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.