Posts

The documentary, Do I Sound Gay?, follows journalist, David Thorpe, as he attempts to alter his voice so that he does not sound gay.  The documentary, beginning after David’s breakup with his boyfriend, is not only made up of David’s experiences, but the thoughts of other men on how they sound.  It should be noted that David did not want to change his voice in order to come across as straight, but he felt that he was disconnected with the way his voice sounded.

For instance, David mentions how he does not think that he always spoke like a stereotypical gay man speaks.  David came out during his first year at college, and his college roommate explains that David’s voice did change those first few months after coming out.  David’s high school friend says that she didn’t care that David was gay, she was more disturbed that he altered his voice in order to fit this certain “gay” man mold.  David’s sister related his voice change to her experience of coming out.  She said that when she first identified herself as a lesbian, she went out and bought a leather jacket.  Both the leather jacket and the voice change show a response to a change of identity within the individual.  When David identified as being gay, he felt the need to take on the role of a stereotypical gay man.

One interesting topic in the documentary was how these men become versed in this so called gay accent.  One man explained that he picked up this accent by listening to his mother and her friends converse on the phone.  In addition, many times in the documentary, the men mention how their voices sound feminine and not very forceful.  As David goes to more vocal therapy sessions, his instructor constantly reminds him that he must lower his voice. I find it interesting that in order to sound more masculine, a person must possess a lower, demanding voice, but in order to sound more feminine, a person should retain a higher, softer tone.  This simply instills that women have been socialized to be more passive when men can be more aggressive.  Many straight men with “feminine” voices say that often times people will assume that they are gay because of their voice.  Some of the men who were interviewed mentioned that their high voices were the reason that many times they were made fun of in middle or high school.  The negative connotation associated with the term “faggot” was one reason that many of the men in this video denied being gay in grade school.

One interviewee said that when people did not know he was gay from his voice, he took it as a complement.  I think this would explain that although these men are proud of their sexual orientation, many of them do not want this characteristic of being gay to become their master status, or in other words, they don’t want to be defined as the “gay friend” or the “gay bartender” or any other person with the word “gay” automatically tacked on to the front of it.  I think it is interesting that when someone is homosexual, people find it necessary to point out .  On the other hand, some of the men in this video said that they did not care about what other people thought of their voice.  They took pride in the fact that people could identify them as gay right away.  One of David’s friends was even disappointed that David wanted to change the way he spoke.  David’s friend thought that David was trying to hide who he was in order to fit into the mainstream normal way of speaking.

After all of the work he put into changing the way he sounded, I would not say I could really tell too much of a difference from the beginning of the documentary.  With that being said, I would say that by the end of this, he was more confident in his voice.  I feel as though David connected more with his voice as it related to who he identified with as a person.

http://www.netflix.com/watch/80018333?trackId=13752289&tctx=0%2C0%2Cf9f78ded2012c215fb4148d12c71233b2b41ccb3%3Af84b066d9664106143be08fcfe7bc1acc81696ce

Many shows on television today contain an element of hegemonic masculinity.  One excellent example is the FX Network show “The League.” “The League” is about five men and one woman who create a friend group surrounding their NFL fantasy football league.  The masculinity displayed in this show is very similar to the masculinity displayed in the beer commercials that we watched in class this semester. Even though Jenny, the wife of another member named Kevin, is allowed into the group, the group is meant to be an escape from wives, girlfriends, and children in order to fulfill male comradery.  This dominantly male group presents the idea that all groups of men want to avoid responsibilities by gathering together, watching sports, drinking beer, and making fun of each other and of others.  Also, this fantasy league demonstrates the stereotypical male competitive nature.  Unable to actually be professional football players, this group of men use this make believe competition in order to still fulfill a need for competition, even though the only rewards are the title of League Champion along with a trophy which the call Shiva.  This display of competition shows that in groups of men, one male must assert his dominance by beating his friends in competition.

