Archives

Passion — 5 Comments
09
Oct 14

The Politics of Feminism

I’ve been reluctant to post a blog like this since I began, but I think we all know each other in this class by now, and we’re mature to handle some controversial topics.

I’ll begin by stating the obvious: Feminism is an extremely political issue. And while different people capitalize on different values of the movement, on a political front, this can only occur to a certain extent. The idea or version feminism is not rigid is called “lifestyle feminism.” For example, a woman may call herself a feminist, but insist that she has the right to fill a role in a typical patriarchal society by becoming a housewife instead of attending college. Some more radical feminists might condemn such an idea, asserting that not everyone can be a feminist just because they feel like it; one has to stand for certain things. It’s true that not everyone who calls themselves a feminist is actually a feminist. But there’s nothing explicitly anti-feminist about becoming a housewife. What’s important is that the housewife supports feminist values and female empowerment–even if she chooses not to participate in it. And this is where politics comes in.

Let’s keep going with our housewife example and consider the movement for equal pay in America. A housewife might not have or want a job, but she must support equal pay and equal opportunity for women if she is to be a feminist. Not supporting equal pay or the deconstruction of the glass ceiling goes against the entire definition of feminism, which describes a movement against sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression. If you are not in political support of equal pay for everyone, you are contributing to a system of oppression and exploitation, and you are keeping women from fair wages and empowerment in the workforce. You are not a feminist. Period.

Let me move to one more topic, probably the most controversial of all:  Pro-life or pro-choice. Hear me out guys, you might find this isn’t as radical as you think. Here’s the thing. Feminism is all about empowering women to make their own choices and in control of their own body. That means a feminist will support a woman who chooses to get an abortion, or chooses not to get an abortion. And a person can support a woman’s right to choose, even if they themselves would never consider abortion to be an option for them. In short, a feminist can be pro-life!… They simply cannot be anti-choice. Taking away a woman’s right to choose takes power away from women, further oppressing them, and this goes the very definition of feminism.

Listen now: I know a lot of you may not agree with this, and that’s ok. The point is,  a woman deserves the ability to choose, and have control over their own body. But remember: the issue of abortion isn’t necessarily the end-all-be-all of female reproductive rights. A feminist might support a woman’s right to ultimately choose what to do with her body, without personally condoning abortion. What can they do? Well, while abortion should be an option for those who choose it, a feminist can also promote things that prevent the need for abortion in the first place. This is why many feminists support a woman’s right to choose and discussion about things like birth control and safe sex.

I understand I’ve said a few controversial things here, and I can understand if anyone doesn’t agree. But I hope you’re beginning to see what I mean. If you don’t agree with anything I said, or have another idea of what a feminist should be doing poltiically, I encourage you to post it in the comments. Just be polite, please!

Sources:

Bell Hooks. Feminist Politics: Where We Stand, 2000.

RCL — 1 Comment
30
Sep 14

Reviewing Some Speeches

I think the best speeches were the ones during which it was obvious the speaker had prepared and practiced their presentation. They talked smoothly and more confidently, and took less time to stop and bury their face in their note cards. The most impressive deliveries were the ones where presenters looked up and made eye contact with the audience. They used their hands and walked around as they talked, often gesturing to their visual aid. The spoke loud enough for everyone to hear them and for the most part didn’t trip over their words.

The most useful visual aids in my opinion were the powerpoints, in which the presenter was able to change the image every so often as they were speaking. This kept the audience more engaged–an alternating image is more interesting than one which never changes. Switching through images also provided the audience with more information and visual reference, depending on what the speaker used them for, and made him/her appear more thoughtful in their presentation.

One of the common problems I noticed was that some people didn’t understand the civic artifact assignment. They would bring in an artifact, but instead of analyzing how it promoted civic engagement, they would explain why whatever the artifact was promoting was civic. While these speeches weren’t necessarily bad, their content wasn’t what the assignment was calling for. When it came to presentations involving interviews, a common snag people ran into was spending too much time giving background information on the person they interviewed. In the end, they were only able to talk for about a minute on what that person thought it meant to be a good citizen–which should have been the meat of their speech. In fact, many people had issues where they over- or underestimated the amount of time they had–myself included.

