Response to "Sneak Attack: The Militarization of U.S Culture" Women's Lives

This selection emphasized how sneaky and seductive U.S militarization can be in our society. Aspects of this are showing up in all corners of modern culture. It doesn't help that since September 11th, not showing support of the military has been seen as unpatriotic and disloyal. In fact, it is this increased militarization of our culture that largely allowed George W. Bush to go to war in the first place. This cultural militarization has made war seem patriotic, romantic, and has even inspired a sense of security in our society. Evidence of militarization can be seen in most aspects of culture today. In high schools all over the nation, ROTC, Marines, Air Force, and Navy representatives are allowed to station booths in lunch rooms in order to advertise the benefits of joining to young, impressionable teens. In colleges, many students pursue degrees in military weaponry and in weapons engineering. Exposing kids at young ages to the benefits of militarization instills this distorted sense of patriotism at a young age. 

Even in beauty pageants, many of the judges have a lucrative military career that is widely publicized in the competition. What does this say to young women and girls watching these competitions? Not only does it show them what they should consider beautiful, but it also illustrates that military men are men to be respected and admired. I'm not saying this is a bad thing at all, but it is a good example of how militarization has seeped into many aspects of everyday culture. 

And then there is the presence of Hummers on our highways. While these originally were meant as military vehicles, average civilians have been able to purchase and drive them. What do these say about their drivers? They make drivers appear more intimidating and deserving of respect on the roadway, much like the intent of military hummers. Much like military presence in beauty pageants, this illustrates to citizens that anyone in the military is to be respected and admired. 

This respect and admiration makes people feel much more comfortable and secure with letting the military make decisions regarding national security. Whether this is a good thing remains up for debate. I think increased militarization in society today leaves the door open for manipulation by military and political leaders; if they hide behind the reasoning that what they are doing is a matter of national security, they can do virtually anything. I don't know about anyone else, but the fact that these people can wield that much power over an entire nation, especially a democratic one, frightens me. 

As U.S citizens, do we not have the right to know what goes on in our White House and Pentagon? Is it better that we not know? Are the people currently in power manipulating us and our values regarding democracy? Do we sacrifice our democratic ideals for national security? Is this a fair trade? 

Image from: http://www.truthout.org/files/imagecache/image_full_page/files/images/M1_112008J_0.jpg

Response to "Identities and Social Locations: Who Am I? Who Are My People?" Women's Lives, chapter 2

This chapter brought up some interesting questions that I think everyone should give some thought to. It deals with the concept of identity. This reading asks you to question your own sense of identity. Who are you? How do you identify yourself? Where is your home? Where is your community? I've always answered these questions with very shallow responses, yet I never truly thought about why I answer in these ways. 

Were I asked these questions, I would have simply stated: "I am Kaylee Hardman. I am an American, although my roots are Irish, Dutch, and French. My home is in North Bend, Washington. I consider myself a part of two communities, the WSU community and the community of Snoqualmie Valley."

We identify ourselves as so many different things, yet who decides the answers to these questions? And what are they based on? When people think of identity, I think it's most easy to identify the physical aspects. What do they look like? What is their race? I think in some ways, when you are asked to identify yourself, it's necessary to dehumanize the group of people that you most closely identify yourself with. When you say that you're Irish, you simply say that you're Irish; you don't go into detail about the struggles your people have overcome, or the beauty of the land your ancestors came from. Sometimes we distinguish ourselves as "white" and "non-white." Making this distinction suggests that minority groups that aren't white are a negative thing. How do we combat this? Should we stop considering ourselves white or non-white? Should we be content with stating our country of origin? I think this is a start, but not the only solution. In order to find a solution, I think we have to confront the presence of stereotypes, both negative and positive, in our society today. By making generalizations about different cultures, we cannot fully appreciate them. On the other hand, by romanticizing some of these cultures, we are essentially doing the same thing. Is it fair to express Asian women as part of "the mysterious orient?" Or calling Native American women "earth mothers?" Even positive stereotyping obscures the truth and many complexities of who these women really are. 

The chapter illustrates the concept of identity as "at the macro and global levels, identity is a matter of collective well-being and survival" (p. 67). Stereotyping these groups is a form of oppression; eliminating all oppression, racism, and bias is nearly impossible. This is why it's important for these different groups and cultures to identify themselves together and find strength and empowerment in each other. 

So then, what is my social identity? I don't think it's possible to truly express this in a few simple words. The truth is, everyone lives with multiple identities, with different cultures, heritage, and upbringings. These many different aspects of ourselves enhance us, cultivate us, and ameliorate us, while at the same time, they contradict us. 

In the portrait above titled "Rutu,' the artist portrays several different cultural and spiritual aspects of herself. She emphasizes European and Polynesian qualities of herself, as well as different Pacific and Christian symbols. Everything down to the fish around her neck and even the title of the portrait illustrate some aspect of the artist's identity. THe fish represent her astrological sign Pices, the name Rutu is a biblical word meaning 'compassion,' the lotus in her hand represents the concept of rebirth and regeneration in Chinese culture, and even the flat, bright colors and linear shapes reflect aspects of Japanese art. All of these different pieces come together in this painting to illuminate the artist's concept of social identity. 

