The article "Turning Boys Into Girls", the no side of the issue, is emphasis on body image in the media harmful to females only, was great. I thought that it brought up a lot of great points and I thought that the light tone that it was written in was great. I actually started laughing a little bit when I was reading this.
I think the fact that Cottle says that if women want gender equality we have to make men as obsessed with their looks as women is a great point. I think that it is almost impossible to reverse the affect that advertising and society have on women and I think now that the media, advertisers and beauty products are focusing on men in some very twisted way it begins to level the playing field. I think that in general if we could reverse these effects and somehow prevent our society from being so obsessed with looks the world would be great but I think only in a utopian world could that ever happen.
I think that it is nature as the yes side was saying that people want the most healthy and attractive looking mate and I feel like advertising has taken it to another level by completely exploiting beauty. I don't think that beauty is the problem I think that it is the money driven world that we live in, people want to make money and beauty and beauty products sell. I mean I think that is the problem here, in the no side, Cottle stated that the advertising went up in Men's Health when people figured out that this was an untapped market. Basically the idea is to exploit people's insecurities to make a buck.
I do think that men being obsessed with their looks is generational though, I think that younger men are much more concerned for the most part with their looks than older men. And I think eventually we will live in a society where everyone is so obsessed with their looks, men and women and children to adults. I mean we already see it happening. I think that maybe we just need a little bit more movement to stop this advertising. I do remember seeing this Dove campaign I think it was called Real Women are something like that, and there were all different types of women in the advertising. I thought that it was a great campaign but I think that it is the only major campaign that I've really seen.
I just have a few questions, do you think that it is possible to reverse the effects of advertising on both men and women? How long before men are just as equal to women with their insanity about their looks? What ways to you think that we can attempt to stop this from affecting children?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Nicole's issue 3 response (since I was absent from class..)
Does racial segregation still exist and dominate the media?
I agree with not the side the it does or it doesn’t so much as I believe in how McWhorter comments on the fact that BOGLE seeks out and dissects each possible example of racial presence on television. It seems that a lot of Bogle’s argument was sturdy, but not necessarily altogether race based. He pulled together a great argument for media influence and stereotypes. He just used race as an optional part of the equation. You could have used any group of society and substituted it in to his argument and it would have been just as strong. Consequently, I’m not exactly convinced by Bogle’s argument. His debating skills, yes, not the subject matters though. Also, I saw in the ‘No’ side of the argument (McWhorter) not the argument being particularly strong, however, his inherent attitude came across as a perfect crutch to his argument that race is not abused nor the underlying theme behind all the diversity on TV. McWhorter discussed how as a child, he was raised in front of certain television programs and that even his parents (particularly his mother) were what really helped to determine how he viewed the messages and characters in the shows. That is what I think was the meat of his discussion. Not how the media portrays race and stereotypes, but how we accept them as individuals consuming the program and its’ characters. I think race has little to do with the way that characters are cast in ALL shows. I know that it does shape SOME shows and some programs will use the race card to add more elements and complications to a shows story line, but I do not think that any one race is abused and used in the media for entertainment or story line purposes…but maybe that’s just because that’s how I was raised to view TV programs [and by extension, much of the way I perceived the world I grew up in].
I agree with not the side the it does or it doesn’t so much as I believe in how McWhorter comments on the fact that BOGLE seeks out and dissects each possible example of racial presence on television. It seems that a lot of Bogle’s argument was sturdy, but not necessarily altogether race based. He pulled together a great argument for media influence and stereotypes. He just used race as an optional part of the equation. You could have used any group of society and substituted it in to his argument and it would have been just as strong. Consequently, I’m not exactly convinced by Bogle’s argument. His debating skills, yes, not the subject matters though. Also, I saw in the ‘No’ side of the argument (McWhorter) not the argument being particularly strong, however, his inherent attitude came across as a perfect crutch to his argument that race is not abused nor the underlying theme behind all the diversity on TV. McWhorter discussed how as a child, he was raised in front of certain television programs and that even his parents (particularly his mother) were what really helped to determine how he viewed the messages and characters in the shows. That is what I think was the meat of his discussion. Not how the media portrays race and stereotypes, but how we accept them as individuals consuming the program and its’ characters. I think race has little to do with the way that characters are cast in ALL shows. I know that it does shape SOME shows and some programs will use the race card to add more elements and complications to a shows story line, but I do not think that any one race is abused and used in the media for entertainment or story line purposes…but maybe that’s just because that’s how I was raised to view TV programs [and by extension, much of the way I perceived the world I grew up in].
