Why Fun. uses explicit lyrics

One of my favorite bands is Fun.  It is comprised of three young men, and they sing about things in the everyday lives of young people.

Here's an excerpt from the lyrics of "We are Young:"
"Give me a second I,
I need to get my story straight
My friends are in the bathroom getting higher than the Empire State
My lover she's waiting for me just across the bar
My seat's been taken by some sunglasses asking 'bout a scar..."

The first time I listened to the song and paid attention to the lyrics, I was slightly appalled.  This guy just said that his friends are doing drugs.  In my opinion, that automatically makes the song family inappropriate and therefore not quite radio appropriate.  I thought that maybe I shouldn't be listening to the song.  Or the group.  Then I remembered that I am over 18 and as a legal adult, I can self censor and make good choices.

Then I really thought about that lyric.  "My friends are in the bathroom getting higher than the Empire State."  The singer says "my friends," not "I" or "we."  So I can infer that he is not doing drugs.  Good choice.

Later in the song, the lyrics "So if by the time the bar closes/ and you feel like falling down/ I'll carry you home/ Tonight" show up.  I may be stretching things, but if you squint, that sounds an awful lot like a message discouraging drinking and driving and encouraging the buddy system when leaving bars late at night.  Another good choice!

I do think that the content of the song makes it inappropriate for anyone younger than about 14.  However, I think that it approaches issues in a healthier way than for example Far East Movement's "Like a G6."  Now that I understand it, I really enjoy "We are Young."

My absolute favorite Fun. song is "Some Nights."  I love the lyrics that describe not quite understanding who you are.  I think it's an excellent depiction of the chaotic process of growing up.  Like "We are Young," there are a few semi-explicit lyrics that deal with the pressures of life.  "Some Nights" is different from "We are Young" because it has profanity in it.  Just one f-bomb.  Here's the video (watch it, it's good!):

Did you catch it?  "Who the f--- wants to die alone?/ All dried up in the desert sun."  That f-word was not totally necessary in that sentence.  Any other one syllable euphemistic word would have worked, like hell or heck.  So why go with the f-bomb that makes the song completely family and radio inappropriate?  A couple of reasons.  First, that is how young people (high school and college aged folks) these days seem to speak.  There are more adjectives in the English language than f-cking, but evidently teens don't know this.  Second, I think it may be a way to appeal to an older audience.  The musicians are all in their late 20's to early 30's.  Their songs are deep and thoughtful, but their pop rhythms make them almost too appealing.  I think the f-word was included as a "back off" to the middle school and younger folks who wanted to "fan" the band.  I think Fun. made a clever move to define their own fan base as the group of people who the songs are written about-- young adults.  

Fun. is also straddling a tough line with their image.  The genre they claim is "indie pop."  Like good hipsters, the musicians of Fun. are too cool to go mainstream pop.  But like all musicians, they want to make it big, be on the radio, and make money.  The same thing happened to Grizzly Bear when they were on the Twilight Saga: New Moon soundtrack.  Nice indie band accidentally goes mainstream in an attempt to get themselves known.  

So when pop hits radio stations censor the f-word in "Some Nights" and play it on the radio, are they doing the band a service?  Yes, because people hear the song on the radio then buy it on iTunes.  No, because they are removing a lyric that was placed for a reason, and that reason was to guard against exactly what pop hits radio stations do: make mainstream stars.

Art!

"Dancer"

"Olympic Rings"

I think Google is Corrupt

When I google the exact URL of this blog, I do not find this blog.  I find Pinterest.  I find my artwork that people have posted on Pinterest.  They have been kind enough to state that this blog is where they found the artwork in the text below the picture of the pin.  So when I google quoththeblackbirdbyjill.blogspot.com, I get results leading me to a website that is not the website I just looked up.

You know why this happens?  Because Pinterest is a big website and my blog is just a baby website.  Pinterest pays Google lots of money to put its results first, even though pinterest has very little to do with my blog.  And my blog does not pay any money to anyone, because I use the internet as an outlet for my free speech.  Literally.

