Classism and a hint of foolishness

As far as literary criticism goes, I think Parenti is pretty dead on with Treasure Island. As far as the rest, I'm not so sure. He digs a whole that is probably a little too deep: the Woman Under the Influence kind of made me scratch my head. Is he honestly proposing the only reason she doesn't get better is because the husband's not middle class? Maybe he's overlooking the fact that the two characters, BOTH underclass, are made underclass to seem relatable to a wider audience.

If anything, classism goes the opposite way, I'd say. Very few people sympathize with the rich guy--in fact, the only reason we see them is to create a Prince-n'-the-Pauper parallel, or some sort of romantic Cinderella-esque story ("Pretty Woman"). Nowadays, though, the middle class seem to be particularly overlooked as characters in media--we are intrigued in media by the struggling under class, who we deem more noble in a sense than those who succeeded by equal amounts of hard work.

To quote Ben Folds: "Ya'll don't know what it's like being male, middle class, and white."

Signs of Intelligence on TV

She makes decent points--good analysis of a topic often overlooked. I totally see what she was talking about how even leading female roles are viewed from a very male perspective. However, she definitely goes off task by the end--her complaint of our police system is irrelevant with the main topic of the article, which is male-female perspective. I really wish writers would stick to their topics and not stray off onto other related Liberal ideas.

Gay Marriage and Batman

Homosexual Marriage Article:

I can't say I disagree with this article, although I didn't like the actual written style. It seems that the majority of issues with gay marriage revolve how it ruins the sanctity of hetero-marriage, so I've often wondered why they don't come up with a legally binding contract that can be shared without necessarily calling it marriage: legal life partnership, etc. I know they have some legal equivalents, but it'd be wise to have a national one. Ya know, I suppose the people don't even have to be gay sometimes, but have to be residents who aid one and other--housemates, hetero-life-partners, etc.

Batman Article:

First off, what the heck is "camping"?! I never quite got a straight answer about what this was, and the author even admitted to not really having a full definition, but he used it plenty enough. I really felt like that limited my understanding of the article. In fact, I couldn't quite figure out what he was trying to get at: his range of topics seemed a little broad. Anyway, he definitely discusses the homoeroticism shared between Batman and Robin, and used this eroticism as a means of showing how our culture reacts negatively to it: either we hate Batman and Robin for being homoerotic (not gay, though), or we hate people for thinking they are, because of COURSE they can't be gay! (in their opinion) Either way, we see homophobia in both arguments.

Now seriously, what the hell is camping?!

Barbie's Birth (un)Mark

Barbie article:

This article juxtaposes the physical form of Barbie with its creator, who apparently was a weapons designer (fascinating!). The article seems to argue that we can easily see the man-design in Barbie, notably her large breasts and thin waist, and that through Barbie and Ken we see the interesting interpretations we as a culture have on our own bodies (Ken is castrated, but Barbie is given her large breasts). Arguably, I don't think selling little girls a toy with fully functioning male genitalia is a great idea; breasts are a strange phenomena because, unlike other sex organs, you grow up knowing they're there. Unlike male and reproductive organs, which can easily be stowed in pants, breasts are not easily concealed, nor comfortably. The article makes good points, but they don't quite elaborate on them and find a conclusion--which is both a pro and con. I like how it's just an observation, but at the same time, I'd like to know WHY it's being observed.

Marked Women:

Essentially, this writer argues that women and femininity are "marked," much like the word FEmale, which is male prefixed with 'FE.' The linguistic and biological arguments the author made were excellent and fascinating, and does make one wonder why we look at male as the unmarked, original human. However, I think thinking in this way disregards our very Biblical roots, which started out with Adam and the Father--now why THAT occurred instead of Eve and the Mother is an interesting question.

However, as far as the whole dressing thing and the "Well-I-Bet-You-Assume-I'm-A-Feminist" thing goes, she kind of lost me. She did make an interesting point that men seem to be able to blend more easily, but it wasn't well supported. By clothes, I don't think men or women can be unmarked: the professors she described seemed slightly frumpy and in between business and casual; looking decent, but not great. She also went to great lengths to stress that their hair was unremarkable, and then described all the different hair they could have. However, their own "unremarkable" hair is a marked hair: it marks that they ARE not Marines, skinheads, hippies, etc. EVERYONE is marked: it's called discrimination. All humans do it. If you try to describe the most unremarkable-but-casual outfit, I'd guess jeans, t-shirt, sneakers--which works on both genders.

She also had a point that I did assume she was slightly feminist, which I have no evidence of. However, her comparison with the other professor lost me: the subjects were inherently different. His topic of interest was pronouns, hers the implication on gender of pronouns--there's a big difference. One is mechanical, the other social; thus, he appears to be a linguist, she a feminist.

