Lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders (the LBGT community) have been fighting for equality of all sorts for years. As of November 7, nine states in the US have legalized gay marriage. This is an extreme accomplishment in the LGBT fight for equality that shows how much support this community has gotten over the years.
The "It Gets Better" project is a prime example of the group's acceptance. For the project, people make videos talking about why life gets better for the LBGT community as adults, much like Tim Gunn's video above. But, what I think proves the acceptance of this group even more is a recent article by Fox News. Fox News is a news organization that's widely known for publishing content with conservative reporting bias. Recently, the news organization published a story about a same-sex marriage at West Point's Cadet Chapel. What's special about this story from this source is that it's written in a completely neutral manner. If the conservative Fox News reporters can accept writing about gay marriage without any biases, I think that shows how far Americans have come in accepting the LGBT community.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Antifeminism: A Woman's Argument
We've all heard it: there are no good men left in the world. Any decent man worth dating must be taken. Women utter complaints like this every day, and we can't seem to figure out why good men aren't being raised anymore. Here's a new spin on an answer to the problem: women are to blame. A recent Fox News article states that the reason men don't want to get married anymore is that women are competing with the natural male instinct to provide for a family. Because of the rise of feminism, men are getting "pissed off"that they can't fulfill their biological role of protecting a women and children.
This article paints women as the bad people and tells us to "surrender to our femininity"if we want to find good men. What's most surprising about this? The article was written by a woman. More than that, this article was written by a woman who throws out years of work on research as credentials. Research, may I point out, that she wouldn't have been able to do if feminists in older generations hadn't gotten women out of the kitchen. As a woman, I find this writer's opinion especially offensive. Take a look at the video above. The Fox News reporter is just encouraging world views like that of the man in the video.
In a society where women have fought for years to gain equal footing in the workplace and the government, this reporter says we should throw all of that out the window for the love of men who don't see us as equals or as capable of taking care of ourselves. The logic just doesn't make sense. If we want a man to treat us right, why should we revert to the era where we were property (where men had every legal right to abuse us and not get punished)? Opinions like that of the Fox News reporter just tell men that women really aren't intelligent enough to think for themselves. The reporter is just sending the message to men that she, as a woman, is incapable of doing research and making recommendations based on sound logic. She's just perpetuating the problem of men thinking women are too emotional and irrational to handle any big-time thinking or problem solving. And what's worse about this entire situation? This woman is a journalist and is spreading this message worldwide via the internet. She's causing the mass media to paint negative pictures of women and telling them it's okay. And she even has research (made possible because of feminist movements) to back it up.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Obama: Not a racial breakthrough
When Barack Obama claimed his first presidential victory in 2008, the biggest news headline was that America had just elected its first black president. While this was true, it was also the most emphasized aspect of Obama's victory. That wasn't surprising, however, seeing as though Obama's campaign largely centered around his race. I was a sophomore in high school when Obama ran for his first presidential election. I wasn't that informed about the election issues, but I knew the economy was in trouble and I listened to the candidates' speeches when they came on television. The one thing I was completely aware of, however, was that Obama could be (and eventually was elected as) America's first black president. Why? Because he emphasized it in every single speech he gave.
Obama's victory has been labeled as one that has broken a racist social structure in America. But when we really think about it, has it? In my opinion, it hasn't. As I already mentioned, by emphasizing it in every speech he made, Obama made his race a key voting issue. While it was an extremely effective election strategy, I actually think it made the racial situation in America worse. Pointing out his race so much just drew more attention to the fact that being black made him significantly different than other candidates. In a country where black people fought for equality, we had a black presidential candidate fighting to be seen as not equal to other candidates because of his race. This is the very reason why it's flawed to call Obama's victory a racial breakthrough. Had Obama really wanted to break down racism in America, his strategy would've been to de-emphasize his race and promote the fact that he could be elected based solely on his platform. But since he chose to point out his race in every speech he made, changing America's views on racism clearly was not Obama's goal. If anything, Obama's victory just pointed out how traditional minorities are rapidly growing in America, and how much voting power they have as a group now.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Shaking up Tonto may not be effective
Johnny Depp is reinventing the character of Tonto for this summer's remake of "The Lone Ranger." Tonto, the faithful, Native American sidekick, has traditionally been portrayed under common media stereotypes for Native Americans. As can be seen in the video above, Depp says he's trying to shake up the traditional Native American stereotype by updating Tonto's costume. However, it doesn't appear that he's getting totally positive feedback from Native Americans.
While I appreciate Depp's trying to shake up the traditional Native American stereotype, I don't know how effective his effort will actually be. The fact of the matter is that he's still playing the role of the Native American sidekick whose name, in Spanish, literally translates to "stupid." Depp can try all he wants to shake up the image of the character, but he can't change what role the character plays in the overall movie script. For this reason, I doubt Native Americans will be seen in a much more positive light after this film releases in Summer 2013. If anything, this might awaken stronger stereotypes and discrimination against Native Americans in the younger generation that hasn't been exposed to the idea of the "stupid" Native American yet.
