Sunday, May 17, 2009

Comics in America

Comic books are a part of the media that are not discussed as much as other sources, such as television or movies. This needs to be changed considering that most directors when asked about their childhood will tell you they loved Batman, Superman, Captain America and many others. When we discuss how the media suppresses or supports certain depictions of class and race, we need to look at the inspiration that the creators of our media world had. Being that a white male is the most visible social group in our culture, it is no surprise that white men are the most represented in comic books. Nearly every comic book features a white man as the hero. First, one must understand the appeal of comic books to understand why they are important to media analysis. A 17 year old male comic enthusiast stated, “comic books let the reader escape into a world, where the reader can get the girl and save the world,” (Ryan). The recipe to a successful comic book is an underdog that miraculously receives some sort of extraordinary power. After this power is acquired and learned, the girl of our hero’s dreams needs to be rescued and a villain must be defeated. By successfully completing these missions, our hero’s world is saved.
Another appeal of comic books is their ability to include contemporary problems that society is dealing with, “comics also made reference to current social issues such as drug use, the counterculture, the different social movements, and racism. The heroes of these comics included Spiderman, the Incredible Hulk, X-Men, and the Fantastic Four,” (Williams).
One must understand that the comic book world is divided into different categories such as graphic novel and manga;
[t]he term graphic novel became popular beginning in the late 1970s. Initially, the term was used to distinguish artistic or novelistic comics from mainstream, superhero comics. Some early examples include Contract with God by Will Eisner, First Kingdom by Jack Katz, and Sabre by Don McGregor and Paul Gulacy. Later, the term was used exclusively as a marketing tool and applied to hardback or paperback “drawn novels,” collected superhero story-arcs, longer book-length comics, and anthologized comic strips (for example, The Far Side and Calvin and Hobbes).
Importation of European and Japanese comics (manga) saw a marked increase in the 1980s (and the importance of manga in the U.S. market continued through 2006). Finally, the 1989 film release of Tim Burton’s Batman spawned other comics-related films and video and computer games. These trends grew exponentially during the first half-decade into the 2000s. Superhero stories accounted for most of the films’ adaptations, but there were also adaptations of novelistic and slice-of-life comics (e.g., American Splendor, Ghost World, and Road to Perdition). Major book publishers such as Random House began publishing “drawn novels,” and more book-length comics appeared without prior serialization; examples include Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis, Craig Thompson’s Blankets, and Chris Ware’s Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth, (Williams).
The problem with comic books is that they are written by predominately white men from the perspective of white men. Captain America is the best example to describe this perspective. “Steve Rogers was a scrawny fine art student specializing in industrialization in the 1940’s before America entered World War II. He attempted to enlist in the army only to be turned away due to his poor constitution,” (Shmidt). This explicitly demonstrates the idea that scrawny, sickly men are not valuable and are not accepted in our society. We as a society consider these men weak and unfit. They are unable to be the hero America craves; they do not satisfy our need to feel safe at night. This idea has been prevalent in our culture for as long as mankind can remember.
The next step in the creation of Captain America was the following: “A U.S. officer offered Rodgers an alternative way to serve his country by being a test subject in project, Operation: Rebirth, a top secret defense research project designed to create a physically superior soldiers,” (Shmidt). From this we see that like every other hero we can imagine, Rodgers had to fit the ideal constitution of what we as a society view as fit. Even though he is smart and able, he has to match a body image that is impossible for a real human to achieve. With imagery like this, we tell our boys and men that to be successful and loved they have to match this ideal. If they cannot, they are viewed as worthless. The fact that Captain America is turned down by the military makes it even more ridiculous, considering that the army accepts everyone who enlists. So boys all over the world who could not live up to the sensational image of Captain America were shown that they are too weak, even for the army.
What does this tell us? We should not be surprised by the anger and frustration that is being exhausted in our society. We are the ones who created these sensational and sometimes obscene images and sold them as the “norm”. Society as a whole is to blame for giving these examples and the dissatisfaction caused when boys realize they will never actualize these goals.
After extreme body alterations, Rodgers turned in to a super soldier, “[t]he process successfully altered his physiology from its frail state to the maximum of human efficiency, including greatly enhanced musculature and reflexes,” (Shmidt). The comic description even declares Rodgers as frail, a word used most often to describe the sickly or feminine. The following are the abilities of Captain America:
Captain America had mastered the martial arts of American-style boxing and judo, and had combined these disciplines with his own unique hand-to-hand style of combat. He had also shown skill and knowledge of a number of other martial arts. He engaged in a daily regimen of rigorous exercise (including aerobics, weight lifting, gymnastics, and simulated combat) to keep himself in peak condition. Captain America was one of the finest human combatants Earth had ever known, (Shmidt).
This description shows us that an average man would have to give up every social obligation and dedicate his life to a gruesome regiment of physical activity to achieve and maintain the perfect American hero body. We expect our youth to follow this extreme method of living because they are given examples like Captain America. However, we also expect our youth to be social animals that get perfect grades and behave as perfect little men and women. Society wants children to stay away from violence. But how can our youth avoid violence if their heroes use it to obtain what they need and want. Of course some will argue that Captain America is a bad example because the age of the comic, however the people who read this comic as adolescents are the ones creating the comics youth read today. They are the ones that write the scripts for our movies and TV shows. They are our politicians and run our world.
The comic book world tried to do justice to women by incorporating some female superheroes. One of them is Wonder Woman who is described as the following:
I have given Wonder Woman this dominant force but have kept her loving, tender, maternal and feminine in every other way. Her bracelet’s, with which she repels bullets and other murderous weapons, represents the Amazon Princess’ submission to Aphrodite, Goddess of love and Beauty. Her magic lasso, which compels anyone bound by it to obey Wonder Woman and which was given to her by Aphrodite herself, represents woman’s love, charm and allure by which she compels men and woman to do her bidding, (23 Daniels and Kidd).
This description of Wonder Woman shows us the ideal image of a woman according to our society. Her entire persona is one that would easily be defeated by Captain America. Children across the world expected women to be like this perfect super woman. Boys want their girlfriends to be like her and girls are convinced to try to be like her. Wonder Woman was not encouraged to be physically fit, nor smart. However, she was always miraculously good looking.
One must consider these comics where created in the 1940’s. This explains why Captain America and Wonder Woman are overtly crass in their male and female persona. However, the problem is that the people who read these comics growing up are the ones that are creating everything that we are watching today. Comic books should be discussed more in American pop culture because they are the source of inspiration for many a director and writer. By not discussing them we allow the biases that where demonstrated in earlier comics to continue into contemporary pop culture.  

Comic Books." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Ed. William Darity, Jr. Vol. 2. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2008. 23-25. 9 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Anne Arundel Community College. 11 May. 2009
.
Daniels, Kidd, Les, Chip. Wonder Woman : the complete history ; the life and times of the amazon princess. San Francisco, Calif.: Chronicle Books, 2004. Print. http://books.google.com/books?id=p4pvTVBmKK8C&pg=PA18&dq=%22wonder+woman%22+DC+comics&as_brr=3&ei=JJ8ISvn1O5jSzATl9NH7BA#PPA82,M1.
Sinthia Shmidt http://www.marvel.com/universe/Captain_America_(Steve_Rogers).
Ryan, Thomas. Personal INTERWIEV. 10 May 2009.

