as my life as a college student comes to a close...

As many of you know, I am graduating this semester. As excited as I am to be finished with early morning classes and spending long nights in the library, I'm beginning to feel a bit nostalgic, and have been thinking a lot about what I've learned since I've been here.

I came to Emory uncertain of who I was or what I really believed in. I had an idea that I knew all of this, but I soon found out, that I couldn't know myself or understand my ideals less. I had an extremely hard time adjusting and found myself being perceived in a way that made me feel misunderstood. Coming from a small town in Rhode Island with a close group of friends who I had known since elementary school and a large family for backup, I never realized how limited my world view was. Emory changed that all for me. Being thrust into a group of people with different beliefs, backgrounds and experiences was harsh on me at first, never having been exposed to different lifestyles before. But soon enough, I found that I had grown and matured immensely, as much as a result of the friends I've made and situations I've experienced as of the classes I came here to take.

This class, in particular, has pushed me even further than I expected to go. Coming from a place where I thought I had finally solidified my opinions on controversial and political issues, this class has pushed me even further-- encouraging me to dig even deeper. In reading over my posts since the beginning of the semester, I'm amazed at how much my ideas have changed and my openness to considering other options has taken form. Through all topics of study, those that I have not felt related to me personally, gender identity and intersex studies, to those that I consider fundamental in shaping who I am today, disability, I have become more aware of the differing opinions of those around me and the ways in which, though I may not always be directly affected, as a member of society, I am involved in them and they should matter to me.

So, in closing, I just want to thank everyone who has pushed me, for sharing their ideas and experiences, and for opening my mind to new possiblities. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time spent with you and learned from all of you. I wish you all the best of luck in the future.

Season for Giving!

I found this political gift online earlier today. I still haven't quite formulated my opinion about it, but I can say that it is different...

http://hillarynutcracker.com/

Important Question Class, Please Comment

Ok,

1. Does anyone remember if we actually read an article in class that dealt with the issue of the role the government should play in society, or was that just and overall discussion topic?

2. If the person in class who did the clip about making vaccines mandatory could let me know what the link for that is that would be great, I need it for my final project and I accidentally deleted the email?

3. Does anyone know if there was an article that we read other that killing the black body that dealt with the eugenics movement?

thanks guys, i really hope you can help, and maybe this will count as a comment!!

Warren Farrell and "The Flip Side of Feminism"

Neelaj and Dan's discussions of the Women's Center and the male role in feminism reminded me of an article I read in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution the other week entitled "Is Feminism Favoritism?" The article consists of an interview with Warren Farrell, author of such books as "Why Men Earn More" and the new "Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?" In the article, Farrell contends that the feminist movement contains a fatal flaw: it leaves men behind. With examples like the lack of female combatants in the military and the relatively short male life expectancy in developed countries, Farrell argues that males, not females, suffer the greatest amount of discrimination in the United States. While I do not think Neelaj and Dan intended to convey this strong of a criticism, I think Farrell brings up some interesting points about the role of men in female empowerment.

Despite his egalitarian intentions, Farrell's examples are almost laughable. His most glaring statistic is that women are 14 percent of the military but only 2 percent of those killed. He actually argues that more women should "share the responsibility of death." His argument seems contradictory: he does not think men should suffer for the cause of feminism, and yet he thinks that more women should die in the military in order to make the sexes equally represented. Additionally, he uses glaring stereotypes in order to prove his point: "when women earn about $100,000 per year, they say, 'I have enough money; I need time-for my family, friends, myself, to travel, and for exercise." I'm sure all of us know women who do not fit this mold-Farrell's reliance on feminine stereotypes is frightening. Still, this article ties in with our discussion on men's role in feminism-should their rights have to decrease in order for women's rights to increase? I don't think so, but I don't think they have anyway. Although I am not a man and cannot speak for their feelings towards feminism, I believe Farrell is going a bit overboard here.

To read the article, go to http://mensightmagazine.com/Articles/Farrell/2007/11-122007.htm. The extended boat metaphor is the best.

Grey's Anatomy and Abortion

We discussed in class that there aren’t many shows that deal with the topic of abortion. Someone brought up that even in Grey’s Anatomy, a medical drama, the only time abortion occurs is during Cristina’s ectopic pregnancy. But the issue was brought up another time—in Season 3, Addison reveals that she had an abortion. Unlike Cristina’s abortion, which was a medical necessity, she makes this choice because she doesn’t want the baby.

The abortion doesn’t happen on the show itself, however. It would have been just before she arrives in Seattle, but just thought I’d bring it up anyway. Here are links to a couple of relevant Youtube clips if you’re interested.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZN20r6XtrYM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5cjAUibrJiI

Recently, the debate about abortion has been portrayed as a contest between guaranteeing a woman’s reproductive freedom versus destroying a fetus/unborn child. I think the crux of the issue was well explored in the video clip shown by Catie, Morgan, and Tali during their activist practicum—there is still controversy as to whether an unborn child is a “true human” worthy of protection by law. Science has not yet provided any sort of definitive line past which a fetus is able to function as an independent, “complete” human (and I don’t think that it will for a very long time), so we often use other guidelines that may be more arbitrary. Is a fetus finally a human when it feels pain? When it has a heartbeat? When it kicks around in response to a voice? Or when it can survive outside the uterus in an incubator?

We have no evidence or direct testimony from people who remember their time in the womb. So how are guidelines to the “non-humanness” of fetuses different from the guidelines of the past that allowed abuse, maltreatment, and even attempted genocide of those that were deemed as less then human, or incomplete humans, because of mental or physical disabilities often when they even had the voice to protest? This is a strong analogy, but both come down to the question of how we decide what constitutes a life worth protecting and supporting; the ethical debates surrounding abortion remind us that the answer is not always easy to find.

one more shameless plug for Take Back the Night

TShirts are 5 dollars. If you'd like one, let me know in class tomorrow or contact Megan Kruer (she's on LL) she's the president of TBTN at Emory!

The Story of Stuff

This video with Annie Leonard was pretty depressing to watch after a weekend full of Christmas shop, shop, shopping. There is no doubt in my mind that we are a nation of consumers. Shopping for my loved ones to find them the perfect gifts makes me feel great. Consumption has become a ritual, and not just during the holidays. New stuff never fails to cheer me up. Leonard discusses the intentional introduction of planned obsolescence and perceived obsolescence during the 1950's, which she researched in industrial design journals. What worked for our economy in the past isn't working anymore, for us or for anybody else. And recycling isn't going to be enough to get to the root of the problem. She ended on a positive note about the already changing ideas about consumption. Our "field of vision" is expanding to take extraction and production and disposal into account. But even Leonard's distinction between the "old way" of thinking and a new way of thinking reinforces the idea that newer is better. That's the way we think now, but it hasn't always been that way. And the growing concerns about limited natural resources are likely to bring about another period of valuing frugality and thrift.

I've really worked at keeping Damali Ayo's five easy steps to ending racism in the back of my mind, which is something that I know I can continue to do long after this semester is over. Even though I always considered myself open minded about race, I've become much more comfortable with the fact that there are SO many things I am not aware of because I am white. And even more things I am not aware of because I'm not disabled. I'm more attuned to the way that people speak about each other and treat each other, and quick to keep my assumptions at bay. I'd easily go to any meeting of any cultural group on campus now, and the weirder I'd feel for being the only white kid, the better. Along those same lines, my next nametag would have to be "Hello, I love to shop". We have a hard time thinking any lifestyle other than one that is centered around shopping because that is what we know so well. But if you just admit that it's there, instead of trying to ignore it, then it's easier to start unpacking that invisible knapsack of consumption like Leonard is trying to do.

This tuesday...

There is going to be a lecture about the history of American Indian Women Leaders by Prof. Renae Dearhouse in the Center for Women from 4:30 to 5:30, if anyone is interested! Some of the topics we discussed earlier in the semester about Native American ideas about sex and gender are bound to be covered. And there will be snacks, too.

back to disability...

As I've been researching for my final paper on disability, I've come across a number of articles and blogs that have opened my eyes in both positive and negative ways. One blog I came across that I found both hilarious and frustrating is "BBC-Ouch! Disability Magazine." A number of the articles are hilarious, describing how to be "disabled cool"-- explaining, for example, how decorating your wheelchair with tinsel around the holdiays just to make the non-disabled people feel less awkward flaunting their non-disability around you is NOT cool.

