Follow Up 3/29

http://video.aol.com/video/rachael-ray-on-bethenny-ever-after-030711-tv-replay/2291979450

While I was reading Megan Pinand’s paper called “Stories from the Sidelines” I kept thinking back to an episode of the TV Show Bethenny Ever After I saw recently.  Bethenny Ever After is a show on Bravo that follows ex-Real Housewives star Bethenny Frankel in her everyday life.  It shows her struggling to balance her new marriage, their few month old daughter, and her company.  I obviously do not know first hand the struggles of a working mom but it is something that I have always taken an interest in.  As someone who one day wants to have a family it is scary to hear all the stories from working mothers today.  I found it very interesting to hear Pinand’s view of her two very different bosses and how she felt differently under each of them.  I agree with her that the answer is not about individuals but about “workplace policies, state and federal policies, family structure, stereotypes about gender roles, and the attitudes of coworkers and management” (210).  Bethenny Frankel works from home and is able to balance various things on more or less her own time, but even she struggles with it (as we can see from the clip I have posted of her asking Rachel Ray how to balance).  Not all women are as fortunate as Rachel and Bethenny to have the celebrity power to do things on their own time, which is why I agree with Pinand that we need to seriously reconsider the actual structure behind the workplace.  If we do not reconsider this, we run the risk of having too many women act like Pinand’s coworker did and come back only 3 weeks after having her baby.  It is easier said than done but we, as a society, need to be able to find a balance between work and home that does not oppress either sex.

http://celebritybabies.people.com/2010/07/22/bethenny-frankels-blog-the-delicate-balance-of-work-and-family/

The other link I posted about Bethenny is her blog on People.com.  In it you can see that she discusses the balance her and her husband have found and how he is so helpful.  I found this interesting in comparison to Pat Mainardi’s paper titled “The Politics of Housework”.  While I do not think all women are as fortunate as Bethenny, I also do not think that all women are as unfortunate as Mainardi.  Mainardi’s piece was written in 1970 and I think while there are certain stereotypes and burdens on women that prevail today, our society has come a long way since 1970.  I believe that it is possible to find this middle balance between the two extremes, but it will take some work.

Midterm Media Report: Laguna Beach

(Pictures from scenes in the episode found at http://lagunahills.tumblr.com/post/1308946302 -- LC: 3rd down, right side; Kristin: 4th down, left side; Trey: 4th down, right side; Kristin and Stephen: bottom, left side)
Laguna Beach Season 1 Episode 7: The Last Dance

            Laguna Beach, a reality TV show that aired on MTV from 2004 to 2006, embodies many aspects of our society that Douglas has a problem with.  One episode in particular came to mind as I was considering all that Douglas stands for and against: “The Last Dance”.  The series follows Lauren Conrad (LC), a white privileged high school student from Laguna Beach, California, and her friends.  It follows them from store to store shopping for $300 shoes, buying new cars, and getting involved in many, many fights.  The episode begins by showing the girls shopping and discussing how they are nervous they might not get asked to Prom.  It continues on to show all of them getting asked in elaborate ways and getting ready for the Prom.  Mixed in with clips of the boys and girls getting ready for the dance are clips of LC and Kristin discussing why they do not like each other.  As a self-proclaimed reality TV junkie, I will be the first to admit I had not thought about many of the issues Susan Douglas discusses.  When looking at Laguna Beach through the eyes of Susan Douglas, however, it is easy to see the many problems in our society that need to be changed.  However, that is easier said than done and many of the issues do not have a “quick fix”.

            In the episode a lot of focus is given to the friends getting ready for the dance.  In one shot viewers see Kristin about to leave the house to meet her friends for pictures.  She asks her dad if she looks good.  He, jokingly, responds, “Yeah, you look great.  Heavy on the makeup, light on the dress.”  Obviously as a father he does not want to see his seventeen-year-old daughter dressing like this, but I would guess at this point in her life he realizes he can do nothing else about it.  Douglas discusses in her “Sex ‘R’ Us” chapter how we have gotten to this place: “In exchange for this freedom [the elimination of the double standard]—indeed, because of this freedom—young women were supposed to dress like call girls and had to start learning how to do this at an even younger age” (156).  Over the years women have transformed the newfound freedom to act and dress however they please into a way to constantly garner the attention of the opposite sex and this is apparent in the entire cast of girl’s choice of Prom dresses.  Even something as traditional and highly regarded as Prom has turned into an opportunity to overtly display sex appeal.  Something needs to be changed before we start seeing barely there First Communion dresses.