Nicoleissue 3 response since I was absent from class..
Does racial segregation still exist and dominate the media?
I agree with not the side the it does or it doesn’t so much as I believe in how McWhorter comments on the fact that BOGLE seeks out and dissects each possible example of racial presence on television. It seems that a lot of Bogle’s argument was sturdy, but not necessarily altogether race based. He pulled together a great argument for media influence and stereotypes. He just used race as an optional part of the equation. You could have used any group of society and substituted it in to his argument and it would have been just as strong. Consequently, I’m not exactly convinced by Bogle’s argument. His debating skills, yes, not the subject matters though. Also, I saw in the ‘No’ side of the argument (McWhorter) not the argument being particularly strong, however, his inherent attitude came across as a perfect crutch to his argument that race is not abused nor the underlying theme behind all the diversity on TV. McWhorter discussed how as a child, he was raised in front of certain television programs and that even his parents (particularly his mother) were what really helped to determine how he viewed the messages and characters in the shows. That is what I think was the meat of his discussion. Not how the media portrays race and stereotypes, but how we accept them as individuals consuming the program and its’ characters. I think race has little to do with the way that characters are cast in ALL shows. I know that it does shape SOME shows and some programs will use the race card to add more elements and complications to a shows story line, but I do not think that any one race is abused and used in the media for entertainment or story line purposes…but maybe that’s just because that’s how I was raised to view TV programs [and by extension, much of the way I perceived the world I grew up in].
I agree with not the side the it does or it doesn’t so much as I believe in how McWhorter comments on the fact that BOGLE seeks out and dissects each possible example of racial presence on television. It seems that a lot of Bogle’s argument was sturdy, but not necessarily altogether race based. He pulled together a great argument for media influence and stereotypes. He just used race as an optional part of the equation. You could have used any group of society and substituted it in to his argument and it would have been just as strong. Consequently, I’m not exactly convinced by Bogle’s argument. His debating skills, yes, not the subject matters though. Also, I saw in the ‘No’ side of the argument (McWhorter) not the argument being particularly strong, however, his inherent attitude came across as a perfect crutch to his argument that race is not abused nor the underlying theme behind all the diversity on TV. McWhorter discussed how as a child, he was raised in front of certain television programs and that even his parents (particularly his mother) were what really helped to determine how he viewed the messages and characters in the shows. That is what I think was the meat of his discussion. Not how the media portrays race and stereotypes, but how we accept them as individuals consuming the program and its’ characters. I think race has little to do with the way that characters are cast in ALL shows. I know that it does shape SOME shows and some programs will use the race card to add more elements and complications to a shows story line, but I do not think that any one race is abused and used in the media for entertainment or story line purposes…but maybe that’s just because that’s how I was raised to view TV programs [and by extension, much of the way I perceived the world I grew up in].
Friday, October 5, 2007
How interesting...
Isabelle Rigoni's article on Muslim media bugged me. In fact, it really, really bugged me.
Maybe what I am about to say is only semi-related to the article, but let me start with the article first.
Rigoni talks about the Muslim media in Britain and France, talks a lot about the differences in how they are treated, and then casually mentions how the lobbying power of the French Muslim media is much less than the Britsh muslim media. On page 12-13 of the article, Rigoni talks about the differences in the approaches of the Muslim media in their respective countries to government; the British try to change from within, while the French look for inclusion.
Why is the lobbying power of the media brought up? Perhaps it is because the media today is able to be a proximal cause of personal change for individuals by pressuring the government based on their agenda.
Thomas Jefferson once said:
"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:57
Media is very important to government, but I think that the media of today cannot hide behind Jefferson's notion of the newspaper. I guess what bothers me is the third party agenda. In ancient Rome, Caesar used to print the government news on stone tablets for all to see. Caesar picked the words and on they went to the public tablet.
I'm not advocating for government media, but in today's media, it is very easy for any group to exert its influence. Also, it is very easy for a minority to assert its right and change things using this medium. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but let's add fuel to the fire...
I don't have any desire to read Cosmopolitan. None at all. Let's pretend Cosmopolitan all of the sudden became political with a dash of social change zealotry. They decide that all women should have a Cosmopolitan type dress code for work because that is the "proper way" for a woman to look. They use the magazine to press the issue, other news organizations tuck their tails between their legs (god forbid they stand up for themselves), and the next thing you know, in most media it says that "it is better for a woman to dress like this".
