“50 Cent- Candy Shop”

The music video I selected features 50 Cent’s second platinum single off of his hit album “The Massacre”. The song “Candy Shop” was written by 50 Cent, featuring Olivia and was copyrighted by Shady Records, Aftermath Records and Interscope Records in 2005.⁽¹⁾ I chose to critically engage with this music video because I remember seeing it as a child. I was shocked and confused after viewing the sexual and revealing video on Much Music. At only 10 years old, I believe I was too young of an age to be viewing this type of explicit material. Though, this was not the first rap music video I had seen which demonstrated views of sexualization of woman and hyper masculinity prevalent in today’s culturally hegemonic society. I used the theme of cultural hegemony to analyze 50 Cent’s video, even though the video pictures exclusively African-American people. Culture hegemony is defined as the domination of a culturally diverse society of the ruling class, which has historically been Caucasian Males. Although 50 Cent and other depicted in the video are not considered Caucasian, the ruling class’ hegemonic beliefs, perceptions and values prevalent in today’s society are clearly represented through 50 Cent’s music video.

 

The music video begins with 50 Cent entering through the main gate to the mansion courtyard, driving a red luxury sports car. He opens the front doors to the mansion and is greeted by several women wearing revealing clothing. The woman opening the door says to 50 Cent, “Welcome to the Candy Shop”. I believe the idea of the “Candy Shop” is clear metaphor. The women are the “candy” and the brothel-like atmosphere shown mansion is considered the “shop”. When creating the song, 50 Cent stated to the media that he “Attempted to be as sexual as possible, from a male perspective, without being vulgar or obscene.”⁽²⁾ He did accomplish his goal of promoting sexuality and focusing on the male perspective, but I do not believe he accomplished his last goal of the music video. I believe the video is offensive and vulgar to certain audiences. Specifically, because the video is targeted towards children who are susceptible to absorbing these types of views communicated through persuasive mediums including music videos and advertising.

 

Culturally hegemonic values are imposed on people today through advertising (as seen in Lecture 3’s Killing “Killing us Softly”), television shows, movies and music videos. One value clearly communicated in 50 Cent’s new video was hyper masculinity. Hyper masculinity is is the exaggeration of a male stereotypical behavior, such as emphasis on physical strength, aggression and sexuality. The name of 50 Cent’s album “The Massacre”, demonstrates the rapper’s hyper-masculine image of aggression and strength. Additionally, Woman are constantly touching and feeling his body as he walks throughout the mansion. Also, the rapper has his shirt off for the majority of the video. 50 Cent aggressively grabs women throughout the video, as the provocatively dressed woman dance on him. 50 Cent is depicted as muscular, successful and easily able to attract woman. Demonstrating the cultural hegemonic belief that men must be masculine and strong in order to achieve their desires.

 

Culturally hegemonic views of sexuality communicate exclusively heterosexual relationships and demonstrate normalcy, as discussed in Lecture 2. Throughout the music video, all women appeared to be heterosexual. This demonstrates heteronormativity in today’s society, as discussed in Lecture 7. 50 Cent was the only male in the video, which also had a clearly depicted heterosexual sexuality. One of the last scenes included two girls feeding each other strawberries and bathing in chocolate, which made the woman seem bisexual. I believe that the video producers created this scene to show that these women are trying please 50 Cent’s needs due to his physical attractiveness, wealth and perceived power. Throughout popular culture, people are mainly exposed to heterosexual relationships, which demonstrate society’s expectations. Communicating societal norms can affect peoples perceptions of not only others, but their own selves.

 

Socially constructed and normalized beliefs were communicated throughout this video the video, including the sexualization of woman. When 50 Cent walks in the front door of the mansion, over ten women wearing lingerie-like clothing greet him. He starts walking upstairs towards a room, passing by ladies who touch, stare and try to get his attention. He enters the first room, where a girl is on bed feeling herself up with a video recording projected on the wall. He starts touching her, then it cuts to the next room with a new girl. She is dressed a nurse grinding over him in a hospital setting. He just sits there relaxed and continues to rap. The third room includes another new girl with a whip in her hand. When 50 Cent enters, she swings the whip, which takes his shirt off. She then proceeds to grind on him, as he exerts no effort. The video ends with the featured artist (Olivia) wearing revealing lingerie getting close to 50 on a couch. All of these scenes demonstrate the sexualization of woman, expectations of woman and indirectly communicates use of aggressive behavior towards females to vulnerable audiences.

 

Overall, the video received mixed critical reviews. PopMatters described it as “dripping with sexual energy and cool” and “sexy as hell, but contains a pretty unmistakable edge of hostility, macho swagger and thunderous chest thumping” Entertainment Weekly said song lines like “after you work up a sweat you can play with the stick” were offensive. This is because 50 Cent was commanding the woman to perform sexual acts in an aggressive tone, upsetting this critic. I feel these reviews sum up influential concerns within the industry, as music videos demonstrate values of normalcy, telling us who we are and should be. I find it odd that a company would describe it as cool and sexy as hell, while saying the video contains an unmistakable edge of hostility and macho swagger. Hard to determine whether the company enjoyed the video or found it offensive. I feel like critics would lose their reputation if they were to analyze music videos from the critical perspective we have developed throughout GNDS 125.

 

 

 

Works Cited

1. “50 Cent – Candy Shop Ft. Olivia.” YouTube. YouTube, 16 June 2009. Web. 19 Apr. 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRcnnId15BA&gt;.

2. Reid, Shaheem (January 26, 2005). “50 Cent Renames LP, Makes Video for Sexy Song ‘Candy Shop’“. MTV. Accessed April 18, 2014.

