Natalie Daratony
Lauren Clark
English 101
17 November 2010
Losing Virginity to a Lie
Big screen films have been catching the public eye since they first came out in the late 19th century. The huge screen, the loud sounds, the twinkling lights attract all ages to the movie theater. Whether action film or love story the storylines and script were always chalked with pictures far from reality. Sadly as the decade’s progress, more and more of these unrealistic lifestyles are being portrayed flawlessly on the big screen and enchanting their audiences to do as they do. Almost all 21st century big screen movies contain a sexual element marketing sex as acceptable, inevitable and without consequence thus causing larger and younger audience to regretfully lose their virginity.
Popular movies always try to make the big bucks by either subtly hinting or even blatantly parading sexuality, sexual remarks, sexual references or even vivid sex scenes on their screens. Although these innuendoes and images are appealing to audiences, the overall effect on general audience is shocking and saddening. The Sociological Forum of Oxford did a study that “examined virginity-loss movies as tools for navigating early sexual life” (Carpenter). As younger kids are seeing older-aged movies and as the content within the younger aged movies get more depictive, the appeal of sex and its supposed benefits mindlessly ignites and blindly leads young audiences to navigate early sexual life’s. Many young audiences are only ever shown or told what sexuality is and how to interact with the opposite sex on any level through the movies they see. As the movies depict happy-go-lucky one night stands that never end in diseases or pregnancy, we as a society are in fact ending up with innumerable sexually transferred diseases and unexpected pregnancies. Not only is the big screen teaching young audiences false idea about sexuality and sex but also it is clearly and tragically linking “true love” with sex. Modern movie stories always seem to unfold in the same timetable two people meet, two people have sex and two people live happily ever after. These lies craftily masked by sexy actors and entwined into an emotional love story entrance any audience to long for such passion and romance outside of marriage.
The data in the Oxford study showed participants pointing to movies to “make sense of virginity loss” (Carpenter). Carpenter notably states, “discrepancies between participants’ personal stories and the scripts in the films experiences were resolved more positively in movies than in real life” and “such discrepancies may increase feelings of distress after “imperfect” virginity-loss encounters”. As people become comfortable with watching and being fed scripted movies about love through sex alone they in turn become numbly comfortable with living it out in their real life and reap “imperfect” results.
Although some popular movies do showcase true effects of sex, even still sex is not frowned upon, punished or shocking but oppositely glorified and accepted. For example, a movie like Juno makes big box-office money and high ratings yet is a movie all about a teenage girl who had sex. Though Juno undergoes ridicule and pregnancy affects the act of sex itself is in fact joked about in the movie. Statistics show that in the recent years teenage pregnancies have increased dramatically yet the big screen producers tend to veer away from showing the realities of living a carelessly sexual life. Rather movies paint pictures of healthy happy interactions that must contain a sexual element in order remain so. Reputations never get tainted and the bodies never get jaded by the ongoing and ridiculous portrayals of love and sex in popular films. Instead all aged audiences at large numbers are being convinced that sex is the one thing that will solve or better their current situation.
Some major films do not even necessarily showcase the sex, sexual acts, or its effects blatantly at all, rather tinge the film with subtle, seemly harmless tints of sexuality. This hidden sexual message is carefully and innocently tied into many Disney classics. Although Disney is known for their childlike films, upon greater analysis, it is clear the over-sexualized portrayals of women play a huge role in each tale. They always caricature the woman with a tiny waist and big boobs, which they sway around with as they bat their eyes. One teen developer expert noted her own daughter going to bed with a pajama top that could stretch off her shoulders because she wanted to show her shoulders like all the princesses do. This greatly disturbed the expert’s motherhood instinct and she went on to discuss how even Disney films present a danger to the young minds of children in their simple and very subtle way of telling little girls what they ought to talk like, dress like, look like and act like. Disney presents sensuality as not only natural but also what every dignified princess does and wears. This may not seem to have an effect on if these girls will have sex earlier in life and regret it but on the contrary what you learn and perceive to be appropriate in your youth effects how you present and protect your body in the near future.
Through these both styles of movies, messages tell boys and men to thirst after girls in order to sleep with them and girls and women are shown that dressing provocatively and having the perfect body is what every guy wants and the only thing they’ll like. It is highly unlikely to walk into a movie theatre today and not be exposed to some sexual element weather clear or hidden. Movie producers use it in a way to keep a now highly sexualized society entertained. Sex has no doubt always been around and always been a curious thing for virgin minds and bodies. Unfortunately now even young children are being shown what once was a private and intimate thing on a screen bigger than the closing your eyes and ears can escape from. The sincerity and purity of treasuring sex inside of marriage has been butchered and swept into the mainstream of now parading the act everywhere in everyway.
Big screen films whether cartoon, action, love or general always contain an element of sexual appeal and are creating a helplessly sexual society. This unrealistically trained society is in turn living through regretted and consequence-filled virginity-loss experiences that they were shown to have ended far differently in the fairy tale on the big screen.
Works Cited
Carpenter, Laura. “Virginity Loss is Reel/ Real Life: Using Popular Movies to Navigate Sexual Initiation.” Sociological Forum 24.4 (2009): n.pag. Web. 17 Nov. 2010.
Hailey, J. “Juno: Plot Summary.” Imdb.com. n.d. Web. 18. Nov. 2010.
Silverman, Robyn. “Disney Princesses sexualizing your Daughter?” drrobynsilverman.com. 5 June 2008. Web. 18. Nov. 2010.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
Domestic Violence
Jennifer Pegram
Ms.Clark
English 12
19 November 2009
Domestic Violence Against Children
“Domestic violence is defined as a pattern of behavior used to establish power and control over another person through fear and intimidation, often including the threat of use of violence, when one person believes they are entitled to control another” (Aardvark). Domestic Violence is not taken nearly as seriously as is should be . Recently I viewed a poster in my hometown that was raising awareness about the reality of child abuse. I observed the reactions of those that saw it. Most people seemed to shrug off the topic of child abuse, sweep it under the rug. They acted as if they didn't even see the picture of the little girl crying with a teddy bear on the poster along with the number to report child abuse below her face. In fact the very word child abuse paints a picture isolated incidents that occur in inner cities; spurning from public housing projects, and people with a poor socioeconomic status. However, that is simply not the case. “Abused children come from all types of homes. Some children who are brought up in poor conditions live happy and safe lives, other children may live in fine houses but are abused”(Park 25). The number of cases continue to proliferate so rapidly that the current statistic is a current rate of “almost five children dying every day as a result of child abuse”(Child help).
The vast majority of Americans do not realize the prevalence and severity of child abuse and its effects within the United States . The results are staggering “a report of child abuse is made every ten seconds”(Child help) and equally as disturbing is that “about eighty percent of twenty one year olds that were abused as children meet the criteria for at least one psychological disorder”(Child help). It is true there are many cases of child abuse but there are also an overwhelming number of myths about child abuse. It is believed by most victims that “it will never happen to them, and it won’t happen in there community, domestic violence only happens to poor children and children of color or minorities”(Domestic Violence). Sadly these assumptions are incorrect. Domestic violence preys on all types of victims. It targets “different sexes, religion, ages, and cultures “(Domestic Violence). Other common misconception are that “alcohol, drug abuse, and stress and mental illness can cause abuse, and if the situation at home was really as bad as the mother claims, then she would leave with her child”(Domestic
Violence). Alcohol use, drug abuse and stress do not cause domestic violence they may
go along with domestic violence but they do not cause the violence in the abuser. “One of the hardest things to do in an abusive situation is to leave. Leaving can be extremely dangerous” (Domestic Violence). Most abusers feed off of control. If they begin to feel as if they are losing control, they could become enraged, making it almost impossible to leave’ (Domestic Violence).
“Over two million cases of child abuse are reported each year” (Landau 7).Sadly an individual coming from an abusive background has a much higher chance of being involved in a felony than an individual from a “normal”, balanced household. “36.7%of all women in prison and 14.4% of all men in prison in the United States were abused as children”(Child help). “In a recent report, is was found that eighty percent of those jailed in the United States for committing any crimes of violence had been abused as
children”(Park 33). Children that have gone through physical abuse, sexual abuse,
emotional abuse or neglect seem to be more often involved in drug abuse, alcohol,
premarital sex and some form of crime. The majority of them have never felt loved in
their own homes. Their violence is a silent outcry for love and attention
they have never felt. “Children who experience child abuse and neglect are 59% more
likely to be arrested as a juvenile, 28% more likely to be arrested as an adult and 30%
more likely to commit a violent crime”(Child help).
