While scrolling down one of my favorite social media apps, Tumblr, I began to realize the new teenaged girl fad, "thigh gaps".  A thigh gap is the space between a girl's inner thighs when she stands with her feet together. The problem with this becoming the goal of so many young girls, is that this gap is a result of genetics rather than exercise. It is largely based on body type, pelvic shape, and tendon length, all things that cannot be controlled.

To research this topic more, I simply googled "thigh gaps", along with many articles about how these are ruining many girls self esteem and body image, there were also "how-to" articles. These instructions included very basic diet advice, and also warned that this was not a realistic goal for many women. As a result, extreme measures are often taken to achieve the gap. However, if this is an unrealistic goal, why are so many girls unhealthily attempting to reach this unreachable goal?

Body insecurities are very common in young girls. Many feel that having a body that resembles that of a Victoria's Secret Angel is not important, but crucial. Statistics from the South Carolina Department of Health support that teenaged girls are the most effected by eating disorders in America. The website states that about 8 million Americans suffer from an eating disorder, 7 million of them being women. 95% of those who have eating disorders are between the ages of 12 and 25. 50% of girls between the ages of 11 and 13 consider themselves fat. Clearly, many adolescent girls are not comfortable with themselves, and are willing to take drastic measures for results.

More effort should be put into helping young people to be educated about what a healthy body entails, and realistic goals for their bodies. Less teenaged girls should be taking extreme measures to obtain a thigh gap. Unfortunately, I do not think the youth is given enough tools to becoming comfortable and understanding of their own body. As a result, illnesses like anorexia and obsessions like the thigh gap run ramped in society.





http://www.state.sc.us/dmh/anorexia/statistics.htm

Scrolling through the journals already posted on here in search of ideas, I came across Julia's commenting about the "romanticizing of mental disorders", which I found very intriguing. I agree with a lot of what she was saying, in fact I have also noticed a huge increase in the attention that mental disorders have been given lately in the media. However the other side of this issue Julia focused less on was the positive benefits of mental disorders becoming less and less taboo in today's society. 

There is no doubt a side to mental disorders that is given a type of recognition that almost seems to "encourage" mental disorders, but what is also being encouraged, because of their publicity lately, is seeking help and resolving these issues. For years and years teenage girls, boys and even adults have felt the need to keep their issues inside, in fear of being criticized, judged and seen as, what for a long time has been a derogatory term, “emo”. In fact many, many years ago, those with mental disorders were actually locked away, imprisoned and even accused of witchcraft, being punished for their uncontrollable mental illnesses. For the first time, teens are being told that these issues they are dealing with happen to others and that they are not alone. What these books, movies, and celebrities are doing is they letting these teens know that these issues are serious, and by letting someone know, especially parents and those they can trust, they can actually resolve these problems and no longer have to live with them by themselves. For the first time, these teens can speak up and say, “hey, you know what, I don’t want to live like this anymore”. For the teen who taught himself to suppress his feelings, potentially increasing the severity of his issues, he can now feel less pressure to bring these issues up in conversation.

I strongly believe that the messages in books and movies like The Perks of Being a Wallflower for example are not at all to encourage these disorders, as they should not be wished on anyone, but to simply bring attention to them. However, whenever anything, whether it be a new book or movie, gets a good review and a lot of positive feedback, it is common for many people to feel the need to “relate” themselves to the main characters, which is the part of Julia’s journal I agree with. This is obviously a controversial issue that many even feel uncomfortable bringing up, simply because of the fact that it is just now becoming less taboo. I respect and agree with many of Julia’s points but I do find that publicizing these issues has given positive attention that has and will continue to help many teens and adults of either gender. 

            Students are not allowed to wear hats in school. Mr. Mackinaw is quick to remind many of our peers of this rule every morning. Yet, after consulting the Milton High School Student Handbook, the internet, and finally two experts at the enforcing of rules (my parents), I am no closer to understanding why students are not allowed to wear hats in school than before. The general consensus had been “Because wearing hats indoors is disrespectful” or “that’s just what you do.” My response to this is “Yes, but that doesn’t explain why.”

