Modern Family ?

Modern Family is a relatively new show, with the pilot airing in 2009 and currently on its fifth season ending in May. During this time the show has won six Emmys, including outstanding comedy series and is one of the highest rated comedies in television. This brings me to question what does “Modern Family” say about modern families and what does this say about the way gender and race is portrayed in television?

It is clear that modern family Is meant to be made as a “muckumentary” toward the many stereotypes that tend to be present in western culture today; in the ‘modern’ age. The show center around three families. The Pritchett’s which consists of Jay; a patriarchal capitalist, his trophy wife Gloria; a Columbian beauty, and her son Manny; an adolescent hopeless romantic with Latin roots. Jay has two children; Claire and Mitchell. Claire is the high strung housewife, and her husband Phil; a tech-y goofball, and there three suburban children Haley; the popular one, Alex; the smart one, and Luke; the A.D.D., goofball, kid brother. And lastly there is Mitchell; an environmental lawyer whom is also a high-strung ‘neat-freak’, his partner Cam; who is seen as a ‘drama-queen’ from farm-state Missouri, and their adopted Vietnamese daughter Lilly who has grown to inherent their sassy attitudes.

[i]

[ii]

Although modern family is trying to push a progressive neoliberal image, it fails to do so and further emphasizes issues of racism, gender roles, homonormativity and a patriarchal structure. The longstanding ideological concept of the traditional American family, or rather ‘the American dream’, is transferred into modern day families with hyperbolized stereotypes to make in comedic. Modern Family ends up being a constant reinforcement of gender roles, patriarchy, racism and homornormativity, however these concepts a more deeply embedded than the simple play-on stereotypes that were primarily enforced, thus enforcing a cultural hegemony throughout the West.

First I want to concentrate on Gloria and the role that her character plays in perpetuating issues around race and gender to enforce a cultural hegemony. Gloria’s character fulfills many stereotypes Americans have while regarding Latin American women. Some of these stereotypes that Gloria fits involves passive, dependent on men, hot tempered and sexy. Gloria is constantly portrayed as scheming and tricking people into doing things for her, or making subtle references to a criminal past that is ‘normalized’ In Columbia. When Gloria makes references to her extended family whom are still “stuck” in Central America, while she is ‘lucky’ and embraces the riches of North America, as thieves and criminals coming from an archaic country, Columbia. No educational background is provided for Gloria (like it is with the rest of the cast) so it makes the audience wonder why she wanted to marry Jay. Is she really a ‘gold-digger’ attempting to achieve ‘the American Dream’ This idea not only denotes Central America, but uses it as a contrast to uphold North America enforcing Western Elitism. Gloria also can be seen as enforcing the ideas of orientalism portrayed by Edward Said. She is sexually available, as seen in her clothing choices, body language, and constant sexual references, and she is also dangerous to the white man, as she may be a ‘gold-digger’.

Gloria and Claire also represent gender role stereotypes in a modern family. The roles that Gloria and Claire play as the two constant adult women in the show are an important reflection of women in modern families today. The characters have been written in to seem strong, independent and controlling, but as you scratch beneath the surface it is clear that rather being independent women, they are actually upholding a patriarchal structure. Clare and Gloria share similar identities of domesticity, motherhood and family orientation. Neither of the women is employed and both rely on their husbands for financial support. Also when showing husbands in the work place the only other gender we see in work places are males. For example, Phil Dunfey often talks about a rival in his workforce who is constantly winning all the awards and is at the top of the real-estate game, his rival is Gil Thorpe, another male.

The show also perpetuates two type women that adolescents and grown up women can be. They can either the sexy, unintelligent, but scheming women such as Gloria, or the intellectual, high strong, non-sexual women like Claire. These two stereotypes are not just enforced in the two adult women but can be seen in Claires daughters Alex and Haley. Alex perpetuates similar images of that of Claire and Haley does the same for Gloria. Gloria’s character reinforced that women should take their outer image as a main priority. In the characters bio’s on the abc website Jay is described as “married the much younger, much hotter, more Columbian Gloria”. [iii] Where as her counterpart, Claire, is the stay-at-home mom whos purpose is to dedicate her life to the domestic realm, her children, her house, her community and her husband.

