A thought occurred to me today. After watching the documentary, America the Beautiful, I began thinking about my childhood and my mother. There are big differences between my mom and Gerren's mother. My mother always encouraged and supported my ideas and dreams, but guided me along the way. She was always quick to remind me that I was beautiful and smart the way I was --- she didn't encourage me to look or think in other ways (well...maybe she wasn't too happy when I registered as a Democrat, but that's another story for another day). She believed in me.
I think more female children would have healthier ideas about careers if their parents would be more strict while also being supportive. Sure, that's a fine line to walk and an easy task to assign, but how can mothers such as Gerren's sit back and watch their child put themselves through emotional and physical torture to be what someone else thinks they should be?
Maybe that's just beyond my comprehension.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Magazines are, in fact, a bit sexist
Yes, that's right. After counting hundreds of bylines from the 1989, 1999, and 2009 issues of Esquire, Rolling Stone and Vanity Fair, I've found that women writers aren't really gracing the pages of these national magazines. Vanity Fair is the only magazine that has made significant progress in its numbers since '89. And those numbers are still disheartening.
In '89, about one in five stories in Vanity Fair, excluding bylines labeled "anonymous," were written by women. In 2009, women wrote about 38 percent of the stories. At Rolling Stone and Esquire in '89, things were even worse for women: they only wrote about one in 10 stories. That's right -- only 10 percent. In 2009 at Rolling Stone, only women still write only 17 percent of the stories. At Esquire in 2009, women only scribble on about 12 percent of the pages.
In the '70s, 46 women at Newsweek filed suit against their employer for discrimination. They were labeled the "dollies" of the department. In an article published in March, women who currently work at Newsweek wrote about the changes in the industry since the dollies filed suit. Sure, women can write cover stories now, but only about one in seven.
"But just as the first black president hasn't wiped out racism, a female at the top of a company doesn't eradicate sexism," the women wrote.
I concur. What must be done for women in journalism to receive the same treatment and salary as males? Well, for starters, we need more women at the top. We need to make the same money, have our bosses be more forgiving for things such as family life (gasp!) and we need to demand these things. Why not file suit again?
It worked in the '70s.
In '89, about one in five stories in Vanity Fair, excluding bylines labeled "anonymous," were written by women. In 2009, women wrote about 38 percent of the stories. At Rolling Stone and Esquire in '89, things were even worse for women: they only wrote about one in 10 stories. That's right -- only 10 percent. In 2009 at Rolling Stone, only women still write only 17 percent of the stories. At Esquire in 2009, women only scribble on about 12 percent of the pages.
In the '70s, 46 women at Newsweek filed suit against their employer for discrimination. They were labeled the "dollies" of the department. In an article published in March, women who currently work at Newsweek wrote about the changes in the industry since the dollies filed suit. Sure, women can write cover stories now, but only about one in seven.
"But just as the first black president hasn't wiped out racism, a female at the top of a company doesn't eradicate sexism," the women wrote.
I concur. What must be done for women in journalism to receive the same treatment and salary as males? Well, for starters, we need more women at the top. We need to make the same money, have our bosses be more forgiving for things such as family life (gasp!) and we need to demand these things. Why not file suit again?
It worked in the '70s.
America The Beautiful
I stayed to watch the entire video, even 20 minutes after the class was over, because it was so damn disturbing to me what a mother will do to her child to fulfill her own selfish wishes.
Gerren's mother wanted to model when she was younger. She was an amateur model. Got a few photo shoots. But it was her daughter who was approached by an agent, and that's when the story begins. Gerren's mother pushes her, encourages her to travel to Paris and spends all her money along the way on more photo shoots and different modeling agencies. She pulls Gerren out of school.
What the movie did most for me was shed light on the fact that, unfortunately, most Americans would love their daughters to be models, to be the spotlight of attention, disregarding the emotional, mental, spiritual and physical harm they endure along the path of self destruction to stardom. It's sad, but because the media perpetuates and encourages these women to push themselves to the limits of humanity, what else can society expect?
Gerren's mother wanted to model when she was younger. She was an amateur model. Got a few photo shoots. But it was her daughter who was approached by an agent, and that's when the story begins. Gerren's mother pushes her, encourages her to travel to Paris and spends all her money along the way on more photo shoots and different modeling agencies. She pulls Gerren out of school.
