The gay and lesbian community is one that I feel ignorant about. I have had direct experience with race, gender, and class issues. However, I have felt uninformed about the lesbian and gay communities. I grew up in a home that was very religious and taught the idea of sinfulness regarding homosexual behaviors and lifestyles. As I have gotten older I have found myself meeting wonderful people who live the homosexual lifestyle. I have held wonderful conversations and one of my good friends is a lesbian. She ironically came from the same church that I grew up in and that is how our friendship started many years ago (before she came out.) It may seem a surprise that I mention that I have seen wonderful qualities come from people of the lesbian and gay community. But one must understand my upbringing and the ideas that were very well ingrained about how "different" and "to be feared these people are." While I truly believe I have no room to judge anyone, it is something that many religions seem to have pegged as the unforgivable sin: as the church I grew up in did as well.
It would come to no surprise then when my youngest sister came out less than two years ago that some in the family did not know how to respond. I was always so close to my sister growing up. She and I were best friends for many years: invading each others privacy on a regular basis, knowing every detail about each other and then some. I was honored that I was the first to know but I still wasn't sure what kind of support she needed or to give her. I attempted to be supportive to her and I verbalize my loyalty and love for her.
Still my mother took it the worst. She, a devout Christian woman, found herself tangled: she loves my sister very much but doesn't agree with her lifestyle choice. In later heated discussions, she mentioned the bible and verses to support her beliefs. I understand this is difficult for my mother the most and I also sympathize with her cluelessness on how to be loving in ways that my sister is receptive to.
Though not every family takes the news of one of its members coming out so harshly or unsure, I think many still do. I find myself increasingly drawn to gay and lesbian activities, documentaries, communities and so forth. I feel a sort of kinship with them as if in some way it will help me be a better sister and friend to my childhood best friend. Since she has come out, she has drifted away from the family and I hope that this kind of drifting and separation is only a phase. She has said that she only feels comfortable in gay and lesbian arenas more than any other environment (including with me or any other family member).
The documentary and many others like it remind me of my sister and her struggle. I watch these kinds of things intently hoping that I will find some gem of information that will change something in the way I communicate with her.
The truth is I think this is a battle that may not be won soon. There is a great amount of sensitivity with it because of its large taboo from society for so long now. It hasn't been until recently that people have become more aware of it and a bit more open. Even the openness that has been accomplished towards it has been limited. As we saw in the documentary (Further off the Straight and Narrow 2006), even the portrayal of gays and lesbians holds specific guidelines as to how in depth producers will go. They mentioned the idea of the "good gay/lesbian" and those characters that deviate from it are presented as a joke. The "good" gay is tame, well-mannered, clean, stylish, and wealthy. There is no room for lower class or unfashionable or boisterousness. The best example they showed was the paradox of the two characters on Will and Grace.Will follows the guidelines of a "good gay." He is intelligent, well to do, mild mannered, and conservative in his sex life. Jack is the complete opposite. He is loud, obnoxious, unclassy, careless, and his sex life is more out in the open. In this ways Will seems almost as if he is not gay at all. He has a platonic relationship with Grace that could almost represent a romantic relationship. The only thing their relationship does not have is sex in it. Good gays are conventional. They are conventionally masculine or feminine in their right so in other words they appear as if they are not gay at all. Consequently Jack does not fit this role and he is a joke in the show. He is delusional about his talent, appears to be an idiot most of the time, and is typically out of touch with reality. Will is more palatable. He is easier for society to accept and that's why he is presented in a conservative way. The "extreme" gay is not acceptable and is much more difficult for society to accept.
Whats interesting to me is that even before media outrightly used gay/lesbian characters, there was subtle expressions of gayness. These subtle expressions were ways that marketers could target gay audiences without losing profits from their heterosexual customers. From a marketers stand point this is a really smart move to make. Similar to the advertising biases seen with people of color, when companies use gay/lesbians celebrities or characters to market products, audiences automatically segregate themselves. Meaning straight audiences feel as if they can not relate to the show or product and discontinue use or view of it. A similar effect happened with people of color. If marketers used a black or Hispanic or even Arab person to sell a product or on as the main star of their television show, audiences or consumers that did not associate with the face (selling the product) saw the product as an "ethnic product" (not for their use).
