Since the 1970s, women have made tremendous strides in terms of professional success. Thanks to the feminist movement, America has more female scientists, politicians and senior managers than ever before. Women even managed to break into the male-dominated field of broadcast journalism, which requires bulldog tenacity and ambition—traits traditionally associated with men. Unfortunately, even when they prove themselves not only competent, but also exemplary in their fields, women are judged on whether their breasts are high enough and their faces wrinkle-free. Granted, when one is watching television, one expects to see attractive people on the screen; however, something is fundamentally skewed when older women have to have unwrinkled faces, dyed hair, and breast lifts while men can get away with letting their jowls and wrinkles hang out because they are ‘distinguished’ and ‘have character.’ Women comprise more than half the television audience and they would like to see some more attractive men on the screen too! However, that is not likely to happen because American culture is structured around what heterosexual men find fascinating. No matter how engaging a reporter can be, if she does not appeal to straight male sensibilities, then she must either get plastic surgery or lose her job. “Over the past 10 years, we have seen more women journalists than ever on the national airwaves, but they are still evaluated as visual objects in ways that men are not” (Kim). Observe your average sitcom for example. The man can be overweight, insensitive, low-income, and have all kinds of disgusting habits, but the woman is always attractive and knowledgeable. Of course, all men would feel that they are entitled to the most attractive women (7-10 on the ‘looks scale’) while the rest of womankind should either go through the contortions of dramatic weight loss and cosmetic surgery to appease the Average Joe. However, as far as we have come, we still have a long way to go. No matter what women accomplish professionally, they are evaluated primarily on how they look.
The message that females must be eternally hot starts very early. In fact, many little girls believe that they have a weight problem, and many start diets before they are twelve-years-old. Since most crimes against humanity can be justified by following the money, a new generation of young women is primed to support the ever-burgeoning dieting industry. “In 2003, Teen magazine reported that 35% of girls 6 to 12 have been on at least one diet, and that 50-70% of normal weight girls believe they are overweight. Overall research indicates that 90% of women are dissatisfied with their appearance in some way” (Gerber). When images of unrealistic beauty are shoved down the throats of our young, they feel that in order to have any social worth whatsoever, they must conform to these ideals as closely as possible. However, young men who see very attractive men on television do not suffer the same way, probably because they often see average to plain guys with attractive women. Young girls never see the situation in reverse. In addition, it is well known that men judge women visually and harshly while men get some latitude for having a great personality and financial security. Women are usually unsuccessful in employing compensatory strategies for unattractive looks (i.e. developing a quick wit, making a lot of money). The problem is intensified if you are an ethnic minority—then your looks have to be ten times better than theirs, only to be considered for mating. Given this sociological fact, is it any wonder why young girls have such complexes these days?
Here’s a CNN report titled: ‘American Beauty Standards: The Ugly Side of Beauty’ that helps bring home points from the articles.
Works Cited
Gerber, Robin. “Beauty and Body Image in the Media.” Media Awareness Network, 2009, 23 February 2009, <http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/women_and_birls/women_beauty.ctm >
Kim, L.S. “Do We Still Need Feminist Media?” Ms. Magazine, November 9, 2007, 23 February 2009, <http://www.alternet.org/story/67388 >
Video Thanks to Youtube.com
Monday, February 23, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Text Messaging the Language of Our Generation
Those who control knowledge, define reality (Soules, 2007). Harold Innis developed a number of theories relating to the development of technology and the effect it has on the populace and its social structure. He believed that the stability of various cultures depends on their media, or methods of communication. He suggests two types of media, one based in time, and one in space (Soules, 2007). While the Rosetta Stone would be time based, text messaging, which is light and portable, is undoubtedly based in space. According to Innis, space-based media facilitates the expansion of an empire, or government. He also believes that when the balance is tilted – and based on Barker we may wonder if the tilt is occurring – the empire is nearing the end of its lifespan. Soules considers Innis a 'technical realist'.
