10 More Female Comic Book Characters That I Can Think Of

Once I stopped typing before, I realized that I could think of 10 more female comic book characters. Below is exactly everything I know about them

Undressing after a long day of business school.

1. She Hulk – I’ve learned about this one late. Somewhere in between the Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling and the Wicked Witch of the West, we got She Hulk. I don’t know what she is, and I’m not too sure I care. But why is she green all the time, and why is she capable of complete, intelligent conversations while the most we get out of the male equivalent is “Hulk SMASH!” ?

Because a bright yellow cape isn't going to get anyone's attention.

2. Jubilee – The yellow-trenchcoated barnacle on Wolverine’s hull reminds me of Batman’s Robin in all the wrong ways – her clothes are a target practice costume and her power draws as much attention as is humanly possible. If I made fireworks, I’d dress in camouflage every day. She might as well have the power that causes her to teleport from one dangerous situation to another equally awkward and dangerous situation.

Can't fight crime without your regulation crime-fighting thong.

3. Psylocke – Apparently she’s one half of two different ladies, and both of them have weird purple hair and make knives with their hands. This was the super power I wanted – the ability to stab and punch at the same time.

In Soviet Russia, breasts come with suit.

4. Black Widow – Fulfilling the mandatory guns-and-boobs quota the NSA requires of any superhuman crime fighting agency, Black Widow is an agent of SHIELD, and Tony Stark wants one. I think. This is all the knowledge I have. Did Scarlett Johansen come from a comic book?

Having a bad day. Check out her numbers.

5. Cat Woman – International PETA spokeswoman Selena Kyle goes into obvious heat whenever Batman is around. Is she bad? Is she good? Is she going to be able to fit into the latex after she’s had 6 or 7 of Bruce Wayne’s kittens?

I don't know *why* she was naked in the movie. She was never naked before.

6. Mystique – Hello blue lady. When Magneto left the un-mutated, naked Mystique alone because she wasn’t “one of us anymore,” my brother said it was the gayest that Ian McKellan had ever been. Another one of those that begs the question – if she can look like anyone she wants, why does she look like that?

Sue Storm, the Invisible Woman, shown here slightly more visible.

7. Sue Storm-Richards – Not only does she turn invisible, she makes invisible things that she can use to pretend to do other stuff! They haven’t addressed how she manages to save the world while phasing in and out of the crippling blindness that occurs when your invisible eyes are no longer able to reflect the light that allows you to see.

This happened.

8. Hawk Girl – Is this a real thing? When I Google it, I feel like the internet is playing a practical joke on me. Apparently she’s a founding member of the Justice League, which gives her as much of a partnership percentage as Superman. Go figure.

Clouds only fear you if you show them your abs.

9. Storm – Marvel thinks that ethnic girls control the weather. This is probably something dredged out of the “Myths We Learned About Girls Because We Never dated any” Files. Anyway, Orroro Munroe is an Egyptian orphan with weather control powers and now she’s a science teacher. That’s how the world works sometimes.

What does she do? She's got a sword, I promise!

10. Dawn – She didn’t make it onto my first list and it surprised the heck out of me when I realized I’d forgotten about the most unreasonable of all superheroines, Dawn. I think she’s The Goddess, but I’m not sure. She hangs out with God, the Horned Consort, and Satan, and they all look like the same really aquiline blonde guy, so I’m not sure what the commentary on religion is supposed to be. Also, she’s crying. That’s hot.

There are a lot of girls out there. I’m sure I’ll think of 10 more.

Genuine Ken: Courting and Gender Roles in Neoliberal America

Examining both the methodologies of reality television and the history of the Barbie brand, this paper seeks to identify the neoliberal methodologies present in the Genuine Ken narrative, from the gamedoc rubric, to the selective casting, to the manner in which the participants are portrayed. The show seeks not only to commodify romance, but also the individual participants, as bastions of interchangeable personality archetypes. The show serves to illuminate the fact that romance and couplehood are two separate entities, and begs the question of whether the public couple is a more important representation of modern romance and domesticity than the private couple. We will also examine the marketing strategies of the Barbie brand, and effects that Barbie’s themes and tropes have on the female identity, and public perception of both femininity and masculinity.

In its mission to solidify its place as a legitimate and respected media network, the online television website Hulu.com has branded several original television shows as a means of drawing an audience independent of their televised network offerings. Genuine Ken is not the first of these programs, but most notable in its flagship sponsorship by Mattel’s Barbie line, arguably the most popular doll in the history of play-based simulacra. Though awash with the cheerful, jewel-toned purples and blues associated with the brand, as well as the iconic Pantone 219, or “Barbie Pink,” the show focuses primarily on masculine identity (and feminine perception thereof) in seeking to identify among its contestants the Great American Boyfriend – an embodiment of Ken Carson, Barbie’s male counterpart (Orenstein, 2011: 39). In doing so, the show illuminates the realities of dating and mating in Neoliberal America, where romance, couple-hood, and domestic love are separate entities, the latter an almost forgotten consequence of courting; the two former, commodities marketed to audiences seeking to identify as members of normative, socially accepted, pair-bonded dyads.

Barbie – Her Past and Present

“Barbie really means you can do anything. You can be glamorous, (sic) you can have a fabulous career. You can have a grand house. And you can do whatever you want. She’s the American Dream.”
– Peter Som, Fashion Designer

“Barbie has always represented the fact that a woman has choices.”
– Ruth Handler, inventor of Barbie, founder of Mattel

Barbie was initially the brainchild of Ruth Handler. Born Ruth Mosko in 1916, she was the youngest of ten children of Polish immigrants who settled in Denver, Colorado, where the Jewish community rivaled that of Manhattan (and how many might balk at Barbie’s all-American persona to discover she was the brainchild of a Jewish mother?). By virtue of her American birth (7 of her older siblings had been born in Poland), she received a better education than most of her family, which only fueled her ambitious confidence. Due to her mothers’ illness, Ruth was raised from the age of 6 months by her sister Sarah, 20 years her senior. Unable to have children herself, Sarah bonded maternally with her baby sister, and though her family support structure was strong, she began to see her parents as her grandparents, and her sister as “the greatest influence on the woman I was to become,” as she herself once said. “(Sarah) was a fantastic role model and I absolutely idolized her. She always worked outside the home, seemed to thrive on working, so I grew up with the idea that a woman – a mother – with a job was neither strange nor unnatural” (Stone 2010: 10-1)

This pseudo-parental sibling bond between Ruth and Sarah may have served as the influence for the sisterhood dynamic Barbie shares with her younger siblings. Originally having only one sibling, Barbie is today a loving and supportive older sibling to three younger sisters – Skipper, whose age has varied from her introduction, from pre-pubescence to post adolescence; Stacy, the adolescent, “teenage” sister, and Chelsea, the grade-school aged “baby” sister. While the characters arguably offer a positive framework for female cooperation, one does question the reflection of the modern family dynamic, as none of the four Roberts sisters have any identifiable parentage. This atypical familial dynamic, though arguably laudable in its deviation from the traditional, heterosexual nuclear norm, does raise questions as to what young girls can infer regarding the stability of Barbie’s social and emotional networks.

