Inequality Promises That it’s Here to Stay

Posted on February 8, 2016February 11, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

Marin Williams

English singer, songwriter Lily Allen gained acclaim beginning in 2006 with the release of her first album for her outspoken lyrics and frankness in dealing with current issues. Her most recent single “Hard Out Here” released in 2014, is no exception as the song and accompanying music video has been described as a satirical commentary on the objectification of women in modern pop culture. (Michaels) The lyrics of “Hard Out Here” argue that while society claims equal rights between men and women, women continue to face prejudice with regards to beauty, work and sexuality. Elements of the music video support and emphasize the claims made in lyrics yet, other elements complicate the lyrics due to the visual representation of back, Hispanic and Asian female bodies. “Hard Out Here” has been praised by current, prominent, feminists of the day as a “Feminist Anthem” but can it really be that when others claim that the music video degrades women of color?

The music video opens with Allen lying on an operating table surrounded by dominant males; a doctor and her manager. She appears to be under going a cosmetic liposuction like surgery as the two men stand above her. Both the doctor and her manager treat her as an object, discussing her weight gain and how it will affect her image in the music industry, acting as if she isn’t even there.

Manager: “We need more off the stomach and then we’ll start on the legs… Jesus how does somebody let themselves get like this, huh?”

Doctor: “Lack of self discipline I suppose”

Manager: “God, it’s terrifying”

This introduction highlights the section of Allen’s song devoted to the criticism of western stereotypes of female beauty standards where she sings

“You’re not a size six, and you’re not good lookin’,

Well, you better be rich, or be real good at cookin’

You should probably lose some weight

‘Cause we can’t see your bones

You should probably fix your face or you’ll end up on your own”

Allen’s lyrics call out misogynistic beauty standards, claiming that as a woman unless you are attractive or have other admirable qualities, such as wealth or the ability to cook well, you are of no other value to society. This commentary responds to the growing field of evidence that girls and women are constantly presented with advertisements and other forms of media that objectify the female body and portray unrealistic stereotypes. In her documentary Jean Kilbourne reports that 91% of all cosmetic procedures are preformed on women, and that more than two million cosmetic surgery’s, such as breast implants and liposuction, occur every year. (Kilbourne)

The opening lyrics of the song address another prominent issue women face in modern society, the inequalities women face in the work place. Within the first verse of the song Allen asserts that she is hard working, and wants to be respected for her professionalism as she sings,

“You’ll find me in the studio and not in the kitchen

I won’t be bragging ‘bout my cars or talkin’ bout my chains

Don’t need to shake my ass for you cause I’ve got a brain”

Contradictory to traditional feminine standards she won’t be working at home, but rather in a male dominated industry where the majority of male singers find success by talking about their wealth, and female singers find success by objectifying their bodies. Throughout the music video Allen is pictured with her manager who directs her to present herself in sexualized ways such as twerking and deep throating a banana. Despite the assumption that Allen should be in control as the as the singer and songwriter the manager’s intrusion is a physical indication of male dominance in the music industry.

Furthermore, the male manager instructing Allen to twerk and erotically eat a banana draws attention to the inequalities women face in regards to sexuality. The second verse in “Hard Out Here” states “ If I told you about my sex life you’d call me a slut, When boys be talking about their bitches, no one’s making a fuss.” This line refers to the phenomenon where men are glorified and praised for their sexual interactions, while women are slut shamed and made to feel dirty for theirs. Society encourages women to present themselves sexually, wearing revealing clothing and interacting with men in specific ways, but rejects them if they act on sexual impulses, labeling them sluts. In addition to Allen’s actions emphasizing such issues, the representation of the dancers in the video are the most obvious visual indication of the sexual inequality women face. Women are often portrayed in music videos scantily clad, twerking and touching themselves. Intended to be enacted in a satirical manner the women are shown licking their fingers and rubbing their crotches, twerking aggressively, licking random objects, slapping each other’s butts and pouring Champaign down each other’s breasts.

While the satirical notions of the hyper sexualization of the dancer’s can be read, many have noted that the use of solely black, Hispanic and Asian dancers is racist. The use of only minority race women insinuates that these women are of lower value than Allen herself. As she says in the song “don’t need to shake my ass for you, cause I’ve got a brain”, cut to women of minority races shaking their asses. These women are therefore automatically associated with the brainless women Allen mentions earlier in the song. In comparison Allen appears fully clothed throughout the music video and is not shown dancing in the same sexual manners as the other dancers. One blogger writes “The non-white women in Allen’s video act as dehumanized proxies of patriarchy- assumed to have neither brains nor agency.” (Siddiqi) In response to such claims Allen insists that the dancer’s were chosen for their abilities, not because of their skin color and that much of the shoot was improvised by the dancers themselves. None of the dancers have spoken out against the video.

Listening to the song alone “Hard Out Here” can be largely interpreted as a feminist anthem. Allen works to reclaim the word “bitch” as she repeatedly refers to herself using this term and in place of the word women. She calls out the notion that women have broken the glass ceiling and now reside at an equal level as their male counterparts. One of the most blatant lines in the song states “Inequality promises that it’s here to stay, Always trust the injustice cause it’s not going away.” This line in particular captures Allen’s disappointment with the current status of society and is intended as a wake up call for women, something that the lyrics of the song achieve as a whole. Unfortunately, after watching the music video it is hard to believe that the issues which Allen addresses will actually undergo change as the video undermines notions of female solidarity through it’s careless casting of dancers. The visual representation of “Hard Out Here” ignores the intersections of feminism and race. If only there could have been racial diversity represented in the dancers, and more thought had gone into clothing choice the video might have been able to stand next to the lyrics and read as a call for women to band together against the oppression of the patriarchy.

Works Cited

Allen, Lily. Lily Allen- Hard Out Here (Offical Video). Youtube.com. November 12, 2013.

Allen, Lily. “Hard Out Here.” Sheezus. May 2, 2014.

Kilbourne, Jean. Killing Us Softly IV: Advertising Images of Women. 2010.

Michaels, Sean. “Lily Allen Denies Accusations That Hard Out Here Music Video is Racist.” The Guardian. November 14, 2013.

Siddiqi, Ayesha A. “Lily Allen’s Anti-Black Feminism.” Noisy. Novem

Ryanville: Different World, Same Problems

Posted on February 8, 2016February 10, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih4VYnbm6Sw

Hyundai decided to make an aggressive marketing move and release their super bowl commercial a full week in advance. The advertisement depicts an interesting situation: the background music begins with a thumping bass and a sultry R&B vocalist singing, “What a mighty good man.” A pair of women casually cruise through Ryanville, feasting their eyes on gorgeous clones of Ryan Reynolds doing various masculine activities. Suddenly, the car screeches to a halt just in time to avoid hitting Reynolds and his numerous dogs. The commercial then comes in with the punchline, “A car that doesn’t get distracted. Auto-emergency braking with pedestrian detection, on the all new Hyundai Elantra.” While this commercial is a breath of fresh air in the sense that it gives a glimpse of a world where only men are sexualized and objectified, it still perpetuates some societal norms.

Firstly, Hyundai’s commercial also has a lack of racial representation. All three of the actors in this advertisement are white. The target audience is obvious: single, middle class women. By using white women however, Hyundai subconsciously associates middle class with white people. Bell Hooks addresses a similar problem in “Black Women Shaping Feminist Theory.” Hooks critiques Betty Friedan’s Feminine Mystique, saying, “She made her plight and the plight of white women like herself synonymous with a condition affecting all American women. In so doing, she deflected attention away from her classism, her racism, her sexist attitudes toward the masses of American women” (Hooks 2). In the same way that Friedan associates white with women, Hyundai associates white with middle class women, skimming over the fact that there are also non-white middle class women and that they have unique experiences.

