Untitled

[adelisriveiro450]

[adelisriveiro450]

Impeachment Trials-- What?

All gifs came from GIPHY and the memes came from these two sources: https://makeameme.org/meme/zelensky-it-can

http://politicalpunchline.com/trump-impeachment/

[adelisriveiro450]

Both of the readings “We are All Workers” and “Nike unveils Muslim women athletes” discuss the commodification of activism. The reading that rang a little louder to me was the one written by Lamiyah Bahrainwala & Erin O’Connor about Nike’s Pro Hijab movement as a way of marketing and making profit. When stepping back and generalizing clothing companies or rather clothing brands. Their public relations, marketing, and central point of establishing itself as a brand has to do with how it wants its consumers to feel about it and feel about themselves when they wear their products. When looking at the Nike Pro Hijab campaign it seems to me like they did what the authors said they did, they made profit by creating a movement of activism. Telling its consumers that wearing a hijab is mainstream or should be among female athletes that are Muslim. According to the reading, women were wearing hijabs in sports long before Nike made it a “thing”, “Muslim elite athletes have competed wearing hijabs since at least 2004 when Bahrain’s sprinter Ruqaya Al Ghasara competed in the FEMINIST MEDIA STUDIES 3 Athens Olympics. Meanwhile, activewear marketed to Muslim women has been on shelves in the Western world for at least a decade” (Bahrainwala & O’Connor 3-4). Nike seems to have just found a whole in the market for a major sportswear company to creater a product that no other major soortswear company has. They found a hole in the market and filled it. While smaller sportswear companies have included hijabs in their range, like Capsters (Seen in the first image above), it was until Nike that it actually became a thing that was “seen” by the public.

I see the same issue occurring when looking at how retail brands and companies use the lgbtq+ flag in their products. Urban Outfitters is a huge company that is guilty of it. Firstly, their President Richard Hayne is a conservative. He and his family donate large sums of money to conservative causes (Judkis 1). When stepping back and looking at a lot of their products, they do include the LGBTQ+ flag on shirts and other accessories sold in-stores and online. Urban Outfitters even partnered up with GSLEN (seen in the second image above) who are “work[ing] to ensure that LGBTQ students are able to learn and grow in a school environment free from bullying and harassment. Together we can transform our nation's schools into the safe and affirming environment all youth deserve” (GLSEN 1). On the UO website, they made sure to mention that, “[they’re] sharing the stories of young creatives showing their pride and proving that love is love. We’ve partnered with GLSEN to introduce an exclusive collection of graphic t-shirts and hats with all profits donated to GLSEN in support of LGBTQ youth” (Urban Outfitters 1). After reading everything and thinking about if Urban Outfitters truly support LGBTQ+ when the president supports conservative causes, it brought up the question of when do brands actually support the cause that they are putting their name on for support. When is it just for profit and when is it something that they actually care about. The partnership with GLSEN that UO had contributed all profits to the organization. Although the profit went to GLSEN, UO has had other products outside of that campaign that have been created in support of LGBTQ+ but profits all went to UO. It seemed like companies really care about a cause they are advocates for when that cause is the base of their company. It seems like the minute they include a cause to be a part of the company, it is only for marketing purposes and for consumers to see their brand in a certain light. It brings me back to Nike. They used the Pro Hijab campaign as a marketing strategy. They saw that no other major sportswear company was creating “mainstream” hijabs and took the opportunity to out themselves into that market. Whether they actually care about the cause they are promoting, I’m sure at a certain level yes. Is that a huge company concern? I do not believe so. It is amazing that these huge companies are including diversity and empowerment of different cultures into their brand, but is it truly genuine?

[adelisriveiro450]

Cartoons for Kids? or for Adults?

Cartoons have always been associated with fantasy and being a genre that is associated with children and created for them. Animations have been around for very long and since then hve been developed into something that may not always be “child appropriate; films like “Sausage Party” are catered towards adults but there are also shows meant for children where you wouldn’t expect there to be more adult-like.

 This is seen in the readings, specifically when Aaron Krueger mentions that cartoons and animation “still [carry] the stigma of being a ‘children’s’ genre” (317). This sort of stigma is seen with so many of the most popular animated shows on television and that is why shows given in the readings like “The Simpsons” and “The Boondocks” still acceptably shown on television.

 In Jason Mattel’s reading we see him point out that “The Simpsons” are cast as a children’s show and even has been “specifically framed as entertainment ‘for the whole family’” (Mittell 30).

Having grown up watching the show on occasion and watching it so no long ago as an adult, I now see that it was filled with innuendos and matters that are not completely child- appropriate. As a child, I was unware of the content and things that were being said and Mittell points this out as well, “most cartoons from this era were created for adult’s sense of humor and contain many references that sail above children’s heads” (Mittell 20). A

The way Animation looks seems to be by it is considered child-like—because it is not “real”. If the animation of “The Simpsons” were created in a sitcom for, would it still be considered a show for kids?

