Ellen Degeneres once asked, “Do we have to know who’s gay and who’s straight? Can’t we just love everybody and judge them by the car they drive?” Apparently not. Earlier this year, Infiniti released an ad drawing a parallel between the process of coming out, often one that denotes pain and societal rejection, and choosing a different luxury car model. The ad, titled “Legacy” opens with a young man pulling up to the driveway of his elaborate childhood home, taking a deep breath as he anxiously prepares to meet his father. We see the man with his arms crossed, reminiscing over pictures of himself and his father, while dramatic music filled with regret looms in the background.  When his father, a serious, conservative looking older man joins him in the living room, the young man takes one final glance at a picture of the two of them at his graduation and confesses, “look, this isn’t easy for me either.” Stammering, he continues, “I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but it just feels right,” leaving readers anticipating for the young man to come out. Immediately the scene intercuts to the young man racing down the highway in an Infiniti, and we learn that “it” actually refers to his decision to pursue one luxury car instead of another. Panning back to the living room the disapproving father remarks, “This isn’t how we raised you.” The young man pleads with his father, asking him “Didn’t you ever want to try it,” posing a dangerous double entendre. Cutting him off, the father declares “enough.” In their final interactions, the young man pleads, “you must have known I was a little different.” Having the last word, the father remarks, “this isn’t how we raised you.” The final scene of the ad shows the young man racing off in his sports car, with a message from Infiniti encouraging viewers to “start your own legacy.”

However, this pseudo-coming out narrative is problematic for many reasons. For instance, the experience of coming out isn’t marked by the privilege of driving a sports car. Despite the disapproval of his father, the young man can drive off in his sports car and “start his own legacy.” Unfortunately, for many LGBTQ+ individuals, the legacy of coming out results in homeless youth, countless suicides, and overall societal rejection. The reality is that individuals who do not confine to heterosexuality suffer from socio-economic injustices, and constructing an ad that commercializes homosexual identities is deeply, morally troubling. Encouraging viewers to “create their own legacy” reveals an assumption underlying the ad’s creation that being gay is analogous to a break in tradition. The luxurious Infiniti provides an escape for the young man, signifying his privilege in remaining unaffected socio-economic and cultural degradation. This proves to be extremely disrespectful to countless LGBTQ+ individuals who encounter reduced job prospects or remain impoverished after being shunned by their family; for these individuals, purchasing a luxury car is not an option. Gay and transgender workers are increasingly subjected to high rates of discrimination regarding hiring, firing, and wages, according to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law.  The Williams Institute found that gay and bisexual men are positioned to earn ten to thirty-two percent less than their heterosexual male counterparts. As a result of increased workforce discrimination, a gay and transgender pay gap transcends the work place, further rendering the privileged portrayal of homosexuality far-fetched from reality. Likening the experience of coming out to the decision to forgo a luxury car not only posits sexuality as a choice, but also associates the intolerance facing individuals who fall outside heterosexuality with privilege.

Additionally, the ad frames the coming out experience within wealthy White American home also, reveals an underlying assumption of homonormativity undergirding the makers of the ad. Ignoring the intersectionality surrounding homosexuality dismisses the racial dimensions of power and privilege in coming out narratives. To the same extent that heteronormativity has subjugated homosexuality, homonormativity has associated changes in societal perceptions of “coming out,” ignoring the lack of progress experienced by minorities. While the coming out narrative is becoming more frequently associated with societal normalization, the experience of individuals not privileged by race is ignored. In this way, the coming out narrative has evolved to exclude the discriminations faced by those who cross intersectional boundaries. Unfolding the pseudo-coming out narrative in a traditional WASP household, with a brick mansion and manicured lawn, the ad perpetuates notions of homonormativity and diminishes the experiences of minorities whom, belonging to two marginalized groups, face intense discrimination and prejudice. As a result, the stories of minorities, who struggle with racial and homophobic discrimination are made invisible, which perpetuates the failure of society to recognize, validate, and empathize with the experiences of the “not so traditional gay.”

The makers of the add create a double entendre underlying question “Didn’t you ever want to try it” portrays the desire to transcend heteronormative boundaries as tempting and rebellious, which simply is unreflective of the reality of crossing these norms. While the young man is portrayed as rebellious and exciting in his decision to “try it,” identifying as homosexual in a disapproving, unaccepting family is far from attractive. Findings from the Williams institute indicate that 40% of homeless youth served by housing programs and youth shelters identify as LGBTQ+. Consequently, many young LGBTQ+ individuals refrain from expressing, out of fear of isolation and rejection from their families.

If Infiniti was trying to brand itself as an ally of the LGBTQ+ community, it failed. If executives constructed this ad off the notion that society has normalized homosexuality, then they are very wrong.  While the ad makers may see modern America as post gay, the reality facing gender queer and homosexual individuals is one of discrimination, violence, social rejection, and often suicide. Creating a framework that claims to see all forms of sexual orientation equal ignores the social reality that heterosexuality is so embedded in society that queer individuals continue to face overt discrimination. The media is a powerful tool that should be used to dismantle social constructions that discriminate against marginalized groups, and Infiniti could have used their corporate power to construct an ad underscoring the pain of coming out or enlightening viewers on the intersectionality that transcends homosexuality. Instead, the makers of the ad decided to appropriate the coming out narrative in order to increase car sales, which is deeply upsetting in a society where LGBTQ+ individuals are targeted, marginalized, and subjugated daily. Unfortunately, as long as the reality among queer individuals is one of lived discrimination, we can’t pretend to not see or be affected by sexuality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzzMJuFskUQ

The December 2015 issue of Sports Illustrated displayed a beautiful and powerful Serena Williams under the title: Sportsperson of the Year. The cover shows Williams lounging on a golden throne, wearing a form-fitting black bodysuit and black high heels. And according to SI’s twitter, “the cover was Serena’s idea, to express her own ideal of femininity, strength and power.”[1] And yet, controversy soon followed, regarding both the magazine’s cover and the fact she won this award in the first place. Such debates highlight both the sexism and racism that Serena Williams encounters, and the intersectionality of those encounters.

