Welcome, friends, to the Order of the Phoenix Page
Author: Taylor
What's a neighborhood, anyway?
Everyone has a neighborhood and environment, yet not everybody has a community. Much like the chain in biology (environment, community, niche and all that good stuff), there is also a chain for social terms that we throw around on a daily basis. First, there's environment. That's the surroundings holistically, meaning taking into consideration your physical environment, social environment, how it makes you feel, and every biotic and abiotic feature. Then you come to a neighborhood, which is your environment in the physical sense. Community follows- a neighborhood in the social sense. This is where we need to be careful, you can have a neighborhood but not always a community. If you're neighborhood is an area where people do not associate with each other, you lack community.
Nature is anything that is not fictitious. Humans do not add anything to the environment that would otherwise not be there. For example, a grass park is nature, because grass would be there with or without humans. A playground, however, is not, because without humans it couldn't have ever existed.
Central Park is an example where that fine line is drawn - to some, Central Park is not nature. To others, it is. It's subjective. Times Square, though, is obviously not nature. The Hudson River, however polluted as it may be, is nature.
These definitions shape the way I see my surroundings. For example, my building and school are both environments because these are the places I spend most of my time in. My building is my neighborhood, but I wouldn't call it a community - mainly because I don't really talk my neighbors. My school, however, I would call a community. I see myself as someone who lives in the building, but a participant in school. My home life is defined by a feeling of family, the building itself would have no "home" sense if it weren't my parents. My school is a community because I socialize, talk, and feel a part of something. I feel a part of a community.
I can't define a moment in my school where I felt like I was a part of something. I feel it everyday, there's no real defining moment. I come into school and see my classmates, go through these various classes with them, and share experiences with them. I enjoy the time spent with these people in my environment (some of them, to be honest if some kids really annoy me) and I feel a sense of community everyday.
I come home to a building where the silence in the elevator can be deafening. Of course there are some people I do talk to, but overall I don't interact with my neighborhood (including streets outside of my building). Maybe because of the fact that there is a language barrier - the majority of people in my neighborhood speak only Spanish, and so to communicate with them is difficult for me.
Essentially, my school has influenced me more than I could ever imagine, in terms of education, community, and a sense of identity.
Nature is anything that is not fictitious. Humans do not add anything to the environment that would otherwise not be there. For example, a grass park is nature, because grass would be there with or without humans. A playground, however, is not, because without humans it couldn't have ever existed.
Central Park is an example where that fine line is drawn - to some, Central Park is not nature. To others, it is. It's subjective. Times Square, though, is obviously not nature. The Hudson River, however polluted as it may be, is nature.
These definitions shape the way I see my surroundings. For example, my building and school are both environments because these are the places I spend most of my time in. My building is my neighborhood, but I wouldn't call it a community - mainly because I don't really talk my neighbors. My school, however, I would call a community. I see myself as someone who lives in the building, but a participant in school. My home life is defined by a feeling of family, the building itself would have no "home" sense if it weren't my parents. My school is a community because I socialize, talk, and feel a part of something. I feel a part of a community.
I can't define a moment in my school where I felt like I was a part of something. I feel it everyday, there's no real defining moment. I come into school and see my classmates, go through these various classes with them, and share experiences with them. I enjoy the time spent with these people in my environment (some of them, to be honest if some kids really annoy me) and I feel a sense of community everyday.
I come home to a building where the silence in the elevator can be deafening. Of course there are some people I do talk to, but overall I don't interact with my neighborhood (including streets outside of my building). Maybe because of the fact that there is a language barrier - the majority of people in my neighborhood speak only Spanish, and so to communicate with them is difficult for me.
Essentially, my school has influenced me more than I could ever imagine, in terms of education, community, and a sense of identity.
DISCUSSION TIME !
When discussing with my partner, West, in regards to what the assignment given about defining terms we commonly use, I found that we agreed in many regards. Both he and I believed that an environment was a social and physical surrounding that one spends a significant amount of time in. We then discussed neighborhood, which we defined as an area that one lives in, including the people and interactions.
The most interesting opinions came through when we started discussing the definition of community. I mentioned that I stand by my belief that you can have a neighborhood, but not a community. A community is a place where one interacts and feels connected with people - that's why I would consider my school more of a community than my neighborhood. West agreed, but then asked me why I felt that way. I realized that there was a language barrier in my neighborhood- everyone speaks Spanish and I don't, that's probably why I feel a lack of community in MY specific case.
