Sproutedink's List: Media Studies

You repeat a message enough times, especially in social settings and in socializing entertaining and informational media like film television or music videos, the message sticks; the self-concept changes and conforms, and our perceived possibilities and human potentials contract, diminish and even languish.

The fact that it’s written by women, that it’s historically accurate, that the women are nuanced characters, and that the writers aren’t afraid to show the men being unabashed jerks still doesn’t justify categorizing the show under “feminist.” None of this means the show is in and of itself feminist. It just means that the show is fertile ground for feminist/gender analysis.

“Mad Men” is feminist/gender analysis gold, that much is certain. However, when I read shit like Nussbaum’s rape article, I feel like banging my head against the desk a few times:

At once a real person and an iconographic cartoon, she was a retro Samantha Jones, a third-wave feminist before her time, eternally articulating one form of female power: the potent combination of an arched eyebrow and a tight green skirt.

Uhhh…

Was it really necessary to Sex-and-the-Citify Joan?
Is it really necessary to keep perpetuating the impression that third-wavers are empowered solely through their sexuality?
The second wave hasn’t even happened yet, much less the third. Again, totally projecting/jumping the gun with these labels.

The second wave exploded on the scene largely with the publication of The Feminine Mystique, which was first published in early 1963–the year in which this current season is set. These women are who The Feminine Mystique is about; they experience The Problem That Has No Name on a daily basis. We may very well start to see some the women setting the framework for a true feminist awakening on the show. (Even then, I’d be hard pressed to consider the show itself feminist.)

Until then? Stop projecting.

An even better example of cognitive dissonance in Mad Men's audience happened in last season's famous scene between Don Draper and Bobbie Barrett. In a stunningly physical display of male domination, Don grabbed Bobbie's hair, inserted his hand into her vagina, and ordered her to compel her husband Jimmy to apologize to his clients. She complies.

When I watched the scene myself, though, I thought - how masterfully they've set this up! This is the dark underbelly of Don's charm, revealed! And they've even set it up so that he's using his sexual dominance of Bobbie to make her do something that will benefit him professionally! Oh I can't wait to see what people have to say about this!

And the reaction at Jezebel was typical of what I heard in most corners of the internet: shocking - but sexxxaaaaay! … [W]hat I thought would be a discussion about the more difficult spaces in which male domination can play out - that even where we might be said to want it, structurally it's no good for us as people - turned into a reflexive admiration of how totally hot misogyny can be.

"the power of cinema and the way it shapes our self-image, our emotional life and our understanding of human relationships. "

"But when that libido is over-stimulated in public life, men — and I speak here primarily of cisgendered heterosexual men – may require increasingly “strong” stimulation in their private lives. This constant exposure to graphic imagery – from your Carl’s Jr. commercials to hardcore porn – no doubt leads to not just sexual fantasies, but expectations. "

It should be expected that what boys learn from porn will manifest itself in their real world relationships and sexual encounters with actual women.

Porn is a major part of the culture that taught Elliot Rodger to assume that sexual pleasure and female subservience was his birthright as a man. It’s the same culture that, in the words of hip-hop lyricist Tariq Trotter, uses sex to sell “everything from the liquor, to the nicotine/Cell phones, antihistamine, chicken wing.” When women’s sexuality and hamburgers are portrayed as one and the same, it sends the message that both can be easily obtained, and for a small price. It should come as no surprise that a decadent society that encourages brazen consumption also faces a rape epidemic. Voracious insatiability is not without its victims.

While no one really expressed in great detail why they liked these characters, and the researcher
failed to press for explanations from the participants, the majority opinion was overwhelming,
the savvy Don and the sexy Joan captured the attention of the viewers


The hypotheses about the effects of retro-sexism on gender attitudes and the belief that equality has been achieved is strongly supported by this focus group. Some of the remarks and beliefs expressed by those who consistently view Mad Men and Pan Am are discouraging, as they believe women have achieved equality to men, yet still express some very sexist attitudes. The group expressed how far rights for women have come and the women expressed deep gratitude for their current rights. In line with the hypothesis that women would develop an appreciation for existing rights, and thus become complacent and unmotivated to work for further advancements, the focus group participants hold the belief that women have equal rights and that if women appear to still be oppressed it is by their own choice or preference, not by social constraints. This grave delusion presents extreme concerns about the possible effects of retro-sexist content.

