Media Moment: "Neil Patrick Harris: Television’s First ‘Straight’ Character"

 After our class discussion on Gender and Sexuality, I was curious to look up some articles regarding gays playing straight roles. Since I love the show "How I Met Your Mother" starring Neil Patrick Harris as Barney Stinson, I went looking for articles to find out what people had to stay about a gay man playing a straight role. This article "

Neil Patrick Harris: Television’s First ‘Straight’ Character" by Brian Moylan, points out that:

  "He may be playing straight roles, but Harris is still playing the caricatures that are usually  reserved for gays on screen. They are overly-sexualized, bedding down with any pretty

 thing that comes by. They love drugs, partying, fine clothes, and loose women men. Then there is the sad sack whose love is going to destroy him, who will end up with nothing. There is usually singing involved. That's why Barney is "straight" in name only. He is a gay stereotype that has been fooled into thinking he likes the ladies."

After reading that comment, I said "Wow, I've never looked at it in that way before." But these are pretty interesting observations, especially the description of  "oversexualized" and "fine clothing" associated with Harris' character on the show. It was also mentioned, that in earlier episodes on HIMYM, viewers didn't want to see a gay man "play a reformed slut who gets serious with a woman." Currently, Harris' character in season 7, is in a committed relationship, so I am curious to see if Barney will end up in a committed relationship, when the show eventually ends. But I guess we shall see...  In the mean time, I would love to hear what anyone has to say in response to Moylan's question, "Do you think America is ready to see a gay man in a committed heterosexual role on network TV?."

Media Moment, Gender Pay Inequality

Five Jobs Where Men Outearn Women the Most

 

WOW!! Uh, offensive, unjust, inaccurate, mirrors EVERYTHING we’ve touched on in class, over the course of the semester?! I THINK SO! 5Jobs Where Men OUTEARN Women the Most. 1.) Sales Consultant – Difference in Pay: 27 Percent 2.) Real Estate Broker – Difference in Pay: 23 Percent 3.) Recruiting Director – Difference in Pay: 20 Percent 4.) Portfolio Manager – Difference in Pay: 15 Percent and 5.) Chief Executive Officer – Difference in Pay: 15 Percent.

Now, tell me what you think about that! It’s obvious that gender discrimination and gender pay inequality in the work place is still very much existent. In 2010, the Census Bureau recorded women’s earnings to be 77.4 percent of men’s. Experience and education are still playing a vital role in the work force between men and women. This is just UNFAIR. I don’t know WHAT we have to do for some equality around here! I wonder if the perpetuation of ‘men’ being the dominant, masculine norm in today’s society has anything to do with it? Maybe gender pay equality starts with the media?

This quote sparked my interest:

“Bardaro says this gap may be attributed to personality traits and putting in extra hours, an area where males may have more flexibility due to fewer responsibilities at home. ‘Even though in today’s society many families are taking a more balanced approach to raising children and household chores, women are still bearing the brunt of the work,’ she says.”

Do you think men are monopolizing these high-paying careers because women have more responsibilities at home and are less lenient with there availability? 

Even in today’s society with both men and women taking a more balanced approach at home, do you think that will help women climb the gender pay totem pole?

Media Moment, "Aphrodisiacs"

I found this video on Yahoo the other day, just as I was about to sign in to check my email. I chose to post this media moment because I felt it mirrored our class discussion the other day on Gender and Sexuality. The video is about Aphrodisiacs: 5 Foods to Spice Up Your Sex Life. Food historian Francine Segan introduces five aphrodisiacs at the Museum of Sex in New York City, that is thought to work and talks about why. In the video, Francine talks about the first aphrodisiac, garlic. After explaining how garlic stimulates blood flow in the body, she ended her sentence with, “essential for penis erection.” She also insinuates throughout the segment that all these aphrodisiacs enliven ‘males.’ (Do keep in mind that the interviewee is a woman) She further explains how Antler Tea is an ancient aphrodisiac that ‘men’ would drink, and how Casanova the Italian lover would use different foods to get women in the mood. Not until the end, did Francine suggest that Good & Plenty licorice candy has been used for arousal in both ‘men and women.’ I just found the whole bit quite interesting, in terms of assuming the normative sexual relationship. The segment just presumed heterosexual relationships were the standard when explaining the five foods that are used for inducing sex. This is a piece of media that perpetuates the ideology of heterosexual relationships. Media such as this just reinforces men and women sexual relationships and hinders the opportunity for homosexual relationships to further blossom.

Do you think aphrodisiacs really work?

Do you think there should be more segments like this but used in more of a general context, as to not isolate any other sexualities?

Media Moment: Pro-anorexia ‘thinspiration’ photos shouldn’t be banned from social media

This article "Pro-anorexia ‘thinspiration’ photos shouldn’t be banned from social media," gave me pause when I came across it as I felt that media has a big influence on how people see their self-image. Celebrity news magazines is one good example of how media has a big impact on society, especially about what's "in" and what's "not," or what is defined as beautiful. Television, radio, magazines or online publishing sites can control most of their content when it comes to publishing, but the opposite is true for social media sites. 

