halloween- setting up the wrong image?

Though I don't know why I found an article about Halloween costumes, it was mixed in with gender articles.

In this article, the author talks about the "all the rage" boy Halloween costumes. Every boy, for Halloween, wants to be the jacked up, six packed, "Paul Bunyan on steriods." Anything other than these costumes, the manly save-the-day-and-rescue-the-princess costume, is considered baby-ish, as one boy proclaims. According to the assistant manager of the Halloween store in King of Prussia mall, Transformer costumes, G.I.Joe, and superheroes are the top selling products. And as for the girls? Well, they have the image of body and sexuality pressed on them, starting at age four, the article states. Sexy pirate costumes and "sultry" vampire costumes. This stays with them each Halloween, getting sexier and sexier each year.

According to this article, it's just as damaging for the boys as it is for the girls. And why do these kids feel the need, even at age four, to buy these costumes? Because of "media and marketing messages", says experts who watch how the body image in promoted in pop culture. These kids are growing up, seeing how the typical "in" male or female is dressed, and want to be that person. Halloween is the one day where you can dress as someone else. These kids are dressing who they want to be when they grow up.

The article also adds an interesting point of view. Not only are these masculine boy costumes, filled with muscles and "beefyness", around on Halloween but with each media representation comes more. Television, magazines, etc, everything has these images. Kids see their favorite superhero, who resembles their favorite singer, and they think this is how they should look. According to Lyn Mikel Brown, a professor at Colby College and author, "Halloween is about the stark commericialization of gender." She addds that Halloween is all about "the idealized male body."

According to critics, we need to look at the big picture. Besides Halloween just being a few hours one day a year, bigger problems "arise[s] from the accumulation of images that promote a buff image of boys as ideal." The article points out the amount of Abercrombie and Fitch "shirtless hunks" and ripped guy on Axe commericals. Kids see this and what else can they think besides this is what they are supposed to look like? This is what society defines as "hot" and "in".

The next part of the article disgusts me. According to a study in 2006 with 261 third, fourth, and fifth (!) graders, 49% of the boys weren't happy with how they looked and 50% of the girls weren't happy with how they looked. As Jussel, the executive director of Shaping Youth (non profit organization that looks at the impact of marketing on children), perfectly puts it- "Media is defining kids before they define themselves."

I am literally disgusted by this article. I can't remember growing up and expecting to look a certain way based off of media images. However, things are definitely different nowadays. Television is a big part of kids lives, whether we want to admit that or not. Kids are getting into designer names (i.e., Abercrombie & Fitch and Axe) at younger and younger ages. They think that these images ( the muscley man, the six pack, the all out masculine no feelings guy) are what are expected of them.

Now what if these kids, someday our kids, decide that they need to be these people? Not want to be these people but need to be. We could go back to times when women were considered inferior, because the males they are portraying in the media are dominate and superior. The line between gender could be drawn even heavier if kids continue with this idea that they need to be how models and people on TV are.

Audra

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/67472282.html

Is It Racism or a Poor Choice of Words?

Last month, Senator Harry Reid made a comment about stating that President Barack Obama could be successful because of his "light-skinned" appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." After receiving negative feedback and criticism because of this remark, Reid made a public apology,” I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words...I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments." He also apologized to various black white house officials, and even President Obama himself. The president accepted Reid's apology and later stated, "I accepted Harry's apology without question because I've known him for years, I've seen the passionate leadership he's shown on issues of social justice and I know what's in his heart. As far as I am concerned, the book is closed."

Was the senator's remarks racist or simply a bad choice of words? Years ago, it was very evident when someone was racist. This traditional form of racism was portrayed throughout various outlets of the media. Now, a more modern take on racism makes it difficult to differentiate between who is racist and who is not. Today, racism is more settle and more hidden. Whereas, years ago it was more blunt and obvious. However sometimes people do simply use a poor choice of words. Only Senator Reid knows his intensions.

It's important just to keep an eye on racism while coming to the realization that it does still exist, even if it is not as obvious as years ago. Personally, I think it is sad that some people can not accept the fact that Obama is president. The lightness of his skin or even dialect should not be the only factors that define his presidency.

Any thoughts?

-Dominique

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/09/obama.reid/index.html