‘I’m in the Business of Ticking People Off’

Amid Criticism, RNC Chair Steele Says He’ll Stay Focused on Remaking Party
This article deals with the continuing problems of the Republican Party. After a month of “leading” the party Michael Steel has not been able to connect to his base. He has been criticized for “‘trying to be some talking-head media star,’ in Rush Limbaugh’s words, instead of on rebuilding the GOP from the RNC headquarters near the Capitol.” (Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr.) The Fact that Rush Limbaugh is mentioned shows in what state the Republican Party is. If the word of a radio host is worth mentioning when it comes to the head of the RNC then there is a problem. This is not only the media that is playing the Rush card but also Republican members “I think he would choose his words more carefully [about Limbaugh],” (Gary Jones, chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party)
The article makes it clear that Steel is not the real party leader since he had to declare himself the “de facto leader” in a run against house speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.), Gov. Bobby Jindal (La.). Since Steel is the “official” Party leader, he hopes that it will become clear to everyone that he is the one who has the last word “‘at the end of the day, all roads are going to lead to this desk,’ said Steel” (Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr.)
Michael Steel plans to remake the party is seen as a nice idea; however, some believe that the way he is doing it is naïve. Curly Haugland a member from the RNC in North Dakota believes that Steel’s plan to reach out to the African Community–is at the moment—a waste of time. One should not be fooled in believing that the Republican Party will pull a lot of votes from Harlem. One should concentrate on building a believable and respectable party again. Steels plans sound noble at best but unrealistic. Even though I am a Democrat myself I do believe for a Democracy to function we need at least two valid parties. Right now our country is down to one.

‘I’m in the Business of Ticking People Off’

Amid Criticism, RNC Chair Steele Says He’ll Stay Focused on Remaking Party
This article deals with the continuing problems of the Republican Party. After a month of “leading” the party Michael Steel has not been able to connect to his base. He has been criticized for “‘trying to be some talking-head media star,’ in Rush Limbaugh’s words, instead of on rebuilding the GOP from the RNC headquarters near the Capitol.” (Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr.) The Fact that Rush Limbaugh is mentioned shows in what state the Republican Party is. If the word of a radio host is worth mentioning when it comes to the head of the RNC then there is a problem. This is not only the media that is playing the Rush card but also Republican members “I think he would choose his words more carefully [about Limbaugh],” (Gary Jones, chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party)
The article makes it clear that Steel is not the real party leader since he had to declare himself the “de facto leader” in a run against house speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.), Gov. Bobby Jindal (La.). Since Steel is the “official” Party leader, he hopes that it will become clear to everyone that he is the one who has the last word “‘at the end of the day, all roads are going to lead to this desk,’ said Steel” (Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr.)
Michael Steel plans to remake the party is seen as a nice idea; however, some believe that the way he is doing it is naïve. Curly Haugland a member from the RNC in North Dakota believes that Steel’s plan to reach out to the African Community–is at the moment—a waste of time. One should not be fooled in believing that the Republican Party will pull a lot of votes from Harlem. One should concentrate on building a believable and respectable party again. Steels plans sound noble at best but unrealistic. Even though I am a Democrat myself I do believe for a Democracy to function we need at least two valid parties. Right now our country is down to one.

Obama, Gates at Odds Over New Whistleblower Protections

Obama, Gates at Odds Over New Whistleblower Protections
Even before President Obama took office, he made it clear, that he “endorsed new protections for national security officers who blow the whistle on abusive, corrupt or illegal behavior, by offering them the right to sue for damages and challenge denials of their security clearances.” (Washington Post R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick, A3) However, defense secretary Robert M. Gates believes that the bill would threaten national security and violate the constitution. Gates is not the only one who is against this bill, he is joined by “then-Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, then-Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and then-Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.” (Washington Post R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick, A3)
Under the law as it stands now, members of the CIA, FBI and other federal agencies are not allowed to “appeal adverse administrative decisions outside their agencies, either to a special civil service board or a federal court.” (Washington Post R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick, A3)
They are also, not permitted to sue for compensation nor for regaining of clearances.
The problem with this bill is that in theory it is very supportable, however, when one is in office as President Obama is now, he will have to stand for the defense of these cases in court and possibly for their losses. As President of the US, he will have to defend these people throughout the world and deal with the loss of respect for the government agencies that would be brought to court. The support and trust towards these agencies might be at risk.
In 1995 a case came up that had exactly these consequences; “Rep. Robert G. Torricelli’s public disclosure in 1995 of CIA payments to a Guatemalan colonel accused of murdering an American citizen and the husband of an American citizen” (Washington Post R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick, A3) this had lead to the firing of two CIA officials, eight where disciplined. Due to this case, 100 informants accused of abuse or other criminal acts were laid off the CIA pay roll. After this, it became quite hard to become an informant for the CIA since every case was reviewed thoroughly.
The agencies seemed to be on a way of bettering themselves, hiring only trustworthy informants, until 9/11. George J. Tenet quietly overturned the rules as they stood and started to take into service informants with shady background, if a background check took place at all.
Under the new bill, whistleblowers will have the right to “tell” on inner workings of the federal agencies and be protected. Gates fears that this may lead to disgruntled workers suing simply because they can. He also fears that top-secret information would be given to people without clearances. This fear should have been lessened by the fact that the people judging these cases and working on these cases would have the proper clearance. It seems that he is not afraid of losing secrets but of losing control.
In cases of top-secret information “[t]he government would retain its right to respond by invoking a ‘state secret’ privilege to block a trial,” (Washington Post R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick, A3) however, the government would be forced for the first time to inform lawmakers of the case. This means that no more cruelties and inhuman behaviors could be swept under the carpet anymore.

GOP Stakes It’s Claim with Stimulus Vote. Small Government Returns as Maxim

GOP Stakes It’s Claim with Stimulus Vote
Small Government Returns as Maxim
This article discusses the unanimous vote of the Republicans against president Obama’s stimulus plan, and their reason for doing such.
The Republicans are facing an identity crisis, which needs to be addressed if they ever want to become a Party of the country again. As of now, the Republicans are a Party of a couple of states and counties.
With this demonstration of unity, the GOP hopes to show they are the party of small government and tax payers. But on the other hand it is a clear demonstration they do not have the countries best interest at heart. If they would, then Republicans would understand that fixing the country’s economic, national, and international status is more significant than fixing the popularity of one’s party.
It has been clear that president Obama wishes to have a bipartisan plan that would help the country in its moment of dire need. The Republicans say that they want the same thing; however, their actions speak louder than their words. “But on the day of the vote, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was on Limbaugh’s show, laughing as the host referred to the “porkulus” bill” (Washington Post Perry Bacon Jr. and Paul Kane, 4A). This quote clearly demonstrates that the Republicans have no intention of turning this legislation in to a bipartisan one.
The article further more discuses, that Republicans state they find President Obama “gracious and sincere” (Washington Post Perry Bacon Jr. and Paul Kane, 4A), and that the entire problem lies with the house Democrats, not being open enough toward the Republicans.
Yet, not all on the side of the Democrats agree with the bill and that is all right. The beautiful thing about a democracy is that everybody can have their voice heard. This makes me wonder if the Republicans believe in democracy since it seemed more important to them to appear as one and not as freethinking individuals.
Not all Republicans stayed quiet, senator Olympia J. Snow (R-Maine) spoke out to support the bill, and some Republicans acknowledge that their party is in trouble. The party has not been able to decide what would be the best way to internally fix them. This in effect reflects when it comes to fixing the country.

