“If it’s in a word, or it’s in a look”… An Analysis of “The Babadook”

Posted on September 17, 2016August 2, 2021 by Former Student

“If it’s in a word or it’s in a look, you can’t get rid of”… societal norms. The Babadook, especially in this trailer, both reinforces and questions many of the underlying assumptions our society has around gender and sex, class and sexuality. Amelia, the mother at the heart of this film, is simultaneously defined by her distance and increasing slippage away from norms, but also the societal pressures that she feels trapped and tormented by. The trailer looks at both Amelia’s perspective as a mother in society, but also society at large’s view of what it means to be a woman, and what it means to be a mother.

The expectations for Amelia seem to overwhelm her throughout the film. The most prominent of these expectations that Amelia struggles with are her responsibilities as a mother. As a mother, she is expected to be always emotionally and physically available to help her son, and able to quickly and effectively correct anything disruptive or societally detrimental that her child does. The first shot of Amelia in the trailer is her reading to her son, Samuel, in bed, a quintessentially maternal action as defined by our society. However, as the trailer continues, the world that Amelia lives in seems to be crumbling around her. Her son misbehaves and acts out in violent ways, like building a slingshot to fight the monster. Samuel is loud, disruptive and potentially violent, in ways that Amelia soon realizes she cannot always control. Samuel’s outbursts are Amelia’s “fault” as a mother, and through the institutions that surround her, she is blamed and shamed for her inability to control Samuel’s every move.

Amelia’s problems, especially with regards to Samuel, are often treated in an institutionalized way through a male perspective, as seen throughout the trailer, in ways that contradict and cause conflict within Amelia as a character. For example, the male administrator of Samuel’s school tells Amelia, in response to Samuel’s bringing a weapon to school, “the boy has significant behavioral problems” (while the female administrator remains silent), and the medical professional that Amelia sees tells her “all children see monsters”. Even the governmental agents of order, as seen through the police at 1:22 into the clip, are distorted and unhelpful in Amelia’s plight. The police officer is a reflection of the torment Amelia faces, with his gray skin and sunken appearance, much like the Babadook that plagues her and her family. The film simultaneously questions and reinforces the idea that the home and the family are the “woman’s sphere”; Amelia is situated in a context where her inability to mother Samuel “properly” is a reflection of both Samuel and her own failures in a medical sense. Samuel “promises to protect” his mother if she can protect him in the trailer; however, neither characters seems to be able to offer the other protection.

The character of Amelia also reflects and questions the stereotype of the “hysterical woman” and the dichotomy that society often situates between the sane, put-together mother, and the “crazy”, overworked mother who can’t handle her children. Much of the film appears to be presented as though it is from Amelia’s perspective. The quick glimpses of the monster that the trailer shows the audience, such as the knock on the door at the 1:00 mark of the trailer, the shadowy figure in the neighbor’s house at 1:19 and the graying skin of the police officer at 1:23, combined with the increasing desperation in Amelia’s voice and more unkempt appearance seem to suggest that perhaps “the Babadook” is only a figment of her imagination and a hallucination created by stress. Amelia herself seems to buy into the idea that what she’s seeing is not real; as she tells her coworker, “I’m fine…just a bit stressed at the moment.” The Babadook addresses a real consequence of society’s belittling of women and children; Amelia and Samuel face real dangers when what they see with their own eyes is dismissed as the ravings of an overworked, hysterical woman and the overactive imagination of a child. The belittling that Amelia faces as a woman is compounded by issues of class, and represents an example of how intersectionality can affect a person’s place in society.

Though the trailer doesn’t often address these issues as fully as the movie does, the trailer does help reveal how Amelia, by virtue of her class, is often judged and belittled by those of higher class and power. For example, though not addressed in the trailer, Amelia struggles in the upper-class world of her sister, and the assumptions and judgments that higher class women place on Amelia for not being able to “do it all” as both a working woman and a mother. Much of the judgment Amelia receives as a “bad mother” and “hysterical” seems to be compounded by her social class; Amelia has to work and cannot afford childcare for Samuel, and society around her seems to judge her for her inability, by virtue of her social class, to constantly keep watch on and act as an authority figure for Samuel. Directly addressed in the trailer, however, is how wealthier men of higher social status treat Amelia. The administrator and doctor, in addition to being men, are indicated to be of higher class than working-class Amelia in the trailer, and their opinions that they understand her situation better than her because they are men are compounded by the privileges they enjoy over her due to class. They are implied to be “experts” in their fields, which means that, in the context of dealing with Amelia, they assume they understand her life and situation better than she herself does, which, as the film progresses, soon becomes evidently fallacious.

The Babadook, as an entity, is also very interesting from a gendered perspective. While the Babadook is clearly not human, it is still slotted into the gender binary in this movie. It is gendered as male, referred to as “mister”, and wears clothes that Samuel and Amelia take to mean it is male. The gendering of the Babadook helps feed into the storyline of the loss and grief Amelia feels, and her isolation from the world around her. The male Babadook represents the two male people in her life that precipitate her decline. He represents both her deceased husband, who, like the Babadook, acts as an unseen effect on her life that keeps her from being able to live as society expects her to. He also represents her son, Samuel, who, like the Babadook, represents her fear of being unable to handle being a mother, her fear that she has created or “let in” a violent monster into her life and her fear that Samuel is unable to distinguish reality from fiction, into which Amelia herself fears that she is digressing.

