Is the 'Love' in Daisy of Love the same?

I have yet to watch VH1's new 'reality' extravaganza Daisy of Love which features Rock of Love contestant Daisy in her search to find a new boyfriend. Before the show aired, I had seen several trailers which I found particularly problematic when compared to the VH1 reality shows featuring men:

VH1 TV Shows | Music Videos | Celebrity Photos | News & Gossip

Daisy's trailer features her virtually begging. She comments in several of them that she "needs a boyfriend." The network develops the idea that women are NEED relationships. They are emotionally unstable and will do anything for someone to love them. Rock of Love and For the Love of Ray J, two shows that recently ended, both feature very different depictions of the stars. It is particularly interesting to compare Daisy's appearance with the show that she first appeared on:

Even though Daisy is the person choosing her mate, her depiction is completely different than that of Michaels. He is not shown as needy or whiney. Instead, he, like Ray J in For the Love of Ray J, is calm and collected, looking to have fun and meeting cool people not on a quest for a soulmate to complete them. Contestants go to extreme lengths to 'prove their love,' but I'm curious about why this journey is shown different for Daisy.

Bromance

I posted a blog entry about a week ago discussing the homophobia prevalent in hip hop music based largely on the hypersexual, hypermaculine conception of black men. But I started thinking lately about the conception of white masculinity after I saw this clip that aired on the Jimmy Kimmel Show:



Whether in Judd Apatow comedies, MTV reality shows, or late night television, there has been a lot of the ironic use of 'homoerotic' situations to create humor. Close male friendships have been dubbed bromances and buddy comedies focus on the intimacy of the friendship before making sure to note that it is a completely platonic relationship.

The most important question seems to be, why is it funny? Is it a comment on a shift in society that signals an end to the conception of malehood as emotionless? Or is it just a gentler form of homophobia.

The actors in this video aren't literally saying "no homo" the way many mainstream rappers are doing, but it seems their actions are doing it for them. While it is important to show young men that close relationships between men should not be stigmatized, it seems that they are embracing and appropriating the idea in an effort to distance themselves from homosexuality. Men do not behave this way 'normally.' Rather than commenting that same sex relationships are natural and acceptable, it seems that they are saying that the idea is so unbelievable that it could only be humor.

Am I a Hypocrite?

My sister asked me an interesting question the other day:
If you had a son, would you let him wear a dress to school?

She told me that in one of her classes, they were discussing the ways people are socialized into gender roles when they are young children through things as simple as the colors and style of clothing selected for them. Her professor told the class of a legal case in which a young boy was taken from his parents by Child Protective Services because they let him wear a dress to school.

The situation really had me considering my own actions. No, I don't pretend to live every moment of my life in a deliberate way. I'm sure not everything that I do exemplifies the ideas I support. I constantly listen to and enjoy music, movies, and television shows that I think send narrow messages about who people should be because of whatever physical, mental, or emotional characteristic they possess. But I was actually surprised by how long I considered the question.

Would I let my son wear a dress to school? Hmm... I would hope so. I hope I would ignore the rigid conception of gender that teaches young boys not to 'dress down' but affectionately calls young girls that wear 'boy's clothes' tomboys. Who decided clothing belonged to a gender anyway?

But I sat, reflecting on the question for at least 5 minutes before I claimed "Yes! Of course!" an answer easy to give when I know that I may never have to back it up. Actions may speak louder than words, but I hope my words aren't empty.

Single Ladies

There's been a lot of talk lately about President Obama's upcoming Supreme Court selection. The opening signals an opportunity to diversify the Highest Court in the land, a group of nine that have been determining the way laws are interpreted for the entire nation.

Most discussion in the media has centered on the gender of the nominee, with many certain that Obama will select a woman since of the nine Justices there is only one woman represented. I agree with the need for a more diverse collection of Justices (although no individual can ever accurately represent an entire gender, race, or ethnicity), but what I've found most interesting is the way gender has been discussed, specifically the representations of single women as they age.

The reports on most of the women on the short list have, in some way referenced their sexual orientation or marital status particularly the potential to have the first openly gay LGBT justice. While not completely irrelevant to their views on controversial issues like abortion and gay rights, it seems this focus illustrations a fixation of popular culture in general: middle-aged, unmarried women.

While unmarried men are portrayed as bachelor's choosing to remain single, women seem to be placed in three categories: the cougar, the spinster, and the lesbian. Because, after all, it makes no sense for a woman to ever choose to remain unmarried.


This idea has been particularly prevalent lately with the rising fame of Britain's Got Talent Contestant Susan Boyle and the airing of TVLand's new show The Cougar. Most of Boyle's media coverage centers around her 'homely appearance, ' particularly that she has said that she has never been kissed (much of it insisting that she get some kind of makeover). The TVLand show, meanwhile, positions its star as the polar opposite of Boyle: she is not only not virginal, she is 'on the prowl' to claim a younger man. Either asexual or hypersexual, 'unattractive' or attractive, the conception of unmarried, middle-aged women is undeniably narrow.

