Visibility Alert

Black Youth in Hip Hop: Cultural Relevancy and Capitalism

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Vitulano) — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:06:00 +0000

Crank That by Soulja Boy
A couple of months ago, no matter who I was with, I could not help but hear Lil Mama. Seriously, everywhere I went, all I could think about was lipgloss.

Whatcha know about me, whatcha know about me? I know plenty, like that your lipgloss is popping.When not listening to beauty cosmetic commercials, I took some time to crank that souljaboy (you!).

My first reading of this new youth oriented hip-hop trend was the usual one. While I found it very encouraging that new hit rap songs weren't loaded with pimps and violence. I was somewhat disturbed by the alarming and blatant capitalism in the videos. It reminded me of those 80's cartoons that I grew up on... I mean, those shows were essentially 30 minute commercials.

A song about (L'oreal) lipgloss is one thing, bragging about the size of your chain is another thing, but having a L'Oreal hot dog cart worker throwing lipgloss to children who then wave them around like magic wands is completely ridiculous. I mean... come on.

G-Slide sparked my second reading of these music videos. Corporations were exploiting consumers through sponsorship. After all, Lil Mama's lipgloss wasn't able to create a tween-inspired shiny tour bus, but her killer dance moves (and shoes) were able to.

But why should a double standard be used in the cases of these hip-hop videos? After all, rockers play at Pepsi Fest, Starbucks has its own music label, and so on.

So now I sit here and am on my third reading of these videos. I am tired of those rap is bad studies. I mean, I could easily just leave it at that for these music videos. Ok, they don't promote violence but they are about sheer consumerism.

I think it is more relevant to look into the cultural situations though. bell hooks, writing in response to gansta rap criticism, states that:

One cannot answer them honestly without placing accountability on larger structures of domination and the individuals (often white, usually male but not always) who are hierarchically placed to maintain and perpetuate the values that uphold these exploitative and oppressive systems. That means taking a critical looking at the politics of hedonistic consumerism, the values of the men and women who produce gangsta rap. It would mean considering the seduction of young black males who find that they can make more money producing lyrics that promote violence, sexism, and misogyny than with any other content. How many disenfranchised black males would not surrender to expressing virulent forms of sexism, if they knew the rewards would be unprecedented material power and fame?

Instead of blaming the artists for cashing in on audience demand for consumerism, I think it is more important that I blame the true culprit: capitalistic patriarchy. By blaming these artists, I accomplish nothing. After all, it would be extremely ethnocentric as I live in my white privilege world to lay blame at the black artists.

Offense shouldn't be had as marginalized groups are doing what white folk have been doing for ages. We, as a society, need to look at our own actions and internal patriarchal capitalism before casting judgment on artists like Soulja Boy and Lil Mama. Before saying the artists are at fault, we need to look and wonder why these messages and images are in demand and work on that. Don't kill the messenger, but you can address why the message is what it is.

From TransAmerica to Newsweek:Transgender in the Media

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Vitulano) — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:52:00 +0000

Alexis, from Ugly Betty

With gay visibility becoming almost passé for some, media outlets decided to focus some attention on transgendered individuals, often casting them either in a normative light or playing a dual role.

This post isn't going to go in-depth in theory nor is it going to provide more than just a brief description of how transgender-identified individuals are portrayed (and subsequently made invisible in reality as their portrayals are highly inaccurate). I don't usually believe in identity-based politics, but in this case, I feel that more writing needs to be done by trans-identified people before yet another cisgendered person like me speaks on the manner.

Casting and Normalization

Trans-folk are typically cast as support and/or reoccurring characters (Ugly Betty, Dirty Sexy Money) when it comes to the sitcom genre. Like other queer characters, trans-characters are sugar-coated to be made quite digestible for a normative audience.

Typically extremely feminine (hyperperformativity), these characters are the epitome of typically beauty. The Ugly Betty website describes its trans-character as "big brother Alex who has returned as gorgeous Alexis". This mode of thinking is dangerous as it creates a simple binary of before and after. Truth is, some transgendered folk are always in transition. Others may live their entire life with a fully male sex but identity with a female gender, genderbend, etc.

Newsweek's Depiction

This normalization is most apparent within an article Debra Rosenburg wrote. But through this normalization, Rosenburg creates a sort of monster.

To most of us, gender comes as naturally as breathing. We have no quarrel with the "M" or the "F" on our birth certificates. And, crash diets aside, we've made peace with how we want the world to see us—pants or skirt, boa or blazer, spiky heels or sneakers. But to those who consider themselves transgender, there's a disconnect between the sex they were assigned at birth and the way they see or express themselves.

Those who do have problems with the "m" or "f" on their birth certificate are compared with the inability to breathe. Rosenburg also uses the term "normal", again pushing the sense of deviancy onto transgendered people.

Tolerance and Its Repercussions

The article reeks of tolerance, trying to "make sense" of this "other". Rosenburg also attributes a sense of the hyperperformativity upon those that transitioned in order to show that they are indeed now proper women (but no mention for female-to-male transitions).

Media depictions of transgenderism have a long way to go before they truly encompass the wide umbrella of the gender spectrum. Casting transgendered characters (themselves just a cisgendered female) as completely normative beings again ignores diversity of taste and opinion, all the while further demonizing those who don't conform to normative gender ideals.

Critically acclaimed transgender-themed film, Transamerica, a somewhat better example of transgender visibility.

Friends: A Case Study of Lesbian Representation

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Vitulano) — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:41:00 +0000

Susan & Carol, lesbian lovers on Friends announce their marriage intentions
The increased on television is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, through its visibility, gays are having a voice legitimized in the public sphere. On the other hand, only a homogeneous, normative gay is portrayed on television.

The Friends episode, The One With the Lesbian Wedding, is a typical example of homonormativity. By casting the gay characters in a normative light, they become more digestible to the dominant viewers back home.

Easy To Digest

Susan and Carol represent a cookie-cutter T.V lesbian formula. They both conform to proper gender performances (both wear skirts, have long hair, and wear make-up) and are quite pretty. In essence, they are both fairly femme. Obviously this was done so to make Susan and Carol appear "normal" to the viewers.