While I was playing around on this site, searching for other sarcastic, funny, and (surprisingly) inspirational articles, I came across one that really set me back. This article is titled "Disability humor on the street" and starts out innocently enough-- describing a new TV show that will show disabled people pulling funny stunts (think, an amputee running out of the ocean screaming, "SHARK!") and catch the reactions of observers. AS it progesses though, and even more in people's comments in response to the article, a cruelty and abuse of disability is exposed.

One person responding shares her story: "I have used my impairment to get things such as seats on buses. One thing I did do was when I went on a long haul flight to see my uncle. On the way home, my uncle prayed on my impairment to get a seat which had leg-room, as I have bad muscles in my legsa and arms.,All in a day's work for me, though. I totally love Damon's story too. Go and sort things out, Ouch readers - you have a right to get what you want out of life!
Katie Fraser, Welwyn Garden City"

And another: "The "It's a miracle!" scenario works best when visiting Catholic churches in Italy. I get out of my wheelchair to negotiate the steps to examine the saint's relics in more detail, and before I know it I'm living proof of his or her sainthood.
Linda Webb, London"

Granted, I certainly don't believe this is the norm or that most disabled people abuse their disabilities, but I believe it is exactly this cruel, mocking, self-serving behavior (even though it may be shown by only a small percentage of the disabled community) that further hinders society's unwillingness to change the world to be more accessible to disabled people. I am by no means suggesting that society is right in not changing, but I can understand how this type of behavior makes people not want to adjust for fear that if they give an inch, people may take a mile.

So how do you help those actually in need of help, adjust for those people who will make good use of the shift, and avoid allowing people to abuse it? This is the exact issue that surrounds so many controversial issues. My parents, for example, argue against my "idealist belief" in socialized healthcare with this defense. Yes, they say, socialized healthcare will help millions of people who deserve it, but what about the people who abuse the system? When its your hard earned money that is paying for someone who has willingly wasted away his life, I can see how this defense makes sense. In all honesty, I don't think I can give a well thought out, honest answer to the 'which is better' question because it's still not my tax dollars that are being used.

So, I'm posing the question to the class-- how do we help people who deserve our help, without letting others who don't need it skate by?

Something I Missed Regarding my Practicum

After receiving feedback on my activist presentation I have decided to reflect on my experience and explore a connection with the readings that I had not done previously. One reading that directly affected my activist practicum was “White Privilege, Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” by Peggy McIntosh. This article explains the advantages that whites especially white males possess and are unaware of. It was not until now that I was truly aware of the privileges I assumed while performing my practicum. I was able to volunteer with the Pediatric Advanced Care Team where I did my best to act out the organization’s mission statement, “To improve the quality of life for children with life-limiting conditions and that of their families” because of my mother’s position at the hospital. Because my mom is on the board of the Children’s Hospital Foundation I was granted special rights and privileges at the hospital.

Until now I have never really stopped to think twice about those privileges. I was a perfect example of what Peggy McIntosh was describing. In her article she states, “I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege.” I would not say that I was intentionally trying to ignore the privileges given to me just because I am white, but that I am just used to receiving those privileges. I walked into that pediatric intensive care unit without being questioned and was warmly received by the nurses. This occurred first and foremost because I knew them from my own stay in the hospital but also because I had a “privileged” physical appearance. Peggy McIntosh has identified all of the privileges given to her that she was typically unaware of because she was white and I have now identified another example to add to her long list. I greatly enjoyed participating in my activist practicum not only because I love spending times with the kids, but also because it open up my eyes a privilege that I was not aware of. I don’t think a person without connections would have been able to perform my practicum and I really wish that that was something I had shared with the class because I think it is a very important aspect of my practicum that I had missed.

Sudanese Teddy Bear and Feminist Critiques

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313426,00.html

This article is mainly about the British woman, Gilliam Gibbons, teaching in Sudan when she was arrested for allowing her class to name a teddy bear Muhammad. The Sudanese government had charged Gibbons with inciting religious hatred, a crime as the article states, that is punishable by up to 40 lashes. Eventually she was released, so the article is a little out-of-date. Although many feel that Fox news is generally not a good source for unbiased news, some interesting points are brought up regarding the current state of the feminist movement in the United States in relation to this whole incident.

According to the article, the National Organization for Women (NOW) was quoted that it had not taken a stance on the situation. NOW's inaction prompted Tammy Bruce, a former president of a chapter of NOW, to assert that the reason NOW is refusing to take an official stance is that "they're afraid of offending people" and that "they are bound by political correctness.” It seems that Bruce is saying that NOW will not take a stance since they are afraid of offending individuals belonging to certain religious groups.

As we have seen in The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down, the clash between culture and good intentions often causes unintended results that can be detrimental to others. We see this same theme regarding the condemnation of an act that is a result of religious beliefs. This incident poses an interesting question of whether it is appropriate to disregard culture and religion in order to uphold situations regarding human rights. The issue of standpoint theory is clearly evident in a situation like this as well. An individual of a certain religion may find the act of naming a stuffed animal after a religious figure an offense worthy of a punishment, while others may see a punishment as a violation of human rights. Perhaps, if the teacher had a greater understanding of the culture she was in, then a situation like this may have been avoided all-together. Still, the question remains if it is permissible to violate and offend a group of individuals and their own values in order to end the oppression of another? I naturally feel that religion and cultural issues would and should take a backseat to human rights issues, but anything involving culture deeply intertwined with religion seems so sensitive and complex, especially for an organization to take a stance on. This situation is likened to when in war, the side that is defined as the "bad guys" depends on the perspective of who you are talking to.

Another interesting point found in the Tammy Bruce section regarding NOW is the idea of women studies/feminist theory on an international level. Thinking back on the course, nearly everything we have read about dealt with examining issues within the United States from the critical perspective of feminist theory. This was relatively simple since we all have lived in the United States for some time and understand the country's culture and society. I feel like it would be more difficult for us to apply feminist critiques on an international scale due to issues regarding standpoint theory and the potential for large differences in culture between the United States and whatever country the issue being examined takes place in.

Revisions in Food Program for Low-income Mothers

I recently came across a very interesting article entitled "USDA Revises Food Program for Women and Children" under Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/
20071206/pl_nm/food_nutrition_usda_dc_4). The article describes the Women, Infants and Children food program (WIC) which "supplements the diet of 8.5 million low-income pregnant women, new mothers and young children annually." WIC has not undergone any changes since its establishment in 1972. However, due to a new review in August 2006, the list of foods that can be purchased with WIC vouchers has been changed to include fresh fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Due to the obesity epidemic in America, WIC agencies wanted to curtail foods with high levels of saturated fats and cholesterol and add foods with more fiber and nutrition. "This does not change the value of benefits, about $39 a month, to qualified low-income pregnant women, and children up to the age of 5 who are at nutritional risk."

Interestingly enough, recipients of the program are allowed to make substitutions if their cultural practices require so. For example, a woman can trade her whole wheat bread voucher for soft corn tortillas. "The revised WIC program also provides incentives for women to continue breast-feeding by providing less formula to partially breast-fed infants" and by giving fully breast-feeding mothers $2 more in fruit and vegetable vouchers. The article closed with an unfortunate comment that up to half a million people could be denied WIC vouchers next year because of rising food prices.

I thought this article was relevant to several of our class discussions. First, according to the article "Poverty fuels medical crisis," poor Americans are suffering from preventable diseases partly because they do not have access to health care and because they can only afford to buy poorer quality, processed food. Second, the idea that obesity is due to laziness when in fact there are people who are overweight because they can not afford healthier foods.

As a side note, I was extremely shocked by the value of the WIC vouchers. $39 a month is not a lot at all for a grown woman let alone a growing child. I am a confused as to how $39 includes fresh produce and more whole grains.

Interesting tidbit

So I was reading on Chicagotribune.com and came across an article about a transgender politician from here in Georgia that was brought to court by one of the opposing candidates and sued for "missing leading voters." Basically the opponent claimed that by running as a woman, she got more votes because the voters tend to vote for women. The case got thrown out but I thought I'd share it.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/
sns-ap-transgender-politician,1,827243.story

"BSA: We want to know!"

