Dear "liberal" male,
In this letter I will attempt to propose a theory that comes mainly
from my own experience as a woman in modern society, in a town that I
believe falsely claims a "liberal" and "progressive" point of view. My
theory is that, for reasons that I will explain further in this letter,
sexism is the most "invisible" of the main three "isms" that are being
discussed more and more often among those of us that are concerned with
civil rights. The main reason that I believe that sexism goes unnoticed
in relation to that of racism or homophobia is simple, but difficult to
prove: intuitively, we can surmise that sexism may be the oldest form of
biologically based oppression. What I mean to say by "biologically
based oppression" is that it is oppression that is based upon aspects of a
person that either cannot be changed or cannot be changed easily.
Throughout
most cultures women have been viewed as the weaker sex. Indeed, women
generally have less physical strength than that of the average male. In a time
before technological advances were made, physical strength was certainly
important, to fight off animals as well as human predators. However, it
seems bizarre to me that this "weaker sex" point of view has prevailed, even after
humans moved indoors, invented high powered weapons, and began to use
physical violence less and less frequently to "solve" each conflict that
arose.
The main aspect of subtle or indirect sexism
that I've noticed is displayed often in commercials, and frequently in a
way that is demeaning to men as well, albeit to a lesser extent that perhaps makes it
less inherently damaging. For example, most commercials that involve
any type of cleaning solution or domestic work of any kind feature a
woman and are therefore presumed to be aimed at female consumers. In these commercials men are
portrayed as lazy, filthy, and immature due to their alleged inability
to take care of themselves. I feel that this recurrent theme in commercials and in
popular media is especially damaging to children of both genders (and
those genders that lie in between male and female). It shows them that no matter which
parent is working (if it is even only one parent; this is becoming less
and less commonplace) mom cleans up, while dad relaxes. In a world where
more people need house mates and at later points in life, I believe that this early
exposure to traditional gender roles can cause strife and discord. In Santa Cruz
especially, the cost of rent is high. Therefore, the average college
student has had a lot of housemates. Renters are often replaced due to
conflict. How is this relevant? The answer is that the problem usually
has to do with someone refusing to clean up after themselves, and the
culprit is usually male. Years of watching his mother and mothers on
television pick up after sons and fathers may indeed have a long lasting
impact.
In addition to the frequent incidence of blatant sexism in popular media, I have noticed hypocritical behavior in regards to sexism from people that would believe themselves to be progressive. Many people know that racism and homophobia is wrong (or at least, that the open expression of such sentiments is undesirable) yet negative attitudes towards women continue to be a favorite subject for the casual "comedian". I have often witnessed people that become incensed over hearing a racist joke turn around and make a sexist one in the span of a few hours. Similar phenomena has been studied by Margo Monteith, who explains that her "research points to lax norms in the case of sexist responses, with
people caring little if they have engaged in sexist slip ups" ("Psychology Headlines"). The aim of her study was to find out how people would react when confronted with their own prejudices. The result was that for whatever reason (finding out that people generally had less compunction regarding sexism was not the aim of this particular study) participants reported no feelings of guilt when confronted with their prejudice towards women when compared with their reactions to their attitudes regarding race.
There
are many people like you who would have us believe that sexism is no longer a major
issue. To be blunt, these people are usually male and therefore have
little to no experience with the kind of sexism that women often
experience. According to an article in AIDS Education & Prevention
"[in our sample] more than two thirds reported having
ever experienced unfair treatment as a woman"(402). This study made claims that would support a correlation between sexist attitudes and a lack of proper treatment of women living with or otherwise effected by AIDS, as well as claims regarding sexism in general. Clearly this is an
indicator of a problem that is still relevant to modern society, as this
survey was conducted in 2011. I implore you to do your own research
regarding sexist attitudes towards more than half of the population, as well as to simply be more observant of your behavior and the behavior of those around you. It is obviously a bizarre state of affairs when a group that is in no way a minority is treated as if they are one. It is wise to assume that even if you are not female, that the equal treatment of women will only serve you, since it would reduce the incidence of anger in these women, making it easier to improve your relationship with them.
Sincerely,
Rachel Meisenheimer
Works Cited:
Bowleg, Lisa, and Torsten B. Neilands. "The Effects of Sexism,
Psychological Distress,
and Difficult Sexual Situations on U.S. Women’s
Sexual Risk Behaviors." AIDS
Education and Prevention. By Kyung-Hee Choi. 23rd ed. Vol. 5. N.p.: Guilford,
2011. 397-411. EBSCOhost EBook Collection. Web. 24 May 2013.
Monteith, Margo. "Psychology Headlines." Social Psychology Network. Scott Plous, 21
Mar. 2001. Web. 03 June 2013.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Sunday, May 26, 2013
The Invisibility of Modern Sexism (Final Draft)
Dear Modern Sexist of America,
In this letter I will attempt to propose a theory that comes mainly from my own experience as a woman in modern society, in a town that I believe falsely claims a "liberal" and "progressive" point of view. My theory is that, for reasons that I will explain further in this letter, sexism is the most "invisible" of the main three "isms" that are being discussed more and more often among those of us that are concerned with civil rights. The main reason that I believe that sexism goes unnoticed in relation to that of racism or homophobia is simple, but difficult to prove: intuitively, we can surmise that sexism may be the oldest form of biologically based oppression. What I mean to say by "biologically based oppression" is that it is oppression that is based upon aspects of a person that either can not be changed or can not be changed easily.
Throughout most cultures women have been viewed as the weaker sex. Indeed, women generally have less physical strength than that of the average male. In a time before technological advances were made, physical strength was certainly important, to fight off animals as well as human predators. However, it seems bizarre to me that this "weaker sex" point of view has prevailed, even after humans moved indoors, invented high powered weapons, and began to use physical violence less and less frequently to "solve" each conflict that arose.
