How Racism and Homophobia Allowed Jeffrey Dahmer to Get Away With Murder

Posted on by Former Student

The newest Netflix tv series Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story broke the record for biggest series debut on Netflix with the most streams yet. The storyline follows the notorious Milwaukee serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, who killed a total of seventeen males ages fourteen to thirty three. The show begins with how Dahmer ultimately got caught and works backwards to fill in the questions about his childhood, adolescence, and adulthood in an attempt to answer why he was such a monster. I will warn, this blog post contains spoilers and content that may be disturbing for readers, especially people of color and the LGBTQ+ community. I aim to unpack how this documentary exposes the disturbing truth about how society and law enforcement views the needs and rights of marginalized groups. 

Here is an image of the scene. In this image is Glenda, her daughter, and her niece. Glenda can be seen yelling at the cop in an attempt to get him to believe her that Jeffrey is dangerous and should not be allowed to take the boy back inside.

While there are many examples within the documentary of both homophobia and racism, there is one case that struck me the most and has haunted me since. 14 year old Konerak Sinthasomphone, whose brother Dahmer was currently on probation for molesting, was taken home by Jeffrey Dahmer with the promise of receiving $100 if he could take pictures of him.  Jeffrey Dahmer then convinced Konerak to drink alcohol, which unbeknownst to the boy, had been drugged. Once the boy was severely intoxicated, Dahmer left to go get more alcohol, as he usually killed in a state of severe inebriation. At that time, the young boy managed to escape outside of the apartment building where he was found by Glenda Cleveland, Dahmer’s neighbor who had already filed many complaints about him. She called the police and two white officers arrived to find the boy highly intoxicated and unable to keep conscious or speak. However, when the only other white man in the situation arrived, Jeffrey Dahmer, and claimed that it was his boyfriend, they listened. He told the police that the boy was his 19 years old boyfriend who lived with him and simply had too much to drink. Instead of listening to Glenda, a woman of color, and her continuous pleas to check the identification of the boy who appeared much younger than 19, they decided to follow Dahmer to his apartment. The officers ultimately did not search around because Dahmer claimed that there was “gay stuff” that they would find. However, if they had entered the bedroom they would have found evidence of multiple gruesome murders commited by Dahmer right where they were standing. The idea that homophobia benefited a serial killer is disturbing, but not the only reason Dahmer escaped the scrutiny of the police. The police ask him what a man like him, meaning a white man, is doing living in that neighborhood for crack addicts. This question immediately demonstrates why Dahmer was able to easily convince them there was nothing of concern and why Glenda failed to be heard by law enforcement. Racism and homophobia enabled Dahmer. It allowed for that Laos boy to be returned and killed moments after the police left. The prejudice ingrained in our systems killed that boy and now the Sinthasomphone family, and many others, will never see their baby boy ever again.

What would you do if your gut was telling you there is something seriously wrong with your next door neighbor, but everyone ignores you? What about if multiple people in your community were going missing, but still little to no action has taken place? And if it all ended with the same person having been killing and eating all seventeen of those people? The disgusting reality of Jeffrey Dahmer’s case is that the killer is not the only one to blame. 

Above is an image of Glenda finding out in the show what Jeffrey Dahmer had been up to, a harsh realization that all of her instinct were correct, but still could not stop him. The raw emotion depicted by both this image and the one above contribute to the harsh impact of the show on viewers as they can see, even through acting, just how much emotional distress was caused.

There continue to be examples of groups, such as people of color and the LGBTQ+ community, being not only targeted with hate crimes, but also lacking the same legal response and repercussions that straight, white, cisgender men receive as victims. I believe the story of Jeffrey Dahmer calls into question whether we, as a society, need more physical, obvious proof to accuse white men? Or do we just not exhibit the same level of concern for people of marginalized groups who appear to be in danger? I believe both to be true, and Jeffrey Dahmer is only one example, but ultimately an ideal display of how members of society benefit from the prejudice exhibited toward those who are oppressed. 

In conclusion, this documentary perfectly exemplifies both homophobia and racism within our society. Jeffrey Dahmer a notorious serial killer who was able to get away with killing 17 boys and young men simply on the grounds that he targeted mainly gay men of color, who the police underpatrolled and law enforcement failed to represent. Jeffrey Dahmer would not have been able to escape for as long as he did if he himself was a member of a racial minority. He would not have been afforded the same graces that he was, and hopefully, would have been caught early on before he could brutally murder several innocent males. The repeatedly ignored signs of problematic behavior that Dahmer presented show something that in our society has not changed, as many serial killers tend to be white men. Due to their race and gender, these heinous killers commit multiple murders before getting caught, just as Dahmer did. 

This is an ongoing issue that needs to be addressed by our society. Crime should not know a color of skin or gender identity. Marginalized groups should not be targeted while cis white men get away with murder, especially those within our own law enforcement. Jeffrey Dahmer’s case may be over thirty years old, but it sheds light on an issue that still exists today. It is time to take action and ensure justice is served for all members of society equally, it is their human right. 

How I Met Your Mother – Sitcom For Skinny People?

Posted on by Former Student

Trigger Warning: fatphobia, mention of sexual assault

How I Met Your Mother (HIMYM) is a popular American sitcom that came out in 2005 and continued through 2014. Set in the New York City, it follows the story of a group of friends and their romantic relationships. The main character, Ted, is the narrator, and tells his children the story of how he met their mother, while also including the stories of all of his friends in the process. Barney, one of his best friends and our main focus today, is known for sleeping with a lot of women, inappropriate jokes, and, unfortunately, fatphobia.

“Over 200 women, spanning six continents, 17 nationalities, 74 sexual positions, and not a single fatty. It’s impressive.” (Season 5, Episode 14)

Barney’s idea of “success,” which involves sleeping with a variety of women from different backgrounds, emphasizes not one of them being fat. He presents sleeping with a fat woman as something to be ashamed of and avoid at all costs, expressing it as success if being able to avoid it.

“Let’s say the young lady you’re bringing home is dressed for winter. Under those layers, an unwelcome surprise could await you. The scale with body fat calculator I’ve hidden under the welcome mat makes sure you never have banger’s remorse.” (Season 8, Episode 19)

By going through so many measures to ensure he doesn’t sleep with a fat woman he shows the audience that they themselves should avoid it at all costs. Additionally, he points out that winter layers can make it impossible to assess whether someone is fat or not; it implies that any form of fat is unacceptable, even if not seen at first. I believe that, unfortunately, Barney is generally a liked character, meant to make the audience laugh and, perhaps, copy some of his behaviors. For example, his famous line “It’s gonna be LEGEN… wait for it… DARY. It’s gonna be LEGENDARY” is catchy and can easily be used by everyone to “spice up” what they’re saying. What if Barney’s other behaviors are copied like that as well?

The constant mockery of fat people, and especially fat women, is a big part of the show. The audience may laugh, but through those not-so-subtle jokes, they are subconsciously impacted. Barney’s comments can create problems that go way beyond a joke – it can lead to extensive weight bias or violence. Barney even made up a commandment, which is defined as “a divine rule” called “no fat chicks.” It is also catchy, like his famous saying mentioned earlier, and is incredibly harmful to others.

Marshall: He’s rich? Please tell me he wrote you a big, fat check. A check so fat, it doesn’t take its shirt off when it goes swimming.

Barney: That is a big, fat check. A check so fat, after you have sex with it, you don’t tell your buddies about it.

Robin: A check so fat, when it sits next to you on an airplane, you ask yourself if it should have bought two seats.

(Season 4, Episode 23)

Fat people are dismissed, mocked, laughed at, and excluded from any spaces in the show. Every male and female character in the show is skinny, besides one – Patrice. She is one of the main character’s, Robin’s, coworkers. She is a very kind person, and whenever she opens her mouth to say anything, she is met with frustration and something that can be described as a demonic scream from Robin.

As we can see, no matter what she says or does, she is verbally attacked. She can compliment Robin, bake her cookies, try to help her, or simply exist – she will be yelled at for all of those things. Some might blame it on Robin’s intense character, her upbringing, or many other things… but is it a coincidence that the only person in the show who is fat is also treated like that? Let that sink in.

Another very prevalent issue in the show is constant lack of consent. We all love FRIES – acronym for consent (Freely given, Reversible, Informed, Enthusiastic, and Specific). Barney fails to follow one of the most important aspects of it – consent being informed. He had created an entire “Playbook” with different schemes on how to get women to sleep with him; most of those scenarios include him changing his identity.

Women are sexually assaulted, objectified, disrespected, and presented as dumb in the show for falling for it. All of those schemes are meant to be funny, but instead are countless examples of sexual assault, which the show does not acknowledge whatsoever as anything else besides a joke.

