"GIRLS" is often seen as the modern "Sex and the City". The shows are very similar in that both are based on four different women living in New York City. Both series focus on sex and relationships, as well as friendship. While they have their similarities they are also very different.
There are two major differences between the shows; first off, "Sex in the City" is about older women, around their mid-thirties and older. This clearly brings about a whole different crowd of viewers. The characters are constructed around what is supposed to be real women living in New York City, just like "GIRLS" but for older women. Both main characters are writers, but Carrie Bradshaw becomes successful; she publishes a book and is on the cover of magazines and is well-known throughout the city. Not one of the characters every truly struggles with money. When Carrie goes through a rough patch she has all of her friends and Big to offer her the money she needs.
Another huge difference would be the time that the shows were produced. "Sex and the City" began filming in 1998 and lasted until 2004 (not including the two movies). GIRLS, on the other hand, began in April of 2012, just under two years ago. These differences make it hard to compare the series since they are vital factors. However, I think we can compare the progression of HBO instead.
While I absolutely love "Sex and the City", I do think that it plays into some of the roles our society expects the media to produce. All four of the women are, or can be, very independent, self-reliant women. However most of them turn to men when they start to feel alone. Carrie Bradshaw is a glamorous writer living in NYC. She has a pretty decent apartment and no doubt spends all of her excess income on designer shoes and clothes. That is her trademark! Have you ever thought about how she has the money to do that though? She has a new outfit every episode, multiple even. Yet she often struggles to keep steady income as a writer, just like Hannah! Carrie does write a book at some point in the series and writes for a high-profile fashion magazine, but it isn't clear how she has enough money to buy extremely prices clothes. This just shows women that if they want to be glamorous and score men like she does, they have to be overly focused on their appearance, even though it is clearly not as easy as the show makes it seem to earn the income that would allow any woman to do that. Now, Carrie is at least a decade older than Hannah, but I do think that Hannah is a much more honest representation of reality in this case. Hannah is striving to be a successful writer in NYC and she is constantly searching for a way to support herself; her struggles are made clear throughout the series. Hannah has yet to succeed in her ambitions, but maybe that is something we will see in a later season. Either way, I don't think Hannah would change herself to fit this glamorous ideal even if she became successful. If I had never seen the show GIRLS and had watched "Sex and the City", I would think that if I moved to New York City I would have a lot of self-adjusting to do. I might would go waste some money on some over-priced styles, because that is what "Sex in the City" shows you is reality. If you followed the series for all 6 years, you are likely to start forgetting that it is just a TV show, and start believing these women are real. If I watched GIRLS before I moved to NYC, I would be much more excited about the move and much more comfortable in my skin. This is one way I think HBO has progressed in the past decade. It is becoming okay to show a true reality!
We can't forget the other lovely ladies! Jessa could be seen as a modern day Samantha, despite the glamour. Samantha is one of the strongest characters on "Sex and the City", but also takes on this over-the-top glam aspect. She does have a better paying career as a publicist, but is never seen even remotely dressed down. She is always in a sexy outfit with bling and cleavage. I think this is an interesting contrast to GIRLS' Jessa. As I have talked about before, Jessa is much more conservative than Samantha in the way she portrays herself, yet she is probably equally as sexual. She is known to have a few crazy outfits, but they never make her look too sexy or slutty. This is the biggest difference between these two important characters. If we look back a decade, we find Samantha who scores bucketloads of attractive men, never without her overly sexual attire. This plays into everything I have talked about in this blog. She is the epitome of the male fantasy. She has the perfect body, she is blonde and experienced, she will talk dirty to any man that appeals to her, and take him home without a second thought. I don't think that her character was created to attract male viewers, so why have her in the show? She is supposed to represent sexual women in the city, but it is done in a way that satisfies men, which only tells women they should look and act like her if they want to be sexual. Jessa is a major progression from this. I think that if anyone told Jessa to dress a certain way she would laugh in their face. She is purely herself, guaranteed. Yet she doesn't act over the top, she doesn't change herself to attract men. I believe she is a much better representation of actual women. She shows how you can be as sexual as you want, but you don't have to change yourself for a man. This says a lot about how HBO has grown throughout the past decade. HBO is allowing producers to modernize, and speak the truth about reality.
