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

hamilton: a revolution about a revolution

For this week, I'm taking a slight break from social justice rants to spread my love for an amazing, beautiful, genius piece of art that deserves everyone's appreciation: Hamilton: An American Musical.  Anyone who knows me, or really, anyone who has been in earshot of me for the past two months, has probably noticed that I talk about this musical almost non-stop (for those of you who are familiar with it, you'll get that pun) and have been singing the soundtrack constantly.  The best way I can describe Hamilton's magic is that it is infectious -- it's garnered media hype unprecedented for Broadway, making its way to Vogue, InStyle, and Time, and it doesn't look like the buzz will die down anytime soon -- just a few months ago, the cast performed at the Grammy's (then proceeded to receive one!), and now they've broken the record for Tony Award nominations with a whopping 16.  Not to mention that my entire family has become absolutely obsessed, even my 12 year old brother, who typically has zero interest in musicals and hates history.  It's that good. 

Yes, I know what many are thinking -- how could a musical about the founding fathers be entertaining?  Why would I want to spend my time listening to songs about Alexander Hamilton?  I shared this skepticism and confusion at once too. The only thing I thought I knew about Hamilton was that he was a president, and that's not even close to right -- this was the extent of my disregard for the musical and the events it is based on. But eventually, after months of putting it off, I finally opened the playlist on Spotify -- and the rest is history. 

There are so many aspects that make Hamilton incredible, the main one being that while it tells the tale of the American revolution, its existence is a revolution in and of itself.  Broadway is a community known for being super white -- the composers are white, the actresses/actors are primarily white, there's hardly any diversity in musical style, and it appeals to a mainly white, upper class audience .  After all, think of Broadway, and the first things that come to mind are likely classics such as Annie, Sound of Music, Bye Bye Birdie, etc. However, Hamilton is in the process of changing these ideals, through highlighting a genre of music that has been labelled inferior by the "purity" of Broadway, and casting almost all people of color. 

Even more so, the POC of Hamilton are playing American founding fathers, and rap is the medium through which they tell their stories.  Weird at first, considering that the founding fathers were some of the whitest people around, but inspired once you think about it -- Hamilton is giving marginalized groups, groups whose voices are continuously shut out, a chance to write themselves into history, to fight their own exclusion, to tell America that they are a part of it, too. That their faces and their hip-hop and their art belongs on Broadway. Lin-Manuel Miranda, the writer of Hamilton, has said that he wants it to be the story of American then, told by America today -- he definitely succeeded there. 

But even with social messages aside, it's undeniable that Hamilton is just as marvelous when taken at face value -- the soundtrack will stay in your head forever, and you'll fall in love with Miranda's witty, unbelievably intelligent prose, Phillipa Soo's perfect voice, and Daveed Digg's indescribable rapping, just to name a few. Plus, the story that the songs tell is nuanced, compelling, and will make you feel every feeling -- I smiled and laughed and quite literally cried throughout the entire thing.

One of my favorite lines is rapped by Angelica Schuyler, one of Hamilton's love interests -- she and her sisters say, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.  And when I meet Thomas Jefferson, imma' compel him to include women in the sequel!  Work!!"  There's something beautiful and refreshing to hear women of color (playing 18th century white women at that), singing about feminism, and in such an assured, empowered, agency-filled way.  Such ideologies are not highlighted nearly enough, if at all, on Broadway, so this song ("The Schuyler Sisters") just makes me so happy, and I listen to it whenever I need personal motivation.  And, it's a prime example of how Hamilton strives to create social conversation -- strong, intelligent women like the Schuylers are often pushed to the side, but here they take center stage.

If I had to pick one favorite song, it would be so difficult, but the list would definitely include "Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story," the final song.  Although its melody is beautiful on its own, what I love about it is that it focuses the story of not Alexander, but Eliza Hamilton, his wife, and allows her to close the show.  In the beginning of the musical, she isn't "the type to try and grab the spotlight" -- shy and soft-spoken and not the most proactive.  However, as the story progresses she becomes increasingly empowered and utilizes her own agency more and more -- she tells Alexander that she wants to be a part of his narrative, then later proceeds to erase herself from it (metaphorically of course, but I won't spoil it for you all).  But, she still typically takes a sideline to Alexander, the center of the show, and many of her actions are contingent on his. 