As we can see, How I Met Your Mother is problematic for a plethora of reasons, including prevalent fatphobia and lack of consent. The media can impact individuals in a variety of ways, including indirectly, which makes the show incredibly harmful. Weight bias is seen as funny and met with no consequences. The show is currently, best to my knowledge, not easily accessible on streaming platforms, which might slightly limit the impact. The issues in the show should be addressed, and everyone should be aware of its problematic nature.

quotes from: https://knowmediaorg.tumblr.com/post/123573154453/how-i-met-your-mother-fatphobia

Dangerous Weight Loss in “The Office”

Posted on by Former Student

In this blog post, I will be examining scenes from The Office Season 5, Episode 1: “Weight Loss.” Particularly, I will look at scenes where Kelly Kapoor, played by Mindy Kaling, describes her own strategies for quick weight loss. In the show, Kelly is established as the ‘ditsy,’ celebrity-obsessed office worker. She is Dunder Mifflin Paper Company’s Customer Service Representative, which fits her talkative, bubbly personality. Known as someone who tries to dress in current trends, is shown to be overly concerned about her appearance, and often discusses surface-level issues, it makes sense that she was chosen as the character who attempts weight loss through misleading popular culture trends. 

The first scene I will examine is from the beginning of the episode. In “Weight Loss,” the show’s branch of Dunder Mifflin is attempting to collectively lose the most weight in order to win a corporate contest. Some take the stairs rather than the elevator, some exercise, and some, like Kelly, fall prey to lose-weight-fast methods spread through social media and celebrities. In Kelly’s first scene of the episode, the camera focuses on the cubicle next to her’s, and the audience hears coughing (00:09:26-00:10:00). The camera pans over to Kelly, who is sitting at her desk screwing the cap on a large jug of liquid with shaking hands. Some syrup sits next to a few lemons. Holly, who works at the adjacent cubicle, peeks her head over and says “You’re shaking, are you all right?” To which Kelly replies “Just leave me alone!”

The next scene is Kelly’s interview with the cameraman. She mentions that she’s on the third day of her cleanse diet. This entails drinking only syrup, lemon juice, cayenne pepper, and water to replace all three meals of the day. Getting slightly more enthused, she explains that she ordered some bikinis in a size two, which is her goal size for losing weight. She sing-songs “Gonna look amazing,” but clearly is having to force any excitement and sounds exhausted.

Her appearance suggests this exhaustion. She has very dark undereye bags because she likely isn’t getting enough sleep due to coughing from this drink concoction. She sounds weak and tired, because this diet is not providing her body with the nutrients necessary for energy and simple survival. This scene shows the damage from diet culture. Kelly is trying to lose weight quickly by not adequately sustaining her body. However, this is just the beginning of what the dangerous effects of diet culture can be. It connects with eating disorder-perpetuating rhetoric that ‘skinny is best’ and that one must lose weight to be pretty, and that quick-fix cleanses like Kelly’s drink are a healthy way of losing weight. Later in this same week, during the weigh-in, Kelly collapses on to the ground, showing how this diet is not sustaining her body (00:14:20).

The next week, Kelly says that she swallowed a tapeworm and it’ll grow in her stomach, eating all the food she digests so that she can’t gain weight (00:19:00). She is continuing to attempt dangerous weight loss tricks, even after mentioning how she was on an IV in the hospital for three days after the fainting incident (00:14:40-00:14:45). Over halfway through the episode, Dunder Mifflin finally makes a statement that the company does not condone extreme weight loss habits (00:27:54-00:28:04). 

The problems with this episode connect to our introduction to fat studies this past week. This episode continues to perpetuate fatphobic beliefs that the best measure of health is a scale, even though simply how much we weigh is not an accurate measure of holistic health. The episode perpetuates the belief that having fat is bad and inherently unhealthy. In terms of Kelly’s juice cleanse, I did some more research and learned that it’s known as the “Master Cleanse,” which one consumes for 10 days to replace all meals.

On some websites, people love this diet. It helped them lose weight quickly and they were able to not eat food for all 10 days. When I was scrolling through the comments of a website from 2009, trying to find one saying that it’s not enough nutrients to sustain a body for 10 days, I only found one. Furthermore, this commenter suffered lots of backlash, with one person saying that “It is not unhealthy to give up food for a period of time…I think it’s an awesome cleanse and it works wonders. If you can’t give up food, then don’t. But don’t disrespect people that can do it.”

This comment felt unnecessarily aggressive, and the writer made fasting a matter of willpower to not eat. This glorifies the ability to not eat for 10 days, when this is often unhealthy for one’s body without approval of a physician.

My hope is that the producers of The Office aimed to reflect the weight loss trends of the time this season was filmed, in 2009. It’s an interesting commentary, but they don’t refute any of the potentially dangerous actions the workers are taking to lose weight until over halfway through the episode. Taken the wrong way, this episode and Kelly’s diet could be used as examples for how to lose weight quickly, particularly for women-identifying people, on whom society puts way more pressure to lose weight in order to be considered traditionally beautiful.

This episode is rife with assumptions on gender, race, and sexuality. Kelly’s struggle to lose weight demonstrates the disproportionate pressure on women-identifying people in western society to lose weight, more so than men. Her focus is completely on her appearance, shown by the comment about ordering bikinis in a size two. The men who discuss wanting to lose weight do it mostly for general health reasons.

Works Cited

Carell, Steve, and Mindy Kaling. “Weight Loss.” The Office, season 5, episode 1, NBC, 2005. 

Julson, Erica. “Master Cleanse (Lemonade) Diet: Does It Work for Weight Loss?” Healthline, Healthline Media, 17 July 2018, https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/master-cleanse-lemonade-diet.

McKinnon, Martha. “Cayenne Pepper Water Lemon Maple Syrup.” Simple Nourished Living, Martep Media Group LLC, 25 Feb. 2017, https://simple-nourished-living.com/cayenne-pepper-water-lemon-maple-syrup/.

Dismantling Jules Vaughn

Posted on by Former Student

The show Euphoria, starring multiple famous actors like Hunter Schafer and Zendaya Coleman, shows a raw demonstration of the struggles teenagers go through daily. Euphoria is about a group of teenagers from California who are in high school. They experience a multitude of issues. Some important characters are Rue, Jules, Nate, Cassie, and Maddy. The group of friends is divided and united by their trauma, experiences, and conflicts with one another. The audience is shown clips of couples involved in toxic relationships and teenagers struggling with drug addiction. In this blog, I will discuss how this show illustrates the assumptions about gender, race, and sexuality of the main character, Jules Vaughn. 

To begin, Jules is introduced to the show as a transgender woman struggling with her identity for a long time. For instance, when she was 11 years old, her mother sent her to a psychiatric hospital because Jules had a history of self-harm and depression. She suffered from gender dysphoria – someone fighting against their biological and gender identity because they believe it is not the same. In Season 1, Episode 2, Jules talks to her therapist about a Supprelin implant embedded in her body that prevents her voice from dropping and stops her male genitals from developing. The thought of puberty scared her during her childhood because she felt out of place in her body from a young age. Although the journey of a transgender youth experiences highs and lows, Jules’s father serves as a positive example of a support system for LGBTQ+ youth. Jules has a father-daughter relationship rather than a mother-daughter relationship. This is unusual because typically, mothers are known for being more nurturing and accepting than fathers; however, in this case, the roles are versed and Jules’s father is the one who stays with Jules during her transition.

Sexuality also plays an important role in how Jules is presented to us. For example, we can categorize her sexual orientation as bisexual because she has a relationship with Rue Bennet, a female, and romantic feelings for Nate Jacobs, a male. In addition, she has sexual encounters with Rue in addition to Nate’s father. However, not everyone is accepting of Jules’s gender identity. Jules and Nate shared explicit text messages and images through a dating app. Nate catfishes her and creates a persona labeled ‘Tyler.’ He struggles with internalized homophobia, which causes him to lash out against Jules and blackmail her when he acquires some of her nude pictures. Also, internalized homophobia implies that Nate does not consider Jules a female but a male because she has a penis. He feels homosexual because he is attracted to someone with male genitalia. This is discovered when Nate’s girlfriend, Maddy, finds pictures of male genitalia on Nate’s phone. Nate blackmails Jules because he believed that she was going to make a report to the police about his father sleeping with Jules, a minor, and recording a sex tape, which would be considered child pornography. Other than this, every other character in Euphoria respects Jules’s pronouns and identity. However, in Season 1, Episode 8, Rue approaches Nate outside during a school dance and threatens him about ruining his life and his father’s if he does not leave Jules alone. Rue further expresses her anger towards Nate by saying that “I have no problem walking into any police station and telling them that Nat Jacob’s daddy likes to f*ck little kids.” This scene demonstrates the lengths that Rue would go to stand up for those who disrespect her friend Jules. You can see this in action in the YouTube video attached below. Warning: Inappropriate language is used. 

