Oppression

I would like to think that the US is truly a meritocracy. However, I really can't believe that it is. I mean no matter what some inner city kids do, no matter how hard they try in life, there are some things that are most likely going to be out of reach for them. And not only that, but I feel as though they are given an unfair chance because of the oppressed group they have been born into. Like Celia said in class, there has been a correlation between the amount of books in your house and how successful you become in life. I think that, not only inner city kids, but kids in other countries that may move here are at a distinct disadvantage. This is something that they are never going to be able to get themselves out of. People can't just choose where they are going to be born, or who they are going to be born too. And so oppression lives on.

However, I would like to agree with Amidia in the area of progression. Celia said that progression isn't really happening. I can't help but go against that. I mean, I've said it before in one of my blogs, but President Lincoln, the man that freed the slaves, the most progressive man of his time said that although he thinks there shouldn't be slavery, a black man could never be equal to a white man. I mean he would be an extremely racist man today. I sort of view progression as like a stock market graph. You know like with periods of a rise of progression, with little stints of regression, then more progression. Is it always going in the right progression? No. But I would have to say that the overall trend is an upward slope.

Cell Phone commercial today!!!!

Not gonna lie..... Celia your class is really starting to change the way I look at commercials and everything really! Haha. Anyways I was watching college football today and a phone commercial came on. This is almost word for word what it said:

"This can, schedule dinner, take the kids to practice, allow for enough time to clean, can surf the internet for recipes, and can make sure the kids are all where they are supposed to do... In other words, MOM"

I could not help but laugh at this statement. Before I took this class, there wouldn't have been anything wrong with this commercial from my point of view. But now that I've been through it, I just really started laughing. There is literally nothing in any of those statements that should make anyone differentiate between Mom or Dad. Every single thing in there not only can be done by both parents, but in my opinion should be done by both parents.

Roles in Relationships

I think a lot has to be said from the presentation the other day. It was very interesting and I thought it was very well done! Something that I felt needed pointed out was the fact that our ideals today are influenced by the traditional family thought. Its odd that most women in our class still felt like they would like to do the traditional jobs of the women, and same with the men. Is it because of the fact that they really would rather do those jobs, or is it just that women and men have had their jobs in the household for so long, that they would rather still stay in the norm, without even realizing it??

Another thing is the talk we had about the fact that women still want nice things done for them. Same goes for guys!! We still like little things, or big things of course, that women do for us all the time! I don't really think that has much to do with the traditional vs. egalitarian views.

Sex Ed

I agreed with everything talked about today in class so I don't really have much to discuss about the class itself. However, I think I do have some interesting reasons as to why the sex ed, and the education system in general is the way it is and have a good idea of when it will be changed.

First of all, I think it is ridiculous that anywhere would try to teach abstinence only. It's like they are refusing to believe there are other things going on in the world. I would really consider this similar to teaching creation only and not ever even talking about evolution. It's the exact same thing. Today, thank goodness, we are presented with the evolution side of the argument in school (and in some cases the creationist argument too) and we are obviously taught creation at religious meetings, but at least we are given a choice between the two. I mean every teacher seems to lean one way or the other, but we have the choice. The way abstinence is being taught today, there is no choice even to learn! It's being shown to many students across the nation that abstinence is the only way in which we can stay safe.


Why is it like this? One simple reason. I worked for the last two summers for a state representative here in Pennsylvania. It is one of the problems with democracy, unfortunately.Who are the people voting for the men and women in office? Its the senior citizens of the US. Who was taught when they were younger that sex was bad, and that abstinence was all there was. Senior citizens. And so, why would the politicians want to try to change any of the policies that these people want? They would be voted out of office almost instantly if they tried to go against the voting majority. Unfortunate, but trust me it is true.

Women in War

Lots to talk about here but because of time constraints I'll have to limit myself. I don't really know how to understand women in war. Not talking about women in the army for this part. Before I say anything, I'd like to say that rape is a horrible thing and the fact that it is used as a war tactic is horrifying. However, it is being used as exactly that, a war tactic. The problem is, if they weren't raping the women (generalization, I'm sure there aren't numbers out there but there has to be men too) what would the soldiers of these countries be doing to keep the populations under control? Would they be using genocide? Mass killings? Bombs that could take out entire cities in seconds? None of this is good, yet these other things are, in times of war, sometimes deemed necessary. I don't really know how to put this question.... But what would happen if the raping wasn't?? I guess it's all really a terrible ordeal which leads me to my next opinion. It is really difficult for us to say what is deemed necessary in times of war, seeing as how the majority of us has never lived in times of total warfare, where in order to protect yourself and your people, or to do something that may one day save your life, is a necessity. I don't know, I just personally think its really hard to even talk about this subject.

