Sluts

So this goes out to really anyone. How many times have you seen a girl at school, at work, or really anywhere, with a low cut shirt, maybe some short-shorts, or even just a lot of make up, and thought to yourself, "My God, that girl is skanky. She really needs a bra or something." This idea, this stereotype, is wrong, extremely backwards in terms of women's rights, and very offensive to women. So why do even we as women, especially we as women, do it?

To an extent, I can understand why. Part of it is a protective instinct. When we see another female coming towards our men, it's seen as an attack on our relationship with that man, even if this person is only a crush. But that excuse can only go so far. We as a society desperately need to get out of this funk of calling women "sluts" or "whores" simply for how they dress or how they act. First off, one can't assume right off the bat that because a girl wears a very "showing" outfit, she's trying to get men to come after her. Perhaps she felt really warm, and put on a tank top so she could cool down. Perhaps she just likes how the shirt looks on her. To put her down for her own pride in self goes against basic morals we teach our own children. Shouldn't we allow other women to be proud of themselves for who they are? I personally wear low cut shirts all the time. I'm proud of my girls, man! My boobs have the right to be shown.

And second, what's wrong with a girl being sexual? Why is it okay for men to brag about their sexual encounters, but women have to keep them hidden? We as women have to embrace sex and sexuality.Maybe the girl is, in fact, wearing a low cut shirt to get men's attention. So what? A girl wants to have sex. That's her decision, not ours. Maybe it makes her feel good. Maybe she just likes having sex. And that's okay. She has the right to that happiness. Girls have the right to be horny, too.

Just in general, I think America as a country needs to open up to sexuality, especially that of women. We women need to embrace that we have the right to be sexual, too. To put down fellow women for her beliefs and her life is backwards against feminism. She is our fellow woman, and to discriminate her labels women, forces us to conform to society's strict norms. That simply isn't fair. Women are not victims. Women are human beings.

This is a topic I love to discuss, so please, comment in the comments below.

Controversial Comics vs Freedom of Speech

So I've found yet another article involving France, Islam, and the controversy involved. Recently, a French newspaper called "Charlie Hebdo", known for it's satirical comics and caricatures, created a series of comic panels that parodied the whole anti-Islam film controversy and Muhammad himself. It features, fore example, Muhammad in sexual positions with captions such as "Muhammad: a star is born!" and a scene of filming the actual film, with an actor askign as to why he needs to have sex with the head of a pig, with the director replying "I don't have the money for a 9-year-old hooker!" (This could be slightly off, as I only am using a rough translation from google and the translation of a friend who took a few years of French. But you get the main idea.) These comics, too, used the face of Muhammad.

Obviously, these comics have only added to the anger and riots down in the Middle East. 

This comic has raised some questions on freedom of speech. Should comics as offensive as this be banned/censored? They have the potential to cause extreme anger, and potentially even injuries and death, like the original film did. These comics were made for the purpose of causing controversy. Should this be restrained, even if it means going against basic principles of freedom of speech? This can even relate to trolling on the internet. Should we allow for vulgar and disrespectful statements even if their is no clear purpose beyond the fact it sparks controversy and discontent?

I believe that the comics should be allowed. Even though I think that making the comics just to add even more tension to an already upsetting controversy is a really poor decision on the editor/illustrator's part, whether or not it was their purpose, it is a strong reminder that we can say such things. Restraining the ideas of others takes away from their ability to express their beliefs. Perhaps there was an underlying, stronger purpose for the comics beyond controversy. And even if there wasn't, to not allow someone to voice an opinion goes against basic, fundamental ideas of democracy, basic principles of what was fought for (And is still fought for). People have the right to be offensive. Though I believe rudeness and offensiveness should be fought, to simply take the freedom to be offensive solves nothing. It's like the 1920s prohibition all over again. People will continue to voice opinions, despite restraints. People like to say things.People like to have, and deserve their freedoms. We can steer people to go along with what is right, but to force it won't solve the issue. I think the comics were a poor choice to publish, but I don't think because of that they shouldn't have been published at all. In a positive sense, the comics are a reminder of fights fought for freedom of expression in the past, and of the issues we face today with Islam Extremists.