Lastly, Jules’s race is white, meaning she does not experience the same problems as a black transgender person in the LGBTQ+ Community. Euphoria follows the default of white representation in media rather than illustrating a diverse trans woman. Also, statistics have shown that across the United States, Latinx and Black trans women encounter more violence, discrimination, and hate crimes towards their identities. For example, in San Francisco, 47.9% of Black and 49.0% of Latina trans women experience hate crimes. Because the creators of Euphoria made Jules a white character, they failed to demonstrate the hardships experienced by other transgender POCs (Persons of Color). Another important aspect is that she gets involved in an interracial relationship with Rue, which shows us that Jules does not have a preference when dating someone. Jules’s interracial relationship with Rue illustrates that her experience of being marginalized in society allows her to be more empathetic toward other oppressed populations.

Euphoria portrays an accurate picture of teenagers who are transgender. Although Jules is a 17-year-old trans woman rather than an older trans woman who has encountered more obstacles, Euphoria mimics these real-life situations. A teenager struggles through a period where puberty and identities are questioned; however, adults are more secure about themselves, explaining the chaotic nature of Jules’s experiences. She has not only combated against gender dysphoria but her future and personal identity. Unlike other shows and movies, Euphoria shows us an accurate representation of the difficulties adolescents face throughout their lives that many prefer to conceal, although it can be inaccurate because the show is not based on true stories. It can be hard at times to digest the scenes presented by the actors, but it helps us better understand what it is like to experience these situations and develop sympathy. Although life is complex and complicated, it is essential to grow awareness about how people who are considered to be “different” in society face societal prejudice and learn to overcome these obstacles. 

Jules Vaughn

Sources: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-021-11107-x

Carl’s Jr.- Selling Burgers or Babes?

Posted on by Former Student

For many (like myself) Super Bowl advertisements are as much a draw as the actual football game. In the 2010s, the burger chain Carl’s Jr. notoriously released a series of hypersexualized advertisements that drew attention to the fast-food franchise for all the wrong reasons. While the “plot” varied from ad to ad, most featured very scantily-clad, white models writhing around and sensually biting into burgers. Interestingly, many advertisements also played into a kind of Americana fantasy, with Kate Upton styled in pin-up fashion at a drive-in movie in one ad, and Hannah Ferguson and Paris Hilton wearing western-inspired bikinis and washing a muddy truck in another, playing homage to the restaurant’s Texas roots.

Kate Upton Ad

The 2012 commercial with Kate Upton advertises the restaurant’s jalapeno “patty melt” and features Upton sitting in a convertible car by herself and eating the burger in an incredibly sexual manner, The commercial switches between zoomed-in shots of Upton, a popular sex symbol of the 2010s, biting into the burger, untying her hair, and throwing her head back in ecstasy. She is also pictured sweating and fanning herself, with several close-up shots of perspiration on her cleavage, supposedly to advertise how “spicy” the burger is, with its “pepper jack cheese, jalapenos, and Santa Fe sauce.” Upton is also provocatively pictured straddling the takeout bag while eating the burger, mouth agape and squirming, revealing her lingerie, and meant to look like she is in the middle of a sex act. A young man in a neighboring car, presumably on a date with his girlfriend, stares at Upton in awe, before his girlfriend turns his head back toward the movie screen. To me, this advertisement was very reminiscent of Sandy’s character arc in Grease, from a modest, girl-next-door, to provocative bombshell. This interaction characterizes Upton as a spectacle for male consumption, as she is clearly putting on a performance targeted toward the male gaze. 

Hannah Ferguson/Paris Hilton Ad

Another 2014 commercial features model Hannah Ferguson and socialite Paris Hilton sensually washing a dirty truck while somehow simultaneously eating a “Texas BBQ Thickburger.” The majority of the commercial shows Ferguson pouring sudsy water on herself and posing around and on top of the truck, interspersed with slow-motion shots of her mouth biting into the burger. When Paris Hilton enters the scene at the end of the commercial, she makes a suggestive comment about Ferguson “missing a spot” while cleaning, before dramatically taking a bite of the jalapeno fry that had fallen out of the burger and onto the hood of the truck. The rock-and-roll music and cheesy airbrushed, slow-motion editing of the commercial posits the model’s bodies as the focal point, asserting that they, like the burger, are a commodity.

In both advertisements, the models are acting out a heteronormative male fantasy. The commercials are purposefully outrageous and unrealistic, starting with the ridiculous notion that supermodels choose to eat double-bacon cheeseburgers from Carl’s Jr. These women are meant to represent the epitome of female beauty, one that can only be attained through extreme restriction and surgical enhancement, yet behave like “one of the guys,” acting interested in cars and indulging in burgers and beer. The commercials are intentionally provocative, bordering on pornographic, which stands in stark contrast to the product Carl’s Jr. is advertising. There is no existing connection between cheeseburgers and washing cars in lingerie, for example, so the choice to situate the advertisement in this context clearly revolves around the sex appeal of these women’s bodies. 

The efficacy of these ads relies completely upon their titillating nature and the sex appeal of the models they exploit. The reason why these ads garnered such attention is because they were so explicit, yet surrounded the advertisement of an objectively unsexy subject: a sandwich. Had a fat, or stereotypically “unattractive” woman been the covergirl of the Carl’s Jr. ad campaign, the advertisements would have had the opposite effect, furthering the stereotypical association between fast food, obesity, and poverty. However, by associating the burgers with iconic sex symbols of the 2010s, Carl’s Jr. projected the image that a) if you eat their burgers you are sexy b) if you engage with their product you will encounter sexy women. The burger is an essential icon of America, and Carl’s Jr. played into this fantasy by unrealistically associating their burger with some of the most conventionally attractive popular figures of the era. Ultimately, these commercials perpetuated an unrealistic depiction of beauty and reinforced the idea that women are most attractive when appealing to the male gaze.

“Dahmer” Netflix Series: Racism and Homophobia

Posted on by Former Student

The Netflix series “Dahmer- Monster: The Jeffery Dahmer Story” recounts the life of infamous serial killer and sex offender Jeffrey Dahmer and the stories of his victims. Dahmer was arrested in his Milwaukee apartment in July of 1991, thirteen years after he committed his first murder. In Dahmer’s apartment, police found several body parts in the refrigerator, a 57-gallon barrel containing several bodies left to decompose in a mixture of chemicals, and evidence that Dahmer had eaten some of his victims. After extended interviews with Dahmer, police learned that he killed seventeen men and boys during his reign of terror. The 10-episode series highlights what led up to Dahmer’s murders and how he covered it up for so many years.

In the series, writers and producers wanted to emphasize that Dahmer’s victim profile was mostly young black men. Although police were never able to get a clear answer from Dahmer, it is speculated that he attacked mostly black males because of the lack of police surveillance in predominantly black neighborhoods. The series presents many situations where racism directly affected Dahmer’s ability to kill. In the first episode, Dahmer is living next to a black woman and her two children in an apartment complex in a low-income area. The woman complained to the police about smells and suspicious activity coming from Dahmer’s apartment multiple times. The police brush it off and do not listen to her suspicions, allowing Dahmer to continue killing. 

This photo depicts the actress playing Glenda Cleveland (Dahmer’s next door neighbor in the series) and her daughter and niece standing outside Jeffrey Dahmer’s apartment complex speaking with police. Although in the show Glenda is Dahmer’s next door neighbor, in real life she lived in the apartment building next to Dahmer’s. Glenda was still the first person to report Dahmer’s suspicious activity to the police but was ignored on multiple occasions.

In this photo, Jeffrey Dahmer’s mugshot appears next to 15 of his victims. From this photograph you can clearly see a majority of Dahmer’s victims were young black males.

Later in the series, we see Dahmer appear in front of a white judge for child molestation charges. Dahmer was caught drugging and taking pictures of a young boy whose family immigrated from Laos, a country in Southeast Asia. The young boy’s father attempted to speak in front of the judge, but the judge claimed that he could not understand him because of his accent and cut him off. The judge then turned to Dahmer and gave him a light sentence of a year in a correctional facility and said he would leave the details of his conviction off of Dahmer’s record. Although the Dahmer Netflix series may have dramatized the court room details, it still does not change the fact that Dahmer was allowed to walk free only a year after harming a young boy and it was kept off his record. Because Dahmer was a young white male, the young boy’s family were Asian, and the trial took place in 1988, the judge seemed to be biased towards Dahmer. 

While committing heinous murders, Dahmer was also trying to discover his sexuality. In the series, Dahmer is seen struggling to find women attractive and fighting his feelings toward men and other tendencies. In the 4th episode, Dahmer tries to convey these feelings to his father, but his father completely changes the subject and does not want to speak of it. It is visible that Jeff feels different from others and just wants someone to listen to him. 

