Realistic Characters in Harry Potter

This blog post, I’m going to talk about one of my favorite things: Harry Potter. The books, not the character. I’ll even try to save you from my ranting about how good the series is. Also, I’ll try to keep this post spoiler-free, for those who haven't read it yet (although you really should read it).

There are many reasons that I like Harry Potter, although most of them are not relevant to this blog. One thing I like is that all of the female characters are pretty realistic. None of them can do everything themselves, and none of them are total wimps. Hermione is smart, but she isn’t an antisocial nerd who doesn’t have any friends except for Harry and Ron. She also isn’t someone who cares overly much about fashion or what people think of her. She’s always in the library or doing her homework, but she still has time for having fun with her friends.

Luna Lovegood

Luna is another character that I like. She doesn't care about what anyone else thinks about her. If she wants to wear a dress that makes her look like a Christmas tree, or radish earrings, she will, and she won't care what anyone else thinks about her. I like the fact that she doesn’t care what anyone else thinks, and it’s so different from what a lot of the media is showing. Not many other places show people, especially girls, who just don't care what anyone else thinks. Most people will just try to be accepted, but Luna will be who she is, and no one else will stop her. She doesn’t try to change who she is, even when everyone else thinks she’s weird for it, and I really like that about her. I really like that all of the characters in Harry Potter seem like they could be real to me. None of them always have to save the day all the time, but none of them are helpless or stupid. Another thing is that whenever the characters are talked about, the immediate thing isn’t always that they’re pretty. It’s true that if someone tell you that you’re pretty, it is a complement, but saying how smart you are is a much better complement. I’d far rather be told that I did something well than basically be told that I inherited good genes. I think that the thing that I love most is just the fact that all of the characters are realistic, and they all have their own personalities.

--Luna

Somebody's Got To Wear A Pretty Skirt

And Other Reasons Us Women Are Here

"God Made Girls." The title to a new popular country song by previous "The Voice" country pop star RaeLynn, suggests an old fashioned view on why us women have a place on this earth, and why these particular reasons make us women "important."

Having the name: "God Made Girls," you'd think that it would prove a more modern and strengthening take on female rolls, but unfortunately, that is not the case. We're not asking for a feminist anthem or anything, but why is it ever so demeaning and stereotypical, as if the viewer is that out of the 50s, telling a women her place in life. Being a 2014 based song, you'd think this would be a great chance to see a fresh, new, endearing perspective of what purpose we serve, if that's what you want to call it. 

Here are the opening lines:

-"Somebody's gotta wear a pretty skirt/Somebody's gotta be the one to flirt/Somebody's gotta wanna hold his hand/So God made girls"

These lyrics kind of summarize the whole song, but here are some different ones:

-"To hold his hand"

-"To wear a pretty skirt"

-"To be the one to cry"

-"To teach him how to dance"

-"To be something fragile to hold him while he hurts"

-"To give him a reason to wash that truck"

-"To be the one to flirt"

-"To make him get dressed up"

-"To let him drive"

-"To put up a fight, make him wait on a Saturday night, to walk downstairs and blow his mind, so God made girls"

Now don't get me wrong, this is a very catchy and cute song, but the whole thing just suggests the minor, stereotypical characteristics of a female, and only emphasizes the weak "feminine" parts of us. Almost as if it only brings attention to the things that make us useful and valuable to men, as if we're tools. As for the video, it features, things like ballet, white horses, sparkles, flowers, and lots and lots of pink. Supposedly, this is supposed to be a "girl empowerment" sort of song, but it kind of takes a somewhat new-fashioned take on old-fashioned. Just to be clear, I've heard many country songs, and this sort of seems to be the norm in some way. I wouldn't know this firsthand, but it appears that many country songs have a more traditional outlook on life, but I may be wrong. Not all of the lyrics prove to be understating. Like "For dancing to our own beat." The song kind of has a whole goal to kind of balance out male/female roles in way that sort of sets men doing the physical burden of life, while females are here to help men understand themselves and feel masculine. But if you disagree with me, there's always another way to look at it. From a different perspective, you could see it as us women are here to remind men they don't have to be big and tough all the time, and they should take time to look at life differently.

This set of lyrics I'm not sure how to describe:                                                                                                                                                     -"He needed something soft and loud, and sweet and proud, but tough enough to break a heart/Something beautiful, and breakable that lights up in the dark, so God made girls."

This is a nice part of it, but it also seems like it's stating that the only tough thing a girl can do is break a heart. I think overall, the song suggests women are an accessory to men, and the big, but also very small and delicate rolls we play in society. It's kind of sad to think that the only thing we can supposedly account for is being soft, fragile, and delicate, and not be notable for being equal to men. This is a nice song, and I can see why it's currently climbing the charts, right now, but for now maybe we can focus on the strong, powerful qualities a women has. Like being capable of being herself, and being just as strong as she says she is. :)

Note: Even though the name of the song suggests religious belief, it does not mean I am speaking against anybody's religious choices. This is simply my opinion on the lyrics and representation, and not the singers belief, and affiliation with the suggested religion. 

~ Governess Bob

Gender Equality -- Why Can't Boys Have Dolls?

We've come a long way in this country when it comes to sexism. 200 years ago, women couldn't own property. Now we've come much closer to equality. Now, don't get me wrong, there is a ton of sexism out there still and it's not acceptable, but in this post I want to talk about the other side of sexism. Women can wear any color they want and society is fine with girls playing with what are considered "boys' toys", however if a boy touches the color pink, society freaks out. Girls can wear pants but boys can't wear skirts. That doesn't sound like equality to me.

There is this weird idea society has that boys somehow stop being boys if they wear, do or play with something that society associates with girls. If a boy is seen playing with a baby doll people don't think "Oh, isn't that sweet? He's going to be a great dad someday." Instead they totally freak out and take the doll away because it's "not for boys". Sure, we're not used to seeing boys wear skirts or pink and it seems kind of odd, but only because it's not what's been acceptable in the past. Remember, society used to think it was weird and unsightly if a woman wore pants. Now, I know many boys would rather have toy cars than dolls, but a boy should be able to play with whatever toys he wants without being criticized.