Soon after this issue’s release, the sexist comments began. Many said that it was too sexy, which is somewhat ironic considering that Sports Illustrated annually publishes their Swimsuit Issue, which shows models wearing far less. But this is far from Williams’ first experience with body shaming. Just earlier this year, she became the target of body shaming, especially through social media, where she was commonly called things like ‘manly.’

This focus on and policing of female bodies is all too common for female athletes. Women are pressured to not only be successful athletes, by being strong and powerful, but also to maintain a feminine physique—an almost impossible balance. When has a successful male athlete been criticized for looking strong and powerful? Women on the other hand, regardless of their personal motivations, are expected to maintain a certain level of femininity. Serena Williams has responded to such commentary with positivity, emphasizing that she loves being a strong, powerful woman. For example, in her Sportsperson of the Year acceptance speech, she said, “I’ve had people look down on me, put me down because I didn’t look like them — I look stronger.”[2]

Such sexist comments about her lack of femininity also distract from her true strength and athletic ability. Even though she is one of the most dominant tennis players ever seen, “she has scores of detractors who will focus on what her body looks like, find fault with her domineering demeanor on the court or attack the grunts she makes as she pounds out unreturnable serves at 120 mph.”[3]  She is again expected to maintain a certain level of femininity–even while on the court.

But a Huffington Post article delved deeper into the conversation about the body shaming of Serena Williams. This writer claims that when she “has been described by online commenters and journalists alike as a ‘gorilla,’ ‘manly’ and as ‘savage’,” its really about race.[4] How we discuss Serena Williams’ body and her as an athlete illustrates “a kind of dehumanization specific to black women,” and the intersectionality of her experience. [5] The fact of the matter is, while body policing happens to almost all female athletes, it is never the same as the policing of black female athletes. The writer explains that “black women — world-class athletes or otherwise — find themselves continuously othered and compared to white women, no matter what they do or how they look.”[6]

Williams herself has commented on racism that she has experienced. Previously, she has said that she is “in a sport that wasn’t really meant for black people.”[7] In her Sportsperson of the Year acceptance speech, she says, “I’ve had people look past me because of the color of my skin.”[8] And she then goes on  to mention the naysayers she has experienced along the way, saying “I’ve had critics say I [would] never win another Grand Slam when I was only at number seven — and here I stand today with 21 Grand Slam titles, and I’m still going.”[9] Drop the mic.

But generally speaking, all of the controversy surrounding both the Sports Illustrated cover and the Sports Illustrated award seems especially ridiculous when one considers the rarity of someone like Serena Williams receiving both. First, it has been 30 years since a woman has been recognized solo—Mary Decker won the award in 1983. Women have only been recognized a total of ten times, only to share the award with others. The most recent example of this being in 2011, when Pat Summit won the award only to share it with Duke men’s basketball coach Mike Kryzyzewski. Second, Williams is only one of a handful of nonwhite recipients of the award. Serena Williams is the first ever black woman to win the award solo. And yet, no matter how much she deserved the award, some still would have rather seen a horse win the Sportsperson of the Year award than a powerful and talented black woman.

This Sports Illustrated cover seems to be a moment of Serena Williams taking back all of these conversations, creating an image “to express her own ideal of femininity, strength, and power.”[10] Through it, she creates her own definitions, which unmistakably contrast all of the negative commentary that surrounds her. It sends a clear message that a black woman can be both sexy and powerful. And Shana Renee, an ESPN writer, gets it right when she calls this a “boss move.”[11]

https://twitter.com/SInow/status/676703283965227008/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[1]https://twitter.com/SInow/status/676703283965227008/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[2]Spies-Gans, Juliet. “Serena Williams Takes On Body-Shaming Haters In Powerful Speech.” The Huffington Post. Last modified December 16, 2015. Accessed February 10, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/serena-williams-sportsperson-year-ceremony-speech_us_56717235e4b0dfd4bcbffcbf.

[3]Renee, Shana. “The Power Of Serena Williams’ Sports Illustrated Cover.” espn.go.com. Last modified December 16, 2015. Accessed February 10, 2016. http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/14377269/the-power-serena-williams-sports-illustrated-cover.

[4]Blay, Zeba. “When We Attack Serena Williams’ Body, It’s Really About Her Blackness.”The Huffington Post. Last modified July 13, 2015. Accessed February 10, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/serena-williams-policing-of-black-bodies_us_55a3bef4e4b0a47ac15ccc00?utm_hp_ref=black-voices.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] “The Power of Serena Williams’ Sports Illustrated Cover.”

[8] “Serena Williams Takes on Body-Shaming Haters In Powerful Speech.”

[9] Ibid.

[10]https://twitter.com/SInow/status/676703283965227008/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[11] “The Power of Serena Williams’ Sports Illustrated Cover.”

This video clip from the show “Two Broke Girls” displays an aspect of the relationship between title character, Kat Dennings and her boss, Han Lee, the owner of the restaurant that she works at. Han is often the subject of jokes due to his height, effeminate characteristics (despite his declaration to heterosexuality), and little knowledge of American culture. His character, as shown in this clip, exemplifies the media’s negative portrayal of Asian means emasculated, sexually perverse and subjected by the white (men and women) gaze.

In this comedy, Han, the restaurant owner, is a short man that Kat, the main character, is trying to convince to get a cat. She harasses (though in a funny way, so there’s nothing frightening about the act) him by slapping him gently on the behind and repeating, “kitty.” He rises up and asks “Why did I like that so much?” with desperation and innocence.

“I don’t know. Something with boobs was touching you?” Kat responds.

Han admits that the only person “with boobs” who touched him is his mother, showing his lack of sex life. Shown as unattractive, hopeless and ignorant, Han is a sexually deprived character. His lack of sex life is the punch line of every joke. Later, when he slaps Kat on the behind, mimicking her earlier actions, the laugh track is louder and longer because Han couldn’t possibly be sexually intimidating. Kat turns around with a dead-pan face, and say that he not only will not do that again, but that she owns the restaurant. She exerts her powers and influence over Han for violating her, although she doesn’t take this violation seriously.

