In Spite of Women

The world of magazines is vast. There are magazines for women, for men, for children, for teenagers, for the elderly, for dogs, for gardeners, for hikers, etc. It seems to be clear who the magazines are intended for, their purpose and what will fill the pages. In this chapter, Kenon Breazeale talks about the fact that men's magazines tend to be a "magazine about women". He explores the magazine Esquire, primarily. When the magazine was created, its founder stated its target audience and cause saying "It is our belief, in offering Esquire to the American male, that we are only getting around at last to a job that should have been done a long time again--that of giving the masculine reader a break. The general magazines, in the mad scramble to increase the woman readership that seems to be so highly prized by national advertisers, have bent over backwards in catering to the special interests and tastes of the feminine audience. This has reached the point where the male reader is made to feel like an intruder on gynaecic mysteries" (Esquire, 1933, 4). Breazale calls this magazine "one of our era's most aggressively one-dimensonal representations of women have resulted from attempts to court men as consumers" (231). He discusses the impact this magazine and magazines like it have had on attitudes towards women. Most of these portray women as mere sex objects, making them less than valued. This impacts the male readers, causing them to see and treat the women in their lives as simply that.

I googled Esquire Magazine and was taken to its website. It has many tabs for fiction, style, video, best bars in America, a changing headline reel, and finally a tab entitled "women". After clicking on it, I found a bulleted list of various famous females, sex advice, etc. There are also article excerpts on the page, inviting to be clicked on. I was just disgusted by the base page for women without even clicking on any of the links. Just from the quick view I got, it clearly shows women as nothing more than sex objects. Its all about the beauty and the sex appeal. Even this month's issue has Angelina Jolie on the cover. This is a magazine for men and a scantily clad women is on the cover. Hm. They certainly know their audience.

Identity Theft

We have talked endlessly about the impact media has on the way we view the world. Michael Foucault calls our "ways of talking about things", discourses. Playing off Focault, David Gauntlett says that "the ability to influence a certain discourse is a form of power that can be exercised (although power is not a property held by a particular group, but is something that flows through social processes and interactions)"(133). The discourses that have the most impact are sexuality and identity. Media is a huge influence when it comes to shaping one's views about sexuality in general, and other people's sexuality. In just the past decade, homosexuality has become more talked about and has almost become less of a thing to be judged for and one to be more accepted. In terms of identity, images of body, sexuality, style, personality, etc. are thrown at us each day in the media from all angles. The power the media has is strong. What we see in the media translates into what we believe about ourselves, about others and about our world.

We are all human. We are male or female. Biologically, that is evident. But what about those mannerisms and specific qualities that each gender is suposed to (or not suposed to) posess? Who tells us how to behave depending on our gender? The media (once again) plays a HUGE role in reinforcing this. How we act as individuals largely depends on how we have been taught to act. In chapter 7 of his book, David Gauntlett talks about queer theory, which he says is " a radical remix of social construction theory and a call to action. Since identities are not fixed-neither to the body nor to self- we can perform gender any way we like" (Gauntlett). Queer theory basically says that your identity is a combination of social and cultural traits, that gender is a performance, that people can change, that masculinity and femininity is a social construction, and that we should challenge these traditional views of the genders.

How others see us, our culture and what we learn from the media are huge detemining factors in our identity. When I was younger, my mom dressed me in pretty dresses, put bows in my hair and gave me dolls to play with. That is a traditional view of femininity. Girls are suposed to be dainty, pleasant, have tea parties and play with dolls. Boys are suposed to love sports, get messy, play with trucks and baseballs and burp all day long. What happens when those roles get crossed? What about the girl who loves sports and hates pink? Or the boy who plays with Barbies, does not like to be messy and grows up to be a hair dresser? How does that translate into our culture? Considering this, I feel as though its more accepted if a girl defies "girly-ness". She is labeled a tom-boy but its not exactly frowned upon. If a boy defies his "manliness", he is labeled gay. What is the difference? Am I right, are girls allowed to get away with more than guys are? Although, on the same note, if the concept of a tom boy was so accepted in today's society, why are girls not allowed to be on men's teams? Why do there have to be separate teams for girls and guys, when it comes to sports?

