Media: Seduction, Sex and Expectation

Seduction is always more singular and sublime than sex and it commands the higher price. ~Jean Baudrillard

This statement, really hits home for me. If you look at this with an interpersonal relationship in mind the meaning is clear.

From a purely sexual perspective you can say that the sexual tension and build up is often far more tempting, than the sex is fulfilling.

With a long term relationship in mind, you can interpret this to mean that the promises and "potential" of a relationship is rarely realized and both parties are left unfulfilled and feel a bit short changed or unsatisfied by their relationship.

But, the more I look at this quote I can't help to think of society and media. Media is the seduction and life (real life, not reality television) is the sex.

Television, movies, music, fairytales, magazines and various other simulations of life seduce us into thinking that these images projected are the life we should expect. Cosmo, Betsey Johnson, Cinderella and Sex and the City all tell me this is what sex, my wardrobe, my body, my mate, my friends and my life should be.

Life, being like sex, messy, dirty and complicated, can never (or almost never) live up to the seduction of media and the pervasive nature of the "should".

So we all pay the higher price, we all buy into what should be, and are disappointed but what truly is. Some pay the ultimate price, they cannot let go of fantasy and attempt to force the razor edged cookie cutter on their lives and lose that which they truly valued.

I'm not advocating settling for less than you are worth or what you "deserve" (don't forget this is the same phrase ads use to convince to but something you cannot afford and do not need!) but I'm just saying let's all temper our often self righteous claims, remember we too are flawed, and take all aspects of life with a grain of salt.

Men are included too!

I don't want to have the fellas ever think they are not included into the unrealistic body image issue as well. But, let's keep it real, this crap is not foisted upon Men to the same degree it is Women.

Or maybe it is? It doesn't appear to be to me but after all I am a Woman. I invite comments and criticism from all. Let me know, fellas.

More Flippa Fuel for the Fire

I previously blogged about the Ralph Lauren model, Flippa Hamilton, who was photo shopped within an inch of her emaciated life and the backlash Ralph Lauren Inc. received for it.

I have new updates. Apparently, famous model Flippa is pissed b/c RL Inc. fired her "fat" a**! Can you believe it?! Flippa is 5'10, 120lbs! Omg, what a fat cow!

RL Inc. denies the accusation (naturally) and states that Flippa failed to fulfill contractual obligations, one of which being, the requirement to fit into sample sizes 2-4. Please keep in ind that these are "designer sample sizes" meaning that these are not your "normal" size 2-4. Designer sizes are considerably smaller than the sizes you or I would try on at a boutique or department store. The woman is 5'10!!

Here comes the best part... both Flippa and editors of female oriented magazines are issuing a call to arms! This group of "activist" (BS!) are saying that the only way to change the fashions skewed perception of what is beautiful is for the rest of us "normal" women to stop accepting and buying in to the imagery pushed by the fashion industry.

Does anyone else see the irony in this?! If the fashion industry didn't have an unattainable image of beauty half of these stupid magazines would be out of business and the other half would barely eek out an existence. And Flippa, poor sad Flippa...she seemed just fine with this unattainable image when it included her. She was, literally the poster girl for the unattianble image. She knew she was promoting an unreal expectation and helping to lead poor, sad, self-hating 13 year old girls down a hungry, unhealthy and self defeating path as long as she was making money. I find it hard to believe that she was shedding tears all the way to the bank.

Take some F-ing responsibility! There is no doubt in my mind that we all have a part to play in the whole sick, sad game but I'll be damned if I'm going to accept the idea that it is up to me and my friends to shoulder this endeavor while cosmo's editor and super model send out the rally cry!

Empty your fat pockets and eat a carb before you come knockin on my door you implicit heifer.

P.S. Don't forget to leave your crappy crocodile tears at home when you come knockin.

Everyday of our lives we are inundated with behavioral norms, what to say, what to do, how to say it and where it should be done. Even in our times of emotional turbulence and disarray we are told that we must maintain certain decorum, matter of fact these seem to be the times that our performance matters the most, almost a socialization pop quiz, if you will.

So the question remains, who decided what is the "correct" way to argue or have an emotional breakdown? Why is it ok (or at least more acceptable) to calmly "debate" a hot topic, and secretly fantasize about throttling the other person than to be brazenly angry and emotional? I'm not condemning nor condoning either behavior but simply wondering, why is it ok present a false emotional front rather than to be openly upset? Especially in recent culture where "keepin it real" or "real talk" is so heavily touted?

