Levy Reading

"Proving that you are hot, worth of lust, and-necessarily-that you seek to provoke lust is still exclusively women's work," states Levy. This is exemplified through the incidences that were given in the reading. Even on television sitcoms, you see loads of pretty, skinny actresses paired up with their not-so-attractive counterparts. Two shows that come to mind are Modern Family and King of Queens. Why is it okay for the male actor to be portrayed as sloppy and still be liked while for women to be equally enjoyed, they must be model-like in appearance? Would the ratings still be as high if the female actress was replaced by somebody with equal the personality but not be as physically attractive?

I personally feel that if you feel more confident wearing makeup and figure fitting clothing, then all the power to you, but in today's society, it has been taken way too far. Would celebrities such as Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian be as popular as they are without their sex tapes? Thinking back to scenes from the movie Mean Girls, I remember one of the little sisters of a main character imitating hip thrusting moves in a music video and in another scene, lifts up her shirt along with girls in a Girls Gone Wild infomercial. Though this was just a movie, how far from real life is this? How will raunch culture affect the future generations of females?

Selling out for 11/30/10

1. I've never noticed any gay ads. Can anyone give me an example of a gay ad they have seen in mainstream media?

2. Do you think gay acceptance will continue to move forward? If the 1990's were so big for the gay community, what will the 2010's be like?

Levy "Female Chauvinist Pigs"

1. A simple question I have always wanted to ask: Why do so many women dress in such a sexual manner only to complain when men view them as sexual objects?

2. I thought the part in the article about guys yelling at girls to take their clothes off was insane yet true. How did it get to the point where guys can get away with that but girls cant? Do we live in a sexist society when it comes to raunch culture?

Becker Chapter 4

If market researchers agree that gays and lesbians are well educated with a disproportionate amount of disposable income and are extremely loyal to brands, why are there not more television ads targeted towards them? I cannot think of one television ad I have seen that has ever been specifically targeted towards this demographic. Does IKEA still have ads targeted towards gays and lesbians being broadcast?

I recall hearing about an ad that featured a gay or lesbian (couple?) that was supposed to run during the Superbowl or some other big event within the past year or so. Does anyone remember what the story line was and what the commercial was supposed to be for? Why was it pulled?

Becker Intro

I find it interesting that contemporary culture has narrowed down terms of sexuality into the two categories of “straight” or “gay,” when during the early 20th century, there was a wide variety of terms for very different types of homosexual behavior. Wouldn’t you think that the opposite should have occurred, where there would be two categories for the topic when it was less talked about and more terms for current times where it is more of an open subject?


If straight panic refers to the anxiety that Americans feel about the changing landscape of how people identify with their sexual identities, do those who fall under the category of “them” also tend to be racist or sexist? At one point, Becker makes a statement beginning with, “Members of a naïve mainstream (which had long had the empowering luxury of ignoring what it meant to be white, male, straight, etc…).” How did the 90’s affect females and those of different ethnicities?

Becker- Intro

While almost every TV show has a gay person as one of the main characters, it still seems like things like advertisements are not changing their ways. The way families are represented in simple commercials like for insurance, are still always traditional families. Also, advertisements for toys are still way too targeted male or female, what if a boy doesn't want a truck for Christmas?

Becker Chapter 1

In the reading Becker talks about the implementation of diversity training among corporations in the early 1990s. I found this particularly interesting, as a few years ago I personally trained for a customer service position with a corporation in which one of their core values was "diversity." The removal of the policies regarding equality could have been interpreted very differently, but as Becker explains, management sought to look for ways to acknowledge the differences among people.

One aspect of the Becker reading I found to be particularly astonishing was the part on the Creative Class members Florida interviewed and how they would ask a company during an interview if they offered same-sex partner benefits to find out how "tolerant" a climate the company had. It's sad that a "tolerant" climate has to be sought out rather than in abundance. I feel that today, more so than ever, non conformity to the norm is far more socially acceptable. It has almost become more of a trend to go against tradition in many different aspects of life. Does this make companies more "tolerant" of diversity as well? To what degree do societal trends impact corporate decision making?

Becker Chapter 4

One part of the reading really stood out to me: "long-standing discourses about homosexuality as a sin, disease, or crime continued to construct gays and lesbians as a deviant minority - a risk group deserving scorn or pity." I think we obviously know that everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but I don't think there is any truth to that claim. Becker does a good job dis-proving a lot of these discourses. I would argue that these discourses could be applied to straight people as well.

Do you think the reason that we don't see ads directed towards a male audience is partially because that just further separates the two groups? From the advertising perspective, I have no doubt that they would want to reach everybody, including the gay community. So advertising the "traditional" way will reach the intended audience as it always has. While an advertisement targeting the gay community may scare off those who are less accepting of the group. Do you think it is just a matter of advertisers playing it "safe"?

Becker Chapter 4

On page 114 of Chapter, 4, Becker talks about how universities were taking action to have an environment that was more sensitive to differences. However, he also discusses affirmative action at the same time. These two things seem to contradict each other, how can students be sensitive to others differences when they know they are receiving special treatment for those differences?

He goes on to say how large companies, and even reality TV shows made an extra effort to cast those with "differences". If someone is constantly being typecast as different, how is it going to make it any easier for the American public to accept them?

Becker Introduction

Becker discusses how people are more aware than ever of the "sub-genres" they belong to and how they are seen by advertisers. By recognizing that everyone is different, are we further isolating ourselves?

Becker reveals in his introduction the constant presence of homosexuality in the media has lead many people to grow more concerned about the future of heterosexuality. But isn't this a natural response? When there is a change, isn't a person's first reaction "how is this going to affect me?"?

Becker Intro

Becker referenced a lot of 90s and early 2000s television shows that featured a shift in episode content to the occasional gay reference. Then Becker mentioned Will & Grace being one of the first prime-time shows that featured a gay main character. Do you think we can credit W&G for allowing other shows to follow in their footsteps? I wrote my paper last semester on the ABC show Modern Family, a show which features a gay couple (Mitch and Cam) and are for the most part accepted by everyone.

