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.