At the end of the last class we were discussing how we want to proceed as this semester comes to an end and the Blackboard community topic "BSA: We want to know!" was mentioned. That night, I checked out the discussion board. I don't know if anyone else looked at it, but it's really interesting. Basically it's a discussion board area where people can post questions, comments, concerns, anything they want and can do anonymously. I think that giving the option to post without leaving your name is really positive and easy way to allow for a more honest and perhaps meaningful conversation. It's taught that the issue of race, as well as most the topics that we discussed this semester are taboo, things that shouldn't really be talked about. People know that it's not polite "dinner conversation" to bring up politics, race, religion and money. I've always struggled with this notion about what's appropriate to talk about. While I do agree that getting into a heated debate on religion and politics may not be the best conversation for a dinner party with new friends, I believe that the whole "we don't talk about that" idea is taken much too far. Instead of being limited to a rule for the dinner table, it's become a rule for society. The effects are visible everyday. Try having a conversation with a student, for example, about cost of education, lack of financial aide, student loans. Although I think that most people probably have an opinion on the issue, I believe that you would be hard pressed to find someone that gave their opinion and then backed it with a specific personal experience. I understand that, it's easier and more comfortable to talk about these issues in generalities. "The price of education is too high; there isn't enough financial aid; a lot of students don't have the resources to go to the best school they can," etc. However these types of issues aren't just "general" issues, they're personal issues (this one in particular) that directly effect the Emory population; yet it's hard to find someone that wants to add a personal aspect to the issue. While I completely understand that, it doesn't take away from the main issue. It's the touchy/uncomfortable topics that are personal, and how can such a personal topic be thoroughly discussed using only generalities?

In addition, people are more likely to connect to a personal story rather than a general one. I mean to say that if someone is talking about sexism and how it's still prevalent in society, there will be that group of people who say, "no, sexism isn't an issue any longer, no one really treats women differently than men." The conversation could end here, or it could continue with a personal example of sexism. Not to say that one example is going to change someone's opinion who doesn't want to change, it can allow the conversation to continue. No real changes can be made in our society if people are too afraid or too uncomfortable to talk about them. On the discussion board someone posted that he didn't agree with the posts being anonymous. He made a very good argument saying that it was supposed to be a setting that promoted bringing students together, allowing them to get to know students of other races or other backgrounds, so why should you hide your identity. I think it's a completely valid point, but I also think that that over looks a whole aspect of the discussion community. There are numerous posts by people (self-stated as white) asking questions which could be taken as offensive, ignorant questions; but the thing is, they genuinely don't know the answer and are interested in learning. People have been taught for so long not to bring up certain issues that a lot of people have questions that could be easily answered, but they're afraid to ask. By giving the option of anonymity, it allows these questions to be asked. It's these questions that really shed light on the areas that may be of the most interest.

I encourage everyone to check out this Emory community on Blackboard and add their opinion, whether anonymously or not, whatever you're most comfortable with-either way adds a lot to the discussion. Even in a setting where people are completely comfortable, a group of close friends, these are the issues that still cause discomfort. I also would like to challenge everyone to ask the hard questions, and then answer them. While discussion isn't enough to bring drastic change (we've talked about this a lot with the issue of activism), discussion is the first step. If people are too afraid to even discussion the issues, how is anything really going to change.

F.Y.I

Today is "International Day of Disabled Persons." Just thought I would share with yall.

Fixing capitalism?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The United States was founded on the principle that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are considered the inalienable rights of humans. However, people in the United States have traditionally placed their own pursuit of happiness above others’ rights to life, liberty, and happiness. We’ve all studied in school that historically the United States’ government has considered the happiness of certain groups more important than the life or liberty of others: Africans were deprived of their liberty in order to make plantation owners happy; Native Americans were deprived of their lives and property so that land-hungry settlers could be happy.

The first step toward tempering capitalism to create a more balanced society is to truly try to live by the words that open up the Declaration of Independence, which was written with a capitalist economy in mind. It is fine to pursue love, luxury, or whatever else we define as happiness, but often in our single-mindedness to realize these dreams, we trample on the lives of others. Take for example the article about the Inuit and how pollution has changed their lifestyle and affected their health: even though the pollution emitted by the United States has compromised their lives and happiness, our government does not consider such actions to be a travesty of human rights or the founding ideals of this nation.

The way toward tempering capitalism is twofold. The first is to acknowledge that all humans—male or female, of whatever ethnicity, sexuality, or religion, no matter whether poor or rich, American or not—have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The second step is to honestly assess the effects of our actions and excesses and be willing to change them when they begin interfering with the lives, liberty, and happiness of other human beings.

The second step requires a certain amount of restraint and generosity that do not have to be considered foreign to capitalism. A living can be made without having to impoverish others; the desire for extremes is what blinds the soul and convinces people that they cannot be happy without sacrificing the rights of others. Often, governments step in and try to place rules that temper the inequalities that we associate with capitalism; the very next sentence of the Declaration of Independence declares that governments are formed to protect humanity's essential rights. Yet history has demonstrated time and time again that a government is only as just as the people who run it. If the power structure falls into the hands of those interested only in furthering their own aims, then it too becomes a tool that deprives people of their rights.

Ultimately, the biggest change needed to “fix” capitalism is a change in heart of the people, for a nation and its government are only as good or bad as the citizens that comprise it.

One clip I can't seem to stop thinking about...

As I was going through the clips again today to find some to connect with my activist practicum as well as my final paper, I came across the series of Seinfeld clips that dealt with disability. I couldn't help but re-watch the three clips over again, but Seinfeld is one of my favorite shows. After watching it again though I began to think about what we had discussed in class. Was it ok that I was laughing? We had established that Seinfeld was a show that made fun of everybody and discriminated against everybody, so did the show eliminate discrimination in a way by cracking jokes on everyone? I decided to take one last look at these as three clips before I tackled the questions I had just challenged myself to answer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXVjAeIrkfQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csuZHyW-iGI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g_xmQhe-Fg&feature=related

I actually think it is ok that I was laughing at this. This specific episode dealt with George pretending to be handicapped. It is not in any way comical for another human being to be in a wheel chair, but it was funny to see George race the elderly couple, or to see the woman fly the hill because Kramer gave her a wheelchair without breaks. This makes me think about the article we read about the movie, “The Ringer”. This movie used actors with handicaps and made fun of people with handicaps to eliminate the stigma that people should just feel sorry for them, but rather that they are just like every one else and can be made fun of. I think the point of that movie, as well as the show Seinfeld was first and foremost to make a profit and to make people laugh, but also to try make people with disabilities more “normal” by putting them on the same playing field by those who are considered "abled" as opposed to disabled. The members of the cast of Seinfeld not only made fun of people with wheelchairs and canes, but also people of different races, economic statuses, and other varieties of “disabilities”. I’m still struggling to understand if this show was meant to target those who weren’t “normal” or if they were just showing trying to make everyone equal by simply making a mockery of everyone.

Connections...

When I was finishing my presentation of my activist practicum, I thought about the connections that one can make between our readings and the things that we experience in our own lives. I may never have breast cancer and be asked to wear a prosthesis, but having read Audre Lorde's articles on her illness and society's "expectations" illuminate other similar expectations in my life. Cheryl Chase's advocacy for intersex individuals makes me think about the genital mutilation that goes on in other cultures around the world. Anne Fadiman's research on Lia Lee's medical situation and how cultural barriers impeded proper medical treatment makes me think of how many other services, such as law, school, and employment, often encounter the same barriers.

One of the most profound ideas from our syllabus, though, has been Mia Mingus' discussion about disability. I have come to the realization that her method of thinking can be applied to several different aspects of life. When I did my activist practicum, I thought: "If Mia Mingus believes that society should accommodate disabled people, instead of disabled people accommodating society, then why can't society keep us safe, and stop the violence against women?" I think that these type of connections between the readings/discussions and our lives make this class have much more meaning that just for women, or for biomedicine. Using the ideas from the readings to ask questions in our real lives opens up new ways of thinking.

