Monday, November 28, 2011
Sex Change Teen wins Argentina legal battle
I thought this was a pretty interesting video about a sex change battle. The "boy" says he was born a girl on the inside, but a boy on the outside. He was very happy to have finally won the battle after a time frame of 3 entire years. The "girl" was the first minor in her country (Argentina) to have had a sex change. And...they even did it for free after all that!!! Video is not long, check it out.
Link to same video on YouTube page
BTW, anyone who's curious, I just realized that this video is from December 5, 2007, so it's not the most current...
Sexy from the Start by Jennifer Scanlon
Connections
Sexy from the Start has connections to multiple articles we have gone over in class. There is definitely a connection with Frye's "Oppression". Scanlon says, "One of the most significant areas of difference, real and/or imagined, between the second and third waves of feminism is that of sexuality. Second wave feminists certainly claimed the pleasures of sex for women. They also explored the dangers of sex, and in the end they have become remembered at least as much for their warnings as for their celebrations. Paradoxically, as Astrid Henry explains, “the very issue that made second wave feminism seem most new, daring, and radical evolved into that which made it seem most old-fashioned, moralistic, and conservative to many in the next generation of women to encounter feminism” (Not 87). One of the reasons for the discomfort third wave feminists feel with the second wave is that they live in the aftermath not only of the second wave generally but also of the sex wars in particular. In the late 1970s and 1980s, the sex wars cast a light on feminism that made it appear the powerful, organized, sexunfriendly, politically correct enemy of pornography. Feminists in the forefront of much of the anti-porn sex wars activity did want to regulate sex, define appropriate sexual activity, censor and censure heterosexual and queer sexualities. The fact that larger groups of feminists simultaneously and profitably argued about myriad forms of sexuality, including pornography, bisexuality, sex work, and sadomasochism, got lost in both media-generated and feminist-generated discussions of “good” and “bad” sex. Even though, as Linda Garber argues, “the Sex Wars happened, and sex clearly had won,” the legacy for feminism includes a negative sensibility about sex." Frye felt that woman are being oppressed by having sex essentially, among many other things. Scanlon believes the opposite. Frye also has issues with men holding doors open for women. I feel very strongly that Scanlon would not have a problem with that at all.
Scanlon's article also has connections with "Fear of Feminism" by Lisa Marie Hogeland. Hogeland says, "Fear of feminism, then, is not a fear of gender, but rather a fear of politics. Fear of politics can be understood as a fear of living in consequences, a fear of reprisals." I feel that this agrees strongly with what Scanlon has to say. Scanlon is talking about the similarities between the second and third wave feminists. I feel that what Hogeland said is true for both the second and third waves of feminism. All other differences between the second and third waves put aside, fear of feminism is always going the translate into the fear of politics. This can be broken down further, into the fear of living in consequence and the fear of getting hurt. I think that many things involve this, and most certainly feminism. No matter what happens you could end up living in consequence or getting hurt. That's just the negative side of putting yourself out there and getting involved with anything.
http://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/j/jscanlon/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/books/22garn.html
Sexy from the Start has connections to multiple articles we have gone over in class. There is definitely a connection with Frye's "Oppression". Scanlon says, "One of the most significant areas of difference, real and/or imagined, between the second and third waves of feminism is that of sexuality. Second wave feminists certainly claimed the pleasures of sex for women. They also explored the dangers of sex, and in the end they have become remembered at least as much for their warnings as for their celebrations. Paradoxically, as Astrid Henry explains, “the very issue that made second wave feminism seem most new, daring, and radical evolved into that which made it seem most old-fashioned, moralistic, and conservative to many in the next generation of women to encounter feminism” (Not 87). One of the reasons for the discomfort third wave feminists feel with the second wave is that they live in the aftermath not only of the second wave generally but also of the sex wars in particular. In the late 1970s and 1980s, the sex wars cast a light on feminism that made it appear the powerful, organized, sexunfriendly, politically correct enemy of pornography. Feminists in the forefront of much of the anti-porn sex wars activity did want to regulate sex, define appropriate sexual activity, censor and censure heterosexual and queer sexualities. The fact that larger groups of feminists simultaneously and profitably argued about myriad forms of sexuality, including pornography, bisexuality, sex work, and sadomasochism, got lost in both media-generated and feminist-generated discussions of “good” and “bad” sex. Even though, as Linda Garber argues, “the Sex Wars happened, and sex clearly had won,” the legacy for feminism includes a negative sensibility about sex." Frye felt that woman are being oppressed by having sex essentially, among many other things. Scanlon believes the opposite. Frye also has issues with men holding doors open for women. I feel very strongly that Scanlon would not have a problem with that at all.