Hyundai also assumes all women are heterosexual, reinforcing Adrienne Rich’s concept of compulsory heterosexuality in “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” Rich argues that, “heterosexuality is presumed as a ‘sexual preference’ of ‘most women’, either implicitly or explicitly” (Rich 633). In Hyundai’s advertising, the women are extremely attracted to Reynolds, to the point where they are no longer paying attention to the road and almost run over him. Hyundai assumes its audience is heterosexual and can relate to this situation, which reinforces the socially manufactured understanding that homosexuality is abnormal.

The assumption of heterosexuality not only speaks to their inferiority, but also to their dependence on men for protection. Rich explains this phenomenon in our culture perfectly:

“In Western tradition, one layer-the romantic-asserts that women are inevitably, even if rashly and tragically, drawn to men; that even when that attraction is suicidal… it is still an organic imperative. In the tradition of the social sciences it asserts that primary love between the sexes is ‘normal,’ that women need men as social and economic protectors” (657).

In this case of western tradition, the women’s attraction to Reynolds would have ended in disaster if it wasn’t for the car. This suggests a biological dependence on men that comes before instincts of caution. While the women are desperately trying to find a source of protection, they leave themselves vulnerable, increasing their chances of getting in an accident. This time however, there is an additional “protector”, the car’s auto-stopping technology. Rich argues that this attraction to men that Hyundai is portraying is not biological, but societal and that women can be freed from compulsory heterosexuality through the lesbian continuum.

By presenting the car as the women’s protector, Hyundai creates a symbol of female inferiority. Distracted by the many beautiful Reynolds along the street, the women are unable to see the one right in front of them, which activates the auto-emergency braking. Hyundai’s commercial perpetuates the stereotype that women are bad drivers in order to highlight their product’s feature. This suggests that women are unable to drive as well as men and are thus inferior, but this is not statistically true. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reported that there were more male crash deaths and more male crashes due to speeding in 2013. In regards to literature, Luisa Capetillo quotes “Modern Women in the Family” in regards to women inferiority: “that it is good that the modern woman prove that she knows how to study on par with men in order to acquire an academic degree, that she knows how to handle the surgeon’s scalpel, the naturalist’s microscope, and the engraver’s burin, all of which demonstrates how erroneous is the theory of female mental inferiority” (19). Women have proved that their skills are equal to men’s in the field of academia, and their driving abilities are also a testament to the falsity of female inferiority. Unfortunately, mass media speaks louder than the evidence given, so women continue to be perceived as bad drivers.

A key detail in the analysis of this commercial is that while Reynolds is giving witty comments to himself, the women in the car never speak. This is discomforting, because in this female utopia of a city, the women do not have a voice. It reinforces the expectation into which women should not speak and the inferior position that women are placed in our current society. Feminists like Anna Julia Cooper rebell against this inequality, stating that, “Nay, ‘tis woman’s strongest vindication for speaking that the world needs to hear her voice” (121). Rather than encouraging women’s silence, Hyundai should be encouraging their voice.

While Hyundai creates a unique world where the roles of gender objectivity are reversed, it is still a patriarchal one. Middle class women appear to be the target customers of Hyundai’s marketing, but they are not the focus of the commercial. Reynolds and the car are in the spotlight, further supporting the idea that women should be in the background. Because of this, Hyundai exaggerates dependencies that women have in contemporary society: men and driving assistance. This approach perpetuates societal norms that are condescending toward women. Instead, Hyundai should present a symbol of empowerment.

Works Cited

Capetillo, Luisa. Recovering the U.S. Hispanic Literary Heritage Series : Nation of Women : An Early Feminist Speaks Out : Mi Opinion : Sobre Las Libertades, Derechos y Deberes de la Mujer. Houston, TX, USA: Arte Publico Press, 2004. ProQuest e brary. Web. 7 Feb. 2016.

Cooper, Anna Julia. “A Voice from the South. 1892.” New York: Oxford UP(1988).

Hooks, Bell. Feminist Theory from Margin to Center. Boston: South End Press, 1984. Online. 7 Feb. 2016.

HyundaiUSA. “Ryanville – Hyundai Super Bowl Commercial :45s The 2017 Hyundai Elantra.” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 1 Feb. 2016. Web. 1 Feb. 2016.

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

Tom Ford Media Analysis – Erica Miller

Posted on February 8, 2016February 11, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

Erica Miller

GSS 101

7 February 2016

Professor Gonzalez

Media Analysis: Tom Ford

Tom Ford utilizes stereotypical gender roles to promote his latest line of eyewear. In the print advertisement, Tom Ford depicts the different genders in their clichéd form. This not only strengthens gender ideals enforced since childhood but also reiterates these ideas to grown individuals.

The Tom Ford ad was originally published in Elle magazine, which is catered towards ‘Fashion-forward’ individuals. Tom Ford is a high-end label that only the upper-middle, to upper class could afford. This advertisement is intended to educate men on the proper way to dress to obtain an ‘ideal female.’ It also insinuates that by wearing Tom Ford eyeglasses, a man achieves a look of ‘ideal masculinity.’

One of the main issues is how the ‘ideal woman’ is portrayed. She is a white, heterosexual female, who is lean, but also shapely in the right areas. In addition, she is portrayed as being completely obedient to her male partners demands, ironing his clothing before even putting on her own. This advertisement also misrepresents the majority of men by arguing that the ‘model’ male is a Caucasian heterosexual, who dresses in a suit and bowties. He is also perfectly groomed, and his suit appears to be wrinkle free, which we can assume is from the female’s efforts. The underlying message that this conveys is that men are superior to women, and biologically dominant to the female body. As he is reading the paper, participating in outside work and connecting to the world, the female is expected focus completely on satisfying the male and staying inside the sphere of her home. While ironing his clothes, she is staring intently at the man, although she is receiving no attention back from him. This sends the message that she is completely reliant on him and his approval.

The image of the naked female holds a lot of underlying patriarchal messages. The use of the old-fashioned iron that appears to be from the forties encourages the cult of domesticity and retaining the image of the female in the household that was strongly held in that time period. Although she did not have time to put on clothes, she did have time to fix her hair, apply makeup, put on jewelry, and strap on high heels. This strengthens the cultural idea that females must always look presentable regardless of the time or circumstance. This idea of this woman’s physical perfection strengthens the social norms that promote feminine perfection, and discourage anything that falls short.

Without specific assumed social norms, this advertisement would fall apart and would not succeed in grabbing the attention of the majority of the American public. By displaying the man as an educated, work-driven individual, it reinforces the idea that men are ‘too good’ for housework, and that the woman’s position is in the house. In addition, the female is seen as having housework as her number two duty, right behind her number one duty of pleasing her man. It is also presumed in this advertisement that white, upper class, and ‘beautiful’ individuals dominate the professional sphere. Sexually, the advertisement appeals to the cis-gender, heterosexual audience. The advertisement promotes the idea that having the ‘ideal’ body type will in turn, attract the ‘ideal’ man. This also promotes the idea that cis-gender individuals, specifically cis-gender men, dominate the professional field.

This piece should appeal to the white male in the work force, and encourage him to purchase Tom Ford eyewear. It also promotes the idea that successful individuals, and white-collar workers will own their own pair of Tom Ford glasses. If one wants to obtain the ‘luxurious’ lifestyle, one would assume from this advertisement that they needed to purchase Tom Ford eyewear.

This advertisement would be highly effective for the working, upper class, male spectrum. However, as females have begun participating in the feminist movement, many have started realizing issues with promoting the patriarchy. By creating Tom Ford advertisements like this, women are completely objectified and devalued as human beings. Instead of being appreciated as humans in society, they are viewed as personal servants for the working male that supports them. In response to the backlash received from publishing of this ad, Elle magazine pulled it from publication, and “banned its printing due to inappropriate images that may be seen as degrading to women” (www.elle.com).

