The F Word

Are you a feminist? Yes? No? Maybe? Not sure?
Take this facebook quiz to find out:

The “original” idea of feminists and feminism has developed a bad rep in my opinion. No, feminists in general, do not burn their bras people. I think many women (correct me if I’m wrong, and I don’t truly mean to generalize) would agree that although obnoxious and expensive, bras are relatively helpful (think stairs). No, feminists in general, do not NOT shave their shaving specific body parts (whatever those are). No, feminists in general, do not hate (all) men, are not all lesbians, feminazis, vegetarians/vegans/eco-whiners, do not always have short hair, do not want to be a man, etc. I could go on and on but unfortunately the carpal tunnel will prevent me from doing so today, lucky you. These are..say it with me…stereotypes. However, are there feminists that encapsulate some or all of the above? Of course, think militant PCU Womynists.



Funny, but again, intentional satire. “Those aren't women, Tom, those are Womynists" says Droz of PCU (Politically Correct University). Clearly they are the most “P.C.” group on campus right? Don’t mess with these ladies; they play a mean game of frisbee. Oh, they also detest all things man, very selectively choose a finger to wave at male oppression, sport military gear, restrain from shaving, and remove the "men" from their language. Thus, we have Womynists. Case and point, the ideas and lack thereofs of feminism have infiltrated our films, our music, our television shows, our literature, our jokes and absolutely every medium that employs them. Take a look at this awesome “inspirational” poster:



Big sigh, however, this is what we resort to because we are uncomfortable with the equality of women because for some damned reason that threatens men. Oh, in case you didn’t know, if you’re deemed as attractive in society, you are clearly not a feminist. Those “rights” are reserved for the “unattractive.” I heart civil liberties. Try to ignore the moron in the back that clearly doesn’t realize the irony in his need for what he deems as a woman’s “place” because he’s not intelligent enough to iron his own damn shirt.

Feminism, plainly and simply folks, is the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. Even though dictionaries, the internet, and one would hope-common sense, are generally readily available (well maybe not common sense), there is STILL a ridiculous amount of confusion when it comes to what it means to be a feminist. Hey! Did you know that you don’t even have to be of the female sex, nonetheless feminine, to be a feminist? To be female is strictly only a matter of biology Watson, and even that can be sketchy nowadays. Femininity is also solely a culturally defined set of gendered characteristics. The previous have more to do with the price of tea in China than they do with the feminist stance.

Are you rolling your eyes yet? Hey, it’s a valid question. There is a butt load (through years of thorough research I’ve come to the conclusion that a butt load is A LOT) of drama revolving around the feminist movement, and it tends to irritate and nauseate plenty of people. Su, an Australian woman interviewed for the 1996 anthology DIY Feminism says, "[Feminists are] just women who don't want to be treated like shit." Ummm… What? See, now here’s a perfect example of someone whom is clearly suffering from feminist burnout and has turned slightly bitter. This doesn’t even make any damn sense. I might be generalizing again, but isn’t it relatively safe to say that most, if not all, women don’t want to be treated like shit? I would say that that simply makes her human, not necessarily feminist. But this is exactly my point, people have tossed the actual definition and intention of feminism aside, and replaced it with assumptions and stereotypes. We all know what happens when one assumes right? Something about asses (not donkeys) I think. Clearly this is why this woman needs a DIY book on feminism. Idiot.

One young lady by the name of Rebecca West has it right; “People call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that distinguish me from a doormat.” Damn, how dare she. If I changed her name to Dick and told you she was a he would you call him a feminist? No puns or phalluses intended (ha). No, you’d probably call him gay right? I use the royal “you.” My favorite quote from Cheris Kramarae and Paula Treichler, yet very simple and above all, right on: “feminism is the radical notion that woman are people.” How fucking radical. Really.

Feminism has found its way into many artists’ lyrics and personal and professional stances. Take Ani Difranco as a medium for example: “my idea of feminism is self-determination, and it’s very open ended: every woman has the right to become herself, and do whatever she needs to do.” Ani and her righteous babeness (ah hem, Rosey the Riveter) has become a poster child for feminists all over the world. In an interview by Kim Ruehl, Ani says this of her role as an artist faced with a sometimes political agenda: “I think the feminine perspective, which sees the world as a network of relationships, not as a hierarchy of individuals, is also an essential understanding. An emphasis on relationship and connection is sorely needed, in our governments and our cultures, to strike that kind of balance and shift the dynamic. So, I mean, it’s at this time, when I do many interviews and I’m faced with the is feminism really relevant anymore question … I’m sort of trying to put [it] out there more than ever now [that] our idea of feminism has stagnated and almost been abandoned by many, many people at a time when we should have evolved it. It should be embraced by men and women. I mean why don’t we call ourselves feminists? Young women don’t even [call themselves feminists] anymore, let alone women and men; and instead of feminism as equal pay for equal work – okay, we got that – but try to understand it as a consciousness shift. We have to use feminism all together as a tool to dismantle patriarchies so that all of us together can rise…Feminism – not just for babes anymore.” There’s a T-Shirt for ya. Well listen to you, you adamant Eve.

She simply highlights the power and musings of women in her music. Hey at least I’m not going all Lilith Fair and Indigo Girls on your ass. People, it’s not anti-man, it’s pro-woman. There’s a huge difference and the latter does not negate the previous. Get over it. Take a listen. Disclaimer: This song contains a different F-word. To all those apposed...earmuffs.




Ani sings about a one-night stand with an unavailable person. She sings "I see you and i'm so perplexed/ what was i thinking/ what will i think of next/ where can i hide". She apparently condemns herself for what she sees as an unavailing undertaking, and the opposing party supposedly won't even recognize her if they were to meet again. Ani sings "who am i/ that i should be vying for your touch.” Great example of female patriarchal advocacy: she continues to seek out that relationship perfection that clearly doesn’t occur in our coercive system. She blames herself, turning a blind eye to the standardized treatment of women as objects, and the routine docile reaction to objectification. So when it comes down to it, what do we say? "So fuck you/ and your untouchable face/ and fuck you/ for existing in the first place.” Clearly how we rationally and effectively solve our problems. Right? Umm..no. But it makes us feel better right? She states nothing about revamping her adherence to patriarchal norms. When push comes to shove, she is stating societal struggles that emerge are far beyond female power, so we may as well wish the patriarchy welcome.

To further illustrate my patriarchal and sexist point, check out this very real billboard advertising the extremely beautiful and sensual Fiat (hahaha):



The very reason we should all appreciate and embrace graffiti.

I found a clip from radio host Jim Quinn’s November 6th broadcast of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn & Rose. Brace yourself, this one is downright ridiculous. Jim Quinn read an article about a Georgia teacher whom allegedly informed the school principal and campus police that one of her students drew a picture of a vampire, which may have contained gang symbols. First of all…seriously? Vampires? Gangs? Clearly members of the elite, totally frightening and specific body part violent intercontinental Bloodsuckers gang. Quinn cites this as evidence of "the chickification of schools, the feminization of society, and the war on masculinity." Quinn adds, "The goal of the public school system -- the feminists in the public school system -- is to make male behavior illegal, a crime."

Have a listen.



Quinn claims that only females “run” our schools and thus, they have turned into “thoroughly feminized institutions where everyone has gelatinized spines and all turn to a fear-wracked lump of quivery flesh at the slightest evidence of anything rambunctious, gross, tough, loud, or -- ahem -- male.” Oh, by the way, the drawing of vampires is strictly a male sport just like anything else “rambunctious, gross, tough, loud.” Yes, clearly anything “rambunctious, gross, tough, [and] loud” does not define elementary students as a whole, but only the male counterpart, and we as females cannot handle such things as we will shriek out in help for our male teachers’ help..oh wait…there are no men in education right? First of all, you have to be another breed altogether to handle elementary students, not just male my friend. I know first hand. I’d love to see some of my male friends handle the playground situation when a kid comes up to you with God knows what on their hands and you have to ask “is it spit or throw up?” No offense. Conservative blogger Warner Todd Huston claims “If this is not further evidence we need more men in our schools (and not the Birkenstock wearing, ponytailed, softhanded, bike riding kind either), then what is?” Not only has he emasculated men whom have long hair, are eco-friendly, and prefer cork foot beds in their shoes, but he also claims there is a lack of men in education, but affirms we need more of them so schools will function “as they should.” Well then asshole, why don’t you pack up your chauvinism and take on a new career so that the field of education will be better suited. No pun intended. Pretty sure I’d change the radio station, that kind of ignorance offends my delicate female ears.

The following is a brilliant 1970s clip of Anne Bancroft and Jack Cassidy in a sensual yet comedic embrace by the fireside, in which she explains that men are all alike with their “guaranteed vertical mobility in this male dominated, socioeconomic structure.” Cassidy fires back with “women have the same constitutional rights as men, and consequently the same advantages.” Bancroft states “we’re second class citizens” and then asks him to rub her back, he complies. A second-class citizen with the ability to make a man do anything she pleases while he thinks he preys on her female “softness and vulnerability.” She claims it’s a result of “suffering the inequities and humiliations of discriminations in business, industry, federal employment and society in general.” However, throughout the clip it becomes very clear that she is playing this foolish man whom adores everything “feminine” about her (whether it applies to her or not) as she spouts statistics about the lack of women in the Cabinet, and needs him for nothing, except a good laugh. He clearly is too much for even himself to handle. Evidently it’s satirical, and pretty damn funny, but of course, where would they have come up with such material? Funny, but true.



