Saturday, March 3, 2012
Sociology class connection
My youngest is totally obsessing on Shrek, and so, while I sit at the computer and research the American Cancer Society's financial connections, I have one eye on the television. And apparently, one ear. From the movie, Mona Lisa Smile, the song that Tori Amos sings while the girls dance at the wedding reception is Patsy Cline's You Belong to Me. That same song plays in Shrek when the big green ogre is discussing swamp rat stew with the princess. A remade version, both times, but interesting tie in. Tori Amos attempted to be the challenge of her day, pushing feminist ideals when the mainstream wasn't really fully behind it. Tori Amos can be seen to inspire Lady Gaga in her music and challenging the system. Pink followd her pattern, also, especially when you watch the video Raise Your Glass. Compare that to the album art of Boys for Pele, and there is no denying the influence she had. Mona Lisa Smile is a feather in the cap of multiple female actors as they showed themselves capable of making a thoughtful movie with strong female leads. Nice review of the creation of femininity.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Halftime in America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGMOhOYvcw4
If you haven't seen "Halftime in America", check it out. Then, read on. . .
The first time I watched the video, when it first aired, Eastwood's unmistakable voice took me in. Whatever he is selling, I am buying. He is the epitome of manhood. I wanna be just like him when I grow up. Then comes the "Halftime" commentary. Wow. It didn't take long to put that together with Obama. What an interesting commercial. For the cost of production, air time, etc, there is no way that Chrysler didn't realize the dual meaning behind what they were saying.
What is interesting, above everything is how encompassing the commercial is. Every race, gender, and age is represented. Blue collar workers, middle class families, farmers/ranchers, firefighters. Everything that is prototypically American is in this video. A black man dropping his kids off at school. A white suburbanite mother driving with her daughter. What a powerful message this conveys on so many levels.
The protest scenes are from Wisconsin, against Governor Brown, in support of the unions. The talking head (Wendt sounds off) I haven't been able to figure out yet, and would love some insight. But, at first instinct, it made me think Bill O'Reilly. It was interesting that the image was shot from a television, giving the impression that the commercial viewer was watching this on television, disconnecting the viewer further.
Is the commercial partisan? Or does it just happen to work on several levels? Does it matter if it is political, because isn't that ok under Citizen's United? Ok, maybe that is a bit of a stretch, but. . .
It is interesting to see products becoming more political. Coca-Cola's attempt to save the Polar Bear is interesting, after the fight between environmentalists and the Bush Administration a few years ago.
So, you decide. Is this commercial politicized? Did it cross the line? Write up your thoughts in the comments.
Here are some responses that popped up when I googled for the commercial:
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/02/06/clint-eastwood-chrysler-team-for-halftime-in-america-spot/
I like this one for telling both sides.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/karl-rove-offended-by-clint-eastwoods-chrysler-ad/2012/02/06/gIQAYt3HuQ_blog.html
If you haven't seen "Halftime in America", check it out. Then, read on. . .
The first time I watched the video, when it first aired, Eastwood's unmistakable voice took me in. Whatever he is selling, I am buying. He is the epitome of manhood. I wanna be just like him when I grow up. Then comes the "Halftime" commentary. Wow. It didn't take long to put that together with Obama. What an interesting commercial. For the cost of production, air time, etc, there is no way that Chrysler didn't realize the dual meaning behind what they were saying.
What is interesting, above everything is how encompassing the commercial is. Every race, gender, and age is represented. Blue collar workers, middle class families, farmers/ranchers, firefighters. Everything that is prototypically American is in this video. A black man dropping his kids off at school. A white suburbanite mother driving with her daughter. What a powerful message this conveys on so many levels.
The protest scenes are from Wisconsin, against Governor Brown, in support of the unions. The talking head (Wendt sounds off) I haven't been able to figure out yet, and would love some insight. But, at first instinct, it made me think Bill O'Reilly. It was interesting that the image was shot from a television, giving the impression that the commercial viewer was watching this on television, disconnecting the viewer further.
Is the commercial partisan? Or does it just happen to work on several levels? Does it matter if it is political, because isn't that ok under Citizen's United? Ok, maybe that is a bit of a stretch, but. . .
It is interesting to see products becoming more political. Coca-Cola's attempt to save the Polar Bear is interesting, after the fight between environmentalists and the Bush Administration a few years ago.
So, you decide. Is this commercial politicized? Did it cross the line? Write up your thoughts in the comments.
