Category Archives: Media

Milk & PMS

Leave a reply

It really frustrates me when people over-analyze product advertisements.  If you read ‘Who Isn’t Looking Past Color’, then you may have a little insight as to how a small and unintentional aspects of an ad may be so misconstrued by activist groups that companies end up cycling them out of use.  They are at it again.

Recently, the ‘Got Milk’ ads were overtaken by a new strategy: Milk can help reduce the symptoms of PMS.  Whether there is any truth to it or not, the controversial ad (which, as a lady, I find hilarious) has really stirred the pot with feminists.  The ad shows a middle-aged man holding several cartons of milk, apologizing for ‘listening’ and uses a line some women use often.  Feminist groups are claiming that the ad is sexist.  Well, I have some news, ladies.  PMS is exclusive to women and the ad is funny.  And sexist how? There are scientific facts to back up not only the “issue” but also the reduction of symptoms  It’s catchy, new and has sparked a lot of chatter–the intent of the ad.  Are you going to boycott milk because of the ad? (Because I could think of a lot more reasons to boycott milk,but that’s another day).

Feminist groups just can’t help themselves.  Do you remember the controversial Folgers ad a few years back? The television commercial shows a young girl drinking coffee at the breakfast table when her dad comes down to scold her for being out too late with her boyfriend. She flashes a new engagement ring and implies that her staying out too late will no longer be a problem. Feminists claimed the ad was too old school, insinuating that a woman would go from the care of her father straight to the care of her husband-to-be was sexist. I would never gather this from the commercial. Who the heck thinks like this???
You can watch the commercial here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5lPYUB2_ww

Or how about this one:
I absolutely won’t deny that this ad is over the top (but that’s to be expected in the fashion industry) and I certainly wouldn’t want to see it in a magazine directed at youth, but…women’s rights groups have stated that the ad is a “Rape Fantasy”.  Pardon?

The thing is, you don’t see men over 50 shouting about the men depicted in Viagra commercials, nor do you see elderly people rising up against commercials for HoverRound Scooters. If you don’t like an advertising strategy, don’t use the product. And let’s be honest, corporations aren’t that stupid.  They are out there for one thing: a profit.  Offending you and shunning you from the demographic that purchases whatever they may be selling is, surprisingly, not their goal. Realize this. And quit flooding the news circuits with complaints about how and why you THINK a company is maybe trying to POSSIBLY advertise their product.  If you want to be offended, then look into the AshleyMadison.com commercials (Life is short. Have an Affair) or the ‘Aids is a Mass Murderer’ ad campaign.  Maybe these other ones don’t see so bad?

Anger in Memory of Caylee

1 Reply

If you have a Facebook, you’ve probably seen the Change.org petition for ‘Caylee’s Law’.  The federal law would charge parents with a felony if 1) they did not report a missing child within 24 hours; or 2) did not report the death of a child within one hour.  As of July 11th, the petition had more than 700,000 signatures and is the fastest growing petition on the website’s history. People are, rightfully, outraged after not receiving the anticipated GUILTY verdict in last weeks trial.  Petitioners believe that the movement for ‘Caylee’s Law’ will create new protective laws and prevent such atrocities from happening again.

All of this sounds logical, yes?

 

Yes, it does SOUND logical, but when we demand that our lawmakers take swift action, laws are created in an inappropriate and haphazard manner, subsequently making good intentions have bad repercussions on down the road.  Laws as a result of tragedy end up so vaguely constructed that they can actually set the bar higher for the next similar case when the incident may not be 100% applicable.  For example, what if a child died while sleeping? Would the 1 hour still apply? Or how about an issue with overcompliance? Parents may end up contacting authorities immediately in the case of a disappearance when it may not be necessary, draining resources and exhausting law enforcement.  Not to mention that there are still ways around these time restrictions, like lying.

Think about some other tragedy-induced laws:

  • The USA PATRIOT Act
  • The Brady Bill
  • Georgia HB101, now known as the Better Bicycling Act (Google this: It’s actually quite comical.  Law makers created this legislation in response to the death of a cyclist who was hit and killed by a passing car (not the comical part, obviously).  The law states that vehicles must leave 3 feet when passing a cyclist now. Among many shortcomings, most importantly, how will this be enforced unless another biker is hit?)
  • The threats of the Obama administration on gun laws after the tragedy in Tuscon.

