Nothing But '90s

A blog about '90s media culture as learned and thought about in a Communication Studies Course

[nb90s]

She's So Fancy, She Just Wanted Everyone to Know

One characteristic marker that set teen television of the 1990s apart from its predecessor was “the turn towards post-modern ‘hyper-’intertextuality, as evidenced by the collapsing boundaries between film, television, music and music video texts as well as the intense intertextual referencing that occurs between these multimedia texts” (Wee 88). While making its strong debut in the late 1990s, hyper-intertextuality is now being used in more nuanced ways, as exemplified by Iggy Azalea’s music video for “Fancy.” It is still serving the needs of the companies behind it for marketing, but it is also being used as a method of connecting the broad audience.

Azalea’s music video goes beyond simply referring or alluding to the 1995 hit film Clueless; rather, it is essentially an exact stylistic replica of the movie. This hyper-intertextuality most obviously works to broaden Azalea’s audience. “Fancy,” a popular rap song, first was consumed by teens and young adults who are avid listeners of pop radio. However, this audience would have just been toddlers when Clueless hit the big screen, meaning that Azalea is also trying to reach the first fans of the movie, who are now adults. Granted, just because the teens of today were just tots in the ‘90s, access to an internet connection, and the beauty of syndication, has made media texts of the ‘90s available to every generation.

Like the WB in the ‘90s, which “utilised intertextual pop-culture references in an attempt to attract and profit from this target’s audience interests” (Wee, 93), Azalea, too, capitalizes on intertextual references to pop-culture classics not only by attracting old and new lovers of “Clueless,” but by appropriating the character as a way of strategically navigating her introduction as a rap artist to consumers. Specifically, by adopting the persona of Clueless protagonist Cher Horowitz -- an icon of ‘90s white hyperfemininity -- Azalea both subdues and challenges the aggressive sexualization and racialization of the rap/hip-hop genre. Accused of being a “virgin who can’t drive,” bubblegum blonde Cher embodies hegemonic white female purity. She is an irrefutably innocent and hyperfeminine model for Azalea to appropriate and parody. By appropriating Cher’s character, Azalea deftly sidesteps the hypersexualization and objectification commonly associated with rap music videos. This is significant, for it introduces Azalea to (white) consumers as a specifically non-threatening female rapper. However, it also presents Azalea to the rap industry -- which is male-dominated and rooted in Black culture -- in a “self-conscious, highly self-reflexive,” and thus more acceptable, way (Wee, 91), for she simultaneously parodies yet identifies with Cher as young, white woman. Azalea’s video thus uses hyper-intertextuality to characterize the rap artist, “multiply[ing] the meanings from the texts” (Wee, 91), like those of the ‘90s, to appeal to larger and more diverse audiences of consumers.

[nb90s]

Generation Xcuse me, I don't want to be lumped in with them

The worst fear as a marketer or advertiser is probably not being able to reach an audience. Well, in the ‘90s, that’s what happened with Generation X. But why? Do Generation Xers have a “bullshit alarm,” as Ian Williams put it? That’s what Karen Ritchie believes, as Giles stated, “During the years that twentysomethings were watching Saturday-morning cartoons they were assaulted by a barrage of advertising so intense that it had to be addressed by federal legislation. ‘The first time you realize the super toy you wanted is really only four inches tall you learn a hard lesson,’ says Ritchie. ‘We created a whole generation that believes advertising is lies and hype.’”

Supposedly Xers resist advertising then because they believe that advertisements are deceitful lies— that sounds a little immature. Oake argues that, “the Generation X subculture is thoroughly dependent on the media—even the mainstream media—for its very identity” (83). In that regard, I understand how if your entire identity revolved around media, how being “lied to” by advertisers would make you distrust them and therefore not be a persuasive audience.

  I don’t believe that that’s entirely the truth though. Obviously what Generation X presents is a generational war with the boomers. I don’t think that Xers are resisting advertising; rather, they are resisting the institution as it is the boomers trying to reach them. Because of their lovely personality traits, Xers don’t want to be grouped in or defined by something, which advertisers were trying to do.

  Generation Xers were raised in a media saturated environment, though, which gives me an inclination to believe that as opposed to actually resisting an advertisement, Xers just became desensitized to them or watched them passively. Oake even calls the Xers a spectator subculture because they watch things happen, compared to the boomers who actually made things happen. The importance behind this point is the question "can you truly resist something when you are a spectator of everything?" It seems to me like the members of Generation X are just stubborn to agree with anyone older than they are as “they are forced to stand by and watch as baby boomers monopolize public life” (Oake 86).

[nowyoukno]

[nb90s]

And the Bundy's are arguably more relatable.

[mirandomi]

[nb90s]

Married...with Children- redefining family values since 1987

[nb90s]

Because Nothing Means More Than Family

People like watching television that is relatable to them. Others panic when they believe that television is presenting something that could be relatable, but that poses a threat (looking at you, Dan Quayle). The ‘90s faced this struggle in the conversation of family values on TV.

