Misrepresented or Unrepresented

Recently in class we've been discussing the portrayal of African Americans in the media which coincidentally comes at the same time as the oscar nominations consisting of not one African American this year. Interestingly while I was looking into this topic I came upon an article talking about the increase of African Americans in commercials but how the portrayals are stereotyping black women. (Click here) The author writes that the stereotypical overweight black woman "typically finds herself in an exchange that is either confrontational or embarrassing. And her best line is often little more than a sassy “Mmmm hmmm.” The article also says that, "over the last 15 years the number of blacks appearing in commercials has been roughly proportional to their share of the American population, about 14 percent." It's good that blacks are no longer underrepresented in terms of population but is it still ok if they are being misrepresented?

What is interesting is that even though African Americans are prevalent in commercials, this year they are extremely underrepresented in the film industry. According to this article (also from NY Times), the Oscar nominated movies are " more racially homogenous — more white — than the 10 films that were up for best picture in 1940". I find this very sad in the fact that we elected a African American president but don't even have ONE African American up for an Oscar.  If we take both commercials and movies together, we are getting a misrepresented and an underrepresented portrayal of African Americans. Of course there are exceptions in both cases and I know I am being very general but have we really progressed in our portrayal of African Americans throughout US history? The latest movies that are in theaters:  I am Number Four- blond actors; Gnomeo and Juliet -white gnomes; and Big Mammas: Like Father, Like Son- African American actors. But interestingly it seems like in Big Mamma: Like Father, Like Son they are only fueling stereotypes.

Where are the overweight people?

In class few weeks ago we watched a clip of a news anchor whose body was in full view opposed to the man she was interviewing who could only be seen from the chest up. It seemed as if the news program was using the anchor for her attractiveness. Something interesting came to mind: do we ever see overweight or unattractive people on tv?

I did a little research on "how to become a news anchor" and found that most websites stated that people in college  go for a undergraduate degree in communications or journalism. Then they work their way up from interning to new reporter to anchor.( see this link). What I found to be particularly peculiar is the fact that almost no website ever stated that a new anchor must be somewhat attractive. Each made it seem like anyone could eventually become one. A recent article states that more than 6 in 10 Americans are overweight or obese. If very few news anchors are overweight (if you were to search "overweight news anchor" into Google no overweight anchors come up), then theoretically couldn't only the 40% of healthy weight people have the chance to become news anchors? This brings me to my biggest question: Why are there few overweight people on tv, besides the shows specifically about overweight people? There are TONS of shows now that are solely about people losing weight and being overweight but it there ever an overweight person on tv where their weight isn't the main focus?

Personally I feel like the only way an overweight person can get on tv is if their weight is the main focus. Shows like "The biggest Loser" "I Used to be Fat" "Too Fat for 15" "Huge" and "Dance Your Ass Off" are all based off of people being overweight. I have yet to see a truly overweight main character on the Disney Channel. Most of the shows on Disney Channel are supposed to be about normal kids, but if 1 out of 3 kids are overweight, how realistic is that? They show kids in high school but why are there few overweight people in the hallway?

Meta-Post: 2nd Quarter

Mr. Bolos and Mr. O'Connor - I'd like you to grade "Raised Hands of Girls Decreasing Over Time?"

This quarter my blog has developed into pieces of complex writing. I've noticed that in many of my most recent blogs I am analyzing numbers. This doesn't surprise me considering I love math. But what I think makes these posts particularly better than ones in the past is that I write a complete analysis of those numbers. I am not giving the readers a statistic and then immediately asking readers what they think. Instead I answer the question I pose and ask my readers for their opinion. In my blog post "North, South, East, or Race: Teen Pregnancy", I ask the question, "Why do certain regions have higher [teen pregnancy] rates?" and go on to explain that I believe its just purely a cycle. In one of my first quarter posts, "Slavery in Modern Day America", I give a statistic about the number of prostitutes in the US and then immediately after, ended my blog with a question. It didn't leave any opinion for someone to comment on which is something I've tried to work on this quarter.


