Globalization effects..

When we look at cultural studies, we see that culture is the pattern of social groups or human activity. Culture draws widely in what people wear, the food they eat and the morals and beliefs they hold and how they carry them out. With Globalization we are joining different cultures together and blending them together. Cultural boundaries are broken down through Globalization and traits that are usually well known within one specific country are slowly making their way accessible worldwide. The internet helps to break down cultural boundaries, through interaction and information. Although Globalization is fantastic in the way it is connecting cultures and integrating global networks some also feel that there are negative effects as culture is being imported and directly exported into different countries. This leads a concern that bigger and more powerful countries like the US and England for example may overrun smaller countries with their ways and brands. This refers to process’ that are known as Americanization and McDonalization.

Globalization Versus Cultural Imperialism

Globalization and Cultural Imperialism are two sides of the same coin. Globalization is usually the way the culture spreading looks at it and Cultural Imperialism is how the culture being hegemonized. Globalization is making citizens more aware of other countries, ideas, and ways of life. Cultural Imperialism is the intense and bad version of globalization. In class on Monday, I made the argument that if citizens weren't patrons of the imperialized cultures businesses then they wouldn't be there. After thinking of this picture, I thought that it might be nearly impossible to avoid. Even in our own lives as AMericans, how easy is it to frequent only mom and pop businesses in all aspects? This Cultural Imperialism is overwhelming. It is inescapable. Once the first store or idea is planted, it spreads like a virus. It infects everything until it is hard to pick when the change actually happened. Cultural Imperialism is Globalization, it just depends on which side your on.

Race, Society and Comedic Relief

This episode of Chappelle Show, titled, "I know black people" is a game show parody about knowing "Black People". Chappelle uses cliche stereotypes as his questions. After watching all the African American sitcoms in class- such as Good Times, it triggered this episode. One of the questions was reciting the lyrics to the Good Times theme song. This sheds light on the globalization of black culture and its impact on different communities. Some contestants were well versed in black "street" culture while others stared blankly into the fake game show hosts face. It is so funny but also an insightful on black culture and stereotyping.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?title=i-know-black-people-pt--1&videoId=219443

Things Have Changed

The article by Ghosh was very interesting in its analysis of advertising trends surrounding Indian culture and society. One thing that stood out for me, though, was the fact that, at least from what I have seen, the portrayals have significantly changed since whenever this article was written. The first example that popped into my head was that of the stern patriarch who establishes strict rules for the family and high expectations for the son/s. Ghosh did not mention this now common stereotype that I think reigns supreme over most others, nowadays.

I also thought of this MetroPCS advertisement, however, because every time I see it on TV I can only think of how blatantly racist it is. I feel that the developers of the ad would contend that they are actually breaking away from the common stereotypes (strict doctors or turban-wearing cab drivers [I found that, at least in Chicago, most cab drivers were from Africa]) by featuring the eccentricities of these two men. This doesn't work for me for a few reasons.
1. They have extremely thick Indian accents: This is one area of Indian culture that media definitely plays up as a humorous object (listen to their accents! they're so goofy!)
2. They have facial hair and the sort of stiff look that are often presented as Indian traits
3. They are advertising TECH: This just fills in the newer stereotype of Indian workers as people who are inherently good with technology (outsourcing)

At the end of her argument, Ghosh asks for a change in media that recognizes the "poly-religious, polyglot amalgamation of principalities." I feel that, due to political and world events, this change actually has come, but it has simply changed to a new form of racism that fits more along with the black, asian, and hispanic portrayals in media. By that I mean, the media recognizes a demand/need to represent Indian culture physically, so new stereotypes have been adopted.

It Could Happen

As in the duel absence-presence of Indian culture, there is also that sense for gay and lesbian culture. There is no great voice or unifying figure for gay culture as there isn't for Indians. Until recently gays were not portrayed in mass media. Indians still don't really have any representation, voice, or figure. In the absence of a gay example or representation, other groups have been able to misconstrue what gay people support or want in greater society. This parody of a republican ad is an extreme of that misrepresentation. Although outrageous, after watching the "Fox attacks" series, I can see it happening. The unfortunate thing is that people would worry about it.