Disney is one of the companies that has done this well. They target to the gay/lesbian market by having a fundraising event for AIDS or "Gay Day." In addition they have used characters in movies and songs to subtly relate to the gay/lesbian market. The texts mentions two examples: one from Aladdin ("You never had a friend like me") and the Lion King scene with Timon doing the hula. I have added the links below.
http://youtu.be/sVRXtalL5MI
http://youtu.be/Ju-E4ULsPFk
However, according to those on the documentary and those on the panel discussion Wednesday from UWP LGBTQ there seems to be unanimous gladness about the "publicity" of gays/lesbians in media. Most seem to agree that it is simply a step in the right direction that they are even being noticed and validated in media; whereas before there was subtle text. They seem to recognize that this step can lead to opportunities to expose more of the multifaceted realities of their lives. Television shows like Modern Family show proof of this. There is a more openness to the possibility of gays/lesbians.
Not only are they being embraced by members of society but the expectations of them are widening. Gays/lesbians are no longer restricted to the ideas of "good gays" or "extreme (unacceptable but the butt of jokes) gays." Also, just as importantly to mention is the idea of gays being included on the "sex" talk. Since homosexuality is about sex itself, it would make sense that this would also be a topic that is uncovered with the "rights" of gays otherwise. Previously, in the media the gay kiss was metaphorical for sex. Viewers could assume that if there was a gay couple kissing then they must have had sex as well. Now there are more scenes that show gay sex. In Glee, there was an episode where a young teen was contemplating losing his virginity to his male partner. The focus of the show was on his decision making to lose his virginity, not on his choice of who to lose it to. While this seems like a weird thing to celebrate, it shows that society has been expanding its borders. Audiences are becoming more comfortable and accepting of gays and ultimately their lifestyle.
Mi familia bonita
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
Classism..... is there a such thing?
I still recall a conversation I had with one of my best friends. She and I got onto the topic of immigration. Typically we don't discuss politics. I stray away from it with her because she and I have such different views on it. She has the strong mind set, like many people that I have talked to, that wealth is fairly and equally available for everyone. She truly believed that if anyone works hard enough they can make i.
She comes from a wealthier family than I do. The idea of "wealth" for me has been one that as I talk to people about I realize comes from where we stand in our social class. People that I consider wealthy, my friends in the past and present, did and do not see themselves as wealthy. To me wealthy meant that the parents could pay for colleges and they received new clothes every year before school started. They also bought almost any brand outside of Walmart or K mart and rarely if ever shopped at Goodwill. For the "wealthy" shopping at Goodwill was seen as a way to stand out and be unique with funky outdated clothes, not a way to save money. Wealthy meant that they ate certain foods and drove certain cars. For my friends they saw themselves as middle class but by no means rich.
When I stop to think about it every friend I have had has come from a "higher class" than I do. I have grown up with the idea that I was poor. It was something my mom talked about consistently and sometimes in subtle ways. Mostly she out rightly came out and stated it but sometimes it was implied. I recall very distinctly when I needed new shoes and I told my mom they were falling apart. She responded that she had needed new shoes for a long time and couldn't afford her own so how could I expect her to buy me some. My clothes had been hand-me-downs for my entire childhood. In middle school I fortunate to have an older sister who had moved away to college give me her old clothes. She, perhaps hoping to look like a higher class, bought what we considered nice clothes. Clothes from Gap, Express, The Limited, Delias, or other "brand name" clothes. If I did get new clothes it was from Walmart or Kmart. "Shopping for clothes" meant going to Goodwill or Salvation Army. That was not often. My lunch everyday was the same thing: a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. That was it and I didn't have a lunch box or even a paper bag so I would put it in the lunch basket with all the other kids lunch boxes. By the time lunch time came my sandwich was at the bottom of the basket smashed. I remember in Kindergarten my teacher would ask me everyday where my boots were. Everyday I lied and said I forgot them. She finally caught on and was kind enough to buy me a pair of snow boots. I didn't have my "own room" until I was a junior in high school. In fact for many years my mom was on public aid and we lived in government assistance housing. In middle school, I hated having friends come over because that meant they would see all the things that were so different about me. We didn't order pizza, like all the other cool wealthy kids, we ate left overs recooked for the second or third time. We didn't have soda or milk to offer them: we had water.
