Marriage in the Public Sphere

Kate Middleton and Prince William’s recent nuptials got me thinking about the interconnectedness of marriage and the public sphere.  Shows like, “Say Yes to the Dress”, “Amazing Wedding Cakes”, and “Bridezillas” (to name a few) on TLC, which expose the behind-the-scenes preparations that go into conducting a “successful wedding”.  The New York Times’ “Weddings and Celebrations” section is a weekly article in which announcements of marriages are published.  Tabloids and Fashion magazines alike (People and Vogue, for example) follow celebrity couples, hyping up their romantic lives so greatly that when they inevitably falter, the public reaction is more melodramatic than necessary.  Even movies and television shows of every genre highlight marriages (Charlotte from Sex and the City glorifies marriage to an extreme).  I appreciate that marriages have always been glorified throughout history, but I would like to research how the technological advancements that have occurred over the past 30 years have changed the public’s perception of marriage.  How did marriage become such a franchise in recent years?  When did people start buying paraphernalia with celebrity couples’ faces printed on them?  The influx of new ways to share information through the media and through other forms of modern technology has instigated a new era of blurring the lines between the private and public spheres.  I will be researching the different ways in which the media has become involved in the public sphere – specifically regarding marriage.

Not worth it.

I was recently browsing some of my favorite stores’ websites, and came across a few pieces of jewelry I really liked.  Initially, while I was doing this, I intended to write about new trends in jewelry – the “in” colors, etc.  But what I realized as I perused Anthropologie’s necklace section is that “play” jewelry has become seriously overpriced.  I appreciate that some semi-precious stones are harder to come by than others. I understand that the jewelry being sold at Anthropologie is hand-crafted with care.  I understand that gold is expensive.  But, naturally, I find it appalling that necklaces like those which I have provided links to cost close to what a refrigerator or some other large, electronic household appliance might cost.  I’m pretty sure some of these necklaces cost more than my television.  Who actually buys this stuff? Some of this stuff looks like the kind of jewelry I used to make in pre-school. Out of beans and dried pasta. Give me a break.

1)  http://www.anthropologie.com/anthro/catalog/productdetail.jsp?id=23850910&catId=JEWELRY-NECKLACES&pushId=JEWELRY-NECKLACES&popId=JEWELRYACCESSORIES&navCount=96&color=000&isProduct=true&fromCategoryPage=true&isSubcategory=true&subCategoryId=JEWELRY-NECKLACES

2) http://www.anthropologie.com/anthro/catalog/productdetail.jsp?id=23850928&catId=JEWELRY-NECKLACES&pushId=JEWELRY-NECKLACES&popId=JEWELRYACCESSORIES&navCount=96&color=000&isProduct=true&fromCategoryPage=true&isSubcategory=true&subCategoryId=JEWELRY-NECKLACES

Fur in Fashion

I don’t want to get into a debate about the morality of killing, skinning, and wearing an animal's fur as fashion, but I thought I’d write a little bit about how ridiculous (and almost hilarious) the concept of “fashionable fur” really is. I’ll admit that I do own “Ugg” boots.  I do own objects made from leather.  My mother has a coat in her closet made from animal fur.  That being said, though I don’t think about this concept often, it really is bizarre that humans wear the hides of other animals as fashion.  Seems like a primal concept, right? Why do people pay thousands of dollars to wear the skin and fur of dead animals? I find the concept of fur more disgusting than the concept of leather.  At least leather doesn’t still look like the animal it came from. 

I found a few links to ridiculously priced fur items.  Enjoy.

Raccoon, anyone?

http://www.barneys.com/Fur-Collar-Moto-Jacket/501248683,default,pd.html?q=fur


Fur baseball cap:

http://www.barneys.com/Felted-Fur-Dogear-Hat/00505013978785,default,pd.html?q=fur

Wear a fox around your neck:

http://www.barneys.com/Fox-Fur-Eternity-Scarf/00505014041556,default,pd.html?q=fur

Page 72 - Bullying in The Handmaid's Tale

Bullying is a despicable concept.  The idea that someone should find him or herself to be more significant than another person, and manifest this sentiment through the torment of this “lesser” person, is absolutely immoral.  In Margaret Atwood’s, The Handmaid’s Tale, societal guidelines are dictated by a gender-based social code (established by men) that inhibits bullying in the forms of sexism between men and women and classism between women and other women.  Atwood’s interpretation of the threats of the increasing sexism and classism that exist in our modern world is an exaggeration of what might actually come to fruition in the future.  However, this text is a good example of the negative threats that gender-based bullying poses on our society.  Atwood approached a modern concept by giving it a futuristic twist, a tactic we saw George Orwell employ in his novel, 1984.  What I appreciated about Atwood’s interpretation of the concept of gender-based bullying was her use of first-person narrative to engage the reader in the story through the protagonist’s thought process.  In this way, readers are privy to witnessing the backwards nature of the world Atwood created through the mind of a character that is sympathetic of others, thus providing the theory that human compassion has the potential to stay intact, even when society cultivates negativity based on gender differences.

In one particular scene, found on pages 71 and 72, Atwood presented a situation in which the protagonist was forced to belittle another woman, yet she felt guilty for doing so. The scene, though brief, is of a handmaid (Janine) who had been raped as a youth.  After repeating her experience at “Testifying,” a gathering at which the handmaids shared personal stories, though the truthfulness of these stories was never certain because “it was safer to make things up than to say you had nothing to reveal” (71), she was tormented by the rest of the women, who chanted “crybaby” at her, and told her that the rape was her own fault.  This aggressive bullying caused Janine to break down emotionally and eventually believe that the fact that she had been raped had actually been her own fault – that her promiscuity was the instigator.  Though, “for a moment, even though [the handmaids] knew what was being done to [Janine], [they] despised her” (72).  The moment that Offred, the protagonist, lapses out of her brainwashed mentality is when she admits, “I used to think well of myself. I didn’t then” (72).   Atwood uses Offred’s self-reflection to show that Offred is still emotionally removed from the “system,” though she is physically a part of it.

