Something that really stood out to me in Our Barbies, Ourselves is how gender is not only separated so significantly, but how there is a double standard in the role that women play in life versus men.
Once upon a time, before a babies gender is determined, parents await the news with gleeful anticipation; often fathers wanting sons and mothers wanting daughters. We go to baby showers and see little trinkets set out specifically for the babies gender: blue giraffes for a boy, pink elephants for a girl.
Gender is so categorized into boxes, and is so separated since before birth. These boxes are set with rigid standards, something everyone is expected to adhere to.
Girls are supposed to be nurturers, and beautiful, to be trained since childhood for the use of men.
Men are supposed to be buff, rigid, handsome with strong rhetoric, and using women as a commodity.
These ideals are passed from generation to generation, starting from beliefs that were written in the Bible and the Quran. Jesus, in the Bible, says for a woman to let her husband speak, that she is lesser than him. It isn't simply about ideals, it is about inconsistency. Today, we can take a stance against strict adherence of the rules and embrace the differences in every person that cannot be summarized by the standards set by others.
Sunday, October 30, 2016
Sunday, October 23, 2016
Stereotypes and Catergorization
It was always a dilemma for me, checking that race box on my paperwork when I first came to school. I had never had to simplify myself to such a measure, but now I debated on when it says "one box only" to say Native American or to say if I was White. It is offensive to simplify and shrink a person into such a tiny margin, excluding mixed people, and thinking just because the racial lines are blurry as a whole, that it isn't stark and hard for some individuals.
I had never thought of race as a social construct, it just didn't occur that something so seemingly set in life wouldn't be biological.
When I Googled 'is race a socially constructed concept', I thought I knew what the results would say, or at the very least that they would be highly controversial.
But, instead what came up was a very matter-of-fact answer from the New York Times, and thousands of results that did indeed back up that race is a socially constructed concept. (Even my relatively racist, conservative, and Trump supporting dad agrees with this consensus). I was shocked, and it made me wonder... why do we make such a huge deal out of race?
Race matters because we as humans strive for self categorization, it makes us feel a sense of self purpose, that we 'fit'. We look at someone and think oh, they're categorized this way, and if someone doesn't look what they appear to be, we become shocked, offended even. We expect out assumptions to be correct, that stereotypes are accurate.
We look at a short-haired plaid wearing girl and assume she's gay. We look at a girl with a deep voice and assume she's trans. We look at a man from the South and assume he's a Jesus-loving Trump supporter.
While reading Maus and discussing the topic of race and assumption, we talked about this scene from the comic below, and how appearance and stereotyping supersedes truth.
Assumptions ultimately are judgments, and they are unfair. So, how can we overcome how we perceive and categorize people?
I think it begins with understanding differing perspectives, sometimes it is difficult to think from a perspective outside our own, to put down those who meet a negative stereotype. It's difficult to realize that while the blurred lines seem simple, there are always people who hover in the middle of a standard, of a category, and are ostracized and hurt because of it.
There are too many cases of people who don't physically match up with one race to be an outcast among where they identify or live. People who don't look like a stereotype are questioned, not legitimate.
Even I, hear things such as:
"You're very white, you cannot be Native American" "An American Indian can't be white" "But, CAN YOU PROVE IT" "You can't be gay because you're pretty" "Your being gay must be a phase because you're too flirty"
*rolls eyes
Even though these assumptions are rather harmless, we need to think about how our assumptions can hurt and box in people, how everyone is DIFFERENT, and how everyone has something unique to offer.
We cannot be defined or confined by what the options to check on a form are.
So...
Look outside of yourself and see what other people's perspectives have to offer.
I had never thought of race as a social construct, it just didn't occur that something so seemingly set in life wouldn't be biological.
When I Googled 'is race a socially constructed concept', I thought I knew what the results would say, or at the very least that they would be highly controversial.
But, instead what came up was a very matter-of-fact answer from the New York Times, and thousands of results that did indeed back up that race is a socially constructed concept. (Even my relatively racist, conservative, and Trump supporting dad agrees with this consensus). I was shocked, and it made me wonder... why do we make such a huge deal out of race?
Race matters because we as humans strive for self categorization, it makes us feel a sense of self purpose, that we 'fit'. We look at someone and think oh, they're categorized this way, and if someone doesn't look what they appear to be, we become shocked, offended even. We expect out assumptions to be correct, that stereotypes are accurate.
We look at a short-haired plaid wearing girl and assume she's gay. We look at a girl with a deep voice and assume she's trans. We look at a man from the South and assume he's a Jesus-loving Trump supporter.
While reading Maus and discussing the topic of race and assumption, we talked about this scene from the comic below, and how appearance and stereotyping supersedes truth.
Assumptions ultimately are judgments, and they are unfair. So, how can we overcome how we perceive and categorize people?
I think it begins with understanding differing perspectives, sometimes it is difficult to think from a perspective outside our own, to put down those who meet a negative stereotype. It's difficult to realize that while the blurred lines seem simple, there are always people who hover in the middle of a standard, of a category, and are ostracized and hurt because of it.