Social Good Summit — 5 Comments
26
Sep 14

The Neuro-Psychology of Good and Evil

I was pleasantly surprised when on the second day of the social good summit, I recognized one of the speakers from a TED talk I once watched for my AP Psychology class. In her presentation, “The Neuro-Tech Network of Humanity,” Neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor explained how human brains are designed in a way that makes social activism possible. One half of our brain (the left brain) makes it possible for us to plan, communicate, and organize things, while the other half (the right brain) is able to think holistically and creatively. More interesting is the idea that the left brain is what allows us to see ourselves as individuals, while the right brain understands that we are part of something much bigger. So we don’t just understand that we are all a part of this planet; we also understand that we as an individual can make a difference.

Taylor went on the explain how our most basic and innate functions were located in the center of the brain, while our higher “additional” functions developed through evolution and aging. If you ever learned about the brain’s anatomy, you know that the limbic system (emotions) is right in the center of everything, while our frontal lobe and cerebral cortex (thinking and higher reasoning) are at the edges of our brain. So in Taylor’s words, “We aren’t thinking creatures who feel, we are feeling creatures who think.”

Why is that important? Well according to Taylor’s argument, our natural tendencies lead us to feel for others. We are sensitive to the suffering around us and want to make a change. The thing which separates humans from other animals is that our brains have both the capacity to feel for others, and  the reasoning and thinking skills to make accomplish the goal to make their lives better. If we go by what Taylor is saying, we are basically designed to be good people and help one another.

But if that’s true, why is it that so many people often choose to make decisions which harm others? The answer, coincidentally, can be found in yet another TED talk I viewed in my AP psychology course.

Philip Zimbardo, world-renowned psychologist and professor at Stanford University, has spent his career studying what makes humans “go bad.” In his book The Lucifer Effect, he analyzes the ways in which we can span the spectrum between kind and cruel, caring and indifferent, and so on. What he eventually found is that people don’t just become evil; rather, it is a higher power, or “the system,” which causes them to do bad things. In Zimbardo’s words, it’s not the apples that go bad, it’s the barrel.

He found that when people are put in an unfamiliar situation, they tend to do what the authoritative figure tells them to do–even if that means hurting people. Anonymity is also a large factor. When people disguise themselves, 12 out of 13 are willing to harm others, compared to 1 in 8 if they just appear as themselves. I know this sounds extreme, but there have been several studies to back this up, including Zimbardo’s himself, which tested college students like us. Kids were assigned positions in a makeshift prison, either as inmates or guards. The guards were instructed by authority figures to taunt the prisoners, humiliate them and abuse them. And they did, because that what they’d been told, and they didn’t know what else to do. They adapted in order to cope within a bad situation.

Humans are impressionable, and though I’d like to believe in what Taylor asserts about us being engineered to do good, we also have to remember how easy it is for us to do bad as well. If we keep a close watch on our leadership, and constantly ask ourselves if what we’re doing is really okay, I think we could make the progress everyone at the summit was talking about. We just have to remember: The most important person to monitor is ourselves.

Sources:

Jill Bolte Taylor. Stroke of Insight, 2008.

Philip Zimbardo. The Psychology of Evil, 2008.

Philip Zimbardo. The Lucifer Effect, 2007.

Social Good Summit — No Comments
25
Sep 14

Women and the Digital Revolution

During the seminar “Accelerating Global Change: Women & the Digital Revolution,” several women shared their experience connecting online through World Pulse, an online resource for women around the world. The founder, Jensine Larson, created it as a way for women to support and inspire each other, using the web campaign to provide women with information in areas where they need it most. I really enjoyed hearing how girls were using it, and how it encouraged them to try things that women in their communities had never tried before. But later I realized: Larson isn’t the only women who’s created something like this.

If you’re ever looking for a feminist article, you’re most likely not going to find it in the shelves of a library–or at least, you won’t find anything modern. This is because feminism for the most part has taken to the internet, and the blogsphere in particular is booming. There are literally thousands of feminist blogs out there. Some talk about anything feminism, while others focus on black feminism, queer feminism, feminism in hip-hop culture, or even just feminism from the male perspective. There is so much information being shared out there, and more and more women are beginning to take part.

I always appreciated online discussion groups. I think it encourages more people to speak honestly and come out of their shells, especially young girls in this case. But another thing blogging publicly does is make these websites available to anyone and everyone. You don’t have to attend a rally like you did in 1980 if you want to hear about a women’s rights movement anymore. Girls have taken over the web, and in turn, so is feminism.