We drifted into a discussion about whether or not all these definitions are related, which gave a great segway into the idea of our relationship with the environment. West then said something interesting: "any action I do affects something else". That made me wonder what he meant by "something else".
"So what does anything you do have to do with a family in China? How do you affect them? "
West then told me "In some way or another, I do. My impact may be small, but it's still there."
Even though that wasn't a detailed answer, it got me thinking.
As a spiritual person, I believe that there is a relationship between everything - especially living things.But I never thought about a relationship beyond the realm of spirituality. Somehow, from simply discussing the definitions of neighborhood, environment, community, and nature, we ended up discussing religion, faith, and the idea that there is a superior being that has created a higher order. Whether or not that being is God is irrelevant- we were discussing more than that. We were discussing nature - which seems completely unorganized yet has order.
We came to the conclusion that nature is anything that is not fictitious. That's not to say that humans themselves are not part of nature. We are, but when we create places like Times Square then we are creating artificial environments which have nothing to do with nature.
Thinking about it now, maybe Times Square is nature? Maybe everything is nature? What is nature is anything physical while conceptual things are not nature? That's an interesting idea that just came to me as I was recounting the discussion I had with West.
What I found most interesting though was the way that we went from the definition into such a deep discussion. That goes to show that these things are all related.
When discussing with my partner, West, in regards to what the assignment given about defining terms we commonly use, I found that we agreed in many regards. Both he and I believed that an environment was a social and physical surrounding that one spends a significant amount of time in. We then discussed neighborhood, which we defined as an area that one lives in, including the people and interactions.
The most interesting opinions came through when we started discussing the definition of community. I mentioned that I stand by my belief that you can have a neighborhood, but not a community. A community is a place where one interacts and feels connected with people - that's why I would consider my school more of a community than my neighborhood. West agreed, but then asked me why I felt that way. I realized that there was a language barrier in my neighborhood- everyone speaks Spanish and I don't, that's probably why I feel a lack of community in MY specific case.
We drifted into a discussion about whether or not all these definitions are related, which gave a great segway into the idea of our relationship with the environment. West then said something interesting: "any action I do affects something else". That made me wonder what he meant by "something else".
"So what does anything you do have to do with a family in China? How do you affect them? "
West then told me "In some way or another, I do. My impact may be small, but it's still there."
Even though that wasn't a detailed answer, it got me thinking.
As a spiritual person, I believe that there is a relationship between everything - especially living things.But I never thought about a relationship beyond the realm of spirituality. Somehow, from simply discussing the definitions of neighborhood, environment, community, and nature, we ended up discussing religion, faith, and the idea that there is a superior being that has created a higher order. Whether or not that being is God is irrelevant- we were discussing more than that. We were discussing nature - which seems completely unorganized yet has order.
We came to the conclusion that nature is anything that is not fictitious. That's not to say that humans themselves are not part of nature. We are, but when we create places like Times Square then we are creating artificial environments which have nothing to do with nature.
Thinking about it now, maybe Times Square is nature? Maybe everything is nature? What is nature is anything physical while conceptual things are not nature? That's an interesting idea that just came to me as I was recounting the discussion I had with West.
What I found most interesting though was the way that we went from the definition into such a deep discussion. That goes to show that these things are all related.
MENTAL MAPPING!!!
The mental mapping process has taught me that there is no single story of New York City - the many different stories that came from all the various students has proven that there never is a single story.
A couple of questions that came to mind were based on ideas of connection and how one builds a connection to their area. Many kids felt disconnected to their area. What was it that disconnected them? Why were so many kids willing to go to Manhattan to have a fun time? What is it about the presence of corporations that makes people feel as if they can do more? I wouldn't share the research simply because I would consider our class to be a small sampling size relative to what's commonly used in scientific studies - but if i was to share the study with anyone, I would present it to anyone who is interested in the lifestyle of New York City teenagers and how diverse that lifestyle is.
AFTER MORE REFLECTION:
The reason why this is in red is because this was written much after I had written the text above. After discussing with friends and more reflections on mental mapping, I have more findings that I would like to mention. A couple of kids mentioned that they don't like their neighborhood because they don't like the reputation of their area. They prefer going to Manhattan because of the reputation it upholds. To quote specifically, one kid said "Imagine telling people you go to school in Queens, it's not the same as saying Manhattan". These opinions mean that kids are not denouncing their areas because of the area itself but because of how they want to be perceived and in their mind the area does not reflect them properly.
