#mcst2030

The struggle for equality all across the board, has been present for over a century now. It’s primarily seen within race, class, and especially gender. Since the beginning of time, males have been the hierarchy and have been rooted as the dominant gender. Whether it be the Bible or the language used to describe the human race as man, and not woman. The fight for women’s rights predates back to 169 years ago in 1848 and the fight for these rights continue to goes on in present day society, specifically within the workforce. An industry that is striving for progress and continues to fight for a change, is the women within the sports industry. Whether it be a women’s sports broadcaster, analyst, or athlete the inequality is relatively present. Female athletes have been shamed and shunned since the they were allowed to compete compared to their male counterparts. Now, Title IX, which was supposed to “solve the problem,” barely made any difference for female competitors at every level, especially professional. This is progress that women should be “satisfied” with and stop being so “greedy” and wanting more when in reality, these athletes have barely scraped the surface with improvement. For years, they have fought for equality and continue to receive very little in return. Now, this fight is louder than ever before as women such as participants from the US Women’s National Team and the National Women’s Soccer Leagues are eager to make moves within their realm of sport. To understand why these women are frustrated and deserve better pay and treatment will be examined through sports televised coverage such as ESPN and how the male patriarchy is still very relevant especially within this industry. The observation of ESPN coverage of female athletes and the strides the NWSL is making with A&E Network, will be seen through the eyes of a theoretical framework that is feminism with input from Michael Messner and Bell Hooks.

ESPN’s Coverage and The Manhood Formula

ESPN is the number one 24 hour sports news station in the world, and yet they refuse to thoroughly cover women’s sports for the reason they are obliviously exploiting, marginalizing, and trivializing them through the male patriarchy. Michael Messner, states this idea called the manhood formula in chapter four of his book titled, Taking the Field and describes it as, “A real man is strong, tough, aggressive, and above all, a winner in what is still a man’s world. To be a winner he has to do what needs to be done. He must be willing to compromise his own long-term health by showing guts in the face of danger, by fighting other men when necessary, and by giving up his body for the team when he’s injured” (Messner, 2002, pg. 106). Deriving from this quote, it makes sense as to why these men choose not to air women sports; due to the fact they are not a “man” and “aren’t as entertaining to watch as men are.” However, 2015 Women’s World Cup drew quite the crowd both in stadiums and viewers at home as “six matches on Fox and Fox Sports 1 that featured the U.S. team averaged 5.3 million viewers, a rise of 121 percent over the 2011 Women’s World Cup” (ESPNW). The US WNT has been making an impact on the movement and realized that speaking up only has so much power, so they are beginning to physically prove themselves by breaking records such as their final game against Japan which “drew the highest metered market rating ever for a soccer game in the U.S. airing on a single network, with a total audience of 20.3 million viewers” (ESPNW). Despite the massive improvement these women are making within their sport, it still, apparently, isn’t enough for the men in power.  

The study that was done as described in the ESPNW article states that, “network affiliates in Los Angeles and ESPN’s SportCenter, a mere 2-3 percent of media coverage was afforded to women’s sports in 2014” (ESPNW). Personally, the surprising part is this article was published on ESPNW’s website, which is affiliated with ESPN. It’s like the strong feminist sister who is fighting to be heard by her male patriarchal brother who refuses to listen to her. Soccer is still the main focus, but to simply give another example of a women’s sport “the women’s College World Series averaged almost 440,000 more viewers than the men’s College World Series; both events aired on ESPN on the same days of the week, three weeks apart. (ESPNW). Although the men’s World Series has been around for about 35 years longer than women’s, it still doesn’t suffice that women receive less media attention compared to men. Furthermore, “when viewers are given an opportunity to actually see women’s sports, the respond with a rather amazing – yet too often ignored – interest, which could be capitalized upon even further through sponsorships, advertising revenue and improved media coverage” (ESPNW). This is the problem; the fact that this gender gap could be narrowed down, and even closed, if women were respected for what they do both on and off the competitive playing field.

