Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.harry-potter » And the press strikes back...
And the press strikes back... [message #246842] Mo, 10 April 2006 21:55
drusilla  
Remember what Jo wrote about stupid girls? well, the press has already
read it and... well... Ciaran from Mugglenet can express it better than I.

"*Paper criticises Jo's piece on our skinny-obsessed world*

The Mail on Sunday yesterday criticised JK Rowling's recent article
about our skinny-obsessed world and how magazines glorify being thin.
The headline of the controversial article reads: "If you loathe the
'skinny obsessed' world so much, JK, why did you make evil Dudley
Dursley so FAT?" That sentence sums up the entire article's point:
Almost every hero or heroine in the books is thin - with the exception
of Molly Weasley who, the article says, is "plump" in a maternal way -
and "young girls' preoccupation with being slim will only change when
they have plump or fat role models. And no one is better placed to
effect that change than the most powerful woman in publishing today - JK
Rowling."

Since Jo published the fascinating article, entitled "For Girls Only,
Probably...," on her official site, it was readily covered by global
media outlets, receiving mixed but mostly positive feedback.

However, The Mail's article is rather inaccurate in parts. For example,
it calls Hermione "ravishing and trim," but I have never seen Hermione
described as such in the books (except in The Yule Ball), and in general
we could say that Hermione isn't too attractive (with her bushy hair and
long front teeth), possibly making her a role model for similar girls. I
believe The Mail uses the above description simply to suit its argument.
Also, the newspaper fails to mention Snape and Malfoy, who are both
described as thin and are both evil characters in the books. Check out
some scans of the article below, courtesy of reader Marie:

http://www.mugglenet.com/viewer/?image_location=/dailymailsc ans/MoS1.jpg
http://www.mugglenet.com/viewer/?image_location=/dailymailsc ans/MoS2.jpg
http://www.mugglenet.com/viewer/?image_location=/dailymailsc ans/DailyMail.jpg

Want to let the paper know how you feel? Email letters [at] mailonsunday.co.uk."

I assume this is the press who gets Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton on
their covers, isn't? Because I don't see the argument at all, except
that they keep saying girls that
'skin-to-the-bones-edging-with-Anorexic-is-cool', while Jo - and Pink -
say otherwise. And yes, they will know how I feel.

(so weird to put Jo and Pink in the same sentence, but this case might
be an exception)
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #246843 ] Mo, 10 April 2006 21:59
drusilla  
I hate to reply myself, but I just read: "repulsive figure: Dudley as
portrayed by the actor Harry Melling" next to the actor's picture. HOW
THEY DARE? He's just a kid!
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #246844 ] Mo, 10 April 2006 22:27
angelahowie  
This was mentioned on the bbc breakfast program the other day, the bloke was
saying something along the lines of *she says this but casts an attractive
girl to play Hermione* the guy has obviousley not read the descriptions of
her in the books. As far as I know jo does not have much to do with casting
for the films and Emma is certainly not the hermione Jk describes.
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #246845 ] Mo, 10 April 2006 22:46
Brent Braten  
Now, now, Draco. Play nicely.
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #246846 ] Mo, 10 April 2006 23:03
pooter  
drusilla [me [at] me.net] said
> Remember what Jo wrote about stupid girls? well, the press has already
> read it and... well... Ciaran from Mugglenet can express it better than I.
>
> "*Paper criticises Jo's piece on our skinny-obsessed world*
>
> The Mail on Sunday yesterday criticised JK Rowling's recent article
> about our skinny-obsessed world and how magazines glorify being thin.
> The headline of the controversial article reads: "If you loathe the
> 'skinny obsessed' world so much, JK, why did you make evil Dudley
> Dursley so FAT?" That sentence sums up the entire article's point:
> Almost every hero or heroine in the books is thin - with the exception
> of Molly Weasley who, the article says, is "plump" in a maternal way -
> and "young girls' preoccupation with being slim will only change when
> they have plump or fat role models. And no one is better placed to
> effect that change than the most powerful woman in publishing today - JK
> Rowling."

While I think JKR's article was excellent The Mail do make a fair point.

Dudley is some what demonised for being a fat kid and the impression we
get is that he is fat because he is greedy. And before someone says that
he is demonised for being nasty I will point out that words like
"porky" are used to describe him and references to size are come thick
and fast when ever and where ever he is referred to.

Meanwhile, we get description after description of 2nd and 3rd helpings
of pies and cakes and bacon and eggs and roast potatoes being eaten by
Harry and Ron et all at the Wheasleys and at Hogworts but none are ever
called greedy and none ever get fat. And Harry never seems to put on any
weight despite the suggestions that he was thin because he was under
fed.
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #246850 ] Mo, 10 April 2006 23:16
Kish  
pooter wrote:
> drusilla [me [at] me.net] said
>
>>Remember what Jo wrote about stupid girls? well, the press has already
>>read it and... well... Ciaran from Mugglenet can express it better than I.
>>
>>"*Paper criticises Jo's piece on our skinny-obsessed world*
>>
>>The Mail on Sunday yesterday criticised JK Rowling's recent article
>>about our skinny-obsessed world and how magazines glorify being thin.
>>The headline of the controversial article reads: "If you loathe the
>>'skinny obsessed' world so much, JK, why did you make evil Dudley
>>Dursley so FAT?" That sentence sums up the entire article's point:
>>Almost every hero or heroine in the books is thin - with the exception
>>of Molly Weasley who, the article says, is "plump" in a maternal way -
>>and "young girls' preoccupation with being slim will only change when
>>they have plump or fat role models. And no one is better placed to
>>effect that change than the most powerful woman in publishing today - JK
>>Rowling."
>
>
> While I think JKR's article was excellent The Mail do make a fair point.
>
> Dudley is some what demonised for being a fat kid and the impression we
> get is that he is fat because he is greedy. And before someone says that
> he is demonised for being nasty I will point out that words like
> "porky" are used to describe him and references to size are come thick
> and fast when ever and where ever he is referred to.

Indeed. Hagrid even tried to turn him into a pig for no good reason
(Hagrid knew nothing bad about the boy; he should have used magic
directly on Vernon if he wanted to punish him for insulting Dumbledore)
and it was played for laughs.

Lots of thin villains, yes--in fact, every serious character is thin.
The only fat character is presented as completely lacking in redeeming
characteristics and simultaneously unimportant.
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #246855 ] Di, 11 April 2006 01:23
drusilla  
Kish escribió:
> pooter wrote:
>> drusilla [me [at] me.net] said
>>
>>> Remember what Jo wrote about stupid girls? well, the press has
>>> already read it and... well... Ciaran from Mugglenet can express it
>>> better than I.
>>>
>>> "*Paper criticises Jo's piece on our skinny-obsessed world*
>>>
>>> The Mail on Sunday yesterday criticised JK Rowling's recent article
>>> about our skinny-obsessed world and how magazines glorify being thin.
>>> The headline of the controversial article reads: "If you loathe the
>>> 'skinny obsessed' world so much, JK, why did you make evil Dudley
>>> Dursley so FAT?" That sentence sums up the entire article's point:
>>> Almost every hero or heroine in the books is thin - with the
>>> exception of Molly Weasley who, the article says, is "plump" in a
>>> maternal way - and "young girls' preoccupation with being slim will
>>> only change when they have plump or fat role models. And no one is
>>> better placed to effect that change than the most powerful woman in
>>> publishing today - JK Rowling."
>>
>>
>> While I think JKR's article was excellent The Mail do make a fair point.
>>
>> Dudley is some what demonised for being a fat kid and the impression
>> we get is that he is fat because he is greedy. And before someone says
>> that he is demonised for being nasty I will point out that words like
>> "porky" are used to describe him and references to size are come thick
>> and fast when ever and where ever he is referred to.
>
> Indeed. Hagrid even tried to turn him into a pig for no good reason
> (Hagrid knew nothing bad about the boy; he should have used magic
> directly on Vernon if he wanted to punish him for insulting Dumbledore)
> and it was played for laughs.
>
> Lots of thin villains, yes--in fact, every serious character is thin.
> The only fat character is presented as completely lacking in redeeming
> characteristics and simultaneously unimportant.

