The New Normal

 

Apart from the P&G commercials that have frequently aired during the Olympic coverage, it has been hard to miss that NBC is pushing to promote its new show The New Normal. Perhaps this show caught my eye because I spent an entire day in my communication class focused on LGBT representation in the media discussing the word ‘normal’ or perhaps it’s because as a huge fan of Modern Family any show that seems to break the standard conventions of what a family is grabs my attention. Regardless, I decided to do some further investigating and found some startling controversy that this show has generated...mind you before it has even aired! For any one who has somehow missed the promos for the show during the Olympics watch the short trailer.

According to various articles, concerned mothers across the United States are joining together to protest the show, which is centered around a gay couple that hire a surrogate mother to carry their child, and thus emerges the new normal family in America. The article quotes the pro-family organization One Million Moms, which is a ministry of the American Family Association, arguing that the show is “attempting to desensitize America and our children. It is the opposite of how families are designed and created. You cannot recreate the biological wheel.” The group is encouraging its members to contact NBC to alert them of their serious concerns about the show as well as the sponsors of the show. One Million Moms believes that The New Normal threatens to damage and de-sensitize Americans to homosexuality in attempts to redefine marriage.

What I find most interesting about the group’s comments is not their homophobic nature, but rather their clear acknowledgement of the enormous power that the media has to influence the public. According to cultivation theory, viewers develop information from television by integrating it into their perceptions of the real world (Ferguson, Berlin, Noles, Johnson, Reed, &Spicer, 2005). Therefore I will not argue that One Million Moms is out of line in their fears or understanding of the power television has to influence its audience. However, I don’t think that trying to limit television shows to ones that reinforce heterosexual relationships and censor shows that challenge that norm is by any means progressive for our society. What I find even more amusing about this group’s efforts to protest and cancel the show is that they have not even seen it yet. The creator of Glee, Ryan Murphy said, “ Every person and group has a right to protest something. I find it to be interesting that they would take a position before they’ve seen it.” Interestingly enough apparently the show isn’t necessarily entirely pro-gay, the mother of the surrogate, played by Ellen Barkin, is a member of an anti-gay group. Rather than promote their own agenda it seems that perhaps the creators are attempting to give everyone a voice in their new show.

From the time I was five years old I can remember staring at the television in awe as I watched my favorite Disney Princess being carried away by her handsome prince charming. The media, specifically television has done so much to promote and normalize gendered images of men and women in heterosexual romantic relationships (Ivory, Gibson, & Ivory, 2009). It is so refreshing and in my eyes progressive to see television shows like Glee and Modern Family that offer positive representations of non-traditional family units and sexual relationships. On NBC’s website they noted that “These days, families come in all forms - single dads, double moms, sperm donors, egg donors, one-night-stand donors,” proclaims the description. “It's 2012 and anything goes.” The trailer features pro-gay representations such as the surrogate mother explaining that she doesn’t mind carrying the child of a gay couple because “love is love” however it also features many anti-gay comments from the surrogate’s mother. It seems that NBC really is trying to represent a variety of families and beliefs in their new show. Regardless, I for one am excited to see the pilot. In case you are interested the show premieres September 11^th at 9:30 p.m. on NBC.

She kissed a girl, but did she really like it?

 After having taken my share of communications courses at Michigan analyzing media that challenges social norms becomes something that is sort of second nature. Although finding success while challenging norms is always an achievement I am fascinated by television shows and celebrities that have found success by both challenging as well as conforming to social norms. With the new release of her movie Katy Perry has been on the forefront of a vast amount of media directed toward adolescents. Katy Perry in my opinion is a celebrity that has built a career off challenging certain social norms but has maintained success by abiding to other norms. 

Her career skyrocketed from the national attention her hit single “I Kissed a Girl” generated. In case you're a little rusty on the hits of 2008 here is a link to the music video. 

Interestingly enough there isn't actually any girl girl kissing in the music video. Perhaps Ms. Perry wanted her lyrics to do the talking, my guess however, is in order to balance out the lyrics that defy social norms it was decided to keep the video relatively low key. This reinforces my point that Katy Perry is kind of the ultimate hypocrite when it comes to sexuality. I am all about challenging social norms especially when it comes to sexuality but because Katy does not identify as homosexual the song that shot her to A-list status in which she proudly talks about kissing a girl and liking it seems to be simply utilizing the notoriety generated from homosexual themes to gain success rather than actually making any sort of stance for equality. And if that is the case, I am completely turned off by any celebrity that uses homosexuality as a tool to gain fame. 

Katy attributed the songs enormous success to the fact that it is ‘catchy’ stating, “I think that it’s one of those subject matters that is, you know, like ‘Oh m God I can’t believe she said that, that someone came out and said it…everyone kind of perks up” (Talking Shop: Katy Perry, BBC News).  The media is often considered largely responsible for promoting normalized gendered images of men and women in heterosexual romantic relationships (Ivory, Gibson, & Ivory, 2009). Therefore the enormous success of her hit song filled with themes of homosexuality seems to be a refreshing challenge to the dominant representation of sexuality within mainstream music.

