Attention teen girls: you are required to take pregnancy tests in school if at any time you are suspected of being pregnant. Should you refuse to take this mandatory test, or turn out to actually be pregnant you will be forced to leave school. Actually, don’t worry. This will only apply to Delhi Charter School in Louisiana!

   Well now that all just sounds a little ridiculous (and illegal?) so it can’t really be true, right? But in fact, shockingly enough this really happening, and this Louisiana K-8 school has been receiving major heat in the media about their “student pregnancy policy. You can read a little more about here.

   Also, as another article points out here, Delhi Charter School’s “student pregnancy policy states that the school seeks to ensure that students ‘exhibit acceptable character traits’—and in order to do so, allows the school to force any ‘suspected student’ to take a pregnancy test.” The article also explains how, “The ACLU notes that this policy is a clear violation of Title IX–which, among many other wonderful things, explicitly protects pregnant and parenting teens’ right to education–and the equal protection clause of the constitution.” To me, this whole situation called to mind the Hurst, Brown, and L’Engle (2008) article we read on how “Boys Will Be Boys and Girls Better Be Prepared…”. The school’s tactics to promote an “acceptable” learning environment for their students evidently “ambiguously and/or inaccurately reinforce traditional gender stereotypes that males seek sex and females are responsible for protection against pregnancy.” (Hurst et al., 2008). Further, the boys in this school are plainly unaffected by this school policy. If they’re truly trying to justly promote an ideal learning environment for all students, shouldn’t they be equally subjecting boys to some kind of spontaneous DNA testing do determine in the words of Maury Povitch, “You Are/Are Not The Father!”? I guess not.

   But apparently this school thinks that blatantly imposing old school shaming tactics against pregnant/potentially pregnant/virtually any girl in the school is an appropriate and effective way to address sexually active teenagers (which by the way, obviously not all of these K-8 girls even are). Through their actions, this school seems to be perpetuating the notion that teen sexual activity is something incredibly taboo. But if some of them are sexually active, is this really anything new? As Hurst et al. (2008) points out, “The media are important sources of sexual information for adolescents…”. Hurst et al., (2008)’s explanation that, “Many parents, however, still find it difficult to talk with their children about sex, and schools are increasingly limited in what they may say about sex, as many have turned to abstinence-only education.” also sounds a lot like the Dehli Charter School’s position on things. But “…the media are important sources of sexual information as well as norms about inappropriate and appropriate behavior and what other teens are doing sexually (Brown, Halpern, & L’Engle, 2005; Brown, Steele, & Walsh-Childers, 2012).” (Hurst et al., 2008). 

Everyone's Favorite
Pregnant Cheerleader:
Glee's Quin Fabray

   By 2012 we have been able to watch plenty of popular shows and films that focus on teen pregnancy. Some of these examples include but are not limited to: MTV’s shows Teen Mom, Teen Mom 2, 16 and Pregnant, Fox’s show Glee and the popular movie Juno. All of these feature teenage mothers/mom’s-to-be as lead characters. Even if Delhi Charter School wants to sweep teenage pregnancy under the rug, the fact of the matter is that teen sexual activity and pregnancy have been and will continue to have multimedia coverage. While it is apparent that not all media coverage is realistic in their glamorized portrayals, this should serve as motivation to implement more primary prevention sexual health education among adolescents. The “media plays a major educational role” as Delgado and Austin (2007) point out in their research article, but “parents can play an important role in their children’s sex education” too (Delgado & Austin, 2007). It would be more advantageous for schools like Delhi to work with media resources to promote better sexual health for their students (therein promoting a healthier educational environment for girls and boys alike). We’ll just have to stay tuned to see if their recent negative media attention will promote change in a positive direction or not. Here’s to hoping!

International Accomplishment? Or Perpetuated Sexism?