Ground Zero Mosque & Gay Wedding

- Watch more Politics Videos at Vodpod.

Henna Tattoos or Ritualistic Adornments?

While reading the article “Con-Fusing” Exotica” I realized how much of Indian culture is actually present in American society. Many aspects of Indian culture have been dissociated from their race and have been sold as “American” products. One idea that has been Americanized is henna tattoos. These tattoos were originally seen in Indian culture and they were actually viewed as ritualistic adornments called bindis and mehndi. By marketing these designs as something else, and not informing the consumer, one is taking away any form of identity or presence Indian culture has in America. “It is a kind of an apolitical exoticism and uniformed ethnic chic that is both calculated and successful-after all, what better way of stripping people of their histories and their art …transforming them into a First World consumer good.” (278). I find it interesting that on many occasions American society has been incorrectly informed of the influence India has on our world, creating an unrealistic picture of their race as a whole. They are not represented or acknowledged for much of their work that is eventually marketed as an “American” product. Is it so hard to get a henna tattoo and call it by its actual name instead of marketing it as something new and unheard of? I’m not quite sure what America would lose by giving the Indian culture the respect of claiming their products as their own, rather than covering it up as an American product.

Stereotypes in Media

I fully agree with Sanjukta Ghosh’s “Con-Fusing” Exotica Producing India in U.S. Advertising” article. Like Michelle, I also believe that Ghosh was very biased in many of her arguments. Ghosh argues that there is lack of Asian Indians in the media, but there is a lot of “robbed” culture that companies use to advertise their products because it is something that is usually beautiful and not normally seen in the media. One of my favorite points made by Ghosh is when she argued that “absence makes it possible for media empires to achieve a racially cleaned visual environment that reinforces the notion of who is ‘us’ and who is ‘them,’ who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out.’” News and media agencies are able to form these stereotypes shown in the video above by keeping these races and cultures out of American media. I believe this is plausible because when someone does not know anything about a culture or race they will believe the first thing they read or hear, and as we have already seen in previous studies, the media is very good at persuading what they want their viewers to believe.

Slumdog Millionaire: A British film adopted by America

While reading Ghosh's "Con-fusing Exotica: Producing India in U.S. Advertising" and the absence of Indian culture within American culture, I immediately thought of Slumdog Millionaire. "Indians...have been systematically written out, silenced, and marginalized in any mainstream picture of America." (Ghosh, 275) Slumdog is a British film, but won the coveted Best Picture slot at the American Academy Awards. In the trailer for the movie, the song featured is by the Ting-Tings, a popular British group. This movie represents Ghosh's argument because although it was praised by American critics and audiences alike, it was not an American movie. Whereas Indians are the United Kingdom's largest nonwhite ethnic group (www.statistics.gov.uk), there are about 1.7 million Indians in the United States (www.garamchai.com/statistics.htm).

Exotica

In the article by Sanjukta Ghosh, “Con-Fusing Exotica”, Ghosh expresses the frustrations about the presence (or lack there of) of Indians in the US media. I was slightly confused by the article and had to read it more then once. I found Ghosh’s argument about the media’s portrayal of Indians to be slightly contradicting. At first he states that there is an “absence” of Indians and Indian culture in US media. Later he states that there is a large presence of Indian culture in the media, but it is “robbed”. There were some interesting points and examples in this piece, but I found myself a little turned off by the obvious bias present in the writing. That’s not to say I don’t believe what the author is saying isn’t true. I just think I might get a clearer idea of the situation from a more objective article. Other then that I found the points about the US incorporating Indian fashion as their own quite interesting. I was able to find a Vogue fashion spread that seemed to praise Indian culture and Fashion in a way. It displayed fashion trends reflecting Indian culture, yet it gave credit to that culture.

Nike

Although I like to think of Nike as being a ‘morally good’ company, this article has proved me wrong. Nike like most other companies tries to appeal to the consumer by giving them what they want. Nike cares about ‘looking good’ for their middle class consumers by publicly showing that they participate in charity events, support different causes, and by giving away apparel; however, this is all a disguise to cover the manual labor they put people through in sweatshops to make all of the apparel.

