Gender-Neutral Children

Recently some parents have decided to raise their children gender-neutral to help them avoid the gender norms forced on children from a very young age. I like the idea of not having to deal with the gender roles and the pressures put on young children, but I feel like this creates other issues. Sasha was raised gender neutral and his parents only revealed his sex when he started going to school and it was difficult for them to keep the secret. Sasha's parents don't want "to lumber their son with stereotyping their fear gender brings." The issue with this is that they put pressure on him by making him an outsider from the beginning. His mom talks about how she was labeled the "loony woman" and Sasha probably was labeled as well. By taking him out of the gender stereotypes it puts Sasha into a position where he can wear pink or blue if he wants, play with legos or dolls, which is perfectly fine, but refusing to give him a gender he is placed in a different box. Sasha will always be known as the gender-nuetral child and that label makes people make assumptions about him and also puts pressure on Sasha. I liked that Sasha had the choice of what he wanted to wear, but there are definitely ways to do that and promote individuality without bringing attention to him.

Another child that was raised gender neutral was Storm who was known as the genderless baby. Storm has older siblings and the older brother had liked dresses and wanted to be known as a girl. Storm's parents then decided that Storm can have the choice to be whoever Storm wants to be without the pressure of knowing if Storm is male or female. Again I can see why the parents did this because their oldest son had felt restricted by gender norms, I still don't totally agree with it. Children are very moldable so gender norms present from a very young age influence them throughout their lives. I don't know if being gender neutral helps to get out of those gender roles. I think that if children are given gender neutral options and if they happened to want to wear a dress, then why not. But I think the label of gender neutral can be harmful. This is fairly recent so I would be interested to see how these children grown up are like. I honestly don't think that this improves that much, but it is difficult to be sure, so whatever parents think is right for their children, whether raising them in their gender or gender neutral, is up to them. Personally I don't think hiding their biological sex isn't necessarily helpful, but it is great that parents want to break gender norms.

Summary on "Stephen King on the future of entertainment"

Back in 2009, Stephen King published an article that posed questions about how entertainment and how we receive it may change in the future. Six years later entertainment has changed greatly and we can see how his ideas match the changes. He first discusses e-books and wonders what will happen to books. He compares e-books and physical copies of books, to CDs and vinyl records. E-books weren't as popular but they were cheaper like how CDs were in comparison to vinyl records and that ended up overtaking vinyl records. It is funny because that analogy is even dated because barely anyone has CDs anymore. Since the article was published I think e-books have gotten more popular, but they haven't gotten rid of books. Also I have found that e-books are starting to be more expensive that certain books, at least the very popular ones, while Amazon Prime also gives away free e-books once a month. I have switched over to e-books and I know other people that have too, but there are still many people that want to stick with physical copies of books. I think it has stayed around because its easier to share and many people have a sentimental connection to the books they own. It seems like e-books may continue to become more popular, but I'm not entirely sure it will overtake books.

Stephen King also talks about how Rock and Roll Radio and serious American movies have been on the decline. They definitely are still available, but they are not nearly as popular. Radio as a whole has definitely changed and I think it will continue to change as there is a huge shift to the celebrity culture and less and less people are interested in listening to varied music and people talking for more than a minute or show. I am not as familiar with rock and roll radio so I am not sure how it has changed, but I would guess that it has become less popular. Also serious American movies have become less marketable but I still think that there are plenty being made. The movies that get nominated for Oscars haven't been as popular in the mainstream within the past few years, while superhero movies and sequels have dominated the top box office lists. I don't think that it is something that will go away, it just might head more to the fringes of pop culture but not entirely into the shadows.

The last entertainment that King looked at was network TV and it has been overshadowed in recent years by cable shows and even internet streaming networks like Netflix and Amazon. There are still some quality network shows but they are not as dominant as they used to be. A lot of the cable shows are grittier and more realistic, which people have been gravitating towards. Also it takes dedication to watch 23 episodes and season with commercials and airing weekly. People want entertainment immediately so I can see Netflix and Amazon taking over more and more of the TV industry.

Social Network

I am not a big fan of social media. I like the idea of staying connecting to people and thats the main reason I still have my Facebook, but its frustrating how much people share about themselves and how Facebook pages aren't a good representation of the person. With Facebook people have their profiles and it is just a representation of them, not the whole picture. I think that is alright because you don't want to share everything with the whole world, but sometimes people create this social media persona that just isn't them. Looking through some of my friends profiles I feel like if I didn't actually know them I would think they were a different person. Its dangerous because people can get these preconceived notions of a person just through Facebook. I've heard of plenty of people not getting a job because of their Facebook pages so its important to be careful what you put out there.

