Survivor's Sickening Sexism

I'm a few episodes behind on season 39 of CBS's Survivor, so no doubt others have written at length and in shorter social media posts, but I can't help myself. The episode reeks of both interpersonal and institutionalized sexism. The production team (i.e., institution) confirms their heightened awareness of the issue at hand by opening the episode with this warning:

The concerns revolve around contestant, Dan, who's alleged of sexually harassing a number of female contestants. Without getting into all the details, a visibly upset Kellee asserts, "He literally has done this (touched inappropriately) to five different women in this game. This sucks." The production team responds, informing her they can intervene if she wishes (see below, right):

From there, the following messages are shown to the audience, confirming that concerns of sexual harassment are real, as producers state they have met with all contestants and individually with Dan, who was formally warned. Bottom line, the allegations and feelings expressed by female contestants were not considered fabricated.

But then the game play begins. This isn't a blog about who tricked/out played who. This is about manipulating discrimination. In the end after Kellee is ousted from the tribe, Janet finds out she was played by Elizabeth who told her that she felt uncomfortable about Dan's touching. But really, Elizabeth was working along side Dan, and the pitch to Janet about sexual harassment was just game play.

Elizabeth outright admits this, but the primary thing Dan, Missy or anyone else involved really cares about is if their alliance is stable. To be clear, sexual harassment is a form of gender-based discrimination. That's indisputable. Therefore, Elizabeth (and potentially others) consciously used a form of discrimination as game play.

Would it be permissible for a white player to go up to an African American player and say, "Hey, 'player X over there used the n-word'", as a means to advance their game? I don't think so. Why then is it acceptable for people in this season of Survivor to consciously manipulate sexual harassment as part of their strategy?

Then Tribal Council happens again in the episode. The contestants are discussing the issue as the now exiled Kellee must watch in silence. And how problematic is that - the rules of Survivor prohibit a victim from speaking about her victimization while everyone else talks about it right in front of her. Jamal extremely eloquently lays it down, explaining why men should acknowledge their privilege and not question when women and girls express feeling uncomfortable when males touch them inappropriately and/or are sexually assaulted. Listen, it's less than 90 seconds, or read below.

"...I think this issue is a lot bigger than the game of Survivor...from my positionality with my gender, far be it from me to speak for women, what I can do as a man, I can give a little bit of advice as to how hear these stories, when we're talking about harassment, when we're talking about discomfort, when we're talking about male entitlement. It behooves us all as men to take a step back and look at our own behavior, and imagine that you had no idea that what you were doing was inappropriate, that was making someone uncomfortable, and you believe women if they choose to bring that up because it's difficult enough to do that in and of itself. We have a responsibility to hear women, listen to women and believe women when they're ready to tell their stories." 

And ultimately what happens after Jamal says this? He's voted off. No, not because he said what he said. The problem is he was kicked off in spite of what he said. Ultimately, the players cared about advancing in the game more than they cared about someone who had the courage to say all the right things regarding this particular form of discrimination, including that sexual harassment is bigger than the game of Survivor.

Unfortunately, no, not in this world. A game for $1,000,000 and all kinds of status ended up being bigger than the manipulation of sexual harassment. Not for Janet - she put aside her game play to try and oust someone who she was told was harassing women. Not for Jamal - he expressed what society needs so desperately to understand. But for the players who colluded to kick Jamal out, his and Janet's efforts to stand up to sexual harassment were superseded by our society's pathetic desire for money and fame, and that's just sad. Unfortunately that's what Survivor is - yeah, a microcosm for society at large, whose values are disgustingly twisted.

And what about Survivor's production team? Are they going to let this go? Apparently it's now acceptable for players to use discrimination as a form of game play. Will they bring this up at the season finale, and do so appropriately? Or will they simply convey, "Sexual harassment is bad and won't be tolerated." Cause fact is, on this episode sexual harassment wasn't just tolerated, it was outright allowed as strategic trickery (Elizabeth admitted it on camera), and the institution sat idly by when that happened.

Discrimination can never be game play, period, because if it is, it communicates that discrimination can be used as "game play" in other social institutions (e.g., work places, schools, sports teams). Why can't the Survivor production team get that? Apologies from the contestants are something, but the institution should have intervened appropriately and immediately.

Further reading: Survivor's "#MeToo moment" protected the game instead of the players

South Korean K-pop, Perpetuating Patriarchy

In the 1990s, The Spice Girls had an infectious global impact on young people across Europe, North America, and Australia – girls in particular. While some may argue women’s sexuality, fandom, and business prowess mix in ways promote female empowerment, others claim that despite having a central position on stage, these mainstream girl groups reproduce male privilege. In contemporary South Korea, this topic is especially germane.

I recently attended a lecture by Associate Professor Stephen Epstein (2011), Director of the Asian Studies Programme at Victoria University of Wellington, where I learned that all female “girl groups” are having major influences in South Korea and across much of Asia through the phenomenon of K-pop.

The Wonder Girls:
According to Professor Epstein, girl groups’ music and videos in the K-pop genre tend to fall in one of four typologies, which make for useful comparisons with popular female artists in the West.

1. “Desire Expressed but Initiative Given to Males” – In videos falling into this typology, female artists communicate a craving to forge romantic relationships with males, but the artists’ physical movements and lyrics privilege the desired male partners. According to Dr. Epstein, the following video, “Tell Me Your Wish” by Oh!, exemplifies this typology since the female artists ask their male partners how they can fulfill the males’ desires:



Going back a few decades, one cannot help but compare this video’s genie theme to the sit-com, “I Dream of Genie.” It is no coincidence that “I Dream of Genie” emerged in the midst of America’s second women’s movement. With women in the broader society advocating for equal pay, “I Dream of Genie” portrayed a woman considered physically attractive with magical powers confined to a small lamp and controlled by her male proprietor. In South Korea’s contemporary K-pop industry, Oh! present a strikingly similar message.

