Week 3 Assignment -- Men @ the airport

As part of this week's assignment, we were to visit a public place and observe the behavior of men, a la the observations of women in the article about shopping malls (see below).

I traveled from Minneapolis to Seattle tonight, so I chose to observe men at the airport.  As a frequent business traveler, I’m at the airport a lot. And I’ve been doing this for years and years (business traveling!) – starting when I was a 20 something until today -- I’m 40 something.

As a female business traveler, I’ve been very aware of the fact that I was in the minority.  As such, most of the business travel trappings are geared to men -- from the lack of decent mirrors in hotel rooms to the TV station on display at the airport. First class seating on the plane was a male-only domain and even today is predominantly so. In fact, I’m sitting there right now. The count is 4 women, 8 men. Dinner was great, thanks. Because I’m traveling to the west coast, we are treated to a movie, which is a terrible, and all too appropriate for this post, male vs. female love story starring Matthew McConnahay. It’s a take off on a Christmas Carol, something about the Ghost of Girlfriends Past. Horrible, but I’m still watching.

So it is not without a biased eye that I entered the airport tonight to observe male behavior. It’s a Sunday, so it’s not a busy time and the business traveler onslaught is at a minimum (as evidenced by my own First Class upgrade). This translates into a more balanced male/female population and a larger than normal percentage of vacation and casual travelers. They aren’t as efficient or practiced as the business traveler crowd, and serve to make the airport feel more human.

My single overriding realization from watching men in this public place has to do with football. I’m not a big fan and blissfully unaware of game day – except for the fact someone waiting in the security line happened to be wearing Vikings garb (actually a woman!).

So instead of watching the single-mindedly determined male business traveler in pursuit of good gate placement, I’m observing male efforts to find football coverage. The first gate of my terminal is populated exclusively with men, all seated facing the television, all spaced out evenly in the seats. Suffice to say they are intent – INTENT – on the game.  I stop to watch and a group of passengers who have just disembarked pass by. At least every other man stops to watch. I’m fairly sure they already know who is playing and are simply checking on the score.

I’m early for my flight and stop in a bar to kill some time. It’s still the weekend after all. What a surprise that a football game is on all four of the bar’s television sets. I mistakenly assume it is the Vikings until I call my father in California. One of the first things his wife says to me is “Did you watch the Vikings win?” Since I don’t live with a man and am not a football fan, I’m just not in touch. But my Dad’s wife – clearly not a fan herself – is totally tapped in.  Hilarious. There was a day in my hard-core business past when I would intentionally keep up on the football scene so I could do the small talk routine with my peers.

Maybe I’m feeling magnanimous or simply reluctant after my own scolding by the author of this week’s reading, but I have no criticism of men’s football focus. I’ll happily criticize the new Gopher stadium, I’ll proudly defend Title IX forever. But to mock someone’s geeky obsession with a sport – even a highly commercialized one? Only if it makes a good joke at a business event or family function.

Readings, Week 3

For this week's assignment we read an article: Transforming Social Spaces: Female Identity and the Mall which was presented by Miranda Brady at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, held in NYC this May. It can be read in very small chunks here:  http://tinyurl.com/ycrrb2g

While I share the author's disdain for malls, capitalism and a culture defined by consumerism, this article really ticked me off.

First of all, as a woman, I resent being cast as enabler of the ugly, unenlightened status quo because I am the natural target of shopping mall developers and retail marketers. Second, as an unabashedly proud bargain shopper who visits a mall monthly and shops weekly, I am infuriated that my life, pastimes, income use and contributions to our economy (hehe!) are so roundly disdained:

"So, one must naturally ask what kind of ideological sensibilities Americans of all socio-economic-status are acquiring when they are spending significant amounts of time in a space that has been designed with private, capitalistic interests for the sole purpose of promoting consumption." (p. 2)

"Apparently the the exchange values offered at the mall are acceptable to at least some segments of the population." (p. 4)

Feeling insulted and affronted, I must confront the very real possibility that part of my annoyance is due my own awareness of the  inevitable and undeniable dark side of this "guilty" pleasure. For the sake of transparency, I must now acknowledge other guilty pleasures -- eating meat, watching violent TV and movies, playing video games, buying water out of plastic bottles ... the list could go on endlessly.