On The Soup (E! Network) they regularly poke fun of talk shows, reality shows, prime-time, etc. So when they do their segment called "Gay Shows," I wonder if this helps or hurts the advancement of gay rights in the form of television? I would argue that it helps because the show makes fun of everybody. That is probably a bad logic, but I think it is true. I don't think it is fair to walk on egg shells worrying they might offend the gay community when they are probably offending everybody. I kind of see it as them looking at these shows on the same level as all other shows.

Becker Introduction

I find the correlation between homosexual representation on television and politics very interesting. Becker is correct in the statement that "solely focusing on what gay-themed television says or doesn't say about homosexuality, bisexuality, and other marginalized identities might unintentionally reinforce heterosexuality's ex-nominated privilege." Is this really what people rely on for their insight? Episodes of Will & Grace portraying homosexual characters, or a homosexual reference in an episode of Friends? I just find it sad that this type of reliance on fictional entertainment potentially impacts political decisions and portrayals of people in society.

I have never thought about what Becker points out in the reading of homosexuality and heterosexuality being mutually dependent terms. I wonder if there will be a point in time where straights have to come out of the closet. Will it take a point in time when the population of "Gay America" is as close as the population of "Straight America," or simply a time when the naievity of the concerned Americans over losing our morals subsides?

Becker Intro

Very early in the introduction, Becker talks about the role that the issue of "moral values" played in the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004. He brings up a very good point, and I was just wondering if any of you have you ever noticed the discrepancy between who votes for the GOP and who that party's economic policies directly benefit?

- I doubt that the majority of them have ever even considered this fact, which further legitimizes Becker's assertion about their fears and political priorities.

There are quotes by Jon Stewart and Becker himself concerning the "culture wars" at play in this debate.

- What, in your opinion, are they referring to?

- Do you think that this plays a big role in politics, and society as a whole?

Becker Chapter 4

1. Becker touches on the subject of being politically correct. It seems to me that in a lot of shows, the gay character is made fun of for being gay (Oscar from The Office comes to mind). Is this politically correct?

2. I found it interesting to read about gay advertisements/magazines. I have never really noticed an ad on mainstream television that seems to target the gay community. Are there such ads?

Becker Intro

1. I never noticed that there actually is one gay person in almost ever TV show I watch. Why does this happen for gay people and not some minorities such as Asians?

2. Becker made a reference to Will and Grace, which we studied in JMC 262. What kind of social aspects do you think resulted when a gay man played such a major role on a prime time TV show?

Becker, Chapter 4

One thing this section made me think of was tv ads. I can't really think of any ads that include gay people in them and I wonder why that is?

Becker seems to be saying that Clinton indirectly caused homosexuality to become mainstream. It seems like we were able to spend money which opened up the idea of homosexuality to become socially acceptable. Just a weird concept.

Becker Intro

I realize Becker is setting up his book, but I want know what caused the emergence of homosexuality in tv in the late nineties? Becker sets us up like he's going to tell us then doesn't. It's interesting to me that it burst onto the scene with such force.

I have to comment on the John Stewart comment about the 'two dudes kissing.' To me, he's absolutely right, we can say that the economy or all the other issues caused people to vote in certain ways but homosexuality is such a big deal still as it was then that it was what people focused on. There was so much media coverage about it it was engrained in people's mind as the most important issue that they sided with whoever they agreed with on the issue.

Levine

I find the comparison between docu-soaps and daytime soap operas interesting in itself. As we discussed in class, changing the dynamics of the daytime soap operas to be more trendy and appealing to a younger audience, such as with Passions or Sunset Beach may have attained a few extra viewers, but nothing earth-shattering. So what is it that really distinguishes the docu-soaps from the daytime soaps? As Professor Levine stated, it's reality. I would be curious to see what would happen if daytime television adopted a new reality program similar to that of The Hills or Laguna Beach. Would it appeal to the same demographic or not? Would it encourage a younger daytime audience?

Another aspect of the docu-soaps that I find interesting is what Professor Levine describes in her discussion on the character history. In daytime soap operas there is a story-line from which the character comes, one of which tells what kind of person they are. With docu-soaps, the character story is a little more discreet. They use the short clips of each person to give the viewer a chance to decide for his or herself what kind of a person the character is. Usually the viewer can relate to one or more of the characters, and in doing so, encourages further loyalty to the show.

Levine

While the article states that shows like Laguna Beach have "meaning without meaning", couldn't it be possible that since the characters are constructed to have such obvious traits like "the shy one" or "the bitchy one" that whomever the viewers sees themselves most like, they might be attributing their own characteristics to the characters?

If shows like Laguna Beach are constructed to be like a soap opera, why not actually script them for more entertainment instead of making "drama" out of somewhat unrelated clips? Do people really care that they're "real"?

Douglas and Michaels

Do you agree with their assertion that "these celeb biographies" are "increasingly presented as instruction manuals for how the rest of us should live our lives" ? It seems ridiculous to me that anyone would adopt celebrities, who lead completely different lives than themselves, as their preferred role models. Especially when it comes to the subject of motherhood.

They go on to say that "these stories are hardly reassuring. They make the rest of us feel that our own lives are, as the great seventeenth century philosopher Thomas Hobbes put it, nasty, brutish, and short."

If so, then why would anyone ever actively consume a piece of media that would make them feel this way?

Do you find the idea of "canonizing celebrity moms," while at the same time "demonizing welfare moms," as ridiculous as I do?

Who would you guess works harder to raise their children the majority of the time?