My siblings often joke now about how poor we grew up as kids. We can look back and laugh at our painful experiences with social settings and our class.
But where does this idea come from that we all have equal opportunities to reach wealth? Though I don't believe it the idea comes from television. The idea seems to fit in line with the "American Dream." The idea "American Dream" is a one that supports equal opportunity for everyone. Everyone wants to believe that this country is truly "free." How could a country really be "free" if the opportunities are limited to only certain groups? It would seem if that was so then all of these years, all of the wars, all of the fighting, all of the giving of lives, deaths, and lost loved ones would be a waste. It seems that this is the very reason it is so difficult for so many people to accept the fact that there really is not equal opportunities across the board. Much like the American Dream capitalism has proved to be an unjust and corrupt system. Where capitalism once started as a system that claimed to allow everyone equal and fair opportunity to make money, it has become a twisted and biased system. Those that are given opportunities to flourish in it are very often those that already have wealth from passed down family.
According to Richard Butsch in his article Ralph, Fred, Archie, and Homer there are a few reasons why the idea that wealth is attainable by everyone is a strong ideology in television. Butsch article discusses the Buffoon or the blue collar worker who is played out to be an unworthy, lazy, and stupid person who could get more out of life financially but appears to have "chosen" to be from the working class. This is the typical character seen in almost every sitcom on television that represents the working class. Those watching can see that this character brings upon himself his financial woes. He is unworthy of any better kind of lifestyle because he is constantly making dumb choices. His stupidity even would seem to be a choice.
This character is shown in sitcoms for a few reasons. First it works. This program has worked and television broadcasting receives the ratings and money its searching for. There is too much risk involved in trying to find new entertainment. Secondly networks work in conjunction with advertising companies. They use product placement to allude to wealthy by ownership of certain products. This ideology seems to suggest that owning a product will convince others of wealth that actually is not there. Even more so that owning a product may actually change a person's status. The third reason is that programmers hope to appeal to the audience that is watching the show. Producers hope to create character's occupations based on the setting and situation of the show. They hoped that the audience would relate well too. In other words they wanted to whole show to appear as natural and real life like as possible. This says something about the producers as well though. They are maybe in some ways internalized the same ideology that they are enforcing as truth.
I'm still back at the same point I seem to be at the end of every blog. As consumers in the most literal sense, we need to be careful what we are consuming and that that we do "consume" needs evaluation and awareness in the highest regard.
She comes from a wealthier family than I do. The idea of "wealth" for me has been one that as I talk to people about I realize comes from where we stand in our social class. People that I consider wealthy, my friends in the past and present, did and do not see themselves as wealthy. To me wealthy meant that the parents could pay for colleges and they received new clothes every year before school started. They also bought almost any brand outside of Walmart or K mart and rarely if ever shopped at Goodwill. For the "wealthy" shopping at Goodwill was seen as a way to stand out and be unique with funky outdated clothes, not a way to save money. Wealthy meant that they ate certain foods and drove certain cars. For my friends they saw themselves as middle class but by no means rich.
When I stop to think about it every friend I have had has come from a "higher class" than I do. I have grown up with the idea that I was poor. It was something my mom talked about consistently and sometimes in subtle ways. Mostly she out rightly came out and stated it but sometimes it was implied. I recall very distinctly when I needed new shoes and I told my mom they were falling apart. She responded that she had needed new shoes for a long time and couldn't afford her own so how could I expect her to buy me some. My clothes had been hand-me-downs for my entire childhood. In middle school I fortunate to have an older sister who had moved away to college give me her old clothes. She, perhaps hoping to look like a higher class, bought what we considered nice clothes. Clothes from Gap, Express, The Limited, Delias, or other "brand name" clothes. If I did get new clothes it was from Walmart or Kmart. "Shopping for clothes" meant going to Goodwill or Salvation Army. That was not often. My lunch everyday was the same thing: a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. That was it and I didn't have a lunch box or even a paper bag so I would put it in the lunch basket with all the other kids lunch boxes. By the time lunch time came my sandwich was at the bottom of the basket smashed. I remember in Kindergarten my teacher would ask me everyday where my boots were. Everyday I lied and said I forgot them. She finally caught on and was kind enough to buy me a pair of snow boots. I didn't have my "own room" until I was a junior in high school. In fact for many years my mom was on public aid and we lived in government assistance housing. In middle school, I hated having friends come over because that meant they would see all the things that were so different about me. We didn't order pizza, like all the other cool wealthy kids, we ate left overs recooked for the second or third time. We didn't have soda or milk to offer them: we had water.