Ruth held a job from the age of 10 (a paradigm Barbie’s modern audiences would be hard pressed to empathize with), and enjoyed the authority and independence of work. Her infatuation with Isadore “Izzy” Elliot Handler began two weeks before she formally met him. He was a poor artist, so her parents disapproved of the match and gently encouraged her to break up with him by offering her a trip to California, but distance only made their hearts grow fonder. After an on and off relationship during which both earned college degrees (virtually unheard of for a woman in the 1930’s), Izzy and Ruth were married in 1939. After their wedding, Ruth’s ambitions kicked into overdrive, and her desire for success permeated every aspect of the couple’s lives. Unimpressed with “Izzy,” Ruth convinced her husband to respond to his middle name, and Izzy became Elliot at his wife’s request. From then on out, Ruth took the reigns of the family’s financial future, and, all while giving birth to and raising the couple’s two children (Barbara, born in 1941, and Ken, born in 1944), parlayed her husband’s talent (and social standing as a male) into a partnership that would, under her guidance, eventually become the manufacturing firm Mattel. (Stone 2010: 15-7)

Indeed, Ruth’s success with the Barbie line was atypical, and her ambitious drive serves as a morality play of the neoliberal agenda. A woman with nothing was able to parlay her ambition and goals into an international fashion and fantasy empire, a self-made success story. But what can be said of the woman underneath the image of success and glamour?

“Women who’ve wanted to be perceived as powerful have long found it more efficient to identify with men than to try and elevate the entire female sex to their level.” (Levy, 2005: location 1028) Barbie, on the surface, seems to stand in defiance of this observation. Over the past 50 years, she has had many glamorous, if stylized careers, and the smile shining brightly from her pink plastic box has radiated confidence and ambition to generations of young women who looked to her for the same kind of guidance and inspiration that young Ruth once sought in her own older sister. But are the lessons young women gain from Barbie the same that young Ruth gleaned from Sarah, a true success story, a workingwoman with little education from a marginalized family, or do they speak of a more privileged, market-driven agenda?

Dramatis Personae – The Players and their Roles

Genuine Ken is an 8 episode series available on Hulu.com. In each 24-minute episode, the contestants face surprise challenges that test the degree to which they as individuals represent a “Genuine Ken,” the ideal boyfriend for the ideal girl that Barbie represents. The contests are framed by interview box segments that have clearly been filmed in post production.

The 8 male contestants were, as the narrative states “selected from thousands of applicants,” (though the methodology of this selection process is unknown). They are all physically attractive in terms of symmetry and fitness, and though their personalities could be considered diverse in regards to one another, they all manage to fit into neat Ken Doll Tropes:

•   Chris Holscher – “Compassionate Ken”- a 23-year-old white male from Cincinnati, OH, “(wants) to prove that nice guys don’t always finish last,” though this sentiment eventually gives way to a good natured competitiveness as he admits that he doesn’t want to end up in second place. He is reserved and of few words throughout the program, but expresses a love of people and his family.
• Derek Steele – “Artistic Ken” – a 25 year old white male from Clarkston, MI, Derek portrays himself as a hip musician and producer, though his personality swings between over-confidence and insecurity, and his interview-box hubris makes him seem almost intentionally off-putting. Derek, notably, is the only contestant whose physique does not border on muscle-bound-ness – an average build that is derided as pale and skinny when he is required to strip (to change into a wetsuit) in front of the rest of the group.
• Keith Henderson– “Heartwarming Ken” – a 30 year old black male from Chicago, he is a self-professed romantic poet, and lists his smile as one of his best features. His interview style could be considered somewhat forced, and he is often the first to admit that he can’t, or is afraid to do something (ie – cooking, surfing).
• Kurtis Taylor– “Dreamer Ken” a 25-year-old male of indeterminate ethnicity from Fort Dodge, IN. A professional football player for the St. Louis Rams, Kurtis exudes a “down-home” sort of chivalrous courtesy and expresses himself in hyper-masculine terms.
• Kash Kiefer – “All Ameri-Ken” – A 25 year old white male from Las Vegas (originally West Virginia), Kash is a bartender/model who played 6 sports in high school, as well as cheerleading, which earns him some derision from the other contestants.
• David Homyk – “Crooner Ken” – a 31-year-old singer-songwriter from New York (by way of Charlottesville, VA), David considers himself “soulful,” and generally stutters over feminine beauty in the interview box, which producers exaggerate with sound effects.
• Leeron Cohen – “Style Ken” – a 23 year old white, possibly Jewish male from Miami, Leeron is considered exceptionally talkative, an enthusiasm which also manifests itself athletically in kickboxing and self defense.
• Michael Pericoloso – “Party Ken” – a 25-year-old white, Italian- American male, Mike embodies the Jersey Shore paradigm pre-established by the reality television milieu, from his gelled faux-hawk to his tri-fold profession as a bartender, gym trainer, and rapper.

The primary judge on the tri-headed host panel of the show is Lauren Bruksch, the head of Barbie Marketing. A statuesque blonde with poise and grace, Bruksch seems herself to embody the Barbie mystique that the show perpetuates, lending further credence to the show’s judiciary power regarding romantic/stylistic suitability of the contestants. A second, guest judge cycles each week, relative to the challenge the contestants face. This is usually another television or Internet personality that the show introduces and summarily glamorizes by alluding to them as a “star,” without establishing the criteria by which stardom is conferred – another method of asserting credibility.