Douglas and Michaels

Why is it that the "average" mother is never represented? It's always one extreme or the other, which comes along with the expectation of you either falling in one category or the other. I was recently on a city bus in NYC and a woman, who definitely didn't look like she was on welfare, was trying to calm her fussy child. The little boy let out one loud yelp and the woman was met with glares and rude comments. Are people too distracted by media representations to remember what it's like to be around a toddler that can't be controlled by anyone?

Since this article was written in 2000, there seems to have been a change in the portrayal of single moms in any social class. People are stunned when they hear celebrities being proponents of single parenthood. Is it just assumed that single parenthood, if you are not in the elite class, will always lead to welfare?

Douglas and Michaels

For people who follow the lives of celebrities, the portrayal of any celebrity as a "family person" gives them a way to relate to the lives of those they are so fascinated by. The trend in celebrity obsession obviously tends to be gendered feminine, which is why magazines are able to tap into the emotions of being a mother so successfully. As stated in the article, it's almost as if the celebrity "...must be down to earth, of course, because now, at long last, she is a mother." It's interesting that the "celebrity moms who are perfect" stories are most frequently going to be seen in entertainment magazines, mostly read by women, while any type of societal trends or impacts that could seen as negative will not.

What's interesting is the idea that celebrity moms just becoming moms after bearing children. Do they not still work? Should these stories have pictures of their children with their (sometimes multiple) nannies? Watching my guilty pleasure, The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, the other night, I found it interesting to know that Kelsey Grammer's wife had four nannies, yet tried to portray herself as mother of the year. Her nannies, all on rotation and with different assigned duties, must be preoccupied for life to be so rough for her. I think there should be an entire issue done on celebrity nannies and other staff before another article is printed on the joys of motherhood.

Douglas and Michaels

There have been numerous tv shows on raising kids, celebrity moms, teen pregnancies etc. Most of these shows dont even have famous people of celebs on the show, or maybe they just host it; but it seems to me that they push this glamerous style of living while raising kids at a young age. As they mention in the article, many news stands have gossip magazines focusing on babies, young children, raising kids, and sure it is easy for them to say its not hard raising kids because they are rich, live in huge houses, probably have a butler, babysitter, chef and other paid hepers to make the adjustment as easy as possible, ad when you dont have to work to support your family, sure it would be easy devoting all your time to the new addiditon to the family. What about for the majority of people trying to raise kids, the ones going to school, working 2 jobs, living in single family homes....
Why does the media depict these celeb moms to flaunt their babies almst as an accessory, rather than a responsibility ? What messages does this style of raising a child give off? Do teens follow suit, hoping they will turn out like these highly paid celebrities? When the baby is born is that when reality hits home?

Levine

I hate all of these reality shows about drama, they provide almost no value and people are so naive to think that all of these situations are real. Our fascination with celebrities, such as discussed with Douglas and Michaels, I think really helps fuel these shows. And especially with today's technology, ala Twitter, our celebrity fascination is exponentially growing. I wonder what's next, video Twitter?

The one aspect I did like about the article and the show is how there always isn't a happy ending. Like how LC stays with the idiot but he doesn't change. In that aspect it provides a little value in that it shows the audience real life situations and how life isn't like a movie.

Douglas and Michaels

This article made me think of MTVs latest success story, Teen Mom. The media definitely does glamorize mothers in the media. Even a show like Teen Mom, which accurately shows the struggle of raising a child at a young age, portrays these mothers as celebrities. While they are mothers on the show, they still have them "hosting" other MTV programming and having them make appearances outside of the setting of the show. Plus they are now getting tossed in with the tabloid stories as well. So it is interesting how on one hand it can be an accurate portrayal and on the other hand it can be glamorized.

A lot of the points made in the article were discussing the notion that these shows are pushing to "end welfare as we know it." While I agree, a lot of these shows do that. Another thing I think it pushes is that it is okay to raise a child out of wedlock. Yeah, there are a lot of shows about the single mother. But there are a lot that show a positive male figure who is the father but not the "husband." I think that is just as powerful of a message to get across. In a society where divorce rates are at an all time high, I don't think people should be afraid of having a child outside of marriage.

Douglas and Michaels

I liked the section about the conservative pundits who tell people what to fear and blame unwed mothers for being the cause of 'moral decay'. It reminded me of John Stewart's recent rally where he asked the news stations to report the news and stop scaring the public and blaming people. Of course those stations backlashed at the event and said it was just an entertainment show because they don't want to lose their power.

During the summer I work at a pool and my female co-workers bring in all those celebrity magazines. I flip through them when I'm bored and just laugh at how ridiculous it is. For example, in one magazine they show celebrity moms out with their kids as they do normal everyday stuff and have big bold captions that say "They're just like us!" Oh really, they're just like us? They don't fly around on jetpacks with their kids strapped on their backs? Our fascination with celebrities is so absurd.

Levine

I disagree with a lot of the examples used in the reading as being "soaps." I get the comparison to soaps in that the episodes do not always advance the plot, but isn't that true of a lot of types of shows? It seems like by the definitions of the reading, you could define a lot of things as soaps. Even something like Orange County Choppers.

The reading also said that shows like The Hills and Laguna Beach rely heavily on montages to tell the story. Do you think they do this because they can't stretch the story out over as many episodes as a typical day-time drama can?

Levine

It's interesting that Laguna Beach and The Hills rely on montage and conferred meaning to act as the main narrative for a television show. What other media examples -- aside from the soap opera genre -- are there that rely strictly on the audience reading into "nothing" (aka vapid stares, etc)?

How has this changed or not changed the way that media is consumed and appreciated?

What are the social consequences of representing heterosexual romance as inevitably dramatic? Are there any?

