Anti-Unity Values in the
Media:
Examples of
Anti-Unity Values (AUVs) -- Table 9
Section 20
Examples of anti-unity values (AUVs)
that are often promoted in the media include:
1. Living together unmarried
2. Having children out of wedlock
3. Making each other jealous on purpose
4. Adultery for various reasons
5. Promiscuity and bi-sexuality
6. Sexy dressing for men other than one's partner
7. Having a same sex best friend who is placed ahead
of the partner or in competition for certain things
8. Having a heterosexual best friend who is placed
ahead of the partner or in competition for certain things
9. Same sex friends going out as a group for fun and
entertainment without their partners
10. Flirting with other gender as retaliation against
one's partner (or other reason)
11. Separate interests and activities accepted for
partners
12. Manipulating partner through deception
13. Accepting the idea that it's OK to "agree to
disagree" about some things
14. Promoting the idea that one should not try to
change one's partner but should accept them with their faults, etc.
15. Girls only or boys only entertainment
16. Acceptance of the idea that men are more important
17. Promoting the idea that men are more rational than
women
18. Promoting the idea that women are generally
frivolous as part of their gender
19. Making it look normal for a man to exploit women
20. Making it look normal for a man to abuse women
21. Making it look normal for a man to have
prerogatives or perks that women should accept and honor (e.g., serving men,
doing what they want no matter what, being dominant, etc.)
22. Making it look like what women say and think as
less important
23. Accepting the idea that a man does not need to
"grovel" when he apologizes for something bad he did to her (the
minimum is enough and she should not ask for more even if her feelings are
still hurt or else she is being "unreasonable" etc.)
This Table is from: http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy25/409b-g25-lecture-notes.htm#Table%209
Anti-unity
values are all the actions that counteract against the unity model of marriage.
Many of these events occur between people who connect solely on the natural
level and do not believe in an eternal relationship beyond death and through
the afterlife. All the values that are mentioned above are selfish acts that
serve to enhance the hellish traits belonging to the individual engaging in the
AUVs.
Unfortunately
these acts occur on a daily basis in
Anti-unity
values are not critically scrutinized and no attempt is made by anyone in
society to eliminate them from society, and from our lives. These anti-unity
values which are so well represented by movies, music, and television are
seriously influencing and pressuring the youth of today. In watching these
elements of the media, children are learning that those actions are acceptable
and that they should recite and reenact the same situations they experience
through the media.
Anti-unity
values have cemented their position in the American culture so well that
finding a chivalrous human being to begin a relationship is thought to be “too
good to be true”, it causes suspicion which eventually
will lead to an inclination towards acting upon the anti-unity values, which
only leads to a failed relationship. According to the American culture today,
it is difficult to find a partner with which one can fully connect to. Because
this is the accepted belief, no effort is made by the two individuals in the relationship
for a conjunction, which is the basis of the unity model of marriage.
In
today’s society, it seems that sensorimotor stimulation and perhaps minimal
cognitive stimulation, more prominently known as “friends with benefits”, or “a
booty call” are increasing in popularity, as a result of this; our society
neglects an integral part of our makeup, which, the last piece of the
three-fold self, is the affective organ, our mind, or motivation.
In
order to have a complete and fulfilled relationship, people need to look past
their sexual attractions and work to create a relationship of the mind. People
need to begin moving past the pressures of the dominance model and the
supposedly new-age equity model to the nirvana of marriages, the unity model.
In
the unity model of marriage, it is believed that once two individuals become
involved they strive to conjoin to each other to create an eternal
relationship. The eternal relationship is the most important aspect of the
unity model and therefore does not exist in a relationship until that idea is
believed and lived thoroughly by both partners.
All
the acts mentioned above are just the components that work against and
contradict the values belonging to the unity model of marriage. The anti-unity
values include obvious things such as unmarried couples, illegitimate children,
creating jealous situations, adultery, promiscuity, and racy outfits for other
men aside partner.
All these
anti-unity values are just simple things that should not have to be explained,
but understood for the wellbeing of the relationship and more importantly for
the partner. Things such as placing a friend above the partner, going out with
friends without the partners, flirting with others in search of vengeance,
lying, manipulation, accepting men as more important, and saying that men are
more rational than women, and women are just naturally lighthearted, will all
lead to the inevitable demise of a hopeful relationship.
The belief
that it is normal for men to exploit women and to abuse them as well as
believing that men should have a lighter load or that women
should serve them. The idea that what women have to say is less important than
what men have to say and that when men apologize it is
not necessary for them to grovel no matter the size of their betrayal. All
these traits scream the dominance model as well as mentally abusing women. And
in believing in these fallacies one cannot obtain a relationship that maintains
the unity model of marriage.
Other
anti-unity values are not so obvious at first or take some thought such as,
accepting or allowing separate interests, or accepting that it is natural to
disagree with each other about some things.
A common misguided belief is that one shouldn’t attempt to change their
partner but accept their faults instead, when rationally it is understandable
to want to change someone for the better either for themselves or for the
relationship. And the last anti-unity value which everyone is guilty of is the guys night out or girls night out. Although it may seem
fine, the unrealized potential of a gender restricted outing can lead to
resentment from either partner.
