"Mickey Mouse Monopoly"

     This week, we watched Mickey Mouse Monopoly: Disney, Childhood, and Corporate Power.  It made some very interesting points.  I grew up watching Disney movies, and as I got older, I noticed certain stereotypes, sexism, and racism in the films.  This is especially true for the older films, like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Dumbo, and Peter Pan.  In the Snow White movie, she is portrayed as a delicate female who enjoys cooking and cleaning for men.  There are definitely racist undertones in Dumbo, with the voices of the crows speaking Ebonics.  I have always had a problem with how Native Americans were portrayed in Peter Pan.  From the way they are drawn, to the color of their skin, and even the way they talk and dance.  It is extremely stereotypical and offensive. However, I did not agree with some of the "problems" the film pointed out about some of the Disney movies.  One example was when they talked about The Little Mermaid being sexist because Prince Eric saves Ariel in the end.  I think that they forgot that at the beginning of the movie, Ariel saves Prince Eric from drowning.  I do not think that it is a bad thing for men to save women, especially in this case because they also showed a woman saving a man.  The film did point out some things that I had never really thought about before, such has the elimination of Africans from the Tarzan story.  They also pointed out the offensive and controversial lyrics from the beginning of the Aladdin film, which went right over my head as a child.  This film gave me a lot to think about even though I still enjoy Disney movies.

Analysis: Jason Derulo "Swalla"

     After watching the music videos for this week, I chose to analyze the Jason Derulo "Swalla" video.  There is a lot to say about this video, so to make it easier to understand, I decided to address each question separately.  Here we go....

What roles do the men in the music video play?  What roles do the women play? 

     In the video, the men are at the center of attention, usually with a women draped on their lap or over their shoulder.  Jason Derulo has female dancers surrounding him throughout the video.  The women seem to solely be there to dance and look hot.  They are in  revealing clothing and are showing off their breasts and butts. Usually, men in music videos stand there while women dance around or on them.  Derulo is more active in this video however; he dances with his female counterparts.  Niki Minaj appears in the video, and I thought that she would try to distinguish herself from the other women in the video by dressing or acting differently.  But, she is dressed the same as the other dancers; she has a crop top on that shows off her cleavage, and tiny shorts to show off her shape.  She even lies on the ground during her rap while touching herself.  It seems that she cannot really get away from the sexual roles that most music videos have women in. As in the films we watched, Dreamworlds and Hip-hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes, the women in this video are sexually open and submissive to men's sexual desires.    

Does the music video--as Sut Jhally insists all music videos do--tell a story about male and female sexuality?  If so, what story about sexuality does it tell?

     It seemed to say that women are happy to have men look at them sexually, and invite this attention with revealing clothes.  In the video, the men are more than willing to "enjoy the show".  The sexuality of the men in this video is represented by them being passive viewers who "let the women" interact with them sexually.  Only when the woman invites or instigates the sexual encounter do the men "give in" and reciprocate.  I think the most blatant representation of this idea is when the video shows a woman sitting in a chair posing seductively, nude, and covered in bright paint for the men to view. Derulo then pours paint over her, and begins to run his fingers down her chest.  The lyrics of the song invite "all the girls in here" to drink, presumably so that they will be more willing to let loose and be more sexually free.  Once this occurs, the men can more freely interact with the women.

What story (besides sexuality) does the visual music video tell?  If you had to watch the music video without sound, what story are you told and/or what message does the music video offer?

   
     The video has a simple message: Let's party!  Without the lyrics you can tell that the video is telling the viewer to go out to a club or party, get drunk, and have a crazy night. It mainly centers around alcohol being the key to having fun.  The video shows many images of the women holding bottles of alcohol juxtaposed with images of the women dancing. 

Does the music video reinforce harmful stereotypes or does it challenge them?  Provide examples from the video.

