To be an activist, you actually have to act.
Today in class, we read an argument by Malcom Gladwell that discussed modern activism. Or more accurately, the complete lack of it. In today's age, there is a kind of communication that has been unseen before now. Twitter causes, like #istandwithkesha, #istandwithahmed, and the likes. Some would say that online activism is the new means of making change.
However, I have to disagree. While I think that online activism can help causes by spreading information, that's all it really does. Though this is important, this is just spreading information-this is not activism.
In a country like America, where we have the right to free speech, tweeting a post, sharing emails, or liking posts helps alert people to problems in the world. But how much change is actually being made? People aren't actually changing the situation. It's important to let people know the problems going on in the world, but what's the point of talking about a problem if nothing is done to solve it? For example, everyone knows how disturbing the dictatorship of North Korea is. But what's being done to fix the situation? Nothing. For all of our American resources, we simply lack the privilege to call ourselves "activists".
Our minimal efforts of activism are often problematic. Like Gladwell said in his article, American activists often lack the ability to spread accurate information. "The cadre of prominent bloggers...misunderstood the situation." It seems like we can't even spread information correctly.
American activists are full of privilege. Though everyone is needed to cause change, those who are not directly affected by the problems of society should have less impact on activism. (A white male's opinion should not be equal to a black woman's on racism and sexism.) Truth is, while there are still huge problems in our society like racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, etc, we often do not face problems like other countries, where people are killed for voicing their opinion. That does not mean our problems aren't important, but Americans seem to ignore issues at home to basically ignore problems in other parts of the world. When people do speak out for important causes like Black Lives Matter, the activists are seen as radical and dramatic.
For a society that claims to love activism, we do a pretty bad job of fixing today's modern problems.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Saturday, October 24, 2015
Paper Airplanes
Today in class Twin asked us to find something in the New Yorker that spoke to us and discuss it. I had the October 5, 2015 edition.
I flipped through, looking for an article or a cartoon to write about. I couldn't really find anything until I opened up to a page full of pictures of paper airplanes.
"Between 1961 and 1983, the artist Harry Smith picked up two hundred and fifty-one paper airplanes off the streets of New York. He annotated most of them with handwritten details of when and where they were found."
What first attracted me to the paper airplanes was the paper they were made out of. They were all colorful and full of variety. I decided to pick this to analyze because I'm a pretty visual person. I also decided to pick this because despite how cynical I can be I really like people. And I really like the relationships that people have one another. I think it's cool to see how people interact.
I really like seeing examples of simple everyday interactions. Like when people pay it forward at Dunkin, or when they knit scarves and leave them on statues for people who need them to take.
The thing that all these acts have in common, as well as the paper airplanes, is that it shows how the actions of one person affect other people. Not necessarily in a giving way (like paying for someone's coffee). I like seeing the actions of people that don't affect someone in a negative or a positive way.
I just like seeing the way our everyday lives can mean so much more to someone than they do to us.
The paper airplanes are one example of this.
The kids who made these paper airplanes weren't making them to evoke emotion from any of the people who would eventually see them. But that's exactly what happened. It's cool to see that these little bits of paper would eventually make their way to a New York artist, and that people for years would be seeing those bits of paper.
I like seeing the way that our actions affect people years after. Those kids probably don't remember even making those airplanes, but the point is people will remember the airplanes. I think it shows a deeper meaning-even after we do things, we will still mean something to someone else. Even if we are forgotten, the stuff we makes an impact. Even if we are not connected to that impact, we are still influencing it and affecting someone else's life. But I don't know. Maybe it's just bits of paper.
I flipped through, looking for an article or a cartoon to write about. I couldn't really find anything until I opened up to a page full of pictures of paper airplanes.
"Between 1961 and 1983, the artist Harry Smith picked up two hundred and fifty-one paper airplanes off the streets of New York. He annotated most of them with handwritten details of when and where they were found."
