Overall I think WS200 was very interesting. Many of the topics discussed reaffirmed my own values or made me rethink my position. For example, one idea that got challenged involved relationships:
I no longer believe in committee-like approach in families. Instead, implicit positions should be given to a member depending on their experience in the respective area. This is a very ideal concept, and consistent execution would be difficult.
Unfortunately an online class is unable to offer the same kind of interaction a classroom does. And while I enjoyed the course in its present form, I would have rather of conducted discussions in person rather than over a message board. The message board, in theory, would have allowed for more in depth discussions since people could research a topic further and present their findings or argue the positions of others. A classroom does not provide this; however, response is immediate. Also, topics must be tabled whenever a new one is presented. This does not happen on the discussion board since threads can run simultaneously and allow for the discussion of multiple topics.
The road to equality is a long one. Most changes will be so subtle that progress will not be apparent until it is analyzed years from the moment it happened. I live by what I believe to be right, and though not as effective as dedicating my life to changing a cause, I hope the affect on people is small enough to help the cause. Gender equality is not a small issue, and I applaud those who dedicate their lives for change. Some problems I see in the future involve nations that do not share the same vision of equality as most western nations would. Changing those values could be constituted as an attack on their culture, but where does one draw the line?
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Module 18
One of my previous entries discussed inner-city black females. Single black mothers are becoming more commonplace than they were sixty years ago. Often I hear relatives discussing how different the times were when they grew up. When a woman became pregnant, she married the man; doing otherwise was unheard of and shameful. A woman could not, and was not able to raise a child on her own (most of them still hold this view to be true) since her husband was able to find work inside the city as industries such as manufacturing were still located in these areas. As time passed, the industries left and the males were unable to get jobs to support families. The result can still be seen today. Many men, unable to find work, loiter the streets of the inner-city hustling or finding odd jobs that don't bring the promise of gainful employment.
I thought this bit from a congressional testimony was interesting:
Welfare contributes to crime in several ways. First, children from single-parent families are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. According to one study, children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior.(3) Moreover, O'Neill found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4) Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.(5)
As Barbara Dafoe Whitehead noted in her seminal article for The Atlantic Monthly:
The relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation's mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime.(6)
The above argues that single parent homes are suspect to propagating delinquent behavior in inner-city neighborhoods. Statistics that were included within the trail claimed that areas of high crime also saw high rates of children being born out of wedlock and are often raised without fathers.
I thought this bit from a congressional testimony was interesting:
Welfare contributes to crime in several ways. First, children from single-parent families are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. According to one study, children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior.(3) Moreover, O'Neill found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4) Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.(5)
As Barbara Dafoe Whitehead noted in her seminal article for The Atlantic Monthly:
The relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation's mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime.(6)
The above argues that single parent homes are suspect to propagating delinquent behavior in inner-city neighborhoods. Statistics that were included within the trail claimed that areas of high crime also saw high rates of children being born out of wedlock and are often raised without fathers.
Module 17
Many laws have been created for the safety of women, and these were created as a response to problems in society.
I think laws are a necessary crutch to reducing the gap in gender inequality, though, these laws act as a double edge sword in that they both protect women and acknowledge that they require protection from someone other than themselves. Sweden is a nation where many laws ensure womens' safety. During some research I did for my PowerPoint presentation, statistics showed an increase in domestic abuse since the law had been enacted. The report (by the Swedish Institute) determined that this was due to more women reporting the actions against them, instead of keeping quiet.
It is regrettable that these violence laws are not created for both genders. Males, though not as frequently, also suffer from abuse; however, I feel voicing equal concern would be akin to focusing on white issues during the Civil Rights Movement. Yes, all races should receive the same treatment as the next, but there are more pressing issues to fix with these particular races at the moment. Men enjoy more privileges than women (even in countries that are considered to be progressive and civilized). I understand and am confident on my stance of gender equality; society, on the other hand, does not share the same view as I.
One parallel I found involves race and affirmative action. Realistically, there are little differences between blacks and whites outside of society. When both are taken in a social context, blacks have inherent disadvantages over whites. This disability is corrected by creating laws that give them the same privileges as whites. Often they are explicitly acknowledge that such rules were created especially from them as it is understood that whites would never require such assistance. The same can be seen for women and these laws. Though they are not disabled, they still require explicit assistance that men don't.