Here are some responses that popped up when I googled for the commercial:
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/02/06/clint-eastwood-chrysler-team-for-halftime-in-america-spot/
I like this one for telling both sides.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/karl-rove-offended-by-clint-eastwoods-chrysler-ad/2012/02/06/gIQAYt3HuQ_blog.html
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Initial reaction to State of the Union
1. Wow, he came out angry and swinging. Swinging somewhat at the ghost of Bush, which is swinging at the wind, but also against the Congress. He did swing a few times at the Republicans, but just as likely to blame the whole body. Jonathan Karl called it controversial and confrontational, so that the Republicans left quickly.
2. Not surprised by the love of Gabby Giffords. He almost seemed lost in the hug at the beginning. He was ready to pull back, she wasn't. The place cleared out quickly when he was leaving. Lot's of folks vacated quickly, and not as many stayed for fist bumps and hugs.
3. He brought his military with his wife. Traditionally, it is an enlisted person. This year, it was an Army Sergeant, but I couldn't tell her unit and MOS. She was decorated, though, and has been overseas for at least a year. Interesting that he didn't introduce her. Full bird Colonel behind Michelle. Also, staying on the military, the Joint Chiefs all showed up, but Odierno was so big, that they had to push the other three to the back row. Guys huge. . .
4. Walking in, you see the big wigs in the parties. Eric Cantor, Majority leader in the House, followed by his Whip, Kevin McCarthy. Mitch McConnell didn't seem to be in the line to walk in, but Harry Reid was.
5. The Supreme Court brought the moderate and liberal wing. The die hard conservatives boycotted, except for the Chief Justice. Sotomayor was the only liberal not to show.
6. People arrived for seats at 815 AM. That is a long wait. They had to be in seats they wanted at 530 pm, and could reserve them.
7. The young woman that was issued as a key to the relationship between companies and colleges was an interesting choice. Her hairstyle was lacking and she had heavy tattoos on her neck visible to the camera. The lip piercing added to this. It struck me because she wasn't necessarily a classical camera ready image. You have to admit, the administration did not ask her to change for the camera.
8. The president asked the states to raise the graduation age to 18 or graduation. That is huge, but is only a request. He has no power to do much in this way.
9. The joke about spilled milk was more of a classic Obama. It should have gotten more laughs, but I think his speech was enough of a challenge and harbringer of the age. Why can't -- timing -- Obama tell a joke?
10. There were several times when the audience attempted to clap and he talked over them, and in one case, he silenced the applause to continue his talk. He took control of the audience rather than seeking the easy accolades.
11. Rigid ideologies vs. common sense. Hard to fight that. Streamline the bureaucracy, how do you fight that? The Republicans will have a hard time spinning that against Obama.
12. The issue of Iran and the use of the military: The military got 100% support of the crowd. McCraven, the Navy Seal, behind Michelle Obama, is the head of Special Operations. He is the guy in charge of the operation that took out Osama. He was on the top five list for Time's Person of the Year. Interesting background.
13. Obama mentioned his former opponents, including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a Bush carryover. Geithner was another carryover. Hillary seemed to be the cabinet member that Obama spent the most time with after the speech. Sebelius wasn't even done with him when he walked past.
14. Ok, what happened to John Kerry's face.
2. Not surprised by the love of Gabby Giffords. He almost seemed lost in the hug at the beginning. He was ready to pull back, she wasn't. The place cleared out quickly when he was leaving. Lot's of folks vacated quickly, and not as many stayed for fist bumps and hugs.
3. He brought his military with his wife. Traditionally, it is an enlisted person. This year, it was an Army Sergeant, but I couldn't tell her unit and MOS. She was decorated, though, and has been overseas for at least a year. Interesting that he didn't introduce her. Full bird Colonel behind Michelle. Also, staying on the military, the Joint Chiefs all showed up, but Odierno was so big, that they had to push the other three to the back row. Guys huge. . .
4. Walking in, you see the big wigs in the parties. Eric Cantor, Majority leader in the House, followed by his Whip, Kevin McCarthy. Mitch McConnell didn't seem to be in the line to walk in, but Harry Reid was.
5. The Supreme Court brought the moderate and liberal wing. The die hard conservatives boycotted, except for the Chief Justice. Sotomayor was the only liberal not to show.
6. People arrived for seats at 815 AM. That is a long wait. They had to be in seats they wanted at 530 pm, and could reserve them.
7. The young woman that was issued as a key to the relationship between companies and colleges was an interesting choice. Her hairstyle was lacking and she had heavy tattoos on her neck visible to the camera. The lip piercing added to this. It struck me because she wasn't necessarily a classical camera ready image. You have to admit, the administration did not ask her to change for the camera.