Marriage, as an institution, is outdated. But as it is part of the normal family life, the creators of Friends marry off Susan and Carol. If they are married, you have to accept their love as real. This logic is used often in sitcoms, especially for lesbian characters.

(Homosexual) Married characters essentially lack any form of physical desire. Because of this, gay characters can be seen mingling with heterosexual characters with out the fear of contaminating the sterility of the heternormative environment. The Victorianesque garments that Carol and Susan wear only reinforce this notion of a bourgeois middle-class sexual repression sexual repression.

What is most frustrating is the lack of even a simple kiss. After being pronounced married, the camera cuts away from the wives. Homoerotic desire is extinguished to maintain a normative propriety. It is one thing to show that the network is liberal (gay marriage on their network) but another to show that they actually accept it.

Even during the intimate moment of having their portrait taken together, Susan and Carol don't maintain a closeness that shows their love. The camera quickly cuts away from them, following the drama of the other characters.

Reassurances From Normative Characters

Susan and Carol's lives revolve around the lives of their heterosexual counterparts. Throughout the entire episode, their eros is only privileged through Ross' ultimate blessing. Susan has cold feet, and Ross is the one who soothes Susan. Carol's father is seen as a military man.

All the codes are used as a cooling and normalizing agent to, again, make Susan and Carol appear normal. What is important to understand is that homosexuality becomes inherently tied to heteronormative approval. Homoerotic desire cannot (and doesn't) exist with out permission of normative characters.

Conclusions

Besides the normalizing aspects of the show, I do have to admit that there is some promise to this visibility. Ross plays an active role in raising his and Susan's son, Ben. Carol is also active in her role as mother, portraying a functional and happy 3-parent family.

But this does not mean I am happy about portrayal in the show. Besides highlighting only one form of the queer body, this episode of Friends actually typecasts alternative forms of gender expression as a joke! The sole butch character is shown in a joking/predatory light as she is trying to pick up the naive Phoebe.

Audience reception is important in all this. It is obvious that these characters aren't created for a gay audience in mind. By casting gay characters with a normative audience in mind, Susan and Carol are created, a sexuality-free zone where alternatives don't have a voice.

Gay visibility is fine and dandy, but not when it comes at the expense of alternative means of expression. The butch character is ridiculed in its visibility on Friends. A social hierarchy is created between the good lesbian (Susan and Carol) and the bad. While I applaud the show for showing that alternative sexualities do exist, I am discouraged by the total lack of desire and its ridicule of non-conforming gender play.

To be invisible is essentially to be non-legitimate. But until new and more diverse gay characters are shown, our contemporary gay visibility doesn't represent the diversity in the gay community.

Gay Representation on T.V

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Vitulano) — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:21:00 +0000

Further Off the Straight and Narrow
As gay-identity politics is increasing on a world level, (as is evident with the debates over same-sex marriage) televised gay visibility is also becoming a (little) bit more common. But how does this overt representation of gay characters affect gay people in the real world? Is this idea of visibility at any cost truly beneficial?

As I've previously claimed (and state with each and every post), pop culture is used as a means of legitimization. For gay-identified people to be showcased on television means that gay identity is being broadcasted for the (normative) masses to see.

Problems of Legitimacy

What becomes problematic in all this is that the private notion that is a gay identity becomes public for normative audiences to scrutinize. In these cases, gay television characters move into the realm of the spectacle for the audience's normative gaze.

Visibility leads to legitimacy, right? And there are definitely more gay characters that are being shown. But which gay body is actually receiving this legitimacy?

My biggest beef with gay visibility is that the represented gay characters all conform to imposed heteronormative conventions. These characters are lacking sexuality (or are thrust in committed, monogamous relationships as soon as possible), speak constantly of marriage and of children (especially in the case of lesbian characters... Think Mad About You and Friends).

Homogeneity of Depicted Representations

The homogeneit y in which these gay characters are represented is both hilarious and sickening at the same time. But what do these representations mean for gay-identified people living outside of television's warm glow? To be deemed legitimate, they must conform to the televised character's standards... meaning desexualized, maintains a proper gender-identity, most likely middle-class, and a sidekick.

Self-censorship is then used by gay people in order to conform to these standards. In order to be a "good gay", as judged by normative audiences, it is crucial not to be deviant. A social hierarchy is then formed, casting those who can't/don't conform to these depicted images.

Am I happy that I am seeing an increase of gay representation on television? Yes. Do I find these images entertaining? Heck yes! But until I start seeing images of the actual multifaceted umbrella that is the gay population, I will continue to fight and scream. It is naive to think that these normative representations are as positive as they seem. Is it really all that humane to cast others into the shadows in order to increase your own personal visibility?

Rumours that Ellen's character is going to come out. Shortly afterwards, she received several threats, including bombs.

Queering Videogame Culture: The SIMS and (Queer) Sexuality

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Vitulano) — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:05:00 +0000

Beautifuldisaster210's Sim's 2 video.
Video games symbolize an important fantasy element within popular culture. In fact, as sales soar, academics have begun further examining how people consume and receive the message in the games. But what has struck me as interesting is the sheer absence of sexuality in the academic literature.

Typically, the story arc within video games are quite heteronormative. Save the princess, be a hero, defeat your enemies, etc. But how are non-normative individuals represented? How do queers receive these images?

Mia Consalvo sets out to look into queer sexuality in Electronic Art's popular game The Sims. The reasoning for choosing the Sims, claims Consalvo, is that the Sims franchise is popular with men and women, normative and non-normative players. Actually, more females play the Sims than any other mass-audience produced game offered. As an added bonus, this game has little heteronormative bias unlike in other games.

GAMEPLAY

Starting a new Sims game is quite easy. First, you create a new family. Unlike in traditional families, there is no patriarchal head. Players are free to create characters that are similar to themselves or completely unique. Players choose skin/body/clothing type and gender. But there is no check-off for sexuality anywhere.

The Sims plays as a choose-your-own-adventure game. Its innovative emergent storyline allows players to choose their own interactions. But within this arc lies coding that enables same-sex characters to flirt, kiss, and even romp around in a hilarious heart-shaped bed or hot tub. But remember, as no orientation is chosen in a character's creation, it is safe to assume that sim sexuality, then, is not an identity so much as it is an activity.

