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.

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. .

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.

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/.

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.

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. .

Teenage Pregnancy and Single Parents : 16 and Pregnant

Taylor Grey

Lauren Clark

English 101

18 November 2010

Teenage Pregnancy and Single Parents: 16 and Pregnant

While in high school I knew a few girls my age, even some close friends, who at sixteen and seventeen years old were doing what I thought was unthinkable, having a child of their own. Also during this time, MTV premiered a show that displayed all the struggles of teenagers going through pregnancy and having children called 16 and Pregnant. This show fascinated most people my age and me so I watched it often during my free time. I noticed a distinct pattern while watching a million episodes, that most of the parents of these young people bearing children were single parents, who had struggled in raising their own children.
In conducting my research, I realized that not only was this the case in 16 and Pregnant but it was the case with most pregnant teenagers. In a study conducted in Canada, published in the Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, it is shown that teen pregnancy is more prevalent among teenagers living with a single parent. The journal article explained the study as: “Pregnancy events for those aged 15 to 19 were counted and population size in Nova Scotia communities was estimated. The cumulative probability of pregnancy (CPP) among 15- to 19-year-olds was calculated for each of one hundred and one separate communities. CPP ranged from 0.01 to 0.39, indicating that some communities do well with respect to this health outcome, while others do not. Factors negatively associated with CPP were increasing level of education in communities, and proportions of those indicating a religious faith. Positive associations were seen with increased proportions of single parent families, proportion of population native or black, and the rate of female participation in the work place.” (Langille, Flowerdew, and Andreou 83-94). Single Parent families were named as one factor to increase the amount of pregnant teenagers. The study indicates that family structure is associated with teen pregnancy. Dual-parent families have been indicated to have children that have a later age of first intercourse and lower sexual activity (Langille, Flowerdew, and Andreou 83-94). Further proving the pattern I saw it is shown in the study that growing up in a single- parent family has been seen to be associated with increased risk of pregnancy as a teenager. In 1996 in Nova Scotia there were approximately 40,000 single-parent families; 15% of all families fell into this category of having pregnant teenagers (Langille, Flowerdew, and Andreou 83-94).
With the production of this show by MTV, it seems that teenage pregnancy is very common but that may have something to do with the divorce rate, which is 50% of all marriages. In the book Families in the US it is shown that “divorce rates have been relatively stable from the late 1980s into the 1990s; half of all marriages contracted during the 1970s and thereafter are projected to end in divorce” (Hansen, and Garey 21-859). But why does divorce or being a single parent lead to pregnant teenagers in some cases? Families in the US implies that divorce or being a single parent is a lot of work, which may leave less time to take care of their children, leaving the children with more time without supervision and feeling as if they are not cared for. The book goes on to say, “The crucial disadvantage of the post-modern solution, of course, is that despite the wondrous variety of cultural ideas about “needs”, there is a core desire for care.” (Hansen, and Garey 21-859). This often leads to teenage girls to be taken care of by a boyfriend or first love and therefore soon get pregnant.
I was shocked by just how much my predictions were true. There is in fact a strong correlation between teen pregnancy and single parents. Just as I had in high school, I went back to watch 16 and Pregnant some more as part of my research. I watched ten episodes of MTV’s season two of 16 and Pregnant. Out of the ten episodes, nine of the pregnant teenage girls lived with their single parent. In the first episode, pregnant Emily lives with her divorced and now single mother. The second episode showed pregnant sixteen-year-old living with her single mother Sarina who also had no contact with her dad. Kailyn in the third episode, lives with her single mom after her dad left when she was six months old and never returned, she is pregnant at sixteen. In the fourth episode Lizzie’s parents are divorced and she lives with her single mom and has gotten pregnant at fifteen. Leah, in the fifth episode, lives with her single mom and two siblings. The sixth episode I watched, it showed Nicole living with her single mother after her dad died when she was just two. Samantha was sixteen and pregnant in the seventh episode I watched and lives with her single mom. In the eighth episode I watched, a change of pace with Lori living with her happily married mom and dad. In the ninth episode, Chelsea lives with her divorced and now single dad and has gotten pregnant at sixteen. The tenth and final episode I watched was about Nikkole, a sixteen-year-old pregnant girl who lived with her single mother and her father completely out of the picture.
I knew in high school, watching MTV’s new hit show that most of the girls had single parents but I did not realize what a definite correlation actually existed.

Works Cited

16 and Pregnant. MTV: Web. 18 Nov 2010. .

Hansen, Karen and Anita Garey. Families in the US: Kinship and Domestic Policies. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1998. 21-859. Print.

Langille, Donald, Gordon Flowerdew, and Pantelis Andreou. “Teenage Pregnancy Nova Scotia Communities: Associations with Contextual Factosrs.” Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 13.2 (2004): 83-94. Web. 18 Nov 2010.