Think about your life today and in the future. Do you think that that globalization will make you life in the future better or worse? Why?

I think that it is a double edged sword. Globalization does have a lot of benefits; however it can have some bad aspects. The saying “you win some, you lose some” Has never fit better. Every time I am able to access new things online I wonder how many stores just closed. When I go to Wal-Mart and buy my nice and cheap items I wonder how many mom and pop shops died because of they could not keep up with the competition.
But over all if I think about it in a selfish way globalization will benefit me. I am a person who likes to travel, so I will enjoy the fact that half the word speaks English to some degree. Also it is beneficial because that means my degree will be accepted in more countries so I can work where ever I want I am not limited to one country. The process of sending my application is easier. But that is now.
As a smoker I will most likely have some sort of lung problem in my life and most likely this will be cancer. If more countries work together and more money poured into one project, then maybe there will be better cancer treatment in the future.
More and more countries are connected to the internet so I will be able to learn about more cultures if I want to.
Also back to my traveling if more countries work together then we can find an oil alternative and then flying will become cheaper, this means I can travel the world for a lot less money than now.
I believe that once the entire world is connected efficiently we will have better medication, cheaper travel. Their also be less extremists, since there will be no “one country” to fight for. We will have to work together since we will all depend on each other. This will be benefice for me since my husband is in the military, meaning he will have to go to fewer wars to participate in. But not only will globalization prevent us from going to war, on our way to getting their mechanics (robots) that are created, through combined powers, will mean less dead soldiers.
So all in all I believe globalization is good thing, which will make my future a better place. However I may be wrong only the future will tell.

The Impact of Globalization on Developing Nations

Based on the text globalization seems like double edged sword. The problem with the text is that it does not consider the future. The question should be: what is the impact of globalization going to be in the future, based on the past?
I would like to explain based on North Korea and India. In North Korea a protectionist system is at large. They do not import nor export anything. They rely solely on their own production. In the last 60 years they have made little-to-no progress in just about every field. Their People are starving; their people are shrinking; their people are dying at younger ages. This is a government, which is denying globalization, entry in to their country.
As it looks now they do not plan on changing these things. So their people will be worse off in the future than they are now based on the decline that we have observed in the past.
India on the other hand has made progress in the last 60 years. The text refers to people being without drinking water, because of the Hyundai plant. That is one village with problems now, and I do understand that it must be horrible. However, one needs to consider the future. Right now India seems to be a place where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer but that is how it always is. That is how it always starts. As cars were invented only the rich could afford them. Should we have stopped making cars? No we researched developed and figured out how to make them so that everybody could afford them. Globalization takes time, and on the way of getting their people will be hurt. Globalization follows the principle “for the greater good”.
So I believe in a long run globalization is better for developing countries. Regardless how hard it is at the time it is better then the alternative; protectionism.

How to Judge Globalism

How does Sen show that globalization is not a “western curse”? By what criteria should “globalism” be judged? What is the “central issue of concentration” in the debate about globalization?
In this text, Sen explains that the west was in fact first to feel the positive affect of globalization coming from the east, “The high technology in the world of 1000 A.D. included paper, printing press.... A millennium ago, these items were used extensively in China-and were practically unknown elsewhere. Globalization spread them across the world, including Europe.” (Amartya Sen, How to Judge Globalism)
He goes on to explain that the west is actually a better place for allowing globalization to take place. “Indeed, Europe would have been a lot poorer – economically, culturally, and scientifically – had it resisted the globalization of mathematics, science, and technology at that time.” (Amartya Sen, How to Judge Globalism)
So naturally, Sen believes that the same applies today. That advancements and there for globalization should be embraced and not something feared. “To see globalization as merely Western imperialism of ideas and beliefs would be a serious and costly error,” (Amartya Sen, How to Judge Globalism)
The criteria for judging globalization is not how well the market expands, but how well democracies are established, elementary education is expanded, or how the social underdogs succeed in society, at least according to Sen.
The central issue in this debate is about how who is effected in the world. The question here is if “the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer” (Amartya Sen, How to Judge Globalism)? Some people argue, “the poor who participate in trade are mostly getting richer” (Amartya Sen, How to Judge Globalism)
However the debate is not over if some poor people are getting richer it is about the fair distribution of globalization, “the central issue in general is not whether a particular arrangement is better for everyone than no cooperation at all would be, but whether that is a fair division of the benefits” (Amartya Sen, How to Judge Globalism).
So the question here is not if somebody gains from globalization, the question is how fairly distributed is the gain of globalization.

Jihad vs. McWorld
What are the key features of “McWorld” and “Jihad”? How does McWorld provide and support Jihad? What does Barber find most threatening about globalization?
The key features of McWorld seem to be anything involved in globalization for example pop culture, technology, global markets, everything modern. While on the other hand you have the Jihad which is a world where “culture is pitted against culture, people against people, tribe against tribe, a Jihad in the name of a hundred narrowly conceive faiths against every kind of interdependence” (Benjamin Barber, Jihad vs. McWorld)
If you were like me then your first thought would have been “what does Jihad have to do with McWorld?” After reading this, it is almost painfully obvious. The McWorld is slowly but surely destroying small cultures and all their beliefs and traditions, and by this it is giving the Jihad a reason to exist. The globalization of the world has made us live in a world where you can go to almost every country and find a McDonald’s at every street corner, Barber lists one of the proudest people in his example “In 1992, the number-one restaurant in Japan measured by volume of customers was McDonald’s,” Benjamin Barber, Jihad vs. McWorld)
I think what Barber is most afraid of is that globalization will not only destroy the multicultural world, and turn it in to a monotone world of similar culture but that by losing our individualism we lose our ability to see the world around us clearly. This means that the politicians can slowly but surely take more and more power away from the people, as long as they are occupied with things like I-pods and McDonald’s. Barber described his fear best when he said, “Belonging by default to McWorld, everyone is a consumer; seeking a repository for identity, everyone belongs to some tribe [Facebook, MySpace]. But no one is citizen, how can there be democracy?” (Benjamin Barber, Jihad vs. McWorld)

Bollywood vs. Hollywood

Bollywood is squaring off with Hollywood, according to Tyrell. What does this article tell us about the capacity of non-western countries to resist western culture? Should we expect Hollywood’s domination to decline further in the future? Why? What paradoxes about culture globalization does Tyrell illustrate through the case of the Indian cinema industry?
Western culture is often seen as this big monster that is going to make the world one big bland tasting soup. Bollywood is a perfect example as to why we are not all becoming alike. Non-western countries are not forced to indulge in our western evilness. Sometimes they do not even understand western culture or comedy or tragedy. As you explained in class, Philippines do not understand our movies at times, and people in India simply do not like our movies. People across the world have different cultures, ideas, ideologies, or sense of humor therefore in some countries, western culture will never dominate.
I do not think that Hollywood will decline in the future since the western world loves the movies from Hollywood. Even though a lot of movies are not filmed in Hollywood the still technically are from Hollywood. What will happen is that the film market will grow bigger than ever before. With Bollywood on the up rise and Hollywood not going away their will be more variety in the market. A larger audience can be reached with more than one point of view.
The paradox here is that in the films and TV show seem to have no western influence, however the stations are owned by companies working with the west or companies that are in the west. Another paradox portrait in the book is that the Indian Oscars in 1997 where broadcasted on Sony entertainment which means that maybe our western culture is not being indoctrinated in the people but the west is still the one profiting from India.

