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