Girls on Youtube

In my last post, I introduced the idea of the internet being dangerous to young girls. If you have not read my last blog post entitled "Am I Ugly" (which can be read HERE) then you may be unaware of a growing trend of middle school and junior high aged girls posting videos on youtube asking the people of the internet whether they are pretty or not. 


Up until today I thought that these videos were the most dangerous types of videos girls of that age could post. But, I was proved wrong, oh so wrong. 


The girl in the video below, lets call her Leap Day Girl, may be a tad older than the girls that post the Am I Ugly videos, but Leap Year Girl exhibits the same maturity level. 
WARNING: This video contains cursing, if you are not comfortable with that, do not watch!

How in this girl's mind is it okay to post a video like this? The pure ignorance of it is enough to be disgusted by if you are not already appaled by the number of swears used per sentence. I think the funniest part of the video is the part where she states, "THIS IS WHAT SOCIETY'S COME TO", like leap year is some sort of stupid choice we've made as a society. She obviously has no idea that there has to be an extra day every four years to keep our calendar stabilized, and this is the ignorance she is receiving so much attention for. 

The first time I saw Leap Day Girl's video I immediately thought back to a comment I received in my last post from fellow AS classmate, Ozakh Ahmed, which said, "I think that girls our age should lead by example because we forget how much of an impact we hold on them {younger girls posting videos on the internet}." It made me ask myself, 'How do girls my age (16) and above portray correct internet and video mannerisms online?' 

The answer is, we don't. Take the very popular, very controversial video, originally titled "Asians in the Library" video for example (which can be seen to the below). 

The young woman from this video is aged somewhere between 18 and 22, goes to a highly ranked college (UCLA), and is just about as ignorant as Leap Day Girl. She displays herself as the epitome a horrible role model for younger girls, such as Leap Day Girl, through her disgustingly racist jokes and comments. So is this UCLA student part of the reason why younger girls think its okay to post offensive videos online? If anything she's not helping the issue. I know that there are plenty of older girls that post sophisticated, politically correct videos on youtube, but they do not receive half the attention that the shockingly distasteful videos posted by girls their same age get. But shouldn't this negative attention ward off younger girls from posting equally distasteful videos online? No, because they are too young to know any better. 

I'm aware that I have presented a lot of information to think about with these last two blog posts, but there are two final questions that I wish to leave you readers with: 1. Why do we see so many girls and young women posting ignorant, offensive, and shocking videos on the internet? 2. Are there any boys and young men that have done this before, and if yes, have received as much attention for it? 

Am I Ugly?

New social media trends are constantly popping up nowadays, but are they appropriate for all ages? I recently saw a video about a new social media trend for junior high aged girls. The trend is these girls posting videos of themselves on youtube asking the public if they are pretty.

Now, I was once a junior high aged girl, so I am familiar with the struggles of self confidence at that age, but in no way do I approve of this trend. In fact I think it is very dangerous. Turns out strangers love to bully these insecure girls so the comment section of their video can turn quite nasty. So it seems that these videos have the opposite effect of what the girls posting them seek out of them. All of these already self conscious girls are just becoming more self conscious as strangers trash them in front of the whole world. Also, I'm sure that internet predators love praying on these easy-targets insecure pre teens. This video epidemic is just a disaster and needs to be  stopped.

But how can we stop it? I think it should start in the schools, kids need to begin learning at a younger age about internet safety. Kids begin learning and using technology younger and younger these days. But that doesn't mean that they are necessarily mature enough or cautious enough for it. It also scares me that such a trend has developed since I was their age, which was only a few years ago.

I also think schools need to teach their pupils to be comfortable in their own skin and not to take what bullies say to heart. I think that something like the New Trier Names Program was really effective with this lesson, but I also think that maybe freshman year is a little too late considering that many of the girls who post these Am I Ugly videos aren't even 14 yet.

Then the question comes up about the parenting of these girls. Parental controls are a good place to start.  Also, parents, like schools, should teach their children to be confident enough to not have to go to the internet to seek compliments.

There are 4 million views on this "Am I Ugly?" video above, 42,018 dislikes, and thousands of hateful comments.

This is not okay.

