Connections Connections

So after posting on Angela's blog about how certain tv shows appeal to specific demographics and appear dumb to other people, I went on a Wikipedia binge for Sabrina the Teenage Witch (a show that I loved, but I'm sure older people thought was lame).  Anyways, if any of you remember Aunt Zelda, she was played by Beth Broderick, who had a relationship with director, Brian De Palma. SO- after reading the premise to one of his movies, Dressed to Kill, I decided to watch it. (Michael Caine is in it!) There's a plot twist and its really really suspenseful, so I recommend it to anyone who likes the suspense/horror genre.  Anyways, the point about this movie is that a key part to the story is a transgendered individual who is battling him/herself.  There are also discussions about who is transgendered, and whether men turning into women are 'traditionally' masculine to begin with.  The transgendered person is depicted pretty negatively.... [thats all I can say without spoiling it!] There's also a helpless housewife and prostitute in the film.  Some transgender/gay communities were critical of the film because they felt the film indulged in transphobia.  Don't Wikipedia it though! Or if you do, don't look at the plot.

After watching this film, I decided to catch up with Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange.  This is less connected, but I was still surprised at how far-reaching gender issues really go.  The composer for the music score was originally credited as Walter Carlos (who also did Tron and The Shining), but later went through sex reassignment surgery and is now known as Wendy Carlos.  Wendy said that she always liked long hair and dresses even as a little boy.  As far as I know, Wendy is still living well as a female.

Two interesting examples of transgendered individuals, two different outcomes.

On a completely random note, a character named Julian in A Clockwork Orange actually played the body of Darth Vader in Star Wars.

Reflective Post

One last link about food: Gastronomica Magazine is where I found a lot of discussion about food, culture, and television.  If you are a foody or just like pictures of food, its a good source.  The site has sample articles, but through USC libraries, you can definitely get access to more specific readings.

In regards to what I've learned over the past few weeks, I think that the arts & humanities are reflections of reality and truth.  Often times they can seem like representations of what the world is (i.e. photography, or documentaries), but the perspective of the authors inherently influence how any creative work is shaped and viewed.  My topic for A1: Exit Through the Gift Shop was a superb example of this, with Banksy exposing the soul-crushing subjectivity of the art world.  Even though the art world is flawed in this way, Banksy makes himself look like a saint and we forget that he might be part of the problem.  Aside from the idea of an author shaping a work, I think truth in the arts & humanities can be found even in the most abstract sense.  Jackson Pollack's paint splatters might not look much like anything other than just that, but if they might be representative of his emotions, then thats a form of 'truth' as well.    

Seeing art through an art major's lens, I find that its effect on its audience is an inspirational one.  Whether creative works inspire more questions, awareness, affinity, or disdain, it still brings about something new within the spectator.

I have learned that it takes endless hours to sift through research, and that I could go on for infinity looking for that perfect piece of literature that supports my thoughts... but that this maximizer mentality hurts me in the end, because I get lost in it instead of writing drafts.

Collaborative learning-for the few times that we have done so- both good and bad.  It truly requires one to be prepared, and I admit that for the second paper I was still struggling with my topic choices and thus did not have too much for others to comment on.  For the first paper though, I got a lot of thoughtful feedback that helped to improve my essay.  I would say the same of feedback during the presentation.

The experience of blogging has helped me to recognize my conversational writing voice... it is always satisfying when someone seeks to discuss a post with me, because that means that someone relates/ finds interest in my topic.  I have found enjoyment in posting on others' blogs too, because they give refreshing perspectives that living an insular lifestyle does not necessarily expose me to.  I've also learned that one of my majors, Communication, is more applicable than I had thought.  It comes in handy for pretty much anyone's topics.

The blog has certainly grown on me as I've gotten into the motions of posting more regularly.  However, a punishment of 5 pts. for perhaps posting one day late seems rather unfair, if the rest of the posts are of quality and quantity.  I do not learn best with such threats or extreme easygoing-ness, but instead, a happier medium.  And lastly, I might refer to this blog if I continue further research in Communication related to gender, food, or media.  Though I enjoy blogging, keeping up with a blog is a hard commitment.  It will be for the future to determine.

