Archives

Passion — No Comments
20
Nov 14

Housework: Women’s Subordination Cont’d

It seems to me that, even when great strides are being made toward leveling the playing field, the oppressive group will always cling to some semblance of “normalcy,” keeping them just a bit farther ahead of the curve when it comes to keeping their hegemony in place. That said, it can be quite interesting to observe what these things they cling to are.

According to many feminist scholars, there’s a reason why men aren’t making as much of a fuss when feminists lobby for things like equal pay for women and the deconstruction of the glass ceiling. That’s all going on in a world which doesn’t directly affect them, and even if it did, they know it’s wrong to be uncomfortable about that sort of thing in 2014. The point is, all of it’s happening outside the home. What continues to ensue inside–up close and personal in their everyday lives–is what’s consoling them. It’s the female labor they’re able to control. In other words: Housework.

Today, any kind of housework (that includes cooking, cleaning, laundry, gardening–even childcare) is predominantly taken care of by the women of a shared household. You might ask: Are feminists really this neurotic? How is something as trivial as housework subordinating women?

Here’s a couple answers to this FAQ:

1) It’s degrading, dirty work that no one wants to do, but it’s expected that it will be taken care of by the woman–wordlessly implying that the man is above such work. If you walk into a household of a married couple and it’s a mess, you’d be much more likely to hear someone say, “Wow, she really doesn’t care about this place being clean, does she?” than any snide comment directed at the husband. It’s remains a societal norm that women keep things beautiful, and men cause a mess (although obviously this isn’t how it always happens). Therefore, women are often faced with more judgement in the overall way they physically present themselves and their home. This is reflected in our culture in how women often feel more anxiety over the cleanliness of their house/room/general state of appearance than men do. If you’ve never noticed this before, just ask around.

2) Housework is very time consuming work. This means that, while Mom is stuck at home mopping and vacuuming and running after the kids, Dad can go to work for nearly twice as long, or otherwise use his time in whatever way he pleases which doesn’t involve scrubbing his own dried urine off the toilet seat. Consequently, men who don’t do housework have much more time to pursue their careers and develop themselves economically, and the women who do do housework are deprived of this opportunity and instead must work for hours a day without pay, in a very grueling and under appreciated position. Not to mention that giving up her career to stay home, cook, clean, and take care of the kids means a woman ends up economically dependent on her husband, in essence binding a her to the relationship. (You don’t have to be a feminist to figure out why we don’t like that sort of situation).

Keep in mind that this can also happen the other way around: Women can be the breadwinners while men stay home and cook and clean. The reason why feminists are all up in arms about it, is that it’s much more likely for women to be in subordinated position than men–and that’s not always a choice they make for themselves. Luckily, this issue is beginning to become less of a problem as more liberal generations grow up, and men and women start sharing the household chores, although it has by no means vanished. Just keep in mind: if you’re in a relationship and you find yourself doing more than your fair share of the housework, don’t just mutter a complaint. Lay a couple of these points down on your partner. They may find that your arguments aren’t as “trivial” as they seem.

Sources:

Ehrenreich, Barbara. Maid to Order, 2000.

Mainardi, Pat. The Politics of Housework, 1970.

Passion — No Comments
06
Nov 14

Western Feminism’s Burden

In my blog for my Women’s Studies class, I’ve recently spent a fair amount of time discussing “White Man’s Burden.” The term refers to the deep-seated idea that since white people are the “superior, more privileged” race, it is their responsibility to raise all other races up to their standard of living–which again, is superior to all other lifestyles, and obviously preferable to any chosen “victimized” culture’s current situation. And because of this, anytime white people try to “help” those in different cultures, they should logically be received with gratitude for their charitable efforts. Most people have realized by that this is simply untrue. It’s a colonialist idea that was really only relevant until the end of the civil rights movement. At least, that’s what we’ve been led to believe.