 Modern day shows like Spongebob are filled with innuendos about many things and it is arguably one of the biggest kid’s cartoon show as seen in one of the images above. The show is catered towards kids but even the adult humor, that is most noticeable as an adult, is very much present.

 Even around the world, shows that are marketed as kid shows are seen all over the world. “Shin Chan” is a Japanese show that is shown in many parts of Asia. It is a show meant for kids but its content and language is underlyingly catered towards adults. The shows description states, “Laugh to hide your tears...He's rude. He's crass. He's unbelievably obnoxious and he likes showing his @$$. He's Shin, and he's the star of this train wreck. From superhero sell-outs, hotties and half-tards to bunny abuse and dirty old men, Shin Chan's packed with sweet dead piggy goodness - So sweet it would make an anorexic eat” (Amazon 1). One of the innuendos is seen in the second image above.

 When looking at what Krueger touched on about “The Boondocks” it seems like cartoons may also help serve as a way to inform and satirize issues happening in society. These shows with topics that are far more adult like than child-like are still seen as childish because their visual—they are animated. “The Boondocks can address issues of racism and violence while making genuine points about the way society functions” (Krueger 318). It touched on these created more an animation. Again, these issues seem to cater more towards adults and as Mittell mentioned, go-over kid’s heads. It creates the idea that animations should no longer be seen as a kid’s only genre. 

[adelisriveiro450]

Meredith Michael’s reading touched on the alterations of photographs and how it changes depending on what is depicted or what is altered. It is a notion that is still relevant to today’s photography as image alterations are a normality among pictures posted on social media. Michael gives her example of the Three-Inch Baby and how it is ultimately how the image is viewed and understood by viewers that gives the image its significance and credibility rather than if it is actually altered or manufactured in a sense, she states: 

The point that I want to make is simple: in ordinary situations we view photographs as re-presenting something in the world. I go to Tasmania; I take pictures and bring them home; my friends who have never been to Tasmania want to see what it looks like. There would be something duplicitous in my patching together some photos of New Zealand and Queensland, claiming that they were photos of Tasmania. (Michaels 116) 

What she mentions above is that her friends would never know if it images of her trip were edited or created by her rather than actually taken, but also that there is something that is almost counteractive of her creating pictures when some friends wouldn’t even know what Tasmania looked like in the first place—might as well show the original. It conveys that it ultimately comes down to what we know about images and how we see them. WE wouldn’t know if they were manufactured unless we were there. This all ties in with modern day social media as everyone up to celebrities are photoshopping and Face Tune their faces and bodies to meet the “Instagram standard” of what they should be looking like. Women alter themselves to look thinner, men alter themselves to look stronger, or taller. That is how they want to be seen and we wouldn’t know they looked any different unless we KNEW, so out perception is to understand the image the way it is presented. 

           The same sort of concept is seen with Carol Stabile’s reading, we see her discussing the matter how images of fetuses have caused there to differing ideologies on what constitutes a “good” mother and what constitutes a “bad” mother. When referring to “good” and “bad” it ultimately comes down to the subject of abortion as Stabile’s reading mentions. The images that are able to be captured pre- birth of a child have created a wave of laws and thought on whether or not they deserve rights. The idea of images altering realities and people’s opinions and ideologies are shaped with how exactly an image is interpreted. For those that are pro-life, they see the fetus on an ultra sound as a child with a life it is already living. For those that are pro-choice, they see the fetus as not born yet, not brought to life. Stabile Analyzes “how visual technologies, in a society so dependent upon images, have played a crucial role in [that] erasure of women’s bodies” (Stabile 180). And it ultimately comes down to how people perceive images and that images play a key role in motherhood and “fetus rights” are considered. 

           Ultimately, it comes down to how an image is viewed. The image can be altered but it is ultimately down to the viewer to decide if it is and how to interpret it from there. Both Stabile and Michael’s narrow down their arguments to say that images are all up for interpretation and are based on how people think of them but also can influence what people believe. In a world filled with social media, as mentioned above it really makes me question what images I have thought were not fabricated and which I thought they were and how that changes my perception of them and of other things they can influence. In the two images above, I have attached how Khloe Kardashian has been caught photoshopping her images that have been posted on social media that show how the image’s perception could vary depending on who sees it. If they had never seen what she looked like on the left—would they know she didn’t quite look like the way she looks on the right? The second picture attached shows the type of images that pro-life and pro-choice supporters use in order to convey their ideologies and convince others to follow it. Depending on how you view the images—you are able to create a reality from it and express an ideology, which is what both Stabile and Michael’s touched on.