Mickey Mouse Needs a Makeover

After watching the documentary “Mickey Mouse Monopoly,” I was surprised that so many questionable messages are being presented to children, without much oversight or uproar from the general community.

While many criticize scholars for over-analyzing movies, books and other forms of entertainment, after viewing this documentary, I feel even more criticism is needed; after all we are talking about entertainment designed for children.

What stuck out the most to me was the impact these cartoons can have on young girls. It is almost like the fairytale adaptations are teaching them “learned helplessness.” They should accept their lot in life, without any attempt to better it, and they should all be understanding of the man’s dominant role in life, regardless of how he treats others.

In conjunction, we must ask how these same themes affect young boys and their perception of how they should treat girls, and later in life women.

Another aspect of the film that stuck out to me was the overprotectiveness of people toward the Disney Company. As I mentioned, earlier, Disney has a questionable past. And while I can accept that most children don’t know of this, I feel parents should, or at least the should make the attempt to educate themselves about the company producing the entertainment they show their children.

Finally, I find there should be more activism dedicated to making changes in children’s programming and entertainment options. If the public demanded it with more force, Disney would likely concede, because as their CEO pointed out in the film the company’s main mission is to make money.

Racism and The Lion King

I was skeptical before reading Naomi Rockler-Gladen’s article Race, Hierarchy, and Hyenaphobia in the Lion King, but after completing this read I find it to be one of the most insightful and interesting articles within the text.

Rockler-Gladen does an excellent job in justifying her research, while at the same time quelling her critics before they can interject and claim her work as frivolous. I agree with the author when she summarizes that The Lion King most likely will not turn toddlers into racists, but that the “film’s larger ideological implications remain unchallenged.”

Of those “larger implications,” there are a number that I found very interesting, and although Rockler-Gladen applies her analysis mainly to race, gender, and class systems, I can see a wider berth of application for this analysis.

First, I found the article cited in the beginning of this study very surprising. When professors surveyed their students, most were reluctant to criticize Walt Disney or their films because the company was deemed innocent. This was a shocker because the company’s founder Walt Disney was very outspoken about his personal bigotry and the film has a history of producing questionable pieces. Most pointedly the anti-Nazi propaganda shorts produced and released in the 1940s.

Second, when Rockler-Gladen explains the naturalization of hierarchal structures in society, I feel that could be applied to the entire structure of Western Democracy, and not solely from a race/gender perspective, but from and elitist domination view and hegemonic systems of power, as well.

Finally, and most disturbingly, when the author explains her analysis of hyenaphobia and how it is portrayed in the film it parallels almost exactly with Lincoln Rockwell’s noted white supremacist children’s story, “The Fable of the Ducks and the Hens.” (http://www.heretical.com/pubs/fabledh.html). The idea of the outcast society causing havoc and destabilization of a perceived utopian society is clear as she outlines it in the film, and it is surprising that the link with this type of literature is so clear.

Overall, this article was really fascinating and makes me want to go watch some Disney films myself, but this time with a more critical eye!

Celluloid Closet and Queer Theory

The Celluloid Closet documentary details the evolution of the gay role in Hollywood. According to the film, homosexual men were originally cast as comedic sissies characterized by flamboyant femininity, while lesbian women were often slotted as ruthless demons or evil personas. Later, although, homosexuality gained more exposure, gays were then cast in even more ominous roles. First, they were all slated to die, most in horrific matters, and later they were often portrayed as the victimizers. Eventually, the gay agenda did receive some equal footing around the mid 1990s, but there is still a long way to go.

Recent research suggests that gay characters still lack development and depth, most specifically in regards to their love lives. Carolyn M. Byerly, in her article Situating “the Other,” elaborates on this point citing film scholar Vito Russo who “found that historically, mainstream films show gay characters (and their lives) as sterile in the areas of love and sexuality.” She furthers this point by highlighting the acclaimed television series Will & Grace. “Will’s character [is] devoid of sexual passion or a gay political consciousness,” she writes.

The theory most useful in approach homosexuality and media would be cultural and queer studies. According to Purdue University resources, these studies “explore issues of sexuality, power, and marginalized populations in literature and culture.” Another, important concept to keep in consideration when examining these topics is hegemony. Hegemony is a Marxist concept that “describes the domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class, who manipulate the culture of the society — the beliefs, explanations, perceptions, values, and mores — so that their ruling-class becomes the worldview that is imposed and accepted as the cultural norm” (Lull, 2000).

MTV and Mindless Narratives

In Terri L. Russ’ examination of MTV’s My Super Sweet 16 narrative theory serves as the basis of her theoretical foundation. According to Russ, narrative theory is a way to consider the importance of stories and the roles they play in shaping and defining our lives. In her study, Is Daddy’s Little Girl a Bitch or a Princess? Narratives of Female Identity on my Super Sweet 16, Russ examines the role of the each girl from three perspectives: gender roles, behavior, and existence limitations.