Abortion: Pro-life

Amanda Young
Lauren Clark
English 101
18 November 2010
Abortion: Pro-life

As long as abortion has been possible, everlasting debate has existed over if abortion is morally and ethically right or wrong. Most people, who believe that abortion is wrong, promote “pro-life,” meaning that no matter what the circumstances, abortion should never happen. In contrast, those who believe that it is right promote a woman’s right to decide with “pro-choice.” As supported by the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court case of Row vs. Wade, pro-choice proves to exist as the most logical, moral, and ethical way to view abortion and keep it legal.

Before the mid-1800s abortion had always been legal and was not given much thought. Around 1820, however, laws began to arise against abortion, and by early 1900 all abortion was illegal in the United States (Lewis 1). During this harsh time abortions were considered unlawful, dirty, and remained unspoken. When abortions were carried out, they mostly happened in back-alley clinics or by the woman herself. These procedures were often done in a harmful manner that usually ended up costing the child bearing woman her life (Podell 16). It was over 70 years later in 1973 that abortion again became legalized by pro-choice activists in the Supreme Court case of Row vs. Wade. This case brought to light that right to have or not have an abortion should be the decision of woman who is bearing the child herself. Row vs. Wade supported the right to have an abortion with the Bill of Rights. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, which defends civil rights granted by the U.S. Constitution,

The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution guarantees individuals the right to personal autonomy, which means that a person’s decisions regarding his or her personal life are none of the government’s business. That right, which is a part of the right to privacy, encompasses decisions about parenthood, including a woman’s right to decide for herself whether to complete or terminate a pregnancy, as well as the right to use contraception, freedom from forced sterilization and freedom from employment discrimination based on child bearing capacity (Roleff 67).

In result of Row vs. Wade, abortion became legal once again and more socially accepted (67).

Pro-choice activists do not promote abortion as something that should always be done; they believe that the choice is up to the mother based on the situation in which the child was conceived or the situation the child could be being born into. There are many undesired circumstances of pregnancy that can lead to the choice of aborting a child. Situations on how the child is conceived may include rape or incest; although, most cases incest, unfortunately, occur along with rape. For a woman who conceives a child after being raped, carrying and giving birth to that child may very well be the hardest and most emotionally damaging experience within the woman’s life. After being raped by her brother-in-law while her sister was out of town, Barbara Hernandez, along with her doctor, decided that an abortion would be the best thing to do in the interest of her and the potential child. “She (the doctor) explained to me that in these circumstances I did not have to feel guilty if I chose an abortion. She presented it as a way to save my life, my sanity,” states Hernandez. After receiving the abortion she commented by stating that, “at first I felt guilty. I had ended a life that was just beginning. But gradually I realized that because of my circumstances, it was better for both the embryo and me.” This statement proves that under the circumstance of rape abortion is completely ethical and reasonably moral because of the emotional damage to the mother and the potential hard life of the child if it were to have been born (133). Other than the way that the child is conceived, the world and life that the child could potentially be brought into is another reason for situational abortions. A woman may be hesitant to have a child because of bad family life, she may be abused and does not want that for a child, or she could be unmarried; in addition, one of the most common reasons out of these is money and the inability for some single women or families to support a child financially. If there is not enough money to support a child, bringing them into a poor life could result in an array of problems throughout the child’s life and the parent’s. The decision to not have a baby based on finance is also common with girls who become pregnant under the age of 18. According to Patricia Lunneborg, the author of Abortion: A Positive Decision, the third most common reason that a girl under 18 chooses to have an abortion is because she cannot afford a baby at that time (105). Lunneborg also states that “at any age, women say they have too many responsibilities already and not enough money (106).” This means that no matter the age of a woman, financial problems have always proven to be a reason for abortion. Altogether, based on undesirable situations, women should always have the right to choose what they want because of what’s best for them personally and their potential child.

The reason behind why all women should always have the right to choose to not have a baby is simple; a woman has the right do whatever she wants with her own body, along with every other human being. In Row vs. Wade, when abortion was made legal, “the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 7-2 decision, ruled that unborn humans were not ‘legal persons,’ that they were the property of the owner (the mother) who was given the basic constitutional right to choose to kill her unborn offspring (Willke 1).” According to this statement, under any circumstances a woman may choose to do as she likes with the fetus growing within her; no matter what the reason may be, she alone as the mother has the choice of whether she wants to keep her baby or not and have an abortion.

Debate over abortion and whether or not it should remain legal will always remain. Many situations exist that are undesirable for either the mother, the future of the child, or in some cases both the mother and the child. These unwanted situations and circumstances exemplify why abortion should remain legal. Although there are people who will never accept women who have abortions, the fight for social acceptance will continue. As long as pro-choice remains the leader of what is considered the best option to support, women will always, and should always, have the right to choose what they want to do with their own bodies.








Works Cited
Lewis, Jone J. "Abortion - History of Abortion in the United States." Women's History
Comprehensive Women's History Research Guide. New York Times Company, 2010. Web. 17 Nov. 2010. .

Roleff, Tamara L. Abortion: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1997. Print.