I was browsing the internet (or "interwebs," as my friend calls it) for a newspaper article.  One of my classes requires each student to submit a newspaper article each week.  I wanted some kind of cynical pop culture article about media influence, so I googled "social control in the media."(I googled it without quotation marks). You know what the first result was?  Facebook.  The first result was Facebook.  Google had scrambled my words into "social media control," and it was trying to point me to the terms and conditions of being a member of Facebook.  Not what I was looking for.  Again, I got these results because Facebook pays Google to put their page first.  I had a really hard time finding an article that I liked.  I think it's because small newspapers that publish interesting articles don't have the throwaway funds to pay Google off.

When Bing became popular, I stood by Google because I had first learned to use the internet with Google.  Google was part of my life.  But now I feel duped and betrayed.  Google, you have lost my faith.  I may be shopping for a new search engine.  Shopping in a metaphorical sense, because my money will never be going to further my free speech.

Rethink your Children's Hospital Donations...

One of the radio stations I listen to is currently hosting "Radiothon," a fundraiser for UNM Children's hospital.  The webpage for this program states that most of the money raised goes to purchase medical equipment.  Nothing wrong with that.  That part is wonderful.

Radiothon and many other children's hospital charity PSAs annoy me because they encourage the public to donate "stuff" or money to buy "stuff" to give to children in hospital.  This "stuff" is almost always toys, specifically stuffed animals.  Kids in hospital do not need stuffed animals.  I was in hospital for a few weeks as a 13-year-old, and I think I received about 7 stuffed animals during that time frame.  That's approximately one animal every two or three days.  Way too many animals.

If you are considering donating to one of these "stuff" charities or starting one as a project for girl scouts, I urge you to reconsider.  Here's a list of things that children's hospitals (and children in hospital) need and do not need.

NEED:

1.  New clothing like pajamas, sweats, bathrobes, and socks.  Hospital gowns usually do not fit children well.  They are also uncomfortable and too light to wear alone.  Many people are admitted to hospital through emergency rooms, so they do not bring clothes with them.  Parents often wish to stay with their children while they are in hospital, so it is difficult for them to leave and get clothing.

2.  Bedclothes like blankets, pillowcases, and sleeping bags.  Most hospital blankets are rather unpleasant colors and textures.  Having higher quality and more fun bedclothes can comfort children who are on bedrest and cannot leave their rooms.

3.  Books, CDs, movies, magazines, and video games.  These items are easily shared between children without getting broken or losing pieces (one of the main hazards of toys in public spaces).  They are also calm (don't cause undue exertion) and don't carry too many germs as the covers can be easily sanitized.

4.  Boom boxes, stereos, computers, TVs, gaming systems, and DVD players.  Generally the same reasons as above.

5.  Batteries.  For portable stereos, etc.

6.  Snacks like fresh fruit, rice krispy treats, capri sun juice bags, and sugarless chewing gum.  Many children in hospital are on specialized diets, but these things are ok with most diets.  Kids like them too.  Hospital food is not that good.

7.  Toiletries like toothpaste and shampoo.  Nurses are the medication nazis, but they are not the personal hygiene nazis (they also don't really care if you stay up until 3 in the morning watching Spider-Man).  Having fun toiletries can help kids stay up to date with their hygiene routines even in unfamiliar places.  Scented hand sanitizer is great too; it encourages kids to kill germs.  Hospital hanitizer is basically pure rubbing alcohol that smells and stings.

8.  Craft supplies like paper, glue, tape, crayons, markers, stickers, beads, etc.  They are entertaining, encourage brainwork and creativity, and are disposable to reduce clutter and germ sharing.

9.  People to hang out with.  In particular, 8 to 14 year old girls like to hang out with other tween and teen girls.  It is great if these people have age appropriate conversation starters that do not have to do with why the child is in hospital.  "Nice hat," is not necessarily a great way to get on with a child with cancer.  "Have you seen the Michael Bolton/Jack Sparrow music video?" usually is a better bet for a young teen.  People who sing/play music or can provide other entertainment like craft tutorials are a bonus.