The Babadook, while on the surface simply a traditional monster movie, is also a critique and presentation of societal norms and requirements expected of women and people of lower class. Amelia feels simultaneously far from, and dragged towards, societal expectations of her as a woman, a mother and a member of the working class. Just like “Mister Babadook” who Amelia tries to rid herself of, the expectations of society just won’t let her alone, whether or not she “lets it in” or not.

Manly Men Drink Diet Soda

Posted on September 17, 2016August 2, 2021 by Former Student

Although a rather recent tool, the media has been a crucial part of advertising for millions of companies worldwide. Major food and drink corporations have utilized the media to expose their products internationally, including one of the top companies in the world, Coca-Cola. Researchers have studied the effects that advertising can have on a person, specifically on how advertisements can subconsciously shape the way someone thinks or acts. This is often referred to as a subliminal message or a subliminal stimulus. With this in mind, it is important to explore some of the more explicitly gendered or sexist advertisements and what kind of effect they may have on an audience, whether that audience is cognizant of that effect or not.

Back in 2011, Dr. Pepper released an ad for their low-caloric soda. Right off the bat, it is easy to tell that the ad was made with a male audience in mind. In the past, companies have had a difficult time of selling diet sodas to men because it is stereotypically considered a “girly” drink. So, in order to appeal the drink to men, Dr. Pepper plastered the words “Not For Women” across the print advertisement. The thirty-second commercial begins with a muscular man holding what appears to be a bazooka gun. There are explosions occurring around him, and jungle creatures seem to be chasing him. After shooting the gun a few times, he jumps off of a cliff into a jeep, where he then pulls out his Dr. Pepper TEN. “It’s only ten manly calories,” he yells over the roar of the motorcycles chasing behind him, with gunfire surrounding him. Then, he says, “So you can keep the romantic comedies and lady drinks, we’re good.” as he gestures toward his Dr. Pepper can. There are several aspects of this ad that are important to analyze. Firstly, the print version states very explicitly that this drink is just not for women. This speaks to the fragile masculinity that society has conditioned men to have.

In order to get men to buy diet soda, Dr. Pepper felt the need to blatantly say that the drink was simply too manly for women. Looking at the commercial a bit more closely, stereotypes revolving around men are basically jumping out of the screen. Which begs the question, what makes a man a man?

According to this Dr. Pepper commercial, a man can simultaneously drink a low-caloric soda and shoot guns while escaping from a disguised motorcycle gang. A man does not need romantic comedies and lady drinks, for that would just be a hindrance to him. The way this specific statement is presented encourages viewers just to believe it and not even wonder what exactly a lady drink is. However, it does not seem to matter for the purpose of this commercial, as long as Dr. Pepper’s Big Ten drink makes men feel like men. These tongue-in-cheek jokes about romantic comedies and lady drinks feed into yet another series of stereotypes, yet this time alternatively surrounding what women are supposed to act like and have interest in. Therefore, it can be analyzed that Dr. Pepper’s construction of a man is based off of what a woman is and what a woman is not. Not only is this problematic for obvious sexist reasons, but it also reinforces the distinct gender binary. So two things are at play here: the stereotyping of both men and women, which is where what we typically think of as blatant sexism is most prominent, and the reaffirmation of society’s continuous preaching that there are strictly only two genders. Certain qualities are strictly associated with men and certain qualities are strictly associated with women. Throughout this commercial, there is no fluidity. The movie Three to Infinity: Beyond Two Genders explores this concept of gender as a spectrum, rather than two distinct categories. However, as exemplified by the Dr. Pepper commercial, the rest of society considers this idea of more than two genders, or a lack of gender in general, to be radical.

Coca-Cola dipped yet another toe in to the sexist pool when they published an ad campaign promoting Sprite in Ireland. These advertisements included sayings like “She’s seen more ceilings than Michelangelo” and “She’s a 2 at 10 and a 10 at 2”. The ads were quickly slammed and Coco-Cola came out with a public apology. Once again, Sprite was clearly trying to appeal to a heterosexual male audience. So, much like the Dr. Pepper commercial, Sprite felt the need to make men feel as if they are more worthy than women in order to appeal to their masculinity, which is important even in choosing what soda to drink. Not only do these ads objectify women, but they also in turn perpetuate a frightening rape culture, which leads right back to the superiority/inferiority dynamic of the traditional gender binary, as mentioned before.

Although recently pop culture has begun to become accepting of the queer community and has also strayed away from dehumanizing women, it is clear that big name companies still find appealing to men’s sensitivity to being feminine as a good marketing strategy. Even Coca-Cola, which is often times considered a progressive company, has used humor to cover up their sexist and gender binary centric advertisements. However, the more often these types of subtle sexist remarks are talked about, the larger the discourse surrounding gender becomes. Discourse leads to solution.