"Anorexia great for girls!" says Ralph Lauren

Ok, so maybe Ralph Lauren doesn't exactly say he endorses eating disorders for young women but his actions definitely do. Here are 2 photos of super model Flippa P. Hamilton. The one above is a recent Ad run by Ralph Lauren for his new diet line, I mean clothing line and the one below is a "candid" of the same model on the runway at a recent show.

You may notice a few differences in the two pictures. The one on the left has been heavily photo shopped to whittle the already tiny waist line of Miss Hamilton. This new ad sparked quite a fire amongst Internet news sites and bloggers. In response to their criticism Ralph Lauren Inc. has threatens litigation against any sites that post the copy written ad without permission. Some sites have relented and removed the photo but the blog site Boing Boing refused and even responded with this:

"Instead of responding to their legal threat by suppressing our criticism of their marketing images, we're gonna mock them," Boing Boing editor Cory Doctorow wrote in a blog post Tuesday. "So, to Ralph Lauren, GreenbergTraurig, and PRL Holdings, Inc: sue and be damned. Copyright law doesn't give you the right to threaten your critics for pointing out the problems with your offerings. You should know better. And every time you threaten to sue us over stuff like this, we will:

a) Reproduce the original criticism, making damned sure that all our readers get a good, long look at it, and;

b) Publish your spurious legal threat along with copious mockery, so that it becomes highly ranked in search engines where other people you threaten can find it and take heart; and

c) Offer nourishing soup and sandwiches to your models."

I had a brillant teacher once say "The opposite of Social Control is Social Change", Boin Boing response to Ralph Lauren is truly social change. Hurray for Boing Boing, hurray for women (and men) and hurray for eating food and not just popcorn, paper and ice chips!!

Link to article:

https://email.mills.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=3ccdd95f47eb4237be57e3dfeab7c416&URL=http%3a%2f%2fabcnews.go.com%2fTechnology%2fAheadoftheCurve%2f11-photo-editing-flubs-digitally-altered-photo-disasters%2fstory%3fid%3d8780937

Isn't T.V. sensational?!

"Gangland" is a popular program on the History Channel. "Gangland" features a new location, new gang, or a new aspect of gang culture every Thursday night so we can all "experience" the nitty gritty of gang life from the comfort of our living rooms.
Recently "Gangland" did a feature on Oakland, well, actually they did two. I have never seen the show create two episodes featuring one city in this back-to back type manner but they found a way to justify it through the course of the two episodes. The first episodes seemed to feature nothing but "Black" male gangs as all the people interviewed and shown for black males. The second episode showed just Latin male gangs. Apparently, neither women nor white people bang.
As I was watching this with a friend from Sacramento, he said, "Dang, Oakland really gets down, huh? I'm not surprised.". My initial response was, "Yeah...I guess so." as I thought, wow, i really should be more careful. But as the show continued and then the second episode started I continued to see areas that I spent time in and neighborhoods that my friends lived in and I realized just how much propagandist crap was being spewed.
"Gangland" made it seem as if every male of color in Oakland was a gangbanger with an insatiable blood lust. I was furious! Oakland definitely has some gang issues and some real issues with crime in general but this show demonized Oakland so thoroughly that I have friends who have seen the show who are now concerned about their safety in neighborhoods they have lived comfortably in for years!
This is not only ridiculous but also grossly irresponsible. I understand T.V. is a business and they have to make their money but at the same time creators of documentary shows like "Gangland" have a responsibility to present a slightly less skewed version of reality than a fictional show such as "Lost" would. We as viewers, also have a responsibility to ask questions, check sources and think critically about the "information" served to us everyday.
When you see a T.V. show please ask, What is the subcontext of the show? What are the values and ideals they are trying to feed me? In what way are they trying to alter/control my view on the subject matter? Who benefits? Who pays?

An ode to T.V.

Since T.V. was welcomed into the homes of America it has been a cultural force to be reckoned with. Both, programs and commercials have been the harbinger, executor and enforcer of hegemonic culture. This role has created a bit of a love/hate relationship between television and I.

It's like a drug.

The High: Simply inject T.V. via eyes and ears,(no need for the brain you can turn that off!) and T.V. will provide you with the escape you need. You will feel relaxed, happy or at least mostly content and your worries will evaporate in thirty minutes or less. To intensify the effects of T.V. simply apply via tivo or on demand. Please take with large quantities of fat and sugar.

Side effects may include: drowsiness, general lethargy, loss of motivation, depression, weight gain or at least weight issues, change in body image perceptions, insecurity, loss of sense of self, inability to create cognitive thoughts and/or statements, loss of friends, incessant need to purchase previously unnecessary products, total unquestioning indoctrination into hegemonic ideals and complete inability to think for ones self.

Please note that T.V. is highly addictive.