Mental mapping is a way to explore the experiences of many New York teenagers. It should be used in terms of sociology and psychology. That's not to say that the mental mapping is not valid research- it's a matter of perspective and is valid to the individual that has presented the information. In terms of scientific research mental mapping should not be used for anything other than understanding the individual perspective. My mental map of my neighborhood may be completely different than the mental map from my neighbor. Mental mapping was beneficial because it allowed for insight into the minds of my classmates and I would say allowed many of us to open our minds to the many different New York lifestyles that we may be ignorant about. It was effective in that sense - a conclusion that we can draw from this activity is that everything is subjective and related. The only way to improve the method would be to require students to take a picture (using google maps) after their mental map has been drawn in order to formulate comparisons. Questions they can ask are "Why did I include/not include this aspect?" I really think that the method is an experiment of an experiment. It's subjective, that doesn't mean it's not valid, it's just qualitative. It is a science that should be valued because it allows us to analyze why we feel the way we do,
The mental mapping process has taught me that there is no single story of New York City - the many different stories that came from all the various students has proven that there never is a single story.
A couple of questions that came to mind were based on ideas of connection and how one builds a connection to their area. Many kids felt disconnected to their area. What was it that disconnected them? Why were so many kids willing to go to Manhattan to have a fun time? What is it about the presence of corporations that makes people feel as if they can do more? I wouldn't share the research simply because I would consider our class to be a small sampling size relative to what's commonly used in scientific studies - but if i was to share the study with anyone, I would present it to anyone who is interested in the lifestyle of New York City teenagers and how diverse that lifestyle is.
AFTER MORE REFLECTION:
The reason why this is in red is because this was written much after I had written the text above. After discussing with friends and more reflections on mental mapping, I have more findings that I would like to mention. A couple of kids mentioned that they don't like their neighborhood because they don't like the reputation of their area. They prefer going to Manhattan because of the reputation it upholds. To quote specifically, one kid said "Imagine telling people you go to school in Queens, it's not the same as saying Manhattan". These opinions mean that kids are not denouncing their areas because of the area itself but because of how they want to be perceived and in their mind the area does not reflect them properly.
Mental mapping is a way to explore the experiences of many New York teenagers. It should be used in terms of sociology and psychology. That's not to say that the mental mapping is not valid research- it's a matter of perspective and is valid to the individual that has presented the information. In terms of scientific research mental mapping should not be used for anything other than understanding the individual perspective. My mental map of my neighborhood may be completely different than the mental map from my neighbor. Mental mapping was beneficial because it allowed for insight into the minds of my classmates and I would say allowed many of us to open our minds to the many different New York lifestyles that we may be ignorant about. It was effective in that sense - a conclusion that we can draw from this activity is that everything is subjective and related. The only way to improve the method would be to require students to take a picture (using google maps) after their mental map has been drawn in order to formulate comparisons. Questions they can ask are "Why did I include/not include this aspect?" I really think that the method is an experiment of an experiment. It's subjective, that doesn't mean it's not valid, it's just qualitative. It is a science that should be valued because it allows us to analyze why we feel the way we do,
ADVERTISEMENT PROJECT
Picture Samples:
Methods: Data Collection
The pictures taken were taken over the time-span of 3 days. Pictures on the first day consisted mainly of posters seen and were taken in the afternoon on 59th Street all the way to 53rd street. Other pictures were taken from the AM New York newspaper the very next day early in the morning. The last day I took pictures in Times Square around 5, when the sun had already set. The pictures were very "downtown heavy", with no pictures taken in my neighborhood.
Methods: Content Analysis
For content analysis I looked for common themes throughout all my ads. I found three themes that were prevalent: gender (which is depicted in the first pie chart) and the role of women, (who seemed to take much more media attention than men), the variety of ads, and what the ad was selling. I used Google Drive to create these graphs and sampling 28 pictures. The intended audience was clearly towards the young single adults - downtown is not an area for children nor is it an area for families. Single adults were targeted in the ads I took, as shown in the cosmetics, sex appeal, beauty products, and explicit content being portrayed. Knowing this information made it easier to dive deeper into the idea of female oppression, which I discuss later on.