Child abuse can be broken down into four main categories physical, sexual,
emotional, and neglect. “The problem of child abuse has not suddenly appeared over the
last century. Accounts of children being abused go back as far as history” (Park 16). In
fact, abuse has almost become a natural part of our culture. In many children’s stories
and fairytales, there is a wicked stepmother that neglects and abuses the main character. Unlike reality, most of these stories end with a prince saving the day and the abuser being served their just reward. Child abuse, like many other things in life, goes through cycles. Even though the number of cases and fatalities are rising, the reason behind it sees to point directly to social movements “The sexual revolution of the 1960’s, like Woodstock ”,where very little emphasis was put on safe sex or birth control inevitably produced lots of unwanted children. Mixing a lack of abstinence with a captivating drug scene produced many "inconvenient children". Not only is there aa abuse cycle that can be greatly affected by large social gatherings, like Woodstock but there is also a cycle that revolves within the family of an abused child. “Some evidence indicates that an abused child will grow up to abuse his own children to continue a “cycle of abuse”(Park 39). However, there hope for a change. Some studies have shown that abused children who, as adults have a loving supportive relationship with a spouse and people that are aware of their history of abuse as a child, are more likely to consciously resolve not to repeat it, and they are more likely to break the cycle. “Being maltreated as a child puts one at risk for becoming abusive, but the path between these two points is far from direct or inevitable”(Landau 26). Child abuse could be considered a universal problem but not every country handles it the same. “In most western civilizations and developed countries child abuse is frowned upon by society. Ironically eastern civilizations insists child abuse is not a problem for them yet “ Japan has a high teen suicide rate because of the intense pressure placed upon them by their families and the country to succeed in school. If they don’t succeed they are considered to be a disgrace to their family.(Park 44). Officials say they simply believe that children are to be seen not heard. A major drawback of evident child abuse in developing countries is the lack of resources.“Many countries believethey have more pressing problems of health and nutrition, so abuse falls low on the list oftop priorities”(Park 21).
“It is now fully recognized that child abuse can scar a human being for the rest of their life, especially if they do not receive adequate help” (Park 59). In most
communities, programs are offered to help the victim cope with working through the
painful experiences of their past. “Counseling services that work specifically with
children use interactive experiences like role play, painting or drawing and verbal
assertion of their rights to express themselves and help them work through their
past”(Strauss 63). Many counselors also impress the idea of personal space and personal
rights onto the child’s mind. “One of the first steps of healing is to understand that as a person, they have the right to have boundaries and speak up”(Straus 29).When a child has been betrayed by an adult, whether it be from a physical, sexual, emotional, or psychological abuse, their rights have been violated and trust of adults has been lost.It is the counselors job to help them earn that basic trust back and heal the scars from their abuser.
Fear, intimidation, and strategic manipulation are the catalysts behind child abuse. The myth that abuse only occurs in families with a low socioeconomic status is simply incorrect. Abuse can happen anytime, anywhere and in any social class. “Violence in middle-and upper-class homes is far more common than generally known” (Landau 28). Moreover, reported child abuse continues to be on the rise in society. “For children and adults who have come into contact with child abuse, the consequences are very real.For others who hear about it through newspapers, books or on television, it is something that only happens to other people. But in fact, every child is a potential victim and every adult a potential abuser” (Landau 56).
Work Cited
Aardvarc. 12 Nov. 2009
Child Help. 10 Nov. 2009
Domestic violence. 8 Nov. 2010
Landau, Elaine. Child Abuse an American Epidemic. New Jersey : Julian Messner, 1984.
Park, Anglea. Understanding Social Issues Child Abuse. New York :
Aladdin Books, 1968
Strauss, Murry A. and Richard J. Gells and Suzanne K. Steinmetz. Behind Closed Doors
Violence in the American Family. Garden City, New York , Anchor Books 1980.
Ms.Clark
English 12
19 November 2009
Domestic Violence Against Children
“Domestic violence is defined as a pattern of behavior used to establish power and control over another person through fear and intimidation, often including the threat of use of violence, when one person believes they are entitled to control another” (Aardvark). Domestic Violence is not taken nearly as seriously as is should be . Recently I viewed a poster in my hometown that was raising awareness about the reality of child abuse. I observed the reactions of those that saw it. Most people seemed to shrug off the topic of child abuse, sweep it under the rug. They acted as if they didn't even see the picture of the little girl crying with a teddy bear on the poster along with the number to report child abuse below her face. In fact the very word child abuse paints a picture isolated incidents that occur in inner cities; spurning from public housing projects, and people with a poor socioeconomic status. However, that is simply not the case. “Abused children come from all types of homes. Some children who are brought up in poor conditions live happy and safe lives, other children may live in fine houses but are abused”(Park 25). The number of cases continue to proliferate so rapidly that the current statistic is a current rate of “almost five children dying every day as a result of child abuse”(Child help).
The vast majority of Americans do not realize the prevalence and severity of child abuse and its effects within the United States . The results are staggering “a report of child abuse is made every ten seconds”(Child help) and equally as disturbing is that “about eighty percent of twenty one year olds that were abused as children meet the criteria for at least one psychological disorder”(Child help). It is true there are many cases of child abuse but there are also an overwhelming number of myths about child abuse. It is believed by most victims that “it will never happen to them, and it won’t happen in there community, domestic violence only happens to poor children and children of color or minorities”(Domestic Violence). Sadly these assumptions are incorrect. Domestic violence preys on all types of victims. It targets “different sexes, religion, ages, and cultures “(Domestic Violence). Other common misconception are that “alcohol, drug abuse, and stress and mental illness can cause abuse, and if the situation at home was really as bad as the mother claims, then she would leave with her child”(Domestic
Violence). Alcohol use, drug abuse and stress do not cause domestic violence they may
go along with domestic violence but they do not cause the violence in the abuser. “One of the hardest things to do in an abusive situation is to leave. Leaving can be extremely dangerous” (Domestic Violence). Most abusers feed off of control. If they begin to feel as if they are losing control, they could become enraged, making it almost impossible to leave’ (Domestic Violence).
“Over two million cases of child abuse are reported each year” (Landau 7).Sadly an individual coming from an abusive background has a much higher chance of being involved in a felony than an individual from a “normal”, balanced household. “36.7%of all women in prison and 14.4% of all men in prison in the United States were abused as children”(Child help). “In a recent report, is was found that eighty percent of those jailed in the United States for committing any crimes of violence had been abused as
children”(Park 33). Children that have gone through physical abuse, sexual abuse,
emotional abuse or neglect seem to be more often involved in drug abuse, alcohol,
premarital sex and some form of crime. The majority of them have never felt loved in
their own homes. Their violence is a silent outcry for love and attention
they have never felt. “Children who experience child abuse and neglect are 59% more
likely to be arrested as a juvenile, 28% more likely to be arrested as an adult and 30%
more likely to commit a violent crime”(Child help).
Child abuse can be broken down into four main categories physical, sexual,
emotional, and neglect. “The problem of child abuse has not suddenly appeared over the
last century. Accounts of children being abused go back as far as history” (Park 16). In
fact, abuse has almost become a natural part of our culture. In many children’s stories
and fairytales, there is a wicked stepmother that neglects and abuses the main character. Unlike reality, most of these stories end with a prince saving the day and the abuser being served their just reward. Child abuse, like many other things in life, goes through cycles. Even though the number of cases and fatalities are rising, the reason behind it sees to point directly to social movements “The sexual revolution of the 1960’s, like Woodstock ”,where very little emphasis was put on safe sex or birth control inevitably produced lots of unwanted children. Mixing a lack of abstinence with a captivating drug scene produced many "inconvenient children". Not only is there aa abuse cycle that can be greatly affected by large social gatherings, like Woodstock but there is also a cycle that revolves within the family of an abused child. “Some evidence indicates that an abused child will grow up to abuse his own children to continue a “cycle of abuse”(Park 39). However, there hope for a change. Some studies have shown that abused children who, as adults have a loving supportive relationship with a spouse and people that are aware of their history of abuse as a child, are more likely to consciously resolve not to repeat it, and they are more likely to break the cycle. “Being maltreated as a child puts one at risk for becoming abusive, but the path between these two points is far from direct or inevitable”(Landau 26). Child abuse could be considered a universal problem but not every country handles it the same. “In most western civilizations and developed countries child abuse is frowned upon by society. Ironically eastern civilizations insists child abuse is not a problem for them yet “ Japan has a high teen suicide rate because of the intense pressure placed upon them by their families and the country to succeed in school. If they don’t succeed they are considered to be a disgrace to their family.(Park 44). Officials say they simply believe that children are to be seen not heard. A major drawback of evident child abuse in developing countries is the lack of resources.“Many countries believethey have more pressing problems of health and nutrition, so abuse falls low on the list oftop priorities”(Park 21).
“It is now fully recognized that child abuse can scar a human being for the rest of their life, especially if they do not receive adequate help” (Park 59). In most
communities, programs are offered to help the victim cope with working through the
painful experiences of their past. “Counseling services that work specifically with
children use interactive experiences like role play, painting or drawing and verbal
assertion of their rights to express themselves and help them work through their
past”(Strauss 63). Many counselors also impress the idea of personal space and personal
rights onto the child’s mind. “One of the first steps of healing is to understand that as a person, they have the right to have boundaries and speak up”(Straus 29).When a child has been betrayed by an adult, whether it be from a physical, sexual, emotional, or psychological abuse, their rights have been violated and trust of adults has been lost.It is the counselors job to help them earn that basic trust back and heal the scars from their abuser.