   

   Recently I came across a couple articles about Bollywood actress Sherlyn Chopra being featured in Playboy magazine. The reason her photo shoot is getting so much hype is because Sherlyn will be the first Indian woman to pose nude for the magazine. Playboy will undoubtedly be using the ‘historic event’ angle to promote this November issue, and Chopra herself has been quoted as calling it an “international accomplishment”. It is kind of a big deal due to the fact that printed copies of Playboy are illegal in India. However, Chopra has since become the subject for a lot of criticism, particularly from the Indian community.

Hugh Hefner & Sherlyn Chopra
pictured in the Playboy Mansion

   In general, women’s relationship with Playboy is already complicated, but this is where it gets precarious. It’s true that Playboy has contributed to increasing visibility for a variety of women’s sexualities and sexual expressions while simultaneously opening up an arena for discourse surrounding these traditionally taboo topics. However, it is definitely worth noting that unlike many other magazines, Playboy blatantly perpetuates the absurd standards of beauty for and objectification of women’s bodies in a sexist market. In a nutshell, men like Hugh Hefner can make a ton of money off of selling pictures of what society considers women’s greatest assets, under the guise of promoting women’s “empowerment” regarding their bodies.

   But this is not the reason for all the opposition to Chopra’s nude Playboy photo shoot. On the contrary, the biggest critique against her is that many people think she’s damaging the “modest and pure” image of Indian women. Because of the increasing expression of concern over this, Chopra’s photo shoot went from being a personal and professional business move to, pinning her as being responsible for representing the image of Indian women worldwide. The criticism means that her display of sexual expression is not only a bad thing for her to do as a woman, but is bad for the integrity of Indian women everywhere.

   The disapproval is remarkably over the fact Chopra isn’t portraying what was referred to as the “Good Girl” code in the Kim et al. study. Through this representation, “Women are judged by their sexual conduct” and “A woman’s clothing, or often, lack thereof also provided clues to her virtue as a person.” (Kim et al. 2007). Also relevant are the Feminine Courtship Strategies. It explains that “Women can/do/should objectify themselves. Exploiting their bodies and looks was portrayed as important, if not necessary”. (Kim et al. 2007). The FCS also describe how “Women are valued primarily for their physical appearance” as media representations of women (such as a Playboy spread) “remind that their physical appearance [is] more important than their intelligence, personality, and other attributes.” (Kim et al. 2007). Chopra’s biggest critiques right now are judging her on her revealing physical appearance, and making assumptions for what it reveals about her moral character (instead of equal consideration for her intelligence as a career woman in the entertainment industry).

   Why is it so common that when a woman does something to publically express her sexuality in a way that she feels comfortable with she’s bombarded with a “slut shaming” backlash? Why is it that over and over one of the biggest critiques of individual women is how they’re negatively representing all women? Sure as a figure in the public eye they should be prepared to experience accolades and harsh criticism simultaneously. And it is true that the crimes against women in India are at an epidemic level (regarding sexual assault, forced marriages, domestic abuse, sex slavery etc.) in a patriarchal society that’s obsessed with controlling women’s bodies, sexuality, and freedom. However, it is completely unrealistic to expect one individual with their own unique qualities, experiences, beliefs, privileges and disadvantages to be able to sufficiently represent an entire ethnic population by their every move. That notion is insane.

   The fact is that Playboy’s perpetuation of unrealistic standards of sexuality for women parallels with the unrealistic standards of purity for women. In their different ways, both are equally sexist because they assign fault to any women who is not able to live up to these erroneous standards. As one of the articles quoted, this is “a particularly toxic brand of nationalism –the idea that a woman’s purity and modesty is the core of her identity as it relates to her culture… It limits the visions women can have for themselves, their self-expression and control over their own bodies and sexuality.” Obviously not all women can and will go running to pose nude in Playboy. But it is incorrect to assume that one woman’s actions set the standard for all women’s actions and/or reflect the values, attitudes, and ideas of other women. In this case, Chopra’s decision was one she personally made thinking it to be advantageous for her self-promotion within her career field.