The show is able to enforce the image of a ‘modern family’ by including gay marriage with Mitchel, Cameron and their daughter Lilly. As previously mentioned Cameron and Mitchel are the embodiment of gay stereotypes. The writers, producers and directors have also made sure to include an aspect of homonormativity to ensure to comfort of watching two gay men is available for the audience. Sexual references, kissing and intimate moments are shown more often than not wit Claire and her husband Phil and with Jay and his wife Gloria, however Cam and Mitchell did not have an on camera kiss until the public started to notice the lack of sexuality between the two men, as compared with the rest of the cast. Mitchel Is seen enforcing homonormativity the most in order to gain acceptance with his father and in the work place. He is always worried as appearing “too gay” and does all he can to seem straight in these two spheres. While it is still a “mockumentary” of stereotypes, this message is still powerful because Mitchel has a strong presence in the workforce, where as Cam, who does not enforce homonormativity, does not.

By deviating from the ‘norm’ or rather the 60’s style family of wife, husband, children and white picket fence. The writers have decided that they have created a modern day family by changing the structure of the families but not the gender, and racial stereotypes. Although this is done a ‘comedic’ way, it is still harmful to the public and further promotes a cultural hegemony. As Dorthy Smith said “The danger is not in enjoying [television series] but in mistaking [these images] for something more than the selective, partial images that they are”[iv].

[i] http://abc.go.com/shows/modern-family/photos

[ii] http://abc.go.com/shows/modern-family/photos

[iii] http://abc.go.com/shows/modern-family/cast/character-jay

[iv] Dorthey , Smith. “Standard North American Family.”Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. (1993): n. page. Web. 13 Apr. 2014. <http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/14/1/50.full.pdf html>.

Axe has Found the Solution to War!

It may seem unbelievable, but surprisingly, Axe has found the solution to war and violence! The products answer: love. However this love must reinforce heteronormativity, gender stereotypes, white hegemony, racial stereotypes, and requires the use of Axe body spray.

This Axe commercial reinforces the typical gender stereotypes while denoting a hegemonic masculinity and heteronormativity. The idea of dominance is crucial in critiquing the commercial. The sudden change from war to peace is done with a gun pointing at a woman. This was a man is able to show is dominance and ability to over power by pointing the gun (while simultaneously remaining in the massive army tank). The soldier quickly becomes a hero when he pops out of tank. This idea of dominating through war and violence is present in two out of the four scenarios of the commercial. The contrast to the violence, and therefore the idea of the hero, is also seen in each scenario. This reinforces the image of the man as two classic stereotypes: the powerful villain and the strong hero. Furthering the notion of “hero” it is also present that the hero, in both scenes, the hero’s are white men. The other two scenes the men are simply expressing their love. In contrast to the stereotypical male gender binary of power, force, and heroism, the gender stereotype of femininity is also displayed as submissive, nurturing and peaceful[i]. The idea that heterosexual love can solve and prevent war is a harmful messages and helps reinforce gender binary “deceptive distinctions” of what is ‘normal’[ii]. By contributing to what we perceive as normal through an ad that becomes unavoidable via video and picture advertisements, gender socialization takes place, which helps conclude our culture with a sense of gender norms[iii].

 

Taking a narrow focus now I would like to look at the scenario with the male Soldier and the female Vietnamese farmer. In this scenario we need to question why this scene happened. The idea of the white man as the savior in a foreign land denotes an androcentric perspective and specifically white androcentrism. As discussed earlier the only time a hero was present was if he was white, and in contrast with a female.
The context of this scenario is devoid of historical sympathy. It takes the idea of the Vietnamese rice farmer and the white, presumably western male, saviour and sexualizes the scenario. By doing this we are not learning anything about the product and this scene seems all too familiar to the Vietnam war stories of rape from white soldier to Vietnamese women. The Vietnam war has strings attached to its name that recall the horrific events of mutilation and rape toward women. The fact that consent is completely disregarded in this scene, only further avoids addressing the importance of female agency. Furthermore, gender and race stereotypes seem to interact on the basis of orientalism. The women’s willingness to be dominated produces an image of sexual availability and being naïve[iv].

