In our lecture on Thursday, we reevaluated Katz and Foucault’s stance on experts, especially in relation to “Our Bodies, Ourselves”. “Our Bodies, Ourselves” says “once we had learned what the ‘experts’ had to tell us, we found that we still had a lot to teach and to learn from one another,” implying that experts are not the only source of information, and are not always a reputable source of information. As Katz and Foucault argue, experts themselves are members of society and as such are swayed by society.
Last year I was in a Davidson doctor’s office. After waiting 2 hours past my appointment time, I was finally called back. The first publicized rapes on campus were coming out, and the media was having a field day. So of course my nurse wanted to ask me all about it. I have to say, I have heard stories and seen arguments about how awful rape culture is, but it never really stuck to me. This is the first day I became truly angry about how rape is handled. The nurse used all the arguments I have heard before, they were probably drunk, they were probably dressed provocatively, etc., but for the first time these arguments felt like attacks on me personally.
The nurse admitted that she had a 17 year old son in high school in the Davidson area. She argued that 13 year old girls were walking down the street wearing barely anything. She said “how am I supposed to stop my son from viewing them sexually and raping them if they are dressed in that kind of way.” I was dumbfounded. Had someone in the medical community really just said that? In our last class, I got to thinking. How would this nurse had viewed things differently if her 17 year old had been a daughter and not a son? Would she have expressed concern the other way? Would she have fought this victim-shaming rape culture which she was a part of? And my goodness, what type of parenting is being taught nowadays?!?
Experts are effected. Experts are not only effected by the changes and waves of society’s thinking, but also by their own bubble. Their own friends, their own family structures. This nurse was in no way right, and in no way was it acceptable to say all of this to me, a person she had just met. However, this example shows us (an extreme way) of how society and family culture effects views. Experts cannot be trusted for everything.
The other day for class we read The Laugh of the Medusa by Hélène Cixous. In this piece she argues the need for women to write. She holds the claim that all women must write in order to liberate themselves, as well as to help transform the culture. She places a significant importance on writing by saying, “To write. An act which will not only “realize” the censored relation of woman to her sexuality, to her womanly being, giving her access to her native strength; it will give her back her goods, her pleasures, her organs, her immense bodily territories which have been kept under seal”. I believe that this excerpt from the article can be applied to the queer community in our generation today. I found online a “teaching tool” for how to construct a class in order to encourage teenagers of the queer community to write about their bodies and their “coming-out” stories in order to reconnect with their sexuality or just simply express it. I believe that Cixous would encourage exactly what this teacher is advocating for because writing helps you gain a better understanding of yourself and contributes to self-confidence.
When reading Bell Hooks’ Black Women: Shaping Feminist Theory, I came across the following quote: “Women [spend] a weekend in an expensive workshop that guarantees to teach you how to become assertive (but not aggressive).” Immediately, I remembered a commercial I saw a couple years ago sponsored by Pantene. This commercial compared the language used to describe educated women in positions of power, such as politics or CEOs, with their male counterparts in the same exact job. Not only are women discriminated against in the workplace financially, they are also put at a disadvantage for holding positions of authority by male coworkers and male identification. For so long women have be instilled with notions of proper “femininity” and what it means to be a woman, and to an extent a good housewife. According to Foucault’s repression hypothesis, this innate nature of women is actually institutionalized by the patriarchal society and is a form of oppression. How we describe women and men is very important in the language we use. Due to society’s interpretation of words like “bossy” and “boss,” these words have been engendered and therefore serve as a form of discrimination against women or less masculine men.
