jessicatyler-blog1

[jessicatyler-blog1]

Sexism Sells: Advertisements

Sexism in advertisements, whether in commercials, magazines, or online, is nothing new. However when the sexism in advertisements spill over into the public space, it needs to be regulated because of the inability to avoid coming into contact with these advertisements while in public. In the reading by  Lauren Rosewarne, Director of AAF is quoted stating that in comparison to magazines, television, and other forms of advertisement, outdoor advertisements such as billboards and the like are extremely tame. Where as that may be accurate in the level of sexual content display in television and magazines are exceptionally worse, it is also true that with that type of content one can decide whether or not to consume the sexist imagery. On the other hand as it relates to the billboards and public advertisements, one does not get to choose the content they consume because it is displayed in a public space available to all. 

Although these advertisements are selling a certain product, these products are usually accompanied by a sexualized image of a woman. Often women in these advertisements are sexualized in order to make the product more appealing or enticing. In the reading Varney explains that advertisements like these ultimately portray women as sexualized, decorative, and most importantly consumable. One of the main culprits of using sexualized images of women in their advertisements is Carl’s Jr., the fast food joint. Their commercials are notorious for being disgustingly sexist and exploitative of the female body in their commercials. Picture below is on of their public advertisements which states in the title “Best. Pair. Ever.” accompanied with a picture of two women eating large burgers. Despite this being one of their more tame advertisements, their other ads have sparked controversy to the point where in 2017 they announced that they were going to stop using sexy women in their advertisements. Now when viewing a Carl’s Jr. a  billboard you are more likely to see one like the image below just depicting the product they are selling. Sexist ads like these come in all forms but those that are portrayed on a more public platform have a greater effect on those who come into contact with it. These ads essentially validate sexualizing women by advertising it on a large scale; and these types of ads must continually be regulated or completely banned in order to stop further perpetuation of sexualization of the female body. 

[jessicatyler-blog1]

Trump’s Impeachment Hearing by Memes & Gifs

The Trump Impeachment is a widely discussed topic in American politics right now, however it’s important to start at the very beginning if we are to understand why this is happening and what’s the current state of the trail. 

So let me take you back to where it all began: Ukraine. Well technically it didn't start IN Ukraine but with Ukraine, in September 2019. The Trump-Ukraine scandal began with the revelation that an intelligence officer had filed a whistleblower complaint to the intelligence community inspector general alleging wrongdoing on the part of Trump.

The Whistleblower, is a member of the CIA, told the National Security Council, that a phone call in July 2019 between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky set off red flags in the intelligence community. He wrote in his official complaint: “The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had transpired in the phone call.” The Whistleblower stated that they had received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President was using his power to solicit interference from a foreign government in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The subject of the whistleblower’s report was Trump’s effort to get the government of Ukraine to start an investigation into Hunter Biden, son of Joe Biden, the former vice president and Democratic presidential candidate

On September 24, 2019 the House Democrats launch an impeachment inquiry. Enter House Speaker Nancy Pelosi where she announces that the House will begin a formal impeachment inquiry of the president. “The actions of the Trump presidency have revealed the dishonorable fact of the president’s betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections, No one is above the law.” - Nancy Pelosi 

And the public reaction was as follows: Memes exploding on Twitter.  

The White House then released its account of the 30-minute Trump-Zelensky call. What was Trump’s Reaction you may be wondering, four words: “No Quid Pro Quo”: Trump first asserted that nothing inappropriate happened on the phone call with Zelensky (he calls it “perfect” repeatedly). The official White House line is that there was no quid pro quo offered on the call. Republican allies latched onto that same line.

House Democrats then issued a subpoena to Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyer and a key figure in the president’s push for Ukraine to investigate his political enemies. Trump then does something that does not make him look innocent by calling on China to investigate the Bidens�� business dealings. The president publicly solicited a foreign government’s help in front of TV cameras on the South Lawn of the White House when he urged China to investigate Biden and his son, Hunter, amid the impeachment inquiry.

Then in a major escalation of the impeachment investigation, House Democrats issued a subpoena to the White House for documents on President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine and demanded additional records from Vice President Mike Pence. “The White House has refused to engage with — or even respond to — multiple requests for documents from our committees on a voluntary basis. After nearly a month of stonewalling, it appears clear that the president has chosen the path of defiance, obstruction and cover-up,” was written in a letter to Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s acting chief of staff. House Democrats subpoena Pentagon chief and acting White House budget director as well.

Joe Biden openly supports Trump’s Impeachment along with many other democrats.

