A Perspective From a Non-Feminist Female Gamer

I'd like to speak my peace about these gender issues in video games since Gauntlett was so generous as to finally touch on it (making it free game, haha). He seriously had me holding my breath for a while.

Lara Croft has a ridiculously unrealistic and obviously misogynistic-male-fantasy-generated body. There is no way I can deny it, nor would I want to. However, for me this is a humorous example of reality. Many video games designed by men more often than not will have idealized-looking women, if any at all. It's a simple fact but I don't pay much mind to it; they're very fun games to play and pointing out the ridiculousness of these "sexy" characters allow my brother and I to joke together. Anyway the only thing that bothers me is how exactly Lady Croft has the strength to climb mountains, swing on vines, and fight bad guys if she doesn't consume nourishment. Whatever.

I must disagree with the study which Gauntlett cites in chapter 4. It stated that US college students see male game characters as less "sexually provocative." No, sir! PLEASE! I once made a collage poster of male heroes and villains from my favorite games, and this was a fairly large poster. They have just as much sex appeal as their female counterparts - if not more, depending on the depth of their character development and storylines. In fact, I believe that the double standard doesn't really exist in many games of a certain genre. In the games of which I speak, the women are often emotionally stronger and posses more skills than their over-romanticized and slightly androgynous-looking male counterparts.

Marketing in the world of video games is a little different than that of non-interactive entertainment. It relies less on linear imagery and more on the promise of realistic graphics and fluid game play. For instance, Bungie's Halo games are highly combat-oriented. Yes, most of the characters are men, including the alien villains, but there are several women marines, and they are just as skilled and hardcore as the men; in fact the only reason you really know that they're women is by their voices. The only one of the main characters that's a woman is Cortana, the Master Chief's A.I. She is in no way a minor character, and excepting Halo 3 (when she had been captured and subsequently used by the Flood), she isn't a damsel in distress. She is a voice of authority, conscience (sort of the Jiminy Cricket equivalent), and direction; and she is the Master Chief's closest friend.

I guess the bottom line I'm coming to here is that yes, there are some stereotypical women in video games, but when they are being stereotyped, it's exaggerated to the point that the ideological image loses all validity. You can't take them seriously. Because you can't take them seriously, I don't see them as a threat.
Also, I realize that there are generally less games based around female characters or containing female main characters than male characters, but I don't really read too much into that. Most of the time, it's due more to historical context and accuracy than it is to a purposeful bias of writing.

Niche Literature, Feminism, and You

In "Feminist Perspectives on the Media," Liesbet van Zoonen outlines the various sects of feminism, their views, and their channels/views (or lack thereof) in/about the media. The article covered a lot of ground, but I found myself focusing on specific things in my reading.
I saw a pattern and felt that women and fashion magazines were taking a lot of flak, some of which I believe was unfairly dealt. Romance novels and pornography definitely deserved the flak, though. That's all I'll say about them.
Anyway, magazines are part of what I think of as niche literature. The way I see it is that people buy and subscribe to magazines to read articles pertaining to a specific genre and catering to a specific demographic. They represent values and hobbies, and when someone immerses his/herself in them, they can help to structure that individual's identity. It's interesting to note that some see certain magazines as perpetuating sex-role stereotyping and they are therefore contrary to the feminist agenda; but there are others who see certain magazines as a vessel of liberation for the average, everyday, oppressed and unappreciated woman. I don't really see them as either. I see them as being marketed to a specific demographic. Whether or not that particular demographic actually exists seemingly doesn't really matter, considering some of these magazines have been around for decades.
In some ways the idea of niche literature could promote the intellectual development of women by allowing them to independently carve out niches and choose their community.

