My birth, my choice? Why women are medical puppets in the birthing room.

This is going to be one of my favorite posts because it's about consumerism! Call me what you like, but I have to talk about being a woman again, crazy I know. This time; however, I want to talk about having babies. In the birthing room, there is a lot of medical intervention; that means there are a lot of unnecessary medicines and medical devices/procedures used in the birthing room.

Consumerism is knowing what we consume and why we consume what we do and how media affects our choices. A lot of my classmates agreed that consumers need to be more aware of the choices they make. They also said that we should ask ourselves first: "do I want this?" and second: "do I need this?" before we make any purchase. I think it's safe to say most people forget to ask whether they "need" something before they make a purchase.

I want to go off of this conversation and talk about the birthing room for women in labor. A lot of decisions are made during the process of giving birth. Some decisions are simple like whether you want a specific type of room, but when you are in labor your first instinct is to do what the doctor tells you.

 Some types of common medical intervention include: an unnecessary epidural procedure, an unnecessary cesarean section (c-section, whether it's planned in advance by the mother or doctor, or to fit a doctor's schedule during the actual delivery), the use of Pitocin (a hormone that jump-starts a woman's labor, it's what doctor's use to "induce" women) in the birthing room, and the list goes on. 

Here are some links about c-sections and medical intervention in the birthing room. Take a look and see what you think when you're done reading.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1122835/

http://www.choicesinchildbirth.org/choices/birth/interventions

http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/11/labor-interrupted

http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/companion.asp?id=21&compID=75

I just want to point out that the cesarean rates in the United States compared with other countries is through the roof! One-third of child births in this country are now done by cesarean. The main reasons? 1) Doctor's won't allow their patients to deliver vaginally after a cesarean (VBAC), 2) doctor's stop labor in its tracks with Pitocin and Epidural procedures, causing the baby to be stressed!!! Thus leading to a cesarean!, 3) If the baby isn't born quickly enough, they will tell you your only option is a c-section. 4) Women are actually choosing a c-section ahead of time!!!

Just take this as a final note: yes, there are times when these medical interventions are necessary. I am not a doctor (yet), and I do not claim to be one. Always, always, always discuss any medical concerns you have with your OBGYN and make your birthing wishes clear.

If you are dead set on avoiding an epidural there is a waiver you can sign that takes away your right to ask for one. Also, if you are dead set on using an epidural discuss the pros and cons with your doctor and make sure it is the right decision for you.

Finally, keep in mind that a c-section is a major abdominal surgery that requires six weeks of healing time. If it's not medically necessary, do you really want to take that bonding time away from you and your baby? Just like with any other major surgery, there can be serious complications with c-sections, so again discuss this thoroughly with your doctor.

The same goes for Pitocin. In case you were wondering, Pitocin is the hormone cows release when they are in labor. It's much stronger than our natural hormone (oxytocin) and it causes your contractions to be longer, stronger, and closer together (increasing your pain). If you can avoid being induced, then I say avoid it!

I think women need to be more conscious in the birthing room. We need to think before we go along with what the doctor ells us to do. We need to be AWARE of the medical services we are consuming.

Feminist? Can you elaborate please?

So I want to extend a branch off of the gender roles topic and continue with it while incorporating this week's theme of consumption. Our professor has stressed the importance of thinking critically many times, especially in the things we consume. I will expand on consumption more in my next post, but I want to touch on it just a bit in relation to gender roles.

First, the class discussion we had was very helpful in understanding how different people in the class feel about gender roles and its evolution in our society. Most agree that women today have a lot of expectations they didn't always have in the United States. Since the feminist and women's rights movements, what it means to be a woman has changed. Most women agree that our gender has come a long way to get where it is today in American society and we should proud of our accomplishments in the business world. With this idea, I could not agree more; however, I believe there are two ends of the spectrum.