            The issues exposed in this episode, however, go beyond the noticeable switch to overly sexual clothing.  While picking up another group of girls to go meet the boys at pictures Lo finds out that Morgan has a dress in the same pattern as hers.  She laments by saying, “Dude.  Morgan like has my dress…same pattern.  She’s a…whore.”  While I do agree that it would be upsetting to find out one of your friends had the same dress pattern as you, I do not think there is a plausible explanation for calling Morgan a whore because of it.  I have heard repeatedly from different people during my life that by calling other girls whores, sluts, etc. it only opens the door to make it more acceptable for the boys to call us this as well.  Douglas echoes this same sentiment: “Girls have learned to be ‘enforcers of their own oppression,’ calling each other sluts and whores, imposing even more ridiculous rules on themselves” (237).  When Lo calls Morgan a whore for having the same dress pattern she is only continuing this oppression.  While Lo does not realize it, she is, according to Douglas, ultimately oppressing herself as well.  This vicious cycle needs to be stopped.

The one clip the producers chose to put in the episode of the boys getting ready is also very problematic.  Much of the second half of the episode is focused on the couple of days before Prom and all that the girls need to do to get ready.  There is a clip I would say is no longer than thirty seconds of the boys casually putting on their suits.  Virtually the only dialogue in this clip is Trey saying, “It’s so funny…every single one of us is going to get laid tonight.”  His comment is followed only by a few small laughs acknowledging this supposed “fact” from the other boys—and not all of them went with girlfriends!  While this may be seen as normal for today’s society, this tone has not always been accepted.  In fact, this tone should still not be accepted.  Douglas notes on page 165 when discussing Maxim that “the irreverent, frat boy, ‘harmless fun’ tone insists that men are slaves to their gonads and live to ogle women in string bikinis not because they’re sexist but because they can’t help themselves since women…have all the power anyway.”  In the case of the Laguna Beach episode, the boys are not necessarily ogling their Prom dates in string bikinis, but many of the same concepts can be applied.  The matter of fact tone that Trey makes his comment with, especially for a senior in high school, is shocking.  As viewers we are all supposed to assume that this comment is not meant as degrading to their Prom dates because we know that girls are equal partners and have an equal say in it.  We are supposed to assume that the jokes and degrading comments made about women and girls are okay because we can play it off as just that—jokes.  However, these jokes still are very degrading to the female sex.  Trey’s comment is not meant as a joke, but can be interpreted in much the same way.  He is, arguably, playing off the historical submissiveness of women to assume that his Prom date will put out at the end of the night.  If our society were really as advanced and equal as we claim it to be, these comments need to no longer be made.

            Another issue the entire Laguna Beach series touches on frequently is one that Douglas discusses in her “Lean and Mean” chapter.  While other episodes do touch on leanness, this episode shows the meanness.  The constant fighting between LC and Kristin over Stephen is a recurring topic in almost every episode.  When one of her friends asks Kristin why she doesn’t like LC she responds, “I just think she’s kind of a little brat.  I’ve never liked her, but then when her and Stephen were hooking up at the beginning of the year made me not like her even more.  And the fact that she’s completely fake, she can’t carry on a conversation, and the only time you hear her talking is flirting with guys.”  (There are many harsher comments in other episodes but for the sake of clarity I wanted to stick with this one episode.)  Douglas chimes in on page 238 with what I believe is an almost perfect explanation of this situation: “…take an image of a really rich, size zero princess…whose parents indulge her every whim and to whom money is no object, who is vindictive, petty, and superficial, who doesn’t deserve and shouldn’t have the wealth that she does, and who channels all her energy into ruining the life of some other equally wealthy, shallow girl.”  This describes the situation between Kristin and LC, as portrayed by the MTV producers, impeccably.  Kristin often flaunted her relationship with Stephen in front of LC, spread sex tape rumors about her, etc. all because LC had a fling with Stephen.  Douglas sheds new light on other media sources that also portray the girl vs. girl fighting and it is something we as a society need to seriously consider.  By portraying it in the media so often we are seemingly making it okay for younger and younger girls to do and is that a road we really want kids in junior high (and younger) going down?

            Susan Douglas’ view of our society and her thoughts on enlightened sexism ultimately help us see how we as viewers are perpetuating all the issues that are presented in most, if not all, reality TV shows simply by watching them.  The true problem, I believe after looking at this episode of Laguna Beach more closely, is how easily we can find examples of all that is wrong with what our society has become in fictional TV shows and movies.  If it is wrong and we know that it is wrong, why are we continuing to show it on TV and in movies for our youngest, most influential generation to emulate?

Works Cited:

Douglas, Susan. Enlightened Sexism. 1st ed. New York, NY: Times Books, 2010. Print.

"The Last Dance." Laguna Beach. MTV: 09 Oct 2004. Television. 21 Mar 2011. <http://www.mtv.com/videos/laguna-beach-season-1-episode-7/1554715/playlist.jhtml>.