The host, Whitney Port, is a 26-year-old veteran of reality television. After appearing on several seasons of MTV’s The Hills, Port launched a spinoff series, The City, and parlayed this fame into the success of her fashion line, known as Whitney Eve. Though the show does a great deal to glamorize her beauty and apparent personal success (along with the string of guest judges who join the program from their own reality shows), Port appears to be another example of “reality tv participants (who drift) from program to program, with little real hope of long-term stability.” (Hendershott, 2009: 246)

Appearing in every episode, Port serves as the ersatz Barbie to which the winner will, presumably, play Ken. This is, however, never made clear, leaving the audience to question whether the show is a romantic matchup ala The Bachelorette, or a Survivor-style competition wherein the winner has simply proven that he is the best “boyfriend material.” In fact, the prize – a charitable donation of their choice, a modeling contract with Barbie International, and a Ken doll made in their likeness – is not revealed until the very last episode of the program. A date with Port is never offered to the contestants. Indeed, Port does not engage the contestants personally; instead maintaining a polite distance from which to address them as a group, except when singling out contestants during the Elimination phase. She is sympathetic, but softly stoic, a demeanor which just barely avoids clashing with her youth and apparent vivaciousness.

Each episode is framed by real world stock footage, stylized with frame removal to give everyday scenes of traffic and public activity the appearance of stop motion, plasticized animation. Of note, these scenes depict parks, the beach and romantic bistros – settings associated with casual courtship. The Great American Boyfriend is not being judged on his performance in a committed domestic relationship. Similarly, the majority of the locales are specific to the Southern California lifestyle with which Barbie and her beach-addicted friends are associated, an area of the country to which several contestants admit they have never been (Kurtis, for example, had never seen the ocean before the show).
Each contestant, as a symbol of their acquiescence to the gamedoc, is given a teal Ken tag reminiscent of the tag attached to the 1961 Ken doll, which certified his authenticity. The contestant eliminated each week comes forward so that Port may remove his tag with a pair of pink-handled scissors, a pseudo-castration accompanied by a dramatized guillotine sound effect. The episode arc runs as follows with a summary of eliminations and justifications:

1. That’s KEN-tertainment – The first episode, the contestants are introduced to the “loft,” the home base of the competition where they receive their briefings and challenges. Their first task is a talent show, which puts them on the spot to come up with an individual talent. Eliminated: None – Their hollow argument “A girlfriend should get to know her boyfriend before she lets him go,” glosses over the fact that the contest math requires that the first episode be elimination free. Kash is rewarded for his talent show win with a Pink tag, which saves him from elimination on a round of his choice.
2. KEN-terior Designers – The contestants, in groups of four, must design a space that’s “warm, inviting, and reflects your personal style.” They are given a time limit to do so, and are offered the limited selection of a single retailer (Urban Home) with which to make their “personal” statements. Eliminated – Mike, who was considered the weakest link on the losing team.
3. Malibu Ken – The contestants all get a free surf lesson, which serves as their secret challenge as their surf teacher/model judges them on risk taking and their longest wave. For some contestants, this is their first experience with the beach at all, let alone the unique beach-comber privilege of surfing. Eliminated – Leeron, whose past derision of his fellow contestants (in the form of laughter) is referenced as inappropriate boyfriend behavior.
4. KEN He Cook? – The contestants are shuttled to Mattel headquarters, where they are again divided into two teams and tasked with crafting an entrée for a Barbie reception. Once again they are offered a limited (though generous) supply of raw ingredients to prepare their meals. Eliminated – David, who has yet to stand out. “A Genuine Ken has passion and personality.”
5. Limited Edition Ken – Gifted with a single designer accessory originally worn by a Ken doll of yesteryear, the contestants are given a one-store shopping spree with which to create a look around said fashion piece to be debuted at a private fashion show. Kash uses his pink tag to avoid elimination. Despite his modeling and fashion experience, his outfit did not meet the judge’s standards.  Eliminated – Derek, whose individuality has been consistently highlighted as an awkward annoyance. And his shoes were far too big. “The first thing a girl looks at are your shoes.”
6. Race to NYC – The contestants must remember trivia from a conversation they weren’t really paying attention to in order to complete Barbie’s Errands – a few chores a boyfriend shouldn’t mind doing for his girlfriend. Especially if he’s a good listener. Eliminated – Keith, who has completed the least number of tasks, is eliminated despite the addition of a rose, a personalized, romantic touch.
7. Public A-WEAR-ness – the three remaining contestants travel to New York City, where Kenneth Cole tasks them with the creation of a public service campaign. The winner of the challenge receives $5000 in matched contributions to the charity of their choice. Kurtis, an advocate for abused women and children, is the winner. Eliminated – Kash, whose PSA for orphans shouldn’t have involved taking his shirt off.
8. The Real Genuine Ken – The last two contestants (Chris and Kurtis), are given cameras and a list of iconic New York locales of which they are to take pictures in order to convince a group of 50 women that they are the perfect boyfriend by interpreting romance through a camera lens. Eliminated – Chris, after a 20/30 split on the women’s votes.

All of the contestants react with gentlemanly aplomb regarding their elimination, though their interview-box style often leaves much to be desired in terms of courtesy to their fellow contestants.After what appears to be difficult deliberation on the part of the judges, Kurtis is selected as Genuine Ken.

What Ken Is (Barbie Isn’t) – An Examination of Gender Expectations

“I heart Ken – The season’s hottest accessory!”
“Someday my Ken will come. He really is a doll!”
- From the Loft Wall Art, Genuine Ken

“Yes, as girls, we do love pillows…”
“When cooking for the female palate, you might want to consider something less hearty.”
- Lauren Bruksch, episodes 2 and 4

Through the use of Barbie’s familiar gender tropes, Genuine Ken not only outlines what is considered ideal in regards to the male courtier, but serves to marginalize women in the eyes of men – limiting female opinion and desire to narrow scopes while judging male behavior as a reflection of how well they have catered to these preconceived feminine directives. Port’s introductory speech to the contestants identifies the judgment criteria as “…all of the characteristics us (sic) women look for in our men.” The implication therein is not only that women are looking for a specific set of behaviors and attributes, but that women are looking for the kinds of behaviors and attributes that can be comparatively analyzed and deemed “better” or “worse.” In other words, women are looking to test their men – a sentiment which, in practical application, can only breed gender bias and mistrust.