Friday, November 2, 2012
The young and the stupid
Today's young adults are constantly stereotyped as being stupid and unconcerned about the world around us. Hollywood blockbusters such as "Mean Girls" worsen the problem by reinforcing the image of airhead teenagers who turn into incompetent adults. In the clip above, the character Gretchen Weiners gives her own unintelligent interpretation of Shakespeare's work. Weiners is supposed to be a junior in high school, yet her English term paper fails to even come close to a thoughtful analysis of "Julius Caesar."
These portrayals of teenagers harm our reputation as young adults. Personally, I know adults underestimate my intellectual ability based on my peers. It doesn't matter how high my GPA is or how many accolades I earn, I'm still lumped with my peers when adults talk about how lazy and incompetent my generation is. What's worse is that my generation isn't doing much as a whole to kill these assumptions. Instead of defending ourselves when we hear these stereotypes, many of us turn around and argue that our elder generations are too old to understand how the world works today. In this case, it's not just the film industry's fault for giving us a bad reputation. It's our fault for not standing up to shed the stupid teenager stereotype for ourselves.
Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said in a debate this week that he believes pregnancies resulting from rape are part of God's plan, which is why he only supports abortion if a mother's life is in danger. Mourdock's comment has received tremendous backlash from the public, but what's sad is that he's not the only one who makes his personal religious beliefs part of his campaign. The issue of limiting abortion has become a large part of the traditional Republican platform today.
The problem with Republicans trying to limit abortion is that they're pushing their personal beliefs on everyone else to the extent that it's become all some people know about Christianity. They're sending the message that their interpretation of the Bible and Christianity is what is correct. Because of these candidates, it seems that all Christians today are given the label of "abortion haters." I know plenty of Christians who support abortion. Some of those people are my family members, who often find that others have misconceptions about their belief systems because of the political uproar. When candidates and lawmakers try to push their religious beliefs into law, more social divisions are created, which contributes to inequality in our society. In a country where freedom of religion is supposed to be a fundamental right, these lawmakers are making it harder for people to understand exactly what Christianity is--a diverse religion with many different interpretations and denominations. Stereotyping anyone isn't right, and it's shameful that our own candidates and lawmakers are contributing to the stereotyping of Christians.
The issue of affirmative action is being brought before the Supreme Court again. The Supreme Court will decide whether or not affirmative action is just during its session this year, thanks to Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Abigail Fisher, a 22-year-old woman, was denied admission to the University of Texas in 2008. Fisher said she was denied admission because she is white and hopes "that they’ll completely take race out of the issue in terms of admissions." Affirmative action has been a highly debated topic for many years. The whole purpose of the policy was to ban discrimination of people because of their race or gender. In 1978, the Supreme Court decided that affirmative action was legal, as long as quotas weren't used. The thing is, the very policy of affirmative action hinders our ability to move past race and gender discrimination in America. As we should all know, not all people of the same racial background or gender think and act in the exact same way. I am a white female, just like my roommate, but she and I have entirely different interests and opinions. We do not act alike, and we don't approach projects or work in the same way either. If we were stereotyped based on our race and gender, people would end up with a flawed conception of our actual personalities. When universities are required to consider race and gender during the admissions process, that sends the message that stereotyping people is okay. If America is supposed to be a land where all people are created equally, then stereotyping shouldn't be allowed, much less encouraged.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Television shows: causes of misconceptions
TLC's new show, "Breaking Amish," premiered in September. The reality show depicts Amish people venturing into New York to explore modern life for the first time. Advertisements promise to "pull back the curtains" on the Amish lifestyle, providing insight into how Amish people live and how they adjust to the modern world. The only problem with this is that the show has been accused of falsely representing its characters. Old photos of characters in modern clothes have surfaced, and claims that some have been married, divorced and have children have come up as well. TLC and Hot Snakes, the show's production company, issued a joint response to these accusations, saying that "There is a lot of information floating around about the group featured on 'Breaking Amish.' Much of it is not true, but some of it is -- and is addressed in upcoming episodes." Here's where we get into a sticky issue, however. How can TLC claim to accurately represent an Amish person's life and adventure into the modern world when its subjects have already been exposed to modern life? In a society where we already have tons of misconceptions about people because of their religion, I don't believe it's right for TLC to show this television series. The network is giving viewers an invalid reference point when it comes to this show. These characters obviously are not first-time venturers into the modern world, so they're not truly unexposed Amish people. America isn't given a truthful image of an unexposed group of Amish people to base their opinions on. When people see these shows, they gain conceptions of what life is like for unfamiliar cultures. This means that people will watch this show, take the information they learn, and apply it to all Amish people, which isn't right. I'm from a small Texas town and live on a farm, which most people take to mean that I live with (or am) a complete southern hillbilly. People watch shows like "My Big Redneck Vacation" and think they know how people in my town act. I've had classmates travel to New York that have been asked if we ride horses to school, which is a horrible misconception. Television shows that don't present truthful images of people in certain societies or of certain religious or racial backgrounds contribute to the trouble we have with inequality in America.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Racism: Not Journalists' Fault
After Gabby Douglas won the women's gymnastics Olympic gold medal this summer, NBC aired a commercial that brought accusations of racism against the network. The commercial, which was an advertisement for NBC's new show "Animal Practice," showed a monkey on gymnastics rings. People found the commercial racist because, in the past, blacks have been referred to as monkeys in a derogatory manner. NBC later released a comment stating that the commercial wasn't meant to be offensive, it was just one of a series of Olympic-themed commercials that had been strategically placed to ensure exposure to viewers. Regardless, Twitter blew up almost immediately after the commercial aired with accusations of racism against NBC, which I think raises an interesting point.
