The Title of our Blog

Hey everyone,

Just in case you were wondering, the title of our blog comes from a Lily Allen song called "The Fear."  The line goes: "I am a weapon of massive consumption, but it's not my fault; it's how I'm programed to function."  If you are interested, take a look at the song and give me some feedback about the lyrics as they relate to the terms we've studied during the media unit.

The Fear

Crude violence in Videogames

I’m a videogame lover I love playing videogames and interacting with online players, playing videogames is entertaining and doesn’t have any explicit reason behind it but to entertain the player with a variety of different tools and methods. For example good graphics and controller’s game play are ideal characteristics for game. Violence in videogames is quite seen; in now days 9 games out of 10 have explicit violence. Lately violence in video games is not the only concern, now there are videogames that include drugs, prostitution, torture, a lot of blood, and not the least swearing all the time.
My post shows a list of 10 videogames that are truly controversial, in terms of violence, the content in this videogames is absurd and there is no apparent reason behind the amount of violence used by the player to achieve the end of the game.

Do you think that any of these games should be produced?

Are those video games insanely violent for your tastes?

What would you do if one of your friends, relatives, family plays those games?

Can you think of one effect that such games have on the players?

Those are just hints of what you might say or discuss I would want to hear your free opinion on this as well ;-)

Funny Racist Commercial

What was your impression after watching this video?
Is this video a good depiction of what is going on in the real world?
How would you handle such a situation (in your unique way)

In the real world, all black people are portrayed as being aggressive because of what we hear in the media about some of their violent reaction toward others and acting a bit irrational compared to other race in public. Due to this, parents advice their children not to mingle with them; the black people. Also these parents make sure they fmove away from black people when they come across them. Normally by going the opposite direction. I was trying to address such an issue once and for all because i have been discriminated against more than once in my building by a different race who found me to be fearful. "NOT ALL BLACK PEOPLE ARE EVIL"

Character Roles

Media is the number one way of putting out stereotypes, for sure! Especially through actors playing certain roles given to them. In movies, we often see black males play a character that is funny, outgoing, etc. They are hardly ever put as the main character, but rather the main character's friend who is creating a calm and funny atmoshpere. That's not a bad perspective of showing black males in movies but shouldn't they be given a leading role?

Donkey in the series of Shrek is dubbed by Eddie Murphy, who is a black individual, accompanying Shrek in his adventure to save Fiona. Why accompanying?

Then there is Chris Tucker with Jackie Chan in the movie Rush Hour. Did you notice how Chris Tucker plays a character that is funny, whereas Jackie Chan plays a character that wants to get stuff done fast. It is shown in the picture that Chris Tucker has a more playful character, and Jackie Chan is the more serious type.

The issue is not how black individuals are given a more funny character to play but how they're hardly given roles that are more serious. This shows that these individuals are carefree, all they care about is making jokes and distracting others rather than helping them in a more serious and professional way.

So, a few questions I'd like for you all to answer are:
1) Does race play a role in the type of character actors are given?
2) Should black individuals be given a more serious and funny role?
3) As of yet we don't see any effects of this seterotype, do you think in future we might?

Somebody gonna get a hurt real bad...

Russell peters , the stand up comedian is back... Here's a clip from one of his performances called outsourced where he talks about white parents who do not beat their kids. It's unlike other parents who beat their kids all the time. I'd like to ask you a few questions :

1. What do you have to say about the video ?

2. Do you think white parents should actually beat their kids ?

3. Would you want your parents to beat you anytime in your life ? Why or why not ?

Racism In America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRfjLfyXYlA&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVtF8b_0tts

In the first video, a young black man stepped in the elevator. He’s judged so fast and the lady immediately holds on to her purse tightly and steps to the corner away from him as soon as he steps in the elevator. He notices that she’s racist and he was angry, offended, and he was quiet towards her. By holding on to her purse and stepping away she assumes that he is a thief, thug or just a bad person. This is a stereotype that black people always rob, mug, sell drugs, or what ever comes in the mind of the person who believes they are a victim. The fear in the white women’s eyes as soon as he stepped in the elevator showed that she is terrified as if there was a gun pointed towards her. The whole elevator ride she is starring at him as if she is waiting to be attacked. In the end of the clip he scares her and says “Boo”, screams and tries to give her purse out to the man.

In the second video there were two friends, one was a young white man and one was black, and they were deciding on what movie to watch. The black friend said let’s watch Madea Goes To Jail but the white friend didn’t want to watch it because he didn’t like Madea movies. The black friend assumes that the white man is racist and believes that he also thinks black people aren’t capable of making good films. They name a few more black films and the white man doesn’t like any of them not because he’s racist but because really doesn’t like the movies. He proves a point when the black man starts talking about black struggle. Neither of them experienced any type of struggle that could compare to what happens in films. Its funny how the black guy was the one who was actually was the one being racist and this happens a lot.

1) Does racism still occur everywhere around?
2) Do black people over react and believe the slightest thing could be racist?
3) Are we judged as soon as quick as stepping in an elevator, if so why is it always negative?
4) Is this video racist to white people in general?
5) How do you feel about the double standard that black people can make comments on white people but it’s sort of racist if white people make jokes about black?
6) What do you think about the media using racism comedy?

LFL (Lingerie Football League)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_OJXBnS7fY&feature=player_embedded#at=79

For the most part men dominate women in all sports. Why is this? Through out history it is viewed that woman are the weaker sex and this impacts the woman in our society. Men are usually portrayed in the media as strong, fast, and even if a female fits into those categories she is labeled as a man. Sports are usually categorized into male and female and very few are considered unisex such as swimming, tennis, and more. Female sports are volleyball, figure skating, softball; these are some stereotypes of woman sports. Sports for men are MMA, Boxing, and football. Now let’s talk about women in football because recently there has been a sport called LFL (Lingerie Football League) and this is similar to NFL but not quite. I believe that these women are degrading themselves for many reasons. Firstly the clothes that they wear consist of few such as bras and panties, and the rest are equipments such as helmet, shoulder pads, elbow pads, and knee pads. These women are not being forced to expose themselves rather they choose to but I believe that they are being encouraged to expose themselves to attract more viewers and make it seem like a successful sport. Also they are not getting payed to play this sport and yet it is a league. The only thing that is getting paid is there expenses such as plane tickets, hotels, uniforms, and other things of that sort. They have to pay for their insurance if they get injured and we all know that football is a dangerous sport. I believe that this Lingerie Football League is degrading woman and is using sex to sell their league and attract audience. Also this league is accused of fining players for wearing too much clothes and this alone shows that it encourages women to be more exposing.