In this last song, though, we see a complete transformation -- she uses it to sing of all her real-life accomplishments, completely unrelated to Hamilton's, such as establishing "the first private orphanage in New York City" and helping to abolish slavery.  And, in the beginning of the song, she asks "Will they tell [Hamilton's] story?" but by the end, it's changed to "Will they tell my story?"  This shows how Eliza has come to keep not only Hamilton's legacy alive, but her own as well, and she's finally takes control of the overall narrative.  She makes the finale of the musical about herself, rather than the male protagonist, which is something we don't often see in history or on Broadway.  And to answer, her question -- Hamilton is granting her wish and telling her story.  Her story is in fact an incredible one, but one that really hasn't gotten any acknowledgment, and probably wouldn't have if not for this musical -- women's stories tend to be marginalized in favor of the stories of the males at their side. That's the last reason I'll give as to why Hamilton is amazing -- it changes the patterns of whose stories are told in history, and makes you think about how/by who it has been shaped.

Overall, all I can say is that you should really really try listening to Hamilton, even if you aren't a theater-goer, at least for a few songs -- I can assure you that many of them are reminiscent of contemporary music. You might just fall in love with it, and you definitely don't want to throw away your shot (lol puns). Because really, look around, look around, at how lucky we are to be alive right now (or at the same time as Lin-Manuel Miranda and Phillipa Soo -- she is my LITERAL QUEEN can I please be her friend or just be her?!!)

xoxo, elyse

coke vs pepsi: live on ur fave singing shows!

I was an enormous fan of reality TV shows throughout elementary school.  Every week I'd stay up to watch both American Idol and the X-Factor with my family, calling the designated numbers to vote for our favorite contestants, buying my favorite performances on iTunes, and all that jazz.  However, upon closer examination of such shows, I've come to the conclusion that music is definitely not the only thing these programs are selling. 

The main example here is the showdown of bubbly drinks in these two prominent singing competitions: Coke or Pepsi?? Within both series, the panel of judges are hardly ever seen without a Coke (for American Idol), or a Pepsi (for the X-Factor).  And, in the majority of shots, the logos on the cups are positioned perfectly outwards, so that it would take effort for the audience to miss it.  Honestly, it makes one wonder whether or not the judges even drink from the cups, as they seem so untouched and in such an obviously calculated position for the duration of the show. Here's proof: 

Such sneaky (though in this case, not really sneaky at all),  inexplicit advertisements are a great demonstration of Madison & Vine, or the collaborations between advertisements and Hollywood.  The reality shows get paid, and the companies are able to craft an ideal image for their products.  Through having Jennifer Lopez Simon Cowell with a Coke or Pepsi in front of them, they're seen as endorsing the drink, thus projecting their image of fame, glamour, and success onto it despite the fact that obviously, your soda choice probably does not increase your status, amount of attention, or lot in life.  The same goes for American Idol's endorsement of Ford -- once elimination episodes came around, the remaining contestants would create a new, innovative Ford commercial every week.  Then it would be played on the show, with clips of contestants filming it and saying how fun it was.  This likely made fans of the Idol more inclined to consider a Ford car, because a show that they loved and that might even represent their hopes and dreams, supported the brand.

xoxo, elyse

disability: not something to erase

A few weeks ago, I stumbled upon a video produced by Saatchi & Saatchi, an advertising firm in NYC, and CoorDown, an association for people with Down Syndrome, in honor of World Down Syndrome Day.  It features Olivia Wilde, a well-known actress, going through the motions of life -- hanging out with her family, doing everyday tasks like laundry, jogging, etc -- accompanied by the narration of a woman with Down Syndrome, constantly repeating, "I see myself...(doing what Wilde is doing in the frame)."  And, it is not till the end of the video, when Wilde's reflection is shown in the mirror, that the camera pans to show the woman behind the voice, appealing, "This is how I see myself.  How do you see me?"