Section B: Findings of Prior Generations:
Carly Kanemaru:
Their
report may be found at: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/409bs2006/kanemaru/kanemaru-409b-g24-report1.htm
Carly Kanemaru’s report examines both
movies and songs which are popular in today’s pop culture. Her report dissects
the attributions to media and evaluates the meanings behind the foot popping
beats to the accepted and unnoticed derogatory phrases. She exposes their
oh-so-obvious yet nakedly-hidden degradations toward the female gender. Her
report contains thoroughly examined and interpreted arguments towards the
movie, Unfaithful, and two songs, Secret Lovers, by Atlantic Star, and Big Pimpin’ by Jay-Z.
The movie she chose, targets the
anti-unity values focusing on the male and how they are negatively affected.
This is presented in the movie by portraying the life of a married couple who
have fallen into a routine and have forgotten to set aside time to keep their
relationship stimulating.
Because the husband is constantly
working on maintaining a successful career and in doing so works long hours he
has little attention for his wife. The wife, who apparently has more time on
her hands falls into a sexual relationship with another man.
As the movie progresses, the
anti-unity values are exposed in the wife’s cheating and lying to her husband.
The husband also engages in anti-unity values by not confronting his wife with
his feelings. Kanemaru agrees with the obvious problems that the movie is
presenting, about the wife’s unfaithfulness. But she also exposes the
undeniable faults of the husband as well, in a very objective and thorough
summary of the movie.
The two songs that Kanemaru used,
Secret Lovers and Big Pimpin’ are very common songs
that play in their appropriate atmospheres; the first is mostly heard in
gentle, professional atmospheres such as a hotel, dr.’s office, or an elevator,
while the second song is a popular song among young adults and teenagers. But
she explains that these songs both carry heavy anti-unity values that are
barely suspected let alone questioned by anyone in society.
The first is just a sweet song about a
couple in love who can’t be together because one is
married, while the other one just sounds good through large speakers and
woofers and is fun to dance to. Kanemaru expresses her shock that prior to
taking this course she was one of those people who didn’t realize the
detrimental nature of the songs or movies excused in today’s media.
Kanemaru is trying to expose the
anti-unity values that have surprisingly become common-place for society and
that females don’t even notice that they are the subjects of an extremely
negative perspective. It seems that in both the movie and in the song by Jay-Z,
women are the negative subject while the men are either the victim or the
hotshots with all the girls. And I that what Kanemaru is trying to say is that this is allowed and overlooked by women. Why?
By reading what Kanemaru had to say
about the media she used and even looking at it myself, I have realized that I
too listened to and accepted the degradation of music, and overlooked movies as
well. All because of the rhythm of the thump-thump, or even the thrilling
experience of a movie. I suppose that with the large extent of these types of
movies or music, young women and men have accepted such music lyrics and movie
topics. Anti-unity values expressed in the media have become commonplace and
are expected now.
Skip Saito:
Their
report may be found at: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/409bs2006/saito/saito-409b-g24-report1.htm
Skip
Saito chose a rather popular movie for the year, one that was both
aesthetically pleasing and humorous as well to portray his qualms with
anti-unity values in the media. Saito chose to discuss the movie, “Mr. and Mrs.
Smith” which starred Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. It
is a perfect example of anti-unity values not only in the movie but in reality.
What happened after the movie’s production? Well, Brad Pitt who was in what was
thought to be a serious relationship with Jennifer Aniston cut his losses and
sparked a relationship with Angelina Jolie.
Pitt’s insensitive actions towards Aniston are upsetting
but it is also intriguing to inspect the relationship that he currently has
with Jolie. Was his previous relationship not
improving positively enough to sustain a unity model? Or were the anti-unity
values surrounding Jolie too tempting to avoid? Or
did he see that a relationship with Jolie would be
more inclined towards the unity model? Perhaps it is so controversial because
it has happened with celebrities; this type of situation is commonly ignored
when it happens between normal people. And in any event, which situation is the
most ideal for the unity model? If each human’s ambition is to find someone
they can love and attain a conjugial marriage with then is it so bad that they
leave a current relationship to attempt another one with someone else?
Saito makes a reasonable observation in mentioning that
this movie also affected a situation in the real lives of the celebrities
involved. It supports the idea that anti-unity values in the media directly
affect people’s lives.
By
including his friends in his report Saito makes it clear that he is disturbed
by the functions that anti-unity values are controlling. He stresses a small
and humorous scene in the movie concerning curtains and the interaction between
the actors. This interaction demands much humor and in a normal viewing
situation is not overly scrutinized. Saito informs his friends of the
characteristics of the unity model of marriage and explains to them the problem
with the curtain episode.
Once
doing so his male friends were confused with the sacrifice that they are told
they should make in the unity model, while Saito’s female friends were
overjoyed and thrilled at the idea that their partner should respect their
decisions and even allow them. This expression of emotion only tells me that
these women have been exposed only to the dominance model and even in their
thinking now they are excited for the wrong reasons, which shows me that they
are not thinking about relationships rationally and they are not thinking about
the unity model rationally.
Because
of their actions it is apparent to me that they would not apply true facets of
the unity model, in fact it would still be the dominance model because they are
allowing themselves to believe that their husbands are allowing them to decide,
when it really should be that they feel that their husband is striving for
their happiness. In misunderstanding
this simple part of the unity model the women have revealed that they are
comfortable in the dominance model and have not yet looked beyond it.
Saito
uses two popular rap and hip/hop songs that apply to anti-unity values. The
first song is Eminem’s Jealousy Woes II. Saito lists
the lyrics and then explains which anti-unity values are presented in the song,
then he goes on to explain why the song is unfavorable when it comes to the
unity model of marriage.