The main aspect of subtle or indirect sexism that I've noticed is displayed often in commercials, and frequently in a way that demeans men as well, albeit to a lesser extent that perhaps is less inherently damaging. For example, most commercials that involve any type of cleaning solution or domestic work of any kind feature a woman and are therefore presumed to be aimed at female consumers. In these commercials men are portrayed as lazy, filthy, and immature due to their alleged inability to take care of themselves. I feel that this recurrent theme in commercials and in popular media is especially damaging to children of both genders (and those genders that lie in between male and female). It shows them that no matter which parent is working (if it is even only one parent; this is becoming less and less commonplace) mom cleans up, while dad relaxes. In a world where more people need house mates and at later points in life, I believe that this early exposure to traditional gender roles can cause strife and discord. In Santa Cruz especially, the cost of rent is high. Therefore, the average college student has had a lot of housemates. Renters are often replaced due to conflict. How is this relevant? The answer is that the problem usually has to do with someone refusing to clean up after themselves, and the culprit is usually male. Years of watching his mother and mothers on television pick up after sons and fathers may indeed have a long lasting impact.
There are many people like yourself who would have us believe that sexism is no longer an issue. To be blunt, these people are usually male and therefore have little to no experience with the kind of sexism that women often experience. According to an article in AIDS Education & Prevention "[in our sample] more than two thirds reported having ever experienced unfair treatment as a woman". Clearly this is an indicator of a problem that is still relevant to modern society, as this survey was conducted in 2011. I implore you to do your own research regarding sexist attitudes towards more than half of the population, as well as to simply be more observant of your behavior and the behavior of those around you. It is obviously a bizarre state of affairs when a group that is in no way a minority is treated as if they are one. It is wise to assume that even if you are not female, that the equal treatment of women will only serve you, since it would reduce the incidence of anger in these women, making it easier to improve your relationship with them.
Sincerely,
Rachel Meisenheimer
In this letter I will attempt to propose a theory that comes mainly from my own experience as a woman in modern society, in a town that I believe falsely claims a "liberal" and "progressive" point of view. My theory is that, for reasons that I will explain further in this letter, sexism is the most "invisible" of the main three "isms" that are being discussed more and more often among those of us that are concerned with civil rights. The main reason that I believe that sexism goes unnoticed in relation to that of racism or homophobia is simple, but difficult to prove: intuitively, we can surmise that sexism may be the oldest form of biologically based oppression. What I mean to say by "biologically based oppression" is that it is oppression that is based upon aspects of a person that either can not be changed or can not be changed easily.
Throughout most cultures women have been viewed as the weaker sex. Indeed, women generally have less physical strength than that of the average male. In a time before technological advances were made, physical strength was certainly important, to fight off animals as well as human predators. However, it seems bizarre to me that this "weaker sex" point of view has prevailed, even after humans moved indoors, invented high powered weapons, and began to use physical violence less and less frequently to "solve" each conflict that arose.
The main aspect of subtle or indirect sexism that I've noticed is displayed often in commercials, and frequently in a way that demeans men as well, albeit to a lesser extent that perhaps is less inherently damaging. For example, most commercials that involve any type of cleaning solution or domestic work of any kind feature a woman and are therefore presumed to be aimed at female consumers. In these commercials men are portrayed as lazy, filthy, and immature due to their alleged inability to take care of themselves. I feel that this recurrent theme in commercials and in popular media is especially damaging to children of both genders (and those genders that lie in between male and female). It shows them that no matter which parent is working (if it is even only one parent; this is becoming less and less commonplace) mom cleans up, while dad relaxes. In a world where more people need house mates and at later points in life, I believe that this early exposure to traditional gender roles can cause strife and discord. In Santa Cruz especially, the cost of rent is high. Therefore, the average college student has had a lot of housemates. Renters are often replaced due to conflict. How is this relevant? The answer is that the problem usually has to do with someone refusing to clean up after themselves, and the culprit is usually male. Years of watching his mother and mothers on television pick up after sons and fathers may indeed have a long lasting impact.
There are many people like yourself who would have us believe that sexism is no longer an issue. To be blunt, these people are usually male and therefore have little to no experience with the kind of sexism that women often experience. According to an article in AIDS Education & Prevention "[in our sample] more than two thirds reported having ever experienced unfair treatment as a woman". Clearly this is an indicator of a problem that is still relevant to modern society, as this survey was conducted in 2011. I implore you to do your own research regarding sexist attitudes towards more than half of the population, as well as to simply be more observant of your behavior and the behavior of those around you. It is obviously a bizarre state of affairs when a group that is in no way a minority is treated as if they are one. It is wise to assume that even if you are not female, that the equal treatment of women will only serve you, since it would reduce the incidence of anger in these women, making it easier to improve your relationship with them.
Sincerely,
Rachel Meisenheimer
Friday, May 24, 2013
The Invisibility of Modern Sexism (Draft 2)
In this letter I will attempt to propose a theory that comes mainly
from my own experience as a woman in modern society, in a town that I
believe falsely claims a "liberal" and "progressive" point of view. My
theory is that, for reasons that I will explain further in this letter,
sexism is the most "invisible" of the main three "isms" that are being
discussed more and more often among those of us that are concerned with
civil rights. The main reason that I believe that sexism goes unnoticed
in relation to that of racism or homophobia is simple, but difficult to
prove: intuitively, we can surmise that sexism may be the oldest form of
biologically based oppression. What I mean to say by "biologically
based oppression" is that it is oppression that is based on aspects of a
person that either can not be changed or can not be changed easily.
