A Boy Without Cable

When I was young, my family chose to cancel our cable plan. The reason for cancelling cable was for purely financial reason; it was just another bill to pay. However, what resulted from our family stepping away from the media mayhem was more than a few dollars saved.

You may be wondering, "do you not know who the Rugrats are?!" And the answer is, no. I really don't know who they are besides what my friends have told me. And, to an extent, I agree with what you may be thinking: Being disconnected from media has caused me to feel disconnected from my friends. Nevertheless, I am doing just fine not knowing what the Amanda Show is about. In fact, I would argue that because I did not have cable growing up, I am happier than I would be in a house that had cable. One of the main reasons I believe am happier is because I have grown up learning a different version, a better version, of manhood from the one displayed on television.

When reading the article "Congratulations Television! You Are Even Worse At Masculinity Than Femininity", I was thankful for my lack of media indulgence growing up. Before I get into my own personal experience, let me give a quick summation of the arguments from the article:

• Men are portrayed as either...
• Smart, emotional, and thus weak
• Dumb, sex-crazed, and emotionally inept.
• In the media, men who are emotional/weak are to be made fun of or labeled as gay.
• Men in the media who are dumb/emotionally inept are not to be trusted with even the simplest of tasks.

Overall, the argument Linda Holmes makes is that men according to the media cannot be complex, multi-faceted individuals, but rather fall into one of the two extremes listed above. She wraps up her article asking several questions ("Where, on television, are the men who both like football and remember birthdays? Where are the men who are great dads, great husbands, great boyfriends?"). When reading those questions I thought that is the type of man I know and that I want to be. So, how have I established a contradictory image to the media's image of what it means to be a man?

Back to my personal experience. Without media guiding my ideas of manhood there was one place to turn: The actual men in my life. Instead of modeling my actions and attitudes off of a man like Barney Stinson (I recognize that he is a little after my childhood days, but I don't know any TV men from the 90's.), I looked to my coaches, teachers and, primarily my own dad to know how to act. I was lucky to have a father who spent time talking and interacting with me. I learned by watching. I watched him shave. I watched how he threw a baseball. I watched how he treated my mom. I watched how he treated his friends. I watched how he handled hard situations and stress. Through watching and talking to him, I realized my capacity as a man to "like football and remember birthdays" or understand what it meant to be a great dad, husband or boyfriend as Holmes states in her article. My understanding of manhood was not about having a shredded body or acting out in anger rather than experiencing my emotions or being a single-faceted individual. Rather, I understood that the media's perception of manhood was wrong. Sure, I didn't put this specific argument together in my 10 year old head, but I grew up knowing that there was a wrong way to act as a man, and that the media illustrated that exact persona.  

So where does this leave us? It is hard to escape the media, and as a child one is malleable to what s/he hears, sees, and experiences. Our generation has already been thrown into the 'media fire' so to speak of superficial dads and sex-crazed meatheads, but I do think understanding the harm in believing the mainstream media's message of masculinity could be a lesson to how we interact with the next generation. If you are thinking about being a parent, consider shutting off cable for the first years of your kids lives. If you aren't willing to do this, monitor closely what your kids can view. I can guess that many of you are thinking "who wants to be THAT controlling parent?" But I think what you'll find is your children will perceive the world through a better, healthier, and more accurate lens. I know I am grateful for the years I spent as a boy without cable.

Parasocial Relationship

 

Never in a million years would I have thought that I would've had a parasocial relationship. But after our class lecture on the subject, I came to realize that I do in fact have a parasocial relationship with the characters on "Friends." Even though parasocial relationships may seem stupid, I think we've all caught ourselves having the same problem with our favorite TV show or movie characters. "Friends" has been around for a long time, but I haven't started watching it until a few years ago. I now own every season on DVD and have seen every episode.



Even though this relationship may be one-sided, having the connection I do with these characters has helped me get through some tough times in my life. It may sound crazy but I like to think my friends relate to the characters of "Friends" in so many different ways. Thinking back to all the episodes I've watched, reminds me so much of my life and my friends. The characters give off this persona that they're you're typical normal people who do every day things just like we do which is what I love about the show. It's realistic. They're always making fun of eachother, laughing, having a good time, getting in to trouble most times but they also have hard times. Just like we do.



I remember the final episode of "Friends" when the show was ending and thinking how crazy I was for being so upset but I couldn't help it. I cried. I just felt like I had some sort of attachment to them and that I was connected to them in some way. I identified myself so much with the characters, I saw myself in Rachel, Monica and Phoebe. It was so surreal. I still can't watch an episode without laughing and crying at the same time.


Parasocial relationships are not fake, I can say from a personal experience. TV shows are not just shows, they are people we identify with and have characters we fight for and cry about. It's what we love.

Stereotypes in Modern Family

When people discuss stereotypes in television, it is almost always about women.  You rarely hear much about male stereotypes and how it effects men in today's world.  While I think that there are TONS of examples of feminine stereotypes in television, I think men have it just as bad as we do.

The first television show that immediately comes to mind, for me, is Modern Family (my favorite comedy on television).  One of the episodes that sticks out to me is one where Phil (the husband/dad) uses a gift card to go to the spa because his wife doesn't have time to do it.

It's already ironic enough that the man in the family is going to the spa; however, while he is there, he asks other women the correct way to talk to his wife when she is having a bad day.  Phil thinks he needs to come up with a solution, but the women tell him to simply sympathize with her because that's what women want.  This demonstrates the stereotype that men are problem solvers and women just want to hear others say, "they understand," or "I'm sorry." 

The gender stereotypes on this show promotes that men are still in charge of the household and are the breadwinners of the family.  The women are both stay at home mothers, are domestic and family oriented. 

Other stereotypes in this show include: Claire, a stay at home mom, Phil, the doofy dad that doesn't know what he is doing, Lily, the adopted Asian baby, Cam, the extremely flamboyant gay man, Haley, the boy-crazy, airhead daughter and Gloria, the overly sexual Latina woman who married an older man.