Fear, intimidation, and strategic manipulation are the catalysts behind child abuse. The myth that abuse only occurs in families with a low socioeconomic status is simply incorrect. Abuse can happen anytime, anywhere and in any social class. “Violence in middle-and upper-class homes is far more common than generally known” (Landau 28). Moreover, reported child abuse continues to be on the rise in society. “For children and adults who have come into contact with child abuse, the consequences are very real.For others who hear about it through newspapers, books or on television, it is something that only happens to other people. But in fact, every child is a potential victim and every adult a potential abuser” (Landau 56).
Work Cited
Aardvarc. 12 Nov. 2009
Child Help. 10 Nov. 2009
Domestic violence. 8 Nov. 2010
Landau, Elaine. Child Abuse an American Epidemic. New Jersey : Julian Messner, 1984.
Park, Anglea. Understanding Social Issues Child Abuse. New York :
Aladdin Books, 1968
Strauss, Murry A. and Richard J. Gells and Suzanne K. Steinmetz. Behind Closed Doors
Violence in the American Family. Garden City, New York , Anchor Books 1980.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Children, Creationism, & Evolution
Andy Tran
Ms. Clark
English 101
18 November 2010
Preliminary Essay
Christian fundamentalist have challenged the thinking of popular society by denouncing modern sciences, one example is the theory of evolutionary biology. In the process they are constricting their children from exploring the world to form their own beliefs. I stumbled across a Youtube video that featured a radical fundamentalist Christian home-schooling her child to only believe in creationism, this limits her child of other modern knowledge such as science.
Christian fundamentalist that truly believe in creationism have rejected evolutionary biology altogether. Evolutionary biology was first proposed by Charles Darwin in the mid-1800’s. Darwin had a theory that people evolved from other organisms and with that he introduced natural selection to the world. Natural selection is the idea that traits can become common or rare within a population caused by the surviving, reproductive bearers. Meaning that the traits are passed down to the population by their parents. In 1859, Darwin published a book about natural selection called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, this book would mainly defend Darwin’s theory of evolution. Since then, the development of evolutionary biology has been increasing successfully with new information that supports the Darwin’s theory and changed many people‘s perspective on how man came to be.
Radical Christian fundamentalist rejects the idea of evolution, they believe that it is absurd that people were a product of monkeys. Creationism came about way long before Darwin’s theory, and it tries to explain the origin of how life came to be, how people should act, and that the bible is law. That is why radical creationists have a problem with schools teaching their children the theory of evolution, and questions why creationism is not taught. And some extreme creationist want to eliminate the teachings of evolution completely from the school’s science curriculum. Therefore, many radical Christian fundamentalist parents have chosen to home school their children and to keep their child from ever hearing the words “evolution”. It is not wrong to want to home school your child, but doing it just for the simple reason of not letting them explore other ideas of how the world came to be is not a legitimate excuse.
The conflict that arises from the theory of evolution is the Christian fundamentalists’ belief of creationism. Creationism and evolution has a difficult time coexisting with one another. Evolution states that we have evolved so that our physical traits can adapt to our surrounding environment, whereas creationism stands on the principle of intelligent design. Which is comparable to the belief that a higher being, with unlimited power, has created man. Darwin’s published book on natural selection began a major uproar between religious groups and those who were curious of the world. He created one of the most controversial arguments just simply by coming up with a theory of his own. Arguments that creationists have made were relating to the fact that science may destroy tradition. Many Christian fundamentalist have the fear of changing what their whole belief system were based on. They want to respect what their ancestors have believe in. And it is very difficult to change one’s perspective on life once he or she only grew up in a control environment. For an example, if parents are home-schooling their child to only believe what they believe then chances are, as the child grows up, he or she will be less accepting of new ideas that would contradict their own beliefs. Many parents that strictly follow the doctrine of the bible are less likely to allow their children to go to school(s) that teaches evolution, because they believe “that science doesn’t prove anything” (Youtube video). Some creationist are hard to persuade through science because they believe that “our nation was founded on Judeo Christian values” (Youtube video). Evolutionist try to find the facts by exploring and researching, then coming up with a conclusion. Whereas, creationist are criticized for starting with conclusions and finding facts that would support it.
Now I am not saying that creationism is wrong for children to learn and that evolution is right, I merely want to state that children should hear both sides of each theory and let them choose what they believe to be true. The reason why I feel strongly against Christian fundamentalist not letting their child learn about more aspects of life is because parents have a strong influence on their children’s belief that they may give their child a totally bias opinion on creationism. I think that it would be fair to let your child go to school to learn about evolution and they can learn about creationism during church or at home. Many Christian families are alright doing this and their children do not seem to be rejecting creationism and accepting evolution, they just follow what they want to believe. And you rarely hear about parents preventing their children from learning about creationism and to strictly believe in evolution. Plus, if children are allowed to go to school, they will get a chance to interact with other students, share different views, and in process it can make your child more open to new ideas. I just do not see the point in forcing a child to believe the same beliefs as their parents. Everyone should have the freedom to make their own choices. Regardless of any religion or theories about life, one thing that is definite is that everyone was created equal.
To conclude, my argument was that radical Christian fundamentalist can go overboard with how they teach their children. I want to make it clear that I am NOT targeting creationist, only the extreme creationist parents who take it too far. For example, when parents force their child to help protest for a cause that the child may not have full understanding of. To that point the parents are just using their child for their own selfish means, and they justify it for saying that their child is helping for a just cause. And what can the child do if he or she was home schooled, they would have been raised in a controlled environment in which mommy and daddy are always right and that everything else is wrong. They say that one of the healthiest environment for a child to grow up in is if religion was not imposed upon as much. Children are the future and if we want them to progress for the betterment of society and the world’s prospect, we should give them a chance to explore new ideas and make them more open minded. All and all, this world does not need restrictions on beliefs that can cause isolation upon other groups, but rather unity and understanding.
Works Cited
Bleckmann, Charles A. “Evolution and Creationism in Science: 1880-2000.” Bioscience 56, no. 2: 151-158. Academic Search Premier, EBSCO host (accessed November 16, 2010).
Dawkins, Richard. Dawkins Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: New York Times, 2006. 137-61. Print.
"Radical Fundamentalist Christian Home-Schooling." YouTube. Web. 16 Nov 2010..
Ms. Clark
English 101
18 November 2010
Preliminary Essay
Christian fundamentalist have challenged the thinking of popular society by denouncing modern sciences, one example is the theory of evolutionary biology. In the process they are constricting their children from exploring the world to form their own beliefs. I stumbled across a Youtube video that featured a radical fundamentalist Christian home-schooling her child to only believe in creationism, this limits her child of other modern knowledge such as science.
Christian fundamentalist that truly believe in creationism have rejected evolutionary biology altogether. Evolutionary biology was first proposed by Charles Darwin in the mid-1800’s. Darwin had a theory that people evolved from other organisms and with that he introduced natural selection to the world. Natural selection is the idea that traits can become common or rare within a population caused by the surviving, reproductive bearers. Meaning that the traits are passed down to the population by their parents. In 1859, Darwin published a book about natural selection called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, this book would mainly defend Darwin’s theory of evolution. Since then, the development of evolutionary biology has been increasing successfully with new information that supports the Darwin’s theory and changed many people‘s perspective on how man came to be.
Radical Christian fundamentalist rejects the idea of evolution, they believe that it is absurd that people were a product of monkeys. Creationism came about way long before Darwin’s theory, and it tries to explain the origin of how life came to be, how people should act, and that the bible is law. That is why radical creationists have a problem with schools teaching their children the theory of evolution, and questions why creationism is not taught. And some extreme creationist want to eliminate the teachings of evolution completely from the school’s science curriculum. Therefore, many radical Christian fundamentalist parents have chosen to home school their children and to keep their child from ever hearing the words “evolution”. It is not wrong to want to home school your child, but doing it just for the simple reason of not letting them explore other ideas of how the world came to be is not a legitimate excuse.
The conflict that arises from the theory of evolution is the Christian fundamentalists’ belief of creationism. Creationism and evolution has a difficult time coexisting with one another. Evolution states that we have evolved so that our physical traits can adapt to our surrounding environment, whereas creationism stands on the principle of intelligent design. Which is comparable to the belief that a higher being, with unlimited power, has created man. Darwin’s published book on natural selection began a major uproar between religious groups and those who were curious of the world. He created one of the most controversial arguments just simply by coming up with a theory of his own. Arguments that creationists have made were relating to the fact that science may destroy tradition. Many Christian fundamentalist have the fear of changing what their whole belief system were based on. They want to respect what their ancestors have believe in. And it is very difficult to change one’s perspective on life once he or she only grew up in a control environment. For an example, if parents are home-schooling their child to only believe what they believe then chances are, as the child grows up, he or she will be less accepting of new ideas that would contradict their own beliefs. Many parents that strictly follow the doctrine of the bible are less likely to allow their children to go to school(s) that teaches evolution, because they believe “that science doesn’t prove anything” (Youtube video). Some creationist are hard to persuade through science because they believe that “our nation was founded on Judeo Christian values” (Youtube video). Evolutionist try to find the facts by exploring and researching, then coming up with a conclusion. Whereas, creationist are criticized for starting with conclusions and finding facts that would support it.