Sex Roles, Women, and the Mass Media

If you looked at that title, rolled your eyes and said, "Oh boy," then pat yourself on the back for being the reason that feminism exists.
No, seriously.
At first I thought Gaye Tuchman was being alarmist in her assertion - no, insistence - that there was a "symbolic annihilation of women by the mass media," especially considering she wrote that article in 1978, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized its truth. Granted, there is so much more diversity in female roles in television shows than there used to be. It's been 31 years since that article was published. However, I've only been watching TV since about 1992 and I've always been appalled by the cookie-cutter type characters women had. Men could be all sorts of things, think all sorts of things, and do all sorts of things; but women were always driven by the same motivations. Surprisingly, commercials and ads haven't changed all that dramatically. There is more representation of women in corporate settings - and not as subordinates - BUT ads and commercials for cleaning products still feature mostly women. Please, someone, show me a commercial that has a masculine father-type man dancing around with Mr. Clean! Come to think of it, I may actually buy a Mr. Clean product instead of cheap generic brand if I see a commercial like that.
The only thing I slightly disagreed with in Tuchman's piece was the bit about women (and men) being influenced by their representations in TV, commercials, and magazines. I'll admit that when children are at an impressionable age there can be damage done that cannot be reversed, however, I maintain that people have a mind of their own - even fairly young people.

David Gauntlett's a funny guy with thinking not unlike my own. His chapter, "Representations of Gender in the Past" captured my thoughts to a T. For five minutes after I read it, my reflection went thusly: "Yes. Wow." I especially liked the point about feminism being capitalist. Go us. We can liberate women from their ages-old ideological fetters and stimulate the economy AT THE SAME TIME!

This clip from YouTube is taken from an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, season 5. The episode is called, "The Outcast." The Enterprise-D crew makes contact with a people who have no gender - they are neutral. Captain Picard agrees to commit his resources to helping them with a problem, and Commander Riker and Soren are thrown together in this mission. In the beginning sequence, Soren has asked Riker about the difference between men and women.

Mickey Mouse is an ideology?

I may not have grown up as immersed in the Disney stuff as most of my peers, but it did have an undeniable presence in my childhood - just the animated musical films, though, just to be clear. In fact, the first movie my mother took me to see in the movie theater was Aladdin. Having read Henry A. Giroux's piece, "Are Disney Movies Good For Your Kids?" I realize how narrow-minded the viewpoint from that movie looks in hindsight (and every other sight). When I was young, and I think I was five years old when I saw it, Aladdin represented an exotic land to which I was foreign. I'm sure that was the intention.
Before I go any further I need to say that Giroux presents a very good case and I am therefore tempted to play the devil's advocate just because I can. Here goes.
Children's movies are written for a main demographic audience. Who would that be? Children. When something is written with its main purpose being the consumption of children, it is simplified so that the young throats don't choke on complicated concepts. Giroux mentioned that in Aladdin that the bad guys were given thick accents, and the good guys sounded conveniently American. I can see the implications of prejudice in that as well as the next critical reader, but as a writer I offer an alternative reading. Aside from the fact that it was an American film and therefore most of the voice actors can be assumed to be American, I offer the explanation of a simple plot machine. In order for children to understand the difference between the bad guys and the good guys, they must be able to identify with the good guys. How better to have the audience identify with the good guys than to have them appear attractive and speaking in their mother dialect, while the bad guys, with whose ideals they would not identify, appear unattractive and have foreign accents? The only better way I could think of would be a neon arrow above Aladdin's head reading, "HERO --> WE LIKE HIM," and a similar neon arrow above Jafaar's head reading, "VILLIAN --> WE DISLIKE HIM."
Giroux's point about Aladdin was the only one I wanted to contest. The rest of the things he said about Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, and The Lion King were observations with which I agreed, for the most part.
The bottom line must be, I feel, that children are not as impressionable as we may think. Also, what is being read by one is not necessarily being read by another.

By the way, he didn't mention Mulan and the raging chauvinistic sexism in it seemingly obvious to one such as Giroux. Within the historical context, sexism is unavoidable in a story like that. However, I'm including my favorite song of the movie (from YouTube) in this blog. If somone can find an underlying prejudice here, let me know.