What first attracted me to the paper airplanes was the paper they were made out of. They were all colorful and full of variety. I decided to pick this to analyze because I'm a pretty visual person. I also decided to pick this because despite how cynical I can be I really like people. And I really like the relationships that people have one another. I think it's cool to see how people interact.
I really like seeing examples of simple everyday interactions. Like when people pay it forward at Dunkin, or when they knit scarves and leave them on statues for people who need them to take.
The thing that all these acts have in common, as well as the paper airplanes, is that it shows how the actions of one person affect other people. Not necessarily in a giving way (like paying for someone's coffee). I like seeing the actions of people that don't affect someone in a negative or a positive way.
I just like seeing the way our everyday lives can mean so much more to someone than they do to us.
The paper airplanes are one example of this.
The kids who made these paper airplanes weren't making them to evoke emotion from any of the people who would eventually see them. But that's exactly what happened. It's cool to see that these little bits of paper would eventually make their way to a New York artist, and that people for years would be seeing those bits of paper.
I like seeing the way that our actions affect people years after. Those kids probably don't remember even making those airplanes, but the point is people will remember the airplanes. I think it shows a deeper meaning-even after we do things, we will still mean something to someone else. Even if we are forgotten, the stuff we makes an impact. Even if we are not connected to that impact, we are still influencing it and affecting someone else's life. But I don't know. Maybe it's just bits of paper.
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Roxane Gay: Feminine vs Feminism
A true feminist is someone who embraces all women.
A feminist accepts and welcomes masculine women, feminine women, strong women, weak women, happy women, passionate women, small women, large women, straight women, LGBT+ women, black women, white women, American women, African women, Jewish women, Muslim women, celibate women, sexual women, sexually repulsed women, military women, artistic women, athletic women, beautiful women, smart women, disabled women, conservative women, young women, old women, trans-women, cis-women.
Feminists embrace all kinds of women because they embrace all kinds of womanhood.
There is no wrong way to be a feminist, except to believe that there can only be one kind of woman.
"At some point, I got it into my head that a feminist was a certain kind of woman." Women are as varied, different, complicated, and difficult as any man. But for some reason, women are expected to be one way and one way only. In conservative society, there is the belief that women need to be quiet, obedient, submissive, patient, and motherly. In radical feminism, people believe that feminists need to be man haters, angry, unattractive, and loud.
That's simply not the truth.
Feminism, to put it simply, is to fight for the equality that women lack.
That's it. It is so hard to explain feminism, but women lack the social, political, and economic power that men have. That is a fact.
Feminism is not about having one type of perfect woman. It's not about not caring for feminine things.
It's about the realization that women are more than whether or not they want to be a mother, or if they have sex, or if they dress a certain way. Feminism is about women protecting other women. Feminism is about addressing privileges that white women have over women of color and looking for solutions to fix that. Feminism is about a women being able to wear a bikini or a hijab, and not facing harassment.
Feminism is not looking past the female label and pretending it doesn't exist. Feminism is embracing that label, and also about embracing the fact that women are as varied, different, and complicated as any human being on this planet.
When we embrace the fact that there is no wrong way to be a woman, we will be able to take a monumental step. There is no wrong way to be a woman, because women define themselves-things like sexuality, religion, or love of makeup do not.
Women are forced into stereotypes from the minute they are born. They have to be beautiful, thin, and quiet to be the perfect woman, yet they must also be loud, sporty, and curvy at the same time. It's not just one set of stereotypes women must fulfill, they must fulfill another! Women are expected to be thin, beautiful, dainty, girly, athletic, smart, have a career, be a mother, and take care of everyone without one thought to themselves: "My success, such as it is, is supposed to be enough if I'm a good feminist."
Women are made fun of if they are either a more "masculine", outgoing person, a more "feminine," quiet person, neither, or a mix of both. (Girls are made fun of for being weak, which is crazy because that's what society tells them they have to be! And if they are not weak or delicate, they're made fun of for being strong!)
