Blog #4

How do the media images & stereotpyes of men & women impact how we view each other professionally (at school, at work, in politics, etc.)?

Though the above picture lacks recent evidence, it does illustrate a commonality portrayed by the media--the images of stereotyping gender roles in our society. Professionally speaking, Abraham Lincoln is depicted here as a stoic leader of a great nation who may quite be the epitomy of justice, fairness, and a "real" man in the mid 1800s (though the Confederate states will disagree with me.) At the same time Abe is looking rugged and fetchingly, his wife is also looking strangely at ease yet with a hidden anxiousness. What possible anxiousness could a First Lady who is married to a Civil War, to-be-assassinated President feel? How about a lack of her own voice.

In today's world, sadly, we are not far off from those days of White male dominated society. In fact, many will argue we still are in a culture that is still dominated by white rich males. Just the same, white males in the middle age in a work place are considered the "stabilizers" or the "rock" of a corporation: still hard-working (not too old), still innovative, experienced, and well to do with the world (probably having a family so they know how to deal with life's worst situations.)

On the contrary, many middle-aged women in the professional work place are seen as "are you really still working here?" or "you must have no family or husband, right?" Unfortunately, the worst of all these cultural biases are involved with the view and images of teenage girls in junior high and high school. Junior high especially can be extremely detrimental or influential on girls. When both sexes enter junior high, their biological clocks begin to chime and their emotional stability and "sexual confidence" is very impressionable.

Since over 13% of all 7th grader boys could not honestly tell you their sexual orientation, it is highly likely that these males will lach on to the nearest "manly" or "real man" thing that is available to them. At that age, since most sexually explicit movies and shows are not available to their access, they absorb the media's violence as a way to show that they really are "men" and not something weak or pathetic. (Not that I am suggesting that men are animals, but this is a ritualistic endeavor by many mammalian species for adolescent males is to be engulfed in violence, whether it is through play, such as lion cubs, or violent video games.) Therefore, from a biological standpoint, since sexual development and natural male "violence" attraction many times come hand-in-hand with many mammals, I will argue that the need for teenage boys to find a strong male figure or model in their lives is extremely crucial. Unfortunately, I blame the media for using this natural process to its advantage by stereotyping the violence as an integral part of development, when in reality, the natural process does not actually need external additions of violence to a developing adolescent male.

Similarly, I put all blame on the media for making the "respected" image of teenage girls the way it is today. Never in nature is a super skinny, sluttily-dressed girl considered "respected"; yet somehow, our culture feels that a thin woman representing a submissive character flaw (one that would not stand up to a large, burly male) is considered advantageous to the woman! How backwards are we!?! In an exercise of futility, the women are told that being industrious and basically being a person is not an effective way to live life. Women gained suffrage in the 1920s; however, the media's image of women simply being submissive, sex-crazy objects to men clearly spit in the face of the gains of the 20s. Just the same, industrious women are considered "female dogs", and female politicians are seen similarly and ones that cannot make rational decisions because they are too involved with emotions to be effective leaders.

To Honest Abe, I would bet that he would think differently of the roles of women in his time if he had a longer time to live. In addition, that stoic leader of social progress seen above would probably cry if he saw the little gains of women stereotypes in our society today.

Blog #3: TV and America? Who knew?

Television show: The Big Bang Theory

The Big Bang Theory is a television show that exemplifies the life of incredibly intelligent "geeks" who have a neighbor who is extremely attractive and is contrary to their "nerdy" persona. The conflict between male, intelligent, nerd-based logic versus female intuition and loving nature is what gives the show its humor.

Achievement and success is displayed through the occupations of the nerds' occupations; contrary to the successes, the failures of the love escapades of the one character of Leonard liking the attractive Penny also are enhanced in the program. One of the main characters, Sheldon, values his scientific work as an important asset to his performance and lifestyle. All of the "nerds" exemplify a sense of practicality and effeciency when dealing with every matter in the show, especially as shown in "Halo Night." Leonard is trying to break away from nerd stereotype and create Progress in his life and send it in a new direction. Though material comfort is not always obvious, it is important to note that material comfort in this show is represented through purchases of items such as a replica time machine from a movie. Despite being nerds, the four men have accepted that fact and promote individualism through embracing it fully. Unlike in a restrictive, governmental country, the men are able to pursue whatever scientific achievement they want and have the freedom to do so fully. Without a doubt, the men adhere to the conformity of nerds--the succinct ways of living so precisely as a nerd. Leonard will show his humanitarianism to Penny in her every need as he seems almost desperate of her attention. Despite the attempted maturity of scientists, the men demonstrate their youthfulness through Halo nights and one character, Howard Wallowitz, still lives with his mother.

The show demonstrates to audiences that, though superior intelligence is one to be mocked and can potentially be hilarious, intelligence is one to be celebrated despite the struggles of social awkwardness. That same struggle is one of freedom and individualism in that society does not have to adhere to social norms acceptable only through the uneducated but also through those of the educated [and highly educated.]

Blog #2

Media has once again seemed to penetrate every fabric of our lives (see "What is Media?"), especially the private and sacred parts. So why does it matter to us if we are to be consumed by the media anyway?

