It's that time of the year again: class registration.
It's the time counselors hate, students hate, and teachers hate. Counselors don't like those pesky students bothering them from doing whatever the heck it is they do. Students hate it because it means looking ahead to the future which is just completely asinine and why would we want to do that we have everything going just fine now can't we just do it later. Then teachers hate it because they have to take time out of teaching to explain the choices for next year, sign papers about which classes students are going to take, and somehow politely tell that one kid that he (or she) is stupid for the class they want to take.
But it has to be done! So we toil through it year after year.
And each year, we hear the same spiel each year.
TAKE AP CLASSES
And I would have no problem with that, except that they tell every student to do so.
I get it. You want to be the highest ranked in the state for AP classes taken. But you don't seem to understand what you're doing by encouraging even the dumber kids (no offense to any of you) to take these "advanced placement" classes.
The same thing is currently happening with our colleges too. Overall, we're lowering our standards, in order to make numbers look better, make kids feel better about themselves because they can take "smart kid" classes, and make parents happy that their kid doesn't look dumb as shit. But what about those kids who are smart enough to take the supposedly college level courses in their high school years?
Now, we're able to take actual college courses in our junior and senior years of high school. Middle schoolers are coming to the high school to take classes too. Wait, wait waitwaitwait. What the hell is the point of grades if you're just going to let kids skip around willy-nilly whenever they feel like? Why don't we all just do what they did in the movie "Accepted" and let kids create their own classes? Anyone feel like taking "daydreaming 101?"
But honestly, by dropping the whole level of classes, you're lowering the standards and limiting the students who want to excel. We can see this in how it's practically required now to go to a college for four years, or else you won't get a job that isn't flipping burgers. Soon a PhD is going to be basic level. And is that really what we want? Do we want our children signing away eight years of their lives, just so they can support their family? People who went to college used to be considered the brilliant. Now, if you don't go to college, you might as well buy some wife beaters and invest in a trailer, because that's all anyone expects you to amount to. I'm not saying that you will, but society will try its best to keep you there, flat on your ass in the dirt.
So what's my message? I guess it's this: Don't take AP classes. You're proud you made a GPA of 3.00 last term? Great, now how about you try taking some classes that are more appropriate for your level. By trying to equal out everyone, we're lowering so many brilliant minds who could go on to do great things. Don't let "excellence" become mediocre.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
An apple a day keeps the doctor away
But uh, you actually have to eat more than that. You know, get your protein and other daily nutrients.
Recently, in my language arts class, we've been watching a documentary called "Miss Representation." While talking about the media setting unrealistic body images for girls and women, they mentioned that 65% of women and girls in the U.S. have an eating disorder. This really made me question it. Would over half the population of the United States have an eating disorder, when womenshealth.gov also reports that as of 2007, over 60% of women in the U.S. are overweight? I kind of doubt that our entire demographic could shift within six years. And it hasn't. The Weight-control Information Network reported that in 2009-2010, 64% of women were overweight or obese.
The main questions that were brought to my mind were involving both ends of the spectrum then. What was considered an "eating disorder?" And what qualifies someone as overweight?
Firstly though, I fact checked the 65% statistic that the documentary gave me. And it was true. According to News Medical, 65% of women in the U.S. do have an eating disorder. But reading that article, you can see there are links for the words "eating disorder." Following that link, it takes you to a page titled "What is an Eating Disorder?" And according to Dr. Ananya Mandal, MD, an eating disorder can be someone eating too little or too much. Wait, so why would "Miss Representation" say that 65% of women have an eating disorder? Oh right, to make their case look better. Much of that 65% we could assume is simply eating unhealthily, such as overeating.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defined overweight, saying that "Overweight and obesity are both labels for ranges of weight that are greater than what is generally considered healthy for a given height." They also state that BMI (body mass index) also helps determine someone's physical state, by using height and weight to determine their amount of body fat. While that often cannot be applied to some people, such as athletes, it is often a fairly accurate measure of a person's body fat.