SEXUAL CONCLUSIONS

Because of this, The Sims plays with the notion sexuality and questions sexual orientation as a core aspect of identity. More importantly, the game questions and destabilizes identity categories as they pertain to sexuality. However, it is deceptive to make a claim of inherent sim sexuality as it is the player that ultimately controls their character's sexual activities.

The Sims main charm is that game play is built off of relationships between characters. Sexual activity only comes about after friendship is achieved. But sexual behaviour (not only the act of sex, but kissing and other erotic behaviour) is available to all Sims characters regardless of gender. The Sims thus raises questions about the fixedness of sexuality to identity and sex and forces players to examine their own thoughts about the idea.

These characters belong to MShades
Players are free to control their Sim's desire by simply ignoring the command that appears. But by not barring these homo erotic scenarios, the Sims can be read as queer as it challenges what is seen as normal in the real world. It challenges the fixed nature of the gay/straight binary and of the insistence of gayness as a birth right.

The Sims is revolutionary as it acknowledges that while normative behaviour is the dominant one, alternatives do exist. Whether normative or not, a wider spectrum of people are now being represented within the wonderful queer world of the Sims.

Masculinity and 20-somethings: An Interview With Stu

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Vitulano) — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 01:00:00 +0000

Scene from Julien Donkey-Boy, directed by Harmony Korine.
**This is the last segment of my 3-part interview series on masculinity. This will also be my last masculinity themed post for a little bit so I can focus on other areas.

For this last interview, I wanted to see how masculine representation affected my friend Stu. Theories aside, I wanted to delve into my friend's mind and see his impressions on masculine representation and who came to mind in pop culture.

Unlike the interviews with Gauge and Paul, who both had differing ideas on masculinity, it is apparent with Stu's answers that he is still questioning norms. But what is most interesting is that he is not overly concerned with typical representations and seemingly identifies more with alternative portrayals.

Now without further ado... meet Stu.

Growing up, do you remember seeing on television or in films, any male figures who do not fit the normative depiction? How did you feel about them then? Now?

"A film I can clearly remember is Julien-Donkey Boy. The main character, Julien, played by Ewen Bremner, is depicted in such a disgusting and realistic fashion that most leads in Hollywood would run from and consider career suicide. You would NOT see Brad Pitt playing this role.

The film opens up with Ewen staring into the camera with drool dripping down his face and snot dripping out his nose. He is not a handsome man on any scale, somewhat losing his hair. At the time, I thought to myself that it had to have been one of the most disgusting and irrational things an actor could do on screen.

Today, my view of the world is definitely more mature and Ewen wanted to make a point that you don’t have to be the typical male that fits in the norm to be accepted."

As a teenager, what sort of male representations did you see in pop culture? How did they affect you?

"Having figured out I was gay at a younger age, I realized that gay issues were still quite new to television. Shows like Queer as Folk and Will and Grace opened up my eyes to seeing distinct representations of homosexual life in different, mainly positive, scenarios.

On the other hand, there were many shows out there that were all about the macho man. You know, the jock, popular straight guy dealing with girlfriends, cheating, friends, and then dealing with the one gay character on the show. Dawson’s Creek or Degrassi: The Next Generation come to mind.

It is tough to pinpoint how exactly each character and how they represented themselves affect me. On the one hand, if a gay character became popular or there was no change in how everyone around them acted once they came out, it made me think that it was possible that it will happen to me down the line as I had not publicly come out.

On the other hand, for example, many shows would show gay bashing, or that straight guys who are successful in one area and have issues would usually find a way out of [their issues]. This would downplay the gay guy's issues.

In Dawson’s Creek, the gay guy was always depressed, which would send a mixed signal of how life is. There was no middle ground. Male representation was on either ends of the extreme."

How do you feel male stereotypes brought in from pop culture affect you in your day-to-day life?

"I don’t really base my life around the stereotypes I see on T.V. As unoriginal as this may sound, but I like to consider myself original. There is no way that, to a certain degree, I am influenced by images and ideas that I am exposed to from the shows/films I watch and the music I listen to.

I guess that the male stereotypes would affect me in the way that I tend to try and avoid them. I think they are generalized and can be an illusion as to the way society would like to view the typical male."

Looking at Stu's answers, it becomes apparent that a part of his masculinity is about rebellion and of independence. For Stu, the alternative media (such as Harmony Korine) provides a sort of respite from typical depictions.

Boys Don't Cry- The Cure, hailed as the dance song for guys.

Radical Masculinity: A Discussion with Gauge

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Vitulano) — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:19:00 +0000

She's My Man- Scissor Sisters

In my last interview with Paul Baines, I ventured into the realm of masculinity as a construct. Moreover, Paul relayed how current masculine depictions and attitudes are self-destructive.

Today I want to showcase a more radical idea of masculinity. Gauge's blog, Radical Masculinity, helped me further understand the concept of alternative masculinity(ies) as well as how masculine privilege can be evoked/revoked in varying situations. So, with out further ado, here is part 2 of my masculinity interview trilogy.

Hercules and the Love Affair- Blind (Hercules Club Mix) featuring Antony Johnson on vocals

Radical Masculinity explores many issues in regards to the masculine identity and of male privilege. Can you explain in a little more detail the notion of alternative masculine identities and how male/masculine privilege interacts with them?

"Well, first of all, I like to think of sex and gender-based privilege as two separate things that tend to intersect to the point that they often seem to blur into each other. Many alternative masculine identities are held by people who aren't privileged on the basis of their sex.

It would be very blind to say that masculinity is ever not privileged, but, the interaction between society and alternative masculinities often views those masculinities as invisible or illegitimate, and often oppresses the deviance from gender norms in such a way that the oppression faced for non-normative gender is tied up in possessing masculinity.

In general, non-normative genders greatly complicate discussions of privilege and oppression, so, it requires looking at both individual identities and specific locations, communities, and subcultures."

Do you feel as if normative identified males can benefit from alternative masculine discourses?

"Absolutely! I think that normative masculinity is very prescriptive. While feminism has opened things up a little, I think that a dialogue between people with alternative masculinities and people with normative masculinities can help people in both groups grow and resist unwanted social constraints on their identities."

Visibility Alert’s main goal is to question (and highlight) typical pop culture representations and analyze who is actually receiving legitimizing power from dominant society. Do you feel as if alternative masculinities are represented in mainstream areas?

