Football: The Invisible Sport of Man

Football, what is there is to say about it? Is it just a masculine sport or something else entirely that makes men seem acceptable in the eye of society's depiction of them. Many people love the sport with it's games being fast pace, crash course, and intensity to make viewers and crowds around the world scream with whatever emotion they express from themselves. Yet, what the crowd does not realize about the sport is the invisible narrative they create about it. Football chooses to hide the narratives in order to to please sponsors and the general audience without hurting it's franchise.

So what are some of these invisible narratives on football? Most of these portray the stereotypes and ideologies of men and the roles that they play. One ideology states that man is inherently violent thus the archetype of man is a warrior, soldier, or a gladiator. In terms of football, offensive players are given the role of assaulting the opposing team (or the "enemy") at any means possible of stopping them from completing their tasks of victory. So whenever you see an offensive player viciously tackle the quarterback, the offensive would go for the kill to prevent the enemy from scoring a touchdown. Of course, not every man is born inherently violent unless they happen to be murderous psychopaths, in which it would be an entirely different story.

         
Not only only does football's invisible narratives include ideologies, but football also has its stereotypes, especially towards the players.  A very common stereotype for all men is their machismo and that men never show weakness even through pain or other factors like fear and cowardice. However, it was a different case for a former college football player John McMurtry. In McMurtry's article Kill 'Em! Crush 'Em! Eat 'Em Raw!, he recalls having many minor and severe injuries whenever playing football, and if injured on the field he was told to ignore the pain and suck it up so that he did not seem weak when returning to the field and continuing the game. Therefore the stereotype of men is that are tough and they feel no pain. False! No man is tough by not feeling any pain. If a football player runs three yards and then suddenly tackled in the leg with the bone sticking out of his flesh, while he screams in agony; the player can act tough but not while suffering extreme damage to his leg. Nobody is tough if they feel no pain, but maybe a paper cut, however this blogger disagrees.

     How does the rhetoric of this sport display these narratives? Easy, just listening to fighting songs with the hype and the build up, thus making listeners (male) feel in control with an adrenaline rush of what are said in the lyrics of a song and how they are sung.   If you listen to the college football song from the University of  Michigan's “The Victors”, most of the lyrics use words as "conquering", "heroes", and valiant, thus making the players have the mentality of being those things. When you think about it, this song is like a theme for soldiers going into war being seen as the heroes or any other adjectives within their status. Most men may have that mentality, but as soon as they get on the battlefield their motivation disappears and their experience will only lead them to regret. So take this as a consideration, fight songs do not encourage men to be something that they are not even though society views them as the invisible narratives they create, fight songs are just songs to be heard and enjoyed just as all other music.

For all other men out there playing football, they should read this blog for it might give them thoughts about how they think about people and maybe even your actions either during a game or outside of football and more towards other people in their societies.




.  

Your "Call Of Duty"

It goes without saying that the video game industry rakes in millions and millions of dollars, per game. The targeted audience for games are adolescent and young boys, they're just such a fun integration into a virtual reality. The graphics are enticing, the stories are compelling, but what of the messages behind these so called "masterpieces?"

Video games grab young boys' attention as soon as they can, in war games, horror games...and all in all in games of extreme violence. I know this so well because they grabbed my attention at a young age. Call of Duty (COD) if a perfect example of these messages of violence in action, and to a young preteen or growing boy, he is intrigued by this stuff and stays hooked on getting his mom to buy him rated M games. Now, its bad that a mom would buy her 12-year-old son a "17 and up," game but what's really messed up is what these games have hidden behind the violence.

There is a recurring theme in the Call of Duty games that rear their heads near the end of every year, the message is clear, these games promote the US as being heroes and vanquishers of their "enemies" no matter what the story be behind it. For some reason there is always a nameless evil that we must overcome as a military force in these games, but what face has been given to this evil? They're Just foreigners, other nations that want to “destroy us,” are trying to overthrow us, but we’re never given a reason as to why these countries have beef with us.

In every single game, if it isn’t following a previous game story, we have the same story, we have to show we are the better nation, and kill everybody on the other side because we are the “good guys” and the others are evil.

Now these games also have another goal, to make WAR FUN. These Games want kids to believe that  shooting a gun and killing people is cool, and that war is a fun time because you “fight for your country.” Vulnerable children grown up with such a messed up mentality, and some even with a violent nature due to their minds being influenced. The violent and angry nature is very obvious just by the way kids talk in these games. This violent nature will only grow over time.