America has a long history of emasculating Asian men and reducing them sexually and racially. The Page Act of 1875 was the first of the long list of restrictive immigrant laws that prevented the entrance of foreigners who were considered “undesirable.” At the time of the law, many Asian men came to the United States to work on the railroads during the California Gold Rush. The Page Act, however, forbade women who worked as prostitutes, but due to bias in the system, practically excluded all women. These Asian men lived in the early Chinatowns that consisted completely of bachelors. Sexually deprived, these Asian men were also confined to feminized jobs in America such as laundry workers and restaurant workers. Han, fulfilling America’s expectations of him, not only doesn’t have a sex life, but also serves as a restaurant-owner.

 

This scene does more than just formulate Han’s sexuality. It also informs us of his racial identity that reinforces his emasculation. Sexual and racial differences cannot be interpreted in isolation. In Racial Castration, David Eng observes “masculinity in Asian American literary and cultural productions with psychoanalytic, feminist, queer, postcolonial and critical race theories” (2). Through observing literature through interdisciplinary studies as listed above, Eng argues for the “impossibility of thinking racism and sexism as separate discourses or distinct spheres of analysis” (2). The word “Oriental” signified “feminine – weak, delicate, poor” in contrast to the West as “masculine – big guns, big industry, big money” (1). Given this history of cultural imagination rooted in sexuality, the Asian American male subjectivity has always been formulated within both racial and sexual contexts. Han not only is a sexually deprived human being, but also a stereotypical racial figure. His ignorance of American culture, dedicated work ethic, lack of originality and status as restaurant owner are qualities that perpetuate Asian stereotypes and white supremacy. Along with the physical characteristics of unattractive shortness, Han is a formulated narrative of the Asian male as emasculated, sexually inappropriate and ignorant of his environment. Kat, a lower class white woman, exerts her power over Han, showing that he lacks any kind of social power. In other words, white feminism trumps Asian men who do not exhibit masculine features.

When Han suggests that he likes being hit on the behind, he suggests an inclination to BDSM, suggesting although the Asian man is suppressed, he also has a hint of sexually perversity. This links directly with his racialized image. Eng cites Freud’s Totem and Taboo that outlines that relationship between “primitive” sexual acts and “civilized” acts (6). The figure of the “primitive” is a dark-skinned savage that contrast with the “civilized” European man who is the “primitive man’s unrealized psychic potential” (Eng 7). The “primitive” man can’t progress psychically or socially, having fallen outside the “chain of psychic evolution” (Eng 7). Similarly, Han is not developed socially due to his ignorance and his constant lack of American cultural knowledge equates to his permanent role as the ignorant fool. Furthermore, Freud sees sexual impropriety as a mark of primitively. He comments that the sexual life of the primitive result from their lack of restriction, resulting in a “heightened sexual instinct” (Eng 8). Freud’s racial narrative shows his “convergence of sexuality and race” that enters the center of psychoanalysis (Eng 10). While Han exhibits his sexual repression as a socially and romantically unwanted Asian man, he also has an instinct for the kinky sex acts.

As “Two Broke Girls” rose to fame as being a funny and feminist comedy, certain aspects of it still perpetuate unhealthy sexual characters that reinforce racial stereotypes at the expense of Asian men.

 

Works Cited:

“Two Broke Girls — Kitty Spanking Han!” Youtube Web. from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGb48ZPM9U

Eng, David. Racial Castration. Durham: Duke University Press, 2001. Print.

“Page Act of 1875.” Wikipedia. Web. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Act_of_1875

As someone who watches a lot of sports, I have seen more than my fair share of advertisements targeted at promoting a certain, idealized version of manhood and masculinity. Whether it be for “manly” forms of alcohol such as beer or hard liquor—occasionally directly opposed to “softer,” more flavorful, “girly” drinks, or for a car that’s supposed to represent the real American man, there is a lot of gendered advertising in this country. Because I spend so much of my time watching stations such as ESPN, MLB Network, NBA TV, or live games on other channels, I get constantly bombarded with ads from companies who are well aware of the intersection between the viewers of that channel, and those who may be swayed to buy their product. At the same time, I feel that sometimes their target audience may not be me, who as a consumer, pays more attention to how issues of race, class, gender, sexuality, etc. appear more than the average person. The demographic that they are looking for is the group of people who are impressionable enough to be swayed by the false reality presented in these commercials, rather than shake their heads at it, as I tend to do.

One of the most common form of ads that have stood out to me has been ads centered around how a person smells. Whether it be for body wash, body spray, deodorant, or soap, ideas of masculinity and femininity find themselves expressed in these ads in sometimes very subtle, and other times incredibly explicit ways. Obviously these products are important for general health and grooming, but the way that they are portrayed can range from very normal to extremely problematic.

Personally, I use body spray, because it does work well. Depending on the situation, it makes me smell better, which improves my self-confidence as well as attractiveness. At the same time, it by itself does not result in me becoming immediately irresistible, as the commercials tend to suggest. In one particularly ridiculous ad, a dumpster diver discovers AXE in the trash and sprays it on. Meanwhile, a woman in heels and a shirt that shows a good amount of cleavage hops out of her sports car, and is heading towards a biker with a perfect five o’clock shadow that she spots across the parking lot. As soon as the disheveled dumpster diver sprays himself with AXE, she stops dead in her tracks, and tries to figure out where the scent is coming from. Once she realizes the source, she immediately aborts her mission to pounce on a handsome biker, and instead changes course and turns to face the dumpster diver. After having a conniption, she finally advanced towards her new target, and the two started going at it.

In no uncertain terms, AXE is trying to say that no matter how you look, or your lifestyle—further reinforcing the idea that certain features are objectively more attractive than others—this body spray will turn you into a girl magnet. Aside from the obvious falsehood of that statement, there is a lot of heteronormativity embedded in this line of commercials. Throughout the many commercials throughout the years for AXE, Old Spice, the infamous Bod man fragrance and other odor-related products for men, the man in question is always attracting girls. This goes back to the idea of heterosexuality as the normal way, which Katz talks about in “The Invention of Heterosexuality.” By going through the history of how the perception of sexuality changed over time, from sex being used solely for reproductive purposes, to it being seen as pleasurable, while simultaneously affirming that the most acceptable way to view sex was between a man and a woman, Katz gives context to the society of heteronormativity that we currently live in. In these body odor-centric advertisements, there is always a chiseled, perfect looking man who is able to attract any girl he sees thanks to his scent. It’s always a girl, and it always follows the common idea that the males are the conquerors in sexual situations, which is an important factor in heteronormativity. Sexual encounters between men and women are generally seen as victories for the man, which is definitely supported by these ads. The general lack of reciprocation on the part of the man, as they prefer to sit back and enjoy their prize, just as the dumpster diver did in the above ad.

