So it has come to this...

Here I sit. Procrastinating on a paper, watching a new talent show on MTV. It is, basically, a show where a bunch of moderately attractive people vie for a spot at being the most "talented." The problem is this: these people only seem to have a talent for attracting attention to themselves for being unbelievably obnoxious. These shows seem to be increasing in numbers on television, or at least portions of talent competitions are able to attract viewers by showcasing contestants with little talent.
Why is this such a phenomenon in entertainment right now? So many of us, myself included, know it's bad, yet we can't look away? Is this the Napoleon Dynamite generation? Last week, there was an op-ed piece in the New York Times lampooning the coveted "youthful" demographic and how advertisers want to lock buyers into purchasing habits as early as possible. It is interesting, then, that a demographic of people who found Napoleon Dynamite so funny, (and trust me, many were laughing at Napoleon, not with him) are the same people being marketed to through programs that have premises built around poking fun at the weakest members of a competition. I suppose this might be somewhat more reflective of a culture built on the inequality of competition.

But this is supposed to be the hybrid car buying, everything organic generation? Clearly Toyota and General Mills have figured out a way to cleverly package and market these hippie ideals. Meanwhile, we have an entire genre of television that runs simultaneous to these advertisements, holding no-talent competitors in high regard. This might be great if the whole postmodern thing really took hold, but there is one problem: a lot of people missed the joke. America isn't laughing with you, they're laughing at you as a form of escapism. I would love to see the day when people laughed at these shows as a mockery of convention and rigid genre-making boundaries, but many of those people who watch these shows are still bound to these very things that postmodernism would shun. Is the joke on the convention or the person? I am sure most would respond more frequently with the latter (but I would hope that this could be demonstrated incorrect). These shows adhere to almost every other aspect of convention in television (for their respective budgets) with lighting, conventionally attractive people, editing, and the like. So it is an elaborate production, just to be mean?

I, for one think that as feminists, we could analyze these components of the media. I know that I get sick of reading feminist media analysis that focuses specifically on over-hashed issues like, "Women on T.V. Look Too Much Alike" or "Why Aren't Plus Size Women Represented More?" "Every One on T.V. is White" (Bitch Magazine I am looking in your direction). We should start looking at why this is happening in these types of articles instead of blaming "the patriarchy" and the fashion industry. Of course these areas of analysis are important and deserve attention, but as targets, they are actually becoming shields from larger issues linked to feminism in entertainment. Feminism is about power and inequality when viewed in the simplest terms. Feminist media analysis could also draw on this influx of shows based on competition designed to acquire profit from exploiting weakness based around designated and constructed conventions of what is considered "talent." More energy should be focused on processes that are linked to these issues, rather than the fact that the issues exist. Maybe the popularity of shows so rooted in picking on people are linked to the oppression of groups, say, perhaps, in the real world. Perhaps it is the interest of the viewer influencing the programming and not the other way around as many articles might suggest (I am still looking at you Bitch magazine).
A good friend of mine (I will spare the name because you know who you are) once told me about a classmate in a Women's and Gender Studies course that blamed Girls Gone Wild for the exploitation of women. She even went as far as to claim that the women in the video we unaware that they were "victimized" (*Sidenote: Apparently, she bought the DVD. So she was financially supporting something she felt victimized women to make this very point? Excellent logic!) I understand, and I hope I have this correct, she blamed patriarchy. Patriarchy is to blame for drunk girls flashing a camera?
Feminist media analysis is important and interesting, which is precisely why we should stop looking to the specific examples of hyper- sexualized, thin women, and start looking down other avenues in popular culture that provide insight into systemic causes for these very things that cause such outrage over representations of women in the media. We should start looking to things that feminists and non-feminists alike can understand (like the prevalence of bullying on competitive shows). It may be shamelessly idealistic, but I would hope that this could lead to a greater understanding of the why that causes certain views of women not only in entertainment, but in that nagging real world that exposes itself every now and then. We could spread our message of equality to a greater audience, maybe even the one who watches the 700 Club.