Levine

Levine writes, “But MTV’s reality soaps can be meaningful without this sort of backstory, as they draw so heavily–in their musical montages and soap-like “eggs”–on pop culture clichés.” I agree that it may be a little bit easier to catch on to MTV’s reality soaps than it is to do so for daytime soaps due to the way they unfold the story line, however, I think the backstory is still just as important to get full enjoyment out of it. For example, the first time I ever watched Jersey Shore, I despised it. I had watched episode six or seven online without knowing who any of the characters were or what any previous “drama” had been in the beginning episodes. One day, I decided to try watching the first episode to see if it was any better, and after getting to know the characters, it did end up making me want to watch the rest of the series. I never kept up with any of the other MTV shows such as Laguna Beach or The Hills because the same thing happened with them as what did with Jersey Shore. I caught reruns of them midway through the seasons and was instantly annoyed by the characters. I know a lot of people who did watch the show though and am curious to know if they started watching from the very beginning, started halfway through and liked it instantly, or gave it a second chance as I did with a series?

Laguna Beach, the Real House Wives series, and other similar shows all show us how the rich, upper class live and teach viewers that the more you have, the better. Are reality soaps designed to perpetuate consumerism?

Levine

I think that any show on the CW channel, like 90210, Gossip Girl, Vampire Diaries, etc., are all more like soap operas than Laguna Beach or The Hills. Nothing ever happens in them, they all date the same people, and each episode is all new drama. They even look more like them because they aren't trying to look like reality. I would have to agree with a previous post below, are the "Laguna Beach" type of quickly-made and cheap shows what are fast-paced society is asking for?

Douglas and Michaels

This article emphasizes how celebrity moms are praised for having children, while moms on welfare are stereotyped in a negative aspect. It summarizes by basically saying that celebrity moms make motherhood look like the best achievement a woman can have, and that this isn't fair for the women on welfare? That is what I got from this article at least, and I have to ask, why is a lower-class woman looking at a celebrity and thinking her experience with having children is going to be exactly the same. Celebrities can have children, while having the luxury of a personal trainer, chef, shopper, spa, etc. I just don't think it is the celebrities/medias fault for praising about having a baby. We should be smart enough to know if we are financially and mentally stable enough to have children.

I understand a woman with a child maybe having to go on welfare during a rough patch, but what about the women that are on it and continue to have children to stay on it?

Levine

1. Since The OC and Laguna Beach are basically soap operas, I was wondering: Are soaps better for today's "fast-paced" society? It seems like no one has time for anything these days.

2. I have to ask: Is Jersey Shore a soap? I feel like I could not watch a new episode and pretty much guess what happened.

Douglas and Michaels

1. This article made me think of the show "Keeping up with the Kardashians". I thought of this because the radio host I listen to at night always refers to the mother as the "mother of the year" in a very sarcastic tone. This made me wonder, what defines a good mother anyways? It seems that the media has warped the idea to the point where I don't know what a good mom is. Do they have to buy a lot of things? Do they have to work three jobs? Does social status/wealth matter?

2. Why does it seem like moms who live on welfare/moms who have multiple jobs are thrown into the stereotype of the woman who has multiple kids with multiple men? I just don't get that.

Douglas and Michaels

Why does it seem that celebrity mothers are always so happy about having children? It’s because they have the money to pay the nanny, the cook, the fitness instructor, the maid, and in Kristie Alley’s instance, the skin care expert that gives her a facial every morning. Who do you think spends more time with their kids: the nanny or the mother? This is not to say that non-celebrity moms are unhappy with children in their lives. I have never shadowed a celebrity mother, but I think it’s safe to say that they have people readily available that they can rely on to take care of their children when they want a break, while the majority of parents have to scramble to find a babysitter that is not at their beck and call. Magazine publishers are going to feature happy mothers on their covers because their goals are to gain readership, keep the reader intrigued, and SELL. Nobody wants to read page after page of depressing stories about the sometimes harsh reality of life.

I do not know a great deal about the stipulations and guidelines for welfare besides what I have seen on television and read in news articles. What I have seen and read has given off the image that the majority of those who are on welfare are unwed, unmotivated women who continue to get pregnant by various men in order to receive a bigger payout each month. I know that there are cases where people use the system in the way it was intended for and not to take advantage of it, but there needs to be a way to weed out those who continue to make the wrong choice of having children and make taxpayers pay for it. The question is how?

One other thing I want to bring up is MTV's show, "16 and Pregnant." I'm not a weekly viewer for the show, but I feel like this will, if it has not already, ignite a spark in the minds of young viewers that are part of this age group to think that they could potentially get on the show if they become teen parents. Although MTV isn't necessarily glorifying teenage pregnancy, these reality stars are gaining fame for something that should only happen when people have the resources and financial ability to take care of another human life.

Douglas & Michaels

I think the article poses an interesting question at the end -- what did happen to "sisterhood"?Was it taken over by "motherhood"? Whose interests are being served by polarizing the experiences of mothers and their respective families?

In the instance of "The Mommy Wars", the media seemed to be taking a suspiciously political viewpoint by providing "evidence" that backs up a conservative argument. In what other ways do the media use narratives as a possible form of social or political control?

Levine Article

- I think it's crazy how our society has nothing better to do than to produce, direct and watch a fake reality. There is no imagination in any form of reality these days; oh and there's barely any reality. Why are Americans so enthralled in an alternate reality? How have we been so brainwashed and numbed down that we call reality television entertaining? Why have we let Lauren's, Snooki's, and the Bachelor's into our homes?

- With the ever growing popularity of reality television shows, will viewers ever be satisfied with the level of drama or intensity that is portrayed through that media outlet? When will enough be enough and that water cooler gossip about Laguna Beach be turned into meaningful gossip regarding someone in your own community? What happened to the good ol' days or are they gone forever?

Douglas & Michaels Article

- I believe this article was dead on in recognizing that "celebrity mom-dom" portrays an unattainable false hope of motherhood, while the welfare mother suffers the harsh reality of lackadaisical and un-motivational living. However the stigma has become reality in our society. So since the reality is proving to be true, why is it acceptable for those choosing to sustain a lifestyle on welfare continuously be rewarded while the taxpayers and their families fork out their hard earned cash?

