reflection!!

Yay!  The final media blog post/assignment for critical thinking ever! But although I say this, the media blog project was, overall, my favorite one of the entire year; it gave me the opportunity to rant about issues I care about, allowed me to see my classmates' opinions, and made me more vigilante toward media as a whole.  At the beginning of the this blog, we discussed how much media affected our lives, and regrettably, I don't think that the amount has changed for me -- I am still as addicted to Hamilton, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat.  In fact, the reason I am writing this at nearly 12:00 is because I procrastinated by watching an hour and a half's worth of Les Mis videos on YouTube.  But, even so, I think it matters less how much media we consume, than it does how we interpret that media and how we let it influence us.  And this project definitely forced me to be more critical in that department, as I was constantly searching out new material for the weekly posts. 

This is particularly true in the context of advertising (social issue things had already been on my mind constantly due to debate, and I'm super glad I could express my thoughts about those here!!).  Honestly, I would have to characterize myself as an impulsive buyer -- I tend to see an ad in a fashion magazine or a commercial on TV and fall in love immediately.  However, with my new skills in media analysis, I'm far more skeptical, able to recognize the various techniques the company may be using to trick consumers.  Today, for example, I saw an ad for mascara, and contemplated searching for it in a store because it was supposed to contain special nutrients to stimulate eyelash growth.  But then I thought, "they're using the technique of 'magic ingredient!' and refrained.  Hence, the importance of being an educated consumer -- only by learning to question the implicit and explicit messages put forth can you discover whether the product is truly worth it or whether the company is just relying on some completely unrelated technique like transfer/association to reel you in.  Also, if you critically examine advertisements, you can highlight potentially problematic assumptions in them and thus decide if you want to support the company on a moral, being-a-good-person basis. 

Another thing that this project reified for me was the importance of media literacy.  Especially in today's age, the media has such an incredibly deep impact on the population, so much so that we often take the media's assumptions as our own (even though, they likely did start as our assumptions...I won't get into the feedback loop).  This is proven via MISSrepresentation, in which it is outlined how negative stereotypes of women in the media lead to the material effect of decreased political efficacy and self-objectification.  And, just a few days ago was the horrible Orlando massacre, in which 50 LGBT people were murdered. However, the media has 1) glossed over necessary discussions of the homophobia both obvious in this act and pervasive in society, in favor of making it about "OMG ISIS!!!" and 2) using it as a justification to perpetuate Islamophobia -- people I regrettably know have tweeted "Oh, so you thought it was a bad idea for Trump to screen all Muslims coming to the US?" implying that this event proves that such a thing would be good (when this man wasn't even an immigrant but you know, it's whatever right!).  Thus, in order to avoid accepting all these ignorant ideals at face value, we need media literacy, so we can question all of it and point out the flaws -- such a practice is taught in these blogs, where we have to find pieces to be critical of.  I probably wouldn't have delved so deep into the psyche of Chuck Bass and the violence he represents if it weren't for this project.

In conclusion, I had a marvelous time on this blog and I'm actually a little bit sad for it to end.  imMEDIAtely media, thanks for providing me with a platform on which I could publicize my long rants about Hamilton and race and gender!  And thanks to everyone else's wonderful blogs, which forced me to reexamine my own ideas!  Twas fun. (that picture is a cheesy way of saying goodbye, sophomore year critical thinking class!! I will now go running off into the sunset !!)

xoxo, elyse

#giveelsaagirlfriend

A few weeks ago, I was scrolling through Twitter when I saw that one of my favorite feminist accounts, @lexi4prez, had tweeted something interesting -- a hashtag #GiveElsaAGirlfriend.  Fast forward a couple of days later, and the social media movement had garnered massive amounts of support.  It appeared on news channels, news outlets, and had been trending on Twitter, with thousands of people discussing it -- Idina Menzel, the voice of Elsa herself, had even expressed her agreement with the idea.  I had never considered it before, but now that someone's said it, the notion makes such perfect sense, and I wholeheartedly believe that Disney should seriously consider making Frozen 2 a story of Elsa and a female love interest, instead of a male one, as had already been widely accepted.