When I read this article I began to realize, how Nike (like every other advertisement) tries to show the consumer what they want. The other day I saw this Nike advertisement about some curvy woman with a big butt. The advertisement continues to put emphasis on how though this woman might not be a size 0, she has a great body and loves herself for it. I can honestly say that I fell right into the typical consumer reaction and loved the ad, because I guess I felt I could relate. This is just an example of how Nike is trying to appeal to their consumers and covering up the horrible work they are putting people through.

Lightening of Skin

I thought it was interesting that black sitcoms such as The Cosby Show have been a way to overcome racial discrimination and bridge the gap. Through comedy this occurs but it has also been prevalent that many of the black actresses and actors in this show were depicted as having lighter skin than they actually have. “In these comedies, Black children are rescued from their dysfunctional families or communities by whites” (83). This issue with race and the fact that white is usually perceived as “better” in some way made me think of another prominent star who too changed his skin, conforming more to whiter audiences. Obviously Michael Jackson’s changing and lightening of his skin has been attributed to an illness but however it does beg to question if his race was an internal issue for him throughout his career. It makes me wonder the affect the media has on what is perceived as “better” and if these influences had an effect on the lightening of his skin.

True Nike

"My shoulders aren't dainty or proportional to my hips, some say they are like a man's. I say, leave men out of it. They are mine. I made them in a swimming pool. Then I went to Yoga and made my arms. Just do it."

A few weeks ago I walked into a crowded Nike outlet store in Orlando and was surprised at how diverse the crowd was. I saw men and women of all ages and a number of different ethnic groups. I find it hard that anyone can deny that Nike has succeeded in attracting most every demographic at least in its more recent years. By reading Stabile's article Nike, Social Responsibility, and the Hidden Abode of Production, I got a look at how they deceive us into directing our attention towards what we want to see. It is crazy to think that they draw middle class family consumers in by endorsing good values and icons when the company itself is putting people in other countries to work in sweatshops for minimum wage. It makes me wonder what other nonsense Nike is putting into our heads with their advertisements and other media.

As an athlete and a woman, Nike's ad campaigns give me a sense of empowerment and equality in ability compared with male athletes. But knowing what I know now do they really feel this way too? The article has made me realize that at the end of the day Nike is all about doing what it takes to get me to buy the shoe. Their slogan "Just do it", no longer seems like an encouragement to challenge my abilities and go the extra mile on my next run. Now it seems like a demand to "Just do it... buy the shoe!". The ad above is very crafty. As an athlete, I have always been self conscious about losing my sense of femininity by having "man" shoulders and larger biceps. While this is a social construction in itself, the ad still empowers those women who choose to be athletes and put their strength to the test. I can not deny that Nike has succeeded in showing me what I want to see even if they don't feel the same way about women in truth.

The War is Not Over Yet

I found “Nike, Social Responsibility, and the Hidden Abode” to be very interesting, especially considering the statement “compare the $130 million dollars Nike spent on advertising during the sneaker wars with the corporation’s paltry donation of $100,000 to Chicago schools.” Though I understand that much has changed since the early 1990’s, but I also feel that it is fairly obvious that many of the problems presented in this article are still relevant today. In the 2003 movie Honey, there is a scene where Bow Wow as a young boy steals sneakers from a kid on a subway to try to belong to a group of gang-oriented kids. Seven years later, here in 2010, we see Nike’s ever popular t-shirt line (seen above) sporting lines like “Welcome Haters” and “Size Matters: My Check is Bigger than Yours.” So it seems as if the idea of “sneaker wars” that Stabile mentions in her article didn’t just disappear. This is a perfect example of what Bordieu was talking about when he said that “cultural capital leads to violence in the community. There should be no surprise that there is a social hierarchy created and challenged when there’s text saying so on the shirts of the “socially blessed.”

Vans.. skate shoes?.