What’s a feminist? This woman did a little hands-on research with men on the streets of New York. She was “behind the scenes” and had a man do the interviewing in hopes of getting real, honest answers from men as to what a feminist is, as opposed to the obvious BS they’d give her as a female interviewer. She claims she cannot bring up feminism on a date, if she wants another that is. Probably true, woman are scary. The first guy interviewed probably had one of the best answers when asked what a feminist is; he replies, “I think I’m ignorant.” Three cheers for honesty! The second guy clearly doesn’t associate with people, or have any friends, or only has men as friends (possibly internet chat room, online gaming, comic book reading, or Magic card playing types). That was mean. ☺ My apologies. Lets look at the backwards cap wearing, hopefully college bound boys (yes boys): What are feminists? LESBIANS! See I told you. Feminist=lesbian. We got “our” amendment passed in 1920, why are we still bitching- he wants to know? Our amendment? So all the others are for men, is that what you are saying? The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is gender specific? See why I hoped they were college bound? Well shit, clearly if we had more men in education this type of ignorance would happen, right? By the way, “our” amendment passed, only gave us the right to vote idiot, nothing else. The 19th amendment (our amendment) states the United States Constitution prohibits each of the states and the federal government from denying any citizen the right to vote because of that citizen's sex. It actually says nothing about women specifically.



Quick tangent: “opposed by a well-organized and well-funded anti-suffrage movement which argued that most women really didn't want the vote, and they were probably not qualified to exercise it anyway, women also used humor as a tactic. In 1915, writer Alice Duer Miller wrote:

Why We Don't Want Men to Vote
• Because man's place is in the army.
• Because no really manly man wants to settle any question otherwise than by fighting about it.
• Because if men should adopt peaceable methods women will no longer look up to them.
• Because men will lose their charm if they step out of their natural sphere and interest themselves in other matters than feats of arms, uniforms, and drums.
• Because men are too emotional to vote. Their conduct at baseball games and political conventions shows this, while their innate tendency to appeal to force renders them unfit for government.”

And we’re back.

Second kid in the hat: I’m sorry..is that even English? “Most, there are a lot of high top uhh officials and everything there (yes, he said “there”) are women now so,” yeah…well said. I thought high tops were shoes? Air Jordans anyone? I’m a high top uhh official, that’s what it says on my resume. He later recants and sums up his definition with..can you guess…lesbians. Next guy whom clearly voted for McCain: they’re “militant, angry women trying to get their way in the world.” Clearly he’s been watching PCU. Yeah right, one could only wish. We then get the opinion of a woman whom clearly understands the proper definition of as well as the common stereotypes of feminists. An older, probably less musical Mary Poppins, whom also gets the actual definition of feminists follows this, she should have left it at that however. She then states that she is not a feminist. Reminder, feminism: the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. Then we see a man whom may be intoxicated (?) that sheds a little religious light on us: the bible states that men are the head of the household. Where? Where does it say that, and what the hell does it have to do with feminism? Then there’s Anthony…yeah I support women..wanna go on a date? Priceless. Thank you New York City.

I just wanted to quickly add this; feminism does not emasculate men! It actually has nothing to do with being female or male! Not convinced? Check this out: This is what a feminist looks like:



Did you notice something? There were men... This is not a “if you give a mouse a cookie” (he’ll probably ask for a glass of milk) kind of situation people. We women are not going to “take” everything from you. We simply want to be equal. It’s actually very simple. Why the hell is it then so complicated?? Damn, I’m tired.

Okay, okay. Now that you all clearly think I’m a man-hating lesbian (I don’t hate men), let’s get the female perspective on feminism.




See, even women get it wrong. Half of these women clearly do not understand what it means to be a feminist. We’ve got women saying they’re not a “hardcore” feminist because they don’t go to rallies, they don’t listen to a certain type of music, or because they choose to shave. Seriously? I’m embarrassed that you equate these things. Then there’s a woman whom clearly thinks she cannot be a feminist because she is a socialist. What? What? I don’t see how they are mutually exclusive. To the “I walk like a feminist, I talk like a feminist, and I act like a feminist, but I’m not a feminist” girl: how does a feminist walk? Clearly in Birkenstocks. How does a feminist talk? I don’t know; she’s probably too busy choking on the smoke coming from her burning bra. Besides, I thought it was if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc? Feminism=not ladylike? Listen to the lady with the beer! Always listen to the lady with the beer! If all else fails, grab a damn dictionary and read it while drinking a beer!

My point is this: people, men and women alike, are completely confused about what it means to be a feminist. Feminism is generally falsely defined by stereotypes (never a good thing), and the media is running rampant with this. Some good has come of this, but most of it is terrible. We are a multimodal world. Many people rely on the media for their information. When what is covered by media is false or incorrect, even in part, it is hard for society to recover from this. If we don't start changing our ideas, our stances, if we don't begin to do our homework before we speak or think out loud, we will in return allow ourselves to be ill defined, categorized, and labeled. Not that one should be defined, categorized, or labeled at all. However, let's be honest: "You're going to be labeled no matter what, so you may as well pick one that you like."

Sweet My Ass

Excellent. Just what an opinionated, confidant, and “no holds barred” kind of woman wants; the opportunity to analyze some of the most tasteless, tactless, and unimaginative advertising I have ever seen. Eat your heart out ladies and gentlemen; it’s disgusting, infuriating and I have no intention of holding my tongue-like I ever do.

Our contender is an advertisement taken from Esquire magazine. Now Esquire is considered the “magazine for the man’s man.” What the hell does that mean? Seriously. Man’s man. I can think of some terrible euphemisms here but no…clearly it’s meant to be more tasteful than that, right? It would be terrible for some men to be confused for man’s best friend, rather than a man’s man. Although, depending on how you look at it, either way might be laugh-worthy. Sorry. Moving on.

Apparently Esquire as a whole is also what defines a man at his best, in case you didn’t already know or were ill defined before. Those of you whom were in the latter category-run to your nearest newsstand, buy Esquire, and refuse to be wrongfully defined or heaven forbid-not defined by anything at all! How terrible!

First of all, I want to help properly define the word esquire. Yes, yes I know..esquire does the defining here, not me. But humor me will you? Esquire is a noun dated from the 15th century, derived from late Middle English. Other than the obviously slightly more current definition as a title appended to a lawyer’s surname, it is also a polite, did you get that..POLITE title appended to a man’s name when no other title is used-typically in the address of a letter. Here’s the best part…a little history for ya’ll: historically speaking an esquire is a young nobleman who, in training for knighthood, acted as an attendant to a knight, or an officer in the service of a king or nobleman. There.

Keeping the previous things in mind-take a look at this:




Oh shit, I totally forgot the part about it being a DOLCE & GABBANA ad too! My mistake. And direct from Dolce & Gabbana my friends, “Dolce & Gabbana is the Dream: a luxury brand of unapproachable desirability distinguished by its high sartorial content and original styling of the apparel.” Are you kidding?? Does this not simply reek of irony, hypocrisy? A luxury brand? Brand of what? Surely they’re not advertising prostitution? No. They’re selling clothes, right? WHAT CLOTHES?? WHERE ARE THE CLOTHES? And why are all of these people so oily?? Take a shower.

Unapproachable desirability?? No. That was Paul Newman. You’re damn right this is unapproachable. The National Organization for Women (Now) calls this particular ad a “scene evoking a gang rape and reeking of violence against women.” End of story really. Gang rape and violence is not desirable to any women I know, nor is it any kind of dream, with the exception of a damn nightmare! “Distinguished by” bla bla bla doesn’t even matter and I don’t buy it anyhow. And all of this in a magazine for noble men.

With that said, clearly the intended audience is men; the ad is in a men’s magazine, and clearly the ad is supposed to appeal to them as well (disgusting). NOW Foundation President Kim Gandy said, "It's in Esquire, so they probably don't think a stylized gang rape will sell clothes to women, but what is more likely is that they think it will get them publicity. It's a provocative ad but it is provoking things that really are not what we want to have provoked. We don't need any more violence." Seriously? It’s okay to completely degrade women, and depict such raw violence against them-so long as it gets us noticed. Buy this shirt!

I can’t even tell what they are “trying” to represent with an image like this. Truly. Clearly they have taken “sex sells” to an entirely different level and it’s disturbing. We see this more than half naked woman, pinned down by sargeant slick, with his heinously dressed troop behind him. The expression on her face is ambiguous, hard to read…maybe she was drugged? And the troop? They look like vultures.

Esquire and Dolce & Gabbana have it all wrong.

Thirsty? Check this one out.

