Mr. Kindlon and Mr. Thompson, where as I agree with you opinions of the article to a certain extent, I am not in complete agreement with your opinions. You both talk about boys in a manner that portrays all boys as being either the bully or the bullied. What you both have done was you spoke about boys who were either cruel bullies to other boys or about the boys were “sissies.” Although, it has been said that boys who bullies are often boys who were bullied, your article doesn’t even touch on this point. What you also didn’t talk about where the middle of the road boys. The boys who are popular, yet still are considered “nice guys.” You are making it sound as if there are either bullies or the bullied. Black and white without any grey in between the two. However, there is such thing as the “nice” guy. I believe this type of guy differs from the boys who are bullied they aren’t considered coward and is generally liked by their peers. In older boys, the definition of a nice guy is a male who is helpful, supportive, and does not instigate confrontations. Other traits of a nice guy are guys who show tenderness, empathy, compassion and shows emotional vulnerability. This is not acceptable to boys, but is very favorable to the girls. Boys who act like this aren’t considered masculine as boys who are masculine don’t portray these trait at least not on the outside which would make them a prime candidate to get picked on.
You also state that bullying starts at the time in a boy life when there is a “coming of age” incident and indicated that bullying starting started at about the age of ten. The name calling, physical aggression and pranks that tear down a victim doesn’t necessarily start as late as ten-years-old. Boys bullying boys could start much earlier than that. I did some research about younger boys and bullies/bullying and the information I gathered was intriguing. In actuality, from the research that I have done, there is evidence that boy bulling actually starts between the ages six and eight which would put the boys who bulling as early as the first grade. While there isn’t so much of the physiological bullying that goes on with the boys who are older, younger boys still do bully. Younger boys tend to be more aggressive physically with hitting, biting, and kicking. It is not until the boys are older and they are more mature socially and emotional that’s when the physiological bullying begins.
So, whereas I agree with your assessment of what a bully is and the social hierarchy that brings a boy to bully. I don’t agree with the age group that you have chosen for the bulling to begin; and I don’t agree with your assessment of the nice guy either. Your research, according to my research, is quite factual for the older boy. I am just confused as to why you did not not touch on the point of boys starting to bully at a younger age. Perhaps it is because the criteria that your article focused on were geared toward the older boy. However, I feel that you should have touch on all aspects of bullying from the youngest to the older boys.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
What's right for children's sake
What’s more important: to make lots of money and be famous, or to have a positive impact on the world especially children? Shouldn’t it be more important to feel good knowing that not only have you entertained the mass population, but you could have really touched a child’s life by the message your movie sends or the lyrics to your song?
If someone wants to make some fast money, the way to do it is to appeal to the darker side of humanity. This is the principle on which much of organized crime is based, along with other unprincipled individuals involved in drug trafficking , the pornography industry, and some parts of the music industry. Let’s face it; everyone knows that sex sells , as does violence and other depravity that teenagers and young kids in particular are attracted to like moths to porch lights.
As, the media protagonist - namely film or TV mass media is currently the most powerful information channel - namely film to TV stars and pop-singers - are frequently considered as “models” by the media recipients. However, this is not - or should not be-their main function. Actors and singers are supposed to be artist and consequently they are paid exclusively for producing art work. However, the fact that the artists are getting paid so much money for their talent which is on one side right because they are being paid for their talent. On the other hand though this is giving kids a misconstrued concept of what the real world is like. Not everyone is a millionaire.
On the other side, young people, who are the principle consumer of artistic products of actors and singers should not need such role models. In an ideal environment, children and teenagers would be primarily influenced by their parents so as to reach adulthood with a clear sense of who they are what their goals are for life. But we do not live in a perfect world and nowadays it is demonstrated that parents are loosing their specific model role inside the family. Such lack of image to trust on implies a research of outsider’s model. And that’s why young people transform admiration of pop singers and TV and cinema stars into worship.
Many stars are worshiped and only by kids. Parents are just as guilty of having their own favorite stars. Therefore, what kind of example are they setting for their children. I believe that it is the parents responsibility to set the role for the children. I’m not saying that parents can’t have their favorite, who doesn’t? However, some parents take their “worship” of their favorite stars and musicians to a degree that is not healthy and is not a ethical role model for the children.
The musicians, actors and actresses are not responsible for the values of the children. It is up to the parents to monitor what their children are doing. I know however, that this is not an easy task with the percentage rate of single parent homes and parents that have to work all day. That doesn’t make it easy to monitor their children or what their children ar doing with their friends. All we can do is set good standard for are children and guidelines. The rest is up to them to a certain degree. It seems that children are raising themselves these days.
If someone wants to make some fast money, the way to do it is to appeal to the darker side of humanity. This is the principle on which much of organized crime is based, along with other unprincipled individuals involved in drug trafficking , the pornography industry, and some parts of the music industry. Let’s face it; everyone knows that sex sells , as does violence and other depravity that teenagers and young kids in particular are attracted to like moths to porch lights.