I think laws are a necessary crutch to reducing the gap in gender inequality, though, these laws act as a double edge sword in that they both protect women and acknowledge that they require protection from someone other than themselves. Sweden is a nation where many laws ensure womens' safety. During some research I did for my PowerPoint presentation, statistics showed an increase in domestic abuse since the law had been enacted. The report (by the Swedish Institute) determined that this was due to more women reporting the actions against them, instead of keeping quiet.
It is regrettable that these violence laws are not created for both genders. Males, though not as frequently, also suffer from abuse; however, I feel voicing equal concern would be akin to focusing on white issues during the Civil Rights Movement. Yes, all races should receive the same treatment as the next, but there are more pressing issues to fix with these particular races at the moment. Men enjoy more privileges than women (even in countries that are considered to be progressive and civilized). I understand and am confident on my stance of gender equality; society, on the other hand, does not share the same view as I.
One parallel I found involves race and affirmative action. Realistically, there are little differences between blacks and whites outside of society. When both are taken in a social context, blacks have inherent disadvantages over whites. This disability is corrected by creating laws that give them the same privileges as whites. Often they are explicitly acknowledge that such rules were created especially from them as it is understood that whites would never require such assistance. The same can be seen for women and these laws. Though they are not disabled, they still require explicit assistance that men don't.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Module 16
“Welfare queen” was a new term I learned in the last few days. It refers to someone collecting welfare payments through fraud. First used during Ronald Regans 1976 campaingn, it became a label placed on poor mothers and carried racial connotations. The quote read:
She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names.
I think welfare is a feminist issue because a lot of single mothers may rely on it since some may be less likely to obtain the same pay as single fathers. Although welfare is not available to persons indefinitely (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act prevents this), I think some would require it more than others. Groups concerened with their particular demographic can help those get what they need, and female support groups do exactly this.
Western cultures are less likely to shun single mothers than some other cultures are. In this day in age, having a baby out of wedlock is no longer a serious act of deviance, although the person may still be shunned in his or her respective coumminty. Women with children are expected to be married, and unless the father has died, may have a difficult time earning respect. On the most immediate level (people they see everyday), acceptance in the community may be difficult. The mother may have habits that are not approved of (drugs for example), and others around her may be less likely to lend a hand should she need anything; association with a person like her may bring one's own social status down. When it comes to dealing with someone outside the immediate area, the government for example, the mother may be in a position to divulge less information or blatant lies to receive the kind of assistance she needs.
Privacy is becoming a rare things these days (the Internet provides information many thought was confidential). I think when it comes to obtaining TANF for the first time, a person or family should be given a bigger benefit of the doubt. Although this good faith system can still be exploited, subsequent return trips will trigger alerts within the office if individuals are looking to abuse the system.
She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names.
I think welfare is a feminist issue because a lot of single mothers may rely on it since some may be less likely to obtain the same pay as single fathers. Although welfare is not available to persons indefinitely (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act prevents this), I think some would require it more than others. Groups concerened with their particular demographic can help those get what they need, and female support groups do exactly this.
Western cultures are less likely to shun single mothers than some other cultures are. In this day in age, having a baby out of wedlock is no longer a serious act of deviance, although the person may still be shunned in his or her respective coumminty. Women with children are expected to be married, and unless the father has died, may have a difficult time earning respect. On the most immediate level (people they see everyday), acceptance in the community may be difficult. The mother may have habits that are not approved of (drugs for example), and others around her may be less likely to lend a hand should she need anything; association with a person like her may bring one's own social status down. When it comes to dealing with someone outside the immediate area, the government for example, the mother may be in a position to divulge less information or blatant lies to receive the kind of assistance she needs.
Privacy is becoming a rare things these days (the Internet provides information many thought was confidential). I think when it comes to obtaining TANF for the first time, a person or family should be given a bigger benefit of the doubt. Although this good faith system can still be exploited, subsequent return trips will trigger alerts within the office if individuals are looking to abuse the system.
