The Power of the Tweeters

Hello there wonderful reader. I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving last week, and I wish you every last bit of luck for the upcoming weeks if you, like I, are quickly approaching college finals.

I also hope that you have been keeping up with the news lately. Specifically the social unrest in our country over the tragic deaths of Mike Brown, Eric Garner, and Tamir Rice that have brought attention to the growing tension between the police force and the black communities. If you are active on social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook, you've most likely kept up with these events mostly through these media sites, exposed to articles and opinions about police brutality and racism shared by friends/acquaintances/that one girl you talked to once in high school.

Regardless of how you feel about the protests in Ferguson, the police, or even if you admit institutionalized racism still exists, what matters is that when you see these articles you're witnessing activism. More specifically online activism.

But what is activism? The formal definition is "an intentional action to bring about social or political change." This involves advocacy that brings awareness to an issue and often speaking on behalf of groups that are pushing for change in government or other societal institutions. A lot of times when we hear someone described as an activist, we have a negative connotation. We think of them as radicals, speaking and acting irrationally to evoke anger in people and blowing issues out of proportion.

At least that's the case during a social movement...not always afterwards. Because when you think about it no one says Martin Luther King Jr., a civil rights/human rights activist, isn't thought of today as being "too radical". The protests, sit-ins, and boycotts organized in the 1960s to advocate for civil rights were just as much forms of activism as the protests in Ferguson are. But the difference now is that we have different outlets and tools to be activists. Online activists.

Social media, like Twitter, is accessible to A LOT of people and allows for an individual, a group, or organization to communicate with a mass audience, spreading their messages far and wide to people around the globe. Without social media, organizations could not connect with similar-minded people for support outside of their physical surroundings, spread a reactionary alternative reading of dominant culture and ideology and current events, or even raise awareness, funds, and organize events.

But does tweeting out your opinion on Ferguson really make you as much of an activist as someone who marched on Washington with Dr. King in 1963? Does sharing articles about racist cops make you as much of an advocate for change as black students who sat at the lunch counters in Greensboro? According to Malcolm Gladwell, an author and journalist for the New Yorker, in his article "Small Change" the answer is no. He argues this because social media is so much less risky, to put it so simply. Tweeting out your opinion doesn't really put your life in danger like marching through the streets among people who literally hate you're doing would. The most risk you face when sharing a controversial opinion is an unfollow or fight in the comment section of your Facebook status.

Although this is a fair point, it is foolish to ignore the amount of power social media wields in modern social movements. Even if it may not be as risky and physically demanding, it is by no means worthless. When examining the events in Ferguson, it is clear that Twitter actually jumped on the story of Mike Brown before major news networks did, according to the Pew Research Center.


  (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/20/cable-twitter-picked-up-ferguson-story-at-a-similar-clip/)

Tweeters were active in not only discussing what had happened in Ferguson, but why it was happening and the implications of it...what does this show about racism in the U.S.? Why are people defending the white cop? Why are people labeling Mike Brown as a criminal who got what he deserved rather than an 18 year old victim of homicide? The conversation on social media outlets has been non-stop. Hashtags such as #Ferguson an #IfTheyShotMeDown assisted in spreading awareness about the prominence of racism in America at a time where we have believed ourselves to be a color-blind society. The speed of Twitter and its ease of use is key in putting something out there for people to read, acknowledge, and spread themselves to their followers.

Therefore, despite allegations that social media is only good for "slacktivism" (lazy wannabe activism), I believe its been key in a lot of social movements. Twitter especially is a platform for people to bring awareness to events in society we need to be talking about and spreading ideas that need to be nurtured and supported. Social media allows movements to grow in size. It plants the seed of thought. That thought sparks action. And the only way we can ever achieve change is though action.

Why Kim Kardashian (and her booty) is a Gift to Social Media Sites and Societal Conversations

Twitter. Facebook. Instagram. Tumblr.
How many of us have a love-hate relationship with our social media outlets? I know I do.
I've deleted my Facebook numerous times out of frustration of friends oversharing, spam, and creepy friend requests. However, every time I delete it...I miss it after a while. And, finally, I came to the conclusion that Facebook, even with all its petty annoyances, does more good than harm for me as someone who aspires to work in the media, or at least very closely with it, when I graduate college.

Although some of us may believe the only benefit to social networking is to keep tabs on ex-loves and that cute classmate from freshman year, the truth is most people actually use social media sites to see breaking news (this is why journalists love it), share their interests and hobbies (ding ding ding advertisers!) and, my personal favorite, use it as a platform for resistance discourse.