Just as a pushy salesperson paid on commission will practically prostrate him or herself to a customer for a purchase, so also do the militant media making sure their mastery of our minds are outright and encompassing. Hell, something for the media has to pay the rent. The media is unfortunately NOT a free enterprise, and its only means for obtaining payments is through the consumer. Therefore, it can be argued by any entrepreneur that knowing what the public wants rather than simply asking it is more advantageous and beneficial to the both the business (more profits, less unnecessary costs) and the consumer (to not feel haranged or annoyed by people asking of their opinions.)

However, what the video footage displayed sickened me--how selfish can any person, organization, or entity be that it must exploit children even when they privately go to the bathroom!? Is it ultimately that necessary for children to know what brand of diaper is better? In my mind, it seems that the consumer here is the parent; in that case, durability and cost management seems pertinent to the diaper issue. I will also concede that certain designs on said diapers (for giggles, let's just say Barney is implicated) will enhance or deter the "fondness" of the toddlers using them and those who are watching the implicated characters' television programs. Some of that funding does not need to come directly from the consumer but from the television show itself and some of its sponsors.

In addition, does it take a rocket scientist to know which Spanish-laced program [say, between Dora the Explorer or Rio Bravo] relates better to children? No! Depending on the demographic targeted, Huggies can avoid any wasteful or distasteful methods for obtaining which brands children enjoy simply by asking for daytime television ratings or walking into a TOYS 'R' US.

After all, 360 degree immersion marketing and exploitation are not keys to good learning, Disney. Success and education will help future children and generations become who they want to be, not what the media trains them to be. Nonetheless, the media can try to persuade the masses that their methods for obtaining knowledge is completely ethical--but they're not fooling anyone. After all, in the immortal words of Mitch Hedberg, "I know a lot about cars: I can look at a car's headlights and tell you exactly which way it's coming." Clearly, the media is frankly more obvious than they will elusively admit.

What is Media?

Research is a fundamental part of understanding and evaluating concepts that pertain to all effects or related issues of a certain observed situation. Given that idea, one must look into several outside "sources of error," mainly referring to outside influences. What better outside influence is there than the media? The media consumes us to purchase nonessential items, drives us to make brash decisions, and exposes weaknesses to curb our perspectives.

So if the media influences every part of our lives and "research," why is it considered a limiting factor or outside influence? Why is the media "factor" not simply considered a null constituent such as the force of gravity, considering it is always around? The logic I generated from this relates to the notion that the media affects every person differently, whereas gravity exerts a consistent 9.8 meters per second-squared force. Then how does one measure how the media effects individuals?

The best method proposed for such an undertaking is to group individuals by commonalities, particularly by gender, age, and ethnicity. For my particular "research," I engendered four media-related questions, expressed to four different individuals: two teenagers (one African-American male, one Hispanic female), one white middle-aged woman, and one white female senior citizen. All members featured in this "study" mentioned that they felt the media was anything that displayed or relayed information or entertainment. This included all forms of communication, particularly involving radio, television, billboards, newspapers, and the internet. However, all members felt the media was bias in all aspects, whether pro or con to each individual's politics and ideals, and some went so far as to suggest that the media is the primary instigator in influencing the country's political theme and cultural bias.

For the older members of the study, the media proved not only a means of information relay but also a method of evaluating others opinions and creating one's own based off them. For the teenagers, there was a substantial impact of the media's constant bombardment of information of brand names and "self-images" portrayed on the average teenager. These "images" are some of the most important characteristics of a teenagers life--whether they acknowledge the fact or not--mainly through involvement and belonging. Ultimately, this makes sense. While the two older members used newspapers, pamphlets, and the radio for obtaining information and gaining knowledge, the teenage students mainly used the television and other audio/video materials for entertainment. Again, no surprise, students who continually learn in the classroom need that escape from "work" and utilize the entertainment portion of the media, whereas the adults continue to further their educations through mediums through which they can manipulate.

Conclusively, the "research" I conducted reflected what I already suspected about the media: gender, ethnicity, and especially age is greatly affected by the media. The media is everywhere and anywhere--there really is no escape from it without completely secluding oneself from the rest of humanity. (Unfortunately, with population explosions and resource demands, escaping entirely from humanity may only yield an isolated hut somewhere on Antarctica.) So if the media is always around, why is it such a significant issue? It is through the media that we are ultimately united and definitely divided: the media forces us to choose sides and evaluate opinions of others, causing us to form alliances with groups and enemies against factions. With the media, there is neither middle ground nor a definite side; neither a benefit nor a malignance; as long as free speech is possible, the media will continue to be a free-flowing force that will both impregnate and deplete us with our culture, our history, our ideals, our lives.

Blog #1: My Story in Life

One day, I went to the mall to buy a gatorade for my mom. But my mom didn't like gatorade.... uh oh.



The mystery continued and when Carl sat next to me in Media class.... What was I supposed to do when he sat by me? His dominating presence as a captain in track proved me no more worthy than a flea to a dog: a parasite to his persona. But then I realized it was just Carl.