As a mother myself and a college student with strong goals for my future career and personal life, I know it is not easy to find that "middle ground" and I sometimes feel like I am looked down upon because I try to find that place. According to Meriam-Webster online, feminism is "the theory of political, economic, and social equality of the sexes," and "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests." Well, what the heck does that even mean?! To a lot of women, it means being equal to men in every aspect of their lives. But I argue that no matter what there are just some things women will never be equal to men in and vice versa, this idea; however, does not necessarily put restrictions on women's places in the business world. I think the word "interests" is very important in evaluating my gender. What are women's interests? For some, their interests are being "successful" in the business world and holding positions that have been for generations held by men. For others their interests lie in becoming as educated as they possibly can. And for others still, it means having a family. So we are stuck in a world today where you are either the woman who is at the head of a big business firm (the stereotypical "feminist" fighting for her "equal" position in society)  or you are the woman at home with her children (the "anti-feminist"). I want to ask this question: why do you have to be one or the other? And why does it make you anti-feminist if you are happy having a family, especially if that is where your "interests" as a woman lie? Does it make you submissive or any less important or less "equal" if that is what you want for your life? Some women say yes it does. Take a look at the picture below. It was used by a classmate for our mass media board on pinterest. I got into a debate with a classmate about its meaning.

This is an ad for Skyy Vodka with a woman lying on her back with a man in a suit standing over her (in the missionary sexual position). My classmate said the woman in the picture is being portrayed in a demeaning way. She said she is submissive to the man in the picture and his position makes it clear that he is the dominant character. She does not think women should put themselves in this position in our society because of how hard we have had to work to get where we are today. She also said this woman would not be the woman you see in the boardroom. Says who? There are lots of women with blonde hair, big boobs, and brains. Perhaps using our curves as a distraction will put men off guard and move us up the business ladder faster. There's some food for thought. 

Now, I already said we were debating (and it was a nice debate if I say so myself). I said that if my husband was ever able to give me the lifestyle I envision for myself without having to work myself, then I would gladly enjoy my time at home soaking up the summer sun. I don't think this makes me anymore submissive as a woman if it a choice that I have consciously made. I think a woman in this position has more power than she is being given credit for. First of all, every situation is different. She doesn't have her own money, but her husband's (or lover's or boyfriend's ... whatever you want to call him), so automatically people say she is in a very vulnerable position because she cannot provide for herself if something should happen to their relationship. This may be true, but just as the man in the picture can find a "new bikini" to sport, she can find a "new suit" too.

I think the division between women in general is very upsetting. Our gender "fights" for equality while pushing each other down in order to get there. We "want" to be "equal" to men, but we don't allow ourselves to be equal to each other and that speaks loudly to our behavior as a female community. I have a two-year-old daughter, I am a full-time college student, and I plan on going to medical school. I feel like just being a mother is not "good enough" for my gender. Yes, you can be a mom, but you have to be educated and have a high paying job too. Why? Why do we look down on those women who are different from us? Stay-at-home moms aren't very fond of "the feminist" and the professional woman pities the stay-at-home mom. I think we ask too much of ourselves as women. Men cannot bear children, only women can. It seems like in today's society it is a mandate to not only be educated, but be a mother too. So here we are ladies working full-time, going to school full-time and still playing the role of "mom," and if we don't do that we are inferior to our own kind while men can still play the same role they always have. Being a feminist lies in the "interests" of women, so don't look down on a woman who has made a choice for herself. After all, that is her "interest."

The idea of feminism and what it means to be or not be a feminist is all around us in everything we expose ourselves to. We "consume" this image of what it means to be a woman on a daily basis. From the shape of Barbie Dolls, to pink and blue clothes for boys and girls, to the toys we play with as children, the magazines we read,and the television we watch. It's all there. Making a choice for yourself is a feminist action, even if it's not the traditional "feminist" decision.

Gender Roles and Media

Okay, so this week is all about gender roles and family identity. Today, most people associate girls with the color pink and boys with the color blue. There are girls toys and boys toys, but it doesn't stop there. It goes much further than that.

One theory we have discussed in my class is the agenda-setting theory, and I believe this theory is one that has played a big role in the way we relate to  our genders. One classmate brought up Disney's princess campaign. Nearly every little girl (at least in the United States) is familiar with the Disney Princesses and is taught that she is a princess herself. With the overwhelming amount of products released by Disney, it's hard to give children other roles to identify with.

Then there's the hypodermic needle theory. We have been "injected" with the idea that the woman's place is in the kitchen and with the children. She stays at home while dad goes to work, but now more than ever, we are seeing a change in this idea. Women are becoming the head of household more and more, and it's not uncommon to see a single dad.

