Sexist Tokenism

After talking about racial tokenism in class, I watched ESPN at home and began to think that there is more than just racial tokenism. ESPN has several women reporters and anchors on their shows including Hannah Storm, Linda Cohn, and the infamous Rachel Nichols, as well as several others. I realized ESPN talks about female sports for maybe a total of a five minutes a day, for WNBA Finals, the undefeated UCONN Women's basketball team, and Venus or Serena Williams. Although they talk very briefly about female sports, they have a comparably large number of female reporters.  Every time my mom sees a female reporter she complains about how revealing their clothes are, and that ESPN probably thinks they can attract male viewers by showcasing these women as objects of beauty. In addition, ESPN wants to appear a diverse network, and wants to appear un-biased towards women. ESPN goes out of their way to choose these female reporters. Some reporters, like Rachel Nichols, are not good at their job, but ESPN keeps these female anchors to to give the impression that they support gender diversity.

The Modern Slave

As we discussed slaves in class this week, I began to think of my news, The Colbert Report, and last week when the  president of the United Farm Workers of America came on the show. He talked about a "take our jobs" campaign in which any American citizen could work in place migrant workers. Three people took them up on their offer. This means that although many complain that these migrant workers are taking jobs that should be reserved for Americans, they are not. The jobs are laborious and the pay is unacceptable to most U.S. citizens.

There are differences between slaves and working migrant workers, but there are also similarities. Both typically have physically demanding jobs in the fields, both have few protections and workers' rights, and both groups are unfairly demeaned and disrespected by this country. Slaves were hated for racial reasons and for being "inferior" to the whites, while similarly people today want to have all the migrant workers deported. Slaves were hated even by northerners, often in fear that they would, once liberated, take the jobs of many lower class workers, similar to how people fear these migrant workers take our jobs. 

Secret Messages

Modern politics and media is filled with secret messages. Recently, a rally was held on the Lincoln Monument, by Fox political commentator, Glenn Beck. Another rally is set for October 30th on the Lincoln Monument by Steven Colbert, and Jon Stewart, political comedians.  These rallies are not coincidentally happening near each other in time.

Although the rally may be by two comedians, and the rally's titles are "The March to Keep Fear Alive", and  "Restore Sanity", the secret meaning behind this is more important. Colbert and Stewart are hosting this rally as a response to Glenn Beck's rally. Although Glenn Beck may not have spoken about political topics at the rally, isn't the mere fact that Glenn Beck hosts a rally with Sarah Palin a political event?

When conservatives or liberals hold rallies, regardless of what they talk about, the rally has a secret underlying message. People will hear through the media that Glenn Beck had a popular rally, and this will bring attention to the conservative agenda, and likewise the Stewart/Colbert rally will mobilize liberal voters.  The younger demographic has not been voting as much in the midterms according to an article about the Colbert/Stewart Rally (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/0917/Stephen-Colbert-Jon-Stewart-rally-Might-TV-duo-affect-Election-2010?sms_ss=email). Rallies by Steven Colbert,  and Jon Stewart could help remind young people to vote (especially for democrats because Colbert and Stewart are liberal). So, although these rallies may not be openly political, there is a secret political meaning underneath.

Modern Chapter

This week our class discussed textbooks, and what the textbooks focused on, determined by how many words were in a section. I found that American textbooks generally have an optimistic bias towards America's past. Chapters focus less on rebellions against corrupt public officials, which would paint America in a bad light, and more so on topics related the ways the government is revolted against for doing good, such as protecting Indian rights with Bacon's rebellion, which demonstrates a fair government.

Textbooks about American history are written in an optimistic way because the publishers want their product to be purchased. Negative textbooks ripping America are not as likely to be bought by boards of education because they feel they should promote patriotism and allegiance to the country. In the same way that textbooks are created for their audience, the media are also selling a product. American media (newspapers, television, etc.) does not focus as much on international issues as much as American topics. This is because their audience, the American public, wants to hear about topics directly related to them, and not about issues of importance to other countries.

Recently, floods in Pakistan have devastated millions of people, killing many, and leaving others homeless. In America, coverage for this particular topic was rare. Is this because Americans are shallow people who do not care about listening to topics that do not pertain to them? Does our media control what we have access to, and the less coverage of the topic the less we care about it?

Certainty

This week in class, Mr. O'Connor told us Mr. Bolos had been married twice. Mr. O'Connor later told our class that a group had asked him to confirm their belief that Mr. Bolos had been married to Jayne Hartman as well as Joan Gallagher, and he answered that he believed that was correct. Later on in the week he explained to us that the way we ask our questions can sometimes determine the answer we get. This can also be true in how we look at situations through our own experience, which can sometimes determine the way we draw our conclusions.

While thinking of a blog to write this week, I remembered an article on ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/100813) that discussed player contract negotiations. The article went on to discuss how fans can only see players who ask for more money as greedy and selfish. From our perspectives, a player with a twelve million dollar contract for two years, who asks for millions more, does in fact seem greedy and selfish.

While it may seem selfish to us, the players care less about the money and more about the respect. If a new AIS teacher got a job at New Trier for more money than exerienced AIS teachers who have worked fifteen years for the school, and have proven themselves be better teachers, the experienced teachers would be angry. Even if the these teachers were happy with their original salary, it is unfair to give a new, and less experienced teacher more money. This is excactly how many NFL players feel. A rookie entering the NFL often makes significantly more money than veteran players, which is why so many players holdout on their contracts. Although fans may believe a player is greedy and selfish for not playing because they want more money, they are rarely certain of the player's underlying intentions. It is not fair to compare an NFL player's salary to your own. They should be judged against their peers. Are we certain that veteran players making six million a year don't deserve a million more, as an acknowledgement of their experience, and proven ability?

First post

sfgsdf