Van Zoonen's feminist theory
- she says that we get are ideas about gender from something she calls discourse. Discourse is written and moving image communications. When we read magazines its the topics we read about, when read newspapers, when we watch films, when we watch TV programme, when we play video games, that's all discourse. She thinks we can are ideas about gender from those things.
- She believes we learn what it means to be female and male from the media products that we consume. When we watch films and we see women as damsels in distress we start to believe that females need to be weaker and more vulnerable. When we see repeated representations of men in action heroes we start to believe that masculinity is about being brave and strong
- She believes our ideas about gender change depending on historical and cultural context. (are ideas about what it means to be masculine in the 1950's may have been different to what it means to be masculine now in the year 2018, the same goes for femininity. Our ideas about masculinity and femininity may be very different in Britain compared to in a different cultural context. So- mewhere in the middle east may have different ideas about gender. It is important to look at context to see how people may have looked at gender at the time.)
- She believes women are objectified in the media. To be see as an object. So be looked at, to be seen, to be bought and something that doesn't have a personality, to not be seen as a person. Music videos tend to objectify women.
- Believes this is because we live in a patriarchal culture. Which is a culture that tends to be a culture dominated by men. If society is dominate by men then they are going to be the ones making the media products, which would be why women tend to be objectified.
- Women and men are often represented very differently. Women are often represented as being very emotional, nurturing and domestic. Men are often being represented as individuals, suite to business and politics.
- She often believes men and women's bodies are being represented in different ways. Men's bodies are represented as being spectacle. Men's bodies are seen as being spectacular, that they've worked hard to achieve, we see them with abs and muscles, so when they are wearing few items of clothing we should admire them because they have worked hard to achieve it. Where as women's bodies are something we should lust over, we should see it as something she hasn't worked hard over but something we should want to buy, have or take.
News
1. Analyse the representations in sources A and B. Use Van Zoonen's concept of patriarchy in your own answer.
Van Zoonen's theory states that in patriarchal culture, the way women's bodies are represented as objects is different to the representation of male bodies as spectacle. Gender is 'what we do' rather than 'what we are'. It's meaning changes with cultural and historical contexts. Patriarchy is where the males are holding the power and women are largely excluded from it. The representations in the newspapers mostly support Van Zoonen's theory.
On both front covers David Cameron appears vulnerable. On The Sun, David Cameron is looking miserable and on the verge of tears. This would go against Van Zoonen's theory as he is appearing as vulnerable, which would suggest he is not in control and power. However he is a man who was still the Prime Minister at the time. He is dressed in an expensive suit, he has his hair done perfectly and he is very rich and powerful.
The camera angle on both The Sun and on The Times newspaper are either close ups or medium shots of him. His body hasn't been seen as an object like Van Zoonen says women's bodies are. If he was a women Prime Minister he would have his whole body being shown, being objectified and judged. Even so the camera angle is low connoting that he is dominant and in power, which would suport Van Zoonen's theory, that males are a spectacle of power.
Although both sources construct the story in different way, the connotations offered are the same and the way they are constructed further reinforces patriarchy. Both images on the covers are of David Cameron as their main image; he is referred to in both papers as the 'PM' or 'Prime Minister', anchoring the idea of male authority.
The only presence of a women on the front covers is of David Cameron's wife. Her only sole purpose of her being there is to be seen as Cameron's partner, supporting him, holding his hand looking pretty and being the doting wife. This confirms Van Zoonen's theory of patriarchal assumptions about female roles, as she is there just to be looked at.
The journalist bylines of these news articles are men which reinforces the idea that males dominate important economic jobs. The owner of the Daily Mail is Lord Rotheremere who is a friend and supporter of David Cameron so he going to want to make him look strong and powerful, so the Daily Mail is supporting Van Zoonen's theory.
The journalist bylines of these news articles are men which reinforces the idea that males dominate important economic jobs. The owner of the Daily Mail is Lord Rotheremere who is a friend and supporter of David Cameron so he going to want to make him look strong and powerful, so the Daily Mail is supporting Van Zoonen's theory.
To conclude Van Zoonen's theory that males are holding the power in the patriarchy is supported by the front covers. There is juxtaposition of gender representation on these newspaper covers. David Cameron is looking close to tears (which is a stereotypical feminine trait) but powerful due to the setting, his job role of being the prime minister and the fancy suit, it mkaes the paper more marketable as society will be intrigued to see him not behaving in a way that completely fits male stereotypes. The news stories reinforce patriarchal ideas of male political power, while the emotional image of Cameron contradicts his usual representations of male authority and further highlights the social expectations of gender.
1) Use more media terminology e.g. in P2 when you discuss Cameron state that the mise-en-scene supports Van Zoonen's theory as
2) Mention that all the journalist bylines are men reinforcing the idea males dominate important economic jobs supporting Van Zoonen's theory.
3) In your conclusion say that the juxaposition of gender representation e.g. Cameron looking close to tears (stereotypical feminine trait) but powerful due to setting, job role and suit makes the paper more marketable as society will be intrigue to see Camera not behaving in a way that completely fits male stereotypes
7/10 - much better than your last essay; well done! You obviously understand the theory and the image representation. TARGETS:
ReplyDelete1) Use more media terminology e.g. in P2 when you discuss Cameron state that the mise-en-scene supports Van Zoonen's theory as
2) Mention that all the journalist bylines are men reinforcing the idea males dominate important economic jobs supporting Van Zoonen's theory.
3) In your conclusion say that the juxaposition of gender representation e.g. Cameron looking close to tears (stereotypical feminine trait) but powerful due to setting, job role and suit makes the paper more marketable as society will be intrigue to see Camera not behaving in a way that completely fits male stereotypes.