Saturday, October 28, 2006
A Formula for Boredom?
Ever since they began airing reruns of Sex and the City on the WB (now the CW), I've been watching. Interesting show, I guess, not that I would ever want to live those lives, but they've been credited with changing the atmosphere for single women everywhere. But have they really? Are they any different from any other half-hour sitcom? Not really.
If anything, it's even more spelled out than most half-hour sitcoms, which is in a way positive and negative. Positively - they get their point across every time. Negatively - you don't have to think about it. It's as plain as day when Carrie narrates "It makes me wonder [insert ponderous sounding question here]."
The part that is a little disappointing about it is, with four professionally successful women, you hardly ever see them in powerful positions - Samantha is always sleeping around, which makes you wonder how she keeps her job, and the rest are so desperate that you wonder how (and if) they actually have real jobs. Same goes for the also-defunct Friends. They weren't as desperately single, but all portrayals of them at their jobs are just for laughs, never taken seriously. Rachel sleeps with her coworkers, Ross is boring...yadda yadda. I don't know anyone who's that bored at their job.
Is there something inherently boring about women doing well at work? I was in a meeting the other day with 10 or 12 other women (apparently there are no male associate editors on our floor). Obviously it had nothing to do with gender, but the meeting was interesting and made you think.
True, Sex and the City has a uniquely New York flair (everyone seems to have an impressive job here and we're all just as lost in our everyday lives), but I still don't really identify with it. For a show that supposedly liberated women to be more open about sex and being single, it seems to have placed even more of a stigma on women, albeit a different one than was actually there - now it's the successful, beautiful, single woman who has everything but a man. Why can't we just say she has everything? Why does a man fall into everything? She still has a family, she still has friends, and nowadays she could have kids, all without having a man.
I guess I'm coming from this at a different angle - since I'm not really single and hopefully will never be (not because I need to but because marriage is suppose to be forever), but I have plenty of friends that are successful and amazing and single. It doesn't consume their everyday lives. How have we come to idolize women who, as Charlotte says, "need a man." Trust me, guys can smell the desperation, and if they know better (and they usually do), they will probably run.
If anything, it's even more spelled out than most half-hour sitcoms, which is in a way positive and negative. Positively - they get their point across every time. Negatively - you don't have to think about it. It's as plain as day when Carrie narrates "It makes me wonder [insert ponderous sounding question here]."
The part that is a little disappointing about it is, with four professionally successful women, you hardly ever see them in powerful positions - Samantha is always sleeping around, which makes you wonder how she keeps her job, and the rest are so desperate that you wonder how (and if) they actually have real jobs. Same goes for the also-defunct Friends. They weren't as desperately single, but all portrayals of them at their jobs are just for laughs, never taken seriously. Rachel sleeps with her coworkers, Ross is boring...yadda yadda. I don't know anyone who's that bored at their job.
Is there something inherently boring about women doing well at work? I was in a meeting the other day with 10 or 12 other women (apparently there are no male associate editors on our floor). Obviously it had nothing to do with gender, but the meeting was interesting and made you think.
True, Sex and the City has a uniquely New York flair (everyone seems to have an impressive job here and we're all just as lost in our everyday lives), but I still don't really identify with it. For a show that supposedly liberated women to be more open about sex and being single, it seems to have placed even more of a stigma on women, albeit a different one than was actually there - now it's the successful, beautiful, single woman who has everything but a man. Why can't we just say she has everything? Why does a man fall into everything? She still has a family, she still has friends, and nowadays she could have kids, all without having a man.
I guess I'm coming from this at a different angle - since I'm not really single and hopefully will never be (not because I need to but because marriage is suppose to be forever), but I have plenty of friends that are successful and amazing and single. It doesn't consume their everyday lives. How have we come to idolize women who, as Charlotte says, "need a man." Trust me, guys can smell the desperation, and if they know better (and they usually do), they will probably run.
Friday, October 27, 2006
commentary: politics and media (part 2)
Based on my post yesterday, I had an interesting conversation with Kevin last night (since he is my go-to poli sci expert).
Ironically enough, he had just spoken to one of his discussion classes about that topic yesterday, bringing up a study (don't know the reference but I'll ask Kevin to provide it in a comment) that said that negative ads are more effective in increasing citizen cynicism than getting more voters to the polls. Not surprising.
He also mentioned something about how the cynicism created (which may slightly decrease voter turnout if anything) will probably work in favor of Republicans. From my non-expert perspective, this makes sense because if you assume the same people are voting most likely for the same party they did last time, incumbents will have the advantage.