What is resistance discourse you ask? Well, I'm glad you asked dear reader! Let me explain this fancy term for something we all do every day with an example.
Remember a couple weeks ago when Kim Kardashian tried to break the internet? If you don't let me expose your eyes to a censored version of the image you'll never be able to forget. You're welcome.



This was Paper Magazine's winter cover, and in the actual photo (the uncropped version) the most famous Kardashian sister exposes her even more famous derriere in an EXTREMELY photo-shopped picture. The cover also claimed to have a goal of "breaking the internet", a term we've used recently to describe newsworthy events that generate so much views and/or controversy that the general public of internet users basically blows it way out of proportion. This Kardashian stunt did exactly that. But...maybe not in the way Kim Kardashian expected.

As maybe with most other people, I heard about this on social media. And if I had a dollar for every opinion about it that's popped up about on my Twitter timeline, Facebook newsfeed, and even my Tumblr dash, I'd have enough money to pay for a semester of college tuition.

But why does this matter? It's a stupid publicity stunt by a stupid celebrity we made famous for no reason, right? Well, dear reader, once again I'm so glad you asked!

Actually, whether you like Kim Kardashian or not (if you take the latter opinion I can relate...) this whole public freak out about this most recent photo shoot is the perfect example of how we use social media to put our opinions of popular culture out there in the internet universe for everyone to agree or disagree with. Thus, the platform for resistance discourse is born and we learn a lot about what society thinks of certain events. These events (like a naked celebrity photo shoot) may not seem important...but reactions and opinions of people talking about it actually allow us to gauge where our society stands on issues like feminism, motherhood, and even in this case, sexual expression.

A lot of the criticism for these photos has been aimed at the fact Kim K. is a mother now, and thus, apparently that means she no longer is a sexual being or allowed to display her body. One of the other big issues people have with Kim K.'s photos are that they seem to be very racially offensive, imitating those of  old photos mocking black women's curvaceous bodies with the fact her butt is big enough to hold and balance a champagne glass on it.

But for as much criticism of the cover as there has been, there's also been plenty of fun, less intense, mockery with memes and impersonations by average Tweeters and celebrities alike. Chelsea Handler, for one took to Instagram to point out how ridiculously photo-shopped Kim Karashian's body is by posting pictures of her own, unfiltered buttocks, stretch marks, tanlines and all.
Kim K. has also become the "butt" (haha see what I did there?) of altered and hilarious memes.
(Google them for some fun.)

So when you start to loose all hope with social media, and the way it makes stupid people famous, stop and think about how it also is used as a tool to MOCK those stupid people we're making famous. How it criticizes events we SHOULD be criticizing as a society, and how useful it is as a platform to talk about our thoughts about society with other people we may not have come in contact with otherwise.

A Costume Can Be Distasteful AND Racist...But it Really Shouldn't Be Either

Halloween was not too long ago...but time is moving fast and it already seems as though it was months ago as we prepare for upcoming holiday season.

As I'm sure many of us were witness to not just this Halloween, but every Halloween, is the unspoken rule that somehow the more offensive a costume, the better. This celebration of costumes and candy (and sometimes alcoholic beverages, if you're of age of course) sometimes brings out the best as well as the worst of people. Particularly when it comes to costumes.

This year I saw more than my fair share of sexy nurses and adult babies (always a weird choice), yet what I really noticed this year that I hadn't before was all the offensive racial/cultural costumes such as "Indians" (Native Americans), geishas, Egyptians, and the like. Although these costumes are often adorable and not worn with cruel intent of mockery, it may certainly be taken that way by those who belong to the culture one is simply dressing up as for one night of the week.

Offensive stereotype costumes, therefore, fall into a problematic place and may even be labeled as taking place in cultural appropriation. Cultural appropriation, in its simplest definition, is taking an act, physical appearance, and/or even the language and dialectic of a minority group without real permission or understanding of what one of the aforementioned might mean and portraying in such a way that seems tasteless and even harmful to the cultural group its supposed to be representing.

One celebrity contantly under fire for being a cultural appropriator is Katy Perry. Now, I'm going to admit my bias here...I am a HUGE fan of Katy Perry. I think she's gorgeous and talented and, well I could go on for days about her awesomeness. However, that being said, the singer has made some not-so-great choices in performance themes in the past few years, and people have definitely noticed.