This is what one of the players said during a report on the NBC station in DC tonight, one of the players said she didn't have a problem with the uniform. In her words, it's no different than beach volleyball or track and field.

In my opinion I think that this "LFL" should not be considered a league or sport rather it is just a way of woman exposing themselves and getting attention. Also if this is a sport these women should take it more seriously by wearing full football gear (covering up), getting paid, and getting selected based on skill rather than sexual appearance. If kids watch this league especially girls than they will think that it is normal for them to expose their bodies like that publicly and that is wrong. I feel as though children should watch all sports to get physically active and stay fit but this is one sport I would never let a child watch. Also the founder of this league Mortaza has admitted that the league is marketed toward "mostly beer-drinking college students aged 21 and up."

Now my questions to you are:

1. What impact do you think this league has on children or young teens watching this both male and female?

2. Do you think that these players should get paid like other athletes in other leagues?

3. What do you think is the purpose of this sport?

Have No Fear, Men Are Here!

The “damsel in distress” and the “knight in shining armor” are both examples of gender roles that are perpetuated by the media. There is no masculine counterpart for the word damsel, which suggests that men are strong, capable, and are in no need of saving. Women are rarely ever thought of as the knight in shining armor, where the armor symbolizes strength, and the knight is a symbol of heroism or bravery. I don’t think that these labels should be restricted to either gender because both men and women are capable of being brave or in distress. Rosa Parks was an African American woman most known for her refusal to move to the back of the bus, and she demonstrated that women can be equally as brave as men can.

In many films that involve superheroes the gender roles remain, even though superheroes are usually genetically altered or have extraordinary abilities, they still choose men over women to play the heroic role. Also, it isn’t common to represent homosexuals as heroic in the media. Famous examples of these gender roles are:

-Spider-Man (In every part of the trilogy, Mary Jane has always played the damsel in distress role)

-Superman (Lois Lane always needs saving)

-The Hulk (He has tremendous strength while his love interest is vulnerable in comparison)

-Fantastic Four (the character that Jessica Alba plays still falls under the ‘damsel in distress’ role even though she has her own superpowers)

-Thor (Natalie Portman appears to be his love interest who will undoubtedly need saving)

-Iron Man (In Iron Man 2 he does have to protect and rescue his love interest at a certain point in the film)

-Prince of Persia

1) Why do you think that men are commonly portrayed as the heroes rather than women?

2) Are these stereotypical roles an accurate representation of reality, in the sense that perhaps men prefer to feel in control and women desire that sense of security?

3) Would you rather watch a movie that has a male or a woman portrayed as the hero, and why?

Sexist superbowl ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8F_cHT4DvQ

The video above was a commercial originally intended to air during the Superbowl, but was cut because it was too controversial. Although it never appeared on TV, it did demonstrate a negative view of women. In the commercial the man is watching foot ball, while his wife is cleaning the house around him. The wife complains about having to do all the housework herself and this annoys the man. He's just trying to watch his sports. The woman is than replaced by an attractive, scarcely dressed woman who bring the man what he wants and that will not disturb him.

This commercial says many things. It says that a man's desire to watch football is more important than him doing any share of the housework. And that women are only useful when they are prevocatively dressed, and submissive. All in all this sends the message that men are the dominant sex, and that women are supposed to server men.

I find this extremely offensive to women. Not only does it bring up the gender role of the woman doing all of the house work while the man watches TV, but this is not even good enough for the man! The woman has to be completely submissive and cannot interupt his sport watching. I find the fact that anyone would think like this to be shocking. I don't think men are entitled to anything more than women.

What do you think this commercial says about society, and what impact would it have if it was released?

Do you trust media????

So easy, a man can do it

This advert is for an over cleaner; Oven Pride. It features a man acting like a child, using the product. Meanwhile a pregnant woman stands by glaring angrily at him. The tagline of the ad is, "Oven Pride, so easy a man can do it". And, there is even a note at the end, saying, "No men were harmed during the making of this commercial".

I found that the ad was sexist, offensive, and demeaning to both genders. The advertisement suggests that men are too stupid to clean, and that cleaning is woman's job. Cleaning the oven or cleaning in general, is not a complex task, and can be done by either gender. The ad stereotypes women as typical housewives who take care of the house, and men as the dumb, incapable spouse. This advertisement isn't the only piece of media that stereotypes men and women like this. These stereotypes are very popular and common in the media.

In The Simpsons, Homer (On the couch) is lazy and very stupid, and Marge (Vacuuming) is the typical housewife, in charge of cleaning the house.

Now, there are families across the globe, in which the women is the sole breadwinner of the family, and the man stays home and takes care of the house and children. But, women, in a household, are expected to clean and take care of the children without the help of their husbands, who are expected to get a job and provide for the family financially.

In my opinion, between the two roles, neither is superior. In my own family, both my parents have jobs, and although my father has helped clean, primarily my mother is the one in charge of maintaining the house.

That's just my opinion, what's yours?

Questions:

I. What did you think about the advertisement?

II. Do you think these stereotypes are true? false?

III. Between the two roles of the spouses, do you think one is superior? If so, which one, and why?

When Women Abuse Men

Watch before reading or posting any comments please. :D

If video doesn't work here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks

This video was a pretty interesting social experiment. To summarize what basically happened was; a male actor was made to abuse a female actor, and when people saw this they immediately reacted and came to the aid of the female. But when the roles were reversed and the female was the one abusing and assaulting the male nobody really seemed to care anymore. This shows that we tend to believe that when a man is abusing a women its immediately wrong, but when a women is abusing a male, well it's probably the males fault any ways, he deserves it, right? About 163 people walked by the abusive women before anybody actually reacted. Even a police officer even walked by without doing anything, he simply said that they were having a little "pip"(I think), and it was nothing to be worried about.

A plausible reason for this is that we are conditioned by the media, and even our literature to assume that when

a women hits a man, she has a just reason for it and thus it is acceptable. For instance in Pirates of the Caribbean, Captain Jack Sparrow is slapped but for a very good reason, so we the viewers immediately consider it OK and even consider it empowering and a good dead done on the females behalf, seeing as she was able to extract her revenge. Also we are raised never to hit a women, and as a result when we see women hitting men, we act passive towards them and don't see the situation for what it really is.