Pronounced Punches and Killer Kicks

I was completely shocked after hearing Mary Alexander’s presentation on the women’s self-defense PE class. I was surprised to hear that an institution like Emory College, which boasts of gender equality found on campus, would allow a class that makes women feel particularly vulnerable to continue. Moreover, based on some of the class handouts that Mary Alexander discussed, I found some of the personal beliefs of the professor to be offensive.
During my first year at Emory, I started taking a kickboxing class taught by Nathan Nowak, the owner of Trinity Gym, a gym based in midtown Atlanta. I knew that Nathan has studied martial arts since the age of nine, has coached a female Tae Kwon Do team since 1999, and specialized in women’s self-defense. After class last Thursday, I decided to interview Nathan on the subject of women’s self-defense. We discussed what inspires most women to begin studying self-defense. In some cases, it is the unfortunate situation of domestic violence or rape that inspires a victim or a friend of a victim to study self-defense. However, other women who are just looking to increase their confidence levels or no longer want to live in fear also study self-defense.
When I asked Nathan about the use of scare tactics in teaching self-defense, he was initially very confused. In most self-defense programs, especially those geared particularly towards women, the goal is empowerment. The goal of Emory’s PE class is to become aware of all of the dangers that exist, and this awareness will indeed serve as a defense against dangers. However, what is sacrificed for this type of defense? A life of fear is no life at all. Humans should not live in a constant state of alarm. As Marilyn Ferguson said, “Ultimately we know deeply that the other side of every fear is a freedom.” Making women feel constantly under attack may decrease the number of successful attacks on women. However, there should be a more holistic technique that also works to empower women.
I also spoke to Nathan about lessons in prevention for women’s self-defense. Nathan has never suggested preparing food or a beverage in order to avoid confrontation with a man. For anyone who is more interested in women’s self-defense, Nathan is working with Emory’s Center for Women to hold a seminar in February. Alternatively, through Nathan’s gym a five-week course is offered in women’s self-defense, and the fifth week concentrates entirely on gun violence.

universal health care??

With the presidential elections starting to really get in the swing of the campaigning, I've been trying to stay on top of the candidates and the important issues. One of the issues that has caused a good deal of debate within the democratic candidates is health care. The controversy has been mainly between Clinton and Obama who both have plans to make health care more widely available to Americans, yet are going about that in different ways. Clinton's plan would call for a heath insurance mandate, everyone would be required by law to have health insurance. Obama is taking a different course of action. He states that the issue doesn't lie with Americans' not having health care because they don't want it, they don't have it because they can't afford it. He says that he will create a health care plan that would not mandate health insurance, but instead make it affordable. There has been a great deal of criticism about both of the candidate's plans saying that each of them will leave millions uninsured. Recently the Clinton campaign has asked the Obama campaign to pull one of his ads about the health care issue. I read an article about it on the Chicago Tribune website: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-clinton_for_webdec01,1,2634508.story

I'm glad that health care is playing such a big role in the issues for this upcoming election. I think that through our discussions in class we were able to show that this is an important issue and one that has to be seriously dealt with. In all the debates I've watched and articles that I've read, both Obama and Clinton have been criticizing the others plan and saying that theirs will better aide the American population. Yet they seem to be talking around their plan, as most politicians do. Clinton's plan is to mandate it, Obama's to make it more affordable, but I haven't heard either of them talk about how exactly they're planning on putting their plan into action. Both plans have the potential to bring health insurance to millions of people that are currently uninsured, but because no one is talking about specifics, it's hard to know how exactly each will work. Clinton's plan is to mandate health insurance, but what happens if someone can't afford the insurance, and if it's up to employers to provide health care, what if someone is unemployed? In the most recent Democratic debate, I didn't get an answer to any of these questions. It seems as though all the back and forth mud-slinging and criticism is taking away from answering the real questions. I just hope that whoever gets elected will be able to make a positive change in the area of health care.

AIDS Awareness Week: “Rent” Film Screening

This past week was Emory’s AIDS awareness week. On Wednesday night, I attended a screening of the film “Rent.” This film, directed by Christopher Columbus is based off of Jonathon Larson’s musical, “Rent,” which has been running on Broadway since 1996. For readers who are not familiar with the storyline, this film was selected to be screened during AIDS Awareness Week because four of the main characters (Angel, Collins, Roger, and Mimi) are HIV positive. The idea for the musical “Rent” was inspired by Puccini’s opera, “La Bohème.” In “La Bohème,” the characters are Parisian bohemians who are being affected by the tuberculosis epidemic. “Rent,” in contrast, is the story of struggling artists living in New York City who are confronted with AIDS.
One of the most powerful themes of the film was the seize-the-day attitude of many of the characters. Despite pitiful living conditions, the hardships of disease, as well as facing other social stigmas, the characters possess a great resilience to maintain a positive outlook on life. During one song the characters describe themselves as “people living with, not dying from disease.” This is one of my favorite lines in the movie because it reminds people of the importance to fight disease until the very last moment, and never surrender to despair. Often when addressing the subject of AIDS, academics and advocates alike resort to a grim and bleak outlook concerning the disease. The characters of “Rent” remind the audience that they have not died yet, and while still living there is still hope. The song, “No Day but Today” is probably the best example of how the characters strive to embrace life. Mimi, an exotic dancer with AIDS and a drug addiction sings, “There's only us, There's only this, Forget regret, Or life is your to miss, No other road, No other way, No day but today.” This line clearly demonstrates the perspective of living every day as if it was the last. I am particularly fond of this theme because it is relevant to a far greater demographic than just AIDS patients. Everyone could use an occasional reminder to cherish the importance of friendship and love, throw away the monotony of day-to-day life, and remain true to our ideals.
Another interesting aspect of the film is to see how the support network system for people with AIDS has evolved in the last two decades. The film shows a couple of scenes set in a life support group, one of the original support networks for people with AIDS. The characters assist one another in answering the questions “Will I lose my dignity? Will someone care? Will I wake tomorrow, from this nightmare?” The life support meeting is run on a very small scale; it takes place in a rundown public school building. Currently, the support networks for people who have been affected by AIDS are tremendous. Enormous support systems include The National AIDS Hotline (which exists in both Spanish and English), the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and People with AIDS Coalition of New York. There are research initiatives such as the American Foundation for AIDS research, advocacy initiatives such as ACT UP, and even a World AIDS Day, December 1st annually. It is quite clear that the number of people affected by this disease has risen at an unprecedented pace, and despite certain enduring social stigmas, AIDS is not just a disease for bohemians anymore.

Hymen Reconstruction

In previous classes we have talked about genital mutilation and our discussions have ranged from clitoridectomies, “corrective” surgery on intersex children, and how society usually doesn’t consider circumcision in this category. There has now been another type of mutilation that has been brought to my attention after reading the book In the Land of God and Man by Silvana Paternostro for my Latin American history class. In her book Paternostro, explores the suppression of Latin American women by a patriarchal society and the Catholic Church. The repression limits women to rigid gender roles and also controls how women use their bodies. In Latin American culture, for a man to marry a woman she must be a virgin. However women who have moved from their countries to countries with less rigid gender controls such as United States have thus had more freedom to have premarital sex. However, if they want to marry a Latin American man, they now have the problem of not being a virgin. The solution that many Latin American women have chosen is hymen reconstruction, which Paternostro found out about when she found a plastic surgery clinic advertising the procedure in the newspaper. The point of the reconstruction is so that the woman will bleed like she did the first time she had intercourse and thus verifies her virginity. For more information on the procedure you can go to the following website of a plastic surgery clinic in Argentina called Plenitas http://www.plenitas.com/treatments/hymen-surgery.asp. I found the website’s description of the results from the surgery very interesting. The website states “hymen reconstruction will allow you to have your next sexual intercourse as if you were a virgin, without worrying about failing to fulfill the cultural and religious expectations of your family or social group.”

The irony of the situation is that even though these women who have hymen reconstruction have emigrated from Latin America and are now free from direct suppression, they are still under the yoke of their country’s traditions. Why, though, are men so concerned with a woman’s virginity? I found that my TA’s answer to be very interesting. The answer he gave was due to the belief in honor which is tied to the social status of the family in a patriarchal society. An honorable family is one in which the father is the actual father of the children in the family instead of the woman’s children from previous men. By “protecting” a woman’s virginity then the family maintains its honor.

When Paternostro saw the ad she contacted a human rights group to tell them about the procedure so that they could report it. However, she was told that it wasn’t as serious as a clitoridectomies since those were forced on women whereas women were consenting to hymen reconstruction like they do for breast implants. Paternostro also spoke with a human rights lawyer who told her that since it did not harm the woman’s health and the woman was doing it voluntarily it would not be considered as bad as a clitoridectomy either. If this is true, can we call this procedure genital mutilation? I disagree after reading an article from 2006 titled “Reconstructing Virginity in Guatemala” by Hannah Roberts who reports that many Guatemalan women who undergo the procedure do not understand all the risks involved and that the surgery is done in poor conditions causing infections and other discomforts. Also the procedure is not just limited to Latin American women either. Many women around the world get the surgery to deceive their husbands on their wedding nights in order to escape the disapproval of their society.