My siblings often joke now about how poor we grew up as kids. We can look back and laugh at our painful experiences with social settings and our class.
But where does this idea come from that we all have equal opportunities to reach wealth? Though I don't believe it the idea comes from television. The idea seems to fit in line with the "American Dream." The idea "American Dream" is a one that supports equal opportunity for everyone. Everyone wants to believe that this country is truly "free." How could a country really be "free" if the opportunities are limited to only certain groups? It would seem if that was so then all of these years, all of the wars, all of the fighting, all of the giving of lives, deaths, and lost loved ones would be a waste. It seems that this is the very reason it is so difficult for so many people to accept the fact that there really is not equal opportunities across the board. Much like the American Dream capitalism has proved to be an unjust and corrupt system. Where capitalism once started as a system that claimed to allow everyone equal and fair opportunity to make money, it has become a twisted and biased system. Those that are given opportunities to flourish in it are very often those that already have wealth from passed down family.
According to Richard Butsch in his article Ralph, Fred, Archie, and Homer there are a few reasons why the idea that wealth is attainable by everyone is a strong ideology in television. Butsch article discusses the Buffoon or the blue collar worker who is played out to be an unworthy, lazy, and stupid person who could get more out of life financially but appears to have "chosen" to be from the working class. This is the typical character seen in almost every sitcom on television that represents the working class. Those watching can see that this character brings upon himself his financial woes. He is unworthy of any better kind of lifestyle because he is constantly making dumb choices. His stupidity even would seem to be a choice.
This character is shown in sitcoms for a few reasons. First it works. This program has worked and television broadcasting receives the ratings and money its searching for. There is too much risk involved in trying to find new entertainment. Secondly networks work in conjunction with advertising companies. They use product placement to allude to wealthy by ownership of certain products. This ideology seems to suggest that owning a product will convince others of wealth that actually is not there. Even more so that owning a product may actually change a person's status. The third reason is that programmers hope to appeal to the audience that is watching the show. Producers hope to create character's occupations based on the setting and situation of the show. They hoped that the audience would relate well too. In other words they wanted to whole show to appear as natural and real life like as possible. This says something about the producers as well though. They are maybe in some ways internalized the same ideology that they are enforcing as truth.
I'm still back at the same point I seem to be at the end of every blog. As consumers in the most literal sense, we need to be careful what we are consuming and that that we do "consume" needs evaluation and awareness in the highest regard.
Monday, November 7, 2011
A Rotting people from Capitalistic Corruption
The word "addiction" has a very negative connotation. Webster's dictionary defines addiction as a "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful." I think the interesting part about this definition, which I literally copied and pasted from the Webster's dictionary, is the part that says "use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol)." I think this shows a lot of the narrow thinking that the majority of people have about addictions. Most people are uninformed on addictions: what they are, who has them, how one can become addicted, what substances. I can understand why addiction does have a negative connotation. They are detrimental to a person's mental health and more often than not suppress personal and mental growth. Addictions, though it can be argued, at some points in time assist in personal growth. However growth occurs as the addict pushes themselves through the painful and dreary process of recovery. Extreme amounts of growth and learning can come from this recovery period in ways that those not seriously addicted can not understand.
I really don't think addiction or even the idea of them are very far from home for anyone. As we saw in the documentary today about video game, there are people who are addicted to video games. It would seem there is a common theme with those that are addicted to pornography. It begins with a few times then to "relieve boredom" then it escalates into a point where the person needs it and has a full blown addiction.
