Hernandez 1 WGS120 Danielle Hernandez March 7, 2012 Critical Analysis Paper I: The Media

In a society that is struggling so hard to eliminate sexism, racism, and, to an extent, classism and heterosexism, the media certainly isnt helping. It is such an enormous and powerful force that seems virtually unstoppable. The facts that it is so ingratiated in our culture and that it is legally difficult to deal with enables it to create rigid stereotypes and norms that often prove dangerous. The media affects the way our society perceives sex. It establishes differentiated gender roles and creates the paradigm for sexual allure. John Kimmel explains how media coverage of sports makes it quite obvious that this athletic world and culture is an all-boys club. Sports talk shows on the radio and on television are blatantly misogynist and homophobic. Men can call in and speak their minds and other men listen in. The media becomes an agent for keeping alive the good old days which, as Kimmel stated, were only good days for white, middle-class, men. These good old days exclude and demean women and any feminine qualities in either sex. Magazine and product advertisements, as mentioned by Jean Kilbourne, always feature men as being anything but feminine. They are always standing up, looking dominant, and often directly dominating women, themselves. In video games, men are allowed to live in a fantasy in which they use their strength and tendencies for violence to get what they want, to survive, or to winwhich often includes explicit violence (physical and sexual) against women. As a result, this idea of ultra-masculinity becomes a norm for all men. The only problem I saw was that it seemed Kimmels analysis was based more on a large, public, institution perspective- especially when it

Hernandez 2 came to the concept of the designated homeworker. Id like to believe that at a small institution such as Gettysburg, its a lot harder for guys to shirk their assignments. Many classes are small and discussion-based and if someone else wrote your paper for you, wouldnt the professor become suspicious that your work is done but that you cant contribute to conversations? On the other side, the media obviously creates a standard for women and femininity. Women are airbrushed, dieted, Botox-injected, and Photoshopped within an inch of their lives. Kilbourne makes an excellent point to bring to attention the fact that not all women can possibly be model-thin- that it is a genetic trait of just a small minority of women. Not a single woman in media images is free of digital mutilation. I know that I am also personally guilt of committing the Photoshop sin. Not just in artistic photography, but also in (what should be casual) Facebook profile pictures I take of myself, photo-editing is a must. I take my own face and artificially airbrush it, add make-up, change the color of my eyes, whiten my teeth change my hair, and occasionally, Ive even changed the size of my eyes and lips. And, unfortunately, those photos are my most liked. On the side, Ive placed a before and after of one such image that I was able to edit in about 5 minutes using two free and publicly available programs: Taaz and Photoscape. I also understand, and always have understood, that Ive bought into the infantilization of women, as well. Im an avid fan of the Japanese Lolita fashions that turn women into girls. This scenes name is even a direct reference to pedophilia! With full knowledge of this, I still enjoy the look it portrays and would, if I was able to afford it and pull it off, also dress in Lolita garb. I suppose I allow myself this because I know I understand the

Hernandez 3 implications it carries. But it is important to never forget that it is images like these that push double binds like those discussed by Marilyn Frye for women into mainstream media: women should be sexy but virginal at the same time. This then makes me think to myself- just how much of this imagery of women can be justified under artistic license? Well, most of it is, which is why it is not deemed obscene under the law. Infantilization isnt just making older women look like children, but vice versa, as well. LZ Granderson from CNN spoke fervently in regards to small children- as young as 6- being the targets of anything from push-up bras to thongs that advocate prostitution. He looks pointedly towards the parents as the cause of this problem just as much as the media. This made me recall a time I was in a mall and saw a girl, about 9 or 10, dressed in Hollister and Abercrombie, donning a Coach bag, and texting on a Sidekick (which today, Im sure, would be an iPhone), while her parents, disturbingly, followed behind her. Another example can be found in the recent scandal that rose up around Sketchers Shape-Up sneakers for girls. Commercials advertising these sneakers were played during times that would target girls as young as kindergarten-aged. The advertisement features a cartoon girl and a band that sings: "Heidi's got new Shape-Ups, got everything a girl wants. She's got the height, got the bounce. She's lookin' good and havin' fun 'cuz Heidi's got new Shape-Ups." Despite the fact that it sends a message that girls are never too young to hate their bodies and that these types of shoes have been proven to actually cause damage to your back and legs after prolonged use, they are still sold today. The finally problem that media causes is a creation of an idealized Western aesthetic. Norimitsu Onishi, in Globalization of Beauty Makes Slimness Trendy, laments about how the mainstream success of African beauty pageant winner, Agbani Darego began altering the deeply founded ideals of beauty in Africa. Once a culture that embraced women with curves and even

Hernandez 4 had, for example, ceremonial fattening for soon-to-be brides, Darego, who won international acclaim due to her uncanny resemblance of Western models, has led to a radical shift in their aesthetic mentality. Now even women of color are told to be more White. As noted by Kilbourne, even Beyonc had her skin digitally lightened before it was released to be viewed by our critical eyes. Images that are sexually damaging in the media can be impossible to eliminate. A large amount of this is due to our countrys legal standards for obscenity. There are plenty of things that many would consider sexually explicit and obscene which are not easily deemed so in the courts. My high school law class spoke a great deal about this. Each student selected an advertisement that they felt to be obscene or sexually degrading. Many of the images used were images that were given as examples in Killing Us Softly. We then went on to see if we would be able to argue our cases in a court of law successfully. The exact standards for obscenity are:

A work may be subject to state regulation where that work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex; portrays, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The loophole that is often used by the media industry is in the two tricky words, prurient interest. The decision of what can be considered prurient interest can be argued from here to kingdom come and is only becoming more difficult as our culture becomes more used to modern media imagery and themes. Although it may seem the law is not on the right side, there have been advancements made. Jean Kilbourne notes that some other countries fashion industries have banned the use of underweight models on the runways and in magazines. Other ideas, such as placing disclaimers on images featuring photo-edited models, have been pushed for. Onishi waits in hope that the

Hernandez 5 Western aesthetic will not be strong enough to break a time-honored culture of beauty in Africa. Ive realized that people, in general, are also more aware that there is a problem. I came to understand this because Id actually seen Killing Us Softly for the first time when it was circulating around the mainstream social media website, tumblr, not in an academic setting. What we need to remember is that the most powerful controller of the media is the consumer and the viewer. Each of these readings and the film, as well, made this apparent. It may sound like a clich today, but the power to change the increasingly harmful media lies within each and every one of us. Every member that makes up society is- either directly or indirectly- buying in to this. The silence that Guy Kimmel says reinforces the Guy Code also reinforces the Media Code- the code demonstrating how to be, who to be, and what to want.