Jeffery Dahmer’s sexuality was not only overlooked by his father, but also the police investigating him. In the 2nd episode, Dahmer brings a young boy into his apartment and drugs him. The boy escapes and makes it to the front of the apartment complex, and Dahmer’s next-door neighbor calls the cops because she is worried that the boy is underage and injured. Dahmer’s apartment gets searched, but the cops do not want to “catch anything” so they did a poor job searching and left. Dahmer claimed that the boy was his boyfriend and the police decided not to investigate any more in fear of finding “gay sex toys”. Once the police left, Dahmer murdered the young boy. The series did air a real, recorded conversation between the Glenda Cleveland and police the night police searched Jeffery Dahmer’s apartment. 

Dahmer Video clip .pptx

This audio recording between Glenda Cleveland and police highlight the fact that police ignored Glenda Cleveland’s cries for help and wanted nothing to do with Dahmer because of his sexual preferences.

The blatant evidence of racism and homophobia broadcasted in the Dahmer Netflix series played a role in Jeffery Dahmer’s success as a serial killer. If his father had listened to Dahmer’s call for help or if the police had listened to the cries of those around him, especially the black woman living next door, then maybe Dahmer’s string of murders would have not been as large. The Netflix series has gotten a considerable amount of backlash from viewers and crime reporters for its historical accuracy. Multiple articles have been written about how producers dramatized the instances of racism and homophobia in the series. Although this might be true, there is still hard evidence that racism and homophobia affected Jeffrey Dahmer’s ability to get away with murder for so many years.

Teleflora – Let’s Sell Sex: Enforcing Gender Norms, Body Norms, and Racist Views

Posted on by Former Student

Lights, camera, (sensual) action! Teleflora, an online flower delivery service, debuted their “Valentine’s Night” commercial during the 2012 Superbowl (“Teleflora”). Through this strategic marketing, the company reached its intended demographic of a male-dominated audience. By design, the commercial aims to capture the attention of a heteronormative group of male spectators, which also has implications on societal norms surrounding sports and masculinity. The overt focus on societal norms and expectations surrounding the male perspective, in turn, leads to a regressive depiction of the featured female – a depiction filled with undertones of patriarchal and sexist views of women in society. 

Teleflora Ad – “Valentine’s Night”

As if a title like “Valentine’s Night” didn’t already scream sex and sensuality, the portrayal of a female in the intimate space of her bedroom furthers the theme of sex and sensuality emphasized by Teleflora. The camera in the commercial quite literally embodies the male gaze as it follows Brazilian model Adriana Lima from head to toe… sliding stockings over legs, fastening her lingerie, slipping into her red bottom heels, and slowly applying ruby red lipstick. This voyeuristic effect elicits a sense of intimacy between the audience and the “object” of the commercial. In a sense, the commercial objectifies the female body and promotes the expectation that women should “look pretty” not for themselves but for the gaze of others, specifically males. This expectation finds explicit emphasis in the female model’s own words… the only words uttered throughout the entire commercial.

Lima getting ready for “Valentine’s Night”

With the camera up close and personal, Adriana’s red lips come into focus as she says:  “Guys, Valentine’s Day is not that complicated. Give and you shall receive.” The message comes across as “Men, it’s simple… give women flowers and get [you know what] in return.” This transactional depiction not only demoralizes female agency but also plays upon the patriarchal tropes and symbols that permeate society and systems. Adriana’s words reinforce the harmful expectation that giving females a material object triggers an obligation for the female to return the favor. This notion couches females’ worth in their service to males; A male initiates a transaction and the female is expected to return the favor. This uneven distribution of power subverts female agency and reinforces the harmful notion of female inferiority to males – perpetuating sexism and patriarchy in modern-day marketing. In this context, sex transforms into a form of payment for the “Valentine’s Night” gift. 

Part of the commercial where Lima addresses her male dominated audience

Additionally, the female image presented in the commercial promotes narrow, unrealistic beauty standards. Teleflora plays upon societal beauty standards that idolize skinniness, long legs, toned arms, cleavage, fair skin, high cheekbones, and silky smooth hair among other features. Overall, these characteristics are not representative of the actual diversity of female body types and skin tones. In this way, harmful beauty norms surrounding the female body also intersect with the oppression of other forms of identity, like race and ethnicity.

Screenshot from: https://adage.com/videos/teleflora-valentines-night/1187
Screenshot from: https://adage.com/videos/teleflora-valentines-night/1187
Images of the unrealistic beauty standards depicted in the Teleflora Commercial

At first glance, the commercial appears to provide a platform of ethnic representation, but upon further analysis, it does quite the opposite. Teleflora depicts Brazilian model, Adriana Lima, in an errotic light – a strategic marketing ploy to gain the attention of viewers (“Teleflora”). The commercial reinforces the sexualization of Hispanic women in the media and plays upon the trope of an “attraction to the exotic.” Though this marketing decision may capture the attention of more viewers, the question becomes, “At what cost?” Biases are shaped and reinforced by symbols and images people are exposed to everyday. Pairing sexual symbols with the image of a Hispanic woman only furthers stereotypes about the broader group of women who identify with the Hispanic culture and overshadows the diversity of beauty and body type within the ethnic group. The “Valentine’s Night” commercial positions an intersectionally marginalized identity in service to the dominant male (likely white) audience. Even though the dominant group is not present in the commercial itself, it still manages to influence the narrative and support the maintenance of oppressive depictions of the marginalized identities. 

In the end, Teleflora makes buying flowers “sexy” by pairing the flowers with a sexualized and unrealistic female depiction. Though this marketing tactic may have been helpful in reaching the targeted male audience, it has harmful implications for gender and sexuality norms. The commercial perpetuates symbols of females as objects rather than humans with agency and reinforces sexist and patriarchal notions of femininity. It also perpetuates racist views by exoticizing a Hispanic woman and reinforcing ethnic stereotypes about what a “sexy Hispanic woman” looks like or wants. Just as Teleflora’s red and white floral arrangements trigger images of Valentine’s Day, its narrow and sexualized depiction of a Brazilian female triggers deep-seated undertones of patriarchy, sexism, and racism. 

Work Cited:

“Teleflora – Valentine’s Night Video from Ad Age.” Ad Age, 5 Jan. 2012, https://adage.com/videos/teleflora-valentines-night/1187.

“Love My Way”: Homophobia and Internalized Shame in “Call Me By Your Name” 

Posted on by Former Student

Call Me By Your Name (2017), set in the Italian countryside during the summer of 1983, displays a passionate and complex romantic relationship between 17-year-old Elio and his father’s research assistant, Oliver. Before returning to the states, Oliver must travel to a different city in Italy to complete his summer’s research. Elio’s mother, seeing how close Oliver and Elio have gotten, suggests the two of them travel together. Though they remain relatively discreet with their displays of affection, being away from the local town where people know them and could out them, or worse, brings out a carefree side to the lovers. We see them dancing, embracing, and kissing in alleyways; however, there is a sense that this newfound freedom is fleeting as their unavoidable farewell rapidly approaches.

(approximate timestamp: 01:47:55)

Elio and Oliver dance in a cobblestoned alleyway and then embrace one another. Oliver breaks the embrace when he hears the song “Love My Way” by the Psychedelic Furs playing in the distance; earlier in the film, this was a song that both Elio and Oliver danced to at a party with female partners. The coincidence of hearing this song rings as a reminder of the moment’s impermanence—that the two of them have not always felt this free and will not always—but it simultaneously feels like a beautiful, cosmic sign that the two of them are connected in a meaningful way.

As they approached the strangers playing the song, the cement poles on Oliver’s left (in the green shirt) caught my eye. Their shape is phallic, and the coincidence of two, upright phallic structures juxtaposing Elio and Oliver’s figures left me with the impression that even in these moments where the two may “pass” as heterosexual, their gay identity is omnipresent.

(approximate timestamp: 01:48:36)

The feminine stranger is dancing alone, as the masculine stranger leans against the car smoking a cigarette, effortlessly cool and unphased, he is the epitome of suave, heteronormative masculinity and sexuality. Oliver’s instinct to dance with the woman strikes me as a performance of his own claim to masculinity and sexuality—he is carefree, fun, and charismatic, which are qualities that drew Elio to him. Almost immediately as he dances with the woman, the music is interrupted by a church bell ringing.

(approximate timestamp: 01:48:48)

Oliver grabs the woman’s arm, taking her to dance in front of the church where another version of the phallic symbol appears, this time with a chain attached. Oliver steps over this chain, as though crossing the threshold and submitting to the pressures of normativity. The heartbreaking conclusion to the film is Oliver calling Elio months after the end of summer to tell him he is getting married to a woman.