Why does Cowen call cinema “one of the hard cases for globalization”? Why does the production of certain kinds of movies cluster in Hollywood? Does Hollywood contribute to the Americanization of world culture? Does Cowen worry about that issue?
Cowen believes that cinema is a hard case because of the high coast it takes to make movies. It is hard for a non-American culture to produce a movie that would bring in the money that is needed to cover the production coast.
The reason for the clustering has again something to do with money. In Hollywood actors, producers, directors know they will receive the money they ask for. This means that high end movies will be made in Hollywood instead of other places. To make big productions movies in Hollywood simply makes sense. It is the easiest route so clustering is natural.
Cowen seems to have a split opinion on Americanization. One the one hand movies are made by non-American producers with non-American actors in non-American countries, however, the movies are in English and usually portrait American ideologies. We end up with American ideas portrait by non-Americans I do not feel that is Americanization I fell it is American explanation.
Cowen obviously worries about this issue otherwise he would have not written the article but not in a sense that he loses sleep over it. There is nothing wrong with entertaining the people of the world and if the Americans happen to be the best at doing so well then so be it.

More Globalization stuff

What should corporations take responsibility for, according to the Global Compact described by Robinson? Why does she think it is important for corporations to take on broad responsibility for dealing with global issues? How do voluntary initiatives such as the Global Compact relate to government action in addressing global problems?
According to the Global Compact there are three aspects that need to be taking in to consider ration. The first one deals with Human rights and how corporations should not knowingly violate them, “With respect to human rights, corporations should first, ensure that they support and respect Human Rights and second, ensure they are not themselves complicit in human rights abuses.” (Beyond Good Intentions: Corporate Citizenship for a New Century Mary Robinson) The second aspect deals with labor standards, “On labor standards, businesses should uphold freedom of association and collective bargaining and make sure they are not employing underage children or forced labor, either directly or indirectly, and that in their hiring and firing policies they do not discriminate on grounds of race, creed, gender or ethnic origin.” (Beyond Good Intentions: Corporate Citizenship for a New Century Mary Robinson) The third and final aspect of the Global Compact is: “And in relation to the environment, companies should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges, promote greater environmental responsibility and encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies.” (Beyond Good Intentions: Corporate Citizenship for a New Century Mary Robinson)
The problem with the Global Compact it seems is that these are promises and not laws. The general population does not believe that big corporations have “hearts” so naturally these promises do not mean much. On the other hand a government action is usually a law that is punished if not upheld. This makes the population feel like corporations are more willing to follow rules. The problem with this is that these government actions are usually written from the perspective of an industrialized government. This means that they will not think about the subcultures in the countries that are having these problems. They will think on the scale of African culture but not on the scale of Chad culture versus Nigeria culture.

What are the “discontents” and the “darker side” of globalization, according to Stiglitz? How does he assess the consequences of market liberalization? What does he mean by “governance through ideology” and what should replace it?
The “discontents” and “dark sides” of globalization is according to Stiglitz is that it is only allowed to work if we (the USA) approve of how it is being used. Even though a country might be doing well, the U.S. government feels that it needs to be involved. As an example this article talks about Korea, they had a very prosperous steel industry, had being the key word. “Financial markets were highly regulated. My research showed that regulations promoted growth. It was only when these countries stripped away the regulations, under pressure from the U.S. Treasury and the IMF, that that they encountered problems” (Globalism’s Discontents, Joseph E. Stiglitz)
The problem with market liberalization is that is screws small countries. Again, we have rules set up that have to be followed and if a small vulnerable country does not follow them then they are screwed. The example that states that best is the following: “the country is borrowing $100 Million from the [U.S.] and lending $100 million to the [U.S.]. But when it borrows, it pays a high interest rate, 20 percent; when it lends, it receives a low interest rate, around 4 percent. This may be great for the [U.S.], but it can hardly help the growth of a poor country.”
I believe what is meant is that the IMF does not consider that democracy is not enough to make a country function. It needs more than a political system it needs everybody in the country to believe in that system. For example in Iraq they had a democratic election, however, I doubt they are ready to function effectively in globalization. The IMF should be replaced with an organization that is willing to take these problems into account.

Six ways Globalization has impacted my life.

The first thing I thought of was the toys I bought this Christmas for my niece they are all made in places where labor is cheap and therefore manufacturing is less expensive, than toys mad in the US.
This is a dilemma each year since I would like to buy toys made in the US simply because the chance that they contain lead paint is very low, however I am happy that they toys are so cheap because that way I have more money to spend on all the other people in my life.
The second way globalization effects me is that all my clothes are made somewhere in Asia. Again we have the same reason why I am happy about this is because it is cheaper if the clothes are made in China or Taiwan but on the other hand every now and then I do think about the sweat shops that they probably where made in, and the little to no wage the makers of my clothes received. I also benefit when buying shoes out of the same reasons.
As a German, I am very happy about globalization since I can order all the foods I miss on the internet. I am able to do business with people on the other side of the world in a minutes’ notice. For the most part it makes me happy, but diet wise it is a bad thing since many German food products are very unhealthy.
The forth way that globalization benefits me is that I am able to chat with all my friends around the world. Since we decided in class that the internet is a big help to globalization I figure that keeping in touch with people all over the world is an affect. But if it is not’ then I do benefit from the fact that companies can now do business thanks to video conferences and therefore make deals faster, which for me, means that I can receive an I-pod faster.
Because of the internet, I am thankful for the fifth way globalization affects me. As someone who grew up in a different part of the world I am glad that I can simply check international news sites and see what is happening back home. Also as somebody living in Europe, it is important to know what is going on in the US since many political decisions can effect Europeans in their everyday life.
This leads to my sixth reason. As Ex President Bush decided to attack Iraq, Germany got a heads up warning that this will most likely lead to oil being more expensive and consequently many products that depend on oil for production will be more expensive. It did not surprise the people as the above stated happened. We were still not happy about it but we knew it was coming. Summed up, because a country far away started a war with another country also far away everything in Germany became more expensive.