Methods: Critical Discourse
The ad I chose for my critical discourse was the Body Sushi Ad; it stood out the most to me upon noticing it. I love Sushi, yet reading the ad made me a little disturbed. What's the reason for having Sushi placed on the body? And how would that be marketed, what messages would it be sending? That's why I decided to go deeper into this idea.
Findings: Content Analysis:
The pictures taken were taken over the time-span of 3 days. Pictures on the first day consisted mainly of posters seen and were taken in the afternoon on 59th Street all the way to 53rd street. Other pictures were taken from the AM New York newspaper the very next day early in the morning. The last day I took pictures in Times Square around 5, when the sun had already set. The pictures were very "downtown heavy", with no pictures taken in my neighborhood.
Methods: Content Analysis
For content analysis I looked for common themes throughout all my ads. I found three themes that were prevalent: gender (which is depicted in the first pie chart) and the role of women, (who seemed to take much more media attention than men), the variety of ads, and what the ad was selling. I used Google Drive to create these graphs and sampling 28 pictures. The intended audience was clearly towards the young single adults - downtown is not an area for children nor is it an area for families. Single adults were targeted in the ads I took, as shown in the cosmetics, sex appeal, beauty products, and explicit content being portrayed. Knowing this information made it easier to dive deeper into the idea of female oppression, which I discuss later on.
Methods: Critical Discourse
The ad I chose for my critical discourse was the Body Sushi Ad; it stood out the most to me upon noticing it. I love Sushi, yet reading the ad made me a little disturbed. What's the reason for having Sushi placed on the body? And how would that be marketed, what messages would it be sending? That's why I decided to go deeper into this idea.
Findings: Content Analysis:
Analysis:
They say media is a reflection of society. The media and the public have an interesting relationship, where the media throws values at us that we then embody and as a result the media records them to throw the values back at us. It's a vicious cycle.
So what's to be said about the ads that we see on a daily basis? After taking a sample of 28 ads, there are two conclusions that can be drawn: sex sells, and companies like to be noted on their products. Let's talk about the first part though.
There's something to be said about the fact that the few ads that did feature people featured only Caucasian people. The first pie chart shows the varying levels of representation. That right there is already sending a message in itself - "white is beautiful, white is what you want to be". By not having a diverse portrayal, we have already conveyed one standard of society. Sometimes our silence tells more than our words could ever convey. Do we as a society value that standpoint? I sure hope not, however, the media seems to think so - and we are influenced by the media. Although we may not know it, we are receiving these messages that are being given to us and in little ways sending them back by approving of the kind of portrayal. Now, in addition to the Caucasian demographic, 28.6 percent of the 28 pictures taken were based on females endorsing a product in a sexualized form, as opposed to the male percentage which was so small that the number isn't even labeled. That's what the second pie chart focuses on. The value being sent is that women are sexual objects. Already we've painted a very telling picture: white and female sells. If you're white, you are more capable to persuade people to by a product. If you're a female, your body is. Do we really value these ideas in society of is the media telling us this is what we should value, or, in some other case, is the media reflecting what our values already are?
Sex sells, that's a well known media tactic that is difficult to argue. Female sexuality, however, sells even more. The question that remains, though, is why. Although I am lacking a photo for this particular example, a well known example of males being portrayed as sexual objects would be the Holister models we see printed on their paper bags. Yet a study in 2000 found that 17 percent of men were sexualized and 83 percent of women were sexualized. (If you're interested in more stats check out the source of the site :
http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/08/11/medias-growing-sexualization-of-women/28539.html
So, why exactly the emphasis on women?
It's simple. Women have, throughout time, been an object conveying submission and burden to man. History has shown time and time again that it is not too fond of women. Why else is Eve the reason that Adam had to commit sin? Why else were women consider "pure" and, once they explored their sexuality on their own will and not man's, killed? Why else has literature depicted women as helpless damsels in distress? There has been a set perspective on what women should be, one of them being a burden. The other is submissive to man, and what better way to show submission other than allowing complete objectification, which sexualization does? It's a value that has been passed on throughout time and one that we still retain today. The sexualization of women is not anything new- the only thing new about it is the fact that it is so easily broadcasted to various demographics.
