dcgravesen.tumblr.com

Dana Gravesen is a Ph.D. candidate in communication studies and holds an M.A. in cinema studies from NYU. He has assisted in teaching persuasive speaking and writing, television criticism and history, and general media studies courses. His current research interests include nationalism and identity with regard to Dominican American media, US broadcast history, and critical cultural media theory. He has recently completed a chapter on Howard Stern's 9/11 broadcast co-authored with Joy E. Hayes (in press), and prior work has been featured in The Journal of Communication Inquiry and FlowTV. Recent conference presentations include NCA, CSCA, Film & History, and Iowa's Critical Whiteness Symposium. The working title of his dissertation is Turbulent Nationalism: Narratives of Dominican American Identity, Media, and the Crash of American Airlines Flight 587.
Feb 17 '13

The cruel optimism of becoming an academic

phdstress:

image

42 notes View comments (via phdstress)Tags: haHA

Nov 9 '12
*This field is required.

*This field is required.

View comments

Nov 8 '12

Four types of tumblr famous:

nolanslifeisaverage:

rawwrrrchel:

Famous because of their appearance.
Famous because of their work.
Famous of because their body.
Famous because of their talent.

Then there’s me:

Not famous because I look like a potato.

image

Some people are famous ‘cause they’re funny as shit.

C’mon - give a shout-out to the comedians.

Bwahahahaha. But you’re a sweet potato #nolanslife

(Source: raawwrrrcchel)

613 notes View comments (via nolanslifeisaverage & raawwrrrcchel)Tags: nolans

Nov 8 '12

Everyone’s a Glamazon, hunty.

View comments

Nov 8 '12

nolanslifeisaverage:

Why is a british boy band in American football gear…

Also, this is not arousing in the slightest. -_- try again.

Ugh. It’s like looking at clothes at Kohls instead of Gaultier.

33,460 notes View comments (via nolanslifeisaverage & mr-styles)

Oct 5 '12

View comments

Sep 25 '12

No comment.

View comments

Sep 25 '12

View comments

Sep 25 '12

I wrote this blog over a decade ago…

…and it got about a thousand hits per day.

It’s sad how much of it is still true.

The comments posted at the time are reproduced below the post. 