For my case in point, I will use one of my own irritating assumptions. I have thought that Ryan Seacrest was less than manly since American Idol started. He is a small man, a metrosexual, and does not seem like the type to kick back with the boys with a tackle game of football. Simon even makes fun of him for it on the show. Does this mean he is gay? I know I have questioned it quite a few times. But why? Is it because Ryan does not fit the image of man that the media has shaped for me? I don't see anything wrong with a guy that likes to look nice, but if he is obsessive, then something is wrong. It bothers me that I think this way, but I feel like its something that has been so drilled into my head. I'm not the only one who thinks this way. He has been questioned on this numerous times. I googled this and got 626 thousand hits. What is it about him? He's had girlfriends and even then the rumors are flying. Is Ryan Seacrest gay? I'm going to try to stop making my own assumptions and just wait and see.

A Rare Ideal?

"Information and ideas from the media do not merely reflect the social world, then, but contribute to its shape, and are central to modern reflexivity".

That quote comes from the book Media, Gender and Identity, by David Gauntlett. In the chapter on identity, Gauntlett spends a chapter exploring the ideas of Anthony Giddens about the impact media truly has on the public as a whole. Giddens talks a lot about the individual and the impact media, more specifically social forces, has on each person in their relationships; personal, professional, acquaintances. In the quote above, Gauntlett is saying that what the media puts out to the public does not just mirror society, but adds to it. So media impacts society and society impacts media. Hm.

Going deeper, Gauntlett gives an example of how the media and society have changed the way individuals view and treat relationships. He talks about the high divorce rate, the idea that you should be with someone until they drive you crazy, then divorce them and move on to the next person. There is no idea of commitment or monogamy. Going on, he writes "The mass media is also likely to influence individuals perceptions of their relationships. whether in a serious drama or celebrity gossip, the need for "good stories" would always support an emphasis on change in relationships. Since almost nobody on TV remains happily married for a lifetime-whether we're talking about fictional characters or real life public figures- we inevitably recieve a mesage that monangomous heterosexual stablility in at best, a rare-'ideal' which few can expect to achieve (98)". So every time we turn on the TV, we see shows or hear news stories about ever-changing relationships. Many people joke around about how celebrity couples can't stay together but with the divorce rate at the level it is, we are no different than those whose lives are always televised. Seeing marriage and commitment to one person as a "rare-ideal" is only going to push the divorce rates higher, making people believe that they can never achieve a happy life with one person and should keep moving on until they do.

Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey are the perfect example of this celebrity happiness turned bad. They were married for 3 long, blissful years until they simply decided to "part ways". They claimed to both have mutual respect and love for each other until the divorce got ugly. So what went wrong? They were so in love, Nick wrote a song claiming to never stop loving Jessica, they had their lives watched by millions on the show "NewlyWeds" and constantly showed their affection for one another when in public. They were dedicated to one another until it got hard, until rumors of cheating came up. So instead of trying to work it out, they accepted the fact that they'd never be happy together and ended things. Now Nick is with Vanessa Minillo (after numerous rumors of other women) and Jessica is finally (after a few bad relationships) settled with Tony Romo. Are these relationships going to work or are they going to be good until life starts getting to be too much? These are the stories we hear about, the doomed relationships. We never hear about the couples who are celebrating 10 years (a feat for a Hollywood couple). They are out there too, but somehow rarely mentioned. Our priorities are skewed and until we see pure healthly relationships in the media, our own relationships will continue to suffer.

Gender Correct?

Media has to change with the times. Back in the earlier days, gender representations upheld the the stereotypical male female roles. Males were strong, powerful and women were nurturing, and somewhat weak. Times have changed and the roles in the media obviously have to change to keep up with the trends. While it still has areas to work on, at least the genders are more diverse than the once black and white roles portrayed.

I loved the quote in David Gauntlett's Media, Gender and Identity about this change: "But in the past ten or fifteen years, things have been changing quite considerably. Men and women are seen working side by side, as equals, in hospitals, schools and police stations of television land. Movie producers are wary of having women as screaming victims, and have realized that kcik-ass herioines do better business. Advertisers have by now realized that audiences will only laugh at images of the pretty housewife, and have reacted by showing women how to be sexy at work instead. Gay characters have slowly started to be more prominent on TV and in the movies, and discussions the rights of marginalised groups have also surfaced within popular culture" (56).

Writers, producers, companies and others are taking note of this ever changing idea of gender and are doing all they can to keep up with it. As I read the first few pages of the chapter, an example of this immediately came to mind and then it was actually mentioned within the chapter.

