A feminist is a person who believes that women and others should be treated with the same respect and given the same rights as every other person on the planet. A person who believes women can hold corporate positions, a person that understands a woman's right to choose, and most importantly a person who feels that there are no boundaries when it comes to equality. I don't mean no boundaries as in they can do anything and get away with it, but that they will go as far as they need to go to say what is needed to be said. A pro-feminist man is a man who agrees with feminism. "They support women's equality by changing their lives at home and work all while transforming the definition of masculinity."(722) A man cannot be a feminist because he does not have the feeling of being unequal since he is in fact a man. I still do not consider myself a feminist. I do believe in equality, but not enough to label myself anything. I do not pay much attention to politics and do not really put enough thought into the matter. So, for me to claim either a political title or a title as feminist just does not feel right.
My experience with this course has shown me that there are a lot of different perspectives. This is one thing I have always been aware of, but my life has been slightly sheltered. Being raised in a Christian home with very conservative parents has not allowed me to experience new ideas. I do however claim to be the most liberal person in my family and I think I have the most open-minded opinion. With that said, I have allowed myself to not look blindly at the topic of feminism anymore, but instead embrace the differences.
As for taking what I have learned from this class, I almost seemed to have stated that before. I want to be known as the person who doesn't look blindly at a situation anymore. I would rather be educated in what the other person believes and then decide whether I accept it or reject it for myself, while at the same time allowing that person to live their life how they choose. This is similar to the relationship I have with my best friend from high school. She is a lesbian, and I found that out after we had become very close. She knows that I am a Christian and we both respect each other's decisions. She has visited my church before and I have gone to a gay bar with her. Things like this I will take from this class. The idea of open-mindedness and respect for other people, cultures, decisions and lifestyles. I don't want to be and I am not the judge of someone else's life.
I still don't know what I want to do with my life. I'm an English major, so I may wind up being a writer or an advertiser or a critic; I don't know. So I don't feel I can effectively answer this question about how this course could or could not relate. I do know that all the writing has allowed me to see what kind of a writer I am and that I could have a career with something similar to the types of posts we make.
Thank you for an interesting semester. It was a journey outside of my comfort zone and there were times when this was the last thing I wanted to think of. But I persevered and your comments and words of encouragement helped me get through this. I doubt I will ever take another course like this one, it was a bit overwhelming, but overall I think I wound up enjoying it in the end.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Friday, November 30, 2007
Activity #10
Constitutional Argument
This is Susan B. Anthony's address in 1898 to her fellow Americans and judicial review about how she took a stand a voted in the Presidential election. At this point in time women did not have the lawful right to vote. Anthony stated that she did not commit a crime and only exercised her right as a citizen that is stated in the Constitution. She was one of the first women to take a stand and say what she believes- which is that all men are to be created equal, like stated in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
Unequal
One of the points made in unequal reminds me of an event that I attended. It was about marriage and divorce in Iran. In this article it was talking about "wife obedience" and how a woman has limited rights within relationships. On the flipside, this article points out that in the United States, if a child is born to a U.S. mother and non U.S. father, the child obtains citizenship, but if the child is born to a U.S. father and non U.S. mother, then it must take the steps to acquire this citizenship. Which I feel can be contributed to how they gave children born to slave mothers rights. If a slave had a child, the child did not belong to the mother but to the master of the mother. To me this seems to be kind of the same situation.
She Who Believes in Freedom
Right now more money is being spent on prison systems than K-12 education. There are some disturbing numbers. There is a program being started to help some of the people that are incarcerated for non-violent actions by giving them access to schools and jobs and not to punish them for their living conditions or societal status. There are over 2 million people are in jail and we spend $41 billion dollars to house them. I think, we could compromise and allow some of the less severe crimes out for behavior or for schooling. But one thing I've learned from a relative is we can also start using the death penalty for more severe crimes. I think, if you are going to be jailed for life, then why do we need to spend our tax dollars to let someone sit in jail and have television and meals and basketball and whatnot. As for women's prisons it is also disturbing to read that we had 5 prisons for women by 1950 and then 30 years later there were 34 more added! We, as a country and community, need to help these at risk people to improve their lives before being put in a situation that would convict them to jail time.
