Nonetheless, I will be drinking Pepsi on February 7, and probably for some time after–and not just because UNI is a Pepsi campus.

Pepsi is doing something revolutionary for the brand–instead of sinking millions of dollars into Super Bowl advertisements, they will not but running a campaign during this year’s Super Bowl, but are instead working on a viral campaign using social networking. Why this is so awesome? Personally, I have a love for viral advertising, but, what is WAY MORE IMPORTANT, is that the campaign plans to give away $20,000,000 in grant money away to organizations which do good things for the community/world, in six different categories–health, arts and culture, food and shelter, the planet, neighborhoods and education. Further yet, they want the consumers of their product to be involved in selecting what projects receive grants–both allowing users to submit ideas/suggestions as well as vote one what projects they like best (hint: this is where the social networking part I talked about earlier comes in). It’s kind of like American Idol but awesome. They will be giving our 32 grants a month. In order to become involved, visit www.refresheverything.com.

As someone who has always felt kind of uncomfortable with the amount of money our culture sinks into entertainment (I mean, Avatar was a movie that was pretty to look at, but imagine what else could have happened with $300,000,000?), I was really excited to hear about this move from Pepsi. For years, Pepsi has been a leader in advertising campaigns and has become an incredibly successful brand. If this move is successful, I would be surprised if other companies don’t follow in their footsteps.

Which is why, for the next while of my soda-drinking career, I will be choosing Pepsi, in hopes that a campaign with a good cause can last. It sure is refreshing to see one.

What do you think? Am I too optimistic? Do you think something like this could be successful?

Source: Yahoo!

Tonight I agreed to go with some people to Avatar in 3D. Before going to see the movie, I was pretty unaware of what it was about. I had passed over much of the press that was surrounding the film, blissfully unaware of everything dealing with other than that it was a movie James Cameron had been working on for nearly a decade, it was primarily CGI, and it was science fiction. Now, I am loathe to pass up a scifi movie (I have sat through both Jumper–painfully terrible–and D War: Dragon Wars–so bad it is hilarious–on opening weekend), so it took little coaxing to get me to go.

Preface aside: the movie was beautiful. The CGI was stunning. The scifi environment was beyond belief (which is a good thing). The storyline was wonderful; its plot was somewhere between Ferngully and Starship Troopers. And, if this were strictly a movie review I would give it 4 ½ out of 5 stars. But this is more than that; this is a critical analysis of the social issues at play within the film. This analysis will appear after the jump, and I warn you that there are spoilers, I will try to keep them to a minimum but in discussing a movie it is difficult to forego a focus upon its plot. So, here goes:

Avatar focuses upon a human incursion upon an alien planet. The humans are attempting to colonize the “savage” alien race—the Na’vi—that inhabits the planet, in order to gain access to a rich supply of—I kid you not—Unobtainium, a mineral that though lacking in explainable uses is worth around 5 million dollars per pound… or something like that. While a peaceful takeover of the planet had been intended, things have since heated up, and the missionary school, which is attempting to bridge the gap between human and Na’vi, has been shut down due to increased tensions between species. So, a bunch of “avatars” are created through a combination of human and Na’vi genetic data, by which humans can inhabit Na’vi bodies in an attempt to smooth things over with the native species.

This plot is filled with postcolonial and racial issues, and will be the main focus of this post. To begin with, the Na’vi have—though CGI’d to look like giant, blue, catlike humanoids—facial types that speak of an African ancestry. The lead actress who plays Neytiri, one of the Na’vi, is Zoe Saldana, the woman who played Uhura in JJ Abrams recent Star Trek reboot. Along with that, the Na’vi speak English with a Caribbean accent. The inclusion of these ethnic traits is not something that James Cameron would have been unaware of, given the massive amount of money that had been funneled into the special effects of this cinematic behemoth. So, Cameron knows, and is playing with, the issue of colonized and colonizer. As Jake Sully, main character and human inhabiting a Na’vi body as an avatar, becomes introduced into the beliefs and society of the Na’vi he eventually becomes colonized by them and helps turn the tide upon the human attackers.

