Uncategorized – melina mae castorillo

An Nonfeminist Guide to Popular Muisc

I am an avid Spotify user. If you search my Spotify username (which I will keep anonymous for privacy reasons), you would discover that I have made upwards of eighty playlists. Whenever I have spare time or if I am walking to class, I can guarantee that 99% of that time, I will have earbuds in. I feel bothered when I do not hear a new song in the span of twelve or more hours. That being said, I have a deep appreciation for good music. When there is something “good”, naturally there is something “bad”. However, it is not all black and white. There are a lot of grey areas, problematic tunes. Popular music can be characterized by catchy choruses and good beats. Popular music is also laced with misogyny, stereotypes, tropes, and questionable activity.

We tend to recognize a lot of sexist tropes in rap music, but this viewpoint is both close-minded and alienating. Sexism and misogyny is also prevalent in pop, country, and (especially) rock. Misogyny is often paired by hypermasculinity and violence. Historically, popular music has pushed an agenda. If it is not a hypermasculine, traditionalist narrative, it is often an exclusionary nationalist narrative. We see this often in country music and pop.

Naturally, I recognize the power of music. There is a lot of music that counter anti-feminist narratives. A lot of music is used to advance progressive movements. Here I would like to point out dangerous tropes present in popular music that are often easily accepted when they should not be.

FOUND FOOTAGE:

Headband by B.O.B.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2rqUlYN1m8

A Man Needs A Maid by Neil Young

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOuQywiRUJo

U.O.E.N.O by Rocko

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEkcYsqu6MU

Famous by Kanye West

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7FCgw_GlWc

All this Money by Injury Reserve

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcZ1Te9-1go

P.I.M.P. by 50 Cent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDApZhXTpH8

KIM by Eminem

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_6lgDFX6y0

Every Breath You Take by The Police

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMOGaugKpzs

You and Me by Millow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7GhrUaNDAI

Where Were You When the World Stopped Turning by Alan Jackson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPHnadJ-0hE

Blurred Lines by Robin Thicke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDUC1LUXSU

Social Media Analytica

The idea that Facebook has a lot of data on its users is not taboo, but it is alarming to hear what this data might be used for. Or at least that’s what it would seem like. I asked around to see how users interacted with social media and how the current news might have affected their facebook use. I’d expected to hear more people deleting Facebook, but it’s not surprising that the users I interviewed, didn’t care about deleting their facebook because they didn’t believe that they weren’t the target. Most people said that securing privacy was futile. Whatever information was out there, was on the user. And being aware of bias and not letting social media affect you is also an individual cost. What do you think?

[Analytic]apocolypse

Despite my defense of the iGeneration in my previous post, it was more than obvious that there was an issue where one second of boredom cued an immediate finger to my iPhone home button. Since the media blackout, I made a conscious decision to significantly cut down on social media and overall phone use. Most apps that I did not find intellectually stimulating or useful were eliminated. This cleanse also came with the use of the “grayscale” filter. When it came around to doing this assignment, my home page read Google Maps, New York Times, Venmo, Clue (my period tracker), Yelp, Spotify, Food Delivery Services, Rideshare apps and SnapChat. I had only downloaded SnapChat for a potential job application, even then I had a notorious habit of breaking streaks. It’s safe to say that my social media usage was not as prevalent. Sure, I checked facebook on browsers, so it was existent, but surely not as controlling.

A couple of weeks ago, my class was assigned to do another kind of surveillance project. Instead of a media blackout, we were required to take full note of every interaction with technology. I began this assignment at around 1:30am on a Monday. As per usual, cued by my need to feel relevant, updated and on task, I checked my SnapChat, email inbox, NYTimes homepage and Facebook feed. My social media cleanse or grayscale feature did not totally assuage this late night check in. I fell asleep and woke up around 7:30am just to do another relevance check-in, snooze my alarm and take in a couple more hours of shut-eye. I woke up at 10:30am and went through my routine. I work remotely so I was active on iMessage and Google Drive for the good part of the morning. I wasn’t really aware of much phone use that might be being tracked until later that afternoon.

I find that I can’t completely focus on a task. Later that day I tried doing homework, blackboard was open along with youtube and spotify. My phone was handy just in case the multiple tabs I had for background noise and rhythm didn’t entertain me enough as I did reading or wrote assignments. I noticed my feed on Youtube was incredibly curated. I received emails for the food I ordered, noticing that my rideshare and food delivery apps were connected in their marketing to me. I rarely go on Facebook now. I check the notification quickly and try not to scroll. Even with SnapChat, I know that the branding pages and new algorithm are incredibly curated. I’m increasingly aware of each tap, swipe and click. Everytime I react to anything online, some algorithm will know that I received it a certain way and act accordingly. Facebook, Google and Apple know my interests, my random searches, probably my insecurities along with my job applications. With the Internet comes democracy, but it’s not free.

