For about a week I have pretty much been binge watching clips of The Real, a daytime talk show hosted by four phenomenal women: Jeannie Mai, Tamera Mowry-Housely, Loni Love, and Adrienne Houghton. Tamar Braxton also hosted the show for two seasons.
These are the top two reasons why I absolutely LOVE The Real: 1. The cast is completely comprised of women of color Many times when people of color are on TV shows or in movies they have this unmistakeable stereotype attached to them. Of course this doesn't happen every time, but it does happen a lot. A prime example: the Disney channel show, "Jessie". Zuri, a black girl adopted from Uganda at birth, has a reputation for being "sassy, sarcastic, clever, scheming, and mischievous" (Jessie Wiki) and Ravi, an Indian boy adopted as a young child, is described as a "stereotypical nerd" who "very smart, but does poorly in sports" (Wiki Jessie). When I watched the show these stereotypes were harmless and to a lot of people they still are. They can be humorous even relatable. So I understand this opinion; not every stereotype has to be addressed. After all, they are often relevant parts of our lives. But I think it gets to a point where they're more annoying than anything. So that's one reason why I love The Real. The hosts are all part of minority groups (Black, Asian, Latina) but they set themselves apart from any negative stereotypes and represent themselves with individuality. Also, it is really empowering for women and girls of color to see women that look like us have their own talk show and speak their minds freely. 2. The Real's diversity goes beyond skin color Jeannie, Loni, Adrienne, and Tamera all have such a variety of different backgrounds and experiences under their belts. Tamera is a twin and mother of two who gives grounded, logical advice. Loni is a comedian who went to school for engineering; her input is always as fair and explanatory as possible. I really appreciate how she tries to see all three sides to every story (one side, the other, and the truth). Jeannie is an newly divorced first generation Vietnamese-American fashion expert. She steers clear from judging others and works through every topic with a clear, logical point of view. Adrienne is a newlywed former child actress and singer with humble beginnings. She is very open and shares some of the most personal details of her life. The bottom line is that these women are relatable. The different situations these women have been in have allowed them each to develop a unique perspective when discussing important topics. And that is something super valuable in a group of talk show hosts. Sources: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3605507/On-set-tantrums-p-ing-sponsors-aggressive-eye-rolling-mouth-smacking-indicative-behavior-African-American-women-worked-years-overcome-REAL-reasons-Tamar-Braxton-fired.html http://jessie.wikia.com/wiki/Jessie_Wiki
0 Comments
To prepare for an upcoming exam I read and analyzed an in-depth interview discussing the perceptions about Muslim women from a Western, primarily American, perspective. During the interview, which took place only six months after 9/11, Nermeen Shaikh of The Asia Society asks Lila Abu-Lughod, Professor of Anthropology and Women's and Gender Studies at Columbia University in New York to expound her take on the image of Muslim women, specifically Muslim Afghan women, in the wake of the American war in Afghanistan. Both the questions and the answers are thought provoking and leave readers with food for thought on the relationship between modern Western feminism and the condition of Muslim women. Abu-Lughod claims that comprehension of any modern society begins with its history. To understand its issues, customs, and other cultural aspects one must be aware of the major historical influences in that region. She argues that this is true for people in any region, not just places where Islam is a popular or primary religion; just as it is for the United States and Western Europe, where Christianity leaves an unmistakable imprint on history and present day functioning. Instead of looking at the customs of "Muslim societies" and attempting to uncover its differences against European and American societies, we should search for the details that connect them, because, despite what many people (both Western and Muslim) may believe, we are more alike than we are different. She also brings up the point that we are not so quick to jump to conclusions (especially such negative ones) about "Guatemalan women, Vietnamese women (or Buddhist women), Palestinian women, or Bosnian women when trying to understand [the conflicts in their countries]." The popularity of certain stereotypes and preconceptions against Muslims are likely due to America's lack of cultural inter connectivity with the Eastern world and the tragedies that America has endured because of certain terrorist groups who claim their actions are in the name of Islam or Islamic values. The West's experiences have given Islam and it's followers, for some people, a bad rap. Many aspects of societies around the world cannot be understood without reference to the history and influences of the major religions in terms of which people live their lives. This is just as true for people living in the Middle East, Africa, Southeast Asia and other Muslim regions as it is for those living in Europe and the United States, where Christianity has historically dominated. The point to stress is that despite this, it is just as unhelpful to reduce the complex politics, social dynamics, and diversity of lives in the U.S. to Christianity as it is to reduce these things to Islam in other regions." Shaikh asks Abu-Lughod about her feelings about the "neo-colonial context" that affects the way women in the west view "native women". The British in India and the French in Algeria both enlisted the support of women for their colonial projects (i.e., part of the colonial enterprise was ostensibly to "save" native women). Do you think the current rhetoric about women in Afghanistan suffers from the same problem? Is there something about the colonial/neo-colonial context that lends itself to this kind of representation (which would explain why such rhetoric cannot be employed for, say, African American women in this country)?" I took her phrase "neo-colonial context" to be the historical American impression that we know what is best for other nations. A very blunt example that came to mind was a The White Man's Burden, Rudyard Kipling's "hymn to U.S. Imperialism." The poem was written in 1899, at the beginning of the Philippine-American War. Kipling encourages the United States to take up their natural responsibility--The White Man's burden--and govern the black people indigenous to its colonies. His work is demeaning to the identities