They end up wanting to go to war or feel that its their "Call of Duty." The types of games like COD were invented were invented for military propaganda, and have not only been used here, but in countries all over the world. I was lucky enough to not fall into this influence that war is cool or killing people is okay, but some children think otherwise. Every kid has a different brain, and a different way he or she will process information and experiences they go through, so naturally some will be easily manipulated by games like these.

These types of games are going to continue to come out in stores every year, that's something that's out of our control, and these messages will remain engrained into the games' logic. There are few solutions we can partake in though. Although we may not all be parents, we still have younger siblings, family members and friends who want these types of games. It would be best to advise them about these games in a way that's easily understandable. Telling these kids that these games are unrealistic, and explaining their hidden messages would be best.

In another approach Advising their parents would be best so that they won't buy the game for their kids until they're overage. Some parents just buy their kids anything to get them to stop whining or to spoil them, but if you tell them about what they're really buying for their kids, they will go against it.There is a reason these games are rated for 17-year-olds and up, because they are for mature minds. These games hold so much content ready to brainwash kids and teens and they will if the opportunity is present, but its up to their parents to watch what their kids play and watch for their own good.

Mass Media Controls Society at Such a Young Age

We are all humans, as social beings living in our society today we are more often then not exposed to frequent media on a daily basis.  We are like a clock always moving and never stopping, breathing and thinking, which is why we don’t consider the power and influence the mass media has taken over our society. It is depressing how over time the media has been the most prominent in the way it has upheld the negative gender stereotypes and the inequalities shown in the our world today.

Considering that the society we live in plays a huge role in shaping both our attitudes and behaviors of each individual, whether we want to accept it or not. Adults and children are both constantly bombarded with information the media throws out which influences how we perceive the world. In the past it was usually our family, community, and school that influenced and dictated how we should behave and act, based on what was considered  “normal ” in society. However, the growth of mass media has had a great significant in the lives of every human being, but on of the media I will be discussing is television and  how it has become one of the powerful medium in the lives of children.   

In todays society the television set is so prominent in so many households, it is not only a use of entertainment but also an important source of how information is passed. The average American over the age of 2 years old spends more than 35 hours a week watching live television it is inevitable that, television is a learning source, that develops certain social roles and behaviors of a person.

Television however portrays information about the gender roles and expectations that must be held by a specific gender, whether we directly see it or we clearly need to stop and analyze to understand the true message behind it. But how exactly is a child going to understand the messages behind it? There whole point of watching TV is to have free time. Although the messages have not changed since the 1970’s when the majority of the commercials displayed on TV were both females and males in the "traditional" stereotypical roles, but surprisingly they still continue to be displayed today. 

More often then not the commercials and their depiction of females and males are often thought as a reflection of the norm, but may simply be creating the norm. TV for example strongly influences a child’s way of seeing what is considered “normal.” For example when boys’ commercial appear they show boys seeking power, physical action, strong, and with cars. As we consider these types of commercials it shows a child about manipulating movements, building strength, and perceiving power.  Girls’ commercials on the other hand represent girls with dolls, cooking/housekeeping equipment and products that make them feel less worthy and passive. However, the types of objects and activities that are portrayed to be “normal” for girls and boys are seen through television commercials. But we can clearly see that if a child is exposed to this information at a young age they will begin to develop stereotypical options and views of what types of roles and activities is “normal” for boys and girls to identify with. In a study by Ruble, Balaban, & Cooper (1981), children were more likely to avoid a toy if they are shown a child of the opposite sex playing with it on a TV toy commercial. Ultimately, the media is sending these types of messages to a child whose knowledge on gender identity is yet still growing. However, children will continue to perceive the world based on what is portrayed on Television rather then having the opportunity to discover on their own.

Gender stereotypes are often incorporated into media and advertising. Yes its true! It strongly supports the characteristics that society typically expects men and women to BE. Society accepts these roles because it is what the media throws out and it is seen as normal. However as the viewers continue to look at TV or media at all they should take into account what is being presented rather then part taking in the culture of oppression towards both genders.

If You Like It Then Put a Ring On It

Thinking upon the concept of the invisible narrative it begins to unveil itself throughout the world that we live in. Invisible narratives are hidden in our culture everywhere we look. They have been implemented into our society since the beginning of time. One example of this is how women are perceived. Specifically, the idea of a woman having to wait for one man. Although men have been allowed to dance from woman to woman without a second look. 

Traditionally women are to be the ones who wait for their man. The lady is to sit idly by and prepare herself to be with that man who she may or may not think is the one for her. We see this in the symbol of the engagement ring. The majority of women share the dream that one day a man will kneel in front of them holding out a shiny mineral to place on that left finger. The woman waits for him to ask. Just as she waits to have him to herself once they are married.