 

It is important to ask who the villains are, and what are their connections to race? The ‘Make Love not War’ commercial denotes highly westernize perspective on war. The scenarios in the commercial male it appear as though other states are the cause of war, which in return means that the white, presumably American, soldiers are there only to defend their country, rather than cause war. In this idea the white soldiers become the hero’s and the Iranian and Korean men become the Villains.
The commercial plays classic stereotypes of race, which promote an enlightened racism. In example of an East Asian (presumably North Korea), the communist leader is preparing his troops for war in a highly fascist fashion. In the Middle East (presumably Iran) example, it appears as though the leader of the country is preparing to launch a bomb at another country. Although at the end of the scene each leader is creating some sort of act of love the element of enlightened racism is still present. The idea that someone from East Asia is a communist dictator that has control over the entire population and someone from the Middle East as a potential bomber while simultaneously making the white man a ‘defender’ of his country draws back to orientalist roots[v].

 

Drawing the focus to women we see that social class based on race is something that the commercial reinforces as well. In the example of the Vietnamese woman working on the rice farm she is portrayed as being dirty (in her attire) and in a state of poverty with multiple children running around. In contrast we see the white woman in office-appropriate attire with an extra emphasis on her classy red high-heels and lipstick. The contrast between the white woman and the Vietnamese woman not only shows a difference in social class, but the difference is based on race and ethnicity. The hierarchy of race and privilege is only continued from this portrayal in the ‘Make love not war’ advertisements.
Secondly, its important to take a look at the facial expressions expressed by the two women in a moment of panic. The white woman remains calm and firm in her position were as the Vietnamese woman has a moment of panic. This is yet another factor that contributes to the social class hierarchy based on racial ethnicity by making the white woman strong and the Vietnamese woman weak.
In Bell Hooks essay “Perspectives on Power” she notes that women and men are taught that dominating others is a basic form of expressing power; “might makes Right”. She makes point to say that women as victims have restrained women from changing the value system[vi]. This is seen throughout the commercial, by creating devaluation of women through victimizing them.

 

In conclusion this essay does nothing to promote peace. The advertisement is instead counterproductive to enforcing peace by reinforcing heteronormativity, gender stereotypes, white hegemony, and racial stereotypes.

---

[i] Bromley, Victoria L. (2012). Feminisms Matter: Debates Theories Activism. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

[ii] Kimmel, M and Holler, J. (2011). “Introduction.” pages 1-17 in The Gendered Society. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
[iii] Custom Edition for Queens University. (2014). Gender, Race and Popular Culture. Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions.
[iv] Ibid. Bromley
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Hooks, Bell. (2000). Changing perspectives on power. In Feminist theory: From margin to center (pages 84-95). Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

G.B.F.

With the rise of social media and keeping up with the latest trend; the three most popular girls in high school compete for the latest ‘accessory’ a G.B.F (gay best friend) in order to gain more popularity and thus become prom queen. Unfortunately for the girls there is only one openly gay male in the school, Tanner.

The movie G.B.F is a satire that is a continuation of the new queer cinema movement (Pearson, Hollinger, and Gordon iii). The film helps explore the absurd use of social media and reliance on it in the twenty first century. By examining the film we can see how race, gender, and popular culture are represented in todays culture in relation to the prom queens, Brent and Tanner, and Mrs. Van Camp.

The three up and running prom queens are highly satirical which makes the film entertaining. Fawcet is the most popular girl who has beautiful hair, incredible ‘style’ and is always keeping up with the latest trends, she acts unintelligent but inside she is incredibly smart and talented. ‘Shley is portrayed as a religious good-girl. With an ironic twist,  ‘Shley has a secretly gay Mormon boyfriend, who tries to have sex with every gay man in the film. And lastly there is Caprice who is head of the drama club and is presented to be very artistic, is also the only black person in the film. First I will focus on the prom queens and their roles in the film. One of my main criticisms is, that, all though this movie is satirical it still does not pass the gender special test or the race special test. This results in a very low intersectionality, which is disappointing for the film. The use of race and gender are constantly constrained to a position of minority and lack of rule. This becomes evident by the end of the film when the people who “win” are the white males. Although this movie is satirical of every ‘pop’ movie made, it did not have to follow the usual lack of intersectionalities accordingly.