            To clear things up right away, I honestly don’t care whether I am allowed to wear hats indoors or not. I hardly ever wear hats outside. What concerns me is the lack of a proper explanation for such a commonly enforced rule. In general, I am very fond of rules. They help keep society organized and help to make the world as safe as it can be. Rules, however, must have a certain degree of logic backing them up, or else they are merely a way for people to assert their authority over others. Practically every day I see a classmate’s hat snatched away by a triumphant teacher, but no satisfactory reasoning seems to follow this action. Other school rules that annoy students make perfect sense, as little as we may like to admit it. Cell phones can be distracting, and I find it pretty obvious why sleeping in class could result in less efficient learning. Wearing a hat, however, doesn’t appear to cause either of these.

            Moreover, this rule has actually gone beyond being a mere annoyance due to religious head coverings. Suddenly the Constitution’s freedom of religion is brought up, and United States citizens are fighting for their rights. One example of this occurred in February of 2012, where Northwood High School in Maryland was heavily criticized for demanding a student prove he wore a head covering for religious reasons. The situation escalated when the principal of the school began to receive hate mail and anonymous phone calls. Because of this and similar situations, organizations like the Anti-Defamation League have had to make detailed packets describing all kinds of circumstances head coverings are to be allowed. Overall, this one unexplained rule has managed to make our society less safe and organized, and therefore is working against the very purpose of rules.

            Again, I do not care one way or another if people are allowed to wear hats inside. What I do care about though, is that we are all given an explanation as to why we should not.

Sources:

Maryland High School Changes Policy in Head Coverings: http://www.jta.org/2012/02/12/news-opinion/united-states/maryland-high-school-changes-policy-on-head-coverings

ADL Religion in Public Schools: http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/civil-rights/religiousfreedom/rips/RIPS-Ch13DressCodes.pdf

(If anyone can provide an explanation in the comments, it would be greatly appreciated)

I usually watch The Walking Dead on Sunday nights, one episode at a time, eagerly following the lives and deaths of it's many characters.  Watching it episode after episode ,like I am today, has drawn my attention to just how consistently gory the show is. The level of action varies widely, with some shows focusing more on character development than others, but there is not one that doesn't have at least two very graphic scenes of zombies being killed, usually by hand, with lots of squirting blood.  I find myself wondering, is the blood and gore really necessary to the success of The Walking Dead?

What I love most about the show is watching the main characters learn, adapt, and survive in a post-apocalyptic scenario that is inconceivable to me as I sit in my warm house eating take-out pizza.  The shortage of food, lack of electricity, the constant need to be on the move, and distrust of fellow human beings is compelling enough to keep me watching.  The writers and actors realistically portray the variety of ways that the human mind can be tested, destroyed and strengthened under constant and extreme stress.  Just watching each individual struggle to overcome - or not- is completely engrossing.

I realize that without the zombies and constant threat they create, the story would not hold together. But is all of the gore necessary?  There have been episodes so graphic, with close up shots of internal organs being laid for bait, limbs being cut off, characters being decapitated, that I have been tempted to change the channel.  My mom stopped watching the show for a while after watcing a scene that nearly made her vomit.  A show should entertain, provoke emotions, and make you think, but I really don't think it should make you sick.

I get it, the show relies on violence between people who may remind us of ourselves and an enemy who could easily have been anyone we know, semi-dead people still wearing street clothes who thirst for living flesh.  That is the core of the story.  Some bloodshed is necessary to drive home that the zombies are a true threat and the basis for the survival stress is real.  I think going to the disgusting extremes mentioned actually can be counter-productive either causing people not to watch or desensitizing the viewership to the bloodshed entirely.