They say media is a reflection of society. The media and the public have an interesting relationship, where the media throws values at us that we then embody and as a result the media records them to throw the values back at us. It's a vicious cycle.
So what's to be said about the ads that we see on a daily basis? After taking a sample of 28 ads, there are two conclusions that can be drawn: sex sells, and companies like to be noted on their products. Let's talk about the first part though.
There's something to be said about the fact that the few ads that did feature people featured only Caucasian people. The first pie chart shows the varying levels of representation. That right there is already sending a message in itself - "white is beautiful, white is what you want to be". By not having a diverse portrayal, we have already conveyed one standard of society. Sometimes our silence tells more than our words could ever convey. Do we as a society value that standpoint? I sure hope not, however, the media seems to think so - and we are influenced by the media. Although we may not know it, we are receiving these messages that are being given to us and in little ways sending them back by approving of the kind of portrayal. Now, in addition to the Caucasian demographic, 28.6 percent of the 28 pictures taken were based on females endorsing a product in a sexualized form, as opposed to the male percentage which was so small that the number isn't even labeled. That's what the second pie chart focuses on. The value being sent is that women are sexual objects. Already we've painted a very telling picture: white and female sells. If you're white, you are more capable to persuade people to by a product. If you're a female, your body is. Do we really value these ideas in society of is the media telling us this is what we should value, or, in some other case, is the media reflecting what our values already are?
Sex sells, that's a well known media tactic that is difficult to argue. Female sexuality, however, sells even more. The question that remains, though, is why. Although I am lacking a photo for this particular example, a well known example of males being portrayed as sexual objects would be the Holister models we see printed on their paper bags. Yet a study in 2000 found that 17 percent of men were sexualized and 83 percent of women were sexualized. (If you're interested in more stats check out the source of the site :
http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/08/11/medias-growing-sexualization-of-women/28539.html
So, why exactly the emphasis on women?
It's simple. Women have, throughout time, been an object conveying submission and burden to man. History has shown time and time again that it is not too fond of women. Why else is Eve the reason that Adam had to commit sin? Why else were women consider "pure" and, once they explored their sexuality on their own will and not man's, killed? Why else has literature depicted women as helpless damsels in distress? There has been a set perspective on what women should be, one of them being a burden. The other is submissive to man, and what better way to show submission other than allowing complete objectification, which sexualization does? It's a value that has been passed on throughout time and one that we still retain today. The sexualization of women is not anything new- the only thing new about it is the fact that it is so easily broadcasted to various demographics.
Analysis:
The second topic I mentioned before about prevalent ideas in the ads was this idea of tagging the product. Also known as a logo, the tag is used to identify the company brand. In fact, the exact definition of a logo is "a graphic mark or emblem commonly used by commercial enterprises, organizations and even individuals to aid and promote instant public recognition" - i.e, an advertisement. As shown above, more than a quarter of the ads I took were based on tags.
The following is a list of clothing lines known for having their names in large letters on their clothing (this goes beyond my pictures as well)
All these companies, besides being big name companies, tag their clothing left and right. It's not about the product. It's about getting other people to see the product and want to buy it. Hence, walking advertisements.
Other companies do it too. In my pictures, I had a pencil, a bookbag, a remote control, and a jacket with their tags. 26.9 percent of my pictures were these types of ads. The question is, if the product is already made and the company gained the profit from you, why would they need to stamp their name? It's so that you, nor anyone else, can forget them and so you'll be back for more. Advertising at it's finest.
The second topic I mentioned before about prevalent ideas in the ads was this idea of tagging the product. Also known as a logo, the tag is used to identify the company brand. In fact, the exact definition of a logo is "a graphic mark or emblem commonly used by commercial enterprises, organizations and even individuals to aid and promote instant public recognition" - i.e, an advertisement. As shown above, more than a quarter of the ads I took were based on tags.
The following is a list of clothing lines known for having their names in large letters on their clothing (this goes beyond my pictures as well)
- Hollister
- American Eagle
- Abercrombie and Fitch
- Juicy Couture
- Aeropostale
- Levi
- True Religion
- Ralph Lauren
All these companies, besides being big name companies, tag their clothing left and right. It's not about the product. It's about getting other people to see the product and want to buy it. Hence, walking advertisements.
