Visual Literacy

Part of my Junior theme dealt with the term "Visual Literacy". It's a lot like what Fallows, Finitzo, and Tragos were talking about on American Studies day. According to Wikipedia, visual literacy is "the ability to interpret, negotiate, and make meaning from information presented in the form of an image. Visual literacy is based on the idea that pictures can be “read” and that meaning can be communicated through a process of reading". For me, this applied to my JT because if photographs can be "read," what kind of restrictions should be put on them? Should they be censored in the same way a written work would be?

One of my interviewees, and a good friend of Mr. Tragos', has an excellent blog aimed at increasing visual literacy: nocaptionneeded.com. Please check it out, it's a great site that was founded after the publication of his book by the same title.

We already know that, for the most part, humans accept and retain knowledge best when presented visually. To interpret photographs critically is certainly much harder, but is also necessary. Thousands of photographs flood AP Images everyday, and we see many of them on TV or online, but it would take so much longer to analyze them that we often neglect them for quick headlines.

Take Nick Ut's iconic image, for example.  I could write an essay three times the length of my JT just on this grainy image. But for a quick "see-think-wonder," consider this: Ut was criticized for taking a photograph of a naked girl whose village was napalmed. But he helped the girl to a hospital, aiding the American soldier also pictured. This photo taken out of context could be so many things: An argument for the innocence of children to be censored from the mainstream media, arguments against pure pain, a suggestion that American soldiers really weren't doing anything in Vietnam (they look like they're ignoring the children).

If we were to really analyze the photographs that we see on the news, it would consume a lot of our time. But perhaps we might become more aware of what we saw and the bias of the photographer.

Since when is softball bad?

The Wall Street Journal recently published a photograph of Elena Kagan, Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, at age 17 playing softball.

The photograph is above. GLAAD (and SheWired.com) claim that the Wall Street Journal is suggesting that Kagan is a lesbian.

My dad and I had a conversation about this. He thinks that it's perfectly fine, maybe because when he grew up, guys would play softball. SheWired claims that "All women who play softball are lesbians. I happen to believe that sometimes the stereotypes fit". I think that it's inappropriate because it seems to suggest that she's immature, as softball is typically played by younger girls, and not played after high school.

But consider other photographs that other newspapers, like Chicago's very own Sun Times ran:

Perfect, right? Obama looking down at Kagan, approving, while Biden smiles and claps next to him. Very professional, and a good journalistic summary of what the situation was.

So why didn't the Wall Street Journal run this photograph?


Some think that it was blown completely out of proportion by GLAAD, and I agree. I don't think a claim can be made about her sexuality from the photograph, but I do think it was a poor choice, especially when there were other options.  The fact that she's playing softball highlights the fact that she's a woman, as softball is often considered the female version of baseball.

So what do you think? Was the Wall Street Journal wrong to have chosen this image?

Tokenism is Everywhere

Mr. Bolos argues that TV tokenism is prevalent in network dramas. But I think they apply to pretty much every non-reality TV show. Honestly, I think it is appropriate for a show to attempt to include people of color, but it's a little ridiculous that most shows feature white main characters with the buddy racial friend.

Consider the cast of Glee. For those unfamiliar, I got this photo from TVAddict.com. Honestly, I'm embarassed to watch the show even occasionally, but I mention it because its such a great example of Tokenism. Clockwise from upper right, it goes: Stereotypical white male dumb jock, loud Jewish girl, gay guy, popular white girl, popular Jewish boy, black overweight girl, boy in a wheel chair, and Asian wannabe-goth. The show aims to ridicule school stereotypes, but I feel like it promotes them: white kids date other white kids, and those with disabilities (Arnie) date those of color (Asian Tina).


There are other cast members not included--dumb blond cheerleader, Hispanic cheerleader, Asian male dancer, and another Asian guy. This gives a pretty reasonable representation though. And note how the white characters are in the most prominent position--the top and right.