I must also react to this article from my status as former advertising/marketing executive. Here too, I am tempted to become defensive and work hard to rebut the author's premise. Ultimately, even with my many hats, I can not. Capitalism as the single driving force for our society disgusts me. But I've got to ask, is it the worst possible defining attribute? What about comparing it to other culturally defining attributes -- like a highly rigid religion, a facist government or an unyielding caste system? I would love to see students attempt to tease out the positives and negatives in this debate.

One of the major challenges I have to the argument of this article is that it ignores the fact that the consumer's perspective, needs, desires, wants are a core part of marketing and consumerism. A feedback loop is required for success. I imagine very little citizen feedback to a facist regime. I have seen very little change in the Catholic Church to address modern times and values. But today's marketers are spending themselves silly to understand and address consumer's needs. And when these needs are "pro-social" the marketers must respond -- as evidenced by the "greening" of consumer packaged goods and the re-branding of oil companies.

I challenge the author's assertion that consumers "have neither a say in creating the ideologies communicated to them, nor do they always have the time to gain access to opposing ideologies." (p. 2) I would argue that it is only by being attentive to me that the marketers can develop ideologies that are salient to and effective with me.  As a consumer, I have power. I speak with my choices and credit card. They know me, they know what I buy and when I buy it. I might be just another entry in their data analysis, but they are slaves to that analysis. So they suck up to me and respond to my usage patters and desires. They reward my good behavior just as I reward theirs. For example, my "bargain" orientation has not gone unnoticed by the major department store chains. They know very well that they are competing against my favorite discount stores like Marshalls and TJ Maxx. What a surprise then that Macy's has a sale nearly every other weekend. 

By empowering our young people to understand capitalism, how marketers function and their own "power" as consumers, we are offering them career insights, critical thinking and analytical skills, and the ability to harness and apply their power. I would ask them if they could -- by using their consumer power -- change the status quo. It would be a great activity to explore boycotts and buycotts, even plan one as an activity.

The challenge to this "consumer power" concept is that money and volume dictates the level to which one can influence the marketers. My middle-class, white collar demographic is profiled as "mainstream" and because my market segment is so very lucrative, so tied to mainstream media and shopping patterns, I am the default target audience. My preferences and beliefs dominate advertisers' messages and retailers displays -- and as the author points out -- therefore become hegemonic. So my continued participation is sustaining the status quo, making it easier for marketers to ignore potentially less lucrative market segments -- like communities of color in urban centers.

Yet even this point can be debated. Marketers are coming to terms with the fact that "broadcasting" is dying -- and "narrow-casting" or highly segmented markets are the norm. It's not enough to target a big generic demographic anymore. Web 2.0 has a lot to do with this change -- and while I'm not involved enough anymore to know how the trends are driving strategy -- it bet we are a lot closer to 1:1 marketing that the good ole days of "mass" marketing.

Further, it is expensive to reach that mainstream demographic. And it is fairly well saturated. So new efforts are and will continue to target new and different market segments -- like communities of color in the urban core. But through what process will they start making inroads? There are certain products that marketers know must first be adopted by urban african american youth in order to trend successfully into white, middle-class youth. But a whole mall? Or product line?  They'd need data, though, to identify lucrative strategies. I was curious about the International Council of Shopping Centers (a reference on page 2) so I visited their site to see if I could get data. No luck, but I did download the agenda from their last meeting to see what hot topics were discussed by mall retailers.  I found an interesting session:

2:40 – 3:10 pm B - Measuring Urban Retail Demand
Retail real estate research is benchmarked to key data metrics
which include population, income, and spending potential. When
urban, or inner city, areas are under consideration,
traditional sources, such as the Census Bureau and demographics
vendors, are often unable to fully measure population and income/
spending potential. This session will consider ways to improve
urban real estate research with additional methodologies to better
measure the true opportunity associated with urban trade areas.