Follow Up 3/22

I thought our first reading in The Curious Feminist was very interesting.  I know that women and child labor laws have been of great importance and debate in places like China, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. but did not know the intricacies of it all.  I am not surprised at all that companies like Nike and Reebok moved their factories to produce in a country where it would be cheaper and I am also not surprised at all that they claimed they had no knowledge of the inner workings of the factories and the government labor laws.  One idea that really caught my eye was on page 62.  It says that the South Korean women that were the backbone to the production of garments, shoes, and electronics considered themselves to be daughters, and only daughters.  The money that they worked hard to earn went home to help their farmer parents and to help pay for their brother’s continued schooling.  The money also went to their dowries.  I guess that this surprised me because it is not something I am accustomed to growing up in the states.  I have lived a very different life but I am sure it does exist even today.  I have to question what the women working and living this life feel about it, though.  It seems, to me, that it is a very oppressive lifestyle but wonder what they feel today, in 2011. 

Main Post 3/8

In the “Same Sex Marriage FAQs” article the author answers two very common questions: why do same-sex couples want to marry and why aren’t civil unions enough?  The author answers the first question by outlining a myriad of reasons same-sex couples want to get married.  They note it is simply not fair to deny some couples the right to marriage along with a whole list of other ways in which same-sex couples who are not married struggle. It is not only that a couple should be allowed to get married if they are in love, but also a slew of other things as well.  Same-sex couples pay higher taxes because they are not eligible for the federal tax benefits and struggle with everyday issues.  They, for example, cannot use the health insurance of their spouse, cannot be granted hospital visitation, are forced to pay estate taxes, are not granted family leaves from work, and many more.  The author continues on to argue that civil unions are not enough.  They argue that they are in no way the same thing and that they should never be referred to as such.  Marriages are recognized in all 50 states and by the federal government, whereas civil unions are not acknowledged by the government and are not applicable in the one state where the couple receives the civil union license.  Couples united through civil unions are also not eligible to receive the thousands of federal benefits that married couples can, which goes along with the first question of why same-sex couples want to get married.

Ettelbrick’s article was unlike any other article I have ever read.  She begins by noting that marriage is an institution, one that people feel the need to join in order to be accepted.  She notes that marriage will not liberate lesbians and gay men (but will constrain them) and “attaining the right to marry will not transform our society from one that makes narrow, but dramatic, distinctions between those who are married and those who are not married to one that respects and encourages choice of relationships and family diversity” (306).  The argument that it is only about rights does not do enough for Ettelbrick, but instead she argues that we need to deal with the underlying issues of our society.  Justice will not be gained simply by allowing gay men and lesbians to get married, justice will be achieved when lesbians and gay men are accepted and integrated into our society despite their differences.  They do not need to be accepted only by getting married and assimilating into that cultural ideal, but by being accepted for who they are.  She continues on to argue that our legal society and the emphasis we place on marriage in our culture and in our government is not okay.  By simply allowing gay men and lesbian women to enter into this concept of marriage nothing will be changed about our society and they will only be perpetuating these, as Ettelbrick argues, incorrect ideals and perceptions.

In the article by Andrea Vaccaro we get a different point of view.  We get a point of view of someone who is actively involved fighting for marriage and equality rights for gay men and lesbians.  She describes how she got involved in this active fight in high school and how she has continued this through her life.  She mentions that even the small things, like putting up signs around school that were torn down by the end of the day, helped some people.  She continues on to describe the numerous leadership roles she took on in college and how she became involved in them.  Ultimately she ended up backing down from some of the positions due to time constraints, but notes that perhaps the thing that forced her to withdraw was the apathy that all fellow group members displayed in each and every group she was in.  Vacarro ends the piece by describing her “wedding” (civil union) day.  It was one of the greatest days of her life, but very bittersweet.  By joining in a civil union she was reinforcing the second-class stereotype of a civil union but realized there was no other option.  She wanted to be committed to her girlfriend and couldn’t any other way than this “second-class” partnership.

Follow Up Post 3/8

Today’s readings all focused on the idea of same-sex couples having the right to marry. Same Sex Marriage FAQs described the differences in civil unions and marriage and why gay couples would want the advantages of marriage. Vaccaro describes her life’s work trying to get equality for homosexuals and woring for marriage rights and also her own personal experiences with gay marriage. Vaccaro describes all the work she has put into this cause and how she hopes to be able to makes progress for herself and others. Ettelbrick offers a contrary point of view when she says that obtaining the right to marriage for homosexuals will not change the way that the world works like many people are making it out to be. She says that the many issues tied to gay marriage such as health care and spouse’s rights are still going to be seen through a lens of discrimination no matter the legalities of the issue. I thought Ettelbrick’s take on the issues were the most interesting because of how she framed the larger issues and the way she describes how people work for gay marriage at times without realizing the ways that gay marriage right will not fix all of the discrimination that homosexuals face. In googling gay marriage it is evident that these are still contentious issues in the news and hopefully one day all will be accepted in this country and the world.