Traditionally, AXE body spray has featured some of the more problematic advertisements of any company in America, and it seems that they have become a lot more self aware—at least, for the purposes of this particular TV spot. They showed men with different fashion senses, different gender expressions—as exhibited by the man dancing in heels while scantily clad, displaying a less traditionally masculine version of manhood—lots of creativity and openness, which is a far cry from the rigid men that usually appear in these ads, and finally and most obviously, black people—black men and one black woman. The normal commercials focused on the most privileged groups: white, cisgendered, heterosexual males, but this one was supposed to be different.  Rather than continuing the common progression of an AXE commercial, where an already traditionally very attractive white man instantly becomes entirely irresistible to women after a couple of sprays, the company moves away from that theme, and in fact, tries to attack the idea of the perfect male. The most important part of that sentence is, they tried. Ultimately, however, they failed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzTSE6kcLwY

I don’t think that this plan was successful on their part, because even though at first glance, it may appear as though they are going against some of the more ridiculous things to appear in their past commercials, and not implicitly policing body type, nor using female sexuality to drive interest in, they are still promoting heteronormativity, and simply don’t do enough work within the commercial to counteract their long history of problems in recent ads. The focus of the ad is still a man trying to impress a woman, despite all the other stuff that filled the bulk of the commercial. Even in that space, there was still a lot of the classic idea man trying to impress a woman by showing off his creativity and adventurousness. At its heart, it’s still an unnecessarily gendered, masculinized, and sexualized product that has almost no grounding in reality. It will take a lot more than just one ad, even though it does show off different races and gender expressions than usual, to undo previous ads. The fact that it stuck out to me so greatly that this was the first time that I had seen a minority in one of these commercials, or any version of humanity from a male that didn’t involve standing there and accepting all the women that inevitably came to him, speaks volumes.

In 1980, the feminist essayist Adrienne Rich introduced to feminist theory the concept of compulsory heterosexuality or “the assumption…that women are ‘innately sexually oriented’ toward men” (Rich 632). The idea of compulsory heterosexuality acted as a precursor to what we know today as heteronormativity and, by extension, homonormativity. Stripped of its complexities, heteronormativity is compulsory heterosexuality but in an expanded form and made applicable to both men and women. Heteronormativity is “a world view that promotes heterosexuality as the normal or preferred sexual orientation” (Definition). While compulsory heterosexuality assumes heterosexuality to be the norm for women, heteronormativity assumes heterosexuality to be the norm for everyone. Heteronormativity represents a hierarchy between sexualities, homonormativity represents a hierarchy within sexualities. For example, consider the representatives of the LBGTQ community we see in the today’s media such as the gay couple featured in the television show Modern Family or the popular celebrity Neil Patrick Harris: in both of these instances (and the majority of those present in popular culture) the diversity of the non-heterosexual community is being marginalized and grossly misrepresented to be only one race, gender representation, and class of citizen. Anne Balay,the author of Steel Closets, puts it best when she states, “we [queers in America] are often portrayed as white, wealthy, educated, urban, and male” (Balay 6) and that “American culture tends to assume that queers are middle-class, white, and educated” (Balay 1).  The representatives we see in the media are what Richard Friedman, the author of Male Homosexuality: A Contemporary Psychoanalytic Perspective, paints as “heathy homosexuals” that is, gay men who fall into society’s privileged denominations and do not greatly defy heterosexual standards in their appearances. Homonormativity is reinforced by these problems of privilege including white privilege, racism, sexism (the reinforcing of traditional gender roles), cissexism, and any other system of segregation. In most cases, the people of color, the trans* people, the lower class members of the community are not being represented in today’s media while homo and heteronormative philosophies are being overly represented. In this post I will demonstrate this using a Weetabix commercial and a Campbell’s soup commercial: while the Weetabix ad reinforces heteronormativity through its perpetuation of traditional masculinity and the gender binary, the Campbell’s soup ad reinforces homonormativity through its propagation of the homosexual hierarchy.

The British breakfast cereal commercial Weetabix entitled “Big Day” features a white, middle class “traditional” family, the members of whom compete to prove that their upcoming day is the most challenging. Hegemonic masculinity or the “expected male role” is reinforced through the son’s account of his day. He begins by describing his paper route which, onscreen features many perils including a lunging dog: this image works to reinforce traditional masculinity in two ways. One, it shows that it is the male’s role to be the breadwinner. Even though he is just a boy it is his job -as a male- to earn money and support himself and, eventually, his family. Furthermore, this also reinforces the typical male gender role in that it shows that the male must be a hero: it is up to the men, in our society, to take the risks and be the protectors. To see the son facing the barking dog reinforces for the viewer this male compulsory heroism. This is furthered when the son describes his soccer match and is pictured facing off against someone he describes as “twice my size.” The image we see is a huge soccer player towering over the son in an almost David and Goliath-esque manner. The son’s opponent is the perfect representation of today’s ideal masculinity and, thus, it is assumed, as a result of our concept of traditional masculinity, that the son will compromise his own masculinity (i.e. he will be less of a man) if he doesn’t challenge the player and “prove” himself.

Traditional masculinity is perpetuated on a greater scale when the son discloses that he has to “nervously [chat] up girls that are clearly way out of [his] league.” This aids in promoting the idea that it is up to the male to take the risks and also that nervousness is an integral part of the heterosexual social script. It furthers the idea that there exists a hierarchy of attractiveness that it is the obligation of the man to navigate.  Through this “navigation” normalcy and heterosexuality are equated. The nonchalance with which the son states that has an obligation to “chat up” these girls indicates an acceptance or resignation to the binary constraints of society: it is normal for him to chat up girls because that is what boys are supposed to do. In a somewhat Freudian idea, the son has no choice but to try to imitate his father and strive for a future heterosexual relationship of which the first step is “chatting up girls.”