   
     I think that this video unfortunately reinforces harmful stereotypes.  It seems to suggest that all women are seeking excuses to be sexually promiscuous, and in this case they are told to drink alcohol so that they can party.  There is nothing wrong with women expressing their sexuality, but this video, like many others, suggests that all women want and need is sex, and that they need men to fulfill this desire.  Clips from this video could have been shown in the films Dreamworlds and Hip-hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes as examples of these stereotypes.  I almost laughed when I saw the opening scene of the music video, which featured a woman draped across Derulo's lap, because Dreamworlds discussed how common this image is.  In Hip-Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes, Byron Hurt discusses how the men in music videos are often shown admiring women's bodies, especially their butts.  This was seen in Derulo's video as well, with a woman standing beside the rapper Ty Dolla Sign in short shorts showing her backside to the camera.  The men in this video are more than willing to watch the women dance seductively.  The men only interact when the women throw themselves at the men.  In one scene some of the women are using the men almost like a strip pole, and of course the men hold them up and enjoy the "performance". This is reinforcing the idea that men are there to watch and women are there to perform for them.  After watching the countless examples of music videos shown in the films, I can see that this music video has many repetitive themes and is stereotypical.  

Given that music videos' target audience is adolescents (13-18 years old), what do you think adolescents learn about men, women, and relationships from this music video?

      
     It looks like the video will teach girls to drink when they party so that they can be sexually open and promiscuous for men.  Viewers might think that women must always be showing off for men to get any kind of attention from them.  Men are shown as viewers, and women are shown as the ones who must perform. The lesson for men here is to meet women at clubs or parties, because the women there will be more likely to fulfill men's fantasies in these settings.  

Link to Jason Derulo "Swalla" music video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGLxoKOvzu4&index=7&list=PLhS3DcL9XnJiyhbMAUPOK9d0qazofnb7O

Toys in Target

     This week, I went to Target and looked at their toy aisles for children.  Ever since I was little, Target has kept their boys and girls toys separate and the aisles look vastly different.  Usually the most defining characteristic between toys in various stores is the colors used; pink equals girls and blue, green, and earth tones equal boys.  As I walked into the "girls' aisle", I automatically saw that pink dominated the color scheme of the toy packaging, although it was not as blinding as I have seen in the past.  There were Disney princess dresses, Disney princess dolls, and many other dolls and small accessories.  

     Of course, the aisle also had Barbies and the accessories that go with them like the Barbie cars.  All of the toys in this aisle are traditionally feminine; dolls, dresses, etc. 

     I thought it was funny that there were Goldfish with pink and bright blue packaging at the end of the aisle.  (Because we all know girls need their food to be wrapped in pink.) 

     I then moved on to the "boys' aisle", where I saw many different types of toy cars with different brands.  Some were connected to the "Fast and Furious" movie franchise, some were Hot Wheels, and many others were from less well-known brands (to me at least).  The color scheme of this aisle seemed to have more soft blues and greens, orange, and earth tone colors, rather than the bright pinks and blues from the girls' aisle. 

     Many of the toys in this aisle were connected to the Marvel Superheroes.  There were action figures, play weapons, and masks.  These toys are all considered traditionally masculine. 

     I understand why stores choose to divide their toys by gender.  It seems that they do it because they believe that most parents and other shoppers think it is easier to find what they are looking for if the toys are organized this way.  This is because many consumers rely on the gender norms to guide them to a "girl" section for princess things and a "boy" section for toy cars.  The only way I could see it being negative is if a child wanted a toy that did not conform with these norms, they may be discouraged from getting it because it is not considered the right gender section for them.  For example, what if a girl wanted to get a toy car or a super hero action figure?  She may notice that the sections are separate or be told that "those are boys' toys", and that she needs a Barbie instead.  It would be frustrating to get a toy that you did not want just so that you would look "normal".  I remember that I loved to play with my dolls and I was attracted to traditionally feminine toys, but I also played with hot wheels cars and I was not very interested in Barbies.  I think many kids play with toys that do not necessarily fit into gender norms, but it does not seem that stores like Target have caught on yet. 

