April 27th Makeup Blog - Modern Family vs. The Fosters

Two shows. Two families. Are these families representations of what families are like today?

In the show The Fosters, two women are parent figures to multiple children. Modern Family shows how three families are connected. A brother and sister, their father and step-mother, and their separate families. What these two shows have in common is the fact that they depict families that are different that what we may picture. A lesbian couple and their blended family composed of biological and foster children. A gay couple and their asian baby. A second marriage with a much younger women. These two shows are depicting families that are becoming more and more common. 

But are these families accurate representation of families today? I don't think they are that accurate. I think that these shows bring awareness to different types of families, but there is also an added sense of drama or comedy to the way these families live. I think that is where the misrepresentation comes in. 

What ‘Modern Family’ Says About Modern Families April 27th 2015

Modern Family, which aired in 2009, has been a hit sitcom for years now. It depicts the lives of three families, who are all related. Jay and his second wife Gloria, and her son Manny, Jay's grown daughter Claire, her husband Phil, and their three children, and Jay's grown son Mitchell, his partner Cam, and their adopted daughter. The writers wanted to depict what they believed to be today's "modern family". A second marriage, a gay couple, and lots of different quirks. Much of the controversy surrounding Modern Family has to do with Cam and Mitchell. They had been shown in bed together, among other things. And for a while, they had never been shown kissing. The writers of Modern Family seemed to go back and forth when determining how to portray the modern family. I think that this show doesn't really depict the modern families today. 

Gender Neutral Children April 27th 2015

I think that the idea of raising a baby gender-neutral is really progressive. Unfortunately, people don't feel the same way. Dr. Harold Koplewicz, who is a child psychiatrist in the US believes that this kind of upbringing can be detrimental to a child's development. I think the opposite. I think allowing children to explore everything that the world has to offer is important, rather than just forcing children into molds, that they may not fit it. Sasha's parents say that they don't want they child to conform to stereotypes. All children should be playing with dolls, and all children should be playing with legos. When I am a parent one day, I know that I would rather have my children playing with gender neutral toys, rather than conforming to given stereotypes. Children should be encouraged to express who they are in the way they feel most comfortable. I think it is important to note the difference between sex and gender. Sex is biological, where gender can reflect something different than sex. Children should not be forced into molds of what girls or boys should be like. This being said, I think raising a child gender neutral is a great idea in theory, but could be more difficult in practice. We see that most of the issues surrounding this idea come from the society in which the child is raised. People, outside of the child's family may not know how to react or treat a child that they don't know the gender of. This is just an effect of how that generation was raised. I think that gender neutrality is something that future generations should be working hard to move towards. Also, the way a child is raised is completely up to the parents. In Sasha and Storm's case, their parents made the decision to raise their child in this way because they feel that is what is best for their child. More power to them! 

Social Networks April 19th 2015

Today, there are a plethora of Social Media sites and apps that let us connect with all different people from all over the world. FaceBook in particular is a Social Networking site that has become extremely possible since its launch in 2004. We see a lot of different things on FaceBook today, from ads, to trending news reports, and most importantly, people's personal profiles. In my case, the 'friends' I have on Facebook are all people that I know and have met before. That is not the same in all cases. I think the the friends I have have on Facebook have profiles that directly reflect who they are. People who are outgoing tend to post a lot and voice their opinions. They people who are introverted don't always post as often or be as opinionated on Social Media. I think that the friends I have on FaceBook are 'gendered' according to who that person is. And the people I'm friends with don't serve as a virtual personality.

What we do see all to often is the idea of 'catfishing'. This is when a person creates a fake online profile and uses it to create romantic relationships, etc. This poses a huge issue because it leads people to believe that the people they are talking to online are not who they say they are. It can be dangerous and upsetting. All of this is can be seen on MTV's show Catfish, where the hosts Nev and Max follow these leads and expose, or sometimes disprove, the idea of these fake personalities. 

I think that FaceBook is a great way to be in contact with other people and network, but it can also be something that can be abused. People may end up portraying themselves differently on Social Networks, which can lead to bad outcomes. 