   The whole situation makes me wonder how it would be unfold for a man in Chopra’s position. If I had to guess, there definitely would be critique along similar lines of an image setting unrealistic standards for men to live up to. However, I think that overall there would be more acceptance of the image as an ideal vision to live up to rather than a negative representation of masculinity. Because of the scrutiny over her actions, Chopra not only has to consistently defend her decision but the means to her achieving this "international accomplishment". In one of the articles she quotes, "I did not sleep with Mr. Hefner. No one at the [Playboy] mansion has till date made an indecent proposal to me. I love my naked skin. Felt quite comfortable displaying my nakedness... that is all." The fact is that because of the sexism rooted in our patriarchal society it is women’s sexual expression that is constantly weighed down with the questioning of her modesty/purity, and that is the reason for most of Chopra’s critique. 

Transgender Visibility in the Media

   After reading the 'Information-Seeking Practices during the Sexual Development of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Individuals: The Influence and Effects of Coming Out in a Mediated Environment' article and our class discussion on the visibility of LGBTQ individuals in the media, it seemed pretty clear that we could all at least come up with one or two shows that featured a gay or lesbian character, and had at least heard of one that had a bisexual character. While we touched on the topic of transgender existence in the media, it was difficult to come up with shows that included such a character let alone had them as their main feature. After giving it a little bit more thought however, the show Ru Paul's Drag Race came to mind. Soon following, I saw an article online reminded me of the purpose the show serves that goes beyond discovering "America's Next Drag Superstar!". 

Tyra Sanchez:Season 2 Winner of
RuPaul's Drag Race

   

   The article I read was about Ru Paul's Drag Race season 2 winner, James William Ross IV, otherwise known by drag stage name Tyra Sanchez, in a new documentary about his dedication to fatherhood as a drag queen. While a contestant on Drag Race, James/Trya often spoke about the fact that his main motivation in the competition was to win it in order to better be able to provide for his now seven-year-old son, Jeremiah. Contestants alike on the show, most notably during workroom and backstage footage, often shared very frank stories about their personal life struggles, their coming-out stories, breaking into the drag scene, and how their drag lifestyles effected relationships with their family and friends. While individual stories ranged widely in diversity, the common themes consisted of establishing acceptance within their communities and/or forging new "drag families" and finding a place in the gay community. This called to mind how the Brown, Hefner, and Drogos article mentioned that, “After LGB individuals are able to express their sexual identities to themselves, the next developmental task to tackle is coming out to others. If individuals can integrate their sexual identities into their lives successfully, they will experience a level of acceptance.” (Brown et al. 2008). 

   Media exposure such as television shows, documentaries, films, and internet sites/blogs help promote establishing normalization of transgender lifestyle in society through portraying examples of community acceptance regarding non-mainstream issues (such as being a drag queen). By coming out publicly as a drag queen, Tyra/James is promoting public education and awareness raising through TV exposure helps establish a more accepting community not only for himself and his son, but for the broader LGBTQ community in general. Through exposure via multiple media outlets, information about LGBTQ lifestyles and communities becomes more available to those who may otherwise be unexposed to these things (such as LGB adolescents/teens). The research article points out that “The stories communicated through computer-mediated means could serve as information sources for the LGB adolescent browser, in essence, constructing a virtual community that gives these adolescents a sense they are not alone.” (Brown et al.). While in general television portrayals tend to adhere to stereotypes and can thus promote inaccurate images of transgender individuals, it is still important for LGBTQ individuals to continue to pursue their increase in media exposure. Through multimedia exposure (such as internet blogs and documentaries) there can be a better effort towards challenging stereotypes and increasing awareness by providing more avenues to do so.

   Brown et al. reaffirms the importance of attention to multimedia exposure by explaining that, “Media, particularly the Internet, may now be serving as the primary information source for LGB adolescents. Ryan and Futterman (1998) argued the Internet plays an important role in early adolescents’ declaration of sexuality because it provides information that allows teens to label feelings and figure out who they are.” These ideas can be echoed by Ru Paul's famous words at the end of every Drag Race episode, "If you can't love yourself, how in the hell are you gonna love somebody else? Can I get an Amen?!"

"Impressionable Girls" Speak Up!