So might I be interpreting these eating disorder statistics wrong? I suppose. Science Daily reported the same 65% statistic, along with an extra 10% of women who report consistent symptoms of disorders like bulimia and anorexia. So wait. What was the 65%? Overall, not much of this adds up. They also say that 67% of women are trying to lose weight. Well anyone can say that. I'm trying to lose weight, I've been skipping that bag of chips at lunch! "53% of of dieters are already at a healthy weight and are still trying to lose weight." Wait, this one doesn't say women. I know that's jumping to a huge conclusion, but it's a little suspicious. And it doesn't say it'd be unhealthy for those dieters to lose weight. You may want to be more healthy, gain more muscle, whatever. Then it says that 13% of women (I assume women anyway) smoke to lose weight. Hang on, did I miss the memo? Does this is actually a good idea? I was a little lost in all these statistics,
So I decided to go straight to the source. This 65% business came from a survey taken by Self magazine. Self magazine is a magazine for women that features tips on health, beauty, fitness, nutrition, and happiness. Now this information's starting to make more sense. Let's think for a second? Who subscribes to a fitness magazine? Healthy people who are happy with their bodies? Honestly, they're not usually the ones to do so. So looking at the actual article, something struck me as hugely disproving of this 65% statistic. "The online SELF survey garnered responses from 4,000 women ages 25 to 45..." HOLD THE PHONE. Since when is 4,000 women with only a twenty year age frame a good enough sample size to apply the statistic to the entire United States? And an online survey nonetheless, from a health magazine website?
So in conclusion, folks, I encourage you to always doubt what you are told. Though the words might be true, are they being presented in a way that is meant to imply something different? "Miss Representation" used a fact that is apparently widely accepted. But from a few simple Google searches and a little bit of reading, I'm doubting the way they presented it. And it will also make me doubt any other statistics they try to show me. They weren't lying, but they sure weren't telling the truth.
Recently, in my language arts class, we've been watching a documentary called "Miss Representation." While talking about the media setting unrealistic body images for girls and women, they mentioned that 65% of women and girls in the U.S. have an eating disorder. This really made me question it. Would over half the population of the United States have an eating disorder, when womenshealth.gov also reports that as of 2007, over 60% of women in the U.S. are overweight? I kind of doubt that our entire demographic could shift within six years. And it hasn't. The Weight-control Information Network reported that in 2009-2010, 64% of women were overweight or obese.
The main questions that were brought to my mind were involving both ends of the spectrum then. What was considered an "eating disorder?" And what qualifies someone as overweight?
Firstly though, I fact checked the 65% statistic that the documentary gave me. And it was true. According to News Medical, 65% of women in the U.S. do have an eating disorder. But reading that article, you can see there are links for the words "eating disorder." Following that link, it takes you to a page titled "What is an Eating Disorder?" And according to Dr. Ananya Mandal, MD, an eating disorder can be someone eating too little or too much. Wait, so why would "Miss Representation" say that 65% of women have an eating disorder? Oh right, to make their case look better. Much of that 65% we could assume is simply eating unhealthily, such as overeating.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defined overweight, saying that "Overweight and obesity are both labels for ranges of weight that are greater than what is generally considered healthy for a given height." They also state that BMI (body mass index) also helps determine someone's physical state, by using height and weight to determine their amount of body fat. While that often cannot be applied to some people, such as athletes, it is often a fairly accurate measure of a person's body fat.
So might I be interpreting these eating disorder statistics wrong? I suppose. Science Daily reported the same 65% statistic, along with an extra 10% of women who report consistent symptoms of disorders like bulimia and anorexia. So wait. What was the 65%? Overall, not much of this adds up. They also say that 67% of women are trying to lose weight. Well anyone can say that. I'm trying to lose weight, I've been skipping that bag of chips at lunch! "53% of of dieters are already at a healthy weight and are still trying to lose weight." Wait, this one doesn't say women. I know that's jumping to a huge conclusion, but it's a little suspicious. And it doesn't say it'd be unhealthy for those dieters to lose weight. You may want to be more healthy, gain more muscle, whatever. Then it says that 13% of women (I assume women anyway) smoke to lose weight. Hang on, did I miss the memo? Does this is actually a good idea? I was a little lost in all these statistics,
So I decided to go straight to the source. This 65% business came from a survey taken by Self magazine. Self magazine is a magazine for women that features tips on health, beauty, fitness, nutrition, and happiness. Now this information's starting to make more sense. Let's think for a second? Who subscribes to a fitness magazine? Healthy people who are happy with their bodies? Honestly, they're not usually the ones to do so. So looking at the actual article, something struck me as hugely disproving of this 65% statistic. "The online SELF survey garnered responses from 4,000 women ages 25 to 45..." HOLD THE PHONE. Since when is 4,000 women with only a twenty year age frame a good enough sample size to apply the statistic to the entire United States? And an online survey nonetheless, from a health magazine website?
