Unit 6 is over!

That was an interesting unit.


Or should I say "this", because I'm posting this post on the blog that I'm mentioning, so it would be "this" blog.

I dunno.


Alrighty, Ms Arturi. Here are the blogs I've commented on:


Caitlin Chang, section 1 Hey, Guess What? I Can See You...

Debbie Lee, section 3 Ads of the Past - Did They Really Say That? (I couldn't find a permalink for the post, sorry!)

Kristianne Diores, section 4 (Ms Saran's class) Social Awareness Contradiction

Karen Choi, section 3 The Changing Face of Video Games

Stephanie Tam, section 3 Photoshop Manipulation on Hiatus in the Media

Sarah Brown, section 2 Is Taxing Pop Really A Solution?

Okay bye :D

6/6: Is Taxing Pop Really A Solution?

One of the problems about junk food is that it's so easily accessible. Most types often cost you less than a toonie. With food and pop so cheap, people would resort to them sooner for a quick snack on their way somewhere or to bring to school.



So this ad is trying to scare people away from drinking soda. I don't really drink it myself, but this made me a bit more squeamish towards it. I think the video itself was a bit funny, too, because the actor looks so comically happy and a bit sarcastic as he's drinking the ... stuff. Also, I think it's a really good eye-opener when they put the equivalent amount of fat or whatever in front of you because you never really realize how much something is until it's in its bluntest form.

I think obesity is definitely growing to be an epidemic. However, it's totally underrated and shooed away. People think that oh, one bag of chips won't hurt, because they can just go run it off later at the gym or something. However, that one bag soon turns into a habit and then they become lazy and won't run it off. Many times, people don't even think about trying to make up for it. That's the problem.

So what's the solution? Will people stop buying or buy less pop because it's more expensive? Well that depends how much the tax actually is, but I doubt it. Why do people like pop? Because it's so convenient and accessible. There's a large variety everywhere we go, thanks to vending machines.

Already, there are pop machines in places that have the costs reaching almost $3, but people still buy it because they don't have to go out of their way and find a store. Is growing obesity an epidemic? Almost, almost. I think it's an epidemic in the sense that it's a major problem with its numbers, but it's not really paid attention to. It's like everyone's kind of turning a blind eye to it because it's such a huge industry in the modern Americas.

If the tax does go through, I'm pretty sure people will continue to buy pop. I doubt it'll stop the problem, though it'll help boost the profit of pop companies. Well, maybe people will buy less, but perhaps the tax will make up for lost profits. As for the tax moving in on Canada, too, I think the Canadian government will wait a while to observe how the USA citizens react to it, then decide what to do with us. Again, I really doubt this tax will work on majority of people. It'll work on some people, but not all. I don't buy soda or chips anymore, maybe like once a month, but that was because of unrelated reasons. So I'd probably continue my spending habits.

5/6: Photoshop Hiatus In The Media

I think I made my opinion clear in my earlier post about female objectification in the media. As if it weren't bad enough that the content of ads was sexist, they need to worry that they're not skinny enough, their boobs are big enough, their hair needs more volume, etc. Yeah, well, it's never good enough, is it? Because there's still extreme editing on the computer no matter how beautiful the models are in real life.

On the left, you see Filippa Hamilton, a Ralph Lauren model. Obviously, she was pretty enough to be a runway model for the brand, but the photo ad was definitely way too much. I mean, her head (not even including her hair) is as big or bigger than her waste. Really? I mean, if you have to edit the picture, at least make it convincing. And I say that with the most sarcasm possible.


Same with the Jessica Simpson ad to the right. Unless you have an afro or something, your head and hair should not be bigger than your waist. It's just not natural, and it's just not fair to women seeing the ad. To be honest, I think it's more than a bit insulting to the models in the ad.


We've all heard it before, everyone is beautiful. In addition to that, magazine and ad companies choose the extremely beautiful people in the first place. They don't only Photoshop models to appear thinner, they remove all the little "flaws" there. One might think the picture on the left was Photoshopped in the first place, but nooooo, she was too fat, her skin isn't glowing enough, she has too many wrinkles, eye bags and crows feet are starting to form... All of these must be unacceptable, right? I think it's just the way people are, it's normal. All this editing is telling people that we should stop the process of life. There is no way to stop it, it's inevitable. The sooner we embrace that, the sooner we'll be happy with ourselves.

