A Double Shot at Love

As if A Shot At Love with Tila Tequlia wasn't bad enough, there is now yet ANOTHER show premeiring on MTV with the same type of storyline called A Double Shot at Love. Except now it's with bisexual twins rather than just one bisexual. Now let me begin by saying that any type of show where you're competing for someone's heart is stupid in my opinion. I don't not like this show because it's bisexual. I just think that shows like this are what continue on the objectification of women and superficiality in relationships. Because, really, if you're trying to find "true love" on television, do you really think that it's going to last? It's just another excuse to have half naked men & women on MTV doing outrageous things for entertainment.

And I do admit, it is entertaining. I would be lying if I said I never watched an episode of the Tila Tequila show, or any other show like that for that matter like Rock of Love or Flavor of Love. They grab our attention because of the drama and insanity that the shows feed off of. I couldn't figure out to post the photo that I found because I wasn't abe to save it, but if you click on the link you will see a whole bunch of photos that are definitely sexualized. So check it out & let me know your input!

<3

But I do think it's interesting that the women that are searching for love this time are not only identical twins, but also white females, blond hair with what I would call barbie-like bodies. All the women are scantily dressed in these shows which also presents a problem for when the younger girls watch it and attempt to imitate those girls they see on television. Whether it be through clothing, personality, anything -- you name it.

Monica Brown's Silver Star

So I am going to be honest, I have never really be one to watch the news or 60 minutes or anything like that. But the other night, I was sitting at the computer in the TV room while my mom was watching 60 minutes, and a particular story caught my eye...

Monica Brown, a 19 year old female from Lake Jackson, Texas, is a medic in the military and was recently rewarded the Silver Star Medal for Gallantry in combat. Since World War II, Monica is the second woman to receive this prestigous reward due to her bravery during a tragic occurrence while in Paktika, Afghanistan in April 2007.

Monica Brown saved the lives of five men traveling in one of the Humvees after being struck with explosives (an IED). With the help of Staff Srgnt. Jose Santos, Monica risked her life to save these men from burning to death. Two of the men survived with life-threatening injuries -- Spc Stanson Smith & Spc Larry Spray.

As I watched the 60 minutes episode, I listened to Srgnt Green and two other of Monica Brown's superior officers speak of her bravery and their awe to such a great job she had done. According to Military procedure, women are not to be in frontline combat, but may temporarily be assigned to a specific unit for a specific period of time that may involve frontline combat.

Since women are technically not allowed in frontline combat in the Military, there was incinuation on the 60 minutes program that there has been some controversy on the fact that she received the Silver Star. Some of the men may believe that she did not do an out of the ordinary deed, and that she was just doing what she was trained to do. That the fact that she is a woman takes a toll on her receiving this honorable award. The interviewer even showed photos of the two men I spoke of earlier, Spray & Smith, and said that they chose not to say any words. Smith even went as far as to say, "women have no business being on the frontline."

I am amazed and impressed at Monica Brown's modesty and determination when telling the interviewer about her experience. And I applaud her for being so humble about the whole thing. I think it's pretty crappy that she saved that man's life and he still has the nerve to say that about women being on the frontline. I mean, that's fine if that's his opinion and everything, but is it really necessary to say to someone who will most likely put it on 60 minutes? I persoanlly don't think so. What do you all think? Watch the video & let me know!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqmZP0pj9Co

Empowering Female Character With Usual Patriarchal Ending

I know that I've talked about role models before in my blogs, like in the Dove commercial. So I got to thinking on who I thought was a good role model for young girls in particular and why. I realized that I don't know much about celebrities or famous people like that in order to choose from that category, and the only people I could think of were characters from books. In my opinion, a character from a story is almost just as good as a real person to look up to and admire. As long as they have good qualities and characteristics, does it really matter?

Of course, I thought of many different characters that I admire. But one that stood out to me was Miss Elizabeth Bennett from Pride & Prejudice, both a famous novel written by Jane Austen and a movie. She is a strong female character, especially within her time period. She is what you may call a "rebel" in society's standards during that time. She was always reading, walking to places (rather than taking a carraige), and was not afraid of speaking her mind. Since the movie came out pretty recently, I'll refer more to the movie than the novel -- even though they're both about the same. Also because I haven't read the book in a while, so the movie is more fresh in my mind.