Same with the whole women suicide bombers. First of all, the fact that its a big deal when women are being used as suicide bombers is obvious. Of all the suicide bombers out there, less than probably 5% are female. Which is why it would be big news. When you take that factor into consideration with safety, now all of a sudden soldiers have to be wary of women? That's something that should be known. As to why the women are doing it, I don't think we can really say why. We've never, and probably will never be in a situation where the lives of our fellow citizens and the rest of our family is on the line every time they walk out onto the streets. We are afforded a luxury that many countries around the world are not. As a result, I think it is just hard to fathom a women being in the situation where she would have to lay her life on the line and protect people by doing something such as blowing herself up. Not only that, but women soldiers on the front lines. The only way we could possibly understand is if someone were to literally invade the US and in order to protect ourselves better, everyone would have to help out. Tough discussion today in class because of the war factor I think....

Halloween!!!

Quick question. If women want to be considered equal to men, why is halloween the number one most sexest holiday by far. I'm just saying, when I went out to the parties, I went out in a sexually suggestive costume, but I was fully clothed, and it was something was suggestive to women. As do all guys. The best costumes are literally the ones that are the cleverest, and thus will "pick up" the most girls possible. That wasn't what I was trying to do, I was just trying to be funny, and everyone I came into contact with thought it was halarious! Just saying...

On the other hand, all the females I saw out were definately in suggestive outfits as well. However, they weren't trying to be funny or clever, it was literally just who was the best looking in the least amount of clothes. The best part was, there were a few girls that said they refused to "lose their self respect by going out in outfits that just let everything hang out." As a guy, I honestly thought this was a real objective to Halloween and the way its treated in the US culture. However, when I asked girls, even ones in our class, why these girls weren't going out the answer was always the same. "They aren't worried about self respect, they're worried about how they'll look with limited clothes on." In that one sentence I find two things we've talked about in class. One: obviously, if this is true, these girls are afraid they aren't the "perfect bodied" girls that we find ourselves looking at everyday on the TV. Two: women are extremely aggressive toward anyone that is going against the norm of what a women "should do." Idk just some interesting thoughts in a holiday I really have come to enjoy since being in college!!! Lol

Women's Wages in Response to LCline

Well I do agree that the fact women make a lot less than men is appalling. However, I think that the fact that more men hold the position of Senior VP really isn't all that startling. Am I saying that men deserve it more? Absolutely not. What I am saying is the fact that men hold a position that is extremely high up on the corporate ladder and women have not been able to yet attain that isn't all that startling. Why? Well because lets face it. Up until like the late 1970's maybe early 80s women weren't able to move up in a company at all. This means for them to have the same quantity of people that are experienced enough to hold such positions as senior VP, is to think that the men that have been in high positions since the early 70s just don't want the positions anymore. I think that is something that seriously needs to be looked at. And the thing about it is, these old guys that are holding these positions are very very soon going to be retiring, if they haven't started already. Now that they are retiring, the first class of women that were truly available for advancement in a company are now going to be the next in line for that top spot. But once again, along with that there are still going to be men that may be just as qualified or more qualified than some women. And the other way around with women being possibly better qualified than men.


Another thing I would like to know about this study is the salary of, say, a woman CEO versus a  male CEO. I would almost have to think that, all other things being equal, men and women should be making the same amount of money. Another thing I think is important is Oprah Winfrey breaking the billion dollar mark. This is important because, like before, there weren't many woman that were able to put themselves into a position to make such money as a man. There is only one women billionaire, but when the first billionaires really started becoming billionaires, women weren't even close to being "allowed" to make a lot of money. But I think now with Oprah leading the way, more women will obviously follow. Just a question of when. Along with that though, I mean how easy is it to even become a billionaire? Reallllll hard. I mean being a women really shouldn't even affect someone making in the billions of dollars anymore I don't think. Just because if you are able to make money close to that, men aren't going to care, and neither is society, whether your a man or a woman. I think the man-woman argument would be more valid in a high corporate job rather than the billions of dollars area.