This article "Arguing Over Images: Native American Mascots and Race" was very interesting and thought provoking for me. Upstate New York, where I grew up, is rich with Native American history and culture. I was, from an early age, inundated with the history of Native Americans in school, at various community functions etc. The team name of the school district I grew up in was the Redmen. I went to school outside my district but still went to sporting events with friends. I think I was in 6th grade when there was uproar from a select few in my small community who had enough. This didn't faze me too much since it wasn't my school but I still read about it in the paper every day. I remember thinking it wasn't a big deal at the time and couldn't really understand why it was a big deal but looking back on it I can't really believe the audacity of ANY team that's named something similar.

This leaves room for so much interpretation, especially for young people. "The arguments over the continued use of American Indian nicknames and symbols have much to teach us about race and media. They remind us of the creativity and situated agency of media consumers." This is a danger whenever any kind of reference to race is used. Everything said in this article is almost so obvious it's ridiculous. It just goes back to the same old thing: a display of how the engrained perpetuation of racism and racial stereotypes are used through even the most superfluous means.

I think this has been the first reading for this class in which I really have not been able to understand where the author is coming from. I actually adore Bell Hooks and can get behind everything she says but I feel that many of her grievances and criticisms belonged, not just to the female black community but were women’s issues. They did not simply apply to black women. On page 71 of the first hand-out listed in the syllabus (sorry Kevin, I can’t bring myself to write out the name) Hooks says, “Often black female models appear in portraits that make them look less like humans and more like mannequins or robots.” This made me stop and think awhile. That’s not just black models, it’s models period. Models, in a high fashion context, are made to seem inhuman on purpose. It makes them more “desirable” to the masses. This is why you see women of ridiculous height and impossible proportion modeling. It’s not an exclusive issue the way Hooks makes it sound.

Hooks goes on to talk about Vanessa Williams who won Miss America and was then subjected to harsh public criticism which eventually resulted in the subsequent loss of her crown. This would have happened to ANY Miss America. Look at the media hell that Carrie Prejean recently went through for her foolish statement about same-sex marriage. She lost her place as Miss California because of it. I do understand what Hooks is trying to convey here but parts of it are lost on me. “Unmasked by a virtuous white public, she assumed (according their standards) the rightful erotic place set aside for black women in the popular imagination.” This sounds incredibly negative. I do understand Hooks concept of an appropriated “place for black women” in media. But it also sounds to me like Hooks is copping out, making the generalization that “a virtuous white public” was just waiting for this woman to fall. I might be completely off-base in these interpretations but I was caught off guard by this reading.

Quality v. Quantity

Acham spends much time discussing Chris Rock and his “observations on black society.” Talking about the notion of a monolithic black society Acham says, “The issue of uplifting the race is a constant concern, because what Rock says is inevitably interpreted by a mainstream audience as representing the entire race, not the specific segment of the society that he focuses his observations on.” I think people see what they choose to see. I have to admit I have been ignorant to the way black people are portrayed in the media in this present day (although we have spent the last few class readings on how they were portrayed in the past). I don’t watch a lot of TV, movies are a different story. In the shows that I do watch, black people are few and far between. On the show Gossip Girl (yes, I used to watch it. Don’t judge me) I can think of one black character throughout the first two seasons. She was a background character, averaging maybe 2-3 lines per episode. She was one of the minions of the constantly changing “Queen Bee” in the show’s tale of Upper East Side high school hierarchy. And she was ALWAYS, always seen beside another character, her Asian counterpart, who played a role identical to her own. That was about the extent of the diversity in that show. I used to be a frequent watcher of Grey’s Anatomy, which cast Asian, Black and Hispanic women in leading roles leading its audience to believe diversity is well-represented. I think Acham is right when she (he?) calls the representation today “uneven.” Today maybe it is not so much the quality of the roles to be cast in, but the under-representation and lack of roles.