"'I'd been the one telling young women at my lectures that you can have it all and do it all, regardless'..." Women are expected to give all they have to get nothing in return. They can have it all-a career, a husband, a child-but they're not allowed to want it all. They can't want a child AND a husband; but at the same time, if a woman does not have both, she is looked down upon.
Why are women forced to live up to such difficult, unachievable standards? Why do women have to live one type of womanhood, career vs. mother, smart and unattractive vs dumb and beautiful, quiet and patient vs loud and emotional?
Feminism questions why society tells women they have to live like that-miserable, stressed, and trying to be perfect. Feminism faces the hard questions. Feminism is making people realize that things kind of suck for women all over the world, and that that's not fair.
There are problems within the movement, not doubt. But with feminism I have seen girls supporting girls; girls reaching new opportunities; girls fighting privilege; girls speaking out against racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and classism.
Without feminism, I would not be watching a community forming up from the half of the world that has been routinely and repeatedly silenced, finally embracing and loving who they are.
A feminist accepts and welcomes masculine women, feminine women, strong women, weak women, happy women, passionate women, small women, large women, straight women, LGBT+ women, black women, white women, American women, African women, Jewish women, Muslim women, celibate women, sexual women, sexually repulsed women, military women, artistic women, athletic women, beautiful women, smart women, disabled women, conservative women, young women, old women, trans-women, cis-women.
Feminists embrace all kinds of women because they embrace all kinds of womanhood.
There is no wrong way to be a feminist, except to believe that there can only be one kind of woman.
"At some point, I got it into my head that a feminist was a certain kind of woman." Women are as varied, different, complicated, and difficult as any man. But for some reason, women are expected to be one way and one way only. In conservative society, there is the belief that women need to be quiet, obedient, submissive, patient, and motherly. In radical feminism, people believe that feminists need to be man haters, angry, unattractive, and loud.
That's simply not the truth.
Feminism, to put it simply, is to fight for the equality that women lack.
That's it. It is so hard to explain feminism, but women lack the social, political, and economic power that men have. That is a fact.
Feminism is not about having one type of perfect woman. It's not about not caring for feminine things.
It's about the realization that women are more than whether or not they want to be a mother, or if they have sex, or if they dress a certain way. Feminism is about women protecting other women. Feminism is about addressing privileges that white women have over women of color and looking for solutions to fix that. Feminism is about a women being able to wear a bikini or a hijab, and not facing harassment.
Feminism is not looking past the female label and pretending it doesn't exist. Feminism is embracing that label, and also about embracing the fact that women are as varied, different, and complicated as any human being on this planet.
When we embrace the fact that there is no wrong way to be a woman, we will be able to take a monumental step. There is no wrong way to be a woman, because women define themselves-things like sexuality, religion, or love of makeup do not.
Women are forced into stereotypes from the minute they are born. They have to be beautiful, thin, and quiet to be the perfect woman, yet they must also be loud, sporty, and curvy at the same time. It's not just one set of stereotypes women must fulfill, they must fulfill another! Women are expected to be thin, beautiful, dainty, girly, athletic, smart, have a career, be a mother, and take care of everyone without one thought to themselves: "My success, such as it is, is supposed to be enough if I'm a good feminist."
Women are made fun of if they are either a more "masculine", outgoing person, a more "feminine," quiet person, neither, or a mix of both. (Girls are made fun of for being weak, which is crazy because that's what society tells them they have to be! And if they are not weak or delicate, they're made fun of for being strong!)
"'I'd been the one telling young women at my lectures that you can have it all and do it all, regardless'..." Women are expected to give all they have to get nothing in return. They can have it all-a career, a husband, a child-but they're not allowed to want it all. They can't want a child AND a husband; but at the same time, if a woman does not have both, she is looked down upon.
Why are women forced to live up to such difficult, unachievable standards? Why do women have to live one type of womanhood, career vs. mother, smart and unattractive vs dumb and beautiful, quiet and patient vs loud and emotional?