This is Susan B. Anthony's address in 1898 to her fellow Americans and judicial review about how she took a stand a voted in the Presidential election. At this point in time women did not have the lawful right to vote. Anthony stated that she did not commit a crime and only exercised her right as a citizen that is stated in the Constitution. She was one of the first women to take a stand and say what she believes- which is that all men are to be created equal, like stated in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
Unequal
One of the points made in unequal reminds me of an event that I attended. It was about marriage and divorce in Iran. In this article it was talking about "wife obedience" and how a woman has limited rights within relationships. On the flipside, this article points out that in the United States, if a child is born to a U.S. mother and non U.S. father, the child obtains citizenship, but if the child is born to a U.S. father and non U.S. mother, then it must take the steps to acquire this citizenship. Which I feel can be contributed to how they gave children born to slave mothers rights. If a slave had a child, the child did not belong to the mother but to the master of the mother. To me this seems to be kind of the same situation.
She Who Believes in Freedom
Right now more money is being spent on prison systems than K-12 education. There are some disturbing numbers. There is a program being started to help some of the people that are incarcerated for non-violent actions by giving them access to schools and jobs and not to punish them for their living conditions or societal status. There are over 2 million people are in jail and we spend $41 billion dollars to house them. I think, we could compromise and allow some of the less severe crimes out for behavior or for schooling. But one thing I've learned from a relative is we can also start using the death penalty for more severe crimes. I think, if you are going to be jailed for life, then why do we need to spend our tax dollars to let someone sit in jail and have television and meals and basketball and whatnot. As for women's prisons it is also disturbing to read that we had 5 prisons for women by 1950 and then 30 years later there were 34 more added! We, as a country and community, need to help these at risk people to improve their lives before being put in a situation that would convict them to jail time.
Event 2
For the Bible Tells Me So
November 29,2007
Lyric Theater
This was a documentary written by Daniel Karslake about homosexuality and its relation to the Bible.
There were about 4 or 5 families interviewed as well as other people within churches and other religious organizations. Being a Christian, I was very interested to see the point of views that would be made and the correlation between them.
The main point that was shared by the Christian group is that homosexuality is an abomination. The only other abomination mentioned on any parallel to homosexuality is suicide. Taking one's own life, a life that God made and put on the earth for a reason.
Bishop Robinson was a gay man married to a straight woman. This was before he admitted to himself that he was gay. And they knew something wasn't right, but they wanted it to work. They wanted straight love to triumph over homosexuality. Bishop Robinson finally accepted his homosexuality and he and his wife released their vows. She remarried another man and he found love with another man. This was not the last we were going to hear about Bishop Robinson. After all, he wasn't perceived to be a bishop the whole movie. He was the first person to run for a bishop position or a leadership position in the church as an openly gay man. He had many death threats and had to wear a bullet proof vest when he was being sworn in.
Another story that was told that really touched me was the story of the Reitan family. They had 4 children. 3 boys and a girl. But the youngest in the family, a boy named Jake came out to his parents at the age of 16. Being Lutheran, they were not sure how to accept him and were more worried about him contracting AIDS and how their family would be perceived by the community. This story also has a happy ending. Jake's parents studied the Bible and upon their studies they were able to read that the interpretation can vary. They realized that as parents they would do anything to protect their child and that they have an unconditional love for him just as God has for the entire population of the world. Jake and his parents started the soul force program where they traveled to visit Focus on the Family's main headquarters to protest what Dr. Dobson is preaching and telling parents about raising their children.
I know a lot of people that relay on Dr. Dobson's works of literature. I've never been a fan of him but at the same time I've never had anything against him either. But one of the things I learned he teaches is: do not accept [your child/friend/co-worker/relative] if they are gay. If you do then maybe that person will think it is okay and be less likely to decide to become straight.
I think one of the biggest points made was that the Bible does not necessarily read the same way now as it did when it was written. I have been one to understand this well. I have two tattoos. In the Old Testament it says to not put markings on your body. In this same scripture is also says to not cut the hair on the sides of your head or to clip your beard. There are Old Testament laws which we are not bound to and then there are New Testament laws which we are bound to. I had to make this argument to my dad when he found out about my memorial tattoo i got over the summer.
It was also mentioned that going to church may change someones sexual conduct but most likely will not change their sexual identity. One thing that I was glad to hear was that as Christians we are supposed to love and accept everyone, regardless of skin color, sexual orientation, height, etc. God does not judge us and we should not judge others. We all do it on a daily basis, but it isn't something that can't be changed. I know my God is a forgiving and loving God. My only concern with the topic of homosexuality and the Bible is that these perspectives, which I believe as well, are true in God's eyes. When I heard that a certain person was killed on April 16, all I could think was, I hope he knew God. I knew he was gay and I still loved him to pieces. Now he is gone and I do not know where he is now, and that breaks my heart. When I went home I talked to my youth pastor about how I was feeling about the situation. He gave me some comforting advice. But I still worry. I would tell you what he said, but I don't remember the exact words.
