Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts

Saturday, February 9, 2013

Casual Racism in America


As a rule of thumb I believe most people actively misunderstand what racism is.  I believe that is because they misunderstand what discrimination is.  Discrimination is the act of determining the value of one thing as opposed to another based on criteria set by the person or by the social group they adhere to. Whenever you decide that you would rather have orange juice opposed to cranberry juice this is an act of discrimination no matter the reason you decide.  We do it with all things, we make choices based on what we desire and need in that moment, or what we historically have had success with.

Discrimination is a form of discernment.  In some dictionaries it is listed as the ability to make distinctions. Psychologically it is the ability to respond differently to different forms of stimulus. The core of this is that it is the process of treating something differently than you would treat something similar.  In essence every time you make a decision that leads you to choosing one thing over something else you are actively discriminating against the other thing.  Whether it is positive or negative is strictly up to you. 

Now that we have discussed discrimination lets apply it to racism, sexism or any other ism you can think of.  In the case of racism you are deciding that one race is preferable to another.  It's not about recognizing or acknowledging race, it's about using it as a qualifier for who the entire person is in a positive or negative way.  Note that it can go both ways.  If I am asked if so and so is a certain race, it is not racist to answer.  It isn't racist to make that the only way a single person is described.  It's dehumanizing, but it is not racist unless this signifier has a positive or negative value to the person using it. When you determine that you prefer a person of a certain race over a person of another race for no other reason, or as a part of a set of reasons, that is racism.  When you decide that you like Chuck because he brings you presents and not Billy because he doesn't, that's a form of discernment that is based strictly on other designations besides the physically constructed attribute of race. Clearly Chuck is more considerate of who you are and Billy is not.  But are you going to then treat everyone named Billy badly because of it?  You shouldn't.  But in cases of racial discrimination everyone who is of a certain race somehow must answer for the supposed crimes or well intentions of everyone else in that racial group.

It gets confusing because people will make generalizations connecting an unlikable attribute to a race turning a personal preference into a racial distinction when it is not. They usually sound like this.  "I don't like Black people because they are loud." "I don't like White people because they lie."  "I don't like Asians because they drive badly."  "I don't like Mexicans because they won't speak in English."  "I don't hate Black people I just prefer White people." Yes while this may in fact be your preference, it is a racist preference. "It's not that I dislike (Insert race here) they just make me uncomfortable." Still racist. Even if you have a supporting story. This works with entire countries of people as well. "Canadians suck." "The French blow." You get the picture.

If the only way you can describe people is by the color of their skin you have made a discerning choice to acknowledge this physical attribute to the point that you cannot describe them beyond that.  This isn't really anyone's fault.  We are exposed to a constant stream of education when interacting with people on a strictly racial basis.  This is called media.  Television, movies, advertisment, music.  There is a reason why it took George Lucas 21 years to make Red Tails, the story about the Tuskegee Airmen.  Even though they are American heroes they were black first and the words black and hero have a low amount of association in media. In general audiences aren't conditioned to accept this. It calls into question whether the movie will be accepted by a mostly white America and an American culture exposed world who have been conditioned to believe that black means criminal in the most negative and perhaps athlete or musician in the most positive.

The key is in being able to actually confront this reality within yourself and determine how to best combat this. Like all things the first step is acknowledging that this is happening.  No one is innocent.  There is no such thing as not seeing race.  Which is why it's so funny when Stephen Colbert says it.  We are citizens of a country whose actions have always somewhat hinged on race.  Since the founding fathers came here and determined that true Americans were one special kind of white and everyone else was either an issue to be eradicated or property to be owned. All of us, myself included are racists in some form or fashion.  We all have some preference whether we admit it or not.  I'll start; my preference is to not have a core of friends who are all one 'race' or ethnicity.

When someone asks me about someone I know and they mention race as the first thing to describe them it takes me a moment to actually remember that this person is of this 'racial' group.  This is because I have identified them as many other things so race becomes a none functional descriptor. Their race has not made them compassionate, intelligent, or funny.  Their personality, their perspective, and their humanity have done that.  When race is the only descriptor I question the ability of the person to understand that human beings are separate from what they are 'racially' known as which is a constructed instance.  In essence a fantasy casing that allows a person to not acknowledge who they are underneath. It is the laziest form of human interaction.