Image from: http://arts.unitec.ac.nz/resources/units/visual_culture/cultural_identity_portrait/rutu.gif

Response to "Unity Statement" in Women's Lives

I had a couple of issues with this reading; firstly, I felt that it was stereotyping men as violent, unemotional shells of human beings. Not only this, but the message was very broad. It had complaints about issues we face in society today, yet it suggested nothing that could be done to help alleviate it. I think a lot of the message in this selection, which was a good message calling for peace and unity, was obscured by these various oversights. 

The author states that it is the "imperial arrogance of the white male power that has separated us from the suffering and wisdom of our sisters in Asia, Africa, South America and in our own country" (p. 527). This statement is very bold, if not ballsy; it is isolating men as a dominant and oppressive force. In my experiences, when you are trying to convince someone to think the way you do, you definitely do not isolate them and single them out to the point of discomfort and frustration. To be fair though, it's practically impossible to protest something without isolating certain people. Is it fair though, that these women cite all white males as being oppressive and dominant in society? I definitely don't think so. I think it's an arrogant statement, and it's blatant stereotyping. Personally, I don't want to listen to a group of people that are that ignorant. 

Another problem I found in this reading was the fact that these women are calling for an end to military drafts. Granted, no one wants to be drafted; but in a period of wartime, it's of the utmost necessity to protect your nation. Without these soldiers, we have no protection. If we are vulnerable, it is only a matter of time before another nation takes hold of our valuable resources and assets. Is this what these women really want to see? The fall of a great nation?

The Women's Pentagon Action also claims that "We want the uranium left in the earth and the earth given back to the people who tilled it. We want a system of energy which is renewable, which does not take resources out of the earth without returning them. We want those systems to belong to the people and their communities, not to the giant corporations which invariably turn knowledge into weaponry...We want an end to the arms race. No more bombs. No more amazing inventions for death" (p. 527). 

....So does everyone else. In case these women haven't noticed, people don't want to live in fear of weapons of mass destruction; people don't want to deplete all the natural resources of the earth; people don't want businesses in the hands of greedy investors looking to line their own wallets. Nobody wants these realities, yet they are very real. Complaining that we don't want to live with these facts does nothing to solve the problem. Rather than ranting and raving about how terrible the world is today, give suggestions for the common person to make this world better. Complaining gets no where; in fact, if anything, it just pisses a lot of people off. For lack of a scholarly term to describe this reading, I would simply call this bullshit. 

Image from http://www.dianamarahenry.com/images/PuppetsatPentagon.jpg

Response to "Rose Moon" in Chapter 12 of Women's Lives

This excerpt raised two interesting points that I thought were worth investigating. Sandra Steingraber, the author, is a pregnant woman questioning some of the local organic toxins prevalent in the environment of her hometown. She wonders why pregnancy books answer various health questions (yet do not touch on whether or not consuming small amounts of alcohol are detrimental to a fetus's health) with the statement, "in ignorance, abstain." 

She discusses how part of the problem is that our knowledge of chemical effects on the brain is very limited; she claims this is largely due to the fact that animal testing is limited at best. This raises an interesting question: Should we be allowed to test the effects that harmful chemicals and toxins can have on the brain on animals if it is to better protect a fetus's development and growth?

This is a complicated, multi-faceted, and controversial issue at best. On one hand, testing on animals would provide very useful information regarding fetus health and development; women could learn how to better avoid harmful chemicals that may hinder the growth and brain development of their babies. Yet it would be very cruel and harmful to these animals that would be forced to undergo these tests and experiments. What alternatives are there to testing these neurotoxins on animals? How else will we know what their effects on the body will be? 

It's been proven that testing on animals doesn't always provide accurate information on how a medication or a chemical will react in a human; it's difficult to find an animal accurately mimicking biological processes found in humans. This fact in itself is reason enough not to test on animals altogether; if it's not completely accurate, what good is it? I think that more needs to be invested in being able to use computers to study the effects certain toxins will have on the human body. Granted this would cost an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars and donations from organizations, but in my personal opinion I would say the good it would bring would far outweigh any negative consequences. I think spending taxpayer dollars in order to spare innocent animals from torture and captivity, and to invest in studying the effects of natural toxins on fetal development is a wise decision. 

The second point Steingraber brought up that I felt worth mentioning was the concept that many of these lab studies being conducted on certain chemicals and their effects are largely funded by corporations that use or sell these very chemicals. In the excerpt, she discusses how the studies on lead yielded very harmful evidence, yet the main funder of the studies were a lead-based paint company. Protecting their reputation was of the utmost importance, and so they refused to publish the accurate findings on lead, the consequences of which cannot be measured. Countless people have gotten sick and/or died from exposure to excessive amounts of lead. In modern day, nearly 1 in 20 people has an abnormally high lead content in their blood stream. 

The obvious problem here is that these studies are being funded by companies that have a stake in the outcomes; when you bring a biased party into the situation, there is bound to be some amount of manipulation. What's necessary to do in this case is to acquire primary funding from arbitrary parties, such as local government or private investors that do not have a stake in the outcomes of such tests. 