As, the media protagonist - namely film or TV mass media is currently the most powerful information channel - namely film to TV stars and pop-singers - are frequently considered as “models” by the media recipients. However, this is not - or should not be-their main function. Actors and singers are supposed to be artist and consequently they are paid exclusively for producing art work. However, the fact that the artists are getting paid so much money for their talent which is on one side right because they are being paid for their talent. On the other hand though this is giving kids a misconstrued concept of what the real world is like. Not everyone is a millionaire.
On the other side, young people, who are the principle consumer of artistic products of actors and singers should not need such role models. In an ideal environment, children and teenagers would be primarily influenced by their parents so as to reach adulthood with a clear sense of who they are what their goals are for life. But we do not live in a perfect world and nowadays it is demonstrated that parents are loosing their specific model role inside the family. Such lack of image to trust on implies a research of outsider’s model. And that’s why young people transform admiration of pop singers and TV and cinema stars into worship.
Many stars are worshiped and only by kids. Parents are just as guilty of having their own favorite stars. Therefore, what kind of example are they setting for their children. I believe that it is the parents responsibility to set the role for the children. I’m not saying that parents can’t have their favorite, who doesn’t? However, some parents take their “worship” of their favorite stars and musicians to a degree that is not healthy and is not a ethical role model for the children.
The musicians, actors and actresses are not responsible for the values of the children. It is up to the parents to monitor what their children are doing. I know however, that this is not an easy task with the percentage rate of single parent homes and parents that have to work all day. That doesn’t make it easy to monitor their children or what their children ar doing with their friends. All we can do is set good standard for are children and guidelines. The rest is up to them to a certain degree. It seems that children are raising themselves these days.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Gender and the media
Woman are definitely given the lesser roles and the less exciting news stories to cover or documentaries to explore. This is not only true for the live media such as news coverage, but for the written media such as the newspaper as well. Based on consumer demand, it is expected that this is the way the media should be. However, the give and take of the media also demands a certain visual response from consumers.
Consumers take advantage of woman and their bodies. Although there is a significant demand for male models, it is woman model that are mostly in demand and are paid quiet a salary for showing off their bodies. There are clothes models, bathing suit models, underwear model and so forth. Take for example Victoria Secret. Their clothes and undergarments are for woman only. Although men get to reap the rewards of their significant other’s purchase of underwear and sexy lingerie. That is a whole other categories, lingerie models. This is the “job” that these woman have picked, however, in my opinion, I think it is degrading to prance around in lingerie and underwear for a living. It is degrading to me to have people, men, staring at my body and probably fantasizing about that. However, some woman think this is great and probably have an inflated ego because of it. Also, people outside of the media agree with this. This is what the media had portrayed as acceptable.
The media gives lesser jobs to woman. If you aren’t a model strutting you wares for money, then chances are you will be covering a 3 minute segment on the news. This could be anything from whether it is going to continue raining for the next 24 hours to a kitten caught in a tree and whether it would be saved. Woman in the written media don’t get to cover exciting news and documentaries, at least most of the time. Infrequently will you hear about a woman journalist sent to another country to cover the dangerous happenings of that country and told to us via live news stream. The reason for this is that society deems woman as helpless victims who are best left to tend to the children and the house. Society believes that woman aren’t strong enough or capable enough to handle such dangerous places. What an insult. It isn’t the 1800’s anymore where woman are primarily put on this earth to serve their man. This is the twenty first century where woman are capable of anything that a man can do. We just need to given the chance.
Television still perpetuates gender stereotypes because it reflects dominant social values. In reflecting them television also supports them. One might expect is a society still dominant by men dominant TV production, and influenced by all of these stereotypes unconsciously reproduce a masculine perspective perpetuating dominant gender stereo types. As in the news media it is taught that this is a “man’s world” and therefore with this stereo type in place, woman are given the role of damsel in distress and the male is give the roles of hero.
Consumers take advantage of woman and their bodies. Although there is a significant demand for male models, it is woman model that are mostly in demand and are paid quiet a salary for showing off their bodies. There are clothes models, bathing suit models, underwear model and so forth. Take for example Victoria Secret. Their clothes and undergarments are for woman only. Although men get to reap the rewards of their significant other’s purchase of underwear and sexy lingerie. That is a whole other categories, lingerie models. This is the “job” that these woman have picked, however, in my opinion, I think it is degrading to prance around in lingerie and underwear for a living. It is degrading to me to have people, men, staring at my body and probably fantasizing about that. However, some woman think this is great and probably have an inflated ego because of it. Also, people outside of the media agree with this. This is what the media had portrayed as acceptable.