Reality Television April 12th 2015

Normally, I am not one for reality TV, therefore this week posed a bit of a challenge. After browsing through Netflix for awhile, I came upon the show Dance Moms. I had heard a lot about it so I thought I would give it a try. After watching one 40 minute episode, I was in awe of the outrageous lifestyle of these young girls. They spend 7 days a week, 6 hours a day dancing, and their weekends competing. Dance Moms doesn't just follow these girls, it follows the drama between their mothers, as well as their dance teacher Abby. This particular episode the mothers were struggling with the costume and dance that the girls were doing for the weekends competition. They said that they were dressed too 'skimpy' and dancing too 'sexy'. Both of these things I agree with, and the girls actually ended up not placing because they were disqualified because of the content of their routine. 

These are the outfits that the girls wore to their competition in Lancaster PA. I think that gender is portrayed in the most extreme way in this show. These girls are as 'girly' as they come. They love dance, makeup, costume, and being a girl. There was a scene in this episode where a new girl was coming to audition. She was six years old, and she said, "I like to dance... and play baseball." I think that for the religious watcher of Dance Moms, this comment would be shocking. This show is all about the girliest gender, and all of the girls and moms conform to this stereotype that she show is playing in to. 

Girl Rising April 13th 2015

Wadley is an 8 year old girl from Haiti. Wadley loved going to school to learn, and after the earthquake hit, her mother could not afford to send her to school. 

This is Azmera. She is 14 and from Ethiopia. It is common for girls of her age to be married. But in Ethiopia, the law is that girls must be 18 to be married. Unfortunately, girls as young as 7 are being married off for money. 

These two girls had something great in common. They both were not afraid to stand up to those who brought them down, and make a better life for themselves. In Wadley's case, after the earthquake hit Haiti, and her mother didn't have the money to send her to school, Wadley pushed to go to school anyway. She noticed one day that her teacher was teaching students under a tent by the refuge camp. Wadley showed up one day, but was asked to leave because her mother didn't have the money to pay. Even though her mother told her she couldn't go back because of this, she went back the next day, ready to learn. Again, the teacher asked her to leave. Wadley responded by saying that each day that she is asked to leave, she will still return the next day. Because of her perseverance, the teacher actually allowed her to stay. She knew that an education was important for her, and she made sure that she got to school. Azmera stood up to oppressors in a similar way. Azmera's father and sister had died, leaving her mother a widow with a son and daughter. The elders in her village wanted Azmera to marry because of her family situation. When a stranger (an older one) came along to marry her, her mother was prepared to marry her off, but her brother vowed that he would sell all he owned to keep her in school. As well as her brother speaking out against it, Azmera said no, she did not want to be married yet. She wanted to stay in school. She was taking a big step for her future by using her own voice to make her own choice.

Both of these girls stood up for what they wanted and believed in. In comparison to girls in America, these girls have it tough. Girls in America have the luxury of attending school and most of them see it as the only option. In our society it is understood that girls and boys will go to school to get the education they need to succeed in life. They would never even think of being married to an older man. Unfortunately, girls around the world are not as privilege as the girls in America, and American children often don't even realize this fact. This documentary really opened my eyes to the privileges we have, and the ethical issues for young girls all around the world.

Boys, Girls and Toys- Oh My April 3rd 2015

The image above displays the same exact toys with different packaging to appeal to one sex over the other. Why can't they just create a unisex box for the same toy? It seems like a lot of extra work to do for something that is exactly the same when the box is opened. 

These books seem to be produced by the same company. This is just reenforcing gender stereotypes that girls have to be gorgeous, and boys have to be clever. What if a boy wanted to be gorgeous and a girl wanted to be clever? It seems as though that's not an option based on these books. 

This image displays the boy and girl isles in a toy store. It seems as though it is forcing girls to want and be drawn to pink, and the boys to blue. If you're a girl, you can't have the blue toys, and if you're a boy, you can't have the pink toys. 

Societal norms are trying to influences the way boys and girls think. They are trying to influence the colors that describe who they are, and the toys they feel like they should play with. 

This video shows a little girl questioning these color norms. I love that she is questioning why she can't have the blue toys, and why boys can't have the pink toys. I agree with her. It is unfair for society to dictate what boys and girls can and can't play with. It creates an issue among young children who don't conform to these norms. They feel like they are different because they don't like the things that all the other girls or boys like. But in reality, if a girl wants to play with super heroes and a boy wants to play with dolls, there is nothing wrong with that. They are expressing themselves through play, and they should be allowed to do that without feeling pressured. 