The character of Rodney Ruxin, played by Nick Kroll, exemplifies the stereotypical masculine quality of the “bullying” friend.  Even though all the characters give each other a hard time, Ruxin seems to make the most demeaning remarks.  For example, in Season Two, Episode In one episode, where Andre has been forced to grow his hair outrageously long, Ruxin gets him with this question, “Do you see yourself more as like, a rapist who does magic, or a magician who also likes to rape?”  Even asking this question belittles Andre in a way that reinforces Ruxin’s masculinity.  Ruxin not only remarks on the outward appearances of his friends, but also negatively burns his friends by emasculating them by calling them women or homosexuals.  Ruxin even names his draft team, “Pete Top, Kevin Bottom.”  Ruxin’s mocking of his friends presents that he believes that somehow being a woman or being a homosexual is inferior.

Jenny is the show represents the only female character.  While it is praised that the group even let a woman into their circle, where most groups would not, she still represents many stereotypes.  Many times the guys make fun of her for having a boyish body, which she responds to by joining in on their sexual comments.

This show uses sexist and racist comments in order to come across as humorous.  Ruxin and Jenny are just two examples throughout the show, even though the show is filled with examples.

Extra credit Post

I thought you guys would enjoy these old commercials from Folgers. I came across these when I was in High School. They are very funny and absolutely ridiculous because today things just don’t work the same way. In the video the men would keep waking up to what they claim is “horrible” coffee that their wives would make for them in the morning. The women would take it as an insult and not know how to act. Many of the men just grabbed there meals and left the coffee. Then as the commercials progress they throw more ridiculous insults their way saying men or women at work can do better with hotplates and apparently saying the desk sergeant at the police station can make better is an insult.

However, a magical man shows up at the general store and saves the day by giving them a coffee that has a richer flavor and suddenly the men are in love with their wives coffee again. Basically the message being women need to be good cooks for the men and nurse them. Its not like the men couldn’t have made the coffee the way they wanted it. These commercials are just completely ridiculous. What do you guys think?

Gender Stereotypes in Advertising

After watching the beer advertisements in class, I began to wonder how many advertisements that we see everyday on television or in magazines use gender stereotypes. After turning on the TV and flipping through a few channels, I came across nearly 2 or 3 advertisements that objectify or stereotype men or women in some way. The scary part of this is that advertisements for nearly ANY product or service can use some sort of stereotype towards a male or female to attract consumers. Gender stereotypes are commonly used in advertisements for clothing, and makeup and such products, but can even be seen in commercials for such things as hamburgers, computers, and other everyday products.

An advertisement that I think clearly explains how extreme gender stereotypes in advertisements today would be the “Meet the Parents” Axe advertisement. Axe is a company that is directed towards males, which sells grooming products such as soap, shampoo, body wash, etc. Since Axe is targeting a male audience, it has advertisements running through nearly every commercial break on channels like ESPN, which has a mostly male audience. The commercial  starts off with a mom and a dad opening a door for there son, who enters the house. Along with him is a girl, Cindy, who he is introducing to his parents. After they greet each other, the mom begins to close the door behind her son, when he says “Mom, no”, and opens the door. After he opens it, 8 other girls walk into the house, where he introduces each with there names, to his parents. The parents are dumbfounded when they see all of the girls there son has brought with him. After this the commercial ends with the tag line, ” Axe. Use in moderation.”. The son is your average male, in his twenties probably, wearing a polo shirt with the color flipped up. He isn’t overly masculine and comes off as a ‘bro’ (your average college fraternity kind of guy). All of the women that come inside the house are beautiful women, wearing make up and dressed nicely.

Clearly, the purpose of this advertisement is to sell Axe body wash products. But what does this commercial have to do with shampoo and body wash? Although males of varying ages use Axe, Axe’s target audience is for males of ages 18-24. Axe uses multiple techniques to engage in there audience, among these being humor. The situation is clearly outlandish, making it funny to the target audience. I mean, I don’t know any guy who would try to bring home 2 girls to meet his parents, let alone 10 like the commercial has. Fear- there ads talk about  how a supposedly “real man” is secure enough in his masculinity to keep his cool, putting fear in the viewer’s mind that if they can’t keep their cool, they arent manly enough. Beautiful people- the women in the ad are basically models, implying that if you use Axe you will land gorgeous women; and Association- this ad plants the association in your mind between Axe and manliness or Axe and getting lucky with the ladies. Is Axe really the difference that makes beautiful women come running to you by the hundreds? The marketing strategy tells us a few things about Axe’s way of thinking, and societies views of the young adult male. First, Axe assumes that men make fun of women for their own amusement, and believe that by doing the same they can connect better with their audience. Secondly, Axe sees women as mere objects rather than anything, or anyone for that matter, deserving of more attention than that which is sexual.