Keira Knightley plays the role of Elizabeth Bennett in the movie. She is the second oldest of four girls, with an easy-going father and a gossiping mother. She is closest with the oldest sister, Jane, who is also seen as the beauty of the family. Elizabeth is described (especially in the book) as being plain and not-so-beautiful. She meets Mr. Darcy (her later love interest) at a town ball, and runs into him several times after. They don't get along at first, but eventually get to know each other. Elizabeth is offered a proposal by Mr. Collins, a cousin of the family who is to inherit the Bennett's estate. In those days, when the father died, the estate and inheritance would go to the next of kin that was male -- even if there was no son. Therefore, the women of that family would basically be out on the streets to fend for themselves. So, obviously, this was a big deal when Elizabeth was proposed to by Mr. Collins because it meant that she would be well-off and taken care of. However, Elizabeth being the rebel that she is, denied the proposal because she believed that she should marry for love.

All of this is important because Elizabeth rejected the standards and pressures of society, her mother and family in order to be happy. I admire this because I am sure that many women during that time did not do the same. Not only was she her own person in little ways such as reading and learning and taking walks in fields (doing "un-ladylike" things), but she also was her own person in the biggest way possible in denying that proposal. This shows her as an empowering female character and great role model for women to look up to. The character inspires women to be themselves, speak their minds, and not to give into the pressures of society. She is strong and independent and those are just some of the qualities that I love about her.

While all of that is true, and there is much more to her character that is positive, there is something that I hadn't realized until Professor Rellihan pointed it out to me. Even though it seems like Elizabeth Bennett is an empowering role model for women (which she still is in some ways), the movie still ends with her as Mrs. Darcy -- a patriarchal ending. The last scene in the movie consists of Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy sitting together, and he continues to call her "Mrs. Darcy" after every little kiss and she swoons over it. Some would argue that this would teach girls to find their own happiness in a man, or that they will not be happy unless they are married or in love with a man. Honestly, I never viewed it in that way until someone pointed that out. So I think it has a lot to do with the viewer rather than the storyline. How the viewer interprets the storyline and the characters is the biggest issue.

I am a pretty big "hopeless romantic," so I am a sucker for these kind of movies even if it does have a patriarchal ending. I just think that it's interesting, now that I do have this type of view in mind, to think about other movies that I had never noticed ended this way. In my opinion, even though the movie ended with that type of scene (which the book did not), it still does not negate the positive qualities that I see in Elizabeth Bennett's character. I still view her as empowering and going after what she wants.

Let me know what you all think. =)

<3

She used to play with dolls... Now she wants to "play" with people?

For those of you that have not heard of Paris Hilton's new television show on MTV, Paris Hilton's My New BFF, the title is pretty much self-explanatory. Paris Hilton is now on a "search for her new BFF" to look for "that special someone to always be by her side". In a nutshell, Paris brings sixteen girls and two boys in to "jump through hoops" and "prove they can party and have taste, class and business sense." If you would like to read more about the show & the epidsodes, you can check out the summaries at mtv.com.

I will admit, I may be slightly biased in my analysis of this television show since I already have a bad taste in my mouth whenever I even think of Paris Hilton. I think she is probably one of the worst role models out there for young girls today and this television show is the epitomy of a bad example in almost every way. Grant it, I probably do not know everything there is to know about Paris Hilton, but what I DO know I am not very impressed with.

This show has so many bad messages in it for young people, especially young girls, that I don't know where to begin. First of all, Paris Hilton, like I said before, is not a suitable role model (in my opinion) from her partying problems, her superficiality, etc. The show takes place in Paris' dollhouse-themed house because she "used to play with dolls" when she was younger, and now that she is older she wants to "play with people," according to her commercial on MTV. She uses the word "play" and compares people to dolls. She is basically making the people in the television show "dolls", or objects, that she controls in her dollhouse-themed mansion. She wants to be in complete control of them and she is. They basically need to do everything she wants them to do in order to become her new BFF.

This is a bad example for young people today in encouraging the superficiality of friendship in order to follow commands just to be friends with someone famous. It shows that just being yourself is not enough; that you need to change who you are to impress someone like Paris Hilton. Both in your appearance and in your personality, beliefs, etc. For example, in the first episode, everyone needed to "seriously upgrade their looks" if they wanted to "hang with her." Instead of re-wording everything from the summary, this is what happened in part of the episode...