The next advertisement I looked at was for beer. Of course it's for beer. It's for St. Pauli Girl. At least it's a decent beer. I would be even more appalled if this were an ad for say Bud Light or something equally terrible. Well seriously people, look at it. Look Mom, I’m a beer! Really? A beerwoman? Lady McBooze. When I grow up I want to be a light German beer (ha)? Look at my gorgeous foam hair. How is this attractive? Again, clearly not aimed at women. I’m sorry, is she wearing a beer mini dress? Brrrr. This takes “beer girl” to another level.




A woman showcased as a human beer bottle. Yes, for men indeed. “Drop Dead Refreshing,” says the ad. First of all, beer…really isn’t the drink if you are going for refreshing. All those damn bubbles and whatnot. Second of all, what is this..a step up from being seen as a piece of meat or property? Now I’m a beer? I should ask whether or not I’ll be recycled after you’re done consuming me but clearly that has other implications-as much as one’s consumption of another. The representation of women as consumable and discardable is more nauseating than it is refreshing. Truly people, are we this uncreative? Or is it desperation? Either way, it looks like you’re drinkin’. May I recommend a Guinness?

Like A Rolling Stone

A much needed dishwashing marathon took place in my house this week. How exciting. One never fully realizes how long 30 minutes really is until they have spent that entire time standing in one place, pruny fingered, and wishing they had washed this morning’s oatmeal bowl sooner…or had just let it soak. Seeing as how I made this realization the last time I drew the short straw and had to wash dishes, I decided to put the ole ipod on shuffle and hopefully find something to sing obnoxiously to whilst I wash. As luck would have it, it landed on my old friend Bobby Zimmerman. Some of you may know him better as Bob Dylan. Luckily for my neighbors I can sing better than he, no offense Bob..but really… Elbow deep in lavender and something else ridiculous (thanks Palmolive) soapy water, I thought..how perfect for my post this week.

Much of Dylan’s most famous work comes from around the 60s, a time of “American unrest,” if you will, and home to the civil rights movement. Dylan became a sort of figurehead of this time. “Blowin’ in the Wind” and “The Times They Are a-Changin’” are two of his most famous songs, in my opinion I suppose, and became poster songs for this particular movement. Dylan’s song lyrics contained such political and social influences and standpoints, it’s no wonder they defied the norms and appealed to the counterculture.

Everyone has heard “Blowin’ in the Wind,” if you say you haven’t, you’re a liar:

How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?

Yes, 'n' how many seas must a white dove sail

Before she sleeps in the sand?

Yes, 'n' how many times must the cannon balls fly

Before they're forever banned?

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,

The answer is blowin' in the wind.

How many times must a man look up

Before he can see the sky?

Yes, 'n' how many ears must one man have

Before he can hear people cry?

Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows

That too many people have died?

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,

The answer is blowin' in the wind.

How many years can a mountain exist

Before it's washed to the sea?

Yes, 'n' how many years can some people exist

Before they're allowed to be free?

Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head,

Pretending he just doesn't see?

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,

The answer is blowin' in the wind.

Ladies and gentlemen, this very simply is a protest song, posing questions about peace, love and freedom man. Oh yeah, and we never get the answers. They’re either blatantly obvious, or completely untouchable. Well that’s a given, right? It’s been speculated that this song either protests the Vietnam War, or specifically speaks about the civil rights movement as according to one African American woman, the song “captured the frustration and aspirations of black people so powerfully.” Why not both? Or more? Instead of coming up with new protest songs, people have used this particular song to protest the Iraq war 40 years later. War and civil rights aside, it’s impossible not to be able to equate this song to something, anything in one’s life when looking for answers.

If we look at the song “The Times They are a-Changin’” we see similar themes: racism, poverty, and social change. People have accused this song of capturing “the spirit of social and political upheaveal that characterized the 1960s.” You’ll find the lyrics below:

Come gather 'round people

Wherever you roam

And admit that the waters

Around you have grown

And accept it that soon

You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you

Is worth savin'

Then you better start swimmin'

Or you'll sink like a stone

For the times they are a-changin'.

Come writers and critics

Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide

The chance won't come again

And don't speak too soon

For the wheel's still in spin

And there's no tellin' who

That it's namin'.

For the loser now

Will be later to win

For the times they are a-changin'.

Come senators, congressmen

Please heed the call

Don't stand in the doorway

Don't block up the hall

For he that gets hurt

Will be he who has stalled

There's a battle outside

And it is ragin'.

It'll soon shake your windows

And rattle your walls

For the times they are a-changin'.

Come mothers and fathers

Throughout the land

And don't criticize

What you can't understand

Your sons and your daughters

Are beyond your command

Your old road is

Rapidly agin'.

Please get out of the new one

If you can't lend your hand

For the times they are a-changin'.

The line it is drawn

The curse it is cast

The slow one now

Will later be fast
As the present now

Will later be past

The order is
Rapidly fadin'.

And the first one now

Will later be last

For the times they are a-changin'.

According to the man himself (that’s Dylan in this case), "Those were the only words I could find to separate aliveness from deadness…I didn't mean 'The Times They Are a-Changin'' as a statement... It's a feeling." Well there ya have it. As far as historical “clues” for why or how such songs came about when they did, I think it probably doesn’t get much clearer. The political unrest and social change that every American faced (albeit some more than others), had a great impact on artists and the music industry and vice versa. It was a way to get out what you were feeling and generally, speak what the people think without being beaten or arrested, which is always nice.

Music with significance such as this is very easy to convey to current students whom may not share the specific historical frame. Take a look around, I’d say fill up your car but hey man..at less than two dollars…damn I’m even cool with that..which is sick..we again are in a time of war, economic crisis, social and political change (yes we can, yeah we did), etc. I think the lyrics speak for themselves, and are easily applicable to anything you want them to speak to or about. It doesn’t have to be about war specifically..remember..the change is a feeling. Again, what kid isn’t having some kind of tumultuous episode with their damn feelings. Hey, at least I’m not telling them that “everybody must get stoned.”

Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!

Tonight I watched the news. That alone sounds newsworthy doesn’t it? Right. I normally do not watch the news, I read about it. I choose not to watch the news because frankly, it’s terrible. It’s all terrible. Even the stations that aren’t as terrible…are terrible. Remember the guy that interviewed me about my bathroom, I mean water consumption habits earlier this summer?? No? Well then I bet you’re confused. Do whatever you will with my question. For those of you whom do remember my earlier blog about that (I say that like I have followers. Ha.), the point I am trying to make is this: isn’t it interesting what the news folks find as newsworthy? I use the words interesting and horrid interchangeably.

Anyhow, after that long rant..I watched Channel 4, WCCO’s 10pm broadcast this evening. I did so while paying close attention to the kinds of stories featured and their running times throughout the broadcast. That went a little something like this:

Apparently there is nothing else of any kind of interest going on locally other than the top story of the evening, sports: Vikings Eke Out Narrow Win Against Packers! Excellent. Let me tell you, that has the gripping, edge of my seat kind of information one NEEDS to know. Maybe I’m just pissed the Packers lost. You’ll never know. However, this story was so important in the land of 10,000 lakes that it was actually the longest running story at about 4 minutes. Just when I didn’t think it could be topped, the next news-human interest story piggybacked off the Vikings win story, and kind of made me question my own morals.

I was so stunned I had to look it up online to make sure it was true. “Once Beaten Man Enjoys Day At Vikings Game” was the online headline. Now just imagine the intro to this story through the ridiculously stupid, “witty” banter that goes on between anchors. Seriously, take a minute and make a “mind movie” if you will. I’m embarrassed. This story was so awkward on so many levels, and actually felt..wrong. The Vikes had this man on the field as a very special guest for today’s game. He is a mentally disabled man whom was beaten and burned by five people all because somebody foolishly lied! Now, whether or not this man was mentally disabled before or after the incident I don’t know. I’m also not sure that matters. Regardless (you know what I hate, when people say irregardless. First of all..not a word..second of all…SERIOUSLY, think about it would ya?), why on earth is this newsworthy? I have nothing against this mentally disabled man..you have to be heartless not to feel terrible about what happened and his condition..but it seemed like people were like hey, that sucks..what happened to you and all…and you’re mentally disabled..sooooo here’s some Vikings tickets and a 2 minute news spot with your mother. AWKWARD!

Moving on.

Oh wow I loved this part. Next we moved on to a horrible (and horribly funny..for me) commercial about Viagra. I wanted to look at the commercials because I think their intended audience is interesting during certain times of television programming. I thought this placement was particularly telling of the evening news. After a quick spot about the almost killed, not all there guy…here’s a little pick me up. No pun intended. This was the longest commercial I swear I have ever seen. It was 90 seconds of an old but still attractive (think Robert Redford or pre-mortem Paul Newman (tear)) man whom has traded in his sedan for a motorcycle that plays “Viva Viagra” nonstop from the radio. There’s a dream. From that beauty of advertising we have 30 seconds of the Culligan man (not as attractive-at all), followed by 30 more riveting seconds of your neighbor’s history with asthma and her life altering, airway opening Advair inhaler, closed by a short (thank God) 15 second need-to-know about sofa sale at Slumberland plug.