Chapter 41: The Limitations of the Discourse of Norms April 3rd 2015

The premise of this chapter in our text had to do with the societal norms that some gay people decide to follow, and some do not. Basically, those ignorant and intolerant to diversity believe that gay men should act as though they were straight to make themselves stand out less. In a perfect world, something like this may be a good idea, to keep hate crimes and discrimination down, but we should know and understand that having people suppress who they are is going to cause serious issues. But then again, it is up to an individual to decide how they want to ask. The author discusses the term Dan Savage uses. "Quietly Gay", meaning he believes it was important to come out to those who are close to him, but he feels it isn't something that he had to share with everyone. They can "do the math" as he states, and make their own impressions on who he is. I personally believe that this is something that should be accepted everywhere, and over time, the more exposure the media and the public have to ideas such as this, they will be more understanding. 

Gender and The Military March 29th 2015

The first thing that comes to mind when I think of gender in the military is the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. This simply means that you shouldn't ask anyone about their sexuality, and you shouldn't be talking about your own. In retrospect, the idea of not discussing sexuality should be connected to the fact that something as trivial as this should have nothing to do with the way people preform their duties. If all people are trained the same, and tested the same, and can preform at a level that is consistent with all the others in the military, then there should be no reason to reject or dismiss people. This same idea goes along with women in the military. We see far less women in the military because this is not where the gender stereotypes want them to be. They want them to be at home with the family, being a military wife. When a father is at home, being a military husband, gender stereotypes come into play again. This role reversal is not so common, as well as judged based on the gender stereotypes. Is a man going to have a harder time at home with his children when is wife is away? The immediate answer to this question should be no. Stereotyping men as military fathers compared to military wives is not fair. It goes hand-in-hand with the ideas of single parenthood. This is less of a role reversal and more of a surviving based on the situation you are in. Which should go for all military families. Media plays into these stereotypes all too often. There are always commercials on TV and the internet about a military wife and her children waiting and worrying about when her husband will come home. BUT, there are commercials in the media that portray female soldiers returning home. Here is one example that comes to mind. In this commercial, a woman is coming home to a dog, rather than a family. This can be taken a few different ways. One way beings, hey look they are finally showing women from the military returning home, or two, why not show her returning to a family. Does she not have a family yet? Etc. I also understand this is a commercial for dog food, but it still raises important questions. There is so much debate and discussion revolving around gender in the military. I think it is important to allow people to be who they are, as well as work together to fight for our country. There should be no reason why people who are different should be penalized for trying to defend our country. 

Sound & Fury - Fred Phelps and Life inside Westboro March 27th 2015

Pictured above Westboro Baptist Church, founded in 1955 by Fred Phelps. This church has no affiliations with other Baptist churches or Calvinist conventions. Phelps founded this church express his radical opinions on controversial topics. He was involved in drugs in the 60's and drastically abused his 13 children. He beat them, shaved their heads, and forced them to sell candy as the families sole income at some points. He would make his children run 5 to 10 miles a day. His wife attempted to flee in 1964 but returns to Westboro because she couldn't support her children. Many of his children attempted to flee, fled and returned, or managed to get away and cut ties from the family in Westboro. Fred rarely approved of his children's significant others, and he proceeded to taunt and threaten them. Some of the children fled for these reasons. Some did as they were told. He caused his son Freddy's girlfriend to commit suicide in 1972, then went around proclaiming, "the whore is dead." He lead an extremely cruel life. As well as founding this church, he was a lawyer, but he was prohibited from practicing law in 1979. More recently, in the 1990's, Phelps and parts of his congregation, which is made up of a majority of his children and grandchildren, actually protested local funerals. In 1994, Nate and Mark Phelps provided an inside look into growing up in the Phelps family.