I think that Facebook pages shouldn't be seen as the whole picture, just what people want others to see. My Facebook page is private and I have it under my middle name instead of my last name. I did this because a professor of mine during student teaching told the class that principals and parents can look at your page and if there is anything inappropriate up there it could cause issues. I didn't have anything up there that I thought would get me into any trouble, but I still did it because I didn't want people that I didn't know seeing my page. I like the idea of people that I know seeing my Facebook page because they already know who I am and what I like to do, so the Facebook page isn't informing them about me. It is just merely a way to stay connected to friends and family. I hate when people make assumptions about people and do the Facebook stalking because it only gives you glimpses of a person. I also think that gender plays a big role in Facebook because many people do the Facebook stalking of their crush and make their opinions from there. Its also interesting to see the different ways males and females are on Facebook because it seems at least from my timeline that the females share more about their own lives, while the males share more about their interests. Overall I see the point of social media and some of the benefits but it isn't something that I will spend hours stressing about.

Summary of "Small Change: Why The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted"

Malcolm Gladwell analyzed how activism on social media is not nearly as effective as high-risk activism like actually participating in walk-ins in "Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted." It was interesting to see how he compared past protests to the current Twitter "Revolutions." Before reading this article I also thought about how Twitter and other Social Media is great at spreading and raising awareness to issues there often isn't much done about the issue because people aren't as invested in it. If someone physically goes to participate in a protest they are talking with other people and making connections that build a protest. Gladwell discussed how thousands of people supported 4 black college students in 1960 when they weren't served at a restaurant because of their race. People did sit-ins and they spread all over the country. People were arrested, but it was apart of the civil-rights movement that helped change the country. The participants put themselves at risk in order to make a statement and that made other people want to change. If that were to happen on social media, I feel like people would be impressed and want to help, but not motivated. The fact that there was a risk and they did it anyway and that others followed was extremely powerful.

There was also talk about the Twitter Revolution in Iran and how it actually didn't do as much as people thought it did. Many things that people saw were in English so it seemed like more people were commenting on the issue from afar instead of the people it affected banding together. Social media definitely has limits with activism and is not nearly as effective at causing a drastic shift, but it did help to raise awareness of some of the issues in Iran. Gladwell wrote about how change and activism is based within the strong ties of the people and their willingness to take risks. But unfortunately social media is based on weak ties between people because they are often superficial ties. There isn't as much of that emotional and physical connection between people. Talking to people online about an issue does not create as much of an impact as hearing about it first hand from someone. Also social media activism is inherently low risk because the words aren't coming from your mouth they're coming from your profile. It isn't as authentic and not as many people would be affected by it.

There are definitely many issues that have been helped by social media activism, but I agree with Malcolm Gladwell that drastic change won't be accomplished on the internet. I think this could possibly change but social media activism isn't as strong and united. Even with the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, there were many people that participated and said they supported the cause, but how many actually donated and still are concerned about the issue. All that really mattered was the superficial social media response and now it has largely gone away. It is unfortunate that it doesn't always work, but people can still enact change if they can create those strong ties and take a risk.

Reality Television

I used to watch a lot of Reality TV when I was in high school, but now I just don't have the patience for it. I hate that it is marketed as reality, when so much of it is staged or edited to have higher stakes. Its a distorted view of reality and it can be harmful if people see it and think that its true. I also feel like because it is TV there is always that wall that keeps people from being themselves. People are often a caricature of themselves on TV and it is a shame that so many people want to be seen as that.

I don't keep up with any reality shows now, but one that I used to watch all the time was America's Next Top Model. I loved the competition aspect and it was interesting to see people transform from normal girls into high-fashion models. I ended up stopping watching it after realizing how fabricated it was and how much drama the show had. Every single cycle had so much drama between the girls and it just didn't seem all that authentic. Most reality shows, even ones with a competition, tend to focus on the drama, which makes people either love it or hate it. The show also experimented with gender roles and one episode in the eighth cycle, "The Girl Who Takes Credit," focused on a photo shoot that had the girls dress up as men and pose with a drag queen. They were given a couple to portray, some examples were outdoorsy, power-couple, bohemian, hip hop, and collegiate. The one girl that excelled at this challenge was Natasha who was a part of the hip hop couple. As shown in the picture below, she really adapted to the male role. She was the most comfortable with this shoot and even had the idea to have tin foil in her mouth to make it seem like grills. It was interesting to see how easily she slid into this role, even though she was portraying mainly a stereotype. The judges praised her and how comfortable and creative she was. Some of the other girls struggled because they weren't comfortable being in the men's clothes and couldn't break their femininity. The people that succeeded in this were the ones that weren't bothered by portraying a man and embraced it. Natasha ended up winning the photo shoot and everyone was very impressed with her. Her gender was portrayed as something that she knew and didn't care about.

Chapter 54 Summary: "Marketing 'Reality' to the World

Chris Jordan's chapter focuses on the reality competition show Survivor and its affect on Reality Television. Survivor was able to be produced and be successful primarily because of its advertising and its relatively low cost. It also began the reality TV craze, which could be seen as a bad thing but it was a show that "steered away from sexual sensationalism and towards themes of competitive merit" (518). Many networks were moving from the half-hour comedies and had very expensive dramas so they were looking for cheap and successful shows. Survivor was able to get a lot of money in advertisements because products like Doritos and Mountain Dew were able to align themselves with "adventure and heroism." Most shows did not advertise within the show because they thought it would break the suspension of belief. This format Survivor worked with was conducive to many different products advertising within the episode and also was attractive to many viewers. It had very high rating and a low cost which was very important to CBS. Reality TV is also very successful globally because it appeals to many different people.