What the movie did most for me was shed light on the fact that, unfortunately, most Americans would love their daughters to be models, to be the spotlight of attention, disregarding the emotional, mental, spiritual and physical harm they endure along the path of self destruction to stardom. It's sad, but because the media perpetuates and encourages these women to push themselves to the limits of humanity, what else can society expect?
Monday, May 3, 2010
Disney - RG & M
I wasn't shocked at the video criticizing Disney movies. I'd heard it before. Problem is, I still decorate my bathroom in The Little Mermaid and still watch the movie over and over. I own three copies. I have the entire VHS collection of Disney movies at my mother's house in Kentucky. Well, when the movies were manufactured on VHS....
Anyway, this is one aspect of the class where I'm going to have to sit out and not shout, "This must stop! Women are being abused and misrepresented!"
I know deep down everything the video said was true, that Disney in fact does promote racist images and unrealistic portrayals of women to little girls and boys all across the globe.
Unfortunately, I'm still a believer in that damn castle whispering to me, "Dreams really can come true."
Anyway, this is one aspect of the class where I'm going to have to sit out and not shout, "This must stop! Women are being abused and misrepresented!"
I know deep down everything the video said was true, that Disney in fact does promote racist images and unrealistic portrayals of women to little girls and boys all across the globe.
Unfortunately, I'm still a believer in that damn castle whispering to me, "Dreams really can come true."
Esquire - RG & M
It is an Esquire tradition to publish an annual issue devoted to women (even though the magazine's theme is "Man at His Best"). This year's attempt at honoring women, well it hit the newsstands a week or so ago, with Christina Hendricks gracing its cover, exposing her silky, giant breasts.
David Granger wrote in this year's letter to the editor that Esquire loves women, for all the right reasons, and "desperately wanted not to screw up this issue." Dave, I gotta thank ya for trying, but you screwed up. Majorly.
All the big contributing editors at Esquire wrote for the issue - Tom Junod, Cal Fussman. Junod wrote a beautiful portrait of Hilary Clinton (except for a dicey bit that I hated), Fussman pieced together a fabulous Q and A with the kick-ass CEO of Yahoo, Carol Bartz. However, as a woman, I found it incredibly disturbing that a woman did not write a damn thing for the issue devoted to women. Well, you can include Joanna Molloy's story of Andrew Cuomo, and maybe essayist Sloane Crosley's critique of the issue, but that's it. The women we all hail as nearly shattering the glass ceiling was painted as tired, "as if her exhausting engagement with the world has left her permanently post-coital." Hilary got fucked, all right --- by this description.
It's as though Esquire decided to TRY to honor women, and then at the end of the issue, insult them endlessly. I'm not sure what sort of crack the editor, Granger, was smoking when he allowed "The Time-Honored Art of Scoring with Style" section slip into print, but it must have been some good stuff. The captions illustrating the photographs are worthy of mouth-vomit:
Learn as little as possible about a girl. It merely slows down the breakup process.
It's not the size of a woman's boobs that counts. It's the ratio of their size relative to her upper-arm circumference.
The ideal boyfriend is someone who is proficient in listening, communication, and compromise. Be proficient in none of these things.
My personal message to the editor: Try harder. And maybe next time, let a woman peek at your copy before it goes to print, or maybe (gasp!) even hire a woman to write about women.
David Granger wrote in this year's letter to the editor that Esquire loves women, for all the right reasons, and "desperately wanted not to screw up this issue." Dave, I gotta thank ya for trying, but you screwed up. Majorly.
All the big contributing editors at Esquire wrote for the issue - Tom Junod, Cal Fussman. Junod wrote a beautiful portrait of Hilary Clinton (except for a dicey bit that I hated), Fussman pieced together a fabulous Q and A with the kick-ass CEO of Yahoo, Carol Bartz. However, as a woman, I found it incredibly disturbing that a woman did not write a damn thing for the issue devoted to women. Well, you can include Joanna Molloy's story of Andrew Cuomo, and maybe essayist Sloane Crosley's critique of the issue, but that's it. The women we all hail as nearly shattering the glass ceiling was painted as tired, "as if her exhausting engagement with the world has left her permanently post-coital." Hilary got fucked, all right --- by this description.