Katy appears to have been defying common gender norms in her hit song however; her personal lifestyle doesn’t resonate with her performance personality but rather conforms to social heterosexual norms. She was married to male actor Russell Brand and identifies as heterosexual, and don't be fooled by his long hair Katy isn't kissing any girl. I wonder then, what kind of effect does Katy’s contradictory messages have on adolescents who are perhaps in their own coming out process? Understanding one’s own sexuality can be extremely challenging particularly when that sexuality does not conform to societal norms (Bond, Hefner, & Drogos, 2009). Therefore, perhaps Katy’s themes of homosexuality within her songs and heterosexuality within her daily life may function as a positive source of identify for adolescents who are bi-sexual. While the song at face value seems to challenge sexual orientation norms, pushing the boundaries by addressing lesbian and bisexuality the lyrics seems to conform to norms. Lyrics referring to same-sex kissing as, “not what good girls do” suggests that woman who identify as queer are inherently ‘bad.’ She also states in the song, “just wanna try you on,” proposing that being queer can be a temporary experiment, this also seems to establish Katy as a ‘good’ girl who is simply trying out queer life and therefore her actions can be excused.  The song functions as an example of something that challenges social norms within terms that white, straight hegemony society finds acceptable. 

Since  “I kissed a Girl” Katy’s performances have grown increasingly more outrageous. In her music video for “California Girls” Katy at one point shoots whip cream from two cans attached to her breasts. From her constantly changing hair color to her ‘camp’ like outfits Katy has consistently challenged the norms of pop artists. In fact, she arguably has made a career out of defying Hollywood norms. Her flashy outfits and colorful hair have gained her attention and placed Katy in the pop star spot light. However, while her outrageous outfits and performances have gained Katy notoriety she has held onto certain celebrity norms, such as marrying a fellow musician, maintaining a thin body, and most importantly remaining extremely sexual. It seems that in today’s society in order to remain in the spotlight as a celebrity one is required to challenge certain norms in order to receive attention, however, those challenges must be balanced by norms that the celebrity accepts in order to remain well received by the public. 

P&G...no love for the Dads?

  Like every faithful American I have gone gaga for the summer Olympics and have faithfully kept up with all of the primetime coverage from the aquatic center to the balance beam.  I must admit I’m a huge fan of watching these incredible athletes representing their countries. The Olympics have been filled this year with charges of sexism, from commentary by the announcers to the bikinis worn in beach volleyball, however, beyond the disapproval from many that women athletes are seen as eye candy or not taken as seriously as their male counterparts, there is one advertisement that caught my eye and has nothing to do with skimpy uniforms. For the less avid Olympic viewers, the commercials during the Olympics rival those of the Super Bowl. They are carefully crafted and bold. P&G’s Olympic-themed commercials are no different. Proctor and Gamble, also known as P&G, has released a series of commercials featuring mothers of Olympic athletes with taglines that thank mothers. One commercial features a series of short scenes in which a mother is shown waking up her daughter, driving her to the gymnasium, washing her leotard, and feeding her breakfast. The daughter is then shown when she is older finishing her routine during the Olympics and running over to hug her mothers in the stands. The one that aires on television just features the american mother and daughter, I could only find this extended version but it's the same idea (maybe even more powerful).

Another commercial features various children dressed in Olympic gear preparing for different events and shots of their mothers anxiously watching on the sidelines with the tag line, “To their Moms, they will always be kids. P&G Proud sponsor of Moms.” 

Don’t get me wrong, I nearly teared up the first time I saw this commercial, the exact reaction I’m assuming they wanted this ad to receive. I think most Americans can relate to the extreme devotion, sacrifices, and love that our mothers give to us and this commercial acts almost as a reminder to thank them for everything they do for us. However, the more times I see this commercial (they play non-stop) the more I begin to take a more critical view of this campaign. Beyond the initial emotional reaction I have toward this commercial that makes me want to run back to Connecticut to hug my mom I have begun to realize the problematic nature these commercials propose by reinforcing gender norms pertaining to parenting and the role of mother figures. The media, particularly television, plays a powerful and influential role in promoting and normalizing gendered images of men and women in heterosexual romantic relationships (Ivory, Gibson & Ivory). In these campaigns the mothers are featured in domestic settings such as washing clothing and cooking breakfast, while any sort of father figure is completely absent. I’m sorry, did I miss something? Don’t fathers also support their kids? Don’t they coach, drive their kids to practice, and watch anxiously at the sidelines of every game? My father has given up countless weekends driving my brother to hockey tournaments since he was five years old and now pays for him to go to boarding school to play hockey. My father has been just as dedicated if not more so, to making my brother’s athletic dreams a reality. I know that I am not alone in this. Apolo Ohno, who happens to be a P&G-sponsored-Olympian, was raised by a single father.  Yes, that’s right P&G…father. This campaign seems to be glorifying women by highlighting all of the selfless acts mothers make for the benefit of their children and thus reinforces the notion of women as the primary caretakers of the children and household.