Jordan talked about how the global proliferation of reality television is due to the "increasing concentration of ownership in the television industry, the globalization of commercial TV, and the fragmentation of the worldwide audience" (522). This is important, but one downfall is that educational programming has been affected by the rise of reality TV. Many networks that had educational programming noticed that often many people switched away from it and it was difficult to understand. Reality TV is designed to be light and gives a distraction from global issues. It provides a welcome distraction, but it may be detrimental too. Because it is so commercial and reliant on advertisers, the democratization of television is limited. It was interesting to see how reality TV has changed the different networks and how it isn't as negative as many think it is. There are some benefits as pointed out in this chapter.

Girl Rising

I enjoyed watching the documentary "Girl Rising" and it was very eye-opening to me about how a person's education is essential in their success and overall well-being. I am an elementary education major and although I knew that education was important, I didn't realize how important it is for some people. In the United States we all are expected to go to school and we don't have to pay for tuition. We are given these amazing educations and we take it for granted. So many people don't have the opportunities we do, especially young girls in developing countries. The boys in the family are the ones that are usually educated, while the young girls are expected to work and serve other people. They aren't given control over their lives and often they can't take the control back because they don't have the education. Even if they want an education often it is extra money, and if they barely have enough money for food, their education is forgotten. The two stories that had the most impact on me were the stories of Ruksana and Amina. The others were also very impactful, but I think that their stories mirror each other.

Ruksana lives in India and she struggled in school because she was always dreaming and drawing in her notebooks. She thought that she would get in trouble with her father, but he ended up buying her a  drawing pad and pens. Her education and the education of her two sisters were not free, and their family was living on the streets but her parents were dedicated in giving the three girls an education to improve their lives. After Ruksana was almost attacked on the streets, her mother wanted to leave, but her father knew that heading back to their village would only trap the girls there. Even after they were kicked out of their home on the streets and her father wanted to give in, the mother than decided that they wouldn't let the people stop them. They didn't have a lot of money, but they knew that it was worth it to spend it on their education. I thought it was fantastic how supportive the parents were and they wouldn't let their struggles stop their children from succeeding. Ruksana got her strength from the support of her parents and she now has all the tools she needs to succeed.

Amina had a very different experience from Ruksana, but that did not stop her from trying to get her education. Ruksana's story was much more positive, but Amina's showed that she had a lot of inner strength. In Afghanistan, women are treated terribly and they are in a much more restrictive society than India, but Amina wouldn't let that stop her. Her birth wasn't recorded because she was a girl and she wasn't seen as important. Her mother was sad to have a girl and Amina started working around the house at 3. She was able to get a few years of education and learned to read and write, which seemed to give her a lot of strength. She was married off to a cousin at 11 and the money her family received from the wedding allowed them to buy a car for their son. Amina was seen as an object by her family and her husband. She is a child mother, but she didn't let that stop her get her education. She knew that she could be ostracized or even killed for pursuing her education, but she believed it was worth it. For Ruksana she had her parents to support her and give her the opportunities, but for Amina she took them. Having a few years of education helped her from turning into her mother and made her break the mold that so many people tried to place her in. She gained power from knowledge and it is so amazing to see.

Boy, Girls and Toys--Oh My

I never really thought of how toy stores are set up and just toys in general are gendered, which is terrible because the children can be affected by that. I've worked at a daycare for five years now and children don't really care what they play with as long as they can use their imagination, that is until they are told what to like. Most young children don't care what it is they will play with it all the same. It is the way toys are packaged and what parents and adults present to the children that continue these gendered ideas. Many of the children that come in to where I work are under five years old and there are many little boys that play with the dolls and dress up with no issue. They also play with the trains and superheroes too. It is crazy because young children just don't care but once they start going to school everything changes. There are specific things for boys and girls and it puts a limit on the young children. Watching the youtube video of the young girl talk about how crazy it is everything is separated because some girls want superheroes and some want princesses! Its great to see a young girl understand what many adults don't seem to. It shouldn't matter what children play with and by gendering the product by having it be pink or blue closes down half of the market. I think if everything is gender neutral you will still have more girls buying dolls, but at least boys can play with dolls without playing with a "girl" toy. Below I found some pictures and the first one is of a toy store and it is so cray how divided the two sections are. I never cared about it or realized it as a kid, but it needs to change. The other two pictures I found are advertisements that include both boys and girls to sell a kitchen (a typical "girl" toy) and nerf guns (a typical boys toy). Children seeing these will see themselves playing with the toys. It makes sense to have gender neutral toys, I don't know why advertisers and toy companies haven't done it yet. 

Chapter 19 Summary: "Televisions 'New' Feminism"

Throughout this chapter Lisa Cuklanz and Sujata Moorti discuss the Law & Order: SVU and its depiction of sexual assault and the people who commit the crimes. They start out talking about how it is presented as a feminist show and it addresses the misconceptions of rape. They bring up a lot of the positives of the series but they also are not ok with the way that the show represents the female criminals, which they call "monstrous mothers." Despite this negative I think that it is great that there is a show that is trying to break the mold and educate people about sexual assault. No show can be perfect and I think that they try to make sure that they are factual and also very well thought out.