I thought this illustrated my point about colors.
(note: I do not own this image and I am not the author)

Another area where this is prominent is in color choices for boys' and girls' toys, clothing, etcetera. Our society has assigned different colors to genders. Girls can have pink or purple, and sure you can wear blue if you want, but boys can only wear red, black, blue and green. Maybe orange if society's feeling generous. I find this really weird. Why the heck does it matter? It's just a color. Why are specific colors limited to genders? How is it that if a girl wears a blue shirt to school nobody cares, but if a boy wears pink he gets beat up? How does that make sense? It's literally just different wavelengths of light. What makes it for girls or boys only?

In the past women's careers have been limited to domestic roles like raising children and doing housework. Today women aren't limited to that anymore, thankfully, so women and men can split up those duties. But society is still out of touch with logic here. In the media when a man is shown taking care of children, or cleaning houses, and it's treated like an odd and humorous thing. There's the idea that men can't sew, cook, or clean for a living, that some professions would make them less masculine. But I think that children should grow up thinking that they can do what they want, be who they want and that gender doesn't matter. Girls can be race car drivers, boys can open sewing stores. Gender should not determine what you can do, who you can be, or what colors you can like.

-- Captain Sarah Jane

On Representation and Sexism in the Media

So I'm sure I can't be the only one who's noticed that in interviews with celebrities, whether on the red carpet or on a talk show, there's an extreme amount of sexism that is obvious from the questions asked by the reporters. Men tend to get the interesting questions- about their career and their experience, their inspirations and motivations, or deep questions about the character they're portraying. Turn the camera on an equally talented female, and half the interview is spent gushing over her outfit- "Where'd you buy your dress?" "How many pairs of shoes did you choose from?" -and if they have time at the end, they ask about their friends, hair, pregnancies, and other things equally irrelevant to the reason she's there on that red carpet. Not that asking them about their personal lives is a bad thing, but I'm sure they're just as eager to share their career experiences with the entire world as the men are. And honestly? All the clothing talk needs to go. If they want to share where they got that disgustingly expensive dress, then by all means, ask them, but it's beyond unfair that women aren't taken seriously as far as slightly deeper questions go.
This is something that really infuriates me. Time and time again, men and women's roles are painted in our media- the men are the talented ones, the trailblazers and innovators, the ones to watch for years to come. The women? Oh, you can watch for that fashion line she's bound to release based off of that gorgeous cerulean ensemble she's wearing. Forget that she's talented and well-thought of enough to be at the Emmys or the Grammys or whatever it is. Apparently the only people interesting enough to talk about their careers and deeper thoughts and experiences are males. Over half of the world's population is female, and there's no reason that it's fair or right to depict women as the airheads whose only valuable contribution to society is whatever they're wearing today. That's not just a wrong perspective, that's destructive and I'd go so far as to call it evil. Cause honestly, I don't think that's too much of an exaggeration. The idea that women are unimportant and uninteresting and only appreciated for their appearances and similar things is an absurd message that is harmful to everybody.

After all, Melissa McCarthy wasn't invited to the Emmys because of that purple dress she wore. And Hayden Panettiere wasn't called in to the red carpet to talk about her pregnancy. Both of these women(and the many others who have faced sexist questions on a very public scale throughout the years) are fabulous actresses, hard workers, and modern innovators, and that is why they were there. Though you couldn't tell that by listening to their interviews. I'm sure they're frustrated by that. I mean, wouldn't you be? They've accomplished great things and worked hard to get this far and the first thing the interviewer asks them to tell the whole world is where they got their shoes.

This trope appears just about everywhere in our media. Almost any interview with an actress or other female celebrity will involve questions about their clothes, hair, workout tips, etcetera. Take this interview with Scarlett Jonhansson and Robert Downey Jr.- he gets asked the really interesting, deep question about his character, and she gets asked about how she got in shape. This just goes to show how unfair and ridiculous all of this is, because I mean, not only is this sexist in the extreme, but it's a missed opportunity- both for her to share some of her insights gained from portraying this character and to spice up the interview. The Black Widow is an endlessly interesting and complex
character and the reporter could've asked her an equally intriguing question. And I mean, if you want to focus on the actors' physical traits, why not ask RDJ how he gets his hair to look so fabulous?

What it comes down to, I guess, is that our society needs to stop this ridiculous gender discrimination. People should be judged for their actions, the things they accomplish, and the way they present themselves, not for something they were born with. I hope someday we can get over this and start treating both men and women with equality and not assuming that an individual's potential is diminished or determined by something like gender.
--Oswin

The Pocket Crisis and a Vomiting Glitter Isle

Whenever I look in the girls' section at a department store, I always feel a sense of disappointment. What I see is an assault of color and glitter, so that it looks like a glitter isle vomited on that section of the store. A few things are actually cute, even if they do have bright colors and glitter, but there aren't just a few things like that, it's everything. There is nothing wrong with a sparkly shirt in bright colors, but if you want a more toned down shirt, then your options are pretty much athletic gear or school uniforms. The store Justice is a perfect example. Everything has glitter, ruffles, lace, blinding colors, or all of the above. Some of those things do look nice, but when I see the boys' section, I feel a bit jealous.

The store Justice, where everything is
in blinding colors.

Boys have shirts with planets, math, dinosaurs, or even just nice colors. I would like a shirt with the solar system or some other science- related thing on it, but there aren't any shirts like that in Target or other stores where I shop often. Lands' End recently came out with some space themed shirts for girls, and I was really excited. When I looked, however, I was disappointed. It seemed that they had decided to compromise between the other girls' shirts and space shirts by ramping up the glitter. Apparently, they hadn't figured out that (gasp) not every girl likes glitter. Astonishing, I know. Some of the shirts did look nice with glitter, but I don't really like the glitter, and I would have liked the shirts if they didn't have glitter. When I searched Amazon for “space” in the girls' section, I found a few costumes for little kids, not gender specific, and a few other space shirts for little girls. When I searched for space in the boys' section, I found shirts, coats, pajamas, and a whole lot of other cool stuff. This post wasn't supposed to be about how I like space, but I don't think that people should have to settle for wearing stuff that they sort of like because they can't find anything else. I, personally, would like a shirt that has a nice pattern but still doesn't scream glitter, and that's really hard to find in the kids' sizes.