Lastly, let's talk about the reinforcement theory. I think this one was hit right on the nose my one of my classmates. People want to see what they believe is right or what they agree with. They want their beliefs, morals, thoughts, etc. reinforced. A strong correlation of gender roles can be seen everywhere, from the movies we watch, to the ads we see, the stores we shop at, and the books we read. Why? Because that's what we want. I think this theory may actually be the winner in the gender roles category, even over the hypodermic needle theory at this point in time. I think we have moved forward from the hypodermic needle theory when it comes to gender because it is such a large part of our society. You don't have to watch a commercial or read an ad to know what products are men and what products are for women, you just "know."

Now, I want to post some articles that illustrate  some interesting perspectives and conclusions about my gender, especially the term "beauty" and the role of women in the process of giving birth.

The first topic I want to touch on is what it means to be a woman. Women are told from the time they are young girls that being beautiful is important. An iconic model to all girls is the Barbie Doll. Every little girl wants to look like and dress like Barbie. What we aren't told ... IS THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE! Literally impossible. Take a look at this interactive info graph about Barbie below:

 http://awesome.good.is/infographics/infographic-why-it-s-physically-impossible-to-look-like-barbie/463

And this is what we model ourselves after!

This image has become so iconic, in fact, that women have had plastic surgery to make themselves look like a "real life" Barbie. Probably the most famous is the Ukrainian model Valeria Lukyanova. Here are some pictures of the model (this is the Barbie obsession taken too far if you ask me):

In these pictures you can see Valeria Lukyanova (the real life Barbie).

This is the real life anime girl. She is also Ukrainian. Her name is Anastasiya Shpagina.

These pictures illustrate the extremes some girls and women are willing to go in order to obtain that "perfect" look. This is what we are taught is beautiful through the dolls we play with, but when seen in real life, what's your take on beauty? Here's an article and video from Huffpost about a Barbie doll with no makeup and dark circles under her eyes, what do you think of her?

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/barbie-without-makeup-before-and-after-pics_n_2991990.html

Barbie; however, is just one of the many images we are made to accept as the perfect image of women. Models on the fashion runway are very thin too, not all, but many. As if being skinny, having long legs, and symmetrical faces is not enough, their images are airbrushed as well! The models we see are touched up for their photo-spreads. Below are some new angles artists and the public have been taking on what it means to be "beautiful."

This first link is what a photographer made popular by taking shots of her body after giving birth to her baby. Every model you see on the billboards and in magazines has a perfectly glistened body that is free of marks. Her photography embraces the marks of motherhood. Let's be real though, no photospread can be perfect. Yes, there are women who have babies and they get no marks, good for them! But women should be proud of their bodies regardless.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/06/29/jade-beall-post-baby-body

Here's a link to an article about a teenage girl who demanded that seventeen start using photospreads of girls that are digitally unaltered. She got her wish! Her petition blew up instantly and Seventeen Magazine had no choice, but to fulfill her wish. You go girl!!

http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/07/05/seventeen-magazine-promises-photos-real-healthy-girls

Don't Say Zimmerman in Public Y'all!

          Apparently, this whole Zimmerman case has my entire mass media and society class up in arms, so much so that they literally avoided the subject this past week. I understand it was most likely because no one wanted to cross hairs or get into an argument which is totally understandable, but, of course, I had to be the one who brought it up. Sorry guys, but this is mass media and society and this case is one that has taken over the media, not only in our state, but our country as well. I feel we would not be analyzing "mass media and society" fully without critiquing the current mass media craze, and that is the verdict in the case against George Zimmerman.

          I had a classmate say to me "I understand, but I just don't care. I don't think this is the correct forum for that." My response to that is: if I can't talk about it in my MASS MEDIA class, then where can I talk about it? Why was this response made in the first place? Because I presented two pictures per the instructions for homework, and part of my homework mentioned this particular case. I was talking about the reinforcement theory in media and brought up that some media outlets are calling this case one that was committed as a "hate" crime or  a "racial" crime. I read the quote given by Geraldo Rivera:  "You dress like a thug, people are going to treat you like a thug. That's true. I stand by that."