My view on pearl

Julia Boudreaux
Ms. McLane-Higginson
Composition and literature 121-015
19-Apr-09
Pearl, a revolution against Puritans
Little is said directly in Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter about Pearl’s significance. Pearl is the human reflection of the scarlet letter on Hester’s chest. Also she represents the joy that Hester Prynne and Arthur Dimmesdale should have felt as they started their relationship, which presented them with a child. Hawthorne created Pearl to demonstrate how the Puritan ways where wrong. Pearl refuses to be confined into the Puritan way of life and thought.
Early on in the book it is noted that if anybody other than a Puritan had been at the prison release of Hester Prynne they would have seen:
in this beautiful woman, so picturesque in her attire and mien, and with the infant at her bosom, an object to remind him of the image of Divine Maternity’ which so many illustrious painters have vied with one another to represent; something which should remind him, indeed, but only by contrast, of the sacred image of sinless motherhood, whose infant was to redeem the world, (42 Hawthorne).
However, “[m]any critics who focus their analysis on Pearl define her as the sin-child, the unholy result of Hester Prynne's and Arthur Dimmesdale's fall from grace,”(Cindy Lou Daniels 221). What the Puritans saw was a woman that deserved to be burned at the stake. Not only was Hester evil, her child, Pearl, was viewed as demon spawn.
The Scarlet Letter gives one the feeling that Pearl is not even a real person. “[S]he becomes nothing more than the scarlet letter personified,” (Cindy Lou Daniels 222). Hawthorne himself even writes it so that Hester views the child and the letter as interchangeable: “She clutched the child so fiercely to her breast, that it sent forth a cry; she turned her eyes downward at the scarlet letter, and even touched it with her fingers, to assure herself that the infant [Pearl] and the shame were real,” (44).
Pearl refuses early on in The Scarlet Letter to comply with the guilt that is supposed to be felt by her and her mother Hester. As Hester is being yelled at and pleaded at, to tell the name of the father of the child, Pearl screams as loud as she can “[t]he infant during latter portion of her ordeal, pierced the air with its wailing and screams; she strove to hush it, mechanically, but seemed scarcely to sympathize with its trouble,” (Hawthorne 50). The fact that Hester feels for her child shows that she knows what she did is not a mortal sin, it was biology and lust. The character Pearl is displayed as someone who cannot be bent in to compliance by the Puritans: “Pearl, on the other hand, is left unmarked by the patriarchy, for the Puritan community assumes Hester will carry on its traditions. Hester, though, cannot bring herself to quell her daughter's wild spirit, despite the restrictions placed upon her both emotionally and physically,” (Cindy Lou Daniels 223).
Pearl was created to display the problems between human life and religion. According to Puritan views, Pearl should not be happy since she is born out of sin. This notion does not seem to bother Pearl, when one considers, that Hester never finds any darkness in Pearl’s soul: “[d]ay after day she looked fearfully into the child’s expanding nature; ever dreading to detect some dark and wild peculiarity’ that would correspond with the guiltiness to which she owed her being,” (Hawthorne 61). The Puritans believe that Pearl should not have a happy individual self worth, however, Pearl’s sense of moral, right, and wrong is more of a philosophical nature than a religious nature according to Richard Hull:
law-breaking (i.e., the Puritan view) and the Enlightenment philosophy which emphasizes autonomy and values an order peculiar to an individual. In Pearl, the notion that individuality is disorder is already giving way to the Enlightenment view, that individuality gives access to the highest truth. (149).
Hawthorne, In his book The Scarlet Letter uses Pearl to mock the Puritan way of belief and life at least when it comes to adultery: “[t]hough much is said about sin, little of this discourse is directly presented, and what Hawthorne does give us bears little resemblance to Puritan theology,” (Nina Baym 210). The religious belief is displayed wrong which could mean that Hawthorne basically thought of it as pointless and easy to misunderstand. Nina Baym writes it best when she discusses the idea of heaven and sin: “[o]n the one hand, there is no vivid sense of Hell, and on the other, there is a doctrine which appears to suggest that man is bound to heaven unless and until he commits a sinful act,” (Nina Baym 210). The way Hawthorne presents this idea in The Scarlet Letter shows the either he or Hester misunderstood the Puritan ways: “[s]he knew that her deed had been evil; she could have no faith therefore, that its results would be good,” (61). Hester is condemning Pearl as evil even though nothing in her Puritan religion says that she has to. The reason it is say Hester’s Puritan way is because Hawthorne created his own type of Puritan believe system:
Hawthorne’s Puritan community considers its own laws the ultimate moral framework of the universe to the point where such laws define, rather than reflect or contain, morality as well as good and evil. This community invokes God to sanction its own social system and to enforce the general will on individual members of the group. In sum, The Scarlet Letter Hawthorne has created an authoritarian state, (Nina Baym 213-14).
Pearl is a child based off of Hawthorn’s own children which would explain why Pearl is portrayed the way she is. Hester is a self portrait of Hawthorne. Mark M. Hennelly, Jr said the following: “but such parental pride turns to self-pity as Hawthorne chronicles his own limitations: ‘For my part, I felt very inactive with this lazy benumbing cold, which hangs on longer than usual,’” (532). This can be seen as a portrait of Hester: “[h]er mother with a morbid purpose that may be better understood hereafter, had bought the richest tissues that could be produces, and allowed her imaginative faculty its full play in the arrangement and decoration of the dresses which the child wore, before the public eye,” (Hawthorne 62). Hawthorne like Hester was quite a gloomy person, while their children were their pride and joy in life.
Hester did everything in her power to make her child a beautiful, bright child, which Hawthorne shows when he wrote: “So magnificent was the small figure, when thus arrayed, and such was the splendor of Pearl’s own proper beauty, shining through the gorgeous robes which might have extinguished a paler loveliness, that there was absolute circle of radiance around her on the darksome cottage floor,” (Hawthorne 62). This, in a sense, is defying what the child was supposed to stand for. Pearl is supposed to be the human version of her mother’s sin. However, the way that Pearl acts and is dressed is showing that Hester is not sorry, nor ashamed of her actions. Hester lets her rebellion against the religious dictatorship show through her child. Which is what Hawthorne‘s plan was all along. He raised his own children with a happy and proper sense of the world, “‘I venture to assert that there can be no physical health without play; and there can be no efficient and satisfactory work without play; that there can be no sound and wholesome thought without play,’” (Mark M. Hennelly, Jr. 533).
Another instance where one can see that the characters of Pearl and Hester are derived from Hawthorne and his children is when Hester and Pearl are in the town:
Pearl saw, and gazed intently, but never sought to make acquaintance. If spoken to, she would not speak again. If the children gathered about her, as they sometimes did, Pearl would grow positively terrible in her puny wrath, snatching up stones and fling at them, with shrill incoherent exclamations, that made her mother tremble, because they had so much the sound of a which’s anathemas in some unknown tongue, (Hawthorne 64).
This quote is particularly interesting because one can see the difference between mother and daughter very clearly, Hester feels lonely and wishes for human contact while Pearl has no interest to be friends which the hypocritical Puritans who are angry at her mother not for the adultery but because she will not quench their nosiness. The contrast that one sees between Hester and Pearl is something that Hawthorne experienced as his mother died; it shows how children can be so inherently different from their care givers when placed in the same situation.
As he keeps watch at his mother’s deathbed, which he called ‘the darkest hour I ever lived,’ he hears the ‘shouts, laughter, and cries of [his] two children’ playing outside in the yard. Within the ‘strange contrast,’ Hawthorne ‘seemed to see the whole of human existence at once’ as an ‘interval between extreme youth and dying age,’ (Mark M. Hennelly, Jr. 534).
Pearl’s whole outlook on the sin is so different from that of everybody around her. She plays with the scarlet letter on her mother’s chest because it carries no sinful meaning to Pearl. The whole idea of religion is rejected by Pearl, “Hester's interpretation of her child, and Pearl's claim that she has no Heavenly Father!” (Richard Hull 144). While her mother thinks she is heaven sent, Pearl believes no such thing, “‘He did not send me!’ cried she, positively. ‘I have no Heavenly Father!’” (Hawthorne 67).
The reason some believe that Pearl is so distant from the Puritan religion is because she is a child of nature. Pearl was left to herself by her mother, which means she was playing in the world of the natural, “he [Hawthorne] thought that intimacy with nature exercised ‘the essential passion if the heart’ and prepared the child for human and spiritual affections, so that moral truths might be received.” (Abel 192). One has often heard or thought that Pearl is evil for taunting her mother for the burden she chooses to carry, however, this is not true based on Hawthorne’s believes according to Darrel Abel: “Hawthorne supposed that a pure Child of Nature would lack the most essential human quality, that of moral awareness.” (Abel 193).
The last importance that Pearl carried is she was what tied Hester and Arthur together throughout the story. She caused both—mother and father— to feel the guilt that the Puritans wanted them to feel. With Hester is obvious as to how she points and plays with the scarlet letter, but with Arthur it is not so obvious,
[t]he spirit child communicates her disapproval in another way, one exquisitely appropriate to Dimmesdale’s sensibility—through a silent, indirect, subjective language. In the entire scene at the brookside she does not speak to him with her human voice at all. She addresses him indirectly through her persistent rejection of his advances and through actions ostensibly directed toward her mother. (McNamara 69).
It is safe to say that Pearl is actually trying to be mean towards Arthur since he is the reason for her mother’s suffering. Dimmesdale realizes this through simple questions, like: “[a]nd will he always keep his hand over his heart?” (Hawthorne 136). With this question she is teasing her mother and father that regardless what they do, Dimmesdale will always feel guilty as explained by McNamara: “[s]he clearly implies that guilt will plague Dimmesdale even if he succeeds in the plans for escape which he and Hester are now formulating” (69).
In the end however, Dimmesdale turns Pearl into a functioning person who is capable in living with society, by finally confessing to the world that Pearl is his daughter:
He meets his problem by subjecting Pearl to a kind of psychic shock when Dimmesdale, in his expiation scene, recognizes her as his daughter and awakens through suffering all her human sympathies, thus sweeping her into the community of men. Before this she was unable to obey civil and divine law. Now she may, if she will, (Eisinger 326).
After all is said and done and both men that were in Hester’s and Pearl’s life are dead. Hawthorne gives a look at what life Pearl chose, “[t]his inheritance [land, money] gives Pearl both paternal legitimacy and wealth. She and Hester then leave Boston for Europe. Hawthorne suggests that Pearl eventually marries into an aristocratic family and has children of her own,” (Hunt 30).
Pearl is many things to many people, to some a demon child, to others a symbol that is not real. Pearl saw no reason to feel guilt, instead she decided to show the conflict between human life and religion. Hawthorne wrote The Scarlet Letter, for one to display his own life, and two, to mock the puritan society. With Pearl, Hawthorne created a child of nature, one that shows the people what is really important, for example love, happiness, freedom. This ending suggests that Pearl was no demon spawn but simply a child who refused to be dressed for something that was not natural to her. However in the end Hawthorne did write that she married of and had children of her own. What would be interesting to know is if Pearl raised her children in a religious belief? It should be safe to assume however, that they are free spirited individuals like her.