And such criteria is identified and enforced not only through straightforward rhetoric, but through negative reinforcement as well. The discovery that both Chris and Kash have had experience as cheerleaders causes the other contestants to deride their masculinity for having engaged in such a generally feminized activity. “He’s Barbie and Ken!” the others say of Kash as they reconvene at the beginning of the second episode. This follows Kash’s dominance of the previous episode’s talent competition through his grace and gymnastic displays; their derision is likely a means to reinforce their own masculinity in the face of such defeat, though it is a sentiment Genuine Ken Kurtis, the former football player, is slow to remove himself of, suggesting that this latent sexism is an acceptable, even a desirable trait in the Great American Boyfriend. Indeed, rigid definition of sexual roles served Kurtis and other contestants well throughout the competition; Leeron’s self defense tutorial during the initial talent show was poorly received but he ultimately received accolades from the judges for his attempts to “protect women.” Kurtis’s championing of women’s rights against domestic violence painted him as the hero, though it identified women as sexual victims, and discounted the reality that men are often the victims of domestic abuse. No doubt such a reality would have been met with the same uncomfortable derision that greeted cheerleaders Kash and Chris.

Mary F. Rogers, in her examination of Barbie’s role in the hetersexualization of adolescent girls Hetero Barbie, recognizes that girls and young women are guided by their communities to put stock in their appearance due to the perceived importance that their looks have, not only to their desirability to boys and men, but to their self worth and credibility as feminine beings. “As she gets heterosexualized… girls and young women face pressure to give boys and dating a lot of priority.” (1999: 94) And while Barbie seems to epitomize these female mandates, she is in no way the slave to her male peers that normal girls become in attempting to live up to these hyper-feminine expectations. And as Barbie can acquire the attention of her Ken with such ease that she hardly notices his presence, a young woman feels an increasing detachment to normalcy as she fails to hold a man in such devoted, obedient thrall. It is out of this insecurity that a desire to test the devotion of a partner arises – she has to know that she is capable of Barbie’s hypnotic, unquestionable sway over her partner, an unrealistic, borderline-abusive mentality that tests most relationships to their breaking point, perpetuating the cycle of rejection and emotional deficit that Barbie’s influence had originally helped to instill.

Dating vs. Mating – The Partnership Game

The plasticized façade of the Barbie world that the contestants enter serves as a metaphor for the shallow nature of their social trial. Though the trappings of the Genuine Ken Loft are indicative of home style and reminiscent of the retreat-style encampment in which makeover transformations take place, it is clear that no one lives on this home set. (Weber 2009: 44-5) The plastic, ultra-mod furnishings, from eclectic pop-art sitting room pieces, Astroturf throw rugs and silk indoor topiaries that mimic a perfect Barbie patio, to the well appointed dinette set at which no one ever eats, are all indicators of a model home – an entertainment space where guests are to be impressed by ones style and hospitality, but where no one is actually expected to live their life.

And indeed, the “boyfriend material” of which the contestants are made begs the question of their application and intent. The mise-en-scènes of romantic locales are reminiscent of the types of first date locations one takes a partner one wishes to impress. The hoops of charm and grace the contestants are expected to jump through all indicate their suitability as casual boyfriends; there are no trials available to test ones ability to stand the test of time as a reliable, long-term domestic partner. After all, the courtship style romance takes more work than even the most committed domestic partners can afford outside of truly special occasions, a deficit that only grows wider as a partnership grows into a family with the eventual addition of children. “The hybrid idea that a woman can be fully absorbed with her youngsters while simultaneously maintaining passionate sexual excitement with her husband was a 1950’s invention that drove thousands of women to therapists, tranquilizers, or alcohol when they actually tried to live up to it.” (Coontz, 1992: 8) And perhaps, as Barbie herself was an invention of the 1950’s, an extension and evolution of this mentality is an unavoidable fallacy of the brand. As Peggy Orenstein so blithely puts it, “There is, it’s worth noting, no ‘Mom-with-three-ungrateful-children Barbie.’” (2011: 45)

It is arguable, that the stability and security of a long-term domestic partnership are anathema to the Neoliberal paradigm, wherein romance and sexual reassurance are commodities that can be purchased by the deserving. The settled, domestic dyad presumably has all the comfort they need in one another’s cooperative presence. The neoliberal agenda is best served by the insecure – the individual who must augment their personal appearance for the sake of attaining a new, better identity, the potential suitor or courtier who must prove their worthiness to their love interest via flashy and expensive displays of affection, or the unhappy couple (or single) who looks to an outside source to guide them toward a better, more fulfilling life-way. So long as neoliberalism can perpetuate this insecurity via quick fix mechanisms that ultimately give way to new trends that render old methods obsolete, there is no worry for the continuation of the market-driven paradigm. But once an individual can summon their own self respect and appreciate their own needs and desires for the rare and unique phenomena that they are (which are exactly the tools one needs to be part of a healthy domestic relationship), the capital-dependant paradigm of neoliberalism withers, taking the economic web of sexual commodification with it.

Conclusions

On the surface, one could argue that Genuine Ken serves as a role reversal of the traditional hot-tub dating show that turns women into sexualized objects though their own internalization of the game rhetoric and submission of their individual agency to the gamedoc (Gray, 2009: 264-5) And though the copious display of tanned, toned male flesh, accompanied with myriad costume changes and narrative evidence of male bumbling in the face of feminine beauty may convince the casual viewer that this is the case, closer inspection reveals the true rubric of the program – a Survivor-style competition where the prize is to be considered the epitome of the male Neoliberal sex object – at least, from the accepted perspective of the ideal female Neoliberal sex object. As neither is intended to be a true partner to one another, but rather a disposable commodity, one could consider the show an audition for mutual consumption. In Neoliberal romance, both parties seek a consumable from the other, and will play whatever games, perform whatever roles, wear whatever costumes are necessary to win the prize of sexual approval.

References

Coontz, Stephanie. The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. New York, NY: Basic, 1992. Print.

Genuine Ken – The Search for the Great American Boyfriend. Web. 01 May 2011..

