F2010 CMC100-1

Conclusion!

2010-12-01T06:22:00.000-08:00

In the conclusion Playing with the System, Playing with Fire, Gournelos discusses the realms of acceptable discourse, giving the example of Andrew Meyer, the student who was tased at a Kerry rally at the University of Florida. He explains how this shows the limits of discourse, in that Meyer wasn’t attacked because he was threatening, but because he was acting outside the “correct” modes as deemed by society. What I found most interesting about this conclusion was the section where the link between media and discourse was discussed. Gournelos states (referring to Eliasoph’s study) that most people feel uncomfortable speaking about broad topics because they don’t feel they have the expertise or knowledge to discuss something that lies outside their experience. Access to shared media creates a communal space in which people can engage in “symbiotic[ally] [engaged] conflict rather than consensus” (250), allowing a wider discussion of a topic. Gournelos discusses the role of the media as a way for people to talk to one another, to relate to each other, and as an indicator of what is “acceptable” to discuss in public. This idea made me think a lot about South Park, and other shows that discuss pressing social issues (albeit in a very different way), like Battlestar Galactica, which touches on highly debated political issues (like abortion, capital punishment, religion in politics) in an extreme, but still relatable setting. These shows present an idea to their viewers and into the public sphere, making it more acceptable to discuss these topics outside of a private setting. Gournelos also states that a show can gain cultural capital based on its oppositionality, such is obviously the case with shows like South Park, who turn their dissent and “rejection of political correctness” into humor.

Conclusion

2010-11-30T18:19:00.000-08:00

In Playing with the System, Playing with Fire, Gournelos starts out with discussing his prior argument made about Andrew Meyer’s ability to demonstrate “the limits of the public sphere in the contemporary political landscape (247).” He talks about what is “acceptable discourse” and how he acted outside the norm of what the university and police sought out to be “correct.” I thought it was interesting how Gournelos mentions that it is not Andrew Meyer who defined the event, but it was the media who circulated his story, films, and videos. Gournelos then talks about South Park in being similar to the Andrew Meyer event in that it “demonstrates the implications of a convergence culture (247).”

The next few pages discuss the three oppositional tactics: the allusive, the responsive, and the disruptive. Allusive ontology’s being seen to spread the foreground for aesthetic modes of production. Responsive being drawn from the news and reintroduce a level of complexity by “engaging social norms in the terms by which they are negotiated in contemporary cultural events (248).” Disruptive ontology’s are seen to try to create room for silences or social constraints that were untouched by the responsive. It exposes frictions in contemporary society.

Gournelos then speaks about Nina Eliasophs study of apathy. Eliasoph argues “apathy is produced, not inherent, in communities, and that even activist groups are limited by what they deem is acceptable speech (249).” Gournelos brings about an important point that Eliasoph neglects to discuss the media. I found it interesting the way that Gournelos analyzes the use of media. “Communities, discussions, and relationships are formed daily on the basis of a shared knowledge of or access to the media (250).” This is very true and then he goes to mention that people connect to the media. They connect to films through memories and to discussions through memories of films. Media serves as a way to broaden terms of debate.

We Need Conflict

2010-11-30T16:55:00.000-08:00

In the conclusion the idea that society revolves around conflict is taken for granted and I agree with that idea. Some people may say that society looks to resolve conflict and is uncomfortable with tension, however, I think that society is built on conflict. While society does frown upon people who create conflict simply for entertainment purposes and while it does try to end conflict that has turned into physical violence; conflict is necessary for growth. If no one ever questioned the status-quo, nothing would ever change, and it is obvious that our society changes all the time.

It isn't necessary for people to be tasered like Andrew Meyer or for people to act violently or radically. Conflict can be small, it can be meaningful. I think the discussion that happens in our class is conflict because it is disrupting the way we look at the media, society, and ourselves.

I'm posting the video of Andrew Meyer - I had never seen it and here it is in case you haven't!

Fighting Fire with Fire

2010-11-30T07:50:00.000-08:00

The conclusion begins by discussing Andrew Meyer, as he demonstrates the limits of the public sphere and acceptable discourse. South Park is discussed, as in chapter 6, as a show that demonstrates the implications of convergence culture. Gournelos argues that by focusing on conflict rather than consensus, one should turn to dissonant popular culture, because it manifests the tensions of political instability. He charts popular culture’s negotiations of the political through the allusive, responsive, and disruptive—three oppositional tactics. Responsive onologies “reintroduce a large level of complexity by engaging social norms in the terms by which they are negotiated in contemporary cultural events” (Gournelos, 248). Additionally, treating concerns as surface-level issues implies the incapability to truly convey the depth of the political. Popular culture products that rely on the news react, as they cannot reinvent the structures of power themselves. Disruptive ontologies expand dominant discourse to provide possible alternatives to a dominant “ideology.” Sociologist Nina Eliasoph (shown below) concludes that apathy is produced in communities (rather than inherent), and that activists groups are limited by what they perceive to be acceptable speech. She claims the public sphere is an active process and suggests that people feel uncomfortable speaking their opinions about broad topics. She also emphasizes network communication and focuses her understanding on conflict rather than consensus, although she neglects the media as an important aspect of her topic. Media is important because it negotiates with the “common sense” understandings of what is acceptable to discuss. Media also is forced to acknowledge discourse outside the range of traditional or conservative politics, as it fights for audiences. Cultural productions like South Park see that communities are formed through a desire for opposition. Gournelos also argues that dissonant visual culture should be considered in relation to engagements with larger cultural politics, as people see politics in terms of which mode of cultural production might liberally counter banal politics. The conclusion ends with a call to those intrigued by progressive politics to “try to find ways to break the hold apathetic political formations have on contemporary U.S. social systems, and fight the fire of reactionary institutions with the fire of an evolving opposition” (Gournelos, 252).

Playing with Fire MWAHAHAH

2010-11-29T20:32:00.000-08:00

Andrew Meyer demonstrates the limits of what is acceptable within the realms of protest, play and transgression. Also, demonstrates the act to question and discuss the limits of correctness he violates. South Park demonstrates "convergence culture" that combines different fields within cultural studies. Allusive ontologies are dependent on the techniques of evaluation along with the aesthetic. Responsive ontologies talks about issues that are "as the were" surface level interactions. South Park is not a very politically based show so it cannot fully get critical of the politics; they react rather than recreate. Disruptive attempts to create social restrictions untouched by the responsive to be apart of the political struggle; things are self-aware. In South Park audiences interpret it as a sitcom and not as a critique of politics; it's just viewed as funny. Episode interpretations can take shape of "something different," or the form of rejection of "political correctness" to be taken as "humor," but become popular so it can keep high culture capital.

A South Park Parade after 9/11

2010-11-29T19:22:00.000-08:00

What I took away from the article was that South Park can sometimes be allusive and/or responsive to political activism that disrupts the discourse of America. South Park can be looked at deeper in a radically progressive and critically teaching texts. Baudrillard suggests that being witty is breaking a law of discourse and instead works through instant gratification that deconstructs of the dominant code. South Park does this by making lots of jokes that are racists and out of line to make a point about a dominant message or category in the show. South Park portrays the U.S. as white, which could be misleading dominant influence of cultural production. South Park focus is media and portrayal of reality but limits the conclusion of those realities. The events of the show are understood and the subjects become interrupted to become critiques. Once 9/11 happened the show was not in season, but once it was it was able to avoid gain of emotional distance and critical events. The South Park 9/11 episodes were not always narrated to talk about the issue. They would show images or have one-line quotes to make a point. The show relies on humor to mask fear and make jokes that are exchanged quickly back and forth about 9/11's "war on terror." The episode does not advocate the war on terror it just offers a different look about 9/11. For example, the Muslims did not hate the U.S., but once they invaded and started bombing Iraq that is when it became a problem for the Muslims. "Osama Bin Laden Has Farty Pants," goes through the allusive and responsive politics that disrupt the dominant around 9/11 in order to suggest a ontology. "A Ladder to Heaven," puts blast on responsive techniques of 9/11 and it reacts to the power that has made and guided interpretations. "I'm a Little Bit Country," does not discuss the war on terror.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzf2G2iHYY8

i think you're gonn ahave to copy and paste the link cause it took too long to upload it. I think it's a good commentary on why they did the episode.

South Park

2010-11-29T06:15:00.000-08:00

“A Neo-Con Parade: South Park and Post-9/11 Politics” was interesting to me because it discusses the irony and use of humor in the media about a situation which certainly was not humorous, such as 9/11. This chapter looks at the media, and especially South Park and how humor and irony is used maybe not to mock and current issue, but to inform society in a different way.

“However, it does not come to terms with humor’s potential to bridge social gaps or work through traumatic social changes, nor does it allow for humor, satire, parody, and irony to be mobilized as tools through which individuals or communities differentiate themselves from or negotiate the politics of the dominant (200).”

The chapter looks how humor can bind society together, along with other somewhat similar shows such as The Daily Show where they make very real problems in society into humor. I think it is important for shows like these to use humor to “bridge social gaps or work through traumatic social changes.” Although the show could be deemed controversial, it points out issues in society in a different way and through a different light from the media. In episodes regarding 9/11, although South parks humor could be interpreted in different ways, they inform the public about the issues at hand. South Parks humor could certainly interpreted in different ways, but overall South Park is able to use extreme irony and humor to poke fun at the issues and possibly bridge gaps in society.

Shows & Current Events

2010-11-28T16:43:00.000-08:00

"A Neo-Con Parade: South Park and Post-9/11 Politics" discusses the uses of humor and irony in media and television shows that sparked after the period of immediate shock following the attacks on September 11Th. This chapter in particular focuses on the television show South Park. South Park is an animated sitcom that has become infamous for its crude, surreal, and dark humor that lampoons a wide range of topics and current events. The show took the events of 9/11 and tried to pull humor out of the politics and views of what was going on post 9/11. I think its important for shows like South Park, Saturday Night Live, and The John Stewart show to perform parodies or make jokes about current events because it allows our society to view it differently or be able to agree with how they are feeling.

South Park and Post-9/11 Politics

2010-11-28T15:38:00.000-08:00

"A Neo-Con Parade: South Park and Post 9/11 Politics" examines the importance of understanding events such as the 9/11 attacks "beyond the constrains of the dominant, unified, or "rational" strategies of argumentation" (Gournelos, 197). South Park effectively disrupts this dominant discourse. Furthermore, the humor and irony in in the show affirms political ambivalence or ambiguity. The humor has different functions as well: to bind people together or differentiate individuals, all the while depending on audience interpretations of the humorist's intent. South Park retains a dissonant political ontology and involves the active role of the audience. There is also a debate about the politics of South Park; may it be conservative, liberal, neoconservative, reactionary, etc. Specific episodes are given to support such ideologies, for instance how "Rainforest Schmainforest," as well as the other anti-environmental episodes, displays conservatism. Ambiguity and self-critiques often characterize episodes, and "'Rainforest Schmainforest' is in the end not a critique of environmentalism itself but of the motives behind it" (Gournelos, 205). To illustrate these points, I have provided this particular episode, part of season three, below. Overall, the show does not fit any singular socio-political agenda. Gournelos also discusses the importance of dissonance and explains how a disruptive approach amplifies the responsive. He argues that in order to transition and come to terms with 9/11, the most recent limit event in U.S. history, a disruption is required in the form of proposals for alternative viewpoints. The second half of the reading expands on and illustrates these points mainly by examining the first South Park episode following the 9/11 attacks--"Osama Bin Laden Had Farty Pants." This episode "plays on various elements of 'war on terror' media discourse while retaining committed to engaging some of the more tangible elements of the contemporary political atmosphere" (Gournelos 207). It plays off of the absurdities of dominant structures, for example media-induced fear, and utilizes juxtaposition, critiques, and parody throughout. Together, the locations of acceptable speech are displaced, as the episode rejects the 'everything changed after 9/11' rhetoric, and instead proposes a new critical ontology. Other episodes such as "A Ladder to Heaven" disrupt media and government exploitations of the events and emotions surrounding references made to U.S. politics. It "amplifies the responsive technique through its engagement with the limit events of 9/11 and the war in Iraq" (Gournelos 216). Other episodes such as "I'm a Little Bit Country" are also analyzed, until Gournelos comes to the conclusion that the disruptive has the potential to be instructive as an ontology and not just a tactic.

To watch "Rainforest Shmainforest" go here:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s03e01-rainforest-shmainforest

(the embedded link could not be accessed)

Teaching Taboo

2010-11-28T10:36:00.000-08:00

The animated American sitcom South Park represents all that is taboo. The show has become infamous for its crude (and dark) humor exhibited in portraying world events or topics and tainting with social satire. Furthermore, South Park’s use of humor is able to break boundaries, which restrict the public from the “dominant representations and rhetorical pathways [which] are seen as the only valid (or acceptable) discourse” (Gournelos, 197). For example, how open the show is with Mr. Garrison’s sexuality. Over the course of the show Mr. Garrison has undergone two sex changes, an alias (Mrs. Janet Garrison), and several different alterations to his character. The show has become famous, because of the bold messages encrypted within the story lines, giving viewers the real facts, in a comic light.

South Park's Humor = Ridicule or a Form of Truth?

2010-11-23T13:04:00.000-08:00

I think its important to realize many of us tend to fall for or agree more with the dominant representations of things/events etc. that are a part of our society or that take place in our society. Many of us also fall in the trap of seeing rhetorical pathways coming from "experts" as the only valid or acceptable discourse as Gournelos discusses in Chapter 6 Neo-Con Parade et.al. It is crucial to step out of that bubble and see the many other forms of interpretation and reason for things. Shows like South Park serve as a great example of stepping away from the boundaries. Events proceeding 9/11 are extremely different from the talk of events preceeding the 9/11 terror attacks. In the case of South Park, this show "mobilizes the allusive (aesthetic) and responsive (critical) modes of political activism - this changes the commonly shared/accepted "pathways of U.S Politics". The show incorporates aspects of everyday life and merges the issues going on into that in order to break through the point. It doesn't matter what political party you favor, its good to take the time to see the concerns/messages being pointed out that is portrayed in a different light from the ever so common media form - the news. With humor as a big part of it, it depends on the audience's interpretation of that humor and because there are multiple reactions, there are multiple meanings from these parodies.

Postmodern Blackness

2010-11-19T06:21:00.000-08:00

In this article, Postmodern Blackness, Bell Hooks discusses the relationship between the black experience and Postmodernism, providing the critique that postmodern discourse, despite its concern with "otherness", is conducted primarily by white males, who utilize a "coded familiarity". She describes the racism that is implied by the exclusion of the black community from Postmodernist discourse, as it is implying that they have no link to abstract thought and critical theory, only "gut level experience". Hooks describes how this alienates the black reader, causing them to question why they should be concerned with a discourse that does not consider them, especially black women. Hooks discusses how postmodernism leads to increased class differentiation, creating a sense of alienation and despair in the black community. This class division has created a black middle class, but has also contributed to the growing numbers of the black underclass, leading to insecurity and anxiety in the former, and destructive violent and addictive tendencies in the latter. In one of the many citations of Cornel West, a black scholar, West states that African-American intellectuals "diminish[es] their value to black resistance" because of their severed link to "black life". Hooks argues against this, stating that though the numbers of black intellectuals are few, they strengthen the consciousness of the collective community in order to provide meaningful resistance.

This article reminded me of an episode of 30 Rock that I watched recently, in which the two black male characters on the show, Toofer, a well spoken and educated black man, and Tracy Jordan, a wild, loud-mouthed black man, argue about the portrayal of black men on their show. Tracy wants to do a sketch in drag, stating that all the great black male actors do drag. Toofer disagrees, arguing that it emasculates black men, making them seem less threatening to white people. Later on in the episode its exposed that Toofer is concerned with Tracy's portrayal of black men in general, as his character is constantly saying ridiculous things, and acting outlandishly. This is representative of the insecurity and anxiety middle-class African Americans feel, as stated in Hooks' article. He expresses concern with the black identity as a whole and how the individual affects it, worries that this will cause society to see him as they see Tracy Jordan, a wild and often stereotypical black man.

Postmodern Blackness

2010-11-19T06:14:00.001-08:00

Postmodern Blackness, by Hooks was interesting to me because it was written in a way that I could understand it. He is a black man that is dealing and questioning himself and our postmodern world. He is in the position that he knows that people may oppose what he is saying that that “his discourse has no ready audience, no clear listener, and that his voice may not be heard.” I found this interesting that he used the tactic of not just throwing a bunch of facts or opinions at the readers, but by stating his opinion and then stating that he may be wrong or not have ready listeners. I found it interesting that he placed himself in a lot of the stereotypes that he discusses, in particular when he says that he was the only other black man in the room. This particular example, of the “token black guy” has started to seep into our culture through media, movies in particular. Hooks explains how postmodernism has no relevance at all to African-American people, especially women. He describes how he feels as if he is an outsider when reading the conventional language that poster modernism is written it. He feels, along with other blacks, an outsider of the discourse looking in. I found it interesting how he described how poster modernism could be seen as people of elite or higher authority. This in turn, pushes minorities away and out of the picture completely. This connects with the idea that some white people, who absorb white supremacy thinking, don’t even notice black people and what they have done to be successful. The final point that I wanted to discuss was the aspect of music. It is concerning that this was one of the main aspects of the article that shed a positive light on something that African-American people have done. It is the cultural product that is most interesting and attractive to postmodern theorists.

Postmodern Blackness

2010-11-18T19:10:00.000-08:00

Postmodernism for contemporary black experience vs. white onlookers are very different approaches with different concentrations, values, and/or concerns within our so called "diverse society". I think Hook makes a good point saying "apparently no one sympathized with my insistence (speaking in the presence of white onlookers) that racism is perpetuated when blackness is associated with the idea that there is no meaningful connection between black experience and critical thinking about aesthetics or culture must be continually interrogated". In other words Hook is saying, racism increases only because people (largely white) believe all black people are against the dominant (white) ways etc. And it is hard for Hook to explain further because his audience is majority white who share "white" ways of thinking and understanding: "I found myself outside of the discourse looking in". The hierarchy of postmodernism, according to Hook, blocks out (or forgets to give credit to) certain groups, especially those of color and particularly women (black women). Hook's overall arguement is that our current society fails to address a critical presence of blackness. "Differences and otherness" are topics of huge consideration now (as claimed) but is not expressed and included in the academy of our society. The black power in the modernist stage has died away a little in the now postmodern phase because the common audience and the common language have dominated. The contemporary discourse claims to recognize "others" but that is a lie. Blacks struggle to make their voices heard.

Comedic News and Entertainment

2010-11-16T20:49:00.000-08:00

In Geoffrey Bayms article, "The Daily Show: Discursive Integration and the Reinvention of Political Journalism," he talks about how other sources of news are appearing. People seem to be more interested in watching a comedic form of news than the standard cable TV newscasts. He states that, "young people are turning towards another form of news and campaign information--late night television and comedy shows. The 2004 Pew survey found that 21% of people ages 18-29 say that they regularly learn news and politics from comedy shows such as Saturday Night Live, and 13% report learning from late-night talk shows such as NBC's Tonight Show with Jay Leno and CBS's Late Show with David Letterman." Jon Stewart considers his show as "fake news." What makes this pretty funny is that people tune into his show regularly, and it happens to be a huge influence with political communication. The Daily show is a form of entertainment that a younger generation tunes into regularly since it is on Comedy Central. The show has more of a liberal point of view, and when they talk about the Republicans, they do it in a comedic fashion. The article also explained that the Daily Show poses a threat to mainstream news media because it is more for entertainment.