Response to "Report from Okinawa (1997)-Women's Lives

As I was reading through this selection, I came across the mentioning of brothels that were established in Okinawa for soldiers fighting in WWII; women in these brothels were called "comfort women." I've heard this phenomenon referred to as "comfort battalions" as well. As I researched this further, I discovered that for the most part, these comfort battalions were in China, Japan, Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Singapore. Women from all of these areas were transported between brothels all along Asia. 

Over 100,000 women were made to be in these brothels. Many of them were encouraged by Japanese officials, thinking they would serve as great moral boosters for the troops. Many of these women were either forced into the business, sold into it, or lured into it under false pretenses. Some of these women were simply kidnapped by Japanese soldiers. They were expected to have sex with soldiers between 12 and 40 times a day, which often times caused harm to their genitals. Comfort women were ranked into several categories; the youngest, "freshest" women were the highest category, with virgins usually saved for high ranking officers. As these women got older and had more and more sex with the soldiers, they were slowly downgraded in status. One terrifying fact was that some of these women had to have their rotted uteruses removed due to so much disease and unprotected sex. 

As I continued researching this topic, I wondered how the Japan and the rest of the world dealt with this when the facts came to light. I found out that Japan has offered verbal expressions of regret for the atrocities committed to these women, but has done little beyond that. 

My question to anyone reading this blog post is whether or not there is a way of compensating women that have suffered like this? Can anyone make up for what they have had to endure? Can you put a monetary value on the pain and torture they were forced to undergo? I think the only way to truly compensate these women is to somehow totally erase their memory of the occurrences. If there is actually a way to do this, then I have yet to hear of it.

The fact that the Japanese military had a large hand in running these brothels is the most shocking; the very entity that is supposed to protect and serve its people is actually raping, mutilating, torturing, and killing them. This calls into question the role of the military in a national entity. Is the military supposed to protect the people, or protect the interests of the nation? Perhaps both? What if these come into conflict with each other, such as in this case? Do you protect the people of the nation, or do you protect national interests and investments? 

I don't think this is simply a black and white issue; there is a lot of gray area to consider in situations such as these. In this case, these women and girls were treated horrendously and paid the price physically for their forced involvement in these brothels. The intended result was for soldiers to boost their moral, improving their performance on the battlefield. A necessary task, but the way it was gone about was atrocious. 

What are acceptable sacrifices the people of a nation can make during war-time? When I think about this, I can't help but be reminded of America during WWII. People were encouraged to live frugally, send care packages of food overseas to fighting soldiers, and women were finally given the chance to enter the workforce. In my opinion, these are the sacrifices people should make during war-time; they should not be forced into physical abuse and sexual violence. 

Gender and Citizenship

The video "Reforming the Border" brought to light some very interesting issues regarding citizenship as related to physical boundaries, gender and sex. The many boundary constructions we have established along our borders have created a nationalist, almost exclusive sort of mentality among citizens. This got me thinking, 'what makes someone a citizen?'

On the surface, citizenship is created through the physical community in which we live, but what about the many moral communities throughout the world? Are we citizens of these specific communities as well? The more I think about it, the more I realize that individual identity is created through the differences we all possess, both in physical ways as well as emotional and moral. Does this then mean that no one is truly a citizen of anything or anywhere? How can we identify ourselves with others when we are all different in so many ways? And on this note, what are the differences between moral communities and ethnic/physical communities?

The early 20th century saw a rise in the concept of the 'good citizen' and the decline of an autonomous individual with unique identities. With a rise in the emphasis on citizenship, the social divisions we begin to experience also begin to rise. People become more focused on physical borders and differentiating the moral distinctions between all these different cultures. A sense of nationalism and citizenship begins to develop around different moral communities rather than vice versa. It's like forming a club where you find all your members first, and then you decide what you stand for and what your values are. It should be the other way around. 

The concept of protecting citizenship was brought up in the video as well. Dialogue and cultural translation between borders is coming into conflict with the idea of preservation and protecting one's citizenship. This is a double-edged sword when you begin to dissect it. We encourage people to be proud of their ethnicity and native cultures, yet it is this pride that tends to create an exclusive mentality in the hopes of preserving your race and cultural identity. While I don't feel any animosity towards people of other races (in fact I respect many of these varying cultures) I do feel a sense of pride in being white. To digress a bit, I think that society today is teaching us that we should feel guilty for being caucasian due to the many atrocities they have committed against other races in the past, but I think it's important to look past this shallow guilt and find a sense of pride in who you are and in your genetic and ethnic makeup. 

Anyways, to get back on topic, this video really made me think about the concept of gender as related to national boundaries. Are the women in these videos seen as 'proper citizens?' Do they see themselves as good citizens?