Willke, Dr. and Mrs. J.C. "Why Can't We Love Them Both? On Line Book by Dr. and Mrs.
Willke." Abortion Facts - Information on Abortion You Can Use. Heritage House '76, 2006. Web. 17 Nov. 2010. .

Jessica Rigsbee's Post

Newspaper representation of Religion
As it is seen in almost all major newspapers today, the topic of religion is discussed frequently. It seems that more now than ever, newspapers across the United States are discussing and criticizing the role that religion plays in American society. There is a common theme occurring in newspapers whenever religion of any kind is discussed; that is of religion being represented in a political and group-oriented way. There is no longer the mention of any kind of individualism as associated with religion. Whatever happened to religion being a personal experience? No longer does society, at least through the media’s lens, see religion as a personal and private matter. It is now simply seen as a means to political power or control. I think that this increasingly common view in newspapers often misrepresents religion as well as falsely accuses it of manipulating the people who choose to follow it.
The most prevalent view of religion as portrayed in the media, specifically newspapers, today is that of religion as strictly a political view. It is very common to come upon articles in which religion is talked about in a detached and insensitive way. Religion is not seen as sacred to many people any longer. Instead, newspapers commonly refer to religion as the reason behind political decisions and views in America, and across the world. Stanley Fish recently wrote an article for the New York Times entitled “Religion and the Liberal State Once Again.” In it, he comments: “When the liberal citizen exits the private realm and enters the public square, he or she is supposed to leave religious commitments behind and function as a stripped-down entity, as an abstract-not-full personage, who makes political decisions not as a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim but as what political scientist Michael Sandel calls an “unencumbered self,” a self unencumbered by ethnic, racial, gender, class or religious identities” (Fish). What Fish fails to realize is that religion, whatever faith a person believes in, is not something that can simply be turned on and off. One’s faith becomes a part of them; a part of them that helps make decisions between what is right and wrong, which essentially is what politics deals with. How can an individual be expected to totally disregard such a valuable part of themselves? In The Journal of Media and Religion, Charles Overby, head of the freedom forum says on ChristianityToday.com:
“The tendency of newspapers is to look at the quirky aspects of religion. The truth is
many readers are just looking for mainstream coverage. … That’s not church
bulletin coverage, but it is recognizing that faith is an important part in many lives” (Vultee, Velker, and Craft).
This sums up exactly what the public sees through current newspaper coverage of religion. Newspapers present religion in a mainstream, modern sense, totally disregarding the meaning and significance religion brings into many people’s lives. It is time for the media to no longer talk about religion as small, insignificant part in some people’s lives and start acknowledging the influence it has on so many’s everyday lives.
Another view taken by the media very frequently is that of religion being manipulative or just a “dominant ideology.” Newspapers often refer to religion as a controlling device used to manipulate people’s thoughts, beliefs, and opinions for thousands of years. In an article by The International Humanist and Ethical Union, a very disturbing view of religion is presented:
“Religion is one of the main ingredients of the dominant ideology. Religion belongs to the political realm as the British monarchy, the Labour or Conservative parties do. Moreover there is a great deal of money involved. Religious institutions have a great deal of wealth at their disposal and constantly struggle to get their hands on more” (Portrayal of Religion in the Media: Religion is Political).
This quote embodies the tone that is behind many newspaper articles concerning faith of any kind. It is slightly disturbing that the tendency in the current American society is to believe that the religions are completely corrupt. No longer is religion regarded as something sacred, even though America as a country has deep roots in religion. The Constitution even guarantees religious freedom to all who come into the country. The first people who came to America, the pilgrims, came for the very purpose of establishing a society that was free to worship as it pleased. What a dramatic change in ideas. Religion’s role in America has always been a strong one until recent years. America’s society now has the tendency through the media to disregard all of it’s citizen who still consider religion to be a strong part of their lives. Stanley Fish, in his same article for the New York Times, even goes as far to say that “the liberal state is incapable of doing anything with them (religious believers) except regard them, as many of the posters do, as fanatical, medieval, crazy, dictatorial and downright dangerous” (Fish).Where has the respect gone for those who are devoted to a certain religion? For a country that is supposed to be the most tolerant of different religions, American’s media becomes increasingly more critical and down-right insulting.
The media, especially daily newspapers, play a huge role in influencing and informing the American public. One in four Americans between the ages of 18-29 say that they are not affiliated with any religion (Statistics on American Religion Report). I think that part of this stunning statistic can be attributed to the strong voice of the media when concerning religion. Religion is now simply viewed as an aspect of politics and manipulates the believers that follow it. Daily newspapers constantly criticize religion, I think unfairly. Very rarely are there pieces in major newspapers that show the good aspects of believing in a religion. With so much criticism in America’s daily media, down-playing the importance of religion in people’s daily lives, it is no wonder that the country is becoming increasingly more opposed to religion all together.