A couple incidents that come to mind of this are in her "Dark Horse" video, where she dresses up in stereotypical  "Egyptian" costume and dances with black mummies with rather large backsides
A live performance that gained a lot of criticism was Perry's American Music Awards performance of "Unconditionally". The performance was "inspired by Japanese culture" yet only really focused on geisha costumes and cherry blossoms. Perry came under fire for using a stereotype that represents a very tiny portion of Japanese culture for entertainment reasons, a sure sign of cultural appropriation and exploiting a part of a culture that wasn't her own to enhance her stage act.

"Between the lack of Asian women on stage, the heavy-handed use of bowing and shuffling around in the choreography, and the ethno-confused set and costume design, Perry presented her viewers a one-dimensional Eastern fantasy drawn by a Western eye right out of the gate," wrote Mic contributor Phyllis Heitjan at the time. Heitjan, who is half-Korean. "Perry's 'geisha' get up is a flat, inaccurate, sexualized identity that has nothing to do with Asian cultures," she said.

As mentioned earlier, sometimes this isn't done (at least I hope not) maliciously, but when someone wears culturally-specific clothing without knowing the cultural significance behind it, it can be taken as perpetuating a stereotype. Furthermore, participating in cultural practices without taking the social responsibility to state it is not the whole culture being represented is important. When one DOES obtain permission from those inside the referenced cultural group to convey this part of their culture to an outside audience for them, it is critical to actually understand where this part of the culture comes from and that one genuinely wants to know about it...rather than just using it as a homage to a foreign, exotic land.

So, be aware of cultural appropriation. Knowing it is actually a thing helps avoid offending minority groups and keeps you from perpetuating problematic stereotypes.
Basically, but the sombrero away for Halloween. Dress up as a super hero next year instead.


*Pictures and quote from http://mic.com/articles/95444/5-reasons-katy-perry-is-pop-music-s-worst-cultural-appropriator

Axe: Objectifying Women for the Sake of Selling Body Spray

Have you ever had that  moment where you're sitting watching TV with your family and a super awkward commercial comes on? I'm talking about watching the Broncos game with your dad and a Viagra commercial comes on kind of awkward.

Well, personally, that's how I feel whenever an Axe commercial comes on. I'm uncomfortable when an Axe advertisement comes on my screen when I'm by myself...but it's even worse when there's men and boys in the room with me.

In case you aren't familiar with Axe commercials, they basically all have the same premise involving a heterosexual male (most often white) becoming more appealing to women with the use of the product, whether it be hair care, deodorant, or body spray.
Although it has used different story lines in its ads over the years, Axe always plays on the assumption that women are possessions to be gained and achieve status. Women are there for men's pleasure and self-confidence. Even an average looking man with an average body becomes irresistible to the sexiest women when he wears Axe.

I won't explain every little sexist detail I find in Axe commercials, only because that is not the goal of this post. It's true that as a woman, I find such advertisements offensive, uncomfortable, and alarming on behalf of females everywhere. However, it doesn't really matter what I think about these ads, because I'm not the target audience for Axe...I'm not the one buying the products.

Based on the products sold and the content of the commercials, Axe targets 18-24 year old heterosexual males. Since this is a very prominent group in society, I think it's safe to say Axe is not concerned with multicultural advertising. If it was, these commercials would appeal to non-white minorities and women.

Axe crafts its marketing messages based on the audience it is trying to sell its products to. The company uses language and cultural references/awareness of the way things are to sell not just a product, but also assimilation to cultural norms that can only be achieved using Axe.
In this specific case, the norm Axe is promoting is a heterosexual male desire to attract women (potential sexual partners). But the way Axe does this is through images and language that integrate the target audience's desire to be desired. Playing on the cultural belief that men must attract women, and attempting to exploit insecurities of men that they may not be attractive enough to females.

So Axe commercials and advertisements may be offensive and distasteful to a part of the female population that feels objectified by them...but to Axe that doesn't completely matter because its not looking for approval of a multicultural audience anyways.

Catcalling is Not a Compliment

Happy November, friends!
As I mentally prepare myself and my stomach for the upcoming feast of tradition that will be upon us in t-minus 18 days.
Speaking of traditions, one of my all-time favorite hobbies/procrastination tools are BuzzFeed quizzes. Let's not lie to ourselves...we are probably more entertained with these quizzes than we should be. But BuzzFeed is clearly doing this on purpose as it is one of the most successful ways they attract more traffic to their website.
Another way BuzzFeed has been gaining more attention is through certain videos, specifically their recent  videos on catcalling. The BuzzFeed staff has put out three videos in the past few months concerning humorous takes on this otherwise not humorous societal situation. Check them all out below for a laugh.