Abel, Darrel. “Pearl: “The Scarlet Letter Endowed with Life.” The Moral Picturesque: Studies in Hawthorne's Fiction. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1988. 190-207. .
Baym, Nina. “Passion and Authority in The Scarlet Letter.” The New England Quarterly
43.2 (1970): 209-30. .
Chester E. Eisinger. “Pearl and the Puritan Heritage.” National Council of Teachers of English 12.6 (1951): 323-29. .
Daniels, Cindy Lou. "Hawthorne's Pearl: woman-child of the future." The American Transcendental Quarterly 19.3 (2005): 221-37. Academic OneFile. Gale. Truxal Library, Anne Arundel Community College, Arnold, MD. 14 Apr. 2003 .
Hawthorne, Nathaniel. “The Scarlet Letter and other Writings.” Ed. Leland S. Person. Norton Critical Edition. New York: W.W Norton & Company, 2005. 36-166.
Hennelly, Mark M., Jr. "A Play-Day for the Whole World?" The New England Quarterly 61.4 (1988): 530-54. .
Hull, Richard. "Sent Meaning vs. Attached Meaning: Two Interpretations of Interpretation in The Scarlet Letter." The American Transcendental Quarterly 14.2 (2000): 143. Academic OneFile. Gale. Truxal Library, Anne Arundel Community College. 12 Apr. 2009 .
Hunt, Constance C.T. "The Persistence of Theocracy: Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter. (Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter)." Perspectives on Political Science 38.1 (2009): 25-33. Academic OneFile. Gale. Truxal Library, Anne Arundel Community College, Arnold, MD. 12 Apr. 2009 .
McNamara, Anne Marie. “The Character of Flame: The Function of Pearl in The Scarlet Letter.” On Hawthorne: The Best from American literature. By Edwin Harrison Cady, Louis J. Budd. Durham: Duke University Press, 1990.65-81 .

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Knowledge is depressing power?


This is going to be my last blog since this class (Gender and Pop Culture) will be over next week. I would like to reflect on the knowledge that I have gained. The media is being controlled by a small group of white men which explains the miss representation and under representation of all other people.
I have learned that regardless what show or book or magazine one sees and looks at one will always find some inequality. I have wondered "is the world really this bad?" and realized it kind is. This is some depressing knowledge. However, should this stop someone from enjoying life and TV and magazines? Should I stop watching action movies because women are always the damsels in distress and violence is promoted? Should I not read Cosmopolitan anymore because it is sexist? No we should not. We should keep doing these things and learn from them. We should learn and teach the next generation why these things are not ideal. People who are bothered by this should come up with ways to change it.
Because the ones at power now have no reason to change it. They are in power making money. The audience does not seem to mind either since we keep watching and reading.
So do not be discouraged or depressed about the fact that you are not able to blissfully watch sexist TV without realizing that it is sexist anymore. Simply realize it, share the thought and knowledge and do your part to change it.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Don't ask Don't tell.......


Are we as Americans ready to have an openly gay military? Possibly, however are our soldiers ready for openly gay military members? One would hope so, but reality looks different. As for some history on what exactly the "don't ask don't tell" policy is "1993 was not a good year for LGBT equality. President Clinton signed into law a policy that effectively bans gay, lesbian, and bisexual service in the military. Clinton approved Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) which purported to be the compromise that promised two things while appeasing the conservative opposition to openly gay service: first, that the safety of gay servicemembers would be better protected and, second, the law gave gays a means to dodging the traditional discrimination in order to enlist.
It is a bad compromise because the message is clear: you can be gay in the military...only until someone finds out that you are gay in the military. DADT lacks intellectual integrity. The architect of the policy, Professor Charles Moskos of Northwestern University, still stands behind this law that claims that being gay is not a bar to service, only grounds for dismissal.
Discrimination and oppression are inherent to DADT. A gay soldier must lie and hide his or her true identity on a daily basis. Gay servicemembers who live openly and share information about their spouses, significant others, or dating life risk investigation and involuntary expulsion. Under DADT, any statement that one is gay -- to anyone, at any time, before or after enlistment -- can be reason for investigation and discharge. Your life is a constant liability to your career when you are gay in the military." (http://www.soulforce.org/article/808)
The problem is technically most Americans support gay people in their rights to equality as long as it is not in their own personal space. However, what i find funny is that having a gay bunk mate would lead to lower moral and discomfort. If one thinks about that response one must wonder, why do people feel that would happen. The reason I believe is because people have this misconception that gay men will "make straight men gay" or "come on to them" or that gay man are not as "trust worthy" as straight men. What this tells me is that we must work harder in educating our service members and let them know that gay men and women are just as able as straight men and women in serving in the military. One might even argue that they are more capable because they had to deal with the stress of realizing that their sexual partner is not the norm that society expects. Which means that they would be potentially better at handling stress situations.
Unfortunately, because of the bad economy the topic don't ask don't tell was put on the back burner of President Obama. A spokesperson of the obama administration had the following to say "There are many challenges facing our nation now and the president-elect is focused first and foremost on jump-starting this economy." (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/14/obama.gays.military/)I guess the equality of people is less concerning than the money of people.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Toddlrs and Tiaras???


