“In media studies, content analyses of the presence or absence, stereotyping, and devaluation of women are abundant in American Journals” (Steeves, 393). Generally when female and male representation in media is dissected, the trends of discussion are usually the same: awwww poor females.. have to look skinny, tan, and beautiful to be approved by the superior man, and grrrrrr tough males...have to be strong, powerful, and master of their domain. All else falls in place based on these ideologies. HOWEVER, I’d like to go back to that class discussion we had about the cultivation theory and how the media literally cultivates how we live. We are essentially talking about the same things when we talk about ideology and cultivation theory – especially in terms of masculinity and femininity in media. But I’d like to look at these areas from a positive perspective, rather than a socially condemning perspective. For example, during our cultivation theory discussion, we started talking about how the portrayals of violence, promiscuity, and tweens, etc. and how they set the example of how NOT to be. I’d like for my blog to observe the benefits of negative male and female ideology. I know it sounds confusing – bear with me.
Take Leslie Robinson’s article on Christina Aquilera’s “Dirrrty” music video. Whereas most see that video and only consider the ideology of women as sexual objects who promote promiscuity for the sake of male desires, Robinson argues the video “implies self assuredness, autonomy, and even authority.” Robinson argues that Agiulera defies the notion of the sexual subjectivity of women, and instead flexes her muscle of control and power in that female sexuality is something males cannot control. It in a sense give women a chance to say ‘haha you can’t catch me’ to their otherwise dominant males. Although the ideology is still represented in this video in a negative way, its message still gives a sense of positive empowerment to females.
For those who dosed off..here’s where you start to pay attention again. My article I found is from the last issue of Sports Illustrated Magazine. There was a 10 page spread on steroids called “Steroids in America.” I chose to talk about Part 1 of the story because it in essence blames the hip-hop industry for the rise in steroid use in our country. The author claims that ever since hip-hop came onto the scene, it projected an image of huge, strong, incredibly muscular gangsters. So apparently, according to Sports Illustrated, all of the sudden little boys and professional athletes are taking steroids because they want to be cool like 50 Cent. RIIIIIIIGHT. Everything is always 50 Cent’s fault these days.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/magazine/03/11/steroids1/index.html
First of all, it’s a shame that the finger is being pointed inaccurately at one sole source for an outrage of steroid use. Second of all, even though a certain ideology of males is represented in the hip-hop industry, it doesn’t mean every male wants to fit into it. Third of all, those males who do want to signify the muscle man tough guy ideology, don’t all necessarily do it with illegal steroid use. In fact, my argument is that if anything, the male ideology to be big and muscular to be cool has inspired more men to pump iron and jog some laps than stick an illegal needle in their asses. I think the positive aspect of this ideology is a motivation for males to get in shape and take care of their bodies. This article argues the negative aspect is the ideology portrayed is hard for the average man to achieve, and therefore promotes steroid use as an aid. What do you guys think? And more importantly, do you guys think positive aspects of ideologies that exist in our society are more powerful than the negative or vise versa? Do the positives like the message in Aquilera’s video and the motivation from the hip-hop industry get acknowledged enough? Or will the negative perspectives always prevail because they give us a place to point fingers to blame for the ills of society?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I wasn't dozing at all during your post Mal, I'm in total agreement with you. These days society is constantly looking at the negative things a celebrity or an artist does rather than the positive. They are distorting what McQuail calls the 'reality' of the gender. We are confused on what a real man or woman is, when it really can't be defined.
For the rest of their lives, these artists or celebrities have to try and shake that negative image that society has placed on them. Christina Aguilera gets a negative spin on her reputation because of her promiscuous outfits in videos. However, the woman that she is promoting in the video is strong and powerful. Think about the lyrics and the videos for her songs "Beautiful" and "Fighter," they embrace the strength and power of a woman or someone in a difficult position. However, all the media sees is the skimpy clothes, she's got a rocking bod, I'd wear those things too if I could pull it off.
I also agree with the negative connotation with 50 Cent. Maybe he can get the finger pointed at him for some of his explicit lyrics, but not for steroid usage. If you notice, 50 Cent has always but a health conscious spin on his career. In his "In Da Club" video, he's working out. He's doing upside down pull ups and running on a treadmill, sending out a positive message about working hard and getting into shape. He also has a flavor of Vitamin Water, a healthy drink for people packed with vitamins and minerals, not HGH and growth hormones.
Even though there are these positive messages emitting from the media today, I would say that the negative does outweigh the positive. We live in a society where we thrive on the negative and constantly judge one another. I don't know how we can change that so the positive outweighs the negative. It seems like it would be impossible to change, but the media would definitely have a big hand in it if it were to change. Media has so much influence that it just may have the power to alter people's views.