Unfortunately in this country, women abusing men is a serious problem, especially with the stereotypes that exist for both males and females. A abused male may be afraid of even admitting to anybody that his wife/girlfriend is abusing him in fear of being considered weak and a wimp. Also people would be very resistant to immediately believe him seeing as its strange in our society to think that a women is abusing a male. Its generally the other way around.

In the video a lady's reaction went as far as to even cheer silently for the women. When later asked why she cheered the lady responded "good for her, you go girl" supporting and even encouraging her violent behavior because of the assumption that the women had caught the male doing something like cheating. The problem with this is that female aggression, in our current society is stereotyped as harmless, and nothing to react to, but it could possibly be very harmful, to both the male and the female in the relationship. Though unfortunately as a result, many violent acts are committed by females, and encouraged rather than being taken seriously for what they are. Violent actions should never be encouraged regardless of whether there is a good reason for it or not. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

Points to Discuss:

1) Do you think our society justly treats the problem of abusive females, or are they given a

lesser penalty seeing as they are females?

2) If you saw a female abusing a male, how would you react?

3)Why do you think we assume that the male is responsible when we see a women abusing a

male?

RELIGION BREEDS HOMOPHOBIA?!?

The church of Westboro, i'm sure many of you have heard about them before. They are mainly known a hate group because of their extreme stances against homosexuality. As you can see in the picture above these kids are being taught from childhood that being a homosexual is wrong and that they will probably burn in hell if they even think about acting this way. This certain religious group installs fear into their children which causes them to be afraid of being homosexual, regardless of what their true feelings may be.

The issue that lies behind this is that most religions state that homosexuality is a sin and such activity shouldn't be conducted. Unfortunately people who follow these religions are constantly conditioned, whether they know it or not, to discriminate against homosexuality and by the time they're older will have a negative opinion of homosexuals. In this todays society homosexuality should be accepted, not looked down upon. Due to this conditioning many people who are homosexuals may in fact be afraid to admit it, and end up living a unhappy lie of a life. Also people who are homosexuals often have to end up acting this way only in secret, in fear of being punished by the law.

Possible Questions:

1) Is religion really a good enough reason to allow children to be conditioned to discriminate against homosexuals?

2)Is it really right to discriminate against something just because of the fact that it is "tradition" to do so?

3)Everything in this world is subject to decay, whether its a flower or even an idea. Everything is also constantly evolving, isn't it time we changed old discriminatory thinking and replaced it with more understanding and accepting thinking?

Man without compromise?

In this video, the man is being encouraged to stand up for himself and he is congratulated for not giving in to his wife/partner. I think men watching this commercial are being encouraged to stand up for themselves in their relationship and not to let their leisures being taken away from them. I think that this video contains some truth in the sense that a couple cannot always be together, each partner needs his/her space and that is a key aspect for a relationship to be a lasting one.

There are some negatives to this commercial though. Firstly, children, teens or even adults watching this video might get the wrong idea and might actually think that the needs of a man are more important than those of a woman, that will eventually cause them to have some troubles in their relationship later on. Another problem to think about is that of children watching this video. Small boys and teenagers might get the impression of that's how a "real" man should be acting and might do so later on in their life. Similarly, female viewers might get the impression of that is the way girls should be acting in order for men to find them attractive.

I want to hear about any opinions that you may have about this commercial.

What you think about this commercial in general? What possible consequences do you think might result from people watching this? Do you think that this whole commercial was implied to be seen as a joke without really meaning for it to appear as a sexist commercial?

It's her job [Stereotype: women are housewives]

I'm sure that many of you have seen this image before. When I first came across this picture I found it very funny, but at the same time I found it rude and a bit derogatory. Clearly, it contains a message that directly addresses the stereotype about women becoming housewives when they get married. "Give it to your wife, it's her job!". To me, this phrase, though intended to be a joke, makes men appear arrogant and disrespectful in the eyes of women. Men usually have a sense of entitlement that they should be regarded as the superior gender, and they are supposed to take on "big things" such as being the breadwinner in the family. Women, on the other hand, are often tied to more "trivial" things, from taking care of the babies, cleaning the house, washing clothes to...changing diapers. It would be inappropriate for a man to stay home and do all the chores, as it would for a woman to go out and earn incomes to support the family. Of course, the reverse sometimes occurs, that is men being the care-giver and women the breadwinner. But it doesn't happen very often.

What is it that perpetuates this stereotype? Let's look at a couple who has just got married recently. They are both ambitious and have their own dreams. People say that the husband is the breadwinner and the wife care-giver. The husband went out to work while the wife agreed to stay home taking care of the family. At first the husband often helped his wife when he got home, but one day a neighbor joked that he was like a servant to her. He got embarrassed and stopped helping. The wife, meanwhile, began thinking about her dreams. But her friends told her that women who work hard are not 'womanly', and cannot keep the husband. She went back to accept her roles and did all the chores.

From the example above, we can see that stereotypes are tenacious and very hard to beat. It is the pressure to conform to the expected norms created by society that perpetuates stereotypes, making them stronger and stronger.

Points to discuss,

1. What is your reaction to the image above?

2. What is your view on the stereotype that woman are housewives, they must do all the housework themselves? Do you think it's fair? Should women be left up to their choice as to stay at home or go out to work?

3. Do you think men should help with the housework as well? Do you think it is embarrassing/unmanly for men to do it?

That's What She Said.

It's a phrase becoming more and more popular as we speak, or as you read in this case.


It was made popular by it's overusage in the hit mockumentary, 'The Office' (I.LOVE.DUNDER.MIFFLIN ♥). The woman being referred to is no one in particular but seems to be a woman who really knows her way around, if you know what I mean. You can add it to the end of any sentence although it's typically used at the end of any sexually suggestive remarks/comments. Take a look at the video I posted for some examples of how it's being used if you don't already know.

The phrase, "That's what she said." seems completely innocent. It seems to be a neutral statement, not suggestive of anything. However it's use in 'The Office' (and many others shows) has made it appear to mean something a hooker once said. Behold,

Two students are working on an English assignment,
'This is so hard!' says one student, followed closely by 'That's what she said.' implies something different from what is it's intended meaning. The first student was implying that the homework assigned was a challenge while the phrase added on to it ... well... *cough* that implies that something else was hard.

Anyways, that's enough about how it's used. Although when the phrase was first used I did laugh, I started to wonder why there isn't an equivalent phrase for males like 'That's what he said'. Sure, it doesn't sound so suggestive yet like 'That's what she said.", but that's how it started out for 'That's what she said.' The fact that this phrase exists and isolates a female is implying that only womankind is capable of such behaviour which is not true. This is a stereotype that exists in many TV shows and is very degrading. Isn't it true that men can be just as horny? Just thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention.