of people of color and implies that they are incapable of governing themselves. Go send your sons to exile I understand that this example may seem a bit extreme considering the oppressive nature of imperialism and how degrading it was for those that were under "the white man's" rule. Here's a more modern, humanized example: American efforts to impose democracy on Middle Eastern countries after 9/11. This pattern of thinking our ways are best is an unmistakable phenomenon throughout our history. It has led our country to give aid and help struggling countries get back on their feet (this aid sometimes appearing genuine and other times appearing as a power move); it has also led to offer unsolicited interference at times. According to Lila Abu-Lughod, this imperialist sentiment serves as a justification for American intervention: "The problem, of course, with ideas of "saving" other women is that they depend on and reinforce a sense of superiority by westerners." This, she says, is the arrogant attitude that the modern feminist movement needs to keep in check. "When you save someone, you are saving them from something. You are also saving them to something. What presumptions are being made about the superiority of what you are saving them to?" she asks. Abu-Lughod claims that it would be more obvious if these stereotypes were extended toward Black women in America. It would receive more attention and because "we've become more politicized about problems of race and class." The reason I brought up African American women, or working class women in the U.S., was that the smug and patronizing assumptions of this missionary rhetoric would be obvious if used at home, because we've become more politicized about problems of race and class. What would happen if white middle class women today said they needed to save those poor African-American women from the oppression of their men?" I think I understand what she is getting at. If these comments were so widespread within America and were extended toward Americans, people would not stand for it. There would be unrest and protests against this rhetoric. This "they need us" mindset is basically allowed to continue because Americans haven't been called out on it.
The final point that I will discuss is Professor Abu-Lughod's opinion on the burqa and what it means for Muslim women. She agrees with anthropologist Hanna Papanek's take on the garment as "portable seclusion." Abu-Lughod applies her own term: mobile homes. The burqa, she argues, opens the door to more freedom in the life of a woman living in an Islamic society. It allows her to leave her home and "to move about in public and among strange men in societies where women's respectability, and protection, depend on their association with families and the homes which are the center of family lives." The decision to veil or wear a burqa is due to differing convictions across the Muslim world and, like the politics of Islamic states, should not be put into a single box. Not all Muslim women will choose to wear burqas, and most of those who do are not oppressed and do so because of devotion. Those women who do wear burqas should not be invalidated because of how America defines freedom. In my opinion, it's a matter of what you value. Some people do not support religion because they see it as think too restricting and stifling for individuality. But the goal in any religion or faith is to live most closely to the guidelines of that religion or faith. And your experiences with those guidelines (or even religion itself) affect the way you view them. I am a Christian and can only speak from that perspective. A friend of mine recently expressed her concerns and reservations about religion with me. She sees it as too restricting and prefers to live by her own terms. As a Christian there are certain things that I do and do not do because of what my faith says. I choose whether or not to participate in these actions based on my belief that the rules and principles of my faith are meant to make my life easier and more stress/drama free. They help me avoid heartache and headache as often as I can. However, those who do not see value in the goals of a certain religion will not find value in the actions that must be taken and the sacrifices that must be made to achieve those goals. Sources: https://asiasociety.org/lila-abu-lughod-attitudes-toward-muslim-women-west https://www.nytimes.com/video/books/review/100000002617743/the-read-around-lila-abu-lughod.html https://www.brookings.edu/articles/exporting-democracy-to-the-middle-east/ http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5478/ It was recently announced that Fearless Girl, a Wall Street based sculpture created by Kristen Visbal, will be relocated this National Womens' Day.
The sculpture was installed on March 7th, the day before National Womens' Day, in 2017. With her hands on her hips, Fearless Girl appears to be facing off against another iconic American symbol: the Charging Bull of Wall Street. Lynn Blake, "an executive vice president of State Street Global Advisors" (a company that helped produce Fearless Girl) claims that the statue was intended to compliment the preexisting bull. This, frankly, seems unlikely. Installed as a response to the American stock market crash of 1987, Charging Bull, a creation of sculptor Arturo Di Modica, stands for American economic strength and resilience. For decades, Americans have looked to Di Modica’s art as a source of inspiration. According to the Atlantic’s article “Why People Are So Upset About Wall Street’s ‘Fearless Girl’,” Di Modica believes that Fearless Girl “is changing the message of his work” and should be removed. This idea, while supported by some, is rejected by many. Those who reject it see Fearless Girl as a symbol of strength and empowerment for American women across the country, and especially those in business. The truth is that Fearless Girl is a beautiful statue. She represents the inner girl inside all women; one who is bravely stands with her head high. But, without the presence of the bull, that is all she is. She would simply be a beautiful, brave girl; not one remaining dauntless in the face of a challenge. In order to convey the intention behind her art Kristen Visbal had to use someone else's. And while this is, form first glance, a powerful message, once one is aware of the history behind Charging Bull, her intentions are overshadowed by the sketchiness of it all. Sources: https://www.mccannworldgroup.com/work/fearless-girl https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/fearless-girl-reactions/523026/ https://gregfallis.com/2017/04/14/seriously-the-guy-has-a-point/ |
Hi!My name is Michayla. I serve as a reporter for my school newspaper, The Chant. You should check it out :) Archives
May 2018
Categories |