-So I don't have kids, yet. I plan on it when I'm less selfish and can actually afford a child. But why do individuals who aren't ready choose to have children? I've always wondered this. It only harms you and the child, but whatever right... taxpayers can help me out. Has Generation X marketed the lavish welfare lifestyle of being a parent to Generation Y so well that this is why a boom of teen mothers has glorified every media outlet? Seriously, what has/ is this world coming to!?!

Ingraham

This whole article is kind of humorous to me because I apply it to how my sister has been raised and she still has managed to come out opposing the idealistic norms of society. My sister has just turned 30, been dating the same guy for about 10 years, and they have recently bought a house together. They are on each others insurance policy has 'partners' or whatever the paperwork requires they label themselves, but they have no interest in getting married. I see no problem with that, but I know society would push for their marriage. Our mother has sort of accepted my sister's choice and now all the pressure is on me to get married and I don't like that. Based on the reading, you'd have to agree that male and female expectations are different.

I also can't disagree with the reading in that the media (tv, movies, magazines, toys, etc.) play up the expectations of the ideal wedding day. But do you think recent media has down-played these expectations at all? We are at a time where reality TV dominates the airwaves and there are several shows that seem to break wedding stereotypes. Bridezilla type shows show that wedding planning can be crazy and hectic and not as fairytale-ish they thought they were going to be. Then MTV True Life series documents couples from time to time who share different religious backgrounds or their families are two different ethnicity.

Ingraham

Reading this article made me think of the TLC show, "Say Yes To The Dress," and how many of the women on the show will pay thousands of dollars for a wedding gown that they are going to wear for one day. What is it about a woman's wedding day that makes her want to spend so much money? She could save the money for their future together, or for their honeymoon. There are many shows that try and show society that it is okay to spend tons of money on a dress because "It's your wedding day," but is it really worth it?

The article points out how huge the wedding industry is, and if people stopped wanting lavish weddings it would clearly be hurt, so does society make us think we want huge weddings in order to keep the industry going? Or did we want them to begin with as one last big party to start off married life?

Romancing The Clone

The article refers to male dominance as one of the main interests in the common understanding of the ideology of "romance." This then can lead to violence. I was recently reading that the rate of child abuse in lesbian households. Does this reinforce the ideology that romance is exclusive to heterosexual couples?

If bridal magazines can change to fit the needs of the public in the 60's and 70's when free love was popular and marriage was not, why can't they also change today to represent non-tradition marriages such as mixed race or homosexual?

Ingraham

By comparing the racial and physical representation of brides in bridal magazines over the span of many decades, Ingraham demonstrates just how little these representations have changed over the years. She states the possible consequences of the portrayal of brides as fair, white, and thin, such as an increase in eating disorders and instances of accepted of abuse. What are the other possible social consequences of the media's portrayal of the ideal bride?

Is the wedding industry really an asset to the overall economy as the representative of Brides magazine asserted, or do the media and coinciding wedding industries conspire to put a financial strain on couples before their marriage even begins?

Ingraham

Ingraham points out some very important details in the constructions of social relations from the media to even children's toys. One aspect of this focus on heterosexuality in society that I think is a direct causation is religion. Though religion continues to be on the decline, just under three quarters of United States population identifies themselves as religous (the majority of this figure Christians). This conservative group contributes in large part to the non-acceptance of anything but "traditional heterosexuality" in society. Gradually we see changes in different media and such that supports alternative lifestyles, but I think conservative backlash has a lot to do with this slow progression.

What I found extremely interesting is the minimal impact the economy has on the wedding industry. When people are cutting back in all aspects of their lives, it's interesting to see that marriage tends not to be one of them. Weddings, extravagant weddings at that, have become a necessity to the majority. Not having a lavish wedding is relatively unheard of, despite a poor economy. It would be interesting to know the amount of debt most people have prior to their wedding, and the amount of debt held after the wedding.

Ingraham

According to Ingraham, "these constructions of social relations conceal from children an awareness of real-life variations and the opportunity to develop one of life's most valuable survival skills - the ability to imagine alternatives." I was really struck by the validity of the this statement and couldn't help but wondering if other people in the class also agree with the what this statement is asserting?

Ingraham also talks about a "cocooning field" which is a "form of romance, living within the imaginary."

Do you find yourself "living within the imaginary" ?

Do you think that these social constructions give us false security that ultimately doesn't mean anything?

Ingraham Reading

1. The romatic idealogy part made me think about today's society and the high divorce rate. Do you think a lot of people decide to get married just because they want to be like what they see on TV/movies, etc. relating to the "perfect romantic marriage"?

2. I knew that girls alway thought about marriage at an extremely young age but since I never had a sister I never really fully understood it. Why is this the case. Why dont guys strive for a "perfect" marriage?

Ingraham

When this was written, it says that the annual revenue for weddings was set at $32 billion. At the time, wedding planning software and websites were not factored into this amount. How much impact has the Internet had on the revenue? Has it increased the revenue greatly with all the new sources available and items to purchase, or has the Internet cut some of the costs of books and magazines by providing information for free? I think both.

I never realized how segregated the wedding industry was until after reading this article. Why is the white bride with blond hair such an ideal model for the wedding industry? Wouldn’t bridal magazines want to use different types of brides (in regards to appearance) as models on their covers and in the layouts in order to hit a variety of consumers? I understand the concept of wanting to have a very specific demographic to target advertising at, but isn’t this going a little too far?