Growing up, my brother was obsessed with the show Family Matters. It was on as part of ABC’s TGIF nightly schedule and my brother loved it. Even though I was young at the time, I remember my brother loved the show with such intensity, that if my mother wanted to punish him, she would simply tell him he couldn’t watch it that upcoming week. This never ended well. This was probably my first exposure to “black situation comedy” as Coleman calls it. “(Family Matters) has been similarly criticized for being Black in the physical only. Reflections of Blackness and Black experience are nonexistent in this series, as well as many of the other post-Cosby programs in this era.” I never had anything to compare this show to, it seemed to me like any other sitcom on television but reading Coleman’s reflections now, I suppose it makes sense. Through reading Coleman’s words, I have struggled to recognize where a balance is struck. There are the oppressive and insultingly racist shows that portray black families in an incredibly negative light, or there are shows like Family Matters in which the family is accused of being “too white” and black in color only. But that was awhile ago. Have we as a society achieved a comfortalbe medium since then?

Extreme Confusion

“Why is it that the images of Black people in popular culture and mass media are so often reduced to a racial stereotype? Where did this “Other” as object, as exotic, and as spectacle for public consumption and amusement come from?” Through this quote, Coleman seems to reduce everything that has been going through my head into a few short sentences. For most of my life, I have maintained (not deliberately of course) a child-like ignorance about racism. All I really knew is what I saw and heard about. I went to a private school and most of my peer interaction was with white kids. My friends that were black were very much, like me. I was ignorant to “black culture” and this “other” that Coleman references. I have always felt very hesitant about addressing racial issues in anyway because I was ignorant of them for most of my young life. My mind could never fully wrap itself around the socially perpetuated idea of white people as “better” in any way. From childhood, if we are not taught, we derive our conclusions through what we see and hear. Coleman writes a lot about the various facets of oppression in mass media, the very real manifestation of black stereotypes and the public’s “continued embracing of racist imagery.” I continue to wrestle with this and will not hide behind the two terms which plague me most right now which I cannot confuse with one another: innocence and ignorance. I apologize for not really pertaining to our topic. I'm just trying to stack up the building blocks right now.

Thelma and Louise

The movie Thelma and Louise was not at all what I thought it would be. It proved much deeper and more thought provoking than I had originally anticipated. Of course while extraordinarily unrealistic, I found myself relating to each character in different ways. The bond between these two women was very relatable as I am lucky enough to have several friendships I could compare it to. I feel as though the writers of this movie were determined to paint men in a negative light. Every time they turned around they were being screwed over. Every man, save the detective, was selfish stereotypical male character. Still, it was enjoyable to watch the journey of growth and to see these women empowered through their stint of illegal activity. I think it’s interesting to contrast the way this liberation manifested itself in each woman. In Thelma it was far more obvious primarily because she had been so oppressed by her relationship with her husband so her growth was much less gradual and far more prominent. Louise was far more cautious and practical (or at least tried to be) about everything they did. It took her much longer to get on board with everything Thelma was doing. I liked this movie. I don’t think it’s a movie I want to watch again anytime soon but I appreciate being set straight on the content. I was somewhat disappointed in the ending. I feel as though it fit, but I would have liked to see it end differently.

“Commonly, whiteness is equated with normality and thus becomes invisible so that we do not think it requires attention.” Barker pg 250.

I would like to just take a moment and reflect on this one statement. As we switch gears in our class reading and discussion from gender to race and ethnicity, I find myself reflecting on my own perceptions of race and what the word “white” really means to me personally. The only conclusion I am coming to is not really one I can articulate without much difficulty. It’s really hard for me to admit this but when I used to hear the word white in a racial context I automatically thought: suburbs, picket fence, two car garage, cocker spaniel, smiling family that eats dinner at 7 on the dot every night. In a perfect world we would have no assumptions attained through our own worldview and reality. In a perfect world, the word black would carry no negative connotations. Now to be honest, I’m not sure what I think.

As we dive into the last chapter of Gaunlett we begin reading about “role models.” I began thinking, who do I consider a role model and what exactly constitutes one? Gaunlett walks us through various types of role models, giving specific examples of people, their cultural roles and the way they might affect those who look up to them. I feel as though there are many differing kinds of role models. The term carries various connotations associated with Gaunlett’s definition of “the wholesome role model.” When a public figure who isn’t really all that wholesome still tries to appear as such, it’s to retain a certain image in order to be marketable to a particular demographic.