And while not a “genie in a bottle” or part of a larger group, one can still see similarities in Nicki Minaj’s recent video, “Super Bass.” In her video, Minaj and an entourage of female dancers exude a highly sexualized femininity as they indulge males with whom they hope to forge a romance. Hence, the males are ultimately in control, there to sit back as the women work for their affection:



2. “Power through Narcissistic Sexuality” – The second typology includes videos in which girl groups supposedly garner power by brazenly accentuating their sexuality. Scenarios in these videos repeatedly show the South Korean female artists rejecting male suitors as they soak in compliments and climb the social ladder, their increasing popularity tied solely to their sexual prowess. The irony, of course, is that power garnered through sexuality does not alter the gender order. Rather, it reproduces gender norms with women (and girls) objectified as sex articles. This is seen quite clearly in the somewhat comical video “So Hot” by the Wonder Girls (note how cheerleading and American gridiron football is built into the video's gendered dynamics, a sport hardly popular in South Korea):



Again, this typology is not unique to girl groups in South Korean K-pop. Keri Hilson’s recent hit, “Pretty Girl Rock,” includes a number of lyrics that encourage women to publicly flaunt their sexual supremacy: “…Mad cause I’m cuter than the girl that’s with ya. I can talk about it cause I know that I’m pretty and if ya know it too then ladies sing it with me…. Don’t question that this girl’s a 10. Don’t hate me cause I’m beautiful.” As such, men are supposedly relegated inferior to the beautiful woman(en), but in actuality, women are valued strictly for their physical attractiveness. More to the point, Hilson’s video demonstrates this theme manifesting over generations:



3. “Objectified Female Solidarity” – The third typology includes videos where members of the girl groups completely reject males, holding no desire for male attention. With such an overt rejection, a greater female solidarity is definitely present in these videos, and perhaps even a stronger sense of independence. Still, the girl groups’ body language and attire perpetuate the same visual narrative – that women are sexual objects, as seen in Miss A’s “Bad Girl, Good Girl”:



Overlap may exist in these South Korean K-pop videos with those starring Lady Gaga. Lady Gaga has been heralded as a talent who questions authority and speaks to minority issues, but doing so while simultaneously reproducing a visual imagery in line with traditional gender norms.




4. “Revenge Narratives” – The final typology stated by Dr. Epstein was that of the revenge narrative in which the girl group members plan and carry out vengeful acts against promiscuous ex-boyfriends. In doing so, girls bond to presumably reclaim a collective sense of power. However, the over-arching theme of these videos still places women’s and girls’ value in the framework of a heterosexual relationship. See, below, 4minute’s video, “Heart to Heart”:



Though perhaps not a perfect comparison, Christina Aguilera’s “Fighter,” definitely holds similar tenets. Aguilera purports a strengthened individuality after being harmed, presumably by an ex-boyfriend. The song’s lyrics state, “Makes me that much stronger. Makes me work a little bit harder. Makes me that much wiser. Thanks for making me a fighter.” These empowering lyrics on the one hand continue to exist in the context of a woman’s central focus in romantic affairs, thereby cementing the current gender order.

Marketed as a means of increasing girls’ and young women’s power and independence, girl groups in the South Korean K-pop industry follow the same gender lines seen in music videos produced world-wide that emphasize femininity. The music videos may communicate slightly different points, but their messages have the same basic implications.

Girls’ and women’s worth is connected to (1) frequently unhealthy and unattainable beauty standards, and (2) romantic relationships with men. Despite being promoted as empowering for girls and women, the videos do not challenge patriarchy at all. To the contrary, they reinforce a world where gender inequality is embedded in its social systems.

Reference:
Epstein, S. J. (2011 August 4). Girls’ Generation?: Gender, (Dis)Empowerment and K-pop. School of Asian Studies Seminar Series 2001. Auckland: The University of Auckland.

For more of Dr. Epstein’s work, conducted in tandem with his colleague, James Turnbull, go Turnbull's blog, TheGrandNarrative.com.


blog

Where Young Men and Boys Learn Homophobia: Wrestlemania Hype

A little over a week ago on NPR's "Fresh Air," Terry Gross hosted Dan Savage and his husband (in Canada)/boyfriend (in the U.S.) to discuss the "It Gets Better" movement, in which gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender adults and heterosexual allies may post videos for young people of stigmatized sexualities who are struggling with bullying.

Click here to listen to the podcast:

Dan Savage: For Gay Teens, Life 'Gets Better'

Even President Obama made a video for the project:



It is a fantastic interview, covering everything from homophobia to family dynamics, and coping with being a minoriy on multiple levels (i.e., sexuality, gender, race, class).

At about 19:00 into the interview, Gross asks a question that she says "might be incredibly naieve": "Why do you think so many teenagers are still so homophobic considering how many people are out now, how many celebrities are out now. People in popular culture are out now. I mean, it's just so much more commonplace than it was when you were growing up."

Savage offers an illuminating response, discussing how in some ways celebrities' openness regarding their sexuality has made it worse for LGBT teens, as it is more difficult for them to "fly under the radar" in the case that it is unsafe to come out. However, the conversation went on a tangent, and Gross's question was not actually addressed.

So where is homophobia still cultivated in our society? Hegemonic masculinity is about males stepping on women and other males in order to move up the system's social order. Stepping on others in a hegemonic masculine system means putting down all that is considered feminine, which currently includes males who do not fit into the rigid heterosexual standard.