The writers, actors and directors do a fantastic job at exaggerating the importance and stress social media and culture put on certain serotypes that young girls should fit into. By using a satirical strategy the message that G.B.F sends us is that forming to socially constructed roles and therefore relying on magazines and pop culture as a source of guidance is ridiculous, naïve and leads to unhappiness.  All three of the girls are holding back emotions, thoughts, and actions that would radically change who they are in order to fit a certain niche. This pertains to the overall theme of the film that is: be open and honest about who you are.

The three running prom queens are all unique characters, however, because they are seen as ‘normal’, and thus the audience is comfortable watching them, it automatically assumes the power and privilege with the three girls. In contrast to their power and privilege this enables Tanner and Brent’s characters as losers and their homosexuality turns into a disability creating an instant inequality in the relationships between the two groups. This contrast becomes exceedingly evident when Tanner is accidently outed as a gay man, he than becomes the object of desire for Fawcet, ‘Shely and Caprice. In order to win prom queen the girls believe that they need a G.B.F to increase their popularity ratings, thus creating Tanner as a mere accessory; a mean to their ends.

When the character of Tanner is outed to the school as gay and becomes the object of the Prom Queens attention, they quickly realize Tanner is not the stereotypical gay person that they see in pop culture (Hart). The queens add style, and flamboyance to Tanner in order to turn him into their perfect accessory. Because this is a satirical movie I think the way the directors addressed homonormativity in this context was well done. The film exaggerated and exploited what is constantly seen in social media of how a gay man should be.

In comparison to how the prom queens act toward Tanner and his lack of homonormativity, another interesting person to look at is Brent Van Camps mother.  Brent (Tanners best friend) plays the stereotypical gay man as described by social media. He is flamboyant, loud, attractive, slender, well dressed and uses ‘feminine’ body language. It is therefore assumed the entire school thinks that Brent is gay but he is not officially open about his homosexuality. When Brent’s mom finds out that he is gay she has no objections, as it is implied that she already knew, but instead, is unsure about how to act toward her son. Instead of simply treating him the same way she begins to treat him like a G.B.F. Brent’s mother begins to treat her son the way she has seen gay men in social media. Ms. Van Camp believes her son would prefer being referred to as calling him “girl” (or as she puts it “guuurl”), asking him to go shopping with her, and suggesting they watch Brokeback Mountain together.  This shows us that there is a certain way gay men are treated in social media and pop culture. Because there is one dominant generalization for how gay men are to be treated (and therefore how they like to be treated) in society – this becomes the dominant way that the two openly gay men are addressed when they have interactions between the other main characters.

Overall I enjoyed the satirical stance that G.B.F took on the representation of homosexuality in western culture.

This was my first time ever attending Reelout and I enjoyed my experience. Choosing one movie to see was difficult, particularly because there were so many options that looked incredibly interesting. At Queens I have primarily joined clubs that revolve around politics (debating, Queens model parliament, Queens model united nations). In terms of my own personal educational and cultural activities at Queens I think that Reelout fits in perfectly with the Queens community. In all my courses and activities the issue of equality for everyone is such a major issue and often becomes the center of main debates, bills, essays, and general topics of discussion. I enjoyed Reelout because it took a social media perspective using cinephilia versus a political or development one.

Works Cited

1. Wendy Gay Pearson, Veronica Hollinger, and Joan Gordon, eds., Queer Universes: Sexualities in Science Fiction(Liverpool, England: University of Liverpool Press, 2008), iii, http://www.questia.com/read/119242542.

2. Kylo-Patrick R. Hart, “Representing Gay Men on American Television,” The Journal of Men’s Studies9, no. 1 (2000)

Feminists Preventing Men From Wrestling Crocodile’s

Nick Adams is the author of the book “American Boomerang”. In this book he argues, from “an Australia perspective”, that the men of America are not able to maintain the power position that America has had on the world stage. He makes the case that American values are “conservative” values and must remain so in order to keep from slipping into mediocrity. So what is pushing America from the dominating power to descending nation? According to Adams, Feminism.

