I can't stop thinking about the critiques of Foucault, Baudrillard, Kierkegaard and Habermas (I had to cram their ideas into my head for the midterm, and somehow they are still there, a day later). Now I can't stop seeing things online that I hadn't noticed before. This article on the MSN homepage caught my eye: "How Tall is Michelle Obama? Will Height Influence the Presidential Election?"
The title of the article is bad enough, but then there is the article itself:
"Have you wondered how tall Michelle Obama is? One can't help wonder upon viewing Michelle and Barack Obama standing or walking together. I thought, "Either Barack Obama is short, or Michelle is tall -- or both ?" Michelle Obama may very well become the next First Lady; and maybe the tallest First Lady. The first black First Lady; yes, that's newsworthy, but how about a First Lady who's nearly six feet tall? Now THAT'S a first.
Historically, supposedly, the taller of the two final presidential candidates has always gotten the election, with the exception of FDR. John McCain is 5-9, and according to various web sites, Barack Obama stands 6-1. Some observations have him at 5-11 or barely six feet. But I'm convinced that the more accurate height is 6-1. He's definitely taller than John McCain. According to history, Barack Obama will be the next U.S. president because he's taller than McCain.
Michelle Obama is head to head with Barack, but I've never gotten a good look at what's on her feet: flats or high heels? I'm assuming heels because this would fit her style. This would make Michelle Obama's height around 5-11.
Some web sites do report Michelle Obama's height to be 5-11. Others estimate that Michelle Obama is 5-9 tall. Some estimate 5-10. Some say "nearly six feet." But I highly doubt she's under 5-9.
So let's assume that Michelle Obama is 5-11. What does this mean for her role as First Lady? Nothing, really. But if she becomes First Lady, her height WILL mean something to the scores of young women, even older women out there, who are battling depression over being tall.
Maybe a tall First Lady will set these women straight, that being very tall is NOT an obstacle to success in life, that you can be perceived as glamorous, regal and elegant, rather than freakish or huge or masculine.
Michelle Obama is 5-11. Do you think she's unattractive? "Huge?" Masculine? It's all in how a tall woman carries herself. It's time for tall women to stop feeling self-conscious, to stop slouching and being afraid to put on those sexy high heels that they dream of wearing."
It's a pretty horrible article; it would be more offensive if it wasn't so stupid. Most of all it undermines the things discussed in the critiques: reality, democracy, freedom and meaning. It addresses a problem that doesn't exist ("the scores of young women, even older women out there, who are battling depression over being tall"), distracts from anything of real importance using manipulation and fear tactics (Maybe a tall First Lady will set these women straight, that being very tall is NOT an obstacle to success in life, that you can be perceived as glamorous, regal and elegant, rather than freakish or huge or masculine), screams that consumerism is a solution (put on those sexy high heels that they dream of wearing) and never once ventures into anything more than what Obama's wife looks like, as if she is a mannequin without ideas or points of view.
At least I am reminded of the reason that Feminism is still so important.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Because you are all desperate for another blog entry about Facebook, here you go!
I was first hired to work for Provincial Health Care to help transition the change from paper files to digital files. When I showed up to work that first day I walked into was a spat between doctors and administration about file management. The doctors had been hand writing notes and assessments for eons and the thought of taking people’s private information and uploading it to the computer was considered irresponsible. Administration, meanwhile, was trying to explain that uploading this information would help in the management of the public’s health care, for example, if a person was in a car accident and ended up in the hospital, the ER docs could see what medications they were taking and make sure not to give the patient another medication that might clash. Electronic files would provide a new level of continuity of care that had previously not existed. Nothing management said could sway the doctors; the risk of information being obtained by anyone but themselves and the patient was too high, plus the doctors didn’t like the way the information was broken up into sections as it meant the receiver of the information might chose to read only one part of a file rather than having to read through the file in its entirety, leading to possible miscommunication.
