Myth Presentation Reflection

Reading the chapter on the Female Divine and then having to read the myths that went along with it was a little daunting. There were several long stories, and in addition to this, the myths themselves were sometimes really dense. In fact, my group members felt the same way. I suppose being an English Subject Matter major I should be used to reading material that isn't written in modern English. But there were other myths in the book that were translated into Modern English; the authors/publishers gave us a myth with the modern translation as well as the original as dictated from the people who hold the myth close to their hearts. I believe they were Native American. I digress!

I really enjoyed working on this project. Not just because I had two fabulous ladies helping me out, but because the informational chapter was so enlightening. In high school, several of my peers started referring to themselves as Wiccan, complete with the Pentagram, etc. They weren't treated very kindly; they were called devil worshipers, among other unpleasant words. But when I took the time to look into it, the history behind the practice was extensive and unlike Christianity, the gender of the god is female. The readings for the presentation stipulated that archeologists took for granted that societies started out as matriarchies, despite the low number of what could be seen as female artifacts. I just find it so baffling that people, whose job is to focus on EVIDENCE, can stray away from that path in order to have it coincide with their own theories. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. I know too much to expect anything else. What further disturbs me is when spiritual folk want to put an emphasis on gender within their practice. Each gender has their merits and downfalls. To stereotype straight across the board is ridiculous especially because each person is so different. Again, digressing! But you see what I'm trying to get at.

More on Media Literacy Readings

Perhaps the most striking sentence that gets my wheels whirling concerns childhood. "There is the idea that childhood as we know it is dying or disappearing and that the media are primarily to blame for it." Okay. I am going to be a mom very soon. But even before this kid starting growing in my tummy, I was aware of just how many kids spend their time in front of a TV, either watching movies, playing video games, or tuned in to programs with adult content. I recognize that I spent my fair share of time in front of the boob tube. However, I also enjoyed my days outside playing with my friends just as much. Much has changed within the last 15-20 years. Sex, violence, etc. are all more easily accessed by kids. One critic argues that children are learning more about the "secrets" of adult life and are demanding access to it. My thoughts? Since when is a parent supposed to give in the the demands of their kids? Since when is it not the responsibility of the adults to monitor what their kid is watching, playing, etc? My mom and dad both worked full time. I was left to my own devices for most of the day. But when they came home, they talked to me. Asked me what I did, what I learned, etc. They knew what I was being exposed to and tried to explain what I was seeing, or to tell me they didn't want me watching it. (The Simpsons is the only show I was banned from because I mimicked Homer Simpson and my mom couldn't stand that guy). My point is that the blame is too easily shifted. Yes, I do think that the media should take some responsibility. But if a parent can not be there to facilitate, control, censure what their children are being exposed to within their own home, then the fault doesn't lie with the media, it lies with the parent.  That said, there is such a thing as protecting too much. But that is the decision of the parents. There needs to be a balance. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about because my kid isn't even here yet. So we'll see how long I can hold on to these views.

Media Literacy Readings

The history of Media Education is not what I thought it was. To be quite honest, I didn't even think that there was such a thing 20 years ago. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that such a topic was taught, but not at all surprised with the agenda behind it. The readings define Media education as "the process of teaching and learning about media; the outcome - the knowledge and skills acquired." Professors started teaching it because of the vast number of hours kids spend in front of a television. To ignore this fact completely is like trying to cut out a significant portion of the overall education people receive in their lives. I find myself agreeing with the first critics of media education: the media can be harmful and damaging to kids and adults. At the same time, not everything the media presents to us is meant to corrupt/brainwash the masses.

Granted, I grew up on TV so I am a little biased. I laughed when anvils fell on the heads of unsuspecting characters, when Gallagher used a mallet to squash watermelons onto his audience and jumped up and down on a very over sized couch. Come to think of it, I still laugh when I see these images. Yes, I could see how these sources of entertainment could be seen as "low culture". But there isn't anything malicious about it. I'm not going around dropping anvils on people's heads. I'm not throwing food at strangers or jumping up and down on furniture (well, not anymore although I really want to sometimes). Not everything we see on TV or read is suspicious. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the images presented to me daily on TV forced me to do critical thinking. I was a tomboy growing up (I still am, basically). And when I saw young girls who were supposed to represent girls my own age, wearing makeup or crying because they were being teased, I got defensive. I knew that not all girls acted that way because I knew who I was. I beat up bullies who picked on my brother; I climbed fences and onto the rooftops of the neighboring buildings. TV didn't teach me to be a damsel in distress. It showed me that there were some girls that acted that way but that I certainly wasn't one of them. So this idea that media can be blamed for people becoming sexist, racist, homosexual, etc. is a bit ridiculous.

Ah!! Poetry!

I am probably the worse English major ever. I didn't have a lot of exposure to poetry growing up, whether it be in the classroom or otherwise. We read Shel Silverstein, and occasionally Rhoald Dahl rhymed in one of his stories. But, as far as I can remember, there wasn't a lot of emphasis on poems. If there was, it was more instructional in terms of being able to identify metaphors, similes, and what not. There was no focus on meter until High School, and even then, my professor didn't really help us understand it. I still don't, to be quite honest. It may be a rhythm thing or perhaps I just can't hear the inflections. Every subsequent professor I've ever had didn't really focus too much on meter; I felt like it was almost glossed over. I'm in charge of my own education, so at this point I have no excuse. That said, poetry almost always made me feel as if it was a chore to read it. I can read a novel until the cows come home, but poems are more difficult for me. I used to write them when I was in high school for fun, but I've always had trouble reading them. As the poems got more "advanced" the harder it was for me to follow along. My intentions when my kid enters this world is to read to him all sorts of poems, if only to get him accustomed to it. I wonder if part of it is ear training. Something to consider, I guess...