Points to discuss,

1) Do you feel that it is acceptable to use a phrase like this? Do you think it's offensive or just a joke? Should this be considered a form of sexual harassment if this phrase is used in this way at work?

2)Can you think of any other phrases/jokes that involve degrading women? When did you learn them?
(ex. Your momma jokes)

3) Do you think TV shows can be entertaining but at the same time, not make negative comments about groups of people? Why or why not?

Presidential Business

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4

(Sorry I couldn't upload the link, I faced some problems trying to upload it.)

In the video above, President Obama seems to get his revenge against Donald Trump, who has been making demands to seeing the President's birth certificate. Donald Trump's allegations are that Obama was not born in the United States. This controversy personally reminded me to when Barack was running for office, and he was scrutinized for apparently being Muslim. As to why his race, religion or ancestry is taken into consideration in comparison of what his abilities are as a President, baffles me.
Although the jokes made by the President are quite funny, do you think it's right for a President to defend himself and be socially involved in the media and socialites like Donald Trump? Or should he just stick to his main job, be professional and more involved with more important matters?

A Meal To Die For

Please comment on what comes to mind after watching this clip.

1. It's hard to determine what is drawing these customers to HEART ATACK GRILL (or giving them heart attack), these waitresses or meals?

2. Aren't there enough fast food restaurants out there, why is the introduction of this franchise necessary when it does more harm then good to people?

Racial Discrimination

Here is a trailer for the movie "Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay" that i found to be hilarious. The trailer shows many signs of racial discrimination and there are many scenes in the movie that show racial discrimination and stereotypes. I found this trailer and topic that is being illustrated in the trailer to be really good for the blog. So i hope you enjoy the clip and i have a couple of questions to ask you.

1) What did you think of the video?
2) How many racial stereotypes can you identify? And what did you think of them?
3) Do you think that the Americans are going "Overboard" with these stereotypes? Explain

Princesses & Power Rangers

What did these poor kiddos ever do to us?

Right from the time they are young, through media and family, children are socialized to understand and conform to their gender roles. It’s just the way our society works; unintentionally, we draw lines and tell the child to not cross them, forcing them to follow norms.

We make girls read fairytales and watch Disney princesses through their childhood years. Then, we make lists about the wrong stereotypes of women, in which we list the following: concerned with physical beauty, emotional, having long hair. Well, how can you blame them, when the first things we expose these girls to is the angelic face of Ariel or Barbie’s perfectly made-up eyes?

Parents provide their kids with toys as they grow up, which is a major influence on the child’s mentality. Why is it that young girls are always encouraged to play with dolls and boys with racecars? Let me insert my first question here: Do you think that the stereotype that females form emotional bonds more deeply and are caring and affectionate stems from the fact that from the time girls are little, we give them dolls and tell them to take care of them?

Okay, let’s not leave the boys out. I don’t know much, since I’m a girl (I hope you figured that out by now) and I don’t have any male siblings. But from what I’ve seen, they’re into Pokemon wars, Power Rangers, racing cars and all the possible action-packed video games there are. [I know I sound really ignorant of everything that young boys do, Sorry! Please enlighten me!] Well, anyway, all those are usually involved with ‘saving the day’ or ‘aggression’ or ‘physical strength’ – and I’m sure all of these probably ring a bell.

Have you ever noticed a girl being crazy about Hot Wheel cars? Well, I was one of them. I don’t know why, but I have this collection of toy racecars. Yes, I was laughed at by all the girls in my class who preferred lip gloss by then. The same could probably be said about a young boy who cannot sleep without his stuffed toy by age ten.

So how can we be complaining about our society being closed-minded or the fact that wrong stereotypes about men/women exist, when we are the ones conditioning our youth to these beliefs?

So here are my questions besides those that I already stuck in random parts through my post:

1. Do you think that these early influences exert a subconscious pressure on the minds of girls and boys regarding how they are supposed to behave?

2. Is this conditioning wrong? Does our society need to change?Explain why/how.

Maroon 5 - Misery

People in this blog talked about men suppressing women and it reminded me of this music video.

In this music video, Adam Levine is being physically abuse by a woman and the lyrics suggests he is also being emotionally abused by the same woman.

Have you wonder that women do oppress over men too in society? It doesn't just go one way.

Questions:

1)Do you think women can be very cruel and physical as shown in the video?

2)Do you think the women in a heterosexual relationship can sometimes be the one who makes the decision?

3)Do you think it is acceptable for women to hit men but not the other way around?

After reading some comments about the video, it rise up the topic about the sexual content of the media where there was a lot of inappropriate touches. I was just wondering what you guys think about the sexual content in the media today. These are some extra questions: Is it too explicit for children to watch? Do you feel uncomfortable watching it? Do you think there was a big jump from the past decade in showing more skin(especially women)?

People with Disability in the Media

People with disability in the media are stereotyped a lot. In the media they are viewed as individuals who have the same characteristics and attitudes no matter what type of disability they are suffering from. Usually they are viewed as the object of pity. In movies they are the individuals who you feel sorry for. In most movies the character who is suffering from a disability are often in wheelchairs since it is an ironic sign of disability. Also, the actors who play these types of characters are not disabled, and they do not have an idea of how it really feels in being an individual who is suffering from a disability.

Furthermore, another common stereotype against people with disability in the media is the villain. In movies, characters who are suffering from a disability are often the villains. In the media their disabilities are used to support evil. For example pirates who lost their eye, their arms or their legs through an accident often become the villain due to the fact that they try to seek revenge. Therefore, in movies these characters have been driven to commit crime due to the hatred of their disability. But in realty the majority of the people suffering from a disability are most likely to be the victims of the crime and not the ones who commit the crime.



Moreover, another common stereotype against people with disability in the media is the ones who overcome their disability. Although this positive stereotype is a better image than the other stereotypes, it is still a stereotype. For example the movie soul surfer, which is about this teenage girl who lost her arm in a shark attack and had the courage to go back in the ocean and surf again. I think that it is really great that this character has overcome her disability, and there are many people in reality who have overcome their disability as well. But what about those who have not? In the media, it focuses on the individuals who overcame their disability, but not those who have not. Also, it portrays disability as a challenge and individuals who are suffering from it can overcome it if they tried harder, which is not true.

Question:

1. What do you think about people with disability in the media?
2. Do you think that the media should portray people with disability in the ways they do?
3. Do you think that they are being treated equally in the media? Why or Why not?