The documentary She’s Beautiful When She’s Angry was first shown to me in my Anthropology of Social Movements class last semester. This film traces the women’s liberation movement in the 1960s and 1970s, specifically focusing on activist groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) and Black Sisters United. The collection of women interviewed for this film were part of these groups as well as leaders of lesbian activism sects and the writers of Our Bodies, Ourselves. When reading Betty Friedan’s except from The Feminine Mystique, this documentary automatically came to mind as women were arguing for equal rights not only inside the home as mothers, but also in economics and education. But I also found this documentary very interesting because of how it addressed the intersectionality of race and gender in this period of the women’s rights movement, such as Bell Hooks writes about in Black Women: Shaping Feminist Theory. Hooks states that Friedan “ignored the existence of all non-white women and poor white women” the same way that many African American and lesbian women saw “feminist radicalism [lose] ground to bourgeois feminism.” Lesbians at the time were also rebelling against compulsory heterosexuality and male identification as they felt they had a right to voice their opinion in the women’s liberation movement as shown in the documentary. She’s Beautiful When She’s Angry shows the dynamic intersectionality of race, class, and gender during the women’s right movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
For today’s class we read the Boston Women’s Health-Book Collective, Our Bodies, Ourselves, which “inspired feminist analyses of the body, health, and sexuality”. This piece demonstrated the theme that women should not be shameful of their bodies or their bodies’ functions in anyway; and, unfortunately this takes effort because women have been raised TO be embarrassed by their bodies. In this article Selena Gomez speaks out about how she no longer will listen to others shaming her body. She refuses to be hurt by other’s nasty comments about how her body should look as a “woman” or how she should use her body. Her stand reminded me of the quote in Our Bodies,Ourselves, when it said, “learning to understand, accept, and be responsible for our physical selves, we are freed of some of these preoccupations and can start to use our untapped energies”, which Selena used her “untapped energy” to create her most recent album, “Revival”.
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]
[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.
Only five days after same-sex marriage was legalized last June, Demi Lovato released “Cool for the Summer,” the first single off her latest album Confident. The timing of the song’s release could not have been more appropriate given the Supreme Court’s ruling and the time of year. As summer is the season of warm weather, less clothing, relaxation and freedom for many young people, Lovato’s song quickly became a nationwide anthem for the hottest months of the year. With Lovato’s sultry voice and the heavy electronic beat pulsing in the back, “Cool for the Summer” received lots of air time on the radio to become what blogger Spencer Kornhaber called the potential “The Next Great Gay Anthem.” However, after listening to these lyrics and watching the music video numerous times over the past 7 months, there are aspects of the performance that make me question just how progressive it really is.
The lyrics of the song are not complex; Demi Lovato is clearly addressing a young woman she is attracted to and wants to make advances on as she sings, “I’m a little curious too – I don’t care – I can keep a secret, can you?” At this point, the lyrics point to both women expressing mutual sexual interest, though if you were to watch the music video without sound you would not know this because until halfway through the music video there is very minimal homoerotic interaction between the women. Lovato is filmed driving down a highway in a convertible with 4 other attractive women all dressed up to go for a night out, but there is no clear indication that there will be any filmic evidence of her attraction to females at this point. In the bridge, Lovato sings “Shhh… Don’t tell your mother – We’re cool for the summer.” As Kornhaber states in his article, “the singer’s same-sex smooching is presented as shenanigans—sneaky, rebellious, unapproved.” At this point, though she breaks through the fear of initiating woman-to-woman contact, her lyrics perpetuate the idea that having sexual relations with women is something to be kept secret and only acceptable as a fleeting experience, just like the summer months that pass by so quickly.
In Adrienne Rich’s work Compulsory Heterosexuality, she expands on the idea of the male gaze, which might be partly why the song and the music video both have a sense of caution or restraint, so not to reveal too much overt homoeroticism. Rich states, “However woman-to-woman relationships, female support networks, … are relied on and cherished, indoctrination in male credibility and status can still create synapses in thought, denials of feelings, wishful thinking, a profound sexual and intellectual confusion” (646). Because the idea of compulsory heterosexuality stems largely from the power play of the male gaze, the fear of fully expressing or denying one’s homosexuality is evident in Lovato’s secretiveness of the encounter both lyrically and visually. The furthest extent to which the audience views any act of attraction between women is a poorly lighted shot lasting less than half a second of Lovato kissing another woman in a nightclub. In this way, the music video censors the act of two women kissing from the public eye, which reflects to a certain degree the insecurity of being ostracized by a homophobic public.