Science in the Media

I was reading this article that my physics professor has assigned and it totally reminded me of some of our discussions earlier in the semester. It was pretty much about how the public tends to have more faith in science portrayed in the media than any other subject, and it went on to give several examples and reasoning for why this is so. First of all, the general public has less knowledge about science then it does about sports and politics, so when football and political affairs are in the media the public is more critical of the reporter and the broadcasting if the facts aren’t straight. Because less is known about the scientific world and the verbiage is very complicated and unfamiliar, people tend to put more trust in this area of reporting. As in sports for example, they believe a network or editor would not put an unknowledgeable person in charge of reporting an issue they do not understand. The article discussed scientific inventions that were reported to the public as tremendous advances, when in fact they were not because they defied all the laws of physics. However, these people in charge of these projects advertised tremendous progress and they audiences were enthralled. They got caught up in the hype and excitement and bought into these inventions. In one particular example he mentioned, the inventors sited “achieved, world-known, published physicists” as experts, when actually they were unknown physicists experimenting in the same field with little achievement. But when the public hears that experts are verifying these inventions they tend to trust it, whether it be true or not because they do not have the knowledge of the subject or means to verify the information they receive. The author said this was the biggest issue due to the fact that it misrepresented science to the public. Science is generally held as a trustworthy institution, and when “frauds” enter into it and misrepresent the facts, it could change the public’s perception of science, in a negative way.

The article also went on to show how companies and reputable institutions buy into the hype. The author gave an example on how NASA, an very trusted and influential organization, invested in one of the scientists inventions concerning producing extremely large amounts of energy using very little to begin with. He explained that companies do this because they usually do not have to put much capital into it, and if it works the payoff is huge. However, he questions the organizations that invest because some of the projects they are investing in have zero payoff, and companies are still investing. He goes on to claim that this could be fraud, portraying something to the public that isn’t true, and through careless research is “tricking” the public. I thought this article was really interesting because at the beginning of the semester we discussed in class how science does hold some sort of power over the public. The public generally believes what is portrayed in the media as truth, and this article shows this is true, but that when represented by frauds can lead to a negative impact on the scientific world and its perception in the public.

ignorance is bliss?

Piali made an interesting point in class on Monday that has really got me thinking. It wasn’t something incredibly novel, but hearing it out loud in words rather than just knowing it made a huge difference to me. The point I’m referring to was made in reference to her “The Office” clip. She said that even though we may not personally believe in certain stereotypes, we are always aware of them. I’ve been trying to decide if I think this awareness that we all have of stereotypes is a good thing or a bad thing; I think it could easily be argued either way. On one hand, being aware of stereotypes seems like it is the first step to moving beyond them. If we can acknowledge the ‘givens’, then we can work to move past them, adjust our thoughts and actions so that the common stereotype is not something we believe or represent. On the other hand, it seems like our awareness of these stereotypes is the exact thing that is perpetuating them. Children, for example, are often unaware of stereotypes. Perhaps it is this lack of awareness that allows them to see one another as equals without noticing differences. The earlier part of Ashley’s clip demonstrates the naivety of young children to prescribed gender roles: the girl and boy interact with one another without being aware that they are different. It is only when they become aware of these differences that they assume their stereotypical roles and poke fun at one another.
So again, the question I’m posing is, If we want to move past stereotyping, is it better to acknowledge their existence or be blind to them? I don’t want to think that it’s too late for us to change the function and prevalence of stereotypes in our society, but personally, I can’t help but think that maybe these stereotypes already play too big a role in society for us to lose awareness of them. Maybe it’s too late for us, but not for generations to come. Is it possible to raise our children to be unaware or the biases and generalizations that are so common in our society? And if it is, would it even make a difference?

Women vs Equality, How Important is the Wording?

I really found that today’s class discussion raised some really important questions and that the presentation on the Self-Defense Class answered many of the questions posed by the first presentation on the Emory Women’s Center. The first presentation raised a class discussion that posed two arguments or dilemmas. Why isn’t the Women’s Studies department called the Equality Studies department? Also, why isn’t the Women’s Center called the Equality Center? I am going to take my best shot at answering those two questions.

In order to do, the first reading that comes to mind, is The Invisible Knapsack, White Privilege. In our society, the white male has been given this privilege that he is unaware of in many instances and it is more or less a way of society. That is why I think it is crucial that we have a Women’s Studies department and a Women’s Center. I am all for equality, but to make a Equality Studies department, or a Male studies department, would just be like re-reading much of history in a way that we have been taught all of our lives. I feel that this class has really opened up my eyes to the once invisible privilege given to white males that is now very apparent to me. Also, another reason that Emory needs a Women’s Center is because women’s need a place. Yes, women have risen greatly in society over the decades, but there is still a male superiority that remains in our society. That Center will give women a safe haven, and a place that they have worked for. Men have had so many places available to them throughout history and I think it is time for women to have a place they can call their own.

The second presentation in class today, on the PE self-defense class really reinforced that fact that a Women’s Center is needed. I learned today that this class is taught from a view that males are superior, which is a view I have mentioned before. That fact that a handout describes serving food and beverages to resolve a disagreement is just comical to me. When learning a punch in class today we starting talking about when we as women do not feel safe or threatened. It was interesting to hear that other girls look under their cars at night before unlocking their doors, whereas none of the boys in the class claimed to perform such an act. That is one such example why a Center for Women is needed. There is still a difference between men and women in society today, and while people promote equality, people also need to realize that there is a physical inequality in many instances between males and females. The Center for Women can be a place for discussion about those topics and so much more.

Grocery Bags

Remember our discussion about how shoppers in Europe have to bring their own grocery bags? The concept is coming to the United States: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2007/11/26/lawrence.plastic.bag.ban.cnn

EDIT: Crap! I hate how blogger cuts URLs short.

Here's a new link to the same video: http://tinyurl.com/yuc6c8

Remedy for the Inuit

Anne Lucas chose an awfully bleak title for her discussion of the legal battles that the Inuit are undertaking. The fact that "there has been a growth of activity in the area of indigenous rights to cultural self-determination" has given me hope for the Inuit and other peoples. It shouldn't be taken for granted that they are taking action to secure the rights that they are entitled to, and I hope that they will keep seeking out ways to fight for themselves until there is a remedy. I stumbled upon the footage of Sheila Watt-Cloutier, who was mentioned at the end of "No Remedy for the Inuit" as a prominent activist, and chose it as my clip (sorry it was so long!) because it reminded me that people in a disadvantaged position are neither helpless nor hopeless. It's easy to forget that peoples like the Inuit already have a strong voice. We don't have to give them one, we just need to listen to it.

Cloutier spoke again at a hearing this past March: "Inuit activists hope a hearing on Arctic climate change by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will lead to reduced emissions and will help to protect the culture of the northern native people. "In the Arctic, things are happening first and fastest and it's a way of life that's being jeopardized here," said Canadian Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier, who submitted a petition for a hearing on how climate change infringes on Inuit human rights to the commission in 2005 on behalf of Inuit in Canada and Alaska. The commission, which is an arm of the Organization of American States, rejected Cloutier's request to rule on the rights violations caused specifically by U.S. emissions, deciding instead to hold a general hearing on March 1 to investigate the broad relationship between climate change and human rights. Officials at the Washington-based commission said it will be the body's first such hearing."
(http://www.unep.org/indigenous/pdfs/
Climatechange-and-Inuit-rights.pdf)

It's too soon to tell what the outcome of this particular hearing has been but, whatever it may be, thankfully people like Cloutier will never give up easily.

California Wildfires vs. Hurricane Katrina

A few weeks ago the topic of the California wildfires was brought up in class. Some argued that because the fires hit predominantly white, upper-class neighborhoods in California, while Hurricane Katrina devastated largely black, lower-class areas, emergency evacuations were timely and efficient. On the other hand, some believed that the emergency responses to the wildfires were prompt because the government and FEMA workers had learned their lesson from Hurricane Katrina. I found a very interesting article that compared the evacuations of the two natural disasters. In addition to finding the responses no where near similar, statistics were presented suggesting the idea that "white privilege" and socioeconomic status played a large role in the success and efficiency of the California evacuations.

In the article "California Wildfires Nothing Like Hurricane Katrina," a reporter discussed the conditions of the Qualcomm Stadium, where California evacuees stayed, as compared to the Superdome, where Louisiana citizens sought safety two years ago. The two vicinities and situations didn't even begin to compare. First, while still a large number, only 10,000 Californians lived in the Qualcomm Stadium versus the tens of thousands of Louisiana residents who stayed in the Superdome. Second, Californians had a surplus of food while Louisiana evacuees went days without food or water. Third, the conditions in both stadiums did not match up. Louisiana residents were without air conditioning, proper ventilation, and electricity for days. In addition, "the stadium's bathrooms overflowed with human waste" and mold was abundant. On the other hand, Californians were greeted with an "almost festive-like atmosphere," at the Qualcomm stadium, which included yoga lessons, bands, cots and blankets, comedians, acupuncture, suntan lotion tables, free phone calls via Verizon, available agents from insurance companies, massage tables, and jugglers. Fourth, the issue of security. In Louisiana, "Authorities and relief workers were hard to come by and people...were left to fend for themselves." In the California Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego police were present 24-hours a day.