But this casing rears its ugly head a lot more than I think I'm comfortable with in this day and age. All the sunshine and hugs aside the fact is there are still a lot of people operating under assumptions about others based on race. The differing definitions on casual racism being part and parcel to this. How funny are racist jokes supposed to be?  I'm not wondering about this.  I'm honestly wondering if we are socially mature enough to understand the difference between ironic racial joking and masked judgment based on racial stereotyping.

One of the most annoying things I've had to confront is the effect casual racism has on building relationships because so many of us are not sure what is acceptable and what is not.  At first glance it would seem like a no brainer.  Of course you as a person of color cannot care for or truly love someone who is a casual racist.  That is unfortunately a lie. If you yourself are not restricted by skin color, religion, or background as crucial factors to love you see potential in every relationship no matter the circumstances. The issue usually stems from the other person being unaware of how much of a problem they actually have.  The worst is the person not believing it is in fact a problem or misunderstanding their own reactions and thoughts.

There are just day to day aggressions that are hard to understand.  Certain populations get it.  Those who experience religious or nationality discrimination. Thoughtless assumptions based on being a Muslim.  The way most Latino populations get generalized as being from Mexico.  Canadians get their fair share of "but you're not American" guff.  It’s all part and parcel to a bigger idea which is part and parcel to our value system. Methods to determining the deserving and the none deserving. Casual discrimination.

I don't believe casual racism is the unmitigated hate of another group of people.  Casual racism, like all forms of casual discrimination, is more subtle.  Usually it is defined as being humorous in nature and not truly an indication of a deeper problem with racism. However it is usually on the same lines as class elitism, religious, ethnic and nationality superiority. If someone constantly makes jokes about bums and poor people you consider them a snob or elitist.  If someone is constantly downing another country they are also considered a snob or elitist.  Yet if it is racially or culturally based they are not a racist because they have not let this propel them into acting violently towards that race.  Or even worse they are allowed because there are considered a member of the racial community they are discriminating against. This is inconsistent because this humor represents the way the person thinks and how their mind functions.

The truth is that they are racist but they cannot stand to bare the stigma that this designation carries in society. As consumers of media we have to be able to recognize when something is being displayed as satiric irony or as truthful masking of discriminating dogma in entertainment and especially in our own lives.

Social media has manifest two things.  Our shameless desire for self-promotion and our still exiting issues with discrimination. While there is shame in being racist there shouldn't be in being honest.  Some people just are and there shouldn't be this get out of being a racist failsafe. Like any other illness of society it should be dealt with and the only way it can be is to acknowledge it. I don't believe discrimination can ever truly be weeded out of the human spirit, but we should be able to deal with it and lessen its effects on the ability of people to prosper and follow their dreams.

The criminal justice system is supposed to rehabilitate criminals not just store them to keep them away from 'good' people. Yet we as Americans have the highest imprisoned population in the world as repeat offenders find it difficult to live life on the outside because they have been so conditioned to being social outcasts. The ignoring of this population just creates a cycle that grows instead of shrinks. We have a tendency to lock up the problem and not deal with it appropriately.  Racism is starting to look like a prison to me as we desperately try to convince ourselves and each other that it doesn't exist and doesn't factor in the outcomes of affected populations. While it is not as detrimental as it once was, it has not dissipated enough that we can declare it has no power here.

The foundation of all forms of discrimination is based on a thought regarding the worthiness or acceptability of another option other than the one the person considers to be the best.  Casual racism is an indication of a belief that a race of people are better or more acceptable than another because of the attributes the discrimination enables. It is the blind acceptance that certain human traits can be defined by race. Thus it makes certain behaviors acceptable and expected and allows the claim that not associating with certain people is a simple preference and not indicative of being racist.  It allows people to use racist jokes, stereotypes and ideologies without guilt and become defensive of consequence if anyone takes it too seriously.  After all it was not serious.  It was only a casual observation that is not indicative to a bigger problem. As they say there is some truth to every 'just kidding'.