Intelligence vs. Icon March 22nd 2015

Isn't she beautiful? Doesn't she have such sex appeal? Pretty, slim, blonde, ideal. But does anyone consider how intelligent Marilyn Monroe actually was? I personally didn't even realize this until I read this article. Why did she portray herself as such an airhead then? I think the simple colloquialism "sex sells" is the answer to that question. She wanted to be popular, famous, and well-known, and the only way she saw fit to do that is to be that dumb blonde that society wanted. And guess what, it worked. She did say though, "I’ve never fooled anyone. I’ve let people fool themselves. They didn’t bother to find out who and what I was. Instead they would invent a character for me." So, is this the sign of a good actress? Maybe that's exactly what she was. A great actress. Marilyn let society, consumers of her industry, believe what they wanted about her. So I guess that she never really hid her intelligence, she just chose to showcase her beauty more.

Another beautiful actress. I think Emma Watson's case differs from Marilyn Monroe in quite a few ways. Emma was known for her bookworm role in the Harry Potter franchise. She was not afraid to pursue her education. She decided to attend Brown University and her classmates were the ones who set her standard. I assume they saw her just a pretty face, because they teased and taunted her in class yelling out things such as "THREE POINTS FOR GRYFFINDOR!" when she correctly answered a question. She questioned pursuing her education after the first few days of this, but she overcame the bullying and graduated from Brown. I think this is similar to Marilyn Monroe because society decided for these women what they should be like. Marilyn played into it, where Emma went against it.

Reference:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/21/emma-watson-teased-taunte_n_852115.html?

Christy Mack March 22nd 2015

The only word I can used to even begin to summarize the article about the attack on Christy Mack is brutal. Just brutal. I think a lot is to be said about any person that can do something like that to a person they once loved. From the way the article made it seem, this attack was really unexpected. We don't know the private details of the lives of Christy Mack and Jonathan Koppenhaver. So we really don't know what instigated the whole ordeal, but it is unbelievable to see the images of what Christy looked like post-attack. This type of thing calls into question the character of her MMA fighter ex-boyfriend Jonathan, and the relationship that they had. She says that he hit her previously, but obviously it was never to this magnitude. She feared for her life, and her body definitely showed the damage he caused. From an outsiders perspective, I question some things based on what little I know about these two people. Did he have expectations of her because of her profession? Was he this violent because of his own profession? What did he expect to gain from doing this to her? I think most of these are open ended questions because I don't foresee myself sitting down with either of them and asking these things. But I do think they are important things to be questioned.

Chapter 14: Hetero Barbie? March 2nd 2015

This chapter was definitely an eye opening one, but it was really great to read. It begins by explaining that as teenagers, girls begin to feel pressure to be popular and feminine to impress the boys. This causes them to pay more attention to the way their bodies look, the shape they have and the size that they are, the way they dress and the clothes they have, and the way they do their hair and makeup. Girls begin to become way too aware of the way they look to other people, especially the boys. Now Barbie, and the Barbie enterprise is thriving off these feelings and encouraging them. When you think of a Barbie doll it is in no way similar to an actual woman. Most obviously is the difference in looks. Barbies are completely disproportionate, from the length and skinniness of their limbs, to the size of their waists, to the proportion of their features. Barbies are marketed to young girls and they are posed as young women (even teenagers). But for a women Barbie's age, she should have a husband and children, which she doesn't, and she is portray as a teenager, but no teenager would be able to live the lifestyle she does (such as the work and travel she is portrayed doing). I love the questions Rogers poses after explaining how outlandish Barbie's features are. Is Barbie heterosexual? Is Barbie a woman? There is a possibility that Barbie is even a drag queen. Rogers states and explains this by saying that the over exaggeration of features is something that drag queens will do. These over exaggerations include her elaborate wardrobe, her high heels, her heavy makeup, and her over the top head pieces. There is no way to be certain of her sexual identity when so much is ambiguous about her. The idea of Drag Barbie represents how femininity is a "manufactured reality" because of all the effort it requires to look the way she does. Another idea Rogers poses is that Barbie is a lesbian, but a more feminine one, a closeted one, or bisexual. Hetero Barbie? really made me think about how this entire enterprise is portraying beauty. A few things can be derived from this thought. One is that they are creating impossible beauty standards that make young girls grow self-conscious of themselves because they can never be what they see. Another thought is kind of opposite that, but that the  way drag queens represent themselves is beautiful as well. Food for thought.

