However, another question we had was if discussing/analyzing different groups (whether it be racial-based, sexuality-based, anything) and drawing attention to them actually creates more tension. For example, while "Glee" does focus on many different kinds of people (gay couples, people with disabilities, "nerds", "jocks", etc.), it also often illuminates problems they face that are specific to those stereotypes (such as the gay couples being ridiculed and exiled for their homosexuality). By drawing attention to specific problems within different groups instead of showing that they are problems that everyone faces, is it possible the media is actually being less open and accepting of diversity in its attempt at openness?
Friday, March 16, 2012
3/15 Class Discussion Follow-Up
Towards the end of class, Cori and I touched briefly on the question of whether or not it is human nature to label and categorize people according to multiple identities, and whether or not this is inevitable across time. Someone also commented in class (I think it was Clark? Maybe?) about TV shows like "Glee" which feature many different ethnic groups and stereotypes in an attempt to create a more accepting environment for everyone and educate the viewing public about the new emerging societal norms.
Adolescent Sexuality and Media Influence
During Tuesday's discussion led by Jack and Kufere I remember discussing the media influence on Rap music and negative connotations of African Americans in general. This led me to further investigate the power of media influence, particularly regarding adolescent sexuality. We all know that in the modern American society we live in sexuality has become increasingly prevalent, particularly in the media. Whether it be Victoria's Secret underwear models on television, teenagers having or talking about sex on television shows, or the "50 ways to make yourself more sexy" article in cosmopolitan, sexuality is everywhere no matter where you go. So what effect does this have on adolescence growing up in this sexual era? Certainly this constant exposure to sexuality does not restrict a young teenager to be less sexual. So to find a quick and easy answer as to what magnitude the media seems to be affecting adolescent sexuality I looked for an article that would contain a study answering this question. Surely, there were many articles written regarding this topic, so I picked this one as it appeared to be reasonably credible:
http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/117/4/1018.full
This study was done in North Carolina as an in-home survey on over 1000 teenagers, ages 12 to 14. Some interesting results were found, check out the first section of the article including the methods, results, and conclusions, and let me know what you think. I believe this topic is one that definitely deserves further discussion, so feel free to post articles or studies of your own supporting what you believe.
Josh Russo
http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/117/4/1018.full
This study was done in North Carolina as an in-home survey on over 1000 teenagers, ages 12 to 14. Some interesting results were found, check out the first section of the article including the methods, results, and conclusions, and let me know what you think. I believe this topic is one that definitely deserves further discussion, so feel free to post articles or studies of your own supporting what you believe.
Josh Russo
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Separate, but Equal: The School Cafeteria?
We did not have the chance to truly discuss Tatum's chapter on Black kids sitting in the cafeteria, but I would like to expound on it here. Interestingly, a teacher who I interviewed for my senior thesis commented on Central Catholic race relations by stating, "Among some of our students they can be -- there can be negative attitudes towards our Black students. I'll give you an example, you probably heard this many times. If a group of Black students are sitting together in the cafeteria that bothers White students . . . White students will say something like 'why are they doing that?'" Similarly, I have interpreted Tatum's analysis of Black students sitting together in the cafeteria as more of a White issue; meaning White students/administrators find it more problematic than Black students/administrators.
With the use of the school cafeteria and the condition of Black schools prior to Brown v. Board (pg 65 in Tatum's chapter on Black kids sitting together) How do you think Black America would have progressed if separate but equal was actual given a true chance? Is "separate, but equal" inherently unequal as the Supreme Court suggests or is it possible to truly have a separate, but equal environment? Is the cafeteria separate, but equal?
With the use of the school cafeteria and the condition of Black schools prior to Brown v. Board (pg 65 in Tatum's chapter on Black kids sitting together) How do you think Black America would have progressed if separate but equal was actual given a true chance? Is "separate, but equal" inherently unequal as the Supreme Court suggests or is it possible to truly have a separate, but equal environment? Is the cafeteria separate, but equal?
Why use the term African-American
I found yesterday's discussion on the identity of black adolescents vs white adolescents particularly interesting. There were many interesting points made; however, there was one that stuck out and left me pondering on whether or not the statement made was valid.
When discussing whether or not to refer to darker skinned Americans as Black or African Americans, Sara made a comment that she took the term out of her vocabulary early on because she was told that not all Black Americans have African ancestry and may come from places as Jamaica and so forth. I informed the class that I disagreed however could not get into the topic too deeply because of the amount of time it would have taken. I can understand why many people who are not of African descent and those of African descent who are not properly educated on the subject may believe this to be true; however, the statement made is false.
For one, there is a term used known as the African "diaspora" which refers to people of African descent throughout the world which includes people from the Carribean and other countries. History shows that when slavery began, Europeans traveled to the continent of Africa and brought Africans back to the Americas and spread them not only throughout the Americas bu to other countries such as Jamaica. This caused children to be born in other countries other than Africa, which is why many say that their ancestors come from places other than Africa.
Despite this being true, Black ancestry can be traced back to Africa.