Image from: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0705/feature5/images/ft_hdr.5.jpg

Response to "Women's Lives" article 62: "Media Representations and the Criminalization of Arab Americans and Muslim Americans"

This article discusses how Muslim and Arab women are typified as weak, battered women due to their culture and the stereotypes placed on Arab men. I think  that as a people in the U.S, we tend to see Arab and Islamic men as embodying the terrorist ideals; it's only natural therefore that we feel compassion for the women that these terrorists live with. Since we typecast them as such horrendous people, we shudder at the disposition of the wives and young girls that get abused by them. When a terrorist activity or a crime is committed, we tend to label them as "Islamic/Arab/Muslim fundamentalists or extremists." By including the word 'Islam' as their primary identity, we start identifying Islamic with crime and evil. In actuality, the Islamic religion is a very peaceable one that believes in the equality and support of women. In fact, in one of the Prophet Muhammad's last speeches, he illustrates:

"Treat your women well and be kind to them, for they are your partners and committed helpers."

Don't get me wrong, the situation in the Middle East is very chaotic, with injustices being committed to all sorts of men, women, and children. What begins to irritate me is when people blindly blame their religion for the domestic problems these people have. There is nothing wrong with the Islamic religion; it preaches equality for both men and women. The problem lies in the extremist factions that begin drifting away from their most basic of moral values. Our view of what a terrorist represents has been skewed ever since the 9/11 attacks. I don't think this necessarily means we are bad people, we are just misguided in our thoughts. The Islamic culture is a very rich and beautiful one; we shouldn't blame it for being the cause of these extremist groups. 

image from http://goatmilk.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/british_muslim_women.jpg

Abstract

Kaylee Hardman

11062938

Women’s Studies 200: Gender and Power

Margo Tamez, Instructor

Global Sex-Slave and Marriage 

Trade and Child Sex-Trafficking

Women and girls in nations like Russia and especially in Southeast Asian countries are being sexually exploited for their looks. They continually get traded from one brothel to the next, sometimes even moving across dangerous borders. Not only this, but women are literally selling themselves as mail-order brides just to better their disposition in life. In Southeast Asia alone, over 300,000 women and girls are trafficked and sexually abused (LoBaido). Women are also sold to other men in foreign countries as wives; what makes this such a difficult problem to alleviate is that most of the processes involved in this transaction are legal. Many of these women are abused and sometimes murdered because they don’t know these men they have been sold to. Initiatives such as the International Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBD) are taking steps towards protecting the vulnerability of these women (McElroy). What should be done to protect these women? Are there programs that the U.S can enact so that these exploited women and children can have a safe shelter to escape to?

The fact that many of these women and girls are seen as sexual commodities is a theory apparent in films like “Dream Worlds 2” and also relate to various chapters in “Inequality and Violence in the U.S,” such as chapter 11. Differing cultural values as well as economic status comes into play regarding how these women are sometimes treated.

Selling women as wives is illegal; yet, the processes used with which these women are sold to other men are perfectly legal (McElroy). There are many reasons why women like this resort to selling their bodies in this way. Other women and girls that are sold as prostitutes are hidden in brothels and hovels, never allowed to leave except for sexual encounters. In places like Cambodia, little girls that still have their virginities can be sold at a rate of about $600 for three days (Children). This project will examine how women and children around the globe are exploited as prostitutes and mail-order brides, as well as what is being done to combat their dispositions and prevent the exploitation of their innocence.

References

"Children for sale - Dateline NBC- msnbc.com." Breaking News, Weather, Business, Health,      Entertainment, Sports, Politics, Travel, Science, Technology, Local, US & World News- msnbc.com. 9  Jan. 2005. 28 Mar. 2009 .

Hughes, Donna M. "Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation on the Internet." Internet Archive: Wayback Machine. 1997. 28 Mar. 2009 .

LoBaido, Anthony C. "Sex-slave trade flourishes in Thailand." WorldNetDaily. 3 Feb. 2002. 28 Mar. 2009 <http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26296>.

McElroy, Wendy. "FOXNews.com - 'Mail-Order Bride' Law Brands All American Men Abusers - Opinion."Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com. 10 Jan. 2006. 28 Mar. 2009 .

 

 

Controversial Ads

Sisley Fashion Junkie:

                This ad depicts two women with sunken expressions appearing to snort a white, powdery substance in the shape of a dress. The woman on the left is absorbed in the action of snorting the dress, while the woman on the right has a glazed look on her face as she gazes towards the camera. The sloppiness of the women is emphasized by the fact that her breast is exposed, yet she doesn’t seem to notice. She is too absorbed in snorting the dress to care; this illustrates the stereotype that women are more concerned with fashion and with looking good than they are other aspects of their life (like their physical health). How does this affect how women are viewed in American society? I think that young women see ads like this and feel pressure to put more thought and value into their outward appearance. While I think that there is nothing wrong with caring about how you look, the extent to which this ad emphasizes it is a bit outrageous. These women are so addicted to the world of fashion they have let it consume them, much like a dangerous drug would. This design company has played upon the vulnerability of women that are completely absorbed with fashion. Much like we saw in “Dream Worlds 2,” a lot of times women are portrayed as objects of desire and must look a certain way in order to achieve a desirable status.