A causal racist is not truly the evil person we would like to paint them to be.  They are usually good people who are just painfully oblivious to their bias. They are the people who will see an obvious violently racist situation, condemn it as wrong, but then still lock their doors or clutch their belongings tighter if they see a person of color coming near to them. They don't really disagree with the prejudice, they disagree with the violence.

They are the people who will congratulate interracial couples for their bravery and then quietly admit that they could never do what they have seen done. They have developed a value system that has determined that knowing and caring for a person of a different race and culture is not worth the problems commonly associated with mixed race relationships.  They have determined that this group of people are less in value and not worth truly considering.  This is an act of racism, determining that a certain person cannot attain your affection with race or skin color being the only deterrent. These people tend to assume that being a little racist isn't really a problem because everyone is. It then becomes an accepted condition of human nature.

The issue is that we as humans do not react automatically as a natural reflex of nature in these situations.  We respond the way we have been conditioned to. We have a tendency to accept well-conditioned responses as byproducts of human nature.  Let me clarify, they are.  We follow patterns and notions to their obvious conclusions and we are constantly trying to find ways to streamline our processes.  Our natures require us to complete the pattern because this is how we associate to the world. However it is not human nature to dislike or distrust someone because of their differences from us. That is a conditioned response.

I've had friends of different races confront this in their children as they are being raised.  The concerns are that their children have to some degree at very young ages developed a distrust of people of color they have not frequently interacted with.  The same holds true for children of color with other races. When I first meet a child who is less than a year old, no matter their race they have no preconceived notions of what is good or bad. They simply stare trying to absorb what they see. As the child develops and you begin to teach it to discern from right and wrong they identify with their parents and who their parents' trust. As soon as you introduce the word no or prevent a child from doing something that is bad for them they begin to associate everything from that perspective until they have more to work with. 

Children aren't in a bubble. They see what we see and they associate life according to what you present them and how you respond to certain situations. There are occasions where life prevents certain associations.  But in more cases than not any aversions your children have to race has been supported by your actions. Which in turn is more than likely unresolved issues from your parents instilling these values in you. We forget that less than 60 years ago we still had wide spread segregation. In many communities and areas we still do and our knowledge of other cultures is embarrassingly incomplete considering our role in their economies.

I suppose the issue comes with severity. People have an unconscious thought regarding "acceptable" levels of racism. But it really can't be parsed out like that. You can't acceptably kill someone.  You either kill them or you don't. In many cases the attempt is punished just as harshly as the success. By practice people do not congratulate a person for not sexually abusing a child or comment on their bravery.  Like in all situations there are exclusions but as a general rule of thumb it sounds absurd.  It is expected that this is unacceptable by societal standards. 


Racist laws were repelled because life couldn't work that way. You can't be somewhat right and somewhat wrong when it comes to civil liberties.  It’s why so much gray is entering debates about healthcare, rape, and marriage. People want to determine absolute right and wrong by too many degrees as it suits their needs. They are making a basic argument about the details because we've trained ourselves to be overly discerning when contemplating right and wrong. We believe the jest is in the details as opposed to the big picture. It’s because we have only dealt with our problems as particular instances and not as a whole. We patch the bridge instead of building a new one.  We fix one little spot without examining the cause and effect making only temporary progress.

So that leaves us telling people don't be racist while supporting a system that insists they do. So in the meantime mixed race children are still being forced to define themselves by a narrow margin of one race when they are more. Legal systems still convict people of color at higher rates even though more whites get arrested. Our media still grossly underrepresents or misrepresents people of color and none American cultures. Pay rates are still different, housing is still subpar and education is still poorly funded for areas with higher people of color populations.  With these examples and the insistence that America's racial troubles have subsided confusion regarding race is at an all-time high. Even 'good, proactive' so called none racists still have trouble understanding what is and is not racist. 

