Riska

WAL-MART
I chose Wal-Mart as my pop culture artifact because I think it truly is a phenomenon. It is a controversial artifact in that a lot of people refuse to shop there because of its harm to local shops and grocery stores. I also think that Wal-Mart is broad enough to be looked at from many different angles. Finally, I think that Wal-Mart is a store and company everyone is familiar with despite what opinion they may have about the company.

**What Would Kearney Say? - February 14th, 2010 ** I think Kearney would definitely not be approving of Wal-Mart and the way the market and promote their products. I think what would be of a special interest to her would be toys and children’s items. If you walk through the “toy section” at Wal-Mart, toys and games are clearly separated into boys’ and girls’ items. I think this would be the biggest thing that would catch Kearney’s attention. I believe she would wonder of course why and how there are such things as boys and girls toys. Why are pink and purple the main colors of the girls’ section, and why are blue and black the main color of the boys’ section? Though Wal-Mart does not often have things marked as items that only boys or girls can play with, separating and grouping them together in their own aisles says enough. It makes a clear assumption that girls are to play with the dolls, kitchen sets, and Barbie, whereas the boys are to play with the trucks and cars, fake weapons, and G.I. Joe. No one ever said that girls can’t play with trucks, and no one ever said that boys can’t play with dolls. Perhaps Wal-Mart would argue that they do this for convenience since //most// boys play with G.I. Joes, cars, etc. and //most// girls play with dolls and Barbie. Maybe Wal-Mart would say that they do this so parents and grandparents have an easier time deciding what to get from their children or grandchildren. Well, this may sound somewhat understandable, but I still think Kearney would disagree. The reason //most// boys and girls play with the toys and games that are “made” for them is __because__ they have been taught to do so. At some point long ago, gender segregation made its way into the toy and game industry and created the idea of what is appropriate for a boy or girl to play with. The fact is that today if a boy were standing in an aisle gazing up at all of the dolls and “girl” toys, it would seem weird to most people. The same goes for if a little girl were standing in an aisle looking at or picking out a new plastic truck to play with. I think that parents support this because they all want their children to “fit in” and be a part of the norm. Though it may be hard, I personally feel that parents should rather encourage their children to be unique and do or have fun with whatever they want. I think Kearney would agree.

**What Would Johnson Say? - February 14th, 2010 ** I think Johnson would likely dislike Wal-Mart, especially their marketing and advertising. What I mean by this is how they really support and participate in patriarchy by the way they advertise. For example, most, if not all of their commercials are targeted toward women. They market their good deals and hot buys to women who need to get grocery shopping done, women who need to buy presents for their children, nephews, nieces, etc., and women who need to buy home or cleaning items. All of this implies that women are the ones who do the grocery shopping and such things which is very much a stereotype of our society and only proves patriarchy to be dominant in our culture. With many fathers playing the stay-at-home-Dad role, why not advertise to the men who run and grab groceries during the day while the wife is at work? This never happens because Wal-Mart is targeting what is supposedly the “normal” family. I think in the same way, they target men for things that a woman could just as likely want or need to buy. An example of this would be how the car, hunting, fishing, and camping items are advertised on commercials with men being the main consumers of such things. I believe Johnson would think that in general it is ridiculous that there is any segregation at all between what women and men supposedly want/need to buy, and the fact that Wal-Mart plays it up would likely //not// thrill him. I am not sure if this is stretching it a bit, but maybe Johnson would even be interested in the people who work at Wal-Mart and in which department they assist people. What I mean is from my many experiences at Wal-Mart, workers in the women’s clothing department are often women, workers in the electronics department are often men, and workers in the sports department are often men. I wonder if Johnson would find this to be a coincidence or another example of promoting patriarchy. The only way to know this would be to get inside the mind of the employee that does the hiring. Is there prejudice occurring? Has patriarchy consumed people so much that with or without consciously realizing it, the employee who does the hiring may feel that only a man can do a good job in the camping department or only a women can do a good job in the cosmetics department. I really think Johnson would find this to be a fascinating and interesting subject.