"The Daily Show" as Sub-culture

2010-11-16T17:02:00.000-08:00

In the Baym piece about "The Daily Show," the author points out how the show juxtaposes comedy and news reporting in a fresh way. It is the combination of these two seemingly incompatible aspects that makes the show successful. I was reminded of our class discussion the other day; we talked about appropriation andre-appropriation. It seems like "The Daily Show" is doing something similar to the sub-cultures we discussed, appropriating signifiers that don't fit its "class." We said that HipHop is associated with Escalades and Bentleys, also, diamonds, gold, and especially platinum. We also deconstructed Punk; Dock Martins, ripped jeans, clothes held together with safety pins. Both subcultures appropriated signifiers not associated with the class of the people who established the music around which the styles evolved. Just like Hip Hop and Punk, "The Daily Show" is appropriating signifiers of comedy shows as a means of forging a new identity and rebelling. On the surface, the show seems like it is purely comedy, but as the article pointed out, the news content really does a good job of relaying pertinent and critical information to its audience.

"The Daily Show's" Not-Just-Daily Influence

2010-11-16T08:54:00.000-08:00

Geoffrey Baym argues that the nightly news is becoming less authoritative and that journalism as public inquiry is eroding. Less and less people are watching or learning from network news. As an alternative, young people are resorting to late night television and comedy shows such as “Saturday Night Live.” Baym praises the Daily Show for its combination of comedy, entertainment, news, and public affairs. While the host, Jon Stewart, claims he discusses “fake news,” evidence supports that viewers actually learn from this show, as often political figures are interviewed. The Daily Show is both an old kind of comedy and new type of journalism, as it cannot be labeled as “fake” for lack of a legitimate “real” comparison. In a world when media is becoming increasingly consolidated and integrated, The Daily Show can be seen as an alternative form of journalism that uses parody to critique news. An easily accessible, relatively unconstrainable informational environment is created by the “infrastructure” of political communication. While more media outlets are being created, a few media giants such as Viacom consolidate and dominate the industry. Cultural diversity allows the media to adopt blurred borders between editorials and business, and encourages innovation. The Daily Show exemplifies successful integration within media, due to its “hybrid nature.” The show blends nightly news with entertainment; humor with concern, in a complimentary, comic but informative way. The satire news updates illustrate comic news prevalent in other late night talk shows, as well. Stories switch between political references and jokes. The Daily Show is the most significant in terms of humor and political issues, as it often deals with highly concerning national and global issues. Soundbites from primary political actors are provided. The show’s content resembles main stream news media, without having to follow the journalistic rules. It rejects the standard conventions of quote selection and the mainstream media’s insistence on a dispassionate observation that elides the journalist’s subjectivity. While conventional news is monologic, The Daily Show’s news is vibrant with confrontation and dialogue. Satire is used to hold leadership accountable for both words and actions as it demands a measure of accountability. The Daily Show thus challenges mainstream news by approaching information in a critical manor and by utilizing parody news reports, which mock the genre of television news. This suggests that journalists are merely playing a role on TV and criticizes disinterest in fact. Politicians, journalists and commentators are guests on the show, and are again hybrids that combine pop culture and humor with serious underlying concerns through thoughtful, honest and democratic discussions. Political guests benefit from appearing on such shows, as it promotes their cause. Overall, The Daily Show is an experimental form of journalism that threatens mainstream media, and introduces the idea that a television newscast can be not only profitable but also substantive.

This corresponds to Jean Baudrillard’s Simularca and Simulationas because it too deals with hybridity, to an extent. Baudrillard argues that the ”real” and fantasy worlds have combined, providing Americans with a distorted perception of reality. Society often manipulates the media in a way that prohibits people from being able to distinguish between what is genuine and what is recreated or altered. This struggle is referred to as the hyperreal, which contains no origins. The Daily Show has also identified this tainted flow of information and perception as a problem. The show seeks to counteract the issue by providing open, honest discussions as opposed to discussions involving pre-planned questions and answers. Therefore, both authors call for the need to evaluate the legitimacy of what people see and hear, as things are often not as they are portrayed in the media. The video I chose interviews Jason Jones and Tim Greenberg from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on their trip to Iran. The video illustrates the combination of comedy and political content that makes the show so popular and significant. The men traveled to Iran to deny stereotypes about Iranians. They spend time with a family who they claim is very similar to any family in the U.S., with the same culture and everything. They also claim that their people are not very different from ours by poking fun of insignificant cultural differences, such as the bathrooms in Iran and the constant tea drinking. Other comic elements, such as when a little girl is handed a box of Marlboros, is purely for comic relief. Throughout the interview, an open and honest but nonetheless entertaining discussion is held.

"We are Lost somewhere between Ideal and Real"

2010-11-15T06:02:00.000-08:00

In Jean Baudrillard's article "Simulacra and Simulations" he discusses the way in which our world has lost both it's sense of reality and it's sense of the abstract. He explains that in present day we have not only lost track of reality but, we have also lost track of the "magic of the concept" or "the ideal." Unfortunately however, Baudrillard goes on to say that both the "real" and the "abstract" have in recent years been replaced by what he describes as the "hyperreal." The "hyperreal" refers to all that is produced by complete simulation or the one-dimensional world that no longer has an "ideal" or a "real," but rather a system of "substituting signs."

In many ways I agree with Baudrillard's concept, I feel that we have all been born into a world that does not encourage or allow for an "ideal" or a "real." Instead, I believe that we have been born into a world that allows us only to "substitute signs" in order to become a product of the simulation of culture. Although, in the photoshopped images below the subjects are trying to appear "ideal" or "perfect," they are not, simply because we are all striving for the same image. We are all trying to appear the same using the same method, the "substitution of signs." Therefore, through this simulation the line dividing that which is "ideal" and that which is "real" is lost.

Distortion of Reality

2010-11-14T20:54:00.000-08:00

In Baudrillard's article, Simulacra and Simulations, he discusses how a lot of things in today's world are distorted from reality. These distortions are especially used because of all the technological advances we have had in recent years, making it easier to transform real images into something they are not. We see advertisements that are highly photoshopped every day, but many don't realize it is not the actual picture. With the use of photoshop, models can be made to have flawless skin, be extremely skinny, and enhance desirable features on their body - somewhat raising the imaginary standard that all people should look like them.

Here we go.

2010-11-14T19:09:00.000-08:00

The article by Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulations, is a short but sweet look into the construction of what is "Real." Obviously, from all the blog posts and discussions in class, models usually look very unrealistic and photo shopped. Another area I think is interesting goes into dreams and how they are associated into modern cinema. Some films include The Matrix, Inception, and Vanilla Sky. They all have plots that go into that area. I think the most interesting is The Matrix.

In The Matrix, characters can be "plugged in" to an alternate reality that is similar to a dream state. Characters have enhanced physical attributes, but the most important thing I believe is the physical perfection they achieve. People plugged into the Matrix wear designer clothing and suits, have perfect hair, and of course, nice sunglasses.

That sort of goes into what people in real life want to achieve, they want to be part of this ever growing obstacle of achieving this perfect, but the only way to do that is, literally, in your dreams.

Todays Reality

2010-11-14T18:54:00.000-08:00

The article Simulacra and Simulations by Jean Baudrillard explains that in today's society our perception of reality is distorted and not real. Today many models bodies are reshaped or photoshopped in pictures to create an ideal figure made for people to compare themselves with. Though these models are incomparable because they are hyperreal or fake. Photoshop is used to hide imperfections on peoples bodies that everyone has. This creates eating disorders and expensive surgeries and products that people do or buy to achieve the images that are being photoshopped and labeled as perfection. Even most of the reality television shows we watch today are scripted and not real. So does this mean photoshop is the new reality? How far will photoshop go?

The Line Between Reality and Construction Has Disappeared

2010-11-14T18:51:00.000-08:00

Jean Baudrillard explains in his essay Simulacra and Simulations, that nowadays we as humans are unable to distinguish between what is real and what is created/fake – the hyperreal. We have blended the line between what is true and what isn’t and can no longer find any trace of the line originally drawn. Much of this hyperreal is often seen in media today where models are excessively photoshopped as seen by the video Ilana posted and made to look real; but in reality that is nothing like what they look like in person. Nobody is as skinny and as flawless as a photoshopped image, yet when looking at magazines we are convinced that this hyperreal beauty is real and we want it. The difference between what is real and simulations has “disappeared.” As Baudrillard explains, “It is rather a question of substituting signs of the real for the real itself; that is, an operation to deter every real process by its operational double, a metastable, programmatic, perfect descriptive machine which proves all the signs of the real…” (146). Take a look at the picture of the Eiffel Tower below, many would look at the one where the background is not shown as the real Eiffel Tower in France. On the contrary, this Eiffel Tower is the one standing outside the Paris hotel in Las Vegas. The Eiffel Tower is made to look like an exact replica of the real but smaller. Through pictures, many would not be able to tell the difference and in reality some may prefer this constructed fake replica of the Eiffel Tower convincing themselves it is just like seeing the real one.

precession of simulacra

2010-11-14T17:23:00.000-08:00

Jean Baudrillard explains how reality has become fake, or hyperreal in his Simulacra and Simulations article. Simulation is real, "real" is re-structed into something that is perceived to be reality, but really isn't. Hyperreal for example is a model in Vogue. Tall, thin, and flawless skin is what humans should look like, or hopefully one day look like. I know I catch myself every now and then trying to find ways to make sure my skin gets flawless fast because I convince myself that there are people out there with perfect skin and only perfect skin gets somewhere in life. But that isn't true. Hyperreal has sheltered the real and the imaginary.

This picture is hyperreal to the max and probably one of the dumbest mistakes to print in magazines. It just goes to show how fake the modeling industry is and how it distorts peoples perceptions of what is socially acceptable, which causes problems like eating disorders.
This Ad of Beyonce freaks me out because she legitimately looks like a Barbie here…plastic, fake, and what she put into her hair reminds me of those girly toy commercials were you can add sparkles to your dolls hair or even your own(like in the barbie picture next to her, you can sort of see sparkles too in her hair)! Beyonce must have felt her inner child come out.

Hyperreal Beauty

2010-11-14T13:48:00.000-08:00

As Baudrillard explains hyperreal is the inability of consciousness to distinguish between fantasy and reality, especially in societies which are technologically advanced. Because technologies and the media have the ability to reshape what is real, the conscience may have trouble deciphering the original from the stretched or make believe. In particular, Baudrillard focuses on the idea that the world we live in has been by a “copy” world and that we seek is simulated and nothing more. This commercial for Dove Real Beauty is an example of hyperreality because this model does not exist in real life. Her image has been distorted and changed thus making her non-existent in this world rather the “copy” world. “It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal.” (145). In other words, the model’s appearance has been altered to look similar to all other models. “The real is produced from miniaturized units, from matrices, memory banks and command models - and with these it can be reproduced an indefinite number of times.” (146).

The Internet: Scary or Safe?

2010-11-10T06:22:00.000-08:00

Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner’s essay Oppositional Politics and the Internet: A critical/ Reconstructive Approach demonstrates the positives and negatives found with the Internet. As Kahn and Kellner state, “the Internet constitutes a dynamic and complex space in which people can construct and experiment with identity, culture, and social practices” (1). This is both interesting and scary all at once. Think about how many people create fake identities on the World Wide Web. Hackers who go on others Facebook’s and pretend to be people you actually know in need of help, and need to use your e-mail to send something. In reality, they just want to hack into your e-mail system, but how are you supposed to know if that is actually your friend Facebook chatting with you or a hacker. Online dating sites allow you to put up whatever lies you want to say about yourself (weight, height, hair color, etc) and whatever extremely photoshopped picture or a picture of someone else you choose to upload. No one knows who is standing behind the screen of that computer. As Kahn and Kellner state, the Internet has been shown “to retard face-to-face relationships” (1). As the cartoon below states, “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.” This is a scary thought.

On the other hand, the Internet allows for information to be widely available to a greater number of people around the world. I personally do not see what I would do without the Internet. I use the Internet everyday of my life, whether it be on my computer or on my cell-phone. Another interesting point Kahn and Kellner make is that now the Internet is available to a greater number of people because of the invention of Wi-Fi. Many wireless networks are not secure with passwords; so people can use those networks if they are within the area, this makes hacking much easier (9). The Internet has also now allowed for many people to partake in online politics that before would never voice their opinions – “technopolitics.”

Our world is surrounded by the Internet and has turned all of us into Internet junkies. Look where we are today, not only do we now have online dating, but online classes where students can lay in bed in their pajamas, cheat off the internet, and pass courses. We can even read books online now without actually having to purchase a hard copy.

A Virtual Life

2010-11-09T20:23:00.000-08:00

Danielles youube video stuck an interest in me about the obsession with virtual life’s on the internet. At first I though Danielles video was a joke till I noticed that this game is very much real. Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner talk about “groups and individuals excluded from mainstream political and cultural productions” which have been active in the construction in the Internet culture. They talk about “communities of color, gay and lesbian groups, and man other under-represented communities which have set up their own e-mail lists, websites, blogs and are now a thriving and self-empowered force on the internet” This is similar to the imaged life such as “second life” where minorities create a place to express themselves.

It is amazing to me that someone can be so indulged and connected with another life, such as this one which they rely on this “imaged life.” It is scary to see that this virtual game can be so real and realistic, but at the same time so fake and imagined. I believe that people become obsessed and addicted to games like this because it takes away from their own lives and troubles and allows them to create a life that is perfect in their eyes, and where no one can judge or ridicule them. The video says, “Be yourself, be different, free yourself, change your mind, change your look, love your look, love your life.” This in fact displays an imaged life. They are portraying that you need to do all of these things in your virtual life through this game rather than in your real life and reality.

An article from guardian.co.uk titled, “Girl starved to death while parents raided virtual child in online game.” Tells a devastating and scary story about parents who become obsessed with raising a virtual child and neglecting their own child. --

According to the Yonhap news agency, South Korean police said the couple had become obsessed with raising a virtual girl called Anima in the popular role-playing game Prius Online. The game, similar to Second Life, allows players to create another existence for themselves in a virtual world, including getting a job, interacting with other users and earning an extra avatar to nurture once they reach a certain level

"The couple seemed to have lost their will to live a normal life because they didn't have jobs and gave birth to a premature baby," Chung Jin-Won, a police officer, told Yonhap. "They indulged themselves in the online game of raising a virtual character so as to escape from reality, which led to the death of their real baby."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/05/korean-girl-starved-online-game

Again, like the “second life” video, this article did not seem real to me at first. After reading it, it is in fact very real. These virtual games empowered through the internet create an imaged life for people, which allows themselves to become addicted to this “perfect” life, which is in fact fake, neglecting their reality.

Our Virtual Lives

2010-11-09T20:12:00.000-08:00

In Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner’s article, Oppositional Politics and the Internet, they discuss the growth of the Internet and how it is being used in several different ways – good or bad. There is so much power in the Internet; if one desires, they could find information about you in an instant. Billions of people use the Internet on a daily basis, whether it is for business reasons or personal. That being said, I really don’t know where my life would be without the Internet. It’s crazy to think that such a thing exists in my lifetime. I remember my dad explaining to me what the Internet was and what it was used for, and now I’m actually utilizing it. It’s really unbelievable how many important things you can find out on the Internet. I wonder what our world would be like without it…

World Wide Web

2010-11-09T20:05:00.000-08:00

Kahn and Keller both argue that the internet is such a vital necessity that is used in everyday life. People can post anything they want and share what ever comes to their mind. It allows us to access more information quicker and more efficiently than ever before. Because of this, more people are able to view this information, and also there is a wider range of sources to information than previously. The internet has led to globalization that we have not seen before. We are able to share information quicker than ever with anyone around the world due to this technological advance. The other aspect of the internet is that the majority of people now own some form of mobile device that has the internet in their hands where ever they are in the world. Even when you are not by a computer, you are still able to access any information you want, in a small PDA. Besides for the positives of the internet, there are some negatives that the internet provides. People are able to hack information and computers all through the world wide web. The internet has made identify theft easier than ever.

I have noticed in recent years, how quickly information can go around. With the popularity of Facebook and Twitter, people are able to share personal information and current news, quicker than one could imagine. If one of your friends on Facebook goes on a trip and puts in their news feed that they are away, everyone of their friends whether they are close or not, knows instantly where this person is in the world. Similarly Twitter has evolved very quickly in recent years. For some reason, when something happens in the world, people feel like they need to tell the news, or Tweet to their followers. If you type in a topic on twitter, it is just amazing how many Tweets of that topic were posted within that last minute.

My conclusion to this idea of the internet is that we live in a world where we rely heavily on it. It is a hard thing to take the internet away from someone today, because so much of day to day activities and operations take place on the World Wide Web.

Hactivists …only the coolest word ever!

2010-11-09T19:56:00.000-08:00

Oppositional Politics and the Internet basically talked about the world wide web creating identities and cultures for people. The internet is an amazing tool for communication now-a-days, with myspace and facebook anyone can find anyone and enter their lives. I never knew the word "Hackers" could be a positive term for people who innovate the computer by sharing researched material, communication, and construction of communities. But once the "war on terror" happened, many people associated hackers with terrorists. As a protest a group called "hacktivists" took a stand against it.

The internet used to coined as a geek machine but now a million different kinds of people use it, esp. women to activate their feminist movements. The Internet has undergone transformations to become more democratic.

World Wide Web

2010-11-09T19:29:00.000-08:00

Kahn and Kellner argue in their article Oppositional Politics and the Internet: A Critical Reconstructive Approach the effects that the Internet has on culture and society. Clay Shirky argues different good and bad effects that they see important to society. They discuss the importance of the Internet and how they consider it better than sitting on a coach and watching television. I agree with this and think that doing things on the Internet allows for people to be more active in learning and exploring the endless opportunities that the Internet may offer. This idea is referred to as “cognitive surplus” which can be described, as “group action just got easier.” This means that the Internet with certain things such as blogging and facebooking, is eventually going to lead to an interest and noticeable increase in a humans ability to express themselves.

I cannot imagine my life without the luxury of the Internet. I know that I am constantly “googling” things or facts that I am curious about. I know that I use “wikipedia” for almost everything and I am aware that I use facebook everyday. The Internet is a very interesting, but wide topic and I think that the article covers a large majority of topics that concern the growing impact of the Internet.

Consumerism Wins the Day

2010-11-09T18:50:00.000-08:00

While reading the Kahn and Kellner article, I couldn't help but think that the activist bloggers and online communities that are using the web for social criticism and to publicly monitor the government, etc., are in the minority. Although the authors recognize that the internet is being used for commercial purposes and that reactionary groups and the government can use the web to their advantage as well, I think they do not really recognize the predominant use of the web: commercialism. Every website you visit has ads on the sides and top of the page, some even have them in the middle. They give statistics for the number of blogs and the portion of Google web content that they make-up, but I am interested to know how much of the web is commercial. When you search for something on Google, ad results pop-up along withthe other search results. How many of the other search results are actually looking to sell you something though? I'd bet a high percentage.

Moreover, I think that the "contemporary struggle for peace and democracy across the world" that the authors credit to technopolitics is mostly superficial. When you look at the comments on websites the majority of conversation is one-sided and accusatory. It does not seem like the majority of web users are using the web's capabilities to foster discussion and a more comprehensive understanding of the issues.