Follow Up 3/3

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/01/rutgers.student.housing/index.html?hpt=Sbin

I found this article on the homepage of CNN today while I was reading the daily news.  It was presented right next to an article on Libya and right away I was drawn to it after what we discussed last week about how we at Colgate perpetuate compulsory heterosexuality.  Upon reading the article I was not that surprised that Rutgers had moved to make this step after the incident earlier in the fall.  I was, however, surprised to hear that they are by no means the first school to do this.  I would have thought that the fact that other institutions have implemented this would have made more high-profile news before but apparently it has not.  It is deeply saddening that it took a suicide to provoke this action and make it newsworthy.  While the program is limited in scope, it is the first step in breaking this barrier.  I am curious to hear the feedback on this program and see how many institutions will adopt this in the future. 

Main Post 3/3

In Our Bodies, Ourselves by the Boston Women’s Health Book Collective the women discuss how they decided to write a book that would give other women a chance to not feel as though things that were happening to their bodies were not wrong or abnormal. They talk about things like masturbation, menstruation, and pregnancy and how women can feel alone or different if they are not informed of how other women feel or react to these issues. They portray their experiences with these issues as being improved once they learned about other women’s experiences and that they were not any different from all women and also about how the use of birth control and its general acceptance has led to women being able to control their lives and control their destiny. They also mention how birth control has improved their lives saying “It has made our pregnancies better, because they no longer happen to us; we actively participate choose them and enthusiastically participate in them” (BWHBC, 298). They conclude by saying “our image of ourselves is on a firmer base, we can be better friends and better lovers, better people, more self-confident, more autonomous, stronger, more whole” (BWHBC, 299). This line really made me feel good about what these women were trying to do because if just the information and access to the ability to control their own lives gives them all of that then why should anyone ever have had to live without it?

Steinem’s article Sex, Lies & Advertising was very interesting because of the inside look it gave into the ways that we are controlled by advertisers without even knowing it. Steinem starts by talking generally about women’s magazines and how they do not get the same respect as any other magazines especially in their advertising. She cites many examples of advertisers who are not willing to have their products associated with Ms. and how these advertisers are even unwilling after hearing how successful other similar products are and how the statistics signify an unexploited market and potential sales. She talks about Ms.’s issues with expecting sexist ads and how they wished to only use product they believed were good but eventually had to change some on these views because of how much their magazine was dependent on advertising. She also discusses how their advertising investors had strong stipulations on where ads for their products could be placed as to distance themselves from any sort of scandal. She mentions racial issues like Susan Douglas when she points out how the ads were mostly portraying white women unless the product was specifically directed at an ethnic group. She discusses the difficulty of getting ads for typically male products such as cars and beer and how some companies like Este Lauder felt like they were targeting a different audience than Ms. reached. Leonard Lauder said “Este Lauder is selling ‘a kept woman mentality’” (Steinem, 6). She touches on how advertising is becoming bigger and bigger and encroaching on things like movies where ads a surreptitiously placed. This I have noticed in recent movies I have watched where something like a big Coca-Cola truck is always in the background. She also talks about how good magazines could be if they did not need to rely on advertising and how much they could help women feel good about themselves and understand the issues.

Brumberg in Body Projects talks about a shift in the way that girls and women saw themselves starting in the 1920s. She says that the ideal woman shifted from fuller to “slim and sylph like” (Brumberg, 101) and that this shift made women more self conscious, obsessed with their weight, and it was socially acceptable to be extremely concerned with your looks. She references a journal of Yvonne Blue from that time period and shows how young girls were ever-changing themselves and were very different from their recent predecessors. Brumberg then continues to talk about young girls lives during the 1950s. She says that the trend had switch a bit from legs being the most important characteristic to larger breasts being the thing young girls most wanted to develop and with this came the bra. Before this time women had worn corsets and the bra hadn’t even been invented according to Brumberg. But, Brumberg says, the bra caught on and young girls and young women were obsessed with their bra size, peer’s bra size, and types of bras. She said that this did not replace the way that girls now felt the need to be thin, but instead added to it. Brumberg continues through time to tell us how focus of young women was still on weight but how there were changes in focus onto working out and now women also were expected to have muscles and then these trends further evolved and were added to when thighs became a major area of focus. Brumberg says “when an American woman dislikes her thighs, she is unlikely to like herself” (Brumberg, 128). Brumberg concludes by talking about how women are even subjected to body images issue when finding clothes and how some women have turned to piercings to differentiate themselves.