Gray, Jonathan. “Cinderella Burps: Gender, Performativity, and the Dating Show.” Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture. By Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette. New York: New York UP, 2009. 260-77. Print.

Hendershott, Heather. “Belabored Reality: Making It Work on The Simple Life and Project Runway.” Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture. By Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette. New York: New York UP, 2009. 243-59. Print.

Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York UP, 2006. Print.

Lamb, Sharon, and Lyn Mikel Brown. Packaging Girlhood: Rescuing Our Daughters from Marketers’ Schemes. New York: St. Martin’s, 2006. Print.

Levy, Ariel. Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture. New York: Free, 2005. Print.

Lotz, Amanda D. The Television Will Be Revolutionized. New York: New York UP, 2007. Print.

Mulvey, Laura. Visual and Other Pleasures. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1989. Print.

Orenstein, Peggy. Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the New Girlie-girl Culture. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2011. Print.

Ouellette, Laurie, and James Hay. Better Living through Reality TV: Television and Post-welfare Citizenship. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2008. Print.

Pozner, Jennifer L. Reality Bites Back: the Troubling Truth about Guilty Pleasure Tv. Berkeley, CA: Seal, 2010. Print.

Rogers, Mary F. “Hetero Barbie?” Gender, Race, and Class in Media: a Text-reader. By Gail Dines and Jean McMahon Humez. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2003. 94-98. Print.

Stone, Tanya Lee. The Good, the Bad, and the Barbie: a Doll’s History and Her Impact on Us. New York: Viking, 2010. Print.

Weber, Brenda R. Makeover TV: Selfhood, Citizenship, and Celebrity. Durham: Duke UP, 2009. Print.

“Whitney Port.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 01 May 2011..

Slave To The Needle – a Monkey Science Project

This obsession began via roundabout means.  The front page of CNN featured an art focus on a local Seattle Artist known as Moxie.

Monsters can be classy too.

I was mesmerized.  I myself longed to stab doll pieces with needles.  Closer examination yielded a generous amount of information regarding her projects and gallery showings.

I don’t know why I found it as spellbinding as I did.  Maybe it was the monsters, or the bright colors, or, as always, my deep and abiding love of stabbing.  But the candy colored abominations inspired me, and at the worst possible time

Three weeks before finals is not a good time to pick up a new hobby.

It was late at night when I ordered her colorful book I Felt Awesome, a collection of craft projects for colorful wool addicts, as well as tutorials in the basic shape formations that become 3D felt sculpture.  The book included a mini craft kit to play along with, but as I had been drawn in by her tutorials, I ordered the Octopus Friend Kit as well.

1 AM is exactly when you buy a felt octopus kit online.

Not long afterward, I was up to the wrists in soft roving wool.  And here my troubles began.

The Basics:

So...Fluffy...

You need loose roving wool, which is the washed, carded, and dyed wool that is spun into yarn.  Right now it’s just loose fibers.

Two Individual Felting Needles and a Wooden 6-Needle Felting Tool.

You’re also going to need some felting needles, also known as THE SHARPEST THINGS IN THE UNIVERSE.  I’m a whiner when it comes to fingerstabbings, and I’ve taken more than a few in pursuit of this craft and continued without complaint.  Such is the addictive nature of felting.  Craft felt that you buy in stores is made by felting loose wool with a machine bearing thousands of these needles.

Foamy.

A foam work board.  This is really going to be a smallish cube of foam, but you’re going to use it to death in between needle punches and picking the stray wool out of it when you’re done (and more on this later)

I won’t divert attention for any more tutorials, because I feel Moxie really has that domain covered.  The rest of our time will be spent covering my menagerie of atrocity.

Snot and Phlegm:

From left to right: Phlegm, Snot, and a Goober. I'm so lady like.

Snot solves a serious Phlegm design problem.  Phlegm can’t stand up on his own and requires constant support.  I think he’s been drinking.

Armless Bert and the Incredible Table Monster:

Left to Right: Table Monster, Bert, a Token (of my affection), Snot, and Phlegm. Digging the underbite, ladies?

Bert: So very armless.  I tried to conquer some design flaws here as well, but he’s not quite the tripod I was hoping for.  Helpful tip: Flat Base All The Way. I might also felt a washer in there for weight and balance.  We learn as we go.  That’s why it’s science.  As for the Table Monster, he’s part of a balanced breakfast.

The Island:

There was no room for the tiny charred hull of Oceanic 815.

I wanted a fiery explosion, and here’s what I got.  This was my first attempt at imbedding a foam base.  Also a vague attempt at 2D art, given the whale around the circumference.

Goobers:

No matter where you are in a room, they'll watch you.

What have I DONE?!?  Remnants become goobers.  The eyes mean they have souls. I would run.

For more on felting, I really do encourage you to visit Moxie and her Hi Fiber Kits store.  Now I have to get back to it.  My fingers are itching to punch.

Review: Interior Design: Commodifying Self and Place in Extreme Makeover, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, and The Swan

“For what makeover programming reflects is the extent to which the self is now regarded as a project and cultural construct, something that must be self reflexively worked on and continually performed.” (Deery, 161)

If there is one overarching agenda the Neoliberal machine wishes to push forward through these shows, it is that happiness is a resource.  It is a resource, distilled into varied, but easily recognizable forms, which someone else owns.  The individual seeking it must not only have the money to buy it, they must fulfill the prerequisites necessary to be worthy of owning and maintaining the Happiness property.  Only then will they be considered worthy of it, and, more importantly, worthy of the social privileges associated with its possession.

Underlying the structure of the makeover show format is the theme of self-improvement.  The extension of this theme is that the individuals upon whom the show focuses are flawed.  This is not “change for its own sake,” but change for the better, wherein the average (or, at least, the preexisting, in whatever form) is deemed unsuitable and subsequently improved via consumer methods which not only serve to change the aesthetic and grooming habits of the individuals in question, but to impress upon the viewer the notion that they are peer to the show subject – you, and your home, are flawed as well (Deery, 160).  In this way, the show performs a hypnosis act, convincing the viewer that the programming in question is educational.  Product placement is another part of the lesson plan, and the viewer forgets (or fails to realize) that this is advertising.  They are not being swayed to purchase things they might want.  Thanks to the invention of the TiVo and other such digital advertisement bypass devices, marketers have returned to passive and active in-show product placement, and through the narrative seamlessly interject these products as absolute necessities of the process of personal betterment into which the participant (and, ultimately, the viewer) has invested themselves.