Tom Ford capitalizes on societies way of thinking to create an ad that appeals to the majority of Americans by focusing on expected gender, racial, and sexual norms. However, the complete objectification of these roles has lead to major pushback from feminists, resulting in the discontinuance of this specific advertisement from being printed. Although it was created to appeal to the general audience, it has instead raised awareness of the problems of objectifying women, and assuming these broad social norms.

Works Cited

“Cara Delevingne’s Tom Ford Ad Gets Banned.” ELLE. Elle Magazine, 30 Apr. 2015. Web. 07 Feb. 2016.

Satire and Critique of Homophobia in “The Office”

Posted on February 8, 2016February 9, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

Season 3 of NBC’s hit television sitcom The Office kicked off with an episode entitled “Gay Witch Hunt.” In the episode, the employees of Dunder Mifflin paper company are faced with circumstances unlike any they have encountered: a gay person working in their midst. The episode follows the unintentional outing of Oscar, one of the accountants. Throughout the episode, the manager Michael struggles to come to terms with Oscar’s homosexuality and what it entails for the workplace. Other fellow coworkers also begin to treat Oscar differently after learning about his sexuality. Considering The Office as a satire of the American workplace, the episode effectively conveys the absurdity of stereotypes about the gay community through the characters of Michael and Dwight. Conversely, other characters act as a voice of reason in opposition that ultimately yields a positive message about homosexuals in workplace environments.

Michael functions as a caricaturized image of a heteronormative boss ignorant about workplace etiquette and the day-to-day existence of gay individuals. Michael’s actions ultimately create a hostile work environment for Oscar, yet he remains ignorant about their implications. The episode begins with Michael meeting the head of human resources regarding a complaint by Oscar that Michael called him “faggy.” He comments that he does not understand why it would be offensive and says the office is fun because he gets to joke with people and call them “faggy” when they are acting “lame.” Upon learning that Oscar actually is gay, Michael struggles to reconcile with his actions. Because he used the term “faggy” under the assumption that everyone was straight, he becomes shocked and discomforted by the idea of a gay person being in the office. Subsequently in an aside to the camera, Michael says, “you don’t call retarded people retards…you call your friends retards when they’re acting retarded.” Through this statement, Michael shows that he continues to operate under the presumption that the use of slurs is appropriate if the word is not literally applicable to the person. Following this initial situation, Michael becomes obsessed with discovering who else in the office is gay so that he will not offend anyone. Rather than speaking in an office-appropriate manner, he seeks to discover whom it is appropriate to make such jokes with. This situation mocks the intense political-correctness culture that exists in many corporate workplace environments. Finally, Michael falls into tropes surrounding gay men in the working world. He states, “gay people can be businessmen…like antique dealers or hairdressers.” By default, Michael only imagines gay people occupying more effeminate positions in their professions.

Similar to Michael, Dwight acts a representation of people with old-fashioned notions about what being homosexual entails. Upon Michael disclosing that Oscar is gay, Dwight claims that Oscar cannot be gay because: “he’s not wearing women’s clothes.” While Michael’s homophobia and offensiveness gets delivered to the audience in a subtle manner, Dwight’s ideas about homosexuality are more overtly ridiculous. His notions fall into the overarching claim that all gay men are effeminate and lesbian women are masculine. Later in the episode he claims that one of his female coworkers might also be gay, “look at Phyllis…she makes no attempt to be feminine.” Considering this evidence, Dwight sees gender playing a greater role as the main factor in determining sexuality.

Michael and Dwight represent the hysteria that the title of the episode implies. “Gay Witch Hunt” suggests a relentless search to out anyone who is gay within the office. Indeed, the environment that Michael and Dwight create quickly becomes hostile because of their obsession. This frenzy comes as a result of their assumptions about the demographics of the office. Presumed heterosexual hegemony causes Oscar to be unintentionally outed, and leads them to pursue discovering every homosexual within the office.

While Dwight and Michael serve as centers of satire, voices of reason fight back against their ideas. Specifically, one scene shows Michael’s superior and a human resources employee lecturing him about the implications of his actions. They tell him that he effectively outed Oscar by how he handled the situation, and that Oscar now feels discriminated against. Juxtaposed against this rational discussion, Michael gets confused by what he perceives as shame on Oscar’s part. He feels that gays should be prideful. This specific scene serves to further the satire by depicting these voices in direct conflict with each other.

Despite the forward-looking depiction of a homosexual man in the American workplace, the show falls into some conventional tropes of the stereotypical gay man. Though he is Latino, Oscar is still a middle-class, white-collar worker. So even though the show’s message points in the right direction, it limits the message to a specific type of gay man. The show regularly features episodes that focus on the workers in the paper warehouse just below the office. Why couldn’t one of them be gay? Why did they decide to make Oscar gay and not another character? American television recently has been going in the right direction by depicting more LGBTQ narratives, however this narrative has been largely singular in terms of socioeconomic class and profession.

As evidenced by this episode of The Office, satire and farce are effective means of exaggeration to point out the ills of society. In this case, homophobia is the central target of the criticism. Michael and Dwight’s overt buffoonery makes it simple for the show writers to make their point. The audience’s familiarity with the absurd behavior of these two characters provides the perfect platform for depicting the problems with workplace-specific and general homophobia. Regardless, the show still presents a narrow narrative regarding homosexuality in the workplace.

Note: The episode is available on Netflix, but I wasn’t able to find the full episode anywhere online for free. A couple of YouTube clips are linked below.

The Prevalence of Double Standards: Representations in Comedic Manners with Serious Undertones

Posted on February 8, 2016February 9, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

In the Netflix Original Series Master of None, Aziz Ansari, a comedian famous for his stand-up and other television roles, plays Dev, a thirty year-old Indian-American actor trying to get by in New York City. Created by Alan Yang and Ansari, this show covers many aspects of Dev’s life including episodes on parents, childbearing, social culture, ethnicity, and gender. In episode seven of the series, titled “Ladies and Gentlemen,” Dev, his girlfriend Rachel, and a woman working on the same garden supply commercial as him all interact with the constrictions of gender in their respective lives. In this paper, I will show speak about three different scenes: one with a man trying to pick up a woman at a bar, a scene split between shots of what men and women go through walking home at night, and a scene where Dev’s girlfriend and friend talk him through experiences that affect men and men differently. Through scenes depicting gender roles and restrictions blatantly or subconsciously, they show how gender is such an omnipresent and powerful force in everyday culture.

The first scene of the episode begins at a busy bar. Here the audience is shown an interaction between a man going up to a woman (Dev’s friend from the garden commercial) at the bar counter. He tells her that he has two tequila shots for them. She rejects him and he persists by responding aggressively that he will have to throw out both of the shots. In the end, he drinks both shots of tequila and lurks to see if maybe there would be a chance for them to be friends. She shrugs him off and walks away. In Barbara J. Risman’s Gender as Structure, she speaks to the social structure of gender as being “the context of daily life [that] creates action indirectly by shaping actors’ perceptions of their interests and directly by constraining choice” (Risman 128). In this scene, the woman consistently pushes the man away from her, dropping hints that she does not desire having any further interaction with him. His persistent actions can be attributed to the fact that he, as a male, is comfortable with being able to push for his own desires without much hesitation. Even after he takes both tequila shots, he does not respect the fact that she has said no. In examining this situation in terms of power structure, it is clear that the male aggressor believes in his power to enthrall and entertain this woman, even though what unfolds proves that theory wrong. This scene is only one of the ways in which Master of None shows how men and women act and respond in different ways, whether it be through socialization and stereotypes, and how these learned and practiced customs translate into their interactions with the other binary sex. Her interaction with this aggressive man at the bar is not presented in as much of a serious vain as it would be in a drama or a mystery series and because of this, the message that comes across to the viewer is that of ridicule and lack of pity for the man in this situation, which goes against the normative behavior of having the audience sympathize with the male who tends to be the protagonist. This is not to take away from the seriousness of the interaction, but her reaction, mixed with disgust as well as empowered confidence, characterizes the situation with a bit of comedy and a bit of seriousness.

