Monday, June 1, 2015

Emma Sulkowicz's “Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)”

Columbia University student Emma Sulkowicz has been hauling a mattress around campus in protest to how her sexual assault case against student Paul Nungesser was carried out. Her alleged attacker was cleared of responsibility. I was recently talking to my brother about Emma Sulkowicz and her “Mattress Performance” that she has been doing since last fall. My brother goes to Columbia University, and has seen Sulkowicz carrying this mattress on campus. I learned that on her graduation day, which was just a few days ago, May 19, she carried her mattress on stage with her to receive her diploma. And the president of the university did not shake her hand. Her choice to carry her mattress onstage is very controversial. After all, commencement means to start, or to begin, so perhaps this would have been a good time to try and relieve her burden, and start fresh. However, this burden will never really leave her, and while she could have put down her mattress, the weight of the burden will sadly stay with her forever.


I then became interested in how this all happened and started researching about the case. I came across a New York Times Magazine article by Emily Bazelon entitled, “Have We Learned Anything From the Columbia Rape Case?” This article looked at the story through different lenses, Sulkowicz’s and Nungesser’s, to provide a more complete story of what happened.


Sulkowicz and Nungesser were engaged in a relationship prior to the assault, which is part of what makes this particular case not so black-and-white. But despite this, she has chosen to take a stand against what she knows is a serious issue, both personally and for all victims. The “Mattress Performance” was a “powerful image of a woman publicly shouldering the burden of a violation she felt in her bedroom” (Bazelon). She felt violated and felt the university did not properly handle her hearing, and she dealt with her burden in a way that made the issue unable to be ignored any longer. It demanded to be talked about, because she was carrying around a 50 pound mattress to all her classes.

What Sulkowicz did was a brave act, standing up for sexual assault victims everywhere, and highlighting the sad fact that universities often deal with these cases poorly, not hearing the victim out. Perhaps her bravery will even inspire other victims to speak out.

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

The Problems with the "Abortion Roadblock"

Twenty-six states have now imposed a mandatory waiting period between the day when a woman first visits an abortion clinic and the day she is actually allowed to get an abortion, according to an article in The Atlantic entitled "Waiting Periods and the Rising Price of Abortion," written by Olga Khazan. This ends up raising the overall cost of having an abortion, because women must make now arrangements twice in order to have one. As Khazan puts it, it is just "another attempt by pro-lifers to bring about the end of abortion by a thousand restrictions."

It brings up a point we discussed today in class. To what extent can the government get involved in the choices that people make? For instance, the government regulates the restrictions on tobacco, creating a sort of "sin-tax" (a heightened price on the product in the hopes to discourage people from "sinning"). The "sinning," in this case, would be getting an abortion. It is clear that these pro-life lawmakers imposing these laws feel this way, based on their language alone. In The Atlantic article, Missouri state Senator David Sater said he is "sure that the unborn child would like to see an extra 48 hours for the mother to decide on whether or not to have the abortion." He turns it around on the woman, questioning her right to make the decision herself.

This waiting period is yet another hurdle women are now forced to go through. A woman who goes to an abortion clinic has already made an incredibly difficult decision. She does not need yet another hurdle in her way. If she has other children, she must make arrangements for them, like childcare. She would have to take off from work, most likely losing pay for that day. She would also have to make arrangements to get to the clinic, which can be hours away, and expensive to travel to. Once she actually gets to the clinic, she is told to think about it and come back in 2 or 3 days, having to endure it all over again, which is emotionally and financially draining. This waiting period "made abortion more expensive by 48% for poor women" (Khazan). Abortion now has a sin-tax that is affecting women, especially poor women, who have even more trouble getting past these financial hurdles.

Aside from the financial part or this issue, are women gaining anything from this mandatory delay? 75% of women said they "couldn't name a single benefit of the waiting period" (Khazan). I would argue that the majority of women who seek out and travel to an abortion clinic have already come to their very difficult decision. But that decision gets questioned as soon as they walk in the door. Shouldn't this just be a choice a woman gets to make?