The new film Kinsey - about sexual behavior scientist Alfred Kinsey and starring Liam Neeson in the title role - opened in select cities across the nation on November 12th and has already created quite a stir amongst conservative “watchdog” groups. Brandi Swindell of Generation Life has said that “Alfred Kinsey is responsible in part for my generation being forced to deal face-to-face with the devastating consequences of sexually transmitted diseases, pornography, and abortion.” She continues by stating that “if this was a true documentary, they would have included more negative information. They’re sugarcoating the issue, trying to make him look like a genius who all of humanity should be grateful for.” Robert Knight, director of the Concerned Women of America’s Culture & Family Institute has gone on record to assert that “instead of being lionized, Kinsey’s proper place is with Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele or your average Hollywood horror flick mad scientist.” And Tom Neven, of the ever-popular group Focus on Family, writes that “to say that (the film) is rank propaganda for the sexual revolution and the homosexual agenda would be beyond stating the obvious.”
Although I’m sure that Brandi, Robert, and Tom are wonderfully caring people in their own disturbed, misguided ways, allow me to analyze their statements to better serve the public good.
Concerning Brandi’s first comment, let me say this: Alfred Kinsey is not, cannot, and will never be responsible for your generation coming face-to-face with sexually transmitted diseases, pornography, and abortion. Alfred Kinsey was a scientist who studied the sexual activity of a large number of people. Over 50 years ago. Brandi is 24 years old. She’s at least one generation removed from the studies performed by Alfred Kinsey. But let’s for an instant assume that Brandi - giving her far more credit than she deserves - is discussing the ever-present repercussions of Kinsey’s research. I’m sure Brandi would be thrilled to know that sexually transmitted diseases, pornography, and abortion have been around for quite some time. Goodness gracious, even before Dr. Kinsey! One cannot blame a man who researched disease, masturbation, the sexual practices of married people, homosexuality, and abortion for the very presence of these societal entities. Kinsey brought to the forefront of medicine the truths about sexuality and its consequences in all of their incarnations. He didn’t make them up. To think otherwise is downright ignorant.
Brandi’s second comment is almost too ridiculous to analyze. If this were a true documentary? It isn’t a documentary at all, you fool! It is a dramatic film based on the life of a scientist who - yes - by every instance of the definition was, in fact, a genius. He was a tortured genius - a fact which the film illustrates at great length - but a genius nonetheless. I have serious doubts that Brandi has actually seen the film. Or, for that matter, read and studied any of Dr. Kinsey’s research. If she did, she’d realize that all of humanity should be grateful for his work. I sigh and shrug my shoulders at the thought of giving up any more of my precious column space to her uneducated and ignorant drivel.
Moving on, let’s analyze the statements of Robert Knight - such a bold last name - who likens Dr. Kinsey to a crazed Nazi scientist or Hollywood monster. His comments, by the way, demean the holy, classic, and untouchable characters of the films FrankensteinBride of FrankensteinThe Rocky Horror Picture Show, and Re-Animator. Not to mention that the last name Knight, which should - in terms of entertainment - only grace the opening credits of a syndicated episode of Seinfeld, is now sullied by all of this silliness.
Robert Knight is obviously a misguided soul. Doesn’t he realize that when you use a real-life monster and a fake monster - in the same breath, no less - to criticize a film and an important scientist that you immediately devalue and poison your own argument? Of course, maybe I’m overestimating the intelligence of Knight’s reader base. I’d like to subject Mr. Knight to a series of tests, some of them from the handbook of Dr. Mengele and some from the handbook of Dr. Kinsey, and see if - post-test, of course - he’d still like to compare the two. I have a feeling his opinion might swish a bit, so to speak.
And finally I’ve come to Tom Neven. Dearest Tom Neven. A racist, sexist, homophobic horror of a human being in film critic’s clothing. Rank propaganda? I dunno, celluloid has never smelled all that funny to me. The sexual revolution? Didn’t this end quite some time ago? You know, when Janet’s boobie fell out of its proper container and the planet Earth exploded? The homosexual agenda? I keep hearing this term tossed around like it’s a batch of glitter at a drag queen convention, and I still don’t get it. What exactly is the homosexual agenda? Is it to redecorate the world until there isn’t an un-fabulous house left in all the land? To force people to become better looking through diet and exercise? Have a fun, interesting sex life? Teach people how to give backhanded compliments with flare? Destroy intolerance? Oh, wait, I know what it is. It’s equal rights for everyone, isn’t it? Ding, ding, ding. That concept always slips my mind. The fact is, Alfred Kinsey demonstrated that over 30% of the men he studied admitted to having had at least one homosexual encounter. He didn’t force or encourage them to do it, his studies simply proved that they had done it already, with little or no provocation. And I’m sure the success of Will & Grace is Kinsey’s fault as well.
The problem, my dear readers, is that we are now living in the “abstinence only” decade. It is a retro-decade of false statements, inaccurate facts, and problematic solutions. Let’s tell the youth of America not to have sex, that’ll fix ‘em. Now we’ll dust off our hands, look at our job well done, and rest comfortably with the knowledge that no teenager is going to have sex. Ever again. To hell with education programs that illustrate smart, informed decisions and solutions for the young people of the US. They won’t need ‘em. They won’t be having sex!
There is a climate in the air that Alfred Kinsey tried to expose and stop when it occurred in this country in the first half of the 20th century. It is a climate defined by the intolerance of and forced embarrassment over sexual relationships. And I couldn’t think of a more perfect or appropriate time for a film like Kinsey to be released.

Comments:

Robert Knight could’ve at least been clever enough to compare Neeson’s Kinsey to Neeson’s Schindler. Now that’s a Kinsey/Nazi comparison worth writing about!
 
I think we all knew that “Anonymous” had at least one Nazi hero. Thanks for coming that far out of the closet.
 
“A racist, sexist, homophobic horror of a human being in film critic’s clothing”?

“Homophobic”? Fear of homogenized milk? Fear of homo-sapiens? Are people still throwing that made-up word around? That word was invented by homosexuals about 20 years ago to imply that men-humping-men is “normal”, and the rest of us have a weird “phobia” associated with it. A phobia is an irrational fear, and I can’t think of anybody who is afraid of homosexuals. Many (as do I) disagree with their behavior and regard it as sinful, just as other types of behavior are classified as such (gambling, drug use, alcoholism, etc.) Before you ask, yes I have indulged in drug use and impressive amounts of alcohol consumption. What’s the difference? Drug users and alcoholics know their behavior is dangerous, though they may not admit it. Homosexuals not only deny their behavior goes against all natural/moral logic, they collectively advocate and attempt to “normalize” it.