My whole point is now with media anyone can convince anyone that something is true since the point of the view of the argument can be made from any angle with media, thus making the argument always true given the shown circumstance within the media.
Any agenda... anytime.. anywhere. Now that is scary.
Maybe what I am about to say is only semi-related to the article, but let me start with the article first.
Rigoni talks about the Muslim media in Britain and France, talks a lot about the differences in how they are treated, and then casually mentions how the lobbying power of the French Muslim media is much less than the Britsh muslim media. On page 12-13 of the article, Rigoni talks about the differences in the approaches of the Muslim media in their respective countries to government; the British try to change from within, while the French look for inclusion.
Why is the lobbying power of the media brought up? Perhaps it is because the media today is able to be a proximal cause of personal change for individuals by pressuring the government based on their agenda.
Thomas Jefferson once said:
"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:57
Media is very important to government, but I think that the media of today cannot hide behind Jefferson's notion of the newspaper. I guess what bothers me is the third party agenda. In ancient Rome, Caesar used to print the government news on stone tablets for all to see. Caesar picked the words and on they went to the public tablet.
I'm not advocating for government media, but in today's media, it is very easy for any group to exert its influence. Also, it is very easy for a minority to assert its right and change things using this medium. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but let's add fuel to the fire...
I don't have any desire to read Cosmopolitan. None at all. Let's pretend Cosmopolitan all of the sudden became political with a dash of social change zealotry. They decide that all women should have a Cosmopolitan type dress code for work because that is the "proper way" for a woman to look. They use the magazine to press the issue, other news organizations tuck their tails between their legs (god forbid they stand up for themselves), and the next thing you know, in most media it says that "it is better for a woman to dress like this".
My whole point is now with media anyone can convince anyone that something is true since the point of the view of the argument can be made from any angle with media, thus making the argument always true given the shown circumstance within the media.
Any agenda... anytime.. anywhere. Now that is scary.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
A word about racial stereotypes
Is media a reflection of culture or does it take a life of its own and define a culture?
In our readings about African-American stereotypes in the media, the answer seems to be both. Havens points to the international success of The Cosby Show as an example of how the economic progress of African-Americans led to the creation of a show about a black middle class family. Cosby paved the way for a new generation of situation comedies depicting African-American family life. This is an example of how the media reflected changes in our culture.
On the other hand, Havens also points out that Cosby, in turn, had the power to change cultural attitudes. For example, the critics worried that the wildly successful sitcom gave whites the mistaken impression that we no longer had to worry about racism. In addition, according to Havens, The Cosby Show gave hope to black South Africans that they too could achieve economic and social equality.
It seems to me that the way African-Americans are depicted on fictional television has changed over the years. In the beginning, it was a question of whether African-Americans were seen at all. Then there was a period when the majority of depictions of black people were negative and pandered to accepted stereotypes. Today, we have everything from Cliff Huxtable lecturing his son about personal responsibility to gun-toting gangsta rappers.
The images have changed and become more varied, but the central question remains the same: To what extent do media images of minorities impact their ability move up in society? Most interesting is the current debate raging within the African-American community itself: Is gangsta rap an empowering refection of inner city culture--or is it helping to lock this generation of poor African-Americans into a cycle of poverty?
If you are interested, here are two books about this issue:
Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It by Juan Williams
Nuthin' But a "G" Thang: The Culture and Commerce of Gangsta Rap
By Eithne Quinn
In our readings about African-American stereotypes in the media, the answer seems to be both. Havens points to the international success of The Cosby Show as an example of how the economic progress of African-Americans led to the creation of a show about a black middle class family. Cosby paved the way for a new generation of situation comedies depicting African-American family life. This is an example of how the media reflected changes in our culture.
On the other hand, Havens also points out that Cosby, in turn, had the power to change cultural attitudes. For example, the critics worried that the wildly successful sitcom gave whites the mistaken impression that we no longer had to worry about racism. In addition, according to Havens, The Cosby Show gave hope to black South Africans that they too could achieve economic and social equality.
It seems to me that the way African-Americans are depicted on fictional television has changed over the years. In the beginning, it was a question of whether African-Americans were seen at all. Then there was a period when the majority of depictions of black people were negative and pandered to accepted stereotypes. Today, we have everything from Cliff Huxtable lecturing his son about personal responsibility to gun-toting gangsta rappers.