One of my favorite lines from the show is something along the lines of gay boy and black girl saying, "she's black and I'm gay. We are culture." Is that appropriate for a show (on Fox) to say, even if it is a comedy?

The places you could go

It's about this time of year that I have a strange urge to drop everything and run away. I'm not talking about running away from home, but rather going anywhere, doing anything. Sunshine has a strange effect on me, especially when it filters through ferns or trees in my backyard, and when the wind blows through the leaves. It's not that spring coming to the North Shore isn't beautiful--it is-- rather, I would give anything to pack up my bags and get on a plane to someplace far away.

I started traveling when I was very young. I went to Paris, Nice, Avignon and Monaco at the age of six, when my kindergartner peers were first venturing out of state. I am the youngest of four, with three older brothers. My grandparents on my Mom's side traveled the globe--they went to Russia a few months after it was opened to Americans, Iran and Iraq before a hint of war, Indonesia where my great-aunt worked for the American Government as a member of the State Department. They were the sort of couple whose passports were renewed every few years--not because of expiration, but because they were filled up too quickly with stamps from foreign countries.

It seems that I have inherited this from them, even though genetics are out of the question (my mom was adopted). When I think about the two of them, I think of photographs of them on the Navajo reservation, standing at the Four Corners, or sitting cross legged on a pillow in Eastern Asia. It seems that the aged widower who looks at photographs of a younger man with his wife exists more solidly in photographs--perhaps another thing I have inherited from them, a visual memory like albums of photographs stacked to infinity.

Achieving the title of World Traveler is not easily done, and it certainly requires a strong financial security. But almost more importantly, to me, at least, is an open mindedness that begins at a young age. My memory includes German castles practically hidden by neglect, with rain soaked greenery. When I think of Italy, I think of driving through vineyards in Verona and enlisting a waiter to describe the dessert menu through interpretive dance.

Though I may have been too young to truly understand what I was seeing (Vienna without knowing a thing about World War 1, or Rome before knowing of the Ancient Romans), it has provided a backdrop for me of who I am, a treasure-trove of memories, and a beginner's knowledge of how the world works, and a mind left wide open when seeing things for the first time. But perhaps more importantly, my experiences have made me want to explore every inch of the Earth, and to revisit my memories of Central American rainforests and Italian piazzas.

Junior Theme 3

So I haven't been keeping up with my blogging, seeing as my junior theme is due monday. But as I was writing it, I thought of something interesting. Here's a quote from my paper:
Unlike fleeting television, where an image is played perhaps once per hour at most, internet users are in more control of what they see and how often they can see it. One can zoom in on images online, whereas with television, the network producers decide if they want to do a close-up. Also unlike television, photographs online are less likely to have been “fuzzed up” or distorted, because the discretion falls on the viewer (NPR 4-2004). Because there are more options for news seekers in modern day, visual literacy has expanded to a degree that was impossible during the Vietnam War.
Where do you get your news? The radio, TV, Perez Hilton? Do you consider yourself to be news-literate?

Junior Theme 2

Alright, so I am not DPark, so I don't have 3 interviews. I have, however, interviewed Robert Hariman, the chair of Communications at Northwestern. He was very insightful, and gave me some great ideas on how to reposition my paper. He suggested that I focus on the way in which photographs can help us align our moral compass. He linked to his blog, nocaptionneeded.com, which seemed exactly like what I was writing my paper on. Hariman also has a book by the same title.

Most interestingly, Hariman argued that the Iwo Jima photograph is so compelling because

 "the short answer is the composition.  Not also that it is not a “war fighting” image: they are not shooting, etc, but rather a flag raising, which also can be a civilian ceremony.  Thus, it can easily serve as a metaphor for citizen action, commitment to the war effort, and the like." 

I found this very interesting, because although I recognized that there was no actual fighting going on in the photograph, I didn't realize that it was so "civilian."

