Reflection

I don't even want to talk about this because it was so embarrassing what I first wrote. I wasn't too far from the truth, but I still wasn't close enough. And that alone was enough to make me shake my head at everything I wrote the firs time the questions were asked. Like many people, I thought feminism was solely a movement for the rights of women. I had no idea what intersectionality was. In fact, I had never heard of the word before. I think it's really interesting though, because most people who haven't been informed about feminism wouldn't that all these issues would intersect with feminism because they haven't been told what feminism is in the first place. Which is kind of sad, to be honest, because I feel like feminism is something that needs to be shared with people, especially the closed minded.

My thoughts about the country's state of inequality (inequity?) are the same as they were at the beginning of the semester, but now I have substancial information about why it is, and how it is, and what we can do to change it. I can say with confidence how this country is screwed up and why we don't live in a post-feminist, post-racist, society and why there is such a lack of disconnect between peoples of all kind in the United States. I'm just a lot more passionate about feminism and equality than I was before I took this class. I just want to stand in front of a bunch of people and tell them to get their heads out of their butts and realize that they ideology they have come to know as ~the norm~ is not something that should be believed in because it's straight up horse crap.

BUT ANYWAY. I just think the change I underwent in three months so huge that it's interesting to look at how little knowledge I had about social justice I had. Also a little embarrassing.

Event #2

For my second event, I decided to live life on the wild side and attend Deirdre's event Dirty Deeds with D. And whoa, it was probably one of the most eye opening experiences I've had in a while. When we did sex positivity in class, I felt more comfortable about the topic, but after attending D's event I feel as though I no longer have to hide under the prudish curtain that sex seems to place right in front of us. Not only do I feel more comfortable talking about sex, but I feel as though I gained some experience out of the event (without it being hands on); plus the whole me being able to not look at sex as this giant taboo feels pretty awesome too.

Not too long after I attended the event, I found myself informing my cousins and my brother about everything I had learned. I shared with my sister not too long ago that Kotex or many (all?) mainstream pads can cause toxic shock syndrome because they have bleach. I get that it's supposed to be hygienic  but there's a clear line drawn where things are healthy or just plain messed up. To my cousins, who are quite the sexually active young adults, I told about the tips D gave us on how to perform better cunnilingus (if you want to be technical). They were both impressed by my knowledge and by how much I knew about vaginas (which, I also learned is not a good word to use because the vaginal canal is not outside or in clear view. Like D said, it would be like calling your face a nose).

One of the questions that I absolutely had to ask, because it was something I had heard about, and often wondered about, was whether or not the taste of someone's genitalia depended on their diet. And as it turns out, it wasn't exactly true. I guess it didn't make sense to begin with, but it wasn't something that I exactly gave much thought to until it was cleared up for me. It's nice to give that question a rest though.

(I really wish I had taken better notes, but I didn't even know how to take notes of this to begin with).

The whole event was just interesting for me because, unlike before, I felt completely comfortable being with a group of people I have just met -- before, I wouldn't even talk to my friends about this because I found it to be such a weird topic. In fact, I rarely shared with a friend the details of my relationship with my ex. Not because it was ~inappropriate, but because it felt really...weird (for lack of a better word). Now? I couldn't care less about telling someone about what I did with who (with some limits, obviously. I know not everyone is as comfortable as me talking about this stuff. Which sucks, because it's such a weight put on our shoulders. A weight we shouldn't have to carry.)

I don't know, I just feel as though I have learned so much, and I can actually fully consider myself to be sex positive way down to the things I can use to make sex feel better. Not only that, but my eyes have been opened about consent during sex. It was something I never knew before, and now I am glad I do because it makes everything kind of clear and a lot less stressful in a strange way.

Also, apparently lube is good something I haven't considered because I hate it.

The end.

Allies and stuff

For this week's reading, I want to make some connections, pick some quotes and hyper link. Look at me being resourceful~

I want to start with Andrea Ayvazian's Interrupting the Cycle of Oppression. Specifically speaking, her subsection about providing positive role models.

I believe that it is difficult for young people to grow up and become something they have never heard of. It is hard for a girl to grow up and become a commercial airline pilot if it has never occurred to her that a woman ca and do fly jet planes.

