Class and "the Terrorist"

            Both George W. Bush’s Address to Joint Session of Congress Following 9/11 Attacks and an interview with Dick Cheney and Tim Russert illuminate the “Myth of the Terrorist”. More accurately, they helped to construct this myth by painting a picture of the new “American enemy” and also the freedoms and identities of citizens at risk. Both the speech and the interview were strategic in that they created a sense unity, nationalism, and duty among U.S. citizens to demand justice and stay resilient in their grief. They worked to manipulate the countries’ shock and use it as a justification for war and counter-attack.

  By creating a sense of classless-ness and unity among all “equal” Americans fighting for their liberties supposedly being attacked by these terrorists, the leaders of the country managed to help citizens identify with one another and forget the differences they share with each other on a daily basis, now unified in the fight for freedom. He brings attention to class specifically when we asks for the continued support of the American economy: “Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch its source. America is successful because of the hard work, and creativity, and enterprise of our people. These were the true strengths of our economy before September 11th, and they are our strengths today”. By calling attention to the stereotype of the “hardworking American” who started from nothing, he alarms citizens that their beloved American Dream is in jeopardy.

Bush further aims to identify with “everyday” people by his constant repetition of “we” and “us”. This is another tool used to create unity among citizens, while simultaneously victimizing them all. He states, “Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war.  The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us… We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage…” And so not only does he place blame on The Terrorist, he creates one huge victim, all American citizens, and then uses the grief and fear to channel their efforts into support in the name of “progress”. He also warns citizens that their own freedom, which is a basic human right regardless of class is in jeopardy. Without the “freedom” we know today, there would be no class.

Lastly, he appeals to all Americans regardless of class by saying, “I ask you to live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat”.  Bush aims to plant fear for the livelihood of American children, and to repress this fear and turn it into alliance with the U.S. government. The administration knew it could not act with the country divided. Later he asks you to “uphold the values of America” and “remember why so many have come here.” As if there are a written set of values that all Americans, regardless of class or position in society abide by.

Cheney reiterates a lot of the ideas that Bush does, but instead paints a more vivid, detailed image of “the Terrorist” for the American people to latch onto. In explaining the enemy more vividly, he further unifies “all Americans” in their fight for “freedom and democracy.” He explains that these terrorist groups and Osama bin Laden actually hate all Americans: “I mean, you have to ask yourself, why somebody would do what he does. Why is someone so motivated? Obviously he's filled with hate for the United States and for everything we stand for...” Again, appealing to an implied set of American values and ideals shared by the whole country, regardless of their place in society.

 This is so effective because Bush and Cheney both claim a “war on terror”. Terror is something that any human, regardless of their job, wealth, social status, and position in society can experience. It can take hold of anyone, anywhere, no matter who you are. Americans were asked to forget the things that would normally pull them apart, and recognize this supposed need for unity and retaliation in order to save themselves from something so horrible and possible all in one. And so “the Terrorist” does not embody one devious Islamic man or even a group, it is rather the absolute terror of feeling grief, loss, suffering and tragedy. 

Here is a report from the Herald News about this "unity" felt all throughout America:

http://www.heraldnews.com/news/x219198020/Americas-sense-of-unity-patriotism-strengthened-after-9-11

"Women in Refrigerators" NCIS Season 2 Ep. 23

     In the popular CBS show NCIS the trope, "Women in Refrigerators" can be found in epidsode 23 of the second season. This trope is defined by feministfrequency's youtube channel as the common occurrence of women in film, TV, and comics getting tortured or killed for the advancement of the plot or characterization of a male.

    The character Caitlin Todd is an NCIS agent, the token woman agent in a group of primarily men. The episode opens with foreshadowing as a snake wraps itself around Kate and Tony, her almost-romantic interest and coworker has to save her. Tony constantly makes remarks about her sexual appeal. In this episode alone he comments on her breasts and lies to McGee about having sex with her. This sexualizing is the first step in the, "Women in Refrigerators" trope. Soon after we learn that a group of serial terrorists (which is a whole other issue) is seeking revenge on NCIS agent Gibbs, the leader of Tony, Kate, and McGee's group. Then the character Ari is introduced and we learn he is the designated killer sent for Gibbs, but he becomes fixated on killing the women close to Gibbs (Kate and the forensics expert, Abby) as a form of punishment and a reminder of the murder of Gibb's first wife. To make matters worse, in a scene where he holds Kate hostage, there is even implication of sexual aggression and assault.

