"Green World" a No No

For the first time this semester, I do not know what to discuss about chapter 14 of
Barker.

The one item that caught my eye is on page 467 is the question "Can we describe the
Green movement as a New Social Movement?" I believe we can.... The 'Green
Movement' is occuring more rapidly due to knowledge of the damages we as society are
causing. However, I think in the midst of awareness, I believe we are still causing more
damage. The news travels by waves to our radios, by cords and plugs to our televisions
or by paper through the papers.

We are causing harm by trying to prevent it. How can we stop the issues on this earth?
There will never be a "green" world, we have become too accustomed to how we live and
are too stubborn to give up our resources.

You're As Young Or As OLD as You think

"The Ambiguity of Youth".... this is such a great sub-title in Barker's Chapter 11, "Youth, Style, and Resistance." Youth can mean so many things, innocence, naivity, freedom, captivity, non-responsible. Many people look back to their childhood and wish for it again. Yet others are glad to older and wiser. Barker states, "However we seek to define it, youth remains an ambiguous concept" (409).

Peter Pan didn't want to grow up.... Wendy knew she needed to. Which is right? Living a lifetime of childhood would be great to many people, yet enjoying your childhood, then moving onto adulthood isn't so bad either. Barker continues to write, "Youth has been an ideological signifier charged with utopian images of the future" (409).

Is it the naivity or innocence of youth to view the world in a Utopian image? I think it's the innocence of childhood causing children to view the world as equal. When young we're always taught 'share your toys', 'say please', 'be nice', yet when we are older it's, don't share, rent out; I want it now; and it's all about me.

Youth is the time of innocence and equality, so I leave you now with the questions, "When do youth's eyes open to reality?" and "Who or what opened their eyes?"

Cyberspace as a Get Away

We all know those individuals who seem to vanish behind closed doors and escape reality into the world of cyberspace. Whether it be a friend, relative a significant other or yourself, everyone knows someone who attracts to the anonymity of a new identity where communication exists with the click of a mouse and the creation of a character.

Therapy sessions used to be between an individual needing advice and a professional looking to give it, however, nowadays, therapy sessions involve expressing oneself by becoming something else and acting through it online. Barker states, "It is argued that by enabling players to mask their worldly identites, virtual space allows a range of identity performances that are not tied to material bodies" (360). Do we now have different personalities? Does everyone who becomes addicted to cyberspace have Multiple Personality Disorder and their personalities are released via video games, chat rooms, blogs even.

Barker continues to state, "The problem, of course, is that actors in cyberspace remain tied to the everyday material world whose impact on the virtual universe persists" (360). Are there certain traits in an individual who fall into the supremacy of loss of identity. Does social class lead to the need to express oneself via a character? If someone is in a low-paying dead-end job and wants to pretend they have a million dollars, why not behave like the person you want to be where no one knows the real you. It's reality versus fantasy; one can pretend to be anything or anyone they want with no consequences.
A world of make believe can be all someone wants to believe in. They can forget about the reality of things, and lock themselves in cyberspace to become what they really want to be.

"Women are as Fucked a Group as Ever" in Five Minutes of "Something's Gotta Give"

Casondra Colizzi
English 313
Dr. Wexler
November 18, 2008
Movie Clip: Something’s Gotta Give
Writer/ Director: Nancy Meyers


“Women are as Fucked a Group as Ever in Five Minutes of Something’s Gotta Give”

Erika Berry is a talented and successful playwright in Nancy Meyers Film Something’s Gotta Give. When her daughter brings over an older boyfriend, 40 years her senior, Erika finds herself having to make reasons as to why she is still a divorcee. Older women who are not married or widowed are questioned as to why they never remarried, but as in this scene, older men, especially the lucky one’s like Harry Sanborn, are praised for never having been married. Women are still considered spinsters and hags if they don’t share their bed with the same man after a certain age. Society is supposed to be in a progression towards equality, yet even in a romantic comedy, the presupposed notions of the bachelor and the spinster are still strongly evident. Zoe, Erika’s sister, plays the narrator in this scene for viewers to recognize the underlying notion of this film: Women are as fucked a group as ever. Although women are as successful as men, and are treated much better now than before the women’s movement, we still must fall into certain conventions regarding marital status. Even though our paychecks are as high as men, our lifelong struggle for equality still must be fought, American society still portrays the idea of women having to be married in order to be successful, but the question still states, “Why do I have to defend this time in my life?” Women will forever be defending why or why not they are living the way they are, whether it be career-wise, single, or childless; society is still living in a pre-women’s movement era, and will be this way until everyone recognizes the ties still on younger and older women living their lives in the style they choose.

Fordism-- Selective Wages

Fordism... interesting. As stated by Barker, "The post-1945 economies of the western world, and especially of Britain and America, have been dominated by 'Fordism' as an economic practice and Keynesianism as the economic policy of nation-states." Keynesianism, as defined by Wikipedia, is a means that "the state can stimulate economic growth and improve stability in the private sector - through, for example, interest rates, taxation and public projects." Between Fordism and Keynesianism, societies could begin earning top dollar for their labor-- however, Barker also states who deserves the top dollar.... white men!!!

After reading this section regarding the need to pay 'core-laborers' top dollar in order for the workers to afford top dollar products, I realized the manipulation in these words. Who are 'core-laborers' in a factory? Well, not women. Barker continues to say, "A system of relatively high wages, at least for core workers, in order to sustain the purchasing of high-volume production. Allied to a relatively well-paid core-labour force was a low-wage sector in which women and people of colour were over-represented." The big-time companies wanted to be represented by their items being sold... so of course the people buying them are selective. If a company wants to be viewed in a certain way, they would want only certain people buying their products. And if a company has control over how much their workers make, and they want their workers to afford certain products, then the company will give higher wages to their workers who qualify into the realm of acceptability. (Of course, this is only what the company considers acceptable).