**What Would Parsons Say? - February 21st, 2010**

Thankfully, Wal-Mart is a very broad and widespread company. I think based on the article we read, Parsons would be especially interested in looking at the whole idea of "princess" clothing and toys for children. Since Wal-Mart definitely carries these items, I will focus on these. I think, first of all, it is obvious to see that the whole idea of princess-themed clothing is found only in the girls' section. I wonder if Parsons would think that boys may want similar things. Perhaps a boy would not want to be a princess, but a prince. We really do not see many prince-themed clothing or toys in Wal-Mart of similar stores. Boys clothing, rather, seems to be centralized around trucks, cars, construction, and so on. If we were to make a link between these things and future occupations and/or careers, I think Parsons would agree that the boys' themes in clothing and toys are much more realistic. Occupations such as truck driving and working in construction are completely feasible. Being a princess however, not so much. This is true especially in the culture of America. NO one is a princess, prince, king, or queen here; we have, instead, a president. So why does Wal-Mart not carry clothes promoting professions for little girls' that are more realistic? I think that is a good question to ponder. Parsons says near the beginning of the reading, "Fairy tales are sites for the construction of appropriate gendered behavior." What I think is interesting about the clothing items you would find in the girls' section at Wal-Mart is how they are not necessarily provoking a young girl to find her prince charming. I think companies such as Wal-Mart realize that at such a young age, girls are not really out to find their "prince." In fact, for a phase that usually lasts several years, young girls tend to find boys quite repulsive and annoying. I think the clothing and toys that Wal-Mart carries for little girls is trying to target the beauty aspect. They want girls to have pretty princess dresses, shoes, and jewelry. Maybe pretend make-up or hair accessories; anything that will accentuate a girl's beauty, and therefore make her more fit to be a princess. It is things like this that put the idea of princess = beauty in young children's heads. I think Parsons would agree since she continues later on by saying, "Fairy tales constitute a kind of 'script' for acceptable forms of feminine and masculine behavior." Companies like Wal-Mart definitely do not fight the norms of society. I think Parsons would be disappointed by this, but then again, look at how well Wal-Mart has done economically. Apparently the majority of society isn't quite as disappointed. Many people do not even think about how Wal-Mart could be politicall "incorrect." Most people just want to find good deals on items they need; this is why Wal-Mart's marketing scheme and company works so well!

**What Would Do Rozario Say? - February 28th, 2010** I feel that comparing Do Rozario's article and Wal-Mart may be a little stretched, but there were a couple parts within the article where I felt a link could be found. On page forty-six in Do Rozario's article, she states, "'Princess' mechandise ranges in Disney stores include such non-princess heroines //as Peter Pan//'s fairy, Tinkerbell and Alice of //Alice in Wonderland//. The 'princess' label can even be extended to encompass dogs, cats, and lions: the Ladys, Duchesses, and Nalas of films like //Lady and the Tramp//, //The Artistocats//, and //The Lion King//." I think this is so true, and proof can be found in non-Disney stores - such as Wal-Mart. Toys and clothing line the aisles and not only promote Cinderella, Snow White, and Belle, but also Tinkerbell and Nala. What I think is also interesting is how this is an area which affects boys as well. Boys have been left out of this mix, primarily because may princes remain nameless or insignificant in Disney movies. For example, I could not tell you (though it has been a while since I have watched these movies) the names of the princes from //Snow White and the Seven Dwarves//, //Cinderella//, or //Beauty and the Beast//. However, "stars" such as Simba, Nemo, Woody and Buzz, and Shrek ring very familiar to me. In the boys' section of Wal-Mart, you will find clothing and merchandise portraying many of these characters. So it is interesting to me how it is the animal or non-human versions of princes and/or leading characters that are most familiar and sell the most easily in stores. Another interesting thought came to me after reading what Do Rozario writes on page fifty-two, "The equation of the princess with her sexuality, however, can be read beyond the immediate courtship terms of sexual desire and attractiveness and through her dual function as source of life and rule: wife and daughter." I guess this quote just made me think that Do Rozario would probably look at children's clothing in Wal-Mart, especially the little princess dresses on sale for little girls to have, and see how this sexuality IS portrayed. The little princess dresses are not exactly conservative. Though little girls may not have much to reveal and are not at a point where it is inappropriate, these dresses still prove to be plenty low-cut and show more than enough skin. I think Do Rozario, like many of the other authors we've read so far would agree that Wal-Mart plays and goes along with the stereotypes to sell, sell, sell.

