darbydeford-blog

[darbydeford-blog]

The Power and Problem with Satire

Today I will be discussing the queen and king of satirical comedy; Tina Fey and Bo Burnham. As the typical millennial who loves dark comedy that also has a point, I’ll be the first to say that I think these two are total geniuses who get their points across very well, at least to me. There are many who search for truths in this comedy, so people just end up thinking they are really terrible people. One extremely relevant example of this is Fey’s “Let Us Eat Cake” Saturday Night Live skit.

In the skit, Fey expresses her disdain about alt-right rallies happening at her alma mater, the University of Virginia. She then offers a solution which you think might be profound and meaningful, but instead she recommends supporting a Jewish or African American run bakery, ordering a cake with the American flag, and scarfing it down. She goes on a full-blown rant about the issues with our country and the lack of justice while continuing to eat the cake, while her co-hosts are confused as to how this will help. I caught the point right away; that many people, instead of going out there and fighting for the problems we have, would rather stay home and eat their feelings, yet still complain about the state we are in. However, several missed the point, or perhaps just decided to criticize the sketch because they disagree with Fey. Nina Metz brings attention to this issue in her article, “When political satire — whoops! — reinforces ideas it means to skewer.” Metz believes that satire is a little bit tricky and the stakes are high to get it just right, especially when expressing a political opinion. She dig deep in the meaning of the piece: “Was Fey being ironic — subtly jabbing at white women desperate for an excuse to retreat at the first sign of bigots marching in the street? Was it observational humor with Fey, stuffing her face with carbs, as the punchline? Was it some kind of half-baked Marie Antoinette allusion” (Metz 2017). I believe it was all of the above; that was the genius of it. Fey has a huge platform, and she uses slapstick humor to get her audience interested (making fun of Donald Trump’s name, making a mess with the cake, etc.), then uses sarcasm and “ranting” to make her point known. Metz disagrees with me, saying that the piece failed if Fey was trying to incite change. She even argues that the piece was not even satire because it was unclear what she was satirizing. Her argument is that people who agree with Fey find it to be satirical, and people who disagree find it to be real and offensive to them (Metz 2017). I agree with Metz, however I don’t believe the piece is targeted at changing the minds of conservatives; obviously it would take more than a six-minute comedy sketch to do so. It rather encourages those who do agree with her to take a stand against the issue and fight for what is right. In this way, I think it 100% succeeds. Of course, this was not the first time Fey had altered the public’s opinion about something political. Megan Garber tells of other instances Fey had this effect in “ 'Let Us Eat Cake': The Tina Fey Effect in 2017.” Garber recalls the time of the 2008 election, when Obama and Biden were running against McCain and Palin, and Fey portrayed Palin several times on SNL. Researchers found that her sketch had actually skewed the general public opinion of Palin. They dubbed the phenomenon “The Fey Effect.” Garber interprets the cake as a metaphor for the frustration people feel when hate groups are authenticated and welcomed. She also highlighted a few red flags in the sketch, particularly about race, making a joke about drag queens being 6′4″ black men, and emphasizing that the reason she sat next to the white costar is that it showed the better half of her face. She also criticizes SNL for being too “introverted,” and possibly holding Fey back from making her piece more impactful (Garber 2017). However, by the end of the article, I could not tell where Garber stood, or whether the piece had any impact on her. I agreed with much of what Garber was saying; the joke about the drag queen was a tad insensitive. I think the other joke, though, set a good stage for what was to come. Overall, I understood Fey to a T, and it absolutely motivated me to take action. Although I understood it, it was a bit abstract and complex satirical piece, unlike the satire presented by comedian Bo Burnham. Burnham has a very similar “Fey Effect,” in the way that he has gotten a lot of people talking about ridiculous societal issues. Before he was a comedian, Burnham climbed to fame with his comedic and musical pieces on Youtube and Vine. You might remember this gem...

So, when Burnham began to do stand-up, he already had a loyal fan base and a pretty substantial platform. He knew right away that his work would be featured on Netflix and beyond, so he stepped up his game in his standup, doing almost exclusively satirical work. One of his most famous satirical, comedic songs appeared in his sketch “what,” called “Repeat Stuff.”

The song and music video is incredibly and obviously satirical, where Bo calls out the pop music industry for pouring out the same old drivel every day in a purely capitalistic way. What they have been doing is not art, but rather a money-making scheme focused on the insecurities of young girls. Danielle Handel praises “Repeat Stuff” in “Comedian Bo Burnham Calls Out Pop Music Artists.” Handel gets Bo’s angle, posing as this “extremely arrogant, unapologetically privileged ‘asshole’” who is proud of his white male heterosexuality. She explains that Bo’s comedy is very visual and artistic, as was Fey’s piece. She ends her article with her opinion that Bo is very feminist, in that he is again calling out the industry for targeting girls with songs produced and performed by men. As do I, Handel thinks Bo is a genius in his hilarious work having such a good point to it (Handel 2018). Burnham calls out other musical genres with similar issues, such as hip-hop, with his song, “Oh Bo:”

In this satirical tune, Bo takes on the persona of a stereotypical misogynistic “gangsta rapper” who objectifies women, but still pretends to be the good guy by saying he is doing it for his family still “in the streets.” The video is particularly genius, as it portrays Bo’s persona as faux feminist, when he holds up a slapstick/satirical cardboard sign that says “Yay Feminism” when a girl is dancing around shirtless. He also uses a slapstick method of extremely stereotypical yet ridiculous depictions of a night club, people binge drinking, and hypersexualization of women. Obviously, more feminist and intersectional overtones are seen in this song, as Bo is calling out hip hop artists for not seeing the big picture in their work and being incredibly hypocritical by saying they are doing all that they do for less fortunate people. Here is yet another example of satire from Bo, calling out the country music industry:

In this country parody, Bo personifies a rich country music star who is incredibly well-to-do, but sings about a simple country life to appeal to fans. He is, again, calling out the hypocrisy of country music, and the fact that the concept has been done to death. He also underlies it with feminism, saying, “I’m hoping my southern charm offsets all these rape-y vibes I’m puttin’ out,” showcasing the misogyny in yet another music industry. These are just a few examples of the satirical works Bo puts out there. Although they are much more obvious than “Let Us Eat Cake,” it still has a goal of inciting change. These two examples lead me to believe that this is the goal of most satire, and I am grateful for artists like Tina Fey and Bo Burnham who carefully use their platforms to comedic-ly make people think.

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/08/let-us-eat-cake/537294/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/tv/ct-ent-political-satire-tina-fey-20170822-story.html

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/10-things-that-have-made-me-cry-for-no-reason

[darbydeford-blog]

Beyonce: Intersectional or not?