This just in: young "impressionable" girls, can think and speak for themselves?! Surely they don't really know what they're talking about though, they haven't lived long enough ...right? Well the other day I happened to come across an article online that spoke to these issues and more. I thought they seemed particularly relevant to our Brown, Halpern & L'Engle reading, "Mass media as a sexual super peer for early maturing girls" (2005). The article I read on Jezebel.com was about an interview with Tavi Gevinson, whom was referred to as the "16-year-old blogging phenom who started her own online magazine for teenage girls last year" (*cough* impressive! *cough*). This particular interview was regarding her opinion on Seventeen Magazine's response to budding activist, fourteen year old Julia Bluhm's petition to the magazine to feature one photo spread a month that's free of photoshopping. 

Hold up. Let me take a minute or two to catch you up on this whole Julia Bluhm thing, as it all went down earlier in May of this year. Basically, during middle school Bluhm began to become more aware of the effects that the images of unrealistically perfect femininity, produced by magazines like Seventeen, were having on conceptions of body image for herself and her female peers. This essentially sparked her passion to begin to organize a petition to Seventeen, which through the help of broader media coverage (such as blogs) amassed over 26,000 signatures before the date of her protest, where she hand delivered 25,000 signatures for the petition to Seventeen herself. The article we read for class stated that "One-half to three-fourths of girls aged 12-15 years read magazines such as "Seventeen", "Teen", and "YM" (Brown et al. 2005). Not only is Bluhm's activism an commendable accomplishment, but it carries even more weight having come from an intelligent fourteen-year-old girl. This helps to highlight not only that young girls like Julia Bluhm are interested in media content being produced specifically for them, but their capacity for owning a consciousness that keys in on how the media's messages are effecting them and their friends. 

Alright, getting back now to the article I originally began telling you about. I thought it was a great follow up article on how things between Seventeen and Julia Bluhm have played out in the past couple months. It also offered a more thought provoking critique of Seventeen, by bringing more attention to the content the magazine is actually pumping out, versus the photoshopped/airbrushed images alone. Tavi Gevinson quotes, "It took me a little bit once middle school started to realize taht if I didn't read Seventeen, I didn't feel obligated to watch what I eat. Language is powerful, along with photos." 

(Sidenote: Gevinson is young, pretty, skinny, and fashion forward enough girl to be considered a model herself in my opinion ...plus she has a cool model-girl name 'Tavi' to top it all off!). This article delves deeper into her personal critique of the magazine's content. Through her personal critique, Tavi reiterates what was brought up in our Brown regarding how, "The primary themes of these magazines are about how girls can make themselves attractive enough to catch and keep a boy. Although teen girl magazines have steadily increased content about sexual health topics such as contraception, pregnancy, and STDs, a much higher proportion of content focuses on sexual attractiveness and strategy." (Brown et al. 2005). 

Overall I felt that not only were these articles relevant to what we've ben reading about and discussing in class about the media's impact on maturing girls. I thought these were not only two great examples of young women taking the initiative to be attentive media consumers by analyzing magazine media content, and not settling for simply being told by a magazine how they should look/act/think. These girls are also inspiring examples of activism against stereotyped heteronormative media content. Julia and Tavi have a heck of lot to be proud of at their age, and I can't even imagine how they'll take their activism to the next level in the future. At this rate it looks like the next generation of female activist might be referred to as "magazine burners"!

Movie Analysis: Crazy Stupid Love

   The film I watched for my movie analysis was Crazy Stupid Love, a romantic comedy that follows the story lines of three different romances. The movie opens with main character Cal Weaver's (Steve Carell) wife Emily (Julianne Moore) telling him she wants a divorce in the middle of a romantic restaurant. The rest of the movie follows the dissolving of, and fight to save their marriage. The second romantic relationship portrayed is between "lady killer" Jacob Palmer (Ryan Gosling) and smart, sexy Hannah Weaver (Emma Stone). The movie follows a back and forth aggressive pursuit of a recreational romance and its subsequent evolution into a real stable relationship. After meeting one night in a bar, Cal and Jacob's comedic fairly odd couple friendship, amid an array of romantic encounters, allows them to "discover that being a player without the right partner isn't just crazy and stupid, it's impossible!" As the two leading males go through their hilarious antics, a secondary plot unfolds involving Cal's son Robbie and his relentless pursuit of a romance with his babysitter Jessica Riley. The array of inappropriate crushes existing makes for an even more entertaining culmination of romantic plots in the end of the film!