 -Navy 

 

 

 

Candy Shop

The music video I selected features 50 Cent’s second platinum single off of his hit album “The Massacre”. The song “Candy Shop” was written by 50 Cent, featuring Olivia and was copyrighted by Shady Records, Aftermath Records and Interscope Records in 2005.⁽¹⁾ I chose to critically engage with this music video because I remember seeing it as a child. I was shocked and confused after viewing the sexual and revealing video on Much Music. At only 10 years old, I believe I was too young of an age to be viewing this type of explicit material. Though, this was not the first rap music video I had seen which demonstrated views of sexualization of woman and hyper masculinity prevalent in today’s culturally hegemonic society. I used the theme of cultural hegemony to analyze 50 Cent’s video, even though the video pictures exclusively African-American people. Culture hegemony is defined as the domination of a culturally diverse society of the ruling class, which has historically been Caucasian Males. Although 50 Cent and other depicted in the video are not considered Caucasian, the ruling class’ hegemonic beliefs, perceptions and values prevalent in today’s society are clearly represented through 50 Cent’s music video.

The music video begins with 50 Cent entering through the main gate to the mansion courtyard, driving a red luxury sports car. He opens the front doors to the mansion and is greeted by several women wearing revealing clothing. The woman opening the door says to 50 Cent, “Welcome to the Candy Shop”. I believe the idea of the “Candy Shop” is clear metaphor. The women are the “candy” and the brothel-like atmosphere shown mansion is considered the “shop”. When creating the song, 50 Cent stated to the media that he “Attempted to be as sexual as possible, from a male perspective, without being vulgar or obscene.”⁽²⁾ He did accomplish his goal of promoting sexuality and focusing on the male perspective, but I do not believe he accomplished his last goal of the music video. I believe the video is offensive and vulgar to certain audiences. Specifically, because the video is targeted towards children who are susceptible to absorbing these types of views communicated through persuasive mediums including music videos and advertising.

Culturally hegemonic values are imposed on people today through advertising (as seen in Lecture 3’s Killing “Killing us Softly”), television shows, movies and music videos. One value clearly communicated in 50 Cent’s new video was hyper masculinity. Hyper masculinity is is the exaggeration of a male stereotypical behavior, such as emphasis on physical strength, aggression and sexuality. The name of 50 Cent’s album “The Massacre”, demonstrates the rapper’s hyper-masculine image of aggression and strength. Additionally, Woman are constantly touching and feeling his body as he walks throughout the mansion. Also, the rapper has his shirt off for the majority of the video. 50 Cent aggressively grabs women throughout the video, as the provocatively dressed woman dance on him. 50 Cent is depicted as muscular, successful and easily able to attract woman. Demonstrating the cultural hegemonic belief that men must be masculine and strong in order to achieve their desires.

Culturally hegemonic views of sexuality communicate exclusively heterosexual relationships and demonstrate normalcy, as discussed in Lecture 2. Throughout the music video, all women appeared to be heterosexual. This demonstrates heteronormativity in today’s society, as discussed in Lecture 7. 50 Cent was the only male in the video, which also had a clearly depicted heterosexual sexuality. One of the last scenes included two girls feeding each other strawberries and bathing in chocolate, which made the woman seem bisexual. I believe that the video producers created this scene to show that these women are trying please 50 Cent’s needs due to his physical attractiveness, wealth and perceived power. Throughout popular culture, people are mainly exposed to heterosexual relationships, which demonstrate society’s expectations. Communicating societal norms can affect peoples perceptions of not only others, but their own selves.

Socially constructed and normalized beliefs were communicated throughout this video the video, including the sexualization of woman. When 50 Cent walks in the front door of the mansion, over ten women wearing lingerie-like clothing greet him. He starts walking upstairs towards a room, passing by ladies who touch, stare and try to get his attention. He enters the first room, where a girl is on bed feeling herself up with a video recording projected on the wall. He starts touching her, then it cuts to the next room with a new girl. She is dressed a nurse grinding over him in a hospital setting. He just sits there relaxed and continues to rap. The third room includes another new girl with a whip in her hand. When 50 Cent enters, she swings the whip, which takes his shirt off. She then proceeds to grind on him, as he exerts no effort. The video ends with the featured artist (Olivia) wearing revealing lingerie getting close to 50 on a couch. All of these scenes demonstrate the sexualization of woman, expectations of woman and indirectly communicates use of aggressive behavior towards females to vulnerable audiences.

Overall, the video received mixed critical reviews. PopMatters described it as “dripping with sexual energy and cool” and “sexy as hell, but contains a pretty unmistakable edge of hostility, macho swagger and thunderous chest thumping” Entertainment Weekly said song lines like “after you work up a sweat you can play with the stick” were offensive. This is because 50 Cent was commanding the woman to perform sexual acts in an aggressive tone, upsetting this critic. I feel these reviews sum up influential concerns within the industry, as music videos demonstrate values of normalcy, telling us who we are and should be. I find it odd that a company would describe it as cool and sexy as hell, while saying the video contains an unmistakable edge of hostility and macho swagger. Hard to determine whether the company enjoyed the video or found it offensive. I feel like critics would lose their reputation if they were to analyze music videos from the critical perspective we have developed throughout GNDS 125. 

Works Cited

1. “50 Cent – Candy Shop Ft. Olivia.” YouTube. YouTube, 16 June 2009. Web. 19 Apr. 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRcnnId15BA&gt;.

2. Reid, Shaheem (January 26, 2005). “50 Cent Renames LP, Makes Video for Sexy Song ‘Candy Shop’“. MTV. Accessed April 18, 2014.

-Navy

“More than Just Princesses”

Throughout our daily lives we can clearly see the problems of discrimination in gender, race, ability, ect. Though it is easier to see the bad, that does not mean that there is not good and new innovations coming about. While at home for a weekend I got together with a couple of high school friends and that was when I was introduced to this new toy called Goldieblox. My best friend’s younger sister was ecstatic about the new toy, being Goldieblox, that she gotten for her birthday and later went on to explain to us how when she grows up she wants to be an engineer. Personally I was impressed with her interest of becoming an engineer, especially since I had no idea what an engineer was at her age. After doing more research on the toy I found out that I; a female who did not know what an engineer was or that it was even a career option was who the toy was aimed at changing and that their goal “to get girls building” had successfully made it to my best friend’s eight year old sister. It is new ideas, such as Goldieblox that have begun to take up spaces of resistance within our daily lives and “talk back” against dominate stereotypes in our society.

