The Middle and the Representation of the Working Class in Sitcoms

I would like to start off this post by saying I love The Middle. I have watched this show on and off again since high school, and I can say that it is one of my favorite shows, as far as sitcoms go.

If you don't know what The Middle is about, it is pretty simple. The show revolves around The Hecks, a working class Indiana family and the various parts of their family lives.

Mike and Frankie are the parents, and Axel, Sue, and Brick are the children. Mike works for a construction company, and Frankie often has on and off again jobs. These two parents do whatever they can to support their children and make their goals a reality.

However, after recently watching the documentary Class Dismissed: How TV Frames the Working Class, I began to associate a lot of what the documentary had to one of my favorite sitcoms, The Middle.

The documentary pointed out five typical ways in which the working class is framed in the media. These frames are:

• Seen has buffoonish of they attempt to move out of their class
• Often need makeovers if they want to move up 
• working class men are depicted as unintelligent or weak, loving beer and sports 
• not interested in politics
• poor work ethic and no leadership skills, dysfunctional family values

A couple of these made me think of the Hecks. The one that stood out to me is the unintelligible beer-loving father figure. I immediately thought of Mike Heck. Though he is a very loving and hard-working dad, he has his moments when he is uncaring, especially when beer or sports are around. Take this clip of when him and Frankie got the wrong baby Brick at the hospital when Mike is so caught up in a football game, he brings back the wrong baby. 

The next one that hit me was the dysfunctional family values frame. Now, I would argue that most families are pretty dysfunctional, so a lot of people could relate to this. However, dysfunctional family makes up a large part of Heck life, especially with interactions between the kids. Mike and Frankie are always trying to do something to make their kids get along. This is seen in numerous clips like this one where Frankie is explains why her kids can't stand each other around Christmas time: 

Or this one where Frankie tells Mike, beer in hand, that he is a lazy parent. When she tries to go out and play with the kids, she is also lazy, and ends up loosing her patience and getting knocked out by a football:

I could add many more clips, but I think you get the point. Middle class families are framed in specific way in the media more often than not. Often these portrayals are the opposite of the class that makes up the bulk of American society. 

However, this show is called The Middle, so a working middle class family and the struggles that they endure makes since for a show of this type. However, the fact that middle class families are depicted with these characteristics across the board is interesting. Think about your favorite sitcom, and see if these apply. 

Fox News Shouldn't Try To Talk About Women...Or Try Harder

I love The Young Turks. This Youtube channel does a fantastic job of critiquing various media clips from different news sources.

In this clip, they critique a Fox news clip of a panel discussing a Pew Study that found American society is shifting to women becoming the breadwinners in family households, and that has had a negative effect on children and marriage.

The Fox news clip starts off with Fox anchor Lou Dobbs introducing the topic of women becoming breadwinners in America, and refers to this as "concerning" and "troubling". The Fox lip then goes to another corespondent talking about the fact that something is going wrong in American society, and our children are doomed.

Another Fox correspondent goes on to talk about that fact that conservatives know science too, and uses that fact that males are dominant in the animal kingdom. Since males are dominate in the natural world, we are letting our society go to shambles.

This is obviously wrong. Roles of male and females vary by species. The Young Turks use many examples such as the Praying Mantis and Penguins. Female Praying Mantis often kill males after mating, and female Penguins are the ones that go out to get food, while the male penguin stays with the egg.

The first thing that I noticed about this Fox clip was the fact that this panel is made up of all dudes. Not one women is there to defend females' roles in society.

Besides the complete under-representation of women on this panel, I would also like to discuss the way the issue is framed.

The Young Turks mention framing in the beginning by talking about the way Lou Dobbs framed the issue by referring to the Pew Study findings as terrible. Right off the bat he framed the issue before even going into the panel.

So, what is framing and why does it matter? Framing is the selection of certain aspects of an issue and making them more prevalent. According to Robert Entman, framing can consists of four things, but not all. Those four things are: promotion of a problem definition, casual interpretation, moral evaluation, and treatment recommendation.