Module 15
Single mothers of low socio-economic status often have the stigma of being system abuses. Many black women in poorer parts of the inner-city, for example, often get pregnant and end up raising the child alone. They may be out to abuse the system (living on welfare) or had a partner that did not want, or could not, handle the responsibility of raising a child and left.
Racism is still around in the United States; however, I think it has changed its definition. To me, racism refers to dislike or hatred of a race. Period. It does not take into consideration of culture, nationality or any other attribute of a person expect his or her race. The racism we see today is based on class identity. Many inner city blacks are often poor, and as a result, the entire black race lives with this connotation. The same goes for Hispanics and other minority groups in the United States. People that exhibit the traits of a lower socio-economic class are likely to be treated different depending on who they are talking to. Their mannerisms may indicate where they came from, and the other person may not respond favorably.
Many black women living in the inner-city suffer from this image. In job interviews, potential employers may react negatively if she exhibits those qualities of a typical "hood" female, and may even not consider her for the position. These considerations are also reinforced if the female is expecting to have a child or already has one.
I understand why a company would be dissuaded from hiring a pregnant worker. This is blatant discrimination, and I think would be a great issue to look into at some point. Should women consider when they have children before they apply for a job? I think this places extra responsibility on her end and is probably too big of a topic for me to dwell on in a single entry.
Racism is still around in the United States; however, I think it has changed its definition. To me, racism refers to dislike or hatred of a race. Period. It does not take into consideration of culture, nationality or any other attribute of a person expect his or her race. The racism we see today is based on class identity. Many inner city blacks are often poor, and as a result, the entire black race lives with this connotation. The same goes for Hispanics and other minority groups in the United States. People that exhibit the traits of a lower socio-economic class are likely to be treated different depending on who they are talking to. Their mannerisms may indicate where they came from, and the other person may not respond favorably.
Many black women living in the inner-city suffer from this image. In job interviews, potential employers may react negatively if she exhibits those qualities of a typical "hood" female, and may even not consider her for the position. These considerations are also reinforced if the female is expecting to have a child or already has one.
I understand why a company would be dissuaded from hiring a pregnant worker. This is blatant discrimination, and I think would be a great issue to look into at some point. Should women consider when they have children before they apply for a job? I think this places extra responsibility on her end and is probably too big of a topic for me to dwell on in a single entry.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Module 14
A global perspective seems like a great idea until one considers cultures outside of his or her own. A method or procedure may work great within Romania, but who's to say that the same success will result from transplanting it into Japanese borders? Ethnocentrism hinders global ideas because consideration is not given to the needs and functions of other cultures. Global feminism creates an idea of a woman, and this idea must have an origin. More likely than not, the global idea of a woman will come from a western nation. Amoralism is the opposite of ethnocentrism; within the scope of humainty, no culture or society is any better or worse than the other. This is a great way to study other cultures, however, it does little to further the mission of global feminism. Women in western nations certain enjoy more freedoms than women in parts of Africa and the Middle East, but what gives one the right to go and change their way of life. Is attempting to do so admitting that some cultures are better than others; that some cultures are doing it wrong?
Amoralism is difficult to practice when social norms are considered atrocities within one's own culture. The existence of absolute rights and wrongs are, in my opinion, something the individual needs to consider on his or her own. Transnational feminism offers are compromise between a ethnocentrism and apathy. Instead of imposing one template of woman on all cultures across the world, each nation colloborates with others reach its goal. Collaboration is the slowest way to accomplish a task; however, if successful, all parties are able to win in the final result. This is an extremely difficult and delicate process since each culture has its own idea of what a woman is.
In my opinion, transnational femnism considers everyone's opinion instead of the opinion of the nation with the most power (usually a western one). Unfortunately it will be a lengthy process to bring about global equality when other cultures practice are respected, even when they run counter to one's own beliefs.
Amoralism is difficult to practice when social norms are considered atrocities within one's own culture. The existence of absolute rights and wrongs are, in my opinion, something the individual needs to consider on his or her own. Transnational feminism offers are compromise between a ethnocentrism and apathy. Instead of imposing one template of woman on all cultures across the world, each nation colloborates with others reach its goal. Collaboration is the slowest way to accomplish a task; however, if successful, all parties are able to win in the final result. This is an extremely difficult and delicate process since each culture has its own idea of what a woman is.