While we were on the topic, I started mulling the differences in political ads across the country (or at least on the two coasts, where I've spent roughly equal time this past year). Broken down, there are three main types of political commercials:
- Positive: extolling the Candidate-in-Question (CIQ)'s possibility to affect positive change.
-Comparative: placing the CIQ and opponent side by side and comparing their stance on key issues (only works if their stances are different and with a certain amount of bias)
-Negative: the only time the CIQ shows up is at the end saying "I approve this message;" other than that the ad is all about the opponent.
Over the summer, back in California, I noticed more of the Positive and Comparative (I don't remember any negative ads, although I'm sure there were some as well). For example: Arnold's walking forward ads (although he does have those walking backwards Angelides ones too), and the primary battle between Phil Angelides and Steve Westly (although it wasn't always a nice race, it's worlds apart from what I see here in NY).
Since I've been back in New York, however, most ads are more slanderous than those I've seen on the West Coast. The only exception I can think of are Jeanine Pirro's ads that talk about the types of people she's helped as DA (apparently she's saved women from abuse and gays from persecution, or something). But then again, she's got enough controversy without slandering her opponents (oh wait, she does that too).
Anyone else notice any trends? Any favorite/non-favorite commercials? Any more categories to add? Will this continue in the future?
Ironically enough, he had just spoken to one of his discussion classes about that topic yesterday, bringing up a study (don't know the reference but I'll ask Kevin to provide it in a comment) that said that negative ads are more effective in increasing citizen cynicism than getting more voters to the polls. Not surprising.
He also mentioned something about how the cynicism created (which may slightly decrease voter turnout if anything) will probably work in favor of Republicans. From my non-expert perspective, this makes sense because if you assume the same people are voting most likely for the same party they did last time, incumbents will have the advantage.
While we were on the topic, I started mulling the differences in political ads across the country (or at least on the two coasts, where I've spent roughly equal time this past year). Broken down, there are three main types of political commercials:
- Positive: extolling the Candidate-in-Question (CIQ)'s possibility to affect positive change.
-Comparative: placing the CIQ and opponent side by side and comparing their stance on key issues (only works if their stances are different and with a certain amount of bias)
-Negative: the only time the CIQ shows up is at the end saying "I approve this message;" other than that the ad is all about the opponent.
Over the summer, back in California, I noticed more of the Positive and Comparative (I don't remember any negative ads, although I'm sure there were some as well). For example: Arnold's walking forward ads (although he does have those walking backwards Angelides ones too), and the primary battle between Phil Angelides and Steve Westly (although it wasn't always a nice race, it's worlds apart from what I see here in NY).
Since I've been back in New York, however, most ads are more slanderous than those I've seen on the West Coast. The only exception I can think of are Jeanine Pirro's ads that talk about the types of people she's helped as DA (apparently she's saved women from abuse and gays from persecution, or something). But then again, she's got enough controversy without slandering her opponents (oh wait, she does that too).
Anyone else notice any trends? Any favorite/non-favorite commercials? Any more categories to add? Will this continue in the future?
Thursday, October 26, 2006
commentary: politics & media
So elections are coming up (again?) and my parents have (again.) "forgotten" to send my absentee ballot to me so I can vote OC style. It's not that I don't know the value of voting, but it is a pain to change my address officially the way I actually do, and OC is my home.
That said, campaign season is always interesting, especially the issues and the commercials. Oh, the commercials. Here in New York two candidates are pointing fingers saying the other is a crook (complete with mug shots and prisoner numbers). In Tennessee, they're using "Playboy" style commercials to question a candidate's moral compass (complete with racial undertones - so lowbrow). Everyone in California has seen those backwards walking commercials for Arnold (later copped by the Angelides camp).
Interestingly enough, and good thing, since it is an interesting topic, the University of Oklahoma's Political Communication Center has a Political Commercial Archive. Last updated in 2005, look here to find all your classics.
Throwing around accusations does not help you get voters. And voters that base their vote on commercials are really doing themselves a disservice. It's insane how much money goes into a political campaign these days (NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg as an example? $84 million on his reelection bid for mayor). Just because you can afford it doesn't mean you should do it.
My favorite commercial of this season, creatively and message-wise, is the AARP musical candidate commercial. One of the, if not the, largest group in the U.S. (forget in what capacity, but it is very important politically), they have taken a stance on political commercials by producing a commercial of their own.
They even have a site called dontvote.com. Two great things about this commercial: it's catchy (you don't ever see a positive political commercial these days, especially not in musical form), and it has a great message. Also on that website find the "Ask a Politician" section. You can enter you own question and their "politician" will give you the polition-approved answer. The AARP is benefitting not only their own constituents but everyone else in this country with this campaign.