Tipalet Cigarette Ad:

                This ad features a woman gazing longingly at the profile of a man holding a cigarette and blowing smoke in the woman’s face. The headline reads “Blow in her face and she’ll follow you anywhere.” As I looked at this ad, I began thinking about the stereotypical American 1950’s housewife. For many of these women, their ultimate goal was to find a well-off man, marry him, and have children. This ad plays upon those aspirations, as this woman seems to be magnetized by this sophisticated man. Does this stereotypical view on women demean them? I think women can be limited by these narrow views. This sense of emphasized femininity, which we discussed in chapter 11 of “Inequality and Violence,” can often times limit the scope of a woman’s view of her potential. Instead of feeling as though she can become a surgeon or an astronaut, women are limiting themselves to becoming housewives and mothers; while there is nothing wrong with aspiring to be a wife and mother, it shouldn’t be looked at as the only possibility for a woman.

Dolce and Gabbana Ad:

                This ad sparked a lot of controversy and protest; it was even withdrawn worldwide because of the public debate over it. The issue over this ad was whether or not it was depicting a sexual fantasy or gang rape. There is a woman lying on the ground as a muscular man hovers over her, holding her arms to the ground. A group of men surround the two and appear to be looking on at the scene unfolding before them. It’s also interesting to note that the expressions on everyone’s faces are very somber and serious. Had they had more light-hearted expressions then the tone of the ad would be more playful than intimidating. What does this say about men and women in general? To me, when I look at this ad I see that men are being portrayed as sexual deviants that use their physical strength to dominate women. This reminds me of some of the discussions we have had in class on violence as related to gender and ethnicity, especially in chapter 11 of “Inequality and Violence in the United States.” This ad is playing on the stereotype that women are weaker than men and that men are physically and even sexually more dominant. Men don’t want to be seen as “pussy-whipped” because our society says that that implies weakness. A lot of times, to combat this sense of inferiority, some men will act out against women, whether physically or emotionally. When I look at this ad, I see this group of men as trying to establish their dominance over this woman. The fact that her back is extended and her legs are strained implies that she is struggling to get out of the grasp of the muscular man hovering over her.

Kiwi shoe ad:

                This ad has a lot of sexist undertones; not only is this woman polishing a man’s shoe as though she is a servant, but she is also half the size of the shoe, further emphasizing her inferiority. This ad is suggesting that a woman’s place is to be docile and submissive to her man. In my own opinion, if this company wanted to illustrate the superiority of their shoes, they would have added a miniature of a man alongside the woman so as not to make the ad appear demeaning towards women. This is also related to chapter 11 of “IVUS.” The standard position of women since the 50’s has always been in the domestic realm. She is supposed to cook, clean, and take care of her family and her husband. Is it fair to be playing upon these stereotypes? Obviously, there is nothing wrong with a woman aspiring to be a homemaker; it is a very admirable desire to have, but by limiting the scope of possibilities, women are being oppressed. 

 

Response to IVUS Ch. 13: Militarism and Violence

The amount that the U.S spends on its military and on militaristic operations is absolutely staggering. A lot of this has to do with the agendas of personal investors in big businesses. These businesses work in correlation with the White House and world military leaders to promote profits and stay ahead of the curve in weapons worldwide. Sometimes, our leaders stretch the truth or even outright lie to us in order to gain our financial support for a militaristic endeavor. While it is necessary to have public support in times of war, should our leaders lie to us about the facts in order to gain our support? Of course not! If there is no reason to go to war with another country, then we shouldn't! If they have a resource we want, we should negotiate with them! Didn't we learn in pre-school that it's nice to share? 

Just as an example, it wasn't until 1995 that we learned the supposed North Vietnamese attack on the U.S in the Gulf of Tonkin was a complete fabrication. The significance of this attack was that it catapulted the Unites States into the Vietnamese war. Had this 'attack' not been fabricated and stretched, the U.S likely wouldn't have entered the war; the effects of this cannot be measured. How would our nation be different had we not entered the war? Even today, it's been proven that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Iraq in the Sept 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Did the White House use this tragedy as a launch point to take advantage of the oil supplies in Iraq? It's hard to say yes or no, but it does look suspicious. 

I think it's corrupt and greedy politicians and investors like these that give America its bad name. If these people were not so concerned with their own interests and with lining their own pockets, our society would have a lot more invested into domestic issues. All these profits being made by private investors could be put to much more valuable use. Why don't they spend some of their profits on building new shelters for battered women, or investing in a cure for AIDS? It's not the average middle-class American that is making America one of the most despised nations, they are simply misinformed about a lot that goes on in their country; it's the leaders that lie to them that make it difficult for this nation to truly progress.

Image from: http://www.amtrac.org/1atbn/Battles/FortressSentry/photos/ddd001.JPG

Facilitation for "Women's Lives" chapter 57

Key-words: privatization, sustainability, scarcity, urbanization, expropriation, giardia, cryptos poridium, E. coli, etc…

Key-phrases: public-private partnerships, commercial orientation, International Trade Organization (ITO), General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), World Trade Organization (WTO), World Bank, North American Free Trade Agreements (NAFTA), etc…

Key-names: Vandana Shiva, Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux, Metalclad, Mickey Kantor, Vivendi Environment, etc…

Key-ideas: Water resources are quickly becoming a private enterprise benefitting investors. The price for having water is rising sharply and companies are making more and more profits. The American water market is estimated at $90 billion, the largest in the world. The demand for clean water is the highest it’s ever been, because of pollution.