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Frat Boys
So about that little form I showed you in the previous post. I went to my econ class one day and my professor came in and found a stack of papers on the podium...she was shocked. She put it up on the projector so we could all see what she found. It took me a second to realize what it was, but then I was shocked as well. Apparently members of some fraternity are sitting around in Showker hall filling out forms like this! One guy in my class owned up to it being his fraternity, Alpha Kappa Psi, A BUSINESS fraternity. Yet they are passing around this to fill out in their meetings? He insisted that it was nothing. I mean I can see a tiny bit of humor in this but that isn't even the point. How can you even lump preferred booze and "Specific comments about dress (stomach showing, legs, etc.)" together? I don't know what the intention of this was when it was created but the guy that created it seemed to have no problem lumping women and booze together. Why even call it "comments about dress" when they are talking about parts that aren't dressed? "PROP (would you like one)" that is ridiculous. I could be overthinking this, but I think it is easy to assume what that meant!
I honestly find this extremely shocking and disappointing. These are guys in a business fraternity, the men that are going to wind up running businesses one day! This really says a lot about what men think is okay to think about women. Why would you fill this out anyways? Why ask each other these questions? If you look at it as a whole it looks like there is going to be a party or something and whoever is having it wants to know what alcohol to get and what kind of girls to go out and bring to the party so these brothers can use their little "props". That's probably a huge stretch but that's what it looks like. How can men even think its okay to sit down and write this stuff about women. It shows just how much women are seen as objects. This little joke makes me feel like they see women like toys. This whole thing is just NOT OKAY.
So the thing is, where does this come from? I'm definitely going to argue that this idea comes from the media. I immediately think back to the movie we watched in class about women in music videos, and at the end they showed riots where women were getting harassed. Its like men see women as so over sexualized in the media that they begin to think it is normal and that it is okay to think of them as objects. The media so often portrays women in that light, sexual toys for men to keep around, or loving girlfriends who will do anything to keep their man happy. Its all for the man, always. That is just not reality, and until this stops being shown on TV and in music videos, men AND women are going to keep seeing those roles as realistic. We all know this is a problem by now, but seeing it show up in my everyday life in such a socking way just really makes you think how bad the problem is.
Let's look at a few specific music videos:
Now if you know me, you know I absolutely love Drake. It pains me to have to write something negative about him, or even think about the fact that he's not perfect. I've always thought, and still think, that Drake loves women...but this video couldn't feed into this post any better. I chose to watch a Drake video because I don't typically think of him as having slutty women surrounding him at all times like other rappers, I thought he might be an exception. Go ahead and watch the whole thing before you read on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxgqpCdOKak
So the first thing you probably noticed was the fact that this girl just looks like a male fantasy the entire time. She looks plastic and she is half naked.
Mainly, this video just goes beyond the necessary level of violence. This has probably been my favorite song for a few weeks now, and I've thought it was about Drake being with some girl and them wanting to go home together....but no, its about a woman getting kidnapped in her home and then having a war over her.
The white man that threatens her says that "he took what was mine, so I'm taking what's his", exactly like she is an object. Like they can just pass her around as a bargaining chip, even out a deal. Women are just not objects in any way, and even if someone would capture your girlfriend to get revenge, why advertise it in a music video? Why promote it?
The whole time I was watching I was just thinking about all of the ridiculous video games that guys play where all they do is shoot people. This is what that looked like to me, plus the sexy woman standing in the middle of it. The whole thing is a huge male fantasy, and it is produced loaded with violence like it is normal and okay. It's like if you are rich and famous like Drake, you should also have a shed full of guns because you will probably get into a minor war once in a while over a naked woman. The media just continues to feed into this fantasy like there is no problem with it, but it is embedded into the minds of everyday men.
Maybe you watched it with a different eye, and saw it as Drake loving this woman so much that he will start a war over her, risk his life for her. I can see that side being great, I'd love for Drake to love me that much! Either way, it's like the woman is just reliant on the man here. There really isn't even a way to show anything positive about women at all in the entire video. The more this goes on and is seen by the public, the more realistic it seems and the more it becomes a very serious problem for women.
I don't want to just focus on Drake, so I forced myself to watch this next music video. It was also pretty painful to watch, but in an entirely different way. I'm going to apologize right now that I'm making you watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbEoRnaOIbs
First of all, Miley should never attempt to rap, or shake her non-existent butt anywhere near black cheerleaders.
This video didn't have much violence like the last but Miley does a perfect job in showing you exactly how the media expects women to act. She's going through this desperate phase of wanting too much attention, and she knows how to get it: over sexualize herself! I'm going to try to stick to the video specifically and not rant about Miley, but in my opinion she is doing everything wrong. She has acquired this huge amount of power in the media recently that she could channel into a positive image of women, but she is pushing it in the opposite direction. The entire time she sits with her legs wide open, or touches herself, or licks something. This is clearly made for men, 100%. No straight woman is going to choose to watch this video to watch her dance around like that for entertainment. Don't forget the cheerleaders, who wear way less clothing than any real cheerleader, and shake their butts in the camera or on each other. This whole video is just a prime/recent example of everything we saw in the movie about women in music videos. It is still a huge problem. The whole purpose of every girl in that video is to look sexy and get male viewers. It just reinforces this terrible image created of women. They are always dancing around the rappers, showing off.
