Miley Cyrus that #@!!%!!!

So I was skimming through the internet and apparently Miley Cyrus is now a "SLUT"? What ever happened to sweet old Hannah Montana? You know, that superstar from the Disney show. "You got the limo out front, ooo ooo, hottest styles, every shoe, every colour..."

Nothing has really changed. Well, besides her hair, her clothing options, her performances, that tongue of hers... Where was I going with this again? Oh yes, she is still a great and strong person and she should not be called all of these horrible names e.g " Slut," "Skank," or etc. She is just expressing herself permissively.

The media portrays a strong independent women as having good manners, always covering up, being respectful, and all of that bull*#!@. Thus brain washing society that if a female does not categorize into this dominant discourse, then they are automatically not considered to be strong or independent, but instead slutty or skanky. What makes a person a slut though? Well dictionary.com defines it as "an immoral or dissolute woman; prostitute." Now knowing the definition of slut, what is the definition of moral? Well moral is defined as the principles of right and wrong behavior. Who is it to say that what Miley is doing is immoral? Even though Miley is more revealing now and her performances are provocative she is just doing what any entertainer has to do, which is to entertain. 

Yes you might be saying "Well even though she is entertaining she doesn't have to shake her butt everywhere," or "Why is she so revealing," but the truth is that she is just dancing. She is twerking-a type of dancing in which the dancer, usually a woman, shakes her hips up-and-down bouncing motion causing the dancer's buttocks to shake, "wobble" and "bounce." Just like back in the days when "The Twist," "The Pony," and "The Mash Potato" were considered scandalous and sinless, but now we find it to be just fun and innocent. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqPSKWLBkHE got this line from Glee). And what is so wrong with Miley and her revealing parts of her body? It is her body, and if she is confident about it then she should have the rights to show them. 

Miley Cyrus is a good person. She is telling her fans that they should just be themselves and not worry about what other people might think of them. Being able to express yourself is the only way for someone to actually be completely free, and the only way to do that is to do you and ignore what the haters have to think of it. 

"This is our house
This is our rules
And we can’t stop
And we won’t stop
Can’t you see it’s we who own the night
Can’t you see it we who bout’ that life" (Miley Cyrus - We Can't Stop)


Questions:

1. Why is it okay for some people to be naked and it is considered art, but when Miley does it she is a "Slut" or a "Skank?"

2. How come Taylor Swift has been with more guys than Miley Cyrus, but no one talks bad about her?

3. Why do you think Miley Cyrus is a good/bad role model?

4. Does Miley Cyrus deserve all of these negative review, and why?

The Degradation of Women In Music

Music is a tool used to provide comfort, entertainment and excitement. Well, that is mostly what it is used for. It can also be used to repetitively place persons, beliefs, values and messages in the mind of a consumer. Musicians, with the help of their catchy songs, start trends massively and easily. One of these trends is degrading women. Predominantly in Hip-Hop, artists sway towards rapping about negativity. Hip-Hop is known for influencing lots of criminal behavior and mistreatment towards women. One can say that an example of this is the artist Gucci Mane. As extremely popular rapper, he spreads the message of money, cars, clothes and women who act like whores. The song being analyzed here is a little example of the messages being sent out in today’s hip-hop culture.

In the song, "I’mma Dog", by rap artist Gucci Mane, there is a terrible comparison between women and dogs. This song begins with Gucci Mane referring to himself as a dog, which in Hip-Hop, calling a male a dog is a positive thing. He then proceeds to say, "Ima treat her like a dog, beat her like a dog, then pass her to my dog". The rapper claims, he will treat a woman the same way he treats an animal. "Beating" her like a dog translates to him having intercourse with the woman; considering that he says he will pass her to his "dog". In this case he is calling reference to his friend. The rapper than proceeds to talk about how he only feeds his girlfriend crumbs, even though he boasts about being extremely rich. He continues, in this and many other songs, to objectify and bash women.

Not only do rappers bash women verbally, they also do it physically. If you go on a rap video, the chances are you will see a women dressed absurdly. In long stockings, with large "assets", making an attempt to look, "sexy". An extremely large majority of rap videos contain women being objectified. They are placed there to look attractive, be shown off and degraded. The rappers in the video act very misogynistic towards the women. The females, in most videos are just treated as a prop, to show off the success of the rappers, rather than another human being.

Why do people, especially women, support artists who repeat these hateful and degrading messages thousands of times over? It is extremely unacceptable and goes against our society’s current and developing values. Yet these artists are still selling millions of records, get tons of exposure and the songs are broadcasted over and over again, all around the world. On top of degrading women, a majority of today’s popular hip-hop artists promote criminal activity and homophobic lyrics.

