I'm on a Diet -- The Body Week 11

The industries surrounding health/fitness, weight-loss and diet make over 35 billion dollars a year in sales. The success of these industries depends heavily on the production & reproduction of dominant discourses that criticize and “other” bodies that are not thin. The impact of these discourses is obvious, AND profound.

With clever names like, Nutrisystem and Medifast, we are informed that we can actually transform who we are, not just the way we look. In other words, these discourses create “othering” by reminding us that being overweight is not only bad dangerous, and undesirable, but apparently, it fundamentally changes who you are (and clearly, not in a good way).

Furthermore, the fact that these discourses are encoded in so many different ways plays a large role in the impact they have. The basic dominant discourse that fat bodies are wrong, bad, ugly, unhealthy etc., is reproduced through websites, ludicrous surveys, and medical professionals who talk about the dangers of belly-fat.

Take a look at the videos and websites below and consider how they “other” fat bodies. What do you observe? What impact does this type of “othering” have on our indentities?






http://chli.com/packages/individual_package/promotional?gclid=CNiu9MDHp54CFShSagod4wrklw

http://www.medifast1.com/?campaign=3257&gclid=CI7VlszHp54CFRhfagodEQhWlQ

Gender Wars -- Gender and Sex Week 10

The title “Why Men Are Becoming More Like Women” caught my eye on Huffington Post this week (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-buckingham/why-men-are-becoming-more_b_360349.html).
It’s an article written by Marcus Buckingham in response to Time magazine’s article “The State of American Women”
(http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1930277_1930145_1930309-2,00.html).
Time declared the gender wars “over” and the result a “tie”: “It's no longer a man's world…nor is it a woman's nation. It's a cooperative, with bylaws under constant negotiation, and expectations that profits be equally shared." However, Buckingham has a different interpretation of the research and trends Time used to justify their declaration. His interpretation centers on the issue of choice, which makes it particularly relevant to this class, since we’ve been talking about the positive value of being able to position oneself in relation to gender discourses rather than simply being positioned by them.

Interestingly, Buckingham links this idea of choice with “being women” – which explains his title (which I assume was meant to be provocative – “oh no, men are becoming like women, scary!). So his interpretation of the outcome of the gender “wars” is that gender norms are less rigid, that everyone has more choices about how to “perform gender”, and because of that “women have won.” According to the author, “The choice-filled world that women have bestowed on men is a tough world. Tough on women; even tougher on men.”

What might be the effects of assuming and declaring that less rigid gender norms and more choice means that women – their “attitudes, behaviors and preoccupations” - have won? How does this idea relate to the gender discourses we see in popular culture (and that we’ve been exploring in class)?

These articles highlight the social constructionist view of multiple realities and how these are constructed based on social location, the different experiences these locations give rise to, and the stories we tell ourselves and others – what we choose to focus on and what we choose to ignore (including research and “trends”).

Have we as a society been engaged in a “gender war?” Is this war ongoing, or is it indeed over? Are we at a stand-off? A truce? Did one side win? Are we better or worse off now than before? The answers to these questions undoubtedly depend on who is answering them and what they choose to use to justify their answers.

How do the ideas of multiple realities & social location from social constructionism help you make sense of (deconstruct) these two articles? Why might deconstructing these “stories” be helpful and important in our society?

And what about the “negatives” that Buckingham says are the result of “women winning” – that more choice means more confusion and more guilt? How might a social constructionist respond to that?

Criticizing Masculinity -- Gender and Sex Week 10

These two advertisements for Polysporin & Verizon Wireless are part of a unique genre of representations of masculinity. In these advertisements, men are portrayed as being unable to meet the hegemonic standards of masculinity in that they are not “tough” enough, or are not self-reliant enough to be “real” men. These men are portrayed as being idiots with little or no common sense. They are also portrayed as being disposable. They can be physically hurt or emotionally belittled because they are represented as not meeting hegemonic norms for masculinity. In the Verizon ad, for example, we see a dad being shown as moron who needs his daughter to explain the “magic” of the internet to him, and who can’t even be trusted to complete the simplest of tasks (washing the dog). Furthermore, his daughter and wife seem to treat him as nothing more than a nuisance, and when they do so, his response to them shows him not only lacking any toughness or aggression, but lacking any basic self-esteem or assertiveness.

