Rachel dove into the topic of how mental illness, particularly schizophrenia, is portrayed in the media. This often brings up the question of corporate responsibility to accurately portray mental illness. Are producers obligated to accurately portray individuals with mental illness? I honestly don't think movie producers (or screen writers) can get in trouble for this since they don't portray every other person accurately either. But what I thought was interesting was the question of why is the only exposure to mental illness "bad" exposure? Persons with mental illness are most often depicted as hurting someone, raping someone, committing a crime, etc. I think it can be somewhat difficult (to an extent) to know whether mental illness is portrayed accurately if you've never had experience with or prior knowledge of any persons with the illness. I think that is one way that stereotypes develop: an illness is portrayed inaccurately, but because it is in the media and it's the only exposure some people will have, people assume those are the truths for that illness and assume all people who have that illness go through that same experience that was portrayed in the one movie they saw. I think it's important that we take a second look before accepting these portrayals as fact.
Katie's presentation was pretty brief, but I did find the differences between eharmony and compatiblepartners that she mentioned interesting, especially since compatiblepartners is owned by eharmony. While I don't think I would ever use a dating website anyway, I am extremely turned off by eharmony and would not recommend it to anyone I know. In fact, I would probably discourage people from using that site. As Katie mentioned, eharmony only allows for heterosexual users and, since it is religious in nature, does not allow people to select agnostic or atheist as a religious preference. I find it ridiculous and extremely discriminatory that eharmony has one website for people they consider "normal" or acceptable, but then also created a separate website, compatiblepartners, not because they are interested in helping other people to find partners, but because they realize there is a market and they will make more money by hosting this website. On compatiblepartners, same-sex options are available, as are agnostic and atheist options for religious preference, but on this website preferences for marriage and children are not allowed. This is further discrimination from eharmony and its absolutely ludicrous.
One quote that stuck out from David's presentation was "cyberspace highlights the performance of identity", which he exemplifies using the manhunt.net website as evidence. Manhunt is a dating website for gay males. Although it is exaggerated and over-stereotyped, Manhunt shows one way in which gay males perform homosexuality. Other dating websites (mainly heterosexual dating websites) focus on finding a person to have a committed relationship with and promotes marriage and family. Given the pictures found on the website and the questions that were placed in the user profiles, Manhunt essentially focuses mainly on having sex. I don't think I would even consider Manhunt to be a dating website, I would be more apt to call it a website for sexual encounters. Basically the creators of Manhunt are making money off of gay men having sex. I'm not sure if that is what David meant by saying "queer fetish develops has a commodity in these queer dating sites", and maybe there's more to it than that, but that is how I understand the concept of queer fetish as a commodity.
The part of Kelsey's presentation that interested me the most was when she said young boys and girls sometimes think that cyberbullying is somehow "better" than physical bullying because there is no physical harm done. It reminded me of a discussion I had in a class once. The professor asked our class if they thought physical or mental abuse was worse. People had arguments for both sides, but I said that I don't think anyone can judge which form of abuse is worse. I think it depends on each individual situation, but even then no one has the right to judge how bad an experience is for someone. This applies to physical/mental/cyberbullying as well. Kelsey mentioned that she feels cyberbullying can sometimes be more harmful because it goes out on the internet and once it's out there it won't go away. I don't think this is a valid argument to say that cyberbullying is worse than physical or mental bullying because there are ways that all three types of abuse can last a lifetime. People need to understand that no hierarchy exists for abuse or bullying because our world is not that black and white.
Leah's presentation on women in the military in the media was a compelling topic because I had just had a conversation about it in a class earlier that day and I know a few people in different branches of the military. Leah posed the question of whether military women are actually being treated more fairly in real life than in the past and the public only thinks they are being treated poorly because the media portrays them in that way. I don't think this is the case at all. I don't think women are being treated more fairly in the military. Women are constantly blamed for anything that goes wrong, they are harassed and assaulted on a daily basis, and they are treated like they aren't as tough or as dedicated as the men. I know Leah has a strict focus of where she wants her paper to go, but I was a little disappointed when Leah said she wasn't going to look at the way the media portrays sexual assault of women in the military. There might not be a lot of scholarly sources on this topic, but it would be interesting to see what is out there and what is being talked about, if anything is being talked about at all.
I hadn't really given much thought to Kenlyne's topic of cybercheating, but I found it engaging nonetheless. She brought up, as an example, a couple who had been together for seven years and while the girl's facebook was deactivated the guy was having a secret relationship with another girl and posting about it on his facebook. All I could think about was how much it would suck being the last person to know that your boyfriend has another girlfriend and then wondering where things went wrong and questioning the last seven years you spent together. I understand where Kenlyne was coming from when wondering how much one person can really know another, especially when a couple of seven years can fall victim to cybercheating and one partner has no idea anything is wrong. Thinking about your partner in this way (wondering how much you really know them) can sometimes stir up skepticism and mistrust over nothing. I think if two people are in a committed relationship and have never had a reason to distrust each other, they should believe what the other is telling them. And if something questionable pops up on facebook or twitter or whatever, it would probably be best to ask your partner than assume anything is going on otherwise because that can break down the relationship unintentionally and cause unnecessary drama.
No comments:
Post a Comment