While there are tons of stereotypes in this show, they do promote differences in today's world.  There is a gay couple, where the flamboyant one is also the "manly" one who has worked on a farm and does all the heavy lifting.  His partner is a lawyer but he is scared of bugs and spiders.  There is also an exampled of a mixed family; a Latina women with one son who marries another man.

I think this show works because it challenges and changes typical stereotypes and makes them even funnier.

Hipsters and Princesses...?

I was searching for funny Halloween costumes and I came across a group costume that combined two topics we discussed in class: hipsters and princesses. Seems like an odd combination, right? The costume was “Hipster Disney Princesses.” Personally, I find it hilarious and a great way at poking fun at these two media staples. It also shows how hipsters are merging their way into mainstream and even more mainstream is the notion to poke fun at them. I think it would be a great debate to decide whether these Halloween party animals are indeed hipsters … or perhaps they’re actually princesses.

First, let’s take a look at how they’re hipsters. Aside from the combat boots and thick-rimmed glasses, they also make fun of mainstream culture. The signs they wear that say statements such as “Be your guest? Unlikely.” show their take on social interactions and their nonchalant attitudes. They have the perfect attire complete with flannel and ripped clothing. Their costumes are original and beat to their own drum. They also have become cool amidst their attempt to be a sub-culture. Considering that they were one of the most popular search results for ‘funny group costumes,’ I would bet there will be many hipster princesses out and about this Halloween.

Now let’s look at this costume in terms of being princesses. In a stereotypical definition of a princess that is a rude prima donna, I don’t see them fitting this description. However, if we were to define princesses as girls who aren’t afraid to be a little different and stand up for what they believe in, I think that there are a lot of comparisons to be made. These girls have created something original and were confident in their choices. I don’t think they necessarily rejected the idea of princesses because they are still feminine and strong representations.

My conclusion is that they’re the best of both worlds. But also they’re hipsters, definitely hipsters.

My Own Personal Cultures

     Discussing the princess culture ideas last week definitely opened my eyes up a bit. I started to notice young girls in my family, cousins and a few nieces etc who really displayed those traits of narcissism and the concept of entitlement. I even came to notice a few of those traits in female friends of my own age. But the biggest revelation that came to me was my own personal culture that I came to define as the cowboy culture and the quarterback/pointguard culture.
     Just like the idea of being obsessed with the pink and everything princess like, most young boys in my family and myself included don't pass the age of ten without getting a hat and gun holster fastened to their waste. You could have consider me a real life version of the character from Willy Wonka, Mike TV, constantly watching anything from Tombstone to Diehard, always shooting my fake gun at the bad guys on tv. Like the concepts of the superhero culture the cowboy culture I had developed made me aggressive and sometimes cut off from other things.
      When I got older and like most males, the cowboy identity  switched to the quarterback/pointguard identity. Admiring everything sports and cutting myself off from a lot of things, including schoolwork, and also giving me more of a cockier or "diva" attitude when it was time for football and basketball season.
       But now I feel like I don't really consider myself in any culture. Who's really to blame for this...Parents...The Media...The kids themselves? I don't really know, but the main thing I do know is, find what you like to do, do your best at it, and don't let anyone judge you for it.

Andrew Storey

Hey Arnold

In the beloved Nickelodeon series, Hey Arnold, there are several example of gender norm concepts. There are also some great examples how Hey Arnold writer's breaks those gender norms. Hey Arnold shows the stereotypical idea of an elementary mind set of how girls should act and how boys should act. Also how the certain characters break those norms 

Arnold, Gerald, Harold, and Stinky always go out to the empty lot and play baseball. Which is the typical gender norm of being a boy and playing sports and being competitive. But the example of how Hey Arnold writers broke that norm was through Helga, who is the bully in the neighborhood. Which the stereotypical idea of a bully is a boy, but Helga  is represented as the tough shell and no one is welcome in; except Arnold but she still picks on him. But since she has that "boy mindset" she is able to join the boys when they play baseball.

Also with the other characters we have on Hey Arnold is Phoebe who breaks the gender norms because she is the smart one of the group.  In today’s society it is becoming normal for women to show of their intelligence, but in the 90’s that was still a hot topic on women can actually have beauty and brains! Hey Arnold writer’s also had a Harold who was tough on the outside, but on the inside he was a soft and would cry to his “mommy.” Since Harold was a boy, him crying to his mommy should that he was weak. But if Harold was a girl would be more socially acceptable because the society labels women more emotional and sensitive to their feelings. 

Another norm which is more cognitive is how the artists idea on creating the characters. This idea is something we discussed in class. Arnold’s outfit is dominantly blue, which is associated with boys and masculine.  And even though Helga is mean, and a bully she still wears a pink dress to seem more “feminine.”This color concept is something I remember very clearly talking about in class and without having that discussion I would have never realized the dress code because its so normal for girls to be associated to pink and boys to blue.

So, Let's Talk about (500) Days of Summer and Friend-Zoning

First of all, if you haven't seen this movie, do it now. Don't even read anymore. Just go find the movie and watch it. If you don't wanna watch it, fine. At least see the trailer.

Okay. So the story goes something like this:

Summer is a young woman who don't need to man to tell her what she's worth. She's resorted to the idea that love isn't real and doesn't exist. Tom is a young man who resembles a puppy that's just found it's forever human. He clings onto Summer based on mutual likes and dislikes and makes himself believe "she's the one," (what does that even mean?!). She ends up telling him that she's not interested in a relationship and he accepts it. However, they hang out, go on dates, and engage in sexual behavior as if they were in a serious romantic relationship. And while each character is breaking gender stereotypes (Summer being strong, independent, and in control) and Tom (who is small-statured, emotional, and "weak") this whole idea isn't furthering our positive and equal representational rights as humans. We're still being fed lies that this is how relationships are and should be.

Okay, so I get it. Not every man is hunky, strong, muscular, blah blah blah. That's awesome! Tom is an awesome character in this perspective because he breaks those stereotypes. There's this "new normal" (oh no, normalization in the media!!!!) of a young man who is work, confused about life, small in stature, smart, intellectual, etc. Pretty much everything that wasn't there before has now appeared.

Now there's Summer. Non-typical beautiful girl who is smart, independent, intellectual, strong (but still surprisingly thin and petite) and she is, above all, not into a dating relationship. Very different than the woman who must have a man to be assured a "civil lifestyle."