Another scene in this episode that deals with the differences in experience that men and women face is the switching back and forth between shots of Dev and his friend Arnold walking home and shots of Dev’s friend from the garden commercial walking home alone. Looking first at the demeanor of the scene, Dev and Arnold talk about the weather over light-hearted background music while the woman walks alone through dark streets with haunting music in the background. She pulls out her phone and, even without any blatant threat to her person, dials 9-1 just in case she will have dial the last 1 to call the police. As they walk, Dev and Arnold meander through parks and take their time through the dark night. On the other hand, the woman darts home as fast as she can, but, much to her chagrin, the man that offered her tequila at the bar is following her home. He is obviously drunk, but even as she picks up her pace, he gets into her apartment building and bangs on her door saying “Let a nice guy win for once” (Shelton). This active stalking situation really demonstrates the norm of aggressive and empowered masculinity where even with the amount of rejection that this man has received from her, he pushes her beyond the point of comfort and reprimands her for not giving him a chance to form some kind of sexual relation between them. After both of these scenes unfold side by side, Dev meets up with this woman the next day on the set of the commercial and he asks her how her night was. The opening credits interrupt her story and with that, all of the events of her treacherous night after leaving the bar remain unshared with Dev. The intended purpose of these scenes is to show the blatant differences between the experiences of both men and women in a general context. Women have to be vigilant and watch out for themselves, while men do not have to face the same struggles in any relatable way. One of Dev’s friends, Denise, speaks to this situation with a more general viewpoint in that “if you’re born with a vagina, everybody knows creepy dudes are part of the deal” (Shelton). This is definitely an exaggeration in some way, but by looking at this situation in a more broader lens, one can make the observation that generally women do have to watch over for and take care of themselves more than men need to in terms of their person and the external factors that they face. In Luisa Capetillo’s “Mi opinión sobre las libertades,” she speaks to how a “woman educated in what concerns her sex…has to know how to defend herself” (Capetillo 24). As a woman, Dev’s friend is impelled to learn to protect herself and stand her ground. This scene does insinuate some humorous dialogue in the sense that the circumstances and experiences of these men and women are so starkly different from each other to the point of being ridiculous. Like the scene in the bar, this scene has comedic elements present, but in its blatant portrayal of these inescapable norms, show how seriously concerning these normative and stereotypical behaviors can be.

With Master of None, a significant aspect of the way these characters conduct themselves is through a sense of where their roles, as influenced by sex and gender, stand within time. Through subtle and obvious situations, many conceptions of blatant sexuality are highlighted negatively, which is very different from the normal and stereotypical boy chases girl scenario. In that common plot, the man goes after the girl, but it tends to be portrayed in an endearing light, rather than verging on the category of a stalker. The woman’s interactions with the man at the bar can be viewed within the context of how culturally accepted beliefs and differences between men and women have been up to this point in time. As Sharon Marcus speaks to “Between women: Friendship, desire, and marriage in Victorian England,” many perceptions of women have defined them “in terms of male standards, desires, and power,” and the casual demonstrations of power by the woman in Master of None, in response to her aggressor, shows that even as he remains a threat to her, she knows how to avoid trouble, be successful, and keep herself safe (Marcus 9). As this is a comedy television series, she also does maintain some casual humor throughout her disacknowledgement, self-defense and unwillingness to give into this man’s assertions and pleas.

Through this episode of Master of None, the argument that men and women do differ in their common experiences as well as think about situations with different mindsets is put forward within the context of a humorous yet serious dialogue. Women and men become socialized into certain gender norms very easily, as they are constantly interacting with the culture around them and all of its implications. Towards the end of the episode, Dev’s girlfriend, Rachel, confronts him in his dismissal of her experiences at a restaurant regarding comments another man said to her. She tells him that what she does not want to hear is someone telling her that her experience is wrong. This episode, through satire and humor, shows how blatant and influential certain gender roles and expectations are in our everyday life and how there are underlying factors that each gender carries with them, burden or not.

Bibliography

Capetillo, Luisa. Recovering the U.S. Hispanic Library Heritage Series: Nation of Woman: An Early Feminist Speaks Out: Mi Opinion: Sobre Las Libertades, Derechos y Deberes de la Mujer. Houston, TX, USA: Arte Público Press, 2004. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 28 January 2016.

“Ladies and Gentlemen.” Master of None. Writ. Andrew Peters. Dir. Lynn Shelton. Netflix, 2015. Web. http://www.netflix.com/search/master%20of%20none

Marcus, Sharon. Between women: Friendship, desire, and marriage in Victorian England. Princeton University Press, 2009.

Risman, Barbara. “Gender as structure.” Gender Vertigo: American Families in Transition (1998): 127-132.

The Good Wife’s Guide

Posted on February 8, 2016February 10, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

“The Good Wife’s Guide”

When my mom was married in 1979, my grandmother gave her a present, as most mothers do on their daughter’s wedding day. Although, this present was not the typical wedding gift, but rather a piece of paper with bullet points delineating all the duties that my grandmother felt my mother must carry out in order to be a good wife and to make her marriage “work”. The list included tasks like, “never take your makeup off until your husband is already in bed but make sure you reapply before he awakens”, or “always have dinner prepared when he comes home from work”, and “never let him come home to a dirty house”. My grandmother slipped the sheet into my mom’s honeymoon bag and told her that if she followed the list closely that her marriage would last because there would be no reason for my father to ever be upset. However, I never realized that this list could possibly be based on a real artifact called, “The Good Wife’s Guide”.

“The Good Wife’s Guide”, which was piece of media created in the 1950’s to teach woman how to be the best wife possible. It consisted of an image as well as a list of 18 tasks that a wife must complete in order to keep her husband happy. There is speculation as to where the original “Good Wife’s Guide” first appeared. The popular belief is that the image was taken from a home economics textbook that was produced in the 1950’s as part of a required curriculum for girls in the public school system. A lesser-held belief speculates that this image was produced in the 50’s as a piece of media, never being published in any textbook. Agreeing with the popular belief, home economics was a class offered in most public schools, which taught girls how to become ladies and to manage a home by mastering tasks such as cooking, baking, bed-making, deep cleaning a house, organizing a house, sewing, laundry, and more. This kind of curriculum made a home economic textbook the bible of domesticity. Boys of course, did not take this course because housework was considered exclusively the woman’s job. The man was expected to focus on building a successful career, while his wife stay at home to “manage” the house. But for this paper, whether this piece was truly published in a home economics textbook or if this piece was simply a statement of popular beliefs held during the 1950’s is not of true concern. The issue is that it was created in the first place and that it was, at the time, an accurate depiction of America’s vision of the mainstream post-war American woman.

“The Good Wife’s Guide” serves as a perfect example of compulsory heterosexuality in America. Popularized by Adrienne Rich in the 1980’s, compulsory heterosexuality is the idea that female heterosexuality is designed and enforced by a patriarchal society. This way of thinking leads to a culture that disempowers women, which was happening in the 1950’s. Pieces of media like “The Good Wife’s Guide,” only reinforce the concept of compulsory heterosexuality in a society, thereby inhibiting change. “The Good Wife’s Guide” was not only problematic because it disempowered women by the force of men, but it was troublesome because it only addressed white, middle-class women. If “The Good Wife’s Guide” is only speaking to white women who live in a middle to upper class family, then does that mean wives of lower class families or wives of the minority races can never be good wives? Of course we know that any woman has the capability to be as good as a “wife” as they wish (however they choose to define wife and the corresponding responsibilities), but this media source made it seem impossible to think that the “perfect wife” could be anything but white and comfortably wealthy.