This especially applies to Sixties-based media content, as many people exposed to the programs may not have the historical education to truly understand the time period. This lack of knowledge, leads to an interpretation of the nostalgic portrayal as more realistic. Thus, the conflicting portrayals of a glamorous lifestyle and blatant sexism appear to create contradictory attitudes
among the respondents, constantly going back and forth between wanting the lifestyle, but not the negative social restraints. Retro-sexism dangerously plays with a glorified sepia toned era and extreme social injustices, creating ambivalent attitudes between the longing for a simpler time of the Sixties, promoting the myth that equality for women has been achieved, and
reinforcing retro-sexist attitudes

"I was not surprised to find out this week that AMC's zombie series The Walking Dead is not only the most popular show on US cable television history (sorry, Game of Thrones) but also the most popular television show among women (not sorry, Game of Thrones). I love The Walking Dead. Love. And it's not just because I'm a sucker for post-apocalyptic gore narratives (at least, not entirely).

During a Producer's Guild discussion this past Sunday on "Courting the Female Audience", panelists noted that female viewers are looking for "nuance" and that they're more "discerning" than male viewers. But the observation that resonated most with me was from Debra Birnbaum, a contributing editor at Variety who said she finds it difficult to deal with the "rape and torture" upon which so many procedural dramas rely.

It may seem counterintuitive – after all, the show is bloody, has lots of violence, and can be, frankly, gross – but the The Walking Dead is missing one plot device on which so many other shows rely: rape.

Granted (and spoiler alert), there have been two near-rapes on The Walking Dead: one in which Maggie is forced to take her top off and gets shoved on a table by the show's ultimate villain, the Governor; and another in which Carl (a young boy) is almost raped before his father stops the assault. While these scenes were undoubtedly horrible and distressing, I've found myself largely relieved by the way the show chooses to depict and recognize sexual violence. There have been no rapes shown on camera and no gratuitous sexual assault – despite on-camera violence against women having become such an accepted trope in this, the golden age of television drama."

"I definitely do not want to watch more rape scenes on a show that has made its point about the sexual climates of both Westeros and Essos. And I badly hope that the folks in charge of “Game of Thrones” have learned to communicate more clearly with their directors than they did with Alex Graves, who earlier this season thought he had directed a sex scene with complicated power dynamics when many of his viewers saw an unambiguous sexual assault.
Instead I wonder if “Game of Thrones” needs more sequences in which grown-up couples enthusiastically consent to mutually pleasurable sex.

As tragically as it ended, the affair between Night’s Watch brother Jon Snow (Kit Harington) and wildling warrior Ygritte (Rose Leslie) was often sweet and sexy, and it was a blessed relief from the relentless misery on “Game of Thrones.” Depicting sexual assault repeatedly is one way to demonstrate that a society is deformed by its monstrous sexual culture and gender norms. But “Game of Thrones” could also get to that same point by examining the ways in which healthier relationships fail to thrive or are killed off by institutions or social pressure.

Similarly, Ned Stark’s (Sean Bean) death felt like a genuine and enormous loss not just because it subverted genre conventions, nor because he was a straightforward hero, but because he had a family he actually loved. Ned had a wife (Michelle Fairley) whose bed and counsel he seemed to share gladly, and children who adored him. His death was tragic not simply because it was the end of a life, but because in a season, we saw what that life consisted of and what it was worth.

“Game of Thrones” and the George R.R. Martin novels the show is based on are deeply committed to upsetting the conventions of fairy tales. Happy endings — at least, predictable ones — could upset that core project. But better, more emotionally rooted sex for the characters, and more kind gestures like the wolf Hot Pie (Ben Hawkey) baked for Brienne of Tarth (Gwendoline Christie) to give to his long-lost friend Arya Stark (Maisie Williams) can still be consistent with the story “Game of Thrones” is telling.

