Media Shaping Women Essay

The media has clouded women’s perceptions in their body image by demonstrating the ‘ideal bodies’ on TV and magazines through print and film advertising, increasing the pressure for women and young girls to be ‘thin’, further leading to a more complex issue of Eating Disorders. Women who do not live up to societies expectations, and are suffocated with the phoney concept of the ‘ideal’ are treated with disregard and discrimination. For instance, Adrian Furnham and Nicola Greaves (1994) argue that the core of body image dissatisfaction is a discrepancy between a person’s perceived body and their ideal. They further argue that a failure to match the ‘ideal’ leads to self- criticism, guilt and lowered self worth. This effect is stronger for women than for men due to the cultural pressures on women to conform to an idealised body shape are more powerful and more wide spread than those on men. Psychologists have suggested that the media can affect women’s body esteem by becoming a reference point against which unfavourable body shape comparisons are made (Grogan 1999). These visions are then propagated through popular culture via television reality make over shows of re shaping the body, â€Å" if films of body transformation provide the vision that inspires women to re- make their bodies, the cosmetic and â€Å"aesthetic medicine† industry sell them the equipment† (Fox-Kales, 2011, p. 74. ) Women are objectified by an unrealistic expectation of beauty, put forward by models and actresses who do not reflect the average appearance of women in society. Print advertising, in particular, provides a not only unrealistic, but unhealthy ideal of what it means to be physically attractive. By these false images being presented, the media has created an ideology of attractiveness. Images have powerful effects on their readers, serving to maintain a ‘cult of femininity’ and supplying definitions of what it means to ‘be a woman’. Marjorie Ferguson (1985) investigated women’s magazines from a sociological perspective. She argued that women’s magazines contribute to the wider cultural process, which helps to shape a woman’s view of herself, and societies views of her. The media is littered with mages of females who fulfill these unrealistic standards, making it seem as if it is normal for women to live up to this ideal. Dittmar and Howard (2004) made this statement regarding the prevalence of unrealistic media images: Ultra-thin models are so prominent that exposure to them becomes unavoidable and ‘chronic’, constantly reinforcing a discrepancy for most women and girls between their actual size and the ideal body (p. 478). Research has repeatedly shown that constant exposure to thin models and actresses fosters body image concerns and disordered eating in many females. Eating Disorders are a direct result from the medias influence to look ‘thin’. Eating disorders theorists and feminist scholars have long indicated fashion magazines, movies, television, and advertising for their advocacy of disordered eating (Levine & Smolak, 1998). Media images of women make it difficult for individuals to hold an internalized ideal body that is realistic and attainable. With exposure to repeated images of ultra thin women, an individual’s internalized ideal body often becomes much thinner. This increases the gap between what a person feels their physical appearance is, and what it should be. Researchers have found that women who have an internalized ideal body that closely resembles the socially represented ideal body are at a particularly high risk to develop body image disturbance and disordered eating patterns (Sands & Wardle, 2003). Naomi Wolf argues that our culture disempowers women by holding them prisoner to an unattainable beauty ideal (Wolf, 1990). The epidemic proportions of drive for thinness, body dissatisfaction, and unsafe weight control methods among women have led theorists to posit the existence of mechanisms that are capable of reaching a large number of women (Levine & Smolak, 1998). Today’s expectations reveal that looks matter more than personality and intelligence as seen on various dating shows. It is universally agreed upon that people on these shows usually pick the best looking counterpart out of the group of contestants. Both men and women are concerned with appearance than personality on these types of programs. This phenomenon is transferred into the job market, where people are now more prone to hire the more attractive candidate. Research has found that more attractive workers even receive higher compensation than unattractive counterparts even where they perform the same work and have similar levels of work experience. The media targets young women drilling thinness and having no flaws as the height of being beautiful. Now, with the common use of plastic surgery you can change your overall appearance. Plastic surgery has become a more than 8 billion a year industry† (Hess – Biber, 2005:96). Women feel they need to have the perfect nose, and cheek bones to fit in to the media’s criteria, in order to appear more attractive to the opposite sex. Therefore, it is evident that the media has played a significant role in ‘shaping women’s bodies’ to suit ‘societies expectations’ by showcasing the recurring idea to be ‘thin’. These ideas are brought upon through various television shows and magazines, which further stimulate eating disorders.