Compare this to the much more high profile Vote or Die campaign launched by P.Diddy and MTV in 2004. Celebrity-studded, hip-hop soundtracked youth oriented. Just about the opposite of what the AARP is doing now. As a young person in between the two target audiences (too old for MTV and decades away from AARP), it's like looking back and looking forward, in an odd sort of way.
That said, campaign season is always interesting, especially the issues and the commercials. Oh, the commercials. Here in New York two candidates are pointing fingers saying the other is a crook (complete with mug shots and prisoner numbers). In Tennessee, they're using "Playboy" style commercials to question a candidate's moral compass (complete with racial undertones - so lowbrow). Everyone in California has seen those backwards walking commercials for Arnold (later copped by the Angelides camp).
Interestingly enough, and good thing, since it is an interesting topic, the University of Oklahoma's Political Communication Center has a Political Commercial Archive. Last updated in 2005, look here to find all your classics.
Throwing around accusations does not help you get voters. And voters that base their vote on commercials are really doing themselves a disservice. It's insane how much money goes into a political campaign these days (NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg as an example? $84 million on his reelection bid for mayor). Just because you can afford it doesn't mean you should do it.
My favorite commercial of this season, creatively and message-wise, is the AARP musical candidate commercial. One of the, if not the, largest group in the U.S. (forget in what capacity, but it is very important politically), they have taken a stance on political commercials by producing a commercial of their own.
They even have a site called dontvote.com. Two great things about this commercial: it's catchy (you don't ever see a positive political commercial these days, especially not in musical form), and it has a great message. Also on that website find the "Ask a Politician" section. You can enter you own question and their "politician" will give you the polition-approved answer. The AARP is benefitting not only their own constituents but everyone else in this country with this campaign.
Compare this to the much more high profile Vote or Die campaign launched by P.Diddy and MTV in 2004. Celebrity-studded, hip-hop soundtracked youth oriented. Just about the opposite of what the AARP is doing now. As a young person in between the two target audiences (too old for MTV and decades away from AARP), it's like looking back and looking forward, in an odd sort of way.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
commentary: education
I went to a co-ed school, didn't you? Growing up, the only same-sex schools were usually private Catholic ones, and you know how those kids always turned out (ahem).
Co-ed classes became the overwhelming norm after a rule was passed in 1975 limiting the amount of same-sex classes in public schools. Starting November 24, however, those rules will finally relax, according to an announcement from the Department of Education yesterday.
Although there are no public schools (to my knowledge, other than charter schools) that are boys-only or girls-only, a growing number of schools have begun incorporating same-sex classrooms within co-ed schools. In fact, since 1995, the number has grown from 3 schools to 240.
Some of you may remember that within the past year or so, there was a television series special documentary thingy on boys in school (if you remember please post a link or reference). It studied in depth the learning differences between boys and girls and how schools now cater more to the girls style of learning. And with the increase in hours at school and decrease of recesses, the situation for boys is only getting worse.
Could this be the solution to our nation's male-education dilemma? The National Center fo Educational Statistics estimates that girls now outperform boys in every level of school, from elementary through graduate school. 56 percent of all bachelor's degrees and 55 percent of all graduate degrees are now going to women as well. What is happening to our boys?
Of course, the relaxed regulations have caused a decent amount of controversy, especially from the ACLU, which fears that it may be a license for schools to reinstate segregation, this time by gender. Supporters of Title IX, most commonly applied to high school sports, have also expressed that this may bring schools backwards more than forwards.
Of course, some research has been done on whether students actually learn better in same sex settings, and as expected, nothing conclusive has turned up. Based on the research done on boys versus girls learning methods, I think it isn't so much the fact that their classrooms are full of kids of their own gender as it is the way each class should be taught. Right now, it's unfair for boys, who naturally have more energy, to be cooped up for hours at a time, and statistics show it is one of the causes of their poor scholarly performance. It isn't enough to just change who is in the class, but the way classes are conducted must also reflect that. Isn't that the whole point of it?
Co-ed classes became the overwhelming norm after a rule was passed in 1975 limiting the amount of same-sex classes in public schools. Starting November 24, however, those rules will finally relax, according to an announcement from the Department of Education yesterday.
Although there are no public schools (to my knowledge, other than charter schools) that are boys-only or girls-only, a growing number of schools have begun incorporating same-sex classrooms within co-ed schools. In fact, since 1995, the number has grown from 3 schools to 240.
