|
Print-friendly version
PRETTY
WOMAN:
How to Respond to the Media's Influence
By Samantha Moore
I am a fervent patron of the “chick flick;” don’t get me
wrong. These films offer a specific promise that my
sensibilities won’t be rocked, that the experience will be
safe. Before settling into my sunken movie seat, with
compressed popcorn blooms held fast, I know how it’s going
to end: gratifyingly gushy.
Yet at the same time, I know it is going to reiterate the
fixed roles that men and women supposedly ought to play in
finding true love. I know it is going to showcase the
specific gender identities for which the chick flick genre
is known. Typically, the man is the one to realize his
failings, atone for his sins, and recoup the relationship
before it’s too late. Ideally, the woman indulges his
appeals, quickly mounts his
contemporary stallion, and rides off into dusk to be with
him forever.
|
In our society,
how we construct our gender identities depends much
on how media delineate them. |
Unfortunately,
these feel-good finales not only perpetuate swells of romance,
but they can also perpetuate gender stereotypes. In our society,
how we construct our gender identities depends much on how the
media delineates them. I do not think I naturally go looking for
how to “act more my gender.” But with pop culture’s help, I
discover how my gender should behave. Embedded in my programs,
advertisements, merchandise, and movies, I find the most
up-to-date conditions for my femininity.
Consider
hyper-sexualized family channel shows like Greek or the
National Fluid Milk Board’s campaign “Body By Milk.” Consider
online “beauty guides” or the unfailing typecasting in romantic
comedies. Clearly regulating and defining idyllic gender
conditions, these examples propose how I might achieve what is
“most female” these days. They show me gender-specific actions,
products, physical features, and roles that apparently stand for
what is most attractive and advantageous for today’s woman.
Thus, the degree to which I adapt to these standards determines
what level of femininity I have achieved, according to the
media. How I think my womanhood compares with others’ womanhood
on screen ultimately marks my “relative status in the sexual
marketplace,” says Kate Ellis from the Journal of Sex
Research1.
Regaining Control of Gender Identity
My
question, then, is how do I take control of my gender
identity despite the media’s provisions for it? How do I
construct my identity without yielding to gender conditions
purposely woven into my media experience?
Presently,
I do not know if there are clear-cut answers. But raising
people’s critical awareness concerning this phenomenon is a
fine first step. Gender relations on screen, in print, and
online truly can and do affect our interpretations of gender
relations in real life. Every day, we encounter media texts
that feed us persuasive information about the conditions for
such relations. Therefore, I think it only necessary to
start critically considering the mass-produced gender
systems we are fed daily.
In addition to raising awareness, media advocacy and
activism can both challenge and influence our current setup.
Initiatives like the NYC Grassroots Media Coalition and
Reclaim the Media set goals for justice in media access,
control, and power, and work tirelessly to accomplish them.
In a new journal called Imagining the (UN)Thinkable:
Community Media Over the Next Five Years, media
activists offer “critical information on the potential power
of the internet, radio, and community-access TV to enhance
social justice movements”2.
By supporting or
working for these kinds of initiatives, we can offer a
pluralistic view of gender identity, or rather that there is
not one supreme type of femininity or masculinity out there.
It is possible to work to provide healthier, more meaningful
media experiences without enforcing strict gender-specific
criteria.
|
By supporting or
working for these kinds of initiatives, we can
advance a more pluralistic view of gender identity:
that there is not one supreme type of femininity or
masculinity out there. |
Many of us
might love the sentimental, epic finales to chick-flicks, and
that is perfectly okay. When Richard Gere rises from his limo’s
sun roof with flowers in hand, he sweeps pretty woman Julia
Roberts and audience members like myself off our feet. Climbing
nervously up the ladder, Gere conquers his fear of heights to
apologize and win her back. Roberts lets down her big curls and
in an instant seems to forget the past. At this point, our
hearts flutter because the picture is so perfect. What we don’t
realize though is how strong a message that picture sends. “Love looks like this,” says the screen. The man plays the
hero; the woman plays the rescued. The man shows up with
flowers and confidence, and the woman unties her ponytail to
look more appealing for him. Although it might seem charming,
the picture subtly defines specific gender functions for how
romance is supposed to operate. It shows us what “gender
strengths” to embrace and what “weaknesses” to work on so we too
might find this kind of picture-perfect love.
But it is when
we start viewing gender traits as strengths or weaknesses in our
character, rather than just pieces of our identities, that we
lose a sense and appreciation for how God designs distinct
characteristic sets for each person, not each gender. Why
not challenge the images and roles then, critically analyze
them, and advocate for an end to ready-made gender identities
altogether? Why not work to showcase and celebrate the cosmic
hodgepodge of people’s qualities rather than limiting them to an
idealistic gender continuum that the media constructs and
promotes?
1Ellis, Kate, Ph.D. “Fatal
Attraction or the Post-Modern Prometheus.” Journal of Sex
Research. 27.1 (1990): 111-122.
2Funding Exchange: Media Justice Fund. 9 May
2008. Funding Exchange. 3 May 2008 <http://www.fex.org/mjf/>.
|