Now, although these are all extremely laughable, we need to recognize why these videos are so funny to us. Basically these videos mock what happens in real life, which is most often the catcalling of women walking down the street minding their own business. While women also may catcall men in a real-life situation, gender inequality means that the power dynamics at play, frequency of it in demographic comparisons, and the impact on the receiver of the catcalls is rarely comparable in these situations. In short, catcalling is a way of asserting dominance in a space and is often used as intimidation...something it is much more difficult to achieve for a woman in a male-dominated, patriarchal society.

First to be clear though, I probably shouldn't be using the term "catcalling" because it doesn't convey the problem behind the seriousness of the issue, which is street harassment. Just so we're all on the same page here, street harassment is defined as any action or comment between strangers in public that is disrespectful, unwelcome, threatening, and/or harassing and is motivated by gender or sexual orientation or gender expression.
And I use this definition to combat the defense of street harassment I so often here, which is, "It's just a person greeting another person. Can we not say hello anymore to one another?" I also hear "It's a compliment and they (meaning the receiver) should be flattered and thank them (them being the harasser)." The BuzzFeed video "If Dudes Catcalled Dudes" actually mentions these specifically...by pointing out how ridiculous they are.

It is ignorant to think that because one is commenting on another person's body in a "positive" way that it is a compliment. Especially when it is a stranger. Yelling it at them as they walk by avoiding eye contact and shutting themselves off to any type of "friendly" advances.
Sexual harassment, street harassment, is not a funny issue at all. But hopefully through videos like the ones BuzzFeed has put out, will contribute to the conversation about why it should be taken as the ridiculous way of asserting male dominance that it actually is.

The Cultural Adaptions in Divergent

Growing up as a military child, adapting to a new culture every three years was normal- including getting use to customs of people in countries abroad, such as when I lived in Japan. Moving to Japan as an American middle schooler was probably the biggest learning experience of my life in terms of respect for another culture, while still maintaining ideals and practices of my own American culture. Now, up until a week or so ago I would have called this experience and assimilation for my and my family. We visited sushi bars a few times a week, began learning the language, and engaging in a lot of local cultural traditions.

I previously thought assimilation was the only word to describe an acceptance for another culture. However, Berry's Two Dimensional Model of Culture and the Individual proves there are actually four different outcomes for the way a person accepts (or does not accept) a new culture. The recent movie Divergent is one movie where it seems all four are represented and if you haven't seen it, I'll try to make sense of it without spoiling the movie plot!



So basically, Divergent takes place in post-rebellion Chicago. Citizens have been separated into four different groups, or factions as they call them, to keep the peace. The main character, Beatrice, undergoes a choosing ceremony where she can decided whether she wants to become a part of her faction, Abnegation, for life or if she wants to move to one of the other four factions. She ends up choosing to change factions and become a Dauntless, where she is told she must leave her Abnegation past behind and devote herself wholeheartedly to becoming a strong, brave, bad-ass Dauntless- thus even changing her name to "Tris". Now, this is assimilation which, as Berry defines it is a movement of the individual towards the culture they are now in, and leaving behind their old one.



This isn't what Tris ends up doing, seeing as she is Divergent, but that's a part of the plot I'm not going to discuss here (hint hint go watch it). Instead, Tris begins to merge parts of her original Abnegation culture into her training and even refuses to estrange herself from her parents and brother, visiting with them. This is what Berry refers to as integration, in which a person synthesizes both cultures into their lifestyles.

During Dauntless training, Tris has peers who struggle with the way the faction does things, one of whom can't seem to learn aggression over kindness and refuses to embrace Dauntless ways of life. According to Berry, we can identify this as rejection, meaning a reaffirmation of a person's past/first culture as he or she rejects the new one.



The final outcome of Berry's model, marginalization, is described as an alienation from both cultures. In Divergent, this is best exemplified by "the factionless" who are the group of people who have been turned away from their faction and abandoned, or even themselves refused to be apart of a faction. These people are looked to as the scum in this society, people everyone else feels sorry for but don't want to end up being like.

While watching Divergent for about the 20th time this weekend, I connected a lot of Berry's model on individual participation in culture with the story lines as well as my own life.
I should say that this model doesn't fit feelings of individuals towards their cultural backgrounds into neat little boxes, but this gives us a great guideline to go refer to when creating productive conversations about issues such as immigration, international relations, and even our own travels and life experiences.

