Extra credit

I participated in two of the Extra credit opportunities. 

The first was the Social Media Study by one of Dr. Nisbett’s students.

It, during the questioning I discovered I mainly interact on social media to feed my antagonism for conservatives. Basically I hate watch twitter because it makes me feel alive.

The second was Our Bodies, Our Doctors

I watched the film and joined the critique. I didn’t learned much from it. I had a good education about abortion and have conducted interviews about the issue. The discussion parroted much of what was said in the doc. It seems that it will take constitutional amendment in order to force state laws to stop intervening with a woman’s right to choose what is best for her own body. True heroes work in the profession and the hypocritical nature of the opposition is appalling.

Feminism rising from Abolition

After my research about Cardi B and feminism, I was surprised to what a degree it found a positive progression of the message about the movement. While the roots of the can be found in ancient Greece, dignity, intelligence, and basic human potential of the female sex was identified as important, it is not hard to believe that it did not have any kind of traction until the end of the 19th century in America. 

Power and agency were, until that point, mainly derived from physical strength, the enlightenment made nods to this being a toxic balance of power, but even then the authority of intellect was squashed by the hegemony of male authority and might-is-right. The first organization effort was in 1848 at the Seneca Falls Convention 1848 and the first wave centered around abolition and the temperance movement. For the first time, at the 1848 Convention for Women’s Rights, the idea that “all men and women were created equal” and deserve the same rights were codified in the Declaration of Sentiments at the event. While fighting for abolition, women learned the skills to fight for their own rights. The National Woman’s League collected 400,000 signatures in 1864 to end slavery. I believe this was the point that it became apparent to women that if they wanted any kind of social justice, they must work for suffrage. After all, a war had to be fought in order for abolition to happen. 

This combination of abolition and feminism is what I find so interesting and wanted to get it into my final paper but only touched on it by the construct of the jezebel and the whore. I didn’t pick up on the cohesion of the movements until it was too late. This direct intersectionality of the movements should have propelled Black women into equality as well, but something stopped it. 

It took 54 more years to win suffrage. During this time the movement redefined what it was to define what it was to be a woman in the culture. Not surprisingly it took another civil rights movement and another war for the second wave of feminism to rise. In other words, woman were losing their children, and their power needed to be heard. The equal rights amendment was signed and therefore gave the power to have their own agency when it came to their rights alongside BIPOC. It is quite unbelievable that it took another 14 years for a woman to have her own bank account!

In this stage, it was important for the movement to teach the entire population that their sexuality didn’t belong to men. Once again Black oppression was helpful to invigorate the movement, but not in the positive light it was during the 19thcentury. The power was derived in the competition for the audience, therefore they got better at trying to control their message. The second wave of feminism didn’t fail, women are growing in corporate power, abortion rights were established, and generally, their ideals are transitioning into norms. The problem is that the strength of the cooperation with the Black rights split during the conservative backlash in the ’80s that actively attacked what feminism is. This backlash separated the movements because the attack was coming for both factions at the same time. I don’t know if the intent was to divide and conquer, but that was the effect. This split could be clearly seen after the 2016 Women’s march, which primarily was a social movement against the 2016 election of Trump. The division between the intersectionality of the movements put them at odds with each other just as the movement was starting to be monolithic. Factions were created, and a 2017 march never happened.

This separation of the movements is probably why Cardi B’s sexuality is seen, culturally, as something different than just like a powerfully sexual woman like Christina Aguilera or Britney Spears. After all, their videos were sexually explicit but were not called out for ruining the fabric of society. This is somewhat surprising target audience was much younger than Cardi B’s. 

The good news is that this dynamic is changing fast. The clear segmentation of the audience is showing how mass popularity is shifting cultural norms. At least in my research, this paradigm shift caused by social media will change things for the better at an exponential rate. 

