Gender Relations

This was an interesting article about girls in gaming and stereotypes. I thought it was a nice list. I have been coming across a lot of articles about gender in gaming, which I will elaborate on more, but for now, enjoy this!

http://www.gamesradar.com/f/9-things-real-female-gamers-hate-about-gaming/a-20100326161620941082

We love some good satire at here Gender Relations, which is why the other nights Daily Show had a great segment about men losing their status and power here in America. Samantha Bee goes head to head with sociologist, Dr. Warren Farrell, and I think she does a great job. Her expression of traditional masculinity (the hunting at the end being the best example) against the men’s expression (which seems very unmasculine) shows a very interesting dynamic of men losing power, and how they choose to act..

The men explain the problems they face (although they have a hard time really coming up with answers) in a way that is very sensitive through talking circles. So, there is a irony between the fact that they are losing their traditional senses of power and the fact that they are acting more ‘effeminate’. At the end, Bee even suggests that they are turning her into a lesbian and that they are ‘vaginamen’, which illustrates perfectly that the worst they have to lose is the traditional sense of masculinity (which is very aggressive at times), and that the images of men can be something different. There is a thin line with satire, because by calling them vaginamen, she could be emasculating them even further. There is also an irony that men are upset about WOMEN taking over their positions, yet they are “acting like women”. Maybe the gender struggle is more about power than anything else. When you feel like you are at the bottom (even if it is an illusion), then you become more sensitive, open, communicable, etc. An interesting theory to mull over.

Samantha also cracks a joke about reclaiming their manhood (after making a joke about masturbating in a circle) in relation to their sexuality, which is hard to tell if the joke is clumping sexuality and gender together or not, but something to consider.

On a more serious note, the ominous news clips at the beginning of the segment are not unlike the feelings these men are expressing in these groups. I don’t find the groups themselves to be hurting anyone, inherently, but you must look at why they are there. They seem like relatively sensitive men (talking sticks?) who are hurting about a loss of power, yet reacting unlike a man of power would react in the situation. Maybe because they are large cultural changes that are happening allowing females to take positions of power, education, and presence in the media, men cannot directly do anything about it.

This feeling of defeat that the men are feeling should be used as a reflective one to both :

Empathize women’s past struggles // There is a huge increase of women coming into power, but have they not earned it? In the past more women have sought out higher education (which makes them more qualified for a large amount of the jobs in our country). Although, matriarchy is not a better model than patriarchy (and I certainly do not see it coming to that, as men are STILL in power), I think this gives men a unique opportunity to try to fit into the ‘high heels’ of women’s historic disadvantage.

Focus on creating better relationships with women // Men and women are not that different. There does not have to be large power differences (shouldn’t the best person get the job?). When men and women work together, really the only loss that can occur is one of traditional power structures. Focusing on how everyone can work better as human beings and not men or women can be beneficial.

I have seen a lot of these men’s groups popping up lately. Magazines dedicated to the proposition, entire organizations functioning on the sole thought that men are losing their grips of power, but when you look at the statistics (which I believe Samantha and The Daily Show point out quite eloquently), it becomes easy to see that men have nothing to fear with their hands grasped tightly to the major corporations in our country. I can see how women becoming equal could threaten a man’s position, but it has been a position that fits wrongly in the place of decency. We are equal people, and before this gets too corny, I would like to end by saying that these groups could help awaken men to be more sensitive and open (but without the banter of losing power).

Feministing (where I found this clip), really positions themselves in the area that the segment was unsuccessful and that it seemed to be making fun of men who weren’t meeting the traditions of masculinity anyways. I would agree with this (which was addressed in some of my comments above), but at the same time, it is important to realize why the men are there. I think the groups are great because men are expressing themselves in non-traditional ways, but it is as a backlash to women becoming more equal. Even though they do break out of traditional dominance of masculinity, they aren’t doing it for the reasons of safety or progressive attitudes, but because they feel like they are losing something (that does not inherently even belong to them) If men becoming more sensitive and women becoming more equal is the end of the formula, then why not? I do understand the point of the target, and I feel like the nature of TDS is to draw attention to a group like this (to get an alternative view – agreed they could have done it a little better), but I think Bee’s behavior in the segment is really reflective of trying to reject traditional masculinity that those men feel like they have lost (which I think the origin of why the group is formed is very integral to understanding why they are breaking out of the traditional format of masculinity). It’s a touchy line, and hard to discern one way or the other, but her gross representation of masculinity was one I felt paired interestingly with the gross behavior of the men.