It was over the years that I worked there that I noticed a shift in perspective. After using electronic files for about two or three years, some of the doctors actually asked me to help them learn to use the new system of electronic files rather than depending on me to do it for them, and they adapted to quite quickly, although they were always ultra-cautious about what information could be uploaded. It was also around this time that email became the main form of communication for the provincial government and patients were asking for email addresses rather than phone numbers as it was easier to track information this way. Patients were also using online resources more often to educate themselves about illnesses and some were even joining online support groups. Information that would have been kept from the rest of society in past years was suddenly being shared online and stigmas that would previously have been associated with certain diseases and disorders were slowing disintegrating.
At the same time societal perspective was changing as well; celebrities who had formerly been hidden away for rehab purposes started plainly stating what problem they were being rehabbed for. Billionaires admitted learning disabilities and MIT grads admitted to Aspergers. People were making millions selling memoirs about their struggles with drugs, alcohol and mental illness. The social wall that would have previously contained that information was breaking down. This was good news on some levels, bad on others; most likely this change was maybe partly due to individuals trying to educate the public about their issues, also partly due to changing media boundaries and the inability to hide certain aspects of a person’s life and lastly due to the public’s desire to know too much personal information about individuals and people using this to cash in on their own personal story. Stories about sickness and disorder sell, and sell again and again, even if the person is lucky enough to recover or unlucky enough to not recover. Think Mary Kate Olsen’s miraculous recovery from anorexia and cocaine addiction after 30 days in rehab and Anna Nicole Smith’s tragic death from overdose. It is like people got wise to Kierkegaard’s media “dog” and started turning weaknesses into strengths, a sort of “I’m-just-a-simple-mortal-seeking-answers-to-the-big-questions-just-like-you-viewers-out-there-in-TV-Land-we-all-have-problems-we-are-the-same” approach.
I think the idea that there is some personal information that previously would have only been shared with a close network of people relates well to the success of Facebook. I recently saw a friend post a scanned copy of a diagnosis from a mental health professional on his page. It wasn’t like the diagnosis was shocking or bad or anything. Most people just made funny comments and some even complimented him on his bravery. I felt conflicted about the whole thing. It is his information to share so who am I to tell him what to do with it, but at the same time it is such an affront to my own personal beliefs about what personal information is appropriate to share (and I am struggling to find out what it is that I find troubling about it - is it just a matter of simply finding it distasteful or a protective feeling that the information could be misconstrued?). How am I supposed to know if it is an act of bravery or a cheap grab at attention or a reflection of someone’s self-deprecating humour? The information has no context in the Facebook format. This is not the first time I have felt this way about what my “friends” have posted - there are some pretty incriminating photos and comments. I actually had a friend email me to delete a bunch of comments he had left because he was afraid it could affect his career.
Anyway, I guess that this is one of the flaws of information technology: when information is broken up into bits and pieces the context can get lost, leaving interpretations to be screened through the bias and prejudice of the receiver and comprehension of the issue as a whole can be lost. I guess the fear would be that this can be used to manipulate the public, as one becomes able to back an opinion or idea with portions of a story rather than a whole. Maybe Facebook is just an example of our willingness to interact with fractured, decontextualized information or our expectations of how media will deliver information even if we are the ones personally distributing it.
Please let me know if I am overcomplicating this whole thing. Midterms have made me a little bit nuts. Blargh.
It was over the years that I worked there that I noticed a shift in perspective. After using electronic files for about two or three years, some of the doctors actually asked me to help them learn to use the new system of electronic files rather than depending on me to do it for them, and they adapted to quite quickly, although they were always ultra-cautious about what information could be uploaded. It was also around this time that email became the main form of communication for the provincial government and patients were asking for email addresses rather than phone numbers as it was easier to track information this way. Patients were also using online resources more often to educate themselves about illnesses and some were even joining online support groups. Information that would have been kept from the rest of society in past years was suddenly being shared online and stigmas that would previously have been associated with certain diseases and disorders were slowing disintegrating.