When pop icons such as Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers come out and tell people they are saving sex for marriage you know it’s because they are trying to convey a certain appeal to young girls/boys with parents who like to hear that sort of thing. Obviously I can’t judge the hearts of Miley Cyrus or the good ol’ Jonas Brothers, but since she was impregnated out of wedlock I have to ask myself when and where Britney’s beliefs fell by the wayside. I find it funny that these “role models” parade around wearing promise rings and vowing they don’t drink, smoke, or have sex in an effort to shine a positive light on abstention. Once they get older and their careers are firmly established, however they back off everything they previously believed and claim that they just want to live normal lives and be their own person. This probably sounds very cynical. I’m aware that even celebrities are human and can’t be held to an infallible standard, but I believe you should practice what you preach. If you have what parents might term “questionable morals”, don’t market yourself as an inspiration to the impressionable masses.

On pages 229-235, there are various excerpts of comments by fans who say that Britney Spears is inspiring because of her “ambition, positive attitude and relentless work ethic.” Wow. When I was young I idolized dead authors like Dickinson, Alcott and Austen. I didn’t really take part in the elementary school boy-band phenomenon (thanks in part to my older brother and sister). In reality, these so called “role models” would be ideal if they actually were in Gauntlett’s words “comforting figures who offer positive-looking examples of how life can be lived.”

In this week’s reading by Deuber-Mankowsky, ‘The Phenomenon of Lara Croft’, Mankowsky wrote, “The only thing distinguishing the main character of Tomb Raider from those of other video games were her sex and improved graphics.” I felt somewhat bothered by Mankowsky’s description of the international fame and glorification of this character. Growing up in a somewhat rural location, much of my adolescence was spent outdoors or buried in books. I never really understood the appeal of video games and the technology that gives them life. This obsession is borderline, no, IS quite disturbing when viewed through Mankowsky’s microscopic lens.
Through researching the contributing social, political, cultural and economic factors, Mankowsky dissects this character with rigorous force. “The problem that Lara Croft poses for feminist theory results from precisely those multiple means we saw celebrated in the opening line of her admirer’s poem: through them Lara has been able to span the gap between men’s sexual fantasies and women’s longing for supernatural agility. More than merely an object of male desire, Lara Croft became the first positive female role model on the computer game market. She opened up the virtual game world to a whole generation of young women and girls.” Okay, I’m on board with the fact that this character is the antithesis of the prototypical video game hero—the muscular, gun-toting ex-military man in combat boots is replaced by a hot girl who kicks ass for the benefit of the good. I believe that the portrayal of Croft as a strong, independent woman is positive, but I don’t know that I would call her as a “positive female role model”. What’s difficult for me to grasp is how a video game character could really be a positive influence on anyone.


This article isn't very well-written but does a good job of communicating the point.

http://www.helium.com/items/233252-role-models-or-eye-candy-the-portrayal-of-female-video-game-characters5

This week’s assigned reading by Jean Kilbourne, “The More You Subtract, the More You Add” disgusted me but it also affirmed that of which I am already highly aware. Kilbourne dives into several manifestations of those clever little messages that seem to pop up every time we see a movie, turn on a television, listen to music, drive by a billboard and the deeper meaning behind them. Eating disorders are something I have to deal with quite a bit and have had a lot of exposure to. I was actively involved in dance from the time I was 7 until I came to college. As a dancer I was reminded CONSTANTLY of how I looked. I spent every afternoon/evening/night dancing in a room full of mirrors. I was constantly craning my body and exhaustively repeating step after step until it was perfect. In addition to that I was surrounded by young girls who had full blown eating disorders. Girls openly exchanged information and tips on purging, starving themselves, the best laxatives to use and so on. Sadly, I never questioned it. I kept my head down during those talks and reminded myself that they were doing what they needed to be the best dancers they could be. It was none of my business. This behavior was for the most part perpetuated by our artistic director who was the driving force behind the attention to our body image. Daily reminders during and after class, she was the voice in our collective young minds that reinforced this type of behavior.