If you think about it, Elsa's parallels to the LGBTQ+ community are incredibly strong, and quite a suspicious coincidence.  Throughout her childhood, she was forced into seclusion, in an attempt to hide a part of herself that society would perceive as alien and abnormal.  And, when she finally does reveal her secret to the world (spoiler: she has ice powers), she's ridiculed into fleeing from her town, where she knows she will never be truly accepted, and finds a home in the mountains, where she can finally be herself without the threat of judgement.  Elsa's received persecution for who she is and the insecurity she's made to experience is similar to the discrimination and contempt directed at LGBT+ individuals/their community as a whole.  Thus, it would be logical to #GiveElsaAGirlfriend in the upcoming film.

Aside from the fact that such a decision would be cool plot-wise, the societal impact it would have would be amazing.  Today, we see a greater representation of people of color in TV/modelling/film (although "greater" isn't saying much, and is not nearly enough -- i.e. #OscarsSoWhite), but the visibility of the LGBTQ+ community in this regard is still unbelievably low. There are some exceptions of course, like The Fosters (10/10 recommend y'all should watch this show); however, overall, when it comes to queerness in the media, its either a) non existent, b) simply reifying stereotypes, like gay relationships being dirty or scandalous,  or c) there's finally a queer character who is actually a well-rounded, fleshed out, unique human but then they die/meet some other tragic ending.  Because, obviously, queer people cannot have happy, fulfilled lives, and instead must fall victim to some sort of tortured existence!!

As a result of this, LGBTQ+ youth have little opportunity to see people like them portrayed in a positive light, which likely spurs insecurity, decreased self-confidence, shame, and a need to assimilate into heteronormative society.  Thus, it is so so important that the media increases representation of marginalized groups and posits queerness as something to celebrate, as something that can foster healthy, normal relationships instead of what LGBT+ are typically portrayed as -- toxic, dirty, tainting our youth, etc.  In fact, the major criticism of this movement is that while LGBTQ+ is fine, it's just simply not something that America's children should be exposed to so early, and in something as innocent as Disney.  Well, okay, why is queerness automatically not innocent?? Why are heteronormative couples seen as more pure, even though they likely engage in the same "scandalous" activities that society has arbitrarily deemed exclusive to queer couples?? There is zero good reason for any of this, and this mentality creates a vicious cycle -- queerness is dirty, so it's never featured in children's media, so the stereotype is never reversed, so children grow up to think queerness is still dirty, so they won't feature it in future media, etc etc. Such stereotypes must be combatted if we want to be conducive towards 100% acceptance, both society's acceptance of queer people, and queer people's acceptance of themselves.  Queer relationships should be normalized -- not normalized in the sense of assimilation, but in the sense that they are no longer bound by the aforementioned stigma.  LGBTQ+ children should be able to watch a movie and recognize themselves in the characters, making them feel more comfortable about who they are -- imagine how great it would be if a child who has been shamed for their sexual orientation, turned on the TV and saw that the beautiful, glorified princess from one of our decades' greatest hits, is just like them -- so empowering/validating!! And, what better place to start than Disney.

xoxo, elyse

why do people love chuck bass so much

@ people who love Chuck Bass

*TW: rape, partner violence
I am a 100% Gossip Girl fan.  So much so that I finished the series in a span of 6 weeks last summer, and have now guiltily begun to rewatch it on Netflix  While watching it for the first time, I had talked to my friends (many of whom were also in love with this show), discussing our favorite/least favorite parts.  And, to my surprise, many of them worshipped Chuck Bass, the conniving, spoiled, entitled, partying obsessed son of a millionaire.  Even though I initially had not expected that, since I wasn't all too fond of him, I didn't really question it -- and, with my friends' opinions in mind, I started to like him myself.  But now, during my rewatch, I honestly don't know what I was thinking or why in the world people are so in love with him; for example, I was looking for laptop stickers last night on RedBubble, and searched "Gossip Girl."  To my disgust, the first few things that popped up were "I Love Chuck Bass" or "Waiting for My Chuck Bass!"  The fact that this character has such a massive following is a terrifying reflection of society's rape culture, and how widely accepted it is in some of its manifestations.