Eminem’s song is about a wife who cheats on
her husband even though her husband tries to mend the relationship and is still
in love with her and showers her with gifts. She is resentful and
unappreciative of his attempts, her actions are what’s
destroying the relationship.
Saito’s
second example is a hip/hop song by Usher entitled, Confessions. Saito again
lists the anti-unity values that are being portrayed in the song and then
explains the nature of the song. This is opposite of Eminem’s
song, in Usher’s song the husband is the unfaithful one.
Aside
from being unfaithful, the husband in Confessions has also gotten his mistress
pregnant and expects that once he confides this information to his wife that
she will forgive him. Saito expresses his shock that a man would expect his
wife to forgive something so horrible as that, and be
able to move on with him at her side.
Saito’s
ending conclusion about music in the media is objective, clear and quite to the
point. He openly presents his ideas and deductions for the artist’s motivations
as being their personal experiences that influenced their art. Saito is quite
right in understanding that this is the reason as well as the ever-growing
popularity of sex, drugs, and violence in the media.
Saito’s
honesty about his interpretation about songs versus his friends’
interpretations is interesting because I just recently experienced the same
thing, where I just listened to the beat of the song, the sound of the voice
and didn’t internalize the lyrics, whereas a friend of mine asked me if I had
understood what had been said. I was caught off guard by the question and
realized that I hadn’t even made an attempt to understand the lyrics. I was
surprised to be caught in this situation, but this was the first time I had
done that, I usually listen to the words and interpret them on my own.
Lauren Teani Buchner:
Their
report may be found at: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/409bs2006/buchner/buchner-409b-g24-report1.htm
Lauren Buchner introduces a movie that she will
be using to support her examples of anti-unity values in the media very clearly
and thoroughly. The movie Buchner decides to use is
called, The Story of Us. She states that she plans on describing several
different situations in the movie that represent the listed anti-unity values.
The
Story of Us, is about a couple who have been married for 15 years
and have been struggling to maintain the image of a happy relationship for the
past 5 years for their children’s sake. As all American movies, this one has a
happy ending too, or what we assume to be a happy ending with the exception of
anti-unity values.
The
introduction begins with the start of the movie continuing on through the end
of the movie. She seems to enjoy the movie which makes it much easier for her
to explain and use as an example of the values. Buchner
goes beyond just using one example, she uses a decent amount of examples to
help support her thoughts pertaining to the anti-unity values, as well as
making it clear that some of the actions that occur between the couple in the
movie have characteristics of the dominance and equity model of marriage.
After
Buchner’s introduction to the movie, and a basic
synopsis she continues to break down the episodes she has mentioned so that she
can further analyze and identify the anti-unity values shown in the movie. But Buchner goes over and beyond when she breaks down the
impact of the anti-unity values to those characters involved in the lives of
the struggling couple.
Buchner applies her examples to exact numbers of the
anti-unity values she believe are present throughout the movie and she explains
each one of them as it corresponds to the situations in the movie. One
important point Buchner makes is that throughout the
movie from beginning to end there is no effort made to accomplish or move
towards the unity model in marriage. In the end, the wife simply accepts that
the husband is still irresponsible and will not change. In the end, the wife
ends up changing herself to avoid conflict in her relationship with her
husband. These two acts, accepting that she cannot change her husband, and
changing herself to save the relationship, fall into the dominance model of
marriage at the end of the movie and ultimately confirm that in the couple’s
ignorance they are “happy”.
Buchner’s experience with trying to explain the unity model
of marriage to her friends is quite accurate because I’m sure that each student
taking this course encounters this same problem. Rationally it is understood
that a relationship will only survive is both partners share the same feelings
for each other and strive to make the other person happy. But being that we are
pressured by the minute by our society, we begin to accept the anti-unity
values and not question the irrationality of their existence. In taking this
course, all students are asked to share their new knowledge with friends or
family. I believe this is the most difficult to do, Buchner
does a wonderful job by not necessarily informing her boyfriend of the purpose
of the interview but erecting his natural opinion first before explaining.
Buchner also uses two songs to portray anti-unity values in
the media through lyrics. The two songs she uses are “Ms. Fat Booty” by Mos Def, and “Faithful” by Common. Although I’m not
necessarily familiar with the songs, I can surmise by their titles and by the
rather popular names that these songs are or were quite a hit.
She
takes snippets of the song lyrics and translates them into the anti-unity
values expressing her dismay at the degradation towards women that passes as a
hit song, “Ms. Fat Booty”. Even in the second song, “Faithful”, which does not
so openly degrade women, it expresses instances of the dominance model and that
the male who commits an anti-unity value should be forgiven because he came
home to her, admitted his actions, and felt regret for them.
The
sad truth about this type of scenario is that it occurs on a daily basis. Women
all over the country accept their husband’s confession, accept his apology and
all the while think, “well, maybe this time he really
did learn his lesson.” The songs and movies in the media only serve to expose
that our supposedly evolved society has in fact not evolved in the bit! Where
else would these singers find the inspiration to sing about something so
negative?
Buchner’s conclusion to her analysis is right on target. No
matter how chilling it is to think of the effects of media are threatening, it
is a reality that we must face. She indicates that if we do not make a change
soon, we will soon lose the value of a relationship with a significant other
and won’t know any better how we are actually supposed to interact.