(approximate timestamp: 01:49:08)

Oliver has found a “ball-and-chain,” while Elio observes from the sidelines. Both Elio and Oliver are intoxicated, but Elio feels it more than Oliver, which hints that Elio is more naively intoxicated by their summer romance, and optimistic in ways that further break his heart in the end. Questioning Elio’s naivety, one wonders if there is an element of dishonesty in their relationship. We find out that Oliver has been in an on-again-off-again relationship with his ultimate fiancé for three years. Was it Oliver’s plan all along to submit to heteronormativity? Presumably, Elio momentarily changed Oliver’s mind, but he ultimate crosses the threshold at this moment.

(approximate timestamp: 01:49:21)
(approximate timestamp: 01:49:45)

Elio gets sick from the alcohol, and Oliver’s initial response is to laugh at Elio. He’s separate from Elio—safe from the optics of homosexuality. Oliver seems to laugh because he is also intoxicated, and finds humor in Elio’s vulnerable, very human moment, but there is something more sinister that comes about upon further thinking. The power dynamics in their relationship are questionable—a teenage boy and an older, college-aged student (presumably Oliver is pursuing a master’s or PhD). Laughing at Elio feels twisted and inappropriate, considering this could be his first time sick from alcohol and is certainly his first moment drunk and vulnerable with an older, male lover.

Call Me By Your Name operates under the assumption that privilege does not eliminate all forms of heteropatriarchal oppression and pain. This assumption is fair, though the film leans into a potentially problematic romanticization of wealth, prestige, whiteness, and academia. An assumption within these moments is that for young, formative queer people, many (presumably around half) will make the decision to pass for straight, or many will have a formative queer experience with an older lover. Call Me By Your Name leaves the impression a sacrifice of queer identity for the security of “fitting in” was commonplace, and highlights an immense dependence on family values and upbringing as determining whether someone makes this choice or not—almost implying it is naïve to think someone will not make the choice to pass if given the option.

Call Me By Your Name is heartbreaking, and worth watching if you want to understand a dynamic, albeit a very privileged one, between young gay lovers in the 1980s. It is a beautiful film to watch and a beautiful representation of young love and heartbreak.

The Obstacles Blocking the Pathway to Reproductive Rights

Posted on by Former Student

People, especially those who can give birth to a child, have been in a constant back and forth argument about having the choice to have or not have an abortion. 

Although Roe v. Wade was a big step in the reproductive rights movement, the idea of this choice of keeping or aborting a pregnancy goes back to before this impactful court decision. 

After the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) decision was made, reproductive rights were taken away from many people in the United States. This decision led many individuals to lose their reproductive rights including the choice to have an abortion or even the decision to use birth control to avoid the possibility of pregnancy.

This image connects to what is occurring today especially in the United States because, for many people, going to the voting polls and taking part in elections is the only way to protect their reproductive rights. The image above shows a woman at a voting poll with a speech bubble that says “This is now a part of my birth control routine…”

What first stood out to me from this image was the way in which the woman is being portrayed. Based on things like her posture or even the colors used for her clothing, it seems like she is stressed or concerned even about the impact of her vote. In a way, this can connect to all people who were impacted by the Dobbs v. Jackson court case decision because many people are tired of having to fight for their own reproductive rights. Before and even after Roe v. Wade, reproductive rights were constantly being challenged by the government whether at the state or federal level, and people, especially women, were already having to go to voting polls to make their voices heard. Eventually, this got tiring for many once it was evident that the government did not really pay much attention to what the people wanted. This same sense of exhaustion and hopelessness can be seen in this image and the way in which the woman is standing at the voting poll in a posture that makes it seem like she has the weight of the world on her shoulders.

Going back to the colors of her clothing, for the most part these are all dark colors. The use of color for the clothing can reflect on the emotions being felt not only by the woman portrayed in this image, but by all people who are currently being impacted by Roe v. Wade being overturned. After the Dobb vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization court case, women around the country felt a sense of defeat and loss of hope. These dark colors connect to the dark times that people are going through now that they do not have access to reproductive rights that for many were considered to be lifesaving, whether it is from a medical complication or simply as a way to avoid having an unsafe abortion. 

Another part of this image that caught my attention is the speech bubble. This idea that voting is a reproductive right alone says a lot about the accessibility to reproductive rights here in the United States. The text in the image is portrayed in a way that at least for me, it leads to a sense of uncertainty and worry even. Specifically, the use of the ellipsis in the end leads me to wonder about the even longer list of thoughts that people have when voting, especially on topics regarding reproductive rights. Reproductive rights alone encompass many different areas and having to vote for all these rights alone to then potentially not be heard can be quite a lot to have on your mind. 

This post also leads me to reflect on the lack of access to this right for people of color in the United States. For white people, it is a normal thing to be able to do things like vote, but many communities of color are given certain obstacles that make voting inaccessible to them. 

Obstacles like making voting polls farther away from people of color or having fewer voting polls than in places that are mainly made up of white communities leads to the voices of people of color to be ignored. Reproductive rights, before Roe v. Wade was overturned, were not as accessible to many people of color, but now that the case is overturned, women of color are left with few, if any, reproductive rights. This in itself is quite harmful because it leads many individuals to take part in unsafe abortions which can negatively impact a person’s health physically, mentally and emotionally. Going past the impact that this can have on a person’s health, limiting these rights, especially to women of color, has led to the deaths of many people who were only trying to ask for help, but instead were denied and left with options that were not safe for them at all. 

Overall, this social media post opens up the floor to the topic of reproductive rights, but it also reflects on the inequality seen in the voting system and the impact that this lack of choice can have towards people of color and their own reproductive rights.

“Gender” Reveal Gone Wrong: Gender Reveal Celebrations that Leave Behind Casualties

Posted on by Former Student

Boy or girl? Pink or blue? Penis or vagina? Imagine a newborn is on the way and a party is being thrown to celebrate this big milestone. Most of us have probably seen videos of joy on the faces of those celebrating this occasion. Maybe we’ve been to a celebration like this on our own, or even had one thrown for us, but what we don’t see are the casualties of some of these extravagant gender reveal parties and what gets left behind. 

Gender reveal parties are a common practice that many couples do to celebrate their expected child. But a time that is meant to be celebrated for some could have horrible repercussions for others. Matt Bernstein (he/they) with the Instagram handle @mattxiv who identifies as a “queer Jew with very long nails” in their Instagram bio recently posted about the horrible effects that over the top gender reveal parties could cause and brings into question the need for this practice that informs others of an unborn baby’s genitalia. 

Matt Bernstein’s Instagram post about gender reveals

This Instagram post has pictures, videos, and captions that all show how something as common as a gender reveal party is actually very absurd. It starts by saying that “society has progressed past the need for gender reveals” which sets us up for the rest of the post that then shows a gender reveal party where a couple puts blue dye in the water and celebrates that their expected child has a penis.

But this isn’t all that this couple and their loves ones are celebrating. They are also celebrating the fact that they are assigning a gender to their child based on the child’s genitalia and all the gender norms that go with the idea of being a boy with one of them being the color blue when the color blue doesn’t innately have a gender. These parents already made an important decision for their baby who can’t even talk yet. The gender these parents are assigning to their unborn child shapes the way this child will grow up from what they wear to how they act. Gender isn’t something that should be assigned, but instead chosen by each individual. 

Matt Bernstein’s Instagram post about a couple that polluted a water source for a gender reveal party. Source of this story is the Washington Post.

The couple shown in the Instagram post above are just one of the many couples who decide to celebrate their child with a gender reveal party. The blue dye shown in the waterfall at this couple’s gender reveal party contaminates a primary drought-stricken water source in Brazil for the town of Tangará da Serra (Paúl, Washington Post). Water is a human necessity and this couple’s celebration has taken that away from many locals in the area. This moment of celebration created a human rights issue.

Matt Bernstein’s Instagram post about extreme gender reveals

But this isn’t the only sad gender reveal story. Bernstein goes on by noting other gender reveal story headlines including, “2 dead after plane crashes during gender-reveal stunt in Mexico” (Deliso, ABC News Network) and “Gender reveal party couple face jail over deadly California wildfire” (BBC News). We now see that these extreme gender reveals that happen annually “have caused wildfires, plane crashes, and numerous deaths” (Bernstein). Gender reveal parties are widely celebrated and it’s a big issue not only for the extreme ones where someone has to figure out where to get their water, die, or go to jail; but also innately because these gender reveals are assigning gender to babies who can’t talk. 