First of all, it appears the fanbase of GG has forgotten that in the pilot, Chuck attempted to rape Jenny Humphrey, playing on her naivety and innocence as a way to first get her drunk, then take her up to an empty rooftop where he planned to do the deed.  Jenny is clearly struggling and voicing her lack of consent throughout the scene, but Chuck isn't deterred whatsoever.  Thankfully, he's punched by Jenny's brother, but that is literally the only form of punishment he ever receives for this violent attempt of sexual assault!  And, post the beginning of episode two, this incident is never mentioned!! This could've been an inroad for the show to confront and deal with pressing issues such these, but instead, it is disregarded as if it never happened, as if it is normal/encouraged for a person (Jenny) to be "perfectly fine" after an assault and never discuss it with anyone, aside from a ten second conversation with her brother.  In fact, Chuck Bass's character is salvaged by the show painting it as "just part of his nature! classic Chuck!" and with Blair telling Jenny that similar incidents are part of the natural price to pay for being a member of the social elite.  UM NO, it is sexual assault and should in no way be justified or taken lightly.  But because the show does this, people erase this event from their perception of Chuck or are able to rationalize it, and continue to love him just the same.

Additionally, have we all forgotten when Chuck traded Blair, his girlfriend? When he essentially trafficked her, told his uncle she'd have sex with him in exchange for a hotel?  Yes, she eventually agrees, but that's because Chuck is the one in control of the power dynamics within their relationship. Blair makes it clear that she does not want to have sex with this man, but Chuck doesn't seem to care whatsoever, and places his material items first.  So, Blair, feeling as if she could not say no to the dominant Chuck, is coerced and pressured into reluctantly agreeing. But of course, Blair eventually forgives him, and this disgusting act fails to be a point of contention throughout their relationship. Similarly, there was that episode when Blair tells Chuck she is engaged to someone else.  Like a mature person in a healthy, safe, non-toxic relationship, Chuck throws her onto the couch, telling her she's his and that she can't be with anyone else, and proceeds to punch the window right next to her, sending shards of glass flying into her face.  And the entire time, it's obvious Blair is terrified -- you cannot say this isn't an example of partner violence.

But, that's exactly what the producers said, releasing a statement about how the scene was not intended to portray abuse -- they just have a "volatile relationship," and Blair  is "never scared of what Chuck might to do her."  OKAY first, volatile relationship?? That is a hilarious euphemism and I'd say the line between that and abusive has long been crossed once someone has to fear for their physical safety (although mental abuse is also a thing, and Chuck's dangerous possessiveness reflects that.) Second, even if somehow the producers think Blair didn't look afraid in that scene, it is still possible for people to trust/love their abusers, and this still doesn't excuse the violence of Chuck's actions and the unhealthy dynamic that exists there.  And of course, at the end of the series, the pair gets happily married, which serves as another way for viewers to rationalize the abusive behavior as non-impactful, irrelevant, or via saying "he's changed!!"

Overall, the public's immense love for Chuck Bass shows how incredibly normalized sexual assault and partner violence are in today's world.  It scares me how often the Chuck/Blair relationship is romanticized -- it has thousands of social media fanpages, and is constantly referred to as "goals"!! No, a toxic relationships really shouldn't be goals, and we shouldn't want our own Chuck Bass just because "OMG he's so passionate!!" Society, please do better.

xoxo, elyse

merchants of cool: outside the machine??