In realtion to the "Nike, social responsibility and the hidden abode", there is a similar case with the brand Vans. With it's promotion toward African American's and Caucasian skaters.
"Nike has been diversifying it's product line for some time"(199). While Vans is a relatively newer company in relation to Nike, there is still this forming of ideology in who wears the brand that has been evident. This is through the fact that the typical consumer and original targeted consumer of the Vans brand is the indie kid who wears skinny jeans (a few more stereotypes of this person) long sweeping hair and skateboard possibly in hand.. you get the picture.

Recently rappers like Lil Wayne, (who is a huge figure in today's hip hop culture) has projected his love for the shoes in a number of his songs, a popular phrase being "Skinny pants and some Vans". Hip hops artists of today are showing that the skater look is the new hip hop look and presenting a previously predominantly Caucasian style of shoes and clothing to the African American culture. I find this extremely ironic as there had been previous criticism in America that many Caucasian teens where "stealing" the African American bangy style of clothing in the 90's. The two pictures shown above emphasis the similarities between the two examples and the effects of popular culture.

You Could Call it an Extension: Women's Hair Color

http://www.color-chart.org/loreal-clairol-wella-hair.php

I too wondered about this chocolate-caramel distinction with Liz F in her post. But additionally, I wonder if this glamorized and sensual depiction of African American skin through its comparison to food could also be applied to women’s hair color. As can be seen by the hair color chart that I posted above, hair color is also compared to food (like chocolate, strawberry blonde, caramel, honey, etc.) I guess, answering my own question, that the answer is that mostly yes, it can be compared provisionally. This can be seen in many stereotypical American pop-culture movies like Sixteen Candles (1984), where the main character not only envies the attention given to soon-to-be-wed, very blonde sister, but also her very popular, blonde classmate for which she envies for the attention she receives from the boys at her school. The wealthy, popular, and desirable women are often depicted as blonde.

From Chocolate to Caramel

While reading "Black Sitcom Portrayals" by Robin R. Means Coleman, I thought the section on lighter-skinned African Americans vs. darker-skinned African Americans was really interesting. "...Hollywood's preference for lighter skinned African-Americans... [is] a new twist on 'White is Right'..." (Coleman, 84) Immediately I thought of the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, when Daphne Maxwell-Reid, a lighter-skinned (referred to as caramel) African American woman was brought in to replace the mother character of Vivan Banks, who was previously played by Janet Hubert-Whitten after three seasons (1990-1993), a darker skinned (referred to as chocolate) African American. I think this replacement definetly is proof of Hollywood's preference for lighter-skinned African Americans and further generates the idea that 'white is right'. As the image shows, Janet Hubert-Witten is on the left and is clearly much darker than Daphne Maxwell-Reid, who was her replacement.

Black Sitcom Portrayals

“Black Sitcom Portrayals was an article that featured the portrayal of the African American family on television and economic achievement within that community. I remember watching Fresh Prince of Bel-Air that was set in Philly, and I’m from Philly, so I loved it I would watch it all the time. I could relate to the family values and leadership that the father had. He was always in control, he was the “head man.” I still watch re-runs today. It is a funny, warm loving show suitable for everyone. On page 83 J.C.B quotes that “There’s always that one sister that can’t find a man. And if she does find a man, he is the good looking suave guy who is so screwed up.” In Fresh Prince, that character is definitely was Hilary Banks, played by Karyn Parsons. The Cosby Show was another one of my favorites growing up. I still enjoy watching that show. Mr. Cosby is so open hearted and wise with his words and fair to his children. There is nothing about him that makes you want to change the channel. I was hooked on that show, along with millions of other viewers.

Cosby Shows

The article about the popularity of the Cosby Show examined the reasons behind the international success and analyzed the relations this type of show had to race and culture. The article discussed how the show was widely successful in many international countries. What the article got me thinking about was the comparison of the Cosby Show to today’s sitcoms. As I think about it, I can already recognize several modern day shows that are presently on TV that resemble the structure of the Cosby Show. I feel that these shows are common enough now a days that I feel most people are used to these shows and don’t even note the racial aspect unless it is directly mentioned in the show. Some other shows that mirror the Cosby setup are Everybody Hates Chris, Family Matters, The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Smart Guy, Sister,Sister, and My Wife and Kids. I personally see the show My Wife and Kids as something that is strikingly similar to the Cosby Show. They share a similar middle class black family setup. The images I have found illustrate the “family portraits” that represent some of these shows.