At the same time societal perspective was changing as well; celebrities who had formerly been hidden away for rehab purposes started plainly stating what problem they were being rehabbed for. Billionaires admitted learning disabilities and MIT grads admitted to Aspergers. People were making millions selling memoirs about their struggles with drugs, alcohol and mental illness. The social wall that would have previously contained that information was breaking down. This was good news on some levels, bad on others; most likely this change was maybe partly due to individuals trying to educate the public about their issues, also partly due to changing media boundaries and the inability to hide certain aspects of a person’s life and lastly due to the public’s desire to know too much personal information about individuals and people using this to cash in on their own personal story. Stories about sickness and disorder sell, and sell again and again, even if the person is lucky enough to recover or unlucky enough to not recover. Think Mary Kate Olsen’s miraculous recovery from anorexia and cocaine addiction after 30 days in rehab and Anna Nicole Smith’s tragic death from overdose. It is like people got wise to Kierkegaard’s media “dog” and started turning weaknesses into strengths, a sort of “I’m-just-a-simple-mortal-seeking-answers-to-the-big-questions-just-like-you-viewers-out-there-in-TV-Land-we-all-have-problems-we-are-the-same” approach.
I think the idea that there is some personal information that previously would have only been shared with a close network of people relates well to the success of Facebook. I recently saw a friend post a scanned copy of a diagnosis from a mental health professional on his page. It wasn’t like the diagnosis was shocking or bad or anything. Most people just made funny comments and some even complimented him on his bravery. I felt conflicted about the whole thing. It is his information to share so who am I to tell him what to do with it, but at the same time it is such an affront to my own personal beliefs about what personal information is appropriate to share (and I am struggling to find out what it is that I find troubling about it - is it just a matter of simply finding it distasteful or a protective feeling that the information could be misconstrued?). How am I supposed to know if it is an act of bravery or a cheap grab at attention or a reflection of someone’s self-deprecating humour? The information has no context in the Facebook format. This is not the first time I have felt this way about what my “friends” have posted - there are some pretty incriminating photos and comments. I actually had a friend email me to delete a bunch of comments he had left because he was afraid it could affect his career.
Anyway, I guess that this is one of the flaws of information technology: when information is broken up into bits and pieces the context can get lost, leaving interpretations to be screened through the bias and prejudice of the receiver and comprehension of the issue as a whole can be lost. I guess the fear would be that this can be used to manipulate the public, as one becomes able to back an opinion or idea with portions of a story rather than a whole. Maybe Facebook is just an example of our willingness to interact with fractured, decontextualized information or our expectations of how media will deliver information even if we are the ones personally distributing it.
Please let me know if I am overcomplicating this whole thing. Midterms have made me a little bit nuts. Blargh.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Lazy Masses are Doing Schadenfreudetastic!
In Soren Kierkegaard’s “The Present Age”, he discusses that information exists solely for people’s amusement and that the tool the public uses to receive and distribute that information is the media. He describes the media as a dog that can be sicked upon a person for the fun of those watching.
I get what Kierkegaard is saying, although if he was my friend I would probably say to him, “Soren, can you not temper your distain for the public at large even a little? “Lazy masses...?” Harsh.” (Note to self - this sounds very Randian... was she influenced by Kierkegaard? (Google pause) Nope, their philosophies are VERY different, except for the lazy masses part anyway.) I think one of the important things Kierkegaard is saying is that certain information presented by the media starts to meld with less important spectacle style of information; an example being that an article on homelessness might be presented in a newspaper alongside an article about Paris Hilton flashing her down-theres while drunkenly exiting her car. I think people do confuse trivial matters with complex ones because of the way the media disperses information and in some ways the more complex issues start to follow suit and become more exploitive, dirtier and glossier - more entertaining.