8. The president asked the states to raise the graduation age to 18 or graduation. That is huge, but is only a request. He has no power to do much in this way.
9. The joke about spilled milk was more of a classic Obama. It should have gotten more laughs, but I think his speech was enough of a challenge and harbringer of the age. Why can't -- timing -- Obama tell a joke?
10. There were several times when the audience attempted to clap and he talked over them, and in one case, he silenced the applause to continue his talk. He took control of the audience rather than seeking the easy accolades.
11. Rigid ideologies vs. common sense. Hard to fight that. Streamline the bureaucracy, how do you fight that? The Republicans will have a hard time spinning that against Obama.
12. The issue of Iran and the use of the military: The military got 100% support of the crowd. McCraven, the Navy Seal, behind Michelle Obama, is the head of Special Operations. He is the guy in charge of the operation that took out Osama. He was on the top five list for Time's Person of the Year. Interesting background.
13. Obama mentioned his former opponents, including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a Bush carryover. Geithner was another carryover. Hillary seemed to be the cabinet member that Obama spent the most time with after the speech. Sebelius wasn't even done with him when he walked past.
14. Ok, what happened to John Kerry's face.
A small dissection of the Marine Corps urination scandal
I was in no big hurry to follow up on this story, but I felt that I must deal with it at some point. This post is not to pass judgement but to look at a few issues.
1. In the article, Fox News uses the word desecration in parentheses ("desecrating" the bodies). From a sociological perspective, if these were American dead, and anyone was urinating on them, would we hesitate to call it a desecration?
2. Bad things happen in war. Morals are not instilled in war time. They are very often shed. These men should be judged by a jury of peers, not the media or the public. Unfortunately, their actions will be viewed by many, and it is not our mainstream media that will be the problem. We can not filter what others find on the internet (where this video posted), and how it is used against us. My fear is for future U.S. military personnel in the wake of this incident. There are numerous examples of group actions that are not reflective of mainstream cultural norms in American history. This is not a new phenomenon, but as the author of the essay points out, "It shows how, in the present era of instant communication and YouTube, a tactical judgment blunder by a small number of troops can become a big strategic problem in a matter of a few hours." An isolated incident is no longer an isolated incident.
3. The concept of the other plays perfectly here. It would have been much more difficult to have done this to someone that resemble the Marines. Because of the differences in language, diet and smell, culture, and appearance, this behavior was more acceptable. The Japanese skull on the desk of the young girl writing her boyfriend in the Pacific. . .
4. The justification is that these men had suffered losses at the hands of an enemy that did not fight fairly. The same logic is used to defend the American soldiers at My Lai, under Lt. Calley. Ultimately, if we seek to do terrible things, we will find a way to justify them, also.
5. God be with the soldiers and their families, especially. Their careers are probably over. And, God be with our enemies. Some day we will all understand this war and find some type of peace.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Men vs. Women
I sat in Chipotle for lunch today. My dirty little secret, eating out alone. I pulled up my meal next to a very attractive young woman in her late 20s. Behind me were several former students. People watching is such a hobby of mine. Anyway, it got me thinking about the ways that women differentiate themselves. Pulling out a notepad (which at this writing is in my car, at the store, with my wife), I wrote up two lists. One was how a woman can set herself apart, personally, from the chin up, and without surgery, versus how a man can distinguish himself from the chin up. There had to be guidelines to govern this, and here they are: the differentiation must meet the standards of a regular white collar workplace. For the students, if Miege won't allow it, it didn't go on the list. Feel free to add anything I leave out. So, here we go:
Ladies first:
Hair-- Long or short cuts. Up or down.
the feathers in the hair.
bangs or no bangs.
ribbons, bows, bands, or bobby pins.
layered, curled, straight, or spikey.
earrings-- small, big, round, dangly, need I go on. And numbers.
Makeup. Enough said.
Eyelash attachments.
Plucked hair, shaped brows, and drawn back ins--
highlights
Lipstick, eyeliner, etc.
Hair styles will change by the day.
Men: (just the standard, not a guy going out of his way to be unique)
Hair--one solid color (does not count for grays). Not past collar. can be spiked or naturally curly.
shaved head acceptable. A hair style can be done, but it will be the same daily.
Facial hair is iffy. mustaches may be more acceptable, but clean shaven is much more common.
Only blue collar commonly wear hats indoors, and almost always it will be a baseball cap, but hats are never appropriate on men inside an office workplace.