Something I'd like to work on in the future is making my blogs more controversial so that I won't need to ask so many questions but instead have people comment because my statement compels them to add their opinion. The one post I think I did a good job of this is "Body Scanners: A Breach of our Freedom?". I ended this post saying, "I'd rather go through  body scanner than have a plane blow up." I didn't need to pose a question in order to receive responses. I got 2 comments. I am going to try and do this in more and more of my posts in the future. 


Even though I am disappointed in the number of posts I wrote this quarter (I wish I would've done more than 1 per week), I must say that I am proud in the fact that most of my posts are well thought out and even encroach on the side of being too long. One of my more recent posts, "CEO", is lengthy but at the same time I do not feel as if I ramble on and on. First I give statistics about what I'm going to be discussing, next I set up the problem that I'm going to be analyzing, then I give my analysis and back it up with evidence. I feel like this is a dramatic improvement from my "Life Graphs" post from the beginning of the year where all I did is describe what we are talking about in class and posed a question. 


Blogging has definitely forced me to explore the issues in the news and I am glad that we get the chance to connect school with the world around us. I am looking forward to writing more blogs!

Raised hands of girls decreasing over time?

Continuing the topic of girls in present day society, I've come across an interesting question about myself: why don't I raise my hand as much any more? When I was in elementary and middle school, if I knew the answer to a question my teacher asked (which, trying not to sound egotistical, was quite often), you could be sure that my hand would shoot straight up at an alarming speed. Remembering my former years in school, my "childhood", I feel strange thinking about how much I loved to raise my hand. I was never aware nor did I care about what other people thought. And come to think about it, I'd like to say that more of girls raised their hands more often too. But why then and not now?

I can think of two specific instances where girls dumb down in the oh so popular movie Mean Girls and Disney's popular High School Musical (one of my favorite of all time no doubt). "Mean Girls" portrays an intelligent and also beautiful high school girl wanting a relationship and this relationship is with one of the popular jocks. In pursuing the relationship, she deliberately fails math tests so she can get him to tutor her. The other instance in "High School Musical" is when Gabriella, arguable one of the smartest girls at the school, covers up her intelligence to win over Troy.

In this book online (you'll have to log into your school account to see it, sorry), the author compares girls in mixed gender classes compared to all female classes. It states that women in womens colleges have "greater self esteem at graduation, have less gender-stereotypic career aspirations, are more engaged in college activities, and are more likely to enter traditionally male professions." This doesn't surprise me. In an atmosphere where girls do not feel the need to dumb down they could reach their full potential at school. This book suggests that boys are the cause of girls dumbing down and I also believe that to be the cause. Teenage girls are usually very self conscious in general so it makes sense that they would hold themselves back seeing that many girls might feel that if they show how smart they are, a guy won't like them. This article quotes a book saying, "Girls in grades six and seven rate being popular and well-liked as more important than being perceived as competent or independent." (Bailey). If this is true, which I believe it is, then girls are dumbing down thinking that guys will like them, so that they can then be "popular and well-liked". Its sad that the reason for this is boys, especially when women are making so much progress in today's society.
But maybe I'm wrong. What do you think?

(To all the guys: please don't hesitate to respond. I'd like to know what you think.)


Reference:
Bailey, S. How Schools Shortchange Girls: The AAUW Report. New York, NY: Marlowe & Company.

CEO

In As this week Mr. O'Connor told us about an award winning magazine piece that was about women in today's society. It was called The End of Men. This very "feminist" article gave many interesting points about how women are essentually excelling in the jobs force much more then men. The author, Hanna Rosin, writes, "According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women now hold 51.4 percent of managerial and professional jobs—up from 26.1 percent in 1980. They make up 54 percent of all accountants and hold about half of all banking and insurance jobs. About a third of America’s physicians are now women, as are 45 percent of associates in law firms—and both those percentages are rising fast." Another interesting fact, "Men dominate just two of the 15 job categories projected to grow the most over the next decade: janitor and computer engineer. Women have everything else—nursing, home health assistance, child care, food preparation." The statistics that women are climbing the job latter are staggering. I am so glad to be living in a society where men do not take up the large majority of the workforce as they have in decades past. But one thing is still grossly unequal: women in high powered positions.