Scanlon's article also has connections with "Fear of Feminism" by Lisa Marie Hogeland. Hogeland says, "Fear of feminism, then, is not a fear of gender, but rather a fear of politics. Fear of politics can be understood as a fear of living in consequences, a fear of reprisals." I feel that this agrees strongly with what Scanlon has to say. Scanlon is talking about the similarities between the second and third wave feminists. I feel that what Hogeland said is true for both the second and third waves of feminism. All other differences between the second and third waves put aside, fear of feminism is always going the translate into the fear of politics. This can be broken down further, into the fear of living in consequence and the fear of getting hurt. I think that many things involve this, and most certainly feminism. No matter what happens you could end up living in consequence or getting hurt. That's just the negative side of putting yourself out there and getting involved with anything.
http://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/j/jscanlon/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/books/22garn.html
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Cinderella Ate My Daughter by Peggy Orenstein
Extended Comments: Amanda A.'s Blog
I agree with you on about the appearance thing. I don't know what Barbie's measurements are, but I definitely believe it that they are impossible! I think the celebrities have an even bigger negative impact on girls today, but clearly the toys do as well. It's really just ridiculous the kinds of clothes out there for young girls today. It really is sad they there are even produced in the first place. Anyone who wants to see little girls dressed like sluts is seriously SICK...dressing your little girl up like the slut in "Pretty Woman" is going too far a think.
I also agree with you on not being able to "sexualize" a girl with baby teeth...it probably is impossible but why on earth would you want to?? The key word in "baby teeth" is BABY...why would ANYONE try to sexualize their baby?!? The whole idea kind of makes me sick and to be honest think is one of the big reasons why I don't want to have any kids at all!!!
And lastly, I definitely agree with your last paragraph. "Overall, I agree with Orenstein's view on how princesses affect little girls image of themselves. And I agree that the idea of princesses, like in TLC's show, is teaching girls how to be more provactive and overlysexualized when they are too young to even understand it yet." I think that's a enormous part of the problem...not understanding. The little girls that are being dressed like sluts, etc. have no idea what they are doing, they are just going along with their parents' ideas and they don't know that their parents are the ones who are WRONG.
Children instinctively trust their parents and they are the ones getting looked at and looked down upon because of their parents' stupid ideas and decisions. Yes, there are many celebrities, toys, etc, that could be bad influences to the children without a doubt, but overall it's the PARENTS JOB to bring up their children the correct way and dressing your child like a slut for a stupid contest is NOT the way to do it!!!
A little article about why Peggy Orenstein wrote the book.
I agree with you on about the appearance thing. I don't know what Barbie's measurements are, but I definitely believe it that they are impossible! I think the celebrities have an even bigger negative impact on girls today, but clearly the toys do as well. It's really just ridiculous the kinds of clothes out there for young girls today. It really is sad they there are even produced in the first place. Anyone who wants to see little girls dressed like sluts is seriously SICK...dressing your little girl up like the slut in "Pretty Woman" is going too far a think.
I also agree with you on not being able to "sexualize" a girl with baby teeth...it probably is impossible but why on earth would you want to?? The key word in "baby teeth" is BABY...why would ANYONE try to sexualize their baby?!? The whole idea kind of makes me sick and to be honest think is one of the big reasons why I don't want to have any kids at all!!!