The fourth wave of feminism, which is just now being established is bringing back the ideals of equal rights that started 173 years ago. This movement is all-inclusive, including all forms of men, women, LGBTQ, all races’ creeds, and proclivities. The progressive message is being fought with buy-in from many more segments of the population. The “We” definition in, “We shall overcome,” is much larger, and puts a smile on my face.

https://www.pacificu.edu/magazine/four-waves-feminism

https://www.nps.gov/wori/learn/historyculture/antislavery-connection.htm

BlackPeopleTwitter

I found it that taking Mass Media Theory at the same time of this class very enlightening. If I took it separately I wouldn’t have connected how the ideas work in conjunction to understand how the flow of information doesn’t work the same for all populations. The theory of mediatization crossed with McLuhanism is a scary possibility. Social media seems to be dictated on “the medium is the message,” the hyperbolic intensity of Twitter is a perfect example. Since the messages are short, they must inspire emotional thoughts in order to deliver a message that will be shared. This sharing happens at an exponential rate and perpetuated by how the algorithms connect content. “Twitter users favor negativity and aggressiveness, which is not surprising since “negative sentiment” is the key to popularity on Twitter (Thelwall, Buckley, & Paltoglou, 2011, p. 415). In other words, hate follows tweets faster than neutral ones. 

While exploring this idea in this class, I found a workaround when trying to understand people who are not like me, BlackPeopleTwitter. BlackTwitter was developed to aggregate real people’s ideas on what it is like to be Black in America. According to their rules on Reddit, the “sub is intended for exceptionally hilarious and insightful social media posts made by black people.” It doesn’t allow corporations or media companies to post, only allowing individual perspectives.

            I don’t have any Black friends, to be fair I only really have two people I consider friends, but that is not really a good excuse to not know how 20% of the population sees the world. By signing up for this, and several others like it that include groups that I don’t belong to, I can start to bypass the hyperbolic nature of the algorithms and start to understand the world from a variety of different perspectives. It is a band-aid to-be-sure, if I ever do get out of the house I will at least have the vocabulary and understanding and know where my naivety comes from, so I will be open up to people in a new way. I don’t care if it reeks of virtue signaling, what else am I to do? The polarization of social media is toxic in itself, this seems like a start.

 

 

Thelwall, M., Buckley, K., & Paltoglou, G. (2011). Sentiment in Twitter events. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology62(2), 406–18. doi: 10.1002/asi.21462 [Crossref][Web of Science ®]

 

Maybe I should bully my students so they understand oppression?

Throughout this semester, I have clearly established my privilege as a white cisgender male with means. This recognition has made me try to think of a time that this didn’t work out for me. I can think of just two examples. 

As a teenager, I was pretty vocal about my atheism. I got pretty deep into Nietzche at the time, a decision that I regret now since I didn’t balance it with studying Aristotelian virtues. At the time, I didn’t realize the arrogance Nietzche’s rhetoric held. I was in Irving High School, which the student body and teachers were mostly Christian and looked at me like an alien. The only time this actually made me feel like an outcast was when, upon graduation, we were assembled to talk about the possibility of having a prayer during the ceremony. We met in the cafeteria and had a vote on the issue. They did it by asking that if anybody had a problem with the prayer, they should raise their hands. I wasn’t going to raise my hand. After all I knew that me and a couple of my friends were the only non-Christians, and it would just make us a target. It didn’t seem to matter much; when they made the ask, the entire class snapped their heads at our table, expecting a fight. While this didn’t impact my life in the least, I now see it in a completely different light. I know look at the issue and see how the domination of a single religion can be so oppressive. I think back to all the Christian propaganda that populated the walls, the prayers before every event, teachers using the bible in their classes that were the one (and) only way to be a “good” person in society. It gives me one touchstone of what oppression feels like. 

The other time this came up had to do with class. I have always driven the same old Jeep Cherokee. I buy a cheap model from 1990-1998. I’ve owned 5 in 20 years, the reason is not important. It is old. Therefore it looks cheap. Almost every time I drive in rich neighborhoods like Highland Park or Trophy Club, I just assume that the police will pull me over. The reason for this assumption is that I have been over 10 times. Only one of those times did the police officer bother to give a reason. The officer and I always knew the reason, “you don’t belong here.” It is an obvious classist reason and has no basis in the constitution. At no time did they ever search the car or put me in danger. They only asked me what I was doing there and let me on my way. I do not doubt that if I were a different shade, things would have gone differently. “Racial profiling is based on the premise that most drug offenses are committed by minorities” (Harris). While this is quantifiably untrue, the stereotype perpetuates itself with large number theory. The more times people are pulled over, the more times you will find drugs.