There's a word called "thinspiration" out there which the article defines as "Glamorous photos of very skinny women, together with admiring captions, might arouse self-loathing in women, and thereby inspire self-mortification, and in particular anorexia."  According to the article, this became an issue when "An exposé of “the hunger blogs”—pro-anorexia, or pro-ana, chronicles that approvingly feature photos of emaciated bodies—ran in February on the Huffington Post." As a result, social networking sites, Tumblr and Pinterest has banned such content from being published on their site as they did not want to promote anorexia In addition to this issue,  Alexa Chung, 28-year-old Britsh TV personality, recently posted a picture of herself on Twitter, which was criticized and labeled as a thinspiration because of her knobby knees.

Currently some pro-ana refugees are using Facebook as a platform to express their ideas, so my question to you is, how do you feel about some social media sites trying to prohibit images/ideas that can potentially promote anorexia? Do you think it's the responsibility for the social media sites to control content like this or do you think people should be free to post what they like? I would also like to point out that, for an image to be labeled a "thinspiration" is relative unless the caption explicitly states something that promotes anorexia, but then again, it's especially hard  when people post images and write comments about trying  to lose weight for the summer to hit the beach.

Reflection on class discussion: Gender & Sexuality

I thought the class discussion on gender and sexuality was informative and interesting. The documentary clips from The Celluloid Closet made me realize how media's offensive depiction of gay people began so early on in television and film. As the class discussed lesbian roles that came to mind I noticed that although media has progressed, there is still a huge lack of lesbian roles available. I also agree with my peers who mentioned that media has a very black-and-white view of gay and lesbian. The lesbian characters that are presented in television and film either fit the "butch" stereotype or "lipstick lesbian" stereotype. Of course it's impossible that every lesbian in the world identifies within just two categories. I think this is important to change in media because this perpetuation of lesbian stereotypes influence people's perceptions. One of my closest friends is a lesbian and she has told me about countless moments where people have responded to her with ignorant comments. This ranges from: "really? you don't look like a lesbian," "So do you suddenly hate men now?" and "Are you going to start listening to Tegan & Sara then?" The stereotype of what a lesbian "should look like" has been created throughout media and continues with the characters that are continuously presented. If you are unfamiliar with the musicians Tegan & Sara, they are sisters/ Canadian indie duo who happen to be lesbian as well. The fact that these women are lesbian shouldn't mean that every lesbian must be a fan and avid listener as well. I think these stereotypes will continue throughout society until media makes a change by including lesbian roles that do not fit the "butch" or "femme" categories. The class discussion taught me about the stereotyped notions and under-representation of lesbians in media. Perhaps, in time, lesbian and gay roles in film and television will become more common and accurately portrayed.

Reflection on class discussion: Gender & Sexuality

I found our class discussion on gender and sexuality very interesting and entertaining. The discussion helped me to become more aware of gender and sexuality in the media. It’s mind-boggling to think how obtuse my knowledge was on the topic and how much it perpetuates in the media. I love doing the exercise in the beginning of class about what comes to mind, what we think of, and what female women in the media represent in terms of whatever topic it is we’re discussing. It really helps me get a visual and home in on how these women are truly represented. When we watched the thirty minute clip on the Celluloid Closet, I found the way men and women were depicted implicitly and explicitly so unique. I found it intriguing that men were portrayed with more femininity and women were represented more masculine. I agree with VIktorsha’s comment about femininity in men threatening the patriarchal society. Men have always been depicted as the ‘bread winner’ and the one that wears the pants in the relationship. With the influx of flamboyancy in gender and sexuality, I think it strains this idea of men being masculine and powerful. I think because of these schemas, people form these ideologies that there needs to be a ‘butch’ or ‘femm’ in a relationship. In the reading, “What is Gay and What is Not,” the section, ‘Being Homosexual Is a Choice’, I loved the quote… “I think I’ll be gay. I can become a member of an oppressed minority, have restrictions placed on my life, imperil my relationship with my family, be exposed to bigotry, hear myself referred to as sick and perverted, be discriminated against by my religion and my government, be assaulted verbally, psychologically, and physically for merely existing.” That quote just affirms my thoughts on a person not choosing to be gay, but discovering they are. Great discussion topic, really enjoyed it!

Discussion Points for Betty Berzon's " What Is Gay and What Is Not"

I chose to present this article because I feel that it relates to everyone, whether they like it or not. Living in a society surrounded by gay people is not something that we can avoid as many of us have family members, friends, co-workers, or famous people who we know in the media, are gay. It's not easy for many people to just come out of the closet as I know a close friend who still hasn't, but I know that if more and more people do, then maybe eventually society can come to accept it. And if you think about it, living in a modern society, you would think discrimination and misconceptions about gays would be an old thing. Hopefully, the media can educate people and change the way how some feel and think about homosexuality.

Information about the article:

The article “What is Gay and What is Not” discusses how being gay is not a choice, it is something that is predetermined at birth. Gay people are no different from heterosexuals except for their sexual orientation. There are
so many misconceptions such as common myths that people have for gays and
the only way for society to realize that gays are just like straight people, is if gays are more visible in society. And by keeping oneself in the closet is to succumb to being “undesirable” or “inferior.”

Bottom line:

There are many misconceptions that society has about homosexuality. And the only way to overcome it is the increase of their visibility in society.

Questions for the class:

1. The presence of more gay people in the media can definitely help society to ease into accepting them, but do you think there is also a disproportionate amount of visibility of gays oppose to lesbians in the media? If so, do you think that being a lesbian is more acceptable in our society?
2. Do you think the media currently stereotypes gays and how can the media change that?
3. Is there any one particular individual in the media who you think has paved the way for gays?
4. Are there any other common myths that you have heard about being gay, which wasn’t covered in this article?