This Fox News clip included all of these, but I would like to focus on the part that the Young Turks mention, which is the way that the problem is defined right off the bat by using words like "concerning" and "troubling". He really didn't need to describe the issue in this way, bu the did, framing it in a away that set up the issue for the audience.

Framing maters because it shapes the way people view issues, and how those issues are talked about by the masses. If the public only sees frames put on by a certain mass media, that shapes the way views understand and attempt to resolve problems. It also is powerful in shaping opinions of people.

In a perfect world, the media would report on issues with dignity, but in Journalism the audience matters. News channels will frame issues in a way that they know their audience will agree with,

If I had a say, I would recommend stations report and practice Journalism the way it should be: with integrity. However, that would be a perfect world.

The Daily Show Critiques Coverage of Planned Parenthood Shootings

When I saw this clip, I thought it was genius. Of course, most content produced by The Daily Show is. 

In this clip, Trevor Noah explains how the coverage of the shooting at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood was flawed. The shooting left three people dead, including a police officer. 

I would like to start by saying that this is not a pro-life or pro choice discussion. I am choosing to do this topic because Planned Parenthood provides important services to women, and the way the shooting was covered was simply interesting to me. 

To put this incident into context, this incident happened during a time when politicians have been spewing hate rhetoric after videos were released of Planned Parenthood selling fetus tissue. Those videos were soon found to be fake. The debate to de-fund Planned Parenthood is still ongoing. 

However, that is a different conversation. I appreciate this clip because it discusses the exact same thing I was thinking: why was the media scared to call this shooting domestic terrorism? This was an attack with ideological violence behind it. He even said during the attack "no more baby parts", a reference of the fake videos I mentioned earlier. 

The answer is simple: because he was white. Priming is a powerful tool in journalism. Priming is the fact that the media sets the stage on an issue, and how the audience understand said issue. 

According to a study done by Franklin D. Gilliam, Jr. and Shanto Iyengar, the media often resorts to race when reporting on crime, and this has a large impact on the way a crime is viewed. 

In this clip, Trevor Noah shows many clips of various media outlets debating if this was terrorism. One of the clips makes the point that if the shooter was Arab, journalists would report it as terrorism, and this is true. If the shooter had been a minority, this crime would have been reported on way differently. Let's just admit it. 

I agree with what Trevor Noah says in this clip. If we have to ask to call an attack terrorism, how about we just call it terrorism. 

That's So Raven educates about Privilege

When I was a kid, I loved the show That's So Raven. The show about a teenage psychic girl and her friends. For those that are around my age now, so early twenties, you remember this show as well.

Recently, this episode came to my mind. I remember this episode well. It is one of the many episodes that attempted to teach young people about various social problems. In this clip that I found from the episode, Raven has a psychic vision that she did not get a job because the manger does not hire black people. She spends the beginning talking to with her friends about racism. She sends her friend Chelsea, who happens to be white, to apply and she get the job. Chelsea, who is white, gets the job and wears a hat with a hidden camera. Raven then dresses as an older man shopping in the store, and the manger tells Chelsea to follow her around while she shops. Towards the end, she tells Chelsea that she does not hire black people, and Raven and her friends end up exposing the discrimination in the store.

To view the clip click here.

This clip came to my mind because recently I have become familiar with the term privilege. The term privilege in this sense is a special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. Those that are privileged are often unaware.

This system acts as a detriment to non-dominant groups that have not historically or traditionally had access to the dominant culture's institutions. Privilege can come in many forms, including white, male, and able-bodied privilege. For this post, I am focusing on white privilege.

I also want to make it clear that this does not mean white people do not experience troubles in life. This term means that systematically and socially white people experience privileges that minorities do not.