What on earth was the American TV industry thinking when they decided to show Toddlers and Tiaras? This show is wrong in every way possible. Little children selling sex? What the hell? This show angers me in so many ways as a woman, as a future psychologist, as a potential mother. As a woman it angers me to see people judging 0-2 year old's on their looks. One girl competed in the 10-12 year old's and was told that next age group she has to lose weight.
As a psychology major, it is upsetting because most of these children are being forced to do this by their mothers. Many of the children do not even realize it, not even the mothers realize it most of the time. They have lost their "beauty" at least according to the media. Now the mothers feel like they have to make sure that their daughters do not have to "suffer" the same fate.
As a potential mother it is upsetting because, I might have a daughter and she will feel like she has to compete with girls that are pushed by their mothers to look like that.
The entire show is simply messed up, and again the only ones to benefit are men. The earlier women start primping, the less time they spend on school, the less time they spend in school, the less time they will have to acquire book smart. Everybody knows that knowledge is power.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

women in video games!


For the last view days friends of mine and me have been playing way to many video games. One of them being Soul Calibur 4. The premise of this game is to fight against each other with characters the game supplies or characters you make yourself.
Many people already have a problem with this since it portraits violence, however, I have no problem with the violence. My problem resides with the clothing that the women in this game are allowed to wear. For example the most popular character is Ivy. She is wearing basically nothing at all. Again just like in my blog about the super heroes, women are not allowed to wear heavy armor. The one character that does wear heavy armor in this game is Hildegard. She is a well protected and clothed character and somehow nobody has the desire to play as her, because she looks "boring".
I am not writing this blog to complain about the game makers I am writing this to complain about the players (including myself). The industry only produces what is sellable, only what is sellable is being bought which means that the buyers (us) have the power to change the sexist world of video games, if we where to chose so.
Unfortunately just like everywhere else, sex sells! It sells in the video game industry just as much as it does anywhere else. So what could we change about this? We could stop buying games with half naked women. We could protest game makers and buy none of their products.
The problem with the above stated ideas is that nobody could motivate a 16-25 year old male to protest nudity in video games. Why should they? This country is so prude and sex education is such a taboo topic for many parents and schools, therefore video games are they only source a lot of these kids have to learn about the opposite sex. Maybe if we talked to our children more then the nudity would go away over time by it self. Or at least it would be more respectful.

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Disney Bad or Good?


During spring break I was playing with my niece and she was getting very frustrated because she was not able to make Daisy stand up because this plastic figure was wearing high heels that are really hard to stand on a flat surface.
What followed was my niece trying to walk in my sisters high heels that were laying around in the living room and naturally she fell.
Most people believe that Disney is a safe way to entertain their children. What most people do not think about is the way it influences our young. Daisy and Mini both wear makeup, high heels and short dresses.So naturally little children want to do the same.
Then they get a little older and become interested in the Disney princesses. All of these ladies are damsels in distress. Cinderella needs to be saved by not only a man no, she is so incompetent that she needs the help of mice and birds and magic. She is considered not worthy of the love from Prince Charming in her normal clothes, she needs new clothes to impress a superficial man.
Mary Poppins is another Disney character that shows little girls that they always must look proper (even in the chimney scene, her clothes are not out of place she looks like a perfect doll covered in soot) to be and ideal woman. She is portrayed as this perfect little lady similar to Kelly Ripa and her Electolux commercial. Ripa portrays this wonder woman that can do all things faster and then spend more time doing even more "womanly" things.
What this does to our society is create women that believe the way to be a good woman is to be a typical 50's house wife.
I do understand that Disney has tried to make more modern movies such as Finding Nemo where they portray a single dad trying to make it in the world with his son. However, in this case their is no female role model. It seems that Disney simply does not know how how to create a good female role model.

Monday, March 30, 2009

Super Heros?


I am recently reading the Watchmen graphic Novel and realized something, all super women are dressed for sex while most men are dressed for coolness or practicality (except superman he just looks like a pansy).
As a child growing up I watched Batmanand I thought he was so cool. Now that I am older I realize the only females in batman are Poison Ivy who is evil and Cat Women who I still can't figure out if she is good or evil however both women are dressed super sexy and super unpractical. Batman's costume has awesome gadgets and his armor protects him from all kind of bad stuff. Poison Ivy's costume is tight and sexy and has no other benefit, same with Cat Women.
Another show I watched was He-man Masters of the Universe. He-man did not have a cool costume; however, he did have a cool sword that he could fight with and a tiger that listened to his every command. His female counter part She-Ra has also a a sword, however, her sword is called the sword of protection which means she did not "kick ass" she played a motherly role of protection.
Later on in life I started watching the power puff girls. Now this was a show that I thought at first was awesome. There are no super men in it only girls. Here however is where the problem starts they are girls not women. They are cute and cuddly. We are telling our children that boys are allowed to grow up and be strong and protect the world, however, our girls need to stay cute and pretty and sexy and then they can HELP protect the world. This means that from early childhood girls are shown where their role in life is. They are to be a side kicks, or it takes three of them to do the job that one man can do.

Sunday, March 8, 2009

Velma!!!


Even though I said I would write about video games in my next blog, however, I am sitting here watching Scooby-doo wondering, who did I like as a kid, and who I could not care less for. As a kid I really could not have cared less for Velma's existence. Now that I watch this again as an adult with some knowledge in media reading, I have come to the conclusion, that Velma is always dressed like a dork. In this particular episode she was all bundled up and looked like a great pumpkin while Fred and Daphene had on cute little snow suits that made them look like little models of what society thinks we should look like.
There I sat wondering where did this notion come from that smart girls have to be striped from all attractiveness to be seen as smart? In Scooby-doo it came from the 50's since this is when the show was made. Fred describes your typical jock and Daphene is a typical rich cheerleader type, so they stand as a couple. Scooby and Shaggy are portrayed as stoners, which makes them a couple in a sense.
This means that Velma is the odd one out; the one that no kid wants to be like. Who wants to be a single ugly little smart girl? Even pot-heads are placed above girls with brains and that is sad. Even in cartoons that are supposedly harmless, our children are being shown what is good and what is not. Even though Velma always solves the case we remember the Scooby snakes and the red hair of Daphene and the jockness of Fred and of Velma if we remember her name we remember she is wearing big glasses and that she was smart.
Since the 50's young girls have been told that either they are smart or pretty but never both. If they choose smart then they will vanish in the background, and no little kid wants that so they aspire to be pretty.
The ones who benefit are the white male world. How you must wonder? If we (women) spend our time getting pretty then we have less time to get smart. Everybody knows that knowledge is power so the less time we have for knowledge the more power the white male can keep.
The moral of the story is that even Scooby-doo is bad for equality. What does that say about our world?