“Children are socialized to understand the importance of coupling,” writes Ingraham. This is a story I’ve found posted on many of my friend’s Facebook pages that I thought was a good read and reminded me of this quote. I found it interesting that by age five, this child already knows the coupling of socially accepted boy and girl costumes and somewhat knows how people will react if you deviate from the accepted "coupling." Here is the link if anybody wants to read it: http://nerdyapplebottom.com/2010/11/02/my-son-is-gay/

Ingraham response

The idea that the Wedding Singer, the toy company, and Estee Lauder are all saying that brides are beautiful is agreeable. But what I don't agree with is Ingraham's assertion that anyone who doesn't get married is ugly. I read this argument a lot in these scholarly articles and to me these messages are telling young people that getting married is a desried thing that one can hope to achieve. To me, to discern that the messages are saying that if you don't get married you're ugly isn't right. It's tough to explain, but it seems like they're saying if you don't get married you will not be beautiful, rather than not ugly. It's a weird concept but I don't think the creators of the ads are trying to call people ugly.

How heterosexuality is portrayed so dominantly in the media makes me think about if homosexuality was the dominant way of life and if the roles could be reversed. I think they could, our society would have to be absolutely the opposite of what it is today, but it's interesting to think of how a few number of people control the thoughts of the masses which Ingraham discusses.

Ingraham Article

- In today's society, I believe its very apparent that couples spend too much time and attention on the festivities celebrating their special day and those special events throughout the years, and not enough time on their relationships and those things that make a relationship work. I mean look at our nations divorce rates and the shift the nuclear family has taken. Many individuals are down for the celebration and all that's offered with it; however what happened to that ideology of meeting your prince and staying with him through thick and thin? It is even mentioned in vows that are shared during the wedding ceremony. So why have couples within our society decided to give up so easily on what they ultimately wanted?

- I am wondering when did a personal investment to another person turn into a business venture that the media chastises and publicizes every move? How and why do brides/ couples allow so many outside influences to persuade their desires for that celebration?

Rose and Friedman

When reading this I couldn't help but think about my mom when she watches football with my dad, brother, and I. She understands the rules pretty well as the three males in her life have taught her, but when she football watches games, the majorities of her comments are about the players butts or about hits that are too hard. It makes me think how women are subjected to the obsessed minds of men and sports. For example, if there is a football game on Monday night and on another channel there is figure skating or woman's volleyball, we would watch the football game without asking my mom what she would want to watch. It actually makes me feel bad.

Another gender aspect I'm experiencing in real life is with fantasy football. I'm in a bunch of leagues, one for money with family that has been going on for about six years now and my girlfriend has been wanting to get into it for a couple years now. My brother is the commissioner of the league and he makes the decisions on who is in the league and he's been pretty avid about not expanding. But on Facebook he made a relaxed league with a bunch of random people and my girlfriend is in it. So she said that if she wins that league she should be able to play in our family league. Right now, halfway through the season, she's winning and actually just killed my brother this week. He, and myself, thought she wouldn't know what she was doing but she's actually studied and plays he right players. My brother isn't sexist or anything, he just assumed she didn't know her stuff because she wasn't that into football. My point is that, just because she's a girl, we thought she wouldn't have a clue on what to do.

Rose and Friedman

To comment on what Casey said, I definitely believe that there is a correlation between a woman's interests in sports and her local team. I really do not like sports, especially on TV. I think the games are boring and I can't pay attention. The only way you will catch me watching sports is if it's a Packers, Brewers, or Bucks game. Even then, it's not like I really enjoy watching the game, I just like the atmosphere and seeing if my home team will win. Most men, on the other hand, seem to love every aspect of a sports game, and not necessarily just their home team.

Thornham

It seems odd to me that Sara had to defend her reasons for not wanting to play video games. I'm not sure why she thought she had to lie in front of the group about playing the dance game. If she doesn't like to play, why should anyone think differently of her? Everyone has different interests. I don't know why video games have been such a gender thing for so long, because it just comes down to playing a game. It seems like in the media now that games coming out are more neutral. I just saw a commercial for the new DJ Hero 2 game and it is completely neutral.

My boyfriend was definitely a hardcore "solo gamer" for a while. He used to play WOW (World of Warcraft) for literally, 8 hours straight. He wouldn't eat or pay attention to anything going on in the real world. I definitely think that constant "solo gaming" had a negative effect on him. He was isolated from people and somewhat depressed. It helped for him to stop playing games so much and participate in activities in the real world. Solo gaming cases like him are probably why the people in the article were embarrassed to admit that they "gamed" by themselves.

Rose and Friedman

The article makes a lot of points validating the claim that watching sports on television is a very masculine form of entertainment. One thing I have observed though is that females are just as likely to watch sports as males when the team is their local team. For instance, on Sundays I have been watching most Packers games from the same bar and have noticed that there are almost as many women as their are men in the bar to watch the game. But when the Packers are done playing, many of the women leave and it is mostly males sticking around to watch the other football games of the day. So I wonder if there is a correlation between sports and the local team?

"The boundary of the television screen apparently dissolves, as the symbolic exchange of sports becomes actual, and the spectator is literally absorbed in the virtual reality of television sports." This quote really stood out to me and it seems even more apparent in recent years. HD television offers more clarity, increased camera angles put you closer to the action, and social media puts you into the "conversation" of professional athletes before and after the games. With the recent development of 3-D televisions, do you think we will ever hit that wall where we can't get absorb anymore in the virtual reality of television sports? Or do you think we will only continue to get more and more virtually involved?

Rose and Friedman

I fully agree with the soap opera take on its connectiveness with the femininity in its viewers and positioning the female spectator as "a sort of ideal mother." The point that I felt was especially spot on, however, was the way soaps focus on emotions and how women are primarily responsible for controlling the emotional work in relationships. I don't know a single man who watches soap operas, and if there has ever been a comment regarding a soap opera in front of a male around me the show has been disregarded as if it somehow defies masculinity.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the equal comparison of gendered viewing in soap operas and sports viewing. I think sports viewing has more recently become quite divided among both men and women. I do agree with the assertion that the values that it reifies are masculine, however I feel that it is not nearly to the degree that soap operas are distinctly feminine.