Although Hip-Hop is a great genre of music, the dominant discourse in the messages today, are extremely negative, especially towards women. The promotion of these indecent messages and actions should be ethically wrong, yet many still seem to indulge in them. It’s time for a change in the messages being sent out in Hip-Hop because the continuous support of the same old hateful lyrics will only influence bad thoughts and actions.

Questions:

How do you feel about the way women are represented in the Hip-Hop/Rap scene?

What steps can be taken to reduce and stop this unfair treatment?

Do you listen to and enjoy music like this? If so, why?

16 and a slutty ungrateful whore

Music Television, from the name it sound like a channel where you can watch music videos from popular artists. That was true for the 80's and 90's but in the modern day with the expansion of the internet and smartphones mtv is useless and yet it is one of the highest rated channels on tv. What is keeping this primitive concept for a television station alive, the answer to that question can be summed up in two words "Reality Television". Scripted television series which cost little time, money and talent to make. The audience for the reality shows are adolescent girls and young women. Shows like Jersey Shore, Teen mom as well as 16 and pregnant are setting a bad example for the teens everywhere as well as giving them false perspective to the real world.

This is an "unprecedented look at the controversial issue of teen pregnancy" is a slap to the face of teen parents everywhere. Lets not look at the fact that a majority of the people shown in the trailer are southern white Americans with middle to high living standards with that one black girl. Let us not look at the fact that the girls in the series 16 and pregnant have it too easy, they are not living in a country like brazil where 12 years old is an acceptable age to become a prostitute. Let us also not look at the fact that a majority of these reality shows are scripted, they have turned this issue of teen pregnancy into nothing but a crappy tv show that is easy to swallow. Lets look at how this show portrays women and men, the girls in the show are generally shown as "sluts" or strict traditionalists while the men are the assholes who don't care about that baby. This show has gotten so popular in fact that there are cases of girls getting pregnant just to appear on this tv series.

To someone in a country where teen pregnancies and child pregnancies are a serious issue, this show is a bigger piece of crap than it seems to us. The controversy of teen pregnancies in the United States and Canada is whether or not the guy used a condom. In the less fortunate parts of India, a girl becomes a woman when she first has her period. Girls are married off at 13(on average) to men, they are not given the chance to have an education and they do not decide who they will spend their life with. Why pity these American girls when they clearly made their choice to start having sex with the first Bobby Brown that walked down and sweet talked them. In Europe girls are sold into prostitution and trained at a very young age to please men, and unlike the prostitutes we have here those girls can not choose to leave that profession behind.  The only controversy in the issue of 16 and pregnant should be "How the hell did this show get higher ratings than the first season of Breaking Bad?".
Questions

1) How do you feel about the issue of teen pregnancy?

2) How do you feel about mtv expoliting teen pregnancy for profit?

3) Should these girls get any attention whatsoever, given the circumstances of their pregnancy?

4) Would you ever want to be featured in a reality tv series on mtv?

Mentally Ill = Killers!

Psycho killers, crazy girlfriends, unhinged stalkers, languishing mental patients, and schizophrenic criminals—these are the mentally ill according to Hollywood. They are written to seem out of control, confusing, or scary.

The dominant discourse about mentally ill individuals is that they are crazy, cruel and violent people who are unsafe to be around.

How many times have you watched a movie that involved an individual with a mental illness? How well do you think that individual was portrayed? I'm guessing not that great right. Over and over in these movies, there is that one person with a mental illness that by the end of the movie it makes the viewer think they are better off dead! Why is this? There are so many mentally ill individuals out there and around us that are as capable of living a sane and normal life as any other 'sane' person.  With the right treatment, some function better in society than 'normal' people.

This article talks about four myths the media portrays the mentally ill as. (http://everydayfeminism.com/2012/12/mental-illness-stigma/

Myth 1: Mentally ill are violent

The media more often than not portray the mentally ill as dangerous people. They are close to always a criminal often linked to violent events. But the truth is, these individuals ‘are’ the victims of violent and cruel acts.

Myth 2: Mental illness is beyond help

Usually when a criminal or violent person has a mental illness, it is overdramatized. But if it is a successful person it is often kept on the down low. So basically trying to hide the fact that mentally ill individuals can be successful in society. That is why people try to hide their illnesses, it is in order to keep their credibility.

Myth 3: Mental illness makes people geniuses.

This is the opposite of the second myth. This is the media’s exception: successful people can come out and say they are mentally ill only if they are extraordinarily gifted. Take for example, the show, Perception, in this show, the main character is a schizophrenic who uses his illness to help solve crimes. Basically if your mental illness makes you some kind of gifted individual, then and only then is it okay to come out with it.