Moderator:
KAREN SOLHEIM
Owner, Principal
Solheim Research
Santa Monica, CA

Speakers:
GLEN BOYER
Vice President of Real Estate Market Research
Ross Stores
Pleasanton, CA

JOHN TALMAGE
President & CEO
Social Compact
Washington, DC

First off, Ross Stores are another discount clothing retailer -- west coast. Ross Dress for Less. Another personal favorite!

Second, what the heck is "Social Compact" -- sounded very non-profit-like. So I investigated --

http://www.socialcompact.org/
Social Compact is a non-profit organization that breaks down barriers to public investment in underserved urban areas. Since its founding in 1990, the organization has become a powerful force for change in overlooked urban markets by delivering the reliable, representative, and up-to-the-minute information about a community’s economic health needed to make critically important investments possible and partnering with investors, municipalities, and community leaders to leverage this valuable information in the decision-making process.

I didn't go to this description right way. I went to their data and I was convinced they were a commercial entity fronting as non profit. Digging around though showed that they as much as they were tapped into the commercial interests, they had a larger, socially conscious orientation. A quote from their President (John Talmage) shows why I was confused:

"All communities are markets. And we must recognize them as such. If we don't recognize them as a market, then we've robbed them of the dignity of that community of in the economic system that we all participate in."
 (video on http://socialcompact.org/index.php/site/profile/category/landing/)

Would the author of this week's article  have a hard time embracing the idea that all communities are markets -- and that dignity equates to "participating in the economic system?"  I am fascinated by Social Compact's approach -- they seem to believe that these communities are not being targeted because the data isn't making the case and that the problem is that the data is bad -- inadequate. So they partner with local communities, their governments and economic development arms as well as private investors. Because everybody benefits.

That's the answer!  Malls in poor urban neighborhoods? Class -- let's discuss.

Readings, Week 2

For this week's assignment, we viewed videos of three different female musical artists:
 
Leslie Gore (1963)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsYJyVEUaC4&feature=related
Fiona Apple (1997)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjlE08MqeqE
Lil' Kim (2000)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuqJssfGG8U

The songs and their representations of female and sex/relationship made for a great historical contrast. As all of the songs were teen anthems, I couldn't help but try to recall a musical expression of female sexuality from my own  formative years (1977-1981) I scrolled through my iPod and almost immediately ran into Debbie Harry and Blondie. Back on YouTube, I watched more videos:

1978, Heart of Glass. Sounds so disco to me today.  Establishing shots of NYC, including Studio 54. Most of the  video is a very tight shot of Debbie Harry's face inter-cut with shots of the band playing on a disco dance floor. Not much of a dancer but a femme fatal for sure -- white blonde hair and lip gloss veneer. Closing shots of NYC, including a hugely wide shot from a helicopter of the WTC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXlaOsNBDkk


1980, Call me
Video is Debbie rolling around on a round bed, inter-cut with shots from a concert and some staged studio performance scenes. Distinctively '80s feel from make-up, clothes, terrible dancing.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH3Q_CZy968

Blondie fits into the three break through gals featured in our assignment because she also led with relationships or sex -- as well as her sex appeal. And she was a breakthrough, moving into the punk era and early rap ventures. To me as a teenager, she was the epitome of sexy -- feminine and appealing, yet powerful and in charge. Fronting an all male band, being somewhat edgy (seems ridiculous now) in her posture towards the role a woman should play with a man when it comes to sex. From a very, very direct request for sex (call me) to her no holds barred pursuit (gonna getcha getcha getcha) of a guy, she was not my Mothers' generation of woman.