The images have changed and become more varied, but the central question remains the same: To what extent do media images of minorities impact their ability move up in society? Most interesting is the current debate raging within the African-American community itself: Is gangsta rap an empowering refection of inner city culture--or is it helping to lock this generation of poor African-Americans into a cycle of poverty?
If you are interested, here are two books about this issue:
Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It by Juan Williams
Nuthin' But a "G" Thang: The Culture and Commerce of Gangsta Rap
By Eithne Quinn
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
'The Sopranos' and stereotypes (post from Jenna)
http://blog.nj.com/sopranosarchive/2007/06/the_sopranos_and_stereotypes_p.html
I think there are still stereotypes in the media. I agree with the writer of this article that television falls back on stereotypes, rather than challenges them. They still have African Americans playing “thugs” with their baggy pants, being loud-mouthed, on well-fare, etc. They still have Asians as martial arts masters and Latinos as not being able to speak English or as cleaning people, etc. Rarely do you see minorities on shows that are based around white characters. For example the show “Friends” is based in New York City that is vastly diverse in different nationalities, yet none of the main characters had any minority friends. I’m a huge fan of “Friends” and they only had 2 black supporting characters on the show, and 1 was only in 1 episode. The media also stereotypes Caucasians. They have Caucasians as being rich, as “trailer trash,” or Italians as being in the mob. They portray British people as having bad teeth and Irish people as drinking alcohol and hot-tempered.
Take for instance “The Sopranos” and mobster movies like “Goodfellas,” “The Godfather,” and “A Bronx Tale.” All of these have two things in common, they are about the mob and they are about Italians. Mobster shows and movies alike, glorify the mob business as being dangerous, you get to sleep with countless women, and it has nice perks, etc. However, what are these shows telling young audiences (15 and up) who watch these types of media. They see being in the mob as cool and they look up to certain characters because maybe it would be fun to be the “boss” and in charge, and to get away with doing illegal things, and living in a mansion, etc. They even portray African Americans on the show negatively as drug dealers and gang bangers and they call then the “n-word.”
Many Italians aren’t in the mob, but someone people watching “The Sopranos” or mob movies may think all Italians are in the mob, because it seems that’s how they show Italians in the media, which is misconstrued. People may see the mob image associated with Italians because of these types of media. However, not all Italian characters are portrayed as being in the mob, but they do cast them as being degenerates. Take for instance Fonzie on “Happy Days” or John Travolta’s character in the movie “Grease.” Both characters were greasers and got into trouble many times.
I don’t think stereotyping will ever be gone from the media or in the real world, because that is just the way the world is. Media executives know they can make bundles of money out of having stereotypical characters and they know people will watch.
I think there are still stereotypes in the media. I agree with the writer of this article that television falls back on stereotypes, rather than challenges them. They still have African Americans playing “thugs” with their baggy pants, being loud-mouthed, on well-fare, etc. They still have Asians as martial arts masters and Latinos as not being able to speak English or as cleaning people, etc. Rarely do you see minorities on shows that are based around white characters. For example the show “Friends” is based in New York City that is vastly diverse in different nationalities, yet none of the main characters had any minority friends. I’m a huge fan of “Friends” and they only had 2 black supporting characters on the show, and 1 was only in 1 episode. The media also stereotypes Caucasians. They have Caucasians as being rich, as “trailer trash,” or Italians as being in the mob. They portray British people as having bad teeth and Irish people as drinking alcohol and hot-tempered.
Take for instance “The Sopranos” and mobster movies like “Goodfellas,” “The Godfather,” and “A Bronx Tale.” All of these have two things in common, they are about the mob and they are about Italians. Mobster shows and movies alike, glorify the mob business as being dangerous, you get to sleep with countless women, and it has nice perks, etc. However, what are these shows telling young audiences (15 and up) who watch these types of media. They see being in the mob as cool and they look up to certain characters because maybe it would be fun to be the “boss” and in charge, and to get away with doing illegal things, and living in a mansion, etc. They even portray African Americans on the show negatively as drug dealers and gang bangers and they call then the “n-word.”
Many Italians aren’t in the mob, but someone people watching “The Sopranos” or mob movies may think all Italians are in the mob, because it seems that’s how they show Italians in the media, which is misconstrued. People may see the mob image associated with Italians because of these types of media. However, not all Italian characters are portrayed as being in the mob, but they do cast them as being degenerates. Take for instance Fonzie on “Happy Days” or John Travolta’s character in the movie “Grease.” Both characters were greasers and got into trouble many times.
