Post your responses to the following readings here:
- Gauntlett, David. Parts 3 & 4. (Representations of Gender in the Past/Representations of Gender Today)
- Cresser, Frances , Lesley Gunn and Helen Balme. “Women’s experiences of on-line e-zine publication.” Media, Culture & Society 2001 23:457.
As I was reading the history of women’s past representations in magazines in Chapter 3 of Gauntlett, I wondered why magazines were always enjoyed by women and not by men? What did female consumers find appealing? Were women simply caught up in the consumerist society that associated them to superficial interests in beauty, looks and homegoods? Why do we not find an equivalent to female magazines for men? Or can we?
On Chapter 4.
Finally, can we really consider that women are taken seriously in modern magazines and advertisements? The example of the show Ugly Betty seems to throw some doubts on the question: doesn’t Ugly Betty become beautiful by the end of the show, creating the perfect end to her love story with Daniel? In what way is this a real change from other TV drama themes?
« For women however, e-zines are a unique medium in that they allow space for creative female expression that is perceived to be unavailable in dominant mainstream media ». If e-zines appear as the only good medium for women to express themselves, can this really be considered as a success while men are able to publish in newspapers and in all the other media? To what extent can we pretend that e-zines really allow a feminist empowerment?
Moreover, aren’t women still bound by subsconscious constraints from the male dominated society when they construct their identities, views and politics on e-zines?
If only 2% of the world is online then will the social change initiated by the internet be significant enough? The 2% is made of the most influential people of the population, but will the internet result in any social changes in areas that don’t have access? For example, in countries where women have even less power. And, are e-zines really being used to spread social change? Forgive me if I am wrong, but, the article sounds like most women are just using them as personal journals, and not actually initiating change in their lives outside of the internet.
Many times in advertising women will be viewing slim attractive women that would be appealing to men, while men see handsome men who are desirable to women. Women and men know what is appealing to the other sex and want to be that way; but, are the attractive models also appealing to the viewer because they are aesthetically pleasing? Why is it that when the film audience is viewing people from the point of view of the opposite sex they are uncomfortable doing so, but in ads they are fine? Is there a difference in the ability to relate to moving images vs still? Is it easier to distance oneself from a motionless image?
The article “Women’s Experiences Of Online E-zine Publication” it is stated that e-zines are a unique medium that allow space for female expression that is perceived unattainable in mainstream media. “The number of women e-zine publishers is increasing all the time.” Will the internet be the new frontier in which women gain significant ground on men in the media? Are women’s ideas and expression valued less by the public if they aren’t published on paper or in other mainstream mediums? Is the e-zine movement insignificant because of this?
Gauntlet talks about Cosmopolitan in the following quote “Cosmo does not bother being consistent: one article would encourage readers to be happy with their body size whilst another would encourage slimming” Is this a triumph for women and feminism, a magazine that made “men the butt of jokes”, or is it simply a cleverly disguised piece of forgone mainstream media? Was society (including the women) not ready to immerse itself completely into the cover idea of Cosmo?
Cresser/Gunn/Balme: The article praises e-zines as empowering for female writers, what about readers? Is there a space in the e-zine community for women who do not wish to publish, and does the user-generated nature of this media benefit them in the same way?
Also, this is just mentioned briefly, but what could be possible causes of the double inconsistency in the relationship between education and identification with feminism in black and white women?
Gauntlett, Part 3: The review of past representations of gender mentions that film does not portray examples of only standard masculinity and femininity, but instead, these roles are made more interesting by the ways that they depart from the traditional roles? Today, there’s more flexibility in expression of traditional gender. Have the understandings of masculinity and femininity changed, or is the change in the extent to which we allow aberrations from traditional roles?
Gauntlett, Part 4: The text seems to suggest that making female characters sexually desirable is second worst to making them weak. What are the draws of each of these choices? Does the difference in the two possibilities come from any kind of power that a woman gets from being sexually desirable?
and by draws, I mean draws for the male-oriented dominant structure. (in the last question)
Gauntlett 3:
“Characters are made more interesting by being imperfectly masculine, or slightly different to what you might expect feminine…”
A character such as the one described in NYPD Blue was superficially, the strong, macho man. But, as the series developed, he unraveled into a more emotional and complicated character. If a male spectator identified with this “masculine” character, what would be the effect on the spectator when the character turned more “feminine?”