Awesome. We're breaking stereotypes. Good job Hollywood.

HOWEVER: They're also creating new ones. Stereotypes that are just as detrimental as the ones prior, but they're wrapped in different paper and called something else because now the gender roles have switched.

**"Cue the term "Friend-Zoned."**

In the film, Tom gets angry with Summer about being friend-zoned. Where did this term even come from and why do people use it in a derogatory manner?

Rachel, it's not derogatory, it's just the way things are. We're progressive now and since gender roles have changed, so must the terms we use to describe the unfortunate (but inevitable) act of being rejected.

It is derogatory, though. I'm gonna point fingers at the men in the room and call you out. When you're interested in a girl but she doesn't return the feelings, you usually get sour and claim you've been friend-zoned. Ah. The victimization! The cruelty of it all! You claim she's done you an injustice by leading you on and making you believe that she was interested to whole time!

No. When did that become a proper defense for rejection? It's like a little boy whose mother wouldn't buy him the toy at the store. The little boy would throw a tantrum. Using the phrase "I've been friend-zoned," is like throwing a tantrum because you didn't get that thing you wanted. Not only does the term objectify women into prizes that can be won or obtained, it also insinuates that women are still not granted the right to free-choice in choosing whomever they want to be romantically engaged with.




It's an ancient way of thinking and if we want to progress feminism (remember the part where that's equal representation of men and women?) we have to accept that these kinds of terms and ways of thinking are prehistoric. By using phrases like that, we're backtracking and creating even more social issues for young people.

While I don't condone or encourage the type of behavior represented in the film, I believe young men, especially, have to realize how detrimental it is to think in the way of a victim when someone doesn't share the same feelings. Saying someone friend-zoned you isn't gravy. And it probably won't help you if you're trying to win someone's heart over. Heartbreak sucks. But everyone has to face the music at some point. Just don't throw a tantrum when it's your turn.

Superhero Culture • Playing the Cards You're Dealt

Like most middle school guys, I hit the phase of idolizing the superheroes and masked men in colorful spandex. The phase originally started with the Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers in 1993, and evolved into the Marvel comic book heroes a decade later. The very first comic book movie I ever saw was Spider-Man (2002) with Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. Thus began my fascination with having an awesome super-ability and hidden identity that no one can ever know.

I began to write my own comic adventures and insert myself into plots of these types of movies. I guess my superhero phase was rooted in the inherent idea of “good conquers all.” I was never really drawn to the violence aspect of it. After discussing it class, I realize I was also drawn to the “social outcast/living with a curse” aspect of being a hero. Examples: Peter Parker is the stereotypical nerd in high school. He gets bitten by a radioactive spider and is instantly transformed into a web-slinging badass. He was a role model to me, because I hadn’t peaked in the social pecking order at that point (thank GOD). I identified with Peter/Spider-Man in fifth and sixth grade, and my superhero obsession expanded into the Marvel franchise.

After reading and class discussions, I’ve kind of developed my own idea of superhero culture as a teaching tool. I believe that a theme of this particular cultural area is making the best of your situation and playing the hand you’re dealt. Whether it’s getting grenade shrapnel lodged in your chest (Iron Man), experiencing a cosmic radiation storm in space (Fantastic Four) or being a part of a wildly expensive government experiment (Captain America or Wolverine), all of these heroes struggle to make the best of their circumstances. It’s cool to see this because it humanizes them tremendously. It’s not all butt-kicking and getting the girl. To me, the superhero culture should be viewed as one with a focus on good beating evil and making the best of your situation.

Parasocial Relationship: Glee Edition

Even though parasocial relationships seem stupid and unreal, I am here to admit that I have a problem. I have a parasocial relationship with the characters on "Glee." "Glee" is a show that I have kept up with since the beginning. I related to the show by being a show choir kid, and loving living vicariously through the characters many ups and downs.

I did not realize my obsession until after our class time on the subject of parasocial relationships. I thought back to the many episodes I had watched of "Glee," and thought also about how crazy I seemed to my fiance and family. I remember watching the finale episode about three years ago when the seniors of the show, because they're in high school, graduating from McKinley High. I cried. The whole episode. I still can't listen to songs they sang during that episode because I still cry. I identified myself so much with the characters, I would recognize them not as Cory Monteith and Lea Michelle, they were and will always be Rachel and Finn.

Another thing that made me see how obsessed I am is when I found out about Cory Monteith's death. I have never felt so awful about a celebrity death before. More over, I thought more about the show and how they would deal with the death of Finn, his character. I still identify and see him as only Finn, and that shows how my parasocial relationship went up another level.

Parasocial relationships are not a fake thing, they are more real than we think. TV shows are not just shows, they are a way of life, people we identify with, and have characters we fight for and cry about.

Girl Power isn't just for girls anymore.

As millennial I feel like the need for nostalgia is almost overwhelming. Cartoons and other children's programming was such a huge part of my childhood, as I'm sure it was for everyone else in the class. Seeing as I am also a girl I typically leaned towards these girl power programs (although I watched a lot of "boys" programs too.) While I was reading the article about Nick and empowered girls in children's pop culture my mind couldn't help but wander to my favorite programs as a kid. Shows in the 1980s like G.I. JOE and My Little Pony ushered in a lot of new cartoon content, but it's sole purpose was the sell toys. The 90s still had that profit motive, but the children's program became focused on making more diverse and thoughtful programming. Shows like Batman: The Animated Series and The Power Puff Girls won the hearts of not only girls and boys, but a lot of the critics too.  

Each children's network not only had shows that fit into the "Girl power" category, but programs that were geared towards boys had at least one, or multiple well rounded female characters. I would argue that the girl power trend has seeped into children's programming across the board. I'm going to go back the the 80s yet again, because the transformation of children's programming has been so great since that time. Female characters in the 1980s were generally pretty bland, while there were a few exceptions; for the most part the female characters in both girls and boys programming were pretty troped out and recyclable. I would argue that male characters were treated the same way in some regards, because the point of the shows were to sell the toys.  