"Not all that much. We don't see much in the way of alternative masculinities for males who are assigned at birth men. For female assigned at birth people, we might see someone who is a little bit of a tomboy, but what masculinity she'll display has to be balanced out by her still being conventionally attractive and capable of performing mainstream femininity.

The majority of the time, for people who society says aren't masculine, they can do masculine things, as long as they themselves do not read as exclusively masculine.

FTM spectrum characters are pretty rare in fictional mainstream media. In documentaries and talk shows, they tend to always be very conventional, normative & narrative FTMs.

In the mainstream of queer media, you definitely have most of the characters that aren't just normative LGB folk in the background, or as minor characters, or doing Trans 101 (most of the time Max is on the L Word, for instance), or being held up as objects to be laughed at (how the Big Gay Sketch Show on LOGO treats trans people). So it seems that we're recreating the same sort of dynamic that the mainstream media does to queer people in our own little microcosm."

Transgenderism as spectacle in The Big Gay Sketch Show's Tranny 911

Any closing comments on alternative masculinities in relation to pop culture?

"I think it's pretty striking to me how pop culture will try to sweep away alternative gender identities. An isolated example is the video for the Scissor Sisters' video for “She's My Man” - a song that pretty clearly lyrically reads as being about a very masculine woman, yet the video has a very normative woman being the aggressor in a stylized fight at dinner. Beyond just the reinforcing of the equating of masculinity with violence, it eliminates what I – and it seems like a lot of other people I've talked to – read into the song.

Even in the queer mass media's depictions of LGBT people, the vast majority of depictions – and almost all the major ones – are of people who have simple, clear cut identities that fit very normative standards. I think as LGBT people have gained , we've mainstreamed our own depictions of ourselves."

For more radical insights, check out Gauge's wisdom at Radical Masculinity.

Masculinity and Vulnerability: An Interview with Paul Baines of Media Mindful

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Vitulano) — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:29:00 +0000

Shoulder to Shoulder: Men and Vulnerability is a doc by Paul Baines. Check out parts 2-4

*Just a quick FYI, all the links in this interview were provided by me.

First up one the interview list is Paul Baines, media artist and activist, blogger, and one of thes co-founders in the development of Masc magazine, a space for youth to address issues facing masculine culture. Paul took a few moments to answer a few questions that I had...

A common theme in your blog, as Questioning Masculinity clearly states, is to question the accepted norms of masculinity. Would you care to expand on these norms, why they are problematic, and why you feel it is important to question the typical masculine gender role?

"Norms are easy to identify if we just stop for one second and ask the most basic questions:

What’s a guy movie?
What’s a real man?
Why is it considered bad for a boy to “play like a girl” or show weakness?

There are hundreds of norms for masculinity and what makes them norms is the general consensus I get when I ask a group of 30 people the 3 questions above. Norms are problematic when they box-in what we should be like and limit our potential to live a full life. They are even more problematic when they support a system of violence.

I believe many masculine norms need to be questioned for at least 2 reasons:

because it’s not being done as much as it should
because it has some very dangerous consequences

There are many consequences, but one I’ve been looking at is vulnerability. When we accept the norm that masculinity (and by mistake, men) should hide, ignore, devalue their emotions, we are “creating” a dysfunctional person. This acceptance is dangerous because these “created” (or as we say in the media studies community “constructed”) men make their own lives a living hell and often everyone else too. Look at male suicide rates, male life expectancy, numbers of male war-makers and males abusing women and children."

Masculinity and maleness are often used interchangeably. To you, is there a difference between masculinity and of the male? Why or why not?

"Yes, big difference. One of the major barriers to talking about gender is detaching it from sex or biology. Masculinity and Femininity (2 of many categories of gender) are performances based on cultural, historical, political, etc. conditions, assumptions, and organized efforts to assign a gender category to a sex category.

For instance there is nothing biologically male about fixing cars, being athletic, or wearing blue (instead of pink). These stereotypes make assumptions of what masculinity is, yet there is nothing in the genetic male/man code to link it to the colour blue."

When speaking of pop culture (Visibility Alert is a pop culture blog after all), I feel that most people think of television and films. What sort of representations/stereotypes are out there in regards to masculinity? Any films/shows particularly negative in this respect? Positive?

"I wrote a blog article about Lars and the Real Girl and Into the Wild. I was looking at manhood, suffering and forgiveness.

I thought Lars was an excellent representation of the male experience. I also liked SuperBad. One of my old favourites is Rushmore. A while ago Jim Carey starred in The Mask, which was actually a very clever movie looking at the performance, promise, and pain of masculinity."

Do you feel there is any particular reason why many magazines have not devoted more space to issues in masculinity?

"Most magazines (like much of the mass media) are selling consumers to advertisers and are constrained by this advertising-based business model. There are likely many other reasons too, but ultimately I think this absence is a result of a larger void.

Thinking critically about masculinity, feminism, and patriarchy would raise too many questions about society. Who does most of the work and who gets less pay? Who feels entitled and who doesn’t? How is strength defined and who has it? Why is our culture obsessed with commodified sex and consequence-free violence?"

Sut Jhally’s documentary Tough Guise focuses on the link between violence and masculinity. Your documentary, , on the other hand, questions male experiences with vulnerability and how it shapes their relationships. How do you feel this shift away from the dominant discourse of violence by focusing on the theme of vulnerability affect males?

"I started my questioning by looking at Jhally’s work and being really engaged with it. There is a part of his educational video that deals with vulnerability and I think it’s the most interesting. Most men will not commit gross acts of violence on those around them.

However, all men can relate to the emotional confusion around being strong and weak. My work is to start a conversation about masculinity and if the first thing guys hear is that it’s violent or messed up, I’m afraid they would turn off. Plus, this doesn’t validate their experiences of vulnerability. If the mass media isn’t going to do look at the complexities of male pain and privilege, then I want to."

Part 4 of Shoulder to Shoulder, by Paul Baines

For more information on Paul Baines' projects, you can find him at Media Mindful. Stay posted for part 2 of my masculinity series...

Visibility Alert Presents...

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Vitulano) — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:29:00 +0000

Did you know that Chuck Norris' tears can cure cancer? Too bad he has never cried... Ever.