Feminism questions why society tells women they have to live like that-miserable, stressed, and trying to be perfect. Feminism faces the hard questions. Feminism is making people realize that things kind of suck for women all over the world, and that that's not fair.
There are problems within the movement, not doubt. But with feminism I have seen girls supporting girls; girls reaching new opportunities; girls fighting privilege; girls speaking out against racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and classism.
Without feminism, I would not be watching a community forming up from the half of the world that has been routinely and repeatedly silenced, finally embracing and loving who they are.
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Disney, We Have to Breakup
I'm sad to say, Disney, that the time has come. We have to breakup.
Okay. Not really. I love Disney and I love Disney movies. But I'm breaking up with the idea that Disney is a special snowflake that can't do any wrong. Disney is problematic, and the company's refusal to change certain aspects of the media they produce makes it inherently worse. When a wealthy, powerful company refuses to change negative and offensive aspects of their output, they don't deserve excuses. They have the resources to take risks and put feminism, people of color, and LGBT + relationships in their movies. But they don't.
Disney, I love you. But something that is aimed at young children should not make them feel like they only have one path.
The article we read in class, by Deborah Ross, was cynical and hard to read. It sucks reading something so negative about something so key to your childhood. But Ross makes some good points-despite the messages Disney movies may try to make, abandoning those ideas and having their hero or heroine take a cliche path by the end of the movie is lazy. It's problematic. There is no room for creativity, no room for ideas in the Disney scenario:
Girl hates boy, girl is saved by boy, girl falls in love with boy, girl and boy get married, they have their happily ever after.
The ideas Disney have are great! Snow White is kind and fair, Belle is smart and strong, Ariel is a dreamer and very independent, Rapunzel is brave, Tiana is hardworking, Mulan is a leader, and Anna and Elsa embrace who they are.
But Snow White's only brought back to life by her prince. Belle ends up married, so does Ariel. Rapunzel spends very little time by herself, because she goes from living with Gothel to living with Eugene. See the dilemma?
It's one thing to come up with revolutionary (and true) ideas-that women can have dreams: Ariel wants to be able to live on land. That men can have mental illness: the Beast has depression, self confidence issues, and anger problems. That women can be leaders: One word. Mulan.
But instead of coming up with creative stories, Disney takes the easy way out and marries off their characters. If there is no marriage, the characters are forced into relationships. (Anna does not marry Kristoph, but they do have a relationship.)
Disney-follow your own advice. Use your imagination and create stories about diverse men, women and people. Break up with your cookie cutter, heteronormative, white washed romances that punch us with gender roles.
Okay. Not really. I love Disney and I love Disney movies. But I'm breaking up with the idea that Disney is a special snowflake that can't do any wrong. Disney is problematic, and the company's refusal to change certain aspects of the media they produce makes it inherently worse. When a wealthy, powerful company refuses to change negative and offensive aspects of their output, they don't deserve excuses. They have the resources to take risks and put feminism, people of color, and LGBT + relationships in their movies. But they don't.
Disney, I love you. But something that is aimed at young children should not make them feel like they only have one path.
The article we read in class, by Deborah Ross, was cynical and hard to read. It sucks reading something so negative about something so key to your childhood. But Ross makes some good points-despite the messages Disney movies may try to make, abandoning those ideas and having their hero or heroine take a cliche path by the end of the movie is lazy. It's problematic. There is no room for creativity, no room for ideas in the Disney scenario:
Girl hates boy, girl is saved by boy, girl falls in love with boy, girl and boy get married, they have their happily ever after.
The ideas Disney have are great! Snow White is kind and fair, Belle is smart and strong, Ariel is a dreamer and very independent, Rapunzel is brave, Tiana is hardworking, Mulan is a leader, and Anna and Elsa embrace who they are.
But Snow White's only brought back to life by her prince. Belle ends up married, so does Ariel. Rapunzel spends very little time by herself, because she goes from living with Gothel to living with Eugene. See the dilemma?