Throughout most cultures women have been viewed as the weaker sex. Indeed, women generally have less physical strength than that of the average male. In a time before technological advances were made, physical strength was certainly important, to fight off animals as well as human predators. However, it seems bizarre to me that this "weaker sex" view has prevailed after humans moved indoors, invented high powered weapons, and began to use physical violence less and less often to "solve"each conflict that arose.
The main aspect of subtle or indirect sexism that I've noticed is displayed often in commercials, and frequently in a way that demeans men as well, albeit to a lesser extent that perhaps is less inherently damaging. For example, most commercials that involve any type of cleaning solution or domestic work of any kind feature a woman and are therefore presumed to be aimed at female consumers. In these commercials men are portrayed as lazy, filthy, and immature due to their alleged inability to take care of themselves. This recurrent theme in commercials and in popular media is especially damaging to children of both genders (and those genders that lie in between male and female). It shows them that no matter which parent is working (if it is even only one parent; this is becoming less and less commonplace) mom cleans up, while dad relaxes. In a world where more people need house mates and at later points in life, I believe that this early exposure to traditional gender roles can cause strife and discord. In Santa Cruz especially, the cost of rent is high. Therefore, the average college student has had a lot of housemates. Renters are often replaced due to conflict. How is this relevant? The answer is that the problem usually has to do with someone refusing to clean up after themselves, and the culprit is usually male. Years of watching his mother and mothers on television pick up after sons and fathers may indeed have a long lasting impact.
There are many people who would have us believe that sexism is no longer an issue. To be blunt, these people are usually male and therefore have little to no experience with the kind of sexism that women often experience. According to an article in AIDS Education & Prevention "[in our sample] more than two thirds reported having ever experienced unfair treatment as a woman". Clearly this is an indicator of a problem that is still relevant to modern society, as this survey was conducted in 2011.
Throughout most cultures women have been viewed as the weaker sex. Indeed, women generally have less physical strength than that of the average male. In a time before technological advances were made, physical strength was certainly important, to fight off animals as well as human predators. However, it seems bizarre to me that this "weaker sex" view has prevailed after humans moved indoors, invented high powered weapons, and began to use physical violence less and less often to "solve"each conflict that arose.
The main aspect of subtle or indirect sexism that I've noticed is displayed often in commercials, and frequently in a way that demeans men as well, albeit to a lesser extent that perhaps is less inherently damaging. For example, most commercials that involve any type of cleaning solution or domestic work of any kind feature a woman and are therefore presumed to be aimed at female consumers. In these commercials men are portrayed as lazy, filthy, and immature due to their alleged inability to take care of themselves. This recurrent theme in commercials and in popular media is especially damaging to children of both genders (and those genders that lie in between male and female). It shows them that no matter which parent is working (if it is even only one parent; this is becoming less and less commonplace) mom cleans up, while dad relaxes. In a world where more people need house mates and at later points in life, I believe that this early exposure to traditional gender roles can cause strife and discord. In Santa Cruz especially, the cost of rent is high. Therefore, the average college student has had a lot of housemates. Renters are often replaced due to conflict. How is this relevant? The answer is that the problem usually has to do with someone refusing to clean up after themselves, and the culprit is usually male. Years of watching his mother and mothers on television pick up after sons and fathers may indeed have a long lasting impact.
There are many people who would have us believe that sexism is no longer an issue. To be blunt, these people are usually male and therefore have little to no experience with the kind of sexism that women often experience. According to an article in AIDS Education & Prevention "[in our sample] more than two thirds reported having ever experienced unfair treatment as a woman". Clearly this is an indicator of a problem that is still relevant to modern society, as this survey was conducted in 2011.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
The Invisibility of Modern Sexism (Rough Draft 1)
In this letter I will attempt to propose a theory that comes mainly from my own experience as a woman in modern society, in a town that I believe falsely claims a "liberal" and "progressive" point of view. My theory is that, for reasons that I will explain further in this letter, sexism is the most "invisible" of the main three "isms" that are being discussed more and more often among those of us that are concerned with civil rights.The main reason that I believe that sexism goes unnoticed in relation to that of racism or homophobia is simple, but difficult to prove: intuitively, we can surmise that sexism may be the oldest form of biologically based oppression. What I mean to say by "biologically based oppression" is that it is oppression that is based on aspects of a person that either can not be changed or can not be changed easily.
Throughout most cultures women have been viewed as the weaker sex. Indeed, women generally have less physical strength than the average male. In a time before technological advances were made, physical strength was certainly important, to fight off animals as well as human predators. However, it seems bizarre to me that this "weaker sex" view has prevailed after humans moved indoors, invented high powered weapons, and began to use physical violence less and less often to "solve"each conflict that arose.
The main aspect of subtle or indirect sexism that I've noticed is displayed often in commercials, and frequently in a way that demeans men as well, albeit to a lesser extent that perhaps is less inherently damaging. For example, most commercials that involve any type of cleaning solution or domestic work of any kind feature a woman and are aimed at female consumers. In these commercials men are portrayed as lazy, filthy, and immature due to their alleged inability to take care of themselves. This recurrent theme in commercials and in popular media is especially damaging to children of both genders (and those genders who lie in between). It shows them that no matter which parent is working (if it is even only one parent; this is becoming less and less commonplace) mom cleans up, while dad relaxes. In a world where more people need house mates and at later points in life, this early exposure to gender roles can cause strife and discord. In Santa Cruz especially, the cost of rent is high. Therefore, the average college student has had a lot of housemates. Renters are often replaced due to conflict. How is this relevant? The answer is that the problem usually has to do with someone refusing to clean up after themselves, and the culprit is usually male. Years of watching his mother and mothers on television pick up after sons and fathers may indeed have a long lasting impact.