     At this point in the episode the character of Kate is completely undermined as an incompetent, hyper-sexualized character whose sole purpose is to form this conflict with Ari and these supposed "terrorists". Not to mention, Ari also tries (and fails) to kill Abby, the scientist, in her own lab. Conveniently, Gibbs pounces on her and saves her from the bullet just in the nick of time. It should also be noted that later on in the season, the head director of NCIS who also happens to be a woman and Gibb's ex-lover is also shot on a job with him and later replaced by a male. Again, to "punish" Gibb's. The issue with this is that the grief is then directed around Gibb's and not all of the women characters that actually die. Kate dies simply for the process of mourning for the men to be shown and the development of new character.

     As if being held hostage, terrorized, and sexually assaulted isn't enough, Kate is shot directly in the head at the end of the episode, and the team learns that her death was not accidental- Ari did not aim for Gibbs and shoot her instead. This is also reinforced visually, as we then see her pale naked body (covered by medical cloths) on the table in the biopsy lab. There is a bullet directly through her head and the film writers made sure that this was visible. Being shot anywhere on the face is usually perceived as an even more "brutal" death than being shot anywhere else on the body.

     After all of this, beginning in the next episode, Tony talks to his imagined Kate, now with a bullet in her head, and explains how attracted to her he was. After a brutal murder, the character Tony still fixates on her sexual appeal and centers his grief around this. Kate herself takes on an almost seductive look even though she is dead, and we're left to mourn and pity Gibbs as he has now lost another woman close to his heart.

     This is the epitome of the, "Women in Refrigerators" trope. Not only are women killed, they are tortured, sexualized, diminished to a body, and then killed to top it all off. This theme within different mediums of entertainment is dangerous because it objectifies and constructs a sort of pleasure in looking at these women being sexualized and killed. How often do we see men being held hostage, sexually abused, and then shot in the head graphically, in slow motion? The answer is never. Or very, very rarely, and these men are often highly feminized anyway. The depiction of Kate and other women like her promotes all kinds of troublesome notions about women and their power in society in relation to sexuality, and continues to deconstruct woman in our society today.

   



   

Maybelline's Beauty Myth

In Naomi Wolf’s, “Beauty Myth”, she talks about the detrimental effects of women as represented in the media and society. More specifically, the inversely correlated relationship between female liberation and ideas about femininity in the media. While women have increasingly gained prominence in social, political, and economic platforms, they have also been increasingly idealized in the media to the point of impossibility. We would think that as women breach these positions of power formally held by men we could assume the images that represent “ideal women” would also change for the better.

      Wolf indicates that this inverse relationship is a result of a “violent backlash against feminism that uses images of female beauty as a political weapon against women’s advancement” (Wolf 487).  This is what constructs, “the Beauty Myth” that Wolf speaks of. Every day we are bombarded with media that promotes the myth of beauty. It is a myth because we know now that the kind of beauty we see in advertisements, on TV, and in movies is fabricated to create notions of beauty that always leave women striving for the unattainable. And now, because men can no longer control women through domestication and force, the media chooses to undermine them by basing their self-worth and “beauty” on impossible goals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTgeUVOxl8E

                

     Above is a 2009 Maybelline commercial advertising “NEW Dream Liquid Mousse” foundation. This is a perfect representation of “the Beauty Myth” that wolf speaks about. The commercial initially says, “Flawless skin? Old news. 100% pore-less perfection has arrived.” Not only does the commercial say “flawless” skin is now a goal of the past (and unattainable one at that), it introduces a new goal for “pore-less” skin that is deemed perfection. In all reality if our skin didn’t have pores we would not be living. Then the commercial goes on to say, “skin looks smoother, perfect. Like it’s been airbrushed.” This references the airbrushed skin that we see in the media constantly. There is not a single image that hasn’t been retouched with first makeup and then photo shop. The ad promotes “perfection” as looking like Adriana Lima is depicted, with absolutely no blemishes, and frankly, no real skin.

                

     

       And so, a woman can be a part of congress, or a CEO, or president for that matter, but if we can see her pores, suddenly her self-worth has plummeted. At the end of the commercial the Maybelline logo comes says, “Maybe she’s born with it. Maybe it’s Maybelline.” This implies that “100% pore-less skin” is something people can actually be born with. The ad constructs the desire to have this skin where before, pore-less skin wasn't anything any woman was striving to have. This is a beauty myth because it constructs a desire for women to work for and causes them to come seek out products that might give them this new pore-less skin.

                Below is a visual deconstruction of “The Beauty Myth” in popular culture:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hibyAJOSW8U

Crossing Gender Lines in "The Hunger Games"

     After reading Clover's, "Men, Women, and Chainsaws", and an interesting discussion on gender role blending in pop culture, a certain fictional character came to mind: Katniss, from the hit series, The Hunger Games. Katniss shares a lot of the same traits as, "the Final Girl" discussed in Clover's essay. While she is very much female, she is very much masculine in order for her to become, literally, "the Final Girl".