It's one thing to come up with revolutionary (and true) ideas-that women can have dreams: Ariel wants to be able to live on land. That men can have mental illness: the Beast has depression, self confidence issues, and anger problems. That women can be leaders: One word. Mulan.
But instead of coming up with creative stories, Disney takes the easy way out and marries off their characters. If there is no marriage, the characters are forced into relationships. (Anna does not marry Kristoph, but they do have a relationship.)
Disney-follow your own advice. Use your imagination and create stories about diverse men, women and people. Break up with your cookie cutter, heteronormative, white washed romances that punch us with gender roles.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Competitive Education
Tomorrow I take PSATS. I'd rather not take them, but I don't have a choice. You can read my opinions on standardized testing in my previous post. This post isn't about standardized testing, it's more to do with what I like to consider competitive education.
I'm sure everyone has had a teacher who announces the best test score, or who praises one student. This is toxic for all students. It convinces the kids who don't get praise that they're stupid and either causes extreme vanity or self-confidence issues in those who do receive it.
Learning is about understanding a concept, not about learning it the fastest. When kids think they have to be the first to learn something, they take in the subject for a test, then forget it as soon as possible. There's no real understanding. For the students who receive praise, they think they need to keep up this "standard". It becomes stressful and puts pressure on the student.
I feel that this comes from teachers. Not all teachers do this, however, those who do are creating an uncomfortable atmosphere for their students. Competition does not really need to be in education, just a want to learn.
I'm sure everyone has had a teacher who announces the best test score, or who praises one student. This is toxic for all students. It convinces the kids who don't get praise that they're stupid and either causes extreme vanity or self-confidence issues in those who do receive it.
Learning is about understanding a concept, not about learning it the fastest. When kids think they have to be the first to learn something, they take in the subject for a test, then forget it as soon as possible. There's no real understanding. For the students who receive praise, they think they need to keep up this "standard". It becomes stressful and puts pressure on the student.
I feel that this comes from teachers. Not all teachers do this, however, those who do are creating an uncomfortable atmosphere for their students. Competition does not really need to be in education, just a want to learn.
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Standardized Tests
For the first eight years of my life, I went to public school. I have a lot of stories about public school-my bus driver who brought her grand kids on the bus and made us take care of them; my homeroom teacher (who insisted we couldn't bring a plastic butter knife to cut up our lunch as it was a safety hazard) cutting a meter stick with a hunting knife; the kid who proudly told our English class that he ate road kill. My list goes on and on. One story I have is about standardized testing.
I was nine years old and in fourth grade. We were taking NECAPS, and as I was turning the page, I got a paper cut.
But this wasn't just any paper cut, no. It sliced my entire finger and was gushing blood. Nasty, right? Well, I wasn't allowed to go to the nurse because testing was in session. And because our teacher didn't have any band-aids with her I had to wrap the cut in a paper towel. I was told not to get any blood on the test or all my answers would be void.
Okay. I've been taking standardized tests since I was in third grade. So since I was eight. HALF OF MY LIFE I've been taking standardized tests. And I've learned nothing from them.
The thing about the American school system is that it is so deeply flawed, so harmful and toxic to students, that standardized tests are only one part of the problem.
The point of school is not just to learn-it is to open your mind, see ideas in new ways, entertain new prospects. Up until the higher grades of elementary school, I feel that many children enjoy school and love learning new things. The difference is that when kids hit about third, fourth, or fifth grade, they start hating school. But that doesn't mean they hate learning. But today, it seems like school is simply about earning a grade. It's not about ideas or thoughts. It's about numbers and status quo.
It doesn't matter if one individual student can't grasp a concept, what matters is that he's a failure and he isn't taking school seriously!
Obviously, I'm joking. But from a young age, American students are taught that if they aren't the best, they might as well not try. America is used to thinking it's the best. So, when in John Oliver's video about standardized testing, he brought up statistics from the 90s showing America's low math scores, it must have been a shock.
