Selling the recession

Take a good, long look at the book cover on the left. Read it, study its lines and colors; maybe even think a little bit about what kind of book this might be...

Now I'd like to have a quick chat about capitalism. As I understand it, one of capitalism's purposes is to allow entrepreneurs sell products wherever there's a demand. People can try to capitalize on anything and everything. And that's exactly what this book is trying to do.

But, I must say, it does seem that books like The Bag Lady Papers are taking things a bit too far. These are, as the New York Times article "Crunch Time: Selling Tales of the Great Downturn" puts it, "layoff lit." They're a sudden burst of memoirs of the experiences of people who have lost their jobs/investments/etc. as a result of the economic downturn. In other words, these books are attempts to capitalize on the weak economy.

Am I going crazy here, or is that a contradiction in terms? Trying to make money off of the fact that people are losing money. I can't quite wrap my head around that one.

The Times article I mentioned earlier talks about the recent rash of recession-themed literature, from memoirs like The Bag Lady Papers by Alexandra Penney, the former editor-in-chief of Self magazine, who was heavily invested in a stockbroker who got himself arrested for fraud; to Janelle Brown's This Is Where We Live, due to be released this June, which focuses on a couple that is about to lose their house.

Now, the authors' and publication companies' hopes are that readers will seek commiseration and hope in these stories of being hurt by and yet surviving the recession; that they'll be able to identify with the authors' struggles. But three questions stick in my mind:
1) Will people really want to read about how much life sucks?
2) Will people be willing and able to buy books to think about how poor they are?
3) Will anyone be able to relate to these books anyway?

I've got to explain that last one. You see, the people who lose their jobs and have the time and energy to write about it are not the people being hurt most by the recession—those people are busy looking for work. No, the people writing these memoirs are, for the most part, economic elites. For example, Penney, author of The Bag Lady Papers, wrote about how she lost so much that she had to sell two of her three houses. I don't know about you, but when I hear that I think, "This lady has no idea what recession means. What right does she have to write a book about it?" Am I going to buy her memoir? No.

(By the way, that smiling woman on the left is the "bag lady" herself, being interviewed about her great financial difficulties.)

Then again, scroll up and take another look at that book cover: It features a young woman wearing a bag, sure; but she's wearing it, oddly enough, fashionably. She's walking like a runway model. (The real face of poverty looks less like this and more like Goodwill and the Salvation Army.) Then there's the tag line: "the priceless experience of loosing it all." Which of those people who actually have lost everything would call their experience "priceless"? Sounds like Penney will be putting a positive spin on poverty, when in reality there's very little positive about it. In real poverty, people lose their homes—and not just two of their three homes; I'm talking about not having a place to live. They can't afford medical care or college or, sometimes, even food. That's not "priceless." That's painful.

From cover design to tag line, The Bag Lady Papers seems not to be targeting people who are actually feeling the harshest effects of the recession. Rather, it's yet another example of the media looking with blinders at their favorite target audience: the middle- and upper-middle classes.

This time, however, that limited consumer focus is hurting producers: Recession literature is not selling well at all. And, although I'm biased—I've only read about the book, not the book itself—so I'm not really the best authority on the subject, I'd still advise you to follow the crowd on this one and avoid "layoff lit" like the plague.

Peace,
Blogdor

Selling Out to Sexualization Has its Costs

”Sex is currency

She sells cars

She sells magazines...

Sex is industry

The CEO, of corporate policy

Skin-deep ministry

Suburban youth, hail your so-called liberty”

These lyrics are from the song “Easier than Love” by the alternative rock band Switchfoot. Like many of Switchfoot’s songs, the lyrics are a social critique; this song addresses the rampant issue of sexualization present in mass media, particularly images of females. Switchfoot’s song echoes the concerns many have about the societal impact of the long-standing, increasing trend of the sexualization of females in the media. The American Psychological Association was so concerned that they undertook the creation of the Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. The research group defined the components of sexualization, found examples of the trend in media, and observed its consequences. The components of sexualization of girls in the media included the following characteristics:

1) Sexual attractiveness defines one’s personal value

2) One’s level of attractiveness depends on their being “sexy”

3) People are seen as sexual objects

4) “Sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person”

Furthermore, they concluded what can be plainly observed: “Virtually every media form studied provides ample evidence of the sexualization of women, including television, music videos, music lyrics, movies, magazines, sports media, video games, the Internet, and advertising.” Even supposedly kid-friendly media produced by the Walt Disney Company feature young women in scant attire—e.g. Ariel in The Little Mermaid, Jasmine in Aladdin.

