A DAUNTING TASK

I’m Just Another Lily Potter Who Has Happily Found Her James.

Who are you?

Snape - mysterious, misunderstood, a dark side outshone by good intentions?

Dumbledore - crazy, wise, all-knowing, humorous, hopeful?

Or maybe Harry Potter himself, the hero of the popular saga?

In David Nylund’s article, “Reading Harry Potter: Popular Culture, Queer Theory and the Fashioning of Youth Identity,” Nylund argues that popular culture “provides materials out of which people create their identities” (13). Thus, popular culture can be used by clinicians as a therapeutic tool when interacting with youth. How youth makes sense of media around them can be a powerful therapeutic tool to use.

Nylund uses the case study of Steven, a gay youth who inserts himself into the Harry Potter textual stories. In this case, both this therapeutic tool of engaging with popular culture and queer theory are addressed. By using queer theory, Steven has been able to uncover hidden “queer” readings in the Harry Potter saga, which helped him find support for his own sexual identity.

Steven had a sense of isolation from the “effects of heterosexism and homophobia in the face of his emerging gay identity” (17). Steven said he could relate to Harry Potter himself, who had been abused and mistreated by his adoptive family as Steven had been mistreated for his sexuality. Steven found something “queer” in Harry Potter when read against the grain. “Queer” typically suggests “homosexual,” but it also has associations to suggesting ‘non-normative’ or ‘alternate.’ With this in mind, the Harry Potter series is then very queer. How non-normative can you get in the wizarding world from the muggle one? Very. The saga challenges norms. 

So if Harry Potter can help a gay youth come to terms with his sexual identity - a ‘queer’ sexuality in a ‘compulsory heterosexualized’ world - what’s not to say the same for Spongebob Squarepants or The Hills? 

Just some food for thought, WWW. Thanks for tuning in.

- T.E.

References:

Nylund, D. (2007). Reading Harry Potter: Popular culture, queer theory and the fashioning of youth identity. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 26(7), pp. 13-24. 

Gendered Lives - Who are we Living For?

What is gender in contrast to sex?

Most importantly, the author of this book insists that gender is learned. If you need a refresher in this, head to the Gender Stereotypes blog I previously wrote on how much one performs gender on a daily basis. Wood illustrates that “Gender is learned. From infancy on, we are encouraged to learn how to embody the gender that society prescribes for us. Young girls are often cautioned, “Don’t be selfish—share with others” and “Be careful—don’t hurt yourself.” They are praised for looking pretty, taking care of others (including dolls), and being nice. Young boys, in contrast, are more likely to be admonished, “Don’t be a sissy,” “Go after what you want,” and “Don’t cry.” Usually, males are reinforced for strength, independence, and success, particularly in competitive arenas” (24).

Gender is learned, and, therefore, performed. If gender is not something innate, and is rather something nurtured, than sexuality by contrast must be something natural and innate. Sex is to gender is natural is to nurtured. How then, does society persist in bashing those who are transsexual/homosexual/bisexual/anything-that-isn’t-homosexual? If sexuality is inborn, then that is something we have more the rest of our lives. It is as natural as our blue eyes or our frizzy hair. Born this way, baby. Don’t be ashamed. 

References:

Wood, J. T. (2009). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture. (8^th ed.).  Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

An Analysis of Kalof’s “The Effects of Gender and Music Video Imagery on Sexual Attitudes”

This blog will be addressing Linda Kalof’s 1999 study, which examined “the influence of gender and exposure to gender-stereotyped music video imagery on sexual attitudes” (378). She explores different types sexual attitudes, including sexual beliefs, acceptance of rape myths and interpersonal violence, and gender role stereotyping. 44 U.S. college students participated and were randomly assigned to a group that either viewed a stereotyped sexual imagery video (“The Way you Make me Feel” by Micheal Jackson) or one that had no sexual images whatsoever (“The Stand” by REM).

American sexual beliefs are strongly traditional, resilient, and patriarchical. Heterosexual gender stereotypes are strongly reinforced in music videos, portraying the man as the dominator and the female as dominated. 

