media

Simplifying Sexuality through Wine Labels

Posted on by Former Student

Written for Wear Your Voice by Molly Murphy

Let’s just be honest here, sexuality is complicated.  There are times that you don’t know exactly who you love and where you fit in. Having these feelings of insecurity and unsureness, and THEN trying to describe your own sexuality in a way that makes sense to others is even more complicated. In the hit series Schitt’s Creek, the main character engages in a conversation that perfectly balances the importance of openness and honesty in these conversations. This series follows a rich family of four who suddenly lose all of their money and their luxurious lifestyle. They are forced to pack up what is left of their property and move into a small town, their only remaining asset. Schitt’s Creek is the town that the father once bought the son as a joke for his birthday. That son and main character of the show is named David Rose. Presumably gay to the viewers and other characters in the show, he finds himself one night sleeping with a female and straight character named Stevie Budd. Stevie is confused, and decides to confront him while out wine shopping for an event. She hints, “Just to be clear, I am a red wine drinker, and I only drink red wine… and up until last night, I was under the impression that you too only drink red wine.” Catching on, David responds to her, “I do drink red wine. But I also drink white wine. I also have been known to sample Rosé. A couple summers back, I tried a Merlot that used to be a Chardonnay, it just got a bit complicated.” Stevie is a bit confused, and David goes on to say, “I like the wine, not the label. Does that make sense?” This iconic scene would go on to be quoted in many articles, printed on tee shirts, and used to give confidence to thousands of youth helping them come out to their parents and peers.


What is great about this use of a wine metaphor is how it is so unconventional, but so easy to comprehend. It allows even the most conservative and closed minded individual to understand that David is pansexual. And as a bonus- who doesn’t love wine? Everybody can relate to how David is describing to his sexuality through the use of this metaphor. David is able to bring forward his very complicated history of experimentation and self-discovery. He is so secure with himself and his journey, that he can calmly explain his sexuality to Stevie in an amusing way. David educates Stevie in a manner that is lighthearted but clear, and it is centered around inclusion and positivity. These conversations can be hard to have, but Stevie reacted in a way that let David come out to her while also not downplaying the importance of having “no labels” to David.

Society’s social constructs and biases make coming out a traumatic experience for so many people. How can they help not feel frightened at the possibility of having their loved ones turn on them for revealing their true self? Throughout every episode of Schitt’s Creek however, the creators challenged that idea that coming out needs to be traumatic. (As a disclaimer, they do not ever downplay the importance of that experience; having somebody working up that courage to finally be unapologetic and open with who they really are and love. There is an episode where David’s partner comes out to his parents in distress, but even then, his parents were only upset that he felt he couldn’t be honest with them about his sexuality, and not that he was actually gay.) By not making sexuality such a huge ordeal, it forces the viewers to imagine a world where there is no bias or judgment when two men are in love and holding hands in public. There is no talk among the characters of anybody’s sexuality beyond this scene, so the reaction to these couples is the same as any reaction would be to a heterosexual couple walking down the street holdings hands. This amazing directing is what sets Schitt’s Creek apart from other series. The series LBGTQ+ representation fosters an inclusive environment, free of bias and full of love and acceptance with no shame.  

Schitt’s Creek has made a difference in this world, right when we all needed it! It’s constant celebration of unconditional love and wholesome relationships between all of the characters really resonated with viewers, making it become one of the most popular and successful shows to ever hit the big screen. The series’ defiant representation of different races and sexualities throughout both acknowledge that facts that anybody in the audience who identifies with the characters are valid, and that they should be proud of themselves and love who they are. This show has won the battle of representation, and has helped pave the way in media for impenitent openness and inclusivity.

Changing Gender Roles: Get Tattoos. Scare People!

Posted on by Former Student

Written by Patricia Raudales Calvario for Wear Your Voice/ https://www.wearyourvoicemag.com

The animated comedy The Simpsons is widely known by the media for “predicting the future.” Scenes from past episodes are scaringly connected to current events. Whether or not you believe this theory to be accurate, you will find many Simpson reference memes on social media. Scenes from the show have contributed to meme culture. The meme culture is rapidly growing on many social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram. People see memes everywhere, and the description following the meme, although used to entertain, can show a lot about society’s current views.  

“When she’s the one who’s tattooed” meme shows the fear of Homer Simpson (the person on the left) as his wife, Marge Simpson (the person on the right), leans over him with a seductive face. This interaction goes far beyond Homer and Marge; the facial expressions themselves depict gender roles in society. Although women are now empowered in all aspects of life (social, educational, political, and psychological), seeing a woman embodying more “masculine” traits still frightens many, as seen in Homer’s face. Women who show confidence and are assertive are considered more “manly.” Women can be confident but also need to spread warmth and bring joy to others. Rather than being strong, women are expected to be relaxed and easygoing. Anything that contradicts these ideas is quite scary to society. 

Beyond the facial expressions shown in this meme, the creator edited a tattoo sleeve on Marge’s arm to create his “When she’s the one who’s tattooed” meme. This meme is looked at, laughed at, and then people move on to the next meme. However, it is crucial to be aware that memes such as this one tell us a lot about gender roles and identity in society. Memes go beyond giggles and laughs. Memes have meanings and values. 

Why does Homer look afraid in this meme? A tattooed female is leaning over him. This meme does a great job of showing the perception of women and men with tattoos that society holds. When a man has tattoos, he is a “strong man,” a “brave man.” This is why this meme would have not been successful or considered funny if the roles were reversed. Although more and more women are now getting tattoos to represent the femininity and morals they hold, they are not always viewed as “strong women” or “brave women.”  Instead, women with tattoos are described as “aggressive” or “more masculine.” This meme shows how it has become more socially acceptable for a man to have tattoos than a woman. 

The type of tattoos put on Marge’s arm is also specifically picked, creating a more masculine image. A simple google search of “tattoos for women” and “tattoos for men” can show what type of tattoos are acceptable for each gender. For example, Marge’s tattoos would be found within a “tattoos for men” Google search. A simple “tattoos for men” google images search will suggest dark and more frightening tattoo ideas. Tattoos of skulls, fires, lions, snakes, and “king” phrases will be the first to come out. Googling “tattoo ideas for women” would give you the complete opposite: sweet and fragile ideas. Top suggestions would include flowers, hearts, and butterfly tattoos. Google searches for tattoos should be nothing more than inspiration and should not determine the tattoo you think would be the most socially acceptable. No matter your gender identity, get a butterfly tattoo, a skull tattoo, get both. 

Memes like the one described above are dangerous and can complicate people trying to understand their gender identity. A woman can wear “masculine” tattoos and still hold more feminine characteristics. A man can wear “feminine” tattoos and still have masculine features. Tattoos are now becoming more popular in American life. Our role is to dissociate ourselves with putting labels on the type of tattoo one chooses to put on their body.  

Tattoos can have personal meanings to some people, and to others just be a form of art put on their bodies. Tattoos are not gendered, and one should get tattooed with whichever design they desire. Tattoos can be hidden from the public view, or they can be exposed for everyone to see. Regardless, get whatever tattoo you want. Be as creative, bold, and SCARY with your tattoos. Be Marge Simpson and frighten society!         

Un-Defining Parenting

Posted on by Former Student
What are we taught to believe about motherhood? The stereotypical idealist view tends to be the birth of a child after marriage. Yes this view is one road to becoming a mother but there are so many others. Even today there is some stigma around certain types of births, many of these are addressed in the tv show Friends. Although this show does have some of its own issues, including its lack of diversity, it portrayed multiple ways of becoming a mother that may go against the norm. 

The first baby born in Friends was Ben, Ross and Carol’s son. Ben was an unexpected pregnancy; Ross found out his ex wife, Carol, was pregnant shortly after she left him for another woman. This birth was controversial in the 90s, not only were the parents not married (yet, Carol and Susan get married later in the show) but the baby had 3 parents. Although this sitcom was not perfect and incorporated many homophobic jokes, it was also one of the only shows at this time to feature a lesbian wedding. The show also did a decent job with their family relationship. Each and every family is unique, and we got to watch as Ross, Carol, and Susan figured out a new dynamic as they raised Ben. 