          Maybe I was misunderstood, but I do not agree with Mr. Rivera whatsoever. The word "thug" is not in my vocabulary to describe a person. In fact, I wrote an article for my university paper (for our student voice edition) against an ordinance in Cocoa Beach, Fla that bans baggy pants (they defined baggy pants as those showing the boxers).

         Here's the link:
http://theminaretonline.com/2012/11/08/article25552

          I think the term that had my classmate all shook up was "race baiter."  Now, for the record, I did not call anyone a race baiter, but gave a definition of what a race baiter is, and yes people, race baiters can be white too!! I gave the example that if I were to apply for a job and was turned down, but a black or Hispanic woman got the job instead and then I complain stating that the reason the other woman got the job was because of her skin color, then I would be a race baiter. Does that mean that the people who are calling this crime a racial crime are race baiters? No. Does it mean they are not race baiters? No.

We will never know all the details of the night when Trayvon Martin was killed. Trayvon is not here to speak for himself and say whether the altercation had to do with the color of his skin. There are no witnesses to speak for him. All we know is what we have been told by George Zimmerman, and he could have made up a huge lie or told mostly the truth. (For the record, I think he's a big fat liar).

           Furthermore, I will say that for someone to make assumptions about me because I used that term is not very fair. We all have different histories. As sad as it may seem and as disrespectful as it may seem, there are a lot of race baiters (in all racial communities!!) and they make it hard to tell when "race" is really the reason for a negative action from one person to another. Have they not heard of the boy who cried wolf?! I also think it pushes us backward when we need to be moving forward.

          People make assumptions about me all the time because my skin color is white. I have been called a honky. I have been called a cracker. I have been called trailer trash, and I have been called a "white bitch." My family has not been in the country long enough to have been slave-owners. My great-grandfather's parents moved here from the Czech Republic not long before he was born.

On my mother's side, they were Native American (Cherokee and Black Foot) and Irish. Native Americans suffered through genocide!!! They were literally killed off! And now they are recognized as a separate nation and still ostracized by American society. They are not allowed to practice some of their religious beliefs outside of their territories! Their land was taken from them! Their homes were taken from them! There daughters were raped. And nearly all of them were murdered by white men!

Irish people had somewhat "better" circumstances. At least their skin was white that is, but they were the poorest of the poor whites. They bargained rides to the United States by offering themselves as indentured servants. They had no property of their own. They had to give their "master" an unfair portion of their hard earned "money" and "food." They were beaten. When their contract was finally up and they were "free" they often had to sign into another contract of servitude just so they could "survive." That contract earned them no wealth. Is slavery worse than genocide or vice versa? No! So let's not keep reverting to our past and look to the future.

So, now that you know a little about my family history, please don't ASSUME anything about my opinion, especially if I am not given the chance to voice it in its entirety. Don't say "we know your opinion" in a derogatory tone when YOU DON'T. ... Thanks!!!

Now, all that said, I believe it is an absolute tragedy that Trayvon Martin's life was taken from him at such a young age. I also believe (as a previous blogger commented and then removed) that this case illustrated the ambiguities of the "stand your ground laws" and how unfair it has been in many cases. I hope this case is a lesson to us all, especially in the state of Florida. My sympathies go out to his family and friendsfrom the bottom of my heart.

       

George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty in Trayvon Martin Case: What's Your Stance?

 Memes ... you can always count on them to show up!!

Okay, so the verdict is in and George Zimmerman has been deemed innocent on the charge of manslaughter against Trayvon Martin. For those of you who don't know, Trayvon Martin, 17, was fatally shot by neighborhood watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, 29, on February 26, 2012 . 

From the start of the case the "stand your ground law" has been scrutinized, examined, and picked apart by various news outlets. One person who has been writing about this law for years, Ben Montgomery, a Tampa Bay Times staff writer. His articles about the law go back further than Trayvon Martin's death. He has been pointing out the flaws with that very defense for quite a while now. 