For many, Beyonce’s “Formation” felt incredibly empowering for the black community. Beyonce has always been adamant about identifying as a feminist, and many believe she is the poster child for intersectionality. However, there has been quite a bit of analysis as to whether what Beyonce portrays is truly progressive intersectionality, or only for capitalism. Marla H. Kohlman addresses a few reasons why she is very intersectional in her article, “Beyonce as Intersectional Icon?” Kohlman begins her article by describing old black stereotypes in the time of slavery: jezebel and mammy. Jezebel refers to young, attractive slaves who had lots of sex appeal and often had affairs with their owners, while mammy refers to the older, often overweight woman who was loyal and happy to raise children (Kohlman; “The Beyonce Effect” p28-30). Usually, there was no in-between of how black people were portrayed during this time. However, Beyonce presents herself in very complex ways, “as a performer, a lover, a mother, a daughter, a wife, a scribe, and an actress” (Kohlman; “The Beyonce Effect” p35). She gets quite a bit of backlash from this, but by being who she is, she is rejecting respectability politics and living however the hell she wants to live. She truly shows all she is to her fans and connects with them, and that, to Kohlman, is why she is so intersectional, as she says, “She has not transcended race, gender, or sexuality; she has purposefully made them an intrinsic element of her audience’s engagement with her” (Kohlman; “The Beyonce Effect” p36). This is a good argument by Kohlman, however her article was written before the phenomenon that is Beyonce’s “Formation,” where she showed her pride for being a black woman like never before. Not everyone thought her message in “Formation” was good, however, and some even see it as problematic and far from intersectional. Yaba Blay has very strong feelings against “Formation,” as she explains in, “On 'Jackson Five Nostrils,'  Creole vs. 'Negro' and Beefing Over Beyoncé's 'Formation.'” Blay is from New Orleans, so she said that first she was first very excited that the video depicted New Orleans, and was very prideful of her roots. However, in further examining the lyrics, she found it troubling that Beyonce separates “negro” and “creole” in her lyrics. She explains that in New Orleans growing up, light-skinned black people who identified as “creole” acted far superior to darker-skinned people. I found it interesting that Blay did not say it was a different race or culture, but rather just a different “phenotype,” implying that all that is really different is how they look. She told of a couple personal testimonies of people being shunned by their own families for being too dark-skinned, and her main point was that this was a realm of internalized racism in an already-marginalized community (Blay 2016). I found this incredibly intriguing; there is so much on the media about racism between white people and black people, but it is so much deeper than that. I am really glad this was brought to my attention, because it is not something that most people are aware of since they have not experienced it. In this way, especially having roots in New Orleans, Beyonce seems to be insensitive; perhaps she is intersectional at the surface, but within her own community, perhaps she only sees one side of it. Many would even argue that one cannot be a feminist without being intersectional, so is Beyonce truly a feminist? Tia C. M. Tyree and Melvin L. Williams examine this in their article, “Flawless Feminism or Falliable Freak?” They address several ways that Beyonce could and could not be considered a feminist. One of their largest arguments against Beyonce being a feminist is that several of her songs are centered around sex and love, and that Beyonce feels that she has to “[get] naked to get heard” (Tyree and Williams; “The Beyonce Effect” p127). They also do a few analyses on Beyonce’s songs and albums, finding that most of her songs depict black stereotypes and sexual scripts. They also examined her songs for male vs female traits, and found that they were fairly even. This also suggests that Beyonce’s priorities are not intact in terms of what she is writing about (Tyree and Williams; “The Beyonce Effect” p131-136). However, they also admit that Beyonce is a large advocate of “Girl Power...a concept that teaches girls can do, be, and have anything they want.” Beyonce is widely known as a role model for young women, black and white, and someone who promotes empowerment (Tyree and Williams; “The Beyonce Effect“ p127). I am not sure I can really understand most of the arguments, as their methods for analysis are purely opinionated. There is no way to discern facts from their analyses, that there are clearly defined male and female traits and themes of love, sex, intelligence, etc. They could have gone about it a different way, like maybe how many times the word “love” or “girl/woman” was used in a song and in what context. I would be much more inclined to address their arguments further if they had any true scientific meaning. However, they do have a point about Beyonce focusing on sex quite a bit, however I don’t believe a sex-positive attitude is anti-feminist (as bell hooks might...). I do believe that her impact on young girls’ confidence is important, and the way she portrays herself to them is very feminist. Again, this article came out before “Formation” and the visual album “Lemonade,” so perhaps the traits would favor another direction had they been included in the analysis. Over all, although Beyonce has a lot to learn from people even more ingrained in intersectionality, I think she is trying her best and being herself, which is all anyone can ask for. She uses her platform for important issues and empowerment, so all in all, she is a very intersectional feminist.

“The Beyonce Effect”

https://www.colorlines.com/articles/jackson-five-nostrils-creole-vs-negro-and-beefing-over-beyonces-formation

[darbydeford-blog]

Postfeminism: Bringing us together or tearing us apart?

There are so many different definitions and realms of feminism, and so many people identify as a feminist for very different reasons. There is liberal, radical, socialist, cultural, and eco-feminism (Pant 2015), and just as there is intersectionality between feminism and other marginalized groups, there should, too, be intersectionality between all realms of feminism. It is often difficult for me, as a financially challenged woman in college to imagine a rich, celebrity-woman struggling just as I am in some ways. Kimberly Springer brings light to this phenomenon in her article, “Celebrity Feminists Have Problems, Too! Or, #FirstWorldCelebrityFeministProblems.” She tell a story of television star Lena Dunham feeling that she was being snubbed by a football player because she was presumed “unfuckable,” but later apologized for being so presumptuous and trying to over-analyze things with a feminist lens. Springer applauds Dunham, telling how important it is to admit fault, knowing that no feminist is perfect. Springer speaks well, saying, “[W]e’re all still in this feminist tugboat together. The tugboat might still have seating divided by physical ability, race, class, sexuality, and gender, but it’s the same boat” (Springer 2018). It’s always good to consider that although some women have more or less privilege than you, we are all fighting the same fight. Intersectionality should not divide us, but should create a space where everyone’s experience can be known. Of course, everyone has good intentions when it comes to feminism, but how does postfeminism come into play? I had never heard this term until taking this class, but postfeminism has a few different interpretations and definitions, just as feminism does. Many believe it is anti-feminism, or belief that feminism is no longer relevant, and others believe that it is the next stage of feminism, or what is happening beyond the 1970s movement (Wordpress 2010). Jess Butler, in her article, “For White Girls Only?: Postfeminism and the Politics of Inclusion,” implies that people who are postfeminists often think of feminism as a stereotype, saying, “Americans have at least a vague idea about a women’s movement that took place...during the 1960s and ’70s led by women who...were tired of being obedient housewives, so they decided to get jobs and stop shaving their armpits” (Butler 2018, p5). Today, when I think of a very empowered woman, I can think of anything from a stay-at-home mom taking her kids to practice and cooking nutritious meals, to a surgeon working 60 hours a week to save lives. I rarely picture a woman burning her bra and proudly displaying her hairy armpits. In this way, it almost makes sense that people are postfeminists if they believe that this is all that feminism is. The question is, though, is postfeminism feminism in any sense? In a way, I believe it is, because I’m sure that postfeminists still believe in equality of the sexes, the most basic definition of feminism. However, Butler believes that the societal definition of postfeminism is quite separate from feminism. From her research, she provides three terms to describe postfeminism: linear, backlash, and sex-positive. She explains that feminism has never been something that is linear, as we can see from all the different realms, so it is silly to think a so-called branch of feminism would be. Also, since postfeminists tend to believe that feminism is sex-negative, which is the stereotype, they might think that they are very separate. However, this really is not the case for the majority of the realms of feminism. Butler also has an issue with the “backlash” part of the definition, because postfeminism is really a mixture of feminism and anti-feminism, so there is not 100% backlash against feminism (Butler 2018, p10). Overall, I don’t agree with postfeminism at all, and I truly believe that if there was more education on what feminism looks like today, rather than just what it looked like in Susan B. Anthony’s days, many postfeminists would rather adopt the feminist identity. There should also be more education on the ways that people are not equal today, and how we need to take charge and change that. As Dr. Butler said in class, part of being a feminist is taking actual action, not just having certain beliefs (paraphrasing). Although postfeminism isn’t directly problematic, it is not productive, since these people will never feel that they need to take action. In this way, postfeminism is not a branch of feminism like the aforementioned ones are.