So in conclusion, folks, I encourage you to always doubt what you are told. Though the words might be true, are they being presented in a way that is meant to imply something different? "Miss Representation" used a fact that is apparently widely accepted. But from a few simple Google searches and a little bit of reading, I'm doubting the way they presented it. And it will also make me doubt any other statistics they try to show me. They weren't lying, but they sure weren't telling the truth.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
""Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings" Response" Response
Not too long ago, (just this past Sunday, to be exact,) I wrote a post titled "Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings," essentially bashing feminism. My good friend then wrote a response to it, which is a fantastic read and I would encourage you to read. However, I must offer my rebuttal. Hopefully, this post will be of a higher quality than my first one, as I was rushed and decided to be lazy and not really get any resources behind my arguments.
Let me first start by saying that I really appreciate the response. It makes a lot of good points, especially about the muted group theory.
But it implied that I based my argument around that. I did not. I simply used it as an example of how women still being preached as an oppressed group. Which they are not. (And yeah, it was really confusing. I just kinda thought it was ridiculously worded and I didn't like it... (Readers bias I guess...))
I live in America. America is a capitalist country. We revolve around money. Y'all know that. So money means a lot to us, and when we think we aren't getting our fair share of the dough, we get angry. So as women in America are essentially equal to American men, we notice a slight difference in pay. And this angers women. So most people simply jump to the conclusion that it's the difference in gender that causes the difference in pay. And essentially, they are right. But you have to look at the facts, not the bottom line.
Women are different creatures from men. We get to give birth to children, which I have heard is an amazing and awful experience. It's our joy or our burden to bear in society. Not that that's the only thing we're good for; I'm by no stretch of the imagination saying that. But we women are the only ones who can give birth to children. We are natural caretakers. And yes, time off from work is necessary. Sure, maternity leave laws are a problem in America, but remember, we're all about money. "Are you saying that simply because women are having babies they deserve to be paid less?" Goodness no, but I'm saying that's the way it works. But by paying an employee who is not showing up for work and doing any work, a company or business loses money. The economy sucks here and the last thing an employer wants to do is lose money. The government is largely out to protect the corporation, not the individual. Once again, I'm not saying it's right, but if a man took 12 weeks off to raise his child, he wouldn't be paid either. It's up to the family to decide who raises the children, and in many families, that role falls to the woman. There is nothing wrong with this. Their would be nothing wrong with a man doing it either.
Another point (somehow missed in the response) is that women work fewer hours, just in general. In this Wall Street Journal article written by Kay Hymowitz, she states that "In 2007, 25% of men working full-time jobs had workweeks of 41 or more hours, compared with 14% of female full-time workers." When paid on an hourly basis, this makes a huge difference. Later on, the article says, "Today, childless 20-something women do earn more than their male peers. But most are likely to cut back their hours after they have kids, giving men the hours, and income, advantage." Again, this is their choice. (I understand there are some cases where they are not given the choice. This is by no means okay and should be considered a dangerous relationship.)
"Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, it's illegal to fire someone for simply being pregnant. But it's not illegal for them to fire people for being unable to do their jobs---even though with simple adjustments women could do their job fine and with fewer health risks." I get it's not fair. But once again, America is about money. And, did you know, in Iowa, we have a law that says an employer can fire you without reason? That is besides sex, race, color, national origin, religion, age, pregnancy or physical or mental disability. But if your employer plain doesn't like you, they can just fire you. No reason needed. The world just isn't fair.
"... the most basic of feminism is that women--just as the quote said---are human beings." This statement makes me upset. To believe we need a movement or ideology to assert that women are human beings, I feel, just emphasizes the very resistance we, even as females, have to let go of the archaic idea that nowadays women are still not viewed as human beings. Once we stop acknowledging that a difference exists, that difference is apt to disappear. It's not guaranteed that it will, but it's much more likely. For example, you know those people who are extreme "anti-racists" or "pro-gay" or something like that? They go around saying things like, "Oh yeah, I'm friends with like fifty African-Americans/Asians/Indians/Slovaks/Antarcticans," as if firstly that they actually are, and secondly that makes them somehow a better person than those who aren't what they claim to be. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” That's how it needs to be. The first thing you judge someone by should not be their race, their religion, their sexual orientation, or their gender. And by pointing out that a difference between them, you are only helping keep the problem around longer.