Immediately following the death of Trayvon Martin, he wrote an article about who gets away with using the law as their defense. This article had the appropriate title "'Stand your ground' law protects those who go far beyond that point." It's hard to call this article anything but intriguing as he opens with quotes from two Republican leaders, a former senator who supported the bill, and Florida's very own former governor, Jeb Bush, who signed the law.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/stand-your-ground-law-protects-those-who-go-far-beyond-that-point/1222930

Some people have claimed that the "stand your ground" law was not used in this case, but it was used in the opening statements by Zimmerman's defense, so sorry, but yes, it was used in this case. And because it was used in this case, many other questions have come into the conversation. Is it a reasonable defense? Jeb Bush and Durrell Peaden say no. Zimmerman put himself in that situation. He followed Martin; he was not "standing his ground," therefore they say that law never should have been used as a defense in this case. Also, it brings up the question, why does it work for some people and not others?  

Since you asked, here's a comprehensive breakdown of the law's history since its birth in 2004:

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/

I think this image supports the findings of inconsistencies with the "stand your ground" laws and I am sure, by now, that most everyone has seen it. Again, this raises questions about this shaky defense.

As I said, I want everyone to join in the conversation, so I have some additional links in relation to the case and will post more to make details clear. This link is a video from Fox News with Geraldo Rivera talking about the verdict of the case:

http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/07/14/foxs-geraldo-rivera-you-dress-like-a-thug-peopl/194866

Rivera stated: "You Dress Like A Thug, People Are Going To Treat You Like A Thug. That's True. I Stand By That." ... How does that make you feel? What's your perception on that observation? What do you think of when you think of a thug? Is a "thug" a universal image?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/14/naacp-asking-obama-administration-to-pursue-zimmerman-civil-case/

Obama received quite a bit of criticism in relation to this case as well. He has been scrutinized and blamed for turning the trial into a "racist" issue for having said "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." This article is about his "call for calm" following the verdict. "I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher," he said. "But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son," Obama said. Read more below:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57593671/obama-calls-for-calm-in-wake-of-george-zimmerman-verdict/

Of course, the race question came into play immediately following the death of Martin more than a year ago. Who else would have something to say about it other than author of Race Baiter: How the Media Wields Dangerous Words to Divide a Nation, and Tampa Bay Times staff writer, Eric Deggans? What's his stance? Of course, race had something to do with it, it always has. Although many people say it has nothing to do with race, if you look at the people who have been following the case it's a different story. In addition, he goes on to discuss the unanswered questions in the case and states the jurors should come forward with answers to those questions. He also says despite the race factor, there was no witness which makes it even harder to come to a conclusion in the findings of this case. What's your opinion?

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/media/what-the-george-zimmerman-verdict-means----and-doesnt-mean----for-race-and/2131369

I'm not sure that I agree entirely with the wording of this image, but I think it hits home with the idea of who can get away with what. It's scary to think I live in a state where someone can walk up behind me and because we get into a fight, they can kill me ... say whaaa!?

Now, where do I stand on all this? The way I see it, a seventeen-year-old boy is dead, and the man who killed him is alive. There were no witnesses to state who started the fight, so it's hard to tell if Zimmerman is telling the "whole truth and nothing but the truth." But we do know he approached Martin. We do know Martin was not armed and Zimmerman was armed. We also know that Martin was a boy who made "bad" decisions, but that doesn't mean he was a "bad person." We know marijuana was is Martin's system (which in my opinion should not have been used to illustrate his character as a lot of teens do smoke/have smoked/will smoke marijuana at one point or another and end up as "good citizens" as adults). This incident did not take place in Zimmerman's home, but rather outside in the open (and somehow there were no witnesses). For the reason that it took place in the open, for the reason that Martin is dead and Zimmerman is alive (and Zimmerman did not receive any long-lasting injuries from Martin), for the reason that Martin was not armed and Zimmerman was, I think the verdict was completely wrong. At the very least, the man should be behind bars for manslaughter. Maybe his intent was not to kill the boy (and for that reason I say manslaughter not murder), but he certainly did not look remorseful for the boy's family when the verdict was called. In my mind there is no doubt he was in the wrong; however, in the mind of his jurors there was certainly some reason to doubt, otherwise this case would have turned out completely different.