https://moodle.butler.edu/pluginfile.php/1162536/mod_resource/content/1/For%20White%20Girls%20Only%3F%20Postfeminism%20and%20the%20Politics%20of%20Inclusion.pdf

https://moodle.butler.edu/pluginfile.php/1153532/mod_resource/content/1/Springer%20Celebrity%20Feminists%20Have%20Problems%20Too.pdf

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-different-types-of-feminism

https://postfeminist.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/so-what-is-postfeminism-anyway/

[darbydeford-blog]

Using your platform for evil, not good

Being a celebrity is a bit of a complicated concept; your name, face, art, and perceived personality is splattered across the media. One day you’re getting good attention, one day someone is disgusted with your art. One day you have fans making Twitter accounts just for your fan base, one day #ihatesoandso is trending. Then you have to decide how much of yourself you are willing to share with the media; are you going to plaster your life story on Instagram? Are you going to share intimate parts of yourself with the public, like family and personal woes? Are you going to share your opinion with the world, risking being shunned by all that don’t agree with you? Some celebrities decide to mostly stay out of the media and keep their family out as well, like Beyonce. On the contrary, some want to document every minute of their lives on television or social media, like the Kardashians. One that toes with this line quite a bit is Taylor Swift. It seems she is always in the media for whatever reason; a new album, an award nomination, or, more frequently, a fight with another celebrity. Since her younger days is a mainly country artist, it has seemed that her songs are generally directed at those who she thinks have wronged her. Not only that, but she openly picks fights on social media with other celebrities, not always for good reason. For years, Swift has gained fame and publicity by “playing the victim.” Ellie Woodward tells the story of Swift victimizing herself over the years in the appropriately named article, “How Taylor Swift Played The Victim For A Decade And Made Her Entire Career.” Of course, Woodward summarizes the iconic Swift vs. Kanye West fight, in which Swift agreed to let West use her as a lyric, but after hearing the admittedly misogynistic song, she claimed she told West not to release it. However, Woodward claims that, “Taylor Swift's embrace of victimhood doesn't begin and end with Kanye West – it can be traced back to the start of her decade-long career in both her music and her relationship with the media” (Woodward 2017). She highlights the fact that Swift is notorious for writing songs about love and heartache, and how she usually appeals to pre-teen girls with this approach. All of her songs at the beginning depicted her as a victim of a bad boyfriend or a sexualized other girl stealing her boyfriend. This was her first self-depiction of the victim. That led her to calling out an ex-boyfriend on Saturday Night Live, writing a song about the woman who allegedly stole him from her, and writing countless other songs about exes, sometimes multiple songs about one ex. She even mentioned these instances in interviews, so there is no doubt that they were all very intentional (Woodward 2017). Not only has she been known to play the victim, but she has been known to be very insensitive in the portrayal of marginalized groups in her work. In her “Wildest Dreams” music video, Swift paints a picture of her as a star in a movie who falls in love with her costar. Pretty typical, right? Only she decided to set the fiction movie in colonial Africa, and there were ZERO African people on the set of the movie, or in the music video in general. Two native Africans wrote an opinion piece about the video, explaining their feelings by saying, “Swift's music is entertaining for many...But she packages our continent as the backdrop for her romantic songs devoid of any African person or storyline, and she sets the video in a time when the people depicted by Swift and her co-stars killed, dehumanized and traumatized millions of Africans” (Rutabingwa and Arinaitwe 2015). Rather than coming out and saying they apologized for being unintentionally insensitive, the producers of the video defended themselves, saying there were many black people who helped with the video behind the scenes, and they donated a large amount of the proceeds from the video to an African wildlife fund (Reuters and DailyMail 2015). My question, though, is where are the people?? Why give to wildlife and not people? Why show off wildlife in the video and not PEOPLE? It is very interesting how defensive she and her producers got about being accused of racism, and this was not the first time Swift felt defensive about this topic. Who can forget the iconic feud Swift had with Nicki Minaj in 2015? It all started with Minaj calling out the music industry for favoring white and thin bodies when her “Anaconda” music video didn’t receive a nomination for an MTV Video Music Award. Then Swift, always feeling like a victim, replies to Minaj, saying, “I've done nothing but love & support you. It's unlike you to pit women against each other. Maybe one of the men took your slot..” Minaj expresses confusion for this response, as she never directly called Taylor out, but rather the music industry in general for always favoring a certain type of video. Minaj encouraged Taylor to speak about systemic racism within the industry. Swift ignores this suggestion, and instead invites Minaj to come up on stage with her if she wins (a bit of a slap in the face in my opinion). Minaj continues to defend herself, while Taylor stays silent until the next day when she apologizes for misunderstanding (Lipshutz 2015). Then, a little over a month later, she comes out with the “Wildest Dreams” video. Never once has Taylor taken a step back and thought she might be being insensitive to those who don’t look like her. What bothers me the most is that, rather than using her incredibly large platform to say something important, she uses it to pick fights and throw herself a pity party. On the other hand, celebrities like Minaj use their platforms to bring awareness to important issues. In fact, Taylor has never even denounced the neo-Nazis who call her their “Aryan Goddess” (Schaefer 2016). For always being the type of person to call people out when there is even a hint that they are making her look bad, she has not said/tweeted a word to claim that she is not a Nazi. This is not even “being political;” the alt-right has nothing to do with politics, they are a radical hate group. All in all, I believe Taylor Swift evokes so much negativity in the media, and much of her work has disturbing undertones. With all of this adding up, she is not the type of person I would want on my playlist. Taylor, do better. I promise your net number of fans will increase if you be a little more progressive. I’m sure you will lose the neo-Nazis, but everyone wants to lose them.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/elliewoodward/how-taylor-swift-played-the-victim-and-made-her-entire-caree?utm_term=.bdXDqwaL5#.emmDG8eWk