Fighting Against Conformity

Posted on September 17, 2016August 2, 2021 by Former Student

In the TV show, Orange is the New Black Carrie Black also known as “Boo” is an inmate at Litchfield women’s prison. Her character can be described as outspoken because she is never afraid to say what she feels or to be the way she is. In the episode “Finger in the Dyke” there is a lot that is learned about Boo. The title implies the episode will focus on the sexuality and the way Boo identifies. It is a very graphic name, but it relates to the way the character behaves because those two aspects of her are very important in the way she presents herself in the show; Boo is a very complex character and she depicts one of the many sexual and gender identities that exist. She describes herself as a Butch Lesbian. She has the word Butch tattooed on her arm and she feels it is a really big part of her identity and something she has had to fight for. This show has a lot of underlying messages in general about issues dealing with gender and sexuality, but the scene I wanted to focus on was on season 3 episode 4. It is a scene where Carrie Black “Boo” is young and her mother wants her to wear a dress, but she refuses to wear it. The scene starts off with a very unhappy looking teenage Boo wearing a dress. Her mother in the background seems hopeful that her daughter will finally listen to her and stop dressing in ways that make her stand out. The mother then goes on to say that she shouldn’t try and go against the expectations of society because that would bring the wrong kind of attention. What this suggests about society is that there is a set of structures dictating the behaviors and characteristics of each of the sexes, and to stray away from the expectations set will only result in judgment and ostracism. In society, there is a clear gender binary that has dictated the way males and females have to look like and behave like. The mother then walks away angrily as the father comes in to help her “deal” with the situation and try to convince Boo to wear the dress. The father takes a different approach to “dealing with” Carrie’s opposition to wearing the dress. There are a couple of things he says that help with understanding the way people view those who fall outside the gender norms. He pleads Carrie to just wear the dress to make her mother happy. What can be interpreted from this is how conformity plays a role in society. In the scene, the imagery is very strong because it shows just how intense it can be to not conform. You have the mother who is getting really upset and calling her daughter a bitch because she doesn’t want to fit into the mold that her mother is trying to force her into. Boo is very visibly upset, and she also refuses to give in right away. People conform to the gender norms they don’t always identify with because they want to stay in the boundaries set by society in order to keep everyone happy and prevent conflicts. The father then goes to talk about her teenage hormones. What he is implying from this is he thinks what she is going through is a phase because of her hormones as a teenager. He is being dismissive of the way she feels. Boo expresses this to him because she brings up how she thinks it is not a good enough reason to change the way she is in order to make other people happy.

This is something people who fall outside of the “traditional gender norms” have to deal with. Overall, the scene tries to argue how there are pre-set gender norms that people are expected to fit into. Society has built this idea of what a young girl is supposed to look like, and if the person does not fit the mold, like wearing a dress on picture day, then there is a lot of judgment directed at her. In the reading “Female Masculinity” by Judith Halberstam she talks about being a tomboy; in society being a tomboy comes with difficulties because it is seen as a phase and once the girl goes on to her pubescent stage, then the pressure to conform to the rules of femininity are forced upon her by the people in society and, like in Boo’s case, her parents. The scene is especially powerful because it brings to the forefront the way family can be at the center of trying to push people into conforming to what society wants. One one hand it is because of the concern that they will be judged by others, but it is also on some level because they also believe it is the way things should be.

The intention of the clip is to show the oppressive nature of gender conformity. The scene focuses on how there is an expectation for young girls to be complacent and to behave in a certain way. They have to wear dresses and have to not want to stand out. The mother mentions how there is a bad kind of attention that Boo is trying to get is not the “good kind.” She brings up the way other kids will make fun of her and that plays into the role of how people are forced to conform because of the way other people will treat them. A lot of what happened in the scene was touched upon in the documentary “Three to Infinity: Beyond Two Genders.” There is this idea that forces people into these two binary roles in society when in fact peoples’ likes and dislikes can go beyond that. People will identify differently and that makes people uncomfortable because it is something they do not see often because there are so many social constructs around who people have to be according to the standards set by society. Anyone who doesn’t meet the criteria for what it means to be feminine or what it is to be masculine is looked at weird because people don’t know how to categorize them. Boo is “Butch” and this identity takes on different characteristics and intersects masculine and feminine traits. The intersection defies the binary spectrum which is something people are not used to seeing, therefore leading to judgments against her. It is an effective in portraying the struggles of gender conformity because it shows the strain on relationships and the anguish of the teens trying to push against the behavioral expectations of their gender.

The target audience would be the younger generation. The show does have a lot of younger women as the main characters, but it is still graphic enough to not have the target audience be young teenagers. This affects how the show is written because it can be more explicit with the way it tries to explain things as well as it can focus on a variety of issues that women have to face. This is important because the show does expose the viewers to stories they may have never thought about before. The show does go beyond the plot of piper chapman in order to increase awareness into the lives of the other women in the prison. The episode. in particular, is trying to make people understand that there are a lot of limits to the traditional binary roles and that there are people who identify outside of them. People have to fight all of their lives to justify who they are if they do not fall into one of the two categories designated by society, and they have to put up with judgments constantly while trying to defend who they are. It is necessary to expand the spectrum of identification and move away from the binary in order to understand gender identity and expression, as well as sexuality, come in various forms.

Works Cited

“Finger in the Dyke.” Orange is the New Black. Netflix. 12 June 2015. Web.