This was probably one of the best events I have been to here at school. It opened my eyes to more possibilities and showed me that more people do have the same perspective that I do and that not all Christians are as close-minded as I thought.
November 29,2007
Lyric Theater
This was a documentary written by Daniel Karslake about homosexuality and its relation to the Bible.
There were about 4 or 5 families interviewed as well as other people within churches and other religious organizations. Being a Christian, I was very interested to see the point of views that would be made and the correlation between them.
The main point that was shared by the Christian group is that homosexuality is an abomination. The only other abomination mentioned on any parallel to homosexuality is suicide. Taking one's own life, a life that God made and put on the earth for a reason.
Bishop Robinson was a gay man married to a straight woman. This was before he admitted to himself that he was gay. And they knew something wasn't right, but they wanted it to work. They wanted straight love to triumph over homosexuality. Bishop Robinson finally accepted his homosexuality and he and his wife released their vows. She remarried another man and he found love with another man. This was not the last we were going to hear about Bishop Robinson. After all, he wasn't perceived to be a bishop the whole movie. He was the first person to run for a bishop position or a leadership position in the church as an openly gay man. He had many death threats and had to wear a bullet proof vest when he was being sworn in.
Another story that was told that really touched me was the story of the Reitan family. They had 4 children. 3 boys and a girl. But the youngest in the family, a boy named Jake came out to his parents at the age of 16. Being Lutheran, they were not sure how to accept him and were more worried about him contracting AIDS and how their family would be perceived by the community. This story also has a happy ending. Jake's parents studied the Bible and upon their studies they were able to read that the interpretation can vary. They realized that as parents they would do anything to protect their child and that they have an unconditional love for him just as God has for the entire population of the world. Jake and his parents started the soul force program where they traveled to visit Focus on the Family's main headquarters to protest what Dr. Dobson is preaching and telling parents about raising their children.
I know a lot of people that relay on Dr. Dobson's works of literature. I've never been a fan of him but at the same time I've never had anything against him either. But one of the things I learned he teaches is: do not accept [your child/friend/co-worker/relative] if they are gay. If you do then maybe that person will think it is okay and be less likely to decide to become straight.
I think one of the biggest points made was that the Bible does not necessarily read the same way now as it did when it was written. I have been one to understand this well. I have two tattoos. In the Old Testament it says to not put markings on your body. In this same scripture is also says to not cut the hair on the sides of your head or to clip your beard. There are Old Testament laws which we are not bound to and then there are New Testament laws which we are bound to. I had to make this argument to my dad when he found out about my memorial tattoo i got over the summer.
It was also mentioned that going to church may change someones sexual conduct but most likely will not change their sexual identity. One thing that I was glad to hear was that as Christians we are supposed to love and accept everyone, regardless of skin color, sexual orientation, height, etc. God does not judge us and we should not judge others. We all do it on a daily basis, but it isn't something that can't be changed. I know my God is a forgiving and loving God. My only concern with the topic of homosexuality and the Bible is that these perspectives, which I believe as well, are true in God's eyes. When I heard that a certain person was killed on April 16, all I could think was, I hope he knew God. I knew he was gay and I still loved him to pieces. Now he is gone and I do not know where he is now, and that breaks my heart. When I went home I talked to my youth pastor about how I was feeling about the situation. He gave me some comforting advice. But I still worry. I would tell you what he said, but I don't remember the exact words.
This was probably one of the best events I have been to here at school. It opened my eyes to more possibilities and showed me that more people do have the same perspective that I do and that not all Christians are as close-minded as I thought.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Activity #10
The gender wage gap battle has been going on for a long time. Do men really get paid more than women? Is this a fair practice? These are some of the questions that come up when analyzing and debating this situation.
Some people feel that there is not a gap in salary, some people feel that there is and it is okay because of certain justifications, and some people feel that there is a gap and it is not an okay situation.
Women are seen as being the caretakers in a household. That is where their top priority lies. Then the next priority can be working. Once a women decides not to be a stay at home mom or a housewife she has the option of going into the work force, but how many hours a week will she work, what kind of job will she apply for or accept? These are some of the factors that are raised in the great debate.
In 1900 there were about 20% of women in the workforce. This number has risen throughout the years. In 1950 it had risen to 34% and then more recently in 2000 there were 60% of women in the workforce which is creeping close to the 71% of men.