Throughout most cultures women have been viewed as the weaker sex. Indeed, women generally have less physical strength than the average male. In a time before technological advances were made, physical strength was certainly important, to fight off animals as well as human predators. However, it seems bizarre to me that this "weaker sex" view has prevailed after humans moved indoors, invented high powered weapons, and began to use physical violence less and less often to "solve"each conflict that arose.
The main aspect of subtle or indirect sexism that I've noticed is displayed often in commercials, and frequently in a way that demeans men as well, albeit to a lesser extent that perhaps is less inherently damaging. For example, most commercials that involve any type of cleaning solution or domestic work of any kind feature a woman and are aimed at female consumers. In these commercials men are portrayed as lazy, filthy, and immature due to their alleged inability to take care of themselves. This recurrent theme in commercials and in popular media is especially damaging to children of both genders (and those genders who lie in between). It shows them that no matter which parent is working (if it is even only one parent; this is becoming less and less commonplace) mom cleans up, while dad relaxes. In a world where more people need house mates and at later points in life, this early exposure to gender roles can cause strife and discord. In Santa Cruz especially, the cost of rent is high. Therefore, the average college student has had a lot of housemates. Renters are often replaced due to conflict. How is this relevant? The answer is that the problem usually has to do with someone refusing to clean up after themselves, and the culprit is usually male. Years of watching his mother and mothers on television pick up after sons and fathers may indeed have a long lasting impact.
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Annotated Bibliography
Mills, Sara. Language and Sexism. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 2008. EBSCOHost EBook
Collection.
Web. 29 Apr. 2013.
Sara Mills examines the prevalence of sexism that is expressed through modern language. A distinction is made between "overt" sexism and "indirect" sexism. Overtly sexist language occurs when a word is used or a statement is made that is intentionally sexist and oftentimes abusive in nature. Indirect sexism in language occurs when the words or statements made are more "vague". Mills also covers topics that occur when viewing language intellectually, such as common stereotypes, context, hate speech, and ways in which one can challenge sexist language.
MacKinnon, Catharine A. Only Words.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1993. Print.
Catharine MacKinnon argues that the oppression of women is not imaginary and that language is what our most basest interactions rely upon. She asserts that the first amendment protects the perpetrators of discriminatory acts, specifically that of pornographic film makers, stating essentially that the creators of such films are rapists.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
What I Would Change About American Society
What I would like to change about the society that I live in is the increasingly noticeable presence of modern sexism and the acceptance of sexism that is apparent to me, even in people that I would normally view as enlightened individuals. It has been my view for many years that sexism against women is the oldest negative "ism" that we have, and thusly, it seems to be the form of social injustice that will be the most difficult to eradicate. What I believe to be the most irritating aspect of sexism is that it is a commonly ignored problem when you compare it to the reaction that people have against racism, and to a lesser extent, homophobia. Racism seems to be the first issue that comes to the minds of many when faced with the subject of the oppression of large groups of people. This is confusing to me, since sexism, racism, and homophobia seem to be different parts of the same ugly animal. All three forms of oppression have one trait in common: people are discriminating against others based on a trait of that can either not be changed or would be extremely difficult to change or hide.
One simply needs to think critically while watching commercials on television to see why anti racist sentiment takes precedence over being against sexism. Take for example, the ad campaign currently being run by the Seven Up/Dr. Pepper company. A few years ago I saw a Dr.Pepper commercial that filled me with a rage so strong that I started laughing hysterically, mostly because I couldn't believe that the concept would make it past the board room that I imagine the creation of commercials takes place in. The product advertised in this commercial is for Dr.Pepper 10, a version of the popular soft drink that has only 10 calories. The commercial is narrated by a masculine figure wearing camouflage who is running around in the forest doing various "manly" things. What is so disturbing about this ad is the dialogue. In the commercial the main character addresses the women that may be watching, asking "enjoying the movie, ladies? Of course not". He implies that all women hate action and the commercial ends with him saying "you can keep your romantic comedies and your girly drinks, we're good. DR. PEPPER: IT'S NOT FOR WOMEN". "What could be more blatantly sexist than this ad?" you may be asking yourself. The answer: the fact that the company made an official facebook page for the drink...and didn't allow people that listed their gender as "female" to play the games on it. Now think for a moment about what the reaction may have been if the excluded group was a ethnic minority. Imagine the words "DR.PEPPER: IT'S NOT FOR BLACK PEOPLE" emblazoned on your television screen. I think the reaction would have been a lot different and I don't think that the commercial would still be on the air.
I'd like to mention that this commercial was also sexist towards men, since it reinforced male stereotypes that may not ring true with all males. Many commercials have sexist themes that are aimed at men, especially if the commercial is for a cleaning product or involves shopping or cooking. Women are typically viewed as being superior at domestic duties and better at saving money, while the simple minded men track dirt into the house, spend their savings on birds of prey, and stick entire avocados into blenders. I think it's safe to say that both women and men could do without these heavily enforced stereotypes. The elimination of sexism against either gender (and those genders in between male and female) would make friendships and romantic relationships a lot easier for many reasons, the most obvious being that we could stop accusing one another of taking shots at us for something as small as a difference in genitalia.