Halberstam, Judith. Female Masculinity. Durham: Duke UP, 1998. Print.

Burger or Blow Job?

Posted on September 16, 2016August 2, 2021 by Former Student

“Sex sells.” This is a phrase that is ever popular in the advertising world and is used to sell products, services, and businesses alike. This strategy is usually seen as effective, but sometimes advertising companies purposefully push boundaries past what is deemed acceptable in order to evoke shock value in their viewers. In 2009, Burger King did just that with the release of an advertisement promoting their new “Super Seven Incher” burger. The advertisement had a limited release; it was only made public in Singapore, but was pulled from the market very shortly after it began circulation due to its controversial nature.

The images of the advertisement are overtly sexual and intend to depict a woman performing oral sex on the “Super Seven Incher.” The woman is the focus of the advertisement, as her profile from the neck up is shown on the left side of the ad. She is a white woman, has a blonde bob, and a face full of makeup. Her eyes are wide and her red lips are parted in an oval shape. Coming out from the right side of the page is the Super Seven Incher, aimed directly at the woman’s mouth. The advertisement is shaded darker at the corners and becomes increasingly lighter as the focus moves inwards towards the mouth and the burger. Below the image of the woman and the burger are the words “IT’LL BLOW YOUR MIND AWAY” in white, bold letters. Below the phrase is a yellow panel depicting the burger along with a drink and fries and a price of $6.25 for the whole meal. The description of the meal is in the lower right hand corner of the ad.

The target audience of this advertisement is very obviously the heterosexual male and it is supposed to be viewed through the framework of the male gaze. The sexual nature of the image is attention grabbing and conveys the message that by eating the Super Seven Incher, they will receive as much gratification as they would from receiving oral sex. By depicting the act in this way, the ad is designed to create a fantasy for heterosexual males, which can be fulfilled by eating this burger. Eating this burger will make heterosexual males happier, more satisfied, and more appealing to women, according to the ad.

Depicting the woman in the advertisement in such a hyper-feminine way insinuates that the woman’s sole purpose in the advertisement is to provide pleasure and act as a sexual object. Creators of the ad specifically used a young white woman with bright red lips and blonde hair, characteristics that are routinely associated with sex appeal, to target their audience. Although the advertisement was released in Singapore, the woman is white which reinforces the westernized beauty ideals that we see across most media. By portraying the woman in this way, the ad creators have established that this is what a “real woman” should look like and this is how she should act. The woman is submissive to the man and his desires (as represented by the burger) and the ad links her femininity to sexual objectification. Sex sells, but usually only if it is in a heteronormative way. If the roles had been reversed and an image was insinuating that a male was performing oral sex on a female, the reactions would have been different. People would have been taken aback by the overt sexuality, since a male gratifying female sexual desires is not something often portrayed in contemporary media. The same goes for if a woman was illustrated performing oral sex on a woman, a man on another man, or any other combination of gender identifications.

The imagery of the advertisement is extremely sexual and this is furthered by the use of language surrounding the ad. The name of the burger itself, the “Super Seven Incher,” has nothing to do with the taste appeal of the burger. It does not describe what is on the burger or its quality, but instead describes the length of the burger. This burger length is a not so subtle reference to male genitalia, adding to the visualization of the sexual image that is portrayed. In the quote under the burger, the words “IT’LL BLOW” are larger than the rest of the words on the page, immediately catching the viewer’s attention. Slang terms for performing oral sex are “blowing” or “giving a blow job,” so the use of this specific language was no accident. The most glaring use of language to conjure up sexual images was in the description of the burger in the lower right hand corner of the advertisement. The advertisement tells its audience to “Fill your desire with something long, juicy, and flame grilled” and “Yearn for more after you taste the mind blowing burger” Both of these particular quotes describe the burger, but they do so in a way that expresses the longing and need of the heterosexual male to have his desires fulfilled. The “yearning” and “desire” that is expressed can refer to the male’s need for sexual gratification, but can also refer to the female’s desire “for more,” not in reference to the burger, but alluding to it as a representation of male genitalia. Using the images along with the specific choice of words furthers the message of the advertisement and adds to its shock value.

Although the ad was removed from the market, it was successful in the regard that its shock value made it widely circulated and talked about. It successfully perpetuated the image of traditional gender roles and used sexual imagery to maintain heteronormativity. Its purpose was to push boundaries, spark conversation, and evoke a strong emotional response from its viewers, whether it was one of desire or disgust. By this ad fulfilling its purpose, Burger King got the publicity that it wanted, a publicity that has lasted longer than they could have imagined.

Works Cited:

Stransky, Tanner. “Burger King’s Super Seven Incher Ad: Subtlety Is Dead.” EW.com. N.p., 24 June 2009. Web.

“Top 10 Tasteless Ads.” Time.com. N.p. Web. <http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1907218_1907236,00.html>

What Do You Mean, Justin?