Undoubtedly, I'm sure that this video and those involved had wonderful intentions.  And if you just watch it once without really thinking, it's probably not at all clear why something might be wrong. But, despite the fact that it was created for an honorable purpose, this particular campaign seems to be reentrenching a lot of society's problematic ideals, and is probably not the best way to bring attention to disability.  Allow me to explain.... 

First of all, by using Olivia Wilde to portray a woman with Down Syndrome, the video furthered the invisibility of disabilities in society.  If they truly wanted to create awareness, why not have Anna Rose -- the woman narrating the video -- be portrayed actually doing the activities she sees herself as doing? Going through her own life, as opposed to having an able-bodied woman in her place?  The piece's storytelling technique does not, in reality, make people with Down Syndrome more relatable or more human, because the human qualities were primarily projected on Wilde instead of Anna Rose.  Rose was erased from the narrative, and her own narrative at that -- her name wasn't even credited, until activists made a concerted effort to find it, and she made a 2 second appearance at the end. Maybe the organization thought that people wouldn't empathize with Rose enough/be drawn to her, so they opted for a video in which the main image was Olivia Wilde; however, it's more likely that at the end people will be subconsciously comparing the image of Anna Rose -- one that is still seen as alien and inferior -- to the glossy, perfect, and most importantly able-bodied image of Wilde, thus distancing themselves from disability further. 

This brings me to my second problem with the video: it implies that difference is bad and is something that should be erased.  That's probably another reason why the ad features Anna Rose constantly saying she sees herself like Olivia Wilde or another able-bodied person.  Her invocation of "How do you see me?" is pretty clearly a request to view her as not someone with Down Syndrome, but as someone who is able-bodied. Yes, I know the point of the video is to show how we're all the same. But the thing is -- a perfect world is not one where disabled people are perceived as able-bodied, black people are perceived as white, and queer people are perceived as cis or straight.  That's assimilation and is very distinct from equality.  It still assumes, even reifies, the power and normalcy of existing social hierarchies and doesn't do anything to change the mindsets that stigmatize otherness  -- the video posits ablebodieness as the norm that not only people with disabilities should envision themselves as, but as an image able-bodied people should script onto those with disabilities.  But why does society have to erase disability from identity to reach acceptance? That still implies disability is undesirable and is pretty counterproductive.

Such a mentality of erasing difference is all the rage lately.  For example, with gay marriage, activists were declaring that now, queer families can be the new nuclear families, side by side with traditional families, and they're the same!! But that's still an imposition of heteronormative logic because it's simply incorporating queer people into the existing dominant, straight-centric group, which is completely different from creating a space where queer people can be queer and queerness alone is okay. The Down Syndrome video seems to operate by the same logic -- let's promote erasure of disability, instead of acceptance. Let's create an ideal world where disabled people are viewed as able bodied, instead of a world where people are as they are, disabilities and all, and that's still great.  This ensures that when someone comes along that doesn't meet society's standards of assimilated queer or assimilated disabled person, they're discriminated against and excluded just the same. 

In conclusion, this media piece was well-intentioned, but its assumptions are ironically reflective of how far society must come to actually reach equality.  What are your thoughts on the matter? I really would like to hear them. 

xoxo, elyse

transphobia in the media

One issue that's been exploding in the media lately is LGBT rights, specifically whether or not members of the trans community should be able to use the bathrooms that align with their gender identity.  This discussion was moved into the spotlight on April 1st, when North Carolina passed a bill that prohibited further creation of any anti-discrimination laws regarding sexual orientation or gender identity -- meaning that now, trans individuals will be forced to use the bathrooms that match their biological sex.  Horrendous, I know.