The educational background of the applicants is not supposed to have a lot to do with the hiring process. If a man and a woman have the same educational background they should each have an equal chance of obtaining this job. However, the wage gap can be justified because statistically men are able to apply more time and energy to a job and also, women are less likely to continuously work after graduating school.
Also, in justifying the wage gap, some occupational influences that affect women are the hours per week they must work, the stress level of the job, and will she be able to take time off for emergency family situations. The basic summary of June O'Neill's essay was she showed that wages can be influenced by more than discriminatory factors, there are nondiscriminatory factors that we have to take into account. She also states that these factors are unlikely to change unless the roles of men and women in the household also change and level out to a more equal distribution.
The no side of this discussion, I found that men are more likely to earn an annual salary over $1 million (13:1) and the annual income doesn't level out until the $25,000-$30,000 range. A point that was made in this sections by Hilary Lips that bothered me and kept me from taking in the rest of the reading was her talk about hourly income. When looking at the wage gap the focus is more on annual income and not hourly rates. My argument is a woman could get paid more per hour and work less than a man but the man being able to work more could still earn more per year. She, to me, pointed this fact out, but not in the most blunt way. She spoke of overtime and bonuses which she believes men will make more per year than women and she also touched on that they will most likely earn more per year.
There is also the argument made about whether women want to have the same types of jobs and leadership positions that men hold. I think women are capable of these positions and I know plenty of women who are in these positions. I think partly it could also do with geographical locations and other factors, not just gender and age and education.
This was an interesting subject to read on. I agreed with some things and was put off by others. If asked my stance on the wage gap debate, I'd have to say that I don't believe there is much of one and if there is I think I would agree and say it is justified. I think if women ever want this to change, they need to be more assertive and show that they deserve what they deserve. I still don't know completely what it is I'm going to do with my life. I finally declared an English major and I can do just about anything with it. For most of high school I was set on going into advertising before a science teacher suggested I try engineering- I did, and it didn't work too well- but I know if I wanted to I could be a CEO in an advertising agency or I could be the coordinator for the next big campaign. The only thing that is stopping anyone from going up the corporate ladder is themselves. We can point fingers all we want and say that the system is lopsided and things like that. But I think when it's all said and done, we control our destiny. If you realize, "No matter what I do I will never advance in this job" then find another job where you can. We only live once and we need to go all out in the life we have.
Some people feel that there is not a gap in salary, some people feel that there is and it is okay because of certain justifications, and some people feel that there is a gap and it is not an okay situation.
Women are seen as being the caretakers in a household. That is where their top priority lies. Then the next priority can be working. Once a women decides not to be a stay at home mom or a housewife she has the option of going into the work force, but how many hours a week will she work, what kind of job will she apply for or accept? These are some of the factors that are raised in the great debate.
In 1900 there were about 20% of women in the workforce. This number has risen throughout the years. In 1950 it had risen to 34% and then more recently in 2000 there were 60% of women in the workforce which is creeping close to the 71% of men.
The educational background of the applicants is not supposed to have a lot to do with the hiring process. If a man and a woman have the same educational background they should each have an equal chance of obtaining this job. However, the wage gap can be justified because statistically men are able to apply more time and energy to a job and also, women are less likely to continuously work after graduating school.
Also, in justifying the wage gap, some occupational influences that affect women are the hours per week they must work, the stress level of the job, and will she be able to take time off for emergency family situations. The basic summary of June O'Neill's essay was she showed that wages can be influenced by more than discriminatory factors, there are nondiscriminatory factors that we have to take into account. She also states that these factors are unlikely to change unless the roles of men and women in the household also change and level out to a more equal distribution.
The no side of this discussion, I found that men are more likely to earn an annual salary over $1 million (13:1) and the annual income doesn't level out until the $25,000-$30,000 range. A point that was made in this sections by Hilary Lips that bothered me and kept me from taking in the rest of the reading was her talk about hourly income. When looking at the wage gap the focus is more on annual income and not hourly rates. My argument is a woman could get paid more per hour and work less than a man but the man being able to work more could still earn more per year. She, to me, pointed this fact out, but not in the most blunt way. She spoke of overtime and bonuses which she believes men will make more per year than women and she also touched on that they will most likely earn more per year.
There is also the argument made about whether women want to have the same types of jobs and leadership positions that men hold. I think women are capable of these positions and I know plenty of women who are in these positions. I think partly it could also do with geographical locations and other factors, not just gender and age and education.