As Paris tells each person what they should change, she's met with little
resistance ... until she tells Michelle to go from blonde to black. When
Michelle refuses the advice, Paris quickly moves on. On the flipside, she tells
Sinsu to go from black to blonde, and Sinsu's not liking the idea. In another
harebrained move, Bryan refuses to shave his head. Saying that her new BFF must
totally trust her, Paris punishes the trio by revoking their right to a
makeover. They'll have to go to the party in the dirty clothes they've been
wearing for two days!

Because neither Michelle, Sinsu, nor Bryan chose not to change their appearance just because Paris asked them to, they were "punished". This teaches viewers that if you do not look a certain part, you will not be accepted and there will be consequences. Discouraging them to love the way they look and be confident in their own skin, despite what others may think or want them to look like. Which just so happened to be completely opposite of their natural appearance.

One of the girls, KiKi, who agreed to the makeover for the red carpet was unhappy with her short haircut. After talking about how much she hated the haircut without Paris around, she changed her mind after Paris told her how good it looked. Then, another contestant, Vanessa, talks to Paris "privately" and reveals KiKis original opinion on the haircut. Vanessa then becomes Paris' "favorite".

KiKi only likes her haircut after the approval and praise of Paris, changing her own opinion just because Paris has a different one. And Vanessa is rewarded for "ratting out" or gossiping about another contestant to Paris. What type of message is this sending out to the viewers of all different genders, races, ages, etc.

Since, in the end, Sinsu did decide to go along with Paris' makeover and cut her hair short and blond (conviently just like Paris' hairstyle), Michelle was actually the one sent home.

This entire show is based on appearances and impressing someone just so that you can be their "friend". There is already a huge issue with teenagers low self-esteem and confidence connected with their appearances and the expectation of beauty in society, and this television show is reinforcing that ideology and stereotype.

I could go on for hours, but I'll stop there. If there are any Paris Hilton fans that have an opposing argument about it, I would like to hear it. Like I said, I am biased because I do not like Paris Hilton to begin with. And there might be other things that I do not know about her or that I missed about the show.

But from what I have read/seen, I think this is one of the dumbest shows on the air right now and Paris Hilton should not have her own show.

We need more positive shows that reinforce viewers to be their own person, comfortable in their own skin, and stay away from stereotypical ideologies and expectations of society. If someone does not like the way you are/look, do not change yourself for someone else. Love yourself.

<3>

Analysis of Upper & Working Class Television Shows

Today in class we were discussing the different types of television shows that are of the working/middle class and those that were of the upper class and comparing the way that men were portrayed in both of these types of shows.

For example, (type A) a working class show would be considered Reba, According to Jim, Two and a Half Men or Still Standing. Most of the working class shows portrayed the main male characters as "buffoons," being stupid and mostly for comic relief. And although the men were portrayed this way, they still were presented as above their wives in the grand scheme of things.

An upper class show (type B) would be considered something like any of the CSI shows, Law & Order (Special Victims Unit and Criminal Intent), or Without a Trace. In almost every one of these shows listed, the main male characters do not show much interaction with their wife/family (if they have one), but the male characters do still seem to have more power than the female characters in the show.

After thinking about it, I thought it was quite interesting to compare the different relationships that the men had with their significant others in either types of the shows. Obviously type A is focused more so on comedy, as opposed to type B which is focused more towards drama and thrill with a little bit of comedic relief here and there. Recognizing this point, I could SORT OF see how the men would be presented MORE as buffoons in type A than type B, but I still do also believe that it does have an unconcious meaning behind it about keeping up with the status quo and distinguishing the two classes -- putting working/middle class down.

I also think it is interesting to compare the relationships and interaction with their wife/family/significant other during the time frame of the show on both types of shows.

For example, on Reba, there is always some type of interaction with Reba's family no matter what the episode is about. Sometimes more than others, but there is never an episode that does not involve more than two members of her family in the direct plot. Most of the time this interaction is a positive one. Or, if it is negative, it is resolved by the end of the show.

In Without a Trace, we do see Jack Malone interact with his family in a few of the shows, particularly at the end of last season (I think?). We see his family eventually falling apart with he and his wife being separated, etc. Also, in Law & Order: SVU, there is interaction shown between Elliot and his wife and kids quite a bit. Starting off positive, the relationship eventually goes downhill. Elliot and his wife become separated and his relationship with his children suffers because of his stressful and constant job with the special victims unit. In both of these type B shows the negative interaction between the main characters and their families is not resolved by the end of the show (in contrast with Reba).

I think I am going to stop rambling now, but if anyone else has any other ideas I would love to hear them. Because I am sure I have not seen EVERY single episode of any of the television series that I just listed...

