Article Review

               The article “’Curvy, hunky, kinky’: Using corpora as tools for critical analysis” written by Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard and Rosamund Moon focuses on the use of premodifers in two different types of newspapers in Great Britain. The research question revolved around the way that the use of certain words shaped the judgments

               The question being asked by researched Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard and Rosamun Moon is whether or not differences in the use of modifiers changes the judgments and conceptions shaped by those texts. To find these answers, they counted the number of times certain modifiers appeared in broadsheet newspapers and tabloid newspapers in Great Britain. Broadsheets follow the traditional news patterns and report on issues relevant to politics, the environment, and current issues. Tabloids concentrate more on celebrity gossip, scandals, and pop culture. The researchers then compiled the counts into the article “’Curvy, hunky, kinky’: Using corpora as tools for critical analysis.”

               Caldas-Coulthard and Moon focused primarily on the modifiers that had a naturally sexual connotation and words that had developed sexual connotations because of their use. In their research they found that words like kinky, curvy, and hunky are used to shape and create sexual norms. For example, the word curvy is used in two different contexts: to refer to women and to refer to material objects of desire, like cars. The authors believe that this suggests that women are treated lexically as commodities. They note that this seems to be far more common in tabloid data than broadsheet data. However, broadsheet data seems to have the opposite problem. In the broadsheet data, commodities are equated with humans, especially women (Caldas-Coulthard and Moon, 2010, p. 104).

               Another word that they focus on is the word hunky—which Caldas-Coulthard and Moon believe is the male equivalent of “curvy.” The word hunky is often paired with other modifiers—especially occupations. Some of these occupations include: pop stars, actors, doctors, dancers, firefighters, and mechanics (Caldas-Coulthard and Moon, 2010, p.105). However, the important distinction the author makes is that when hunky is used as a modifier, it is less likely that a name will be included, leaving men more generalized than women. Examples include “hunky Aussie Olympic swimmer,” “hunky boyfriend,” “hunky chap,” and “hunky Hollywood heart-throb (Caldas-Coulthard and Moon, 2010, p.106).

               The final word that the authors focus on is the word kinky. Although often used to refer to clothing, the word is almost always used to imply a level of sexuality. An interesting distinction with this word is the way that it modifies man and woman. It is most commonly associated with men. However, when the word kinky is used to refer to a woman it more often refers to her actions or her clothing, rather than to the woman herself. Caldas-Coulthard and Moon found that “40 percent of occurrences were in relation to activities, especially in the collocations kinky sex and kinky games” (2010, p. 107). In tabloids, the use of kinky as an adjective was more likely to refer to a man than a woman. Instead, women were often featured as “kinky” in photos; they were participants, but not instigators (Caldas-Coulthard and Moon, 2010, p. 107).

               The authors apply this same reasoning to other words in a second study that is also featured in the article. These words are man, woman, girl, and boy. They look for the frequency with which the words are used and in what contexts. It was found that girl is used significantly more than woman, even when referring to adults. Boy is also used more often than man, but only three-quarters as often as girl. In most situations when woman is used instead of girl, it is because the subject is either married or has a family. When man is used instead of boy, it is often because the subject is referred to in a professional role. This illustrates the importance of understanding the word choice of the texts that we consume (Caldas-Coulthard and Moon 2010, p. 110).  

               The authors here propose a critical lens for interpreting our choices in news sources. They explain that there is a difference in word choice for tabloids and broadsheets. This is evidenced by picking up a magazine. For example, if you pick up a Cosmopolitan there are numerous articles on how to satisfy your man. But in the section that explains the moves that men wish their partners would use, almost every man used the word “girl” to refer to his partner. In my mind, this shows what women are supposed to be in terms of sexuality. Women are supposed to be the innocent, but experienced and naughty virgin. Women are supposed to be shy and a sex kitten at the same time, which is essentially a contradiction. The reason for it is that the man is supposed to be the sexually experienced one in the heterosexual relationship. In order to maintain that relationship, women have to appear less sexually experienced than they might be to make sure the man can still take control.

               I agree with the general premise of the article—the idea that the language that we choose to use can create and reinforce social norms and stereotypes. My problem with this specific article, however, is the lack of information about causation. The authors explore a lot of interesting data that explains the discrepancies of word usage between genders. However, Caldas-Coulthard and Moon neglect to provide statistical, or non-statistical, analysis regarding how their findings prove that these lexical choices cause a shift in understanding. In terms of relevance, I think the concepts involved remain very contemporary and prudent. It is my personal belief that the degree to which the study of mass communication and linguistics interact needs to be further explored. Although this specific article concentrated on tabloids and broadsheets in Great Britain, it would not surprise me if researchers found similar patterns in the United States. The heuristic value of this concept is enormous. There is a large understanding that has yet to be developed, at least in my view, of the choice of words in media sources. Caldas-Coulthard and Moon specifically mention words like hunky, kinky, and curvy, but there are many other sexualized modifiers that could be explored.  In general, I agree with this article but I wish that Caldas-Coulthard and Moon would have taken their research one step further to prove causation.  