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

The Working Mother

I recently came across a New York Times article entitled “Mounting Evidence of Advantages for Children of Working Mothers” by Claire Cain Miller that displayed a shocking statistic: 41% of adults think the increase in working mothers is “bad for society.” I was stunned. Nearly half the population still thinks mothers should be kept out of the work force.

However, there is evidence that being raised by a working mother has enormous benefits for children. In the United States, “daughters of working mothers earned 23% more than daughters of stay-at-home mothers” (Miller). And it wasn’t just daughters who were impacted: “sons spent seven and a half more hours a week on child care… and were significantly more likely to have a wife who worked” (Miller). So that 41% who claim that a working mother has a negative influence on her children and therefore on society may have failed to think about the impact that a strong female role model will have on children. It is undeniable that having a mother in the workforce sets a good example for impressionable children. These mothers serve as role models who are combating gender stereotypes and encouraging their kids to do the same.

Some question the correlation in this study. Does a working mother actually cause her daughter to work? There are are most definitely other factors that go into this, like education for example, or where a child is brought up. Harvard Business School professor Kathleen McGinn is the author of the study, and has controlled the data for factors like “age, education, and family makeup,” but the effects do not shrink significantly at all. Miller claims that “either way,” the study is a “shift away from focusing on whether working mothers hurt children;” we are moving “toward a richer understanding of the relationship between work and family.” Even if there are other forces impacting the data, the study has put to rest the falsehood that a working mother is “bad for society.” It’s really just about a tolerance we need to develop for different choices people are making regarding their family life. It is not about discouraging stay-at-home moms; it's about encouraging a mother's choice to work.

Sunday, May 17, 2015

America and The "Middle Class"

Recently in class we have been discussing the topic of class and classism. I came across an article a few days ago in The Atlantic entitled "What Does 'Middle Class' Even Mean?" written by Gillian B. White. It talks about class perception and how people choose to identify to one particular class. We discussed in class how it is the American way to identify as Middle Class, but what does that term really mean? Some would argue it is the middle 50% of Americans (their income is more than the bottom 25% and less than the top 25%). In 2013, the Survey of Consumer Finances stated that these are families with incomes "between $24,000 to $90,000." But if you take into account other factors besides solely income, like property or "liabilities," this same "middle class" expands to an enormous spectrum. This would mean the middle class would have "anywhere between $9,000 to $317,000." Families within this range would lead entirely different lives.

So maybe class is not about dividing up people based on income. Class can be "as much about perception and comparison as it is about measurable metrics, like money" (White). It's not just a socioeconomic matter, it's a way of life. Class does not just mean money, it's largely about self-perception and comparing yourself to those around you. In class, we were asked to try to place ourselves into one class category. The fact that we live in a very wealthy area definitely had an impact on people’s own perceptions of their class. A similar survey has been going on at a national level: Gallup began collecting data in 2000, inquiring what class people identified as. Here are the results:





Michael Kraus, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Illinois gives an explanation of this graph. We are facing a growing gap between the rich and the poor, and this inequality often results in a tendency for people to compare themselves to one another even more. So, while someone may actually be closer to middle class income-wise, they identify as lower because of this enormous gap between the rich and poor. More and more people are perceiving themselves as "falling out of middle class." This is a problem for America because it affects people's view of social mobility. They have less hope that they can move up classes.

We see this theme of social mobility throughout The Great Gatsby, as well. The "American Dream" narrative arc is one that is at the core of our country, which is why Gatsby is so fascinating to us. We find out his parents were actually poor farm people and "his imagination had never really accepted them as his parents at all" (Fitzgerald 98). He chose to not "accept" this class he was born into; he rejected it entirely. He created a new persona he aspired to become and "to this conception he was faithful to the end" (98). He did all that he could to achieve his dream, the American Dream, and ended up succeeding, moving from lower, to middle, to upper class.

