After watching the film in class on Wednesday as well as
talk about sex and alcohol, it got me thinking about the movie Knocked Up, one of the
very few movies that gives a realistic portrayal of what can happen under the influence of
alcohol and the consequences of having unprotected sex. As we’ve talked about before, media
doesn’t usually show the use of condoms in such situations. Isn't this basically promoting unprotected sex? If we are trying to prevent this, wouldn't the use of condoms be displayed more in the media? While Knocked Up did attempt to take precautions, due to being under the influence of alcohol it didn't pull through.
It all began with Alison (Katherine
Heigl) meeting Ben (Seth Rogen) at a bar one night. It was obvious that Alison
was not interested after their first encounter, however after some drinking and getting a little lose they began connecting more and next thing you know they end up going back
to her place and hooking up. In this scene, Alison is being very impatient
while Ben is getting out the condom and tells him to “just do it already”,
therefore, Ben says forget the condom and “just does it already”.
This whole
scene demonstrates how the use of alcohol caused Alison to feel more “into” Ben
and not take the precautions before having sex with him. Ben was also
influenced by also not fully going through with the protection and condom use.
I feel this answered quite a few of
the questions that were asked on the Alcohol quiz we took in class last week.
The ones if feel relate most to the film were:
Less likely to use birth control
Less likely to take precautions before having sex
Less likely to talk with a sex partner about whether s/he
has a sexually transmitted disease, like AIDS or gonorrhea.
Less likely to use, or ask a partner to use, a condom.
Have sex with people whom I wouldn’t have sex with if I
were sober
More sexually responsive
Now switching directions a little
bit, I found this movie also go against what was talked about in the Segrin and
Nabi reading on “Does Television Viewing Cultivate Unrealistic Expectations
About Marriage?” In the reading it states “media may be cultivating unrealistic
beliefs about what marriage should be like” and “by “idealized images of
marriage” we mean portrayals that include, for example, a great deal of
romance, physical intimacy, passion, celebration, happiness, “love at first
sight”, physical beauty, empathy, and open communication” (Sergin&Nabi,
2002, p. 249). Throughout this film, the relationship between Pete (Paul Rudd)
and Debbie (Leslie Mann) does not make marriage up to be a beautiful thing like
this reading suggests. In fact their physical/sexual/romance drive is
nonexistent in the earlier part of the film, happiness isn’t expressed between
the couple and there is a horrible lack of open communication. The following clip shows a little bit of this "unfunny, tense version of Everyone Loves Raymond. That doesn't last 22 minutes...it lasts forever":
Overall, I thought this film was a good mix of showing
the realistic-ness of life and relationships as well as the realistic
consequences of drinking alcohol and unprotected sex.
With the Summer Olympics underway, it comes as no surprise that all all media outlets have focused their attentions on the events currently transpiring in London. The substantial media hype surrounding this year's summer games has inevitably thrust some recent unresolved issues back into the media spotlight. One such issue, of particular relevance to our class discussions, involves the IOC (Interational Olympic Committee) and it's controversial polices pertaining to biased gender identification and subsequent verification of female athletes.
Not to long ago, during the 2009 Berlin Olympics, a female South African Olympian, named Caster Semenya, fell victim to the accusations and unavoidable media scrutiny resulting from the enforcement of these policies.
The questionable suspicion surrounding the promising young female athlete was not prompted by any deceptive or unethical behavior on her part, but rather unsubstantiated rumors inferring that her unparalleled athleticism, as well as her defining physical features, were "too masculine" to allow her to compete among her fellow female Olympians. Officially, justifications for these inconceivably offensive accusations are attributed to less subjective scientific measures, specifically, an athlete's unique levels of testosterone and androgen receptors. The official rules state that women who have levels of testosterone that are
equal to a man will be prohibited from competing in the Olympic Games
against other women. The IOC, however, does not specify what a normal
level of testosterone is for a woman, nor do they clarify the terms of ineligibility that any subsequent violations might invoke. Supposedly, the true intention of these policies is to ensure the equality of participants, promote fair competition, and circumvent any maliciously deceptive or fraudulent behavior. Apparently, the notion that Semenya's conventionally masculine physical characteristics give her an unfair advantage in competition with her fellow female athletes, threatens the fragile equality of competition afforded by traditional gender divisions.