While there is no question that mothers sacrifice so much and that yes, many women do take on the role of primary caretaker in families, this seems somewhat sexist and limiting in my opinion. In the same way that the media is criticized for isolating or ignoring gay and lesbian figures and promoting stereotypes of heterosexuality, these commercials seem to be reinforcing gender norms within the family by disregarding fathers in the lives of their children and focusing on the mothers’ traditional function as care taker of the house and children. These campaigns are clearly geared toward mothers however, in doing so they alienate fathers. By ignoring fathers in these ads P&G in my opinion reinforces that women are the ones who make the real sacrifices for their kids and therefore deserve the acknowledgement and thanks from P&G. The media is an important source for information on the rules, norms, and rituals within our culture (Brown, White, & Nikopoulou). Therefore I don’t believe that the implications of this campaign regarding reinforcing gender norms should be dismissed  as unimportant or not influential--after all these commercials are running prime time during the Olympics…that is one large audience if you ask me.

            While these ads clearly are heartfelt and promote important family values of supporting kids, I think P&G fell short with their message. I think that these campaigns should have thanked and acknowledged the enormous commitment parents make for their children. I can identify the strategy behind targeting specific demographics however, I believe this campaign would have been just as effective if not more so by broadening its target audience to parents in general. Maybe I am being too harsh, and playing devil’s advocate or the politically correct police. Perhaps it is ok to acknowledge mothers without acknowledging fathers. Feel free to challenge me; this was just a reaction I have grown to acquire after looking more closely at this campaign.

How Dangerous is Disney?

 

Popping the G-rated Disney film into the DVD player and pressing play has become second nature for hundreds of parents across the country. Disney movies reinforce the common assumption of enchanted innocence and wholesomeness. Disney movies are vital and cherished memories of my childhood. Who doesn’t smile with joy at the thought of Timon and Pumba or Aladdin and Jasmine? However, those innocent and good-natured movies may have more impact on children’s understanding of sexuality than meets the eye. I am a huge Disney fan therefore I did a little research on studies that have been conducted on the movies America fell in love with and came across some very interesting issues. 

Researchers Karin Martin and Emily Kazyak argued in their report published in Gender & Society that, “despite the assumption that children’s media are free of sexual content, our analyses suggest that these media depict a rich and pervasive heterosexual landscape.” Martin and Kazyak studied the portrayal of heterosexual relationships in a variety of the highest-grossing G-rated films between 1990-2005. Their results revealed that heterosexuality was constructed in these films by portraying hetero-romantic love as transformative, exceptional, magical, and powerful. Furthermore, there were also a vast amount of depictions of masculine characters gazing in awe at feminine characters.

Hetero-romance is a major plot line in a majority of Disney films and reinforces the theme of heteronormativity. Martin and Kazyak describe heteronormativity as positioning heterosexuality as, “always assumed, expected, ordinary, and privileged. Its pervasiveness makes it difficult for people to imagine other ways of life.”  But Disney presents heterosexuality as not just ordinary but privileged. Heterosexual relationships are repeatedly presented as special, distinct, exceptional, and different from all others in animated Disney films. The researchers observed that the lead characters are often surrounded by, “music, flowers, candles, magic, fire, balloons, fancy dresses, dim lights, dancing and elaborate dinners.” For example, Aladdin and Jasmine fall in love as they fly on a magic carpet through a star lit sky, and eventually kiss as fireworks go off in the background. Sergin and Nabi's (2002) noted that the idealized portrayals of marriage in the media often lead to unrealistic expectations of what marriage is and should be. The moments of hetero-romantic love often involve characters being engulfed in magical swirls of sparkles or leaves as they stare into each other’s eyes. 

The power of the hetero-sexual relationships is often represented through a kiss. One of the most striking examples is in The Little Mermaid when Ariel must kiss Eric in order to retain her voice and her legs. During The Lion King Nala and Simba kiss and only then does Simba realize he must return to his home to regain the throne and save his family and entire kingdom. At the end of Beauty and the Beast Belle and the Beast kiss and suddenly the entire kingdom is transformed from winter to springtime, flowers begin to bloom and everyone who was enchanted by the spell is restored to their human state. The transforming power of a heterosexual kiss does not apply to homosexual kisses depicted in Disney movies. For instance, in The Lion King Timon and Pumbaa touch lips while sucking on opposite ends of a worm during dinner. They both look at the camera stunned and horrified. The kiss is treated as funny, creating a stark contrast between the power of heterosexual kissing and homosexual kissing. Martin and Kazyak also noted that Villainesses in Disney movies often resemble drag queens, such as Ursula in The Little Mermaid, who was actually modeled after the famous transvestite Divine. By associating drag queens with the villainous characters this sends a powerful message to children that drag queens are bad or evil and should be avoided. Locroix acknowledges that these characters and actions are not just representations of individual people but are encodings of ideologies. The stories and characters represented in these films assist in how children construct their understandings of sexuality and relationship norms. 