But Duddley is not fat because he wants - unlike the skinny girls Jo
talk about -. He is fat because he's spoiled by his parents, who give
him everything he wants even if this might hurt him, which is the
problem with the girls with the super expensive bags (Lionel Ritchie and
the Hilton must be the worst parents ever, along with the Dursleys). You
can seriously tell me that Dudley is healthy: it's obviously he suffers
an Eating disorder 'cause not all ED are anorexia and bulimic. What
duddley represents is not a fat boy but a lazy parent.

There is no point in that article except to argue against Rowling said
with no reason at all. I wildly assume that the author of the note has
never read the books at all, neither have children who look at these
girls and think they are the coolest thing. If girls suddenly start
feelign better with themselves and stop seeing Lindsay Lohan as she
really is - a talentless cocaine addict slut, they will stop buying
tabloids.
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #246893 ] Di, 11 April 2006 07:00
Toon  
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:55:55 -0500, drusilla <me [at] me.net> wrote:

>Remember what Jo wrote about stupid girls? well, the press has already
>read it and... well... Ciaran from Mugglenet can express it better than I.
>
>"*Paper criticises Jo's piece on our skinny-obsessed world*
>
>The Mail on Sunday yesterday criticised JK Rowling's recent article
>about our skinny-obsessed world and how magazines glorify being thin.
>The headline of the controversial article reads: "If you loathe the
>'skinny obsessed' world so much, JK, why did you make evil Dudley
>Dursley so FAT?" That sentence sums up the entire article's point:
>Almost every hero or heroine in the books is thin - with the exception
>of Molly Weasley who, the article says, is "plump" in a maternal way -
>and "young girls' preoccupation with being slim will only change when
>they have plump or fat role models. And no one is better placed to
>effect that change than the most powerful woman in publishing today - JK
>Rowling."

So,because more people read Jo's work then the mags combined, it's
Jo's job to provide role models for girls? No. it's the mag's jobs
to represent the truth. Those photos are airbrushed and photoshopped
up the yin yang. Try a little journalistic integrity. On second
thought, try a lot. a nice fat helping of it.
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #246894 ] Di, 11 April 2006 07:47
drusilla  
Toon escribió:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:55:55 -0500, drusilla <me [at] me.net> wrote:
>
>> Remember what Jo wrote about stupid girls? well, the press has already
>> read it and... well... Ciaran from Mugglenet can express it better than I.
>>
>> "*Paper criticises Jo's piece on our skinny-obsessed world*
>>
>> The Mail on Sunday yesterday criticised JK Rowling's recent article
>> about our skinny-obsessed world and how magazines glorify being thin.
>> The headline of the controversial article reads: "If you loathe the
>> 'skinny obsessed' world so much, JK, why did you make evil Dudley
>> Dursley so FAT?" That sentence sums up the entire article's point:
>> Almost every hero or heroine in the books is thin - with the exception
>> of Molly Weasley who, the article says, is "plump" in a maternal way -
>> and "young girls' preoccupation with being slim will only change when
>> they have plump or fat role models. And no one is better placed to
>> effect that change than the most powerful woman in publishing today - JK
>> Rowling."
>
> So,because more people read Jo's work then the mags combined, it's
> Jo's job to provide role models for girls?

No, it's no. Jo's giving her opinion as a woman and as a mother of two
girls, which, IMO is more valuable than this magazine editor.

No. it's the mag's jobs
> to represent the truth.

But unfortunately, they don't.

Those photos are airbrushed and photoshopped
> up the yin yang. Try a little journalistic integrity. On second
> thought, try a lot. a nice fat helping of it.

The thing is that there is not even need of pictures because the movies
have nothing to do with the charecters from book
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #246897 ] Di, 11 April 2006 09:06
DAC  
> The Mail on Sunday yesterday criticised JK Rowling's recent article about
> our skinny-obsessed world and how magazines glorify being thin. The
> headline of the controversial article reads: "If you loathe the 'skinny
> obsessed' world so much, JK, why did you make evil Dudley Dursley so FAT?"
> That sentence sums up the entire article's point: Almost every hero or
> heroine in the books is thin - with the exception of Molly Weasley who,
> the article says, is "plump" in a maternal way - and "young girls'
> preoccupation with being slim will only change when they have plump or fat
> role models. And no one is better placed to effect that change than the
> most powerful woman in publishing today - JK Rowling."

I think they completely missed the point.
JKR was NOT saying its ok to be over weight, which is what they seem to
imply here.

She is saying that most of the models have a look that a fully healthy child
cannot achieve.
She is not saying its OK to be fat like Duddly.
The characters aren't meant to be skinny, but 'normal', in that you wouldn't
say they were underweight nor over weight.

In terms of the kids taking it to seriously... they should. In USA and
Australia and its starting to happen in europe to, the kids are all getting
over weight.

You must realise in the US at least 64% of the adult population is now
considered overweight or obese.
For kids this used to be down at 3% and is now passing 30%.

The number of people underweight with disorders wouldnt even make 0.1%.
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #246901 ] Di, 11 April 2006 09:06
Toon  
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:03:53 +0100, pooter <a [at] bff.com> wrote:

>drusilla [me [at] me.net] said
>> Remember what Jo wrote about stupid girls? well, the press has already
>> read it and... well... Ciaran from Mugglenet can express it better than I.
>>
>> "*Paper criticises Jo's piece on our skinny-obsessed world*
>>
>> The Mail on Sunday yesterday criticised JK Rowling's recent article
>> about our skinny-obsessed world and how magazines glorify being thin.
>> The headline of the controversial article reads: "If you loathe the
>> 'skinny obsessed' world so much, JK, why did you make evil Dudley
>> Dursley so FAT?" That sentence sums up the entire article's point:
>> Almost every hero or heroine in the books is thin - with the exception
>> of Molly Weasley who, the article says, is "plump" in a maternal way -
>> and "young girls' preoccupation with being slim will only change when
>> they have plump or fat role models. And no one is better placed to
>> effect that change than the most powerful woman in publishing today - JK
>> Rowling."
>
>While I think JKR's article was excellent The Mail do make a fair point.
>
>Dudley is some what demonised for being a fat kid and the impression we
>get is that he is fat because he is greedy. And before someone says that
>he is demonised for being nasty I will point out that words like
>"porky" are used to describe him and references to size are come thick
>and fast when ever and where ever he is referred to.
>
>Meanwhile, we get description after description of 2nd and 3rd helpings
>of pies and cakes and bacon and eggs and roast potatoes being eaten by
>Harry and Ron et all at the Wheasleys and at Hogworts but none are ever
>called greedy and none ever get fat. And Harry never seems to put on any
>weight despite the suggestions that he was thin because he was under
>fed.

Molly zapped them to give them better metabolism.
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247589 ] Mi, 12 April 2006 16:55
Matt Clara  
"Toon" <toon [at] toon.com> wrote in message
news:ardm32lk9qc30let4kjb9nmlb76dquh72r [at] 4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:55:55 -0500, drusilla <me [at] me.net> wrote:
>
> >Remember what Jo wrote about stupid girls? well, the press has already
> >read it and... well... Ciaran from Mugglenet can express it better than
I.
> >
> >"*Paper criticises Jo's piece on our skinny-obsessed world*
> >
> >The Mail on Sunday yesterday criticised JK Rowling's recent article
> >about our skinny-obsessed world and how magazines glorify being thin.
> >The headline of the controversial article reads: "If you loathe the
> >'skinny obsessed' world so much, JK, why did you make evil Dudley
> >Dursley so FAT?" That sentence sums up the entire article's point:
> >Almost every hero or heroine in the books is thin - with the exception
> >of Molly Weasley who, the article says, is "plump" in a maternal way -
> >and "young girls' preoccupation with being slim will only change when
> >they have plump or fat role models. And no one is better placed to
> >effect that change than the most powerful woman in publishing today - JK
> >Rowling."
>
> So,because more people read Jo's work then the mags combined, it's
> Jo's job to provide role models for girls? No. it's the mag's jobs
> to represent the truth. Those photos are airbrushed and photoshopped
> up the yin yang. Try a little journalistic integrity. On second
> thought, try a lot. a nice fat helping of it.