Even a decade later, the documentary Merchants of Cool is still very relevant.  One aspect of it I want to discuss is the cooption of "outsider" culture by the "machine" of consumerism/media, and the way in which this happens constantly today.  The example that Merchants gave was of this rock group whose members dressed like killer clowns and whose lyrics promoted hate toward women/homosexuality; apparently, people joined its fan base because they wanted to rebel against society, to exist on the fringe.  Less extreme is "hipster" culture today -- hipsters were originally people who, similar to the clown band, resisted conforming to the mainstream, and created their own alternative, counter-culture.  They were typically outsiders and anti-establishment, with unique, progressive world views and non-conventional lifestyles. 

However, today, it seems like everyone and everything has been coined "hipster," and it's a title that people readily embrace.  Honestly, the term is about equivalent to "basic" now, which is funnily enough the exact opposite of what hipsters aspired to be.  I personally noticed this trend begin around seventh grade, when the #urb saw its peak.  #Urb was an adjective to describe people or pictures on social media that, essentially, were hipster -- flower crowns, dream catchers, images of running through uncut fields, posing by graffiti with a beanie, wearing tie-dye, etc.  Suddenly, all of my peers, including myself, wanted to be this mainstream and contrived version of hipster.  #Urb was one of the biggest compliments you could receive, along with "OMG that's so hipster!!"  There was a glorification of "Tumblr girls," or model-like teens who took high quality, aesthetically pleasing, creative #urb photos, such as them blowing bubbles among wildflowers or laying on abandoned train tracks.  And me? I got a Canon camera for my birthday, and my free time was soon consumed with taking #urb shots of my Converse, dead flowers, etc.  I even had some photoshoots with friends in Old Sac and in random parks. 

a seventh grade attempt to be #urb by urs truly!!

The new "hipster" clothing was basically anything from PacSun, a store that masquerades as being rough and uncut but is really very consumerist and very mainstream (honestly I still shop here so I am guilty of this).  The most "in" shirts were ones with pictures of the moon on them, along with denim shorts that appeared to be hand-made, hats with little aliens on them, and patterned shawls with fringe.  A place one can easily spot a conglomerate of all of this is any music festival, like Coachella or Outside Lands.  Here, people dress as "hipster" as possible (often this is self-proclaimed), supposedly going to listen to indie bands that are outside typical pop culture.  But those "indie" bands have, largely through these festivals, gotten as caught up in the media machine as any others -- Coachella is not an event that people go to solely for the love of music anymore, it's to dress up in hipster outfits and take cute pictures.  Popular clothing lines have celebrities going to Coachella to advertise their "hipster music festival" line, and the previously on the fringe, counterculture bands are more or less well-known.  The words "hipster" and "indie" have been so coopted for this purpose that they're hardly matching up to their original meaning. 

I'm just as much a part of this media machine as everyone else -- like I said, I shop at PacSun, and I still want to go to Coachella someday, if not only for the clothing aspect.  I still enjoy taking #urb photos (even though that hashtag is now a thing of the past), and listening to the now mainstream indie bands (yes, that is an oxymoron, but it's the best way I can describe it.)  But I guess the point of this was just to recognize that Merchants of Cool was right -- in today's world, attempts to exist external to pop culture is very difficult, since the mainstream media is so pervasive that it eats anything in its path. 

xoxo, elyse

#istandwithamber

*TW: abuse
I'm sure many of you have gotten wind of the Amber Heard and Johnny Depp ordeal that arose a couple days ago; their recent news of divorce has evolved into a case of domestic violence, with Heard securing a restraining order against him. Her court filing states that he constantly subjected her to physical and verbal abuse, the latest incident being him smashing his phone against her face, and it was accompanied by a photograph of her bruised cheek.  The social media response to these revelations was overwhelming, with people taking sides and putting in their two cents -- some are skeptical, thinking Heard is faking the abuse for money, and others have quite the opposite opinion, starting the hashtag #istandwithamber that trended on Twitter.  I, for one, do stand with Amber, and I think that a lot of people's justifications for not doing so are pretty problematic or invalidating. 