Am I “intolerant”? You bet. I believe there are some things nobody should tolerate. So, does my rejection of a behavior I disagree with make me a “homophobe”? A “religious nut” who bases his belief on a non-existent God? Or simply someone with traditional values?
 
In Mikes attempt to normalize intollerence, he has neglected to provide a complete list of ALL the different peoples that his god is so full of hate for. He has also neglected to shed any light on his relationship with a hatefull god. Did his god tell him to hate? Did his god teach him to hate? Or is he mearly emulating the example that his god has made for him in the world? I am trying to get a picture of Mike’s god. A god who sees Drug users as knowing their behavior is harmful, but fails to see Mike’s proud intolerence as harmful. Perhaps the day will come when Mike’s god will enlighten him about the stones he throws just as he has already enlightened him about his ilicit drug behavior. Hang in there Mike, we will pray for you.
 
Well, Mike, since you seem to know the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem, it’s good to see you’re ready to admit you’re an intolerant person. Perhaps there’s hope for you yet.
 
Dearest Mike…wow…there are just no words…you’re posts just amaze me more and more each time you decide to enlighten us with your ignorance.
 
People like Swindell are upset with the demise of repression regarding anything construed as sexual. And now that everything is up close, in everyones face, on VH1, Will & Grace, etc. they feel cheated out of a laziness in which their Pleasantville lives provided them. Now they are forced to get up and promote their ignorance to any media outlet that will hear them. What hard work.

The problem has never been that these people disagree, or are offended by whatever form of entertainment it is, it’s that they feel movies like Kinsey shouldn’t be released, or aren’t given a 100% truthful representation. Directors, producers, writers are all human, with their own agendas — not to say that Kinsey isn’t accurate, I haven’t seen it. If you want your conservative anti-gay beliefs to be represented in the movies, make your own damn movie. Because what these people are usually getting at leans towards censorship.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041114/ESSAYS/411140315
 
Hey, Mike - who is your Higher Power? Bill O’Reilly?
 
The real sensorship here is that of Mike’s true feelings. If you look at the focus of his anger its easy to see that he feels threatened by, and hostile towards (Intolerant was the word he used), the very notion of homosexuality. Why would anyone be so overtly obcessed (haunted?) by other people’s behavior, to the point of creating an elaborate website about it, if they weren’t desperately trying to supress deep rooted feelings within themselves?

Dude, you’re totally gay!

Mike’s comments, and his admitted hostility are a smokescreeen, and are not intended for anyone’s benefit but his own. (to take focus away from his own subconcious sexual feelings)

Mike has already, in just a few lines of type, demonstrated a willingness to engage in “Bad” behavior, (Drugs and Alcohol) and views these “indiscresions” with a pride that is yet to find a way into his supressed sexual feelings, (though he does make a direct comparison between his own personal behavior as a drinker and drug user, and the conduct of homosexuals.)

Mikes repression is further reenforced by his view of Dr. Kinsey, (a father figure) who threatens Mike through the possibility of bringing forth evidence that will revealy Mike’s secret sexual wishes to a community, to which Mike belongs, that is hostile towards his subconcious feelings.

Difference of opinion is healthy and clear examples of it are apparent in the discourse of this blog without resorting to admitted anger or an agressive posture. This “intolerance” is a form of repression that is transparent to everyone except for Mike. Clearly his objective is not to win sway of opinion, as exhibited in the intended discorse of this and other blogs, but to obliterate the forum of free discourse. In short, Mike is so unwilling to face up to his own true feelings that he would rather strangle the free flow of Ideas rather than acknowledge ideas that he subconcously knows to be true about himself.

Further, his agressive posture represents an over compensation for a profound insecurity about sex, his own orientation, social discourse in general, the first amendment, the second amendment (see his website) The validity of his religious beliefs (see above) and abstract ideas such as “Normal” “Traditional” and “Values”. He even demonstrates hostility and insecurity about the English Language, the very medium thorugh which he makes his arguments. Here is a man truely riddled with contradiction and self doubt.

Mikes repressed feelings are so apparent that all of this can be deduced from the few lines he was able to write in this Blog. For further evidence I direct you to his website. 

Xris.
 
Oh, I wish I didn’t have to work so hard (despite being a liberal) so that I could devote some thought to Mike’s latest offering.

Among the stand-out phrases, I like “men humping.� We must assume “women humping� is not only a traditional value, but also an acceptable alternative (and likely a compliment, if you’re the lucky intended).

Mike, you tout racist labels and apply them to yourself in the classic �if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em� tradition of many people who’ve suffered discrimination. If is hardly the solution to label yourself first.