So where do boys grow up learning to be homophobic? Well, tomorrow is the World Wrestling Entertainment's annual hallmark show, "Wrestlemania." Here's part of what was used to build the hype - classic hegemonic masculinity. In other words, here we have blatant discrimination used to hype an extremely popular cultural product with a very male-heavy audience. The use of humor, role modeling, and the extensive power the WWE has in the entertainment business normalizes these discriminatory values. As a society, we are less apt to think more carefully (or even at all) about homophobia and question its existence. Of course Jackson Katz has done tons of excellent work critquing WWE's sexist and homophobic history.

For a more contemporary example, just listen to the crowd cheer wildly after each homophobic joke made by the WWE's current star, John Cena. Male socialization at its finest (sarcasm):



blog tips

Contextualizing Dating Violence in Jersey Shore

The past few weeks of MTv’s reality television show, Jersey Shore, have provided strong examples of the ways co-occurring violence can emerge in young people's intimate relationships and have differing effects based on the respective individuals' sex. For those unfamiliar with the show, you may read a sociological perspective here.

Among the show's cast of characters are Ronnie (a muscular and physically imposing individual) and Sammi – a romantically involved couple. The couple has incessant conflicts tied to jealousy and lack of trust (Ronnie, apparently, cheated on Sammi in a past season). The show typifies many reality shows in that contentious relationships between the characters are further problematized through participants' youth, a lack of structure, and easy access to alcohol.

Jersey Shore's episodes offer little in the way of substance. Characters are given employment, consume alcohol excessively, party at nightclubs, and among a few other activities, pursue mostly transient sexual relationships. Still, due to the show's immense popularity, it merits some scholarly analysis, especially when sexuality mixes with violence to a degree of regularity.

Episode 18: "Drunk Punch Love": Contextualizing Dating Violence

In episode 18 of season 2, titled "Drunk Punch Love," Sammi verbally accosts Ronnie (pictured above) after he re-forges his friendship with another female cast-member, Jenni (a.k.a., "Jwoww," also Sammi’s enemy). Upon admitting friendship with Jenni, Sammi punches Ronnie directly on his chin as he sits on a bench, completely unprepared. Sammi storms off while Ronnie responds by sitting relatively unfazed, mildly feeling his jaw.

This episode of dating violence illustrates the problem with an emergence of teen dating violence studies that Jody Miller and Norman White critique in their important article, "Gender and Adolescent Relationship Violence: A Contextual Examination." Miller and White point out that a good portion of quantitative studies on adolescent dating violence suggests boys and girls are equally as likely to be perpetrators of dating violence (e.g., hitting a dating partner). These studies, however, are misleading because they completely de-contextualize what appear to be equal levels of violence between boys and girls (or young men and women).

Although girls may hit their male intimate partners as often as males hit their female partners, this does not mean the precursors to violence or ramifications of violence are equal. As seen in Jersey Shore, Sammi's physical violence is preceded by Ronnie's unfaithful history; she has immense trust issues specifically because he cheated on her. And though this does not excuse physical violence on Sammi's part, it helps provide a context to her actions.

Secondly, we see very vividly that Sammi's physical violence directed towards Ronnie has almost zero physical impact. Her strike directly upon his chin, with Ronnie completely unprepared, still leaves Ronnie unharmed (at least physically; he later breaks down emotionally). And in fact, teen dating violence studies have found that male adolescents frequently laugh off being hit by their girlfriends. The same cannot be said nearly as often when males hit females.

Thus, when dating violence studies find equal rates of physical violence between heterosexual adolescent couples and report those findings without proper context, they are missing critical information tied to gender imbalances between males and females. This episode of Jersey Shore effectively illustrates how irresponsible it is to report that males and females hitting one another at equal rates is actually equal.

Episode 19: "Should We Just Break Up?": Being a Bystander During Dating Violence

The Jersey Shore dating violence drama continues in episode 19, "Should We Just Break Up?" In this episode, the couple continues intensely arguing to the point that the other three male cast-members – Michael, Paul, and Vinny (a.k.a., "MVP") – intervene.

Ronnie, who is far larger and more muscular than any of the other males, never strikes Sammi (pictured above). Still, he is extremely physical when expressing his anger and has been in at least one fight with another male (non-cast-member) in a past episode. As the "MVP" trio intervenes, both Ronnie and Sammi magnify their verbal aggression and physical bravado, though neither partner strikes the other. Eventually, the male trio successfully gets Ronnie to leave, thereby creating a reprieve to the dating violence.

Unfortunately, the lure used to help Ronnie leave is taking him to a nightclub, where he may consume more alcohol. And unsurprisingly, Sammi and her female cast-mates decide to go to the same nightclub where she openly flirts and dances seductively with male patrons. Seeing Sammi's actions as a sign of public disrespect, Ronnie is infuriated, goes back to the house and tears apart her belongings in a fit of rage. The Jersey Shore cast-members watch on at this point without intervening.

This sequence of events again illustrates young people's unfamiliarity with how to address obvious forms of dating violence. Weisz and Black, in their study titled "Peer Intervention in Dating Violence: Beliefs of African American Middle School Adolescents," found that high percentages of African American middle school students would not intervene in a peer-couple's relationship even if they knew violence was taking place. Students (male and female) reported they would not intervene because (among other reasons) it was none of their business, intervening could hurt them, and their intervention may cause more unforeseen problems.