Phoebe Buffay, A badass hippie, was a surrogate to her brother’s children. Frank Buffay and his wife, Alice, had a very large age gap. Alice was Frank’s Professor in college and was over twice his age. Although their marriage was mostly used as a joke in the show, it did highlight and bring attention to age differences. When Phoebe first found out about their relationship, she was shocked but by the end of the episode came to the belief that love is love. Later in the show, Frank and Alice want to have a child but are unable to due to Alice’s age, so they ask Phoebe to be their surrogate. In the show they express the pregnancy and surrogacy well, but do make jokes such as when Phoebe tells the nurse at the hospital, “the father is my brother”. Many of these quotes are lighthearted. They bring up some of the harder parts of surrogacy such as carrying and birthing a child that is not theirs and having to give the babies to their parents. Ultimately the directors and writers wrote this story well and for the most part accurately portrayed the ups and downs of Phoebe’s decision. 

Rachel Green is from a very posh family in which she was raised to believe that her goals in life should be to marry a wealthy man and be a stay at home mother. This ideology was quickly challenged for her when she ran from her fiancé on her wedding day and then decided to get a job and become an independent woman. Later she also had an unconventional pregnancy for this era because she got pregnant and did not get married. Despite how she was raised and societal pressure from her family, she decided to have the baby on her own; Ross was still there to raise the child, but they were not together. At one point during a family convention, Ross’s mother even tells them to pretend they got married because they had been telling that to friends. Despite the pressure to get married by both their families, she still decided it was not the right time. And even though Rachel was not in a relationship to help raise Emma, she still had a ton of support from Ross, her family, and friends. She proved to many that you can be a single mother, work, date, and succeed, breaking many conventionalized beliefs. 

Monica Geller was one of the more heartbreaking stories. When her dream of having kids was put on hold because she had a hostile uterus and was unable to bear a child, she and Chandler started looking into other options and got into adoption. After being put on a list, they met a mother that agreed to let them adopt the baby when it was born. Although this process went by a lot faster than it normally would in real life, it still very accurately described this unconventional way of becoming a mother. 

All 7 babies born into this show either had unconventional births or family dynamics, but no matter the story they all had friends and family that supported their decisions. Recognizing that this sitcom did make many jokes that are viewed as offensive today, they were not seen as offensive in the 90s. The show incorporates these stories into their plot well, some may not even realize that all 4 main characters had unconventional stories. Even though this show was not perfect, it enforced the fact that there is no right or wrong to being a mother. 

Sex Education: Discovering Yourself During The Turbulent Years of High School

Posted on by Former Student

Written by Abby Yokoyama for Wear Your Voice | https://www.wearyourvoicemag.com

Sex Education is not only educating the students of Moordale secondary school in the UK, but its viewers worldwide too. Sex Education is a comedy-teen drama Netflix show all about sex, pleasure, and discovering your identity as a high school student. In their third season that just released, the show portrays people of different sexual orientations and gender identities and highlights their struggles and triumphs after a stark shift in administration. This blog post will analyze the new administration’s effect on the student body, as well as one of the prominent homosexual relationships present in season three.

Every school needs a sex therapist, right? Jean Milburn, the main character Otis’s mother, was just that for the students of Moordale, helping students become more comfortable with their sexual experiences, sexual orientation and addressing their concerns. The positive response from the students because of Jean’s help made headlines, making Moordale known as the “sex school”. In season 3, Jean has left, along with head teacher Mr. Groff, leaving new head teacher, Hope, with the sole desire of clearing the school of this title. 

Jean is pre-Victorian, and Hope is the Victorian response to sex. According to Foucault, people were very open and much more comfortable with sex up until the Victorian era. Moordale goes from sexual freedom and openness with Jean to school uniforms, single file lines, and an outdated, inaccurate video on sex education with Hope. Sex became shameful and frowned upon. It was discouraged and even against the rules to be spoken about aloud between students and faculty. Any traces of sexuality were to be destroyed or removed, including The Penis wall, which, you guessed it, is a wall full of drawings of penises.  

Hope publicly shames students during school assembly

Hope’s initiative to get rid of sex at Moordale lines up with Foucault’s repressive hypothesis. She is shutting down all the progress and work Jean had done with the sexual concerns the students had been having, and pushing that aside for “more important” matters. She wants students to focus all of their energy on getting good grades and doing well in school. Sex is nothing but a distraction. Nothing good comes of it. So she erases all traces of it. This is similar to how sexuality was repressed during the Victorian era and the rise of the bourgeoisie in order for capitalism to become the main focus. Hope represents capitalism. She is implementing rules and guidelines that repress any sort of sexuality so that school is the top priority. She even publicly ridicules those who are open about their sexuality and interests, like a new student, Cal, who identifies as nonbinary. Because of the new uniforms, they don’t know which one to wear, the one for girls or the one for boys. Hope has the answer! Because Cal was assigned female at birth, of course they must wear the girls’ uniform. This blatantly ignores and suppresses queer peoples’ identities and expression, but at least Moordale will look good in the press. 

Cal (left) with friend Jackson in front of The Penis wall

Moreover, the repressive hypothesis argues that power works in a top-down fashion, which is reflected in the school’s hierarchy. Hope is at the top as the head teacher, and she uses that power to overtake anyone’s voice below her. She silences the students, and not even the teachers are allowed to help with any personal issues they may be facing.

Another prominent aspect of his season is Eric and Adam’s relationship, consisting of two gay men in very different places in their lives. Eric is confident and outspoken about his identity, and doesn’t care who knows it. However, while Eric is very secure in himself at home in the UK, when he travels to Nigeria for a wedding, those around him, namely his family, want him to repress his identity. Homosexuality is illegal in Nigeria, so his family is not nearly as socially aware of it. His grandmother keeps asking when he is going to meet a nice Christian girl and get married, which Eric and his family know will never happen. At the wedding, he meets a gay man named Oba who takes him to an underground gay club. Inside, Eric finds a booming scene full of queer people, similar to the latter hald of the nineteenth century where D’Emilio explains that gay people created underground spaces for queer people. Eric feels the most liberated he’s ever felt in a country he shouldn’t really be feeling in such a way, which only strengthens his confidence in his identity. 

Adam (left) and Eric’s (right) budding relationship

Adam, on the other hand, is just starting to figure himself out and is having a particularly hard time embracing his identity. In earlier seasons, Adam was portrayed as a straight homophobe, and because he was repressing his own homosexuality, he bullied Eric. Adam also has a difficult relationship with his father, and was sent to military school at the end of season 1, where he meets plenty of other gay people. The military used to be a place of discovery for homosexuals during the wars, and while Adam did not uncover his homosexual identity while in military school, it is ironic that that is where he was sent in the midst of his journey in figuring out who he is as a gay man. When he comes back to Moordale, he attempts to become more comfortable with his sexuality so he and Eric can start a relationship, but Adam is not prepared for such publicity and vulnerability in his identity. Because of his relationship with his father and always being looked down upon and ridiculed by him, Adam is closed-off and rarely vulnerable, which is proving to be very difficult in trying to rebuild his reputation and identity from straight bad boy to gay man.

Sex Education is an effective means for important information for this generation; it’s a funny, but heartwarming, honest and educational show that conveys an important and relevant idea of discovering yourself and identity during a critical time. It is important to educate teenagers about sex and encourage finding you identity and being yourself, and this show does just that. By the end of the season, Hope is gone, but thankfully, The Penis wall remains.

A Fatphobic Lucky Strike Ad: Another Bad Side of the Tobacco Industry

Posted on by Former Student

Written by John Rogers for Jezebel.