It's as though Esquire decided to TRY to honor women, and then at the end of the issue, insult them endlessly. I'm not sure what sort of crack the editor, Granger, was smoking when he allowed "The Time-Honored Art of Scoring with Style" section slip into print, but it must have been some good stuff. The captions illustrating the photographs are worthy of mouth-vomit:
Learn as little as possible about a girl. It merely slows down the breakup process.
It's not the size of a woman's boobs that counts. It's the ratio of their size relative to her upper-arm circumference.
The ideal boyfriend is someone who is proficient in listening, communication, and compromise. Be proficient in none of these things.
My personal message to the editor: Try harder. And maybe next time, let a woman peek at your copy before it goes to print, or maybe (gasp!) even hire a woman to write about women.
Monday, April 12, 2010
April 12
Today is my birthday, and so I think it is necessary to get off my ass and be productive, since I am a year older.
Basically, I thought the film stirred some different emotions - I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the film showed in class. The Mantan show was so disturbing and appalling, I found myself identifying with the members of the audience (the ones who were so shocked at the content).
Spike Lee conveyed an important point: racism is still alive in America, and it made me wonder: if a network were to broadcast a show like this one, what would happen? Surely, yes, the NAACP and others would protest, but what about the majority of Americans?
How would we react to something like this, if it were for real?
Basically, I thought the film stirred some different emotions - I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the film showed in class. The Mantan show was so disturbing and appalling, I found myself identifying with the members of the audience (the ones who were so shocked at the content).
Spike Lee conveyed an important point: racism is still alive in America, and it made me wonder: if a network were to broadcast a show like this one, what would happen? Surely, yes, the NAACP and others would protest, but what about the majority of Americans?
How would we react to something like this, if it were for real?
Monday, February 8, 2010
Out of the Comfort Zone - RG&M
Tracy shook things up a bit in our second class of the semester. The grad students had to move out of one row and socialize with (gulp) the undergrads. The mixed groups discussed how the media, especially the print media, interviewed a certain group- those damn wasps. My group felt that reporters needed to break out of the comfort zone and talk to different groups -- especially those underrepresented (really never represented) Native Americans. While it is hard to have a quota when you're a reporter, I think it's good to mix things up and try to interview some people who are NOT your color, gender, age or sexual preference (i.e. lesbian or gay man).
I'd already read a couple of the articles we were assigned, but it never fails to amaze me when I read evidence on how the news media ARE so damn bad when it comes to diversity. I know we're resistant to change, but shouldn't a social issue such as this one be on the forefront of our agenda?? I think so....
I'd already read a couple of the articles we were assigned, but it never fails to amaze me when I read evidence on how the news media ARE so damn bad when it comes to diversity. I know we're resistant to change, but shouldn't a social issue such as this one be on the forefront of our agenda?? I think so....
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Social Media and....Cloud Computing???? -- New Technology
Let's just say it simply here. I'm not a fan of social media, but I understand it. I get it. I can post a comment on someone's wall on Facebook, or tweet about the new Ipad.
But does that make me literate?
In last week's class, people were showing new gadgets of social media, and I had no idea they were out there. This aspect of journalism (if you call it journalism) is changing at such a rapid pace, even my techno-crazy generation can't seem to keep up (or maybe it's just me). MySpace, which was once the most popular Web site, has now been downplayed by Facebook. Professionals use LinkedIn, and what is this new Web site in which you can be the mayor of a restaurant?
I'm not sure what all this is about. I'm not sure how long all these social media Web sites will last. It seems like MySpace is dying already. I'm just waiting for the next cool phase --- for people to say "NO!" to it all and go back to reading books. Breathe in that old musty smell and cuddle up in grandma's blanket and....yeah, I'm old fashioned.
Social media - what is it exactly? My definition: a virtual way for people to communicate.
But again...how do we define literacy here? Dictionary.com says literacy is "a person's knowledge of a particular subject or field." According to this definition, I probably wouldn't have a lot of knowledge outside of Facebook and Twitter (and Twitter is limited). I'm not a mayor. I didn't know what RSS was until I read the book.