DO NOT NEED:

1.  Stuffed animals.  Kids already have stuffed animals.  They have favorites.  These favorites are usually already at the hospital with the kids.  They do not need more animals.  Soft toys carry germs and allergens that are difficult to get rid of.  Some children with breathing problems are not allowed to have stuffed animals because of this.  When someone comes to hospital passing out animals, these children are left out.

2.  Toys with multiple small parts like complex board games and jigsaw puzzles.  The children who are mature enough to play with these usually just end up disappointed that there are pieces missing.

3.  Things divided into gendered categories.  This one is a little harder to explain.  Sometimes people come to hospital with stuff to give out (for example, stuffed animals), and they have two bags: one for girls and one for boys.  The girls bag has pink stuff, and the boys bag has blue stuff.  Or someone will come by with Barbie paraphernalia and Hot Wheels.  Kids in hospital are already put down and categorized so much; they do not need to have gender stereotypes shoved at them too.  It's better to bring some feminine options, some masculine options, and some gender neutral options (or only gender neutral options) and let it be a free for all.

4.  Candy, homemade foods (especially baked goods), and things that need refrigeration.  These items usually do not comply with hospital diets, and their ingredients and freshness can be difficult to ascertain.  There are not usually refrigerators that patients can easily use.

5.  Sympathy.  There's a fine line between care and going too far.  Don't go too far.  It is not appreciated.  

Why the parody is much better than the original...

Behold, "Like a G6" by Far East Movement

And "Roll a D6" by Connor Anderson

Pop Quiz!

1.  Which is a Billboard top 100 pop song, and which is a parody made by a bunch of kids?

2.  Which references drug (and possibly driving under the influence) use in a manner that makes it seem fun and harmless?

3.  Which is more appropriate for public viewing?

Answer Key:

1.  "Like a G6"is a pop song by Far East Movement.  It reached number one on the Billboard top 100 in 2010.  Before the song became a sensation, written by someone who thought writing a song about using drugs and alcohol was a good idea.  Then a producer thought that releasing a song about using drugs and alcohol was a good idea.  Then millions of people enjoyed listening to a song about using drugs and alcohol.  

"Roll a D6" is a parody, which was made by Connor Anderson (fairly anonymous young male youtube user) and some friends.  They took the song "Like a G6" and changed the lyrics to reflect their pastime of playing Dungeons and Dragons.  

2.  "Like a G6" is absolutely full of references to drug and alcohol use.  Drinking alcohol (specifically champagne) to get drunk is the main message of the song.  The line "Sipping sizzurp in my ride" is repeated 4 times.  Sizzurp is a mixture of codine from cough syrup, soda, and candy that is imbibed to get high.  The song implies that this stuff is being drunk in a vehicle.  The syntax of the sentence leads me to believe that the driver of the vehicle is drinking sizzurp.  The context provided by the rest of the song leads me to believe that this individual has already had quite a lot of alcohol.  This looks like a horrendous traffic accident waiting to happen.  Not to mention the possibility of seizures, liver damage, poisoning, and death.

"Roll a D6" contains references to eating candy, drinking coke, playing an intellectually stimulating game, and maintaining friendships (as opposed to "Like a G6," where hanging around with random "drunk bitches" seems like a good idea).  The characters in this video get "wild" with a fun night in (safely in the basement).  They hype themselves up on sugar, caffeine, and excitement as they work together to create a story in their role playing game.  Their teeth may be bearing the brunt of a sugary night, but this who ordeal is certainly much safer and more sensible than going out to drink and drive.

3.  People, especially young people, are susceptible to copying things they see in media.  Would you rather have your child mixing up dangerous drugs, drinking alcohol, and driving, or would you rather have your child enjoying sweets and playing creative games with friends?  Really, isn't it obvious?

The Biggest Loser Finale Controversy--OMG!