Everybody needs to get on board. Saying we should disregard an argument
postulated by person X based on some fact external to their argument is a
logical fallacy. They are correct in pointing out that JKR is part of the
problem. They are malicious in not saying, good for her for waking up to
the situation, as well as in not admitting that their own publications are
indeed part of the problem too.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247595 ] Mi, 12 April 2006 18:56
drusilla  
Matt Clara escribió:

>
> Everybody needs to get on board. Saying we should disregard an argument
> postulated by person X based on some fact external to their argument is a
> logical fallacy. They are correct in pointing out that JKR is part of the
> problem.

HOw is Jo part of the problem?
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247598 ] Mi, 12 April 2006 19:22
Thomas Madura  
Matt Clara wrote:

> "Toon" <toon [at] toon.com> wrote in message
> news:ardm32lk9qc30let4kjb9nmlb76dquh72r [at] 4ax.com...
>
>>On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:55:55 -0500, drusilla <me [at] me.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Remember what Jo wrote about stupid girls? well, the press has already
>>>read it and... well... Ciaran from Mugglenet can express it better than
>
> I.
>
>>>"*Paper criticises Jo's piece on our skinny-obsessed world*
>>>
>>>The Mail on Sunday yesterday criticised JK Rowling's recent article
>>>about our skinny-obsessed world and how magazines glorify being thin.
>>>The headline of the controversial article reads: "If you loathe the
>>>'skinny obsessed' world so much, JK, why did you make evil Dudley
>>>Dursley so FAT?" That sentence sums up the entire article's point:
>>>Almost every hero or heroine in the books is thin - with the exception
>>>of Molly Weasley who, the article says, is "plump" in a maternal way -
>>>and "young girls' preoccupation with being slim will only change when
>>>they have plump or fat role models. And no one is better placed to
>>>effect that change than the most powerful woman in publishing today - JK
>>>Rowling."
>>
>> So,because more people read Jo's work then the mags combined, it's
>>Jo's job to provide role models for girls? No. it's the mag's jobs
>>to represent the truth. Those photos are airbrushed and photoshopped
>>up the yin yang. Try a little journalistic integrity. On second
>>thought, try a lot. a nice fat helping of it.
>
>
> Everybody needs to get on board. Saying we should disregard an argument
> postulated by person X based on some fact external to their argument is a
> logical fallacy. They are correct in pointing out that JKR is part of the
> problem. They are malicious in not saying, good for her for waking up to
> the situation, as well as in not admitting that their own publications are
> indeed part of the problem too.
>


No - I completely disagree.

The publications are not any big part of the problem if at all.

THe publications, just like the news - cater to an audience that BUYS
its stories - either through Movie Tickets, Book and Magazine purchases,
or Radio or TV listening/viewing.

While people complain that there should be more "good news" reported on
- among other things. those same people don't put up the money for it.
People look for sensationalism and reject the "human interest stories"
overwhelmingly.

IF people want it to be different - they have to change what they do -
the media will follow. But - the media is just a money making enterprise
- like a Bakery. Liver and Onion flavored candy isn't made because it
doesn't sell. THe media reports are nothing more than product - and the
products that produce revenue are the ones that you see.
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247608 ] Mi, 12 April 2006 20:46
Philip Lewis  
Thom Madura <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Liver and Onion flavored candy isn't made because it doesn't sell.
Except Bertie Botts, of course. well, the HP Universe onces... not
sure if the real world ones have that flavor. ;)

--
May no harm befall you,
flip
Ich habe keine Ahnung was das bedeutet, oder vielleicht doch?
Remove origin of the word spam from address to reply (leave "+")
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247614 ] Do, 13 April 2006 01:00
Matt Clara  
"Thom Madura" <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:1Ha%f.15824$YT1.12074 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Matt Clara wrote:
>
>> "Toon" <toon [at] toon.com> wrote in message
>> news:ardm32lk9qc30let4kjb9nmlb76dquh72r [at] 4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:55:55 -0500, drusilla <me [at] me.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Remember what Jo wrote about stupid girls? well, the press has already
>>>>read it and... well... Ciaran from Mugglenet can express it better than
>>
>> I.
>>
>>>>"*Paper criticises Jo's piece on our skinny-obsessed world*
>>>>
>>>>The Mail on Sunday yesterday criticised JK Rowling's recent article
>>>>about our skinny-obsessed world and how magazines glorify being thin.
>>>>The headline of the controversial article reads: "If you loathe the
>>>>'skinny obsessed' world so much, JK, why did you make evil Dudley
>>>>Dursley so FAT?" That sentence sums up the entire article's point:
>>>>Almost every hero or heroine in the books is thin - with the exception
>>>>of Molly Weasley who, the article says, is "plump" in a maternal way -
>>>>and "young girls' preoccupation with being slim will only change when
>>>>they have plump or fat role models. And no one is better placed to
>>>>effect that change than the most powerful woman in publishing today - JK
>>>>Rowling."
>>>
>>> So,because more people read Jo's work then the mags combined, it's
>>>Jo's job to provide role models for girls? No. it's the mag's jobs
>>>to represent the truth. Those photos are airbrushed and photoshopped
>>>up the yin yang. Try a little journalistic integrity. On second
>>>thought, try a lot. a nice fat helping of it.
>>
>>
>> Everybody needs to get on board. Saying we should disregard an argument
>> postulated by person X based on some fact external to their argument is a
>> logical fallacy. They are correct in pointing out that JKR is part of
>> the
>> problem. They are malicious in not saying, good for her for waking up to
>> the situation, as well as in not admitting that their own publications
>> are
>> indeed part of the problem too.
>>
>
>
> No - I completely disagree.
>
> The publications are not any big part of the problem if at all.
>
> THe publications, just like the news - cater to an audience that BUYS its
> stories - either through Movie Tickets, Book and Magazine purchases, or
> Radio or TV listening/viewing.
>
> While people complain that there should be more "good news" reported on -
> among other things. those same people don't put up the money for it.
> People look for sensationalism and reject the "human interest stories"
> overwhelmingly.
>
> IF people want it to be different - they have to change what they do - the
> media will follow. But - the media is just a money making enterprise
> - like a Bakery. Liver and Onion flavored candy isn't made because it
> doesn't sell. THe media reports are nothing more than product - and the
> products that produce revenue are the ones that you see.

That just tries to switch the blame from the few people who make decisions
about these things, to the billions of people affected by them. I'm talking
about a media culture that, through the use of advertising, sells people on
the idea that they are inadequate, that they need always something more to
complete themselves. They use very fundamental psychological techniques to
shape society largely into what it is today, where economic health itself is
defined by an unsustainable pattern of production and consumption. Some of
the side effects of this is that we don't feel very good about ourselves,
and some groups that are targeted more than others, namely women and their
look/feel/smell (and even flavor--some cosmetics have flavors!), suffer more
greatly than others.

Finally, it was Nancy Reagan who said, "Just say no." It was overly
simplistic, unrealistic, and entirely ineffective then, just as it is now.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247615 ] Do, 13 April 2006 01:20
Matt Clara  
"drusilla" <me [at] me.net> wrote in message news:e1jbe4$f58$1 [at] emma.aioe.org...
> Matt Clara escribió:
>
>>
>> Everybody needs to get on board. Saying we should disregard an argument
>> postulated by person X based on some fact external to their argument is a
>> logical fallacy. They are correct in pointing out that JKR is part of
>> the
>> problem.
>
> HOw is Jo part of the problem?