Now I am not saying that creationism is wrong for children to learn and that evolution is right, I merely want to state that children should hear both sides of each theory and let them choose what they believe to be true. The reason why I feel strongly against Christian fundamentalist not letting their child learn about more aspects of life is because parents have a strong influence on their children’s belief that they may give their child a totally bias opinion on creationism. I think that it would be fair to let your child go to school to learn about evolution and they can learn about creationism during church or at home. Many Christian families are alright doing this and their children do not seem to be rejecting creationism and accepting evolution, they just follow what they want to believe. And you rarely hear about parents preventing their children from learning about creationism and to strictly believe in evolution. Plus, if children are allowed to go to school, they will get a chance to interact with other students, share different views, and in process it can make your child more open to new ideas. I just do not see the point in forcing a child to believe the same beliefs as their parents. Everyone should have the freedom to make their own choices. Regardless of any religion or theories about life, one thing that is definite is that everyone was created equal.
To conclude, my argument was that radical Christian fundamentalist can go overboard with how they teach their children. I want to make it clear that I am NOT targeting creationist, only the extreme creationist parents who take it too far. For example, when parents force their child to help protest for a cause that the child may not have full understanding of. To that point the parents are just using their child for their own selfish means, and they justify it for saying that their child is helping for a just cause. And what can the child do if he or she was home schooled, they would have been raised in a controlled environment in which mommy and daddy are always right and that everything else is wrong. They say that one of the healthiest environment for a child to grow up in is if religion was not imposed upon as much. Children are the future and if we want them to progress for the betterment of society and the world’s prospect, we should give them a chance to explore new ideas and make them more open minded. All and all, this world does not need restrictions on beliefs that can cause isolation upon other groups, but rather unity and understanding.
Works Cited
Bleckmann, Charles A. “Evolution and Creationism in Science: 1880-2000.” Bioscience 56, no. 2: 151-158. Academic Search Premier, EBSCO host (accessed November 16, 2010).
Dawkins, Richard. Dawkins Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: New York Times, 2006. 137-61. Print.
"Radical Fundamentalist Christian Home-Schooling." YouTube. Web. 16 Nov 2010.
Twilight: Seperating fantasy from reality
Stephanie Blanton
Ms. Clark
English 101
18 November, 2010
The Twilight Saga was originally a book series written by Stephenie Meyer that is broken up into four books; Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse, and Breaking Dawn. After the books’ huge success, they started being made in major motion pictures starting in 2008. The story is a magical, romantic fantasy that can capture the hearts of people at all ages through the telling of Bella and Edward’s intense love for each other. It captivates the thrilling excitement of young love and strong feelings of a first love through Bella’s eyes, allowing the audience to feel as if they are experiencing the excitement in this fantasy love tale themselves. The important thing to remember, though, is that the feelings and admirable characteristics portrayed are just that; a fantasy. Young members of the audience may have their views of the values and practices in relationships negatively impacted because of the Twilight Saga’s representation of male and female gender roles; misrepresentation of the aspects that make up a healthy relationship; and failure to present a balance between maintaining a loving relationship and maintaining values and goals in a life outside of the relationship.
Stereotypical gender roles are quite blatantly used throughout the series, and it results in the portrayal of males being dominant and females being subordinated. The stereotypes of gender roles in society are that, “the man is supposed to be taller, stronger, richer, older, and colder- in short, more powerful. The woman is supposed to be shorter, weaker, … vulnerable, younger, warmer- in short, socially powerless” (Caputi 2008). These stereotypes are clearly demonstrated in the two main characters of the Twilight series, Edward and Bella. Bella is a passive character when it comes to doing what Edward says and allowing herself to be controlled by her boyfriend. She is the clumsy “damsel in distress” that constantly needs to be saved by a strong man, since apparently she is incapable of taking care of herself. Edward is a controlling character and is presented as the perfect fit to society’s stereotype of the superior, dominant male role; rich, white, powerful, superior, strong, and well- educated (Radke 2010). He is protective and the so called “hero” when it comes to Bella’s mishaps.
Edward and Bella have many characteristics of what would be an unhealthy relationship if it occurred in reality. Both characters show their love for each other as an obsession. When Edward leaves Bella because he says he is doing what is best for her personal safety; she quickly goes into a deep depression because she does not want to live without Edward, and she implies that her life is meaningless without him. She closes up and becomes antisocial for about four months until given an ultimatum by her father who is concerned about her well-being. She tries to become more social and hang out with her friends in order to convince her dad not to send her back to her mom’s house. While she goes out with her friends, she puts herself in harm’s way multiple times, such as when she flung herself off of a cliff, because she wants to hear Edward’s protective voice telling her to get away from the dangerous situations. Edward’s obsession is shown in different ways throughout their love story. One of the first things that Edward does that is unhealthy is shown in the first movie or book. Bella wakes up to Edward in her room, and he admits that he has been coming in through her window and watching her sleep for a very long time. He has many incidents like this of him stalking Bella because he feels “very protective” over her. He also prevents her from seeing one of her close friends, Jacob, by taking the engine out of her truck. This could be seen as jealousy and preventing her from having friends outside of his social circle, and it implies that she can only have friends that he approves of.
Bella slowly starts to lose focus on things outside of life with Edward, and her previous values and goals in life start to fade. She places the most importance on life with Edward, and her entire future begins to revolve around her relationship. She continuously lies to her family about where she is going and about Edward and his family. Even though she would have to abandon her family and eventually never see them again, she still wanted to become immortal so she could spend her life with Edward. Even after Jacob helped her through her hard times when Edward left her and was a good friend, as soon as she is back with Edward she leaves him behind as if he means nothing to her. She stops associating with her new group of friends that she hung out with when she arrived at her new school, and spends all of her time with Edward. When Edward left her, she put her physical safety and health in danger numerous times, and continues to do so once they are back together. Bella volunteers to discontinue her education because she wants to become immortal with Edward. Edward tries to convince her to go to college and live a normal life, but she is so insistent and impatient in creating her and Edward’s forever together that she sees no importance in her education. Also, she agrees to marriage with Edward even though she is still young and not ready because she wants to have sex with him and become immortal since Edward had valued her purity and favored abstinence.
Although the series is enjoyed by people of all ages, the general audience of the Twilight Saga is young women between the ages of twelve and seventeen. Since this is usually an unstable stage in a girl’s life in which they are trying to find their identity, develop their values, and understand the world as a whole and its meaning, they are often very impressionable. They may know the differences between fantasy and reality, but “we are shaped by the stories we hear over and over again. Our ideas of appropriate behaviors, our cultural values, our expectations, our wishes, and our fantasies are influenced by the tales we listen to repeatedly” (Bader 2007). Because of this, it is concerning when girls aspire to be in a relationship like Bella and Edward’s. Bella is a weak role model for girls to have because she often displays female regression rather than empowerment, and the relationship between Edward and Bella was unhealthy and had many dangerous aspects if it was a relationship in reality. Also, males could be potentially impacted by this story because new expectations are being put on them to be like the perfect romantic, “Edward” due to the unrealistic ideologies of what love is that are portrayed in the Twilight Saga. Getting carried away in a fantasy is not a bad thing, in fact it is often emotionally liberating, but it is important for upcoming generations to know the differences between the fantasy world and the real world and create high yet realistic expectations.
Works Cited (incomplete)
Caputi, Jane. "A (Bad) Habit of Thinking Challenging and Changing the Pornographic Worldview." Women in Popular Culture. Marian Meyers. Cresskill: Hampton Press, Inc., 2008. Print.
Ms. Clark
English 101
18 November, 2010
The Twilight Saga was originally a book series written by Stephenie Meyer that is broken up into four books; Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse, and Breaking Dawn. After the books’ huge success, they started being made in major motion pictures starting in 2008. The story is a magical, romantic fantasy that can capture the hearts of people at all ages through the telling of Bella and Edward’s intense love for each other. It captivates the thrilling excitement of young love and strong feelings of a first love through Bella’s eyes, allowing the audience to feel as if they are experiencing the excitement in this fantasy love tale themselves. The important thing to remember, though, is that the feelings and admirable characteristics portrayed are just that; a fantasy. Young members of the audience may have their views of the values and practices in relationships negatively impacted because of the Twilight Saga’s representation of male and female gender roles; misrepresentation of the aspects that make up a healthy relationship; and failure to present a balance between maintaining a loving relationship and maintaining values and goals in a life outside of the relationship.
Stereotypical gender roles are quite blatantly used throughout the series, and it results in the portrayal of males being dominant and females being subordinated. The stereotypes of gender roles in society are that, “the man is supposed to be taller, stronger, richer, older, and colder- in short, more powerful. The woman is supposed to be shorter, weaker, … vulnerable, younger, warmer- in short, socially powerless” (Caputi 2008). These stereotypes are clearly demonstrated in the two main characters of the Twilight series, Edward and Bella. Bella is a passive character when it comes to doing what Edward says and allowing herself to be controlled by her boyfriend. She is the clumsy “damsel in distress” that constantly needs to be saved by a strong man, since apparently she is incapable of taking care of herself. Edward is a controlling character and is presented as the perfect fit to society’s stereotype of the superior, dominant male role; rich, white, powerful, superior, strong, and well- educated (Radke 2010). He is protective and the so called “hero” when it comes to Bella’s mishaps.