In an interview with Alan Carr, Demi Lovato was asked whether or not “Cool for the Summer” was her way of outing herself as a lesbian, to which she answered indirectly. She responded by saying, “I’m not confirming and I’m definitely not denying.” She followed up by explaining that all of her songs are “based off of personal experiences,” and that “there’s nothing wrong with experimentation at all.” Carr’s assumption that because she wrote a song about a sexual encounter with a woman that she is a lesbian is an example of the misconception that sexuality is a two way street: either you are heterosexual or you are homosexual. This plays into the phenomenon of bi-erasure, where people negate the sexual experiences and relationships of someone falling somewhere between and write them off either by their spontaneous encounters or by defining them based on one experience. “Cool for the Summer” does exemplify Rich’s concept of the “lesbian continuum,” which is the range “of woman-identified experience; not simply the fact that a woman has had or consciously desired genital sexual experience with another woman” (648). Regardless of the way that the lyrics were depicted in the music video, the song embodies the concept of this so-called “lesbian continuum,” and it is clear that Lovato accomplishes a sense of self-assurance through it.
Works Cited
Lovato, Demi. Demi Lovato – Cool for the Summer (Official Video). YouTube. July 23, 2015.
Kornhaber, Spencer. “Demi Lovato’s ‘Cool for the Summer’: The Next Great Gay Anthem?” The Atlantic. July 14, 2015. http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/07/demi-lovatos-cool-for-the-summer-is-the-anti-i-kissed-a-girl/398426/
Marcus, Stephanie. “Demi Lovato Plays Coy About Her Sexuality While Discussing ‘Cool for the Summer.'” The Huffington Post. Sept. 14, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/demi-lovato-bisexual_us_55f736dee4b00e2cd5e7a3c5
Rich, Adrienne. “Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence.” Signs5.4 (1980): 631-660.
In Hyundai’s Super Bowl commercial entitled “First Date,” the advertisement highlights the new feature of car tracking in their vehicles by showing a concerned father allowing his teenage daughter’s date to borrow his Hyundai so that he can follow the pair around during their evening out. The advertisement comically exaggerates the lengths to which this father will go to ensure the safety, and sexual abstinence, of his daughter. This advertisement illustrates the assumption of heterosexuality as the norm, the way race and ethnicity effect definitions of masculinity, and reaffirms binary gender roles in its portrayal of a Black couple out on their first date followed by an overprotective father.
The first image that flashes onto the screen in this commercial is that of a teenage boy waiting at the door of a house, and it unsurprising when a teenage girl comes to meet him. The pair represents a typical teenage couple, with the boy affirming his heterosexuality at several points. At the very beginning, he looks the girl over and comments on her appearance in a way that suggests his physical attraction to her. Later, when the pair is in a movie theater, the boy attempts to put his arm around the girl, so initiating more intimate physical contact, only to be stopped by the girl’s father sitting behind them. Finally, the boy takes his date to a secluded area overlooking the city in a scene that mirrors traditional stories and movies in which couples go to such spots to engage in sexual activity away in a semi-private space away from parents and others. Each of these actions affirms the boy’s heterosexuality, which is assumed from the beginning. Heterosexuality is assumed because it lacks a large amount of scholarship on it, which Katz writes “continue[s] to privilege the “normal” and “natural” at the expense of the “abnormal” and “unnatural” (231). Heterosexuality maintains an unquestioned status as the normal in such a way that marginalizes every other sexual orientation, and in a way that fails to reflect the dynamic understandings of heterosexuality and what is the norm. The sexual component of the relationship featured in this commercial, although never fully realized, speaks to another aspect of common understandings about heterosexuality: fecundity. The 1940s gave rise to the image of heterosexual couples as fertile and productive, making part of heterosexual identity the ability to procreate (237). While this partly relates to earlier ideas about natural sex drive or libido, it also speaks to a sort of responsibility on the part of heterosexual couples to engage in sexual activity in order to be productive members of society. The actions of the boy in this commercial to assert his heterosexuality affirm heterosexuality as the norm and marginalize non-normative sexualities.