Posted on September 16, 2016August 2, 2021 by Former Student

In recent years, Justin Bieber has become one of the world’s top celebrities with the expansion of his singing and modeling career. Beliebers (as Justin’s dedicated fans call themselves) keep up with all the latest news and gossip regarding Justin’s life, relationships, and, of course, the most current songs. When most fans think of this pop music icon, the words “handsome,” “sexy,” “stylish,” “friendly,” and “cool” may come to mind. However, “sexual predator” should possibly be added to this list of favorable words. When Justin Bieber released his hit single “What Do You Mean?” in 2015, it became the fastest single record to reach number one on iTunes (Lyons). Though a catchy beat, “What Do You Mean?” promotes rape culture through masculine dominance in the heterosexual relationship portrayed through the lyrics as well as contradictory actions and gestures throughout the music video.

Rape culture is a term coined in the 1970s by feminists in the United States as a tool to “show the ways in which society blamed victims of sexual assault and normalized male sexual violence” (What is Rape Culture?). In her book Transforming a Rape Culture, Emilie Buchwald defines rape culture as “a complex set of beliefs that encourages male sexual aggression and supports violence against women” (What is Rape Culture?). Though many view sexual assault and rape as predominately a masculine act that disproportionally affects women, as education has progressed, the belief has evolved to include the fact that it can happen to anyone regardless of gender identity. Along with the progression of sex education, the law has changed to encompass different aspects of sexual assault. Today, the law provides strict guidelines for the definition of rape, but rape culture has normalized this sexual violence in society through passively condoning rape. In terms of the law, lack of explicit verbal consent to any sexual act means that the sexual act is rape, which is a federal crime. However, pop culture often normalizes and victim-blames sexual violence through sexual objectification of women in music, movies, advertising, and TV shows.

Specifically exploring the lyrics of Justin Bieber’s “What Do You Mean?” reveals of the promotion of rape culture. From the beginning of the song and throughout the chorus, Justin Bieber asks “What do you mean?” then proceeds with, “When you nod your head yes, but you wanna say no. What do you mean?” (Levy, Boyd, Bieber). Here lies the main problem in the lyrics: lack of consent. Though Justin uses this lack of consent to create sexual tension, it emphasizes women’s sexual indecision, which is a key component of rape culture. Rape culture simplifies this process of consent, letting one partner dominate the decision. Portrayed as the “good guy” on the surface level, Justin Bieber works to figure out what the woman actually wants. Just as Justin exemplifies, rape culture depicts the everyday, average guy as the “good guy” so that there is no way he could possibly be thought of as a rapist (Bridges, Pascoe). This ideology can then lead to the perpetuation of “playing hard to get” in order to earn the affection of a potential mate. The “game” of “playing hard to get” steers further into dangerous waters as it not only establishes the belief that “no” can equal “yes” in the journey of pursuit, but commends those who ignore consent. As non-verbal language becomes prioritized over verbal language, misinterpretation of meaning becomes more common, further promoting rape culture (Redkar). This tactic and use of non-verbal cues contrary to verbal language becomes a key component of Justin Bieber’s music video subsequently discussed.

Later in the song, Bieber states, “you’re so indecisive of what I’m saying,” (Levy, Boyd, Bieber). Not only does this statement not make sense grammatically, but it also adds a harsh stigma to female indecision. Often, this sense of indecision and hesitancy occurs in an uncomfortable or precarious situation as a personal warning sign to proceed with caution. In this situation, the woman experiences indecision due to Bieber’s dominant sexual actions as well as consistent pressure for her to make up her mind. Just like the woman in the music video, women are allowed to be indecisive about sexual activities and this indecisiveness should be a red light for their partner to let them have their space to figure out what they personally want to do. This does become dangerous, as Bieber exemplifies, when the partner takes it upon him or herself to determine what the other is thinking. Bieber’s lyrics make it seem that unwanted sexual actions or misinterpretations are the fault of the women because she was not clear what she wanted, adding “Better make up your mind” and “You’re so confusing” (Levy, Boyd, Bieber). He pressures her into making a decision as “we’re running out of time” (Levy, Boyd, Bieber). Though she clearly is sending him mixed signals about her true feelings, he forces her into a decision, once again telling her “Better make up your mind” (Levy, Boyd, Bieber). Due to her indecision, Bieber makes the decision for her and assumes that since they’ve had sex before, she wants to have it again: “Wanna argue all day, make love all night” (Levy, Boyd, Bieber). However, sex is not black and white, like Bieber depicts; people are allowed to engage in some sexual activities without going all the way to sex every time and to discontinue activities at any point. Further, in this lyric, Bieber sexualizes female aggression by linking arguing to sex, romanticizing a toxic relationship dynamic. This suggests that rather than being seen as mutually exclusive, conflict and intimacy are both key components of an ideal relationship. By normalizing violence and conflict within this idealized relationship dynamic, Bieber’s music video endorses another aspect of rape culture.