It is very important that this show demystifies the rape myths and try to put the focus on the "post rape" narrative. They do this to make sure that the sexual assault victims are not objectified and to show that there is life after rape. They tackle the issue of consent in many different episodes and how complicated this issue is, especially in the courtroom. Another good part of the show is that it does not represent the victims as good or bad. For example they treat a case involving sexual assault against a prostitute the same way that they would any other rape case. Other points that Cuklanz and Moorti bring up are that rape can take place in public or safe places like the home, that men and women can commit these crimes, and that race does not play the role that we think it does. They try to demystify the "black male rapist myth" by rarely showing them as criminals in interracial crimes. SVU tries to tell the truth as much as possible.

The main issue that they have with the show is that the male criminals are displayed as people that have been molded by society into criminals and the female criminals do these terrible things because of their "feminine qualities." Mothers are shown as the people that create these criminals, while fathers are barely shown, or their influence is in the past. Their crimes come from a misdirection of the maternal role and Cuklanz and Moorti say that the monstrous maternal story lines make the show appear mysognistic more than feminist. I have not seen the show so I am not entirely sure if it is true, but I don't think that it should take away from the overall message. It is important to bring up the issues there may be, but also to realize that the show does work to overturn many misconceptions people think about sexual assault.

Gender and The Military

I personally do not know anyone that has been in the military recently, but I am aware that there are definite gender biases that are prevalent. Women and gay men are often turned away from joining the military or can even be discharged. This article, "Sexuality, Gender, and the US Military," by Melissa Trible discusses these issues. She points out how unfair and illogical it is to discharge men for being gay when they are fully capable of being soldiers and they need all of the people they can get. It was interesting that the military is alright with homosexual soldiers as long as they don't know about it, so they are more comfortable with someone that covers up and lies about a big chunk of their lives but the people that are true to themselves are kicked up.  Its something that limits the military and even though they say it is for unit cohesion, there will be less people to even fill units. It is also wrong to discharge someone based on their sexual preference. They also are not as comfortable with having women in the military and women are usually in non-combat positions. There is the physical differences in men and women that make less women be able to be soldiers, but there are still plenty that could stand up to the physical task. The article brings up having an all female unit in which they all are physically fit but having them all together takes out the sexual interest that affects the "unit cohesion." I think that splitting up males and females is not going to help the stigma of females in the military and I think they just need to get used to both together. It is something that is rare so it seems weird, but the more exposure I think that it would be less of an issue.

There are also differences with how military wives and husbands are portrayed. I don't think I have heard much of military husbands honestly, but military wives are always talked about. They are usually the doting wives that are strong enough to take care of their own families when their husbands leave. Another thing is that in the media, female soldiers are seen more as the caring figures while the male soldiers are emotionless and strong. There are some strong females soldiers in the media, but they usually have more emotions or represented as more emotional. The military is definitely gendered and I think that there should definitely be a change in that.

"Sound & Fury: Fred Phelps and Life inside Westboro" Summary

Mark David Bradshaw's article "Sound & Fury: Fred Phelps and Life inside Westboro" discusses certain events in which Fred Phelps, the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church, abused his family. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church are known for protesting practically anything and being very hateful and prejudiced. For me it is surprising that a man so outwardly bigoted can gain a following and then use that to spread the hate. It is interesting to see how his home life reflects his public life and he was always very abusive

First of all there were 4 of the 13 phelps children that left the church and cut all ties with Fred Phelps. This illustrated that he was abusive and that they also did not agree with his beliefs. After reading the rest of the article I was surprised that more didn't leave. He was abusive to all of his children and treated them extremely unfairly. They couldn't celebrate Christmas, chose their own jobs, see whoever they wanted, or do anything without his say. He was so extreme that his children should have been taken away from him, but he was so controlling of them that they ended up lying to cover up his abuse. Two of his sons were heavily bruised and had their heads forcibly shaved but Child Services couldn't do anything because his sons covered for him. It is no way for children to be raised and now those children are his followers because that is all they knew as they were raised. It was especially upsetting to see how his hurtful comments towards his oldest son's ex-girlfriend led to her suicide. This extreme hate is illogical and affects many different people. 

Blog 5: Intelligence vs. Icon

I had previously heard that Marilyn Monroe was actually a smart individual and not just the dumb blonde she was portrayed to be, but it is interesting how despite her not purposefully hiding her smarts most people just assumed she was dumb. They confused her characters with her and thought if her characters were dumb blondes so was she. I also think that because her looks where the main sell of her brand that her intellect was completely overlooked. There was a definite emphasis on how she looked and how sexy she was which made those be what made her special to the public. Her being portrayed as smart wouldn't have helped to sell her movies because smart women were not valued as much back then. But still this is something that still happens today to some extent. There are plenty of celebrities that are known for their pretty faces but they also have big brains.