Gauntlett 4:
Gauntlett writes that researchers hypothesized that if more women were working in the production scene, then more women would be depicted in TV series. However, the two seemed to have no correlation. What would be the main reason for there being more men on television than women? Do more women watch television, thus creating the need for more men to be looked at? Or do more men watch television and need men to identify with.
E-zine:
“Something needs to be done to redress the imbalance of numbers of women to men using the Internet. Seizing the tools of cultural production is viewed by many women as the only way to create any sort of gender balance on the Internet.” Why would women feel the need to have gender balance on the Internet? Compared to many other women and men inequalities, this just seems like such a petty thing to want to fight for.
E-zines are a great way to express feelings, emotions, stories, and news that would otherwise not be important to people in our society. As a great resource for women, I feel it also hinders them in a sense. Those who write these e-zines tend to be self-concious about themselves and feel they would not be able to say what they wanted to say in face-to-face conversation. However, doesn’t the impersonality of this medium–the internet–present dangers to our society? For example if this trend continues, will a larger and larger proportion of people not be comfortable speaking in the classroom, workplace, or other places? Is that even a bad thing? If women do not feel comfortable speaking in these spheres of life, how may writing these blogs help them feel more capable of interacting in the non-cyber world? Do they need face-to-face interaction to impact more people than just their followers who share similar traits of insecurity, or uncomfortableness in these spheres?
Gauntlett spends a lot of time describing the women’s magazines of the 1950-1980s. How much of the emphasis on domesticity and the house wife is self inflicted by women? Professor Stein has stated that gender in media is a give and take relationship, where we influence the media in a similar fashion to it influencing us (although some debate it (Gauntlett Chapter 2)). Did women find this organized and controlled sphere of domesticity liberating in any way? For the male perspective, was working all day in a cubicle, really that appealing? There is a reason there were no men’s lifestyle magazines during these decades. Why did men not feel the need to advertise their lifestyle, when women’s magazines were always highly present?
In a similar parallel, Gauntlett states that in our age, Women feel 10x worse about their body image then do men. Yet he also states that men in certain cases tend to not like the skinny women that Cosmogirl, Glamor, and other magazines idolize but rather women who are not skinny to the point of anorexia, or toned to the point of perfection, but rather those who are curvaceous and have beauty in other manners. The editor of Loaded magazines phrases this quite bluntly. This begs the question, if men do not find these skinny models attractive, why do young teenage women aspire to achieve these “perfect” body figures? Could it be possible that women and girls are putting the pressure on themselves due to a misconceived notion that men find certain qualities appealing? Or instead do women just apply these stereotypes because they have their own bias towards the skinny, toned man?
Gauntlett mentions how Barbara Philips noted that “the heroines featured in Ms’s articles were not women who had become millionaires- the traditional model by which American men would be judged a success- but rather were women who had helped to bring important political, social or cultural changes”(56). She continues to argue that women are still being praised for their selfless virtue, so this is not a real step towards women’s liberation. so what women would need to do in this case, is become millionaires and be judged in the same grounds as men. However, what if instead of having women make money to be valued, their selfless virtue was more highly valued than men’s ability to make money for one’s self? so that women were valued more because of this? Wouldn’t this improve and contribute to the feminist movement and society itself?
E-zine publishers expressed that they are able to form better friendships on-line than the ones they form in real life. They state things such as “I communicate on a different level through the web” and “I write this e-zine to find out who I am”. Why do women need the web to be able to relate to others and findthemselves in this way? What factors prevent them from doing this in real life? Are we even aware of all the different limitations and barriers that take place and affect women? Are women able to pinpoint the reason why they can’t experience this in their everyday lifes?
Gauntlett 3—
Can we draw a comparison between the “Cosmo factor” and “Gossip Girl?” Both saturate us with consumerism and unattainable beauty. But can this capitalistic overload be excused due to both texts’ engagement with gender issues?
Gauntlett 4—At the beginning of this chapter, Gauntlett mentions a corrolation between women working as producers, writers, etc. on television dramas and these dramas’ positive portrayal of women. After having worked in a writer’s room for a new Fox cop drama, I can attest to the “boy’s club” atmosphere. For the first two or three weeks, there was only one female writer. She was White, educated at Cornell, and ranked second from the bottom on the pay-scale. She fought hard day after day for the female lead of the show (Jennifer Beals playing a bi-racial Chief of Police) However, I found it interesting that she would always insist for ALL of the female characters—“No rape. No babies.” What do you guys think of her stance in regards to Gauntlett and his discussion of rape as a “female issue” on television?