The Political Technology Era

2010-11-09T16:34:00.000-08:00

After reading the article Oppositional Politics and the Internet, I tried picturing my life without Google, blogs, or the Internet at all but I couldn’t. Today our world revolves and operates around the World Wide Web. I agree with many of the problems Kahn and Kellner see in this. But at the same time, I think about the Internet and how it’s only going to stay and increase in value. Though I do agree on the political unfairness that Google or other search engines create when choosing sites to be on the top of the search list. I don’t know how we can try to change this because of how much power Internet companies such as Google hold. In some ways the Internet is very resource and helpful but in other ways it’s a very scary tool. By just a click of a button websites or blogs can be created with inaccurate political or any other subject matter. I am interested in to see how the web will grow and change over a couple of years. In some ways I wonder what it would be like if I could have grown up in a different decade where everyone didn’t relay on the Internet or other technological advances like cell phones.

Cognitive Surplus

2010-11-09T13:25:00.000-08:00

In their article Oppositional Politics and the Internet: A Critical Reconstructive Approach Kahn and Kellner argue the numerous impacts the Internet has had on society, both good and bad. On a similar note, Clay Shirky’s view of what he calls cognitive surplus (from his new book Cognitive Surplus), expresses how group activity has been positively impacted through the net, exploring creativity in ways never anticipated. Shirky describes that in past decades we have spent our time watching television and neglecting brainpower. However, today he argues, with the Internet as a tool we have a plethora of availabilities to do something of great value and once we do (although in the end it may not be very useful) it may create what he calls a cognitive surplus. Cognitive surplus can be defined in five words; “group action just got easier”, meaning that this trend of blogging and posting (social media) is leading to valuable and influential forms of cultural production and human expression. Essentially Shirky talks about communication as an art. Each individual has the ability to produce this “art”(“the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects”) by partaking in the frenzy of online communication and networking taking place across the globe.

The Emergence of Virtual Communities

2010-11-09T11:31:00.000-08:00

It can be agreeably said that the internet has changed our lives, most of our lives - those who engage in the technologies of our century to make life easier and faster in some parts. The global economy is becoming so much more competitive because it has become so small due to the use of technologies, especially the internet. The internet has many purposes. Kahn and Kellner address that the "emergence of the utpoian rhetoric of cyberdemocracy and personal liberation" have allowed the growth of new online communities. I feel the internet can be both dangerous and extremely beneficial for people. Kahn and Kellner also introduce that the internet (World Wide Web) "constitutes a dynamic and complex space in which people can construct and experiment with their own identity(ies), culture, and social practices. People are able to "act out roles" of themselves that they wouldn't really do in real life. Posts of social networks like Facebook of the "daily me" statuses allow people to publicize their lives they otherwise would not think to share to others in person - this makes information about other people more easy to find than ever. The internet is a place that embodies reconstructions of citizenship as Kahn and Kellner argue in their essay "Oppositional Politics and the Internet". This youtube video below demonstrates a good example of what this essay is talking about. It is scary when you think deeper on this idea.

Rebel with your dollars!

2010-11-08T06:04:00.000-08:00

In Why Johnny Can’t Dissent, Thomas Frank explains how the rebellious ideals held by the counterculture of the 1960s have been adopted in the Information Age by corporate America in order to sell products. While large corporations were once seen as a repressors of individuality, they has now come to embrace ideas of rebellion as a means to keep up with the ever-changing tastes of consumers. Consumerism is no longer about fitting in, but about distinguishing yourself from the masses. Information Age capitalism utilizes this desire of consumers to defy rules and structure in their marketing campaigns, putting a “rock and roll” spin on things in order to make them seem edgier, and “new”. The persistent desire for newness in American consumers is satiated by this “constantly updated individualism” (273), perpetual rebellion from whatever becomes “old”, or too popular (and thus, no longer a mark of distinction). The article mentions the partnership between Nike and the edgy and subversive author William S. Burroughs, explaining how corporations are going further than just appearing “hip”, digging into the “underground” to further this idea of rebellion. While its been said that Burroughs “sold out”, Frank goes on to explain that it is the structure that has changed, and not Burroughs himself. The merging of countercultural rebellion and corporate ideology is a wildly successful way to market to the consumers of the Information Age, drawing parallels between punk rockers like Henry Rollins, and the idea of the “self made man” in business.

(This sweater, taken from UO online, costs 50$)

This idea of the “commodification of the counterculture” reminds me of stores like Urban Outfitters and Hot Topic. They both allow the instant adoption of an entire lifestyle by commodifying their respective countercultures - the “hipster” and “goth/punk”. Shopping at either of these stores can allow a person to completely transform their appearance and lifestyle - stores like these are a one-stop shop for the music, clothing styles, books, and even home furnishings specific to what is popular in their specific genre. When I visited Portland last year, one of my aunt’s friends (young aunt, typical Portlander) was complaining about how Urban Outfitters stole their “culture” (referring to their announcement to sell Polaroid film). UO commodifies the “thrift store” look, making it very expensive to look like you dug through a sweaty pile of clothes in a dirty warehouse to find the perfect Bill Cosby sweater. Stores like UO are responsible for the mass-production of hipsters by making it easy for people to purchase an entire identity, effectively removing any legitimacy that this “counterculture” may actually have. (This reminds me of the adbusters article about hipsters, so I’ll link to it...good stuff: http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/79/hipster.html )

Counterculture: Changing Capitalism

2010-11-07T22:50:00.000-08:00

In Thomas Frank's article "Why Johnny Can't Dissent," he discusses a lot about the changes of capitalism and how they came about. He talks about how counterculture originated in the 50s, and how they are "summarized with images of 1950s suburban correctness" (32). Anyone can tell times have changed, particularly because "consumerism isno longer about 'conformity' but about 'difference'" (34). The new way of thinking toward consumerism is to "rebel" and do your own thing, rather than conforming to what the rest of the world thinks is right. Figures who demonstrate this idea of "going against the crowd" are the Beatles and Bob Dylan (35). Not only was the new sense of rebellion displayed in the music industry, but also in advertising. All different types of advertisements were broadcasting and promoting the rebellion. For example, Burger King's new slogan became "Sometimes you gotta break the rules," Vision Cologne's new punch line became "It separates you from the crowd," and Swatch's new saying, "The art of changing" (41). By showing the consumer that their products went against the norm, it drewmore attention to their companies. I found this article interesting, especially in the way he described the new changes in consumerist society. The examples he gave were especially helpful to truly see the change.

Counterculture: The Voice of Corporations and Consumers

2010-11-07T19:03:00.000-08:00

Thomas Frank discusses the merging of the counterculture and capitalist ideals in "Why Johnny Can’t Dissent." He argues that the “evils of conformity are…summarized with images of 1950s suburban correctness” (Frank, 1). He also states that revolt by embracing diverse and individual lifestyles is well understood and agreed upon. Beats best represents the counterculture idea, as they live on the edge for immediate gratification and freedom. The consumer society directly corresponds to the counterculture idea. Consumerism has become about being different, and corporate America has become a “sponsor of fun.” Although, Frank does point out that in order to enjoy capitalism’s rebel products consumers must feel some sort of capitalist repression and hostility to pleasure. Still, tradition and establishment are becoming more obsolete, leading to a complete lack of dissonance between capitalist and counterculture ideals, as demonstrated by the Burroughs/Nike partnership. Capitalism now embraces breaking the rules and abolishing rigid corporate structure. Tom Peters draws similarities between dissident and business culture, such as the desire to destroy order and the suspicion of traditional practices. This leads to countercultural rebellion becoming corporate ideology in a chaotic world of turbulent change that preaches “diversity,” “empowerment,” and “thinking outside the box.” It involves risk taking and rebellion. Page seven gives examples of this rule breaking, revolutionary theme as used in advertising by stating companies slogans such as Burger Kings, “Sometimes You Gotta Break the Rules,” Arby’s, “This is different. Different is good,” and Hugo Boss’s “Innovate Don’t Imitate.” Henry Rollins (who embodies empowerment and thrives on chaos) provides an example of how businessman and rebels sound so similar, as he “straddles both worlds unproblematically” (Frank, 7). Overall, Frank argues that the structure and thinking of American business have changed so that today, corporate America embraces the counterculture idea, which he states, “is no longer different from the official culture it’s supposed to be subverting” (Frank, 9).

I chose to show three images this week. The first is a cartoon drawn to represent the 1950s. Frank uses the 1950s as the prime example of conformity, which contrasts to the dominant counterculture idea dominating both businessmen and consumers alike. In the sketch, all the houses look the same, and all the men are wearing the exact same outfit, walking out to check the mail at the exact same time. The fact that the cartoon lacks color reinforces the lack of creativity and diversity that is associated with conformity. Contrast is shown when looking at the other two pictures. The first is an advertisement for Burger King and reads, “Have it your way.” This illustrates the emphasis of individuality and the importance of being different that accompanies the counterculture movement. The picture with the boy peeing on the wall that reads Nike’s slogan, “Just do It,” further communicates these values. Here, the boy is clearly breaking the law, and is allegedly persuaded to do so by Nike’s encouraging words. This relates to the idea that businesses destroy order and promote rule breaking through advertisements in order to appeal to consumers. Here, the campaign is seen in a humorous but nonetheless successfully convincing manor.

Counter-culture

2010-11-07T19:02:00.000-08:00

The article by Thomas Frank was very interesting. One area that interested me was when he walked about how capitalism was trying to repress pleasure (35). He compares this fact to musicians like the Beatles and Bob Dylan and their association with counterculture and the rebellious nature that constructed the time periods they were both performing in. This constructed the counter culture nature of sixties and seventies. This "movement" broke boundaries, getting past the sexually repressive and conservative lifestyle that the fifties featured.

Companies started "changing" as the article pointed out. Companies like Burger King, Levis, and Toyota had their mottos made to reflect the culture of the time. I think that the whole era of rebellion is very interesting and a critical step for our understanding of culture of today and of the past. There are many political, social, and economic reasons behind the repressive nature before the era of rebellion.

One major event that fueled rebellion in the late sixties/early seventies was the Vietnam war. People rebelled through protests, music, drugs, and general anti government behavior. I think the time of major rebellion has past due to historical differences between the past and present. However, there are still many groups and people who rebell in today's world.

Here is an image regarding counterculture/rebellion that I believe fits well with the article. (click on it to read)

Reality TV: Teen Moms

2010-10-26T19:05:00.000-07:00

Teen Mom is a reality TV show that tracks four young women as they struggle to raise their children. Most of the girls became pregnant at age 16. In addition to dealing with the stress of providing and caring for a baby, these girls deal with relationship issues and problems at home. This episode is the season 2 finale, in which Dr. Drew recaps the season and discusses the most pressing issues with the four moms. Ferrah was physically abused by her mom, became self-sufficient, and moved out. Additionally, Ferrah is coping with the death of her boyfriend, who was her daughter Sophia’s father. Maci has taken her child, Bently, away from his father, Ryan, and moved to another city. Ryan then said he would take the issue to court. Catelynn and Tyler gave their baby up for adoption. This choice completely ruined Catelynn’s relationship with her mother, who wanted her to keep the baby. The couple was engaged but Tyler temporarily called it off upon finding out that Catelynn slept with her ex. Amber, the fourth and final mom on the show, also had many problems. She became violent towards her boyfriend, and hit him repeatedly in front of their child. She was diagnosed with depression and anxiety. She has no motivation or energy to finish school.
This reality TV show has changed the way I think about myself. I’ve always known that I was lucky to come from a home that was relatively problem free. However, this show makes me realize that I’ve still taken things for granted. Beside the fact that I don’t have the responsibility for raising a child as a teenager, I also don’t have to worry about my relationships with my family. I know my parents would support me no matter what. I also don’t have to deal with the abuse, both verbal and physical, that the people in this show tolerate. Finally, I’m lucky that my parents financially support me, as at least one of the girls on this show is financially self-sufficient. Overall, I feel like a more privileged individual after viewing this episode.

Teen Mom (Season 2) - MTV Shows

Nike …JUST DO IT??

2010-10-22T13:11:00.000-07:00

Nike is a company that has cultural and economic elements. People who buy the brand are buying it to find status in the world, which is Bourdieu's idea of culture capital. American's ability to buy wealth through the Nike product. The consumption of Nike shoes in inner-city l areas caused violence because people would kill each other over the shoes. For example, in Harlem 10,000 pairs of Nike and Reebok sneakers were stolen in a fenzy of stealing violence because people were greedy to have the sneakers. This is also another example that extends Bourdieu's theory of culture capital into symbolic violence. This is because the people who owned the Nike sneakers were showing off a sign of wealth that other people in the inner-cities envied, so they would rob the sneakers from the people who could afford them because they wanted to take those other peoples wealth away from them.

Because there was so much violence Nike came out with a crisis management campaign called PLAY (Participate in the Lives of America's Youth). It enabled Nike to restore their social responsibility by coming up with the solution to inner-city deterioration came through the dicipline of sports and its promise of upward mobility.

Furthermore, Nike proclaimed the revolution of running-shoe technology. This would boost Nike popularity to distinguish them from the masses. The "Just Do It" campaign evoked personal responsibility. Nike was first advertised to the white middle-class male because they were associated with fitness being their leisure activity. Thus, implying they would be primary consumers.

But Nike's success came from African American basketball players like Michael Jordan. This showed the diversity Nike had to offer its customers. Advertisers came up with the term "urban market" so that white customers could be more comfortable than saying black and African American. Nike's use of African American's in their ad campaigns relied upon Stuart Hall's logic if inferential racism. This is enabling racist statements to be made without ever bringing into awareness.

To whites, the image of basketball the Nike puts out makes them believe that blacks can achieve their American Dream by buying into the "Just Do It" slogan Nike puts out.

Nike's veneer of social responsibility is less than persuasive due to its invisibility of real contradictions for the consumer caste. Unemployment in African American communities remain outside the media Nike puts out in their advertising. Basically, no one really see's how Nike treats the people who make their products and how it goes against what they put out as "social responsibility." In schools, campus activists throughout the country have been protesting against Nike. Some schools have adopted an anti-sweat shop code as a result of the activism.

Indian Americans in Advertising

2010-10-22T06:24:00.000-07:00

In “Con-fusing” Exotica: Producing India in U.S. Advertising, Sanjukta Ghosh analyzes the absence of Indian Americans in American advertisements, and the misrepresentation of Indian culture that is enabled by the dualistic meaning of the word “exotic” as both mysterious and alluring, as well as frightening and unknown. As Ghosh points out in the beginning of the article, the common excuse for why advertisers don’t feature minority groups in their ads, their “lack of disposable income”, doesn’t apply to Indian Americans, who are often well-educated and have (allegedly) the spending habits of a “credit-happy teenager”. (276) Thus, the reason for this exclusion lies elsewhere- as Indian Americans are characterized as the exoticized “other”, a clear line of demarcation is drawn between the West and the “Orient”, characterizing the latter as “backwards”, “spiritual” and unchanging in regards to belief and tradition (in contrast with the “dynamic” and high paced change of Western culture). The examples given in the article are primarily from fashion magazines. Specifically, the Vogue spread, in which a highly stereotypical Indian man (turban, bright colors, dark eye make-up) is depicted in a spontaneous love affair with a white woman along Route 66, simultaneously showing the woman’s “freedom” (as associated with the road), and constructing the man’s identity in the “parameters of the Orientalist gaze” (276). The presence of actual Indian American people in advertisements is rare, while the appearance of traditional Indian garments and styles of dress are often presented as chic and couture because of their exoticism. The traditionally Indian garments are signifiers of exotica, marking taste, sophistication and “awareness” in the consumers that possess these items. The presentation of these items set apart from their origins removes the history and the culture behind them, essentially removing Indian Americans and their culture from the picture altogether, except for the superficial “exotic” or “spiritual” connotations that arise from the fictive construction of Indian identity by American advertisers.

While reading this article, I found myself trying to remember Indian characters in movies and television shows that I’ve seen. The few that came to mind have all been depicted in a less-than-flattering light. The first to come to mind, as was the fortune teller from Drag Me to Hell, who was depicted as mysterious and dark, but whose legitimacy was seriously questioned by the white male lead of the movie, who basically equated his business with overly spiritual or mystical garbage, sold to unsuspecting white consumers as “exotic” or mysterious. The second, was Anwar from the British teen drama Skins, who is shown as devoutly religious, but also bumbling, simple and eager to please his white friends. The last was Tori from Battlestar Galactica, who spends the first half of her presence in the show as the President’s hardworking and serious assistant, but who quickly falls into a conniving and evil role after she finds out she’s a cylon (oops, spoiler). All these Indian-American characters are representative of the dualistic definition of “exotic” that defines these groups through the “Orientalist” gaze, embracing qualities that depict them as mysterious, exotic, dedicated to their culture, but also simple, “traditional”, set in their ways, and even conniving and evil.

Fashionably Ethnic?

2010-10-21T19:30:00.001-07:00

For the most part in this article "'Con-fusing' Exotica: Producing India in U.S. Advertising," the author Sanjukta Ghosh discusses the way in which minorities, specifically Indian Americans, are represented and excluded from the media. Ghosh develops the ideas of "Orientalism," "exoticism" and the way in which American popular culture has constructed a sense of "self" and the "other" or the "familiar 'us'" and the "peculiar'them.'"(275) By excluding and stereotyping Indian Americans in today's media, society, has in a sense developed a way to keep, not only Indian Americans, but also other minorities "in check."(276) According to Ghosh, the exclusion of these peoples from the media and advertising stregthens Indian American's position in the "power structure."(276) Thus, this absense in the media reinforces their sense of powerlessness in contrast to great power posessed by the Western/Caucasian peoples of America. In addition, this absense in the media can also be seen as a visual depiction of a "racially cleansed society."(276) By depicting a 'racially cleansed' society with the exclusion of ethnic groups in today's media, the concept of the "us" and the "them" is further enforced and the idea of needing the American Indian population "only for their labor and not their lives" is developed.(275) Furthermore, this articles describes the way in which Indians are developed when in fact they are included in the media and advertising. On the rare occasions that American Indians are depicted in the media it is almost always in the same, stereotypical way. Indians are seen strictly as an "exotic" group of people in American culture, they are seen as a group of people lost in their traditions which therefore hinders them from becoming constructive members of the modern world.(275) Therefore, their perceived sense of separation from the modern world makes it easier for the media to misrepresent and exclude them from advertising, film, television, etc.
In this collage of relatively recent fashion magazine covers the absence of Indian American, and minorities in general is painfully apparent. It is obvious that there is not a single representation of any race or ethnicity other than European/Causcasian. This exclusion of not only Indian Americans but also other ethnicities, from many mainstream fashion magazines and the fashion world in general, is one way through which the media has developed minorities' positions in society. By not featuring minority peoples in these magazines the media develops the idea that ethnic people are capable of being as beautiful as caucasian people. As a result, minorities are depcited as not being capable of acheiving success in our culture/society, which is so largely based on materialism and appearance.

The Invisible Indian Americans

2010-10-20T00:45:00.000-07:00

In United States culture, many races are portrayed as a certain stereotype. For example, African Americans are depicted as being “lazy and prone to criminal activity and violence” (274). Stereotypes are also often set for Latinos and Native Americans. However, Indian Americans seem to disappear in the midst of all of this stereotyping. It seems as though they have been “erased” or “silenced” from our society (275). Culture of Indian Americans has been showing up in minimal areas – “scholars have found Orientalist imagery in contemporary Hollywood cinema (Shohat & Stam, 1994), in literature (Viswanathan, 1989), and in news (275). More recently, Indian Americans have been featured in fad magazines like Vogue with an entire spread dedicated to Indian American models (277). Perhaps the most representation Indian Americans get in our culture is through their absence (276).