Coming to college, I’ve noticed a few things I was never really aware of before. One of which is the fact that, although conservatives in America are typically thought to be the “bigoted ones,” there’s a lot liberals here who are too. If nothing else, this is because of a lack of information. The thing is, when you call a liberal out about it, it’s a lot harder for them to accept that they’ve said or done something prejudiced, because one of the defining traits they often see in themselves is a fair and just willingness to help others. When they’re made aware of it, they often are ashamed, but at the same time they might feel somewhat justified. After all, they support efforts to help the very people they’re prejudiced towards. Their intention was never to be prejudiced… But that doesn’t mean they aren’t.

The same goes for white/western/upper-middle class feminists. While our intentions may be noble, we will never truly understand who we’re helping until we learn to look past stereotypes. And if we don’t understand people, we won’t understand how to help them. As feminists trying to help women in the “third world” (another subjective term, stemming from the West’s superiority complex) we’ll focus on “issues” we as Westerners would consider problems, or which we find “terrible” (think unfamiliar/foreign). These chosen areas of focus often include the termination of basic cultural norms in other countries, such as the veiling of women or genital mutilation. We could spend all our time on this wasted effort–trying to change a culture which isn’t ours, and once again becoming the safeguarding oppressors of the globe. But in truth, the women of the region themselves may want–and need–different types of support. And unless we’ve talked to them explicitly about those needs, chances are we as Westerners would never consider them a problem, simply because we’ve never had to think about them before. For example, many women spend hours each day carrying clean water back to their homes, just to make one meal for their family. Access to clean water is a constant struggle in these regions, but practically unheard of in the West. In Africa, hundreds of women and children die each day because of a shortage in health care for infants and pregnant women–but this is hardly an issue where we live. We also tend to have relatively safe working environments over here, so we don’t consider things like the structural unsoundness of buildings to be a feminist issue. However, if you’ve been paying attention to the recurring collapses of textile mills in India (which for the most part employ women and children), you probably realize that it is.

If we take the time to see women in other countries as people like us, who all have different needs, we will be able to provide support for our fellow women in a much more meaningful, efficient way. But we can only give people what they’re willing to accept. If we only focus on giving them what we think they need, they’ll never be able to have what they actually need. And if all we’re trying to do is make their culture just like ours, we’re only oppressing them even more.

Sources:

Hooks, Bell. Global Feminism, 2000.

Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. Under Western Eyes, 1984.

Shiva, Vandana. Our Violent Economy Is Hurting Women, 2013.

RCL — 3 Comments
30
Oct 14

Outline for “The First Movement to Combat Domestic Violence (Happening Now)”

Intro:

Domestic violence, as we see it today, is completely despicable. The police have a no tolerance policy when they get a call. But domestic violence is nothing new. In fact, fathers have beat their wives and children for thousands of years, and for nearly as long as history has been documented, this was normal. Condoned, even.

-Purposes of domestic abuse:

-keeps father in charge

-makes wives and children more obedient

-considered masculine

-Explain where “rule of thumb” comes from

(at some point mention I’m using the pronoun “he” for the aggressor and “she” for the victim because that is generally how things play out. It doesn’t always happen this way, but for our purposes and lack of confusion, these are the pronouns I’ll by applying)

Transition: When did it all change?

Policy change: 1980s

-Ronald Reagan, policy crackdown, zero tolerance with drugs, reform for policy policy

-Equal Protection Policy: Police must protect everyone equally under the law

–But police could be called to break up a bar fight–they’d immediately arrest those who participated. But if they were called to investigate a domestic, they’d just check to see if beating was in progress (if they came at all), the leave. Usually, the husband would then get mad and continue to beat the wife when they left.

-Story (name pending): A woman calls the police multiple times over the course of six months. They never do anything. When they’re finally called for the last time, husband has shot the woman, dragged her outside and is kicking her. Police watch the woman get kicked twice more before arresting the man after the third kick.

-Woman sues under the equal protection policy and wins. Several more women then sue for similar problems with policy and continually win.