Learning about Sex before Learning How to Tie Your Shoelaces?

Have you ever been in a health class in elementary school where the teacher starts off like this: “Good Evening students, today we will be discussing homosexual intercourse?" That just might be the case after the revised sex ed. curriculum is implemented. Here are some of the new additions that elementary students will learn about under the revised curriculum:

In grade one, students will learn about the male and female genitalia using the correct terms such as: penis and vagina. In 1998 there was no mention of genitalia in the curriculum. In grade three students will learn of differences with regards to learning abilities, gender identity and sexual orientations. At age six students will learn about masturbation and at age 12 they will learn about oral and anal sex. Teachers will be able to freely discuss issues relating same-sex parents and homosexuality in general.

McGuinty, who supports the curriculum said that it is better to give youngsters the information they need in school programs rather than having them seek information on their own from unreliable sources.

In response, Dr. Charles McVety, president of Canada Christian College, offered his opinion by stating, "This is so confusing to an eight-year-old ... these are children in the strongest sense of the word -- they're innocent, they're clean, they're beautiful -- and to corrupt them by imparting a question of gender identity is beyond the pale."

The new curriculum has also angered several parents who believe that children should not be learning such material at such a tender age. Many parents also argue that teaching children about topics such as masturbation and homosexuality is against their religion. Parents feel that they should have a say in terms of what their children are learning about sexuality.

Personally, I do not support the new curriculum for a number of reasons. Firstly, I do not understand what purpose this new curriculum serves. Why would a first or third grader need to know about such material in such detail? 8 year olds should not be worried about such issues. Sex ed should be taught at an age where students can understand the importance of it. A first or third grader would not take such matters seriously and would not understand the importance of the topic. Children are pure and innocent, and they should be able to maintain that innocence without adults having to corrupt their minds at an age where they do not know the ways of the world. Kids are also curious. If we teach children about such topics some will likely try having sex out of curiosity. Because teachers will openly be talking about sexual matters, students may be under the impression that having sex at a young age is acceptable, which can actually increase teen pregnancy. If children learn about concepts such as oral/anal sex, why should there be any viewer discretion when it comes to T.V shows or movies. Also, in most health classes teachers are careful not to preach abstinence; instead they talk about the safest ways to having sex.

I do not encourage that adults keep sexuality a “secret” from children, however, it should be taught an age where students are mature enough to understand the importance. In my previous health classes, none of the teachers really talked about homosexuality. The focus was mostly on sexual relations between heterosexual couples. I feel that teachers should teach about homosexuality because it eliminates ignorance and can help make homosexuals feel more integrated within society. Furthermore, parents should have a limited involvement in the curriculum. They should be able to voice their opinion, but should not be allowed to dictate what will or will not be taught. Sex ed should be treated like any other subject taught in school, and just like other subjects, it should be taught when students are mature enough to understand it.

(1) Are you in favor of curriculum that is being proposed? Why or why not?
(2) Do you believe that teachers should talk about homosexuality in health classes?
(3) Should parents have control over what children learn in terms of sexuality or should health classes be treated as any other subject taught in school?

Kims - No Kims no Joy

Here is a commercial of two different stereotype groups.
I think one group is the typical straight group (or cool group) where they eat junk foods like chips which the commercial is trying to sell KiMs chips
The other group is the typical gay groups who eats vegetable where one of the guy makes a gesture that is stereotype to be feminist.
I actually found the commercial funny, I was laughing at the part where the first group started screaming when they see the vegetables.
Well, I laugh at things very easily though.

Questions:
1)What was your first reaction from watching the video?
2)What do you think about the two different groups in the commercial? (Compare them)
3)Do you think one group is necessary better than the other group?
4)Which group do you think you belong to? (You can say neither)

Freedom of Choice: every woman's right

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWJRam64dQY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

In France, the law imposes a fine of €150 (£132) fine and/or citizenship course as a punishment for wearing a niqab or a face-covering veil. Is it not ironic that France, which claims to promote freedom of rights, is now snatching away the same rights from its own citizens? Clearly, this is a violation of women’s right and is restricting women from practicing their own religious beliefs. The law is presented under the auspice of “protecting” Muslim women and liberating them from oppression.

The banning of niqab law is based on misconceptions about Islam being inherently oppressive to women. Unfortunately, Muslims are partly to blame for such misconceptions. In some Muslim-majority countries women are mistreated and abused due to sexist cultural practices that are in violation of Islamic teachings. Muslims need to practice Islam correctly by understanding and applying truthful Islamic principles and eliminating all the unjust and oppressive practices. Moreover, Muslim in western/European countries need to explain and demonstrate the true teachings of Islam and explain the difference between backwards cultural practices and religious rituals by always referring to the holy book, the Qu’ran.

According to statistics, there are 2,000 Muslim converts in France that voluntarily chose to wear the niqab. Most of them lost their jobs because they refused to remove the veil at work. From their perspective, they feel that they are preventing themselves from being objectified and sexualized. They want their sexuality to be in their control. They do not want people to judge them based on their body appearances but rather deal with their intelligence. I find it very hypocritical when western governments and human rights groups rush to defend women’s right when some governments (such as government of Afghanistan) force women to wear a certain dress code, yet, these same “freedom fighters” look the other way when women are deprived of their rights to freedom of choice, to practice religion and to work, just because they chose to exercise their right to wear the niqab. Many women, such as Hibah Ahmed, believe that they are fighting against a systematic oppression against women in which women's bodies are sexualized and objectified. “…if we want to really talk about the oppressive situation of women lets talk about all the eating disorders, the plastic surgeries, all of the unhealthy diets that are being done all in the name of having the perfect body. To me this (niqab) is liberating and this is empowering."

I never looked at oppression in this way because media usually shows oppression as women being forced to wear the hijab/niqab but it never shows women being forced to remove it. For clarification, the niqab is not mandatory; however, the hijab is in Islam. I am against the banning of the niqab because it violates democracy, basic human rights and it oppresses women . However, if it is a matter of safety, and the woman has to prove her identity, for example in airports, courtrooms etc, than I strongly believe that the woman must remove her veil to prove her identity. After all, why should she be any special than anyone else. The law is justice to everyone which is why she should remove the veil if safety becomes a concern or if identity needs to be proven.

1. What is your opinion about the banning of niqab? Do you support it? why or why not?
2. Do you think France will ever change its law about the banning of niqab?
4. Do you believe there is such thing as "Islamophobia?" If yes, do you think Islamophobia is the most underlying reason/factor to the banning of niqab?