So no, feminism is not a "moot point," but I think we rely too much on it. We may argue that there are fewer women in higher positions, but how many women actually apply for those positions? And it's clearly possible to both raise a family and have a high position, as Licia Ronzulli, Italian representative at the European Parliament, shows us. She takes her now two-year-old daughter to work with her daily, and has been doing so since she was a baby. It may be society and the media sending a message to young girls that they shouldn't hold positions of power, but is there actually anything stopping them from reaching high and attaining such goals? Not really. It may be more difficult than for a man, but it is possible. Determination and qualifications is all a woman really needs nowadays.
I'll just finish by saying this: women, be proud of who you are. You are a woman, and not a man. You should take pride in this fact, but remember, you are not worth any less than a man. The only thing holding you back is yourself.
Let me first start by saying that I really appreciate the response. It makes a lot of good points, especially about the muted group theory.
But it implied that I based my argument around that. I did not. I simply used it as an example of how women still being preached as an oppressed group. Which they are not. (And yeah, it was really confusing. I just kinda thought it was ridiculously worded and I didn't like it... (Readers bias I guess...))
I live in America. America is a capitalist country. We revolve around money. Y'all know that. So money means a lot to us, and when we think we aren't getting our fair share of the dough, we get angry. So as women in America are essentially equal to American men, we notice a slight difference in pay. And this angers women. So most people simply jump to the conclusion that it's the difference in gender that causes the difference in pay. And essentially, they are right. But you have to look at the facts, not the bottom line.
Women are different creatures from men. We get to give birth to children, which I have heard is an amazing and awful experience. It's our joy or our burden to bear in society. Not that that's the only thing we're good for; I'm by no stretch of the imagination saying that. But we women are the only ones who can give birth to children. We are natural caretakers. And yes, time off from work is necessary. Sure, maternity leave laws are a problem in America, but remember, we're all about money. "Are you saying that simply because women are having babies they deserve to be paid less?" Goodness no, but I'm saying that's the way it works. But by paying an employee who is not showing up for work and doing any work, a company or business loses money. The economy sucks here and the last thing an employer wants to do is lose money. The government is largely out to protect the corporation, not the individual. Once again, I'm not saying it's right, but if a man took 12 weeks off to raise his child, he wouldn't be paid either. It's up to the family to decide who raises the children, and in many families, that role falls to the woman. There is nothing wrong with this. Their would be nothing wrong with a man doing it either.
Another point (somehow missed in the response) is that women work fewer hours, just in general. In this Wall Street Journal article written by Kay Hymowitz, she states that "In 2007, 25% of men working full-time jobs had workweeks of 41 or more hours, compared with 14% of female full-time workers." When paid on an hourly basis, this makes a huge difference. Later on, the article says, "Today, childless 20-something women do earn more than their male peers. But most are likely to cut back their hours after they have kids, giving men the hours, and income, advantage." Again, this is their choice. (I understand there are some cases where they are not given the choice. This is by no means okay and should be considered a dangerous relationship.)
"Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, it's illegal to fire someone for simply being pregnant. But it's not illegal for them to fire people for being unable to do their jobs---even though with simple adjustments women could do their job fine and with fewer health risks." I get it's not fair. But once again, America is about money. And, did you know, in Iowa, we have a law that says an employer can fire you without reason? That is besides sex, race, color, national origin, religion, age, pregnancy or physical or mental disability. But if your employer plain doesn't like you, they can just fire you. No reason needed. The world just isn't fair.
"... the most basic of feminism is that women--just as the quote said---are human beings." This statement makes me upset. To believe we need a movement or ideology to assert that women are human beings, I feel, just emphasizes the very resistance we, even as females, have to let go of the archaic idea that nowadays women are still not viewed as human beings. Once we stop acknowledging that a difference exists, that difference is apt to disappear. It's not guaranteed that it will, but it's much more likely. For example, you know those people who are extreme "anti-racists" or "pro-gay" or something like that? They go around saying things like, "Oh yeah, I'm friends with like fifty African-Americans/Asians/Indians/Slovaks/Antarcticans," as if firstly that they actually are, and secondly that makes them somehow a better person than those who aren't what they claim to be. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” That's how it needs to be. The first thing you judge someone by should not be their race, their religion, their sexual orientation, or their gender. And by pointing out that a difference between them, you are only helping keep the problem around longer.