 

Goldieblox is a new toy girls similar in nature of lego and k’nex, it allows girls to explore engineering basics, while following the story of Goldie and her friends. It all began when, CEO and inventor, Debbie Sterling was bothered by how few females there were in her program of engineering (Goldieblox). Sterling graduated from Stanford with a degree in Mechanical Engineering and Product Design and made it her mission to find a way to inspire future generations of female engineers (Goldieblox). On her way to creating Goldieblox Sterling did extensive research on gender, discovering that girls have very strong verbal skills; meaning that they enjoy stories and characters, they also do not like building just for the sake of building something, they want to know why. Using this information, Sterling created a toy built around a storyline of a female engineer, named Goldie, and her friends who solve problems by building machines. Sterling’s notion of “disrupting the pink aisle” has inspired girls and changed the future of engineering. 

 

In our society children are immediately put into gender roles and are subject to gender stereotyping. As soon as a baby is born it is labelled as being a girl or a boy and then wrapped in the “appropriate” blanket colour for its sex. Once taken home the baby is then submerged in colours, clothing, toys, ect that fit with the cultural hegemony of the sex of the baby. From birth this thick line between girls and boys is drawn and they consist of binary opposites, which labels  things as either this or that, for girls or for boys, not for both. Toys like Goldieblox are disputing this set line, creating spaces of resistance between what are “for girls and what are for boys” as defined by social construction. 

 

This new, innovative toy has begun to encourage girls to continue to stay interested in math, science, and technology. Its trying to put a stop to stereotypes of boys supposing to be more interested in math, science, and technologies; while girls are supposed to like the art, music, and drama. Stereotypes of gender roles within the school system have been around for far too long and it is great to see it slowly beginning to change. 

 

Sterling’s notion of “disrupting the pink aisle” is a goal that more toy and game manufactures should be taking into account. Walking into a toy story it is very evident which section is for girls and which is for boys, this is a factor that should not exist. I do not find anything wrong with girls wanting to wear pink or dress up as princesses, but when this idea is the only thing that girls are associated with, that is when it becomes a problem. 

 

Throughout this course of GNDS125 we have examined many different components of popular culture and noted the stereotypical and discriminatory statements towards females. It is important to note the problems with our society, but it is also important to acknowledge the positive actions that are beginning to become more distinct. Debbie Sterling and her invention of Goldieblox has become a very popular toy and has successfully “disrupted the pink aisle” creating a space of resistance. Even looking at our University the percentage of female engineers has risen dramatically in the last five years (Queen’s University). Hopefully this rise will continue and gender ratios within different disciplines will begin to become more balanced. 

-Violet

Cultural Hegemony in Friends

Friends was one of the most popular television shows of all-time, running for ten seasons between 1994 and 2004, entertaining millions of viewers across North America and creating an enormously loyal fan base. Originally, the creators of the show described it as being, “about sex, love, relationships, careers, a time in your life when everything’s possible.” Yet after learning more this semester about gender norms, racism, and the socially constructed ideals that popular culture promotes, it is evident that the show’s characters and plotlines are illustrative of cultural hegemony. As discussed in Lecture 2, cultural hegemony is where one dominant culture exists over others – in the case of Friends, the cultural hegemony appears to be a white, middle-class, heterosexual group of individuals. The “sex, love, relationships, careers” described by the show’s creators are not fully representative of the society of New York in the 1990s, and instead appropriate the idea of cultural hegemony.

Friends has an extremely loyal following that could be categorized as a fandom, a subculture or community of fans with a particular interest in one aspect of popular culture (Tutorial January 31). I am one of those true Friends fans – I own all 10 seasons on DVD, and have seen every episode numerous times. Yet it was only after examining different popular culture items in Gender Studies this semester did it occur to me that each main character in Friends is white. This seems quite odd given the setting of New York City in the 1990s, a supposedly progressive and multicultural society. The few ethnic characters who appear in the show (there were only two) were short-lived love interests of Joey and Ross, and were never fully accepted by the gang, contributing to the idea of an all-white cultural hegemony.

In addition to lacking a racially diverse cast, there were several episodes where Friends main characters perpetuated gender stereotypes and binary definitions of gender. For example, in the episode entitled The One With the Metaphorical Tunnel, Ross’ ex-wife Carol and her partner Susan bring Ross’ son Ben over to his father’s house carrying a Barbie doll. Upon seeing the doll, Ross is shaken up, and Carol responds to this by saying that they went to the toy store and Ben chose the doll for himself. The mothers had no problem with it, yet Ross spends the rest of the episode trying to encourage Ben to play with trucks and toy soldiers. This social construction of gender, where we encourage girls to “think pink” and embrace their caring, feminine side and tend to forcemasculine ideals onyoung boys was discussed in our first lecture, and is also mentioned in Gendered Worlds. Gender polarization “refers to the ways that diverse aspects of human experience are culturally linked to sex differences” (p.49), and begins the moment a child is born and wrapped in either a blue or a pink blanket. This social construction of gender roles continues in childhood when toys are chosen for children based on their sex, which isnot necessarily what the children would pick out for themselves (as with Ross’ son in Friends). In a study done by a research professor in Indiana, college students were asked to label a group of toys based on how masculine or feminine they believed them to be. The masculine toys typically given to boys were described by the students as being “violent, competitive, exciting, and somewhat dangerous”, whereas the toys for girls were described as being “associated with physical attractiveness, nurturance, and domestic skill” (Gendered Worlds, p.48).