And we’re back.

Next there was actually a pretty interesting health story, sadly it only ran for about 3 minutes (ah hem, the Vikes got more time than that), about the heart health of distance runners. In the most recent New York Marathon (you people are nuts (secretly envious and in awe)), four runners have had heart attacks and died. Wait, these people are supposed to be healthy right? Ahhh, thank you evening news for setting me straight. There is research being done at Abbott Northwestern (thanks for fixing my broken spine guys) as to whether or not distance running can be damaging to coronary arteries. Sadly this story was followed by a long 7-second, stupid discourse and irritating transition by fellow anchors.

After that there was a really great, (totally sarcastic), 30 second WCCO plug for one of their anchors. Some guy named Mike, and how he’s glad to be apart of the team..or some crap.

The next news-history story was also pretty good. See, they make you wait out their terrible personal stories so you can get back to the things you care about more than them. Jerks. The story was about Jay Cooke State Park and it’s crazy swinging bridge (no thank you). We hear about some students from Cloquet sitting and listening to DNR Naturalist Kris talk about bones and beauty in the North woods, and about the history of this totally terrifying suspended bridge that swings out over the St. Louis River. The kids ran all up and down it, and it squeaked. A lot. So did they. A lot. This was about 3 and a half minutes of “finding Minnesota,” if you will.

After this story we again are forced to listen to some more stupid discourse between anchors, and a plug for their website..specifically the blurb on it about happy hours around town. Since when is the news plugging happy hour??

By this time we are on to the anchors making stupid weather jokes (as if we aren’t all pissed off already by the weather). Yay! The weather! Damnit! 2 and a half minutes about how weather this week is going to suck, dress your kids “real warmly” advice (he actually said that..at least he got the adverb right), winter is here, and it’s only gonna get colder. Uuugggghhhh. I hate everything.

Aaaannnd back to sports. This is where I reach for the remote, as I can’t go through it again. However, in the 30 seconds it took me to find the damn thing under the blanket (stupid weather), I got to hear about the Vikes again, some dude named Johnson who came in 3rd in the Nascar whatevers (gross), and how the Titans beat the Bears (I don’t care).

I completely understand that Minnesota folk have their purple pride and all, but seriously..football, football, football? That was what the most of this evenings “news” was about. It begs the question, “is that really newsworthy?” Pathos and ethos my friend. All of the ads and stories this evening were based on the character of the noun in question, and engulfed in emotion. The local news and ads used a lot of real, neighbor-like folks interviewed and testifying to appeal to a certain audience. They were definitely focused on sports, human interest, and local MN history. WCCO interviewed an older, yet marathon runner, man to talk about the research on his heart, and thus we get to see a lot of him in spandex running around outside. Nice. We also get to see the mentally disabled man wearing his Vikes jersey and needing from his mother to walk around the Dome. The way this interview was edited really made you feel badly for this man, and feel like the Vikings had done something great. What they did was nice yes, but seriously..does anyone else feel weird about this?? Even though I know somehow it’s supposed to make me feel warm and fuzzy isn’t it?

For the exact reason above I would love to have a class do exactly what I did tonight: watch the evening news, think about the intended audience and also how the stories/interviews/ads were supposed or intended to make you feel, and compare that to how they really made you feel. The same, different….why?? I think that would be interesting..a deconstruction of evening news rhetoric if you will. I think a class blog, or wiki compilation, or an emovie with narration and pictures would be a great way to check this out! So anyway, back to football…the Vikes beat the Packers 28-27.

There's An Elephant In The Room

Ahh YouTube. YouTube is a phenomenon that I was introduced to a few years ago. I had a coworker that unfortunately (although she was very nice) revolved her life around YouTube. Have you seen this on YouTube? You should YouTube that. I found this on YouTube. I had no idea that “YouTube” could be used as a verb. Interesting. Anyhow, it’s truly amazing the sorts of things one can find on YouTube: TV clips, homemade movies, homework assignments, etc. It has become a huge multimedia and social network.

Television and movie clips found on YouTube are always very interesting to me simply because it’s a cheap version of editing. One can grab what they want from a whole segment or show and make it into something it was never intended to be, look or sound like. One of my friends and colleagues found an excellently crafted montage of the lovely Sarah Palin speaking eloquently (hahaha) in response to an “interview” by Marge, a main character from the Minnesota parody movie Fargo. Hilarious. This is my point exactly.

Using YouTube in this light also allows one to highlight important aspects of a, let’s say, talk show. Talk shows have the best way of supposedly showing the interviewee as a “real” person, just having a conversation. Okay, not really so much but it’s closer than it being a nationally televised debate. Talk shows generally show the viewer a medium to full body shot of the host and interviewee talking. This makes things a tad more personal and intimate. You get to see the relationship between the host and the interviewee up close and personal. There they both are, sipping coffee, tea or whathaveyou, talking very candidly like they’re old friends, and rather nonchalantly about things that can be, but don’t have to be, extremely important. Did I mention the set? A lot of talk show sets look like a living room picture pulled out of a Martha Stewart magazine. Nice leather couch. I bet that’s a damn caramel macchiato with soymilk, and organic espresso too.

My point is, the set/atmosphere/shots of this television show (yes people, no matter how you look at it, it is still a television show. Daytime television nonetheless. All of the other channels are playing soaps right now.) is supposed to make everything going on seem casual and like you’re getting the more “human” side of people. I can’t believe I actually basically said that talk shows humanize people. Ha.

A few blogs ago I talked about the “hollywoodization” (that’s not a word) of gay and lesbian people. For this post I think I will combine that with politics! Yay! Clearly a topic everyone is comfortable with. Not taboo at all, perfect. I looked at the ever popular and openly gay Ellen and her daytime talk show, and her several interviews with important political figures such as McCain, and Hilary Clinton. You would never believe what Ellen has the balls to do (okay maybe not the best euphemism), “let’s talk about gay marriage,” shall we? Oh no she didn’t…

It’s a totally interesting take on politics if you ask me, the daytime talk show version of campaigning. Ellen asks all the questions that everyone really wants to know the answers too, but in a less “professional” way. It’s not like such politicians have never had to answer these questions before, it’s just that I think people expect to hear much less bullshit this way. Whether or not they get it is debatable. I think one has to have a different identity, if you will, to adapt to talk shows, their hosts, and their audiences. One needs to be extra careful how they present and represent themselves on such a show. YouTube clips of such a representation can either really help or really hurt a politician.

In the first clip I found, Ellen drops the gay marriage bomb on McCain. She tells McCain straight up: I was gonna do it anyhow, and now it’s legal and I can legally celebrate my love like everyone should, it’s only fair and natural. Well, clearly the way Ellen feels about gay marriage is ambiguous (I kid), but then she opens it up to McCain for rebuttal. McCain is brilliant at skirting around the question at first and then says he does believe in the “unique status of marriage between a man and a woman.” This might be one of the most straightforward things he says as a politician. Ellen equates this lack of rights to that of women’s and African American’s rights (or lack thereof) and tells him we are all the same, there is no different between her and McCain. McCain, probably wisely, doesn’t get into it with her, wishes her happiness, but says they simply disagree. He keeps it short and sweet, doesn’t defer much from the topic, but clearly doesn’t want to get into it at all, and therefore does not. Thank you John we agree to disagree McCain. You can see the clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7addd1-SY8

The next clip I watched was of Hillary Clinton on Ellen. Ellen prefaces the all-important question with “I don’t know if you know this, but I’m gay.” Hillary plays along and looks shocked. “WHAT??” It’s actually quite funny. Hillary then makes a terrible pun about being gay and happy..and how they mean the same thing sometimes…It was terrible. Ellen then poses her platform; she wants the same rights as people whom are not gay and married. Sounds simple enough. Ellen then spells out Clinton’s platform: she supports civil unions but not gay marriage. “Uh huh,” is Clinton’s brilliant response. Ellen’s response to that was better, “Uhhh….why?” Clinton says she’s down with civil unions with full benefits, but then she moves on to talk about the military??? What? I missed the part where that has anything to do with gay marriage. Ellen then asks the big money question “do you think it’s possible for someone to run and openly say I support gay marriage and win?” At least Hillary is honest and says she doesn’t know, but she has maintained her position for years. Well, good for you lady, but she does say that marriage should be left up to the states. Well, that is a little different than what you first said about civil unions Ms. Clinton. She says that we need to “open the door for people to define their relationships in a way that we can recognize and acknowledge.” I don’t get it…are you for gay marriage, against it or what lady? Congrats Hillary, you’re a true politician; I have no idea what the hell you are saying! This seems to prove my point though; Hillary seems to be playing up her specific host and audience, while not really defining who she is or what she stands for! But look at me in my excellent pant suit, chatting and chumming it up with my girlfriend Ellen-for the record she’s a girl that is my friend…not my girlfriend girlfriend…you know what I mean right?? Vote for me! Well played, although you seem to have a little brown on your nose Hillary. You can see the clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3huRVrckY8&feature=related

It’s interesting, recently it has become “cool” or “okay” to be gay (it wasn’t before, you know) or know someone whom is. Television and film have been the first to eat this up, take advantage of, utilize, manipulate, exploit and probably anything else one can think of-gay people and their lifestyle for the sake of television and film…whatever that means. It’s no longer taboo, with the exception of in politics. This is still an issue in which we cannot “go there.” Put a politician on television, a talk show, a talk show with a gay host, and it’s like the best 27 minutes of television ever! Dance monkey dance. It’s incredible to see them skirt around this issue. I love watching people talk about issues but never actually truly talk about them. A sociologists dream!