Though Cameron is attempting both a postcolonial and eco-friendly message, he falls short in his handling of Jake Sully. Jake, a man excluded from his own species due to his disability (he is wheelchair-bound) is capable of finding a place among the supposedly savage Na’vi. ***SUPER SPOILER ALERT*** Not only is he capable of finding a place among them, he is capable of being a “total Badass Magee” about it. In a little over three months he becomes a leader of them.

While, I admire his ability to stand up for what is right and aid his new family in repelling a hostile force, the fact that he is placed as leader over them is somewhat hard to swallow. With Jake as leader, Avatar is saying that even though he believes himself an equal to them and understands their species, in the end he is still seen as better than them. Humanness is still set apart from and above the Na’vi. Even though Jake assimilates, his association with the colonizers places him in a position of power among the colonized.

What are your thoughts? Do I have a point or am I just blowing smoke? Post them in the comments so we can get a discussion going.

In Uganda, there is a proposed law which would call for the execution of all homosexuals and AIDS patients. Citizens would also be imprisoned for knowing, but not reporting, homosexuals or defending gay rights in public. Further, the proposed law would be “an extraditable offense; any Ugandan even suspected of being gay could be extradited back to Uganda and punished” (Huffington Post).

Over the past month, many human rights organizations and fellow nations have spoken out against the bill, stating that it even discussing it makes a mockery of all the work that has been done in Uganda to gain human rights. Unfortunately, “it’s unlikely that pressure from other countries, even those providing development dollars, will make substantial impact on the law thus far. The bill’s author, David Bahati, of the ruling National Resistance Movement party, has been quoted as saying, ‘We cannot exchange our dignity for money’”(Huffington Post).

The fact that this kind of hate exists makes me so sad. It’s terrifying.

What can we do to help?

I’m not sure. I’m trying to start by spreading the message, and letting people know what’s going on. So please, post this article to your blog or facebook or twitter or email it out to family and friends.

Hate still exists. Discrimination still exists. Genocide could happen.

We have to be able to accept that before we can move on and take action. Then, maybe you can join or donate to Amnesty International or one of these other human rights organizations.

What are your thoughts? How can we work to create a world with less hate?

And beyond that, the BMI isn’t even an accurate tool for measuring health or fitness practices. Some people eat very unhealthily and don’t exercise often, but have a fast metabolism, and thus would have a low BMI because the BMI only takes into account two variables–weight and height. The BMI does not take into account muscle mass, which makes me wonder, will student athletes be subject to the new ruling? After a quick look at their football roster, I have found multiple players with a BMI over 30. Furthermore, the school attacks those who are obese, and subjugates them to different treatment than those who are thin, but fails to address fitness problems such as eating disorders, yo-yo dieting, or over-exercising–all of which are unhealthy, yet are problems that may exist within bodies that “look healthy.”

Basically, I find the whole thing very unsettling. What do you think? Discuss.

Some celebrities and their BMIs. Looks like Sylvester Stallone would have to take an extra course if he went to Lincoln.

Earlier this month, Publishers Weekly published it’s “Best Books of 2009″ list. All 10 of the authors are men. All but 2 of the authors are white and are from Western nations. The magazine noticed the gendered-nature of the list but stuck by their decisions. Feminist organizations responded negatively to the list, and Women in Letters and Literary Arts (WILLA), published their own list of great literary works by women in 2009.

Reading about the inequality of the Publishers Weekly list made me want to look at the books I’m currently reading, and look to see if I have a gendered or racialized tendancies in what I chose to read for fun (academic books are excluded from this list). I have the tendency to read a ton of books at one time, so, this should work fairly well. I’m including reviews and descriptions of the books I’m reading as well, just for fun.