Why aren’t e-zines more popular with people our age? Can Facebook at all count as a substitute?
Gauntlett reading: In comparison to gender representations of the past, it seems as though women in the media (i.e. tv shows and film) have made progress-they have more lead roles than in previous times and have shown that they too can be assertive and intelligent. However, representations of women still tend to highlight beauty and physique, as even the actress who plays the lead role on “Ugly Betty” is not actually ugly. Have women truly made progress, though their representation in the media still tends to focus on their physical beauty and exclude other qualities?
I found it interesting to read the experiences of women who write in these e-zines, and one thing that stood out to me is the fact that two of these publishers express that they said things they would not usually have the confidence to say in face to face communication. This to me exemplifies one of the problems with e-zines, as by limiting communication and excluding facial expressions and verbal communication, you limit part of your identity, and thus if this is the only way women feel they can freely express their opinions, is this then, a step back for feminism as opposed to a step forward?
In “Representations of Gender in the Past”, Gauntlett recalls the representation of women in advertising and magazines, and notes “The social value of the housewife was often celebrated and praised”. Is it just because we are looking at this from a 21st century perspective, one in which we see the role of the domestic housewife as a bad thing? Or was it actually the fact that women were exercising control over their own sphere? Unless is it simply what Gauntlett suggests “fear of deviance?” This reminds me of the basic economic theory of supply and demand- women bought into this representation and enjoyed buying these magazines etc. Surely we can’t assume that women bought these mediums of media solely because they felt they had to? Maybe they did feel liberated in the home?
The e-zine article says that online zines are being used as ways to create discourses on social problems and hopefully change them, but if sites are limited to women only, and if these discourses are taking place between like-minded people who would visit the site already, how does this discourse create social change? Wouldn’t it be more productive to find a medium that is more interactive with large ranges of people, from men to the non-affluent to minorities?
On Gauntlett:
Gauntlett addresses the rise of “queer” themes and gay characters in television and film, yet why does he gloss over the sexist themes within these gay subtexts? For example, why does he not mention that almost all “mainstream gay” films feature gay men and not women? It is Gauntlett noteworthy that he acknowledges that even queer genre films can be heteronormative, and we must applaud him for that. However, after such a critique how can he shunt aside the marginalization of trans and bisexual characters/issues to a mere side-note, one-sentence concern? Isn’t addressing sexism and marginalization within the gay community, not just of the gay community, an important undertaking?
Gauntlett gives both sides of the argument by explaining that both men and women are expected to look “good” in media. However, in media, why are there more times when an unattractive man snags the beauty than the reverse happening? In media, if the woman is unattractive, they usually go through a transformation of becoming the spectacle by ‘taking off the glasses’ or getting a makeover. What does say about how the media views how women should look like? What does it say about how WE think women should look like?
Since the publication of the article in 1998, how have the amount of women who use the e-zine change? How has this allowed more women to communicate relevant topics to the mainstream media in the present day? How effective is this form of communication effecting the mainstream media currently?
“ a positive factor that came across from the interviews was that women we publish on-line often do so with no prior experience of publication in any form”. This is previously discussed as “strengthening women’s presence online” but if women are publishing without prior experience, does the work of these ‘uneducated’ or better put “isolated” women, not undermine the progressive work of female scholars that were slowly liberating the penmanship of women. So do e-zines not alienate academics and so the cause for increased female authorship?
“you could sometimes get away with writing about a woman who was not really a housewife if you made her sound like a housewife”, “women have to identify”. If representations of gender in magazines in the past were so flawed why did women continually buy these magazines each month. Friedan is critical that women were not given a voice, but does this not show women did not want a voice?
In “Women’s experiences of On-line e-zine Publication,” the authors describe how women have created all-female spaces, in part to not have to deal with harassment from males. However, if one main purpose of these online forums is to examine and deal with issues of women’s identity, voice, and politics, and challenge the inferior treatment of women, would it not be beneficial to have some men involved in the conversation in an effort to reconstruct identities? Or is it not possible to have a feminist space with men in it? And if it is not possible, can women alone end patriarchy?
Even though media has shown women in a more equal light, advertising lags behind the progress of gender equality seen in movies and on T.V. Why is advertising still employing stereotypes when the general media has moved away from them?
Although online forums are a great way to get people participating in debates and discussions, the fact that people aren’t talking face to face makes us wonder if e-zines hamper our ability to communicate important issues to one another, face to face, instead of through a medium that has no personal aspect?