Edward and Bella have many characteristics of what would be an unhealthy relationship if it occurred in reality. Both characters show their love for each other as an obsession. When Edward leaves Bella because he says he is doing what is best for her personal safety; she quickly goes into a deep depression because she does not want to live without Edward, and she implies that her life is meaningless without him. She closes up and becomes antisocial for about four months until given an ultimatum by her father who is concerned about her well-being. She tries to become more social and hang out with her friends in order to convince her dad not to send her back to her mom’s house. While she goes out with her friends, she puts herself in harm’s way multiple times, such as when she flung herself off of a cliff, because she wants to hear Edward’s protective voice telling her to get away from the dangerous situations. Edward’s obsession is shown in different ways throughout their love story. One of the first things that Edward does that is unhealthy is shown in the first movie or book. Bella wakes up to Edward in her room, and he admits that he has been coming in through her window and watching her sleep for a very long time. He has many incidents like this of him stalking Bella because he feels “very protective” over her. He also prevents her from seeing one of her close friends, Jacob, by taking the engine out of her truck. This could be seen as jealousy and preventing her from having friends outside of his social circle, and it implies that she can only have friends that he approves of.
Bella slowly starts to lose focus on things outside of life with Edward, and her previous values and goals in life start to fade. She places the most importance on life with Edward, and her entire future begins to revolve around her relationship. She continuously lies to her family about where she is going and about Edward and his family. Even though she would have to abandon her family and eventually never see them again, she still wanted to become immortal so she could spend her life with Edward. Even after Jacob helped her through her hard times when Edward left her and was a good friend, as soon as she is back with Edward she leaves him behind as if he means nothing to her. She stops associating with her new group of friends that she hung out with when she arrived at her new school, and spends all of her time with Edward. When Edward left her, she put her physical safety and health in danger numerous times, and continues to do so once they are back together. Bella volunteers to discontinue her education because she wants to become immortal with Edward. Edward tries to convince her to go to college and live a normal life, but she is so insistent and impatient in creating her and Edward’s forever together that she sees no importance in her education. Also, she agrees to marriage with Edward even though she is still young and not ready because she wants to have sex with him and become immortal since Edward had valued her purity and favored abstinence.
Although the series is enjoyed by people of all ages, the general audience of the Twilight Saga is young women between the ages of twelve and seventeen. Since this is usually an unstable stage in a girl’s life in which they are trying to find their identity, develop their values, and understand the world as a whole and its meaning, they are often very impressionable. They may know the differences between fantasy and reality, but “we are shaped by the stories we hear over and over again. Our ideas of appropriate behaviors, our cultural values, our expectations, our wishes, and our fantasies are influenced by the tales we listen to repeatedly” (Bader 2007). Because of this, it is concerning when girls aspire to be in a relationship like Bella and Edward’s. Bella is a weak role model for girls to have because she often displays female regression rather than empowerment, and the relationship between Edward and Bella was unhealthy and had many dangerous aspects if it was a relationship in reality. Also, males could be potentially impacted by this story because new expectations are being put on them to be like the perfect romantic, “Edward” due to the unrealistic ideologies of what love is that are portrayed in the Twilight Saga. Getting carried away in a fantasy is not a bad thing, in fact it is often emotionally liberating, but it is important for upcoming generations to know the differences between the fantasy world and the real world and create high yet realistic expectations.
Works Cited (incomplete)
Caputi, Jane. "A (Bad) Habit of Thinking Challenging and Changing the Pornographic Worldview." Women in Popular Culture. Marian Meyers. Cresskill: Hampton Press, Inc., 2008. Print.
The Stereotype of "Dumb" Blondes is "Dumb"
Ashley Nicholson
Ms. Lauren Clark
English 101
18 November 2010
Preliminary Essay: Stereotype of Dumb Blondes
What do smart blondes and UFO’s have in common? You always hear about them, but never see any (solorya)! The media has always had its way of portraying certain stereotypes in comical ways. The stereotype of the “dumb blonde” has been used for comic relief in many areas of the media such as sitcoms, movies, online jokes, newspaper comics, etc. In this essay, I will state the possible origins of where the “dumb blonde” stereotype came about then I will make a valid argument with valid evidence as to why the media should not generalized all blondes in the world as “dumb blondes” and the reasons as to why.
The origin of the “dumb blonde” can be traced to several different places and eras of time in the world. One instance of origin can be traced way back to the medieval times of Europe. As we know, people were separated into different classes, upper class and lower class. The upper class always had darker hair than that of the peasants seeing as the fact that the peasants worked in the sun, therefore the sun lightened up their hair, and the upper class were usually indoors. The upper class were also seen as much smarter than the lower class so typically the peasants could be classified as the “dumb blondes” of the medieval age (26 Magazine). Another area of origin found related back in the 1770’s. A Parisian courtesan, Rosalie Duthe, a beautiful woman will long blonde hair, was known for the long pauses she made when speaking. People then began to wonder if she was mentally disabled or just plain dumb (helium). While in these last two examples the fair heads were looked down upon as “dumb blondes“, another case of the ancient Greeks and Romans wanted to all be blonde like “their neighbors to the north”, therefore bleached their hair repeatedly. Some might say that it wasn’t the hair color that made the “dumb blonde” but the increasing amount of chemicals being soaked into a person’s scalp that could have impacted the brain. (Just to note: if this is true, then no matter if you are dying your hair blonde, brown, black, red, gray, etc., you are still making yourself dumb by using chemicals.)
“8 Simple Rules” is a television show that airs on ABC Family. It is much like many other shows on ABC Family in which a family deals with day to day issues with a moral in the end. One of the daughters in the family, Bridget, is a beautiful, popular, blonde haired ditz that is obviously portrayed as the “dumb blonde”. She is a cheerleader at her high school who loves to go hang out at the mall and flirt with boys. (A common classification for all “dumb blondes” in the media) Bridget also often rambles about various things and gets sidetracked very easily when talking. As you can see, she is described as the everyday “dumb blonde”. Her sister, Cary, on the other hand is the counter argument in the show because she is the “smart brunette” who always cracks on Bridget for being dumb when in fact she is jealous of her older sister because she is not as popular as her. The argument that needs to be made is why does the media have to portray Bridget, the blonde, as the dumb blonde cheerleader instead of Cary, the smart, not pretty brunette? Many other shows and movies displayed by the media portray the same aspect such as Marsha in “The Brady Bunch” and Elle Woods in “Legally Blonde“. Yes, Elle Woods was the preppy girl in pink that did the ever so popular “bend and snap” and had her fair share of blond moments, but do viewers see her as just another “dumb blonde” or do they see her as the intelligent women who had a dream of going to law school, succeeded, graduated at the top of her class, then went on to be one of the best attorneys at her law firm? Sadly, this is one of the reasons I dyed my hair from blonde to brown. I had always made straight A’s in high school and gave tutoring sessions to anyone who ever needed them yet, regardless of my grades and the intelligence I had in everyday situations, I was still considered a “dumb blonde” and was not appreciated and respected for being the person I was rather than the person people expected me to be.
People also get the misconception of all blondes are “dumb blondes” by other means of the media such as paparazzi, “People” magazines, and shows like TMZ. There are girls out there such as Paris Hilton, Jessica Simpson, and Brittany Spears that give the media a reason to stereotype against blondes because of their natural ability to just be stupid, however their level of intelligence does not coincide with the fact that they have blond hair. In other words, the media loves to tell the world about the mistakes and “blonde moments” these girls make yet leave out the things that famous, smart blondes do on a day to day basis. In reality, the world doesn’t want to hear the good about famous actresses or singers. The messed up world we live in would rather hear of all the bad, “dumb” things that people have done so the world can criticize those we only wish we could be.
The color hair on a person’s head depends on the genes that person carries. One may dye their hair as I did (a former blonde) yet the true color is hereditary. However, the gene of blonde hair does not also carry a gene along with it of stupidity! There are several smart, intellectual females in this world that are indeed fair headed and have still succeeded in life far more than others. For instance, did you know that Carrie Underwood, a beautiful, talented, blonde haired, famous singer, was salutatorian of her class in 2001? She went on to Northeaster State University and graduated with a mass communication degree with a minor in journalism (pop stars plus). With only Carrie Underwood as a prime example, people and the media do not have valid proof to say that all blondes can be classified as “dumb blondes”. On the other hand, with only this one example, I have valid proof to say that NO not all blondes are “dumb blondes” therefore, the media should stop their classification as a whole and learn to reference their information for a dimwitted blonde elsewhere.
Works Cited
"Carrie Underwood Fan Page." Pop Stars Plus. 2010. Web. 17 Nov. 2010. http://www.popstarsplus.com/music_carrieunderwood.htm.
G, Christine. "Stereotypes associated with blondes." Helium. N.p., 2010. Web. 17 Nov. 2010. http://www.helium.com/items/1986798-blonde-stereotypes.
Solorya, . "Dumb Blonde Stereotype-Myth or Fact 80." HubPages. N.p., 2010. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. http://hubpages.com/hub/Dumb-Blonde-Stereotype--Myth-or-Fact.