Depictions of masculinity in the media has always been a strong interest of mine. I've always wondered in what forms and directions mainstream media would push the heroic male or how they would typecast/alienate alternative forms of masculinity.

More importantly, I've wondered how these representations affect people as a whole. Is there a crisis in masculinity?In order to analyze this, I wrote a previous entry on masculinity and violence where I did shed some insights on media male stereotypes. But just to reiterate...

Men in positions of power over women.
Buffoons/generally inept when it comes to nurture, housework, etc.
The hairless action hero.
Don't show emotion... unless it is anger.

It is my pleasure to announce that I have a series of 3 interviews coming up to further my discussions of the construct that is masculinity. I'm really excited about these next few posts as I have a couple of awesome bloggers with varying specialties in the subject of masculinity.

Just a hint to quell any curiosity... Interview no.1 will address men & masculinity, no.2 will open discussion on alternative masculinities, and no.3 will be an open response to masculine depiction and its effects on men.

So stay tuned... The interviews might seem a tad lengthy but I promise to pretty them up with some pics and videos.

Masculinity and Violence in the Media

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Vitulano) — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:51:00 +0000

Tough Guise is directed by Sut Jhally. Video courtesy of the Media Education Foundation
As the saying goes, girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice while boys are made of snips and snails and puppy dog's tails. Even from a young age, male children are being contrasted as the opposite of femininity where girls are represented through a holistic cuteness while boys are dirty and gross.

Being socialized on the “boys will be boys” mantra, male children grow up with an automatic aptitude geared towards accepted violence. Being bombarded with stereotypical imagery, the basis of maleness is constructed even before the moment of delivery through biology, continues to the time of child birth when doctors decide whether an infant’s penis is of a correct size, and carries on upwards through a boy’s developmental stages as he incorporates rough and tumble play into his daily routine.

This idea of a socially and acceptably aggressive male wreaks havoc as a link between masculinity and violence is formed. Jackson Katz, in an interview for Tough Guise states that "[v]iolence isn’t so much a deviation as it is an accepted part of masculinity”. Instead of vilifying violence, we have embraced it as part of the masculine culture, alienating all who do not conform to the tough guy ideals.

Media representations help children sculpt what it means to be a man. In Tough Guise, Jackson Katz asks teen males what traits they would ascribe to masculinity. Words such as powerful, fierce, strong, and independent were used to describe the ideal masculine form. Throw race and culture into the mix and we bring the masculine form to whole new levels.

Clip by Sanjay Newton
Ads, children's programming, sitcoms, action movies, etc, are all prone to this media assault on the male body/masculinity. The harsh reality is that these representations are celebrated leaving those who do not conform to the side. Not to mention that all other alternative forms to these ideals are either not represented or typecast as the side characters who provide comedic support to the strong male lead.

As males have been socialized to keep their feelings to themselves, there are few support groups out there to help males deal with the rising dissatisfaction they have with themselves. To compensate for their apparent lack of masculinity, some guys participate in high-risk situations to prove their masculine worth.

Masculinity is not born but made through a barrage of social construction centered around themes of strength and violence. Maintaining the “boys will be boys” creed only harms society as it creates a link between masculinity and violence. By doing so, we are creating a land of alienated males who fear to fall outside of the accepted norm. Strength, fierceness, and independence are just projected notions of masculinity. The true descriptions of media-made men are along the lines of conformity, dominating, and capitalistic.

Visual Cues and Racial Identification

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Vitulano) — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:33:00 +0000

*Chinese? Japanese? Korean? Take the test at alllooksame.com

Right now I'm reading Digitizing Race by Lisa Nakamura. ***Just a quick fyi, I only linked to Amazon as it provides user reviews and a quick summary of the book. I am not trying telling anyone to buy it, nor am I receiving any monetary gain if you visit Amazon or buy it. The chapter that I finished reading reflected on the notion of race and the internet. Within it, Nakamura discusses how people use visual cues (i.e eye/hair colour, lip structure, etc.) in order to identify race in others.

Nakamura uses the site AllLookSame, a tongue-in-cheek critique on the tired stereotype of Asian people looking the same, as a case study. A viewer is invited to take the test where the viewer is shown pictures of an Asian individual. The user must then decide whether the photo is of a person of Korean, Chinese, or Japanese descent.

Dyske Suematsu, founder of AllLookSame, claims that:

...for those who love Asia and Asian cultures, to see small distinctions is a sign of their love and respect for the cultures. And in other situations, to see no difference can also be a sign of love and respect. If one feels that the act of “labeling” itself has something that inherently promotes prejudice, then one would have to stop using language altogether.

Suematsu goes on and also mentions that AllLookSame is a joke, but one that celebrates the differences and similarities among Asians.

Lisa Nakamura agrees with Suematsu and states:

[s]ites like alllooksame.com and others like it demonstrate the ways that the Web can produce sites that express concerns that are unique to particular cultures and can perform what Faye Ginsburg calls cultural activism.

Ultimately, AllLookSame serves as a website to question the notion that race can be deciphered through visual means. While each culture inevitably does have their own unique subtleties, it is hard to tell a person's race/ethnicity based purely on visual facial clues as indicated by the test.

Visual cues/stereotypes shouldn't serve as guidelines into examining race. Especially with the rise of Internet photos, it is easier and less offensive if you do not assume race based off visual cues. Flip the stereotype around and you can have the same idea if all white people look the same. Look at my picture in my About Me section. Visually speaking, can I not be thought of as American, British, Italian, etc?

No Bra - Munchausen

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Vitulano) — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 01:30:00 +0000

This is just a quick continuation on the 10 Bands That Defy Normativity post that I had back in early February. This is a transgendered performance piece by No Bra.

Awesome beats, genderbender, and just plain fun. No Bra even plays off user's comments and makes them hir own.

I feel it is important to create some space on this blog for some alternative thoughts and to broadcast videos like No Bra. While Visibility Alert is a critique of how minorities are actually being represented in pop culture, I hope to create room to promote people who fall in alternative spheres. I guess you can call it a form of reclamation.

This is also an invite to all readers to submit links to other alternative bands, films, and what not. Showcasing various trends is my goal and with an active audience, we can make it happen.

