#6 My Mediated Body

In my life I use many types of communication.  I am constantly involved in face-to-face communication, communication over the phone, written and typed communication, and Skype which is like a mix of face-to-face and the phone.  With today's technology I do not really think that it is about responding differently to the physical body, but I instead respond differently to which senses are being activated much like McLuhan's statement that "'touch is not skin but the interplay of the senses, and "keeping in touch" or "getting in touch" is a matter of a fruitful meeting of the senses of sight, translated into sound and sound into movement, and taste, and smell"(61).  When I am interacting with sight and sound I feel as though I have a full body experience.  When I am with a person physically, my attention is with them, I am with them, and I feel connected to them, even if we are not actually talking.  When I am physically with someone, even if we are watching a movie my attention is still on them, I am aware they are there.  If I am asked a question in person, I will answer and if I ask a question I can physically and mentally be with the person to get the complete experience of their answer.  Their hand gestures, their facial expression, their eyes.  Everything is believable, everything feels real.  I believe Skype allows for the same connection, even though the body is only visually not physically present.  When I Skype with someone it is usually planned.  I discuss with my family and friends when they can be most "present." Skype is still face-to-face communication, questions cannot be as easily ignored, and the reactions to things are seen fully.  Communication with or without the body always involves presentation, you are always creating who you are and inevitably you are always a "structure to be monitored and modified"(Mirzeoff 120).  When I am seeing people, depending who it is, even if it is just over Skype, I usually always put on make up and dress in an outfit I would want people to see me in.  Face-to-face cannot be as easily controlled as other forms of communication, so it is important I focus on what I can control, how I look, my body, which I somehow manipulate with every form of communication.

I find over the phone to be my least favorite medium of communication, because it is as spontaneous as face-to-face, requires a level of flow, but it only involves one sense.   I am easily distracted on the phone, because I am a much more visual person.  If the television is on, if I am with someone else, or if I am on Facebook, I will probably be only half listening to the conversation.  On the phone it is much harder to tell what is really going on, because you have no way of seeing, someones reactions or actions.  It is all about the audio, and it is very hard for me to simply listen.  Without any type of body, on the phone you can control your appearance by saying what you are doing, maybe even what you are wearing, which will paint whatever  picture you want and whatever picture the listener wants to decode, but it is not real, there is no proof.  I also find I am constantly being caught off guard with the phone.  I know when I am going to see people, I plan my own Skyping sessions, but a phone call will come completely out of the blue.  Because there is no need for physical, but at the same time the phone requires timely answers, you have to think on your feet.  The phone for me is a source of stress, and I absolutely prefer face-to-face.  

Finally there is written communication and type.  Mirzoeff's section on "Net Life" states that "the perception that the body need not stop at the skin but can be a pen and complex structure"(116).  This is both true and untrue to my use of these mediums.  I do not think anything can compare to the skin, but I believe writing and type have the ability to create a different type of skin.  My phone number, my Facebook page, and my email are all ways I "translate more and more of [myself] into other forms of expression that exceed" me(McLuhan 57).  They become a direct part of who I am and without my body they become my body.  I can manipulate and control my appearance by things like my use of punctuation and smileys in texts, by editing and adding pictures on myself on Facebook, and by how I talk in emails depending on what role I am trying to fill.  I find that the body and these structures are not the same, because my body is the actual, but with writing I can create whatever I want my body to be and that becomes my identity and how I communicate.  With my use of the internet, "cyberspace is at present one domain where no one can tell if [I] can hear"(Mirzoeff 116).  I am much more relaxed over the internet. I am not aware of someone with me, but I am still "in touch" with them, and I can control the situation however I want by answering when I feel like it and interpreting words without facial expressions or voice changes to be whatever I want.  There is a cyberspace and texting body, that is what people decode, and there are innumerable ways to manipulate that body, creating one that feels as real as the physical self. 

Mirzeoff claims that the virtual and physical both make up a body and I know that is true in my own life.  Email, texts, facebook are all part of my virtual organs, but I still believe firmly the separation of the virtual and physical in terms of my creation and my reality.  Mirzeoff determines that "the body now appears to be a fluid and hybrid borderland of the two, as subject to change as and other cultural artifact"(116),  Maybe my opinion on my physical body will change and my reality will become the internet, but for now I believe what I see and what I hear simultaneously the most, what I can experience with more then one of my senses.  

Mirzeoff, Nicholas.  "Net Life" and "Virtual Bodies."  An Introduction to Visual Culture.  London: Routledge, 1999.  111-123.

McLuhan, Marshall.  "Media as Translators."  Understanding Media. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1994.  56-61. Print.  

# 5 Analyzing the Male Gender

Issues with gender are not as much about the equality of women and men, but instead the roles they are portrayed to play in media.  I am glad we analyzed a lot of the problems with male stereotyping through our gender studies, because previously i have always related gender to feminism.  Gender is not about equality, it is about roles and ways we see men and women.  Studying gender through media really helps me to see how there are such distinctions and problems with the portrayal of men and women in media.  I am focusing this post a lot on the portrayals of men, because I feel like it is a new topic that unlike the restriction of women, I had yet to be faced with.  