Friends was one of the first shows to redefine what it means to be male and female in modern society. There are 6 main characters; 3 male, 3 female. All have typical stereotypical traits of their gender but also possess some non-gender like qualities as well:

Ross:

job: palentologist.

male qualities: strong, responsible, intellectual, good job, decent amount of money

feminine qualities: tenderness, nurturing, sensitive.

Rachel:

job:waitress for first few years until decides she wants a "real" job and goes to work for department store as an assistant buyer.

feminine qulaities: beautiful, vain, ditzy, interdependant.

masculine qualities: strong, strong willed.

Joey:

job: actor

masculine qualities: physically strong, "chick magnet".

feminine qualities: sensitive, interdependant, weak emotionally.

Phoebe:

job: masseuse/musician

feminine qualities: sensual, flirtatious, always looking for a man.

masculine qualities: intimidating, strong.

Chandler:

job: accounting

masculine qualities: independant, responsible (somewhat), prestigous job.

feminine qualities: physically weak, sensitivity, interdependant.

Monica:

job: chef (sometimes seen as a masculine position)

feminine qualities: beautiful, sensitive, emotional.

masculine qualities: competitive, physically strong.

All the qualities I listed above could be male or female. Where we run into problems is when qualities or aspects of a person get categorized as strictly one gender or another. When we expect a certain quality to be present in a person of a certain gender and it is not, or vice versa, we can get uncomfortable, confused and possibly question that person's solidness in their individual gender.

Feminism

Whenever I hear the word "feminist", I cringe. Not because I have any problem with women standing up for themselves. Not because I don't think women needed to be treated better than they are. I cringe simply because I have encountered many feminists that have taken it too far. Girl power is one thing but when women hate all men because of the choices of some, that aggravates me. Its true that women in our society are definitely not always appreciated but being angry and hating all men does nothing to help our cause.

In the article Feminist Perspectives on the Media, Zoonen talks about the impact that feminism has on the various portrayals of women in TV, movies, magazines, etc. One sentence in the article that stood out was "Radical feminist strategies inevitably condemn women to a marginal position: they will be either oppressed suffering from false consciousness within patriarchal society which is supposed to be beyond reform. Or they choose to step out of patriarchal society being free and true to their naturebut remaining isolated and marginal, as for instance the lifecycle of radical feminist media illustrates" (Zoonen, 41). If women go to either extreme, they are oppressed and isolated. Who wants that? How do we fix these problems?

Truth is that women are absolutely portrayed as less than what they are worth. There is absolute pressure put on women by the media to look, act and dress in a certain way. I agree that it neeeds to be stopped. But what about the way men are viewed/treated in the media? Men are objectified as well. Men are also sometimes seen as stupid and unable to make their own decisions. Who is speaking up for them? Why are men not making a bigger deal out of it?

I don't see anything wrong with women sticking up for themselves. I think that we need to do it, but not at the risk of alienating ourselves from the men. We need to find a mutual respect for each other and then make it translate into the media. When someone is so extreme, they end up being almost ostrasized. They are labeled and everyone knows that label and will judge them for that before they even meet them.

Media definitely plays up the feminist stereotype. They go to the extremes to make fun of women who stick up for themselves and other women. The best example of this that I found was in the movie Shrek 3. When the kingdom is in danger of being overthrown, the ladies take matters into their own hands. Fiona decides that from now on, they will be handling things since the men in their lives were not helping whatsoever. At that moment, the princesses all rip off parts of their dresses, burn their bras, apply war paint and look anything but princess-like. This is a clear picture of what a stereotypical feminist looks like-extreme. Obviously not all women who call themselves feminists fit that mold. While it was stereotyping, I found it to be a funny, accurate (of assumptions), creative portrayal that fit in with the movie quite well.

Cosmo Crazy?

Redbook. Cosmo. Vogue. O. Women's Day. Lucky. Jane. Seventeen. Ladies' Home Journal. Self.

There are countless mangazines for women today. Magazines for all types of women's interests: sports, politics, fashion, makeup, sex, gardening, men, etc. You name it, there is probably at least 4 magazines for it. Out of all these magazines, the ones that push themself to the forefront are Cosmopolitan (or CosmoGirl- for a younger audience) and Vogue. These magazines are full of pictures and articles pushing women to be more sexy, to find a great career, and to get with the right man. They are extremely popular which is not surprising, considering the impressions media makes on us that they are the truth of what life is like. In her article "The Symbolic Annihilation of Women by the Mass Media", Gaye Tuchman examines the messages of magzines from the past with the messages of today. Neither is flattering. She talks about the magazines from the 1950's, where within them she found four roles that women fall into "single and looking for a husband, housewife-mother, spinster, and widowed or divorced-soon to remarry. All the women were defined by the men in their lives, or by their absence" (Tuchman, 19). In the 1950's women were defined by men. In the present day, women are defined by their men, appearance or sex appeal.