In my opinion, transnational femnism considers everyone's opinion instead of the opinion of the nation with the most power (usually a western one). Unfortunately it will be a lengthy process to bring about global equality when other cultures practice are respected, even when they run counter to one's own beliefs.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Module 13
Relationships between homosexuals and straight persons present similar problems found in platonic relationships. Should at some point one develop feelings for the other and wish to pursue something other than friendship, he or she risks rejection and losing the relationship. Heterosexual and homosexual friendship faces this problem too; however, the heterosexual member is more likely to reject all advances than entertain them as if they were in a heterosexual platonic relationship.
The homosexual member of the friendship may be reluctant to talk about anything other than banal chit-chat to avoid upsetting the other -- especially if he or she is unaware of their stance on homosexuality. This constant vigilance and self-consciousness of one's deviant behavior puts an even bigger strain on the homosexual friend if he or she has developed feelings outside of normal friendship. They stand at a crossroads wondering if they should divulge how they really feel or continue to masquerade as casual friends to preserve what they have. Homosexuals risk more than rejection if they decide to reveal their true feelings.
Termination of friendship, loss of contact, and even violence are likely outcomes awaiting their choice. Because of these possible reactions, many make use of gay clubs or areas catering to gay culture, if their area provides them. These establishments offer an environment where they are more likely to find someone to a relationship deeper than they are in the mostly heterosexual world.
The homosexual member of the friendship may be reluctant to talk about anything other than banal chit-chat to avoid upsetting the other -- especially if he or she is unaware of their stance on homosexuality. This constant vigilance and self-consciousness of one's deviant behavior puts an even bigger strain on the homosexual friend if he or she has developed feelings outside of normal friendship. They stand at a crossroads wondering if they should divulge how they really feel or continue to masquerade as casual friends to preserve what they have. Homosexuals risk more than rejection if they decide to reveal their true feelings.
Termination of friendship, loss of contact, and even violence are likely outcomes awaiting their choice. Because of these possible reactions, many make use of gay clubs or areas catering to gay culture, if their area provides them. These establishments offer an environment where they are more likely to find someone to a relationship deeper than they are in the mostly heterosexual world.
Module 12
I think for many, disability conjures up the image of someone in a wheelchair or a disorder like Down syndrome. To others, disability could mean being female, not white, or a homosexual.
There is an average of what to expect from a healthy human being. They must meet a lengthy checklist of requirements before they are seen fit in society. Some "defects" may be easier to hide than others and they can pass off as able. Others, however, are not so subtle and may cause the person a hard life. Society has grown in a way that it now accepts the disable as normal. There was a time before wheelchair ramps and before that the wheelchair, but now with changes in society's mindset, modern facilities and activities have been adapted to allow that to interact with others. They are becoming "normal" like everyone else.
We cannot change what we are born with, and to blame someone for requiring extra assistance is another entry of its own. Somethings are within our grasp to control. Disability is not just limited to genetic and physical conditions developed from birth or accidents; obesity is also considered to be a disorder. Obese persons may be excluded from facilities and activities just as others who are concerned disability. For example: amusement park rides will size requirements for the visitor's safety. For the safety of themselves and others, they must be excluded for participating in this particular activity.
Most disabilities carry some sort of stigma with them. Obesity presents to others an inside look at his or her lifestyle. Outside observes may think the person is doing something wrong to get into the shape they are in now, and since that kind of lifestyle (one of lethargy and constant eating) is generally frowned upon.
There is an average of what to expect from a healthy human being. They must meet a lengthy checklist of requirements before they are seen fit in society. Some "defects" may be easier to hide than others and they can pass off as able. Others, however, are not so subtle and may cause the person a hard life. Society has grown in a way that it now accepts the disable as normal. There was a time before wheelchair ramps and before that the wheelchair, but now with changes in society's mindset, modern facilities and activities have been adapted to allow that to interact with others. They are becoming "normal" like everyone else.
We cannot change what we are born with, and to blame someone for requiring extra assistance is another entry of its own. Somethings are within our grasp to control. Disability is not just limited to genetic and physical conditions developed from birth or accidents; obesity is also considered to be a disorder. Obese persons may be excluded from facilities and activities just as others who are concerned disability. For example: amusement park rides will size requirements for the visitor's safety. For the safety of themselves and others, they must be excluded for participating in this particular activity.