The home improvement program serves to solidify this notion of commodification by highlighting the home as an extension of the self.  Ones home is flawed, therefore the individual (or family) is flawed as well.  Extreme Makeover: Home Edition glosses over this exercise in commercial hegemony by choosing contestants whose down-on-their-luck biographies make the improvement process seem like a charity intervention on their behalf.  From families with sick children to war veterans returning to their economically disadvantaged homes, EM:HE frames its narrative as a charitable enterprise brought about by a community which has come together to support one of its own.  The moral superiority of this outreach on the part of promotional donors (Home Depot, Lowes, and numerous other hardware and appliance manufacturers often claim to have “donated” resources to these projects), helps the viewer to ignore the blatant product placement and marketing quality of the narrative (163-65).

Indeed, the narrative may well be lost on the participants, who are just happy to have their lives improved.  A home with shiny new appliances and freshly painted living spaces designed by “experts” seems like a gift from God to the show’s subjects.  After images of contestants being shown their beautiful new homes are always full of tearful displays of gratitude (It sometimes seems that the holy grail of television is to get a large man to cry; these shows often deliver to their Sunday evening audiences with great glee and gusto), along with the smiles of those morally fulfilled project workers who share their pseudo-humility with the cameras.  These themes may be heartwarming on the surface, but the tropes of charity and community outreach, which solidify the overall “goodness” and morality of the improvement project narrative in the minds of the viewers, serve to elevate the capitalist interests responsible to a level of social and moral superiority.  To those who internalize these messages, not only must their own homes seem an inadequate reflection of themselves after the fact, but their sense of self seems inadequate; their personage becomes, to them, a project into which little has been invested, and much work must be done to create an image worthy of capitalist good will.

Questions:
1.)    How does the commercial placement herein differ from the commercial placement utilized in more straightforward “how-to” shows, such as This Old House? Is the how-to model delivering the same sort of message as the makeover model?
2.)    Within the neoliberal framework suggested here, an audience spurs charity; giving only occurs when, and because, the cameras are rolling.  Does this suggest that human altruism is, in fact, an illusion, or does this concept extend solely to corporations rather than individual interests?

Reference
Deery, June. “Interior Design: Commodifying Self and Place in Extreme Makeover, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, and The Swan.” The Great American Makeover: Television, History, Nation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. 159-74. Print.

Sucker Punch: The New Feminist War Anthem – Sexuality, Fantasy, and Themes of Self-Actualization

A sucker punch is a blow made without warning, allowing no time for preparation or defense on the part of the recipient. – From Wikipedia

The surface nature of Zack Snyder’s 2011 film Sucker Punch evokes images of a middle school locker room’s storyboarding session for Inception.  Arguably it panders to an adolescent demographic; gratuitous, explosive violence, nubile female flesh, titillatingly exposed by revealing, highly accident-prone clothing, and darkly beautiful mise-en-scènes depicting post-apocalyptic lawlessness all speak to the preconceived cultural expectations associated with male desire and sexual maturity.  But the underlying mechanisms of the story, its metaphors of mental illness, glamour, and escapism, its ironically presented themes, and tropes of war, self-realization, redemption and independence support feminine empowerment through subversion and intra-gender cooperation.

The film centers on a female protagonist known only to the audience as “Baby Doll” – a crudely sexualized play on her youth and innocent, childlike appearance that becomes her irony-singed nom-de-guerre.  The heir apparent to her mother’s estate, shortly after her mother’s death she finds herself defending her virtue and that of her younger sister from her enraged stepfather upon his discovery that their mother’s will does not include him.  In a scene that underscores the stepfather’s struggle for material dominance of his family unit, he is unable to overpower his daughters sexually or through martial violence (as Baby Doll quickly gains possession of his pistol, accidentally killing her sister in the struggle).  His recourse, therefore, is to exercise the available trappings of his white male privilege (which appear to be copious, given the nebulous 1950’s era in which the scene appears to be set), and Baby Doll soon finds herself being processed into a dismal mental hospital evocative of the Willowbrook State School as her stepfather and a corrupt orderly known as Blue negotiate her fate, literally speaking over her head as they financially transact her entrapment and lobotomy.  Aware of her impending fate, Baby Doll resourcefully makes note of the amenities of her surroundings as she is oriented to the asylum, and, before her mind gives way to fantasy to cope with the stress, she takes inventory.

Sexual Economics – The Hostile Marketplace
“Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, but she did it backwards and in high heels.” – Faith Whittlesey

The composition of Baby Doll’s metaphoric fantasy realm makes it clear to the audience that, despite her physical innocence, she understands the social nuances of the court she now attends.  As the “theater” of the dismal asylum becomes a seedy, if darkly glamorous gentleman’s club, evocative of a 1930’s mob controlled speakeasy, Baby Doll relives her commitment; her father, now a corrupt priest, has sold her to Blue, now a mob boss and thinly veiled pimp.  Her fellow patients are now dancers, Blue’s captive prostitutes who must dance to entertain his clients.  Throughout our introduction to the theater and its inner workings, the enslavement and commodification of the girls is all but written out for the audience.  Though constantly dressed to dance, they all clearly engage in menial labor, from kitchen duties to janitorial work.  At every level, no matter how menial the task, they must accept male oversight and the accompanying leers and sexual objectification.  Their only form of self-expression is the dance.  This ersatz marketing pitch ultimately plays into the economic-value paradigm that guides their behavior.  Even their names have been replaced by sexualized, ill-fitting pseudonyms, which strip them of personal identity and label them as infantile, subjected playthings (no better example of this exists than “Blondie,” played by dusky brunette Vanessa Hudgens)

This market value paradigm appears to serve as an effective method of gendered social control.  Blue enforces the girl’s position as commodities through fear and sexual terrorism, and sews seeds of intra-gender conflict by assigning relative market value to the girls, attaching stigma through lookism or ageism (as Madame Gorski, the dance captain/treating psychiatrist is derided by Blue as an “old whore”), and recognizing youth, beauty, and the “prize” of virginity as relative amenities which increase their perceived value and desirability.  Blue recognizes the potential power accompanying Baby Doll’s perceived market value, and reminds her repeatedly that it is the only reason she is being “reserved”.  Able to avoid internalizing this rhetoric, Baby Doll instead realizes the notion that a game is being played around her, and graduates from pawn to Knight as she embraces her sexual value as strength and, ultimately, a weapon.