She utilizes stereotypes of fat and thin to help give depth to her
characters. Many have already been mentioned, one that has not is Neville
Longbottom. Simply, he's described as plump, and how easy is it to take
seriously some described thusly? Add to that his other characteristics,
inept, incompetent, funny looking, without social grace, and we have the
whole stereotype, i.e., plump people are all of these things; thus, she
reinforces the stereotype. But I'm not castigating her for it, and I
applaud her for pointing out the small part of the problem that she did, now
she needs to look inward, but then we all do. In her first of the Earthsea
series, A Wizard of Earthsea, my favorite fantasy author, Ursula K. Le Guin
had three female characters, one of whom was evil, one of whom was vapid,
and one was the "perfect" woman, in a small town kinda way, all three of
them stereotypes, and all of them impotent, particularly compared to the
wizards (and in Earthsea only men can be wizards, btw). In her fourth book,
Tehanu, Le Guin seeks to amend this, and the book is a bit strained as she
searches for an alternate path to the hero's tale. Hey, I loved that first
book, and still do, faults and all, but Le Guin recognized the faults and
sought to re-envision her world. In doing so she helped break genre
traditions and further women everywhere, even if in just some small way.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247616 ] Do, 13 April 2006 03:21
Thomas Madura  
Matt Clara wrote:
> "Thom Madura" <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:1Ha%f.15824$YT1.12074 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>Matt Clara wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Toon" <toon [at] toon.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ardm32lk9qc30let4kjb9nmlb76dquh72r [at] 4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:55:55 -0500, drusilla <me [at] me.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Remember what Jo wrote about stupid girls? well, the press has already
>>>>>read it and... well... Ciaran from Mugglenet can express it better than
>>>
>>>I.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>"*Paper criticises Jo's piece on our skinny-obsessed world*
>>>>>
>>>>>The Mail on Sunday yesterday criticised JK Rowling's recent article
>>>>>about our skinny-obsessed world and how magazines glorify being thin.
>>>>>The headline of the controversial article reads: "If you loathe the
>>>>>'skinny obsessed' world so much, JK, why did you make evil Dudley
>>>>>Dursley so FAT?" That sentence sums up the entire article's point:
>>>>>Almost every hero or heroine in the books is thin - with the exception
>>>>>of Molly Weasley who, the article says, is "plump" in a maternal way -
>>>>>and "young girls' preoccupation with being slim will only change when
>>>>>they have plump or fat role models. And no one is better placed to
>>>>>effect that change than the most powerful woman in publishing today - JK
>>>>>Rowling."
>>>>
>>>>So,because more people read Jo's work then the mags combined, it's
>>>>Jo's job to provide role models for girls? No. it's the mag's jobs
>>>>to represent the truth. Those photos are airbrushed and photoshopped
>>>>up the yin yang. Try a little journalistic integrity. On second
>>>>thought, try a lot. a nice fat helping of it.


This is ridiculous. It is not the mag's job to represent the truth. It
is their job to sell magazines. THey sell them based on what people buy.
THe TRUTH is - if people "bought" a magazine filled with pictures of
zaftig women - the advertisers would certainly knock that magazines door
down. But the people Don't.


>>>
>>>
>>>Everybody needs to get on board. Saying we should disregard an argument
>>>postulated by person X based on some fact external to their argument is a
>>>logical fallacy. They are correct in pointing out that JKR is part of
>>>the
>>>problem. They are malicious in not saying, good for her for waking up to
>>>the situation, as well as in not admitting that their own publications
>>>are
>>>indeed part of the problem too.
>>>
>>
>>
>>No - I completely disagree.
>>
>>The publications are not any big part of the problem if at all.
>>
>>THe publications, just like the news - cater to an audience that BUYS its
>>stories - either through Movie Tickets, Book and Magazine purchases, or
>>Radio or TV listening/viewing.
>>
>>While people complain that there should be more "good news" reported on -
>>among other things. those same people don't put up the money for it.
>>People look for sensationalism and reject the "human interest stories"
>>overwhelmingly.
>>
>>IF people want it to be different - they have to change what they do - the
>>media will follow. But - the media is just a money making enterprise
>>- like a Bakery. Liver and Onion flavored candy isn't made because it
>>doesn't sell. THe media reports are nothing more than product - and the
>>products that produce revenue are the ones that you see.
>
>
> That just tries to switch the blame from the few people who make decisions
> about these things, to the billions of people affected by them. I'm talking
> about a media culture that, through the use of advertising, sells people on
> the idea that they are inadequate, that they need always something more to
> complete themselves. They use very fundamental psychological techniques to
> shape society largely into what it is today, where economic health itself is
> defined by an unsustainable pattern of production and consumption. Some of
> the side effects of this is that we don't feel very good about ourselves,
> and some groups that are targeted more than others, namely women and their
> look/feel/smell (and even flavor--some cosmetics have flavors!), suffer more
> greatly than others.


No - the "few" people who make these decisions are the viewers/readers
and the advertisers.

THe media is just like any other business - it is in business to make
money for the stockholders. AS a result - they must produce a product
that sells and can draw advertising money. The public chooses the
programs/books etc - they want to support. While the TV people have
tried - sometimes valiantly - to produce good quality productions - they
rarely catch on with the audience - and cannot draw enough advertising
dollars (Due to low ratings).

WHen the audience is so low that the remaining advertisers no longer
support the show - the show ends.

It is the demo audience - and the targeted age group - that the
advertisers want - not the show. And the Advertisers pay good money to
BUY the audience they want. No media empire can exist without advertisers .

This is the way the system works.

I know - I am in that business.

While News programs can certainly spot trends in fashion - etc - it is
generally the celebrities wearing the fashion that start a trend.

The search for the almighty "profit" has long ago prevented the media
from more than just a passing influence in the trends today. THe
advertisers - who the media need to make the profit - are not controlled
by the media with only some barely basic decency rules. It is the
advertisers who control the media. And the Advertisers flock to the
shows that the people are watching most often - that also provide the
demo audience(age/sex/income/etc) the advertiser wants.

So - in the end - it is the people who really control the media. The
people making these decisons are making these decisions based on the
viewing habits of the public.


>
> Finally, it was Nancy Reagan who said, "Just say no." It was overly
> simplistic, unrealistic, and entirely ineffective then, just as it is now.



>
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247619 ] Do, 13 April 2006 03:52
dicconf  
In article <qvjirpefx7l.fsf [at] unix42.andrew.cmu.edu>,
Philip Lewis <flip+spiced_ham [at] andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Thom Madura <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>Liver and Onion flavored candy isn't made because it doesn't sell.
>Except Bertie Botts, of course. well, the HP Universe onces... not
>sure if the real world ones have that flavor. ;)

No, but they have bacon flavor.

=Tamar
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247621 ] Do, 13 April 2006 04:00
dicconf  
In article <lIh%f.1546$az4.1212 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Thom Madura <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> wrote:

<snip>
>The media is just like any other business - it is in business to make
>money for the stockholders. AS a result - they must produce a product
>that sells and can draw advertising money. The public chooses the
>programs/books etc - they want to support. While the TV people have
>tried - sometimes valiantly - to produce good quality productions - they
>rarely catch on with the audience - and cannot draw enough advertising
>dollars (Due to low ratings).