The creator of “The Good Wife’s Guide” made a wife’s job simple and stated that in order to be a good wife; one should follow 18 simple rules, which would result in a happy husband and good marriage. During the 1950’s, America created a culture that expected women to get married, have children, and be dutiful housewives. “The Good Wife’s Guide” used an image and a list of bullet points to simply compel and prepare woman to discharge a narrow definition of the “duties” believed to be those of a role model wife and mother. In the image used in “The Good Wife’s Guide” the viewer can see the wife happily cooking dinner at the stove, dressed nicely still wearing her heels, while the father is just arriving home from work. The children, still dressed nicely as the mother has asked of them, flock to the father to greet him. The wife is bent over, causing the viewer to perceive her as subordinate to her husband who is standing tall in front of her. Not only does the woman have submissive posture, but also in the actual image the husband appears much larger, taking up more space in the picture. This causes the viewer to see the husband as a more commanding figure, implying that he is of greater importance. By showing the wife with a gleaming smile, and the husband with a satisfied look on his face, this image is intended to cause one to believe that being a “good wife” is enjoyable and beneficial for both parties involved. But if one were to read the bullet point tasks more carefully, the house of a “good wife” seems to be more pleasing for only one party involved, the husband.

The first bullet point talks about preparing dinner before the husband comes home from work, the author says more than that including that, “this is a way of letting him know that you have been thinking about him and are concerned about his needs.” This shows that the man’s needs and concerns are of primary importance, but what about the woman’s? Next it says, “prepare yourself. Take 15 minutes to rest so you’ll be refreshed when he arrives. Touch up your make-up, put a ribbon in your hair and be fresh-looking,” communicating that the women’s appearance is crucial to her husband’s happiness. The list proceeds to give instructions on how to prepare the house for his arrival, but there is a concerning over-arching theme in the bullet points which is, do everything to please him, whereas the wife’s happiness is of little or no consequence. This theme is expressed through phrases like, “be a little gay and a little more interesting for him,” “catering for his comfort will provide you with immense personal satisfaction,” “show sincerity in your desire to please him,” “his topics of conversation are more important than yours,” “make the evening his,” “make him comfortable,” “you have no right to question him,” and finally “a good wife always knows her place.” This theme of the husband’s superiority in stark contrast to the wife’s utter insignificance dominated the 1950’s, and is perfectly depicted in the image and text used in “The Good Wife’s Guide.” Fortunately this theory of thought is slowly being reversed to find equilibrium between men and women in contemporary times.

When evaluating the success of “The Good Wife’s Guide” as a piece of media or teaching tool (depending on the origin of its source,) I would argue that it was successful. The 1950’s housewife played a prominent role in America. TV shows like, Leave it to Beaver or Father Knows Best, depicted the importance and perfection of the housewife and her role in the home. Whether “The Good Wife’s Guide” was in a home economics textbook or simply just produced in the media, a majority of women saw it and most likely remembered some of the “keys” to being a good wife, and probably acted on them once married. The final reason why I would personally argue that this image was successful is that my grandmother found it so important that she created her own list based on the original “Good Wife’s Guide” to give to my mother on one of the most important days of her life, her wedding day. Almost 20 years after this list was created, other women like my grandmother were still re-creating it, which demonstrates its significance to a part of society and that period in time. In contemporary society I believe that when people see this list it is seen as humorous because of how drastically the definition of housewife and even the expectations of women have changed. This demonstrates that the meaning that a piece of media portrays is highly dependent on the generation and society that views that image.

Super Bowl, Totino’s, and SNL

Posted on February 8, 2016February 10, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

As the Super Bowl is this weekend, it is only fitting that my contemporary media analysis is a parody of a super bowl commercial that was shown during halftime of last year’s game. Saturday Night Live reenacted a commercial for Totino’s Pizza Rolls emphasizing gender roles and using rhetorical appeals to identify the misogynistic characteristics of advertisement in society.

Ironically, the commercial displays a typical Super Bowl viewing party: men surrounding a TV, cheering and eating. The setting of this commercial automatically assumes society’s mental construction of gender by implying that sports are for men, who are generally thought of as the stronger sex, while women have a familial duty to be “in the kitchen,” as the only woman in the commercial states. The notion of gender roles is reinforced by the interaction of the cast. For example, the woman continues to internalize her role as the provider of food and alcoholic beverages for the men instead of watching the game in addition to cooking—or microwaving in this case. Another example is when one of the husband’s friends asks if she wants to watch the game and it is assumed that she does not want to join by her husband. I think an interesting thought to entertain is that this s an economic advertisement with the point to increase sales in Totino’s Pizza Rolls. Watching this skit makes me wonder if there are men behind similar commercials geared towards mothers, and also now would really like to know what Totino’s advertising thought about the SNL version. This portrayal of male identification is an everyday example of the social reproduction of heterosexual norms.

The SNL cast made sure to use rhetorical appeals, such as irony, humor, and exaggeration, to convey their disgust with the portrayal of women’s positions in the home. One brilliant example of the use of rhetorical appeal is the “Super Bowl Activity Pack for Women”—“for grown women ages 5 and up.” This “activity pack” is patronizing to women as it is for keeping one’s “mind active and learning” by completing children’s mind puzzles.

Women are supposed to have equal access to education as well as economic opportunities, but this interpretation of the commercial depicts women having characteristically low intelligence, such as the demeaning easiness of connect the dots and crossword puzzles. Personally, my favorite part of the activities was the option to “count her own money,” except the money was fake Monopoly money. This part of the commercial reminded me of the economic inequalities women face outside of the home because of institutionalized social interactions. The activity pack is another example of how the patriarchal hierarchy is continually made fun of here.

It is important to take Saturday Night Live’s interpretation of the commercial with a grain of salt and recognize there is an entertainment quality to it. Saturday Night Live’s parody can be construed in two different perspectives. One could watch this skit and view it as a way to poke fun at feminists and the “extreme” views of today’s culture. On the other hand, the message I took away from this performance is that consumer advertising generally caters towards a particular gender to increase sales. SNL profited off of the generalization of gender roles to poke fun at our society.

This skit was performed to parody a common visual the recognized by the general public. This interpretation of the Totino’s Pizza Rolls commercial reached a wide audience, since it is a popular comedy show and social media continued to share this skit repeatedly—both men and women of all ages, races, and classes have viewed it. So although the main purpose of the skit was to evoke humor, I think it also is an interesting way to naturally generate a conversation about gender roles and the inequality that exists between genders. In this way, I believe this skit to be effective, as it sparked a discussion between my friends at Davidson College. Some may view the parody as an extreme view of feminism, while others may say, “Wait, actually this brings up a good point!” The most effective methods of societal change start with a conversation, and in today’s age of technology, social media and TV shows can provide the first steps toward that change.

Exposure to the LGBT community from a younger age

Posted on February 8, 2016February 9, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

In 2014, the television show Good Luck Charlie made history on Disney Channel by being the network’s first show to feature a same-sex couple. Susan and Cheryl, the lesbian couple featured, in no way serve as the basis for the plotline of the episode because they are only featured for one minute. However, the fact that they are appear at all demonstrates that Disney Channel slowly may be moving towards broadcasting more diversity in their television shows. A short clip of the show makes a big statement, and although it is not perfect, it definitely is a step in the right direction for the television network. This decision to show a same-sex couple was met with mixed reviews from the public and from parents of the children who watch the television show. Conservative Christians were especially against the episode and protested against the network. However, hopefully, by exposing children to the fact that families do not always have a mom and a dad, these children will grow up to be more accepting of diversity than their parents. As a whole, the scene brings forth an attitude of acceptance and normalcy towards Susan and Cheryl, and it sets the stage for more children’s shows to follow in its path.