False Portrayal

2010-10-19T19:49:00.001-07:00

Sanjukta Ghosh essay, “Con-fusing” Exotica: Producing India in U.S. Advertising, explains how media lacks diverse minority groups (African Americans, Latinos, Indians, Native Americans) in mainstream media. Indians have been “systematically written out, erased, silenced, and marginalized in any mainstream picture of America” (275). In media, it is true that minority groups are often put in the background, if at all, in mainstream media to keep some form of “purity” for the country (America) (275). Sometimes though there is just a complete absence of these minority groups and this absence is a way to “reinforce their absence in the power structure” (276). Through this power, it allows media to “recode” the cultures of these minority groups in the media. This absence also makes it possible for media to erase these minority groups overall. This whole concept is actually very disturbing to read about. How is it possible that media either completely erases these minority groups or changes their cultural identities because they have the power to do so.

The most interesting point present in this article to me was the way “ad after ad, Indian products are appropriated, even robbed, and then represented as works of haute couture designers whereas Indians are airbrushed or erased out of the picture” (278). Their clothes (Indian’s clothes) is even really liked by many consumers because media appropriates them by placing them on white models, erasing their culture and history in turn seeing the product as sophisticated. Yet, when viewed on the objects themselves, the natives, they are seen as “primitive and backwardness” (279). Take for example this pashmina shawl ad above. Pashmina shawls are an Indian product. Do you see any history or culture tied to this pashmina ad? No, on the contrary, a very elegant classy white woman with blonde hair and blue eyes is displayed wearing the pashmina shawl, in a what seems fairly wealthy house. Cultural ties to the product are completely absent and recoded. If ads or media in general are going to represent minority groups at all, they need to not only present them correctly but more minority groups need to be presented in general and in the correct light.

The invisibility of Indian Americans

2010-10-19T18:56:00.001-07:00

I never noticed how different races are portrayed in media in the United States. Race is in fact a credible factor in establishing cultural, economic, and political membership (274). In specific to certain minority groups in mainstream media is seen as significant and dangerous. Organizations like the NCLR, NAACP, and ADC are still shown as "narrow and cliched (275)." Ghosh discusses how African Americans are commonly portrayed as lazy and violent. Latinos are often seen to be driven by primal urges and Native Americans are rarely shown at all. In defense of certain Advertisers they argue that minority's low ratio in population, they are seen as marginally irrelevant to advertisers. All of this information does not explain why Indian Americans are ignored because they have a disposable income. They are constantly erased or invisible in the media. Said argues in defense for this race and discusses how the media doesn't recognize these people for who they are, but they still continue to utilize their craftsmanship and particular icons. Said discusses Orientalist, he quotes "how media and advertising produce a commodified and orientalist version of India that simultaneously erases indigenous peoples out of the landscapes or puts them in the background (275)." They are in turn, noticed for their labor not their lives.

I found the part of the article where Said goes into examples of certain advertisements that utilize certain "Indian American" elements. For example, Liz Claiborne models a white women in a silk sarong made in India, but any other signifier of India is absent, in conclusion they are robbed of recognition. These "exotic" objects are included in a number of advertisements and the only way that the United States is going to progress is by recognizing particular minorities more, especially Indian Americans for who they are not not just what they make or wear.

U.S. Take on Different Cultures

2010-10-19T18:23:00.001-07:00

In Sanjukta Ghosh’s article, “Con-Fusing” Exotica, Producing India in U.S. Advertising” she presents the issues of an ever so common portrayal of the India race in the media. In the majority of popular American magazines such as Vogue, Cosmopolitan etc… it is evident that the majority of the advertisements lack the portrayal of any sort of race or if they do, they portray races is in a misinformed way. Ghosh writes, “This chapter examines how media, in general, and advertising, in particular, produce a commodified and an Orientalist vision of India that simultaneously erases indigenous peoples out of the landscape or puts them in the background” (275). In this article, not only does Ghosh look at the issues concerning the lack of ethnicity in the U.S. media but also that when there is the portrayal of another culture, it is usually a misinterpretation. One example that really stuck out to me in this article was the fashion advertising spread in Vogue magazine.

In this photo spread Vogue portrays two people traveling when they run out of gas. The two people in this ad are a tall, blonde, model and the other is a taxi driver. At the beginning of the photo spread the taxi drivers body position portrays him to be praying and is wearing a turban. The woman happens to be wearing white, a very innocent color. While the woman is looking at a map for directions the native taxi driver relies on traditional methods. “As maps signify him as incompetent and traditional and perhaps serve as a reminder of India’s backward status” (227). Ghosh describes this photo spread/scenario to be a mockery to the native India, taxi driver. “The binaries used in this fashion spread poist the Sikh as a backward, unenlightened, lustful, irrational, driven by primal urges, left behind, both untouched by modernity and comically ill-equipped to handle modernity” (227). In this article, it is apparent that fashion spreads can misinform and portray different races in an untrue and misleading light, while also diminishing their heritage and culture through advertisements.

In conclusion I believe in most of Ghoshs arguments, concerning the fact that in modern media and advertisement, different cultures are not always portrayed in a truthful and correct way. Closing her argument Ghosh writes, “Media needs to stress the heterogeneity of Indians in America – their differences based on class, gender, age, sexuality, and religion” (280).

The Imagined View of India

2010-10-19T17:59:00.000-07:00

Before reading this article, I had never taken the time to notice the appearance or context in which Indian Americans appear in advertising. Edward Said's research on Orientalism revealed the tactics behind the portrayal of different races and cultures, "because the chief function of Orientalism was 'to control, manipulate, even incorporate what is manifestly a different world.'" Western world advertising uses the absence of indians in order to incorporate this idea of "exotica". This also emphasizes a groups position in the power structure, which indicates where they are in the social structure. Absence also clarifies who is who in the spectrum which declares who has the most power and what can be done with that power. This power allows our media to place cultural identities on certain groups, molding them into what popular culture expects and wants. This is very unfortunate and unfair because the population of Asian Indians is growing immensely in the US, and is the most educated ethnic group in the country. I would like to say this isn't true, but it is. I have even been affected by this stereotype put on certain minority groups. It blurs peoples visions of who these people really are, and where they truly come from.

More on Native Americans

2010-10-19T13:16:00.000-07:00

Ilana mentioned how ads for the Seminole Hard Rock Casino don't mention the Casino's owners at all. I think it is interesting that the modern media ignores Native Americans when media played such a critical role in the way Europeans perceived the people of America when colonizing the continent.

The European world was introduced to the image of native America by the French philosopher and essayist Montaigne. In his essay, “Of Cannibals,” Montaigne asserts that America's native people were civilized, in the purist way, in the original state of humankind, the state of nature, embodying "the most true and profitable virtues." Montaigne’s image of Native Americans eventually grew to the commonly accepted stereotype of the Noble Savage. This figure was a myth about an autonomous wild man in the woods and completely ignored the complex and diverse social and cultural structures that governed life in native America.

Montaigne was not the only contributor to the stereotype. Almost every writer of that time period elaborated on the image. In fact, Shakespeare played a major role in distributing the image of the Noble Savage to the public in Europe. The character of Caliban in Shakespeare's play The Tempest highlights the wildly racist popular opinions of the time.

Shakespeare's Caliban-

Secluding the Seminoles

2010-10-19T05:19:00.000-07:00

Media has forever had an impact on the way race is portrayed. “Because mass media are a major arena where the struggle over national (racial) identity is played out, the lack of any or diverse images of minority groups in mainstream media is both significant and dangerous” (274). For decades, several activist organizations have recorded instances where Latinos, African Americans, and Native Americans have been underrepresented or ignored by the media. Native Americans in large part are a minority, but have a very large disposable income. Regardless, “they have been systematically written out, erased, silenced, and marginalized in any mainstream picture of America” (275). This truthful statement is better represented and understood with the concept of casinos. Native American gaming enterprises are operated on Indian reservations (or tribal lands) throughout the United States. Tribes have sovereignty over these casinos and have the ability to establish these businesses exempt from all state regulations. In the commercial for Seminole casinos, there are no signs that this is owned and run by the Seminole Tribe of Florida. Although the tribe(s) are in complete control, their advertisements are intentionally ambiguous seeking middle road America. They want to preserve anonymity to in turn draw wealthy customers.

Powertrips and Powerlines.

2010-10-18T06:39:00.001-07:00

In the article, Nike, Social Responsibility and the Hidden Abode of Production by Carol A. Stabile, it discusses how Nike Corporation undeniably has created wealth for its owners and shareholders. They specifically tailored their product to their target audience through “the corporation’s ability to reach middle class consumers through appeals to the values and belief systems of that audience” (199). This was particularly effective during the 90’s within the lower-middle class African American and Hispanic community. The rising trend within these communities was to invest in a pair of trendy shoes in order to identify themselves as some with a higher status. After reading this article, I am reminded of a time in my past where I grew up in a relatively rough area of Miami. In school, my friends and I invested more time talking about my new pairs of Air Jordan shoes than my multiplication tables. We went as far as judging those around us who didn’t have “name brand” shoes, particularly Nike shoes. In some of the neighborhoods by my block, groups of kids would tie shoes together and hang them from power lines. This signified that they had successfully taken the shoes from other innocent kids by physical force and intimidation. In some instances, it was the marking of gang turf. The more valuable the shoe, the more respected that you were by your fellow members. It’s an ongoing cultural identity that lingers in most inner cities. Fascinating.

Two words: "greed and shoes"

2010-10-18T06:24:00.000-07:00

In this article, Nike, Social Responsibility and the Hidden Abode of Production, Carol A. Stabile discusses Nike’s various marketing strategies and alleged “social responsibility”, contrasting them with the realities of the company’s manufacturing practices and outlining the racist implications that are present in the ad campaigns. Stabile begins by discussing Nike’s history as a company, and its alleged commitment to social responsibility and acting like a “global citizen”. The following section, on the “sneaker wars” between Nike and Reebok in the early 1990’s, shows how Nike’s public image as “responsible” was tested by their controversial campaign strategy. The images of “sneaker war” advertisements were juxtaposed in the media with images of inner city violence, “threaten[ing] to become a critique of the very consumerist desires Nike had so successfully manipulated” (198). The desire turned into greed, as both stores and individuals were robbed of their Nike’s by those who desired the shoes so bad that they were willing to resort to violence to get them. Nike later donated to inner city schools, and began a program aimed at bringing safe “play” back to “American” youths, showing the corporation’s veiled racism, as the problem of “unsafe play” for children was really only an issue in the inner city, implying that athletics was the “prioritized” route for these children.
Nike’s ad campaigns were not always aimed at the inner-city- initially, their advertisements were meant to appeal to the baby boomer demographic in the late 1970’s, who were now entering the professional sphere. These advertisements incorporated “watered down ideals from the 1960s” (199) articulated as a part of the consumer lifestyle, showing people wearing their products running through forests, appearing rugged and “individualistic”. These ads focused on appealing to white male consumers, emphasizing the craftsmanship and the social responsibility of the company, qualities that are attractive to this demographic. Nike seized the opportunity to market fitness to the middle-class, as this was an increasingly popular leisure-time activity. This “angle” eventually shifted to place more emphasis on the “urban” image, a word carefully used to leave ambiguity as to the “intended” race of market audiences. The evolution of this campaign makes obvious the underlying racism of Nike’s advertisements; fitness was sold to white, middle-class people as a leisure activity, while it was sold to black or ethnic people as their version of the “American dream”, their route to social mobility and prosperity. Nike’s alleged commitment to “social responsibility” was further weakened by the exposure of unfair and inhumane sweatshop practices in production. The success of this company relies on what is hidden remaining hidden, disguising reality and keeping contradictions hidden that might upset consumers.
After reading this article, I can’t say I was particularly surprised. The kind of greed and sense of necessity that is created by expensive athletic shoes like Nike is excessive, and ridiculous at best. I’ve witnessed this frenzy first hand, as my younger brother is completely obsessed with expanding his shoe collection and looking at shoes on the internet, and he’s only eleven years old! The extreme greed that is associated with the consumption of these “fashionable” objects is obviously connected with their cultural capital, the distinction that one gains in owning these shoes. Reading the first section of the article reminded me of Americans getting mugged while abroad for their blue jeans (something that may or may not be an urban legend, as I am unable to find an article about this at all?). Even if it isn’t “true”-true, the similarity is there- the “identity” that goes along with the product, whether its symbolic of Western ideals, or upward mobility for an inner-city youth, the social value that goes along with coveted objects can be extreme, and even lead to real-life violence.

The Profit of Nike

2010-10-17T19:40:00.000-07:00

In Carol A. Stabiles essay, "Nike, social responsibility, and the hidden adobe o production," she covers a few topics associated with Nike. The one I found most interesting was the part about the sweatshops. Nike hires laborers in Indonesia for below minimum wage to make very expensive sneakers for consumers in the United States that those workers would never be able to afford. Nike spends hundred of millions of dollars on their advertisement campaigns against other sporting good companies, yet they have a history of not paying their laborers well.

While Nike pays their laborers in Asia almost nothing, they pay their star athletes an enormous amount of money to wear their clothing. Athletes like Lebron James and Tiger Woods have signed over 100 million dollar contracts each with Nike to just wear their clothing and do advertisements for them. While these people just wear Nike clothing to get paid, the workers making their clothes are making around two dollars an hour. But the case that Nike would bring up is that even though they pay these athletes multimillions of dollars, they profit immensely because consumers will go out and buy Nike golf equipment and Lebron James basketball sneakers. Nike workers, work harder and much longer hours than athletes like Lebron James or Tiger Woods, which creates an uneven state of political economy.

I Never Thought Shoes Would Actually Be "To Die For"

2010-10-17T18:54:00.000-07:00

In Carol A. Stabile’s article about Nike, I had absolutely no idea any of those “sneaker wars” went on. The “wars” went on between Nike and Reebok in the early 90s in their television advertisements both showing NBA players wearing their sneakers (197). People then began to feel the need to keep up with this consumerist society and purchase these shoes. However, people went to even greater lengths and killed others for their shoes. A quote from J. Lomuscio stated that there were “situations in town where youngsters not only had their bicycles stolen but their sneakers – their Michael Jordan Air Pumps – right off them” (197). Then, Nike realized they needed to change their advertising and the way they portrayed their sneaker line so that this inner city crime wouldn’t take place anymore. Nike then decided to try to appeal to their more “running geek” consumers, rather than their competition between Reebok (199). They changed their advertisements and began using slogans like ‘Just Do It’, hopefully drawing in a different band of consumers. I didn’t know any of this went on and it really surprised me! I thought Nike was always more toward the average runner, but it is shocking to hear that people actually killed others for their shoes. It’s actually very sad to me that some people are that drawn into consumerist societies that they don’t care about others’ lives and care more about shoes.

The Ugly Truth

2010-10-17T13:25:00.000-07:00

In Stabiles article, Nike, Social Responsibility, and the Hidden Abode of Production, was an interesting article. It shows both sides of multinational corporations like Nike. He discusses Nikes history in that of the “Sneaker Wars.” This ongoing advertising war between Nike and Reebock sparked a wild fire in the inner cities. The violence in these cities over something as simple of a pair of shoes amazes me. I can’t believe that our society has come this far to that we are shedding blood over something as dumb as shoes. Nike utilizes the idea behind consumers wanting things just because it is the most popular or to prove some sort of “status in the world (197). This in turn created a war between youthful people who wanted to prove their identities through a pair of sneakers, Nike sneakers. After this crisis occurred, Nike went into overtime to repair their damaged reputation to the public. Society has also made us all so consumed with reputation, and Nike certainly demonstrates this. They launched a crisis management campaign with “anti-racist” advertisements and created the PLAY campaign.

I found the part of the article interesting where Stabile discusses the particular contradictions that Nike uses when campaigning. He talks about the women’s campaign, “if you let me play sports,” in comparison to the Vietnamese women slaving over creating this product under awful wages and working conditions. Stabile also discusses how Nike uses racially different people in their advertisements, but are usually celebrities whose salaries are extremely higher than the racially different people who are making the product.

I’m sure that Nike will be under criticism for as long as they remain in the spotlight, but I found this article interesting in that it showed a different side to the big corporations and the ugly truth about their employees.

Nike's Questionable Social Responsibility

2010-10-17T12:32:00.000-07:00

Nike, Social Responsibility, and the Hidden Abode of Production by Carol Stabile examines Nike’s public relations, and how it develops these images. Philip Knight, the CEO, discusses how Nike strives to create healthy work environments and points out that he has created a company that “began in my basement and today creates wealth where none existed before” (196). Stabile challenges the “rhetoric of social responsibility” throughout the piece. Nike was faced with a problem when the company became associated with inner city violence, which began with “sneaker wars” between Nike and Reebok over market share. This proved to be too intense, as publicity in 1989 implied that kids were killing each other over athletic shoes. Sports illustrated even claimed that inner-city youths were committing murder for Air Jordans. Looting, killing, and robbery occurred. Stabile questions how much Nike’s advertising techniques are to blame for this. Nike launched a crisis management champagne to prove how Nike was part of the solution rather than the problem, and suggested that the main issue in inner-city schools is that the poor kids do not have access to formal athletics, undermining the economic and educational programs. Nonetheless, Nike’s success in advertising is contributed to the corporations ability to reach their target audience, middle class consumers, through appeals to their belief systems and values, demonstrated through their television advertisements in the 1970s, advertisements that focus on the rhetoric of revolution, and their current slogan, “Just Do It.” Nike gained much publicity through basketball and the use of African American celebrities such as Michael Jordan, as the company acknowledged the importance of the “urban market.” This provides positive role models and the instills the idea that the American Dream is available to African Americans, despite the fact that images that criminalize African Americans flood the media. Stabile suggests that Nike is not as responsible as it first appears. For example, while Nike endorses women empowerment, the Vietnamese women making the shoes work 12-hour days and earn only about $2.25 a day. This exposes a contradiction that is not publicized, and labor activists and journalists hope to rise awareness. Stabile ends by saying that consumers ought to “concentrate on making visible those practices and realties that are routinely kept out of sight” (202).

For my video, I found a clip of News from Sky TV interviewing former soccer pro Jim Keady. Jim lived in Indonesia for a month on the wage that the Nike employees get paid there (2 Australian dollars), and discussed his findings on the news. Overall, he said one could just survive on such wages but that they were completely inadequate. Jim couldn’t meet his basic needs and had his human integrity undermined, as he was constantly hungry and exhausted. Everyday was a struggle, even more so for the locals who have other expenses. Workers must work overtime. Nike is trying to “wash their hands” of this, and improve conditions, which Keady actively challenges. This video corresponds to page 201 of the reading, which discusses Nike’s contradiction between Nike’s apparent social responsibility by liberating women and using African American spokespeople and their confined business practices abroad, such as making workers work long hours with insufficient pay. I found this part of the reading particularly interesting, because I have been briefed on this concept previously, and wonder if the company has, or still is, actually making any positive changes.