A tip of the hat to Feministing, where I found this story.

What is your take on the segment?

So, with the Superbowl on it’s way this Sunday, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding some of the ads that are going to be displayed or not displayed. In my previous post, I mentioned CBS’ involvement in showing anti-abortion ads for the group Focus on Families. A little update of that effort : CREDO (the organization involved in the petition to pull those ads) have gathered over 120,000 signatures, which CBS is very aware of, but choose to ignore. Regardless of your stance on the issue, it is hard to feel sympathy for CBS’ hypocrisy with their “No-Advocacy” policy, when they start banning other advertisements that may promote certain lifestyles they do not wish to align themselves with.

Now, I have come across two specifically that really benchmark what kind of game is being played at the superbowl this year (pun intended). Even with the number of people that watch the Superbowl, football is largely a masculine sport with male followers. With that being said, I think it sets the stage for the two banned ads (I am sure there are more) that came my way.

ManCrunch

ManCrunch, which is an online gay dating site has had their ad refused by the powers that be. Now, there is already a little controversy with this ad in general. The signs in the back, the displeased friend, etc. Although there are multiple interpretations, I would say that having a football related , gay ad would be a good ad to run, regardless of some of the negatives. I think the ad breaks the gender barrier of saying that masculine, football-loving men are, indeed, gay as well. Take from the ad what you will, but the ban is very obviously one of gay nature (and im sure the image of very tough, football-loving, men shunning their heterosexual nature isn’t part of that AT ALL). The thing to consider here is the mash-up of gender and sexuality. Even though these men are retaining their masculine qualities (being strong, etc.), their masculinity is instantly stripped once they are gay. It’s an interesting and ironic measurement of gender studies to see how those two can be separate, then closely tied in specific circumstances.

GoDaddy

This one has surprised me. GoDaddy is notorious for very sexist, over the top, sexualized advertisements (FOR WEB HOSTING!). Just last year I switched my hosting to DreamHost because I did not agree with Bob Parsons’ take on women, the industry, and advertising. I didn’t want to support such blatant objectification of women. That is why their latest ad can only dictate the humiliation of effeminate acting men. In the ad, Lola (an ex-football player), built a business as a clothing designer. Of course, Lola is very “gay acting” (effeminate), and even though effeminiate does not equate homosexuality, I think it is implied in this ad. I am not sure the intent GoDaddy had with this one. Danica Patrick has been their mascot for quite some time, and she is in her full suit (sometimes she’s barely wearing anything), and narrating the story of Lola. I’m not sure if they were TRYING to sell limited images of gender (how a masculine man can become feminine with the snap of selling clothing — hint : selling clothes does not make you snap your fingers and lisp) or if they were trying to get the gay vote (if they were, they need better marketing consultants). Either way, it’s fail, so it is good this is pulled off the air, but in the same time, the reasons for it being pulls are also for the wrong reasons.

Now, between the ManCrunch and this ad, both gender and sexuality for men take a beating, as well as women’s right to choose abortion as an option. I am not sure how in 2010, we are regressing so much, but apparently the marketers are pulling out all the stops on this event.

I don’t watch the superbowl (as a male!), but I wish I did , so I could boycott the event. I really am excited to see what ads actually air, and then the final release of the rejected ads. If you have any other gender/sex related banned superbowl 2010 ads, let me know! Also, let me know your thoughts on the ads!

I am wondering what the fate of CBS’ anti-abortion ads for the superbowl game is going to be. CBS has a known “Anti-Advocacy” claim in their policy, yet the group, Focus on Family, has paid to run an advertisement about “celebrating life” (in a pro-life kind of way).

Focus on the Family’s “celebrate life” (read: anti-choice) ad features Heisman Trophy-winning college football star Tim Tebow. And CBS approved this anti-choice ad, even though the network has repeatedly rejected advocacy ads in past years including a 2004 MoveOn.org ad that went after then-President Bush’s fiscal irresponsibility and an ad the same year from the United Church of Christ showing them welcoming a gay couple who had been turned away from another church.