I think when it comes to finding how Hassel would feel about Wal-Mart, it is inevitable and obvious to look at it from the marketing stand point. I think like we talked about in class, it is so interesting how they market //Monsters vs. Aliens//. I looked on the Wal-Mart website, and the majority of the DVDs that they carry to sell are the ones with the front covers primarily featuring B.O.B. I think another thing that is interesting is the lack of toys or dolls or action figures that have been created and sold in stores like Wal-Mart about this particular movie. I think Hassel would probably agree that perhaps the reason for this is WHERE do you start? With this movie have quite a few "conflicts" intra-filmically AND extra-filmically, I doubt creators would know which gender to even target! I mean after watching the movie, it seems like the thing to do would be to make a doll or figure of Susan, since she is, after all, the main character and the "super hero." However, the producers and marketers of //Monsters vs. Aliens// did not seem to want or need to promote her as the film's main character so would people even recognize her and want to own toys or merchandise displaying her? B.O.B. is featured on much of the movie's marketing. However, after watching the movie, he is most remembered for the humor her brings to the movie; he is NOT a main character though, and I think the viewers definitely get that. The only "toy" I found on Wal-Mart's website was a video game version of the movie, and I would hardly call that a toy. Perhaps a reason the toy and game business was not ventured into much is because it was not really necessary. As Hassel states on page eighteen and nineteen of her article, "the mismatch between the film's 'message' and its marketing has not had an impact on its commercial success." This movie has done well, regardless of how it was marketed. I think the only thing Hassel would have left to speculate would be who (which gender) is most attracted to this movie when it is sitting on a shelf at Wal-Mart. Obviously, I do not have the data or information to prove this either way, but I would guess that it is boys. By choosing to have B.O.B. on the cover, having a blue-ish background, and by having Susan typically smallest and most hidden in the front covers, I think it truly does come across as a boy movie. Also, from Wal-Mart's marketing standpoint, they must agree. When I went to Wal-Mart recently I saw that //Monsters vs. Aliens// is placed conveniently close to other "boy" video games and such. Perhaps a coincidnce, but I doubt it. Obviously, this is fascinating as Hassel points out since there is such a feminist vibe within and during the actual movie.
 * What Would Hassel Say? - March 7th, 2010 **

What an interesting article!! Just wanted to throw that in there - my favorite so far. I think Hager had so much to go off on with //The Powerpuff Girls//. Though I highly doubt there is a direct correlation, I think shows such as these impact much more of society than just the little girls in the world. One quote that really stuck out to me from the article (on page sixty-four) and that explains what I mean states, "Merging girlish cuteness and this boyish cool, the girls retain what Cross describes as the angelic coquettishness of girlish cuteness even as they enjoy the physicality of their visibly violent battles with villains." So obviously, girls regardless of age are not out fighting villains in their everyday lives. However, I think what is key here and hopefully Hager would agree is the part about merging the "girlish cuteness and this boyish cool." I think this is so evident even in juniors and young adult clothing. I think in the past decade or so, and maybe it is just a trend and could die out in the next year alone, there have been more "rocker" clothing or clothing with a boyish feel to them. Specifics examples would be items such as skinny jeans and leather jackets perhaps, and items like these are definitely sold in stores like Wal-Mart. There is still so much pressure for girls to look cute, pretty, and hot, but I do believe that as girls have become more independent over the years, so has the clothing. It changes how sexuality is defined and looked at, similarly to how //The Powerpuff Girls// did not follow the typical suit of being revealing and skanky little girls. Though it has been a while since the show was super popular, I don't really recall //Powerpuff// merchandise to be a huge thing in any store such as Wal-Mart. Perhaps I am wrong about this, but I know that I was a huge fan of the show, yet I never bought any dolls or clothing related to //The Powerpuff Girls.// I think Hager would wonder why this is and would perhaps speculate that maybe they were a little too different from the norm. We are so used to seeing princesses and Barbie. Seeing little girls who are cute and normal in the sense that they still go to school and have a bedtime and yet also fighting villains may seem a little too far out there. Maybe this was something that was too hard to market. Whatever the reason, I think Hager would be interested in this.
 * What Would Hager Say? - March 7th, 2010 **