But the public have been trained since childhood to expect what the
previous generation seemed to want. The ketchup story is appropriate in
this context. When ketchup was first made commercially, the machinery
for cooking large amounts wasn't very good; it made a product that was
watery and burned-tasting. The manufacturers advertised heavily that
it was a "new and improved" flavor, and people who didn't want to make
their own ketchup bought it and learned to accept the flavor. Generations
grew up with that flavor as the officially correct one for ketchup. Then
(in the 1970s I believe) machinery was improved to the point that they
could now produce properly cooked ketchup - so they tried, and it failed
miserably in the market because everyone had been trained to think that
"good" ketchup was thin and watery and burned tasting.

=Tamar
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247622 ] Do, 13 April 2006 04:01
dicconf  
In article <lIh%f.1546$az4.1212 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Thom Madura <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Ah, here's the bit I oversnipped before:

>The TRUTH is - if people "bought" a magazine filled with pictures of
>zaftig women - the advertisers would certainly knock that magazines door
>down. But the people Don't.

Been down to the p**n shops lately? There are magazines filled with
pictures of zaftig women...

=Tamar
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247626 ] Do, 13 April 2006 05:11
drusilla  
Richard Eney escribió:
> In article <lIh%f.1546$az4.1212 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Thom Madura <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Ah, here's the bit I oversnipped before:
>
>> The TRUTH is - if people "bought" a magazine filled with pictures of
>> zaftig women - the advertisers would certainly knock that magazines door
>> down. But the people Don't.
>
> Been down to the p**n shops lately? There are magazines filled with
> pictures of zaftig women...
>
> =Tamar

Press can sell whatever they want, and kids can read whatever they want.
Whatsoever, it's wrong to tell our children that a eating disorder and
stupidity is cool. Not only because is, as said, wrong but because is
not even accurate. How many girls would die to be as thin as <insert
HOllywood starlet's name here> but they can't for several reasons? Lots.
And indeed, some of them die trying. That's what Jo has raised her voice
against, not against the press or media. There is a popular phrase: 'if
the gloves fit you, wear them'. If the press feel offended and/or
insulted as they need to answer back is because there is much of truth
in Jo's words, and those of us who have kids now how right it is.

Matt is right about something below: perhaps Neville has many of the
'fat kid' stereotypes, but he might be the only one: if the press wanted
to attack Jo, they could have easily use him. But they didn't even
bother to read the books: they call Dudley fat and evil based on the
first chapters and the actor that portrays him.

Anyway, Mugglenet 'bites back': this is an editorial by Andy about the
article in question:

"Following the Mail on Sunday's criticism of JK Rowling and her article
about the skinny-obsessed world, the MuggleNet staff felt that a
response was needed to let them know what genuine Harry Potter fans
thought about the issue. This reply was written by Andy (the
Encyclopedia boss) and can be found in the Encyclopedia Opinion section,
or by following this link.

Please note that this is an unoffical response, and Andy's opinions may
or may not reflect the views of other MuggleNet staff. On the other
hand, we're sure you'll find it hard to disagree with him... at all."

http://www.mugglenet.com/infosection/opinion/fatfem.shtml
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247627 ] Do, 13 April 2006 05:25
Kish  
drusilla wrote:

> Matt is right about something below: perhaps Neville has many of the
> 'fat kid' stereotypes, but he might be the only one: if the press wanted
> to attack Jo, they could have easily use him. But they didn't even
> bother to read the books: they call Dudley fat and evil based on the
> first chapters and the actor that portrays him.

....Uh?

Does Dudley stop being fat after the first chapters? I read four books
with his weight being made fun of before he turned into a boxer in book
5, personally. Does he stop being evil at any time in the first six books?
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247633 ] Do, 13 April 2006 06:42
drusilla  
Kish escribió:
> drusilla wrote:
>
>> Matt is right about something below: perhaps Neville has many of the
>> 'fat kid' stereotypes, but he might be the only one: if the press
>> wanted to attack Jo, they could have easily use him. But they didn't
>> even bother to read the books: they call Dudley fat and evil based on
>> the first chapters and the actor that portrays him.
>
> ...Uh?
>
> Does Dudley stop being fat after the first chapters? I read four books
> with his weight being made fun of before he turned into a boxer in book
> 5, personally. Does he stop being evil at any time in the first six books?

What I meant to say was that probably whoever wrote that article read
'Dudley is fat' in the first chapter and base all his/her arguments on
that fact without looking beyond. Indeed, in first books, Harry's PoV is
the mainly description we have from Dudley, but there is more of Dudley
than that. Dudley is what his parents have made of him: an arrogant
stupid bully with not a hint of sympathy rather than simply 'evil'.
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247663 ] Do, 13 April 2006 17:55
Matt Clara  
"Thom Madura" <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:lIh%f.1546$az4.1212 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Matt Clara wrote:
>> "Thom Madura" <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:1Ha%f.15824$YT1.12074 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>>>Matt Clara wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Toon" <toon [at] toon.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:ardm32lk9qc30let4kjb9nmlb76dquh72r [at] 4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:55:55 -0500, drusilla <me [at] me.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Remember what Jo wrote about stupid girls? well, the press has already
>>>>>>read it and... well... Ciaran from Mugglenet can express it better
>>>>>>than
>>>>
>>>>I.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>"*Paper criticises Jo's piece on our skinny-obsessed world*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The Mail on Sunday yesterday criticised JK Rowling's recent article
>>>>>>about our skinny-obsessed world and how magazines glorify being thin.
>>>>>>The headline of the controversial article reads: "If you loathe the
>>>>>>'skinny obsessed' world so much, JK, why did you make evil Dudley
>>>>>>Dursley so FAT?" That sentence sums up the entire article's point:
>>>>>>Almost every hero or heroine in the books is thin - with the exception
>>>>>>of Molly Weasley who, the article says, is "plump" in a maternal way -
>>>>>>and "young girls' preoccupation with being slim will only change when
>>>>>>they have plump or fat role models. And no one is better placed to
>>>>>>effect that change than the most powerful woman in publishing today -
>>>>>>JK
>>>>>>Rowling."
>>>>>
>>>>>So,because more people read Jo's work then the mags combined, it's
>>>>>Jo's job to provide role models for girls? No. it's the mag's jobs
>>>>>to represent the truth. Those photos are airbrushed and photoshopped
>>>>>up the yin yang. Try a little journalistic integrity. On second
>>>>>thought, try a lot. a nice fat helping of it.
>
>
> This is ridiculous. It is not the mag's job to represent the truth. It is
> their job to sell magazines. THey sell them based on what people buy.
> THe TRUTH is - if people "bought" a magazine filled with pictures of
> zaftig women - the advertisers would certainly knock that magazines door
> down. But the people Don't.
>
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Everybody needs to get on board. Saying we should disregard an argument
>>>>postulated by person X based on some fact external to their argument is
>>>>a
>>>>logical fallacy. They are correct in pointing out that JKR is part of
>>>>the
>>>>problem. They are malicious in not saying, good for her for waking up
>>>>to
>>>>the situation, as well as in not admitting that their own publications
>>>>are
>>>>indeed part of the problem too.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No - I completely disagree.
>>>
>>>The publications are not any big part of the problem if at all.
>>>
>>>THe publications, just like the news - cater to an audience that BUYS its
>>>stories - either through Movie Tickets, Book and Magazine purchases, or
>>>Radio or TV listening/viewing.
>>>
>>>While people complain that there should be more "good news" reported on -
>>>among other things. those same people don't put up the money for it.
>>>People look for sensationalism and reject the "human interest stories"
>>>overwhelmingly.
>>>
>>>IF people want it to be different - they have to change what they do -
>>>the media will follow. But - the media is just a money making enterprise
>>>- like a Bakery. Liver and Onion flavored candy isn't made because it
>>>doesn't sell. THe media reports are nothing more than product - and the
>>>products that produce revenue are the ones that you see.
>>
>>
>> That just tries to switch the blame from the few people who make
>> decisions about these things, to the billions of people affected by them.
>> I'm talking about a media culture that, through the use of advertising,
>> sells people on the idea that they are inadequate, that they need always
>> something more to complete themselves. They use very fundamental
>> psychological techniques to shape society largely into what it is today,
>> where economic health itself is defined by an unsustainable pattern of
>> production and consumption. Some of the side effects of this is that we
>> don't feel very good about ourselves, and some groups that are targeted
>> more than others, namely women and their look/feel/smell (and even
>> flavor--some cosmetics have flavors!), suffer more greatly than others.
>
>
> No - the "few" people who make these decisions are the viewers/readers and
> the advertisers.
>
> THe media is just like any other business - it is in business to make
> money for the stockholders.