Héma-Québec Creates 2nd Class Citizens

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Vitulano) — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:01:00 +0000

A post about blood drives seems almost totally off-topic for a pop culture blog. But pop culture isn't only about television and film... our laws and policies play a vital role as well! After all, every day we are are exposed to various rules and regulations that affect us all. Oh and Héma-Québec also uses different mediums to advertise. There. Connection found.

Giving the Gift of Life

Anyways, I am constantly told that to donate blood is to give the gift of life. I see this message broadcast on TV, in various ads printed in newspapers/on billboards, and whenever a blood-drive is taking place. Actually, February 14th was the day when a bill was passed to have the week of June 14th declared as National Blood Donor Week. To give the gift of life legitimizes the donor’s fluids, ultimately granting another life humanity.

But Héma-Québec uses a form of screening to insure safety in its fluids. Héma’s exclusionary “screening” tactics go beyond the idea gay blood being bad blood; it pushes all deviant bodies who cannot donate blood into a realm of dehumanization. After all, my blood apparently cannot be used to give the gift of life. Therefore, according to Héma, my blood is illegitimate, a fluid that holds neither value nor credibility. In fact, regulations have been set-up to ensure that my fluids never mix with those deemed “legitimate”.

Bad Blood & More

Moving further in the bad blood debates, and jumping over gay male protest, you find more illegitimate bodies that Héma-Québec further dehumanizes. For starters, females are affected by the same gay-blood screening process. Any females who have slept with a man who slept with a man (MSM) cannot give blood for a period for 12 months. A year seems arbitrary as it exceeds the window period for an AIDS test.

It is important to understand that by only talking about gay blood, many who do not identify as gay are lost in the protests. Intravenous drug users, MSM (but not gay-identified), anyone who has paid for sex, people who have spent 3 consecutive days in prison or more, and people who have either slept with or are from a select list of countries, are all dehumanized as their fluids are deemed illegitimate as well.

Critiques & Citizenship

Critics to queer activism sometimes imply that these groups are high risk for HIV/AIDS. But look closer into these (heteronormative) rules and one essentially finds a racially-charged screening process that ignores rising rates of HIV in normative populations.

*This is a photo of the current management committee at Héma. Maybe this helps explain their exclusionary practices.

My major issue here is one of citizenship. When my body’s fluids are deemed illegitimate, I’m effectively being told that I am a lesser citizen than those who fit Héma’s model. Because of this risk assessment way of thinking, a second-class body is created in order to protect the citizens that conform to Héma-Québec’s mandated human. Cite safety if you will, but through this exclusion, you are also dehumanizing we “others”.

*This post was adapted from an editorial that I submitted to The Link in response to the article Screening for Gay that was written by Rita Cant.

There Is No Justifiable Objectification

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Vitulano) — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:18:00 +0000

Double standards don't make any sense to me. Add gender to the mix and I get really confused. But, after a heated discussion in my photo class today in regards to another student's sexually charged imagery, it became apparent that double standards are definitely alive and kicking.

The Situation

The work that sparked said discussion, and inspired today's post, was of a nude (female) model that was taken with a black light (but cross-processed to give the image an overall ethereal/dream/alien look. I made the comment that unlike the artist's previous works, this series felt like the model was an object. The photos themselves aren't the issue at hand here but the discussion that followed afterwards.

A suggestion to remedy the situation that was made by one student was that the artist should include men in his own alien/implicit situations. Other students agreed. Another student then made the comment that we wouldn't find this a big deal if a woman took these sexually implicit photos. Again, people agreed (and in fact pointed out how a woman in the class did that in her portfolio). Finally, someone stated that we shouldn't necessarily bring up a feminist discourse when analyzing works of art as we lose out from the beauty of the piece.

But, in my opinion, how is this double standard justifiable? Objectification IS objectification regardless of the biological sex of the creator!

Objectification Should Not Be the Norm

Women can objectify other women, just as men can objectify other men. Objectification is not restricted by gender though it can be stopped by responsible creation.

Let's use this BMW ad as an example. Would this be less offensive if the director was female? No. Regardless of the creator's gender, the objectification of the female model in this ad is quite apparent and completely ridiculous.

Masculinity As An Object

Unfortunately for my classmate, adding men to his project won't be the quick-fix solution that he might have been looking for to solve his woes. Men, too, have become victims to sleazy marketing techniques. Just as women are, men are cast as sexual objects, though usually are in the power position over their female counterparts. Let's not forget that theses images almost always showcase a white privilege.

Besides the rising Adonis complex, some men may also grow complacent as they continually see women in positions powerlessness/vulnerability. These portrayals of the (hyper)sexual and violent male are offensive to males as they are to females as well.

Men sometimes aren't only portrayed as sexually aggressive beings. Trojan's Evolve campaign takes another approach, one that showcases men literally as pigs.

Homo Eroticism in Imagery?

What also confuses me is the total absence of the queer gaze that occurred in my class discussion today. Actually, I was shocked by the absence of it while searching Google as well. By suggesting that it is less offensive for a woman to cast another woman in a sexual light (and, by default, a male casting a man) ignores homosexual desire. But of course homosexual desire isn't even a consideration in the heteronormative world of advertisement and classroom discussion.

The Responsible Artist

Sometimes males objectify females. Sometimes females objectify males. Sometimes even men objectify men and women objectify other women. Just because it happens doesn't mean it is right. People as sexual objects remove individual autonomy and typecast groups in a negative light. Low self-esteem, eating disorders, violence, etc. all rise because of these representations.

As my photography teacher brought up, art in itself is a form of research. It is up to the artist to research past and present discourses in relation to their subject. The artist must bear responsibility and be able to approach a public. Afterwards, discussion can ensue and, hopefully, a movement towards understanding will take place.

Finally, to respond to my photography class' suggestion. To me, there is no justifiable objectification. Unless there is a strong element of irony or critique, to objectify is to objectify, whether you and your subjects identify as male, female, neither, or both. Besides being overdone and boring, these representations prove to be quite damaging. Besides, they don't offer anything new to the audience.

Wonderjock Wins the Battle of the Bulge

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Vitulano) — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:12:00 +0000

This is just a quick follow-up to my Wonderbra post. Aussiebum has released the Wonderjock, a sort of counter to the Wonderbra. But instead of pushing up cleavage, it is designed to bulge out the contours of your penis.