Perchance to Dream – Fantasy and Metaphor
“Analysis of childrens play has shown our women analysts that the aggressive impulses of little girls leave nothing to be desired in the way of abundance and violence” – Sigmund Freud, Femininity

As each girl is required to dance (a metaphor for the unseen sexual hoops the patients must jump through to remain within the good graces of their corrupt male captors), Baby Doll comes into her own on the dance floor by retreating into yet another fantasy escape.  Her dance is a battlefield upon which she conquers internal demons, vanquishing her self-doubts as she gains the resources necessary to escape her captors.  She is her own guide on this journey, though her inner self manifests in the form of a wise old man who reminds her of the resources she has already inventoried and quotes the playbook and delivers mission briefings as she and, eventually, her fellow captives, do battle against their insecurities to regain their personal sovereignty.  Perhaps the male avatar of her psyche is a metaphor of reassurance; offering moral validation to her mission while serving as a reminder that she is not only the equal of the men with whom she does battle, but possibly their superior in many ways.

Her apparel on the battlefield, and that of her fellow captives, fluidly continues the metaphor of sexual awakening that pervades Baby Doll’s fantasy.  The sexually provocative nature of their garments shifts in substance; dance gear which served to highlight fragile grace and accentuate a form of innocent, helpless femininity, is replaced by sexualized battle gear; strategically draped artillery, heavy metals, spiked boots and military inspired armor-chic.  The embrace of their sexuality is accompanied by self-righteous aggression, and the girls do battle with gusto, each transforming the men’s dependence on their market value into a weapon with which to do battle against them.  It is in this self righteous but martially offensive capacity that the metaphor ultimately defines the concept of sexual assault: sexual acts performed as a means of gaining social power and/or control.

Redemption, Salvation, and a Brighter Tomorrow
“Excuse me, ladies.  You’re scantily clad and have nothing to do with the narrative.  Therefore, it’s sexist.  Sorry.” – Bruce McCulloch, The Kids In The Hall, Terriers

Baby Doll’s story doesn’t have the happiest of endings, but she does find what she needs by the time the credits roll.  Her efforts in seeking her redemption have far reaching ramifications, and the message of her ordeal is well internalized by the upper echelons of the patriarchy from which she longed to break free. Rather than flee the castle, the princess destroys it, offering the chance of escape and a better life to all enslaved within.  Her efforts, and her bold example, ultimately dismantle Blue’s corrupted power structure, his own assistants turning against him before the authorities have a chance to give him comeuppance.

It would be a fool’s errand to attempt to discount the compelling nature of female nubility. Arguably, the admiration of and desire for such have been major catalysts for our species survival.  Therefore it is not in the interest of the feminist to remove herself completely from these paradigms of feminine beauty, though she must definitely avoid unrealistic or harmful models of female attractiveness.  Instead, it is in her interest to examine the roots of feminine beauty, and the power it affords all women as possessors of such.  As the market-value approach can only lead to intra-gender conflict at best, it is in the interest of all women instead to embrace beauty, not as a variable commodity, but as an inherent and indelible quality of femininity.

References:

Dines, Gail, and Jean McMahon Humez. Gender, Race, and Class in Media: a Text-reader. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2003. Print.

Freud, Sigmund, and James Strachey. “Femininity.” New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. New York: Norton, 1965. Print.

Kimmel, Michael S., and Rebecca F. Plante. Sexualities: Identities, Behaviors, and Society. New York: Oxford UP, 2004. Print.

Mulvey, Laura. Visual and Other Pleasures. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1989. Print.

Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Visual and Other Pleasures. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1989. Print.

Schwartz, Pepper, and Virginia Rutter. The Gender of Sexuality. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge, 1998. Print.

Review, Part 2 – Makeover Nation – Selfhood, Citizenship and Celebrity

Though the first half of my review focused on those methodologies in the makeover gamedoc which resembled “tabula rasa” style indoctrination and enslavement techniques, this second installment takes a closer look at the methodologies which turn appearance into a commodity that helps or hinders an individuals market value in regards their human and social capital.  The gift of a free makeover, considered a prize not only by the contestant but usually by their families and friends (as evidenced in expositional footage of congratulations) comes with necessary requirements and obligations that the contestant must agree to of their own free will, making this invasion of their inner self and renovation of their outward appearance a conscious decision made on their part, rather than an intervention on the part of a neoliberal marketplace seeking to reinforce its own indispensability by highlighting the disadvantages incurred by those who do not fit the necessary requirements for trade and citizenship.

Is democratic citizenship predicated on meritocratic mobility within society, as Weber suggests (2009:38)? This is suggested by the jubilation of After-body contestants who intone that they can “do anything” now that they have a culturally appropriate body to do it in.  This belief is likely predicated on the notion that, though all men may be created equal, we do not remain that way for long after birth, and these differences ultimately cast us into social strata which can increase or decrease the amount of weight our individual aesthetics and beliefs have in the communal congress of cultural sensibility.  In offering the average citizen (as average as can be considered, given that only 20% of female contestants and 1% of male contestants are people of color), a leg up in the world by renovating their appearance to better reflect an external vision of beauty, makeover shows not only reinforce a strict cultural framework of acceptable appearance, but help the contestant to internalize this sensibility while inflating the importance of ones’ external offerings as capital in a fiercely competitive social market (Weber, 2009:42).