Matt Bernstein’s gender reveal analogy Instagram post

After posting about situations where gender reveals have gone wrong, Bernstein tries to put the idea of gender reveals in a way people might understand. A clip from the cartoon SpongeBob SquarePants shows SpongBob tripping over a rock while carrying a pie that gets thrown onto Squidward’s face and blows up all of Bikini Bottom which is the town they live in. The analogy of SpongeBob SquarePants shows that something as seemingly harmless like a pie could cause so much damage to the surrounding town. This is just like those who do gender reveals without thinking about the consequences. Those who throw this party are only thinking about the fun everyone is having for a moment and not the long term harm. 

Matt Bernstein’s Instagram post about gender reveals

The post is then ended with the caption “if you feel compelled to tell everyone about the genitalia of your infant, just send out an email.” Bernstein once again shows how absurd this practice of gender reveals are by mentioning sending out an email that tells people of the unborn baby’s genitalia. 

Gender reveals are all based on genitalia. If a baby has both genitalia from the two different binaries, a parent may choose to pick one over the other so that it fits one of the two binaries. This could hurt the child in the long run who may have wanted the other genitalia that their parents didn’t choose for them and removed.

After analyzing this post, some questions need to be asked. Why is it called a gender reveal when what is actually being revealed is the sex of the child and not the socially constructed ideas of gender? Why aren’t there other genders being revealed and what colors would they be? Why are there no other colors besides these two? How are colors gendered? Why can’t we as a society say bye bye to the binary? There are no new genders being “revealed”, just the same two. It should be called a sex reveal instead! The people who do these “gender” reveals probably don’t know the difference between the two. Education about these topics are important and have been increasing slowly over the years, but more needs to be done. Gender reveals are so ingrained into society that these “gender celebrations” probably won’t stop anytime soon. How many casualties will it take to stop this practice?

Sources

Paúl, María Luisa. “They Dyed a Waterfall for a Gender Reveal. an Investigation Followed.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 30 Sept. 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/09/30/gender-reveal-waterfall-brazil-dyed/. 

Deliso, Meredith. “2 Dead after Plane Crashes during Gender-Reveal Stunt in Mexico.” ABC News, ABC News Network, 1 Apr. 2021, https://abcnews.go.com/International/dead-plane-crashes-gender-reveal-stunt-mexico/story?id=76824951. 

“Gender Reveal Party Couple Face Jail over Deadly California Wildfire.” BBC News, BBC, 21 July 2021, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57898993. 

“But Girls Can’t Like Lizards!” – Gender Stereotyping in a Popular Kids Show

Posted on by Former Student

Jessie, a Disney Channel show, ran for four seasons from 2011 to 2014. It follows the story of a woman in her twenties, Jessie, who’s an aspiring actress nannying for a family in New York City while trying to land a role. She nannies four kids – Emma, Luke, Ravi, and Zuri – whose parents are almost always traveling for work. I first watched Jessie when I was twelve years old and will admit that since then it has become one of my comfort shows. However, in the past few years I’ve started noticing that there are a lot of problematic things throughout the show, including a vast amount of gender and racial stereotyping. 

Although there are many issues with the show, I would like to focus specifically on the storyline of Ravi’s crush on a girl named Tanya in season one, episode 21 titled “A Doll’s Outhouse.” In Jessie, there is a lot of emphasis on following gender norms. Emma and Zuri are perfect examples of this as they are “girly girls” who follow traditional beauty standards and their interests include fashion, boys, makeup, and dolls. The most notable thing about Tanya’s character is that she doesn’t follow these gender norms and could be considered a “tomboy.”

Tanya sitting in Central Park.

The first time we see Tanya is in Central Park when Luke is trying to talk to Ravi but he’s not paying attention because he’s too busy staring at her while she’s painting a lizard on a canvas. Eventually Luke does get Ravi’s attention and the dialogue during this scene is as follows:

Because Tanya doesn’t dress like a “typical” girl, Luke sees her and assumes that she’s a guy. This idea that Tanya being a girl is shocking carries on throughout the episode. After Luke finds out that Ravi likes Tanya, he says Ravi should try to talk to her which then leads to the following conversation:

If Luke, the character representing the stereotypical tween boy (meaning his main interests are girls and sports and he hates doing homework and taking showers), had farted, it would’ve been turned into something funny. However, when Tanya farts it’s used as something to show how “unladylike” she is. Furthermore this fart is used as a reason for why it’s “understandable” for Luke to think she’s a guy.

One last notable example of Luke commenting on how Tanya seems like a boy, happens near the end of the episode when Ravi and Luke are preparing to duel because Ravi thinks Luke is trying to steal Tanya from him. Luke attempts to get Ravi to cancel the duel and this is a short part of their exchange:

Luke (left) and Ravi (right) during their duel while Emma (behind Luke) watches.

The Tanya slander continues in the duel scene as Emma listens to Tanya’s comments as she watches the duel and responds quietly to each one. These comments are problematic for many reasons, one of which is that Emma’s character is about three years older than her – Tanya is in elementary school and Emma is in middle school.

The final comment Emma makes during this scene is particularly upsetting to me. After the duel, Ravi realizes that Luke really wasn’t trying to steal Tanya and the two of them leave the park without Tanya. After they leave, Tanya and Emma have a brief interaction:

This would be upsetting in any situation, but in this case it’s even more so because of what demographic makes up the intended audience of Jessie. The show is intended to be for children ages 7-10. An important part of media, especially television and film, is for the audience to be able to see people like them represented. In this case, there may have been quite a few girls watching the show who felt they could relate to Tanya’s character. When Emma insinuates that because she isn’t pretty in the traditional sense and has “non-girly” interests, Tanya is going to be alone forever, that’s the message being sent to all the young girls like Tanya who watch Jessie. 

A similar message may also be sent to some young male viewers who identify with Ravi’s character. Ravi is the show’s token nerdy Indian character. He is often the butt of jokes (usually Luke’s) and in this episode is mocked for his lack of skills when it comes to romance. One particular line that stood out to me in this episode was when Ravi showed up to the duel wearing an old-fashioned soldier’s uniform. Ravi asked Luke why he hadn’t worn his proper dueling attire and Luke responded by saying “Because some of us don’t want to die alone” (14:36). Just like viewers who relate to Tanya, viewers who relate to Ravi are getting a similar message that because of their “nerdiness” they’re going to be alone forever.

Ravi in his proper dueling attire.

Most kids who are at the ages of the intended audience for shows like Jessie don’t have very well-developed critical thinking skills which means they aren’t able to think about shows the way older people can. I know that when I first watched Jessie all the problematic things about it didn’t register as problematic until I was older. There are so many messages sent by this show, even in this episode alone, and a majority of them are negative. This episode tells young girls and boys that if they’re “nerdy” and not conventionally attractive, they’re going to be alone for the rest of their lives and reinforces this idea that being conventionally attractive and dumb is synonymous with romantic success. That’s why it’s important to be very intentional about how shows for children are written. Writers need to be intentional about the messages they are sending to young viewers and Jessie is a great example of how not to write.

The Perpetuation of the Sapphire Stereotype: The Portrayal of Serena Williams as an “Angry Black Woman”

Posted on by Former Student

Media Analysis: Hale Robinson

“2018 US Open Highlights: Serena Williams’ dispute overshadows Naomi Osaka’s final win”

The origins of the words “sapphire,” “mammy,” and the stereotype of an “angry black woman (ABW),” date back from the 1800s to mid 1900s where caricatures, cinema, and other forms of media perpetuated these racial tropes (“The Sapphire Caricature”). The term sapphire was originally used to portray black women as angry, rude, loud, malicious, and masculine (“The Sapphire Caricature”). Often, sapphire imagery is accompanied by black men to demonstrate how “through her use of verbal putdowns” the black woman emasculates the man, “robbing” him of his manhood (“The Sapphire Caricature”). Similarly, the “mammy image” was created to justify the economic exploitation of house slaves where black women are “penalized if they do not appear warm and nurturing (Collins 267).” More modern examples of sapphire depictions are coined with the term “ABW.” While there is little empirical evidence supporting the stereotype that black women are more aggressive by nature, the U.S. mass media continues to push ABW headlines, videos, and imagery (J. Celeste).

Serena Williams is widely renowned as one of the greatest women’s tennis players of all time and an incredible overall athlete. She retired as a tennis legend with a total record of 858-156, 6 U.S. Open Championships, and 23 Grand Slam titles (“Serena Williams Fast Facts”).

While Serena Williams’ success is celebrated, she unfortunately became a target of the ABW stereotype on several occasions throughout her career. There are numerous videos titled “Serena Williams Rage Compilation” posted on social media platforms in addition to hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles covering her sporting disputes and frustrated moments. In fact, Williams’ portrayal as an ABW in the mass media is so significant that if you were to do an image search of the term “angry black woman,” the first few pictures are of Williams.