 In no way can I compare these things to going what people of color go through every day. I am merely pointing out that this was the only gateway that I have a real-world understanding of the dynamics of being other. I point this out to try to make my experience a model for approaching this subject when I talk to other people. In my case, I plan on teaching journalism; therefore, these issues will come up. 

Racism and stereotyping are an escalated form of bullying, so it seems that lessons could be drawn from this experience. I am not proposing it would be a good thing to single out people in class all of the specific differences they have and have them gang up on each other. I’m pretty sure this approach would lead me to the unemployment line. I do, however, like how this class started by at least alluding to the point by having us take the “what’s your privilege” quiz. By forcing us to see how others are “othered,” it is a great first step to allowing empathy into our decision-making processes. It will become one of the first things I do to start them continue or start understanding how powerful empathy can be for real understanding.

 

https://www.aclu.org/report/driving-while-black-racial-profiling-our-nations-highways

I do... Not have an Inclusive Wedding Portfolio

For the rest of my career, I have decided that teaching photography and use my skills to shoot weddings in a documentary style is the best move. 

For the last few months, I have been creating a wedding company that caters to high-end weddings. As I set up the business a few issues have come up when it comes to inclusivity. Namely, how to let my intended audience feel welcome to my services when my entire audience is not represented in my portfolio without ‘othering” an entire population with tokenism.

I have been “seconding” with one of the best wedding photographers in the field who only covers weddings that range in the extremely high price range. As a result, my entire portfolio is comprised of exclusively white cis-gendered rich couples. It is important to me that my website makes it clear that my company is forward-looking and is for everybody. Inclusivity is a choice, therefore my marketing needs to make it clear that my business is for everybody. 

To combat this problem, I found a possible solution, but it is problematic. It was surprising to find out that is a common practice for photographers new to this trade to photograph mock-weddings-or styled shoots in order to show what they are capable of without having booked any real weddings. An entire industry has been created to help photographers that don’t have portfolios shoot these stylized weddings in order to show off their skills and add to their portfolios. Styled Shoots Across America, a company that creates this experience, sells out throughout the year. While I already have a portfolio, these mock weddings offer the ability to include couples that show diversity along with all parts of the society that should be included.

My main conundrum is multi-leveled. My journalism roots make me squeamish when it comes to lying to people with photographs, however, this is a different industry and follows a different ethic. I feel as long as I label these as mock shoots, that squeamishness is just something I need to get over. What concerns me on a deeper level is how I am using these models to be tokens to fulfill my own objective. These models are paid and know how these images are being used, so I am not objectifying them personally. 

Harrison’s et al.'s study on multiracial identity in advertising warns against using stereotypical framing using “exotic” photo techniques because a backlash of seeming inauthentic is worse for the brand than total exclusion (2017, p. 513). This study focused specifically on using multiracial models and how it related to cultural opinions on advertising effectiveness, so it doesn’t directly relate to my problem. However, it does show that it is a very small tightrope to walk. The fact that I would be shooting in live situations eliminates the stylized “othering” part of the equation from my end, but it is impossible for me to know that if I am using a service that is setting up these mock-ups that they will be aware of possible unconscious bias toward their model.

This last fact will stop me from doing this type of mock wedding to be inclusive. That does not stop the fact that I do need for my portfolio to be inclusive and safe. I need to figure out other ways to open up my portfolio to express the way to approach the problem,. This will have to be a “To be continued” blog post so hopefully I’ll have a conclusion by the end of the semester.

Harrison, R. L., Thomas, K. D., & Cross, S. N. N. (2017). Restricted Visions of Multiracial Identity in Advertising. Journal of Advertising46(4), 503–520. https://doi-org.libproxy.library.unt.edu/10.1080/00913367.2017.1360227

 L’Pree & Corsbie-Massay (2019). Target vs. total marketing: the paradox of producing diverse mainstream content.