So what does this have to do with advertising and it’s sickening grasp on impressionable little minds that it takes such a large part in shaping? It’s simple. If you’re told the same thing over and over and over and over again you’re going to start to believe it’s true. Only the messages I received were primarily confined to my studio and the life I had there. With advertising, it never seems to end. “Advertising does promote abusive and abnormal attitudes about eating, drinking and thinness. It thus provides fertile soil for these obsessions to take root in and creates a climate of denial in which these diseases flourish,” Kilbourne says. Stop and think about the amount of money in the ad industry….now stop and think about the amount of that money is made of strategically placed ads that are designed to promote and instill feelings of discontent and inadequacy, particularly in our youth.

“Another common criticism of women’s magazines is that they make women feel bad about themselves. Their repetitive celebration of a beauty ‘ideal’ which most women will not be able to match, but which will eat up readers’ time and money – and perhaps good health – if they try, as well as the many pages of advice on how readers can improve their looks, sex skills or personalities, are likely to make some readers feel somewhat inadequate.” This is an excerpt from Gauntlett, chapter 9. Um, duh! Sometimes it seems as though magazines are designed to make women feel bad about themselves (maybe they are). Many women are constantly looking up to the next model or two-bit celeb to try and measure up to a morphed and distorted standard of our society’s definition of “beauty.” Yet the reason the magazine business is in jeopardy right now has nothing to do with the recognition that these standards are ridiculous and unachievable for any normal woman; rather it is because our country is in economic flux. There has been no real revolt against these impossible ideals and as a woman, I don’t see one coming anytime soon.To be perfectly honest, I thoroughly enjoy reading Vogue (the only reason I canceled my subscription is because I’m a broke college student). When I flip through the pages, I realize that real women are not supposed to look like this. In any given monthly issue you can open a Vogue and read about high-powered career women, succeeding in the corporate world, intelligently written articles by various high-ups in the fashion, art, entertainment, and business worlds. But you know all of these women aren’t naturally possessed of flawless skin, perfectly plucked eyebrows and enormous pouty lips; they are not naturally this thin. And herein lies my frustration. How and for what reason DID they get to be 105 pounds? "Clothes look better, in all our eyes, on people who are thin.” Alexandra Shulman said. Shulman has held the position of editor-in-chief at British Vogue since 1992. It is disturbing to me that this issue is not only unresolved but actually encouraged and sometimes demanded by significant decision-makers within the industry. This may seem like the most obvious statement in the world but we do in fact live in a society that has been shaped and molded in a way for each generation to place an increasingly higher value on physical appearance.

"Good girls go to heaven, bad girls go everywhere"

When reading the first piece, ‘Inventing the Cosmo Girl’, the same thing kept jumping out at me and that was the exchange of a kind of misinformation. This article brought up some great points and Brown did phenomenal things for the advancement of women and for helping to change our place in society. I am completely in favor the liberation of women who feel as though their only place in society is next to a man. However, in her attempt to liberate these women and inspire them, did she create something different than what was originally intended? “Brown’s advice spoke to major changes in women’s economic and sexual roles, while also constructing a suggested social identity for her “working girl” readers.”

Playing devil’s advocate here for a minute, there is a section in this reading entitled “The Beautiful Phony”. This took the movement one step further and instead of encouraging women to assert themselves and pursue independence it seems as though Brown was trying to create some other superior being all together. When breaking away from the cultural norm and societal construction, a new brand of working class women began. “Expenditures on clothing, cosmetics, and accessories were presented as necessary investments in the construction of a desirable (and thus saleable) self.” Women were encouraged not to enhance themselves and assert their intellectual equality, but to completely reinvent themselves and their identity. What did this accomplish? Who was this for? These women, ironically enough, were still catering to the whims of men and to add to this it became necessary to reach to a standard of unattainable beauty. And in the quest for social and sexual independence it's trading one illusion for another.