Everyone's seen this story, I'm sure.  I'll rehash it briefly anyway.  The Biggest Loser is a reality TV show on NBC that follows obese people as they live at a secluded facility and lose weight through diet and exercise.  The contestants are eliminated or voted out of the competition until only three are left.  The final three then have a number of months to finish their weight loss at home before being weighed in at a live reveal.  The contestant with the largest percentage of weight loss is named the Biggest Loser and awarded $250,000.  This past season, the winning contestant lost 59.62% (NOT "over 60%" as some people are exaggerating) of her original body weight and weighed in at only 105 pounds.  This lead  many people to believe that she is now too thin, unhealthy, encouraging people to take dangerous health risks, and that NBC is corrupt.

Let's begin with some facts.  Rachel Frederickson is 5'4" tall.  Her original starting weight was 260 lbs.  This gave her a starting BMI of 44.62402.  This BMI places her in the "Obese Class III" category.  In layman's terms, this basically means very-severely-obese or super-obese.  Rachel's finishing weight was 105 lbs.  This gives her a finishing BMI of 18.02124 (You ridiculous person on the radio who reported that her BMI was between 16 and 17, you are a total idiot who did no research). This BMI places her in the Underweight category. "Healthy" BMI is considered to be between 18.5 and 24.9.  This means that Rachel's BMI is less than 0.5 away from a "Healthy" BMI.  Rachel is the first person in Biggest Loser history to finish with a BMI that places her in the "Underweight" category.  

Here are some generalities that should also be considered.  BMI is a fairly arbitrary measure that does not consider bone density, general "build" (ectomorph, endomorph, mesomorph, etc.), hydration level, hormones/menstruation, etc.  BMI of 18.4 to 16.0 is considered "Underweight."  This term does not necessarily mean unhealthy.  The BMI table references BMIs lower than 16.0 and extends to two categories beyond "Underweight" to express increased health risk.  Many people (athletes) will purposefully dehydrate before a weigh in to seem to be a few pounds lighter.  If just a few pounds could make the difference between winning $250,000 and going home with nothing, wouldn't you do it?  Most people who compete on the Biggest Loser do not maintain their complete weight loss.  Many gain 10 to 20 pounds back fairly quickly after the finale.  Most manage to maintain this weight for years after the competition.  We do not know Rachel's natural "comfortable" weight.  She may very well have been quite thin before she began emotionally eating and got fat.  We do know that she was an athlete, so she was probably slim.

And here are some comparison statistics to think about.  

-The Biggest Loser contestant with the next-lowest finishing BMI was Helen Phillips, who is 5'6", and weighed in at 117 pounds, giving her a BMI of 18.9.  

-Biggest Loser trainer Jillian Michaels is 5'2.5" tall and weighs 115 pounds, giving her a BMI of 20.696. 

-While filming Black Swan, actress Natalie Portman (5'3") got down to 97 pounds, giving her a BMI of 17.181.  

-Kristen Chenoweth is 4'11" and weighs 88 pounds, giving her a BMI of 17.772.  

-Author Stephanie Meyer describes Bella Swan of the Twilight Saga as 5'4" and 110 pounds, giving her a BMI of 18.8794.  Kristen Stewart is 5'6" and 120 pounds, so her BMI is 19.3664.

-I (Jillian) am 5'3" and weigh 95 pounds, giving me a BMI of 16.83.  

-My good friend is 5'4" and weighs 107 pounds, so her BMI is 18.36.

-The average BMI for a woman in Vietnam is 18.73.

-The average BMI for a woman in the US is 27.00.  This falls in the "Overweight "category.

-Most contestants who appear on the Biggest Loser (and do not make the final 3) have a BMI in the mid-to-high 20's at the finale.  They have usually dropped from the "Obese Class III" category to the "Overweight" category.

-The categories I've been referencing are from the US version of the BMI chart.  While the calculation to find the numerical BMI is the same in every country, the categorical designations are different based on the health tendencies of the population.  In Japan, there is no "Underweight" category.  Anything under 18.5 is considered "Low."