While our sex is largely based on biology, “a complex interplay of genes, hormones, and our environment”, gender is “a social status, a legal definition, and a personal identity”. Gender is socially constructed by our society by enforcing stereotypical ideas and ideals about what it means to be a man or woman, and begins in our childhood, clearly seen in this Friends episode. In Lecture 3, we discussed the term emphasized feminity in the context of the Jean Kilbourne video Killing Us Softly about the portrayal of females in advertising. I think that in the above episode of Friends, the case can be made for Ross attempting to push “emphasized masculinity” on his son by discouraging play with a Barbie doll, and instead pushing “manlier” toys, like a G.I. Joe doll, on his son. Even though Ben is only a small boy of age 3 or 4, his father is already trying to shape his personality to fit the “hyper-masculinity” stereotypical gender ideal enforced by society, where we promote violence, callousness, and a lack of sensitivity for men in popular culture today. Gender polarization and hyper-masculinity are common occurrences in popular culture today, and this episode of Friends clearly exemplifies this.

In Lecture 7, we discussed the idea of heteronormativity, the idea that heterosexuality is the norm in our society promoted by popular culture today. Each character in Friends is heterosexual, and the only homosexual characters to appear on the show are Ross’ ex-wife Susan and her partner Carol. Ross’ wife left him after falling for Susan and declaring that she was a lesbian, and throughout the show many jokes are made about this at Ross’ expense. Carol, the lesbian partner, is not a well-liked character, and often the couple only appears to be the subject of punch-lines or to set up for a joke. This relates back to our discussions on New Queer Cinema, where before the Stonewall riots of 1969 the only existence of queer references in popular theatre were subtle “winks”, or having gay characters appear simply to be the target of jokes(Pearson, p.37). Having the entire show aside from this one relationship based on heterosexual relationships contributes to an idea of an “all-white, middle-class, heterosexual” cultural hegemony.

After considering a number of concepts we have reviewed in Gender Studies this term, it is apparent that Friends promotes very stereotypical ideas about gender, race, and sex in popular culture today. While the show may have been a huge hit, it’s clear lack of diversity in its main characters contributes to an overarching cultural hegemony.

-Evergreen

Sources: Gendered Worlds, Pearson Course Reader,  https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/bgsu1182538485/inline, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4899445/ns/dateline_nbc-newsmakers/t/friends-creators-share-shows-beginnings/#.U0_t-OZdWj8

 

Cultural Hegemony in Sexy Back

Sound influences and impacts our daily life. It brings pleasure to people either through creating or listening to the noises and melodies around us. Music triggers multiple neurological regions in your brain, each involved in different areas of processing the complexity presented. However, beyond the basic mechanical aspects of the interpretation of music due to the intricacy of systems utilized, music results in a number of deeper responses such as emotional stimulation, activation of the visual cortex, memory activation, and linguistic compression. When these brain regions are simultaneously activated and combined with visual images represented in music videos, powerful subconscious alterations occurs which ultimately result in the modification of our perception of the world (Wilkins).

Music has a dominant role in popular culture and has the power to manipulate and exploit humans regarding our socially constructed views of society. Our cultural hegemonic society views the white male as being the dominant figure of the world and the rest of the human population as trailing beneath into socially constructed systems of classes. The music video Sexy Back recorded by singer-songwriter Justin Timberlake hit the billboard top 100 and obtained the number one spot for seven consecutive weeks. Throughout this time, the socially constructed messages such as hyper masculinity, sexualization, emphasized femininity, and racialization, all became subconsciously incorporated and reinforced into the globalized perception of our cultural hegemony.

In music video Sexy Back, the main character, Justin Timberlake, assimilates with our socially constructed view of the dominate power: a white male. This dominance is amplified throughout the actions captured in the short video of his predatory stalking of the female lead. Justin’s stalking is accompanied by him repeatedly asking “are you ready?” when it is obvious that he has no intentions of waiting for a response (Sexy Back Lyric Meaning). The assertion of his desires being met with no regard to the other party captures the dominance males hold over females.

Hyper masculinity is another problematic stereotype reinforced throughout this video. Hyper masculinity is a gender-based ideology about what it is to be a man, and consists of four interrelated beliefs: emotional self-control, violence, and callous attitudes towards women and towards sex. Throughout this video, all interrelated aspects of this stereotype are intensified. The lack of emotional attachment Justin obtains towards women is clear throughout the entire video, which reinforces the idea of emotional self-control. His violence is captured in the final scene where a bomb explodes. The viewer is left unsure about whether or not the bomb was detonated in the strip club. Moreover, the video also depicts Justin main goal, sex, which is obtained throughout his callous and predatory attitudes for women.

In our cultural hegemonic society, men are glorified for heterosexual sexual behaviors and women are subjected to constant sexualization constructed throughout media. In the music video Sexy Back, all the women are dressed in provocative clothing and dancing in a seductive manner ultimately attempting to stimulate the interest and appease the desire of men. This sexualization of women is not only offensive as a woman, but also has substantial negative consequences for women in our socially constructed society. Studies have proven that theses increased portrayals of women as sexual objects have intensified violence towards women in a sexual and non-sexual manor. Popular culture is a demonstration of values and normalcy that impact almost all people in a very similar way. Women are constantly comparing themselves to these socially constructed images of exquisiteness. These beauty comparisons have been shown to increase rates of body dissatisfaction, which tragically leads to eating disorders, and decreased sexual satisfaction amongst our global community. Men are also affected as they compare women to the idealistic images captured and create sexual fantasies that will never be fulfilled (Nauert). Music videos such as Sexy Back are intended to attract attention, change attitudes and command our behavior through the stimulation with the sensual lyrics and libidinous images. This ultimately results in alterations of subconscious facets in our brain, which changes our perception of the world.

Racialization occurs throughout this video by the subjection of racial identities that differ from our cultural hegemonic view of normalcy. In this video Timberland, a black vocalist, is only spotted three times in the background on a small screen. It demonstrates the minuscule value that our cultural hegemony ascribes to races other than white. This video also portrays women of different racial identities in a destructive light. The woman of lustful desire is white and the only other glimpse of different racial identities occurs in a short scene of lesbian contact. This short scene includes a Chinese and black women engaging in sexual activity in a room closed off from the rest of society. The conclusion the viewer is left with is that this homosexual contact is unacceptable and should be hidden from the public eye. This scene is derogatory towards non-assimilating races and non-heterosexual individuals.