After reading this article, I was slightly confused and angered. While any evacuee deserves the best of care, was there a need for yoga lessons and acupuncture in the Qualcomm Stadium? It is important to relieve people's stress when under such traumatic conditions, but shouldn't officials be more concerned with using all resources to evacuate residents; provide shelter, food, and water for evacuees; and control the wildfires? While I do believe emergency plans concerning natural disasters were improved since Hurricane Katrina, I highly doubt that the government created a new section on providing entertainment for displaced people. However, it was very smart for insurance companies to be on hand for customers and for cell phone companies to offer free calls to those in need.

Don't get me wrong. It is very important for our government to learn from its wrong doings and better prepare itself for devastating situations. However, I can't help to believe that racial and socioeconomic issues were at the basis for these two evacuations. I feel that the statistics collected from both states explain it all. First, the median home price of the two areas, California at $475,000 vs. Louisiana at $87,300. Second, the percentage of people living in poverty, California: 11% vs. Louisiana: 27%. Third, the racial breakdown, California: 52% white vs. Louisiana: 67% black. Fourth, the number of homes damaged or destroyed, California: 1,200 vs. Louisiana: 95,000-143,000. Fifth, the number of people killed, California: 6 vs. Louisiana: over 700. Finally, the estimated cost to repair damaged homes, California: $1 billion vs. Louisiana: $8-10 billion.

It is both sad and interesting that upon the California wildfires the media has been so focused on comparing the two natural disasters. I think it says a lot about our government and the existence today of racial and socioeconomic disparages.

The article:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/10/26/2007-10-26_california_wildfires_nothing_like_hurric.html?ref=rss

GRID: The Original AIDS

Gay-Related Immune Deficiency, or GRID, was the original name for AIDS. Until two days ago, I did not know AIDS had a former name. I knew very little about why AIDS was believed to be a "gay-only" disease and therefore, decided to do a little research.

The acronym GRID was originally proposed by public health scientists after they "noticed clusters of Kaposi's sarcoma and Pneumocystis pneumonia among gay males in California and New York City." Interestingly enough, these two diseases were not even connected with homosexuality until AIDS was discovered. For instance, Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) had rarely been seen in the US and if so, only in elderly men of Jewish or Italian ancestry. The number of KS cases increased in the US as the number of organ transplants increased. However, this fact was hidden from the public as homosexuals were still being blamed for the epidemic.

Because the disease was so new, the public absorbed and believed any information they heard about AIDS. Unfortunately, little was know about the disease in the late 70's and early 80's and false statements were frequently being made. For instance, Dr. Robert Gallo, the researcher "who is best know for identifying HIV as an infectious agent responsible for AIDS", told reporters that AIDS would never become an epidemic, the disease could not be transferred between men and women through heterosexual intercourse, and an individual needed to be infected with a large amount of the virus in order to become sick.

Due to false information, AIDS continued to be referred to as a homosexual-only disease. People argued that only homosexuals were promiscuous and used intravenous drugs. It was not until 1982 when the term AIDS was coined by Bruce Voeller and others who were concerned with the accuracy of the name. At this point, KS was beginning to be found in Haitian men and women, men with hemophilia, women with infected partners, babies born to infected mothers, "and among blood transfusion recipients with no obvious risk factors." Scientists were beginning to realize that AIDS was not in fact a "gay-only" disease. Unfortunately, even today, people still believe AIDS can only be transferred between two males.

The Gay Men's Health Crisis organization was established by six gay men, in January 1982, in order to combat the belief that AIDS was a "gay-only" disease. GMHC currently works to combat homophobia and reduce the spread of AIDS.

I found it very interesting how the media played such a large role in convincing the public that AIDS was a "homosexual-only" disease. I was wondering if people knew of other crises that the media has blamed on minority groups.

Rape is a hate crime

In yesterday’s newspaper, I read two different articles about hate crimes. One was an article stating that the number of hate crimes has increased from last year. As the number of agencies reporting varies every year, it is hard to determine the exact number of hate crimes and whether there is a true increase or decrease. (For example, Alabama agencies reported only 1 hate crime for 2006—unfortunately, that is probably not an accurate statistic.) The study defined hate crimes as those motivated by a bias against race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic or national origin or physical or mental disability

The second article was an editorial that covered several topics related to hate crimes, and part of it questioned the current notion of not including sexual violence as a type of hate crime. Upon reading that, I had to revisit the earlier report on hate crimes—and of course, it did not include sexual violence as a hate crime.

Redefining and treating rape as a hate crime will better address the underlying causes of rape. Too often, the blame is shifted back toward the victims—they should not have been out so late, they should not have dressed a certain way, they should have taken the proper safeguards if putting themselves in a vulnerable situation. But no one should have to fear being the victim of an act of violence just because she is female, just as violence should not be targeted against people of certain races, ethnicities, religions, abilities, or sexual orientations. Rape does not have to be an extra fear at night for women, in addition to all the other dangers that are the same for both genders.

Here is a link to the article about hate crimes. I can’t find an online version of the editorial at the moment, but if I do, I’ll post it:

Hate crimes rose 8% in 2006

Life Expectancy vs. Expenditures

This is a chart from my class on health care. I believe it directly shows that major flaw exists in the American health care system. You can see an enlarged, much clearer copy by clicking the picture.

Progress?

As our general class discussions near an end, I wonder, over history, how much progress we have actually made for marginalized groups. While I'm ecstatic that, as I've probably stated a hundred times now, we discuss marginalized groups more than we do just women, I must acknowledge that women in themselves are a marginalized group...perhaps not so much in our society as much as others, but they are still marginalized.

Today, I was talking to one of my friends from home, discussing classes. He asked me how many guys there were in my women's studies class, and I answered explaining that there are 3 guys in our class of 16. He then told me that the guy to girl ratio in most of his classes (which include linear algebra, data systems and algorithms, and other classes of the type), the ratio was the exact opposite; most of his classes had very few females and were made of mostly males. I wondered about the ratio differences; I knew that my friend was planning to major in either math or computer science, and I delved deep into our friend, Google, finding an article that explained that the number of women in Information Technology (IT) has actually decreased over time. If women are making their presence so much more widely known on all fronts, including medicine, politics, and the media. Why then, are women (according to this 2004 article) are women so scarce in the IT field?

The article explores the ideals of our education system, specifically related to math classes. For instance, "many teachers don't expect girls to excel in math, so they don't focus on them in class and they don't push them to do better." I wonder why this trend exists and have come to the conclusion that much of this is due to a generation clash between an older generation and a newer generation. Perhaps the math and technology teachers (most of whom, I'm willing to bet are male) are not used to seeing or having females enter or try to enter a male-dominated field. On the flip side of the equation, I look at guys taking home economics classes in high school or women's studies classes in college, both categories in which female participation dominates. However, my personal experiences on this topic vary from what I've heard; my class has been very open and accepting to guys learning about women; there is no sexual divide. I would say that this is because of the accepting nature of higher education, but I'm not too sure such is the case. One of the first guys at Emory that I told that I was taking a women's studies class laughed at me, expressed that most of the women in the department are lesbians, and are out to get guys and fail them. While his experiences in the Emory's women's studies department was nonexistent, his comment coincided closely with what many of my guy friends who have had other "friends" who have taken women studies classes have experienced. While I most definitely don't believe this (it's all hear-say...), I can't make a single conclusion about the women's studies department regarding its acceptance of students who don't identify as females. After all, this is my first class in the department. I do, however, wonder if girl are discouraged by their "friends" (I use the term loosely because I believe that friends are always supposed to encourage and never discourage...) from taking linear algebra and computer science classes just as much guys discourage their guy "friends"from taking women's studies classes.