While reading Robin R. Means Coleman's "Black Sitcom Portrayals," I could not help but to think about a video game that came out about three years ago. It is called Resident Evil 5 and I remember reading about it on multiple video game blogs. People were blogging about how they found the video game trailer very racist towards the black community. The trailer shows a black community as the bad guys, and it shows how they turn into zombies. On the other hand, the white people in the video game trailer are portrayed as the good army guys who are going to kill all the black people because they are bad zombies. This is not the first time people have been outraged about a video game. It is almost always on the same subject though…black people are being portrayed as the bad guys. It goes along with many stereotypes that are not only incorrect, but are also morally wrong.

Does it Matter the Race?

After the success of The Cosby Show, there have been several other Black sitcoms to successfully internationally play on television. The article we read for class showed how successful The Cosby show has been internationally and how this middle-class African American family is portrayed. If you think about it, this is not what one would normally assume a ‘Black Show” to be like. There aren’t any stereotypes that are strongly played out in the show and the show is similar to several other sitcoms with white families. If you take race out of the picture, there are so many sitcoms that can directly relate. For example, Family Matters, Full House, Step by Step, Sister Sister (more modern), etc. These sitcoms all have the exact same basis to their shows, disregarding race.

House of Payne

Although stereotypes of blacks in tv sitcoms are played out everyday, there is an upside. As Tyler Perry says in the interview, they are tools. When you think about a lot of his movies and about the sitcoms this article talked about, they tackled very large social issues. Racial identity, religion, parental relations, abuse, and many other tough subjects are brought to the for front in an Oprah show-esq way. At the end of the article Coleman mentioned that black women feel like they are strengthened by their portrayal on tv. These stereotypes may and probably are false in many ways. However if thought of as a tool, like faith, to get through tough times with advise from trusted friends have they served their purpose? It may be bad for society to see these stereotypes played out, but if the shows are speaking to their audience and delivering an effective message, could it be a good thing?

Inventing the Cosmo Girl

This article analyzes a former secretary's advice to the "working girl" in economic and sexual roles. She teaches readers how to present themselves in a desirable fashion and constructs an idealized subjectivity with sexual imagery and emphasizes girl power. Her vision of the American Girl Dream meant presenting yourself as a creative product that capitalizes on consumerism and flirting techniques. She encourages women to update their status in order to capture the heart of a successful man, they need to possess upper class traits and ideals. She highlights the benefits of being a secretary and that is why i have chosen this clip from Mad Men to include in my blog post. It works well with this article because men do look at women as objects and there will always be gender inequalities in the work place,but there are definitely some perks about being a barbie doll.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRcS8Q_Q0u4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Codgu5w_7PE

Esquire and its Construction of Gender

In Kenon Breazeale’s article “In Spite of Women” discusses the construction of the male consumer while simultaneously being critical of Esquire Magazine’s construction of the female consumer. I found this image relatable to the text because I found that it’s presence in the text was substantial. It can be seen by not only Breazeale’s statement that “Many periodicals disdained any connection with alcoholic beverages, so Esquire’s willingness to tout beer, wine, and liquor as adjuncts to the good life made those industries important early advertisers in its pages,” but also through the construction of woman through this advertisement, as supported by Breazeale. First of all, Breazeale discussed how, for a men’s magazine, how it was really about women, specifically the “exploitation and denial of the feminine.” This advertisement would imply that men don’t think about how they dress or what they drink, they just know what they like and are straight to the point. This is a blatant and one-sided comparison between male and female thought process that strictly makes the same argument that I believe Esquire would be trying to make. In the article it says, “In home décor women were also accused of overvaluing appearance, this time at the expense of comfort.” This attacks the not only the actions of women, but their thoughts behind their actions, depicting them as shallow and dim-witted. This advertisement’s copy of “Thank God you’re a man” also depicts this sense of hierarchy, that somehow being a man is so much better, directly correlates to the statement that “Esquire gave advice to counter the looming rhetorical prop of a woman who is doing all things wrong.” Basically, what I believe the advertisement to be saying is “drink our beer, and you won’t be a woman and this won’t be wrong.”