In the reading White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Backpack by Peggy McIntosh, she lists numerous aspects of privilege that whites carry around with them and use in everyday life, but are often unaware of these tools. One of these tools she "unpacks" is the fact that she, as a white female, can often go shopping alone without being followed or harassed while in a store.

Upon blatant acts of discrimination and racism, this episode of That's So Raven obviously displays this when the manager asks Chelsea to follow Raven around the store while she is shopping. I have also witnessed this many times in my life. I remember my Latina friend feeling very uncomfortable once when we were shopping because an employee decided to follow her.

I, as a white girl, have never had this happen to me. This in itself is a privilege that I was never aware of until I became educated on this concept.

However, I realize now that this one episode of one of my favorite childhood shows attempted to educate me on this fact of life way before higher education did. I appreciate the fact that I grew up on shows that called out the problems with society, instead of trying to cover them. I think more shows should aim for this as well.

As white people, Peggy McIntosh calls that we must understand our privilege instead of denying it, and use it to change the way the system operates. I think my generation has hope in doing this, because we are realizing and becoming educated at a rate faster than any generation before us.

So the next time someone asks you to "check your privilege", don't become defensive. Instead start a conversation. Try to understand. Understanding and education is the key to change,

I realize this post is not as much about gender, but it is about show that, as a young girl, I really admired. Raven is a character that often stoodd up for what she believes in. In one episode, she also stands up to body shaming. She is as character that I was happy to grow up with.

Stereotypes and Prejudice of the Gay Male as Seen in Braveheart

The other night I was bored. There was nothing on T.V, so my roommate and I decided to watch some show about celebrity scandals. We watched episodes about Robert Downey Jr. and Sean Penn. Riveting stuff, really. Naturally, one episode came on about Mel Gibson. For most of us that can remember his fall from fame, we know how controversial he became. He has been accused of being anti-Semitic and sexist. Homophobic also has been added to his character traits.

This news isn't new, of course. No one could escape his scandals as they were happening. Watching the show describe the controversy around Passion of the Christ was no news to me. I remember that well.

The one thing that I learned from this show was something I already knew. What I mean is the controversy surrounding one of Mel Gibson's most successful films: Braveheart, I have seen this movie multiple times. It's violent but riveting. One thing this bad celebrity show revealed to me was that Braveheart was also homophobic. This was a fact that I had seen, but never even noticed.

The show talked about how GLAAD, one of the most prominent gay rights groups, took large issue at the depiction of Prince Edward the II, and the scene where his lover is thrown out the window by his father. Suddenly, it clicked in my head.

First, lets start with how Mel Gibson, the director of the movie, decided to depict Edward II. Edward, who may have actually been a bisexual according to historians, is depicted as weak, effeminate, and cowardly in this movie. He is shown as being a bad leader, and in stark contrast to his father who is cruel and shown to be a good leader.

Sadly, this is how gay males have been depicted in movies and other forms of media for years, leading to people to construct stereotypes around gay males that we use to understand that group of people.

According to Richard Dyer, a professor in the department of Films Studies at King's College in London, stereotypes that are placed on gay people are widely believed to be correct. This is damaging because it leads said group to believe stereotypes about themselves.

To stereotype gay males, movies often use one form of stereotyping called Iconography, according to Dyer. This a way to show a character's gayness by bestowing certain qualities on them, and a way to explain that charterer's actions later. In this movie, merely depicting Edward II as physically small makes him look weaker than his fellow male characters.

This leads us to controlled prejudice. This is the final and last stage of acting out prejudice. It is intentional and accepts these stereotypes as valid. We accept gay males depicted this way, and accept it as mostly true. Mel Gibson, being the director, chose to depict this character in this particular way.

The most disturbing thing that I realized was the shear coldness of the window scene. As I mentioned before, I have seen this movie multiple times, but I always found this scene among others to be particular disturbing. Now I understand why. This scene is meant to be a funny one against the backdrop of a very intense story, and this is problematic.