A great link of information is here: http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/overview.htm and there are countless history books, documentaries, and more that can further explain this complex subject.
When discussing whether or not to refer to darker skinned Americans as Black or African Americans, Sara made a comment that she took the term out of her vocabulary early on because she was told that not all Black Americans have African ancestry and may come from places as Jamaica and so forth. I informed the class that I disagreed however could not get into the topic too deeply because of the amount of time it would have taken. I can understand why many people who are not of African descent and those of African descent who are not properly educated on the subject may believe this to be true; however, the statement made is false.
For one, there is a term used known as the African "diaspora" which refers to people of African descent throughout the world which includes people from the Carribean and other countries. History shows that when slavery began, Europeans traveled to the continent of Africa and brought Africans back to the Americas and spread them not only throughout the Americas bu to other countries such as Jamaica. This caused children to be born in other countries other than Africa, which is why many say that their ancestors come from places other than Africa.
Despite this being true, Black ancestry can be traced back to Africa.
A great link of information is here: http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/overview.htm and there are countless history books, documentaries, and more that can further explain this complex subject.
Teen Crime and Punishment
I stumbled into this news article from the Detroit Free Press about a 14 year-old boy who recently shot and killed his mother, and I couldn't help but think of our prior class discussions regarding crimes committed by teens without fully realizing the consequences, the issue of whether teens should be tried as adults, as well as possible complications of an underdeveloped teenage brain.
http://www.freep.com/article/C4/20120308/NEWS01/303080002/Teen-accused-of-killing-mother-told-police-he-was-tired-of-being-called-names-?odyssey=nav%7Chead
The events right before the crime do not seem to have been out of the ordinary. Joshua's mother had asked him to retrieve medication for her--she was on dialysis for kidney failure and had to take blood pressure meds--but he ignored her and continued watching TV, so she told him, "You ain't going to be nothing." He went upstairs to his room, but she told him to come out, so he retrieved the gun from a locked office, went downstairs, and killed her. His mother's fiance, Chika Lewis, was in the home and heard the gunshots. Apparently Joshua fired one or two shots, paused as his mother probably fell to the ground, and then fired another six shots...yet he claims he didn't intend to kill her. Joshua even aimed the gun at Lewis, but only didn't shoot because Lewis was holding Joshua's 5 year-old sister.
It seems like Joshua decided to shoot his mother on a whim, without even thinking about the possible consequences. Whether he felt an immediate sense of satisfaction after firing the first bullet, or whether he simply became scared and didn't know what else to do during that brief moment, it is unclear why he continued to shoot the gun. However, I feel like his actions are largely caused by his brain. At 14, he probably lacks many vital problem solving and decision-making skills, which may have caused him to overreact to his mother's criticism of his actions. With this overreaction, he quickly decided that one way to fix things would be to punish--or hurt--her. Therefore, he grabbed the gun and shot her, but he did not intend to kill her. I feel like he either felt numbness as he carried out the murder, not realizing the full extent of what he was doing, or he felt a small amount of relief after hurting her so he continued to hurt her, again, not realizing how badly he was actually injuring her.
Controversially, Joshua is being tried as an adult and he faces life without parole if convicted. Regardless of the fact that he single-handedly murdered an innocent woman, and is fully aware that his actions were illegal, he is still a young teenager in the process of developing. His actions may have been caused by his brain development, but he is still a child who may finish his development and like the rest of his life in a jail cell. I believe he should at least have the chance of parole, even if it's twenty or thirty years from now.
I apologize for the length of this, but I really found this article interesting and debatable, much like the few cases we discussed in class like this. So, I just want to know how you guys feel about this individual case. What caused Joshua to murder his mother, and almost shoot his mother's fiance? How much of his actions would you contribute to his brain development? Do you believe he should be tried as an adult, or should his punishment be lessened a bit since he is only 14 years old?
The events right before the crime do not seem to have been out of the ordinary. Joshua's mother had asked him to retrieve medication for her--she was on dialysis for kidney failure and had to take blood pressure meds--but he ignored her and continued watching TV, so she told him, "You ain't going to be nothing." He went upstairs to his room, but she told him to come out, so he retrieved the gun from a locked office, went downstairs, and killed her. His mother's fiance, Chika Lewis, was in the home and heard the gunshots. Apparently Joshua fired one or two shots, paused as his mother probably fell to the ground, and then fired another six shots...yet he claims he didn't intend to kill her. Joshua even aimed the gun at Lewis, but only didn't shoot because Lewis was holding Joshua's 5 year-old sister.
It seems like Joshua decided to shoot his mother on a whim, without even thinking about the possible consequences. Whether he felt an immediate sense of satisfaction after firing the first bullet, or whether he simply became scared and didn't know what else to do during that brief moment, it is unclear why he continued to shoot the gun. However, I feel like his actions are largely caused by his brain. At 14, he probably lacks many vital problem solving and decision-making skills, which may have caused him to overreact to his mother's criticism of his actions. With this overreaction, he quickly decided that one way to fix things would be to punish--or hurt--her. Therefore, he grabbed the gun and shot her, but he did not intend to kill her. I feel like he either felt numbness as he carried out the murder, not realizing the full extent of what he was doing, or he felt a small amount of relief after hurting her so he continued to hurt her, again, not realizing how badly he was actually injuring her.
