Response: Media Violence in Cartoons

You can find the original post here: http://ekhoy.blogspot.com/2011/03/media-violence-in-cartoons-yesterday-my.html

Hi Elona –

I feel this is a very interesting post for many reasons, but the one I’d like to focus on is an issue you brought to light in a roundabout way.

Where are the parents?

Like Josh, I don’t believe Eminem needs to censor his lyrics – and if he is being looked up to by a bunch of 8 year olds, he isn’t at fault. His music all clearly comes with warning labels, people who sell it are instructed to ask for photo ID for purchase to prove the person is old enough to buy it (although I don’t believe enough of them do), but even if the album makes it home, are parents so uninvolved that they aren’t aware that it is there? My parents knew what music I bought and we talked about stuff they found concerning (I remember when I was in grade 7 I wanted the Alanis Morrisette album so bad, and my parents wouldn’t let me get it until we talked about its content, and they wanted to listen to it all first before they decided if I was allowed to keep it). And my parents were really liberal and gave my brother and I a lot of space to figure ourselves out.

I spent 4 years working in the electronics department of a Zellers store, and the thing I found most concerning were the parents that didn’t seem care. I had a kid come in (I’m guessing maybe 7 years old) and he picked up the Marshall Mathers LP and brought it to my desk to check out. I informed him that he needed to be 16 to buy it, and he would need to come back with a parent to purchase it. He came back with his Mom and I explained the content of the album to her (violence, sex and all), and she just said “Well, whatever – he wants it.” This is one of MANY cases of parents not heeding the warning about content.

Eminem's album is meant for people who are old enough to get the nuance of the lyrics – those people are not 9 year olds. You are right – they are more trusting at that age and are more likely to take things at face value. They don’t get that it is a story and not fact. And as you get older, you make a choice! You either listen to it and get the nuance, the story, and what he is really talking about, or you don’t enjoy it and you listen to something else.

Media is not the babysitter, and parents should be involved in helping children make appropriate choices about what they watch and listen to. Just because little Timmy wants it, doesn’t mean it is the right time for him to have it. And if you think he is going to hear it or get it somewhere else, then the parents should talk about it. The same goes for cartoon violence – if you as the parent (or in this case cousin) find the content concerning, then talk to your cousin about it. Have him explain to you what he saw and how it makes him feel, and then talk about make believe, and violence and hitting and why it may happen in a cartoon but why we don’t do that in real life. Kids are smart enough to understand it, but we as the adults have take the time to help them put it all into context.

Cheers,
Leah

Response to “Violence is Never the Answer”

For the original post – please see her:

http://thegodingoodgrief.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/violence-is-never-the-answer/

Oh, PB – what a meaty post. You are very spot on – bullying is a complex thing to work through. And how can we handle it if we do not teach students to stand up to the bully?

But, like Gandhi (and the experts) suggesting that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, I would suggest, humbly, that maybe standing up to the bully in a violent way will only beget more violence. It is a vicious cycle we see on the playgrounds today – everyone is looking to establish their place in the pecking order, and no one wants to be on the bottom. Bullies, experts have suggested, do not bully from a place of power –they bully from a place of insecurity as they try to establish firm footing for themselves. Their fear is being overpowered by another.

Now does this mean I believe students should stand idly by while this happens and accept it as a natural fact? No – not at all. For the 16 year old who stood up to the bully but had apparently been tormented for quite some time, I would ask – why didn’t anyone notice? Not just teachers (because as you suggested “ratting” someone out often just leads to more pain in the end) but other students – it should be more than just one lone student stepping in.

I think when it comes to bullying, it needs to be established by other students that this is not acceptable to the group – “We as students stand together and say – not here! This is a safe space for all of us!” This message I do believe comes from the parents and teachers – let us give students the tools and knowledge to see and respect each other as peers – and respect and cherish the things that make each of us unique. If we can do something like this, then maybe the bullying and division lines will stop – and maybe then there would be no need for violence at all on the playground.

It is a case where I’m still not sure that violence is really the answer – I think short term it may stop one thing that bothers us, but long term it continues a pattern that we shouldn’t be happy about.

Leah

But Some Do…

In the above clip, the protestor points out (as a parallel to people listening to Marilyn Manson and violent acts) that not everyone who sees a Lexus commercial buys a Lexus, but some do. This, to me, is the perfect argument against the media as an instigator for violence. You do not buy the Lexus ENTIRELY because you saw the commercial – you buy it because it fits with some part of your core values and wants. It reinforces something that you saw in yourself – it fulfills a desire. It does not create, however, the entire desire. There are many people who will see the Lexus commercial and pass on the car – really, they are Honda people.