What I found of most interest in this study was Russ’ explanation of the eternal child requirement for girls. She explains, “In order to be Daddy’s Little Girl, the girl must stay little. She may age and mature physically, but as demonstrated repeatedly throughout the various My Super Sweet 16 narratives, her mental and emotional maturation seems to be stunted. The built-in limitation of the Daddy’s Little Girl narrative then becomes a limitation on her complete existence” (p. 217).

This struck a chord with me as it reminded me of the contradicting roles women are constantly placed in. In this situation, she is literally celebrating a coming of age, yet she is required to maintain a sense of childlike vulnerability. In a similar scenario, women are encouraged to be both sexy and virginal, once again the contradiction is clear, slutty virgins just don’t exist.

In addition to this aspect, I was also interested in this study for the potential it offered for further research. I think the use of expectancy theory in conjunction with viewer focus groups could yield some interesting results. Further, this series also showcased young men and their sweet 16 parties, so it would be interesting to conduct a type of comparative analysis on how the boys and girls are treated and portrayed and if those two elements are different.

I can see both sides, but does it really matter?

I recently watched an episode of Dateline where the staff had set up a gender experiment in a local Halloween costume shop. Actors were hired to portray a mother/son duo and a mother/daughter one. In each scenario, the child was to choose a stereotypically opposite gender allocated costume. For example, the boy wanted to be a princess and the girl wanted to be Spiderman. The mother’s role in the scene was to be opposed to their child’s choice, and to repeatedly tell them, “They could not be that, because it was for girls/boys.”

The main point of the experiment was to analyze other customer’s reactions to the fictional mother/child situation. And, while most customer’s minded their own, some were very outspoken about the issue, the majority of which were against the boy being a princess and the girl being a superhero.

One response, in the girl scenario, was that if the mother did not “get this type of behavior under control” it would only get worse. While, other responses were directed at the children, most offering more “appropriate” choices to the children, while simultaneously trying to dissuade them by saying “I really think you would look nicer in this.” The last response was, in my opinion, the only one that held water. This customer told the fictional mother that “it really wasn’t a big deal” and that her only concern was the fact that the child might “get teased badly at school.”

And, while I can see the final responders point, and agree with it to some extent, I really don’t see why it matters what a child wants to be for Halloween. After all, Halloween is about dressing up as someone else, right?

Further, I feel the rigidness involved in our society’s definition of gender roles, is one of the main contributing factors to the lack of progress in regards to discrimination and oppression.

So, I changed my mind….you can’t have a “Man Cave”

The family and I are in the process of buying a home. That being said, we all have a number of amenities we would like to have, a big yard for the pups, a pool for the summer, a big kitchen and more. But, there is one thing that my husband and my son have really been gunning for – a “Man Cave.”

Initially, I didn’t have any issues with them referring to a game room as a “Man Cave,” but then I began to think about it, and when I talked to my son about it, I began to feel it was an issue, simply by the way he was describing it.

For starters, what will be in the said “Man Cave?” Well, it will be a sports-themed room, mostly baseball and football memorabilia. We also wanted to put the pool table in there and some other gaming tables. My son keeps saying we will fill with all the things “guys like.” I think that’s what got me. I’m a woman, but I love baseball, in fact I understand the game better than some men I know. I’m not a huge fan of football, but I am well aware of how that works, too. And pool, well I don’t want to brag too much, but I can hold my own.

So, after considering all of these things, I realized by allowing the game room to be called a “Man Cave” I am actually teaching my son that these areas of entertainment are for men only. That is not acceptable, so we will now refer to it as the game room.

This was a great lesson for both my son and I. I learned something in regards to the possible long-term negative ideals that could be reinforced by subtle, yet derogatory terms. In addition, I got to explain my decision to my kiddo, which helped to broaden his perspectives on sports and women’s roles in them.

So, maybe my kiddo will never make it on “The official Man Cave” site (yes, this is real: http://mancavesite.org/) to display his sporting sanctuary, now that we are going to call it a game room, but I feel he will survive this set back. And, in the long run he will be getting something much more valuable out of it - a respect for women and their contributions to the world of sports.

Equality, but not really…is that right Mr. Romney?

I told myself: “No more political blogs.” But, alas, I must write just one more. After last night’s debate I would be derelict in my duties not to!

So, the question posed to the candidates was about equal pay for women, and while neither really answered the question directly, I was once again floored by the pretentiousness of Gov. Mitt Romney.

