I also don’t think there is gender parity in the comedy world. There are mostly male comedians, males directing comedies and they are films/shows directed towards a male audience. And those few women who are successful, such as Sarah Silverman, are somewhat obnoxious and buy into a kind of raunchy comedy that is similar to their male counterparts. Yet, I also feel conflicted because although I may not support what she thinks is funny, I am glad that she has her own show and that she has a presence on the comedy scene.

No brainer.

While I found Knocked Up downright boring, trite, and un-funny, Superbad was one laugh away from a comedic masterpiece. Granted, a comedic masterpiece that uses women as pretty holes along with outlandish scenarios, but still, hysterical. Oh… and I loved the women-respecting skinny kid (SK). Loved him. He was the one who drew me into the movie in the first place. Also loved how there was the gay subplot between the two main characters, what with the dick drawings and the sleeping bag pillow talk. Again, with the loser boys and the hot girls coming together, but with no interrogation as to why women have no agency or funny lines themselves.

Maybe it’s because women and men have internalized these scripts that consistently cast women as the audience, the ones who laugh at the jokes instead of make them.

This reminds me of Aristotle’s binary between the mind and the body… and the woman is associated with the body through pregnancy (Knocked Up), menstruation (a woman bleeds on the main character’s jeans), or sex (just a hole to use for pleasure). Instead of portraying woman as multi-faceted, women get pigeon holed into one type of sexuality (hetero, of course), one body type (thin), one gender (female, no trans-people), and one type of person (audience as opposed to comedian).

Thank God for Feminism, is all I’ll say.

This may seem off topic, but i promise I’ll tie it in.  I’m a people watcher.  I am a very observant person.  And in my observations of couples, whether it be a guy and a girl, a girl and girl, whatever be the case, I have noticed that the more masculine person always tends to get most laughs.  I always hear girls laughing at something a guy says, yet the guy never gives a hearty laugh to anything a girl may say.   Even when people are being just plain silly, the guys are usually the ones to go out on a limb and make asses of themselves for the sake of comedy.  Speaking from the experience of being in a sorority, some girls would be caught dead before they made a funny face or laughed at something that they did.  This is not just with girls.  There are a lot of people who would never look stupid in order to be funny.  I’ve narrowed it down to an issue of being self-conscious.  The people that are most self-conscious about themselves, are usually never funny. Why? Because they are too afraid of not looking cool or making themselves look dumb.  For the most part, women are usually the ones that are more self-conscious because that is what society has taught women.  That we need to look pretty, be polite, and graciously laugh at other people’s jokes. Even some guys will never act goofy or tell stupid jokes because they are also too concerned with being considered a manly-man or being thought sexy.

Well screw that!  People, in general, need to let go of insecurities and laugh a little, not at anyone’s expense.  Just relax and laugh.  I am a huge fan of both men and women who can do that.  Of course, women like Ellen, and even actresses like Cameron Diaz, who aren’t afraid to burp or snort or do things that are completely embarrassing. Unfortunately, right now humor is gendered. But it doesn’t need to stay that way.

Humor can be used to neutralize an otherwise threatening, alarming, or risky narrative. Humor makes touchy and thorny topics safe. In the movie “40-Year Old Virgin,” for example, women are mostly portrayed as sex objects. Taken at face value, the dialogue is crude and disgusting. Instead, it is framed within a humorous context which defuses what would otherwise be an unacceptable exchange. The humor is not only used to (acceptably) portray women as hyper-sexualized receptacles for male copulative function, but also to transform Andy’s depressingly pathetic and sexless life into a palatable comedy that, according to Box Office Mojo, grossed over $100 mil. What would the toe-sucking dream incident be without humor? Or the abundant references to genitalia without consistent comicality? Or using women to hone sex skills (also known as “slaying… hood rats”)? If the same lines were read with sobriety or frustration, the movie would likely be a sicko’s dream. Humor is essential to making these topics copasetic to the general public. 

Through humor, writers and producers can push the envelope of the socially acceptable. Although it may not succeed in admitting objectionable material into the mainstream, humor can negotiate its meaning and receptivity. What would typically be classified as completely unruly, deviant, or freakish behavior may be reassigned to the less offensive category of eccentric, or even avant-garde. 