Because that's the real point of the assignment this week. How do we, society, men, women, teens, adults, people, view women? Sex? Relationships? Listening to the popular music of a generation -- seeing the mini-motion pictures that are modern music videos --- are tasty clues. And time/relevance is everything! Our on-line chat tonight started out with some of my younger classmates remarking just how dated Lil' Kim would be to the kids in their classes. Gulp.

And the question of the week is whether and how these popular explorations of sex and relationships belong in education -- or at least in the learning process for our young people. I would argue that they -- the parent-frighteningly explicit popular music songs and videos and dance moves already are part of their world and as such, part of their learning and development. Since adolescence is all about identity development, messages from all fronts will contribute to their understanding of themselves as an individual, woman, man, sexual being, etc.

Yes, sexual being. As adults we are extremely squeamish about adolescent sexuality. We make stupid decisions based on this squeamishness -- like imprisoning kids for sexting, criminalizing normal behavior, withholding sexuality education and marginalizing LGBT kids. I immediately think of the outcry over Harmful to Minors by Judith Levine -- or closer to home, discussions with the OR Dept of Health over whether to include young peoples' "right to experience pleasure" in the Adolescent Sexual Health Plan.

Which is where this week's question gets squishy for me. Yes, I believe the themes in these music videos should be discussed -- as should all the social, cultural and artistic aspects of them. Yet I really, really dislike being involved in promoting 1) in the case of Fiona Apple, what I would consider a creepy, voyeuristic view of adolescent sexuality and 2) in the case of Lil' Kim, what I would consider a "being a powerful and sexual woman means imitating a man" message.

I really enjoyed these two "shocking" female sex songs (Apple and Lil' Kim). In fact, I smiled and laughed through both of them and was even compelled to dance a couple of times. Bad language, explicit sexual references -- no problem. But.

The directorial and visual style of the Fiona Apple video is distinctive and in my opinion, beautiful. I loved the very raw camera work, intentionally bad lighting and minimalist sets. But it just felt creepy. More like kiddy porn than good sex. And evocative of that whole teenagers as sexual objects doing drugs and selling jeans. Heroin chic, I'm reminded from youTube commenters. Even if you think, as I do, that Apple's song portrays the female as powerful and making her own decisions (and feeling a little, but not so very, guilty), the video casts a very dark lens over the theme and conjures up even darker topics. And therefore, I'd likely not want to "teach" from this video. Is that fair? Is it age showing through? My own squeamishness? Forced to justify, I'd say that our attitudes about sex/sexuality are so messed up, I'd rather present beauty and wonder and avoid the darkness, since there's so much of it already out there.

That said, this was the style of the times -- all the fashionistas were going this way (Calvin Klein was not alone in this). Just like penny loafers and too tight-pedal pushers were the style from Leslie Gore's time. Just like lip gloss was the style from my time. Just because I don't get into waif-ish, too skinny, grunge, doesn't necessarily make it dark and bad. It just makes it dated. Except in the case of this video, it also feels timeless because it reads like porn.

This reminds me of a teen sexual health conference I attended. Roughly 1/4 of the attendees were young people, which is unusual for these kind of things. I attended a session about sexual pleasure which was being facilitated by someone I knew. I walked in late and found a standing room only crowd -- mostly young people. She asked people to talk about what kinds of sexual pleasure they could think of and everything was all well and good until a young person mentioned piercing and BDSM. A lot of my career is about promoting the idea that we should talk about sex with young people, normalize it, make it the wonderful, beautiful part of their development that it should be and suddenly I'm feeling very uncomfortable.

Same feeling, thinking about teaching with the Criminal video.