I am not sure that there really is much difference from any addiction really. They all stem from a need to fill a space within: a void. It is my personal belief that everyone is addicted even slightly to something. Addictions as I see them is anyway that a person searches outside themselves to "get high" or as a form of consistent self-esteem. The most common example I believe is the idea of searching outside oneself for approval. The validation that is needed to make decisions in our lives can easily become a form of addiction. If we look outside ourselves to bring us up, we are then affected by factors outside of us in negative ways the same. These negative factors bring us down in the same ways that positive factors bring us up. In this way we have become a puppet to our environment. A common example is seeking out advice. When one seeks out advice they are looking to be told what to do. Most people will "count votes." They choose the path that most people supported. They are seeking to be socially accepted by their friends so they choose the path that leads to social approval. While there is nothing wrong with asking for advice once in awhile, I believe that answers to our questions can always be answered from within if we seek it out. The problem with asking for advice too often is we mute our own inner abilities to make sound decisions. We were born with all the answers we will ever need.
This kind of interactional process and mental pattern is very common among Americans. I know we can look at where this kind of empty thinking comes from: its very easy to see its roots in marketing.
I was once talking with my brother about my job. I am a bank teller and like almost every job I have had there is some kind of sales aspect involved in it. It would seem that no matter what job we are taking companies feel the need to incorporate sales into every aspect as much as possible to increase revenue as much as possible. I told him I was having trouble with my sales at work and I asked for his advice. He has been in sale for a long time as well. What he said to me has always stuck with me. He said that the best sales people create a need in a customer ("Are you seeing results you want and work for after your work outs?" Inevitably the question is set up to say "no" in a nation of overworked people.) Then the sales person will create a solution for the customer: their product ("I use this product and it works for me. This product is awesome. It guarantees results from plateaus.....") This kind of marketing is everywhere though: in commercial, magazines, radio ads, billboards. The idea is the self we are in the current moment is not good enough. So really the self we are in EVERY moment is not good enough because every moment we are living in is the "current moment." Hence these voids are created in people: constant and addictions are created. Addictions are really never having enough of what we don't want. The things we fill our voids with will never satisfy it and somewhere in us, this is a truth we know.
He noted that in sales the goal is really to sell yourself and not the product. If the customer likes the person selling the product then they are much more likely to trust their judgement and listen to them. Someone could be selling a piece of crap but if the customer is convinced they are trustworthy than they will listen to them and buy the crap. This is one way we can be addicted to approval. The idea that we need someone or something outside of us to give us value will always lead to controlled consistent behavior towards others in ways that does not feel self-worthy.
It is no wonder to me that things like video-games and pornography are addictive substances but more over that they are rampant here in America: where we pride ourselves on a free market and capitalism. I find myself continuing to come back to this same reflection. I wonder what kind of cost we are really paying for a "free market." It seems the cost of our mental health and self-esteem. In a market where anything goes for the sake of making money, how can we deviate from the "norm" or from a destruction of ourselves?
I really don't think addiction or even the idea of them are very far from home for anyone. As we saw in the documentary today about video game, there are people who are addicted to video games. It would seem there is a common theme with those that are addicted to pornography. It begins with a few times then to "relieve boredom" then it escalates into a point where the person needs it and has a full blown addiction.
I am not sure that there really is much difference from any addiction really. They all stem from a need to fill a space within: a void. It is my personal belief that everyone is addicted even slightly to something. Addictions as I see them is anyway that a person searches outside themselves to "get high" or as a form of consistent self-esteem. The most common example I believe is the idea of searching outside oneself for approval. The validation that is needed to make decisions in our lives can easily become a form of addiction. If we look outside ourselves to bring us up, we are then affected by factors outside of us in negative ways the same. These negative factors bring us down in the same ways that positive factors bring us up. In this way we have become a puppet to our environment. A common example is seeking out advice. When one seeks out advice they are looking to be told what to do. Most people will "count votes." They choose the path that most people supported. They are seeking to be socially accepted by their friends so they choose the path that leads to social approval. While there is nothing wrong with asking for advice once in awhile, I believe that answers to our questions can always be answered from within if we seek it out. The problem with asking for advice too often is we mute our own inner abilities to make sound decisions. We were born with all the answers we will ever need.