<snip>
Then it's a business in need of regulation.

<snip>

> So - in the end - it is the people who really control the media. The
> people making these decisons are making these decisions based on the
> viewing habits of the public.
>

No, in the end the few people making the decisions have decided to exploit
human psychological needs in order to turn a buck, and it's that
exploitation that fucks us up. They should be lined up and, I don't know,
given harmless positions as bicycly repairmen...

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247664 ] Do, 13 April 2006 18:04
Thomas Madura  
Richard Eney wrote:
> In article <lIh%f.1546$az4.1212 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Thom Madura <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>The media is just like any other business - it is in business to make
>>money for the stockholders. AS a result - they must produce a product
>>that sells and can draw advertising money. The public chooses the
>>programs/books etc - they want to support. While the TV people have
>>tried - sometimes valiantly - to produce good quality productions - they
>>rarely catch on with the audience - and cannot draw enough advertising
>>dollars (Due to low ratings).
>
>
> But the public have been trained since childhood to expect what the
> previous generation seemed to want. The ketchup story is appropriate in
> this context. When ketchup was first made commercially, the machinery
> for cooking large amounts wasn't very good; it made a product that was
> watery and burned-tasting. The manufacturers advertised heavily that
> it was a "new and improved" flavor, and people who didn't want to make
> their own ketchup bought it and learned to accept the flavor. Generations
> grew up with that flavor as the officially correct one for ketchup. Then
> (in the 1970s I believe) machinery was improved to the point that they
> could now produce properly cooked ketchup - so they tried, and it failed
> miserably in the market because everyone had been trained to think that
> "good" ketchup was thin and watery and burned tasting.
>
> =Tamar


Sounds good - Now - how can you blame the MEDIA for that - that is the
Advertisers (Manufacturers). Tv stations, Newspapers, Radio stations,
Magazines - etc - don't and never did make Ketchup. Nor did THEY
advertise Ketchup - that accepted advertising for the ketchup - which
produced revenue for them. THey need the revenue to stay in business.
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247665 ] Do, 13 April 2006 18:05
Thomas Madura  
Richard Eney wrote:

> In article <lIh%f.1546$az4.1212 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Thom Madura <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Ah, here's the bit I oversnipped before:
>
>
>>The TRUTH is - if people "bought" a magazine filled with pictures of
>>zaftig women - the advertisers would certainly knock that magazines door
>>down. But the people Don't.
>
>
> Been down to the p**n shops lately? There are magazines filled with
> pictures of zaftig women...
>
> =Tamar


But - they don't sell in the quantity that mainstream magazines sell.
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247666 ] Do, 13 April 2006 18:14
Thomas Madura  
drusilla wrote:

> Kish escribió:
>
>> drusilla wrote:
>>
>>> Matt is right about something below: perhaps Neville has many of the
>>> 'fat kid' stereotypes, but he might be the only one: if the press
>>> wanted to attack Jo, they could have easily use him. But they didn't
>>> even bother to read the books: they call Dudley fat and evil based on
>>> the first chapters and the actor that portrays him.
>>
>>
>> ...Uh?
>>
>> Does Dudley stop being fat after the first chapters? I read four
>> books with his weight being made fun of before he turned into a boxer
>> in book 5, personally. Does he stop being evil at any time in the
>> first six books?
>
>
> What I meant to say was that probably whoever wrote that article read
> 'Dudley is fat' in the first chapter and base all his/her arguments on
> that fact without looking beyond. Indeed, in first books, Harry's PoV is
> the mainly description we have from Dudley, but there is more of Dudley
> than that. Dudley is what his parents have made of him: an arrogant
> stupid bully with not a hint of sympathy rather than simply 'evil'.


No - Dudley is what JKR wrote about him - Dudley is fiction - to the
best of my knowledge his parents in the books are also fiction.
Fictional parents to not make Dudley what he is - a writer does.

However - Neither Dudley nor Neville are the issue here - the issue here
is someone blaming JKR for real world problems. Blame the real world for
the real world problems. Blame the rapper who said to kill the cops.
Blame the designer and modeling world for the "thin" problems. Blame the
song writers and musicians for the lude lyrics. AND, blame the
parents(OR lack thereof) for not raising their children properly along
with the kids for not learning.
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247667 ] Do, 13 April 2006 18:42
Thomas Madura  
Matt Clara wrote:

> "Thom Madura" <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:lIh%f.1546$az4.1212 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>Matt Clara wrote:
>>
>>>"Thom Madura" <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>>>news:1Ha%f.15824$YT1.12074 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Matt Clara wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Toon" <toon [at] toon.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:ardm32lk9qc30let4kjb9nmlb76dquh72r [at] 4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:55:55 -0500, drusilla <me [at] me.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Remember what Jo wrote about stupid girls? well, the press has already
>>>>>>>read it and... well... Ciaran from Mugglenet can express it better
>>>>>>>than
>>>>>
>>>>>I.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>"*Paper criticises Jo's piece on our skinny-obsessed world*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The Mail on Sunday yesterday criticised JK Rowling's recent article
>>>>>>>about our skinny-obsessed world and how magazines glorify being thin.
>>>>>>>The headline of the controversial article reads: "If you loathe the
>>>>>>>'skinny obsessed' world so much, JK, why did you make evil Dudley
>>>>>>>Dursley so FAT?" That sentence sums up the entire article's point:
>>>>>>>Almost every hero or heroine in the books is thin - with the exception
>>>>>>>of Molly Weasley who, the article says, is "plump" in a maternal way -
>>>>>>>and "young girls' preoccupation with being slim will only change when
>>>>>>>they have plump or fat role models. And no one is better placed to
>>>>>>>effect that change than the most powerful woman in publishing today -
>>>>>>>JK
>>>>>>>Rowling."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So,because more people read Jo's work then the mags combined, it's
>>>>>>Jo's job to provide role models for girls? No. it's the mag's jobs
>>>>>>to represent the truth. Those photos are airbrushed and photoshopped
>>>>>>up the yin yang. Try a little journalistic integrity. On second
>>>>>>thought, try a lot. a nice fat helping of it.
>>
>>
>>This is ridiculous. It is not the mag's job to represent the truth. It is
>>their job to sell magazines. THey sell them based on what people buy.
>>THe TRUTH is - if people "bought" a magazine filled with pictures of
>>zaftig women - the advertisers would certainly knock that magazines door
>>down. But the people Don't.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Everybody needs to get on board. Saying we should disregard an argument
>>>>>postulated by person X based on some fact external to their argument is
>>>>>a
>>>>>logical fallacy. They are correct in pointing out that JKR is part of
>>>>>the
>>>>>problem. They are malicious in not saying, good for her for waking up
>>>>>to
>>>>>the situation, as well as in not admitting that their own publications
>>>>>are
>>>>>indeed part of the problem too.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No - I completely disagree.
>>>>
>>>>The publications are not any big part of the problem if at all.
>>>>
>>>>THe publications, just like the news - cater to an audience that BUYS its
>>>>stories - either through Movie Tickets, Book and Magazine purchases, or
>>>>Radio or TV listening/viewing.
>>>>
>>>>While people complain that there should be more "good news" reported on -
>>>>among other things. those same people don't put up the money for it.
>>>>People look for sensationalism and reject the "human interest stories"
>>>>overwhelmingly.
>>>>
>>>>IF people want it to be different - they have to change what they do -
>>>>the media will follow. But - the media is just a money making enterprise
>>>>- like a Bakery. Liver and Onion flavored candy isn't made because it
>>>>doesn't sell. THe media reports are nothing more than product - and the
>>>>products that produce revenue are the ones that you see.
>>>
>>>
>>>That just tries to switch the blame from the few people who make
>>>decisions about these things, to the billions of people affected by them.
>>>I'm talking about a media culture that, through the use of advertising,
>>>sells people on the idea that they are inadequate, that they need always
>>>something more to complete themselves. They use very fundamental
>>>psychological techniques to shape society largely into what it is today,
>>>where economic health itself is defined by an unsustainable pattern of
>>>production and consumption. Some of the side effects of this is that we
>>>don't feel very good about ourselves, and some groups that are targeted
>>>more than others, namely women and their look/feel/smell (and even
>>>flavor--some cosmetics have flavors!), suffer more greatly than others.
>>
>>
>>No - the "few" people who make these decisions are the viewers/readers and
>>the advertisers.
>>
>>THe media is just like any other business - it is in business to make
>>money for the stockholders.
>
>
> <snip>
> Then it's a business in need of regulation.