This horrific ad was created by Lucky Strike cigarettes in 1930 as an attempt to sell their unhealthy product. It is no longer in circulation today (thank goodness) but it can be found online, and looking at it provides important history on how advertising has always been manipulative. The ad purports that Lucky Strike cigarettes will reduce feelings of hunger, leading consumers to be less snacky, and thus, presumably avoid tacking on weight from overeating. This ad is targeted towards women, since it features a woman in the picture, and it suggests that ladies can avoid weight gain by smoking cigarettes. In this way, the ad reinforces harmful gender norms that women must avoid being fat in order to be attractive to potential partners. 

The ad is not just sexist towards women by holding them to high beauty standards. It is also deeply fatphobic, meaning that it reinforces the idea that fat is ugly and must be avoided. According to Marilyn Wann, “health is a problematic concept when linked with weight. Health is not a number, but rather a subjective experience with many influences.” So, implying that a certain weight is unhealthy or undesirable, as this ad does, is a constructed idea that harms fat people. They are less self-confident, ostracized from society, and given worse health care as a result of this fatphobic thinking.

On top of some sexist and fatphobic tendencies, the ad is racist as well. It presents the skinny woman as white, and darkens her fat shadow. This reinforces the historical idea that fat is a Black quality, and that Blackness is bad just like fat. By presenting the white woman as the ideal, and the dark woman as the problem to be avoided, this ad upholds a racist ideal of white superiority.

The intended purpose of the ad is to sell cigarettes, and the ad hopes that preying upon women’s fears of being fat will impel them to buy the product that is offered as a solution to weight gain. It has another angle as well. It claims that the cigarettes will protect consumer’s throats from irritation and a cough.  It is ridiculous by our 21st century standards to smoke unhealthy cigarettes as a way to resist weight gain or clear your throat, but this was a clever argument at the time of the ad. Doctors were paid to claim that cigarettes were healthy, allowing Lucky Strike to prey on consumers with misleading data. In this way, the ad uses the rhetorical appeal of ethos by appealing to over 20,000 doctor recommendations to back up claims of health benefits from smoking.

The advertisement uses the rhetorical appeals of pathos and logos as well. The scare tactic of the “fat shadow” that could occur in 5 years if one engages in “over-indulgence” is intended to create fear in the audience, a fear that will be dissuaded by the supposed benefits of smoking Lucky Strikes. Thus, the images in the ad appeal to pathos. In terms of logos, the ad makes an argument that cigarettes lead to less hunger, and less hunger leads to less eating, and less eating will prevent weigh gain. Of course, this logic is faulty, because it assumes that less eating will prevent weight gain, even though this is an open question. It also assumes that weight is a choice that results solely from eating habits, which reinforces problematic fatphobic ideas that Wann references. Humans have weights on a bell curve, just like height or other characteristics, so picking a “skinny” ideal that is a specific spot on the bell curve is not only misguided, it is impossible to accomplish.

The ad has two images. One is a basic image of a cigarette box, intended to make the packaging look clean and appealing. The other image is of a thin, conventionally attractive woman with a fat shadow. The then woman looks happy and calm, while the fat shadow has more of a grimace on her face. This illustrates the argument of the ad: buy Lucky Strike cigarettes to reduce hunger, or else weight gain will inevitably follow from an inability to control urges to eat.

Overall, the ad tries to convince women to buy Lucky Strike cigarettes with two claims that are both tied to health – the cigarettes will prevent weight gain by reducing hunger pangs, and they protect people’s throats by eliminating irritation and coughing. The ad is an example of problematic advertising that uses fatphobia to encourage people to buy unhealthy cigarettes. Ads like these were used throughout history to promote sexist, racist, and fatphobic ideas, convincing consumers that products which were actually harmful to them would help them avoid these made-up problems. Examining this history of constructing false needs is vitally important so that we can identify where ads are using these tactics today and snuff them out.

A cigarette ad riddled with fatphobia, false science, and problematic beauty standards

Gay Tok: Hook-up Culture and Discrimination in the Gay Community

Posted on by Former Student

Tik Tok is home to a variety of trends from new dances to popular audios. There are many sides of Tik Tok, and you may be in multiple, depending on how diverse your ‘For You’ page is. However, I will be talking about a specific side of Tik Tok today, and this side of Tik Tok is referred to as Gay Tok (the side of Tik Tok created by and for the gay male community). There are innocent Tik Toks about gay couples on a date, but there are also videos that showcase the problematic side of the gay community. These short videos shine light on hook-up culture while other videos touch on the discrimination gay men of color face in the dating scene.

The first Tik Tok, created by @itslucasmorales, includes him sitting still in a room with the caption, “me remembering the time in high school where I thought I would find the love of my life on Grindr and ended up losing my virginity at 2am to some random guy in a tank top.” The audio in the background exclaims, “Don’t you feel silly, don’t you feel stupid, don’t you feel a little ashamed,” with an ominous sound playing in the background.

This short, twelve-second video shows the difficult dating scene gay teenagers face. The gay community’s dating pool is extremely small. Some people are closeted and not ready for a relationship, others are not queer, and some are already in relationships. The lack of a dating pool created a different pool within the gay community: hook-up culture. Younger gay people are thrown into hook-up culture through Grindr: a dating app intended for gay men. However, Grindr is used primarily to seek potential hook-ups instead of potential relationships. The way Grindr is used exposes teenagers to predators and potential grooming, which leads to gay teenagers engaging in sexual activities with older men. Early exposure to hook-up culture shifts gay teenager’s perception of relationships and their functioning. Instead of a relationship being seen as an emotional connection, it is perceived as a physical connection; gay teenagers will focus more on their bodies than their mental health.

The unhealthy, toxic atmosphere of hook-up culture perpetuates the idea that appearance, especially body shape, is a deciding factor in whether one deserves love or not. The fixation on bodies is deeper than expected. Each body type has their own category, such as twink (hairless, thin bodies) to otter (hairy, thin to athletic-build bodies) to bear (hairy athletic-build to larger bodies); there’s a category where any body type fits. This body categorization has been normalized to the point that there are quizzes, such as this one, to help identify your body type! Hook-up culture creates this body categorization and physical damage, but it also causes emotional damage. There are no emotional relationships. In hook-up culture, there are friends with benefits and sex with no strings attached. This goes back to the physical harm hook-up culture can cause with body fixation, but these issues also cause a mental toll on the person involved. The emotional aspect of relationships is not taken into consideration, making it difficult for gay teenagers to define a healthy relationship, especially if they are deeply involved in hook-up culture.

Hook-up culture is the root of most of the problems in the gay community. Hook-up culture leads to the creation of body categorization, physical over emotional relationships, and the use of preferences to justify discrimination in the gay community, which leads to my next Tik Tok.

The second Tik Tok involves a queer, black man talking about dating as a black person. This person discusses discrimination they have faced in the gay community from other black men. He starts his Tik Tok with the quote, “I’m getting to realize that I’m lowkey not in the mood to date black men anymore, and here’s why.” @Miamiboykhai explains the standards black men face in the gay community and the standards forced upon him. He mentions how black men have commented on his femininity, his skin tone, and his height in comparison to his position during sex, “What I’ve often heard towards myself was I was too feminine […] too dark while being feminine, and then I had people tell me I’m too tall for my position.”

Caption: @Miamiboykhai talks about the struggles he faces in the gay community when dating other black men

@Miamiboykhai discusses how the “outside world” already treats him differently, and now, he is ostracized from his own community. Many gay people feel out of place even within the gay community. They are treated differently due to their gender expression, body shape (as described in the first Tik Tok), and skin color. Grindr also plays a part into these standards. Many profiles have bios that exclude many people (no fats, no fems, no Asians), and the discrimination within the gay community creates an unsafe environment for people of color because of the intersectionality we face. Our cultures and religions are homophobic while the gay community is racist and discriminatory.

Another important argument this Tik Toker brings is, “[…] and I watch you guys pick and choose who you allow to be feminine, who you allow to date, you guys have many rules in the dating world as black people.” Femininity in the gay community is used to categorize gay people; it is associated with thinner body types, bottoms, and submissiveness. However, we need to move away from these stereotypes and realize femininity is a gender expression, and it does not dictate one’s position during sex, their likes and dislikes, or their behavior. Another thing that I should mention is that anyone can be feminine; it is not an exclusive trait reserved for people who are “allowed” to be feminine.          