If you think about the fact that you just watched two top videos right now, you might wonder what's in all of the other videos you haven't seen. I can probably guarantee that most of them are just as bad. There is a strong combination of oversexualization of women and violence! That is not a good pair. It is stuff like this that makes men think it is okay to sit around and talk about women like these frat boys are doing. Living in a society that sees these videos as okay definitely provides reason for this guy to think his paper isn't a big deal. These videos, and other types of media show women as objects regularly, so why should these guys even be expected to think otherwise? It has been so ingrained in them! I don't think this will change until there is a substantial change in the media.
Of course I argue that GIRLS is a great start to this change, but lets be honest, what men watch this show? The programming made for men continues to show women in this way, and until that changes men will continue to think of women this way. These music artists are definitely to blame for setting these standards. So next time you think of supporting someone like Miley, think of what you are really standing for.
I honestly find this extremely shocking and disappointing. These are guys in a business fraternity, the men that are going to wind up running businesses one day! This really says a lot about what men think is okay to think about women. Why would you fill this out anyways? Why ask each other these questions? If you look at it as a whole it looks like there is going to be a party or something and whoever is having it wants to know what alcohol to get and what kind of girls to go out and bring to the party so these brothers can use their little "props". That's probably a huge stretch but that's what it looks like. How can men even think its okay to sit down and write this stuff about women. It shows just how much women are seen as objects. This little joke makes me feel like they see women like toys. This whole thing is just NOT OKAY.
So the thing is, where does this come from? I'm definitely going to argue that this idea comes from the media. I immediately think back to the movie we watched in class about women in music videos, and at the end they showed riots where women were getting harassed. Its like men see women as so over sexualized in the media that they begin to think it is normal and that it is okay to think of them as objects. The media so often portrays women in that light, sexual toys for men to keep around, or loving girlfriends who will do anything to keep their man happy. Its all for the man, always. That is just not reality, and until this stops being shown on TV and in music videos, men AND women are going to keep seeing those roles as realistic. We all know this is a problem by now, but seeing it show up in my everyday life in such a socking way just really makes you think how bad the problem is.
Let's look at a few specific music videos:
Now if you know me, you know I absolutely love Drake. It pains me to have to write something negative about him, or even think about the fact that he's not perfect. I've always thought, and still think, that Drake loves women...but this video couldn't feed into this post any better. I chose to watch a Drake video because I don't typically think of him as having slutty women surrounding him at all times like other rappers, I thought he might be an exception. Go ahead and watch the whole thing before you read on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxgqpCdOKak
So the first thing you probably noticed was the fact that this girl just looks like a male fantasy the entire time. She looks plastic and she is half naked.
Mainly, this video just goes beyond the necessary level of violence. This has probably been my favorite song for a few weeks now, and I've thought it was about Drake being with some girl and them wanting to go home together....but no, its about a woman getting kidnapped in her home and then having a war over her.
The white man that threatens her says that "he took what was mine, so I'm taking what's his", exactly like she is an object. Like they can just pass her around as a bargaining chip, even out a deal. Women are just not objects in any way, and even if someone would capture your girlfriend to get revenge, why advertise it in a music video? Why promote it?
The whole time I was watching I was just thinking about all of the ridiculous video games that guys play where all they do is shoot people. This is what that looked like to me, plus the sexy woman standing in the middle of it. The whole thing is a huge male fantasy, and it is produced loaded with violence like it is normal and okay. It's like if you are rich and famous like Drake, you should also have a shed full of guns because you will probably get into a minor war once in a while over a naked woman. The media just continues to feed into this fantasy like there is no problem with it, but it is embedded into the minds of everyday men.
Maybe you watched it with a different eye, and saw it as Drake loving this woman so much that he will start a war over her, risk his life for her. I can see that side being great, I'd love for Drake to love me that much! Either way, it's like the woman is just reliant on the man here. There really isn't even a way to show anything positive about women at all in the entire video. The more this goes on and is seen by the public, the more realistic it seems and the more it becomes a very serious problem for women.