Among the striking things about this commercial is that it features exclusively Black individuals as its main characters. Because the commercial itself focuses on the men involved, this analysis will also focus on the way race effects perceptions about masculinity. The boy featured in this advertisement enacts several key points of traditional hegemonic masculinity, which “embodied the currently most honored way of being a man, it required all other men to position themselves in relation to it” (Connell and Messerschmidt 832). Although most men do not entirely fit the mold of hegemonic masculinity, they must still demonstrate how they compare or fit into some parts of it. For example, the boy in this commercial wears jewelry, which is typically seen as feminine, but counterbalances this by asserting his sexuality and in proving his athletic prowess by winning a stuffed animal at the carnival game for his date. Historically, Black men have been portrayed as hypersexual, harkening back to times when there was a pervasive fear among Whites, especially women, of Black men’s sexuality (some of which persists today). It is the final portion of the advertisement that most clearly speaks to this point. The advertisement is titled “First Date,” and the beginning is much of what one would expect from a first date—a movie and an activity in a public place, in this case a carnival rather than dinner, for example. However, in the final part of the date the boy takes the girl to a secluded area where it is clearly suggested he intends for them to be physically intimate, although to what degree his expectations extended is unclear. This presumption of physical and sexual intimacy on a first date when it is unclear whether the couple is even exclusive speaks to a hypersexualization of the main character as a young Black man in that it demonstrates his desire for physical intimacy and the ways in which he leads, and one could argue even pressures to a certain degree, his date to meet his desires and expectations.
The role of the father in this advertisement also conforms to traditional notions of masculinity enacted in a different way given the difference in the relationship between a father and daughter rather than between heterosexual partners. Hegemonic masculinity positions women as subordinate to men by way of culture, institutions, and social structures (Connell and Messerschmidt 832). In this commercial, the father enacts hegemonic masculinity by establishing his dominance over the boy, who he sees as seeking to in some ways dominate his daughter. He seeks to give off and imposing and threatening presence that makes the boy reconsider and ultimately decide against actions the father deems inappropriate. In this way, the father not only dominates the boy but also his own daughter by deciding what is and is not appropriate for her. In fact, he does not even allow her the agency to decide for herself or weigh in on what is appropriate. This demonstrates the cultural aspect of hegemonic masculinity in that the father asserts himself within a role society has traditionally assigned him as head of the family and so dominant over each member and all decisions made by the family, as well as its protector. Perhaps the father’s aggressive assertion of his dominance speaks to a desire to counterbalance his short stature, which does not conform to traditional ideas of manhood, with something that does align with hegemonic masculinity. In conforming to some ideals of masculinity and failing to conform to others, the father illustrates the flawed nature of masculinity that “essentializes the character of men or imposes a false unity on a fluid and contradictory reality” (836). The restrictive nature of traditional masculinity speaks to what Butler’s argument that identity categories are by nature repressive, while they also provide a unifying point around which to rally support (308). The father seeks to negotiate his own masculinity in a repressive box that he does not wholly fit into but also belongs in some ways to. The father in this commercial conforms to hegemonic masculinity in his assertion of dominance over another man and his daughter, as well as in his enactment of the role of father itself as being one of protecting and controlling the family and its members.
The Hyundai advertisement affirms traditional notions of heterosexuality in its portrayal of the couple on their first date and specifically the boy’s assertion of his heterosexuality. The boy’s sexuality also speaks to the hypersexualization of Black men, which is distinct from broader understandings of masculinity. Finally, the father’s gender performance demonstrates the repressive nature of identity categories, specifically hegemonic masculinity, which he neither fits completely nor eschews.
Works Cited
Butler, Judith. “Imitation and Gender Insubordination,” in The Lesbian and Gay Studies
Reader. Eds. Henry Abelove, Michele Barale, and David M. Halperin. New York:
Routledge, 1993.
Connell, R.W., and James Messerschmidt. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the
Concept.” Gender Society 19 (2005).