Misogyny in Response to Hate is Still Misogyny (or Why I Don't Hate [On] Carrie Prejean)

As I am not one for beating a dead horse, I thought I was finished talking about Miss California. But, it looks like the media have other plans. It seems like I can't open AOL Explorer without seeing some exciting, new information on the new "martyr for the right," Carrie Prejean.

Prejean has been praised/attacked/defended (everything but ignored) by virtually every mainstream media outlet and blog sense her previously mentioned answer on a question asked by Perez Hilton in the Miss USA pageant about the extension of gay marriage. It is fair to say that the comments on Prejean, whether you agreed or disagreed with her answer, have gone far beyond commentary on the issue at hand, particularly in this Keith Olbermann interview with comedian and author Michael Musto from April 30:




The pundit discusses the leak of the news that Miss California pageant officials paid for Prejean's breast implants (news that has recently been expanded to include the existence of topless photos of Prejean that some believe should disqualify her from holding the Miss California crown). Musto refers to Prejean as "a babe who needs a brain implant." He continues "Maybe they can inject some fat from her butt. Oh, they have?"

To say that I lean left and disagree with Miss California's opinion is a gross understatement, but I think it's fairly obvious why these comments and those like them are inappropriate responses to Prejean's ignorance. I agree that the pageant paying for the implants is an issue. Clearly, they are reinforcing a stereotype that the ideal body for the ideal woman selected to represent the nation must include large breasts (fake or not). But, I absolutely HATE the insinuation that having breast implants (or, in fact, appearing attractive by 'conventional standards') disqualifies a person's opinion. Is this any different from insisting that 'the fairer sex' remain in the home and let the big boys do the physical and mental heavy lifting?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure I have 'hated on' Miss California at times. I have called Prejean an idiot on more than one occasion. I thought her original response and her responses to further questions on the issue lacked substance. And yes, I have called her ridiculous and opportunistic because I don't find it coincidental that she has suddenly found her calling in the movement to "protect marriage." The fact is, even if you think breast implants and topless pictures make her a 'slut' (a problematic word that I am using for convenience) they do not make her an 'idiot.'

I am not just worried about the coverage of Prejean as a step back for feminist causes. I'm also worried about the way the misogynistic responses are allowing her to be positioned as a sweet girl that is being persecuted for her beliefs. Isn't this just pandering to the people that claim that civil rights have the potential to burden society as a whole. What happened to the days of tossing pies? The message is getting muddled as people become more focused on the 'faults' of their opponents than the reasons why people need to reconsider judgment of one another. Essentially saying "She's just as immoral as we are," does not make the intended argument that 'immoral' is, indeed, subjective.

The Moral of this Post: You can't fight fire with fire. Don't judge and book by its cover. Don't hate the player, hate the game... something like tha

Challenging 'No Homo'

In the age of 'no homo,' I was more than suprised to hear Brian 'Birdman' Williams bluntly dismiss questions about a highly pulicized picture of a kiss between he and hip hop superstar Lil Wayne that showed up on the Internet in 2006. Hip hop fans are well aware of the close relationship between the two. Williams played a great role in Lil Wayne's success, discovering him at 12, giving him a record deal, and cultivating his skills. The father that he never had, Wayne calls Williams 'daddy' in both songs and interviews. Some fans even incorrectly believe that they are biologically related.

Williams recently spoke to a radio station about the picture that some hip hop fans still haven't left alone, despite the fact that he discussed the issue briefly when the picture first surfaced:


Given the hypersexual and homophobic image that it seems many African American male hip hop stars cultivate, I had wrongly assumed that if Baby (as Williams is also known by) ever responded to the photo again it would be to claim that it was photoshopped (as I, and I'm sure many others, had suspected anyway) or with the cure-all "no homo." While Williams does little to work against the homophobia that usually underlies the discussions about the picture as he still suggests that the kiss is only acceptable within certain parameters, he does disrupt the 'hypermasculine' conception of black men that causes some to view displays of affection as displays of weakness.

Umm...

A friend showed me this Schick Quattro for Women ad that ran recently in the UK. While it's extremely inappropriate (so much so that I'll spare you my comments), it's also too good not to share:

Obsession: Intersection of Race and Gender

The best movies to see with friends are the predictable kind that you know you won't need to pay too much attention to. So Beyonce's new movie Obsessed seemed like the perfect weekend blockbuster to take a break from all of the stress that the end of the semester brings. Not to say that the movie was good by any stretch of the imagination (it was as predictable, melodramatic, and cliche as the reviews suggest), but it did spur some discussion among my friends about the intended message of the filmmakers, particularly to African American woman.

The movie is, for the most part, a 100 minute version of the trailer:

Man and woman are happily married. Another woman becomes obsessed with man after he is nice to her. She convinces herself that they have a relationship and begins stalking him. Nothing stops the woman until Beyonce (...I mean Sharon) steps in and for lack of a better word, beats her ass. The End.