I think there is something sinister about connecting humor with degradation of women though (which is what I believe the writers/producers of this movie have attempted). People like to laugh. If a writer associates what people like (laughter) with something objectionable like degradation, then is it possible that the association will make (in people’s minds) the degradation ok as well? I don’t know… just wondering.

            These movies support the idea of the two sexes as completely different.  On one side, you have the women.  The movies attempt to make fun of them by either making them: very emotional/irrational, over-sexed, or desperate for a man’s attention.  The man, on the other hand, is immature, emotionally unavailable, a slacker, or a cheater.  But their women end up loving them anyway.  It basically goes back to the idea that women are more mature than men, so men get away with being jerks because we had low expectations from them to begin with.  Women are responsible for helping the man become a better person.  Men, however, are not held responsible for anything – their own actions, their pitiful situations, or their degrading views on women.

            What was shocking was how often homophobic comments were made throughout these movies.  I understand that in a culture such as ours that highly values masculinity, it is imperative for a man to constantly prove that he is a true man in order retain respect among his friends.  However, these movies were extreme in the way that the male characters constantly derided each other throughout the movie, often for no apparent reason.  It was as if their favorite pastime was to sit around and think of ways to accuse each other of being gay.  Maybe it is the extremeness of that situation that is supposed to make these scenes funny.  I, however, was just disgusted.

            It’s not as if I have no sense of humor.  It’s actually quite the opposite.  I love goofy movies, and I am a huge Will Ferrell fan.  Yes, some of his movies can be a bit sexist; however what I like about his movies is how he always comes up with a new situation to act out.  He has a different character every time – whether that’s a news anchor, or an ice skater, or an elf.  And he always addresses the reality of men’s desire to fulfill society’s masculinity requirements.  However, the humor from his movies stems from the ridiculous situations in which he finds himself.  That’s a big contrast when compared to the movies that we watched for this week, which derived their humor primarily from the exaggeration of gender norms. 

            It’s a format that we’ve seen countless times.  Watching Knocked Up was like watching Homer Simpson in human form.  Yes, the main character was an idiot and said offensive things.  But deep down, he cared for the girl, and so we were supposed to forgive all his negative qualities (i.e. weed-smoking, being unemployed) that any other person would normally view as a hint that he perhaps is not ready for fatherhood.

            Overall, I was not happy with these movies.  They irritated me, they were predictable, and they made me feel better about being single.

I certainly laugh at these movies, but it seems like the same theme over and over again.  The three movies we watched pan out what is the expected normative behavior—for white males, living in suburbia—high school is the time when boys get high and try and get laid (Super Bad).  “40-year-old Virgin” illustrates what will happen if they don’t achieve this rite of passage into adulthood—a social awkward adult who is alone and has the social (mental) capability of a kid in high school.  “Knocked Up” focuses on the responsibilities of having a baby while entering a new relationship with a stranger. 

These, along with other movies and TV shows use women’s “hysteria” and other typical female characteristics as the comedy relief.  They also mock how men and women are suppose to behave, meaning—males should be masculine and women should be feminine therefore, continuing to imply the humor or comedic value of anyone less than normal.  This perpetuates the gendered norms, as well as other norms, because anything outside the norm is only socially acceptable if it is being made fun of—it’s like it’s only acceptable if  we can get a good laugh out of it.  But on the other hand, I guess being able to laugh at a situation that is uncomfortable or awkward could also be beneficial. 

Women, although there are some figures present in comedy, may develop a mental block about humor and gender similar to ones about, say, physics or math and gender, because the prominence of males and comedy—we’re all used to laughing at males.  Their characters in shows and movies can be funny, but are often done so by portraying them in a negative, gender stereotyped way.  If I could think of any general ideas, it would be that we laugh at the looseness of men (in terms of sex, manners, behavior, etc.) and the stiffness and perceived pettiness of women.  I was thinking about some of my favorite shows, like Family Guy.  Peter is the main figure who does a lot of ridiculously dumb stuff, and there’s the humor.  Stewie, Quagmire, Mayor West—they’re all crazy weird and do their weird antics, but they’re still considered funny, and people love them.  Lois and Meg, though, are essentially props to the male’s humor; they’re objects and are either the butt of jokes and the stupidity of Peter, or they just serve as subject matter.  I also thought about the presence of random, slapstick humor that stereotypically appeals to males more than females, but that’s a lot of what we get in the media today.  I think many women might not appreciate such humor, and might want more substantial and intelligent humor—this of course is seen as boring and less credible in a way, probably since it requires actual thought.