Harris, M. S., & Bourke, B. (2008). Selling Exclusion: IMAGES OF STUDENTS OF COLOR IN BOWL GAME ADVERTISING. College and University, 84(2), 18-26. https://libproxy.library.unt.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.libproxy.library.unt.edu/scholarly-journals/selling-exclusion-images-students-color-bowl-game/docview/225601235/se-2?accountid=7113

 

Animal Crossing Gender Lines

After six months of quarantine, my wife and I had exhausted our hobbies of welding and running an online clothes store. Netflix was drained and so were we; we needed to do something about it. We had never been gamers of any type. We thought the idea of an immersion world game would be an obvious choice under the circumstances. Our real-world interactions were gone so this would step in as a replacement, so we took a chance.

 As it turns out, a game named Animal Crossing: New Horizons was a wonderfully constructed immersion world of self-expression that was just the thing to kill our time. It also helped me to understand non-binary gender identity in a unique way.

For clarity sake here is how the game works :

Animal Crossing is the last in a series of its life simulation game by Nintendo. It puts the player on an island and through gathering resources they can build an identity for themselves and show their personality through decorating the entire island as they see fit. It mirrors the ideals of conservative capitalism with infinite resources but that is another topic for another day. The island is an aggressively safe space, the scariest thing that can happen is that you get stung by a wasp and your face looks weird until you take free medicine. Safety also comes from the positivity of the computer-generated characters, there are eight distinct personalities programmed into a selection of 300 characters,  all of which are kind and only have positive messages. The object is to build a happy life with a happy island of people who all like one another. The game also works online where the player visits other islands created by other real people in costumed in their avatars. 

At the beginning of the game, you pick your avatar from a selection of two that has vague gender features, and the identity is labeled as “style.” You can look any way you want, all possibilities are gender-free and faces can be constructed generally to look like a “Nintendo style” face in a variety of face structures, colors, moods. All clothing worked with all avatars. For the first few weeks I wore fabulous dresses with matching hats, it felt very freeing. 

 Only the English version of the worldwide game presents the characters as genderless. This is a new feature in the series of the Animal Crossing series and worth exploration. While it is promoted as a children’s game, the average age of its players is in the 20-35-year-old age range. Stripping away of all gender associations sends the message that all genders are completely equal. By gender stripping the characters it allows the player to understand that gender is fluid and all differences, when it comes to expression, are equally weighted. 

Nintendo is behind the curve with the use of storytelling with LGBTQ+ characters. Studios are making games like Bugsnax, The Last of Us Part II, and Hades that were hailed for their LGBTQ+ characters that break stereotypes. Nintendo’s approach is to eliminate the power behind the stereotypes themselves by creating rules that leave gender under the control of the viewer .

This is a great message and something that is uniquely suited to the video game industry. The medium allows for a complete identity stripping given its anonymous nature in the media. 

In a Washington Post Story, Aya Kyogoku, and producer for Hisashi Nogami said it is “not just about gender,” but relates to the team’s overall feeling that “society is shifting to valuing a lot of people’s different identities.” 

“We basically wanted to create a game where users didn’t really have to think about gender or if they wanted to think about gender, they’re also able to,” she said.

 

 

 

Games Don’t Judge You for Expressing Your True Self

 

https://popmatters.com/animal-crossing-new-horizons-2645979937.html

 

https://www.wired.com/story/stardew-valley-gender-euphoria-games/

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2020/03/23/nintendo-explains-philosophy-behind-animal-crossings-big-changes-like-gender-expression-terraforming/

 

 

 

 

The importance of self-reflection

After my first year at The Dallas Morning News, I went through their employee assessment paperwork. It was a standard form that tried to put quantified numbers on a creative job, so I found just the fact that I had to do it was an absurd task. Towards the end of the form it asked a question that, at the time, I found particularly insulting. It asked the about kind of effort I put forth to include BIPOC people as I worked in the field. It went on to ask whether or not my photos had a good representation of the Dallas population.

My feeling at the time was “how dare they!”

I took it as an insult because I truly believed that I was beyond reproach and personally lived in a post-racial world, to question this of me was accusing me and everyone else at the paper of racism. I felt that since I didn’t decide what stories I was covering, the topics themselves would be race-specific. I would always just take the picture of whomever it was that helped me tell the story the best, so how could I possibly be biased in those decisions. It turns out I was just very naïve about how the world works.

As the years went by this question stopped hitting me as hard for a few different reasons. I started seeing the world through a very wide lens. I got very used to going into bad neighborhoods and learning how to talk with people of different races and classes. This accumulation of knowledge broke down what I thought to be positive stereotypes and allowed me to not assume anything about anyone. 