Atwood’s presentation of the concept of bullying and its intricacies between genders and within separate genders provides readers with the opportunity to see societal circumstances that should not be allowed to come into existence in our modern world.  I appreciate that Atwood was able to convey the protagonist’s guilty conscience by establishing a first-person narrative from Offred’s perspective.  This provided readers with a reminder that, even when society cultivates negativity based on gender differences, human compassion has the potential to persevere.

Social Changes

After reading what Ed had to say about the issue of whether or not to close the fraternities, I thought I'd share my thoughts on the matter.  I agree completely with Ed's views on this issue. While I think that there are some imperfections in the social "system" here at Trinity, I don't think that the fraternities should be shut down in order to alleviate them.  I appreciate the school's interest in pooling more funding from general alumni over simply receiving money from brothers, however I think that eliminating the fraternities entirely will deplete the school's appeal in applicants' eyes.  Trinity might be respected as an academic institution, but students will probably be less apt to apply here if the social scene is altered that dramatically.  I, for one, really enjoy the fact that we have the fraternities as an option on weekend nights. I am not overlooking the negative incidents that have been occurring more recently in the fraternities/involving the fraternities, but I do think that the fraternities are important to the social scene at this school. Without them, I think that students might turn to forming "underground fraternities".  Should those come to existence on this campus, the purpose of having shut down the fraternities will have been for naught.  These "underground" fraternities might cause bigger problems for the school, as well, because they will be even less regulated than the current, "official" institutions on our campus.  Whether or not the school actually shuts down the fraternities, I think that, yes, something does need to change.  But instead of demolishing a significant portion of the current social scene, why don't we add to other aspects of the nightlife on this campus?

True Enough.

Farhad Manjoo’s book, True Enough, raises many thought-provoking issues pertaining to the media coverage, logistics, and varying interpretations of the attacks that occurred on 9/11.  Manjoo uses 9/11 as an example of a situation where personal perspectives collided with the media’s perspective, as a confusion of individual thought and general media propaganda occurred in the aftermath of the attacks on that day.  Using topic as the basis for his novel, Manjoo examines the differences between forming personal opinions based on individual experience and interpreting a situation based on how the media portrays the incident and conveys the news to the public.

One of the concepts that I found more interesting than others was the concept of “flashbulb memories” (found on page 65).  The idea behind these memories is that they are formed at moments when your mind is so shocked by a specific surprise that it remembers every aspect of your surroundings at those moments when you were surprised.  This was interesting to me because I can clearly remember where I was and what I was doing when I was told about the attacks on September 11^th, 2001.  This concept relates to Manjoo’s overall analysis of interpretations – while I did not witness the attacks firsthand, I was able to watch footage of the attacks on the news later that day.  I have a vivid memory, however, of how my day transpired on September 11^th.  The concepts are somewhat disconnected, but they are similar in the sense that, specifically on 9/11, as Manjoo pointed out in this section of the reading, “if you were alive on 9/11, what you remember is what happened at the scene. You saw it unfold. Your flashbulb memory is of the thing itself” (65). So, while I was not at the immediate scene of the attacks, I viewed them on television – a live filming of the attacks.  I did not analyze the attacks. I did not spend time studying them.  I just watched them unfold.  I witnessed history firsthand, as opposed to reading about it in a newspaper at a later time. 

Another aspect of this book that I found very interesting was Manjoo’s argument that the inclusion of a greater amount of media coverage of a situation can lead to greater uncertainty and confusion regarding the interpretation of that situation.  He makes a valid point.  A particular multimedia clip has the potential to be interpreted in so many different ways that, though the clip might have recorded an incident, the details of that incident might be blurred if the incident is over-analyzed. Over-analyzing situations can lead to false conclusions.  As Manjoo noted, “42 percent of Americans believe that ‘the U.S. government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11^th attacks” (65).  This outcry was based on the viewing and over-analyzing of “thousands of photographs and sounds recorded that day” (65). 

While there were other aspects of Manjoo’s examination of the media in this book that I found interesting, these were some of the concepts that have stuck with me.  I know that I will always remember every detail of my day on 9/11.  And the next time I watch the news, I will be sure to consider the angle from which the news is being covered.  I will consider the news station’s credibility before fully believing every aspect of the story.   More so than I did before reading this book, I can now better appreciate the media’s great influence on our lives.  And reflecting on what happened on 9/11 has made me think about the media has portrayed the events over the past decade.  There are always multiple interpretations of every story.  This book has made me think about the extent to which the media influences the opinions I shape.

The "Dr. Fox" Effect

The “Dr. Fox” Effect (beginning on page 113) is an interesting concept.  It is true that, if persuaded effectively, people will begin to believe in something that does not actually exist or is not true.  This experiment immediately made me think of how little children are so quick to believe concepts they know nothing about.  Could adults – well-educated, probably very successful doctors – really fall under the spell of brainwashing so quickly without questioning the validity of the information they are being told? Very interesting. Very disturbing. We need to be more active when it comes to learning new things – we need to question things, and extract answers.  This experiment is a good example of how society digests false information it is fed.