Skip forward to the 90s, and even to shows that have aired in recent years, casts of empowered female characters have grown. I don't think this growth of active and diverse female characters for both girls and boys to relate to is only thanks to Girl Power. However, I do think that it has benefited and evolved thanks to the interest in girl power. These female and male characters have strong bonds of friendship, strength, intellect, and leadership. These examples of strong values help both genders relate to one another. Instead of highlighting the differences between male and female characters this phenomenon has strengthened the bridge between them.   

Princess Culture

In class, we came to the conclusion that princesses were known for beauty, submissiveness, and consumerism for the most part. These aspects are promoted through products, media, celebrity culture, the attitudes of parents or other outsiders, and the internet. The characteristics that are enforced from these things are that the “princess” is ultra-feminine, special, and in charge. There are negative and positive impacts of the way we see “princesses” and especially how young girls see them.

            Some of the negative things that were discussed in class were that it made young girls narcissistic, indulge in overspending, and have a sense of entitlement. I would argue and add to that that another negative impact could be that some young girls would feel that they could not measure up to that of a princess or were not worthy of the characteristics that we view in princesses. The way they are portrayed in media could be used as role-model material to increase self-esteem in young girls, but could also equally lower their self-esteem due to high expectations of achievement. A young girl might think “I could never be that” as opposed to “I am that girl!” Just something to think about. Some positive impacts we discussed were that it provides a strong sense of self, empowerment, a fight for justice, or a view of standing up for herself. I agree with these things for the most part, but I think they all could be left up to interpretation.

Food Corporations Are Making Us Fat

   While online, I came across an interesting picture portraying how the food corporations price their foods. I truly believe that the food corporations are making it their goal to make us fat. I make this argument because the most unhealthy foods are the cheapest and the foods that are good for us are the most expensive. After watching Food Inc., I realized that these corporations are making our foods so fast that they are becoming more and more unhealthy. If corporations starting making and growing foods more naturally and healthier, it will take longer as well as cost more money. I believe that the food making industry has lost sight of providing people foods that are healthy because they are not making as much money as they would making all this fast, unhealthy food just to make a profit.

   When corporations do this, I believe that this is completely unfair to the lower class people because they are missing out on healthier food just because they cannot afford it. I also believe that this is unfair to society because we really do not have a choice but to eat these foods because many of us cannot start our own farms and gardens simply because we do not have the resources. So I guess we have to work with what we got for now but hopefully someone comes and save the corporations from making us fat. I really understand that corporations are trying to make a profit, but is it so wrong to make a profit off foods that are healthy for the consumers?

The First Superheroes

Our discussion about superheroes has allowed me to delve into the possibility of another subset of heroes that has had an enduring effect on our culture: the American cowboys.

With the exceptions of such texts as Brokeback Mountain, cowboys are often portrayed as the ultimate heroes. They are typically incredibly strong, but simple men with a job to do. They never belong anywhere, roaming from one town to the next. They are incredibly isolated, often alone with nothing but their herd and their horse, looking longingly up at the midnight sky while huddled around a fire for warmth or simply weathering the cold. They have no time for homes or families. The ones who do manage to have a family end up losing them through disease, raids, or other misfortunes. They are forever alone.

These men bury their feelings, often in cheap alcohol and loose women.They only talk about their feelings in one of two scenarios. In the first scenario, they have been injured and are dying, wanting someone to remember them, even if it is by the last words that they speak. In the second scenario, they are pining for a lost love. Other than that, they are tough, cold, and stoic, wandering the earth in search of a new wilderness.

A cowboy is never idle. They always have some evil to face, whether it be greedy bank managers wanting to take away the small patch of land the cowboy has carved out for himself or rustlers trying to steal away the livestock that make up the cowboy's livelihood. A cowboy fights for what is theirs no matter the cost.

Because of the images that the cowboy brings forth, I believe that we should study them with just as much scrutiny as we would other heroes. I believe that these images could have the same effect on a young boy as Batman or Ironman could.

Princess Culture from the Male Perspective

            Whenever I think of the word princess, I immediately think of the animated women who wear big gowns, have beautiful hair and physical features, such as Jasmine, Belle, and Snow White. I normally think that they have perfect lives that everyone (mainly girls) strives for. They have a man that cares about them, great looks, and lots of frivolous items. What more could they ask for? After all of the lectures and readings about this section, I have learned that there are more than meets the eye with princesses.

            According to Joanne Laucius, author of Princess culture turning girls into overspending narcissists, she worries that “little princesses grow up to be insufferable adolescents and adults who demand constant adulation and access to a bottomless pot of spending money.” I always knew that spoiled little girls would generally become somewhat snooty, but what I did not realize is that it carries on throughout their whole lives. I mean I know of some people who have rich parents and have a lot of nice things, but I always thought that by a certain age that they would have learned their lesson on the value of money. After bring appalled by this theory and how much it is quite accurate, I began to look back at my life and see if I was a spoiled little prince (not princess because I am a male). After all, it is not just little girls that could be affected by the princess culture.

            As a Fashion major, I tend to have a lot of frivolous things (mostly clothing items) and like to spend a lot of money due to the brand name and/or quality of the object. When I was younger, I do not remember being much of a fan of the princesses of Disney movies and what not. I have seen all of it like every other child, but I did not think that I wanted to be like the princesses in the movies. I had just thought that they were pretty women who had nice things. My parents did spoil me when I was a child and they still kind of do as of right now to be honest. It was nice to be able to get whatever I wanted when I wanted it. As I was growing up, the ease of getting anything I wanted started to dissipate. They started to make me do chores and get good grades in order to have nice things. That lesson still exists today, but mostly just the getting good grades due to the fact that I am in college and do no live at home.

            I think that a big lesson in controlling princess behavior is to start controlling it at a young age. If my parents did not tell me to do chores and get good grades as a mean of working for the things that I wanted, then I probably would have been a completely different person than I am today. I probably would have been a spoiled, narcissistic prince (but not in the royalty way). I am sure that parents want to give their children everything they want, but there must be a time to teach them the value of hard work and money (preferably when they grow up) in order for the princess behavior to get out of hand in the future.

            

Disney Is Not So Bad!