The movie pretty much follows the template of the "crazy female stalker" genre, problematic in its own right, but with the ignored 'twist' of the white woman/black family issue. After hearing my best friend (who happens to be Pakistani and male) yell variations of "don't let that white girl take your man" for the duration of the film and noticing more than one moviegoer express satisfaction that Beyonce's character had "killed that white bitch" on the way out of the theater, I figured I must not have been the only one reading the apparent racial subtext. The movie seems to comment (without actually commenting) on a controversial issue in the black community: interracial dating, particularly white woman with black men. But, perhaps, more importantly, it seems to comment on the 'responsibility' of black women to fight for 'their men.'

No one can stop this woman. Not the police. Not the hospital. Not the man, himself. Until Sharon steps in. The intersection of race and gender is brought to the forefront. Black femininity is constructed as benevolent, but tough. While white femininity is developed as unstable and reliant on overt displays of sexuality. It seems pretty clear who the intended audience of the film is.

Maybe I'm reaching. The racial difference may have, simply, been coincidental. A product of the 'colorblind' America that I'm just not open enough to see. But I don't think so. It seems that the filmmakers are suggesting that black women must play a greater role in combating the 'obsession' of white women with black men. They must not only forgo school and remain at home to raise children (all things that Beyone's character does to show that she's a "good woman"), they must take the lead in ensuring that 'their men' stay 'their men' by whatever means necessary. The blatant sexism of the climax of the film, a "catfight" between Beyonce and Ali Larter's characters, highlights the use of specific racial constructions to comment on the a 'role' of African American women.

Can There Be An 'Us' in Miss USA?

Pageants are notorious for their ability to seemlessly transport viewers back to the days when women were seen and not heard with the mere flip of a channel. As such, they have always been one of my guiltiest guilty pleasures. Every year when Miss USA rolls around, I feel as if I've stepped into a time machine. Back to the days before women complicated things with their calls for equality and cries to be taken seriously. Last night was no different.

There are always the issues of body image as the women parade around the stage in evening gowns and swimwear to be judged by a panel of 'experts' and pseudo-celebrities on some arbitrary scale of beauty or poise or something like that. The fifteen semi-finalists are slated as the perfect examples of how women should look (tall, thin, white, young, blond), smile (even when your not happy), walk (not with purpose, but when and where they tell you to),and talk (as little as possible). One is selected to 'represent' America, easily the most problematic aspect of the entire process.

The 58th Annual Miss USA Pageant had all of that and more, but the most talked about moment by a mile occurred during the question and answer portion of the show:

In YouTube's most watched clip of the day, celebrity blogger Perez Hilton asks Miss California Carrie Prejean about her thoughts on the recent legalization of same-sex marriage in Vermont and the possible extension of the law elsewhere. The unpopular answer that Prejean claims lost her the title illuminates a greater issue about the pageant industry, in general: What about all of the 'Misses' and 'Misters' that this narrow depiction of womanhood misses?

Hilton addressed what he called the answer's 'alienation' of many viewers after the show:

While I disagree with Prejean's answer, issue must be taken not with her specific response, but with the whole idea that some constructed 'ideal American woman' can or has at any point existed unproblematically. I'm a bit surprised by the shocked response from bloggers and various media sources. The issue of alienation can't have been ignored up this point. The entire process is inherently classist (It costs thousands to even begin to 'compete'). While Perez Hilton's question displays a slight mainstream disruption of the 'Miss USA' title as some type of accurate representation of 'American' beliefs, viewers must remember those that do not have a celebrity blogger to ask a controversial question.

A Gay Idol?

As cultural phenomenon American Idol rapidly approaches the end of its eighth season, the media seems to have focused its gaze on one contestant in particular. The New York Times, ABC News, and Bill O’Reilly, along with many others, have been wondering aloud, can Adam Lambert win?

Is Adam talented? Undoubtedly. Popular? Absolutely (After all, he’s been voted in by the viewing public week after week.) Young? Attractive? Entertaining? He’s covered all of the pop star bases. So why is his potential being doubted?

It's clear by the first round of questions on Adam's future in the contest that fans of the show are probably aware of the photographs of Lambert in drag and kissing other men that appeared on the internet in early March, so why are we still discussing this? Is Adam’s sexuality the issue or is his ‘silence’ the problem? Who is writing this as a scandal?

The singer responded to Access Hollywood more than a month ago:

His response, though, wasn't the one expected. Lambert wasn't featured on a magazine cover under the heading "Yes, I'm Gay." He didn't cower in embarassment and he didn't "confess." Adam is effectively challenging the politics of coming out, positioning it not as a declaration but a lifestyle. He is not refusing or hiding, as some suggest his failure to comment either 'yes' or 'no' amounts to. He is just living. By disrupting of the idea that people are entitled to be informed of any 'deviation from the norm,' he is disrupting the idea that his behavior falls outside of some constructed norm of masculinity and sexuality.The question asked is not whether America is "ready for a gay Idol," but whether America is okay with an Idol that does not feel the need to seek public approval for his 'transgressions.'

The new American Idol won't be crowned for weeks so it is inevitable that this will not be the last time the 'issue' of Lambert's sexuality is brought up. But as viewers, we must ask ourselves who is making this an issue and why it can still pass as one.