Mass Media and Perception

So, to get things jump started, this blog is mainly going to follow themes I have in my mass media and society class and will be an expansion of those themes from my own opinions. Please feel free to chime in on the conversation and share this blog with your friends. My only request is that no one threaten anyone or get too harsh, but by all means if you believe someone else is wrong or your opinion prevails over theirs, say so! And back it up!! I want to challenge others and be challenged myself.

The first topic is how mass media affects our perceptions of the world around us, and what other influences may affect our perceptions and how we infer thing. Remember perception can relate to a myriad of things. It can be how we perceive other people (and whether we take what they say as fact or fiction), what we derive from information we are given, as well as the types of information we choose to consume.

An example I used during my class discussion was Fox News vs. MSNBC ... Fox is a well-known conservative news outlet, whereas MSNBC is a well-known "liberal" news outlet (along with practically all other news outlets that are not Fox according to pretty much everyone, especially the "Media Watchdog", whatever that means. The point: If you watch news only from Fox, then you will perceive the world in the way Fox has set it up for you, and the same goes if you watch only news from MSNBC ... which is why, although my views are more in line with the liberal end of the pool, I try to read many news outlets and try to come to my "own" conclusions ... again, my perception is affected by these things like anyone else.

Here are some links to mess with your perception ... Thoughts?


Let's talk about boobs shall we? To breastfeed or not to breastfeed? THAT S A STUPID QUESTION!!


This photograph is one that I pulled from a Google image search. It is the iconic 2012 Time Magazine  cover story about attachment parenting, Dr. Bill Sears wrote the book for anyone interested. This image certainly provoked mixed responses from many people. Personally, I think the kid is a little old to be nursing, but I think to each her own. It's not like the kid is in Kindergarten for crying out loud!!



Yep. But for some reason this is the taboo choice, and why do you ask? Because formula companies have turned it into that!!


 Who would've thought of something crazy like breast milk being nutritional for mom and baby? Insane! ... NOT







Now let's take a look at some formula ads shall we?

 Natural defense? Seriously? Let's be real, ain't nothing natural 'bout that!!

 And this is on the label!! How are women supposed to make informed decisions when they are up against this crap!! 'Closer than ever to breast milk?!" Formula will never be breast milk. And no formula offers "complete" nutrition for any baby.





Thank you Google or leading me to this!! Yet for some reason, this seems to be the popular choice, now what's wrong with this picture?


 I honestly don't know which one is worse!! Inspired by breast milk?! Seriously? This is how these companies win mothers into their arena. Hello people ... formula was made only for the purpose to gain cash, nothing more.




 The answer is simple little baby ... GMO's don't have to be listed on the ingredients, sorry poor baby.
 Any way you look at it, you are going to find the subliminal messages of the "health" formula offers. They say "breast is best," yet they still push their products constantly!!



http://www.infowars.com/world-leaders-denounce-monsanto-exec-winning-world-food-prize/

This link is an article about Monsanto's "father" winning The World Food Prize, what has been dubbed the "Nobel Prize" of the food industry. Needless to say, many world leaders were not happy with this end and are now demanding that the win be taken back. Nowadays, many Americans are used to the presence of GMO's in their food. In fact, many don't know what GMO's are or why they are bad for them. This has a a lot to do with the images Monsanto has created for themselves on the consumer market. Think about the "corn syrup"  commercials telling you that it's good for you, when it's not. Think about the meat commercials that say the chickens and cows are fed "fresh" corn and soy beans. Just in case you were wondering: corn causes E. Coli in cows.



This image is courtesy of seed freedom's public Facebook page.

Do you see how a simple message such as "Food. Health. Hope." can influence a large group of people?


Again here's a creative marketing tactic to get people on board the Monsanto train.

LUCKILY, NOT EVERYONE IS AN IDIOT!! HERE'S SOME MORE PERCEPTION FOR YOU FOLKS!

Here's another photo for you Monsanto:





Again, here's another perception courtesy of blogs.discovermagazine.com via Google images.

Monsanto, Monsanto, Monsanto, THANK GOD YOUR NOT FOOLING SOME OF US!!!




Take a look at liamscheff.com's (via Google images again) perception here. I guess someone else doesn't like Monsanto.



How does this one make you feel? From kimchibokkeumbap.blogspot.com
via Google images.

Last one on Monsanto:



hmmmm:



Feel free to give your opinion and perception of these photos.