Past research has documented that young female girls strongly associate with their female counterparts in music videos, therefore taking on those sexual attitudes in their own lives. On the other hand, male viewers tend to increase acceptance of sexual violence due to the overexposure of such violence in the media (without any negative consequences).

Exposure to popular culture can literally shape audience views. The encouragement of gender stereotyping and acceptance of interpersonal violence in relationships is a disturbing reality found in young audiences. 

Kalof set out to specifically to “clarify the effects of exposure to gender stereotyped music video imagery on the sexual attitudes of male and female viewers” (379). She used a questionnaire to determine sexual attitudes measuring rape myth acceptance, adversial sexual beliefs, gender-role stereotyping, and acceptance of interpersonal violence. 

The results of Kalof’s study provides interesting imformation on each of the sexual attitude scales. Men had greater endorsement of adversarial sexual beliefs (i.e. hostile), gender role stereotyping, and rape myths (i.e. “she deserved it”). Women scored higher on a scale that measured the acceptance of interpersonal violence, especially the women in the group that watched a gender-stereotyping music video. Kalof concludes her article with a warning: “In particular, wide exposure to stereotypical images in music videos could exacerbate gender opposition and antagonism in relationships among young people [the target audience of music videos]” (384).

Although this study was conducted in 1999, Kalof’s cautions about the effects of music videos should not go unheeded. It’s a difficult task to find modern-day music videos, produced with a record company, that do not contain any sexual imagery. Whether it is enforcing gender stereotypes or dressing girls up ‘like they “deserve” to get sexually abused’ (i.e. “she was asking for it”), music videos are filled with sexual imagery. Especially those in the genre of pop-music/rap/top 40. However, other types of music such as country do very often typically reinforce the stereotypical heterosexual relationship. 

All in all, WWW readers, watch with caution. Don’t get carried away by the images you see, and think for yourself as you engage in popular media.

-T.

References:

Kalof, L. (1999). The effects of gender and music video imagery on sexual attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(3), 378-385.

Humans: The Sex Organs of the Machine World

“The medium is the message.” - McLuhan

Every medium extends human senses. When McLuhan talks about media, he is not just referring to popular media (i.e., the TV, the radio, the newspaper, etc), but all types of media - cars, paper, etc. 

According to McLuhan, the media is more important than any message it could output. 

The radio transmit the messages you hear. The automobile changes how one’s body moves from place to place. Media does the work in shaping our bodies in various ways. 

Are you thinking what I’m thinking? 

He also thinks we have become the ‘sex organs’ of the machine world. Yep, the sex organs. Technology has become both useful and inhibitory to human life. Humans perpetuate the creation of technology, pushing it ever forward for the betterment of human life. Thus, humans act as the reproductive ‘sex organs’ of the technology world.

Matrix anyone?!

Sex organs of the machine world? Technology taking over the world that humans left to shit?

The Matrix trilogy is the first thing that came to my mind when I heard “sex organs of the machine world.” For those who haven’t seen this great saga (highly recommend it), here is a quick [SPOILER ALERT] plot summary: (special thanks to Wiki)

In the dystopia the series depicts, Earth is dominated by sentient machines, who have turned on humans and forced them into slavery. At one point, humans believed they could wipe out the machines by “scorching the sky,” as they thought solar energy to be the life source of the machines. However, the machines devised a way to extract the bioelectricity and thermal energy from the human body by growing humans in pods connected by cybernetic implants to an artificial reality called the Matrix, which keeps their minds under control.

The virtual reality world simulated by the Matrix resembles human civilization around the turn of the 21st century (this time period was chosen because it is supposedly the pinnacle of human civilization). The majority of the films and games of the Matrix franchise take place in a vast unnamed megacity, although it is not the only city within the Matrix, as other familiar locations are mentioned and visited by the characters during the trilogy and the Animatrix. As this environment is practically indistinguishable from reality, except when a slight green tinge appears (becoming more prominent as the series continues), the majority of humans connected to the Matrix are unaware of its true nature. Most of the central characters in the series know that it is not “real” and as a result can partially bend the simulation’s physical laws in order to perform superhuman feats within the simulation.