So no, feminism is not a "moot point," but I think we rely too much on it. We may argue that there are fewer women in higher positions, but how many women actually apply for those positions? And it's clearly possible to both raise a family and have a high position, as Licia Ronzulli, Italian representative at the European Parliament, shows us. She takes her now two-year-old daughter to work with her daily, and has been doing so since she was a baby. It may be society and the media sending a message to young girls that they shouldn't hold positions of power, but is there actually anything stopping them from reaching high and attaining such goals? Not really. It may be more difficult than for a man, but it is possible. Determination and qualifications is all a woman really needs nowadays.
I'll just finish by saying this: women, be proud of who you are. You are a woman, and not a man. You should take pride in this fact, but remember, you are not worth any less than a man. The only thing holding you back is yourself.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
I hate people who hate people
Get it, I was being hypocritical there? (kind of)
But seriously. I'm not sure how well you'll be able to connect to this, but here I go.
I am a hypocrite. I cannot stand liars. I can deal with a lot. I'll deal with cheating, being rude, clubbing baby seals, whatever. But if you lie about something, that will just piss me off to no end.
I don't really know why. You'd think that other stuff should bug me more. But it doesn't, (okay except the clubbing baby seals part.) I'll be more hurt by you being dishonest than if you just tell me the truth that will hurt me for sure. It's especially bad if I hear the truth from someone besides the one who lied to me. I suppose that's true for most people but in my world, that would be on par with treason. Especially if we're close friends. I'll tell you the truth and I'll expect the truth back.
But here's where I turn hypocritical. I say I'll tell you the truth, right? But I have trouble with that. Especially with my parents, unfortunately. It's not that I don't want to tell them. It's just that so often, if I tell them the truth, they'll either ridicule me or restrict my privileges, whether their actions are justified or not. And as a young, rebellious teenager, I don't like that one bit. I want my freedom, and I want it in whole. But that doesn't justify my actions one bit. I still say I hate liars, despite being one myself.
I don't like it. I'm sure no one does. But I will bet that a majority of people are like this. We hate what we are when we see it in other people. I'm sure there's some sort of fancy-dancy psychological reasoning behind it. But it is what it is. It's so hard to learn to forgive others for their actions, despite knowing that we are exactly like them. We may try to excuse ourselves, saying our actions or modivations to do the hated action were justified, it was the only logical response. I'm sure that's some sort of logical fallacy. But I would also bet that it's human nature to act that way.
So if you're in the same position as me, don't just sit around. Do something to change it. Because while it might be natural to act one way, it's not unnatural to change your way of thinking or your actions. Don't lose hope, little buddy. Fight on, fight on.
(hippocritical^)
I am a hypocrite. I cannot stand liars. I can deal with a lot. I'll deal with cheating, being rude, clubbing baby seals, whatever. But if you lie about something, that will just piss me off to no end.
I don't really know why. You'd think that other stuff should bug me more. But it doesn't, (okay except the clubbing baby seals part.) I'll be more hurt by you being dishonest than if you just tell me the truth that will hurt me for sure. It's especially bad if I hear the truth from someone besides the one who lied to me. I suppose that's true for most people but in my world, that would be on par with treason. Especially if we're close friends. I'll tell you the truth and I'll expect the truth back.
But here's where I turn hypocritical. I say I'll tell you the truth, right? But I have trouble with that. Especially with my parents, unfortunately. It's not that I don't want to tell them. It's just that so often, if I tell them the truth, they'll either ridicule me or restrict my privileges, whether their actions are justified or not. And as a young, rebellious teenager, I don't like that one bit. I want my freedom, and I want it in whole. But that doesn't justify my actions one bit. I still say I hate liars, despite being one myself.
I don't like it. I'm sure no one does. But I will bet that a majority of people are like this. We hate what we are when we see it in other people. I'm sure there's some sort of fancy-dancy psychological reasoning behind it. But it is what it is. It's so hard to learn to forgive others for their actions, despite knowing that we are exactly like them. We may try to excuse ourselves, saying our actions or modivations to do the hated action were justified, it was the only logical response. I'm sure that's some sort of logical fallacy. But I would also bet that it's human nature to act that way.
So if you're in the same position as me, don't just sit around. Do something to change it. Because while it might be natural to act one way, it's not unnatural to change your way of thinking or your actions. Don't lose hope, little buddy. Fight on, fight on.
Music makes the world go 'round
I've already talked once about how the weather can affect your mood. Now, I'd like to talk about how music can have an impact on how you are feeling.