"The dumb blonde and her origin." 26 Magazine. N.p., 30 May 2009. Web. 17 Nov.
2010. http://www.26magazine.com/the-dumb-blonde-and-her-origin/.
Ms. Lauren Clark
English 101
18 November 2010
Preliminary Essay: Stereotype of Dumb Blondes
What do smart blondes and UFO’s have in common? You always hear about them, but never see any (solorya)! The media has always had its way of portraying certain stereotypes in comical ways. The stereotype of the “dumb blonde” has been used for comic relief in many areas of the media such as sitcoms, movies, online jokes, newspaper comics, etc. In this essay, I will state the possible origins of where the “dumb blonde” stereotype came about then I will make a valid argument with valid evidence as to why the media should not generalized all blondes in the world as “dumb blondes” and the reasons as to why.
The origin of the “dumb blonde” can be traced to several different places and eras of time in the world. One instance of origin can be traced way back to the medieval times of Europe. As we know, people were separated into different classes, upper class and lower class. The upper class always had darker hair than that of the peasants seeing as the fact that the peasants worked in the sun, therefore the sun lightened up their hair, and the upper class were usually indoors. The upper class were also seen as much smarter than the lower class so typically the peasants could be classified as the “dumb blondes” of the medieval age (26 Magazine). Another area of origin found related back in the 1770’s. A Parisian courtesan, Rosalie Duthe, a beautiful woman will long blonde hair, was known for the long pauses she made when speaking. People then began to wonder if she was mentally disabled or just plain dumb (helium). While in these last two examples the fair heads were looked down upon as “dumb blondes“, another case of the ancient Greeks and Romans wanted to all be blonde like “their neighbors to the north”, therefore bleached their hair repeatedly. Some might say that it wasn’t the hair color that made the “dumb blonde” but the increasing amount of chemicals being soaked into a person’s scalp that could have impacted the brain. (Just to note: if this is true, then no matter if you are dying your hair blonde, brown, black, red, gray, etc., you are still making yourself dumb by using chemicals.)
“8 Simple Rules” is a television show that airs on ABC Family. It is much like many other shows on ABC Family in which a family deals with day to day issues with a moral in the end. One of the daughters in the family, Bridget, is a beautiful, popular, blonde haired ditz that is obviously portrayed as the “dumb blonde”. She is a cheerleader at her high school who loves to go hang out at the mall and flirt with boys. (A common classification for all “dumb blondes” in the media) Bridget also often rambles about various things and gets sidetracked very easily when talking. As you can see, she is described as the everyday “dumb blonde”. Her sister, Cary, on the other hand is the counter argument in the show because she is the “smart brunette” who always cracks on Bridget for being dumb when in fact she is jealous of her older sister because she is not as popular as her. The argument that needs to be made is why does the media have to portray Bridget, the blonde, as the dumb blonde cheerleader instead of Cary, the smart, not pretty brunette? Many other shows and movies displayed by the media portray the same aspect such as Marsha in “The Brady Bunch” and Elle Woods in “Legally Blonde“. Yes, Elle Woods was the preppy girl in pink that did the ever so popular “bend and snap” and had her fair share of blond moments, but do viewers see her as just another “dumb blonde” or do they see her as the intelligent women who had a dream of going to law school, succeeded, graduated at the top of her class, then went on to be one of the best attorneys at her law firm? Sadly, this is one of the reasons I dyed my hair from blonde to brown. I had always made straight A’s in high school and gave tutoring sessions to anyone who ever needed them yet, regardless of my grades and the intelligence I had in everyday situations, I was still considered a “dumb blonde” and was not appreciated and respected for being the person I was rather than the person people expected me to be.
People also get the misconception of all blondes are “dumb blondes” by other means of the media such as paparazzi, “People” magazines, and shows like TMZ. There are girls out there such as Paris Hilton, Jessica Simpson, and Brittany Spears that give the media a reason to stereotype against blondes because of their natural ability to just be stupid, however their level of intelligence does not coincide with the fact that they have blond hair. In other words, the media loves to tell the world about the mistakes and “blonde moments” these girls make yet leave out the things that famous, smart blondes do on a day to day basis. In reality, the world doesn’t want to hear the good about famous actresses or singers. The messed up world we live in would rather hear of all the bad, “dumb” things that people have done so the world can criticize those we only wish we could be.
The color hair on a person’s head depends on the genes that person carries. One may dye their hair as I did (a former blonde) yet the true color is hereditary. However, the gene of blonde hair does not also carry a gene along with it of stupidity! There are several smart, intellectual females in this world that are indeed fair headed and have still succeeded in life far more than others. For instance, did you know that Carrie Underwood, a beautiful, talented, blonde haired, famous singer, was salutatorian of her class in 2001? She went on to Northeaster State University and graduated with a mass communication degree with a minor in journalism (pop stars plus). With only Carrie Underwood as a prime example, people and the media do not have valid proof to say that all blondes can be classified as “dumb blondes”. On the other hand, with only this one example, I have valid proof to say that NO not all blondes are “dumb blondes” therefore, the media should stop their classification as a whole and learn to reference their information for a dimwitted blonde elsewhere.
Works Cited
"Carrie Underwood Fan Page." Pop Stars Plus. 2010. Web. 17 Nov. 2010. http://www.popstarsplus.com/music_carrieunderwood.htm.
G, Christine. "Stereotypes associated with blondes." Helium. N.p., 2010. Web. 17 Nov. 2010. http://www.helium.com/items/1986798-blonde-stereotypes.
Solorya, . "Dumb Blonde Stereotype-Myth or Fact 80." HubPages. N.p., 2010. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. http://hubpages.com/hub/Dumb-Blonde-Stereotype--Myth-or-Fact.
"The dumb blonde and her origin." 26 Magazine. N.p., 30 May 2009. Web. 17 Nov.
2010. http://www.26magazine.com/the-dumb-blonde-and-her-origin/.
The Lord's Army
Lana Chiad
Ms. Clark
English 101
18 November 2010
The Lord's Army
Although I shall eliminate myself from this assumed fact: everyone wants children. Some may want boys while others may want girls. Regardless, there is nothing more beautiful to some than to look into the wide eyes of the physical embodiment of innocence and see the entire world there. To see the future that the child could potentially have, to experience all the joys and dissatisfactions that life just loves to throw at people. The first day of school. The first girlfriend/boyfriend. The first date. The first of everything that creates the monumental moments in the child's life that will be remembered forever.
This saying, of course, that the child experiences these major life instances in an environment where this is provided.
Religion is everywhere. It is the very foundation in which the current American government and laws were founded and established upon. There is nothing wrong with faith, regardless of what it is one believes – it is simply the way the faith is practiced and forced down the throats of the youth of the United States of America in the 21st century that is the problem.
Of course, it is always the radicals of every religion that gets the attention, and this is especially the case in this particular practice of immersing a child into a religion that he or she had no choice but to follow. In a way, parents incorporate religious beliefs into the way that he or she is raised in order to make certain that the child does not grow up to be a psychotic murderer who carves up humans and wears the skin to parties. However, there is a line between morals and religion that is not universally understood to be different teachings that do not necessarily have to be connected with religion.
One particular sector of Christianity, the Evangelical community, have managed to warp and twist the teachings of the Bible, and use it to not only incorporate its teachings for the benefit of childhood development, but by almost brainwashing the child with the fear of God into near hysteria. In the 2006 documentary, Jesus Camp, the owner of a children's Bible camp called Kids on Fire School of Ministry, Reverend Becky Fischer founded this establishment on the basis of raising children to be “warriors of God,” growing them to be the fuel that will eventual “steal [America] back into Christianity” (Jesus Camp). Fischer continues with her belief, explaining how she “can go into a playground with kids that don't know anything about Christianity, lead them to the Lord in a matter of just no time at all, and just moments later, they can be seeing visions and hearing the voice of God, because they're so open. They are so usable in Christianity" (Jesus Camp). The most vulnerable time in any human's life is developmental childhood, where the lessons one learns during this stage of life is the foundation in which further knowledge is built upon, establishing the core of who that child is and what that child will believe, regardless of whether it is right or not.
Furthermore, the educating of children in the ways of a particular religion extends further than simply sending a child out to a Bible camp to teach him or her to be a soldier of God, but rather the opposite. Rather than allowing the child to experience the world for his or herself, the parent(s) will shelter the kid in the house – even using religious-based books to educate the child in the way that the parent(s) seem fit. In my experience of attending a Christian school for eight years, the most frustrating aspect was the way the Christian-based textbooks found itself means to explain itself, particularly in the field of science. When explanation of scientific phenomena became too abstract or elaborate, the simple suppression of “God did it” would be suffice for the authors to use to avoid dispute against the beliefs of Christianity – particularly when it comes to the controversial quarrel between Creationism versus Evolution. This is why most of the extremist Evangelical Christians find it necessary to shelter the child by means of home-schooling him or her in order to have complete control of what he or she should be learning. Also, by doing this, it allows the parent to control all aspects of the child's life, ensuring that he or she will not have any outlet of contradiction arising that may conflict with the pure Christian teachings of the Bible – or at the least the warped version of the faith.