   The first relationship/scene we'll look at involves Hannah and Jacob. In this scene, Hannah's gendered role reversal of aggressively pursuing Jacob (by calling him out in the middle of the bar, stomping over and kissing him full on the mouth) falls apart outside of the bar scene. Once she finally goes home with him she starts falling back into a traditionally female gendered script. She starts acting like a "typical female" who is nervous/anxious about taking sexual advancement into her own hands, then relies on/blatantly asks Jacob to take charge and walk her through things. In the scene Hannah goes back and forth between admitting this and trying to maintain a confident counter-script where she is the sexual initiator, but she's struggling.
   What's also interesting in this scene is Jacob's reaction to all of this. Instead of adhering to his typical and traditionally male gender script as the sexually aggressive one who makes all the decisions and dominates the conversation, as can be seen throughout the movie prior to this encounter, he follows Hannah's orders/decisions, submitting to her requests (like taking off his shirt and telling her about his "big move" as per Hannah's request) which ultimately allow him to fulfill more of a traditionally, take-charge masculine role anyways. 
   This ties into the Holz and Ivory (2009) article we read about 'Gendered Relationships on Television: Portrayals of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Couples'. It explains how we as a society view males and females through a "lens of gender" (Holtz & Ivory 2009). This is because the differences between women and men are considered to be natural, and therefore legitimized through the media's perpetual promotion and normalizing of gendered images of males and females (Holtz & Ivory 2009). So even though there is an attempted counter-script in this scene, it's depicted as "adorable" and awkward, and ultimately falls comfortably back into a "normal" gender script.


   The next relationship/scene we'll look at involves Cal and Emily Weaver. Mrs. Weaver is actually the one who admits to having slept with someone else (the infamous "Dave Lindhagen"). While teary eyed and regretful of her decision, she's ultimately the one who chose sexual gratification over her monogamous relationship with Mr. Weaver, and also the one who asks for a divorce. It is Cal who actually is the one initially giving the heartfelt apology to her for the way things turned out while they're alone together in the hallway awaiting a parent-teacher conference.
   What's interesting is that Emily's infidelity wasn't all because she was in love with another man and/or wanted to leave her husband to have a monogamous relationship with the other man either. Typically it is females who are thought to want/need to have a relationship. However, in this case Emily asks for an end to her marriage and rejects Dave's initial propositions to begin pursuing a stable relationship her once her husband has moved out. 
   What's also interesting is how much Cal is still so emotionally invested in his marriage and love for his wife even after what she did. Jacob is also perplexed by this as it's like a "pulling teeth" process to make Cal over into an attractive, confident bachelor. However, throughout the movie Cal is continually resistant to the idea of giving up all hope on his marriage to his one true love despite the advice of Jacob and the initial rejection from Emily.
   The Kim et al. 2007 article we read in class speaks to these ideas regarding masculine and feminine commitment. With masculine commitment (MC) it is typically the males who want or need independence, as well as prefer sexual fulfillment over emotional intimacy (Kim et al. 2007). For feminine commitment (FC) it is typically the females who want or need to be in a relationship with a boyfriend or husband (Kim et al. 2007). 