Katz, Jonathan. “The Invention of Heterosexuality.” Socialist Review 20 (1990).
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.
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.
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
Old Spice is known for their shirtless models with chiseled torsos, commercials that Inc.com calls “Funny. Memorable. Manly,” “a marketing success”. It’s difficult to find someone who hasn’t seen or experienced the sheer silliness of an Old Spice commercial—upon seeing my first one I remember rocking back and forth in laughter before training my eyes on the next commercial, unthinkingly moving past the fairly overt problematic assumptions presented by Old Spice. Their commercial, “The Man Your Man Could Smell Like” is a minefield of gender and sexuality based assumptions, affecting not only societal constructions of what it is to be male, but also what it is to be female.
Before diving in to the actual verbiage of the piece, the setting as well as the costume screams sexualization. A young, athletically built man stands in front of an open shower curtain (water running behind), naked but for a towel around the waist, waggling his eyebrows as a booming voice challenges other men on their “manliness”. Right off the bat, we can see the classic image that the Old Spice Company itself terms “a manly man”. Throughout the course of the thirty-second commercial, the towel flies off the man to reveal tight fitting white pants, and a shirt is tied around his topless torso as the setting changes to a boat, then a beach on top of a horse. The evolution in just thirty seconds of commercial whips us from a sexualized scene in a bathroom to a whimsical boat scene, to a moment on a horse, playing into historical images of men riding majestically into battle to defend loved ones and honor. Interestingly enough, the idea of a ‘manly man’ is illustrated brilliantly in the ad, playing upon all stereotypes except for that of the ‘ideal man’ involving a measure of whiteness, as the man of the commercial is a person of color. While it seems as though Old Spice is defying racial expectations, sexuality and gender norms are stringently enforced and thrust upon the viewer.
The initial shower scene alone is played with the goal of capturing heterosexual women’s attention through sexualized images while simultaneously playing to ideals of masculinity and competition through men. Inc.com’s assessment of this commercial as a “marketing success” may not be far off the mark, as the first five seconds alone seem to have the tools necessary to capture the attention of both heterosexual women and men, drawing the attention of their target audience in a flash. If it weren’t enough to capture the attention of the heterosexual woman through the setting and costuming itself, the opening two words of the commercial are “Hello ladies”.
As the narrator/character begins to speak, he speaks to the heterosexual woman looking for not only a heterosexual man, but a typically masculine one as well. He then says “look at your man, now back to me. Now back to your man, now back to me.” Not only is it implied that the target audience is heterosexual women, but he actually calls for women to “look to their man”. After saying that it’s unfortunate their man doesn’t look like him, he says, “but if he stopped using lady-scented body wash and switched to Old Spice, he could smell like me”. Sharply contrasting his masculinity with the idea of femininity and “lady scented body wash” (implicitly floral or sweet-smelling body wash), he offers a ‘masculinity challenge’ of sorts, to heterosexual men, asserting that scent plays a key factor in their perceived masculinity. The simultaneous play to the assumed desires of the heterosexual woman and the ego bruise to the heterosexual men are a means of ensuring that women go out and buy the soap for their significant others, and that if they don’t, men will buy it themselves to further establish their masculinity. This association between scent and masculinity is reminiscent of other associations used by media advertising—for example, consumption of alcohol and having a good time with friends: having fun. These associations normally made during advertisements are proven effective, however, when combined with societal constructions of what it is to be a man or a woman, we see that the product marketing takes deeper root.
Continuing with the plot of the commercial, the silliness explodes as the man in the commercial makes quick shifts between tickets to “that thing you like”, which then turn into diamonds, which then lead to the phrase “anything is possible when your man smells like Old Spice and not a lady”. After playing into the stereotype of women liking jewelry and the arts, this final charged line further helps to showcase the polarization between genders, placing women on one side and men on the other, femininity on one end and masculinity on the other, going against the idea of a spectrum.