 This is a scene that starts out as an argument, and ends in an abrupt death of Edward II's lover by being thrown out a window. It sounds sad, cruel even, but he way it was shot made it look almost comical. Now I understand why GLAAD took issue with this scene, and this movie. This scene made it seem like it was totally okay that a man was thrown out a window with the most cruel intentions. The sheer nonchalant nature of the murder is also upsetting.

Mel Gibson, know for his racism and prejudice, decided to shoot this scene to be comical. To me, and others, it is just disturbing.

State Farm Commercial Displays Dominant American Roles and Family

You've all probably seen this commercial. It is all over television right now. It starts off with a young college-aged man at a party, telling his friends that he will never get married. After many events, and adamantly being against each life change, he ends up with two children and a wife in the suburbs, and proud of his family.

Don't get me wrong, when I first saw this commercial I thought it was very cute. Honestly, it does a very good job at playing to one's emotions, which is a common tactic in advertising. One of the many clever strategies companies use to get us to buy their stuff.

However, after I had seen it for about the tenth time, I realized something: this is exactly what us as a society views as normal. We are told that a career, marriage, white picket fences and children are our ultimate goals in life. If we progress through this journey called life without achieving these goals, we are different. That's just the facts. This, to me, fits into what Marxist philosopher Antonia Gramsci termed cultural Hegemony.

To first understand this term, we must first understand culture. Put simply, culture is a community large enough to sustain itself, and has had thoughts and behaviors passed down over time. Hegemony, according to Gramsci, is a concept in which everyday practices enforce a dominate group. According to him, parts of a culture should not be seen as "the norm" or "inevitable". This all is merely a system of coercion and consent.

It is a system of rituals we fall into that promotes an idea of "normal" In this commercial, the main male character gets married, has kids, and has a house in the suburbs, all the while trying to push away those rituals. He has a suburban house with a white picket fence, and a wife that is shown doing laundry, filling in the role as a wife that does the housekeeping. As he grows up, he looses his want of partying or being different, and settles down. His final point of  maturity is at the end, when he finally accepts that he is a father and husband with a stable suburban house. He is secure and middle class man.

He eventually accepts these choices, and his happy with what he has accomplished. He finally fulfills his "role" as a white American male that achieved his American dream. His family is shown as happy and a "normal" one.

Okay, I get what your are thinking. Why am I getting so deep on a simple State Farm commercial? Well, because the media is all about people. It has to appeal to the people. To do this, it often avoids showing values that are different.

According to James Lull in Gender, Race, and Class in Media Second Edition, Ideas outside of the norm typically appear on low budget media forms that are not as well known. This leaves T.V. and commercial media, This means that mass media helps contribute to the idea that those that do not fall into the "norm" must conform.

This commercial shows what a "normal" American's life is supposed to be. Men should be fathers and husbands. Women definitely should be mothers and wives. Kids should have both parents. Parents should be married. Families should have a cute suburban house with a white picket fence. All those practices in between enforce a dominant group and idea of normal.The problem is, not all families are like this. Some deal with divorce, poverty, and broken homes.

So, what about the rest of us? If one grows up, and doesn't achieve these things, especially marriage and children, they are seen as sad, lonely people. I have experienced this even at my age. When I tell people that I have no desire of having children or getting married, they often are appalled. Those things should be my goals, right? According to this commercial, however, we will all eventually fall into these roles in the dominant American middle class white picket fence culture.

We are told to fulfill these roles and fall into these practices from a very young age, or else our lives will not be happy ones. The man in this commercial finally achieved ultimate happiness after he had achieved being a husband and father, fulfilling his role as a man in America.

This commercial shows the typical "American Dream", but isn't it possible to achieve a different dream that's just as fulfilling?

I believe this commercial fails to show how most families are in America, and further promotes an idea of the "normal" American family. However, I give it credit in using its sweetness to appeal to peoples' emotions. However, I feel that it fails to appeal to people that are not like the family portrayed in this commercial.