In another class, we discussed this issue and our professor gave us a sample from a women's magazine entitled "The Good Wife's Guide" from the 50's. I found it again online, and here is a brief excerpt (full article in link below):

Dated 1955, these tips are taken from Housekeeping Monthly and were headed "The Good Wife's Guide".

Prepare yourself. Take 15 minutes to rest so you'll be refreshed when he arrives. Touch up your make-up, put a ribbon in your hair and be fresh looking.

Be a little gay and a little more interesting for him. His boring day may need a lift and one of your duties is to provide it.

Over the cooler months of the year you should prepare and light a fire for him to unwind by. After all, catering for his comfort will provide you with immense personal satisfaction.

Prepare the children. Take a few minutes to wash their hands and faces, comb their hair and, if necessary, change their clothes. They are little treasures and he would like to see them playing the part. Minimise all noise. At the time of his arrival, eliminate all noise of the washer, dryer or vacuum. Try to encourage the children to be quiet.

Today's magazine articles, (taken from cosmopolitan.com) include titles such as:

10 Reasons to Watch Football
No matter which team you’re rooting for, there are hotties all over the field. Wearing tights. Need more proof? Check out these pics of our favorite men in uniform.

Cosmos' Secrets about Scent and Seduction

The Big Ring: Does Size Suddenly Matter More? Cosmo investigates the practice of putting price on love.

While there is a definite difference between the past and present (you don't often see articles about having all noises stopped when your husband gets home), there are also many common themes of how to get a man, and then keep him happy (with appearance and sex appeal). Maybe things have not changed as much as we think they have. Maybe deep down, the concept is all the same, its just the execution that is now different.

sources:

http://www.indusladies.com/forums/snippets-of-life/31164-being-good-wife-excerpt-housekeeping.html

www.cosmopolitan.com

What happened to June Cleaver?

Looking back through the years of TV, movies, magazines and books, roles of men versus women have dramatically changed. Back in the 50's, women were viewed as beautiful, submissive housewives. They spent their days cleaning the house, tending to the children and baking pies, without breaking a sweat, while eagerly anticipating their husband's arrival home from work. June Cleaver, from Leave It to Beaver, was the picture of the ultimate housewife: loving, dedicated, constantly catering to her husband, hardworking, not a hair out of place. The women's place was in the home. The man's place was at work, making the money to provide for his family. He was the head of his house, the king of his castle. While he loved his children, it was the mother's role to tend to them and if he was absolutely needed to hand out punishment, he was called on. This portrayal, while it seems to be exaggerated, was typical of families at this time. As time went on, the media seemed to follow the perceptions within TV, movies and books.

Familes have changed drastically since the 1950's. Men and women have changed drastically as well. In his book, Media, Gender and Identity, David Gauntlett examines the differences between men and women from the past into the present within the realms of magazines, movies, advertising and TV. Where women used to be viewed as the quiet, submissive but elegantly beautiful, they are now seen as independant sex objects. A quote from Janice Winship, Inside Women's Magazines: "Cosmopolitan is aware firstly, that being a woman involves constantly adjusting one's own image to fit time and place in an ever changing game of images; and secondly, that 'real life' is constantly thought through dream images" (Gauntlett, 54). Women today have it ten times harder than they used to. All the images and messages that get thrown at them daily tell them they have to look, act and dress a certain way to be a woman in today's society. Just wanting to be a stay at home mom is no longer a widely accpeted job. Women are seen as throwing away their education and lives if they choose to remain at home to raise their children.

Views of men through the years have not changed as much as women's have. Men were and are still often seen as the stronger gender. They are the ones who should make the most money, be the strongest physically and have a job that is the epitomy of masculinity. While that is still often true for men, some men are defying that stereotype. There are males in typically seen as female roles, there are men who are classified as 'feminine" due to ways of dress and mannerisms and shocker of all shockers there are actually men who have a desire to stay at home with their children while their wives go off to work. These men are often seen as less than a man for choosing these feminine paths. While it is still somewhat of a shock, it is becoming more of a norm.