People call Americans vain and narcissistic and you know what? They're right. Because in response to those test scores, the American government set up a system which would destroy future students' mental and emotional health.
Standardized tests were encouraged by President Bush in his No Child Left Behind video. If a student was struggling in a subject, the tests he took would indicate this and he could theoretically get extra help. But the tests did not work in this intended manner. They became a way for businesses like Preston to increase value by producing thousands of standardized tests.
Standardized tests, instead of being ways to help struggling students, ended up being money makers which influenced placement and future academic opportunities. This puts such pressure on students. Maybe I sound like I'm overreacting, but the fact is, that doing poorly on these tests doesn't mean you get extra help. It means you will be treated like a failure for not increasing America's national scores.
If the American school system spent money on economic reforms and funded public schools, maybe more teenagers would actually enjoy going in. It's hard to stay in school or want to entertain the thought of going to college when your test scores are telling you that you're stupid.
Difficult, absurd tests are making students feel like they are failures. What child would want to go to school if they feel like a failure, especially if the point I made earlier (being the best vs not trying at all) is true?
I didn't go into too much detail talking about the rhetorical strategies John Oliver used. However, his use of logic fueled his power of persuasion. He made clear points about the problems standardized testing cause and the effects of these problems on American students. Hopefully, I've done the same.
I was nine years old and in fourth grade. We were taking NECAPS, and as I was turning the page, I got a paper cut.
But this wasn't just any paper cut, no. It sliced my entire finger and was gushing blood. Nasty, right? Well, I wasn't allowed to go to the nurse because testing was in session. And because our teacher didn't have any band-aids with her I had to wrap the cut in a paper towel. I was told not to get any blood on the test or all my answers would be void.
Okay. I've been taking standardized tests since I was in third grade. So since I was eight. HALF OF MY LIFE I've been taking standardized tests. And I've learned nothing from them.
The thing about the American school system is that it is so deeply flawed, so harmful and toxic to students, that standardized tests are only one part of the problem.
The point of school is not just to learn-it is to open your mind, see ideas in new ways, entertain new prospects. Up until the higher grades of elementary school, I feel that many children enjoy school and love learning new things. The difference is that when kids hit about third, fourth, or fifth grade, they start hating school. But that doesn't mean they hate learning. But today, it seems like school is simply about earning a grade. It's not about ideas or thoughts. It's about numbers and status quo.
It doesn't matter if one individual student can't grasp a concept, what matters is that he's a failure and he isn't taking school seriously!
Obviously, I'm joking. But from a young age, American students are taught that if they aren't the best, they might as well not try. America is used to thinking it's the best. So, when in John Oliver's video about standardized testing, he brought up statistics from the 90s showing America's low math scores, it must have been a shock.
People call Americans vain and narcissistic and you know what? They're right. Because in response to those test scores, the American government set up a system which would destroy future students' mental and emotional health.
Standardized tests were encouraged by President Bush in his No Child Left Behind video. If a student was struggling in a subject, the tests he took would indicate this and he could theoretically get extra help. But the tests did not work in this intended manner. They became a way for businesses like Preston to increase value by producing thousands of standardized tests.
Standardized tests, instead of being ways to help struggling students, ended up being money makers which influenced placement and future academic opportunities. This puts such pressure on students. Maybe I sound like I'm overreacting, but the fact is, that doing poorly on these tests doesn't mean you get extra help. It means you will be treated like a failure for not increasing America's national scores.
If the American school system spent money on economic reforms and funded public schools, maybe more teenagers would actually enjoy going in. It's hard to stay in school or want to entertain the thought of going to college when your test scores are telling you that you're stupid.
Difficult, absurd tests are making students feel like they are failures. What child would want to go to school if they feel like a failure, especially if the point I made earlier (being the best vs not trying at all) is true?
I didn't go into too much detail talking about the rhetorical strategies John Oliver used. However, his use of logic fueled his power of persuasion. He made clear points about the problems standardized testing cause and the effects of these problems on American students. Hopefully, I've done the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)