Also, I feel really bad for the good-looking woman she described. I don't see why women have to be so hostile to those who are attractive. They're people too!

Whining Children, Ranting Feminists

Kid Kustomers:

An interesting article--I had no idea advertising was targeted so young, and the article's purpose was to explain advertising techniques and the results thereof. I am kind of curious as to how many people don't know about these advertising strategies: I feel like I was always aware of how they operated, even as a kid. Of course they wanted to sell me something, and if it was something I wanted to buy, I bought it with the allowance my parents gave me.

Parents: there's something we shouldn't forget about. Children have whined for toys since they were first made (both toys and children)--I'm not sure if advertising has aggrandized that, but a material culture in general. It's a parent's job to teach their kids about advertisements and about money management. I'm not sure if we should make laws to compensate for lacking parenting. My Uncle Sam should never be my father. It is scary seeing how often children watch TV, but again, that's a parent's problem. Nabisco or Star Wars advertisers didn't plant a TV in that child's bedroom--their parents did.

Sex, Lies, and Advertising

This article kind of infuriated me. Not what she was saying--as convoluted and rambling as that was--but how she said it and the message she delivered with it. I gather the essential point was that advertisers perpetuate female stereotypes and refused to bend to the author's desire for a new feminist magazine. Ms. is a great idea built on a better cliche: "Written by ______, for _____." Again: great idea, and her frustration with the corporate advertising machine is understandable. However, in the name of keeping prices of magazines low, one has to endure ads that aren't the greatest.

Now for what bothered me: the divisiveness of her speech. There is nothing wrong with equal rights--men and women should be totally, 100%; judged not by the contents in their pants, but by the content of their character. However, Steinem transgresses the line often, almost waging war on men--her tone is not one of equality, but separation. Separation is, to degrees, natural and healthy; everyone likes to be an individual and relate to an individual group. But for a magazine with aims of equality, saying things like "when statistics show that women's rate of lung cancer is approaching men's, the necessity of taking cigarette ads has become a kind of prison." Why is that its only a matter of worry when the statistics is near men's--oh, it doesn't matter if THEY'RE dying. No, that's awful. Any statistic should be faced as an equal enemy. Even further, Steinem undermines and divides even women--there are Ms. women and then there's the rest.

As a man, with feelings and a beating heart just like Steinem's, this article bothered me. Reverse prejudice--prejudice equal to that which it reacts--is an ugly creature.

MRIs and Metros

Metrosexuality article:

A really interesting article, although metrosexuality just seems like its not as much a new fad as the article seems to claim. In their argument, it appears that marketing programs are latching onto a new phase, but the "metro man" has been around since the Southern Gentry. In fact, I'm not sure if the term "metroSEXUALITY" is really the correct word--sexuality defines how one feels attracted sexually, not how one appears. Metro really describes gender roles more so, so I suppose it'd be "metrogenderality." It's another classification for another group of people: straight people with good fashion. Still, a cool article o'er all.

If My Brain had a Buy Button:

An interesting article with good back up; it's hard to argue with MRI images and physical data. I could definitely see how we adhere to product loyalties--even if we're joking around with friends, there is a hint of truth to the "Pepsi/Coke" debate we all end up having at lunch at some point. I really wonder how exactly commercials can create this loyalty, though. I don't think I've ever really seen a Coke commercial, but yet I prefer it and undoubtedly would be one of those people in the taste-test swayed by their own mind. Maybe loyalty to a product is just a mental short cut--why try something new if you know something tastes good or is appealing?

As for the ramifications of this--as some feared with the "Orwellian advertisements"--I wouldn't be too worried. I like to believe that, being human, we are granted with certain gifts, and among those is self control. However, I also believe that, being human, we are often likely to not act with self control--I suppose that's the only scary part.

Parable of Democracy

Basically, Marchand claims that advertisers use an equalizing strategy to appeal to their audience: "Look, the rich have it, so can you!" or "Even rich people have this problem!" He backs it up with a steady flow of ads and examples from these early advertisers. As one can see from the ads he provides, there's validity to this argument, though it does not represent the whole of advertising, but simply on strategy among many. One can see this even in modern day advertisements to degrees. Make-up ads do the same thing, but more subtly--now Beyonce informs women that they too can have luscious eyelashes, just like the ones she bats at them playfully. Dove soap equalizes it further by doing its "real women" campaigns, which are heartfelt and inspiring, but also culpable of using the "democratic parable" to sell their product, as they say "real women use this product, and real women have the same beautiful qualities and the same flaws."