During class Friday one of the main topics was Disney and how they portray the Princess Culture. For me growing up my sister and I would watch Disney movies all the time from Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and Tangled. Many argue that Disney is showing young girls that in life you will find your prince charming live in a nice house and have everything that you have every wanted in life. Yes, I do have to agree that Disney movies do that but I also believe that they show some good qualities especially when it comes to a girl standing up for themselves and being independent. For example, in Cinderella it shows her being a maid for her evil step mother and step sisters but even though they don’t treat her well or nice you never see her treat them the way that they treat her. This shows girls that no matter how bad someone treats you that you should treat everyone with kindness. Just in many other movies that Disney does show the girls being strong, independent, standing up for ones self, never giving up on a dream that they have, and being yourself. I believe those are some great qualities to have in a movie to show young girls that being a woman can be a strong and powerful thing. I loved watching those kinds of movies when I was younger and I did learn from some of those movies. So ladies embrace all the great qualities that each and every one of you have and always chase after your dreams. 

*The clip above just goes to show how sweet and nice princesses are and how they are always encouraging other people. 

Toddlers Tiaras Nightmare!

From the clip " Toddlers in Tiaras" that we watched in class on Wednesday got me really thinking especially since my major is in Child Development. Seeing how the child in the show (Mackenzie) having total control over her mother made me sick and completely shocked to see a parent be run over by their own child. What makes people of our generation watch such shows that these?



The first thing that came to my mind was "Oh my gosh that child is out of control!" I just kept seeing everything that the parent was doing wrong with the child, but for some reason I could not look away from what was being shown. From this show people are being exposed first hand what could go on during toddler beauty pageants. Which shocked me and there is no way I would put my child in something like that especially at a young age.

This show ties in with what we were talking about in class this week Princess Culture. It shows this little girl that is spoiled and gets everything she wants from getting a facial, to her nails getting done, her hair all dolled up, and wearing nice expensive clothes. If that parent continues to bring up her child like this, what is she showing her? Basically what I think is being shown that she is a princess and she will get everything that she wants without a fight. Well this child is going to be in for a rude awakening when she hits the real world because no one’s life is like a princess getting everything you want and having people cater to you. Shows like this make me sick because this child and mother need a reality check.

Super Heroes Aren't So Super Anymore

When superheroes first appeared on our screens, they were helping the community, portraying a strong positive role model, and not hooking up with women just because they can.  Batman used to have Robin go get the Bat Mobile, but now Robin is out and Batman can call for it from his high tech watch.  Technology has changed the look superheroes have in today's movies.  Turning them from a warm hearted person that helped people, to someone that kills for vengeance, is very materialistic, and uses the superhero card to get the girl.  I don't know when it happened, but superheroes are not so super anymore.

Superman, Batman, and Tony Stark or Iron Man, and other prominent superheroes have evolved greatly in the last 50 years.  Superman used to wear tights and a cape with nothing else on but some red underwear he wore outside of his tights.  Now, he wears a bulletproof body suit that makes him appear even more intimidating than he was.  Why does a superhero have to appear intimidating if he or she is saving lives?  Batman is the icon of superhero change, he went from a guy in black tights and the highest technology he had was his walkie talkie watch he wore and his fists. Now, he drives million dollar cars, crashes his entire corporation just to fund the technology he uses to "fight" crime, and is known as a killer around town.  I would never want to be scared of my cities superhero but that is what Batman has turned in to.  The Bat Mobile went from a slick 60's car to a full on war machine that looks like it could be used in Iraq.  The Bat Mobile has a motor cycle that breaks off from it after the Bat Mobile is too damaged to drive.  Iron Man isn't even a super hero in my mind, rather a man with too much money that needs a hobby.  Tony Stark is a self centered narcissist that has no friends and too much money so he just becomes a superhero.  A superhero shouldn't be someone that has the newest technology and only saves people to boost his ego.  Back when superheroes were truly super, they saved people because they loved helping those in need and they had good hearts.  Money was never featured along with the superheroes but all of that has changed.  Without money, Batman would be nothing because he couldn't buy technology and without technology he is nothing.  Iron Man would not even be existent if he didn't use technology.  I think superheroes like Iron Man give rich ambitious  people the idea of they could be a superhero just because they have money.

Just because you have money doesn't make you a superhero or give you the right to be a superhero.  Kids shouldn't look up to people with big egos and even bigger wallets as superheroes. Kids should see a superhero as someone like Peter Parker and Spider Man.  He is a normal guy that has a good heart and the right morals.  He doesn't kill people because he is angry, he doesn't have a lot of money to fund his superhero activities, and that contributes to his good heart.  If all superheroes were portrayed like Spider Man then maybe kids could look at these new superheroes as role models, but I don't see a change for good coming in the near future.

Parents influence..

I personally think that parents play one of the biggest roles in their children's lives.  Yes, I agree media can have affects on children and teens. I also know that my parents had the biggest effect on who I am todady. Society may have defined me as a "tom boy" at a young age because I preferred to race my dad's toy cars, wrestle with my dad and brother, and race the boys at recess time but my parents never fed into any of it or worried I was gay or anything. I saw what other girls did and I had female friends but it never shaped who I was or am. I loved movies like Mulan, Cinderella, the little mermaid and etc but I also loved watching sports all day. Society wouldn't know how to define me probably. My parents treated me like a girl, made sure I knew I was a girl and just because I liked different things didn't make me any different from other girls.  I grew up with decent self esteem and honestly think those things didn't shape how I grew up at all.  I do understand that every one doesn't come from a household with good parents but even in those instances I don't know if I agree with the fact that princess movies have a HUGE impact on girls lives. Some influence maybe, but not as big and negative as some make it seem..

Princess For Life

During the readings and in our class on Wednesday, we discussed the danger of family members and friends referring to a girl as a princess and how such behavior can foster narcissistic tendencies and other nasty side effects in said girl. However, this caused me to wonder how much these behaviors would be escalated in a girl who was branded "princess" for life?

Many individuals value the meanings that names have especially when it comes to naming their children. Some even choose to name said children based more on the name's meaning rather than a liking for the name itself. This can often benefit the child when their name has a "good meaning". A boy named Alexander may consider the meaning of "Defender of the People" as an empowering title while a girl named Andrea may consider the meaning of "Manly" as embarrassing or even insulting.