This kind of interactional process and mental pattern is very common among Americans. I know we can look at where this kind of empty thinking comes from: its very easy to see its roots in marketing.
I was once talking with my brother about my job. I am a bank teller and like almost every job I have had there is some kind of sales aspect involved in it. It would seem that no matter what job we are taking companies feel the need to incorporate sales into every aspect as much as possible to increase revenue as much as possible. I told him I was having trouble with my sales at work and I asked for his advice. He has been in sale for a long time as well. What he said to me has always stuck with me. He said that the best sales people create a need in a customer ("Are you seeing results you want and work for after your work outs?" Inevitably the question is set up to say "no" in a nation of overworked people.) Then the sales person will create a solution for the customer: their product ("I use this product and it works for me. This product is awesome. It guarantees results from plateaus.....") This kind of marketing is everywhere though: in commercial, magazines, radio ads, billboards. The idea is the self we are in the current moment is not good enough. So really the self we are in EVERY moment is not good enough because every moment we are living in is the "current moment." Hence these voids are created in people: constant and addictions are created. Addictions are really never having enough of what we don't want. The things we fill our voids with will never satisfy it and somewhere in us, this is a truth we know.
He noted that in sales the goal is really to sell yourself and not the product. If the customer likes the person selling the product then they are much more likely to trust their judgement and listen to them. Someone could be selling a piece of crap but if the customer is convinced they are trustworthy than they will listen to them and buy the crap. This is one way we can be addicted to approval. The idea that we need someone or something outside of us to give us value will always lead to controlled consistent behavior towards others in ways that does not feel self-worthy.
It is no wonder to me that things like video-games and pornography are addictive substances but more over that they are rampant here in America: where we pride ourselves on a free market and capitalism. I find myself continuing to come back to this same reflection. I wonder what kind of cost we are really paying for a "free market." It seems the cost of our mental health and self-esteem. In a market where anything goes for the sake of making money, how can we deviate from the "norm" or from a destruction of ourselves?
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Chicken Ranch
http://www.hulu.com/watch/155136/chicken-ranch
Above is the link to a Hulu movie called "Chicken Ranch." This documentary film was produced in 1983 about a brothel in Las Vegas. The documentary contained no commentaries from outside sources but was filmed more like a reality t.v. show. The women went about their normal routines were filmed chatting, putting on make up, lining up for clientele and such. It was interesting to watch this because there is no commentaries involved. Viewers can make their own logic out of the film. The taping in unbiased in this way but still shows the honest environment.
This documentary, though filmed in the early 1980's, shows very consistent gender roles as seen in our current day media outlets and pornography films.The woman in the house are commanded around by the owner of the business Walter. He regularly comes onto the some of the woman in subtle ways that shows his dominance. In one scene he is talking to one of the girls about making money. He comments that he noticed she has been making considerably less than usual and asks her why or how he can help. She begins crying and doesn't know why. He rubs her cheek with his hand and sits uncomfortably close to her.
She comments later to a girl how she feels incredibly uncomfortable with his subtle advances.
One night the girls have some drinks, play music, and dance for a bit before heading to bed for the evenings. Walter has a fit about it and has the house mom give a mandatory meeting to ensure this doesn't happen again.
To me the most striking part of the documentary was the ending. Mandy was "fired." She actually quit and he fired her out of anger. She quit because he forced her to do a jacuzzi special for less than the standard price for two customers. The Brothel still made their standard 20% but Mandy make less money. This is inevitably the end of the documentary because Walter tells the film directors to stop filming and demands the film tape that contains anything having to do with Mandy. He doesn't want that included in the movie.
As a viewer one wonders why women would feel so desperate at a degrading place? Many of the women eluded to abusive partners they ran from and had no other means to support themselves. One mentioned large amounts of debt and not having other solutions to pay for it.