'Culture, Meaning, Knowledge'

I felt as though this chapter had not really presented new material, but rather re-hashed over the previous material in new lights. There was one thing that especially caught my attention.
It was the section entitled, "Language and Psychoanalysis: Lacan." This is Lacan's reading of Freud and what most interested me was how he put the human unconscious in a language structure. This is something with which I wholeheartedly agree. It communicates, just as we consciously communicate.

Here's a question which semi-plagued me - does culture exist in the unconscious? Is it programmed as we are?

'Questions of Culture and Ideology'

Having read a second chapter in his book, I'm willing to admit that I was probably a little hasty in thinking that this Barker is, well, pretentious. There, I said it.
Anything involving the discussion of ideology is heavy without having to add culture to it. To delve into these things is a daunting task, and we're doing JUST THAT. Call me daunted.
I'm glad he took the time to mention the anthropological definition of culture because that field is precisely where that term was born. Now there is virtually no field which does not rely on cultural studies for one thing or another.
The description of culture builds exponentially and inevitably mentions classes and is therefore interceded by the forerunning ideals of Marxism. This is where Barker builds the bridge to the next section, "Ideological Analysis." This section held the most interest for me out of the entire chapter. Barker references something a Cantor fellow said about television shows and their representation of "typical" American families and lifestyles. I agree that there are negative consequences to this formulaic canon of American life, but I see different ones than those Barker listed. Many shows almost preach that a single and self-indulgent lifestyle is more rewarding than a self-sacrificing family life. That's the first trend with which I take issue. The second is the insanely excessive overdose (I hope these extreme words drive home the idea) of materialism. I realize that much television programming is meant to sell products, but too many shows go way overboard. Also, there's a social ideal represented in these things - they court both extremes (the social deviant as a shocker and the raving success as an example), but the middle is sadly neglected. Basically, the perspectives are tragically linear.
The video I've included in this blog is a series of clips from the late 80's to early 90's sitcom entitled "Roseanne." I got the video from YouTube. I've always loved this show, for many reasons. The primary reason was that it was slightly reminiscent of my own family life. Also, it seemed to be the only show where the family wasn't sickeningly rich and happy. In "Roseanne" the family was always just scraping by, nobody was unnaturally attractive, tomboyishness was represented, the house in question was in constant disarray - as was the family, and there was an afghan hanging over the couch. Basically, it was the most accurate portrayal of a lower middle class American family that I've seen (even now) on TV. It was never clean-cut, sometimes things didn't tie up, and no one lived happily ever after. They were dysfunctional and sometimes miserable, but they were happy in their own way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wievc5X5gb0

'An Introduction to Cultural Studies'

...except that I've never been involved in an introduction which lasted so long. I don't mind long, extensive reading, but I would like to feel like I'm learning something. I came away with very little from this. Sure when I go back after reflection and do some spot re-reading I'll probably understand it better, but I feel a little inadequate right now.

I'm sure this man, Chris Barker, is brilliant. I got that. I also understood what he said that cultural studies is sort of like a melting pot of theories and disciplines. What I did not understand, however, was the necessity for the immense emphasis on postmodernism and poststructuralism. It felt as though they were unfairly represented - especially for an introductory chapter.

By the way, is he so postmodern that he can't speak English? Really?

I'm not an idiot, and I'm not lazy. I spent a lot of time on this reading, so maybe my thickheadedness is due to being inundated with so much information and studying - such is the lament of many a student.

I expect that once the class and professor discusses this, I'll have a better understanding and appreciation of this. I probably just haven't had enough time to digest this.

That said, what I did understand in the reading and therefore about cultural studies in general thus far, is eerily well represented in this random picture I came across. It's from a site called libcom.org and I believe it was originally made or used in conjuction with an article about physics. However, I see a strong representation of cultural studies in this picture. There are things on the outside looking in, there are things on the outside looking out, the main mass is being suspended in midair and we have no idea how it is being suspended. Also, the more you study it, the more you understand it.

That's it for now. I will write again soon.

No, seriously. I'm being graded.