The End of Men article states that only 3% of CEO's of Fortune 500 companies are women and the number has never risen much above that and how " Prominent female CEOs, past and present, are so rare that they count as minor celebrities". How could this be? If the number of women in the workforce is mostly equal/more than that of men, why are such a small percentage in high powered positions?

Personally I attribute this to the difference in what men and women are willing to give up. What I mean is that I feel like more women do not want to give up having/being with their family. Being a CEO of a major company is a 24 hour job for sure. When it's a painful choice between the client crisis and your child's birthday party, I feel like the employee most likely to put company over family is the traditional, work-oriented male. Now this definitely does not apply for all men. I also feel like more women want the ability to have a career and still have a family and would rather not push to move up in the corporate world if it meant less time with their family.

Marta Cabrera, the former vice president of JP Morgan Chase, was working 12 hour days and one day had the realization that she was missing out on her childrens' lives and quit. She said, "There's a different quality of what men give up versus what women give up" when they attempt to reconcile the demands of a senior job with those of family responsibilities.

But who knows? Maybe women have just not climbed the CEO latter yet.

Art Therapy

In AS, when we were watching the movie The Cats of Mirikitani, it was interesting to me that Jimmy Mirikitani, the main character, repeatedly drew pictures of the Tule Lake internment camp where he spent 3.5 years of his life. Why would he want to paint a memory that was so painful for him, over and over and over again?

Later I realized, it was his form of therapy. A few years ago in Wilmette there was a walk called the Kirathon. It was in dedication of Kira Arney, who would be a senior this year, who died of a malignant brain tumor. It raised funds for art therapy at Children's Memorial Hospital. (Read more about it here). Art therapy for cancer patients has been proven to help the quality of life and reduce the pain and anxiety in cancer patients. In this article, a doctor is quoted as saying, "Art therapy provides a distraction that allows patients to focus on something positive instead of their health for a time, and it also gives patients something they can control." Now I don't mean to say that Jimmy Mirikitani is like a cancer patient or vice versa but his art may act in the same way for him as it does to a cancer patients. Drawing the camps also might relieve his pain because he knows that he survived it and that his life has moved on.

Body Scanners: a breach of our freedom?

The idea of perilous times has been over full body scanners at airports, I think that people are taking this issue way too far. In case you haven't heard about the full body scanner debate, read about it here. In New York's airport they have installed full body scanners as means of security. Many people think this is a breach of their freedom because body scanners can see the outlines of peoples "private parts". Here's a photo:

The ACLU or American Civil Liberties Union's stance on the subject is that they should be used but only if a person is a "security risk". They say that, "Passengers expect privacy underneath their clothing and should not be required to display highly personal details of their bodies such as evidence of mastectomies, colostomy appliances, penile implants, catheter tubes and the size of their breasts or genitals as a pre-requisite to boarding a plane." Personally I see where they are coming from. But how do you characterize someone as being a higher security risk? 

This idea comes down to what we have been talking in class: can an individual's right be restricted for the safety of the country? But then we have to answer the question, is it our right to refuse a body scan?

I would have to say no. Personally I think that in this case it is safer for the whole for body scanners to be used. People feel violated because they think that the person running the machine are looking at them naked. Not true. The images are only seen in rooms far away from the scanner and the images aren't kept and cannot be leaked. I think that it is a little self centered to think that your body is so amazing or has something about it that would set it apart from the other 1000 people who would go through that scanner that day. I realize that the thought of someone seeing a naked picture of you seems kind of scary/creepy but I think that in these "perilous times" we are just going to need to get over it. I'd rather go through  body scanner that have a plane blow up.