In class some questions were raised about pornography. One that I wanted to discuss a bit in this blog is: What would it take to bring equality to these types of industries? While I do recognize there are differences in porn and prostitution, I do not think there are very many of them. Would changing the concepts or ideology in the industries themselves first bring out more equality or would changing societal values or ideology first be a more effective option? While the largest question remains still: how can we even begin to combat these negative types of ideologies about sex and gender?
I do believe that education is a great way to start this. It can not stop with education though. First people need to understand that there is a problem with sexual inequalities in our societies ideology.
I think more companies need to get involved like Dove has. They have a campaign to help bring positive advertisements to women and girls alike. Rejected negative images is also important.
I do not have television in my home, no facebook, myspace, or twitter and no subscriptions to magazines. I do engage in some media forms but I try to limit these. While I don't suggest abstinence from media forms but I do think as consumers we need to make more choices in what we decide to engage in. We so often just see things without giving them second thoughts. I think we need to consciously dissect what we are viewing on a regular basis. Those things that are degrading we need to avoid them as much as we can or at very least not use them in our daily lives.
This is the topic I would like to focus on for my final project: alternatives for sexual images and positive advertising images. I intend to research more options that promote social justice among both genders.
Above is the link to a Hulu movie called "Chicken Ranch." This documentary film was produced in 1983 about a brothel in Las Vegas. The documentary contained no commentaries from outside sources but was filmed more like a reality t.v. show. The women went about their normal routines were filmed chatting, putting on make up, lining up for clientele and such. It was interesting to watch this because there is no commentaries involved. Viewers can make their own logic out of the film. The taping in unbiased in this way but still shows the honest environment.
This documentary, though filmed in the early 1980's, shows very consistent gender roles as seen in our current day media outlets and pornography films.The woman in the house are commanded around by the owner of the business Walter. He regularly comes onto the some of the woman in subtle ways that shows his dominance. In one scene he is talking to one of the girls about making money. He comments that he noticed she has been making considerably less than usual and asks her why or how he can help. She begins crying and doesn't know why. He rubs her cheek with his hand and sits uncomfortably close to her.
She comments later to a girl how she feels incredibly uncomfortable with his subtle advances.
One night the girls have some drinks, play music, and dance for a bit before heading to bed for the evenings. Walter has a fit about it and has the house mom give a mandatory meeting to ensure this doesn't happen again.
To me the most striking part of the documentary was the ending. Mandy was "fired." She actually quit and he fired her out of anger. She quit because he forced her to do a jacuzzi special for less than the standard price for two customers. The Brothel still made their standard 20% but Mandy make less money. This is inevitably the end of the documentary because Walter tells the film directors to stop filming and demands the film tape that contains anything having to do with Mandy. He doesn't want that included in the movie.
As a viewer one wonders why women would feel so desperate at a degrading place? Many of the women eluded to abusive partners they ran from and had no other means to support themselves. One mentioned large amounts of debt and not having other solutions to pay for it.
In class some questions were raised about pornography. One that I wanted to discuss a bit in this blog is: What would it take to bring equality to these types of industries? While I do recognize there are differences in porn and prostitution, I do not think there are very many of them. Would changing the concepts or ideology in the industries themselves first bring out more equality or would changing societal values or ideology first be a more effective option? While the largest question remains still: how can we even begin to combat these negative types of ideologies about sex and gender?
I do believe that education is a great way to start this. It can not stop with education though. First people need to understand that there is a problem with sexual inequalities in our societies ideology.
I think more companies need to get involved like Dove has. They have a campaign to help bring positive advertisements to women and girls alike. Rejected negative images is also important.
I do not have television in my home, no facebook, myspace, or twitter and no subscriptions to magazines. I do engage in some media forms but I try to limit these. While I don't suggest abstinence from media forms but I do think as consumers we need to make more choices in what we decide to engage in. We so often just see things without giving them second thoughts. I think we need to consciously dissect what we are viewing on a regular basis. Those things that are degrading we need to avoid them as much as we can or at very least not use them in our daily lives.
This is the topic I would like to focus on for my final project: alternatives for sexual images and positive advertising images. I intend to research more options that promote social justice among both genders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)