The media gives lesser jobs to woman. If you aren’t a model strutting you wares for money, then chances are you will be covering a 3 minute segment on the news. This could be anything from whether it is going to continue raining for the next 24 hours to a kitten caught in a tree and whether it would be saved. Woman in the written media don’t get to cover exciting news and documentaries, at least most of the time. Infrequently will you hear about a woman journalist sent to another country to cover the dangerous happenings of that country and told to us via live news stream. The reason for this is that society deems woman as helpless victims who are best left to tend to the children and the house. Society believes that woman aren’t strong enough or capable enough to handle such dangerous places. What an insult. It isn’t the 1800’s anymore where woman are primarily put on this earth to serve their man. This is the twenty first century where woman are capable of anything that a man can do. We just need to given the chance.
Television still perpetuates gender stereotypes because it reflects dominant social values. In reflecting them television also supports them. One might expect is a society still dominant by men dominant TV production, and influenced by all of these stereotypes unconsciously reproduce a masculine perspective perpetuating dominant gender stereo types. As in the news media it is taught that this is a “man’s world” and therefore with this stereo type in place, woman are given the role of damsel in distress and the male is give the roles of hero.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Louise
Was Louise alive at the end of the novel or was she dead? I believe that this is a matter of opinion and could be interpreted in several ways depending how the reader interpreted what the narrator was saying and the text that was written. In my opinion, I think that Louise was neither dead nor alive as far a the narrator knew. I believe that this was the narrator’s way of coping with the unbearable loss of Louise. In seeing the apparition, he was finally letting Louise go and telling her goodbye. He was coming to terms with what his life was going to be like without Louise possibly with Gail as a part of that life. Gail was slowly moving in on him whether he rally liked it or not. He acknowledges this when he says:”…there were fresh flowers on the table. Fresh flowers and a table cloth. New curtains in the ragged windows. My heart sank. Gail must be moving in (118).” He seemed to resign himself to the fact that Gail had gotten him, whether he wanted her to or not. He seemed numb, with no fight left in him.
When Gail saw him, he was soaked through after a 3 mile hike from the train station. He had gone to look for Louise. He proceeds to tell Gail that he had looked everywhere for Louise but could not find her anywhere. To me this does not indicate that Louise is dead. She could have just gone back to maybe Australia or any place else for that matter to heal her own broken heart. Although the narrator said it was as if she never existed.
To me there is nothing in the book to indicate that Louise had died. She wasn’t as sick as Elgin had told the narrator she was. The narrator found this information when he had found letter in his flat from the hospital that Louise had gone to for a second opinion. The letters said that she was asymptomatic. If she was asymptomatic, then she was without symptoms. That doesn’t necessarily mean that she didn’t have cancer. It just leads the reader to believe that Elgin had lied to the narrator in order to get the narrator to leave Louise.
The narrator questioned himself as to whether his relationship with Louise was perhaps a making of his own mind. Deep down he did not believe this, yet at his darkest hour he asked such a question. Again, this does not indicate that Louise has died. He does discover that she is divorced. Again, this confuses him because he thinks that if she’s divorced that why didn’t she come to him. He really made the consequential mistake of leaving Louise when Elgin convinced him that she was sick. It was a mistake that was really unforgivable, and that is the route that Louise chose to take.
There is no evidence that Louise died. She did disappear, but that doesn’t give evidence that she was actually dead. She indefinitely disappeared. It may have been better if she had died or had lived and told the narrator she never wanted to see him again. Either way the narrator would have had closure.
When Gail saw him, he was soaked through after a 3 mile hike from the train station. He had gone to look for Louise. He proceeds to tell Gail that he had looked everywhere for Louise but could not find her anywhere. To me this does not indicate that Louise is dead. She could have just gone back to maybe Australia or any place else for that matter to heal her own broken heart. Although the narrator said it was as if she never existed.
To me there is nothing in the book to indicate that Louise had died. She wasn’t as sick as Elgin had told the narrator she was. The narrator found this information when he had found letter in his flat from the hospital that Louise had gone to for a second opinion. The letters said that she was asymptomatic. If she was asymptomatic, then she was without symptoms. That doesn’t necessarily mean that she didn’t have cancer. It just leads the reader to believe that Elgin had lied to the narrator in order to get the narrator to leave Louise.
The narrator questioned himself as to whether his relationship with Louise was perhaps a making of his own mind. Deep down he did not believe this, yet at his darkest hour he asked such a question. Again, this does not indicate that Louise has died. He does discover that she is divorced. Again, this confuses him because he thinks that if she’s divorced that why didn’t she come to him. He really made the consequential mistake of leaving Louise when Elgin convinced him that she was sick. It was a mistake that was really unforgivable, and that is the route that Louise chose to take.
There is no evidence that Louise died. She did disappear, but that doesn’t give evidence that she was actually dead. She indefinitely disappeared. It may have been better if she had died or had lived and told the narrator she never wanted to see him again. Either way the narrator would have had closure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)