Lifetime and NWSL

Another problem that arises due to lack of women’s media coverage is the failed professional leagues here in the US, specifically the soccer leagues that consisted of WUSA and Women’s Professional Soccer, also known as WPS. The recent league that still continues to live on is the National Women’s Soccer League or the NWSL for short. Yet, this league receives “financial support from U.S. Soccer, and the Canadian and Mexican soccer federations” (ESPNW). This begs the question, as asked by Washington Post reporter Liz Clarke, “will ‘a women’s pro sports league ever stand on its own?’” (ESPNW). The men’s league, the MLS, currently has been around for 20 years and holds 20 official sponsors whereas the NWSL “has just three sponsors and no national TV contract” and in 2015 and 2016, their games were only scheduled to be broadcast on YouTube. However, that is all about to change.

On February 2, 2017, the NWSL began a historic 3 year contract with A + E Networks who “will become an official sponsor and broadcast partner of the league in a three-year deal, beginning in April” (NWSL). Lifetime is a network that is most known for its scripted series, non-fiction series and movies. Since they’ve launched their Braod Focus initative in 2015, Lifetime has become “a curator of feminist content and conversations, as well as a place where women connect, learn and are entertained” (NWSL). Lifetime has never aired sports of any kind and to cover women’s soccer, is the beginning of something incredible for both A + E Networks as well as the NWSL. This is a massive move for the league and is said to act as the “media and commercial arm of the league, overseeing global broadcast and sponsorship rights” (NWSL). Be on the lookout for the NWSL this upcoming 2017 season and be sure to tune in every Saturday at 4 p.m. ET.

Women in sports, especially women’s soccer, have been making drastic improvement, yet it still seems to not be enough for the male dominance within the sports industry. It seems as if, “for generations, definitions (and practices) of masculinity were equated with what it meant to be an athlete. And as every tomboy knows, any female who participated in sports, especially at elite levels in team sports, risked being stigmatized as not a ‘real’ female” (ESPNW). Since this idea of a female athlete has been surrounded by this masculine interpretation, the ideology of a true female in sport, has built this misconception that continues to live on among female sports today. This negative framework is one of the reasons women in sports receive little to no support from their potential media supporters such as ESPN. If these women continue to be misportrayed through media as well as the male patriarchy, then improvement will not be possible for positive change. Bell Hooks mentions in her book entitled Feminism is for Everybody, “the aspect of feminist emphasis on work which did affect all women was the demand for equal pay for equal work. Women gained more rights in relation to salaries and positions as a result of feminist protest but it has not completely eliminated gender discrimination” (Hooks, 2000, pg. 49). Female athletes such as Ali Krieger, Becky Sauerbrunn, Carli Lloyd, and Hope Solo have stood up and spoken publicly about the gender pay gap between the US Men’s National team in comparison to their WNT which is massive. Hooks states that women such as those stated above continue to make the move in the feminist movement within the sports industry yet, the discrimination between genders continues to show prevalence. Hooks takes on the approach that feminism is not just for females, but is just as important to men as it is for women. In other words, these men need to realize that they are not being targeted as the enemy, instead, they are also involved in the movement and must strive to reduce the male patriarchy in hopes that someday it will be obliterated.  

It’s clear that women in sports have been striving to make improvements within their male dominant industry through the feminist movement by speaking up about the media coverage gap as portrayed through ESPN and the historic partnership with A + E Network. Theoretical frameworks as brought on by Michael Messner, and Bell Hooks through feminism are what will make the positive impact these female soccer figures, along with other women in the sports industry, are searching for. To apply this academic language through present day media channels will place emphasis on the solution to these problems such as eliminating the male patriarchy and male dominant ideology around the sports industry. This will give more attention to the female athletic voice and place them on a higher platform to finally make the change and raise media coverage among all women in sports. In order to do so, we must be open to discussing the situations with others, although we’ve been taught to keep opinions to ourselves. Now is the time for that discussion. So let’s get started.

Reference

Hooks, Bell. (2000). Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Messner, Michael. (2002). Taking the Field: Women, Men, and Sports Sport and Culture Series. Volume 4. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press.