-Reagan calls for police policy change. Police also get paranoid–they don’t want to get sued. They start a zero tolerance policy: If there’s evidence of abuse, perpetrator gets arrested on the spot, whether the victim wants them to or not.

Attitudes:

-Since women were talking about it now, people were beginning to think of domestic abuse as something bad, and no longer the norm. It became a huge issue within the feminist movement, especially in Western society.

-More domestic abuse reported than ever–became apparent that it was the most common form of violence perpetrated.

-Definition of “violence” changes: emotional and psychological abuse also considered violent (see Duluth Model of Power and Control)

-Talk about new punishments and their severity: Are they severe enough? Feminists would argue no=> goes along with lack in severity in rape penalization.

Considering Rape Culture:

-Explain what rape culture is (find suitable definition, then elaborate with a ton of examples + some personal experiences–i.e. cat-calling, slut-shaming, people expecting me to “prevent” myself from being raped)

-What this implies for the issue of domestic violence:

-It’s expected that domestic violence will happen, because sex is often portrayed violently in our culture and men just can’t help themselves. (“Boys will be boys”)

-Marital rape is only just becoming an “real thing”

-People are quick to victim-blame: “She threw a cup at him first–he was just defending himself by punching her in the face!”

-Personal example: Guy I know defends Ray Rice, saying it might have been self defense because his girlfriend hit him first.

Explain why women might start fights:

-women may be violent in a relationship, but when asked why, it’s typically for different reasons than men. Remember, men tend to domestically abuse people in order to control their partner within a relationship. But normally, that’s the last thing on a woman’s mind…

  1. She’s just so angry or upset–she acts on her emotions, but it’s not calculated
  2. She wants to start the fight because she can feel it coming, and she just wants some control over when it happens

Conclusion: What can be done now?

  1. Feminist movements need to keep going–women know what’s best for women, and we need to trust victims when they say something is going on.
  2. Men need to confront other men who are abusers–these people tend to listen more to men anyway.
  3. More education for everyone: what is abuse, how to deal with it. It’s not always like in movies.
Passion — 9 Comments
23
Oct 14

Rape Culture On Campus

This week I decided to go into a heavier topic in preparation for my paradigm shift paper. I’m not sure whether everyone’s been getting the alerts about sexual assault at PSU, but there’s a lot of them. And the thing is, there’s definitely more going on than what we hear about. And I believe rape culture is responsible.

For those of you who don’t know what rape culture is, I can’t blame you. It’s hard to notice something when it’s been so fully ingrained into our society since… forever. Let me give you a run-down.

Rape culture is the idea that men rape, because that’s just what men do, and we just can’t stop it from happening. Rape culture is how sexuality is regarded as violent, and that violent sexuality is normal. It’s women being afraid to go out alone at night, for fear of being rape. It’s people blaming the victim for allowing themselves to be raped. It’s judges banning the use of the word “rape” from the courtroom. It’s the assertion that only “certain people” get raped. It’s 10-year old boys knowing how to rape. It’s the idea that straight sexuality is the norm, and so is the male inability to control themselves around attractive women. It’s the notion that cat-calling and wolf whistling is “flattering.” It’s the fact that most rapes go unreported. It’s the objectification of women and girls. It’s 1 out of 31 men and 1 out of 6 women being sexually assaulted in their lifetime. It’s “the myriad of ways in which rape is tacitly and overtly abetted and encouraged having saturated every corner of our culture so thoroughly that people can’t easily wrap their heads around what the rape culture actually is” (McEwan 2009).

Now let’s put this in context.

There’s a period of time on college campuses, called the “Red Zone.” It refers to the first six weeks of the fall semester, during which more rapes and indecent assaults occur more than any other time of year. That’s right–this is so consistent that they even have a name for it. And who are most often the victims of these crimes? Freshmen women. The youngest, least experienced people on campus. Which implies that as college women get older, they learn to be self-protective on campus. And they have to be, if rape culture remains as rampant as it is.

