Theory

Representation theory

Butsch - (1992)

He says that working class males are represented as "Incompetent and ineffectual. Often a baboon, well-intentioned but dumb. In almost most working class series, the male is flawed, some more than others". This means that working class males are often shown as the dumb one, and that they have flaws which could be incompetence towards some subjects. Also that they doesn't have much use in what they are trying to do.

Hebdige - (1988)

Hebdige argued that youths are stereotyped of mixed metaphors of "Youths are fun" and "Youths are trouble makers".  This means that youths are represented as the fun generation of life,  that like to go around causing trouble for fun.

Hall - (1994)

Hall argues that youths and young adults are "Depressed" and are more likely "To seek excitement through crime, sex and drink/drugs". What he is trying to say is that as the younger generation tend to be into trends of the time, they like to look up to people who do that type of stuff which is why they find excitement form it. He also tries to say that they tend to be more depressed, maybe because of puberty or what they are into.

Mackillon - (2002)

Mackillon argues that males "are now shown as sexual objects of desire who are more concerned with image". This means that males are just sex objects in media nowadays and that it is all about the image not the character. Also that all people want are males to be sex objects.

Gauntlett - (2002)

Gauntlett argues that the media still follows traditional stereotypes as males are shown as "Alpha males who control action with violence". This means that people still follow male dominance in action films as males are usually associated with violence and cars chases etc.

Mulvey - (1975)

Mulvey argued that females are used as "Erotic objects of desire for males on screen and in the audience". She claims they are for "The male gaze". This means that females in media are used for erotic objects for males and that they are only used for males to look at. Again all about the body not the character.