The best example I can think of to describe the change between the time of the Cleavers to the present is one of my absolute favorite TV shows from the 90's, Full House. For those of you who have never seen it, Full House is the story of three guys (yes guys) left to raise three little girls after their mother dies in a car crash. The mother is never seen in the show, it opens a short time after her death. The three guys are Danny (dad), Joey (best friend of Danny) and Jesse (uncle and best friend). The three girls are pretty young so this is a huge undertaking. All three guys have careers- talk show host, stand up comedian and musician, but all make the sacrifices and efforts needed to raise these girls in a loving, stable but fun environment. Throughout the seven years of the show, Danny Jesse and Joey are the ones who go through it all with the girls--kindergarten, bullies, first date, broken hearts, prom, etc. Being raised by three guys brings an interesting dynamic, especially as the girls get older and all of the guys realize that. They never deny that a mother plays an important part in a girl's life, but do all they can to try to make up for it. Full House is one of the first shows of its kind to have the male parent doing the raising, without a woman's help. I love that show for many reasons, but one of them is that it shows that guys are just as capable of being the girl scout's leaders, baking brownies, shopping for dresses, and giving advice as women are. Like the opening line of the theme song, 'whatever happened to predictability"? The foundation of Full House is anything but predictable and it was liked that way.

Too Much Information?

How much of what you know and believe about the world has been influenced by things you have read, heard or watched?

In his book, Media, Gender and Identity, David Gauntlett explores the fascinating concept of media being a key componet in our impressions of daily life. In one of his opening paragraphs he says "In modern societies, people typically consume many hours of television each week, look at magazines and other publications, surf the Internet, pass billboards, go to the movies, and are generally unable to avoid popular culture and advertising. In the most obvious example, people in Europe and the USA spend three or four hours per day watching TV. That's a lot of information going into people's heads-- even if they don't see it as "information", and even if they say they're not really paying much attention to it" (Gauntlett, 2). I love that quote because it sums up the overall attitude that we hold today. We absorb all this and then do not even acknowledge it as anything but entertainment. I guess I never thought about all that I ingest from the media as information. How many of my views have been influenced by the shows I have watched, the websites I browse, or the articles I read? I would venture to say that its a big influence, for good or bad.

The chapter goes on to talk about the impact (positive or negative) media has on the way women, marriage, masculinity, femininity and sexual identity. Most fascinating to me was the section on gays/lesbians. Gauntlett admits that these still face great prejudice, but there is an overwhelming sense that these groups are becoming more accepted as time goes on.

The best example of this that I can think of involves Rosie O'Donnell and Ellen. Rosie and Ellen are both very vocal about their homosexual lifestyles, yet Ellen has more of a fan base. Rosie used to have a talk show, back in the 90's. It was a favorite of mine, I'd watch it everyday after school. Her show included interviews with top celebrities, prizes galore, helping the less fortunate, great on location shows, and fun fun fun. She had Christmas shows, held fundrasiers for charities and gave a great deal to help others. In 2002, Rosie came out, acknowledging herself as a lesbian. Her show ended that same year. Before this confession, Rosie was a beloved celebrity. In the years that followed, up to the present, did she maintain this image? I'd dare say that she did not, in fact, I might even say she went in the opposite direction. Rosie is no longer the happy, fun loving celebrity that everyone loves; instead she is the angry, bitter one who likes to start trouble. Everytime she is on the news, its usually because she is involved in some argument or has done something controversial. Is this really the way Rosie is or has the media just painted her in this way since she came out?

Look at Ellen DeGeneres. Ellen is also a lesbian, an activist and a big name in the media. Her talk show has started a year after Rosie's ended. The show not only took off, but has won countless awards. Ellen's image in the media is so positive, she is admired and respected by many. She just married longtime girlfriend Porsche, and there was an overwhelming wave of support from the public. What is the difference between the two women? Does the fact that they are lesbians factor into their approval ratings or is it their overall attitudes? I honestly do not know. For me personally, I love Ellen. I watch her show often and think she does a great deal to help people in need. I see Rosie pretty negatively, which is so interesting, considering that I used to look at her as I do Ellen now. What played into this change of heart? I think that its the attitudes that have affected my positive or negative outlooks on these two.