Again, the way the scenarios played out on Jersey Shore effectively demonstrated how young people do not know how to cope as bystanders with peer dating violence. Truth be told, the "MVP" trio did a good job of initially stopping the dating violence. However, both the male and female bystanders/cast-members probably did the worst thing in having Sammi and Ronnie go out and consume more alcohol in the same location. Watching Sammi dance seductively with other males, Ronnie felt his masculinity was publicly violated, leading him to engage in violent property damage.

As an outside observer, it is impossible to say how much of Jersey Shore is constructed by the production team. This notwithstanding, recent episodes showcase how dating violence emanates among young people. We can see dating violence contextualized along imbalanced gender lines, as well as how bystanders of dating violence struggle to cope with the social problem largely because they don't know how to intervene in a healthy manner.

Not that we can expect more from MTv, but it would be nice if the company at least complimented these Jersey Shore episodes with supplementary videos on how to prevent teen dating violence. They must have the resources that could speak to greater social responsibility. I mean really, does MTv want young viewers thinking that true love is supposed to be violent?


academics online

Japanese Manga and Social Norms

The New York Times has an interesting story up regarding the manga phenomenon in Japan and its highly sexualized content, specifically with regard to portrayals of female minors - "Japan Debates Depictions of Young Girls in Comics."

The article offers some good examples of the way that patriarchy is weaved into Japan's formal social structure, namely, into the law. To put it mildly, manga comics frequently display animated pictures of girls in sexually suggestive situations. The industry is very lucrative, and has a history:

Japan, which has long been relatively tolerant of the open sale and consumption of sexually oriented material, lately has developed a brisk trade in works that in many other countries might be considered child pornography. But now some public officials want to place tighter restrictions on the provocative depictions of young girls — referred to as “junior idols”— that are prevalent in magazines, DVDs and Web videos.

One particularly big target is manga comic books that depict pubescent girls in sexual acts. It a lucrative segment of the $5.5 billion industry for manga, illustrated books drawn in a characteristic Japanese comic-book style.

[...]

Manga taps into a history of erotica that dates at least as far back as the ukiyo-e prints of 17th- to 19th-century Japan, including Hokusai’s famous portrayal of a fisherwoman and octopi in a salacious encounter. But it was as recently as the 1980s that comic magazines like Lemon People introduced a wider audience to sexual manga featuring young girls.

A new law specific to Tokyo's metropolitan government offers very moderate regulation of manga comics, ostensibly in order to prevent child exploitation. However, and unsurprisingly, the law doesn't have a lot of teeth.

The new Tokyo law, which applies to anyone under 18, bans the sale of comics and other works — including novels, DVDs and video games — that depict sexual or violent acts that would violate Japan’s national penal code, as well as sex involving anyone under age 18. The ordinance also requires guardians to prevent children younger than 13 from posing for magazines or videos that depict them in sexually suggestive ways.

Legal experts say that Japan’s laws against child pornography are lax by international standards. Japan has banned the production or distribution of any sexually explicit, nude images of minors since 1999, when Parliament passed a law in response to international criticism of the wide availability of such works in the country. But even now, unlike the United States and most European countries, Japan does not ban the possession of child pornography.

If patriarchy is defined as a system that privileges men over women, then we have a clear example of patriarchy here. Within Japan's current legal structure (at least since 1999) it is completely legal to own child pornography. And while child pornography harms girls and boys, the manga culture appears heavily centered on sexually embellished girls.

To this end, it is argued that the manga culture cultivates values that denigrate girls, increasing their vulnerability to male manga consumers who cannot (or choose not to) separate a patriarchal fantasy from real life experience. The manga culture is said to diffuse into the broader Japanese culture, altering cultural values and norms among males:

Hiromasa Nakai, a spokesman for the Japan Committee for Unicef, said the abundance of child pornography in Japan made it even easier for those who would normally not be considered as having clinical pedophilia, a psychiatric disorder characterized by a sexual obsession with young children, to develop a sexual interest in children.

“To a degree, it has become socially accepted to lust over young girls in Japan,” Mr. Nakai said. “Condoning these works has meant more people have access to them and develop an interest in young girls.”

And this diffusion impacts girls' self-images as well. The article describes a 13-year-old girl and her aspirations, clearly influenced by the manga industry:

“I loved the white bikini,” Ms. Iinuma, the 13-year-old model, told the adult male fans who turned out at the Sofmap electronics store in Tokyo for an event to promote the release of her second DVD, “Developing Now.” It is a plotless 70 minutes of Ms. Iinuma in various costumes and poses.

At the gathering, Ms. Iinuma performed a short dance, spoke about the video shoot, then posed as men approached her to snap photos, while her mother looked on from the back of the room.

Of course those advocating on behalf of the manga industry (or the sector of the industry that is under fire) argue that consumers are mature enough not to have their attitudes and behaviors actually impacted by the media.

The industry’s defenders say comparing manga to pedophilia involving real children is absurd. “Depicting a crime and committing one are two different things; it’s like convicting a mystery writer for murder,” said Takashi Yamaguchi, a Tokyo lawyer and manga expert.

And finally, the industry's economic health is said by some to be more important than wiping out dimensions of patriarchial culture.

Some also worry that stronger regulations will harm an industry whose fortunes have already fallen in recent years; sales of comic magazines, in particular, have dropped by a third over the last decade, to $24.3 million in 2008.

In short, eradicating sexism is not prioritized when placed against free market business ventures. And as noted previously, the society protects this patriarchial culture through the law.