This, interestingly enough, plays into an idea raised by Risman in her work “Gender as Structure”, in which she introduces the idea of different levels of gender as structure: individual, interactional, and institutional. I would argue that commercials such as this, presented by Old Spice, function on the interactional level, involving “cultural expectations: taken-for-granted situational meaning” (129). Regardless of our personal expectations, the commercial hands us a situation in which the gender binary is assumed, in addition to heterosexuality. The multitude of layers of assumptions presented by Old Spice serve to reinforce societal expectations of gender roles, as well as cater specifically to heterosexual viewers, overtly calling them and only them to attention.
Works Cited:
Risman, Barbara. “Gender as structure.” Gender Vertigo: American Families in Transition (1998): 127-132.
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”
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.
Image from NPR: http://www.npr.org/2014/03/03/284006424/e-cigarette-critics-worry-new-ads-will-make-vaping-cool-for-kids
Blu Electronic Cigarettes markets themselves as a healthier, cooler alternative to tobacco cigarettes. To that end, in 2014 the company released a full page advertisement featuring the body of a woman in order to attract primarily young, white consumers. This advertisement is in a format that is suited to magazines, webpages, and billboards. It was found in Sports Illustrated magazine and on Sports Illustrated’s website, which suggests that the advertisement is intended to target men. However, the images and text in this advertisement are strongly in line with historical strategies intended to market cigarettes to women, which suggests that women are also an intended target. Either way, Blu’s advertisement relies on and perpetuates images of sexualized femininity in order to sell their product, and in doing so finds a place in the continuing relationship between women and cigarette marketing.
Instead of burning tobacco, electronic cigarettes heat and vaporize liquids that contain nicotine, which the user then inhales[i]. In this advertisement, Blu ignores promoting the supposed comparative health benefits of electronic cigarettes or their ‘cool’ factor, and instead opts for the lowest common denominator of advertising – sex sells! The advertisement is dominated by the body of a young, thin, white woman at a beach in a bikini bottom labeled ‘Blu Electronic Cigarettes’. She is only shown from just below the rib cage to halfway down her thighs, centered on her groin. An image of the product itself occupies a small space in the lower right corner of the page, opposite the slogan ‘Slim. Charged. Ready to Go.’, directions to the company’s website, and health disclaimers in the smallest of small print.
The focus on the model’s sexual appeal instead of the product being sold reinforces the sexualization of femininity in American culture. The model’s genitalia, figure, and race are all highlighted as elements of her physical attractiveness. The viewer’s gaze is drawn directly to the model’s crotch, where the company’s name is stamped across her bikini bottom. Thus, the Blu Electronic Cigarettes brand is literally attached to the vagina. The image is constructed so that you can’t miss that association. If, by some chance, the viewer missed the model’s groin on the first look, all the lines of focus direct the gaze back to the model’s vagina. The model’s fingers, the insides of her thighs, the packaging of the cigarette recharge kit and the jewelry in the model’s belly button all act as arrows pointing the viewer’s attention straight back to her vagina. The focus on the model’s genitalia sexualizes her femininity. When one recalls the phallic shape of a cigarette itself, the sexual overtones of the image are overwhelming. In this context, the words in the slogan ‘Charged’ and ‘Ready to Go’ take on a sexual connotation, suggesting the primary importance of the female body is its sexual potential. For the purpose of this advertisement, the model’s function is entirely for her sex appeal. A further examination of the model shows that she is thin around the waist, and her impossibly photo-shopped ‘thigh gap’ is prominently displayed. An implicit comparison between the slimness of the model and the slimness of the cigarettes is drawn by word ‘Slim’ in the slogan. According to Blu, sexy women must be thin. Men viewing this advertisement internalize that thin women are sexy women, and women themselves learn that they must slim down for men to find them physically attractive. Thus, this advertisement reinforces the notion that thinness is required for sexual attractiveness in women. Finally, the model is a white woman, which perpetuates the default of whiteness as the sexual ideal in American culture.