Gauntlett further argues, in chapter 2, that the culture industry 'impedes development of autonomous, indepedent individuals who judge and decide conciously for themselves" (Gauntlett, 22). That is a powerful statement. That is basically saying that all of us so called "individuals" are trained to think in the way the media perscribes. That is unsettling. I'd like to think that it isn't true, but I do see some truth in it. I think that the views we hold can be conditioned by what groups we are apart of. I'm interested to hear what everyone thinks of that statement...are we all really just media's robots in terms of our thinking??

Can you tell me how to get to Sesame Street?

Growing up, I loved Sesame Street, Strawberry Shortcake and My Little Pony. Not only did I watch the TV shows regularly, but I also had toys from each of the shows. Whenever one of the shows were on, I would have the matching toy by my side, playing along with whatever the characters were up to that day. Everytime we went to a toy store, I would immediately go for the toys I saw come to life on TV. My all time favorite doll was Betty Lou from Sesame Street (does anyone remember her?). She and I would re-inact the day to day happenings on the show, having endless hours of fun.

"The American television industry, for instance, connects with other large industries, especially advertising companies but also national and multinational corporations that produce, distribute, and market a wide range of commodities . So, for example, commericial TV networks no longer buy original children's television shows. Network executives only want new program ideas associated with sucessful retail products already marketed to children. By late 1990 more than 20 toy based TV shows appeared on American commerical TV weekly" (DH, 63).

Think about that. That is so smart. Kids love toys that go along with their favorite TV shows. That's why Buzz Lightyear, Dora the Explorer and Bob the Builder were such big sellers, both on TV and in merchandise. Networks know they can make a killing by focusing on the demographic and tempting them with the latest toy of their favorite character. Kids love toys. Kids do not realize how much these toys cost. When they see one of these toys they beg their parents for it. If they don't get it, its probable that a temper tantrum will take place. Then what do the parents do? If they are anything like some parents I know, they will buy the toy to stop the crying. Its an ingenuis strategy, but one I will have to be careful of when I am a parent. Think of the sucess of these shows, and consider the absolute wealth their manufacturers must be enjoying. I know it brought me joy as a kid, who knows how much money those companies made off of me!

Ideologies and Power

Sucess. Wealth. Fame. Best looking significant other. College degree. Justin Timberlake. Disney Channel. Hamburgers. McDonalds. Ultimate Happiness.

When I thought of the American culture, the words above almost immediately popped into my head. But when I really stop to think about it, these characteristics can describe pieces of other cultures around the world. Why is that? Its because the American dream has spread to the farthest regions. People all over the world are trying to live up to the standard that Americans have set forth. Why are we not imitating European culture, or better yet, why don't cultures just stick with the traditions, customs and likes of its own land? America has become the dominant culture and with that, has spread our culture to the whole world. We uphold that our way of life and our dreams are the ones of true importance and everyone else should simply model their lives after ours. I have traveled to Mexico quite a few times on missions trips and have seen some of the poorest of the poor wearing the latest American fashion. They idolize us as Americans. Our church also frequently visits an orphanage in Haiti and before we arrive, we recieve letters begging for ipods, footballs and skateboards. One letter in particular mentioned that we should bring enough ipods for all the kids because we could afford it as rich Americans. Other parts of this world see America as a solely rich nation with everything and anything at our disposal. They also see us as happy because of all the stuff we have. Not everyone in America is happy. Not everyone in America is rich. Not everyone can achieve the American dream. I know I don't care to. I want to be enjoy my job, I want to get married and have a family, and I want to be financially stable. But I have seen people who have achieved the American dream and they are some of the most unhappy people I have ever met. Think about that. They have money, success, love and still they are unhappy. Hmm.

One of the best examples of this appeared on 60 minutes not too long ago. Tom Brady, quarterback of the New England Patriots, has acheived ultimate success. He is one of the best football players in the NFL, he has a beautiful girlfriend, more money than he needs and still, when he sat down with 60 minutes to do an inteview, he was questioning. “Why do I have three Super Bowl rings and still think there's something greater out there for me? I mean, maybe a lot of people would say, ‘Hey man, this is what is.’ I reached my goal, my dream, my life. Me, I think, ‘God, it's got to be more than this.’ I mean this isn't, this can't be what it's all cracked up to be.” What's the answer? “I wish I knew. I wish I knew,” says Brady. "I love playing football and I love being quarterback for this team. But at the same time, I think there are a lot of other parts about me that I’m trying to find. (cbsnews.com)"

Fulfill American dream. Check. Happiness? I'll let you know. The American culture is seen as the ultimate culture in the eyes of people in other countries and even this one. But is it really what its cracked up to be? I'll let you decide.

