Made in America

The two readings in “They say, I say” are both on agreement with each other, but each has a different emphasis. In Herbert’s reading he is saying that the American Dream is dead since our education system is bad and we’re spending a crazy amount of money fighting wars. In the second reading, Cal Thomas agrees with Herbert, but Thomas insists on pointing the finger at someone for causing all of these problems. He ends up pointing the finger at the left side of the political spectrum for this, (this doesn't surprise me that he blames Democrats and the left considering he’s a panelist on Fox News). In the last reading “why the rich are getting richer”, Reich uses a metaphor of 3 boats to describe the situation people are in. He says that Routine Producers (manufacturing jobs) are losing jobs at a very fast rate while In-Person Servers (Hospitality) are gradually losing jobs and compete against each other for In-Person Service jobs. Lastly, Reich says that symbolic analyst (political analyst) are growing at a great rate and are being the most stimulating and major part of our economy.

I think the “why the rich are getting richer” serves a great purpose to help our problem. When looking at Routine Producers, these people are at the base of our economy as well since they serve the important role of creating the products that we use every day, be it our cars or our electronics. I would also like to keep this in relation to the off shoring of jobs too. In Reich’s reading he referred to the off-shoring of ATT from Louisiana to Singapore and lastly to Thailand, which resulted in the loss of many American jobs. A more recent example is the Moto X phone which used to be assembled in the DFW area got off-shored to China, when another company bought the manufacturing or something like that. My point is the off-shoring of the jobs though. As a strong advocate of American jobs I think if we learn from this and stop off-shoring jobs I think that our economy will be able to thrive. The more people work, the more money they make, which means more money is circulating in our American economy. If we could find ways to retain jobs, like the Routine Producer jobs, and with the help of technology, we won’t have the domino effect explained by Reich of the Routine Producers spilling over into the In-service category of jobs. Right now, the economy is on a long recovery from the Great Recession 8 years ago, but we are better off than we were at that time and the change has started to become noticeable. It’s the recovery that shows us why it’s even more vital for us to ensure that as many Americans are working, here in America and not sending off jobs to Asia or somewhere else on the other side of the globe.

Americas economic Issues

Robert Reich’s work described a metaphor of three boats; one that is sinking quickly, one that is sinking slowly, and the last is rising. These boats represent the lower, middle, and upper class. Barbara Ehrenriech tells her own more personal story of how it is impossible to live off of minimum wage. She goes from state to state looking for jobs near cheap safe living. I feel like these two essays differ because of the different perspectives. Barbara writes from a very personal place, she writes about how she herself did all of these different things. She went to different states. Got different jobs, and looked for different places to live. Her hypothesis was that you could not go out and live off of only minimum wage. How she proved this to her readers was by actually going out and trying to do these things herself. Robert brings his hypothesis of why he thinks the social classes are changing. Not from personal experience, but because of what he thinks. Machinery is taking over the lower class jobs. Machines are much cheaper and faster. Workers need time off. Workers need to be paid for their work. Workers get benefits. Workers need so many things that machines don’t, so it only makes sense for workers to be replaced. Though I do feel bad about people not having jobs and not being able to afford certain luxuries I would replace workers as well. If I were a business owner I would want things done with the least amount of mistakes, the cheapest, and the fastest. To decide how to best solve the worlds economic problems we have to first know what that problem is. I believe that the world’s economic problems come from the lack of jobs.  By creating more jobs there would be more people paying on taxes on the money they earn. By people earning more money they would then spend more money. With people buying more things there would again be more taxes on the things that they were buying. Thus creating an overall increase in taxes without actually raising the taxes being taken.