No - there are plenty of laws governing business - from just about every
level of government. More regulation is not going to stop the worlds
problems.




>
> <snip>
>
>>So - in the end - it is the people who really control the media. The
>>people making these decisons are making these decisions based on the
>>viewing habits of the public.
>>
>
>
> No, in the end the few people making the decisions have decided to exploit
> human psychological needs in order to turn a buck, and it's that
> exploitation that fucks us up. They should be lined up and, I don't know,
> given harmless positions as bicycly repairmen...


In the end - it is the people who have to be responsible for their own
decisions and stop pointing a finger to others. Personal responsibility
has gone the way of the dodo - in a society where are buyer can sue
McDOnalds because the hot coffee she spilled on herself scalded her leg
- and she wasn't warned that the coffee was hot(While McDonalds lost the
initial case - to the tune of $1.4 million in damages - they won on
appeal).

There have been hundreds of TV programs on the scams crooks have used to
take advantage of people over the years - yet people still get stung. In
fact - people who have already been stung are more likely to allow it
happen again.


THe worlds largest Business - Religion - is in business solely to
Exploit Human Psychological needs. Don't do what they say is right and
Don't give them money and you will be damned for all eternity. And -
they have been doing this for Thousands of Years. And supposedly it was
created by GOD!

And the harmless bicycle repairman will use your SAFETY and "peace of
mind" as a reason to sell you all sorts of decals, bells, and lights.

THe press didn't create Madonna and see through clothes - her fans did
that. IT was not forced down their throats - there are lots of other
singers who didn't make it - because their records didn't sell.


Sorry - the press doesn't make these things happen. THe people made
these things happen.
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247669 ] Do, 13 April 2006 22:02
mcdowella  
In article <NEu%f.3483$az4.2279 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Thom Madura <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> writes
>Richard Eney wrote:
>
>> In article <lIh%f.1546$az4.1212 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> Thom Madura <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> Ah, here's the bit I oversnipped before:
>>
>>
>>>The TRUTH is - if people "bought" a magazine filled with pictures of
>>>zaftig women - the advertisers would certainly knock that magazines door
>>>down. But the people Don't.
>>
>>
>> Been down to the p**n shops lately? There are magazines filled with
>> pictures of zaftig women...
>>
>> =Tamar
>
>
>But - they don't sell in the quantity that mainstream magazines sell.

This is sort of tangential to the point, but it is interesting: the
slim, almost boyish, model look isn't especially sexually appealing to
men. It's probably optimal for showing off expensive clothes, and -
perhaps because of that - I believe it appeals to woman largely as a way
of increasing their status relative to other women, as perceived by
women. The phrase "Women beware Women" comes to mind.

(Of course, as Dr House pointed out on the TV series, for a woman to
become sexually attractive to at least some men isn't that much of a
challenge. Establishing that you are a female somewhere near the
reproductive age range is 90% of the job done, and if you are saddled
with a physical peculiarity you can probably find a man turned on by it.
Somewhere out there is a man with a fetish for acne and off centre
noses, drooling over the portrayal of Eloise Midgen :-)).
--
A.G.McDowell
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247672 ] Do, 13 April 2006 23:14
Thomas Madura  
A.G.McDowell wrote:
> In article <NEu%f.3483$az4.2279 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Thom Madura <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> writes
>
>>Richard Eney wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <lIh%f.1546$az4.1212 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>Thom Madura <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Ah, here's the bit I oversnipped before:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The TRUTH is - if people "bought" a magazine filled with pictures of
>>>>zaftig women - the advertisers would certainly knock that magazines door
>>>>down. But the people Don't.
>>>
>>>
>>>Been down to the p**n shops lately? There are magazines filled with
>>>pictures of zaftig women...
>>>
>>>=Tamar
>>
>>
>>But - they don't sell in the quantity that mainstream magazines sell.
>
>
> This is sort of tangential to the point, but it is interesting: the
> slim, almost boyish, model look isn't especially sexually appealing to
> men. It's probably optimal for showing off expensive clothes, and -
> perhaps because of that - I believe it appeals to woman largely as a way
> of increasing their status relative to other women, as perceived by
> women. The phrase "Women beware Women" comes to mind.
>
> (Of course, as Dr House pointed out on the TV series, for a woman to
> become sexually attractive to at least some men isn't that much of a
> challenge. Establishing that you are a female somewhere near the
> reproductive age range is 90% of the job done, and if you are saddled
> with a physical peculiarity you can probably find a man turned on by it.
> Somewhere out there is a man with a fetish for acne and off centre
> noses, drooling over the portrayal of Eloise Midgen :-)).


Yes - both male and female clothing models are there to showcase the
clothes - not their bodies. WIth maybe the exception of a nice face -
the designers want bodies they can "drape" the clothes on so they look
just the way they want them to.

It amazes me that people even pay attention to the high fashion models
at all - they are wearing clothes the average person will never afford -
and many cannot afford a knock-off either.
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247675 ] Fr, 14 April 2006 02:28
Neener  
A.G.McDowell wrote:
> Somewhere out there is a man with a fetish for acne and off centre
> noses, drooling over the portrayal of Eloise Midgen :-)).
> --

I find this possibility disturbing in the extreme:-D
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247676 ] Fr, 14 April 2006 02:45
Magic_mom  
>
> She utilizes stereotypes of fat and thin to help give depth to her
> characters. Many have already been mentioned, one that has not is Neville
> Longbottom. Simply, he's described as plump, and how easy is it to take
> seriously some described thusly? Add to that his other characteristics,
> inept, incompetent, funny looking, without social grace, and we have the
> whole stereotype, i.e., plump people are all of these things; thus, she
> reinforces the stereotype. But I'm not castigating her for it, and I
> appla
> Matt Clara
> www.mattclara.com


Yet it is Neville who dances the night away with Ginny at the Yule
Ball. He appears to have had a grand time of it too.