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

An American Narrative

While researching my junior theme topic, I came across another reason why there exists such a fear of aging in America and why there is such a huge market for things like Botox treatments or "anti-aging" face creams. It all has to do with America's beloved narrative arc. 

Earlier in the year, our class studied Kurt Vonnegut’s piece “A Lesson in Creative Writing” in which he maps out the narrative arc that America loves to see in television and films.





















Man in a Hole Narrative Arc


      This arc is also referred to as the “Redemptive Arc,” and it goes back to the roots of Christianity. This is likely a subconscious factor that is playing into peoples’ decisions to get plastic surgery in order to look younger. In the book “You’ve Come a Long Way Baby,” edited by Lilly J. Goren, there is extensive research on what is referred to as “sacrificial atonement.” The book states the “promise” of sacrificial atonement is that "through suffering, death has been overcome” and that these surgeries promise “the illusion that decay can be ‘treated’” (24). This "suffering" is referring to the actual physical pain of a cosmetic surgery, or perhaps the cost. And while the idea of cheating death, or "treating" it, is impossible, it is something that people, especially women, are continuously trying to achieve.
  
This psychological reasoning behind wanting to look younger perfectly follows the narrative drawn above. From "Beginning" to "End" on the graph: A woman starts out healthy and youthful; as the woman ages, she feels her looks are fading; she undergoes a painful procedure to "fix" this problem, and is back where she started, in "Good Fortune", looking and feeling youthful.


We see this archetype in television all the time too: the woman's goal is to look as young as possible. A character that comes to mind is Madame Lalaurie from American Horror Story: Coven, who was obsessed with looking youthful. There weren't face-lifts during the time that she lived, so she resorted to a horrifying method. She murdered her slaves and used their blood as a sort of anti-aging skin product: she would spread it on her face each night. Her extreme and sickening measures she went to in order to feel young "payed off" for her because she felt it made her skin look young again. This character would do anything to maintain her youthful complexion.
      
This is also why America is obsessed with "makeover" shows. There is a "man in a hole"(a person who is not conventionally attractive), and the show helps this person to get out of this "hole," and discover their true beauty. "The internal self is matched with the external" (Goren 25) is something we love seeing on television. Our psychological attachment to this narrative is playing an enormous role in our everyday lives.

Saturday, April 18, 2015

Older Women as Role Models

      While doing some research for my junior theme earlier in the week, I started looking at TED Talks and began taking notes on one I found interesting, entitled Women Should Represent Women in Media.” I found the topic interesting, but realized it did not in fact relate to my junior theme. The TED talk sounded promising at first, since the speaker opens by talking about why she joined the Journalism and Women Symposium: “I wanted female role models.” While the Talk is about women in the media, it focuses on the “incomplete story” we are getting because of the underrepresentation of women as news reporters and sources. This might be too much of a leap to try to work this in to my paper, which is about the underrepresentation of older women in television and films. 

      But when the speaker said the words “female role models,” it made me think of another way this misrepresentation of women in television and films has an effect on our society. Girls and women need older female role models to look up to, and there are almost none. An interview was conducted  by “Mother Jones” magazine with director Jennifer Seibel Newsom (director of the documentary Miss Representation.) Seibel says that “aging is a beautiful thing; wisdom is a beautiful thing. Frankly, as a woman who's getting older in our culture, I want to see stories about women who are before me, so I can be inspired—because someday I'll be there.” The effects of this underrepresentation of older women does impact women of all ages.


