RedFace: American Indian Cultural Appropriation

As Ruth Hopkins begins her article about this case (found here), "Now I've really seen it all." And here's what it is:

Here we have Michelle Williams in apparent RedFace, in an attempt to culturally appropriate American Indians for the cover of a British fashion and culture magazine, AnOther (interesting magazine name, too, but that's a discussion for another time!).

The Huffington post also covers this case here, as they explain, "While not everyone might be offended, there have been all too many instances of fashion professionals ruffling feathers with ill-conceived Native American-inspired projects." Indeed, akin to what we observed in No Doubts "Looking Hot" video as well as the recent Victoria's Secret fashion show, this type of racism and stereotyping American Indians is alive and well in society today - even across the pond.

As Ruth Hopkins boldly states in her piece:

...just as Blackface is never okay, Redface is never okay. Ever.Some folks contend that since it's acceptable to dress up as a cowboy, they should get a pass for dressing up as an ‘Indian.' Wrong. Donning the customary dress of a profession, like that of a cowboy, or a firefighter, or a police officer, is not comparable to wearing a hackneyed ‘Indian' costume because being Native is not an occupation. American Indians are an entire race of people. We are living, breathing, human beings, made up of hundreds of separate Tribal groups, each with their own history, culture, language, and often, land base. 


Indeed, here we have a clear case of a common type of cultural appropriation that we have discussed in class (the "we're a culture not a costume" campaign, campaign ad case, etc), and the media's role in it today. Elfriede Fursich wrote in her piece "How can global journalists represent the 'Other'? A critical assessment of the cultural studies concept for media practice" about this phenomenon. Fursich writes, "Journalism and media praxis hold a unique position in the creation of representations...the strategies of media representations must be continuously questioned, because cultural practices are also constantly changing" (72). 

It appears that this strategy is, in fact, continuing to be questioned - but what is being done about it? Look at sporting teams in our country, like the Cleveland Indians (full disclosure: my hometown), Washington Redskins, and Atlanta Braves - that have faced continuous protest for their own appropriations, but still exist today. (Though my team did get rid of its "Chief Wahoo" logo on all merchandise, replacing it with a "C," which is at least a step in the right direction.) What does this continued cultural appropriation mean for our world, and how much further can it go?

A (Book) Case of Gendered Advertising

I came across an interesting case today about gendered advertising. See the picture below:

The articles about these books, found here and here, discuss how both the liberal arts-based English and History books feature photos of women, while the science-based books feature men on their covers. The second article points out that this extends to Barnes and Noble's collections for boys and girls:

We see here that the collection for boys is more adventurous, involving more books about exploration and independence, while the girls collection remains friendship and human-interest focused. This article goes into further detail about gendered advertising, including ads for both cookies and crayons, with noticeably different marketing between each one, from the colors even down to the font choices.
Indeed, I did not find a lot of this surprising, considering how advertisings' ultimate purpose is to sell a product, as well as an image and product reputation, for a consumer. They know what works and what appeals to specific genders, and must walk a fine line to make sure they appeal in a proper manner. 
They communicate with the consumers in ways that connect to them on various emotional and intellectual levels, and with women especially, this can be tricky. As we read about gender schema in the case of Sarah Palin's portrayal in the media, "Gender schema theory emphasizes the dominant role of gender in not only grasping but also processing knowledge and beliefs and guiding behavior in a given culture...[it] points to cognitive structures that are historical, contextual, and persuasive, and illustrate the significance of gender stereotypes" (D. Harp et al., 293). In applying this theory, it is easy to see that this advertising clearly reflects stereotypes, male/female structure, and in a more subliminal way, guiding behavior. 

But in regards to the AP book covers, I agree with Jezebel's initial assessment as stated here: "Could these AP exam prep books from the Princeton Review be any more obvious? English and history are for ladies, and math and science are for boys. Since many text books now overcompensate with science covers that feature ladies...it's a little jarring to see something so... obvious? Brazen? 1950s?" I attended an all-girls school growing up, and remember most of our textbooks featuring photos of women on them - encouraging all of us that women could, in fact, choose any career they desires. But the pigeon-holing of women into specific careers and arenas of the world continues, as we still see less women than men in fields like law, business and medicine, which have always been male dominant. 

What do you think of this kind of advertising and how it communicates with women? Are the photo covers a simple accident/coincidence, or was there a clear choice made in their use?

I Literally am probably guilty of this misuse of "Literally"

So not the most academic of articles, but still raises some good conversations

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/the-wrong-definition-of-literally-is-literally-going-in-the

I was reading an article the other day in a journal that encouraged the creation of new words and then I saw this about how we are finding ourselves repurposing words which then leads to redefining them. So is there anything wrong with that?