Another thing that really bothers me about women's and girl's clothing is the lack of pockets. It's true that some jeans are too fitted to have good pockets and still look nice, but even on pants that aren't very fitted, there are hardly ever good pockets. Once I had a pair of black pants from Target, and they were labeled “essential pants”. Of course there were a lot of jokes about that, especially since there weren't any pockets. If you look in the boys' section you could fit a small book in those pockets, and here are girls without any pockets at all. It's annoying that girls apparently can't like science or carry anything that isn't in a bag, especially since men who carry bags are made fun of.

--Luna

Girl Gets Boy Gets Girl Gets Boy...and Vice Versa

No matter what time era it is, we're all still waiting for the typical high school girl to finally take action and ask her crush out. We're in the same time period for independent female movement, from famous female political figures, to women taking on male-dominated fields, yet we recoil in horror as your average teenage girl decides she's done waiting, and goes and asks him out instead. Why is that? And isn't speaking your mind all about what being a women is about?

It used to be that typically, men are supposed to make the first move when dating, yet over the years it has become acceptable for a woman to casually ask a guy out to a date, prom, etc, without being ridiculed. Even with a cheesy pick-up line, a male can still get a girl interested somewhat, yet us females are restricted to casual flirting and eye batting, in order to not scare the person away. It's nerve wrecking on either side to make the first move in dating, but somehow it's seems as though it's easier for a man to go up and ask a girl out, because that's the way we've been following for centuries. We've made so much progress over the years with female society evolution, that you would think we would be as aggressive in relationships as we are in our work environment. 

Women like to put men up to the challenge of how they will approach them, as if they have to face their fears, man up, and use a state of the art  pick-up line to get our attention. Sure, everyone can be a little insecure and hold back for a while, and we all have the fear of being rejected. But when it comes to women, one might say it comes off as desperate, or needy. Men may also be fine with being asked by the opposite gender, it makes them feel wanted, and probably takes the load of their shoulders too. Then again, it may not be insecurity at all, it's possible, like I said before, that it's just plain tradition. As a shy guy/girl, the other person asking first is probably an instant confidence boost.

 One of my favorite comic series are the Archie Comics. They are based off a teenage boy and his fun adventures and situations in his high school life. His two friends/girlfriends, Betty and Veronica are always competing for his attention and he can't seem to chose between them. Anyway, oddly enough, Betty and Veronica are also best friends, but are very different. Veronica is rich, seductive, and sometimes selfish, while Betty is sweet, smart, and athletic, but extremely fond of Archie. Both girls are constantly after him, but Betty would always try her hardest to get his attention without luring him away with material goods. No matter how hard they try to get his attention, they set an oddly both good and bad standard for girls. They are constantly in a love triangle and can't seem to move on or find a way out, and they are persistent, and that gets his attention. They are always looking for possibilities, both good and bad. Even when in love, they still act as strong independent women.

Despite being pushy, Betty chased what she wanted, and stands up for herself, and as you can probably tell, this post is chalk-full of maybe's and maybe nots, but that's what love is about isn't it? Sometimes it's really about the comfort zone that we're in, and that you have to make sure you show your real persona, and don't come off as cheesy. We are all plagued with the task of being ourselves, but not bordering on fake. From the Sadie Hawkins dance, to the (hopefully), soon to be female president, being straightforward is beautiful in it's own way, and there's nothing wrong with a girl who's a little bit confident. 

Thank you for reading this post, this is only my opinion and you are always entitled to your own. I'm not here to offend anyone, and these views are just my own. :)

~ Governess Bob

Strong Is Beautiful

As we know, gender equality for sports has been a tough issue over the years, weather it's male cheerleading, or women's basketball, I think media has taken its toll, and so has the production behind it. 

Everyday, male and female athletes go about their same routines, getting up early, watching what they eat, and committing to their sports and training, they both have the same amounts of dedication to their sports, regardless of their gender. So why is it that we have so much more respect for male dominant sports rather than we have for women's? It seems as if females are seen as non-violent, emotional figures while men are seen as tough and aggressive.

It always seems that women get the shorter end of the stick when it comes to athletics. The Men's Olympic soccer team flies business class to their games, whereas the women fly coach. Apparently we don't play as well, sell enough, or overall look as good as men do in sports. We're 45 years into the title IX bill, and us women are still judged on how we look when we play rather than how we play. I feel like too many sports companies try to make women's sports more appealing. Companies are always looking for a way to feminize gear and make it more appealing to men. I play volleyball, and I want to feel good about how I look when I play, but not judged on how short my spandex is.

Clara Hughes, an olympic speed skater
participating in a mostly male-dominated sport

Even aside from the required wear there's the actual playing. Some sports require less contact and strength between women in the sports whereas the men are encouraged to push and shove and get aggressive. Many of these rules apply to baseball/softball, hockey, and lacrosse. Overall even more people are upset over the money male athletes make over female athletes. It is shown that men make a considerate amount more than their female counterparts when it comes to athletics, and that even male teams are more prone to having a larger budget increase than female teams. We have made great strides in the 21st century on showing more and more women athletes  on TV, yet we still see more male sports coverage on TV   than woman's.

It has also come to be that we have pushed certain sports into the specific men's/women's sports category, like labeling volleyball, tennis, track, gymnastics, and cheer, as being female sports, and basketball, wrestling, football, soccer, and baseball as male sports. Even though it seems that some of these sports appeal to a certain type of gender, it still doesn't mean we have to discourage kids from participating in the sport they love, just because of some silly stereotypes. On TV it bothers me that when portraying female cheerleaders, volleyball players, etc, it shows them as sexy, catty girls who are bullies, and have no faith in their sports. Whereas the males are dedicated, and ready to face whatever comes in their way. When the media focuses on female sports, it is usually on ones that society identifies as feminine. We stereotype the female gender in traditional female sports. Why are us women compared against each other in appearance, and not in performance, skill, and dedication? Masculinity comes in all shapes and sizes, and you can still be a pretty face while being a hard-working athlete.

WTA's "Strong is Beautiful" campaign

This is just my opinion, and I can only hope that in the future, us women won't be cheering on the sidelines, or sewing the team uniforms, but actually playing the game, like we are now.