Disney Channel handled the introduction of their first lesbian couple far better than one would expect. It would be easy for the introduction of Susan and Cheryl to be a major plotline just for laughs or for the show to follow the cliché outline of a character originally not accepting a gay character but seeing that the individual is “just like everybody else” by the end of the episode. However, the show uses Susan and Cheryl to make a subtle statement. The couple only appears in a minute of the show, and while the scene does bring forth some laughs, it is at the expense of Charlie’s parents, Bob and Amy, instead of Susan and Cheryl. In the clip, Amy tells Bob that she has invited one of Charlie’s friends over for a playdate and that she also invited her friend Taylor’s mother, Susan. This confuses Bob because he already had met Taylor’s mom and thought her name was Cheryl. The couple argue over which person is right about Taylor’s mother’s name, but they soon realize that they both are right because Taylor has two moms. Amy and Bob treat Cheryl and Susan the same way that they would treat any other couple, and the entire encounter treats the issue very casually. The scene is funny because of the fact that Amy and Bob so blindly assumed the heteronormative standard, and the fact that the network makes makes fun of this is a subtle protest against the fact that people assume that a male-female couple is the norm.

Because the show is geared towards children and tweens, it is especially refreshing that a lesbian couple is featured. Disney Channel and the shows that are played on the network serve as an important model for kids on what is “cool,” and it also gives kids role models through the lead actors and actresses in the programs. Young children are easily influenced, so many of their opinions and reactions to ideas are reflections of the beliefs of the people around them. Because of this, the morals conveyed in the TV shows that they watch religiously are absorbed. This causes an appearance of a lesbian couple to be more impactful in a children’s show than in one made for adults. Because Amy and Bob are accepting and react positively towards Susan and Cheryl, this paves the path for the tween viewers of the show to have similar reactions towards same-sex couples. Although Charlie’s parents are a little surprised at first, they both are very welcoming and treat Susan and Cheryl in the same way they would treat any set of parents. Neither Amy nor Bob make any statement that conveys any sort of negative reaction. This reaction generates an outline for children to follow if they are confronted with a similar situation, and Bob and Amy teach children that all couples should be treated the same.

Despite these positive aspects of the episode, it is by no means perfect. To an adult, the episode makes it very clear that Susan and Cheryl are in fact a couple. However, this fact may not be obvious to younger children who have never been exposed to any sort of LGBT individuals. Susan and Cheryl are never addressed as being a romantic couple or even in a partnership. When Susan introduces Cheryl to Amy, she does not introduce Cheryl as her “wife” or “partner.” Instead, she introduces her as “Taylor’s other mom.” This introduction implies a romantic relationship, but this implication might go over the heads of young children. If a child has never met a LGBT couple, he or she may not jump straight to the conclusion that Taylor’s two moms form the same sort of union as a mom and a dad. Kids may just think the fact that Taylor has two moms to be weird and move on without wondering or asking any questions. This distinction of referring to the two women as “Taylor’s moms” instead of “Susan’s partner” or “Cheryl’s wife” is further enforced when Bob makes the connection to Amy. He express, “Oh, Taylor has two moms!” which potentially further distances children from making the connection that Susan and Cheryl love each other. This issue over how the two women are referenced may indicate that Disney Channel did not fully commit to the task of exposing children to the LGBT community. The couple is present, but it is clear that Disney tried to make the fact that they were a couple indistinct so that it would go over the heads of children.

One of the other problems with the clip is that no diversity is expressed within the whole scene. Susan and Cheryl are white and portrayed to be middle-class, which further enforces the stereotype that gay couples are all white, wealthy, and in long term relationships. Both are also very feminine, and at first glance, it would not be clear that either of them were lesbian. While this could be viewed as a positive because it teaches the cliché lesson that “gay people are like everyone else,” this does not serve as an accurate, universal depiction of being a lesbian. Generally, lesbians on TV shows and in movies are portrayed to be on the feminine end of the spectrum, similarly to Susan and Cheryl. Therefore, this television episode sets the stage for the stereotype of rich, white, female lesbians to be wired in the brains of children from a young age. If this episode is the first time a child is exposed to a LGBT couple, the fact that the couple fits this stereotype has the potential to influence what he or she believes to be a “normal” gay couple.

Despite these problems with the scene, there is one especially subtle detail that even if not planned, adds another dimension to the episode. Susan and Cheryl’s daughter is named Taylor, which is a gender neutral name. One top of this, Taylor does not have what is traditionally considered to be a female haircut. She has a short, boy-like pixie cut, which is typically not seen in young girls. Most moms choose to let their daughters grow out their hair and have long curls or pigtails, but Susan and Cheryl did not do this with Taylor. Although not much else is revealed about how Susan and Cheryl parent, these two details reveal that at least in these instances, the couple does not enforce gender norms on their daughter. Disney Channel is generally associated with the sparkly outfits of Hannah Montana and having characters that clearly fit gender norms, so the fact that Taylor is not incredibly girly is another subtle aspect of the clip that potentially signals changes for Disney.

For many, the fact that Susan and Cheryl appeared on the show was considered to be a positive step for Disney Channel. However, the episode was met with backlash, especially from the Christian conservative group “One Million Moms.” This group campaigned against the decision to showcase a same sex couple and sent an email protesting the scene, urging Disney to “avoid controversial topics that children are far too young to understand” (Kuruvilla). It is expected that the episode would be met with criticism, but the group’s argument is illogical. If children are too young to understand a gay couple, can it not be argued that that would also mean they are too young to understand a straight couple as well? Even though the fact that Susan and Cheryl are a couple may go over the heads of some kids, if LGBT couples become more present in children’s television, hopefully they will learn to accept all people. This possibly can cause even the children of the makers behind “One Million Moms” to see why the views of their parents are outdated.

The fact that Disney Channel showcased a same-sex relationship on a television show for young children demonstrates progress, even if there were flaws with the depiction. As a whole, the scene maps out a start for expanding the diversity of sexual orientations of characters on the network. Hopefully this was only the start and LGBT characters will become common in all television. If children are never taught that being gay is different or abnormal, then as their generation grows up, equality will become more of the standard. This one episode of Good Luck Charlie clearly cannot make this difference, but it may be a sign that Disney Channel is taking the initiative to take this step.

Works Cited

Hadamsj. “Good Luck Charlie- Susan & Cheryl.” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 26 Jan 2014. Web. 1 Feb 2016.

Kuruvilla, Carol. “Disney Channel Debuts Lesbian Couple on ‘Good Luck Charlie’.” NY Daily News. NYDailyNews, 5 Feb. 2014. Web. 7 Feb. 2016.

The Heterosexual Planet of Gazorpazorp: Gender Norms in Rick and Morty

Posted on February 8, 2016February 18, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

Rick and Morty is an animated adult television series centered on an alcoholic scientific genius, Rick Sanchez, and his naïve fourteen year-old grandson, Morty. The show takes little for granted as the two embark on preposterous adventures to alien planets and through alternate dimensions. Like many of today’s adult cartoons the show’s creators, Justin Roiland and Dan Harmon, rely on absurdist humor, supplemented with nihilistic comments, to entertain and amuse their primarily male audience. Despite challenging most of what we know to be true about the physical universe the show appears to leave western societal norms completely intact. In “Raising a Gazorpazorp,” an episode centered on gender norms, the show creates humor by relying on viewers’ assumptions of gender stereotypes and compulsory heterosexuality in order to create humor.