Not only does the Weetabix advertisement, and by extension the media, reinforce the idea of heterosexuality as the norm but, it also propagates the idea of the “elite” heterosexual and, thus, maintains the traditional gender binary. In the “ideal” heterosexual relationship, the man is the provider and the woman’s role is in the home. As Luisa Capetillo puts it “the true mother of a family must know how to do it all” (Capetillo 7) and, the mother in the Weetabix commercial doesn’t disappoint. Thirty-four seconds into the commercial she launches into a description of how she must “do all [the] washing, all [the] shopping, tidy the clothes [her family] steps over” all the while tending to the baby and entertaining her mother-in-law. Meanwhile, the father is portrayed as the breadwinner: we see him attending meetings and navigating the complexities of the corporate world. He even describes spending “eight hours in a series of team building exercises” and, when these exercises are shown, every single participant is male. Similarly, the father’s boss (the symbol of status) is shown to be a white man. The absence of women in the father’s workplace coupled with the mother’s domesticity affirms traditional gender roles and the idea that the woman’s place is in the home and the man’s is in the office.

While not a facet of heteronormativity per se, it is important to note that the perpetuation of the elitist heterosexuality is also present in the Weetabix commercial through its lack of diversity. Societally, it has been perpetuated that being white elevates your standing. In the shots shown of the son’s school (we see him in the hallway, classroom, and on the soccer field) there is no diversity: every student is white. Similarly, there is one only African American man pictured in the many shots of the father’s workplace and the boss, who represents the elite members of our society, is also white. This presence of such traditionalist anglocentric ideals in today’s media furthers the existence of hierarchies within sexualities and, thus, normalizes and validates homo and heteronormativity.

So, if the issue is that the media is perpetuating heteronormativity and the characteristics of “elite heterosexuality” is the solution simply to create more media featuring individuals who identify as something other than heterosexual? If only it were that easy. There are pieces of media featuring members of the LBGTQ community however, homosexuality in the media is marginalized.

The recent Campbell’s soup commercial featuring a male gay couple greatly subscribes to this hierarchy within homosexuality and, thus, perpetuates and normalizes homonormativity.   The advertisement features two gay men and their adopted son Cooper. Both men present as cis males, sporting clothing that is unambiguously masculine and average. There is no question of their gender and their clothing is very mild with cool tones that seem to avoid any flamboyance or even personality. Their understated masculinity is further emphasized by the fact that they are advertising Star Wars soup and thus quote Star Wars throughout the advertisement, the connotations of which are very masculine (the Star Wars films feature action, violence, and heroism, all traits that are traditionally associated with masculinity). Another aspect that often intersects with homonormativity is white privilege or the fact that the majority of the time queers, if they are even represented in the media, are white. Subscribing to this, both of the men featured in the commercial are white. Similarly, in the fleeting glances we get of their chic abode and smart dress it is easy to infer that they are, at the very least, middle class with wealth being another facet of homonormativity. There is art (usually a symbol of wealth and status) hanging throughout their home (it is viable in the background at 0:04, 0:17, and 0:23) and their kitchen is spacious, well furnished, and modern –another indication of wealth.

If we consider these two commercials to be even somewhat representative of today’s media, it’s evident that our society is perpetuating homo and heteronormativity by subscribing to and showing all the problems of privilege that reinforce them:  traditional masculinity, the gender binary, white privilege (anglocentrism), and elite homo and heterosexuality. Though one promotes heteronormativity and the other homonormativity it’s interesting to note the similarities between the two commercials, especially when it comes to how they portray the men. The two gay dads in the Campbell’s soup add are remarkably similar to the father in the Weetabix commercial, which demonstrates that just representation alone isn’t enough. Queer representation in the media must be mindful representation and must not perpetuate homonormative ways of thinking if there is any hope of advancing the LBGTQ cause.

Works Cited:

Balay, Anne. Steel Closets: Voices of Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Steelworkers. Print.

Bruhm, Steven, and Natasha Hurley. Curiouser: On the Queerness of Children. Minneapolis: U

of Minnesota, 2004. Print.

Capetillo, Luisa, and Matos Rodríguez Félix V. A Nation of Women: An Early Feminist Speaks

Out: Mi Opinión Sobre Las Libertades, Derechos Y Deberes De La Mujer. Houston, TX: Arte Publico,

2004. Print.

“Definition of Heteronormative in English:.” Heteronormative: Definition of Heteronormative in

Oxford Dictionary (American English) (US). Web. 08 Feb. 2016.

<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/heteronormative>.

Rich, Adrienne. Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. London: 1981. Print.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rZOMY2sOnE

In her discussion on women, Capetillo highlights the gendered pressures that women face. In today’s media many of these gendered roles are fought against, accepted, and joked about. Parks and Recreation, an NBC comedy series, features main character Leslie Knope, who consistently reiterates her feminist stand and fights for what she believes in. In the episode of discussion today, Leslie’s husband, Ben, is running for Representative of Indiana, and Leslie’s position of wife to the candidate brings with it gendered expectations and antifeminist pressures that Leslie has fought to denounce for years.  The episode is entitled “Pie-Mary” because Leslie, along with all the other wives of candidates, is supposed to take part in a pie baking contest.  This assumes not only that all the wives care to or can bake, but that all the candidates are heterosexual males. Specifically in the scenes featuring Ben and Leslie, Capetillo’s back and forth, somewhat sarcastic, arguments of what a woman is expected to be are reflected.

In this episode of Parks and Recreation, Leslie Knope is criticized of shirking her motherly roles by working and being independent, mirroring Capetillo’s argument for the working woman. According to the progressive views of 1910 by Capetillo, “the European woman aspires to public office, to government, to administering towns, without losing her feminine personality, nor her motherly and wifely duties;” however, in the 2015 episode of Parks and Recreation, Leslie is criticized for being a bad mother because of her independence and career and pressured into joining in gendered customs that she does not agree with, showing that maybe not all that much has changed in a century (Capetillo 19). Parks and Recreation hilariously plays off the idea reflected in Capetillo’s work “that women in the public sphere and workplace would lose ground, jeopardizing their home, their family and their children” (19). In the episode Leslie is repeatedly interrogated about her family and whether she actually loves her children simply because she is an independent woman with a career. Leslie is accused of hating her family and thinking that women who love their families are stupid solely because she will not engage in the pie baking activity.