Most disabilities carry some sort of stigma with them. Obesity presents to others an inside look at his or her lifestyle. Outside observes may think the person is doing something wrong to get into the shape they are in now, and since that kind of lifestyle (one of lethargy and constant eating) is generally frowned upon.
Module 11
In high school there was something white students seemed to want and thought they deserved: White Entertainment Television. I remember thinking, "what's white culture?" Was there some universal link between all white people that I must have missed, growing up outside of their world? So I asked one of them, "why does American television need a White Entertainment Television network?" They replied, "because it's racist to only have one for blacks, Hispanics, etc."
To me personally, the black race in America is a culture of its own. Born from the roots of slavery, they meshed their cultural values into one identity upon their release. Hispanics and "etc" are ethnic groups bordering on racial-ethnic groups. White, however, is purely a race, and unlike the blacks in America, do not possess a universalizing identity (perhaps other than being white). Irish-Americans, Polish-Americans, German-Americans, all of these groups have (or had now that they've become integrated into American culture) their own set of values that may or may not be compatible with the group next to them. So if these groups are all unique in their own ways, what is White Entertainment Television to do about their station's programming? Will they cater to all Europeans; maybe just a select few?
I do not deny that whites all around the world have more privileges than others. This same privilege shares similarities with men coming to power and shaping the world into an androcentric environment that favors them more so than women. But unlike males who used their strength (due to genetics) to create tribes that one day developed into modern day civilizations, Europeans were in the right place at the right time. When other major powers of the time began to wane, it was their turn to fill the position (this shift in power happened at a time when Europe had made major technological advances).
Because of the widespread influence Europe has on the world, white carries with it a connotation of power and prestige. Outside of human society, they are humans like anywhere else.
To me personally, the black race in America is a culture of its own. Born from the roots of slavery, they meshed their cultural values into one identity upon their release. Hispanics and "etc" are ethnic groups bordering on racial-ethnic groups. White, however, is purely a race, and unlike the blacks in America, do not possess a universalizing identity (perhaps other than being white). Irish-Americans, Polish-Americans, German-Americans, all of these groups have (or had now that they've become integrated into American culture) their own set of values that may or may not be compatible with the group next to them. So if these groups are all unique in their own ways, what is White Entertainment Television to do about their station's programming? Will they cater to all Europeans; maybe just a select few?
I do not deny that whites all around the world have more privileges than others. This same privilege shares similarities with men coming to power and shaping the world into an androcentric environment that favors them more so than women. But unlike males who used their strength (due to genetics) to create tribes that one day developed into modern day civilizations, Europeans were in the right place at the right time. When other major powers of the time began to wane, it was their turn to fill the position (this shift in power happened at a time when Europe had made major technological advances).
Because of the widespread influence Europe has on the world, white carries with it a connotation of power and prestige. Outside of human society, they are humans like anywhere else.
Module 11
In high school there was something white students seemed to want and thought they deserved: White Entertainment Television. I remember thinking, "what's white culture?" Was there some universal link between all white people that I must have missed, growing up outside of their influence? So I asked one of them, "why does American television need a White Entertainment Television network?" They replied, "because it's racist to only have one for blacks, Hispanics, etc."
To me personally, the black race in America is a culture of its own. Born from the roots of slavery, they meshed their cultural values into one identity upon their release. Hispanics and "etc" are ethnic groups. White, however, is a race, and unlike the blacks in America, do not possess a universalizing identity (perhaps other than being white). Irish-Americans, Polish-Americans, German-Americans, all of these groups have (or had now that they've become integrated into American culture) their own set of values that may or may not be compatible with the group next to them. So if these groups are all unique in their own ways, what is White Entertainment Television to do about their station's programming? Will they cater to all Europeans; maybe just a select few?
I do not deny that whites all around the world have more privileges than others. This same privilege shares similarities with men coming to power and shaping the world into an androcentric environment that favors them more so than women. But unlike males who used their strength (due to genetics) to create tribes that one day developed into modern day civilizations, Europeans were in the right place at the right time. When other major powers began to wane, it was their turn to fill the position (this shift in power happened at a time when Europe had made major technological advances).