This issue presented itself again over the Super Bowl as many people were up in arms about a 'disrespectful racist' commercial by Volkswagen where they had people of multiple visual ethnicities speaking with a standard "Jamaican" accent. The protesters of this were mostly white and they thought they were being racially sensitive by condemning VW when in actuality they just highlighted how big of a problem their protest represents. The issue is that Jamaica is a country with different races like all countries of the world.  Because no one in the commercial appeared to be "Jamaican" in the eyes of the protesters, the assumption was that it was racially insensitive, when in actuality the assumption that all Jamaicans have dark skin and certain features IS racist. The commercial was actually representing cultural diversity that is usually not represented when we pull to mind images of Jamaicans. Being Jamaican is a nationality, not a race. But the imagery compared to the sound was so 'foreign' and uncomfortable to viewers that they were upset by it and in assuming they themselves were not racist they inadvertently proved that they were.

The problem is the casual nature of racism in America.  It stems from an idea that we can't help but to dislike each other because of racial differences and it breeds ideas about children and how they have to choose what to be. It’s in hidden messages we give each other as we either support or begrudgingly accept a situation. If racism called down the same horror and outrage as child abuse or animal neglect we as Americans wouldn't be so casual about it. The issue is people are not forced to feel any substantial amount of shame for their racist thoughts or none violent actions as often as they should be. The problem is twofold.  Its people comfortable being racist and people comfortable being discriminated against. The combination creates a chain of inequity that will continue indefinitely.

The sea of casual racism places a person being discriminated against in an odd damned if you do damned if you don't position. If you decide to confront racism you are propagating the problem by talking about it and if you don't you are propagating the problem by not talking about it.  It has truly become a no win situation because of the nature of victim blaming.  It matters not what the action of the victim is, they will always be the one blamed for the outcome.

Racism in America is in many ways the trick the Devil played on the world.  Most people would like to pretend it doesn't exist so they accept the lie of post raciality.  However if you are not frequently discriminated against it was just a saying you could agree with because you don't have personal proof to counter the assertion.  A surprising amount of people can willfully ignore the obvious signs of it happening to other people.

The good thing is that more and more conversations like this blog are starting to happen.  More people of color are realizing that just saying we are post racial and accepting the brunt of the ugliness is not enough.  And because of it more people not of color find themselves agreeing and following suit. It’s time to point out all the ways we are not. And perhaps the truth will eventually set us all free.






Images Courtesy of:

























Monday, May 9, 2011

Stereotype Tree

Multicultural image
I think the importance of stereotypes and their existence become greatly undervalued.  If you ask someone why a stereotype is bad your general response would be something along the lines of 'Well it isn't polite, or nice."  Which of course opens the doorway of using them when you intentionally want to be mean or seen as bad.  It becomes a matter of opinion on civility instead of a matter of fact in regards to inequality systems.  Make no mistake about it; stereotypes have very little to do with civility and a whole lot more to do with the maintaining of inequality systems.

Inequality systems are an interesting thing.  In the current text I am reading "The Social Construction of Difference and Inequality" there is an analogy that is given by Marilyn Frye that I find to be very appropriate:

"Consider a birdcage. If you look very closely at just one wire in the cage, you cannot see the other wires.” When the cage is observed so closely, it’s unclear why a bird—eager to escape—wouldn’t just fly around the wire. It’s necessary to step back and look at the entire cage. “It is perfectly obvious that the bird is surrounded by a network of systematically related barriers, no one of which could be the least hindrance to its flight, but which, by their relations to each other, are as confining as the walls of a dungeon” (Ore, 2003)

The interesting aspect of inequality systems is that people have a tendency to deny their existence.  The common perceptions among average Americans are that if a certain sector of the population is not successful it is through their own lack of desire, initiative, and drive.  According to the most privileged Americans, the playing field is level.  This is just the idea that the inequality maintenance system needs to survive. This perception of falsified equality. Yet in language, media, and legislation inequality thrives, and has convinced some that the perceptions given are the truth of the tale. Stereotypes then become even more invasive than these other influences because stereotypes are what a person is involved with on a psychic level and it becomes condoned and supported by these things.  This causes an invalidated truth to take root and be accepted as a validated truth.