How to Organize and Manage Classroom Learning Centers

Classroom Learning centers are a great way for students to work together to accomplish a given task. They provide the opportunity for children to practice hands-on skills with or with out social interaction depending upon the teachers task. Here you will learn tips on how to organize and store center content, along with a few suggestions on how to manage classroom centers. Organize and Store Contents Every teacher knows that an organized classroom is a happy classroom. To ensure your learning centers are neat and tidy, and ready for the next student, it is essential to keep learning center contents organized. Here are a variety of ways to organize and store classroom centers for easy access. Place task in small plastic bins and label with the word and picture.Place task in gallon size Ziploc bags, label and place in, or clip to, an accompanying file folder.A great way to keep your Ziploc bag sturdy is to place a piece of cardboard (cut the front off of a cereal box) and place it in the bag. Then on the blank side of the cardboard print the topic of the learning center and the directions. Laminate for easy reuse.Place little components of the learning center into small size Ziploc baggies and label.Place center task in shoe box labeled with the number that corresponds to the Common Core Standard.Take a coffee container and place task inside the container. On the outside label with words and picture.Place center contents in a manilla file folder and have instructions on front. Laminate if needed.Place contents in color coordinated baskets. Reading centers are in pink baskets, math centers are in blue, etc.Buy a colored drawer organizing rolling cart and place center task i nside.Create a bulletin board, adhere library pockets to the board and place the learning center task inside. Post directions on the bulletin board. Lakeshore Learning has storage bins in a variety of sizes and colors that are great for learning centers. Manage Learning Centers Learning centers can be a lot of fun but they also can get quiet chaotic. Here are a few suggestions on how to set up and manage them. First, you must plan the structure of the learning center, are students going to work alone or with a partner? Each learning center can be unique, so if you choose to give students the option to work alone or with a partner for the math center, you do not have to give them an option for the reading center.Next, you must prepare the contents of each learning center. Choose the way you plan on storing and keeping the center organized from the list above.Set up the classroom so that children are visible at all centers. Make sure you create centers around the perimeter of the classroom so children wont bump into one another or get distracted.Place centers that are alike near each other, and make sure if the center is going to use materials that are messy, that is it placed on a hard surface, not a carpet.Introduce how each center works, and model how they must complete each task.Discuss, and model the behavior that is expected of students at each center and hold students responsible for their actions.Use a bell, timer, or hand gesture when it is time to switching centers. Here are more ideas on how to prepare, set up and present learning centers.

