As I read through the post regarding gender, sexuality, and representation I was fascinated by the number of posts that suggested we have come along ways towards equality. The criticism of Laura Mulvey’s theories were based largely on the idea that they were outdated and didn’t look at the female gaze or gay and lesbian members of the audience. Both male and female classmates protested that there was no justification for Mulvey’s use of psychoanalysis theory or the need to acknowledge women being sexualized as children and impressed into an ideology of exhibitionism.
Then the Christmas catalogs started showing up in my mailbox. First this Walmart catalog that features a male warrior with the female gazing towards his powerful aura. These are children mind you. Apparently WalMart didn’t like the Kill Bill approach to female representation.
Next, my wife received this catalog, “American Girl” that visually suggests that girls should be white and play with white dolls. Exploring the inside of this catalog revealed large graphics that seem to reinforce traditional gender roles from the 1950’s. It is like watching an episode of I Love Lucy or All in the Family with the satire missing because all we see are the products to buy.
I'm not sure I see oppressive gender roles as cause for nostalgia, in fact I don't think it is nostalgia but rather a continuation of the sexualizing of children through play rituals. The only reason my wife and I could think for us to even be on these company mailing lists is because of a single demographic of her being a girl and we have a child. No other distinguishing characteristic would have linked us to the ideologies and commodities presented here.
Last but not least, a work-study student at my college decided to post this calendar that she posed for. It’s a fundraiser for a new roller derby league. It’s all too cliché to see the sexy schoolgirl look on a calendar. Frankly I’m surprised that these images and commodities are still out their because I am so resistant to it personally. However, I think it is easy to look in the mirror and say “not me” and yet be overwhelmed by the sheer volume media that continues to represent the sexualized female as an object of male desire and control. I actually had to stop and self reflect when Mulvey described the two ways women are treated (Madonna’s or Whores) and ask myself if my “sensitivity” towards women (my wife in particular) is nothing more than choosing to see the Madonna because I’m too ashamed to acknowledge the latter. The Lewis article makes it clear that media doesn’t make us sexist, it makes us think about sexism and objectification. (Lewis 19) which is a legacy of our past that continues to operate within the hegemony.
“Cultural forms do not drift through history aimlessly, they are grounded in an ideological context, and therein lies their historical significance (Lewis 40).”
“The home, the school, and the mass media are cultural apparatuses that generate a whole world of common associations, associations that become inscribed within our social environment (Lewis 63).”
While I would like to praise the media that treats women, people of color, gays and lesbians in an inclusive manner, I think the reality is something far different. For every show like Cagney and Lacy, or 24 (a black television president that precedes Obama) there is an ocean full of stereotypes that I am sure are adversely impacting our intimate relations with one another. As we look at our partners we cannot help but be aware of the perceptions we are confronted with every day in every space we operate in. We have to somehow reach beyond Lacan's mirror image projection.
References:
Mulvey, Laura. Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema (SCREEN 16.3 1975)
Lewis, Justin. The Ideological Octopus: An Exploration of Television and its Audience, (Routledge 1991)
No comments:
Post a Comment