I agree with what Jessica commented on with the government and media. I do however have one thing to say about it. I do think that we should sensor certain things but at the same time not everything can be sensored. Think back to a time when you first saw something that you were not supposed to see because it was thought of as being"nauty" or unappropriate to be seeing. You didn't want to run and ask your parents about what you saw so instead you asked your friends and peers. I think that the media helps to influence our reactions and how we come to learn about things both positive and negative and that this issue will never change.

Just to commment on the government's role in media; the government is what is Protecting Freedom Of Speech, amendment number one. This is why we can say what we want here on this message board even. Back to a comment I made earlier, that if we censored everything potentially harmful or offensive, there would be nothing left! The government has nothing to do with what a particular network chooses to air, as long as it is within certain broad guidelines. What controls what a network chooses to show are their own "morals", ie. not alienating their viewing audience. It is not the government's moral decision because they can't, that would be censorship, which is illegal. The government did not sit down and say, Will can not have a boyfriend, and that networks are limited to one homosexual couple per year. Once again, thinking for ourselves would tell one to switch the channel or turn the television off and don't blame outside forces for what one is capable of changing. Networks air what gets ratings. They don't force one to like what they show, but in turn they show what the population has responded favorably to, through rating charts. I don't agree with everything that is on tv, but I also realize that it's there because someone thought it was a good idea, and it must be working. Advertising is far from subliminal, I think, it is right in your faces, telling you what they want you to know. So take it for what it's worth. Just something to think about from another perspective.

Katie, you bring up a good point, everyone on that show are placed into very specific categories. But has anyone ever thought about the fact that TV shows and movies always have that one token minority character? In Saved By the Bell's case, it's Lisa. She is pretty much the only African American you will see on that show. Same goes for movies like Clueless (on which we could have plenty of other convos about the Barbie image). At the high school in that movie, there are pretty much only 2 Black people, who happen to be dating each other. I have noticed this a lot in the entertainment industry, has anyone else?

Going along with the tv theme..... I'm sitting here watching Saved By The Bell. A childhood favorite, I still enojy watching it everyday in reruns from 12-1. I started thinking about how the show always seemed so PC, but really it just places people into very exclusive catagories. You know, if you're a girl, you're either smart, fashionable or popular. If you're a boy, you're either funny, a jock or a nerd. And along with each of these catagorizations comes a whole way of life, how you should act, who you should date, and what you should expect from your friends.
Of course, when I was younger I always wanted to be like Kelly, the popular one, because she was the "coolest". Why didn't I want to be Jessie, the smart one? Or Lisa, the fashionable one? I think Jessie's character was writen to be a little on the annoying side. Or maybe I was just subject to society's pressure to be popular. What do you guys think? Did anyone feel the same way?

Katie brought up a good point. We can't lay all the blame at the feet of the media. While what we see is filtered through the media, because there had to be a medium for brainwashing, there is someone else behind it. The government controls what we know and what we see. This goes for politics and for more frivolous material. That's why there aren't more homosexual couples on TV. And that's why Will doesn't have a boyfriend on Will and Grace and why the only lesbian on day time television was raped, is pregnant and her girlfriend is going to attempt suicide. Our government uses media to give us the information, messages and images that they want to promote. It is our less than subtle form of brainwashing we use to promote our causes and dampen down opposition.

I was watching Extreme Makeover last night (the show where people COMPLETELY change their looks with plastic surgery) and all I could think of was this class and how we could talk about this show for hours. There were two cases: a man trying to impress a girl at his work, and a set of twins, one much prettier (whatever "prettier" is) than the other and the other twin wanted to look more like her. Throughout the whole show, the commentator kept referring to the twin as "the ugly duckling" or saying "now she won't have to be the ugly twin!" and it made me sick. I know that making themselves over may make them feel better themselves, but it proved to me how much appearances are important. This kind of goes along with Bethany's comments on "the shell" that you make for yourself, but in this case, it's not just clothes or a look, it's your actual flesh that you are changing. I don't know about anyone else, but I could never do that to myself. These people were completely different when they were done with their surgeries. It's all a little freaky to me.

Edited by author 09-19-2003 10:41 AM
I think that sometimes people don't realize that there is a system in place here. Call it patriarchy, call it capitalism, call it the media, but there is a whole network of people, things, businesses, governments, etc that work together to create what we see, do, feel every day. Some of us are smart enough to consciously pick out the negative messages that we see and work against them or at least disregard them. But, to most people, these messages are subconscious. Most people are not looking at ads, news stories, or tv shows to pick out what is "wrong." But the messages conveyed in this mediums sink into our brains, teaching us whether we want to be taught or not. You also have to think about the world we live in that would allow such nasty images to be made public. One example of this system working is in the judicial system. There, you can be charged with assult for punching someone in a fight and you will most likely get in trouble. But if that person happens to be your spouse, very little, if anything at all, will happen to you. What kind of a message does this send? This is not something that only happens in one case. This is universal. Why does our government think this is fair? I think it's b/c of the system that is in place trying to tell us what to think. Good for you if you aren't paying attention, but realize that other people are getting the message even if they don't mean to.