Some of you may remember that within the past year or so, there was a television series special documentary thingy on boys in school (if you remember please post a link or reference). It studied in depth the learning differences between boys and girls and how schools now cater more to the girls style of learning. And with the increase in hours at school and decrease of recesses, the situation for boys is only getting worse.
Could this be the solution to our nation's male-education dilemma? The National Center fo Educational Statistics estimates that girls now outperform boys in every level of school, from elementary through graduate school. 56 percent of all bachelor's degrees and 55 percent of all graduate degrees are now going to women as well. What is happening to our boys?
Of course, the relaxed regulations have caused a decent amount of controversy, especially from the ACLU, which fears that it may be a license for schools to reinstate segregation, this time by gender. Supporters of Title IX, most commonly applied to high school sports, have also expressed that this may bring schools backwards more than forwards.
Of course, some research has been done on whether students actually learn better in same sex settings, and as expected, nothing conclusive has turned up. Based on the research done on boys versus girls learning methods, I think it isn't so much the fact that their classrooms are full of kids of their own gender as it is the way each class should be taught. Right now, it's unfair for boys, who naturally have more energy, to be cooped up for hours at a time, and statistics show it is one of the causes of their poor scholarly performance. It isn't enough to just change who is in the class, but the way classes are conducted must also reflect that. Isn't that the whole point of it?
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
I need a vacation
Now that I have officially passed off honeymoon planning duties to Kev, I have no excuse to stare at tropical paradises on my computer screen (except for the fact that they're pretty). With the cold creeping up more and more everyday, it's definitely going to be winter soon, and I need a vacation.
I came home at around 8:30 last night to a hissing radiator/heater thing in my room. Annoying as crap, the sound, but at least I can now walk around my apartment without being bundled up. What was I doing home so late, you ask?
In the name of journalism, as always, I was out trying new things. Masala Bhangra, a fitness/dance movement started by California-native Sarina Jain, that has inspired classes at gyms such as the New York Sports Club and Crunch, a line of fitness videos, and a show on FitTV. A hybrid aerobic workout using Indian dance-inspired moves, the classes are an hour of non-stop movement.
This high-energy workout is not for the sedentary or heavy, as it requires a lot of jumping about (I've never felt my fat jiggle so much). It was an interesting routine - easy to get the hang of but not boring at all. We started with some basic moves in a row - consistency is key. Pretty much just did the same thing over and over a few times before she added a few more moves to the end. The routine got longer and longer and the music got faster and faster.
It snowballed to the end of class - the energy got higher and higher and with each new guest at the door ("It's my mom!!!!!" "My sisterrrrrrr!") a new breath of energy hit Sarina, and it was infectious. I was tired after 10 minutes, but kept on shlepping for the sake of it.
Surprisingly, I'm not so sore today, and I guess it makes up for my yoga class being cancelled this week. Hope y'all are having fun living precariously through my adventures (sarcasm...hint hint).
Now how's about that vacation?
I came home at around 8:30 last night to a hissing radiator/heater thing in my room. Annoying as crap, the sound, but at least I can now walk around my apartment without being bundled up. What was I doing home so late, you ask?
In the name of journalism, as always, I was out trying new things. Masala Bhangra, a fitness/dance movement started by California-native Sarina Jain, that has inspired classes at gyms such as the New York Sports Club and Crunch, a line of fitness videos, and a show on FitTV. A hybrid aerobic workout using Indian dance-inspired moves, the classes are an hour of non-stop movement.
This high-energy workout is not for the sedentary or heavy, as it requires a lot of jumping about (I've never felt my fat jiggle so much). It was an interesting routine - easy to get the hang of but not boring at all. We started with some basic moves in a row - consistency is key. Pretty much just did the same thing over and over a few times before she added a few more moves to the end. The routine got longer and longer and the music got faster and faster.
It snowballed to the end of class - the energy got higher and higher and with each new guest at the door ("It's my mom!!!!!" "My sisterrrrrrr!") a new breath of energy hit Sarina, and it was infectious. I was tired after 10 minutes, but kept on shlepping for the sake of it.
Surprisingly, I'm not so sore today, and I guess it makes up for my yoga class being cancelled this week. Hope y'all are having fun living precariously through my adventures (sarcasm...hint hint).
Now how's about that vacation?
Monday, October 23, 2006
Workaday Woes
The roller coaster of life is no more apparent than when you're in school. Finals and midterms come and go and bring with them the ebb and flow of work. Graduate school, and journalism classes in particular, are representative of that trend.
Procrastination runs rampant in j-schools, partially because all journalists are that way (even though we may deny it). The truth is, nothing gets you going like a deadline. I had two such deadlines last week (two 1,500 word profiles - one for each class), and boy was it crazy. I had nearly one interview a day for the past two weeks trying to not only get these stories done, but prep for the ones coming up.