Sometimes, simple friendship, generosity and deep affection can be more miraculous than any vanquished witch or rescued kingdom. And when even those small virtues fail, their loss reminds us of the human stakes that often get obscured by fantastical stories. Dany’s dragons are a miracle. But so is her continued hope for pleasure, and maybe even love."

n both Sleeping Dogs and the Grand Theft Auto franchise, buying and using prostituted women for sex rewards the player with powerups, stat boosts and/or health regeneration...These games systematize sexuality in ways that dehumanize women, essentially turning them into vending machines dispensing sex, along with other goods and services. Their worth as characters is measured entirely in terms of what they can give to the player. Since these women are just objects, there’s no need or reason for players to have any emotional engagement with them. Meaningful relationships or interactions are not even possible. Their programming simply does not allow for it. When men are depicted using female [non-playable characters] as tools or commodities, their actions are portrayed as part of what makes them powerful, which is by extension part of what makes the player then feel powerful. So these interactive algorithms transmit cultural messages of near constant affirmation of male heterosexual dominance, while simultaneously reinforcing the widespread regressive belief that women’s primary role is to satisfy the desires of men." - Anita Sarkeesian explores how women are used as background decoration in video games, via Feminist Frequency

Yes - and this is why it could be more refreshing to see a NEW narrative, rather than storytelling of violence against women as entertainment.

"I’m exhausted by the triumph of men at the expense of women as a narrative device. It’s not only boring, but also a little too tied to my real-world experience as a woman and person of color for me to look at these shows objectively and give them a pass – not when the television industry is so criminally underdeveloped in hiring or telling the stories of minority populations. I certainly don’t expect that every good story will omit difficult subject matter or be perfectly balanced and fair, but I do need to trust that the direction of a TV show isn’t rooted in a violence or misogyny that seems excessive"

"Instead it’s a world where young women are used as political pawns, where the rare female knight fears rape, not just death (and where the very real sexual assaults of male warriors are mysteriously erased from the narrative, even though they, too, would be ‘accurate for the time’). While some women of power are depicted textually in Game of Thrones, they are shown as unusual for the society they live in — and they have to fight dragon’s tooth and nail to get where they are. Daenerys, for example, is a highly distinctive and outstanding woman, a warrior and princess attempting to reclaim her throne from the men who have stolen it. Cersei, meanwhile, for all her scheming and manipulation, is constantly reminded that she is only a woman, and thus isn’t anyone’s equal in society.

If this is about fantasy, and we can do anything we want, why is fighting misogyny so impossible? How is it that we can imagine a world where dragons walk the Earth, but not one where women don’t have to fear rape?"

"So why does any of this matter? What's the real harm in sexually objectifying women? Well, the negative impacts of sexual objectification have been studied extensively over the years and the effects on people of all genders are quite clear and very serious. Research has consistently found that exposure to these types of images negatively impacts perceptions and beliefs about real world women and reinforces harmful myths about sexual violence.

We know that women tend to internalize these types of images and self-objectify. When women begin to think of themselves as objects, and treat themselves accordingly, it results in all kinds of social issues, everything from eating disorders to clinical depression, from body shame to habitual body monitoring. We also see distinct decreases in self-worth, life satisfaction and cognitive functioning.
But the negative effects on men are just as alarming, albeit in slightly different ways. Studies have found, for example, that after having viewed sexually objectified female bodies, men in particular tend to view women as less intelligent, less competent and disturbingly express less concern for their physical well being or safety. Furthermore this perception is not limited only to sexualized women; in what is called the "Spill Over Effect", these sexist attitudes carry over to perceptions of all women, as a group, regardless of their attire, activities or professions.

Researchers have also found that after long-term exposure to hyper-sexualized images, people of all genders tend to be more tolerant of the sexual harassment of women and more readily accept rape myths, including the belief that sexually assaulted women were asking for it, deserved it or are the ones to blame for being victimized.

In other words, viewing media that frames women as objects or sexual playthings, profoundly impacts how real life women are perceived and treated in the world around us. And that is all without even taking into account how video games allow for the more participatory forms of objectification that we've been discussing in this episode.

Compounding the problem is the widespread belief that, despite all the evidence, exposure to media has no real world impact. While it may be comforting to think we all have a personal force field protecting us from outside influences, this is simply not the case. Scholars sometimes refer to this type of denial as the "third person effect", which is the tendency for people to believe that they are personally immune to media's effects even if others may be influenced or manipulated. Paradoxically and somewhat ironically, those who most strongly believe that media is just harmless entertainment are also the ones most likely to uncritically internalize harmful media messages. In short, the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected."