In addition to that interview, I am also speaking with Professor McNulty, who teaches at Medill, NU's school of Journalism (widely considered the one of best in the country). I expect that he will email me back sometime this weekend.

My focus will be on ethics,  (of sending photographers into a dangerous climate, and then taking photos of other peoples pain), technology (how in Vietnam, you saw the soldier's faces shot with 35 mm film, but now soldiers have more equipment and masks), and mobilization (how photos can affect people to act).
 I have a few really great sources, including a TED talk by one of the co-founders of Getty images Jonathan Klein (thanks Gooms).

Junior Theme

It's fourth quarter, which means its junior theme season in O'BoC's AiS class. After much confusion and frantic ramblings, I have decided on the topic of the ethics of war photography. My question concerns why Americans summarize a war with a single photograph. Probably the most iconic photograph in America is Flag Raising on Mt. Suribachi, by Joe Rosenthal (to the right, source). Why is this? Is it because something about this photo is so, purely, American? The flag is unfurling, surrounded by a halo-like lightness, with 6 Marines in various stages of planting it, one forever reaching to hold it (on the far left).

Not all war photographs are as beautiful as Rosenthal's. Nick Ut, a Vietnam photographer, took the disturbing photgraph of a recently napalmed girl running naked down a street in Vietnam, suffering from burns. Many have criticized photographers of standing by during a catastrophe, and some wonder if it is ethical to bear witness to pain of a caliber this high. But others say, if this photo were to raise awareness of the atrocities in Vietnam, is it not justified? And what all was there for the photographer to do?

Obviously, war is still a prevalent issue. In my paper, I am also discussing the horrifying pictures taken at Abu Ghraib, a US prison camp detaining Iraqis. There are several photographs that one associates with Abu Ghraib, as one associates more than one image to Vietnam or Gitmo. I am planning on using the widely known photo at right of a prisoner, hooded, who is connected to wires, presumably being shocked. This photo brings to mind the KKK in reverse, a black hooded figure, with arms outstretched in a Crucifixion manner.

Money --> Advertising

In class, when we read the facts and figures of companies who advertise, we see a number. This number is typically shocking--somewhere in the millions and billions. 800 million to cereal brands, a few hundred million more for McD's--whatever.  Can you truly measure the effort of advertising with money?

The article we read, the "Searching for the Why of Buy," is, in my opinion, a better "taste" of how far you need to go in advertising. Not necessarily spending money on advertising/PR firms, but what works best. Money can only get you so far, and it shouldn't be the last thing we look at when we examine the effects of a consumer society-- we need to see the prevalence of these methods, not just their price tag.

I personally find it frightening that advertising has gone so far that it actually takes up enough of our brain that we know corporate logos and slogans--thousands of them.

Time Magazine released an interesting article last November entitled "Shoptimism". The article is an interview with a former top-man at both Land's End (clothing company) and Esquire magazine. In the interview, Eisenberg explains the two different types of "buyers":

The classic buyer who tries to buy only things that he or she needs, who thinks about it rationally, who compares prices. The romantic buyer shops with his or her heart. The romantic may buy something because it is trendy or it has a really cool design or because he or she is feeling blue and needs a pick-me-up.

Which buyer are you? How has this changed as a result of the recession? Perhaps most interesting is the romantic buyer, for whom buying something actually affects their mood. Is this making buying something like a drug?

A little less than a year ago, the New York Times published a similar article, entitled "Message in What We Buy, but Nobody's Listening". Please check it out. In my view, the most interesting passage is when Dr. Miller explains how we subconsciously interpret signs of wealth, like this example: 

 Suppose, during a date, you casually say, “The sugar maples in Harvard Yard were so beautiful every fall term.” Here’s what you’re signaling, as translated by Dr. Miller:

“My S.A.T. scores were sufficiently high (roughly 720 out of 800) that I could get admitted, so my I.Q. is above 135, and I had sufficient conscientiousness, emotional stability and intellectual openness to pass my classes. Plus, I can recognize a tree.”