Anyway, returning to the article, I see that there is progress for women in the IT department. Much of the progress is based off of networking with other females in the same professional paths, sharing experiences, and keeping each other strong, continuing on the path even when greatly outnumbered by their male counterparts. I agree with the article that progress is slow, yet still occurring. I'm reminded about how the world has generally become more accepting over time. If, for example, we look at clothes, I cannot imagine anyone wearing the clothes we wear today as being worn in the 17th century. However, I can imagine people wearing 17th century clothing today and still being met with acceptance. The point I'm trying to make is that I believe the world is becoming more accepting and that things that were not readily accepted in the past are much more readily accepted today. Perhaps this trend will continue and in 100 or maybe 200 years from now, society will consist of many more women in IT fields and other related jobs. Perhaps over time, society will be accepting to all and women's studies will turn into simply a subcategory of history with no relationship to the present. Turning the field into history is what I believe is the ultimate goal of women's studies.

say no to further centralization of the government!

Last week, we discussed the deterioration of our environment as a result of inefficient energy use and excessive water use (obviously there were more examples discussed in class, but I'm just naming a few.) As I explained in class, the idea of government intervention in these issues really scares me. While I certainly agree that these factors need to be considered at all times, I am extremely frightened at the idea of government intervention for fear that if we allow the government to control these parts of our lives, the line between democratic and fascist (yes, I know this is an extreme, but for arguments sake, I'm using it) governments becomes less clearly defined. If we extend our government's control in one area of our personal lives and choices, who is to say it will end there? This topic extends beyond energy use to a number of issues in the United States including abortion rights and mandatory vaccinations, again, just to name a couple. At a point where people are citing false religious beliefs just to exempt their children from vaccines, and the potential that Roe v. Wade l be overturned is more real than it has ever been before, are we willing to give the government even more power over our personal lives than they already have? At this point, I certainly don't think I need to voice my own opinions regarding these sensitive topics because they are not necessary for my argument, I simply want to express my unease with more government intervention in our personal lives than already exists. I am by no means advocating a completely decentralized, power only in the hands of the people government, my intention is simply to point out that though energy conservation and the preservation of the world we live in is certainly an extremely important cause, the issue of giving the government more power is a slippery slope, and I'm afraid once we relinquish more of our personal rights to people in power, it might be difficult to draw the line.

The convenience barrier

Our discussion of how hybrid cars are not more widely used in our society reminded me of how we do not implement many eco friendly things even though we have the technology to do so. One reason for this is because the switch would in some way inconvenience us as consumers. An example of this is the story shared in class of the man who would not give up his SUV for a more fuel efficient or hybrid car unless it offered the same convenience for transporting his kids. So while he enjoys the convenience of his vehicle now, does he consider what the consequence will be in the future for his children?

The idea of only caring about convenience in the present instead of focusing on long term solutions for our waste management reminded me of a situation in the article “Poverty Fuels Medical Crisis”. Laura Ungar explained how people who cannot afford healthcare will wait until the last possible moment to seek medical attention. Though they think they will save money be delaying treatment or hope that the condition will remedy itself, in actuality they only create a larger expense because the advance stages of the health problem are more costly to treat. I feel that this is exactly how we treat our problems with pollution and garbage. Though we have invested in some green programs like recycling facilities, they are limited. For example it seems that you can always find a recycling bin for plastics 1 and 2 but not for 6 and 7 plastics. We need to consider an alternative to recycling by investing in new technology such as creating plastics that are biodegradable. Though biodegradable plastics are more expensive, which is inconvenient to consumers at the time of purchase, they could potentially have an overall lower price in the long run. An overall lower price means that we would conserve petroleum and save space in landfills, thus reducing the number built, which can cost millions of dollars.

In the end, an ounce of prevention is always worth a pound of cure. Going back to the article “No Remedy for the Inuit” it may be convenient for the US to neglect fixing the source of the dioxin pollution problem now but in the future dioxins could effect larger populations and thus require a more costly solution. As consumers and citizens we really do need to be more active in the protection of our environment by demanding changes even though it may mean sacrificing convenience.

When the voiceless speak

In class last week we discussed environmental justice and the idea of “toxic racism.” One article “No Remedy for the Inuit: Accountability for the Heteronormative Landscape” by Anne Lucas shed a different light on the situation. It got me thinking about, not only the injustices that exist, but the ways in which we can stop them if at all possible. Lucas’ article explores the situation of pollution affecting the Inuit waters and the poisoning of their food sources. She goes on to look at the legal mechanisms to remedy environmental injustice infecting the Inuit. Lucas draws the conclusion that there are times when law “otherizes” those who are not centered in a white male prototype. Once marginalized, the Inuit and other groups essentially have no voice and no means for action. This depressing situation made me want to explore other circumstances of toxic racism.

After a bit of searching, I came across the story of the town Winona in Eastern Texas. The small African American community was basically turned into a toxic waste dump in the 1990s and the people suffered extensively. I found a youtube article that talks about what the community did in response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEWoZaHq89o

The video mentions a book Fruit of the Orchard which discusses the situation and quotes different activates and has many photographs from the town. It explains the great lengths that the townspeople went to by contacting the press, forming riots, and publicizing photographs of those affected by the toxins. In the end, the people were trying to force the government to do their job and “protect American children on American soil” (fruit of the orchard). One woman is quoted at the end of the video saying “what happened in our backyard could happen in yours” (fruitoftheorchard). What we learned in class is that, although this statement is not necessarily true and that racial injustices exist, this is the mentality that we need in order to motivate ourselves to make a difference.

Newspaper

On Friday afternoon I picked up a New York Times and started reading through it. On the front page there were two articles that touched on a lot of the issues that we've been discussing in class recently. The first article was about the clean-up and rebuilding that's going on after Hurricane Katrina. The article focused on how the funds that the states have received are being divided up and used. It centered around Mississippi and the portion of the money that's going to low-income/impoverished people and communities. The federal government created a law saying that fifty-percent of the money for rebuilding was required to be spent on low-income areas. While all the money has not been spent yet, Mississippi has only spent a small portion of it on these areas. They are also the only state that has petitioned, and won, an appeal to get rid of that rule. There is a lot of criticism from the communities on the state about how and where they've spent their money; claiming that the majority of it has gone to help businesses and people in the more affluent areas. The leaders of Mississippi deny that there is anything of the sort going on and say that they are focused on helping all of their citizens and making sure that people get the help that they need. Yet some of the programs specifically made to help those low-income families, come with regulations and stipulations that make it harder to get money to rebuild and repair homes. To be eligible families had to have had regular homeowner's insurance so that, according to the governor, "we're not bailing out irresponsible people." I could not believe it when I read this quote. People not having homeowner's insurance doesn't necessarily mean that they were irresponsible. It's absurd to think that someone who was living pay check to pay check and having to worry about how they will get food would be able to afford any kind of insurance. This struck me as an article that fit perfectly with all the aspects we have been discussing about race and even hurricane Katrina in particular. Its hard to believe that there are still so many problems that stem directly from Katrina as immediate as people not having homes.
The second article on the front page was entitled, "Court rejects fuel standards for some trucks." It discussed how a number of cities and states had appealed the recent laws proposed by President Bush and his administration that regulate light truck emissions saying that they were not strict enough. There have been efforts to create stricter rules about the emissions policies to take into account the greenhouse gases and the issues with the environment. I get so frustrated when I read about the government not taking advantage of an opportunity to do something positive. Why wouldn't the government what to create stricter laws when it comes to emissions and pollution of the environment. What's the harm in protecting the environment? Maybe this is a simplified view but environmental issues are a big deal. These are decisions that we're not going to just have to deal with in the next four years, ten years or even fifty years before they go away; these are issues that are going to effect us for the rest of our lives, for the rest of the lives of our children and grandchildren, this is something that's never going to go away. Unless something is done, and soon, the world is going to run out of resources far before the sun runs out. There is not an endless supply of resources in the world, it's possible to run out of water; and more than simply a possibility this will become a reality if we continue to consume and dispose of resources as we are currently.
The issues that we discuss in class are relevant and important. They can be found on the news, in popular culture, on the platforms of presidential candidates, on the front page of the New York Times. By participating in class, we're doing on of the most important things, we're getting informed. While simply being informed won't lead to any change, it's the first step and something that everyone is responsible for doing, and capable of doing.

Death by Taser

I watched a really tragic news report today on CNN about a Polish man who was killed with a Taser in the Vancouver International Airport. Robert Dziekanski had flown to Canada to see his mother, but when he arrived he ended up waiting 10 hours in the baggage claim area for her. His mother was told that she couldn’t go in to pick him up and she couldn’t send a message to him either. She eventually went home when she was told that Robert hadn’t arrived. This was Robert’s first time flying and he couldn’t speak any English, so you can imagine how distressed he was. The police were called to deal with him and after he did not cooperate with them, mainly due to frustration and confusion, Robert was shot twice with a Taser gun and died on the second shock.