The Heinkel He 111 or the Luftwaffe Bomber

With its defeat in World War I, the leaders of Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles which formally ended the conflict. Though a far-reaching agreement, one section of the treaty specifically forbade Germany from constructing and operating an air force. Due to this restriction, when Germany commenced rearmament in the early 1930s, aircraft development occurred in secrecy or proceeded under the guise of civilian use. Around this time, Ernst Heinkel commenced an initiative to design and build a high-speed passenger plane. To design this aircraft, he hired Siegfried and Walter Gà ¼nter. The result of the Gà ¼nters efforts was the Heinkel He 70 Blitz which began production in 1932. A successful aircraft, the He 70 featured an elliptical inverted gull wing and a BMW VI engine. Impressed with the He 70, the Luftfahrtkommissariat, which sought a new transport aircraft that could be converted to a bomber in wartime, contacted Heinkel. Responding to this inquiry, Heinkel began work to enlarge the aircraft to meet the requested specifications and to compete with new twin-engine aircraft such as the Dornier Do 17. Preserving the key features of the He 70, including the wing shape and BMW engines, the new design became known as the Doppel-Blitz (Double Blitz). Work on the prototype pushed forward and it first took to the skies on February 24, 1935, with Gerhard Nitschke at the controls. Competing with the Junkers Ju 86, the new Heinkel He 111 compared favorably and a government contract was issued. Design Variants Early variants of the He 111 utilized a traditional stepped cockpit with separate windscreens for the pilot and copilot. Military variants of the aircraft, which began production in 1936, saw the inclusion of dorsal and ventral gun positions, a bomb bay for 1,500 lbs. of bombs, and a longer fuselage. The addition of this equipment adversely affected the He 111s performance as the BMW VI engines did not produce sufficient power to offset the additional weight. As a result, the He 111B was developed in the summer of 1936. This upgrade saw more powerful DB 600C engines with variable pitch airscrews installed as well as additions to the aircrafts defensive armament. Pleased with the improved performance, the Luftwaffe ordered 300 He 111Bs and deliveries commenced in January 1937. Subsequent improvements produced the D-, E-, and F-variants. One of the most notable changes during this period was the elimination of the elliptical wing in favor of a more-easily produced one featuring straight leading and trailing edges. The He 111J variant saw the aircraft tested as a torpedo bomber for the Kriegsmarine though the concept was later dropped. The most visible change to the type came in early 1938 with the introduction of the He 111P. This saw the entire forward part of the aircraft altered as the stepped cockpit was removed in favor of a bullet-shaped, glazed nose. In addition, improvements were made to the power plants, armament, and other equipment. In 1939, the H-variant entered production. The most widely produced of any He 111 model, the H-variant began entering service on the eve of World War II. Possessing a heavier bomb load and greater defensive armament than its predecessors, the He 111H also included enhanced armor and more powerful engines. The H-variant remained in production into 1944 as the Luftwaffes follow-on bomber projects, such as the He 177 and Bomber B, failed to yield an acceptable or reliable design. In 1941, a final, mutated variant of the He 111 commenced testing. The He 111Z Zwilling saw the merging of two He 111s into one large, twin-fuselage aircraft powered by five engines. Intended as a glider tug and transport, the He 111Z was produced in limited numbers. Operational History In February 1937, a group of four He 111Bs arrived in Spain for service in the German Condor Legion. Ostensibly a German volunteer unit supporting Francisco Francos Nationalist forces, it served as a training ground for Luftwaffe pilots and for evaluating new aircraft. Making their combat debut on March 9, the He 111s attacked Republican airfields during the Battle of Guadalajara. Proving more effective than the Ju 86 and the Do 17, the type soon appeared in larger numbers over Spain. Experience with the He 111 in this conflict allowed designers at Heinkel to further refine and improve the aircraft. With the beginning of World War II on September 1, 1939, He 111s formed the backbone of the Luftwaffes bombing assault on Poland. Though performing well, the campaign against the Poles revealed that the aircrafts defensive armament required enhancement. In the early months of 1940, He 111s conducted raids against British shipping and naval targets in the North Sea before supporting the invasions of Denmark and Norway. On May 10, Luftwaffe He 111s aided ground forces as they opened the campaign in the Low Countries and France. Taking part in the Rotterdam Blitz four days later, the type continued to strike both strategic and tactical targets as the Allies retreated. At the end of the month, He 111s mounted raids against the British as they conducted the Dunkirk Evacuation. With the fall of France, the Luftwaffe began preparing for the Battle of Britain. Concentrating along the English Channel, He 111 units were joined by those flying the Do 17 and Junkers Ju 88. Commencing in July, the assault on Britain saw the He 111 encounter fierce resistance from Royal Air Force Hawker Hurricanes and Supermarine Spitfires. The early phases of the battle showed a need for the bomber to have a fighter escort and revealed a vulnerability to head-on attacks due to the He 111s glazed nose. In addition, repeated engagements with British fighters showed that the defensive armament was still inadequate. In September, the Luftwaffe switched to targeting British cities. Though not designed as a strategic bomber, the He 111 proved capable in this role. Fitted with Knickebein and other electronic aids, the type was able to bomb blind and maintained pressure on the British through the winter and spring of 1941. Elsewhere, the He 111 saw action during the campaigns in the Balkans and the invasion of Crete. Other units were sent to North Africa to support the operations of the Italians and the German Afrika Korps. With the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, He 111 units on the Eastern Front were initially asked to provide tactical support for the Wehrmacht. This expanded to striking the Soviet rail network and then to strategic bombing. Later Operations Though offensive action formed the core of the He 111s role on the Eastern Front, it also was pressed into duty on several occasions as a transport. It earned distinction in this role during by evacuating wounded from the Demyansk Pocket and later in re-supplying German forces during the Battle of Stalingrad. By the spring of 1943, overall He 111 operational numbers began to decline as other types, such as the Ju 88, assumed more of the load. In addition, increasing Allied air superiority hampered offensive bombing operations. During the wars later years, the He 111 continued to mount raids against Soviet shipping in the Black Sea with the assistance of FuG 200 Hohentwiel anti-shipping radar. In the west, He 111s were tasked with delivering V-1 flying bombs to Britain in late 1944. With the Axis position collapsing late in the war, He 111s supported numerous evacuations as German forces withdrew. The He 111s final missions of the war came as German forces attempted to halt the Soviet drive on Berlin in 1945. With the surrender of Germany in May, the He 111s service life with the Luftwaffe came to an end. The type continued to be used by Spain until 1958. Additional license-built aircraft, constructed in Spain as the CASA 2.111, remained in service until 1973. Heinkel He 111 H-6 Specifications General Length: 53 ft., 9.5 in.Wingspan: 74 ft., 2 in.Height: 13 ft., 1.5 in.Wing Area: 942.92 sq. ft.Empty Weight: 19,136 lbs.Loaded Weight: 26,500 lbs.Maximum Takeoff Weight: 30,864 lbs.Crew: 5 Performance Maximum Speed: 273 mphRange: 1,429 milesRate of Climb: 850 ft./min.Service Ceiling: 21,330 ft.Power Plant: 2 Ãâ€" Jumo 211F-1 or 211F-2 liquid-cooled inverted V-12 Armament 7 Ãâ€" 7.92 mm MG 15 or MG 81 machine guns, (2 in the nose, 1 in the dorsal, 2 on the side, 2 ventral. These may have been replaced by 1 Ãâ€" 20 mm MG FF cannon (nose mount or forward ventral position) or 1 Ãâ€" 13 mm MG 131 machine gun (mounted dorsal and/or ventral rear positions)Bombs: 4,400 lb. in internal bomb bay