One current celebrity that completely took me by surprise when I heard that she was practically a genius and had a near-perfect score on the SATs was Ke$ha. An article from ANDPOP discussed how  it is extremely hard to believe she is actually smart and how she is "A smart girl, choosing the write the dumbest songs on the radio." She is portrayed as a partying blonde bimbo that doesn't have a care in the world, but behind all of the glitz and glam she is extremely smart. Ke$ha has been open about her SAT scores and talks about how what her music image is not the only side to her. If I had not known this, I would never have even thought about her as an intellect that was in a gifted program at her school. It is also interesting to think about how just because of how she looks and presents herself many people can't believe she is actually smart. She's talked briefly about how she is not just how she is portrayed, but she also makes sure to portray herself as the dumb blonde to sell her music. Her image matches her music and because her music is mindless, so is she.


ANDPOP: Internet Buzzing: Is Ke$ha Really A Genius?

Chapter 30 Summary: Supersexualize Me!

A lot of what we have been discussing in class is about how women have been portrayed as passive sexual objects of desire, but Rosalind Gill's chapter also discusses how women are now portrayed as sexual subjects. She debates about if this seemingly feminist and sexual power to women in advertising is actually beneficial. Many people see this as giving women the choice to be seen as sexual subjects and that they actually want it, but this still reinforces stereotypes and hypersexualized behaviors.

Gill talks about this type of advertising in relation to the "midriffs" and how it portrays a woman's sexual power. This is problematic because this advertising is primarily displaying young, heterosexual females so it is not inclusive and it tries to make it seem like it is all about the woman's choice. This is still a constructed viewpoint that doesn't actually give women the power. It is superficial and reinforces this concept that women get their femininity from their bodies and how thin they are. This idea has shifted from being desirable for men to being desirable for themselves, and while this can be seen as an improvement it isn't much of a change.

I found it interesting that Gill believes that this midriff advertising does not signify "open or egalitarian possibilities for gender relations" (281). She sees this advertising as re-sexualization of their bodies with the "excuse of a feisty, empowered postfeminist discourse that makes it very difficult to critique." This brings up the important idea that although it may seem like an improvement, it just gives advertisers an excuse to be able to still sexualize women without as much backlash. I found this chapter to be very enlightening and makes me think that it will take a long time to get rid of this sexualization of women in advertising. It is important to be aware that it is still and issue in order to actually have a positive change.

Blog 4: Gendered Language

Often when discussing gender and the difference between men and women, many people forget that even language is gendered. It is something that most of us don't think of because it a such a big part of our daily lives that we are barely aware that there is any issue with it. One of the biggest things that I know that I am guilty of is saying "you guys" when talking to a group of people. To me I am just addressing group of people in a casual way, which is what is means in our society today, but the term guys is another word for men, so it is like I'm saying "you men." I often say this to my friends and many of them are female, which to me isn't an issue, but that is because we are so unaware of the implications. If I said "you girls" to a group of people of different genders many men would be insulted, but on the other hand if I say "you guys" no one even questions it. It would be just as easy to say "you all," but almost no one says this, which is a shame. This is just one of many different colloquialisms that are gendered and just accepted. This is an issue because it reinforces gender gaps and although it may seem tiny, because these colloquialisms are so widely accepted they have greater implications.
   Our language is definitely gendered even though so many people are blinded to this. Often it isn't meant to be derisive to a certain gender, but it is just a part of our history and daily lives. Men were always the more "dominant" gender throughout history and many of our historical documents and laws use the term "men" when talking about all people. Today there would be a lot of backlash if someone decided to do this, but still we accept what was in the past. Certain terms are still gendered like freshman and many others. I was actually surprised when I heard someone discuss how "freshmen" is gendered because I don't think of it as "fresh-men," I think of it as people who are in their first year of high school or college. When thinking about it wouldn't it be just as simple to say first-years? It would be a lot better if these words were gender neutral in order to promote gender equality in all areas. There has been improvements like there are firemen and firewomen and the plural of them are usually firefighters to include both genders. There are many words that are gendered and more harmful thann these, but it is important to see that even in seemingly harmless words there are still gender equality issues.

Ch. 14 Summary: "Hetero Barbie?"

    Mary Rogers wrote this chapter discussing Barbie and how she represents gender and sexuality. Rogers starts the chapter stating that many heterosexual females as they enter their teenage years begin to put men at the center of their lives. Teenage girls begin basing their value on their attractiveness to boys and their relationship with a boy. It is interesting how Rogers connects this to Barbie and although Barbie's looks are very important, she has an "independence that deviates from the codes of mainstream femininity" (128). I never thought of Barbie as being outside of the mainstream, but more of a stereotypical view of how women are "supposed" to look. Barbie has Ken, but even then he is not the center of her life and throughout her existence she has not had a husband or kids. I was surprised when Rogers said the Barbie may not be heterosexual or not even a woman? It is a different perspective, but I don't know if I agree with that. I don't think it really matter it just is nice that Barbie is her own independent woman and has different jobs and hobbies on her own, despite her overly feminine and made-up look. 