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/09/01/436653602/taylor-swift-is-dreaming-of-a-very-white-africa

https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop-shop/6641794/taylor-swift-nicki-minaj-twitter-argument-timeline

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3220221/It-s-not-colonialism-love-story-Director-Taylor-Swift-s-Wildest-Dreams-music-video-comes-defense-critics-accused-pop-star-glamorizing-white-colonial-fantasy.html

https://forward.com/schmooze/341427/neo-nazis-salute-aryan-goddess-taylor-swift/

[darbydeford-blog]

“Jane the Virgin” and everything it stands for is incredible

Society has an issue with media representation in several aspects. So far in my feminism course, we have discussed lack of black women, specifically those of darker skin tones, and the LGBTQ+ community. I also hear quite often a lack of black representation in general in the media, but one thing that is not as often discussed is Latino representation in the media. “Jane the Virgin” star Gina Rodriguez has quite a bit to say about representation, and her platform has gotten larger and larger with the growing popularity of the show. She has constantly been advocating for representation of Latinos, and her co-stars make a point to advocate for other important causes. In an article she posted to “Variety” magazine, she explains, “To be seen and heard is a simple human need. To be invisible in a world of loud voices is heartbreaking and dehumanizing. The under-representation of Latinos in Hollywood both on and off screen is not just a feeling; it’s a sad reality” (Rodriguez 2018). To me, it is very different and far more impactful to hear this statement from an actual Latina actress, than just from someone on the outside noticing low representation. She pours her heart out in saying how ridiculous it feels to be underrepresented so much, and she explains in great detail why it would be a good idea to represent her community more. In Rodriguez’s words, “Latinos are not only prominent and loyal in the consumer market but also make up one of the largest demographics at the box office every opening weekend. The fact that we are not seen on screen despite our vast contributions is devastating” (Rodriguez 2018). Again, we get back to the point that equal representation benefits everyone, as consumers will see more of themselves on screen, so producers will make a lot more money off of them. She also explains the importance of not feeling invisible, especially to young people. She calls on producers to do more to show everyone. This article is a fantastic example of someone using his or her platform to say something important. More famous people should follow her lead and advocate for something meaningful, and something they are passionate about, rather than just looking to make money off of everything. Rodriguez is not the only star of this show going out and taking a stand. Her co-star Justin Baldoni heavily advocates against toxic masculinity, and tour colleges all over the country talking to young men about how to respect women, especially with the normalization of rape culture on college campuses. In his recent Ted Talk about the toxicity of cultural masculinity, Baldoni states, “I have no desire to fit into the current broken definition of masculinity, because I don’t just want to be a good man, I want to be a good human. [I] believe the only way that can happen is if men learn to not only embrace the qualities that we were told are feminine in ourselves but to be willing to stand up, to champion and learn from the women who embody them.” (Baldoni 2017). He also posts multiple videos and statements on social media of men who have pledged to resist toxic masculinity and are now planning to add this to bylaws of fraternities after he has spoken with them. I have personally never seen “Jane the Virgin,” but now I want to just because I respect the performers so much. See how being a good person can affect your sales and popularity?

http://variety.com/2018/film/opinion/gina-rodriguez-latin-representation-1202675338/

[darbydeford-blog]

Importance of Representation and Recognition

https://www.colorlines.com/articles/janet-mock-talks-transgender-sisterhood-visibility-and-girlslikeus

[darbydeford-blog]

What is beautiful?

Beauty: “the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest)” (dictionary.com).  Even the definition implies that it is in the eye of the beholder. So many different traits and aspects of life can be considered beautiful by so many people, so why oh why does society so narrowly define beauty for women? Alicia Keys describes her frustration with this issue in her 2016 article, “Time to Uncover.” Keys explains that, from a young age she has been criticized for not being society’s definition of perfect. In junior high, they used to assume she was a lesbian just because of how tough she was. She explained that she was raised in New York, so was brought up to be tough, and that is a big part of who she is. Now, as a celebrity, she is constantly under media scrutiny, and is often paranoid when she goes out in public looking less than perfect, fearful that someone will post an unflattering photo of her on a media outlet. She describes the instance when she broke free from that mindset, when her photographer wanted to capture a photo of her for an album while she was wearing no makeup and had just come from the gym.

She was uneasy about the idea at first, but felt more empowered and beautiful than ever by just showing her true self. Keys ends the article by saying, “I don't want to cover up anymore. Not my face, not my mind, not my soul, not my thoughts, not my dreams, not my struggles, not my emotional growth. Nothing” (Keys 2016). This is a very interesting mindset; Keys essentially compares women being held back by beauty standards to women being held back in general. Of course it is easy to notice beauty standards in magazines and commercials within pop culture, but to notice how it relates to holding back women’s thoughts, dreams, minds, souls, struggles, and emotional growth, we will have to delve a little deeper. Naomi Wolf describes this correlation in “The Beauty Myth.” Wolf seems to agree with Keys verbatim, saying, “We are in the midst of a violent backlash against feminism that uses images of female beauty as a political weapon against women’s advancement: the beauty myth” (Wolf 2). Wolf argues that beauty is used to hold women back in more ways than just confidence. She explains how the beauty standard for the “ideal woman” hasn’t changed all that much from back when women didn’t even have voting rights up to the present (or 1991 in her instance, but still relevant). The ideal woman has always been submissive, desirable, a good mother, tidy, and always looking her best. I am sure all of us have heard real-man Dylan Smith from high school describe his ideal woman this way. Again, this has not changed for several decades. Imagine a woman like a Keys of a Wolf who has high standards for herself and has many dreams she wants to follow. She attends college, is very focused on her work, and is very content, until someone describes her as unfeminine for being so smart and wanting to, perhaps, enter a male-dominated field of work. This woman is taken aback, and does what she can to be desirable. She spends more time getting ready in the mornings, spends more money shopping for the latest trends, and dresses in such a way that she believes she will appear desirable. Because of this, she is spending less time on her studies and focusing more of her energy on gaining the attention of Dylan Smith. Once she does, she feels pressure to be the “ideal wife,” and by doing so, postpones or maybe even gives up her dreams, all in the pursuit of being beautiful for men. This is how the beauty myth can hold women back in life, and would it not be a greater life for everyone if it didn’t exist? We would have better doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, mothers, and fathers. Our entire population would be focused only on what is important in their lives, not what society tells them is important. Everyone should be free to focus on what is meaningful without hearing about all of their faux flaws. But of course, we have a long way to go before correcting that.

https://www.lennyletter.com/story/alicia-keys-time-to-uncover

“The Beauty Myth.” Naomi Wolf, 1991.

