Post 9, Question I: Tough Guise are Killing us Softly

The two videos Kilbourne "Killing Us Softly 3" and Katz's "Tough Guise" each deal with how the media portays each sex, and the damage it does to both.

In "Killing Us Softly", Kilbourne talks about the contining degradation in women in media, especially in advertisement. While we see that advitisors are as overt with assigning gender roles as they once were, there is still an issue with how women are portrayed in the media. One of the primary oppressors is the cosmetic and plastic surgery industry, as well as the various magazines that cater to women. These ads portray supposed "perfect" images of women, which many women strive to achieve. Unfortunately, as she points out, this look only belongs to a small minority of women.

In "Tough Guise" Katz discusses how society portrayl as the "strong, silent type" as he calls the "Tough Guise". He argues the contiuall presure for boys and young men to be strong, physical, and tough may be the cause of a majority of the cases of violence against women, and a number of the school shooting that happened in the late 90's.

Katz says that the images of boys are present across all socio-economic backgrounds and transcend race. In fact, he points out they are even more of a problem for people of color as there are less portrayals of them in general.

I myself often wonder why advertisers use these portrayals that are based on generalization. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that there are only a limited amount of channels in traditional media to sell products and advertisers instead of advertisers catering to a large diverse audience, they make their job easier by generalizing and catering to everyone.

I see web advertising as being a promising platform for advertiser to be able to cater their messages to more diverse groups, and allow them to stop generalizing. Since web ads (and the product they sell) can now be easily tweaked and distributed to a more diverse audience, advertiser have the opportunity to better sell their products and identify with their audiences. This should also allow them to avoid using generalizations to get their point across, which is a win for both sides.

Post 8, Question H: Religon and Oppresion

I found the film “Divided we Fall” to be an interesting look at the problems in religious oppression in the wake of 9/11.

In the documentary Valarie Kaur a college age girl of Sikh descent travels the US shortly after 9/11 to interview those whose lives have been effected by the recent surge in Anti-Muslim (and anyone who looked Muslim) due to peoples frustration with the attackers of 9/11.

One of the themes of the film is that much of the hate is misdirected at Sikhs, due to the fact that there cultural dress is similar to that of the (often times stereotypical) Muslims. While Valarie made some very good points in the film, I was frustrated at her lack of attention to hate crimes targeted at real Muslim people. While she did mention some in passing, I noticed that much of her effort was focused on separating Sikhs and Muslim, asserting that Sikhs do not deserve the oppression that they were receiving, and they were being mistaken as Muslim. I think she could of made the point that NO ONE deserves to be mislabeled as a terrorist and mistreated, whether they be Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, or any other ethnic group.

Valaires work shows us that while many Americans will assert that religious freedom Is one of the things that make this nation great, what is practiced and what is preached are two different things. A couple of brothers (who claimed to be Christan) in the film were show as being ignorant of the Sikhs religion, and trying to instigate Valarie and her cousin into a discussion. I myself have meet many people like these brothers, and am sadden that continuing ignorance of the Muslim faith has caused people to believe what ever the mass media tells them. I am willing to bet most people are not aware the “God” in the Muslim faith is actually the same “God” (with Muhammad as his prophet) as in the Christian and Muslim faiths (these three are commonly refer to as the “Abrahamic religions”) Muslims scriptures even mentions Jesus as one of the important prophets. I think these faiths should releize that they have more in common, then in difference.

Although I myself am not religious (I reject religious faith on scientific grounds, but believe it plays an important part in moral and social well being) I believe everyone has a right to follow their own belief system. I do think one of the things we can do to foster understanding is to teach children more about the religions of others. At the same time I would also hope that we can show children that it is OK not to believe in these faiths, and encourage them to think for them selves.