Homosexual parents?

In today’s society most children are usually well-mannered, sophisticated and have valuable strengths, but where do we derive these traits from? One possible answer to that question is the way we are brought up by our parents; in other words their ‘parenting’. But what do you think might happen if your parents are of the same sex? Will you still turn out the way you did now? A justice department study has solemnly concluded that parenting by same sex families is equally good for children when compared with heterosexual families. The study was commissioned by the Liberal government in 2003. The study concluded that children who are raised by same-sex parents tend to be as competitive as parents from opposite-sex parents. Few studies also gave astonishing results that children raised by two lesbian mothers do better in social competence rather than children in ‘traditional nuclear families’. Nonetheless, almost every study on same-sex parenting has been only done on lesbian mothers because they spend the most time with their children, the report also mentions that there is too little research in particular about gay male parents to determine any terminal conclusion.

Virginia West, a lesbian mother, who is raising two-year old Rowan with her partner Cheryl Reid in Toronto, said that the study validates that lesbians are better at parenting than gays. She also said that she is very content that the government organized this research because it gives a direct message that homosexuals can be good parents, this process by the government might help most homosexual’s by letting them live a normal life. According to her, she thinks if she lived in USA then she would not get these rights. She is also deeply saddened that people think that homosexual parents are detrimental to their children. I’m very aware that people think that way but you know spend a little time with us and you won’t think that way.”

Personally, homosexuals model a poor view of marriage to children. I think that they cannot make good parents and they’re detrimental to their children because; firstly the child’s future is insecure because he/she has been raised by only one type of gender so therefore it will be a problem for the child to trust the opposite gender in future as they are not used to them. This may not happen that often but sometimes both parents face too much of discrimination by the society and they may displace their anger on each other or their child, and seeing this the child might develop a negative image about the concept of homosexuality and this may also drift the child away from his/her parents. These children will face discrimination at school and from many other places; therefore they might be unable to make friends as no one would want to be with them.

Questions:

1) If you’re parents are homosexual then how would you feel? Would you just ignore this and move on with your life OR Are you going to think about it and curse yourself for being born in this family?
2) How do you think would the results of the study differ if it was done on gay’s (males) and not lesbians (females)?
3) In general the relationship between the two partners who are homosexual, do you think is it true love or is it just sexual attraction? How does this affect their children?

Conan O'Brien

1. What did you think of the video/joke? Did you find it funny or rude and why?
2. Do you think Conan O'Brien's idea that Artistic people are "gay" is true?

A Jihad For Love

Today in class we discussed the dominant discourse surrounding portrayals of homosexuality in the media.  We came to some agreement that the typical homosexual in popular media is:

- male
- white
- fashionable
- flamboyant
- Western

By depicting homosexuals in such a narrow way, we remain ignorant about the diversity among homosexuals.  For instance, the documentary A Jihad For Love follows the lives of a number of gay and lesbian Muslims who live in countries where homosexuality can be punishable by death.  I urge you to finish watching this film (now with subtitles!) and leave your comments on this post.  What is your reaction to a Muslim man who also identifies himself as gay?  How does it challenge your previous view of homosexuality?

A Jihad for Love

The filmmaker interviewed on The Hour

P.S. On a side note, here is a short animated film about homosexuality from another great documentary called For the Bible Tells me so about Western, Christian families who find out their sons/daughers are homosexual. 

Homosexuality: Is it a Choice?

Where is the “equality”?

Justin Bieber, Rebecca Black, Miley Cyrus, Willow Smith, all these young “children” start acting like grown-ups the second the enter the industry. I remember the time Justin Bieber’s One Time came out. Every site I went on, had hate comments for him. Now, when I go on youtube you know what I see? Hate comments for Rebecca Black’s Friday. Hate comments for Rebecca just don’t seem to be stopping. I wouldn’t be surprised if in the next couple of years, she’s the next Katy Perry or Lady Gaga or Any other female superstar!

It’s been like a trend. Every artist that comes up without any famous family background goes through this phase in which they have to listen to all the hated comments. For some reason, female artists have to listen more of this criticism. What I am trying to get here at is that, no matter how brave or talented you are, there will always be people criticising you at everywhere step you take, especially if you’re a female.

Let’s take William and Kate’s royal for example. I was just watching a documentary on T.V. about their up-coming marriage, and there was this particular line said by one of the former bridesmaid of Princess Diana. She said “The paparazzi were just waiting for Diana to make a fool of herself”. The question that is been bothering is that why wasn’t the paparazzi waiting for Prince Charles to make a fool of himself? Why was it just princess Diana? Yes I know because she’s a new addition to the Royal family, but that doesn’t give the media to follow her on every step she takes.

My point befemale artists, knowingly or unknowingly, are pressurized more than men to become these so called “idols”, which every female should be looking up too. Female artist make one wrong move, and it’s all over the internet.

My question to everybody is:

Is it okay to young artists to go through the same experience that the adult artists are going through? Is it possible for these young artists to get a negative impression of their talent or themselves after reading the hateful comments?

Why is the female artist always the centre of attraction? Why is the spotlight always on the female artists and barely ever on the male artist? When we say that everybody is equal, then why differentiate between male and females?

Heroism shadowed

What makes a hero? Were are so used to seeing what a hero is suppose to look like or how they should act, but to be one is truly another story. It made me think of females as heroes, and why is it that their now shown saving the day, yet still hidden in the shadows. Of course there always is superwoman, but without even knowing what she really does, even I just assumed she is just a symbol for an attractive hero in tights. Were not always exposed to such heroic stories, especially with women sadly, but recently I read a book that fiction it may be, A thousand splendid suns simply blew me away!

The story of 2 remarkable strong women named Mariam and Laila living in Afghanistan who are brought together under unfortunate desperate circumstances. With Mariam being nineteen years older than Laila, they both are sister wives of a man who takes them in during a war. Both of their pasts are completely different. Mariam, being a poor woman who grew up in a small house abandoned by her father, and Laila a financially stable girl with a passion for education. The story reveals two women, Laila actively allowed to speak her mind and encouraged to be a strong woman in the Afghan society, and Mariam not allowed to be educated what so over. When both of them are forced into marrying a man they don’t desire neither of them can understand why they are brought into this situation. But both women begin to realize that they have more in common than just an inhumane manipulative husband Rasheed, whom they were both forced to marry in their teens. During the bloody wars in Afghanistan, as women they are taken away all their rights. The Tailban makes sure that women know what their place is in the country.

