How is pop culture affecting the next generation of girls?

[Mindy]

Pop culture is basically raising us nowadays, and there are so many books, movies and music that are either helping or hurting. I thought we could discuss what these are teaching the next generation. In particular I am thinking about The Twilight Saga (negative) and The Mortal Instruments (positive), but I am sure that my opinions are debatable. As well I would love to hear other examples of media and how it is affecting us.

[[deleted user]]

Pop culture is turning us into a thoughtless mass. Music, books, movies, series, all the entertainment is embarrassingly shallow and banal. It's replacing religion. Just a personal opinion!

And by the way there are lots of people who are part of the show that are aware of how harmful is what they are doing, and nevertheless they accept it and promote it. That's the worst kind of them. Because if you don't see what you're doing, well, at least you've got that excuse.

And about girls... It just reinforces patriarchy.

[Jessica]

I think with the push for realism in our pop culture combined with the advanced in technology we are creating a space where a person can't tell the difference between what is real and what if fiction. This can be defined as hyperreality.
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Hype...

[Tim]

I definitely think pop culture is not doing anything to challenge the sexism we have today. The music industry and reality TV in particular are the most brainwashing manifestations of media I know of.

Films and TV-series can be like this as well, but they all still remain fictional and in my opinion they do not seem to exercise as much influence on the real world as the music industry or reality TV. When we listen to music in our daily lives, especially outside, it seems to augment our mind to help us shape the world around us in a way that feels like it fits with the atmosphere of the music, and the image of the performer in turn probably influences that effect as well. When we watch a show that calls itself "reality", it becomes clear that this show is trying (or claiming it tries) to make you immerse into it in a realistic scenario OR make you aspire to have events like the one in the said show occur in your life.

However, media that approaches you as fiction from the get-go and doesn't try to present itself as anything else, I believe has the least effect on our thinking, though not necessarily no effect at all (depending on the specific work of media and the person reading/watching/playing it). Under this catagory I would place films, books, TV-series, and video games. Now, I know Ms. Anita Sarkeesian has played a big role in recent years in criticizing video games in particlar, which I don't find to be inherently wrong. However, I think a lot of her criticism I've seen is misplaced, especially from someone who clearly doesn't know the games she talks of. I remember very specifically that when she discussed the damsel in distress trope in video games, she listed a game called Borderlands as one that ought to be criticized. However, when I myself played Borderlands 2, I remember very specifically that when you reached the point where you had to rescue a woman (a siren, who can liquify people with alien power, so it's fair to say she's more a distressing damsel than a damsel in distress) she says to the protagonist that if there is no way to stop her captor (the main villain) from exploiting her power for his gain, the protagonist should kill her because, quote: "I'd rather die than be a damsel".

Now, all that I'm getting at with this is that I simply do not believe in Ms. Sarkeesian; I don't think she has enough firsthand experience as a gamer to know what she's talking about and only crticizes on a superficial level, but furthermore, I don't think she really cares about being right and more about appealing to feminism. As a non-gamer, it is very easy for her to convince you and thus I don't blame you if she did. I still believe there are games that are just lazily written to appeal to men and I still keep my eyes peeled for them and avoid playing them (Duke Nukem Forever was a shite game anyway) and in doing so I've found that they tend to have bad stories in general, even if their gameplay can still be enjoyable (Punch Club is a good example of that). And if there is something that I can support Ms. Sarkeesian on, it's the fact that the gaming community needs to be a more welcoming environment for women of all sorts.

This brings me to my final point when it comes to media: is it really that important to criticize it? Let's ignore what I said up until now and look at things a bit differently. Let's focus on the real world, where women still face many issues that can be tackled. Why would we spend so much time and energy in criticizing media as a means of getting feminism to be taken more seriously (which, meaning no one any offense, has achieved nothing if not negative publicity for feminism from what I've seen) when we could be engaging in debate about female empowerment in the real world?

Where am I coming from with this? Well, I've noticed a lot of people's criticism on media (I even chose the depiction of women as the theme for my English essay in school), some better than others, others worse than some. But one thing I noticed every one of them has in common is this: changing media can be a tool to change the real world. In this, I disagree. While one could criticize something on the basis of it having a misogynistic undertone, I believe the opposite is true. I believe media primarily reflects society and its negative parts. As such I believe criticizing the real world and raising awareness about real life feminism through dialogue (which Ms. Sarkeesian failed at doing, thanks to her history of disabling all comments on her videos using trollls to justify her disdain for criticism) is the very most effective way to change the real world. And by changing the real world, we're automatically changing media as well.