Monday, March 2, 2009

Sex and the Nerd

When did it become sexy to be a nerd? You know the video game playing comic book reading, math nerd.
I was watching G4 when i realized that the people on their shows are getting hotter and hotter. For example Olivia Munn why does she have to wear revealing clothes? I mean it is a TV channel about tech stuff and comics and anime. Should the love and interest for these things not be enough to catch a "nerds" attention?
I realize that even back in the 80's they used hot women for example the movie weird science , this was a movie about two teens who are so tech savvy that they build a dream woman, however it was clear from the get go that this is the premise of the movie. On G4 they pretend that it is all about the gadgets but in all actuality it is about the ratings, and ratings are raked in with sex. Now women are not even safe amongst the stereo typical nerd that is supposedly shy around women. It used to be that you could simply be a girl that is friends with these gamers but that has changed. You have the same awkwardness that you have in the clubs just that the music is not as loud and the drinks are cheaper.
How this affects the brood population I do not know but I do know how it affects me. The gaming world used to be a place where women could be imperfect and happy. Now we are held to the same unrealistic standards of people like Layla Kayleigh.
But not only is the TV program adding more sexy hostesses but the video games are also being used to sex up the world...however that will be addressed in a later blog.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

sex(y) over 50!


As always I sat and wondered what to write about. As I was "googleing" just about everything, I found this, a beautiful lady in a wonderful dress, come to find out this lady is Carmen Dell'Orefice. She is a 76 year old model, also known as the first "super model" starting her carrier more than 60 years ago. I realized that at the same time I was astound by her beauty but on the other hand I was wondering "why on earth is she still doing this?" Pondering that question I came across the following study: Grandma's got her groove on which discusses how women over 55 still enjoy sex. Not only do they still enjoy sex, no they enjoy it more than women of that age group 20 years ago. How do these two stories connect you may wonder?
In our society we not only are racist towards skin color, religion, and gender, we also have a problem with age. In our society talking or dare portraying aged sex is not very popular. I believe that Miss Dell'Orefice is a great demonstration of why old people still have sex and she empowers more women to do so. One of the reasons listed as to why women over 55 today want more sex then 20 years ago is according to Eli Coleman, director of the human sexuality program at the University of Minnesota Medical School. "They are empowered women," and they want to remain that way, he says."
So something has happened to women in the past. We have gained more power. We are still not at equality; however a 76 year old model and women over 55 are showing us that we are moving forward. Our culture is excepting more and more from our beautiful female world.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Night life is a meat market


Free drinks for ladies all night! No cover for girls before midnight! 18+ for ladies, 21+ for guys. Who Has not seen these advertisements for clubs?
After reading How Bars Exploit Underage Women as Commodities, I was shocked that I had never thought about this. Basically women are being prostituted. When we (women) get let in the clubs for free and it is advertised, it lets men know that there are a bunch of women in the bar. The clubs are using us to lure men. Having men pay to get in and buy us drinks' since we get them for free on ladies night this means that all the profit is made from the guys buying drinks.
I do not know if it is consciously or subconsciously but men are attracted to these clubs. They know that they will find women in there, who will be more willing to have sex since they are enabled by all the free or cheap alcohol.
Do these ladies nights lead to more women being raped? "July 2006. In a second homicide that summer in the city involving a young woman who had been drinking to excess, 18-year-old Jennifer Moore left one of the city's most exclusive lounges intoxicated. Walking alone in the early morning hours along the city's West Side Highway, she was abducted and raped. Two days later she was found disemboweled in a dumpster in Weehawken, N.J."(How Bars Exploit Underage Women as Commodities, By Liz Funk, Women's eNews. Posted January 2, 2007.)
So what can we do about this? Some might wonder why should we care about sleazy women? We could try to force bars to keep underage women out of the clubs. We could try and educate America's youth better.
As to why we should care, it is simple. Many young women feel the only way they can find a partner is exploit themselves. They do this by wearing promiscuous clothes and trying to party "as hard as the boys can". If society didn't expect women to look a certain way or to be with a boyfriend then perhaps women wouldn't feel the need to put themselves in dangerous situations like this.
I am not saying that all women should boycott clubs. What I am saying is women should be safe when they go out. Clubs should not provide an atmosphere where a woman is hunted, but instead be a safe and fun experience for anyone who attends.

Monday, February 9, 2009

Hypocrite

I like Green Day, I own Metallica's reload and I like it. I do not know if this follows the line of what these posts are supposed to be about and if not then I will simply have more than needed.
I am sick of how once a band has made it in the media world they are considered sell outs. Yes, the media is what the masses want but what happens if the masses want something that is good? Is it necessary that the "cool kids" have to hate it and consider it a sellout? Why is it that these supposedly tolerant people are so intolerant towards thing that are accepted by the masses? Yes, I understand that the these groups as the side groups in society, however they help form pop culture. How many stores are selling clothing that is inspired by punk lifestyle? But when a "true" punk sees the people shopping in the stores with the punk inspired clothes then that "true" punk thinks all the others to be wannabes!
I am so annoyed with the hypocrisy of the so called open mindedness of the side groups. These groups seem to be the most closed minded people in the population. I wonder is this the right way to fight the media and its obvious stupification?
I say we should all make our own decisions as to what we like and don't like. Do not hate a band because it suddenly has fans but actually listen to the music and decide for yourselves if you still like it.
Do not consider a band awesome because it is underground band, but actually listen there music and decide for yourself if they are good.
I do not like the sex pistols! Does this make me less of a punk? What is a Punk, Scene kid, Hopper? I listened to the Sex pistols and there was no talent in that band; it was angry screaming, and the ability to play 3 cords. So again I ask why I should like them.
I guess what I am trying to say is stop being such a hypocrite and make your own decisions, but also do not be a lemming, and make your own decisions!

Thursday, February 5, 2009

10 Pounds



This picture started the controversy of weight yet again.
As the picture of Jessica Simpson aired in the media, a new discussion started on stars that are "fat" according to the media world.
I am starting to get the feeling that the media is out to cause a massive suicide amongst stars and teens.
Psychologically seen the weight that Miss Simpson gained shows that she is comfortable in her new relationship and she decided to simply enjoy her life. However, the media takes it upon them selves to ridicule her for gaining a possible ten pounds.
What bothers me the most about this is that if you look at the people "reporting" these things, they are old unfit men.
Why does the media do this? The reason is that we let them do it. If we would not show interest in these types of stories then maybe they would not show up. If we would not follow the dictations of the media to get thinner, prettier, we would not have to set or selves up for failure.
The average woman will never reach the ideal of what the media wants us to look like which is demonstrated in the picture of the skinny model.
So how can we stop this madness? We could boycott fashion shows. We could refuse to buy gossip magazines. We could simply start eating again.