If Axe wanted to become more friendly towards other audiences, it would have to drop the female stereotypes. One example of an excluded group from Axe commercial are females. Yes, they are included in the ad, and one could even say are the stars of the ad, but not exactly in a good way. The women shown in this ad are objectified in many ways. They are not seen as someone that men are trying to get to know, but instead they only exist as sexual objects. On top of that, Axe is also stereotyping women into a few groups. According to this new campaign, girls can be sporty, brainy, flirty, high maintenance, or party crazy. According to Axe, it’s easy to figure girls out once you box them into one of these stereotypes.

Link to video

Every day I take the buckeye village bus, and every day we pass one of those billboards that has 3 signs and they all rotate around showing you one of the three signs for a timed limit. Well on of the signs is a billboard for a plastic surgeon, the only image on the billboard is of a woman’s torso, that is wearing a very low cut red shirt. The billboard in very large writing says “Who said diamonds were a girl’s best friend?” The first time I saw this ad I laughed and thought “Wow that can’t be real”. This ad was deliberately seeking out insecure woman and showing them an ad that says basically “You do not look good enough but we can cut you open and put some stuff in or take some stuff out so you can feel better about yourself”

The text “Who says diamonds are a girl’s best friend?” makes women seem superficial and that they only care about their appearances and money.  While the woman on the ad does not have a head or legs they still present her in a very high fashion and heteronormative way, she is white, wearing a nice looking shirt and a diamond necklace. By taking away her face the ad forces the viewer to see just a sexual object. The red shirt is very intentional, not only does it draw our eyes to it, but many studies have proven over and over again that woman who wear red are considered more attractive by people around them. The photographer also had the woman move her body in a way that would come across in that would make her breasts look bigger and still look sexy. The goal of the woman on the ad is to draw in your attention and read the ad but for the woman who look at it the ad helps perpetuate the idea that a small waist and large breasts is what every woman needs to be beautiful.
This ad also got me wondering about what an ad for plastic surgeons would like if they were gendered to men. So I spent about 20 minutes google searching trying to find a plastic surgery ad aimed at men. I could not find a single one. However, I did find plenty more ads aimed at woman most of which were targeting their breasts and claiming to make them bigger, or showing before and after images which are clearly still photo shopped. So not only are woman not beautiful enough on their own but even their before and after images from the plastic surgeons were photo shopped to look better. Ads such as these are the reason we get shows such as Amy Schumer’s 12 Angry Men because Hollywood and the media that we consume daily show woman this impossible to obtain beauty standard. Before starting this class I thought the ad was simply just stupid, but now that we as a class have learned to analyze sources that we all the time the ad makes me almost angry because it is trying to push this one idea of beauty and we see all the time that there are so many forms of beauty.

Bloomingdale receives negative feedback for an ad in its Christmas catalog for this year.

Bloomingdale is under fire for its latest ad, a Christmas ad featuring unforgivable behavior. In the poster for winter coats, a man and a woman stand next to each other with the woman turning slightly away from the man, while tilting her head back and laughing. The man looks creepily at her, and the text between them says,

“Spike your best friend’s eggnog while they’re not looking.”

…..WHAT. THE. HELL. was my first reaction. I want to know who was part of the marketing team, that sat around a table, and collectively decided that this was okay. Unacceptable! Reasons that this ad is despicable:

• Spiking eggnog is not okay. Bloomingdale, how could you?? Obviously this perpetuates a culture that we all hate – rape culture. Rape culture, something that normalizes sexual violence, has absolutely no place in an ad, or anywhere, for that matter. And with the guy looking shadily at her, Bloomingdale, you really hit the greasy nail on its head this time. Also, spiked eggnog sounds repulsive.

• Spiking your best friend’s eggnog is not okay. Not only is it terrible that the ad shows someone deceiving someone else, but the ad suggests that a man would take advantage of a close friend, specifically a female friend. The fact that “best friend’s” is in bold text makes me cringe furiously.