Works Cited
"Statistics on Religion in America Report -- Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life." Religion in American Culture -- Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. The Pew Forum, 2007. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. .
"Portrayal of Religion in the Media: Religion Is Political International Humanist and Ethical Union." International Humanist and Ethical Union The World Union of Humanist Organizations. 28 May 2008. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. .
Fish, By Stanley. "Religion and the Liberal State Once Again - NYTimes.com." Opinion - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com. New York Times, 1 Nov. 2010. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. .
Vultee, Fredrick, Matthew Velker, and Stepanie Craft. "Faith and Values: Journalism and the Critique of Religion Coverage of the 1990s." Journal of Media and Religion 9.3 (2010): 1-27. Print

Destruction of Parent-Child Relationships on TV

Caroline Rand
Ms. Clark
English 101
November 18, 2010

Destruction of Parent-Child Relationships on TV

The culture today includes violence, profanity, promiscuity and poor moral everywhere you look, partly due to the rapid increase of these things in the media. The media influences the behavior of a few but effects the lives of many. People in the modern world today are desensitized to many shocking aspects in the media and have become immune to the awful moral lessons that are being portrayed forms of media, concentrating on Animated TV shows. Animated TV shows offer humor, entertainment, and the occasional poor moral lesson. These negative lessons may not be extremely prevalent due to the overpowering humor, but the consumer is subjected to absorb this lesson unconsciously. This has caused an increase in children and teenagers problems with their relationships with adults all over our society. “Popular culture also helps to poison relationships between parents and children” which leads to kids making poor choices. (Medved 147). “No notion has been more aggressively and ubiquitously promoted in films, popular music, and television than the idea that children know best- that parents are corrupt hypocritical clowns who must learn decency and integrity from their enlightened offspring” (Medved 147). The traditional values of close parent-child relationships, family, and trust, have been torn into pieces by continuous examples and portrayals of bad values in the media. Family Guy, one of the most popular animated television shows of our time, is a prime example of such a view. The messages that are cast out are not just about the relationships between parent and child, but they are about the general relationships between kids and adults. Medved notes that adults are often shown as evil, damaging, and “toxic” while the kids are the “enlightened”, intelligent, responsible and more powerful than any adult they cross in their lives. (Medved 147-160). While teenagers watch this show Family Guy, they are getting “useless, perhaps even damaging advice from the parent figures” (Medved 148). Family Guy is an extremely good show for the sake of entertainment, but the title itself offers the first issues with the lack of moral. Family Guys’ theme song that opens each episode is ironic in the way that it states “It seems today, that all you see, is violence in movies, and sex on TV… But where are those good old fashion values…. On which we used to rely?! Luckily there’s a family guy!”. Here, the song has the same argument that I am currently making, that there are too many bad values shown throughout all the media. Ironically, the title and the song do not illustrate to be true with the content that the show holds. In this animated show, Stewie, the one-year-old genius and evil baby has I life goal that is to kill his mother Lois because in his eyes, she is the source of all evil and he is a genius and believes murder to be the only solution. This is dangerous to the viewers because it shows them that kids want to kill their parents if they are annoying them and it is okay to use violence to illustrate your opinion. Also, there is never any punishment for Stewie when he uses violence against Lois or talks bad to her. This tells the viewers over time that this may be the same for them. Also, as a parent watching this show, it may eventually set the norm of what to expect from their children and how they should not act against their child if they are being rude or violent towards them. However, the Stewie-Lois relationship is not the main adult-child issue. The relationships that threaten the viewers’ moral the greatest is the relationships that each family member has with Meg Griffin, otherwise known as the families “punching bag” (“About the Show”). Meg is a seventeen-year-old “frumpy” girl who is socially awkward and does not fit in anywhere, especially her family. She is constantly put down and humiliated by her family members. For example in one episode Meg says “I just want to kill myself, I’m going to go upstairs and eat a whole bowl of peanuts.” Then her parents, Lois and Peter stare in silence until Meg exclaims “I’m allergic to peanuts” and Lois and Peter continue to stare. Meg then says “You don’t know anything about me!” and runs upstairs and Peter says to Lois, “Who was that guy?” (Meg Griffin Quotes). This shows a complete disconnect between parent and child. It shows the teenage or child viewer that it is humorous if parents talk to children like that so it is acceptable. It shows the parents that everyone will find you entertaining and fun if you treat your child in a distant and mean manner. Obviously, this is not the way children should be treated by their parents or our society today is set up for failure. This show is known to be a “parody of modern pop culture” and that these events in the show are to be looked at as humorous. Yes, the vulgarity and bad relationships are constructed by the creators of the show and are not real, but it does in fact slowly affect the consumer into believing that acting in an unpleasant way towards each other is accepted by society. Another thing that attributes to the not so great concern over this issue is that the bad messages are overshadowed by the face pace, exciting, and crazy plot that is needed to maintain the viewers attention. Television started as a center of where families could come together to watch shows that would enhance their morals and parents did not have to hide their children’s eyes from such poor values. The point is not that the parents should completely cut off their child’s viewing privileges, but both parent and child should be aware of the poor messages being illustrated so they can veer away from being influenced by them. This is the key to stopping the destruction of healthy parent-child relationships. Parents must take the first step and not be ignorant towards these messages. They should counteract the values their children are seeing on TV with positive values shown in their own home. These anti family messages that the media is casting out all over the society are dangerous and both parents and children must be aware. As Medved puts it, the media’s “antifamily messages-… may not make it impossible to raise decent kids, but they certainly make it harder than it has to be” (Medved 157).