If Rachel weighed 108 pounds (only three pounds more than her weight at the finale), she would have a BMI of just over 18.5, placing her in the "Healthy" category.  

Rachel and her trainer Dolvett recently did a magazine interview.  They both acknowledged that Rachel probably lost a little too much weight, and she will now be working on maintaining her fitness goals with a healthy BMI.  Rachel has stated that she has undergone medical testing to confirm that she is healthy.  She also denies having an eating disorder.  Rachel states her reason for losing so much weight for the finale was to shock and impress family and friends.

So I've got a beef with the world, the US in particular.  When other contestants step onto the stage for the Biggest Loser finale, they are often still overweight.  They look a good bit better than they did in the beginning, but they are still "fat" and their BMI's place them above the limit of the "Healthy" category.  It is considered to be in bad taste to say that one of these contestants is fat.  You're supposed to say, "Oh he/she looks so much better.  He/she has done so well on his/her weight loss journey.  I'm sure he/she will maintain and continue to lose in the quest to get healthy..."  

But when Rachel walked the stage looking pretty much proportional to a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model (and may I point out that no one seems to have a problem with them being slim and beautiful), nobody has a qualm about ripping the woman apart.  She is being called anorexic, ugly, a cheater, sick, deceptive, and a proponent of self harm.  And I think she is being called these things because of three pounds.  THREE bloody pounds.   If she had weighed in at 108 pounds and had a BMI of 18.5, I think the public would be lauding her and saying she looked fantastic and is a role model for all.  And you know what?  Rachel might actually weigh 108 pounds.  She may have dehydrated to lose a few pounds of water weight right before the big night.  

Or her natural comfortable weight may actually be around (not necessarily exactly) 105 pounds.  I have already shared my BMI, and I am well aware that it is considered "Underweight" (though I will point out that it is in the "Underweight" category, not in the two more severe categories below "Underweight").  I am a dancer, and I work out 10 to 12 hours per week.  I eat a healthy diet with lots of high energy foods like nuts and avocado.  I also like junk food, and I indulge every once in a while.  I am fairly severely hypoglycemic, so I tend to metabolize food very quickly.  My weight stays pretty stable between 95 and 98 pounds.  I briefly weighed in the 105-110 range during high school when I was not exercising.  Once I began exercising again, my weight dropped back to the 95-98 range.  This is my natural comfortable weight.  All of the females in my family are petite.  I have a pretty regular menstrual cycle.  My doctor has confirmed my general health. I enjoy being slim, and I think my figure makes me attractive.  I accept my weight for what it is.  

Some people have made it their duty to inform me of my implied non-health.  They come to this conclusion purely based on my weight and BMI.  I have observed that people who do this generally do not approach slightly overweight people and inform them of their implied non-health.  What has happened to social standards of equality?  It seems like respect for the naturally thin was shoved out when "fat acceptance" became a thing in the media.  "Fatness" seems to have become a physical trait equitable to a large nose:  you can change it to become mainstream and forgotten, or you can accept yourself the way you are and receive praise for doing so.  The only problem is that there is rarely a health risk associated with a large nose, and there is more often a health risk associated with being overweight, and especially obese.  If Rebel Wilson and Melissa McCarthy lost a lot of weight, they would probably be much healthier (lower blood pressure, lowered risk of heart disease, heart attack, and stroke, lower cholesterol, etc.).  However, I think both of these actresses would be criticized as "bending to Hollywood standards" or some other nonsense if they made the positive health change of losing weight.  

I don't mean to go all conspiracy theorist on you, but it seems to me like the social standards (and medical standards, to a lesser extent) are creeping up to accept a nation and world that is overweight.  I think we are preparing for the future we are warned about; one with 75+% of the population in the "Overweight" or "Obese" category.  When we laud Rebel Wilson and publicly embarrass Rachel Frederickson, we are enforcing the new and frankly scary standard that fat is ok, and that it is better than thin.  BMI standards have not been changed for many decades, but they are occasionally modified to reflect changes in data.  For example, Asian individuals are more likely to develop type 2 diabetes at a lower BMI than Caucasian individuals, so the BMI chart in some Asian countries have been changed to make the "Overweight" category start below 25.  What happens in the United States when so much of the population is overweight that the chart needs a little modification to reflect what's going on.  What if all of the sudden the "Underweight" category starts at 19.0 instead of 18.5?  What if "Overweight" started at 30.0 instead of 25.0?  Then how many more previously healthy people will be considered underweight and therefore unhealthy?  