You will not, under any circumstances, show your face. You will cover with burqa when outside. If you do not, you will be severely beaten.

You will not wear charming clothes.

You will not speak unless spoken to.

You will not make eye contact with men.

You will not laugh in public. If you do, you will be beaten.

You will not paint your nails. If you do, you will lose a finger.

Girls are forbidden from attending school. All schools for girls will be closed immediately

Women are forbidden from working.

If you are found guilty of adultery, you will be stoned to death.

Listen. Listen well. Obey.

Until one day when Rasheed’s physical abuse went a little too far and came close to taking away Laila’s life. It was than when Mariam did perhaps the only right thing to do when someone’s life is at risk. Mariam saved Laila by killing Rasheed with a shovel before he could kill the young girl. And of course, she was the hero and stopped such a violent action being taken place in such a misogynistic society. Ofcourse, due to her saving another WOMAN and killing a MAN, she had to be put to death. What is sad is that religion is used and manipulated in an entirely wrong way. That due to “religion” Matriam had to be put to justice. It’s not even about gender at this point, is simply about saving an innocent life. I truly believe we live in a society where both woman and men are acknowledged fairly for their heroic acts, but this doesn’t happen in all parts of the world.

1. Do you think that in a situation like this that perhaps it’s males who fear the capability of women, that they failed to recognize what the male in this situation tried to do , over what the female tried to stop?

How do you think heroism and gender differ? That even till today, is a male hero seen “saving the day”, far superior than a female saving the day?

Inluding the situation with Mariam, and today’s society, is male heroism hailed and females hidden?

Equality?

Fire brigade relaxes strength and fitness test to make entry easier for women   

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375381/Fire-service-strength-fitness-tests-relaxed-allow-women-firefighters.html#ixzz1KPiMi4QO

Equality between men and women is a worthwhile thing to strive for. However, we must not confuse equality with being the same. There are biological differences between men and women, differences which give advantages towards strength and stamina. As the article points out the physical requirements to become a firefighter were lowered because it was found that "the old test used to discriminate against women".

I think it's is a mistake to lower standards in order to pander to a politically correct agenda, especially when those standards address life and death situations. The equality we as a society strive for is undermined if the standards are lowered just to make it easier for women to become firefighters.

1) You are in a burning building. Who would you rather be saved by? A person who passed the old test, which requires greater physical strength and endurance, or by a person who passed the second test?
2) Is it discrimination if women find it more difficult than men to pass a physical test?

Christina Aguilera - Beautiful

1)Do you accept the characters shown in the video?

2)What do you think about the characters in the video?

3)Do you think it is fair for these people for how they are being treated in society?

4)How would you feel if you were being discriminated by the society?

Reversal of "Attraction-Expression" Forces

You know the action-reaction forces, which is a physical science concept perceived by Sir Isaac Newton initially. The concept is that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This advertisement rightly proves it. It is a known fact that whether most men admit it or not, they check women out. This does not seem or sound awkward, in fact, it is quite normal. What if it is vice-versa though? The institution of media is so powerful that it can quickly force the general public to alternate their beliefs and opinions. A common stereotype associated with men is how they have the "freedom" in public to actually almost glance at women and comment about their physical appearance. This attribute, possibly, is one of the aspects shaping up their sexual orientation of heterosexuality. Can you imagine women doing the same with men? How would the media portray that change?

 From the lens of heterosexual men, women are underlings in the male-dominated world. When men socialize in institutions such as offices, women are more often than not left out from the ongoing casual discourse. The gender role for men enables them to live a life of superiority as we have become accustomed to it as the norm. In the corporate world, women are not at the top of the ladder in most cases. Why is this? It is simple; women are to manage households than industries no matter the wealth of talent they would possess. Thanks to changing times and technology, women are better off than yesteryear, but still have a long way to go before true equity and equilibrium of power is reached. Unfortunately, we know that is never going to happen in our lifetime, at least for now. 

Why are we shocked when women express themselves in public? My first reaction when I had viewed this advertisement for the first time last summer was like - "Wow...this is awesome"! I loved how both the women use their authoritative power to check Roger Federer out (He is the best tennis player ever - no discussion). This commercial not only sells the Lindor chocolate, but beats the stereotypes related to how women are often drawn back and stay low key. Some people can consume and interpret the portrayal of women in the commercial quite differently, but I guess that would be natural. Media texts and messages are open-ended as people might have varying opinions about the same piece. As a matter of fact, the commercial could be looked upon from an angle where one might find the "ladies" atrocious as of their audacity to express themselves. Personally, attraction is inevitable when someone is good-looking, and I am saying this in the most holistic way possible; you would gaze at the attractive person for a minimum of once. It is infatuation.

We are missing out on something big here as well. What if they had homosexuals in the commercial? Bisexuals? Why did the makers of the commercial choose not to put them instead of two women and one man? The reason, as we all know, homosexuals or bisexuals are indirectly ostracized from the global community, although some countries have legislated the marriage of homosexuals as legal.

A few questions to be addressed :

1) What is your first reaction to the commercial? What do you think about the women?
2) How effective is the commercial in opposing the stereotypes related to men and women as women are the dominant ones here?
3) How would you feel, if you see homosexuals or bisexuals in the commercial?

P.S. - I hope all of you liked the commercial!

'Thank God for Dead Soldiers'

Justices Rule for Protesters at Military Funerals

Terry Z

The U.S Supreme court has ruled in favour of the protesters who attend the funerals of deceased military officers. The first amendment apparently protects hateful protests at military funerals. The protests are a result of the U.S military's tolerance towards homosexual individuals. As a result, various religious groups have attended funerals of dead military officers in a form of protest. They bring hateful signs such as the ones depicted in the image above.

It is extremely disrespectful to attend a person's funeral and spread a message of hate in the presence of their family members. It is equally disappointing that the U.S Supreme Court condones this sort of behaviour. I do not believe that this is a matter of free speech. These soldiers gave their lives to preserve our rights and freedoms. Ironically, the same rights and freedoms now allow these religious groups to slander and disrespect these fallen soldiers. These kinds of protests are a response to the U.S governments earlier repeal of the 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' policy. To my knowledge, homosexual individuals are now allowed to openly serve in the military. However, many people still suffer with homophobia.

Personally, I feel angry and ashamed to live in a society that is intolerant of a person's sexual orientation. I believe that an individual has the freedom to choose their partner. In addition, these sorts of protests are a negative influence on children. This image above shows children participating in these hateful actions. These children do not fully understand the consequences of their actions however, they will be influenced from a young age to be discriminant of homosexuals.