 I have to agree, it is hard to find someone to look up to. And in the age of technology, I feel like a lot of people look for the media as a form of finding the someone that they're will look up to as a role model. For Mae Jeminson, the first black female astronaut  it was the fantastic and intelligent Uhura from Ster Trek: The Original Series that took on the role of... well, a role model. She says: "In many interviews, Jemison has recounted how her girlhood dreams of spaceflight began with watching Star Trek. When she was on the space shuttle, Jemison used Uhura’s signature line 'Hailing frequencies open' during the course of her duties (Penley, 1997, p. 19)". Let's be honest, media representation sucks these days - we rarely get to see our people (people of color) in dominant roles; there are rarely people of color in a position of leadership or power. 

And with Jeminson's next quote, I'll make my seque to Fletcher Blanchard's Combatting Intentional Bigotry and Inadvertently Racist Acts. To quote Jeminson once more:

Majoring in engineering, I would have maybe one of two or three African-American students in my classes. Some professors would just pretend I wasn't there. I would ask a question and a professor would act as if it was just so dumb, the dumbest question he had ever heard. Then, when a white guy would ask the same question, the professor would say, ''That's a very astute observation.'' As a medical student, sometimes I needed to hear the criticism in order to become a good doctor. Also as an engineer, and as an astronaut. But many times what's lacking is the praise. Race is always an issue in the United States. You always run into people who aren't comfortable with you. But we all -- the way people look, whether or not they're heavyset, for example, influences us. Anyone who says he isn't influenced by race is lying.

I think this goes hand in hand with one of the points that Blanchard was pointing out in the article. Even thought colleges and universities are "trying" to get make racism go away, they simply aren't trying hard enough. When they come up with one policy, it's missing something, and when they make a policing that makes that up, they forget about something else. To take Jeminson's quote as an example, even if the school had policies against intentional racism, this "inadvertent racial harassment" would go unnoticed because no one else has anything to say against it. And it happens more often than one might think. I'm not saying it has happened to me, but as a person of color, while i was in high school (and in some of my classes now), I feel like what happened to Jeminson has happened to me. But I digress. To end this paragraph, I'll quote Blanchard once more: "The fact that people of color often find themselves numerically underrepresented in academic institutions exaggerates the discomfort and pain that arises out of insensitive acts." Such as the one that Mae Jeminson experienced all those years ago.

To end this exhaustingly long post, I want to refer back to something that Blanchard said that didn't quite sit right with me. [On the subject of whites with [egalitarian values":] "Few, for example, have vicariously experienced the pain felt by a friend who has suffered racial harassment." This is where I can sometimes have a problem with the extent that ally can go with their...allyness. Even though the word "vicariously" was used, I still don't think it's entirely possible for whites to feel the pain and oppression people of color feel on a day to day basis, or even worse, while being racially harassed. The whole "experience the pain of the oppressed" thing is something that has always bothered me, especially when it comes to LGBTQ+ related issues. I'm sorry (except not really), but you (as a straight person) can't possibly feel the hate, the oppression, the harassment that I (as a queer person) have endured by people in any position of power. I think as allies, you have to know that there is a line drawn as to where your sympathy for us, as minorities, ends and where it begins. Just like I know, that as a male feminist, I will never understand and have never understood the oppression and pain that women go through while being denied of the privileges men have.

(sources: NYT article; Visual Inquiry)

Event #1

            Wrestling with Manhood: Boys, Bullying and Battering

I was trying to think of a clever title but my mind's not working correctly so I just gave up.

In any case, a few weeks ago, I decided to go to the viewing of Wrestling with Manhood: Boys, Bullying and Battling. And y'all, let me just tell you that wrestling is some screwed up shit that brainwashes everyone (mostly men) who watch it. And it's funny, because people don't realize what's going on. They think it's "just entertainment" and "nothing is meant by it". When will people comprehend saying something just "is" is not a valid excuse for anything? Everything comes with baggage, whether you can read into it or not.

One of my favorite things that men were saying, in the film, when asked about wrestling in general was, "It's just a soap opera for guys". I just--. Literally, I had no words.