 

"Hip hop is Dead"

In 2006, rapper Nas released an album called "Hip Hop is Dead". In the song named after the album, Nas has a few points that especially pertain to our class discussions of advertisement, particularly in art. Here are a few portions that I think are relevant:

What influenced my raps? Stick ups and killings
Kidnappings, project buildings, drug dealings
Criticize that, why is that?
Cuz Nas rap is compared to legitimized crap
Cuz we love to talk on a** we gettin'
Most intellectuals will only half listen...

Everybody sound the same, commercialize the game
Reminiscin' when it wasn't all business
If it got where it started
So we all gather here for the dearly departed

From "Beat Street" to commercials on Mickey D's
From gold cables to Jacobs
From plain facials to Botox and face lifts

For the rest of the lyrics, click here, my source.

When you listen to hip hop or rap today, what do you hear in the lyrics? Like Nas says, most rap is "legitimized crap," just a 3 or 4 minute report on cars, prostitutes, and jewelry, a far cry from low-income and sometimes gang related raps that started the hip-hop movement in the 70s.

In class, we read an article about how art has become advertising and advertising has become art. Music, a form a of art, is absolutely a reflection of that. I'm not saying that all music is all advertising. But I do think that a lot of over commercialized pop and hip hop music is focused around materialism. Does this mean that America is materialistic, if some of our most popular (but maybe not artistic) music is?

Why don't we know this?

A few weeks ago, we discussed Native Americans. Mr. O'Connor mentioned that he could only name a couple dozen or so tribes. I myself was stuck after the first 15 or so. It seems like a sporcle quiz: how many can you get?

I checked on Sporcle if there was, in fact, such a quiz. I could only find quizzes such as "can you name the most populous Native American tribes?" To be honest, I'm almost relieved that there wasn't a quiz asking for all 564 nations to be named. I'm certain that no one would be able to do even passably well, unless they were a scholar of Native American history.

I remember being in Arizona (where my family goes at least once or twice a year, to Scottsdale) and reading a book by Tony Hillerman about how there was a Navajo word for white people, but no word for a Native American who was not a member of their tribe (in other words, no name for the race of Native Americans). I thought it was strange, at the time, but I guess it makes more sense.

In the book the Shadow Catcher, a part fiction/part biography of Edward Curtis (a photographer known for his dishonest portraits of Native Americans), the author mentions how strange it is that so many car companies and models are named after Native American tribes. Think about it--Pontiac, Tahoe, Navajo, Comanche, Cheyenne, etc.

Is it ethical to portray Native Americans as something wild, something you need a Jeep to traverse? And why don't we know more about these people?

Teaching Art

There was a time, a few hundred years ago, when being wealthy meant that you were smart, because you were well educated. For women, this education included the fundamentals of art: knowing how to draw and paint, especially. The poorer folk certainly wouldn't have time to spend painting or sketching, so it seems logical that only the rich could engage in that luxury.

Now, however, it seems that the concept of an artist has morphed into an image of a starving Parisian who can barely make a living, but is somehow a creative genius at the same time.

Is art a science, something that can be taught? Pull the brush across the paper this way, and you're good? Can you buy intelligence?

Names can really... not change anything?

Okay, so we've all been to NAMES, all heard their spiel. But does it work, knowing that your classmate's are going through a hard time? I mean, you gain an appreciation for Plato's quote, "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a harder battle." But a lot of students, after walking out of the Corndog, feel like the sense of camaraderie from the auditorium when we sat and listened to people's stories disappeared within a few days.

Bullying at New Trier is hard to put a finger on. I don't think I can recall a single moment when I've walked through the halls and seen someone be "bullied," though the term connotes both physical and mental bullying.

It's been repeated a thousand times, and I almost hate to say it again, but I feel like there is a huge gap between the sexes when it comes to fighting with each other. I do not expect to ever see a girl punch another girl in all seriousness, though I know its certainly possible and has definitely happened.  Girls, in my experience, go for the more passive approach. ERIC Digests mention a study that supports this, saying girls are more likely to "spread rumors" and "enforce social isolation."