Post 7, Question G: Classism in America

Growing up I have always had a interesting relationship with the issues of classism in America. As a child I lived in a middle class neighborhood, however my family never had a lot of money. I always remember being the “poor kid” whose parents couldn’t afford the coolest cloths, toys, etc. I remember when I was a kid I often got excited when we were able to get or do “rich people” things. What were “rich people” things? Come to find out what I thought “rich people” things where not really that “rich”. Rich people things Name brand food and cloths (Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes instead of Market Basket Brand and Adidas), going to restaurants (like Burger King), and buying any appliance or piece of electronics brand new (we usually got hand me downs and fixed them up, that is how I got into computers).

This (among other things) led me to face social ostracizationthough most of my childhood. Some years were better then others, and I think I was able to get though it (though I would wish it on no one). I think the biggest thing that I gained from it was a distancing of myself and the “consumer culture” they talk about in some of the films. When I go to the store I have a hard time choosing what to buy, because I actually think about what I am buying and don’t just look at the brand, I don’t wear fancy cloths, and I don’t buy expensive things.

The question I know face is how I see my self now. After watching “People like Us” I can safely say I am not like most of the rich in that film. Although I can also safetly say I am not like most of the poor people portrayed in the other films. I often get frustrated at others around me in college who live off there parents while I have to work a full time job to make ends meet. What ends do I have to make meet? How do I do it? I am a educated college student, with a $13/hour desk job (in my field of study, great on resumes). I have a car payment and I pay all of my college/room/ and board that isn’t covered by financial aid. I am (usually) very frugal when it comes to buying things. I am not out skiing (I never learned, never had a reason to), or visiting some part of the world were it is warmer. I am stuck in Durham, NH during winter break working.

Will it get better? Yes. Assuming I graduate (I am a 5^th year senior studying computer science) I can look at getting a job paying $60,000-$70,000 starting pay (take that liberal arts majors ;) ). Will this make me middle class? Will this make me upper class? We will see.

Post 6, Question F: Jane Elliott

I was very surprised by the level of awareness these children had of racism, even before the experiment. This might have been because they had talked about it before in school, or because they lived in a time of racial conflicts. One example was when the teacher asked about bad things that people do to blacks and he response was “Calling them {the N word}”. These are third graders, not high scholars.

I am a strong supporter of the mantra of teach by example, and this is the best example of the harms racism has on oppressive groups. Jane Elliot was able to teach these kids about racism first hand. I do however wonder if this would be as effective today as it was 40 years ago. Obviously she would receive more flack from parents and school officials (both in town and nationwide), also while I think that here motives fit the issues of the time I believe the issues we face today are different from those 40 years ago (though still and issues). I do think her curriculum could be modified to talk about some of the more discreet forms of oppression that we have talked about in this class.

One final thing I found was fascinating was the fact that Elliott (who was blue eyed) herself was not discriminated against during “brown eyes are superior day”. This could have been because she said (off-camera) “this is true except for me because I am the teacher”. She was forced to explain herself while working with Correction employees (her explanation was that she married a brown eyes person, had brown eyed person, and learned to live like a brown eyed person). I believe this shows that authority figures have a tremendous influence on peoples ideas on race and oppression, to the point of them being able to have people ignore the traits they them self’s are professing as evil.

Post 5, Question E: Ignoring oppression

In Chapter 8 of “Privilege, Power, and Differences” Johnson explains some of the strategies that dominate groups to avoid having to deal with and solve the problem of oppression. Some of his examples involve members of the dominant group blaming the victims of oppression for that they are under. Here are some examples and my reflections on them:

Some whites might say “{insert minority group here} can raise their status in society if they simply work hard, get educated and stop committing crimes”. The issue with this approach is two fold. One, it assumes that members of a minority group are all lazy, uneducated, criminals. Second, it assumes such opportunities to do so are as easily accessible to the minorities as they are to the oppressive group. Finally, it ignores the fact that even those that are hard working, educated, law-abiding citizens still face racism in day-to-day life.