Oh, and this cultural norm has diffused to some degree into American popular culture. Anyone remember the blockbuster film, Kill Bill 2, where we see the intersections of manga-influenced youth, sexism, and violence manifest in this character?




academics

This is SportsCenter: The Predictable Gender Trend

On today’s SportsCenter, ESPN closed out showing their “This is SportsCenter” commercials. As described on ESPN’s official YouTube, "This is SportsCenter" channel:

This is SportsCenter is the name of a series of comical television commercials run by ESPN to promote their SportsCenter sports news show. The ads are presented in a deadpan mockumentary style, lampooning various aspects of sports, and sports broadcasting. The commercials debuted in 1994.

As of tonight (December 24, 2010), ESPN’s YouTube channel profiles 77 of these short videos. Not every "This is SportsCenter" commercial is profiled, but I'm just going with what is up on this page now as the sample data set. I generally enjoy these commercials. Many of them are witty, and they are all short (around 30 seconds). Here are a few examples:

















As can be seen, the commercials typically profile a famous athlete and/or a SportsCenter anchor, and on occasion a non-sports-related celebrity (e.g., Richard Simmons). In examining what athletes the commercials profile on ESPN's YouTube page, a highly predictable trend emerges. Here are the individual athletes the commercials profile (note: when no athletes are profiled and only anchors, gender of anchors profiled noted instead):

1. Dwight Freeney (football; male)


2. Derek Jeeter (baseball; male)


3. Floyd Mayweather (boxing; male)


4. Tim Lincecum (baseball; male)


5. Wayne Gretzky (hockey; male)


6. Dwight Howard (basketball; male)


7. David St. Hubbins (musician; male)


8. Arnold Palmer (golf; male)


9. Oregon Duck (football; gender neutral)


10. Usain Bolt (track & field; male)


11. Larry Fitzgerald (football; male)


12. Matt Ryan (football; male)


13. Brett Favre (football; male)


14. Adrian Peterson (football; male)


15. Joe Mauer (baseball; male)


16. Adrian Peterson (football; male)


17. Manny Ramierz (baseball; male)


18. Josh Hamilton (baseball; male)


19. SportsCenter Anchors (all male)


20. Jimmie Johnson (car racing; male)


21. SportsCenter Anchors (all male)


22. Manny Ramirez (baseball; male)


23. David Ortiz & Jorge Posada (baseball; male)


24. David Wright (baseball; male)


25. Chad Ochocinco (football; male)


26. Chad Ochocinco (football; male)


27. Ladanian Tomlinson (football; male)


28. Chad Ochocinco (football; male)


29. Tony Romo (football; male)


30. Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, & Ray Allen (basketball; male)


31. Michael Phelps (swimming; male)


32. Ladanian Tomlinson (football; male)


33. Jim Kelly (football; male)


34. Dale Earnhardt Jr. (car racing; male)


35. Chad Ochocinco (football; male)


36. Stephen King (writer; male)


37. Michael Phelps (swimming; male)


38. Jimmy Rollins (baseball; male)


39. Richard Simmons (fitness pro; male)


40. Maria Sharapova (tennis; female)


41. Steve Smith (football; male)


42. Jose Reyes (baseball; male)


43. Pat Summit (basketball; female)


44. Dale Earnhardt Jr. (car racing; male)


45. Carmelo Anthony (basketball; male)


46. Chris Paul (basketball; male)


47. Keyshawn Johnson (football; male) & Kobe Bryant (basketball; male)


48. "Moving the Franchise" (all male anchors)


49. "Yahtzee" (male anchors)


50. Kerri Strug (gymnastics; female)


51. "Talent Search" (male anchors)


52. Globetrotters (basketball; male)


53. Dan O'Brien (track & field; male)


54. "Journalistic Integrity" (male anchors)


55. "Sportscaster Celebrities" (male anchors)


56. "Live on the Set" (predominantly male anchors; female anchor at end)


57. Michael Andretti (car racing; male)


58. Gordie Howe (hockey; male)


59. "Reading Lips" (all male anchors)


60. "Makeup Buddies" (all male anchors)


61. "Athletes Bribing" (multiple male athletes from different sports)


62. George Mikan (basketball; male)


63. Mary Lou Retton (gymnastics; female)


64. "Tour" (all male anchors)


65. "One Track Mind" (predominanty male anchors; female anchor at start)


66. "Shoot" (female anchor)


67. "Paws" (all male anchors)


68. "Serious Journalism" (all male anchors)


69. "Write Your Own Stuff" (all male anchors)


70. "Sweet Science" (predominantly male anchor; short appearances by a female anchor)


71. "Potty Talk" (male anchor)


72. "Memories" (all male anchors)


73. Keshawn Johnson (football; male) & Kobe Bryant (basketball; male)


74. Glenn Robinson (basketball; male)


75. Barry Melrose (hockey; male)


76. Landon Donovan (soccer; male)


77. Jimmie Johnson (car racing; male)

When going through the data set, we find that out of the 77 commercials, women only appear 8 times (10.4%), in some cases in relatively peripheral roles. When looking specifically at athletes, only 3 female athletes are profiled, all 3 of whom represent historically "acceptibly feminine" sports: Mary Lou Retton and Kerri Strug (both gymnasts) and Maria Sharapova (tennis). One commercial profiles Pat Summit, the famous women's basketball coach from the University of Tennessee. All other commercials featuring athletes have males.

Examining the content of the commercials is also important. For instance, the commercial with Sharapova clearly relies on Sharapova's status as a femininized beauty figure in athletics. And while all the commercials are "presented in deadpan mockumentary style," the humor clearly calls upon dominant notions of heterosexual masculinity -- take for example the commercials that mock femininity among males, such as those in which the male anchors share makeup and mock Richard Simmons as a conditioning coach.