To restate one of my original points, BMI is just a number.  It is a calculation that takes into account weight and height.  So many other factors go into making a person healthy or unhealthy.  I don't think it's a reliable measurement when it is considered alone.  

And finally, what I've been meaning to say all along: Leave poor Rachel alone.  She's fine.  If she is happy.  She is much healthier than she was at 260 pounds.  Trust me, I know all about this.  She's fine.  

Video Game Stereotypes and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a hilarious teen comedy film about a 22 year old young man's quest to date the girl of his dreams, Ramona Flowers.  In order to do so, he must defeat her "seven evil exes" in epic video game style battles.  The film is clearly meant to be something of a parody.  Text of internal dialogue and sound effects frequently appears on screen.  The universal studios intro music has been edited to sound like the beeping music of old nintendo games.  Scott (and the other characters) use ninja-like martial arts and weapons like flaming swords in the fight scenes.  When an enemy is defeated, Scott receives coins as a reward.  He also "levels up" and swaps between "single player" and "two player" modes.  These all sound ok, right?

Let's go on.  The female characters fight less than the male characters.  When the females fight, they are either defeated by or backing up the male characters.  The object of the "game" in the film is to win the privilege of dating a girl.  There are fewer female characters total than male characters.  Most of the characters are white.  All of the non-white characters have ethnic first or last names.  Matthew Patel, who is Indian, dances to an Indian pop song and has a harem of "demon hipster chicks" to back him up.  The Katanayagi twins are Japanese.  They are both robotics experts and can summon dragons.  Their first names are Ken and Kyle, but one of them is called Kevin in the "game."  There are a few gay characters.  They are frequently defined by their sexualities.  Disturbed yet?

Is the best way to make a farce of gaming culture to pick up all of the stereotypes and blow them up?  Yeah, lots of Asian guys are named Kevin.  But is it ok to purposefully mess up someone's name to make fun of a stereotype?  Why is Matthew Patel attributed with a harem, a personal nest of prostitutes from the wealthier sections of Indian antiquity?  Well, it's because he's Indian.  Scott Pilgrim makes fun of these stereotypes and we find it amusing.  The filmmakers can make fun of these things because they are in embedded in our gaming (and general media) culture.  The real question is why are they embedded in our culture?

Gaming culture seems to be one of the "final frontiers" where white male supremacy still reigns.  How does this happen?  Most game designers are heterosexual white or asian males who find the stereotypical white male look appealing as a "fantasy self" to use as a player-character.  Game industries want to make money from their mostly heterosexual white and asian male consumers, so they include these white male characters as the player-characters and add attractive females as supporting characters for a treat.  Lovely.  (NOTE: I am not saying all games are like this.  I am a big fan of Dragon Quest and LEGO Batman precisely because they do NOT use these stereotypes.)

How do we combat this?  Who knows.  More diverse game designers would help.  As would consumers who express a desire for more diverse games.  This conversation has a long way to go before it starts to make a difference.  But at least the conversation is started, thanks in part to Scott Pilgrim.

Did You Miss Me?

That line is from Sherlock, in case you didn't recognize it...

Super-lesbian nerd face

I'm back!  I haven't written for a long time; blame school, dance, depression, everything.  This semester, I am taking mostly upper level communications classes that require me to do a lot of opinion writing.  I am hoping to turn this blog into sort of a satirical exposition for my opinions (at least for now).  I am into pop culture criticism at the moment, so you'll be seeing a lot of that.  Fear not-- your favorite (well, my favorite) fiction works are still available in the archives.