Capetillo draws upon this idea that society expects an unreasonable balance of ideals for the perfect woman, which is reflected in the differing views of various group leaders on Parks and Recreation. Capetillo delivers an exhausting list of what is expected of a woman, wife, and mother (9). By the end of the first few pages, we as readers are mentally and physically drained at thinking about what women had, and still have, to maintain in society.  Women are supposed to consist of multiple different personality traits that are in opposition and are acceptable only at certain times or in certain places or in certain company. And on top of that, the woman must not acknowledge these traits within her so as to seem humble and modest. It seems that everyone except the woman is meant to be happy and benefit from her existence. In Parks and Recreation we get to visibly experience this tug from all ends that Leslie experiences. No matter what she seems to choose, nobody in her society can be content. Every outcome or opinion sparks controversy and more often than not, all parties involved are unhappy. During one part of the show, many different activist and anti-activist groups are on a talk show, and every group has something different to complain about. Either Leslie is being too progressive, or not progressive enough, or simply being a woman with a voice, God help us. Just like with Capetillo’s description of the ideal woman, Leslie is trying to make everyone happy, failing, and in the end she is not happy with herself until she decides to finally speak what she believes in and argues for everyone to simply be their own person.

This episode of Parks and Recreation mainly highlights feminism via issues relating to Leslie Knope, but also interestingly looks at Leslie’s marriage to Ben and how he supports her, which ties directly into Capetillo’s argument for happiness in marriage. Capetillo argues that “true happiness” cannot exist in a relationship where a man has freedom and fulfillment and is uncaring whether his wife is pleased or agrees with his conduct (10). In Parks and Recreation, Ben and Leslie seem to have a happy marriage fostered by commitment and sacrifice on both ends for one another. Their willingness to sacrifice their own successes and feelings for one another allow them to be happy together and to release any resentment they would have had towards one another. In this example of a heterosexual marriage, Parks and Recreation is not satirizing social arguments, but is showing how a relationship can and should work, what the youth of today would call “relationship goals.”

Parks and Recreation makes the episode’s feminist argument so blatant and gendered that the audience has no option but to think the claims are utterly absurd. However, the statements in the episode are close to comments made in society, showing viewers that the show is not that different than how absurd our reality has become. The episode features a male activist group called “The Male Men,” which fights against the recent oppression men have perceivably faced at the hand of women fighting back against patriarchal norms. This part of the episode is supposed to incite laughter, but it also points at the reality that men are fighting back against feminism. There are some men like Ben, that are not fearful of women gaining power, but there are many men who are working to quiet women. The Male Men protest that Leslie is forcing Ben to participate in the “Pie-Mary”, which he actually chose to do himself. She argues that Ben loves to bake and has personalized aprons.  The Male Men spokesperson blames her for interpreting his dress as “asking for it.”  This comment is also absurd and hilarious, but such a common statement in our society, that the show is hinting to the audience that the scripted comedy and our reality might not be too different when we take a closer look.

Parks and Recreation reinforces that feminism is not about men versus women. Feminism is about equality, and Ben’s support of Leslie and his own feminist views reiterate to the audience that feminism is a fight we can all take part in. When she came to class last week, Anne Balay mentioned the importance of listening to one another. She said we need to accept that people have different views and that the key to living humanely and to understanding is simply to listen. Parks and Recreation shows that failing to listen gets people nowhere; no one is happy and no one “wins.”

 

Works Cited

Capetillo, Luisa. A Nation of Women. Houston, TX: Arte Público Press, 2004. Print.

 

**Didn’t know how you wanted us to cite based on the information given on the pdf given.

**Media found/watched via Netflix. Parks and Recreation season 7 episode 9: “Pie-Mary”

Sam Ortega

Is Queerbaiting Real and does it Matter?

In the past ten years there has been an increase of queer characters on television shows. Queer characters are finally receiving stories lines besides the overused the “coming out” narrative or the gay best friend trope. Though despite the increase of queer representation, some television shows today are accused of “queerbaiting.” Queerbaiting is relatively new term that describes the practice of television shows adding homoerotic tension between two characters without any intention of having those characters enter a romantic relationship. There are many articles about queerbaiting and while some articles make queerbaiting out to be a phenomena created by unhappy fans, most television critics agree that show creators seeking more diverse viewers actively encourage it. Queerbaiting is a pretty ingenious marketing ploy since it attracts many LGBTQ+ viewers who seek representation on television while at the same time it avoids alienating homophobic viewers by not actually having queer characters in the show. Television shows that employ queerbaiting whether intentionally or unintentionally ultimately exploit LGBTQ+ viewers.

Some of the most notable examples of queerbaiting are in the television shows Supernatural, Sherlock, Teen Wolf, and Rizzoli & Isles. I chose to focus on the teaser trailer for season 5 of Rizzoli & Isles. In the trailer, the two protagonists, Jane Rizzoli and Maura Isles, walk out together while the voiceover says, “Behind every great woman, is another great woman.” Within the first ten second of the trailer there is already a lesbian inference. As easy as it would be to write off that statement as a message of “girl power,” it is difficult not to see the statement as an innuendo in the context of the video. The thirty-second trailer is comprised of lesbian jokes, lingering looks, and the two women even pretending to be a couple. These actions might not seem significant but they are considering this thirty-second trailer is how the creators of Rizzoli & Isles chose to represent their show. One could say that queerbaiting is simply fans overanalyzing scenes from the show but this example is different since it is trailer, not a scene where two same sex characters looked at each other for a second too long. Trailers in general are used for promotional purposes, so if the creators of Rizzoli & Isles are choosing to promote their show with unmistakable lesbian subtext between two canonically heterosexual characters then they are in fact queerbaiting.

In next part of the trailer, both women are in bed while Maura is on her laptop. She says, “All these women think you’re hot” and Jane responds, after looking at the laptop, “Wow. I’d flip for that.” So here we have a canonically heterosexual character say that she would “flip” or change sexualities for the woman she saw on the computer screen. While this is a seemingly harmless comment, the casual reference to “flipping” sexualities plays into the “no homo” trope. The snippets of dialogue throughout the whole trailer are also unrelated to the plot of the show, which is about the crime solving team of Rizzoli, the detective and Isles, the medical examiner yet all the trailer has shown are lesbian jokes and inferences. The voiceover tells the viewer that “Every Tuesday is ladies night” while Maura and Jane sit at a restaurant and Maura deters a man interested in Jane by saying, “She’s a lesbian.” The focus on the women’s relationship and how they are perceived as a lesbian couple builds up that tension that the fans of the show are pointing out. The back-to-back lesbian references cannot possibly be labeled as fans reading too much into things. The show creators are deliberately making a statement with this trailer, however the statement is not a positive one for LGBTQ+ representation. The trailer turns the lesbian identity into a joke and an act considering the creators have gone to great lengths to assure the protagonists heterosexuality. Treating the idea of being a lesbian as a joke diminishes the struggles that many queer people have faced to live openly.

