Tag Archive for: dept-none-3

This was a continuation of the past two weeks of engaging with respect to LGBT discrimination. This week I did something different and tried contacting people through direct messages on Twitter. I have not yet gotten a response but have been more optimistic since I have increased my number of followings and followers. I’ve tried big organizations but I’ve come to realize that it may be easier to get a response from people or smaller organizations with less followers. I did receive a thank you from someone I followed but they also asked me if I was interested in making money and directed me to a link. So I don’t know if that was a spam message or not. Maybe I should reply and see if I get a response.

Although I haven’t received any sort of response, I have learned so much about current LGBT events and political campaigns.

Today I also learned that the Obama administration has announced their support for protecting LGBT Americans from discrimination on a federal level.

The Washington Post reports: “Speaking to reporters, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the administration ‘has been reviewing for several weeks’ the [Equality Act, introduced July 2015]. ‘It is now clear that the administration strongly supports the Equality Act.’ Earnest added the White House would ‘work to ensure that the legislative process produces something that balances the bedrock principles of civil rights with the religious liberty that we hold dear in this country.’”

Obama was also named ally of the year by OUT magazine and has been placed on the cover.

This week was the final installment of engaging into social media for our social issues and topics. I tried something a little different with my engaging. Communicating via tweets and Instagram comments on strangers’ photos can sometimes feel like shouting into the void that the Internet can be, so I posted a status on Facebook that explained the situation and asked for my friends on Facebook for their input about LGBT rights and representation.

Although, the idea of the void did not stop me from tweeting YA author John Green for his opinion on the subject. John Green, aside from being an author I admire, keeps a presence on social media via YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, Facebook, and I’m sure through other medias. He tries to be very up to date with social issues, so if I were to get his input on representation, that would have been interesting to hear (I did not receive any response from Mr. Green, but I’m sure he’s a busy man).

While everyone I connect to on Facebook are labeled by the website as my “friends,” in truth, many of them are simply acquaintances. A lot of the people I connect to on Facebook are people I knew at some point in my life; they remain my Facebook friends for the convenience of staying in touch. I knew that opening the question of the adequacy of LGBT representation in media to my connections on Facebook would allow people I don’t talk to to say their opinion. Instead of shouting into a void, I felt like I was shouting more into a megaphone directing my words at a room of people who are in no obligation to respond to me but, because they know me personally, may feel comfortable enough to respond, despite the frequency of our conversations. And, luckily, I was right! I publicly was given many “likes” on my Facebook status, which lets me know that people are reading it and are probably interested in LGBT representation as well (this is the type of interaction I would receive on Twitter, Tumblr, and Instagram, as well: “likes” and “favorites”). Some people, a couple that I talk to presently and one that I don’t really talk to any more, messaged me privately and we discussed some of the topics surrounding LGBT representation.

Interestingly, I found that my Facebook contacts yielded similar opinions to the posts that I found way back when I was lurking social media. I’m glad that my engaging helped to find this much insight on the topic. I think it shows that the entire generation is on the same page of LGBT representation: there’s not enough of it, and it’s important to have it accurately portrayed for future generations.

On the topic of general representation (and not just LGBT representation), I got to speak with some friends about how children of color or of minority (whether it is sexuality, gender, race, etc.) will not be able to imagine themselves as something until they see it for themselves. This brought to mind the two little girls who dressed up as Zendaya and as Lupita Nyong’o in their dresses they wore to the Oscars. It was more than just seeing people who looked like them at the Oscars, though (below is a picture comparing the little girl and Zendaya; I couldn’t find the exact picture for Lupita and the girl). Zendaya stood up for herself and her heritage when her look with locs was criticized, and Lupita spoke about the importance of following their dreams: “may it remind me and every little child that no matter where you’re from, your dreams are valid.” I believe that that’s why I’m so drawn to research LGBT representation; it’s important for children of all shakes of life to feel like they are valid and that they exist, that they’re represented.

Chapter 9

“5 million alcohol abusers have children under eighteen living with them” (Sternheimer, 219). When using the video of Miley Cyrus, for example and saying that kids are going to copy her behavior. I say it is a stupid concept, I don’t nor have I ever copied the dumb things that celebrates or even loved ones do. Its back to the old saying,”if so and so jumped off a bridge would you do it”. This whole role model thing is really stupid when you don’t even know Miley Cyrus personally, why is she effecting the choices you make>?

In Sternheimer she discusses the only reason that children are not smoking is because their parents are not (p. 221). Even though I do not agree on making someone you have never met your role model. I do agree that children copy their parents.