      I also began looking at some new books that related to my junior theme topic this week,“The Girl on the Magazine Cover” by Carolyn Kitch explores the stereotypes of women in the media. This book will provide more of the "historical look-back" part of my paper. A passage I found very interesting was about the changing times which seemed to bring about this obsession with youth. On a cover of a 1925 Good Housekeeping, showed a mother reading to her child. The mother was "no longer a Victorian matron, the Jazz age mother was slim and pretty, a youthful woman urged to follow the advice of a 1927 Palmolive Soap ad... that reminded readers to 'Keep That Schoolgirl Complexion' long 'after school days" (145). It will be interesting to delve deeper as to why America is fixated on youth. I also began reading a book this weekend called “You’ve Come a Long Way Baby,” edited by Lilly J. Goren, which is about women in popular culture, which will offer a more current view on the subject. I found that the indexes were very helpful, but when I began reading the book without using the index I also found I was able to read about topics that related to my “why” question, just not as specifically. 

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Age and the Entertainment Industry

For my topic for Junior Theme, I wanted to focus on portrayals of women in television and movies. As I narrowed down my "WHY" question, I decided to look at the reasons why we seem to only be seeing young women in films and television; why is aging in the entertainment industry a positive for men, but a negative for women?

I watched two documentaries that dealt with this topic of portrayals of women in the media. The first was called "Miss Representation," available on Netflix. The documentary interviews several women and men on this topic. A quote stood out to me as I was watching. Gloria Steinem, a feminist organizer and writer and the cofounder of Women's Media Center, said that "a male-dominant system, a patriarchal system, values women as child-bearers, period. So it limits their value to the time that they are sexually active, reproductively active, and become much less valuable after that." I had never really thought about age this way before, and why youthfulness is so valued in our society. It could really be as primal as the fact that there exists a window in which a woman is fertile.

Later in "Miss Representation," PhD Martha Lauzen discussed a striking statistic that 
women in their 20's and 30's make up 71% of women on TV. 
"What we see on broadcast television is that the majority of female characters are in their 20's and 30's. That is just a huge misrepresentation of reality, and that really skews our perceptions." It is saying something interesting about our society that women who are over 40 actually account for 47% of our population in the U.S, but are only making up 26% of women on television. Why are only young women given the spotlight?

I watched a second documentary titled "Killing Us Softly 4," available on YouTube. It made me think about cosmetic surgery being an aspect of an answer to my "WHY" question. I learned that 91% of cosmetic procedures are performed on women, and from 1997 to 2007, there was a 754% increase in non-surgical procedures like botox and laser treatment. Botox makes the face look tighter, and more youthful. What sparked this intense need for women to look younger? Jean Kilbourne, the writer of "Killing Us Softly" explores this when she says that "This contempt for women who do not measure up is waiting for all of us of course eventually as we age, so no wonder there's such a terror of showing any signs of aging." Women in America seem desperate to turn back the clock and look like a younger version of themselves, why is this?


Sunday, April 5, 2015

The "Blurred Lines" Copyright Issue

       A couple of weeks ago in class, we discussed the “Blurred Lines” copyright issue. We listened to clips of the songs “Blurred Lines” by Robin Thicke and Pharrel Williams and “Got to Give It Up” by Marvin Gaye side by side to determine if we thought the songs were a bit too similar and if it really was an issue of plagiary. The jury who was deciding the verdict; however, was supposed to make this decision based only upon sheet music of both songs. But with only a number of chords out there to work with, the line between whether or not a song is "plagiarizing" or not becomes very thin. 

       The whole discussion in class reminded me of a video I had seen a couple of years ago. A comedy rock band “Axis of Awesome” performed a funny skit in which they demonstrate how so many of our beloved pop songs are, in fact, just made up of the same four chords. It's pretty eye-opening. Here’s the video: 



       I was amazed when I first watched the skit. All of these songs can be played using only four chords, but are all widely accepted as totally different songs. But isn't it the artist's spin on these same four chords really what makes each song unique? The court ruling seemed to suggest otherwise, since Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke now owe 7.3 million dollars to the Gaye estate on the grounds of copyright infringement. The reason I take issue with the verdict is that there seems to be no clear line between taking inspiration from an artist and actually copying an entire song. “Got to Give It Up” and “Blurred Lines” may sound similar, but so does every pop song!