Works Cited
“About the Show” Family Guy. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. ..
“Family Guy”. Wikipedia. 18 Nov. 2010. .
Medved, Michael. Hollywood VS. America. Harper Perennial: New York. 1992.
Meg Griffin Quotes. Family Guy. Fox. 18 Nov. 2010.
.

Italian Stereotyping on Jersey Shore

Elizabeth Nguyen
Lauren Clark
English 101
18 November 2010
Italian Stereotyping on Jersey Shore

Jersey Shore, an MTV reality television series that made its debut on December 3, 2009, follows eight Italian-American housemates, Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino, Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi, Paul “Pauly D” DelVecchio, Jenni “JWoww” Farley, Ronnie Ortiz-Magro, Sammi “Sweetheart” Giancola, Vinny Guadagnino, and Angelina Pivarnick, as they spend their summer in Seaside Heights, New Jersey. The cast, consisting of men with washboard abs, jewel-encrusted t-shirts and gelled up hair and overly tan women wearing little clothing that flaunts their good figure, or lack thereof, are filmed “creeping” on girls, having sex, otherwise known as “smushing,” looking for “juice heads” and “gorillas,” getting into fights and partying at bars and clubs. The show became an instant hit, averaging 2.7 million viewers in the first season. The second season, which was filmed in Miami and debuted on July 29, 2010, also became the number one television series in the P12-34 demographic. The reality show series created many popular slogans and catchphrases such as “beat up the beat,” “GTL: gym, tan, laundry,” and “t-shirt time.” Although the show became an instant hit and garnered a massive amount of success, not everyone is a fan of “Guido’s” and “Guidette’s” drunken debauchery. The show gained criticism for being offensive and negatively stereotyping the Italian culture almost as fast as it rose to instant popularity.

André DiMino, the president of UNICO National, a service organization for Italian Americans, states, “Their behavior is reprehensible and demeaning in all respects. I don’t see any redeeming value in the show. [The cast members] are an embarrassment to themselves and to their families” (Willett). UNICO’s Jenny DiMino, specifically targeting Snooki, chimes in, “UNICO’s stance, against defamatory labels and reprehensible behavior that exposes negative stereotypes of Italian Americans in ‘Jersey Shore’ and by MTV, is a necessity. Your behavior, not only on the ‘show’ but in how you carry yourself in public, is exactly why there is need for an organization like UNICO” (Iainad). Although the cast members take pride in being Italian-Americans, self-righteously dubbing themselves as Guidos and Guidettes, critics believe that the show poorly represents true Italian-Americans, causing the public to think that all Italian-Americans are, “egocentric, argumentative, unintelligent, and superficial” (Willett) due to the ostentatious manner of the Jersey Shore members. Most of the problems stem from the cast mates constantly referring to themselves as guidos and guidettes. Many believe the term is derogatory and should stop being repeated on the hit reality show. Joe Vitale, the Senator for New Jersey, states, “For me using ‘guido’ is like using the n-word” (Rohrer). Andre Vitale adds in, “It would be close to using the n-word. It is an insulting term. When I was younger that was a term where you would fight for your honour. It indicates an uneducated, boorish, stupid, low-class Italian-American” (Rohrer). Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino, however, states that a Guido is just “a good-looking Italian guy.” According to a study done by Donald Tricarico, “Guido: Fashioning an Italian-American Youth Style”, “Guido elaborates a “new,” nontraditional ethnicity. It is expressed in youth cultural symbols and meanings” (Tricarico). While traditional Italian-Americans may see the term as being derogatory, younger generations see it more as a way of life. There are many words that have a strong cultural tie and are often undeclared in order to avoid public controversy: “the N word among African-Americans, the F word among gays; the C word among Chinese-Americans” (Brooks). If these words are mostly unmentioned within the media due to the level of offensiveness it has, the use of the G word should also be refrained in order to avoid controversy, whether people believe it is insulting or not.

Critics argue that the show is highly stereotypical of Italian-Americans, leading the public to believe that all Italian-Americans are tan, arrogant, muscular, and to put it bluntly, idiotic. The show films the cast mates constantly getting into fights and brawls between each other and outsiders, having sex with multiple women, degrading one another, slacking and goofing off at work, and referring to some women as “grenades,” and “hippos.” Viewers watching the show may come to the conclusion that this is the behavior that is present in all Italian-Americans, a stereotype that is certainly not true. MTV released a statement saying, “This show is not intended for every audience and depicts just one aspect of youth culture. Our intention was never to stereotype, discriminate or offend” (Willett).

