Deena Borenstein

  • _Queen B_ Presentation (MEDST 320W)

    • When I think of “Queen B”, I think Lil Kim and Beyonce. Why? Because those two woman have mentioned it multiple times in their music. You`re definition of a Queen B is straight to the point. One thing that stood out is “rich”. We`re set to believe that in order to be a Queen B you must have riches to fall back on. Their riches give them this authority to walk over people who have a lower economic status than them.

    • i really liked the examples that you gave they were all perfectly chosen.

    • I thought you made a very clear analysis of the general “Queen B” stereotype. Many of these ideas come about as women become of age and are struggling with the thoughts of self identification and self realization. I think the media and the specific films you cited are reasons why these archetype exists. Young girls could be so receptive especially when it comes to the media they consume. Looking up to girls they see in films who seem like they have it all and who value popularity leads to these young girls idolizing the “Queen B.”

      I also really like the point Kathleen makes, when implying that the Queen B status can’t necessarily be reached without financial means. The majority of women who are depicted as such are white, upper middle class, privileged young girls. It just reminds us that there is a notion of privilege attached to popularity and status.

    • It’s interest to know what is “Queen Bee” because there is not something similar archetype in Japan and it’s first time to hear “Queen Bee”!! I could understand why Queen Bee exist in high school age. Also, it’s hard to not to be in the category in Queen Bee during the 2000 while idea spread out in the girls. Media reinforces idea of Queen Bee as well, I believe.

    • When I hear “Queen Bee”, I automatically think of Mean Girls and Sharpay Evans from High School Musical. I never thought to look into where the “Queen Bee” character type came from, your analysis provides a great insight. It shows how it plays into the stereotypical judgements placed on girls and how that has translated into this type of aggression.

  • Women have been dying of Aids since 1981, and only by 1986 were they beginning to be acknowledged for it. Because of this, there are many activist for women and aids. In order to advocate for women and aids you […]

    • I think it is ridiculous that women have to be seen as a valuable human in order to be given basic human rights. Just because it is a woman, the value of the life is not lessened and society still has yet to realize that. When women were getting infected and dying from AIDS they were not taken seriously and although we have come a long way as a society, we still have a long way to go.

  • Act it up was a great and significant activist group. They fought and accomplished a lot, however, because of all the attention they got many other groups and forms of the type had gotten forgotten. The writer in […]

    • I agree with you that other groups were forgotten and that makes sense because how many groups can have a revolution at once? However, I do find it really weird that the group Act Up was not accepting of some new people because it seemed as if they were extremely accepting in the film. Maybe they just wanted it to seem that way? Or maybe there was some sort of miscommunication with the friend who wrote that. Although Act Up had a lot of success, some groups were left out to dry and the video did not show that.

    • That was interesting fact that even though people fought together in any situation, there were still had discrimination or something similar behavior occurred within the organizations. For this situation, white people in the ACT UP had a power that black people which made me confused. In the film showed that everyone who joined ACT UP always said “We are….,” who they concerned “we”? Only white people in the ACT UP? I wished that in the film still demonstrated that fact happened in the ACT UP.

  • It is true, just identifying the problem is not enough. One defiantly also needs to be proactive and try to really change things. But I think the idea of feminism is just that. It is a support and group of people who feel they don’t have equal rights– therefore, by just having that idealism alone does something to the world.

  • I disagree, I think that television and radio shows do pick up gender issues and really do portray then. Perhaps, they are just making fun of it, but they defiantly do pose those kind of issues and make people well aware of them. I believe feminism was a result to all of this and the exact portrayal.

  • What you said about Bowie on the younger generations and older generations is very true. The older generations did not coincide as much with his ideas because they lived in another generation and it was harder for them to accept something new. People were also defiantly confused about him, he gave off different messages. Im personally confused…[Read more]

  • Bowies ideas on gender bending was for sure an act of expressionism. He definitely always did his own thing and didn’t care what other people thought. He lived his life the way he felt he should and thats why he was so iconic. I think his ideas welcomed others to me more tolerant than in the past and perhaps opened to gates to more tolerance.

  • Although there is a lot of love in this world, there is also a lot of hate. All forms of hate stem from the same thing. The article mentions racism, sexism, heterosexism, and homophobia all stemming from the same […]

  • You are definitely correct. It does not matter which gender you are, at the end of the day you are human, and that is all. We all experience emotions because we are human beings. However, when a female does portray things such as; strength, courage, (etc), she is looked as a women who has had her sexuality ripped from her. This should not be the…[Read more]

  • I very much agree with you. I believe that the article did very much scream, “stereotypes.”
    If the article mentioned that “men should take over so that it doesn’t become more “womanly,” then it clearly is trying to present something against women. I find it extremely fascinating though that the article screams that stereotype, but yet the men in…[Read more]

  • I found your comment on this article to be very interesting. You acknowledged something that I haven’t even thought about. As I read the article, I didn’t really take into considerations that effects of todays television watching ON families. When you stated that television in the 1950’s and today are the same in family relationships and unity, I…[Read more]

  • Bryant, I found your take on the movie and article very fascinating. I like the point that you made about movies and media (etc) portraying women a certain way. The way in which you suggested that maybe the world and media created the male gaze. Perhaps, the “male gaze” would not exist if it weren’t for media portraying women in a certain light.…[Read more]

  • While reading the article Television In The Family Circle I found many things shocking but also agreed with a lot of the content. I found it most ironic and shocking when I read about how television was a way of […]

    • Yeah, I think its funny how TV went from unifying the family to splitting them apart. I’m willing to bet this is because now, instead of every household having one central TV that everyone watched, there is literally a TV in every room. That, and things like netflix means that not everyone has to rush and gather around to watch a show as it airs, they can catch it on their own time.

      I actually don’t watch broadcast TV anymore, and I can’t remember the last time that I have. I do that mostly because of convenience, but it’s nice to not have to deal with commercials and have the ability to stop and start it as I please. Internet is replacing TV in my mind, not in terms of uniting the family, but in terms of influence. Everyone is so connected to the various social media and things have become so easy to share, that people basically end up doing the work for advertisers. You could tell the power is there when companies began disguise their advertisements as social media posts.

    • I think advertising had a stronger jurisdiction, rather than the television. Another thing to consider is programming back in the day. However, anytime an advertisement spoke highly of this device, families believed it. Anything an advertise spoke negatively of this device, families believed it. It’s like being brainwashed and I don’t think the television had anything to do with that. Television did bring families together post-war. Advertisements led Americans to believe tv sets were part of the family so the idea of unity transpired.

  • While reading the article Television In The Family Circle I found many things shocking but also agreed with a lot of the content. I found it most ironic and shocking when I read about how television was a way of mending the family back together after World War 2. If you think about it, nowadays a television does just the opposite. Although there…[Read more]