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Meghan Trainor’s Contradictory Messages


Meghan Trainor’s recent single “Dear Future Husband” has sparked a minor outbreak across the internet; people are ranting about the fact that the song (and the song’s music video) are deeply sexist. The song has a few lines that made me raise my eyebrows, but there was also some pro-feminist language in there. To give an example of the former, here is a short clip of Trainor in her new music video:



In case you couldn't catch the lyrics, she is singing "cause if you treat me right, I’ll be the perfect wife, buyin’ groceries, buy, buy what you need” while cleaning the kitchen floor. Trainor is essentially giving us a definition of the “perfect wife,” and in 6 seconds has managed to reduce women down to the person who does the shopping and the cleaning in the house. Her definition of a perfect wife seems to be all about pleasing her husband. The music video seems to be reminiscent of the 1950’s, with the costumes and the set, but the actual lyrics sound about as sexist as many people were in those days. The story her song is laying out is heteronormative and only reinforces gender roles. However, the line directly after this one was one that was pretty clearly trying to break gender stereotypes…



Trainor uses the phrase “9 to 5” and claims that both she and her husband will be in the workforce, and that he shouldn’t expect her to be cooking for him. This showed more empowerment of women, that the perfect wife is not defined by whether or not she’s at home baking pies all day. But then why did she just give us this basically opposite idea 1 second before, with her very retro definition of what it means to be the perfect wife?

This isn't the first time it's been unclear to me whether Trainor is trying to promote feminism or not. In her song "All About That Bass," she offered even more contradictory lines, saying "don't worry about your size" and "every inch of you is perfect from the bottom to the top" but then proceeds to talk about "skinny bitches." So is the song really about accepting yourself and loving your body? Or is she really just putting down all body types in her attempt to celebrate one? If Trainor is aiming to empower women, she might need to take a better look at her lyric choices.

Saturday, March 14, 2015

The Shocking SAE Chant

While watching a Daily Show clip regarding the recent SAE University of Oklahoma fraternity chant scandal, I was in awe when I saw some of the media's reactions. A video was recently leaked of a chant that SAE fraternity members at University of Oklahoma were singing. The chant describes their rush policy, and goes, "You can hang them from a tree, but they will never sign with me. There will never be a n***** SAE."

The chant was so shocking to me; it brings into question just how far we really have come from the racism that existed about 100 years ago. The chanters refer to the atrocious, primitive times of racial terror lynchings that went on, saying you "can hang them from a tree." I found this word "can" to be a particularly unpleasant. The chant is implying that you (as a white male SAE member) are not only capable, but are being permitted to hang a black person. This chant is unbelievably backwards.

While some media coverage has called the video "racist" and "disgusting," there are a lot of commenters who think otherwise. USA Today broadcasters blamed the situation on "hip-hop," since the listeners hear this word over and over, will obviously start repeating it. Not true. This is one of the most naive and ignorant conclusions to draw, that racism today is a product of the music we listen to... Here's a clip of John Stewart's reaction to this.



There is just no excuse for the racism that is going on here. When the leader of the chant finally apologized for the incident, he said that "alcohol" had something to do with his decision-making that night, which I still feel is an entirely unreasonable excuse. The chant wasn't made up on the spot. So whether or not alcohol was hindering the chanter's judgement, these racist words existed before the incident, but this was the first time it was brought to the public's attention.

This whole situation is also relating to what we've been talking about regarding who is "allowed" to say the "N" word, and I think it was certainly inappropriate in this case because not only are the chanters saying this word, but the actual intent and message they're getting across is that they will never allow black people to join SAE, and that they condone the atrocities that occurred during the racial terror lynchings. And the media making excuses for this indisputable racism is only furthering the problem. This is the kind of backwards thinking that is pushing America in the opposite direction it needs to be going.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Disney Princess's Impossible Proportions

While scrolling through Buzzfeed, I found a picture that made stop and take a second glance. The article was entitled "Pop Princesses Photoshopped To Have Disney Princess Proportions." This is what singer Taylor Swift would look like if she had the same body proportions as a Disney animated princess.




