Ignorance at it's finest

This entry is erring a little bit on the side of personal. Aside from the outrageous philosophy and ideals of these women, their gross misrepresentation of feminists, and their blatant (in my opinion) misinterpretation of the Bible, this is something I find myself relating to in a way. Not because I subscribe to any of their views, but because I was raised very conservatively. Women did not lead my church and the female portion of the congregation was made up primarily of housewives/homemakers. In my church, there was a particularly conservative “clique” if you will of people who would probably identify with much of what was said in this documentary.


That being said, the women interviewed for this documentary, like the women I observed in my own church, fail to take into account the way the world has changed and evolved from what it once was. The ideas they purport are to me, sad and deluded. These women behave as if they have no personal worth, no value or confidence in themselves or their abilities beyond staying at home with their families. They believe women shouldn’t lead in the workplace, in politics, or even their own homes. The antiquated idea that men should have a job and provide for their families while their wives cook, clean and rear children holds no water when one considers that females have an equal amount to offer in other aspects of life. Women were created with brains equal to and in some cases, superior to, those of men. Put them to use and accomplishments beyond what any of these short-sighted women think are possible could be achieved.

Ponder this for example: what if women never entered the field of medicine? Perhaps it will be a woman scientist or medical researcher who will discover the cure for cancer. Maintaining that women should do nothing other than remain at home selfishly and effectively reduces and eliminates a large percentage of what could be in the field of the unknown. Limiting themselves only to the goals these women set for themselves does nothing to contribute to a productive and progressive society. This is what these women fail to acknowledge in their self-righteous assessment of the “correct” lifestyle a woman should choose for herself.


http://www.swrb.ab.ca/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm


This is a link to the original essay by John Knox, which the documentary takes it's name from.

While I was growing up, I remember being consistently subjected to televised sports as entertainment during the week and on Sundays, even though my mom wasn’t what you’d technically call a sports enthusiast, however she tolerated and occasionally participated with my dad. Would you ever find him sitting in the living room in rapt attention while she watched one of her romantic comedies? Not likely. In exploring feminine viewpoints and their impact on the media, van Zoonen discusses the idea of a universal standard, based primarily around what is the generally accepted idea of men’s tastes and preferences. She quotes Harding, writing, “in virtually all cultures, whatever is thought of as manly, is more highly valued than whatever is thought of as womanly” (Harding, 1986: 18). Indeed, more often than not, women tolerate and become unwilling participants in traditionally male diversions, where men hardly reciprocate voluntarily and then are eventually forced by the shrill girlfriend or wife to see the latest Jennifer Garner/ Matthew Mcconaughey swill. In an effort to establish credibility and solidify an equal representation in television, the HBO series, Sex and the City turned four women into what was perceived to be the emotional, sexual and psychological equivalent of men. While this type of show was probably long overdue, it was still met with horror by men and women alike. Women were taken aback by the portrayal of women in such open and honest roles and men were indignant that women should behave as badly as they in sexual situations, and even worse, discuss it over coffee the following morning, detailing the inadequacies of their partners with hilarious accuracy. Although this seemed like a win for equality, instead of being viewed favorably as women who were financially independent, intelligent, liberated from traditional sexual expectations, SATC and its stars are commonly written off as “whores who kiss and tell” by critics of both genders. While the amount of sex and frequency of their encounters can be a tad overwhelming, the real-life application of women who remain single well into their thirties while their friends and peers marry and start families largely because they are still waiting for Mr. Right and enjoying themselves along the way is a message that should not be dismissed lightly.

In this chapter, Sex, Subjectivity and Representation, Barker explores sex, gender and the roles of men and women in contemporary societies. It first dictates the various feminist movements and their identifiable details. Barker goes on to explore the various facets of sex and gender and the cultural and social margins they are constructed around. What I got from this chapter is that whether it is biological predestination or through social limits, we are not really given a choice in the beginning. And whether our gender and sexual identity is already inherent in us when we are born is beyond me but I do believe from the moment we are born we are forced into a mold that is very much created for us so that we can adapt and ease into cultural expectation. From the moment we are born we are inundated with expectation and forced ideas about who we should be. Children are put in their respective gender specific themed bedrooms, the little girl is given the Barbie, the boy the race car and that’s pretty much it. Barker says, “Sexual identity is held to be not a universal biological essence but a matter of how femininity and masculinity are spoken about.” It’s not as much about how we are perceived but how we perceive ourselves and the cultural definitions that we cling to.