It appears the politicians understand the “talk show” atmosphere and philosophy and they play to that. It can truly make or break them I think. They play up their humanistic, sympathetic, “I’m for the people” kind of characteristics, although they never really delve into the issues the people really want to know and talk about. The talk show truly has a way of representing people in a unique fashion. It’s just a television show, unless your talking to Katie Couric, no one will remember what happened. Right? This is where the wonderful world of YouTube comes in. People can cut, crop, edit anything on YouTube and potentially show the world “how you really are,” or make you into something you are not at all. Vicious. Depending on which category a clip falls into, there are catalogs and numerous archives of alike clips for viewers to get their hands on, not simply one or two. YouTube clips can stereotype or prototype, or they can do just the opposite, it just depends on whom is doing what with them. Didn’t your mother ever tell you, be careful what you say? It might come back to haunt you, or rather, live in infamy on YouTube. Put that on your resume.

Did Oprah Okay That?

Yep, I’m gonna do it. Hold on. Who wants to talk about Oprah mother f-ing Winfrey?? Pardon my language, it sounds better out loud rather than read, given intonation, emphasis and whatnot. And just for fun, let’s talk about politics too. Anyone still reading?

I checked out the blog of an “online content guru” for the Chicago Sun times, Mark Bieganski. He claims to follow Oprah “like a religion” (vomit), and even Tivos the lady. I guess he’s too busy stalking Oprah (again, vomit) for me to say…get a hobby? Oh, wait. Anyhow, in September he wrote a blog entitled “Republican women's group boycotts Winfrey; put Palin on show they say. What do you think?”

Here’s the link: http://blogs.suntimes.com/oprah/2008/09/republican_womens_group_boycot.html

To sum up that particular blog entry, he “reported” that Oprah does not currently want to have Palin on her show (I vote just have Tina Fey instead..equally entertaining) because she does not want her show to be a political platform for anyone. Oprah has since given her endorsement to, and even campaigned for Obama. The 4,500 Republican woman strong group is quoted stating "[Sarah Palin] is an icon, and set her herself up to be such a women's rights and women's issues person. To have the first vice president of our lifetime on the Republican ticket being a woman and to sit it out regardless of what her personal political beliefs were was disingenuous, we felt.” Oprah claims that she would like to have Palin on the show, but only after the elections.

In response to this blog, there were numerous comments from readers mostly using the space to employ their own political agendas. The comments said one or two of basically four things; they either supported Oprah’s choice not to have Palin on the show, bashed Oprah and called her racist (of course they did), supported Palin, or bashed Palin/McCain calling them stupid or something of the sort (of course they are).

I noticed that almost all of the people responding and commenting to this blog were women (nooo).

Reader Mrs. LJ writes:

“I don't feel that Oprah should succumb to the ideas and thoughts of others and place her values and integrity on the line to please anyone or place her name on anything she doesn’t feel she has to. If so many people are for "rights", Oprah has the "right" to do what she feels and she does not have to give an explanation for her decision.”

J in Georgia agrees:

“We must remember that #1. Oprah is a woman. So what is the point of destroying one woman who has accomplished a lot to force her to put another woman on her show. Is this showing sisterhood? #2 Oprah is also African-
American, which I am sure is not the only reason she supports her long-time friend, Obama. So what are the republican women asking of this woman who has helped to make the careers of many whites and a few blacks. She has been criticized by blacks of catering more to whites. 
Are the republic women asking Oprah to give up her right to choose who appears on her show, and succumb to threats to end her career to boost another woman's career. As a woman, I need someone to explain this entire logic to me. As an African-American (who has been denied rights), and as a woman (who has been denied rights), I say Oprah should stand her ground, regardless of the consequences.”

One response by reader mportch read:

“Oprah has played the women of the world like fine flute and lead them around by the ring in there nose. Now that she got what she wanted from them (wealth and power). She is now showing them the true racist that she is. Women burn your O mags and anything else to do with her. Oprah nice color of lipstick. BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT NOW NOW.”

Reader Mae wrote:

“I am not a fan of Obama or Palin. However, I am disappointed in Oprah and hope advertisers will boycott her show. Oprah seems to care only about two things..herself and money. The sooner advertisers boycott Oprah the sooner she will reconsider being fair. Why doesn't Oprah want to discuss the issues of both parties? Oprah would certainly have Palin on if she were African American. I won't be watching Oprah anymore. Oprah seems to be a racist.”

Reader Kathy responds to reader Mae:

“You are not defined by another individual. Why? Why? Why do we feel that Oprah is the person who will define you in life? Oprah has come from the bottom of the bottom and worked her way up to the top not to be defined by any of you.
I am happy that Oprah is standing by her word unlike the 'Repuuuublican' (Republican) party.
To Mae (posting on 9/11): So, I'm assuming you do not watch the Oprah Winfrey Show because for you to say she is a racist is beyond IDIOT. Let us not judge for ye will be judged. Oprah has always had a diverse audience.
How about we fight for the issues we believe in. Stand against abuse of our VETS, children, & elders. Instead of repeating "the bridge to nowhere." How about we say "the WAR to nowhere."

Unfortunately there are Palin supporters folks, and Oprah haters if you can believe. Mrs.Mac (all dressed in black I presume) writes:

“Governor Sarah Palin has more class than anyone who would seek cheap notoriety by being a target on the Oprah Winfrey show. She can impress the voters just fine without the Queen Of Sleaze's help. I cannot imagine anyone who wastes their time listening and watching that TV drivel having enough common sense to vote for anyone who would/could do this wonderful country any real good. Gov. Palin is probably now worried about Oprah's decision.”

And then we have the multitude of Palin/McLame bashers:

Rita writes:

“This group's spokeswoman is an idiot! Palin is the SECOND woman in our lifetime to run as VP -- does the name "Geraldine Ferraro" ring a bell to her? And besides that, no woman in her right mind is going to vote for Sarah Palin because she does not believe in rights for woman. She believes that woman who are raped and get pregnant or girls who are victims of incest and get pregnant should be forced that bear that child. My body--my decision, not hers! It's not about being pro-abortion, it is about being pro-choice!!!!”

All in all I saw some people (mostly women) in here trying to have a decent conversation/post their specific opinion about the question that the author Mark Bieganski asked. Some people used it as a civilized place to post their thoughts; others used it as a forum to attack (sometimes personally) other posters or Oprah/Palin themselves. Some posters shaped their posts based off of others whom had posted before them, some went off on their own new rant, but all had the same social agenda and they all wanted to be heard (even if they couldn’t spell/type (annoying)).

There seemed to be four different types of posts: those whom were pro-Oprah, the O-haters, the Pro-Palin/McLame, and the Palin/McCain loathers. This was clearly opened up and intentionally (wisely) left open by Mark in asking, “what do you think?” This way such postings didn’t foster an attack of the main author Mark, or the Sun Times. Smart move. Imagine, there would be people then not watching Oprah, not reading Mark’s intensely interesting Oprah blog, and reading the Chicago Tribune instead.

It’s hard to imagine that people can have such potty mouths when supposedly all grown up. However, here in lies the beauty of anonymity. Anonymity gives people the power to say or do whatever they want without it coming back to them. Would such discourse prevail if all of these women were face to face in a room? Probably not if they were all interested in keeping their hair attached to their heads and their manicures looking nice.

I did only see one post that was truly in reference to another specific post. The rest were mainly general responses about their personal beliefs, another invitation to really let your opinion fly. Although different values (repub vs. demo and whathaveyou), all posters seemed to have the same purpose; here’s my opinion, hear me. No one seemed to care about being accepted or resisted by the rest of the community. Again, maybe this is due to the anonymity of it all. Or it could the fact that no one really responded to anyone’s post in particular (except the one). Maybe no one even bothered to read anyone else’s post and only wanted to get their point across. I think the real winner here is that Mark used an open-ended question. He did not (until later) post his personal opinion about the issue, and left it to his readers to fight out. Well played Mark. The only thing these posters could say to him is hey-thanks for providing the space for us to complain about out daytime talk show preferences-with a touch of politics.

Gay Is The New Black

YES! First and foremost I need to say that I am lovin’ that I have a class in which it is totally acceptable for me to do what I’m about to do. Well, I may be assuming that (and we all know what happens when one does that) but I’m gonna do it anyhow. To those whom may be offended…I’m sorry but I have as much sympathy for you as I do the devil..excellent Grateful Dead song… Anyone? I know, I’m heartless. Anyhow, this week we were to look at a particular phenomena and comment on its portrayal in the media. My choice? Gays and lesbians! Why? Because we’re all hypocrites and I am indeed the jerk whom loves to point that out. You’re welcome.