This was an interesting subject to read on. I agreed with some things and was put off by others. If asked my stance on the wage gap debate, I'd have to say that I don't believe there is much of one and if there is I think I would agree and say it is justified. I think if women ever want this to change, they need to be more assertive and show that they deserve what they deserve. I still don't know completely what it is I'm going to do with my life. I finally declared an English major and I can do just about anything with it. For most of high school I was set on going into advertising before a science teacher suggested I try engineering- I did, and it didn't work too well- but I know if I wanted to I could be a CEO in an advertising agency or I could be the coordinator for the next big campaign. The only thing that is stopping anyone from going up the corporate ladder is themselves. We can point fingers all we want and say that the system is lopsided and things like that. But I think when it's all said and done, we control our destiny. If you realize, "No matter what I do I will never advance in this job" then find another job where you can. We only live once and we need to go all out in the life we have.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Midterm II
Heteronormativity is the idea that heterosexuality is the norm within our culture and anything else is considered odd. We see this in movies and ads and for Valentine's Day. The entertainment industry "assumes" that everyone wants to see heterosexual couplings (172). We have a visual depiction of heterosexual attractions and those of homosexual attractions are kept invisible and under wraps.
With heteronormativy comes other issues. Health care is hard enough for straight couples to acquire. In order to get health care- you have to be healthy and you have to have the money to pay for it (301-303). For some heterosexual couples this isn't a hard thing to achieve. When you put two people's salaries together, things are easier to pay for. With homosexual couples or couples that live together but aren't married come more challenges. Since homosexuals don't always get the benefits from their work it is harder for them to get health insurance. There is also the issue that homosexuals have a higher rate of getting AIDS and with that it is impossible to get health insurance.
As far as touching on the topic of reproductive health, I don't know how it could be associated with anything other than heterosexuality. You need to have a man and a woman to reproduce. I suppose there is the sperm bank and things like that where you can reproduce through other means that aren't natural. There is also the aspect that women are responsible for themselves when they get pregnant and the man typically tries to stay out of that portion of the relationship. I will discuss this more in the next paragraph.
With heterosexual relationships come the dominant construction of masculinity. With relationships the men tend to be the domineer. Men try to dominate women's sexuality. There is also the case where it is okay for men to be sexually active and enjoy sex, but when women do it is not. There is a double standard. It is also hard to justify how they don't want to have any responsibility when they get a woman pregnant. It is then the woman's burden to carry and sometimes the man will help. It also seems that if a woman does get pregnant and whether she wants the baby or not- can be pressured into "fixing the problem" based on what her male partner wants.
Our bodies are the one thing that everyone sees. It can be a positive or negative view based on whose eyes are judging. The media is the worst at putting norms on the woman's body. These norms aren't normal. The average woman is not 100 pounds and 5'7". "What our bodies mean and how they are experienced is intimately connected to the meanings and practices of the society in which we reside" (229).
Tattoos and piercings are ways for each person to express themselves. I have multiple earrings and I have 2 tattoos. I would like more earrings, maybe an industrial and possibly my belly-button and I have wanted an eyebrow piercing but haven't gotten one yet. Now that I'm looking to graduate in a few years and I don't know what kind of occupation I'm going to have so I don't want to hurt that in any way. My tattoos are only visible when I choose for them to be. I have one on each shoulder blade. I'm considering more, maybe the back of the neck- except I wear my hair up a lot so that may not work, maybe one on the top of my foot and one on the inside of my ankle. These practices were "traditionally a masculine or an outlaw, rebellious act - is increasingly a form of self-expression for women" (231). So tattoos and piercings can be labeled as self-expression or in some cases mutilation. It is changing the natural body and either putting something permanent (tattoos) or temporary (piercings).
The female body is sometimes seen as taboo (232). We have a natural process we go through so we can have children later in life. I know that many people feel ashamed and bashful when they have their period, like they have to hide the fact so that no one else will know.
The four points of the beauty ideal: contemporary images of female beauty are changeable, the ideal reflects various relations of power in society, standards of beauty practices are enforced in complex ways, and it is a huge aspect of corporate capitalism and consumerism in the US (235-241). The media fastens close to these ideals and then pushes them harder than a normal person would toward their friends. The media says that you have to be a certain shape or height or skin tone or hair color. I love my natural hair color, I don't remember what it looks like anymore because I've been dying it since the 6th grade. I just have a tendency to get really bored with my hair. I have straight brown hair with some natural highlights. But now its straight and Egyptian Plum (which is a red/purple color and I love it!). It's semi-permanent, I want to get back to the natural color soon and I want to be able to perm my hair one day. I've always wanted to try out curly/ wavy hair. But I can't because of all the color chemicals that are in it right now.