He began tackling this question by heralding himself as a leader in diversifying the workplace. Not only did he ask his staff, “where are the women job applicants were,” he also ended up with binders full of women! Imagine, binders full of them! Then he proceeded to explain how once he hired these women, he understood they needed special treatment. Now keep in mind the question is about EQUALITY, not special needs. So, Mr. Romney in his infinite generosity explained how he knows that women need to come in late and leave early so they can not only take care of their children, but also be home to make dinner!

ARE YOU KIDDING ME???!!! Equality has nothing to do with any of that! I don’t need to file a special claim of circumstance or disability in the workplace because of my gender, but that is exactly what he insinuated.

I don’t know about everyone else, but when I say I want to be treated equality, it is based on fairness and comes without gender role assignment. Equality as described by Mitt Romney in the second presidential debate is a ridiculous notion, and it showcases his lack of intelligence on even the simplest of matters concerning our nation and society.

(As a side note, who wants to elect a president named after a piece of baseball equipment anyway?) 

Big Bird is a Democrat and the gardner is gay

I hate election year. It brings out the absolute worst in people. In addition to dealing with the continuous auditory assault of spoken ignorance, election years force me to perpetually “spring clean” my social media friend base. I am always shocked to realize I have been long-time friends with so many racists, sexists, and morons! So, I decided this week to blog a few of the most outrageous comments that I have heard lately in regards to politics and social issues. And, this is only what I have heard personally, I’m sure the spectrum of stupidity is much more broad at a national level.

At the gym:

Mrs. J. has come to the conclusion that people only vote for Obama because “he is a black, and people feel sorry for him because he has to be a black.” Furthermore, she has deduced that all liberals are “uneducated and poor” because if they weren’t they would realize “how wrong it is to be a liberal, with no religion, because no one can be moral without the good Lord Jesus Christ.” When told her comments were offensive, she responded, “How can what I’m saying be offensive if it’s all facts?”

At my child’s school:

Mom A is waiting for her child to be released from school and is visiting with Mom B very loudly and excitedly, their conversation is as follows:

Mom A: “My God, I had no idea PBS was run by democrats!”

Mom B: “I know! Can you imagine, our children have grown up with Big Bird, and honestly I never thought twice about it!”

Mom A: “Well, the worst part is, these people, people like the PBS people, are in our schools!! And, they are around our children!!!”

So, now poor Big Bird is getting the boot, all because he is assumed to be a democrat. And, worse still….are you sitting down?....There. Could. Be. Democrat. Teachers. In. Our. Public. Schools!!!! Give me a break, there are many more things to be concerned about, namely for Mom A, is the fact that she double parked her massive SUV and should really focus on learning to drive a bit better.

At lunch:

My friend and I were eating lunch when we were graciously given the opportunity to overhear (well. not really, these ladies were basically screaming at each other from two feet apart) a delightful conversation concerning Christian convictions. Both ladies in this conversation were nicely dressed and about middle age, the topic on hand: the “prissy” preacher at Sunday service.

Lady 1: “I knew it was true from the time he told us about his roses.”

Lady 2: “Did he come out and just say it??!!”

Lady 1: “Well, no, but any man who likes to garden must have ‘the gay.’”

Lady 2: “Yes, you’re right, I just wish we would have gotten around to cleaning out that mess from church sooner. The house of the Lord is no place for gay….you know John says it can spread like any other sin.”

Give me a break. Homosexuality is not contagious, but I have come to the conclusion that ignorance may be very catching! 

This just in...Women are doctors, too

A troubling occurrence in class earlier this week made me confront an ugly reality that I have seen around campus, not just as a graduate student, but also during my undergrad days. It seems that regardless of equality based on degree level and experience, women Ph.D. holders are just not given the same level of respect from their students, and even worse, at times not even from their peers. Imagine how troubling this is to me, when my near future includes a doctoral pursuit for myself!

In class with a student and professor, both of whom I am familiar with, I was astounded when a minor disagreement about a point of the student’s presentation turned into an attack of arrogance on the part of the student. The student argued with the professor very rudely and tactlessly, almost as if she was having the dispute with a pal. After the presentation, the student then decided to announce to class how right she was all along with an air of indignant self-righteousness and a complete lack of consideration for the professor.

Now, I have seen this same student in a similar situation in a different class, the only difference was that the professor there was a male. In that instance, the student did not talk back, she did not aggressively attack the professor, rather she respected his position and let it go. Later, she handled it with him in private, exactly what she should have done with the female professor.

That just really pisses me off, why did she feel she could handle such a similar situation differently when the only thing that changed was the gender of the professor?

And, on a more general note, citing those two professors as examples once again, I have NEVER heard the male professor referred to by his first name, but Dr. is left off of addressing the female professor 99 percent of the time.

This bothers me at a very core level. Ph.D. is Ph.D. the gender behind the degree shouldn’t matter! The bottom line is individuals who manage to hack a Ph.D. program and successfully gain tenure, should be given the respect they deserve in EVERY instance.