Because of the widespread influence Europe has on the world, white carries with it a connotation of power and prestige. Outside of human society, they are humans like anywhere else.
To me personally, the black race in America is a culture of its own. Born from the roots of slavery, they meshed their cultural values into one identity upon their release. Hispanics and "etc" are ethnic groups. White, however, is a race, and unlike the blacks in America, do not possess a universalizing identity (perhaps other than being white). Irish-Americans, Polish-Americans, German-Americans, all of these groups have (or had now that they've become integrated into American culture) their own set of values that may or may not be compatible with the group next to them. So if these groups are all unique in their own ways, what is White Entertainment Television to do about their station's programming? Will they cater to all Europeans; maybe just a select few?
I do not deny that whites all around the world have more privileges than others. This same privilege shares similarities with men coming to power and shaping the world into an androcentric environment that favors them more so than women. But unlike males who used their strength (due to genetics) to create tribes that one day developed into modern day civilizations, Europeans were in the right place at the right time. When other major powers began to wane, it was their turn to fill the position (this shift in power happened at a time when Europe had made major technological advances).
Because of the widespread influence Europe has on the world, white carries with it a connotation of power and prestige. Outside of human society, they are humans like anywhere else.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Module 10
The privilege presentation made me appreciate my standing in society. While I may not be a middle class white male, I am in a position where I can afford a higher education and decent paying job upon graduation.
Privilege -- advantages people have by virtue of their status or position in society -- reminded me of my favorite between human society and the animal kingdom. No one or no creature gets to determine his or her features at birth. If they had their choice, the world would run rampant with super beings. I can't speak for nature personally, but it seems to operate on a type of organized chaos. As one moves from tier to tier, one is likely to find a decrease in tier elements, but an increase in power. An example in human society:
There are many poor people throughout the world; there are less middle class people than poor people; there are less rich people than middle class and poor people combined.
The apex is the most desired place to be in society. With the exception of people actually making the American Dream come true, most of these individuals gained these rights through birth only.
Privilege -- advantages people have by virtue of their status or position in society -- reminded me of my favorite between human society and the animal kingdom. No one or no creature gets to determine his or her features at birth. If they had their choice, the world would run rampant with super beings. I can't speak for nature personally, but it seems to operate on a type of organized chaos. As one moves from tier to tier, one is likely to find a decrease in tier elements, but an increase in power. An example in human society:
There are many poor people throughout the world; there are less middle class people than poor people; there are less rich people than middle class and poor people combined.
The apex is the most desired place to be in society. With the exception of people actually making the American Dream come true, most of these individuals gained these rights through birth only.
Module 9
Equal partners. On paper, it sounds like a great concept; however, the actual practice of it sounds unlikely.
The purpose of this entry is not to focus on whether or not a man or woman should head a relationship, but if a relationship should have a head. I am under the impression that a relationship is built on compromises, and one built on total collaboration, while another great concept, is too lofty of an idea to see any consistent real world examples. Consider a committee where every member has the same amount of power, and each member is adamant in not changing his or her position on a topic. Standstills like this won't be solved through the power of a vote if there is no majority. In the event of a tie, someone with more power must step and decide and which way the final result will fall, otherwise the committee is left to argue until someone decides to defect to another side.
To me, a relationship is kind of like that committee, if there is no give in either direction, then no problem will ever be solved. In the initial stages of courtship, both parties are likely to understand that compromises need to be made in order to not chase the other away -- being steadfast is likely to end a potential relationship before it actually begins. The scripts each person follows helps guide him or her through the delicate early stages of a relationship and solidify it into something more concrete. Once the two become more confident with the limits of other, they will most likely push the envelope to determine how far they can go without chasing the other away. During this time, the more submissive partner will see his or herself losing leeway on topics he or she may have not been successful at winning before, and as a result, a head emerges.
Ultimately, responsibilities should be proportionately distribute to all members of a relationship. Equal distribution may not occur and would depend on each partner's role. The above is a general guess on how many relationships in America exist; I personally would prefer to think that head changes depending on the situation.