One of my favorite Futurama episodes involves the planet of the Amazon women, where everything is woman based and the men from Earth, Fry, Zapp Branigan, and Bender, just get a huge laugh out of it. 

Thog: This our comedy club. Humor here funny in different way.

Ornik: It not reinforce stereotypes.

Kug: Comedy from character, real situations. Not abstract craziness.

Bender: Translation: boring! Hahah, that’s a good one.

They have really good raps about women’s basketball and the woman leader too.  Shows like Family Guy and Futurama may make fun of the negative stereotypes themselves in this way, but it’s really so painfully true.  I suppose it’s funny because it’s true, cliché as that is.

    There is, however, a loophole to the male-only comedian formula that works for these successful comedies: female supporting characters can be funny!  When I thought of this genre, I thought of my two favorite movies within it, “Knocked Up” and Wedding Crashers.”  Both movies feather a group of two or more men who get to be the funny guys, as well as a leading lady who is fairly dull when it comes to humor, especially compared to their leading males.  Despite Rachel McAdams’ fairly even role and Katherine Heigl’s slightly more humorous roles, there were clear-cut parts for funny women in these two movies.

    In “Wedding Crashers,” Rachel McAdams’ character’s sister, Isla Fisher, gets to play the crazy, nymphomaniac who had the audience clutching their sides from laughter.  Her role is not exactly main but it is definitely important, and she stands out as a definite source of humor in the movie.  The males in this movie rely mostly on banter and character stereotypes (such as the dark, disturbed homosexual brother) as their type of comedy.  Isla Fisher’s type of humor is fairly similar and clearly relates to her character role, which she plays with just the right amount of crazy. 

    In “Knocked Up,” Katherine Heigl’s on-screen sister is a show stealer.  Played by Leslie Mann, her character is full of one-liners and “crazy-mom” jokes that connected more to my sense of humor than did most of the comedy of the males.  Yet there is a theme emerging in these female comedic roles, and it is not a positive one.  I love this genre of movie and know to take everything with a grain of salt, yet from a serious analytical perspective, the comedic women in these two movies are portrayed as pathetic, obsessive, crazy women in order to create humorous scenes and dialogue.  Most of the men in these movies are not portrayed in such a negative way, and yet they still get to be funny.  I sincerely hope that our future holds an all-female frat pack, because hey, women can be funny too!  We have seen glimpses of this in movies like “Mean Girls” (also Rachel McAdams), but even then some of the best lines come from “too gay to function” male friend Damian.  The new wave of frat pack men will hopefully lead to a wave of frat pack women, but one can only hope. 

The line “if it bleeds, it leads” in news also applies to women’s magazines. It’s like a scary movie – we want to feel horrified and empathize, but not enough to start rioting in the streets… that would distance ourselves too much from our white, hetero, colonialist, imperialist, racist, capitalistic sensibilities.

However, I did see Stouffer’s point against Third Wave feminists – buying that “one of a kind, hand-woven basket from the women’s co-0p in Iraq” doesn’t change the underlying roots of the problem. It doesn’t take the place of demonstrating against the war or protesting, period. The way that Marie Claire positions itself in regards to the Third World is problematic since it doesn’t ascribe to real solutions – just more readership. “Marie Claire ’s charity offers allow First World women to consider themselves social activists simply by performing their everyday consumer activities” (7). It’s so true – I see so many of my friends sporting the Inspi(red) shirt and the iPod that benefited HIV/AIDS issues, but don’t volunteer for that cause and don’t know anything about the Zuma scandal in South Africa. I think it’s easy to be complacent with the things in the 1st world when you read about the 3rd world and can assuage your guilt with a trinket. Either way, meaningful social action doesn’t happen. I mean, the women get some money, and that rocks, but the structural stuff doesn’t change…