Ellen Junn argues in her research of the media portrayals of love and sexuality for child audiences that lead females almost always start as single in the film and are shown in the conclusion as married or attached to a male. She noted that females are depicted significantly more than males striking coy love poses, giggling, combing their hair, and behaving in a sexual manner in Disney films. 

In Toy Story 2 a large group of almost entirely white Barbies are shown dancing and singing at a swimming party. The male characters who initially pass the party reverse the car they are riding in and gaze mesmerized by the scene in front of them. In The Hunchback of Notre Dame the Gypsy Esmerelda dresses seductively and dances provocatively while a large crowd of men stare wide-eyed, screaming and cheering as they toss money on stage to her. These scenes portray a message that women use their bodies for men and have an effect of normalizing men’s objectification of women’s bodies and the heterosexual desire it signifies. 

I apologize for people who aren't huge Disney fans and may not have understood all of the references I made,but I hope you could at least understand the gist of what I'm trying to address. Although the Walt Disney Company and traditions are beloved and cherished by thousands of people around the world (including myself) and symbolize the epitome of wholesome family entertainment, the power of these films to create, produce, and disseminate ideological constructions of sexuality should not be underestimated. Of course I am not trying to suggest that there is only one definitive reading of these films, however the dominant messages should be acknowledged. The potential for Disney films to influence children’s attitudes and understanding of sexuality is incredible powerful due to the enormous popularity of Disney advertising as well as the ample availability of the films. I do not suggest banning Disney films by any means, I just suggest adopting a more critical and perhaps apprehensive view of the films that are marketed as innocent and wholesome.

Works Cited

Junn, E. N. (1997). Media Portrayals of Love, Marriage & Sexuality for Child

Audiences: A Select Content Analysis of Walt Disney Animated Family Films. [S.l.]: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse.

Kazyak, E., & Martin, K. (2009). Hetero-Romantic Love and Heterosexiness in

Children’s G-Rated Films. Gender & Society, 23 (3).

Lacroix, C. (2004). Images of animated others: The Orientalization of Disney’s cartoon

heroines from The Little Mermaid to The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Popular Communication, 2 (4).

 Segrin, C., & Nabi, R. L. (2002). Does television viewing cultivate unrealistic expectations about marriage? Journal of Communication, 52(2).

Hookups

After reading the study on the misconceptions that many adolescents have regarding their peers sexual behavior I was reminded of an interesting article I read during Spring Term. In my amcult class on sexuality we read an article that looked at "hooking up" among young women. The article mentioned a lot about the misconceptions of young women and the prevalence of hooking up, which was attributed in part to the media. I attached the article, it's really interesting read especially because it deals with our age group, I found it very enlightening and very relate able (highly recommended). Just thought I would pass it along in case anyone was interested in the way adolescents perceive their peers level of sexual activity.

Is hooking up bad for young women?
(I couldn't attach the file so here is the link on the library website)

Movie Theater Shooting

The horrific events that took place in Colorado brought forth the question of what role violence plays in the media. After reading countless studies on the effects of violence in movies it seems that this may have played a role in the shooting, since the gun man reportedly was calling himself "the joker" to authorities while he was being arrested. I found an interesting article and while it is way to early to learn the exact motivations behind this event it does bring forth some interesting notions of how connected audience members can be to characters in the media and what a profound effect media can have over individuals. Regardless of what you guys think I thought I would pass it along.

Dark Knight Rises Tragedy: Can Violent Entertainment Be Blamed?

One Klondike Bar with a side of sexism please!

 
Who doesn’t love a deliciously refreshing chocolate ice cream bar on a sweltering summer day? And nothing says ice cream like some offensive sexism, am I right? Although the latest commercial for Klondike Bar’s has been airing for the past few weeks every time I see it I am still left with the same uneasy, aggravated, and offended reaction I had the first time I saw it. Wait--are they serious? Someone actually ‘okayed’ this commercial to air on public television in 2012? Watching this commercial has the consistent effect of wrenching me out of the passive state of vegetation I often fall into while watching mindless television after a long day into an alert state of anger. I am truly baffled by Klondike’s decision to market their product in such an overtly sexist way.

The commercial features the “5 Seconds to Glory” in which the man is challenged to listen to his wife (gasp!) speak for a full 5 seconds in order to receive a Klondike Bar. As the timer starts the husband is shown in agony as he desperately tries to speak to his oblivious wife as she talks about what color to paint their entrance foyer. After five seconds is up the man is rewarded with a Klondike Bar that women wearing suggestive tight dresses present to him while balloons and confetti fall from the ceiling. 