• The fact that her head is turned away while the ad suggests sneak around and do something while she’s not looking is the worst of all. Come on, Bloomingdale, why do we need to explain this to you? How will this affect the people viewing the ad? Will they think that this kind of behavior is acceptable? And what does this say to viewers of the ad who have been raped before? Relationships are built on trust, and suggesting that a best friend should exploit someone’s trust is undeniably bad.

Perhaps the only thing worse than the ad itself is Bloomingdale’s sorry excuse for an apology.

We heard your feedback about our catalog copy, which was inappropriate and in poor taste. Bloomingdale’s sincerely apologizes.

— Bloomingdale’s (@Bloomingdales) November 10, 2015

Yeah. It sure was inappropriate. But “in poor taste” is a gargantuan understatement. Bloomingdale, you belong to the group of advocates for pervading rape culture, whether it be intentional or unintentional.

It’s time to nip it in the bud. Their whole lives, girls have been taught to act a certain way to avoid provoking a reaction from boys. But now, it’s time to teach boys to essentially man-up and gain some respect for women, both mentally and physically. Ads like these are a huge part of the reason that rape culture gets perpetuated. Your audiences deserve better. Come on, marketing teams, it’s time to put these rapey ads to rest. Be more creative.

I recently watched The Holiday (2006), a movie starring Kate Winslet, Jude Law, Jack Black, and Cameron Diaz. Although this movie is nearly the definition of a feel-good, easy-to-watch chick flick, I couldn’t quite get on board with it, and this is why:

The movie opens with Iris Simpkins (Winslet), an editor for a newspaper in London, learning that the man she’s been in love with for three years (despite his infidelities) has become engaged to another woman. It then introduces Amanda Woods (Diaz), a wealthy movie trailer producer in L.A. who has just broken up with her boyfriend after discovering that he slept with another woman. Iris and Amanda both decide that they need a break, and, after finding each other online, decide to do a house swap for two weeks. Each woman finds a new relationship in the other’s country, Amanda with Graham (Law), Iris’ brother, and Iris with Miles (Black), a friend of Amanda’s ex.

This movie is limited in a number of ways, one of which being that it subscribes to and propagates gender stereotypes. One of the most noticeable instances of gender stereotyping in the movie regards Amanda’s physical inability to cry ever since her parents divorced when she was fifteen. Amanda’s ex-boyfriend comments during their break-up, “Look at you. The only woman on earth who breaks up with her boyfriend and doesn’t even shed a tear.” His response, while seemingly innocent, reveals that characters in this movie subscribe to the widely-held belief that all women have to be very outwardly emotional. If a woman cannot express her emotion, people immediately think that there is something wrong with her. However, if a man does not cry when he is hurt, no one thinks anything of it. This highlights one of the glaring double standards the exists for men and women in society. External displays of emotion are viewed as a sign of weakness and therefore as feminine, but the lack of an emotional response is thought to be masculine and a sign of strength. This is, of course, completely irrational due to the fact that the method or frequency in which people express their emotion has no bearing on their status as male or female.

Another weak point of this film is its severe underrepresentation of minority groups. The Holiday – like the vast majority of popular film – features white protagonists, straight couples, wealthy characters with near-perfect lives, and the complete exclusion of any character type which does not fit those descriptions. This is a problem because obviously, white is not the only race, straight is not the only sexuality, and working women with enough job security, time, and money to switch houses for two weeks are hardly the norm. The danger of popular media is that it can make traits like these seem normal – with “normal” not necessarily meaning commonplace, but rather with the connotation of being “correct”. If such a narrow, unrealistic set of traits is being portrayed as the only acceptable one, then what does that imply to the huge number of people who do not fall into that category? The fact is, people tend to value and idealize the characteristics that they see painted in the best light. If there are no positive examples of queer couples, interracial families, or working-class people being shown to our society, then movies, as well as other forms of media directed at large audiences, have a responsibility to represent them. Humans do not have a “default setting”; racial, social, and sexual minorities are not just less-desirable variations of what people should be, which is why The Holiday fails as a well-rounded film by not giving those minorities the positive representation they need.

