This weekend I was listening to NPR and heard an interview with a Christian author regarding the topic of evangelizing. This man did a series of experiments with non-believers by taking them to various Christian churches ranging from very conservative to hyper-pentecostal in order determine why the average person has such an aversion to Christianity. What he discovered in talking to these non-believers after they experienced these different church environments was that they did not, in fact, have a problem with Christianity as a belief or with Jesus, they had a problem with Jesus's people. This author went on to explain that his experiment has totally changed his life and the way he relates to people who are not of his faith. He realized that it was the people of Christianity, and not the message, that was giving his faith and even his God a bad name.
This is a concept I have believed for years, and it is honestly why I keep so much of my own spiritual beliefs private. It got tiresome to see wrinkled noses, raised eyebrows and questioning expressions when I would declare my own faith. And then I would have to immediately qualify it with "but not one of THOSE Christians." You know the ones that judge you while living their own hypocritical life. Or the one's that are so closed minded they are unable to cope with the world around them and so they condemn everyone outside of their little box to hell. Or those that don't know the difference between spiritual beliefs and political rights. No no I'm not one of THOSE. So instead of the explaining I just stopped saying anything about my beliefs at all. Not because I am ashamed of what I believe, but because I am ashamed of the stigma attached to the label "Christian" which is the direct result of the conduct of the people of Christianity.
I was one of "those Christians" for a long time. And during that period of my life I felt more insecure, worthless, unsure, and mentally unhealthy than ever before and ever since. When I walked away from that time in my life, I was forced into a period of serious introspection and self discovery. I reevaluated everything including my faith and character. There were some bumpy times, and I certainly did things that I am not proud of, but I feel like everything I experienced was necessary for me to become who I am today. What I discovered was not that there was an inherent problem with my faith, there was a problem with the pattern of judgment, failure and condemnation that I found to be characteristic of the people and teachers in the churches I attended. That is not to say that everyone in my life had these traits, because not all of them did. But overall I think that Christianity breeds a culture of judgment and condemnation masked in language of forgiveness and love. I believe that the true message of the Bible has been lost in the agenda of the church, and as a result Christianity has lost more footing than it has gained.
My point is that I am a Christian. I am deeply flawed, and have much to learn from this life, which I admit freely. Because of my flaws I do not believe that it is my place to pass judgment on my fellow humans. Instead I feel it is my place to be loving, educated, generous, and to do everything I can to fight for those who are oppressed whether it be because of their gender, sexuality, religious beliefs, social standing, race, or any other measure humans come up with to oppress those who are different. And it is my hope that someday the majority of Christian churches will stop participating in the oppressing or the creation of categories for oppressing others. Maybe then our bad name will dissipate. Maybe then I and those like me won't feel trepidation when aligning ourselves with Christianity.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Full brain
I have been struggling with blogging since the quarter began a few weeks ago. The problem is not lack of inspiration, but rather too much inspiration, or information, and me not knowing what to tackle first. One of my favorite professors is teaching a class this quarter on the Politics of Punishment. This happens to be her area of expertise. She has her Ph.D from Yale where she wrote her dissertation as well as several published articles specifically on the carceral state in America. She also spent time at Berkley co-writing a book on the subject. It would be an understatement to call her well versed on information in this field. She has assigned us books that are considered the most important in this area of study and each class session is a combination of lecture and lively discussion. Being on the receiving end of this information has been difficult for me because, as I stated above, the subject is so big and I don't know where to begin. So I think for now I am going to go through a bunch of "did you know" facts to lay some sort of foundation for future blogs on this subject.
**Some History**
After the emancipation of the slaves there was "convict leasing," in the south, which allowed wealthy business men to lease felons (who were mostly black) for hard labor. Because these workers were not viewed as property (unlike when they were slaves) there was no motivation for the lessors to provide healthy working conditions. Most of these felons died within 3 years of their sentence.
A lot of these "convicts" were guilty of minor crimes such as stealing clothes off a laundry line, food out of a yard, coins off a counter, but remember this was right after the emancipation and most of the ex-slaves were so poor, and left with so little opportunity, stealing was the only option next to starvation for most.
Some of these "convicts" were not guilty of a crime at all, but were picked out by the wealthy business owners for being able bodied and strong, the business owner would then point them out to the sheriff who would arrest them on contrived charges and then lease them out to the wealthy owner for monetary gain.
After convict leasing was done away with, the south still practiced lynchings on a regular basis. Black men and women were not given fair trials because the white population believed that all black people were liars. The federal government did not intervene on behalf of the black population.
It was 80 years before there was any major legislation to assist in equality for the black population - the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which outlawed segregation
**More Recent History**
Prior to the mid-1970's we were on track to do away with the death penalty and to go towards a more rehabilitative carceral system.
1976 Gregg v. Georgia ended the moratorium on capital punishment, since then over 5,000 people have been put to death. Texas and Virginia lead the country in executions.
We are the only western nation who still practices the death penalty. Currently the only other industrialized nations who practice the death penalty (other than the U.S) are China and Japan. Japan has only executed 603 people since 1946, China does not release information on executions. Neither country sees capitol punishment as a public issue and it is not openly discussed. Our capitol punishment system is on par with Iraq, Iran, and other nations we have labeled as the "axis of evil" or terrorist countries.
It costs approximately 750 million dollars MORE per year to facilitate capitol punishment versus life in prison.
Since the 1980's we have practiced determinate sentencing with required "mandatory minimums." The power is no longer in the hands of judges to take into account various factors and situations attributing to the crime, but rather in the hands of the prosecutors who decide which crime to charge an offender with.
Our country requires felons to serve 85% of their sentence before the option of parole is available. In the 1994 Crime Bill states had to have laws on the books reflecting this rule (85% sentence minimum) or they would not receive federal funding for future prison builds or improvements.
Our system no longer focuses on rehabilitation for prisoners. The Nixon years changed public rhetoric from viewing the poor, mentally ill, and criminals as good people who are stuck in bad situations to being talked about as bad people who do bad things and need to be punished. This attributed to our nations shift from rehabilitative programs to programs that focus on punishing and isolating the "under-class" (poor, minorities, disabled, mentally ill) from the rest of the population.
Between 1980 and 1997 the amount of blacks, Hispanics, women, and mentally ill has increased from 1/2 to 3/4 of the prison population.
According to Amnesty International - prisons are treated as dumping grounds for the undesirables, and commit what are categorized as human rights violations on a daily basis.
The 1994 Crime Bill did away with pell grants for prisoners, so most no longer have access to education behind bars. In fact educational, vocational, drug rehabilitation, and recreational programs have been dramatically cut since 1994.
Currently our prisons are full of convicts who are guilty of committing non-violent crimes. Less than 8% of those currently incarcerated are guilty of "index" crimes (rape, murder, armed robbery)- less than 5% are incarcerated for murder. Most criminals are serving time for drug and property related offenses of a non-violent nature.
Violent crimes account for less than 5% of convictions but receive over 75% of the media coverage leading to an over frightened and misled public.
1984 Omnibus Crime Bill made it legal for police forces to seize any property believed to be acquired via drug money (ex. cars, homes, bank accounts). These police forces are allowed to keep a portion of the materials seized regardless whether or not the person or persons arrested are ever convicted or ever even CHARGED with a crime.
The majority (anywhere from 4/5's to 2/3's) of people arrested for drug related offenses are charge with possession rather than trafficking.
Between 1980 and 1999 the amount of people doing time for drug related offenses has increased 1000%. In reality the rate of illegal drug abuse among adults has remained stable since 1993.
The penalty on drugs is racially skewed. Currently there is a 10 to 1 penalty (an offender would have to be in possession of 10 times more powder than crack to receive the same sentence) for powder versus crack cocaine even though both products are nearly equal in purity. Crack has been seen as a "poor black" drug since the 1980's.