And lastly, I definitely agree with your last paragraph. "Overall, I agree with Orenstein's view on how princesses affect little girls image of themselves. And I agree that the idea of princesses, like in TLC's show, is teaching girls how to be more provactive and overlysexualized when they are too young to even understand it yet." I think that's a enormous part of the problem...not understanding. The little girls that are being dressed like sluts, etc. have no idea what they are doing, they are just going along with their parents' ideas and they don't know that their parents are the ones who are WRONG.
Children instinctively trust their parents and they are the ones getting looked at and looked down upon because of their parents' stupid ideas and decisions. Yes, there are many celebrities, toys, etc, that could be bad influences to the children without a doubt, but overall it's the PARENTS JOB to bring up their children the correct way and dressing your child like a slut for a stupid contest is NOT the way to do it!!!
A little article about why Peggy Orenstein wrote the book.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Occupying Providence
http://www.occupyprovidence.com/
http://www.facebook.com/OccupyProvidence
I went to Occupy Providence Wednesday afternoon/evening and spent some time there. My boyfriend went with me for safety reasons lol. We walked around the park and checked it out first. It looked pretty sweet with all the tents set up in the dark. There is a guy there who sits drumming and drumming on his drum. They were having a meeting when we arrived. We listened in for a bit but found out later that the meeting really had nothing to do with the movement directly, but rather people having troubles living in the park together. The link below is to a video supposedly taken earlier that day. It's about privacy issues surrounding police using infrared cameras to look in the tents on the night of the snowstorm ...but the reason I include this is simply so if you haven't been there you can see what it looks like :-)
http://www2.turnto10.com/news/2011/nov/09/1/occupy-providence-rights-violated-24765-vi-34604/
We walked around some more and I interviewed the drummer guy first but lost my pen, bought a pen then interviewed the girl at the Media tent which is in charge of the Media for the movement including FaceBook and Twitter, and then one guy named Scott who had been at the meeting I spoke of earlier. I started with each interviewee by explaining I'm a student and asking them what the movement is all about. Their answers varied slightly, but they all said the same thing. What they described was THEIR idea of what the movement is, and everyone is going to have their own idea of what it's about.
The lady at the Media tent told me this when I asked her: "We are in solidarity with Occupy Wallstreet to protest government bailout of banks and corporate greed." Scott also believed that, but he was more there for the enlightening...he believes the movement is about educating and enlightening as many people as possible, because as he said, "You never know who you'll reach". Which is why I think he enjoyed talking to me so much! lol He told me that 1% of the population owns 80% of the wealth and natural resources. He went on to talk about New World Order and how he believes this was foreseen by many people in the past who were assassinated, including ex-presidents.
I was also told by everyone I asked that there are more people there during the day, and all 3 people I spoke with have jobs and can only sleep in the tents a few times a week, not every night. Scott told me I should come back and I said I might. I think it'd actually be pretty cool to camp out there at night, but now after watching that video I'm not so sure lol.
http://www.facebook.com/OccupyProvidence
I went to Occupy Providence Wednesday afternoon/evening and spent some time there. My boyfriend went with me for safety reasons lol. We walked around the park and checked it out first. It looked pretty sweet with all the tents set up in the dark. There is a guy there who sits drumming and drumming on his drum. They were having a meeting when we arrived. We listened in for a bit but found out later that the meeting really had nothing to do with the movement directly, but rather people having troubles living in the park together. The link below is to a video supposedly taken earlier that day. It's about privacy issues surrounding police using infrared cameras to look in the tents on the night of the snowstorm ...but the reason I include this is simply so if you haven't been there you can see what it looks like :-)
http://www2.turnto10.com/news/2011/nov/09/1/occupy-providence-rights-violated-24765-vi-34604/
We walked around some more and I interviewed the drummer guy first but lost my pen, bought a pen then interviewed the girl at the Media tent which is in charge of the Media for the movement including FaceBook and Twitter, and then one guy named Scott who had been at the meeting I spoke of earlier. I started with each interviewee by explaining I'm a student and asking them what the movement is all about. Their answers varied slightly, but they all said the same thing. What they described was THEIR idea of what the movement is, and everyone is going to have their own idea of what it's about.
The lady at the Media tent told me this when I asked her: "We are in solidarity with Occupy Wallstreet to protest government bailout of banks and corporate greed." Scott also believed that, but he was more there for the enlightening...he believes the movement is about educating and enlightening as many people as possible, because as he said, "You never know who you'll reach". Which is why I think he enjoyed talking to me so much! lol He told me that 1% of the population owns 80% of the wealth and natural resources. He went on to talk about New World Order and how he believes this was foreseen by many people in the past who were assassinated, including ex-presidents.
I was also told by everyone I asked that there are more people there during the day, and all 3 people I spoke with have jobs and can only sleep in the tents a few times a week, not every night. Scott told me I should come back and I said I might. I think it'd actually be pretty cool to camp out there at night, but now after watching that video I'm not so sure lol.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
What Are Little Boys Made Out Of? by Michael Kimmel
Hyperlinks
http://creativepromotionsagency.com/mk/biography.htm
Kimmel says, "There's no question that there's a boy crisis. Virtually all the books site the same statistics: boys are four to five times more likely to kill themselves than girls, four times more likely to be diagnosed as emotionally disturbed, three times more likely to be diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, and 15 times more likely to be victims of violent crime."
http://www.livescience.com/5505-society-ignoring-boy-problems.html
Kimmel also says, "The real boy crisis usually goes by another name. We call it 'teen violence', 'youth violence', 'gang violence', 'violence in the schools'. Let's face facts: men and boys are responsible for 85 percent of all violent crimes in this country, and their victims are overwhelmingly male as well. From an early age, boys learn that violence is not only an acceptable form of conflict resolution, but one that is admired. Four times more teenage boys than teenage girls think fighting is appropriate when someone cuts into the front of a line. Half of all teenage boys get into a physical fight each year."
http://www.troubledteen101.com/articles49.html
http://herkimercounty.org/content/departments/View/11:field=services;/content/DepartmentServices/View/68:field=documents;/content/Documents/File/125.PDF
http://creativepromotionsagency.com/mk/biography.htm
Kimmel says, "There's no question that there's a boy crisis. Virtually all the books site the same statistics: boys are four to five times more likely to kill themselves than girls, four times more likely to be diagnosed as emotionally disturbed, three times more likely to be diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, and 15 times more likely to be victims of violent crime."
http://www.livescience.com/5505-society-ignoring-boy-problems.html
Kimmel also says, "The real boy crisis usually goes by another name. We call it 'teen violence', 'youth violence', 'gang violence', 'violence in the schools'. Let's face facts: men and boys are responsible for 85 percent of all violent crimes in this country, and their victims are overwhelmingly male as well. From an early age, boys learn that violence is not only an acceptable form of conflict resolution, but one that is admired. Four times more teenage boys than teenage girls think fighting is appropriate when someone cuts into the front of a line. Half of all teenage boys get into a physical fight each year."
http://www.troubledteen101.com/articles49.html
http://herkimercounty.org/content/departments/View/11:field=services;/content/DepartmentServices/View/68:field=documents;/content/Documents/File/125.PDF
Random Post #1
Was having a conversation with my mom the other day and she said something about how girls can play baseball in school now. When I went I remember girls having to play softball and baseball being for guys only...maybe it had something to do with it being a private school too, but at some point I'm sure girls weren't allowed to play at all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/sports/baseball/01baseball.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/sports/baseball/01baseball.html
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Blanchard & Ayvazian
Reflection
I can see where Blanchard is coming from, but I find it rather hard to believe. Blanchard did a study in which the results were that most people/college students can be persuaded to change their minds regarding racism depending on what they hear someone else say. I personally am not racist and I know there's nothing anyone could say to change my mind. However, I did attend a highly segregated high school for a year and a half. According to Blanchard, that could make the difference for me not being "uninformed". Maybe the college students in his study all happened to be those uninformed, easily persuaded types. But I still find it hard to believe that the majority of the people in the study just went with what the other person there was saying. My answer would be the same no matter what!
I feel that Ayvazian has a good point. She uses the example of cigarettes being banned which happened. Everyone who was a non-smoker, against cigarettes, stood up and got what they wanted. So in theory, it should work for anything else as well. If all the white people stand up and say "Away with racism!", like William Stickland said, then it would HAVE to make a change. I am white, a Christian, able-bodied, and middle class. So according to Ayvazian, I could become an ally for black people, non-Christians, people with disabilities, or people of lower class. In turn, allies reduce violence and "provide positive role models". I thought this was a very empowering article.
I can see where Blanchard is coming from, but I find it rather hard to believe. Blanchard did a study in which the results were that most people/college students can be persuaded to change their minds regarding racism depending on what they hear someone else say. I personally am not racist and I know there's nothing anyone could say to change my mind. However, I did attend a highly segregated high school for a year and a half. According to Blanchard, that could make the difference for me not being "uninformed". Maybe the college students in his study all happened to be those uninformed, easily persuaded types. But I still find it hard to believe that the majority of the people in the study just went with what the other person there was saying. My answer would be the same no matter what!
I feel that Ayvazian has a good point. She uses the example of cigarettes being banned which happened. Everyone who was a non-smoker, against cigarettes, stood up and got what they wanted. So in theory, it should work for anything else as well. If all the white people stand up and say "Away with racism!", like William Stickland said, then it would HAVE to make a change. I am white, a Christian, able-bodied, and middle class. So according to Ayvazian, I could become an ally for black people, non-Christians, people with disabilities, or people of lower class. In turn, allies reduce violence and "provide positive role models". I thought this was a very empowering article.
Still sick...
Caught whatever's going around last week, and is mostly gone now except the couch is getting worse. So if I have coughing fits in class tonight please excuse me! Almost better though, doubt I'm contagious if anyone is worried. See you all later :-)
Thursday, October 13, 2011
What Rich means by "compulsory heterosexuality" and "lesbian existence"
Rich, in regard to "compulsory heterosexuality", says, "It was written in part to challenge the erasure of lesbian existence from so much of scholarly feminist literature, an erasure which I felt (and feel) to be not just antilesbian but antifeminist in its consequences, and to distort the experience of the heterosexual women as well. It was not written to widen divisions but to encourage heterosexual feminists to examine heterosexuality as a political institution which disempowers women--and to change it." There are a lot more quotes, but to summarize, Rich says that "lesbian existence" has been erased from our culture...even documents, etc. She is saying in this quote that the idea of "compulsory heterosexuality" was partly created to challenge that erasure from history. She says that it was written ultimately to be overridden by women when they realize that it's actually disempowering them.
In regard to "lesbian existence" Rich says these three things among others: "Lesbian existence suggests both the fact of the historical presence of lesbians and our continuing creation of the meaning of that existence.", "Lesbian existence comprises both the breaking of a taboo and the rejection of a compulsory way of life.", "I do not assume that mothering by women is a 'sufficient cause' of lesbian existence." As for the first one, there IS a history of "lesbian existence" as noted multiple times in the article, because they were punished (even by death sometimes) and their documents, etc. were destroyed. There is still "lesbian existence" today because it's everywhere. In the second quote she explains what makes up "lesbian existence". She says that it comprises of 'the breaking of a taboo', which would be the fact that 2 women are together, and 'the rejection of a compulsory way of life', which means if I decided to be a lesbian I would be rejecting "compulsory heterosexuality" by not requiring my self to marry a man. There was some discussion in the article regarding the possibility of lesbian existence generating from being mothered by a woman, but Rich in stating in the third quote that she doesn't agree with that. And for that matter, I don't either because that would imply every woman becomes a lesbian which is absurd because humans would no longer reproduce naturally.
In regard to "lesbian existence" Rich says these three things among others: "Lesbian existence suggests both the fact of the historical presence of lesbians and our continuing creation of the meaning of that existence.", "Lesbian existence comprises both the breaking of a taboo and the rejection of a compulsory way of life.", "I do not assume that mothering by women is a 'sufficient cause' of lesbian existence." As for the first one, there IS a history of "lesbian existence" as noted multiple times in the article, because they were punished (even by death sometimes) and their documents, etc. were destroyed. There is still "lesbian existence" today because it's everywhere. In the second quote she explains what makes up "lesbian existence". She says that it comprises of 'the breaking of a taboo', which would be the fact that 2 women are together, and 'the rejection of a compulsory way of life', which means if I decided to be a lesbian I would be rejecting "compulsory heterosexuality" by not requiring my self to marry a man. There was some discussion in the article regarding the possibility of lesbian existence generating from being mothered by a woman, but Rich in stating in the third quote that she doesn't agree with that. And for that matter, I don't either because that would imply every woman becomes a lesbian which is absurd because humans would no longer reproduce naturally.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Something about the Subject Makes It Hard to Name by Gloria Yamato
Argument
Yamato argues that racism will inevitably end sooner or later. "Celebrate the inevitable end of racism." However, she argues, it will not be easy and it will not happen instantaneously. "Racism--simple enough in structure, yet difficult to eliminate." "Cuz you can't even shave a little piece off this thing called racism in a day, or a weekend, or a workshop." Honestly and unfortunately, I don't agree with Yamato on her first point. I think racism will be around forever...I think it's not something that "we" (white people/society in general) can not overcome. I can't say if that's because white people will never try hard enough to eliminate it or if the world will end before we get a chance to complete the process, but that's how I feel. I definitely agree with Yamato on her second point though. It IS not easy, or it would've happened already! That's pretty apparent I think. The not happening instantaneously...well, pretty obvious if you step back and think about it like that, but Yamato's right. Some people, probably a lot of people, believe that something like a one-hour class can fix it. The one-hour class could definitely help the problem, but I don't think that one-hour of anything can completely reform anyone's ideas.
In class I will try to talk...about this and that I believe 1. racism will never end completely because "we" will never get that far and 2. one-hour classes can't completely fix anything, only merely help issues. I think it will be an interesting class discussion, especially with everyone having read 1 of 4 different articles.
Yamato argues that racism will inevitably end sooner or later. "Celebrate the inevitable end of racism." However, she argues, it will not be easy and it will not happen instantaneously. "Racism--simple enough in structure, yet difficult to eliminate." "Cuz you can't even shave a little piece off this thing called racism in a day, or a weekend, or a workshop." Honestly and unfortunately, I don't agree with Yamato on her first point. I think racism will be around forever...I think it's not something that "we" (white people/society in general) can not overcome. I can't say if that's because white people will never try hard enough to eliminate it or if the world will end before we get a chance to complete the process, but that's how I feel. I definitely agree with Yamato on her second point though. It IS not easy, or it would've happened already! That's pretty apparent I think. The not happening instantaneously...well, pretty obvious if you step back and think about it like that, but Yamato's right. Some people, probably a lot of people, believe that something like a one-hour class can fix it. The one-hour class could definitely help the problem, but I don't think that one-hour of anything can completely reform anyone's ideas.
In class I will try to talk...about this and that I believe 1. racism will never end completely because "we" will never get that far and 2. one-hour classes can't completely fix anything, only merely help issues. I think it will be an interesting class discussion, especially with everyone having read 1 of 4 different articles.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Oral History for the Qualitative Researcher by Valerie J. Janesick
I found this text to be helpful for our oral history project. It first gave a lot of background information like the history of oral history. Then it got into techniques and gave a couple of great examples. I only wish that my participant could give me in depth answers like that! lol They were a little extreme...I'm sure that was not their first run through or their first experience doing a project like it. Overall, I found the text to be very helpful. I didn't completely read it until after my first interview, but maybe I will be able to incorporate some of the ideas from it into my second or third interview.
Cool informational site on oral history
Cool informational site on oral history
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Lawrence Mead Quote
Lawrence Mead said, "If poor people behaved rationally, they would seldom be poor for long in the first place." I agree with Mead. And I also disagree with Mead. I think it depends on the situation. There were statements made in the film People Like Us for this argument and against it. For example, as stated in the film, more than half of lower class blacks have moved up to middle class in recent years. This proves Mead's quote correct in my eyes. However, also according to the film, there are many people who believe that someone remains in the same class for their entire life.
There was also a woman from the film who said that 'a lot of it has to do with being born in the right house'. I believe this very strongly. I also believe that it supports Mead's quote as well. If you were born in the 'right house' then you behave rationally by getting a steady job and moving up. If you weren't born in the 'right house' then you don't act rationally, thus staying poor.
Another person from the film said, "getting ahead is not the most important thing...the most important thing is staying where you are". Which of course you don't want to move down but moving up can still be your next most important thing...make sure you stay where you are first then worry about moving up later. Someone else from the film believes that the middle class of society strives for higher but the lower class does not. They just hope their children will do better. I agree with that if this is a movie, but I'm not so sure that's how it really is...might bring up in class...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU5MtVM_zFs
There was also a woman from the film who said that 'a lot of it has to do with being born in the right house'. I believe this very strongly. I also believe that it supports Mead's quote as well. If you were born in the 'right house' then you behave rationally by getting a steady job and moving up. If you weren't born in the 'right house' then you don't act rationally, thus staying poor.
Another person from the film said, "getting ahead is not the most important thing...the most important thing is staying where you are". Which of course you don't want to move down but moving up can still be your next most important thing...make sure you stay where you are first then worry about moving up later. Someone else from the film believes that the middle class of society strives for higher but the lower class does not. They just hope their children will do better. I agree with that if this is a movie, but I'm not so sure that's how it really is...might bring up in class...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU5MtVM_zFs
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Interview
Still typing up my audio interview...taking sooo long. Next time I won't do it in the library cuz I can barely hear it!!! Oh and FYI, the library closes at 10PM in case anyone was wondering...me and my interviewee ended up getting kicked out! lol
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
People Like Us & Center for Working-Class Studies
The People Like Us site is cool. I like the games, but I couldn’t seem to be able to find “The Video” to watch it. According to a lot of my answers on the games I’m “trailer trash” lol who knew? They’re fun but of course you can’t possibly determine someone’s class based on their answer to a single question. That’s just silly…but fun like I said. They talk a lot about how class is a big factor in the U.S. and also how it can and does influence discrimination.
The Center for Working-Class Studies site is a University site out of Ohio. The first thing I saw when I went on this site was the unemployment rate (I assume in Ohio). It is currently very high at 26.37%. I would be interesting in knowing what percentage of that number is female and what percentage is male, but they don’t give that information. They also discuss how blue-collar jobs seem to be disappearing, and more and more Americans are being considered working class every day. Then they discuss the factors considered in determining class. “At the CWCS, we see class as based on a combination of factors -- what kind of work people do, how much they earn, their social and economic power, their education, lifestyle, and culture. We also recognize that class is closely related to race, gender, religion, and other social categories.”
I agree with The Center for Working-Class Studies. There are many factors that are including in determining class. I believe gender is one of them and that is one big reason why economic inequity is a feminist issue. There is a lot of economic inequity towards lower class Americans. If feminism lowers your class, then it becomes a major feminist issue.
And Wikipedia agrees as well:
The F-Word by Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner & Fear of Feminism by Lisa Maria Hogeland
Quotes
"Truth famously encountered men who said that women are weak and 'need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches,' noting, 'I have ploughed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman?'" Sojourner Truth was an African American woman who spoke against slavery and for women's rights. Here she is denying mens' claims that women need the help of a man do to things. She justifies this by saying that she has done much harder things in her lifetime (than getting in a carriage and stepping over a ditch) better than any man could ever do. She then says "And ain't I a women?" implying that all women can do what men do, and sometimes better.
"An amendment to the U.S. Constitution to give women the right to vote was first introduced, and defeated, in 1878. The amendment was reintroduced every year for the next forty years before it finally passed. In 1920 American women voted for the first time in a presidential election, after the Nineteenth Amendment was finally passed and ratified." What does this show? That women are persistent. And without womens' persistence, we would probably not have gotten the amendment passed and would still have no rights. In fact, the whole women's movement expresses persistence. 1878-1920, that’s 42 years that women persisted about the same thing once a year, every year, until we got what we wanted. THAT IS PERSISTENCE.
"Fear of feminism, then, is not a fear of gender, but rather a fear of politics. Fear of politics can be understood as a fear of living in consequences, a fear of reprisals." Hogeland believes that the fear of feminism is not a fear of gender, but rather, a fear of politics. This makes sense because politics play a great role in the issue of feminism. Hogeland goes on to say that the fear of politics breaks down to a fear of living in consequence (that you voted for the wrong person I would assume), and a fear of being injured or possibly fined for voting and/or your beliefs.
Check out women's rights in the UK:
http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/
"Truth famously encountered men who said that women are weak and 'need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches,' noting, 'I have ploughed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman?'" Sojourner Truth was an African American woman who spoke against slavery and for women's rights. Here she is denying mens' claims that women need the help of a man do to things. She justifies this by saying that she has done much harder things in her lifetime (than getting in a carriage and stepping over a ditch) better than any man could ever do. She then says "And ain't I a women?" implying that all women can do what men do, and sometimes better.
"An amendment to the U.S. Constitution to give women the right to vote was first introduced, and defeated, in 1878. The amendment was reintroduced every year for the next forty years before it finally passed. In 1920 American women voted for the first time in a presidential election, after the Nineteenth Amendment was finally passed and ratified." What does this show? That women are persistent. And without womens' persistence, we would probably not have gotten the amendment passed and would still have no rights. In fact, the whole women's movement expresses persistence. 1878-1920, that’s 42 years that women persisted about the same thing once a year, every year, until we got what we wanted. THAT IS PERSISTENCE.
"Fear of feminism, then, is not a fear of gender, but rather a fear of politics. Fear of politics can be understood as a fear of living in consequences, a fear of reprisals." Hogeland believes that the fear of feminism is not a fear of gender, but rather, a fear of politics. This makes sense because politics play a great role in the issue of feminism. Hogeland goes on to say that the fear of politics breaks down to a fear of living in consequence (that you voted for the wrong person I would assume), and a fear of being injured or possibly fined for voting and/or your beliefs.
Check out women's rights in the UK:
http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Oppression by Marilyn Frye
This lady is very convinced of what she believes. However, I think she's being a little over the top, even ridiculous. I actually laughed at this article because it starts out OK, she's very mouthy, but OK. She talks about women getting blamed for being raped...because if the woman is NOT sexually active then that means she wants it...what?!? I've honestly never heard of that. Then she goes on to complain that men are opening doors for women. I personally have nothing wrong with that and I hold doors for people too! It's impossible for a man to hold a door open for a woman just to be nice? I don't know if Frye feels so strongly and says what she says because of the time she lived in or if she's just ridiculous, but I thought the ideas in this article were ridiculous...
I will mention this in class and specifically the "door opening" issue. I will use myself as an example, because I personally hold doors open a lot. I never realized it was just because I was mocking the person I'm holding it for haha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression
I will mention this in class and specifically the "door opening" issue. I will use myself as an example, because I personally hold doors open a lot. I never realized it was just because I was mocking the person I'm holding it for haha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression
About Me
I'm Kristen, I'm taking this class because I needed a new behavioral science and this class seemed interesting. I am VERY busy so far this semester and probably will be throughout it as well. I am also currently unemployed and looking for a job in the Computer field (preferably a Programmer position). In my limited free time I like to watch movies, play Farmville and spend time with my cats Tipsy (in the pic) and Hemi (who turned a year old today!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)