Aside from the behavior that the cast mates portray, they all have a very distinct style. According to “Youth Culture, Ethnic Choice, and the Identity Politics of Guido,” Guido is a youth subculture that is defined by style (Tricarico). In an interview by Tricarico, he found that “Guidos can easily be recognized in a crowd. No matter what the occasion a Guido is dressed like he is going to a club, or on his way to work out at the gym. Tight muscle tee shirts are a wardrobe staple” (Tricarico). The men of the Jersey Shore coined the popular slogan “It’s t-shirt time,” meaning that it is the time in which the men change out of their daytime shirt and put on a shirt that is suitable for the clubs, generally a bedazzled and jewel-encrusted t-shirt or a button up shirt. Girls on the show typically wear short and tight shirts, dresses, skirts and shorts. Guidos focus on hair, clothing and jewelry when pertaining to their style (Tricarico). The men either have extremely gelled-up hair or buzzed haircuts with designs on the side. Snooki is well-known for her “poof” hair-do, even inspiring a wig for Halloween, while Sammi wears extensions and straightens her hair constantly. The style that is presented on the show may represent the small percentage of people who identify themselves as Guidos and Guidettes, but certainly does not portray Italian-Americans as a whole.
Although most of the cast members are, in fact, Italian American, two are not. Jenni “JWoww” Farley is of Irish and Spanish descent and Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi is a Chilean who was adopted by Italian Americans parents. Although not having a trace of Italian blood within them, both ladies still proudly refer to themselves as Guidettes. This leads people to believe that either MTV did not conduct background checks while casting roommates for the television show, or they were blatantly looking for young adults who fit the stereotype in which they had in mind for the reality show. Either way, MTV created a television show solely based on the stereotypical Italian-American Guido and Guidette, yet two of the cast members are not Italian at all.

Although the show is meant to be entertaining, there are parts of the show that should be changed in order to not offend certain members of the public. Similar as to how MTV released a statement after the episode in which Snooki gets punched in the face by an intoxicated man at a bar, MTV should make sure that viewers know that the reality show is not a proper representation of Italian Americans as a whole. MTV and the cast members should also refrain from using the words “Guido” and “Guidette” due to the derogatory history of the word. Referring to how the show openly uses the G word, DiMino says, “There is this tremendous sensitivity to other groups. You don’t see that sensitivity when it comes to Italian-Americans, the only group it is OK to bash in the media” (Rohrer). The executive director of the Jersey Shore Convention and Visitors Bureau, Daniel Cappello, states that Jersey Shore is “a one-dimensional, dramatized version of a very small group of visitors’ summer experiences in one Jersey Shore town” (Willett). In response to the backlash that the show has garnered, Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino has a message for the critics: “If hating is your occupation, I probably got a full time job for you” (Brooks).

Citations
Willett, Brian. "MTV's Jersey Shore: Taking Advantage of Italian Stereotypes?." Associated Content. Yahoo! Inc., 08 Jan 2010. Web. 18 Nov 2010. .

Rohrer, Finlo. "Why are some people offended by TV show Jersey Shore?." BBC News Magazine. BBC, 08 Jan 2010. Web. 18 Nov 2010. .

Brooks, Caryn. "Italian Americans and the G Word: Embrace or Reject? Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1947338,00.html#ixzz15fB6REug."Time. Time Inc., 08 Jan 2010. Web. 17 Nov 2010. .

lainad, . "Jersey Shore: Does Reality TV Promote Stereotypes?." BlogHer. BlogHer, 08 Jan 2010. Web. 17 Nov 2010. .

Tricarico, Donald. "GUIDO: FASHIONING AN ITALIAN-AMERICAN YOUTH STYLE." Journal of Ethic Studies 19.1 1-6. Web. 17 Nov 2010. .

Tricarico, Donald. "Youth Culture, Ethnic Choice, and the Identity Politics of Guido." Voices in Italian Americana 18.1 (2007): 1-6. Web. 17 Nov 2010. .