Barker makes it clear that communication is shifting from aural and vocal to textual, with the specific media being text messaging. A sidebar to the Barker article suggests that the switch may have far-reaching implications for the development of written communication skills. The sidebar contends that while teens communicate much less on a verbal level, outlets like Facebook, My Space, and blogs actually encourage the development of written language skills. Thus, what looks at first glance like a 'step backwards' could really be considered a return to a more educated era when writing was a skill. If this is the case then the argument might be made that Innis is indeed, correct, and we are heading for a decline.
Throughout history, technological innovation has occurred and it has been a constant in the area of communications. Whether it was carving pictures into stone, learning to use a stylus on a tablet, painting on cave walls, developing an alphabet, harnessing pigeons to carry notes, developing the pony express, or inventing the telephone, telegraph, radio, television, or satellite link, mankind has always had an innate drive to share opinion, specifically the opinion of the individual, whether he/she is a carver/birder/caller/announcer/reporter. Texting is no different; it is a sharing of opinion and communication, albeit in one line snippets. Because text messaging is so limited in length, two things happen: the texter learns to type quickly, and they learn to understand text language, which can also be called L33t.
There are a number of forms of L33t, so even in text messaging there are dialects. Some of the dialects evolved from gamers, who had to adapt not only to the game but to the fact that there were people of various languages on the games and not all of the games could read native type fonts like Korean, Thai, and so on. This makes it hard to read texts from someone outside your own circle. Adult texts tend to be easier to read, while the younger generation likes to use more symbols, letters, and crazy acronyms. In that sense it can be like a secret language, which can also be the appeal for younger teens who want privacy from their parents.
Text messages have evolved into text message slang, the same way that formal communications became street talk ("wazzup, bro?). While I agree that we are changing the course of communication, I have difficulty believing either that we are bringing the downfall of society (Innis) or that we are advancing literature (Barker). My inclination is to simply say "It is what it is" but there has been so much controversy lately over that statement that I'll just close with the observation that I thought text-slang was a new thing, you just have to ‘GROK’ it (meaning: to learn and understand how something works, typically through experimentation). Later I was talking to my aunt about the subject and she pointed out that she had an "I GROK SPOCK" t-shirt back in 1960’s. So it is interesting to learn that the "new" innovations we have...come from an older generation! It seems like the phrase "the more things change, the more they remain the same" might be very appropriate.
Some things should still be held sacred, like everyone should know you don’t break up by text message! This video on YouTube combines the absolute best of modern media. It combines video, blogging, YouTube, and My Space, as well as a great deal of sarcasm to make it entertaining – and some of the language may not be suitable for school (but we’re all adults). However, it does clearly show how the media has become interwoven with the lives of our generation.
Emphasizing the seriousness of the 'text message breakup' is grandma's actions at 5:21-5:26. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcidD2HFK8M
Works Cited
Barker, Olivia. "Inside Technology: Technology Leaves Teens Speechless." 29 May 2006. USA Today.com. 15 February 2009.
Soules, M. "Harold Adams Innis:The Bias of Communications & Monopolies of Pow." 2007. Media Studies.ca. 15 February 2009.
Text Message Breakup, 2006. Liam Kyle Sullivan, You Tube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcidD2HFK8M
Barker makes it clear that communication is shifting from aural and vocal to textual, with the specific media being text messaging. A sidebar to the Barker article suggests that the switch may have far-reaching implications for the development of written communication skills. The sidebar contends that while teens communicate much less on a verbal level, outlets like Facebook, My Space, and blogs actually encourage the development of written language skills. Thus, what looks at first glance like a 'step backwards' could really be considered a return to a more educated era when writing was a skill. If this is the case then the argument might be made that Innis is indeed, correct, and we are heading for a decline.