Hey! Remember that show Ellen? Remember how it was a great show, it was funny and everyone (most people) loved it? I do. That was until the famous last episode where Ellen said…(clearing the throat) I’M GAY! Aaannnd….then she went off the air. Wait? Ellen is gay? (Duh.) Gasp! We can’t have gays and lesbians (don’t forget your queers and the rest of the GLBT group) on television!! That way people will know they are real! Please excuse my dripping sarcasm but seriously..it was once taboo to have anything to do with gays and lesbians. They were people to fear or feel sorry for. And now all of a sudden they are novelty items (think we’re #1 foam fingers)?? Remember Rosy O’Donnell…like you could forget. Again, everyone loved her (?). She was funny, loud (obnoxious), pretended like she loved Tom Cruise for us (like we don’t all do that), and was a huge hit until she came out (OMG of course she’s a lesbian you guys). Then…poof! There went her awesome talk show. Oxymoron.

Sorry, there were a lot of parentheticals in there. I’ll do better.

However, these days most people would be lying if they said they weren’t amused and even if secretly, liked “just Jack” and his jazz hands from Will and Grace. How about the fantastically dressed telling you how to dress Tim Gunn? And you know damn well you wished you had a queer eye for your straight guy self and your terrible Ikea clad bachelor pad! Are you pickin’ up what I’m puttin’ down yet? It is no longer hip to be a square my friends. Gay is the new black.

The point here folks is that the gay and lesbian community, up until recently, had to be censored and strained through a “mainstream” and non-gay/queer/whathaveyou filter that resulted in a televised picture of gay life that was “acceptable” and non-offensive to the masses. So..you can be gay without actually BEING gay…so long as your ratings are high. Actually, Will and Grace represents this quite well. Both Jack and Will are gay. However, there is very little conversation about being gay or having gay relationships, and either character is rarely shown in a romantic situation. So…great…at least we are including the gay and lesbian community in the media, but it also still marginalizes them and almost always stereotypes them..oh the flamboyance.

Sociology has traditionally been concerned with inequality and social change, both of which are constituents of the study of homosexuality. Big time social theorist Michel Foucault, as a highly influential post-modern thinker, helped bring about the idea that “knowledge is not a set of truths but instead a set of socially constructed beliefs, and that no one knowledge is more credible than any other knowledge.” Hmm. You mean, the way you think is no better or no more “correct” than the way I think? Noooo….. And there was a bit in there about “social construction” too I think. So what I’m supposed to know and think is based upon what my society constructs as acceptable and important. Umm..curious here..but what happens if this socially constructed “knowledge” is false or conveniently leaving important pieces out?? Wait..that doesn’t happen. Especially in the media. This is my point, at least within a sociological framework (the study of the development, structure, and functioning of human society everyone) we are brave and sensitive enough to view/research the gay and lesbian members of society and their identities not as they “should” be seen but as they are and as they change, paying special attention to the difficulties and complexities that surround them. Sociological explanations say “the structure of society leaves room for changes in an individual's sexuality and gender throughout the life course.” Media, on the other hand, continues to distort and exploit this community for the benefit of the mainstream masses…so long as the ratings are high.

It's All In How You Look At It

Well, fall is here. Excellent. It's my favorite season. However, with the gorgeous changing of the leaves, comes the beginning of school years nationwide. This means (due to my chosen profession) I'm surrounded by lots and lots of kids. Kids coughing and sneezing, picking their noses, putting their entire hands inside of their mouths, followed by more coughing and sneezing because the previous kid that was coughing and sneezing has now gotten the rest of the class sick. You see, they do these things and then they touch me. Ipso facto...I am sick. Thank you small children of the world. Other than the fact that it's terrible, I have had a lot of time to watch television (something I also rarely do due to my chosen profession). I had this homework assignment (you're reading it) to learn about 8 critical approaches or lenses to media text. So, with my sick and lazy weekend I sat and watched television in these 8 different ways. Let's talk about what I learned shall we?

The first approach presented in my text for this class is a rhetorical/audience critical analysis. This is always an interesting way to view something. The way that I understood this lens is to look at a television show, movie or commercial (or anything else for that matter) and critique it as to whom it is directed, trying to reach or influence. They key questions I came up with from this analysis were: how does this make or change my perceptions, who is this trying to influence, does it make me change or question my values or beliefs, and do I identify with this? We'll use a commercial for an example. Essentially, commercials generally try to sell you something or in this time of year, every four years, convince you of something. The people that create these commercials know who their target audiences are and may try and manipulate them (no way). So what do you think of John McCain now? I mean other than the fact he looks like an English Bulldog.

The second perspective I looked at was that of a semiotic analysis. This theory focuses on the social and cultural meaning of codes and signs. The meanings to decipher are based upon relationships among an object, its implied meaning, and what it refers to. Believe it or not these meanings have deep roots in our social and cultural ideologies. Do you think it's a coincidence that the Pepsi logo colors are red, white and blue? No, silly! It's the great American soft drink! Or is that Coke? I don't know, I'm more of a Dr. Pepper kind of gal. The second part of this approach is that of a narrative analysis. This view looks at how particular events are depicted in terms of how they function in the show, movie, commercial etc. How do such events help develop the plot, organize the story line, fill in gaps or help predict what's going to happen next? These are questions that take on a narrative perspective. However, due to societal cultural values and norms, a narrative analysis might also ask: what is also left out?

The third analysis is that of poststructuralism. This approach looks at the classic good versus evil, male versus female, black versus white, etc. oppositions and what they represent, mean, and equate. You may not believe this but in media, such oppositions are often stereotypical. No. Oppositions like high/low and light/dark influence both characters and the audience. With a poststructuralist point of view, there are no truths or "exactnesses" (I made that word up). However, it's more likely that things like football are going to be associated with men rather than women, and the latest Dove commercial with women rather than men. Now I'm not just a big fan of that either (I like football, Go Packers!), but at least with the knowledge that such oppositions take place, I am able to see a commercial the way it was "intended" to be seen, and the way I want to see it.

The fourth approach is that of critical discourse. We each have our own discourse based upon our backgrounds and whatnot. We may even have more than one. For example, a doctor has a medical discourse and a lawyer-can you guess it- a legal discourse. Such discourses "define the social and power relationships within a certain culture or community." Thank you Richard Beach. They mold how people see themselves and the world around them. There are discourses of class and of race that actually remind me of a favorite movie I watched over the weekend, My Fair Lady. Okay yes, it's a musical. Whatever. It's fantastic and Audrey Hepburn is classic. Anyhow, she plays Eliza Doolittle and is a poor girl that sells flowers. She takes speech lessons so that she may pass as a lady. Didn't you know, she clearly wasn't a lady before with her incorrect grammar and accent? Eliza sees herself, and is seen, as indecent because of how she sounds and undoubtedly because of how she looks. Only after she has changed her clothes and learned to speak "properly" is she accepted by those around her.

The fifth analysis is a psychoanalytic theory. This idea revolves around the notion that texts are shaped by one's needs, fears and subconscious desires that are apart of their identity. A person's subconscious drive influences what they see and how they interpret meaning. The viewer of a film may attach a dangerous, bad or evil association to a character in the film due to a subconscious fear. Or an audience member may try to become more like a film character because of a subconscious desire.

The sixth analysis is a feminist perspective. One focus is the sexist portrayal of women as well as men in media texts. Women are often sexualized or have female norms defined for us that are often negative or unrealistic. The media has a tendency to represent men and women based on current cultural and social customs or beliefs. Because such social and cultural constraints change, so do the gender representations. Media texts also play into characteristics that men and women are "supposed" to have because they are supposedly more feminine or more masculine.

The seventh perspective is an postmodern analysis. This theory compromises the modern notions of fact, truth and reality. It is hard to decipher what is true and what is false (who is to say that anyhow), and some say media in itself is a reality. There are plenty of films out there that distort reality. Don't reality shows actually do just that? Postmodernism, in my opinion, can be seen in at least two ways: as a parody or an actual critique of a system of values and beliefs. I guess I argue that one in return does the other. Regardless, it's all about questioning.

Lastly, I learned about the postcolonial approach. This looks at how colonial or imperialist ideas of the world we live in are portrayed in different texts. My text for this class had a great example of how the media often represents third world countries, or previously colonized areas as the "other," essentially not like us, non-European. The "other" is always more dangerous, mysterious, and primitive. Often times in media, the "others" are stereotyped and portrayed in a sense that reflects our own insecurities and our shortcomings. Wouldn't you like to be Muslim in our world right about now? A postcolonial approach provides an alternative view on how we see our individual roles in the world.

"You Can't Take A Picture Unless It's Already Gone."

For this week I viewed a television commercial and a scene from a television show and analyzed them in terms of composition, lighting, editing, camera shots, and sound and how they portray relationships, narrative development, and representations.

