We've all heard about the scandal surrounding athletes like Tiger Woods and Ben Roethlisberger. We've also heard that despite their more than questionable behavior and apparent disregard for women, Nike has not dropped their endorsement deals with these two.

In an article from the New York Times, Timothy Egan brings to light that Nike is sending the wrong message by continuing to sponsor two men even after their string of infidelities, sexual assault cases and general indiscretion have long since overshadowed their successful athletic careers.

Why is Nike glorifying two men that obviously have no idea how to treat women? There is no arguing that these two are excellent athletes, but should that take precedence over their character?

Why doesn't Nike strike a deal with one of the hundreds of amazing female athletes instead of merely supporting those that degrade women? What kind of message is Nike sending by continuing to work with those like Woods and Roethlisberger while cavalierly disregarding many world-class athletes that are women? Egan believes that Nike is saying, "It’s O.K. for a buffoon of a man to disrespect women, so long as he continues to throw a football well."

So do we really want one of American's most popular brand names saying that it is not only okay to disrespect women but also to ignore them? Our country has come so far regarding the issues of equality and sexism but, sometimes, it does not appear to have come far enough.

"Ms. Moore’s situation is both odd and typical, Mr. Schumacher said. 'Middle-aged women can have huge careers on television but not as much in movies. It’s like they celebrate you when you’re the pretty young thing, then there is a dead zone until menopause, when they rediscover you and give you an Academy Award.'"

Demi Moore, now a wife to Ashton Kutcher, has returned to the big screen after a time of rest for the sake of her children. Because Moore was once portrayed on screen as G.I. Jane, Jennifer Steinhauer wrote an article for the NYTimes about how this mother put her children first.

The fact of the matter is that our culture is not career-woman friendly-- not nearly as much as it claims to be. But because of the large push against this attitude, it is not very domesticated-woman friendly either. Women are often caught in the middle of trying to gain recognition for the work they do during their middle age, but also trying to raise a respectable family out of motherly love.

The article works at making Moore sound approachable but also very wise. She believes that she made the right choice in taking time off for her kids-- and apparently everyone else also approves.

"'She’s happily married, her kids are grown and seem fabulous, and she’s very active in politics,' Mr. Schumacher said. 'So let her be Demi Moore.'"

Click here to view article

Gina

In the article “The Mean World Syndrome”, the author talks about the multiple adolescent shootings that have occurred throughout the years such as the Columbine High School shooting, Virginia Tech and other killings in Arkansas, Kentucky and Illinois. What could have affected these people, these adolescents, to do such horrific acts?

A possible answer came in the form of the ‘mean world syndrome’, as offered by Sprague. Sprague is a co-director of the Institute on Violence and Destructive Behaviour. He says that by viewing heavy amounts of violence and cruelty through the media such as movies and video games it can “become their reality”. There is too much violence in the media, it enforces an unbalanced view of what is really going on.

To support this, Gerbner and his Cultivation theory state that heavy media use can cultivate attitudes that are more consistent with the TV world than the real world. Heavy violence watching can homogenize or level a person’s perception of actual violence that goes on in the world. It is as though the perception is blended with the raised level of violence shown on TV and the actual lower level that exists in the world. This is the basis of the mean world syndrome.

Resonance can also help influence an individual’s susceptibility to violence. That is, if a person’s environment is similar to the TV’s representation of the world, then they will have stronger feelings towards it. It will become more realistic for them because it is similar to what they live through every day. This can lead to first and second order effects. First order effects are those that are generalized views of the world. These are basically emotions that come from watching violence or crime-filled TV such as fear, anxiety or paranoia. These first order effects can lead into the second order effects, or the attitudes held about violence or crime. Such attitudes can show themselves through thoughts on crime punishment or acceptance of law enforcement brutality. These in turn can be the foundation to an individual’s actions.

It is important to remember that the mean world syndrome did not cause these adolescents to commit these horrific acts. There can be multiple factors that could contribute to influence these people to act in a certain manner. Correlation does not prove causation. But the mean world syndrome provides a plausible factor in negatively influencing our youth.

~Kimberly

Nike came out with a new 30-second Tiger Woods ad recently. In it, a mute Woods stares blankly at the camera. Speaking from the hereafter, his father, Earl, says: “I want to find out what your feelings are. And did you learn anything?” Nike refused to offer context for Earl Woods’s words. When did he say it? What were the circumstances? He sounds disappointed in his son when he made these comments, but what had Tiger done? Earl, who died in 2006, couldn’t be addressing his son’s scandal. How deep did Nike dig to find these paternal nuggets to justify their use in an ad that debuted less than 24 hours before Tiger teed off Thursday at the Masters? And why did the son consent to having his father’s words repurposed to push no just a personal message, but also Nike Golf? The last image of the ad is the swoosh. Natch.

“Did you learn anything?” Earl Woods asks. A valuable question, and one that his son has attempted to answer in his no-questions news conference in February; his brief interviews with ESPN and the Golf Channel last month; and his pre-Masters news conference on Monday. But the answer to the father’s question appears to be that serial philandering and addiction rehab can be positioned as a commodity – and that you can roll it out in phases leading to the Nike amendment to the 12 steps: a TV commercial. Nike wants Woods to reclaim some sort of moral high ground so that he can return to regularly representing the company and the golf division that he is crucial to. But an ethical authority Woods owned – undeserved as it turns out to have been – was lost amid the revelations of his many affairs all the tawdry text messages and the Vanity Fair takedown that starred four mistresses in various provocative poses. If Nike felt it had to interrupt the conversation before Wood’s return to play, it should have given him his pal Charles Barkley’s old slogan: “I am not a role model.” Modeling occurs simply by watching others, without any direct reinforcement for learning, and without an overt practice. So with his championships, his scandals/mistresses, as he apologized, this recent ad from Nike – what should be America’s view on Tiger? Dominant American ideas and ideals serve as resources for program development, even when the planners are unaware of them, much as we all take for granted the air we breathe is incorporated as symbolic representation of America society, not as liberal portrayals.

Nike may have thought it was barging into the Masters at an appropriate time, on the eve of Wood’s return to competitive golf. But on Wednesday, as ESPN carried the par-3 contest from the Augusta National Golf Club, Woods was nowhere to be seen, among family-oriented elders like Jack Nicklaus or contemporaries like Phil Mickelson. Having betrayed his wife, Woods may have wanted to stay away from the course, where golfers and their kids had great fun. But showing up at a friendly get-together would have given him far more good will than using his father his return from ignominy. Maybe his fans would have seen a big smile Wednesday – not a Nike-made expressionless face – when Arnold Palmer sank a long birdie putt on the ninth hole.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/sports/golf/08tv.html?ref=media

__Andrew____