This illustrates one of the problems with assuming a causal relationship between violence and the media. Not everyone who listens to a certain kind of music, or plays a certain kind of video will be violent – historical and societal factors will play into a pre-disposition for violent resolution to problems – and likely the historical and societal factors (such as bullying or abuse) will be more significant than something like listening to Marilyn Manson.

Still, I do not suggest that these influences are completely innocuous. Although I do not believe in blanket censorship of any kind of art, I do believe that there are appropriate ages for certain things to be introduced to any individual. Introduction to an artist like Marilyn Manson or Eminem needs to come at the right time of any youth’s life. Each child does go through a stage where they are very literal – Santa is real because they are told so, and maybe Platform 9 and 3/4s will get them to Hogwarts. But when they get older and with guidance from someone who can help them to think through what is being said and how to decode the nuance of metaphor and imagination, like Manson suggests, music like this can help them find a healthy outlet for unhappiness – the music does not judge them and they can pick the music they identify with. They can find an artist who shares an experience they identify with, and maybe it will help them work through their feelings in a healthy way.

The music is not about violence – if that is all the critics see then they are not looking deep enough. It is an outlet for anger, an outlet to express unhappiness, an outlet to work out complex feelings. I think any artists hope is that someone else will come along and listen and identify with this, and maybe it will help them feel better too – in a healthy way.

Response: The Television Embrace

Here is my response to Terrence's post (you can find the original post here: http://terrencethoughts.tumblr.com/post/3566601959/the-television-embrace)

I think Terrence brings up some interesting ideas about the necessity of television in our world today – and more than necessity, I think it is complicated to totally remove it from a child’s life – but I do tend to question some of the things he mentions as the “positives” of television.

I think television does very frequently sell destructive trends to children and adults. Television frequently provides a world where people are cookie cutter – particularly when it comes to body image. This lack of variation is difficult for a lot of young (and old) people to navigate – if you don’t fit into that size 2 world, if you aren’t a “cool” guy, if you aren’t wearing the newest trend then the message is you have no place of value in society. People who do not live “in the norm” are not valued – they are frequently shown as the “uncool” counterpart to the “cool” protagonist – I think this has a harmful effect on a lot of people. Valuing difference is important.

With that said, I think escaping television is hard. It sounds to me like Terrence's parents truly cared about him, and the media he consumed, so they probably played the most important role that he had with his television – they helped him decode the message. I think removing television from a child’s life is probably short-sighted in today’s society – if they don’t see TV at their parents’ home, they’ll see it somewhere else. This is why, I believe, the most important part of television watching for children is the conversation afterwards – helping children to think about what they saw, how it made them feel, and helping them think of why what they saw might not always be true and helpful. Decoding the message becomes the most difficult, but most valuable part of that equation, and so I don’t think TV should be totally accepted – navigating the positives and negatives can make us richer individuals, but you have to really take the time to do it.

Response: Finding Positive Pop Icon Role Models (Like Finding a Needle in a Haystack)

Here is my response to Kathleen's blog post (which can be found here: http://lifeisbetterinblackandwhite.blogspot.com/2011/03/finding-positive-pop-icon-role-models.html)

I think Kathleen makes a lot of really valuable points here – Justin Bieber is not marketed to me, and although I may not enjoy his music (and I really don’t), I would rather see someone like him as a role model for young people than someone like Lady Gaga or Ke$ha. Although someone like Lady Gaga does provide positive messaging with some of what she sings about (her current hit “Born This Way” is garnering a lot of positive response for its message of tolerance and acceptance) I do believe with any artist we have to demand a little better than that.

Part of how you are role modeling yourself to your fans is how you act and dress. She is usually photographed in almost next to nothing (her refusal to wear pants I find particularly interesting) and she has been photographed not always making fabulous decisions considering that enough of her fans are under the age of 16 (she was photographed flipping people off at a baseball game last season).

When looking at how younger people relate to musicians and icons, it is important to remember that they probably won’t always get the lyrics. I don’t think I became really lyrically aware until I was closer to 18-20. It was at that point that I really started to “listen” to the music and decipher what it meant to me. Before that, I was more aware of how the musicians I liked conducted themselves – and this was long before twitter, facebook, and the constant photo stream you can find on People.com.