However, I think they're starting to make improvements. For instance, the whole no-make-up photo fashion spread, or the real size models.

These women, are realistic weights, and maybe I'm just being really cynical, but I bet these images were edited still.. If not, they still choose models who have wonderful and glowing skin, killer hairstyles, and expertly applied make up. Oh well, I guess that's what makes fashion so exclusive, huh?

Again, maybe I'm just cynical, but all this new "natural beauty" stuff doesn't make women stop trying to change themselves. It's almost like it's a new trend. Make up companies are coming out with "natural" toned cosmetics, telling consumers that wearing the earthy toned eyeshadow/liner combo will make them look like a natural goddess or something. Right, because adding more make up makes you more natural, hmm..

Either way, I still think the media is still taking steps toward a better message (albeit tiny, tiny babysteps). But then again, that's how we all learn, right?


Oh, and here's a funny failure of an editing job done :)

4/6: The Changing Face Of Video Games

Recognize this game? Yes? No? Maybe you do, because we're pretty much the generation who have lived through the very end of the '90s only to be immersed into the age of technology. (By the way, the game is Pong!). I'm pretty sure if you asked a younger child, maybe 10 or 11, they wouldn't know. What would they know? They'd know the new X-Box 360, PS3, and Wii games. Also, I'm sure they'd find it boring. Games now have gotten far more exciting, with fighting, exploration, sports competition; with this new and wide variety of games, the whole sitting in front of the screen time has increased far more. You hear about kids playing the newest Modern Warfare game for hours on end for days until they reach the coveted 70th level. 70 levels.


What about those beneficial games, such as Wii Fit or BrainAge? They make it easier for the modern person to maintain their physical and mental health, no? Well, yes and no. It does help to a certain extent, but I don't think it should completely replace other types of stimulating activity. Instead of playing Word Scramble, why not play Scrabble? It takes more thought to create words that share letters and then you need to count your points up as well. Also, Wii Fit's jogging game has easily replace actual jogging for many people, so they can't get the fresh air they should be getting (unless, of course, they live in a very urban place that is dangerous and has very bad air quality).

So to answer the question given on the course blog, I do think video games have evolved into something more. They've become this huge part of people's lives, with them spending hours on end playing them. They've replaced exercising outdoors or reading a book. It's like they've provided this whole other virtual life for humans. And I do not feel it's a good thing.

3/6: Social Awareness Contradiction

Hey, girls! Look! An ad campaign not telling us to be thin! I think the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty is a good thing. At first, one might be thinking, "Wait a minute, doesn't Dove sell beauty products? Wouldn't that be a bit hypocritical?" But the thing is, Dove really sells care products. Products that just help us take care of what we have and who we already are. It isn't pressuring us to drop 10 pounds or cover our "real beauty" with the latest winter colours. In ads everywhere, we see models who are probably near size 0's who have glamorous hair and make-up. But in the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty ads, we see real women with their real beauty.


To the right, we see a beautiful model with the classic "smoky eyes" and a high-fashion up-do. Ask any woman on the street, or even just look out on the street, how many women do you see how look like that? Females get pressured into looking this certain way, so that those who achieve it feel some kind of exclusive beauty. The thing is though, most women already have a different kind of beauty, almost the same way a flower can look pretty without having to airbrush it (perhaps that was a bad example, but you get the point, right?).
Basically, I'm just glad someone high up in the media advertising hierarchy is realizing that it's time to stop asking women to be who they're not and to remind them that they're already beautiful.

Now for a not-so-great campaign. The Axe body deodorant brand has always played situations to make women seem helpless to their products' effects. They always make men seem like women just can't resist them because of the spray. In the Axe Effect campaign, the guy is on some remote island and of course, hundreds of bikini-clad women are stampeding and swimming oceans to get to him. Something I noticed at the end of the commercial were the words "Spray more, get more" and that reminded me of this next commercial, an older campaign for the Click spray.



At first, I honestly couldn't tell what the commercial was about because I didn't see Affleck use any products really. But the whole underlying message of all these Axe campaigns are that they're sprays and such will make countless numbers of women desire them, again objectifying them. Sure, there is some ironic humour in the Click ad because the actor got 1000 flirts less thant he dorky-looking guy, but it's almost like encouraging guys to just count women off as flirts, or just count them for their attractiveness.