NWSL. (2017 Feb. 2). NWSL and A + E Networks Announce Historic Partnership. Retrieved from nwslsoccer.com

Comedy Central’s South Park has been on the air now for 20 seasons, starting in 1997. The creators of the show, Trey Parker, Matt Stone and Brian Graden, seem to have started the show as just a simple adult humor cartoon, with the occasional deconstruction of pop culture. However, the show has grown to be an political spectacle. 

The show is about four children, named Stan Marsh, Kyle Broflovski, Eric Cartman and Kenny McCormick, who live in a mountain town in Colorado named South Park. The boys go on adventures, often involving pop culture celebrities, and eventually somehow someway the story gets completely blown out of proportion and becomes utterly ridiculous. Just to try and portray the ridiculousness of the show, here is the opening disclaimer shown before every airing of the show:

Despite the recommendation that the show not be viewed by anyone, the show is one of Comedy Central's highest-rated shows (watched by more than 8 million viewers a week). It has been translated into 30 languages and shown in 130 countries, nominated for 18 Emmys (winning five), made into a movie (1999's Bigger, Longer & Uncut, which grossed $83.1 million worldwide) and has spawned a merchandising industry generating hundreds of millions of dollars (The Hollywood Reporter). Does the show inspire a pessimistic view of the world around us, or does it serve as a representation of how ridiculous the popular media’s portrayal of society is? Using cultural theory and ideologies, I plan to expose the show for what it is, regardless of my bias, and let you the reader ponder the rationale of the show.

The first set of analysis regarding the show, is based on its relationship to pop culture. In many ways, pop culture is American culture, because no other society internalizes pop culture representation like American society. This notion is often termed as the Americanization of culture. This is referring to the change of culture from an art of the people to an art for the people to consume. This is the product of a commercial capitalist society and it as resulted in popular culture being more socially and institutionally central in our society, more so than that of Europe (Storey, 8). In our society today pleasure and desire is manufactured for us based on our socio-economic position and how that position is represented in popular culture. That being said, I believe that South Park acts as a contradiction to that representation. South Park exposes the ridiculousness of having popular culture so prevalent in society’s spheres on influence, by mocking celebrities, fads and norms, yet the only reason its still on the air is because it makes money and people watch it. 

The show also exposes how Americans idolize the representative they voted for president, as if he is a figure of pop culture. For example, in episode 12 season 12, Obama wins the election and those that voted for him bask in his glory, while those that don’t think it is the end of days. Randy Marsh when looking at President Obama, pressing his face to the television comments, “He’s so awesome, he’s so perfect and awesome.” The episode then continues by making fun of the conspiracies created behind every election. They do so by rendering Obama and McCain as using the entire election as a way into the White House so they can get access to an underground tunnel leading to the heist of the hope diamond. This represents how the election has become more of a patriotic rally than a democratic debate and how things get thrown out of proportion in a heated election.

Here’s a link to the entire episode: http://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s12e12-about-last-night

Here’s a list of the top 10 celebrity impersonations on South Park (Warning Crude And Mildly Offensive):

“Popular culture is structured by the attempt of the ruling class to win hegemony and by forms of opposition to this endeavor (Storey, 10).” By mocking pop culture South Park exposes the agenda of the ruling class, particularly the ruling class’ use of popular media to articulate an unachievable desire conforming subordinate groups to a hopelessly commercial lifestyle. I believe this is why they chose the band Primus to produce the soundtrack for the show, a band that named their 1999 album Antipop.

Despite the benefits of putting up a mirror to pop culture and letting its hideousness be exposed, the viewer must know to interpret as such in order for it to be fully deconstructive. A viewer may very well view that show as just mindless humorous entertainment, which renders them just as capable as one of the ignorant citizens of South Park. Or, they might view the show in a pessimistic matter and internalize the content to be the stupidity of a hopeless world.