Throughout history, technological innovation has occurred and it has been a constant in the area of communications. Whether it was carving pictures into stone, learning to use a stylus on a tablet, painting on cave walls, developing an alphabet, harnessing pigeons to carry notes, developing the pony express, or inventing the telephone, telegraph, radio, television, or satellite link, mankind has always had an innate drive to share opinion, specifically the opinion of the individual, whether he/she is a carver/birder/caller/announcer/reporter. Texting is no different; it is a sharing of opinion and communication, albeit in one line snippets. Because text messaging is so limited in length, two things happen: the texter learns to type quickly, and they learn to understand text language, which can also be called L33t.
There are a number of forms of L33t, so even in text messaging there are dialects. Some of the dialects evolved from gamers, who had to adapt not only to the game but to the fact that there were people of various languages on the games and not all of the games could read native type fonts like Korean, Thai, and so on. This makes it hard to read texts from someone outside your own circle. Adult texts tend to be easier to read, while the younger generation likes to use more symbols, letters, and crazy acronyms. In that sense it can be like a secret language, which can also be the appeal for younger teens who want privacy from their parents.
Text messages have evolved into text message slang, the same way that formal communications became street talk ("wazzup, bro?). While I agree that we are changing the course of communication, I have difficulty believing either that we are bringing the downfall of society (Innis) or that we are advancing literature (Barker). My inclination is to simply say "It is what it is" but there has been so much controversy lately over that statement that I'll just close with the observation that I thought text-slang was a new thing, you just have to ‘GROK’ it (meaning: to learn and understand how something works, typically through experimentation). Later I was talking to my aunt about the subject and she pointed out that she had an "I GROK SPOCK" t-shirt back in 1960’s. So it is interesting to learn that the "new" innovations we have...come from an older generation! It seems like the phrase "the more things change, the more they remain the same" might be very appropriate.
Some things should still be held sacred, like everyone should know you don’t break up by text message! This video on YouTube combines the absolute best of modern media. It combines video, blogging, YouTube, and My Space, as well as a great deal of sarcasm to make it entertaining – and some of the language may not be suitable for school (but we’re all adults). However, it does clearly show how the media has become interwoven with the lives of our generation.
Emphasizing the seriousness of the 'text message breakup' is grandma's actions at 5:21-5:26. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcidD2HFK8M
Works Cited
Barker, Olivia. "Inside Technology: Technology Leaves Teens Speechless." 29 May 2006. USA Today.com. 15 February 2009
Soules, M. "Harold Adams Innis:The Bias of Communications & Monopolies of Pow." 2007. Media Studies.ca. 15 February 2009
Text Message Breakup, 2006. Liam Kyle Sullivan, You Tube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcidD2HFK8M
Monday, February 9, 2009
Video Games and Their Mixed Effects
One of the most hotly debated social topics to date is the possible link between playing violent video games and aggressive behavior. More than 40 years of research has already been conducted by psychologists and other members of the academia, but still the conclusions remain mixed. While researchers argue, parents are confused as to whether to pull the plug on their kids’ Xbox 360s and set up a parental security network on their kids’ computers to limit their access to online gaming sites.
Both sides of the argument are brought to light in two separate articles. Craig Anderson, who is considered an institution in research on aggression, summarizes the main points that link violent video games with aggression. First, although methodology in aggression research is very much disputed, violent video games have been consistently found to be “significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior.” Despite these findings, Anderson recognizes the fact that media violence is not the only factor that could contribute to violent behavior. He also states the need for longitudinal studies that could either support or oppose older findings.
It is on this last point that brings us to another research done by a group of professors at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. According to the results of their long-term study on online video gamers, an average of 56 hours of playtime in the span of a month had no significant influence to bring about real-world aggression (Lynn).
