Our last week's analysis in desexualization of the Asian male brought forward my attention to the new Expedia commercial, released in January of 2012. The above clip shows Michael Ian vacationing around the world, filling the role of the dominant, white, heterosexual male. Towards the end of the clip, Ian is seen to be pursuing a woman, when he is interrupted by an Asian man wearing the same sweater. The man is portrayed as clumsy, stumpy, foreign, and stripped of all forms of masculinity. Ian's initial reaction to noticing their matching attire is a form of embarrassment and shame. By wearing the same sweater as the Asian man, Ian is symbolically castrated. Such a portrayal depicts the oppression and inferiority induced by the media on Asian men. The commercial projects the dominant ideology of the white, male dominance and once again creates a social hierarchy, where the minorities are placed at the bottom of the ladder.
Question:How would the commercial differ if Ian and another white male were wearing the same attire?
After taking this class and watching this video, I was very engaged in what Viola Davis was saying and how she as a working actress of color has dealt with the pressures of Hollywood's stereotypes. We are consistently bombarded with stereotypes in media, which in actuality alters such amazing and talented actors and actress due to the pure fact that they don't fit Hollywood's standard in appearance. I found it very interesting what George Clooney was saying about how studio heads view the public. After watching this video I did further research on this and came across an amazing article, to elaborate further on this issue.
After watching the video and reading the article what are you thoughts on Charlize Theron's reaction to what Viola Davis was saying? Why do you think her response was so simple and what where your reactions to what the other actors where saying? How did you feel after watching the video and reading the article?
Sun explains what historical stereotypes have existed for Asian women and how they have hyper sexualized the Asian women in order to maintain the myth of white male virility and superiority. Traditionally these stereotypes have consisted of the Lotus Blossom Baby, ultra feminine and submissive and the Dragon Lady, cunning and dangerous. Both of course are subject to hyper sexualization; the Lotus Blossom being geisha like and submissive while the dragon lady often takes a femme fatale like role.
Finally moving onto Ling Woo, Sun presents the ambiguity of her role in the media. She can be viewed both as a strong woman taking control of her sexuality, unafraid to speak her mind but it can also be argued (with ease) that she is simply another way to hyper sexualize Asian women, ultimately feeding the white male myth of Asian women existing for His sexual pleasure.
This hyper sexualization is not unique to Asian women. Latin women are assumed to be Caliente at all times while Black women have been seen as exotic and sexually charged since they were first forcefully brought to America. Why do you think white America continues to push these stereotypes today? Do you think the novelty and perception of Non white women as exotic will wear off ?
While most cartoons in the 1950's and 1960's victimized and oppressed certain cultural groups, primarily minorities, I found it fascinating that these stereotypes are still openly swimming in today's cartoon industry. As a nanny, I usually shift the children's leisure time away from television programs and any materials associated with the mainstream industry. However, during my shift this week I softened my standards and got pushed over into letting one of the girls to watch an airing of her favorite cartoon "Penguins of Madagascar". During the viewing of the episode, I encountered yet another alarming element in the media.One of the characters in the show, a plumber, Gus portrays a clumsy, Russian meat-head, who owns a business entitled Babushka Plumbing. As comical and innocently funny as his character might be, this depiction provokes the already existent negative connotations of the Russian community. Gus's broken English, his Lenin-based work ethic, and immense physical strength all translate into the endorsement of the Cold War tension that hurricaned through United States from the late 40's til the early 90's. As an immigrant, I found this episode to be extremely detrimental and offensive to the Russian demographic.It's immensely disappointing to see these constructions being fed to the youngest generation, due to the fact that such negative portrayal formulates a vicious cycle of oppression. Despite the fact that Cold War ended in 1991, American television still holds the division ground between United States and the "Soviets".
Question: Do you find that the depiction of the above stereotype is directly correlated to the previous historic and political events? What do you think is the primary driving force for its release?
Being a Christian is something I truly take to
heart so when I came across this Axe commercial, mirrored from the Bible story
of Noah’s Ark, I was beyondLIVID!
Trying to type a full explanation of the immoral content of
this ad, not only for Christians but also for females, would cause my keyboard
to catch on fire so I will keep this in bulleted format.
The ad it itself is a blaspheme of God, the Bible
and it’s message. The story was not built to secure women for sexual purposes
of one man- FAR from the Biblical truth.
Nowhere does it state in the Bible that Noah was a
white man.
Noah didn’t use signs of Anarchy or the world
ending to build the ark- it was constructed on a message of salvation.
Biblically, the ark itself was built to house
animals; a male and female of every kind so that once the Flood was over, there
would be offspring (it was to house people as well, those willing to go). The
women in this ad are belittled to animals in the same fashion, two of a kind.
The Noah-like actor is their Sheppard, directing them to sexual escapades,
exercise, poll dancing, music and other “goodies” in his life saving ark.
The Axe cologne is the only thing that draws these
animalistic women to the ark- not by their own sense of safety from the fast
approaching anarchy.
The women shown were mostly white, longhaired,
slim, wearing skimpy, extra short, extra tight or flimsy clothing exposing body
parts and the pairs were almost always twins.
Notice that the fruit “Noah” was cutting to eat
was in the shape of a woman’s bottom, not only objectifying a woman’s body but
also sexualizing it.
At the point of the world’s end, “Noah”, spraying
Axe to save the women of the land can be seen as the male savior for all women.
Lyrics in the song says, “Oh no oh yes no man can
walk alone, this is chemical/ this is critical,” which I assume means a man can’t
be alone so its very important that he gets women to “walk” with him. This is
done by a chemical reaction, which is in this case, the Axe men’s body spray.
Throughout the whole ad, “Noah” has a dog, an
actual animal (man’s best friend) faithfully by his side showing that these
women are merely play pieces in his game. It’s not realistic for a woman to be
trustworthy or loyal so he uses many for one purpose- sex.
“Have a happy end of the world” is said at the end
playing on the cultural ideas of the Mayans that the world will end in 2012.
This basically says, since we’re all going to die this year, guys get some Axe
2012 and wait for the women and sexual escapades to begin- let life end with a
bang. And women, because these guys smell undeniably good, get ready to be sex
slaves because you wont be able to resist.
What I’d like to know is why do you think Axe is using
Christian Biblical stories to promote their brand (there was also a “Fallen
Angels” commercial as well)? Why not use a Jewish custom, a Hindu story from
the Bhagavad Gita, or something from another religion? Why even use religion at
all? Do you think the advertisement would’ve gotten much more flack had it been
a play on another belief other than Christianity?
INFO: The article "What Does Race Have to Do With Ugly Betty?" by Jennifer Esposito examines the use of affirmative action by exploring the episode’s focus on race and privilege. After being told that she was chosen for an internship only to meet a quota, Betty begins to doubt her own abilities and starts to question the value of meritocracy. This emphasis of race over meritocracy in the episode exhibits how race still continues to structure our lives. Esposito also discusses the reverse discrimination that the character Marc faces since affirmative action allows minorities access to education and employment. Since affirmative action is present in society, it is debatable whether or not it is actually beneficial or unfair. The article shows the two separate views from minorities on affirmative action, between Betty (who thinks it is unethical) and her family (who think it is a great advantage). The author concludes the reading by advising that the only way to abolish racialized hierarchies is by examining the ways race, popular culture, history and the political economy support it.
QUESTION: In our society, what is the dominant ideology on affirmative action? Who is actually benefiting from this dominant ideology? Why do you think the ABC network is promoting this social ideology through it’s programming?