1. Club Dead by Charlaine Harris
Harris is a white woman from Arkansas. (1951-present)
Booklist Review:

Sookie Stackhouse is having man trouble. Her vampire boyfriend, Bill, has been distant and inattentive lately. Then he announces that he is going on a business trip, which clearly is more than it seems. After a werewolf tries to abduct Sookie at work, Bill’s boss, Eric, tells her that Bill fell under the sway of his–Bill’s, that is–ex, a sexy vamp named Lorena, and has been kidnapped. Eric wants Sookie’s help in getting Bill back, and despite her hurt over Bill’s betrayal, Sookie agrees to go to Jackson, Mississippi, to find her wayward lover. Eric has persuaded Alcide, a dashing werewolf, to get Sookie access to Josephine’s, aka Club Dead, the local hangout of Jackson’s supernatural element. In between dodging kidnappers, the advances of amorous Eric, and her growing feelings for Alcide, Sookie has to find out who kidnapped Bill and figure out a way to rescue him. With some droll touches–Elvis, now a vampire, is Sookie’s faithful guard –Club Dead is ideal for readers who like their vampire fiction light, humorous, and fast-paced.

2. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson
Larsson was a white Swedish journalist. (1954-2004)
Amason.com Review:

Once you start The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, there’s no turning back. This debut thriller–the first in a trilogy from the late Stieg Larsson–is a serious page-turner rivaling the best of Charlie Huston and Michael Connelly. Mikael Blomkvist, a once-respected financial journalist, watches his professional life rapidly crumble around him. Prospects appear bleak until an unexpected (and unsettling) offer to resurrect his name is extended by an old-school titan of Swedish industry. The catch–and there’s always a catch–is that Blomkvist must first spend a year researching a mysterious disappearance that has remained unsolved for nearly four decades. With few other options, he accepts and enlists the help of investigator Lisbeth Salander, a misunderstood genius with a cache of authority issues. Little is as it seems in Larsson’s novel, but there is at least one constant: you really don’t want to mess with the girl with the dragon tattoo.

3. Northanger Abby by Jane Austen

Austen was a white woman from from England. (1775-1817)
Amazon.com Product Description:

Northanger Abbey is both a perfectly aimed literary parody and a withering satire of the commercial aspects of marriage among the English gentry at the turn of the nineteenth century. But most of all, it is the story of the initiation into life of its naïve but sweetly appealing heroine, Catherine Morland, a willing victim of the contemporary craze for Gothic literature who is determined to see herself as the heroine of a dark and thrilling romance. When Catherine is invited to Northanger Abbey, the grand though forbidding ancestral seat of her suitor, Henry Tilney, she finds herself embroiled in a real drama of misapprehension, mistreatment, and mortification, until common sense and humor—and a crucial clarification of Catherine’s financial status—puts all to right. Written in 1798 but not published until after Austen’s death in 1817, Northanger Abbey is characteristically clearheaded and strong, and infinitely subtle in its comedy.

4. The Magicians by Lev Grossman
Grossman is a white American man. (1969-present)
Amazon.com Review:

Mixing the magic of beloved children’s fantasy classics (from Narnia and Oz to Harry Potter and Earthsea) with the sex, excess, angst, and anticlimax of life in college and beyond, Lev Grossman’s Magicians reimagines modern-day fantasy for grownups. Quentin Coldwater lives in a state of perpetual melancholy, privately obsessed with his childhood books about the enchanted land of Fillory. When he’s admitted to the surreptitious Brakebills Academy for an education in magic, Quentin finds mastering spells is tedious (and love is even more fraught). He also discovers his power has thrilling potential–though it’s unclear what he should do with it once he’s moved with his new magician cohorts to New York City. Then they discover the magical land of Fillory is real and launch an expedition to use their powers to set things right in the kingdom–which, naturally, turns out to be a much murkier proposition than expected. The Magicians breathes life into a cast of characters you want to know–if the people you want to know are charismatic, brilliant, complex, flawed magicians–and does what Quentin claims books never really manage to do: “get you out, really out, of where you were and into somewhere better. ” Or if not better, at least a heck of a lot more interesting.