One simply needs to think critically while watching commercials on television to see why anti racist sentiment takes precedence over being against sexism. Take for example, the ad campaign currently being run by the Seven Up/Dr. Pepper company. A few years ago I saw a Dr.Pepper commercial that filled me with a rage so strong that I started laughing hysterically, mostly because I couldn't believe that the concept would make it past the board room that I imagine the creation of commercials takes place in. The product advertised in this commercial is for Dr.Pepper 10, a version of the popular soft drink that has only 10 calories. The commercial is narrated by a masculine figure wearing camouflage who is running around in the forest doing various "manly" things. What is so disturbing about this ad is the dialogue. In the commercial the main character addresses the women that may be watching, asking "enjoying the movie, ladies? Of course not". He implies that all women hate action and the commercial ends with him saying "you can keep your romantic comedies and your girly drinks, we're good. DR. PEPPER: IT'S NOT FOR WOMEN". "What could be more blatantly sexist than this ad?" you may be asking yourself. The answer: the fact that the company made an official facebook page for the drink...and didn't allow people that listed their gender as "female" to play the games on it. Now think for a moment about what the reaction may have been if the excluded group was a ethnic minority. Imagine the words "DR.PEPPER: IT'S NOT FOR BLACK PEOPLE" emblazoned on your television screen. I think the reaction would have been a lot different and I don't think that the commercial would still be on the air.
I'd like to mention that this commercial was also sexist towards men, since it reinforced male stereotypes that may not ring true with all males. Many commercials have sexist themes that are aimed at men, especially if the commercial is for a cleaning product or involves shopping or cooking. Women are typically viewed as being superior at domestic duties and better at saving money, while the simple minded men track dirt into the house, spend their savings on birds of prey, and stick entire avocados into blenders. I think it's safe to say that both women and men could do without these heavily enforced stereotypes. The elimination of sexism against either gender (and those genders in between male and female) would make friendships and romantic relationships a lot easier for many reasons, the most obvious being that we could stop accusing one another of taking shots at us for something as small as a difference in genitalia.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
RR "Killer Culture" by David Kupelian
What I find the most surprising about this article is how I was able to agree with a few aspects of the author's opinion. He manages to draw even the most atheistic reader in by starting off slow when it comes to making his Christian beliefs blatantly obvious. There is a progression of what I can only refer to as "insanity" that occurs in this article. The author begins by appealing to the reader by portraying MTV and bands like ICP in a negative light. This is something that almost anyone over the age of 18 who has watched MTV or heard ICP's music can get behind. Ask the most average college student if they still think that MTV stands for "music television" and you'll likely receive the same answer: NO. What this author has done is brilliant. He keeps the non-Christian reader from dismissing the article immediately by appealing to their cynicism regarding pop culture.
The author's ignorance when it comes to subcultures is apparent in many instances. He refers to Satanism on page 656, a religion that almost anyone would find silly, to say the least. The problem is that many people confuse Satanism with legitimate devil worship. True Satanism is worship of one's own ego, and has nothing to do with Satan other than having him as a mascot. When it comes to fashion statements such as piercings, tattoos, and chokers for men, it's as if the author saw each of these fashion trends once or twice and then based his article on those few occurrences. He looked at a few magazine articles written by people in the body modification community and made ill informed guesses as to why they would hang themselves from hooks.
Whether or not these people "rebel" due to having issues with their parents is none of Kupelian's concern. He suffers from the same "disease" that many hardcore Christians suffer from. He has an inability to tolerate what is going on in the privacy of other people's homes. In the beginning of the article Kupelian says "a fun loving and thoroughly decent kid, the cousin didn't have a mean bone in his body. One little thing, though. He wore a choker around his neck"(647). He's describing a child who had an effect upon his own son, who wanted to dress like him afterwards. He then gives his son a lecture about the necklace and it's various "negative" connotations. Not only does the author care about what strangers wear or do, but he assigns negative traits to a child he described as "decent". The fact that his son wanted to emulate a "decent" child should have been acceptable to him despite his taste in clothing. Instead he instilled a hatred of women in his son (because wearing "girl" clothing is "bad") and sent him this message: it doesn't matter if you're a good person. Wearing "weird" clothing trumps this and makes you a "sinner". Now that's what I call great parenting.
Kupelian, David. The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-experts
Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom. Nashville, TN: WND, 2005. Print.
The author's ignorance when it comes to subcultures is apparent in many instances. He refers to Satanism on page 656, a religion that almost anyone would find silly, to say the least. The problem is that many people confuse Satanism with legitimate devil worship. True Satanism is worship of one's own ego, and has nothing to do with Satan other than having him as a mascot. When it comes to fashion statements such as piercings, tattoos, and chokers for men, it's as if the author saw each of these fashion trends once or twice and then based his article on those few occurrences. He looked at a few magazine articles written by people in the body modification community and made ill informed guesses as to why they would hang themselves from hooks.
Whether or not these people "rebel" due to having issues with their parents is none of Kupelian's concern. He suffers from the same "disease" that many hardcore Christians suffer from. He has an inability to tolerate what is going on in the privacy of other people's homes. In the beginning of the article Kupelian says "a fun loving and thoroughly decent kid, the cousin didn't have a mean bone in his body. One little thing, though. He wore a choker around his neck"(647). He's describing a child who had an effect upon his own son, who wanted to dress like him afterwards. He then gives his son a lecture about the necklace and it's various "negative" connotations. Not only does the author care about what strangers wear or do, but he assigns negative traits to a child he described as "decent". The fact that his son wanted to emulate a "decent" child should have been acceptable to him despite his taste in clothing. Instead he instilled a hatred of women in his son (because wearing "girl" clothing is "bad") and sent him this message: it doesn't matter if you're a good person. Wearing "weird" clothing trumps this and makes you a "sinner". Now that's what I call great parenting.