What Is Behind the Curtain: Nike

2010-10-17T12:23:00.000-07:00

Carole Stabile’s essay brings to light the truth behind Nike’s social responsibility and hidden sweatshops of production. Stabile explains how corporations make sure to keep a perfect public image and how we as citizens and humans of this world should “concentrate on making visible those practices and realities that are routinely kept out of sight [from the public eye]” (202). Stabile first introduces the “sneaker wars” Nike and Reebok were fighting over the market and featuring million-dollar advertisement’s involving NBA players to target their consumers. Eventually, inner-city violence was connected to sneakers “In March, 1992, a fifteen-year-old in Philadelphia reportedly was killed during the theft of his Air Jordans; in April 1992, South Central L.A. erupted, with looting and brand name sneakers again splashed across pages and screens; and in July 1992, KP Original Sporting Goods in Harlem was robbed” (197). Nike quickly ran a bunch of antiracist ads with Spike Lee and donated along with Michael Jordan $200,000 to Chicago Public Schools; Nike also started the PLAY (Participate in the Lives of American’s Youth) (198). Nike did this to show that they were not the problem of this violence but rather the solution, keeping their name in good light and publicizing that they are out in this world to better society, yet drastically hiding the reality of their inhuman production factories. Even though Nike initially started off attracting a white male consumer because fitness and leisure time was more available for them, now, Nike “most widespread publicity is through basketball” (200), primarily attracting the African American population and “urban market” to say that whites can still purchase Nike too. Nike uses all these positive images of these grand athletes to show them that the “American Dream” is within grasp, even though the clear reality is that not everyone will go professional just by wearing Nike. Most of the athletes would not preferably where Nike over another brand but rather do so because they are bought out by million dollar contracts to represent their brand and wear their sneakers. Nike ads most often always come in a positive light. Take for example their ad attempting to show the empowerment of women “If you let me play sports” (201), but what we do not realize as consumers reading or watching these ads is what is hidden behind the curtain. A lot is hidden that we as consumers do not know. “Vietnamese women who make Nike shoes, working 12 –hour a day for a wage of between $2.10 and $2.40 a day, are kept of the screen” (201). Why? We all know the answer to that one, it would belittle Nike’s status and all the money they have put in to advertisements to portray themselves in a positive light. How can Nike pay million dollar contracts to already million dollar athletes to wear their shoes and only $2.10 a day to women working so hard to make their product? What if Nike's Just Do It advertisements were portrayed like in the video below? Now do you want to purchase Nike shoes or sportswear? The unfortunate reality is advertisements such as these would kill Nike’s business. Advertising and corporate propaganda always show us and tell us what WE want to see and what WE want to hear. The truth of the matter is that not only does Nike do this, many other corporations out in this world today use sweatshops for cheaper labor. The question is when will this all end and will advertisements ever truly expose reality? In the end, companies are all out their in this world competing to make maximum profit and rise to the top, sometimes though this comes at the expense of others well-being and at the expense of hiding reality to the world.

Hoop Dream

2010-10-17T11:32:00.000-07:00

The article about Nike pretty much summed up a lot of elements related with what I learned in the "Sport and Society" class here at Rollins. That class deals with the sociological aspect behind sport and there was a lot of time devoted to discussing Nike and how it effects sports. Nike has used a lot of African American athletes in their campaigns. Michael Jordan, Serena Williams, Tiger Woods, and Lebron James, Dwyane Wade and Terrell Owens to name a few. Most of the African American athletes being sponsored are associated with the NBA, predominately due to the demographics behind the NBA. I'd imagine they do this to appeal to African Americans, and the slogan "Just do it" gives a call to action to buy the product they are advertising.

I talked a little bit about this in my paper about the identity of Sports stars in ads. Nike gives this image of a way to rise out of the low class conditions and become an amazing athlete by buying the latest and greatest Nike shoes. I talked a little bit about how they are portraying Gatorade in that way in my paper.

It is ridiculous that some sports players are payed more by their sponsorships than what they make in the sport, which is more evident in Golf than most other sports. This excess in sponsorship from Nike and other companies ties into the political economy theory that we learned about earlier. Nike is almost a monopoly of a sports, they are the worlds leading supplier in sportswear and apparel. Their advertisements make them seem like they are the best company and when they use these athletes in the advertisements it creates the feeling that an aspiring athlete has to associate oneself with Nike to be successful.

Nike's marketing of social responsibility

2010-10-17T04:59:00.000-07:00

Carol Stabile tells us "how multinational corporations produce and manage their public images" (197). The example of Nike reveals the push and force it initiated to spread its name out there and advertise its products - for example competing with Reebok. It is no surprise that Nike's aggressive advertising sparked the "sneaker wars" with Reebok. Shockingly it took a toll on the outside American society - mainly the projects in inner-cities, Brooklyn, Philadelphia, South Central L.A. and many other unreported news; but these killings/homicides show how media and advertising strongly affect and shape the viewers' minds. In this case, the sneakers I find this incident quite scary but also ironic and I will explain why I think so. At the height of its career, Nike initiated a goal many other corporations follow and that is "all about trying to find some status in the world" (197). And of course with this goal accomplished through the media, Nike has a fairly average very well-rounded popular rating amongst its consumers. However, the ironic part is that while Nike is trying to make a good name for itself, stand for good values, and promote equality by working with African American spokespersons, we can't forget that Nike has another social responsibility that deals with the actual means of producing the products -- and what groups of people exactly do that. Well obviously poor class minorities take on the jobs in the sweatshop production factories. These are are low paying jobs that (for example) "Vietnamese women who make Nike shoes, working 12-hour days for a wage between $2.10 and $2.40 a day, are kept off the screen" (201). That is unethical and the values of Nike, promoting equality and positivism, are lacking there tremendously. Its message to the overall public is sometimes not realistic because "Nike's commitment to 'social responsibility' because the contradiction between corporate production and employment practices and chronic unemployment practices in African American communities remains outside the screen or printed page" (201). However, as these issues are coming to mind and are starting to globalize, I am sure Nike is initiating changes to improving its reputation, quality of production and quality of advertising.

African American Sitcoms

2010-10-14T16:43:00.000-07:00

Robert R. Means Coleman’s article, Black Sitcom Portrayals, he talks about the different ways that African American people are portrayed in particular television shows. Throughout the article, he interviews different people or actresses/actors from different shows.

I found a lot of the article interesting. I obviously am aware of certain prejudices that Black people face from day to day, but when I think about the way that certain African American people are portrayed in television shows it kind of makes me confused why and how they do this and what race the particular director of the show may be. I found myself during the article thinking if this director was white and making these black actors degrade themselves or dumb them down, does that make him a racist? If this director is black as well, isn’t he just making the stereotypes that are created already, worse?

In specific to these questions, I found the part of the article that discussed the Fresh Prince of Belair interesting. I haven’t watched this show in sometime now and I find it interesting that they talk about how J.C Cartlon is seen as the “good kid” because he has such good behavior and honesty, qualities that he says are uncommon in depictions of young Black males (81). I never thought about Will being sort of a charity case that he is described in this article, but it makes sense that he is portrayed as the typical black male who needs a place to stay, and just happens to have wealthy black relatives.

Most of the series that are discussed in this article display wealth in the Black families. In the Cosby Show, I never noticed how much of a stretch their lives are. How they contradict the standards that have been set by society, by having a Black lawyer and Black surgeon as the parents of 3 beautiful, intelligent children.

In discussion with how most of the sitcom stars appear to have lighter skin is another topic that I found interest in. I have noticed that even today, society has accepted and even thought more beautiful or highly of Black people with lighter skin.

Black Sitcom Portrayals

2010-10-13T06:43:00.000-07:00

Black Sitcom Portrayals by Robin Coleman depicts the inferiority linked between the African American class and national TV sitcoms. In Coleman’s article he begins to explain how the African American is portrayed as a lower working class citizen that is dependent on a White family to survive. He cites examples from Sanford and Son and Roc to illustrate his point by claiming that those characters were assigned roles based on their race to reinforce the lack of upward mobility within their class. Coleman further articulates his point by claiming “the participants struggled to offer a genre-wide assessment of what favorable traits the comedies held…” (79) The notable positives that were explained by the actors from the TV sitcom were challenged by Coleman. From the crossed line between self- sufficiency and reinforcement of lower class, to the “rare and good” African American young male who is ridiculed for having strong values, and to the “African American male who is not only depicted as deficient in love, but also in family life.” (83) One of the thoughts that stuck out to me was the portrayal of women and the misogynistic abuse aimed towards them. In Martin one of the actors said, “they’re always puttin’ women down and talking about their butts, even when it’s a decent little comedy or something, they make fun of each other so bad, and I hate that.” ( 83) The sitcom colored these women in a light that was self destructive for the women in the Black community. It pigeonholed these women into a category where negativity fueled their world and all they had to talk about was commonplace things.

Whiteness?

2010-10-13T05:22:00.000-07:00

In Robert Means Coleman’s article, Black Sitcom Portrayals, he touches on issues and controversies regarding the way African Americans are portrayed in the media and more commonly in TV sitcoms. Throughout this article, Coleman interviews, or takes clips from different actor/actresses in these sitcoms to get their views of the way the black culture is portrayed through television first hand. Doing this, makes the reader feel a closer connection to what Coleman is saying, such as the portrayal of black females being portrayed as partner less and the common stereotypes of black people. It was interesting to read about the TV sitcoms and how they are portrayed. Shows like, The Jefferesons shows a black family, which is wealthy, an uncommon portrayal of the black sitcoms usually seen on TV. J.C.B says, “Yeah, I think its important to see because too may of our Blacks that achieve, the community for the most part tends to shun them and call them names, (such as) tryin’ to be White and all this stuff like that. And I think it’s positive to have more people that are showing advancement in life“ (80). It is sad to me that wealth within black communities can be seen as “whiteness” or trying to be white. It is in a way funny to me, that when black families are successful and wealthy they are seen as trying to be “white” while this should be seen as an inspiration. Shows like, The Jefferesons shows a Black family, which has many achievements which is uncommonly portrayed on TV sitcoms. Similarly, this idea of “whiteness” can relate to today TV show, 90210, which Julia talks about. In this show there is one black boy, who grows up in an all white, affluent community. Dixon could be seen from the Black community of trying to be white. This also relates to Via’s article. It is shocking to me to see the image of Gabourey Sidibe’s in Elle magazine. They alter her skin color on the cover to look “whiter”. It seems to me that media is trying to portray black people, but in a way trying to target “white” and “wealthy” audiences.

Too Stereotypical...

2010-10-12T22:38:00.001-07:00

In Robin Coleman’s Black Sitcom Portrayals, Coleman observes the way African American’s are portrayed in television shows. Throughout his article, he explains how blacks in TV shows are more often described in a negative and lower working class light than wealthy, which is often associated in being “white.” The typical stereotypes of blacks and white on TV seem to differ greatly. There is a lot of variety between whites and blacks – mostly depending on how rich they are and what kind of neighborhoods they live in. Also, often times in black TV shows, at least one of the kids is a troublemaker.

This article reminded me of a separate article I came across about a month ago, which had to do with the lightening of Gabourey Sidibe’s skin color for the cover of Elle. They were basically trying to appeal more to a “white” or “rich” audience instead of showing her true beauty.

Full article

More Power to Bill

2010-10-12T20:06:00.000-07:00

The Cosby show set the representational and marketing standards that continue to determine what types of African American shows get produced, and where those shows are sold. I find it interesting that the Cosby show also started it all for the international networks. This show has taken the non-stereotypical idea of the African American family and has showed America and other places that African American people can act in all different ways. They aren’t the stereotypical view such as being “ghetto” or a low income family. I feel that the Cosby show has also opened doors for African American movie productions. I agree with what la monarca wrote from “The White Gaze” which was the idea of pride in a positive image of distinctly African American society were both prominent in the Coleman and Havens pieces. The Cosby show was a reason for African Americans to finally show pride in their culture without it being shown in a negative light.

Black Culture

2010-10-12T19:15:00.000-07:00

Robin R. Means Coleman essay, "Black Sitcom Portrayals," talks about how black people are portrayed in real life, which is reflected in black television shows. Most people affiliate black people with lower class and no upward mobility, so TV shows the audience these affiliations. Because TV shows do this, this makes white people believe more that black people are only like this. This creates a false sense of identity because television usually will show black people in only one way. Not being racists, television tries to present black culture as making everything in life being a joke. They always try and make black television programs a comedy, or have bad situations that normally would be traumatic in real life. White sitcoms generally have a different comedic edge, and there is no "white culture," in regular TV sitcoms. On the other hand, black sitcoms feature racial stereotypes, like talking gangster, or from eating fried chicken and drinking cool aid. As I mentioned before, I am not trying to be racist, but it really is true that television hyper racializes black culture. In conclusion, while not every sitcom featuring African Americans relies too heavily on the culture, something needs to change to not have blacks portrayed in such a negative light.

The "White Gaze"

2010-10-12T18:29:00.001-07:00

I found it interesting that in both the Coleman and Havens pieces, the idea of pride in a positive image of distinctly African American society were prominent.

In the Coleman reading, it was women in particular who praised the depiction of strong, black women in black sitcoms. In the Havens essay, it was a more general pride in the way that The Cosby Show portrayed the modern African American family to all of the US and the world. It draws attention to the fact that television helps to formulate people's perceptions of others and that a positive image translates to a positive viewpoint.

The Havens piece also eluded to the idea of a racial lens through which society sees television and media in general. It seemed to me like the idea of the "male gaze" could be translated to race as the "white gaze." I did some research

and it turns out that the "white gaze" is a legitimate term in cultural studies. The articles I found all credited the whitewashing of American history with this "white gaze," and I can definitely see its effects in the comments from the two articles.

In Western art the influences of the "white gaze" are o

bvious. Caucasians are shown as the subjects of paintings and all others are merely background or a figure of interest only because of their "exotic" nature.

Black Sitcom Portrayals …I can't think of anything clever this time

2010-10-12T17:09:00.000-07:00

Robert Coleman's article was about the inferiority assigned to the race, in this case Blacks on TV, that is linked to their lack of upward mobility. The fact that this article has to do with TV shows, reminded me of my textual analysis of Zoe Kravitz and her copy. The first section Class Depictions, it talks about the TV show "The Jeffersons" which made the Black race look successful. However, some shows don't show how economically achieved and stable blacks really are. People are still under the assumption that Black people like to stay true to their underclass roots.
Furthermore, in the Familial Relationships section, Robert has a conversation with Gale, who argues that there is the notion that the white community thinks that Black men are treated less than Black women. But when they are accepted their self-esteem can be restored. The negative and stereotypical part of the section states that, Black children are saved from their dysfunctional families by whites. The "White Savior," or in the Black intervener situation still sends out the same message of Black men are mostly failures.
There is also Hollywood's preference of casting lighter-skinned African American's for certain roles. This is where I could relate my textual analysis of Zoe Kravitz. Her quote in the ad is making the statement that the film industry can pick and choose what kind of person they want to play a certain role. Usually they cast African American's for only Black played roles. In the image, the hard-light on her makes her look lighter skinned. To me, relates back to the statement of Hollywood accepting lighter skinned Blacks because that is what the industry wants according to this article.
The African American Cultural/Communities section it touches on certain cultural aspects of the black community and the problems with watching the TV shows. One that stood out to me is the part when he talks about churches and how black churches are seen to be loud and obnoxious with people dancing and jumping around praising the Lord. Whereas, Catholic and Presbyterian churches would never been seen to be like, they would be more serious and religious. It's interesting to note that this girl Jennifer talks about how she has a problem watching African American sitcoms because they deal with the social and racist issues. She says she has to deal with it in real life so she can't stand to watch it because it gets her frustrated. To her there is no point in watching a show that is a fictional situation with no solution.
are women who can identify themselves when they watch sitcoms, which are talked about in the Identity and Self-Image section. Rose comments how shows like, "The Cosby Show," resemble strong African-American family values that she also has too. Moreover, Valerie, Lonette, and Jasmine see themselves ha strong African women and can relat the the independent image of Black women on TV as well. They like how Black women on TV don't put up with silly things and are in control of the household and their children. Lonette, in particular can relate to this very well. The picture is from the movie "Raisin In The Sun," when Mama is being the disciplinarian to her son Walter because he is foolishly obsessing over money to spend on opening a liquor store that she doesn't approve of.

What are Black sitcoms really like?

2010-10-12T16:54:00.000-07:00

Black Sitcom Portrayals written by Robin Coleman, examines the way African American’s are depicted in TV shows anything from That’s My Mama, The Jeffersons to The Fresh Prince of Bel Air. Coleman’s essay is very strong because he backs up his points via opinions from African American’s about their own personal feelings towards these TV Shows (J.C. Lonette, and Freddie). Blacks in TV shows are more often portrayed in a negative light and linked to a lower working class because wealth is often depicted with “whiteness.” Henry Louis Gates argues that, “television has failed to represent the full economic spectrum of African Americans. Yet they also seem to believe that all economically ascended Blacks have their immediate roots in the underclass and/or ghetto…” (81). Stereotypes of blacks and whites seem to affect TV shows a lot, White’s are not always super rich and unappreciative of money as shown in 90210 or Gossip Girl and African American’s do not always live in poor neighborhoods full of crime and gangs as shown in Lincoln Heights. J.C argues how even sometimes in TV shows like The Fresh Prince of Bel Air when the good kid is black and he possesses good values and behaviors he is picked on for that. In many predominately black TV shows the kids are either trouble makers or come from a troubled household, or else have been “rescued”/cleaned up and adopted by a white family. Below is a video of the teen TV show 90210, 90210 consists predominately of extremely rich white teenagers who go to high school and constantly throw huge parties, drive ridiculously expensive cars, and live in million dollar homes in Beverly Hills, California. The only kid in the TV show who is African American happens to also be the only one who is adopted in the show by a wealthy white family. Even though he talks with a “slang” he dresses like many would say a “white boy.”

Another part of this article I found really interesting that I personally can relate a lot to through a friend of mine is the argument Coleman and his participants explain, “Hollywood’s preference for lighter-skinned African Americans....the participants saw television communicating that African Americans with White features are better (84). I find this to be really interesting and obvious in many TV shows and even in magazines. Models used are often very light skinned African Americans (who almost look ethnically ambiguous) it is not often that you see a really dark-skinned African American used. As the participants explain they feel this brings back their feelings of segregation they used to experience and still sometimes do presently. The lighter skinned African American’s are used for more beauty and can show more richness. Automatically I connected this to my best friend Meghna who is Indian and from Gujarat, India (North India). She has always told me, “I hate my skin getting dark.” Through curiosity five years ago I asked why? I really wanted to know. As she explained to me, the darker you are the less beautiful it is seen in her Indian culture, lighter is beauty and richness, it sort of shows their class in society. They would say, “The lighter, the better, and the more beautiful.” I found that to be really interesting. I never would have connected the lighter skin to beauty or class, but when Meghna looks at pictures of her and all her friends on Facebook she proudly likes to see she is the “white-est” Indian in the picture.

The last point I would like to make regarding this essay is Coleman’s participant, Billie’s argument about the misrepresentation of the Black church. Whenever I see the representation of the Black church in movies it is true that I see it as this happy, choir singing, dancing place, as Billie states, “[The Black church is seen] only in a derogatory way. Just jumpin’ around, dancing’, Black people’s roots are in the church, but they never see us as Catholics or Presbyterians. Just [as] rockin’ and dancin’ and jumpin’ up and down.” (85). Take a look at the end of the movie Big Mamma’s House, unfortunately I agree with Billie that the church is not really represented properly it is not seen as a place engaged in worship, but rather a place to “jump around.”

90210

Big Mamma's House

black sitcoms

2010-10-12T14:00:00.000-07:00

Robin R. Means's article "Black Sitcom Portrayals" gives a very good insight on the complexities and themes of some sitcoms that predominately feature African Americans throughout their creation. He uses Class Depictions (79), African American Culture/Communities (84), and Identity and Self-Image (86) as sub themes in his topic that discuss the issues. Means goes into detail a lot about class and how class is portrayed amongst African Americans in sitcoms. For example most feature them living in less than perfect conditions that we expect the "perfect" American home to be, like with a white picket fence, happy parents, two kids, and a dog. Some shows feature characters living as a single parent, or living poor. While "The Cosby Show" features a family living middle to upper class (88).

