Ay, Brah.

The image of women in the media has been prominent in controversial discussion and social conflict theories for decades. While a worthy issue to speculate, we've been distracted from analyzing the male image. Has anyone ever stopped to think, how did men get to where we are now?

The virtues that [straight] men admire in other men have become qualities that confound most common sense. Alpha men today aren’t like they used to be. Iconic male figures in history like James Dean or John Wayne were celebrated for their charisma, confidence and chivalry. Their presence in society wasn’t because of their physical size, misogyny, or aggression, as we see today. Through the years, we can see a visible difference from the men we used to respect to the men held revered today. You can expect the "bro-tastic" "alpha male" of today to be cocky, arrogant, presumptuous, intolerant, and unbelievably muscular. Other than exasperation, this might be posing a real problem. Afterall, men commit 90% of violence and research shows we’re getting more violent. Even CNN chimed in saying the concept of a "quality man" is obsolete.

Men have undergone shocking reformation in the media through the years. Today, masculinity is associated with how much alcohol you can endure without vomiting, how freakishly huge their biceps are, or the turnover rate in their bedroom. He's expected to know flippant details over a few domestic beers, which he will always drink with his "bros." Men today love their bros, and religiously oblige to the latest puzzling concept of "bro-code." Ugh, barf. Also, the physique of admired men apparently caught elephantitis and has swollen to masses beyond pleasing. Notice the changing bodies from Marlon Brando, John Wayne, James Dean, to Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Jean-Claude Van Damme in the 80s and 90s.

In the video “Tough Guise,” Jackson Katz explores the impact that overly-masculinized images have on society and culture. His insight is directly related to the cultivation theory, that suggests mass-produced images and messages are responsible for shaping the perception of our reality, ultimately “cultivating” our culture as a whole from media. Boys will turn out like the men they watch in movies, and those that don’t can expect backbreaking harassment and vicious words like bitch, fag, pussy. We are immersed with this ideal through media. It’s not just in a few places like video games and movies, but it’s literally what passes as a social norm. Katz also drew interesting connections between the construction of hyper-masculinity and politics, sports, consumerism and the marginalization of women.

This image of the alpha male is not an accident. It’s sourced and controlled by white, heterosexual males that do control this message and can leverage it to their benefit. Theoretically, one could postulate how these images encourage military advocacy. One could argue that men conditioned to think brute violence is the route to respect would find more hope in the military. Either way, with media reinforcing apathetic, mindless, aggressive behavior is implementing an ideal that isn’t realistic, and conjointly putting restrictions on an individual’s growth, behavior and attitude.

Please Stereotype Me!

A young female with loud red hair walks sheepishly past you. Eyes to the ground; seemingly lost in thoughts. Black fitted jeans and a black top ornately sprinkled with studs everywhere. One could (and will) assume many things: she’s anti-government, she’s tough, and she resists authority and challenges most rules. She probably likes metal and pretends to know about literature. Across the way is a female with long blonde hair, in a Juicy jumpsuit, oversized sunglasses and tanned skin in February. Assumptions: she likes male attention, bugs gross her out and reading, she claims the ability to run in spike heels, and likes vodka. These assumptions, or stereotypes, aren’t accidental. These attributes are probably very accurate traits or traits they admire. One could argue our personal freewill advocates that people dress a certain way because they want to; or could it be that our will isn’t as free as we thought and we’re actually adhering our identity to existing traits we find otherwise?

I’m starting to realize that as much as we’d like to criticize stereotyping, it’s really us that are actively endorsing and inviting stereotyping upon ourselves. We’re all very aware of the stereotypes out there; we joke about them, shake our heads at them, and totally embrace them! Whether it’s subconscious or completely intentional, we know the image we’re giving when we wear and do certain things. I happened to stumble upon this site that fully explains what we’re saying with the most tedious detail: Men with short hair are more credible, women with long hair are rebellious and less intelligent, clothing says everything about your education and personality, and the colors you choose will expose your true inner feelings.

While it’s unlikely all these judgments enter our minds (or are even accurate) based off appearance alone, there is definitely evidence that people get different treatment with different outfits. People are attracted to others that remind them of themselves. Clothes that you relate to transcend other ideals that are mutually shared. It’s only unhealthy when we have to make judgments of those we’re not familiar with. Different cultures and minority groups have standards that boring, white people wouldn’t understand. The trick is to fight the fear of the unknown, embrace it rather than dismiss it. People just think they’re sooo smart when they declare “baggy pants started in prison, so that guy must be a thug or inviting sex.” If you repeat that, you’ll notice it starts to sound dumber each time.