    This chapter also looked at how people of different genders and sexuality viewed Barbie. Lesbians are more likely to reject "some of the central features of Barbie's world" and also bisexuals may find her monosexuality "unappealing" (129). The possibility that Barbie is a drag queen may explain why she is so made-up and I don't believe that it is bad that some people view her as that. Barbie is a doll and if people see different things in her that they can identify with then that is great. I always played with Barbie dolls as a kid and recently it seems like there has been so much negative views on her and how she is a bad representation of a woman for young children. 

Blog 3: All in the Family

  Family structure has changed a lot over the years and now there are a lot more different types of families. In the past it was mainly just the nuclear family, which is the family that consists of a mom, a dad, and kids. It is generally what most people think of when they think of a family, but this has changed as more people get divorced, have children out of marriage, and there are also many same-sex couple families. A lot of those different types of families were not accepted in the past, but as society advances and becomes more accepting of people and their situations the family structure has evolved.
   Within the nuclear family structure, there are gender roles for the mother and the father, but this is also something that has been changing. For the most part the father was the breadwinner of the family and the mother took care of the house and the children. The mother was nurturing while the father was in charge. This has changed as discussed by Sara Eckel in her article "Dad-Mom Role Reversals" on the Working Mother website. This article is about how the recession has forced many families to break the gender roles and have the mother be the breadwinner while the dad is more in charge of the children and the house. It seemed like it was difficult for many families to adjust to this, but it was something that had to be done because many men had lost their jobs. This was difficult for them not only financially but also emotionally, so it took time in order to get used to taking over some of the generally female responsibilities. It was an interesting dynamic to discuss and see that there are some obstacles in this role reversal, but it was great to see that for many families it was successful. This necessary role reversal and also society as a whole being more accepting of working mothers and stay at home dads has changed the way we see nuclear families now.
   Gender roles are different in modern families because there may not be a mother and a father in the house. There may just be a mother or a father who has to take on the responsibilities of both or even other family members or friends that take over certain responsibilities. There are also the same-sex families in which there are two fathers or two mothers, the gender roles in these families are very different and the parents don't have very defined roles. Modern families have much less defined gender roles and often have to adapt to what the situation they are in. With a nuclear family there are years of these gender roles, while the modern family is just becoming more talked about and accepted.

Chapter 29 Summary: "Sex, Lies, and Advertising"

  This chapter by Gloria Steinem described many different situations in which Ms. magazine faced road blocks in trying to get advertisements for the magazine that were supportive in their message. Advertising is very important to magazines and can make them profitable but when Ms. magazine were looking for advertisements, many companies were very sexist and only had certain products or advertisement types that they were willing to promote in a woman's magazine. Ms. magazine was very progressive, but the advertisements sometimes got in their way as illustrated through the 11 experiences Steinem had with sexist advertisements.
   Many different companies just didn't want to advertise to women like the car companies from Detroit. They eventually started to advertise to women but they were still uncomfortable in making adds that excluded no one. Foreign car companies had less issues with this, which goes to show how cars are such a part of masculinity in America. Other companies that were hesitant to advertise in Ms. magazine were toy companies. There was an issue with Lionel and their ads for their toy trains that were geared towards girls. They made a pink train for girls, but they don't sell and they don't want to advertise to both girls and boys because if trains are associated with girls "they will be devalued in the minds of boys" (273). This is a big factor in many of these companies decisions to advertise towards women and it is a shame that they even think about that. Even though Ms. magazine is read by many women with children, they do not advertise because many companies can't "believe feminists have or care for children" (273). This goes to show how sexist and man-driven advertisement companies are.
   Something else that was interesting was that many food companies refused to advertise with Ms. magazine because the magazine refused to show recipes in conjunction with the product. The magazine believed that associating work with the food had negative impacts on selling the food and also the reputation of the magazine. They made this decision to maintain their integrity in the eyes of their readers, but the companies did not respect this choice.
    The one story about advertising that stuck out to me the most was Steinem's dealings with Revlon. It was a short story but it had a huge impact. Ms. magazine got an interview with women from the Soviet Union that had produced feminist books and were exiled. The interview was a cover story that received very positive feedback and even a Front Page award. The problem was that this interview undid years of work to get ads from Revlon just "because the Soviet women on our cover are not wearing makeup" (275). It is terrible that a company would take such an important and positive thing that the magazine did and see it as a negative. It was appalling to see how much power companies have and that many are against the advancement of women.
    Eventually Ms. magazine was sold to an Australian company because they lost so much money due to issues with the ads. In Australia they also had issues with the same thing and had to be sold again. The next company that bought them was able to produce the magazine without ads, which proved to be beneficial. The magazine had complete editorial control and could convey their message without the negativity of advertisements.