Except for maybe Law & Order: SVU because I definitely have an obsession there. =]

<3

Oh & here are a few pictures of the shows just in case you aren't totally familiar...

"A Serving of Sexism, with a Side Order of Ageism, Anyone?"

I was doing my weekly browse through feministing and the title of an article made me not want to leave the website without seeing what it was about...

The article was a woman in her "lower to mid-twenties" who was hanging out with a few of her friends (around the same age) at a local coffee shop discussing an issue happening on wall street at the time, politics, their opinions, etc. They weren't speaking too loudly, but, either the tables were close enough that they were speaking just loud ENOUGH or this man was just outwardly rude and decided to eavesdrop on their conversation. And not only did he eavesdrop, but he also decided that he needed to put his "two sense" into their private conversation.

On top of all that, referring to the group of women as "young girls" was offensive, and then he decided to throw in some sexism while he was at it. The fact that he thought that it was absurd that they were so "upset about any of it" is one thing, but to come over and actually say something to them about it is another. He showed his male chauvinistic attitude by saying that they will "obviously" get married, have kids, and have their husbands take care of them. So why worry about it? What a JERK.

My opinion is that if you want to have that type of attitude towards women and that entire subject in general, that is just fine by me. But do NOT come over into a conversation of women that you have no idea who they are, where they come from, what they believe, etc. and tell them what you think without them asking you first. If we wanted your opinion, we would have asked you, now wouldn't have we? He obviously had no regards for their feelings or views and decided that his were much superior which is why he needed to share them. Grant it, I was not present when the particular situation happened, therefore I do not know the attitude with which he presented his opinion. Either way, even if he had said his side of the story with the best of intentions, I still believe it was rude and uncalled for.

The women in the coffee shop did not know how to respond to such a situation, and I do not blame them. I am one of the worst people to deal with confrontation, especially with people I have never met before (most of the time O=]). I have no idea how I would have reacted, but I know that if that ever happens to me (or them, again) I will now have a response ready for it! haha

I do believe that it was great that this group of women were getting together and discussing politics and the issues of the wall street (whatever that was). I am trying to get more involved with all of that myself and become more educated with what is going on in politics. Especially now that I am getting older and it is, in my opinion, my responsibility to know about it.

I think we need to ignore sexist men who believe that women should not care about anything but how to cook them good food and take care of the children, and take a stand for what we believe in to be the sassy, independent women that we are! :]

We need to ignore the so-called "pink collar" cattegories and sexist approaches and just do what we want to do, no matter what the "social norm" is or is expected of us.


Any feedback on this ridiculous story? What would you have done?


<3

The Dove Self-Esteem Fund

I was watching television the other day and a commercial came on that immediately caught my attention. It was a commercial sponsored by Dove for the Self-Esteem Fund, encouraging girls of all ages, around the world to be confident in their own skin and proud of their true beauty. In the commercial, there is a little girl who is bombarded by hundreds of images of women in advertisements, commercials, etc. It also points out the affects that it has/could have on girls and why the Self-Esteem Fund is so important. The commercial seriously touched my heart in so many ways and almost made me cry, that I need to share it with others, just in case you haven't seen it yet.



Just before the self-esteem fund, Dove also did a commercial they called Evolution , which showed the "evolution" of a middle-aged woman with no make up on and her hair not "done" transformed into a woman for an advertisement. First, her appearance was changed by make up artists and hair stylists, then technology kicked in. Computers were used to change her face to make it more "beautiful" and "perfect" in an advertiser's eyes. "No wonder our pereception of beauty is distorted," was quoted at the end of the Dove Film. We have become so naturalized by these billions of images that we see all day every day, that we need this subject to be brought to our attention.

I think both of these commercials make extremely important points about beauty image today and the affects and pressures it puts on young women that MUST be recognized by more and more people. Even though the self-esteem fund seems to focus on young girls during the commercial, in my opinion, Dove has always been a great supporter of ALL women and their TRUE beauty. Their commercials have been targeted towards encouraging and inspiring women around the world to be themselves and to realize their own beauty as oposed to trying to be like the impossible images of women that they view every day.

Not only is this a great, positive way to advertise their product, but Dove is showing that they truly care about women today and that they are working towards crushing the ideology of beauty images that have been imbedded into our minds.

I applaud Dove for starting this great Self-Esteem Fund. And, lucky for them, it makes me even more inclined to buy/support their product. :] Now THAT'S what I call good advertising. ;]