“[A]mong this information anarchy, there remains an authority of sorts. Facebook and Google now define the experience of the Internet for most people, and in many ways they play the role of regulators.” (Chen)

On the Monday I did this assignment, I had a discussion in one of my classes about the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica Scandal. The Facebook stock dropped, but not many people I knew were surprised that Facebook was doing unethical research with our information. In that class we had a discussion about deleting facebook and instagram. Many people, myself included felt it might be futile, our information was sold once we subscribed to this world wide web called the Internet. You tell me. Is there anything else we can do except be aware that we’re being watched? Act accordingly. Factcheck information through multiple sources.

What you need to know about DACA

ASCJ200_DACA The Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals system, most commonly known as DACA, was put into place by the Obama administration as deportation protection for undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children. About 800,000 people were protected under DACA. Since the announcement of its repeal, 110,000 individuals were removed of DACA protection. DACA opponents argue that DACA recipients are somehow leeching off the United States or its law abiding citizens. Studies have shown that DACA has been beneficial for our economy, our society. Since the implementation of DACA and the conscious integration of DACA recipients into our society, simply dismissing and deporting these individuals will result in a large, negative impact. (Lopez et al.)

The Center for American Progress found that , over the next decade, “DACA beneficiaries will contribute to $460.3 billion to the US gross domestic product”, implying significant economic growth. (Wong et al.) The majority of DACA beneficiaries are in the labor force. Among those in the labor force, at least “72% of them are among the top 25 Fortune 500 companies”, companies that account for about $2.8 trillion in annual revenue. (Wong et al.) 45% of DACA beneficiaries in school, the majority of these beneficiaries are pursuing a bachelor’s degree or higher. Such a large amount of individuals pursuing higher education contributes to a more informed society. There is no question if DACA beneficiaries are contributing to the United States, they are benefitting its growth.

Works Cited.

López, Gustavo, and Jens Manuel Krogstad. “Key Facts about Unauthorized Immigrants Enrolled in DACA.” Pew Research Center, 25 Sept. 2017,

www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/25/key-facts-about-unauthorized-immigrants-enrolled-in-daca/.ASCJ200_DACA ASCJ200_DACA

Tom K. Wong, Greisa Martinez Rosas, Adam Luna, Henry Manning, Adrian Reyna, Patrick O’Shea, Tom Jawetz, and Philip E. Wolgin. “DACA Recipients’ Economic and Educational Gains Continue to Grow.” Center for American Progress, 2 Nov. 2017,

www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2017/08/28/437956/daca-recipients-economic-educational-gains-continue-grow/.

Bad Family Traditions

Original Image: The Brady Bunch

The Brady Bunch was a television sitcom, popularized in the seventies, about a large, blended family in suburban, white America. It became extremely iconic, especially after the show ended and broadcasted re-runs on other networks. In many ways, the Brady Bunch symbolized tradition, simple family values, and the American family.

Composite: The “Asian” Bunch

(Actor Cutouts sourced from Google images)

A fictional sitcom surrounding a blended Hollywood family of white actors in Asian roles.

Starring

Alison Brie as Diane Nguyen
Emma Stone as Allison Ng
Scarlett Johansson as Motoko Kusanagi
Tilda Swinton as The Ancient One
Justin Chatwin as Goku
Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan Noonien Singh
Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi
Matt Damon as William

Hollywood has had a problem with “whitewashing” for decades (see Dragon Seed). The only difference between Mickey Rooney taking on the Mr. Yunioshi role and Scarlett Johansson taking on the Motoko Kusanagi (aka Major) role is the amount of public backlash. After years of the public fighting for diversity in film, Hollywood continues to place white actors into non-white roles. This trend is especially prevalent among asian characters. The most recent example, Ghost in the Shell was infamous for its casting of Scarlett Johansson for the role of a Japanese character. After months of bad press, the film was premiered only to flop, as expected. Despite these incidents, the public still needs to contest future repetition. For example, Naomi Scott has been cast as Jasmine in the live-action representation of Aladdin. This casting sends a false message that Indians and Arabs are interchangeable. Hollywood emphasizes its failure to produce accurate representations of diversity. Present day-film does not seem to learn from its historical malpractice.