gender norms of society are being forced upon him and shaping his future, already affecting his learning of what gender is and what it means to be a boy.  The normative gender idea of dressing baby boys in blue is already affecting the baby, before he even has a say in what he wants. Because of the color blue, the baby already has expectations to be masculine and to fulfill the role of a boy in society.  Associations and assumptions such as these will only continue to happen and expand as he grows and begins to understand more about life.  Blue is a boy’s color.  Trucks and cars are toys boys play with.  Boys are tough and masculine.  It all begins with the color blue.

This tendency to enforce gender stereotypes also has a connection with following the heteronormative ideals of society.  For example, teaching young boys that they should be masculine goes along with the idea that they are not feminine.  Being feminine is for girls, and so is wearing pink, and being emotional and fragile.  Because of heteronormativity, one assumes that this boy, who will grow up to be masculine, will grow to like girls.  The baby is put in a categorical gender at a young age, and this gender gives him a natural, expected role in life.  He will follow the idea that girls have a feminine, even subordinate role in comparison to men, and he will grow up surrounded by the idea that romantic relations are most fitting for those of opposite sexes.  All of these assumptions and expectations are related to the heteronormative culture that begins at such a young age that it can affect the shaping of one’s future.

In conclusion, although this Pinterest meme was not originally intended to demonstrate such meaningful and controversial topics such as gender roles and heteronormativity, many users were able to see a deeper meaning in the post.  There is irony in the fact that the “philosotoddler,” meant to be nothing more than a joke, actually did end up posing more of a philosophical question about normative gender roles in today’s culture.  The meme can be seen as an implementation of our tendency to assume the roles of gender in society, and to make assumptions based on gender that cause expectations to be held throughout life.  Maybe a better question for the toddler to ask would be when will we stop adhering to gender roles and heteronormativity and allow kids to discover their own roles in life instead of having them assigned at birth?

Original Buzzfeed post: https://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoore/the-philosotoddler-meme?utm_term=.mkMeWBl2l#.epMbEklKl

Post from user about gender roles: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/450360031460785367/