Also, South Park directly relates to a Post-structuralist interpretation of society. Its meaning is flexible and will never truly be concrete, depending on personal interpretation. Because the show is a cartoon it is in binary opposition to reality. It gets place in the same category as hundreds of texts that are unconsciously binge consumed. However, it is a deconstructive text if critically interpreted correctly. Deconstructive texts, “must always aim at a certain relationship, unperceived by the writer, between what he commands and what he does not command of the patterns of language that he uses” (133, Storey). South Park fits this definition because the language used is crude and vulgar, yet its message is, hey society look at what is accepted by you in relationship to what isn’t. It says that to talk about things using curse words is unaccepted, yet for a company to profit off of the public by manipulating them with lies into thinking a certain way is. Its exposes how stereotypes are created and internalized, yet to talk about them and address the issue is taboo. It exposes how to make jokes about Satan and God are forbidden, yet to make jokes that oppress social groups is ok. 

South Park is a deconstructive text, however if interpreted incorrectly, it can reinforce existing hierarchies. If a viewer were to watch the show without critically thinking about its message, it could potentially further the internalization of the hierarchy.

In a episode 4 season 20, the children at South Park Elementary have been exposed to an online bully that torments the young girls of the school. This leads to the split of boys and girls against each other. The girls think it’s one of the boys, when in reality its one of the parents. The episode begins with Kyle explaining the issue to his father (who is the bully or “troll”) and he says, “One guy gets online and says terrible things about girls and it reflects badly on all of us. Everyone is sad, everyone is depressed and no body knows how to move forward.” Kyle’s Dad brushes the issue aside and walks out. This is the basis for every stereotype every created. When a man of color commits an act of violence, it gets internalized by the people around him not for what the crime is, but for what he is, a man of color. Then the act becomes stereotype because it is reflected badly on all people of color. On the contrary, if a white man were to commit the same act, he would just be considered a crazy person, because he doesn’t ave the same signifier as the man of color. South Park is exposing this issue, though it is hidden in pity middle school conflict, and it exposes the societal issue. The episode then continues with students that are male exposing their genitalia during the national anthem, in protest. The character Butters is usually shy and avoids conflict, however he is the leader of the boys who are in protest. This to me shows how hate and opposition can make even the pure at heart want to take up arms against the oppressor. Additionally, South Park has reversed the roles of men and women, making the boys of the show oppressed by the women based on the actions of few. When in reality it is the majority of men who oppress women by judging them based on the means of their sexuality and their physical attributes. This is a prime example of the shows deconstructive nature.

Here is a link to the entire episode: http://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s20e04-wieners-out

South Park is also a critique on the postmodern society we live in. The show essentially defines its characters by the metanarratives they posses. That notion parallels how the members of a society define themselves and judge others based on these subscriptions. For example, the character Chef, one of the few black characters on the show, is overtly involved in classic African-American culture preconceptions, such as his ability to sing soul music and discuss the power of love with the children. Also, a priest makes a few appearances on the show and its almost always during a mass. The priest says something ridiculous and untraditional, yet all the people of the church take his words with reverence and respect. The one black child’s name is literally Token. 

In addition, South Park mocks the American Society for being hopelessly commercial. South Park is the definition of an, “anything goes culture, a culture of slackening, where taste is irrelevant, and money is the only sign of value” (Storey, 196). The character Kenny represents the lower class of society. Kenny is purely the object of neglect. The viewer can never understand what he is saying and he dies in every episode and yet no one seems to care. Often his dead body lays and rats surround it and then the episode ends. Kenny represents the absence of wealth and what it means to social status to be as such. Yet all the children and adults desire the same material goods commercialized. Representing the lack of separation between what is perceived as art, and what is art. 

Kenny’s Multiple Deaths:

South Park is a show that I would recommend to a friend, because it brings all of the issues of society into reconsideration. I forces the viewer to see the horrors of racism, sexism and gender binary, in a comedic environment. Though there is no comedy when having real life discussions about these issues, It makes the topic easier to cope with. However, before recommending I would explain the critical thinking elements involved in watching the show. Without understanding them, the viewer can either further their hierarchic misrepresentation of society, or view society pessimistically as hopeless and too far from revival.

If you are a frequent viewer of the show, I would enjoy hearing your interpretations of the show, before and after reading this blog. Did/Do you view the show as a exploitation of the ridiculousness of society, or as a comedy cartoon show with no other purpose than to exist as such?

Reference:

Storey, J. (2015).

Cultural theory and popular culture.