Now, how would a little girl be affected if the meaning of her name was "Princess". This would literally leave said girl branded as a princess and, unless she changed her name, she would remain a princess, at least in this sense, for the rest of her life.

Though this is a bit of a stretch, it would be interesting to discover whether or not such a permanent label of "princess" would have any adverse effects on the child. Could being labeled a princess from the day a person was born plunge said person into princess culture the moment they are out of the womb?

*All name meanings were provided by babynames.com*

Princess Culture- young and old

It's funny, but the entire time in class that we were talking about princess culture and while I was reading about this phenomenon one huge thing that kept running through my head was how odd it is that even if we outgrow the princess culture "phase" or never even go through it, when it comes time to get married- the mentality that is so prevalent in this "phase" comes rushing back. And it isn't even limited to those who are getting married, it is spreading out to all the females who are old enough to be getting married or thinking about getting married or getting engaged. And yet, this stage of princess culture does not seem to get nearly as much attention, negative or otherwise, as the Toddlers and Tiaras stage does. Why is this? Is it that we find it normal for women to get a bit demanding and a bit ridiculous while planning their weddings? But if that is the case, then what does that say about our society is we accept the bridezilla as the norm and believe that that is just how it is going to be for everyone? And yes, I firmly believe that not everyone has that bridezilla side to them, but I do think that our society is showcasing the princess culture through tv shows and making it seem as though that is how people should be acting and thinking.
I know from my own personal experience and past that I went through a bit of a princess culture phase myself. But nothing like what you are probably thinking right now. No, instead mine was just about wearing pink and painting my room pink and dressing up as a princess for three Halloweens in a row. So I would say it was pretty tame and nothing too awful really. Especially when you consider that I have since painted my room three different colors not at all similar to pink and have given up being a princess for Halloween and only own one pink clothing item (a scarf). And now that I am getting older and nearing that time that people my age begin to settle down and I find myself watching more and more wedding related tv shows, I cannot help but notice how these shows are basically making it seem to be ok that there is a whole group of young women who feel as though they deserve expensive and nice things, that they can control everything and everyone, and best of all that they matter more than anyone else around. But what strikes me as so awful about this is that because we have the princess culture so well documented and normalized to a certain degree in Toddlers and Tiaras and now we have it shown through shows like Say Yes to the Dress, Bridezillas, Four Weddings, and the like that we might end up with a culture in which it is completely acceptable for girls to never leave the princess phase and instead live their entire lives being that narcissistic.

Terrors in Tiaras

Alright, the clip from "Toddlers in Tiaras" that we watched in class really got me thinking. This was the most I had ever seen of the show for obvious reasons, mainly because I respect myself as a human being (sorry not sorry to those who enjoy the show). It just baffled me that one child could be so demanding and destructive. That tiny human known as Mackenzie had her mother completely on lock. The parent was at the complete mercy of a three-foot four-year-old clad in an evil robe of pink. so it got me thinking: What makes this kind of television popular?

The first thing I thought of was the phrase "It's like a trainwreck; I can't look away." We don't want to admit we're intrigued by this kind of garbage. However, it's got something to do with the extreme nature of the programming. Is it embellished? Absolutely. Staged? Probably. The success lies with the fact that only a small percentage of the population is exposed to these toddler beauty pageants first-hand. The rest of us have only one impression, and that's what we see on television.

This ties into the princess as narcissists mentality. In our notes, there's a bullet point that mentions the idea of overspending and an inflated sense of entitlement. Mackenzie definitely exhibited that. I'd also like to point out that there was no sight or mention of a husband or boyfriend in the picture (my guess is he spends a lot of time outside the house, presumably at his local tavern or pub... at least that's what I'd be doing). The lack of a second parent further enables the kid to be a "Terror in Tiara" as I like to call it. 

Are "gender norms" really all that bad?

In class, we've discussed the whole concept of branding children and selling to them. Now we're focusing on the theory behind the branding such as colors that coordinate with a child's gender or toys that are specifically designed to appeal for a boy or a girl. We've scrutinized these elements as if to say they are horrible and detrimental to a child's mental health a development, but is that necessarily true?

I pose the question because I come from a background that is very similar to what we read. When I was very young, my parents built and moved into a new home. My parents left it up to me to decide what color carpet I wanted in my room and I remember, without a pause, I told them pink. They asked me repeatedly if I was sure and if that was the color I'd be okay with having and I said yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Nowadays, I'm not the biggest fan of the color pink.

As a little girl, I was often asked what I wanted to become when I grew up and up until the age of 6, I would say that I wanted to be a princess. I remember family members laughing at me and dismissing it as a "child's" thing to do. But now we're questioning that answer based on the idea of what a princess is according to Disney and other major companies have that have shown us. Basically, as a child I was heavily influenced by gender norms and what was expected of men and women. 

But is it actually a bad thing to have gender norms for children? I mean, look at me. I'm living proof that a little girl can go through her, "I love pink and want to be a princess" phase and still get out alive. I'm working towards achieving a higher education, I have two jobs, I'm an advocate for equal rights, I plan on owning my own business someday, I'm part of three campus organizations, I'm a positive contributing member of society (meaning I've never been arrested or engage in illegal activities. I also pay all my taxes), and I still enjoyed playing with Barbies and doing my hair and makeup when I was a kid. 

I will admit that part of the reason I got out alive was the nurturing I received from my parents. Even though I was permitted to watch these movies and play with these toys, I wasn't permitted to engage in those activities in excess. I was told to play outside whenever I had the chance, I need to try and help myself before asking anyone else to help me, I participated in sports, I learned music and how to play several different instruments. Sitting around and having someone pamper me was never truly an option and I thank my parents for that. Much of the "princess generation" we see projected on television (like Toddlers in Tiaras) is an effect from parent's not providing the proper nurturing to their children. But that's not what this post is about. I just think it's an important part of the bigger picture that I needed to point out for this post's sake. 