The trends shown here are highly predictable. It is hardly surprising that males are over-represented numerically in the commercials, both as athletes and anchors. Likewise, it is unsurprising that the humor utilized in these commercials so often mocks femininity among males in the sporting world or uses female athletes as sexualized figures.

What we see here in ESPN's "This is SportsCenter" commercials is the typical way that gender is constructed in sport -- patriarchy is reified within an institution historically reserved for heterosexual males.

academics

Reality Television and Hegemonic Masculinity: Bridalplasty

Seriously, someone should create a sociology blog dedicated entirely to critiquing reality television. I suppose you'd have to be kind of a reality TV-nut, but the content would be limitless. I caught a little bit of a reality TV show called "Bridalplasty" today and couldn't watch much, so correct me if I'm wrong in the show's premise.

From what I could tell, the show revolves around engaged women competing for two things: (1) a paid celebrity-esque dream wedding; and (2) paid plastic surgery to "improve" the way they look for the dream wedding. As with most reality shows, the contestants go through a series of competitions that provoke conflict and drama as winners of competitions move on and losers are dropped.

The show exemplifies hegemonic masculinity working at its best:

• The female contestants seem to truly believe that in order to improve themselves, they must engage in behaviors that actually extend male privilege (e.g., manipulating their physical appearance), an excellent example of false consciousness.


• Symbolically, the leader/host of the show is also female, who represents "ideal" beauty from a traditional western standard (I wonder if the producers are male).


• Rather than challenging these gender roles that obviously value women for their physical appearance, the women are forced to challenge each other (divide and conquer).


• Males make minimal appearances on the show (or at least in the promos), but when they do, they are seen as doctors (high status plastic surgeons) or in clips as future husbands (the men these female contestants are trying to please).


• Heterosexuality is normalized.

Another way of putting it, the show is among the most extreme examples of emphasized femininity -- women heighten the focus they place on physical appearance, are willing to risk their own health in doing so, and further value themesleves through a dream wedding that will last a day. All this in the name of being attractive for their male fiancees.

Enjoy a few YouTube videos advertising the show:













academics blogs

More Gendered Mobile Phones

I've written a few other entries on the ways that gender is constructed in mobile phone commercials (see here and here). And here is another commercial, clearly relying on gender-role expectations for Net10:



Pretty self-explanatory...


academics blogs

Sport, Sex, and Cinema: ESPN the Magazine

ESPN The Magazine has a "Movie Spectacular" edition that was released Nov. 29. The edition features a number of stories related to sports films, including pictures of contemporary pro athletes re-enacting iconic images from famous movies.

Some of the pictures include race car driver, Danica Patrick in the movie, "Anchorman," Baron Davis and Terry Kennedy in "Back to the Future," and Tank Johnson, Dhani Jones, and Chad Ochocinco in "The Hangover" (see, below).

Not surprisingly, however, ski racer and Olympic gold medalist, Lindsey Vonn, made the magazine's cover, as she portrayed Sharon Stone's highly sexualized character from "Basic Instinct" back in the early 1990s.

There is not a whole lot to say here, other than this is yet another example of the pathway female athletes can follow if they want to "out-stage" their male counterparts -- by promoting a heightened sexuality. While the other famous athletes do get exposure within the magazine's pages, Vonn graces the cover by showing skin and re-creating a film scene that exudes sexual aggression.

In this constructed combination of sport, sex, and cinema, we see how ESPN -- a media giant in the sporting industry -- markets its magazine to what is likely a predominantly male, heterosexual audience.

Photos via Huffington Post, NYMag.com, and Slashfilm.com.

academics links

Permissible Violence: Kobe Bryant, Jimmy Kimmel, and Call of Duty: Black Ops

In 1997, Hutchins and Phillips published an important article in the International Review for the Sociology of Sport, titled "Selling Permissible Violence." The article utilizes Australian rugby to illustrate that standards of violence fluctuate in society. These fluctuating standards of violence are contingent upon the market's commodification of violence, evolving technology and media, and political ideology. And while Hutchins and Phillips's article centers on sporting violence, the concept of permissible violence can be extended to other forms of popular culture, as well as war.

To this end, recently, National Basketball Association (NBA) icon, Kobe Bryant, and television late show host, Jimmy Kimmel, were featured in an XBOX 360 advertisement for the recently released game, "Call of Duty: Black Ops," re-enacting combat in war. Here's the commercial:



Link to commercial here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yzeCsv-qrM

It is important to note a few other dimensions of the commercial. First, it makes a concerted effort to include a very diverse array of additional characters -- men, women, younger people, older people, those from different ethnic and occupational/class groups. This diversity tactic then leads to an ending slogan: "THERE'S A SOLDIER IN ALL OF US." In other words, all of us (supposedly) have the innate capacity and desire to partake in war (or at least buy the video game).

The commercial has generated a small degree of controversy. On ESPN, sports pundits discuss whether or not Bryant's participation in the commercial warrants a response from NBA Commissioner, David Stern:



Bomani Jones hits the nail on the head. With approximately 1 minute left in the video, Jones points out that if Bryant was re-enacting what's portrayed in the video game, Grand Theft Auto (e.g., murder, assaults, prostitution), he would be reprimanded by Commissioner Stern. However, because Bryant, Kimmel and the other actors are re-enacting war against each other, and presumably against American enemies in the game, the portrayed violence is at the very least permissible, and more likely glorified as a kind of American patriotism.

And this is the problem with America's blind fascination with war -- the general public only sees what our media wants us to see. We see the most extreme violence (death) glamorized and commodified in "benign" video games, leaving the public completely misdirected from the realities of war.