Don't get me wrong, I think America is a great country and I feel so blessed to live here. But sometimes I wonder if our priorities are skewed and if we should be taking a lesson from some of the less dominant countries/cultures.

If you want to see the interview or read the article you can find it here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/03/60minutes/main1008148.shtml

P.S. If you havent heard yet, Brady is out for the season and so it'll be interesting to hear what he says during this time off and once it is over. What happens when you have the American dream and its taken away in a matter of seconds?

Following Media's Example

People who claim media does not affect them really bother me. They will be the first to say that they are not influenced whatsoever by things they see in the media, as they tug on their Dunder Mifflin t-shirt and shrug their shoulders saying "whateves". Clearly media has gotten to them a little bit more than they assume. The amount of media that the average person watches is astounding. I found a website that had a bunch of different statistics: http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html So from all those hours of TV, not to mention all the internet thrown in, the media definitely has a powerful influence in our lives. With numbers that high, how could we not be affected by the media? Every time we sit down in front of a TV, computeror video game, we are being fed images of pop culture. How can those images and stereotypes not impact the way we look at the world?


Most of the time, this media influence is not harmful. Its not great to have so much of it infiltrating daily life, but it alone can't kill you. Its when people, kids specifically, get so entranced by the stuff they see, and expect to be able to imitate it. There have been countless examples of kids copying violent moves they saw in movies or video. One tragic case in particular ended in the death of a young girl (full story below). The boy threw the girl on the ground in a body slam move and then proceeded to beat her, not once thinking about the consequences"During the trial, the defense argued that the 170-pound boy did not mean to kill the 48-pound girl and thought he could body-slam people and they would walk away unhurt, just like his wrestling idols on television". The problem is that people can't separate the difference between whats in the media and in real life. Two pro-wrestlers can easily throw each other around without hurting the other too severely. A teenage boy cannot do the same to a 12 year old and expect the same outcome. We need to be so careful at what we're taking in, especially when we're comparing it to our own world.




http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/03/09/national/main277536.shtml

The Happiest Company on Earth??

Disney movies were a staple in my childhood. Some of my favorite memories include singing A Whole New World as loud and obnoxious as possible, watching Cinderella over and over until the tape broke, and laughing at Timon and Pumba's jokes. My top favorite family vacation was the year we went to Disney World and I got to meet Cinderella. My sheets on my bed were Little Mermaid and everytime I went to sleep, it was like I was "under the sea". I was a Disney obsessed child. My parents loved it too because they were safe, happy movies. I have often commented that I will have a collection of Disney classics for my kids because they are safer than the crap that is out there now. Well, maybe not. After reading the article "Are Disney Movies Good for your Kids"?, I'm thinking they are not as safe as I remember. There have been many issues raised in the past concerning Disney being prejudiced. In the article, Giroux cites Aladdin as one movie that this controversy is present in. He talks about the opening song which says:



"Oh I come from a land, from a faraway place

Where the caravan camels roam

Where they cut off your ear, if they don't like your face

Its barbaric, but hey, its home".



How many times did I listen to this song? How many times did I sing along? Did I even stop to think about what they are saying? I know I didn't when I was younger, and I know I didn't until I read this article. Aladdin is not the only movie this takes place. The article cites a couple others. My friends and I, the kids I babysit for, my cousins, etc. watched these movies again and again. What kind of stereotypes were presented to us that we use today?

Disney continues to reinvent old classics and put a new twist on them. One movie I am thinking of in particular is Cinderella, the people version starring Brandy. It is the beloved tale only with a modern look and better vocals. The cartoon Cinderella, and even the previous people version starring Leslie Ann Warren, portrayed all white characters. This version has an extremely diverse cast. Cinderella, the fairy godmother, the queen and one stepsister are African American. The Prince is Asian, and the king, stepmother and stepsister are white. The ball consists of people of many different races (see video clip). Why this change? Isn't this the Disney that portrayed Middle Easterners as barbaric? Modern Disney movies seem to all posess this change and include widely diverse people: races, weights, personalities. Not everyone is from one mold. So is Disney regretting their decisions in years past? One can hope.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cg5WtJnXye8

Is it bad that I still really love these movies??!