And then the movie began speaking on women, and the effect that wrestling had on them. Not only are women sexualized (like every other form of medium that's controlled by men with minds of thirteen year olds), but they pretty much stripped of everything they have. They are used as sexual figures to satisfy the need and desire of every man who watches in the audience. They are dressed up in clothes that reveal a lot of their body parts, and not just that, they need to fit the archetype that's given to them. There's this ridiculous and disgusting audition procedure for the women of the WWE called "the ho train", where they go around the country to pick up women. Like, honestly? "THE HO TRAIN"? If that doesn't scream misogyny, I don't know what does. Oh wait, I lied, I know what does. The fact that they literally beat these women up on stage -- men, that is. They are constantly being humiliated and forced to do acts that are just...plain sick (e.g. putting her head inside a "bucket of bile", or forced to get on her knees and beg for her job, or being stripped down in front of the whole crowd). You don't have to be a feminist to know that this is disgusting.

Women in the WWE are used to pretty much reinforced men's heterosexuality. They are often made to fight with other women in sexual positions, forced to kiss, and made to confused the "hatred" and anger  for sexual tension. It's funny though, because when we looked at the fighting between the men, it was almost the exact same thing, except people didn't make a big deal about that because the men were being manly and fighting and bullying each other and everyone knows that that's what being a man is about! The best part was when we were shown some fighting positions between men, and in the background and sensual tune played in the background, making us realize just how homoerotic wrestling really was, except everyone who watches fail to see that part of it.

When the audience was presented with a legitimate homosexual couple, they boo'd. Chuck and Billy weren't introduced to show diversity in wrestling, it was to enforce yet again how manly the rest of the men were. It also enforced the bullying and humiliation through homophobia. Ugh, it made me so angry. But what made me the most angry was the fact that people were buying into this bullshit. They were still saying that "IT'S JUST WRESTLING. IT'S HARMLESS FUN." Dude, are you kidding me? Do you really think you're four year old son is going to be able to tell the difference between reality and television? Do you really think this is going to go unnoticed for the rest of his life? Or do you think he's going to go to school and try this with one of his classmates?

One good example of what I ended the last paragraph can be seen in the film when one of the wrestlers brought his three and four year old offsprings (I guess children is a better word, but whatever) to one of his match. Before the match, he told his kids that it was all fake and that he was friends with all of the people he was going to fight. And yet, when he was in the ring, his children started crying and asking for his daddy. If they got the backstage pass and told it was all fake, and they couldn't differentiate between the two, what does that say about the youth that's watching this at home? Who have a tough time believing that it's fake?

make me a sandwich

I just had to share this with y'all because it made me laugh. 

UPS Threatens to stop funding Boy Scouts due to anti-gay policy

Okay, so there's a reason why I'm not studying to be a journalist. Plus let's be real, making up a headline would be too much work that I'm not in the mood for right now. IN ANY CASE! This news made me rediculously happy. Mainly because it's a step up in destroying the ideology that people pass on to children at such a young age. Sure, they don't blatantly teach it, but it's there. I just think that it was such an amazing move from UPS to do this, and I'm excited for things to change in the Boy Scouts . Because if they do budge, that's a step closer toward equality. One more domino down, y'all. The others should follow suit right away. :3

The United Parcel Service (UPS), Inc. will soon adopt a non-discrimination policy that disqualifies the BSA from future funding, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) reports. UPS follows the Intel Foundation in withdrawing corporate sponsorship from the BSA, GLAAD officials note in an email statement.

"UPS and The UPS Foundation do not discriminate against any person or organization with regard to categories protected by applicable law, as well as other categories protected by UPS and The UPS Foundation in our own policies," UPS officials note on the company's website. "These include, but are not limited to race, gender, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran or military status, pregnancy, age and religion."