Myth 4: Mental illness is sexy, cool and mysterious

Media uses mental illness to a point where they try to convince the viewers that sometime someone’s mental illness can set them apart from Society’s narrow minded thinking and make them something out of the extraordinary. Take for example, the movie, Suckerpunch, in the movie they use the main character’s traumatization to show fantasies about her killing her abusers in a futuristic kind of way, almost romanticizing her illness.

The media is most likely to show a disoriented and mentally ill person as opposed to a perfectly good person functioning in society. The worst part about it is that we consume what the media hands to us and use that as an index to judge people based on their conditions.

It’s understandable that they are out to entertain not satisfy but there should be a line that can’t be crossed because, as much as I want to deny it, the media does indeed shape our perception of society and there is probably going to be a time when it has gone so far that stereotypes aren’t going to be stereotypes anymore because it will grow into what we believe is the ‘norm’.

So as much as there are some who are violent and cruel, there are still those who are completely functional and successful: Mental illness is a sickness like any bodily sickness there is and there are treatments and sometimes cures that are available to these individuals.

Discussion Questions
1. Do you think people with mental illness are as 'bad' as media portrays them to be?
2. Do you know someone with a mental illness? If yes, how would you describe them?
3. Do you think there will come a time when stereotypes become the norm for us and everyone who is currently against these stereotypes?

 

Get Outta Ma Land Ya Injun

The Stereotypical "Red Indian" Presented in Many
 Cartoons back in the 20th century.

Offensive isn't it! If one were to read the title as, "Get Outta Ma Land Ya Indian," one would think that this post might be about South Asians. However, when reading the title as it is, one can understand that it is definitely about the Natives. The term, "injun", is strongly offensive and can be said to be as bad as calling a Japanese person, a "jap" (WWII). Over the many years after the Europeans colonized the Americas, the Natives have been given many names, some more politically correct then others. Of the many names, one can say that the most politically correct are Native Americans, Native Canadians, Natives, First Nations, First Peoples and Aboriginals. For this post i will be using the term "Natives" as i find it to be the most politically correct and from the research that i have done, it seems to be one of the least offensive terms currently circulating around in the media. Before i continue, take a look at the title again. Did you notice that to write it, i used the diction of a stereotypical red neck?

                               

Let us now address this question: What does the dominant discourse say about Natives? Well, let's first start by listing some stereotypes: they are all alcoholics, they all live on reserves, they are always angry, they are now all being treated as equals, they are all savages, they are all the same and they all own casinos and general stores. Let's take a moment and break down each stereotype. Not all Natives are alcoholics. However, recent studies have suggested that because of their DNA and blood work in general, they are more susceptible to become alcoholics. Then again think of all the crimes that have been done against them; it is understandable that this might be a way to deal with all the pain. (Not saying that this is the best outlet) Not all Natives live on reserves. Now, since we are living in Canada, let me give you the Canadian statistics. Only about 22% of Native Canadians actually live on reserves, while the rest live either in rural or urban areas. Natives are not always angry, but then again even if some are, they have reason to be. Now one can say what happened to them is in the past, but some tribes were treated more harshly than others. Therefore their descendants hold a more gruesome history. This next one about them being now treated as equals is a huge misconception. While some may argue that they are being given free money checks, they do not pay taxes, they get free college education ect, this is not enough to compensate for the hate that they are currently receiving. They are still being discriminated against based on the Blood Quantum Laws and there are still acts that are being enforced that put caps on businesses owned specifically by Natives. Also, the reserves that some live on lack the basic needs that every human should be entitled to. It is very hard to get hot/clean water there, medical care is little to none and even the electricity provided is not enough to live off of. A common stereotype, enforced by the dominant discourse, states that before the Europeans came, all Natives were savages. However, what many do not know is that the Natives taught the Europeans many things and they were advanced past the thoughts of the average European at the time. They taught them how to fertilize soil, how to hunt when low on ammo, how to use medicinal herbs and how to use irrigation canals (Hohokam Canals). Continuing on, one should understand that not all Natives are the same. There are many Aboriginal tribes such as Mohawk, Cree, Tahltan, Inuit, Iroquois, Metis, Dene and Blackfoot (just to name a few). Finally, it is a common misconception that all Natives own casinos and are therefore very rich. While there may be a few that do, not all fall into the casino-owning category. While is was true that many general stores were owned by Natives is rural areas, this is not the case any more. There are still some stores owned by Natives in existence (obviously) but now, putting a picture of the typical Native beside the words "General Store" is just a marketing scheme.