A Dollar Won't Even Make Me Holler for Honey Boo Boo Child

Happy Sunday evening, all you wonderful readers. What makes this evening particularly great is the fact it actually feels like fall here in Colorado for once. Not summer, not winter, but the happy-medium between the two. I've taken advantage of this afternoon by sipping coffee and relishing in one of my favorite things about fall...great television.
In fact, one of my favorite shows in particular premiered its fourth season Wednesday. With all the promotions its been receiving for the creepy freak show theme this season, I couldn't wait for American Horror Story to start. We're only one episode in, but I'm excited to see where the season goes and was delighted to see such amazing portrayals of a characters whose live revolve around being a spectacle of entertainment.
Speaking of "freak show" spectacles...let's focus on a much different kind of television show that exposes eccentricities of a group of people: Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.

My assumption is you've heard of Honey Boo Boo. But if you've somehow been lucky enough not to watch this piece of pop culture in all its glory.



What you just witnessed was the introduction of Honey Boo Boo child to America and the start of her family in the pop culture spotlight. In 2012, TLC gave the Thompson/Shannon family they're own show Here Come Honey Boo Boo, which is still on the air today.
Now, I enjoy my fair share of reality television but I personally can't stand this show. Because I feel almost guilty watching it knowing the family is only receiving television time so that Americans everywhere can sit and laugh at them and judge their oddities...just like a circus freak show.

Hank Stuever of The Washington Post most notably praised the show for being real and depicting "solid-if unorthodox- family values." In some cases this may be true. I'm not an adament watcher of the program but I've heard Mama June, as she is called, is a very loving mother to her children.



Thus, I don't think the problem I have with the show is the family but rather how the family is looked down upon as "white trash", that very ugly phrase we pin on white Americans who are oddities to the dominant culture. Poor, redneck, hillbillies who are given this label and who we compare ourselves to in order to reassure we are middle class.

The Thompson/Shannon family is depicted similarly to how a lot of working class families have been portrayed in the past. First off, they have bad taste- their clothes are from WalMart and often too tight and don't match. This also applies to their food options- tuna casserole is a fine dinner dish to them. Mama June's choice of wedding attire may also be seen as "strange and tacky" seeing as she chose to marry in a hunting camo gown. Secondly, their lack of intelligence is a huge source of entertainment for viewers that want a laugh. This one is the most prominent, with mispronunciations and completely off-the-wall things they say.





Thirdly, the family members are portrayed a lot as being lazy, implying that this is why they are overweight/obese. These people aren't interested in advancing a career, physical activity, or improving intellectually. Instead, they are perfectly content with sitting around, eating and sleeping



Lastly, the family is seen as dysfunctional and thus a stark contrast for traditional values. Mama June refers to her three other children affectionately as Pumpkin, Chubbs, and Chickadee. Chickadee, who was pregnant in the first season, gave birth at the end. This story line of teen pregnancy is realistic...but plays into the stereotype that poorer white folks get pregnant young, have a bunch of hillbilly children, and stay poor because of this to collect a welfare check.

As I stated previously, my problem doesn't lie with the family on Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, but the fact they're clearly used by TLC to get ratings...it's like a car crash, viewers can't look away even if it almost hurts to watch.
I wish the show didn't focus so much on depicting this working class family as "disgusting" and "trashy" and fun to laugh at rather than relatable. Once we see a show on TV that does that, I'll be happy to tune in each week.

Isn't Adam Levine Too Sexy to be Creepy?

Tuesday, Maroon 5 released the music video for their new single "Animals" from the band's appropriately titled fifth studio album, V. Immediately, the video received a lot of criticism for its supposed portrayal of violence against women. A Time article titled, "New Adam Levine Video Confuses Violence and Love" discusses this view with quotes from the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN) to back the authors point about how Levine's stalking of his love interest (played by his real life wife) makes him sexy, misunderstood, and romantic.

(Read the article here: http://time.com/3453596/adam-levine-maroon-5-video-stalker/)

Now, I somewhat agree with this article and somewhat don't. I do agree that the video makes Adam Levine's creepy, meat-butchering character desirable. But I don't agree with the author's framework of where the real problem lies.

Let me change gears on you for just a second so I can explain what framing is and why it's so important. Have you ever only heard one side of a story? And made judgement about a whole occurrence based on that one part without considering another way the story could be seen? Well, this is why media outlets frame stories different ways, giving you that one part they want you to hear so that you will side with their view. Even though different news outlets may cover the same story, for example, the nude photo leak I discussed a few weeks ago, they may frame that story a same way to get across a certain viewpoint. For some outlets, the cause of the leak was blamed on Apple for their poor security, while others blamed the celebrities for taking the pictures in the first place. These points of who to blame made us feel sorry and pitiless for the celebrity victims, respectively. Finally, based on how we felt about the photo leak, we decided what to do about it by either refusing to look at the pictures or stop taking racy photos of ourselves to prevent anything like this happening to us.