Stereotypes are formed because we as people need to isolate things; assemble patterns. That's what we do, and how we learn. Just in case no one has noticed, humanity is in a heap of trouble. We have compounding problems from our environment to our economy. The issue is that likeminded groups stick together. We form these pockets of humanity, and these pockets only like to allow other likeminded individuals in them. We all do it.  However, like minded individuals are what got us into this situation in the first place. Diversity is the only answer now. Different heads need to be thinking about our issues from different perspectives of thought. No individual group is going to come up with an adequate solution. They can't. The only people they bounce ideas off of are just like them, and they see things too similarly. If they had a viable answer we wouldn't be in such a quandary.

Stereotypes are the root of all perspective evil because they incorporate assumptions about a whole that is usually only applicable to a few. However with this assumption in place, the perspective of the person is set and fixed to find evidence of this assumption in everything. It's our ability to create patterns used against us. Even if the stereotype is obviously not true in a person, we are actively looking for it to the point that another unrelated aspect of them seems to reinforce the stereotype. It's us typecasting each other, building that pattern.

Amazing Tree
Stereotype Tree

ROOTS
Roots of stereotypes come from culture, life experiences, and media. These are the things that shape us that were in place before we are even conscious of what we are or who we are going to be. The surrounding infrastructure that facilitated your birth. We would all be different people had we been born in the early 1800s instead of now.

Culture
Culture is the thing your family instilled in you and your beliefs. This includes religion, location, racial identity, socioeconomic status, acceptable behaviors and rewarded ideas. These are all the factors that those before you put into place. My foundation was set by a mother who raised me to believe that as a general rule people considered 'white' would always look down on me, but this was should not be the case.  They are no different than us, but they will always act like they are. Already I have a cultural perspective that says this type of person is always going to look down on me, but they are foolish for it. There is no difference between them and me.  This colors all interactions I have with people that are considered 'white'.  Does this person disapprove of what I am doing because as a woman who is 'not white' I should not be doing this because it implies equality?

This is the first step, so try to really dig into this concept and formulate what was presented to you as far as ethnic, class, financial, gender, and sexuality based expectations.  What were these mostly unspoken rules of what your family and friends expected from you at the very beginning of your life?  What was fair and what was based solely on stereotypes and uninformed assumptions?

Life Experiences
With the example set by your culture you have a certain perspective of the world. You see it with lenses colored by your culture. Situations that would seem one way to one person is actually completely different for someone else. When I was accused of cheating on my aptitude test in elementary school the teacher probably noticed me looking around because I do, a lot, always have. I didn't look for answers. I was just looking at the other kids because I was new and trying to figure out my new environment. When the scores came in, she confronted my mother about this. I felt guilty because my understanding was ‘looking around was bad’. When my mother found out and the teacher tried to explain, my mother got angry just like she does when she complains about white people, and tells me that I won't be attending that school anymore. This reinforces the stereotype that my mother has ingrained in me. This is an example of a life experience that can be seen from that cultural perspective.  Now I have an instance where it can be perceived that a ‘white’ authority figure has in fact 'looked down' on me because of my 'non-white' status as she openly questioned whether I was capable of achieving this aptitude score.

Media
Media is a growing issue for stereotyping because it is so ingrained in our lives now. The messages that are being generated by advertisers and media outlets is shameful because the generation that was raised by television is now letting their children be raised by the internet. Should advertisers and content creators be more discriminating, yes, will they, no. They aren't trying to raise your kid right; they're trying to raise your kid to buy what they're selling. Question any and all media no matter what is being said and no matter who is saying it. All media can be traced to 6 corporations.  http://www.newint.org/magazine/ni333-media.pdf  With that small amount of diversity, everything is being reported from a very limited and specific social perspective.

TRUNK
The trunk is what the roots feed, it's the person you are, and how you react and respond to others in day to day activities. The areas this effects are social, professional, and private aspects of you. In some situations this branches out to virtual versions of you. So think of it as the social you, for friends and group settings; the professional you for the sake of your career or livelihood, and the private you which are the aspects that only close personal people know or no one at all including you even understand. Then there is the advent of this virtual you. The person you project yourself as in cyberspace.