So do I think the parent company should have responsibility in what the branches are preaching? Yes. It's just a plain contradiction. That's all I can say really. To be a company people can believe, you need to have constant standards.

2/6: Ads Of The Past

The ads shown in the course blog may seem absurd, but advertising isn't exactly perfect today either.

The first image shown advertises tape worms to make you lose weight without eating less. Tape worms. The thought of it probably makes a few of us a bit queasy. Why would this be allowed to run? They mention that fat is shortening our lives, so there's the medical/health aspect to it. People have always been conscious about their weight and appearances, so the ad makes tape worms look like a safe and logical solution. The ad portrays a woman choosing from a large variety of tape worms, prepared in different ways. In America today, back then, and everywhere, women have always been more directly pressured to look a certain way. However, the idea of tape worms itself is still in people's minds today. On an episode of The Tyra Show, there was a guest who sold tape worms for the exact same reason. People may suggest that the product is simply for health reasons, but it is implied that you should be skinny for aesthetic reasons.



Again, in the second ad, women seem like an easy target. Though the advertisers are appealing to men to buy their cigarettes, they're saying that women are easy to seduce. A mere puff of smoke will make her follow you anywhere. It's degrading to women, and makes men seem arrogant. This ad doesn't even cover the health risks one can get from smoking.

The ads showing a "doctor" smoking a Camels brand cigarette and the one showing the "happy" family (from eating lard) are bordering hypocritical. I say bordering because I can't make out the fine print and it may be trying to explain that it is less harmful than other brands. However, that doesn't really make up for the fact that they're trying to make smoking appear like a healthy habit. No matter what, the effects of smoking are harmful to your body, and the same thing goes for the lard. Lard is fat. People already take drastic measures to meet the media's image of the ideal women, but to eat lard? People say eating does cheer them up if they're having a bad day, but to eat the fat as is? Doctor's today wouldn't even suggest that to feel happy.


Women have always seemed like an easy way to sell products. Whether it's by selling their bodies or by stereotyping them, there has always seemed to be a major prejudice. For example, the ad to the left completely says that men shouldn't have to cook because that's what the wives are for. The ad at the very bottom is supposed to be advertising a radio station, but all that's really seen is the back of a girl wearing a tank top and underwear. When you think of radio stations, that's not what most people have come to mind. The last ad I have here shows Brad Pitt wearing a watch. The company is using their endorsement to sell the product and are appealing to women who find him attractive.

Advertisements today may not seem as stupid or blunt as they may have back then, but they aren't perfect either. Advertisers play on stereotypes and objectifying people to sell their products. Sadly enough, it works.

1/6: Google Street View

I live in a private compound, so my personal address doesn't show on Google Maps. I can say I'm definitely glad. If they had gone into the neighbourhood, they would have just seen my corner house, nothing really special about it. Still, though it may not seem like a big deal to others, I don't think I'd like my house out there for everyone to see. I'm sure Google justifies this "improvement" by saying it helps people find their way more efficiently, but I'm sure many people don't use it for that reason at all. It's an invasion of privacy.

Before there was Street View, regular Google Maps had the bird's eye view. There you can see the tops of your houses, the streets, where there are small side roads, etc. To be honest and quite blunt, Street View is pretty slow on most computers. At times, it's also a bit confusing to use. I personally think that plain old Google Maps is more helpful than Street View. You can see the routes you would need to take and could have a path made out for you. Street View just seems like a fancy new toy for people to play around with.

I'm sure that technically speaking, Google hasn't broken any laws. It's a widely known search engine, so they've covered all the legal aspects. However, have they covered all the moral aspects? I mean, yes, license plates and faces have been blurred out.




But are those really the only things people don't want on the Internet? The majority of people I've asked agreed that it doesn't really help. Other than the fact that the rest of the person or car is still visible, they aren't comfortable with their house being viewed either. People's bodies, homes, property are all included in their respective privacies. If a person were to walk around neighbourhoods and just film his surroundings (including open windows with clear views inside), no doubt people would be uncomfortable. Google Street View is in no way different.

In general, I don't think it was a good idea. Street View violates people's privacy, and to be honest, blurring faces and license plates doesn't help at all. It doesn't seem to be much more helpful than Google Maps, at least not enough to make up for the cost of privacy. In the end, I feel like the product doesn't match up to the cost.