Questions and quotes:

·         “When water is traded as a good, all provisions of the agreement governing trade in goods apply” (431).

·         “All of us in the Coca-Cola family wake up each morning knowing that every single one of the world’s 5.6 billion people will get thirsty that day. If we make it impossible for these 5.6 billion people to escape Coca-Cola, then we assure our future success for many years to come. Doing anything else is not an option” (432).

o   Is it ethical to privatize something as essential as water? How does the cost and demand relationship for water in the U.S compare to other nations and third world countries?

Response to Dream Worlds 2 and Tough Guise

 

Both of these videos were enlightening in that it explored the various stereotypes held by both women and men. How are men typically supposed to act? They're supposed to be powerful, dominant, strong, rational, and not showing emotion. Men that are sensitive are seen as vulnerable and weak; why is this? 

I think this can be related back to Adam and Eve in that Eve was given to Adam as a companion; in return, he was responsible for taking care of her. Maybe men are made to feel like failures if they do not remain dominant and rational; if they show emotion they are weak, and they're not performing their duty in protecting women. There are parts of this that I can respect; I think that sometimes women and men need each other to function properly. We need to take care of each other; women aren't pathetic and helpless, and men aren't always the strong dominant figures we make them out to be. Yet from a personal standpoint, I can say that as a woman I have a very nurturing side to me; I enjoy taking care of my friends and family, and in return, they take care of me. This interdependency is vital to having a cohesive balance in your life. Everyone needs somebody in their life: whether it's your family, your best friend, or a boyfriend/girlfriend, people need social interactions. 

The way that women were objectified in "Dream Worlds 2" is very frustrating. As a woman, I feel that everyday I am compared to these women that are supposed to be ideal; only a handful of women in this world actually look like the women on television and in ads. Most of those ads are adjusted to make the women look even more perfect. The fact is that these women we see in the media simply aren't realistic. Most women do not look like they do whatsoever; maybe this is why the film is called "Dream World," because it is all a fantasy. 

I think it's important to see the beauty in everyday women; not just the menial physical things, but also the small things that make a woman a woman; the way she lifts her kids to put them in the car-seat without waking them up, the way she can go to a 9-5 job and still make time to cook dinner for her hungry family, how she can be exhausted in the morning yet still make herself presentable for the day, how her own needs come after the needs of those she loves, and how she finds strength in the love of the people around her. These are the things that should be considered beautiful, not the size of your waistline or the makeup you wear. 

Image from: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ffximage/2007/11/13/470_vS,0.jpg

Facilitation for "Inequality and Violence" Chapter 11

Key-words: sexual assault, masculinity, abuse, hierarchy, battering, unemployment, households, divorce, welfare, shelters, rape, inequality, marital rape, gang rape, dominance, degradation, abortion, homophobia, contraception, etc…

Key-phrases: emphasized femininity, hegonomic masculinity, patriarchal terrorism, common couple violence, domestic violence, Roe v. Wade, Hyde Amendment, “pussy-whipped,” etc…

Key-names: Laura O’Toole, Jessica R. Shiffman, Lorena Bobbitt, O.J Simpson, Nichole Brown, Ron Goldman, Michael P. Johnson, Tracy Thurman, Mary Stewart, Patty Murray, Diane Scully, Larry Baron, Murray A. Straus, Dr. David McDowell, Jenny Jones, etc…\

Key-ideas: Interpersonal violence is a way of lashing out against inequality. There are many factors that account for domestic violence, such as cultural beliefs, upbringing, and stress. Not only this, but economic status comes into play as well; lower income families are more likely to commit these domestic acts of violence. The main focus of this chapter is examining the empowerment that people feel over others by committing act of violence against them, due to their gender, sex, orientation, ethnicity, or status.

Questions and quotes:

• “Sexual violence is related to cultural attitudes the power relationship between women and men, the social and economic status of women relative to the men of their group, and the amount of other forms of violence in the society” (259).
• Should we invest more taxpayer dollars in providing welfare for these battered victims?
• How would you describe the victims of domestic violence? Are they abused because they are weak? Or are they victims of circumstance? Why do women that are abused by their husbands continue to stay with them? 
• Here is an interesting link:   http://www.humboldt.edu/~mpw1/violence/

Response to "Inequality and Violence in the U.S" Chapter 12

This chapter largely dealt with the prevalence of hate crimes and racial violence throughout time. For the most part, it focused on crime committed by white individuals against black individuals. As I was reading through this chapter, I was thinking to myself, "Have we improved our situation as a collective society?"

The reason why I ask this to myself is that as I read through this, I was wondering whether our society has become less violent towards other races over time. I wonder whether or not different outlets in the media may be encouraging violence in younger and younger people; and even in women. On YouTube, there is a rise in videos of young girls fighting each other, just so they can be seen as tough and hardcore by their peers. What makes women think that they have to be seen in this way? What makes people feel that they need to resort to violence against people they are prejudice against? I think that in the 1960's most people weren't necessarily prejudiced against black people, but it was a social normality that many just blindly accepted. When this happens, it's very difficult to change and improve the situation. Why do we accept these normalities? Do they make us feel more secure in our own skin? Do we feel more accepted by others of our own race if we collectively decide to isolate ourselves from another race?