For instance, I once believed that our homeless population was specifically homeless because of mental health problems. From years of experience, I now see while mental health is a major contributing factor, there are a lot of homeless people who have a very low tolerance for authority and even some who are enjoying drifting. This and other moments added to the fact that you can really never assume anything about race, you are better off with using shoes as a starter when it comes to trying to figure out what their personality is. That, at least, is a conscious choice they made for expression for the world to see.

Year after year this question became more important to me. The growth that I had as an individual made me realize that this question was meant to inspire me to make inclusion a goal of mine. This goal was for the entire paper to be better able to talk to all of their readers, not just the ones that filtered through my world as I saw it. Toward the end of my career, I saw it as a powerful thing to have this question on our evaluation.

It taught me that when shooting stories that were not tied to locations I should seek out unrepresented neighborhoods. I learned rudimentary Spanish to allow me to shoot photos of the Latinx community that previously avoided because I couldn’t get their names before.

The realization that I had any kind of choice in this manner came to me when I was shooting a job fair.  I would make sure I got a representative sample of all the people rather than just the most dramatic photo of assumed stereotypes that I would have shot earlier in my career. I understood at that moment that most job fair photos I had seen up to that point in my life showed Black or Hispanic people looking woeful, I broke my own mold and then began seeing the world as though I had more cause to affect people on a massive scale.

 

You say Potato...

Potato Head has no brain for politics, nor should they. This progressive 70-year-old’s choice to drop the Mr. from their branding company name showed a probable outreach to the LGBTQ+ community. Whether or not the name worked for the sales of this toy is not exactly the point, the right’s outrage could spur boycotts, the left could rally behind the progressive movement and help sales. If it were not for the Civils Rights Bill of 1964 is in the Senate for an updated debate, this small change by Hasbro wouldn’t have hardly seen the light of day. The debate is on whether or not gender fits into the definition worthy of the same rights of everyone else. For example, right now it is completely legal to either fire or kick somebody out of their house specifically based on how they choose to express their gender. This story garnered quite of bit of media attention specifically from the right-leaning media. Fox News and Business ran 35 stories on this company’s choice. The Civil Rights debate is the only thing that gave this potato legs.

According to Niedt & Richmonds study, updating their relationship with gender is a nod to acceptance of varying gender norms in society (2019). In an interview with Business Insider magazine Kimberly Boyd, a senior vice president and general manager at Hasbro said, "Kids want to be able to represent their own experiences. The way the brand currently exists — with the 'Mr.' and 'Mrs.' — is limiting when it comes to both gender identity and family structure."

Children, in particular, are force-fed gender norms from media to their own role-models. Stripping away what is “normal” when it comes to gender is seen as a good way to promote acceptance of the child’s own gender identity and others. 

From an outside practical look though, Potato Head hasn’t really changed anything from the child’s perspective. The doll is still sold with the Mr. and Mrs. pronouns with gendered pieces. Not having “Mr.” on the main branding only takes away the idea of a male dominated society selling a male dominated toy, which should be applauded, but this choice does not begin to talk about gender. 

The outreach from the conservative’s response on this non-story is purposely misleading people about the nature of the change. They are exploiting gender panic so they can exploit the population ignorant of transgender issues. The ability to do this on such a scale is indicative of past symbolic annihilation of the entire issue. The populations entire schema is based on very little knowledge of the subject, since the haven’t existed in the media other than stereotypical cross-dressing tropes that have nothing to do with the actual science behind the driving gender ideas. The theme this year at CPAC revolved around cancel culture, ironically talking about the changes in the things that their party likes. The blind-side of this argument is that in order to not be cancelled, these issues usually mean forcing out entire populations from the argument. They leave no room for any kind of acceptance of what they deem to be wrong without any type of real justification. Georgia rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene proved this point by her retaliation to a trangender pride flag put up by Illinois Rep. Marie Newman, and mother of a trans son. Instead of accepting other views, rep. Greene posted a sign on her office  stating “There are TWO genders: Male & Female. Trust The Science!” While Greene obviously getting the science wrong, mixing up the difference between sex and gender, this ignorant attack is about othering and contempt since there is no harm in stopping a hateful prejudice. 