So, what can we take from this? Tik Tok is a social media platform filled with a variety of genres and videos. The ones spoken about here display problems within the gay community in distinct ways. The first Tik Tok only used an audio and a caption, but it still made a strong point about the dating scene in the community, and it leads to discussing how the gay dating scene became what it is now. The second one was more of a rant, but it also showcased discrimination from someone’s personal experience. Tik Tok allows several people to discuss matters like this one, and it gives the younger generation some insight and information about several other issues in our world. In this case, we see how hook-up culture has perpetuated the idea that appearance, specifically body shape, dictates how desirable and valuable a person is and the assumptions that are made about a person through their gender expression.

Writing for Wear Your Voice | www.wearyourvoicemag.com

The Problematic Past of Barbie™️ Advertisements

Posted on by Former Student

Written for Feministing magazine.

Mattel’s advertisement from the 1960s.

The Barbie industry serves as an integral part of many young people’s childhoods and continues to be an influential brand. Up until these last two decades, the trademark has kept selling an item that lacks real representation- one that is appearingly not meant for everyone. One of the most notable red flags with this brand is the unrealistic model of body anatomy that is set before young generations. While recent strides to become a trademark that is known as more inclusive and empowering have been ongoing, there is still an entire history of wrongful messages and branding to be seen in order to account for its controversial narrative. 

A prime example (and one of many) is none other than the “Babysitter Barbie” ad, which includes the words “DON’T EAT” and features Barbie holding a book entitled “How To Lose Weight.” Mattel, the company behind the entire franchise, promotes a harmful lesson to an incredibly impressionable audience. A young person who comes across this graphic becomes instilled with the need to already be regulating an area of their lives in order to be seen as valid from the golden standard Barbie places. This becomes a confusing take on what is supposed to be a franchise dedicated to lifting girls up. 

Not only does this ad present a norm that should not be reiterated to a young group eager to view Barbie as a role model, but it reinforces poor beliefs regarding body image. Any advertisement that emphasizes a problem before one might even be aware can change someone’s entire perception of what is “socially acceptable” for them to look like. In this case, Barbie’s message can unknowingly kickstart unhealthy eating habits and overall insecurity, and young people may not be aware of the root of where it all began until much later.

The positive impacts the Barbie industry has had on its audience is not to be discredited; however, regarding topics of feminism, it can be noted that Barbie’s history of branding has not always been helpful to that cause. Luckily, Mattel has made strides in inclusivity and Barbies is much more aware today. It is essential that brands are conscious of the content they present to audiences, especially when it can negatively impact the confidence of young girls and their bodies. The Barbie franchise missed the mark on this one.  

Why can only white men drink beer?

Posted on by Former Student
A Budweiser beer advertisement from the 1950s

What do you first think of whenever you look at this ad? Budweiser is a very popular beer company, so it particularly stands out. When I first looked at it, I thought to myself “Hmm, this advertisement is probably from the 1900s”. Budweiser created this advertisement in the 1950s and the intended audience of it seems to be pretty clear: white men. The purpose can also be quite clear: sell Budweiser beer to white men. These are the things you can decipher when you just take a slight glance at this advertisement. 

As you dive deeper into the symbolic art that is presented in the advertisement, these things unearth more purpose and intention from the advertiser. Let us talk think about and analyze the actions of the two people in this ad. For instance, looking at the white man, he holds a hammer. As he is holding this hammer, it seems he is working hard on building something and we can assume this is either something for home or it is a part of his job. When looking at the white woman who we can assume is his wife, she is pouring him a glass of Budweiser beer. There is nothing hardworking about what she is doing, she is just simply acting upon her husband’s needs. This image sparks more controversial topics. In the 1950s, they would say “Well that is the role of a women, isn’t it?”. They would assume that the role of the women is to take care of her husband and fulfill all of his needs. Whenever we compare these two actions of the man and the woman, it really reflects those assumed and assigned gender roles that society claimed to be “right” in the 1900s. The typical woman staying at home, tending to her husband, the breadwinner. In contrast, the husband is the hardworking spouse in the relationship who has a job, does the “handyman” work at home, and acts upon all the “masculine” things society expects him to do. Just by looking at the actions of the two in the ad, it easily already brings those gender assumptions to the audience’s minds. However, when looking at the advertising techniques of Budweiser, you can question them on why they ignited these prominent gender roles in the ad. Well, since it was the 1950s, it was assumed that after a long day of hard work, men needed to decompress, so their wives could pour them some Budweiser beer at the end of the day. 

These points can also be proven by the facial expressions of the man and the woman in the advertisement. By the looks of the man’s face with his wrinkled forehead lines and his subtle yet irritated facial expression, he seems to be stressed out and tired from a long day of labor and responsibilities. Let’s remember, the 1950s were times when gender roles were prominent. Where the golden standard was the men working and laboring during the day while the women stayed at home with the children. So, because men are stressed out at the end of the day, this is why Budweiser aims at this audience of white men who have jobs. Budweiser tries to convince you that alcohol, specifically their beer, will help you decompress and relax at the end of the day. Now, looking at the intended audience of the advertisement, it sparks conversation on the assumptions of gender roles. For example, why is Budweiser assuming that only white men drink beer? Why can’t they advertise it to women or even non-white men? This question does have an obvious answer which has to do with the time that the advertisement was released, however, this only shows how prominent these gender stereotypes and standards as well as racial issues were during the 1950s. It shows how companies and businesses convinced society that men have specific roles and women have specific roles. It shows how there was so much assumption on what race was superior during the time and which were inferior. Moving on, let’s start looking at the women pouring the Budweiser beer for who we assume is her husband. She looks so content while pouring the beer. She looks as if she has no problems in this world. That may be true, or it may not be. Budweiser is trying to convince the audience that since it is the 1950s where women are at home while men are working during the day, the least they could do for their hardworking husbands is pour them a glass of Budweiser beer. Budweiser is trying to force these couples into these roles in order to advertise their product.  

Looking back at the advertising strategies that Budweiser tried to use, it may have been effective during the 1950s. However, that does not make it necessarily “right” to advertise in the first place. When people look at the advertisement in modern time, there are so many gender, racial, and class issues within the ad. However, we can learn to appreciate that advertisements such as this one was produced in history, because we can now analyze them and learn from them. That is the major takeaway we can obtain from media that occurred a long time ago, and that is what we need for social justice. 

Writing for Feministing / www.feministing.com

The Fresh Prince Takes a Future Look into Fatphobia

Posted on by Former Student

Written by Trey Messer with Autostraddle, 1991

Scenes from Fresh Prince of Bel Air Season 2, Episode 8: She Ain’t Heavy

The hit sitcom The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air has been a blessing to our eyes as we watch Will Smith work his magic, entertaining the audience with his wittiness and colorful nature, as well as addressing some important issues that Black people in America face such as racial profiling, gun violence, and the struggles of growing up in rough neighborhoods. Season 2 looks to continue to this trend with new episodes tackling other issues of our society. In Season 2, Episode 3, the Fresh Prince is forced to address his own flaw of body shaming, an ideology that many men (including myself) struggle with resisting.

Throughout Season 1, the sitcom makes it clear that Will’s character is undoubtfully a ladies’ man. The “She Ain’t Heavy” episode even includes a flashback of all the fine honeys that Will has gone on blind-dates with—black, beautiful, elegant, but most noticeably, skinny. As Will gets excited to see who his potential blind date will be to the Lakers basketball game, his expectations are far from met when hip-hop artist and actress Queen Latifah walks through the door of the Banks residence. Latifah, who plays the role of “DeeDee” in this episode, is noticeably plus-sized compare to Will’s previous female acquaintances. The cameras cut to Will standing in shock and disbelief (in the comedic way only he knows how), serving as an slight at her body. The insults get worse when Will comes up with the excuse not to go to the game with her, stating that she wouldn’t fit in his packed car. He immediately realizes the fault in his words and recovers with “Not just you, anybody.” The scene ends with DeeDee walking out after telling Will and Carlton that she planned to be screaming her number at NBA superstar Magic Johnson, which Will replies behind her back: “I hope Magic ate his Wheaties.”