     In the beginning of the film, Katniss is depicted as the "glue" of the family- she provides for her mother, takes care of sister, hunts for her food and then sacrifices most of it. She is good friends and oblivious to the feelings of a male character, Gale. Even in the picture we see a leather jacket, a black shirt, hair pulled away from the face, a weapon in hand. She wears little to no visible makeup, and even her stature is different from a lot of the leading women characters we see in Hollywood- it's "healthy". From the very beginning it is made clear that she has not "found" her femininity because she is much too preoccupied providing her family with the sustenance to live.

     Katniss stoically takes her sister place in the games, and doesn't hesitate or cry- she shows no signs of weakness. And when she is prepped to be "presented" for the games she is extremely uncomfortable getting plucked, waxed, made-up, and dressed in feminine clothing. However, this is where certain blending occurs. She is finally seen as having femininity and while being presented, appeals to the audience by talking about her love for her sister, Prim, whom she sacrificed herself for. This is a theme later on the film. She constantly appeals to the audience, who in this case is "the Capital". First by sharing her emotional attachment to her sister and then by playing "in love" with Peeta, the other boy from her district and main character.

     Her masculinity continues in the arena. She is smart, strong, and does not hesitate to use violence in the slightest. She out- wits most of her opponents and forms allies with the right people. As her relationship with Peeta grows, her masculinity does as well. While she does show emotion- we don't know if it is genuine. In stark contrast, Peeta becomes an extremely feminized character. He refuses to use violence, plays by the rules, does not know the first thing about survival, and often depends solely on Katniss and her skills. This relationship definitely plays up Katniss's masculinity while simultaneously, the audience wonders if their feelings for each other are genuine. Still, Peeta's character and emotions are much more readable, his actions more predictable, and  frankly, underdeveloped.

     Yet, her moments of vulnerability, such as Rue's death, not only humanize but feminize as well. She becomes this interesting blend of masculine and feminine traits- she has all the strength, skill, and intuition associated with masculinity and yet the caring, sympathetic love for certain characters, primarily female. Her vulnerability in relation to the men in her life (Peeta, her father, Gale, Haymitch) is only visible in the books because we are able to see inside of her mind. In the film, however, her character plays cool and unreadable, in stark comparison to the screaming, confused thoughts about her male companions in the book.

     In the end of the film, her solution to both her feminine and masculine traits comes to a head. While she decides to stand in rebellion against the Capital and basically start a war, she also chooses, or so we can gather, to be with Peeta. And so it paints an interesting ideal and balance between what is "good" in both femininity and masculinity. Also, interesting in that she appeals to a body of people by portraying femininity but then saves her own life again and again by showing her "masculine skills". She starts a war, but saves her family- kills other kids, but it is "the Final Girl" left standing in the end.

   
Here is a link to a similar blog post I encountered:
http://metrac.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/gender-portrayal-in-the-hunger-games/

Creating Notions of Gender

   

     The first time I looked at this advertisement I was drawn in by its simple sexiness- now in the media and advertisement we’re told to set these sort of “raw” raw images to a new standard. They create a seemingly refreshing change from all the outlandish and over the top images in high fashion we’re bombarded with every day.  However, it’s just the image that is simplified- if anything, this diptych promotes even more straightforward and unapologetic statements about our society’s notions of gender.

     Let’s start with the most obvious here: The ad clearly sells “Men’s Shirts”…but a woman is modeling it. Topless. She clutches like she could take it off at any second. This is not rare in any fashion ad- we all know “sex sells”. And yet, this ad says a lot more about the expectations of males and females in society’s sexual relationships than the act of sex itself.

     So this ad implies that if a man buys this shirt, he will own it. It is now an extension of him. When a woman puts his shirt on, it’s almost like she belongs to him as well. This could go as far back as when woman were considered property, and still are in some parts of the world. Either way, a woman wearing a man’s shirt and nothing else sort of simultaneously supports stereotypes about male dominance and sexual prowess, as well as female sexual availability and willingness. If a man looks at “his girl” wearing his shirt, he sees it as attractive because it’s a piece of him on her, almost as if marking his territory. It feeds into the stereotypes of masculinity that rule our popular culture: it is overpowering, it cloaks femininity, in this case both literally and figuratively.