There’s a lot wrong with this that relates directly to last weeks overhaul of the legislation to treat corporations as individuals (i.e. they can push as much money into politics as they want). This seems like another fast footed option to give conglomerates more power that relates directly to women’s health issues. Now, regardless of which side on the abortion debate you are on, there becomes a moral issue of multi-billion dollar corporations that can put their money into sensitive and controversial issues (when their goal is to entertain). It’s an unbalanced approach because it’s not like women’s health clinics have the money to push into superbowl ads, thus giving an unbalanced representation of views (which I could also deduct was part of CBS’ thought process in coming up with their anti-advocacy policy, which puts them outside these types of issue).

If you feel strongly about this CREDO Action has a petition to pull the ads. It seems pretty late in the game to pull them, but at least it will show support that people do not agree with this position. The superbowl is masculine enough, do the ads have to promote taking away women’s rights?

SIGN THE PETITION :
http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/superbowl_focus/?rc=fb_share1

Sometimes it’s hard to find A.) Music that does not mention the word “bitch”, “ho”, or another derogatory word

in it, especially on the radio, and B.) go one step beyond that and find music with a very positive AND progressive message (lots of children’s music is positive, but may not be progressive).

In an effort to steer people in some directions of some media that is either hopeful or critical of certain gender related topics, I want to try to post at least 1 “alternative a week”.

That brings me to musician Lily Holbrook. Her sound is very dim, almost morose, and I wouldn’t say as an artist all her music is overly progressive, but one song on the album “Everything was Beautiful and Nothing Hurt” titled “Bleed” has a very positive message embedded about the state of unrealistic expectations (for female body image) and even uses that phrase. Sometimes we can see progressive messages between the lines, but I find it really helpful (especially for teenagers) if there is some media out there that has equally blatant messages as those we hear on the radio on the other side of the spectrum.

It is always my position to educate and not erradicate. Some of the music on the radio has some really good beats. I think the problem comes in when we don’t really listen to the lyrics and wonder why everything has to be about sex, and it cannot be about community or friendship or other positive messages.

Lily’s “Bleed” really tackles the depression and feelings that come about when we feel as if we cannot measure up to the media’s messages.

(Also Note : Gender Relations New Media Player! Playing From PINK to BLUE)

Click Play For – “Bleed” by Lily Holbrook.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Gloss over all those magazines
Painted with plastic surgery
And replace so easily
By a girl like you or me

Expectations are unrealistic
Between the mirror and the tube of lipstick

You thought you’d be what they wanted you to be
Thought you could be what they wanted you to be
But you’ll never be what they wanted you to be
‘Cause you bleed
Bleed

Sad, pathetic little me
Never thought I’d be so eager to please
And replaced so easily
By a girl like you or me

You thought you’d be what they wanted you to be
Thought you could be what they wanted you to be
But you’ll never be what they wanted you to be
‘Cause you bleed
Bleed

You see, the world is different now
Everybody’s different now
Everybody needs a little fixing up
But when’s it gonna stop
‘Cause I don’t even recognize you anymore
Do you love yourself now?
Do you love yourself now?

Gloss over all those magazines
Painted with plastic surgery

You thought you’d be what they wanted you to be
Thought you could be what they wanted you to be
But you’ll never be what they wanted you to be
‘Cause you bleed

Although music is highly interpretable, the main question becomes what does “Bleed” specifically refer to. It could be quite literal to the problem. Many women (and men), use cutting as a means to deal with their depression and feelings of isolation. It could be a metaphor for the internal pain, it could also mean the literal blood that some women draw in order to look “beautifulI” (she cites modeling and plastic surgery). For me, it means all of these things, and I think it’s a really powerful song for young girls and boys to hear, that they don’t have to look to those places, and feel so alone because they are fabrications.