So, with all this noted, the question is simple: Does the variety that women are allowed in their facial grant them greater freedoms or greater stress? Does the ability to do so many different styles and recreate themselves daily allow greater joy? Sound off. . . What do you think? Who has it better, men or women. I will say that I adore my short hair, as it makes life so easy. I haven't brushed it in years. On women, I adore a bald woman, as her face can shine, and you don't get distracted with busy hair. On the other hand, a woman with long hair is usually an attraction for me. Single women, dating women, and teenage girls seem to always have hair to the collar or beyond. Mothers and grandmothers always seem to have short hair, and possibly curled hair rather than straight. So, is long hair sexualized?
Ladies first:
Hair-- Long or short cuts. Up or down.
the feathers in the hair.
bangs or no bangs.
ribbons, bows, bands, or bobby pins.
layered, curled, straight, or spikey.
earrings-- small, big, round, dangly, need I go on. And numbers.
Makeup. Enough said.
Eyelash attachments.
Plucked hair, shaped brows, and drawn back ins--
highlights
Lipstick, eyeliner, etc.
Hair styles will change by the day.
Men: (just the standard, not a guy going out of his way to be unique)
Hair--one solid color (does not count for grays). Not past collar. can be spiked or naturally curly.
shaved head acceptable. A hair style can be done, but it will be the same daily.
Facial hair is iffy. mustaches may be more acceptable, but clean shaven is much more common.
Only blue collar commonly wear hats indoors, and almost always it will be a baseball cap, but hats are never appropriate on men inside an office workplace.
So, with all this noted, the question is simple: Does the variety that women are allowed in their facial grant them greater freedoms or greater stress? Does the ability to do so many different styles and recreate themselves daily allow greater joy? Sound off. . . What do you think? Who has it better, men or women. I will say that I adore my short hair, as it makes life so easy. I haven't brushed it in years. On women, I adore a bald woman, as her face can shine, and you don't get distracted with busy hair. On the other hand, a woman with long hair is usually an attraction for me. Single women, dating women, and teenage girls seem to always have hair to the collar or beyond. Mothers and grandmothers always seem to have short hair, and possibly curled hair rather than straight. So, is long hair sexualized?
Comics Fight Breast Cancer
Found this link while playing around during Sociology Final. Be sure to follow the links to all the characters featured.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/comic-superheroes-perform-breast-self-exams-215352919.html
This opens up several different questions: Who is the target demographic, because what I remember of my days at the comic book store, there weren't that many women. Is this an attempt to get women to think seriously about breast exams, or just a chance for the men who know these characters to engage in a little self indulgence? While I appreciate the concept of women's health, the figures of female superheroes have traditionally been drawn disproportionately. Real women cannot compare to the creations. And, Mozambique was the location that decided to run the ads. Wow. I don't know enough about the culture, but to use American comic book heroes in medical ads out of Mozambique demonstrates the power of American commercialism, and cultural transfer.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/comic-superheroes-perform-breast-self-exams-215352919.html
This opens up several different questions: Who is the target demographic, because what I remember of my days at the comic book store, there weren't that many women. Is this an attempt to get women to think seriously about breast exams, or just a chance for the men who know these characters to engage in a little self indulgence? While I appreciate the concept of women's health, the figures of female superheroes have traditionally been drawn disproportionately. Real women cannot compare to the creations. And, Mozambique was the location that decided to run the ads. Wow. I don't know enough about the culture, but to use American comic book heroes in medical ads out of Mozambique demonstrates the power of American commercialism, and cultural transfer.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Commodification of Women
So, it has been a crazy week. Take a view at the commodization of women in different roles, just that I have come across in the past two days:
Newsweek had a cover with Angelina Jolie, with a head shot. Decorative and artistic, but why? She has directed a new movie, and is advertising for it. The article is well written, and powerful, when the focus is on the movie. But, the need to feed the story of celebrity was clearly pushed by the editor. The author gets out of her area of expertise, and we get to hear about personal things. . . In the middle of the article is a photo shoot of her. Legs and all. What is the purpose of this? In an article that deals with mass rapes, repeated rapes, genocide, starvation, and other attrocities, why is the director who is trying to personalize a story of tragedy and shed light on an often ignored event, being turned into a sexual object? Read the article, decide for yourself if the photo shoot is in line with the story, and decide for yourself if the director is sexualized. Why don't we see Spielberg being sexy promoting Schindler's List?