Music Videos Imagery and Lyrics

Jenny Lewis--"Just One Of The Guys"

This music video includes Kristen Stewart, Anne Hathaway, and Brie Larson and Jenny Lewis uses them to challenge gender norms in her video. The video starts with the four of them playing instruments and singing in a band and is interspersed with them dressed in drag. Just from that they are showing how they are trying to be "just one of the guys" by dressing in tracksuits with facial hair and trying to act strong and tough. It is interesting in this video because they are trying to be just one of the guys, but there is something that is holding them back. Throughout the song, Jenny Lewis touches on having children and how "there's a little clock inside that keeps tickin'." I liked this video because although it seems like it reinforces gender norms and how women only are seen as mothers and nurturers, Jenny Lewis tackles this issue from a position of strength and shows how to be comfortable with yourself. She sings about how there is only one thing holding her back, but she doesn't take this as something bad and even mocks the machismo of men by dressing in tracksuits and doing karate kicks and trying to break dance. Another part of the song that touches on gender norms is one of her first lines of the song, "If I get caught being rude in a conversation with a child bride on a summer vacation..." and it shows that if she, a woman, was with a much younger person there is a different view placed on her than if a man did that. Throughout the video she tries to emphasize the male stereotype and how women play into that, and it is shown through Anne Hathaway, Kristen Stewart, and Brie Larson. When they first are shown in their track suits, they really try to play into the male stereotype, but as the song goes on they start to have more fun with it and are seen smiling. They make it their own and show that they don't have to be "just one of the guys" and be stoic and strong. They can be goofy and smart too.

Maddie & Tae--"Girl In A Country Song"

Maddie and Tae created a song that challenged the stereotype of women in country music in their song "Girl in a Country Song." The song on its own has a very clear message about how sexist the way women are viewed in country music as just pretty objects just to be admired. The first verse even includes a line on catcalling; "I hear you over there on your tailgate whistling'/Sayin', "Hey girl."/But you know I ain't listening'/'Cause I got a name/And to you it ain't "pretty little thing", "hottie" or "baby"." Their chorus even further points out how bad the stereotype is now and it is great that they put this outrage out there. The chorus discusses how they don't get any respect and it is like all that they are good for is "looking good for you and your friends on the weekend." The song displayed all of these gender norms and talked about how terrible they are and then in the video they try to reverse them. The video starts with the women in bikini tops and jean cut-offs, and then they hit the role reverse lever to have the men wear the "barely there" clothing and dance around "sexily." By doing this it shows how ridiculous it is for the women to be dancing around like that because the men look absolutely crazy doing it. At one point the boys are trying to eat a strawberry seductively and its a laugh out loud moments and then next they try to wash a car in a sexy way. These are things that have been in country music videos and I love that they did the role reversal and pointed out how stupid it all is. I think this video shows a very good example of how to have a role reversal to showcase an issue in a way that makes the viewers question the gender norms in place.

Chapter 40 Summary: "There Are Bitches and Hoes"

Tricia Rose's chapter "There Are Bitches and Hoes" focuses on the way hip hop music portrays women as "bitches and hoes" and is extremely sexist. She discusses that many rappers brag about controlling women and promote the black pimp culture in which women are see only as sex objects. The music can also affect how other people think and act because the music promotes the idea that women have to be "bitches and hoes" in order to get attention. The hip hop music culture makes it seem as though men have to be the "black gansta" stereotype in order to gain money and fame, while women are put into the position of having to be hyper-sexual in order to make any gains at all. It is very unfortunate that music that so many people listen to reinforces these gender stereotypes and affects many people. Rose says that we have to actively work against the sexism and it can be very difficult because men and women are socialized by sexism and it is difficult to break when society rewards you for being sexist. 

Another point that this chapter brings up is that many people defend this sexism because they don’t believe it affects them or is about them. It is something that always happens and by doing nothing the hyper-sexism in hip hop music is affecting many young children.  Rose uses a quote from Byron Hurt’s Hip Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes as an example of this; “It’s funny when I hear women say, ‘when these rappers are calling women bitches a ho’s, they’re not talking about me” (388). This may be true that the music isn’t specifically about them, but the music helps to spread the idea that women are to be controlled and sexualized. By separating themselves from these “bitches and hoes” women are allowing the sexism to continue. It is terrible that these views of women are in such popular music and many people don’t see a problem with it, but it affects the way people think about women and the “black gangsta” culture. Young people hear the music and are affected by the messages of hyper-sexualized women and it can have a negative impact.

The one thing that really stuck out to me was when Rose was discussing how we can fix all of this. She said, “We have to work hard against what destroys who we are, what prevents up from reaching our best selves and stalls our effort to create a truly just society” (390). This is important to realize, because although it may seem like it is just enjoyable music, it can put many different limits on us as people. Overall I found this chapter to be informative and eye-opening because something as simple as music can carry a huge message.

YouTube, I Tube, We All Tube: Gender Stereotypes in Toy Commercials

The first video I found was a commercial for a Barbie Gourmet Kitchen and it depicts the stereotype that women are homemakers. I chose this one as an just one of many commercials for toys that use this stereotype. This commercial is meant for young girls and uses a lot of stereotypes, which can be harmful because of how prevalent they all are. All of the toys that are deemed acceptable for girls are generally pink and deal with either playing with dolls, taking care of babies, or being a homemaker. This video depicts a young girl in a dress that makes her look a 60s housewife and making a big "home cooked" meal with her Barbie Kitchen. The kitchen itself is a bright pink and can even turn into a play dishwasher.