I have a lot of points to make about this article but its hard to say without coming across like a complete racist, but, I find it interesting that it is okay for the sitcoms that feature african amercians to almost be allowed to ridicule white people as part of the jokes. In turn, it is not okay for a live action sitcom, featuring predominately whites, to be able to make the same sort of jokes. Obviously both occur vice versa, but I believe it occurs more in black sitcoms. Jokes like: "look at that white boy, or cracker [ do something stupid]" I have heard before in some of these black sitcoms. If the tables were turned, and a group of white people said something regarding the N word, I do not believe it would be allowed to broadcast. Race is a very touchy thing on television and it is hard to handle it right, but the point I am trying to make is that blacks get more leeway when it comes to making jokes regarding whites or any other race for that matter, including their own race. Obviously there is a lot of historical and cultural history that makes all of that possible.

Overall I think that the article was a very fascinating read and how Means pulled it off was very well done without coming across too harsh.

Black Sitcoms: Myths and Global Successes

2010-10-12T07:01:00.000-07:00

Black Sitcom Portrayals, by Robin R. Means Coleman, examines the way African Americans are depicted in sitcoms. Typically, blacks on television have been associated with the lower working class, inferiority, and lack of upward mobility. Shows such as The Jeffersons counter this stereotype by “presenting economic achievement in the black community.” (80) Blacks are displayed as self-sufficient and of higher status, which presents a unique picture of rich African Americans. Freddie also considers the maintained relationship between affluent and poor blacks important, as wealth can be “misconstrued as whiteness,” as seen in the Cosby Show. J. C. likes to see moralistic values in African American sitcom characters such as Fresh Prince’s Carlton, despite the ridicule by other characters. Gale believes black men should be seen as the authoritative figure of an intact family, and supports a husband-wife team as opposed to the single-parent trend. J.C. claims that black females are often portrayed as partnerless and choose good looks over substance. The men are often deficient in love and family life and are mostly failures. Multiple participants also called attention to the fact that Hollywood prefers lighter skinned African Americans with white features over darker skin, leading to intraracial segregation. In addition, participants were also angered over the absence of the black church in sitcoms, although they admit that churches in general tend to be left out of any sitcom. Jennifer offers further opposition to sitcoms that focus on black struggles that focus on racism, since many blacks have to deal with those issues daily and don’t view them as entertainment. However, Valerie, Lonette, and Jasmine can relate to the strong, successful, independent black women portrayed in shows such as Living Single.

Timothy Haven’s ‘The Biggest Show in the World’: Race and the Global Popularity of “The Cosby Show” also deals with African American portrayal in sitcoms, by focusing on The Cosby Show and how it has achieved global success. The Cosby Show set the standards for African American shows, in a time when middle-class African American sitcoms are being increasingly exported into a decreasingly regulated economy. Audiences are beginning to identify themselves based on gender, race, and ethnicity as opposed to nationality, which contributes to global success of shows such as The Cosby Show. Gillespie argues that imported culture contributes to the creation of new ethic identities. Many non-white viewers feel a connection to The Cosby Show due to a common history and regional identity, which correlates with race and helps explain the transnational dimensions of radicalized television discourse. The Cosby Show was most popular outside the U.S. and received high ratings in countries such as Lebanon and Norway. Successes and failures of the show are explained when analyzing the response to the show in the UK and South Africa. In the UK The Cosby Show was aired on an upscale channel, and was poorly received by black audiences, while in South Africa the show aired on a channel for general audiences and was popular with blacks. The state of the television industry and racial political climate also contributes to a show’s level of success. Viacom held the copyright laws for The Cosby Show from 1984 to 1994—a time of decreased regulation of television systems, increased programming needs, and technological innovation. Viacom experienced an increase in exports as non-western countries opened their markets to U.S. goods. When satellite TV was introduced, Viacom eagerly and cheaply filled programming gaps with The Cosby Show, and the initial lack of confidence in the show was soon disproved by its success. Still, its hard to say why this certain show was so well received, as Family Ties was a similar show and only differed from The Cosby Show in race. Havens suggests the show was popular because it avoided dealing directly with American economic problems and short-term political issues, instead focusing on domestic life and familial growth, which diversified groups can relate to. Both blacks and whites appreciate the dignity and upper-middle-class values of the show’s characters.

I chose to show a clip from The Cosby Show, since it is mentioned by Coleman a few times and served as the basis for Haven’s main argument. In terms of Coleman’s reading, the show is praised for representing black families as successful, wholesome, and financially sound. Wealth is displayed immediately, as Bill Cosby is dressed in a suit. Also, son Theo mentions that his father is a doctor and his mother is a lawyer. Additionally, the basis of the conversation revolves around the idea of Bill Cosby encouraging Theo to improve his grades so he can go to college, which demonstrates both upward mobility and an authoritative father figure. In terms of Haven, the show can be seen as globally popular due to its focus on family issues rather than economic or political concerns. People are all types are able to relate to Bill and Theo Cosby in a father-son relationship, further contributing to its success. Like Coleman argues, the dignity and middle-upper class standing the Cosby family attracts various audiences. Finally, this clip further illustrates how The Cosby Show avoids loud, physical “black” humor of the working class and instead uses intelligent humor, or wit, which further appeals to diverse audiences.

Truth-less Television

2010-10-11T17:52:00.000-07:00

In the article “Black Sitcom Portrayals”, author Robin Means Coleman uses several viewer’s opinions to convey the message that people are sensitive about the way black families are portrayed in television sitcoms. One of the main themes seen in the article is the incorrect portrayal of Black people and families. “…some of the participants related that Black situation comedies present characters and situations that are so dissimilar from Blackness, that is, African American culture and communities, that they find the images, and the inherent messages incongruent to their lived experiences, beliefs, and values…” (84). This concept of inaccuracy of portrayal can be seen in any race or culture represented in t.v. and the media. Television is a misrepresentation of society, an escape from reality. These falsities take place in shows such as Grey’s Anatomy or Desperate Housewives. Not all Caucasian people are doctors, nor do they live in seemingly perfect suburban communities, and not every family depicted in television is perfect or ideal (there are several examples of this). This is even exhibited in reality television, not all Italian-Americans or people who live on the Jersey Shore are consumed by their appearance or hair. Television is not meant to be politically correct or precise, nor is it necessarily accurate in its portrayals, as fictional television is not real.

Black Sitcom Portrayals

2010-10-08T06:35:00.000-07:00

I found Coleman's essay "Black Sitcom Portrayals" very interesting and informative. It thought it was personal (based on the opinions/ viewpoints coming from Lonette, J.C., and Freddie), eye-opening, and therefore, beneficial to the people reading this because it points out little things that the media portrays in its black characters that would be good to see compared to reality and considered based on impact towards the real black community as well as to other demographics.
This whole time, I've been watching shows like the Fresh Prince of Bel Air and My Wife And Kids (watching it because it was funny and thinking nothing wrong was intentionally happening) and never thought to realize perhaps little things depicted in these comical shows introduce controversial issues (depending on what is being said, done, or presented etc.). It is no surprise that having black characters on the shows appear more "white" black with European features annoys real black people watching these shows (black sitcoms) because it is not representative of the true community and it is obvious the media favors a certain portrayal of black. What really surprised me was when Robert shared that as a child he was picked on by his own race because he was so dark is pretty shocking - this shows how much the media constructs the minds of its viewers.
Also, the fact that certain shows like Good Times target a lower-class black family struggling trying to make it, shows that blacks have a reputation of making up the majority of the lower/poor class. In reality, this is not the case. There are many black families moving up the ladder of success and making up a majority of the middle class. What is good is that other shows like the Fresh Prince and My Wife And Kids show a more realistic view of reality. On the other hand, there are other minor messages out there that upset the black community. Little things like negativity, religion, gender roles, exaggerations of "hyper-racial"characters etc. As offensive or unnecessary as these details are in black sitcoms, I also think that is addresses an honest part of reality. That these issues the characters face in the shows are also in existence in real life. So in part, the media is only mimicking what is going on in the real world in order to construct a more realistic setting/ story-line and allow its viewers to relate better. Although the actual representation of the Black people is not always true in the media, the personal and social lives can sometimes be accurate. (the stereotypes are wrong - not representative but the issues are real).

Male Magazine-Male Subject Matter

2010-10-08T06:16:00.000-07:00

In Kenon Breazeale's article "In Spite of Women: Esquire magazine and the Construction of the Male Consumer," he describes the ideas and circumstances surrounding the creation of "Esquire" magazine and their development of the "male consumer." According to this article Esquire magazine was created during the 1920s and 30s a time during which the masculine identity and roles as "bread winner" was diminishing due to high unemployment. Furthermore, the idea of high female consumption in turn was becoming more and more widespread. In developing a magazine geared to a "male consumer" the founders of Esquire seeked to not only create a vehicle for advertising for menswear but, also to create a magazine that would serve as a contrast to the many women's magazines of the time. Esquire featured articles making fun of and in opposition to female consumption and everything from a females taste in food, drink, home decor and even sexuality. Therefore, in a sense this magazine was based primarily off criticizing and exploiting women. In addition, to developing the "male consumer" this magazine also developed a new male identity based on their newfound "leisure," due to job loss. In other words this magazine served as a guide to how a man should spend his free time.

Over the years we have seen more and more men's magazine develop, each claiming to serve a different purpose in a man's life. However, to this day many of these magazines such as, "Playboy," "Maxim" and "Penthouse," are all still based on the exploitation of women. Surprisingly, there are some men's magazine that serve as a contrast, such as, "Men's Health," "Men's Journal," and "Men's Fitness." These magazines have created a new shift away from women and more towards a subject matter based more on the male readers themselves. In many ways this may reflect a newfound confidence in the male identity because these magazines are not built to dominate over and exploit women.

Esquire. Enough Said.

2010-10-07T19:50:00.000-07:00

Esquire was inspired by devastating economic change on traditional high class sex roles. The Depression diminished male self-esteem because of their fear to lose their jobs, this also caused loss of masculine self-respect. So, Esquire decided to help bring back that self respect by marketing a new male identity. The magazine wanted to commodify free-time from work, which would lead to the consumer spending.
Esquire's founders, David Smart and William Weintraub, proved that with the right demographic the male-identified magazine would spark wide spread interest to advertisers. The concept of the magazine was to give the male a break from a hectic day of work and just have time to relax with himself. It sought to create expectations of desirable upper-middle-class identity.
Esquire also wanted to rid itself from women associations because they thought it would bring a bad audience. It gave advice to what a woman does wrong, like cooking instructions on how to eat at home and replacing hearty meals with portions the size of a pea. Esquire staff wanted the magazine to also project the meaning of good and bad taste. They looked at masculinity as clean and functional. Esquire also promoted the idea that women would ruin a mans leisure time by butting in with questions and the need to control their "free time" for no reason.
Strong masculinity was the initial reason for Esquires success. It's ads of beer, liquor, wine, and the good life was important for advertisers in its pages. Money became linked to the magazine for promoting being an individual and sophisticated. It endowed the readers with that kind of assertion.
Esquire put out the notion that women had no legit role to play, which was important in the marketing arena. It talked about the difference of sex-roles, but recognizing the difference to mainstream sex privilege. The modern woman would take away from the dominant male role, so Esquire's solution to that was putting pictures of women in their magazine to fulfill the "male gaze" fantasy.
The visuals of femininity were there so it wouldn't cross over into homosexuality. It had to be made clear that women were natural objects to the reader's desire. The magazines illustrations were there so the reader could consumer them. This distancing itself from textual and visual content production; male subject versus female object.
Esquire's images of women were advertised as pinup. They were called "Petty Girl." it was a term to depict woman's anatomic structure; large breasts, small waist and butt, and long legs, and Caucasian to put out an erotic appeal. Pinups and art in the magazine were part of consuming desire. But the pinup became problematic, so Esquire had to recreate the aura of sophistication.
"Esky" was Esquires new puppet, who was a walrus was with a blonde mustache, that dressed upscale, and big eyes. Through Esky the magazine was able to have an agreeable dialogue with women and men. The cartoons promoted normalcy, of what Freud called voyeuristic gaze. Esquire turned their line drawing into colorful artworks that had humor to them, aimed toward the masculine position.
The Esquire Man, should take away from the magazine a guide to attitude of "you" in their everyday reality. Men do not need the power to dominate a woman politically. They can exercise the control over the pleasure of women who is in their sight.
Esquire convinced itself that men are in the market for status achieved through the expense of women. It's contribution to the ideology of consumerism is to cater to the female desire that had been robbed from men and their privileges.

The Cosmo Girl Takes Over The American Dream!

2010-10-06T19:49:00.001-07:00

In this "inventing The Cosmo Girl" article, Laurie Ouellette explains Helen Brown's "Cosmopolitan" magazine and how it became widely successful in empowering women. Brown was one of the first mainstream figures that freed women from having sex guilt and advised them to disregard the double standard of male dominance. The Cosmo girl gives out self-management strategies to help form sexual identity.
Brown wrote the book, "Sex and the Single Girl," which was a response to the shortage of men and how to attract desirable men while remaining single. It was directed at unmarried working women. When she became editor for "Cosmopolitan," she transformed it into how to get emotional, social, and business crowds that confront a girl and to have a better life. The Cosmo Girl that was created was the symbol for sexuality of pink-collay femininity. "Sex and the Single Girl," was directed toward unmarried women in the work place, where "Cosmo," targeted single girls with jobs that had articles, advice, and ways to budget advertisements for feminine consumer items like make-up and fashion. Brown's beliefs was to understand that identity could be re-worked and even dramatically changed. Her book gave women a chance to have an attractive aura by mimicking models and rich women. Thus, this gave women a new identity in terms of style and fashion. Cosmo encouraged female readers the right to make themselves over to meet demands and opportunities for long lasting love. Still to this day, women are always looking for ways to transform themselves and Cosmo is still a leading magazine that helps women achieve transformation.
Phoniness in the magazine got to the core of Brown's advice that being made-up as "fake" was an OK thing. The white working-class was an example of femininity for make-over and improvement, showing that their identity could be easily changed through performance tactics, covered over strategies, and consumption. The re-working of this identity would put the Cosmo Girl on the path to individual identity.
Cosmo presented a guide to overcome the gender-class barriers that Brown had encountered. Women were the "cultural capital" which would legitimize class dominance in capital democracies. Pink-collar barriers were surface markers of class that could then be traded for money. The lower-class working girl was able to get ideas on how to live like an educated, wealthy, and sophisticated lady when she reads Cosmo.
One thing that Cosmo is known for its emphasis on women's sexuality. It features articles, quizzes, and advice on female orgasms, masturbation, birth control, casual sex and experimentation with men. Cosmo also encourages the female reader to seek out sexual partners(men) who are linked to high social and economic status. Furthermore, the magazine promoted sexual desire in the form of a working class prostitute, but in terms of the model being constructed as having a lot of cleavage, teased hair, dramatic clothing and accessories, and overdone make-up, BUT STILL having wealthy, classy taste.
Brown reframed the sexual code for women as an individual ethic and a commodity exchange, which was a way to give a man less power. The Cosmo Girl put out that she should never pass up dinner, gifts, or vacations from male dates, bosses, or co-workers, she encourages the exchange of sexual favors for comforts and luxuries. This reminds me of Emmaline's textual analysis of the "Be Stupid" ad, suggesting the woman getting away with sleeping with her boss to get ahead in her job in some way. The sexualization of an office relationship between a man and a woman was reworked to redefine the assumptions of women in the workplace. to As Brown says, "Sex is a powerful weapon for a single woman from getting what she wants from life." (p.124)Brown's advice from Cosmo was a success because it gave the average girl tips on how to feel rich and beautiful which is important because she reworked the "American Dream" for women. It reconstructed identity as self-made femininity within the framework of consumerism and patriarchal privilege. Stuart Hall's articulation theory says there is no link to class and economics and Cosmo assesses the struggles to get that upper-calss style. As Brown puts it, "…be one of the girls, but also don't be like one of the girls…" which is what Cosmo puts out and I think it totally true.

Cosmo and the Twilight Zone

2010-10-06T06:28:00.000-07:00

In ‘Inventing the Cosmo Girl: Class Identity and Girl-Style American Dreams’, Laurie Outlette examines how Cosmopolitan magazine constructed the identity of a “Cosmo girl”, the sexually-liberated and upwardly mobile woman in the workforce. In its early days, Helen Gurley Brown, the author of “Sex and the Single Girl”, a groundbreaking release in the early 1960’s, gave the magazine its distinctive point of view, focusing on techniques that women working in “pink collar” jobs could use to appear wealthier and more attractive to men of a higher class and economic standing. Articles focused on how women could improve their lives by crafting an entirely new identity for themselves, vilifying the “natural” look, encouraging women to seek “new looks” (121) through the use of cosmetics, plastic surgery and lingerie. This sent the message to their readers that in order to be “successful”, landing a man who could take care of them economically and allow them to live an “upper-class” lifestyle, required careful construction of an appearance, one that would make them more appealing to a man, generally a superior in their office. Cosmopolitan magazine created this need for women to constantly improve upon themselves and their appearance by constantly creating a “gap” between the actual and the ideal, “offering a temporary window to the future self” tempered by the male gaze, and cultural expectations of femininity.

This article reminded me of an episode of the Twilight Zone, ‘The Number 12 Looks Just Like You’. The episode, set in the distant future, shows a “utopian” vision of Earth where everyone must undergo a ‘Transformation’ in order to completely change their face and body to become “beautiful”. Everyone is forced to undergo this transformation, as ugliness was discovered sometime in the past to be the cause of all hate and inequality in the world. The main character of this story, Marilyn, doesn’t want to go through with the Transformation after reading her deceased father’s diaries. They allow Marilyn the realization that if everyone is beautiful, there can truly be no beauty. Despite her protests, Marilyn is forced by law to undergo the Transformation, and is shown happily (albeit vacantly) examining her “beauty” in the mirror at the end of the episode. This relates to the negativity surrounding the “natural” look in Cosmopolitan magazine. Women were strongly encouraged to craft a “new identity” that was more “beautiful” than how they appeared naturally, effectively destroying what might be truly unique about them.

Cosmo vs Playboy

2010-10-06T06:15:00.000-07:00

Cosmopolitan Magazine is a singles girl magazine. Helen Gurley Brown was editor-in-cheif of the magazine and, "gave advice to women as a cultural discourse that managed some of the social and economic tensions of the 1960s and early 1970s, while also offering certain women the symbolic material to enable them to think about themselves as historical subjects in new ways."

This reading takes Cosmopolitan Magazine as an example to show educated women to go out in the workforce. Cosmopolitan also talks about women's sexual fantasies, and better sex that these women probably do not get anyway. Brown used the "Cosmo Girl" as a sexualized symbol of pink-collar femininity. The article also says that women are now wearing more skimpy clothing in the workplace because Cosmopolitan basically is promoting it.

On the other hand, Playboy magazine is basically taking the stereotypical attractive girl and degrading their status in society. This reading says that Playboy shows "wives and single women were depicted as shrews and 'gold-diggers,' while bachelors were advised to pursue sex on a casual basis to avoid getting snared in a 'long term contract.'" This basically is saying that men are still use women as sexualized objects before work companions. Magazines like Playboy, will take attractive women and show then in pornographic photo shoots, which basically sends a message to women that they are second tier.