Feminism is often associated with negative connotations in today’s society. The stereotype’s surrounding a “typical” feminist often involves an image of a butch, angry, man-hatting, lesbian. It is unfortunate to say that this is the image that Nick Adams reinforces in his interview with Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Clayton Morris on Fox News. The beginning of the interview starts of with a clip from a movie scene with Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn having a fight over doing dishes. Aniston’s character is upset with Vaughn’s because he will not help her do the dishes. The scene ends with Vaughn responding to Aniston “why would I want to help you do the dishes”. The camera then pans onto Hasselbeck and Morris laughing over the actors dialogue. This immediately sets the stage for the outline of Adams point; that it is ridiculous to even question gender roles. Men and women are destined to play a certain character in society based on their biological sex and therefore their socially constructed gender. Adams begins his interview addressing all men, specifically in Australia and America, by noting that men are on the decline because they have gone from “wrestling crocodiles to wrestling lattés”, an analogy Adams uses in order to carry across the point that men are becoming more ‘feminine’.

Since the moment we are born we are assigned a gender role based on our biological sex. If we have the sex of a male we must act strong, brave, and dominant. If we are born with female genitals than we are considered to be gentle, passive, delicate and sweet. These gender roles and stereotypes are constantly reinforced for us as we grow up. It starts of with a baby blanket in the hospital, blue or pink. As we mature it transitions into the toys we are given to play with (like Barbie’s and hot wheels), the clothes we wear, and even the products that are marketed to us, i.e. Bic pen for women. In Adam’s interview he mentions that America is on the decline because American men are not being “men”. The fact that Adams is able to use language like this and there is a general consensus of what a “man” is proves that there is a dominant image in our society of what a “man” is. He later goes on to encourage that the downfall of the stereotypical, socially constructed ideology of a “man” is on the decline due to feminism. It is in Adams view that feminism only produces two types of people: angry women and feminine men. What Adams is suggesting here is that feminism switches gender roles and that this is bad for America. By assuming that there are specific gender roles that are too be played and deeming it ‘wrong’ for men and women to act anything other than there assigned gender, Adams is making it impossible for people to stay true to their feelings. Adams has isolated a wide range of people by claiming that there is only one type of man and insinuating there is one type of women. Adams says in his book,

“All aspects of male culture have been called in to question. Whether it’s gathering around on a Sunday afternoon to watch football with a few friends, whether it is going to the range and shooting some guns, whether it is just being a male….” 

This is the image of a male that society has presented to us constantly. In marketing and advertising it is easy to distinguish a male product because it is usually represented by an overload of sports and violence (and sexualized women). This idea that all men have the same common interests, again, isolates any other possibility of what a biologically determined male can be, that is socially approved, in society.

It is important to also note positionality in this interview. Nick Adams is a heterosexual, white, upper-middle class, male. He is the ultimate beacon of “white privilege”, otherwise known as the privilege of invisibility.  Adams notes, that it is “Hard to be a man in todays society”, due to the fact the feminists are constantly campaigning for equal rights. Adams is coming from an extremely privileged standpoint and therefore his views and experiences are not relatable to those who do not come from “white privilege”.  When Adams agrees that men cannot be “men” today because they are demonized, he is referring to a ‘real’ man, as for example himself. Because the image of a white, heterosexual, male who enjoys sports, women and beer is the dominant image of what a man is, or should be, this is what he has hegemonically been raised to believe is a man. In recent years we have seen media begin to diversify a little, increasing different sexual orientations, positionalities, and social expectations. Although society is increasing its intersectionality the dominant image that creates “white privilege” remains.

One last concept to note is the article title in itself; “Elisabeth Hasselbeck really asked this about feminism”. This title puts the onus of Adams actions and comments on Hasselbeck. Not only this article, but the majority of articles that are written about Adams interview with Hesselbeck, and her co-interviwer Clayton Morris,  but many have titles that are focused on Elisabeth. I think its important to realize that authors have been assuming a large majority of blame on Hasselbeck and not so much the actual theory-maker, Nick Adams. I can’t help but question why a women opposing feminism is more intriguing than a man? This brings us back to the point that not only our physical appearance but our thoughts and emotions should are socially determined.

Adams has reinforced a message that feminism has been fighting for years. Now in third wave we have the capacity to see past his traditionally conservative values and move toward a future that involves all aspects of intersectionality.