Archive for the 'Media' Category
Ok, first, can I just tell you how HONORED I am to be a member of this exclusive club. (gush)
And secondly, so sorry I haven’t had time to visit in a while.
Paul Ryan, in last night’s vice-presidential debate, framed his anti-abortion argument thusly: “According to my religious beliefs, I believe that. . .”
Well, it doesn’t really matter what he says next.
I was actually thinking the other day about how we all kind of impose our own filters on what we hear and read. It used to be that you subscribed to one or two newspapers or news magazines, and you probably would have read at least a little bit into articles on many topics, including some written by people who had a different opinion or belief system than you did.
Now we unfriend people on facebook if their pages become too political or too personal or if they disagree with us on our walls, and we read numerous blogs written by people who think like us. And I’ve been wondering if any of us really listen to people who have different opinions, and also if any of us can even frame an argument in a way that is convincing, articulate, and not defensive.
My argument against Ryan’s is this: It doesn’t matter what your religious beliefs are. 1. You’re running for office in a country that was presumably founded on a basic principle of religion and government functioning completely independently from each other. 2. Your religious beliefs are not necessarily mine, which means you don’t get to impose the conclusions you come to based on them onto me or anyone else.
I was nauseated by his smirking facial expressions, much as I was by Romney’s last week. A friend of mine commented on facebook that she thought that Joe Biden was condescending. So, at the risk of sounding like Carrie Bradshaw, I can’t help but wonder — do we only see and hear what we want to see and hear?
When perusing these photos of the casts from some of the most popular and well-rated television shows, which of the following becomes clear:
a) Everybody on television either dresses really well, or wear scrubs
b) Everybody on television is way prettier than you and has much whiter teeth
c) Despite demographics claiming there are roughly the same number as women as men in the world, women actually only make up 14-28% of the population
I stumbled across this article recently because a friend had posted it on her facebook page.
(As an aside, I feel it necessary to point out that I, being of an older, more paranoid generation, went to the website myself, so that facebook wouldn’t feel compelled to tell the world that I had read the article. But that’s a topic for another day.)
If you enter Jennifer Lawrence’s name into the Bing search engine,
(As an aside, I feel it necessary to point out that I, being of an older, more paranoid generation, no longer use Google, since Google seems to think it is perfectly acceptable not only to track my use of the internet, including the words I might write in an email message, but to use this use and these words to target advertising to me, AND remove my ability to stop it.)
you get page after page of beautiful images.
As you should; she’s a beautiful girl.
But if you enter “Jennifer Lawrence without makeup” you get page after page of snarky people, oh so happy to give her a hard time because she actually looks like a person.
Now isn’t that charming.
(And clearly a man, although I didn’t dignify it by clicking on it, and I ask you not to either. Hence the lack of a link. If you can’t resist, well, you have your own conscience to face.)
Today someone had put this article, from “Yahoo! News” (now there’s an oxymoron if there ever was one): Supermodels without Photoshop.
(As an aside, I feel it necessary to point out that I, oh, never mind. . .)
This seemed related to the post that was percolating in my mind, so I went there to see more. Most of the pictures were of perfectly beautiful girls looking perfectly beautiful but without makeup. There was one picture of a trio of supermodels waiting for the Glamour photographer to snap his shot.
The one on the left is obviously anorexic, the one in the middle is a “plus-size” model, which probably just means that she can buy clothes off the rack, and her suit bottom seems to be a size too small, but she seems to have a perfectly beautiful, normal, womanly shape. The one on the right seems to have left her hips at home, but I’m sure once the photographer starts clicking she can jut one off to the side to make herself appear to have at least one.
Aside: I’m always curious about this, as the majority of models have quite voluptuous breasts [without our knowing whether they are “real” or not] and no hips to speak of. Yet they always stand in hip-jutting poses, demonstrating clearly that having hips is desirable. Is the non-existent-yet-jutting hip somehow neater or sexier than the actual hip? Is there, for example, something wrong with her?
or do you remember when Kate Winslet was in Titanic, and people said she was “fat”?
Anyway, the “author” of the “article” poses this difficult and thought-provoking question:
and watch this:
Rush appears in all his overweight ignorant glory around 7:40.
How can a 60-year old man in the 21st century be so woefully misinformed about the female body? And how can he twist the truth so dramatically and get away with it (and this isn’t by any means the first time)? The thing I don’t get is how we knew he was an idiot 20 years ago and his listeners and advertisers are just now figuring it out?
Or, as Rachel points out, it doesn’t matter. He’s saying what he says to provoke, to be famous, to get people to talk about him.
But he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, it’s quite clear he doesn’t have any women working for him (or maybe someone might have informed him of how the Pill actually works), and there are plenty of people listening to him who agree with his ignorant vitriolic bullshit.
Maybe, instead of talking about Rush, we should be talking about why 50% of the population is represented by 19% of our government, and how we (women) got this far in a country where we are still so little understood and so poorly represented. As Rachel points out near the end of the video clip, Romney doesn’t seem to understand how contraception works a whole lot better than Rush. And as she also pointed out, it’s bad enough to be a jerk, but it’s even worse, especially when you’re trying to generate national discourse on important societal topics, to be stupid.