Lady Bits vs. Meat Banana

So, I was browsing YouTube looking for this particularly hilarious UbyKotex tampon commercial that I had seen because I was looking for something to write a blog post about. I found the advertisement, but I wasn't really moved or inspired to write about it. So I kept browsing. UbyKotex, the new line of panty-liners, pads, and tampons from Kotex has launched the "Break the Cycle" campaign. It is intended to do a couple of things. It seems intended to help women choose the tampons and pads that best fit their needs and avoid the products they don't need by resisting advertisements.

Here is a link to the video that I will focus on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHO4a5sQ2Gw&feature=related

I doubt it was ever aired on TV, but it touches on some really important concepts. How comfortable are people talking about the female body versus the male body, why, and in what ways do we see this embodied? The video says that 72% of women feel that society finds it easier to talk about penises than to talk about vaginas. Vaginas, especially vaginal care products, are somewhat taboo. Everyone knows that aisle in the drug store or grocery store that the tampons and pads belong in. Have you ever noticed how empty those aisles are? I think this probably has to do with a level of embarrassment. Not only do I personally feel embarrassed in the tampon aisle, but I also feel embarrassed purchasing these items--even if it is a female cashier! What's more, it's not just tampons; I feel uncomfortable purchasing my birth control every time I go up to the counter. Even as I am writing this right now, I feel like it is impolite to talk about it. The question is why? I think it goes beyond just being embarrassed about personal hygiene--I don't feel like this when I buy deodorant or toothpaste. You would think that with the extensive number of feminine care product commercials, people might be used to these conversations now. I guess not.

But to get back to the video. Women seemed to have little trouble identifying one image as a penis, but seemed to struggle and giggle more when viewing the image of what appeared to be a vagina. For example, one woman referred to the image that looked like a vagina as "down there" and "lady bits." When the first time she saw an image that looked like a penis she said "penis." (She then went on to call it a meat banana, but she identified the object with the proper name first). What this shows is that women are more comfortable talking about male sexuality than their own.

Now the question is--why? I would not expect this to be the case. Considering most partial or full nudity in movies or TV is female, I would expect people to be more comfortable, or at least equally as comfortable, with both organs. My thought is that perhaps it goes back to the idea of impoliteness/embarrassment. The traditional model of a heterosexual relationship would have it that the wife would provide sex to her husband upon his request, regardless of her desires. This model only perpetuated the double standard that is still apparent today--men are flirtatious, women are innocent. If men sleep around, they are experienced. If women sleep around, they are sluts. If men don't wear condoms, they are true men. If women don't use protection, they are dirty. If men ejaculate, the sex is over. If women orgasm...IF women orgasm. So my point is that women are supposed to be ashamed of their sexuality. They are supposed to be sexual deviants that are willing to do anything a man asks, but they are supposed to be the innocent virgin, too. Therefore, talking about their reproductive genitalia is in essence talking about their sexuality which makes many people, including women, uncomfortable.

I want to hear feedback on this video specifically, if you all get the chance.

Love the Way You Lie

The new song featuring Eminem and Rhianna has been receiving a lot of public attention. It's constantly played on the radio, on Muzak stations, and in department stores. But, until now I've never really stopped to understand and appreciate the lyrics. I have always appreciated the talent that Eminem has putting words together to make music, but maybe the impact of his music is bigger than he thinks.

The lyrics can be found by following this link:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/eminem/lovethewayyoulie.html

The song opens with Rhianna singing the only words that she sings throughout the entire song. She admits that their relationship is painful, but she will stay with him because she "likes the way it hurts," even though he clearly does not care that he is causing her pain. This reinforces a "shut up and deal with it" attitude for women and girls in abusive relationships. It encourages the cycle of violence that keeps abusive relationships intact--when a man beats a woman, it's okay because she loves him and he still loves her. This signifies a larger societal problem that goes beyond just abuse to perpetuate female passivity in other aspects of life. The fact that these are the only words that Rhianna gets to say while Eminem has multiple, different verses shows that there is no emphasis on her opinions or experiences.

Additionally, Eminem's lyrics are extremely violent in this song. In the first verse he describes a scene in which Rhianna is attempting to leave him, and he just doesn't accept it and tells her she can't leave. And she doesn't; she stays with him. This is another example of how the cycle is perpetuated--not only by the woman is compelled to stay by herself, but also by the man telling the woman she is not allowed to leave. 