Two associates of Giuliani who were tied to the impeachment inquiry are then hit with federal campaign finance charges. Shortly after the arrests were announced, Parnas and Fruman were subpoenaed by House Democrats to provide documents and depositions. They had previously declined to appear for voluntary depositions. Testimonies from Former White House Advisor and Former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine are heard. Marie Yovanovitch, testified about her shock on learning about an ultimately successful campaign in Ukraine to destroy her ambassadorship, involving Giuliani.

Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney confirms Trump withheld aid to Ukraine in part to push its new government to investigate Democrats. It was the first time a White House official linked the actions that are at the center of Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into the president.

Top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine contradicts Trump’s claim of no quid pro quo. William B. Taylor, who leads the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, testifies that President Trump directly linked an order to withhold aid to Ukraine to his demand that Zelensky publicly state that the country would investigate Burisma and examine debunked claims about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The deposition explicitly contradicts Trump’s denial of a quid pro quo.

The most recent events of the impeachment hearing is that the House voted on a resolution laying out a process to move impeachment from closed-door depositions to open hearings. Tim Morrison, senior director for Russian affairs at the National Security Council, testified a day after announcing that he will resign his post in short order. Public impeachment hearings have since begun. Testimonies from Ambassador Bill Taylor and deputy assistant secretary of state George P Kent have been heard and Taylor quoted Trump as demanding “investigations” of Ukraine in a phone call overheard by an aide.

What will happen now? Predictions are hard, but it seems very unlikely that Trump will be able to avoid impeachment at this point.The Democrats now hold a majority in the House of Representatives and everything their “impeachment inquiry” has revealed so far has, for the most part, confirmed the charges that started the entire process — Trump sought to use his powers of office to press Ukraine into doing political favors for him.

[jessicatyler-blog1]

Agnès Rocamora’s Personal Fashion Blogs: Screens and Mirrors in Digital Self-portraits, examines how fashion blogs create digital self-portraits, and it specifically focuses on how performance is a big aspect of these fashion blogs. The fashion blogs where bloggers consistently post photos of themselves and their outfits have become increasingly popular and have infiltrated avid parts of the fashion world. One’s fashion has always been a form of self-expression and creating one’s identity. With the almost endless possibilities of fashion, one has the ability to create and recreate their identity multiple times over. In the loo of technology and the rise in popularity of fashion blogs, ones fashion can be documented throughout time, creating a digital portfolio of one’s style and in turn, one’s identity. Rocamora states that “with blogs, “identity performance” is “ongoing” (p. 411).  In this statement Rocamora touches on the act of performance in relation to identity, fashion blogs allows bloggers to perform their identity daily through clothing and accessories. The documentation of this performance is part of the process of identity performance. One of the main appeals to fashion blogging is the production of putting together an outfit, documenting it, and then posting it online as the end result. Rocamora makes the comparison of these fashion blogs to diaries or autobiographies, insinuating that this documentation of fashion is at the core of these bloggers identities. To some extent the identification of oneself with their fashion blog is a very real phenomenon, you will often see bloggers and fans refer to their specific individual as the name of their blog instead of their actual name. For example, USC based, recent graduate and sustainability fashion blogger Megan McSherry, is often referred to as “Tunes & Tunics” her blog account in person. However when rebranding her blog, she subsequently had to additionally rebrand herself, instead of going by “Tunes & Tunics” her blogger name is now “Acteevism”.

Rocamore draws from Sherry Turkle’s idea that, similar to that of a cinematic drama, new digital technology has created the same production value of projecting one’s life onto a screen. However we have the power to project ourselves into our very own dramas “dramas in which we are producer, director, and star. Some of these dramas are private, but increasingly we are able to draw in other people” (1995: 26). (p.414). It’s extremely interesting to make a comparison with fashion blogs and a cinematic drama, however I find that there are many parallels within this juxtaposition. The main factor to look at is how there is an essence of performance in both forms of digital production. In addition the factor of costumes comes into play, dressing up in certain fashions in order to depict the person one wishes to emulate. These factors combine to create a projection of an identity. Many fashion bloggers have identities that center around the type of clothing they wear, whether it’s sustainably produced clothing like Megan McSherry of Acteevism or high end fashion as depicted below, their identities online are shaped by the clothes they wear and in turn these same identities tend to overlap into real life.