Consuming Emotionally Charged Images

          This week, we discovered that images are much more than what they seem.  They can make you think about complex topics, evoke emotion, or persuade you to have a new world view.  The advertisement below is for tires; more specifically, Michelin tires.  It is a simple image of a baby beside a car tire, with one brief, yet powerful phrase: "Michelin.  Because so much is riding on your tires."  This advertisement caught my eye because usually ads relating to cars evoke traditionally masculine themes, but this ad seems to appeal to families through appealing to people's need for dependability and safety in their car.  Most people, men or women, react to images of babies or children in a similar way; they feel the need to protect them.  The idea that children need protection is a commonly held world view.  This ad plays off of this emotion and it uses people's fear of getting into a car accident to then lead them to a preventative solution: Michelin tires.  The ad suggests that the only way to keep your child safe is to buy this brand of tires.  This message may not be entirely true, but it is powerful and simple.

      http://libguides.aisr.org/theoryofknowledge/emotion

          The image below is a journalistic image from The Guardian, and like the advertisement shown above, has a child at the focal point of it.  When this image came out in August of 2016, it flooded many news outlets.  It shows a boy that was pulled from the rubble after an air strike in Aleppo.  When I saw it, my heart sank and I felt the need to comfort the child in the photo.  I think many people had a strong emotional response to the image because it shows a young, innocent boy in the middle of war.  Seeing this picture made the chaos in Aleppo more tangible and real for those that live far away. It increases people's awareness of what it is like to live in a war torn region like Aleppo. I noticed that this image was cropped to make the boy be at the center of the picture, which definitely enhances its intensity.  The image captured a moment of fear and sadness for this child, and it inspires empathy and sadness in those who see it.  I think that the purpose of this image was to inspire people around the world to condemn conflict in Syria and other places around the world, in the name of protecting the lives of not only adults, but children who have no way out. Again, this image appeals to the world view that most people have in common, protecting children and their innocence. In this case, it would mean protecting children from war.   

     https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/18/boy-in-the-ambulance-image-emerges-syrian-child-aleppo-rubble

Toxic Sludge is Good For You: Current Legislation and Political Propositions

          It was extremely difficult to find legislation proposed in the last two weeks, but I was able to find political propositions in President Trump's Joint Address to Congress on February 28, 2017.  The proposition I would like to focus on is one that he has repeated many times in previous speeches, and reiterated in this speech.  He plans to lower the corporate tax rate (whitehouse.gov).  One can only speculate and logically deduce who will benefit from this type of legislation, because it has not been officially established yet.  By my assessment, the first ones to benefit from reducing the corporate tax rate are, of course, corporations.  Many corporations have been outsourcing their labor in order to work around high tax rates and regulations in the United States.  Taxes and regulations are always necessary, but the intent of lowering the tax rate is to bring companies back to the United States by creating a more enticing financial option than foreign countries can provide, which would theoretically boost the economy as a whole.  This idea is based on "trickle down economics", which basically states that if corporations do well, the poorer classes will be able to reap the benefits directly through employment or indirectly through a positive economic climate.  The day after President Trump's Joint Address to Congress, the stock market reached a record milestone, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average surpassing 21,000 points (marketwatch.com).  This seemed to suggest that investors were encouraged by the President's remarks, even though his proposal is not yet in the works.  It looks like those in the stock market have already benefited from the idea of this legislation, but it still remains to be seen if this proposal will become legislation, or if the proposal will meet the already high expectations set for it.

Links to sources:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wall-street-stocks-set-to-resume-rally-on-fed-rate-hike-hopes-trump-relief-2017-03-01
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/28/remarks-president-trump-joint-address-congress

Do the Media Challenge the Powerful?