But what do you think? Should there be a ban on offensive comics, and if so, why? Do you think they should at least be censored? What to you defines the balance between safety and freedom? If you know more about this Charlie Hebdo newspaper, do you know of what their other comics are like and if it has sparked controversy in the past? Feel free to post any comments below.

For more information, check out: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/0919/Charlie-Hebdo-s-Muhammad-cartoons-a-headache-for-Hollande

Paranorman and the Homosexuals

First off, if you're planning on seeing the new film Paranorman, I suggest you stop reading this blog post now, as it will have a few spoilers.

Recently, a friend and I went to go see the new kid's film Paranorman, about a young boy who has the capability to see and talk to dead people (I know right? What a description for kid's movie). Anyway, it ends up this kid has to go on a journey to save the town from an evil witch ghost, and in the process his girly teenage sister and his friend's jock teenage brother get involved. The teenage girl develops some feelings for the teenage boy, and at the end, tries to ask him on a date, to which he replies, " Yeah, yeah, I think this could work! Oh, man, I can't wait until you meet my boyfriend, you two would get along great!"

After that line, much of the audience erupted into laughter, myself included. But I also felt a wave of excitement. To me, this is progressive. Whereas when I was a kid, the idea of homosexuality was so hidden in society, I honestly didn't even know the idea of it could exist, this kids movie easily brings it up lightly as a way to annoy an overly-whiny teenage girl. That's right, it's no socially acceptable to bring up homosexuality in films. It's normal, it's okay. And it's okay for kids to understand it, too. Gay is simply love for someone of the same gender. It's not blasphemous, satanic or strange, it's simply a detail about a human being, like brown hair or blue eyes. And the idea of the guy you like being gay isn't a sign of OH MY GOD GET AWAY! It's more a "God dammit. Gotta find someone new, then."

 Though some could interpret this joke as offensive towards homosexuals, I disagree. The joke in no way insulted his character. The boy himself was nowhere near the stereotypical homosexual male. He was an airhead, football loving sports dude. The only reaction from the movie was a look of annoyance from the teenage girl, over losing her "love" so quickly.

Slowly, slowly in society, I'm seeing the idea of gay being more okay. It's evident in politics, as more states are allowing gay marriage legally and Obama himself has claimed to support it, but even more than that it's becoming evident in  pop-culture and local culture. The end of Carly Ray Jepsen's new hit "Call Me Maybe" ends in a similar way as the relationship between the two teens in Paranorman, new TV series such as "Modern Family" and "The New Normal" display homosexual couples as part of the comedic team, and even at school, physical abuse against homosexuals has declined dramatically (granted, verbal abuse is still high, but that for me is a different blog post on it's own). In short, Gay is Okay.

So what do you think. Do you think Paranorman is a sign of progress in social acceptance of homosexuality, or was the joke crude? Do you think gay rights in general is moving forward? What's your opinion on gay marriage? And if you've seen the film Paranorman, did you like it?

Thanks for reading! 

Badgers and Philosophy

So today  I read this article, about a controversy in England over whether badgers should be killed to stop infections of tuberculosis among cattle. Since badgers have a high rate of TB, many believe licenses should be issued allowing farmers to kill badgers if seen on their property.

Now, logically speaking, the two main arguments are that badgers should be killed so we have bovine to eat, and thus killing would serve a greater purpose both for us and economically, and the other side stating that it's inhumane to kill them, and would be expensive anyway.

But I think this debate goes much deeper than that. It's a question of who deserves to live. Granted, it's on a much smaller scale, but it does raise the question. If you had to kill someone to save someone elses life, would you do it? Who deserves to live in the first place? We even see it in the military, as men who have kids and family tend to be positioned in easier, less dangerous jobs while the young teens tend to be put in the front-lines, as it is seen that the married men have greater responsibilities back home. Is this fair? Are all lives equal in importance, or are some people the Badgers, and the other the Bovine?