<span style="color: #ff5000; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 120%; text-align: center;">**What Would Schrum Say? - March 14th, 2010** <span style="color: #ff5000; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; text-align: left;">I have talked quite a bit about specific or particular products sold at Wal-Mart and how they have to do with the article we read. This week I wanted to take a little different approach, perhaps a little bit of a stretch, and compare //Seventeen//'s and Wal-Mart's marketing. Schrum writes on the first page of the article, "//Seventeen// magazine was instrumental in developing the image of the teenage girl as a consumer of the magazine and the products advertised within its covers, but also as a member of society." I think she would agree that Wal-Mart is kind of the same way. Obviously when Wal-Mart markets itself, it puts out commercials and ads for the consumer. They, similarly to //Seventeen//, advertise their products; Schrum would say this is true of most stores. The end part of the quote though is where the big similarity comes in. Schrum says that //Seventeen// creates the teenage girl to be "a member of society." Wal-Mart's commercials often do the same. Their slogan "save money, live better" creates a sense of community in that we are all trying to live the best lives possible, and //everybody// knows that saving money makes anybody feel good. I have an example of a commercial below, and I think it is a good one to discuss what I am trying to say. Having the mom talking about sending her daughter off to her first day of school is something that so many people can relate to every single September. I think Schrum would agree that like //Seventeen//, the commercial producers want to create a sense of community and even comfort. As moms and dads worry for their children, they can count and rely on Wal-Mart to help them get by and get what they need. In the second commercial I posted, the end scene really strikes me as funny. It is actually almost the same exact commercial, just from a different year; the dialogue is super similar. At the end of the commercial, it shows the little girl sitting next to another little girl (implying her new friend) and they have the same pens. They smile about this, and it becomes yet another example of how these girls can now bond and feel close over something - something that they bought at Wal-Mart. Many parents want their kids to have tons of friends, and this commercial could urge parents to buy stuff at Wal-Mart so they can have that connection with other kids. I think Schrum would find this all quite interesting. media type="youtube" key="QJHWJHYH_bk" height="385" width="480"media type="youtube" key="ZsI5-uRTKGI" height="385" width="480"

<span style="color: #ff0079; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 120%; text-align: center;"> <span style="color: #ff0079; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 129.6%; text-align: left;">I think the only way to go about connecting Brumberg's article to Wal-Mart would be by looking at how Wal-Mart sells the products Brumberg discussed in her essay. On the very first page of her second chapter, it states, "At the moment when they begin to menstruate, American girls and their mothers typically think first about the external body - what shows and what doesn't - rather than about the emotional and social meaning of the maturational process." Upon looking at Wal-Mart's website, there are pages and pages of feminine care products available to purchase. As I was scrolling through the first page, I clicked on the first product listed and read the reviews from customers. This was one of the remarks regarding //Always// Infinity Regular Flow Pads, written on February 19th of this year: "These things are so thin, longer in the back, extended wings on the side so there is no overflow onto your underwear, and it literally does pull the flow down so you don't feel all wet. They move with you great since they have these ridges in the back where you sit. I honestly would forget that I had one on it was so comfortable; I kept checking myself and was so surprised and impressed. If you got away from pads it's time to come on back - these things are great." I thought that this review sums up exactly what Brumberg is trying to say. As a Wal-Mart shopper, she wants other Wal-Mart consumers to know about how wonderful these pads are. And like Brumberg talked about in her article, the main focus on why these particular pads are better than the rest is because of their cleanliness, comfortableness, and effectiveness. She specifically talks about the need/want to avoid feeling "all wet" which maybe isn't such a bad thing to strive for. However, I think Brumberg would be most interested by the very first line of the statement. The reviewer talks about how the shape and fit of this particular pad is so great that it prevents an "overflow onto your underwear." This is exactly what Brumberg is talking about when she says, "…modern mothers typically stress the importance of outside appearances for their daughters: keeping clean, avoiding soiled clothes, and purchasing the right 'equipment.' Hygiene, not sexuality, is the focus of most maternal discussions with girls who have just started their periods." Though I doubt the person who gave this review is a teenage girl who just started her period, it only proves that even as we get older, what we have learned from our mothers or whoever sticks with us. The need to be clean and kept seems most important, especially judging by the amount of aisles in stores such as Wal-Mart stocked with feminine products all claiming to be the best absorbent and most fresh-feeling pads ever. <span style="color: #7a7575; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 144%; text-align: center;"> <span style="color: #636363; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; text-align: left;">I think Wal-Mart could not be a more perfect example of something that as Zipes would say is "ordinary and yet…extraordinary." When you think about it, Wal-Mart really is just a store that sells many things from groceries to electronics to everyday life supplies. Yet, unlike other stores that are popular as well, I believe the Wal-Mart which caters to "ordinary" people has become quite extraordinary and therefore, phenomenal. It is ordinary in that it is a store similar to other "ordinary" stores such as Target, K-Mart, Walgreens, and so on. Yet, somewhere along the way, Wal-Mart has become a phenomenon. I recall discussing that in this context, "ordinary" actually has a negative connotation, however I think Wal-Mart would actually ENJOY being called ordinary despite the connotation of the word. They want to be ordinary because this is part of their marketing scheme. I think, like we talked about in class, for something to become super phenomenal, it actually helps if there is some bad criticism surrounding it. As many know, are aware of, or themselves believe, there are people who will not shop or consume from Wal-Mart. I believe the reasoning behind this is that they think the gigantic company of Wal-Mart takes away from small and local businesses. Overall though, I think these people are definitely not in the norm. I think this because the way Wal-Mart advertises themselves makes them seem so "ordinary", and since the company is thriving, I would say their advertising strategy is definitely working. In many of their commercials, they present situations or scenarios that we, ordinary people, find ourselves in within our own lives. These include, hosting a Super Bowl party for friends and family, hosting a birthday party, grilling out during the summer, camping, and so on. The whole theme surrounding their ads is that we all want, and should be able to do these things, but not at a high cost. So fortunately for us all, Wal-Mart is here to help and save us! Their slogan, "save money, live better" truly sums this up. By saving money, you can do all the fun things you want to do, and therefore "live better." Zipes also writes, "It is impossible to be phenomenal without conforming to conventionality." I think that Wal-Mart does this partly through their commercials. They WANT to be relatable to the average, ordinary family. It seems slightly ironic to me that they try and act at "average" people's level when in reality, they are a company larger and more complex than most of us could imagine. I think Zipes would agree with most of this, though he probably would disagree with Wal-Mart's commercials and such since they feature mainly women, and Zipes evidently has quite an issue with sexism. Nonetheless, I hope he would agree that Wal-Mart truly is a phenomenon.
 * What Would Brumberg Say? - March 21st, 2010**
 * What Would Zipes Say? - April 4th, 2010**