GAH…. SUPER COOL! 

Ahem.. sorry, my nerd was showing. 

Anyways, many connections can be made between McLuhan’s hypothesis of humans as sex organs to machines and the Matrix trilogy. The neural-active simulation of the Matrix is created by technology to serve (and cage) humans in a false reality. Ironcially, humans were the ones that furthered technology to this turning point of the created to the dominator. Thus, humans become subservient to technology, becoming the food to fuel the machines… literally. In The Matrix, humans are grown in forests of pods and plugged in to the Matrix, a complex simulation of reality. These humans feed the machines through the harvesting of their blood/bodies after death. In relation to McLuhan’s statement then, humans are the ‘sex organs’ of this machine world, enabling it to reproduce and create the Matrix.  

Interested? 

Visit deoxy.org/media/McLuhan#The_LawsOfMedia for more information on McLuhan, and browse the net for tons of interesting info on The Matrix Trilogy. 

Take a Note from Heyes, Ringrose, and Walkerdine- Feminists Kicking Media Butt.

Why is our society so obsessed with presenting us “the perfect woman”? Moreover, why doesn’t our society pressure men equally to have the perfect body? Women are pressured more and more to look, act, and ultimately become the perfect woman - the socializer, the wife, the professional, the mother. Each role comes with its specific requirements: sexy, friendly, compassionate, loving, sophisticated, beautiful, dignified - and all equipped with a beautiful face and physique.

Coming from an average woman - how the hell are we supposed to do this, ladies? I, for one, do not look the most dignified when I’m studying in my PJs for a final. I don’t exactly feel sexy during Aunt Flo’s visit. And I sure as hell cannot be the perfect lover when I am sick with the flu.

Society places unreasonable standards on the modern-day women, that we (women) seemingly cannot escape. These standards are pushed on us through every media outlet available. Not only are we shown what we ‘should look like’- men are also shown what the perfect woman looks like. Advertising specifically for men often features the skinny, beautiful, mysterious woman. And advertising for women also shows the domesticated, loving, perfect housewife. I feel like these are much too many roles to fill. 

So how is the modern-day woman to become the “perfect” woman of society’s standards? Ringrose and Walkerdine suggest that make-over television has transformed the feminine into “a new site of limitless possibility and endless consumption” (227). The make-over consumes the ‘normal’ woman and turns her into the ‘perfect’ woman through cosmetic surgery. Make-overs present abject subjects and mystifies the audience with their transformation. Abject, in this case, is something to be mocked or humiliated; an act that is degrading and shameful. So, the abject is the imperfect woman needed to be rectified, via make-over TV. Ringrose and Walkerdine go on to suggest “the central premise of contemporary make-over programs is… the working class woman who fails both as a subject/object of self-reflextivity, desire, and consumption” (227). Both the body and the mind are sites of abjection needed to be made-over into something to be desired, not laughed at. 

The modern-day woman commodified = the perfect woman.

Continuing on with the theme of televisual makeovers redeeming the imperfect woman, Heyes outlines cosmetic surgery as the “contemporary manifestation of normalization” (17). TV makeovers use cosmetic surgery to butcher the modern-day “normal” woman into the “perfect” woman. This normalization brings woman who deviate from the perfect-woman-norm up to par with the beauties of society. Why do women agree to participate in these kinds of makeovers? Has society put such pressure on us that we are willing to butcher our given bodies into a fairy tale persona?

Just some feminist food for thought on a sunny October day. 

For more information on the subject, please see:

Ringrose, J. & Walkerdine, V. “Regulating the Abject: The TV Make-Over as Site…”Feminist Media Studies. 8(3). 2008: 227-246. Online.

and

Heyes, Cressida J. “Cosmetic Surgery and the Televisual Makover: A Foucauldian Feminist Reading” in Feminist Media Studies. 7(1). 2007: 17-32. Online.

cosmosnotchaos asked: Your blog is fuckin' great. Keep it up. I guess that's not a question, but I don't have a question this time, haha

Thanks mobilehome :)