     I think that our media challenges those in power all the time.  I have seen networks like CNN and MSNBC consistently challenging then candidate, now President, Trump and I have seen Fox News consistently challenge President Obama.  I can see the bias of these networks clearly; CNN and MSNBC lean left, while Fox News leans right.  So, our decision as consumers of this media becomes: what opinion do we want to hear when we turn on the news?  I do think that our media challenges our political leaders, but because certain news networks lean to different political views, you must watch a variety of networks to hear tough questions being asked about, and to, political leaders of different political parties.
     I was able to find a lot of examples of various networks challenging our political leaders.  Most of the examples I found were predictable based on the networks that they were on; many Fox News stories challenge Democrats and their policies and many MSNBC and CNN stories challenge Republicans and their policies. However, there were still some clips that surprised me.  One of these clips is from a show on MSNBC challenging the hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton and various news papers after the election, and the other is on a Fox News show that challenges then Candidate Trump's call for a "Muslim ban".   I provided the links to these two clips as well as a few more "predictable", in my opinion, clips of the media challenging those in political power.
     As to the discussion of fake news, I think that this has become a larger issue recently because the Internet and social media have become a part of most -if not all- people's lives in a huge way.  Anyone from anywhere can put their opinions into the public domain, which means that they can also put out lies. We are over saturated with information, and it can be overwhelming to take on the task of sifting through the truth, the lies, and the bias that can make the truth blurry.  I think that we have always needed to filter the information that we take in from our various media sources, but it is essential in today's climate of constant information dumping to read between the lines with anything that you see or hear.  This is frustrating, because I think that we all want to live in a world where the truth ultimately comes to the surface, but this is not always a reality.  We are responsible for being critical thinkers when it comes to our news and media, even though it may be difficult at times.

These clips surprised me:

Fox News: Bill O’Reilly discussing then candidate Trump's call for a "Muslim ban":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLhYMPwdEgM

MSNBC Morning Joe: Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski discussing the hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton and some news papers concerning the election results:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa0Og9TILiM

These clips were more predictable in my opinion:

CNN reporter Jim Acosta asks Trump about WikiLeaks and Russia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2eTo1et6VI

Fox News: Megyn Kelly discussing President Obama's silence about Kate Steinle's murder:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c6TF-a0AJo

MSNBC: Rachel Maddow discussing then President Elect Trump's policy and comments with Kellyanne Conway (begins approximately five minutes into the video clip):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4HxrVJvAGc

Week 4: "Joystick Warriors"

     I found an article titled 14 Mass Murders Linked to Violent Video Games (link: http://www.charismanews.com/culture/52651-14-mass-murders-linked-to-violent-video-games).  It described different instances in which people committed crimes and also played violent video games. It was particularly disturbing to read an online conversation between a soon-to-be shooter and fellow gamers, encouraging him to go through with a shooting and advising him on how to make it a "successful" one.  The author of this article was arguing that violent video games can cause people to be violent, and that it can cause them to have an altered view of reality.  I think that in some cases violent video games can inspire violence, but for the most part I feel that playing violent video games is only one of many factors that causes someone to become violent.  If everyone who played video games was violent, it would not be safe anywhere.  I do agree with the film Joystick Warriors that video games can change one's perspective of violence to make them more desensitized to it.  This effect has its own ramifications, such as being comfortable with seeing violence, or as the film describes, being a less empathetic person.
     The film also discussed the product placement of weapons, mainly guns, in various video games.  I do not think that there is a need for much concern about this.  Just because a product is advertised, blatantly or subliminally, does not mean that you have to buy it, or even become more accepting of it.  Even if some people would like to buy a gun because of the marketing in video games, and assuming these gun owners are responsible, why is this a problem?  Just because someone buys a gun after seeing it in a video game does not mean that they will use it as they would in that game.  Of course, not everyone is a responsible gun owner, and may use their gun to inflict harm.  I just do not think that gun sales would be harmed significantly if they were no longer advertised in video games.  There were some interesting statistics that I found in a Washington Post article about the drop in gun ownership in the last forty years (link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.8988ce28ac5c).  Video games have become more violent and presumably advertise guns more often now than forty years ago, yet less people own guns than they did in the late 1970s.  The article did say that people who own guns own a greater number of guns, but this does not necessarily connect to the product placement of guns in video games.  It shows that there are not as many new buyers of guns, which is what the video games' main target audience is; young people that do not own guns yet.  For this reason, I do not think that the marketing of weapons in video games should be a concern; it does not seem to inspire that many young gamers to buy guns.