These laws don’t PREVENT anything, they just punish the offender AFTER THE FACT, which I know people want after the Casey Anthony trial, as they wanted after all those Xarelto trials too (here is the class action lawsuit info about Xarelto – another “safe” thing that caused a lot of troubles).  But again, people wanted to see GUILTY pasted across Ms. Anthony’s forehead for murder.  Would ‘guilty’ on a formal failure to report a death verdict have satiated the anger of the trial followers? I don’t really think so.

We have learned time and time again that anger doesn’t create good public policy.  It creates laws that leave too much room for interpretation and judicial activism….and that is not what we need.

Sex in Class

Leave a reply

Last week, Arlene Tessitoire, a mother from Massachusetts, was up in arms over a survey that was given to her two daughters in middle school.  The topic? Sex.

According to Tessistoire and her daughters, the two teenagers were forced to take a survey that questioned birth control and condom use, oral sex and number of sexual partners.  This Youth Risk Behavior Study required a consent form in order for the student to participate in the survey.  But not the kind of permission slip we are used to hearing about…

The principal of the school told the New York Daily News that the school “operates on ‘passive consent’ where students take notes hom for parents to sign.  If the school does not hear back, then consent is considered given”.  The principal admitted to distributing the survey and stated that it was indeed graphic but said they were required to administer the survey to fulfill a grant requirement.  He also stated that he takes no responsibility for the contents.

Arlene Tessitoire has filed a formal complaint with the Department of Education.  Her attorney is citing the Supreme Court Decision which upholds federal law that 1) parents have to GIVE written consent for any question to be asked of a student and that 2) parents have the right to determine moral and spiritual upbringing of their children.

This brings me to my many questions:

  • If the principal isn’t going to take responsibility for the inappropriate administration of the survey, who is?
  • Where do we draw the line of what is acceptable to ask a child without consent and what is not and why aren’t more parents disturbed by this?
  • Why are we in a time of ‘passive consent’ where schools are deciding that a lack of response means consent?

Have you noticed that there is no ‘passive consent’ when it comes to field trips or class experiments? If a child forgets to give his/her parent a permission slip to go to an amusement park, the consent is not assumed and the child is left behind for the day. Why are the circumstances any different with lessons?

The reality of it is that it has nothing to do with whether or not kids/teens are experimenting sexually and has everything to do with parental consent and the consistent denial of parental involvement in regards to what’s being taught in schools.

Who Isn’t Looking Past Color

2 Replies

Recently, there have been some companies who have taken serious heat in regards to their media advertisements. To me, it’s getting old. But I’d love to know what you think…

Last month, Naomi Campbell complained that a recent Cadbury advertisement was racist. She says they compared her (and her skin color) to chocolate. The ad said “Move Over Naomi, there’s a new Diva in town!”. [You can see the ad below]. Campbell said, “It’s just upsetting to be described as chocolate not just for me, but for all black women and black people”. Initially, Cadbury defended the ad, claiming they were referencing her ‘infamous diva attitude’ (which, let’s be honest, is quite well-known) and not her race. Ultimately, Cadbury removed the ad. Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) though, agreed with Cadbury, eventually stating that the ad ‘posed no real threat’ and was not racist.

Another company under fire is Dove. Critics and advocates for equal rights claim that it is offensive to have a black woman under the ‘before’ title and a white woman under the ‘after’ title. See the ad below.

SERIOUSLY?!? Do these critics REALLY think that a company like Dove would imply that you can scrub yourself white????? Please. People have also criticized that the black woman is heavier than the white woman, who is (still) the after. Yep. Dove wants you to scrub yourself white AND skinny.

This is comical. Dove is historically known for using women of all shapes, sizes, colors and ages. In fact- it wasn’t too long ago that they took the heat for using women who people deemed ‘not fit for modeling and advertisments’. (It’s true! People refer to them as the ‘fat brand’ and there are tons of articles out there criticizing the women and calling them disgusting.) To say that just because these women are standing next to each other some how means they are being compared to one another is simply absurd. Even worse? The attention this ad is getting. Google searches return websites with headlines like ‘Dove Turns Fat Black Woman into Thin White Woman’. GET REAL.