So as terrible as some of our readings make it sound, I don't think that allowing young boys to play with Tonka Trucks and giving young girls Barbies is going to negatively impact their social growth or alter their ability to function in our society. I would have to agree with what Sydney brought up in class today about this idea simply being a phase and that, in order to avoid isolating a child from other children, it may even be necessary to introduce such concepts to children when they are young. 

I like Disney and I don't care who knows

Here is a hard question? What is so wrong with Disney that everyone seems to destroy the image they are trying to present? They are a company and as a company their main job is to make money and lots of it. Should Disney really mind the princess image they are portraying. I would say that as a person who views businesses straight forward I want you to cut them some slack. If we look at this  Disney Princess Report we learn that in most cases Disney is trying to do a lot to portray a good message. They just fall short some times.

There are some problems with the Disney Princess line and everybody knows that. This article Girls on Film shows a pure example of how Disney has taken some steps forward in terms of improving the line. An example of this is the movie Brave but it has also taken steps backwards like redesigning Mulan and Pocahontas. As a brand name company they will never be able to please everyone that is the facts. The parents and others who happen to claim that the princess line just needs to end because it creates unrealistic expectations for young girls do not realize the amount of money Disney makes off of this brand and would quite frankly be crazy if they took it off the market. If these parents want real action the only way they are going to accomplish that tremendous feet is by getting people to stop and think before they buy the product.

Disney's Redesign for the princess line is a 4 billion dollar industry so how do you fix the problem.

Step 1 Don't blame the Company
Step 2 Stop buying from the Disney Princess Line
Step 3 Convince friends to not buy into it
Step 4 Don't succumb to peer pressure and buy clearly wrong interpretations of Feminism
Step 5 It wont make any money
Step 6 Disney removes it

Don't believe me read this Disney Probs

Disagree to Disliking Disney

Professor McCauliff was right when she said we might be offended or a little mad after today's lecture on children and princesses.  I don't see anything wrong with a little girl wanting to go to Disney World to meet her favorite princess, dressing up like her or even wanting to be her.  However, I do agree that some parents take it too far.

When I was a little girl, I watched every Disney movie on repeat; especially The Little Mermaid.  I dreamed of being like Ariel when I grew up.  When I say that, I don't mean that I dreamed about running away from my family, changing my body or giving up my strongest talents.  Sure, I wanted to be beautiful, but who doesn't?  I wanted to be like Ariel because she was independent.  She didn't do everything like her sisters because she wanted to stand out and be different.  She took a risk to be with a man she didn't know, but that seems pretty brave to me.  She also had a lot of sass about her (and I don't mean the child word for sexy either).  Ariel was a typical teenage girl who wanted to be her own person, and I loved that about her.

I completely understand that not all little girls think like this; many young children want to be a princess because they are beautiful, they wear a tiara and they can talk to animals (who wouldn't want that?).  But they are just kids.  They are allowed to dream and imagine themselves as princesses.  The real trouble is when parents encourage this throughout their lives.  At some point, parents need to make their child aware that this isn't a reality, but it is just fine to pretend that way at home while playing dress up.

In conclusion, Disney princesses teach a lot of positive things along with the negative.  Mulan defies gender stereotypes by secretly taking her father's place in the army.  Ariel is brave and does everything possible to get what she wants.  Pocahontas is spiritual, athletic and independent. Belle is unique and doesn't want to marry a man just because he is rich and handsome. Overall,  I just don't think it's time to ditch the "Little Princess" baby clothes just yet.

Give Disney Some Slack

When people look at princess culture and gender stereotypes, many immediately look to the Walt Disney Company for its less than stellar representations of both males and females. However, old Walt was far from the first person to present these tales. Many of them, especially the more well known of these stories, can be traced back long before Walt Disney began making films.

According to imdb.com, Walt Disney began work on Snow White, the first full-length animated film, in 1934. However,  according to flavorwire.com, the original story of Snow White by the Grimm brothers appeared in 1812, a full eighty-nine years before Walt Disney was even born.

Later, also from imdb.com, Walt Disney fronted the production of Sleeping Beauty which was released into theaters in 1959. According to flavorwire.com, the original story of Sleeping Beauty, entitled Sun, Moon, and Talia, was published in 1634, a full two hundred and sixty-seven years before Walt was born and three hundred and twenty-five years before the release of the film.

Lastly, according to imdb.com, Beauty and the Beast was released in 1991, twenty-five years after Walt's death. According to suite101.com, the original story of the Beauty and the Beast can be traced back to the second century A.D. by author Apuleius. That would put Beauty and the Beast close to seventeen hundred years older than Walt Disney.

Seems silly to put so much blame on one man who wasn't even around for the creation of the stories he has allegedly used to brainwash children for years. Maybe, one should look both at the original stories and the Walt Disney Company rather than placing the blame all on the shoulders of Walt Disney himself.

Food Made it in America

Food is definitely a hot topic in America. Go to any city in the country and you will surely find a McDonald's and other fast food restaurants. Why? It is actually quite simple to explain. Pollan puts it well when he mentions how the Great Depression greatly influenced the arrival of so many fast food joints because of how cheap the food was. Most people could no longer afford the typical meals they were having pre-depression era. In effect, President Nixon's administration successively dropped the prices of the crops that were used to produce the processed foods sold at fast food places. However much money people save in the present moment from buying fast food, it does not even compare to the costs later in life. As Pollan says, "there are significant costs-to the environment, to public health, to the public purse, even to the culture". In my opinion, no matter how ignorant a person is or wants to be, for that matter, it is still necessary to make them aware of what is actually going into their body and how it is actually "made". For me, it is not worth it to eat food that in the long run is going to increase the chance of me having a health-related expense that will cost much more than any food. In the end, the question is "how much do you care about your body, your environment, and your life later on?" Even Muncie has a farmer's market and offers people health choices of fruits, vegetables, and other items. As I aspire to live in a big city when I graduate, I am looking forward to the more prevalent opportunities for involvement in the food movement with the massive farmer's markets and organic options.