I do not wear make-up. Even though the media suggests I should. I'll wear make-up for special occasions: weddings, funerals, dress events, sometimes at church- depending on my mood. Part of the reason I don't wear make-up is because I get fidgety and touch my face a lot and therefore smear/wipe off everything I put on and then when I do wear make-up everyone comments on the fact that I am wearing make-up and that gets annoying really quick.
We live in a culture of thinness and beauty and materialism. With these come more problems than any of us wish to have.
With heteronormativy comes other issues. Health care is hard enough for straight couples to acquire. In order to get health care- you have to be healthy and you have to have the money to pay for it (301-303). For some heterosexual couples this isn't a hard thing to achieve. When you put two people's salaries together, things are easier to pay for. With homosexual couples or couples that live together but aren't married come more challenges. Since homosexuals don't always get the benefits from their work it is harder for them to get health insurance. There is also the issue that homosexuals have a higher rate of getting AIDS and with that it is impossible to get health insurance.
As far as touching on the topic of reproductive health, I don't know how it could be associated with anything other than heterosexuality. You need to have a man and a woman to reproduce. I suppose there is the sperm bank and things like that where you can reproduce through other means that aren't natural. There is also the aspect that women are responsible for themselves when they get pregnant and the man typically tries to stay out of that portion of the relationship. I will discuss this more in the next paragraph.
With heterosexual relationships come the dominant construction of masculinity. With relationships the men tend to be the domineer. Men try to dominate women's sexuality. There is also the case where it is okay for men to be sexually active and enjoy sex, but when women do it is not. There is a double standard. It is also hard to justify how they don't want to have any responsibility when they get a woman pregnant. It is then the woman's burden to carry and sometimes the man will help. It also seems that if a woman does get pregnant and whether she wants the baby or not- can be pressured into "fixing the problem" based on what her male partner wants.
Our bodies are the one thing that everyone sees. It can be a positive or negative view based on whose eyes are judging. The media is the worst at putting norms on the woman's body. These norms aren't normal. The average woman is not 100 pounds and 5'7". "What our bodies mean and how they are experienced is intimately connected to the meanings and practices of the society in which we reside" (229).
Tattoos and piercings are ways for each person to express themselves. I have multiple earrings and I have 2 tattoos. I would like more earrings, maybe an industrial and possibly my belly-button and I have wanted an eyebrow piercing but haven't gotten one yet. Now that I'm looking to graduate in a few years and I don't know what kind of occupation I'm going to have so I don't want to hurt that in any way. My tattoos are only visible when I choose for them to be. I have one on each shoulder blade. I'm considering more, maybe the back of the neck- except I wear my hair up a lot so that may not work, maybe one on the top of my foot and one on the inside of my ankle. These practices were "traditionally a masculine or an outlaw, rebellious act - is increasingly a form of self-expression for women" (231). So tattoos and piercings can be labeled as self-expression or in some cases mutilation. It is changing the natural body and either putting something permanent (tattoos) or temporary (piercings).
The female body is sometimes seen as taboo (232). We have a natural process we go through so we can have children later in life. I know that many people feel ashamed and bashful when they have their period, like they have to hide the fact so that no one else will know.
The four points of the beauty ideal: contemporary images of female beauty are changeable, the ideal reflects various relations of power in society, standards of beauty practices are enforced in complex ways, and it is a huge aspect of corporate capitalism and consumerism in the US (235-241). The media fastens close to these ideals and then pushes them harder than a normal person would toward their friends. The media says that you have to be a certain shape or height or skin tone or hair color. I love my natural hair color, I don't remember what it looks like anymore because I've been dying it since the 6th grade. I just have a tendency to get really bored with my hair. I have straight brown hair with some natural highlights. But now its straight and Egyptian Plum (which is a red/purple color and I love it!). It's semi-permanent, I want to get back to the natural color soon and I want to be able to perm my hair one day. I've always wanted to try out curly/ wavy hair. But I can't because of all the color chemicals that are in it right now.
I do not wear make-up. Even though the media suggests I should. I'll wear make-up for special occasions: weddings, funerals, dress events, sometimes at church- depending on my mood. Part of the reason I don't wear make-up is because I get fidgety and touch my face a lot and therefore smear/wipe off everything I put on and then when I do wear make-up everyone comments on the fact that I am wearing make-up and that gets annoying really quick.
We live in a culture of thinness and beauty and materialism. With these come more problems than any of us wish to have.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Event 1
On November 6, I went to the film "Divorce Iranian Style" in Torg 1060.
