The Masculinity, Femininity, & The Domestic Sphere Racially Biased

If you are a reality TV fanatic, then there's probably a 9/10 chance that you know who these people are.

The Love & Hip-Hop series has been airing for a while now. From what I have seen thus far from the previous season, I have noticed a couple of things that have stuck out to me; for instance, the common idea of femininity here has been drastically distorted when compared to "whiteness". Vulgar language, the lack of self-respect of themselves and others..... Pretty much  all around dysfunction all across the board. I find this quite problematic because this show is solely focused on implicitly enforcing the stereotypes of the African American female, typically the single women who have children out of wedlock or just the average African American woman who were labeled as angry, bitter, vengeful, wild, etc. The main thing that I have noticed is how the females were open to disclosing their sexual preferences and encounters to the public, but in actuality one of the main stereotypes of Black women was over-sexualizing them; along with that, one of the cast members had allegedly leaked a sex tape knowing that she was a mother of a young daughter (Yeah. Doesn't look too good right now.) which is clearly adding fuel to the fire.

Not only are African American women are negatively portrayed, but also the typical African American male as well. As far as being masculine is concerned, this ideal is pretty much spot on with how universal the perception of manhood is regardless of race; unfortunately, there were certain instances where race has pointed out specific specific stereotypes of Black men who have multiple children by multiple women (baby mama drama) and do not create a sense of stability for a family. You will hear numerous accounts of the male cast members having numerous kids and issues with ex-lovers and current love interests which provides a negative tension or incentive that there is chaos within the familial setting.

Love & Hip-Hop is one of the most highly rated reality television programs that negatively portrays African Americans and strengthens the power of the misconceptions of familial life within the Black community. There are many African American families that do not display any of these negative characteristics, but today's society are more easily distracted and attracted to the negatives due to entertainment purposes. Positive portrayals of Black families do not get as many ratings because they do not fit the criteria and are only displayed on particular networks that exemplify and encourages a positive reputation like OWN or Centric.

Domesticity, femininity, & masculinity are depicted differently when compared to the "white" standard of the terms. Many ideas are shifted because of the racial distinctions that were constructed to differentiate what was considered "appropriate" or "normal" behavior represented by certain groups of people.  

Here is Part 1 of the reunion specials. You will see what I mean once you watch enough of this nonsense. Please brace yourselves if you are not at all familiar with the series.

http://on.vh1.com/1NGgOWl

      

Feminity?

I

I was looking at the other post and most classmates used TV shows that portrayed women in a seductive manner. Well, I decided to go the opposite route and what is the total opposite of Real Housewives and Love & Hip Hop? ..... Here Comes Honey Boo Boo! The question is how does a woman like June… or Pumpkin… or Chubbs...or Chickadee portray a woman's role in society. This show was constantly being criticized for the cast irrational behavior particularly the women in the show. Women based talk shows like The View would attack this show because it was degrading for women. The interesting thing about this show is that this is how the women of Honey Boo Boo live their lives, they were not showing out for television, they were not reading a script, this is how the women went about their daily lives and were being criticized for it. Kaplan presents the term imperial isolation and essentially it means women get their power from being separated from the world. Mama June is a stay at home mom while the father “Sugar Bear” goes to work to provide for the family. Her “imperial isolation” is being the stay at home mom for her children. She is not your typical woman, but she still has characteristics of what a woman is considered to be.