In the episode Rick and his older granddaughter, Summer, find themselves on Gazorpazorp, a planet that initially appears to be inhabited exclusively by aggressive predatorily sexual male aliens and reproducing sex robots. Rick’s only explanation is that the planet evolved to replace females with “birthing machines,” but that the subsequent lack of distraction allowed men to focus on war and bomb each other back to barbarism. There is only one type of alien, but they are assumed to be male and then prescribed exaggerations of traditional heterosexual male tropes such as an overtly healthy libido, aggression, and strength. Despite being in an all male environment the possibility of the society being homosexual is never addressed. These gender and sexuality norms are used as a comedic reflection on our own society. For example Rick demands that Summer wear a burqa, lest she be raped and killed, and says, “The least you could do is be ashamed of your gender.” The scene and Rick’s explicit sexism throughout act as a foil on our own gender preconceptions, but rely on gender and sex norms to arrive at the punch line.

Rick’s initial prediction proves wrong as the characters soon discover the planet is ruled by women who isolated themselves from the dangerously aggressive men centuries ago. The women live in what might be described as an extreme version of Mary Astell’s suggested “blessed abode.” They have withdrawn from men, emphasize education and personal betterment, and the women appear to be celibate. The women do not appear to have reject Astell’s societal vices, however, as the aliens have long legs, large breasts, and elaborate clothes to accompany their additional sets of arms. Nonetheless the females use robots to reproduce and are removed from traditional roles of domesticity.

The humor in this scene, however, comes from exaggerating female tendencies and norms usually experienced by men. For example the women greet each other with, “I am here if you need to talk,” the courthouse steps read “sis semper calumniam” translating roughly to you are always wrong, and a girl is charged with the crime of having “terrible bangs.” Because the plot of Rick and Morty is essentially inconsequential the show relies on these small jokes for entertainment; these small jokes in turn rely on ingrained western male ideas about femininity.

In these scenes Rick and Morty also relies on contemporary beliefs that there exists a strict divide between female friendships and female intimacies rather than the lesbian spectrum described by Adrienne Rich. Realizing this divide herself Sharon Marcus writes, “I now grasped that our contemporary opposition between hetero- and homosexuality did not exist for Victorians” (19). Despite being a recent idea this distinction is immediately assumed and applied to this fictional planet simply because the brief glimpses of relationships between women shows closeness but never implies a sexual nature. It is interesting to note that a planet where attractive female aliens did engage in homosexual behaviors is by no means “out of bounds” for the show’s writers, but it is likely that the women of Gazorpazorp would have sacrificed their intelligence and societal advancements to become a male fantasy. To include both lesbianism and intellect would take the viewer out of his comfort zone and destroy the intended humor.

While the genders on Gazorpazorp were separated both in behavior and geography they remained heterosexual. The only mention of homosexuality is made by Summer as she argues that gender “equality” on Earth is necessary because, “On Earth a certain percentage of our males are born gay, which is why my clothes are better than all of yours.” Flawed reasoning aside, this line can be unpacked to better understand how notions of sexuality are reinforced. First this small comment certainly reinforces gay stereotypes. Judith Butler cautions against this claiming a homosexual identity can constrain and legislate in dangerous ways; she writes, “The political problem is not to establish the specificity of lesbian sexuality over and against its derivativeness, but to turn the homophobic construction of the bad copy against the framework that privileges heterosexuality as origin” (310). Though small Summer’s quote certainly does fit in the larger narrative of typifying homosexuals.

Secondly the wording used implies that males being born gay are in some way unnatural. While slight and likely not noticed by the casual viewer this idea that heterosexual attraction is natural and a byproduct of evolution, and therefore queerness is unnatural, is also societally produced. Jonathan Katz writes, “Kraft-Ebing hypothesized an inborn ‘sexual instinct’ for relations with the ‘opposite sex’ the inherent ‘purpose’ of which was to foster procreation” (234). Although the idea was new in the late nineteenth, it is so commonplace now that the show uses it throughout the Gazorpazorp scenes to reinforce heterosexuality, and the viewer, myself included, fails to notice the assumptions that are made.

While in a traditional television show a character’s own views of gender might be changed by visiting such a planet, the postmodern show makes it clear that nothing has changed as Rick is still sexist. He even says, “After all that stuff we just did nothing really mattered. There was no point to it.” This is essentially what every joke was revealing. Despite depicting a female dominated society the show was able to entertain, ironically, by using dated gender stereotypes embedded in viewer’s minds to make their jokes. It is the viewer’s own sexism rather than a sexist message that completes the jokes. While underlying, the norms are still enforced and, in a society where new age media plays a pivotal role in how we explain and understand the world, these reinforcements are just as damaging as and less rejected than traditional oppressive content.

Bibliography

Butler, Judith. “Imitation and Gender Insubordination.” The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. Routledge. 1993.

Evans, Thomas. “Wubba Lubba Dub Dub! : The Pursuit of Happiness in Rick and Morty.” Under Construction at Keele. Keel University. Volume 2 Issue 1. 2015. Web. 3 February 2015.

Katz, Jonathan Ned. “The Invention of Heterosexuality.” Socialist Review 20. 1990.

Marcus, Sharon. Between Women: Friendship, Desire and Marriage in Victorian England. Princeton University Press. 2007.

“Raising Gazorpazorp.” Rick and Morty. Adult Swim. 10 March 2014. Television.

Double Standards in Today’s Society

Posted on February 8, 2016February 10, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

Andres Sanchez

The piece of contemporary media I will analyze is a Pantene commercial from 2013 in which touches on society’s double standards and encourages women to leave labels set by society behind and break from the chains of society’s views. The commercial relates to Adrienne Rich’s ideas in her work Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence where she identifies the meanings of male identification and lesbian continuum. The Pantene commercial intends to explore how current society has not changed much from the time Rich wrote her work in 1980 as although more women gain higher positions in jobs, the labels that were created decades ago must still follow them everywhere they go. Through these labels, the audience is able to see the ways in which standards hold the men and women of today. With these intentions and use of rhetoric, however, the commercial challenges the male audience to react to the commercial in a different way than the female audience.

The commercial by Pantene begins with comparing a man and a woman, both whom are bosses of a company. As the man addresses his partners, he is labeled as “boss”, but as the woman addresses her partners, she is labeled as “bossy”. The label with which the woman is set contains a negative connotation as bossy can be perceived as someone who is imperious. As the commercial progresses, women and men continue to be labeled differently in contrasting situations with men being labeled as “persuasive”, “dedicated”, and “smooth” while women are labeled as “pushy”, “selfish”, and “show-off”. The polarity of labels in the commercial intend to persuade the audience, in this case men and women, that even though women are allowed to pursue higher positions in today society, double standards are working against them for doing so. For example, one of the scenes in the commercial demonstrates the distinction between a man and a woman who are working late at home. In the man’s situation he is labeled as “dedicated” while the woman in the same situation is labeled as “selfish”. In Rich’s work, she defines male identification as “the act whereby women place men above women, including themselves, in credibility, status, and importance in most situations regardless of the comparative quality the women may bring to the situation”. By using this to interpret the scene in the commercial, the woman in the scene is labeled as selfish because she is seen as someone who has to be the caretaker of the house and doing anything other is selfish while the man is seen as the one responsible for the income of the home. In every scene of the commercial, each woman is labeled because she is going against the male identification.