This topic is being covered in many news sources, and both sides utilize loaded language, full of buzzwords and emotional appeals, to make their point and call upon the audience's emotions.  One article by USA Today, "The Imaginary Predator in America's Bathroom War," argued against transphobic bathroom policies.  One good quote is "these anti-trans laws pose a ferocious threat to the safety and dignity of not only trans men and trans women, but to anyone who doesn't conform to traditional gender roles."  The words "safety" (positive) or "threat" (negative), especially when paired with an adjective as aggressive/provocative as "ferocious," immediately target the part of the brain that regulates fear -- people reading this will hopefully think about the potential harassment or danger that trans or gender non-conforming folks could face.  And, "dignity" is also loaded, something that both liberals and conservatives value -- after all, aren't conservatives always going on about maintaining America's dignity?  Thus, this word should elicit at least some response.  Another quote is "It appears trans Americans labeled as predators may have some predators of their own." The invocation of "predators" is a trick used very frequently by the opposite side, as it frightens like no other, so this statement is a smart choice and highlights the hypocrisy of the bill.  Lastly, the article discusses how the bill "erode[s] our humanity" -- preserving humanity is another collective value; thus, such a phrase could cause the population to fret about governmental overreach and its potential violation of liberty, which everyone loves.


An article that supports transphobic bathrooms policies, on the other hand, is "One Million Americans Vow to Boycott Target Over Transgender Bathrooms," from Fox News (is anyone surprised?? no.)  The piece utilized many quotes from outside sources to support its argument, and one of the quotes says, "Predators and voyeurs would take advantage of the policy to prey on those who are vulnerable."  Hmm, what did I tell you earlier?!  True to form, they used the predator card -- predator in this context carries one of the worst connotations, immediately evoking images of old wrinkled men preying on little, innocent girls -- this is a surefire way to scare people.  Another quote from the article is "befuddlement in bathroom stalls from coast to coast."  The word "befuddlement," obviously condescending, casts a negative light onto trans folk, framing them as simply confused or going down the wrong path for a sec, until they see God's light! This is especially true when Starnes refers to trans women as men in the article.  Lastly, the piece utilizes lots of euphemisms to make its awful stance more benign -- i.e. "a bit politically incorrect" instead of transphobic/discriminatory, or "old school" instead of "socially regressive" or "archaic." These terms with essentially the same meaning would honestly better represent the piece for what it truly is.

In conclusion, language in all argumentative pieces is carefully calculated, to evoke the intended emotional response from the readers, or to slightly alter their message to make it more appealing.  We associate certain terms with certain feelings almost automatically, just like how advertisers do the exact same with products, as outlined in The Persuaders.  Really, the world is just one big jumble of contradicting messages and loaded words, and we can only do our best to make sense of it.

Here's the only advice I can give: just avoid Fox News (unless you're looking for a laugh, of course.)

xoxo, elyse

tribal spirit by kendall jenner! yay sounds lovely must buy!

A couple of months ago, I saw an Instagram ad by the fashion company Mango that I found just a tad bit...interesting. It was a video promoting their new line, Tribal Spirits, intended to draw its inspiration from the African savanna, and, apparently, its "tribal spirit."  The video featured Kendall Jenner, the face of the campaign, modeling the pieces, intercut with images of what could only be an attempt to convey stereotypical Africa: a red setting sun, trees characteristic of the savanna, a cheetah running.  This video can be found here.

The problems with this advertisement are abundant, and one can't help but wonder what made this company choose such a distasteful method, or what they hoped to accomplish.  I'm assuming that by coining the line "Tribal Spirit" they wanted to instill a sense of exoticness into their clothing -- further accomplished by the use of supposedly tribal prints and designs like fringe (which is not even African? it's Native American??) -- and a feeling of wanderlust, making potential buyers daydream about far-off countries that they've always wanted to visit, or adventurous things they've always wanted to do -- like go on safaris, clearly.  And now, this target psychographic has a perfect collection of clothing available to them if they ever do get to fulfill their dreams, or, to just showcase their, well, "tribal spirit" in everyday life! Wonderful!

Kidding, actually not so wonderful at all.  The above description is part of the reason why the ad is an issue. You see, the appeal of African or tribal clothing to the West isn't that surprising, if you consider how much we love to fetishize the cultures of distant places like Africa, places in which the people have been subject to centuries of Western violence and imposed inferiority.  But then, we just as quickly turn around and make said culture into an object for our own consumption.  We're so willing to embrace Africa's lions and red suns but when faced with Africans themselves, we throw a $10 bill into the pity collection for the poor, incapable peoples and turn away.  Similarly, tribal clothing, or mimicry of it, is "the next big trend!!" (taken straight off another of Mango's Instagram promotions for "Tribal Spirit"), when white people like Kylie Jenner proclaim it to be so -- but, such designs have been worn by indigenous people for decades and never do they get the same accolades. Simply put, Africans or Native Americans aren't valuable to us, are disposable, in fact, but their clothing patterns are cool (when a white person wears them and white company designs them)!!  Or, actual tribal customs are alien or savage or archaic, but if a white person has a "tribal spirit," now that's another story!