Unlike a bra, which has become a rite of passage, the Wonderjock is nothing more than a tool to make a man's dick bigger. Exploiting the cultural male fear of emasculation (and of a little appearance), the Wonderjock presents a troubling message of the (hyper)sexualization that is often associated with the masculine self.

More disturbing is the aspect of shame and deception that Aussiebum's marketing campaign is offering. While the Aussiebum models have no qualms about stripping down in public, they appear happier when their bulge is larger than life. Playing off the male fear of having a smaller-than-average penis, the ads shame the viewer and intensifies feelings of intimidation and inadequacy. Only through the deception that the Wonderjock offers can confidence be obtained.

The road to becoming deemed a legitimate male is an arduous one that begins even before birth. But one of the determining factors in having masculinity attributed to a child by a doctor is, once again, linked back to penis size.

In Sexing the Body, Anne Fausto-Sterling explains that, to be deemed a legitimate male, a child's penis must be at least 2.4 cm. If the penis is smaller than that, despite maybe have XY chromosomes and/or testicles, the child may have their penis removed, to be be reared as a girl. And this is besides the cases where the child has ambiguous genitalia, ranging in size between a large clitoris or a small penis.

The Wonderjock is just another product that is projecting negative connotations onto masculinity and the male body. Unlike the Wonderbra, which has branded itself onto femininity (albeit that being a problem as I pointed out), the Wonderjock is making no such attempts. It simply exists to shame men to buy their product. To do so makes men feel bigger and bolder, despite the large role deception plays in the process.

*Again, this post has been created from an oral that I presented in my Communication Technologies and Gender class on the gendered implications of the Wonderbra. I added the segment on the Wonderjock as a balance to the often ignored stigmas that men face. In no way am I trying to downplay the importance of Women's Studies or of Gender Studies, but offer these pieces on masculinity in order to add to the multifaceted sphere of the fields.

The Push of the Wonderbra

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Vitulano) — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 21:08:00 +0000

Ah, the Wonderbra, voted the 5th best Canadian invention. Just what makes these articles of clothing so endearing and why bother creating a post on a pop culture/representation blog anyways?

I want to look at the cultural significance of the Wonderbra. First developed in Montreal in 1964 by Louise Poirier for Canadelle, the Wonderbra first sets out to lift and separate. By 1979, Canadelle owns approximately 30% of the Canadian bra market.

Larry Nadler, son of founder of the Canadian Lady Corset Company, which later became Canadelle, decided for a new branding of the Wonderbra in order to increase sales. Instead of marketing it as a piece of clothing, Nadler decided to equate the Wonderbra as a cosmetic. Take a look at a commercial from 1968.

From this early advertisement, you can see how the Wonderbra is shown as a beauty enhancer instead of just another piece of clothing.

Move forward to 1974 and Wonderbra releases Dici, a bra targeting youth.

The successful branding of the Wonderbra has made the bra itself become a rite of passage symbolizing womanhood to many young girls.

What has this widespread advertising done? For starters, the fetishization and objectification of the bra is apparent as it becomes the focal point of the male gaze.

As the youthful perkiness of the Wonderbra has become the acceptable norm, it is precisely this shape that Wonderbra flaunts and promotes. Any shape that is different is deemed deviant, a notion that dismisses the natural sag of aging. So we have a large push to a Western notion of beauty and of (youthful)age here.

Bras have also become normalized (due to the widespread advertising). To not want one (for various reasons) is to be cast as deviant. For those not falling under the hegemony of heteronormativity, to not wear a bra is to ostracized from the dominant groups.

Wonderbra's branding has created a large market. Push-up bras are alive and kicking in various mediums in pop culture and this post was just a little showing of the cultural ramifications of this.

*This post was based off a presentation that I gave in my Communication Technologies and Gender class on the cultural ramifications of the Wonderbra

American History X and the White-Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchy

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Vitulano) — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:09:00 +0000

***Warning. This post contains spoilers

American History X, widely regarded as America's anti-racist film, is ironic as the final message of the movie is guilty of what bell hooks names a white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy.

Known for its raw and "realistic" portrayal of neo-skinhead suburban culture, American History X fails in its anti-racist message as, ultimately, its ultra-racist message of Derek overcoming his past DESPITE constant black opposition is brought forward through the film's stylistic elements.

Created for the privileged (dominant) viewer, the audience almost feels empathy for Derek as he is trying to protect his little brother. Derek plays the saviour, a role with justified violence as he is the guardian for the weak. The protection begins from non-white individuals, but turns to protecting Danny (Derek's brother) from the neo-Nazi lifestyle.

Style and Cinematography

Many of the stylistic elements of the film also push the messiah-esque persona of Derek.

Photo from Hollywoodjesus.com

Strong back lighting, golden glow around his head (halo effect), the crucifixion stance, and the opposition from the police officers, designate Derek's character as messiah and foretell of his future message.

Derek is also the quintessential masculine hero; strong, intelligent, "justified" anger, and solitary soldier.

Breakdown

While in jail (for murdering a black man who tried to break into his car), Derek cahoots with other skinheads. But as they are all talk and no action, Derek feels frustrated. Later, he develops a friendship with a black inmate, to the disgust of the other skinheads.

Audiences claim that Derek's friendship with the black man (apart from Dr. Sweeney, no other coloured character really gets a name) is pivotal in his "reformation", but the whole process begins because of his disenfranchisement with the other skinheads.
The gang rape prison sequence only reinforces his alienation with the skinheads (and furthers the notion of homosexuality as an agent of humility) and alienates him from the inmates at large.

Isolated in the netherworld between acceptance for others and hatred, Derek is released from prison to discover his brother's racist ways. Here is where white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy comes into effect. In a sweeping montage, Derek clears his room of its Nazi memorabilia and places everything in his closet ("clean slate", but closet full of skeletons). No mention is shown to actual redemption; Derek just cleans his room.

White-Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchy

Now, despite all the harsh actions that people of colour have committed against Derek (from his view), he is still able to absolve all the hate. But, in an act of extreme motivated representation, the black youth that Danny had fought with re-enters the movie and kills him.