Why is it that when a major news network happens to air a monkey commercial right after announcing a black Olympic champion, people immediately jump to accusing the network of racism? Major hip hop artists release songs every day filled with racial slurs and other derogatory terms, but nobody complains about that. It seems a little twisted that it's deemed okay for music artists to use terms like the "n-word" every day when journalists can get accused of racism for coincidental things like commercial placement. The media is constantly accused of publishing stories with racist tones, and, as a result, journalists are being blamed for pushing racism on society. What people need to do is step back and compare journalism with the entertainment industry, and reassess where to launch their attacks. Just listen to the song linked below, and consider what's worse: a coincidental monkey commercial or a child listening to this music and thinking it's okay to use the derogatory terms in the lyrics?
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Religious Discrimination: Putting American Safety in Jeopardy
Muslims across the world are up in arms after the short film "Innocence of Muslims" was published on YouTube earlier this week. The film, which mocks the Islamic Prophet Muhammad, has already prompted a string of assaults in Yemen, Egypt and Libya. The most recent attack included hundreds of angry protesters storming the U.S. Embassy's compound in Yemen and burning the American flag. Although no embassy personnel were harmed in this attack, four Americans were killed in an attack in Benghazi on Tuesday.
It amazes me that people are capable of such blatant discrimination. Although the staff and crew of the film stated they were "grossly misled about its intent and purpose," the question still remains- how could the film's producer (identified as Sam Bacile) make this video without regarding the effect it could have on America's situation in the Middle East? He even went so far as to tell The Wall Street Journal that "Islam is a cancer." People who think like Bacile are the reason we've had such problems accepting Islam in America. Discriminating against people because of their religious beliefs isn't right, and it's only straining American relations more in the war on terrorism. Freedom of religion is a right guaranteed to Americans in the Bill of Rights. If our founding fathers supported this as a fundamental right of every human being, why can't so many Americans do the same thing today? Americans should be more open-minded about accepting other people's religious beliefs. Just because a person accepts that someone else believes something different doesn't mean that person has to agree with the other person's beliefs. This is a lesson we should all take to heart, for our own country's safety in the war and for the safety of citizens at home with diverse beliefs.
The democratic national convention started this week with Michelle Obama giving an opening-night speech to remind people of "the man [Barack Obama] was before he was president." On Tuesday, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram posted an Associated Press article online notifying people of Michelle Obama's speech. The problem with this article, however, is that it belittles not only Michelle Obama herself, but also women's roles in supporting the president in general.
It is AP style to give a person's full name on first reference in an article, but on second reference, the authors referred to Michelle Obama as "Mrs. Obama," specifically breaking the AP style rule to use both the first and last name on second reference when distinguishing between sources with the same last name. By doing this, the article's authors sent out the message that Michelle Obama was nothing more than a wife, because they found it necessary to tack the "Mrs." onto her name and because they didn't supply her husband with a courtesy title as well. Looking further into the article, it can be seen that women weren't relied on as heavily as men were as sources in support of Barack Obama. Virginia Sen. Mark Warner was referenced supporting the president with a host of solid and intelligent facts like Barack Obama helping "the economy rebound" while Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren was only referenced making generalized observations like "it's tough out there" for American citizens. By referencing men with stronger, smarter facts to support Barack Obama and by referring to Michelle Obama as "Mrs. Obama," the AP reporters sent the message that women aren't independent and intelligent people because they weren't credited as such. This is an atrocious message to send, especially in a society where women have fought for years to gain gender equality.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Candy Crowley
Gender Equality Overshadowed
When the presidential debate moderators' names were released this month, the announcement was met with criticism. People, television networks and even journalistic associations complained that the four moderators--Candy Crowley, Jim Lehrer, Bob Schieffer, and Martha Raddatz--lacked diversity. The fact that Crowley was selected as the first female presidential debate moderator in 20 years was almost completely forgotten (Raddatz will be moderate the vice-presidential debate). What these people do not seem to realize, though, is that it is hard to put together an extremely diverse group of people when only four moderators can be selected.
Not every group can be represented with such a small selection of moderators. Keeping that in mind, I would like to point out that the choice of Crowley as a moderator was a major step toward diversity. Earlier this summer, three teens made an online petition and lobbied the Commission on Presidential Debates in an attempt to make women's voices heard. As a female journalist, and especially as a young woman in general, I know what it is like to have my voice ignored in a room full of men who do not think I can hold my own. I commend these teens for pushing for this step toward diversity, and I am also thankful the Commission made the effort to create a gender-balanced and well-rounded group of moderators--even if some people cannot see it.