These girls obviously need help that they are not getting, so let's change that.

If you want to learn more about this trend click here.

TV Tokenism- Ugly Betty

Although I agree that TV Tokenism is real, I disagree with one of its points. I disagree with the point that states there is not a successful show with a minority as its protagonist.

The comedy- drama called Ugly Betty aired from 2006-2010 on ABC and had a very successful 4 season run. It focused on main character Betty Suarez (who is hispanic and has the most screen time by a long shot) landing a job in the fashion industry where she is sorely out of place. The show centered around the idea that being different is good. It also showcased not one, but many minorities (hispanics, gay hispanic teen, gay white male, transvestite, etc). I think that the show's content being centered around fashion had loads of appeal for its target audience, young women, who also struggle with self image like Betty. I'd even go as for to say that show's subject matter overpowered peoples disinterest in minorities. Plus, Betty Suarez completely goes against all rules of a TV tokenism minority character. First of all, she's the MAIN CHARACTER, she is the secretary for a white male, and she is not well dressed.

One may argue that the character of Wilhelmina on the show does comply with TC tokenism considering that she's higher up the chain than Betty so she has power over the protagonist (but is not the boss), she is well dressed. But, on the other hand she is very cruel and is the show's main villain which does not fit the TV tokenism mold for minorities. Therefore, I conclude that her acute fashion sense and the power she harnesses are merely coincidences. 

Martin Loofah King

Seeing as we are in the midst of our civil liberties unit, I found one photo I stumbled upon today on the internet particularly interesting.  The photo was of a loofah, with Martin Luther Kings face on it.

I find this product very contradictory. It claims to be a commemoration of the great MLK, but I find nothing complimentary about Martin Luther King's face rubbing away your dead skin cells. The worst part of this product? The other, non-exfoliating side of the glove which reads: "I Have a Clean". Clever spin on words or just cheesy? Definitely cheesy. 

Something that I did find quite surprising about this product though, was the fact that it was made by a man from the UK. His name is Sheridan "Shed" Simove and he makes other sort of goof products besides this one. Products such as "The Gaydar" and the "Control a Woman Remote". Most of Shed's products are degrading and inappropriate, but I don't think he necessarily was trying to hurt anyone with this product. I think he was just in it for the cheap laughs and quick bucks. It still is sort of insulting and probably should have never been put on the market. Perhaps since Shed grew up in the UK and not the US (where nowadays, starting at kindergarden the greatness of MLK gets pounded into our minds), he was unaware of how insulting this product could potentially be seen as, especially by Americans.  

Interestingly enough,  Shed no longer sells the Martin Loofah King on his website alongside his other products. But if you are really dying to get your hands on one, the loofah can still be bought on amazon here. 

Tobacco Tussles

In June, the FDA issued a mandate that requires tobacco companies to put large graphic photos on 50% of their cigarette packs that show and portray that smoking kills smokers and their babies. The FDA published a statement about this mandate on their website stating, "The introduction of these warnings is expected to have a significant public health impact by decreasing the number of smokers, resulting in lives saved, increased life expectancy and lower medical costs". Based on this statement and on the tobacco companies' negative reaction to the mandate, the conclusion can be made that the images have the possibility to seriously hinder sales for the companies. 


This February, 5 American tobacco manufactures decided to fight back and take a stand for their first amendment right. Therefore, they are suing the FDA.  Reputable news sources, such as CNN,  believe that these tobacco manufactures put up a good case. Even U.S. District Judge Richard Leon thinks they have a chance. 


But is the FDA really violating these drug companies' freedom of speech?


 Personally, I don't buy it. To me, these images just seem like a visual of the side effects to smoking tobacco. Every other drug company has to include side effects on their labels even if it hurts their business, so why should tobacco companies be exempt? Also, I'm aware that 50% of packaging is a large portion, but I truly think that the government has good intentions. 


My thoughts are that as long as the government is keeping less health harmful drugs illegal, such as marijuana, that tobacco should not be legal as well. I think tobacco companies are lucky that they even get to sell their deadly products to consumers.  




You can learn more about this heated debate here here!