To start this entry off, I looked on Wal-Mart's website and searcher "Harry Potter" because I wanted to see if the games and merchandise promoted Hermione at all, and if so, just as much as Harry or other male characters. Though almost ALL of the games and such featured Harry on the front cover, front and center, Hermione and Ron were often pictured as well. I found this interesting since the books really are about Harry, so for them to put his two best friends on the cover seems a little odd. However, the fact that they do grace the covers of games, shirts, and other things, it obviously means that they plan significant roles in the series and are recognizable enough to consumers. Also, I would like to add that Hermione is shown at the same "level" if you will as Ron. They both tend to be in the background when Harry is also pictured, but Hermione is pictured no further back than Ron and are shown to be quite equal. <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">On page 146 of the article, the authors state, "Harry's ability to make friends and be brave establishes him as the true great one, and, he is the great one in every book." Despite the fact that many of the video games and apparel showcase Hermione and Ron almost as often as Harry himself, the covers of the seven books primarily feature a picture of Harry VERY front and center. Also, a lot of boys' clothing features only Harry. I think the quote that I just stated is exactly what Rowling was thinking when she created and wrote this series of books. Harry is a character that is brave and laid-back; he makes friends so easily. These are qualities many boys want and feel that they need to get through the middle school and high school years of their lives. I also would like to say that I do not think Harry as an individual plays into patriarchy too much. I think Heilman and Donaldson would totally disagree with that statement, but I, of course, stand by it. He is not an overpowering, fierce, or intense individual. All of the magical power he has was something that came about in ways he could not control. He sure can't halt genetics! I think that throughout the series, Harry does a lot of "great" things, but I do not think he ever becomes self-centered, controlling, or dominant by choice. These things may have occurred, but only when they were necessary to defeat something truly evil. These are just my thoughts though, and I think they may challenge the authors
 * <span style="color: #25e4e4; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 120%; text-align: center;">What Would Heilman and Donaldson Say? - April 4th, 2010 ** <span style="color: #25e4e4; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%; text-align: left;">