In the Jackson Katz piece "Advertising and the Construction of Violent White Masculinity" and in his movie Tough Guise Katz analyses the common roles for males to play, especially in advertising: "The angry aggressive, white working-class male as antiauthority rebel; violence as genetically programmed male behavior; the yes of military and sports symbolism to enhance the masculine identification appeal of products; the association of muscularity with ideal masculinity"(352).  With the exception of the military man, General Hospital involves men who portray all of these roles.  The soap opera is about the fictional town of Port Charles centered around warring mobs and the police who are trying to arrest them.  The main character Sonny, is the head of a mob organization.  He uses violence when ever he can to get what he wants as a daily use of protection and profit.  His second in command is Jason, an extremely built and violence driven mobster, who loves his family, but refuses to give up his life in the mob.  Both men are adored on the show, always having a different wife or girlfriend and always being appreciated by their families for the work they do to keep them safe.  These characters are plagued by violence, and the problem is these men are lovable.  The show embodies Katz's points that men feel pressured to be "tough, strong, respected, and courageous" in life.  Katz asks if women are complicit in creating these images of appreciated violent men, that completely rub off on men in real life.  Watching General Hospital, I realize that yes we are.   I love Sonny, every girl wants the bad boy that can defend her honor, and Sonny is exactly that.  Though we know Sonny's actions are wrong, Sonny is anything but a monster to the viewers of General Hospital who are constantly routing for him and sympathizing with him.  Women watch the roles of men in media, and as a result, they wish for a man of their own who in someways is as much of a dark knight as mobster Sonny.  We create the pressure for men to play out these roles in real life.  

Preview of Sonny Corinthos on General Hospital(Notice how he describes himself): General Hospital Clip

      My all time favorite movie is I Love You, Man.  The whole movie centers around the male and female roles and pressures that are instilled in us since birth.  Meyrowitz's piece "The Merging of Masculinity and Femininity" describes "The training of men and women for different roles depends on separate environments of socialization…the distinctions in behavior begin when little boys are thrust or pulled into the outside world of men"(202).  He goes on to describe that "It is a liability because girls may develop self-doubt and a low self-image from identifying with their mothers who are weak figures, a devalued by the larger culture.'At the same time, they may enjoy a sense of ease, love, and acceptance in the process of becoming an adult."  Boys, in contrast, find their status in life as much more difficult to achieve, that they must fight, compete, and struggle to 'be a man'"(204).  In I Love You, Man, the main character Peter, is known as a gal pal.  At the beginning of the film, he proposes to his girl friend, and as they plan the wedding everyone is concerned about his lack of male friends.  Who will be his best man?  Peter is not tough, we never see him exhibiting violence, and we do not see him being just "one of the guys" as Katz describes.  Rather then being "thrust or pulled into the outside world of men" Peter's childhood best friend was his mother.  For the rest of the film Peter goes on "man dates" that constantly ridicule his masculinity.  He goes out for a guys night and throws up after chugging  beer, he admits to his favorite movie being Chocolat, and he even invades one of his fiance's girls nights after making them all snacks.  Peter exhibits everything opposite of Sonny Corinthos and rather then being respected he is forced to change his ways.

I Love You, Man Trailer

Peter from I Love You, Man bears many similarities to my own father, which I think is why I was never exposed to this particular side of gender before.  My dad has zero regard for masculine stereotypes.  He is six feet tall and about a 150 pounds, never going to the gym and caring very little about how strong he is.  He has always had more best girl friends then guy friends, and is perfectly okay with crying during a movie.  The closest I have seen him come to violence is yelling at the television during a baseball game.  I am so thankful that my dad does not embody any of Katz's claims, but after reading the article I realize how much that pressure still exists in my dad's life.  People are constantly, even at the age of fifty, making fun of how much he weighs.  In the summer, he feels he has to go on his male friend's annual bonding fishing trip even, though he gets sea sick.  Finally, people are always telling him he is too nice.  I appreciate my dad, for creating a life without these masculine stereotypes, but he is not always respected for it.  This unit showed me just how present male pressures are and how both women and men are constantly egging on those pressures.  

Meyrowitz, Joshua.  "The Merging of Masculinity and Femininity."  No Sense of Place.  Oxford: Oxford   Univresity Press, 1985.  201-212. Print.

Katz, Jackson.  "Advertising and the Construction of White Masculinity."  Gender, Race, and Class in Media.  Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2003.  349-358.  Print.  