If we had a population of people who can dissern sexism when it's presented to them, does media still matter? Who cares how media depicts anything, if we have a population that knows better than to let it influence us. You can still enjoy a certain film or show, you can still criticize it (even on the basis of it having a misogynistic undertone), you can still do both. But at the end of the day, educating people is better than complaining about media not perpetuating our views, as righteous as they may be. You can still enjoy a movie about a guy saving a gal, whilst knowing to yourself that not all gals somehow need saving.

Well, that was my long two cents on the matter, I hope it inspired some thought. Feel free to reply with any feedback or questions if you so wish and have a good day.

[[deleted user]]

Media gives you what you ask for. So if we were all highly educated and self-aware media would change because if it didn't it wouldn't survive. So, yes, the problem is not the media. The media is a symptom, and thereby, a cause.

[Jo, Our Shared Shelf Moderator]

Tim wrote: "Well, that was my long two cents on the matter."

That was more than two cents my friend, that was about $890!
But your opinions are of course valid and you make some good points :) *

[Tim]

Elena wrote: "Media gives you what you ask for. So if we were all highly educated and self-aware media would change because if it didn't it wouldn't survive. So, yes, the problem is not the media. The media is a..."

Sorry, you sort of lost me at "thereby, a cause". Could it be you meant "The media is a symptom, and thereby, a consequence"? I get that it can be both, it probably is, but I'm a bit confused at that particular sentence.

[[deleted user]]

Probably my English is not good enough, but what I meant is that a symptom creates a problem. So it's a cause (but I think you could see it as a consequence from another point of view, too, so it's not really important haha)

PS: in nature there are not causes and consequences, things are linked, that's just a linguistic tool. So don't think too much about it haha.

[Indigo]

I focus on changing bits of media as well as educating others and talking about things. Media passes by a lot of people's awareness and can do by dint of sheer mass and repetition what few other things do. I don't believe it is "either or" in terms of either change media OR society. I believe it is "both and." Change BOTH media AND society. Criticism, awareness, and even being able to deconstruct tropes as you see them in both society and media will help. Media can give you an insight into society today, and society can give you the context needed to better understand the media as well. They're not mutually exclusive and feed into each other.

Why attack from only one direction? Why not do a pincer move [strategically more effective as proven on the battle fields] and deal with both society and media? That's how I think of it anyways. As a writer with two novel manuscripts in progress and an artist, I keep firmly in mind how I can promote diversity, inclusion, intersectionality, realism, and awareness of the social implications of different things and tropes and what I want to do with them and how I wish to subvert them if anything. I know what I put out will make a bit of an impact. If something I do catches on and becomes very popular, then it'll make even more of an impact. While I'm creating it, I don't know what the end result will be. But when it becomes popular [or not] then it's kinda hard to retrofit it and change it to be more socially aware by that point, no? Best to have it down before it becomes popular [or not] so that when it makes ripples [or waves] then I can be more confident that the ripples/waves that are going out are the ones I can be proud of and be happy with.

Also from what I heard about Ms. Sarkeesian, the majority of her trolls posted death threats and talked about how to locate her house offline and carry out the death threats. They shared confidential information of her location and whereabouts to do so. Not really a troll and more of a dangerous bully. So in that case, I second her decision to block comments on her videos in one [of many different no doubt] attempt[s] to protect herself and her life. I support those who block, disengage, or take more extreme maneuvers online to protect their lives especially when it comes to potentially dangerous harassers that want to escalate it into an offline threat to her life. It's not a matter of "can't take the criticisms" it's a matter of "dude protect yourself and your freakin' life those people are dangerous!!"

Also, I'm curious there Tim. What do you consider to be a "real gamer?" I just want to have the context there so that I can better understand why you say Ms. Sarkeesian is "not a real gamer." Or rather your words were, "I don't think she has enough firsthand experience as a gamer to know what she's talking about and only criticizes on a superficial level." So how exactly did you figure out that she "doesn't have enough firsthand experience as a gamer to know what she's talking about?" Just curious that is all, and trying to figure out what your experience with this is, the context, and the relative comparisons you've done in your head.

