Caralyn

Note: before I start writing, I am from a small city, and had no idea what defined the "suburbs"
In the suburbs all of the houses look the same. There are no businesses to work at near by. If people need to shop, go to work, or go to school they have to drive for a descent amount of time to get to them. The suburbs are really quiet and separated from everything. They are very well kept up, everyone likes their yards and houses clean, and proper. Since it isn't a big city area there's not a lot of driving here, unless leaving the area altogether. It is very pedestrian friendly, narrow streets, wide sidewalks ( I realize now that this is not true, but this is what I wrote). People are usually getting around on foot or bike.
Since the main idea of the suburban area is separation from the city, it is not technically a neighborhood on it's own. Neighborhoods consist of anchoring institions (school, library), streets, niches (gas stations, grocery store), public gardens (parks), and private gardens (Prof. B. Agee, Arch. 1401).

After analyzing the areas in class discussion I realize now that I was wrong, and the suburbs do not favor pedestrians over vehicles and that infact most do not even have sidewalks. I guess I felt like I did an okay job of describing them otherwise from what I heard people say. That the niches are away from the houses, and if people do walk around they just get to more houses. I know now that people in the suburbs drive everywhere for the most part because walking will only get you to more houses. However, you don't necessarily have to go to the cities for supplies, boarding the suburbs are convient stores, grocery stores, malls, etc.

Posted by Caralyn Stevens at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This article is interesting in how it discusses the different views of racial advertising. Stating that "racial integration" does not substantially affect the sales in advertisment. In my opinion, I see that there is an argument that things tend to be stereotypical of races, but how can they not be in one way or another?
The features of Aunt Jemima are offensive in that she is representing black servants as "bandana wearing," chubby people. This is definitely offensive when critiqued and torn apart in that it is something that is served to us, representing a server, and that typically this is what they look like. The only way I see this as not being able to be racist somehow, is that it could be racist in other ways?? I guess I am changing my theme midway here...advertising is usually stereotypical of races, but if they are not stereotypical of one certain race it is going to be stereotypical of another. What I am saying is that there is no way to advertise something without it representing a larger group of people, and in someway being stereotypical!
The China doll example was also interesting. The model refused to cut her hair to have bangs, and wear it straight, in a stereotypical way to say that this is how chinese women look! I think this is a pretty harsh awakening to the world of advertising. For this women this is especially hard because this is not how she looks, but this is how people stereotype her, and it's just not her at all. See, with this I feel like even if the advertising company said it would be okay for her to leave her hair, straight, no bangs for example, it would still stereotype them. She thinks one way is stereotypical, but no matter how she would have been portrayed she would have represented the general background.
Advertising will always be stereotypically racist. The only advertising that I can think of, which is perhaps the most interesting, is when people are abstracted! If people are made up so unique, their hair, and dress so far from the norm that they couldn't possibly represent their entire background, only then is it not stereotypical. This would target people who want to be unique, and stand out! The only thing is, when everyone wants to be unique and stand out, then everyone is, and no one is then these things.

Posted by Caralyn Stevens at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I feel that the interpretations of the Disney movie characters as representing upon womens behalf is way too in depth. By this I mean that no child, who is the target audience, views Cinderella, and takes in the idea that she had "sure signs of both external and internalized oppression." (p. 437) Also the idea that she can only, ever dream is not what I thought when I saw it as a child. I saw that this average girl, just like me, became a beautiful princess! I certainly never thought that Cinderella never thought for herself, or that her dreams were just dreams, and she was mentally unstable because she kept in her feelings. It's obvious to me now that these things are true, but nobody critiques these movies like this, and they shouldn't because they're for "entertainment".
The ideas critiqued of The Little Mermaid, were again true, and again ridiculous. The movie was not made for people to pick out the facts that Ariel was always controlled by her father, or that she gave up her curiousity for a boy. It was for small children to see and think I oh, I want to be like that, she's happy, she has someone, whatever. "Ariel chooses to leave her own people for life with Eric, it is still not her power but her father's power which enables her..." this is taken way out of context. Ariel is put in a hard decision, she wants true love in order to be happy. The act of her father having the power to do this could relate to marriage in a sense, an everday normal situation where the father gives her daughter away. The movie portrays real life, ideal situations in a much more down to child level sort of way.
Disney movies are not meant to be picked apart and analyzed, and hated. If children acted in those ways, they would be sitting around watching the news, reading news papers, things that normal children do not do.
Also, I wanted to add, in our discussion the question was put out 'does every disney movie have the girl is only happy after she's with her true love?' I thought of a good one that is not the 'prince/true-love idea'...one of my favorites as well, "Lilo and Stitch". In this movie, Lilo, the little girl (main character) does not grow up to become some beautiful woman and meet her true love. This one illustrates the bond between a child and her pet. I feel this is the best one as well, because guys are never perfect :) , and a girl can always count on her pet to be there for her! This is actually something that kids can live up to, haha!

Posted by Caralyn Stevens at 11:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)