Throughout this music video Sexy Back, many values of normalcy are demonstrated such as hyper masculinity, sexualization, emphasized femininity, and racialization. These are all dominant reoccurring themes that constantly appear throughout popular culture. These ideas are effortlessly absorbed into our subconscious mind through the intricate stimulation of different brain regions. These subconscious brain alterations result in socially constructed views of society, which lead to the discrimination and objectification of those who do not assimilate with the cultural hegemonic view of the ruling class. The notion created by this video and throughout majority of popular culture, attracts global attention and through the complex brain processing is subconsciously applied later in life through thoughts, views and actions.

Nauert. R. (n.d). Media’s Growing Sexualization of Women. Sexuality and Relationships. Retrieved April 17, 2014, from Http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/08/11/medias-growing-sexualization-of-women/28539.html

Sexy Back-Lyric Meaning. (n.d). Music Banter. Retrieved April 17, 2014, from http://www.musicbanter.com/lyrics/Justin-Timberlake-SexyBack.html).

Wilkins, A. (n.d). What happens to your brain under the influence of music. I09. Retrieved April 17. 2014, from from http://io9.com/5837976/what-happens-to-your-brain-under-the-influence-of-music

By Peppermint

“White Beauty”

Pond’s White Beauty commercial begins with a man parting ways with a woman in an airport, in what appears to be a break-up. The woman appears to be upset, as the separation did not seem mutual. The advertisement then fast-forwards three years. The same woman is walking down the street when she sees her past significant other with a lighter-skinned woman. He gives his ex-girlfriend/partner a quick glance and then gets pulled away by the lighter-skinned woman. This advertisement implies that her skin was not white enough to keep him interested. After viewing the rest of the advertisement series, the woman becomes interested in the product and purchases it. After she begins using it, the man slowly becomes more interested in her as her skin lightens. By the fifth part, the man eventually takes her back.

 

Upon viewing the commercial, I was curious whether or not it aired because of the questionable and unethical views it communicates. After additional research, shockingly the advertisement actually did air in India and it even included influential Bollywood stars. The Federal Trades Commission regulates advertisements in the United States, with strict rules on tobacco, alcohol and health products. Due to the FTC’s strict regulations health products and the offensive social constructions of gender, sexuality and race in the ad, it would likely never air in the U.S.A. or Canada. Unilever’s “White Beauty” five-part series has a consistent message they are attempting to communicate to Indian woman. You will have a better chance at getting the man you are interested in or love if you use our skin-whitening product.

 

Advertisements demonstrate values and normalcy, they tell us whom we should or shouldn’t be ⁽¹⁾.This advertisement is telling a historically underprivileged group (Indian woman) that they should be whiter because it’s the norm and it is what other people demand from you. I believe it is unfair that Unilever is attempting to take advantage of an underprivileged group; they are potentially more susceptible to these types of ads. Regardless of whether or not Indian woman want to become fairer-skinned, people do not deserve to be told that their skin isn’t good enough for others or that they can’t be beautiful unless they are white. This advertisement is a clear example of western popular culture influencing other parts of the world, as mentioned in “Killing us Softly”⁽¹⁾.Cultural hegemony is the domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class, who manipulate the culture of society by imposing their own norms and ideologies. Woman demanding lighter skin in India is a consequence of the cultural hegemony that exists today.

 

The advertisement proves the socially constructed views of sexuality in today’s society, specifically heterosexism. The advertisement creates a love story around a woman trying to get the attention of the man she desires. Why are all the advertisements assuming that relationships are heterosexual? Do people with different sexual orientations in India not want to get their skin whitened? Not everyone has the same sexuality; again this is a clear example of advertisements trying to demonstrate values of normalcy.

 

Additionally, the advertisement is an example of the social constructs created around gender. The advertisement pictures an assertive masculine man. He is assertive and seems to have control over the potential outcome of his relationships with either of the two women. The main woman works in a flower shop and is “chasing” a man, showing socially constructed feminine qualities. The way the advertisers chose to depict men and woman demonstrates heteronormativity, the idea that people fall into distinct genders and have a natural role in life. 

 

All three oppressive characteristics are demonstrated through the main woman in the advertisement. The characteristics include: race (darker skinned), gender (woman) and sexuality (assumed other purchasing product were heterosexual). All of these intersect and create a disadvantaged person in today’s society and Indian culture. Again, I feel it is unethical to attempt to take advantage of people who are potentially disadvantages and possibly insecure. I find it surprising and disappointing that Unilever (one of the largest consumer-packaged good companies in the world) would be the ones supporting the ideologies and values communicated through the commercial. 

 

According to Reuters ⁽²⁾, fairness creams have been around since 1978 and are a multi-billion-rupee industry in India. Cleary, there is a demand in the country because people place such a high premium on fair skin. Due to my positionality (as a white heterosexual male), I find it quite surprising that people would ever want to manipulate their skin colour. Yet, this could because I do not fully understand the privilege that comes along with lighter skin. Especially regarding how it affects people in other parts of the world. According to Reuters, “There is too large a population that equates fairness with beauty and superiority”, which ties into the idea of cultural hegemony and how it affects the values and norms of people outside of the western society.  The idea that people believe they need beauty to be successful and achieve their goals is an underlying problem that causes Indian woman (and most likely men too, but this wasn’t the focus for this blog), to demand skin-whitening products. This results in advertisers taking advantage of Indian woman through promoting in manipulative ways. “It is so ingrained in our culture and sensibility, it is hard to imagine where the advertising can go from here”⁽²⁾.  In the future, I believe India should adopt a moral/ethical code for advertising similar to the United States/Federal Trades Commission. This will ensure manipulative advertisements taking advantage of disadvantages groups will no longer air.