One tweet I've seen multiple times in some form or another is "I heard Amber has a video of the abuse, why doesn't she release it?  Then we can all know for sure; since she's not showing us she's probably lying."  Okay, sure, because it is totally reasonable for the world to ask every domestic violence survivors to release their private, most vulnerable moments to the public. This unfortunate mentality isn't isolated to this one case -- people so often are reluctant to believe allegations of rape or abuse unless they receive all of the gory personal details.  Considering this, it's no wonder survivors so frequently don't report their abuse till years later, or don't come forward at all -- they have no desire to retell their distressing for the nosy, hungry public to consume, or to let everyone see them in such a humiliated state.  That's likely to be re-traumatizing, and the fact that people think they have a right to this information/evidence is ridiculous.

Another justification I've seen is "Johnny Depp is such a good man, he would never do such a thing!"  Many of his celebrity acquaintances have been defending him this way, and I even saw a news article with the headline, "Johnny Depp at a Charity Event while Heard Files for Restraining Order" -- clearly an attempt to paint him as this pure, virtuous person incapable of something like domestic violence.  This has happened with Bill Cosby, Sean Penn, Carter Reynolds, and countless others. The problem with this argument is that humans are not monolithic things, we're full of multiplicities and layers and we can change and snap and hide parts of ourselves from some people but reveal them to others.  If people are put in a binary of either "good" or "capable of violence" how does it account for the fact that abusers often are ones closest to the survivor, or can be priests or teachers or our favorite TV personalities? Failing to acknowledge human complexity results in victim blaming, because we can't accept that the abuser isn't what we imagined them as -- in the case of Heard, she must have been making it up/done something to justifiably provoke Johnny Depp, because he is amazing!! 

Lastly, people have been posting pictures of Amber Heard and Johnny Depp together and saying, "Abuse victims don't look at their abuser like that!! Look how happy she is!!"  Again, with the human multiplicity thing -- we can have mixed emotions and can love someone yet feel all the resentment and hatred in the world toward them, too.  The two aren't mutually exclusive, and a big reason why people stay in abusive relationships for so long is because they love their abuser/want to believe that they will change. Additionally, faking happiness and putting on a façade of smiles for the public is a condition that definitely exists.  And, to those saying "OMG she was smiling after meeting with her lawyers!! Obviously she just wants Johnny Depp's money!" -- survivors of violence are not obligated to be constantly miserable to prove that the abuse actually happened, and they're allowed moments of joy.  Maybe Heard was happy because she was finally free of her abuser?? There's an idea! Understanding all of this, again, is key to prevent victim-blaming or invalidating someone's experiences. 

xoxo, elyse

why are women always portrayed like this??

Yes, another post about how problematic Star Magazine is because I can't get over it.  This is the cover of the same magazine from which I took my last blog post, and while it looks like a regular, guilty-pleasure tabloid at first glance, read the headlines and you're sure to notice a small problem: almost all of them are regarding women, and seeming to portray them as uncontrollable, crazy, or overly emotional.  This is a common stereotype; the idea that women are always super dramatic and hormonal has been around for a while, and is pretty invalidating -- i.e. how men use it as an excuse to dismiss women's concerns because, of course, they're probably just overreacting and on their period!! Or, to justify not giving them leadership positions, since they'll go crazy and make rash decisions. However, this is obviously not a true reflection of the word -- yes, women can be emotional, but so can men, and so can everyone else.  It's not something we have exclusive rights to, and the mentality that we do is a problem.  Because not only is it deployed to exclude women's voices, it also feeds into the idea that emotions are "feminine" and thus weak, creating skewed societal standards of what masculinity should look like.  Due to these standards, men, starting from a young age, think that they should not express emotions in favor of maintaining a mask of rationality and "manliness"; this suppression of feelings can lead to depression, loneliness, and stigmatization of men who do not fit such a role.  So clearly, this stereotype of women is harmful on all accounts -- gosh darn it, patriarchy!