I don't want to just focus on Drake, so I forced myself to watch this next music video. It was also pretty painful to watch, but in an entirely different way. I'm going to apologize right now that I'm making you watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbEoRnaOIbs
First of all, Miley should never attempt to rap, or shake her non-existent butt anywhere near black cheerleaders.
This video didn't have much violence like the last but Miley does a perfect job in showing you exactly how the media expects women to act. She's going through this desperate phase of wanting too much attention, and she knows how to get it: over sexualize herself! I'm going to try to stick to the video specifically and not rant about Miley, but in my opinion she is doing everything wrong. She has acquired this huge amount of power in the media recently that she could channel into a positive image of women, but she is pushing it in the opposite direction. The entire time she sits with her legs wide open, or touches herself, or licks something. This is clearly made for men, 100%. No straight woman is going to choose to watch this video to watch her dance around like that for entertainment. Don't forget the cheerleaders, who wear way less clothing than any real cheerleader, and shake their butts in the camera or on each other. This whole video is just a prime/recent example of everything we saw in the movie about women in music videos. It is still a huge problem. The whole purpose of every girl in that video is to look sexy and get male viewers. It just reinforces this terrible image created of women. They are always dancing around the rappers, showing off.
If you think about the fact that you just watched two top videos right now, you might wonder what's in all of the other videos you haven't seen. I can probably guarantee that most of them are just as bad. There is a strong combination of oversexualization of women and violence! That is not a good pair. It is stuff like this that makes men think it is okay to sit around and talk about women like these frat boys are doing. Living in a society that sees these videos as okay definitely provides reason for this guy to think his paper isn't a big deal. These videos, and other types of media show women as objects regularly, so why should these guys even be expected to think otherwise? It has been so ingrained in them! I don't think this will change until there is a substantial change in the media.
Of course I argue that GIRLS is a great start to this change, but lets be honest, what men watch this show? The programming made for men continues to show women in this way, and until that changes men will continue to think of women this way. These music artists are definitely to blame for setting these standards. So next time you think of supporting someone like Miley, think of what you are really standing for.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Coming soon!
There are quite a few topics I really want to get into in the next week or so. Here is a little preview, which will also ensure that I get on the ball and write them:
This is the first of them
This is the first of them
This form was found by my econ Professor sitting on a podium in Showker! I'll let you read that and think about the things, apparently frat boys, are sitting around and discussing
-I'd like to touch on the differences between GIRLS and the classic "Sex in the City"
-The shows "Girl Code" and "Guy Code", and potentially the new MTV shows "Guy Court" and "The Hook Up"
-Also, I haven't discussed Marnie, the final of the main female characters on GIRLS
Hopefully this will motivate me to update more and will keep you interested!
|
Literally Blurred
This morning, as I was scrolling through my news feed on Facebook, I came across the latest post from Victoria's Secret, advertising new holiday underwear. Take a look:
Now if you can't zoom on the device you are reading this on, you may not even notice at all, but I made the photos as large as I could. How can you even possibly deny the amount of editing that has been done to these photos? I don't even know where to start, but for some reason I was just disturbed by this this morning. If you look at the outside of their legs, the lines are just blurred entirely, there is a fuzzy stop to their legs and butts. The blonde woman had her entire behind erased! If I were her, I would be highly disappointed with the way I looked! She actually doesn't even have a buttcheek, maybe has a slight pooch on the right, but that's it. Now look at where her thighs cross! Whoever edited that should be fired, both legs get cut off and squished together, but her legs are supposed to be crossed. It looks entirely too fake once you notice that. Then there's the fact that any tiny trace of a freckle, sunspot, or maybe a little dimple has been entirely deleted.
The girl in the top photo is trying to stick her butt out, but she doesn't have one and is just leaning forward. What is the point of that? Showing off that you don't have a butt? I just don't understand. The more you can zoom in the more you can see how very edited these photos are, every detail looks so digitalized! I mean, why do we even need models anymore if we are just going to change every single contour of their body? Why not just digitally create them? I'm sure that could be done.
I'm sure there are a few women out there who have bodies similar to this, but that is very uncommon. No one has an entirely flawless body. The question is, why does the media shove these images in women's faces? Does the perfection make women want to buy those panties? I'm not sure. I am definitely guilty of shopping at Victoria's Secret, and obviously I am subscribed to the Facebook page where I am constantly seeing their ads. Until now I've never really noticed HOW MUCH they are edited! Do we expect that when we buy these products we will look more like them? Why would we want to look like some of them?
