SEXISM IN MEDIA

Ellis Residence Hall

Central Missouri State University
March 25, 1998
Dr. Barbara L. Baker
Associate Professor of Communication
The study of media images is crucial in today's world. Currently, we are bombarded by
media of all kinds. Both children and adults spend a lot of time exposed, both voluntarily and
involuntarily, to media messages that represent the sexes and most minorities in stereotyped ways.
The effects of such images upon us is debatable; however, at a minimum there is evidence to
suggest that children learn from media representations what is appropriate behavior. In examining
media images of women, scholars have taken one of three basic approaches. The first is a focus on
media effects--what media images do to us, and more recently, what we do with such images. One
big area of such research is a focus on media violence and children.
The second approach by scholars has been to look at media images as role models. Such
research, using content-analysis as its primary message, has examined both gender and
race/ethnicity in media to determine the amount of women or minorities portrayed, and how such
images are portrayed (e.g. positively or negatively). The recommendation of this type of study is to
add more positive images of women and minorities, to make them more visible, and to provide
children with more diverse role models.
The third approach to media images by scholars has been to conduct critical analyses of
media texts. Some of this work is historical (it seeks to recover past films and filmmakers who have
been marginalized), some of it is rhetorical (it looks at how media persuades us to do or be a
particular way), but the bulk of critical studies has been from what is called a post-structuralist

perspective, a theoretical combination of very sophisticated (and heavily jargon-ridden) ideas.

You might as well know up front that my own work, influenced by my studies at the University of
Southern California, falls into this last category. My award-winning doctoral dissertation,
"Reaffirmation and Transformation of Gender in Popular Film: A Feminist Approach to Mythic
Rhetoric," examined gender in the Star Wars trilogy and the first two "Indiana Jones" films from a
combined rhetorical-feminist critical approach. I am interested in how popular fantasy films use
mythic structures to reinforce and transform gender in our culture. Extending my interest in myth
and gender, I also have done critiques of the television drama "Beauty and the Beast," on the films
Thelma and Louise, Leaving Normal, and The Man Who Would Be King, and the television
comedy "Absolutely Fabulous" (from Britain). And I'm starting to gather data on the television
fantasy "Xena: Warrior Princess." I also teach the course in Gender Communication, and teamteach (with Dr. Atkinson) the course Women and Minorities in Media (which will be offered this
fall, though it isn't yet on the books).
I want you to know this about me, so that you'll understand some of "where I'm coming
from" as I talk about media. I've discovered over the years that students have some predictable
reactions whenever I talk about sexist media images. Students often resist the information, usually
because it challenges our ideas about media and culture, raising disturbing issues we'd rather not
deal with. Students often protest that "I'm reading too much into media images." This is an
understandable reaction if you have never looked at popular culture in a critical way. Much like
literary critics examine a novel for hidden themes, media critics look for the sub-texts in a film, etc.
The idea is to illuminate the meaning on a deeper level. You might have a different interpretation,
because meaning often depends on the person receiving the message. Many media scholars assume
that audiences are active in their responses to messages, and that the meaning of a message is more

receiver-oriented than sender-oriented. Indeed, the intent of the sender is often irrelevant (to rely on
sender intent is called the "intentional fallacy," since senders can't predict how people will respond
to a message). To become a "media literate" audience member, I hope to move you from being a
passive recipient of the message, to a person who argues with, or more actively opposes, the
messages you receive.
Students also complain that by focusing on gender and minority issues that I'm exacerbating
tensions, trying to be "politically correct," or "male-bashing." Such students argue that thing have
improved over the last few years, so why am I making a big fuss about it? I guess I can only answer
by saying it is not my intent to "male-bash," or be "politically correct," and I agree that things have
changed, but not enough. There is still a lot of subtle bias and false imagery which is difficult to
eradicate. Men are often just as stereotyped as women. As a professional woman, I don't see
myself often enough in media. Also, although the first reaction to being exposed to bias, especially
to sexism and racism, is one of anger, I hope that we can work through the anger to action, so that
things can get even better in the future.
Another complaint that students make is that I ruin it for them--they can never watch media
the same way again. Well, I would hope not! But, also, rest assured that you can be critical, and
still enjoy media. I take pleasure in watching films and television, and in reading magazines--I
wouldn't examine them if I didn't like them! Understanding them at a deeper level has not altered
my affection for media--indeed, it has enhanced it, while making me a better consumer of media
images (especially of advertising). But I also don't mindlessly accept everything I see or hear or
read. If you become critical consumers of media messages, even in part, I'll have done my job.
Tonight we'll be viewing a 30 minute video by cultural critic Jean Kilbourne called "Slim
Hopes." It may make you angry and upset; it will certainly make you think. You may even argue