 

 

Works Cited

 

1. Still Killing Us Softly (Advertising’s Image of Women). Cambridge Documentary Films, 1987. Film.
2. “India Insight.” India Insight RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2014. <http://blogs.reuters.com/india/2008/07/25/alls-not-fair-in-fairness-cream-advertising/&gt;.

 

-Navy 

The Racialization of Beauty: Pond’s “White Beauty” Advertisements

The 2008 Pond’s campaign for the “White Beauty” product line was an absolutely racist and sexist ad campaign that left me very disturbed after watching. The “White Beauty” products are skin-lightening creams popular in a number of different Asian countries created and sold by Pond’s a division of Unilever. The commercials use blatant racism, in promoting whiteness at the expense of natural colouring, to sell the product, but also put the emphasis on skin lightening as a necessity for the females in the video to please the man in order to be more attractive and desirable. This advertisement promotes the idea that beauty exists in hegemonic forms today, and in this case, the ideal body would be a lighter-skinned feminine individual.

This five-part advertising series of commercials promotes the idea of “whiteness” to Asian women, and the company also adapted an almost identical storyline to feature Bollywood actors Priyanka Chopra, Ali Khan and Neha Dhupiaand use their celebrity status promote the same product to a specifically Indian audience. The campaigns feature a storyline based on a couple (one man, one darker-skinned Asian woman) who break up, only to meet again three years later when the man has found a new, “whiter” girlfriend of the same ethnic descent. The product promotion comes from pushing the ex-girlfriend to use Pond’s skin lightening product in order to become more beautiful and ultimately “win over” the man by being the gentler, more feminine character (highlighted by her soft pink outfits and vulnerability working in a flower shop), who has now become more beautiful by lightening her skin.

This obvious push for darker-skinned women to lighten their skin in order to be seen as beautiful is clear evidence of the racialization of beauty in our society today. Racialization is the process of imbuing a person with a consciousness of race distinctions or of giving a racial character to something that wouldn’t normally be seen as having a racial foundation (Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary). This racialization of beauty can be seen evidently in a number of other digitally altered advertisements in popular culture today. For example, Beyonce’s skin in the now infamous L’Oreal magazine advertisement (see photo below) had blatantly been lightened from her natural colour, something Jean Kilbourne analyzes in her video series “Killing Us Softly”. As Kilbourne says, “Ads sell more than products; they sell values, they sell concepts of love and sexuality and success. And perhaps most importantly, of normalcy – to a great extent, they tell us who we are, and who we should be”. Both Beyonce’s ad and Pond’s racist product imply that you should be “white” or “white with shades of pink” (the two colours the product comes in) in order to be considered normal and beautiful, just as Kilbourne says.

When analyzing the White Beauty advertisement, it is easy to lay the blame on Pond’s, and I agree the way the product is advertised is absurd. However, the fact is that the company in this case would not offer a product unless there was substantial demand for it, which points to a bigger societal issue of people of colour feeling the need to “pass” as white people. As we discussed in tutorial, darker-skinned people often try to “pass” as lighter-skinned in order to “fit in” and be afforded certain privileges in society, in order to conform to the white hegemony that exists.

This Pond’s skin-lightening ad encourages material consumption by marketing whiteness, material wealth, youth, marriage, and heterosexuality, very similar to Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey (Lecture 4). The ad is a perfect example of the intersection of race, class, and gender that exist in advertising today. The commercial focuses on selling the product to a women seeking a man “superior” to her in terms of material wealth and class, and emphasizes the female’s feminity in needing a man in her life (and doing anything possible to win over this man).

Gender polarization is the idea that gender is a binary concept where men and women must fall into stereotypical gender roles, where men are masculine and women are feminine, and there is no middle ground. The gender polarization in this video is apparent, with the man being a masculine, successful, jet-setting celebrity with a large amount of material wealth, a clear contrast to the modest, working-class and feminine (she even works in a flower shop!) female main character. The female character perfectly epitomizes the social construction of gender roles, leaving it up to the man to seek her out and not going after him by making any romantic gesture or statement of her feelings. Instead, the female main character sees her looks as the only way to attract the man she desires by lightening her skin to become more like the woman he is currently with. Only after she is comparable to this woman in the way she looks will the male accept her, even though the ad clearly displays that the darker-skinned individual has the more attractive personality.

After watching this ad, which I feel very strongly is morally wrong, I looked to the Pond’s website to see what their mission and philosophy were. I predicted that this advertisement would contradict any philosophy that a company would want published, and I was right. In its beauty philosophy, Pond’s states,

“At Pond’s we believe the world would be a better place if we stopped idealizing beauty…and started celebrating it instead”.

Quite an ironic statement for a company that works to promote a Western, hegemonic ideal of “white beauty”, at a direct cost your natural colouring and ethnic descent. This is something that needs to change. It’s hard to believe that such an apparent legacy of colonialism still exists, and that we are actually utilizing capitalism and consumption to promote blatant racialization of beauty. Maybe we actually should follow the Pond’s beauty philosophy and eliminate the hegemonic beauty ideals that exist today.

-Evergreen

Pond’s White Beauty

Advertisements surround us everyday. They are on television, the internet, billboards; there is no escaping advertisements. These ads are not only very prominent in our daily lives, but are also very influential, especially for younger generations. Women seem to be the prime target for most advertisements telling us how we should look and how we can “fix” ourselves to look the “right way” as defined by cultural hegemony. 

Pond’s is a skin care company based out of Asia that provides a variety of creams for the purposes of anti-aging, cleansing, hydrating, and whitening. Yes whitening. In 2008 Pond’s released a new product called “White Beauty Pinkish White Day Cream” and with its release came an advertisement in the form of a commercial. The commercial is about an Indian woman who is in love, with who appears to be an Indian celebrity. The woman then discovers that her love has gotten married to a white woman, she is then introduced to the whitening cream. The underlying argument of this commercial is that if you are a woman with a darker complexion, lightening and whitening your skin will make you more appealing, because men prefer white women. 