So many women see these ads every day of their lives and compare themselves to them. Sometimes I think Victoria's Secret is awesome, the brand can be empowering for women! It makes them feel sexy, you just cant deny that, and I am ALL for women feeling sexy! The problem: Is Victoria's Secret cashing in on this by making this unrealistic body image? They photoshop women to be 100% flawless, so women see the ad and COMPARE THEMSELVES to these fake images. Then they feel like they have too much cellulite or their butt is too big, maybe even too small--either way you look at it, they are making beautiful women compare themselves to digitalized images. Then those women feel like if they buy that product they will be sexier. Victoria's secret is just commonly associated with sexy; if you buy it and wear it, it is likely you might feel more sexy. They are cashing in on this, big time! Think about ads you've seen for other brands of lingerie, maybe the models looked more like everyday women--did you want to go buy that product? I don't think so.
We fall for this, and even worse, I'm still going to shop there. That sexy feeling is not going to change, but women need to realize what they are comparing themselves to. What I want to know is if Victoria's Secret knows that they have this huge contradiction in their brand. They give women this power to feel like a sex goddess, but they give them false images of what that actually looks like. They lower self esteem in order to get a profit, but is this intentional? Maybe they just want their models to look perfect and they aren't taking into account the way they affect the consumers.
No matter what intention Victoria's Secret has, many brands use heavy amounts of photo-editing. Women need to be aware that the images they are looking at in all of this advertisement is extremely unrealistic. If we, as consumers, look at ads with a more critical eye, maybe we will think twice about the products we buy and the way the ads make us feel about ourselves.
Clearly Lena Dunham is not in advertisement or lingerie modeling, but she has every bit to do with this when she is shameless of her body image on her show. Hannah, as we have seen in a previous post, is often seen stripped down, and completely unedited and exposed. This is a sharp contrast to the thousands of other images women see on televison (and other media). Even Jessa and Marnie, who are gorgeous, have flaws that you can see throughout the show. If there were more producers, or actors that were willing to look "imperfect" on screen, the self-esteem of women everywhere could be increased dramatically.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
The Ugly Truth
A few days ago I turned on the TV to find the movie "The Ugly Truth" starring Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler. I realized I hadn't seen the movie in a while and thought maybe it would be a good thing to look at for this blog.
The whole movie is about Katherine Heigl's character, Abby, trying to change herself so that a man she likes will like her in return. Gerard Butler's character, Mike, has a TV show called "The Ugly Truth" where he talks about the truth about men.
She changes everything about herself, from the way she talks, dresses, the way she thinks about sex, and her overall attitude. Mike is constantly helping her change with the advice he gives her about men. While his advice is successful in helping her score the man she wanted, she realizes that in the end he doesn't even like her, he likes what Mike has made her.
While I think it is important that the viewer understands that it is wrong to change yourself for a man, the movie lacks any discussion or controversy over the way Mike actually wants her to act. He wants her to wear a different bra, wants her to eat her food sexually, wants her to dangle her sexuality in front of the guy so he will "fall in love" with her. The problem with this is that it is purely a man's eye, having nothing to do with a woman's sexuality.
The movie also shows scenes with almost naked girls rolling around in jello pools and twins wrapped around Mike's arms. This film continuously feeds into the male fantasy. This is just like what I previously discussed about women in music videos. The media continues to cater to men, and at some point, women start to view it as the norm as well. The movie shows how she doesn't really love the other guy in the end, because he doesn't like her for her, but she falls for Mike. In the end, does this really say that its okay to be yourself, and embrace your own ways and own sexuality? She didn't revert back to her old self entirely in the end, and she wound up with an attractive man who looks at women in this way!
If anything, I think that this movie says a lot about the male fantasy and the role that it plays in many types of media. Maybe it is the ugly truth that men think this way, but women should have to change themselves to score a great man.
This is when I start to think about Lena Dunham again. Just thinking about her, and her character on "GIRLS", Hannah, completely contradicts Abby's character. I think about if Hannah had been put in this situation...
Say Hannah has a crush on her new, cute neighbor, and a man tries to help her get him. If he told her to change the same things that Mike told Abby to change, I think that Hannah would think they were ridiculous. Maybe she would try some new makeup, but she would give up and say fuck it. Her character doesn't just do this to be abnormal, she does it because she is a woman and she knows who she is. I don't think that Lena Dunham would ever allow one of her characters to be so affected by such a stereotypical male. It is also rare that you see this huge male fantasy anywhere in her show. The sex scenes are raw and almost always painfully awkward to watch, that's probably because she doesn't lie about the content. When a man creates this kind of situation he dolls up the girl, makes sure her body is (unnaturally) perfect, and creates her like a pornstar. Lena Dunham just shows the reality of what she thinks happens in the lives of young women.
