TOTAL PLAYTIME: 12 MINUTES
In this piece entitled, The Scam of Shame, I employ Literary and Gender Theory to attempt an understanding of the concept of shame vis-a-vis female identity generally and gendered expressions of identity specifically.
Even though the intro stipulates the presence of two visual texts: Kissing Jessica Stein and the L Word, the analysis focus more on the latter.
This podcast is part of a bigger literary article which is in the works.
Click here to play the podcast. These podcasts are also available on iTunes under the name: Gendering the Media with Brikena Ribaj.
Enjoy.
Note: The pictures are of a little hair-sporting Natalie Portman and a make-up-featuring Brandon Flowers.
Posts
32 comments:
Wow.
Deep stuff....
But that aside, I agree about the scam-of-shame thing. Also, what's with the exaggerated body-based episodes? Objectification, anyone
Thanks for this.
Also, are you going to talk about Jessica Stein in a future podcast or did you mention to sort of connect it thematically to L Word?
Thx, Bri!
Right, a person can occupy many gender/gendered identities at the same time.
Thx for this.
Last summer I was thinking about the whole Senator Craig scandal thing and how just because he engaged, or wanted to engage in a same-sex act, he refused to self-identity as gay.
Many people thought that the act meant that one was what one did.
When someone introduced the term 'straight-acting' many asked questions to understand what it meant.
Again, self-identification issues are never black/white and clearly defined.
And I saw it on iTunes. thks.
The opening of this is attention-grabbing.
And one I'd concur with.
I have wondered about the whole choice argument. Many say they didn't choose to be born left-handed or curly-haired. Well, what about those who might choose to go that route? That would be another form of intentional marginalization, no?
-Perry
Also wondering if you're going to refer to Jessica Stein again?
And the next piece is a piece of fiction that reflects Theory, yes?
thks again.
Bette's character is quite bizarre. Jennifer Beale is a good depicter, no doubt, but how realistic are these characters, really? They're like a bunch of bionic women... What an odd set of expectations.... Hm. 'Little independence of nature' indeed.
I need to catch up on the theory lingo to get to a better understanding of the meaning, but the core of it makes sense. I also find L World to be a disservice more than anything as it glams up a margin in a way that it marginalizes it more rather than bring it closer to the understanding of the average person.
If gender acts are performative then females would also be conditioned to view themselves through the lens of the ol' gaze.
What would you recommend that one read before Butler?
Right, it's such a performance on both sides. Pretty essentialist.
What about not assigning 'gender marking' at all?
A favorite question I get is,
'But you are so normal-looking?'
Oh, ok, sorry to shake your worldview but how should I look, acc. to you?
This show 'purports' to be about women but it's, quite often, NOT.
And Bette only deals with women. How realistic, let alone healthy is that?
What about seeing humans as just that and not as individuals belonging to one category and set of behaviors?
Apropos graphs.
thx for the new piece.
I noticed that too. Mainstream psychology does not seem to see the difference between straight-acting and straight. I noticed that too with the whole Craig discussion.
The bit about shame and the Jackie Warner bit was quite interesting.
thx.
Conditioning has much to do with gender and gendered roles perceptions.
You know how they say that lit theory sort of spoils one's viewing pleasure? How one can't just watch things for fun anymore?
Well, there can be a lot of fun that lit. theory can give some of us, too?
thx for these....
-Gina
I enjoyed this. Bette as a mailed entity... Yeah! Totally!!
I always though the show was 'reeking of affectation.'
Bri,
I have noticed you seem to have a bit of an aversion to the term
'essentialism.'
Could you maybe explain why that is? Is it Irigaray you have in mind when you react to it?
Jana M.
B.R.
First, I like the logo. Who designed it?
I have to admit I hadn't thought about the L Word this way, but then again, leave it you to come with a new angle. I like these.
thx again.
Kena,
I thought about this today. What do you make of the popularity of the show among self-identified straight folk? How do you read that?
I mentioned this to a friend who said, 'no way, i LOVE L Word.' ....
:0)
I mentioned this to a friend who said, 'no way, i LOVE L Word.' ....
:0)
Bri,
Did you see Queer as Folk? What did you make of it in terms of the objectification bit?
-L Word is body-based. In my mind, it is the most objectivitication-informed tv show to date, hence the project.
-I will be referring to Jessica Stein in later pieces.
-I do see an active relationship between choice as informed by circumstance and necessity of being as informed by biology.
-Yes, the next piece is a bit of fiction written in a pre-theory time.
-I would recommend Eve Sedgwick and Karma Lochrie.
-Right, applying cultural and gender stereotypes won't take us far for very obvious reasons.
-Right, I also think that there is not big nough niche for those who see above and beyond the gender, not the a/gender, but the beyond-gender category folk.
-Essentialism is restricting. Hopefully the series will shed ore light with time.
-The logo was designed by a very talented favorite person of mine, Camille.
-I think the heteronormative performance aspect of this is what makes it a success among the self-defined straight individuals. I certainly see this.
-I have seen a few episodes of Queer as Folk and I find it equally objectifying.
Bri,
I asked you when we went to that exhibit out here if you thought that 'essentialism' had any value at all and you said that you'd rather not get there 'there'.
Why is that?
And your take makes me think of an a-la-Monique Wittig idea, that feminism is all-accepting of established gender dogma...., yes?
Tory:
Essentialism brings with it a notion of a fixed, unalterable identity. It's antithetical to the notion of "im Werden" which I'm not sure it's a solely existentialism-derived notion.
I appreciate the Monique Wittig comment, however, most of my information is originally Butler-derived.
And, good memory, T.!
I look forward to reading it on paper. thks.
Also, why did you pick these two pix to illustrate the podcast?
These gender theory series podcasts are too dense for me to comprehend in one listen. I also have the obstacle of being a primarily visual and experiential learner. I enjoy them, though. I just don't have anything intelligent to add to the discussion.
But, maybe this question: do you think there is any gay TV programming that is NOT objectifying?
Post a Comment