Yes, it is a very sweet concept that two people make the decision to promise themselves to each other. What raised my eyebrow about this concept is that only the woman wears an engagement ring. Why not the man as well? Why can't a man show off that he will soon spend his life with the one woman that he may think is "the one?" Men do not tend to advertise that there is a woman in their life, whereas women cannot wait to tell their friends that they have been swooped up. 

An engagement ring only seems to be an object that mainly applies to the woman in the relationship. Why cannot the man make the promise as well? The ring has been used to show everyone around that this particular woman is taken, that there is already someone with whom she shares her life with. This however is never seen on a man. The time until their vows they are still "free men." It is not until after they say "I do," that they finally (as Beyonce may phrase it) put a ring on it. 

Time and time again we see that it has been accepted that "boys will be boys." What this means within this context is that it has become okay for men to be involved with more than one woman. We see in shows such as The Tudors, Mad Men, and Scandal the male character floats around from woman to woman as if it were a sport. Music videos are a wonderful example of this as well. We tend to see a single man surrounded by many scandalously dressed women. Men can have their "Entrees with Their Sides," Although when a woman is seen to be with more than one man she is a "slut" or a "whore." Yet they were practicing in the same actions that men get high fives for.

Why is that men can experience this so-called freedom without having to worry about the social consequences? Women have always had to maintain a form of relationship status. If she is single, she is not allowed to be with with multiple men without getting dirty looks. If she in engaged, she must force that ring in other mens faces to keep their pelvis at a distance. Once she is married, she is to give up her social life and stay at home waiting for her husband to return from his hard day at work. This has been the endless cycle that women have been forced into. A common symbol for this cycle is the engagement ring. The tradition of the woman waiting for her man to give up all other women for just for her, hopefully.

Fair Justice Or Villianized

As you know there has been a controversy about domestic violence and child abuse within the NFL, and police brutality. These cases are the invisible narratives that I found interesting and have been controversial over several months now. We as people can justify that these actions are wrong, However, the media is painting an image that race plays a part on creating an perspective on the color of a person's skin.

In the case for domestic violence within the NFL, the media has taken shots at Ray Rice (running back for Baltimore Ravens) about his altercation with his wife. He was caught on an elevator’s surveillance punching his wife then dragging her unconscious body off the elevator. It was stated that the video was taken in Atlantic City a month before they had gotten married. And the video surfaced on September 8th on TMZ. As result to this video Ray Rice has been suspended with no pay from the NFL and his wife briefly says that the media ruined their lives, stating, “No one knows the pain that the media & unwanted [opinions] from the public has caused my family. To make us relive a moment in our lives that we regret every day is a horrible thing”.

 

Another case like Rice, NFL football player Adrian Peterson suffered the same treatment but not for domestic violence but for child abuse. Minnesota Viking's running back, Peterson was arrested for disciplining his son the wrong way. He states that he used a switch to spank his son, just like he was disciplined growing up in East Texas. It was reported that Peterson had sent texts to his mother's child saying he felt bad for hitting his son in the private area. As a result to this incident, Peterson turned himself in to Montgomery County near Houston, where he was processed. Shortly after he was processed, he posted bail of 15,000 dollars but Peterson was then suspended from the Vikings officially September 12th. 

We can all agree that these predicaments that these two African American men did was wrong, however if these two men were white, would there be a big difference. Media has been taking a lot of shots at these two men, making them look like monsters but a man that is white and actually killed a young man is being defended. Is he not viewed as a monster because of his skin color. Darren Wilson, a St. Louis white police officer, killed an unarmed 18 year old young African American man named Michael Brown. Some people might justify that it was self-defense on Wilson's side but in actually reality it was not self-defense. As an police officer, who's been in the field for six years should know the procedure when it is right to pull out his/her weapon. All three of these individuals are equal in many ways. All three are role models to others around them for being an athlete or an authority figure to their state/community. These individuals all did make mistakes but two of them are being ridiculed because of their mistake but in actually reality its because they are African American and we are viewed as monsters. If they were white, of course they would get some type of punishment but not as harsh as what they would get if they were black. Darren Wilson killed somebody and is being rewarded with supporters and paid leave. Supporters rallied and fundraised money to help pay for Wilson's legal fees but these two NFL players are suspended with no pay and both have families and legal fees to pay as well.

Race plays a huge part on how society looks at each other, and that the color of your skin will justify the treatment that you will get in society.

 

 



Therefore, We Are All "Illegals"

-First, let me start off by saying that people who are from Latino decent and go against their roots (other Latinos) piss the crap out of me. You are a Latino, you are supposed to stand by your people, help them get by, and if you're successful help your fellow Latinos also be successful.   