Pictured above is what the RuPaul Barbie looks like. When I read about it I was curious as to what it looked like. Without knowing it was a representation of RuPaul, would you know it was meant to be a drag queen? What does that say about all other Barbies?

Shifting Gender Roles: Sex and The City and Girls

After watching "Boys, Girls, Boys, Girls" (Sex and The City) and "Vagina Panic" (Girls), it is evident that the idea of gender roles has been changing drastically. The episode of Sex and the City was released in 2000, where the Girls episode was released in 2012. The main difference is how much more in control of themselves the women seem. The characters in the show Girls are portrayed as independent women who have no issues making their own decisions about their lives, and love lives in particular. In Sex and The City, it is clear that these ideas of independent women are just starting to be formed. For example, the character Miranda is struggling with the idea of her boyfriend moving into her apartment. It is clear to her that she is not the stereotypical women. She doesn't like to cook, she likes to be able to lounge around and watch TV, and she doesn't like to do the laundry. When the idea of having a man in her house is brought up, she gets defensive about it, because she knows she doesn't fit into that gender role. But he boyfriend doesn't have an issue with it. This goes to show that the idea of women being the homebodies who take care of the house work is a gender role that is changing fast. All of the women in both of these episodes display some kind of personal independence. It seems as though (and I have never really watched Sex and The City), that all the women live alone, and have jobs that help them support their lifestyles. They are breaking out of the gender norm. The character Samantha is her own boss. She runs her own business. She is in charge and she doesn't take any slack from anyone. The characters in Girls mimic this kind of behavior as well. They all seem to be stable on their own, but this is more accepted than it seems in Sex and the City. It is more of a modern show, and it really depicts the way that the gender roles have progressed in 12 years. 

Gendered Slang/Language: March 1st 2015

There are a lot of terms that are thrown around today that can be considered offensive to other people. We have become so accustomed to using them what we don't even realize it.

The first term that is used often is "___ has balls!", or "That was ballsy." This term is referring to when someone, male or female, does something that is daring or audacious. They are doing something impressive that normally wouldn't be done. The most common time I hear this term is when I'm driving around with my friends, especially males ones. When someone cuts them off, or runs a yellow light, etc, they'll say something along the lines of "that guys has huge balls!" Even though a male is commenting with these terms, it doesn't make that term any less sexist. This term is also misconstrued. It may seem like a compliment if it is being applied to a woman, but in reality it is just stating that 'having balls' is a must to be courageous. So a woman isn't normally audacious because she doesn't actually have balls.

Another group of terms that is used a lot are the terms "booty call" and "walk of shame". "Booty call" is understood to be when a male calls up a female late at night for sex. What makes this offensive is that it makes women seem to be objects that men can just summon when they want sex; that they are there for a man's pleasure whenever and wherever he wants. This term is also usually thought of involving men calling women, when it isn't really unlikely for a woman to call up a man. But in our society, something like this makes a woman seem "thirsty". This term is also derogatory because it makes the woman seem too eager and desperate. Finally, the term "walk of shame" is one that we hear a lot, especially on college campuses. a "walk of shame" is when a woman (or man) stays the night in someone else room or home, and walks home in their outfit from last night. It is a very judgmental term because when you see someone walking home in the party outfit from the night before, you can't help but think things like 'they must have drank too much last night', or 'I wonder whose bed they're coming from?'. Terms such as these make men and women judge what they see in a derogatory manner.

There are many other terms that are used in today society, some of which include "hook-up", "friends with benefits", or "sext". All of these terms, and more, have very gender specific meanings, and degrade a certain sex or gender based on the way they are used. Unfortunately, I think these terms are here to stay. People tend to not even realize what these phrases and terms even mean, and how they can be offensive to certain people.