Now that we have addressed many of the stereotypes surrounding the Natives, let's take a look at 4 examples in media that talk about the Natives. Firstly, let's take a look at the magazine company, "Cowboys & Indians". It focuses on the western lifestyle, meaning that it talks about Western American clothing, consumption of goods and choice of recreation. While it normally does cover the "cowboys" part of the title, where is the "indians" part (man that's offensive!). Well, the website has dedicated a small section to the Natives calling it, "Native Life". While they may have gotten their name from the game, "Cowboys and Indians", it is sad to see that their website is mostly one sided and does not build a neutral base against the Natives. Moving on, have you ever watched the Disney film named, "Pocahontas?" It tells of a love story between a Native, Pocahontas (Powhatan to be exact), and a European, John Smith. Sadly, the movie strayed far from the truth, and while she did save his life (he was going to be executed by the Powhatan chief but she saved him, thus earning her respect in the eyes of the settlers) she did not love him in real life but was said to have seen him more as a father figure. Instead of the heartfelt goodbye seen in the movie, the reality of the situation was entirely different. After John Smith left and around 1613 Pocahontas was abducted and taken to Virginia. She was then baptised as a Christian, told to change her name to Rebecca and then married a tobacco business owner named John Rolfe. Let's now talk about the videos presented. Take a look at the first one. It is an audio clip from the radio station, Brocket 99, and was played on air even though it was not a real radio show. Since it was made for comedic purposes, there is really no need to deconstruct it. However, when you watch it, you will notice that many stereotypes are at play in the video, ranging from the stereotypical Native sounds made at a Pow-Wow to the mentioning of alcohol and drug abuse condoned by Natives. Finally, the last video is of a song called "Run to the Hills" by the heavy metal band Iron Maiden. What i want you to look at are the lyrics provided in the description. You will notice that they are quite strong in meaning and you can feel the animosity that is being emitted from the words. Because this song is not going against the Natives and the lyrics are self expanatory, one can understand that to consume this media is easy and that it is not in any need of deconstruction. Before i end this post, i would like to point out one line from the song in particular which says, "The only good injins are tame", and while they may seem like just words, i assure you that they have a deeper and more interesting meaning.

I would like to leave you all with these questions. Ponder upon them, derive an answer and spark a discussion below. Thank you all for reading. Please forgive any grammatical errors and if i need to correct/clarify anything, please tell me (comment).

1. What some other stereotypes about Natives that you have heard about and that i have not mentioned in this post?

2. Do you agree with the comments i made about the stereotypes? If not, then what would you like me to know?

3. Should history be allowed to be manipulated for the purposes of entertainment?

4. What do you think about the magazine, "Cowboys & Indians"?

5. How do you feel about the Blood Quantum Laws?

6. If they are a joke, should stations such as Brocket 99 be allowed to air their programs?

7. How have the lyrics of the song presented affected you? Have they?

8. Has this post helped you in any way? If so, then how has to helped and in what aspects?

Here are some links that might interest you:
Cowboys & Indians: http://www.cowboysindians.com/

Blood Quantum Laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_quantum_laws

Pocahontas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocahontas

Abercrombie & Fitch's Box of Stereotypes

I'm sure the majority of you have heard of the clothing store/brand of Abercrombie & Fitch, or have even shopped there. Well, this weekend, I decided to go out and had stopped by this place, only to find outrageous pictures that they had on the walls. It was a picture of two Caucasian women, along with the respective topless Caucasian man, on some beach or some lake side.

Let's consume this media for a bit. The man is Caucasian, is topless and is being... caressed by two Caucasian women. From a heterosexual lenses, this would seem "normal", right? The typical man and his lady-friends together on a beach, enjoying themselves. But what if we looked through a homosexual person's lenses? This wouldn't really support any of their views or interests with other people, especially since this is more focused on the heterosexual attraction between men and women.

What more we can deconstruct from this, is how they're all Caucasian. Why aren't their East-Asian? Why aren't they Black? This also suggests something about how Abercrombie & Fitch is a brand that's made for only Caucasian people, or that only Caucasian people are attracted to each other. It's sort of the already made dominant discourse of the store, that these clothes are specifically designed for Caucasians to wear.

And finally, the fact that we have a topless man This brings up the idea that only topless, buff-looking, Caucasian guys would only be the ones landing a girl. (I apologize if this is too abrupt haha). The explicit message is clear, that only because you are not wearing a shirt, and because you are toned, that women would be attracted to you. This leaves out the other men who don't work out to look fit, or men who don't like taking their shirts off. 