If you don't know what I'm talking about now, you must be living under a rock, by yourself, in the middle of Antarctica. Because even the Amish would understand what I mean. Music changes your mood. And your mood determines the music you listen to.
Just think back to a rainy day, when you were driving down the street, alone in your car. You were already in a depressed-ish mood (pst, due to the weather) and now you've got some heartbreak, tear jerker, my-life-is-awful music on. It's not helping to improve your mood, to say, but listening to happy music would make you sick right then. So you crank those tunes and sing your little heart out.
Then there's the days when you are just ready to rock out. You turn up your loudest, most upbeat rock/pop/country/whateverthehellyoulistento music and you sing loud and dance like an idiot, because right then, you're in the best mood and nothing can bring you down.
You know what I'm talkin' 'bout.
And when you're in a mood, you have to have music playing. Silence does nothing for you. And guess what? There's science behind that. That's right. SCIENCE. According to Your Dictionary, music helps to release endorphins that can calm and relax you. Music can also increase serotonin levels which helps to calm your brain itself and in general, make you feel better. There has even been research saying that music can help improve a student's academic performance. Of course, it has to be the right music. No one became more intelligent by listening to Nicki Minaj or Lil Wayne.
My friend, itszappy, has an interesting take on music as well. She talks about how she chooses different music based on how she feels and she also mentions how depending on what she's doing, music will affect her in different ways. Lastly, she just talks about what music is. She talks about how it really is art, and how it does stuff that no other thing can do.
So remember, the next time you're feeling crappy, or are in a crummy mood, try listening to some music. If you want to concentrate better on your homework, try turning on some classical music. Or if you just want to feel good, pump up the tunes. One way or another, they're going to affect you.
If you don't know what I'm talking about now, you must be living under a rock, by yourself, in the middle of Antarctica. Because even the Amish would understand what I mean. Music changes your mood. And your mood determines the music you listen to.
Just think back to a rainy day, when you were driving down the street, alone in your car. You were already in a depressed-ish mood (pst, due to the weather) and now you've got some heartbreak, tear jerker, my-life-is-awful music on. It's not helping to improve your mood, to say, but listening to happy music would make you sick right then. So you crank those tunes and sing your little heart out.
Then there's the days when you are just ready to rock out. You turn up your loudest, most upbeat rock/pop/country/whateverthehellyoulistento music and you sing loud and dance like an idiot, because right then, you're in the best mood and nothing can bring you down.
You know what I'm talkin' 'bout.
And when you're in a mood, you have to have music playing. Silence does nothing for you. And guess what? There's science behind that. That's right. SCIENCE. According to Your Dictionary, music helps to release endorphins that can calm and relax you. Music can also increase serotonin levels which helps to calm your brain itself and in general, make you feel better. There has even been research saying that music can help improve a student's academic performance. Of course, it has to be the right music. No one became more intelligent by listening to Nicki Minaj or Lil Wayne.
My friend, itszappy, has an interesting take on music as well. She talks about how she chooses different music based on how she feels and she also mentions how depending on what she's doing, music will affect her in different ways. Lastly, she just talks about what music is. She talks about how it really is art, and how it does stuff that no other thing can do.
So remember, the next time you're feeling crappy, or are in a crummy mood, try listening to some music. If you want to concentrate better on your homework, try turning on some classical music. Or if you just want to feel good, pump up the tunes. One way or another, they're going to affect you.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings
Oh would you just shut up, Ms. Cheris Kramarae. Don't be so melodramatic. Seriously.
The quote from Ms. Kramarae is exactly why I hate feminism. Well, technically I don't, but I suppose our culture's view of feminism is a bit distorted. The feminism I hate is probably more considered "radical feminism." These women seem to still think women are as suppressed as they were in times when it was okay to beat your wife.
Ms. Kramarae, a professor at the Center for the Study of Women in Society at the University of Oregon, is the main theorist of something called the "muted group theory." And while the facts behind it are genuine, the way those facts are used infuriate me. It is essentially stating that women (and minorities) have less voice in the world. Ms. Kramarae essentially says that since men created language, they have more control over language and thus women. I find this a very medieval ideal.
Sure, you may argue that women are still repressed in today's day. But are they really?