The quote on page 227 is very interesting,”Movie smoking may be a last-ditch effort of the tobacco industry to advertise through product placement…”It makes sense its the last way for them to advertise, so of course their going to push themselves into motion pictures.

Talking about alcohol, the older generation keeps surprising us in this book. Sternheimer talks about 55-59 year olds binge drinking? Heavy drinking is drinking more than five times a month? She is right when she says no one is taught how to safely drink and this an issue.

People so often joke about eating or smoking or drinking the wrong thing. Just today in class, a few classmates sitting next to me were talking about how “everything gives you cancer” and as a classmate drank a Monster he laughed and said this probably has cancer. AND we know for a fact now that meat has cancer causing agents in it (thank you World Health Organization)..  I TRIED TO PUT THE LINK BUT IT AINT WORKING. So, why are we so quick to throw shade at cigarettes and alcohol BUT NOT MEAT!?

I also am very confused about this new concept of over dosing on over the counters to become high, i think people nowadays are bored, maybe we should give them more homework.

Sorry for the late post! I think my midterm season seems to have come a couple weeks after everyone else’s.

(Sherlock anyone?)

Anyways, how did everyone’s anti-ad end up? I really liked the assignment and I think if I were teaching media literacy I would definitely use it in a classroom (especially with teenagers!).

On the topic of readings, I (once again) found this week’s readings interesting. However, I actually found more interest in Sterheimer’s chapter than the Harris and Bargh report (article? research?). I have always found the connection between media and eating disorders and obesity really fascinating so I was very intrigued by this section of the book. The biggest takeaway I took was that  there are different responses to media depending on the person consuming it (p.204). I think this is a really important point to note when looking at any “affects” of media, from violence to sexuality and now health. I did find Sterheimer’s history of “fasting girls” and the changes in societal perceptions about weight really interesting since I had never heard about most of it. I do agree with her statement that media can contribute to body dissatisfaction but not necessarily eating disorders. I know many of us can feel, after reading the September issue of Vogue for example, not too comfortable in our own bodies. I’m trying to think of ways that we could combat this, but I can’t think of anything that is beyond the individual’s responsibility (i.e. putting down the magazine once they feel uncomfortable, searching for body-positive types of media). I wish there was some sort of anti-media magazine that had realistic and unairbrushed models (men AND women!). I know American Eagle has taken to not photoshopping models for their lingerie line, but I think there should be more than just advertisements that take this approach. Any ideas?

The next reading was the Harris and Bargh study about food preferences and the influence of television on eating. The point they seemed to repeat time and time again (and even tested) was that perceived taste is the most important determining  factor for healthy and unhealthy food preferences. How the heck do we fight something that is inherent? Genetic even?? I know they gave some solutions like PSAs, parent-child communication, and reducing exposure to unhealthy message on TV. However, if we are built with a taste preference, how do we change it? I did find it interesting that their study found that the relationship between early TV viewing and unhealthy eating continues into early adulthood (p. 14). I wonder if they did a longer study if the same findings would continue through adulthood and on-wards? Do any of you feel like watching TV when you are younger caused you eat unhealthy? I will say that I think I fell privy to the “free toy” thing, especially if it was for a show or movie or something that I really liked. I mean, who doesn’t want a Hello Kitty watch with their kid’s meal??

The relationship between television viewing and unhealthy eating: Implications for children and media interventions.

It’s so sad to know how much TV advertisments can influence what we eat especially for children.  “Humans possess an innate preference for sweet, high-fat and salty foods, and a reluctance to try unfamiliar foods, however, early experiences are critical in shaping individual food preferences”(pg 2). I do not believe TV advertisments should take the full blame for the increase in child obesity because children do not have full control of what they eat. Parents can help influence healthy foods from the beginning because they can literally control what their children eat. What if children never tasted junk food? Would they still crave it?

When children start to develop their own food preferences they do so mostly from past food experiences. In additon, TV advertisments that encourage junk food also help influence unhealthy decisions. When children are sitting at home watching fast food advertisments on TV they may crave what they are watching because the advertisments do a pretty good job in selling their products. For example, the study in this article shared how children had higher ratings for certain foods after watching an advertisment about it compared to those who didn’t watch an advertisment. This study only proves how important media literacy is for children especially because of the impact advertisments have on children’s health.

What’s a good solution for this problem?

Media literacy can be extremly helpful for children to help them understand  advertisments about unhealthy foods. However, I agree most with the solution of parent-child communication.  From personal experience, my parents would sometimes critize TV adverisments by pointing out the facts about them. In fact, when I watchTV advertisments today I am very skeptical because my parents influenced me to not believe everything we see on TV. Moreover, like the article mentioned this type of communication could have some negative or positive impacts on children. What solution would be best?