[darbydeford-blog]

Running into the same problems

Anyone who has been reading this so far might have caught on to the fact that I did not have such a woke upbringing; that being said, I am learning so much in my Pop Culture/Feminism course, and have been proudly been able to form my opinions along the way. Here is a topic I knew nothing about, even a term I had never heard of, until I got to college: Transgenderism. I have learned quite a bit the last three years about this topic, and have met some amazing people who are transgender, however, I recently read about a struggle within this community: idealization of performers who fit into a very specific physical image, like Ruby Rose. For those of you who don’t know Ruby Rose, she is a gender fluid/androgynous (according to the article) performer who appeared in Orange is the New Black (I just started season 2, I know I’m behind in the times but no spoilers). Also, she is absolutely STUNNING. She’s got the “it” factor sought after by all performers, having male and female features that are unbelievably attractive. Exhibit A:

Because of her unique beauty, she has been on the news quite a bit and had a fair share of thirst tweets written about her. Exhibit B:

However, blogger Sam Dylan Finch argues that it is a problem that so many people are idolizing Ruby Rose, when she is the only face of queerness that some people are aware of (including me). Finch explains that androgyny and queerness comes in all shapes, sizes, and colors, and they are not all tall, skinny, or assigned female at birth. This is now the norm for androgyny, and those who fall outside of it may not feel they are not androgynous, or at least inferior, due to this very rare “ideal image.” Finch says that no androgynous person should try to meet these near-impossible standards, and that more diverse images of androgyny should be represented in the media. He goes so far as to say that Ruby Rose being a big success “should not be considered progress” because she fits the “norm” too well (Finch 2015). While I agree with Finch in that nobody should hold themselves to the standard that society sets, I believe this is an issue in every single community, not just the androgynous one. Women in the media fall under a certain ideal; tall, skinny, young, big boobs, exaggerated femininity (@Jennifer Aniston), and those who don’t fall under that feel inferior when that is the only image portrayed by the media. You could argue this for any group, so this is nothing new. The media in general needs to work on portrayal of realistic body types and images. However, I don’t agree that Ruby Rose being plastered all over the media is not progress for the community. Rose is a diligent advocate for the LGBTQ+ community, and the general obsession of her drives more people to educate themselves about what it means to be a member of this community. One of the first things to come up when you Google Ruby Rose is her famous “Break Free” video:

Again, being from a town where we were taught that homosexuality is a sin, I had no idea about any of this. However, after Rose started appearing on the media, I happened upon this video and it opened up a whole new can of worms in educating myself on several aspects of the LGBTQ+ community. Ironically, if people Google Ruby Rose, Finch’s article might pop up so folks can learn about the toxicity of idolizing Rose, leading to even more education about what the community wants and needs. Although I don’t think Rose speaks for all of this community, she is certainly an important advocate, and one that will hopefully drive others like myself to do their research.

https://letsqueerthingsup.com/2015/06/29/why-we-should-think-twice-before-idealizing-ruby-rose/

[darbydeford-blog]

Anti-Feminism Accusations

Let me made this clear: A woman can do anything and still consider herself a feminist, and it is pretty insulting to accuse her of not being one for petty reasons. If a woman feels empowered by what she does, who are you to tell her it is anti-feminist to do so? Amy Richards highlights “Wannabe” by the Spice Girls, that many people thought was anti-feminist, especially from women referring to themselves as “Posh” and “Baby.” Then, the song was later praised after is was redone for its 20th anniversary, changed to mark what women really want (equality) (Richards 2017). I find it unusual that these women, or even the song, can be considered anti-feminist for such minuscule reasons. To me, the lyrics are anything but anti-feminist, as they suggest that a man has to be held to a certain standard in order to “be my lover.” In contrast, many female hip-hop artists are known to be extremely feminist for simply going against the grain in being a female hip-hop artist. Nicki Minaj is the first that comes to mind, although some might say she is overly-sexualized in the way she presents herself. Some consider this freedom of sexualization feminist itself, and I can understand why. Minaj has been known to show off quite a bit of her body in her performances and even signing female fans’ breasts, saying, “I think boobs are very empowering—and signing them is even more empowering” (Hunter and Cuenca 2017, p28). Some feminists, from a different wave, if you will, might consider this type of highly-expressed sexuality to be anti-feminist. However, I say be empowered by whatever you want to feel empowered by. If your body, your career, your children, your education, or your husband makes you feel empowered, then embrace it! All women are different in this aspect, as are all men. Another rapper who has been in the media quite a bit lately, Cardi B, found her empowerment from stripping and social media before gaining fame as a rapper. Stripping even allowed Cardi B to gain her independence from an abusive relationship, and she is far from ashamed, saying, “People want me to be so full of shame that I used to dance. I would never be ashamed of it. I made a lot of money, I had a good time and it showed me a lot – it made me open my eyes about how people are, how men are, about hunger and passion and ambition” (”The Guardian” 2017). Cardi B should be allowed to feel empowerment from this just as Minaj should about her body, just as Hillary Clinton should about her political career, just as Sister Jean should about being a nun and a die-hard Loyola basketball fan. Why should anyone restrict another woman because of what she is empowered by? Just by being empowered, a woman could consider herself a feminist. By doing what she loves and working hard for it, a woman is fighting the patriarchy. So often we forget that male strippers exist, males who show off their bodies (@Luke Bryan), males who want to be stay-at-home parents, and males can feel the same amount of empowerment from it. That is what feminism is all about: EQUALITY and empowerment. So, rather than worrying about another woman and what she is empowered by, people should work on doing what they love. Even in different realms, we can fight the patriarchy together.

https://moodle.butler.edu/pluginfile.php/1162940/mod_resource/content/1/Nicki%20Minaj%20Changing%20Politics%20of%20Hip%20Hip.pdf

https://moodle.butler.edu/pluginfile.php/1153530/mod_resource/content/1/Short%20Takes.%20Wannabe%20Feminist.%20Ricards.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/dec/01/how-cardi-b-went-from-stripper-to-star

[darbydeford-blog]

The Broad Definition of “Terrorist”

Terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes (Dictionary.com). Well-known terrorists: King Leopold II of Belgium, murdered 8 million indigenous people in the Congo; Saddam Hussein, massacred 600,000 with poison gas and torture; Adolf Hitler, conducted the murder of over 12 million people during WWII (NewsOne); Beyonce? Pop star with hits like “Single Ladies,” “Formation,” and “Halo?” Self-identified feminist and activist? (Are you sure, bell hooks???) Of course, Beyonce’s most recent conversation-starting work is her new visual album “Lemonade.” Many women, black women in particular, felt extremely empowered after watching the video corresponding with the album, I being one of them (not a black woman, just very empowered), although others had some fairly harsh critiques regarding it. Many are basically calling Beyonce a hypocrite for her song “Formation.” Blogger Jeff Guo raises some good points about the hypocrisy surrounding “Formation.” Although Beyonce is finally writing a song about her pride as a black woman, she seems to have some misconceptions regarding her own privilege as a black woman who grew up in a two-parent middle class household. Guo considers Beyonce lucky; of course she worked hard for what she has, but not all who work hard end up in that position. Some lyrics in “Formation” (”I dream it, I work hard, I grind 'til I own it”) imply that hard work is all it takes to get there, when historically that hasn’t been the case. Guo then dials back and again praises Beyonce for her celebration of blackness in “Formation,” but then advises folks to remember the activists who have put themselves at risk so Beyonce can release songs like this (Guo 2016). Another blogger, L. Ashley had a similar critique of Beyonce, looking at whether one can be a feminist and a capitalist at the same time. Ashley believes no, that Beyonce’s art benefits only Beyonce and not the greater population. She also argues that in “Lemonade,” Beyonce is enacting the role of a “stereotypical mad black woman,” as she is smashing things with a bat in the video in response to her husband’s infidelity (Ashley 2016). A similar argument is brought to light by Lee Seymour about the musical “War Paint,” depicting two female entrepreneurs of the cosmetic industry. Lee argues that perhaps these highly-respected businesswomen are not truly feminists because they “built their empires on impossible beauty standards” (Seymour 2017). The musical was ultimately snubbed for many awards although the ratings and attendance were off the charts compared to those of the award-winners. Seymour also argues that Broadway itself is very capitalistic, and therefore not feminist. I can definitely recognize the validity in these two arguments, but I really couldn’t disagree more with each of them. Of course, Beyonce has far more privilege than the average American black woman, but people have been criticizing her for awhile about never recognizing the black community in her art. So then “Formation” comes out, in which she fully embraces her blackness and encourages others to do the same, then people like Guo criticize her for that, saying she does not know the true experience of being a black woman. She really can’t win in this situation, and I would bet she knows a little more about that experience than Jeff Guo does. I see her lyrics not as boasting that she was able to rise above systemic racism, but rather an encouragement for others to work hard for what they are passionate about. I’m certain that Beyonce is aware that in the world we live in, working hard does not always pay off as it should, but that shouldn’t necessarily deter people from working hard and doing what they love. Also, when you watch the “Formation” video, there are many references to things that need to be changed in the black community: the “stop shooting us” graffiti, the fact that it takes place in post-Katrina New Orleans, and her showing-off of her black heritage (”Lemonade” 2016). I would consider her an activist by using her publicity to bring light to these issues. I have a much bigger issue with what Ashley had to say about Beyonce, for the same reason. Just the fact that Beyonce is using her platform to bring light to important things should show how much she cares about feminism. Yes, Beyonce is a capitalist and does things to make money, but one must remember that art is her job; this is how she makes money. Sure, pop stars make way too much money for what they do, but they all make this kind of money and they don’t all use a large platform for good, so they need to give her a little more credit. As with the argument that Beyonce is acting like an “angry black woman,” any man or woman should put herself in the situation of being cheated on and tell me they aren’t angry enough to hit some things with a bat. Of course, that violence is not tolerated in society, but that is a music video expressing emotions, and it does so well. Vlogger Jouelzy I believe best explains the reasons Beyonce gets so much criticism for her art: “Beyonce will forever be polarizing, simply because she is a black woman, a black woman who carefully controls her image, a black woman who is the biggest pop star, if nor celebrity of our time...and while she has transcended to the utmost status of celebrity, she has not transcended or deviated from her roots” (Jouelzy 2016). The capitalism within “War Paint” does not necessarily mean that the two entrepreneurs had bad intentions for their customers. One could even argue that they had more to do with the empowerment of women, as many have pride in make-up as a new form of art. The main idea of “War Paint” is that two immigrant women in the 1920s built a business from scratch; I don’t know of many things that are more feminist than that. It doesn’t depend a whole lot on what the business was. That being said, having such a large platform means that people expect a lot of very specific things from Beyonce, and when the status quo is altered, as it was in “Formation” and the rest of “Lemonade.” So what is bell hooks’ angle when she refers to Beyonce as a terrorist? Most of her angle comes from the fact that Beyonce is comfortable showing her body off in videos and on magazine covers, things that hooks believes are appealing too much to the male gaze. However, hooks decides to look past Beyonce’s website fighting beauty norms and attacking beauty standards in videos. She also decides to ignore all that Beyonce has done in favor of feminism and fighting racism. Her main claims on terrorism were that media is a “major assault on feminism,” and that Beyonce in the media fares badly (Coker 2014). I would argue, though, that young girls are empowered by Beyonce and are encouraged to adopt feminism ideology due to Beyonce’s media presence. I also believe the word “terrorist” directly compares the pop star to Stalin, Bin Laden, and Mao, which is completely exaggerated and uncalled for. Hooks should take some tips from Ashley and Guo in healthy and fair criticism of artists. Everyone can have their opinion, but language as harsh as that does not provide anything constructive. Let’s all agree to disagree, but still all fight the patriarchy together.

http://www.jouelzy.com/2016/02/culture-of-beyonce-formation/

https://jezebel.com/what-bell-hooks-really-means-when-she-calls-beyonce-a-t-1573991834

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/09/the-strange-contradiction-in-beyonces-new-song-formation/?utm_term=.054840775788

“Lemonade” streamed on TIDAL

https://medium.com/@lmart157/beyonc%C3%A9-a-feminist-or-capitalist-2ff225e1c41e

https://newsone.com/1206695/the-worlds-top-10-most-notorious-terrorists-of-all-time/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/leeseymour/2017/06/16/sans-tony-war-paint-asks-tough-questions-on-feminism-capitalism/#56f696285ee6

[darbydeford-blog]

Beloved...terrorist?

For over a decade now, Beyonce has been one of the most beloved musicians/actresses/feminists in the popular culture realm. Even in my very limited knowledge of pop culture, I can see how much people just adore Beyonce, and for good reason. She has always been very straight-forward with her messages within her music, and has always stood up for her beliefs. People respect her immensely for her art, so much so that the FLOTUS Michelle Obama, Serena Williams, and many other famous female icons took time to dress like Beyonce in her Formation music video for her birthday. Certainly, her art has reached and touched a lot of important people. Not everyone is so adoring of Beyonce, however. Famous feminist writer bell hooks went so far as to call Beyonce a terrorist because of her sexualized performances and the so-called damage she is doing to the black community. Annie Lennox describes Beyonce as “Feminist Lite,” saying she is promoting feminism for her own personal gain and that she uses her sexuality too much to really be a feminist (Weidhase 129). But...isn’t this exactly what feminists don’t want to do? Put other women down for how they choose to express themselves? Beyonce clearly cares quite a bit about feminism; most of her songs have underlying feminist themes and she even wrote a piece on gender pay equality for the Shriver Report (Trier-Bieniek 3). You could almost consider Beyonce a feminist writer herself, as her art forms explicitly imply feminist ideology. This is why the statements from feminist writers are so alarming; they are basically attacking another feminist writer. They clearly have very opposite definitions of feminism (another huge dividing issue for the movement, but that is a while different can of worms), and it is okay to disagree, however it is not okay to tear other women down because of their choice of expression. Beyonce has a right to show off her body if she wants to; it’s her art and it is her choice, the same as it was her choice to get married, become a mother, and be a feminist. I believe she provides empowerment to many girls, young and old, mostly just from her songs and rarely from her videos and “sexualized performances.” Her songs have such obvious empowerment, that in my opinion, it is a bit unfair to look at her only for her videos. All in all, Beyonce is a little more than a pop culture icon, and feminist writers should see her more than such, as more of an equal. They can certainly criticize her points of view on feminism if they disagree, but I believe the harsh terms that were used against her can do no good for the feminist community. Beyonce has had a positive impact on many women and is a personal hero to many as well. People should think twice before so viciously attacking someone’s hero.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4851850/Michelle-Obama-recreates-Beyonc-s-Formation-video-pose.html