Of the many sources covering Serena Williams’ career disputes, I focused on one video published by the largest American cable sports coverage network, ESPN. The video, titled “2018 US Open Highlights: Serena Williams’ dispute overshadows Naomi Osaka’s final win,” covers the 2018 US Open Championship between Serena Williams and Japan’s Naomi Osaka. The video begins with a clip of Williams breaking her tennis racket out of frustration. The video crew proceeds to zoom in on the broken racket and then later replays the clip of a frustrated Williams throwing her racket down. Soon after, the referee accuses Williams of receiving coaching and cheating.

On multiple instances, Williams demands an apology from the referee stating, “you are attacking my character.” In response to this, the referee gives Williams yet another violation. While disputes and frustration often go unpenalized and are often overlooked or granted leniency in men’s tennis, Williams received multiple penalties for her actions. When pleading her case, Williams notes, “because I’m a woman you’re going to take this away from me.”

While the contents of the video itself are controversial, I additionally wanted to focus on the ways in which ESPN perpetuates the ABW stereotype through the title of the video, the clips they provide, and the specific zoom and camera angles chosen. Although the video is titled “U.S. Open Highlights,” very few clips in the video are dedicated to the tennis match itself. Rather than replaying points and impressive displays of athleticism, the “highlights” in this video are clips of a frustrated Serena Williams. The camera angles and zoom were methodically used in a way to emphasize Williams’ anger with an example being the amount of screen time Williams’ broken racket received and the frequent replaying of Williams arguing with the referee. By doing this, ESPN paints Williams as angry, similar to how post slavery media pushed the agenda that Black women were angry, aggressive, and emasculated men by “failing to be submissive.” Furthermore, the video title states, “Serena Williams’ dispute overshadows Naomi Osaka’s final win.” By naming the video in this way, it paints Williams as the “bad guy” and accuses her of ruining Osaka’s moment. This depiction of Williams as aggressive and malicious is representative of 20th and 21st Century ABW media.  In addition to the title, the video’s description is equally disappointing…

While the match showcased the skill of two amazing Black female athletes, ESPN implies that the match will only be remembered because of Williams’ quarrel with the referee. Not only does this take away from Osaka’s victory, but it places further blame on Williams.

Through the notion of sapphires, mammies, and more recently “angry black women,” Black women have continued to fall victim to racial stereotypes depicting them as aggressive, malicious, and out to emasculate men. Following the 2018 U.S. Open Championships, ESPN perpetuated these racial tropes via a “highlight video” that covers a dispute between Serena Williams and a referee. While male tennis players receive little backlash from similar actions during matches (e.g., John McEnroe was known for his outbursts throughout his career), Williams was accused of “overshadowing” Naomi Osaka’s win and was given three penalties. While the term sapphire may be a thing of the past, the theme of portraying Black women as angry and aggressive in the media continues.

Sources

Origins of “Sapphire”
Article on the myth of “ABW”
Serena’s Accolades

Collins, Patricia Hill. “Race and Ethnicity.” Controlling Images and Black Women’s Oppression , pp. 266–273.

ESPN. 2018 US Open Highlights: Serena Williams’ Dispute Overshadows Naomi Osaka’s Final Win. Youtube, 8 Sept. 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiBrForlj-k.

J. Celeste Walley-Jean. “Debunking the Myth of the ‘Angry Black Woman’: An Exploration of Anger in Young African American Women.” Black Women, Gender + Families, vol. 3, no. 2, 2009, pp. 68–86. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/blacwomegendfami.3.2.0068. Accessed 6 Oct. 2022.

“Serena Williams Fast Facts.” CNN, Cable News Network, 16 Sept. 2022, https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/13/us/serena-williams-fast-facts.

“The Sapphire Caricature.” Ferris State University, https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/antiblack/sapphire.htm.

Dahmer: Sexuality and Racism

Posted on by Former Student
Content Warning: this blog mentions rape, murder, and generally uncomfortable themes

For the past week, Dahmer—technically titled Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story—has firmly stayed at #1 on Netflix. Dahmer has had one of Netflix’s greatest debuts since the premiere of Stranger Things season four. Dahmer non-linearly follows the life of Jeffrey Dahmer, a notorious serial killer who murdered 17 young men, most of whom were people of color, between 1978 and 1991. While true crime dramas and docuseries have recently risen in popularity, Dahmer reminds audience members that these were real people with lives before their death.

Dahmer also highlights two social issues that greatly contributed to Jeffrey Dahmer’s success as a serial killer: homophobia and racism. Jeffrey Dahmer was a homosexual, an aspect of his identity that made many, especially for the time, uncomfortable. As a result, they often overlooked his suspicious behavior in an effort to avoid him—and his sexuality—altogether. In the drama series, after Dahmer was discharged from the army due to alcohol abuse, his father, Lionel, relocates Jeffrey to live with his grandmother. Lionel did this in an attempt to inspire Jeffrey to clean up his act. This, of course, did not happen.

In episode five, it is revealed that Dahmer killed three men in his grandmother’s home and brought back the body of a fourth to dispose of. With both of them living under the same roof, how is it possible that Dahmer’s grandmother, Catherine, had no clue as to what her grandson was doing? In a situation where she would surely smell decomposing bodies and see/hear the various men Jeffrey brought back, would she not, at the very least, have her suspicions? While she may not have known the extent of Jeffrey’s actions, I do believe that she was choosing to ignore his behavior. While there is no direct evidence that Catherine was homophobic, she did attend a conservative church. I believed that Catherine ignored Jeffrey’s actions because she did not want to first acknowledge his sexuality. In other words, she was so unwilling to recognize his homosexuality that she overlooked his behavior altogether.

Homophobia also extends to the police officers who essentially returned Konerak Sinthasomphone back to Jeffrey Dahmer. In episode two, the audience is introduced to Konerak—Jeffrey Dahmer’s youngest victim who was only 14 years old. In this episode, Konerak escaped Dahmer’s apartment. Three neighbors found him half-naked and barely able to communicate or stand (Dahmer injected diluted acid into his brain while he was unconscious). Concerned, the neighbors called the police, but Dahmer convinced the two officers that Sinthasomphone was just drunk and they had gotten into an argument.

Jeffrey also asserted that Konerak was his 19-year-old boyfriend, despite there being no evidence. Konerak died because the two officers acted out of homophobic and racist impulses. They dismissed the concerns of the neighbors because they were not white. They felt less compassion for Konerak because he was Laotian and seemingly gay. They ignored the clearly, deeply concerning relationship (that was not even a relationship) between Konerack and Jeffrey because they fell into the assumption that gay relationships are bound to be ‘toxic.’ The two officers were so disturbed by the notion of homosexuality that they felt the need to be “de-loused” (a euphemism for “washing the gay away”) over the need to help a boy that was undeniably in danger.

Racism is a consistent theme in Dahmer, and there are quite a few scenes that I found very impactful. In episode five, Ron, a man who was drugged by Dahmer, attempts to have Dahmer arrested. However, Ron is quickly dismissed and told that while Dahmer may be an odd guy, being arrested a few times doesn’t make him guilty of everything. This is followed by the officer commenting that Ron should know this, implying that he had been arrested. Ron responds by stating that he had never been arrested and pointed out that the officer believed the word of a white man who had been arrested over that of a black man who had not.

As stated earlier, the majority of Dahmer’s victims were young men of color. Why is this? It’s because, frankly, Dahmer knew that he likely wouldn’t be caught. Police, especially at the time, did not care to look into missing person’s reports for POC individuals. It was the pervasive, systemic racism that allowed his deplorable actions to continue.

I do believe that Dahmer is a series worth watching, as I feel it identifies social inequalities that were fundamental in Jeffrey Dahmer’s success as a murderer. Of course, this does not mean that the series is completely flawless. There were certainly historical inaccuracies, such as the portrayal of Tony Hughes’ relationship with Dahmer. Additionally, I do not find the business aspect of this series to be entirely ethical. Rita Isbell, the sister of Errol Lindsey, gave an emotionally impactful speech during her courtroom testimony for the trial of Jeffrey Dahmer. This statement was included in the Netflix series. After watching Dahmer, Rita shared that she was never contacted about the series and was definitely not compensated. While Netflix is in no way obligated to compensate the families of the victims, not doing so is certainly tone-deaf—especially considering that the commodification of Dahmer’s murders was a theme.

As this blog post comes to an end, I wish to emphasize that while the series may be created for entertainment purposes, it contains the stories of real people. I encourage you to acknowledge the young men below, and if you have time, learn more about them.