One argument is the pay difference between the average man and woman. A CNN article states that women on average make 82 cents for every dollar earned by a man. But let's think about this logically. Is this unjust treatment? Or should we actually look at the statistics behind the facts? Firstly, you can simply look at the careers women choose to go into. Not many women go into engineering nowadays, (though that is slowly changing,) and the jobs women tend to go toward are generally lower paying. Are they lower paying because females usually fill those positions? Um, no. Females kind of generally tend to do this thing called "having babies." And that generally requires taking time off. Sure, there's maternity leave, but women often want to spend longer with their children. So thus they take more days off. Women also tend to work less hours than men, as stated in the CNN article. Overall, that argument falls a little flat.
Madonna has a quote that can help explain the next argument. She said, "I'm tough, I'm ambitious, and I know exactly what I want. If that makes me a bitch, okay.” With this mentality, the idea is professed that women are not allowed to voice their opinions without criticism. Okay, seriously. For every woman that's true for, there's another man in the exact same position. Men can be called "assholes," "dicks," or "douchebags" for stating their own opinions. This is a two way street, sweetheart.
Largely, what bugs me about the feminism we hear about these days is their extreme anti-men stance. They often portray men as evil, which as a whole, they are not. Their main goal in life is not to oppress women, believe it or not. Just as there are men who do horrible things, there are also women who do horrible things. The scale does not tip largely in favor of one gender in this case. One quote that demonstrates that brings us down to earth on that is from a male himself. Timothy Leary said, "Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition." And honestly, why should you even try to match up to a male if a female? We are very different creatures, despite being the same species. We have different limitations, strengths, and tendencies. We should not hold ourselves to the same standards.
So I get feminism. Women should be proud of who they are, and should embrace their womanly-ness, and should want equality with men. But aren't we already there? Generally, a woman just needs to be determined and have the drive to reach her goal and she can do it. As Roseanne Barr said, "The thing women have yet to learn is nobody gives you power. You have to take it."
The quote from Ms. Kramarae is exactly why I hate feminism. Well, technically I don't, but I suppose our culture's view of feminism is a bit distorted. The feminism I hate is probably more considered "radical feminism." These women seem to still think women are as suppressed as they were in times when it was okay to beat your wife.
Ms. Kramarae, a professor at the Center for the Study of Women in Society at the University of Oregon, is the main theorist of something called the "muted group theory." And while the facts behind it are genuine, the way those facts are used infuriate me. It is essentially stating that women (and minorities) have less voice in the world. Ms. Kramarae essentially says that since men created language, they have more control over language and thus women. I find this a very medieval ideal.
Sure, you may argue that women are still repressed in today's day. But are they really?
One argument is the pay difference between the average man and woman. A CNN article states that women on average make 82 cents for every dollar earned by a man. But let's think about this logically. Is this unjust treatment? Or should we actually look at the statistics behind the facts? Firstly, you can simply look at the careers women choose to go into. Not many women go into engineering nowadays, (though that is slowly changing,) and the jobs women tend to go toward are generally lower paying. Are they lower paying because females usually fill those positions? Um, no. Females kind of generally tend to do this thing called "having babies." And that generally requires taking time off. Sure, there's maternity leave, but women often want to spend longer with their children. So thus they take more days off. Women also tend to work less hours than men, as stated in the CNN article. Overall, that argument falls a little flat.
Madonna has a quote that can help explain the next argument. She said, "I'm tough, I'm ambitious, and I know exactly what I want. If that makes me a bitch, okay.” With this mentality, the idea is professed that women are not allowed to voice their opinions without criticism. Okay, seriously. For every woman that's true for, there's another man in the exact same position. Men can be called "assholes," "dicks," or "douchebags" for stating their own opinions. This is a two way street, sweetheart.
Largely, what bugs me about the feminism we hear about these days is their extreme anti-men stance. They often portray men as evil, which as a whole, they are not. Their main goal in life is not to oppress women, believe it or not. Just as there are men who do horrible things, there are also women who do horrible things. The scale does not tip largely in favor of one gender in this case. One quote that demonstrates that brings us down to earth on that is from a male himself. Timothy Leary said, "Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition." And honestly, why should you even try to match up to a male if a female? We are very different creatures, despite being the same species. We have different limitations, strengths, and tendencies. We should not hold ourselves to the same standards.
So I get feminism. Women should be proud of who they are, and should embrace their womanly-ness, and should want equality with men. But aren't we already there? Generally, a woman just needs to be determined and have the drive to reach her goal and she can do it. As Roseanne Barr said, "The thing women have yet to learn is nobody gives you power. You have to take it."