with it, and that's okay. Before we get to the video, however, I'd like to introduce you to a few
ideas about the impact of media images upon our self-images and behaviors.
Media Stereotyping and Effects
Media depends upon representation. Representation is the social process and product of
making signs stand for their meanings. Much of this representation is stereotyped. The word
stereotype is derived from the use of moveable type--plate prints image over and over again the
same way (instead of the archetype, or original type). We create shared "mental pictures" which
operate to support the dominant cultural ideology. Stereotypes can be based on both situational
factors (e.g. a person wearing sloppy clothes is shifty or lazy) or character traits, where we attribute
good or bad qualities to a person or group (e.g. women are gullible). Stereotypes are used more in
initial communication encounters than in later ones, and are more apparent when we try to deal with
individuals who don't fit the categories, e.g. men homemakers or female construction workers.
Stereotypes are usually seen as negative, focusing on the bad aspects of groups; yet, the benefits
provide reasons why they are hard to eradicate. Another reason that stereotypes persist is the
"kernel of truth" idea--stereotypes are presumed to be based on a small portion of reality, which may
be true of individuals within a group. Stereotypes are slow to change; when change occurs, a new
stereotype may emerge (e.g. Supermom).
Media is saturated with stereotypes; this should be expected, since drama has traditionally
made use of "stock character" types. However, given media's potential role as a model for children,
and an influencer of adult behavior, such stereotypes need to be examined in a critical light.
Marshall McLuhan noted that "the medium is the message/massage." The medium can convey
subtle, yet powerful subtextual messages about what is appropriate in society, apart from its overt
content (which may be about something else). This hidden message varies, but in terms of gender it

suggests that men are more active, interesting, and visible than women (who are often seen as
objects of male desire. The people who control media (mostly men) are interested in making
money, and thus tend to be conservative, safe, repeating past formulas that worked, aiming for the
largest possible audience. Because the world no longer resembles gendered stereotypes in
important ways, there is a confusing mix of old and new stereotypes (e.g. the sensitive man, or
"supermom").
As we seek to analyze media stereotypes and images, we need to keep several questions in
mind:
a. What images of male/female are present in today's media?
b. Who produces these images--whose point of view is represented?
c. Who is the audience--and how might they react to the message?
d. What is the media telling us about appropriate gender/sex roles?
e. Whose voices are heard? And who is silenced?
In addition, we can examine the ways media images meet needs. We can ask "What do people do
with media?" compared to "what does media do to people?" In other words, what are the motives,
gains, rewards, or gratfications people receive from media consumption? How do media images
meet our needs?
Media do not merely report, reflect, or dramatize what is important but actually guide our
ways of thinking about what is important. Bittner (1989) observes that Agenda-Setting Theory
argues that "media create an agenda for our thoughts and influence us in what seems important."
There also is a gatekeeping function--e.g. what appears or doesn't appear in media colors what we
think about, and see as important. In terms of gender (or minorities), if women, or AfricanAmericans, or some other group aren't portrayed, or are portrayed in silly or stereotypical ways,

then that tells us something about their importance in the culture.

When women are demeaned in the media, this is a process known as Symbolic Annilihation
(Tuchman, 1978). In Hearth and Home, Gaye Tuchman describes how women are symbolically
wiped out, or undervalued, by the media in three ways (categories from Gerbner, 1972):
1. Discrediting
a. devaluation & condemnation (may include punishment)
b. trivialization (made to look silly and irrelevant)
2. Isolating (e.g. use of tokens, pitting individuals against each other, us vs. them tactics,
showing only parts of a body, etc.)
3. Ignoring (not even represented; absent)
Ironically, women are also denigrated by being overvalued--put on a pedestal, treated as desirable
sex object, etc. The same process of symbolic annihilation can also occur for minorities or other
marginal groups in our society (e.g. the elderly).
A related idea is Cultivation Theory, which suggests that mass media, esp. TV viewing,
"cultivates" in us a distorted perception of the world, making us think that it is like the way it is
portrayed in TV (or film or ads, etc.) than in "real life." Part of this is that media represents itself in
a quasi-realistic fashion, but it is not realistic. For example, George Gerbner and his associates
found that people who watch a lot of TV news think the world is a lot more violent than it really is.
Another example is that we expect our romantic relationships to be like they are in films and on tv,
when they aren't (problems aren't wrapped up within a set time period, etc.)
In this way, we can look at media images as expressions of social values and norms. Media
images also function as role models which we can imitate. Mass media images are not experienced
in isolation, but in layers across number of media at the same time. This makes them seem more

central or important.
There are several other ways to look at media images, but this is enough for now. As we
watch the video, "Slim Hopes," see if you can discover how the media, especially advertising,
influences women's perceptions of their bodies through stereotyping, reinforcement of social norms,
and appeals to our needs. Decide for yourself if you agree with Kilbourne that such images can lead
to problem behaviors (such as eating disorders). We'll have a discussion afterwards.

SLIM HOPES: ADVERTISING AND THE OBSESSION WITH THINNESS

1. What are some of the myths about gender that are promulgated through advertising? How can
we see those myths in the advertisements seen in "Slim Hopes" and other examples?
2. Kilbourne argues that media present unrealistic and unhealthy stereotyped images of both
women and men and that this can be harmful in a variety of ways. Do you agree? Why or why not?
3. How does advertising in particular reinforce "the beauty myth," and especially the slender body
for women? Is this really a problem for women? Why or why not?
4. Have media images of women and men has changed over the years to the present day? Is today's
image "better" or "worse" than prior years? Explain.
5. Thinking of your own particular gender-identity, how have such things as cartoons, music,
magazines, advertisements, films, TV shows, etc. influenced your self-concept and self-esteem?
How do the ways in which you consume media images today tell you about yourself right now?
6. After watching the video documentary, how does the media continue to denigrate, trivialize,
and/or symbolically annihilate women (following Tuchman)?
7. Some argue that the presumed harmful effects to society and individuals whenever popular
culture employs sexist imagery, especially in advertising, music, and pornography, justify restricting
or banning such imagery. Would you agree, in part or totally? Explain why or why not.
8. If media images are indeed sexist, demeaning to both men and women of all types, then what are
some of the ways in which these images can be resisted or changed? Would the resistance work? If
changed, would they be as effective? Why or why not