     At first glance, school dress codes may not seem very sexist. But when you look closer at many dress codes you start to realize that they are not just there to promote a "positive learning experience for kids" like many schools say. Many dress codes, including Milton High's state that they are there to "prevent distractions to the educational process and establish a positive and respectful learning environment" (Milton High Handbook) This statement troubles me because it leaves me thinking, who exactly is being distracted by other people's clothing? As Soraya Chemaly says in her article "Dress Codes or How Schools Skirt Around Sexism and Homophobia", "while everyone is in theory affected by dress codes, girls and LGTBQ youth are disproportionately affected by them."
     Many times girls are the targets of school dress codes and are the ones most affected by them. Schools indirectly tell girl students that they need to pick clothing not for themselves, but for the boys in school. In her article Chemaly discusses this in detail. Chemaly says, "Who gets to be distracted? And, whose distraction is central? What is a girl supposed to think in the morning when she wakes up and tries to decide what to wear to school? They aren't idiots. The logical conclusion of the "distracting" issue is, 'Will I turn someone on if I wear this?'" School dress codes are unfair because they tell girls that they need to dress a certain way for someone else. When a school tells girls to wear and not wear certain things to not "distract" boys they are indirectly saying that if they wear short shorts or show a little midriff then boys will get turned on and not be able to control themselves. Why are we not teaching our boys how to not be distracted and be civil human beings around girl's bodies? Instead schools teach girls that they are responsible for the actions of boys and that it is their responsibility to dress so that the boys do not get distracted. Instead of schools making dress codes that punish girls for wearing what they think are "too short shorts", schools should be teaching boys to stop overly sexualizing female body parts.
     When girls are constantly bombarded with the message from school officials that they must dress a certain way so they do not distract boys it sticks with them. In her article Chemaly found that "28% of girls in college are sexually assaulted (and 3% of boys), only 5% report these crimes". Because girls are told by dress codes that their clothes distract boys and make them do irrational things they think that sexual assault is their fault. This is clearly seen by the number of girls sexually assaulted in college and how many of those girls actually reported the incident. School dress codes need to change. We need to stop telling girls that they need to dress for boys and start teaching boys how to behave properly around girls so that girls can learn that sexual harassment is never ok and most certainly is not justifiable by the clothes that you are wearing.


Sources :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/school-dress-code_b_2711533.html

On January 1, 2014, citizens of Colorado waited in large lines for hours in the snow and freezing cold. And for what? Well, they bought Girl Scout Cookies, truffles, and brownies. Why do this? They stood in those lines not just for any old baked goods, but for baked goods laced with marijuana. The support for the legalization of recreational and medical marijuana has risen in recent years, and it’s only a matter of time before the remaining 30 states and the federal government legalizes it. New polls show that over half the country is in favor of taxing and regulating marijuana, according to drugpolicy.org, and with good reason.

First off, the legalization of marijuana would be very practical for the sake of the U.S. economy.  The legal sale of marijuana would bring in much needed tax dollars for the country, as well as create jobs and promote business. Since the legalization of marijuana in Colorado at the beginning of the year, licensed retailers have brought in enough tax dollars to be on track to hit 100 million dollars of revenue by the end of the year. This statistic is very comparable to the 35 million dollars that country-wide alcohol has brought in in Colorado. With people needed to grow the drug and produce it as well the legalization has created jobs for the state of Colorado as well. The sale of marijuana has produced a high demand which helps circulate money through the economy. Overall the legalization of marijuana has been positive economically for Colorado, and this trend could continue for the rest of the country if marijuana is legalized.

Marijuana, compared to legal alcohol, is by far a safer substitute health-wise. According to saferchoice.org, alcohol is causes more violence, more deaths, and more cases of cancer than marijuana does. Alcohol in the U.S. has reportedly causes 75,000 deaths a year, and the number of deaths due to marijuana is so small that the CDC doesn’t keep track of them (saferchoice.org). Why then is it that alcohol can be legal in the U.S. and not marijuana? What kind of country do we live in if we can advertise products that kill on the most viewed sporting event in the world, but be arrested if we carry a product that kills so little the CDC doesn’t keep track of how many it kills? Marijuana also helps null the pain in cancer and injured patients. Marijuana is already the third most used drug in the country behind alcohol and tobacco, and with the growing support it is about time marijuana be legalized in the U.S. So, with a less harmful substitute out there, it’s time to legalize marijuana.

Sources:

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana-legalization-and-regulation

http://archive.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/

          Money is a controversial issue among kids and their parents. Parents don't want their kids spending money on materialistic things such as electronics and clothes. Kids often disagree about saving money because they want items that make them happy. Once kids reach a certain age, they can obtain a job to receive a weekly paycheck. At this age, kids are often told by their parents to manage their money efficiently by depositing that money into a savings account or storing it in a safe place. Some kids don't have this mentality of saving and all they want to do is spend all of their money at once. The problem with spending all of their money at one time is on what they spend it on. How often will these new items be used and are these items really necessary? Kids need to learn how to manage their money and why their management will pay off in the long run.