Now I think I'll go listen to some dubstep or watch some Star Trek.

Gender vs. Sex: the Failure of David Reimer as Brenda

One of the biggest debates in gender discussion is that of gender vs. sex.  While sex is considered biological, gender is now thought of as socially constructed through societal institutions (school, work, religions, etc).  This connects to my paper in questioning the whole idea of whether 'woman in the kitchen' is a construction-- is it a very deeply engrained one or an activity that could be considered biological?  So, 2 nights ago I found a really interesting case study on how gender construction failed.  This has to do with the nurture vs. nature approach.  I'll sum up the story here, but  you can read more on Wikipedia, and if you don't trust that, Slate has a good article on it too.

Basically, a biologically born boy was given a botched circumcision, burning his penis off.  His parents were advised to get the boy surgery to construct a pseudo-vagina, and have the boy raised as a girl--Brenda.  The boy was also given a lot of estrogen to develop as a female.  No one told Brenda that she was actually a boy, then at 14, the parents finally told her the truth. Brenda chose to become David, and he went through years of surgery to seem biologically male again.  Depression, anger problems, and multiple suicide attempts led to his suicide in 2004.

I do think that the failure of this case of gender reassignment has a lot to do with how poorly David was treated, but perhaps gender is biological too- as David had said that he felt oddly masculine during his years as Brenda.  Conversely, a few years ago 20/20 did a report on children that chose to identify with the gender opposite from their own, and they were shown growing up healthily (although I have not yet read about follow up assessments). Additionally, many transvestites are happy living with opposite gender identities as well.

David as a male adult

Post-Essay 4

What a rough night! I would consider the completion of this last essay getting over the largest Writing 340 hump though.  Anyways, while I've found a lot more adherence to traditional television stereotyping on Food Network, there were of course diversions from the norm too.  In retrospect, I did mention Julia Child a little bit in the summary of Krishnendu Ray's article, but after writing my essay, I found that she was more influential than I had initially thought.  Her fusion of domesticity and breakaway from set the tone for tv cooking.  She wasn't dainty (6 ft tall...maybe taller?) and she was outspoken, but she said things like "the mother is responsible for expanding a child's palette."  Its this mixture that Food Network sort of appropriates as a whole, in its selection of seemingly diverse programming.

Furthermore, I don't think I'm ready to answer this yet... but what makes it necessary for traditional stereotyping to still exist?  Do we object to traditional gender roles? If we're such a progressive society, then shouldn't we be okay with watching more authoritative females? Even with just my personal taste, I called Anne Burrell butch during my presentation... does this mean that stereotyping is so deeply engrained into our psychology? And if thats the case, when will there be a greater shift?

                                                  A gem from Burrell's Secrets of a Restaurant Chef

someone else seems to think Burrell looks like Fieri...

Any thoughts appreciated,
Cheers

In the Process...

My jealousy of those who write without trouble is peaking right now.

While my plan was to finish up this paper and turn it in today, I have found that my normative writer's block has really kicked in this time.

Anyways, I decided to do some more research on the whole women as cooks and men as chefs depiction on Food Network.  Pretty much all of the men who are depicted in chef-ly attire do indeed have professional culinary training-- save for Guy Fieri (who I mentioned last time)-- and interestingly, Mario Batali- who dropped out of Le Cordon Bleu,but gains his professionalism from owning/cooking in his own restaurants.  The women that wear professional attire have also gone to culinary school EXCEPT for Sandra Lee (host of Semi-Homemade) and Giada De Laurentiis, who masquerade as home cooks only.  I'll be exploring these two individuals more thoroughly in my paper.  But other than that, Rachael Ray has restaurant management training and basically a personal love of cooking.  So I am concluding that this is just fine for Food Network.  Why would those who weren't chefs, wear chef-ly attire?  However, the fact that there is a disproportionate amount of male chefs to female chefs (all I can think of is Cat Cora & Anne Burrell-- let me know if you know others) is bothersome.  This might reflect the real-life atmosphere of a male-dominated professional cooking world, even though culinary school has about 50-50 male-female enrollment.  So then the fact that Food Network goes along with what may be an oppressive real environment for gender equality is something that needs to be changed.