   The last relationship/scene we'll look at involves Robbie Weaver and babysitter Jessica Riley. As the Weaver's babysitter, Jessica spends basically the entirety of the movie trying to be a good, respectable young woman by countlessly rejecting Robbie's relentless attempts at grand romantic gestures for her, and simultaneously stifling her huge crush on Mr. Weaver. Finally, after embracing her sexuality later in the film, she takes initiative in the final scene after Robbie's eighth grade graduation.
    There isn't any explicit sexual content, but it's implied with the eighth grade graduation gift she gives him. Not going to go into full details. But spoiler alert: it's a nude pic (as revealed earlier in the film). For a girl hand a boy a printed picture of her naked while in public (surrounded by parents), let alone take the picture at all, is a pretty bold thing to do (not exactly something a "good girl" would do).
   Regarding Robbie on the other hand, like the lead male characters, he ends the film on good terms with his female object of affection. However, in contrast to Cal and Jacob (who displayed lots of aggressive sexual advances at many points in the film), Robbie's sole strategy for winning over a girl was always through grand romantic gestures (which isn't typically expected from males let alone a young teenage boy). He's constantly frustrated with his lack of success too with this "romantic" approach that supposedly all girls long for.
   These characters' relationship goes along with the Kim et al. (2007) article we read examining latent content through two main codes. The first code, the "Good Girl" analysis focuses on how it is the female who sets limits and is judged by her sexual activity (Kim et al. 2007). Babysitter Jessica Riley embodies this throughout the majority of the film as she continually rejects all of Robbie's advances. The second code the article discussed was sex as masculinity in which men are initiators and sexually aggressive (Kim et al. 2007). Where Robbie was more of a hopeless romantic in his approaches, he still adhered to this code through his relentless initiation of a romantic pursuit that was often laced with sexual undertones. 


   After many hysterical and heartbreaking encounters, everything seems to work itself out pretty well in the end (or at least the horizon looks hopefully in that direction). While with a more thorough examination of the film, there seems to be a variety of mixed messages amidst the undercurrent. However, the overarching message, as Cal so eloquently and spontaneously sums up in his speech, is that when you find the one you truly love you never give up on them. In the case of all these characters who at times seem to act pretty crazy and stupid, I agree with the notion that they're hearts were in the right place because they were doing it for love.




Reference:


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 televition. Journal of 
Sex Research, 44 (2).

   

"Monstrating" Females

For those who aren’t familiar with ABC’s show Modern Family, the show focuses around the families of the grandfather, Jay Pritchett, and his two adult children, Claire and Mitchel. The show has been called progressive because it the diversity in the families depicted. There’s Claire Dumphy’s nuclear family (heterosexual marriage with her white husband Phil and their kids, Haley, Alex and Luke), and Jay’s multiethnic family from a second marriage (to a younger, Columbian wife Gloria, and her son Manny, from her first marriage) and finally Mitchel (and his partner Cameron, another white upper middle class gay man, and their adopted Asian daughter, Lily).

However, a little closer look into the show can reveal a prevalent gendered undertone. In one particular episode, titled “Claire, Haley and Alex’s Emotions!” the main storyline revolves around the fact that all three of the Dumphy women are on their periods at the same time, and essentially to the Dumphy men (Phil & Luke) this is a poorly timed event that is worse than Armageddon! While the two goofy guys go to hilarious lengths to tiptoe around their “Monstrating” loved ones, the three girls are behaving in exaggeratedly dramatic fashions (i.e. emotional roller coaster times three).

This ties in to what we’ve been discussing in class about gender stereotypes as both latent and manifest content in the media. More specifically, Claire Dumphy is a stereotypical loving wife/mother (i.e. attractive, homemaker, primarily poised in the domestic labor sphere, and child caretaker). In this episode she and her daughters are seen as overly emotional, crying or bitchy, which plays into the typical gender stereotypes of women. While the producers try to use the fact that they were all on their periods as an excuse for their extreme behavior and the guys’ excessive precautionary lengths, by reinforcing traditional gender stereotypes it actually works against the progressive attitude that the show is typically known for.

By the time it was all over I didn’t know who to feel more sorry for, the girls for the ridiculous portrayal of them, or the guys for having to put up with it. This show is typically hilarious. I love it but have to admit this episode was disappointing in comparison to their standards for most other episodes. This episode alone definitely won’t discourage me from watching, but if you’ve never seen the show before I’d probably recommend you don’t watch this episode first (good thing it wasn’t in the first season!).