How To Be A Man

The construction of the male consumer, as discussed in Kenon Brezeale’s article, is an interesting concept that is said to have begun with the production of Esquire magazine. Supposedly the Depression diminished the “image” of the male and this magazine was built as a source to counteract this problem. What I found interesting about this idea is that the magazine established gender roles, and always presented the heightened image of the masculine male. It reinstated the idea that women were supposed to stay at home with the children and of course never hold a job at a higher status than the male. This magazine is supposed to empower males to feel better about themselves however I think it’s extremely interesting that by doing so they are also brainwashing them. “…a new kind of magazine-one that will answer the question of What to do? What to eat, what to drink, what to wear, how to play…” (231). This magazine, like many others, is now just a form of media telling its consumers how to think. This cover of Esquire magazine states, “How To Be A Man” with the ultimate icon staring back at you: George Clooney. Esquire’s goal was to create a following of men that will consume just as much as women, not to empower men and their individual qualities.

While reading "In Spite of Women" by Kenon Breazeale, I could not help but think about the male gaze. To successfully advertise male products, advertising agencies need women, but not just any women. They need very beautiful and sexy women as seen in all of the Esquire magazines. Esquire has sections that solely talk about sexy women. They use this to draw in the male consumer. A few months ago I remember seeing this picture in a magazine and it drew me in because it was a picture of Marisa Miller, who is only like the hottest girl ever. I finally found this ad on the Internet and saw that it had been in an Esquire magazine. It was Marisa Miller that made me look at the ad, not the motorcycle. If Harley Davidson had used a male to advertise their bike, I probably would of never looked at it. Like in Breazeale’s argument, advertisers for male products need women.

Esquire Created These Mad Men

While reading Breazeale's essay on Esquire's creation and aim I continually related the male imagined community it created to the men of Mad Men. Breazeale argues in order for the creation of the male consumer, Esquire needed women. The magazine continually distanced itself from femininity in order to sell men on the idea of the male consumer. The men of Mad Men are the result of this sale. They look down on all the women they work with, but are very aware of fashion, drink, home decor, gardening, etiquette, and the like. The show, about high powered ad agency men in 1950s New York, depicts the kind of men who would have grown up in a world with Esquire and the male consumer. Not only that but since the men are in the ad agency subjects of consumer identity are brought up in almost every episode. The following commercial for the show that plays like an infomercial accurately depicts the identity of women in the workplace and the men who look down on them.

Cosmo Hasn't Changed

One thing that struck me about Ouelette's article was that, despite her best efforts to try and make a case for the positive results from Brown's "creation", Brown still came across with a negative image. Quotes like, "Poor girls are not sexy!" are too general and straight-forward for any meaning other than the one presented to be pulled from the statement. It was interesting then, when it was mentioned that Brown, along with the times, eventually changed her "credo" (which, according to Ouelette, she has tons of) to include the idea that women can be sexual objects/symbols and high-level businesswomen. I find this interesting because, from my most recent glancings through Cosmo, I have noticed that articles like the above are still the dominant subject of each issue. Also, I feel that the magazine has shifted to a younger audience because of the increased awareness and discussion of sex at a young age. Because of this, it seems that Cosmo has either gone back to its original platform, or it never really changed, and the idea of women in the workplace is just not brought up often in the magazine. Unfortunately, I don't read Cosmo on the reg(ular) so I can not fully assert this claim, but maybe others have more insight.