So, now let's switch back to Adam Levine and his blood spattered bare chest and discuss the way "Animals" has been discussed in the media thus far. The Time article says the problem is the romanticized stalking in the video, but blames Adam Levine specifically. Not the band, not the director or producer, but in the title calls out Levine by name. The author then morally evaluates the video by saying we should be disturbed by the way Levine makes young, impressionable girls want to be stalked like the girl in this video. The implication, therefore, is that we should basically quit watching Adam Levine's videos because there are troubling examples of his violence in the past, with videos such as "Misery".

Basically, I think the author has a point. Yes, I admit I think Adam Levine is a gloriously attractive human specimen. And his voice makes the butterflies in my tummy flutter. And it is in fact hard of me to see his actions in the video as creepy because he is Adam Levine. But I differ from the author on the cause of this. I think we need to reevaluate our societal schemas, or preconceived ideas we have on certain events, people, and things. Adam Levine knows he is sexy. So does every other person in the world. He's been People's Sexiest Man Alive and is probably the real reason about 90 percent of the female population watches The Voice (No...I didn't just make up that statistic...). But this is not just Levine. In the past, lots of sexy men have made stalking seem romantic by portraying it as an ultimate act of devotion. A great '80s song, "Every Breath You Take" by The Police, is guilty of this. "Every breath you take, I'll be watching you."? I mean...come on.

My favorite example though is the teenage heartthrob/vegetarian vampire Edward Cullen from the Twilight Saga. I mean, he is the creepiest stalker of them all yet isn't thought of one because he's soooo in love with Bella and is handsome as heck. However, when we hear the word "creep" we automatically think of an overweight man with glasses, a beard, and a comb-over hairstyle. This schema doesn't fit with the schema of sexy vampire man Edward Cullen or Adam Levine, who we see as a talented celebrity who could literally make any mundane activity such as eating cereal suddenly become the sexiest thing we've ever witnessed.

Violence and crime in the name of infatuation is prevalent in popular culture, which is in fact very troubling. Yet, I believe the real cause of this is the prominence of these narratives in media across the board and we should be aware that these examples in no way are romantic in real life relationships. And although it seems an impossible feat, we should do our best to rethink what and who we see as having the potential to be creepy.

Sidenote (sort of): I still think Adam Levine is gorgeous and you should watch the new video for "Animals" here if you haven't seen it yet. Spoiler alert: there's lot's of blood and nakedness.

You Should Care About That Homeless Man Sleeping on the Side of the Road...Because He is Like You

Hello there everyone and happy first official weekend of Autumn!
There's so many fall festivities to attend to before the weather begins freezing us all in as it does every winter here in Colorado (I want to put on my fake Ugg boots and knock-off North Face jacket just thinking about it!) Speaking of events however, last weekend I found myself in Downtown Denver for Oktoberfest which has been going on for about a week there now. Of course, I'm talking Downtown Denver as in near Coors Field where it seems impossible to walk without seeing at least one or two homeless folks watching you stroll past pretending not to notice them.

I bring up this seemingly random observation because I know it's something we've all experiences, if not in Downtown Denver, maybe in another place. Seattle stands out in my mind as a place I remember seeing homeless people with cardboard signs and sad stories the most. I remember I was about 10 or 11 at the time and the fact there were people without a home and I was actually walking past them, being told to ignore them like everyone else walking by made me feel guilty. But above anything else, it was uncomfortable.

We have all heard stories about homeless people, am I right? They're lazy beggars, drunkards, drug addicts, and con artists.They're only going to use that $5 you were just stupid enough to give them to go buy another pack of cigarettes, or put it towards their next meth purchase.
But are they? And why do we just assume this about a man on the street we've never met? Why do we judge so harshly and separate ourselves from him? Why is that lady living under the bridge any different from me? How do we know she has never been in the exact job, earning the same salary, living in the same cozy 2-bedroom home that I live in?

A few weeks go on Facebook I came across a video produced by Rethink Homelessness, and organization raising awareness of homeless people in Florida and produces content to try and change the way this marginalized group is though about in society (For more info check out http://rethinkhomelessness.org/).