~ Governess Bob

Hens in Pens and What Humane Should Mean

 Whenever I see something like eggs or meat advertised in the grocery store “humanely treated” it, like most people, makes me happy. But it also makes me mad that so many animals we farm are treated terribly to the point that we think it's an exception when they're not treated badly. Yes, it's a whole lot cheaper to cram as many animals as will physically fit into one space, but it would also be cheaper if people only walked places and never went on vacation. If we spend money to make ourselves comfortable, then can't we afford just a little to make animals healthier and more comfortable? When animals are penned and caged too closely together, they spread diseases more easily, and it's more likely to make the people who eat them sick. Many people say that you can taste the difference between an egg laid by a well treated hen and one from a badly treated hen. If people can taste when animals are unhappy, I think that it's really time to change things.

Hens in a commercial cage free farm

I'm really grateful that some places are actually treating the animals well, but doing the right thing should not be something special. Humans are not the only thing that matters, and everyone needs to realize that. Just because humans are the smartest animals does not mean by far that we are the most important. Everything else can feel to, and if we're breeding animals just to eat them, the least we can do is to make them happy. It's the same thing with products that are advertised as being made by people who were paid well and not mistreated. How can money matter more than health and happiness? It's not like the big commercial farms are going to go out of business if they let the animals out of their barns and cages. They would still have a lot of money. I can't see how someone can go to bed after working on a commercial farm and not feel terrible. Worst of all, usually eggs that are labeled cage free, if they're commercial, come from hens packed so tightly in barns that you can't see the floor, and the eggs cost more. If you do buy from farms that actually treat all of the animals humanely, everyone thinks it's great, but hardly anyone thinks it's bad when you buy from places that don't treat animals well. Packaging should stop trying to say that their animals are treated nicely when they're not. Humane should mean that the animals can go wherever they like, eat the food that they're meant to eat, and be happy. Inhumane should not be the standard. Cruelty should not be what everyone is used to.

--Luna

"We're Such Nerds"- How It's No Longer "In" to Be Smart

Hey guys!
So today I'm going to deviate slightly from my usual theme and write something that is nothing like my other posts. As much as I love ranting about female representation in the media and dissing sexism and that sort of thing, I felt like this was a post that really needed to be written. And, well, here I am.

The idea for this post came a couple months ago when I was texting one of my close friends. We were in deep discussion about one of the things that consumes the majority of our time- homework. It wasn't one big pity party in which we complained about how much homework we had to do (I say that because that has happened plenty of times), but a rather animated conversation about new things we had learned. My friend got particularly excited to tell me about a new concept she had come across in math and I was telling her about an essay I had read in my American History course. After a good half-hour of carrying on in this manner, we agreed that we were total nerds.
That happened again a few weeks later. I spent hours with the same friend trying to identify a tree together via Facebook and we were thrilled a few days after when we finally figured it out. And again- "we're such nerds."
But that kinda got me thinking. Sure, we kind of are nerds, but why do we have to use that term in a self-deriding manner? What's wrong with being excited about new insights into common events in history? Is it a problem to be intrigued by a new concept that should be somewhat helpful in the future? Absolutely not. However, I think the main reason that we felt that we had to "apologize" for our enthusiasm for learning with a derogatory word like "nerd" is because I doubt society would agree with my above statements.

In a world of "can't even" and "lol" and "idk", could it be more obvious that we, as a society, have decided that it's not cool to be smart anymore? We feel the need to bring down our level of intelligence in a very public way with text talk and hashtags, and we pin labels like "nerd" on anyone who shows a genuine interest in being something more than that. I'm not saying you're an uneducated animal if you're into that stuff- I, for one, admit to being guilty to the more-than-occasional abbreviation and intentionally horrid grammar while on the internet -but it seems pretty ridiculous to me that we've adopted this tragically unintelligent way of communication as the norm. It's alright as a way of communication if it feels more convenient, but I see no reason why we feel like we have to paint ourselves as less intelligent to be "cool".

There's a spoken-word poem I really love written by Taylor Mali, a high-school English teacher who also decided to write really awesome poems like this one. It really conveys what I'm trying to say (probably more adequately than I can myself).
It describes the way we've fallen into this awful way of speaking, about how it's no longer the cool thing to sound like you know what you're saying. The whole poem mimics the infamous internet tone, making statements sound like questions and inserting unnecessary fillers such as "like" and "y'know".

The end of the poem challenges its listeners to speak with conviction- to "say what you believe in a manner which bespeaks the determination with which you believe it". We have all this ridiculous little abbreviations and slang words that we use to do the exact opposite of that (however inadvertently). If we happen to be some of those whose sense of wonder and enthusiasm for learning still remains through this universe filled with an overwhelming sense of unintelligence, then why shouldn't we wear that proudly? Why does "nerd" have to be a bad thing? Why do we have to apologize for what we know when our own knowledge only adds to the positive things we can contribute to the world?

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that creating a culture where feel pressure and pressure others to act(and sometimes, consequently become) unintelligent seems counter-productive to creating a more enlightened society. And that starts with being proud of our nerdiness- not apologizing when we're so excited about FINALLY identifying that stupid tree, or getting a difficult math problem right. We shouldn't be embarrassed to be dedicated to our education, and shouldn't be ashamed of a precious love for learning. Why does nerd have to be an insult, anyway?
--Oswin

Always' "Like a Girl" Ad

We've reached over 900 pageviews! Thanks to everyone out there reading us.
     I wanted to share this video with you guys that Always just put out. They use the ad to talk about the  "you __ like a girl" insult. I thought they did a nice job with it. It goes very nicely with what Luna was talking about in her April post: You ____ Like a Girl! I've put the video below.

You know, it is ridiculous that people use the phrase "like a girl" as an insult. If I do something like a girl, it's because I am a girl, and that has nothing to do with how well I do the thing. You never hear "you run like a boy" being used as an insult. Since when did being a girl become an insult?

Hope you enjoyed the video.
-- Captain Sarah Jane

Princess to Professor and the Pink Toy Aisle

Because we've had mostly negative posts, I'm going to write a nice, positive-ish post about something that all, or nearly all of us love: Legos. Recently, Lego came out with a female scientist minifigure. It makes me really happy that they came out with her, and didn't just have a male scientist.