As you can see, a real-life person looks laughable with these proportions. Her waist is basically the same size as her neck and her eyes look about the size of tennis balls. After I got over how ridiculous she looked, I started to think about the implication this has. These animated princesses are drawn so unrealistically and it's sending the wrong message. I thought Barbie proportions were bad, but these princesses are on a whole different level.

What young, impressionable kids are seeing on screen really does impact them later on. It has an influence on beauty stereotypes they'll grow up thinking, because their favorite Disney princess has an impossibly thin waist, toothpick legs and arms, and gigantic eyes. Parents are feeding their children these beauty standards without even realizing it.

And we don't really see the same thing with men. The Guardian had an interesting article about this topic regarding male love interests in Disney animated films, saying they "may have puffed-up chests and broad shoulders, but their proportions are at least feasible. Half the male Olympic swimmers could pass for Disney princes." It might be a little more understandable if characters were all being drawn so exaggerated, but it's only the women! It seems like men's bodies are being exaggerated with the large muscles and broader shoulders, while women characters are exaggerated by being made extra meager and small.

Why are these princesses being drawn like this? Is Disney afraid if they put a princess on screen who has a normal woman's body proportions that the kids won't enjoy the movie? It seems like a terribly easy fix. Disney has the power to influence kids, and they could use this power in a really good way (like drawing princesses who have a healthy person's waistline), but they're using it to do the opposite. They're enforcing these impossible beauty standards when it seems so easy to just draw a princess with a waist a few inches thicker.

Sunday, February 15, 2015

73 Years of Lynchings

          The Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery, Alabama recently released a report that uncovered the astonishing number of victims of "racial terror lynchings" from 1877 to 1950 in 12 Southern States. The number: 3,959. 
          
          It’s such an astounding number and seems even more appalling to me once I learned there are only a few markers acknowledging lynching sites in the U.S. We need to make more of an effort to acknowledge and attempt to make reparations for the horrors that took place in this country at that time. I think learning the actual number of victims will push us in the right direction.

          The timing of the release is also interesting. The report being released in February (Black History Month) I’m guessing was no coincidence. Maybe this report was released at the time when most people would be in the right mindset to hear it, and perhaps take action to do something.

          Bryan Stevenson, founder of the Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery, Alabama, says that the lynchings “were not about administering popular justice, but terrorizing a community." I believe what he is saying has a lot of truth to it, not just relating to the lynchings, but a larger theme: using fear (terror) to show who is in control in a society. Stevenson says these lynchings were really about executing people for violating the racial hierarchy.” Speaking to someone the wrong way could mean life or death for African Americans at this time. It wasn't about whether they really committed a crime or not; it was about white supremacy. 

This is so similar to Arthur Miller's The Crucible, with people being lynched if they were suspected of going against authority. In times of fear and change, a lot of people felt they needed power and this was their way of showing which race was in control. 

I hope more actions are taken in an attempt to make people more aware of these tragic times. They can serve as a reminder of what we need to work on as a nation.

Monday, February 2, 2015

The Measles Vaccine: Personal Beliefs versus Science

A recent outbreak of measles has many worried. We thought the disease was essentially gone; but it is making a fast comeback, with over 600 cases in the U.S. in the last year. So why are so many choosing not to vaccinate their children? People are led to be afraid of vaccines. In a video on the New York Times website, they beg the question: how did we get to a point where personal beliefs can triumph over science?

Some believe that vaccines cause autism, a claim that actress Jenny McCarthy has been a part of making popular. She claims her son became autistic as a result of the vaccination. Her proof, her “science” as she says in an interview with Oprah, is her son. But we can’t take these stories and accept them as scientific proof. And we tend to do this a lot when we’re talking about celebrities. 



About 94% of the population must be vaccinated in order to keep measles from spreading. We need to keep in mind the affects disease has when it spreads. Though some think it is a personal choice not to vaccinate their child, they really are in danger of harming the larger population by allowing it to be spread.