Adriel Stipek:
Their
report may be found at: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/409bs2006/stipek/stipek-409b-g24-report1.htm
Adriel Stipek chooses to analyze a romantic comedy by the name of “
She made her own observations about
the scenes in the movie and took these examples to her friends to get their
reactions. They individually did not respond to all of the scenes but each
responded to three, so I am unsure if Stipek did not
introduce all the scenes to her girlfriends or if she did and they just chose
not to comment on all of them. Stipek went on to
explain that she had given her friends a list of the anti-unity values and that
they were able to distinguish some of them is a very good sign.
Stipek
then went on to analyze what she thought about her friends’ responses and she
said that it looked like they knew what she was talking about but that they
didn’t fully understand the unity model of marriage. I feel that she is correct
in her assumption, and feel that my friends would probably perceive in the same
manner.
When Stipek
broaches the subject of society and couples being negatively influenced by this
movie, she created valid arguments and I agree with her statement that couples
should understand that these movies are unrealistic but she then says that
couples might be intimidated by the prospect of marriage and an engagement if
they have that type of situation to look forward to. I understand that perhaps
couples will know better than to seriously consider the movie, but it seems to
me that “Sweet Home Alabama” is more a movie that females would watch together
not with a man.
Stipek
does a really good job of presenting the songs she uses. She bolds the lines
that she feels are contributing to anti-unity values and uses both the male and
female perspective to create a more diverse analysis of anti-unity values in
lyrics. Stipek also lists which AUV is being
presented in the song after each bolded example.
What’s more is that she goes beyond
just looking for anti-unity values but she finds a song which displays the
unity model of marriage. She bolds the lines in the songs that display this
model most clearly and by presenting this song makes it seem that not all songs
have to submit to the negative requirements that media has set forth for
artists.
After listing the song lyrics, for
which she used “My Way” by Limp Bizkit, “Never is a
Promise” by Fiona Apple and “Making Memories” by Keith Urban. She lists the
songs and their anti-unity values at the end of the lines that display them,
she has written her reaction to the music and explains what she thinks about
the interpretation of the song as well as the impact of the anti-unity values.
The site where the lyrics can be found is listed as well for reference which
tells me that she prepared for this report very well.
Stipek
analyzes the first two songs and expresses their possible impact on children in
today’s society. She mentions that these songs my influence children into
believing that the relationships mentioned are ideal relationships. Concerning
her last song by Keith Urban, she explains how this song might be a positive
influence on children because it shows a man’s devotion to the woman that he
loves.
Stipek
really puts her friends to work in getting their reactions and I believe does
really well to extract all possible thoughts from her friends about the songs.
She points out that she has informed one of her male friends of the aspects of
this class previous to this assignment and because of his experiences
understands the material, while her female friend is younger than her male
friend; she is also less mature and was not previously exposed to the material.
These few instances change both of Stipek’s friends’
responses.
Stipek’s
male friend is able to rationally look at the material handed to him and make
conclusions, while her female friend seems to be more emotional when seeing the
lyrics and interpreting it. She seems to understand what the first two songs
are talking about on a more personal level, saying that her boyfriend acts in
the same ways. Her male friend confirmed that the actions taking place in the
first two songs should not be occurring, while Stipek’s
female friend accepted those same actions as a part of love, and relationships.
Cynthia Adams:
Their
report may be found at: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/409bs2006/adams/adams-409b-g24-report1.htm
Cynthia
Adams presents the movie she is to interpret, “It Could Happen to You”, by
explaining that it is based on a true story. That this movie is based on a true
story and that it is chosen for this example is a smart choice because it
basically says that these anti-unity values are not only taking place in the
media but the media is recording occurrences of this type of behavior in real
situations.
Adam’s presents several examples of anti-unity values and
explains them throughout the writing. She makes sure that the scenes are well
described and makes sure that the display of the anti-unity values is clear and
complete.
Upon presenting the movie,
She expresses that she doesn’t think that people really
listen to the lyrics as much as they do the rhythm of the beat or the
popularity of the song. She feels that songs are not deeply considered for
their content, rather the feelings that are elicited by listening to the song,
or perhaps the feelings it helps one escape from their current situation.
Reflections
of Previous Generations
The
reports of the previous generation are all trying to portray the same thing, that anti-unity values are extremely prevalent in
today’s society and they are accepted without question. These values become the
object of entertainment in the media and men and women alike regard the values
as normal aspects of a thriving relationship between couples today.
I believe that by not taking action,
we are allowing the anti-unity values of the media to control and influence the
types of relationships that we get ourselves into. More and more, a
relationship is considered more sexual than emotional and love is lost
throughout the country. But the only apparent important thing is that these
movies and the music are making the artists money. Where did we go wrong?
I was never oblivious to the
derogatory terms used in today’s music; I always heard it but chose to overlook
it because I didn’t take the time to apply it to myself. But being that I
strive not to make subjects of personal nature I didn’t have a problem with it
before. I also hate to admit that I don’t know that anything I do would change
the way that society is headed now. There are simply too many people involved
for only one to step back and make such a drastic change by eradicating values
which have become commonplace.
In order for a change to occur,
everyone has to be educated, and this is something that I believe society is
striving to accomplish right now. The evolution of time has brought with it
more freedom for women, and with this freedom I believe that society is still
struggling to find a median in a relationship between men and women. That
anti-unity values are popular is not a phenomenal thing that just occurred, it
has been around for a long time, it is only now that we are beginning to
empower women and that these values are becoming more and more unacceptable.