As the episode progresses, Will and DeeDee bond over their shared sense of humor and common interests, but Will is too afraid to ask her to the dance knowing that his friends make fun of him for hanging out with her. As they are seen in a restaurant together, Will’s classmates suggest she is “tons of fun” and even claims “the babe got more buns than a day-old bakery”. Will then asks his friend the question: “Now how you trying to play me? Now you’ve seen the honeys that I had up in here”. DeeDee, eavesdropping, hears this and storms out. The two end up going to the dance with separate dates, have a horrible time, and eventually make up. The crowd got one last laugh, however, when the king bed collapses in the final scene as every character sits on it watching a home cooking show. As funny as it was watching it the first time through, I’ve realized that the episode portrayed many important issues regarding society’s assumptions about weight and our social interactions with people we define as “fat”.

Scenes from Fresh Prince of Bel Air Season 2, Episode 8: She Ain’t Heavy

To start, the jargon and jabs used in the episode are very relatable to the reality to our assumptions about fat people. Euphemisms like “heavy”, “big”, and “husky” are substituted for fat in conversations, giving a “false positive spin on a negative view of fatness”. For those who use such words, they try to convince themselves by placing positive connotations on the idea, but the truth is they do not find it as acceptable. The fat synonyms also change the focus of the word, ultimately changing the relationship to one’s body. “Obese” and “overweight” –what Marilyn Wann would call the O-words—puts a medical gaze on the body, convincing people that being fat is something that is medically fixable (assuming that it’s a problem in the first place, rather than just being a bodily difference and variation).

The reason fat jokes and slander is so popular today is because of the power structure that we are subconsciously participating in through societal norms and expectations. In Wann’s foreword to “Fat Studies: An Innovation to Revolution” she claims, “Every person who lives in a fat-hating culture inevitably absorbs anti-fat beliefs… also inevitably comes to occupy a position in relation to power arrangements that are based on weight”. Weights and body shapes, effortlessly, assign women rank in the social hierarchy as the standards of “body goals” continues to become skinnier waist and wider hips.  When people don’t live to such expectations, we ignore, shame, bully, and ostracize them for not conforming to the standards that we force ourselves to do. The power we exercise to separate ourselves from those below us in the hierarchy is what Michel Foucault calls “productive power”—shaming others in attempt to encourage them to change their ways of living to improve their social status. In this perspective, corporations practice productive power by encouraging weight loss programs, expensive dieting, and weight loss medication.            

What makes this episode of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air so unique is how ahead of its time it is. Body positivity is relatively a new concept that gets confused with fat activism, which is barely even an ideology at this point. While body positivity encourages us to accept who we are and “love ourselves”, fat activism will force the public to stop discriminating against bigger bodies and to accept them for who they are. The episode effectively shows how we shouldn’t focus on the body or size of people we get into relation with, but more so emphasize compatibility and personality that we desire. Will Smith and the rest of the writers of the show reveal their agenda of promoting change and education to an audience swarmed by the anti-fat beliefs of society. I hope to see more episodes like this that continue to challenge my own understanding of the world and how it affects the relationships around me.

What is Mick Fleetwood’s Obsession with Balls?

Posted on by Former Student
Fleetwood Mac’s Rumors Album Cover

It’s been almost 50 years since the release of Fleetwood Mac’s Rumors (1977), but this album is still as popular as ever. From song versions sung by the Glee cast to a viral TikTok trend involving cranberry juice and “Dreams,” teenagers and adults alike fangirl over this influential record. They live for the drama, the ethereal energy, and the tack piano. But why, oh why, is there a pair of balls dangling between Mick Fleetwood’s legs, and who draped Stevie Nicks across Fleetwood like a damsel in distress? This blog post is an analysis of the album cover to Fleetwood Mac’s magnum opus and what it says about power dynamics between genders. 

If you’ve ever watched Superman, you know how much power superheroes exude solely from their stances. On the Rumors album cover, Mick Fleetwood stands tall and proud, one foot resting on a stool. His chest is proudly stretched, and his hand rests firmly on his hip. He’s set in place, grounded as he holds a crystal ball. On the other hand, Stevie Nicks is anything but steady. Her body is positioned closer to the floor, and her arm flexes behind her as if she’s turning (or possibly falling). She lacks balance, utilizing Fleetwood’s leg for support. At first glance, their stances are nothing to consider. However, this contrast of poses creates a clear power dynamic between Fleetwood and Nicks: Fleetwood is an object of power while Nicks floats along with little structure, reliant on Fleetwood’s body. These same power dynamics have dominated modern-day family and economic systems. During the 1950s, the cult of domesticity established the prevailing trend of male breadwinners. Even today, men are still seen as financial providers and political leaders of whom women are in desperate need. 

Along with posture, the juxtaposition of masculinity and femininity is apparent in Nicks’ attire. Nicks dons a black flowy shawl and is dressed as Rhiannon, the Welsh witch known from the song of the same name from Fleetwood Mac’s eponymous 1975 album. Throughout history, witches have been one of the most widespread images of female empowerment and resistance to patriarchal norms. Persecution of witches has existed as early as the creation of the Bible; the witch trials in The United States (most famously Salem, Massachusetts) and the United Kingdom merely dispersed witch hysteria throughout the world. Witch hunts often punished powerless women who were on the fringes of society: women of color, women that spoke against the man, outwardly sexual women, etc. Essentially, women – generally speaking, people – that didn’t conform to expectations set by society and the patriarchy were susceptible to being charged with witchcraft. Witchcraft’s connection to the feminine is also apparent in a witch’s connection to nature. While nature isn’t necessarily feminine, much of the discourse around women and motherhood connects to the Earth. Furthermore, women and the Earth alike have been subject to much exploitation, oppression, and destruction. Witches communicate with these forces of the environment, blurring the line between humans and nature. Now, what does this have to do with Stevie Nicks or Rumors? For much of the ‘80s, tabloids and haters alike speculated that Stevie Nicks was a witch. Rather than run from these harrowing accusations, Nicks embraced the identity – she embraced Rhiannon. Nicks even appeared on American Horror Story as the “White Witch.” She became this mystical, feminine icon in the male-dominated genre of rock, a “fuck you” to both the industry and patriarchy. This begs the question: if Nicks is a model of feminine power, what does the Rumors album cover say about the relationship between man and woman? Why is Fleetwood holding a crystal ball, Rhiannon’s median of art? Has he taken it, are they sharing it? Why is Fleetwood towering over Nicks, positioned as if he’s Captain Morgan overpowering the feminine? Is he part of the witch hunt? Expanding on the analysis of their gender dynamics from their posture, the cover art suggests an imperial conquest of wild and unruly women, i.e., witches. 

The last narrative piece that brings this analysis full circle is how Fleetwood himself is accessorized: with a pair of balls that hang below his pelvis. Why is it so crucial that Fleetwood reminds not just Nicks but the listeners (and therefore the world) of his genitals? The answer to this question is simple. He wants everyone to remember that he has balls. He wants his power as a man – as a person with a penis and testicles – to be known. We live in a world where power systems predominantly benefit those with one set of genitalia, so images related to testicles or phallic symbols can also be correlated to potency and strength. Today, we see phallic imagery in areas related to power, such as swords, rockets, skyscrapers, and cigars. These images create a subconscious association in our minds with hegemonic masculinity, a constant reminder of who and what is in charge. Similarly, Mick Fleetwood’s balls generate a reminder of his position in society and in relation to Rhiannon.  

Does this mean you should stop listening to the silky melodies of Fleetwood Mac? Absolutely not – I’ll always need my daily dose of Stevie! However, you should study and recognize the many messages the cover art delivers. Rumors has one of the most recognizable album designs of all time, so dissecting images that circulate pop culture is vital to understanding the social contexts in which we live. That being said, the next time you add “Songbird” to your Spotify queue, analyze the different stories hidden within the album cover and question any resemblances to your own relationship to gender and power.