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/ups-boy-scouts-america-donations-anti-gay-policy_n_2118878.html

Election Post

Like others, this was the first time that I had watched the election with such intensity and interest. It was also the first time I had seen my parents taking part in something that I honestly didn't think they would ever take part in. I got home a little bit after 8 in the evening from hanging out with a friend (that experience was also interesting because we talked about so many topics that we cover in class, but mostly race and it made me feel so fancy and educated), and my family had been watching it. They caught my up in the whole thing and I sat down with them. We spoke about the issues that were at hand, but just over the surface. My sister in law can be quite judgmental sometimes, so in order to not sound mean, she asked me to clear things up for my mother. It being my first time taking interest in the election, I had to look up some things in order to kind of understand what was happening, one of those things being the whole electoral vote per state thing, and their distribution. I didn't know how many votes went per state and how that number was determined. A quick Google search helped with that though, but only to a certain extent. By the time I was going to sleep, President Obama was already assumed to be re-elected, but Ohio still needed to be counted. My brother was watching Fox News ("Why?" was my question seeing as though that channel is so biased, but another post on that some other day), and they were making a fuss as to why he had been re-elected if one more state needed to put in their votes -- they thought Romney still had a chance. I was too sleepy to keep up so I went to bed. The day after, I found President Obama had been reelected. My mind was put into some kind of ease.

The next day my father had friends over, and they were drinking, and I was in the next room re-watching 30 Rock or playing Assassin's Creed 3 (I will be making a post about this later), or something. And at some point I had to pause to listen to my dad's discussion with his friends. My parents aren't very educated, especially my father, but somehow he had learned quite a bit about the politics of this country. My father doesn't know about my sexuality (long story), so when he struck on the topic of "the gays", my ears perked up. He was saying that there was no way Romney was going to win because he was denying gay people their rights, and because he said the whole "Marriage is between a man and a woman". And he said something that kind of made me smile. He said that gays have a lot of power (I guess more than given credit to), and that they played a big part in President Obama's reelection. He said this as if he was being accepting of gay culture, something I thought I was never going to hear. See? Humanity does have some sort of hope even in the older generations. My dad is kind of racist and not to mention homophobic, and yet, he voted for Obama (and praised him, really) and voice his (kind of) acceptance of gay people.

I am probably the most cynical person I know, which is why it surprises me that I have hope in people's positive views of feminism and the issues that it wants to abolish. It might take a while, but it's not impossible!

Sex positivity

I'm really glad we got to read about this in class because it was always something that I kind of knew, but in a kinda sort of way - basically, I never knew how to put it into words. I loved the wikipedia article because it finally gave me the words I want to use when I wanted to argue how porn is not an anti-feminist medium (can we call it that?). Well, it can be, but that all depends on the type. I know that it can represent sexualized violence against women, which isn't feminist at all. But at the same time, there are more ~friendly version that give women the position that men have in the porn industry. "Sex-positive feminists argue that access to pornography is as important to women as to men, and that there is nothing inherently degrading to women about pornography. Anti-pornography feminists however disagree, often arguing that the very depiction of such acts leads to the actual acts being encouraged and committed." See? It's still so conflicting to agree with either one of these views because I can see truth in both of them! But like I said, I guess it all depends on the type of porn that's being watched? Ugh, this is one of those things that I wish had a straight yes or no answer, but there's such a long gray area in between that makes me question one opinion from the other. So, where should I stand with this? On the one hand, I agree that it is a form of expression of women and freedom of speech. But on the other, seeing as though the porn industry is dominated by men, we often get the degradation of women (not saying that all men are misagynist but you know...). SO I'M CONFLICTED AND CONFUSED! But at the same time enlightened. Sigh, welcome to feminism I guess.

(Reflection~).

The World of Advertising is Screwed Up

I've been trying to think of the perfect time to introduce this video to the class, because I really like it, and after reading Peggy Orenstein's Cinderalla Ate My Daughter, I finally found the opportunity to think so. The video is called Toy Ads and Learning Gender by YouTuber Anita Sarkeesian focusing on the double standard and sexist advertising targeted to young boys and girls. It's a great video that shows just how early gender roles (and also masculinity vs. femininity) are established by the advertising world.

This is another video of Anita that focuses on LEGO and how they clearly target boys and girls differently, where a boy gets to build a castle and defend the land, and a girl gets a pink house where she can bake and look pretty.

(P.s. this is the hyperlink!)

Boys Will Be Bo--Oh shut up.