The purpose of this entry is not to focus on whether or not a man or woman should head a relationship, but if a relationship should have a head. I am under the impression that a relationship is built on compromises, and one built on total collaboration, while another great concept, is too lofty of an idea to see any consistent real world examples. Consider a committee where every member has the same amount of power, and each member is adamant in not changing his or her position on a topic. Standstills like this won't be solved through the power of a vote if there is no majority. In the event of a tie, someone with more power must step and decide and which way the final result will fall, otherwise the committee is left to argue until someone decides to defect to another side.
To me, a relationship is kind of like that committee, if there is no give in either direction, then no problem will ever be solved. In the initial stages of courtship, both parties are likely to understand that compromises need to be made in order to not chase the other away -- being steadfast is likely to end a potential relationship before it actually begins. The scripts each person follows helps guide him or her through the delicate early stages of a relationship and solidify it into something more concrete. Once the two become more confident with the limits of other, they will most likely push the envelope to determine how far they can go without chasing the other away. During this time, the more submissive partner will see his or herself losing leeway on topics he or she may have not been successful at winning before, and as a result, a head emerges.
Ultimately, responsibilities should be proportionately distribute to all members of a relationship. Equal distribution may not occur and would depend on each partner's role. The above is a general guess on how many relationships in America exist; I personally would prefer to think that head changes depending on the situation.
Module 8
The media has created (or continues to propagate) the ideal image of men and women. I wrote in an early entry that the attributes that were typically blown out of proportion were those that highlight the reproductive traits of the individual.
Both men and women are subjected to unhealthy routes to obtaining a "desirable" figure. Women in particular are expected to be "thin" and "dainty" and the quickest (and least healthiest) routes include anorexia and bulimia. Men face the opposite and expected to be chiseled and extremely fit. The DSM IV deinfes anorexia nervosa as follows:
1. Refusal to maintain body weight at or above a minimally normal weight for age and height : Weight loss leading to maintenance of body weight <85% of that expected or failure to make expected weight gain during period of growth, leading to body weight less than 85% of that expected.
2. Intense fear of gaining weight or becoming fat, even though under weight.
3. Disturbance in the way in which one's body weight or shape is experienced, undue influence of body weight or shape on self-evaluation, or denial of the seriousness of the current low body weight.
4. The absence of at least three consecutive menstrual cycles (amenorrhea) in women who have had their first menstrual period but have not yet gone through menopause (postmenarcheal, premenopausal females).
As a person who experienced peer pressure throughout his life, I understand why it would be easier to conform to the norm rather than reject it. Unfortunately, the media has a stranglehold of what beauty is, and in a since, it always has. From books and paintings of yesteryear, women have been featured as portraying certain qualities deemed feminine. And although these traits have changed with time, they have been determined by humans. I would like to see humans raised outside of society and see how they determine who they choose as their mates (these tests would be devoid of any products that enhance one's looks).
I think confidence in oneself is the best way to reject the standards of physical appearance.
Both men and women are subjected to unhealthy routes to obtaining a "desirable" figure. Women in particular are expected to be "thin" and "dainty" and the quickest (and least healthiest) routes include anorexia and bulimia. Men face the opposite and expected to be chiseled and extremely fit. The DSM IV deinfes anorexia nervosa as follows:
1. Refusal to maintain body weight at or above a minimally normal weight for age and height : Weight loss leading to maintenance of body weight <85% of that expected or failure to make expected weight gain during period of growth, leading to body weight less than 85% of that expected.
2. Intense fear of gaining weight or becoming fat, even though under weight.
3. Disturbance in the way in which one's body weight or shape is experienced, undue influence of body weight or shape on self-evaluation, or denial of the seriousness of the current low body weight.
4. The absence of at least three consecutive menstrual cycles (amenorrhea) in women who have had their first menstrual period but have not yet gone through menopause (postmenarcheal, premenopausal females).
As a person who experienced peer pressure throughout his life, I understand why it would be easier to conform to the norm rather than reject it. Unfortunately, the media has a stranglehold of what beauty is, and in a since, it always has. From books and paintings of yesteryear, women have been featured as portraying certain qualities deemed feminine. And although these traits have changed with time, they have been determined by humans. I would like to see humans raised outside of society and see how they determine who they choose as their mates (these tests would be devoid of any products that enhance one's looks).
I think confidence in oneself is the best way to reject the standards of physical appearance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
