It’s almost 2 a.m, but lucky for me I’m in one of the few bars in town that stays open until 2:30, or at least that’s the appeal that my friend presented as she suggested that be our last stop for the night. My Saturday night is not yet over. Score.
Not behaving like my usual self would behave in a bar in the “classic city” of Athens, Georgia at two in the morning, I find myself casually and quietly taking in the scene of this new bar that I’ve yet to visit.
Upon first entering the bar, I felt a sense of artistry. There were various pieces of art covering the walls like patchwork creating one overall vibe. There was GREAT music playing and I found myself thoroughly enjoying this new spot.
But as the night was closing in, and I begin losing my buzz, I start really LOOKING at all of the “artwork”.
Suddenly, I’m appalled.
One after another, I start actually reading the art on the wall that I had originally given me this “cool” vibe.
All of these blasphemous words and images were appearing before my eyes. I start frantically looking around to see if anyone else was noticing the vulgarity of the words on the wall, but no one noticed. Everyone had that far-off drunken look in their eyes.
But here’s what disturbs me: though they’re not consciously reading the words, they’re feeling the vibe. They enjoy the aura that this bar has created and I suspect that many of the customers would want to return.
As it pertains to the book, Amazing Grace, which addresses several social problems within The Bronx in New York, there has been a recent development in the Bronx which signifies social improvement. A new post master was sworn in. Not only is this post master a woman, but she is a Hispanic woman. Lilliam Rodriguez signifies a symbol of hope for the future not only for women but for people of diverse ethnicity. From a gender inequality and race inequality standpoint, this is significant.
As a whole, the attempt to address whether or not it is feasible to maintain a lifestyle by working minimum wage jobs was a good idea.
It was an interesting social experiment. BUT…
I think a major part of grinding one’s way through hard times with low income comes from within-through determination and hope. I refuse to accept, although she makes several valid arguments, that it is not reasonable to maintain a lifestyle (for one person) on minimum wage.
Of course it’s hard, and there is plenty of space left to make arguments against being able to “make it” but she fails to take into consideration what it’s actually like to LIVE through this type of lifestyle. Her one year experiment does not translate into the life of someone else. The power of hope, and help from other people can go a long way.
Although the book provided an interesting perspective on the hardships of working minimum wage jobs, her overall argument is much to pessimistic for the already pessimistic world today.
As detailed in Michelle Alexander’s book, The New Jim Crow, the prison system is now the institution that is denying the rights of citizens that were supposedly won during the Civil Rights Movement.
Although there are many crimes which deserve punishment, the idea of rehabilitation should be taken as a higher priority when it comes to incarceration.
Due to the fact that it is extremely difficult for people who have served time to assimilate back into society and the high rate at which people who have served time end up back in prison, a new approach should be taken to the concept of the prison system.
As a child, these were always the words that accompanied the explicit scenes during family movie nights. Due to the fact that I was either A) disturbed by the violent scenes unfolding on the TV screen,
or B) made extremely uncomfortable by seeing two people get more intimate than one is used to seeing on a daily basis, I always followed suit and sealed my sweaty palms over my young eyes. I don’t know about you, but I can recall far too many times of having to “cover my eyes” while watching movies with my family. Perhaps my family was letting me watch too explicit of movies at too early of an age thus necessitating the shielding of my eyes, but I think it’s something different…
Considering moving pictures have become some of the most prevalent and profitable forms of entertainment over the past century, it is no surprise that families gather around the television to spend some quality time together. I know that my family always had new, Blockbuster movies for our Friday night entertainment. Though there are some movies specifically created for children, and others rated for people 18+, there are always those in-between films that ride the line of “appropriateness” as something that is permissible to be showing an innocent mind. There are countless films that convey a healthy, powerful message that many parents would want to expose their family to. At the same time, these films with the powerful message have the occasional curse word, sex scene, or excessive violence that most parents feel uncomfortable exposing their innocent children to. Parents are now faced with a dilemma that is becoming increasingly hard to solve. Not only are movies becoming more explicit in the content that is being shown, but television shows on “family-friendly” networks are becoming more explicit. Commercials, even on those same “family-friendly” networks are becoming increasingly explicit. I remember being a young teenager and seeing the Hardee’s commercials that showcased women hardly dressed eating Memphis barbecue burgers and making sure I changed the channel whenever my toddler sister was in the room.
I also recall feeling uncomfortable while watching commercials with my dad that openly talk about erectile dysfunction and advertising a pill to get ones sexual life back on track. It has gotten to the point where topics that were taboo not too long ago are now recognized as societal norms.
The evolution from the first moving pictures to the immense business that film is today has not only witnessed dramatic technology developments but the content of moving pictures has radically evolved as well. By examining the gradual shifts of content on an upward explicit trend, the implications of the explicit trend on society and culture will be examined.
Throughout history of film, it is interesting to examine how human interaction is portrayed. Humans seem to be innately interested in human interaction and the phrase “sex sells” is not too far off the mark when it comes to marketing and entertainment. In fact, it seems to be that the phrase “sex sells” is the theme that some movie and motion picture developers have adopted throughout the evolution of film. As time has progressed, so has the explicit nature of pictures throughout the media.
For example, in the early stages of motion pictures, one would not have ever encountered scenes of a couple and a bed filmed in the same room. In the Classical Hollywood 1938 movie, Bringing Up Baby, Susan classically fakes that she is being attacked by the leopard, Baby, in order to get David over to her house. Susan is clearly flirting with David and her intentions are probably a little beyond inviting David over to help her with the leopard. David even says “this is probably the silliest thing that has ever happened to me.” Beyond David entering the premise of Susan’s house, there is never any scene that explicitly shows any of her intentions underlying sexual intentions.