Despite all this, it hadn’t occurred to me that women from places like Nepal and Tunisia were also getting involved in these online movements. But now that the social good summit has drastically expanded my world view, I’m definitely proud that it has. Women everywhere are beginning to feel empowered, and it’s because all of us are finally able to connect with each other; to inspire and support ourselves as one. Things like country borders, language boundaries, and cultural repression are fading away with the innovations of technology.

My Women’s Studies professor has been having all of her students write blogs sharing our feminist feelings for the week, and then comment on our classmates’ blogs. She did this knowing that if we really wanted to get involved, the blogsphere was the perfect way to start. And while I understood her logic at the time, I never truly appreciated it until further into the semester, as I discovered the seemingly endless amount of females supporting each other and sharing ideas.

Can you guys understand how fantastic this is? Imagine you’re just browsing online, and you suddenly come across an entire worldwide community, devoted entirely to supporting you and making sure you live happy, equal lives without oppression; which understands the challenges you face and actively takes steps to end them. Now imagine that you were like these girls from Nepal and Tunisia, who never had any resources like this before, and came across the same thing. That is what we call the feminist blogsphere.

I would say the internet is a wonderful thing, but we wouldn’t have this community without the women who made it. And I must say, I’m truly proud of this.

#Feminism

 

Social Good Summit — 2 Comments
25
Sep 14

Think Globally, Act Locally

On the first day of the Social Good Summit, listeners were introduced to the idea of looking at a situation holistically, and then take steps toward solving the problem with the bigger picture in mind. In the words of children’s rights activist Graca Machel, “Think globally, and then act locally.”

During the seminar “Women Power. Empowered Women,” Machel went into further detail. She explained how even if we can’t reach the entire world at once, if we proceed towards solving a problem with the entire situation in mind, it’s much more likely to succeed the way we want it to. During the summit, Machel and the three other women in her seminar were mostly discussing ways to solve the problem of childhood marriage. But when I considered what they were saying afterwards, I realized this advice to think holistically could be applied to several other issues.

For example, last fall I did a research project on Mississippi’s education program, and found it was one of the five worst programs in the U.S. Their standardized test scores are dismal, and only 60% of the student population ever graduates high school. That means almost half of the state’s youth has never achieved a high school education. I also learned that despite this, Mississippi’s government is taking its money out of its schools, and using it to fund bigger and better prisons in an attempt to combat the state’s rising crime rates. But does that actually solve their problem?

Let’s take a step back and look at the situation holistically–because if Mississippi’s government had, they would have realized that one of the traits most commonly associated with criminals is a lack of education. If you have an education, you’re more likely to get a job, and less likely to be out on the street robbing convenience stores. You’d also be giving back to the economy by working, and the state would be making even more money. I think it’s fair to say that Mississippi didn’t think this one through.

In contrast, the seminar which followed “Women Power. Empowered Women,” gave an example of how holistic thinking is successfully solving problems–even from across an ocean. In “One Year Later: Progress in the Pursuit of Conflict-Free,” the CEO of Intel Corporation Brian Krzanich explained how his company is refusing to purchase conflict minerals (slave-mined minerals from the Democratic-Republic of the Congo often used to build computer chips). Roxanne Rahnama, a student activist at the University of California Berkley, explained how her University and several other like it had pledged to only buy computer supplies from companies which, like Intel, had stopped buying into the Congo’s slave trade. This is an example of how looking holistically at a problem can help us find solutions that are not always obvious, but still get to the heart of the issue: These activists thought globally, and acted locally.

This concept is important to keep in mind, especially since we are out in the world now and making decisions on our own. It’s always good to look at a situation from every angle before deciding how to act. It can save you a lot of time, and probably get you closer to what you wanted in the first place.

Passion — 6 Comments
11
Sep 14

Feminists: What Do Those People Want, Anyway?

 

If you read my first passion blog, I talked about why I wanted to write about feminism. It’s a unspeakably important movement which is often misinterpreted, degraded, and more and more frequently, simply passed off no longer necessary, since women are “already equal” in our society… at least, that’s what we’ve been told.

Given all of these misconceptions of the topic itself, I believe for my first blog, a bit of an introduction is in order.

Feminism has been given many definitions, some more ridiculous and accusatory than others. My personal favorite, which I’ll be referencing throughout my blogs is as follows: “Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression” (Hooks, viii). What’s fantastic about this definition is it makes it very clear that the problem feminists are confronting is with sexism, not with men. This makes three things clear immediately.