I absolutely agree with every point Jessica raised in her post. My favorite one had to be the quote she chose with gave light to the fact that these authors were only focusing on one type of "boys" and generalizing it for the whole gender. Like she said, it is unfair and excludes the rest of them. I know that different cultures teaches their boys different ways of behaving, however, I also know that in the end, the "boys will be boys" mentality is still there. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are different ways to get to that mentality, and these authors are talking about just one: being a white, privileged boy who grew up in a setting where he was surrounding by people who are like him. How are Black boys, or Hispanic boys, or Asian boys influenced by all this? Is it still in the media for them? Or is it in the way that they are raised? Lets not forget about those boys who are gay. Where do they fit in all this. Do they still have to follow the Boy Code and give into the pressure placed on them and act "manly"? I find this whole ideology of masculinity (yes, I do think it's an ideology and not in our nature to be violent - I don't speak for my whole gender, but look at me; I've never been in a fight, and I cry whenever I want, dammit) ridiculous and I'm so glad that I managed to get a new perspective on it; the feminist perspective. I can finally see how feminism can be one (and maybe the only) way to eradicate the idea of masculinity.

In the end, I agree with the initial point that Jessica raised in her post. We need to see studies done on many types of boys (race, sexuality, backgrounds), and then come back and tell share your findings. Because that is fair.

(Oh, this is extended comment btw~)

La conciencia de la mestiza

Here are a few quotes from Gloria Anzaldua's La conciencia de la mestiza: Towards a New Consciousness that I found quiet striking.

"A counterstance locks one into a duel of oppressor and oppressed; locked in a mortal combat, like the cop and the criminal, both are reduced to a common denominator of violence. The counterstance refutes the dominant culture's views and beliefs, and, for this, it is proudly defiant. All reaction is limited by, and dependent on, what it is reacting against. Because the counterstance stems from a problem with authority--outer as well as inner--it's a step towards liberation from cultural domination. But it is not a way of life. At some point, on our way to a new consciousness, we combatants somehow healed so that we are on both shores at once and, at once see through serpent and eagle eyes [...] The possibilities are numerous once we decide to act and not react."

 I really liked this quote because, to me, it explains what the beginning of the journey for a mestiza could be like: you can be the hunter or the hunted. By that, I mean that you can either let yourself become a victim to the words spoken to you by your oppressors, or you could fight back and not let yourself be caught in the beak of the eagle. But in the end, that doesn't get much done. Just like it says in the end, it isn't enough to react -- this is going to send us into a cycle that never ends where we fight each other because of opposing views. Instead, we need to do something about the things that we are fighting about and find a middle ground where both of the people standing on opposing river banks can coexist without shouting at each other.

"As a mestiza, I have no country, my homeland cast me out; yet all countries are mine because I am every woman's sister or potential lover. (As a lesbian I have no race, my own people disclaim me; but I am all races because there is the queer of me in all races.) I am cultureless because, as a feminist, I challenge the collective cultural/religious male-derived beliefs of Indo-Hispanics and Anglos; yet I am culture because I am participating in the creation of yet another culture, a new story to explain the world and our participation in it, a new value with images and symbols that connect us to each other and to the planet.

This is what it means to be a mestiza. You are and you aren't part of a culture, you are not simply making yourself part of one - you are creating a whole new way of living through which you, as a mestiza will be happy. You are leaving (and at the same time experiencing) the oppression of the current culture of which you are trying to rid yourself of.

"'You are nothing but a woman'" means you are defective. Its opposite is to be un macho. The modern meaning of the word "machismo," as well as the concept, is actually an Anglo invention. For men like my father, being "macho" meant being strong enough to protect and support my mother and us, yet being able to show love. Today's macho has doubts about his ability to feed and protect his family. His "machismo" is an adaption to oppression and poverty and low self-esteem. It is the result of hierarchical male dominance. The Anglo, feeling inadequate and inferior and powerless, displaces or transfers these feelings to the Chicano by shaming him."

This is one of the things that in a world with the culture of mestiza exists, this is something that would be eliminated. I liked this quote because it shows how sexists men are so afraid of a woman who has knowledge and power and a mind of her own. And they do everything in their power to belittle that woman because their manliness or "machismo" is questioned, and in the end their self-esteem becomes lowered. When this happens, they assume their "dominance" and oppress women because of their feeling of powerlessness. In a mestiza culture, this wouldn't be much of a problem because mestizas themselves wouldn't be seen as a creature that is here to bring down the world.

Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence

After finally getting my head together after the reading, I think I have a pretty clear definition of what is meant by "Compulsory Heterosexuality" and "Lesbian Existence".

I'll start with the former. Heterosexuality has always been the "norm" in society. Which is pretty much why we have the concept of "coming out" when a person identifies his or herself as anything other than "straight". When it comes to Compulsory Heterosexuality, it is not only living in a world where "straightness" is seen as the main sexual orientation, but the concept of being heterosexual is thrust upon everyone; it is a "political institution". Even though this doesn't directly relate to heterosexuality in women (well, it certainly does seeing as though men are in some sick way benefiting from it), there were a few points made by Rich about what Kathleen Gough lists as eight characteristics of male power. This section alone made me understand the most  about the effect that compulsory heterosexuality had on women. How forced women are to act a certain way because men want them to in order to be looked at as normal. It was really interesting to see how each of these characteristics manifested themselves in every day life, and how overlooked they are by everyone who experiences them as well as cause them.

When it came to defining, or rather understanding, Lesbian Existence, I had a more difficult time. To me, Lesbian Existence is the lack of...existence in lesbianism. I might be complete wrong, but when I read the article,something that caught my attention was when Rich spoke about Nancy Chodorow's thoughts on lesbianism. She (Chodorow) was talking about lesbianism as an idea, as something that doesn't exist. That it's nothing but the reverse version of the Oedipus complex.  And once more, an anti-feminist form of the male form of homosexuality. Not as it's own thing, but a part of something that comes from men. When it comes to the subject of lesbianism, Rich wrote, it is something that feminists rarely focus on, and when they do it is not always something that they talk about in a positive manner.

Feminism and Economic inequity

I think economic inequity is a feminist issue because it's an issue of oppression. Like many of the issues that feminism takes under its umbrella, economic injustice affects not only people of color (and women) of a lower class, but it establishes a lower class to begin with. There are people who are unemployed and underemployed by many, making it harder for them to get the things that other people are not qualified to do. This in and of itself is unjust because it forces them to climb down a ladder in which they have no choice -- a ladder established by the upper class that oppresses those who make less than them.

Something I read on Sabrina's blog that I thought I could connect on to here was how women (and queer men as we read in Johnson's article) make a lot less money than heterosexual white men even if you have the same qualifications as them. This screams feminist because not only are women and queer not being treated equally, but it excludes them from the hierarchy that heterosexual men have created.

Economic inequity is a feminist issue because sometimes privilege is given to those who already come from it, and taken away from those who need it - there is no equality in how they are perceived and valued.

Group notes~

   These are the notes I took in class while we were talking about the assignment. It won’t be the most ~formal of document, but it’s just how my mind works. I found a really cool video that explains just slightly how he feels about the issue.

   Romney                                          Obama

·         As Jen eloquently put it, Romney seems to be very ~wishy washy~ about the subject. ·         When running for governor, he supported gay marriage, but doesn’t seem to even acknowledge it now. [Although in the video, he says that he’s never supported gay marriage, just ~gay rights (which really makes no sense because marriage is one of the rights we should have as human beings. ·         Jen and Hope talked about the incident he had with a gay woman where she was distraught by the fact that she couldn’t see her partner – she asked him how she was going to explain that to her daughter and Romney responded with: “I didn’t realize you had families.” [Obviously “you” = gay people. Also I didn’t do much justice to the story, my b~] ·         Believes it’s up the states to make the laws on marriage. ·         Cut funding to charity because it involved LGBT issues—terms from the LGBT community.

·         People were accusing him of using his campaign helper person (we didn’t know his title) John Berry for votes. At the moment Berry is the highest ranking openly gay official to work under any U.S. administration.   ·         He’s quite casual about gay marriage; is for gay marriage.   ·         Before running for president, he didn’t really have a stance until faced with the situation (i.e. once he had to bring it up to the public. ·         One of the questions – well, observations we brought up was: did he wait to state his stance on gay marriage to get votes???