Lego's Intergalactic Girl
in a pink spacesuit

It annoys me that in toy stores there's always the blue aisle with a bunch of really cool toys, and then there's the pink aisle that looks like someone rolled everything in pink and purple glitter with a few cool toys. In the girls' section, it's all about dolls and princesses and dress up, and there aren't many toys that encourage actual professions. There are barely any toys where you have to think, and build, and make new things. Lego in general has great toys that let you build and engineer, but there's still a section where everything is pink. One of their other minifigures is a perfect example. Just because an astronaut is a girl does not mean that the space suit has to be pink. There is a time for things being pink and girly, but everything a girl does does not have to be girly.

Lego's female scientist minifigure

What we see when we're kids can effect the rest of our lives. If all we see growing up are girls being princesses and waitresses and dancers, with nothing else, then that's all you're going to think of. You won't immediately think of an engineer, or a scientist as being cool. Yes, you can still change your viewpoint once you grow up, but why? Why not just encourage girls from the start to get good jobs that they like doing, without gender restrictions? The answer is simply because it's different, and no one wants to see if something new is going to sell as well as something coated in pink glitter. There is nothing wrong at all with going into a profession that is already in the girl toy aisle, but there is also nothing wrong with going into a different profession. When you see a cool toy or character or something, sometimes it has no effect on you whatsoever, but sometimes it makes you think “I want to be like her when I grow up!”. Princesses are nice, but you shouldn't really plan on just marrying a prince and living happily ever after as your career goal. It's possible, but you should definitely have a backup plan. People are getting better, but there are still a lot of problems. I said that this would be a positive post, but I kind of lied about that. To make up for it, I'll have a happy ending. Now, finally, Lego has a female minifigure that isn't doused in glitter, and isn't in some girly profession. I love that Lego is having an actual person, someone that you could actually be if you worked hard. You probably still won't have skin that yellow, and if you did, you might need to see a doctor or wash your face.

--Luna Lovegood

The Stereotypical Media Setting

This post generally relates to my last one, and I’m trying to keep it different, so bear with me! This is a media issue that has bothered me for a long time now, and it’s really hard to watch a movie or TV show without seeing this. Unfortunately it’s everywhere and anywhere. So here it is.

 One of the things that bothers me in movies, TV shows, books, etc, is that the usual setting is a fancy house in California, or some high class setting with privileged people who have problems with their life. Now I know that many shows are filmed in LA, a fancy area, or a movie studio; but it seems like every show has lost the interest to portray what real people look like.

America does consist of many upper class people, and it appears that the point that studios are trying to prove is “The American Dream.” Is it a staple for films to portray people always aiming for things bigger and better? As I addressed in my last post, media seems to think America’s definition of dreams is just material wealth, and apparently that’s the way we like it. Even in kids movies you see kids living in nice houses with lawyer parents and country club lives, and think, “I sure don’t relate to them.” Even in TV shows trying to portray a middle class family, it always comes out as high-class.

Take commercials for example. Even though a nice life in a nice house is what some Americans want, it still doesn’t mean that you have to flaunt it with your extravagant things. It seems that every commercial is based in a fancy mansion with perfect families and lives. Too many car commercials are showing rich businessmen who have trophy wives and good-looking children, and not enough real family interaction. I always prefer the less expensive car brand commercials because of this. I understand that commercials are meant to appeal to people, but how can it appeal to us if it’s so far from the lives we live now?

This is the stereotypical setting for a car commercial. “Show off and be look cool.” Is what this Lexus ad seems to say.

As I said before, too many kids shows are showing rich families and not enough realistic portrayals. It bothers me that half the shows on Disney Channel show kids with big houses and trendy clothes. I can see the point they are trying to make though: “Work hard and you can achieve your dreams, and be where you want to be.” But somehow I think Disney Channel lacks diversity when it comes to what people want in life. Shows like Jessie, The Thundermans, Lab Rats, Hannah Montana, Liv and Maddie, and more, all seem to have a similar plot line where all the kids live in nice big houses and want to become singers and dancers, and only seek stardom. I do love Disney Channel, and many of their shows are great. I just wish they had a more realistic setting.

It seems that much of Disney Channel’s content only promotes kids who want to be in show business.

As for the books I mentioned, I can’t say that many fit my topic. Books are a whole different world than movies and TV, and there can be much more diversity in books than movies, and maybe that’s why we love them. I think sometimes it’s right to place main characters in a typically wealthy world, and sometimes it’s not. Sometimes people don’t like to be reminded of their lives, and that movies are a way we can escape the harsh realities of life. They are for entertainment, and something we can look up to, no matter if it’s realistic or not. Only some movies are true to life, and those are the ones that make us feel good.

Again, this is just my opinion, and we are all entitled to our own. Sometimes I even think my own opinions are wrong, and that’s the beauty of it. J Thanks for reading!

~ Governess Bob

False Perfection- Unhealthy Images and the Real Problem

Hey guys!
Back in here for my third post already. Times flies, huh? I'm totally enjoying this little venture- it's so much fun to have a platform where I can express my views on this stuff, and to read the opinions of my friends and fellow authors on here. It's been absolutely fantastic so far.
Anyway, I had a hard time deciding on a topic for my post this week. Not because I wasn't sure what I wanted to say- exactly the opposite, actually. I literally have a page-long list of post ideas and it was so hard to choose just one. But that tells you that the one I did choose must be really important, right?

It is. I decided to write about body image in the media, specifically for girls and the way we get  pressured to be absolutely perfect 100% of the time. One of the things that really gets on my nerves is when models for magazines or photoshoots or advertisements or anything are photoshopped to a beyond-attainable point of so-called beauty. I mean, when conventionally gorgeous women have to be retouched and airbrushed and just completely redone with computer fakery, what sort of message are women and girls getting? That they're never going to be beautiful enough, because the images of "beautiful" women that they see are so fake and unrealistic. The amount of digital retouching that models receive make them literally impossible and set a just as impossible standard of beauty for girls.

A couple months back, Lorde tweeted these pictures of herself with the following statement:

"I find this curious- two photos from today, one edited so my skin is perfect and one real. Remember flaws are ok :-)"
I found it really impressive that not only did she feel comfortable enough in her own skin(literally) to go into the public eye big time without trying to be as perfect as possible, but also enough to point out her own flaws under said public eye. However, I also think this just goes to show how twisted society's image of women has become. After years of fake and unrealistic images, this concept of literal perfection has become so ingrained in people's minds that some idiot out there felt the need to take a picture of a confident, gorgeous-without-computer-fakery 17-year-old girl and then edit it to make it perfect, therefore sending her and other girls that what we can be on our own is never going to be enough.