Domesticated Drummond

The images above are from a Food Network show, The Pioneer Woman. If you watch the Food Network you know that with every chef that has their own show we learn a bit about them and their home life. In Pioneer Woman, Ree Drummond, the star chef in this show, allows viewers to really step into her life and see how she lives on her ranch in Oklahoma. Drummond has four kids and a husband, which is pictured above. In Ree's back story she shows that she is the typical mother that would have been idolized in the empire that Amy Kaplan writes about. Kaplan writes about a phrase "imperial isolation" which Kaplan defines as "whereby the mother gains symbolic sovereignty at the cost of with drawl from the outside world."(29). In The Pioneer Woman, we see that depicted very well. While her husband is children are out working the ranch she stays inside and cooks all of their meals and sometimes she even cooks for their church on Sundays. The most we ever see Ree leave her designated cooking space is when she has to go to the grocery store or when she is allowed to go outside to take pictures of her family when their jobs of working the ranch also includes them working their cattle that they own. What we see on The Pioneer Woman are examples of how domestication and femininity go hand and hand even in today's society. In the first few episodes we learned that Ree went to college in Los Angeles and then went out to Chicago for law school but when she met her "hunky" farmer husband she gave that all up to be a product of a "domesticated woman". Her show portrays how she is something of a household pet to her husband and only when under his command she is allowed to do something or anything for that matter. This is an accurate depiction of how even today we still find woman to be something that we domesticate and with drawl them from society.

Seeking Solace in the Land of Opportunity

"I was sure I'd be raped or killed..." A gay Syrian refugee fleeing from ISIS

Gay Syrian Refugee to Address United Nations

     In bringing our discussions of "foreign," "domestic," "nation," "borders," masculinity, femininity, and how all of the above interlace in the arena of U.S. empire and imperialism, I chose the aforementioned links focusing on the Syrian refugee crisis and the often ignored and underrepresented narrative of LGBT refugees and how their narratives relate to our own historical narrative as a collective.  In bringing our discussion forward from Kaplan's discourse around Puerto Rico, Cuba, Roosevelt and the Rough Riders to the contemporary and present incarnation of U.S. empire, imperialism, and "domesticity," or in this particular case, "domestication," I chose to emphasize the instance of the recent trend of Syrian refugees seeking solace in the arms of European countries or the United States, as the case-in-point of the attached article. Of course, we have all heard the numerous reasons, explanations, motivations, and otherwise "necessary causes" for U.S. involvement in the Middle East, which can be a touchy topic for some, but one that I feel is very relevant to our discourse and dialogue surrounding U.S. imperialism, particularly as it's manifested through these ideas of the "foreign," the "domestic," the "Other," and the need to "domesticate" the aforementioned "Other." Though in this instance, one could make the conjecture that our involvement, as well as the involvement of other "Big Brother" countries such as Russia and the like, was prompted by a combination of domestic policy, foreign policy, as well as a history of bringing our "domestic" to the "foreign" lands of the "Other" in an attempt to "democratize" them as a means of saving them from themselves.  Much like Kaplan's discussion of Cuba and Puerto Rico, with regards to the sentiment that they were too "savage" and thus wild and anarchic and incapable of sustaining a government and system of sustainability for themselves, there is again this sense of the U.S. as a savior to the populace of the Middle East, in attempt to pull them back from their "heathen" ways to use a euphemism of Southern traditionalism and "Christian zeal," which too is part of this ideology.  As Kaplan has shown us, through the various popular culture illustrations of the late 1800s and early 1900s as well as her in-depth discussions of Cuba and the Philippines, there is a deep-rooted connection between U.S. imperialism, empire, and manhood, with this virility, strength, and otherwise, sheer intimidation of others being what drives the very heart of our contemporary political ideology on a global level.  At the same time, the individual whose harrowing tale is attached in the aforementioned article, had his life threatened, not once but numerous times, by a group of individuals who take the idea of masculinity, of virility, of strength, intimidation, and even, in some instances and in some individuals' minds, anarchistic chaos to a place of destruction, desolation, and otherwise genocide, in the name of nationalism of an extremist level. Subhi Nahas was likely seen as being everything that was wrong with his country, everything that, in the 19th century, would likely have been labeled effeminate and associated with domestic ideologies of emotionality and homemaking, as opposed to the aggressive ideologies of conquer and conquest.
     Nahas felt that living in that area, with the limited resources and the hostile environment, he stood an immense chance of ending up raped, persecuted, and ultimately killed at the hands of the extremist Islamic groups in power, thus he, and others in similar situations, have fled the circumstances of their homeland, seeking solace in the Land of Opportunity, the "good 'ole U. S. of A." However, we have learned that everything from words to slogans to symbols to countries only become synonymous with these meanings and associations because we, as individuals, give them that meaning.  The connection between the U.S. and the Land of Opportunity exists because it was constructed to by individuals.  In the case of these refugees, however, as is most often the case with most immigrants here in the United States, thanks to our never-ending imperialist nature and the cycle of "rescuing" the "Other" that has been perpetuated in various incarnations for the last century or so, it is highly likely that these individuals, including Subhi Nahas, will still be treated as "foreign" while on "domestic" soil, due to the fact that he and his comrades are not part of the homogeneous and upstanding empire of the U.S. but rather a potential destabilizing "faction" that could cause undoing in the various pockets of space that they will come to inhabit.  The beacon of freedom and "welcome sign to the Land of Opportunity" as it were, that massive figure in New York, you know the one, which holds a placard that reads "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" from Emma Lazarus' sonnet, can prove to be somewhat of a misnomer.  What, in many cases, both contemporary and historical, it likely should have read is "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...[as long as they are white and can assimilate into our culture with upsetting the carefully constructed balance that we've come to associate with our sense of national entitlement and American exceptionalism in the global economy and arenas of commerce].
     Judging by the fact that we have massive national debt, a continuously questionable economy, an only slightly-improved job marketplace, and a huge debate fueling within the physical and geographic borders of our country regarding the place and appropriateness of immigrant families and workers within the constructed "American Dream" ideology, I think that it's safe to say that the cycle of constructing the "foreign" within the "domestic" and "domesticating" the "foreign" to fit within the "domestic" while simultaneously "Othering" anyone who differs from us in any facet of existence or being through our, what seems to be never-ending, involvement in the affairs of other countries has certainly aided in perpetuating the idea of the U.S. as an empire of anarchy, imperialism, and as a result, oppression.