1) Contrary to urban legend, feminists are not simply a bunch of angry lesbians who hate the entire male gender.

2) Men can also be feminists without betraying their sex.

3) Women themselves can contribute to the very sexist notions which feminists combat.

Feminism then, has never been something just for women. Rather, it is for anyone who believes the sexes should be equal.

So now that you’ve had your crash course on the movement, I still have to explain why it’s relevant to us today.

Unlike what many of us like to believe, women still are nowhere equal to men, particularly in the U.S. Here are two examples of this:

1) Currently, working women make on average thirty-three cents less of every US dollar a man earns in her exact same position. So even when women work as hard as men, it is impossible for them to achieve the same amount. Our society simply doesn’t allow it.

2) 51% of the U.S. population is female, but make up only 17% of our government.  This is the result not only of women being subconsciously discouraged to run for office, but also of our media subtly implying that women are not fit for the job. Over and over again on film and television, woman are portrayed as irrational. We are too emotional, too fragile, to survive in the world of politics. And so women aren’t elected. What this ultimately means is that the decisions being made for that 51% of the population are being made by people who cannot possibly understand the everyday difficulties they  face.

No wonder our country has so many problems. The people who hold enough power to make the laws represent about 6% of our population. (White, male, over 30, educated, born in America).

At any rate, the question remains: What do those feminists want? Well, as a feminist, here’s a sampling of what I’d like to see happen:

-I want women to start being judged for their accomplishments, not their bodies.

-I want women to be welcomed into positions of power, not discouraged or told that having ambition is not “feminine.”

-I want music videos which feature women to show them doing something other than dancing around half-naked.

-I want the glass ceiling to disappear.

-I want the rate of depression in young girls–which has doubled in the past decade–who don’t have the “perfect body” to start lowering.

Most of all, I want people to realize that when it comes to equality of the sexes, there is far more work to be done. That’s what this blog is about. I hope reading it will be both enlightening and inspiring. And maybe we can even make some progress together.

Sources:

Bell Hooks. Feminism is for Everyone. 2000

Bell Hooks. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. 1984

Miss Representation. 2011

RCL — 3 Comments
11
Sep 14

Civic Artifact Analysis

As an example of rhetoric which takes notable advantage of kairos, I’ve provided the advertisement above.

If you can’t see the caption at the bottom very well, it reads, “The number of car accidents involving children increases during school holidays. Please be extremely careful!” And so we see the first mention of the rhetorical situation: A school holiday was most likely coming up when this was printed, and so a message like this would have been in perfect time to give drivers a head’s up.

The second way kairos is taken advantage of in this ad is through the image of the man driving on his cell phone. The conversation about how cell phones distract us from everyday life and what really matters has been going on for about a decade, and keeps getting brought up again with each new generation of smart phone. Another crisis revolving around cell phones is their increasing involvement in car accidents, which is why it’s become illegal to use them while driving in most states. The large majority of the audience this ad is directed to also own cell phones, and so showing the man on his phone is something they can relate to. They’re probably already aware of the risk based on recent conversation, so it takes less explanation for them to accept that something which they own and operate can be so deadly.

And finally we get to the kicker. Look at the picture, and look at the rear-view mirror. You’ve probably already noticed, but the eyes of the child they’re about to hit line up exactly with the child sitting in the backseat of the car. This is directed at anyone who’s ever cared about a young child. Subconsciously it’s saying to the viewer, “What if this was your son, daughter, little brother or sister, niece or nephew, grandchild or cousin, who’s about to get hit? What if this was your young loved one, sitting in the back of your car, while you hit that child?” In this case, kairos is audience-specific, and the emphasis in recent years on responsible driving really digs deep here. If the audience didn’t care as much about kids, this appeal to pathos wouldn’t work. But it does, and the fear this ad instills really hits close to home.