This film was set in the capital city Tehran at the divorce court. This film was made in 1998 and its theme was to debunk stereotypes. When I chose to go to this film and when I told some of my friends I was going to see this film, the first thought that came to my mind and the first thing my friends would say was, "The can get divorced in Iran?"
In Iran men are allowed to request divorce but the wives are assumed to want to stay in the marriage so they are not welcomed when they do go in to request a divorce. They expect the women to compromise to what their husband likes. One of the quotes I wrote down from the movie was "If he is applying for divorce, he has the right to take her back".
There are three different reasons that women are allowed to apply for divorce: if the husband is unable to father a child, if there was deception or insanity at the time of marriage (which can be seen in arranged marriage- the example from the film), or if the man has more than one wife. That last one is actually confusing. In Iran, a man is allowed to have more than one wife if the first wife agrees. But the two wives are not allowed to live in the same house.
The legal age a girl can be married in Iran is when she reaches puberty. This could be as early as nine years old.
If a woman has had children from one marriage, and divorces that husband, there can be a custody battle for the children. If she acquires the children and then gets remarried later, the ex-husband has the choice to take the children away from her. Essentially she risks having to give away her children. "You're a mother. You must sacrifice everything." " You remarried. When you remarry you lose your child."
These laws aren't fair. One of the cases when the wife was trying to keep her children, she was forced to give them up. The judge even know the children's grades were better when she lived with her mom than her dad and he knew the dad didn't believe school was important. This same child was at the age when she was legally allowed to choose which parent she wanted to live with, but wasn't given that opportunity because she would have chosen the mother.
This film was set in the capital city Tehran at the divorce court. This film was made in 1998 and its theme was to debunk stereotypes. When I chose to go to this film and when I told some of my friends I was going to see this film, the first thought that came to my mind and the first thing my friends would say was, "The can get divorced in Iran?"
In Iran men are allowed to request divorce but the wives are assumed to want to stay in the marriage so they are not welcomed when they do go in to request a divorce. They expect the women to compromise to what their husband likes. One of the quotes I wrote down from the movie was "If he is applying for divorce, he has the right to take her back".
There are three different reasons that women are allowed to apply for divorce: if the husband is unable to father a child, if there was deception or insanity at the time of marriage (which can be seen in arranged marriage- the example from the film), or if the man has more than one wife. That last one is actually confusing. In Iran, a man is allowed to have more than one wife if the first wife agrees. But the two wives are not allowed to live in the same house.
The legal age a girl can be married in Iran is when she reaches puberty. This could be as early as nine years old.
If a woman has had children from one marriage, and divorces that husband, there can be a custody battle for the children. If she acquires the children and then gets remarried later, the ex-husband has the choice to take the children away from her. Essentially she risks having to give away her children. "You're a mother. You must sacrifice everything." " You remarried. When you remarry you lose your child."
These laws aren't fair. One of the cases when the wife was trying to keep her children, she was forced to give them up. The judge even know the children's grades were better when she lived with her mom than her dad and he knew the dad didn't believe school was important. This same child was at the age when she was legally allowed to choose which parent she wanted to live with, but wasn't given that opportunity because she would have chosen the mother.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Activity #9
Should the opportunity for all individuals to be married exist? We allow same-race marriage, bi-racial marriage, same-religion marriage, bi-religious marriage, but we do not allow same sex-marriage. Should this change? Is this the right choice?
Sometimes I happen to be a bit on the fence about this topic, but for this discussion I will state that same-sex marriage should not be allowed. I can start quoting the Bible for you, but instead I will just summarize. Marriage is a legal union between a male and a woman. We find that in the Bible, we find it in nature, with animals and plants, and I think I can even go as far to say that magnets agree- the opposite charges attract each other and then belong.
I've heard the argument that gay and lesbian couples should have the same opportunity to be as miserable in their relationship as any heterosexual couple. I find that statement amusing and I can see the point they are making. But I still have to stand firm on what I was raised to believe and what I know to be truth from my religious background. God did not create man to be homosexual. When Satan was kicked out of heaven he became evil and then started tempting people and that is where things started happening. There are also other stories in the Bible about where God had to destroy cities because of homosexuality and other things.
I don't necessarily believe the things that some other people say who are opposed to same-sex marriage. It almost seems as though they are trying to come up with more excuses than are needed. I don't know the laws regarding hospital visitation and predecessor rights, but I thought that the person that was being hospitalized was allowed to allow the visitors they wished or the one writing the will was allowed to leave their possessions to the persons of their choice. And the acquisition of social security benefits is a joke. Even heterosexual couples can't collect social security anymore because there's barely any to be collected. The social security system has gone downhill since it's establishment. And like the article said, social security is for a family and the children within the family. In both articles they kept speaking in terms of same-sex couples not having children and the statistics for the ones who do have children in the household were under 50%.