My opinion: I think anyone can be literate on their own level. I'm not sure anyone can be completely literate on social media because things are created and dismissed so quickly.
Hmmm, create and dismissed. That reminds me of that other scary thing we talked about in class. CLOUD COMPUTING! We all love the Internet, but where is all this information stored? In the air? In the clouds? Well, kind of. Google, for example, has a server cloud in Oregon the size of four football fields. The New York Times put 11 million of their articles on an Amazon server cloud. So basically, the Times is trusting one company with all their data from 1851 to 1922. What if someone decided to trash the cloud farm and the Times lost their archives? Data and history would be lost. Seventy-one years of information, gone in a flash.
I think the news media should be careful, and really think about how they store their past newspapers. Especially where. Is it really smart to concentrate it all in one place, with one company? And the whole idea of cloud computing in general should be carefully examined by today's journalists. Our electronics are outdated the minute they hit the market. The millions of hard drives and keyboards and televisions and throw away cameras that are polluting our air....doesn't anybody think of this? What will happen in 10 years when Google and Amazon and Yahoo need to change out their servers? Where will those football fields of trash go?
I think we need some kind of a panel, a task force, to address this issue. We're moving at such a fast rate, it's hard to look back and see our footprints. Our heads, it seems, are too high in the clouds.
But does that make me literate?
In last week's class, people were showing new gadgets of social media, and I had no idea they were out there. This aspect of journalism (if you call it journalism) is changing at such a rapid pace, even my techno-crazy generation can't seem to keep up (or maybe it's just me). MySpace, which was once the most popular Web site, has now been downplayed by Facebook. Professionals use LinkedIn, and what is this new Web site in which you can be the mayor of a restaurant?
I'm not sure what all this is about. I'm not sure how long all these social media Web sites will last. It seems like MySpace is dying already. I'm just waiting for the next cool phase --- for people to say "NO!" to it all and go back to reading books. Breathe in that old musty smell and cuddle up in grandma's blanket and....yeah, I'm old fashioned.
Social media - what is it exactly? My definition: a virtual way for people to communicate.
But again...how do we define literacy here? Dictionary.com says literacy is "a person's knowledge of a particular subject or field." According to this definition, I probably wouldn't have a lot of knowledge outside of Facebook and Twitter (and Twitter is limited). I'm not a mayor. I didn't know what RSS was until I read the book.
My opinion: I think anyone can be literate on their own level. I'm not sure anyone can be completely literate on social media because things are created and dismissed so quickly.
Hmmm, create and dismissed. That reminds me of that other scary thing we talked about in class. CLOUD COMPUTING! We all love the Internet, but where is all this information stored? In the air? In the clouds? Well, kind of. Google, for example, has a server cloud in Oregon the size of four football fields. The New York Times put 11 million of their articles on an Amazon server cloud. So basically, the Times is trusting one company with all their data from 1851 to 1922. What if someone decided to trash the cloud farm and the Times lost their archives? Data and history would be lost. Seventy-one years of information, gone in a flash.
I think the news media should be careful, and really think about how they store their past newspapers. Especially where. Is it really smart to concentrate it all in one place, with one company? And the whole idea of cloud computing in general should be carefully examined by today's journalists. Our electronics are outdated the minute they hit the market. The millions of hard drives and keyboards and televisions and throw away cameras that are polluting our air....doesn't anybody think of this? What will happen in 10 years when Google and Amazon and Yahoo need to change out their servers? Where will those football fields of trash go?
I think we need some kind of a panel, a task force, to address this issue. We're moving at such a fast rate, it's hard to look back and see our footprints. Our heads, it seems, are too high in the clouds.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Dylan was RIGHT - New Technology
Today, Steve Jobs presented the world with a new project, a tablet computer that will allow users to surf the web, play video games, watch movies, listen to music and read books. Publishers are skeptical. Will the iPad further challenge the print industry?
I hope it won't. Call me old school, but I prefer to sit down with a cup of hot chocolate and a juicy novel at night. It relaxes me. But I'm 23, and I receive some strange looks from my peers when I tell them I refuse to buy a television and (gasp!) deactivated my Facebook account so I can have more time to read and write.