The more recent stream of video games being released in the market has been coming under increasing scrutiny, especially since newer technology is making violence, blood, and gore in video games more realistic than ever. I personally don’t think violent video games immediately cause violence in players, but I do believe that it can play an indirect role in aggression. As Anderson already observed, media violence is only one of the many factors that can lead to aggression. A person’s violent tendencies are rooted on many different things, from family life to school life to his/her ability to cope with stress and difficulties. These factors are far more important to the emotional and social development of a person and are more telling of his/her aggressive or violent behavior. So I definitely don't believe people can go and blame video games for any of their behavior when there’s so many other important factors, to me it seems that those who believe that are trying to turn violent video games into and scapegoat. That seems just ludicrous and like those individuals are trying to take the easy way out, and not take any real responsibility for their actions.
Of course, if you ask an average video gamer about this controversial topic, he will most likely be adamant in denying that playing violent video games makes him more violent. The truth is, while playing video games will likely affect a person than, say, watching a violent film, simulating war or murder through a control pad is hardly the same thing as doing it in real life. Majority of video gamers are adults who are very much aware of the difference between basic right from basic wrong, and you can’t conclude that video gamers are more likely to commit murder or kidnapping than non-gamers. Even this interview of psychology professor, Patrick Markey at Villanova University
(found on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnWO09q2nnw) emphasizes the fact that the majority of people who played violent video games are completely unaffected by it, and only those who were prone to anger showed any signs of aggressive behavior.
Unless there are statistics to show that most bullies play violent video games, or most criminals in jails play video games, using video games as scapegoat is not very responsible. This is what happened when media blamed video games for the Columbine shooting and even linked the Virginia Tech shooting to the same issue. If anything, people should focus on setting up the right environment for their kids. With or without video games, it is parental guidance and a healthy social life that can prevent tragedies like that from happening.
Works Cited
Anderson, Craig A. “Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts, and Unanswered Questions.”
Psychological Science Agenda. Oct. 2003: 17 (5). American Psychological Association. 9
Feb. 2009 <>
Lynn, Andrea. “No strong link seen between violent video games and aggression.” News
Bureau. 9 Aug 2005. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 9 Feb. 2009
Video thanks to youtube.com
Both sides of the argument are brought to light in two separate articles. Craig Anderson, who is considered an institution in research on aggression, summarizes the main points that link violent video games with aggression. First, although methodology in aggression research is very much disputed, violent video games have been consistently found to be “significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior.” Despite these findings, Anderson recognizes the fact that media violence is not the only factor that could contribute to violent behavior. He also states the need for longitudinal studies that could either support or oppose older findings.
It is on this last point that brings us to another research done by a group of professors at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. According to the results of their long-term study on online video gamers, an average of 56 hours of playtime in the span of a month had no significant influence to bring about real-world aggression (Lynn).
The more recent stream of video games being released in the market has been coming under increasing scrutiny, especially since newer technology is making violence, blood, and gore in video games more realistic than ever. I personally don’t think violent video games immediately cause violence in players, but I do believe that it can play an indirect role in aggression. As Anderson already observed, media violence is only one of the many factors that can lead to aggression. A person’s violent tendencies are rooted on many different things, from family life to school life to his/her ability to cope with stress and difficulties. These factors are far more important to the emotional and social development of a person and are more telling of his/her aggressive or violent behavior. So I definitely don't believe people can go and blame video games for any of their behavior when there’s so many other important factors, to me it seems that those who believe that are trying to turn violent video games into and scapegoat. That seems just ludicrous and like those individuals are trying to take the easy way out, and not take any real responsibility for their actions.
Of course, if you ask an average video gamer about this controversial topic, he will most likely be adamant in denying that playing violent video games makes him more violent. The truth is, while playing video games will likely affect a person than, say, watching a violent film, simulating war or murder through a control pad is hardly the same thing as doing it in real life. Majority of video gamers are adults who are very much aware of the difference between basic right from basic wrong, and you can’t conclude that video gamers are more likely to commit murder or kidnapping than non-gamers. Even this interview of psychology professor, Patrick Markey at Villanova University
(found on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnWO09q2nnw) emphasizes the fact that the majority of people who played violent video games are completely unaffected by it, and only those who were prone to anger showed any signs of aggressive behavior.