Divorce should not be the easy way out

Jaimie Thomas

Lauren Clark

English 101

November 18, 2010

Growing up as a child with divorced parents, really compelled me to write about divorce and its affect on the family. As a Christian, I have been born and raised to believe that marriage is the sacred bond or unification of a man and a woman and should not be broken. When a man and a woman decide to get married and commit to one another, he or she should agree that neither one of them will end the marriage no matter how difficult it may be to stay together. From the biblical viewpoint, marriage simply falls short of God’s ideal plan for a life-long relationship between one man and one woman. If the marriage is broken, so is God’s plan. In the Bible, it is written that “So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:46; Mark 10: 6-9)
All of this may not seem convincing for those who do not follow God’s plan, but God’s plan happens to go hand and hand with finding true love, and who doesn’t want to find that in one’s lifetime? Happy marriage can exist, my grandparents generation has the lowest divorce rate of any people group still alive. Studies show, people aging from 53 to 72 have a divorce rate of 37%, and couples over the age of 72 have an 18% divorce rate. These numbers are far more significant than what we see now. Almost everyone around us deals with divorce it seems like, and it is only continuing to grow. Right now, 50% of all married couples living in the United States will get divorced at some point in their lifetimes. America is terrible at giving things a chance or practicing patience for that matter. “American culture is about quick fixes, and divorce plays into that.” Because divorce is becoming more common, people are beginning to have the mentality that one can get married and if it doesn’t work out, he or she can always get a quick a divorce and be done with it forever. Marriage is not designed to be this way, if people are going to get married thinking divorce is always an open option, then those people should just date because marriage is not meant to dissolve or discontinue if things do not work out.
The media is highly responsible for divorce. Movies and television shows are full of divorce, separation, single parenting and adultery. Sometimes, divorce is depicted to be sad and wrong, but usually divorce and adultery will be presented as if splitting up would be for the better in the given circumstance of the characters in the movie. Viewers feel like that is a reflection of his or her own life and there is nothing wrong with ending a marriage. In the 2006 film, “The Break-Up” featuring Jennifer Anniston and Vince Vaughn, the couples nasty split is portrayed to be more comical than damaging to the characters. Also, the characterization of the male and female roles were quite unrealistic interpretations of American adults. The male role was supposed to be immature, not serious about work, lazy, crude, sarcastic and never satisfied. The female role was completely the opposite because she was way to intelligent for the job she worked, apprehensive and uptight about the house being spotless, nagging and superior to the husband role. With such extreme opposites in personality, how could two people ever stay together in real life? People may not realize that in reality, these two types of people would never have been attracted to one another in the beginning and most likely would have never been married. Essentially, it is next to impossible for two completely opposite people to continue in a relationship neither of them want to be apart of which is what creates and intriguing story for a movie. People today, find a mate based on compatibility with another person and if the other person makes them ultimately happy. The movie was wrong because neither of the two characters in the bad relationship could make each other happy. This contrasts with real marriage today because a husband and a wife tend to make each other happy at some point in the relationship or else they would have never gotten married in the first place. People watch all of these movies where the main characters get divorced and seem to be happy or liberated after being under marriage’s trap. It is easy to say we are highly influenced by what we see on television because movies are supposed to be a fictitious depiction of real life occurrences.
With divorce being so common and becoming even more popular as time continues, it is hard for people to find hope for the possibility of a lasting relationship. It is possible and can be done. Two very important requirements for a happy marriage include trust and selflessness. Married people have to trust one another or the marriage simply will not make it. Constant worry and fear about what a spouse may or may not be doing will drive one crazy to the point of breaking, so therefore it is paramount in a relationship to have trust and the ability to confide in one another. One cannot be selfish in a relationship either because the ideal marriage plan from God is for the wife to submit to the needs of her spouse and the husband is supposed to be the ultimate provider for the relationship and family. Marriage requires teamwork, man and wife have to put each others needs before his or her own in order to be happy. Honesty is another very important factor for a long-lasting marriage. A husband and a wife must be fully honest with each other about everything because the truth will always surface and then problems arise. Honesty goes along with trusting one another, so if honesty is established in a relationship then the couple should have no trouble trusting one another.
Although it seems almost impossible anymore to maintain a healthy, happy marriage, it can be done. Divorce should not be the easy way out, which lately is made out to be a quick way to solve the problem. Marriage is a sacred unification between one man and one woman until death prevails. Movies and television are such an inaccurate interpretation of how divorce affects its victims. Also, movies tend to glamorize divorce as something that has become necessary for anyone who needs an out. Marriage is not supposed to end just because it can, in fact it is not always easy to stay married to the same person forever, but the fact is, it can be done. Robert Sexton once said, “In a time when nothing is more certain than change, the commitment of two people to one another has become difficult and rare.  Yet, by its scarcity, the beauty and value of this exchange have only been enhanced.”

Works Cited Page
Hooper, Lee. "How to Make a Marriage Last Forever: Things You Can Do to Give Your Marriage a Chance." Associated Content from Yahoo! - Associatedcontent.com. 30 Apr. 2007. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. .
Köstenberger, Andreas J., and David W. Jones. God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010. Print.
Murrell, By Abbey. "Love, Marry, Divorce, Repeat." ASU News | The State Press | Arizona State University. 7 Sept. 2010. Web. 18 Nov. 2010.
Robinson, B. A. "U.S. Divorce Rates: for Various Faith Groups, Age Groups and Geographical Areas." ReligiousTolerance.org by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. 20 July 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. .
Sexton, Robert. "Marriage Quotes, Sayings about Husbands and Wives." The Quote Garden - Quotes, Sayings, Quotations, Verses. 9 Sept. 2010. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. .

Fame through YouTube

Amira Said
Lauren Clark
18 November 2010
English 101

Fame Through YouTube

There is no doubt that the increase in technology over the past few decades has made it easier for information and ideas to travel across the world in seconds. It is important in our fast moving society to take a step back and consider, is the value fame being defaced? Since the early months of 2005, people have been able to upload and view videos online through YouTube. YouTube is a venue where users can share videos with mass amounts of people, including close family and friends, and the general public. YouTube is accessible through any device with Internet, and over the past five years has become one of the most visited sites for entertainment. Because the site is so accessible, and so many people use it, ordinary people can become famous by solely uploading a video, no matter how ridiculous it is. Through the use of YouTube people can become famous with such little work, and almost no substantial talent.

There are endless cases of ordinary people adding a series of videos to the ‘Tube and instantly becoming superstars. These “average Joes” easily become multi-millionaires after being invited onto popular televisions talk shows and for some, ending up with their own TV series. It seems to be the more views a user gets on their videos, the more the media is attracted to them, and without doing any work, they are offered contracts from music, television, and book companies.

The hit teen sensation, Justin Bieber, was just an average Canadian pre-teen before YouTube swept him away. Now, the sixteen-year-old has performed with the most popular artists in the music industry, made top charts with his songs, and became a company of his own, all in a matter of three years. In 2007, Bieber’s mother posted a video of him singing “So Sick” by Ne-Yo for a local singing competition. If Bieber had been born just a few years previous, his talent would’ve probably never made it out of Stratford, Ontario (Shaw). In the article, Justin Bieber: digital discovery, social media sensation, the author Gillian Shaw says “The early YouTube entries are of the "sharing with Grandma" genre -- hardly the type of audition you might think would launch a recording career.” An employee of the company that manages the Twitter website said this in reference to Bieber: “You can't get any more influential than this. People hang on your every word, and share your content like no other (Shaw).” Justin Bieber owes his whole career to YouTube.

Another astounding YouTube fame story has derived from Justin Bieber, but this one, stars one of his young fans. The mother and siblings of three-year-old Cody videotaped her crying over her love for Justin Bieber and posted the video on YouTube. Not long after it was posted, the video reached a million views and has been increasing steadily since. Young Cody literally did nothing but cry about Justin Bieber and say a few funny phrases, and because of her video, ended up on national television. Cody and her whole family, a short time after the video was posted, got invited to the Jimmy Kimmel Live show where they were surprised by a visit from Justin Bieber himself.

YouTube sensation, Bo Burnham, ironically has a song called “Welcome to YouTube,” that aired on national television, in which he describes the phenomenon and attributes his fame to the site. He satirizes about the absurdity of many famous YouTube celebrities, although he is among them. Burnham is a twenty-year-old comedian and singer-songwriter from Massachusetts who began uploading videos of himself singing and playing piano in 2007 (Jean). His videos currently have over 70 million hits (Jean). While not much is up for debate when deciding if Burnham has talent, because his songs are as clever and catchy as they come, the teen’s straight shot to stardom may have been too easily handed to him. In his satirical song “Welcome to YouTube,” he amusingly says “Before YouTube I was just a skinny white kid … Now, not much has changed but now I have a sh*tload of money (“Welcome to YouTube”).” The comedian himself knows he must attribute his fame to the site.

Chris Crocker is a very controversial, famous YouTube-er recognized for his video “Leave Britney Alone!” which currently has around 35,246,000 views. In the video, the emotionally chastises tabloids and gossip columns for criticizing Britney Spears during her hard times. His open flamboyantly gay character can hardly be considered talent worth national recognition but yet again, the fame has just been handed to him as he is now commonly asked to host television award shows and appear on many different series. Crocker also seems to have the idea in his head now that he deserves the same respect as all celebrities, when he would be nowhere without YouTube.
Not all famous YouTube video sharers go on to sign contracts and get attention from top-name companies. Some are left unnoticed but once they start to accumulate hits on their videos, many have been able to just sit back and watch themselves rise to stardom. Fame should be an exclusive status to obtain. The easier it gets to become famous, the less value fame has. According to the author Michael Strangelove, who wrote Watching YouTube: extraordinary videos by ordinary people, YouTube supports cultural collaboration because it encourages companies to support ordinary citizens. He also goes on to say, “The fame it engenders cannot be attributed solely to the creative activity of a single individual (Strangelove 186-189).”

Before YouTube, the process of becoming famous was a long and intricate endeavor. You would have to audition, attract companies, and use a good business strategy to make something out of yourself and even then you had to start small. Now, it’s easy for a Hollywood career to begin with a homemade video that had no original intention of attracting big names. The once almost unattainable, but rewarding if achieved, status has been devalued by the ‘Tube. While this ordeal cannot be blamed on YouTube, because all it does is provide a place for the sharing of videos, something should be done before fame has no significance. With a few exceptions, the entertainment that YouTube videos bring to web surfers should be restricted to the ‘Tube. A massive number of hits on a video should not have the authority to launch the creator’s professional career.



Works Cited

Jean, Currie. "Obscure people who have become stars through YouTube videos." Helium. Helium, Inc. Web. 17 Nov 2010

Shaw, Gillian. "Justin Bieber: digital discovery, social media sensation." Gazzette 18 Oct. 2010. Web. 17 Nov 2010.

Strangelove, Michael. Watching YouTube: extraordinary videos by ordinary people. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 2010. 186-189. Print.

"Welcome to YouTube." Bo Burnham Official YouTube. Web. 17 Nov 2010.