I was raised by an English professor. I can't cuss because I was taught 1000 different words that mean the same thing, carry the same power, but are more effective - maybe even more correct (depends on who you ask) Growing up my father would always correct me if I used a popular slang term or misused a word, I literally could not get away with the language of pop culture in my house.

I really enjoy words and I enjoy exercising my mind to expand my vocabulary. I don't mind if someone uses a word out of its original definition, but something does hit me as... wrong... that then that word will be redefined in our dictionary. What it comes down to for me is the evolution of language and how I think we take it too lightly. I find language to be a very powerful influential asset to our culture and identity. And I think the more lax we are with it, that's not representing or respecting our heritage well.  I'm not conservative on many issues, but when it comes to language and words, I do believe there is a holiness to them and therefore should carry some more high regard then what I think we are giving to it today. Especially in the education system and in the home. This is where most of our communication abilities are formed and I am very thankful for seriousness my parents took when helping me construct my vocabulary. I feel that I can own my thoughts and process my thoughts and communicate myself more effectively.

But at the end of the day - I really like Chris Traegar from Parks and Recreation - He can literally over use that word as much as he likes :)

But for the rest of us, what are the pros and cons of the evolution of our words and language?

Domestic Violence Against Men

I was informed at dinner this past weekend that domestic violence against men is just as prevalent as domestic violence against women--but it goes unreported. My first thought: Really? 

I had never heard of this, but I wanted to be fair and recognize this concern.

Since dinner, I have seen two articles come out in the past week about two prominent women allegedly abusing their significant others. One is an American tennis star, Jennifer Capriati, and the other is a New Zealand business owner, Sarah Patricia Olliver. 

Interested in gender studies, I looked up information on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention website to find out what compelling evidence there is about men being victim's of domestic violence. I do not doubt that this doesn't exist, but with the women's movement being so powerful, I wondered if men were even remotely as abused as women are in the American society. Although I found little reporting on whether or not domestic violence against men is unreported, I did find some statistics on what is reported:

• Nearly 3 in 10 women and 1 in 10 men in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by a partner and report that the violence impacted them in some way (e.g., made them feel fearful or concerned for their safety, resulted in an injury or need for services, or they lost days from work or school).
• IPV resulted in 1,336 deaths in 2010—accounting for 10% of all homicides. Eighty two percent of these deaths were females and 18% were males.

Thus, it is true that men are abused, as the CDC reports, and I do not want to downplay this. But I found little information about men being abused at the same rates that women are. Thus, I would like to take a step back and possibly question my sister's boyfriend's motive. He studied English in college and took one women's literature course, where he always talks about this particular book he read called When She Was Bad, which highlights women serial killers. For some reason, he always finds interest in pressuring me about topics like these, and I am very perplexed about the situation as a whole.

My goal here is not to defend women and say that they are never wrong. Surely women are capable of abusing their spouses as well. But the claim about women abusing men as often as men do to women seems a bit over reaching for me. For my sister's boyfriend, I could see how it could be frustrating to believe something and not have the facts to solidify an argument. 

I would like to equate his thought process to the Hualiani et. al reading, where the critiques of unitary concept of culture as a nation-based variable is considered (p. 26). An example of this that comes to mind, which is also stated in the reading is that conceptualizing culture as nation may precede insights and perspectives about culture that need further analysis to reveal full complexities of culture, which includes unveiling power structures and position different cultural voices over others. Here, I think my sister's boyfriend may have some preconceived notions that he believes to be true, and I would urge him to really dig deeper into also investigating the violence that does affect women in our culture by unveiling the patriarchy as a power structure. Feminism, after all, is about gender equality, not taking over the world--despite what some people think.

Digital Era - Redefining Etiquette

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/etiquette-redefined-in-the-digital-age/

I don't like voice messages I'll admit that, but I do like it when someone whom I am communicating with either via text or email follows up with me to close out the conversation with a "thanks!" I don't see it being such a bother as this author claims it is, what's wrong with keep some traditional practices alive? To me, there's nothing more irritating then missing a call and not having a message either text, voice, or email saying who they are and what they wanted (unless it was a pocket dial!) But there's also something to be said when I send a client an email with some work I've done for them or contacted a friend to say hi hope you're well, and I don't get the respect in return from them to say "thank you" "got your email" etc.

I think we're acquired one too many ways of communicating and reaching someone, and for the end user it can become overwhelming to be contacted so easily by so many different means. I was listening to a friend complain the other day that a girl he wanted to take out wouldn't get back to him - he said he called and left a voice message... and when some time passed and he didn't hear back he sent her a text, followed up by some online communication - Well no wonder she's avoiding you, you're smothering her with messages!
I think since there are so many different ways of communicating and reaching someone we can't sometimes decide what's best or most efficient so we just use them all. And in a way it takes away from our personal space. We may be able to physically remove ourselves from others but we're still all being sought after in this digital world - it's just too much.