What I find really aggravating is that it’s so easy for women to find information or “support” in order to avoid being raped, and there’s plenty of resources to help them cope after they’ve been raped on campus… But you’d be hard-pressed to find any info sessions for men, teaching them to not rape in the first place. It’s as though it’s become a fact of life that men will rape people, and there’s nothing we can do about it except try to avoid it.

Here’s the problem with that logic: There is no way for someone to avoid rape, especially since no one ever deserves it. If you are in the presence of someone who wants to rape, they will rape. It doesn’t matter what you wear, who you hang out with, or how much you drink. And you can’t stay away from these people because rapists don’t do things like hold signs saying “I Am A Rapist” or glow purple or anything. There’s no way to see it coming. It could happen to anyone. Which means the only way to actually handle sexual assault is to simply try to deal with the repercussions of being violated after it’s already happened. And maybe, if you report it, that person will be brought to “justice.” But it doesn’t change the fact that you were raped.

Isn’t our society better than this? It’s 2014, we live in one of the wealthiest, most highly educated and technologically advanced countries in the world. If we can find a way to put a man on the moon, we can find a way to end rape culture. And I think the first steps should be to start educating kids earlier about what rape is, and the concept of consent. Most high schools breeze over the subject, saying students are too young to have sex in the first place, which basically brushes the entire problem under the rug. We need to encourage the media to not pair violence and sexuality so easily. We need stricter and more consistent punishments for people who do commit sexual crimes. We need to encourage this and more in our society, if we ever want our rape culture to be something other than the norm.

Sources:

McEwan, Melissa. FAQ: Rape Culture 101, Oct. 19, 2009.

Passion — 3 Comments
20
Oct 14

Intersectionality and What It’s Done For Feminism

In December of 1851, Sojourner Truth gave feminism’s first speech regarding intersectionality:

That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain’t I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain’t I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man – when I could get it – and bear the lash as well! And ain’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain’t I a woman?        (Truth 1851)

What she means by “Ain’t I a woman” is that sure, she may be black, but that’s not the only thing which defines her. She’s a woman too, and she’s a mother and former slave as well. This is what intersectionality is: A theory about the ways all people’s experiences of life are created by the intersection or coming together of multiple identities, including race, ethnicities, social class, familial background, and so on (Shaw & Lee 2010). Feminism has thoroughly embraced this concept, as is evidenced by how often the above poem, Ain’t I A Woman, is still referenced today. In fact, every form of social justice has learned to intensely value intersectionality, because by it’s very definition, it connects all of them together. Feminism is connected to the LGBTQ movement, because many women aren’t straight, and the LGBTQ movement is connected to the movement against racism, because LGBTQ people come from different ethnic background. And that movement is connected to the movement against domestic abuse, which is connected to women’s birth control rights, and so forth. It’s all connected, and it’s all because of the concept of intersectionality.

Beyond integrating all the movements into one another, intersectionality can be used as a tool for social justice in several different ways. First, it makes it easy to recognize that all identities are multifaceted. It’s like Sojourner Truth was saying. Yes she is black, but that’s not the full extent of what makes her who she is. I, for example, am white, but I’m also female, straight, and cisgender. I’m American and I grew up in a highly educated, middle-class family in a college town. Basing my identity off of only one of those traits would greatly degrade who I am as a person, and would also open the door for stereotypes about the single trait.

This is another way intersectionality helps social justice: by discouraging stereotypes and discrimination. If you were considering nothing about my identity except that I am a young white woman, you might assume I like to wear Ugg boots. But in reality, I would never wear Ugg boots because I grew up around a lot of artistic people who taught me how to express myself through my clothes, and there’s simply no message I want to send to the world by wearing them (No offense to people who like Ugg boots. They’re really comfy. But we both know they’re basically the least attractive and least interesting form of women’s footwear available). You might also assume that, since I’m young, that I’m not very cultured–even though I’ve traveled out of the country six times and speak three languages.