1.) Do you think that these people have the right to protest at military funerals? Or do you think that this exceeds the definition of 'free speech'?

2.)Do you think that homophobia is a problem within our society?

China Owns the United States?

China Owns the United States?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlkLhVo3PbY

Terry Z

Recently, I came across the above linked commercial while watching CNN. I found the media text to be extremely inappropriate and demonstrated a form of propaganda typically seen during the cold war era. The advertisement was sponsored by Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW). This association claims to be a non-partisan, non-profit organization with a mission to advocate the elimination of waste and government inefficiency through non-partisan public education programs. I found it very convenient that this commercial was aired in the midst of the government shutdown a few weeks ago. As we know, the debate and controversy was centralized on the Federal budget. The Republican party's platform focused on budget cuts and eliminating wasteful spending. These similarities between the GOP and CAGW seem more than just a coincidence.

Furthermore, the CAGW sponsored advertisement has the intent to impose a sense of fear into the consumers of the media text. It's intent is to make the American public afraid of the looming Chinese threat against America. In the process, they misrepresent Asians and focus on stereotypes. The commercial takes place in a lecture hall with a Professor dictating the flaws which led to the fall of America. The Asian students were portrayed as cynical, evil, and content with the fact that "They now work for us." In my opinion, this is a dangerous misrepresentation of a race and culture. It appears that as a nation we have not learned from our prior mistakes. During World War Two, Japanese-Americans were taken into internment camps because Americans saw them as a threat to national security. Similarly, Muslim-Americans are also generalized into a stereotype of being 'terrorists' due to the media's generalization and depiction of Muslims. The CAGW is attempting to evoke American patriotism in an effort to stop wasteful government spending which is leading the United States into bankruptcy. However, they have falsely accused and labeled the Chinese as the antagonists. Fear is a powerful weapon used in propaganda. I do not think that it belongs within our Western media. Innocent people fall victim to generalizations created by the media.

1.) If you were to view the media text through an Asian American lens how would you feel about this commercial?

2.) Do you think the media creates too many misleading generalizations/stereotypes about different races?

3.) Do you know anyone who has been a victim of racism?

Males Dominate & Females Tolerate?

See anything strange? If you need an explanation, this image is a gross depiction of five men overpowering one woman which is of course so...."manly." This picture is a perfect example of the power dynamics that the media would like us to believe in. This image and media in general, portrays women as being preys and men as being the predators. The men are clearly more powerful than the only woman in this D&G ad. Women are seen as commodities or objects of use and disposal in many advertisements such as this one. Such images reinforce the notion that women in society should be submissive. It also implies that being compliant is what will attract men and acting otherwise will not. Such images have a crucial impact on young female teenagers who feel may feel the need to be sexually attractive for young men to notice them. Also, it gives the message to male youth that it is acceptable to treat women as though they were items of trade.

While searching for stereotypical images of women I came across a site which talked about women and dating. It mentioned a book called You Lost Him at Hello, where the author says if you want men to fall head over heals for you, approach dating as if you were in sale, and looking for customers. She encourages women to “fill their funnel” with not just one, but lots of customers. Hence, ladies, your boyfriends are only customers…so I guess that makes us wickedly scheming sellers?... yet another stereotype. As much as men objectify women in the media, women do no favor to themselves by reinforcing these messages in the media. In my opinion, until more influential women actually start opposing these views and acting contrary to what we are known for, e.g. passivity, these stereotypes will go no where. Women are partially to be blamed for the image they get in the media. The reason I believe that influential women will help eliminate stereotypes is because such women are often the focus of media; women who have power, status and credibility. It’s time that society learns that you can look sexy and appear dignified at the same time.

There are two ways in which we can strike a more or less equal balance between the portrayal of men and women in media. Either we discourage the objectification of women OR to be at par, we can objectify men to the extent where objectification of both genders are equally portrayed in the media. Of course the harder path would be the first option since we’ve been bombarded with so many images that companies would find it almost impossible to sell certain products without the use of skinny models wearing revealing clothing for sex appeal.


Questions:

(1) Do you think degrading women really makes men appear superior?
(2) Do you think there will ever be a, more or less, balance of power between men and women in terms of their depiction in the media? Or will women ever appear superior?
(3) What is the better method of establishing a balance between the portrayal of men and women in society? Discouraging the objectification of women, or is it easier to objectify men to the point where both, men and women, are equally objectified?

Nike: Next Level (full version)

FYI

Hi everyone,

I know there is still some confusion over what should be on the blog.  Take a look at the blog that my previous class wrote last semester. 

Gauche Grads

male vs female in social media

~..-- Sadaf --.. ~

()__() (+__+) O.(V__V) u u

Something to get you started...

On Tuesday we discussed the five concepts of Media Literacy:

1. All Media are constructions.
2. Media texts contain beliefs and value messages.
3. Each person interprets media texts and their messages differently.
4. Media texts reflect special interests (commercial, ideological, political).
5. Each medium has its own language, style, forms, techniques, conventions and aesthetics.

To whet your appetite for deconstruction, take a look at the following YouTube clips and comment in the comments section on the explicit/implicit messages these clips contain.  Some questions to ask yourself: What meanings are intended? What lifestyles, values and points of view are represented? Who or what is included, omitted and/or misrepresented? How may other people's perception of the media be different? Who benefits if the message is accepted? What techniques are used and for what purposes?

Old Spice Commercial
Venus!
Mazda Commercial: What do you drive?
Ford F150
Love Hurts

Welcome!

Hello grade 12s!  Welcome to your new home!  As we discussed in class, you will be responsible for contributing to our class blog throughout the Media Studies unit.  Our class blog will focus on issues (mis)representations of ability, sexuality, gender and race, as they appear in media.  Just a few quick reminders:

• You have to manage your own blog string: 
• this includes the creation of a catchy title, first post that relates to the media unit, and regular replies that spark more discussion.

• You also have to reply to your classmates' blog string: 
• You must reply to a minimum of 5 different blog strings, AND offer a minimum of 10 comments overall that are meaningful and relate to the media texts/concepts.

• Your post should explicitly deal with concepts and texts we are learning about in our media unit.  Some topics to consider are: representations of females/males/homosexuals/heterosexuals in the media, the nature of dynamics between men and women (or men and men, women and women), the power distribution among men and women, and the dominant discourse regarding gender identity in the media.

Keep comments respectful and critical.  It's okay to politely disagree, but it's not okay to attack someone personally for their opinion!  Have fun and good luck!