Cosmopolitan was NOT Playboy

2010-10-05T20:43:00.000-07:00

Helen Gurley Brown is quoted as saying; "A guy reading Playboy can say, 'Hey, That's me.' I want my girl to be able to say the same thing." She claimed that she wanted her readers to see themselves as "upwardly mobile sexual agents," and imagined that she created a new place for her readers outside of the "male-oriented American Dream," but Brown actually perpetuated the social standard that a woman must marry and be supported by a man.

Brown's claim about Playboy struck me more than any of the similarities I saw between Brown's Cosmopolitan and the modern one. Did she really believe that the magazine was the equivalent of Playboy for a female reader? Was she simply deluded as to the end that her magazine achieved?

Playboy was leading the "male revolt," telling men that they did not need to share their success, but rather to lead licentious lives of excess. Cosmopolitan did not tell women that they could be independent of men and lead their own lives. Instead it was completely focused on how to "lure" the most "eligible" men. Granted, the magazine gave women unprecedented sexual license, however, that freedom was to be used to eventually snag a husband.

Cosmo's superficial attempts at presenting a Playboy image.

From Classy to Trashy

2010-10-05T20:07:00.000-07:00

"Inventing the Cosmo Girl: Class Identity and Girl-Style American Dreams"

I had always heard that Cosmopolitan was a "trashy" magazine, and after reading Laurie Oullette's analysis on Helen Brown's transformation of it, I understood why. From the beginning, I don't think Brown intended to imply the idea of having multiple identities to women, but after her first book "Sex and the Single Girl", she took her ideas too far. Brown took her own opinions and ways of doing things, and advised women all over the world to do the same thing. "Brown was one of the first mainstream figures to free women from the guilt of premarital sex by advising them them to disregard the patriarchal double standard," (Oullette, 117). Brown also created this idea of obtaining a perfect image by maintaing more than one identity. She was basically telling women that if they changed who they were completely, then they would get the man of their dreams. Helen Brown is the core reason behind how women are today, and she acquired this title by sending out a artificial message to women. The "pink collar" label gave women more confidence with men, and as Brown suggested, these men would be smarter and richer. To gain this label, women needed to "rework their identities on the basis of upper-class ideals, and to assess their current situations and future possibilities on the basis of those constructions," (Oullette, 126). Brown was telling women to marry for money and fame, and nothing else. I believe her entire message was referring to women more as objects than as actual human beings, and unfortunately many women bought into her advice.

The Impossible Identity

2010-10-05T19:27:00.000-07:00

Inventing the Cosmo Girl was an interesting article in that it surprised me. I read Cosmopolitan almost religiously and I doubt that I will ever look at the magazine the same again. I understand that the crude sexual content has its purpose, but I never really looked behind the lines at the creation of each article and the targeted audience of each segment.

Brown promises her readers “a girl-style American Dream.” She creates this falsified or fake girl that is dolled up in order to be something or someone that they are not. While reading the article I found it almost impossible to not recognize that all the aspects of her journalism revolve around the idea of changing yourself or “bettering” yourself to suit someone else’s response, in particular a mans response. To change your looks to attract a man, to change your job to meet men, to act as if you are wealthy in order to attract a wealthy man. Even the covers of Cosmopolitan display an altered women who is always 1. skinny 2. beautiful 3. airbrushed. (FAKE)

All of Browns idea center on a women’s identity on the basis of upper class ideals (126). Brown dwells on the idea of consumption making you appear to be in a particular class, the desired “upper class.” A number of her articles try to teach women how to be more “proper” or have better etiquette. She teaches girls this screwed up idea of the American Dream, a screwed up version of what men desire and what girls want to be in order to please them.

This article reminds me of the textual analysis that I just finished for our Paper 1. Both this article and my advertisement demonstrate the idea of women trying to be multiple things at once and trying to possess some traits that they may not have, in order to attract a particular audience. Brown is at the roots of these teachings and her articles have helped make create this skewed version of women should be to get men.

What Will They Create Next?

2010-10-05T17:02:00.000-07:00

After reading Inventing The Cosmo Girl, Class Identity and Girl-Style American Dreams I couldn't help but to compare it to my own textual analysis. In this article I was amazed at this fictional woman that Brown had created throughout her time working at Cosmopolitan and in her own books. She held so much power in her words and articles to almost "brain wash" all of her followers to morph into this "Cosmo girl." I never realized that people or advertisers had the power to create these fake identities that out society actually follows. Reading articles like this one and doing other textual analysis's really opened my eyes up to what in my opinion is corruption to our society. I can relate this article to my own textual analysis paper, which was arguing that an advertisement that ABC Family had placed in OK magazine was creating this "ideal" teenager. Lately, I find myself watching or looking at advertisements and only thinking about the message behind it all and what there really trying to sell us and what elements there trying to use.

From Brown to Bradshaw

2010-10-05T12:46:00.001-07:00

While reading the article “Inventing the Cosmo Girl: Class Identity and Girl-Style American Dreams” I couldn’t help but compare Cosmopolitan’s Helen Gurley Brown to the character of Carrie Bradshaw in the show Sex and the City. Carrie writes a weekly column called “Sex and the City” for the fictional paper The New York Star. The column talks of Carrie’s sexual escapades, dating, relationships, and the New York lifestyle, similar to that of Cosmopolitan’s material. Much like the audience of Sex and the City, “the aspirations of the Cosmo Girl [are], white, heterosexual, and upper-middle class” (121). “…working women [is] thus linked to their emergence as a consumer market capable of purchasing certain goods and services with their own wages” (119). The characters on this show all start out on their own, but are mysteriously able to afford designer labels and brands. “…the Cosmo Girl was often addressed as a have not, and was offered instructions to remedy the situation” (121), This is similar to Carrie’s column where she will usually leave the viewer with a question, but in the end the episode itself solves the problem (ex: The truth was, I was dying to sleep with him. But isn't delayed gratification the definition of maturity?). Both Sex and the City and Cosmopolitan address identity of consumerist women in an up-front way.

Cosmopolitan: What All Women Need to Know

2010-10-05T09:50:00.000-07:00

Laurie Ouellette’s “Inventing the Cosmo Girl, Class Identity and Girl-Style American Dreams” investigates the impact that Helen Gurley Brown has made on feminine ideology, and discusses other perspectives relating to female identity. Brown published “Sex and the Single Girl” in 1962, which served as a self-help manual on appearance, budget, living arrangements, working and flirting. The book claimed that typical women can lead sexual lives outside of marriage, and appealed to those between “girlhood and marriage.” (118) In 1965, Brown became the editor-in-chief for Cosmopolitan, which quickly gained popularity. Cosmopolitan appealed to young, single white females in the working class, or pink-collar realm. Brown encouraged women to see themselves as “upwardly mobile sexual agents,” (120) and stated that identity was something one can change, and that all one must know is how to create the illusion of beauty. Due to the current trend of individuality and diversity, I doubt Brown could get away with an article suggesting girls ought to “change their type,” but it does demonstrate how she did not see things such as status and appearance as concrete. On page 121, the words “false” and “fake” appear seven times in one paragraph, displaying how much women were encouraged to alter their image. I found it interesting that Brown targeted women from the lower class and that the Cosmo Girl was often labeled as a “have-not.” Shockingly, Ouellette reveals on page 123 that a survey displayed that the sexual practices of Cosmopolitan readers were the most experienced group in western history at the close of the 1970s. In addition to sexuality, Brown promotes good work ethic and consumption. She claimed women should copy the members in the Bourgeoisie, or utilize cultural capital, and mimic upper-class customs. The reading concludes by examining man-woman relationships. Brown encouraged the exchange of female sexual favors for material comforts and luxuries provided by the male, who is ideally higher-class than the female. In the workplace, relations between female secretaries and male superiors were common. Offices were a great place for women to work, socially speaking. Secretarial and clerical work was better valued than factory work, and provided women with the opportunity to meet men of greater status, income and education than themselves.

This reading is similar to “Cosmetics, A Clinique Case Study,” by Pat Kirkham and Alex Weller in the sense that both passages deal with how to best effectively reach out to women. However, many differences are prevalent. The Clinique study deals with the marketing techniques that attract women (colors, front styles, etc) while the Cosmopolitan reading focuses on content that attracks women (how to flirt, act in the workplace, and dress). Furthermore, Clinique appeals to the middle and upper classes, due to its high price range and established reputation, while Cosmopolitan more appeals to the lower or working class, striving to imitate the middle and upper classes. I chose to provide the cover of Cosmopolitan from May 1965 as my image. This image is striking in various ways and supports both Ouellette and Kirkham and Weller. The heading, “Why Can’t a Women Be More Like a Man?” could imply that women deserve the influence and power that men have, which is supported by the woman’s confident and dominant stance and body positioning. Ouellette discusses how women in the sixties onward gained sexually power but were still oppressed in the workplace. The colors in the cover confirm Kirkham and Weller’s findings. The soft yellow background appeals to women. However, the woman is wearing dark blue, which is a masculine color. This supports the article titled, “Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man?,” by placing a female dressed in male colors against a feminine display. Another way that Ouellette’s argument is supported involves the caption, “When Dentists Are Hard to Find.” This targets the lower or working class, because more wealthy women would most likely have an established dentist whom they see regularly, or would at least have the means of contacting one.

Gendering Roles in Clinique Advertising

2010-10-04T06:45:00.000-07:00

Kirkham and Weller’s article, Cosmetic:s A Clinique Case Study, examines the gendering of Clinique toiletry for men and women and how advertising affects the gendering coding of the products. There are a variety of factors , from product packaging to the informative text, that play a significant role in the breakdown of distinguishing male an d female advertising. One of the significant factors in the presentation of products for both men and women are the use of colour in the advertisements. “Cosmetic advertisements frequently use colour as an ‘objective correlation,’ that is, the colour of a product and its surroundings are used to link and enhance the qualities and style of that product. Not surprisingly, therefore, colour plays an important role in the gender differentiation of Clinique products”(269). The packagings for men are mostly dark colors. The grays, midnight blues, blacks, dark greens are the dominant colours that we see on the bottles or tubes. These colors are associated with the seriousness and “matter of fact” tone that underlies masculinity. In comparison, the packaging for women are presented in transparent bottles with colours than vary in pastel and softer colours including baby pinks, yellows, creams, and light blues. These colours are chosen to enhance the feelings of gentleness, softness, elegance, purity, and other female attributes that define “femininity.” The advertising conventions are not limited to the packaging but are equally affirmed in the product itself. “The flat cake of ‘male’ soap is ivory whereas the rounder, softer-shaped bar of ‘women’s’ soap is more yellow” (269). Cosmetics are created in a way to offer simplicity yet an attractive appearance for women; because women want to be perceived as “beautiful, charming, sensitive to the touch, glowing, and radiant.” Kirkham and Weller model the effectiveness advertising has on both men and women.

Gender Marketing

2010-10-03T21:09:00.001-07:00

In Pat Kirkham and Alex Wellers article, Cosmetics - A Clinque Case Study they touch on the advertisement tactics of gender marketing. In this article Kirkham and Wellers discuss the ways in which companies, and in this case, CLINQUE, use gender marketing to target their intended audience. They use tactics such as color choice – products directed towards woman generally use softer colors and overall are more aesthetically pleasing. Kirkman and Wellers write, “The products look as beautiful and feminine as the beauty and femininity they promise the beholder/purchaser” (269). In this quote they are saying that by using the beautiful and feminine looking products will bring those traits just by using the products. As woman want to buy products that are “pretty” and “soft” men pretty much want the exact opposite. Maybe because of the stereotype that says that men shouldn’t be buying cosmetic products, they are more prone to buying products that are “manly” and ones, which don’t sound too much like their using “make up” or cosmetics.

It is interesting in this CLINQUE advertisement the portrayal of the “everyday” person wearing CLINQUE perfume/cologne, male and females. Not only does this advertisement portray that the everyday person wears this product but also that you will be “happy” if you wear it, considering the name of the product is Happy. Both females and males are in the ad portraying that the product is directed toward both audiences, being happy perfume and happy cologne.

In conclusion it is very interesting reading about the tactics companies, and especially toiletries companies use to target males and females. Kirkman and Wellers make a valid point/observation, “The woman reader can equate the beauty, sexuality, or pleasure she will achieve with the aesthetics and attributes of the product; with the sexuality of the (beautifully photographed) full, red lipstick and with the softness of the baby-pink blusher (271). It is amazing how woman think that buying beautiful products will make them beautiful. While woman buy products to make them “beautiful” men buy products to make them “manly” which is why companies use masculine colors for their products.

The Difference of Scents That Travel Within

2010-10-03T20:17:00.000-07:00

This reading was about the different ways of advertising and marketing to male and women consumers for Clinique products. It starts off by talking about how women are better at choosing what kind of cosmetics to buy by the cost, appearance, smell, and status of the product that is being advertised. Clinique's male products are aimed not only at them but for women to because women are known to buy stuff like that for their male friends, lovers, husbands, relatives etc…these products are labeled "masculine," but are also know to be "feminine" also.
The colors are another factor that differs from male to female products. Lots of color and soft tones are signifiers of purity, innocents and gentleness which are associated with women. The products are marketed as making one look beautiful, thus is promises beauty in the consumer. Signifiers of masculinity are black-and-white advertisements. The product is more informative and has the element of being "objective." This is providing factual reports and documentary realism. This encourages potential purchasers to buy male products. The inclusion of this information helps inform and initiate men who are not experienced in buying toiletries. Clinique's information on their products lets the man choose what suits him rather then them buying a product by a brand like, Gillette without knowing anything about it. Clinique uses words like, simple, no fuss, unscented ect… to target men to buy their products because it promotes the idea of health and strength which are words that are associated with men. For example, "male" advertisements put emphasis on speed and convenience because men usually don't spend a ton of time on cosmetics which differs women who take time time to cleanse and put on makeup.
Clinique does not imply in their ads that their products are more appealing to the opposite sex, like whereas other cosmetics and perfumes are remembered as feminine in our culture. Male advertisements on TV are shown with the male with large hands and hairy lathering themselves with the product ensuring they are in control of the product, which is another attribute of the image of a man.
When it comes to the lettering of a product usually women's products have tall, skinny, and elegant writing on them. Almost suggesting the the typical woman should be like. For men, it's bolder and thicker text, which is what the idea of a man is like. The difference from male products to female products is that men's products are labeled as "Skin Supplies" which suggests a more physical and commercial world that a narcissistic and pleasured world conveyed by feminine products. This is because female products are already culturally placed. Also, men have to have things labeled "for men" on them, ex. "Aloe Gel For Men," whereas women's products don't have that because their toiletries are already assumed to be for them because they are the majority who consume Clinique products.
Clinique's male and female products are based on gender stereotypes. They advertise through combination of visual and literary devices suited for both genders to buy their products.

Gender Coding

2010-10-03T19:55:00.000-07:00

Kirkham and Weller’s article “Cosmetics: A Clinique Case Study”, exhibits the different gendering techniques of companies who have toiletry products on the market for both men and women. They argue that “the differences between advertisements for male toiletries and female toiletries are marked and, to a certain degree, conform to certain binary oppositions which are generally accepted to relate to men and women” (269). For example, there are extreme differences in the advertisements for the popular brand Nivea, which has skin care products for both genders. To begin with, you wouldn’t even know these two advertisements came from the same company. In contrast, the snapshot of the welcome page for Nivea Men is exploding with action, whereas an ad for Nivea body lotion for women is much more out of focus and bland. True to the article, the women’s ad has little copy, as opposed to the men’s where even the products have a specific name and there is a long description at the bottom of the page. With the women’s ad, “the product becomes the signifier of feeling through conventions such as color, [and] light…which evoke a series of affective responses including freshness and pleasure” (271). It is also important to note that the copy of the men’s Nivea ad empowers them stating that “men understand that looking their best is crucial to conquering life’s everyday challenges and that Nivea for Men can help them achieve success” as opposed to the Nivea ad for cream where the copy is subjective to women “touch and be touched”.

"Product Gendering"

2010-10-03T19:35:00.000-07:00

In Kirkham and Weller’s article Cosmetics – A Clinique Case Study discusses how the labeling, appearance, and advertising of different men and women toiletry products differ tremendously – focusing on gender. As it states in the article, “the appearance and presentation of a product is at least as important as the product itself” (268). Women tend to investigate more into the product, so companies explain more about the product by the labeling and wording, saying certain things like “proven by experts” or “professional.” Words like those draw consumers in and put their doubts and fears away about the product. Men’s products tend to use a separate set of words like “simple” and “convenient”, clearly targeting the male consumer. Coloring also has a lot to do with gender profiling. Men’s products have more muted, pale, and darker colors, like blue, while women’s products tend to use more appealing pastel colors, trying to make the appearance of the product “pure” and “fresh”. Since women investigate more into the products they decide to purchase, many companies, like Clinique, also target the male audience in hopes that maybe the women will buy their products for their men. However, not just Clinique does this, but many other companies as well. I find that Nivea products do the same. They have a line for men as well as women and their wording and coloring are of the typical toiletry company – more muted colors for men, brighter pastel colors for women, and different wording, too.

Chanel Man vs. Chanel Woman

2010-10-03T14:55:00.000-07:00

After having analyzed a lot of advertisements (especially clothing ads, sports ads, and jewelry ads) whether targeting men or women for our first papers we wrote in class, I never really thought about how cosmetic companies use specific bottle designs and copy as well as the packaging to target men or women. As Kirkham and Weller state, “the appearance and presentation of the product is as important as the product itself” (268). Many cosmetics advertisements are organized externally based on how it is read and gender relations. Kirkham and Weller argue how Clinique targets either women or men via the appearance of their products, not just that, but it is important to also target women in men products because many women will buy for their husbands, boyfriends, or fathers. In cosmetic advertisements, just like in many other forms of advertising, stereotypes are strongly reinforced to target their specific audience. It is interesting to note that many of the women’s cosmetic packaging (especially if it is a high class brand) do not need to say “for women” on the bottle. However, cosmetic packaging for men almost always reinforce that this product is “FOR MEN,” to prove that using male “cosmetics is not necessarily the first step on the road to abandoning one’s masculinity” (269). The text on the bottle is as important as the packaging itself, it is very easy to decipher female products in the sense that they are often (yellow, pink, or pastels and men’s are more black, white, blue, etc), but what is written on the bottle holds much importance as well.

Take a look at these two perfumes bottles for Chanel (it is important to note that not just Clinique uses this approach to advertisements), the bottle for the men, says ALLURE HOMME (which means MAN in French), right underneath that it says Sport. Many cosmetic bottles for men will have either writing that suggests fitness (health), strength, simplicity, as well as male words like rough and tough. Contrast this bottle with the woman’s Chanel perfume bottle. This bottle has warm sensual colors, the yellow, red and the gold rim around the packaging and gold around the bottle cap adding class. The perfume does NOT say FEMME in huge writing, which would mean woman in French, instead the audience automatically realizes that this perfume is made for women just by its appearance. Right underneath Allure is says, sensual, much of the copy on women’s packaging suggests extra care, softness, beauty, sexiness. Another aspect I found really interesting about these two bottles is that for the male bottle it says, “Eau de Toilette” and for women it says, “Eau de Parfum,” after looking this up online I found that “Eau de Toilette” contains only 7 to 12 % perfume concentrates and “Eau de Parfum” contains 12 to 18% perfume concentrates meaning for women the sense is much stronger and for men the sense is much more subdued.