Honestly. I hate pop culture. I don’t know why… I guess it’s just because I live differently than a lot of people. Not to offend anyone but I have a real hard time identifying with individuals like Aquilera and fifty cent… I guess I just don’t buy into the kind of music they sell and the images they project. Look. When it comes to pop culture I’ve got to admit, people do focus a lot on the negative aspects of what is being sold and they give a lot of artists some pretty tough flak, but the fact is if pop stars didn’t all sing about the same stuff and emphasize the same vicarious mentality maybe they’d get some positive feedback. I mean try selling your music and not your tits. You music, not scars from your “crack selling” days. (who the hell do you think your fooling “fitty”) Maybe there are some positive aspects to what some of these people are doing, but across the board it seems like all they’re helping with is contributing to the mentality that image is everything. As McQuail says “at the heart of this matter is the understanding of the reality of gender, which in these theories is sometimes defined as social position…” (48 reader) Without image, guns and a D cups nobody gets anywhere in our society. Phewww that’s my plug on pop culture… As for who it effects…
Hmmm I don’t know. It’s hard to say. I go to the gym everyday and I see a lot of juice heads. I mean not just regular guys who pump iron and drink protein shakes… I mean JUICE HEADS. Enlarged jaws from using H.G.H…super huge size gains in a matter of weeks. Guys getting incredibly cut when… to say the least… their workout habits don’t reflect their gains. Steroid use, especially in wealthy disposable allowance schools like Quinnipiac has become rampant. Now I’m not saying everyone does it. I certainly don’t, and I know guys that are 100% against cheating. But performance enhancing drugs are out there and they’re definitely more prominent then they have ever been. And it’s not just the guys. Chicks might not be using steroids but when it comes to the things they wear and the way they treat their bodies… it seems like its all the same stuff. So what does pop culture have to do with all this? I usta think nothing. But these days I’m not so sure. You ask if society will always point figures at pop icons to blame them for the ails of society? I think the answer to that question is yes. As long as we are a society of consumers who live, breathe and shape our lives through the media we will continue to be controlled by its images and messages and as a result we’ll always point figures when we see problems arising in our world.
First of all I would just like to say that the readings for this week were a hell of a lot more interesting than previous readings ;-) And Mal, your blog was fantastic.
Page 57 of McQuail’s reader states, “[...]media are not only assigned to ‘reflect’ reality, but represent our collective hopes, fears, and fantasies and perform a mythical and ritual function as well.” I find this to be uplifting. One of the many reasons that I want to go into media as a career is to invoke change in the industry. I take McQuail’s quote to say that it is possible to do so, and, to tie this back to the Christina Aguilera video issue, I’d like to believe her intent was to help change the way women are viewed. This may not be the case, but I’d like to believe it. Lesley Robinson states in her article “Dirrty Discourse” that “women are essentially delineated to one of two roles in popular culture: that of the nurturer or sex object” (46). In my experience with popular culture I see that to be true. But stars like Christina Aguilera have the where-with-all to decide what they want to wear in their videos and how they want to be viewed. Honestly, I don’t think Christina was going for “sex object,” critics just want to say she fits the mold.
I think that popular culture today is obsessed with the negative aspects more so than the positives. For instance, most of the covers of magazines these days highlight the “wrong decisions” that many of our stars are making, so that we can feel better about ourselves. It’s really sad. And when there are stars who stand out (such as Christina Aguilera and 50 Cent) we still need to find something to degrade them.
I will admit that back in the day I was a fan of both Christina and 50. Christina for her amazing vocals and 50 Cent for his hard hitting lyrics laying over (what I believe to be) incredible beats. Never once did I accuse Christina of being too “slutty” or 50 Cent of being a “juice head.” Is it possible that they could be the exception to the stereotypes? There are many who hope the answer is NO so that they have someone to complain about... or as Mal puts it “give us a [person] to point fingers to blame for the ills of society.”
Now I feel compelled to comment on Steve’s response. I can understand how he feels saturated by popular culture and that it drives him mad... but it is, after all, a form of entertainment and a means of wealth. He said “try selling your music and not your tits”... I say “in a world dominated by sexually explicit material, a certain bit of skin needs to be shown.” I mean honestly, who is going to buy a record from a woman in a turtleneck sweater? It’s not flattering! Christina knows that... and she’s profiting.
I agree whole-heartedly with Jill’s response. I too would wear what Christina wears if I could pull it off. And as far as 50 Cent’s body image is concerned... I also immediately thought of his video “In Da Club” where he is training.
Just as Sports Illustrated says lay off the athletes, I say lay off the musicians. It seems to me by the S.I. article that the ones with the real problems are the kids. Stop blaming people for the problem and start coming up with solutions! And media-- help make this happen!
Post a Comment