It is interesting to consider the impact that hegemonic masculinity and social location have on the way our culture views advertisements like these as being “acceptable” or “appropriate.” If the gender of the characters in these commercials were switched, would we respond differently? If a man and his son treated a mother the way the Verizon daughter and mother speak to the Verizon father, would this blatant disrespect be culturally acceptable? In effect, these advertisements, and hundreds of others like them (and TV shows, movies, etc.) inform us that men who do not follow the rules of hegemonic masculinity cease to deserve basic respect and are acceptable to victimize. However, because men as a social group retain a great deal of social and political power, discourses that devalue them as people become more culturally tolerable (this advertisement WAS eventually removed after repeated criticisms of it being anti-male & anti-father).

While these advertisements may seem like they contain alternative discourses about masculinity, they do not. Rather, these advertisements show us the consequence of what happens to men if they do NOT “live up” to being a real man. They serve to reinforce the hegemonic by reminding us that men should be “real” men, otherwise, they are acceptable objects for us to mock and laugh at.

No Homo -- Gender and Sex Week 10

Based on our discussions in class, it should be clear that there is tremendous pressure on men to prove that they are not gay or in any way feminine.
As we learn from this clip, such discourses of masculinity have taken a new turn with the phrase, “no homo.” Simply stated, this phrase provides men a way to express emotion, discuss beautiful weather, and even talk about homosexual sex, while at the same time clearly communicating that such “feminine” traits do not make them gay. This phrase is a powerful commentary on the links between hegemonic discourses that tell men not to be feminine, and hegemonic discourses that suggest any expression of femininity must be followed by homophobia.

How does this clip challenge the phrase “no homo” and the hegemonic discourses it promotes? What does the phrase “no homo” tell us about the expectations being placed on male behavior? What potential impacts does the phrase “no homo” have on different groups of men?
In addition, as this phrase was generated from Hip-Hop music, what, if anything, does it tell us about discourses of race and how they inform/relate to discourses of masculinity?

A Woman's Nation -- Femininity Week 9

Recently, Maria Shriver, reporter and first lady of California, launched a new website and media series called “A Woman’s Nation.”

Visit these websites, look around, and watch some clips.

http://www.awomansnation.com/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33247001/

These websites reveal many dominant discourses about women, and also inform us about which discourses of femininity are “relevant” in news media today. They inform us about motherhood, working women, representations of women on TV, and more. However, at the same time, they clearly do NOT inform us about ALL women, or even a broad array of the possible discourses that exist about women. Why?

There are also some significant differences between the sites even though they are based on the same study. The MSNBC website, for example, reflects the news media’s interpretations of the study, and thus explores these topics in a way that emphasizes and models more dominant discourses about femininity. Why?

Which discourses of femininity do these websites choose to emphasize? Which do they ignore? Which women are charged with reporting this information to us, and how do they differ from the women they are supposed to be reporting about? How do the discourses of femininity portrayed on these websites position the women and men who view these programs?

Femininity & Alternative Discourse -- Femininity Week 9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8e6-IeQ0aw

Alternative discourses can provide us with a valuable tool for identifying and understanding dominant discourses and their impact on us. This is understandable, as dominant discourses are frequently experienced as “taken for granted truths,” so it’s easy for us to be unaware of how we’re being positioned by them, until we are presented with some “alternatives” or “challenges” to them.