https://moodle.butler.edu/pluginfile.php/1162547/mod_resource/content/1/Beyonc%20feminism%20and%20the%20contestation%20of%20the%20black%20feminist%20body.pdf

“The Beyonce Effect”-Adrienne Trier-Bieniek (Introduction)

[darbydeford-blog]

Madonna’s Never-Changing Feminism

You can’t think about 1980′s popular culture without thinking of Madonna. You can’t ride in the car with your mom listening the Sirius XM 80′s on 8 without hearing Madonna (and your mom) belting out “Material Girl.” In this generation, hearing that Madonna was very controversial and almost taboo was a bit strange. There are very few songs that clearly depict controversial topics, and she’s so iconic that you wouldn’t really think of her as being so provocative. Of course, we have all seen the iconic cone bra, we have heard the underlying tones of “Like a Virgin,” and that she is known as a sex symbol, but you wouldn’t really see all the controversy around her unless you had listened to her interviews and watched her music videos (All That’s Interesting). These things were not as accessible in the 1980′s as they are today, so even if your mom didn’t agree with Madonna’s point of view on certain issues, she could ignore it and still idolize her (definitely what my mom does). Madonna has very diverse themes in her songs, from teen pregnancy to the importance of expressiveness to freedom of sexuality. Several of her videos were banned from MTV for being sexually explicit, and Pepsi even dropped her from their ads because of some shocking things she said in an interview. From this information, one can argue that she is a fantastic feminist, who always speaks her mind and shows that it is healthy and normal to be sexual as a woman, and no one should be shamed for it. However. some of her interview responses may make someone think twice about it. There were rumors about Madonna’s sexuality when seen with Sandra Bernhard in a lesbian bar. She admitted that she and her friend were trying to mess with the public by pretending to be lesbians, and she even admitted to having fantasies about women, but she never adopted a lesbian identity. She also claimed in another interview that sometimes she feels black/wants to be black, because she “has soul” (Robinson 341). Oddly enough, she purposely chose to not put her picture on her first album, and people wondered if she was black. Many people are outraged by Madonna’s seeming lack of regard for true intersectionality, but I don’t believe she had any ill will toward people of these groups. She seemed black because she had soul, she didn’t confirm nor deny homosexuality because, “here was this girl that everyone is buying records from, and she was eating someone’s pussy” (Robinson 345). She seems to want to be a part of these groups so that she and others can feel supported, and to show that people can follow their dreams no matter what they were born with. It is also so strange how times have changed in terms of the publicity artists get for outrageous actions or performances. Recently Nicki Minaj and Madonna performed at a Super Bowl halftime show, and Minaj was featured in a couple songs on Madonna’s 2012 album “MDNA.” Since Nicki Minaj first became popular, she has been known for her outrageous performances and provocative songs, yet she is generally loved by all. She also has a male “alter ego” who she occasionally lives by and often gets praised for, as people say things like, “[he is] undeniably powerful; inhabiting him, Minaj is at her most effective” (Powers). Also, since Madonna has stood the test of time as an icon and has continued to make music, perhaps people these days are becoming more accepting of people and who they are/who they want to be. What Madonna does is art, plain and simple. She expresses herself through her art, yet she also takes on the roles of others in these art forms. Just as an actress might portray someone besides herself on screen, Madonna should have the right to do the same. She is a fantastic feminist, in that she does what she wants, what makes her happy, and she doesn’t care what anyone else has to say about it.

https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2012/04/05/150056215/fractured-females-madonna-and-nicki-minaj-man-up

https://moodle.butler.edu/pluginfile.php/1177552/mod_resource/content/2/Robinson%20Madonna%20Erotics%20of%20Appropriation.pdf

http://allthatsinteresting.com/madonna-feminist-message

[darbydeford-blog]

Thoughts on Queer Television Emphasis

We all consume media quite a bit these days, specifically on television. However, it’s interesting how one-dimensional some of the characters in a movie or series are, and how most actors and actresses have the same color, sexuality, and physique. To me, that is all bad marketing, as people are always over the moon to be able to tune in to a program about someone like them. Ellen was one of the first people to have the guts to be who she is in her sitcom in the 1990′s. However, I think this opened up a whole new can of worms when it comes to media discrimination of homosexuality. After this episode, if there was an episode depicting homosexual kissing, the rating changed to TV-14 rather than PG. The show “failed” after this, and was criticized that it was now “a program about a character who was gay every single week, and...that was too much for people” (McCarthy, 596). That’s an interesting take, however, because I could argue that some shows are just about someone being straight every week, like Sex in the City, How I Met Your Mother, and every single Hallmark movie. This is a common complaint from those in the LGBTQ community as well, but for a different reason. Many feel that on the occasions where there is a gay character in a series, the only thing about them that is emphasized is that they are gay. Meanwhile, their straight counterparts have more complicated back-stories (and more screen time in general). Fixing this issue would do so much to help normalize homosexuality and show young people who may be struggling to come out that it is no issue and that homosexuality should not get in the way of following their passions. Regulations (and people) of cable television may be the ones getting in the way of this. There are very few shows on cable that have complex queer characters, however one Netflix original series comes to mind: Orange is the New Black. Though I haven’t seen the show myself, there is no denying the diversity of the cast, the attention to detail when it comes to the complexities of the roles, and the representation of diverse people playing those diverse roles. The show also touches on some topics that are important to have conversations about, making it deeper and more meaningful to those who watch it (Lewis). And what do you know, you can’t go a day without hearing about the show from a friend or from a media source. People absolutely love it. Producers and networks should look at this as an example of what people want to see. Show something that everyone can relate to to get a more diverse (and larger) audience.

http://www.curvemag.com/Reviews/3-Reasons-Why-Orange-Is-The-New-Black-Is-The-Most-Queer-Feminist-Thing-Ever/

https://moodle.butler.edu/pluginfile.php/1162948/mod_resource/content/1/Ellen%20Making%20Queer%20TV%20History.pdf

[darbydeford-blog]