The link to the Newsweek article follows:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/12/04/angelina-jolie-directs-a-film-about-the-bosnian-war.html
The new season of The Bachelor begins soon, apparently. Short promo. I tried to find a copy of it. Couldn't find it. But, it is simple. Attractive brunette, red dress, alone, post-sunset, in front of the beach. The woman begins to break down. The sobbing is almost surreal. It seems more like a fake overlay, it is so over the top. No words, no tag lines, nothing as she sits their, before the camera, sobbing. After about 15 seconds, the title The Bachelor, rolls in. "The new season starts soon. . . "
Sociological Images at www.thesocietypages.com ran a 1980 copy of Siskel and Ebert's long-running movie review show. In it, they discuss the slate of new movies that embody women as victims for men's base instincts. Rape, murder and torture are brought to women that break the mold and try to be independent. The two critics felt this was a direct response to the feminist movement, and the threat it created to men. They discussed how these movies were unique as they were shot from the view of the killer, not the victim.
And, as I try to get my thoughts on keyboard, I see a commercial for a show I have watch with a tad bit of guilt, but always justify as a study for Sociology. Wife Swap has decided they will get on the celebrity band wagon. To be fair, they have had special episodes where as they have swapped husbands, but that is not the norm for the show. Again, it is the wife that is replaceable. Is it the concept that the home belongs to the man, so that you can't kick him out? Or, possibly, is it a fear that a man being bossed around by a woman and children is too much? What dynamics are at work here? Can a masculine gendered male leave his home and follow another man's plan? As I write it, I can't picture it. . .
We watched the The Help last night. It is not a comedy, the way commercials make it feel. There are some funny parts, but especially for white culture, it is an eye opener. It is just a bit too easy to push it away over the top, though. It reminds me of Slaughter-House Five. There are parts that are deniable so that you don't have to face the hard facts. As if the director didn't want to make the viewer feel too guilty. That is too bad. It could have been so good. . .
Newsweek had a cover with Angelina Jolie, with a head shot. Decorative and artistic, but why? She has directed a new movie, and is advertising for it. The article is well written, and powerful, when the focus is on the movie. But, the need to feed the story of celebrity was clearly pushed by the editor. The author gets out of her area of expertise, and we get to hear about personal things. . . In the middle of the article is a photo shoot of her. Legs and all. What is the purpose of this? In an article that deals with mass rapes, repeated rapes, genocide, starvation, and other attrocities, why is the director who is trying to personalize a story of tragedy and shed light on an often ignored event, being turned into a sexual object? Read the article, decide for yourself if the photo shoot is in line with the story, and decide for yourself if the director is sexualized. Why don't we see Spielberg being sexy promoting Schindler's List?
The link to the Newsweek article follows:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/12/04/angelina-jolie-directs-a-film-about-the-bosnian-war.html
The new season of The Bachelor begins soon, apparently. Short promo. I tried to find a copy of it. Couldn't find it. But, it is simple. Attractive brunette, red dress, alone, post-sunset, in front of the beach. The woman begins to break down. The sobbing is almost surreal. It seems more like a fake overlay, it is so over the top. No words, no tag lines, nothing as she sits their, before the camera, sobbing. After about 15 seconds, the title The Bachelor, rolls in. "The new season starts soon. . . "
Sociological Images at www.thesocietypages.com ran a 1980 copy of Siskel and Ebert's long-running movie review show. In it, they discuss the slate of new movies that embody women as victims for men's base instincts. Rape, murder and torture are brought to women that break the mold and try to be independent. The two critics felt this was a direct response to the feminist movement, and the threat it created to men. They discussed how these movies were unique as they were shot from the view of the killer, not the victim.
And, as I try to get my thoughts on keyboard, I see a commercial for a show I have watch with a tad bit of guilt, but always justify as a study for Sociology. Wife Swap has decided they will get on the celebrity band wagon. To be fair, they have had special episodes where as they have swapped husbands, but that is not the norm for the show. Again, it is the wife that is replaceable. Is it the concept that the home belongs to the man, so that you can't kick him out? Or, possibly, is it a fear that a man being bossed around by a woman and children is too much? What dynamics are at work here? Can a masculine gendered male leave his home and follow another man's plan? As I write it, I can't picture it. . .
We watched the The Help last night. It is not a comedy, the way commercials make it feel. There are some funny parts, but especially for white culture, it is an eye opener. It is just a bit too easy to push it away over the top, though. It reminds me of Slaughter-House Five. There are parts that are deniable so that you don't have to face the hard facts. As if the director didn't want to make the viewer feel too guilty. That is too bad. It could have been so good. . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)