A majority of the studies we have read for class have found that the media can have enormous influence about viewers’ attitudes and understanding of sex and sexual relationships. The media can be especially influential for adolescents who have consistently cited the mass media as a key source of sexual information. If this is the case then this commercial seems to be promoting and reinforcing sexist stereotypes and gender roles, where women are the nagging housewives that care about decorating and men are husbands expected to be nearly incapable of listening to their wives and are more interested in parties, young fun women, and food. Perhaps as a female viewer I am particularly offended by this commercial but allow me to elaborate on Klondike’s marketing strategy with their second “5 Seconds to Glory” and perhaps you will jump on my band wagon.
This commercial features two motorcyclists who are challenged to hold hands…yes hold hands for five whole seconds in order to receive Klondike Bars. The men cringe in agony as they hold hands communicating that it is nearly impossible and disgusting to hold another man’s hand for five seconds. When five seconds elapses, dancing models enter the shot with the ice cream accompanied by balloons and confetti. 

Klondike Hand Hold 

This challenge in itself is overtly homophobic, however, it’s the dancing girls that really drive the offensive nature of this commercial home for me. It seems as if to balance out the homosexual act of holding another man’s hand these women dressed in revealing dresses function as proof that these men are in fact heterosexual and this was merely a challenge meant to represent the great lengths that men will go to in order to eat a Klondike Bar.

 After having taken a class entirely focused on LGBT representation in the media and learning about the pivotal role the media plays in the lives of LGBT identifying individuals I find it so disheartening that commercials with such blatant homophobic messages are still being produced.  After reading the Bond et al.'s study the potential of this commercial being harmful to adolescents seems particularly strong. Bond et al.'s study confirmed that the media was used more frequently than any other interpersonal relationship as a source of information throughout the coming-out process. It therefore seems that if a LGBT identifying individual in the process of coming out was exposed to this commercial they may acquire an understanding or sense that holding someone’s hand of the same sex is unnatural, should be challenging, uncomfortable, and wrong. Ultimately, I think looking at this commercial within the context of the studies we have read an interesting dilemma is reached. On one hand, this commercial functions as a means to help sell a product by targeting a specific demographic (presumably heterosexual males). On the other hand, while the intention of this commercial may not be to promote sexist or homophobic stereotypes but to merely sell ice cream, I still find it difficult to shrug these commercials off as selling angles after reading how influential the media can be in adolescents attitudes and expectations regarding sexuality. I can identify that perhaps I am particularly sensitive to these ads because I am a woman and have just taken a LGBT focused course. How do you feel? Is my reaction out of line? How accountable should we hold companies to for promoting potentially offensive messages?

Movie Analysis: A Walk to Remember

A Walk to Remember is a film based on the romance novel by Nicholas Sparks that centers on the unlikely relationship of two teenagers. Set in North Carolina, Landon Carter is a popular student who is constantly getting into trouble. In the opening scene of the movie Landon is part of prank that goes terribly wrong and results in a student going to the hospital. Jamie Sullivan on the other hand is the local reverend’s daughter who is unpopular but kind, and completely committed to her faith. Throughout the course of the film Landon unexpectedly falls in love with Jamie much to the mortification of Landon’s friends. Jamie shares with Landon a list of things she wants to do before she dies, and when a heart-breaking secret is revealed, Landon commits to making all of Jamie’s wishes come true. This is one of my all-time favorite movies perhaps because of the unique display of complete devotion to pleasing and protecting Jamie that Landon demonstrates, which makes this story a modern day fairy tale. It’s the kind of movie that makes teenage girls envious of Jamie and her reformed prince charming.

Scene One: Landon Protects Jamie:

This scene opens with Jamie being confronted with fliers featuring a model dressed and positioned provocatively, but the model’s face has been replaced with a photo of Jamie’s face and the words ‘Virgin Mary?’ Jamie looks around the cafeteria as her peers are all laughing and mocking her. Just as she finally turns around to run away Landon, now her boyfriend is there and holds her. He then proceeds to punch his best friend Dean in the face as punishment for the flier. Dean declares that their friendship is over forever, Landon shrugs and retorts that that is fine with him and walks to Jamie to make sure she is ok before escorting her out of the cafeteria.

Gender roles within a relationship seem to be paramount in this scene. Jamie the female of this relationship is presented as defenseless and scared, the modern day damsel in distress. When Jamie first sees the flier there is a full twenty seconds in which she stands frozen in place breathing heavily and fighting back tears as she looks around at her peers before she decides to turn and run. This excruciatingly long moment highlights Jamie’s vulnerable state; she is completely unable to defend herself, as she stands unable to move and ultimately decides to turn and run away just in time for Landon to be there to hold her. In this instance, the male in the relationship, Landon, is there to ‘catch’ the vulnerable Jamie, as she is about to crumble.