Thornham

Do males genuinely try to help females out with how to play video games, or are they mostly mocking females’ intelligence by telling them what to do by assuming from the beginning that they do not know how to play a “boy’s” game? In one segment, Sara says, “They’d always be telling me what to do,” and “I was still ‘the Girl’ and didn’t know what I was doing.” Did this girl play up the role of being inferior to gain attention in a room full of boys better interested with what is on the screen? If so, why is it so hard for a female to fit in with males playing video games without acting like the damsel in distress. Does a female that is good at a video game get the same recognition as a male who could match her skill for the same game?

I found it interesting when asked about video games, Household 1 said that it was a form of male bonding. This and the fact that video games are indeed marketed towards males is what I believe to be the reason for this type of activity being deemed masculine. My first job was located next door to a Milwaukee PC, and I would go over to visit the employees every once in a while. I remember walking into the back room where there were dozens of computers set up with "gamers" intently playing Counterstrike. If one of them would look up from the screen and see a girl in the room, their face would give a "what are you doing here" expression, and thinking back, I wonder if it was because I was interrupting their "male bonding"?

Rose and Friedman

I found it the gender distinctions concerning "distracted spectatorship" very interesting. Do you agree with their theories about masculine or feminine characteristics being attributed to different forms of media use (other than the obvious ones) ?

The authors posit that "the symbolic and actual community constructed by sports spectatorship in America is as masculine as the playing of games themselves."

Do you agree with this statement?

What specific examples lead you to believe this is true or untrue?

Thornham

I think the comparison between RPG video games and shoot em up video games is pretty interesting. But what the study doesn't mention is the influence of the others in the household. The charts simply compared men to women in terms of preference. Do you think it is safe to assume that video game preference has a lot to do with what the others in the household are playing?

I work a retail job and we sell a lot of video games. The numbers are accurate and there are definitely more men buying video games than there are women. But there are definitely some very serious female video game shoppers. It is also important to note that there are a lot of games specifically designed for women, especially games on Nintendo Wii and DS. Games that revolve around cooking, fashion, dating, and life simulation are some of the ones that stand out to me as being targeted towards women. But the interesting thing is, all the female customers that shop on a regular basis for video games are buying the same popular titles that the men are buying. The female targeted titles always seem to be purchased by parents buying titles they THINK their daughter will like. I guess that isn't a question, just an observation.

Thorman

It's clear from Thorman's research that males and females both express their social roles through the social act of game play. While (almost) everyone in the study claims to play for social reasons, the women seen to be the facilitators and instigators of social interactivity by asking questions, etc. through gameplay when both they and their male counterparts are playing. Does this translate to women's broader social roles, or is it more indicative of a women's "roles" within a male dominated "field"?

It's interesting that no one in the article claimed to buy a console because they just straight up like to play video games. Would the modesty of reason for purchase be different for a study done in America? Japan?

Rose and Friedman

I'm not sure when this article was published, but since it's publication there are now any number of distraction-oriented male-catering television shows. The article supposes a relationship between tensions of the working class and "masculine forms of mass entertainments. Does the increase in distractive masculine (or any sex -- for that matter) entertainment say something about the direction of our working class, or can it simply be chalked up to evolving media?

Given all that Rose and Friedman assert about the connotations of sports watching, up to and including power, skills, and sports-viewing as an extension of one's world, what conclusions can be drawn about fantasy football leagues as a form of sports entertainment? Are they an extension of viewing or do they provide other socio-cultural cues and benefits?

Rose and Friedman Article

Although I haven’t watched a soap opera in quite some time, I was a bit confused when Rose and Friedman say, “The commentary of the color man functions like the gossip of soap operas, providing the fan with all the inside information that surrounds the events which are unfolding on the screen.” Are they referring to the separate scenes within the soap where people are gossiping about each other as a way to remind the viewer of what the storyline is, or do they mean the gossip about the show outside of its actual broadcast through the soap magazines, word of mouth and so on? The color analyst for sports events delivers the background information about the game and players directly, while the gossip in soaps is more indirect. (More indirect than in sports that is). I find this odd because from what I understood in the article, it seems as though the authors are saying that females are more easily distracted (and interrupted in their activities), which if this were true, shouldn’t they be the ones getting their information directly sent to them instead of having to sit there trying to decode the gossip? A color analyst would never be part of the setup for a soap, but I just find it interesting that the “masculine” shows have this person to deliver succinct information, while the “feminine” shows drag out the background details.

There was a section in the reading where the authors mentioned the fact that sports commentators facilitate (male) viewers’ participation in the sport to call plays and coach “his” players all from the comfort of his own living room. They went on to say that women more so related to the characters in soaps rather than felt that they were a part of the scene. I found this completely true because every game I have ever watched with guys involves them constantly yelling at the television screen calling out plays, whereas the occurrence of a female yelling at the screen during a soap opera is a little more unconventional. Somebody else already asked this question, but I also wonder why sports have been deemed a mostly masculine topic/form of enjoyment.

Thornham Article

- On page 134 Thornham discusses the differences between "normal and geek" gamers. Understanding the distinct differences is it possible to fall into both categories instead of being slotted into one? For instance, there are many gamers that play "normal" within social settings, especially since consoles these days are geared more directly to achieving this goal; yet many of those same gamers die to play WOW (World of Warcraft) or other "geek" games. No matter the preference of gamer, a common thread is in mind: gaming for enjoyment... so where does the loss of self empowerment occur, if any?

- I think rationalizing or trying to rationalize the social function and necessity of video game consoles is hysterical. Men and women will always have different excuses for why they possess the console. Whether it's having it to play DVDs/ Blue Rays to using it as an ice breaker, the sole purpose is the same, to entertain. So if technology continues to climb and out do its competition (Wii, Xbox Kinect) where will the video game industry be in ten years? I mean, will the whole game be embedded in us some how since we no longer need controllers to play... just a thought?