Even though I think many adults might find it even more shocking, I'd be much more comfortable teaching from the Lil' Kim video.  No darkness here -- just explicit, powerful, female sexuality. The entire video is an object lesson in objectification, from her wardrobe, hairstyle and makeup to her lyrics to her dance moves. She made me wonder if the reason that so many young women reject feminism is because they don't believe that they have less power (at least sexually) than men do. Lil' Kim certainly feels that way. And she shatters (at least in her own expression of it) feminist concerns of female objectification because she embraces it and makes a place of power. That said, it feels a little too much like traditional representations of male sexual power to make me entirely thrilled with it.

And the comments generated exactly the kind of debates I'd love to see among young people: 

• Male vs. Female sexuality: raisetheflag88  -- I am glad women like Lil Kim and Foxy Brown sing about sex, what makes them whores? Guys sing about it all the time and they are labeled "playas". Women get your sex on and don't be afraid to express what you want!! 
• Censorship:  YuiYumama -- I remember watching this video when I was little and my mom would be like 'eww turn that off' Shit I still dance to it now lol! I think it's a cute video 
• Standards:  xeno957714 -- one of the more dirty songs ive ever heard from a girl singer lol
• Race/Representation:  indiegirl007 -- Yeah, I've noticed that. It isn't too appealing. it's almost like she's ashamed of her skin, and she shouldn't be. It kinda surprised me actually. A confident black woman like her, proud to be black and strong, BLEACHING her skin. Wow.

Readings, Week 1

For this week's assignment we were to read the first three chapters of "Tooning In: Essays on Popular Culture and Education" by Cameron White and Trenia Walker.

Not surprisingly, these folks are speaking my language, albeit from an educational system perspective. They are wading around the same areas that I am, exploring similar concepts with different labels. It was no surprise to see them discuss the broadening of educational goals, recommend media literacy, complain about NCLB and so on. It felt like old home week and another indicator that there are factions, splinters within the educational field that do "get" adolescents from a developmental and social justice perspective.

Social Efficacy
They justify the inclusion of popular culture by acknowledging young people's need for "social efficacy" and that this skill/need is rightly a responsibility of the educational system. Social efficacy is a concept I've seen over and over again in the health, mental health and out-of-school time segments under other names. Twenty dollar language, but it might have more traction that social and emotional learning or, our stand by -- healthy/positive youth development. 

Given where our country seems to be today, I have low expectations for the sort of social overthrow the writers advocate for, despite my own passionate desire for it be a reality. They accuse the "standardization and accountability movements" (p. 2) -- railing against the machine that ultimately funds their system and perpetuated by our own institution (and others). I love the radical perspective: that we hold up and prize our democratic society which addresses the needs of young people with a "school praxis (which) has virtually turned our schools into prisons... Kids are in school to be molded into appropriate acting citizens."

Aren't we lucky, I ask myself when confronted with this depressing truth, that the human spirit – especially when it is young – rises above? OBEY CONFORM BUY But not all of them do! They make their own truth, style, story, meaning. It thrills me to imagine the possibility created by strategies like the ones recommended here.

I agree, "neutrality is an impossibility" (p. 11). And at times it feels like participating in the youth serving community at all means treading carefully through and working hard to sustain neutral ground. To upset the status quo means risking your funding, job, livelihood and what little impact you are actually having. The whole "should we reject the abstinence funding" dilemma faced by public health departments is a perfect example. The lesson -- maybe you need to compromise your principles if it means getting resources when there are none. How long will we let that be our best practice? And on the national level? Is health care reform that doesn't make it possible for all citizens to get health care really reform?

Media impacts on social relations
I think it is important to see that the peeking through all the ugly stuff associated with dominant "mass commercial culture" (standardization, commoditization, consumerism) are some positives. First, I agree that social relations being formed through the "sphere of consumption" isn't exactly the best possible situation, but isn't it great that otherwise lonely or isolated people can "find each other" through a TV show or fashion or product? As long as it has some pro-social characteristic, I'm hard pressed to condemn it.