A marginalized group consists of people that are denied access to most, if not all, participation and representation in society. They have no say in how they are represented because they aren't allowed to speak for themselves. When you think about it, homeless people are undeniably marginalized. Don't think so? Have you ever heard someone say "homeless people just need to get a job." Well, most people are deprived of  the means to even attain an interview for a job, much less the job itself. When you go to a job interview, you want to come across as hygienic, professional, and competent. You do this by taking a shower, brushing your teeth, ironing your dress pants or skirt, and printing off a nice, crisply typed up resume from your computer. All of these things you do to prepare for an interview, well it would be a miracle for a homeless person to even gain access to a dependable shower. They are materially deprived because they lack the resources (and by resources I mean money, money, and oh yeah, money) that most of us do. Even if we don't consider ourselves "rich", we have access to health care, dependable food resources, a roof over our heads to keep out that cold weather I referred to earlier.

Therefore, it's unfair of us to ignore our privilege and tell those without the privilege's we have that they need to better themselves without the means to do so. The vast majority of  people are oppressed and instead of us looking at them as an uncomfortable thing to walk by on a morning commute, let's recognize that they may not be all that different from you and me.

A Less Than Credible Call for Equal Love in Rap Music by a White, Straight Macklemore

I love music. I love all genres of music. Yes, even country. And, yes, even hip-hop. I have to clarify because I feel as though these two genres are mutually exclusive and you have to hate at least one. But I don't.
In fact, this weekend I listened as both music genres were represented at the iHeartRadio Music Festival in Las Vegas. As far as rap/hip-hop artists, the two day concert event included rappers 50 Cent, Childish Gambino, Nicki Minaj, and Iggy Azelea. Also, a surprise guest artist to sing a song with singer-songwriter Ed Sheeran...Macklemore.

The thing that surprised me most about Macklemore's performance is that it didn't surprise me at all. Because he played "Same Love" which is the song that's brought him national recognition as a progressive artist in the hip-hop industry.
If you're one of the very few people left that hasn't heard the song, you've probably at least heard about it. That is, that it's a commentary on the homophobic state of American society, especially in the hip-hop genre. Within the song, Macklemore calls for equal rights for gay/lesbian couples (hence, the title).
For a lot of people, especially gay rights activists, this is an inspirational song and the fact it comes from a straight male, a member of the dominant culture, is even better.
But is it?

The thing I find problematic about Macklemore's glorification as an equal-rights activist is that he's never had to face the bullying, rejection, and unequal social status of which he sings.
And why can he speak of these things and not face overwhelming scrutiny?
Honestly, because of his privilege.

Privilege so often comes tacked on after the word "white". However, privilege is applicable in many other ways. A person with privilege occupies a higher status in society because they meet the standards of what is normal and acceptable.
Most relevant to Macklemore, is white privilege in a dominantly black music genre, of course, but with this particular song it's important to note he also has the privilege of being straight in a heterosexual society.
He has never endured the pain of conditional love by friends and family that so many people who identify as homosexual have faced. Nor has he been denied the right to marry his beloved because government didn't see his relationship as legal and the church saw it as sin. Of course, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with singing about the problems our society faces in terms of gay rights. And to a large extent the fact Macklemore is a member of the dominant culture, who occupies a good amount of social standing because of his privilege, helped the national movement for equal love.

However, Macklemore's song focuses a lot on equating oppression of black America and the Civil Rights Movement ("a war based on skin color" to quote the song directly) with homophobia in the predominantly black genre of rap music. What seems questionable about this, again, is that Macklemore himself is white, a somewhat outsider in the hip-hop industry (which was actually started as an outlet for the black community to comment on white supremacy), who has never endured the oppression, stereotyping, or categorization as a criminal or thug that the black artists he's calling to in "Same Love" have. It makes it seem as though Macklemore is trying to be a leader to a group that he almost doesn't belong to, and by implying that black rap artists should know how it feels to be criticized and rejected by society, they should know better than to do it to another group of people.

You can see why as straight, white man, Macklemore's call to action may not be completely credible. Not to say it isn't admirable and that Macklemore as an artist is completely oblivious to his privilege (Sidenote: rewind in time he even has a song titled "White Privilege" in which he discusses the issue) BUT as far as "Same Love" is concerned, we should be questioning why the only song most people know about that addresses gay rights is coming from Macklemore.


Here is a link to a clip of Macklemore's "Same Love" performance on Saturday night with Ed Sheeran.

Post by iHeartRadio.

In Hollywood, Thin is Gorgeous and Fat is Hilarious

This weekend, I decided to kick back and relax with one of my favorite movies of all time: Bridesmaids. If you've never seen it yourself, let me highly recommend you watch it and prepare to laugh your way to six-pack abs in 2 hours and 5 minutes.
Of course, if you have seen it, you won't be surprised to hear that my favorite character is Meghan, played by the wonderful, beautiful, hilarious Melissa McCarthy.


http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma9fxipubb1rafiigo1_500.gif

Melissa McCarthy gained a lot of popularity from this role as the funniest, raunchiest, and most quotable character from the entire movie. But this weekend while watching it, I couldn't help but think about McCarthy's more recent roles in movies such as Tammy (2014), Identity Thief (2013), and The Heat (2013) and realize that all her characters are basically the same.

Now, don't get me wrong, I love Melissa McCarthy. But I can't help but be bored of the roles she's playing when they're always the same. However, I don't blame the actress here as much as I blame Hollywood for putting her in the box she's in. A box that sets her apart from other actresses in Hollywood through a process scholars actually refer to as "Othering".

Othering is a common thing we all do in order to distance ourselves from another person or group of people, whether we realize it or not. The U.S. does it with other countries all the time on the news when we talk about how different people in the Middle East are from Americans because "we love democracy and they love terrorism" and "we believe in freedom while they hurt their people." Othering is even common in our every day lives, when we compare ourselves to those around us, when we subconsciously note their different skin colors or the way they dress to affirm our own identities.

This practice is also present in Hollywood with "plus-sized" actresses in movies. Melissa McCarthy doesn't fit the thin, model image we often associate with "gorgeous" so she needs another quality, a special, unique one to make up for that, according to society's standards. This is why she's always cast as the hilarious, crude character...to consolidate for the fact she's not thin.

Sadly, this Othering of larger females isn't confined to Melissa McCarthy but also actresses such as Rebel Wilson who also happened to make her big debut in Bridesmaids and has since landed roles as the awkward, brash, and hilarious side woman in films such as Pitch Perfect and What to Expect When You're Expecting.

I hope that these women continue to play such hilarious roles in their comedic careers and shine bright doing so, but also that Hollywood stops over playing their crudeness simply because they're what our skinny-obsessed society would consider fat.

http://www.instyle.co.uk/awards/mtv-movie-awards-2013/melissa-mccarthy-and-rebel-wilson

Check out this article that gave me some inspiration!
http://popwatch.ew.com/2013/02/09/melissa-mccarthy-sookie-st-james/

Why the Recent Celebrity Photo Leak Matters in Changing Problematic U.S. Culture

Last week, one of the hottest stories in both popular culture and news media was that of the Apple iCloud hack in which a list of 100 celebrity private photos were stolen and distributed publicly. I argue that this "scandal" is definitely newsworthy...but not for the reasons our patriarchal U.S. society has dubbed it as so. I want to use this scandal to explain why the shaming of female celebrities for taking nude photos is used in media to reinforce the sexist notion that a woman who shows her body is a "slut" and should be ashamed, which is also alarmingly popular in our culture in cases of rape victim shaming.

The dominant culture in U.S. is largely enforced by our media. These dominant ideals are governed by society unofficially and this concept is what cultural scholars refer to as hegemony.
With the release of female celebrity nude photos, news outlets did not hesitate to cover the event as a "scandal" and many websites linked articles about "How To Keep YOUR Personal Pictures Private" or "Past Celebrity Naked Pic Scandals" as if to underhandedly suggest that this was the fault of celebrities for taking such "wild" and "risqué" pictures in the first place. When first hearing about the scandal on the evening news, my own parents immediately stated, "Well why would someone keep those on their phone?" This truly disturbed me because, it's similar to what I've heard before in cases of rape: victim-shaming. When a
woman opens up about being raped, a lot of people's initial reaction is to ask if she deserved it. Not in these exact words of course but in their assuming questions such as, "What was she wearing?" "Did she drink a lot that night?" "Well why was out alone so late?"
Wow! All so problematic because it should never ever...not ever!...be the victims fault. The fact it so often is portrayed as such is the reason many critics have called us a "rape culture." Of course not all rape victims are females, but most of the time this is so. And almost always they are shamed for not doing enough to protect  themselves from the situation.

Refreshingly, what has been so unique about this photo leak is the lack of celebrity apologies and shaming that we have seen in the past with celebrities such as Vanessa Hudgens when her naked photos were released in 2009. Her popularity on Disney Channel cause controversy at her "immoral" actions and the company even apologized for her. In this case, social media outlets have talked about Jennifer Lawrence in an uplifting way rather than shaming her actions. The hashtag #ImNotLooking has raised support for the actress's privacy rather than reprimanding her for taking the pictures in the first place.

This change in the way we have been talking about the photo hack is promising in upturning the problematic cultural phenomenon of victim-blaming, especially in cases where of a female and her most private property...her body.