Anti-unity values have been apart of
my life since I was born. I am an illegitimate child. Because of this simple
fact of my birth I have had to deal with that situation brutally. Even though
it wasn’t a big deal in the American society in the eighties, I lived within a
more tight-knit community that based their lives on a deeply orthodox religion
with equally orthodox traditions. Because of this culture and because of the
situation between my parents, I dealt with the community’s judgmental actions
and blamed myself.
It was only when I was older that I
realized that nothing that they accused me of or judged me for were my fault. I
did not choose to be born out of wedlock, nor did I choose to lead the
lifestyle that I was apart of as a child. But it is because of these anti-unity
values that I am here today. I was forced to perceive people as a child and
understand their resentment towards me. As I grew older, I realized that my
success in life was for my own good and had nothing to do with society. Which
may be why I feel the way I do about anti-unity values.
In studying the anti-unity values
presented by media and by society, I don’t find them as horrible as my
situation was. They are detrimental, I’ll agree but if a human being can look
beyond those values and understand that their lives do not have to reflect
those presented in the media then they are rationally accepting the faults of
society and choosing not to participate.
Anti-unity values are a societal issue
and if a person is ignorant of the accepted, sometimes misguided ideas of
society, they can become wrapped up in it and mimic their lives to match the
perfect societal couple. This imitation is what leads to the downfall of all
couples. Endeavoring to make your situation with a person exactly what you see
in movies or hear in music, striving for your relationship to have the same
problems that television comedy series do, trying to relate your problems to
that of society, or creating problems because you believe that’s what you’re
supposed to do will only lead to a failed relationship and a lot of wasted
time.
I encounter anti-unity values daily,
not just in the media but with friends who are suckered into believing that
society is correct and that they should conform. Even I am guilty of feeding
the fire that maintains these values within our society. I do so because it
just seems simpler to understand the values and regurgitate them. If I began to
preach my thoughts concerning anti-unity values and our misguided society, I
would be regarded with a wary eye and avoided. This is why the people I choose
to surround myself with understand and discuss how I truly think,
I don’t have time to preach to a society that will not yet listen. I sincerely
hope that each individual does understand that society is only a guideline for
living and should not be taken too seriously.
While this is true for older more
mature men and women, what we do have to look after are young children who are
exposed to these values. It is already happening in society that little boys
and little girls are acting with promiscuous tendencies. It is the
responsibility of the adults surrounding these children to monitor what they
are exposed to, and to explain the negative nature of media. It must be
rationalized to children in order for the values to not influence the children.
Anti-unity
values simulate a glamorous world that mystifies a child into believing that
this is what they are supposed to act like. By presenting children with a stable
relationship that does not depend on these values, we are exemplifying a real
and honest nature and enlightening them with the idea that the values in the
media are there only for entertainment and are completely incorrect.
The
biggest problem with society is that each and every one of us fights to
understand and create our own place within it. But one problem about society
that seems to elude us is that its basis is artificial and corrupt with ideas
of power and not love. Our individual struggles with society inevitably lead to
our eventual submission, why?
Section C: My Own Findings on AUVs in the Media
For
this section I chose a popular sitcom that ran for ten successful years before
it finally came to an end. Its popularity is thus that reruns still air on
stations more inclined towards comedy, such as TBS. The series is Friends. I
chose it because of its popularity being that so many people watch it, I wanted to take a look at what kind of AUV’s they were selling.
The other television series I chose
is a cartoon that plays once a day on Nickelodeon if it is not a marathon. The
cartoon is Fairly OddParents, and I chose this because I thought it might be
interesting to see what AUV’s are prevalent in
cartoons targeted towards children today.
Illustrations of Disjunctive Talk and
Behavior
In the episode that I watched for
this paper, Rachel has just given birth and is currently in the hospital when
Joey through some twisted reason ends up on the floor, with a ring in his
hands. Rachel misunderstands and answers without Joey’s explanation. As it
turns out, the ring belongs to Ross but before he knows what happens, Phoebe
informs him of how excited she is that he finally proposed.
Ross
goes to speak with Rachel about this and ends up undermining her word. He tries
to explain to her that he did not propose to her, which causes confusion until
she tells him that Joey proposed to her. He then assumes that she is just
making things up because she is tired. Confirming the AUV number 18, concerning
the idea that women are generally frivolous due to their gender.
Illustrations of Conjunctive Talk and
Behavior
In this same episode at the end,
Ross sits down to have a chat with Rachel. He begins by expressing his emotions
about them honestly and proclaiming that they should maybe try to figure out
their relationship. He is concentrating on her happiness with the new child as
well as being able to provide a happy family situation for mother and daughter.
Comments
Although
AUV’s are quite common in television series such as
Friends, it is also clear that these AUV’s are
laughed at and mocked as inappropriate. So if they are inappropriate, why are
they still used in television? Because it attracts laughter which attracts
ratings and thus drives the success of the creators and producers and who ever
else had a hand in the series’ creation.
The relationship with Ross and
Rachel is a rocky one, they struggle throughout the seasons with relationships,
as all of the characters of Friends do, but these two also share intimate
feelings for each other that are not resolved until the tenth and final
episode. In this episode, it becomes clear that the dominance model is shown as
well as the unity model.
The unity model is presented in such
a minute act that it is easily dismissed and overlooked for a more humorous
remark. The television series is only one among many who make light of
relationships and perhaps strive to present a type of caricature of either
gender who emphasizes the accepted anti-unity values and creates a laughable
situation.