Back to writing.
Cheers!

Post-Presentation Thoughts

Just wanted to  thank the class for staying during my presentation yesterday.  I know everyone was getting a little antsy during the 2nd to last presentation, so I really appreciate not just your attention, but your feedback!

I was pretty excited when I saw that both Heather and Nate had topics that connected to mine.  I cannot agree more with Heather's point on the pervasiveness of media and its potentially harmful effects.  While she focused on its ability to persuade the public that Casey Anthony was guilty, my paper may touch on the detrimental effects of media on children. (Still not entirely decided if that topic will digress too much from my main point.)  And Nate had an interesting point about how gender stereotypes just help our brains process experiences easier.  Without bringing in the negative effects of stereotyping, it is very true that gender stereotypes-- understood by the majority of people-- help to express certain ideas more quickly than explaining them in a more detailed and careful fashion.

Anyways, in terms of post-presentation thoughts... like Chuck said on his blog, preparing for the presentation really helped me to get my direction together.   I was struggling with making a call on whether Food Network perpetuates on an overall basis-- but I realize that I don't have to do that.  There is really only one study that makes such a call, but I don't think one example is enough for me to make an overall judgment.  Instead I will be exploring the balance of stereotyped and non-stereotyped shows on Food Network.  Its important to bring up the exceptions to stereotypes and not just bash the channel to prove that gender stereotyping exists.  Like Nate said, stereotypes help to communicate ideas quickly.  They are something that we understand-- and by no means does that excuse the potential negative effects of them... but it does explain a bit of the psychology.

Leanna brought up a realllllly excellent point about Giada having professional chef training and yet presenting herself as a cook.   Sean brought up a good point about Ina Garten's past professional experience in working for the White House (although not cooking related)-- and that she brings this up frequently on her show, contrasting her professional past with now... just cooking for friends and family. It is interesting that Ina also postponed continuing her education in order to get married (she was 20).  Of course, Garten lived in a different era.  I don't watch Barefoot Contessa often because I have an admitted disdain for Ina Garten, but if it is true that she does talk about her White House past, then her show is a hybrid of tradition (home cooking for the hubby and friends) and break from tradition (discussion of professional life).

In regards to Guy Fieri: his training consisted of working in some restaurants during  high school and restaurant management experience, but other than that... no real professional training.  

HAHA food network humor is a pretty funny site that I just stumbled upon.  Its where I found this picture.. which demonstrates humorously one reason I dislike Ina.  Check the site out if you're looking for some funny Food Network jokes.

Update of Impressions

So today I had my conference and I am feeling a little more confident about where I want this paper to go. After doing a lot of research last night about the influences of television in general, I have concluded that I may want to include a part on the effects of television on children.  A study by Nancy Signorelli found that when children were shown traditional gender occupations, they were more likely to identify with those occupations as well as classify genders traditionally.  She also found that when children were shown depictions opposite to tradition (male nurse, female construction worker)--"counter stereotyping", the children thought these occupations were more acceptable for the gender who portrayed the occupation, and were less likely to stereotype gendered occupations.  This study really demonstrates the impact of television and gender on viewers... and therefore, why shows need to be careful about how they portray gender and occupation.

In terms of paper progress, the flow is probably going to discuss briefly the mass media impact (think Marshall Mcluhan's "medium is the message"), and then narrow it down to television impact.  From there I will talk about gender then Food Network.

I have my presentation this Thursday, so if anyone is actually reading this and has suggestions, I'd love to take them. I don't want my info to sound extremely obvious (which it does to me...but whether that is because it is true, or because I've just been mulling over the info so much is debatable)... and I also don't want my purpose to come off as if Food Network has an agenda.  It might, and perhaps I just am too naive, but I would really hate to be that cynical about a channel discussing cooking, let alone all of television.

Cheers :)