            The proceeding action in which Landon punches Dean to punish and defend Jamie exemplifies the male role as protector. This interaction communicates that the male should be aggressive and strong in a relationship and is expected to protect and defend the woman, while the woman is supposed to be defenseless, innocent, emotional, and the object that needs to be protected. After demonstrating extreme male aggression toward Dean, Landon immediately turns tenderly to Jamie placing his hands on her face asking if she is ok and leading her out of the cafeteria. The contrast between the way in which Landon interacts with Dean and Jamie illuminates that while males can be aggressive toward fellow males especially in honor of their significant other, within their relationship the male should treat the woman with care, protection, and tenderness. This seems to communicate that a woman is fragile and thus requires a man to treat them with care. 

In Holz’s (2009) study of gendered relationships in television they described dominance as “assertive, forceful, domineering, firm, self-confident” and submissive traits as “timid, meek, unbold, unagressive, forceless, and unauthoritative (p. 173-174).” Landon and Jamie seem to reflect these traits perfectly, Landon emulating the dominant male and Jamie functioning as the submissive female. Furthermore, the study’s coding scheme included showing, “physical force/aggression/violence” as an indicator for dominant acts and “cries (sheds tears, with or without sound; includes wiping eyes to remove tears), shows fear (exhibits anxiety, alarm, or apprehension)” as indicators for submissive acts (Holz, 2009, p. 181-182).  The contrasts between the way in which Landon and Jamie react to the flier exemplify the strikingly different expectations for each gender. Landon demonstrates the dominant qualities identified in Holz’s (2009) coding scheme as he responds with physical aggression and violence by pushing and then punching Dean. While Jamie responds in accordance with submissive indicators by demonstrating extreme fear and anxiety as she fights back tears before turning to run away (Holz, 2009). This scene communicates that males should act as the dominant protector in the relationship while women should act submissive and vulnerable in need of the male’s protection. Finally, one particularly interesting aspect of this scene is Landon’s dismissal of Dean’s threats that their friendship is “over forever!” His seemingly unaffected response to losing one of his best friends communicates that a romantic relationship should take precedent over friendships.

Scene Two: Star naming:

In the scene above Landon brings Jamie to an old graveyard at night. He has come prepared with a thermos of hot coffee and a blanket. Jamie is surprised by all of Landon’s planning and he explains that he hoped for this night. In playful banter Jamie cautiously asks if Landon is trying to seduce her, he asks if she is seducible and she responds by grinning and shaking her head no. Landon explains that he thought so and then reveals the second blanket he brought for her. He then asks her if she can find a particular star in her telescope and explains that he had the star named after her, this was one of the things Jamie had on her list of things to do before she died. Surprised and happy Jamie tells Landon with great seriousness that she loves him and then leans in to kiss him.

            One of the opening moments of this scene that is particularly interesting is Jamie’s initial hesitation and suspicion of Landon’s intentions. As he begins to set the scene by revealing the thermos and blanket she immediately asks if he has an alternative motive of seducing her. Her apprehension exemplifies an underlying understanding that males are expected to always be attempting to have intercourse with the female in the relationship. Kim (2007) identifies men as the sexual initiators in the relationship who are expected to go to great lengths in order to have intercourse as part of the coding that reflects sex as a defining part of masculinity (p. 147). Along with Jamie’s acknowledgment of this Landon reinforces this idea by asking if she is seducible, and only after she shakes her head no signaling that she will not be having intercourse with him does he reveal the second blanket for her. This short moment communicates the message that men are expected to try to seduce the woman into having sex with him and that the woman is expected to be sexually conservative. This message is reflected in the coding for good girls in Kim (2007) study of the heterosexual script on Primetime Network Television, which describes women as being responsible for setting sexual limits and thwarting the sexual advances of men (p. 148). Because Landon waits until Jamie says she is not seducible to reveal the second blanket it appears that he is eager and willing to have sex. Jamie however is clearly the one responsible for setting the limits of their sexual relationship as he quickly abides by her wishes to refrain from intercourse. Furthermore, her quick display of apprehension toward Landon’s planned efforts for the night being attempts to seduce her and exclamation that she is not seducible reflects the notion that a good girl is expected to thwart men’s sexual advances.

            Landon demonstrates his true love for Jamie by going to the great lengths of having a star officially named after her. This extreme display of affection communicates a message that a male should go to great lengths when courting a woman. Kim (2007) references the expectation of men buying gifts as acts to assert their power in the courting ritual (p. 148). Landon doesn’t simply buy Jamie a normal gift but goes to the greater depth of officially having a star named after her, which he demonstrates in the scene by revealing the official paper work. In this sense, Landon has displayed the depth of his feelings for Jamie by reflecting that in the extreme lengths he has gone to court her. Jamie responds to this gift by declaring her love for Landon and kissing him. Her display of gratitude and thanks suggests that women should repay the male for his efforts by asserting their feelings for the male and demonstrating their affection physically. In a sense, this scene seems to communicate that if a man goes to great lengths for a woman that woman is expected to demonstrate her gratitude both verbally and physically.