From Ms. to Cosmo

Today is Tuesday, February 27, 2018. Women are doctors, lawyers, journalists, teachers, mothers, and mob bosses (probably). In today’s issue of Cosmopolitan magazine, a famous magazine written mostly for women, the headliners on the online page include: “Cardi B on Respecting Strippers and Cheating Rumors,” “Jennifer Aniston is Relying on her Friends to Get Her Through Her [Break-up],” “Khloe Kardashian Just Revealed Her 8-month Baby Bump,” and “We All Need to go to This Disney-Inspired Bottomless Brunch.” On December 20, 1971, the first issue of Ms. magazine came out, a magazine written by and for women about important issues that they were never able to write about before. Some of the ideas they came up with for the first issue were: “Welfare Reform and Lingering Issues,” “Rating the [Presidential] Candidates,” “We Have Had Abortions,” and “De-Sexing the English Language.” At this time, Title IX did not exist, women would not be hired for many roles simply because they are women, and many were denied reproductive and divorce rights. Where is the mis-match in this situation? The more rights we have, the less mass media cares about having them? The more we are allowed to pursue and dream, the less we care to report about it? The description of Cosmo on Cosmo is seriously, “ Your source for the latest sex tips, celebrity news, dating and relationship help, beauty tutorials, fashion trends, and more.” Meanwhile, the description of Ms. is, “As we fight for full equality, Ms. is here.” Yet, which of these magazines to we hear more about, see more publicity for, and is over-all more highly acclaimed? Right, Cosmo. Every day, someone’s sorority sister is tweeting a Cosmo article about how to make low-calorie margaritas, and Cosmo is getting 3 million page views every day on Snapchat alone. Meanwhile, Ms. reaches only 1.6 million per week. When did we all get so shallow? When did we decide that beauty issues and celebrity social media is more important than the rights of teachers, how to move forward from sexual assault, and what the current presidency means for reproductive rights? I think, as a society of women, we need to snap out of it and fill our minds with knowledge that matters. We should inform ourselves and do more to educate the public and be educated as the public. Women (and people in general), need to get their priorities in line and search out media that matters.

http://nymag.com/news/features/ms-magazine-2011-11/

[darbydeford-blog]

The Power of an Image

Do you remember in elementary school when we all learned about imagery and we all thought it was totally obvious and a waste of our time? Then when that unit was over, we forgot about the whole concept forever? Me too, yet it is one of the most important aspects of pop culture and how we respond to it. In today’s world (and yesterday’s world, I suppose), we all seem to be so numb to how we respond to imagery in the media. One example of how an image can spark a social change in a community of people would be Norman Rockwell’s “Rosie the Riveter.” No, not this one;

This one!

Before enrolling in my feminism/pop-culture-themed honors course, I had never seen the latter image, yet I saw at least five women portraying the former image last Halloween. It was the latter image, however, that seemed to make women long to help with the war efforts by going to work to do “a man’s job.” At this time, the latter image was more popular and iconic, which historically seems to not be the norm. To me, the former image portrays a woman with more of the stereotypical standard of beauty, in today’s world, anyway; I’m not sure what the beauty norm was at the time the image was displayed. I know, though, that the latter image is nothing like ads were before Rosie the Riveter was even thought of:

It seems odd that the at-the-time iconic image is not the image that has stood the test of time, but rather it is the one with more of an image of beauty by today’s standards. It seems that even after this outpouring of help from strong and capable women, people still put unnecessary emphasis on beauty.

http://www.pophistorydig.com/topics/rosie-the-riveter-1941-1945/

[darbydeford-blog]

...yeah, baby, she’s got It...

There is always that one quality that people notice in others, that one aspect of someone’s personality that makes them shine brighter than others, the thing that draws people in: It. You always hear those strange 1950′s talent-searchers saying, “Wow, she’s got It,” with no real explanation of what It is, yet we all can recognize it. Many actresses will try to impersonate It for long enough to perform, but those who truly have It make it look flawless and effortless. Joseph Roach paraphrases Elinor Glyn’s definition of It, saying that, “ To have ‘It,’ the fortunate possessor must have that strange magnetism which attracts both sexes. He or she must be entirely unselfconscious and full of self-confidence, indifferent to the effect he or she is producing, and uninfluenced by others. There must be physical attraction, but beauty is unnecessary.” Glyn’s description of “attraction, but not necessarily beauty” is strange. When I think of who has It in today’s pop culture realm, I think of Will Smith, Jennifer Lawrence, Dwayne Johnson, and Emma Stone, all of whom are very beautiful people. However, when you truly examine the power of It, you can think about how you would react if this person wasn’t famous and you saw him or her walking down the street, would you give them a second look? Or, if this particular artist did not have their characteristic personality and screen presence, would they still be so adored? It is interesting, because we sort of think of all famous people as being beautiful, but this beauty is really beauty created by Hollywood and the public. Of course, when on screen, these people have on costume make-up, and even at award shows that they appear in, they are all dolled up in designer wear and are professionally made-up. We have little to no clue what these people looked like before Hollywood got a hold of them, although we can all see that these actors have It. Perhaps It is what gets them discovered by Hollywood, but Hollywood still believes that it is beauty that strikes the public, so they feel that they have to transform them into icons of beauty. I think Hollywood has it wrong though; what many people want to see is someone to relate to. If people saw their idols, who definitely have It, in their natural forms at all times, I think they would be even more drawn to them. As Roach expressed, It is not something that can be painted on, so I think all the glamor of Hollywood is unnecessary to bring out It in people.

https://moodle.butler.edu/pluginfile.php/1164522/mod_resource/content/1/Roach%20It%20TJ.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4MOQSRC_bM

[darbydeford-blog]

The backwards 50′s?

When you think about feminism, one thought that might come to mind might be progressiveness, women moving forward, and people gaining more and more deserved rights. I was unaware that in the late 1950′s things seemed to move backwards slightly, according to Betty Friedan in The Essential Feminist Reader. The marriage age started to drop as low as 17, women who wanted careers were pitied, and women put their selves in situations of bad health and danger just to be attractive to men. The only goals of most women were to get married, have several children, and live the idyllic suburban housewife life. Or so it seemed... Many women struggled with giving up their dreams of doing something meaningful without anyone knowing it. Women gave up huge career opportunities because it was considered unfeminine. One quote truly perplexed me from this article: “If a woman had a problem in the 1950′s and 1960′s, she knew that something must be wrong with her marriage, or with herself.” I believe this mantra is why women today still believe there are things wrong with themselves in the eyes of men. Women are more self conscious about their figures than they are about their levels of intelligence. The Miss America pageant paints the picture of the perfect American woman, but it is mostly focused on swimsuits and ballgowns. Most beautiful women in movies don’t have career goals, but rather romantic goals. Although women are more welcome to chase their dreams in terms of career nowadays, society still tells women that their worth is based upon the opinions of men. It’s crazy how far this phenomenon goes back, and it’s sad that it is still ingrained into our society. Sure, we have come so far since the 1950′s, but we still have far to go, since the world still incorporates these backward values.