In this way, Justin Bieber is a true star – he’s a nice boy who seems to make good decisions. But, he is still young. Miley Cyrus started out that way, and look at how that ended up. It is, I think, the problem of becoming a pop start so young. He hasn’t really had the chance to screw up yet, and he’s going to have to do all his growing and mistake making with the constant glare of a camera in his face. Hopefully he’ll be able to hold on to a piece of his pre-star life, because I do think that is what helps “stars” make good decisions as they grow older – they, at a very early age, have a lot of money and access – and that means they can try or do just about anything. Staving off that temptation will be the true test for him!

Athletes and the Fall from Grace

On Tuesday in class we spoke at length about the idea of sport as a religious experience for some fans. One of the characteristics that came out in class and in the reading by Bain-Selbo is the idea of sports figures as “gods” or figures to emulate and “worship”. While, with a lot of athletes, we may “worship” or desire their physical power and ability, this worship often leads to something very undesirable for both fans and athletes: the fall from grace.

Athletes are human – they will make mistakes, and we should accept this of them, but the high profile nature of their jobs often leads to very public question of their morals and values. Frequently we are bombarded with stories about sports figures that take performance enhancing drugs, cheat on their spouses, have violent altercations, or are in compromising situations, leading people to question them as role models.

Alex Rodriguez (the third basemen for the New York Yankees) was seen as one of the most talented players in baseball. He was the youngest player to hit 500 home runs and has had 14 seasons where he had over 100 runs batted in – he is a talented offensive and defensive player. In 2009 it was revealed that from 2001-2003 Rodriguez took banned substances, specifically, steroids – these were also some of his best seasons. This has led to a lot of debate within the baseball community about whether his records should stand, since for a significant portion his most productive years playing he was not playing honestly. The steroid controversy in baseball has also led to general cynicism of any player who has a great season – there are a lot of assumptions passed that any player having a break-out season must be “juicing” – and I believe a lot of this attitude stems to the fall from grace of a lot of major players.

With this also come the stories of redemption. Josh Hamilton, an outfielder for the Texas Rangers, was drafted in 1999, and was considered one of the best prospects of that year until drug and alcohol abuse derailed his career. He was in and out of rehab from 2004 to 2006 – he has been sober since 2006 (with one slip in 2009) and become very open about faith being the key to his reform. He was able to return to play in 2007, and has become a powerful and noteworthy player. Part of his story is the redemption (his teammates even celebrate with ginger-ale instead of champagne to support his efforts to stay clean), and his open address of this has allowed him to be redeemed within the baseball community.

Players are simply human, and I think sometimes fans lose sight of this. They mess up, just like everyone else, but do so in a much more public fashion. We should hold public figures to a standard of being good role models, but I think to elevate them past that will almost always leave the fans disappointed.

Secular Music and God

Religious musicians are by no means the only ones singing about God. It seems to be a question that a lot of artists grapple with – rappers, rock, soul, pop – it is everywhere. Even artists such as Green Day, who started their career with songs about masturbation, have dedicated creative energy to the subject penning an entire rock opera that explores the idea of faith in a changing world.

One of my favourite examples of this was recently used in an episode of Glee, but I remember it from long before that. Joan Osborne’s “One of Us” (which was written by Eric Bazilian) poses some really interesting questions about a person’s relationship with God – both as a concept and as an actuality.

My favourite question in the song is “If God had a face, what would it look like? And would you want to see, if seeing meant that you would have to believe in things like heaven and in Jesus and the saints and all the prophets.” I find it an interesting question because there are two sides to it – if God was in front of you, and explained to the non-believer that all of these things do exist, you would be obligated to believe – it would be a concrete actuality, rather than a leap of faith. But still, there is the moment of doubt – would you want to believe – and I think that is harder to grapple with. For some, the leap of faith is a badge of honour, and for others (like myself) the grey area of uncertainty is a little comforting. I am okay with not knowing for sure – and truthfully, I do believe if there is a God, I don’t know that anyone is truly smart enough to totally understand God or God’s plan. It is a comforting way of dealing with many different religious and spiritual influences, without negating any as false, but also not wholly accepting any as true.

The fact that these songs make it into the Billboard Top 100 and are recycled over a decade later on a popular television show is a testament to how powerful the subject is. Even those without a clear Christian or religious agenda think and meditate on this complicated subject, and grapple with how to fit it in to their own world view.

I know within my own music choices, these songs are the ones I usually find the most thought provoking.

And now, one more song that I feel speaks to a Christ figure that I quite enjoy!