Thornham

Like the article states, there is a social stigma to which types of games are played by whom. Girls are expected to play Dance Dance Revolution and boys are expected to play Tomb Raider. However, in a social context, I think those gender roles can flip depended on what sort of gratification the gamer is trying to get from the game. If a girl wants to show off the to the boys that she can be better than them, she may be more likely to play an action game with a lot of guns just to show she can.

In terms of gaming "itself", it is obvious that when playing, people think that they are acquiring a skill and that "practice makes perfect". If video games where not around, would people be trying to gain that satisfaction of getting better at something in a more rewarding setting?

Rose and Friedman

While reading this article and its claims about men and televised sports, I began to think of the connection of ways to make spectator sports interaction. The most popular, Fantasy Football, allows men to "pick" their own teams of players and "win" games themselves. What role does interactive games like Fantasy Football play in the concept of sports as a distraction?

Does this role that commentators play as the "ideal spectator" make it a position to be idolized? It seems that more recent generations of young boys grow up wanting to be a sports commentator instead of the tradition fireman or police man.

Rose & Friedman Article

- Ok, so I ultimately love the fact that Football is being compared to a daytime Soap Opera, and I am wondering why is there so much effort to beef up the sport of football, or any sport for that matter? Why are men so unaccepting of the feminine traits that they have, to go to the extreme to avoid exposing them?

- As I'm reading this post I am intrigued with the notion of televised football being compared to the daytime soap opera, however when I got to page 9 I hesitated in regards to the discriminatory tensions faced on the football field. I have been a football fan for yrs and watch it weekly, and always thought "positions of power" were held by those who preformed the most accurately and consistently; earning that position. However this article sheds a new perspective and I'm wondering when did the great American past time become a black vs. white game? I mean almost every situation in society today is ultimately broken down to exhibit a discrimination of some kind and exploit it for all it's worth. Why just football, or is it other sports as well that could be exploited for a black vs. white thing?

Thornham for 11/4/10

1. Video games are very similar to sports when it comes to gender roles. Why is it that it is rare for a female to be really into video games? I'm not much of a video game guy so I am wondering what is so masculine about video games...

2. Why are people who love computer games considered "geeks" when people who play video games such as Madden are considered normal or cool?

Rose and Friedman for 11/4/10

1. I found it interesting when it is mentioned that a sports broadcast always looks towards the future with no real resolution because my friend and I always complain about how the Bucks annoncers never talk about the game itself, instead they talk about the future and upcoming games. Do you think this is done just to keep the audience interested or do you think that's just the way it is with sports?

2. There is no doubt that sports is associated with males in society. I will admit that I dont really enjoy watching sports with females. Why is this the case? Why is it rare for a female to know a lot about the NBA for example? Is it because all males are playing in the NBA?

Jenkins Chapter 6 and Conclusion

Jenkins asks if there is any place on the web where the whole world is watching (in comparison to broadcast networks). It is true that NBC, ABC, and CBS networks reach a large amount of the population, however, in present time, how would more people learn about a national headline story: through broadcast television or on the Internet? (I would assume it be through the Internet, but we’re in the same generation as the creation of the web. What about those before us)?

The Internet has the capability to release a story within seconds of it occurring, and people can access the information at their own will. Jenkins is criticizing how yes, the Internet is becoming an incredibly prominent place to obtain information, but it will never be able to show the same information to the same people at the same time like the big networks. Does it really matter? The new political culture is allowing for citizens to explore their own options without big media filtering it. We’re no longer in an age of folk songs and posters, the Internet is here. The only problem is that we must sort through what information is credible or not.

The Internet is one reason newspapers are dying out. Will the trend continue with broadcast television (news)?

Not sure what we were supposed to read

In the email you sent you said to read what was assigned on the syllabus so I read the articles about sports masculinity and the gaming article.

In the Rose and Friedman article I liked the idea that sports is serial. I never thought about it like that and it makes perfect sense. They came back for a new season, just like on regular shows and there are finales, aka the Super Bowl. Another thing I noticed was that the article almost made me feel bad about myself for watching sports, it seemed to put masculinity in a bad light.

Reading the Gaming article made me think about when I play Halo. Some people play with a microphone on so everyone can here them before the game and every time a girl talks, all the guys go "Whoah, is that a girl?" and they actually ask her. It's an interesting thought to think that video games are such a masculine thing and when a girl is playing, to guys it's like an alien.

Jenkins Chapter 6 and Conclusion

Jenkins talks about how the current diversification of communication channels is politically important because "it expands the range of voices that can be heard: though some voices comman greater prominence than others, no one voice speaks with unquestioned authority. Over time, as technology has advanced, so has the spread of political views in the form of blogs, parodies, videos, etc. Do you think this is a positive or negative change? Yes, people now are able to attain political information more quickly, but does take away from people's desire to do their own thinking? Do you think people rely on blogging and other political opinionated media too much in their political decision making?

Jenkins talks of the power of convergence culture in enabling new forms of participation and collaboration. Do you think convergence culture has allowed the masses to become more powerful than those leading our nation, or do you think convergence culture has simply enabled those in power to control more aspects of the lives of the masses? Or do you think, as Jenkins states, that we are still in transition and will reach a point to which the former becomes true?

Jenkins Chapter 6

In Chapter 6 there is a quote from Howard Dean's campaign manager Joe Trippi that says, "While TV was a medium that rendered us dumb, disengaged, and disconnected, the Internet makes us smarter, more involved, and better informed."

I have a few questions based around this quote.

First, Do technological mediums really "make" or "render" people to do something? Isn't it the audience participation that determines the outcome or success of the medium?

Second, just by saying that "the internet makes us..." he is taking the power out of the hands of the consumer and into the hands of the medium. Is he implying that he has duped people into supporting him by using the internet? Does he really think he is smarter because of his use of the internet during the campaign? Isn't it possible to use both TV and the Internet n a way that makes people smarter, more involved, and better informed?