These companies to which we are referring are multi-million dollar companies with expansive product lines. Who are these people kidding? Do they honestly think that these corporations, in 2011, would risk publishing an outwardly racist advertisement?

Why are people looking so hard? By looking at this ad in a quick manner (which is what most do when browsing a magazine) I certainly would not take away that notion. People need to RELAX! Not everyone and everything is racist.

Baby No Gender & Why It’s Blue or Pink and not Gray.

1 Reply

It’s no longer new news.  By now, I’m sure most of you have heard about Baby Storm, the Canadian child born to parents David Stocker and Kathy Witterick who have chosen to keep the gender of Baby Storm a secret to all except their doctors and immediate family. They decided they would allow Storm to choose it’s own gender instead of giving in to the stereotypes of pink and blue, girl and boy.

I was surprised to see that when I googled “baby no gender” more results were generated than just those pertaining to Baby Storm.  Apparently, a Swedish family practiced the same notion in 2009 on Baby Pop.  Baby Pop had it’s gender concealed based on the idea that “was rooted in the feminist philosophy that gender is a social construction” (1).

This experiment completely contradicts the argument that homosexuality is “not a choice”.  While gender and sexual orientation are two very different things, people have made the argument that they feel they should have been born a male when they are actually a female, and vis versa.  These experiments make an utter mockery of the idea that people are born with inherent desires and inclinations.

Furthermore, this isn’t a choice.  The parents of Baby Storm stated that “parents make too many choice for their children” and it’s “obnoxious”.  Pardon me, but choosing a gender is not a choice.  God (or the universe, if you’re going to argue that route) gave us specific equipment to differentiate us from the opposite sex.  There is no changing that, it’s not up for debate, and it certainly isn’t something that can be chosen or determined later on in life. (Ya get what’cha get, and ya don’t pitch a fit!).

I also have to wonder at what point these parents thought it would be a good idea to experiment on their own child? And what happens when this child goes to day care or school? Are they going to ban preschool workers from changing diapers or helping with bathroom duties so as not to reveal the gender of Baby Storm? And who’s to say that a child won’t wonder what gender these children are “check” for themselves?  And at what point will they allow Baby Storm to outwardly be who he or she is going to be? I also have to wonder at what age will they demand this baby make a choice? Surely they cannot go through grade school without some sort of determination.

The bottom line: These parents are using this experiment to make a mockery out of both science and beliefs and its’ at the expense of exploiting their own child.

Sources:
1)Article on Baby Pop of Sweden http://www.thelocal.se/20232/20090623/
2) Article on Baby Storm of Canada http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-storm-raised-genderless-gender-dangerous-experiment-child/story?id=13693760

Be Everything Michelle Obama Thinks You Should Be

3 Replies

If you are my Facebook friend, you may remember my oh-so-controversial Facebook posting/thread a few months back regarding Michelle Obama’s visit to North Point Community Church to promote her “Let’s Move!” initiative against childhood obesity. (Did you know that during her ‘lunch break’ at this event she had Jim&Nicks BBQ catered in? Healthy choice, Lady O.)  Well, here we go again…

The Atlantic Wire recently published an article by Adam Clark Estes, “Signs America is Losing the War on Childhood Obesity”, discussing Michelle Obama’s recent initiatives:

  • recruiting chefs to speak about healthy eating
  • teaching school children ‘fun’ exercise routines
  • advocating for new regulations to keep junk food off of kid’s minds (We will get to this in a momemnt, but parents will do WHAT THEY WANT in their home.  If they want to serve their child icecream for dinner on a Friday night, then they certainly can and ‘advocating for new regulations’ serves a purpose for a different agenda than that of ‘keeping junk food off kid’s minds’.

Michelle Obama’s small program hardly bothered me like the proactivity taking place across the nation:

  • Texas: 5 San Antonio elementary schools will photograph lunch trays before and after the students eat.  They will track intake and how much each student is eating. (Can you say Big Brother?? Sure, the information will only be disclosed to parents and researchers, but at what point does photographing a child and their food choices PREVENT childhood obesity?? Photographs are only recording ‘evidence’. 
  • Illinois: a state Senator suggested parents of obese children lose their $2000 deduction for children. (Ok, ok, I am probably the biggest critic of this entire program and now you’re going to tell me that children who are deemed obese BY THE GOVERNMENT will be TAXED-or not taxed- differently??)
  • Georgia: The Stop Childhood Obesity organization is using slogans to talk to children in their own environments.  Their most favorite motto, If you continue eating junk food and overeating, “you will die before your parents’. (This entire program is spearheaded by liberals, the same group of people who come up with a mental health disorder for every issue and as an excuse for every action.  If they’re so concerned about mental health, they may want to consider the fact that statements like this will encourage eating disorders down the road.)
  • Michigan: A little less than 1/3 of parents stated that they were open to child gastric bypasses. Low-income and minorities were more open to them than anyone. (So now were going to fight childhood obesity through the EASY WAY OUT, a.k.a invasive surgical procedures.  Ahh, I get it.)
  • D.C.: Michelle Obama visited different schools to dance to Beyonce. (I actually think this may be the most effective means of fighting childhood obesity.  The sight of this alone will make anyone never want to eat again.)

Let us not forget the position of Michelle Obama and her own image.  Michelle Obama claims to be a size 10 and quite fit for here 5’11 figure, however, studies have shown that her declared measurements are not possible.  She is more like a 16 with a hip measurement of 46′.  Sure, her arms are cut which is why she chooses to wear sleeveless dress and tops all the time, but in all actually, Mrs. Obama ain’t that fit. (See below.) 5’11 or not, she is not a figure I would like to mimic.

All fat that aside, Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If that happiness is being overweight, than so be it.  Whether it is healthy or it is not, it is a CHOICE that we can make and it isn’t something that should be monitored, recorded or taxed! It is a CHOICE that parents make for their children and it isn’t a place for any figurehead or government leader.

Besides, if we weren’t offering to pay for everyone’s healthcare, it wouldn’t really matter what diseases people developed because the government wouldn’t be footing the bill.  People would be held accountable for their own decisions and if they suffered complications from being obese, they would pay for it.

The Princess Boy

3 Replies

My 5 and 6 year-old little friends, who I must say have more sense than a lot of 35 and 36 year-olds, love to read and so consequently, we take a lot of trips to the book store.

Every time we go, I find a few books that are disturbing or that aren’t a “good choice” for the girls. But the most disturbing book I have encountered to date was in the nonfiction section by Cheryl Kilodavis titled My Princess Boy-A Mom’s Story About a Young Boy Who Loves to Dress Up.

The story line goes a little bit like this

The little boy in the story loves to dress up in dresses, wear pink and even wears a pink dress to his own Birthday party.  The mom calls him (privately and publicly) “My Princess Boy” and details how hurt they both are when people laugh at him in public.  The final page reads “If you see him, will you laugh at him? Will you call him a name? WIll you play with him? Will you like him for who he is?”

Now, this book may seem simple and straight to the point…no bullying, accept people for who they are, etc. etc. But there are a couple of things that are VERY wrong with this.
1) The author is trying to imply that society will be, and SHOULD BE for that matter, accepting of boys dressing like girls.  I’d have to say this isn’t so true.  People do stare.  People do laugh.  People do judge. We are different genders with different labels. They are not intertwining.  It’s one thing for a little boy who has sister or lots of girl friends to be dressed up, play with dolls, etc etc…but no one is telling him that he should go out in public like that, or wear a dress to his Birthday party. It is not the norm to see a boy wearing a dress. To say otherwise isn’t promoting an idea of acceptance, it’s promoting ignorance.
2) The purpose of the final page is GUILT, and only guilt.  A young child reading this book would feel bad for not accepting a boy dressing like a girl.  With everything going on in the world, children are already targets of persuasion.  Institutions are constantly insisting that we not leave others out, accept one another, don’t judge a book by its’ cover, the list goes on.  Certainly in life, the goal is not to make others feel bad about who they are, but you cannot imply that we must accept the lifestyles other choose, just because they choose them.

Further, such heavy and biased issues don’t really belong in a children’s book. Issues such as this should be discussed in the home, based on religious (if applicable) and personal views of the family, not by a woman who is suggesting that society should be accepting of something simply because she accepts her own son in that context.

*While looking for a picture of the book to include on the blog, a Google search produced ‘My Princee Boy-The Website” It can be found here: http://www.myprincessboy.com/index.asp
It details the book and the mission of the author.  The real princess boy has made appearances on Joy Behar (surprise), the Today show and shows overseas….in his pink dress and a tutu.