[jessicatyler-blog1]

Many companies are guilty of what Bahrainwala & O’Connor note as “commodity activism”. In this case it is exemplified through Nike introducing the launch of the Nike pro hijab in 2018, both seemingly meant to support and target the specific audience of female muslim althetes. Nike is practicing commodity activism, through creating a brand identity, “ the Nike marketing team is consciously bundling narratives of resistance when it launches a product aimed at a population that experiences intersecting oppressions, (such as Muslim women)” (p.2). This product was launched as a means to associate Nike’s brand with a population that suffers from oppression and position itself behind a cause that is both marketable and controversial. However despite Nike’s outward support of a marginalized group of women in sports, their commodity activism is not as pure intentioned as they may present themselves.

 Activism and equality is popular and extremely marketable, therefore supporting minority groups for a large brand like Nike is not as risky as it may seem to the outsider. The average Nike consumer is between the ages of 18 to 40, Nike tends to target teens and families with both athletic interests as well as a desire to be fashionable, therefore they know their consumer demographic. The majority of their consumers are either Millenials of members of Generation Z most of which tend to be politically left leaning according to this data from CNN. Nike positioning their brand as a warrior for equality and inclusion is more beneficial for their brand than it is detrimental. They may have lost some xenophobic costumers due to launch of the Nike pro hijab but in they gained the support of a community that previously had untapped marketing value. 

The reading addresses Nike’s participating in what Bell Hooks calls “Culture Eating”, which is their incorporation of a different culture into a predominantly white space and presenting this ethnic difference as enjoyable; and this commodification of otherness, she explains becomes “spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish” that is whiteness (191). It is exactly this pleasure that is made available to Nike product consumers when they scroll on the website through images of the Pro Hijab  amongst headbands, and hats, all sorted as “headgear” on the Nike website. Despite the success of Nike’s hijab pro launch their commodity activism is made palatable to the white taste buds that make up a large portion of their consumers. Nike addresses the underlying islamiphobia in Western culture by sublimating the Pro Hijab by using New Jersey-native Ibtihaj Muhammad as the face of their Launch as pictured below. This a tactic that makes the launch less threatening to those pseudo-patriotic values that many American’s identify with. Nike’s launch of the Pro Hijab is a watered down version of activism that caters to a white audience despite claiming the intention of making this product for the female muslim community. Nike’s main goal even within new launches of commodity activism is to still be a key player in the mainstream athletic manufacturing industry. The mainstream is made up of their white audience; and although their Pro Hijab launch was meant for female muslim athletes, they made it acceptable and safe for the white community in order for it to be a success. 

Nike’s marketing team is no stranger to commodity activism, these were the same marketing strategies that were also utilized in the Colin Kapernick ad, famously stating “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything” as pictured below. Despite the backlash from some consumers Nike received copious amounts of praise for a supporting a cause associated with both the black community and those fighting against police brutality. Just like Ibtihaj Muhammad, a Nike athlete and champion fencer that was the face of Pro Hijab launch, Colin Kapernick, is a athlete with previously-existing support with the making of a trailblazer. Nike’s marketing team have identified themselves with values and experience that are supported by the consumers therefore creating a brand identity that allows their consumers to associate the brand of Nike with activism, equality and inclusion; they could teach Pepsi a few tips. 

[jessicatyler-blog1]

Cartoons and Commentary

If asked, many people would not even consider television programs such as The Simpsons, The Boondocks or even Family Guy, to be in the same category as cartoons. Despite their animated qualities they provide a mix of genres where the domestic sitcom and an animated cartoon are combined in order to create an air of humor surround a more pointed commentary. Essentially these are cartoons for adults, it seems as though the medium would take away from the seriousness of the social commentary that is being discussed, however Krueger and Mitchell argue otherwise.  Although animation does not do a good job at replicating a visual reality, it allows for  the storytelling to replicate a social reality that is closer to society we experience. The medium of animation enhances the social commentary with an air of humor in order to be able to create discourse on more sensitive topics. A series like The Boondocks has all the qualities of a television show with human actors, “it exceeds expectations by delivering fully-developed characters, fluid animation, cinematic flashbacks to American history, and sharp action sequences.” (Krueger, 314). The Boondocks goes above and beyond with the level of development in its characters, storytelling, social discourse, and animation; these aspects are what distinguish The Boondocks from other forms of animated television. 