(When using and administering video games, particularly online gaming communities such as "World of Warcraft" please note that all of the above applies and treat with caution.)

I recently read part five of Wayward Puritans by Kai T. Erickson. In part five Erickson not only explains Puritans ideas of deviancy but also links it directly to current U.S. ideology.

Puritans believed that once a person was revealed as deviant through their behavior (committing a crime) that they should be forever viewed as a deviant person. The Puritans believed that a person wasn't just committing a crime but also displaying their true colors as a born deviant.

This immediately made me think of California's intensely harsh "3 Strikes" law. For any who are not familiar with proposition 184, please let me illuminate. Prop 184 was passed in March of 1994 and states that a mandatory life sentence in prison must be handed down to any person convicted of 3 felonies with no consideration to the circumstances or environment. California was the second state to pass this 3 strikes policy and many states have since adopted the same policy but California is notorious for having the harshest enforcement of this policy. This seems to be a perfect illustration of the Puritan ideal of "deviance for life".

Another way U.S. institutions enforce this "deviance for life" message is in the treatment of people who have previously been committed of a felony. Once you have a felony on your record it is almost impossible to be hired, you cannot vote and you are constantly harassed by law enforcement officers. Once the courts have classified you as a deviant person you are shut out of social function and survival for life, much like the Puritan practice of banishment.

Erickson states that the Puritans have been judged harshly by history and viewed as vicious, cold, rigid and vindictive people but it is clear that little has changed. So the question I ask is; What makes us much better than the Puritans? How will history judge us? And finally, if we have such a clear example on what is now considered "horrific" practices why are we so bent on following in the same footsteps?

The Black/White Paradigm

I recently read an article entitled "Smells like Racism" by Rita Chowdury Sethi. In this article Sethi explains how racism in the U.S. has become a "caricature" of it's former self. Racism is no longer about institutions of power denying equal opportunity to people of color, according to Sethi racism has evolved to only include the Black/White binary.

Essentially, that means that if the race based incident does not include a White person harming or hindering a Black person then it does not count. Sethi furthers her discussion by incorporating how this narrow idea of racism affects Asians. Sethi provides clear and convincing examples to illustrate her theory but I would rather not go into detail. To me, the most interesting part of the article is the angry dialogue it inspires.

The point of this article was to move beyond the blame game, and what many people have dubbed the "oppression olympics" , to establish a dialogue between people of color. Unfortunately this has not happened, instead I ended up in a discussion regarding the animosity between Black and Korean groups in Los Angeles. Violence against Koreans was justified, Asians were called "shifty and secretive" and I was told that since I was in America I should get with the "American way". Silly me, I thought we were a nation of immigrants...I guess I have no clue as to what the "American way" is.

This is social control at it's finest. The dominant group no longer needs to persecute and tear apart the subordinate groups in society, they are happy to do it to one another. We have all subscribed to the racial hierarchy set forth in U.S. "culture" and are more than willing to do the work of the master.

Goggle it!

Today for a fun little experiment, I decided to take a look at google images. I typed three different terms into google images and I yielded three very interesting pictures in return.

In an effort to be as balanced as possible I did decide on a method prior to my experiment: I would enter my terms one at a time and select either the first or second image that was yielded. (All images are discussed from left to right)

The first picture is of musician Snoop Doggy Dog walking down the MTV video music awards red carpet with two women on leashes. This photo was the first to come up in google images under the search "Black Women".

The second picture is of women in military uniforms armed and marching in form. This photo was the second to come up in google images under the term "Korean Women". I chose an ethnic group rather than a racial group in this instance because...well, I'm Korean and I was curious as to how I was being represented.

The third picture is of a white women who just gave birth to a child that appears to be of mixed race descent when clearly the white man standing next to her is her husband, who seems very surprised at the skin tone of the child.

Now, clearly there is a lot to be said of these images and how controlling images shape the lives of women and men (I did this for men too, it's very interesting!). I'm not at all surprised by the images I found for both Black and Korean women but the image I pulled up for White women was initially, a bit surprising. But...then again, I had an expectation for Black women and Korean women but I had no expectation for White women, I'm ashamed to say that I threw that one in more as a control group then for anything else. I guess that is exactly why many groups should be considered in any experiment.

Upon further contemplation of the White women image I came to the conclusion that this picture is more a testament to the fear of the "corruption" of White women by Black men more than an actual reflection of White women. Of course, the same can be said for the other two images, Black women are depicted as overtly sexual and animalistic (Patricia Hill Collins expands this idea in a wonderfully readable way in her book Black Feminist Thought) and Korean women are sexual but in a very reserved and militant way which makes perfect sense considering the political climate of today.

I wonder what do you think??