Yes you can criticize something for having overdone tropes in it, and still enjoy it for what it is. I have several movies and books that way. However. I do believe that being aware of how certain tropes are overdone, in what way, and what potential implications of that could be, and why their opposing tropes [or different ones entirely] are not done more often to compensate and balance out the potential negative implications of the overdone tropes. Yeah there are tropes that seem to be "extinct" and we're all glad they're gone. There's other tropes however that you wonder why they're still around... let alone done with the amount of popularity and verve even today when you look around you in society and current culture and realize it doesn't reflect that at all. It can make someone wonder what's going on here really.

Unfortunately, most people are not "highly educated and self-aware." Yes the battle to make more of them as such is long and will keep on going for a great while. However, a lot of them have to remove a lot of beliefs and biases that got ingrained and programmed almost into them while they grew up. Where did this come from? Even if you're raised in a very liberal and progressive household, you can still get stuck with some pretty backwards crap in your head (speaking as personal experience). Now this begs the question... where, why, and how? From my investigations I have found many culprits in the media today, since by dint of repetition of overdone tropes and other things that have unfortunate implications that are not checked and may have been pushed forward unknowingly (or worse, knowingly and without care), those insidious things got into my and other people's heads. Just more things you have to remove yes, but it does make for some trouble initially - especially when the person doesn't realize there IS a problem in the first place and doesn't want to consider it.

Now I ask, why not make it so you don't have to remove that at all, because there wasn't a problem there originally TO remove? Educate yes but media strikes young and early. Kids by the age of 6 know what the stereotype behaviors and expectations are of them by society. That's young! With the ever-increasing access to the internet, TV, books, games, and other forms of media... why not also enact change through media?

This is why I think of the pincer movement instead of just attacking one side or the other. Deal with them BOTH, and you have twice the effectiveness. Anyways, that's just my thoughts upon the matter.

[[deleted user]]

Sure, that's the point. Change both.

[Sof]

I find that there are certain problematic aspects of pop culture, but also several good parts about it. There are books that I find to be quite powerful and there are lots of great role models in this culture.

[Jessica]

I think that the line between what is real and what is fantasy that is becoming more and more blurred is more of a problem then tropes. Even though there are tropes that are definitely overdone, they are storytelling techniques not methods to reinforce stereotypical ideals. Saying that, we should definitely create new tropes

[[deleted user]]

Reality's hard so we need to fool ourselves. Now that God is dead we need a different kind of magic. And that's the fantasy you're referring to. We need superheroes, we need the paranormal, we need magic.

And as that's not enough, we deify famous people and force them to be our new gods.

As a great man sings: "We're all stars now in the dope show." ;)

[Gayle]

I invite you to critique my book draft chapter on media in my book-in-progress on global young women's issues and activism. I'll email it. gkimball at csuchico dot edu

[Tim]

Indigo wrote: "I focus on changing bits of media as well as educating others and talking about things. Media passes by a lot of people's awareness and can do by dint of sheer mass and repetition what few other th..."

I am agrateful for your critcism and I will say, my response will probably be disappointing to you, but I'll try my best.

When it comes to Ms. Sarkeesian (and I'll admit I really don't know all that much of her save from some anti-feminists back when I still was an anti-feminist several years ago), I can see why she was she was afraid and admittedly I was not aware of it. For that, I apologize. However, I do not see how that factors into disabling all comments, silencing not only those who wish to spread her personal information and/or cause her harm (whom I can only assume to be a minority of her opponents) but also those who support her and worst of all, those who merely wish to present constructive criticism. Now, as to her "not being a real gamer", I assumed I had made my point with the example of Borderlands 2; she listed it as a game that contributes to sexism, when there was an explicit scene in which the damsel in distress trope was revolted. My point was that every individual game takes time to play and you have to make sure you find everything and analyse it thoroughly, before drafting your opinion on it.

By listing a game that explicitly spits on the damsel in distress trope in an unskippable bit of dialogue (as well as throughout other parts and side stories of the game mind you) Ms. Sarkeesian proved that either she failed to do thorough research on what she talks about, or does not care to begin with and merely wishes to preserve her public image. Now, again, I've not heard much of her aside from certain anti-feminist videos up until around 2012, but recently I did have a discussion with someone who supports her. This person defended Ms. Sarkeesian's measures and I can say their argumentation (as well as their general view on how to handle trolls) was a bit immature. Moreover, this person actually resorted to telling me, quote: "There is no way you're a feminist" even though I never gave any explicit anti-feminist views in my discussion and merely criticized Ms. Sarkeesian's validity as a role model with a position at the UN, mind you. I don't disagree with your views on media; we should probably spend at least some amount of time in criticizing media (though I suppose we still differ in our opinins as to how much we should emphasize on it), however, Ms. Sarkeesian's actions and the fact she has a position at the UN as well as lots of unofficial influence, all seem to indicate to me she's putting her public image first, and that's not something I can support.