Here's LOOKING at you, kid.

Gauntlett’s chapter 3, ‘Representations of Gender in the Past’ definitely provoked intriguing thought and little bit of nostalgia. Gauntlett thoroughly details various representations of both men in women in media and the assumed roles they undertook. No matter the genre, the male role was usually some kind of superior physical and/or intellectual specimen. The female opposite was usually the damsel in distress or his comedic counterpart. These clichéd portrayals did not do a very good job of evolving over time. Throughout the decades of evolving technology, media and social definition, the characters on the silver screen retained very gender specific classifications. As an example I’d like to briefly examine the movie Casablanca.

This movie is a classic, loved by generations, and is one of my personal favorites. Three women have lines in this movie. Just three. Gauntlett also talks about the number of female roles in contrast to the number of male characters. These three women can be perfectly summed up in the words: helpless, emotional, dependent etc. Set to take place during WW II, Ingrid Bergman plays the female lead who is torn between two terribly successful, charming men: a) Humphrey Bogart, the alluring expatriate who runs a nightclub and b) her husband, who runs an underground political resistance. She is faced with two options. Staying with Bogart in Casablanca while he runs his bar, or following her husband, living as his support system while he continues in his work. Either option she is catering to the whims of each male lead. In the end she has to be coaxed like a child into getting on the plane with her husband.






Just once I would like to watch Casablanca and see Ingrid Bergmen say, “To hell with both of you.” These characters are all very cut and dry. If she’s not with one guy then she must be with the other. The feminist movement made pretty gigantic strides throughout the mid to late 1900’s. Why did the evolution of women in media not take a significant part in this progress?

"The Dreams That You Wish Will Come True?"

I really don’t think it’s a secret anymore that Disney isn’t what it used to be. This multi-billion dollar empire has taken over the globe and is expanding every day. It has become a multifaceted “entertainment” industry which is no longer channeling its power exclusively toward making youngsters believe that dreams really do come true. It’s now got a pretty tight grip on media in general, owning several major networks, production companies, television stations, not to mention the resorts and theme parks (next time you’re in Tokyo be sure to stop by Tokyo Disney!), let’s not forget the Disney stores and the awesome merchandise you can score there (I’ll give you three guesses at where 99.9% of Disney merch is manufactured) all while churning out its own TV shows and movies. The list could go on and on for a long time. Disney is a filthy, business swallowing, money making machine and they are good at what they do. But enough about what goes on behind the scenes. All the facts evaporate when those faces appear on screen and musical numbers start.

Even if one could get past all of the greed, the commercialism, consumerism that is typical of a multi-media conglomerate, what about what the movies themselves promote? In the article written by Henry Giroux entitled, “Are Disney Movies Good For Your Kids?”, Giroux writes, “Even more disturbing is the widespread belief that Disney’s trademarked innocence renders it unaccountable for the diverse ways in which is shapes the sense of reality it provides for children as they take up particular and often sanitized notions of identity, culture, and history in the seemingly apolitical cultural universe of the Magic Kingdom.” You could pick out almost any animated Disney movie and find very similar plot lines and strangely enough, this repetitive plot never really seems to deviate from the assigned gender roles that have emerged as the norm in Disney films. In the movie Snow White, our female lead is saved first by the hunter who warns her against harm. Fleeing from her “wicked stepmother” Snow White befriends the seven dwarves and sticks around to cook and clean for them, taking on the obvious role of home-maker/ house-wife in exchange for staying there. So while the dwarves leave to work in the mines each day, Snow White stays at home, baking and cleaning etc. Hmmm. Every portrayal of Snow White in this movie reeks of stereotypical female classification. Even the sound of Snow White’s voice when she speaks. It’s exceedingly high pitched, she sounds very timid yet sweet and her vocabulary is brimming with exclamations of “oh!” and “oh my!” You know what I mean. The lyrics to the theme song in Snow White are as follows, “Someday my prince will come, someday we'll meet again, and away to his castle we'll go to be happy forever I know… And wedding bells will ring, some day when my dreams come true.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0niwn2pOEno


I ask you, what does this say to young, impressionable girls??? You’re incomplete until you find Prince Charming? You’re going to be unhappy until he sweeps you off your feet and takes you away to his castle? Who knows. Don’t get me wrong, I was raised watching the old school Disney movies, back when they were good, and they will always have a special place in my heart. But reading this article has really made me examine what kind of positive influence (if any) these movies are having on the youth of today.