      House of Cards is a currently running political drama on Netflix. It is poised to enter it’s fifth season in May, 2017. The cast is lead by Kevin Spacey as Frank Underwood, Much like the political environment in the show, House of Cards is a work of art. This can be seen from the very beginning of the opening credits to the end of the most recent season. There is a heavy focus on appearance, public appreciation, and lasting influence. Frank Underwood, the shows main character reminds us of this many times, regularly speaking about power and legacy in his asides (an element that screams classical theater, e.g. Shakespeare's monologues and soliloquies). This focus on influence and the struggle between reality and appearance has been philosophized by countless philosophers, from Plato to Marx to Arendt to Baudrillard.

      “The Marxist approach to culture insists that texts and practices must be analysed in relation to their historical conditions of production” (Storey, 61) Keeping this in mind, House of Cards is being created in a time where the historical conditions of production are largely political so it makes sense that the show would be a strong story about the American political system. The conditions of production are an über-political capitalist system steeped in corruption and uncertainty perhaps more than any other time in American history and the show reflects that very strongly.

      I hypothesized that the shows portrayal of politics and the media may be damaging to people's opinions and views about what can and should be done by people in power in our country. Frank’s portrayal as a “ruthless pragmatist” is abrasive on the surface, and is counterbalanced by many small things he does at certain parts of the story. Frank’s media appearance and his focus on power consumes his life. Every waking moment he is focused on how he can secure a legacy for himself through any means possible. The problem comes when we look at the reason why we like Frank, I personally like Frank because of his intelligence, his drive, and his perfectionism. When we analyze Frank’s quest for power and legacy, we find that he is in fact an immense hypocrite. At multiple moments in the show Frank is condescending, rude, and mean to people who he sees as idiots for going after money instead of legacy and power, under the guise that money is only a means to an end and earning money holds no value over time. Despite his views on this he completely misses the fact that there is quite the same conundrum with an unending quest for power; he believes that his power and legacy will have use or value, endlessly validating his need to inflate his ego. He focuses on the immortality of legacy, missing or ignoring the fact that legacy is not lasting, and that it can be created through good or evil methods.

      The other reason one wants to like Frank is that we have a much more intimate relationship with him than any of the other characters do. His asides provide insight and what feels like an honest view of Frank. While this is in fact his own “honest view,” the appearance/feeling of honesty is what matters. These asides don’t just blur the lines between reality and appearance, it removes it. For Frank, and for the show, appearance IS reality. We justify his manipulation of the media because we are shown the stresses his job and actions cause in his own personal life, despite his manipulation being one of those stressors; we see his reality, almost forcing us to have empathy for him. In fact, if the show only portrayed Frank through his media appearances and his public image we would get a much different view of Frank, we might be less or more approving of his political actions simply due to personal bias and ignorance about what goes on behind the facade. One might find him boring and political, or just outright despise him. Making it feel like Frank trusts you, and making you feel like you trust him back, like he’s your friend, is crucial to his relationship with the viewer and is woven near perfectly into his persona, the manipulation of trust and affection being his primary tool for bending and breaking people and their lives. Not even the viewer knows when they’re being lied to because they’ve been shown that everything he has said is “true”, allowing Frank to tell his lies whenever and to whomever he chooses.

      Frank does everything for his own gain, even things he does not want to do or like doing are done with Frank’s interests at heart. He will abuse people who helped him with no regard to the ramifications simply because of the power he feels he has. His power and appearance are simply a house of cards waiting to collapse until it is finally cemented together and left to collapse from time. Throughout the show, Frank shows an almost childish displeasure towards non permanent things; he insists Edward Meechum stays his personal bodyguard, he shows contempt for the Buddhist monks who came and made then eventually destroyed the sand mandala. Because of this Frank ties and unties his political connections with ease, choosing to ally with whomever may increase his chance at permanency.

      One of the driving factors behind the American political system is the capitalist economy we base it on. Capitalism is by no means a bad thing, but the current economic landscape is very toxic. The rich are now very much in power. Marx believed that the rich being in power served to keep the other classes in conflict with each other. This conflict removes attention from the true goings-on of the rulers, and focuses it on more menial grievances like minimum wage, pay equality between races and genders, etc. Marx believed that this hid the larger scale politics involving corporations and their intent to grasp “power” by having a tight hold on money.