I first looked at the series finale of one of my favorite shows, HBO’s Six Feet Under. For those of you whom do not know what this show is about (shame on you), it’s a dark and dramatic, yet comedic look at a dysfunctional L.A. family that runs a funeral business.

The final episode is about Claire leaving L.A. and moving to New York. It opens with a medium shot of Nate Fisher, the eldest brother whom recently passed away, against a white screen. He is dressed in a white suit and is lip-syncing and dancing. The shot is underexposed to make his blank surroundings seem perhaps heavenly, or emphasize the fact he is dead. The scene cuts to an extreme close up of his singing the words “I just want to celebrate another day of life.” We then see several frames of extreme close up shots that then move back out to medium shots of him singing and dancing, and back to an extreme close up of his face. This sequence happens several times, moving from an ECU to a medium close shot, to a medium shot, back to a medium close shot ending with another ECU. This part of the scene finishes with a camera zoom in on his opening and singing mouth.

It then transitions to the only daughter, Claire, waking up in bed. The music previously sung by Nate is now the music from her alarm clock that has woken her up. Perhaps this is done to try and make Nate’s death seem unreal, or just a dream. The camera pans across her room. The lighting is much darker in her room in comparison to the opening scene. The camera pans across her bedroom where we see her dead brother Nate sitting in a chair, allowing for a two shot of Nate and Claire. The shot becomes an over-the-shoulder shot of Nate. He talks to Claire and tells her to get up as everybody is waiting for her. The camera zooms in for a close up on Claire. We can see she is thinking deeply as if weighing heavy decisions.

The scene transitions with a cut and pan of the Fisher home. We get a full view of the large sign in the front yard that read Fisher and Sons, Funeral Directions. There is a cut to a long shot of Claire in the driveway. Her mother Ruth walks in front of the camera allowing for an over-the-shoulder shot of Claire. It changes from a two shot to a three shot when her brother David appears next to Ruth. Then there is a reverse angle as now we can see Ruth and David’s faces. Everyone is saying goodbye. There is a medium close shot Claire crying and hugging David.

Cut to a medium close shot of Claire and her mother. Then there is an over-the-shoulder of Claire, cut to a reverse angle of Ruth crying. “I don’t want to go,” Claire says. Quickly there is a cut to an over-the-shoulder where we see Nate. “Yes, you do,” he says. We go back to another over-the-shoulder shot of Claire facing the front of the house, where we see the rest of the family walking out the front door. We see Claire hugging and saying goodbye to her nephews. There is a reverse angle back to the family, followed by a medium close shot of Claire and her brother-in-law Keith hugging.

Claire announces she wants to take a picture of her family. Here the show cuts to a two shot of Claire and Nate standing right behind her. Then it cuts to a long shot of the family in front of the house. The audience sees what Claire’s picture would look like, and then backs to a medium shot of Claire. This is her final goodbye.

The end of the scene shows the audience a cut to Claire in her car, and an extreme close up of Claire doing each of the following: starting her car, opening a cd, putting it in the stereo, and putting the car in drive. We then see a long shot of her driving out of the driveway. Cue sappy music. There is one last long shot of the house and her family standing on the porch, waving goodbye. That’s it for Six Feet Under.

The lighting in this scene is very natural. They are outside and the light is bright, perhaps to signal the early morning. We hear lots of atmos and effect sounds like cars driving by and birds chirping. The cars in the shot tell me she is leaving.

One cannot help but notice the overload of medium close, close up, over-the-shoulder, and reverse angle shots in this scene. This is done so that the audience gets to see the emotion coming from each individual’s face, as well as see their reactions to others, and their points of view. Every time there is a medium close shot, it is of two people hugging and crying. The reverse angle shots almost always show someone’s reaction to the words shared when someone has to say goodbye. Generally the close ups are of Claire crying.

These shots were obviously chosen deliberately to show the real relations between the characters, and their honest emotions. Six Feet Under is an emotionally charged show about real people, real problems, and real feelings. The way the camera equally captures each character’s thoughts and feelings and then compares or relates them to another’s via over-the shoulders or reverse angles makes it more real. It also helps develop the theme and tone of the show: make the most of life, embrace it…screwed up or not…because everyone dies eventually.

This scene is extremely effective at portraying the true relationships between the characters. They love one another, will be missed and everyone is sad that Claire is leaving their home. With so much time and effort spent on hugging, crying and saying goodbye, the audience knows this is not going to be a short weekend trip. We know that this is more permanent, and somehow closes this part of the story. It keeps us hanging on; wanting more even though we know this is it. It makes us cry (you lie if you say it doesn’t), we realize that we’ve become attached to these people too and share the same emotions. It always brings us back to that common ground, no matter how different, we are all human.

I would love to work on a film unit in my classroom to look at just these things. How does film portray us as human beings? How do we relate to those we see on television or on film? I would love to use this show, about family, and maybe compare it to another show such as Dexter, which is about a serial killer. How are the characters portrayed? What are their common qualities? What are their differences? I would love to also take a look at the use of different shots, and also to examine why they are used. What does a particular shot show us as the audience? What was the director trying to do here? What do they want us to understand? I think an assignment just like this would be very valuable. A shot by shot analysis of a scene to dissect it for content. It would be great to teach the vocabulary necessary for this assignment in my classroom, and then have my students evaluate two film scenes looking at tone or theme. I would also love for my students to create their own films or commercials and have their peers critique them on the elements learned.

Finally, I present a shot by shot analysis of a Pepsi commercial that used to be on television. You may find it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31pEZWaIhr0

Shot One: Establishing shot of a young boy walking down the sidewalk in a neighborhood. This establishes the location and player.

Shot Two: Long shot of boy walking.
Again, proves the young boy is the main character in which the commercial is centered around and gives us a closer look at presumably his, neighborhood.

Shot Three: Long shot of a market storefront in the neighborhood.
Here we see the other player, a soda machine. It’s front and center.

Shot Four: A high angle shot from the soda machine looking down upon the boy.
The machine looks huge and shows us that the boy has many soda choices.

Shot Five: A medium shot of the point putting coins into the machine.
He has made a choice to buy a soda. But which one?

Shot Six: Long shot of the boy standing in front of the machine making his soda selection. We can’t see what he has chosen. Somewhat suspenseful for a soda commercial.

Shot Seven: Extreme close up of the can that the machine has dispensed.
Here we see that the boy has chosen Coke. At first we think this might be a Coke commercial.

Shot Eight: Extreme close up of the boy’s feet in front of the soda machine.
He places the can of Coke on the ground next to his feet. This makes us wonder what the heck this kid is doing. We keep watching.

Shot Nine: Long shot of the boy in front of the machine. He is looking for more coins for more soda.

Shot Ten: Extreme close up of the boy putting more coins in the machine. He’s buying two sodas?

Shot Eleven: Extreme close up of the boy pushing the Coke button again. He must really like Coke.

Shot Twelve: High angle shot looking down on the boy from the machine. We can see one Coke can on the ground, and the other Coke can just dispensed from the machine. The boy is putting the second can on the ground next to the first. What is he doing?

Shot Thirteen: Extreme close up of the two Coke cans on the ground, with their Coke labels facing out. This ensures we see that they are Coke cans. We see the boy stand on top of the two cans.

Shot Fourteen: Long shot of the boy standing on cans in front of the machine. He reaches up.

Shot Fifteen: Extreme close up of the Pepsi button on the machine. He pushes it. OMG, he used the Coke cans to get to the Pepsi! Clever!

Shot Sixteen: Extreme close up of Pepsi can just dispensed from the machine. The label faces out. The boy grabs it.

Shot Seventeen: Long shot of the boy walking away from the machine with the Pepsi in his hand. We can see the two cans of Coke left on the ground, in front of the machine.

Even with all those choices, he chose Pepsi. He was willing to pay for Coke to get to the Pepsi. He was willing to work hard to get the Pepsi, and was willing to literally walk over the competition to get what he wanted. Then end shot shows us the slogan of “The Joy of Pepsi” and the Pepsi label to reinforce it. There was a very soothing, casual acoustic guitar playing in the background. You can hear other kids in the neighborhood playing and yelling. The lighting was natural and gave it a lazy day of summer feel. Of course with this young boy’s thirst quenched by that refreshing Pepsi he worked so hard to get!

Because Unfortunately, "Because I Say So," Is Not Enough

School districts, especially those struggling to make AYP, often focus their energy and funding on core subjects and methodology intensified on the “basics.” This focus, in return, leaves little to no room for developing curriculum that is not traditional or standard. Sad. Naturally the first things to go are the arts. While language arts, my particular content area, is within those traditional and necessary subjects, it is only so if it is considered “English.” The subject of English has taken on the characteristics that of including grammar, vocabulary, reading and writing, etc. However, the English class I want to teach, of course includes such characteristics, but is definitely not limited to that. English does not have to be simply “basic.” It can and should include these basic elements, but it should be creative and innovative. Media studies is an excellent way to incorporate the new with the old. Students will develop new literacies, while further developing their “basic” skills.