This incident is another example of the language barriers that we discussed in The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down. After flying for the first time, Robert was extremely stressed out and frightened. Though the police say that viewers of the video only see the situation through one side of the lens, I think Robert’s actions such as picking up the stool was not an act of aggressiveness but a way of defending himself. When he smashes the computer, the action is more of an outlet for his frustration than a threat to seriously harm anyone. Without any knowledge of English, he is unable to communicate what he wants and neither can he understand what the police want him to do. When I saw Robert I also saw Nao Kao. His situation instantly reminded me of how Nao Kao responded when he misinterpreted the doctors’ diagnosis of Lia’s death as them going to kill her. Nao Kao also retaliated with aggressive actions such as pushing the nurse, yet the doctors understood his behavior stemmed from his frustration of his daughter’s condition.

This is a really unfortunate event that could have been avoided if the police had listened to whoever wisely suggested that they needed a translator. Besides the lack of communication, our previous reading “Toxic Bodies” has made me wonder whether the treatment David received from the police is due to belief David was an impurity to Canada. Since he was a foreigner and I believe the article said he was an immigrant, would his minority status lead Canadians to perceive him as a pollutant to their nation and thus this perhaps legitimizes the way the police handled the situation?

Here is the link to watch the video:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/11/15/taser.death/index.html?iref=mpstoryview#cnnSTCVideo

Anger in Action

We've been discussing the lack of anger in present day activism a lot recently, and even how the nature of ACT UP's demonstrations has changed over the years. I attended Cartooning for Peace's "The Art of Controversy: Where to Draw the Line?" yesterday, and I couldn't stop thinking about our class as a panel of some of the world's most prominent political cartoonists discussed their work. That was probably the most savvy, irreverent, and dissatisfied group of people I have ever been in the presence of, and I could feel their anger. Michel Kichka of Israel mentioned the saying, "If you're not angry, then you're not paying attention.” There were so many profound comments made over the course of their discussion about censorship, tolerance, criticism, empathy, provocation, and on and on and on, which I found very relevant to what we’ve been talking about as far as effective activism is concerned. It is necessary to be politically incorrect and offensive in order to challenge social constructs, but not so much that you turn people away from the point that you’re trying to make. These artists make their living offending people, and they are more than happy to do it. Because cartoons are visual, simple, and humorous, they instantly get a memorable message across and they can often times cross language and even cultural barriers.

I was most struck by two of the artists, Ali Dilem from Algeria and Piyale Madra from Turkey. I never understood just how much U.S. newspapers censor the cartoons that we get to see until I saw some of Dilem's cartoons. I was shocked by how graphic the images were and how raw and apparent his anger was (in person he was the brightest and most fun-loving guy). His humor wasn’t shrouded in cynicism like what we’re used to in the U.S., but downright dark. I don't know anything about the political climate in Algeria, but I have a feeling Dilem is not very popular with his government. It is not for lack of trying that U.S. cartoonists can’t get more blatant political criticisms published, Liza Donnelly of the The New Yorker and Mike Luckovich of the AJC even showed some of their rejected works. The pair of them commented that sure, they have free speech... but their publications catch so much flack from readers about cartoons criticizing the U.S. government that they can’t just write whatever they want, or the papers won’t sell. Piyale Madra made my favorite statement of the evening. In answer to the question of where she draws the line, she said that she always wants to cross the lines because she does not like them. She went on to explain that she never trusts the external limits placed upon her, only her internal lines because she knows in her heart that she isn’t aiming to hurt anyone.

http://www.cartooningforpeace.org/

Pure dependence on toxic

The idea that the hegemonic, pure, heternormative nation can only exist in the presence of a toxic other stands out to me as the most illuminating point that Beth Berila makes in "Toxic Bodies? ACT UP's Disruption of the Heteronormative Landscape of the Nation." The integral role that "abnormal" plays in defining "normal" and demarcating the elusive boundary is, as Berila notes, rarely recognized. Reading this article made me question how definitions of purity and hegemony would be different if the nation did, in fact, purge itself of socially constructed toxicity. I assume the likely scenario would be a snowball effect in which the definition of normal would become more and more exclusive as new categories of abnormality would become created. Ultimately, this toxic purging would only constrict the societal construct of normal.

In this passage, Berila emphasizes the extent to which binary social constructs are defined relative to each other. In this vein, toxic is defined as what is not pure; stained is defined as what is not unstained. After reading this, I speculated as to whether or not an absolute definition of pure and unpure would be better than defining them as they relate to each other.

From the article itself, ACT UP did not come across as being a militant/angry organization, but rather a clever group of activists. After the presentation and class discussion my impressions of the organization changed drastically. This is not to say that I have a negative impression of ACT UP now (anger is not intrinsically bad and is completely acceptable and even admirable in specific circumstances), but I do feel that some of the actions they took (specifically against the Roman Catholic church) were on the extreme side.

The lack of treatment...

Discussing Beth Berila’s Toxic Bodies article today made me think about the problems with healthcare in the United States that we were discussing in class on Friday. In a nation where so many people enjoy a high standard of living, so many others cannot receive proper medical attention and treatment. Berila’s article discusses the stigma attached to AIDS, which is an issue into itself, but she also touches on the stigmatized groups that may have AIDS, such as the poor, and their inability to receive proper treatment. I recently watched a video in my PE 101 class called “Road to Hope” about a tour of HIV-positive young people who traveled around the country raising awareness about the lack of proper treatment for people with AIDS and AIDS prevention. One particular individual who spoke on the documentary, an activist who did not have AIDS, brought some disturbing fights to light during her speech concerning AIDS in the United States and throughout the world.

Healy Thompson, an advocate with the Student Global AIDS Campaign, stated that that only one million out of the forty million people infected with AIDS in the world were able to have treatment for the disease. In the United States, over 1.2 million people are currently living with AIDS, meaning that if all of the one million who receive treatment lived in the United States (and many do not) then approximately 200,000 people living in the United States would be living with AIDS without treatment.

After wondering why the poor in Kentucky (and throughout the United States) and hundreds of thousands of AIDS-infected individuals in the United States cannot receive proper treatment, I understand that we need a solution to our healthcare crisis. Ms. Bailey prompted us to propose a solution in our blog posts this week, and after some research, I think that nearly any comprehensive public or privatized healthcare plan would be beneficial. I do know one thing...something needs to be done!

Gym Class for babies and Katrina/Wildfire Comparisons

Four-month-old babies attending gym classes
Parents are taking babies as young as four months to special gyms amid growing fears about childhood obesity.

Full Story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/dietfitness.html?in_article_id=493363&in_page_id=1798

13 November 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

Race a burning issue
Evacuees not Refugees

"Toxic Bodies" and the Invisible Knapsack

Beth Berila's "Toxic Bodies" piece describing demonstrations by ACT UP provides a detailed look at how our society and culture has become so image-oriented. Although the intent of the article was to illustrate how society marksThis materialistic mentality can be seen in ACT UP's exploit of Wall Street. Dressed in the same manner as "normal" individuals that work in Wall Street, the ACT UP members were not even looked at with suspicion because they looked like any other normal individual working in the building. Yet, their true identity was so easily hidden because of society's propensity to use image as a way to judge others. Since they looked the part, it was assumed that they were the part.

Although ACT UP's intent was to protest against the high cost of an AIDs drug, they truly highlighted how difficult it was to visually differentiate "queers" from "normal" people. This also touches on an idea discussed in past readings: the invisible knapsack in which individuals are privileged because of their skin color. In ACT UP's case, individuals skinned in conservative suits in the image of a stock broker. As explained by the reading, if they had been "women, people of color, and/or poor people" then they would not have been able to perform the demonstration in the way that ACT UP did. This truly highlight the privilege that a white male or any that is considered to be "normal has, since even in the world of activism, they were able to perform an act that those deemed as abnormal probably would not have been able to do.

It can be considered that the heavily reliance on stereotypes and image are used to judge individuals since it is the easiest way to do so. All that is needed to classify someone is to give them a quick glance, and suddenly all kinds of assumptions are made regarding an individual's ability/career/income. As long as there is this reliance on image, then race, gender, sexuality, disease issues and a form of the "invisible knapsack" will continue to exist. Although ACT UP's actions was designed to bring attention to an issue regarding AIDs, it truly highlighted an issue just as worrying: society's overuse of image to judge individuals. As demonstrated by the exploit, even today when we know that it is impossible to tell an individual's true character based on how they look, why are we continuing to try and do so?