Lastly for another interesting look at another company (that is not as high end) and their copy on their bottles take a look at Garnier's deodorant bottles. Looking closely on the male bottle there is MEN in huge writing, extreme cool, and dark colors on the bottle. Contrast this with the deodorant for the women there is pastel colors (lavendar, white, pale green) and the copy states EXTRA CARE and FLORAL FRESH at the bottom.

Old Spice Odor Blocker Body Wash!!

2010-10-03T08:45:00.000-07:00

Cosmetics- A Clinique Case Study by Pat Kirkham and Alex Weller make very interesting points about over masculinity and over femininity of cosmetic products by design and in advertisements. On page 269-270 they talk about how men are given more information in products because it is assumed they are less experienced with hygiene or toiltries related products. Language is very important in these types of designs and they do this to deferientiate "male" products away from "female" products.

In advertisments they use a males hand to masculinize the advertisment. The hand has hair around the wrist, the hand is large- which shows power and control, and it is another attempt to break down the taboos standing between men and toiletries (271).

Old Spice is a major toiletries company and the commercials they make now almost parody the concept of this seperation of male and female hygiene products. They attempt to hyper masculinize men and they do it overly so that it becomes a parody of commercials that try to subtly masculinize the product they are promotion. Take this Old Spice advertisement for instance:

They use a very muscular, and greased up, male to promote the Old Spice product. This, along with many other ads in this relatively recent campaign which also features a "ladies man" kind of guy that associates all men as overtly romantic and almost sexual. The ad featured here really does not need a large analysis because it almost does it for us. The creators knew they were parodying masculinity and it fits with what Kirkham and Weller were talking about.

Here is a video related with female advertisments:

As you can see it is very sexulaized and the ad is targeting women, which is strange. 99% of female body wash or shaving commercials also show a woman in the shower, almost completely naked using the product. They might do this to assume that they are embracing true femininity, but in reality I take these ads as commercials made for men. They use beautiful, naked women that caress their bodies and that appeals more to men than women, in most cases.

Overall, gender seperated products, as defined by Kirkham and Weller, is a major force in product design and in advertisment. We see some form of this almost in every commercial break, either a male or female hygiene product. For males it is generally overly masculinzed, and for women it is overly sexualized to the point where it is appealing more for men. Both of these things are not nessiarally bad, but they do not help allieviate some of the stereotypes of men and women in advertisments in general

Gender Coding

2010-10-02T16:07:00.000-07:00

Pat Kirkham and Alex Weller make a very interesting point in their essay Cosmetics: A Clinique Case Study. They discuss the business that comes out of advertising products to males and females. By examining Clinique's toiletry products for men and women, Kirkham and Weller suggest that certain qualities belong to "female" products and certain qualities belong to "male" products. This method of advertising to attract both gendered consumers is possible due to the company's (Clinique's) internal and external efforts of presenting its products. Color, photography, information (text - "factual reporting"), phrasing (lanugauge), feelings ("affective responses"), identification, illustration, and the use of person (third person) construct these "genders" and therefore, aim to attract its targeted consumer (depending on ,product). Kirkham and Weller believe that these ads also create stereotypes of each gender.

Female ads are portrayed with bright happy colors that promote femininity, natural beauty, innocence, purity, and happiness. Very little text is used to tell the audience it is for females. Because the ad is structured with female qualities, the product is therefore linked to being "female". The CLINIQUE text is also suggested by Kirkham and Weller to be skinner and taller in letter and size. Ironically this portrays society's ideal in women's appearance (skinny and tall). All these elements come together to attract its viewers. Female ads for CLINIQUE also evoke " as series of affective responses including freshness and pleasure" by adding clean fresh elements/objects with the product such as water and grass. It also supports the illustration of "self-beautification" as a process for women that is complex and timely.

CLINIQUE ads for men are entirely different and approached in a whole new way. In these ads targeting men, the colors are "manly", having mostly blacks, blues, and greys in the ad instead of bright happy vibrant colors. In many cases, the male ads are in black in white photography grasping the simplicity of the product but also the classic importance of it as well. It is a professional or "business-like" way of approaching the product that attract men. The text is also describes the male product in greater detail thus separating it from female products. Kirkham and Weller state: "in terms of content, the written text draws on representations of traditional masculinities to help distance the products from the domain of female toiletries" (270). The amount of information in male ads is to serve the purpose of informing the male viewer that these male products are professional and sensible and will not "effeminate" men - it is factual. The products are also always announced as "For Men" etc. and do not take up as many pages in the magazine whereas CLINIQUE's female products never say "For Women" (because they don't have; society understands the difference) but their ads take up more pages in the magazine.

I find it very interesting that companies such as CLINIQUE operate on design methods to attract its consumers and satisfy both genders. Although this is no surprise really, it is very professional how every little detail is considered. These pictures show an example of a male ad from CLINIQUE and a female ad and the differences come out.

"Advertising and the Political Economy of Lesbian/Gay Identity"

2010-09-29T05:57:00.000-07:00

In Fred Fejes' article "Advertising and the Political Economy of Lesbian/Gay Identity" he develops the stages and ways in which gays and lesbians have in recent years emerged as economic subjects. Fejes also explains how gays and lesbians, unlike other marginalized groups, gained their sense of equality and political power not by controlling capitalism or production, but rather through their consumerism. According to the recent studies presented by Fejes in this article, readers of gay magazines and thus gay men in general, tend to have higher incomes. In turn these studies also show that they typically use their higher earnings to purchase high end products, clothing, alcohol, and vacations, for themselves because many of these men don't have families to support. These studies also revealed that fact that in many urban communities gay men, in particular, act as trendsetters not only among themselves but also for "straight" men. As a result, the producers of high end products and services have quickly came to realize that these men are the ideal consumers of the upscale world. At first, these companies just started by advertising in gay/lesbian magazines and other media outlets. However, more and more these companies are beginning to alter their advertisements in order to appeal to gay and lesbian consumers specifically. For example, this "Dolce and Gabbana" advertisement makes use of blatant gay sexuality in order to attract a gay consumer, similarly to the way heterosexual sexuality is developed in other mainstream advertising to attract a specific consumer.

lesbian/gay advertising rage!

2010-09-28T21:47:00.000-07:00

In Fred Fejes "Advertising And The Political Economy of Lesbian/Gay Identity" he talks about how lesbian and gay males are accepted as political/sexual subjects and their acceptance and importance as consuming subjects. Lesbians and gay's are avid consumers, which makes them attractive to advertisers, so they can increase the market and it gives them equality. But gay males are more equal then lesbians for advertisers. The advertising industry can get the gay consumer through advertising aimed at the straight market.
It is important to point out that gay men are not trying to prove they can "live like the joneses" but according to them, they live a lot better. Gay men are seen to consume high-priced goods and are trendsetters for new designs and products, aka hyper-consumers. Fashion designers and major advertisers, like Gucci, Versace, American Express, and Merrill Lynch began to put gays in their page publications. To be "gay" in the media, the gay make must have a yearly income of $50,000 so he can have the classiest things, like great alcohol, a expensive car, and affording the gym. Whereas, in the past the focus on gays was coming out about their sex, but now its all about consumption.
Homosexuality can lead to job loss and other harmful consequences because in some states it is outlawed.

This picture shows people handcuffed, by police, with shirts that "separate is not equal" …suggesting that being gay is not equal because they are separate from the heterosexual rights. This goes along with the outlawed statement because they were probably protesting in a state where homosexuality is not a law, and being handcuffed could lead to harmful consequences.
The Human Rights Campaign put out a "assimilationist" strategy to advocate lesbian and gay marketing to the mainstream. The Human Rights Campaign put out gay and lesbian images to the media, like TV or magazines to put them on the track to political equality and power.
If they have not achieved equal rights as a heterosexual citizen, gay's can at least achieve status of a consumer. The construction of the gay and lesbian community is paid more attention to in the media images than the process of identity formation in individuals of other groups. The identity of gay and lesbian people have been commodified to the construction of a "straight" identity for them being homosexual. This "fake homosexuality," according to Sarah Shulman, is a way to have a double marketing strategy. One, being the emotional need to be accepted and two, selling homosexuality to heterosexuals so they can keep their dominance. I think this is very interesting and very smart, because homosexuals are still not fully accepted by the heterosexual world, but they can manipulate both sexes into consuming products based off dominant needs for the heterosexual and emotional needs for the homo.

Reality vs. Advertising

2010-09-28T19:26:00.000-07:00

The conclusion drawn by Fejes in his article "Advertising and the Political Economy of Lesbian/Gay Identity" interested me because I saw a similarity to the conclusion I drew in textual analysis. Although the ad I examined was desexualized and not aimed at a homosexual audience, it too created an impossible image for young people to aspire to.

Regardless of sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, or economic status, no young person can escape the image of the perfect youth that is being projected by the media. That image is not the same for every demographic, but all of the images are fabricated and unrealistic and it isnot just young people who are targeted. Everyone is being sold an idea of perfection.

Advertisers don't even seem afraid to use the word perfection. Even though we are awareof their goals, we still buy into the image, even when the product is described as "perfection" we consumers bite the worm and swallow the hook. What does that say about the modern consumer and ability to articulate our identities?

Homosexuals in the Media

2010-09-28T18:45:00.000-07:00

Feje discusses in this article the portrayal of gay and lesbian people in our advertisements today. He goes through different years of progression, from gay people not being included in any advertisements, to gays being included in sexually explicit advertisements, to gay people having their own magazines and newspapers that may advertise them in a different light than they see fitting.

Feje talks about the “gay” market being targeted because they are seen as “consumers.” He analyzes the process in that certain advertisers were afraid of using gay men in ad campaigns because they were afraid how society would react. Fashion designers like Calvin Klein started putting gay men in his jean advertisements, straight people would be unaware that they were gay, but gay people would know. I thought that this was interesting because it seems almost sneaky to portray this gay model as a straight individual.

The stereotype of the gay community being upscale, wealthy, fashionable, educated, with expensive belongings was a big part of this article. It is interesting that society has gone to completely ignoring the homosexual community to putting them at the top of the social spectrum. Although this image may not be accurate, it gives them positive press. In contrast, this attention doesn’t help the fight for their equality with certain aspects of life like the military and marriage (217). Also, people may not feel them as victims because they see them in the media as such privileged people with affluent lifestyles.

I found it interesting that women lesbians were rarely talked about in this article. It seems to be that the lesbians haven’t found a way to advertise themselves in a large scale way as gay males have. For girls that “come out” it is often seen as difficult for them because they don’t have anywhere to look, like men do. They don’t have any role models to look up to or even many advertisements to help identify with.

Lesbian/Gay Identity

2010-09-28T12:20:00.000-07:00

Fejes's article "Advertising And The Political Economy of Lesbian/Gay Identity" is very interesting article; I never knew that publications of gay material in magazines in the late 1980s were sexually explicit and that they had to change a lot of that material. In general, some areas of the article that also stood out for me were:

"In the past the images available to lesbians and gay males in the mainstream media were highly negative (219)." This all started since the 1960s and over time it has become less of a negative connotation. These media images created a sense of identity for all of the gays and lesbians in the nation at the time, and depending on the time period, there was a heavy negative to positive relationship with the images and sexuality.

"Homosexuality ignores class, ethnic, and religious boundaries...most gays are not 26 years old and do not live a charmed, protected, and carefree lives in trendy urban centers, earning high incomes..and going to the gym daily and wearing latest fashions (221)." This section of the text pretty much negates all stereotypical connotations of homosexual individuals. When I imagine the "gay male" I always associate a high pitched voice, effeminacy, interest in "girl shows" like Sex and the City, and strange fashion styles to paint my picture of what a "gay male" is. Obviously not all gay men are like that and it is pretty stereotypical, and after reading this article I understand better how media influences a lot of issues regarding homosexuals and how media makes it difficult for them.

The image above, while slightly disturbing, is very interesting to this topic. It was made by street artist "Banksy" and it features two police men kissing. His art is generally associated with political or social themes, which in this case is homosexuality. This sort of media that Banksy has created is just like the article is talking about, with the political media effecting how the public perceives gays and lesbians as. It is a topic of discussion that many people agree with and disagree with and hopefully in the future gays and lesbians will have less negative connotations and more rights.

The Illusion of Power: Marketing to Gays and Lesbians

2010-09-28T09:17:00.000-07:00

Fred Fejes examines the affects of media and advertising on gay and lesbian identity and culture in “Advertising and the Political Economy of Lesbian/Gay Identity.” Fejes claims that despite the fact that advertisers now specifically market to homosexuals and value them as consumers, Gays and lesbians still have a long ways to go in gaining political, legal and social equality. Also, Fejes explains how gays are valued over lesbians to consumers, because of their supposedly higher income and greater readership of magazines targeted to homosexuals. However, gays were not always considered valuable to advertisers, who used to be hesitant to associate their products with the gay community. In the early 1970’s, Advertising Age ran reports involving the possibilities of marketing to gays, and the Advocate hired an independent marketing research firm to collect data about marketing to gay men. To reach the gay market, advertisers and magazines toned down their explicitly sexual content, upgraded their quality and changed their formatting. Thus, in the 1990’s advertisers became eager to market to gays due to their stereotyped high income, high level of education, frequent traveling, and interest in buying new electronic products. Obtaining objective and agreeable information was very difficult, as was marketing to a “gay” market. For example, a study posted in the New York Times argues that gays don’t make more money than straight people; they just spend it in a way more favorable to advertisers. Other studies say gays make much more money, or less money, than their straight counterparts. Nonetheless, gays became highly valued by advertisers, who portrayed them in a positive manor. Fejes warns that, while this may seem like progress, “being highly valued by markets means nothing politically.” (217) Fejes further argues that advertisements marketing gays and lesbians have, in some ways, adversely impacted homosexuals, as they are almost always depicted in the same way (they make a lot of money, wear designer cloths, go to the gym and ride in an SVU), which promotes conformity through consumption. This reading ends by acknowledging that gays more often live in “an environment quietly antagonistic at best or at worse openly hostile to their existence,” (221) which sharply contrasts with the happy portrayal of the gay lifestyle depicted by advertisers.

The picture I chose is a past cover of Out magazine-one of the leading gay magazines. I chose it for multiple reasons. First of all, the picture appears to be pretty classy. The men are dressed in business attire and wear fairly serious expressions. This demonstrates the movement away from explicitly sexual advertisements to ones more acceptable to the general public. Also, this cover illustrates the way the media depicts the gay community: affluent, business and technology-orientated, happy, good-looking, in shape, and falsely influential. Finally, I would like to draw a parallel between this reading and Schor’s “The New Politics of Consumption,” which I have already posted a blog on. Both Fejes and Schor emphasize how critical consumption is to the consumer. Schor explains that some feel that consumption is related to status, for instance if a woman buys a Prada handbag she feels wealthy, respected and dignified. Fejes conveys a similar argument by stating that homosexuals feel important when advertisers market directly too them, suggesting that this means they have achieved some form of progress. In both readings thorough rebuttals are provided. Schor leaves the reader with various theories, while Fejes more affirmatively establishes his belief that the common portrayal of gays by advertisers are inaccurate and that gays and lesbians have a long way to go to achieve political and social equality.

Media's Portrayal of the Gay Consumer - "Fake Homosexuality"

2010-09-27T15:30:00.000-07:00

As we all know, the media is an influential force upon our society, affecting a wide range of demographics. It promotes a structure in which society is shaped by these publications. In the case of Fred Fejes' essay "Advertising And The Political Economy Of Lesbian/Gay Identity", homosexuals are portrayed as "minorities with privileges" whom are more likely to spend their money on new products (216). Part of Fejes argument focuses on the fact that "gay market" advertisers are drawn to the "gay consumer" because homosexuals especially gay men have the tendency to consume more than any other consumer group in society. So in that case, advertisers seek to promote through "gay media" a glamorous portrayal of homosexuality in order to favor its popular consumers. It emphasizes the gay consumer as one who lives a fairly luxurious lifestyle, 28.6 percent having incomes over $50,000 and 21 percent having incomes over $100,000 and most of them are represented as "fashionistas", travelers, well-educated, extremely attractive with well-muscled bodies, wearing designer clothing, drinking top-brand liquors, driving expensive cars, etc. (217 - 19). The media gives the idea that homosexuals are well off, have earned their equality, and most of all have achieved the media's approval. While that might be the case, the first two assumptions are not necessarily true. Society has to remember that homosexuals experience inequality, experience horrifying threats, work discrimination, are judged by friends, dismissed by family etc. The list goes on and the media as well as the political economy does not address that enough. There have been many terrrifying deaths because of this and the media keeps it out because that would contradict their "fantasy". As Fejes says, "these consequences of such narrow representation in ads can go beyond the issue of images and identities" (220). Homophobia still exits not matter what the media says. What is even worse is the fact that lesbians are "marginalized" more than gay men. There are very few publications of lesbian women in advertisements. Part of the reason is that society does not find lesbian women nearly as attractive as gay men. Also, in advertising gay men are only depicted as white middle class and hardly are they revealed as African American or Asian for example. If that were the case, these individuals would have very "white" features.In reality, most homosexuals are like everyone else. They are not always trendy white-collared professionals who go to the gym daily and wear the latest fashions as Feges argues. Instead, homosexuals expose their selves very conservatively and privately in order to protect their identity.

F2010 CMC100-1

Conclusion!

Conclusion

We Need Conflict

Fighting Fire with Fire

Playing with Fire MWAHAHAH

A South Park Parade after 9/11

South Park

Shows & Current Events

South Park and Post-9/11 Politics

Teaching Taboo

South Park's Humor = Ridicule or a Form of Truth?

Postmodern Blackness

Postmodern Blackness

Postmodern Blackness

Comedic News and Entertainment

"The Daily Show" as Sub-culture

"The Daily Show's" Not-Just-Daily Influence

"We are Lost somewhere between Ideal and Real"

Distortion of Reality

Here we go.

Todays Reality

The Line Between Reality and Construction Has Disappeared

precession of simulacra

Hyperreal Beauty

The Internet: Scary or Safe?

A Virtual Life

Our Virtual Lives

World Wide Web

Hactivists …only the coolest word ever!

World Wide Web

Consumerism Wins the Day

The Political Technology Era

Cognitive Surplus

The Emergence of Virtual Communities

Rebel with your dollars!

Counterculture: Changing Capitalism

Counterculture: The Voice of Corporations and Consumers

Counter-culture

Reality TV: Teen Moms

Nike …JUST DO IT??

Indian Americans in Advertising

Fashionably Ethnic?

The Invisible Indian Americans

False Portrayal

The invisibility of Indian Americans

U.S. Take on Different Cultures

The Imagined View of India

More on Native Americans

Secluding the Seminoles

Powertrips and Powerlines.

Two words: "greed and shoes"

The Profit of Nike

I Never Thought Shoes Would Actually Be "To Die For"

More Nike More Problems

The Ugly Truth

Nike's Questionable Social Responsibility

What Is Behind the Curtain: Nike

Hoop Dream

Nike's marketing of social responsibility

African American Sitcoms

Black Sitcom Portrayals

Whiteness?

Too Stereotypical...

More Power to Bill

Black Culture

The "White Gaze"

Black Sitcom Portrayals …I can't think of anything clever this time

What are Black sitcoms really like?

black sitcoms

Black Sitcoms: Myths and Global Successes

Truth-less Television

Black Sitcom Portrayals

Male Magazine-Male Subject Matter

Esquire. Enough Said.

The Cosmo Girl Takes Over The American Dream!

Cosmo and the Twilight Zone

Cosmo vs Playboy

Cosmopolitan was NOT Playboy

From Classy to Trashy