Justin Bieber’s music video for “What Do You Mean?” continues to promote rape culture by hiding the lyrical meaning through contradictory actions and gestures. The video’s broader narrative framework expands the meaning of rape culture, starting from the beginning of the music video. The scene of the video opens with a dark, stormy night as Justin Bieber and John Leguizamo stand outside a motel. Justin hands John money, making him promise “the girl won’t get hurt,” but John, handing Justin a lighter, replies, “you play with fire, you might just get burnt.” Later in the video, it is discovered that Justin is paying for the fake kidnapping of the woman he meets in the motel room and him. The screen then flashes to the motel room with a woman waiting as a clock begins ticking, immediately creating the tension and pressure surrounding the impending situation. The woman then answers the door to Justin, instantly sexually drawn to him. As the video progresses with on and off sexual intimacy between Justin and the woman, the tension builds. Soon after, they are both taken by men in masks, tied up, and driven to a warehouse in the trunk of a car. At the warehouse, Justin is able to use the lighter, given to him by his kidnapper, to burn the ropes and escape. Here, they run to a door on one of the top floors, which leads to outside. As the pressure builds, the music suddenly stops; Justin holds out his hand and turns to her saying, “Trust me. Do you trust me? Take my hand.” Breathing heavily, she takes his hand and they jump out of the building, landing on huge air-pillows in the middle of a party. As the “kidnappers” take off their masks smiling, the woman discovers it was all a trick, grabbing Justin and kissing him as they begin to dance (JustinBieberVEVO).

From the beginning of the video, the woman is immediately sexually drawn to Justin Bieber, contrary to what the lyrics imply. The video content works to conceal the content of the lyrical connotations, a common theme in encouraging rape culture (Bridges, Pascoe). The woman does not appear to be bothered by Bieber’s demands and questions, going along with all he wants her to do and again acting contradictory to the lyrics. In the lyrics of the song, the woman seems unsure of her feelings as she “nods” her “head yes,” but she wants to “say no” (Levy, Boyd, Bieber). However, the video makes it clear that she is sexual attracted to Justin and wants to be intimate with him as she immediately grabs him as he enters the motel room. Her actions make it appear as a normality for women to abide by the demands of a man, not questioning their own feelings or desires; masculinity is, therefore, equated with power in a heteronormative relationship.

The story line of the music video is a key element used to take away from the lyrical connotations and indecision. The broadened narrative throughout the music video does not at all tell the story of the lyrics from the song. The lyrics create this tension surrounding the pressure on the woman to be intimate with Justin and his frustration with her indecisiveness. However, Justin Bieber’s scheme throughout the video is just a test of her trust: a ploy to get her to make a decision about their relationship and to earn her trust so that she will have sex with him. This terrorizing view of romance, contrary to the rape culture influences, is not the way to go about love. Rape culture portrays violence as pleasurable and desirable in a relationship. This creates the view as the masculine figure in a relationship as the protector. Once again, equating masculinity with power.

Though a common cultural icon, Justin Bieber is a key contributor to the promotion of rape culture in society today. The lyrics to as well as the music video for his recent hit “What Do You Mean?” encourages masculine dominance and violence against women in heterosexual relationships through lyrical connotations, actors’ actions, and setting. Rape culture not only creates the problem of sexualized power within relationships, but supports heteronormative relationships. In a rapidly changing culture regarding gender and sexuality, this constructs yet another barrier to breaking down norms. Justin Bieber is just one example of the countless celebrities encouraging rape culture, further enforcing the monolithic ideology behind heteronormativity.

Works Cited

Bridges, Tristan, and C.J. Pascoe. “Pop Music, Rape Culture, and the Sexualization of Blurred Lines.” Feminist Reflections. The Society Pages, 12 Nov. 2015. Web. 06 Sept. 2016.

JustinBieberVEVO. “Justin Bieber – What Do You Mean?” YouTube. YouTube, 30 Aug. 2015. Web. 06 Sept. 2016.

Levy, Mason, Jason Boyd, and Justin Bieber. “What Do You Mean? – Justin Bieber.” Google Play Music. Warner/Chappell, Inc, Universal Music Publishing Group, n.d. Web. 06 Sept. 2016.

Lyons, Sofia. “How ‘What Do You Mean’ Promotes Rape Culture.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 04 Sept. 2015. Web. 05 Sept. 2016.

Redkar, Nikita. “4 Reasons Why Telling Women to ‘Play Hard to Get’ Perpetuates Rape Culture.” Everyday Feminism Magazine. Everyday Feminism, 30 Nov. 2015. Web. 11 Sept. 2016.

Performing Parts Symposium

Posted on May 4, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

Erica Miller

Grant Proposal Alternative

Performing Parts: Gender, Sexuality, and Media Symposium

Prior to the symposium, we were instructed to watch Edouard Lock’s Amelia. At first watch, I thought the performance was constructed to create a piece in which gender roles did not influence the piece. In other words, a piece that was completely “gender free.” Upon further discussion, the deeper meaning of the piece was revealed. Lock created this piece to not only question gender roles on the performing stage, but also display how gender equality does not necessarily equate with gender neutrality and equality does not necessarily equate with progressiveness.

Our discussion focused around two of the duets in the piece. In the first, both individuals, one male and one female, were wearing suits, slicked back hair, make-up, and female point shoes. One would assume the goal was to become gender neutral. However, these performers were very gendered wearing both male and female stereotypical outfits. Lock intended to show that this elimination of strict gender roles did not by necessity promote female empowerment or gender equality. Similarly, he wanted to show that by just because you have a gender equal performance it does not by necessity be gender neutral. Emily Martin argues, “Stereotypes imply not only that female biological processes are less worthy than their male counterparts but also that women are less worthy than men” (485-486). I believe Lock would agree with this statement, but would argue that when on the stage, it must be displayed and constructed differently. Females on the stage can embrace these stereotypes, such as wearing tutu’s and pointe shoes, while their male counterparts are in suits, and demonstrate their strengths, creating gender equality without succumbing to gender neutrality.

