You're missing the point

jealous-side-eye I’m no expert on body image or the way women are presented in media, so I’m still not sure I feel qualified to share my thoughts on the issue. Regardless, I feel the need to point out another major problem that has yet to be addressed. Almost every blog post and class discussion debated the topics of how women are portrayed in the media, how women view themselves and the way men view women through media. But I think we’re missing the point.

We can’t sit back and ask, “Why do women continue to be portrayed in this way?” without looking at where it all started and the major reason it continues. People criticize the media for sexualizing women and treating them as sexual objects; some may refuse to buy magazines or watch TV shows where women are viewed in this way. Men are often attacked for contributing their time and money to outlets facilitating the sexual image of women. We accuse them of being misogynist assholes like it’s our duty as American citizens. Companies spend millions on campaigns like Dove’s “Real Beauty” and Victoria’s Secret’s “Love Your Body” in order to promote the positive body image of females everywhere. They aim to change the negative way in which some women view themselves, possibly a side effect of the judgmental nature of media.

After all this negativity from men and the media, there’s still one person, or rather a group of people, we failed to mention. One group we simply skipped over like they weren’t an important piece of this body image puzzle. So, I must ask you, have you seen the way women view other women? I already know the answer, and it’s far from positive.

I’ll give you a current example. Bennett discusses Kate Upton’s recent zero gravity photo-shoot for the first back cover of Sports Illustrated.

“My point is that someone…spent ALOT of money and effort to photograph this woman that is presumed by some portion of the male population to be ‘fat,’” he writes. “Perhaps its a baby step (or perhaps I'm going to incessantly roasted for saying this) towards more acceptable standards for women.”

I have to disagree with this point for two reasons. First, just because some people deem Upton curvier than most women they’re used to seeing, doesn't make her unattractive to the majority of readers. She was still a huge hit when she graced the 2013 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition, and she’s certainly popular enough among readers of the magazine for them to feature her on the back cover. Second, this isn’t a step forward for the standards of women in the media. Then again, it isn’t a step backward, either. No matter how many people refuse to purchase magazines like Sports Illustrated featuring images of scantily clad women or how many positive body image campaigns big companies endorse, nothing will change if women don’t stop judging other women. For as much as we criticize men and the media for treating women as objects, women are just as guilty, if not more.

Fox Sports and the New York Daily News covered Upton’s swimsuit photo shoot, but you can scroll past the articles. They’re nowhere as interesting as the comments, and by interesting, I mean terrible. The comments section of both sites allows users to create a username, add a picture and information, or remain anonymous. Although comments are refreshed relatively often, here are my findings. Are you ready?

Not one comment by a male on either site was negatively critiquing Upton’s looks, weight or reason for modeling. All of the negative comments were from females.

Just let that sink in. Take a look at what a few women had to say.

 

post1post6post5

 

post2

post3

As a society, how can we expect anything to change if members of half of the population openly criticize each other? How can women object to men and the media objectifying women when they’re setting female celebrities, models, and even Olympic athletes on a pedestal to be judged on their appearance? All American women need to take a step back and reflect on their goals and the changes that still need to be made. They should ask themselves if they’re promoting change by their actions or stifling it by their words.

It won’t be easy. After all, not only has media dictated what size women should be in order to succeed, but it has also taught women how to judge and critique others in a sort of twisted competition. But remember, there’s no prize waiting for you at the end.

Social media, like the comments section, is a dangerous place. Users have the ability to critique every aspect of a person, often anonymously. True, women are often the victims on these platforms, being placed in an arena to be judged, but women are also common offenders. Social media has ultimately become the internet side-eye.

I’m not saying men and the media don’t objectify women, because they do. But we need to recognize the real problem before we assign scapegoats and wonder why nothing is changing. Women need to stand up and help other women, whether it’s in real life or online. That’s the only way our society may one day portray women in a different light. Simply put, women should support other women so that they are not only viewed by their positive traits, but because it’s the right thing to do. Otherwise, you’re missing the point.

"May every word that is ever spoken my our mouths or typed by our fingers be words that lift up, and never words that tear down." -Brave Girls Club

How many tweets contain racial slurs?

Following our class discussion on the Coca-Cola Superbowl commercial featuring the song "America the Beautiful" in several different languages, as well as the corresponding tweets, I read this article regarding the amount of racial slurs that occur online. A study done by Demos estimated over 10,000 tweets per day include racial slurs, and that's just in the English language. The study divided the tweets containing the racial slurs into six categories, one of them being "non-offensive"/"non-abusive." I was pleasantly surprised to learn that most of the tweets containing sensitive words fell into this category. In fact, 47.5-70 percent of the tweets studied actually fell into the categories of in-group solidarity and non-derogatory description, respectively.