      This connection between power and money is not left out of the show, former president Garrett Walker is a very close friend and business partner with Raymond Tusk, a multi-billionaire who owns nuclear power plants around the world. He uses this influence, his near-monopoly on the power in China is used as leverage to end a military conflict between the United States and China. This is strongly capitalized on by Frank, who sees money as a fake form of power, only useful in making people do what you want for a little, and universally fleeting, unlike a legacy. Frank uses a Chinese businessman’s ties to Democratic action committees to spin a story in the media that ultimately ends in Garrett Walker’s resignation and Frank Underwood taking position as the President of the United States of America.

      Claire Underwood is a very startling representation of a woman in power and in the fourth season we watch as she sheds her husband’s control over her and reminds us that she herself is just as much a strong and power-hungry sociopath as Frank. Claire finally receives the agency she has desired and that she deserves. Although she uses this agency to do arguably terrible things, the fact that she has this agency is something not seen often in the first three seasons. The most notable scene for Claire before the fourth season is perhaps her interview on CNN in season two where a reporter bluntly asked her about her and Frank’s lack of children. This question would absolutely not have been posited to a male and Claire responds with strength. She turns the question and its subsequent prying into Claire’s past abortions, a private topic that she is essentially forced to lie about in order to save face. She uses this lie to expose a military member, now a general, who raped her and to shift the conversation towards her bill about rape in the military and the victims of it. This is a very powerful refusal to go on what the media wants to get attention for, yet we still feel Claire’s pain of being cornered into answering a question on a topic that has no business being asked about by anybody outside perhaps a healthcare environment.

      Although we see this strength in Claire, she uses it in much the wrong way. Because of the oppression and attitudes surrounding her Claire aspires for something that is almost completely ridiculous, to be the First Lady and the Vice President at the same time. Now, this isn’t ridiculous because she is a woman, it is ridiculous because of the immense conflict of interest and the easy target for government overreach accusations. This use of Claire as a strong character, Frank’s Lady Macbeth finally sharing the stage is very important to the representation that women can have and want power in the same way men do, and although Claire is an awful and powerful person, she struggles much the same way that many other women do under the attempted control from men.

      Because of the “reality” of this television show, the fact that it’s fully contained world almost completely mimics our own makes us think about these hyperbolic representations and consider that maybe some of them aren’t so hyperbolic. It creates worry, or, based on the writings of Zizek (Storey, 112), it illustrates the worry that we already hold in our mind, the worry that is in fact, our reality. This worry has grown exponentially this past year, from the rhetoric spewed by then-presidential-candidate Donald Trump, to the actions and rhetoric still spewed by him and his close allies after he won the presidency. His entire presidency so far has felt like a television show, that is why satire of his characters is so strong it doesn’t even need to be accurate, the worry people have is enough to make the satire all too real. Our reality has become a melding of our dream realities and real life, a personification of our fear for the outcome of our country and the hope that President Trump may at some point not play into our nightmarish views of him and his scary and isolating ideals.

      I believe that my hypothesis was in fact wrong. I believe this kind of representation of power and backroom dealings in fact brings awareness and discomfort to the people who watch it. We watch it not because we agree with Frank or his ideals and practices, but because we have an obsession with triumph. History has been controlled by the powerful and always will be. The triumph over history and truth itself is an immense position of power and many people may have a subconscious desire to have that sort of respect. Admiration of them is not necessary if a leader is strong enough to keep your country looking strong. I think that being powerful enough to have such a strong disregard for public opinion, to the point where you can create and lie about public opinion is enticing. Everyone wants to feel like they have created their own identity and have control over it, and absolute power seems like the ultimate form of control, no matter what history has proven to be true.

“Democracy is so overrated.” -Frank Underwood

“The road to power is filled with hypocrisy, and casualties” -Frank Underwood

References:

House of Cards - Willimon, Beau. “House of Cards.” House of Cards, Netflix, www.netflix.com/title/70178217.

