Of the two readings for class, the
chapters from Susan Douglas’s book were the most memorable. Douglas often seems to have a very
narrow point of view when discussing her topics, particularly with her focus on
popular media. Most of Douglas’s
points are made while critiquing the particular shows or movies throughout the
years, pointing out their flaws.
She also chose to look at magazines in this selection, harping on
magazines such as Cosmopolitan, while extolling others like Sassy. Her narrow focus, in my opinion, leaves
her potions vulnerable to differing opinions. For example, the one thing that she continuously fails to
mention is the fact that television stations, movie producers, and magazine
editors exist solely to make money as profitable businesses. While some may have secondary motives,
I think it is crucial to point out that they produce the shows they do, or
write certain types of articles because they are trying to earn money.
Continuing
this argument, I find many of the topics and situations that Douglas agonizes
over in shows like 90210 (more) acceptable if viewed from an enterprising point
of view. She talks about producers
exploiting the female teenage market, seeking them out for their young,
impressionable minds, while I think perhaps the market could be viewed as
simply not targeted before these types of shows came out. While she makes great points about the
themes of many of the shows, I think many of the ideas for the “plots” of the
shows can be attributed to producing what sells. However, if you put aside the idea that producers and
editors are simply targeting their content to what will sell the best, then I
think that Douglas makes several valid points that she strongly supports.
With
respect to third chapter, I think Douglas perhaps over-criticizes the more
recent heroine movies. While she
points to issues such as heroines having a desire to have kids or having other
motherly traits, I think the idea that heroines are the main characters
outweighs the negatives. Teenagers
and other younger girls will look to the movies and see the fact that women can
be who they want and have the future they desire, as opposed to focusing on the
small downsides that Douglas points out.
Overall though, I think the chapters did a great job outlining the
issues with modern media with respect to feminism.
While I do believe the media is to blame for much of the degradation in feminism, I think Stuart brings up an interesting point about profit. It could be argued that the media has created and perpetuated enlightened sexism, but that accusation could be up for debate if we think about the media taking ideologies from other sources in order to profit. Maybe another, more invisible, source is promoting anti-feminist ideologies and the media is just recasting those in a public spotlight. I'm not too sure I can back that argument, but we should consider what the media is up against before we point fingers. That said, I agree with Stuart that Douglas' arguments in regards to the media are very convincing and offer substantial evidence that explains where the teenage-driven TV shows we are so tuned into today emerged.
ReplyDeleteI think what you've created here is a chicken-and-egg argument: did these media companies-- which are indeed profit-driven-- give rise to images of women as vapid and consumerist, or did they simply discover a niche market-- vapid, consumerist women? The answer to the chicken-and-egg dilemma is not "chicken" or "egg"; the question is a false dichotomy. The solution to the dilemma is evolution: chickens evolved from other birds which evolved from reptiles through eggs. I think a similar answer pans out here. Notice how many of the shows Douglas cites from the early nineties are fairly pro-feminist. Enlightened sexism does not evolve from this line of art; it evolves, according to Douglas, from teen culture. Teens in America in the 90s (and though I lack experience with people of other races and classes, I would venture to assume that this analysis is specific to white middle-to-upper-middle-class teens) were fairly vapid and consumerist. When Aaron Spelling's "90210" and "Melrose Place" catered to that age group's sensibilities with intrigues teens would understand, he ended up creating shows that in turn reinforced gendered stereotypes, which were adopted by audiences, which expanded the niche, which expanded the amount of shows for that niche, an so on in a cycle. So was pursuit of the already-oppressed market the first cause? Not necessarily: why were teens in the 90s so ready to accept these images? Is it possible the media before them instilled /those/ predispositions? The answer is not that either oppressive media or oppressed markets came first; the answer is that these things reinforce each other and are themselves reflections of a larger process.
ReplyDelete