"The woman behind Beauty and the Beast and Maleficent sees them as part of the same history


MORE
REVIEW: Maleficent: Sympathy for the Rebel
Behind the Scenes of Maleficent
Linda Woolverton knows her Disney princesses. After all, the veteran screenwriter worked on Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Mulan, the 2010 Alice in Wonderland and the Sleeping Beauty reimagination Maleficent, which arrives in theaters today.

So she speaks from experience when she says that Maleficent, which stars Angelina Jolie as the titular villain, couldn’t have existed until this point in time — because the world wasn’t necessarily ready for such a strong, complicated female protagonist.

When Woolverton worked on Beauty, she says, it was shortly after the arrival of The Little Mermaid; the Disney princess was well aligned with Ariel’s interests, like combing her hair and giving up her voice for a boy she barely knows. It wasn’t that there was explicit pressure to make Beauty‘s Belle behave like that, but that, Woolverton recalls, those attitudes just went without saying. “It was very difficult to change the point of view of the Disney princess,” she tells TIME. “It was just that the point of view of a Disney heroine is this; it isn’t somebody who does this. That was hard.”

So Belle’s book-smarts and bravery weren’t an accident. “After the women’s movement had been around, I really didn’t feel that we would accept yet another heroine who was insipid,” she says. “That was really how I conjured Belle up. She could still be the Disney princess but there she was thinking and saving her father, not having people save her, and changing the world from within. I was highly conscious of what we were trying to do.”

Woolverton says that she sees all of her characters — Belle, The Lion King‘s Nala, Mulan, Alice — as part of a gradual progression, one that extends into the world beyond her own work, the world of movies like Frozen and The Hunger Games, which have driven recent public conversation about what young girls should be able to expect from their cinematic role models. “Katniss Everdeen couldn’t have come on the scene 20 years ago when Belle came on the scene,” Woolverton says. “It’s an incremental process.”

The goal is to have heroines who are complex and action-driven, who can operate within the framework of classic tales without betraying modern consciousness that women have just as rich an experience of the world as men do. And part of that complexity is that sometimes the character can do bad things or act out of anger, and have to face the consequences of those choices. That’s where Maleficent comes in, as the result of a process that its writer started decades ago.

“Maleficent is, for me, another step forward,” Woolverton says. “I feel like it’s succeeding and I feel proud of that.”"

"Amid the passionate fervor that surrounds the popular HBO show, this text highlights a crucial point of contention with fans of the original source material: the treatment of its female characters. Readers will find deeper insight into the program's hotly debated use of gratuitous nudity, the damaging male gaze, and the excessive instances of violence against women. Pop culture critic Frankel (Buffy and the Heroine's Journey) expertly details the vast—and tragic—differences among the complexly layered and relatable characters George R.R. Martin initially imagined in his books and the clichéd archetypes portrayed on the show, easily fitting them into tired television tropes. Frankel explores the characters one by one, highlighting the ways in which their nuances have been stripped down in favor of one-note, male-centered representations. The book is also peppered with intriguing anecdotes of women throughout history and possible influences for Martin's depictions, including pirates, duelists, and warriors. VERDICT Thoroughly researched and impressively analyzed, this is highly recommended reading for fans of both book and small-screen series who are interested in valid criticisms and the feminist viewpoint.—Kate DiGirolomo, Library Journal"

Swing, Edward L., and Craig A. Anderson. "The Role Of Attention Problems And Impulsiveness In Media Violence Effects On Aggression." Aggressive Behavior 40.3 (2014): 197-203. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 July 2014.

"Previous research has established media violence as a causal risk factor for aggressive behavior. Several theoretical mechanisms have been identified to explain this effect. The present study assessed 422 undergraduate students to test the possibility that individual differences in attention problems and impulsiveness can help explain the link between violent media and aggression. Attention problems and impulsiveness proved to be a distinct construct from other processes believed to mediate aggression (aggressive beliefs, aggression related schemata, trait anger, and trait hostility). Attention problems and impulsiveness were uniquely related to both media exposure (total weekly hours and violent content) and aggression. Attention problems and impulsiveness were particularly related to impulsive (as opposed to premeditated) aggression. These results suggest that attention problems and impulsiveness may play an important role in violent media effects on aggression."