Social
You choose to be in certain areas. Certain groups of people make you feel comfortable or uncomfortable. People create hives and groups based on affinity and relation. Usually these are dens of like-mindedness where ideas are identical and mirrored. These mirrored ideas reinforce stereotypes because they are never challenged.

Professional
While your job can create pockets of diversity, the understanding is that this is a ‘working you’, and not truly who you are. At work we respond sometimes as we must to fulfill the job expectations denying personal concerns. Most businesses are not expansive enough to need varying degrees of ability and talent with the exception of some high end performance and technology fields. Business autonomy sometimes makes it unnecessary for these different parts to fully interact. Working day to day while having certain stereotypes in mind causes you to see co-workers in a certain light as well. What is just playful banter can be misconstrued as an insult because of this. Stereotypes may be jarred a bit, but never disavowed because everyone is at work, and the actual face of who they are is not visible. Some fields are so devoid of diversity that even if people interacted with everyone they would see very little difference in ideologies. People who like to do certain work, or have to do certain jobs, have similar ideas and perspectives.

Private
In the deep dark parts of ourselves we know what we truly believe. We believe what we've been shown through media, culture, and life experiences. Patterns develop that lead to who we are and manifest as the decisions and actions taken in our personal time. This is where stereotypes truly fester because our time can be spent in any way we would like. We guide ourselves inside of our own heads; this manifests in habits, likes and dislikes; our dreams. Our minds are our own, and they can either be cultivated or left barren.

Virtual
The interesting thing about being virtual is the assumption that it creates anonymity. As a programmer I'm here to tell you it doesn’t. Web bots know you're IP address, with that they can find anything and everything they need to know about you. Just hope that no one wants to find you because it isn't difficult if you know how to look.

Online combines aspects of you and content creation. Media intermixes with self and amplifies self. In no other venue will you find more stereotypes being generated, accepted, and passed about freely as if they are actual facts than online. Then the issue becomes that a consensus has been formed, and together through another broader form of socialized communication, a body of evidence has been built and seems airtight. However if you apply all that came before this step, you can see why it works out like that. Now the stereotyped are accepting the labels, the typecasting, and are in fact living to make the stereotypes as real as possible, like some odd form of nihilistic approval seeking.

BRANCHES
The result of the roots and the trunk are the branches. This is the active part that the person themselves take in creating the stereotype and regenerating it over and over again. This is the truth of what you believe in habits and nuances that are influencing other people, and reinforcing a certain perspective of an issue adjusting how you respond to them in the real world. You don't have to be a politician or someone in power for this to be effective. Just another person and it's done. This is where social expectations change the course of your actions when you are placed in stereotype forming or breaking situations. Here is when your need to act or fear of acting becomes a crucial determination of your true stance on the issue and ultimately your role.  This is where the company you keep sets an example. As human beings we are either reinforcing stereotypes or we are breaking them. There is no passive in-between.  Fence sitting is just the same as reinforcing them. People can ascertain your ability to accept others by the things you do, and the things you don't. Limitations, drawbacks, and misunderstandings are created by rating things in quality by untested assumptions. 

LEAVES
The idea is that these stereotypes should become leaves if you do a thorough analysis of your thoughts, ideas, and behaviors. They should grow, be tested, and fall away so that new ones can form, because unfortunately that is part of the human experience. There will always be stereotypes. It is the individual's choice if they would like to be a stereotype rock or a tree, always growing, always changing, always adapting.

Ore, Tracy E., ed. 2003. The Social Construction of Difference and Inequality: Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality. New York: McGraw-Hill.


Multicultural image courtesy of  

Monday, May 2, 2011

Perspective Bluff: The Leading Lady

I am a bit of a sociology buff.  It's one of those social sciences that I feel very connected to mostly because it's the study of society which is a construct made by us.  People.  So I read lots of sociology blogs and textbooks because I find the study of us rather fascinating.  Recently I've decided to embark on another odyssey besides romance novels.  I also would like to write self-help books for those members of society that would like to free themselves from the constraints of society which would benefit everyone overall.  My self help series will be about women and some of the common perception traps we often find ourselves in.  So here is a little sample of what I would like to confront.  We'll call this segment the leading lady.