The other video I found is also for a toy, but this one takes all of the stereotypical toys for girls and makes them into a Rube Goldberg project to show that girls can also build and engineer things. The commercial was for Goldie Blox and advertised toys for future engineers. The video begins with three girls watching a video in which girls are dancing and dressed up in pink. They are extremely bored and go and grab goggles, a tool belt, and a construction hat to start building. Their creation uses many stereotypical "girl" toys and culminates with their project switching the channel to a commercial that depicts girls as future engineers. Throughout the entire video all of the "girl" toys were being thrown around and destroyed as a visual to show how Goldie Blox breaks the mold. The girls in the video showed curiosity and creativity as they worked together which is a great thing for young girls to see. The girls were excited to be creative and build something of their own and this creates a positive model for young girls. It is perfectly alright for girls to have a Barbie Kitchen, but I was happy to see that there are commercials that provide a different option for girls. It is a positive example and breaks many of the gender stereotypes brought up by the first video.

Barbie Gourmet Kitchen

Goldie Blox and Rube Goldberg "Princess Machine"

Summary of Chapter 7: "Women Read the Romance"

       Radway’s chapter focuses on one group of women brought together by Dot Evans, a bookstore employee, and their love of romance novels. The women go to Dot for advice on which romance novels to read and Radway focuses on why they enjoy romance novels and how they use the books as an escape. Radway's study on these women was from about sixty hours of interviews in 1981. Most of them were married and enjoyed the escape that romance novels gave to them from the day-to-day craziness from their lives and neglectful men. I found this to be very interesting that Radway decided to look into this and see the motivations behind their love of romance novels and how they only liked certain books.

      Romance novels, at least the ones back in the 80s, tended to follow a formula of how a woman would fall in love with a man that she once was at odds with. There were some of these books that dealt with leading men that at least temporarily abused or hurt the women that they fell in love with. These books gave the romance genre a bad name, but Dot and her readers refused to read any of the books in which the women were abused or brutally hurt by a man that she ends up falling for. Dot was able to find which books to avoid so the women could relate more to the stories and give them a break from their own lives. I think it is great that these women worked together to find which stories depicted women in a way they could relate to, because if the men in the story were too mean, it would be difficult to believe that the characters could actually fall in love.

    Many of the women used these novels as an escape from the dissatisfaction with their own lives, but the characteristic of the men in the novels are almost unattainable in our society. I was surprised about how Radway described that women want men to be nurturing and loving, but the patriarchal family structure encourages men to be aggressive, competitive, and unemotional. I feel like this is not as true now as it once was, but I believe that it still happens. The women look to these books to fill in the gaps in their own lives, which helps to make them happier, but it also gives them a false view of the world. I would be interested in seeing this study conducted now to see how things have changed. I think that the formula for the romance novels is probably still very similar, but I am curious to see if the reasons for reading them may change. 

     

“You Play Like a Girl!” Summary and Analysis

        Throughout the chapter “You Play Like a Girl!” the idea that females playing or even being allowed to play games on the same level as males is very difficult and has many different implications. There are many different obstacles that women face, whether not being allowed to play a sport with men or the perceived limitations of women. These perceived limitations include that men don’t think women are strong enough, they are not their equals, they are too masculine, and also limitations that women put on themselves. Women that play sports often are criticized for not being feminine and not being sexually desirable. These societal ideas make certain women not want to expose themselves to that scrutiny. An interesting idea brought up in this article was that years of “cultural conditioning” have made it difficult for women to play on the same level as men in the same way that men play with each other (493). Men are told they are supposed to never hit women, and this concept can take out of the competitiveness because men are thinking about this and not about the game. There is just so many different sides to why women should and should not play on the same level as men, which leads to as the book describes “a lose/lose situation” (495). If a man loses to a woman, he defeated a “weaker” opponent, but if the woman wins, the man is given the shame of being defeated by someone he should have easily beaten. Also women may be taunted if they win against a man, so there is the possibility of no one being happy in a situation like that.      
      This chapter truly highlighted the obstacles women face in competing on the same level as men and also the reason why men may be more reserved or even completely opposed to women competitors. There are so many different perceptions and stereotypes that are involved that take away from the competition. It is difficult to break down the “cultural conditioning” and many people don’t even want to try, which is a shame. It takes awhile to change a whole society’s viewpoint, but the article gave some options for improvement. I think the best way to improve this situation is definitely have cross-gender play be “frequent, routine, and enjoyable” (499). Making cross-gender play normal can help break stereotypes and preconceived notions because it’s what people think about women playing on the same field as men, not the actual competition that causes the most issues. Also the chapter mentions reinforcing “emerging perceptions of physically strong, competitive, aggressive females as sexually desirable” (499). Breaking down the barrier and the belief that athletic women are “masculine” and less attractive is the next step to making women more open to cross-gender competition. In turn if more women are willing to participate, the more “normal” it becomes. I believe that the chapter has given some great options and I don’t believe they will work overnight, but people need to start with being more open-minded and supportive of cross-gender play.