Another example of this idealized concept of complete perfection was found in a controversy with Target a few months ago. On their website, an image of a bikini model was photoshopped to give her the trendy thigh gap that people are being told that they need nowadays. The picture, though, was messed up in an almost comical manner so that the cut that was made to make her legs perfect went up too high and it was obvious that it had been photoshopped. Target responded by saying "it was an unfortunate error and we apologize."

Yeah, right. If you take a close look at the photo above, you can tell that the thigh gap fail was not the only edit. Her arms and legs were also whittled down to toothpick proportions and her waist was edited to be thin and perfect.
Their intention was to photoshop this model and fix every so-called imperfection. They were intending to do the thing that upset everyone, which was to give this model a thigh gap. The only "error" they made was that they accidentally tipped off the public that their swimsuit model wasn't completely and utterly perfect. Their "error" was revealing to the public that, guess what, even their attractive swimsuit models haven't reached the unattainable standard of beauty that society has set up.
In a way, this goof could be viewed as a good thing. It taught everyone who saw it that hey, even this conventionally gorgeous woman isn't perfect. Even this woman who gets paid to pose for the camera in a skimpy swimsuit isn't naturally capable of the beauty standards that we're told to live up to, and that probably means that those standards aren't all that attainable.

The main part of this issue that bugs me is that it's not just in the heads of the advertisers and photographers and other people who take roles in this horrible promotion of absolute perfection. When someone is trying to sell something, either a product or a movie or a magazine, they use what they think will appeal to their audience. And then through some form of trial and error they figure out whether or not that really does appeal to their audience, and if it doesn't seem to, they try a different tactic. But if it does, they keep doing that same thing over and over and eventually even amp up the level a little more.

And that's the main problem, isn't it? In a way, it's really just a vicious cycle that no-one's been able to end through all these years. Media makers pick this image of perfection that they think will please their audience, and whether it pleases everyone or not, it's what they see and it gets stuck in their heads. But then the media makers do the same thing again and again and again, because they think it's what pleases us- and even if it doesn't appeal to all of us at first, how can it not? Maybe some of us still don't love it, but because it's what we see over and over, it becomes the norm. We get used to it. And so the media makers never stop, because their job is to sell, and after all these years, perfection has become the thing that does sell. It's a cycle that repeats itself and that will continue for a long time until somebody sticks their foot in the door to stop it. It'll go on until somebody says "no more" and puts a bump in the road. And maybe, just maybe then things will improve. Things might look up then and maybe people will attempt to change the ways that have become so set in stone over the years.

I just hope that, even if all of this doesn't change for years and years, people will start to see the error of these ways and begin to see the true meaning of beauty- the real things we should look up to. Like kindness and generosity and other things that are a little more attainable. And that, I think, is when things will start to change. I just hope it changes before too much damage is caused.

I hope I've managed to inspire you a little bit with these wild opinions of mine and that I haven't been too dreadfully boring. Until next time, lovelies.
~Oswin

Work Hard, Get Rich, Do Nothing

The problem with rich people in commercials, is that they’re so unrealistically portrayed, it’s hard to think, “Wow, I could own this product.”  If you’ve ever seen commercials like Lexus, which I’m sure you have, they all have to involve some high-speed chase, or a picture perfect couple going out to eat at a fancy restaurant. “Yep, there goes my hope of having a fancy car,” It seems that they’re just meant for rich businessmen who sit around all day and drink coffee.

One of the new Cadillac commercials stars a self absorbed, rich man who spends his life working all the time so he can buy expensive things. Now this add has become a controversy providing a misguided representation of the American work ethic, and received very critical feedback. The Cadillac ad starred actor Neil McDonough as a rich guy looking out at his pool and pondering why he and other Americans work so hard when people in other countries take off the whole month of August.

Neil McDonough in the Cadillac commercial

He then turns to the camera and gives a vivid monologue while walking around his expensive house. In it, he describes Americans as "crazy-driven, hard-working believers" who do bold things like go to the moon. He ultimately walks out to his new Cadillac ELR hybrid coupe. "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you create your own luck, and you've got to believe anything is possible. As for all the stuff? That's the upside of only taking two weeks off in August. N’est Ce-pas?”

Can we really expect that that’s going to make you want to buy a car? Do they think we want people to turn to look at you and judge you as a snob with nothing but material wealth? Outside of this guy being incredibly annoying, here's a question: Does taking two fewer weeks of vacation guarantee upper-middle-class wealth? Thinking about how many people labor all over the world—here and abroad—and don't enjoy the same opportunities as this guy, this is extremely hard to dismiss. This commercial was aired during the Winter 2014 Olympics, which was a strange choice. The Olympics is supposed to be about celebrating different countries and cultures coming together, not slamming their success and diligence. Since the commercial, there has been a debate between sides, which includes the supporters of the commercial, and vice-versa. Some people have applauded the commercial for a well represented portrayal of America, while most others have criticized its fake ambition.

In order to draw a contrast, Ford copied the theme of Cadillac's commercial in a recent take on their ad. Only it decided to use Pasho Murray, a real woman who founded Detroit Dirt, a company that turns waste into compost and sells it to people who want to create urban gardens.

The woman looks out at a landfill and wonders why Americans aren't more like other countries who buy locally-grown food.

She gives her speech while walking through a local restaurant where she collects food scraps for compost. She says Americans are starting to get more food from local markets because they're "crazy entrepreneurs trying to make the world better."

She then walks out to her Ford C-Max Energi and draws a phrase of her own. "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe that anything is possible, and you try to make the world better. You try. As for helping the city grow good, green, healthy vegetables? That's the upside of giving a damn. N'est-ce pas?"