This was especially true in middle school, and even freshman year. Cliques abounded. At the East Campus, there are certainly cliques, but with such a multitude of students and classes, its hard to find a definite, secular clique with members not a part of other groups of friends. Are cliques a form of bullying?

As a New Trier student, what do you define as bullying? Did the Names program make you feel any different towards your peers?

One Question

Before the end of today, what would you wish to happen?

I was on YouTube one night, slacking off, when I came across this video. Benjamin Reece took his video equipment and asked 50 people in New Orleans what they wished to happen by the end of the day. Some of the answers seem typical-- a million dollars, all their work to magically disappear, etc. (The answers start coming in around 2:30 in to the video). So what you would say?

Some of the people wished for political change, some for love. At first, I was carried away by the simplicity of some people's responses--someone to join them in a cigar store, smoking a cigar; simple things like having the day end well because its been a good so far. But then I realize, that as nice as it is to think about these things, most of these wishes ("a norwegian model team," "a million dollars," "marriage," "my son back") can't happen. Its sad, how some people have such attainable goals but others just don't. I'm not saying attainable goals are bad--in fact, it amazes me how happy some of the people are considering what they've been through, with the aftermath of Katrina and all.

As people spin away at the end, saying thanks, or goodbye, one can't help but wonder what they are thinking about.

They repeated the same idea in New York City. If you have time, see how the videos compare.


So-- what would you wish for? Something attainable... or not?

Reparations for a New Life

I am a huge fan of the TV show House, M.D. For those unfamiliar with the show, House's friend Wilson is an oncologist--a doctor who studies and concerns himself with cancer patients. In one of the most intriguing episodes, Wilson is meeting with a patient in his office, and tells him what seems like it would be wonderful news-- the man actually doesn't have cancer! Wilson was wrong, but isn't this great? The man gets very upset, saying that he just had a going away party at work (after quitting, thinking he only had 3 months left to live), just finished divorcing his wife (whom he still loved, but wanted to save from having to deal with the difficulties of widow-hood) and had sold his house.

How do you give reparations when you have smashed someone's life? Is telling someone that they don't have cancer something bad, or is it the patient's fault for not being happy he has a long life ahead of him?

And most importantly, perhaps, how would you react, if you were the patient?

Homeless dolls?

Recently, the American Girl company (owned by Mattel, the makers of Barbie) came out with a new doll named "Gwen Thompson".  Gwen looks like all the other American Girl dolls, and also comes with books about her "life".  But this Gwen did not grow up in an interesting time period--she's the limited edition doll for 2010. And she's homeless.

New York Post has an  article that bashes this idea, saying that this tells young girls that "men are bad. Fathers abandon women without cause. She's also telling me that women are helpless. And that children in this great country, where dolls sell for nearly 100 bucks a pop, are allowed to sleep in motor vehicles. But mothers don't lose custody over this injustice. Because, you see, they are victims, too"

So is this a bad sign, that middle-class America is willing to pay $95 for a homeless doll?

CBS news thinks not. In their article, they cite many mothers shopping for their daughters who are glad that some awareness is being raised.

Shockingly, though, profits from this doll will not be going to help homeless people. However, the company has given half a million dollars to HomeAid, a non profit group that helps the homeless find housing.

So who are these dolls being sold to? Both articles discussed this, saying that the dolls are directed at young girls, around the age of 8. But Gwen is undoubtedly too expensive for a homeless child, so she would be sold to children whose parents can afford Gwen, most likely those in the middle-class.

Is it right to have a homeless doll? The American Girl company has multi-racial dolls, and previously, only one who truly suffered financially (the one from the Great Depression). What do you think?