So do we dress and act for us or them? I think both. I know there’s a possibility I won’t have enough time to reveal my quirky, scandalous, fun self to everyone I encounter, so I rely on my clothes, music, and walk to do the talking when time is less available. [This act actually has a name, called self-fulfilling stereotypes] I even find that catchphrases and pieces of conversation can fall into predictable stereotype categories. One's college major also speaks measures about them and people love to fulfill the role that goes with their choice of study (one time this guy said he wouldn't be talking to me if I was a business major- because they're boring, duh). It probably wouldn’t take long for me to tell you your preferences in music, movies, bars, or tell you how you would react in a certain scenario. Obviously this sounds arrogant, but I’m sure I’d be more hot than cold because of my genuine passion for people watching. And surprisingly, people will find themselves proclaiming interests that belong more to the stereotype they identify with than themselves. So does our self-image come from within, independent of other influences or bias? Or do we form our identity to characteristics that already exist in others?

Constructing Images, Constructing the World.

Nearing the close of my college career has drawn circles of thought for me. I wonder about the path I’m headed, the convictions I hold, and the deeper meaning. Let’s see, the basics…I’m studying journalism, focusing on public relations-- a field of image, perception and global networking, implemented by writing, meeting people, and persuasion. On paper, this couldn’t sound better tailored for me. While there is expected skepticism about my choices circulating my head, I am ultimately thrilled with the path I took.

I’m starting to realize image is a powerful thing, a thing that no PowerPoint or lecture could adequately emphasize. Throughout history, publics get their knowledge essentially from “images.” We see what someone has given us, what someone wants us to see, and it’s very rare to see “absolute truths” in their objective, operating form. The person behind molding these images is the gatekeeper to international comprehension and basic grasp of the world. Thinking basically, our image of a man is one of a guardian, hunter, competitive, assertive, insensitive and so on. Where we got this image is the never-ending question of “nature vs. nurture,” a term so overused that it’s become a definition, a term with no second thought. A woman is the anti-selfish, the loving, the caretaker, the vain, the incompetent, a passenger to the captain (man) of our life ship. While nature vs. nurture is a sound theory to this global image, it’s boring and I choose to raise the question of excellent PR strategies.

In the 1950’s C. Wright Mills released The Power Elite, analyzing and explaining the true propeller, the true force, behind the system of America. He showed three components to the power, wealth, and control of America: Politicians, military, and business owners (white men). This obviously goes without saying today, but it was only brought to our attention in the 50’s. This type of influence has been going on since the foundation of our country. With the mission of profit and power in mind, this “triangle of influence” realized that image is everything. They also realize, and I think formed with the help of PR, that the current differentiation that we accept today between men and women images is exactly what makes them the most money and circulates their lineage.

In respect to attention span, I will only focus on how this applies to current standards. For example, the image of a woman is shoved in our faces relentlessly with product advertisements and PR: your facial lines are now in your control, you can now do the dishes and iron at the same time, pretty girls wear bows and scarves and heels, etc. Today we have ads and characters formed that exemplify this role of women. This form of advertisement and PR is working with the goal of keeping women in the pursuit of the feminine image, and further perpetuate it. Keeping women interested in “women things” distracts them from challenging real world issues, issues that men are expected to handle while we play with makeup or dolls, as well as profit the client that pays them. This image ensures easy money for clients and publicists, but also benefits the original gangsters by keeping their lineage consistent. Could it be that the basic understanding of women and men was generated by great PR, and could I provoke you to think that it's possible there were never any differences like the ones we associate with today? It’s interesting to see how relatively easy it is to form universally accepted imaged, or “facts,” and how much of an impact they have. While I realize now this was a controversial? example to use, it was the most universally understood one I could think up on the spot.

I see this concept/theory of images in so many more elements of society today. The wikileaks are a fun and trendy topic of discussion. America has run impressively successful on the image of altruism, superior benevolence, and patriotic loyalty; but this image is drudging through the biggest and most public walk-of-shame now. It doesn’t shock some people that have seen through these “evangelistic wars” like a Rose McGowan dress, but the information is quite appalling, and quite a shift from American heroism. The government is so flustered with hysteria, like they got to McDonalds at 10:32. They know the damages image can do. It's not like the behavior in the leaks is shocking news to anybody, it's just this news is now public, and persistent, and the face of America. Our face is much more important than our actions.

Ultimately, image building and positioning echoes textbook terms that serenades me to sleep at night. But really thinking about it, forming an image for something is forming its essence, its meaning and how it’s communicated. It can be as powerful as to eventually evolve into a common fact, or as detrimental as world wars. And that’s just one aspect of public relations. Brittany Stone--future emperor of your mind. :D

Oh! And if you get a chance, watch the videos embedded in this post. Trust me.