The right frames this by labeling it with headlines like “The Equality Act Would ‘Potato Head’ All Americans” in The Federalist. In the story it uses statements like “Hasbro reportedly decided on Thursday to neuter its beloved spud toy.” This attack is not only unwarranted (Spud don’t have genitals), it is a scare tactic used to try to say its audience is being neutered by the left. The story continues to suggest that this bill would allow “Your male genitals are welcome anywhere you like,” a scare tactic that has worked to stop several states for not allowing gender neutral bathrooms. This is too disturbing for a college blog.

Senator Mitt Romney, who oddly has been the voice closest to the center of the right has said that he didn’t see any religious carveouts for adding to extend protections to the LGBTQ+ community.

Remarkably his religion didn’t see any religious carveouts for even allowing Black members be priests until 1970, six years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. 

The hypocrisy is palpable. and shame on us.

 I had no place to put this, but I thought it was pretty funny

@OhNoSheTwitnt

Caring about the gender of Mister Potato Head is the first time Fox News ever attempted to defend someone who wasn’t white.

https://www.businessinsider.com/hasbro-drops-mr-from-potato-head-toys-sparks-backlash-online-2021-2

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/25/marjorie-taylor-greene-transgender-sign

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/mormons-race-max-perry-mueller/539994/

https://twitter.com/OhNoSheTwitnt/status/1365377199457656833?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1365377199457656833%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mandatory.com%2Ffun%2F1565310-mr-potato-head-loses-the-mister-but-not-the-mustache-the-funniest-tweets-about-hasbros-fail

Niedt, G., Richmond, J.C. (2019) Sex Sells–But Gender Brands. In R.A. Lind (Fourth Edition.), Race/Gender/Class/Media. Routledge.

 

Implicit Bias and the Jan. 6 Insurrection

It has been almost two months since the Jan. 6 insurrection battle at the Capitol that left 8 dead and one very important question that will probably remain a mystery forever. How is it possible for a country that spends almost 1$ trillion in defense to be infiltrated by people armed with pepper spray and poles (assuming there were many firearms, but none were unholstered)? I propose that the one overarching theme to this solution is not simple but fairly easy to understand. Media has reported this theme with a code word for the last month, they call it “a lack of imagination.” This code is confusing since up to this point in the hearings, everybody had a very clear understanding that this group of people with a violent past had a very clear goal, to stop the House of Representatives from counting the votes. “A lack of imagination” is code for implicit racial bias. Nobody thought violence would happen from the streets up to the head of the FBI because they have been subconsciously been trained to believe that threats of this nature, i.e. terrorism came from people who don’t look like white guys that look like them. 

Gorham explains the dissociation by the theory of the ultimate attribution error (p.15). People judge others by the groups they are in, either ingroups or outgroups. You can watch somebody perform an action and if you assumed they are ingroup, you make the lightest possible assumptions of why they are acting that way because you identify with them. Outgroups (or others) don’t get this kind of generous understanding since people are primed to assume the worst of people who are not like you. These thoughts are not conscious and the only way to fight them is to know that they exist.

The intelligence clearly had it pinned that these were bad people, they were also white people, so it was much easier to slant their understanding of the threat. This is implicit bias, they assumed their behavior but recalculated their motives based on association.

The simplest way to make this clear is to look at how the preparation for the protests by Black Lives Matter was handle by authorities. The scene at the Lincoln Memorial, which does not house any Congressmen or Senator it had 50 masked Nation Guardsman wearing camouflage behind a row of D.C. Police during the June 3, 2020 protests. That was the day that former President Trump ordered Lafayette Square to be cleared so he could have his photo taken with a bible at St. Johns Church. The protesters faced tear gas, rubber bullets, many were detained, 88 arrests were made.

It couldn’t be any more clear that even after a “successful” terrorist attack on our Capitol, only 52 arrests were made. I even remember watching officers helping women down the stairs and taking selfies with the aggressors. These crimes had clear motives, clear intents, and it is becoming more clear to me why nobody saw this coming.

Gorham, B. (2019) The social psychology of stereotypes and bias: implications for media audiences. In R.A. Lind (Fourth Edition.), Race/Gender/Class/Media. Routledge.