So, of the four books I’m presently reading, two are by women and two are by men, so my choices don’t reveal a gendered pattern at all. However, it is very distressing to realize that all of my authors are white and from western nations, ack! By only selecting books by white authors, I am limiting my view of literature, and thus my view of the world. Like the Publishers Weekly list, and the academic cannon in general, my reading selections (for the time being, at least) are white-centric.  Next time I pick up a book, I’ll try to rectify this.

How about you? What are you reading? Do you think the race, gender or social perspective (I didn’t have time to look up their sexuality or class identities) of the author makes a difference in the content of the book?

Chuck, the “alien” from earth, is the butt of many homophobic jokes as soon as he lands on this planet, and even before. In preparation for an alien invasion, one of the teenage aged children develops a preventative measure for himself and Lem, the other main character, which is a cork- so when the alien arrives it is unable to use its “probe” on them. As soon as Chuck has met Lem, they introduce one another, and as soon as Lem tells his name Chuck says, “Either your name is Lem…or that means that you want to mate with me.” Whether or not you find these jokes offensive, the pure unnecessary nature of them, along with more penis references then I care to mention, honestly made us uncomfortable to be in this theatre. I won’t even get into the gender stereotypes and chauvinistic nature of this film, but I want to know what everyone else thinks. Do you think we made a bigger deal than needed about this? As most kids probably don’t realize what kind of messages they’re also getting when they see these films, how do you think it affects the way they grow up and are acquainted with certain ideas before they have their own opinion? Or do you think it shapes them at all?

If you’re home over the Holidays and have younger family or siblings, do NOT miss out on an opportunity to see this– I want to hear all about your thoughts.

The stun gun, named “The Pink Stinger,” was created for women who wish to carry a stun gun, but do so discreetly. It as 50,000 volts of power.

My initial response to this object was “awesome.” However, having thought about it a little bit more, I’m not quite sure how I feel about it, other than that it certainly is interesting.

What do you think of the tampon stun gun?

Is it taking a women’s product and making is powerful, thus empowering women? Or, is it reinforcing negative stereotypes of women being “crazy” while menstruating? It openly acknowledges the fact that women are more likely than men to be the consumers who purchase stun guns, which opens up discussion about rape, sexual assault, and gender.

Discuss.

Source:Inventor Spot

Earlier today, I was listing to Pandora Radio and working on homework when this song, “Stress” by Jim’s Big Ego, came up on my playlist (not with the Disney men, of course, but this was a best version I could find on youtube–plus, it’s mashed up pretty well):

I enjoyed the song a lot (thanks Pandora), because I thought (along with a super-catchy melody) that it was a really well put together parody of how capitalism encourages people to live their lives.

The first half of the song talks about our cultural dependency on caffeine.

I’m tryin’ to cut down on my caffeine,
So when I get up
I just have one cup of coffee
And I’d like to have another cup of coffee with my breakfast.
And on the way to work, I like to get a cup of coffee.
And I like the kind of coffee you get with a doughnut
So when I get a doughnut, I get a cup of coffee.
And when I get to work I like to have a cup of coffee
Cuz I like to have coffee when I’m talkin’ on the phone.
And when it get’s a little cold I like to have another cup of coffee.
And when it’s lunch, I have an expresso.

As a student approaching looming final deadlines and completing graduate school applications, I identified with this part of the song heavily. The amount of caffeine consumed in America is a huge amount, I think we can look to the success of Starbucks as proof of that. We have a cultural dependency on caffeine, one we are socialized into. Coffee shops are appropriate hot spots for dates, wifi, and meetings–and most college campuses are equipped with more than one in the surrounding area.

How have YOU been socialized into caffeine? How many of your parents drink coffee? Do you watch Friends (coffee shop = vital part of the show)? Do you go to coffee shops? How about soda? Do you agree with me that we have a cultural dependency on caffeine? Why or why not?

The second half of the song talks about all of the leisure activities that the author of the song would like to do, but they just don’t have time.