Progressing up the ladder of explicit content (followed by a linear increase in time) the scene in which Susan invites David over is in stark contrast with the scene from The Graduate in which Mrs. Robinson invites Benjamen over to her house. When compared side by side, these two scenes differ greatly in explicit content. Not only is there a bed shown in The Graduate, but Mrs. Robinson is much more straightforward about her intentions. As she stands naked in front of Benjamin and tells him that he can call her if he changes his mind, this type of scene would’ve have been appalling in the early developments of motion pictures.
Today, explicit content has reached new levels. As pre-sale tickets of the movie Fifty Shades of Grey broke new records, thousands of people watched on screen a sexually deviant Christian Grey as he beat, tied up, and penetrated the naked body of Anastasia. Described as a “worldwide phenomenon”, women and men across the world watched as this film hit the screens.
The social implications of the upward trend of explicit content on screen may not yet be known, but are of significance when it comes to social development and the perpetuation of problems within society. By exposing mass amounts of people to increasingly explicit content (not just sexual content, but violent as well), it changes the way society operates. Is this the trend we want to be following?…
“You need to take down anything religious related from the board…yeah the regional manager flips out when there’s anything religious related on there”emphatically said the Starbucks barista into her headset (used to communicate with her co-workers) as she swept the floor in preparation for closing.
Her voice was loud, but it was her words and the implications behind them that jerked my attention away from Sunday evening studies. “Did she really just say that?” I thought to myself. Over the years, the community board in Starbucks has been the host for a multitude of outreach flyers. Among various job opportunity postings, group exercise activities, charity donation programs, and a variety of other social events, there are occasionally different church sponsored events on the board. I know this because I’m one of those people that takes the time to read the board. Let me start by saying I am a satisfied Starbucks consumer, but not a die-hard Starbucks consumer. I don’t own a gold card, I hate the social stigma of being a “white girl at Starbucks”, and quite frankly I prefer the flavor of Dunkin’ Donuts coffee. That being said, my money is spent at Starbucks a couple of times per week primarily for the atmosphere. It’s a quiet gathering place with tasteful music and contains people of all ages reading books, thumbing through the newspaper, clacking away on laptops, and lost in deep conversations with other patrons. In essence, it’s an ideal study environment for me.
So, when I’m interrupted by this woman’s voice spouting corporate guidelines and how the regional manager “flips out” when anything religious related is posted on the board, my curiosity is sparked. I scurry over to the board and investigate this “religious-related” posting. What I find alarms me. The flyer is a church sponsored event advocating an “empowered conference…equipping you to bring hope and healing to adopted and foster children”. “How is this flyer worthy of being taken off the board?…” my thoughts begin reeling. This particular event is helping children. This particular flyer is not imposing religious beliefs upon patrons, nor is it condemning anyone or anything. This flyer is promoting an event that appears to be pure in intention and operating under a lens of humanity.
Let me make it clear that I’m not a religious person, but I do appreciate the positive events and attitudes that the church (on the whole) promotes. Although there are several ways that the church has discriminated (and continues to discriminate) against certain groups of people, stifling religion’s fundamental goal to inspire and uplift the community is awry. I understand that there is frustration and disagreement when it comes to the concept of religion, and that there are people that disagree with it as an institution, BUT to deny churches the opportunity to visually promote events that operate through a lens of humanity stifles the freedom of speech and discriminates against the freedom of religion. In the United States Constitution, the first Amendment clearly states that “no law should be made impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech”. The freedom of speech and the freedom of religion are both noteworthy, but operating as a private corporation (not a government organization) Starbucks is under no obligation to permit the expression of patrons’ religious beliefs on the community outreach board. Yet, as a private corporation, Starbucks claims to promote certain ideals while running their business. For example, on the official website, the Starbucks corporation claims that “Every day, we go to work hoping to do two things: share great coffee with our friends and help make the world a little better…We make sure everything we do is through the lens of humanity – from our commitment to the highest quality coffee in the world, to the way we engage with our customers and communities to do business responsibly.” What a wonderful claim! What a respectable goal! Creating an environment for people, such as myself, to congregate in a place, enjoy good coffee-all through the lens of humanity. Let the sounds of the heavenly angels’ trumpets ring loud in the name of STARBUCKS.
But wait!
Starbucks would not approve of the heavenly angels’ trumpets applauding efforts to conduct business through a “lens of humanity” because the angels are associated with (gasp!)…religion.
Sarcasm aside, it’s important to examine the social implications of this encounter at one of the most successful coffee houses in the entire world. I am aware that some people might be offended by a religious related posting, but at what point do efforts of maintaining a politically correct environment go too far? By removing the “religious related” flyer that’s advocating the humanitarian event, Starbucks is going against their own mantra. If the corporation has mandated that no religious related content be associated with their business for fear of offending an overly sensitive patron, perhaps they should rethink their own mantra of operating through a lens of humanity. Since early human civilization, religion has played a major role in shaping human kind. In fact, studies performed by Psychologists’ David Myers and Ed Diener found that there is a positive correlation between reported happiness and religion. As one of the most successful coffee houses, with a large consumer base, this company has the power to influence the population. Their approach to business has landed them success, but now residing at the top, why not harness the power to inspire social change? If Starbucks has the power to charge upwards of $5 for a coffee beverage, then I am confident they have the power to influence consumers in a social aspect as well. Starbucks Corporation’s mandate that all religious material be removed from the board is a passive act. An aggressive act would be allowing the Starbucks employees to distinguish what is acceptable for the board at their own discretion. I am not saying that allowing religious related postings will inspire social change, but in the midst of an ideologically divided America, taking a stance and distinguishing between what is right and wrong instead of constantly trying to avoid offending someone may serve to unite human kind. Taking an aggressive approach (as opposed to a passive one) will be the first of the corporations’ small steps in inspiring social change.