An even worse example of not acknowledging the problem is the “Its better this way”. This approach can involves members of the dominate group claiming that separation of races is good, since most people would prefer to live among there own kind. Those that claim this may avoid the negative label of “racist” by asserting that segregation can be done so everything is “separate, but equal”. As segregation in the US in the wake of Plessy v. Ferguson showed us, being separate means being unequal.

Even if a person acknowledges racism is still a problem, they may remove them selves from responsibility by claiming that they are not racist, sexist, or any of the bad “ist”. However, most of these people do little else to stop those who are oppressive and there for still contribute to the cycle of oppression.

I think the biggest thing we can do is to observe that racism exist, that it is still a problem, and research how we as individuals play a part in oppression.

Racism and Oppression

Although I had heard about the Stanford prison experiment before, I never considered thinking about it in racial terms. After watching this video and the other videos concerning race and racial profiling we can draw some analogies. Obviously in racial terms the guards represent the majority (white, usually male) and the prisoners represent the minorities.

It is interesting to note that in the experiment both the guards AND the prisoners where young college white males who were attending what some can consider to be an elite college. However the guards and the prisoners where told to think of each other in terms of either being a prisonier or a guard and nothing else. This is essentially stereotyping guards as the powerful ruling class, and prisoners as the oppresed, obediant class. How was each person assigned their role initially? Random chance, since it was an experiment the prisoneers performed no crimes and the guards did nothing to deserve their status, they were just given it. Overtime the guards became more and more powerful and the prisoners became weaker and weaker.

Compare this to racism were people are givin their race at birth as a social "tag". To is no "formula" used to decide if a person is born black,white or otherwise, it happens by random chance. This isn't very different from how prisoners or guards were chosen, what basis do people have to create divisions based on random chance.

One solution that some pose to racism is to put the responsibility on the minority to elevate their status and improve their image. Such a solution is futile at best since as long as divsions exist, people will still find ways to segregate and oppress others. Even the best behaving prisoner in a prison is a prisoner and subject to beatings, confident, or embarisment if they step even the smallest amount out of line. Additionally even the worse behaving guard is still a guard and entitled to punish any prisoner if they (or the guard thinks they) step out of line.

Finally I would like to point out that I have always thought of racism as the cause of people fulfilling stereotypical roles. If black males are stereotyped into being criminals, doesn't that show that society has little faith in them, which will lead them into a life of crime? If whites are stereotyped to be hardworking successful people, doesn't that mean that society is more supportive of them which will allow them to be successful? I believe the more we do away with racism the safer this world will be.

Finally an objective opinion

The title of this entry was taken from the talk given by Kimmel, and it what I was thinking when I saw the video still of a man standing at the podium. What I got however was a little different then expected. I have to say that I think I was able to relate to this video more then the other two previous ones. I don’t know if it was because a man gave the talk or because he brought up some very good points.

Over the years I have struggled to solidify my beliefs on the whole “who should work and who should stay home”. Part of my confusions stem from issues I saw between my own two parents (a lot of factors are at play their, to many to state now). So for now I do not wish to state my opinion on this.

In terms of divisions of housework between fathers, mothers and older children I will say that men should be more willing to help their wives accomplish chores, but I would like to point out something that I think Kimmel missed. In most households men do housework, albeit of a different kind.

Although it might sound a little sexist I always thought that their was “guy” housework and “girl” housework Growing up I don’t think I ever remember sitting around with my dad in the living room, while my mom was in the kitchen (I always felt awkward when I went to other people houses were this happened).

As a kid I remember mowing the lawn, painting the house, refinishing the basement, and helping my dad fix various things around the house. These things are all housework and are just as essential as cooking and cleaning. I would be more then willing to cook, clean, do the laundry and dishes if my wife wanted to mow the law, paint the house, and drywall the basement.

I do think Kimmel brought up a good point related to father-son relationships. He said that being a good father is more then having “quality time” with your kids on Fridays after work. I do think men need to take a very active role in their children’s development, as it is important for kids to have both mother figures and father figures in their lives. I also agreed with his closing remark about how “"Feminism will make it possible, for the first time, for Men to be free"