            Similar to the findings in Markle’s (2008) analysis of the sexual scripts within the popular television show Sex and the City Jamie receives little to no repercussions for turning down Landon (p. 54). In fact, Landon declares that he didn’t think she was seducible and shows no signs of disappointment and makes no efforts to pressure her but instead reveals the second blanket that he brought for her. Markle (2008) notes that a plethora of research indicates that women often find declining sex to be challenging due to feelings of guilt, and fear of being rude or seen as a tease (p. 55). Jamie, like the women in Sex and the City, seems to oppose these findings by seeming unperturbed by their decline for sex. This communicates the message that women should not feel guilty or ashamed by declining sex and men should not pressure women to have sex and should respect a woman’s decision not to have sex. However, this display of gender roles may be very unrealistic to how women and men behave in reality.

Scene Three: Telescope at night:

            Prior to this scene Landon has been featured working endlessly to put together a telescope for Jamie to see the comet she had mentioned wanting to see earlier in the film. In this scene Landon has finished the telescope in time for the comet’s arrival and Jamie and Landon stand out in the night looking in amazement at the comet through the telescope. Landon then asks Jamie if she loves him and she signals yes with a soft moan and smile. He then asks her if she will do something for him and she tells him she will do anything. Landon asks Jamie to marry him and she responds yes by kissing him.

            Similar to the nighttime scene in the graveyard in which Landon reveals that he had a star named after Jamie, he has clearly gone to great lengths to make her wish come true by successfully building a telescope in time for her to see the comet. This meaningful gift demonstrates the extreme lengths Landon will go to display his love for Jamie. The belief that men should go to great lengths in their courting of a woman is reinforced in this scene. The expectation that the woman should demonstrate thanks for the male’s efforts to court her are also reflected in this scene as Landon asks Jamie if she loves him after they have looked into the telescope. The notion that you should try and please the one you love is also communicated when Landon mentions that since Jamie loves him will she do something for him, which she responds to by exclaiming “anything.”  It appears that if a man goes to great lengths to court the woman the woman in turn should do ‘anything’ for the man. This interaction seems to communicate to an extent that a woman is in debt to the man if he works hard to court her.

            Landon’s marriage proposal opposes the coding used for masculine commitment in Kim’s (2007) analysis of the heterosexual script on primetime network television. The coding describes men actively avoiding all commitment, monogamy, and marriage as aspects of male commitment in a romantic relationship (Kim, 2007, p. 148). Landon however proposes to Jamie and in effect counters the common stereotype of men not wanting to commit in a relationship. Furthermore, Holz’s (2009) analysis of gendered relationships on television described showing low commitment to the relationship to be a dominant act in a relationship (p. 181). In the findings of the analysis men were significantly more likely to act dominant in a heterosexual relationship. However, Landon’s marriage proposal displays extreme commitment to the relationship and opposes the expectation of men demonstrating low commitment to a relationship and desire for monogamy. Perhaps however this interaction is intended to contrast the normal expectation of the male in the relationship. By displaying Landon as a unique male willing to completely commit to Jamie, A Walk to Remember communicates an almost fantasy-like story in which the male actively desires marriage. In accordance with the majority of men and the findings in Holz’s and Kim’s study Landon is displayed as a rare male and should be cherished by Jamie who is lucky to have found such a unique man who is willing to commit.

            The movie concludes with a poignant monologue in which Landon exclaims that Jamie saved him and taught him everything he knows. Watching Landon transform from ultimate bad boy to prince charming over the course of the film communicates that a woman’s love can transform and ‘save’ a man. Bader (2007) identified that “the love of a good and faithful true woman can change a man from a ‘beast’ into a ‘prince” as a common myth among popular love songs (p. 146). This theme is clearly reflected in the narrative of the film as Landon transforms and reforms his old trouble making ways thanks to the love and support from the religious and angel like character Jamie. This transformation communicates that women are supposed to act as men’s saviors. The extreme lengths to which Landon goes to demonstrate his love for Jamie throughout the film communicates that men are supposed to go to great lengths to court a woman. In response to Landon’s displays of affection Jamie verbally declares her love for Landon, kisses him, agrees to marry him, and says she will do anything for him. Jamie’s responses to Landon’s efforts to court her communicate that women are in debt to men when they go to extreme lengths to court them and should demonstrate their gratitude by committing to the relationship. Jamie and Landon’s relationship ultimately culminates in marriage at the end of the film. This narrative suggests that if a man truly loves a woman he should completely commit to the relationship by marrying the woman. While Jamie functions as Landon’s savior within the narrative of the film his transformation into a committed and faithful man includes Landon becoming dedicated to protecting and pleasing Jamie. This communicates that a man’s commitment to a woman includes protecting her and taking up the dominant role within the relationship, while a woman should expect and require the protection of a man and should take up the submissive role within a relationship by receiving gifts from the man.