Kupelian, David. The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-experts
Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom. Nashville, TN: WND, 2005. Print.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Persepolis RA
The story in the novel that I would like to discuss takes place on pages 132-134. This is when Satrapi goes out to buy tapes and is caught by the women's branch of the Guardians of the Revolution. The author explains that this group was created to arrest women for wearing the veil improperly. I think that the author assumes that her readers think that no one in Iran rebelled by listening to music that was banned. She shows that people did seek out popular music of the time period. However, she shows the reader that there is a exchange of pop music being made without denying that it is a dangerous thing to do. This is clearly and simply illustrated by the way in which the man who is selling her the tapes turns his head quickly back and forth. Satrapi then makes the same motion once she acquires the tapes. This particular story in the novel (as well as in many other instances throughout the book) is very humorous in its tone, since the author is equating the buying and selling of music tapes with that of the popularized image of how one would acquire illegal substances.
I think that the style of this novel is very contemporary and "hip" and that this event in the book illustrates this aspect the most clearly. It is very fortuitous that this story takes place in the late 70s and early 80s, a time in history that many people either feel nostalgia for or wish they were a part of. Even if a reader was not alive during this time they are still likely to know about Michael Jackson's "Thriller" album, or at least have some vague understanding of what "punk" is. I feel that since this graphic novel is most likely aimed at readers that enjoy some form of subversiveness, that it was important for the author to relate to the hypothetical reader on this level. The scene engages the reader by making the scene reminiscent of a popular story of a rebellious youth getting caught, but with a twist---she may actually get arrested instead of merely being punished by her parents. A popular image from the movie version of Persepolis depicts a fundamentalist woman looming over Satrapi who has a back patch which reads "punk is not dead". Surprisingly, this illustration is not directly from the novel. However, the fact that it's the most popular image that comes up when conducting a google image search on Persepolis shows how important the scene was in order to generate interest in the novel and in the film that precedes it.
I think that the style of this novel is very contemporary and "hip" and that this event in the book illustrates this aspect the most clearly. It is very fortuitous that this story takes place in the late 70s and early 80s, a time in history that many people either feel nostalgia for or wish they were a part of. Even if a reader was not alive during this time they are still likely to know about Michael Jackson's "Thriller" album, or at least have some vague understanding of what "punk" is. I feel that since this graphic novel is most likely aimed at readers that enjoy some form of subversiveness, that it was important for the author to relate to the hypothetical reader on this level. The scene engages the reader by making the scene reminiscent of a popular story of a rebellious youth getting caught, but with a twist---she may actually get arrested instead of merely being punished by her parents. A popular image from the movie version of Persepolis depicts a fundamentalist woman looming over Satrapi who has a back patch which reads "punk is not dead". Surprisingly, this illustration is not directly from the novel. However, the fact that it's the most popular image that comes up when conducting a google image search on Persepolis shows how important the scene was in order to generate interest in the novel and in the film that precedes it.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
RR #2 Persepolis
What I found most surprising about this graphic novel is how easy it was for me to relate to Marjane Satrapi. Clearly I have not had a childhood similar to hers in terms of my surroundings but her reactions to negative situations reminded me very much of my own reactions. For example, just before the war had officially began she describes competing with her peers over who has had more horrific things happen to their loved ones such as imprisonment or execution. She actually feels bad that she doesn't have parents or relatives who have become prisoners or worse. I feel that in the past my friends and I would have "contests" about who had it worse in terms of poverty, abusive childhoods or more experiences with death. But what I've learned from life and from this novel is that this is perhaps a common reaction that people have when the bad situations in life are just beginning. When aspects of life become truly deplorable, one no longer seeks to have a contest about who has "had it worse". This seems to be a common trait of someone who may have legitimately negative things happening to them or around them, yet lacks the maturity or perspective to deal with them in an appropriate and mature manner. It makes more sense to hope that life will become better, rather than convincing yourself to rejoice over how bad your situation is.
What I really appreciated about this novel as a whole is that it makes Muslims seem very similar to Western people. The Muslim religion is not widespread in America as far as I know and the characters in the novel certainly have a different upbringing due to their very different and tumultuous circumstances. Yet their experience of being a rebellious adolescent is strikingly similar to that of being a headstrong teenager in the Western world. The way in which the author describes her childhood and teenage years living in Iran is so relatable that I believe it brings the story of Iran to an audience that would otherwise ignore the subject and continue to view the Middle East as one homogenous area that has no trace of what we as Americans or Europeans would call "civilized behavior". Many people still believe that everyone "over there" rides camels and that no woman would ever attempt not to wear the veil. I find that the image that many people have is of women being beaten constantly and thieves getting their hands chopped off for stealing food. While horrific conditions do indeed persist in certain areas, this black and white way of thinking is detrimental, in my opinion. It makes people in Western countries think in such a way that suggests that there is no hope for the people that reside in these areas to ever have peace or freedoms that every human has the right to have. It causes people to be dismissive and insensitive to the plight of others. I believe that the general theme of the novel is that dissenters will exist regardless of the circumstances or the consequences of their oftentimes revolutionary behavior.