Another important part of the trailer is when Jane and Maura actually pretend to be a couple. They cuddle up to one another and Jane says, “Yes, we are still together,” which implies that this is an act that they’ve done before. The speculation that Maura and Jane are lesbians is ultimately used for laughs.

Television shows thrive on the “will they/won’t they” tension between romantically inclined characters but shows like Rizzoli & Isles continue to emphasize the “will they” tension with no hope of resolution, “baiting” viewers into becoming invested in the pairing. If one of the main characters were a man the audience would immediately assume that the man and the woman were romantically interested in each other and in fandom terms “endgame.” Imagine the trailer with Seeley Booth and Temperance Brennan from Bones instead. Booth and Brennan doing the same actions that Rizzoli and Isles did in the trailer would be considered romantic. Due to the still prevalent “compulsory heterosexuality” in our society the mind set of most people is that a person is straight until proven gay. In 1980 Adrienne Rich wrote, “heterosexuality is presumed as a sexual preference of most women, either implicitly or explicitly” in her article, which sought to underline the factors that make heterosexuality the norm and bring forth more scholarship on the lesbian experience. Even though Rich was writing thirty years ago her article is still relevant today. There is trope on many television shows to have the two protagonists as romantic interests (Bones, Castle, The Mentalist, etc.) but once these protagonists are same sex, then romance is simply off the table.

While queerbaiting might seem like a small problem in the scope of queer representation in the media, it is significant since so much of 21st century culture depends on what people are posting on social media. The debate of queerbaiting began on social media sites like Tumblr and Twitter and has developed into an acknowledged problem in the television industry. Queerbaiting makes queer identities out as the punch line of a very unfunny and tired joke. How the media portrays queer identities is very important in the current discourse of sexuality studies considering the overwhelming impact television, movies, and social media have on the shaping of one’s identity. If television shows continue to build romantic/sexual tensions between same sex characters only to ultimately say “no homo,” then they mock queer identities and the inherent dangers that come with being queer even in today’s society.

Rich, Adrienne. “Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence.” Signs5.4 (1980): 631-660.

Hochman, David. “Rizzoli & Isles: True Womance.” TVGuide.com.

Langfelder, Natasia. “Let’s End Queerbaiting in 2016 – AfterEllen.” AfterEllen Lets End Queerbaiting in 2016 Comments.

Ladies Night I Rizzoli & Isles Season 5 I TNT. YouTube. YouTube.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIXfDHHltrE>.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_hWeN249fs

Old Spice’s “Old Spice Man” campaign is troubling for a multitude of reasons. This paper examines the faulty assumptions underlying specifically the “And So it Begins” commercial. As the title suggests, masculinity stereotypes comprise the advertisement’s framework, which intends to make a mockery of stereotypical masculinity but instead further entrenches it. It creates contrast between two celebrity men— Terry Crews and Isaiah Mustafa—but uses Crews as the example of extreme masculinity, thereby implicitly distinguishing Mustafa as a ” normal, masculine man. Mustafa smoothly addresses the audience, alternating between speaking to exclusively men or women, pitching reasons why women celebrate Old Spice and why men should therefore purchase it. Juxtaposed with comical clips of an absurdly hypermasculine Crews shouting, running on water, exhibiting superhuman athleticism, and jumping a motorcycle, everything Mustafa does appears normal, even admirable. Problems inherent in Mustafa’s character and in Crews’ comparison to Mustafa underscore the many faulty assumptions of gender, race, and sexuality used and perpetuated by “And So it Begins.”

Adrienne Rich’s confrontation of “compulsory heterosexuality” in “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” relates well to the advertisement’s primary assumption that all viewers are men seeking women. Rich lambasts public perceptions of heterosexuality as the norm, the only option, even. This assumption comprises the central theme of Old Spice’s advertisement campaign. The advertisement opens with a shirtless, muscular, bearded Mustafa saying “Hello, ladies… May I speak privately to the man in your life?” This implies heterosexuality by assuming a man in every woman’s life, and thereby assuming each woman viewing is both heterosexual and monogamous. The same heterosexuality assumptions are made for all men; Mustafa later instructs “Men! Take your body to nature with Old Spice Timber. It’s what the angel-faced woman in your life deserves.” Mustafa commands men to reconnect their bodies with nature by doing what “[their] angel-faced woman” deserves. Not all women desire men; not all men desire women, not all people even experience sexual desire. This false dichotomy is made all the more destructive through Mustafa’s assertion that nature dictates not only ubiquitous heterosexuality, but also universal sexually-motivated beauty standards owed from one gender to the other. Add to this the purposeful mise-en-scene—a handsome, chiseled, muscular Isaiah Mustafa in nothing but a towel—and the heteronormative implications that all women seek real men like Mustafa, and all men should therefore seek to emulate Mustafa in the name of attracting the opposite sex are cemented in plain sight. Heterosexuality is far from the only assumption propagated by Old Spice, though.

“And So it Begins” also relies heavily upon a binary gender structure to galvanize customer support. Constructed by alternating addresses specifically for men or for women, the advertisement is grounded in gender rigidity and mutual exclusivity of men’s and women’s traits, roles, and purposes. Mustafa first greets “ladies,” then dismisses them, asking “may I speak to the man in your life?” Thus, he acknowledges women, then utterly dismisses them so he can tell men: “Take your body to nature with Old Spice Timber. It’s what the angel-faced woman in your life deserves.” Implicitly, he says Old Spice deodorant is for men’s use and women’s gratification only, that this binary arrangement is natural. When addressing men, Mustafa wears a hat and struts confidently through the jungle, wields an axe overhead, or paddles a canoe. He implies mens’ value rests with physical capabilities, and explicitly suggests proper men “sweep [women] away.” When addressing women, however, he hints that their value lies in physical beauty and economic dependence on men, and speaks within bathroom or jewelry store sets (“I didn’t have to—but I did”). Given the viral and commercial success of Old Spice’s “Old Spice Man” campaign, Riki Wilchin’s statement “America had no interest in tearing down traditional gender roles” perhaps should be amended to the present tense.

