Reality TV show "Project Runaway"

The reality show I would like to discuss about is on ‘Project runaway’ on Lifetime channel. In this show there are designers who have to compete with each other and the winner of this show will get multiple prizes. All the models in this show are female. They have the typical white dominating, skinny, pretty structured feature. One noticeable thing among the models is that there are no male models, like they are not allowed to wear good cloths. There are mixtures of both sexes, as designers, in the competition. There are four judges constantly one of which is a permanent female judge. There is always one male judge out of the four judges (because I think they want to play it safe) like men don’t know anything about fashion so they should not be judging anything.
There is a mentor through out the show named Tim. He is always in his sophisticated look and he is gay. Why is it that there has to be a gay mentor for the competitors? Are they trying to say that gay men understand women and that’s how it should be? Meaning men are not supposed to understand women because it’s not their job!
There is always one word that every judge would utter for each designer’s as a critique. The word is sheik. In my I-phone dictionary it shows that the word sheik means ‘a man held to be masterful and irresistibly charming to women.’ In thesaurus there are no words found which could be a synonym for this word. So the judges are trying to mean, by this word, that the dresses should be appealing to men. These clothes are not meant to make yourself look good but it’s meant to appeal others and mostly men.
There was one episode where more than ten divorcees arrived to the show. The challenge for the designer was to turn their wedding gowns into an outfit that they would wear to their first date. The outfits were designed in one day. When the judgment day came one designer was criticized tremendously for his turnout of the dress. He used the fabric of the dress and he made a top out of it and he was able to buy 2 yards of fabric which he made a pair pants with. When the divorcee was asked by the judges if she liked the turnout of her dress she said she did. When the judges asked her if she would wear it to her date she said ‘to the second date, I would.’ The judges replied ‘smart choice.’ Why is it that pants are not allowed to be worn for a divorcee on her first date? What is so wrong with that picture? Is she trying to make a statement of something? If that’s the concern then shouldn’t everyone pay attention to the fact that she has been divorced once, which clearly means that she did not like who she was with. She made that decision on her own and she freed herself from her ex-husband. So she is a strong, sophisticated woman who wants to move on from her past and enter a new relationship. Even if she was not a divorcee why would it be a crime to wear pants to your first date? Wearing clothes should be someone’s comfort zone and they should only wear clothes that are appealing to them not others.
Even in this show, which should be all about women, are also displaying women as how men wants to see them as. They should be appealing or “sheik” according to the judges. This is how gender is also demolishing women and providing a misconception of women position in the society. Also this competition is all about the designers’ designs then why is it so important for the models to get their hair and make-up done? So the message is that you are not permitted to get out of the house with only your clothes but you must be physically attractive as well. This means women “BE AWARE” you are not permitted to be yourself at all. You need to always be appealing to men so they could pick you as their partners and you could become their play toy.

Newspaper article: Southern Baptist seminary to offer academic program in homemaking

The article, “Southern Baptist seminary to offer academic program in homemaking,” is an atypical article. Well, honestly, I am not so surprised about the subject of this article because of where it takes place. In southern part of America it’s even more difficult to establish women anywhere other than home. This article is informing that in Nashville, Tennessee, a Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is introducing a program in homemaking only for women. This program will teach seven hours of nutrition and meal preparation, seven hours of textile design and "clothing construction," three hours of general homemaking, three hours on "the value of a child," and three hours on the "biblical model for the home and family.” It will offer a bachelor of arts in humanities degree with a 23-hour concentration in homemaking. The program is only open to women (French p1). So we women need to have a degree which will prove us as women if we accomplish this course. I really would love to see anyone proudly walk on their graduation day holding this degree and feel like they have found their achievement. I would really want to hear someone say this is what they wanted to do since they were a little girl!
Seminary officials say the main focus of the courses is on hospitality in the home -- teaching women interior design as well as how to sew and cook. Women also study children's spiritual, physical and emotional development (French p1). This institution is trying to bring women back to their home. They are stating that women belong inside the house and that is their place. Why is this course offered only to women? Why it is not offered to men? Are they not allowed to cook? Are they not allowed to feed themselves? Starting from fast food restaurants to five star restaurants majority of the chefs are male. Where did they learn how to cook? Obviously from a cooking institution and they each have certificate which certifies them as professional cooks. Then why is this institution offering this course to only women?
If you watch the show in lifetime channel ‘Project runaway’ all the designers are a mixed sex. Did they have to learn how to sew the clothes they design? Yes they had to learn, than why is this Seminary offering the course to women only? Also there are so many brand name clothes out there like Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, George Armani etc. are all designers and they are male. They had to make their dresses before they became known in today’s phase. Also where did they learn how to sew? Once again they had to either learn from a school or maybe from their parents.
If you watch HGTV, which is a house decorating channel, you will come across multiple male interior designers who are successful in their field. Where did they learn to decorate? Obviously, if you are a decorator in this channel, that means you are a professional at your field. This means all the decorators have certificate which certifies them to decorate the interior of the house or reconstruct the house as whole.
Unfortunately, biologically, men can not get pregnant and give birth to a child. Putting that fact aside, a man in a family turns out to be a father. This means that they should know how to raise a child because they would have to interact with a child just like a mother would. Maybe they might not be as involved as the mother would be but they are part the child’s life so they should learn how to raise a child too. Then why is this Seminary merely offering this course to women? So they are trying to say that men are born with the knowledge of how to be a father but women are so imperfect that they need to be taught how to be a mother? A child is always influence by their surroundings, which means that they will be affected by both the parents. Moreover not just the fact that they will be taught but they need to achieve a degree which will declare them as a pro at what they do. Is this the image we, as society, want to imply on our generation that women should be locked up at home with their house chores, which they don’t get paid for, but men should be out there earning money; where a woman is well capable of executing the same task a man would embark on? No matter how much others try to tie women down but they are not home caged any more and neither would they give in to that pleasure for men. There were other Baptists who did not agree with such course which should be part of the institution. Surprisingly they are men who are raising a voice against this matter. Even men, in today’s period, know that it takes both male and female to run a society successfully. So this is a friendly advice to those back dated, hard-headed people, try hard but don’t die hard in the process!

