MAKEUP-

I have noticed in the news an increase in mothers killing their children. It seems like every single time I turn on the news their is an incident about a mother taking the life of one or more of their kids. It was commonplace in the media to hear about a father who, according to popular press, went crazy and in a fit of rage turned on his family. In my opinion, murder is murder. But is it a different case when a mother kills a child they pained so much to birth? Mothers are supposed to protect their children and keep them close until they reach the point of adulthood. But slaying an innocent child because you cannot bear the responsibilities of motherhood? It seems like insanity to me. All I had to do was type in the keywords mother kills child into the google search bar. Up pops a story about a woman who stabbed her 9 year old daughter to death and then repeatedly stabbed herself in the stomach. This woman was 7 months pregnant, resulting in the death of her unborn child.  She also attempted to strangle her 14 year old daughter, but failed. Imagine the trauma that child has been subjected to. She will most likely never be right. The woman survived, and is currently undergoing serious psychological tests. It seems to me....a little too late?

Makeup-

I find it very interesting the direction lyrics in rap music has taken since the inception of hip-hop in the late 70's. Back then, there was actual lyrical content! Every mainstream rap song I hear today frankly is all about "Bitches and Hoes." Rappers today claim that nothing but women and money run their lives, and they wouldn't have it any other way. I ask you, why can't anyone be original anymore? Is the degradation of women really the hottest thing to rap about today? I know there was a sexual revolution, but lets be serious. Are these rappers trying to battle each other to see who can make the most money off of degrading women? Being the gigantic supporter of music I am, I have grown tired of this practice of calling every woman a ho and a slut in music.....maybe artists should take a look up and realize what they are really saying, if they ever want a woman that matters in their life...But, in reality they will continue to sing what makes them the most money, which is sadly the degradation of women. I can't ever remember hearing the Beatles or Jim Morrison talk about their "bitches", however courtisanship is mirrored in their lyrics, and I am pretty sure they had much better women in their lives because of it. They did not need to refer to women as objects and things you can just use and throw away.

Steve Wilkos.

I was watching the Steve Wilkos show yesterday about a segment on child abuse. This man was on it with his wife, who claimed he was an alcoholic and she had reason to believe that he was abusing their 4 month old daughter and 6 year old boy from her other marriage. She claimed that she, never left him alone while he was drinking, however he would go off randomly to change the baby's diaper when it did not need to be changed. When he was brought out, he instantly admitted he was an alcoholic who drinks a bottle of Jack Daniels and "25-30" beers a day. He calls her a whore to her face, demeans her in many ways and makes her feel horrible. STEEEEVE! is heard from the audience whenever he makes a semi-intellegent statement. He made one in this segment that I agreed with. "Why in the world would you put up with the shit he pulls on you, when he is the father of your child, as well as your unborn baby? Why would this woman stay with this man if he does this to her? besides their kids, she claims they have undying affection for each other and would never hurt her physically. So he just throws full beers at you. and calls you a whore. and, after the common lie detector test which is a norm on every show like this, it was revealed he did abuse their kids. Get a grip lady. If you were quizzical about him abusing your children in the first place, do you really need a buffoon like Steve Wilkos telling you what you already should know?

Slumdog

Never before has a movie impacted me more than Slumdog Millionaire. Upon seeing this film, which for good reason swept the Academy Awards, I was completely mystified by the stunning camera work in this film. I have always been a supporter of independent cinema, simply because money is short, and yet, a good number of these films run circles around big production pieces. Take, for example, the number of blockbuster-esque movies flopping at the box office in recent years. Production companies like Fox and Warner Bros. spend hundreds of millions on one film. In 2002, The Adventures of Pluto Nash, starring Eddie Murphy, had a budget of 100 Million dollars. This film was horribly recieved, and actually, Warner Bros. reported a loss of almost 96 million dollars. Then you look at an independent film like Slumdog, had a budget of 15 million. This film debuted at a relatively small independent film festival, won acclaim, and now has grossed more than 175 million. This film featured no Tom Cruises, no Samuel L. Jacksons, just actors with no recognition and loads of talent. It could be said, then, that actors who aren't recieving a 6 figure check for a film pour more of themselves into the film. They are not acting to make a check, they are acting through their feelings, and regardless if they make 1,000 or  1,000,000 for a film, their heart is in the film, not their wallet. 

Sports-centered???

I watch Sportscenter on ESPN pretty regularly...and it was not until recently that I came to a revelation....Where are the women? I understand that there is not a lot of coverage on women's sports in general, but on the household name for sports in America? It is a travesty that there isn't any diversity in sports coverage today. I would say that Sportcenter cycles more than a dozen times in a day, and there are only at maximum 5 reports about women.  ESPN should realize that there is...i don't know...a market for women's sports reports?  They should also realize that the MLB, NBA, and NFL are gravy, but they should put more emphasis on NCAA athletics. I am tired of the three biggest sports in America completely dominating sports reporting. For once, I want to see a Jai-Alai match on ESPN. I want to sit down and watch Pompolona's Running of the Bulls in it's entirety. But no, I have to special order a channel for 20 dollars a month to maybe even catch these events. Does the same go for women's sports? Are they designated to a special channel? Oh wait! oh, nevermind... I thought I spotted a women's basketball game recap on the live ticker. ESPN, being the sports powerhouse,  can pretty much do whatever they want. They might not view it unfair the spend so little time covering women, because our sports market in America is truly centered around the MLB,NBA,NFL, and NCAA Men's Sports. When will ESPN realize that their ratings would probably go up if, just on Sportscenter, they had more segments about women's sports?

Bret Michaels, love him, or get the hell off of the show!

Here we go....Rock of Love. I really cannot get past the fact that Vh1 chose a washed up glam rock star to star in this atrocity. Bret Michaels, like anyone, needs love. Got it. He also has quite a fortune from his days with Poison. Combine that with a horde of "beautiful"...coughFAKEcough women seeking a rockstar's heart, and you get Rock of Love! EVERY woman on this show is, in one way or another....modified. In fact, this seems to have become the norm for shows like this, which begs the question. Are these women really the representation of beauty in society today? These shows consist of flirting and drinking, scenes of the women being slutty and fighting over Bret whilst drunk, while he sits back and watches it all unfold. I really do not know how you can find love on a T.V show, let alone with women who are only in it to a) get famous, or b) have an unhealthy obsession with Bret Michaels and his money. Upon further research, none of his relationships with the winners have lasted. I wonder why.....

Visions of Cavewomen, circa 60's.

I was watching this movie from the late 1960's called One Million Years B.C. I stumbled upon this film as a joke because my friend has seen it before and said it was terrible but worth watching for the humor factor. This film is chock full of gender bias, right from the beginning. The women, in un-cavewomanly like fashion, are drop dead gorgeous and very scantily dressed. They seem to follow the men around everywhere, and they take a secondary role to the men, the hunters, which is somewhat historically accurate. When Tumak is kicked out of the Rock tribe for killing a fellow caveman, the "alpha female", Loana, follows him into the wilderness amidst sighs and looks of astonishment from the other females. The funniest and most ironic gender based stereotype portrayed in this film is the fact that, while out, all of the cavewomen don hot pink purses and seem to act very weak throughout the film, although at the beginning the men and women were separated into seperate tribes.