Learning to be a Princess

I have never been into the Disney princesses. If you asked me to tell you the story line, I could because of their existence in popular culture but not because I myself I had seen the movies--apart from The Little Mermaid that is. I grew up though, a princess. I didn't play in frilly dresses, but I did dress up as a Spice Girl and put on concerts for my grandparents in cowgirl boots and a blanket dress most days. I played with Barbies and babies, had a pretty sweet 90's Easy Bake Oven. I was a girly girl by all means of the word with no brothers or male cousins to influence me otherwise. I have been a dancer my entire life, did a few kid pageants, cheered in high school. I will admit too that I grew up a spoiled brat. I never wanted for anything and that is what contributes to a lot of little girls "princess identity".
Now at the age of 21, I sometimes catch myself feeling entitled and hyper feminine like the chapter discussed and that disgusts me beyond belief. Whenever my mom and I get into a fight because I want something and she doesn't think I need it, it upsets me way more than it should. The privilege that comes with the princess culture we teach little girls has to end sometime in their lives but how do you go from hearing "yes" your whole life to hearing "no do it on your own, don't be entitled." I like to think that I have grown a lot and the world doesn't have to be quite so glamorous but it is so easy to get wrapped up and forget that maxing out my $1,500 credit card was a horrible decision. I think the princess culture, at least on my end of the spectrum, is definitely fed by consumerism. Keeping up with the Jones', or in this case the Kardashian's, is what fuels my interest in the material and is where I continue to unfortunately live in the "princess" world.

Practicing What You Preach

While I was reading "Is Pink Necessary?", I couldn't help but get annoyed with the author. When Paul was talking about Peggy Orenstein, she started out talking about how valid Orenstein's work was and how she focused on the child pageant circuit which is a valid area of study. However, throughout the article, Paul would back pedal, making a strong point, but then immediately began backing off.

For example, in the fifth paragraph, Paul discussed Orenstein's turn to the child pageant circuit and how Orenstein wanted to discover a different take on this medium rather than the traditional "blame the parents" approach.

However, in the sixth paragraph, Paul begins to almost apologize for Orenstein's research. Paul says that Orenstein "argues with herself, questions her own assumptions, ...and then has second thoughts". By doing this, it seems that Paul presents Orenstein as a stereotypical "hysterical woman", one who can't make up her mind and has to apologize when her theories are more speculative rather than concrete. Paul cheapens Orenstein in this way, turning Orenstein from a competent journalist to an uncertain mother who dabbles in writing and wonders from behind her Redbook and ginger ale whether child pageants are good or bad.

By creating uncertainty about Orenstein, Paul seems to reinforce the stereotype that women must be submissive and that their opinions don't mean as much as a man's. After observing Paul at work, I must ask myself whether or not Paul is part of the problem by not sticking to her convictions.

Making Food Choices

Last night my roommate and I, freshly home from Fall Break were standing in the kitchen talking about how our parents keep yelling at us for eating out nonstop. When you're over 21 and a college student at Ball State it is more than likely you'll see a laundry list of "Dill Street, Puerta Vallarta, and Scotty's Brewhouse" on your bank statement each month. The reason for this being convenience. I can't even begin to tell you how many times I have searched my fridge looking for dinner to ultimately decide on eating Tidal's Dip at Scotty's with a pitcher of beer. Do I think that this is a healthy lifestyle choice, no, although it is probably worse on my bank account.
As a fairly health conscious person (I buy 90% of my groceries at Trader Joe's or Whole Foods and read food blogs like the New York Times) it makes me absolutely sick to watch documentaries and see fat kids and adults who think that they can't financially afford to eat food from the supermarket. I think that that like we talked about in class the problem doesn't lie so much in the financials but in the accessibility. With the amount of trips I take out to eat every month I could surely afford to stock my fridge full of healthy choices, fresh fruits and vegetables but instead I choose the convenience of grabbing something prepared by someone else and trying to choose the somewhat healthiest thing on the menu. Most of these working or lower class families that choose to go through a McDonald's are families on the go. The could very easily find a supermarket meal under $20 to feed their family of 5 but instead they go for what is readily available to them.

Pretty Pretty Princess

Our lecture on Princess Culture I think hit very close to home for a lot of people in class today. Everything fed to us in popular culture has been spoon fed to young girls as a product. The term "Disney Princess" used to just reference a handful of characters that Disney owns. However, once Andy Mooney saw the want for more Disney princess products the Disney Princess line was started and brought some highest revenue that Disney had ever seen.

Speaking for myself this makes me kind of angry. When I was younger I don't remember too much princess merchandise. It wasn't until after I left my "princess phase" that this line was created. I think the biggest reason as to why this line makes me angry is that it waters down these characters and molds them into faceless characters that represents profit. Quite a few of these princesses have been put into a negative light for being static characters that don't control their stories and are glorified set pieces. The more modern princess have become more and more active than the older princesses. However, even with Disney's introduction of more and more active princesses (Ariel, Belle, Meridia etc.) they still marginalize them by molding them into these money making machines, and denying them of their characteristics.  

As we talked about in class today this separation of these characters can be detrimental to how young girls view the princesses. Instead of seeing well rounded characters they view a shiny and spoiled imposture. Because of this they might not absorb the great attributes of the princess they will just take the materialist view.

Food Inc

            I have seen the Food Inc movie multiple times. Every time I watched it, it was for a class, and I had to analyze it. I've always had the same opinion. I think that people are going to eat whatever they want to eat regardless of what it exposed about the food, because they are already somewhat addicted to it. For example, it would be very hard to break a child from their love of McDonald's even if you showed them that the food wasn't real. To be honest, I don’t think that Americans really care, because it tastes good. They would much rather not know the truth behind the food, or they would rather ignore it.

            I also completely agree with the theory about the food cycle, and how cheaper food is causing people to stay in poverty and only be able to afford that food. It was well explained in class that cheaper food results in cheaper labor. Also, the fact that a 2 liter of pop cost less than a gallon of milk is mind blowing. Another example is the family mentioned in the film that could only afford to feed their family with the dollar menu at various fast food restaurants. Rather than going out, grocery shopping, and cooking a fresh meal, they had to resort to fast food in order to keep their family fed.

           Overall, I think that Food Inc is an amazing documentary that all should see. I think that it definitely raises awareness, but ultimately does not change the minds of the people.