A couple of weeks ago I was watching this romantic comedy called Just Wright starring Queen Latifah and Common.  Most days of the week you'll catch me watching some action or super hero movie.  It's just what I prefer.  There was nothing else on, and the part of the movie I chimed in on intrigued me because I've always felt like no one has ever dealt with this aspect of female socialization.  The aspect I'm talking about is the 'professional athlete wife’.  This movie confronted the common perception issues most people have with this designation of society.  It is a one sided account so while it was not very flattering to the image of the professional athlete wife it did show some deeper thought and intelligence directed towards the professional athlete.

The character development for the movie was pretty standardized. If you picture in your mind what the wife of a professional athlete should look like she is usually of a certain weight, height, hair color or texture and sometimes a certain ethnicity. She is what Hollywood would refer to as 'The Leading Lady’.  The leading lady is a concept that leads into certain beliefs about a woman and her worth in the world. Through her portrayal in the media the average person begins to believe that only certain types of women deserve to be treated well. A man should only fall in love with a specific type of woman. She should have certain types of friends, and participate in certain activities.  She should always dress a certain way, and she should always be perceived as the height of feminine beauty.  The Venus Di Milo if we are being specific. The movie has this fascinating scene during a game where the two female characters that will ultimately vie for the attention of the male lead are facing the wives of the athletes.  It was this stark cookie cutter scene where there were rows of women who physically looked nearly identical.

The brilliance of this movie was that the actual leading lady was Queen Latifah who by all standards has never fit into the so called 'leading lady' role.  At several times during the movie I myself questioned why she was cast as she was.  The story itself was a paradox as I found myself thinking about how implausible it would be for a professional athlete to even consider a relationship with someone who didn’t fit the standard. This even slight wondering on my part was quite an epiphany for me because I usually don't prescribe to these pre-conceived notions.  Then I had to acknowledge how invasive and brainwashing media can be.  Even though I knew that this was not such an odd occurrence and should in fact be seen more and not less, something niggled at me saying that this woman wasn't the woman that belonged in this situation.  She didn't have the right qualities to be loved by this type of man, and she shouldn’t be the focal point of this movie.  This was all based on her physical appearance alone as the movie was full of women that did fit that very narrow ‘leading lady’ designation.  But it was that setting that made the absurdity of it my thoughts so apparent.

What it made me realize is how victimized American culture is by the mandates prescribed by our media.  Women hate themselves for not being what media tells them to be, and men actively support it.  However this point is in all respects. While it seems that one end has it better than the other end, what is thought of an unconventionally attractive woman who endeavors to expound upon her beauty as opposed to a conventionally attractive one who attempts to hide it. This aspect of fitting in becomes a value system for self worth and societal standing.  The rating system wants to know how well you fit in, and the system is set up to punish those who do not conform. Consider what happens to an Amish who falls into prideful ways.  In many respects society seeks to do this to those who don’t conform, thus the many societal subcultures.

The irony of this was presented so very clearly in the movie as the standard ‘pro athlete woman’ was in fact a gold digger who didn't care about the man or the sport he played.  She cared about the status symbol he would become in her life and the exalted status that she would enjoy as his wife.  While this is an unfair assumption to place onto most of these women, how many of them have carefully cultivated that look so that this goal can be achieved? It was the believability of it that was the most startling as women do sometimes see each other as either a scheming gold digger or not. We limit what the other is capable of because of it. But in regards to the professional male athlete isn’t this type of wife a statement of the same value system? Even though the female lead actually had more in common with the male lead, when faced with a conversation with each of them he chooses the gold digger instinctively understanding that this was the proper woman to be with thus solidifying his place in the system. This is how he fits in and thus reaffirms his self worth.

The key to society working is the understanding of each other and the value inherit to certain aspects of humanity.  The world is growing more caustic by the day towards ideas of true charity and service because of establishing ideas of glamour and excess. Instead of correlating societal value to service, dignity, compassion, empathy and care, value is given to avarice, vainglory, and idolatry. The system is in place, and it is not a faulty system.  However the accepted qualities and designations of fitting in desperately need to be reworked.