Illustrations of Disjunctive Talk and
Behavior
In one episode of Fairly OddParents,
Cosmo and Wanda are providing children with the moral that junk food is not
nutritious, therefore; the five basic food groups are necessary. Of course, as
all cartoons do, this one starts out with a good situation turning bad before
the end of the episode brings the observed moral. So, Timmy wishes for junk
food to be the normal food that is served around Dimsdale, the town.
During
this scene with Timmy making a wish, both Cosmo and Wanda hesitate and try to
explain to him the negative aspects of eating too much junk food. Cosmo
explains to Timmy, that Wanda loves chocolate and if she gets into it, she gets
into it! He makes cracks about Wanda and portrays AUV’s
to children across the country. By making fun of Wanda, Cosmo is showing
children that it is okay for males to feel superior to females, and that men
are allowed to mentally abuse women and exploit them.
Illustrations of Conjunctive Talk and
Behavior
Throughout all the episodes, Cosmo
does not hesitate to undermine Wanda and does not view as she should be
regarded according to the unity model of marriage. But there are some instances
in his easily-excitable brain that he showers Wanda with heartfelt love in an
extravagant expression and reminds Wanda why it is she’s married to him.
Comments
Because Fairly OddParents is a show
for children, every characteristic of the series has a childlike perception to
it. The relationship between the fairies is definitely one that portrays a
twisted and childlike feeling. Cosmo and Wanda say things to Timmy that at
times seems like advice and other times they squabble with each other which
influence Timmy as well as viewing children that it is appropriate in a
relationship for arguments to occur.
In presenting these episodes to
children, we are influencing their development with negative anti-unity values,
and expecting them to grow up understanding that those actions aren’t correct.
The relationships in Fairly OddParents are all in the dominance model or
perhaps even striving for the equity model, but they present old stereotypes
which hinder children’s thinking when they accept what they are watching.
My Reaction & Friends
Having watched both television
series regularly, it was not until I took this class and began to seriously
think of the impact from media concerning relationships. After looking at these
episodes with calculating eyes, I am saddened that they both fall under the same
media trap as all the others. I have to wonder if anything in the media that
presents marriage or relationships does it correctly without the stereotypes
and the dominance or equity model seething from every action.
The series Friends, has dealt with some
interesting and serious situations, but one thing I have never seen them
emphasize were their intimate relationships. Sure they date regularly and there
are plenty of different episodes involving relationships, but they are
dismissed by the humor placed in being artificial or critical of a person’s
appearance.
After taking this course, I feel
that Friends, has become just another destructive organ to separate the genders
more. It is disappointing to analyze what Ross did to Rachel, and to understand
their setbacks in such a clear manner.
My Friend’s Reaction
When I proposed the situation to my
friend, she was nonplussed by it. “It happens everywhere!” she exclaimed, “it’s
not a big deal, they make fun of everything”. To which I had responded that
they make fun of negative things and that even though it is all lighthearted,
this influences our whole society. “Exactly, it’s supposed to be lighthearted,
nothing in the series is supposed to be taken seriously. And they’re just
emphasizing that these situations occur in everyone’s lives and by making light
of them they are accepting it and attempting to instill a sense that people can
laugh at themselves.”
This friend of mine also enjoys
watching Fairly OddParents, and when I began to tell her my findings, she said
to me, “I know it’s not necessarily sound for children to be watching, they
have all sorts of sexual innuendos and things that children should not be
exposed to. Take Shrek for example! It’s filled with
that sort of thing and still it’s popular among children. But take a look at
all of the other crap that children are allowed to watch. I don’t think that
half of the cartoons presented today are entirely acceptable for children, but
what can be done to change that? Just because we don’t like it doesn’t mean
that it will change overnight, we just have to regulate what children watch for
ourselves. Which is the lesser of two evils?”
What She Really Means?
I
understand her reaction to my interpretations of the episodes; I think that
we’ve all faced defeat when it comes to the media. There isn’t a few
enlightened folk who understand and know that media is selling lies, many
people understand this. But they also understand that these television series
are brought forth to bring humor to such situations and not negatively
influence as much as I interpreted them to be doing. How do you stop a boulder
rolling down a hill? It takes a great amount of effort. It’s the same way with
media. There’s so much going on, there are so many different types of media
that they can’t all be targeted at once and changed for the better.
My Expectations
I have already stated so many times
that the reason for media to present these interactions is for the humor, for
the station ratings, for not only a successful series for the creators but also
a successful series for viewers. Media thrives on people, people have to be
satisfied with what media is presenting to them in order for media to maintain
a successful state.
Such situations as portrayed in the
media are a fact of everyday life. No matter how much we try to deny the
existence of these such situations between couples, they exist and when put
into a script and acted out, viewers find humor in it because they know that if
they thought about it they could remember a similar situation they were in that
reflected the same ideas.
Why is media the way it is?
The
reason for media’s portrayal of this is for relation. People find comfort in
being able to apply their lives to the life of a fictional character on the
television set. In being able to relate to that fictional character the life of
that character becomes the persons and they can forget for a while that they
have their own real problems to contend with.
Consequences for Couples and Society
As
for the consequences media has for couples and society, it has some basis. I
don’t feel that a couple should feel pressured by media, just as they should
not be pressured by their society. If a couple allows for pressure, or strong
influence from society than it is apparent that their relationship has not
reached the unity model which exists without social influences.