This SNL clip starring Natalie Portman asserts several alternative discourses about femininity. In the clip, this young, petite, White woman is performing a form of gangster rap. She is, therefore, portrayed as vulgar, aggressive, angry and even violent (which coincides with our dominant discourses about Black men and gangster rap). The producers of this clip clearly thought that their audience would be amused by this representation. Why? What assumptions were they making about us and how we view femininity?

When we laugh at this clip (and/or find it amusing), we are recognizing that the behavior being displayed is NOT what we typically associate with femininity. This, in turn, highlights what the dominant discourses about femininity actually are—that women should be docile, calm, passive, & polite.

Certainly part of what makes this clip funny (and/or amusing) is that Natalie Portman, a film star, is not someone who we associate with this type of behavior (the clip clearly shows this in the segments where she is being interviewed). The “joke” is that Natalie isn’t the “nice girl” people expect her to be. Of course, if we change Natalie’s social location, our expectations of “nice girl” change along with them. If, for example, Natalie were a Black woman film star doing gangster rap, would our interpretation of her actions be different? Would we still be as amused or think it was as funny? In other words, Natalie’s social location as a young, petite, White female film star fits with the dominant discourses about femininity, so when she performs this alternative discourse about femininity we are able to find it funny/amusing.

So when you watch this clip, which alternative discourses about femininity do you notice? What do they tell you about dominant discourses of femininity?

Questioning Gender -- Gender & Sexuality Week 8

Gender construction begins at a very young age. Watch this clip and identify the discourses about gender that are already so dominant for these young children.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWc1e3Nbc2g

There is no doubt our socialization into gender begins at a young age. What is important to note from a social constructionist perspective, though, is that our gender subject positions are constantly being reinforced by dominant discourses, which is part of why it is so difficult for people to have those subject positions challenged directly. Even as adults, many of us are obsessed with trying to apply our discourses about gender (in particular the binaries about gender, behavior, and sexuality) onto the world around us. We are often “confused” when people do not fit into our discourses about gender. The image above of “Pat” from SNL, epitomizes this in that the entire skit is based on the idea that people can’t “figure out” what Pat “is”. Take the following link as an example.
http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/23658986.aspx?MsdVisit=1
This is from a popular blog called, “The Knot.” Notice here, someone has posted a question about how to identify the gender of a person with whom they work. It certainly seems from their post (and the comments below) that there is no hostility or anger directed toward the “genderless” person, but there is no doubt that it is more than mere curiosity motivating their inquiry. There are serious concerns about how to interact WITH, and how to refer TO this person. The responses to the post are VERY informative as well, in that not a single person suggests (not surprisingly because our discourses about gender are hegemonic) the possibility that this person may not fit into the category of “man” or “woman.” Instead, we see one dominant discourse about gender after the other. What would this post (and comments) mean to someone who is transgender or intersex? How might the dominant discourses acted out on this blog reinforce social power? Might the transgender or intersex person reading this feel shamed, different, or ostracized because they are hearing over and over again that people think if you don’t fit into these dominant categories then you are not normal—you are some sort of “freak?”

Unfortunately, the process of questioning gender is not always as “tame” as it is on the Knot. As a result of our gendered subject positions being so dominant a part of our identities, so important a part of our performing masculinity or femininity from the youngest of ages, serious challenges to those positions are often met with open hostility. This hostility can be heard in the screams of “fag” & “dyke” on our schoolyard playgrounds, in our hip-hop records, or on any number of Reality TV shows. But this hostility all too often manifests itself in violence. Below is an article about a transgender woman who was brutally murdered when the man she was dating discovered she was not biologically female. In the article, the defense attorney is quoted saying, “That while Andrade did kill Zapata, it was not premeditated. Instead, Andrade acted in a moment of rage upon discovering that Zapata was transgender.” What about Zapata being transgender was so terrible that it motivated such rage and murder? Could it be that our dominant discourses about gender, those that we internalize and use to create our subject positions, facilitate a culture in which violence like this is possible?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/16/transgender.slaying.trial/index.html