What I really appreciated about this novel as a whole is that it makes Muslims seem very similar to Western people. The Muslim religion is not widespread in America as far as I know and the characters in the novel certainly have a different upbringing due to their very different and tumultuous circumstances. Yet their experience of being a rebellious adolescent is strikingly similar to that of being a headstrong teenager in the Western world. The way in which the author describes her childhood and teenage years living in Iran is so relatable that I believe it brings the story of Iran to an audience that would otherwise ignore the subject and continue to view the Middle East as one homogenous area that has no trace of what we as Americans or Europeans would call "civilized behavior". Many people still believe that everyone "over there" rides camels and that no woman would ever attempt not to wear the veil. I find that the image that many people have is of women being beaten constantly and thieves getting their hands chopped off for stealing food. While horrific conditions do indeed persist in certain areas, this black and white way of thinking is detrimental, in my opinion. It makes people in Western countries think in such a way that suggests that there is no hope for the people that reside in these areas to ever have peace or freedoms that every human has the right to have. It causes people to be dismissive and insensitive to the plight of others. I believe that the general theme of the novel is that dissenters will exist regardless of the circumstances or the consequences of their oftentimes revolutionary behavior.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
How Western Women and Muslim Women Perceive Each Other
Upon reading Maysan Haydar's article regarding her Muslim upbringing my initial reaction was that she was being unfair towards non-Muslim women in her descriptions of the way many of them dress and behave. Her main point is that wearing various styles of traditional Muslim clothing for women made her less vulnerable to being viewed as a sex object. Upon finishing the article I gained some appreciation for the way in which she, on several occasions, clarified herself by essentially stating that no woman deserves to be treated improperly due to the way she dresses. Despite these clarifying remarks, it is still easy to continue to view her opinion as being slightly condescending towards the women and girls in this country that appear to be more typical in their physical manifestation of femininity. Another observation is that she seems to approach the subject of proper attire for Muslim women from a mostly Western perspective. The idea that Western women generally have of Muslim women in the Middle East (whether it is true of all regions or not) is that these women are forced to dress and behave a certain way. This is not discussed in the article at all. This is peculiar since it seems necessary to make a distinction between what is expected of a Muslim American woman and what is expected or perhaps even mandatory in many instances for a Muslim woman in Iran or other areas of the Middle East. It seems as if she is ignoring what should be a large part of the story of Muslim women by not acknowledging what life may be like in a place that has a much stronger Muslim influence as well as a higher population of practicing Muslims.
Another Muslim woman who resides in America has a similar opinion to that of Haydar's and delves deeper into the subject of cultural relativism regarding the veil. She argues that following the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, Americans (especially women) focused heavily upon the veiling of Muslim women no matter what region of the Middle East they resided in. Based on conversations that I was either involved in or overheard during and after this period of time I would say that her argument does indeed hold merit. The perceived plight of veiled Muslim women did seem to be an obsession that many Americans had and still have to this day, regardless of what region a veiled woman resided in.
What can be gained from hearing the perspectives of Muslim women and Western women is that what may seem degrading to some may be a form of personal expression for another. It would be just as unwise to assume that every woman who dons the veil is being oppressed as it would be to assume that every American woman wearing a miniskirt is being forced to do so by her male peers.That being sad, while the style of dress for Muslim women may not be mandatory in every instance it is still important to keep in mind that women are certainly mistreated in certain communities or regions, just as they are in other parts of the world. It is uplifting to note that in Iran specifically, according to Rezaian, that "although the laws regarding proper cover haven’t changed, some women have grown bolder in interpreting the limits of what they can wear"(The Washington Post). Although many women in Iran still cover themselves, the fact that they are choosing different, and often times fashionable ways of doing so is indicative of progress.
Works Cited List:
Haydar, Maysan. "Veiled Intentions: Don't Judge a Muslim Girl by Her Covering." Body
Outlaws: Rewriting the Rules of Beauty and Body Image. By Ophira Edut.
Emeryville, CA: Seal, 2003. N. pag. Print.
Abu-Lughod, Lila. "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological
Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others." American Anthropologist
104.3 (2002): 783-90. Print.
Rezaian, Jason. "Struggle Over What to Wear in Iran." The Washington Post July-Aug.
2012, World sec.: n. pag. Print.
Powerpoint Presentation
Another Muslim woman who resides in America has a similar opinion to that of Haydar's and delves deeper into the subject of cultural relativism regarding the veil. She argues that following the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, Americans (especially women) focused heavily upon the veiling of Muslim women no matter what region of the Middle East they resided in. Based on conversations that I was either involved in or overheard during and after this period of time I would say that her argument does indeed hold merit. The perceived plight of veiled Muslim women did seem to be an obsession that many Americans had and still have to this day, regardless of what region a veiled woman resided in.
What can be gained from hearing the perspectives of Muslim women and Western women is that what may seem degrading to some may be a form of personal expression for another. It would be just as unwise to assume that every woman who dons the veil is being oppressed as it would be to assume that every American woman wearing a miniskirt is being forced to do so by her male peers.That being sad, while the style of dress for Muslim women may not be mandatory in every instance it is still important to keep in mind that women are certainly mistreated in certain communities or regions, just as they are in other parts of the world. It is uplifting to note that in Iran specifically, according to Rezaian, that "although the laws regarding proper cover haven’t changed, some women have grown bolder in interpreting the limits of what they can wear"(The Washington Post). Although many women in Iran still cover themselves, the fact that they are choosing different, and often times fashionable ways of doing so is indicative of progress.
Works Cited List:
Haydar, Maysan. "Veiled Intentions: Don't Judge a Muslim Girl by Her Covering." Body
Outlaws: Rewriting the Rules of Beauty and Body Image. By Ophira Edut.
Emeryville, CA: Seal, 2003. N. pag. Print.
Abu-Lughod, Lila. "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological
Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others." American Anthropologist
104.3 (2002): 783-90. Print.
Rezaian, Jason. "Struggle Over What to Wear in Iran." The Washington Post July-Aug.
2012, World sec.: n. pag. Print.
Powerpoint Presentation
Sunday, March 3, 2013
RR #1 on Persepolis
Before reading the first portion of Persepolis, I had made a
somewhat subconscious decision to ignore what was going on in Iran and
in other regions of the Middle East. Even by calling all countries that
appear to have a high number of Muslims "the Middle East" seems to be a
way of saying "all of those people" and I feel rather uneducated for
referring to that area in such a way. It seems logical to assume that
the Middle East can vary in a large way from country to country or even
from city to city.