How we form Empire-Aloha

           Emma Stone in the move, Aloha was greatly scrutinized for her role as an Asian/Hawaiian american due to her clear lack of any of the actual descent. The entire cast was very poorly represented in Hawaiian descent.  It became this idea that the actress herself, along with the entire cast, "whitewashed" the movie. People and natives of Hawaii lashed out at the film for the fact that Caucasians only make up 30% of Hawaii but yet in this movie viewers would have thought it was nearly 99%.  Not only has this "whitewash" casting been an issue in this film but it has come from a long line of others; The Descandants, 50 First Dates, and even Pearl Harbour. This movie has created a false sense of "empire" within Hawaii which directly changes the views of Americans who majorly support cinema such as this. Aloha has misrepresented the culture of Hawaii and simplifies a word that's rich with meaning.
         That being said, this controversy over not only Emma Stone's badly cast role but the movie's entirety directly correlates to a lot of what Kaplan emphasizes in Chapter 4. For example, she best explains the idea of "whitewashing" (an updated term for movies) or whiteness dominating the empire on page 138. Kaplan writes, "It would be historically inaccurate and theoretically simplistic to collapse the relations of the imperial United States to Filipinos, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Hawaiians, and African Americans into a monolithic model of colonized and colonizer. Such a model not only assumes a false coherence in the identity of the colonizer, but also ignores the historical and global differences among colonized subjects and their relation to empire. " By misdirecting the true identity of the people and where they have come from it changes the connection and takes it further from the understanding of an empire. Just as Kaplan has stressed this in her stories, and just as we can see white-male dominance in war and the "double standard" for black men. We can also see it in Hollywood cinema just like Aloha that has wrongly interpreted the culture of Native Hawaiians.

Domesticating through Fetish

Kaplan's Anarchy of Empire tracks the influences and impacts of the "domestic" and "foreign" in the time of empire building in the US on constructions of race and gender. Specifically, I would like to focus on the idea of the duality of domesticity, as both the literal home and the domestication of the "savage" other. In the late 1800s, where much of Kaplan's analysis is rooted, focuses more so on the domestication of the general "foreign savage" population, I would like to direct this lens and analysis to the perpetuation of this desire to domesticate in modern day, particularly women, as exemplified with the advertisement above for an Asian dating website.