Television networks had focused on creating programming to appeal to the masses, like The Cosby Show, which presented a more or less utopian view of the world, leaving reality out of the Huxtable family portrait. Fiske mentioned this, saying, “Fans…found the Huxtables just too perfect in both economic and ethical values” (115).

In a world that was becoming more and more fragmented, with an increasing amount of identity groups, these Fordist networks needed to provide audiences with something relatable, then a show like Married…with Children hit the air. This show depicted the blue-collar, dysfunctional Bundy family in their everyday life, nothing spectacular, but it was relatable, and it began to redefine conventional family values.

I find it hard to be a coincidence, and Christopher Lloyd can back me up, that Ed O’Neill, Al Bundy from Married…with Children, is also the patriarch of another show (12 years later) that redefines family values: Modern Family. Even though Modern Family first aired in 2009, family values and family dynamics are still being talked about and presented on television. Probably most striking is the relationship between Cameron and Mitchell— a gay (recently) married couple who also have an adopted Vietnamese daughter. If Quayle was crazy about Murphy Brown being a single mother on television, what would he do or think about the stance that Cameron and Mitchell made?

As long as society keeps changing, laws keep passing, and people still adamantly watch television, I think that more shows will either crop up or adapt to add and present family values that are relatable to all types of viewers.

[80slove]

At the height of her figure-skating career, Tonya Harding was caught up in one of the most infamous scandals in sports history, when she allegedly arranged for her ex-husband and two goons to break her rival Nancy Kerrigan’s leg before the 1994 Olympics.

[nb90s]

Tonya Harding: the white trash ice skater. Not even the Olympics were safe from the white lower class. 

[gwengold]

[nb90s]

White trash invading the mainstream

[nb90s]

Trash Talking Trash

The ‘90s were a time when identity politics were are the forefront of media conversations. Everywhere across the US, people were classifying themselves into different groups, which led to the fragmentation of society. While a lot of attention was drawn toward the minority identity groups, the ‘90s also brought about the presence of the white underclass— white trash.

What is striking about this white trash group is the fact that it goes beyond race; now the concept of “whiteness” is being thought about in terms of class standing as well, which, to me, kind of leveled the playing field between white people and other minority groups, as the white trash group had no real social mobility. While there were other types of white struggles in the ‘90s, like the rise of white male paranoia, and the heads of white patriarchal authority worrying about their agency, this white trash culture was the first white group to not care about who dominates the cultural hegemony battle.

White trash was concerned with talk shows where they really found their niche because they got rewarded for their bad behavior. Shattuc stated, “The shows stage the battle of deprived people…but the battles are between the deprived people themselves and no longer against larger social determinants. Say racism, sexism, and capitalism” (141). Needless to say, white trash was not worried about fighting the man, maybe because they just didn’t have the capacity to do so. Ernest Mickler leans toward this explanation for the disinterest, saying, “Common white trash has very little in the way of pride, and no manners to speak of, and hardly any respect for anybody or anything” (Friend).

Dorothy Allison gives white trash culture a little more credit, though, saying, “True trash doesn't care what happens, because we don't believe our good behavior will get us anywhere. So we're dangerous—we don't necessarily care for your life” (Friend). It’s this outright acknowledgement of the lack of social mobility or being able to benefit society that supposedly perpetuates a sort of threat to those with higher class standing. White trash will continue to seep into the mainstream even though they aren’t asking for anything, they will simply affirm “The age-old middle-class fear of the lower classes as a faceless throng [surfacing]” (Shattuc 140).

[dynamicafrica]

"Anita: Speaking Truth to Power."

Recently watched this powerful and compelling documentary about Anita Hill and the sexual assault case where she provided testimony against Judge Clarence Thomas who was then nominated for the US Supreme Court.

At the time Hill, who was a former employee of Thomas’ (who shamefully called the proceedings a case of ‘high-tech lynching’ as a way to deflect from the issue of sexual harassment by using race as a factor - the only factor), was a law professor at the University of Oklahoma where she grew up. She gave her testimony live on national television in October 1991 and, unbeknownst to her, the effect of her decision to speak out would almost immediately spark what the Boston Globe called, “a passionate debate about sexual harassment in the workplace and elsewhere”, and one that is far from over.

In a world where gender and racial oppression are systemic, and where victims are blamed and perpetrators shielded by the oppressive and shaming nature of rape culture, Anita Hill’s story remains both relevant and necessary in its telling. What’s I found particularly interesting about the film is how director Freida Mock conveyed this story in such a way that made it both Anita’s story and that of so many women in the United States and around the world.

Hill, now a professor and Brandeis University, has dedicated much of her life to speaking about sexual harassment and gender issues, as well as how these matters often intersect with race, as well as helping others find their voice. 