           Money management is about the decision between spending and saving. Each time money is earned, a different decision can be made. Should I put my money in my piggy bank or should I go to the mall and buy some new shoes? Kids who do not think and rely on impulse would choose the latter option ten times out of ten. The balance between the two decisions is the key to good money management. If the balance is kept, kids will be able to withdraw an amount to do something necessary such as paying for a book for a class and not worry over asking their parents for a few bucks to spare. A plan created between a child and their parents is a great way in managing money. This plan lets more people think about the money and how it should be spent. With this also comes more things to look forward to as parents could pitch an idea of a new toy or a special event once the sufficient amount of money is saved up. Parents should not only suggest good results, they should hint at and follow through with certain consequences if a kid does not adhere to the formed plan. An example of a consequence is the taking away of privileges. If a kid lies or steals for money, actions such as grounding and no electronics are consequences that could prevent bad habits in the future.

          Money is not infinite and must be earned. Yes, saving money might not produce any results immediately. However, kids have to realize that saving money will help their future. Their future should be ensured before living in the present.

                                                 

            Just last month I went to the doctor’s office for my annual physical. Included in a series of questions that my doctor asked me was, “On average, how many hours of sleep do you get every night?” I answered the question honestly and said, “About six hours.” My doctor looked at me in shock and disbelief. She said, “Caitlin, this is a serious problem. You need to try and get more sleep.” I agree, I believe adolescents today face a widespread chronic health problem: sleep deprivation.

            I routinely go to bed around midnight and wake up at six. Often times my parents yell at me for getting so little sleep, however my response is consistent, “Would you like me to get good grades or go to bed earlier?” I recognize that my response could be controversial seeing that more sleep could very well improve my grades. I have experienced and observed this issue fall to a standstill between a student’s need for more sleep and a student’s need to get good grades. I propose a solution to this problem: pushing high school start times back, allowing the day to start later. I believe this change would result in numerous beneficial outcomes.

            Milton High School begins at 7:50 in the morning and ends at 2:19 in the afternoon. The entire school day is six hours and twenty-nine minutes long. I would suggest that we move the school’s start time to 9:00 am and it’s end time to 3:29 pm. This adjustment would support the administration’s never-ending effort to get kids to school on time, as the percentage of oversleeping cases would most likely decrease. In addition, a later start time would allow kids more time to eat a hearty, complete breakfast. A better breakfast would not only improve students’ concentration and performance in the classroom, but also allow them to be more energetic. Pushing the start time back would also reduce the overall tiredness among students at the beginning of the day. Kids would be more efficient right away rather than after a couple of periods. The final and most powerful argument I would make in favor of a later start to school would be that students would have the opportunity to get more sleep. If adolescents were able to get eight hours of sleep instead of six, so many aspects of their life would be improved. They would be happier, healthier, stronger, more alert, more efficient, and more productive. I believe the benefits of starting the school day later truly shine brighter than any and all of the issues that could be uncovered while making this adjustment.

     School is overwhelming. It is very rare to hear a person say, “I’m not tired.” The moment we rise from our sleep, many thoughts begin to race through our minds.The thoughts aren’t happy thoughts, they’re worried thoughts about the upcoming essays and tests. 

     The words test, quiz, midyear, final, essay, research paper, homework, AP, etc. lingers in the mind of a high schooler. There is no end to these clingy words. The constant battle between stress and school is interminable. The life of a high schooler is like a cycle; wake up, eat breakfast, spend six hours in school, two hours in sports/activities, half an hour/an hour to shower,  an hour to eat dinner, and the rest of the time to do homework/study. Before you know it, the day is gone and it is time to sleep. In just six hours, the alarm goes off and the cycle repeats. As the amount of work increases and the amount of sleep decreases, future health problems will come meet you halfway. We all know about the cliche statement, “Hard work pays off.” But, what if it doesn’t?

     According to a 2007 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), ‘“Colleges are seeing a generation of students who appear to be manifesting increased signs of depression, anxiety, perfectionism and stress.”’ Many desire to achieve the 4.0 GPA by losing multiple nights of sleep studying and doing homework. Little do you know, sleep deprivation can increase stroke risk, lead to obesity, up diabetes risk, fuel memory loss, damage bones, increase cancer risk, and kill you. People who lack sleep seem to die earlier and younger according to TIME. Men who sleep for less than six hours of sleep are four times more likely to die over a 14-year period. The workload can also cause stress. In the long run, stress can cause memory problems, poor judgement, constant worrying, anxious thoughts, moodiness, short temper, sense of loneliness, depression, negative thoughts, and the list goes on. Stress 

     College and high school students are spending a quarter to a third of their life constantly worrying about their future and their career. Many are prone to look far beyond their limits. We need to live in the present. We should all learn to take a deep breath and give a little more love to our body. 

