Situating Serena

In class recently, we read an article by James McKay and Helen Johnson that argues media treatment of tennis superstars Serena and Venus Williams is essentially a reinscription of the Hottentot Venus of the 19th century. The argument is that the media eroticize, exoticize, and animalize the Williams sisters' bodies because they can be seen as a threat to white, male dominance.

A student found this photo taken of Serena Williams at the U.S. Open, which provides a visual aid for the argument. The white, male gaze of the camera situates Serena's body as "other" by accentuating her breasts and glutes. We are meant to see her as different, threatening, titillating.

This is not to say Serena Williams is not an active participant in media constructions of her. She is. But even that would be in keeping with the story of Saarjite Baartman, who shared some of the profits from her display.

Female Athletes

A student discovered this video about media coverage of female athletes. It's a relevant topic for college students, many of whom are athletes themselves:



From the same student, here are some guidelines from the Women's Sports Foundation about how journalists can make sure they are covering female athletes fairly. What do you think about the list? Did they miss anything?

Lest we forget ...

Anyone remember the 2008 election? A student calls attention to this article about news coverage of Hillary Clinton while she was running for the Democratic nomination.


The student says: "I feel this is a good article because it shows how sexism has played a [role] in politics. Had sexism not occurred, perhaps we would have a female president."

Here is a video on the same topic produced by the Women's Media Center:



What do you think?

"I Will Not Be Afraid of Women"

This is one of my favorite Dar Williams songs, so they had me at hello. The statistics here are solid, so what do they tell us?

'Skins,' Who Wins?

MTV has a provocative new drama about teenagers doing drugs, having sex, and abusing themselves--and each other--to the point of no return. I haven't seen it, but perhaps others have. Advertisers are scared, so it looks as if the show might be canceled.

David Carr discusses it in a NY Times column:

Now that MTV is back on its heels, you will hear arguments that “Skins” merely describes the world that we already live in. There’s something to that. MTV didn’t invent “friends with benefits,” oral sex as the new kiss or stripper chic as a teenage fashion aspiration.

This argument is common among people in the media industry who disavow responsibility for what they show, but I'm not so sure MTV didn't help create these trends. And the network definitely reinforces them ... right?

A lot of news coverage has focused on whether "Skins" amounts to child pornography, but here Ms. Magazine addresses sexism on the show, which has gotten very little attention. What do you think?

"To Protect Young Shoppers" ... From What?

From Shakesville ...

The White Face of Cable

This is interesting -- just don't bother reading the comments. The question posed in the article -- Who would have thought cable commentary would get whiter after the election of a black president? -- is provocative. I don't think it's a coincidence. There are a couple of possible explanations. The more innocent one is that once the nation voted a racial minority into the Oval Office, well-meaning people allowed themselves a sigh of relief and thought: Finally, the war with racism is over. They let up on their efforts to diversify, with the result being a step backward. The other explanation, more insidious, is that white executives in power, even the well-intended ones, feel anxious after the election of a black president, as if the sand is shifting beneath their feet. What do people with some level of anxiety do when they are in a position to hire? They hire those who make them feel comfortable, which usually means hiring people who look or act like they do.

This would be an interesting question to discuss in my next GRC and Media course ...