This is not to say the terms used were appropriate, but they may not have been targeted at one or more races in a negative way. A large portion of the tweets were not designed to exclude a certain group, but to demonstrate the inclusiveness of one's own group.

The study doesn't discuss the number of racial slurs during or after a controversial topic comes to light. Although the use of targeted racial slurs most likely increases after an advertisement such as the Coca-Cola commercial, it is a little comforting to know some of them may not be meant in a derogatory manner. That being said, the remaining 30 percent of tweets containing racial slurs were targeted at one or more groups, demonstrating the fact that we as a people have a long way to go toward acceptance.

 

I Twitter Dare You

all-star-game-2013 Remember when you were little and your friends would dare you to do something? You might have refused at first, but if they broke out the "double dog dare," you knew you had to do it.

The closest thing to a modern day "double dog dare" is the Twitter dare, a phenomena that has yet to be thoroughly documented. If you're on Twitter, you've likely seen posts from users asking for a certain amount of retweets or favorites to perform what they call a "dare." On Tuesday, July 16, 2013, Twitter user @MasoneDylan, tweeted “1000 RTs and ill run across the field.. #ASG #CitiField" during the All-Star Game. When his tweet received over 1,000 retweets, he took off onto the field and was eventually tackled by security guards.

I have two questions. What compels followers to retweet tweets like this in the first place? And, what compels the users to follow-up on a Twitter dare? Retweets and favorites aren't real, tangible things, but they still hold a lot of power in many people's lives.

Twitter dares go both ways. Some "Twitter celebrities," people who are more famous on the site than they are in real life, may often ask their followers to complete a certain task or "dare." For some reason, I follow the often inappropriate Elijah Daniel (@aguywithnolife), and he sometimes posts tweets asking his followers to submit something in exchange for a follow or a direct message from him. One of his recent tweets asked his followers to submit photos of themselves eating butter. People are stupid, so naturally, people did. At the end of the night, he posted a collage of some of the photos he received from the users. The collage has since been deleted, but it was shocking to see what users on Twitter would do for a follow from a guy with the Twitter handle "@aguywithnolife."

Essentially, Twitter dares give users a lot of power. In one way, they provide users the ability to contribute to an action (like retweeting the baseball game tweet). On the other hand, some people can ask their followers to complete a task, and the followers will do so, no questions asked. I can't say I've never retweeted content asking for retweets to complete a dare, but I can promise I will never eat butter for a direct message from anyone.

Here's one more example of a Twitter "dare." Check out the 899 retweets.

elijah1

How BIG is Google?

We all know Google is a big deal, but just how big is it really?

Most people, myself included, use Google in some way every day. Many Americans have Gmail accounts or Android phones, and we use sites like Google and Youtube to search for information, but we’re just scratching Google’s surface. It’s so much more than a search engine or an email client. Google is transforming the world and the way we live.

The video discusses the companies Google purchased in recent years. These include Android (which has been a huge success), Youtube (the second largest search engine), Motorolla (which they used to adopt patents as well as delve into the hardware market for smartphones), Boston Dynamics (used to develop articial intelligence and some of the most advanced robots on the planet), Nest (a thermostat that learns the temperatures of your home and allows you to change them from anywhere using Google’s technology), and their most recent purchase, DeepMind (a neuroscience company that builds algorithms for learning. Although Google hasn’t released much information on their plans for DeepMind, they could potentially develop technologies for more advanced robotics, or even connect with the human brain.

In addition to the companies it has acquired, Google has also been working on its own projects. Google X is designed to improve existing technologies and develop products and programs that function more efficiently for humans. The company is also working on Project Loon, a development that would allow the rest of the world internet access through satellite balloons in the sky. Google is even developing quantum computer systems which are designed to solve more complex problems (the video mentions it could one day even solve the problem of global warming). Just days ago, Google even made their mark on the healthcare field. The company designed specialized contact lenses for diabetics that measure internal levels.

What used to be a simple search engine is now involved in almost every aspect of life. Phones, homes, social media, videos, searches, artificial intelligence, space, the HUMAN BRAIN.

Like the video, I ask, in 10 years, how much will Google own? The video concludes with this thought:

“It only can be, and it has to be, Google that advances the state of our world. There’s no other company out there that has the resources and infrastructure to do the research and develop such amazing technologies and produce products at a reasonable price for the world.”