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/scary-sleep-deprivation-effects_n_2807026.html

http://www.helpguide.org/mental/stress_signs.htm

Should the state government or the federal government have the power to end the life of an individual?  Should anyone have the power to decide who dies and who lives?  The moral question surrounding capital punishment is not whether those who are convicted of heinous crimes deserve to die, but should the government have the power to kill that individual.  The death penalty should be unconstitutional because it violates the Eighth Amendment.  How is the death penalty not “a cruel and unusual punishment?”  The death penalty takes the most precious thing a person has: their right to live.   

                                                              

            The death penalty is another form of revenge.  Retribution is just another form of revenge.  Killing the individual that has committed unspeakable crimes is only continuing the cycle of violence.  The death of this individual does not give the victims closure.  This is a myth.  There is no justification of taking the life of another individual even if he/she is a menace to society.  The death penalty ends the life of another person not an animal.  Taking the life of another person goes against the teachings of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism.  Under no circumstances should an individual or the government take the life of another person yet thirty two states have the death penalty.

            In an economic point of view, the death penalty costs a lot more than life without parole.  According to the California Commission of Fair Administration of Justice, the average cost of the death penalty system is 137 million dollars a year.  The death penalty costs 90,000 dollars more per inmate than a sentence of life without parole in a maximum security prison.  Also according to the death penalty information center, pre trial and trial costs since 1978 in California add up to 1.94 billion dollars.  Also automatic appeals and state habeas corpus petitions cost 925 million dollars, incarceration costs about 1 billion dollars and federal habeas corpus appeals cost around 775 million dollars.  Judge Arthur Alcarcon and Professor Paula Mitchell calculated that if the governor commuted the sentences of those remaining on death row to life without parole, it would save around 170 million dollars per year.  Why do we have the death penalty?  Life without parole would cost less and that individual would be locked up in a maximum security prison.  These individuals will no longer be a menace to society.  The only reason for the death penalty is revenge.    

Sources

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

            

           In the last few years, mental disorders have been given much more attention. While it is certainly an improvement that people dealing with issues like depression, eating disorders, self-harm, or anxiety are getting much better treatment, there have been some negative side effects. Books and films such as It’s Kind of a Funny Story or The Perks of Being a Wallflower, as well as actors and actresses like Demi Lovato, have given so much attention to these problems, that somewhere along the way, they’ve become romanticized.  Mental disorders have actually become a new “hipster” trend which is not only frustrating for those who actually have to deal with these disorders, but also incredibly harmful to society, and teenage girls in particular.

            There is evidence of this all over social networking sites like Tumblr or Twitter. Thousands of people reblog black and white pictures of woman with marks of self-harm all over their bodies, quotes from books and movies about having a little self-esteem, or dark poems about suicide and depression. Comments like, “tragically beautiful” can be found underneath all these posts. People are trying to make these issues seem hipster and artistic and beautiful. This glamorization is actually encouraging harmful behavior and ways of thinking.

            What’s worse is that now teenage girls have grown completely used to the idea of self-harm. Last year Justin Bieber was caught smoking marijuana and millions of his fans, “ the Beliebers,” responded to the scandal by tweeting “#cutforbieber” with pictures of slashed wrists. His fans, mostly ten to sixteen year-old girls, were actually cutting themselves to show their disappointment in their favorite celebrity.

            This is not right. These are serious disorders that are unhealthy and harmful. Glorifying them and making them so commonplace in society that they’re trending on Twitter is dangerous. It encourages this behavior among young impressionable girls that now think cutting will make them seem cooler or sophisticated or worldlier. It encourages it among people that are already in the midst of dealing with these problems when they have to be constantly reminded of them everyday. Drawing attention to mental disorders so more people can get the help they need is a good thing, but people need to start seeing them for what they truly are: dangerous and unhealthy behavior. There is nothing glamorous about that.

The system of public schooling in the United States began its slide down the slippery slope to conformity on January 8^th, 2002. By signing off on the No Child Left Behind Act, George W. Bush changed the method by which students’ intelligence is gauged, and consequently the American ideal of intellectual success. The act called for improvement, uniformity, and standardization in American public schools. Children as young as nine-years-old would be subject to some form of standardized testing to ensure that their teachers were properly instructing them. Whether the student is a well-to-do inhabitant of suburbia or poverty-stricken pupil from the inner-city, she is expected to pass the test with flying colors. This oversimplified method of better educating American youth has led teachers to conform to the government’s expectations.