There are too many cases of people who don't physically match up with one race to be an outcast among where they identify or live. People who don't look like a stereotype are questioned, not legitimate.
Even I, hear things such as:
"You're very white, you cannot be Native American" "An American Indian can't be white" "But, CAN YOU PROVE IT" "You can't be gay because you're pretty" "Your being gay must be a phase because you're too flirty"
*rolls eyes
Even though these assumptions are rather harmless, we need to think about how our assumptions can hurt and box in people, how everyone is DIFFERENT, and how everyone has something unique to offer.
We cannot be defined or confined by what the options to check on a form are.
So...
Look outside of yourself and see what other people's perspectives have to offer.
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Art Should Haunt Us
Jim Powell's argument that "thus, any art attempting to represent the Holocaust should continue to haunt us with its inability to represent the unrepresentable, to say the unsayable. It should continue to haunt us with the feeling that there is something Other than representation." in Postmodernism for Beginners contradicts my view that art is the closest way for one to feel emotion for something that they did not witness.
Art isn't just about representation, it is about emotion, how it is a voice not only for an issue, but for every voice drowned out. Words cannot express a horror fully, art is there to reach across all platforms and evoke something in everyone. Art is a snippet into a whole issue, idea, horror, it is a picture into reality.
While reading Maus: A Survivors Tale, this piece brought about the heartbreaking realization regarding the position of the Jews during the Holocaust. While learning about Jewish history in the past, I always felt a bit of resentment, spitefulness, because of their being "chosen people" in my childhood religion. Full contemplation of the Holocaust and its horrors never was a priority, I knew it was terrible, and I knew it was horrible. But, the emotion never reached beyond that, or beyond my taping over the graphic pictures in my history books so I wouldn't have to see it, or closing my eyes during the documentaries when I saw the ovens. Art, eventually, is what bridged the gap so I was better able to understand.
Art is a fill in the blank type of thing, you use it to further your understanding.
Now, there was a part of this book that stood out to me, and I felt showed exactly why art is important, why art should haunt us, but not because it cannot speak for itself. When Art Spiegelman introduces another comic, Prisoner on the Hell Planet: A Case History I was confronted by a more applicable horror, one that I related to, one that through pictures spoke to me. Suicide. When I saw that grinning skeleton, and the tears of Spiegelman, I myself was brought to tears. This horror is a real one to me, and the art representing it haunts me. This art helps me think from different perspectives, helps me make realizations and helps me understand.
For someone who doesn't comprehend something, it is arts job to haunt them, and it is arts job to be that representation.
(I just realized that it can be taken as a pun, since the cartoonists name is Art)
But.... with the linoleum stamp styled work, with the vivid detailing surrounding the precise moment of horror (Arts moms suicide), it make me really think about his perspective. I appreciated what he had gone through, I felt as if I connected, understood. He represented himself in something personal to him, something so that I can catch a glimpse on the issues surrounding him.
While one may summarize his horrors with a grinning skull from my nightmares, but its about the tears, the human aspect. How can something as terrible as suicide be summarized in words?
This art is a way to address the horrific severity of the Holocaust, of the aftermath, of the future. Death is so overwhelming, the Holocaust is even more so. The words I am typing cannot and will not ever be as overwhelming as the Holocaust, but the comics can help us understand, become overwhelmed, become haunted.
Art should haunt us because it makes us realize something.
When you cannot fully comprehend an issue, an idea, look to art to garner insight and tie others emotions to your own.
Here is some art I found regarding the Holocaust which greatly inspires me: (artists unknown, except for last, which is Art Spiegelman)
Monday, October 10, 2016
"There is actually no such thing as atheism"
As I was discussing the topic of atheism and This Is Water by David Foster Wallace with a friend, he compared it to "beating a dead horse", a topic well worn, and that everything that can be said has been said about atheism. But, I think there is confusion needs clarification to help us better understand the difference between belief and worship.
"There is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship" -David Foster Wallace in This Is Water
While reading This Is Water by David Foster Wallace, the remark on atheism caught my attention, and made me refer back to the definition of atheism:
"[atheism is the] disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God of gods." -The Merriam Webster Dictionary
Atheism isn't about worship, it is about god, and belief in such a deity... or unbelief. As an atheist, I don't believe in god, therefore I don't worship anything in regards to my religion. The issue of atheism and worshipping is completely separate. If you believe in god, you can worship that said god, but that is because you believe in it/them.
Being an atheist means I am constantly misrepresented, misunderstood, even Wallace's statement shows this. Atheists are often painted as unmoral and lacking direction. What Wallace says is a reflection of a bigger issue, a question I face:
If I don't worship god, then who do I worship?
Yes, I think everyone does worship something, but everyone's something is different. Sometimes the something is somethings. I do think worship is a very specific and over dramatized way of saying that we are dedicated to things. I am dedicated to my success, I am dedicated to the success of my family, I am dedicated to find completion and happiness in my life. Do I worship this? I suppose.
Point is, I can be an atheist, still worship things, and still keep that separate from religion.
Being an atheist doesn't mean the absence of worship! I simply don't worship a god.