S******* and the power of words

We have already discussed in depth the n-word in class, and whether or not Huck is aware of the implications of the word, as a child. This very much reminded me of a point I remember reading in Inherit the Wind, where they discuss how one of the lawyers managed to convince a jury that swears on a written page only have as much power as you give them.

Of course, Huck knows that the n-word has negative connotations, but Huck Finn aside-- is swearing, in and of itself, necessarily a bad thing?

For instance, if you were learning another language and you came across a "bad word," let's say, for instance, "merde" in French, and you didn't know what it meant, does the word have any "power"?

If you are swearing, written or spoken, one would assume you knew of its consequences.But when I was little, and was the youngest of the family, I would often accidentally swear as a result of watching the Simpsons or even just listening to my mom sewing (she pricked her finger a lot), because I learned these words and something in the way my family reacted to them told me they were "bad". I was immediately attracted to them, so in kindergarten I happened to quote the word "s**t" to a fellow classmate, who ran off and told the teacher. I was embarrassed, but I had no notion of how bad of a word this one was, or why I shouldn't use it.

So how do we resolve kids not swearing? Should we teach them that some words are "bad"? What are the implications of having bad words and good words?


Also, an interesting quote from Inherit the Wind Henry Drummond: "I don't swear just for the hell of it. Language is a poor enough means of communication. I think we should all the words we've got. Besides, there are damn few words that anybody understands."

Onslaught of a Different Nature

My camp sends out newsletters, and I remembered (while doing my previous post, Onslaught) about one statistic concerning children/advertising.
No Child Left Inside, an organization that promotes and lobbys for additions of outside-of-the-classroom curriculum such as sciences and social studies, reports that "a study found that young people could identify 1000 corporate logos but fewer than 10 plants or animals native to their backyards.” I couldn't find the exact details on the study, other than a short video from the NCLI coalition, but here's a chance to think for yourself.

Can you name 10 plants or animals native to the North Shore? This excludes all the plants your mom or dad might have put in the garden. I myself can only name a couple, and they are pretty lame at that (black squirrels, and all the streets in Winnetka named after trees).

Next, try taking these two quizzes ( 1 and 2 ) on sporcle.com
What did you score? Granted, there are not 1000 corporate logos-- in fact, there are only 72.

If you scored in any way similar to me, you would have done pretty well on the corporate logos part and pretty bad on the 10 plants and animals part. Huck Finn, however, would excel in the opposite way, of course.

So does this say anything about America today, versus what it was in Huck's time? Of course, there were no "corporate logos" in Huck's time, in fact, corporations were hardly in existance. But what is more important-- knowing logos, or knowing things about nature? Which are you going to use more?

Onslaught

Ellie (Pearls) posted a blog with an embedded video from a Dove commercial, as her blog was about advertising. I knew of another video from Dove, called "Onslaught" that argues that girls (note the usage of young children/innocence in the video) are exposed to too much advertising that will make them lower their self-esteem; advertisements that have beautiful, skinny, tanned, etc. women.  Check out the video, its just over a minute long.

Do you think that the advertisements shown in the video are a realistic represenation of advertisements that young girls/children would see on a daily basis?

Dove is clearly arguing that this is a problem. But if you worked for one of the ad agencies that produced such advertisements, do you think you would see this as a good or bad thing that there is so much exposure, regardless of how old the audience is that sees your advertisements?

Kiddie books

I vividly remember my 5th grade class when my teacher, a very open-minded and "awesome teacher" told us to bring in our favorite book from our childhood for reading time the next day. Everyone was shocked, and said that they weren't "real" books. It was at that point, that pivotal point, that we began to realize our childhood wasn't all silly games that unintenionally guided us.

A few years later, while at the Book Stall with my mom, she picked up the Little Prince and announced I had to read it. Skeptical, again in fear that its immaturity would be a nuisance and that it wouldn't have any "value" to me, I didn't read it for another few months. But when I finally picked it up, and started reading, I realized this was no ordinary childrens book.

