skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This is like a part two from my last blog. Do you think the people on t.v, magazines, pictures and music have an impact on the way people feel about themselves? I believe so. I strongly feel that the media has created an "acceptable" body image for both men and woman. If your a man you should be muscular, six pack, and tall. For a female I believe it has had a greater impact. Females are constantly being compared to thin and tall models. Or actresses or musicians who have "the perfect body." In the past when our grandparents were our ages,did they understand what botox injections were? Or that you can lift, cut, and add things on your face or anywhere on your body? In this day and age, people would look at you funny if you didnt know what these things were.
Why are models so skinny in the first place? Dont they model clothes the public will hopefully buy? Generally the public is not a size zero. How is this appealing to people who are not size zero? I never understood it. I always felt models should symbolize a womans natural looking body. Yes like me, there are some naturally very thin girls out there, however that is only a select percent. When they began modeling for plus size woman, I felt this was a great step up in the modeling world. I seriously think they need to put a minimum weight on models, especially because many suffer from eating disorders and emotional problems because of the competition to be the thinniest. As you can see it is not a pleasant site.
I
was reading the essentials of argument text, and I read an essay in there called "The Barbie Controversy", and I wondered , is Barbie really the image millions of little girls aspire to be? Lets just talk about the way Barbie looks. Barbie is a blonde , big chested , white and skinny doll. This is the image that has been advertised for many years by many companies like McDonald's and more. If they are portrayed as being rich with big houses,millions of accessories, and loved by all ,then little girls would aspire to be blonde, white, and big chested. I would think this would cause self-esteem problems with little girls and with them not being able to accept themselves how they are .
In other countries like Saudi Arabia, religious police declared Barbies a threat to morality. They claim little girls playing with dolls is not the problem, but a doll such as Barbie should not have a full developed body and be sporting short revealing clothes. Saudi Arabia has very strict rules for females. They must be fully cloaked and no skin must be shown. So it would not surprise me that they would ban a Barbie doll, it is seen as highly inappropriate. However they have a point in saying the Barbies should not be so developed and revealing. It makes me wonder if other toy companies get their ideas from the Barbie concept, as it was such a booming toy and still is. There are some rare yet questionable toys out there that make you wonder what is in the minds of the people who create these things. For example, the pole dancing doll :
http://blogs.babble.com/strollerderby/2009/08/30/pole-dancing-doll-makes-our-heads-spin/
If your thinking its ridiculous, then I agree. What kind of message is being sent to the kids of today's generation and those of future generations?
Looking at the title of this blog, a whole list of ideas and topics come to mind. Opinions on who's better start to form, and even heated debates. For a homework assignment we were told to read an essay by Sallie Bingham called "A woman's land." After reading this essay, I really thought about women landowners and how I agreed with her in a sense. She basically spoke about the way men treat their land versus the way women treat it. According to her, men work the land and get all they can from the land, leaving it depleted and bare. Women who own land use it for what they need, without over indulging themselves, leaving most of it to nature. I believe she is correct, women are naturally more gentle then men are. She goes further into saying she will not leave the land to her own sons because she does not want them to run it down, rather she would prefer for it to be preserved in its current state. I found this the most shocking in her essay, because as much as she talks down about men, she would not even leave some bit of her sacred hobby and pride to her own flesh and blood. She even talks about how children dream about someday receiving something their parents treasured, so it surprised me when she said she would not leave them her land. I cannot really speak first hand because I have not known any farmers men or women, or anyone who owns land in general too comment on it. But I agree her opinion has some logical standing.
In the 1995 Oklahoma city bombing, Timothy Mcveigh killed 168 people. Anyones first thought would be, he deserves the same fate. Killing all those people because he himself hated the government was ridiculous and insane. So the jury sentenced him to death. But was this really a fitting punishment? Yes I agree he deserved to die, as I'm sure many of the victims family agreed. But I think it would have been more reasonable to make him suffer and rot in prison then to simply let him just die, free of pain and suffering unlike his victims. A life sentence in a high security prison, without parole would have been a fitting punishment. Just like Mcveigh had no right to take all those lives, the government does not have the right to take any lives. I believe sentencing a killer to be killed is like giving them what they asked for and is not teaching them a lesson. If I was in his position I would rather die, then spend my entire life rotting in a jail cell.
Most people are either pro choice or pro life. If not most lean towards one side or another. I consider myself to have a pro choice state of mind. So when it comes to abortions I say its up to the mother. No I do not support taking an innocent life. I agree that if you were adult enough to do the deed you should be adult enough to face the consequences. But in certain situations, this does not apply. Like a victim of rape for example, they had no choice in the matter. So now they must give birth to a child because someone else took that option away from them? Also many suggest adoption as an option. Yes this is definitly a possibility, but nowadays children are in and out of this system. This topic is a tricky debate, but I stand by my opinion.
Yesterday in class we spoke about current and enduring public issues. One issue that caught my attention, among the many we discussed, was whether the United States should remain prepared for a major world war. This question involves many aspects. For example, nuclear weapons, threatening communist countries and being attacked on our own soil. My answer to the question is yes, I do feel the U.S should remain prepared for a major world war or for any type of terrorist attack in that case. I believe being prepared is a logical answer. As a country who is constantly being scrutinized by others and resented by many, we cannot afford to let our guard down when other countries have not. This goes hand in hand with nuclear weapons. Though no one wants to kill billions of people, many countries have deadly nuclear weapons in there possession. My guess for the reasoning behind this is because each country wants to show other countries that they are not inferior and can develop these deadly weapons just as easily as any other powerful country can.
Furthermore, this country prides itself on rarely being attacked on its own soil, with the exceptions of some attacks.This being true, other countries have always seen America with a reputation for being a strong and powerful nation, one that is rarely ever defeated. However, since the most recent homeland attacks ( Sept.11,2001) this opinion has probably changed for many of those countries, who once thought otherwise. My point being, if we are not prepared for the worst and other countries feel as though we are weaker then we've ever been, we risk being attacked by many others, wishing to break down our security and destroy America. We also have to worry about communist enemy countries like China, or enemies in general,who will take advantage of us during our lowest time.
Providing safety and security for this countries people should be a top priority. I feel not being prepared for a major world war, is simply irresponsible, especially during these times. The United States must do what it needs to do to secure its own nation.