The fetishization of Asian women is not a particularly new phenomenon, with many examples in popular culture and many dating back a hundred years, such as Madame Butterfly which was a short story published in 1898, obviously many years before the very popular musical. However, the existence of this phenomenon does not necessarily mean it is tied to empire building in the past or present. However, taking into account the gendered expectations of domesticity and the stereotypes around Asian women, the emphasis on demure, quiet, and complacent femininity emerges. Thus, arguably as the cult of domesticity was maturing and taking root in America, it was being applied to non-white women as well, and in modern day the domestication of the foreign non-white other that occurred through literal invasion is now being accomplished through stereotype and fetish. The ad plays on tropes of Asian culture as seen by Americans, turning a diverse and multifaceted continent into a monolith of bamboo and pagodas. These exotic, foreign, non-white women exemplify the aspects of femininity that have been maintained and perpetuated for decades in America, welcoming, silent, and pliant. These women have been proverbially domesticated, but do to their race (and in this case the intentional exotic background of the video) the "otherness" of these women is maintained, and the conquering of white masculinity can still continue. Fetish towards Asian women functions similarly to the awkward and contradictory story told by Kaplan of the Supreme Court's decision that Puerto Rico was not part of the United States, but still under the United States watchful and paternal eye. A fetish is not love, it is not genuine and equal. It others just as the nations of American empire were othered as to protect whiteness. Asian women become a vanguard for the "ideal" women, but simultaneously present otherness that can then be conquered.

Poor Hugh

"The culture at large was in the process of redefining white middle-class masculinity from a republican quality of character based on self-control and social responsibility to a corporeal essence identified with the vigor and prowess of the individual male body." Kaplan (97)

I didn't even realize a magazine called "Muscle and Fitness" existed and I've never picked up a copy of "Good Housekeeping". While I could spend hours discussing the problematic nature of these covers and their stories, the imagery is what is relevant. Hugh Jackman is a product of today's pop culture- portrayed as an rough, tough, animalistic body builder on one cover meant to attract the attention and jealousy of men. On the other hand, "Good Housekeeping" wants us (specifically heterosexual women) to believe that Hugh is a romantic man- clean shaven, sophisticated, and approachable.
But how can he be both?

He can't.

In the quote above, Kaplan perfectly describes the change in standards of masculinity occurring in the 19th century. With the expansion of empire came the expectation that men had to be adventurers prone to violent acts signifying strength and with that came the expectation of conquering others. Kaplan writes that with the "conquering" of the West, men grew bored and had nothing to do to prove their masculinity, "Most of these romances begin by announcing the close of the frontier in the temporal form of the hero's lament for the lack of opportunity for heroic adventure." (102) What we see happening today are the echoes of this change in masculinity standards that have grown increasingly complicated. A man is no longer just sophisticated or rough and tumble- he must be both. He must be adventurous and approachable. Brave and sensitive. The standards created through the pressures of empire expansion are still current today, complicated by the fact that they are no longer enough to signify a man as a viable and attractive mate.

American Domesticity.

Sure, the Real Housewives series are the epitome of ignorance and materialism. However, I do feel that it is a perfect example of modernized femininity and domesticity or the "Culture of domesticity."
According to the wiki definition, the culture of domesticity (cult of domesticity) was a value system that embraced new ideas for women as far as their domestic role and their role in society, which mainly focused on middle class 19th century white women at the peak of the feminist movement.

The real housewives of Atlanta in particular have a diverse array of women that are married, single, divorced, etc; which also represent today kind of women. Some of whom are stay at home moms that do nothing but make money off of their rich husbands/ex-husbands, some of the housewives have a career of their own, and some are just single and fun. The fact the the term housewife has altered over the years is a perfect example of the modernized woman, as opposed to what the housewife was considered even 30 years ago. Each of the housewives do have motherhood and the old fashioned be a lady persona in common, but they each exemplify how women and domesticity have evolved through culture (the Real Housewives series) and over time as well, it's no longer the middle class Caucasian woman but more so a representation of what society actually is today.