Although this isn’t specifically gender-related, this is a progressive blog, and I think it is without warrant that we should be actively engaged in what is going on. Media literacy as a method of examining our daily intake of messages is a productive format, and in all fairness the State of the Union was a huge media event. I’m not going to make a bunch of grandiose connections between a more gender liberal society and any of the proposals put forth tonight, but at the same time, I think we can see how becoming a more progressive, well-educated society can benefit change in many directions, so i’ll note a few of those.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Alleviation

This is probably the closest to home for gender progression. Although, it is true I often try to separate sexual orientation, sex, and gender, I think it is a valid point to bring across that the military (which is very gendered towards masculinity even for women) will be absolved of their policies in order to allow openly gay and lesbian people join the military. Although this may not breakthrough as a gender win specifically, I think the more liberal the nation becomes surrounding gay issues, the further they become open to transgender, gender bending, and gender neutral though processes. On a completely separated from gender side of things, this is a great stress and weight lifted off of gays and lesbians living in the closet in the military. This doesn’t come as a complete surprise as Obama has elected a transgender to the commerce department of government. Although he didn’t make a comment on gay marriage. I have a feeling he is for it (given his current mode of thinking and decision-making), but at this point in the game a decision like that could be political suicide.

Education

There were a few announcements in regard to education surrounding loans, grants, and public service loan forgiveness. Although these policies do not directly relate, I think education is key to a liberal environment (or at the very least open-mindedness). This isn’t a fact by any means, but I know from growing up in a very rural setting with a conservative high school education, I did not start thinking overly progressive until I stepped outside of that education system into alternative environments. But, also coming from a low income background, I would not have really been submitted to other viewpoints (where I could choose how I felt), without the Upward Bound program (that helps first-generation, low-income, high school students get to college). With the options to make education more accessible, I think this will pull the nation into a place that remains more open-minded (which hopefully would open up to other expressions – I know its a stretch, but its on my wishlist).

On the very straight-forward side, all his plans go very deeply and intelligently together between jobs, spending, education, etc, and I think it all connects to this really elegant quote :

“In America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college”

There you have it, I really feel like education is a key part of this journey. A lot of the concerns raised in this blog are about how to read the media, how to digest messages, how to have conversations, and I think those are all abilities we construct through education, discussion, and involvement. I think that is the key point in relation to the purpose of understanding culture and raising media literacy (although a tangential goal)

Just some thoughts for the day, if you have any let’s hear them!

I was just reading a movie blog when an add for the direct-to-DVD (probably because it’s too over the top for theaters) film “I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell” popped up on the side. Now, I have seen this book in Borders in the humor section, so it’s not meant to give a totally accurate portrayal of men, but it becomes pretty apparent in the cross-over version of this film (just from watching the preview) or seeing the ad to the right that women are going to be overly objectified in a way that is not even masked  in the littlest sense. The entire film is just about how guys are assholes.

Upon further look at the trailer (end of this article). there are MANY things wrong, even in the first few moments of the trailer.

• Guy asks beautiful young woman what she is doing. She replies that she is talking to the turtle in the tank, and he wonders if they are telling her to KILL “the fat chick” at the bar. When the girl walks away he asks how she could be real because “fat girls aren’t real people”.

I don’t think a lot of this trailer needs to be analyzed because I would hope that everyone realized how over the top it actually is, but just in case a 7 year old gets hold of this film, they are going to both A.) devalue women in general B.) devalue women who are not a size 1 even more. The male goes even further to suggest that the turtles are telling the girl to MURDER the heavier set woman in the film. Not a great message.

• Typical roadtrip to a stripclub, which is featured in a lot of male-centric films.
• Defiance of the law (urinating in public)
• Very typical dynamic between boyfriend who goes on the trip and the girl who stays behind. Although this is not technically cheating, it shows a mask for lying, deceit, and uses the metaphor for cheating. He is usually the “sweet” guy, but is still peer pressured by the others to participate.
• As with a lot of films in a similar nature, the main goal is to get laid, but not before getting extremely wasted. What kind of message does this send about healthy sexuality when these films constantly promote the mixing of sex and alcohol (ability to give consent, anyone?). Although these images are of social drinking as well, there is a major problem with alcoholism in our country, especially with depressed males, so that sends a whole other set of messages.