Below you can see a video clip from one of the many television interviews with Semenya following these traumatic events:
In reading further, I was reminded of issues pertaining to stereotypical gender roles, specifically notions of the double standard, as discussed in the works of both Ward(1995) and Kim et. al.(2007). The Olympic games are known for promoting unity and providing a level playing field upon which the best of the best can compete for international glory. The only real segmentation of competitors occurs along gender lines, justified by claims that these divisions are necessary to protect the best athletes from the female gender from being overlooked in favor of male athletes, less deserving of the recognition. Assuming the athlete was not illegally doping or using performance enhancers of any kind, does it seem fair that any woman whose traditionally masculine characteristics might arguably enhance her athleticism, have to fear disqualification for reasons beyond their control. Doesn't it seem that a rule such as this might defeat the purpose of seperating competitions by gender in the first place? For that matter, would the IOC show equal concern in the event that a male competitor, exhbiting traditionally feminine qualities, might posses an unfair advantage in events valuing that trait, for instances figure skating?
Upon further investigation, I came to realize that this genre of media spectacles is by no means a recent development. Interestingly, Olympic history is littered with similar instances of publicly scrutinized gender discrepancies and alleged sexual discrimination, dating back nearly a half century. For the most part, it appears that female athletes have helplessly endured outspoken public accusations of this nature for almost as long as they've been allowed to compete. For instance, I would imagine that most, if not all of you, are likely familiar with the famous African-American female tennis superstars, Venus and Serena Williams. These undeniably talented twin sister athletes blew spectators minds when they first burst onto the professional tennis scene over a decade ago. The astoundingly athletic and intensely competitive Williams sisters quickly skyrocketed to the the top of the rankings, consistently annihilating challengers on the court with an unrelenting intensity beyond anything the sport had ever seen. Their impressive exhibitions of unprecedented athleticism transcended those of their more traditional fellow female athletes, thrusting them into the media spotlight, as they rose to the top tier of competition. So much so, that during formal competitions, they consistently outperformed and outlasted the majority of opponents, leaving the sisters to compete against one another for first place. These repeated displays of unparalleled physical prowess undoubtedly earned them nominations for the U.S. Olympic Tennis team. Theirs is an inspiring story of dedication and perseverance in the face of adversity; a real life representation of just how much you can achieve with hard work, extreme dedication, and a positive outlook. Unfortunately, as many of us know, even relatively mild media hype surrounding these higher profile individuals inevitably invites public criticism, often exacerbated by unwanted press coverage and potentially negative long-lasting repercussions. Despite their inspiring story, the impressive scope of their accomplishments, and the positive examples they they set as role models, there have been several instances in which even these well respected American female tennis legends still fall prey to the same variety of slanderous accusations and prejudicial sensationalized misrepresentations. This kind of attention can attract a lot of negative attention, the
result of which can be lasting damage to an individuals reputation and
self-esteem.
The IOC began subjecting female athletes to gender tests in the 1960s, with “nude
parades” that were exactly what they sound like: female competitors made
to walk naked before a panel of judges. The IOC later realized,
what’s on the outside doesn’t always match what’s on the inside, so the
committee moved on to chromosome testing. Once it was shown that women
can have a single X chromosome (just as men can have two of them) that
was abandoned as well. Then came SRY gene detection (the gene that
triggers male sex determination), but after the Atlanta games, in which 8
women tested positive for it, and all were cleared for competition,
this method, too, was deemed insufficient. A decade ago, the committee
decided to chuck the testing altogether. But in the wake of Semenya’s
case, and the international scrutiny it prompted, the IOC announced that
it would try, once again, to devise a way to decisively determine what
makes a woman a woman, or in this case what makes a woman not a woman.
-
Update: A short while after writing this post, I actually stumbled upon two articles discussing a similar event in which a male figure skater was actually accused and found guilty of estrogen doping Im hesitant to take these at their word however, as neither come from any widely recognized publication or credible source beknownst to me. Have a look perhaps.