Advertisement analysis

First Commercial
Mr. Clean, magic eraser http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr4kmCLuzwY&feature=related

The gender norm is so loud in this commercial. The typical woman role of cleaning kitchen and scrubbing the mark off of her precious kitchen. Like she has nothing else to adore or admire in her life.
Why does she have to be so covered up and tidy with her attire? She is cleaning. Isn’t she supposed to get a bit dirty because she is CLEANING! Is she looking decent for her husband or his socialistic friends? Why doesn’t she wear a sexy outfit while she is cleaning; because there are no men around whom she would be a display to?
Why does the product have to be named Mr. Clean? Why can’t it be Ms. Clean? After all they are selling it to the ladies. Why does she need that masculine support to help her scrub some stain of? There is no power given to a woman even when she is cleaning because she is not supposed to be powerful even in a place like kitchen. The commercial convey that she doesn’t have the ability to clean alone without a man in back of her. Portraying this supreme power a woman need, as an internal self will power, to complete a task. Also why does she have to look at Mr. clean and nod to get an approval from him that the job is done and also waits to see if he has the same reaction to her performance. She has no self trust that she has completed a task. A woman’s weakness is exploited in this commercial in every aspect.

Second commercial
Lo rel (Paris) Colour Riche anti-aging serum (Not Available)

“My whole face looks young again. Thanks to a lipstick.” She is portrayed so vulnerable that she need some materialistic factor to bring out her beauty. There is no acceptance from the society for older women. She is, apparently, supposed to hide her age in every way possible. Women is supposed to be perfect and evergreen like there no such thing as old age that exist in this society. The model in this commercial is Linda Evangelista and she is representing all the old ladies whom she is selling hope to. She is trying to tell them that being old is not good and on top of that it’s a crime to look old so its about time every old women should stop this crime. This is how the crime should be stopped by renewing themselves for the society. She is wearing this outrageous red color overly sexy dress for her age. She has short and perfect lined hair, which is only done through graphic arts. She has her eyebrow drawn perfectly. She has an eye-lift done but I am not very clear if she has a face-lift surgically done or not, but something is screaming louder then it should be.
The logo is ‘younger lips look rejuvenating.’ Why does she need younger looking lips? She is wearing such a vibrant color which clearly doesn’t indicate that she is a widow and looking for men. Then what could she possibly do with a rejuvenating lip? She is looking for sex and she could only posses her lips to do nothing but utilize in a sexual manner. She says “you are worth it.” What does this mean? Its worth being young externally even though you know you can never be young physically. Does she mean that its worth having random sex at a late age where you will face physical limitations and less sexual urges? I am trying to understand the irony behind this statement. So clearly women are not accepted in the society being in their late age, at least not feature wise and this is the message the commercial is delivering to all the old ladies.
Women are not given any credit for their knowledge. Their hard work and degrees are not considered as a achievement in this society. They are almost on the same stand with the men in today’s world. A woman’s education is not counted and she is not respectfully presented in that manner in the society.