In Foucault’s theory of power, it all begins with discourse. “Discourses work in three ways: they enable, they constrain, and they constitute.” (Storey, 133) He compares the language we use as giving us an identity, similar to the way in which knowing the rules of the game make you a player. “Discourses produce knowledge and knowledge is always a weapon of power: it is in discourse that power and knowledge are joined together.” (Foucalt, 2009: 318) From there he theorizes that power creates our reality. The ways we express this reality, the modalities of power we allow, are both empowering to these systems and serve as a point of resistance to them.

Panopticism is explained as having people in a society control themselves, out of the fear that someone might be monitoring them. I did a little bit more research into the concept, and found that other sources added into it that the subjects who assume the responsibility of the constraints of power must be “fixed”. This can be explained through the classrooms of schools and the cells of prisons. It becomes much more of a stretch when we try to apply it to a whole society-until we take into account the newest life necessity-social media.

My final paper topic will be the focus of female coverage of women in sports on various stations and why particular channels have little to no air time for female athletes. Along with this, I relate this subject to feminist focus theories with two different perspectives who are Judith Butler and Bell Hooks. I hope to reveal the minimal attention these female receive across the media and how they portray these powerful women as weak and “not worthy” enough to be premiered on television or other forms of media in comparison to their male competitors. For example, “in 2014, LA-based network affiliates devoted only 3.2 percent of airtime to women’s sports, down from 5 percent in 1989. SportsCenter devoted a scant 2 percent of airtime to women’s sports, a number that has remained flat since the study began tracking the nightly cable broadcast in 1999. When women’s sports are covered at all, 81.6 percent of coverage is focused on basketball” (Good, 2015). The fact that the media has decreased women’s coverage shows the shameful amount of “improvement” these relentless, hard working women should be “grateful” for. It’s absurd and needs to end. This final project will focus on the various women athletes across various sports such as tennis, softball, and soccer in comparison to their male sports. I have no doubt the theories from Butler and Hooks will be well into relation of the current women athletes coverage and will reveal ways to improve this industry and finally spot a positive change that is tangible in the near future.

 Reference 

Given today’s political climate, I believe an analysis of House of Cards and the message it sends about the political system, the people involved, and the people affected can offer some insight into the way Americans see the government. I would like to primarily focus on the way Frank Underwood manipulates the media, his constituents and other politicians by removing their agency through multiple avenues. Frank’s practice of strong-arming anybody who steps in his way is a scary parallel to the way our current president has been acting and I think through analysis of this text we may gain ideas on how to make personal agency stronger as well as a way to understand how political representations like House of Cards may upset the real-world political environment because of the varied beliefs in this country. The fact that Underwood is displayed as an anti-hero while pushing a heroic public face is key to understanding how the show deals with his manipulation and figuring out the intended message of the text. Even further, the fact that Frank is a member of the Democratic party can prove to be a critical text of the Democratic party and some of its people in real life, with some real life politicians having strong suspicions raised against them about many of the issues also seen in the show.

The use of the press characters in the show gives a “good” character to root for. A few journalists are constantly fighting against the narrative that Frank puts out, yet most of the press just follows right along with what they are told. I would like to analyze this and tie it into the way Frank manipulates facts as well as his habit of simply beating people down until they have no choice but to go along. 

The shows treatment of race, gender, and sexuality are also available for analysis as one sees a varying level of power given to women. From the deceptively upwards path of Senator Catherine Grant and Claire Underwood to the devastating path of some of the shows other female characters, the treatment of females is quite manipulative and disregarding of the females own agency unless it is to gain power for a male. Rarely do you see a female getting things done for herself and by herself. In fact, even though Claire announced that she was filing for divorce at the end of season three she was right back next to Frank at the head of the country for season four.

For my final flog of the course, Media Texts, I will evaluate the role of adult cartoon television shows and their deconstruction of hierarchies placed in society. Specifically, South Park. I will construct an in-depth analysis of how these shows use humor and satire to create a mass appeal, while getting a point across that exposes the absurdities of the current popular media climate. 