Throughout this chapter, I kept thinking of a book I read over the summer entitled "Black Like Me," written by John Howard Griffin. It was published in 1961, and discussed the differences in treatment in the Deep South going first as a white man, and then as a black man. The differences and discrepancies between these races was extremely insightful. It gave you a look at both the blatant racism people felt towards blacks, but also the dark underbelly that wasn't as easy to comprehend and grasp. It is one of the best books I have ever read; it really made me look inside myself and come to terms with my own potential biases and assumptions. I never thought of myself as a racist person and I still don't, but this book really made me look deep inside myself and confront my own personal biases. This chapter really made me reflect on that book. I would highly recommend it to anyone who might be interested in that book. Here is a link to discountbooks.com, where it's available at a very reasonable price:

https://www.discountbooksale.com/store/productView.aspx?idProduct=7982&ec=1&ProdId=112&AWTrck=1036618299&gclid=CISs54TO85gCFR0SagodkS6L1g

Image from:

http://home.arcor.de/vivness/booksread/pl_images/117_blacklikeme.jpg

Response to "Inequality and Violence in the U.S" Chapters 3-5

This reading really opened my eyes to the power big corporations really have over the individual lifestyles we lead and the inequalities prevalent in our society today. Just the fact that people belong to certain social classes according to how much money they make is in itself inequality. Many don't have access to the necessary resources to change their financial position in life; this is the perfect example of inequality. Big corporations have so much power and influence, they change the very dynamics of the traditional employer-employee relationship. They have ways of manipulating the public into not joining unions by withdrawing bonuses and they are able to find loopholes in their tax returns so that they pay only a fraction of what they normally would pay in taxes. These loopholes are not available to the public, so they are left to pay according to what they make. Is it fair for these corporations to manipulate people and money they way that they do? This manipulation can even be credited to the surge of violence that is evident in our society today. People are frustrated with their position in life and working for these big corporations often leaves little room for improving this situation.

This begs the question, is this corporate manipulation more detrimental to society than street crime? Personally, I think it is...not only can this cause the disgruntled employee to lash out physically, it causes family units to struggle with basic necessities. An employee from Wal-Mart cannot support a family on their own, whereas the CEO of the company is able to live quite comfortably and lavishly. This discrepancy is evidence of the inequalities in everyday life. Two people working for the same company can have such differing lifestyles, and the one living the more simple lifestyle cannot do much to change his/her disposition. 

At this point, I wonder whether or not the people in these CEO positions know the power and manipulation they hold. I don't necessarily believe that they want to make their employees miserable, but I think that they feel pressure to make budget cuts and such in order to maximize their profits. 

If that's true, then where does this pressure come from?? I can honestly say I have no idea...maybe if we really knew, then we could find ways of combatting it to make a more even field. 

Image from:

http://routingbyrumor.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/walmart.jpg

Response to 4th Chapter of "Racism," by Alana Lentin

The quote that began this chapter struck me as important to keep mind while reading through the selection:

"America is not so much post-racial as getting-over-the-subject-but-not- quite-there-racial" (p. 88).

This quote opens an interesting discussion into where exactly our nation's status is on the issue of racism and inequality. Many think that we have moved on from old ways of thinking about racial distinctions. While we have made many imperative strides in creating equal opportunities for all ethnicities, lifestyle choices, and genders, there are still many steps to take in fully understanding where our inner prejudices develop and manifest. 

Later on in the chapter, it is suggested that perhaps the solution to the racist issue is to find some way of forgetting or not acknowledging someone's color altogether. I find this to be a really ignorant assumption. By trying to ignore the fact that someone is a different color than you are, you are only making the fact more obvious in your own mind. It's a well known fact that if you tell someone not to look at something, they are just going to want to look at it even more. In fact, by choosing to ignore the racial differences people have, we are actually ignoring what makes our nation so unique. The United States has been called a 'melting pot' or a 'tossed salad' of different ethnicities and cultures. By turning our backs on this important quality, we are choosing to ignore the very backbone our nation is founded on: to be a land of equal opportunity for all peoples.

Image from:

http://www.jaha.org/edu/discovery_center/push-pull/img/Ellis01.jpg

Response to "Inequality and Violence in the U.S" Chapters 1 and 2

        As I read through the beginning of this book, I came across a fact that struck me. In discussing the different patterns of violence, it was noted that "Poor minority neighborhoods have high rates of crime" (p. 13). As I read this, I wondered why this is true. Why do people in a lower economic class commit more crimes than people who are wealthier? Perhaps they are more driven to anger because they're unhappy with their disposition in life. Maybe they resent people that are more fortunate out of jealousy. This jealousy causes an inner rage that perhaps is bottled and later released during moments where the person committing the violence feels it is justified. 