Passion — 3 Comments
04
Sep 14

Passionate Ideas

I’m about to start another blog about things I care about. Here are my top two ideas:

1. Music in the hard rock/metal universe

I listen to a lot of heavy music, which is typically not considered mainstream. It’s more an underground subgroup of rock, and is often passed over by the less hardcore world. I really love this music, and I’m actually just discovering it for myself, so I thought it would be fun to post about it as I came across new bands and new styles. If I’m going to be honest with myself though, I don’t think anyone would want to read it–at least in this class. Maybe like… one person? And even if they did, they probably wouldn’t listen to the music. That’s okay though, because I know there must be a more relevant topic which I can write about. Something I’m really passionate about. Something like…

2. Feminism

Oh yes, I’m going there. I’ve actually already decided this is the topic I want to settle on. Why? Because most people really don’t know what it is, or how it’s relevant to them, and they should. We’re talking about civic life in this class? Well as a political science/women’s studies major, I consider teaching people about feminism to be part of my civic responsibility. My goal for the blog each week would be to write about a feminist issue in society today. To give you a sampling of what I have in mind, I’ve already picked out a few topics: What is the real definition of feminism and what are its goals, the politics of feminism, women in the media, women in relationships, the difference between sex and gender, how men can be feminists, and so on. I want to make it interesting and accessible to everyone, because I want people to actually enjoy reading it. That way, they’ll come back to learn more about this important topic. And I doubt I’ll ever run out of things to say.

RCL — 2 Comments
04
Sep 14

In Response to Ifemelu, the Immigrant Race Blogger from C. Adichie’s “Americanah”

Whether you believe it or not, race is a fundamental part of your identity. Being white does provide people with special privileges in America, the same way having brown skin becomes disadvantageous before its bearers ever say a word. These are things Ifemelu seizes on which her peers–if they ever notice them–are consistently tiptoeing around. It’s not surprising to me that she feels the need to speak out about it.

Ifemelu as a blogger writes about racial and social justice issues which have been defining her for years, but which Americans continue to ignore. I would say she does this partly out of civic responsibility, because America is supposed to be the land of equal opportunity, and it so blatantly is not. The brilliant place Nigerians always fantasized about is just that: a fantasy. She wants people to realize this.

The fact that Ifemelu is an immigrant is important though, because unlike Americans, she has not been cultured into thinking our racist culture is normal. As an outsider, what most Americans hardly ever consider–such as how we constantly racially profile people–is something she views as obvious. She is also able to take a mostly unbiased stance on “the American Black,” because while she is black, she has not been raised in the same society or been taught to think in the same way.

By portraying Ifemelu as an outspoken, intelligent, black immigrant, Adichie is able to tell a story through the eyes of someone who not only experiences American racism, but can also form opinions on it without the familiar baggage of what some might consider the “bitter, post-slavery views” of American blacks. To Ifemelu, everything is fresh and new, and the way she openly talks about these taboo topics makes what many Americans experience everyday fresh and new as well. And that is what finally makes the reader wake up and notice how our civic responsibilities (i.e. keeping people of color from being discriminated against in a society centered around “equality” and “freedom”) are being thoughtlessly shirked.

 

RCL — No Comments
03
Sep 14

Ancient Rhetoric Activity 3

I’ve been trying to convince my friend to start donating blood for a while now. He’s a young, healthy man, with no anemia or other conditions preventing him from donating. I’ve told him this as part of my logos; he’s a prime candidate, and it’s quite unlikely donating will harm him. I also used my ethos as an experienced donor to assure him centers for giving blood are clean and safe, and that I’ve never incurred negative side-effects from donating. When he was still was unsure, I went for an emotional appeal: one donation can save up to three lives, and hospitals are constantly running low on transfusions. Less than one third of the population is eligible to donate, so as one of the few who can, I argued that it was his responsibility to give blood and help his community stay healthy.

Ultimately, I was unsuccessful in my persuasion, and I believe this is because of the context my friend had on the topic before I ever spoke to him about it. His mother had told him that the drives I went to were not clean or safe, which prevented him from even considering donating for several years. I’m also much more familiar with the positive impact community service can make–on both the community and the volunteer–than my friend is. I’ve been consistently involved in Girl Scouts and other youth service organizations since I was six; whereas he had only been in Boy Scouts until 7th grade. Lastly, my friend is afraid of needles, and so he likely imagines that giving blood would be an unpleasant experience. I look forward to one day proving him wrong.

Something similar happened to me when two friends were trying to convince me to become a vegan. Though I agreed with most of their arguments–that the vegan lifestyle is healthier, better for the environment, and more humane towards animals–the context I held ultimately made me turn down their suggestions. I come from a very Italian family, and I like to eat. Going vegan would drastically reduce my palette options, which, unfortunately, I’m just not excited about. Furthermore, food and family are very important in my culture–especially together. I want to be able to sit down to a meal with them and just enjoy their company, rather than stress over the ingredients of the sauce my mother cooked that evening.

Skip to toolbar