-Chrisanthy S

What Kind of Man

With election day nearing closer, I find myself watching more and more obscene political ads. Romney may have won the Florida primary tonight, but I see Gingrich picking up momentum everyday. But, when I saw one of his Newt's newest anti-Romney ads, entitled: What Kind of Man, it made me think of a question that has been frequently brought up in my house recently. The question is what kind of man runs the country? Who seems to be more of a president? The general consensus in my house is that Romney seems to be more of a president than Gingrich,  I agree with this consensus, which is why I found Gingrich's "What Kind of Man" video sort of ironic.

I began delving deeper in why I thought Romney seems more of a president than Gingrich to me. I realized there are many factors supporting my decision.

Personally, I see Barack Obama as the quintessential male president, aside from his skin tone (which I find inconsequential but can be seen as otherwise). Therefore I have stacked up Romney and Gingrich against eachother and Obama in a chart I produced below. Click the chart to enlarge, I apologize for the of blurriness. (Warning: While many of the things I have written in this chart are based in fact, some are based on my own observations).

Now, I'm aware that these characteristics are not the sole characteristics of what makes up a presidential male, but I think that they are easily 5 of the most important. While making the chart it appeared to me that Romney proved to be a more "typical" president than Gingrich when both are compared to Obama, which might be just why I see him as more of a president than Gingrich. I also think these similarities could be a factor that will help Romney through the primaries and the polls.

And just for the record: I do not support Romney nor Gingrich. I simply found this question interesting.

What ingredients do you find necessary in a president?

As always,
Chrisanthy S.

META POST!!

Reading my blog as a whole, from a critical standpoint, I have begun to notice many things that I have not  noticed before. Certain aspects my blog posts have not changed, which in some cases hurt me, but in some cases I think these similarities help make my blog stronger. 


For example, since the beginning, all of my blogposts have had a picture, a link, or/and a video embedded into them and I will continue embedding these elements into my blog for the remainder of the year because I truly believe they make a blogpost much more interesting for the reader. Another similarity between my blog is the amount of time I put into the titles. I try to brainstorm witty and inciting titles such as "Extreme Couponing: Extremely Crazy" and "The Fun Theory". I think titles are one of the most important parts of a blog because many readers decide whether or not to read a blog based on solely their attraction to the title. 

Yet, I think that some of the similarities in my blogposts are not beneficial and weaken my blog overall. One thing that really struck me while reading my blog was how similar all of my opening sentences were. What I do is I start my opening sentence with a recent day of the week where the topic of the blogpost was introduced to me. And I do this in order to set the scene. But I do it all too often, in fact I've done it 7 times this semester. I counted. The earliest example I can find of myself doing this is from Sept. 21 in my blogpost entitled: "Music and Our Fellow Man". I open my blogpost by saying, "Yesterday, while scrolling down my tumblr dashboard, I saw an interesting post about a new website". And unfortunately the most recent example of myself doing is only from last month, on December 11th, in my blogpost entitled: "The 51st State: Chicago". I said, "Today, a shocking idea was introduced to me".  I think these two opening sentences are much too similar and now that I've had a chance to step back and look at all of this opening sentences, I feel like I've turned into a broken record. Therefore, that will be something that I will make sure to work on when blogging next semester. 


While there are many similarities between my blogposts, there are also many differences, and changes that I have made over the course of this year. A big difference between my early blogs and my latter blogs is using quotes in my blogposts. I think that this was a necessary change because there is no question that for a stronger blogpost, I need more than to just simply provide a link, I need to ground my claims in textual evidence. 

Another difference that I have noticed is the topic of my blogposts. At first the topics were quite random, and  were not really full of mass appeal or relatability. But, lately, I have been posting about current events and my take on them. I even wrote a blog post about the peoples' awareness of current events entitled: "An Ignorant Genoration". I'm not quite sure if this change has been valuable or not yet. It's just something that I have noticed. Though, on the subject of blog topics, I think I need to write more blogs about themes and ideas we discuss in class because right now I feel like my blog is more like a general blog rather than a New Trier AmStuds. blog.


I think I have grown into a much stronger blogger throughout this semester so far, but I still have a LONG way to go. 


Thanks for reading,
Chrisanthy S.