Bryant and Kimmel's participation in the commercial, and in turn support of this war-based game, speak nothing to the physical and mental health concerns soldiers (including American soldiers) experience because of war (listen to Terry Gross's fantastic interview for a discussion on soldiers' mental health concerns: Psychologist Craig Bryan: Treating Vets For PTSD).

Likewise, "Call of Duty: Black Ops" speaks nothing to the alleged war crimes that American soldiers have been accused of committing in Iraq and Afghanistan (Leaked U.S. Video Shows Deaths In Baghdad; A Murder Controversy in Afghanistan).

What we see in this commercial, is that war is not just permissible. It is cool. If Kobe Bryant and Jimmy Kimmel can have fun re-enacting war games and show "they have a soldier in them," video gamers should likewise view war-based video games that bring death upon others in fiction uncritically. But in real life, these media blitzes simultaneously and covertly also support American military efforts, without problematizing the tragic outcomes of war on all sides of the battlefield.

Should society be glamorizing war to make money, and turning to celebrities to peddle these products? I wonder, how many of the marketers for "Call of Duty: Black Ops" have been in combat, lost a limb, dealt with severe war-related mental health problems, killed someone, or had a loved one killed?

Photo via ESPN; more from The Orlando Sentinel: ESPN shot down by Call of Duty Black Ops creators over Kobe Bryant ad, Examiner.com: Activision denies ESPN use of COD: Black Ops commercial with Kobe Bryant, 'Call of Duty: Black Ops' video game commercial controversy, Media Bistro: Activision Shoots Down ESPN’s Request To Air Kobe Bryant Commercial.


academics

"Pocahontas Meets Adriel Luis’ Slip of the Tongue"

Saw this excellent example of how community advocates can re-construct discriminatory cultural artifacts from the mainstream over on Sociological Images.

Reading Eminem and Rihanna's 'Love The Way You Lie'

Ever since Eminem and Rihanna's video for their hit song "Love The Way You Lie" was released, I've been thinking about the song's violent lyrics and its video's violent imagery. The folks over at Sociological Images helped me wrap my initial thoughts around the video:

Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a beautiful song. Rihanna’s vocals are gorgeous; it’s was hard to not feel heartfelt while listening to them. And that’s the problem. It’s a powerful form of socialization. That we might internalize the message that passionate love and incontrollable rage go hand-in-hand is really very scary. It suggests not only that you should tolerate interpersonal violence but that, if there is no violence in your relationship, perhaps you don’t really love one another.

How many individuals feel happy when their partner expresses jealousy, even goes into a jealous rage? Why is that dynamic normalized in varying degrees? There's no denying the song's popularity. According to Yahoo! Finance, "Love the Way You Lie," "...has reigned at No. 1 on the Digital Songs chart for five consecutive weeks and has sold more than 1.4 million downloads." A portion of the lyrics:

Told you this is my fault
Look me in the eyeball
Next time I'm pissed
I'll aim my fist
At the dry wall
Next time
There will be no next time
I apologize
Even though I know it's lies
I'm tired of the games
I just want her back
I know I'm a liar
If she ever tries to fucking leave again
I'mma tie her to the bed
And set the house on fire

Graphic and shocking to say the least, as are the images in the video, which features movie and television stars Megan Fox and Dominic Monaghan:

Graphic and shocking was largely the point. The song was authored by Eminem, who then asked to collaborate with Rihanna, in part because of her history as an intimate partner violence (IPV) victim (listen here for an excellent discussion on Rihanna, Chris Brown, and the gendered politics of IPV). Against my general principles, I dug into the "bee-bop" popular culture internet sites to see what I could find about how this song and video were intended to address IPV. In fact, there are direct connections being made between the video and IPV.

For instance, Megan Fox has donated her video appearance fee to a shelter for battered women. And in a VH1 interview with Rihanna, the music star explains her and Eminem's personal connection to the song's theme:

"It's something that, you know, [Eminem and I have] both experienced, you know, on different sides, different ends of the table," she said.

"It just was authentic. It was real," Rihanna continued. "It was believable for us to do a record like that, but it was also something that needed to be done and the way he did it was so clever. He pretty much just broke down the cycle of domestic violence and it's something that a lot people don't have a lot of insight on, so this song is a really, really powerful song and it touches a lot of people."

[...]

Ultimately, the song was something Rihanna felt was in line with her past relationship. "The lyrics were so deep, so beautiful and intense. It's something that I understood, something I connected with," she revealed.

Dominic Monaghan ads:

"The concept of 'Love the Way You Lie' was essentially a look at the relationship that Eminem was in with his wife, Kim, so I kind of felt like I was playing Eminem a little bit, and Megan Fox was kind of playing Kim.

"It's the story of them getting to know each other, and it's the story of their tumultuous relationship, and it was the story of the breakdown of their relationship," he continued. "Ultimately, what I think he's trying to say in the song ... is that he should have walked away a little bit quicker than he did and not let it get as messy as it did."

At least explicity, there was critical thought put into this popular culture artifact. My question is, how will young people from different demographics and different life experiences interpret the song's and video's violent content? The one empirical study I could find on Eminem's music and its effects on listeners found that young adults who listened to his songs with misogynistic lyrics were largely unaffected by them, though the study was only conducted with research participants who were college students (Cobb & Boettcher, 2007).

In my dissertation, adolescent research participants spoke quite openly about the ways they saw IPV as completely normal. These were teens who had experienced multiple forms of violence throughout their lives (peer, family, romantic, drug, physical, verbal) -- certainly not the average college student. I wonder what their interpretations would be.