        Next, I began thinking about the deep rooted causes of this kind of violence. Jealousy is just the surface of the issue; the bigger issue is rooted in the neglect of the needs of these poor neighborhoods. Inadequate housing, food, and healthcare is causing people to be both malnourished and sick. This is not a good recipe for a content disposition in life. This would be true for anyone, regardless of class, ethnicity, and gender. 

        After realizing this, I began wondering why people are resorting to violence to solve their personal problems. One theory is that we are genetically disposed to protect ourselves in a violent manner at times. It is not something that is learned over time, but more a natural reaction to threatening situations. I feel that in some cases this is true, especially in moments of self defense, such as being raped, fighting off a person attacking you, or experiencing a break-in at your home. Another theory is that different outlets of the media are affecting children at a young age, making them more likely to use violence as they grow into adolescents and adults. Personally I feel that it is a parent's responsibility to protect their children from certain violent programs and video games. It is their duty to slowly expose their children to the violence in the world while placing an appropriate context behind it. The way kids are exposed to violence affects the way they feel about it and will deal with it in the future. It is not the responsibility of the media to censor their programs and video games so that parents can have the luxury of not explaining to their kids the context of why this violence exists and non-violent ways to alleviate these situations. People that simply blame the media for the violence in society do not usually understand that the correlation between violent television programs and video games does not prove the cause of violence. In fact, in a study between homicide in several different nations and the material the media shows, it was discovered that there was no relationship that could be unearthed (p. 31). I think that lessening violence in the U.S starts with more involved parenting. 

        As I was finishing these chapters, I started questioning whether it is even possible to eliminate violence. Humans are naturally imperfect beings and on many occasions we resort to our emotions to explain stressful situations and we react in less than admirable ways. Some people suggest that we make it harder to acquire guns in order to solve the problem. Clearly, this is not going to work, as people will surely find other avenues in which to commit violence. I think it can be agreed that violence comes about when people feel neglected and oppressed. If we can get to the root of these emotions, we can further begin to understand how to alleviate them.

Image from:

http://www.therazor.org/images/kenya_violence.jpg

 

Response to "When Europeans Were Slaves"

This article was enlightening in the fact that it highlighted oppression and slavery that white people have endured. I think that sometimes we forget that racism does not necessarily mean the contempt the white race has for others. By looking at slavery and racism on a broader scope, we can better start to grasp the whole concept. Racism occurs in many forms and over a wide range of people. In fact, the stereotypes we know today that typify different races and religions are examples of culturally and nationally accepted racism. How did these stereotypes form? Would there have to be some shred of truth in them in order for them to form in the first place? Realistically, we all stereotype; does that make us racist people? I don't think this is necessarily true; I think it's more of a societal influence and accepted norm that is difficult to shake off of ourselves. In fact, this article can teach us that it's important to challenge standard stereotypes and to question accepted teachings. 

It's been widely accepted that when people discuss slavery, they generally talk about the Atlantic Slave Trade. While this is indeed the largest evidence of inhumane slave treatment, it isn't the only one. This is what we must keep in mind when we discuss the broad topics of slavery and racism. There are many examples of such instances. 

Image from: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE6y_aEPAq7pf5g1P23ds6URArcI6SJhdJQq2Zg2gQ1snSjJaJznZkrkzc-5FiXEvO4inKaYQjBD-Pt256HJKJN6evZEu8LstaqR7usQcpicVOCBSrCx9uW3hQBV-DrVHppECGFQwIvqs/s1600-h/stereotypes.jpg

Response to 1st Chapter of Racism, by Alana Lentin

As I read this selection, I came across a quote that resonated in my mind:

"A racial order has always structured humanity" (p 4). 

I feel like this statement is very true in many senses. In order to try to understand why this might be true, I envisioned myself hundreds of years ago as someone who had grown up never seeing anyone of another race. What would I think if I saw someone of another skin color than myself? Would I be scared? Confused? Intimidated? 

These feelings of disorientation that I would feel could create a metaphorical wall in my mind that would not allow me to accept anyone other than people of my own color. Now I begin to think about how this would react on a much larger, national scale. This would create a lot of hostility among all these different cultures. 

Now I wonder how people determine which race is the superior and inferior? In the 17th and 18th centuries, Europeans dominated the world because they were more "historically developed" (p 27). What makes a nation more historically developed than others? Is it an organized form of government, be it a monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship or democracy? Or perhaps it means a system of writing and a good grasp of the language? Maybe a mature system of trade and commerce constitutes a developed society...

Another section of the reading that I found to be worth noting is the section discussing Social Darwinism and the effects of both positive and negative eugenics. As I was reading this section, I was wondering how you can create a society through positive eugenics without alienating and treading on someone else's God-given rights? How do you strengthen a race without eliminating the weak links? Is it even possible? Perhaps the solution to alleviating these race issues is doing away with positive and negative eugenics altogether. What kind of effect would this have over nationalism and national pride? Would we have to consider ourselves all the same? In my opinion, everyone should be proud of their race, regardless of their sketchy past. This doesn't mean that in being proud of your race that you look down upon others. I'm simply stating that you should be proud to be what you are, and remain sensitive to the issues that other races face.

Image from:

http://www.maps-charts.com/images/22.46%20Prints%20-%20Eerste%20Boek.jpg