Post #4 Hidden Racism in Gossip Girl and The Hangover

Examining race in media, I found that the problems lie in the patterns of how each race is portrayed.  With my media presentation being due this week, I decided to put a lot of my focus on the Robin Means Coleman piece "Black Sitcom Portrayals," because she analyzes a lot of the patterns of race on television.  She divided the patterns she saw into a few categories: wealth and race, men and race, and women and race. Though she wrote the article in 2000, I still managed to see the patterns she found in my favorite television shows today.  Gossip Girl is known for it's lack of diversity.  Up until this year all of the main characters with wealth were white.  There was one character of African American race but she was of much lower status and embodied, as Coleman describes, "Hollywood's preference of lighter-skinned African American's"(85).  Finally this season, the show brought the Thorpes onto the show.  The family consisted of a billionaire, Russel Thorpe, and his daughter Raina.  In Coleman's article she engages with the opinions of others, one person being J.C.  J.C. examines that "wealth can be misconstructed as whiteness, as seen in the assimilation controversy that haunted Julia and The Cosby Show.  Again, then we are reminded how bound blackness and economic deprivation is on television, and in turn, in the minds of viewers"(Coleman 80).  The Thorpes are the only African American family to be formally introduced to the show and they are floating in a sea of other white rich families.  The show, all about the lifestyles of the unbelievably rich, centers on all white millionaires and billionaires marking it as white.  The Thorpe's are entering a world where the only African American character was poor, where wealth has been "misconstructed as whiteness."  Coleman uses another point by J.C. regarding patterns with race and wealth:  "As a devout Christian, J.C. sees a void in television where morally sound behaviors are rarely depicted, yet the wayward and inappropriate are privileged...J.C's lament is that when such positive portrayals, such as Carlton's, do appear, they are the source of ridicule by the other Black Characters"(81).  In Russel Thorpe's first episode he steals a company from one of the main characters.  He pretends to be a stand up guy, promising to help our beloved Chuck Bass keep his father's legacy by saving his company, but in reality he pulls it out from under Chuck.  Russel Thorpe follows the pattern of race, wealth, and being "morally" unjust.  Coleman discusses a lot about race and family in her piece and once again uses J.C's discoveries in that "the African American male is not just deficient in love, but also in family life"(83).  The Thorpes are a single parent household, a trend mentioned in Coleman's piece, and Russel Thorpe has yet to find any type of love.  In fact, he was in love with Chuck's step mother, but she dumped him.  His daughter is his pride and joy, but he goes against her morals in order to steal the company, upsetting Raina and tearing his family apart.  Drama is obviously the main component of Gossip Girl, but somehow the drama surrounding the Thorpes encompasses everything Coleman finds a trend in "Black Sitcom Portrayals."

Russel Thorpe's First Episode of Gossip Girl: Link to YouTube

In John Thornton Caldwell's article "Televisual Politics: Negotiating Race in the L.A. Rebellion" he concludes that "the televisual apparatus was exposed for what it has been on many occasions: a stylistic architecture for managing difference, building consensus, and stylistically packaging the dangerous other"(334).  The perfect examples of races aside from white that portray an "other" are the other races used in The Hangover.  The movie is about four white guys going to Las Vegas, so we already know the center of the film will be placed on the white race.  However, the characters we see of different races are unfortunate stereotypes depicting these races as the odd men out.   Gossip Girl's racial stereotypes were much harder to see that those of The Hangover.  If I had not read Coleman's article I would have never known race, wealth, and morals are always intertwined in portrayals of race on television.  The Hangover, a comedy, displayed racial stereotypes much more obviously because they provided a laugh.  The film involves two African American supporting characters: Mike Tyson the boxer, and the drug dealer who causes the whole mess of giving Alan Ruffelin.  Mike Tyson owns a tiger in the movie and uses violence against the four main characters, when he finds out they took his tiger.  The drug dealer is barely aware of what he is selling and accidentally gives the Alan Ruffelin that lands them all a night of complete blackout.   There is also Mr. Chow who is extremely small, and who is able to fly out of the car and on top of Bradley Cooper showing his flexibility and martial arts skills.  He is also extremely wealthy, following most of the asian cinematic stereotypes.  The three characters of different races provide the men with almost all of the problems they encounter and create this wall of the other.  They take on each race's stereotype positions in film, noticeably separating themselves from the white race.  The movie mocks each of these characters in the film through their actions, and as ridiculous as this film is as a whole it truly emphasizes the other of race.  Bamboozled displayed the major problems with putting two African Americans in black face and having them mock their own race.  Although these examples are not as extreme, these characters are mocking rather their own races playing on stereotypes and creating characters very isolated from the "white" characters in the film.  Gossip Girl hid Russell Thorpe in Whiteness, while The Hangover emphasized the difference and "other" qualities of the supporting characters.  

Mike Tyson Clip

Mr. Chow Clip

Drug Dealer Doug Clip

Caldwell, John Thornton.  "Televisual Politics."  Televisuality. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1954.  302-335.  Print.  

Means Coleman, Robert R.  "Black Sitcom Portrayals." Gender, Race, and Class in Media.  Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2003.  79-88.  Print.