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

A New James Bond

A Sony email was recently leaked suggesting that Idris Elba, a black actor, was up for the role of James Bond. 

This sparked some controversy. Rush Limbaugh went on a rant against the idea of a non-white Bond, saying, "James Bond is a total concept put together by Ian Fleming. He was white and Scottish. Period. That is who James Bond is."  He later says, in frustration, "We have 50 years of white Bonds because Bond is white!" And while the actors in the past who have played Bond have all been white, not all have been of Scottish decent, so it why does it matter if the actor has a different color skin?

Limbaugh also went on to say that Elba playing the role of James Bond would be like if George Clooney and Kate Hudson were cast as President Obama and Michelle Obama. This is an absurd thing to say; James Bond is a fictional character. Actors cast for these fictional characters can be anyone; it's a creative decision made by the director.  

Private Eye, a satirical magazine (sort of like a U.K. version of The Onion), published this spoof letter about the suggestion that Elba may play James Bond. Viewers can sit and watch all of Bond’s crazy endeavors (like defeating an army while only being armed with a pencil), and find them believable. But if a man with a different color skin were to play the role of Bond, it would be ludicrous?



This would be a great step if Idris Elba was cast as James Bond because it would show that you can replace a cast member with one of different ethnicity and it would still be the same story. It’s the same concept as the remake of Annie, with two African-American actors cast as Annie and Will Stacks (main characters in the movie). Minorities should be given more of these lead roles. We need to see more diversity on the screen.

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

The “Token” Black in Sitcoms

When I told my brother about what we were learning about in class (TV Tokenism), he immediately thought of this character on South Park. He is an African-American character named “Token Black,” with a big “T” on his shirt reminding viewers he’s there to be the token black. While I don’t watch the show, many high schoolers watch or have heard of the show South Park,  an animated adult sitcom. I have only seen about an episode's worth my entire life, but I do remember one scene specifically where Token Black is made fun of for having expensive clothes, or being the "best dressed minority" as we discussed in class.


 We saw a clip in class of the show 30 Rock, which had this same idea of the making it clear the black character “Toofer” was there to be a token black character.  Sitcoms often use stereotypes that we are familiar with to make us laugh. One of the sitcoms I do watch, Modern Family, has made quite a few of these exaggerated stereotype jokes about Asians specifically, for example being bad at driving. I was laughing when I watched that scene, but my little sister wasn't, and asked me to explain it to her. She hasn't been as exposed to stereotypes, so the joke went over her head. 

I wonder if by using this as material for comedy it shows progression or not. We find them funny because they’re so exaggerated, but is it just further enforcing these stereotypes? If we’re laughing at them does that make them okay?

Monday, January 12, 2015

Where Are All the Female Directors?

On Sunday, many of us sat down and watched the Golden Globes. The nominees for best director had me thinking a little bit. Here were the nominees:


Last year, the nominees were the following movies:


I noticed a trend (almost all men). I never really noticed before that I scarcely ever saw a woman in this category. It seemed normal to me that a man was a director. Though Ava DuVernay did not win best director, it certainly sparked my attention when she was nominated. Why don’t we see more women directing these critically-acclaimed films just as much as men?

I started doing some research, and found an interesting article about women in the directing business. The researcher Martha M. Lauzen, executive director of the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film, found that in 2013, female characters made up just 15 percent of protagonists and 30 percent of all speaking characters in the top 100 grossing movies. Female directors generally direct more movies about women than male directors do, but they need the means to do so. It becomes a vicious cycle where a woman can’t get hired because of her lacking credentials, and then as a result is unable to build her resumé, meaning less women in this field. Women can’t prove they are equally qualified for the job if they aren’t given the opportunity in the first place. We need to diversify the voice that tells us stories in America. If the people making decisions about movies continues to be all male, we’re only getting one angle. Something has to be done about diversifying the directing industry.