The current school district, for which I am employed, truly lacks the resources for new technologies. We have basic computers and software, but new resources are not actually what we need. A lot of the issues surrounding the technology in our building are due to lack of education of the technology at hand. This absolutely includes the student population. To a large number of students at this school, computer, cell phone, video and Internet literacy (as well as a host of others), is almost foreign. Yet, each class is required to have computer time for 30 minutes, three times a week. What are these kids doing in there? Do they have the necessary skills to benefit from this computer time? What is interesting here, although not surprising, is that each child in this school (seriously) is overly consumed by and involved with computers, the Internet, television and the movies. They’re kids, they live for this stuff. Especially now seeing as this generation has been dubbed the “media generation.” There is no escaping this. Since these students are already engrossed in media, why in the world should we not teach them about it, how to use it, and how to learn from it?

The current curriculum for language arts in my school is a reading program aimed at advancing “behind” readers into their grade level. A curriculum like this is by the book, must be followed to a “T,” not flexible. Boring. And it is boring to these students. However, it does seem to be producing results attractive to the school board, and the kids feel good about their progress too. But seriously..this is not all we should offer our students a means of language arts. The reading program is dull, repetitive and not engaging at all. I know, I teach it. Sorry. If it is “necessary” that we teach this program for the good of our students, can we not at least integrate something into it to make it more fun, engaging and creative for our students (and the teachers for goodness sake). I truly believe connecting media studies with the program would be extremely beneficial.

We as educators should be worried about students acquiring the skills seen as “basic,” but that does not mean the way we teach them has to be. For example, instead of each child having to write a 5-7-sentence paragraph response on paper to what they have read for reading class, why don’t they keep an ongoing Internet blog of responses? See, when you keep things electronically, there is no justification for “I forgot it on the bus,” or “I lost it.” Not to mention that I would not then have 25 papers to keep track of. Not only would students have the opportunity to use the technology and media they crave, but also they can use it for educational purposes. My guess is some of them may even forget they are doing their dreaded homework because they are enjoying what they are doing all while learning about new literacies and practicing an essay format. If done right, teaching about media and it’s technology can incorporate foundation courses and necessary skills.

The population and community I work with is very interested in media and technology, and I think education on and of such technology could only be beneficial. Honestly, it’s like killing two birds with one stone, if you will. I want my students to know the “basics” of language arts. Seriously, comma splices are terrible. Knowledge of such skills is essential in and out of the classroom. Media studies can further develop such skills. Such studies only encourage critical thinking. Essentially, isn’t this what we are after? Media studies can incorporate creativity and innovativeness with any subject matter. What if instead of writing papers and turning them in only to receive them back covered in red ink, could turn into a wiki that is accessed by all members of class containing feedback from peers?

I won’t bore you with statistics; truth is I would probably mix up the numbers anyhow. However, it is undeniable that media today consumes children. Children spend more than 25% of their day watching T.V., movies, playing on the Internet and what have you. Anyone want to place bets that that percentage is going to go up? Come on, I have student loans to pay. Nowadays, children often access more than one media outlet at a time. They multitask. If we are so concerned about literacy, why don’t we incorporate new and upcoming literacies into the mix? What a well-rounded education! Doing so is a fantastic way to reach out to students and engage them in what they need to know. It doesn’t have to be boring. Incorporating media studies is a great way to address these new, unavoidable literacies. It is because they are unavoidable that it is in fact important to address them. Our students need the appropriate skills to navigate and intelligently interpret what is going on in the world. By teaching such skills, students are using invaluable critical thinking skills that can be adapted to almost anything, inside or outside the classroom. An education that is applicable and relevant to the outside world is what everyone deserves.

Media studies is the perfect complement to “basic” education, it only further develops traditional and standard language arts curriculum. A media literacy content would prove to engage children in what we actually want them to learn, not deter from it. Media studies are relevant, applicable, and important. It builds necessary skills, allows for more critical thinking and viewing of the world around us, and encourages and embraces different learning styles. Let us not forget it also encourages creativity.

What do I want and hope to learn from this course? I would like to learn appropriate yet, creative ways to use media in the classroom. How can I adapt lessons in language arts in such a manner, and what kinds of tools can I, and my students use?

Media Literacy Education, Yes Please and Thank You- An addendum

So..sometimes when I read things I think I interpret them in an incorrect way (is there really a way to correctly think). It turns out I have a knack for interpreting most of what I read in an entirely different way than intended. This often gets me into trouble. It's also why I'm terrible at math. However, I also feel it's why potentially I'm a decent writer, and even better at "reading" literature and art of all types. At least I like to think this "alternativeness" of mine affords me this strength. Luckily the whole idea around media studies is interpreting and expressing things in one's own light. Right? Or have I done it again?

I'm currently taking a class on teaching media literacy. This blog is my representation and reflection of the coursework for the class. This class mainly discusses the importance of incorporating new literacies, in alternative ways, into and among student curriculum. This course is entirely online and is my second online class experience in my academic career. I'm new to online classes and I'm terrible at them (getting better), but I'm trying and I'm learning (the point right). Speaking of educational alternatives. Online classes. Excellent. Then you mix online with media studies and you can see how I may have screwed up, right? When it comes to interpreting what is assigned, in this class I think I have "pulled an Erin," if you will, and incorrectly understood what the hell was going on. :)

So..let me bend your ear for a bit on what I now think I'm supposed to do. Aren't you lucky? Take two:

For class we were asked to watch a few political videos (excellent), and discuss their implications and what have you. Battlefield Minnesota was a fantastic film in which the creators interviewed major politicians in Minnesota. The message: become politically educated and get out there and vote (gosh darn it). The film was completely appealing (at least it should be to anyone as the message is important), mostly because of it's excellent, authentic hip-hop accompanied by pertinent information. However, the real seller for me was Walter Mondale playing d.j. Seriously. How could you pass that up? Also, seeing any politician willing to bling it up for a good cause is worth paying attention to. See..now you have to watch it right? http://www.mediathatmattersfest.org/mtm05/ This film was so creative in style and content, but it also hit right home and made a taboo topic personable. Also, no bias here. We get all pieces of the political pie here. Better than Fox.. This film is aimed at youth in society, the political education of, and necessity of their action.

I love it. I could not agree more. The message is undeniably important and necessary. The fact that the creator of this film went onto the streets and reached out to local youth is incredibly empowering. This guy brings with him an actual voting booth asking two young ladies, "do you know how to use one of these?" With shaking heads, he begins to educate them on a poll booth and the importance of voting. These are future voters ladies and gentlemen. Not gonna lie, the first time I was legal to vote I walked into a booth, closed the curtain and thought to myself "Wow, this is kind of intimidating, everything all official and serious and all...what if I screw up ( 'cause I do that sometimes)...I'd like to think this vote has a positive impact on the next four years of life..." and a load of other things. I'm just saying, the education of the physical act of voting associated with the knowledge and understanding of what you are voting for is invaluable and remarkably powerful. You can't go wrong. It's personal empowerment for all individuals.

The second film, News is What we Make It, was awesome. Think politics meets Wallace and Gromit. Not for everyone I know, but at least Wallace and Gromit is. Ha. Sorry, terrible little joke there. Honestly though, the film had an important message and it was conveyed in a creative manner. This film discusses media conglomeration and how news is; I mean can be, misrepresented. In short this film portrays a young adult female with terrible clay hair, interviewed by a local reporter with a terrible clay mustache, about her personal views on a school-wide issue. The reporter airs her interview, but edits her words so that her personal view had dramatically changed, and was falsely represented. This young clay-lady demands a retraction and she is denied. She then goes to another station to ask for an expose (accent there on the 'e'-I don't know how to do that, my apologies), and is also denied. After learning about the ugliness of media conglomerates, she decides to take matter into her own hands. Yes! She concocts a plan to draw media attention to her school and then steal the spotlight to get her message out. A little bait and switch, if you will. It's a fun and entertaining film, yet it battles a huge issue. Should we believe what we see on T.V., or take it with a grain of salt? I always preferred sweet things to salty, myself. Also, is the "news" we are receiving accurate?

Point in case-this summer I was caught on campus by an amusing and entertaining reporter from Channel 4. I was interviewed about my water consumption. I told him and his camera buddy how much water I drank on a daily basis. I was then asked questions on my "water knowledge." Yes, the history, theory and importance of water consumption my friends. It was riveting. Anyhow, we three had a nice little chat and a few giggles about water and he then moved on to interview others about the same. A few weeks later I caught my television debut on the web (ha ha-news on the internet). Much to my dismay-I exclaimed to the entirety of Minneapolis and surrounding areas that I pee a lot. Yes, I said it. This is of course due to my incredible water consumption people. Um...thanks guy from Channel 4. (Please excuse me for not posting the link to my awesome interview). Although I had admitted to drinking copious amounts of water and then, mind you, was asked whether or not I frequented the restroom, they had edited out much of what I had been interview about. Apparently my knowledge of water was less impressive than my trips to the bathroom. Great. However, this is a prime example of how news and media can and will be distorted..at my expense nonetheless.

Some things to think about yeah? How about on your next trip to the restroom?