Written by Anaya Patel with Autostraddle

Audi’s Display of Sexism and Stereotyping

Posted on by Former Student

In 2017, Audi, a German car manufacturer known for its luxury vehicles, released an advertisement to its Chinese market that sparked much controversy around the world. In their attempt to promote used cars to potential customers living in China, the brand not only displayed apparent examples of sexism, but promoted racist stereotypes. This commercial starts off with an Asian heterosexual couple standing at the alter about to get married. Right before their marriage was officially declared, the groom’s mother interrupts the officiant and begins handling the bride roughly, attempting to inspect parts of her body. Only after the bride’s future mother-in-law examines some of her physical aspects, like her eyes, nose, ears, and teeth does she declare the bride fit to marry her son and gives her approval. The terrified bride is seemingly relieved after her future mother gives the couple her consent, until the mother’s focus turns to the bride’s breasts, bring her back to a panicked state. After this blatant objectification, the commercial’s narrator voices “An important decision must be made carefully” as a red Audi Sudan zooms down a highway (Greatdung 0:22-0:23).

YouTube, 17 July 2017

This sexist Audi advertisement centers around the objectification of a woman by not only debasing the bride’s value to just her physical attributes, particularly her facial features, but also by comparing her to something one can buy and own. By insinuating that marrying a living breathing person is an equivalent decision to buying a car, Audi turns the bride into an object that can be materialized and possessed. Not only is the bride objectified by her future mother-in-law, but with the attention shifting to her breasts, she also becomes sexualized. This overt objectification and sexualization of a woman not only advance the harmful ideology of women not being actual people and simply objects for the benefit of men, it can have dangerous consequences that go beyond these beliefs. The United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) makes this connection by declaring “The objectification and sexualization of girls in the media are linked to violence against women and girls worldwide” (UNICEF USA 2021). This treatment can also have a multitude of negative consequences on the targeted individual’s mental health that can last throughout a lifetime. With the massive platform stemming from the ability to air advertisements to millions of people, comes much responsibility to further notions of equality rather than ideologies that have the potential to cause an immense amount of harm. 

Not only is objectification based on gender a prominent issue in this ad, but race also plays a problematic role. The stereotype of the “tiger mom,” a term coined by Amy Chua which describes Chinese mothers as strict, controlling, and borderline abusive, is also deployed in this Audi advertisement. One aspect of this stereotype is the fixation Asian mothers have on the physical appearance of their daughters (Chua 2011). In this case, the need for the bride’s soon to be mother-in-law to examine her physical features, deciding whether they meet her standards prior to the couple’s marriage further perpetuates this stereotype. Most Asian mothers do not align with this parenting style and utilize a wide range of other strategies, contrary to popular belief. The bride also remains passive during this offensive interaction, exemplifying to this advertisement’s audience that this is the appropriate reaction in the face of maltreatment, which could be easily internalized by woman and child viewers. By displaying this inaccurate idea of what Chinese mothers usually place high value on, as well as the expectation of women staying passive, not only does Audi promote sexism, but also racist stereotypes.

Connecting these ideas, Audi exhibits how the intersection of both gender and race can work together, producing an even greater amount of discrimination for individuals like the bride in their commercial. On the basis of Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw’s concept of intersectionality, two social categorizations of the bride’s identity, being Asian and a woman, create a somewhat unique distinction of the discrimination she faces in this Audi advertisement. Unfortunately, this situation is not rare and many individuals who share these similarities in their identity experience this prejudice on a day-to-day basis. 

Shortly after this commercial aired, it received mass amount of criticism and backlash from the public. One commenter even voiced “The annoying thing about Audi’s used-car ad, besides its objectification of women, is that it thinks Chinese customers deserve only commercials like this” (Washington Post 2019). Others simply called the advisement sexist and disgusting. Many people initiated plans to boycott this company and convinced those around them to partake in this form of protest. Following this severe condemnation, Audi apologized for its ignorance related to this particular incident, assured the public an internal investigation would take place to avoid a mistake like this in the future, and removed this advertisement from television. Audi’s response to this backlash and quick withdraw of their commercial displays the power the public holds and how each individual’s voice matters when speaking out against discrimination. 

Unfortunately, this type of sexist and racist commercial is not the only one of its kind. These companies must continue to be held responsible for the harmful ideologies their advertisements promote and be hyper aware of the massive audience they have the ability to reach just through the commercials they release. These examples of sexism and racism through promoting stereotypes and targeting certain audiences unfairly in advertising must come to an end in order to create a more egalitarian world. These large-scale brands have the responsibility to advance impactful and beneficial messages to the massive audience they are capable of reaching, instead of carelessly feeding this harmful ideology to the masses. 

Works Cited: 

Chua, Amy. Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. Penguin Books, 2011. 

Greatdung. “Audi Used Car Commercial in China. Full of Sex Discrimination.” YouTube, YouTube, 17 July 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiBva8pEgTc. 

Smith, Jamiee, and Hannah Gould. “Not an Object: On Sexualization and Exploitation of Women and Girls.” UNICEF USA, 11 Jan. 2021, www.unicefusa.org/stories/not-object-sexualization-and-exploitation-women-and-girls/30366. 

Wang, Amy B. “An Audi Commercial in China Compared Women to Used Cars. It Didn’t Go Well.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 18 Apr. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/07/18/an-audi-commercial-in-china-compared-women-to-used-cars-it-didnt-go-well/. 

Harry Styles Likes Women’s Clothing and He Doesn’t Care Who Knows It (Not Even Candace Owens)

Posted on by Former Student

By Alice Berndt

Written for Jezebel

Vogue Online, 13 Nov 2020

On November 13, 2020, jaws dropped and 1D fans swooned when the cover image for Vogue’s December issue was released. The shot features former boy bander and current pop sensation Harry Styles dressed in a black and white lace gown and black cropped blazer, his hair swept to the side in an intentionally effortless flop. He is the first man to appear solo on the cover of Vogue in 127 years. As the cover reads, “Harry Styles makes his own rules.” [Vogue]

Framed against a sprawling green meadow and clear blue sky, the British singer squints into the sunny distance. He holds a blue balloon to his lips, mid-blow, showing off an array of chunky rings, including one in the shape of an “H” and another in an “S.” The photo is iconically Harry — sexy, androgynous, playful, and edgy. 

Since the beginning of One Direction’s seemingly eternal “hiatus” back in 2015, Styles has been making a name for himself as a solo pop rock artist. In addition to releasing hit singles like “Sign of the Times” and “Watermelon Sugar,” he has also become a fashion icon, breaking free from his 1D wardrobe of V-necks and skinny jeans and embracing more traditionally feminine styles like colorful blouses, bootcut pants, and dresses. For the most part, fans and the public have been accepting of his style transformation, which recalls music legends of the past including David Bowie and Prince. But for some, this Vogue cover took it a step too far. 

Screenshot: Twitter / @RealCandaceO

In a move that sparked contentious debate, conservative commentator Candace Owens retweeted Vogue’s post on Styles’ cover shoot and wrote:

“There is no society that can survive without strong men. The East knows this. In the west, the steady feminization of our men at the same time that Marxism is being taught to our children is not a coincidence. It is an outright attack. Bring back manly men.”

[Twitter]

Yowza. Owens received immediate backlash from liberals, feminists, and Styles’ fans alike who claimed she was being sexist and close-minded. She was criticized for her assumption that masculinity and strength (or lack thereof) are directly connected to wardrobe — a man cannot be “manly” if he wears a dress. 

This assumption stems from centuries of clothing acting as a marker of gender — men wear pants and women wear dresses and skirts. Period. But is Owens implying that the inverse is true as well — that women cannot be feminine if they wear pants? Certainly Owens herself has been spotted wearing pants on more than one occasion. Commentators wondered how an article of clothing could limit or “attack” masculinity and strength but not femininity or grace. 