At the end of Eminem's first verse, he explains a situation in which "he laid hands on her." In the context of the song, this appeared to be the first time something like this had happened. He even says that he doesn't know his own strength, and that it will never happen again. This is also a common conversation that happens betweens abusers and the people they abuse--"I'm sorry, it won't ever happen again."

In the second and third verse he explains times when he physically assaulted her on different occasions. However, she continually took him back. At the end of the third verse, he says "I apologize even though I know it's lies" which only further exemplifies, and seemingly popularizes, the process of abuse. 

While this song encourages females to remain passive and reinforces the idea that women are weak because they remain in abusive relationships, it seems to do the opposite with men. The song encourages men to be overly aggressive. It shows the true test of manhood is violence against women by using a popular figure abusing a woman with absolutely no consequences--she doesn't even leave him by the end of the song. Additionally, it encourages men to not take no for an answer. At one point in the song, she tries to leave him but he won't let her. At another point he says that if she tries to leave, he will "tie her to the bed and set this house on fire." This shows that women don't have the power to say no, and even when they do, they are not taken seriously and their wishes are quickly over-looked. In order to live up to societal expectations of masculinity, men must be overly aggressive, violent and abusive--according to this song. Eminem is never really condemned in the song for the behavior, and Rhianna reinforces it. Only proving how there is no real course of action against abuse. 

To Slay a Jabberwocky...

               When the new “Alice in Wonderland” movie came out this past March I was excited to see it. I had always enjoyed the cartoon version and I was excited to a see a remake with real actors. Additionally, I knew that if Tim Burton was directing and Johnny Depp was acting, it had to be pretty good. I heard a mix of reviews—some saying it was great, some saying that it ruined the original. But, I decided to make a decision for myself.  However, after the film I was completely shocked. I know this is not intended to be a movie review, but my favorite thing about the plot of the film was how it was a continuation of the original story and not a remake of the original story.

               The use of female protagonist in “Alice in Wonderland” is quite different than in most films I have seen. While some employ women as the main role, usually their task fits the feminine roles they are expected to play. If there is a different type of problem in the movie that needs to be solved, usually a man will accompany her. However, in “Alice in Wonderland,” Alice is tasked with saving the White Queen and saving her friends. In order to do that, she must slay the jabberwocky with a sword. When it finally came time for her to slay the beast, I was sure that someone would come to her rescue. But, it never happened. She battled, fought, and won all on her own, wielding a sword larger than herself.

               The reason why this stuck out to me so much is because I was not used to this portrayal of females in films. She occupied a much more masculine role than is normally common for a woman. Traditionally in films women play the role of the love interest. There is some low-level conflict, but in the end there is always some kind of resolution. 

Picture Perfect

The first advertisement that I decided to analyze is an advertisement from For Him Magazine (FHM). The ad can be found here: http://www.slashphone.com/media/data/766/fhm_sony_ericsson.jpg

               The advertisement portrays a woman in a bra posing with the Sony Ericsson phone against her arm. She is dark haired, light skinned, and has large breasts. She exemplifies an obsession with exoticism in American culture. Because she is dark haired, she is different and exciting. The fact that she has large breasts makes clear another aspect of women that America is obsessed with. The other important visual aspect of the woman is the fact that most of her face is hidden. The only portion of her face that is visible is from the nose down, showing her lips in a seductive pose. Finally, although the advertisement is for a phone, comparatively, it takes up very little space. There is a large block of text in very fine print to the right of the woman on the page describing the features of the phone.

               There are a couple of important conclusions we can draw from this advertisement. First, the female body is a highly sexualized form. The use of breasts is found here as a way to show the desirability of the product being sold. Her lips are poised seductively, but you cannot see her eyes. This seems an effort to leave the woman without identity, as eyes are a feature that distinguishes individuals from one another. By hiding her eyes, she is effectively made undistinguishable, average, and not unique.

               The fact that this advertisement is found in For Him Magazine, indicates something larger about the expectation of men in relation to females. First, all men, in order to fit into the commonly accepted definition of masculinity, must be in a heterosexual relationship. Additionally, this specific advertisement is intended to hit at the desires of the audience—meaning men. That being said, men are supposed to be interested in sexualized, subordinated portrayals of women. On a more macro level, it appears that both masculinity and femininity are constructed through the use and placement of this advertisement. Additionally, how they relate to one another is also explained. In terms of the advertisement of the actual product, it seems that the target audience of the phone is men. This eliminates women from a place in the technical, mechanical world, further subordinating women. 

Finally, the website that I discovered this advertisement on was a website about cell phones. The website did a base level analysis of the advertisement. Instead of discussing the ad's sexually explicit nature, the website merely discussed how spectacular it was that a cell phone could take that picture. 

Ultimately, I was bothered by the fact that the superiority of the phone's camera had to be shown with a picture of a naked woman instead of a picture of food, kids playing, landscapes, etc.