Now, I'm glad you're a writer yourself, because most if not all media today requires some amount of writing, that especially includes video games. In my opinion, video games have the potential of being the best form of media, because it allows you to investigate the environment for yourself. If you should ever take an interest in gaming, I recommend playing Dark Souls. It's one of the hardest games out there and little to nothing of the plot is really explained, but if you were to later look up all the hidden bits of the plot, you'll be absolutely entoxicated by all the hidden stories, all the philosophy behind it and all of the things that can never truly be explained so they're just for your own interpretation. But that's not the point I was going to make. You mentioned that you wanted to bring your philosophy into your literary work, and I have no problem with that. However, what I respect most in a writer is when they manage to bring ideas into their story that they disagree with, and still manage to make you empathize with those ideas, even when written by someone who opposes these ideas. That is what I want to go for, as something of an aspiring writer. Besides, every plot needs injustice; it's what makes the fictional world interesting, and I feel like not all of it should be attacked by the hero. To me, that just makes the plot a bit boring. I vehemently oppose capitalism (so I do), but I want to write something in which you, the reader, are made to empathize with capitalist apologists, or anti-capitalists who decide to give up their views for reasons of X,Y or Z. I feel like if we're not careful (or perhaps I should say too careful) we could wind up with writers who only write stories that advocate feminism (or any other of my views) and that just feels very boring to me. I hate to play the "political correctness" card, but as a writer, political correctness is my worst nightmare, because I want to have a world in which we have writers who can make you empathize with what you hate. It does not make you an apologist for injustcie; it just makes you a really good writer, that is if you execute it properly.

This became clear to me as I read the Game of Thrones books (only read the first 2 so far). Rape culture, feudalism, nationalism, slavery, misogyny; all vile ideas, yet as a reader I found myself empathizing with almost all of the characters who hold such ideas. And George R.R. Martin himself said that he wanted to create a world centered around the idea that, quote: "we all have the capcity for great good, but also for evil. For love, but also for hate." This idea, and executing it well, is what I want to do as a writer.

Does me saying this make me less of a feminist? I don't think so, but I'll let you be the judge. I just believe I want to keep my philosophical mind separated from my literary mind.

When it comes to educating people, I think we should start doing so when they reach the age of about 13 and they should be taught to discuss and think critically from that point on, until they graduate high school. It was around that time I took an interest in philosophy and political ideologies and from what I've observed, it's the ripe age for critical faculties to evolve. When it comes to media affecting children before those ages, I really don't think that's such a big threat. I mean, children will just watch cartoons for fun and they'll emulate it when they can, but it's not as if that determines their views for the rest of thier lives. Point being: children will be twats. Let them, but when their critical faculties start to develop, that's where you hit them with the real world. It's not like a kid reading only superhero comics about men saving women will think that way for the rest of their lives.

Perhaps I should have clarified this detail earlier when I said that educating people should be prioritized, but I assumed it would be somewhat obvious, as adults are much more fixed in their ideas. Throughout my adolescent life (I'm 17 now) I've come to realize that the older we get, the thicker our skulls get. Thus, it is vital that people are taught to philosophize from as soon as they reach adolescence. They'll probably suck at it for the first few years, as did I when I was an angry "new atheist" anti-feminist, but that is a necessary step of an absolutely necessary process. If I hadn't been an idiot when I was 13-15 years old, I probably never would have been a feminist today.

Again, I probably should have explained this bit earlier, and I apologize for not doing so. I hope I've cleared up some of your questions. Have a good day.

[Mindy]

Tim wrote: "I definitely think pop culture is not doing anything to challenge the sexism we have today. The music industry and reality TV in particular are the most brainwashing manifestations of media I know ..."

Wow that was very thought provoking. Truth is, a bit of "damsel in distress" is okay, since we don't want to turn things 180 degrees (like only girls saving boys). But I do disagree that media doesn't have an effect on those watching it. Media is our lifeline today, and most singers, performers, writers etc. are idolized. If it is idolized than it is self-understood that we will try to mimic them, whether consciously or subconsciously.