For those of you who have read the Little Prince, or perhaps the original French version, Le Petit Prince, you would know that the Little Prince has a wild adventure that takes him to Earth, from  his home-asteroid. Along the way, the Little Prince (he remains nameless) encounters a drunkard, a king, a man who spends his life counting stars, and a man who wants to create a map of his asteroid, but who doesn't want to actually explore. I was shocked at how deep the book was, and speculated if children would be able to grasp any of these concepts-- the drunk who drinks to forget he's drunk, or the irony of a map maker who doesn't move from his desk on his lonely asteroid.

Not having the machinery/technology to go back in time and quiz myself, I wonder-- what major social problems can children understand? Many of these problems are complex, especially the realm of politics, but in a child's mind things can be simpler. Maybe children understand that book better than I did.

What will you remember? (another part of the "new year" blog)

Yesterday in class we had a discussion about "herstory." Almost exclusively, history has been written by and about men, because women were not equal and for the most part were not considered to have an important role in history. It is my opinion that in the further past, in almost ancient times, women really did not have a very important role in wars, major political issues, or other events defined by history. However, I think that the woman's view of history is always important, especially if her life is restricted to domesticity. I think that the true effects of a war are not seen on the battlefront, rather they are seen in a home, in civilian life.

America is currently at war, but because it is so far away, its an easy fact to forget if you aren't very close to someone off fighting, or if you don't often read the news on a daily basis. So in the future, when this war has ended, will you remember the battlefronts-- the bombers and terrorists, and things half way across the world, or will you remember what daily life? And which is more important-- something that effects very closely the minority, that is to say, those fighting, or its effects on the majority, safe and sound at home?

What's wrong with Princesses?

It seems as if all popular Disney movies have royalty, and for the female audience, princesses. I for one adored their perfect hair, dresses, and jewelry when I was a little girl. I "grew out of it" eventually, mostly when my older brothers told me they were going to play legos and if I wanted to join them no princesses were allowed. So it seems strange now, when I babysit an adorable 5 year old girl down the block, to read to her stories of princesses locked away in towers, or princesses who stick their noses up at everything and who are spoiled rotten brats. And of course, there are the stories of pretty princesses who land the perfect guy, but those never seem to interest her. So, what's wrong with this?

Technically, nothing, as long as we grow out of the idea that one day someone will show up at our house and declare that they've been looking for us, and that I'm actually a princess. (Princess Diaries). But an article I read in my English class last year discusses whether or not acting as a princess is feminist or not (page 2).

Not every little girl can be a princess, and I think this is where the problem lies. To have a princess means to also have peasantry, or at least classes below her. And do we really want to instill such a class structure on our future generations? Its a wonderful marketing device-- telling girls they are princesses will make them nag their parents even more for the many products out there--dresses, tiaras, jewelry, dolls, doll accessories, you name it.
So what if they don't grow out of this princess mind-set? Girls-- did you think of yourself as a princess when you were little? And guys, was there any equivalent in the boy world? 

Retrospective New Year

It's the new year! For us students, this means we get a vacation, with finals looming almost as soon as school restarts. So we bring in the new year happily, and cheerfully procrastinate studying for another week or two. Because the new year is basically in the middle of our school year, I feel as though its another excuse for vacation, which I don't object to at all, but is hardly anything more than another "holiday" to add to the season. But for us, I feel as if we aren't able to "start over" like most other people out of school. We go back to where we left off in school, and resolutions typically don't last longer than a month or two.
But this year is different. It's twenty-ten-- a new decade. When the last decade started, we were 7 or 8-- old enough to remember the excitement, but too young to really acknowledge such a passage. Looking back, I realize this has been a huge decade for me, and the rest of my classmates. We have witnessed 9/11, new technological advances, the election of Barack Obama, Harry Potter movies, and literally countless other demarkations and milestones. So, what will you remember?

 Sarah Goomar also has a really interesting blog about naming the decade, check it out here
Wikipedia has a few examples of names that are being tossed around (the same link Gooms has)