"James Dickerson once suggested that to be popular women needed to write rebellious music intended for a male audience that “expressed male fantasies about women,” while simultaneously delivering messages that would resonate with women. While Kathleen Hana may tear her hair out at that idea, Dickerson’s statement reflects an trend in the music industry. After all, we’ve seen the ‘angst-pop’ formula thoroughly pedaled from Fiona Apple to Avril Lavigne, from Kelly Clarkson to Pink, and there’s no shortage of mass-marketed, good-bad-girls with just enough Linda-Perry-approved ‘edge.’ When these women achieve success, then come the poor attempts to transform these artists into pure pop stars – think Avril Lavigne’s ‘Complicated’ to ‘Hello Kitty’ leap. In today’s market, that is one sure path to success."

You only have to look at Lady Gaga’s social media outreach and the legions of people working tirelessly on her image, clothing, maintenance, reception, and retention to see that it is not enough to merely write songs–you have to be your own brand.

There has always been a complex interplay between the consumption and delivery of pop music and what it means for women working in the industry. I’ve raged with friends working in music, from musicians and PR’s to agents, from managers to producers about the rights and wrongs and what it means to be successful for women in pop music today. Pop music both reflects and dictates mass culture. As we plunge full steam ahead into a world of instant gratification and information, where we no longer want but demand everything in real-time, pop stars are expected to adapt to this. This is where marketing matters, constantly finding new ways to promote the brand while the artist must be seen to be musically striving to reach more authentic heights. As the relationship strengthens between promotion and pop, it won’t be the singers that matter, but the teams behind the face that stand to really make a name for themselves.

"Peter Weir's "Picnic at Hanging Rock" (1975) is shown to be a misogynistic text of no less interest to the sex-obsessed, patriarchal, ticket-buying Australian public than its contemporary sex-romps of "Barry McKenzie" (Bruce Beresford 1972) or "Alvin Purple" (Tim Burstall 1973)."

Extroversion and Introversion personalities make no difference in terms of body image effects, however, media images do.

"This is a quantitative quasi-experimental non-equivalent group research design. One hundred and two women completed this online research study, wherein participant's body image satisfaction was assessed once they viewed ideal thin media messages and average media messages juxtaposed with the degree of the participants extraversion and introversion. The Big Five Inventory (BFI) assessed extraversion and introversion personality traits (John et al. 2008). The Body Image States Scale (BISS), utilized twice in the survey after each viewing of both media message, examined participant's current degree of satisfaction with participant's body image satisfaction (Cash et al. 2002). This research contributes to existing theories related to media influence: social comparison theory, objectification theory, and psychology of personality (Aubrey, 2006; Grosez et al. 2002). Research findings determined extraversion and introversion did not influence body image satisfaction when viewing two types of media images. However, this research confirmed the negative impact on body image satisfaction when women view ideal thin media images. "

Barth, Katherine K. "The effects of media messages on body image satisfaction in introverted and extroverted women." Dissertation Abstracts International 74. (2014). PsycINFO. Web. 18 July 2014.

http://rudolf.rockhurst.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2014-99120-283&site=ehost-live

"Among the top 100 domestic grossing films through 2014:

* only 8% of films star a protagonist of color* 0% of protagonists are women of color
* 0% of protagonists are LGBTQ
* 1% of protagonists are people with a disability"

Media literacy is a huge start. As media consumers, we should feel empowered to critique the media we consume, and to decide what media we choose to consume. Beyond helpful steps like going to see movies that feature diverse leads, it’s just as important to start conversations in our own communities and with our friends and family (the people we consume media with!) to raise awareness about diversity and representation. Even if we don’t go to see movies that whitewash or exclude or present discriminatory content, people we know will. One way we can help change things is by continuing to start conversations. We need to create an environment where it is safe to criticize popular franchises for lacking diversity. We also need to keep drowning out the malcontents who cannot even handle actors of diverse backgrounds in supporting roles. Social media has really knocked down barriers when it comes to communicating our opinions with Hollywood brass. It’s also given us several spaces where we can discuss the media we consume with our friends and family. In addition, the internet has really changed how we access and consume media. There are Kickstarters and indie channels and online comics and other outlets so we don’t have to be reliant on big production studios or publishers as our only sources of entertainment.