Unfortunately, Blu’s advertising strategy appears effective, as young people are exposed to electronic cigarette advertisements and are using electronic cigarettes is larger and larger numbers. Even though tobacco cigarettes cannot be advertised to minors, those restrictions do not yet apply to electronic cigarettes. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 69% of middle school and high school students in America viewed electronic cigarette advertisements in 2014[ii]. All this advertising is having an effect. Again from the CDC, from 2013 to 2014 the usage of electronic cigarettes among American middle school and high school students tripled, increasing to 3.9% of middle school students and 13.4% of high school students[iii]. Aside from the well-known adverse effects of youth nicotine use, these numbers show that the next generation of Americans are still witnessing and likely internalizing outrageously sexualized images of women as the norm of glamorous, sexy and cool.
This advertisement fits comfortably in the long history of cigarette advertisements aimed at women. In 1928, Edward Bernays orchestrated an Easter Day parade featuring “a number of genteel women” publicly smoking in a New York City on Fifth Avenue. He then ran a series of advertisements for Lucky Strike cigarettes aimed at women, knowing that women were an untapped, potentially lucrative client base. Thus began the co-opting of women smoking as a sign of defiance by cigarette companies and advertising agencies. Early slogans included “You’ve come a long way, baby” from Lucky Strike, referencing the women’s liberation movement of the 1920s[iv]. In the 1930s, A Chesterfield advertisement suggested that, “Women started to vote… just about the time they began to smoke”. Philip Morris followed suit, exclaiming “Believe in Yourself!” above the image of a glamorous smoking woman. These advertisements also capitalized on sexual norms, suggesting that smoking would keep women skinny with the slogan “Reach for a Lucky instead of a Sweet”[v]. Much later, Camel released a brand called Camel No. 9, designed to evoke the glamor and sex appeal of perfumes and pop songs. Of course, all of the women shown in the advertisements were thin white women. The advertising succeeded in changing cultural norms. Women began smoking in larger numbers as they saw smoking as a glamorous, independent act. The effects carry over to this day. Twenty percent of modern women smoke[vi], and in modern culture, smoking can give women an air of power and eloquence, as seen in the television show Mad Men and the feature length movie Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Blu Electronic Cigarette’s advertisement fits in the pattern of previous cigarette ads aimed at women. It markets its product to women with vague allusions to women’s sexual liberation, promises of thinness, and the allure of the white sexual ideal.
The advertisement promoting Blu Electronic Cigarettes perpetuates the social norm of white sexualized femininity. The product is advertised solely by an attractive, thin, white model, or more precisely, the model’s barely concealed vagina. In doing so, Blu finds a comfortable place in the tradition of marketing cigarettes to women by co-opting women’s liberation and promising that their product will make women sexier, skinnier, and cooler.
Citations:
[i] “How VaporFi E-Cigarettes and Vaporizers Work.” How VaporFi E-Cigarettes and Vaporizers Work. VaporFi, Inc., International Vapor Group, Inc., n.d. Web. 08 Feb. 2016. <http://www.vaporfi.com/how-it-works/>.
[ii] “E-cigarette Ads Reach Nearly 7 in 10 Middle and High-school Students.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 05 Jan. 2016. Web. 08 Feb. 2016. <http:www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/p0416-e-cigarette-use.html>
[iii] “E-cigarette Use Triples among Middle and High School Students in Just One Year.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 Apr. 2015. Web. 08 Feb. 2016. <http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2015/p0416-e-cigarette-use.html>.
[iv] Lee, Jennifer 8. “Big Tobacco’s Spin on Women’s Liberation.” City Room Big Tobaccos Spin on Women’s Liberation Comments. The New York Times Company, 10 Oct. 2008. Web. 08 Feb. 2016. <http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/big-tobaccos-spin-on-womens-liberation/?_r=0>.
[v] Christian, Wendy. “Torches of Freedom: Women and Smoking Propaganda – Sociological Images.” Sociological Images Torches of Freedom Women and Smoking Propaganda Comments. W. W. Norton & Company, 27 Feb. 2007. Web. 08 Feb. 2016. <https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/02/27/torches-of-freedom-women-and-smoking-propaganda/>.
[vi] “Women and Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 30 Aug. 2002. Web. 08 Feb. 2016. <http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5112a4.htm>.