Apart from the idea of male identification, the Pantene commercial also touches on Rich’s idea of lesbian continuum which she describes as “forms of primary intensity between and among women, including the sharing of a rich inner life, the bonding against male tyranny, the giving and receiving of practical and political support”. The women in the commercial can be seen as those who are part of this lesbian continuum by challenging male identification and pursuing higher positions in jobs. It is because of this opposition against society standards that they are then labeled with negative connotations. The commercial does not shame on the women for doing so, but shames the double standards of society for judging women who want to pursue jobs and take actions that are believed to be those belonging to men. A possible fallacy within the commercial is the way in which only women are seen as the victim, but this is reasonable because the commercial focuses on a product is meant for women. This fallacy, however, can cause some of the male audience to feel uncomfortable at the fact the commercial can be viewed as an opposition to male privilege in today’s society while other part of the male audience may feel unrepresented by the fact commercial only targets the way in which society’s labels affect women and not men.

The rhetorical devices used in the commercial include connotations, contradictions, and tone. The contradictions and connotations are clearly seen in the commercial through the polar labels set on men and women having men being labeled with words that associate with positive connotations and women with words of negative connotations. The song used in the commercial, “Mad World by Gary Rules”, is a very interesting choice as it emphasizes one’s disgust of the regular chores of daily life and the way in which one does not look forward to the next day through the lens of a person who is viewing the world as an outsider. The way this song connects to the purpose of the commercial is that is gives off a tone of angst towards how society has set guidelines which women and men must live by, and once they step out of these boundaries set by society, they are judged and labeled. All these rhetoric devices work together to make the audience feel disdain towards the stereotypes established by society towards one’s gender.

Although women in today’s society aim to obtain better positions in their professional life and move away from domestic stereotypes, there are always labels awaiting them if they do so. According to Rich, these labels are a byproduct of the ideas of male identification and lesbian continuum set in the 1980s. The Pantene commercial analyzed is a great representation of what double standards in today look like. Even though the product advertised and commercial focus on women, the depiction of men is also a product of today’s society. By only including the effects of labels on women, the Pantene advertisement leaves out the male audience and can bring about different reactions by men. In the end, the commercial calls for a great reflection over what standards we hold for each gender and for a break from these standards. The double standards of today should not be a guideline for how one should live their life. These standards exist worldwide, unconsciously or not, and they will continue to exists as long as labels are prevalent based on one’s gender.

Defining Mom

Posted on February 7, 2016February 10, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

Proctor and Gamble’s (P & G) “Thank you Mom” commercial appeared in 2012 as part of the campaign that ran during and put narrative focus on the 2012 London Olympic Games. The commercial depicts the progress of athletes as they move from young children to Olympic competitors, supported along the way by their mothers. Five or six different mothers are depicted waking their young athletes early, making them different (assumedly culturally appropriate) breakfasts, and then delivering the children to various athletic practices. The mothers do it all again the next day, and the next, and the next. The athletes are shown in different stages of life and after trial and tribulation each arrives at his or her specific Olympic event. The mothers look on with tears of pride.

Proctor and Gamble is the parent company of over 60 brands that comprise mostly of household cleaning and beauty products. Dawn dish soap, Brawny paper towels, and Tide detergent are just a few of the company’s most-recognizable assets. Because of the company’s brands, we can assume the advertisement’s target audience is people who work in the home performing domestic tasks: whoever uses dish soap, paper towels, and laundry detergent most often will likely be the buyer of such products. The first (and most important) assumption the ad makes is that the Mother is the keeper of the home. The campaign called “Thank You Mom,” and the text at the end of the ad specifically addresses mothers. By targeting mothers with their ad, P & G assumes they are the primary users of P & G products.

The argument P & G addresses to its viewers runs along these lines: Domestic work leads to greatness; washing uniforms, and cooking meals allow children to become Olympic athletes. P & G ties greatness to working in the home. At this point in the commercial, it appears that P & G has made the assumption that all primary caregivers are women: no male caretakers appear in these video sequences, unless you could the fuzzy half-outline of a dad at a gymnastics meet.

The ad furthers this assumption when the words “Thank you, Mom” appear on the screen. All caretakers are women, and all Mothers are caretakers. The ad also assumes that the same member of the family is responsible for both the housework and taking care of children, a situation that does not hold for every family structure. One interesting consequence of the lack of male caretakers in the ad is the resulting lack of comment on caretakers’ relationship status. Are the mothers of the commercial straight, lesbian, or trans? Are the mothers perhaps single mothers? No assumptions are made in regards to this element of family life.

The ad assumes all caretakers are women, all Mothers are caretakers, and the caretaker performs all the housework. The argument is simple: domestic work (the kind facilitated by P & G products) leads to greatness. Just as mothers work tirelessly to support their children, P & G supports Moms (and so moms should buy their products).

Proctor and Gamble’s ad is an attempted intervention into the myth of the happy fifties housewife: yes, taking care of a child and taking care of housework is hard, says the ad; The text at the end of the video reads “The hardest job in the world is the best job in the world.” By acknowledging the difficulty of maintaining a household and raising children, the ad disrupts the image of the smiling mother who has lots of time for book-club and social gatherings. (Maybe my own image of junior-leaguers and country club cocktails is shaping my view of this commercial a little too much here.)

In The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan enters into Proctor and Gamble’s chosen world of the happy housewife. Friedan argues (contrary to P&G’s ad) that mothers and wives must stop searching for happiness among their husbands and children: happiness lies in fulfilling the dreams that are frustrated when intelligent women give up education and careers to stay at home with children. Friedan contradicts P&G’s message of motherly fulfillment through self-sacrifice, yet both Friedan’s and P&G’s arguments have the same oversights: both ads entirely ignore differences of race and class. (Though, admittedly, P&G does attempt to address the race issue by showing athletes and mothers of all nationalities).

bell hooks’ criticisms of Friedan in Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, hold for the P&G commercial. hook argues that Friedan’s narrative of the troubled 50’s housewife is the narrative only of the white, upper-middle class housewife; Friedan’s dilemma in no way parallels the experiences of lower class white women, or of women of color (from any class). Friedan assumes that all women (her assumed audience) are mothers with husbands and no careers. Similarly, Proctor and Gamble assumes that all mothers are stay-at-home moms, who take care of cooking and cleaning. The ad leaves no space for mothers who have to work (usually a class issue), or for mothers who choose to work, or for fathers who are the primary caregivers for their families.

According to the Proctor and Gamble, children who achieve great things have mothers that sacrifice; sacrifice to wake up early, sacrifice to drive children to practice, and sacrifice to do all the housework that allows their children to be great. Don’t worry, says the narrative of the ad, being a mother is the “best job in the world.” Plus, you’ll get thanked and acknowledged for all your hard work… if you sacrifice. How do career moms feel when they view this advertisement? Do they feel that they are being thanked for all their hard work? P & G’s “Thank you mom” ad supports existing stereotypical norms of American family structure (white, mother and father, 2.5 kids).

BUT WAIT. What if these are real athletes and these are their real mothers? Are we to fault companies for reflecting real-life realities? Or perhaps the commercial is not based upon real Olympic athletes, and is rather a strategic attempt to sell product to P & G’s target demographic. Is it wrong to assume that the large majority of P & G’s buyers are mothers who are also primary caregivers and housewives? The ad is undeniably touching, and on some level appeals to nearly everyone. Everyone, at some point, had a mother. Most people have had a caretaker who cared for them with the maternal affection demonstrated by P&G’s mothers. The analysis of a commercial is tricky business: do we evaluate commercials based on their effectiveness as advertisements, or based on their representation of the society to whom they are selling? The morality of the advertising world is a topic that will have to wait for another post…

This post, by the way, is dedicated to my own mother. Mom: sorry I haven’t done anything as impressive as win a gold medal. Nonetheless, #thankyoumom.

Works Cited

The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan, 1963

Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, bell hooks, 1984