Whether you have seen the show or not, you will no doubt know of South Park, despite the fact that it is a cartoon, as one of the most vulgar and offensive shows produced. If you don’t know that or believe that, perhaps the episode “It Hits the Fan”, in which the word “shit” was uttered 162 times, might convince you. Despite the show’s offensiveness, and perhaps because of it, the show, at times, brings light to real social issues. One such issue is in the episode “The Cissy”, which deals with the issue of transgenderism and bathrooms. Eric Cartmen, arguably the most offensive character on the show (you will see later why), decides, at recess one day, to declare himself “transginger” (meaning to say transgender) in an attempt to use the girl’s bathroom. Why? Because all of the stall’s in the boy’s restroom were taken.
Cartman, known to all to be an anti-Semite, racist, misogynist, and all-around terrible person, is of course told on. Everyone knows he is not really transgender and that he is only doing what he is doing because he is selfish and cares only about himself. This scene shows Cartman’s selfish motives and also explains why Cartman gets away with his actions. What’s striking, however, is his understanding of what a transgender person is. He knows and accepts transgender, or as he calls it, “transginger”, people, but uses their plight and struggles in order to benefit himself. His actions, though horrible, do bring up a controversial social issue: what bathroom does a transgender person use? In the context of this episode, everyone knows Cartman is not really transgender, so the idea of what bathroom he should use is obviously the boy’s. However, as Mr. Garrison, the teacher, points out in the clip, “you don’t want this hot potato”, meaning the possible media and social backlash that could result from denying Eric the use of the female restroom would not be worth the hassle. On top of that, it is federally illegal to discriminate students based on sex. Despite the fact that Eric is not actually “transginger”, there would be no way (at least to people who do not know Cartman), to prove this, and could result in a law suit if administrators opposed him. This issue of bathroom use in schools by transgender people is not a fictitious creation by South Park either, as shown in this news article. Eric is known to be a master manipulator, making the situation more complex as Cartman is great at getting his way. By having Eric represent a transgender, the creators of South Park want to show that transgender people are not genuine and are pretending in order to receive special treatment. Or are they? Mr. Garrison, mentioned in a clip above, is (or was?) a transgender woman. So much so that he (she?) had a sex change, but also reversed it in another episode. If the last sentence seems confusing, this was the creator’s intent. The issue of transgenderism is confusing and is not clear-cut; there are no absolute truths to the issue. This may sound critical, but it only shows that gender is a spectrum with no right or wrong answers, and that’s what the creators want to show. By explaining transgenderism in “The Cissy” using non-critical demeanors and by having Mr. Garrison tell people to “drop it”, the creators show that transgender people need to be accepted because there is no way to prove that what they claim to be is not the truth. Perhaps instead of Eric literally representing the transgender community, the creators use him as a way to show how other, more conservative people perceive the transgender: lying, manipulative, special snowflakes who only want special treatment.
To fix the issue the girls at the school have with Cartman using the women’s restroom, the principal decides to give Cartman his own personal restroom. Clearly this delights Eric. He gets his own “transgender bathroom”, decked out in lights, a water feature, and music. The sign on the door reads “Other”, literally other-ing people who do not conform to the gender-sex binary. If the news article provided above says anything, it is that transgender people do not seek special treatment through the metaphorical “transgender bathroom”, but seek the same treatment that everyone who is cisgender receive. Eventually another student calls Eric out on his bull by also claiming to be transgender, and this infuriates Eric and he ends up contradicting all of the arguments he used in order to get a special bathroom. The obviousness of his contradictions highlight the arbitrary idea of gender segregated bathrooms. In the end, Eric stops using the “transgender bathroom”.
Despite the episode showing that transgenderism is confusing, and that people using bathrooms that do not match their sex seem to have no basis in logic and are a product of a gender-based society, people still have hang-ups (it’s an online poll; take it with a grain of salt). So, what do we as a society do about bathrooms? Do we make them all unisex? Private? Or do we keep the gender identifiers but change how we view gender? If the episode shows anything it is that there is no one answer. What is done to assuage Eric greatly upsets others. It is impossible to please everyone, and the lowest common denominator cannot always be catered to, but the lowest common denominator in society is not a statistic, it is a person that thinks and feels. If anything, society will dictate what happens. As issues arise, they will be addressed, to the appeasement of some and the rancor of others. What is most important is to recognize differences not as pointed guns, but as extended hands, and to accept the differences of others as differences in ourselves.

Here’s something that we all may do every day with or without intending to do so: tone policing. The comic “No, We Won’t ‘Calm Down’” by Robot Hugs brings up the characteristics of tone policing. The comic defines tone policing as “another way to protect privilege,” among other things.