Controversially, Joshua is being tried as an adult and he faces life without parole if convicted. Regardless of the fact that he single-handedly murdered an innocent woman, and is fully aware that his actions were illegal, he is still a young teenager in the process of developing. His actions may have been caused by his brain development, but he is still a child who may finish his development and like the rest of his life in a jail cell. I believe he should at least have the chance of parole, even if it's twenty or thirty years from now.
I apologize for the length of this, but I really found this article interesting and debatable, much like the few cases we discussed in class like this. So, I just want to know how you guys feel about this individual case. What caused Joshua to murder his mother, and almost shoot his mother's fiance? How much of his actions would you contribute to his brain development? Do you believe he should be tried as an adult, or should his punishment be lessened a bit since he is only 14 years old?
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Is Facebook Sexualizing Young Girls?
http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/facebook-sexualizing-young-girls-183300178.html
In this article posted above, the author poses the question of whether social media, namely Facebook, encourages tweens and teens to act more overtly sexual. From what we've covered thus far in our course, I am reminded about our discussions regarding social acceptance, sexual identity, and the effects of the media on the female body. I think that technology and Facebook, just like MySpace before it, all publicize and intimate the social circles of peer groups and the lives of adolescents. It's a space quite similar to the high school cafeteria, but with the advantage of publicizing only the aspects of your life, appearance, and person that you feel will increase your social status.
So, what do you all think? Does social media just create a space for teens and tweens to "express" themselves, sexual identity and all (the same way they would even without this avenue), or is there something about the way these websites are designed ("likes" or "pokes" on Facebook) that encourage sexual behavior from teens and tweens?
In this article posted above, the author poses the question of whether social media, namely Facebook, encourages tweens and teens to act more overtly sexual. From what we've covered thus far in our course, I am reminded about our discussions regarding social acceptance, sexual identity, and the effects of the media on the female body. I think that technology and Facebook, just like MySpace before it, all publicize and intimate the social circles of peer groups and the lives of adolescents. It's a space quite similar to the high school cafeteria, but with the advantage of publicizing only the aspects of your life, appearance, and person that you feel will increase your social status.
So, what do you all think? Does social media just create a space for teens and tweens to "express" themselves, sexual identity and all (the same way they would even without this avenue), or is there something about the way these websites are designed ("likes" or "pokes" on Facebook) that encourage sexual behavior from teens and tweens?
Friday, March 2, 2012
Do We Need Social Media?
Hello All,
What ever happened to face-to-face talking? And why do people believe it is necessary to twitter what they are doing every single moment of their day? Should we even have any of these things? I may be a tad nostalgic, but sue me if I prefer speaking to people in the real world.
Above are two instances of people saying that social media - namely Twitter and Facebook - are completely useless or at least need to be toned down. The first talks about a study put on by the University of Chicago who outfitted 205 people with Blackberrys and messaged to ask them about their urges. Social Media was the #1 urge they could not resist, right after smoking and drinking. They were able to resist sexual and spending urges. The scientists attributed their inability to resist to social media's availability.
The second link goes to a girl's rant against Twitter, but she does bring up some good points. Her last one relates the best to my questions. "Twitter makes people anti-social. Why should you have to actually SPEAK to people when they can just read your tweets?"
Conversely, here is a link to an argument for social media.
Garret Pierson argues that those who rant against social media are usually the "emo's" and that:
"The funny thing is mostly the people who do complain about this rant are usually users who have not found a benefit in using Facebook or Twitter and merely have an account just to have one. They maybe update their account once every 2 weeks and has less than 50 friends. However there are your emos and haters who just like to bicker and rant on things."
While we let this flawed logic pass by, lets continue to look at the rest of his argument:
"The main point in displaying these updates are to open up conversations and provide the lead for engagement... [m]ost people don’t realize that this is an excellent way to strike up a conversation and a perfect time to engage so that you are effectively using your Social Network to its full potential. Why let anything go to waste when your not using it at full potential? That’s like buying a [f]ast [e]xpensive [c]ar that just sits in your garage."
I will grant that social media allow that which is in bold, but was that much of an improvement over the old way of doing things? I'm talking about phones, emails, letters, and regular talking! After this, he does make a point I like:
"Now some people may say that some updates are too excessive?
Yes I do agree, some people need to learn The Ultimate Social Media Etiquette Handbook by Tamar Weinberg[.]"
Apparently people needed a handbook to learn regular etiquette for any social interaction, but then again someone came up with the idea in the first place, which would mean that the author got the idea from seeing horrible interaction.
All in all, my point is that while social media is an interesting thing to do, it is hardly a replacement to emails, letters, phones, or regular talking which can do all the same things. Except Farmville.
What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)