This can be seen in shows such as Bob’s Burgers and Big Mouth that have higher ratings which restrict younger audiences from watching which suggests that the content is specifically targeted away from the childish humor of kids but directed at a higher level of comedy that is more centered in social commentary. Big Mouth is a Netflix animated original show which focuses on the awkwardness of puberty. The first image shows the cast of characters and how the specific animation stylization of the characters sets the show apart from just another cartoon, in addition the social commentary enhances the importance of specific stylization. In the second image the main character, Andrew, (seen on the left) is talking to his hormone monster, who basically follows Andrew around and appears during awkward moments to explain what is happening to him during puberty and why he’s feeling certain emotions and urges. Although the show is centered around animation and humor the foundation of the characters and the storyline makes a comment on a social reality that everyone past a certain age can relate to. Big Mouth isn’t  just a series of jokes about how weird and gross puberty is; but the show achieves a new, deeper level of comedy by remaining hyper aware of the fact that puberty isn’t just about bodies changing, but about what it means to grow up at 

In addition to this the Boondocks have a unique form of stylization with its animation by combining anime techniques. Shows like The Boondocks and The Simpson have highly stylized animations, these television shows cannot compete with a traditional sitcom or humor driving show when it comes to visual reality, but it allows for the possibility to achieve what is Krueger called “‘situational realism’”, this means that the social and political environment the characters live in is more realistically depicted than the visual images that are on the screen. Both of these shows choose animation as its medium for the same reason as many recent animated adult show do: potentially dangerous and inflammatory subjects can be explored from multiple angles and with a freedom that traditional sitcoms do not have, under the guise of humor. Combining a cartoon and a domestic sitcom creates an intersection of genres and mediums that are essential to allowing for a more extensive examination of cultural discourse in a more casual setting. Shows such as these have become more popular in recent years, examine social context that seem out of the box for animation. 

[jessicatyler-blog1]

Both Meredith W. Michaels and Carol Stabile’s readings tackle the issues and influences of that propaganda imagery produces. When it comes to the Anti-Abortion movement the circulation of false imagery has been rampent since the early 90’s. The pro-life movement was working to reinforce the autonomy of unborn fetuses while erasing that of the living woman to whom the fetus is inside. Michaels exposes the Anti-Abortionists of the time as attempting, and in many ways, succeeding in painting woman seeking abortions as a cold hearted bitch who don’t want to be inconvenienced by the growth of a human being (p.113 Michaels). In setting that president the next step is then to remove the woman as part of the equation by placing the fetus’ autonomy over the pregnant woman in question. This is done in part through imagery and in part through overarching ideologies that permeate our society and infiltrate our rhetoric. The famous image that was mentioned in both readings was the Nilssen image showing the ‘ "first ever" photo of a living fetus: "A living-18-week old fetus shown inside its amniotic sac"’ (Life 1965:50). However the image and accompanying title contradict themselves because the fetus is in fact dead. In order to procure the photo the fetus had to be removed from the mother’s womb, which resulted in the termination of the pregnancy (p.120, Michaels). The whole imagery is a hoax in order to be used as propaganda in pushing the pro-life agenda.There are many images out there that are not scientifically accurate and cannot even be proven to be a depiction of a fetus. Grotesque images of fetal parts can be found on websites such as Abortionno.org in an attempt to convince viewers of a seemingly far fetched reality of the results of an abortion. Images such as these reinforce the ideology that abortion is murder and therefore labeling the woman as a murderer.  The act of removing the fetus from the woman and solely publishing the images of the fetus, mutilated or otherwise, enhances the practice of separating the life and liberties of a fetus and placing them above that of the woman. In the actuality of the statement is a ridiculous notion, however the rhetoric that is used alongside these images solidifies this notion. The rhetoric surrounding abortion is just as dangerous as these false images, even the title of the anti-abortion movement is falsely labelled as ‘pro-life’ giving them a false moral high ground to stand upon while condemning pregnant women making this difficult decision. When attaching humanity to a pregnant woman the articles will use the term “mother” but when addressing the the pro-choice female the articles with use the term “woman”. Attaching a title to the woman carrying a baby also attaches a purpose, without that purpose she is simply an incubator or a surrogate meant create life without ever acknowledging her own. In order to acknowledge the fetus’ autonomy it is necessary to completely erase the women’s autonomy, and these various images do that by erasing the visibility of the pregnant woman to shine the spotlight on the unborn fetus. Images such as the one shown above eliminate the mother from the story line whereas images showing the pregnant woman such as  provide the realistic picture of a consensual pregnancy determined by the mother. Both pregnancy and abortion cannot happen without the woman so why remove her from the visualization when making the pro-life argument through imagery? The ant-abortion movement refrains from showing images of the pregnant women because it’s very easy for viewers to empathize with the woman in the images, however they can’t empathize so easily with a person they can’t see.