I am going to have to watch this film to just see how horrible it is, although I will need to find an art in summarizing because I am sure it will be an hour and a half of blantent stereotypical hyper-masculine behavior. Although the film is marketed as “these guys are assholes” (and who wants to be an asshole?), they are still images of men being men. Also, I am not against just a comedic experience in general (I think political incorrectness is funny as well), but I think as to go as far as suggesting a “fat chick get murdered” is outside the scope of satire / rude humor.

I was lucky to be exposed to 6 hours of daytime cable television today while bringing a friend to the ER, and of all the things that caught my eye, a commercial for “Depends” diapers. The part that caught my ear was “Men and Women are different” and a woman proceeded to talk about how uncomfortable wearing the diapers can be when the positions of the diaper don’t align correctly with her body. I couldn’t help but criticize their use of man/woman. Now, I realize this is a little up for debate, but within progressive gender circles I think it’s pretty common to cite male/female as SEX and man/woman/boy/girl as GENDER (man having masculine qualities, female having feminine qualities). There is discussion about the language more in depth in a few other of my posts if you are interested :

A Question of Language // Surveying Meanings

Simple Language Nuances That Matter // Gender & Sex

Aside from the debate over the language used, I thought “This is a male versus female problem”, and these are the kind of differences that I see no problem with. Men and women are shaped differently (everyone is for that matter), so having a diaper that will fit you is important. I tried finding the commercial online (just because I like to have media), and went to the Depend’s website. Sure enough they use the same language and even have separate sections for men and women (male/female), which again is fine because they are marketing to a SEX (regardless of their language use) not a GENDER. That was until I actually went to their site. Gender is one of the strongest components that can be marketed to because we all identify with something and it gender is so prevalent in our culture.

I reanalyzed my stance that they were selling to a specific sex, when I saw their very traditional pink and blue themes for the man/woman pages. I guess in case the old people cannot see to read the pages, they will at least know they are purchasing the correct diaper for their body by identifying almost the #1 fundamental and common gender assignment of pink and blue.

Now, I would be willing to secede from the language debate if they did not use such elementary uses of gender stereotyping. But for all intensive purposes, I guess if someone identifie’s as a woman (girl, feminine, what have you), they should use the “woman diapers” regardless of their biological makeup!

An interesting theory could be that since they are older, these gender norms seem more pertinent, and I suppose if we were to market gender to any group, it would seem most comfortable in the older population, as younger teens seem to reject complete traditions of gender stereotyping (although still struggle with it immensely when developing their identities). At the same time we still see the traditional blue and pink schema when we walk the aisles.

I was listening to Rachel Maddow this morning, and I didn’t get 3 minutes in when she spoke about one of the very odd things Scott Brown said at his victory speech about his daughters.

He suggests after he was kidding, but why make such a preposterous joke at a victory speech, and you can tell it was a backtrack, as his daughters seemed appalled (although publicly appropriate). Now, “Daughters for Sale” is going a little far, but it just reminds me of how some Republ….”Independents” hold on to such old values in our country. It wasn’t that long ago where the days of suitors were the only option in town, which were normally decided by the father of the family (who his daughters were good enough to marry). We aren’t living in medeval times, and even if it were “a joke” aren’t there thousands of other jokes that don’t involve his (very traditional) beautiful, college-aged, daughters? At the very least it was tasteless, and not really appropriate to publicly open that can of date worms.

Although I have yet to get all the way through the book “Packaging Girlhood” by Lyn Mikel Brown and Sharon Lamb, it is a great analysis of how marketing and media extrapolate gender stereotypes for girls and sell them through tv, movies, clothing, and other society “packages”. The authors of that book , including Mark Tappan, have recently released their followup “Packaging Boyhood”. My copy came in the mail today, and I have read the intro thus far, and it sounds really exciting.

Anyways, the authors will be at the University of Maine (in Orono) on January 26th for a few events :

Stodder Hall
10 – 11:30

After this presentation and discussion they will be at the

Women in Curriculum Luncheon in the Bangor Room starting at 12:15

If you haven’t heard of the books, pick them up, they are a great stepping stone into gender based marketing research and are really comprehensive (as much as you can be on the media) with their examples and though process. I am sure after reading Packaging Boyhood I will have a new take on some of the blogging that I do myself. I already am having some interesting realizations after reading the introduction.

See you there!