--Governess Bob

“Strong” Female Characters Vs Real Female Characters

The Black Widow near the end of The Avengers

This is a rant about people who try to make strong female characters, and succeed, but make them so stereotypical that they might as well just be unique and squeal when there’s anything remotely dangerous. One of the characters that bothers me is Marvel’s the Black Widow. I do like the Avengers, but the Black Widow is exactly what I’m talking about. She always has perfect hair and makeup, even after she’s been fighting, and she walks around in a tight fitting catsuit that’s unzipped just a little too far, being a perfect Mary Sue character. It always seems like she can do anything. She’s always making witty statements as she dramatically knocks someone out. She’s a character who can actually do something, but she’s really good at pretty much everything. It seems like every female character has to either be wimpy, or has to be able to do everything. Having long hair gets in the way if it isn’t tied back, and if her outfit is designed to be multipurpose, then shouldn’t it have a few pockets? Also, in every movie that she’s in, her hair changes, and it just doesn’t seem realistic that she has time to either straighten or curl her hair everyday, and even if she did, her hair would get messed up at the end. If you’ve been fighting aliens for hours, you’re not going to be pretty, you’re just going to need a shower and a hospital. The Black Widow, however, still has great hair and makeup, with only a small cut on her lip and a bit of blood on her forehead, and just a little bit of dust. I wish that people would just get over the fact that people, especially women, need to look nice all of the time, or be laughed at. Sure, it would be nice if you could come back from a day of hard work, whether it’s defending earth from aliens, or something more ordinary, and look perfect, but that’s just not going to happen.

Another character that I don’t like is Melinda May from Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. Melinda May is almost an exact copy of the Black Widow, but with a different back story, a slightly changed personality, and not as well known. However, she still is highly skilled in martial arts, can still win any evenly matched battle, and always looks perfect. In my opinion, Melinda May is worse than the Black Widow, because at least the Black Widow doesn’t wear heels, and never tried to put stitches in her own shoulder because she was tough.

Merida with a realistically dirty and torn dress

What my point is, is that all female characters seem to all be idealized, and something that no one could ever live up to. Maybe, if you trained for years, you could be good at martial arts while wearing high heels, but your hair just isn’t going to look good if you’ve been in combat, unless you put so much hair spray in it that it can’t move, which means you can’t dramatically peer out through a curtain of hair. A character that I do like, however, is Merida from Brave. I know, big surprise. In case you haven’t guessed yet, we really like Disney princesses. Merida actually has a personality, is sometimes selfish, and doesn’t always win every battle. She also can do things, and won’t just wait for a handsome prince to solve all of her problems either, and she doesn’t look perfect after she falls off of her horse. Her hair does still look the same before and after, but since it’s so curly, it’s still realistic. I really like it when characters aren’t either perfect or weak, whether it’s in their personality, their looks, or both. People need to stop making everyone seem perfect, and start making them real. It would probably make many more people happy, which would be good for business, so logically it makes more sense to have more realistic characters.

--Luna Lovegood

Unhealthy Food Allergy Stereotypes

Sorry this is late, I had my first ever AP exam this week, which I think went pretty well.  Anyway, this past week was Food Allergy Awareness Week, so I thought I'd cover food allergy stereotypes in the media with this post.

As a teen with  life threatening food allergies, the stereotypes about food allergies in the media deeply bother me, and I am on the receiving end of the negative side effects these stereotypes and portrayals create.

Allergies are complicated. Some people have very mild food allergies, some have life threatening ones where symptoms include projectile vomiting and throat swelling, while most have allergies everywhere in between. Food allergies are autoimmune disorders where your body's white blood cells attack food proteins instead of germs. There are so many things that take years of living with food allergies to understand and everything varies greatly for each individual with allergies. It's very hard on the people who are trying to help you. The stereotypes in the media just make it worse. The media portrays allergies as a weakness, and annoying habit, something funny to laugh at "Oh look, you're swelling up like a balloon and your throats closing because you ate a walnut. How hilarious!". Do I laugh at you for having cancer or alzheimer's? Of course not! Allergies are not a joke. They are not a preference or someone "just being picky." They are a medical condition

Whenever I see allergies portrayed in movies, TV shows or other media, it's always a negative portrayal. I have only once seen an allergy just be part of a character and not have a big deal made out of it (in The Help). Mostly I see food allergies laughed at. In Meet the Robinsons they make fun of a man having an anaphylactic reaction to peanuts.  In Sleepless in Seattle, one of the characters had food allergies, but they're shown as a weakness and a reason to not like the character which is absurd.

A peanut allergy being made fun of in Meet the Robinsons

It's rare to see any mention of allergies at all, and when they are mentioned you can be assured they are cast in a negative light. They are simply not taken seriously. Food allergies are a real challenge, but they're not a weakness in your character or something humourous. Some people don't know anyone with food allergies and so their only exposure to the concept of allergies are these stereotypes. This makes them treat allergies like a joke, which in turn can harm those with allergies. When you have food allergies, you sometimes have to rely on other people and it's incredibly hard for the people to "get it". Stereotypes make it harder still.

It's very annoying when the media shows a reality that doesn't exist, like they do with food allergies. You'd figure someone making that movie or that TV show has an allergy or knows someone with one -- surely they will speak up, and say "hey, this isn't what a food allergies are like." But no, the stereotypes continue.

Many people have food allergies today and they are gradually becoming much more common. As they do, I hope the media will start to portray them realistically and stop treating them like a joke. Allergies are not a laughing matter, and it's high time for the media to stop laughing and treat allergies like the serious medical condition that they are.

If you want to learn more about food allergies check out http://www.foodallergy.org/ They have some great resources.
-- Captain Sarah Jane

Of Cardboard Boxes and Unhealthy Expectations from Society

Hey there you lovely people from potentially over eight different countries! (Yep, that's right, eight. One of which I didn't know existed until I noticed that someone from that country had viewed this blog.)

I'm gonna tackle a rather broad but also complex issue here, and one that I could write a book on- sexism, and, more specifically, the sexist standards that society and the media have set up for women. (This is a rather lengthy rant. You've been warned.)

There are so many stereotypes about women in the media, but what I want to get at isn't so much the specific stereotypes within media so much as the stereotype- society's expectations and everything that we're expected to be, and how those expectations are sustained by the media. We have to be pretty enough, smart enough. We have to be gentle or aggressive or sexy or quiet or whatever it is society wants us to be. The worst part is, if we have any two things we aspire to be that- gasp -don't both fit inside of one of society's pretty little cardboard boxes, then people will be poking us with their pencils and shouting us down until we conform into one single mold.