This advertisement deals with many issues, including placing a heavy emphasis on white supremacy, which is the belief that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds (textbook 117). The Pond’s commercial is promoting that if you buy their product and lighten your skin you will become more desirable to the opposite sex. Jean Kilbourne, the mastermind behind the Killing Us Softly documentary series, states how women of colour are not seen to be beautiful unless they approximate to the white ideal (Jean Kilbourne). Advertisements are filled with caucasian models and when women of darker complexions are in advertisements they are often placed in settings of jungles. Darker women are constantly being lightened, along with the many other alterations, done by photoshop before the final product is released.

Women, in general, are constant targets of the media and in advertisements, as Jean Kilbourne notes in her documentaries. This is having a very negative affect on young women. 

Being a female I do see the pressure that the media puts on young women to look a certain way and strive for an unattainable and unrealistic goal. Social construction, the roles that the media, culture, and politics play in society, has set out so many rules for young women and it is unfortunate that this is what we are doing to the next generation of women.

It is also worth noting that women are always they ones who are projected as not being good enough the way they are and that they need to change. Unfortunately this is not a new occurrence in advertisement. Women are constant targets, especially women of colour, and because of this young girls are becoming more and more self conscious about their looks. There have been many initiatives to help girls with self esteem and showing them that they just need to believe in themselves and not listen to what other people say. In particular the company Dove has an initiative for young girls called, the Dove Self-Esteem Project. This project focuses on boosting girls self-esteem and educating young women on body image and the misconceptions depicted by the media.

These initiatives promote the importance of doing why makes YOU feel good about yourself. If that means wearing make up, then wear make up; if it means dressing a certain way, then do it; no one should be able to tell you how you should look or what you should and should not wear. Wear what makes you feel good about yourself! Advertisements, like the Pond’s commercial, should not project the idea that you will become more appealing to the opposite sex if you change yourself.

-Violet 

Ponds White Beauty India Episode 1

For almost two centuries, scholars have been examining the ways in which advertising affects human beings. Major evidence supports that viewing and hearing advertisements cause subliminal stimulation, which induces us to think in a way that is manipulated, exploited and controlled by the media. In the advertisement “Ponds White Beauty India Episode 1” the non-dominate power structure associated with gender, race and sexuality is portrayed in a destructive light. Our cultural hegemonic society has appointed the dominant gender as male, dominant race as Caucasian, and dominant sexuality as heterosexual. Any sexual orientation, race or gender outside this socially constructed view of perfection is discriminated and oppressed. This oppression is expressed through media, popular culture, employment, educational, and athletic opportunities. All in all, our society constitutes negligible personal knowledge of anything in our world that is not filtered or constructed through the media. (Hayko, p. 79-80)

When analyzing the advertisement “Ponds White Beauty India Episode 1,” gender, race, and sexuality transmute and intertwine to portray an oppressive message towards the targeted character. This targeted character’s characteristics are being female, and being apart of the Indian race. Contrary to popular belief, racialization is a social reality and not biologically determined. Moreover, race is simply a perspective created by popular culture. The targeted charter traits do not assimilate with the cultural hegemony view of the ruling class that is integrated into our society. As a result these traits are consequently objectified as abnormal and subjected to prejudice and bias treatment.

In this advertisement, an Indian woman and Caucasian male are in a romantic relationship, which ends due to the departure of the man. We can infer that the man is returning back home from India. Three years later, the Indian woman observes her ex- lover on the cover of a magazine with a beautiful white woman. The caption on the magazine reads Celeb Couple. The next scene is comprised of the desirable white couple walking arm-in-arm, passing the devastated Indian woman. The man takes a double take and looks back and the Indian woman, but then continues on with walking with his all American beauty. The Indian woman then sees the commercial for Ponds white beauty skin cream that supposedly whitens skin to a pinkish glow. The viewer is left with a socially constructed message of beauty and dominance composed by popular culture. The message expressed through the advertisement is that the only beautiful race is Caucasian (the dominate culture and that the male gender holds power over romantic relationships. This is emphasized by the use of femininity as the only way for a woman to obtain the desire of men. Segregation, sexual double standard, sexualization and racialization are all dominate reoccurring themes throughout this ad and popular culture. This ad constructs a cultural separation of the actors according to biological sex; the men and women in this ad have different societal goals and positions. This ad portrays males with a sense of employment and economic status, and woman with a single goal to please and conform to the needs of men. This advertisement also brings sexual awareness to women through the clothing and the product of a beauty enhancer. The double standard of men and women is also evident throughout many aspects of this advertisement. This ad enforces that men have larger sexual freedom than women do, through diversity, expression of beauty and how one exhibits their sexuality. Moreover, racialization occurs throughout this ad by ascribing racial identities to the romantic relationships. In the relationship between the Indian woman and Caucasian man, the man holds all power due to his gender and socially determined race. In the relationship with the Caucasian male and female, the male does not hold the same extent of power because the only dominance existing is through gender.

Companies such a Ponds aspire for all viewers, to strive for the life “portrayed on the screen with their products” (Hayko p. 79-80).  Advertisements take time to be processed in the brain and many advertisements possess similar subliminal messages on aspects such as beauty, dominance, and cultural norms. Through these demonstrations of values and normalcy and the globalization affect that popular culture has, almost all people are impacted in very similar ways. Not only do women compare themselves to these socially constructed views of perfection, but men also judge women based on the idealistic images portrayed. Advertisements are comparable to a science experiment as they are intended to attract attention, change attitudes and command our behavior. The communicated ideas presented throughout advertisements are effortlessly absorbed into our subconscious mind, which requires minimal thinking, and results in subconscious application later in life. The stereotypes projected throughout many advertisements regarding gender, race, class and sexuality all contribute to unhealthy self- image and inadequacy. This results in the desire to consume the advertised product or service and the everlasting socially constructed views placed upon oneself and others in society. (Hayko, p. 79-80)
Advertisement has numerous affects on manipulating, exploiting and controlling the perspectives and thoughts in our society. Media is the instigator of our socially constructed views of the cultural hegemony constituting of the dominant gender as male, dominant race as Caucasian and the accepted way for females to express their sexuality. Throughout the advertisement “Ponds White Beauty India Episode 1” the targeted character was composed of non-dominant characteristic’s that were oppressed and subjected to prejudice. The obvious correlation of gender race and sexuality in this product was power structures created in order to generate the ideal female. The ideal image of a beautiful woman through eyes of media and popular culture is a youthful white woman with emphasized femininity willing to conform to the needs of the all- dominant powerful male. Finally, the notion created by this, and the majority of advertisements not only attracts attention but also assimilates into the thoughts of the viewer and is subconsciously applied later in life through thoughts, views and actions.