Off the topic of apathy, I don’t think the portrayal of painful fashion (heels, eating disorders, etc) displayed in fashion magazines next to gross depictions of Third World women is accidental. We try to make our rhinoplasties and boob jobs seem normal in comparison to leg-lengthening. Foucault and Bartkey also come in here – that women are taught to be self -regulating – especially about their bodies. We ignore that pan-opticon so we can focus on other’s suffering. Instead of trying to understand the myriad of oppressions in our everyday life, we ignore them in lieu of “othering” Third World women. I mean, I’m all for global feminism and fighting against injustice across the globe, but I just don’t think Marie Claire is that well-intentioned. Marie Claire claims to be giving a voice to these women who might never be heard by mainstream American culture, but instead doubly exploits them for their own profit. If Ms. put those women in their magazine, I believe it would be a completely different scenario. I understand that it’s important to have lipstick feminists try and mainstream global feminist issues, but I do wish that the said mainstreaming of these issues was done differently. Really, I just wish there were more versions of Ms. floating around!

Also, I totally agree with Amy about the heterosexist content of women’s magazines. Lame.

I do not read fashion magazines, not even on planes for a ‘light read,’ because these magazines are so full of ads I might as well be reading Adbusters, because I have more books on my to-read list than I can get to before I die, because every issue is the same thing over and over again and there’s nothing new. It’s advice my friends and I can make up to give each other, affirming existing stereotypes, that also don’t really apply to us on an individual level.

I was surprised by several things when I read ‘Haute Culture’, such as the average household income of a Marie Claire reader at $71,819. If this is the case, I can see how easy it is for  activism to become “as simple as dashing off a check or e-mailing a congressperson” (600). Coming from a family with a combined household income of about $30,000 a year, I am only beginning to realize that some people have a lot more money and time to buy things and be consumers. I think that because I never really had the money to afford this type of lifestyle, I just didn’t buy into it. Since arriving at USC, I’ve constantly ask myself how I can help in other ways than give money I don’t have. Plus I don’t trust where my money is actually going to. And on top of that, if one really wants to help a cause, why ask for anything in return (a bracelet, a bag, a flower, a cookie); why not just give them money or time?

I do understand, however, what Stoever is pointing out, about the potential for Marie Claire to reach out to large groups of women on important issues. I also recognize the argument of spreading awareness. Wearing a bag with breast cancer ribbons on it or wearing a t-shirt about HIV-Aids will attract attention to the cause. But Stoever is also correct in concluding that “Marie Claire’s charity allow First World women to consider themselves social activists simply by performing their everday consumer activities” (601), which means “the daily living circumstances of both groups of women largely remain unchanged” (601).

In this way, readers of Marie Claire are not asked to question the conditions of their own lives in comparison to the women in the third world that they are comparing themselves to. This lack of self-reflection is similar to the sexually exploited women who feel empowered that Ariel Levy talked about. In comparison to other women whose sexuality may be suppressed and not fully discovered, they may feel empowered. But what is the larger structure of oppression that they are a part of? Are they really free?

The issue is complex. What if these women don’t have the time to help in other ways? And isn’t their contribution better than nothing at all? In trying to find a solution, I thought that Marie Claire readers could stem outside what they read in the magazine to other places where they can obtain more information on issues affecting women. I started thinking about Ms. and Women’s eNews, etc. but realized that even these non-profits are beginning to ask women to “make a difference” or “improve women’s lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran” by purchasing things.  In a way, I can sympathize with these non-profits that I fully support, but after reading Stoever’s article, I really want to put an end to this type of consumer activism.

Stoever’s article actually made me a bit ashamed to be a “First World” woman.  I couldn’t believe that this generation’s idea of social activism is in fact buying a bracelet or the new line at the Gap, which makes its buyers feel InspiRED.  It made me sad that once again, we are improving the world, or what we think is improving the world, with consumerism.  Once again, money is solving all of our problems. 