By utilizing Jacques Derrida’s concept of deconstruction in post-modernism as well as, Psychoanalysis from Laura Mulvey’s perspective including the “male gaze”, I am going to expose the effects the show has on it’s viewers. Being a viewer myself, I believe that these specific shows do more help than harm in our society, despite being vulgar and crude. 

These types of shows are so crucial to our current societal climate, because they don't receive consequences for being offensive to a specific group’s views. They have all the power that popular news sources do, without the responsibilities. These shows have the power to comment and critique the ridiculousness of society without receiving backlash for being unbiased or trying to impose an agenda. 

My question however is, does the majority viewers of the shows evaluate them as a satire on society, or do they blindly watch for entertainment and fall into a deeper hole of mindless consumption and hegemony? In personal experience with the shows I can say that they are so outrageous in displaying a critical message that it often can’t be taken as truth. Despite that, in my analysis I will put personal experiences aside.

When beginning this degree in Media and Communications, feminism was one of the first theories I was taught, and actually turned out to be my favorite and most relevant theory. At first, when my professor introduced herself as a feminist, I had no idea what it meant and just understood it to be something politically related. Later, I developed a better understanding and clear perspective as to what it is and grew to appreciate it; that admiration continues to expand today. Personally, my understanding, or definition, of feminism is literally anyone be that of male, female, child, or adult, is one who supports and fights for equality for all women and believes their powerful character and endless pursuit for justice has the strength to break the male-dominant patriarchy that is embedded within our society. The feminist movement has been going on since the late 19th century and has grown ever since.

Hooks believes, “feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression” (Hooks, 2000, pg. 1). She goes onto say it’s an accurate definition that doesn’t target men as the problem, instead it is sexism altogether. In other words, to simply stop the discrimination between the two. Focusing on her ninth chapter in her book entitled Feminism Is For Everybody Passionate Politics, she discusses the women in the workforce and states that “more than half of all women in the United States are in the workforce” (Hooks, 2000, pg. 48). She says that “the aspect of feminist emphasis on work, which did affect all women was the demand for equal pay for equal work” (Hooks, 2000, pg. 48). This is still extremely relevant and true for today’s world. Women in the work place are taken for granted predominately for the reason being this is a male-dominated society and work under male authorities. She goes onto say that “addressing the economic plight of women may ultimately be the feminist platform that draws a collective response. It may well become the place of collective organizing, the common ground, the issue that unites all women” (Hooks, 2000, pg. 54). Basically, the workforce is one, if not the, core aspect of the progression in the feminist movement and is the most aspirational to make positive change for women not just within the United States, but around the world as well.

A great example of this gender equality perspective is the United States Womens National Team who recently started the “Equal Pay. Equal Play.” campaign after the outrageous inadequate salaries the women players received for winning the 2015 FIFA Womens World Cup in comparison to the United States Mens National Team. According to a New York Times article that was published last March, “a men’s player receives $5,000 for a loss in a friendly match but as much as $17,625 for a win against a top opponent. A women’s player receives $1,350 for a similar match, but only if the United States wins; women’s players receive no bonuses for losses or ties” (Das, 2016). Not to mention, the women have made massive strides and continue to supersede the Mens National Team by exceeding “revenue projections by as much as $16 million in 2015, when their World Cup triumph set television viewership records and a nine-game victory tour in packed stadiums produced record gate receipts and attendance figures” (Das, 2016). Their final match was seen by 25.4 million viewers on Fox, which is not only a record for the U.S. Soccer Federation but they also held more viewers than the NBA Finals or the Stanley Cup. These Women are at Work and continue to put up the battle for their fellow female players around the world, for youth players who aspire to be professionals, and for all women in both the athletic and non-athletic workforce. This is much bigger than gaining a larger paycheck than the men. 

Discussion Questions:

1. How relevant do you see feminism to be in today’s society? 2. Do you believe women are at work and making moves towards progression in feminism or regression? 3. Now that you understand the concept, what is your first experience of feminism? How did it effect you? Negatively or positively?

Reference

Das, Andrew. (31 March 2016). Top Female Players Accuse U.S. Soccer of Wage Discrimination. The New York Times.