Yet religious teachings for teachings goes beyond simple education to make sure that the child truly does understand the teachings of Christianity, especially by means of literature. Even books that are written with the intentions of teaching children the ways of a religion can be controversial to the point of appalling. In a novel written in 1814 by Reverend Phillip Doddridge, The Principles of the Christian Religion is a children's book that is supposed to teach children the ways of Christianity, incorporating pictures and using a rhyming scheme to help encourage children not only to read, but to take in and focus on the messages presented in the book.
This is not the bad part. What is bad is the way the book explains to the children the ways of the Word: “Who can abide God's wrath or stand, / Before the terrors of his hand? / And yet his frowns and vengeance too / I by my sins have made my due. // Is there no hope ! and must I die ! / Is there no friend nor helper nigh ? / It is beyond repeal decreed, / That ev'ry soul that sins must bleed” (Doddridge). Despite what may be considered a fun rhyming scheme, as well as an interesting layout of the text, just look at the descriptions. “That ev'ry soul that sins must bleed” (Doddridge). The imagery that sends shivers down the spine – and this is meant for children? Books like this do not teach children about religion – it scares them into religion, especially when the parent(s) only show their kid a book like this of just one religion: the one that the parent wants him or her to follow.
Please understand that while this may be an evaluation solely based on the Christian faith and the extremists that it glorifies, it must be understood that Christians are not the only religion that have these extremists, obviously. However, it must be said that there are, in fact, extremist groups in the faith of Christianity that, while it does not embody the religion as a whole, they do exist. If other religious extremist groups in the world are highlighted and put on display by the media, Christianity can be, as well. Majority or not, this cannot be brushed under the rug.
Work Cited
Doddridge, Philip. The Principles of the Christian Religion Divided into Lessons for Children. Hudson [N.Y.: Printed by Ashbel Stoddard, 1814. Electronic.
Jesus Camp. Dir. Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady. Perf. Mike Papantonio, Becky Fischer, Ted Haggard. Magnolia Pictures, 2006. DVD.
Ms. Clark
English 101
18 November 2010
The Lord's Army
Although I shall eliminate myself from this assumed fact: everyone wants children. Some may want boys while others may want girls. Regardless, there is nothing more beautiful to some than to look into the wide eyes of the physical embodiment of innocence and see the entire world there. To see the future that the child could potentially have, to experience all the joys and dissatisfactions that life just loves to throw at people. The first day of school. The first girlfriend/boyfriend. The first date. The first of everything that creates the monumental moments in the child's life that will be remembered forever.
This saying, of course, that the child experiences these major life instances in an environment where this is provided.
Religion is everywhere. It is the very foundation in which the current American government and laws were founded and established upon. There is nothing wrong with faith, regardless of what it is one believes – it is simply the way the faith is practiced and forced down the throats of the youth of the United States of America in the 21st century that is the problem.
Of course, it is always the radicals of every religion that gets the attention, and this is especially the case in this particular practice of immersing a child into a religion that he or she had no choice but to follow. In a way, parents incorporate religious beliefs into the way that he or she is raised in order to make certain that the child does not grow up to be a psychotic murderer who carves up humans and wears the skin to parties. However, there is a line between morals and religion that is not universally understood to be different teachings that do not necessarily have to be connected with religion.
One particular sector of Christianity, the Evangelical community, have managed to warp and twist the teachings of the Bible, and use it to not only incorporate its teachings for the benefit of childhood development, but by almost brainwashing the child with the fear of God into near hysteria. In the 2006 documentary, Jesus Camp, the owner of a children's Bible camp called Kids on Fire School of Ministry, Reverend Becky Fischer founded this establishment on the basis of raising children to be “warriors of God,” growing them to be the fuel that will eventual “steal [America] back into Christianity” (Jesus Camp). Fischer continues with her belief, explaining how she “can go into a playground with kids that don't know anything about Christianity, lead them to the Lord in a matter of just no time at all, and just moments later, they can be seeing visions and hearing the voice of God, because they're so open. They are so usable in Christianity" (Jesus Camp). The most vulnerable time in any human's life is developmental childhood, where the lessons one learns during this stage of life is the foundation in which further knowledge is built upon, establishing the core of who that child is and what that child will believe, regardless of whether it is right or not.
Furthermore, the educating of children in the ways of a particular religion extends further than simply sending a child out to a Bible camp to teach him or her to be a soldier of God, but rather the opposite. Rather than allowing the child to experience the world for his or herself, the parent(s) will shelter the kid in the house – even using religious-based books to educate the child in the way that the parent(s) seem fit. In my experience of attending a Christian school for eight years, the most frustrating aspect was the way the Christian-based textbooks found itself means to explain itself, particularly in the field of science. When explanation of scientific phenomena became too abstract or elaborate, the simple suppression of “God did it” would be suffice for the authors to use to avoid dispute against the beliefs of Christianity – particularly when it comes to the controversial quarrel between Creationism versus Evolution. This is why most of the extremist Evangelical Christians find it necessary to shelter the child by means of home-schooling him or her in order to have complete control of what he or she should be learning. Also, by doing this, it allows the parent to control all aspects of the child's life, ensuring that he or she will not have any outlet of contradiction arising that may conflict with the pure Christian teachings of the Bible – or at the least the warped version of the faith.
Yet religious teachings for teachings goes beyond simple education to make sure that the child truly does understand the teachings of Christianity, especially by means of literature. Even books that are written with the intentions of teaching children the ways of a religion can be controversial to the point of appalling. In a novel written in 1814 by Reverend Phillip Doddridge, The Principles of the Christian Religion is a children's book that is supposed to teach children the ways of Christianity, incorporating pictures and using a rhyming scheme to help encourage children not only to read, but to take in and focus on the messages presented in the book.
This is not the bad part. What is bad is the way the book explains to the children the ways of the Word: “Who can abide God's wrath or stand, / Before the terrors of his hand? / And yet his frowns and vengeance too / I by my sins have made my due. // Is there no hope ! and must I die ! / Is there no friend nor helper nigh ? / It is beyond repeal decreed, / That ev'ry soul that sins must bleed” (Doddridge). Despite what may be considered a fun rhyming scheme, as well as an interesting layout of the text, just look at the descriptions. “That ev'ry soul that sins must bleed” (Doddridge). The imagery that sends shivers down the spine – and this is meant for children? Books like this do not teach children about religion – it scares them into religion, especially when the parent(s) only show their kid a book like this of just one religion: the one that the parent wants him or her to follow.
Please understand that while this may be an evaluation solely based on the Christian faith and the extremists that it glorifies, it must be understood that Christians are not the only religion that have these extremists, obviously. However, it must be said that there are, in fact, extremist groups in the faith of Christianity that, while it does not embody the religion as a whole, they do exist. If other religious extremist groups in the world are highlighted and put on display by the media, Christianity can be, as well. Majority or not, this cannot be brushed under the rug.
Work Cited
Doddridge, Philip. The Principles of the Christian Religion Divided into Lessons for Children. Hudson [N.Y.: Printed by Ashbel Stoddard, 1814. Electronic.
Jesus Camp. Dir. Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady. Perf. Mike Papantonio, Becky Fischer, Ted Haggard. Magnolia Pictures, 2006. DVD.
Media "Bias" and the 2008 presidential election
Alex Sanchez
Many people would say that our generation is truly blessed to live in a time where we can do our Christmas shopping, check the weather, read the news, and keep in touch with our friends all without leaving our desks. We are constantly in the loop, whether it’s knowing about what’s going on with the recent midterm elections or what all 300 of our “friends” are doing today. We rely on the internet and TV for information that allows us to make decisions in our lives, both big and small. Though we may be blessed to have all of these resources at our fingertips, our dependence upon them could also very easily be our generation’s largest curse.
When it comes to access to information about politics and government, today’s Americans turn to the ever-present news media. The general idea behind news media organizations is that they can dig into government affairs more quickly and efficiently than an average American trying to find out about the government on their own. Because these organizations are able to collect so much information, they must then choose what will make it into their broadcast or edition. This is where the news media gains a considerable amount of its power over the public. When an event occurs, media organizations have the right to choose whether or not it runs in their paper or airs on their broadcast, and when it doesn’t, everyone but the people who were involved will have no idea that it happened. Another aspect of reporting news that gives these organizations influence is their ability to influence people in what they cover and how they cover it.
According to a recent survey by the PEW research center for people and the press, 83 percent of Americans consume some form of news media on a regular, daily basis. This includes radio, television, print, and online news. (Americans) Though most people wouldn’t think of it this way, these Americans’ political opinions and decisions are at the mercy of the news media. If news networks across the nation bash a particular candidate and expose his or her flaws while completely ignoring those of their opponent, voters are more likely to side with the candidate that the media portrays as “better.” The public doesn’t have any practical way of knowing what’s not presented to them. With the news media exercising so much power over what people see or hear about, distrust has set in among the public. Today, the news media is often accused of carrying liberal or conservative biases, and this makes the American public reluctant to trust it. According to a 2009 Gallup poll, 55 percent of Americans say they have little to no trust in the news media. Among the surveyed, 18 percent say they have none at all. ( ) Despite popular beliefs and a general feeling of skepticism towards news media by the general public, there is little information to actually support the idea that the news media as a whole carries a bias towards any political party or extreme. This is supported by both studies and well-known facts regarding the 2008 election, an instance in which many accused the media of unfairly helping Obama through bias in reporting.
According to a LexisNexis analytics media coverage sentiment index of the 2008 election, Obama received a substantially larger amount of coverage by mainstream news media outlets.
“An evaluation of the 17,455 stories that discussed Sen. Obama during the period of July 7th to August 17th in U.S. print, broadcast and online media outlets found that 34 percent of the coverage was positive, 35 percent was neutral and 31 percent was negative. Of the 12,665 stories that discussed Sen. McCain during the same time frame and in the same universe of U.S. media outlets, 33 percent were positive, 34 percent were neutral and 33 percent were negative.”
As noted in the statement, Obama received a greater amount of media coverage, which could understandably lead certain members of the public to believe that the media was biased towards him. However, the statement also reveals that the coverage was 34 percent positive, 35 percent neutral, and 31 percent negative, which is fairly concurrent with percentages of 33, 34, and 33 for McCain, respectively. Within a few percentage points, Obama and McCain were treated similarly in terms of tones of the stories regarding them. Because the two were treated similarly in this regard, this discredits any belief that significant bias exists with regards to the tone of stories. The main difference in how the two candidates were treated by the media was in the amount of coverage each received.
As stated in the quote earlier in the paper, 17,455 stories during the 2008 election covered Barack Obama and 12,655 covered John McCain. From this data, the argument could be made that Barack Obama unfairly received more attention during the 2008 election. However, there are also several reasons that this could be the case. One is simply that the story of Barack Obama’s campaign for presidency was literally historic. It was the first time that an African American ran for the office of president of the United States of America. Another reason Obama may have received more attention throughout the election is that the Democratic party struggled to choose a candidate for nomination for much longer than the Republicans, who decided on McCain while Clinton and Obama were still duking it out in the primaries. In fact, McCain stepping out of the spotlight while democrats attacked each other during the primaries was actually a campaign tactic. Because he received less media coverage, McCain received a smaller numerical amount of negative media coverage. Another factor that could have been the reason for a greater amount of news media coverage is the fact that most people expected the republicans to lose because of the historically low approval ratings of George W. Bush. This made the democrats more important in the eye of the news media because they were more likely to win anyways because they were not affiliated with the unpopular president in power. All of these factors along with others that were unmentioned can contribute to the higher volume of coverage of Barack Obama, and in terms of the tone of reporting, which was fairly equal between the two candidates.
In conclusion, arguments of bias in the media towards one political extreme or party are largely unfounded. Evidence exists to support not only that media coverage in the 2008 election was unbiased, but that tones of stories covering each candidate were fairly even as well. There are also several facts that can explain the disparity between the amounts of stories covering each candidate. Though media bias is a stereotypical argument, it is difficult to find evidence in support of and prove in the coverage of the 2008 presidential election.
Works Cited
"Americans Spending More Time Following the News." Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. PEW Research Center, 12 Sept. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2010.
"How the Press Reported the 2008 General Election." Journalism.org. Pew Research Center, 22 Oct. 2008. Web. 17 Nov. 2010..
Newport, Frank. "Republicans Remain Deeply Distrustful of News Media." Gallup.com. Gallup, 8 Oct. 2007. Web. 18 Nov. 2010..
“Obama Garnering 38% More Media Coverage than McCain This Summer, But Tone of Coverage for Both Candidates Is Nearly Identical”LexisNexis Academic. Web. 4 Sept. 2008. 16 Nov. 2010..
Many people would say that our generation is truly blessed to live in a time where we can do our Christmas shopping, check the weather, read the news, and keep in touch with our friends all without leaving our desks. We are constantly in the loop, whether it’s knowing about what’s going on with the recent midterm elections or what all 300 of our “friends” are doing today. We rely on the internet and TV for information that allows us to make decisions in our lives, both big and small. Though we may be blessed to have all of these resources at our fingertips, our dependence upon them could also very easily be our generation’s largest curse.
When it comes to access to information about politics and government, today’s Americans turn to the ever-present news media. The general idea behind news media organizations is that they can dig into government affairs more quickly and efficiently than an average American trying to find out about the government on their own. Because these organizations are able to collect so much information, they must then choose what will make it into their broadcast or edition. This is where the news media gains a considerable amount of its power over the public. When an event occurs, media organizations have the right to choose whether or not it runs in their paper or airs on their broadcast, and when it doesn’t, everyone but the people who were involved will have no idea that it happened. Another aspect of reporting news that gives these organizations influence is their ability to influence people in what they cover and how they cover it.
According to a recent survey by the PEW research center for people and the press, 83 percent of Americans consume some form of news media on a regular, daily basis. This includes radio, television, print, and online news. (Americans) Though most people wouldn’t think of it this way, these Americans’ political opinions and decisions are at the mercy of the news media. If news networks across the nation bash a particular candidate and expose his or her flaws while completely ignoring those of their opponent, voters are more likely to side with the candidate that the media portrays as “better.” The public doesn’t have any practical way of knowing what’s not presented to them. With the news media exercising so much power over what people see or hear about, distrust has set in among the public. Today, the news media is often accused of carrying liberal or conservative biases, and this makes the American public reluctant to trust it. According to a 2009 Gallup poll, 55 percent of Americans say they have little to no trust in the news media. Among the surveyed, 18 percent say they have none at all. ( ) Despite popular beliefs and a general feeling of skepticism towards news media by the general public, there is little information to actually support the idea that the news media as a whole carries a bias towards any political party or extreme. This is supported by both studies and well-known facts regarding the 2008 election, an instance in which many accused the media of unfairly helping Obama through bias in reporting.
According to a LexisNexis analytics media coverage sentiment index of the 2008 election, Obama received a substantially larger amount of coverage by mainstream news media outlets.
“An evaluation of the 17,455 stories that discussed Sen. Obama during the period of July 7th to August 17th in U.S. print, broadcast and online media outlets found that 34 percent of the coverage was positive, 35 percent was neutral and 31 percent was negative. Of the 12,665 stories that discussed Sen. McCain during the same time frame and in the same universe of U.S. media outlets, 33 percent were positive, 34 percent were neutral and 33 percent were negative.”
As noted in the statement, Obama received a greater amount of media coverage, which could understandably lead certain members of the public to believe that the media was biased towards him. However, the statement also reveals that the coverage was 34 percent positive, 35 percent neutral, and 31 percent negative, which is fairly concurrent with percentages of 33, 34, and 33 for McCain, respectively. Within a few percentage points, Obama and McCain were treated similarly in terms of tones of the stories regarding them. Because the two were treated similarly in this regard, this discredits any belief that significant bias exists with regards to the tone of stories. The main difference in how the two candidates were treated by the media was in the amount of coverage each received.
As stated in the quote earlier in the paper, 17,455 stories during the 2008 election covered Barack Obama and 12,655 covered John McCain. From this data, the argument could be made that Barack Obama unfairly received more attention during the 2008 election. However, there are also several reasons that this could be the case. One is simply that the story of Barack Obama’s campaign for presidency was literally historic. It was the first time that an African American ran for the office of president of the United States of America. Another reason Obama may have received more attention throughout the election is that the Democratic party struggled to choose a candidate for nomination for much longer than the Republicans, who decided on McCain while Clinton and Obama were still duking it out in the primaries. In fact, McCain stepping out of the spotlight while democrats attacked each other during the primaries was actually a campaign tactic. Because he received less media coverage, McCain received a smaller numerical amount of negative media coverage. Another factor that could have been the reason for a greater amount of news media coverage is the fact that most people expected the republicans to lose because of the historically low approval ratings of George W. Bush. This made the democrats more important in the eye of the news media because they were more likely to win anyways because they were not affiliated with the unpopular president in power. All of these factors along with others that were unmentioned can contribute to the higher volume of coverage of Barack Obama, and in terms of the tone of reporting, which was fairly equal between the two candidates.
In conclusion, arguments of bias in the media towards one political extreme or party are largely unfounded. Evidence exists to support not only that media coverage in the 2008 election was unbiased, but that tones of stories covering each candidate were fairly even as well. There are also several facts that can explain the disparity between the amounts of stories covering each candidate. Though media bias is a stereotypical argument, it is difficult to find evidence in support of and prove in the coverage of the 2008 presidential election.
Works Cited
"Americans Spending More Time Following the News." Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. PEW Research Center, 12 Sept. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2010.
"How the Press Reported the 2008 General Election." Journalism.org. Pew Research Center, 22 Oct. 2008. Web. 17 Nov. 2010.
Newport, Frank. "Republicans Remain Deeply Distrustful of News Media." Gallup.com. Gallup, 8 Oct. 2007. Web. 18 Nov. 2010.
“Obama Garnering 38% More Media Coverage than McCain This Summer, But Tone of Coverage for Both Candidates Is Nearly Identical”LexisNexis Academic. Web. 4 Sept. 2008. 16 Nov. 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)