The dichotomy between the conversation about feminism and gender roles in Media and Society and the current presidential debate conversations is startling. As a college-educated woman, I’ve been a part of countless conversations about feminism, what it means, where it’s headed, the voice of anti-feminists, etc. I always liked to think that we, as a gender, have come a long way. Likewise, the text quotes, “The reality is that we live in a society and time in Western cultures where differences between men and women have actually become less and less marked over the past fifty years.”

But then I flip on the television and it feels like fifty years of fighting for gender equality never occurred.

Case in point. The Daily Show on Thursday covered the presidential debates discussion of women’s issues, and how women feel about the candidates. Multiple media outlets used the words “turn on” and “turn off” over and over when discussing how women feel about Romney or Obama. Samantha Bee’s subsequent commentary is so poignant, sadly, because this really seems to be the way the GOP believes that women think.

One thing to note – Samantha Bee and the pundits discussing the “women’s vote” are still only taking into account the vote of the upper-middle class white woman, highlighting the Euro-centrism still prominent in most political conversations in America.

How far have we really come in gender equality, if this is how our leaders and media talk about women?

While reading about the representation of sex and gender as well as ethnicity and culture in today’s media world, I had to think about a recent conversation with a friend of mine from the Bay area. A couple of years ago she quit her job in PR and became a teacher at an inner-city school in Oakland, CA with Teach For America. She told me that her class, which only consists of African-American and Latino children from poor social backgrounds, did not have a single computer at their school that is accessible for students. I said: “What, really? In 2012?”.

According to Douglas Kellner, adequate media literacy is important to “understand, interpret, and criticize [the media’s] meanings and messages”.  Without that capability, dominant representations in the media of sex, gender and ethnicity might be just reinstated and “unwillingly forced” on to the illiterate media consumer (Kellner, D., 1994.).

With all the discourse that is surrounding the presidential debates about the importance of education, I believe that we as media professionals have to advocate for better global media literacy and internet access. Media literacy seems like a no-brainer to us – but it sure isn’t for the kids in my friend’s class.

But does the internet really have the potential to break-up this cycle of dominant representations in mass media? Or will it be just more of the same?

Recently many newspapers globally published a news article criticizing IKEA for deleting images of women from the Saudi version of its catalogue. IKEA’s decision to align with Saudi cultural standards raised questions in Sweden about their commitment to gender equality. As  a result the company released a statement expressing regret over the issue. Here is some pictures from both catalogs as shown by NPR & LA Times.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/10/02/162139455/women-erased-from-ikeas-saudi-catalog-company-apologizes

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-ikea-women-saudi-catalog-20121001,0,579448.story

The irony is that in Saudi Arabia no one is really angry over the issue. On the contrary, reading some of the comments about the news in a Saudi newspaper shows sexism and segregation toward women. Some threaten to boycott IKEA and any other place that would publish women photos, because they will bring evils to the Saudi culture and will corrupt people’s values. http://sabq.org/M5ofde

Women in Saudi TV commercials must appear in long dresses with head scarves covering their hair. In magazines, censors use the best Photoshop experts, making sure every woman dresses with modesty. Here is how women are shown in advertisement in Saudi Arabia:

http://gawker.com/5947998/saudi-arabias-alternative-to-photoshopping-women-out-of-ads-scribbling-all-over-cleavage

Reading this chapter about feminism is like reading a fairy tale from a Saudi perspective. These things don’t exist there. Unfortunately this wasn’t the case when reading about patriarchy and misogyny.

I’m wondering, in societies where patriarchy is the norm, what will be the role of media in enhancing the situation of women? Would advertisements be seen as a source of oppressing women? Would feminism there be seen as a concept or an ideology?

O’Shaugnessy and Stadler begin Media & Society’s chapter 20 with the statement “Patriarchy is a system based on the law of the father,” (P. 353) and a chapter later we’re asked to continue to conceive of patriarchal systems “as essentially male,” but are now encouraged to think about the ways in which they are damaging to men.

I think if our goal is to continue towards a more balanced system or united front, it’s important to find ways of talking about the current in ways that aren’t immediately shaming to men.  In my view, patriarchy foremost favors performative behaviors that benefit systems of already-established power.   If we lump “men” together,  it becomes easy to forget about those who don’t incline towards that system or what it rewards…and we may be forcing a sort of othering of the sexes actually furthers stereotyping (from both sides) instead of moving us forward.

I would point to the Atlantic Monthly’s recent “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” article by Anne-Marie Slaughter.  I’m sympathetic, but there are a lot of men who can’t either. Whether you’re a man trying to be the patriarchal perfectionist ideal or a woman, it is crippling and impossible…for some more than others.

Hillary Clinton’s response last week poses an interesting question: Is it the scripted phrasing of a woman who has been rewarded for playing by the patriarchal rules? Or is she the post-feminist ideologue that will begin to help us all deconstruct the patriarchal pedagogy?

The media can be so hard on women, so critical. The word “slut” has become too frequented in our everyday vocabulary and encourages the criticism of women when they dress or act like the media has taught them.

A recent article in the Huffington Post titled, “Trampire: Why the Public Slut Shaming of Kristin Stewart Matters for Young Women,” describes the scrutiny on Kristin Stewart for cheating on Rob Pattison.

Celebrities embody ideologies of achievement, masculinity and femininity and of familial and romantic relationships, O’Shaughnessy and Stadler said (O’Shaughnessy 434).

The media attacked Kristen for cheating on Rob Pattison, calling her a slut and giving her the name “Trampire,” but what message is this sending to all young girls?

Nico Lang of the Huffington Post addresses how Stewart’s one bad decision has caused an outrage among the media and public.

“But for young women, the culture of slut shaming that the Kristin Stewart scandal represents won’t go away. I might not be concerned for K-Stew, but I am concerned for all the young women today who are tuned into this scandal, ones who are learning that it’s not okay to screw up, ever. Chris Brown can publicly beat the hell out of his girlfriend but still be played on the radio and win Grammys. However, if you ever cheat on your boyfriend, your life is over and no one will ever want to be associated with you,” Lang said.

While Ashton Kutcher cheats and still holds his place on Two and a Half Men, Stewart’s contract has been dropped from the sequel for Snow White and the Huntsmen.

Recently on the radio, I heard mention that Pattison may currently be cheating on Stewart… but that would be justified right? Karma or revenge perhaps?

According to O’Shaughnessy and Stadler, the actions of celebrities create the social norms of society.

Should we blame the celebrities or the media for the effect on society’s social norms?