Unless there are statistics to show that most bullies play violent video games, or most criminals in jails play video games, using video games as scapegoat is not very responsible. This is what happened when media blamed video games for the Columbine shooting and even linked the Virginia Tech shooting to the same issue. If anything, people should focus on setting up the right environment for their kids. With or without video games, it is parental guidance and a healthy social life that can prevent tragedies like that from happening.
Works Cited
Anderson, Craig A. “Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts, and Unanswered Questions.”
Psychological Science Agenda. Oct. 2003: 17 (5). American Psychological Association. 9
Feb. 2009 <>
Lynn, Andrea. “No strong link seen between violent video games and aggression.” News
Bureau. 9 Aug 2005. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 9 Feb. 2009
Video thanks to youtube.com
Monday, February 2, 2009
What's All The Buzz About Semiotics
Semiotics is an interesting, confusing, multifaceted field that encompasses many concepts of signs, symbols, language, communication, and the relationships between them and other concepts. Chandler explains that the broadest definition of semiotics is “the study of signs”. He states, however, that this definition really does not provide a useful means by which people can understand what is meant by the term and what is actually being studied. In reality, semiotics is the study of signs as symbols and language in a society. In addition, he goes on to explain further that signs can be influenced by the media on which they are presented, and that their meaning and interpretation within a society can change over time. It is for all of these reasons that semiotics is not a single discipline in the academic community. Instead, people from a variety of disciplines, including art, literature, sociology, and mass media study the nature of signs and how they are presented and interpreted.
Perhaps the most important part of the information presented by Chandler regarding semiotics is the notion that the interpretation of signs and symbols over time does indeed change. In any culture, the meanings that are attributed to certain things change as people’s ideas about themselves and the world around them changes and evolves. Because signs and symbols are part of social life and social interaction, it only makes sense that the way that these signs and symbols are interpreted will change.
Gorny points out that signs and symbols are part of a larger expression of people and their state of mind. There is a deeper meaning behind the signs and symbols that are displayed within a culture. One only has to look to the signs and symbols that represent religious ideals, such as Christian signs related to the cross or to Jesus, to recognize that they have changed over time. The meaning that was attributed to these symbols two hundred years ago were certainly different than the meanings attributed to them today. Even more, not all people agree about the meaning of these symbols today. There is room for interpretation among people about what these symbols represent and what they mean for the larger society.
An example of this change might be the importance or lack thereof attributed to images of Jesus. For some people, this symbol represents something sacred that should be respected at all times. Others, however, see the symbol as a representation of myths or even oppression over others in terms of trying to dictate how people should live their lives and what they should believe about life. Some may even view the symbol of Jesus as a representation of the waning importance of the Christian religion in some larger countries around the world.
In order to relate this idea of changing ideas in a changing society, the article by Petrilli and Ponzio note that there is an expanding interest in global semiotics that is developing in the academic community. This area of the field is interested in a broad view of language and symbols as the world becomes more global and cultures become more closely connected through commerce and travel. This idea is important and related to the example of changes in opinions about religion, culture, and their symbols because a single group of people no longer influence the meaning of a symbol. The swastika is the best example of this because it is used widely across cultures and represents a multitude of ideas; in Buddhism it represents universal harmony, in Hinduism it is related to the creator god, Brahma, in Baltic culture it is related to the fire/thunder god and the sun god, in Nazi Germany Hitler wanted it to symbolize "… the creating, acting life", and now in western cultures post WWII it has a negative, racial, evil connotation. It also carries a host of other meanings in different cultures worldwide. http://www.flickr.com/photos/evissa/2187175515/ (This is a swastika from ancient Asian culture) http://www.flickr.com/photos/robinthom/2307117324/ (This is a swastika from western culture post WWII) It is unique that the two symbols are exactly the same shape but come off different in the light of their background, color scheme, and all around feel. `Ideas are more easily transmitted around the world between groups of people and come to influence what the larger global community thinks about specific signs and symbols, as well as the relative importance that they are given. It certainly seems likely that global semiotics will become even more important in the future as technology allows for signs and symbols to be transmitted easily around the world and quickly across different cultures, to be discussed and interpreted.