Screenshot: Instagram / @harrystyles

In a reclamation of Owens’ derogatory words, Styles posted an image to Instagram from his cover shoot with Variety and captioned the post “Bring back manly men.” The caption combined with the cheeky photo — Styles in a powder blue pantsuit eating a banana — pokes fun at his haters, addressing the situation while also making light of it. 

Styles is certainly not the first celebrity to be criticized for their clothing choices, so why did this get so much attention? Perhaps because it’s far less common for a woman to publicly shame a man for his outfit than vice versa. We’re used to female celebrities being called out for “scandalous” or “overly sexy” clothing (Billie Eilish’s British Vogue cover, for example), but typically male celebrities wear what they want or what their stylists give them and that’s that. It also cannot be ignored that Styles has a massive fanbase that has grown alongside his career since the inception of One Direction in 2010 and is prepared to defend him regardless of the context.

In talking about gender and fans, we must engage in a conversation about privilege. A quote from Styles on the Vogue cover reads, “Anytime you’re putting barriers up in your life, you’re limiting yourself.” For Styles, a straight white male celebrity with a net worth of over $80 million, he has the comfort and freedom to express himself through his clothing without fear. [Vogue]

For many others, including female-identifying, LGBTQ+, and POC celebrities, what they wear is often the biggest target for ridicule, criticism, and objectification. These individuals must first break down the barriers placed in front of them by society before they can even consider those they may have built for themselves. 

With that simple act of reclamation via his Instagram post, Styles had, in the minds of many, “won” the argument. For many others — celebrities or not — the complexities of how they use clothing to express themselves is a never-ending fight, both internally and externally. [Vogue]

Vogue Online, 13 Nov 2020

Don’t get me wrong, I worship Harry Styles as much as the next Gen Zer and wouldn’t dare question his status as a cultural icon. As actress and director Olivia Wilde says of Styles, “It’s pretty powerful and kind of extraordinary to see someone in his position redefining what it can mean to be a man with confidence.” By breaking free from the societal binary of gendered clothing, Styles utilizes his privilege to pave the way for others. But his work is far from being done. [Vogue]

TikTok: Its Perpetuation of Gender-Based Stereotypes and Human Body Standards

Posted on by Former Student

Over the past few years, TikTok has become a mainstream social media platform. This application, available for most smartphones, uses an algorithm to curate content for users, effectively getting them addicted to scrolling on the app. There are many subcultures on TikTok… For example, people who like dogs might find that the algorithm has put them on ‘dog TikTok,’ because their ‘For You’ page is filled with videos of dogs. The same concept applies to gender and sexuality. There are many different points of view represented on the application, and once the algorithm figures out what yours is, it will show you a plethora of content to reinforce that exact idea. 

There is a large subculture (or really, a set of subcultures) on TikTok that perpetuates the gender binary system and all of the gender roles that come along with that. For example, this video is a representation of many of the different videos that are found on ‘straight TikTok’: 

When the individual speaking in the video says, “Men will choose a peaceful woman before a beautiful woman,” they are enforcing many of the expectations that are placed on female-identifying people in our society. Moreover, the speaker is implying that women must be ‘peaceful,’ therefore implying that often, women are not peaceful. This implication tells women that they need not express their emotions; rather, they should focus on being as passive as possible in an effort to be chosen by a man. 

Next, when the person speaking says, “Men seek for peace, and it don’t matter if you’re Black, blue, asian, Latina… they want to come home to a peaceful woman,” they are demonstrating a lack of awareness of the intersection between race and gender. This statement also reinforces the idea that men come home to women, therefore saying also that women should not be working professionals. 

On top of that, the speaker discusses the intellect of women and expectations in that area that men hold. They say, “He wants a woman that’s resourceful, a woman that can think on her feet. So when he can’t hold it down if he’s ill and he’s unable to pay the bills, she can be resourceful and have her intellect to make things happen.” The first implication I see in this statement is that the woman should just be intellectual as a safeguard… the woman will never actually have to use these skills unless it comes down to it. The assumption that men always pay the bills is harmful to all people, regardless of gender, because that is not the case for everybody. By the same token, the fact that the speaker is bringing this point up implies that women are, in general, less naturally intellectual than men. Drawing this unfounded connection between gender and intellectual capacity is harmful to society as a whole. 

Perhaps most disturbingly, our speaker talks about the ‘appropriate’ role of women in a sexual context. They say that men are “looking for a woman to supply their physical needs… A woman that looks good and proper and public but is a beast in bed” is the golden standard. First of all, in addition to ignoring the physical desires of the women at hand, this statement claims that the purpose of women is to fulfill mens’ sexual desires. This incredibly sexist ideology has the capacity to negatively influence the lives of many people. On top of this, the speaker is assuming a common definition of beauty… she is saying that women who have a certain physical appearance and demeanor are examples for what all other women should try to be when in pursuit of a relationship with a man. 

In conclusion, the ideology contained within this video is based on the idea that women are socially inferior to men, and that female sovereignty should not exist when it comes to romantic and sexual relationships. The central claim is that women should constantly be cultivating their personas to match what they think men are looking for in women, in hopes that they will ‘meet the cut’ for some man.

Similar to the last clip, this piece of satire brings awareness to many of the appearance-based expectations that our society holds for women, and the stark contrast between these expectations and those for men. The actor, mimicking a man, says: “Alright, so I want a girl with huge, but perky boobs, small waist, huge butt, flawless skin (but can’t wear makeup). And I like blondes, but I think she should also be brunette… because I get bored quickly, you know?” This statement encapsulates many of the body standards that our modern society has for women, and also touches on the normalized fact that men sleep around while women are expected to be loyal. 

In the caption of this video, the creator claims that this is how all men think. Although this is probably a sarcastic statement, it is representative of the way that many people think. Moreover, individuality is to be nonexistent: all men must act one way, and all women must act another way. Beyond pointing out, and perhaps reinforcing, the gender norms that are in place for men and women, this video illustrates the prevalence of the gender binary in our society. 

Content Warning: This video contains a real-life portrayal of surgical body mutilation. Use viewer discretion. 

In this shocking clip, we see a person that is identified as a man who has ‘overdeveloped’ breast tissue. His act of having the ‘excess’ tissue removed is labeled as life-changing. First of all, the video notes that this overdevelopment in the breast tissue of a man is an actual medical condition, which is known as ‘gynecomastia.’ Its causes are said to be “medications, drugs, testicular cancer, and hormonal imbalance.” 

Without looking into the history of this condition, it’s plausible to assume that this condition was developed in response to a bodily appearance that was not in line with society’s idea of what a man should look like. Moreover, this condition does not pose any medical risk to the patient; it is merely aesthetic. 

This video perpetuates a toxic standard of beauty, and is essentially telling men who have growth in their breast tissue that in order to be beautiful, they must undergo surgery. Explicitly, the caption says, “These [surgeries] literally change men’s lives.” In watching this video, men with growth in their breast tissue are inevitably going to receive the message that they are disgusting, and must go get surgery. 

In conclusion, the three videos I have analyzed here are examples of the many TikTok videos that enforce gender-based stereotypes and human body standards that are present in our society. This is not to say that TikTok is a problematic platform that should not exist; rather, this suggests that we as a society should critically examine the role that social media plays in perpetuating harmful gender-based stereotypes and expectations on a day-to-day basis.

Writing for Feministing | www.feministing.com

Learning to Love Our Bodies Through Acknowledging Photoshop

Posted on by Former Student

[From Theory to Praxis Flyer–Alternative to Grant Proposal]

Rosie Molinary speaks to the collective you in her book, Beautiful You: “Yesterday you looked in the mirror, and, instead of your inherent greatness, you saw flaws. […] This morning, you walked into work, class, the grocery store, wherever and compared your body to someone else’s” (Molinary xiv). Molinary’s introduction to her book only serves to corroborates Jen Baker’s TED Talk on Total Body Love where she shares the shocking statistic that, “only 4% of women call themselves beautiful”.