This contrast makes me wonder if there would be more of a change if there were less films like "The Ugly Truth" and more like "GIRLS". We cannot forget that the viewers of both of these are primarily women. "The Ugly Truth" is a romantic comedy, it is not made for men, yet we still see it catering to their ideals. If women were more exposed to shows lacking this false ideal, would women still think about themselves the same way?
The whole movie is about Katherine Heigl's character, Abby, trying to change herself so that a man she likes will like her in return. Gerard Butler's character, Mike, has a TV show called "The Ugly Truth" where he talks about the truth about men.
She changes everything about herself, from the way she talks, dresses, the way she thinks about sex, and her overall attitude. Mike is constantly helping her change with the advice he gives her about men. While his advice is successful in helping her score the man she wanted, she realizes that in the end he doesn't even like her, he likes what Mike has made her.
While I think it is important that the viewer understands that it is wrong to change yourself for a man, the movie lacks any discussion or controversy over the way Mike actually wants her to act. He wants her to wear a different bra, wants her to eat her food sexually, wants her to dangle her sexuality in front of the guy so he will "fall in love" with her. The problem with this is that it is purely a man's eye, having nothing to do with a woman's sexuality.
The movie also shows scenes with almost naked girls rolling around in jello pools and twins wrapped around Mike's arms. This film continuously feeds into the male fantasy. This is just like what I previously discussed about women in music videos. The media continues to cater to men, and at some point, women start to view it as the norm as well. The movie shows how she doesn't really love the other guy in the end, because he doesn't like her for her, but she falls for Mike. In the end, does this really say that its okay to be yourself, and embrace your own ways and own sexuality? She didn't revert back to her old self entirely in the end, and she wound up with an attractive man who looks at women in this way!
If anything, I think that this movie says a lot about the male fantasy and the role that it plays in many types of media. Maybe it is the ugly truth that men think this way, but women should have to change themselves to score a great man.
This is when I start to think about Lena Dunham again. Just thinking about her, and her character on "GIRLS", Hannah, completely contradicts Abby's character. I think about if Hannah had been put in this situation...
Say Hannah has a crush on her new, cute neighbor, and a man tries to help her get him. If he told her to change the same things that Mike told Abby to change, I think that Hannah would think they were ridiculous. Maybe she would try some new makeup, but she would give up and say fuck it. Her character doesn't just do this to be abnormal, she does it because she is a woman and she knows who she is. I don't think that Lena Dunham would ever allow one of her characters to be so affected by such a stereotypical male. It is also rare that you see this huge male fantasy anywhere in her show. The sex scenes are raw and almost always painfully awkward to watch, that's probably because she doesn't lie about the content. When a man creates this kind of situation he dolls up the girl, makes sure her body is (unnaturally) perfect, and creates her like a pornstar. Lena Dunham just shows the reality of what she thinks happens in the lives of young women.
This contrast makes me wonder if there would be more of a change if there were less films like "The Ugly Truth" and more like "GIRLS". We cannot forget that the viewers of both of these are primarily women. "The Ugly Truth" is a romantic comedy, it is not made for men, yet we still see it catering to their ideals. If women were more exposed to shows lacking this false ideal, would women still think about themselves the same way?