Heartstopper’s Promotion of Positive Queer Representation

Posted on by Former Student
Heartstopper Cast Picture

Testing positive for covid on my last day of high school was not ideal, however it did provide me with the necessary free time to fuel my obsession for the hit Netflix series and webcomic, Heartstopper. I truly did not stop consuming content for my five days of isolation and at this point, I cannot count the times I’ve seen the show in its entirety, though I believe it’s getting close to double digits. I do not regret a second. If you are not familiar with the show, Heartstopper, written by Alice Oseman, originally started as an online comic released in September of 2016. Today, Oseman is working on their fourth volume with the show recently renewed for a second and third season. The story follows two boys, Nick Nelson (Kit Connor), a “straight”, popular rugby boy, and Charlie Spring (Joe Locke), a quiet drummer who was recently outed as gay, and their growing relationship as unlikely friends turn to lovers. This story is not only heart-warming, but also so important for the LGBTQ commnuity and more how queer characters are presented in the media. In my blog post, I will further explain why I believe this and specify how the show validates the identities of its queer characters.

One aspect of the Heartstopper storyline is the relationship forming between Charlie’s two friends Tao (William Gao) and Elle (Yasmin Finney). While the three of them formerly went to an all boys school together, Elle recently switched to a nearby girls school. With Tao and Elle spending more time apart, their feelings for each other strengthen. In many shows or movies, the language used to describe relationships between cis and trans people is harmful and invalidating, but Heartstopper trains audience members to view Tao and Elle’s growing relationship no differently than they would view any other heterosexual relationship. One way the show does this is in a conversation between Charlie and Tao. When Tao warns Charlie about having crushes on straight boys, he says, “As you token straight friend, it’s my duty to remind you that sometimes people are straight.”

Heartstopper (Season 1, Episode 2)

This line, while subtle, is incredibly important to the show. By clarifying Tao identifies as straight, the show later affirms Elle’s identity. Tao having a crush on Elle uplifts the fact that trans women are women, no exceptions. In addition, the only concern they both have with their crushes on each other is the thought of ruining their friendship. As Tao talks about why he hesitates to tell Elle his feelings, he says, “The last thing she needs is me throwing a curveball and messing up our friendship.”

Heartstopper Comic (Volume 3, P.719)

There is NEVER any discussion of Elle’s transness being an issue because that should never be an issue in the first place. By simply normalizing a relationship between a trans girl and a cis man, Heartstopper changes the audience members preconvienced biases about trans characters. 

Heartstopper also uses language to break down biphobia, particularly the invalidation of bisexual men. Biphobia often takes shape in the erasure of bisexuality, meaning certain people believe one cannot be attracted to multiple genders. This assumption comes up in the Heartstopper comic. Before Nick and Charlie get together, Nick’s friends spend time discussing his sexuality. Miss Singh, the rugby coach, comments on their conversation, “You can’t tell whether people are gay by what they look like. And gay and straight aren’t the only two options. Anyway, it’s very rude to speculate about people’s sexuality.”

Heartstopper Comic (Volume 1, P. 204)

While Heartstopper aims to normalize LGBTQ+ identites, it also breaks down harmful ideology surrounding the queer community. Additionally, it replaces negative talk surrounding queer people with positive examples of queer discourse. After Nick and Charlie’s first kiss, Nick feels unsure about his sexuality. However, his new friends, Tara and Darcy, validate his questioning. Darcy adds in that, “Tara didn’t know she was a lesbian until [they’d] kisses like 6 times.”

 Heartstopper Comic (Volume 2, P. 434-435)

While the quote itself is intended to make readers laugh, it also promotes the idea that self discovery takes time. As friends surround Nick with positive encouragement, he feels more comfortable and confident in himself. This newfound self-understanding ultimately leads to Nick identifying as bisexual. After going out with Charlie for a few months, Nick feels he finally understands his sexuality and at the end of the first season, he decides to come out to his mom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UCu5b4egAE
Heartstopper (Season 1, Episode 8)

While coming out scares him, Nick confidently tells her about both his boyfriend and his sexaulity. This scene shows incredible growth for Nick in not only overcoming his internalized homophobia but wanting to share his relationship with others. In addition, when his mom tells him that it’s okay if he doesn’t like girls, he assures her that “it’s definitely not just guys.” This interaction shows positive behavior on both sides; his mom supports him no matter his sexuality, and Nick feels secure in his identity. As bisexual men are not particularly prevelent on screen, Nick’s character is an incredible role model for both masculine guys who may be questioning their identities and audience members who may be concerned about the legitimacy of bisexuality. 

As you may have gathered by now, I cannot say enough about this story. Both the Heartstopper show and webcomic have done so much good worldwide, and I’m excited to see how the series continues to break down stereotypes and promote positive queer culture in later seasons. 

A Voice for the Voiceless: How Grey’s Anatomy Moves from “Silent All These Years” to “Shattering the Glass Ceiling”

Posted on by Former Student

Women are taught to never walk alone at night, to carry their keys between their fingers, and to dress modestly but not too modestly. I consider these basic “Woman 101” tips. And somehow, these tips are supposed to keep me and other women from becoming another 1 in 3. 

When current conditions are voiced, we as a society tend to turn a blind eye. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the court despite being accused by multiple women of sexual assault. Many women and girls limit their behaviors for fear of rape— for fear of being told that “boys will be boys,” “you were asking for it in that dress,” or “maybe next time you shouldn’t drink so much.” Concomitantly, adolescents have learned that consent does not matter—that it is irrelevant. 

While discussions are finite, popular media has begun to tackle the topic of rape. The season fifteen Grey’s Anatomy episode, “Silent All These Years,” written by Elisabeth R Finch, aims to initiate the dismantling of rape culture while highlighting the importance of consent and the lasting impacts of rape. The title, in and of itself, highlights just how oppressive and dismissive society becomes when women speak up about instances of sexual assault and rape. 

The episode begins when Khalilah Joi, guest-starring as a woman named Abby, arrives at Grey Sloan Memorial. With a cut to her face and bruises, coupled with skittish behavior, Dr. Jo Wilson recognizes the signs of rape. As the episode progresses, viewers learn that Abby was raped after leaving a bar. Aware of the victim-blaming narrative frequently used against women, Abby is hesitant to report the incident to the police or let her husband know. In attempting to break the stigma, Dr. Jo Wilson breaks protocol and shares her story of rape and sexual violence. She humanizes herself, therefore allowing Abby to see her as more than a woman in a white coat. When Abby agrees to a rape kit, something she knows will probably end up sitting in the back of a police station, Dr. Jo Wilson and Dr. Teddy Altman shift the power back to Abby. Before moving to the next portion of the rape kit, Abby must give them consent. She makes all the choices for herself. Something so seemingly simple is immensely powerful. Just hours before, Abby had lost all body autonomy. 

Dr. Jo Wilson sharing her story with Abby

That said, the most moving part of the episode comes prior to Abby’s surgery. Hesitant to go under anesthesia out of fear of being vulnerable again and fearful of seeing her attacker in the faces of the male staff and doctors, Abby resists the surgery. From that, the “hall of awesomeness” was assembled. The hospital’s female employees lined the entire length of the hallway right up to the operating room (which only had female doctors because girl power!!). The vast majority did not know Abby but showed up because they would want others to do the same if they were in that position. 

The “Hall of Awesomeness”

The show made an additional point to shift the fault from the woman. We live in a society that thrives off victim-blaming. Contrary, in “Silent All These Years,” Ben Warren, played by Jason Winston George, took the time to explain consent to his stepson Tuck Bailey, played by BJ Tanner: “If she stops having fun, just plain stop,” said Ben. “Time out. Game Over.”

Media portrayals of sexual assault correlate with increased victim blaming and the way the public discerns victims. Contrasting the standard image of women as sexual objects, Grey’s Anatomy humanizes the victim, emphasizing the importance of consent while moving away from victim blaming. 

I was talking to someone the other day who said he thought this episode was cringy. He viewed the “hall of awesomeness” as unrealistic and unnecessary, leaving him emotionally detached. And while I listened to his opinion and told him he had the right to hold that belief, I elaborated on my perspective. The unity and “women supporting women” narrative present throughout the episode not only reinforced the idea that you are never alone but highlighted just how essential lessons on consent and education about rape are. 

There is a common misconception that feminism is anti-male when the movement’s principle is contingent on equal rights for women. Women want to be heard, to be supported, and to be given a choice. This episode highlights this message. The creators gave a voice to the voiceless. They addressed the intersectionality between race and gender; Abby was played by a Black woman, serving as a nod to the increased vulnerability of Black women. They highlighted the healing power of female solidarity while recognizing that trauma is real and does not go away overnight. They emphasize that survivors are not alone and that they are not at fault. 

To anyone that finds Grey’s Anatomy over-dramatic, cringy, or over-rated, I encourage you to give it another chance. While it might not change your opinions on the show, it empowers survivors in a world that usually silences them. If not for yourself, do it for the one in three.