I thought Tuesday's discussion about gender stereotypes was really interesting, because they show up EVERYWHERE. It's telling that when it came to listing stereotypes of each gender, everyone agreed on the lists that were written, and it didn't take long at all for us to collectively compile those lists. As evidenced by the Fergusen et al. reading about representations of promiscuity and the Aubrey & Taylor study regarding priming through lad mags, we are bombarded on all sides by stereotypical representations of both men and women in the media.
The Fergusen et al. reading specifically talked about stereotypes regarding women's sexual behaviors, and how assumptions about those behaviors lead to judgements about their character, or minimizing the negative effects of sexual attention if they're perceived as promiscuous. Julia brought up in class that at least three blog posts (my own included) brought up situations of satirical hyper-sexualized TV and movie characters who, while over the top, could still provide a negative and lasting impression to the viewer. While the examples given in class and in the readings largely addressed negative stereotypes about how women present themselves physically, what about representations that satirize the way women present themselves emotionally? The Harvard Sailing Team is a sketch comedy troupe that makes fun of gender stereotypes in their video, "Boys Will Be Girls."
The video features four guys sitting around a TV watching The Biggest Loser while speaking in abbreviations and discussing stereotypical female topics, like their unhealthy dietary habits and complaints about not getting enough attention from their significant others. They aren't dressed as girls or pretending to be girls (a la the Shit Girls Say saga), but seem to find strength in how ludicrous it seems to have four straight men with female mannerisms, emotions, and behaviors.
I admit, I think this video is funny. Perhaps that's partially due to the fact that it was shown to me by five of my guy friends who lived together last year, quote this video all the time, and are self-proclaimed "besties with testes." Jokingly, but not really. In any case, this video is extremely gendered and heightens the contrast between men and women by having men act like women. Again, this is over-the-top, and uses the most obnoxious representations of stereotypical female irrationality. But if representations of satirized female sexuality can be a concern, and can lead people to think that those representations are authentic and typical, do satirized representations of female emotions carry the same concerns?
Numerous articles over the past week has commented not only on the skimpiness of beach volleyball bikini bottoms (which, as we discussed today, are the opposite of new, yet remain fascinating to the public for obvious reasons). My favorite is this article, which pokes fun at stock photographers' tendencies to take tons of gratuitous butt shots of female volleyball players by showing other awkward pictures of isolated body parts.
It's not particularly surprising that female Olympians would find themselves sexualized and objectified, because they are taking part in a television spectacle. Other problematic gender portrayals commonly found in the media persist in Olympic coverage as well. This analysis of the 2008 Beijing Olympics reached unsurprising conclusions about the differences in the ways male and female Olympians and commentators were shown on TV. Women won 48% of medals at the Olympics, but received 46.3% of the television coverage, even though the women in diving, beach volleyball, and gymnastics (considered "socially acceptable" for women to play) all received significantly more coverage than their male counterparts. Seventy-five percent of women's coverage was devoted to socially acceptable sports. The study notes that these sports all involve skimpy clothing and no hard contact between players. The study also found that male commentators received significantly more air time than female commentators.
These findings are unsurprising for anyone who knows that numerous television content analyses have found women to be underrepresented, and when they are shown, are depicted to be younger and more sexualized than the men they share the screen with. One could also argue that "non-socially acceptable" sports like fencing and rowing are longer events that are less interesting to watch, and are ignored for the sake of time.