What Wallace said stood out to me, I respected what he said very much, and then he brought up religion in his work. It was then I felt Wallace didn't understand what he was saying about the belief I most identify with.
Call to action: Understand what you're saying and how much weight is carried in the words you speak. All I had to do was look up a dictionary definition and refute a statement I found offensive. If you are going to make a claim, think about how others will perceive it. Statements like what Wallace said was something I find discouraging and negative, and I think that everyone should be equally minded and know that what they say matters.
"There is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship" -David Foster Wallace in This Is Water
While reading This Is Water by David Foster Wallace, the remark on atheism caught my attention, and made me refer back to the definition of atheism:
"[atheism is the] disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God of gods." -The Merriam Webster Dictionary
Atheism isn't about worship, it is about god, and belief in such a deity... or unbelief. As an atheist, I don't believe in god, therefore I don't worship anything in regards to my religion. The issue of atheism and worshipping is completely separate. If you believe in god, you can worship that said god, but that is because you believe in it/them.
Being an atheist means I am constantly misrepresented, misunderstood, even Wallace's statement shows this. Atheists are often painted as unmoral and lacking direction. What Wallace says is a reflection of a bigger issue, a question I face:
If I don't worship god, then who do I worship?
Yes, I think everyone does worship something, but everyone's something is different. Sometimes the something is somethings. I do think worship is a very specific and over dramatized way of saying that we are dedicated to things. I am dedicated to my success, I am dedicated to the success of my family, I am dedicated to find completion and happiness in my life. Do I worship this? I suppose.
Point is, I can be an atheist, still worship things, and still keep that separate from religion.
Being an atheist doesn't mean the absence of worship! I simply don't worship a god.
What Wallace said stood out to me, I respected what he said very much, and then he brought up religion in his work. It was then I felt Wallace didn't understand what he was saying about the belief I most identify with.
Call to action: Understand what you're saying and how much weight is carried in the words you speak. All I had to do was look up a dictionary definition and refute a statement I found offensive. If you are going to make a claim, think about how others will perceive it. Statements like what Wallace said was something I find discouraging and negative, and I think that everyone should be equally minded and know that what they say matters.
Sunday, October 2, 2016
My Revaluation of Morale
Henry David Thoreau's opinions have been following me for years, and just now I confront the call to action I've always avoided thinking about.
"It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience." -On The Duty of Civil Disobedience
It is your responsibility to take action and oppose what goes against your conscience.
At age 12, I first read On The Duty of Civil Disobedience and was perplexed by Thoreau's ideals. I admittedly didn't fully comprehend what was unfolding in the text, but I did understand his call to action. Honestly, at that point in life, I was beginning to reevaluate my religion and if I should continue with what I grew up with. I didn't know what my conscience told me, and I didn't even know where to begin to look for this insight. Fear consumed me, preventing me from really contemplating what consisted of my conscience.
While 14, I read On The Duty of Civil Disobedience yet again for an English class Freshman year, this time with more wisdom and clarity on what my perspective actually is. I now identified as an Atheist kinda Agnostic hybrid, but I was still just as confused as before. Having a basic idea of what I thought was right didn't cut it though, because I didn't understand how to back up my opinions and turn admiration of an ideal into reality.
Now as I write a new chapter in my life, I often think of how my moral code influences me, and the situations I am in. I grew up being taught that authority always knows what is best, but now I know that this simply isn't true. Relying on what I think is right was never encouraged in my conservative Christian household, because what I thought was right was always determined by outside thinking.
Before applying Thoreau's call to action, before you can stand up to authority when it is absolutely necessary, deciding what is right not only based on your personal convictions but also seeing how those convictions apply to the world around you is of utmost importance. Periodic self evaluation and examination is key.
"It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience." -On The Duty of Civil Disobedience
It is your responsibility to take action and oppose what goes against your conscience.
At age 12, I first read On The Duty of Civil Disobedience and was perplexed by Thoreau's ideals. I admittedly didn't fully comprehend what was unfolding in the text, but I did understand his call to action. Honestly, at that point in life, I was beginning to reevaluate my religion and if I should continue with what I grew up with. I didn't know what my conscience told me, and I didn't even know where to begin to look for this insight. Fear consumed me, preventing me from really contemplating what consisted of my conscience.
While 14, I read On The Duty of Civil Disobedience yet again for an English class Freshman year, this time with more wisdom and clarity on what my perspective actually is. I now identified as an Atheist kinda Agnostic hybrid, but I was still just as confused as before. Having a basic idea of what I thought was right didn't cut it though, because I didn't understand how to back up my opinions and turn admiration of an ideal into reality.
Now as I write a new chapter in my life, I often think of how my moral code influences me, and the situations I am in. I grew up being taught that authority always knows what is best, but now I know that this simply isn't true. Relying on what I think is right was never encouraged in my conservative Christian household, because what I thought was right was always determined by outside thinking.
Before applying Thoreau's call to action, before you can stand up to authority when it is absolutely necessary, deciding what is right not only based on your personal convictions but also seeing how those convictions apply to the world around you is of utmost importance. Periodic self evaluation and examination is key.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)