Chapter 26: Image-Based Culture February 23rd 2015

Some of the values and we live by today come from our 'consumer culture'. A consumer culture is defined as "a system in which consumption, a set of behaviors found in all times and places, is dominated by the consumption of commercial products." (UWY) "The institutional structure of the consumer society orients the culture more and more towards the world of commodities" (Jhally 246). What does this mean? Simply, we are being told what we want. Before the industrial society that we live in today, there was an agrarian-based society, meaning the family, community, religion, etc, of the society were the main creators of social norms. This has been lest behind to form our industrial and consumer societies. The public discourse began by transmitting information about products. It began as text-based, and then advanced to vivid color pictures with text along side. As technology progressed, so did this public discourse (or advertising). Naturally, it shifted to radio, and then television as a way of commercial communication. Advertisers used imagistic models of representation. As the consumer society evolved, people began to realize that they could also advertise non-essential goods, and make them seem they are essential to the average person. At this point, advertisers had to educate the public as well as sell their products. "Consumer society was literally being taught how to read commercial messages" (Jhally 247). This is a prime example of the consumers being told what they want. And in today's society, advertising is everywhere. Now, advertisers are trying to show how products are connected to important parts of our lives, and how these products will make us happy. Surveys show that people want things like control over their lives, loving relationships, happy family lives, self esteem, and relaxed leisure time to make them happy. The market society is trying to show that these things can be achieved via institutions and structures that orient such behavior. Advertisers are using this idea to portray "the good life". They are offering visions of what this would look like with use of their products. So because people want to be happy, and advertisers are showing them how to be happy with their products, people feel the need to buy the products. They are trying to sell us back our emotions and dreams through advertising. But this doesn't really work. Advertisers are telling us what you have will make you happy, as opposed to who you are. This is all affecting the way we see ourselves and our lives, making us feel unhappy. It is better to buy than not to buy; happiness lies at the end of a purchase. These are all ways that advertisers are trying to make it seem like we need the products the are selling. They are actually changing out culture, and the way we see the future. We need all these products to be happy. But that really isn't the case. 

YouTube, I Tube, We all tube: February 8th 2015

Luvs Diaper commercial vs. Huggies Diaper commercial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5H8jTT9cyw, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7kX8ZKylD4

I think that this is a very stereotypical diaper commercial. Is shows a mother preparing for an outing in the park with her baby, and then again after she has a second child. The content of the commercial isn't really relevant to this argument, it is the fact that it is a mother and her children. This is typical commercial for baby products, because the mother is often seen with her children. This is where the second video challenges it. It is a stereotypical gender role for a woman to be home with her children, and talking care of them. The second video breaks this gender role by showing fathers taking care of their children. I think that this is kind of a low blow to fathers because it implies that they will struggle with taking care of their babies for 5 days without their wives. The presumed gender role of men is to be at work during the day making money to support their families, and the presumed gender role of women is to be at home taking care of her children. The second commercial breaks this gender role because it shows how men can handle taking care of their children just as well as mothers can. An argument that can be used against men doing these things is not doing them the way their wives want them to. I think that can be valid in some cases, but showing that they can do it only proves that these gender roles are meant to be broken.

The target audience for both of these commercials are mothers. They are both advertising for products that would be useful to them, but also 'easy' enough to use that their husbands can do it. Again I think this is not giving fathers enough credit, but I think that is what the Huggies commercial is trying to show. I also think that they do a good job of reaching out to their target audience. They both make the products seem extremely usable and like every new parent uses them. It makes them marketable to moms, and hopefully dads too.

Chapter 40: There Are Bitches and Hoes February 10th 2015

This chapter of our text puts the terms “bitches and hoes” into perspective. There are two sides to this argument. “Pimp culture has saturated commercial hip hop” (Rose 386). This quote has a lot more depth that it may seem. When we think of pimps we think of these rich men throwing money at prostitutes. The idea of a pimp is extremely exploitative to women, as well as physically and emotionally controlling to women. These ‘pimps’ are single handedly creating what they talk about. They considers bitches and hoes all women, therefore women are bitches and hoes. When confronted about lyrics and words they use to describe women, their defense is simple “I’m not talking about all women.” But there is absolutely no specification of that. They are encouraging their fans to mimic the behavior they display, both male and female fans. Women participation is music videos that display this behavior is misconstrued as women not minding that they are portrayed in this way. And this idea points women to participate in the ‘system’ of prostitution. Hip hop is influencing young black women’s understanding of black women. They think that they need to act in that way to be accepted. I think that this idea is epitomized in Lupe Fiasco’s song and music video “Bitch Bad”. 