Because we have become so interested in the minutia of the daily lives of celebrities, politicians and the uber-rich, and media coverage of such things has become so popular, we have attached heightened importance to the same details of our own lives. People now attach importance to their own personal information, or at least interesting, maybe even a little glamourous when polished up and displayed. People are more interesting, smarter, quirkier, more successful and prettier than you may have previously thought - especially on Facebook. I guess this is where Kierkegaard is right in some respect. Why would Facebook exist if it were not for the ability to judge people on what they have published on their assigned pages? I personally am guilty of it, as sometimes I take great pleasure in finding out that an old coworker, while successful in his or her career and family, has obviously gained fourty pounds or that a kid I went to school with is twice-divorced with six children. If they don’t have a profile picture I just assume something horrible has happened to their faces (hard drugs, badger attack, botched plastic surgery).
OK, so I guess Kierkegaard was right, he was probably referring to people just like me. It almost makes me want to shut down my own Facebook account. Unfortunately Facebook is the topic of my blog, so I guess I will have to continue to use it for academic blogging purposes (plus I just was requested friendship status from an ex-boyfriend who I haven’t seen in years, and I’m sure a quick peek around his page wouldn’t hurt anybody).
PS: Do you think that when philosophers are right about a negative aspect of society they are happy because they are right and can say I told you so or are they sad because humanity sort of sucks.
I get what Kierkegaard is saying, although if he was my friend I would probably say to him, “Soren, can you not temper your distain for the public at large even a little? “Lazy masses...?” Harsh.” (Note to self - this sounds very Randian... was she influenced by Kierkegaard? (Google pause) Nope, their philosophies are VERY different, except for the lazy masses part anyway.) I think one of the important things Kierkegaard is saying is that certain information presented by the media starts to meld with less important spectacle style of information; an example being that an article on homelessness might be presented in a newspaper alongside an article about Paris Hilton flashing her down-theres while drunkenly exiting her car. I think people do confuse trivial matters with complex ones because of the way the media disperses information and in some ways the more complex issues start to follow suit and become more exploitive, dirtier and glossier - more entertaining.
Because we have become so interested in the minutia of the daily lives of celebrities, politicians and the uber-rich, and media coverage of such things has become so popular, we have attached heightened importance to the same details of our own lives. People now attach importance to their own personal information, or at least interesting, maybe even a little glamourous when polished up and displayed. People are more interesting, smarter, quirkier, more successful and prettier than you may have previously thought - especially on Facebook. I guess this is where Kierkegaard is right in some respect. Why would Facebook exist if it were not for the ability to judge people on what they have published on their assigned pages? I personally am guilty of it, as sometimes I take great pleasure in finding out that an old coworker, while successful in his or her career and family, has obviously gained fourty pounds or that a kid I went to school with is twice-divorced with six children. If they don’t have a profile picture I just assume something horrible has happened to their faces (hard drugs, badger attack, botched plastic surgery).
OK, so I guess Kierkegaard was right, he was probably referring to people just like me. It almost makes me want to shut down my own Facebook account. Unfortunately Facebook is the topic of my blog, so I guess I will have to continue to use it for academic blogging purposes (plus I just was requested friendship status from an ex-boyfriend who I haven’t seen in years, and I’m sure a quick peek around his page wouldn’t hurt anybody).
PS: Do you think that when philosophers are right about a negative aspect of society they are happy because they are right and can say I told you so or are they sad because humanity sort of sucks.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Hello, my name is Jordan and I from Vancouver, BC. I am in the first year of the CultureNet program at Capilano University. I am taking Communications 253, Society and New Media, simply because I enjoyed the last communications course I took (it also worked out that this is a mandatory course next semester for CultureNet). I think I will like this class but I am worried about its "writing intensive" designation.
I have chosen to examine social networking sites in this blog, Facebook in particular just because I actually use it.
Here is a good 60 Minutes episode about Facebook:
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cEySyEnxvU
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CGF00VIxB8&feature=related
And I know its not Facebook, but here is Tom Anderson of MySpace on The Hour:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yWpnto-hqQ&feature=related
I have chosen to examine social networking sites in this blog, Facebook in particular just because I actually use it.
Here is a good 60 Minutes episode about Facebook:
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cEySyEnxvU
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CGF00VIxB8&feature=related
And I know its not Facebook, but here is Tom Anderson of MySpace on The Hour:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yWpnto-hqQ&feature=related
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