FOOD

In the article “Fat is a Feminist Issue” by Susie Orbach, She goes in depth about her opinion that being fat a issue only for feminist (and no one else). She claims that woman predominantly have only two roles, which are a sex object and then simply as a mother and house wife. Women can go through both of these. First the woman must appeal sexy, thin, and simply a “sex object” so she can later on be a mother. Basically she is saying that this is the only way and if you fat or overweight (which 50% of woman in the US, says Orbach) then it can get in the way of being seen as sexy and a sex toy. However she also suggests that woman get fat can be understood as a “define and purposeful act”, this means that she believes women will gain weight, eat whatever they want, and get fat just o escape the stereotype or being a sex toy, they are “challenging the sex-role and the culturally definition of womanhood. As for the article “Having it his way” by Carrie Freeman and Debra Merskin, they all go along the lines of feminist topics and what it is and how society is following or creating the gender norms. Freeman and Merskin claim that just something as simple as different types of food can relate back to a man or woman, for example Meat. Meat is coordinated back to man and somehow relates to men more than woman? They give numerous examples of fast food commercials showing manly meats while they are promoting their food, like burger king, Carl’s Jr, Jack in the box, and a few other fast food chains. They all have in common meat and men selling it, for the most part there are not any woman in these commercials.

In both passages the authors are trying to say (argument) that eating and food can relate back to feminize and even way back to gender norms. The examples of formats they use are commercials and real statistics and their audience is everyone! Anyone who watches or has seen the fast food commercials is a victim and didn’t even know it. But all three authors sole purpose is to show us how everyday things like FOOD can relate back to gender norms and feministic things.

Fat being Feminist vs. Males liking Meat

I am glad these two readings were shorter than some of the previous readings that we had. I understood these two readings more because they both related to problems that are being faced right now with obesity and masculinity. The core concept that I viewed was present in both readings was the concept of Audience.

The concept of audience focuses on how people might understand the message differently than other people. In Fat Is a Feminist Issue, Susie Orbach talks about how obesity is only present in females. Orbach says that females become obese in order to contradict the normal stereotype about how females should be skinny, tall, and pretty. Orbach would want a female to be fat and not as appealing in order for her to feel confident in herself. Not only that, but she wants their fat to say “‘screw you’ to all who want me to be the perfect mom, sweetheart, [and] maid.” This can also relates on what I earlier said about how she wanted for females to contradict the normal stereotype of females. If you think about it, someone else could pick up this idea and think about it in a different way. They could think that society wants every female to be fat because that is what the fashion trend is nowadays. The only thing I found that I could disagree with is that Orbach said that “fat is a feminist issue.” I would have to disagree with Orbach, because I have seen several males that are considered to be overweight or obese. I, myself, am a male and think I am a bit fat, and I’m pretty sure I’m not a female.

The second reading Having It His Way: The Construction of Masculinity in Fast-Food TV Advertising, greatly focuses on the concept of audience. This reading gives many examples featuring famous fast-food ads that many of us have seen on TV. Many people interpret these ads in different ways. The overall message present in all of the ads mentioned is the message of portraying that men love meat. The more meat, the better the food is. This reading only views this point for the audience it is trying to catch, which can conclude that these ads are aimed at mostly males without females having anything to relate to in these ads.  

Howdy Everyone!

By the time I finished reading these two readings I noticed some differences about these readings than from the previous readings that we have done, 1) I understood the readings much more than the previous ones and, 2) I personally didn’t find much to disagree with these articles than I usually would.

In my blog I going to do it on the concept of content (number 4 on the list), I’m doing this one because there are so many different aspects in these two articles and I see that at one point there’s a little confusion. I tried to keep this relatively short while trying to answer the question to the best of my ability.

My first point is the time they were written in. “Fat is a feminist issue” was written in the late 1970’s, while “Having it his way” is a more modern piece, less than 10 years old. *As a side note I’ll be referring to the former as ‘Fat is” and the latter as ‘Having it” from this point on* Even as Orbach says “…the job is never ending, for the image [of a woman] changes from year to year”. These two articles are written during two different times where people lived different lifestyles where today we have social media and greater exposure to TV and advertisements than they did in the 70’s. It’s because of this difference “Having it” has more references to advertisements and media more than “Fat is”.

I thought that these two readings had pretty straightforward points. In “fat is”, Orbach said that women being fat is challenging women stereotypes and in its own way saying “screw you world, I’m fat, what are you going to do about it.” While in “Having it” the authors have many points like men eat meat to be manly men, most meat is sold through fast food and these fast food advertisements want to make meat a big deal that it is filling and good if you want to be a man. These ads also downplay the role of women as holding back the man or being a buzzkill when there’s an attractive waitress in front of you.