And that idea that everyone has to fit into one particular mold is only helped along by the media. I mean, come on, when have you ever seen a character in mainstream media who instantly reminds you of a real person you know? Almost never, because we feel the need to be the same as everyone else. TV shows and such don't write themselves- they're written by people, and that's why the majority of characters in the media are so extremely unrealistic. We're all so insecure because we feel this need to be squished into a box, so the people who write the media portray that in their writing.

When have you seen a celebrity who's simply comfortable with being who they are in front of the world and doesn't feel the need to change or enhance who they are with plastic surgery and fancy clothing and false personalities? Never, right? That's because all of this surgery and makeup and fakeness is brought upon us (sometimes by ourselves) to make us conform to one mold.

I think we can all agree that this is an issue for everyone, but especially so for women and girls. It makes me so mad when a little girl who's still trying to learn who she is gets pushed around and manipulated so she'll grow up to be exactly what society thinks a woman should be. If your daughter prefers "boyish" colors like blue and green, then the alarm bells go off. Smother her with purple and pink, otherwise she won't grow up to be like "other" women. Even if she does fit some of society's requirements for a woman, she has to stay exactly within that little pinprick-sized center of balance. She can't be glamorous and be into sports and enjoy being active. She can't be a good student and a social butterfly.

Y'know, it's kind of like when women were forced to wear corsets way back when. Someone developed this twisted mental image that all women had to look a certain way, and forced this device upon society that forced all women to conform, even though it was uncomfortable and literally oppressing. Not only is that an example to prove my point, but it also fits as a perfect analogy over the entire issue.

I guess I'll end this with a quote from one of my favorite actresses, Alice Eve from Star Trek: Into Darkness. Some idiot interviewer asked her a stupid question and she gave a great answer.

So yeah, this is exactly what I've been trying to get to through this entire rant. There's a certain list of requirements that we have to stick to. Because we're women, we get judged if we do anything that doesn't live up to society's expectations of what a woman should be.

Anyway, it's a complex issue and I don't know how to resolve it for you guys or myself. I was fortunate enough to be raised by parents who taught me that I can be anything that I want to be, regardless of my gender, but I know that wasn't and isn't the case for so many. Basically, I just think that no one should be told what they can't or should do just because of something they were born with. I think it's fair to judge everyone based on their merit as a person and not by their gender, or to dig deeper, their race or their culture or their financial class. I think everyone should be allowed to pursue their passions and be what they want to, regardless of any physical aspects or things they can't help otherwise.

I know this isn't so much an issue in the media as it is an issue in the whole world, but it's definitely one that is displayed in and is made worse by the media.

Hope you liked this little rant, and I hope I've inspired you a bit with my own opinions.
~Oswin

Wake Up Call

Rose Tyler in "Rose"

Hey guys! This is my first post and, as my AP exams are fast approaching, I will devote this post to sleep - and more importantly, though certainly less pleasant - waking up.

Now, I'm sure I'm not the only one who notices this, but whenever I see a TV show or a movie, when a character wakes up they're a little ball of radiant sunshine with perfect makeup and hair. Occasionally, I'll see a character wake up like an actual human, like in Frozen and in season one of Doctor Who, but much more often I see characters waking up unrealistically. Don't get me wrong, I understand most TV shows and movies are supposed to be fiction. Still, sometimes it's nice to see some reality in the characters.

All of these images in the media suggest that girls should be wearing makeup to bed and that it's normal to look perfect waking up. But let's be honest, if you wore makeup to bed you'd get it all over your pillow! Girls don't have to look good every single moment of the day, and I wish the media would realize this. Viewers don't mind seeing real humans occasionally! It helps audiences to identify with the character. Anyway, no one's going to be watching you while you sleep(at least I hope so), and if there was someone you should call the police and have them drag the creeper off to jail(ahem, Bella).

Anna from Frozen looking like an actual human
waking up in the morning

So, I guess what I'm trying to get at is that characters don't have to be perfect. No one's perfect and that's okay. Imperfections in a character just make that character seem more real.  But the media often is telling us that it's not okay to be imperfect, not okay to look and act the way we are. This is a harmful message. And though, most people probably don't feel insecure about the way they wake up, these images do make us feel insecure about our imperfections, and that is not okay.

-- Captain Sarah Jane

You ____ Like a Girl!

One of the things that really bothers me is when someone says you do something like a girl as an insult. Not only is that insulting girls in general, but it's setting an impossibly high standard for boys, saying that they all

have to be better than every girl.

One of the books that made me really angry, and had multiple stereotypes in it is The Dragon's Tooth by N. D. Wilson. It's a good series, but the protagonist’s sister, Antigone, while being a strong character, is pretty stereotyped. Antigone hates martial arts, but likes learning languages, while Cyrus (the protagonist) is the opposite. They are also forced to live in a house that has no furniture, and ugly paint, and Antigone, of course, cares while Cyrus doesn't, but the thing that really got to me was in the second book, The Drowned Vault. They had a conversation where Cyrus had screamed because of a bunch of spiders, and Antigone was saying how high he was screaming. Cyrus then said that Antigone wouldn't have done better, and part of Antigone's reply was “...when I scream like a girl, at least I am, actually, a girl.”

It was really disappointing to me when I read that, because not only was someone implying that it was bad to do something like a girl, but a girl was saying that, and no one seemed to think about the fact that it's insulting to girls, and it ruined the whole series for me.

Along with that, in sports, if you tell someone, “you play like a girl”, it's an insult. If people grow up thinking that playing like a girl is a bad thing, then they really think that girls don't play as well as boys, and if a boy can't play better than a girl, then the boy is a bad player. If a boy believes that playing like a girl is a bad thing, and then he comes across a girl who can play better than him, he'll think he's not a good player, and maybe that's true, but more likely, he is good, and the girl is just better. Then the boy will just beat himself up about not being better, and you don't have to be better than everyone. On the other hand, if a girl is better than a boy, people will just think that the boy isn't very good, and no one will think about how good the girl actually is. Even if boys were usually better than girls, you shouldn't use that as an insult.

If people think it's insulting to have someone say they do something like a girl, then that really means that they think girls can't do things as well as boys. If people then think that a girl shouldn't be able to do something better than a boy, then they won't help girls to be as good as they can be, which will just reinforce the stereotypes. If people really think that women aren't as good at anything than men, then they won't hire women if they can hire men, and that's really no different than when everyone discriminated against African-American people.

On that happy note, I think that I'll end my post.

--Luna Lovegood