The issue of cultural appropriation is very much related to the second glaring problem in the Mango ads, which is: why, if this "Tribal Spirit" line is supposed to be reflective of Africa, couldn't the company at least have used a person of color to represent the campaign?? This would've decreased the obvious problematic-ness of the ad a thousand times.  Because if it was an African woman modeling the clothing intended to represent her culture, much of the above rant would lose validity(still, there could be a debate about the morality of Western companies making a "tribal" line and profiting off of it in general, but that's for another time.)  However, Mango consciously chose to use Kendall Jenner, a white woman, to be the model of the line.  What place does Jenner have embodying Africa, or any place evoked by images of cheetahs and flat top trees and red suns?? Or how can she have a "tribal spirit" when there is literally nothing indigenous about her in any place but Europe?? This advertising choice implies that African or Native American styles look better on non-Africa, non-Native American people, and highlights/exacerbates all the above criticisms.

So to wrap up this way-longer-than-expected rant, this advertisement serves as a form of cultural appropriation whether Mango is aware of it or not, and is yet another thread in the tapestry of racism and the way its woven into power dynamics. "Tribal Spirit" is a reinforcement of the idea that an otherized people can be reduced to the "cool" parts of their culture, the phenomenon in which their hair or clothing is looked down upon when they sport it but "the next big trend!!" when the West decides to.  I hope that this made you think critically about ads around you that could also fall into this category, or things that you have done that may perpetuate such a mindset. 

Here's to not supporting this line. 

xoxo, elyse

my im(media)te relationship to media

Media. This is an extremely loaded word, I think, one that carries the weight of so many different emotions, purposes, and experiences. And exactly what specific emotions, purposes, and experiences it contains is always in fluctuation, is always evolving and changing -- at least for me.  Currently, my relationship to media is at an all-time high; it's become an immense part of my day-to-day life, and as much as it pains me to say this, I honestly don't know what I would do without much of it.

I'd say that the form of media I consume most abundantly is social media -- whenever there's a lull in activity around me, or when I'm doing homework but cannot stay focused, I pull out my phone and scroll through Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat. It's a great way to stay connected to the world around me and the people in it, as well as to relax during stressful times, but unfortunately not so great of a way to get tasks done in an efficient manner and it drastically worsens my time-management skills.  For example, right after I wrote the previous sentence, my hand automatically reached for my phone to check Snapchat -- the habit is so deeply ingrained.  Media leads to procrastination at its finest.

However, another type of media that I utilize very often, and one that is definitively more beneficial, is music.  Currently, I have an addiction to the soundtrack of Hamilton, and listen to it at almost every available opportunity -- during passing period, in the car, while doing homework.  Through this, I know far more than I ever wanted to about the founding fathers and the American Revolution -- I can't really tell if this is good or bad, but at least it's educational! And, most of the songs actually increase my focus when writing and make me more motivated to finish my assignments.

The last form of media I actively consume is scholarly journals or news articles mainly regarding social issues.  Debate has led me to become much more passionate about things such as race, disability, feminism (everydayfeminism.com is lovely!), etc., due to increasing my awareness, and thus I enjoy reading about them in my spare time. It's also required me to stay up to date on politics and world events, which means I'm constantly doing research on them via newspapers or sites like CNN (although a lot of time this is grudgingly).

I do watch television, such as The Fosters and Gossip Girl, but not enough to constitute a key element of my life. I also am involved in online shopping, mostly at Urban Outfitters, but again, I wouldn't consider that something I cannot survive without.  Overall, the main forms of media I consume are above, and my relationship to them is very strong -- in a few cases, probably stronger than is beneficial. I hope to grow more aware of my media usage as this project progresses!

xoxo, elyse