The Original Cosmo Girl

After reading Inventing the Cosmo girl by Oulellette, the first thought or person who popped to mind was Samantha from Sex in the City. She is the perfect example of an independent women, who is stunning, stylish and centered on sex. She may not be the typical 25 year old model, but she has the attitude that Cosmo is trying to build into their readers. She has the perfect pink collar job being a PR, she is not too concerned about committing to a man and she spends a great deal of her life talking about sex with men she has/ is yet to be involved in. Brown promoted "a girl style American Dream that promised transcedence from class roles as well as sexual ones" (117). Sam is a high class female who has clearly made her way through her pink collar job, and maybe through the way she is so sexualized in her everyday life, but the main point to address is that she maintains this vibe without coming across as trashy.
Samantha is definitely an example of a women "who may no longer have recognized her place in male orientated American Dream mythology"(120).

While reading "Inventing the Cosmo Girl" by Laurie Ouelette, I came to the conclusion that the former editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan Magazine, Helen Gurley Brown, had in fact created a subculture in itself with the invention of the Cosmo Girl. "...Cosmopolitan was the first consumer magazine to target single 'girls with jobs' with feature articles, advice columns, budget fashions and advertisements for mainly 'feminine' consumer items..." (Ouellette 119) Cosmopolitan was the first magazine, with Brown at the helm, to target a specific audience that was just emerging with the changing social tides and shape them to whatever she wanted them to be. Cosmopolitan magazine placed an emphasis on female sexuality, and this is what sets it apart from the other female-targeted magazines of the era. "Features on female orgasm, birth control, masturbation, casual sex and sexual experimentation appeared under Brown's editorship, while quizzes with names like 'How Sexy Are You?' " (Ouelette, 123) This direct focus on the working girl was intoxicating and something that had not been done before, which is a direct link to the magazine's overall success. This image is from an issue of Cosmopolitan, and it heralds "The Naughtiest Sex Position".

Cosmo Girl

The article “Inventing the Cosmo Girl” by Laurie Ouellette, analyzes the effects of the advice given to women by Cosmopolitan Magazine and its construction of the “Cosmo Girl”. I am not dedicated reader of Cosmopolitan, but I have been known to skim through an issue or two. I have always been fascinated by the construction of the seemingly “ideal” women the magazine continues to build issue after issue. Ever since Helen Gurley Brown structured the magazine to do this, there has been hardly a single issue that is without advice for women that leads them to be more like the “Cosmo Girl”. Before even reading the article, I could construct the characteristics of the “Cosmo Girl” from just the experience of reading a few issues of the magazine. The “Cosmo Girl” is fashion forward, a “pink-collar” worker, well educated in the art of seduction, Healthy with good diet and exercise habits, confident, involved politically or with “good” causes, and most of all centered on sex. Sex is a major part of Cosmopolitan’s advice and constructions. It was its attention to Sex for women that stirred so much controversy and criticism in its early years of publication. Even now some critics of the publication claim it is to focus on sex. I have attached images of past and present covers of the magazine. The covers usually feature and actress or celebrity that captures some of the essence of the constructed “Cosmo Girl.” Even in the images from the 1970’s the covers were extremely sexualized.

Upon reading this journal, the first ad that came to mind was this Disel ad. The woman pictured is the Cosmo Girl. A lot of women complain about femininity in advertising or portray it as bad and misrepresentative. I agree whole heartedly that it is. However it is through EFFECTIVE ad campaigns such as this one that this stereotype is perpetuated. In terms of the consumption article, if this shit would not work, I highly doubt advertisers would do it. In terms of the Cosmo girl, this is it. This is striving to "catch" your boss. An overarching theme in the Cosmo Girl article was that not only are brains a bad thing in an unattractive sense, but that they are hard. That being smart takes so much more time than faking it. It really does take more time. However, which is more self serving? Which is better in the long run? At the beginning of the article I thought that Brown was empowering women through sexuality, but really she is reaffirming the house wife of the 50's, of her time. I believe she was suggesting not to actually strive for anything concrete, but to merely look like you were striving. Not to actually read books, but carry them around to make yourself look smarter. She was border lining on saying be ambitious in all aspects of life that really do not matter at all. Be ambitious about trying to snag a "great catch" without seeming to be. The most troubling thing about this article was that the Cosmo Girl had no true identity. She was a shape shifter of sorts that conforms to whatever a "successful" male needed or wanted her to be. This ad perpetuates that sentiment. Be stupid. Be what your boss "really" wants. Lose yourself in hopes of being picked up by him. Do not be you be what he wants you to be. This ties to the eharmony ad a little too. If you are defining yourself through someone else's expectations, perceptions, and most importantly definition of happiness then what kind of person re you? How do you define self? Who are you and what do you want? Whatever your boss says.

bright colors and attractive females sell..