As previously stated, this magazine cover is a prime example.  3 out of 4 main headlines perpetuate this stereotype of women -- and if you look at other magazines, I'm sure you'll find this to be a common trend.  Let's see...  "Sandra Won't Let Him Go: Ryan Won't Marry Her." To me, this is subtly painting Sandra Bullock as slightly obsessed and unable to take hints, because she's too madly in love -- the connotation is definitely not positive.  Next, "Heather Locklear Punches Jack -- and Steals His Dog" -- this one is fairly obvious, portraying Locklear as mentally unstable and dangerously uncontrollable, driven by a hormonal passion.  The picture of her reinforces this idea.  Lastly, the main headline says, "Pregnant and Alone, Jen Tells Brad: I Want You Back! -- The Emotional Secret Phone Call."  Clearly, Star is implying that Anniston is overly emotional, clingy, unable to rein in her feelings, and obsessive -- all of which are common female stereotypes.  The headline about Marc and J. Lo is the one exception, at least focusing more on the emotions of a male, but it's important to note that the adjective used to describe him is "furious" instead of "crazed with anger," or "unable to let it go" -- descriptions I've often seen applied to women.  "Furious" is decidedly more rational than the above descriptions, seeming to actually validate his feelings (remember, men can experience aggressive emotions -- but nothing beyond that!) and give his concerns an air of importance/legitimacy not afforded to that of the crazy, obsessed women.   

Overall, I'll just again restate that I have no idea why I have this magazine in the first place and I will be tossing it as soon as I'm done with this.  Good riddance!

xoxo, elyse

only skinny is pretty

The print media I've chosen to analyze is an ad for NV, a weight loss diet pill, found in an old issue of Star Magazine (I honestly don't know why I have these magazines or ever found them entertaining, in retrospect they're beyond terrible).  The overall message it attempts to project is that, right now, you are probably overweight and could bear dropping a jean size or two, because to be skinny is to be beautiful and successful. 

The main way in which it does this is by showing a before and after picture of "star" Holly Madison, along with her word on how wonderful and effective this product is -- obviously, NV is using the technique of testimony and appealing to the need for prominence.  They want the reader to see that a "star" uses their product, and that therefore, the product must be a staple of glamour, luxury, and fame.  Additionally, the caption of the "before" picture is, "Yes, that's really me in that awful Before picture.  But thanks to NV, I dropped 1 jean size in just 2 weeks and got my body back!  NV works really fast!"  Madison evokes disgust at the supposedly overweight "before" photo, through calling it "awful" and coming across as shameful/embarrassed, while she glorifies the "after" body on the right, making sure that everyone knows how glad she is to be safely thin again. As a result, the reader is likely to compare the two bodies present and think, "Wow! Look how healthy and great she looks after NV," then proceed to evaluate their own bodily state against Madison's.  More than likely, they'll find dissatisfaction at the fact that they don't look just like her, and will be persuaded to try the product. 

Unfortunately, this advertising technique is symptomatic of a big problem in society: body-shaming and internalized fatphobia.  The "before" picture used is not in any way obese, or even overweight -- I don't see anything wrong with it.  However, our culture has created the ideal that anything less than thigh gaps and perfectly flat stomachs is gross and undesirable and unhealthy.  We should strive to be the skinniest possible while still being just the right amount of curvy, even though that is literally an impossible standard for most people.  Therefore, ads like these lower self-confidence and body positivity immensely -- any person who identifies with the "before" picture will feel terrible about their apparently "awful" body, and think that they need to change themselves to look like the "after" picture, even though -- this is so cliché, I know -- they're beautiful the way they are. Even more so, NV makes it seem like anything more than super skinny is something to immediately be gotten rid of, proven by, "get your body back!"  No body type should be degraded like it is in this ad, and not even implicitly.

Additionally, the fact that this ad uses Holly Madison as the poster child for beauty, health, and ideal body type reinforces societal ideals of what attractiveness is -- historically, the desirable, gorgeous girls are the ones with blonde hair, a perfect tan, and pixie-like features, all of which she seems to possess.  Of course, this isn't unexpected and pretty typical, but disappointing nonetheless.

xoxo, elyse