“Teaching to the test” sounds like a good idea. It’s not. When a teacher teaches to a standardized test––that is, he teaches students how to answer questions extremely similar to what the test will ask––his goal is not to enhance a student’s understanding of a concept, but to guarantee him a good score on the MCAS or the SAT or the FCAT or any other high-stakes test. He doesn’t want to teach this way, but if his students fail the exam, the state government will take away the school’s funding. The stakes are high, indeed. Yet, the purpose of these tests is to measure a student’s ability to do related tasks. For example, if a student correctly answers a multiplication problem, it is assumed that he has the ability to do any multiplication problem of a similar difficulty. But if the teacher has been drilling into his students that “three times two equals six” (because he knows that the test asks that exact question every year), the inference that the same students know the entire multiplication table is inaccurate.

High-stakes tests were created to standardize teaching practices. So that “no child would be left behind,” the exams test students on information that government officials believe should be universally understood. The problem is that the “high-stakes” aspect of the exams encourages teachers to change their individual methods of teaching and conform to the government’s standards. Some will do whatever they can to boost scores, including repeatedly drilling items that regularly pop up on the test.  The surplus of standardized tests has not improved the education of students, but the inculcation of them.

Sources

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/nochild/nclb.html

Was Walt Disney justified in changing original European tales in his animated interpretations? There are many factors to answering this question, but for now, we will focus on one argument of the “pro-Disney” side: Grimm fairy tales have adult themes that could be harmful to children.

For those who know the name “Grimm” only through the opening credits of a Disney cartoon, it may come as a surprise to learn that Grimm fairy tales are not all filled with pink dresses and cute talking animals. In reality, the tales are surprisingly dark, sexual, violent, and, as many argue, not good for children at all. Many of the original stories are tales of “murder, mutilation, cannibalism, infanticide, and incest” (Tatar). One Grimm fantasy tells the tale of a girl whose hands get cut off, another recounts the story a boy decapitated by his step-mother. Even the well-known Cinderalla gets gory when the wicked step-sisters cut off their toes to fit into the glass slipper. This graphic violence is often accompanied by sexual connotations and innuendos. In the first version of Sleeping Beauty, the princess is raped by her “prince charming” while she is still asleep. Maria Tatar, professor of German literature at Harvard University, identifies sex and violence as the “major thematic concerns” of Grimm tales, especially in the “perverse form of incest and child abuse” (Tatar).

Now versed with some of the darker elements of a Grimm fairy tale, the question we must ask ourselves is: what effects would such violent and sexual elements in an animated movie have on children? In other words, was Disney right in cutting certain graphic parts from original fairy tales? In an article discussing the impact of graphic images on children, Ketty Sarouphim, a professor of psychology, stated that children who watched violence in the media were “more prone to becoming aggressive themselves” (Alabaster). Sarouphim went on to say that exposure to graphic images resulted in many children having nightmares and becoming desensitized to graphic content. As for the sexual imagery, it is easy to see why Disney would have deleted those parts in his animated interpretations. In his article on the overexposure of sexual imagery to children, Dominic Casciani wrote that exposure to sexual imagery was completely harmful and that it “distort[ed] young people’s perceptions of themselves” (Casciani).  

So, despite heavy criticisms attributed to Disney’s interpretation of Grimm fairy tales, it is hard to claim that all of Disney’s impacts on folk tales were completely negative.  Whether Disney cut out the violence from fairy tales for the sake of the children, or whether it was for his own profit (happy parents=more money), the absence of adult themes in Disney’s cartoons is an overall benefit to the millions of children watching them.

Alabaster, Olivia. “Graphic Images Negatively Affect Children.” The Daily Star (20 Mar. 2012): n. pag. Web.8 Feb. 2014.

Casciani, Dominic. “Children ‘Overexposed to Sexual Imagery.’” BBC.com (26 Feb. 2010): n.     pag. Web. 8 Feb. 2014.

Tatar, Maria. The Hard Facts of the Grimms' Fairy Tales. Princeton: Princeton University Press,   1987. Print. 

  

State your case.

Pick a topic.  Any topic.  State your case.  Be logical, and be convincing.  350-450 words.