Whilst reading the Cosemtics- A Clinique case study reading, by Kirkham & Weller. I came to the conclusion that there were trying to address the gendering of toiletries for male and females. The difference in the colors that are used for both genders in their different products, and the information that is used to sell the product. With males the information is literally more about the product as most males are pretty clueless. Whereas females almost rehearse using different beauty products while through there youth and teenage years, so when this becomes a reality they pretty much already know what they need. The advertisement that came to mind was Rhianna CoverGirl Ad (“cover girls,” fashion models who appear on the front cover of ladies' magazines, wear their products). This one in particular was featuring the singer Rhianna, she self promotes a song title whilst promoting the lip gloss. One of her lines is "want to know what i have under my umbrella, even if it's raining your lips will have a lasting fruity shine". This has limited information on the product but was so popular for the pure fact that the advertisement had hot pink and girl colors, was acted out BY Rhianna and the song Umbrella was playing in the background.

The Idea Cosmetics Sell

A lot of the literary and textual devices that Kirkham and Weller described in their case study of cosmetic advertisements perfectly connected with my memory of the ads I have seen in the past. One that came to mind was this Neutrogena commercial starring Vannessa Hudgens. Kirkham and Weller describe how these ads are not only "mere depiction of a... thing" (271). Cultural constructions aid in giving further meaning to the product, especially for women. In the end, the company is not just selling a product but a feeling, emotion, and femininity as well. The Neutrogena commercial is all abut cleanliness and purity. For instance, the wash is a soft pastel pink and grapefruit can be considered a fresh and feminine scent. The splash of water is a device that the writers say symbolizes the "fresh cleanliness the product promises" and sensual purification of the woman.
I also couldn't help but think what the company was hoping Vanessa Hudgens herself would symbolize for the viewer. Around the time of this commercial, she was a star in the Disney original TV movie High School Musical, aimed towards an audience of teen age and under with its G-rated portrayal of Hudgen's (Gabriella's) relationship with Zac Efron's character Troy. They are shown as a very innocent couple: the most they do is flirt and hold hands. Vanessa in real life is also shown through Disney as an innocent girly-girl. Before the whole naked picture scandal that ruined this guise of purity, she was the soft spoken epitome of innocence. Neutrogena most likely took this into consideration. With their purifying face wash they were also selling the beautiful, girly-girl, innocence that a well known celebrity like Vanessa would provoke in the minds of those who know her. Cultural construction has caused us to buy not just the product but the feeling their use promises to give. Furthermore, which teenager wouldn't want to use the same facial cleanser as a celebrity like Vanessa Hudgens who gets to date Zac Efron. Neutrogena has made this aspect of beauty, cleanliness, and purity attainable to anyone who can afford drugstore price facial cleanser.

Stereotyping Cosmetics

Stereotypes play such a significant role in our society, so much that almost everyone and everything (whether it’s a sport, product, car etc.) has a stereotype. In Kirkham and Weller’s article “Cosmetics” the gendering of cosmetic products is closely analyzed and portrays the differences in advertising male and female cosmetics. On the bottom of page 271, the male advertisement of a soap ad suggests that it is a masculine ad because of the “male hand and hairy wrist.” This article clearly shows that advertisements are easily identified based of the gender stereotype that is targeted. In this Old Spice Bodywash ad I posted, there is no one in the ad but it is immediately implied it is for a male because of the background music, scene of the shower, and by the soap (with hair on it). This video is directly related to Kirkham and Weller’s argument about gendering a male’s cosmetic product.