This is what intersectionality is used for–understanding that one trait does not define a person. And this is why feminists love the term so much. According to intersectionality, being a woman doesn’t mean you’re delicate. It doesn’t mean like you to wear dresses, or think Ryan Gosling is sexy, or enjoy pumpkin spice lattes. All those things might be true, but it could be true for thousands of different reasons. In essence, being a woman is no more significant to your identity than anything else that makes you you. Which means a woman can be or do anything that a man can be or do, and vice versa. Intersectionality is a way of embracing how everyone is different, and at the same time, have to potential to be the same. Which certainly goes well with social justice, doesn’t it?

Sources:

Lee, Janet and Shaw, Susan. Women’s Voices, 2010.

Truth, Sojourner. Ain’t I A Woman, 1851.

 

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.

Passion — 1 Comment
02
Oct 14

The Difference Between Falling in Love and Choosing to Love

One of my favorite feminist authors, Gloria Jean Watkins–more commonly known by her pen name, Bell Hooks–once wrote a piece which completely changed the way I think about love and emotion. The piece was entitled, Romance: Sweet Love. In it, Hooks condemns the notion of “falling” in love–a process in which we feel utterly out of control, and yet crave all the same.

In our culture, love is something of a deity. It is an omniscient force, inevitable as it descends over you, untemperable like an ocean wave. Many of have spent our lives hoping that love will “find” us–as though love is the sentient being, and not ourselves. Catching the “love bug” rends the afflicted unable to speak properly, unable to eat or sleep. They have no control over their thoughts or actions, hijacked as they have been by Cupid and his tricky heart-shaped arrows. And it doesn’t matter what direction this cherub points you in; you could “fall in love” with someone who mocks you, who doesn’t understand your needs, who beats you–but what’s to be done? You’ve fallen in love, you couldn’t control it. It’s not your fault, and you couldn’t have stopped it if you tried. You are merely a victim of the cards of fate and love’s wily game.

Step back and consider for a moment, how everything I’ve just asserted–some of which you may have been able to relate to–is bullshit.

Love is an emotion. It can be a powerful, breathtaking, blindsiding emotion, but it a product of your own body and mind. We don’t “fall in love” with people love wants us to, we fall in love with people we want to. Which means that, logically, we are able to choose who we love. It means we can avoid relationships we know will be bad for us. It means we can let the well of feelings for a person grow inside us at our own pace. It means that if we choose to love someone, we have control over the situation. This is the second part of Bell Hook’s assertion.

Now, choosing to love instead of falling in love–doesn’t that kill the idea of romance? I would argue the contrary. As someone who has both fallen blindly into relationships and eventually into abusive situations, and who later began cautiously building a relationship around someone I chose–someone I know will be there when I need them–I can tell you: Intimacy and attraction are always so much better–so much deeper–when you know the person cares for you and respects you. And when you decide to love that person, you do it with the knowledge that this will be something good for both of you, not a dicey guessing game full of uncertainties and insecurities. The sex, which will carry so much more significance, is nothing to sneeze at either. You’ll see.

This is the difference between falling in love and choosing to love, and I can understand why Bell Hooks included this as a chapter in one of her books on feminism. “Choosing” is certainly more empowering than “falling,” and it’s better for you too. Knowing you are taking steps towards love which you have control over is much less nerve-wracking than the sensation of tumbling towards or being held down by something unavoidable. Love should be something you and your partner mutually decide on, not something to be held in fear and awe to the extent where the very idea becomes untouchable. So readers, what I think what Romance: Sweet Love is trying to say, and what I hope you’re beginning to understand, is that love is both an action which you can decide to do, and a force which you can mold and strengthen–if you choose to do it. You are nobody’s slave. Not even your own.

Sources:

Bell Hooks. Romance: Sweet Love. 2000.

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

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.

Skip to toolbar