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!!
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?
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.
I completely agree with your opinions on breastfeeding. It's so silly that women produce breast milk naturally (plus it's FREE), yet formula is still a thing. I think history is to blame.
ReplyDeleteWhen men were returning home to their wives after WWII ended, many couples felt the need to build large families as quickly as possible. They wanted kids and lots of them. Buying formula was a faster alternative to breastfeeding. Instead of spending time breastfeeding, moms could just pop in a bottle and still be able to watch the other kids. It also was an decade of extreme modesty in the U.S. so women saw breastfeeding as a sexual act as opposed to a bonding experience between a mother and child.
However, that time has now passed. Women don't need to resort to using formulas anymore. Yet that mentality of sexualizing breastfeeding has continued to carry over to present day, which is ridiculous. Plus, formula is extremely expensive!!!
I used to volunteer for Emergency Infant Services, a non-profit organization, and they would supply formula for free to lower-income families. But I thought... these women wouldn't have to worry about formula if they just breastfed.
America needs to change its way of thinking. Breastfeeding needs to be viewed as a beautiful, natural thing that connects a mother and child to one another. If there really is a God, He gave women the ability to produce breast milk to feed our children. Why not utilize what God naturally gave us?
The arguments between women and the topic of breastfeeding versus formula feeding has been compared to abortion. I have heard the argument a million times: "my body, my choice." Well, you're not exactly giving your infant a choice when you decide to fill their bodies with GMO's because it's more convenient or you. There are some rare instances in which a woman cannot breastfeed because she either has a serious illness such as HIV or AIDS, or is on chemotherapy for cancer. Also, some babies are allergic to foods their mothers consume and those nutrients are transferred through the mother's milk. A woman cannot help these circumstances, so if a milk-bank is not readily available to them I can understand if they need to resort to formula for their infant. I just don't understand how the FREE option, and the most beneficial to mom and baby's health, is constantly overlooked. All I hear when I hear excuses such as "my milk didn't come in for four days" or "my child lost a pound in the first week after he/she was born" is a lack of knowledge on the subject. Babies lose weight after they are born ... THAT'S COMPLETELY NORMAL. Your milk isn't supposed to come in until day three or four after the baby's birth. All a newborn needs is colostrum during those first few days of existence, nothing else. Plus, their stomach is the size of a cherry when they are born. People make newborns drink two ounces of formula at birth, and then they wonder why their infant is overweight. Also, the cost of formula is unfair. I feel it should not be given to mothers on government programs such as WIC for free. I'm all for giving them fresh fruits and vegetables, but when someone uses the reason "my body, my choice" then the public should have a "choice" if they want to pay for that "choice." Formula companies continue to raise the price of their products because they know they can get the government to pay for them through such programs. This makes it unfair for women who do have a real need for formula (like the groups I listed above) because many insurance companies won't cover the cost of formula (which should be a red flag for WIC!). If a woman wants to use formula then fine, but she should have to pay for it our of her own pocket, or have a prescription from a doctor. People want drug testing for foodstamps. I want prescriptions for formula for women on WIC.
ReplyDelete