I also believe that web 2.0 is essentially changing these "mass media" dynamics. Mass media's death bed is a long ways off, but already it's function is changing dramatically. Web 2.0 has been an amazing accelerator for creation and especially creation through appropriation. Andy Warhol must be partying in his grave to see today's young people mash up and remix and get famous in not 15 minutes, but 5. We are shifting further and further from the receiver model and the idea that consumers and predominantly passive. I believe these next generations are and will be active with their consumption and media patterns. They don't wait for their TV show to come on at 8, they go find it, prerecord it, download, stream it. That said, big budgets will continue to shape the landscape's general features and  agenda. I continue to look for ways that new media will address this problem. For example, what's the relationship between the dramatic increase of news and political blogging, the downward spiral of newspapers and investigative journalism and the polarized but popular TV news programming?

Youth Status
Gisela Konopka (my work organization's figurehead and namesake www.konopka.umn.edu) would have loved the discussions about young people's status. She believed, as these writers note, that there is merit and importance to children as children and teenagers as teenagers – that they are not simply the value associated with what they will someday contribute. That youth is not "primarily a preparation and training for adulthood" (p. 32). I believe that this is particularly radical thinking in the education field -- and our culture in general. One of my coworkers talks about how young people have, as a basic need, the need to play. "How should we evaluate effective playtime?" He says, mocking the youth-serving community's thirst for evaluation and proven practices.

Learn
I'm very interested in the discussion about "meaning" in this reading. "We are at a point in which information no longer produces meaning, in fact it is the opposite that occurs" (p. 19 quoting Baudrillard) in relation to socialization and the "implosion of meaning." The claim that "once society gave meaning to images; now images give meaning to society." (p19) is evocative, but seems too simplistic because it is one way. Isn't meaning tied to both the information and the associations that viewer brings? Must read Baudrillard at some point.

Welcome

To my blog. This is my third attempt at a blog, maybe it will stick!

This is actually a homework assignment, but I've been meaning to find some discipline and start documenting my thoughts and reactions to what is happening in the world that impacts young people.
I'll try to find a way to indicate the posts that are part of my class work and those that are my own ramblings, but here I am for now.

One of the things I've always meant to do is write about organizations and programs that are ostensibly supposed to be helping support young people and their families, but are instead getting in the way. It might require naming names, though, and I might be too much of a Minnesotan for that.

For example, a University based group focused on young people and their families recently published an article in their newsletter that made me -- and my Konopka co-workers -- very angry. The article was written by a local adolescent brain/media expert who has national reach, an entire media-focused organization and many, many contacts and connections. I personally have always had issues with the media-related work, but this latest focus is so heavy into "fix those kids" that it is nearly unreadable.

Media, the writer claims, saturates kids with the "more, easy, fast and fun" message which turns them into kids with a "discipline deficit disorder." The advice:  Say no to your kids.

So let's start by telling  those kids in Mpls public schools "no" you can't have your own text book for the year because of budget cuts. Or "no" there will be no breakfast today because your parents can't find a job. Maybe we should just say "no" you don't really need to see a doctor with that broken arm because our country doesn't think health care is important.

And never mind that kids are more savvy media consumers that their parents are. Never mind that they are actually creating their own media and discovering new ways to use that media to meet their needs. Really, they are just passive players too deficient to act on their own behalf. Just say no. It worked for Laura Bush, and it can work for you, too.

Of course, the article ends on an "up" note indicating that the media can also be a source of "good clean fun" (this is, of course not at all a contradiction to the rest of the article which documents media's negative impact on brain development, academic ability, cyber-bullying and screen addiction) and that "those who care about children and youth need to take advantage of the good offered by the media while shielding kids from the negative consequences." That's our job, didn't you know? Shielding kids. If we just hide and protect them from all that bad stuff out there, then they will be okay. Maybe they won't be able to connect with their community, critically analyze a message, appreciate the contrast of dark and light or live independently, but at least they'll be safe.

Phew, I feel better now.
 g/