Here, we have one of their summer commercials. As mentioned before, this commercial brings out a lot in terms of being targeted towards heterosexual (couples), primary Caucasian race and the infamous topless man. At very few and key points in the video, we only see small collages of their clothing, but is that really advertising? They put them very rarely in the video to have it considered an advertisement, but is mainly made up of a Caucasian man and a Caucasian woman enjoying themselves. It seems more of a video that a couple would make for one another, to display how happy they are in their relationship. What's more, is that it's a heterosexual couple, as opposed to a homosexual couple. Abercrombie & Fitch obviously does not want to open up their "box of stereotypes", because it seems very likely that they are the box of stereotypes. And again, topless man - dominant discourse is that topless men are very attractive, especially when advertising clothing. 

Questions to consider:

• Has this changed your perspective towards Abercrombie and Fitch? Would you shop there more often, or less often?
• Why do you think this clothing brand chose to isolate themselves in this "box of stereotypes"?
• If Abercrombie & Fitch really wanted to, do you think they would be able to pull out of their "box of stereotypes"?

Attractive All-American Cool Kid?

Have you ever been inside a store and felt like you didn't belong? As if the employees and the customers themselves are advertising for a different group of people? Well if you were to go inside the well known clothing store, "Abercrombie and Fitch", that's exactly how you might feel. For those of you who aren't aware, this store sells sizes XS(00)-L(10) in women's tops or dresses, XS(000)-L(12) in women's bottoms, S-XXL in men's tops and XS-XL in men's bottoms.Now if you can't see what's wrong with those sizes, I'll tell you. Most clothing stores go up to XXL in women's tops and bottoms, so why is it that Abercrombie and Fitch doesn't want go with the norm?

 Well the CEO of Abercrombie and Fitch, Mike Jeffries, stated in an interview with Salon, dated back to 2006, that "in every school there are the cool and popular kids, then there are the not-so-cool kids. Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don't belong [in our clothes], and they can't belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely. Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla. You don't alienate anybody, but you don't excite anybody either." Now, the company is allowed to do what they want in their store and target to whatever audience they please but, the two of Abercrombie and Fitch's biggest competitors, H&M and American Eagle, both offer XXL sizes for both men and women. By Jeffries saying, "Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody," is wrong because H&M and American Eagle have broadened their target customers and at the end of the day are making more people satisfied than Abercrombie and Fitch.

Now, going back to the sizes Abercrombie and Fitch offers, you can clearly see that women have a much smaller size choice than men. Why is that? Well Robin Lewis who is author "The New Rules of Retail" said that it is because Abercrombie and Fitch are trying to target large, built athletes and do not endorse obesity whatsoever. Lewis also mentioned the kind of people Jeffries wants advertising his brand. He said, "He doesn't want larger people shopping in his store, he wants thin and beautiful people. He doesn't want his core customers to see people who aren't as hot as them wearing his clothing. People who wear his clothing should feel like one of the "cool kids." Now this story became big back in May earlier this year and it did not do well for the company of Abercrombie and Fitch. Some people, such as celebrities including Miley Cyrus, Ellen Degeneres and Kritie Alley began to boycott the company because of the accusations that it was discriminating it's overweight customers. Other made a petition online telling the retailer to "stop telling teens they aren't beautiful; make clothes for teens of all sizes" which in turn gained over 80,000 signatures. Actions like these are what made sales for the store go down to the point where they decided that they start should  start selling larger sizes. It is said that the company are planning an expanded range of products to help profits rise and want to begin offering different colors and even add a shoe line in hopes that it will lure young shoppers back into the store. Finally, here is the" apology" note Jeffries wrote:

A note from Mike, our CEO:

I want to address some of my comments that have been circulating from a 2006 interview. While I believe this 7 year old, resurrected quote has been taken out of context, I sincerely regret that my choice of words was interpreted in a manner that has caused offense. A&F is an aspirational brand that, like most specialty apparel brands, targets its marketing at a particular segment of customers. However, we care about the broader communities in which we operate and are strongly committed to diversity and inclusion. We hire good people who share these values. We are completely opposed to any discrimination, bullying, derogatory characterizations or other anti-social behavior based on race, gender, body type or other individual characteristics.

Questions

Do you agree with what Mike Jeffries said about the kind of customers he wants in his store? Why or Why not?

As a teenager, how would you feel if someone said you couldn't shop at a certain store because of your size and looks?

What do you think of Abercrombie and Fitch's idea of beginning to sell larger sizes now?

After reading Jeffries' "apology" letter, do you think he was being sincere? Or was he just trying to make himself and the company look good?