The second duet involved two individuals that were often indistinguishable, and instead of focusing on the bodies exclusively, the camera would focus on the silhouettes of the individuals. However, the movements of the individuals were very controlling, making one individual submit to the will of the other, as a puppet to a puppeteer. Again, Lock is pushing against the notion that equality on the stage automatically links with progressiveness. As the Beijing Declaration reads, “inequalities between women and men have persisted and major obstacles remain,” however forcing equality will not always be the most effective way to go (2). Instead, a more progressive movement would have been partners alternating lift sequences, challenging the notion that females must rely on their male counterparts to lift them.

Lock challenges his viewers to look at the different representations of gender on the stage and how these representations fit into the mold of equality that we have envisioned in our lives. Holla summed it up best with, “The fact that there are still such incendiary notions should tell us that American women have a way to go before they enter the promised land of equality” (9).

Works Cited

Amelia. Chor. Edouard Lock. Performance.

Holla, H. “Blame It on Feminism.” Editorial. Mother Jones Sept. 1991: 24. Print.

The Fourth World Conference on Women. Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. 15 Sept. 1995. Web.

Martin, Emily. “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles.” Journal of Women in Culture and Society 16.31 (1991): 485-501. Web.

GSS – Artist Statement – Seminar GSS -Seminar Proposal – Performance Lecture

Wage Gap and Sports Teams

Posted on March 31, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

After our conversation in class today about labor and the still existing wage gap, I came across this article: “U.S. Women’s Soccer Player File Wage Discrimination Lawsuit.” Although the women’s national soccer team is a major reason U.S. Soccer is expected to have a profit of $17.7 million, the federation is arguing it does not have enough money to pay the women the same as the men’s team. The women’s team, who won the 2015 Fifa World Cup, has seen more success than the men’s team and are still denied equal pay. Women have always been viewed in our society as assuming the gender roles of the household, but how can the federation deny their female players equal pay when they train just as hard and play the same number of games as the U.S. Men’s Soccer team. This form of discrimination is ridiculous and is not going to be taken by internationally ranked athletes. These women have already championed the rights of LGBTQ members in the sports world and now are taking on the wage gap. This lawsuit filed by the players against U.S. Soccer could be a major turning point, or at least influencing the beginning of change, of ending the wage gap in the United States.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tamerragriffin/us-womens-soccer-players-file-wage-discrimination-lawsuit#.fwkXX6b5V

Odd Couples

Posted on February 24, 2016February 24, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

Human beings strive for relationship and companionship. It is in our nature. Most people tend to bond with others based on the premise of similarity. This is not always the case however. In her work Odd Couples: Friendships at the Intersection of Gender and Sexual Orientation Anna Muraco takes a look at specific types of relationships: those crossing gender and sexual orientation boundaries. “Odd Couples examines intersectional friendships between gay men and straight women and between lesbian men and straight men to show how these friendships serves as a barometer for shifting social norms, particularly with respect to gender and sexual orientation”.[1]

Muraco examines the relationships between opposite-sex, opposite-orientation adults through various interviews with 26 friendships dyads and triads in the San Francisco Bay Area.[2] More specifically, she, “relied on the participants’ self-identification of being in a close intersectional friendship as sufficient to include them during the study.”[3] From there, she asked participants to explain what they believe it means to be a close friend. Muraco has a multitude of reasons for desiring to study the friendships between opposite-sex, opposite-orientation individuals. For one, she believes that previous studies about the same topic do not examine these relationships thoroughly or not in the same way that she desires to; that “A gap exists in social science research […]”.[4] This gap is due to the fact that friendships are more often studied in youth and young adults rather than adults. Another reason for Muraco’s desire to examine friendship groups was the desire to understand whether or not sexual orientation mitigated inequality between men and women.[5] There has been prior research on this question, however, as Muraco points out, the prior research has not answered the question as to whether or not the absence of sexual tension and romance allows for more egalitarian relationships. Neither has it answered whether or not gender norms will still apply in these relationships.[6] Not only does this research by Muraco answer these questions, but it also challenges the concept of compulsory heterosexuality introduced by Adrienne Rich.[7]

Although lack of previous research motivated Muraco to write Odd Couples, she began to examine intersectional relationships by looking at her own relationship and the relationships of those around her. Her best friend of over twenty years identifies as gay, while Muraco herself is straight. As time went on and pop culture changed, Muraco began to notice the similarities between her own relationship with Mike and other relationships that they were exposed to. One example of a pop culture item to which Muraco and Mike related was the 90s sitcom Will and Grace, which detailed the lives of a gay man and a straight woman who were best friends. After noting the similarities between herself and “Grace” and Mike and “Will”, Muraco began to find other friendships similar to her own in films like My Best Friend’s Wedding, The Next Best Thing, and The Object of My Desire.[8] However, while Muraco knew of relationships between lesbian women and straight men, their portrayal was lacking in comparison to that of gay men and straight women.[9] Muraco’s curiosity about why there was less of a portrayal of friendships between lesbian women and straight men spawned her examination of intersectional friendships and eventually led to Odd Couples.

