Clean Cut Media » Values

Sexualization of Girls in Media – New Report

cleancutmedia — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:54:50 +0000

[Welcome Twitter Visitors - follow @CleanCutMedia Here!]

Sexualization of Girls Report by the APA

American Psychological Association came out with a report that shows girl as young as 4 and 5 years old are wearing new clothing styles such as push-up bras, thongs, mini skirts and other adult type outfits. Following the onslaught of media images girls see on TV, there is a changing standard born out of the pressure these images give to children to “get with it” or “fit in”. This report brings up the decrease in self-esteem and the increase in depressions and eating disorders linked to the increasing sexualization by the media. It also emphasizes the increasing underage sex rate.

Please don't let your daughters dress like this

Defining Sexualization of Girls

The APA taskforce on the Sexualization of Girls was formed in response to these public concerns. The APA taskforce also produced reports on the Violence in Mass Media, Advertising to Children, Video Games and Interactive Media among other similar reports. The “sexualization” process was defined having one of the following criterias.

a persons’ value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics;
a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness with being sexy;
a person is sexually objectified – that is, made into a thing for other’s sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or
sexuality is inappropriately imposed on a person

Examples of Sexualization in Advertising

Sexualization of Girls is pervasive throughout all media. The report outlines a few categories:

Ads – Sketchers “Naughty & Nice” – featured Christina Aguilera dressed as a schoolgirl in pigtails with her shirt unbuttoned, licking a lollipop
Dolls – Bratz Dolls – dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stocking, and feather boas
Clothing – thongs sized for 7-10 year old, some printed with slogans such as “wink wink”
TV – Televised Fashion show in which adult models in lingerie were presented as young girls.

In addition, I find the most powerful media messages are often a lot more subtle. It is true that the constant barrage of images of pretty women with questionable outfits changes what we consider the “norm” in terms of how we define “beauty” and what is “appropriate” behavior. However just as powerful, is the message found in the lifestyles of sitcom characters. People love watching sitcoms. They become attached to characters and they see the characters in the context of “life”. When people watch their beloved characters living a promiscuous lifestyle or behaving in a sexualized way (using their beauty to charm guys, chasing after pretty woman, gawking at a pretty girl who walks by) we take in these “behaviors” as normal reactions and how things actually are in the real world. We learn what is normal through what we observe in carefully constructed sitcoms that milk on what sells and let’s face it – sex sells.

Interesting Studies of Sexualization in Report

List of some interesting studies covered in the report:
Note that these bulletpoints are not at all comprehensive.

Sexualization inhibits Mental Capacity – Women who were in bathing suits trying to conduct a test did poorly then when wearing sweaters. Men found no such drop off. Thinking about the body and comparing to sexualized cultural ideals disrupted mental capacity.(Frederickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge 1998; Gapinski, Brownsell, & LaFrance, 2003)
Mental Health Problems - Researched links sexualization with 3 of the most common mental health problem of girls and woman: eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression (Abramson & Valene, 1991; Durkin & Paxton, 2002)
Diminishing Sexual Health – Self objectification linked directly with diminishing sexual health among adolescent girls measured by decreased condom use and sexual assertiveness. (Impett, Schooler, & Tomlman 2006). Negative effects such as shame due to sexualization may lead to sexual problems in adulthood (Brotto, Heiman & Tolman, in press)
Sexual Stereotypes - Girls and young woman who more frequently consume or engage with mainstream media content offer stronger endorsements of sexual stereotypes that depict women as sexual objects (Ward, 2002; Zurbriggen & Morgan, 2006)
Effects on Men – Exposure to narrow ideals of female sexual attractiveness make it difficult for some men to find an “acceptable” partner or to fully enjoy intimacy with a female partner (Schooler & Ward, 2006)

Problem of Sexualization of Girls is Deep

The problem is not just the clothing they wear or even what girls are learning about sex – the problem is that girls at a young age are being taught how to approach relationships and how to approach intimacy. Media is teaching girls that being sexy and using their sexuality is important. Even Disney is responsible for using pretty, skinny woman characters using their beauty to get what they want. In the real world, many big name celebrities also are using their “sexuality” for all it’s worth.

Parents: Protect Your Child from Sexualization!

The ultimate message is that parents must protect their child. Some may think it’s cute to allow their young daughter to wear t-shirts that say stuff like “Don’t cha wish your girlfriend was hot like me” (the main line from a popular song) or allow your daughters to those “cute” mini skirts or short-shorts that have things written on their bottoms. To buy them make-up kits as a child and teach them to adorn themselves with beauty products. But it won’t be funny when those very children becoming sexuality active by middle school and learn to objectify themselves, placing their self-worth on how they look.

Download & Read the Full “Sexualization of Girls” Report Below

Please let us know what other good pieces of statistics or information you find below in the comments section!
Also what are your thoughts about the Sexualization of Girls? Do you see it as a big problem?
What do you think we can do?

Summary: Executive Summary
Full Report: Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls (PDF, 408K)

The proliferation of sexualized images of girls and young women in advertising, merchandising, and media is harming girls’ self-image and healthy development. This report explores the cognitive and emotional consequences, consequences for mental and physical health, and impact on development of a healthy sexual self-image. – American Psychological Association

Follow Clean Cut Media @CleanCutMedia Twitter!

AMP UP Pepsi Iphone App – “Before You Score”

cleancutmedia — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:23:38 +0000

AMP UP / Pepsi Iphone App “Before You Score” Gone too Far?

Pepsi has been known as a company not afraid to push limits and try out new innovative methods in reaching it’s potential consumers. Have they gone to far?

“Before You Score” AMP UP

AMP’s latest attempt to utilize social media became a huge controversial issue. AMP is an energy drink company owned by Pepsi. They have always utilized guy-centric advertising focusing on extreme sports and women. Their marketing approach is a tamer version of another company called AXE who uses extremely risque and degrading advertising.

AMP launched an Iphone app called “before you score” that helps men score with women. Within the application itself, the app breaks down women into 24 categories and provides various pickup lines and suggestions. Examples of such categories are “Rebound Girl”, “Twins”, “Foreign Exchange Student” and even “Married”. Depending on the type of person she is, it is suggesting specific things to say as well can be used to find specific places to eat. The whole point is to convince the subject that you share her interest with the overall goal of getting them into bed. The iTunes store has a description that says “roadmap to success with your favorite kinds of women”.

Let’s think about the culture pepsi is promoting here.

Utilize woman’s naivety
Rebound Girl? Get them while they are vulnerable
Married? – Speaks for itself
All you need is the right words and moves
It is normal and fun to try to seduce and take advantage of woman.
The point of these encounters is to “score”
“Helps getting success with favorite kinds of women.” – It isn’t to “connect” with a WOMAN, but “success” with various women?

The stance by Pepsi and their supporters is simple – AMP was just doing something humorous and it shouldn’t be taken seriously. However I would argue that it is exactly these type of things that influence what we view to be the norm of culture. When we watch promiscuous lifestyles on TV, watch racy music videos, suggestive commercials and see an app that tells you, it’s fun to pick up woman – yes it can be humorous but at what cost? There was a time a company would not even dream of producing such an app but the media has helped shift the culture dramatically over the past 10 years. It is possible for a person to play with it just for it’s humor value – but the kind of culture Pepsi is highlighting is simply degrading to woman. It is a testament to our current culture that there would even be a debate an app about trying to sleep with women is acceptable.

Don’t just Score. Brag about it! Tell Your Friends

But it doesn’t stop there. It also has a feature that allows the user to brag about their successes over Email, Facebook or Twitter. It is literally a “brag” button. The app’s description says to “flaunt” your conquests and create a “Brag List” they have gotten “lucky” with. Share your conquest with all your friends. Let’s further review the message:

Women are objects of conquest
“Scoring” is good, something to be proud about
It’s ok to brag about your sex life, forget how it affects the other person

AMP Pepsi clearly was hoping to create a lot buzz – it did. There were a fair share of people who enjoyed the app, but many who were upset and offended. AMP ended up apologizing for the App – “if” it offended anybody. However they did not pull down the app until many days later after more pressure had mounted.

Various Responses to Pepsi AMP Iphone App

Well, Pepsi got what it wanted. Everyone across the online world and the offline started to discuss whether Pepsi had gone too far. Far more interesting then the app itself, was the varying responses. It really clues us into the worldview of our current culture.

Below are some comments from various sites.
Think about what kind of worldview the commentors have about the culture they live in and what they consider to be is right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable.

Amp UP “Before You Score” was a Bad Idea

“[Apology?] too late for that! But honestly, the world considers this type of behavior normal.”

“What a bunch of fools. Even their twitter ‘apology’ uses the crass phrase ‘… pick up women.’ when they could have chosen something more appropriate like “… connect with a woman.”

It’s not a full apology when you use the word “if,” blame the offended for being offended, and continue the activity for which you are apologizing.

Does anyone notice, everyone is condemning the lack of tact in their apology but not the app itself? I also agree the apology was very general and AMP never took ownership over what they did. They pointed at the people offended and simply said sorry if it happen to offend you. Here is a little more transparent translation: “We don’t think what we did was wrong, we were just trying to be funny, but hey if your the type to get offended by this, then sorry to you, but seriously we still don’t think what we did was wrong”

But how come so few people are not criticizing the App and simply stating the fact that it is WRONG and degrading to women?

Let’s see some more responses below – it’ll give you a clearer picture.

What is the big deal? It’s humor, don’t be so serious!

“The app is clearly good taste – the items on the demo video show it’s about conversation starters. If you wanna get hung up about a person’s desire to have sex, perhaps you should ponder how you came into being. For now, if you’re offended, accept the apology. If you’re not offended, game on.”

“Everyone just likes to complain about stuff, but no one takes humor in anything anymore. We’ve become this Politically Correct bunch of rejects…”

“I agree with your assessment of this whole situation. I don’t think anybody was REALLY gonna use this app seriously. It was just something that you could, liek, joke with your friends about.”

“When I found out about it this morning, I just started LOL-ing. Now that I see that there’s such offense to the whole thing, I’m in shock”

“People are taking it all too seriously as AMP has said themselves it was intended to be humorous, not an application with a serious use. People saying things like ‘these lines would never work’ completely missed the point.”

“The app was crude and mysogynistic to be sure. But from what I read it was also damn funny.”

“Everyone needs to lighten up and suck it up. Who promised you a life without offense anyway?”

So wait – It was meant to be humorous, so that makes it ok? It is ok to produce applications that are degrading to women, that clearly offended a lot of people – because hey, the “intentions” were to be humorous?

That line of thought is a very dangerous way of thinking. Something being humorous does not make it okay to do. It is the same reason other controversial apps like “baby shaker” “iSnort”, “iBoobs”, “Dope Wars” “Hottest Girls” are simply wrong – and I believe were all rightfully removed. Shaking a baby for fun, pretending to snort drugs, playing a game of selling and buying drugs, looking at pictures of woman’s breast or bodies are all wrong regardless of whether you think it’s funny. A person may like the app, but that doesn’t make it acceptable. If a person truly believes in the statement that something is acceptable as long as the intention was humor or fun then the person must be able to defend that statement for situations you don’t like.

This is the same kind of reasoning that is used by media to produces immoral or racy shows simply because it brings in the ratings and the revenue. Forget the negative influences on culture and children, people like it and people think it’s fun!

It’s a Smart Marketing Move – Good for them!

“Love the transparency here. Honestly, it’s the first time in a while that I’ve heard anything about Pepsi so kudos for pushing the envelope and coming up with a creative concept that people are talking about…”

“I think the app fit the demographic perfect – I’m surprised they would issue an apology….”

They can’t pull the app yet. It hasn’t completed the mission. This thing was staged long before release. “There is no such thing as bad publicity”. Well to modernize the phrase there is no such thing as bad social media.

Pepsi can play the apologetic parent by coming out and saying they forced Amp to pull the app. Lots of buzz then kudos for “doing the right thing”. They are going to say they wanted to give Amp room to develop it’s own marketing but this is simply going to far.

I would say this is the most reasonable response I’ve read yet, Paul. I have to agree that I thought it just looked like a well crafted foray into “negative” publicity. It looks like a perfect example of using internet link baiting strategies (controversy), for publicity and it is clearly working like a charm.

Depending on the response, Pepsi can play the hero or AMP the villian or either could take the victim’s role, depending on which direction they decide to go next. Honestly, and this is the best part, since mob mentality is pretty predictable, the next step they take will definitely offend one or more sub-groups – who will instantly forget, as quickly as the next new “fiasco” becomes a headline. But in turn it will absolutely endear at least one or more niches, as well – who will remain loyal, because of Pepsi/AMP’s “heart.”

I think it’s brilliant, since the success has already been had. No matter what they do next, there is one thing that has already happened. You are paying attention to them today, when yesterday you were not. On top of that, like any good shepherd, they have guided the sheep to do exactly what they can always expect sheep to do.

Yes it’s a shrewd marketing move – but does that make it ok?

But Women Objectify Men! Wouldn’t be such a big deal if other way around!

“Women objectify men too, they’re just more circumspect about it.”

True, women objectify men as well, but that doesn’t make objectifying women acceptable. Both are wrong!
There were several comments I’ve seen that makes this argument.

Responses of Real Men & Women

“Real men wouldn’t find this ad offensive, and real women would realize it was a joke.”

I sure wouldn’t want to be around these real men and women lest be married to one. It seems to me that the proper response to that which is wrong is to be offended. If someone showed this app to your daughter or worse tried to use it on your daughter, wouldn’t you be offended? I can’t speak for women, but I would assume any women with dignity should be at least somewhat appalled. No?

What do you think?
What is the proper response? Should we be offended or take it as something humorous?
Are you offended?
Do you think something like this contributes to forming a person’s view of others and of lifestyles?
Please let us know what you think!

Euthanasia: Naturalism vs the Sanctity of Life

cleancutmedia — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:00:07 +0000

Is Truth Relative? Do we have a “right” to do as we please?

This discussion is not about abortion, but let me lay it out as an example to make a point. Everyone has heard the abortion arguments before: the argument for life and the argument for choice. Is abortion wrong because the child is a human being and no one has the right to kill a child? Or should abortion be considered a valid option because it is in the right of the mother to determine whether they can or want the child? How about the right of a person to kill oneself? Do old sickly people have the right to end their own lives? Can other people assist them? Stop them? The debates continue but underlying these discussions is a much deeper battle: the battle in the validity of the sanctity of life.

Morality vs Rights?

Our current culture emphasizes tolerance and rights. The “right” of a person is held on a high pedestal, I dare say even above morality. What happens when someone chooses to say someone is wrong? They are labeled intolerant and someone not considerate of the “right” of a person to do and believe what makes them happy. We are told truth is not absolute, it is relative. It is all about what feels right to a person and the “right” for a person to hold onto his or her version of truth. Thus over time, “rights” have become a touchy subject but an issue we need to tackle when discussing the sanctity of life.

Are Humans any Different from Animals?

Is there such a thing as the “sanctity of life” when it comes to human beings?
Is there something innate about human beings that sets them apart?
If so, under what basis?

Naturalism says there is nothing in life outside of what we see in nature- there is no spiritual world, there is no god, there is no supernatural. Thus from a strict naturalistic perspective, humans are no different from animals. Why is that? Naturalist have to believe that humans were born out of bunch of atoms that by chance led to who we are today. From a naturalistic perspective, the only explanation for our seemingly unique ability to reason, make decisions, or have a moral conscious, is simply determined by our chemical makeup. The very reason you are reading this article is due to chemical reactions in your body – you did not chose to read it, it was set to happen. There is no “free will” or “choice”, we just do as our chemical agents leads us to do. Thus if there is no free will, there can be no choice of doing what is right or wrong, or any extra “value” in us. Hitler did what he did due to his all the chain reactions from the beginning of time. Mother Teresa did what she did, not by choice, but due to her chemical makeup. You can’t blame one or honor the other – it’s was all determined. In this worldview, there is nothing that separates us from other animals let alone plants. There is no special “sanctity of life”.

Some might be tempted to say that one believes we are mere chemicals, but still believe humans are valuable. Most would agree to that, but again, under what basis? If we are indeed just a chance product of nature (this including our ability to reason, our emotions etc), what basis do we have any “sanctity” versus some other animal?

“It seems we demand humans to live with indignity, pain and anguish whereas we are kinder to our pets when their suffering becomes too much. It simply is not logical or mature…” – Dr. Philip Nitschke

Who is Dr. Philip Nitschke?

Dr. Philip Nischke is an Australian medical doctor and founder of pro-euthanasia group called Exit International. He has campaigned for legal euthanasia and was successful in passing a law in Australia’s Northern Territory. He helped four people end their lives before the law was overturned by Australia’s Federal government. He has also provided advice to others who ended up ending their lives. He has also been in the news for his willingness to accompany several New Zealanders to Mexico to help them purchase potentially life-ending drug Nembutal and also for presenting the idea of a “death ship” which he would take people to international waters to circumvent local laws.

Dr. Philip Nitschke’s Worldview
Nitschke’s worldview is a natural result of naturalism. Since what we see in nature is all there is to life, there is nothing innate about human beings that makes them any more valuable than a dog, a cat, or even an insect. He argues in the quote above, if we kill our own pets when they are suffering, why can’t we “dignify” people in doing the same. The question is, are humans innately different than animals? Are humans more valuable or are they the same? Is killing a dog or an insect different than killing a human being? To Dr. Nitschke, we are all the same.

Check out this article from Breakpoint regarding the Sanctity of Life:

Euthanasia & the Sanctity of Life

Regular BreakPoint listeners have heard me speak about the impact of declining birth rates around the world. One consequence is that older people comprise an increasing percentage of the population in places like Japan and Western Europe.

This increases economic pressures on these countries since an aging population requires more services while having fewer young workers to pay for them.

One doctor has come up with a way to address the imbalance between pensioners and workers—that is, fewer pensioners.

What Dr. Philip Nitschke has in mind isn’t raising the retirement age—his goal is fewer pensioners.

Nitschke is the founder of Exit International, a self-described “world-leading Voluntary Euthanasia” organization. As part of his mission, Nitschke, who is from Australia, travels to different countries teaching people “how to end their lives safely.”

One of his methods is a dose of the barbiturate Nembutal. While in Britain, he told Reuters that “almost every 75-year-old I meet now sees merit in having their own bottle of Nembutal in the cupboard as an insurance policy, in case things get bad.”

Every 75-year-old? Clearly the Kevorkian from Down Under runs with an atypical crowd. As Reuters put it, “Nitschke’s is an extreme view.” Extreme, but unfortunately not unthinkable, especially given the trajectory of our culture.

At the same time Nitschke was speaking to Reuters, Britain was awaiting new guidelines for cases involving people who help family members commit suicide. The guidelines are the result of litigation involving a woman with multiple sclerosis who plans to go to Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal. She wanted assurances that her husband wouldn’t be prosecuted for helping her kill herself. Britain’s law lords ruled that she was entitled to such assurances.

While assisted-suicide is still illegal within Britain, attitudes are changing. For example, the Royal College of Nurses has gone from being opposed to assisted-suicide to a position of neutrality. You don’t have to be an alarmist or even a pessimist to guess what the next change will be.

These changes coincide with the graying of the British population. Currently, 20 percent of Britons are over 65, and that is projected to rise to 30 percent by 2020. Pro-euthanasia advocates scoff at the idea that the elderly will be pressured to die by society, but British officials acknowledge the possibility. One told the BBC that he wouldn’t want to live in a society that pressured its elderly to kill themselves to make life easier for their families.

The government’s way of preventing that is laws that “strike a balance,” he said, between “sympathetic” cases and protecting the elderly. But you and I know where the road paved with good intentions leads. Without a bright line around the sanctity of human life, the extreme inexorably becomes the mainstream.

The so-called “right to die” can become, as one American politician suggested, a “duty to die,” especially as the costs associated with an aging population crowd out other priorities.

There is only one insurance policy against this nightmare—an unqualified commitment to the sanctity of life.

Euthanasia vs. the Sanctity of Life: It has only just begun.

Healthcare has become one of the biggest discussion topics in Congress and this issue of the sanctity of life is soon going to be a very real topic every person will have to grapple with. The large “baby boomer” population are slowing entering into the later stages of life.

How will the government deal with the limited resources available?
If an old frail 80 year old needs special treatments that will require expensive procedures and medicines, should we make them fully available? Or is it more “practical” to use those limited resources on someone younger who has more years to live and has a better quality of life?

The discussion on euthanasia and the sanctity of life has only just begun…

Where do you stand?

If one asks you..

Do you believe a person has the right to kill oneself if they are old and sick? (By the way, let’s not sugarcoat this, it’s basically committing suicide).

If you answered yes, the next question would be,

Does a person have a right to kill oneself even if they aren’t old and sick?
Does the person have the “right” to do that?

It’s a slippery slope folks. If we deem it the “right” of a person to take one’s own life because they are sick (or assist someone), we will have to allow a person to kill themselves in any situation. Ultimately it comes down to this:

Do you believe in the sanctity of life?
Do you believe people innately have value and are set apart from animals, insects and inanimate objects? Or do you believe humans have no intrinsic value?

Intrinsic Value or No Intrinsic Value?

If you believe in the sanctity of life, then under what basis?
What gives people intrinsic value versus other things of nature?

If Dr. Philip Nischke is right and we are no different from animals, then he has every right to believe it is ok to kill a human being. We kill animals all the time, so why not people?

If you believe that people have intrinsic value and that life is sacred, first you need to figure out under what basis? Where does the value come from? Secondly, issues like euthanasia and abortion should be crystal clear. No one is allowed to kill any other human being under any circumstances. Nobody has the “right” to do that.

So where do you fall?
Leave your comments below.

Ever Fading Sensitivity to Violence in Media

cleancutmedia — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:16:50 +0000

Wu Fei (吴非), is a school teacher who often contributes to several different newspapers and textbooks. She maintains a blog that covers issues in contemporary education. Utilizing the movie Schindler’s List she wrote a post discussing the need to be careful in the way we expose children to the tragedies of human history and the evil of humanity. She believes there needs to be an emphasis on kindness and understanding or these cruelties can be taken the wrong way.

Personally, I really like the post, because it indirectly brings up the issue of our ever fading sensitivity to what we should be viewing with disgust and shame. That is media’s influence at it’s best.

I’ve pasted the entire translation below.
Credit to Danwei for the translation.

Unendurable Brutality

by Wu Fei

The script to Schindler’s List has been selected for inclusion in a middle school textbook.* From the standpoint of both language arts and humanities education, this is a necessary step forward. Secondary education should make students aware that the history of human civilization contains such instances of violence against civilization and humanity.

However, I’ve heard that there are teachers who have watched Schindler’s List ten or more times, and this is something that I can’t understand. I’ve watched it once, and although there were some plot points I wasn’t too clear on, there’s no way I’d watch it again: I don’t want to put myself through another round of emotional torment, and my health won’t allow me to watch it again, even if it is a modern classic. Massacres, beatings, abuse, stripping people of all their dignity, forcing them to live like domestic animals, all came out of the same nation that produced Goethe and Beethoven. The desecration of human dignity and mockery of civilization in that human tragedy is truly breathtaking. For me, the movie is unlike other classic art that I can revisit over and over without tiring.

I detest war and detest killing, and hate even more when killing is turned into some kind of game or entertainment. I’ve never been interested in watching a decapitation, even one that is necessary to soothe the people’s anger. In China, watching a decapitation may not be a way to “soothe anger”; more often, it is a demonstration of — or a training in — disregard for life. I believe that one who is not a professional engaged in that line of work or a scholar researching it should not repeatedly watch that sort of film. I have long expressed my ire at the TV stations, under the control of propaganda departments at all levels, that continually broadcast bloody, violent shows.

In 1983,* Network News aired the execution of an official’s son in Hangzhou: a shot rang out, and a man crumpled to the ground, yet this clip did nothing to placate my “anger.” Instead, it shocked me: how can you let children sitting in front of the TV see real scenes of someone being killed? Fortunately, from then on there were no similar news clips. In Iraq under Saddam, and in other authoritarian countries, children are compelled to watch executions in person in what is apparently called “education.” In China, it used to be “kill one to scare one hundred,” public decapitations, and heads hanging atop the city wall. Just one hundred years ago, the capital’s execution ground could still be placed in a bustling place like the Caishikou vegetable market, and the entire city crowded round to watch. But a people that delights in watching decapitations has no dignity, nor does it have a future.

The “learn from Lei Feng” campaign in 1964 had a whole set of slogans, and one that remains in my memory went, “Treat the enemy as ruthlessly as the bitter winter.” Then came the Cultural Revolution, during which I witnessed all kinds of “ruthlessness,” in which not a single one of the targets was the “enemy” of those holding the guns. And when you recall those decades of bitter experiences, you will discover that in all kinds of “campaigns,” most of the “enemies” that were exterminated in the flesh – the vast majority, even – were innocent people, or at least not deserving of death.

Our education, particularly early education for children and young people, should do as much as possible to imbue them with kindness and charity; whatever happens, we cannot let our children become excited at the scent of blood. Educators ought to keep this in mind: the next generation must keep in mind that human history contains all of those abominable pages. If we have no education in humanity, humanitarianism, and human conscience, if we do not reflect on our own people’s history of education, then the barbarism will repeat itself in all kinds of different ways, regardless of how many years of so-called glorious civilization your nation has. I recently had a discussion with professor Du Wentang, a scholar of German history, about how a period of Nazism took hold of Germany, of all countries. Du said that this was precisely the issue: a nation that believed its people to be superior, its culture far too grand, and that looked down on all other peoples, was what let so many ordinary Germans be bewitched by Hitler.

I am not evading that bloody, fiery past – I couldn’t avoid it even if I wanted to, for it plagues me like a nightmare. Iris Chang’s suicide is understood by very few people, I suspect. A woman who had put all of her energies toward investigating the Japanese invaders and the Nanjing Massacre was unable to rid herself of the images of barbaric cruelty. Perhaps she could not believe that such evil could exist in the world, and that utterly destroyed her formerly peaceful life. Their cruelty went beyond simply killing people; they smeared their cruelty onto people’s memories. To defend justice, the upright had to pay an enormous price. This is the reason we must abhor fascism. Every time I see people online clamoring to “kill the Japanese,” “bathe Tokyo in blood,” and on and on, I get the sense that humanity and humanitarianism is lacking in education. In the 20th Century, militarist Japan and Nazi Germany left behind for humanity a shameful memory, and other totalitarian states have likewise trampled on human dignity. Fascism will bring harm to humanity wherever it exists. No matter what, we cannot permit another page of barbarism in the pages of Chinese education, we cannot have further education in heartless cruelty.

Mo Luo wrote a short piece called “Those People Have Become People,”* a story that includes a reflection on rationality and a call to conscience. The short piece has touched many young people. This is the kind of education we need. After the Second World War, people did not adopt the methods of the Nazis or the Japanese invaders to pay back the war criminals, an eye for an eye, for while ruthless beasts stood on one side, humans were standing on the other.

So that no one will be subject to “ruthless cruelty” ever again: this is the educator’s mission.

- Wu Fei’s Blog (Chinese)

What has happened to our Sensitivity?

One thing that really strikes me is the fact that Wu is very disturbed by what she sees in the Schindlers list, as well other visuals of human cruelty. In our media driven culture, we’ve lost this kind of sensitivity to violence, sex, coarse language, among other things. We are so saturated by violent movies and TV shows that a scene that once would have disgusted us and emotionally drained us, no longer has the same kind of affect.

We see a person getting shot in the head, and it’s just another scene in a movie. “Come on what is the big deal?” We see epic wars where thousands are slaughtered yet we don’t flinch. “It’s a war movie, what do you expect?” We see explicit sex scenes, and suddenly it’s artistic or just part of the film. From our early days of childhood, we are constantly bombarded by such images that it becomes the norm. Where has our sensitivity gone?

What are your thoughts about the deadening of our sensitivity?
How has media shaped our minds to become numb to these things?
Do you think Wei is overreacting to Schindler’s List?

Influence of Media & Advertising in Our View of Life

cleancutmedia — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:00:15 +0000

Growth of the Information Age

The proliferation of the Internet and the ease of sharing information online has greatly enhanced the power of media and advertising. It shapes are attitudes, behaviors and our values in regards to how we view everything and everyone. Everyone speaks about how media affects our society but the power of advertising also comes from the ideas and messages that get portrayed as an underlying reality in media.

Advertising Providing Solutions to our Deepest Longings

Luxury Acura Advertisement Lifestyle

Everyday we are exposed to a particular lifestyle portrayed in movies, tv shows, billboards and commercials. We see people dressed a certain way, living life “to the fullest” – in a particular way. Unfortunately, these characters are created to sell products or raise ratings. Often what is portrayed may not be aligned with reality and yet we may feel that…

We long to have the kind of life they live.
We wish our lives were just as exciting.
We wish we had such close relationships and friends.
We wish we would run into that kind of luck we see on TV.
We wish we can live just as recklessly, perhaps promiscuously without consequences.
We wish we could be as happy as the people we see.
We wish to look the way they look, have the body shape as they do.

Media has a way of creating a longing for things we don’t have, whether or not they are realistic or not.

Unfortunately our lives don’t wrap up cleanly in 30 minutes.
Unfortunately there is consequences to our actions.
Unfortunately reckless actions lead to pain, suffering and life long regret.
Unfortunately reality says our life probably will not or maybe will never pan out the way we see on TV.
Unfortunately we do have limits in ability, skills, and even physical appearance.
Unfortunately the way a particular product brings completely happiness and satisfaction as seen on the joyous beautiful actors having fun is not true to reality.

Eating a stick of gum isn’t going to make you feel like your diving off a waterful. Getting that sleek sports car and driving down a remote coastline is only going to make you happy for so long before you search for the next best thing. Even getting that beautiful girlfriend doesn’t equate to guarenteed happiness.

Mainstream media and advertising often leaves us unsatisfied with the cards we are dealt. Rather than being content with reality, we desire for that which we do not have. Advertising strongly abuses these emotional feelings to get us to buy a product or use a service, but simply watching a particular lifestyle in a TV program can also bring about these feelings.

Advertising is not Evil, but it’s Influence can be

All media and advertising is not necessarily deceptive. When advertising highlights a benefit of a product or service and matches them with your needs it is beneficial to society. It plays an important role in helping our economy function. It is a tool for economic growth and way to inform the public. It helps increase competition, make productions efficient, lowering prices, creating jobs and improving overall livelihood.

Marlboro Man Smoking Advertisement

Where media and advertising fail is when the goal of revenue overcomes our sense of ethics or morality. There was a time when tv shows, movies and advertising alike held a high moral standard in what kind of message they portrayed and what kind of images they would display before the public. Targeting children over products they don’t need? Showing questionably dressed women dancing for products that has nothing to do with women or dancing during the Superbowl when families are watching the game together? Such a company would be blackballed, but now it’s all part of the advertising game. It is the norm.

So what can be done?

Advertisers and producers can assert positive influence on this unfortunate trend in our society. First by taking a stand to a higher moral standard. But also advertisers can choose to only support all that which demonstrates aesthetic and moral quality. A company can simply refuse to have their ads linked with violent or sexually explicit programs while only supporting clean programming. As a consumer one can have the stance to only support watching clean movies, tv shows, and buying products that use questionable advertising tactics. If revenue is what drives companies to do what they do, be sure not to encourage them even if it means skipping out on that movie you are dying to see!

When advertisements deliberate seek to deceive by the underlying images they present, it really asserts the wrong kind of influence to our society especially to children and teenagers.

It isn’t easy but we can all do our part. If only we could form a critical mass of highly committed individuals that can act together in this way we could assert a much stronger influence. This is one of the many future hopes of Clean Cut Media.

Is there any Ethics in Economics Anymore?

cleancutmedia — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:00:16 +0000

Ethics in Economics

Tough times call for new, creative solutions. It calls for fresh faces and fresh ideas. Obama was elected president behind his rally cry of change. He has appointed many policy leaders for all facets of our nation. From Health to Technology, the best and the brightest are brought on to bring our nation out of our poor economic state.

Great. Now what?

How about appointing an Ethics Czar? We hear all the time in the media that things need to change. We hear about excessive pensions and bonuses while thousands are laid off, and we get angry. We hear all about how some executive cheated on this, some accountant played with the numbers like that, and something in us burns. Yet would we have been any different if we lived in the world they did? If we were given the opportunities they had? We live in a me-first culture and accumulating wealth, living the “American Dream”, whatever that is, has become such a great focus in all that we do. Media praises success and we all grow up with that inward desire to make it big.

Below is a great little article about Ethics in Economics. Some excerpts:

Code of Ethics in Business has Changed

…I recall another conversation with a successful investment banker. He told me that the first thing he had to establish was his character, his reputation for trustworthiness and honesty. Without that, he would have been unable to trade. Nowadays, he said, deals no longer depend on character but on lawyers.

Common to these stories is the gradual disappearance of the cluster of principles that went by the name of morality. Whatever its source – religion, conscience, custom or code – it meant that there are certain things you don’t do because they are not done. You don’t reward yourself when customers, clients or shareholders or employees are suffering losses. You don’t pay yourself out of all proportion to what you pay others. You don’t take advantage of your position just because you can. You are guided, even if no one is watching, by a sense of what is responsible and right. Without that internalised code of honour and trust, no institution can be sustained in the long run.

This article starts off by talking about how things used to be. Ethics played a large part of how we did business. There was a time the top lawyers would refuse to take on hostile takeover cases because they deemed it simply wrong. You can throw all the money you want, I will not do it. The point is not whether hostile takeovers are moral or not, but the point is that there was a sense of principle, a sense of morality that kept our greediness and ambitions at bay. There are things we just do not do, because our code of morality and honor wherever we get it from, dictates it to be so. But times have changed. But who is to blame? The culture? Who creates culture? We do.

Morality has become Relative, The Market follows Suit.

Markets don’t guarantee equity, responsibility or integrity. They can maximise short-term gain at the cost of long-term sustainability. They don’t distribute rewards fairly. They don’t guarantee honesty. When it comes to flagrant self-interest, they combine the maximum temptation with the maximum opportunity. Markets need morals, and morals are not made by markets.

They are made by schools, the media, custom, tradition, religious leaders, moral role models and the influence of people. But when religion loses its voice and the media worship success, when right and wrong become relativised and morality is condemned as “judgmental”, when people lose all sense of honour and shame and there is nothing they won’t do if they can get away with it, no regulation will save us.

One trend in our culture is that it has become completely relativistic. What is right for me is right for me, what is right for you is right for you. Tolerance used to mean to be respectful all PEOPLE, despite perhaps their completely wrong ideals or ideas. Tolerance is now culturally defined to be respectful of all IDEAS. As it says above, what is right and wrong has become relative and any strong challenge or perhaps condemnation is considered “judgemental” or “intolerant”. This is called moral relativism and it’s changing the fabric of our society from one of truth and morals to a culture of “niceness” and subjective truth, where the whole point is doing what feels right for oneself.

It is no wonder the latest USA Today Gallop Poll says that less than 25% of Americans give a high rating for ethical standards for the members of Congress, business executives, stockbrokers, attorneys, bankers, you name it.

With a relativistic mindset living a morally relativistic culture, is it really that surprising to find executives doing the things they do? Athletes getting caught using the things they use? Politicians getting jailed for the things they commit?

We need to find a way to return to the understanding that there is an objective truth that we must live by. That there is a right and a wrong, and we must not be afraid to condemn that which is wrong and quick to admit when we ourselves have done wrong. Shouldn’t that be the basis of all business, let alone a civilized moral society?

Full Article

University of Maryland presents Pornography

cleancutmedia — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:00:33 +0000

The University, a place of Higher Education. A source for the development of the mind, a place to practice discipline, and a training ground to build the type of skills and networks needed for the best of futures.

The University of Maryland, College Park announced that the student union would show a porno movie as a way to… wait show what?!

Pirates II: Stagnetti’s Revenge will be shown at midnight Saturday in a campus theater usually home to tamer fare such as independent and foreign films. The distributor of the film, Digital Playground, offered it to the student union for free, so student activities fees are not being used to finance it. A student programming committee voted to screen the film, billed as a “XXX blockbuster.”

Thank goodness. Disaster averted. No student activities fees are being used for this. That would be wrong. Anything else that should be addressed though? Anything?

The University officials acknowledged that the film is “not for everyone” but say the idea was to provide students with an alternative to late-night drinking and other dangerous activities.

It is true that late-night drinking could potentially be very dangerous, but the university officials are very naive to think that the encouragement of porn does not in itself, have ill if not dangerous effects on it’s viewers.

Let’s take one example: the way pornography degrades women as sexual objects. Isn’t that just as important of an issue, if not greater than late night drinking?

How about some other chilling statistics? 81% of serial killers said that hard-core pornography was their highest sexual interest. According to a report from Dr. William Marshall, Report on the use of Pornography by Sexual Offenders, 57% of serial rapist admitted to imitating scenes found in pornography. 41% of all sexual assaults followed the use of pornography. Another study in Mills College by sociologist Diana Russell found that viewing pornography would intensify the “rape myth” that most women really enjoy having sex forced on them.

This is only one of a long list of detrimental effects of pornography.

At least someone seems to have some sense here:

“We’re trying to promote greater respect on campus of all people and something like a pornographic film is not contributing to the buildup of the human person… It’s degrading to the human person. It really runs counter to our efforts to try to form people to be men and women who will go out and contribute to society.” – Rev Kyle Ingels, chaplain of the Catholic Student Center at Maryland

So then what was the reasoning behind the screening of a porn movie?

“We thought this would be something fun for the students to do… we’re a college movie theater and we thought it would bring out the students” – Lisa Cunningham, program coordinator for the Hoff Theater

I am stunned. Is this appropriate for a University? Where are the women’s groups to protest this encouragement of the objectification of women in a school event? Is there anyone in the school administration who thinks they should object to this event?

College is a time when many students are finally free from their parents. They are in a time of their lives where they are more open to trying new things and chase the “college experience”. It’s a time of “first times” and experimentation. How shrewd of the pornography company to target them at such a susceptible age. Porn addiction is well documented and rampant. Grab them now, profit off of them for a life time.

Do they have a counter to the detrimental effects of screening a porn movie?

The student union asked Planned Parenthood to make a brief presentation on safe sex practices before the film. The organization agreed because it would be a chance to reach a population it doesn’t normally have access to, said Dr. Laura Meyers, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington. The organization will provide information on abstinence, sexually transmitted infections, condom use and emergency contraception.

The university wanted to be sure to take advantage of this event by encouraging safe sex practices. They wouldn’t want the students to actually believe the university supports this kind of unsafe promiscuity. Do they think this is enough to cover up the message that gets sent out by films such as these?

This same film has already been screened in at least five other universities including the UCLA, Northwestern, and Carnegie Mellon.

UPDATE: Screening Cancelled.

The University of Maryland, College Park, has canceled the screening of the hard-core pornographic film “Pirates II: Stagnetti’s Revenge” after state lawmakers objected and threatened to cut funding to the state university.

The decision was made by University of Maryland President C.D. Mote Jr.

Sen. Andrew P. Harris, a Republican from Baltimore suggested amending the state’s annual budget to deny any funding to a higher education institution that allows a public screening of a film marketed as XXX-rated film unless it is part of an official academic course.

“That’s really not what Maryland residents send their young students to college campus for, to view pornography,” said Miller.

Linda Clement, vice president for student affairs at Maryland, said the decision to cancel the film was her own and based on a variety of factors.

“I think people were concerned about portrayal of women, concerned about violence, concerned about our students and decision-making processes,” she said. “We were losing sight of the educational value that might come from some kind of exercise like this, so it just seemed like the best thing to do.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Article: Original Story
Article: Cancellation

No Freedom of Religion, Anti-Christian Britain?

cleancutmedia — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:45:07 +0000

How aware are you in regards to the media’s impact on our view of religious freedom?

Freedom of Religion Curbed
If I asked you to think of a country that has no freedom of religion, what countries come to mind? Perhaps an Islamic country like Afghanistan where converting from Islam to Christianity is punishable by death? Perhaps a country like China where churches are persecuted and people are only allowed to meet in a handful of government sanctioned churches? How about the United Kingdom?

Story of a Dedicated Foster Mother
There was once a foster mother who dedicated her life to taking in fosters kids and providing them love and care. As a practicing Anglican Christian, she had devoted her life to a life of love. In 10 years she had brought in over 80 foster kids. She rented out a farmhouse so she could provide them a home and experience having a family.

One of her foster children who was 16 at the time, became interested in Christianity on her own and asked if she could attend church. She eventually would also desire to be baptized. She said that this was a chance to allow the baptism to be the “washing away of the horrible things she had been through and a symbol of a new start.”

Considering her broken past, this was a chance to start with a new slate, only

problem was she was born a Muslim and being baptized into a different faith is considered the abandonment of Islam. Ok. So that is her choice and it is a free country so what is the big deal right?

Freedom of Religious Choice – Denied
Though the foster mother had not encouraged the girl’s interest in Christianity, she was removed from the foster care provider list despite her long history of providing excellent care to 80 foster children! A child in her custody was taken away from her, and she lost the farmhouse due to lost income. To top it off, the government officials then told the young girl she must stay away from church for six months.

If you have any sense of civil liberties and freedom I am sure you are thinking the same thing I am… what in the world?

But don’t be too surprised. There are other such stories though maybe not as poignant, such as a nurse who was suspended for offering to pray for ill patients.

Thankfully, both the foster mother and the girl are fighting against this ruling with the help of Britain’s Christian Institute. It is not right for a country to deny a person their freedom of religion as it is a natural right of any free society. A spokesman who say that he couldn’t imagine an atheist foster parent being revoked if a “Christian child in her care stopped believing in God”

Does this come as a surprise to you?

The media has a way of picking and choosing their focus. Media loves to latch onto stories such as separation of church and state or “creationism” vs. evolution because such topics are controversial and will be read by the masses. These topics are easy to come by. It’s the battles that tingle our sense of justice and our loyalties to our own inner beliefs that gets us riled up. Media companies love this, they know it helps in their sales.

But didn’t this true story, also bring about a sense of outcry? Whether you are Christian or not, we all have this external sense of justice and morality that we get from somewhere. It allows us to innately know what is right or wrong despite our belief differences.

How come it is so hard to come by these type of stories?

What are your thoughts about this?

Credit: Breakpoint

Adult Stem Cells vs. Embryonic Stem Cell

cleancutmedia — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 14:00:57 +0000

“… why do researchers and the biotech industry push so hard for public funds for embryo-destructive research?… because they stand to make huge profits through potential patents. It’s potentially far more lucrative than research involving adult stem cells. – Breakpoint

Were you aware that not a single clinical success has resulted from treatments using embryonic stem cells yet there has been many great success stories involving the use of adult cell stems?

So why is it that most of us are not aware of the progress that has been made in adult stem research yet the issue of embryonic stem cell research is quite familiar? Who is responsible?

Few years ago, Laura Dominquez, a young teenager got into a car accident when she drove over an oil spill. She was unfortunately paralyzed from the neck down. She was told she would never walk again.

However, her and her family were determined to do what they could to fight against this prognosis and started to visit spinal cord injury experts to see if something could be done about her paralysis.

They discovered that in Portugal there was a new procedure known as olfactory mucosa transplantation. This involved taking adult stem cells from the nasal area and transplanting them to the injuries. Laura and her family decided to try this new treatment and soon after her spinal cord began to heal. She gained slowly gained mobility and was slowly able to walk with some help. Her progress has been steadily improving and there is great hope she would soon be able to walk on her own without any assistance.

Adult Stem Cell treatments are making progress in treating everything from sickle-cell anemia, Parkinson’s, Crohn’s disease, blindness and heart disease. The utilization of umbilical cord blood cells are currently being used to treat 70 forms of blood and bone marrow cancers. Just earlier this year 21 patients in with multiple sclerosis were stabilized using adult stem cells from their very own bone marrow. Their diseases were reversed!

But why is it that we don’t hear much about these successes? Everyone is busy talking and debating the morality of Embryonic Stem Cell research. Everyone is fighting for and against government funds? How about the steady progress in adult stem cell research, which has no morality issue to argue since no embryos are being destroyed.

Why is Embryonic Stem Cell research such a huge topic with massive media coverage fueled and lobbied by millions of dollars and one of the touchy ethical issues of politics while Adult Stem Cell research is rarely ever discussed? It is because that is where the money is? It is because despite lack of any successful wins there is just too much potential in Embroynic Stem Cell research that Adult Stem Cell research can’t cover?

Thoughts? Arguments? Keep it Civil.

Obama Pro-life Abortion Video?

cleancutmedia — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:00:53 +0000

The images of a baby fetus.
The heart beats, the baby moves.

“This child’s future is a broken home.”
“He will be abandoned by his father.”
“His single mother will struggle to raise him”

The baby continues to grow…

A pro-choice video, we assume..

Then in a twist of fate,

“This child, despite the hardships he will endure, will become the first African-American President.”

Images of Barack Obama triumphant on election night.

“Life. Imagine the potential.”

Obama Pro-life Abortion Video? Sorta. This creative pro-life ad was created by CatholicVote.org as part of their new multimedia campaign called Life: Imagine the Potential™. This specific ad was created for the Super Bowl. NBC had refused to air it probably due to the controversial topic. On youtube has over 1,750,000 hits.

Regardless of your stance on abortion, you have to appreciate the creativity of this pro-life commercial spot even if it never got an opportunity to air for the Super Bowl.

CatholicVote.org
CatholicVote.org is a faith based educational program dedicated to informing Americans about the critical issues in the public policy arena.

This is not an Obama Endorsed Commercial
So there is no confusion, this is not an Obama endorsed commercial. Obama has always insisted that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child. One of his first moves as president was to kill the banning of federal funds for international groups that promote or perform abortions. He also has a history of either always voting “present” (rather than yes or no) on controversial abortion issues or voting pro-choice.

Movie Review: Watchmen Morality Review

cleancutmedia — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:00:04 +0000

Watchmen Movie Review

Length: 2hr 43Min
Director: Zack Snyder
Producer: Warner Bros, Paramound Pictures, Legendary Pictures
Featuring: Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Comedian), Jackie Earle Haley (Rorschach) Malin Akerman (Silk Sceptre), Carla Gugino, Patrick Wilson (Nite Owl), Matthew Goode (Ozymandias), Billy Crudup (Dr. Manhattan)
Story: Based on a Novel. In an alternate world based around 1985, Richard Nixon is president and the Cold War continues. A crime fighter named “The Comedian”, is killed when thrown off a building. Other fellow crime fighters rise to find his killer. The main characters are Rorschach, Dr. Manhattan, Nite Owl, Silk Spectre II and Ozymandias.

(Disclaimer: I have not watched this movie, this is just a collection of reviews from several websites quotes of reviewers.)

Watchmen came out March 6, 2009 in over 3,500 theaters. Another exciting comic book adaptation? State of the art CGI and faithful to original comic! Sounds exciting? Before you jump in with the family, here is the quick morality summary.

The Quick Movie Morality Review

SEX: Lots of sex scenes. One lasting over 3 minutes. Opening violent rape scene. Does not add to the movie plot or storyline.
NUDITY: Full nudity of man (though he is blue and glowing). Images of breasts and buttocks. Content does not add to the story at all, it’s just there.
VIOLENCE: Gratuitous and Graphic gore and violence. Lots of violence. Creative dismembering (metal grinder). Can become very disgusting.
POOR ROLE MODELS: Flawed heroes – sociopaths, fetishist, bigots, rapists, murderers. They smoke, drink, swear nonstop.

Quotes from reviewers:

“To say violence, gore and sex is ‘graphic’ is an understatement of HUGE proportions. The previews you see on tv are not even close to showing what this movie is really like. Parents, please take my advice and do not take your children to this movie. It is a VERY adult movie and not in any way a child’s comic book super hero movie. While you’re at it, you may want to think twice about seeing it yourself.”

“It should have an NC-17 Rating”

“This is the strongest R rated movie I’ve ever seen… I don’t need to actually see someone getting hacked in the head repeatedly with a clever… inmate get both his arms cut off with a metal grinder”

“Not only is it extremely violent, graphic and horrific in its display of violence it is also very strongly sexually explicit! This movies deserves a rating of ‘MA’ for Mature Audience.”

“The violence in this movie is, indeed, over the top, and I rarely ever say that. Dr. Manhattan has supernatural powers that basically allow him to explode people, and you’ll see that in detail. By detail, I mean blood and guts sticking to the ceiling afterwards. There’s a near rape scene which is interrupted before the sex starts, but goes on long enough that the woman is slammed onto the ground, a pool table, punched several times, and at the end is quite bloody.”

Where has the world come to?
These review quotes below are upsetting to me. They really show how much media violence, sex has become more acceptable and infused into our culture. We now believe we are more than capable of handling the media and what the measuring line of what is acceptable and unacceptable has degraded significantly. We say “save the kids” but deem movies such as these “watchable” by adults.

“I was expecting it to be really dirty compared to what people are saying. Probably 2 min scene of sex…. I’ve seen a lot of movies with sex scenes it seemed the same as those. The blue guys penis is actually showing for about a total of 30 secs. Just do what I did and don’t look at it”

“When the DVD comes out, you can easily fast forward the sex and foul language parts and not miss the story, so I would probably wait for the DVD, which I’ll probably buy being a fan now of the Watchmen”

Excerpt from Review Site discussing the theme of “power” in Watchmen.

Violence as an expression of power is central to the understanding of the movie and the characters. In an interview, Alan Moore stated, “And yes, Watchmen came to be about power. About power and about the idea of the superman manifest within society.” The idea of a Nitzschean “superman” is perfect for the conception of a superhero. Similarly, power and the “superman” is what “The Dark Knight” is about as well. In that film, power is wielded by criminal gangs, by the police, by Batman, and by the Joker. Each of them has a different ethic in their use of violence. The police are deontological, placing the law above all other considerations. The criminal gangs and corrupt police officers are utilitarians: whatever action benefits them the most is the best action. Batman operates on virtue theory: the action must be “right” because it is intrinsically the right thing to do, whether it is legal (deontological) in the eyes of the law or beneficial (utilitarian) to him doesn’t matter. The Joker is non-ethical. He is the supreme nihilist and doesn’t even recognize a value system with “good” or “bad” as descriptors. Seen from this perspective, societal conflict is a conflict of value systems and force.

“Watchmen” is similar to “The Dark Knight” in that way. There are power constituencies (the military, the police, the heroes, the Russians, etc.), all of whom use force in accordance with their ethics. Moore stated in another interview, “We tried to set up four or five radically opposing ways of seeing the world and let the readers figure it out for themselves; let them make a moral decision for once in their miserable lives!” It is important to know that Moore is a self-proclaimed anarchist. Anarchism as a system of thought is a radical left ideology which is anti-authoritarian. This is why in Moore’s “V for Vendetta” and in “Watchmen” there are characters who wish to recreate a new order by first destroying an existing order, as in the prison riot. Toward that end, Moore gives us moral “choices” on the philosophical use of violence.

Those moral choices are represented by the kind of “hero” we identify with. Rorschach is described as a psychopath, but in fact he is the movie’s legalist, the deontologist who adheres ruthlessly to the strict letter of the law. The Comedian is perhaps a hedonist, doing only that which gives him pleasure, though it may not be “good” for him. Nite Owl, like his doppelganger, Batman, is an aretaic; he wants to do the right thing in any given situation, as does Silk Specter, although that sometimes means crossing the law. Ozymandias is a utilitarian, willing to sacrifice some to save many. And Dr. Manhattan is the ultimate existential materialist: he exists in Time, not Space, and sees life itself as matter. At one point, he argues that a dead body has the same amount of matter as the living one, and he speculates what benefit life is to the universe.

Full Article at Christian Spotlight.

Clean Cut Media Movie Review Purpose

Hope you find this post useful. This post is not intended to review how good the movie is or how great the plot is. As a matter of fact I hear the CGI is amazing and it is a truly a work of art. But here in Clean Cut Media, our movie reviews are more to check on the the moral ethics within the movie and how it goes about influencing and impacting our culture and the minds of every viewer. Hopefully it has been helpful in gaining a better understanding on what the movie entails.

If you have seen it or know of any information about the Watchmen, please comment below!

The Secret Life of the American Teenager – Sex Obsessed ABC “Family Channel”

cleancutmedia — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:41:31 +0000

Secret Life of the American Teenager

Influence of Sexual TV Programming on Teenagers

“This is the strongest evidence yet that the sexual content of television programs encourages adolescents to initiate sexual intercourse and other sexual activities. The impact of television viewing is so large that even a moderate shift in the sexual content of adolescent TV watching could have a substantial effect on their sexual behavior.”

This article discusses two new programs on ABC called “The Secret Life of the American Teenager” and “Greek”. ABC has traditionally known as a “family channel” have new programs that centers around sex themes for high schoolers and college students.

A high-school guidance counselor agrees to change a student’s schedule so that he is more likely to meet a girl who will have sex with him. A cheerleader breaks up with her boyfriend after discovering that he accepted oral sex from the school tramp. A good-girl French horn player discovers she is pregnant after a one-night stand at band camp and debates with a friend whether or not to terminate the pregnancy.

Sound like the kind of racy fare one might see on HBO or its slightly tamer cousin, the CW? Think again. The previous scenes come from The Secret Life of the American Teenager, a hit show on ABC Family that is changing the network’s image and may change parents’ minds on whether to allow their children to watch the channel.

According to the ratings, most parents aren’t concerned. The show, which focuses on the romantic entanglements of a pregnant 15-year-old girl and her friends, has given ABC Family its biggest audience yet, with nearly 4 million viewers per episode. This is millions more than the CW’s much-hyped teen drama Gossip Girl draws in, despite the fact that ABC Family broadcasts in far fewer homes. Teen viewers also crowned Secret Life with “Choice Summer TV Show” at the 2008 Teen Choice awards. Yet many argue that the show’s material is hardly appropriate entertainment for the 12- to 17-year-old viewers it attracts.

With episodes showing teens in bed together and frank discussion of masturbation and internet porn, the content is so adult, it prompted one Huffington Post critic to quip, “If that’s family programming, what would non-family programming look like? Frontal nudity?” But network executives claim that Secret Life isn’t pushing the envelope so much as staying right in step with real teen experiences.

ABC still claiming to be a Family Channel
ABC has historically been known as a family channel, a network safe for families to watch together during prime time hours. However the two new programs have raised huge concerns due to it’s heavy sexual content. Disney who owns ABC has released very peculiar ratings such as 18-34 and 12-34 in order to perhaps avoid any controversy of rating the show as a “teenager” show. Surprised? Their other show “Greek” is centered around college freshmen pledging into fraternities and sororities engaging in casual sex with a general lighthearted comedic attitude.

“It’s kind of a misnomer to call ABC Family a family channel,” said Michele MacNeal, head of a local branch of the Parents Television Council. “When you call something ‘family,’ it gives the impression that it’s safe for all members of the family, even young children.”

Sexual Content on TV impacting Teenager Behavior
With sexual content on TV doubling in the past few years, there has been many studies conducted in order to measure the increase in sexual programming to teenager behavior. Not surprisingly, the studies conducted by independent research groups show that sexual content does impact behavior of its viewers.

According to research conducted by the independent, nonprofit firm RAND, watching television programs with sexual content not only makes teens more likely to engage in sex, but also increases the likelihood of pregnancy. A 2008 study published in the Journal of Pediatrics asked 2,000 12- to 17-year-olds to keep track of the television shows they watched that contained sexual content. Those who watched a high amount of such programming were twice as likely to get pregnant or to get someone else pregnant.

Noting that sexual content on TV has doubled in recent years, behavioral scientist Anita Chandra who led the study commented, “Watching this kind of sexual content on television is a powerful factor in increasing the likelihood of a teen pregnancy.” This held true even when factors like parental involvement and economic status were accounted for. “We found a strong association. . . . Even when we removed all the other factors,” Chandra stated. “We still saw a compelling link between a high exposure to sexual content on television and teen pregnancies.”

A previous study by the RAND organization also found that teens who watch such programming are twice as likely to begin engaging in sexual intercourse in the following year as those who don’t. And it doesn’t matter whether the programs actually depict sexual behavior or merely talk about it—according to the research, both types impact teens’ sexual behavior.

Said Rebecca Collins, the psychologist who headed the 2004 study, “This is the strongest evidence yet that the sexual content of television programs encourages adolescents to initiate sexual intercourse and other sexual activities. The impact of television viewing is so large that even a moderate shift in the sexual content of adolescent TV watching could have a substantial effect on their sexual behavior.

Full Article

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS:

Do you watch The Secret Life of the American Teenager?
Do you think it’s influence is negative or positive of teenagers?
What life lessons (or norms) does the show teach? Have examples?
Do you think by watching numerous shows similar to this would have an impact in the way a person behaves or considers norm?