M_m
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247677 ] Fr, 14 April 2006 03:16
Mishagam  
Matt Clara wrote:
>
>
> she needs to look inward, but then we all do. In her first of the Earthsea
> series, A Wizard of Earthsea, my favorite fantasy author, Ursula K. Le Guin
> had three female characters, one of whom was evil, one of whom was vapid,
> and one was the "perfect" woman, in a small town kinda way, all three of
> them stereotypes, and all of them impotent, particularly compared to the
> wizards (and in Earthsea only men can be wizards, btw). In her fourth book,
> Tehanu, Le Guin seeks to amend this, and the book is a bit strained as she
> searches for an alternate path to the hero's tale. Hey, I loved that first
> book, and still do, faults and all, but Le Guin recognized the faults and
> sought to re-envision her world. In doing so she helped break genre
> traditions and further women everywhere, even if in just some small way.
>
And she (Le Guin) wrote extremely bad novel (Tehanu) which almost wiped
out good impression from first three Earthsea novels and almost
destroyed her reputation as author for me!
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247678 ] Fr, 14 April 2006 03:32
Fish Eye no Miko  
Magic_mom wrote:

>> She utilizes stereotypes of fat and thin to help give depth to her
>> characters. Many have already been mentioned, one that has not is
>> Neville Longbottom. Simply, he's described as plump, and how easy
>> is it to take seriously some described thusly? Add to that his
>> other characteristics, inept, incompetent, funny looking, without
>> social grace, and we have the whole stereotype, i.e., plump people
>> are all of these things; thus, she reinforces the stereotype.
>
> Yet it is Neville who dances the night away with Ginny at the Yule
> Ball. He appears to have had a grand time of it too.

In the movie, which Jo didn't write. In the book, he steps on her toes.

Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"Damn it, there's so many idiots whose asses I have to kick! I'll have to
start carrying a list just to keep track of them all!"
-Edward Elric, _FullMetal Alchemist_.
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247681 ] Fr, 14 April 2006 04:57
Matt Clara  
"Thom Madura" <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Wbv%f.3567$az4.2556 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> Sorry - the press doesn't make these things happen. THe people made these
> things happen.

Yes and no. People want(ed), other people supply(ied). The people who
supplied were organized, they saw ways to make the people want more. The
organizations became corporations, that were and are accorded all the rights
of the average person, like freedom of speech, even though a small
corporation can buy a whole lot more "speech" time than the average guy on
the street corner with a megaphone, let alone me or you, and let alone a
really big corporation, like Rupert Murdoch's team, that not only comes up
with cash for the current US admin as well as other governments they support
around the world, but help spread the word for them, too, and in a big way.

So, yeah, you want to change the masses, I'm telling you, that's a
ridiculous dream. You might as well say, they get what they deserve, that
it's punishment for their own stupidity. Well they are us, we reap the
rewards of this system same as any one. And I might as well say, I want the
people who rule the world to change and to guide us wisely, and hey, when I
put it like that, it's just as ridiculous as the next idea.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247711 ] Fr, 14 April 2006 18:50
Petrea Mitchell  
At Fri, 14 Apr 2006 01:16:41 GMT,
Mishagam <noemail [at] provider.com> strode forth and proclaimed:
> Matt Clara wrote:

> > (and in Earthsea only men can be wizards, btw). In her fourth book,
> > Tehanu, Le Guin seeks to amend this, and the book is a bit strained as she
> > searches for an alternate path to the hero's tale. Hey, I loved that first
> > book, and still do, faults and all, but Le Guin recognized the faults and
> > sought to re-envision her world.
>
> And she (Le Guin) wrote extremely bad novel (Tehanu) which almost wiped
> out good impression from first three Earthsea novels and almost
> destroyed her reputation as author for me!

But then she redeemed herself with _Tales from Earthsea_ and _The Other
Wind_, which re-envision a major part of Earthsea *and* have non-stereotyped
female characters. And address that bit about women not being wizards...


--
/
Petrea Mitchell <|> <|> <pravn [at] m5p.com> <mitchep [at] osm.com>
"I'm poor, I'm Welsh, and I'm not Richard Burton yet. Do you hear me? I'm
poor, I'm Welsh, and I'm NOT RICHARD BURTON YET!" ---MST3K
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247719 ] Fr, 14 April 2006 20:18
Mishagam  
Petrea Mitchell wrote:
> At Fri, 14 Apr 2006 01:16:41 GMT,
> Mishagam <noemail [at] provider.com> strode forth and proclaimed:
>> Matt Clara wrote:
>
>>> (and in Earthsea only men can be wizards, btw). In her fourth book,
>>> Tehanu, Le Guin seeks to amend this, and the book is a bit strained as she
>>> searches for an alternate path to the hero's tale. Hey, I loved that first
>>> book, and still do, faults and all, but Le Guin recognized the faults and
>>> sought to re-envision her world.
>> And she (Le Guin) wrote extremely bad novel (Tehanu) which almost wiped
>> out good impression from first three Earthsea novels and almost
>> destroyed her reputation as author for me!
>
> But then she redeemed herself with _Tales from Earthsea_ and _The Other
> Wind_, which re-envision a major part of Earthsea *and* have non-stereotyped
> female characters. And address that bit about women not being wizards...
>
>
Actually, I never bothered to read anything Le Guin wrote after reading
Tehanu. I will try to read these books and see (if you recomend them),
if they are better.
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247721 ] Fr, 14 April 2006 20:26
Thomas Madura  
Matt Clara wrote:
> "Thom Madura" <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:Wbv%f.3567$az4.2556 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
>>Sorry - the press doesn't make these things happen. THe people made these
>>things happen.
>
>
> Yes and no. People want(ed), other people supply(ied). The people who
> supplied were organized, they saw ways to make the people want more. The
> organizations became corporations, that were and are accorded all the rights
> of the average person, like freedom of speech, even though a small
> corporation can buy a whole lot more "speech" time than the average guy on
> the street corner with a megaphone, let alone me or you, and let alone a
> really big corporation, like Rupert Murdoch's team, that not only comes up
> with cash for the current US admin as well as other governments they support
> around the world, but help spread the word for them, too, and in a big way.
>
> So, yeah, you want to change the masses, I'm telling you, that's a
> ridiculous dream. You might as well say, they get what they deserve, that
> it's punishment for their own stupidity. Well they are us, we reap the
> rewards of this system same as any one. And I might as well say, I want the
> people who rule the world to change and to guide us wisely, and hey, when I
> put it like that, it's just as ridiculous as the next idea.
>


No - I don't want to change the masses (The people). But - with freedom
of speech comes responsibility. A person becomes responsible for
deciding what to listen to - and how it will affect their life. A
parent must do the same for their children.

WHen you say - I want the people who rule the world to change and guide
us wisely - what you are saying is that you want THEM to decide what
message you receive and how you receive it. Gee - let's censor eminem
for saying things against the police. Let's censor Madonna for the way
she dressed. Let's censor all those who are against the Iraq war. Let's
censor all those who don't believe in the religion I believe. Gee -
Marilyn Monroe's skirt scene was too sexy - shouldn't be seen. If fact -
shouldn't all women be completely covered up and not be seen? Let's
condemn all those who believe the earth revolves around the sun. People
who question the Pharoh is a living GOD should be killed.

No - in a society that allows freedom of speech - censorship is not the
answer to a message you don't like - NOT listening is - Not Viewing is -
ignoring is. If you ignore, look away, and not listen - eventually the
media will move on to other stories - because they canot make any money
on that one.

THe media is in business of providing content that the public will BUY.
IF the people buy it - you can hardly blame the media for selling it.
AND - if the people don't buy it anymore - the media will move on too.

It is the people who make the choice-period.
Re: And the press strikes back... [message #247763 ] Sa, 15 April 2006 02:38
Petrea Mitchell  
At Fri, 14 Apr 2006 18:18:12 GMT,
Mishagam <noemail [at] provider.com> strode forth and proclaimed:

> Actually, I never bothered to read anything Le Guin wrote after reading
> Tehanu. I will try to read these books and see (if you recomend them),
> if they are better.

They are. Promise. And I'm unlikely to ever pick up _Tehanu_ again either.


--
/
Petrea Mitchell <|> <|> <pravn [at] m5p.com> <mitchep [at] osm.com>
"I'm poor, I'm Welsh, and I'm not Richard Burton yet. Do you hear me? I'm
poor, I'm Welsh, and I'm NOT RICHARD BURTON YET!" ---MST3K
Vorheriges Thema:JKR coming to US
Nächstes Thema:Yet another wierd theory...
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 01:03:38 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,29737 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered