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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)