In the area of organization of her argument, Muraco uses each of her chapters to examine a different aspect of intersectional friendships. In her introduction, Muraco provides background into her study; how she came upon the topic and how it was conducted. From there Muraco sets up further background of her own study by examining friendships as a whole and friendships that cross differences. In the second chapter of Odd Couples Muraco introduces the reader to three of the friendship dyads she encountered, Vanessa and Bruce, Emily and Patrick, and Scott and Ruth. These relationships are focused on because they highlight some of the common themes featured in the other dyads and triads presented as the book progresses.[10] One of the benefits of an intersectional friendship is featured in the relationship between Emily (a lesbian woman) and Patrick (a straight man); Patrick reveals that the fact that Emily is a woman allows him to be vulnerable with her than he would with other males, defying gender norms.[11] Ruth and Scott’s relationship shows the common themes that while intersectional friends may care deeply for one another, they do have their struggles.[12] The relationship between Bruce and Vanessa shows another theme common in the other intersectional friendships; the fact that they often form out of common interests and bonds.[13] Muraco challenges the notion that blood is thicker than water in the third chapter, which focuses on how friendships can serve as a secondary family. For example, one of the friendships Muraco looks at is between Brenda and Dan, who met while they were in college. Brenda, a butch lesbian, lives with Dan and his wife Rosie and their children. They all pitched in to buy a home together.[14] This strengthens the notion that “intersectional friends were better or truer forms of family than their families of origin […]”[15]. As the chapter continues, Muraco also discusses child rearing in intersectional friendships and marriage. Gender norms and identities are discussed in the fourth chapter of the book. In the relationship between Mark and Christina, it is clear that Mark, a gay male, lives vicariously through Christina, by commenting on her appearance and with the advice that he gives her. In this way, Muraco believes that gay men have a tendency to reinforce the beauty norms that straight women face. Christina suggests that perhaps gay men have the desire to be women. [16] Other women in this chapter refers to themselves as gay men living in the bodies of straight women, this is to say that they identify with the culture their friends are involved in, recognize similarities in marginalized positions, or they feel more masculine than their female counterparts. The lack of sexual tension between intersectional dyads also allows for more openness between the friends.[17] In the fifth chapeter, Muraco talks about how sexuality and sexual orientation factor into intersectional friendships. One example of this is how intersectional friendships can tend to begin to resemble heterosexual, romantic partnerships. This was the case between two friends, Jill and Paul.[18] Also to be noted in this chapter was that in relationships across sexuality and gender were said to have less sexual tension than, say a friendship between two gay males.[19] Muraco examines the politics of intersectional friendships in the sixth chapter. She looks at the way these relations tackle compulsory heterosexuality, and how gay men and lesbians expand their horizons by interacting with straight men and women and how the opposite is true. It also leads to more comfort in general when it comes to being with those of a differing sexual orientation.[20] In her conclusion relates her study to what is next for intersectional friendships as the climate towards gay and lesbian individuals changes. Muraco specifically states, “In this final section, I address how we can look to intersectional friendships as a model for postmodern relationships and political alliance and discuss the shifting social contexts to influence the future of intersectional friendships”.[21]

One area of strength in this work is that Anna Muraco well situates herself well within the other research completed on similar topics. She thoroughly explains where other studies are lacking, and where her study fills the gaps. However, one weakness in her argument and the way that her study is formatted is that she seems to try to overuse some studies; they crowd the point that she is trying to make.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed reading Anna Muraco’s Odd Couples: Friendships at the Intersection of Gender and Sexual Orientation. I thought that her observation about the lack of representation of lesbian/straight male relationships was astute as well. I would recommend this book to those who are in an intersectional relationship like some of the ones described or to people who are not and desire to learn more about intersectional relationships.

Bibliography

Muraco, Anna. Odd Couples: Friendships at the Intersection of Gender and Sexual Orientation. Durham: Duke University Press, 2012.

[1]Anna Muraco, Odd Couples: Friendships at the Intersection of Gender and Sexual Orientation (Durham: Duke University Press, 2012), LOC 94

[2]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 243

[3]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 221

[4]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 157

[5]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 178

[6]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 178-188

[7]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 146

[8]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 83

[9]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 94

[10]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 766

[11]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 862

[12]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 960

[13] Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 1066

[14] Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 1189

[15] Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 1269

[16]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 1672-1683

[17]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 1846

[18]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 2186

[19]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 2209

[20]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 2502

[21]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 3002

*The reasoning behind the use of location number rather than page number is due to the fact that this work was viewed on a Kindle.

The Manly Man

Posted on February 8, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

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.

Tom Ford Media Analysis – Erica Miller

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

Erica Miller

GSS 101

7 February 2016

Professor Gonzalez

Media Analysis: Tom Ford

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works Cited

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

Super Bowl, Totino’s, and SNL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exposure to the LGBT community from a younger age

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works Cited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

Double Standards in Today’s Society

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

Andres Sanchez

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

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

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

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

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

Defining Mom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works Cited

The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan, 1963

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