Third commercial
White strips (teeth whitening) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p_UrwjS6LI

Majority of these white strip commercial’s models are female. Like women is filled with flaws or at least that’s what the media wants society to believe. These problems need to be corrected before they step into the society so they could appear as a Barbie doll image. Though there was an experiment done where it was stated as a fact that there are no such thing as a Barbie doll body or image because its too perfect and human are built with flaws. This image is absolutely impossible yet cherished in our society. Specifically it applies to the women because they are supposed to serve themselves to these mankind. It is not mentioned in the commercial, extensively, that whiting teeth should be attempted for proper hygiene. It is more referred to as impressing others. When the commercial does mention about hygiene, because eventually that’s what the commercial is initially for, why does there have to be a catch for men? Why does every advertisement have to convey a message related to sex or sensuality? Isn’t there any self-respect for human? Its almost like human have no other ultimate goal in their life besides being a showcase for others.
The commercial conveys a message that she could perfect her teeth with these strips. So she could have the perfect smile. Then she appears with few of her friends and there is always going to be a guy who is going to fall in love with her for her made up perfect teeth. Not because he likes her for who she is but for her materialistic factors. What for? Just because she have perfect white teeth, which is not true, will give her a fake will power that she is perfect now. My dentist once told me that everyone have their individual teeth color and no matter how much you use these strips there is never a satisfying solution.

All these three commercials speaks one thing, women are weak and they are always an image for men. All three commercial delivers the message that there is only one ultimate goal for every women and that is to impress men. Why? Because they have the power, status and because of them a women would be labeled in the society so they are a necessity in a women life. There are no indication that a woman is needed in a man’s life for her contribution. She is supposed to be either a perfect home care taker or she is supposed to be this sexy meow or she is supposed to be sweet and innocent with a hint of sexual signals. Then the society wants to blame women by saying, “She wanted it” or “She asked for it” when she is ready to deliver herself the way a man wants. There is a huge class and gender difference. Due to a gender difference the status automatically comes into play. Ultimately because every men in the society holds a status not the women.
If there is a reverse position of men and women in these commercials then the message would be different. Then it would be all about how these men are weak and they are not even considered a true man. They will be looked down upon. They will not be indicated as the ideal men in every women life.
Men is portrayed as someone women should be dependent on. They are proud and over powering. It doesn’t matter how they are presented. In one commercial they have a comic appearance, and in the second commercial there are no appearance of a man but there is a male voice which is powerful. If the commercial is about lipstick and rejuvenating a woman then why is it conveyed in a male voice. How does he know her feelings? What could he possibly know that a woman doesn’t and that’s why it was more important for a male to be like her inner voice?
Women, in media are portrayed as vulnerable, innocent, sexy and sex hungry, no class waiting for men to bring some class to them, sags. They are no use to the society and they are only there as a physical stimuli for men. Where as a ‘MAN’ is the power, authority, the sole person you should impress because they are going to make your life, filled with wealth, status and class. These are the typical stereotypes that women and men both face in today’s society. They are unavoidable but there are revolution which is gradual.

Gender Norm

I always had a conflict with the word gender norm. Is their any true gender norm in today’s world? Isn’t sex enough to make a distinction among the two type of human being? Why is it that we have to have a significant gender role?

I was never in my gender norm because I have always been a tomboy. Since as far as I recall, my school memory, I have had pants and shirts on all the time. During my junior high to high school period I was a complete tomboy.

I still don’t understand how men could be so different than women by their gender!

When I started to wear skirt and blouse I received comments like, “Now she looks like a woman,” or “Now finally she is a she.” My reaction was something like I have always been a woman. When I wore pants and shirts I was a woman and when I started to wear skirt and blouse I am still a woman. I don’t think a woman could get more woman than what she is biologically born with.

This weekend I put on a dress and some makeup and went to hangout with my friends. Their reaction was, “nice Saima, you are looking nice.” I said, “Thanks ladies,” but in the back of my mind I knew what they were really commenting on. They really wanted to say, “Girl you look like a woman.” I think the image, of an ideal gender norm, for a woman is to catch a good man whose slave she will become later in life.
I enjoy wearing a dress as much as wearing pants. I usually wear pants because I could move around in it more quickly and carelessly. In a dress I would have to be a little gentler with myself. I have to admit that the easy breezy air is something I don’t get when I wear pants but my reactions of wearing a dress is; I guess as the society labels as lady like. For me attire is something that gives me comfort and for that if I am labeled as deviant in the society then let it be. I think that age has passed where a woman would be beneath a man. In today’s time a woman is as equal as a man in every way; unless whatever is our boundary biologically.