Lastly there’s this part where if you overlap and look at the two stories, something doesn’t really make much sense. In “Fat is” Orbach doesn’t say what women eat, she’s just saying that being fat is empowering and not necessarily how they get fat, while in “Having it” men are eating lots of meat and women are eating “plants”, and they say this is common throughout history. So what I wonder is, if women are eating “wimpy plant food” in “Having it”, and they are fat in “Fat is”, how does that happen, it doesn’t correlate to me on how that works out. Yet again, these two pieces were written at different times, and that might well be the case why that doesn’t make much sense.

Girls are either super feminine or badass. They can't be both

In the Ross entry, it shows Alice in Wonderland, The Little Mermaid, and Beauty and the Beast and how the protagonists reach their big resolution. What I noticed above everything is how the first two stories were changed just to fit the audience they were trying to reach. If you are trying that hard to make a movie “kid friendly,” don’t even attempt it. It draws away from the original meaning of the story. A point that Ross also mentioned is that the heroine movies end in marriage. It is as if it is every girl’s mission to end up married to get their “happily ever after.” These princesses only know how to sing and dream to get out of the provincial life and be part of another world. As for Alice her resolve is by snapping into reality and realizing that not using her imagination is for her own good. Girls are taught at a young age that imagination will lead to trouble, not to mention attempting to leave your world behind will do the same.

In the Berlatsky article, it puts Bella Swan and Katniss Everdeen head to head. I find this ridiculous because they are two completely different characters. It’s like comparing night and day. Bella is judged for being “needy” and wanting to be with her guy, whoever it would be. The thing is, there are teenage girls are out there who are like that as well. She desires things. What is wrong with that? Katniss fights to protect her family. Girls do that as well. She has that power people want. Why is it wrong to desire things, but okay to have power? What I completely disagreed with in this article is that he says that feminists are nervous about being seen as girly. A feminist is okay with being girly as much as she’s okay with being “butch”. That is not the reason Katniss is seen as a “badass”. I believe that she is more well-liked by because she is stepping out of the “girl box” and is doing what men are seen to do.  

Ideas along the lines of: purpose, We get it already, & no longer relevant

I believe Escape from Wonderland: Disney and the Female Imagination was a bit on the too long and “yeah we get” side, but now that that is out of the way I think she brought up some key issues. Disney insist my favorite, nor do I really even like, well nothing Disney actually. Disney has key components in their script like; damsel in distress, Masculine hero, LOTS of innuendo , and two small characters who are good friends and add humor to the script. The points she brings up are the first two, and while they are romanticizing Damsel saved by a hunk, do you think People, Realistically want to see something else? If they had a movie with swapped roles I think that would be great, maybe a lonely guy meets his damsel who shows him how to be a man, they could probably pull it off. What they wouldn’t pull off is a story of an independent woman making it in this world, sorry Deborah not even my grandmother would watch that nowhere movie. Her strengths on this paper include key observations in Disney Movies aimed at kids, but like I said earlier: It comes to the point of “yeah we get it”.

                'Twilight' vs. 'Hunger Games': Why Do So Many Grown-Ups Hate Bella? On the other hand has a much more interesting point on how women are portrayed in cinema photography, Bella being pretty much a nobody with no unique characteristics and little personality to speak of being the goal of two monsters, while the Katniss a ‘Tomboy’ who has a sharp personality and many defining characteristics ,flourish in the eyes of critics. She talks of this Tomboy characteristic being of choosing because people love men more I guess, but I’m sure it’s because she’s not boring and helpless like Bella that people like her, Unless Boring is a quality you’re into. Overall I think the strengths of the subject is interesting because I haven’t seen either movie (I still do not plan on watching either), however I think her rant gets murky and unclear towards the end.

                In my concluding thought, these movies are made because  the people who make them know the'll get money off them. They could care less about equal rights, as long as it doesn't offended the target audience. I hate to break it to ya'll; but until they restrict free speech, that's how it is.