 

Hayko, G. “Effects of Advertising on Society: A Literary Review.” HOHONU. Web. 20 Mar 2014.

 

 By Peppermint 

Reeloute Movie Review

On February 5th I had the chance to attend Reelout, a queer film festival originally established as a working group of the Kingston OPIRG in 1999 [2]. All showings for “In Your Pocket: What Your Sex? Shorts” required video recorded from a smartphone. This limited creators to a small screen and lower quality videos, but made for creative ideas. Many producers used the Reelout regulation to their advantage, using fascinating angles and editing in their cinematography. The short films aimed to explore the immediacy and intimacy offered by smartphone technology as an intriguing way to investigate ways in which we record ourselves [2].

During the showings, I found “You Are Not Your Genitals” was the most interesting video and thought provoking. It was created by a Mohawk storyteller, artist and Shaman named Kiley May. The video debuted in the “In Your Pocket: What’s Your Sex?” program sponsored by Videofag, Trinity Square Video and Inside out. Kiley identifies as a two-spirit, trans, queer and gender queer human being who prefers the following gender pronouns: they, their and them. The theme of the festival, “What’s Your Sex?”, was created with ambiguous intentions to stimulate unique perspectives from participants surrounding the word “Sex”. For a better understanding of my positionality and perspectives, I identify as a heterosexual male.

“You Are Not Your Genitals” was created in response to the following question, “Kiley, what’s your sex?” To best answer the question Kiley received, I researched to determine the academic meaning. Collins Dictionary defines sex as groups of species that are specialized into male and female varieties. While sexual reproduction is separate and involves combining and mixing of genetics traits: specialized cells known as gametes combine to form offspring that inherit traits from each parent [1].

Kiley believes people often confuse sex and gender; the two words are not interchangeable. “Sex is fucking, doing it, it is the act of sexual intercourse” [2]. Kiley opposes using the word sex to classify human beings, sex is just the act of intercourse. The genitals between your legs are in fact just your genitals and do not represent sex. I believe Kiley would disagree with the definition given by Collins Dictionary because it defines sex as the binary classification of human beings. Based on the textbook, we learned that sex is a complex interplay of genes, hormones, environment and behavior with a loopback effects between bodies and society. The textbook suggests using the adjectives male, female and intersex when referring to biological genital features of sex. Based on the textbook definition, sex and sexual intercourse are completely different (p. 30) [3].

Kiley believes sex is not your genitals, but the act of having sex. I understand and agree with May’s point of view, but the textbook and dictionary definitions are quite different. Kiley May does not believe sex is your genitals, the textbook refers to sex as a complex interplay of genes and genitalia, while the dictionary states it is groups of species that are labeled male or female. I do not agree with the dictionary representation of sex, I believe that textbook and Kiley May best communicate the true definition of sex. The definitions recognize other potential genders outside of male and female, while the dictionary fails to do so. I believe the dictionary omits recognizing other possible genders due to societies hegemonic society values. The domination of a culturally diverse society by a ruling class. I have a feeling that people creating dictionary definitions are not the most open-minded or free spirited people, possibly explaining the Collins narrow-minded definition.

Kiley believes that gender is not representative of what is between your legs, but what is between your ears. I agree with the message and support Kiley for sharing it with others on Youtube and the Reelout audience. It takes courage with people’s gender-polarized beliefs in today’s world. It would not surprise me if critics harassed Kiley or commented negative thoughts.

I believe that more people in today’s society need to become better informed about other possible genders. Instead of viewing gender as either male or female. Gender identity is your inner sense of self, not defined by physical parts. Gender is your own sense of how masculine, feminine or androgen you see yourself as [2]. I agree with Kiley’s definition of gender and it aligns from what we have learned in class and readings. We learned that gender is a social status, a legal designation, and a personal identity. We use the terms women, men when referring to gender [3]. I think it is important that Kiley responded to the viewer’s question, “Kiley, what’s your sex?”. The message must be communicated to many people in today’s hegemonic society who view gender a binary, either male or female.

In the video there was no mention of race, only gender. I believe race was omitted because it is a completely different topic, May created the video in response to the question, “What’s your sex?”. Talking about race would have been irrelevant. From viewing the video, Kiley seems passionate about the topic of sex in comparison to race. Which also can explain the lack of race discussion. As a Mohawk, Kiley may have faced race complications due to negative stigma, but again these are irrelevant to the main idea of the argument. Kiley was trying to prove one point. The difference between sex, gender and genitals

In the end, I agree with Kiley May’s point of view, but in my opinion the message could have presented in a more professional manner. Though Kiley was most likely recording an informal video because that’s how Kiley is. Keep being yourself, why change you to impress different viewers? Other shorts within the festival were quite graphic, which I found did not help communicate the message. Though, Kiley’s video was more concise, less graphic and more professional in comparison to some of the other shorts. In conclusion, I prefer the textbook and Kiley May’s classification of sex and gender. You are not your genitals.

Written by,

“Navy”

Works Cited

1. CollinsDictionary.com. Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 11th Edition. Retrieved 3 December 2012.
2. “WHAT’S YOUR SEX? SHORTS.” Reelout. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 February 2014.
3. “Gendered Words.” Aulette, Judy Root and Wittner Judith. Oxford Press 2012.