I don’t think stereotyping will ever be gone from the media or in the real world, because that is just the way the world is. Media executives know they can make bundles of money out of having stereotypical characters and they know people will watch.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Polish stereotypes on television
Comment on "Image, status, mobility, and integration in American society: the Polish experience"
I’m old enough to remember the Barney Miller show—it was one of my favorites. If you are interested in how Det. Stan 'Wojo' Wojciehowicz is portrayed, watch the episodes “The Courtesans” Parts 2 and 3.
http://www.searchforvideo.com/entertainment/tv/barney-miller/
* for you younger folks, that strange device Wojo is using is a typewriter! ;)
The character of “Wojo” was not portrayed as generally stupid, but he was stupid about relationships. And the African-American character, Detective Harris, whom Pula describes as “impeccably dressed” and “articulate”, was also a snob. Yamana, the Japanese-American detective, bet on horses. Deitrick, the German-American, got himself into a couple of scrapes because of his ultra-liberal political views and often alienated himself from “the regular guys” by his constant philosophizing.
My point is that each of the characters had a personal quirk. With Wojo, it was women. He just couldn’t get enough of them. As a young viewer, (this was the seventies and I watched it as a teenager) it never occurred to me to associate that weakness with the fact that he was Polish… to me, he was just a guy with a long name who had a lot girlfriends, some of whom were downright flaky.
But if you are Polish and have had to listen to a lot of insensitive Polish jokes, I can understand why you might take offense at the character. I was a public school teacher for ten years, and I cringe at the stereotypical teacher characters on kids’ shows. Most of them are prissy, clueless, and don’t like kids very much. To me, most of these portrayals aren’t all that funny, but kids find them hilarious.
The mispronunciation of Wojciehowicz's last name was a running gag on the show, but the people who mangled it more than once were portrayed as stupid and insensitive.
Wojo himself was a complex character. He was also honest, hardworking, sincere, and a male chauvinist. In one episode he offers asylum to a Russian immigrant who sought refuge from communism. In another, he deals with the knowledge that he was exposed to Agent Orange during his tour as a soldier in Vietnam.
How we see media characters depends on our past experiences. If your only experience with a certain ethnic group comes from mostly negative portrayals in the media, I think it can impact how you think of that group.
I’m old enough to remember the Barney Miller show—it was one of my favorites. If you are interested in how Det. Stan 'Wojo' Wojciehowicz is portrayed, watch the episodes “The Courtesans” Parts 2 and 3.
http://www.searchforvideo.com/entertainment/tv/barney-miller/
* for you younger folks, that strange device Wojo is using is a typewriter! ;)
The character of “Wojo” was not portrayed as generally stupid, but he was stupid about relationships. And the African-American character, Detective Harris, whom Pula describes as “impeccably dressed” and “articulate”, was also a snob. Yamana, the Japanese-American detective, bet on horses. Deitrick, the German-American, got himself into a couple of scrapes because of his ultra-liberal political views and often alienated himself from “the regular guys” by his constant philosophizing.
My point is that each of the characters had a personal quirk. With Wojo, it was women. He just couldn’t get enough of them. As a young viewer, (this was the seventies and I watched it as a teenager) it never occurred to me to associate that weakness with the fact that he was Polish… to me, he was just a guy with a long name who had a lot girlfriends, some of whom were downright flaky.
But if you are Polish and have had to listen to a lot of insensitive Polish jokes, I can understand why you might take offense at the character. I was a public school teacher for ten years, and I cringe at the stereotypical teacher characters on kids’ shows. Most of them are prissy, clueless, and don’t like kids very much. To me, most of these portrayals aren’t all that funny, but kids find them hilarious.
The mispronunciation of Wojciehowicz's last name was a running gag on the show, but the people who mangled it more than once were portrayed as stupid and insensitive.
Wojo himself was a complex character. He was also honest, hardworking, sincere, and a male chauvinist. In one episode he offers asylum to a Russian immigrant who sought refuge from communism. In another, he deals with the knowledge that he was exposed to Agent Orange during his tour as a soldier in Vietnam.
How we see media characters depends on our past experiences. If your only experience with a certain ethnic group comes from mostly negative portrayals in the media, I think it can impact how you think of that group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)