I love to work
I love to run
I love to waterski
Snowboard
Jetski
Skydrive
Parasail
Hanglide
Rollerblade
Mountain bike
Bungee jump
Well I mean I’d love to do these things…if I ever had the time…

This half of the song really addresses our cultures value of work over leisure. While leisure activities are the things we like to do, we don’t value them, and often our friends and family don’t value them either (if you want to learn more about this, I would highly recommend picking up Dr. Marybeth Stalp’s book Quilting: The Fabric of Everyday Life, which addresses how we value women’s leisure in the United States). For the man in the song, his lack of leisure and obsession with work eventually drove him crazy, and even in his fantasy about relaxing on an island, he was unable to give up his laptop or cell phone.

When on vacation, do you give up “connection” with the real world (i.e. cell phones and computers)? What do you do for leisure? Is leisure ever a priority? Do you have a list of things you’d  like to do “if you ever had the time”?

I do, and I know that I frequently become the person in this song, planning on doing things later. Plus I know that I am completely addicted to caffeine. Looking at the song as a whole, I found myself wondering….

Do you think we live in a “stress culture”? If so, how has technology aided this? Or, does technology provide us with more leisure time? How does capitalism encourage “stress culture”?

Anyway, as we enter into finals week, I just want everyone to remember to TAKE A BREAK. Even if it’s just a short one.

Full lyrics:

Jim’s Big Ego–Stress

]]> http://unisocclub.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/what-pandora-taught-me-this-week-caffeine-work-and-the-american-way/feed/ 0 Natalie Turner http://unisocclub.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/soc-club-event/ http://unisocclub.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/soc-club-event/#comments Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:07:11 +0000 Natalie Turner http://unisocclub.wordpress.com/?p=120 ]]> Meet us at 8:30 on Tuesday at the Honors Cottage!

The UNI Sociology Club will be meeting Tuesday, November 10 at 8:30 at the Honors Cottage. While there, we will discuss Adam Yuet Chau’s article “Drinking Games, Karaoke Songs, and Yangee Dances: Youth Cultural Production in Rural China.” If you would like to read this article before hand, it is available through UNI’s library website . After a discussion, we will head to The Hub (18 year-olds, bring your college ID, cover is free) to perform participant observation at a live Karaoke event.

Questions? Contact Natalie Turner at turnern@uni.edu

That is the number of days until New Moon comes out.

What does this mean sociologically?

In the months leading up to the release of this movie, we have seen the media attempt to sway the hearts of millions of fan girls and boys away from Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), and towards Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner). The young Taylor Lautner, age 17, has had his shirtless body plastered everywhere. If you haven’t seen it yet, go to any local convenience store and glance at the magazine racks, I’m sure you’ll find it.

Taylor, a seventeen year-old and thus a minor, has been allowed to be sexy with little to no scrutiny from the media. A few years ago, however, Miley Cyrus’s cover of Vanity Fair (pictured above) caused a media frenzy, which claimed the photo shoot was too sexy for still-underage Miley, more recently, Miley has bee scrutinized for brief “poll dancing” choreography at the Teen Choice Awards. Awhile back, many blogs noticed this, and discussed the gendered nature of the situation. What do you think? Why is it okay in our society for Taylor to be sexy but not okay for Miley? Is it still a repercussion of the “angel in the house” mentality from the Victorian period?

The weeks leading up to Twilight: New Moon have also brought us something I LOVE–seriously, I enjoy them so much it’s kind of embarrassing. They’re Twilight spoofs. Whether homemade or corporately produced, I really enjoy these cultural artifacts. Such as this one, staring Taylor Swift, from Saturday Night Live:

One thing I enjoy about this sketch is that it shows how, in our society, it is okay to be attracted to some types of monsters, but not to others. This is of course, not something Stephanie Meyer invented, indeed, Dracula himself seduced women. What do you think? Do you think popular culture will ever see a (non-campy) sexy version of Frankenstein monster? What about a sexy mummy? Other than women’s Halloween costumes, I cannot think of any examples, and a quick google images search confirmed this for me. Why are humans allowed to be attracted to vampires and werewolves, and yet not to mummies or monsters? Does it have to do with how we value wealth, as vampires are often very rich? What do you think? What is the social hierarchy for monsters?