There is no indication that our mass incarceration and harsh punishment laws are doing anything to battle our rising crime rate. In fact research shows that our overly punitive system is less effective than our less punitive counterparts (Western Europe). Our current system fosters joblessness, disenfranchisement and isolation of minorities, and reinforces the codes of the streets (which have now become the codes of the prisons). Because so many non-violent offenders are more likely to serve hard time, and because of the over crowding (33 states have over crowded prisons, 22 of those are under a court order to lessen their criminal population) and frequently violent environment that is now common in most prisons, we are turning our non-violent offenders into violent, hardened criminals and releasing them back onto the streets. I began with some history of race because we have not made any major strides to remedy our racially skewed punishment system. One of the books I read actually dealt with the concept of "DWB" or "driving while black." The author pointed out that minorities are still frequently hassled by police under the guise of having a "drug courier profile" which basically means that they are not white. Since 9/11 this profiling has extended to people of Arab decent or even people who could possibly be of Arab decent.
This is really just the very tip of the iceberg as far as information, facts and statistics go. I think it is important to put information out there so that people can begin to have conversations, begin to research, begin to question why things are the way they are in our country.
**Some History**
After the emancipation of the slaves there was "convict leasing," in the south, which allowed wealthy business men to lease felons (who were mostly black) for hard labor. Because these workers were not viewed as property (unlike when they were slaves) there was no motivation for the lessors to provide healthy working conditions. Most of these felons died within 3 years of their sentence.
A lot of these "convicts" were guilty of minor crimes such as stealing clothes off a laundry line, food out of a yard, coins off a counter, but remember this was right after the emancipation and most of the ex-slaves were so poor, and left with so little opportunity, stealing was the only option next to starvation for most.
Some of these "convicts" were not guilty of a crime at all, but were picked out by the wealthy business owners for being able bodied and strong, the business owner would then point them out to the sheriff who would arrest them on contrived charges and then lease them out to the wealthy owner for monetary gain.
After convict leasing was done away with, the south still practiced lynchings on a regular basis. Black men and women were not given fair trials because the white population believed that all black people were liars. The federal government did not intervene on behalf of the black population.
It was 80 years before there was any major legislation to assist in equality for the black population - the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which outlawed segregation
**More Recent History**
Prior to the mid-1970's we were on track to do away with the death penalty and to go towards a more rehabilitative carceral system.
1976 Gregg v. Georgia ended the moratorium on capital punishment, since then over 5,000 people have been put to death. Texas and Virginia lead the country in executions.
We are the only western nation who still practices the death penalty. Currently the only other industrialized nations who practice the death penalty (other than the U.S) are China and Japan. Japan has only executed 603 people since 1946, China does not release information on executions. Neither country sees capitol punishment as a public issue and it is not openly discussed. Our capitol punishment system is on par with Iraq, Iran, and other nations we have labeled as the "axis of evil" or terrorist countries.
It costs approximately 750 million dollars MORE per year to facilitate capitol punishment versus life in prison.
Since the 1980's we have practiced determinate sentencing with required "mandatory minimums." The power is no longer in the hands of judges to take into account various factors and situations attributing to the crime, but rather in the hands of the prosecutors who decide which crime to charge an offender with.
Our country requires felons to serve 85% of their sentence before the option of parole is available. In the 1994 Crime Bill states had to have laws on the books reflecting this rule (85% sentence minimum) or they would not receive federal funding for future prison builds or improvements.
Our system no longer focuses on rehabilitation for prisoners. The Nixon years changed public rhetoric from viewing the poor, mentally ill, and criminals as good people who are stuck in bad situations to being talked about as bad people who do bad things and need to be punished. This attributed to our nations shift from rehabilitative programs to programs that focus on punishing and isolating the "under-class" (poor, minorities, disabled, mentally ill) from the rest of the population.
Between 1980 and 1997 the amount of blacks, Hispanics, women, and mentally ill has increased from 1/2 to 3/4 of the prison population.
According to Amnesty International - prisons are treated as dumping grounds for the undesirables, and commit what are categorized as human rights violations on a daily basis.
The 1994 Crime Bill did away with pell grants for prisoners, so most no longer have access to education behind bars. In fact educational, vocational, drug rehabilitation, and recreational programs have been dramatically cut since 1994.
Currently our prisons are full of convicts who are guilty of committing non-violent crimes. Less than 8% of those currently incarcerated are guilty of "index" crimes (rape, murder, armed robbery)- less than 5% are incarcerated for murder. Most criminals are serving time for drug and property related offenses of a non-violent nature.
Violent crimes account for less than 5% of convictions but receive over 75% of the media coverage leading to an over frightened and misled public.
1984 Omnibus Crime Bill made it legal for police forces to seize any property believed to be acquired via drug money (ex. cars, homes, bank accounts). These police forces are allowed to keep a portion of the materials seized regardless whether or not the person or persons arrested are ever convicted or ever even CHARGED with a crime.
The majority (anywhere from 4/5's to 2/3's) of people arrested for drug related offenses are charge with possession rather than trafficking.
Between 1980 and 1999 the amount of people doing time for drug related offenses has increased 1000%. In reality the rate of illegal drug abuse among adults has remained stable since 1993.
The penalty on drugs is racially skewed. Currently there is a 10 to 1 penalty (an offender would have to be in possession of 10 times more powder than crack to receive the same sentence) for powder versus crack cocaine even though both products are nearly equal in purity. Crack has been seen as a "poor black" drug since the 1980's.
There is no indication that our mass incarceration and harsh punishment laws are doing anything to battle our rising crime rate. In fact research shows that our overly punitive system is less effective than our less punitive counterparts (Western Europe). Our current system fosters joblessness, disenfranchisement and isolation of minorities, and reinforces the codes of the streets (which have now become the codes of the prisons). Because so many non-violent offenders are more likely to serve hard time, and because of the over crowding (33 states have over crowded prisons, 22 of those are under a court order to lessen their criminal population) and frequently violent environment that is now common in most prisons, we are turning our non-violent offenders into violent, hardened criminals and releasing them back onto the streets. I began with some history of race because we have not made any major strides to remedy our racially skewed punishment system. One of the books I read actually dealt with the concept of "DWB" or "driving while black." The author pointed out that minorities are still frequently hassled by police under the guise of having a "drug courier profile" which basically means that they are not white. Since 9/11 this profiling has extended to people of Arab decent or even people who could possibly be of Arab decent.
This is really just the very tip of the iceberg as far as information, facts and statistics go. I think it is important to put information out there so that people can begin to have conversations, begin to research, begin to question why things are the way they are in our country.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Coming to an End......
I have 8 days left before I start school again and resume blogging regularly. I am so excited for my fall classes. One is a seminar in the Politics of Punishment, and the other is Social Movements in America. The texts for both classes (7 books for one, 2 books for the other) seem provocative and challenging. But in the mean time I am trying to finish up my break with a bang. This weekend is the wedding of a dear friend and then Saturday I volunteer with the Human Rights Campaign for their GLBT rights dinner. My hope is to discover if there are any volunteer opportunities regarding working with victims of sex trafficking in Seattle or working with legislators who are trying to fight this growing crime. Anyhoo, next week I should be back to blogging about what I'm learning in class.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Learn to LOVE Your Body!
I am reposting the below articles and text from another persons blog because it really struck a cord with me. Anyone who has known me for any length of time knows that I have had a lifelong battle with my bulge. I am tall for a female, but also curvy, and tend to carry extra weight in my tummy. For YEARS I crash dieted, took pills, followed any fad that promised to make me thin. I have spent YEARS hating my body, which causes this vicious cycle of self loathing and looks based self esteem. Even when I was at my lowest weight,(which by the way was the weight that nutrition charts said was perfect for my height and yet you could see every single bone in my rib cage, spine, and hips) I still hated my body, and could easily point out every single trouble spot I had. About 2 years ago I decided enough was enough. I am a fabulous person! I am intelligent, kind, loving, fair, nurturing, passionate, determined, equitable, loyal, honest, funny...etc., and none of that has anything to do with the muscles in my stomach or the fatness of my ass. I decided that it was time to stop hating my body and start loving my soul. Once I did that I realized that not only was I wonderful on the inside, but I am beautiful and sexy on the outside (at the very least to my husband and his opinion is really the only one that matters to me). I stopped caring so much about how I looked and really focused on being the best human being I could be. And now I am focusing on being healthy by eating better and exercising. But I have not weighed myself in over a year and have no intention of ever doing so again. I don't deprive myself of food that I am craving, I don't punish myself if I indulge. I don't believe there is any such thing as "bad food." I love to eat, if it makes my taste buds happy then it isn't bad. But I am conscious that I want to put good nourishing things into my body most of the time, and I try to do that. And I always try to exercise moderation. I go to the gym 4 - 5 days a week and try to walk or run at least one day on the weekends. But my goal is not to lose weight. In fact if I stay this same size for the rest of my life, then that is clearly the way my body was meant to look and I am 100% okay with that. If I lose weight, that is fine too. I go to the doctor regularly and everything is healthy and normal. I just think that this obsessive hatred most women have for their bodies is outdated and ridiculous. And just because you may never look like the women on television, movies, or magazines does not make you any less normal and beautiful. I think it is high time we start celebrating the fabulous uniqueness of each gorgeous woman and stop hating on each other and ourselves!
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2009/08/28/the-fat-nutritionist-how-i-learned-to-love-my-body.aspx
http://www.newsweek.com/id/213646
http://www.newsweek.com/id/213807
I was reading these articles today. This is a major topic for me. I have about driven people crazy hammering away at it (& sadly may have damaged/lost a friendship) but it's because I feel that people are so hurtful to each other even when they themselves have insecurities about their bodies. I wish people would just cut themselves and others some slack and learn to be more accepting. How about some compassion and kindness for your fellow human beings.
In daily life I try to eat well. I go dancing 3-5 times a week. I go to regular check ups with my doctor. I have normal blood sugar levels (I am not diabetic). I have normal cholesterol levels, I have normal thyroid function. My point being, my tests are within 'norma'l ranges. Could I be healthier? The answer is very likely yes but am I unhealthy, no. I am overweight and HEALTHY. I am a mix between a Mesomorph and an Endomorph.(see below) I AM NORMAL yet I feel the disgust, the discrimination and the hatred on a daily basis. People feel free to comment on my size and ask me if I've lost weight as if it is a compliment. "Hey you're looking good. Have you lost weight?" may seem like a compliment but only if you can swallow the backhanded insult that followed the compliment. I am usually fairly comfortable with my body. It does what it is supposed to do. It works quite well for me and sometimes for others too ;-D. What I *really* have a problem with is other people's negative judgments and comments about my body and how I feel about those behaviors.
This is a topic that makes a lot of people uncomfortable and sometimes even angry. I get angry when somebody tells me I would be more attractive if I were thinner. My answer to that is, I am not but how does that make me any more or less valuable as a person? I don't think it does, nor should it. I have a good intellect, a fair sense of humor, a good heart, and I am generally a decent human being. So why should it be of so much importance what dress size I am? 19 years ago when I was at an ideal weight of 119 lbs, I barely filled a 'B' cup bra and wore a size 10/12 jeans because I have hips. I still had hate filled insults hurled at me for being 'fat' and/or for not having big enough tits. It hurt just as much then as it does now. Only now I have the added bonus of actually being fat with bigger tits, so I somehow actually deserve the hatred? NO Fuck that! Peoples bodies are constantly changing. We get injuries, we get disease, we grow old, we get wrinkles, flaws and imperfections. These things are not who we are. TRUE BEAUTY COMES FROM WITHIN.
How does size discrimination differ from other forms of discrimination? You wouldn't tell somebody they would look better if their skin was a different color or that you don't like how wide or narrow their nose is or if their eyes were set differently or they would be more attractive if they didn't have a disability. No you usually just accept these differences and accept them for who they are. But with size/weight people feel free to make judgments on your value because maybe it is their perception that you don't take care of yourself, you are lazy, or gluttonous. Somehow defective. I think this is BS. There are people far thinner (and younger too) than I who I can outperform on a physical level. People come in all shapes, sizes, colors and abilities. It doesn't really make any specific one more or less valuable than the other.
Do I understand that when it comes to attraction that this changes things a bit, YES I do. There are preferences but I also think that there are also usually exceptions to those preferences. I prefer tall, intelligent, good looking, clean shaven, kind men, with nice hair (the longer the better if it's in good condition) and the geek factor usually has to be kind of high too :-) Yes, All of that is subjective. So have I been attracted to others that don't fit that description? Of course I have, because I have gotten to know them and realized that they are amazing people and this magic thing happens where I start to find that individual attractive, not for their physical features but for who they are as a human being. Hell I have even fallen for a few, very select, women because of this *far rarer for me* They are usually women I aspire to be more like in some way or who show me kindness that others fail to show. We typically wind up being really good friends.
Another problem with attraction is all too often people fail to look at others as human beings and rather they become a commodity that is there for their consumption. When somebody says 'I'd fuck him/her if I could put a bag over his/her face" or "I'd fuck him/her for his/her gorgeous (insert feature of choice here)" that is saying that you only see him/her as an object or a possession and not as a person deserving of love and respect. Nobody deserves to feel like less because they are not some unrealistic standard of beauty that gets shoved down our throats by the media. Nobody wants to be a possession or a conquest. There is nothing wrong with desire but when you fail to connect with a person on human level you are short changing them and yourself. Just hire a sex worker who has no interest in emotional attachments with you (BTW I am opposed to this for other reasons that I will not go into in this post) or go get a blow up doll or a vibrator and spare others your selfish BS.
On another note the idea that you need somebody else's approval on who you are friends with or who you are dating only speaks to your own insecurity. If you like somebody and it works for you then do it, if it makes you happy. It's your life. I say this because I have known of guys who refuse to date fat women openly and hide them away because they think others will think there is something wrong with them for being attracted to somebody who is not 'ideal'. Well I say get over yourself, show her the love and respect she deserves or stop dating her. Not to mention you may feel better about yourself if you had enough self respect and respect for others to be confident in your choices.
This is not meant to be me up on a soapbox screaming hey love me because I'm fat. It's me saying hey please learn to love and accept yourself and others for who you/they are. I am not perfect. I have flaws and that is OK. EVERYBODY DOES. It's what makes each of us individuals.
I think that we as people should be more focused on the content of another persons character than what we see solely with our eyes.
This would make for a lot less people who are suffering from loneliness and looking to connect with others a whole helluva lot easier.
I'm sure I could go on and on about this but I will /end now
The body type classifications from the Student Nutrition Action Committee at UCLA
Ectomorphs are generally tall and thin and have long arms and legs. These people have difficulty gaining weight and muscle no matter how much they eat or how hard they weight train. They have the body type you tend to see in ballet dancers, runway models, long-distance runners, and some basketball players. A very small proportion of the population has this type of body.
Mesomorphs are generally muscular, shorter, and have stocky arms and legs. These people are strong and tend to gain muscle mass when they do strength training. They may find it difficult to lose weight, but they excel in power sports like soccer, softball, vaulting in gymnastics, sprinting events in track and field.
Endomorphs are generally shaped like apples or pears and carry more body fat. Their bodies resist losing weight and body fat no matter how restrictive they are with their eating. In fact, the more they “diet,” the more their metabolisms slow down to resist weight loss. These people are better able to handle long periods of starvation and famine (which was a benefit to our ancestors). Sports they excel at are distance swimming, field events, and weight lifting.
Source:http://www.johnriviello.com/bodyimage/types.html
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2009/08/28/the-fat-nutritionist-how-i-learned-to-love-my-body.aspx
http://www.newsweek.com/id/213646
http://www.newsweek.com/id/213807
I was reading these articles today. This is a major topic for me. I have about driven people crazy hammering away at it (& sadly may have damaged/lost a friendship) but it's because I feel that people are so hurtful to each other even when they themselves have insecurities about their bodies. I wish people would just cut themselves and others some slack and learn to be more accepting. How about some compassion and kindness for your fellow human beings.
In daily life I try to eat well. I go dancing 3-5 times a week. I go to regular check ups with my doctor. I have normal blood sugar levels (I am not diabetic). I have normal cholesterol levels, I have normal thyroid function. My point being, my tests are within 'norma'l ranges. Could I be healthier? The answer is very likely yes but am I unhealthy, no. I am overweight and HEALTHY. I am a mix between a Mesomorph and an Endomorph.(see below) I AM NORMAL yet I feel the disgust, the discrimination and the hatred on a daily basis. People feel free to comment on my size and ask me if I've lost weight as if it is a compliment. "Hey you're looking good. Have you lost weight?" may seem like a compliment but only if you can swallow the backhanded insult that followed the compliment. I am usually fairly comfortable with my body. It does what it is supposed to do. It works quite well for me and sometimes for others too ;-D. What I *really* have a problem with is other people's negative judgments and comments about my body and how I feel about those behaviors.
This is a topic that makes a lot of people uncomfortable and sometimes even angry. I get angry when somebody tells me I would be more attractive if I were thinner. My answer to that is, I am not but how does that make me any more or less valuable as a person? I don't think it does, nor should it. I have a good intellect, a fair sense of humor, a good heart, and I am generally a decent human being. So why should it be of so much importance what dress size I am? 19 years ago when I was at an ideal weight of 119 lbs, I barely filled a 'B' cup bra and wore a size 10/12 jeans because I have hips. I still had hate filled insults hurled at me for being 'fat' and/or for not having big enough tits. It hurt just as much then as it does now. Only now I have the added bonus of actually being fat with bigger tits, so I somehow actually deserve the hatred? NO Fuck that! Peoples bodies are constantly changing. We get injuries, we get disease, we grow old, we get wrinkles, flaws and imperfections. These things are not who we are. TRUE BEAUTY COMES FROM WITHIN.
How does size discrimination differ from other forms of discrimination? You wouldn't tell somebody they would look better if their skin was a different color or that you don't like how wide or narrow their nose is or if their eyes were set differently or they would be more attractive if they didn't have a disability. No you usually just accept these differences and accept them for who they are. But with size/weight people feel free to make judgments on your value because maybe it is their perception that you don't take care of yourself, you are lazy, or gluttonous. Somehow defective. I think this is BS. There are people far thinner (and younger too) than I who I can outperform on a physical level. People come in all shapes, sizes, colors and abilities. It doesn't really make any specific one more or less valuable than the other.
Do I understand that when it comes to attraction that this changes things a bit, YES I do. There are preferences but I also think that there are also usually exceptions to those preferences. I prefer tall, intelligent, good looking, clean shaven, kind men, with nice hair (the longer the better if it's in good condition) and the geek factor usually has to be kind of high too :-) Yes, All of that is subjective. So have I been attracted to others that don't fit that description? Of course I have, because I have gotten to know them and realized that they are amazing people and this magic thing happens where I start to find that individual attractive, not for their physical features but for who they are as a human being. Hell I have even fallen for a few, very select, women because of this *far rarer for me* They are usually women I aspire to be more like in some way or who show me kindness that others fail to show. We typically wind up being really good friends.
Another problem with attraction is all too often people fail to look at others as human beings and rather they become a commodity that is there for their consumption. When somebody says 'I'd fuck him/her if I could put a bag over his/her face" or "I'd fuck him/her for his/her gorgeous (insert feature of choice here)" that is saying that you only see him/her as an object or a possession and not as a person deserving of love and respect. Nobody deserves to feel like less because they are not some unrealistic standard of beauty that gets shoved down our throats by the media. Nobody wants to be a possession or a conquest. There is nothing wrong with desire but when you fail to connect with a person on human level you are short changing them and yourself. Just hire a sex worker who has no interest in emotional attachments with you (BTW I am opposed to this for other reasons that I will not go into in this post) or go get a blow up doll or a vibrator and spare others your selfish BS.
On another note the idea that you need somebody else's approval on who you are friends with or who you are dating only speaks to your own insecurity. If you like somebody and it works for you then do it, if it makes you happy. It's your life. I say this because I have known of guys who refuse to date fat women openly and hide them away because they think others will think there is something wrong with them for being attracted to somebody who is not 'ideal'. Well I say get over yourself, show her the love and respect she deserves or stop dating her. Not to mention you may feel better about yourself if you had enough self respect and respect for others to be confident in your choices.
This is not meant to be me up on a soapbox screaming hey love me because I'm fat. It's me saying hey please learn to love and accept yourself and others for who you/they are. I am not perfect. I have flaws and that is OK. EVERYBODY DOES. It's what makes each of us individuals.
I think that we as people should be more focused on the content of another persons character than what we see solely with our eyes.
This would make for a lot less people who are suffering from loneliness and looking to connect with others a whole helluva lot easier.
I'm sure I could go on and on about this but I will /end now
The body type classifications from the Student Nutrition Action Committee at UCLA
Ectomorphs are generally tall and thin and have long arms and legs. These people have difficulty gaining weight and muscle no matter how much they eat or how hard they weight train. They have the body type you tend to see in ballet dancers, runway models, long-distance runners, and some basketball players. A very small proportion of the population has this type of body.
Mesomorphs are generally muscular, shorter, and have stocky arms and legs. These people are strong and tend to gain muscle mass when they do strength training. They may find it difficult to lose weight, but they excel in power sports like soccer, softball, vaulting in gymnastics, sprinting events in track and field.
Endomorphs are generally shaped like apples or pears and carry more body fat. Their bodies resist losing weight and body fat no matter how restrictive they are with their eating. In fact, the more they “diet,” the more their metabolisms slow down to resist weight loss. These people are better able to handle long periods of starvation and famine (which was a benefit to our ancestors). Sports they excel at are distance swimming, field events, and weight lifting.
Source:http://www.johnriviello.com/bodyimage/types.html
Monday, August 24, 2009
Research Paper
I haven't posted on here in awhile because I had 2 research papers to finish up by the end of the quarter (last Thursday). Here is one of the papers. I will edit the other one down and post that eventually.
Picture in your mind a family sitting around the table about to have dinner. The father listens to his children talk about their problems, the older daughter discusses her day shopping “spending daddy’s money,” the son, dressed in a sweater vest and khaki shorts, argues whether he will go to Princeton or Harvard, and the “urban” cousin looks on interjecting random jokes as the British butler serves up dinner. What race was this family in your imagination? The scene I am describing took place regularly on the highly popular sitcom “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air,” but with a few minor adjustments could have fit in on almost any sitcom between 1980 and now. For example, instead of the cousin, replace that character with the offbeat daughter and I could be describing a scene from “The Cosby Show.” Or replace the scenery to a trendy New York coffee shop, the cast to a group of twenty-something’s, and restrict the conversation to shopping and I am describing as scene from the even popular “Friends.” Why is it that sitcoms of the 80’s, 90’s, and today are largely interchangeable and the shows with a predominately black cast could easily be replaced with a white cast and carry on with little discrepancy. White privilege is so pervasive that it has caused a “white washing” of modern television. I will examine how this white washing has gone to such an extent that black based sitcoms are played to a white audience and white based sitcoms are largely unrealistic, and how the white washing limits the diversity portrayed on television among minorities.
First, I believe it is important to discuss the idea of white privilege because it affects the way that black characters on popular sitcoms are portrayed to keep the white audience comfortable. And it allows white based sitcoms to portray unrealistic situations without a white audience questioning the premises or settings. According to Dalton “white skin privilege is a birthright, a set of advantages one receives simply by being born with features that society values especially highly.” Peggy McIntosh states that “such privilege simply confers dominance because of one’s race…” (McIntosh, 1988). This privilege and domination is constantly in play in every possible interaction whether white people are willing to acknowledge it or not. Richard Dyer discusses the idea that white people are not “raced” and thus treated as the norm or just as “human beings” rather than being classified by their color or race (Dyer, 1997). Most white people believe that we have made a lot of progress when it comes to racism since the Civil Rights Act was passed and desegregation took place. And while it is true that on the books the law says that discriminating against a person based on their race is illegal, it does not eliminate institutional racism. According to Dyer “we have not yet reached a situation in which white people and white cultural agendas are no longer in the ascendant” (Dyer, 1997). He goes on to point out that as long as white people have the power, they will continue to believe that they speak and act for all people. We, as white people, are largely unable to see outside of our racial experience and understand that everyone is not in our image, we should not be the lone race setting the behavior standards for all people.
Jhally and Lewis point out that we achieve this mass representation through white television (Dyer, 1997). Even black families on television are deemed “normal” if they fit in with the white ideals of what a family should look like. Unless these black characters live and act as though they are like any other white family, they will be considered outside of the norm or as the “other.” As I discussed above, the most popular black sitcoms are interchangeable with any given white sitcom, popular or not, because anything outside of the white experience is not considered normal and is less likely to be embraced by the white audience.
During the 1980’s there were two wildly popular shows, Cheers and The Cosby Show. Cheers was an entertaining comedy with an all white cast. In fact I was unable to find a single instance where the show featured a minority character even as a onetime guest star. I found this omission offensive in light of the fact that the show took place in Boston, a city that was and is home to many minorities. Another interesting aspect of this show is the bar setting. The characters spend copious amounts of time in the bar, and very little time doing outside activities, and this is not viewed negatively. If the cast was instead comprised of minority characters, would this element be viewed in the same light, or would the minority characters be viewed as lazy, unfocused, or be used as another reason for the white audience to maintain their stereotypical mindset about a particular race.
The Cosby Show was ground breaking in that it featured a black family and predominately black cast but was the number one show on television for the duration of it’s over 10 year run. However Bill Cosby himself said “I won’t deal with the foolishness of racial overtones on the show. I base an awful lot of what I’ve done simply on what people will enjoy. I just want to show a family that has a good life, not people to be jealous of” (Budd, 1992). His statement touches on two problems I have with the show. First, while the primary cast is black, the characters themselves are fairly stereotypical; the girl crazy teenage son, the angst ridden teenage daughter, the unique child, the mature one, the funny one, etc. I am not saying that because the show centers on a black family the characters are not allowed to fulfill the typical sitcom rolls, but I don’t know that they should be so easily interchangeable with any other white family featured on television. Black families face different problems and obstacles, especially those who live in a predominately white neighborhood like the Huxtables did. I think it is important to show the audience what those struggles are and how they would be dealt with, which leads to my next issue. The Cosby Show depicted such an overall happy lifestyle with little racial turmoil that the viewing audience may be led to believe that racism is no longer a problem. The show modeled back to the white audience exactly what most white people want to believe, race isn’t an issue and any minority can be successful if they simply try hard enough. I attribute this to the overwhelming desire for networks to cater to their white audiences by not presenting any storylines that might make them uncomfortable or even worse, turn the channel.
From 1990 through 1996 the Fresh Prince of Bel Air ran on primetime television. While the Fresh Prince featured a black cast, the show itself conveyed situations and characters that allowed the white audience to feel comfortable with the show. The show focused on a wealthy black family taking in their nephew to protect him from the problems he faced living in an urban environment. The first episode centered around the misunderstandings between the culture of the wealthy Banks family and the “ghettoized” character of Will. Mr. Banks has a hard time with how Will dresses, the slang he uses, the music he likes, and his influence on the Banks children. The show deals with race issues in several episodes. Episode 6 shows Carlton and Will being arrested by racists officers for driving a nice car that the officers felt black people couldn’t own. The whole show Carlton believes that the cops are just doing their jobs, but in the end realizes that they were being racially profiled. In another episode Wills mom forbids him from going to his aunts wedding to a white man, which Will ultimately defies. Other than those episodes, there are very few that directly deal with race. The characters themselves are pretty telling. The Will character portrays an overly comical version of what the black urban culture is, and is treated almost like a jester for the audience to laugh at. The Banks family is affluent, portrayed as cultured, very wealthy, and largely white washed. It is my position that the Banks family are essentially crafted to be as white as possible so the white audience feels comfortable watching the show. The Will character is then used as the comedy relief and the constant tension between the white washed Banks and the more urbanized Will provides the largely white audience permission to laugh at what is being portrayed as black culture.
Another show that aired around the same time as the Fresh Prince of Bel Air, Friends began its reign as one of primetime televisions most popular shows in 1994 and ran until 2004. The show portrayed a group of six white friends living in New York and largely focused on their relationships with each other and sometimes their relationships with others. Even though Friends did not operate on the same premise as Fresh Prince, the show still portrayed clear messages about white privilege. During the show there are two minority guest stars who play the short term love interests several of the male friends. In both cases the minority women are left by their white boyfriends for another white woman. Other than those two, there are no minorities represented in the main cast or even as recurring guest stars. The show is decidedly white in spite of the setting, New York City, which is home to a racially diverse population. The main cast all live in amazing apartments, and seem to enjoy fairly privileged lives even though their jobs, especially in the beginning seasons of the show, would not realistically provide enough income for the lifestyle portrayed on the show.
When the cast is made up of predominately white people, it is easier for the audience to swallow the unrealistic aspects of the show more so than if the cast were made up of minorities. A white audience would likely be reluctant to accept black characters living the same type of lifestyle without those characters being employed in lucrative professions. The lifestyles portrayed in Fresh Prince and Cosby were believable to the white audience because the providers in those shows (Uncle Phil, Cliff and Claire) were doctors and attorneys, jobs that are associated with lucrative incomes.
These shows send a message to the mass audience about white lifestyle and white opinion on black lifestyle. White people can have unrealistic lives featured on television without the need to explain to the audience how they are able to afford this lifestyle, whereas black people have to be able to justify their wealth. White shows can be successful and accepted without featuring the diverse population of the cities the show is based in, most black shows have to feature at least one white guest star or recurring cast member to be accepted. Really successful black shows feature families that could be easily replaced by white families, and provide the white audience with examples that minority families can be successful if they just “try” hard enough, even though they are fictional situations played by fictional characters that did not address the institutional obstacles faced by minorities in reality.
The white privilege featured in television eventually led to a virtual white washing of programming, largely eliminating black leading characters. When one considers the success of Cosby and The Fresh Prince, this elimination is surprising. But considering what television already was able to get away with in their portrayal or completely lack of representation of minorities, it would be a natural progression to eliminate them altogether. In 1999 the NAACP denounced the white washing happening in television programming after the four leading networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox) announced 26 new shows none of which featured a minority in a lead role (Jackson, 2000). According to the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) the number of roles for blacks fell to just 12% of parts featured on prime time shows (Jackson, 2000). The response by the big networks to this problem was to offer late season additions of “token” minority characters, which did not address the institutional problem of a white dominated television, and as I will discuss later, did nothing to change the minority presence on television.
A report by FAIR (fairness and accuracy in media and reporting) discussed some of reasoning behind the lack of minority representation. According to several news outlets, including Good Morning America, it was economic reasons that dictated a white based line-up. The news outlets said everything from “diversity doesn’t pay” (Fort Worth Star, 99) to “the big networks shoot for a bigger slice of the pie, the 70 percent of viewers that are white” (Indianapolis Star, 99). Essentially the claim was that the diverse shows did not attract white audiences, and advertisers did not want to place their commercials during unsuccessful shows, so really it was money and not racism driving the casting choices. However the FAIR report cited the example of the Steve Harvey Show and the Jamie Foxx Show, which are both black sitcoms, drew just as much of an audience as the white show Felicity, but the latter commanded twice as much money per 30-second commercial slot (Jackson, 2000). “Advertisers pay less for programs that garner non-white audiences, in a widely acknowledged policy called discounting. Some flatly refuse to buy ads on stations or shows that reach primarily non-white audiences, the so called ‘no urban/ no Spanish dictate’ “(Jackson, 2000). Black Enterprise released a memo from Katz Media Group that said the reason they did not place ads during more diverse programming is because they wanted “prospects, not suspects” for their customers (Black Enterprise, 99). There were reports of big business advertisers anonymously saying that they did not want black people shopping at their stores. So the argument that the white washed lineup is based on money is really a smoke screen for obvious racism and prejudice. But for arguments sake, even if audiences were not flocking to diverse shows, that does not excuse the networks from continuing to put them on television alongside the allegedly lucrative white shows.
After the 1999 NAACP report the major networks made an effort to provide more of a minority presence on television, but by 2008, the NAACP released another report that again condemned the networks for lack of minority casting. The NAACP stated that “it is unconscionable and unacceptable that there is no new African American sitcom, or family drama for that matter, currently in the fall lineup on any of the major broadcast networks” (NAACP, 2008). After the 1999 report, the networks responded by hastily adding minority characters to satisfy the outcry. In 2008 that was no longer the solution minority groups were looking for. Instead the frustration stemmed from the lack of progress. If 10 years earlier the solution was to simply add a token minority character, then certainly a decade later that should have evolved into more fleshed out roles and possibly an entire sitcom based around minority characters. Unfortunately that still was not the case, and the minorities were relegated to secondary sidekick guest spots or recurring roles. The 2008 NAACP report stated that “the networks still primarily solve the problem by sprinkling nonwhite actors into white-led shows often as a comedic sidekick or in guy who-helps-the-main-guy-solve-a-crime roles” (NAACP 2008).
The NAACP sponsored a report called “Out of Focus Out of Sync” that examined the largest networks on primetime television and the progress the NAACP made their call for change in 1999. Since their initial report in 2003 (which was a follow up to the 1999 call for change), the number of minority actors featured on television has stayed pretty much the same. And as before, most of the roles offered to minorities are guest start spots rather than regular main cast member. Since 2004, 74% of television roles have been occupied by white actors. The remaining roles are occupied by black actors at around 13%, Asian actors at around 6% and with the rest going to Hispanic actors. As of now there are no Native Americans on television at all. I
The television shows casts still do not accurately reflect the diverse population of the United States. The creator of Greys Anatomy said “do I want to see any more shows where someone has a sassy black friend? No, because I’m nobody’s sassy black friend. I just want to see shows in which people get to be people and that look like the world we live in” (Armstrong, 2008). Television is supposed to be a medium that represents entertainment to the entire population, not just a portion, of the people that live in our country. And while there are black shows on television, they are typically found on pay channels such as HBO and Showtime, or on cable channels such as BET, TNT, and TBS. These channels usually require an additional fee aside from basic cable, and are thus not accessible to all Americans. In a country with such a diverse population it is unfair, inequitable, and ignorant to have the majority of faces represented on one of the widest spread forms of media, television, only accurately represent half of what our country actually looks like.
While there has been progress regarding the minority representation on television, there is still such a long way to go. The NAACP issuing regular reports and taking meetings with major networks to encourage them to set up programs and standards that promote equal television representation is a good start. But the viewers, especially minority audiences, could take a stand as well. I attempted to find organizations via the internet that are working on giving a voice to the audience regarding the lack of diversity on television and found several sites: http://www.stopbigmedia.org , and http://www.ethnicmajority.com. Both sites allow for and encourage involvement from the audience. On an individual level, viewers need to be approaching television critically and speaking to their families and friends about the gross misrepresentations that are present.
Television is only one area in the media and in general where minorities are not given the same treatment as white people. In our country minorities are often, if not always treated as “other” and relegated to second position. Television is one of the most glaring examples because it is a visual representation of what is normal, beautiful, and acceptable. It is my sincere hope that the progress being made on this front begins moving quicker than it has in the past, and that in the not so distant future, that this issue will be entirely resolved.
Picture in your mind a family sitting around the table about to have dinner. The father listens to his children talk about their problems, the older daughter discusses her day shopping “spending daddy’s money,” the son, dressed in a sweater vest and khaki shorts, argues whether he will go to Princeton or Harvard, and the “urban” cousin looks on interjecting random jokes as the British butler serves up dinner. What race was this family in your imagination? The scene I am describing took place regularly on the highly popular sitcom “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air,” but with a few minor adjustments could have fit in on almost any sitcom between 1980 and now. For example, instead of the cousin, replace that character with the offbeat daughter and I could be describing a scene from “The Cosby Show.” Or replace the scenery to a trendy New York coffee shop, the cast to a group of twenty-something’s, and restrict the conversation to shopping and I am describing as scene from the even popular “Friends.” Why is it that sitcoms of the 80’s, 90’s, and today are largely interchangeable and the shows with a predominately black cast could easily be replaced with a white cast and carry on with little discrepancy. White privilege is so pervasive that it has caused a “white washing” of modern television. I will examine how this white washing has gone to such an extent that black based sitcoms are played to a white audience and white based sitcoms are largely unrealistic, and how the white washing limits the diversity portrayed on television among minorities.
First, I believe it is important to discuss the idea of white privilege because it affects the way that black characters on popular sitcoms are portrayed to keep the white audience comfortable. And it allows white based sitcoms to portray unrealistic situations without a white audience questioning the premises or settings. According to Dalton “white skin privilege is a birthright, a set of advantages one receives simply by being born with features that society values especially highly.” Peggy McIntosh states that “such privilege simply confers dominance because of one’s race…” (McIntosh, 1988). This privilege and domination is constantly in play in every possible interaction whether white people are willing to acknowledge it or not. Richard Dyer discusses the idea that white people are not “raced” and thus treated as the norm or just as “human beings” rather than being classified by their color or race (Dyer, 1997). Most white people believe that we have made a lot of progress when it comes to racism since the Civil Rights Act was passed and desegregation took place. And while it is true that on the books the law says that discriminating against a person based on their race is illegal, it does not eliminate institutional racism. According to Dyer “we have not yet reached a situation in which white people and white cultural agendas are no longer in the ascendant” (Dyer, 1997). He goes on to point out that as long as white people have the power, they will continue to believe that they speak and act for all people. We, as white people, are largely unable to see outside of our racial experience and understand that everyone is not in our image, we should not be the lone race setting the behavior standards for all people.
Jhally and Lewis point out that we achieve this mass representation through white television (Dyer, 1997). Even black families on television are deemed “normal” if they fit in with the white ideals of what a family should look like. Unless these black characters live and act as though they are like any other white family, they will be considered outside of the norm or as the “other.” As I discussed above, the most popular black sitcoms are interchangeable with any given white sitcom, popular or not, because anything outside of the white experience is not considered normal and is less likely to be embraced by the white audience.
During the 1980’s there were two wildly popular shows, Cheers and The Cosby Show. Cheers was an entertaining comedy with an all white cast. In fact I was unable to find a single instance where the show featured a minority character even as a onetime guest star. I found this omission offensive in light of the fact that the show took place in Boston, a city that was and is home to many minorities. Another interesting aspect of this show is the bar setting. The characters spend copious amounts of time in the bar, and very little time doing outside activities, and this is not viewed negatively. If the cast was instead comprised of minority characters, would this element be viewed in the same light, or would the minority characters be viewed as lazy, unfocused, or be used as another reason for the white audience to maintain their stereotypical mindset about a particular race.
The Cosby Show was ground breaking in that it featured a black family and predominately black cast but was the number one show on television for the duration of it’s over 10 year run. However Bill Cosby himself said “I won’t deal with the foolishness of racial overtones on the show. I base an awful lot of what I’ve done simply on what people will enjoy. I just want to show a family that has a good life, not people to be jealous of” (Budd, 1992). His statement touches on two problems I have with the show. First, while the primary cast is black, the characters themselves are fairly stereotypical; the girl crazy teenage son, the angst ridden teenage daughter, the unique child, the mature one, the funny one, etc. I am not saying that because the show centers on a black family the characters are not allowed to fulfill the typical sitcom rolls, but I don’t know that they should be so easily interchangeable with any other white family featured on television. Black families face different problems and obstacles, especially those who live in a predominately white neighborhood like the Huxtables did. I think it is important to show the audience what those struggles are and how they would be dealt with, which leads to my next issue. The Cosby Show depicted such an overall happy lifestyle with little racial turmoil that the viewing audience may be led to believe that racism is no longer a problem. The show modeled back to the white audience exactly what most white people want to believe, race isn’t an issue and any minority can be successful if they simply try hard enough. I attribute this to the overwhelming desire for networks to cater to their white audiences by not presenting any storylines that might make them uncomfortable or even worse, turn the channel.
From 1990 through 1996 the Fresh Prince of Bel Air ran on primetime television. While the Fresh Prince featured a black cast, the show itself conveyed situations and characters that allowed the white audience to feel comfortable with the show. The show focused on a wealthy black family taking in their nephew to protect him from the problems he faced living in an urban environment. The first episode centered around the misunderstandings between the culture of the wealthy Banks family and the “ghettoized” character of Will. Mr. Banks has a hard time with how Will dresses, the slang he uses, the music he likes, and his influence on the Banks children. The show deals with race issues in several episodes. Episode 6 shows Carlton and Will being arrested by racists officers for driving a nice car that the officers felt black people couldn’t own. The whole show Carlton believes that the cops are just doing their jobs, but in the end realizes that they were being racially profiled. In another episode Wills mom forbids him from going to his aunts wedding to a white man, which Will ultimately defies. Other than those episodes, there are very few that directly deal with race. The characters themselves are pretty telling. The Will character portrays an overly comical version of what the black urban culture is, and is treated almost like a jester for the audience to laugh at. The Banks family is affluent, portrayed as cultured, very wealthy, and largely white washed. It is my position that the Banks family are essentially crafted to be as white as possible so the white audience feels comfortable watching the show. The Will character is then used as the comedy relief and the constant tension between the white washed Banks and the more urbanized Will provides the largely white audience permission to laugh at what is being portrayed as black culture.
Another show that aired around the same time as the Fresh Prince of Bel Air, Friends began its reign as one of primetime televisions most popular shows in 1994 and ran until 2004. The show portrayed a group of six white friends living in New York and largely focused on their relationships with each other and sometimes their relationships with others. Even though Friends did not operate on the same premise as Fresh Prince, the show still portrayed clear messages about white privilege. During the show there are two minority guest stars who play the short term love interests several of the male friends. In both cases the minority women are left by their white boyfriends for another white woman. Other than those two, there are no minorities represented in the main cast or even as recurring guest stars. The show is decidedly white in spite of the setting, New York City, which is home to a racially diverse population. The main cast all live in amazing apartments, and seem to enjoy fairly privileged lives even though their jobs, especially in the beginning seasons of the show, would not realistically provide enough income for the lifestyle portrayed on the show.
When the cast is made up of predominately white people, it is easier for the audience to swallow the unrealistic aspects of the show more so than if the cast were made up of minorities. A white audience would likely be reluctant to accept black characters living the same type of lifestyle without those characters being employed in lucrative professions. The lifestyles portrayed in Fresh Prince and Cosby were believable to the white audience because the providers in those shows (Uncle Phil, Cliff and Claire) were doctors and attorneys, jobs that are associated with lucrative incomes.
These shows send a message to the mass audience about white lifestyle and white opinion on black lifestyle. White people can have unrealistic lives featured on television without the need to explain to the audience how they are able to afford this lifestyle, whereas black people have to be able to justify their wealth. White shows can be successful and accepted without featuring the diverse population of the cities the show is based in, most black shows have to feature at least one white guest star or recurring cast member to be accepted. Really successful black shows feature families that could be easily replaced by white families, and provide the white audience with examples that minority families can be successful if they just “try” hard enough, even though they are fictional situations played by fictional characters that did not address the institutional obstacles faced by minorities in reality.
The white privilege featured in television eventually led to a virtual white washing of programming, largely eliminating black leading characters. When one considers the success of Cosby and The Fresh Prince, this elimination is surprising. But considering what television already was able to get away with in their portrayal or completely lack of representation of minorities, it would be a natural progression to eliminate them altogether. In 1999 the NAACP denounced the white washing happening in television programming after the four leading networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox) announced 26 new shows none of which featured a minority in a lead role (Jackson, 2000). According to the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) the number of roles for blacks fell to just 12% of parts featured on prime time shows (Jackson, 2000). The response by the big networks to this problem was to offer late season additions of “token” minority characters, which did not address the institutional problem of a white dominated television, and as I will discuss later, did nothing to change the minority presence on television.
A report by FAIR (fairness and accuracy in media and reporting) discussed some of reasoning behind the lack of minority representation. According to several news outlets, including Good Morning America, it was economic reasons that dictated a white based line-up. The news outlets said everything from “diversity doesn’t pay” (Fort Worth Star, 99) to “the big networks shoot for a bigger slice of the pie, the 70 percent of viewers that are white” (Indianapolis Star, 99). Essentially the claim was that the diverse shows did not attract white audiences, and advertisers did not want to place their commercials during unsuccessful shows, so really it was money and not racism driving the casting choices. However the FAIR report cited the example of the Steve Harvey Show and the Jamie Foxx Show, which are both black sitcoms, drew just as much of an audience as the white show Felicity, but the latter commanded twice as much money per 30-second commercial slot (Jackson, 2000). “Advertisers pay less for programs that garner non-white audiences, in a widely acknowledged policy called discounting. Some flatly refuse to buy ads on stations or shows that reach primarily non-white audiences, the so called ‘no urban/ no Spanish dictate’ “(Jackson, 2000). Black Enterprise released a memo from Katz Media Group that said the reason they did not place ads during more diverse programming is because they wanted “prospects, not suspects” for their customers (Black Enterprise, 99). There were reports of big business advertisers anonymously saying that they did not want black people shopping at their stores. So the argument that the white washed lineup is based on money is really a smoke screen for obvious racism and prejudice. But for arguments sake, even if audiences were not flocking to diverse shows, that does not excuse the networks from continuing to put them on television alongside the allegedly lucrative white shows.
After the 1999 NAACP report the major networks made an effort to provide more of a minority presence on television, but by 2008, the NAACP released another report that again condemned the networks for lack of minority casting. The NAACP stated that “it is unconscionable and unacceptable that there is no new African American sitcom, or family drama for that matter, currently in the fall lineup on any of the major broadcast networks” (NAACP, 2008). After the 1999 report, the networks responded by hastily adding minority characters to satisfy the outcry. In 2008 that was no longer the solution minority groups were looking for. Instead the frustration stemmed from the lack of progress. If 10 years earlier the solution was to simply add a token minority character, then certainly a decade later that should have evolved into more fleshed out roles and possibly an entire sitcom based around minority characters. Unfortunately that still was not the case, and the minorities were relegated to secondary sidekick guest spots or recurring roles. The 2008 NAACP report stated that “the networks still primarily solve the problem by sprinkling nonwhite actors into white-led shows often as a comedic sidekick or in guy who-helps-the-main-guy-solve-a-crime roles” (NAACP 2008).
The NAACP sponsored a report called “Out of Focus Out of Sync” that examined the largest networks on primetime television and the progress the NAACP made their call for change in 1999. Since their initial report in 2003 (which was a follow up to the 1999 call for change), the number of minority actors featured on television has stayed pretty much the same. And as before, most of the roles offered to minorities are guest start spots rather than regular main cast member. Since 2004, 74% of television roles have been occupied by white actors. The remaining roles are occupied by black actors at around 13%, Asian actors at around 6% and with the rest going to Hispanic actors. As of now there are no Native Americans on television at all. I
The television shows casts still do not accurately reflect the diverse population of the United States. The creator of Greys Anatomy said “do I want to see any more shows where someone has a sassy black friend? No, because I’m nobody’s sassy black friend. I just want to see shows in which people get to be people and that look like the world we live in” (Armstrong, 2008). Television is supposed to be a medium that represents entertainment to the entire population, not just a portion, of the people that live in our country. And while there are black shows on television, they are typically found on pay channels such as HBO and Showtime, or on cable channels such as BET, TNT, and TBS. These channels usually require an additional fee aside from basic cable, and are thus not accessible to all Americans. In a country with such a diverse population it is unfair, inequitable, and ignorant to have the majority of faces represented on one of the widest spread forms of media, television, only accurately represent half of what our country actually looks like.
While there has been progress regarding the minority representation on television, there is still such a long way to go. The NAACP issuing regular reports and taking meetings with major networks to encourage them to set up programs and standards that promote equal television representation is a good start. But the viewers, especially minority audiences, could take a stand as well. I attempted to find organizations via the internet that are working on giving a voice to the audience regarding the lack of diversity on television and found several sites: http://www.stopbigmedia.org , and http://www.ethnicmajority.com. Both sites allow for and encourage involvement from the audience. On an individual level, viewers need to be approaching television critically and speaking to their families and friends about the gross misrepresentations that are present.
Television is only one area in the media and in general where minorities are not given the same treatment as white people. In our country minorities are often, if not always treated as “other” and relegated to second position. Television is one of the most glaring examples because it is a visual representation of what is normal, beautiful, and acceptable. It is my sincere hope that the progress being made on this front begins moving quicker than it has in the past, and that in the not so distant future, that this issue will be entirely resolved.
Monday, August 3, 2009
The Long Bus
I sometimes ride what I refer to as “the long bus” to work. It picks me up right near my house and takes anywhere from 30 – 50 minutes to get downtown. On the days that I ride this bus, I often see a black woman with her two younger daughters. Initially they are animated, laughing, and smiling together. It is a heartwarming interaction to observe because it is easy to see that they adore each other. I notice every time I see them that their joviality dies down as more and more people board the bus, and inevitably the woman ends up hushing her girls and keeps her own head down, avoiding eye contact, once the bus is full. I found myself observing this more intently in the last few weeks and wondering why her behavior took on such a drastic change. I looked around and saw the stares this little family was receiving from various people on the bus. Not mean stares or angry stares, but stares nonetheless. They are the only black people on the entire bus which is full to the point of standing by the time we get on the freeway. I feel comfortable in saying that they are the only people on the bus being stared at to that extent, even though she is not the only woman traveling with her children, they are not dressed out of the ordinary, and are doing everything they can short of being invisible to not draw attention to themselves.
The other day she ended up sitting next to me on our ride in and after some back and forth chit chat I had the courage to ask her some questions. I explained to her that I am currently a student at the UW and that I have been studying race relations, specifically white privilege and stereotypes, and that I was interested in talking to her about what I had observed on our bus rides. She was instantly open to talking, more than open; she was enthusiastic about my questions and really seemed to want me to understand her perspective. I asked her a series of questions about her daily experience on the bus and why there was such a drastic change (from my observations) in her behavior. She told me that when she initially gets on the bus there are, at the most, maybe 10 of us including her and her girls. She said that during that time, when there are less prying eyes, she feels free to show how much she is enjoying her morning and that her girls are free to do the same. She said that as more people get on the bus, she feels inclined to be less boisterous out of respect for the other travelers. I pointed out that there are several other women who allow their children to be loud and sometimes even act out regardless of the amount of travelers. In response she said laughingly “yes but they are white, in case you hadn’t notice, I’m not.” She elaborated on this statement by saying that as a black woman her actions alone and towards her kids will be used to measure her entire race. If her kids act up she has heard people mumble comments about their acting up being because they are black, if she disciplines them in public she will hear those same comments about her being a mean black mom, if she doesn’t discipline them enough, she will get comments about being a lazy black mom. She said that regardless of what she or her children do, it will almost always be seen with her the color of her skin in mind. But that when it comes to white women, it is just seen as a woman interacting with her child (whether negative or positive) without a generalization being made about the entire white race. She mentioned a Hispanic woman that used to ride our bus with her two young children, and she asked me if I noticed that she got off at different stops every day. She went on to say that she spoke with that woman and learned that she would get off the bus at different stops when her daughter (who is 3) began showing signs of a meltdown. She was afraid that if her daughter threw a tantrum she would be judged as a lazy Mexican mom or that her children would be judged as unruly Mexican children if the bus full of white people witnessed this display. She wasn’t worried about herself, but felt her children were too young to be exposed to any negativity towards their race. The woman eventually stopped riding our bus after an incident where her little girl did have a meltdown and the white man sitting next to her muttered something about “beaner” children having no discipline. Maybe her children heard that term before, but if not now their mother was going to have to explain to a 3 and 5 year old what it meant, simply because they were acting like children. And I've ridden the bus with them many times, I will tell you flat out those kids were more well behaved and courteous than nearly every other child I've seen on that bus.
I am not saying that every single white person acts a certain way or makes assumptions about race or perpetuates stereotypes. That would be a stereotype in and of itself. And it is very possible that the Hispanic woman who rode our bus just happened to encounter a very racist man. But the fear and anticipation of negative encounters that both of these women have comes from somewhere. As white people, I don’t think we are as aware as we pretend to be of the race relations that go on every single day right in front of us. By and large I think the white population in general likes to pretend that racism is a thing of the past and that if we just stop paying attention to little incidents then we would be fine. I know that until I started taking classes and actively learning about this subject, I rarely thought about it myself. But these little incidents are huge signs that we are not as progressive on the issue of race as we like to imagine.
The other day she ended up sitting next to me on our ride in and after some back and forth chit chat I had the courage to ask her some questions. I explained to her that I am currently a student at the UW and that I have been studying race relations, specifically white privilege and stereotypes, and that I was interested in talking to her about what I had observed on our bus rides. She was instantly open to talking, more than open; she was enthusiastic about my questions and really seemed to want me to understand her perspective. I asked her a series of questions about her daily experience on the bus and why there was such a drastic change (from my observations) in her behavior. She told me that when she initially gets on the bus there are, at the most, maybe 10 of us including her and her girls. She said that during that time, when there are less prying eyes, she feels free to show how much she is enjoying her morning and that her girls are free to do the same. She said that as more people get on the bus, she feels inclined to be less boisterous out of respect for the other travelers. I pointed out that there are several other women who allow their children to be loud and sometimes even act out regardless of the amount of travelers. In response she said laughingly “yes but they are white, in case you hadn’t notice, I’m not.” She elaborated on this statement by saying that as a black woman her actions alone and towards her kids will be used to measure her entire race. If her kids act up she has heard people mumble comments about their acting up being because they are black, if she disciplines them in public she will hear those same comments about her being a mean black mom, if she doesn’t discipline them enough, she will get comments about being a lazy black mom. She said that regardless of what she or her children do, it will almost always be seen with her the color of her skin in mind. But that when it comes to white women, it is just seen as a woman interacting with her child (whether negative or positive) without a generalization being made about the entire white race. She mentioned a Hispanic woman that used to ride our bus with her two young children, and she asked me if I noticed that she got off at different stops every day. She went on to say that she spoke with that woman and learned that she would get off the bus at different stops when her daughter (who is 3) began showing signs of a meltdown. She was afraid that if her daughter threw a tantrum she would be judged as a lazy Mexican mom or that her children would be judged as unruly Mexican children if the bus full of white people witnessed this display. She wasn’t worried about herself, but felt her children were too young to be exposed to any negativity towards their race. The woman eventually stopped riding our bus after an incident where her little girl did have a meltdown and the white man sitting next to her muttered something about “beaner” children having no discipline. Maybe her children heard that term before, but if not now their mother was going to have to explain to a 3 and 5 year old what it meant, simply because they were acting like children. And I've ridden the bus with them many times, I will tell you flat out those kids were more well behaved and courteous than nearly every other child I've seen on that bus.
I am not saying that every single white person acts a certain way or makes assumptions about race or perpetuates stereotypes. That would be a stereotype in and of itself. And it is very possible that the Hispanic woman who rode our bus just happened to encounter a very racist man. But the fear and anticipation of negative encounters that both of these women have comes from somewhere. As white people, I don’t think we are as aware as we pretend to be of the race relations that go on every single day right in front of us. By and large I think the white population in general likes to pretend that racism is a thing of the past and that if we just stop paying attention to little incidents then we would be fine. I know that until I started taking classes and actively learning about this subject, I rarely thought about it myself. But these little incidents are huge signs that we are not as progressive on the issue of race as we like to imagine.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
In response
I'm so glad that people are actually commented on yesterdays post! I want to clarify that I am not saying people shouldn't learn English if they are going to live here, they absolutely should. Just as Americans should learn the predominant language of the land they might immigrate to. But I don't think we need to go so far as to declare English as the national language. There is no need to make legal what is already common other than as a means to put some power behind the ability to discriminate based on a persons language or accent. We aren't about to go make white the national color or male the national sex, why do we need to make English the national language. I also think we should be teaching more than one language in school. When I lived in Austria I had the ability to visit Italy, Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Germany. Every single school we went to, no matter how poor, the students were being taught at least 3 languages. It makes no sense to me that America, the land of plenty, can't find it within their educational budget to teach multiple languages especially considering the diversity of our citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