Last year, I wrote a paper in my Writing 140 class on how fashion magazines feed off of the insecurity of women to make a profit, and I thought it a despicable business.  My writing teacher, who was a man, told me my paper came on a bit too strongly.  He said I blamed the magazines entirely and made women seem like completely passive readers and consumers.  But I think that women, who have been trained to listen entirely to what our culture tells them to do or think or wear, are a bit helpless.  

I have often wondered as I wrote these papers and saw girls really depend on these magazines “I wonder how this all started.”  Ouellette’s article was fascinating to me.  I could hardly believe that there could be women like Helen Gurley Brown.  The only other woman who she reminded me of was Heidi Fleiss.  Brown is the ultimate madam, with her hundreds of thousands little Cosmo-girls, paying their pimp an easy $4.29 to climb their way up that economic ladder by using, not their brains, but their looks.  It disgusted me that one of Brown’s pieces of advice was exchanging sexual favors for dinners, jewelry, or even a movie.  A  Cosmo-girl’s skills should also include great blow job skills.  How ridiculous is this!  I couldn’t help buy laugh out loud as I was reading that this woman, who claims to be a feminist and simply wants to help women get to where she got, is publishing advice that consistently degrades women and makes them out to be nothing more than sex objects.  Honestly, this article was enough for me to never pick up another Cosmopolitan again.     

A quote that stood out to me was on pg. 121, the housewife who said “For 17 years, I worked hard to become the kind of woman who might interest him [her husband].”  I couldn’t believe that this woman is convinced that she “worked hard” to become just what someone else wanted.  She might not even like this person she turned herself into, but hey, at least she bagged herself a man and has a nice and easy dependant life, right?  Constructing a new version of her own self may not have been one that she likes, but then again, that’s what fashion magazines are there for; to soothe the aches and pains of feeling insecure about that “new you” by Cosmo offering just the solution for the small price of $19.95 for this new MAC lip-gloss.            

Although at a surface level the Marie Claire appears to be the exception to the rule, the Stoever article exposes what it really is…yet another fashion magazine hiding behind “liberal neo-feminist language to sell its privileged American…”  She points out the obvious and absurdity of the helping the third world juxtaposed to how to get your man off articles disguised as some amazing feminist magazine but for the working woman.  I find the most interesting part of the article is how she links the third wave feminist to this particular magazine.  I’m not sure if i really follow that argument.  I find that most women truly interested in these causes would, i hope, read feminist magazine, the nation, mother jones, etc, to find out what’s going on in the world and how they could truly be involved.  I liked how she weaved together U.S. Imperialism as non-existent in these so-called feel good articles of U.S. humanitarian efforts and the subjects they choose to talk about in the third world…upper class women, as her argument against Marie Claire as being a feminist magazine. The U.S. has and will continue to demonize any culture that is not fully Westernized as barbaric, sub-human, less civilized than us in any form of the media…news, fashion magazines, radio, etc.

Inventing the Cosmo Girl made me want to vomit.  This article sums up why I haven’t read a fashion magazine in over 15 years…and frankly why I would never go back.  Ouellette reveals Brown as a woman that continues to preach materialism, while believing that she has set forth the sexual revolution?

In psychology, we study how people often vote for candidates who represent the way we wish society functioned, not how we actually experience it to be. If that were true, we’d quit our jobs and all run for president. We would believe, genuinely, that we had all the qualifications for the job. Similarly, there is an escapism at work in obsessing over the stuff and symbols of lives, identities, bodies we do not have. In buying these magazines filled with Gucci, though we know we will all go back to the Gap or Target next weekend for the same t-shirts and flip flops that most of us all own (at least, this reflects the socio-economic background of me and my friends). Helen Gurley Brown and Cosmo Girl seemed to very consciously sell us the tools to “pass” as something else. It seems the possibility of even imagining ourselves passing, for the moments we flip through the ads and “articles,” is also highly salable. We imagine this is the state of American society, though we experience it as something very different. The trouble comes, I think, when the fantasy becomes blurred with reality: we do not, in fact, acknowledge that this is not how we live and buy and experience day to day existence. We confuse the shining candidates with our friends, lovers, and selves.