Twitter | Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Soundcloud | Mixcloud

[nb90s]

Dear Anita, Where are you?

Gender wars raged on in the ‘90s and were predominantly incited by the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas case. Having, quite literally, a man versus woman trial that pertained to a sexual comment automatically opened the doors for people to choose a side based on gender, and the media didn’t do anything to suppress this, rather they, essentially, encouraged it. Vavrus said, “Probably the most discussed dimension of the Hill-Thomas hearings was how they foregrounded sexual harassment as a grave problem that threatened the well-being of professional women” (40). By making this case about a “grave problem for women” a rift was created and a gender panic came to the forefront of the hearings.

Also a recurring theme during this case was the idea that Hill was mentally unstable, or throwing herself at Thomas, pretty much blaming Hill for everything. While news coverage didn’t directly come out and say this, they also didn’t do much to help out a woman’s cause with this “problem for women.” Vavrus stated, “What [news segments] did do was predict that the hearings’ social effects would make relations between women and men uncomfortable and difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate. Men would be forced to reevaluate their actions toward women to ensure that they were not acting in a way that could be construed as harassment. Such self reflection was presented as odious and even unjust” (57). Essentially, the media presented the idea that men would draw the short end of the stick because of this case.

I’ve been thinking about how this case would have panned out if it were taking place in 2014, and I honestly think it would have the same result from a mediated standpoint. Granted, there is a ton of talk about sexual harassment and rape now— I can’t go a day on my Facebook without a video, like the NYC cat calling harassment, or some kind of campaign popping up. However, although these texts are extremely visible, that also means that the harassment is still continuing.

To me, that shows that nothing was really learned from the Hill-Thomas hearings. Yes, it opened up a dialogue about a tough subject, but now that it's 20 years after the fact, it is surprising that you can still walk around a college campus and see signs that read “Expel the Rapists” (a personal experience on a walk through the Diag the other day). I’m in no way saying that because the Hill-Thomas hearing happened that sexual harassment should just not be a thing anymore. I am just shocked at the scale on which instances still occur and it makes me wonder if people (predominantly men) still think that it is unfair to say that they are harassing women when they don’t think that they are.

In this case, timing was everything, and I think because Hill waited so long to bring this to court, it docked her credibility and the case wasn’t taken as seriously in the ‘90s as it should have been. It’d be interesting to see what would have happened if she would have spoken up sooner.

[coalitionzine-deactivated201704]

are u tired of listening to me talk shit about riot grrrl yet?

discussing the obvious lack of interest that today’s riot grrrls have as to why black women weren’t/aren’t present in this movement, among other things.  

by fabiola c

A lot of people think that this phenomenon of black women being demonized for doing certain things while white women get praised for the exact same thing is a new phenomenon but it truly isn’t. This shit has been going on forever, and riot grrrl is a great example as to how deep it goes and how many different ways it can be manifested. At my first introduction to riot grrrl, I was very amazed at the fact that nobody shamed these women for being angry. And today I still think about it, how the angry white woman gets by without being casted as a monster. Of course, I know why. Anybody with the ability to see through glass knows why.

I used to think that when it came to Riot Grrrl, the only thing needed to be done was throw some black girls in the mix and everything will be balanced. this is a very screwed and fucked up way to view the issue because black women of the 90s rioted like hell, with Lil Kim rapping about oral sex like it was nobody’s business and TLC changing up the game when it came to women publicly lamenting about beauty standards while simultaneously looking down on men who weren’t shit. But the issue here is that these women were (and still are) dragged through the dirt, despite how revolutionary they were. And so are all other black female artist who aren’t seen as feminist icons but as vulgar and vapid sluts. No one is making documentaries on how many lives these women have impacted. Is this because these women aren’t showing their feminism through a punk rock lense, like Bikini Kill? Or is it because we just aren’t considered people in this movement?

Read More

[nb90s]

Interesting response to the lack of feminism truly present in Bikini Kill and the Riot Grrrl movement 

[little-trouble-grrrl]

Joan Jett performing with Bikini Kill at Irving Plaza in New York City on July 14th 1994

super hi-res

[nb90s]

Gotta love that girl power

[vicemag]

Gen X Ruined the World Too 

Hey, did you hear about the western Antarctic ice sheet? The melting there has reached the point of no return, which means we’re getting an extra ten feet added to our sea levels in the near future. A clear and direct threat to human life as we know it—we should be rioting in the streets, or at least posting more ice memes than net neutrality memes, right? Instead, as everyone knows, the scourge of the postmodern world, the Millennial generation, is too busy updating Snapchat on the iPhones they bought with their parents’ credit cards. But is it really all our fault?

Generation X has a lot more to do with our current shitshow than they believe. I’m not blaming them for the way the world looks—that’s on the Boomers—but our big brothers and sisters in Gen X screwed up our cultural priorities by teaching Millennials that self-obsession is the highest mark of cultural capital.

Continue