I don't really think I'm that strange. I just appreciate good stories, which brings me to the point of this blog, I'm learning (slowly, I admit) that good stories come in many forms. I can already appreciate that age-old medium of radio. But the new media that come in the shapes of podcasts, videos and blogs are beyond me.
Dylan hit it spot on when he sang, "The times, they are a changin'."
Media consumers now visit Web sites such as politico.com and mediastorm.org for their news. They watch, listen and debate. Newspaper reporters aren't just reporters anymore, but they shoot video, take pictures and edit it all on Final Cut and Photoshop. Everything is changing around us, and that's what I hope the theme of this class will be, how to take part in the change, understand it, prepare for it, and learn how to thrive amidst a changing profession. I'd like to learn how to adjust to these changes and adapt to watching video (gritting teeth) and reading blogs.
I'd also like to learn how to convince more people in this age to relax, how to enjoy a good book by a fire with a cup of hot chocolate. How to put away the Blackberry and shut off the laptop for a minute, and how to appreciate a story in its oldest form, verbally, or on the page.
New Technology and old fashioned gals such as myself might learn to marry our ideas. After all, I guess a good story is just that, a good story, presented in any form.
I guess. . . .
I hope it won't. Call me old school, but I prefer to sit down with a cup of hot chocolate and a juicy novel at night. It relaxes me. But I'm 23, and I receive some strange looks from my peers when I tell them I refuse to buy a television and (gasp!) deactivated my Facebook account so I can have more time to read and write.
I don't really think I'm that strange. I just appreciate good stories, which brings me to the point of this blog, I'm learning (slowly, I admit) that good stories come in many forms. I can already appreciate that age-old medium of radio. But the new media that come in the shapes of podcasts, videos and blogs are beyond me.
Dylan hit it spot on when he sang, "The times, they are a changin'."
Media consumers now visit Web sites such as politico.com and mediastorm.org for their news. They watch, listen and debate. Newspaper reporters aren't just reporters anymore, but they shoot video, take pictures and edit it all on Final Cut and Photoshop. Everything is changing around us, and that's what I hope the theme of this class will be, how to take part in the change, understand it, prepare for it, and learn how to thrive amidst a changing profession. I'd like to learn how to adjust to these changes and adapt to watching video (gritting teeth) and reading blogs.
I'd also like to learn how to convince more people in this age to relax, how to enjoy a good book by a fire with a cup of hot chocolate. How to put away the Blackberry and shut off the laptop for a minute, and how to appreciate a story in its oldest form, verbally, or on the page.
New Technology and old fashioned gals such as myself might learn to marry our ideas. After all, I guess a good story is just that, a good story, presented in any form.
I guess. . . .
Thoughts on the First Class - RG&M
I wasn't sure what to expect from the first class of Race, Gender and the Media. It has been nearly two years since I've taken a course with undergraduates, and sitting in a room with more than 100 undergrads was refreshing.
As a woman and a feminist, it is nice to know there are others younger than I who care about women's rights and our place in society, and how we are treated on a daily basis. It's also nice to know there are people who are aware of issues such as racial profiling and police brutality.
As for the Nightline video, it spurred some critical thinking among our class members, as well as stories of sexual harassment, racial profiling, DWB (which I'd never heard before) and a great discussion on reporting by Courtney, who covered two different murder trials in these last few months.
The Nightline video made me thing: the line of censorship is blurry. Was the station in Austin wrong for not reporting the triple homicide? Were the stations viewers harmed by the lack of coverage?
You decide.
As a woman and a feminist, it is nice to know there are others younger than I who care about women's rights and our place in society, and how we are treated on a daily basis. It's also nice to know there are people who are aware of issues such as racial profiling and police brutality.
As for the Nightline video, it spurred some critical thinking among our class members, as well as stories of sexual harassment, racial profiling, DWB (which I'd never heard before) and a great discussion on reporting by Courtney, who covered two different murder trials in these last few months.
The Nightline video made me thing: the line of censorship is blurry. Was the station in Austin wrong for not reporting the triple homicide? Were the stations viewers harmed by the lack of coverage?
You decide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