But, as always, after a big build-up, there is always a letdown. Thursday (when I have both my classes) was a big sigh of relief, and led into an extremely unproductive (at least academically) weekend. Unfortunately, I do still have things due this week (a rewrite of one of the profiles and a pitch letter for my 2,500 word final piece), and my head is just spinning.
I don't know if this happens to everyone, but I know I experienced this roller coaster long before I even got into journalism. Even in those joke EAD classes in college, where was the work load except for midterms and finals? This is different, however, since it takes a lot more time to research, interview, organize and write than it does to study a book or two. Will I ever learn to not procrastinate? I'm trying.
That said, I'm on the rebound from a weekend of wedding planning (see posts below), and need to get back in the game. Two days until my rewrite is due; three until the pitch letter.
Let's get writing, peoples!
Procrastination runs rampant in j-schools, partially because all journalists are that way (even though we may deny it). The truth is, nothing gets you going like a deadline. I had two such deadlines last week (two 1,500 word profiles - one for each class), and boy was it crazy. I had nearly one interview a day for the past two weeks trying to not only get these stories done, but prep for the ones coming up.
But, as always, after a big build-up, there is always a letdown. Thursday (when I have both my classes) was a big sigh of relief, and led into an extremely unproductive (at least academically) weekend. Unfortunately, I do still have things due this week (a rewrite of one of the profiles and a pitch letter for my 2,500 word final piece), and my head is just spinning.
I don't know if this happens to everyone, but I know I experienced this roller coaster long before I even got into journalism. Even in those joke EAD classes in college, where was the work load except for midterms and finals? This is different, however, since it takes a lot more time to research, interview, organize and write than it does to study a book or two. Will I ever learn to not procrastinate? I'm trying.
That said, I'm on the rebound from a weekend of wedding planning (see posts below), and need to get back in the game. Two days until my rewrite is due; three until the pitch letter.
Let's get writing, peoples!
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Oh, the understanding
To followup on yesterday's lovely ranting entry, I now understand how Bridezillas are made: it's in the vendor choosing process.
Just to back up a little, I spent a good 7-8 hours yesterday e-shopping around for photographers. Of course, you gotta check out their galleries - pages and pages of photos from other peoples' weddings (fyi, drew & shirley - I found yours! ha ha).
In the same way staring at supermodels turns you anorexic (sarcasm, folks, I don't really agree with that), staring at brides makes you wanna have a happy ending. Yes, in the beginning it's a little gag-me-with-a-garter, but after a few hours you become immune to that and actually start to awwwww.
Have no fear, though, I haven't crossed over the fine line yet (although my bridesmaids may beg to differ after my long e-mail yesterday). I just want to have a happy day, in person and in photos. I'm definitely not the most photogenic person, so I'd like to get a photographer to make me look gooooood on the biggest day of my life (biggest positive day of my life, at least).
So if you have any suggestions, here are my requirements: will serve south OC (no travel fees), 6-8 hours of coverage, high-res CD or negatives included, retouching. Some things I'd like to have but aren't necessary: album included, engagement photo sitting, have worked at Rancho Capistrano before. Budget: keep it low. I've got a spreadsheet of over 50 vendors so far (yes, I've actually gone through each website and marked what I think of their work), but you can never research something like this too much.
love y'all!
Just to back up a little, I spent a good 7-8 hours yesterday e-shopping around for photographers. Of course, you gotta check out their galleries - pages and pages of photos from other peoples' weddings (fyi, drew & shirley - I found yours! ha ha).
In the same way staring at supermodels turns you anorexic (sarcasm, folks, I don't really agree with that), staring at brides makes you wanna have a happy ending. Yes, in the beginning it's a little gag-me-with-a-garter, but after a few hours you become immune to that and actually start to awwwww.
Have no fear, though, I haven't crossed over the fine line yet (although my bridesmaids may beg to differ after my long e-mail yesterday). I just want to have a happy day, in person and in photos. I'm definitely not the most photogenic person, so I'd like to get a photographer to make me look gooooood on the biggest day of my life (biggest positive day of my life, at least).
So if you have any suggestions, here are my requirements: will serve south OC (no travel fees), 6-8 hours of coverage, high-res CD or negatives included, retouching. Some things I'd like to have but aren't necessary: album included, engagement photo sitting, have worked at Rancho Capistrano before. Budget: keep it low. I've got a spreadsheet of over 50 vendors so far (yes, I've actually gone through each website and marked what I think of their work), but you can never research something like this too much.
love y'all!