From the time babies are just six months old they are able to recognize advertisements and logos as they are ubiquitous in our society (Kilbourne). Starting at a young age these images are retained in our subconscious and we learn to normalize these images and the actions that these images perpetrate. By the time we enter grade school we only understand one definition of beauty—thin—because this is the only definition we have ever been exposed to. As many of us strive to reach this “gold standard” it is not uncommon that low self esteem, depression, and eating disorders are developed along the way. We perpetuate Laura Mulvey’s concept of the male gaze by unknowingly objectifying ourselves through this lens set forth by the media.

However, even beyond size, women of color are subject to white-washing.  Their skin color is often lightened to resemble the “white ideal” our society has created and they are not just victims of one element of editing, but often multiple. Before taking GSS 101 I was only slightly familiar with the concept of “intersectionality” and I had no idea to the extent it plays into the mainstream portrayal of women of color in media.

The negative way we view ourselves is amplified through the widespread use of Photoshop. By college age most students are aware of the use of Photoshop, but few fully understand to what extent this application is used or how to recognize its use. By creating a flyer to hang up around campus—in Chambers and in several dorm buildings—I aim to have more woman be able to recognize the widespread use of Photoshop and in turn learn to call themselves beautiful. Although men are also victims of Photoshop, it is not to the extent that women are and so I am focusing on just woman for the sake of this project. The images on the left side of the flyer are all images before they underwent Photoshop and the images on the right are all the images after they have been extensively Photoshopped. Although these flyers would be more effective hanging up in a grade school, where 81% of ten year olds are more afraid of “being fat than having cancer”, these flyers are also pertinent at the college level because these issues transcend age (Baker). I wanted to also capture the affect of Photoshop on woman of color in my flyers because most people are unaware of the role intersectionality plays in women of color—they not only have to deal with the false beauty standards of size but also of color. For even mainstream celebrities like Beyoncé and Michelle Obama have been altered by Photoshop. By recognizing happiness is not defined by a size we can redefine the beauty standard together and move toward understanding that beauty and health are at every size and color.  Jen Baker explains in her TED Talk how we have to recognize that body hate is learned and so it can also be unlearned—and I hope my flyer will help to do this.

Work Cited:

Baker, Jen. “Complete and Total Body Love.” TED. 2014. Lecture.

Kilbourne, Jean. “Killing Us Softly IV: Advertising Images of Women.” TED. 2014. Lecture.

Molinary, Rosie. Beautiful You: A Daily Guide to Radical Self-acceptance. Berkeley, CA: Seal, 2010. Print.

 

DirecTV Has No Strings Attached to Feminism

Posted on by Former Student

In the spring of 2014, DirecTV, a satellite television company, released a series of commercials on network television starring marionettes for the sake of advertising. The commercials, though eye-catching, did not garner much attention until one starred a white, sexualized female marionette wearing lingerie and standing in a bedroom.  The marionette, who exists as an object on screen, is placed in contrast to her human husband. She claims that ever since her husband signed up for DirecTV he keeps talking about how he doesn’t have to look at “those ugly wires”. The bashful marionette, who has her own set of wires, continually asks her husband, “do you still think I’m pretty?” to which her husband replies, “baby of course I do”. As a result, the marionette whips off her bathrobe exposing her lingerie beneath. She directs movements toward her husband while asking “do you like what you see?” as he lays on the bed and serves as a spectator. Not only does this commercial exemplify the male gaze and society’s limited acceptance of sexuality and outside the “norm”, but it also serves as a microcosm for women’s portrayal in media.

Through the actions of the marionette and her husband, this DirecTV commercial focuses on the concept of the male gaze. First coined by Laura Mulvey in 1975, it explains how society views women through a male’s perspective.  The marionette wife, dressed in a bathrobe, approaches her husband with concerns about her physical appearance.  When the husband squashes her insecurities surrounding her appearance she sexually takes off her bathrobe to uncover risqué, red lingerie hiding beneath. She proceeds to make movements and noises provoking sexual behavior in order to captivate her husband.  DirecTV plays into this concept of the male gaze by illustrating women as sexualized objects within a matrix of compulsive heterosexuality. The husband lurches up in bed once he lays eyes on his wife’s undergarments and scans her entire body up and down, further objectifying his string-puppet wife as a figure for show.  Once his wife asks a series of questions about her physical appearance, he quickly changes the tone of his voice to urge his wife to continue moving her body for him to see. This relationship portrayed on the screen is entirely based off of appearance with little focus on anything else—every dialogue between the couple pertains to her attempting to gain his approval and then showing him what she has to offer sexually. This theme of male gaze has been so prevalent throughout American history, especially in current day advertising, and the portrayal of the marionette continues to illustrate America as a “man’s world” with the wife’s only purpose to entertain the man.

Furthermore, although interventions into misogyny and patriarchy have been made, our society hasn’t been able to break beyond the heterosexual norm, which is illustrated through the interactions and stereotypes deployed in this commercial.  Katz examines heterosexuality, in The Invention of Heterosexuality, by exploring its changing definition throughout time. He explains how during World War II, the concept of the “cult of domesticity” prevailed. There was this “reassociation of women with the home”, which forced the “predominance of the hetero norm” and caused “an era of heterosexual hegemony” to ensue (Katz 237).  This DirecTV commercial is starkly similar to these concepts that emerged during the war, forcing us to question whether any progress for women in society has really been made throughout the years, as this commercial is covered in sexism and stereotypes which were hyper-prevelant throughout the 1950’s.  The marionette is placed in the bedroom, which alludes to women in the home.  Her blonde hair additionally plays into the stereotype that blondes are dumber than brunettes—thus this woman could not possibly be associated with work outside the home. Likewise, the husband is sitting, somewhat tired looking on the bed, as if he just endured a difficult day at his job. DirecTV is attempting to “play it safe” by staying within sexual norms that our society is comfortable with.

Moreover, the lack of intersectionality in this commercial is striking. Both the wife and husband are straight, Caucasian individuals in the upper-middle class due to the fact they can afford a cable plan in addition to an expensive TV and home. DirecTV wants to appeal to its viewers, and so we cannot only hold them accountable for this portrayal. They must think our society is additionally not ready to discontinue the heterosexual norm.

Women are repeatedly portrayed in media as sexual objects. This commercial is only one of the many times that women have been portrayed as “less intelligent”, “obedient”, “pleasing” beings compared to their male counterparts. The figure of the husband, moreover, helps to portray the wife as a being with the primary intent to serve her husband. Even beyond spectating his wife, the husband holds the remote with control of the channels to signify he additionally has control of the home. His wife is literally a puppet beyond the obvious—the husband holds the strings and decides what role she should play. The wife is not in control, she is at mercy of the husband, and strives to gain his approval, which is illustrated by her repeated questions concerning her appearance.

One journalist from Time magazine states, “our suggestion to the wired wife? Cut and run” (Time).  Using sex to sell is not a new concept in advertising.  Instead of evolving with the changing times, this method has persisted in current advertising. Even more shocking, this advertisement received more criticism about being “creepy” than it did about its sexist nature. The inhuman puppet-wife distracts the viewer from the sexist nature of the commercial—the viewer is unable to see the objectification of women as the problem in the advertisement. The sexualized wife embodies Sigmund Freud’s “uncanny” since she is strange, yet familiar to us because this type of advertising is ubiquitous in our culture (Freud 1). The wife should not have to gain affirmation from her husband about her looks nor should she have to be portrayed as a sexualized object in order to appease the male viewer.  Women should not have to be sexualized at the expense of a company trying to sell their product.  They are not synonymous with sex and it’s about time we cut the strings between this binary.

 

Works Cited

“DirecTV Marionettes Pretty.” YouTube. YouTube, 28 Apr. 2014. Web. 9 Sept. 2016. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noFdLFMvh3Y>.

Dockterman, Eliana. “Selling Sexism: Why the Latest Commercials Are so Misogynist.” Time. Time, n.d. Web. 8 Sept. 2016.

Freud, Sigmund. The “Uncanny” 1 (n.d.): n. pag. Web.

Katz, Jonathan. The Invention of Heterosexuality. New York: Dutton, 1995. Print.