Law & Order & Computers

landorder Let me begin this post by saying I’ve never really been a fan of Law & Order. I understand it’s one of the longest-running TV shows in America, but it never really got my attention. That didn’t stop me from clicking on an article about the use of computers on the show, and I’m certainly happy I did.

Quiz question: How many scenes in Law & Order have included computers of any kind?

I bet you didn’t guess anywhere close to the actual number…over 11,000.

A man named Jeff Thompson catalogued over 11,000 images of computers from the show, which you can access on his Tumblr page here. The first images are from Season 1, Episode 15, when a detective uses the technology to gather information on a case. Later in the series, computers become more popular and are used in day to day activities. At this point, the actors are almost always pictured with a computer when they’re working on a case.

By looking at this compilation of images, I observed two things. It’s obvious that computers have changed over the years in a big way. They aren’t as clunky and they’re far more portable now. We have individual laptops and “mini computers,” like iPhones that make it easier to communicate and breakdown information. Through the images, I also realized something else; computers are no longer an option for most people. In the first images, the detective is the person using technology to access data. By the end of the series, computers are a necessary part of everyone’s jobs. Over the years, computers have made their way into our lives, and I would argue they’re now a permanent fixture.

A rough 24 hours

The day I lost my phone: Although I missed our last class, by reading the blog posts on the rebelmouse site, I could quickly tell the discussion turned to the connections we have with our mobile phones. After scrolling through everyone’s blogs, I realized most students fell on one of two sides of this argument. Some said being disconnected from their phones was “refreshing,” while others claimed they couldn't do without them.

I thought I’d throw in my two cents on the issue and share a personal story that happened a few months ago. When Apple released iOS 7, I immediately downloaded it for my iPhone 4. Halfway through, the download stalled and my iPhone displayed this screen. After placing a few frantic phone calls to Verizon, they told me I’d have to go to the Apple store and reset my phone. But, the Apple store didn’t have an appointment at their Genius Bar until the end of the next day, and so began my 24 hours without a cell phone.

I wanted to call my mom to tell her my phone was broken. I couldn’t.

I was picking up a friend from her dorm, and I told her I’d text her when I was outside. I couldn’t do that either, so I had to go inside to get her.

I didn’t take a rain jacket to class because I didn’t know it was going to rain…because I wasn’t able to check my trusty weather app.

I was almost late to class because I couldn’t set my alarm in the morning.

I tripped on a root walking home from my evening class because I didn’t have my flashlight app.

On the way to the Apple store, I wanted to look up directions. I couldn’t.

Since I ended up getting to the Southpoint Mall store early, I wanted a pretzel. I didn’t know where the pretzel place was located in the mall because I didn’t have my phone.

And so on, and so forth…

I would have liked to believe I could go even a few hours without my phone, but it was tough. Could I do it if I had to? It would take some getting used to, but I still believe I could. But let’s just say I’d rather not.

Don't judge a person by their profile picture

Have you ever heard the phrase, "don't judge a book by its cover?" How about "don't judge a person by their Facebook?" Even though you might not have heard the second one, you've probably done it before. It’s no secret you can tell a lot about a person just from their Facebook photos; how old they are, if they have kids, who they’re dating, etc. By looking at their profile pictures or other albums, you are viewing a little piece of their life, and you can gather a lot of factual information. If they have a picture from their wedding, you know they’re married and who they’re married to.

This may seem obvious, but there’s other information viewers can gather from photos on Facebook. Many people make assumptions about a person or their character based on these photos.

“Photos seem to be the primary way we make impressions of people on social networking sites,” Brandon Van Der Heide, the author of a study on social media, said about the popular social networking site. “If your profile photo fits what they expect, observers may be unlikely to look very closely at the rest of your profile – they have already decided how they feel about you.”

In Van Der Heide’s study, students viewed Facebook profile photos and corresponding “about me” sections. They were then asked to rate how “extroverted” or “introverted” the person was. Most of the students assumed the users who had photos of themselves with others were extroverts, regardless of what the “about me” section said.

Simply put, just like in real life, people make assumptions based on what they see. As technology advances and becomes more visually focused, the less factual information is needed in order to pass judgments about users on social media sites.

A screencap from my sister's Facebook page.

A Vicious Cycle

blog post We've all been there. You pull out your phone or your laptop to look something up, and you end up opening almost all the apps on your phone instead. Maybe you answer a few emails or try to level up on Flappy Bird, or you scroll through your Facebook and Twitter feeds to catch up on what you missed in the 10 minutes since you checked them last. After a few minutes, you may put your phone back in your pocket or close your laptop without looking up what you originally wanted to know. This happens in real life, too. It's similar to walking into a room and forgetting why you were there, only to remember as soon as you leave the room.