But
because media has such a large role in society, it is difficult for society not
to be influenced by the occurrences in the media. I do believe that the ideas
that are presented in the media find their way into society and thrive there,
just as fashion influences society. It’s important to understand that society
is always changing and evolving. It is also so malleable that any outside
influence can affect the outcome of perspectives belonging to society.
If
society and media continue to portray relationships in the way they do, and if
society remains unwilling to admit that their success is a failed marriage,
then it is imminent that couples will be a thing of the past that people will
become more self-involved and eventually it will lead to demise in our
civilization.
Effects on Young Adolescents
Young
adolescents in maturing and growing in their surroundings are still creating an
identity. It is because of this that they allow society to rule their
decisions, they are highly influenced by the media and I believe at this point
somewhat confused about societal rule. But by accepting what they see and
acting in the same manner, they are adopting negative societal traits without
realizing that they are doing so.
Being
able to rationally distinguish between negative and positive societal aspects
is difficult to accomplish at any age especially as an adolescent. I think that
both genders are equally confused by what media is presenting them therefore
they assume the role and aid in destroying a peaceful existence.
Young
teenage boys are more likely to degrade women and agree that the dominance
model is an ideal relationship between a man and a woman. While young teenage
girls are confused by the messages being sent to them by the media, one minute
they’re supposed to be promiscuous, but the next if they are then they are
called ‘sluts’. Young women are manipulated into accepting the dominance model because
this is all they see from their surroundings.
If
young men and women are not shown that society and the media are propagating
the wrong message and that the real, ideal lifestyle is the extreme opposite,
then in their ignorance they will succumb to their society and sacrifice their
happiness. It’s sad that in today’s society, children must grow up like this,
but it is our responsibility to educate them.
Section
D: Disjunctive vs. Conjunctive Verbal Interactions
For this section, instead of
researching conversations online or looking for them in the book, I thought it
might be interesting to hit closer to home. I thought it might be interesting
to see how my friends and I interact with each other or even with other people.
While studying or doing homework, I regularly speak with people online with
instant messenger services. These messenger services also record all of the
conversations that I have. So this was very helpful in going back to look at
some of the conversations I’ve had, while taking this course.
The
first two examples are conversations I had with my friend Nathaniel, who just
recently went through a breakup and found another romantic interest. In the
conjunctive interaction, Nathaniel is telling me about a text messaging session
he recently had with his ex-girlfriend. While the disjunctive
interaction pertains to his breakup with his ex-girlfriend.
The
conjunctive interaction focuses on how Nathaniel interacts with his girlfriend
through text messages, and his caring communicative style. The disjunctive
interaction actually is an example of my own perception of anti-unity values,
as well as the ordeal that Nathaniel went through with a girl who was unwilling
to share her feelings with him, no matter how valiantly he attempted to console
her feelings.
Conjunctive
Interaction I
her:
hi. did u take anthropology 152? i'm not sure wich
prof to take.
Nathaniel: me: I think i did. i
had perry 4 that class. is
she a option?
her:
no. blimes, mandryk,
or cooper my r my options. it sounds like a fun clas, tho i
remember u not liking sum assignments :/
Nathaniel: yeah it was alright. i had it the summer after i
was an archeaologist. so it
was interesting ah! i'm
shooting pictures 4 the ka leo soon! :)
her:
cool. i saw diana and baby sam yesterday. damn he was cute! did u
register?
Nathaniel: yeah i saw her @
the ka leo! :) she was asking about u. : sam is
cute. he was smiling @ me. hehe. yeah. i registered. it
went poopy. blah! dumb classes :)
her: haha y r
Nathaniel: Muahaha! bc
Her: :) have fun!
Nathaniel: good luck w
In this example, Nathaniel is paying attention to all
that his ex-girlfriend has to say and is responding politely, even engaging in
asking about her situation she has brought to him, and offering a supportive
conversation.
Disjunctive
Conversation I
Christina: you thought the
relationship was at a different... level..
Nathaniel: kind of but she
told me that her main reason was because we'd been dating for almost 2 years
and she felt that the relationship hadn't reached the level she wanted it too
Christina: and what level was
she expecting?
Nathaniel: i don't know exactly
Nathaniel: the "i love you" level? since i never said that to her
Nathaniel: and she was too
chicken to say it herself?
Christina: ...wasn't your pov discussed and understood before you started the
relationship?
Nathaniel: she was aware of
it
Christina: maybe she thought
what all girls (mistakenly) think.. "oh, he'll be different for me"....
Nathaniel: i don't know all i know is a 3
year friendship has died
In this situation, after the initial breakup, Nathaniel
and I were discussing the situation. The end of the relationship was such that
his ex-girlfriend was unwilling to open up to him about what was bothering her,
and she began to act differently towards him. He attempted several times to
appease her to no avail, and finally confronted her head-on about their
problems. Her unwillingness brought about the demise of their relationship. I
suppose that her situation and experiences rubbed on the dominance model, and
while Nathaniel was using the unity model to try to make her happy and to make
the relationship work, at the end with her unwilling to oblige, it was just not
worth his emotions anymore. On a side note, I also noticed my acceptance of an
anti-unity value myself, and am
surprised and almost shocked that I would feel so defeated towards
relationships, and preferring the dominance model.