Monday, October 14, 2013
The Biggest Line
Do you ever think about the contradiction created about women's sexuality in our society? The media presents women as overly-sexualized yet the other half of the time women are presented as reserved and pure. Everyone knows there is a double standard when it comes to sex. Men praise each other for having sex with lots of women, yet if a woman did that, she would be called a whore. Once again, women are still shown as being over-sexualized in the media, yet we want them to be innocent? That makes absolutely no sense. Men want their partners to be experienced and sexy, but somewhat untouched by other men. Of course, there are exceptions and there are plenty of people that have moved past this horrible standard, but how can we expect women to be two completely different things? Girls care more about waiting for the "right guy" or waiting until they feel like a guy won't leave her if she sleeps with him. I have to ask if women would still do this if there wasn't such an emphasis on girls keeping it "ladylike" or "conservative". Would we just sleep with a man once we felt attracted to them enough to do it, and not worry if he will call you again or if he won't ask you on another date? Why do men get that power over women? Lena Dunham almost completely ignores this whole double standard on her show "GIRLS". Not once do we see a character sitting around saying, "should I sleep with him yet? What if he doesn't want to date me after?" In fact, Shoshanna, the virgin of the show actually shows the opposite. She is almost embarrassed that she is a virgin and she wants to have sex. Now she doesn't go to a club and find an attractive, random, man to take home, but I would argue that just isn't in her personality. She reconnects with a guy she had known from camp when she was younger. They hang out one day, and she decides this is a comfortable situation for her to lose her virginity in. She gets close to having sex with him and tells him that she is a virgin (only as a warning because she is scared she will bleed), and guess what? He freaks out. She said, "I'm totally ready to have sex, I've just never had sex before, so I just thought I'd tell you that." He wont have sex with her because of it; he rolls off of her and says "it's really not my thing". Would he have had sex with her if she had already slept with 20 men? I don't know. There is this very blurred line around women's sexuality and what is expected of them. Shoshanna was given this opportunity to explore her sexuality (as a college-aged woman) and denied because she was too virginal, she tried to convince him she wouldn't get attatched. Let me remind you, she never sat around wondering if he'd date her or anything after. I can't count the number of times I have talked to a girlfriend about whether I should, or she should have sex with a guy I've been seeing because of the fear that he will then think you're "easy" and run away. So where are men satisfied? Why should we satisfy them? Shoshanna was trying to do something for herself, and he got freaked out. If you have an HBO account, or another way to watch the show, I encourage you to watch this on episode 4 of season 1. Everyone has their personal opinion on what is too much or too little, but should the media be putting those opinions in our head? Without all of the almost naked women and innocent, prude women on TV, what would women's sexuality really look like? I have no way of answering that, but I think that Lena Dunham creates a more realistic world for women in her show. Hannah has sex with who she wants, when she wants, and the guys don't pass judgement on her. She never sits around with Marnie and wonders whether she should hold out on Adam, her love interest, in order to make him like her more. It is ridiculous that young women search and search for balance between seeming conservative and still sexy in order to keep some guy around. I'd like to remind any girl that has ever thought about that that if a guy stops talking to you after you had sex with him, he is definitely not a guy you want to make your boyfriend. He clearly doesn't like you for you. The media completely ignores this simple fact all of the time. So where is the line? I say there isn't one, or there isn't one overriding rule for every woman. The media makes women feel like they shouldn't be sluts but they should be sexual and experienced, so would they also just like to tell us to have sex with 4 men ever and if you are below that you're prude, and above you're a slut? Some young women sit around and wonder if a guy is worth wasting a NUMBER on. How crazy is that? A number, it is a thought in your head that controls your experience. Would this limit we set exist if the media didn't present women in these lights? If the media were more honest and realistic like on "GIRLS", would we care what people think, or about numbers? Or would we just be able to do what we want and what we feel comfortable with? This extremely blurred line in the media should just be erased, because in reality it doesn't exist.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Hannah Horvath
Lena Dunham plays Hannah on "Girls", but is also the creator, producer, and writer of the show itself. She is an outstanding figure in the media, her hit show has shown HBO subscribers the reality of young women. Focus on that fact for a second: seen by HBO subscribers. Personally, I watch "Girls", and other HBO series by using a friend's account, or finding the show online somewhere, illegally. Many people are not subscribed to HBO and don't know about the show "Girls", so they aren't going to take that extra step to find a way to watch it. The only way to get HBO straight on your TV is to pay for a whole premium package with your cable provider, which most people don't want to spend to watch a special series or two. With this, the audience of "Girls" is very limited. However, the audience that is reached by this remarkable show may be lucky enough to get Lena's message of reality. She uses four unique young women to represent different women in their early twenties. This show is often seen as the new, younger twist on "Sex in the City", and there are certainly many things the show has in common. "Girls" shows the reality of what its like to be a young woman in our society. I think that is what makes the show so great, the characters are extremely relatable; they talk to each other the way real girls their age act with their friends, they make the same crazy decisions, they go through the same awkward relationships. In my previous post I talked about Jessa, who could be the modern, younger version of Samantha from "Sex in the City". Her character is real and relatable, and is nothing like the sexual woman we are use to seeing on MTV and E! and other mainstream networks.
Hannah is somewhat different than Jessa in that she isn't a bombshell. Hannah dresses poorly, doesn't know how to carry herself, or do her makeup, she doesn't know how to be the perfect intern or the perfect girlfriend. All of these things just make her more real to women in our society though, there are plenty of characteristics of Hannah I could see in myself, or in my best friend, or sister. We all have flaws, and Hannah embraces them and continues to live her life without letting them affect her. This is special because in our society, the media makes us think that women can't be like Hannah, they aren't like Hannah often, but this is beyond untrue.