As far as health benefits are concerned its hard enough for any American to try to get health benefits. And recently I've learned that heterosexual couples who aren't married and are living together are also either trying to or have already been able to use each other's benefits. This I believe is completely wrong in all aspects of the word. They are not in a "committed" relationship and things can go sour so easily.
Now I'm going to play devil's advocate and state why some sort of union or marriage between gay men or lesbians could be a good thing. They, like everyone else, can make good parents. One of my best friend's mom was once married to her father and then they divorced and now she is committed to her partner. They are two of the sweetest women I have met and I love them dearly and she and her partner love their children from each of their previous marriages and would do anything any other parent would do for them. I also have a best friend who is a bisexual (her status is somewhat confusing), but she still says that she will marry a man one day. I'm saying this because I want every person, no matter what group or groups they identify with, to be happy. But I can't go against my beliefs. So in my mind I almost feel as though I'm a hypocrite on the subject.
What I don't understand about the side that said same-sex marriage should be legalized is that all the argument seemed to be between same-sex couples without children and heterosexual couples with children. Am I the only one that finds this odd? These are two different groups of people in more ways than one. I think if they were to analyze these kinds of situations they should have done a survey or analysis on homosexual relationships with kids verses heterosexual relationships with kids and then homosexual relationships without kids verses heterosexual relationships without kids. I would have followed the discussion better had I not been sidetracked from this.
Sometimes I happen to be a bit on the fence about this topic, but for this discussion I will state that same-sex marriage should not be allowed. I can start quoting the Bible for you, but instead I will just summarize. Marriage is a legal union between a male and a woman. We find that in the Bible, we find it in nature, with animals and plants, and I think I can even go as far to say that magnets agree- the opposite charges attract each other and then belong.
I've heard the argument that gay and lesbian couples should have the same opportunity to be as miserable in their relationship as any heterosexual couple. I find that statement amusing and I can see the point they are making. But I still have to stand firm on what I was raised to believe and what I know to be truth from my religious background. God did not create man to be homosexual. When Satan was kicked out of heaven he became evil and then started tempting people and that is where things started happening. There are also other stories in the Bible about where God had to destroy cities because of homosexuality and other things.
I don't necessarily believe the things that some other people say who are opposed to same-sex marriage. It almost seems as though they are trying to come up with more excuses than are needed. I don't know the laws regarding hospital visitation and predecessor rights, but I thought that the person that was being hospitalized was allowed to allow the visitors they wished or the one writing the will was allowed to leave their possessions to the persons of their choice. And the acquisition of social security benefits is a joke. Even heterosexual couples can't collect social security anymore because there's barely any to be collected. The social security system has gone downhill since it's establishment. And like the article said, social security is for a family and the children within the family. In both articles they kept speaking in terms of same-sex couples not having children and the statistics for the ones who do have children in the household were under 50%.
As far as health benefits are concerned its hard enough for any American to try to get health benefits. And recently I've learned that heterosexual couples who aren't married and are living together are also either trying to or have already been able to use each other's benefits. This I believe is completely wrong in all aspects of the word. They are not in a "committed" relationship and things can go sour so easily.
Now I'm going to play devil's advocate and state why some sort of union or marriage between gay men or lesbians could be a good thing. They, like everyone else, can make good parents. One of my best friend's mom was once married to her father and then they divorced and now she is committed to her partner. They are two of the sweetest women I have met and I love them dearly and she and her partner love their children from each of their previous marriages and would do anything any other parent would do for them. I also have a best friend who is a bisexual (her status is somewhat confusing), but she still says that she will marry a man one day. I'm saying this because I want every person, no matter what group or groups they identify with, to be happy. But I can't go against my beliefs. So in my mind I almost feel as though I'm a hypocrite on the subject.
What I don't understand about the side that said same-sex marriage should be legalized is that all the argument seemed to be between same-sex couples without children and heterosexual couples with children. Am I the only one that finds this odd? These are two different groups of people in more ways than one. I think if they were to analyze these kinds of situations they should have done a survey or analysis on homosexual relationships with kids verses heterosexual relationships with kids and then homosexual relationships without kids verses heterosexual relationships without kids. I would have followed the discussion better had I not been sidetracked from this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)