  Though it seems easy to focus on negative images that we think we are supposedly sent, sometimes we need to sit back and think of why these images are being broadcast in the first place. Advertisers have been taught that sex sells, this is no big mysetery. If what were sexy were overweight, or maybe green hair, or purple skin, that is what we would see. The flip side of this would be that overweight is not necessaily healthy and neither is dying your skin. Not too long ago it was considered unattractive to be thin, beecause it meant you were poor and could not afford food. A little after that the ideal body shape consisted of a lack of visual butt or breasts. The advertising we see is not the problem. It is our ability to think for ourselves and take things at face value. If one is to let a simple ad interfere with their daily life, then there is a bigger problem at stake. It is much too easy to blame what is around you, rather than your own way of controlling your mind and body.
  The issue of Barbie strikes me in the same way. The doll is sold because it makes money, it is a toy, nothing else. In the era it was first produced, blonde and thin was attractive, so why not market it. If we were to eliminate every image, toy, and prose that was potentially offensive, demeaning, and harmful due to a person's history, race, sexual preference, etc. then none of these things would even be able to exist. Media exists because people are easily influenced, and media will continue to exploit this no matter how hard one fights against it. Therefore, maybe a different route should be taken; instead of focusing on how negative one thinks they are being portrayed, promote education, independence, and self-awareness.

so, i was watching tv today, and there was a rerun of "the king of queens" on. there were about five different female characters in the show, and every single one of them made some comment about her weight or her figure. i was so disgusted! the plot had nothing to do with dieting or anything like that, so why did they feel the need to include dialogue that turned these beautiful female characters into whiny, image-obsessed crash dieters? it hit me really hard and i realized the message that we are being sent. "women worry about their weight all the time, that's just the way it is. if you don't worry about your weight, then there's something wrong with you." i personally care very little about gaining or losing weight. sure, i would like to drop a few pounds in some places and put on a few more in other places, but that doesn't stop me from eating brownies and cheese fries.

i also saw a commercial that featured a bunch of women shopping for clothes and being really really frustrated. they were saying things like "what's wrong with this mirror?" and "she's only a mannequin, so why do i hate her?" at first, it seemed like it was highlighting how difficult it is for women to shop for clothes because of all the pressure that is put on us to have perfect bodies. but in the end, it was a commercial for special k, trying to get women to go on that stupid "eat nothing but special k for two weeks and then be the hottest girl on the beach" diet. sick. i realized then why i hardly ever watch tv. it's degrading and demeaning, and messages like the ones i received today disgust me.

i could not help but say something about the nature of the commercials and the tv show that i saw. the other women who i was watching tv with had not even noticed the negative messages they were being sent. however, they agreed with what i was saying. it just takes someone to point things out once, and then all of the negativity toward women in the media starts to jump out at you.

While you're at it, go to this website and leave a response on their posting board:
http://www.stripclubnews.com/news/comments.php?id=113
(Sorry, I just got really worked up about this!)

Go here and tell me that this isn't the most ridiculous thing you've ever read:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/09/09/of....tuition/index.html

I didn't realize how stereotypical Ms. Gilman's Barbies were until it was brought up in class. I think this is because the Barbie that we all know and love/d is a stereotype also...I know everyone's told or heard at least one dumb blond joke. Perhaps the Klaus Barbies are pretty awful stereotypes, but it's because of them that we were able to understand Ms. Gilman's intent.
As for the anatomically correct Barbie, I'm with Carrie. The only Barbies I owned as a little girl were given to me by others on my birthday. My parents didn't buy them for me, but neither did they condone the ones that I did own. They were hard to assimilate into my sister's and my community of dolls, which mostly consisted of stuffed animals who had specific names and personal histories. Barbies tended to filter down to the bottom of the wicker basket where we kept all of our dolls. I knew that Barbie was incomplete, and I knew this because I was encouraged to ask ANY question of my parents throughout my childhood. They didn't keep secrets from me. Responsibility lies with parents to educate their children regarding the innacurate anatomy of their Barbies, should the children bring it up. Or even if they don't.

Jennifer- I agree with you as well. I really enjoyed the past two readings we had. As funny as I found the other Barbies the writer listed (dinner roll barbie etc) I still found that to be stereotypical in itself. I agree that Barbies should have more diversity and that their bodies are completely unrealistic. Yet, I played with barbies when I was little. Even though they did not have detailed genitals it did not affect me in anyway. I knew what the anatomy of a male and female human was. I did not need my Barbies to be equipped with every body part. Barbies were used for my imagination and simply just play. I don't think it is necessary for Barbies to have pubic hair and nipples. If parents are open with their children then there should be no confusion.

Hi everyone, Just popped in to post a quick message ... Barbie Nation is the name of the book about the history and legacy of Barbie that I mentioned in class on Wednesday evening. It is where I learned about the manufacturing history of the doll, among other things. A really entertaining and critical read, if you're interested.

I'll be back to repond to some of your messages tonight ...

John, I think it's interesting that you mention barbie nazis looking at where the barbie doll originated. I find it very disturbing that a former sex doll is being used as the first doll that most girls every play with. I also find it disturbing to think about the fact that the Barbie doll might have been originally used as a way to spread Aryan (?) message around and make it more popular. Little girls want to BE this doll, as shown by katie, and it is pushing forth an ideal that isn't achievable for little girls like myself who have dark skin, sark eyes and dark hair. I remember getting really upset over my lack of blonde hair and spending hours wishing I could have it.