References

Bader, A. (2007). “Love will steer the stars” and other improbable feats: Media myths in popular

love songs. In M.-L. Galician & D.L. Merskin (Eds.), Critical thinking about sex, love, and romance in the mass media. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Holz Ivory, A., Gibson, R., & Ivory, J. D. (2009). Gendered relationships on television:

Portrayals of same-sex and heterosexual couples. Mass Communication & Society, 12 (2).

Kim, J. L., C. L., Collins., Zybergold, B. A., Schooler, D., & Tolman, D. L. (2007). From sex to

sexuality: Exposing the heterosexual scripts on primetime network television. Journal of Sex Research, 44(2).

Markle, G. (2008). “Can women have sex like a man?”: Sexual scripts in “Sex and the City”.

Sexuality & Culture, 12(1).

Ward, L. M. (2003). Understanding the role of entertainment media in the sexual socialization of

American youth: A review of empirical research. Developmental Review, 23 (3).

Free Porn, gift or curse?

 

One of my all time favorite shows is Friends. While this show finished filming years ago (yes I cried during the final episode) the late night re-runs have brought it back to the forefront of my life, providing me with plenty of laughs after a long day. For people unfamiliar with the show it is essentially about six adults living in New York who are all, yes you guessed it, friends. The clip below is from episode 17 in season 4. In the episode Joey and Chandler realize they have free television access to porn. As the episode progresses the men refuse to turn off the porn for fear that they will never get it back. Rachel and Monica become annoyed by the boys’ refusal to turn it off. In the end of the episode Chandler and Joey realize that the amount of porn they have been watching has provided them with unrealistic expectations of reality and decide to turn it off, only to turn it back on with accompanied audience laughter as the credits begin to roll.

 clips of episode

Although this show is one of my all time favorites and I have come to consider these characters my own friends (yes the media affects me!) I must say that this episode left a somewhat sour taste in my mouth. Chandler and Joey’s glee at discovering free porn and insistence to keep it turned on seems to promote the idea that women are objects for men to drool at. Furthermore, Monica and Rachel simply adopt an eye-rolling, ‘boys will be boys’ attitude that further aggravated me. Bader (2007) mentioned that listeners often project their own personal thoughts and values into their perception and meaning of a song (p. 156). So maybe I’m wrong and simply projecting my own misconstrued interpretation of this episode, but this seems to be sending a clear message that sex is expected to drive men in an almost unmanageable and obsessive way while women are completely in control of their sexual drives and perhaps much less enticed by sex. The episode seems to be highlighting a clear contrast between males’ and females’ relationship to sex. To exemplify my point, later in the episode when the girls ask why they can’t just turn off the porn, Chandler exclaims, “then we would be the guys who turned off free porn!” Joey adds, “I’m going to have a kid some day, and some day that kid is going to ask me if I ever turned off free porn, I don’t want to have to tell him that I did.” Again, feel free to disagree, but I felt that this interaction was hammering home the idea that watching porn is a masculine quality. So much so that Chandler and Joey refuse to turn off the porn for fear of being mocked and identified as “the guys who turned off free porn.” This seems to be a dangerous message to send that emphasizes the masculine stereotype of loving porn to quench the male’s constant thirst for sex as well as the important need to live up to these stereotypes.

Another aspect of this episode I found particularly interesting was Chandler and Joey’s realization that their excessive porn watching was affecting their expectations and understanding of reality. When Chandler enters the apartment he greets Joey with, “I was just at the bank and there was this really hot teller and she didn’t ask me to go do it with her in the vault.” Joey responds with, “same kinda thing happened to me! Woman pizza delivery guy comes over gives me pizza takes the money and leaves!” Both men seem to be completely confused and caught off guard that the women in reality weren’t (gasp!) offering to have sex with them. Common themes among the studies we have read in class discuss the powerful effect the media can have on audience members. L. Monique Ward (2003) cited research that found that viewers often draw expectations about sexual encounters in the real world from fictional content (p. 369). The research also found that increased frequency and more involved viewers are more likely to develop expectations that sex is more prevalent (Ward, 2003, p. 368). In this episode the show is exemplifying the profound effect of excessive exposure to porn for these characters. They have clearly been affected by their non-stop exposure to porn to the point where they are actually surprised that the attractive female strangers they come across aren’t inviting them into their beds.

Although Joey and Chandler acknowledge the problematic nature of their excessive porn viewing and decide to turn off the television, the episode ultimately concludes with them turning the television back on. So, while the episode does recognize the danger in excessive porn exposure it seems to send the message that viewing the porn is worth the resulting consequences. While Friends is by no means an educational program and I think experienced such enormous success simply because of its entertainment value, as our readings and discussions have taught us, the messages television shows send regardless of the genre should not be overlooked.