Then yesterday, I heard a male radio DJ essentially state the following after "Love The Way You Lie" was played: "You know, Megan Fox is supposed to play an abused victim in that song's video, (chuckling) but in the video, she's the abuser. I didn't see her get hit once. She was doing all the hitting!" Uh, yeah, real funny. Was that the video's intent? And did he miss all the punching of the walls (physical intimidation)? Contrast that point of view with a female student in my Sociology of Popular Culture class:

As for the video, I think maybe it has good intentions, especially using two artists who have a history with IPV, but I don't think it will be beneficial. Using [Dominic Monaghan] and Megan Fox (a sex symbol for everyone today) [it] seems to glorify the topic by using two high end celebrities. This video seemed like it wanted to make domestic violence look sexy and possessiveness look masculine.

Perhaps for some listeners, the song and video do raise consciousness regarding IPV prevention -- what Monaghan said the video is intended to accomplish. But certainly not for everyone. For the student quoted above, the video was offensive and reified traditional gender norms. To get a little academic, from John Storey (1993):

...an image containing references to pop music culture might be seen by a young audience as an index of freedom and heterogeneity, whilst to an older audience it might signal manipulation and homgeneity. Which codes are mobilized will largely depend on the triple context of the location of the text, the historical moment and the cultural formation of the reader (p. 80).

Since people with different social histories interpret popular culture differently, I'd be interested to see how young people from different demographics digest this song and video. Do the cultural artifacts problematize IPV (the stated intent) or further normalize and perpetuate this form of violence?

Or, as indicated by the radio DJ, does this video mobilize codes that perpetuate misunderstandings about co-occurring violence in intimate relationships? For instance, too many people assume that when males and females hit each other, the physical ramifications are equally harmful. Does the video gloss over the fact that verbal abuse, social isolation, and other forms of control (e.g., forcing what a partner wears) can be more damaging than physical violence?

The song's and video's influence will likely diminish over time. Nonetheless, "Love The Way You Lie" demonstrates how people's readings of the same cultural product can vary greatly, and how received meanings can be shaped more by audiences' past experiences than by the cultural producers.

Non Internet Sources:

Cobb, M. D., & Boettcher, W. A. (2007). Ambivalent Sexism and Misogynistic Rap Music: Does Exposure to Eminem Increase Sexism? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37 (12), 3025-3042.

Storey, J. (1993). An Introductory Guide to Cultural Theory and Popular Culture. Athens: University of Georgia Press.


Blogging

America’s Favorite Athletes: Results Reflect Societal Values

A recent Harris Poll tells us some interesting, perhaps predictable, things about sports, sports fans, and ongoing societal values in America. The online poll surveyed 2,227 adults between June 14 – 21, 2010 (a relatively small sample, but one which accounts for population size across regions). First, let’s look at the results:

Favorite Male Athletes:

1. Kobe Bryant/Tiger Woods (tie)
3. Derek Jeter
4. Brett Favre
5. Peyton Manning
6. LeBron James
7. Michael Jordan
8. Tom Brady
9. Drew Brees
10. Dale Earnhardt

Favorite Female Athletes:

1. Serena Williams
2. Venus Williams
3. Danica Patrick
4. Mia Hamm
5. Maria Sharapova
6. Anna Kournikova
7. Misty May/Shawn Johnson (tie)
9. Lisa Leslie
10. Billie Jean King/Martina Navratalova (tie)

Among the male athletes, the first somewhat surprising result is that Bryant and Woods stood atop the list despite run-ins with serious marital concerns, both of which were made very public, and for Woods was very recent. Of course these results are only somewhat surprising, as professional male athletes typically find it easier to transgress social boundaries with regard to promiscuity. Thus, perhaps it should not be terribly surprising for Tiger and Kobe to still be widely popular among the American public. What is remarkable is that Bryant was the most popular athlete among females polled.

The list of favorite female athletes is far more interesting. Notably, Serena and Venus Williams repeated as the two most popular female athletes (also holding the 1-2 honors last year). As with Woods, this shows a growing acceptance of African American athletes excelling in a historically Caucasian sport. With regard to the sports athletes represent, however, there is a glaring pattern. Eight out of the eleven women (11 due to two ties) come from sports that historically have been considered “acceptably female” sports: the Williams sisters, Sharapova, Kournikova, King, and Navratalova (tennis); May (volleyball); and Johnson (gymnastics). Over half of the women on the list play(ed) tennis.

May represents soccer, historically defined as a more masculine sport. As for Patrick and Leslie, they also represent historically defined male sports (auto racing and basketball, respectively). Still, both of these athletes, Patrick in particular, have gained celebrity as part of American popular culture via mainstream modeling opportunities, as have the more contemporary tennis stars on the list (both Williams sisters, Sharapova, and Kournikova). Although Kournikova was a very successful doubles player, she was never an elite singles player on the women’s tennis circuit and is certainly not in the mix of elite players now. For athletes such as King and Navratalova, though retired, at least they can claim astounding athletic and political accomplishments that explain their ongoing popularity.

Notably missing from the list is Maya Moore, the outstanding player from the UConn Huskies women’s basketball team that just won back-to-back NCAA Division I National Championships and continued a 78-game winning streak. Diana Taurasi, who currently plays for the Phoenix Mercury, was the 2009 WNBA Most Valuable Player for the season and finals. Likewise, she was absent from the list.

Via the list of most popular female athletes we see an ongoing trend in American values that reward women not only for occupational success, but in some cases, more so for physical appearances. And of course, popularity trends tie in with individual and sporting sponsorships, which makes it all the more difficult for female athletes who don’t conform to gender norms to continue making a living in their sport of choice.

Recommended reading -- Coming on Strong: Gender and Sexuality in Twentieth Century Women's Sport by Susan K Cahn


Blog catalog