When I first saw this image, I laughed. I've certainly been sucked into the "smartphone cycle" before, and I'd be willing to bet that most people with cell phones have experienced this as well. The distractions they present are never-ending, and it's easy to get lost doing simple tasks.

It's a little scary thinking about how much technology distracts us from reality. With all the stimuli in the form of games, social media and other apps, our brains are constantly being pulled in all different directions. As human beings, I believe it's becoming more difficult to devote our full attention to one thing at a time. When we attempt to do so, we get sucked into a "vicious cycle."

Dumb TV

When I was a student in John Robinson’s JOMC 101 course at UNC, I was asked to think of the next big thing. My group came up with the idea of TV shopping. No, not the shopping network, but actually shopping on the TV. This innovation would offer TV viewers the opportunity to purchase items that they saw on their favorite pre-recorded programs. If you liked a dress you saw Julie Bowen's character wearing on Modern Family, you would simply click on the dress and be taken to a purchase screen (similar to Google shopping). Since this shopping program would require internet access, it would only be available on Smart TVs. At the time, I thought this was a pretty grand innovation. Smart TVs seemed to be taking off, so why not add another element to them? A year and a half later, and I’m not sure this is the next best thing.

When the idea for "Smart TV" was first conceived, it seemed to be one of the best fusions of modern technology. Essentially, these TVs combine cable and internet to save viewers money and time; Smart TV owners can watch their favorite shows while searching the web. The technology also supports apps, similar to an iPhone, like Netflix, Twitter, etc. In theory, these TVs are a brilliant idea. There are, however, many critiques regarding the "complicated user interface" and the "slow download time."

Regardless of these points, most critics fail to mention the most important factor as to what makes Smart TVs...not smart. The Smart TV platform would have been a more successful venture if it had been unveiled years ago. With cable consumption declining daily, users aren't watching programs on their TVs anymore. If they aren't using their TVs to watch television, then Smart TVs are essentially pointless. Users shouldn't spend their money on something that will likely be phased out in the next ten years. Odds are, it will become a "dumb TV" sooner than you think.

 

You better #beliebe it

Before this morning, I couldn't imagine ever using the hashtag #beliebe. But here I am, blogging about Justin Bieber's arrest for a class at UNC. If it's still possible you haven't heard about it, I'll provide a summary of the situation. Around 4:00 AM Thursday morning, Justin Bieber was pulled over by Miami Beach police and arrested for drunk driving and resisting arrest. The fact the 19-year-old was arrested may come as little surprise to many, but the way people found out was especially interesting and indicates a trend in how the world now gathers (and analyzes) information.

Since most Americans weren't awake at this hour, they likely discovered what happened via social media this morning. I follow several news organizations on Twitter, most of which were littered with stories regarding Justin Bieber's illegal activities. Still, this isn't how I found out about the incident and I would argue that many people are in the same boat.

At approximately 10:52 AM, I logged into Twitter before class began at 11:00 AM. This was the first photo that popped up on my feed:

OITNB

 

Justin Bieber's face photo-shopped onto a poster for "Orange is the New Black," a popular Netflix series, isn't much, but it was enough to tell me something had happened. So, I scrolled down my feed. Two tweets later, this photo:

Betjrv6IIAA8KAZ

 

These two photos are in no way considered "newsworthy" content. But it was information, and I was receiving it. So I scrolled, and then I saw it. A friend had retweeted a tweet from the Twitter handle @BiebersDUI.

JB2jB

 

And just like that, I found out Justin Bieber was arrested. Of course, I didn't know all the details (that I would then frantically google) but I knew enough without seeing any official information. The story I saw was told through user-generated content on a popular social media website, and didn't involve paparazzi or news organizations.

Kevin Fallon, a writer for The Daily Beast said, "Typically a star’s journey to rock bottom plays out for all of us years later in a 20/20 segment or E! True Hollywood Story pieced together after the fact. But now we’re watching every gritty detail of the episode unfold in real time."

Not only that, but users are the ones telling the story. After all, I heard about his arrest through the bio of a parody Twitter handle. If that's not revolutionary (and weird), I don't know what is. As for the future of information content, I don't see user-generated content disappearing in the next few years. In fact, it will likely become even more popular; we as users like to share things we find interesting, and Bieber's arrest is a prime example of that. If you're wondering about the future of mass communication and if user-generated content will be the "next big thing," I've only got one thing to say.

You better #beliebe it.