Other companies do it too. In my pictures, I had a pencil, a bookbag, a remote control, and a jacket with their tags. 26.9 percent of my pictures were these types of ads. The question is, if the product is already made and the company gained the profit from you, why would they need to stamp their name? It's so that you, nor anyone else, can forget them and so you'll be back for more. Advertising at it's finest.
Analysis:
Finally, there's a matter of the different types of ads, portrayed above. Promotional ads took the cake. Events were being promoted and shows were being promoted more so than products. Yet, interestingly, a few of them had sponsors. If you would scroll up and see the Superbowl ad, there's a clear Pepsi sign- thank you, Pepsi, for sponsoring a sport . I bet all those fit athletes drink Pepsi instead of water - why else would Pepsi want to sponsor them? I bet Pepsi's why they run so fast. It's real good for you, you know?
Clothing came second, and we already talked about the implications of clothing companies. People want to buy images, because as a society what we value is the image we project to other people who are probably just as concerned about what image they're sending. Food and electronics came at a close 3rd, and that's pretty obvious. We love our phones as much as we love our food (not speaking for myself, take my phone any day over Sushi. Just not body sushi).
Finally, there's a matter of the different types of ads, portrayed above. Promotional ads took the cake. Events were being promoted and shows were being promoted more so than products. Yet, interestingly, a few of them had sponsors. If you would scroll up and see the Superbowl ad, there's a clear Pepsi sign- thank you, Pepsi, for sponsoring a sport . I bet all those fit athletes drink Pepsi instead of water - why else would Pepsi want to sponsor them? I bet Pepsi's why they run so fast. It's real good for you, you know?
Clothing came second, and we already talked about the implications of clothing companies. People want to buy images, because as a society what we value is the image we project to other people who are probably just as concerned about what image they're sending. Food and electronics came at a close 3rd, and that's pretty obvious. We love our phones as much as we love our food (not speaking for myself, take my phone any day over Sushi. Just not body sushi).
Findings: Critical Discourse Analysis:
One of the pictures I uploaded was for a Sushi-Body Experience, where Sushi was placed on a naked female body. (No typos there, Sushi is literally placed on a naked body. I had to read that at least 4 times before I actually accepted that I wasn't reading anything incorrectly). Odd in itself, because obviously sushi is to be eaten and not worn, but, whatever....if you're into that kind of stuff more power to you I guess. But, in addition to whatever the hell they're trying to sell (like I said if you're into that nothing against you, but really?), the ad only featured a white woman. Once again, racism and sexism prevails in the media. (And whatever sushi on the body is - fetishism? I don't even know. I don't even know if I want to know.) Sushi is great and delicious and all, but if you're going to wear it that's already odd in itself. Now if you're going to advertise it, aren't their additional messages to consider? We can get comical about this one, yes, but there is an underlying meaning behind the ridiculous mess that is Sushi-Body (once again, don't get offended if you're into that, but it's MY page, did you really expect me to stay on the defense?)
Conclusion:
So what messages are ads really sending? Well, for one, we're being told that being white is the norm. Second, if you're a white female, sell yourself, not the product. Third, when buying products, remember that you are buying an image. Third, we're indirectly being told that the more stuff you buy, the better.
One of the pictures I uploaded was for a Sushi-Body Experience, where Sushi was placed on a naked female body. (No typos there, Sushi is literally placed on a naked body. I had to read that at least 4 times before I actually accepted that I wasn't reading anything incorrectly). Odd in itself, because obviously sushi is to be eaten and not worn, but, whatever....if you're into that kind of stuff more power to you I guess. But, in addition to whatever the hell they're trying to sell (like I said if you're into that nothing against you, but really?), the ad only featured a white woman. Once again, racism and sexism prevails in the media. (And whatever sushi on the body is - fetishism? I don't even know. I don't even know if I want to know.) Sushi is great and delicious and all, but if you're going to wear it that's already odd in itself. Now if you're going to advertise it, aren't their additional messages to consider? We can get comical about this one, yes, but there is an underlying meaning behind the ridiculous mess that is Sushi-Body (once again, don't get offended if you're into that, but it's MY page, did you really expect me to stay on the defense?)
Conclusion:
So what messages are ads really sending? Well, for one, we're being told that being white is the norm. Second, if you're a white female, sell yourself, not the product. Third, when buying products, remember that you are buying an image. Third, we're indirectly being told that the more stuff you buy, the better.