Think of the Kardashians, none of the sisters did much to be famous, and they are looked up to as perfect by thousands of women. They are curvier, and sometimes relatable in their family relationships, so it is a little more believable that women can look like them. We find one thing to relate to, and then it seems possible to be like them, we want to look like them. What's not to love about their long luscious hairstyles, and their perfect tan skin? Well society is forgetting how many hours they spend doing their hair, makeup, and training to have perfect bodies. What woman has time for that, and the money?
Lena Dunham is a voice against this kind of presence in the media when she simply shows the truth about women. Hannah can be naked on screen, with her imperfect body, and pale skin, and she can still be loved by men and by her female friends. She has no job, most of the time, so she has no money to go buy tons of makeup and hair extensions, to make her look like every other male fantasy in New York. Lena is helping to define the "blurred lines" our society, and media struggle to understand: that may be that there are no lines. Women shouldn't have to fall into categories, or be limited in their sexuality in any way. Jessa shows how women don't have to fit the media's view of whore-like women to indulge in their sexuality. Hannah, on the other hand shows how all women can be themselves and still be loved and engage in sexual relationships.
Lets do a little experiment, listen to this scenario:
One day a man walks in to a café next door to his house in New York City, and wants to speak with the owner because the cafe's trash keeps winding up in his dumpster. Turns out it is the young girl that works there, and has decided to be rebellious. She winds up paying the man a visit, and winds up sleeping with him and staying a few days, hanging out around the house naked and having sex with this complete stranger. Now what did you picture when you thought of that woman?
Was the girl you pictured something like this? An attractive girl with a mischievous look on her face, she's been throwing the trash in the neighbors dumpster just so she could meet that man? Am I wrong for thinking that this is an accurate guess? This is what the media would probably pose that girl as. She is attractive, someone you would want to be naked in your house for a few days, but this is by far a male, pornographic media that has created this way of thinking. Well, let me tell you now that Hannah Horvath did this exact thing in season 2 of "Girls" and she looks like this:
Hannah is somewhat different than Jessa in that she isn't a bombshell. Hannah dresses poorly, doesn't know how to carry herself, or do her makeup, she doesn't know how to be the perfect intern or the perfect girlfriend. All of these things just make her more real to women in our society though, there are plenty of characteristics of Hannah I could see in myself, or in my best friend, or sister. We all have flaws, and Hannah embraces them and continues to live her life without letting them affect her. This is special because in our society, the media makes us think that women can't be like Hannah, they aren't like Hannah often, but this is beyond untrue.
Think of the Kardashians, none of the sisters did much to be famous, and they are looked up to as perfect by thousands of women. They are curvier, and sometimes relatable in their family relationships, so it is a little more believable that women can look like them. We find one thing to relate to, and then it seems possible to be like them, we want to look like them. What's not to love about their long luscious hairstyles, and their perfect tan skin? Well society is forgetting how many hours they spend doing their hair, makeup, and training to have perfect bodies. What woman has time for that, and the money?
Lena Dunham is a voice against this kind of presence in the media when she simply shows the truth about women. Hannah can be naked on screen, with her imperfect body, and pale skin, and she can still be loved by men and by her female friends. She has no job, most of the time, so she has no money to go buy tons of makeup and hair extensions, to make her look like every other male fantasy in New York. Lena is helping to define the "blurred lines" our society, and media struggle to understand: that may be that there are no lines. Women shouldn't have to fall into categories, or be limited in their sexuality in any way. Jessa shows how women don't have to fit the media's view of whore-like women to indulge in their sexuality. Hannah, on the other hand shows how all women can be themselves and still be loved and engage in sexual relationships.
Lets do a little experiment, listen to this scenario:
One day a man walks in to a café next door to his house in New York City, and wants to speak with the owner because the cafe's trash keeps winding up in his dumpster. Turns out it is the young girl that works there, and has decided to be rebellious. She winds up paying the man a visit, and winds up sleeping with him and staying a few days, hanging out around the house naked and having sex with this complete stranger. Now what did you picture when you thought of that woman?
Was the girl you pictured something like this? An attractive girl with a mischievous look on her face, she's been throwing the trash in the neighbors dumpster just so she could meet that man? Am I wrong for thinking that this is an accurate guess? This is what the media would probably pose that girl as. She is attractive, someone you would want to be naked in your house for a few days, but this is by far a male, pornographic media that has created this way of thinking. Well, let me tell you now that Hannah Horvath did this exact thing in season 2 of "Girls" and she looks like this: 
I will leave you with that thought for now. Why didn't you picture that girl being someone like Hannah?
(This photo of her is also actually from the episode this happened, she is in the man's house in the shot)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)