Gay rights as a whole (things that we might want to talk about at some point, since we’re doing Gay Rights and not just marriage. It just opens up a whole umbrella.

·         Employment/workplace and the discrimination faced (e.g. salary, unlawful termination, etc).

·         State laws.

·         LGBT education in schools – or lack thereof.

·         Chris brought something up while we were in the group: he said that transgendered people would not be able to vote because of the gender they identify with versus the gender on their driver’s license, etc.

·         I don’t know how you guys feel about adding this in there, but I thought it would be interesting to comment on the religious views that affect gay rights. In other words, how they pressure people to think a certain way.

That’s all we managed to get in class. :3

HERE'S THE VIDEO!!!

Romney and Same-sex Marriage

The article I found on the Huffington Post refers to Romney's stance on gay marriage. As the title of the article states, after having openly showed his negative opinion on the issue, he reiterated his position on it immediately after President Barack Obama became the first president to support same-sex marriage. Romney went on to say he doesn't consider the union of two people of the same gender a marriage -- this wasn't something he deemed appropriate for the country. Mitt Romney has commented to the issue with lukewarm words by saying that unlike Obama, he would be an efficient leader and that he is aware about the inequlity the queer community is facing; he never promised to do anything about it.

Although this wasn't mentioned in the article, I thought it was a good connection to make since I ran into it while searching for what article to use for the assignment. I don't consider myself a Republican, and neither do I consider myself a Democrat, but I thought it was interesting to see a Republican, albeit a young one stating an issue that so many people claim Republicans are against.

But I thought it was okay?

I thought it very interesting to read something like the following in Allan Johnson's Privilege, Power and Difference: "For all it's popularity, the idea that everyone is naturally frightened by difference is a cultural myth that, more than anything, justifies, keeping outsiders on the outside and treating them badly if they happen to get in. The mere fact that something is new or strange isn't enough to make us afraid of it." When just a week ago, in Fear of Feminism by Lisa Maria Hogeland we were told that it was okay to be afraid, because feminism was something new, and that at some point, we would be able to accept it if we persevere. The opposing ideas can be so confusing, and at the same time serve as what one might call "food for thought". Even though Hogeland's point wasn't that we should fear the feminist movement, it's still slightly confusing to read both texts and compare the words. The one thing that the two texts do have in common that help merge the bridge between the two is the idea of consciousness -- being aware of what makes you privileged and knowing how politics can and will affect your life when you decide to do something about it. Sure, Privilege, Power and Difference doesn't go into details about it, but when presented the facts, critical thinking should do the rest.

(P.s. this was the Connection one~)

Postfeminist? Okay...

One of the arguments that Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner makes in A Tsunami In History is the idea that we live in a post-feminist society, but she still thinks that there is work to be done. Over the years, as the feminist waves continue to make their way into society, each generation has managed to pass on something of value to the next. And even though a lot of progress has been made by feminists and surporters alike, there is still quite a lot of work to be made. Even though these ideas and movements are still being passed around, the newer generations have a difficult time removing the foggy lenses society has placed over their eyes. Rowe-Finkbeiner did state, however, that the third wave of feminism has sparked a new discovery. She writes:  "there are many ways to be a woman." Not just that, but the things that first and second wave feminist failed to see and focus on (i.e. race and class) are now taken into account to make the movement even broader.

Generic title!

I feel like I should warn people about my insane obsession with semi-colons and hyphens, but I doubt I'll be using a lot of those. In any case! I'm Daury, a creative writing major and a junior? in the school you love to hate. I think this is the third time (or second?) I changed my major, but I think this is the one. I really like to write (except things like these), so what's the harm in majoring in it. Oh, I forgot to mention I really like parentheses, too... Anyway, I am really excited for this class not only because it's a topic that I have genuine interest in, but because it's another gen ed out of the way. Even though I'm kind of scared for the Election Year Project that we have to do, but one step at a time, right? I really like Lucky Charms, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and The National (their song is the url of my blog). The only reason I mention this is because I am listening to them right now, eating a owl of Lucky Charms and staring at the BtVS case on my shelf. This has gotten way out of hand so I should end this post with an awkward and abrupt ending.