Fake Reality

Blondes, African Americans, college students, Christians, women. As you look through these, how many stereotypes pop into your mind? Where did you get these stereotypes from? It could be from the media, from your family, from friends, or from your town. We hear these categories and make assumptions about the people in these groups. What about the people who don't measure up to those assumptions? Stereotypes try to make people and their characteristics simply black and white, but in reality, people are so diverse, even within their "ingroups". In the article by Richard Dyer, "The Role of Stereotypes", Dyer points out that while stereotypes try to keep things cut and dry, reality argues that groups and characteristics of those groups are a lot more fluid than realized. He also talks about who we are, what groups we are in, and what characteristics of those groups we want portrayed to the greater public, and which characteristics we want to defy. Stereotypes do not portray reality. They portray bits and pieces of reality but twist them into a combination of characteristics everyone in the group is assumed to have, which would make them complete replicas of each other. Reality is not so cut and dry. People who are apart of the same group do have common traits, but also bring unique characteristics to make them who they are individually.

At Gloucester High in Gloucester MA, there was an outbreak of pregnant girls by the end of the 2008 school year. 17 girls, all between 14-16 were expecting babies around the same time (link to story below). It became an extremely hot news story and everyone began throwing their opinion around. Opinions not only about the cause of this extremely high number, but opinions of the girls themselves. As a group, teenage, unwed mothers have a stereotype attached to them: irresponsible, stupid, immature, didn't think this through, will regret it, throwing their lives away, etc. So when this news came out, everyone assumed that every single one of these girls fir that description. Then stories began emerging about girls getting help and being prepared for these babies. Some talked about their plans to finish school even with a baby and the importance their education did have. Some shared about their families dedication to help make this situation work. There were obviously some within that group who were not being responsible about it, but there were more that were. The stereotype of a teenage mom was thrust on them, and many of them defied it. While they may have had some characteristics, all of them approached this pregnancy in a different and unique way making them individuals within this group.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1815845,00.html

Stronger than We Realize

If someone were to ask us if we are prejudiced, our immediate answer would be "NO!". No one wants to be portrayed as having biases against people, especially people different than ourselves. If we really stop and think about it though, each of us see people and situations in terms of stereotypes, whether or not we realize it. In his article "Considerations of Media Effects", Bradley W. Gorham discusses how ingrained these stereotypes are in us and how we use them daily, sometimes without even noticing it. We have these pre-determined biases because of the media and their portrayal of races and gender. We even use stereotypes to determine what someone will be like before we meet them, based on their appearance or background. He talks about how news media usually broadcast stories about black men that portray them as dangerous, further cementing that stereotype. He also discusses the concept of "ingroups" and "outgroups". Ingroups are the groups we feel we belong to. For example, some of my ingroups are female, college student, and Christian. Those are the circles I belong to, the circles I feel most comfortable in. Outgroups is anyone who we don't feel like we can relate to at all. It was argued that we attribute good qualities to our ingroups, and assign bad attributes to our outgroups. These characteristics may or may not be true, but we have them based on our feelings towards the groups. Media has developed these stereotypes and reinforced them over and over, making them widely known. We often use stereotypes daily without even realizing it because they are so deeply established .

The movie Mean Girls is a somewhat exaggerated but also somewhat accurate portrayal of high school and the trials, heartbreak and ignorance that accompanies that time of life. The entire movie is based on stereotypes of kids in highschool: the jocks, the popular girls, the geeks, the artsy kids. One part of the movie jumped out at me as I thought about how we use stereotypes to determine what someone is like before meeting them. We use stereotypes to assume what they will look like, how they will act, even what they'll be dressed like. In case someone hasn't seen Mean Girls, here is a brief summary: Cady is a former homeschooler (coming from Africa where her mom and dad were research zoolologists) who enters highschool and has to learn how to navigate herself through new ways of doing things, cliques and cute guys. In one of the opening scenes, the principal enters the classroom to notify the teacher of Cady's arrival from Africa, to which the teachers turns to an African American student and welcomes her. Later in the movie, after Cady is introduced to the popular girls and mentions coming from Africa, one of them asks "if you are from Africa, why are you white?". Both of these illustrate previous assumptions held by these women that if someone is from Africa, obviously they will be black. I'm sure neither of them thought too much about it before they demonstrated their held assumption, but it came out as ignorant. That is a commonly held stereotype. What other beliefs did they have about Cady or about people from Africa? And how many of us would have reacted the same way they did?

watch the clips below from the movie (scenes mentioned above are listed by times next to link)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpceLiwn_Pw 3:24

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l-IcOF9f7Y&feature=related 0:43