Made-up God? Well, that’s your choice to say that if we don’t share your personal view of God, we must not BELIEVE in a God because only your God is “real.� Phooey. I’m well acquainted with “your God� and chose to not limit myself to your definitions. I was spoon fed the same nonsense, and realized (duh) that you can look through the Bible or listen to a sermon (particularly a “sin based� sermon) and find a way to justify any hate.

For example (since I’m feeling playful), do you segregate yourself from the company of females during their “time� so as not to be “sullied�? You’re supposed to. How about not eating pork? Or (my personal favorite), should we execute people who charge interest? That was punishable by death in the good old days (remember Jesus overturning the tables in the temple). So what—we should execute everyone at credit card companies, banks, what-have-you? I mean, it’s in the Bible, right?

And I can’t say I wouldn’t like to see a bit more accountability on that, personally. I think the whole country is being financially raped (or “humped,� if you like). But death? Well, I still want my credit card. But I digress.

Is Mike a closet case, as suggested? Well, I wouldn’t go that far. Maybe he is, but I don’t jump to that conclusion personally. What has happened that amazes me is how fear and hate of gay folks (born that way, created by God that way, in every species on earth for as long as we’ve been here—ahem) has united such diverse folks.

As of this election, on the same side (a la Germany under Hitler), we can now include:

White Catholics (courtesy of the Pope)
Black Baptists (courtesy of Bush’s supplying names of whoever didn’t vote against gays)
Economic Conservatives
Soccer Moms terrified by war (now “Security Moms�)
White Supremacists
And our favorite—Homophobics of all ilk

The list goes on, but my mind isn’t up to a more inclusive listing. Please feel free to add on to the bonding of the bizarre, if anyone cares. We now have an “enemyâ€� within that everyone who hates each other and fears each other can finally agree on. Well, gee. How great for all those unhappy people that they can unite in hate on a common front. 

Yuck.

Who cares if the word “homophobic� has been around for 20 years of 100 if it means what it means? It means you fear something that’s not a threat to you personally. You object to it—fine. You want to punish people—not so fine.

Oops. Gotta get back to work.

Glad to see so many thoughtful posts. Keep it up. It’s great to read/think about so many divergent opinions and to also see that there are decent folks out there.

View comments

Sep 14 '12

23,907 notes View comments (via plsspellgabanna & tastefullyoffensive)

Sep 10 '12
thedailywhat:

Secret Service Fail of the Day: President Barack Obama’s bus tour through Florida made a pizza stop in Ft. Pierce on Sunday. Upon meeting restaurant owner Scott Van Duzer, Obama exclaimed: “Scott, let me tell you, you are like the biggest pizza shop owner I’ve ever seen.”  What happened next probably isn’t on the Secret Service protocol sheet. Duzer wrapped Obama in a bear hug and lifted him into the air, much to the delight of onlookers — and likely the chagrin of his security detail.  Duzer is a registered Republican who voted for Obama in 2008, and plans to do so again in November.  [shortformblog]

This does not seem like a fail by any account.

thedailywhat:

Secret Service Fail of the Day: President Barack Obama’s bus tour through Florida made a pizza stop in Ft. Pierce on Sunday. Upon meeting restaurant owner Scott Van Duzer, Obama exclaimed: “Scott, let me tell you, you are like the biggest pizza shop owner I’ve ever seen.”

What happened next probably isn’t on the Secret Service protocol sheet. Duzer wrapped Obama in a bear hug and lifted him into the air, much to the delight of onlookers — and likely the chagrin of his security detail.

Duzer is a registered Republican who voted for Obama in 2008, and plans to do so again in November.

[shortformblog]

This does not seem like a fail by any account.

2,525 notes View comments (via nolanslifeisaverage & thedailywhat)

Sep 9 '12

Why does every remembrance on Tumblr have to do with loss? Live life, look toward tomorrow, keep moving forward. We all gain from what we’ve lost.

1 note View comments

Sep 9 '12

overheardondubuquestreet:

In Burge Dining:

“I hate politics. Like… they try to tell you things you need to know. And I’m like… I know what I know, and you can’t tell me otherwise. You know?”

Q I’m very indifferent to this line of THINKING.

3 notes View comments (via nolanslifeisaverage & overheardondubuquestreet)

Sep 9 '12
chasingthewolf:

Meet turkey mcgee

chasingthewolf:

Meet turkey mcgee

2 notes View comments (via chasingthewolf)

Sep 8 '12

141,444 notes View comments (via twentysomethingnightmare & kazuos)