Tone policing often happens in a situation where something on unfair grounds takes place and someone else feels uncomfortable about it; the tone policing happens when the aforementioned frustrated person voices their discomfort on the matter and is asked to ‘calm down.’ This can be seen as a “silencing tactic,” according to the comic.

Some common misconceptions:

Telling someone to calm down seems completely normal. I don’t see what is wrong with this.

This is exactly the problem. We first need to recognize our backgrounds and the varying amounts of privilege that we have can be very different before making such an assessment. Maybe we should recognize that we have a higher privilege than that of the person we are telling to calm down. Once we recognize this, then it is also important to note that it is not our place to tell them how to feel, since we don’t understand the other person’s adversity.

Our conversation would be more productive if you weren’t so worked up.

This is not entirely true. Productive conversations can be had without demanding that the other person be calm. Especially if the other person feels like they have been wronged; it then seems to allow the “people who hold more privilege to avoid the discomfort” caused by the initial oppression or discrimination of the other person.

People would be more willing to listen to you if you weren’t so emotional.

The point of the emotions seeping through are emphasize the urgency of the situation. Chances are, this person has already reached a certain level of frustration such that it shows when they speak on the matter. They’re past the boiling point, and they need to be heard.

What can we do to avoid tone policing?

1. Listen. Someone may be coming from an upbringing much different than where yours, and they may be trying to explain their circumstances.

2. Understand. It may not be necessary to agree, but it’s a good idea to at least understand the perspective of the person you’re talking to before you suggest them to do anything.

3. Accept. You may not agree with the person’s viewpoint, but the most important thing is to accept that their feelings are valid, and they feel the way they feel for a reason.

The sketch can be watched here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARhyKBNFHmY

For this blog post I chose the Inside Amy Schumer sketch, “You Can’t Go in There”. Inside Amy Schumer is a satire sketch comedy show, which tends to focus on sexuality and gender roles in American society. In this sketch, Amy portrays a secretary in the office in the 1970’s. Amy is informed that she is not to let anyone into her boss’s office, unless they have an appointment with him. A man rushes into the office and informs her that he needs to meet with her boss, Mr. Blake, immediately. Amy yells at him, “you can’t go in there”! He ignores her and goes in anyways. Her boss comes out asking what happened and tells her that next time she should put more “umph” when she is yelling at someone. Another man comes into the office saying that he also needs to meet with Mr. Blake now. Amy once again tells him “you can’t go in there”. The man ignores her and walks in the office anyways. Amy follows in to explain that she did what she was told. But the man states that even though she told him he could not go in he still felt like she said he could. Men continue to barge in without regarding Amy. Finally, Amy decides this is the last straw. A man walks in the office saying he is there to see Mr. Blake. Amy yells at him, “You can’t go in there”! She then attacks the man. Amy starts punching him and strangling him. But she soon realizes that he was actually supposed to have a meeting with Mr. Blake.

This sketch is interesting with how it makes fun of 70’s shows with how people always go in without the secretary’s permission. It is a classic bit. Another interesting part about this is how it shows gender stereotypes in the work place. The only people meeting Mr. Blake are men, while Amy is the secretary. Mr. Blake states that women would kill for a job like hers telling people not to come into his office. Mr. Blake assumes that this is the only job for a woman. He also states that since she is a woman she can only focus on one thing. Mr. Blake thinks that she should be able to at least be able to accomplish this. Throughout the whole episode Amy is typing on a typewriter. Her boss points out that she is typing nothing. This shows how women are looked at as not being able to hold serious jobs in the work place, and how they are servants to men in the business world.

Another interesting observation of this piece is the underlining story that takes a bit more thinking to full grasp. This sketch is about the rape culture in America. Amy continues to tell men that they can’t go in. But they ignore her and go in anyways. When Amy is questioned as to why she let them in she explains that she told them they could not. They never believe that Amy said it with enough force. They put blame on Amy. This relates how people tend to not believe rape victims. Some people believe they could have done more to stop it, which is completely absurd, as they do not respect their request. What also is interesting about this is how in order to get a man not to go in she had to use excessive force, similar to women using pepper spray on a man. Amy was defending the office, but this comes across as psychotic. It shows the viewer of how rape culture isn’t fully understood.