As hooks states, we must acknowledge the culmination of white-supremacist, capitalist, and patriarchal thoughts in order to understand motivated representation. While trying to be "anti-racist", American History X is only anti-racist to the dominant audience but minority reception isn't even considered.

Derek's "redemption" is consistently shown as a despite all odds and obstacles scenario. Black characters are nameless and one dimensional. Derek's strong-man, masculine nature is apparent the entire movie, especially in contrast to the lack of female/feminine dialogs.

While Derek believes that he has redeemed himself, no where in the actual movie does Derek prove that he has changed. A cleaned slate, a clean room, and a closet full of skeletons is all that is left for Derek and his new life.

Box office figures show that many feel that this is enough to overcome racism, albeit a one-dimensional view of it. American History X, depicted from the point-of-view of a ("reformed")skinhead, does not account for the power of representation in pop culture (and the reception of this movie on minority audiences) nor does it convey anything beyond a white-centric version of redemption. Derek, despite his personal transformation, is not willing to sacrifice his white-privilege, furthering the white-supremacist, capitalist, patriarchy.

*This post was heavily inspired by a presentation done by Noori Lee.

10 Bands That Defy Normativity

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Vitulano) — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:42:00 +0000

Sometimes I want to take a break from the theoretical aspects of representation and look at actual forms of pop culture. Music is a popular medium and highly accessible for people of all ages. Instead of being my usual cynical self, I'm presenting 10 bands (in no particular order) that have defied normativity in regards to race, gender, and/or sexuality.

I am aware that there are plenty of other bands out there that have addressed these issues. The ones I am mentioning have received a little bit of attention, whether from a music magazine or on an international level. It would be great if you added in some links of your favourite bands that defy norms as well.

1) Queen Latifah. Ladies First not only shows Queen Latifah's strong feminist ties, but is also clearly afrocentric. A truly powerful song that combats racism and sexism.

2) Antony and the Johnsons. Hauntingly beautiful voice from a band with a transgender theme.

3) The Gossip. Beth Ditto, singer, is an out-spoken lesbian who uses The Gossip as a means of fighting negative views on women, lesbians, and notions of the appropriate body.

4) Le Tigre is a feminist rock band which explores themes of sex/violence in women's lives, alternative femininities, issues of race, etc. Unfortunately, I could not find the actual video to this song, but here is a fan-created one that I found.

5)Yoko Ono is an avant-garde artist who tackled many issues in various mediums. Widely unpopular in the 70's, her music is finally starting to receive proper attention thanks to a re-release. This activist video is an audio clip promoting woman power back in the 70's.

6) M.I.A. Known for her political stance in her rap, M.I.A transcends traditional hip hop boundaries and explores race, violence, and other political issues that are left out of Western mainstream music. Again, another fan video.

7) Xiu Xiu, an indie-darling, isn't the most accessible to all, but again, speaks of issues pertaining to sexuality, war, violence, and society.

8) CocoRosie provides unconventional, and sometimes controversial, lyrics and sounds. CocoRosie is poignant in their lyrics as they address women's roles, race issues, and addresses white privilege.

9)Final Fantasy rocks out the electronic violin. Challenges traditional masculinity, gay male stereotypes of (hyper)sexuality, and is just awesome.

10) Purrbott. Indie activist who addresses homosexuality, how it is received, and throws in his own angst. No videos out there, so check out the link for more info and to hear some songs.

The Problem With Tolerance

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Vitulano) — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:37:00 +0000

Minority depictions in pop culture are often coupled with the idea of tolerance. Tolerance, in this respect, is preached from the dominant norm's gaze and projected onto the reception of the other.

It's important to realize that the preaching of tolerance is not a message of granting legitimacy but is an attitude meant to give the feeling of inclusion. After all, tolerance is always presented as a struggle between the dominant and the other. It's not a message of actual recognition but of a grudging acceptance.

With the thought of tolerance comes the idea of acceptable representation. The minority is granted "legitimizing" public time, but is held accountable under the normative gaze. In order to be tolerable, the minority character must censor their actions, ideas, and attitude in order to "fit in". This furthers the divide of "US versus THEM" as now we have a two-tiered system of other. There is the "acceptable" other and those that just won't assimilate. A form of legitimacy is granted to those who self-censor and deviancy for people who do not/cannot conform.

The increase of minority visibility hasn't actually changed stereotypes. In reality, racism, classism, chauvinism, and homophobia are still rampant. Creating the "US and THEM" ideology that tolerance mandates hasn't benefited minorities. It is only when fair representations and understanding that acceptance is key will we, as a society, see any change.

Tolerance doesn't accept this and that is why I do not tolerate tolerance.

Welcome

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Vitulano) — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:39:00 +0000

First and foremost, Visibility Alert is a pop culture blog whose main goal is to bring attention to current and past trends in the increased visibility of minority representation. How are minorities being portrayed (fairly? stereotypical/cast into positions based on race and/or gender?) and how are these portrayals actually affecting the group as a whole? Is this increased visibility necessarily empowering? Or is it creating a homogeneous realm where the dominant majority receive a washed version of a multi-faceted group?

I'd like to use this introductory post as a quick basis of my ideology behind this blog. I'm basing Visibility Alert on the social significance of pop culture because of its symbolic factor and its legitimizing power it has with people.

Pop culture is typically a reflection of the society which produced it, whether literal or embedded deep in the minds of the populace, which is why I feel justified in focusing exclusively on pop culture.

Many of my basic ideas stem from bell hooks. Motivated representations, as hook explains, are instances used when a conscious decision, and a certain criteria fulfilled, is made in order to typecast a character. An example of this would be, as hooks mentions, making the thief in the film Smoke black.

Using case studies in various mediums (television, film, music, ads, etc), as well as comparing and contrasting recent trends (Lil Mama/Soulja Boy, popular genres, alternative masculinity vs macho, etc), I hope to portray how minorities are typecast in pop culture.

It is important to note that when I use the term minority, I do not only necessarily mean it in terms of ethnicity. I use it in the sense to represent all groups who do not have the power, or luxury, of the dominant majority. This includes, but not limited to, people of colour, women, alternative masculinities, immigrants, queer-identified people, issues pertaining to poverty, the homeless, etc.