The consequences of sexualization in media are manifold. The portrayal of females in sexualized roles in the media effects female viewers as early as pre-adolescence. The influence of peers, parents, and other adults in one’s life also play a role in girls’ sexualization. A girl’s self-concept can be deeply affected by what she perceives as societal expectations for her sexuality, which are often observed in the sexual stereotypes portrayed in the media. If a girl views herself as a sexual object, her sexual, mental, emotional, and physical well-being are at risk because of the behaviors shaped by her ideology. Young females are not the only group affected by sexualization of girls in the media. Older women strive to conform to the youthful appearance of models and actresses in media. Males’ expectations of “real” women may be based on the unrealistic, highly sexualized women often featured in media images. The larger societal implications of this trend include an increase in sexual violence and pornography.

The portrayal of women in the media often includes sex-role stereotypes, most prominently, women as sexual objects. What sociologist Gaye Tuchman would call symbolic representation of women (in this case, as sexual objects) may reflect an unhealthy cultural “ideal,” an ideology which seems to diminish the value of females’ intellects and personalities by limiting the representation of the gender to mere physicality. The report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls also cited examples of themes in media, which Erving Goffman noted in his survey of advertisements: “the Skechers ‘naughty and nice’ ad that featured Christina Aguilera dressed as a schoolgirl in pigtails, with her shirt unbuttoned, licking a lollipop…” for instance, represents the infantilization of women coupled with sexualization.

The sexualization of young females in the media is a moral issue. Though sexualized images may “sell”, there is overwhelming evidence of the dignity they withdraw from individuals and society as a whole. It may not be possible to change the popular trend of images created by media producers, but it is possible to minimize their impact. Critical media consumers should consciously recognize sexualized images and reject their validity. Parents should teach impressionable youth the skills of media literacy. Youth who recognize sexualized images as unrealistic or even degrading may not be as vulnerable to adopting unhealthy ideologies and consequent behaviors such as self-objectification. Exposure to more positive media images in which sexualized images are replaced with age-appropriate ones should also be emphasized. Selling out to sexualization has its costs; individuals must decide how much value to place on media messages.

From the U.S. Supreme Court to YouTube: The Homosexual Movement in Action

'L.A. Filmmakers Produce Video of Same-Sex Marriage Trial'

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/comments_blog/2010/02/la-filmmakers-produce-video-of-same-sex-marriage-trial.html

On February 3, 2010, the Los Angeles Times' "opinion" section posted a story about two filmmakers, John Ireland and John Ainsworth, and their re-creation of a federal same-sex marriage trial in San Francisco. The original trial was not allowed to air over the internet because it was ruled that witnesses (specifically Proposition 8 supporters) would be put at risk of harassment. What is Proposition 8? Put simply, California's same-sex marriage ban.

Courtroom bloggers, official transcripts, and professional actors were used to create the 12-part series (appearing on YouTube) that will 'bring to life' the trials proceedings. As one can only imagine, there is a significant amount of controversy surrounding the series. The story includes several posted comments, varying from moral opposition to congratulations and support of the production. Also included in the comments is discussion of homosexual discrimination as well as homosexual retaliation. Multiple points of view are presented, adding to the complexity of the homosexual debate.

Croteau and Hoynes' chapter on sexual orientation (found in Media Society), details the history of homosexual representation. From comic devices to erotic heathens, homosexuals have held a variety of roles. Despite the role, Croteau and Hoynes note that images are almost always the heterosexual view of homosexuals, not the homosexual view of homosexuals. Homosexuals are not the only ones represented by those outside of their people group. The same is true for women -presented from a male perspective, ethnic groups - presented from a caucasian point of view, and working class people - presented from a middle or upper class perspective.

Why does it matter? Well, think for a minute if someone who is not a part of a particular people group can be the most accurate representation of that people group. Of course we are all able to observe different people, but we are not those people, making it a challenge to accurately identify with them. What I am trying to say is this, that by depicting a people group you are not a part of, you run the risk of misrepresenting them. This can be dangerous, because as Croteau and Hoynes explain, media images become norms against which we compare real people. If the "norms" aren't realistic, then we are ignorantly and unfairly evaluating people. Individuals who do not fit our stereotype are perceived as abnormal and freakish, yet they may not actually be deviants of what is normal.

I guess what I'm getting at is that maybe the things we assume about certain people aren't necessarily true. The way I see it, our assumptions have a lot to do with how we assess other people, and if those assumptions are wrong, our assessments may be wrong too. Perhaps we would have a different understanding of, or perception about people if those inaccurate assumptions were corrected. And maybe, just maybe, the positions we hold and the issues we debate about would be completely different.

What do you think???

s.w.a.k.,

Blogdor