Despite the ever-presence of the outside worlds expectations of social norms and aesthetics, a recurring theme of isolation incurred by the makeover narrative, which insists that the contestant remove themselves to a private place where their transformation can occur in secret.  This evokes themes of cultural rites of passage wherein the young are removed from their childhood homes to undergo tests and trials as a means of preparing them for adulthood.  When they return to their homes, they do so as adults, recognized as such by their peers, who now see them as worthy of respect and capable of making actions and sharing in group decisions that can affect the whole of the community.  As well, those makeover recipients return to their old lives once their trials are complete as full citizens; their voices now carry more weight and authority thanks to the changes that someone else has made for them.  Tropes of law enforcement and criminal justice are loud within the narratives present.  This isolation is a double-edged sword, as not only a trial in and of itself, but as a punishment for the poor decisions the contestant has made throughout their lives.  The process of virtual incarceration and rehabilitation serve to remind the citizen that their old life, their old appearance, were crimes against the state.  They must now internalize the aesthetic and behaviors of another if they have any hope of functioning as self-possessed citizens fully capable of participating in the neoliberal market culture that is America.

If, as neoliberal ethics suggest, everything has a market, then relative inequality in terms of human capital does easily translate into a differential in decision-making power.  This ethic of America, as delivered by makeover transformations, has been distributed internationally to cultures who have begun to see America as less a place and more “…an idea, a concept to be thought of in quotes which, itself, can be reproduced and distributed outside of national contexts.” (Weber 2009:48)  America, in the international eye, becomes more a theme park of opulence, where 90210 is Main Street, USA, and glamour is a social right, and a requirement, of citizenship.

Questions

1.)                    What do we, as Americans, think of in terms of international lifestyles?  How do other countries “brand” themselves, or is this a uniquely American notion?

2.)                    Are we building our own stereotypes?  Is a stereotype simply a marketing tool within the constructs of neoliberalism?

 

Reference

Weber, Brenda R. Makeover TV: Selfhood, Citizenship, and Celebrity. Durham: Duke UP, 2009. Print.

Review, Part 1 – Makeover Nation – Selfhood, Citizenship, and Celebrity

Throughout the spectrum of what appear to be a unique variety of makeover shows, Weber identifies a universal framework of cultural indoctrination and re-education.  Prejudicial and stereotypical notions of racial identity, sex and gender identity, and social conformity are drilled into the minds of the insecure, who willingly hand themselves over to a governing body of groomers in the hopes that it can make them better.  Weber suggests that the goal of the makeover is not to be better, but to be “normative,” to cast off all perceived deviations from societal expectation, and conform to the middle-of-the-road definition of acceptable (255).

Most disturbing of these mechanisms seems to be the breakdown methodology espoused by the teams that take on the case in question.  The individual is subjected to a dissection of their existing selfhood – teams take apart their wardrobes from the underwear up, deriding every facet of their existing style as a means of eroding what remains of their self-esteem.  Participants’ appearances are subjected to the “objective” judgment of strangers; these uninformed opinions are given weight by the “experts,” further eroding the participants’ trust in their own judgment.  Some contestants are forced to stand, nearly naked, in front of a hall of mirrors, which is psychological torture enough with ones clothes on.  Example after example smacks of the kind of tabula rasa methodology used to berate and torture individuals until they abandon their free will and surrender to their captors, becoming suitable for the slave trade.  The latter example of the house of mirrors, from How To Look Good Naked, makes the rather tasteless juxtaposition of an emotionally devastated black woman in her underwear against the white male host of the show, fully clothed, offering her hope and redemption.  One could not help but draw attention to the allusions of white supremacy and gender subjugation.

Though these shows make an outward showing of egalitarian consciousness by casting non-white, non-straight individuals in the taskmaster and designer roles, the hegemonic principles of neoliberalism are nonetheless enforced through the show’s rhetoric and treatment of its contestants.  The values of a society where appearance is a commodity are instilled and reinforced in contestants, who, once broken down, are rebuilt in the show’s image of what their ideal should be.  Once indoctrinated, these participants have little incentive to deviate from the social role into which the show has cast them, for to do so would be to give up the social power and cultural capital they have accrued through the heart wrenching process of emotional demolition and appearance renovation.

Questions:

1.)   Pursuant to the “fat/ugly” oppression that Weber argues the audience and gamedoc grants, what other sorts of oppressions are the Makover TV paradigm (and its audience) willing to grant for the sake of maintaining the normative?  What sort of oppressions do we grant ourselves on a day-to-day basis?

2.)   Weber counters Sander Gilman’s argument that “the belief we can change our appearance is liberating,” by arguing that changing our appearance only makes us believe that we’ve been liberated (256).   What is liberation, within the framework of these shows, and what would liberation from the show’s framework mean for its former participants?

3.)    Can true self-improvement really be televised?  As each case tends to be a one-shot deal, there isn’t a lot of concern over maintaining drama, but pre-constructed narratives still exist.  Can people who legitimately need help in one avenue or another trust a marketed product of this kind to really help them?

 

References

Weber, Brenda R. Makeover TV: Selfhood, Citizenship, and Celebrity. Durham: Duke UP, 2009. Print.

Disturbing Mental Images #1

It’s 1994, and Robert Downey, Jr. has found himself in the heart of the Mojave Desert with no food, no water, and no pants.  All he can call his own under the harsh desert sun are a loaded .22 pistol and a restaurant sugar jar filled with pure Columbian nose candy.  As he walks in search of civilization or perhaps a source of water to wet his parched lips, he spies buzzards beginning to circle on the orange horizon.  His hand begins to shake and he starts to run.  His knees are weak from frenetic abuses and chronic overextension on the cold tile bathroom floors of the Viper Room.  And as he stumbles, his toe catching against a rock, a vulture seizes the opportunity to descend upon him.   Screaming, with no other defense, he hurls the sugar shaker of cocaine at the hungry vulture, who screeches and sharply inhales.  The startled pause of the bird gives Downey enough time to rise and resume his run, but the vulture lingers, his kettle-mates swooping in to partake of the flaky white bounty.  He only makes it 7 or 8 yards, however, before the venue of buzzards rises, their bills smeared with cocaine, and resume their chase with renewed, drug fueled vigor.  The swell in adrenaline is a fortunate byproduct of the boxer-soiling fear he experiences, and this surge in energy is enough to see him through the desert, running at full speed, firing his 22 wildly in the air at the kettle of coked up buzzards who swarm him like the last shot on the fluorescent tray in the 54 back room.  Finally, his sneaker soles worn through, his legs caked with desert mud and streaked with urine, he collapses in the arms of a police officer on the Las Vegas strip, leaving a trail of buzzards behind him, twitching and foaming at the beak in overdose and bleeding from lazy gunshot wounds.