[Mindy]

Mentioning Twilight, I would just like to touch upon to points.
The thing that bothered me wasn't necessarily that Bella was the weak girl and had the big strong Edward always saving her (though it rankled me slightly) but rather that he was bossing her around and she was waiting for him to give her permission to go visit her friend Jacob. If this is the romance stories 13 year olds are reading, how will that affect them if they find themselves in a controlling relationship? Will they just pass it off as love?
The second point is actually quite the opposite point. I am reading this book about feminism called "Circle, Arrow, Spiral" which I love since instead of only saying that women should be more like men it promotes the beauty in each gender, and explains how we need a bit of both.
Anyhow, so it was talking about love relationships and was saying how a century ago a man who wanted to be in a relationship had to provide for her, ask for her hand in marriage etc. and commit. The idea of a casual hookup wasn't accepted. It goes on to explain that a woman needs though in a love relationship the emotional commitment and romance. Yet it was not worth it at the price of being "owned" by a man. The ideal relationship would then be for two independent individuals to choose each other, commit, and build a relationship on more than the physical before taking the next step. It is kind of backwards that kisses and many times sexual relations come before the words "I love you."
With that in mind, Twilight does promote that, and it makes me wonder if that's why people are so crazy about it. After all, we want the commitment and emotional connection. We just need it without the control.

[Tim]

Mindy wrote: "Tim wrote: "I definitely think pop culture is not doing anything to challenge the sexism we have today. The music industry and reality TV in particular are the most brainwashing manifestations of m..."

As I said, the music industry in particular does play a significant part in our lives. As you say, they're idolized and unjustly so. The makin of film, TV (most of it at least) and video games is less one-sided and it approaches you as fiction from the very start, whereas music does not. Music approaches as being potentially anything but by the time you reach the end of a song, you'll ahve a pretty narrowed down array of different meanings it can have. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want that to change. I like the idea of being able to relate to music or to be able to couple it to certain situations, atmospheres or feelings. However, that is basically how everyone analyzes music; by figuring out what situation, atmosphere or feeling it suits best with, so that we may use it as a sort of amplifier (not to be confused with reflector) of the reality we see.

That does also mean that the most popular musicians bear a certain level of responsibility, which as it stands now, they have proceeded to elegantly shit upon for the sake of being profitable. Granted, popular video games have done similar things (Call of Duty's commercials will tell you all you need to know, not to mention the recent games themselves), but to a lesser extent and definitely in lesser numbers (or rather percentage).

Thank you for your criticism and by the time you've read this or drafted a response I may be asleep already, so have a good day.

[Tim]

Mindy wrote: "Mentioning Twilight, I would just like to touch upon to points.
The thing that bothered me wasn't necessarily that Bella was the weak girl and had the big strong Edward always saving her (though i..."

Your point about Twilight is fair enough, but I would argue against your idea on relationships. It's perfectly fine for people to conduct physical relationships as they see fit. Yes, Bella is still very much dependant on pretty much every man in her life, but don't let her be a reason to treat people like they can't handle their own affaires.

A book I recently read on teenage relationships (both sexual and emotional) is "This is All: The Pillowbook of Cordelia Kenn" and let me save you the approx. 800 page read, it's shite. And it's shite for the same reason as Twilight, but the protagonist actually tries to appeal to feminism by means of a little bit of (though maybe not fully misplaced) man-bashing, when she's one of the worst case of self-objectification I've ever seen, when it comes down to it. Like Bella, she's entirely dependent on her boyfriend and like Edward, the boyfriend has no personality and borders quite closely to an abuser. The worst part was when I searched it on Goodreads, there were reviews of women saying they read it when they were teenagers and let it shape their personalities from then on... the horror! Still, my point is that we should not all let our realtionships be decided by some poorly written characters.

I know I said I would probably be asleep by now, but discussions are something I'll happilly stay awake for.

[Stephanie Hart]

I saw Twilight differently. People forget the vampire/human dynamic. He's not controlling because he is a man and she is a weak women. He is a vampire who finally found love and has seen countless humans die easily over close to a century of time. In the final book when Bella becomes a vampire, she is arguably portrayed as stronger than Edward, and is in fact instrumental in protecting him and their entire family of allies.