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Our house, in the middle of our street
A lot of responsibility comes with growing up. You have to buy your own food, pay your own bills, wash your own laundry, and *GASP* get a job. As kids, we often look forward to being a grown-up, as we believe it will give us more freedom. And it does give us more freedom, in a way. The thing is, when we're kids, we have time and energy, but no freedom. When seniors, we have time and freedom, but no energy. And when adults, we have energy and freedom, but no time. It's quite the dilemma.
And I'm trying to not rush into adulthood. But I've been contemplating taking on one huge part of growing up. That is to buy a house.
I know, it kind of sounds ridiculous. But hey, it's the American dream. And it's largely achievable.
I've got it all figured. I'll need to find another job, which is okay, I waste a lot of my time as it is anyway. Once I get that, I can cover all the needed expenses: utilities, taxes, insurance, and of course the mortgage payments.
Sure, the house is nowhere near perfect. It needs a little tlc. But I'm okay with that. It's just another aspect I'm excited for. To get my hands dirty, do some real work, build some muscle by working hard; I'd love to do that. I could get good experience at fixing stuff, along with the budget balancing I'm going to have to do.
So while it's not looking likely, I'm still really looking forward to this. The house I found is out in the country, which is one of my life goals. I've always loved the country, as my grandparents used to own a farm and live out there by it. I loved going there, with it's quiet and dark nights. In the cities, we have so much light and noise pollution. But in the country, you can hear the world and see the stars. I just love it. So I'll keep optimistic and cross my fingers, hoping to cross this thing off my bucket list.
And I'm trying to not rush into adulthood. But I've been contemplating taking on one huge part of growing up. That is to buy a house.
I know, it kind of sounds ridiculous. But hey, it's the American dream. And it's largely achievable.
I've got it all figured. I'll need to find another job, which is okay, I waste a lot of my time as it is anyway. Once I get that, I can cover all the needed expenses: utilities, taxes, insurance, and of course the mortgage payments.
Sure, the house is nowhere near perfect. It needs a little tlc. But I'm okay with that. It's just another aspect I'm excited for. To get my hands dirty, do some real work, build some muscle by working hard; I'd love to do that. I could get good experience at fixing stuff, along with the budget balancing I'm going to have to do.
So while it's not looking likely, I'm still really looking forward to this. The house I found is out in the country, which is one of my life goals. I've always loved the country, as my grandparents used to own a farm and live out there by it. I loved going there, with it's quiet and dark nights. In the cities, we have so much light and noise pollution. But in the country, you can hear the world and see the stars. I just love it. So I'll keep optimistic and cross my fingers, hoping to cross this thing off my bucket list.
Which would you choose?
It's something we've all thought about, ever since we were young. The question's been asked many times, by friends, by teachers on busywork "assignments." And it's fun to think about. If you could have any superpower, what would it be? There are so many to choose from, and so difficult to narrow the choice down to one.
- Invisibility- This is always a popular choice. I mean why wouldn't you want it? You could go anywhere undetected. You could break into banks and steal money. You could sneak out to the Hollywood sign. You could even sneak into the opposite gender locker room, as we all know most guys would. It would be pretty sweet, in general.
- Super speed- Think Dash in the Disney movie The Incredibles. We all know it'd be awesome to be able to run so fast that you can run across water. You could get so many places so much quicker. And you could compete, that wouldn't be considered cheating, right?
- Super strength- Same as super speed, you could use it for competing. But everyday life would just be easier too. No need to ask someone to open that drink bottle or jar for you anymore. Need to rearrange your room? No problem, you can do it yourself. You would be able to get all those groceries in one trip. Just imagine the feeling of accomplishment.
- Flying- This could mean superman-esque, with just some sort of magic powering your flying, or even with wings. Both would be awesome. It's always been mans dream to fly, and we're on our way to achieving that, with planes, and skydiving, and jet-packs. But to just have the pure and simple ability to fly would be amazing.
- Mind reading- This is the last major superpower I can think of. And in my opinion, the best. So often, I think the world would just be easier if I knew what people were thinking. I guess some of it could be considered cheating, like reading your teacher's mind for the answers. But other times it would be honestly beneficial. You could read politician's minds. You could read those on trial, their minds. You could even read your parents minds to know what they were going to ask you to do, do it before, and tadaa! Perfect child status achieved. How great would that be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)