Viewers are also likely ignorant of the ways through which masculinity and blackness are linked in public perception. Crews and Mustafa are both black, and both considered quite “manly,” catering to every stereotype of assertiveness, confidence, muscularity, facial masculinity, and heterosexuality. However, although Crew’s freakish physique and aggression parody masculinity and manhood, they contrast with Mustafa’s own hyperbolic masculinity in such a way that Mustafa seems normal, worthy of admiration and emulation. In exploring the variability of gender, Three to Infinity: Beyond Two Genders (2015) questions general misconceptions of LGBTQ+ people as being both white and well-off, a theme also challenged by Dr. Anne Balay in Steel Closets. The documentary relates the story of a non-gendered black person (and partner) who was raised a woman despite being gender-nonconforming from an early age. This person recalled being told as a child not to make “her” black mother’s life, or her own, harder—being black carried enough burdens to make external reflection of personal gender truths. Black bodies are hypersexualized—black men, specifically, are often deemed more masculine than whites. In this commercial, both masculine men are black; no black person or man present is not masculine, and no masculine person is anything other than a man or black.

Operating through such fallacious assumptions of ubiquitous heterosexuality, traditional gender dichotomy, and black masculinity, Old Spice’s “And So it Begins” provides a comic sketch to convince viewers to purchase deodorant. Despite openly mocking some of these assumptions, however, Old Spice nevertheless further ingrains them in public imagination.

 

 

Felicia Zi

GSS 101

Professor Gonzalez

February 8, 2016

Breastfeeding Comic: Censorship of the Female Body

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-breastfeeding-moms-20120705-001-photo.html

---

 

This comic by cartoonist David Horsey was featured in the LA Times a couple years ago and has since been widely used by activists to call attention to the double standard of censorship of female breasts in the media. It questions why people often deem it socially acceptable to have images of half-naked women in lingerie or swimwear exposing their breasts displayed all over shopping malls, but socially unacceptable for a mother to breastfeed her child in public. Society seems to hardly bat an eye at the first scenario, but often expresses discomfort towards the latter. While the obvious differences in censorship between the male and female body are problematic, this comic also points to a deeper underlying issue: society’s view of women’s bodies as inherently sexualized, and the implications of such a view.

In recent years, social media activism such as the “Free the Nipple” movement, with the support of celebrities like Miley Cyrus, has been spreading throughout the Internet to demonstrate the double standards between the censorship of the male and female bodies. Much of this movement initially began in response to the censorship policies of social media like Instagram, which consider the presence of a female nipple as nudity, but freely allow male nipples. Similarly controversial censorship policies involving other female body parts, such as pubic hair, have also been challenged. Interestingly, this idea that certain female body parts are explicit and must be censored is mainly a Western cultural phenomenon, especially an American one. Nudity censorship laws in many European countries are usually more lax, and in some non-Western cultures, women routinely walk around topless, or at least braless, without repercussions.

The cultural sexualization of the female body relates to the concept of social structure, which Barbara Risman discusses in relation to gender in her essay, “Gender as Structure.” Physiologically, female breasts differ from male breasts due to their biological function, but as a culture, we have been socialized to view them primarily as sexual objects. This is perhaps why people tend to accept publicly displayed images of women in Victoria Secret advertisements because the sexualization of women’s bodies is normalized, while arguing that breastfeeding makes people uncomfortable and therefore ought to be done in private. However, these generalizations only pertain to cisgender women. When we bring gender-nonconforming individuals into the picture, things become more complicated. For example, would the bodies of trans women be censored in the same way?

Evidently, society’s censorship of the female body presents an oversimplified perspective that applies primarily to sexualization through the heteronormative male gaze. Nevertheless, this type of “male gaze” permeates through mainstream media in numerous ways that influence societal norms. For instance, in addition to Instagram’s censorship of pictures of mothers breastfeeding, the social media site has also stirred up controversy for removing pictures of post-mastectomy breast cancer survivors. Many activists have blamed the “male gaze” for the clear discrepancy between the types of pictures that are allowed and the types of pictures that are banned on social media when it comes to the female body. Instagram models and celebrities like the Kardashians get away with provocative photos because they are intentionally sexually enticing to straight men, something that has become normalized in our society. The fact that we do not often question why such portrayals have become normalized and simply accept them as conventions also ties back to Adrienne Rich’s concept of compulsory heterosexuality and the biases that come with it.

Furthermore, as previously mentioned, there have also been social media movements challenging the censorship of other female body parts that do not necessarily pertain to the breastfeeding comic, but still speak volumes about the double standard in censorship. For instance, Instagram once again came under fire last year for removing artist Ruki Kaur’s picture of herself lying on a bed, fully and appropriately clothed, with a small period blood stain. She originally posted this in an effort to raise awareness against the stigma of menstruation, but reposted the picture to challenge Instagram’s censorship guidelines. Kaur asked why the “objectification and sexualization” of women is acceptable, but the depiction of something natural that helps “make humankind a possibility” is considered explicit. This example is only the tip of the iceberg of a much larger issue, but it demonstrates how representations of the female body seem to get a pass when they are objectified for male pleasure, but are somehow considered taboo when they show a biological purpose – whether it is menstruation or breastfeeding. Likewise, Horsey’s comic strip illustrates how society’s view of women’s bodies have become so inherently sexualized that when they are taken out of a sexual context, people suddenly become uncomfortable, or even offended.

---

 

Sources:

Rich, Adrienne. “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” Signs 1980: 631-660.

Risman, Barbara. “Gender as Structure.” 1998.

http://moralcommunities.com/censorship-and-gender-inequality/http://www.businessinsider.com/instagram-censored-a-photo-of-woman-on-her-period-2015-3?r=UK&IR=T

http://www.businessinsider.com/instagram-censored-a-photo-of-woman-on-her-period-2015-3?r=UK&IR=T