-So for their blog post, I decided to write on how biased people are against Latinos. No not all Latinos sell drugs. No they're, we're not all in gangs. No we don't all have green cards. No we all didn't go through the desert and water to come to the US, and even if we did, no we're not "wetbacks". Its just so annoying hearing all these stereotypes, bias, slurs, invisible narratives—I don’t even know what to call them—about my race. It is very downgrading for Latinos. 

-The article I read "'Illegal Immigrant' is the uncomfortable truth" written by Ruben Navarrette is so annoying and as soon as I started reading it, I wanted to slap the crap out of this Ruben Navarrette guy. He starts talking about how immigrants are 'illegal immigrants' because what they do by crossing the border or using fake foreign passports or social securities is illegal. Yes they're actions are illegal but they aren't. So by this, he is technically saying that if you're in the US, a US citizen and do something illegal such as kill someone or drink under the legal age, that should make one 'illegal' because of their actions. That means that most people would be titled as ‘illegals’ because we've all done something illegal, even if its not a big deal like making a U-turn were its not allowed but its still illegal. Immigrants’ actions are illegal, but they, as the person aren't illegal. 

-Navarrette also mentions that one of his colleagues, Charles Garcia, says that ‘the phrase “illegal immigrant” is "biased" and"racially offensive." He also implied that it's a "slur"and -- borrowing language from George Orwell -- a "worn-out and uselessphrase."’  Yes, the title “illegal” immigrant is an insult because a person can’t be illegal. When I hear the word illegal, I think of a law that shouldn’t be broken. I think of it as something not someone. The term undocumented or even uncitizenized (which isn’t a word, but should be) are better terms for immigrants. Not even the word immigrant goes, because the definition of migrating is 'moving from one place to another - within a country or across borders, for people or birds, and usually refers not to a single individual or family but a a larger demographic' and Latinos have and are migrating as a large population across the border for a better lifestyle. And as a whole, we offer so much to the United States.

-I am sad, but yet proud to say that we do all of the dirty work no one wants too. Sad because it is nasty, unsafe labor, but proud because we’ll do anything to have a job and will take any job like picking fields and being gardeners to support our families. In reality, Latinos really do coming looking for the "American dream" that sooner than later stays a dream than actually becoming a reality. And why? Because most people in our congress are like Navarrette who let all of these invisible narratives black their mentality towards Latinos and don't allow themselves to see the greatness we bring. There hardly isn’t any compensation for us and 99% of the time we are seen as the bad guys.     

-And I am in shock because Navarrette, someone with both a Latino first and last name, who comes from a Mexican immigrant family but this downgrading label on his own people. It would be okay, understanding if he wasn't Latino and didn't have these roots in him and didn't have people that migrated over here in his family but he does which makes it sad. 
-Like I mentioned earlier, as a whole race we should help each other out. This also goes for African-Americans, Asians, minorities in general because we are the ones who are always viewed negatively. If one succeeds, lets try for all of us to succeed to show those who are against us that we are just as great and can accomplish anything that they can.

Behind the Scenes

All of the flowers, rush videos of girls smiling and jumping around, the big signs, all of the overly filtered pictures on social media; these are all tactics sororities use to lure girls in to their “sisterhood”. I personally am 100% for greek life and everything it has taught me, but I don’t completely believe in what sororities do to recruit girls.

Rush week is the most stressful week of a college semester. On top of classes there are events happening every day where you are introduced to at least 50 new freshman trying to leave a good impression. Rush week is intended to give potential new members a taste of what a sorority is like. Little do they know: it’s all fake smiles, empty conversations, and signs of fake interest.

I have heard first hand that leaders of recruitment tell the rest of the sorority to pretend to be happy and have a good attitude towards these new girls. Sororities just try to meet a quota; they set a number and they try to reach that number without even considering girls’ personalities.

Sororities as a whole are just another business proposition and the eager girls are just investors. Each sorority presents what they have to offer(through events in rush week), the sorority than spoils and makes the individual feel important, and then it is up to the individual to decide where they would like to invest their money in.

Once they have made their investment the business welcomes them into their ranks, and teaches them all of their basics and secrets of their company. But once that initial welcome is over it is pretty much free game from there. The behind-the-scenes personalities and actions come out that they don’t mention before you make your investment.

I understand that putting on a front is a huge aspect of recruiting but I just see it as unfair. There is hundreds of girls every year that get attracted to what they see, but once it gets deeper than that they regret their decision. If there were representatives from each sorority who would give unbiased opinions about their experience it would be beneficial to not only the new members but also the sorority as they would be able to find member who are there for the right reason.