The social news website Reddit has long been considered
male-centric, with some statistics saying the site’s users are 66 percent
male. Reddit’s pervasive undercurrent of sexism has long been
discussed as an accepted fact, with almost any thread mentioning sexism being
immediately downvoted. For this reason, it's surprising that Reddit
became host to a controversial thread asking men who had raped women to explain
their reasons for doing so:
One of the most downvoted comments came from a user who did
not think his story would garner much attention. He described himself as
"a post-colleged age male who raped several girls through use of coercion,
alcohol, and other tactics over a course of 3 years." He says he got
tried of "sluts and sorority girls" who were easy to get in bed, so
he started going after innocent-seeming introverted girls for the thrill of the
chase. His full story is quite lengthy, but is available on the as the first
comment in the forum I linked. In quick summary, his tactic was usually
to bring girls to his apartment to watch a movie, where there was no couch,
only a bed. He would slowly maneuver until he was on top of them pinning
them to the bed, at which point many girls would squirm or be clearly
uncomfortable, which he admitted to enjoying. "Most girls don't say
no either," he continued. "They think you're a good guy, and should
pick up on the hints, they don't want to have to say "no" and admit
to themselves what's happening." He added, "Alcohol helped. Having a few drinks during
the movie, or doing a few jello shots that were 'prepared for a party that
weekend' would usually do the trick."
The man concluded with saying that he has never experienced any repercussions for his actions and feels guilty but could never apologize. He referred to himself as a 'serial rapist.' Though he seems to clearly the see the harm he has done now, his story does display how ambiguous circumstances allowed him to get away with rape. He started out playing the dominant role, an aggressive male pursuing a submissive girl who was deemed worthy of his attention because of her perceived innocence (in contrast to 'slutty' girls). The fact that she willingly came to his apartment in expectation of a regular date and consumed alcohol is the beginning of a normal social script leading to sex. But things went wrong because he clearly knew they were unwilling and continued anyway, enjoying his exploitation of them.
Very rarely do we hear cases of sexual harassment where the victim is a male. It is even more rare that these situations are portrayed in movies or on television. However, when these situations are shown on film or television, sexual harassment is portrayed in a manner that would be considered if the victim was a woman. The media tends to portray male sexual harassment as a joking manner. Take this trailer from Horrible Bosses as example. The clip illustrates the extreme sexual harassment one of the main characters, Dale, faces from his female boss.
Ridiculous right? In fact, it's meant to be hilarious; what men wouldn't love to have super hot Jennifer Aniston sexually harassing them? Here's what happens when Dale shares his problem with his friends:
Dale Arbus: At least your boss
isn't sexually harassing you.
Kurt Buckman: [sarcastically] Oh,
my God! I hear you on that one.
Dale Arbus: Don't give me shit!
Nick Hendricks: You'll
never get any sympathy out of us for this.
Dale Arbus: She's going crazy! It's
like a totally hostel working environment there, man. It's not funny!
Nick Hendricks: Yeah?
Dale Arbus: Alright, check it out.
Today, she started spraying water at my crotch so she could see the outline of
my dick.
Kurt Buckman: That's great!
Dale Arbus: It's not great!
Kurt Buckman: What are you talking
about? Why don't you just, you know, just fuck her?
Dale Arbus: Because I'm engaged to
be married and I love my fiance, okay?
Dale's friends suggest that the extreme sexual harassment he is facing is not a problem at all. In fact, they support the sexual harassment Dale receives from his boss. Media portrayals of male sexual harassment such as this sends the message that sexual harassment from an attractive woman is welcomed. In fact, it is not considered sexual harassment at all because no man should be unwilling to have sex with an attractive woman. These messages reinforce the stereotype that men are sex obsessed and want to have sex with anyone they find attractive, despite a lack of emotional attachment. Media perceptions such as this can lead to less perceived victim trauma if the victim is a male. The Ferguson et al. (2005) study illustrates that those participants exposed to clips of women engaging in promiscuous behavior reported perceptions of less victim trauma. Perhaps this stereotype that men are sex obsessed will be activated by watching portrayals such as this. Viewers could apply this stereotype to themselves or other men and as a result view male sexual harassment as a joking or non serious manner. My guess is that male sexual harassment is taken less seriously because of this stereotype that men are always willing to have sex with an attractive woman. Moreover, I believe that male sexual harassment is portrayed to be a joking manner because there is less of a threat than when a woman is victim of sexual harassment. Men are biologically stronger than women. this diminishes the likelihood that a woman could rape a man. She'd have to be quite strong in comparison to the man or perhaps drug him. Ultimately, is it sexual harassment if we find the other person attractive. Do we let some comments slide from attractive aggressors compared to aggressors we find unattractive?
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
dismissedas 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.