I think that perhaps what contributed to my decision to be willingly ignorant about Iran was caused by the popular images that were and still are being circulated by popular Western media. These were the images of women wearing various types of veils as well as images of the flowing robes that the men wore. Since members of the media almost always used the vague term "the Middle East" it became difficult for me to differentiate one country from another. After the attacks that occurred in September of 2001, the mainstream media also seemed to focus on whatever anyone in the Western world would deem to be most negative about Muslim culture.They focused on the poor treatment and alleged subservience of Muslim women and on that of gun toting religious extremists. American soldiers told stories of children that would throw grenades at them. It seemed to me that if the state of the area was as bad as it seemed that it must have been that way for at least a few hundred years or so.
What I gathered from my reading in Persepolis is that the way life in Iran is now must be the result of what occurred gradually over the last several decades. The main character of the graphic novel is a very young girl and before the story begins the author explains that she grew up in Iran. I can only assume that the story is at least loosely based on the author's true childhood. Her story paints a picture of Iran that I did not expect to see. The events involving demonstrations seem tumultuous and dangerous to be sure, but aren't all protests risky? The main character's home life seems similar enough to that of my own, except that her parents seem to be more understanding of her rebelliousness. Her mom is not subservient and is as involved with political demonstrations as her father seems to be. The main character also mentions being "forced" to suddenly wear a veil, yet what she describes as "force" seems to be more reminiscent of the common issue of getting any child to wear just about any restrictive item of clothing. My point is that I don't expect to see any woman getting executed over what she wears this early in the story and I think that it's safe to say that this observation is somewhat indicative of what it was and what it was not like to live in Iran in the time period covered by the first part of this novel.
I think that perhaps what contributed to my decision to be willingly ignorant about Iran was caused by the popular images that were and still are being circulated by popular Western media. These were the images of women wearing various types of veils as well as images of the flowing robes that the men wore. Since members of the media almost always used the vague term "the Middle East" it became difficult for me to differentiate one country from another. After the attacks that occurred in September of 2001, the mainstream media also seemed to focus on whatever anyone in the Western world would deem to be most negative about Muslim culture.They focused on the poor treatment and alleged subservience of Muslim women and on that of gun toting religious extremists. American soldiers told stories of children that would throw grenades at them. It seemed to me that if the state of the area was as bad as it seemed that it must have been that way for at least a few hundred years or so.
What I gathered from my reading in Persepolis is that the way life in Iran is now must be the result of what occurred gradually over the last several decades. The main character of the graphic novel is a very young girl and before the story begins the author explains that she grew up in Iran. I can only assume that the story is at least loosely based on the author's true childhood. Her story paints a picture of Iran that I did not expect to see. The events involving demonstrations seem tumultuous and dangerous to be sure, but aren't all protests risky? The main character's home life seems similar enough to that of my own, except that her parents seem to be more understanding of her rebelliousness. Her mom is not subservient and is as involved with political demonstrations as her father seems to be. The main character also mentions being "forced" to suddenly wear a veil, yet what she describes as "force" seems to be more reminiscent of the common issue of getting any child to wear just about any restrictive item of clothing. My point is that I don't expect to see any woman getting executed over what she wears this early in the story and I think that it's safe to say that this observation is somewhat indicative of what it was and what it was not like to live in Iran in the time period covered by the first part of this novel.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Women in Iran
When I began reading the assigned article for this topic my initial reaction was that Maysan Haydar was being unfair towards non-Muslim women in her descriptions of the way many of us dress and behave, especially during high school. Upon finishing the article I came to appreciate the way in which she, on several occasions, clarified herself by essentially stating that no woman deserves to be treated improperly due to the way she dresses. Despite these remarks, I continue to view her opinion as being slightly condescending towards the women and girls in this country that appear to be more typical in their physical manifestation of femininity. Another aspect of the article that I found to be interesting is that she seems to approach the subject of proper attire for Muslim women from a completely Western perspective. The idea that people generally have of Muslim women in the Middle East (whether it is true of all regions or not) is that these women are forced to dress and behave a certain way. This is not discussed in the article at all and I wish that it had been since it seems important to me to make a distinction between what is expected of a Muslim American woman and what is expected or perhaps even mandatory in many instances for a Muslim woman in Iran or other areas of the Middle East. I feel that she is ignoring what should be a large part of the story of Muslim women by not acknowledging what life may be like in a place that has a much stronger Muslim influence as well as a higher population of practicing Muslims.
Sources:
"Veiled Intentions: Don't Judge a Muslim Girl by Her Covering"
Sources:
"Veiled Intentions: Don't Judge a Muslim Girl by Her Covering"
Saturday, February 16, 2013
I am...
I am a 25 year old psychology major. I work part time and go to school full time in order to support myself. I am responsible for my own life. My parents do not support me financially in any way. I live with my boyfriend of over 3 years and we help each other "get by". The threat of homelessness is real to us. I hope to transfer to a university one day and to become a counselor for high school students that have behavioral problems. In my spare time I enjoy listening to music, spending time with friends, and arguing with people on the internet. The arguments (or "discussions") that I have with people online (and offline) usually have to do with music and sexism. My favorite kind of music is gothic rock and deathrock. I also like some punk rock and some neofolk, and a plethora of bands that I don't care to attempt to categorize. I never lie to anyone besides my boss or the police and my sense of humor does not reflect my true beliefs. I like to make jokes about whatever I find the most deplorable. This is how I cope with social injustice and other brands of atrocity. This behavior frightens away the kind of overly politically correct and sensitive type of personality that I try to avoid. Essentially, I am testing people to see whether or not we can be around each other. Many of my friends would describe me as having a "strong" personality. I'm not really sure if they mean this in a negative or a positive way but I'm not very concerned about it. I'm mainly concerned with my own opinion of myself. Some people mistake this as conceit on my part but I think that people confuse arrogance with self confidence, perhaps due to their own jealousy or insecurities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)