My
next example of conjunctive and disjunctive interactions is with my friend,
Daniel. In the first section, for the conjunctive interaction, he is telling me
about something he did for the new girl currently in his life. While in the
next, we were discussing a situation that I was facing myself. The quirks about
Daniel are such that we can verbally abuse one another with no fear of either
of us taking offense. Most of the jabs are all in good fun, but if I were to
objectively analyze our conversation, it would be a disjunctive one.
Conjunctive
Interaction II
Daniel: okay so i bought
a rose and i went to her work at macy's
and i talked her friend into letting me put the rose
in her bag
Daniel: so she would find it
after work
Daniel: and i wrote a little note on it!
Christina: Aw!!
Christina: that's so..... romantic
Christina: heh...
Daniel: yeah and the note was
kind of a "cute" note
Daniel: i
guess
Christina: what'd you say?
Christina: ....if you don't
mind...
Christina: haha
Daniel: "hey! Surpirse! I thought this would be a really nice surprise to
come back to after a long hard day or standing around.....and watching people.
:) you better get a lot of work done tonight and
tomorrow and not be such a bad student! :) ~Daniel" something alone those
lines
Christina: LoL
Christina: cute...
Christina: you're right...
it's exactly that
Christina: CUTE
Daniel: yeah
This is an example of a conjunctive interaction because
of the actions he takes in pleasing the woman in this relationship. His
motivations are to surprise her and make her feel special about their
relationship.
Disjunctive
Interaction II
Christina: ...i didn't want to feel like a "horrible" person
Christina: and kind of left
out the fact that... um... well i already hooked up
with him :S
Nathaniel: of course you did sigh women
Christina: what??
Christina: what's that
supposed to mean?
Christina: -Man who
manipulated 2 women in the past... i dunno... 2 MONTHS!!!
Christina: i'm allowed to play too you know
Nathaniel: no ways
Nathaniel: it's different for
guys than it is for girls
Christina: oh please!
Nathaniel: totally different
Christina: how is it any
different?
Nathaniel: by societal stand
point
Christina: yeah but we're not
taking societies view of it
Nathaniel: what are we
talking then?
Christina: not society
Christina: personally
Christina: personality wise
Christina: so what, i'm supposed to stand by and let myself be manipulated by
guys like you?
Christina: NO thank you!!
Nathaniel: dude that's the
thing
Christina: i'm too much of a sceptic to
believe your type of words anyways
Nathaniel: you don't even
know the manipulation is happening
Nathaniel: if the guy is good
at his job
Nathaniel: true you do know
too much
Nathaniel: maybe i shouuld "silence" you
Christina: yeah.. but because i
grew up reading people, it's kind of hard for me not to know
In this example of a disjunctive interaction, Nathaniel
uses the phrase, “women” which is a derogatory slander
used by men in the dominant model, then he goes on to say that the actions of
men and women are looked at differently, pointing out double standards another
example of the dominant model. While I do no better to alleviate the anti-unity
values presented in this case. Although, it doesn’t seem that my opinions here
lead to the dominance model, I suppose it is more the equity model in that men and women should be allowed to do the same things.
Section
E: Conclusion and Advice to Future Generations
Summary
of what I have learned thus far
Prior
to taking this course, I understood the dominance model and the equity model of
marriage, but was completely unaware of the unity model of marriage. I believe
that most of society understands the dominance and equity models of marriage;
they are just not as intricately defined to them as they are in this course.
The
course has offered tables of examples and explanations to support the three
models and define them. Thus far, I understand that the quality of the
relationship begins at the bottom with the dominance model and continues on
through the equity model and finishes with the unity model of marriage.
The
basic breakdowns of the models are as follows. The dominance model demonstrates
a relationship where the male is always superior to the female in all cases,
where the equity model strives to maintain an equal relationship between the
partners in every aspect and in the unity model; males strive to keep their
female happy.
I
feel that by understanding all three models I can more rationally create
relationships with other people, not just in a personal intimate relationship
but in all of my interactions with people. By understanding which relationship
style people are inclined towards I can make rational decisions on how to
interact with them.
I
can only guess that because I grew up witnessing all relationships in a dominance
model and that I had only recently been exposed to relationships that
maintained a successful relationship in the equity model. I still have trouble
fathoming the successes of the unity model. The concepts assigned to this model
seem a little far-fetched at times; perhaps it is just that I credit males with
having a rational mind just as women do. I understand that at times we act
irrationally and that we all need to take a step back to analyze our previous
step and observe our next, but I attribute this to both genders and not just
the male gender.
Any
modification of the course would not be that beneficial for anyone. I
understand the concepts and the models of marriage; my problem is personal
acceptance of the information brought to me.
Advice
to Future Generations
The
obvious advice here is not to procrastinate. But beyond that, one must also
understand that they must not be overwhelmed by the amount of pages that must
be written. If it makes the student feel better, one way to effectively write
out the report is to break the sections up and work on the sections
individually. Another important piece of advice is to be sure to take a look at
the instructions weeks prior to the due date of the report.
Once
you take a look at the instructions then a smart idea would be to think about
your answers, research the topic and then make an outline so that it may be
easier construct the paper.
By
taking this course and doing the work that it requires, one will find that in
any case they will be more perceptive of relationships they encounter as well
as beware of the influences being sent through popular media. Being educated in
relationships, will offer one a better understanding of things that could help
or hinder a relationship they may want to work on. It is valuable information
that will be used throughout the course of one’s life.
My Home Page: http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/409bf2006/afonin/afonin-home.htm
G25 Class Home Page: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy25/classhome-g25.htm