I find it overwhelming to have four email accounts, a facebook, a phone, linkedin, etc. I feel pressure in my head - almost claustrophobic - when I spend time trying to maintain and correspond through so many different outlets. I am to the point where when I get a text message that is more then a few words long I just respond by calling the person. And oddly enough if they answer they are always very awkward because we're getting to the point where vocal communication is a way of the past. I still call my parents weekly to talk - if I contact them through email or social media it just feels not genuine, disrespectful, not-personal. We should be careful to not lose sight of the significance in personal and intentional interaction.

Kristina and I presented to the class ways in which media can share empathy, good stories, inspiration for kinds acts etc.. and I do believe that's true. But it can also make us all hermits if we're not careful. If someone takes the time to send you an email that simply says "Thank You" I don't think that's really taking away moments of your life. If someone leaves you a voice message, check it.. and then maybe direct them to better ways to contact you in the future. Or shut off your voice message option on your phone - you can do that. I think what needs to be better established are ways we want to be communicated by. I tell clients to always contact me through email because more days I just don't have the ability to answer my phone and talk. I tell my parents if they want to reach me, call me.. and the same with my friends. I will check messages on accounts like FB or Linkedin and then usually write back and let the person know a better way of communicating with me. I found this type of management has allowed me not to be so overwhelmed throughout my day. And it gives me space that is needed.

How do you feel about this author's article and the many ways in which we can be reached? Is it about changing etiquette or do we just need to manage our outlets better? 

Why we have too Few Women Leaders

I came across this interesting TED Talk about why there are not more women in higher up positions.  The speaker, Sheryl Sandberg, acknowledged that women have made huge strides since the days of yore when women were denied basic human rights.  Despite this progress however, there is still only a small percentage of women in top positions whether it be in politics or corporations.  But WHY?

On January 28 we touched briefly on Critical Feminist Theory which takes a holistic approach in analyzing the role of women in contemporary society.  In her 14-minute talk, Sandberg looks at how women have historically viewed their role in achieving success.  In trying to balance their professional and personal lives, women may face obstacles that men don’t necessarily have to.  Two of the most striking things from this talk were 1) that women underestimate their own abilities; whereas men attribute their success to themselves, women usually attribute their success to outside factors (start watching around the 5:00 mark in the video); and 2) that success and likability are positively correlated for men, but negatively for women (7:00 mark). Sandberg brings up a fascinating case study about simply changing an applicant’s name from Heidi to Howard.   Despite the same credentials, Howard was deemed more pleasant to work with on paper based simply on his gender.

I found these two things the most arresting because, as a woman, I can relate to them.  I’ve never been able to pinpoint these factors or skillfully articulate why men still hold a majority of top-ranked jobs.  We can look at theory all year, but these simple observations helped me make sense of this issue in a way that I can relate to and eventually partake in.

Ultimately Sandberg looks at ways to combat this discrimination, but for me, this video was simply a way to reflect on my own mannerisms and ideologies as I get ready to compete for jobs in the real world.  However, it does place the responsibility of inclusion on the shoulders of women which may be seen as contentious by some.  Do you agree with Sandberg’s comments and solutions?

The 'Highlands': Denver's Gentrified Neighborhood

Today the local panaderia on 32nd and Lowell in the Denver Highland neighborhood still stands, but it is competing with the new frozen yogurt shop that moved in next door.

Historically, the Highland neighborhood has been home to Denver's immigrant population. What was once an old urban neighborhood has quickly become overwehlemed with loft living, trendy shops and expensive restaurants.

As a Denver native, I can't help but to stop and critique the gentrification that is happening in my own city.

In 2007 I began hearing more and more about the Highland neighborhood. But growing up in Denver, we  always called it the "north side." Not anymore. Apparently, Denver's "north side" is now the "Highlands," and the neighborhood is undergoing mass gentrification that has occurred within the past five years.

The struggle is apparent as anti skyscraper signs stand in the front yards of old Highland residents, all the while new loft-like buildings continue to go up at rapid pace.

Traditionally, it has been known that people of color typically live in urban neighborhoods, like the Highlands. However, with the massive gentrification happening, Denver's Hispanic population is moving out of the city and into the suburbs. By contrast, the white population is moving into the city, where the cost of living is more expensive.

In relation to our class discussion about white privilege, I would argue that the gentrification that has occurred in the Highlands neighborhood directly relates to how white people have the ability, based on wealth and power, to push an entire population out of their homes.

In Peggy McIntosh's, White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, she referenced housing as a source of white privilege: "If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area that I can afford and in which I would want to live."

Although there has been little news coverage about the gentrification happening in the Highlands, one Denver Post article did mention that when gentrification does occur "people of greater income move into a neighborhood and displace people of lesser income...homes move up in social standing."

You can read the full Denver Post article here, and learn more about the gentrification that is happening in Harlem, too.