Works Cited
Chandler, Daniel. 3 April 2005. Semiotics for Beginners. 2 Feb. 2009
.
Gorny, Eugene. 2004. What is Semiotics? 2 Feb. 2009
Petrilli, Susan and Augusto Ponzio. 3 Nov. 2007. What is Semiotics? 2 Feb. 2009
.
Images: Evissa/ Flicker
Robin Thom/ Flicker
Perhaps the most important part of the information presented by Chandler regarding semiotics is the notion that the interpretation of signs and symbols over time does indeed change. In any culture, the meanings that are attributed to certain things change as people’s ideas about themselves and the world around them changes and evolves. Because signs and symbols are part of social life and social interaction, it only makes sense that the way that these signs and symbols are interpreted will change.
Gorny points out that signs and symbols are part of a larger expression of people and their state of mind. There is a deeper meaning behind the signs and symbols that are displayed within a culture. One only has to look to the signs and symbols that represent religious ideals, such as Christian signs related to the cross or to Jesus, to recognize that they have changed over time. The meaning that was attributed to these symbols two hundred years ago were certainly different than the meanings attributed to them today. Even more, not all people agree about the meaning of these symbols today. There is room for interpretation among people about what these symbols represent and what they mean for the larger society.
An example of this change might be the importance or lack thereof attributed to images of Jesus. For some people, this symbol represents something sacred that should be respected at all times. Others, however, see the symbol as a representation of myths or even oppression over others in terms of trying to dictate how people should live their lives and what they should believe about life. Some may even view the symbol of Jesus as a representation of the waning importance of the Christian religion in some larger countries around the world.
In order to relate this idea of changing ideas in a changing society, the article by Petrilli and Ponzio note that there is an expanding interest in global semiotics that is developing in the academic community. This area of the field is interested in a broad view of language and symbols as the world becomes more global and cultures become more closely connected through commerce and travel. This idea is important and related to the example of changes in opinions about religion, culture, and their symbols because a single group of people no longer influence the meaning of a symbol. The swastika is the best example of this because it is used widely across cultures and represents a multitude of ideas; in Buddhism it represents universal harmony, in Hinduism it is related to the creator god, Brahma, in Baltic culture it is related to the fire/thunder god and the sun god, in Nazi Germany Hitler wanted it to symbolize "… the creating, acting life", and now in western cultures post WWII it has a negative, racial, evil connotation. It also carries a host of other meanings in different cultures worldwide. http://www.flickr.com/photos/evissa/2187175515/ (This is a swastika from ancient Asian culture) http://www.flickr.com/photos/robinthom/2307117324/ (This is a swastika from western culture post WWII) It is unique that the two symbols are exactly the same shape but come off different in the light of their background, color scheme, and all around feel. `Ideas are more easily transmitted around the world between groups of people and come to influence what the larger global community thinks about specific signs and symbols, as well as the relative importance that they are given. It certainly seems likely that global semiotics will become even more important in the future as technology allows for signs and symbols to be transmitted easily around the world and quickly across different cultures, to be discussed and interpreted.
Works Cited
Chandler, Daniel. 3 April 2005. Semiotics for Beginners. 2 Feb. 2009
Gorny, Eugene. 2004. What is Semiotics? 2 Feb. 2009
Petrilli, Susan and Augusto Ponzio. 3 Nov. 2007. What is Semiotics? 2 Feb. 2009
Images: Evissa/ Flicker
Robin Thom/ Flicker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