      I mean, think about it. The idea of seeing your girlfriend in nothing but one of your big shirts is sexy. But ladies, does the idea of him in your pink turtleneck turn you on? If it does, more power to you. But there is some very interesting double standards that arise when we start to cross so called masculine and feminine characteristics. Putting a female’s shirt on a man would almost seem to degrade him. A male, especially heterosexual, might feel embarrassment or loss in confidence because with the shirt comes a decrease in masculinity. He doesn't actually lose any testosterone, no. But a male with female qualities is generally noted as not as sexually attractive and maybe even “weak”. Femininity taints masculinity whereas adding the right touch of masculinity creates sexiness.

     It’s just like crossing “masculine” and “feminine” actions and emotions: If a woman can fix a car, or works as a cutthroat, high powered executive (and she can do it all in heels) there’s a certain amount of sex appeal that comes with that. If a man wears is “oversensitive” or works in fashion or even has a sense of style that is unique from other males he identifies with, his sexuality is questioned and he is viewed as less attractive.

     You could blame all of that on human nature, but the fact of the matter is, gender is a social construct. Its ideals are fabrications of society that divide people into two hegemonic categories- anyone pushed outside or between the two is a marginalization. There are expectations pushed at us from all sides. Ads like this try to tell us about ourselves, try to construct our desires by giving masculinity a transferable power and then telling men that they can have this masculinity along with the shirt. This image just sort of defaces the individual woman in all her complexity and instead markets her as something to own and dress and look at. It also expects a lot of a heterosexual man’s masculinity and sexual being, while at the same time marginalizing any other type of sexual relationship but heterosexual.  All of this construction of what it means to be male and female in popular culture is built into these images, and the fact that we walk by them every day without even stopping to ponder what they say about us as we identify ourselves in society is a fascinating and somewhat alarming thing. 

Solomon's "Master of Desire"

             

     Solomon's "Master of Desire" gives an insightful look into the world of advertising, with common themes of desire, fear, sex, and societal paradox. I found the latter most interesting. Solomon makes a reference to Alexis de Tocqueville's observation that as Americans we identify with both a sense of belonging and a sense of ambition.This desire to belong to a nation, a community, to find our niche within it, and "fit in". This ambition being the desire to be thought of or recognized as part of a higher social strata, even in a society where all social, political, and economic success supposedly comes from completely equal opportunity. 

     In perusing the internet for an example of an advertisement that screams all of these themes, an interesting ad came up that caught my attention. This was the first indicator of a powerful advertisement-the fact that it caught my attention at all. 

     The image depicted is actually two different ads, part of the same campaign,

which makes the relation to Solomon's ideas about belonging, elitism, and desire all the more enticing. Just initially taking a glance at the name of the product, "Gucci Guilty" already appeals to that promiscuous, "oops-I-did-it-again" mentality. Already we look at the name of the product and feel like it could empower us do something crazy, wild- completely unlike ourselves. 

     These images are in fact ridiculously common in the beauty industry (one of the biggest, most successful advertising industries in the world-there's a reason they're common). A man and a woman, seemingly naked, deliciously close and yet not close enough. We look at these people and it appeals to so many different parts of our minds. Being touched, envied, lusted after, desired, beautiful, sexy. We want to be part of this sexy society of beautiful people who smell good and as a result, (we are left to conclude) have lots of sex. We look at them and see that they possess an otherworldly charisma. The product is expensive, the packaging is exquisite, and they just seem so damn cool. This ad tells you that everyone wants sexy, good smelling people, but that only sexy good smelling people want each other. But wait! You're in luck- you can be one of them (for around $62.00). 

     Beyond creating this good smelling secret society of perfume owners, these ads do interesting things to each other when placed side by side. On the left is an ad "pour homme". The colors are dark and muted, Chris Evans stares half scary, half sexy back at us. The woman is beneath him, begging him to look down at her, taking in his scent. 

     Gucci had interesting things to say about their product for men: "The juice has top notes of sparkling Italian lemon, pink peppercorn & lavender. The dry down features hallmark Giannini note patchouli and cedar wood. Gucci Guilty is the perfect exterior for the image of the man who also wears it: a sexy, fearless risk-taker." 

     And then we have on the right, the fragrance for women. The man has similar submissive body language to the woman in the image on the right. The color is brighter, more glowing. You look at the woman and envy everything she has, you look at the man and see that she is desirable- and that your envy is justified.

      In both images, a sense of empowerment through sexuality is so present. Looking at these images creates a sort of envy for said empowerment. The consumer is told that by purchasing this product, they can promote an image of themselves that will then elevate their societal status and appeal. And with that, become what people most often want but will never admit: to be both desirable and enviable, with the lines blurring between the two. So while we all want to belong to this exclusive club, we all want to be just a little bit better than everyone already in it. This is the paradox that Solomon speaks of and the desire that is constructed from the cultural visual signals we pass by everyday, just as I did with Gucci's "Gucci Guilty".