            Now is a black women were to speak about this sexism that is affecting their culture, there is a chance that she will be alienated for not conforming to the way women are supposed to act. The word ‘bitch’ also has different connotations based on who is using the word. If a woman were to use the word ‘bitch’ she would be attempting to challenge the language of sexism, but when a male uses the word ‘bitch’ he is just supporting it. The pimp/gangster image needs these “bitches and hoes” to maintain itself, so they invent them in the way discussed before. Hip hop is encouraging women to act in the way it describes. This is unfair because women should be free to express their sexuality in a way that is equal to men, not in a male dominated way. Hip hop has evolved to create either one of two things for an individual, a player, or a person being played. The women in this situation are almost always being played. Hip hop can be considered the most visible representation of sexism in black popular culture, and this is unfair because women should be able to express themselves freely, in any way they choose to.

“We have to work hard against what destroys who we are” (Rose 390). This is the most important thing to take away from this chapter, because the inequalities of sexism presented in hip hop and pimp culture is only getting worse.

All in the Family February 23rd 2015

The Oxford Dictionary definition of a nuclear family is “a couple and their dependent children, regarded as a basic social unit.” Many modern families can fall under this broad definition. My family would be an example of a nuclear family: my mom, my dad, my brother and me. But there are also modern families that do not fall under this definition. Examples of this would be a single parent family, or families without children. How do gender roles differ in different types of families? In a nuclear family, it is typical that the male is the breadwinner so to speak; he goes to work everyday and is the major supporter of the family. The female may stay home to take care of the children and the household, or could possibly work part time. The children are completely dependent on their parents. Lets take a look at modern families that may not fall under the definition of nuclear family. In a single parent home for example, the one parent must complete both roles of breadwinner and housekeeper. They much support their children on their own. They are in the same roles as those in a nuclear family, but there is only one parent to do those things compared to two. In a home that has no children, there is no one to be dependent on the parents; therefore the adults have more liberty. How do families that “look” different compare to nuclear families? Is a gay couple with children a nuclear family? I would say absolutely! There is a couple, and their children are dependent on them. They are a social unit. Therefore, they are a nuclear family. The definition of nuclear family is so broad that I believe there are few exceptions to this definition. The definition also does not include specific gender role, therefore if a female is the breadwinner and the male takes care of the children and the home, they are still considered a nuclear family. This idea is something is the theme of the article Dad-Mom Role Reversal by Sarah Eckel. This article presented a very interesting look on the reversed roles of males and females in a family unit. The article goes on to explain how transitioning from a working father to a stay at home dad is a difficult one for most fathers. Men with traditional views of gender role will find it very hard to take on the brunt of the housework. It is something that they aren’t used to, and often need praise when completing. So you see how this can be unfair. When a female takes care of all the housework, she usually receives no praise, because it is something her husband believes she is responsible for. But when it comes down to a man completing this work praise is almost necessary for them to be motivated to continue. They also tend to spend less time completing the same tasks women do. But all is not lost. When men accept that this is what they have to be doing to keep the family unit moving forward, they will step up and do the things they need to do. (Hopefully!!) 

Chapter 4: Hegemony February 8th 2015

“Hegemony is the power or dominance that one social group holds over others” (Lull 39).  The idea of hegemony has to do with social power, and the way social group interact. But is also shows groups gaining and maintain the power they have. Hegemony was adapted from Marxist theories by Antonio Gramsci. His ideas about mass media included thoughts about the most elite social groups using it to their advantage. The media can much more easily put out their content and ideas compared to other social groups. The media uses tools such as TV commercials to make their consumers see themselves as consumers rather than the public. Hegemony also has a connection to culture; therefore it depends on what is dubbed the culture’s norms. But because of this, it can go undetected. This social consent that is presented because of hegemony can be much more effective that force when it comes to the media. TV media is taking advantage of this idea by basing TV shows on popular children’s toys. This is expanding the dominance of that social group. TV absorbs other social groups, and is even connected to government institutions. There are ways that people resist ideas of hegemony. Media consumers often resist these ideas, but that is not the only way. The way people interpret and use the media affect it. “Hegemony fails when dominant ideology is weaker than social resistance” (Lull 41). I think that hegemony is an idea that we as a society cannot necessarily get away from, but we can allow it to affect us or not to affect us. The media poses the biggest influence in our lives today, therefore the companies and social groups that are utilizing social dominance are doing what they have set out to do.