The commentary on the commodification of activism and social awareness hit a particular chord with me as well. Stoever helps describe a growing sense of concern that I have as I peruse websites, brochures, and mailings describing horrible world issues—and then asking that I buy a bag, shirt, or coffee mug in support. There are many avenues or hooks for getting busy, overwhelmed and disconnected Americans to at least monetarily support NGOs and other groups doing real work on the ground. However, the subtle and disturbing slope from what Stoever calls “mail-order activism” (610) to a narcissistic, isolationist sense of self-satisfied, justified well-being is all too clear in popular media.

Unfortunately, I worry that it may creep its way into the more legitimate world of nonprofit fundraising as well. How tempting is it to piggy-back off these hugely powerful, preexisting markets and structures? What damage is done to the needy in developing nations if, in fact, the money raised for them was done in a fashion magazine? I found myself struggling with this ends-serving-the-means question throughout Stover’s article. Ultimately, she hits it on the head with the observation this “allow[s] women to consider themselves socially-conscious feminists and activists without questioning why their fantasies so closely resemble cultural and economic imperialism” (610). THIS was a key for me, out of all the recent readings and discussion, when we’re all verging basically on the question of “What the hell is happening?” to feminism, or its appropriation on so many levels by the “them” of capitalist patriarchy. And, with a dash of psychology again, it becomes clearer still: it is fundamentally easier to have it both ways. You are escaping into a world of money, fashion, sex, and you are morally justified in doing so. All regardless of whether you look or live or have sex or spend money like the fictious people in the magazines and media! “Cultural schizophrenia” is my new phrase. I’m sure it will soon be re-appropriated by someone else to sell me a bag to benefit orphans so I can feel trendy and socially conscious (and sexy and buff, like Madonna or Angelina), or something. For now, it is my new piece to the puzzle of how, after a few great leaps forward, we took so many steps back.

In addition to fostering imperialism, fashion mags showcase and reinforce the divergent roles of men and women. People often pick up mags in search of hope—of a “better” self. What they often get is not necessarily better, but instructions on how to conform. Interesting how both women’s and (most) men’s mags place woman on the covers, and how women are assigned differing semiotic codes on the respective covers. For the women buying the women’s mags, the cover can signify that a woman is a consumer (since the woman on the cover is often decked out in the latest fashion with perfectly coifed hair). It sends the message that the cover model is something to aspire to, and in order to achieve the same level of success as the cover model, one must CONSUME. The women on the covers of men’s mags can signify that women are a commodity—they can BE consumed (as Ariel Levy observes, women’s sexuality has been commodified). Both representations support the mainstream ideology.

Women’s mags don’t usually appeal to “strong” women, nor do they make an especially valiant attempt at supplying information that would build up a woman’s self-esteem. More often than not, covers promise that the information inside will be instrumental in constructing an identity that is in line with that mainstream version of femininity. Although, the objective of men’s mags doesn’t stray far from the norm either. After all, the women on the covers of men’s mags represent what’s believed to be the current societal norm: attractive, seductive, clean, willing (?). Of course none of these images represent total reality, but it’s something to aspire to, and so it sells the magazine.

This month’s Men’s Health cover promises a feature on how to “Dress for More Sex.” I’ve always found it interesting how men’s mags openly promote sex while women’s mags are a bit more discreet and focus a bit more on how to please a man. For example, a feature in Cosmo might read: What Men Really Want. The approach mirrors societal norms about respectability; society has a term for women who dress for more sex: prostitute. A man, on the other hand, can sow his wild oats to his heart’s content and society will endorse it—boys will be boys.

The current Woman’s Day issue has a feature on “20 Ways to Make Someone Happy.” This feature, along with the wonderful Recipes section, falls right in line with the belief that women are care-takers, pleasers, servers (did I forget one?). If a man ran around trying to make “Someone Happy,” he would be seen as effeminate. Men’s Health features an article about how to “Get Rich”—the idea that men are about making themselves happy. I was surprised to find a significant emphasis on body image on men’s mag covers. Better “Abs” wasn’t much of a revelation, but the term “Weightloss” on the cover of a men’s mag threw me for a loop.

All mags that I seen were glossy, and most were cluttered with promises that a better life can be found between the covers; though several demographics were represented, they all had one thing in common: the idea that one should live well, that is, as long as it’s within the prescribed boundaries of accepted behavior.