In this chapter of the handout, entitled Culture, Meaning and Knowledge, Barker explores language, culture and how they intersect with each other on a daily basis. Barker says, "Languages is the privileged medium in which cultural meanings are formed and communicated. Language is the means and medium through which we form knowledge about ourselves and the social world."

In contemplating language as our vehicle for self expression and explanation, I take measure in how it has evolved both in our daily lives and in the media. Political correctness is a term we've all heard a lot. It is this idea of what is "socially or culturally acceptable" to say in certain settings. I will admit that I sometimes filter what I say depending on where I am, who I am with and in what setting I find myself. Barker presents several theories in this chapter which parallel the concept of language as a "signifier." Foucault presents that idea of regulation and the idea that the meaning changes and is defined and "regulated" by context and situation. I'm not writing this to make a plug for verbal freedom in any and every situation. Sometimes you need to censor what you say depending on audience. But look at our cultural evolution in what is allowed to be said on TV, the radio, the internet, the list goes on. Our language can have a direct effect on perceptions of us when used in the wrong context. Although a little off topic, here is an example of a poor choice of language in a very poor setting making for one very pissed off America.


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

I'd like to start this off by saying I swore I would never start a blog. I know they're useful to a lot of people and I'm not saying I don't read them. I just never considered my opinions important enough to want to send them out into the abyss for other people to comment on and/or judge. If people want to know what I think they can call me. However, since I wasn't really given a choice this semester I decided to dive into this with an optimistic outlook. Let's see if I can retain it throughout the semester.

So for this week's reading Gorham basically held our hands through the definition of the stereotype. Something we're going to be talking about A LOT. Gorham says, "The cultural stereotype seems to play an important role in how we process information about people from various groups regardless of whether we endorse it." In class on Thursday, some of us talked about the various ways that we ourselves are stereotyped everyday, simply because of race, class, maybe even hair color. This caused me to consider the various ways people might look at me and stereotype me ie: put me in a box, form their own idea of who I am based on the smallest type of interaction. There are the obvious ones, gender, race, class etc. However with the anniversary of September 11th coming up I started thinking about one of the components of my identity that could easily fall into certain "categories" or stereotypes and that is my nationality. Americans are perceived a certain way all over the world. You can find differing opinions depending on who you speak to. Lets think about the popular culture side of it. Our music, TV shows, movies and endless celebrity coverage is broadcast all over the world. This says something about our value system as a country.
What does it say about us when we invite Hannah Montana or the Jonas Brothers into our living room's to influence our youth and if nothing else teach them self absorbtion and materialism?




Then on the other hand, we are living with the negative ramifications of President Bush's administration and the harm that has done to our national image. I'm not looking to start a political rant but I can say this man's leadership did not enhance our image as a caring or compassionate country. I don't mean any disloyalty but this sense of disapproval, even hatred, is something I have experienced first hand. You can't dispute that the poor choices of elected officials reflect on us as citizens. Therefore when a wrong step is taken, the blame falls to all of us.




So what does this have to do with how stereotypes are portrayed in the media? I'd like to make this entry about how we portray ourselves. Sometimes people only know what they see. This is why the common perception of Americans is that we all lead glamorous, affluent lifestyles. "Stereotypes clearly don't give us 'the whole picture' of a group, as if such a thing is even possible, and they aren't neutral in their evaluations. Instead stereotypes give us highly edited and distorted images of groups that tend to support the way groups are treated in society," Gorham writes. I realize this post leaves much to be desired and there is a lot of room for push/pull here. This is just something I've been thinking about for a while.