Now I know usually when I post these blog posts, I state my opinion. But for this one, I struggle to for two main reasons. 1. It's an extremely complex matter I see both sides of, and 2. I honestly don't know. Ideologically, I'd like to say we all are equal in importance, thus we all deserve to live. But then again, what if one life costs the lives of tens of of others? Heck, I could go as extreme as Hitler. Did he deserve to live, even as a child when he had no affect on politics whatsoever? Playing devil's advocate, I could argue overpopulation, how we've come to a point where we have so many people, soon enough we may not even have enough Irishmen on our planet to let all of us survive. Do we then have to pick who survives?

And now I open up the question to you. Do you think we are Badgers and Bovine? Do you think certain people deserve to live more than others? What defines importance of life? Would you kill someone to save someone else's life, even if you had no idea who you were saving? And on a less dramatic note, after reading the article, do you agree with killing the badgers to save the cows? Let me know in the comments below.

For more information, check out: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/16/badger-cull-government-go-ahead

And So They Walked Again

So today I read this article about how a new "bionic" suit has been created that allows paraplegics, and other patients who are paralyzed, to not only stand up straight, but to walk smoothly and firmly. This new medical technology is being used to treat these patients, and has even been used in circumstances such as helping people in the US Army with heavy lifting and paralyzed runners finish marathons. 

It's hard to deny the fast moving technology we see in our generation, such as the innovative ipads, broadening the spectrum of teaching and communication. But honestly, this is just astounding. As much as I hate the idea of us relying more on technology to do stuff for us (such as the belief that soon teachers will be replaced with websites, but that's a different story) I can't help but be both fascinated and proud of and by our generation's progress. The fact that someone can walk naturally without the ability to even feel their legs is nothing short of a miracle. We live in a time of innovation and rapid change. What goes on in those fancy laboratories is incredible. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if by the time I'm old and grey, cancer will be as curable as the common cold. The doctors will probably just point a laser at them and, wala! Cured!

As much as we hear in the news about how bad the world is, and how everything just seems to be taking a downwards turn, it's good to hear we are seeing progress in the world. It reminds us that, though we face hard times, we are lucky to live in a  time period when such fascinating progress can be seen.

So here's my question for you all. Do you think all this new technology is good for society, relating back to my "teachers being replaced" idea? Is it good to give these suits to the patients, or do you think they should first be distributed to a separate cause, such as the army, and if so, which cause and why?

For more information, here's the video again: http://www.nytimes.com/video/2012/09/12/technology/100000001778614/bionic-suits-aid-paraplegics.html?smid=tw-nytimes

What's Your Story?

I'm not sure if this counts as a blog post, but I'm putting it up anyway. So whenever I see a blog, forum, or really any internet device that lets me post stuff, I always like to ask this question, since it's both interesting and important to me.

Now I'm someone who loves people. Yes, we suck sometimes, but as individuals and a community we share beautiful thoughts and moments that we sometimes never get to share because no one listens. I believe it is good, healthy to share your story, to tell your perspective of life. Stories are what make us human, make us alive, make us connected. 

Here's my question. What's your story? Answer the question however you feel is most appropriate to you.

Teachers of the United States

So when asking friends at school what career path they want to go into, an astounding majority tend to tell me they want to go into teaching some sort. But for economic reasons, is this the best idea?

Amidst the new Chicago Teacher's Strike, some attention has been paid to the conditions a regular primary or second school teacher has to go through. Not only, when compared to other developed countries, do they tend to have the lower salaries, but they also tend to have higher amounts of hours worked annually. So not only is it stressful, but you don't have much of a paycheck to show for it!

Teachers are what educate the next generation. Personally, I believe they should be given more economic benefits. It's a tough profession, having to work 5 days a week with all kinds of students, and not all of them are the little-miss-goody-two-shoes. It's consistent flexibility, empathy, and of course an understanding of the field they teach! And, as shown by the article read in class, (We're #1! We're...Uh...Not?) other countries that give more respect to teachers tend to have better performing education systems. Teachers are what help the next generation work for jobs, make a living, keep our country going. To not have them is to dramatically hurt the future.

So what's your opinion? Do you feel teachers deserve higher pays? Why or why not? Also, do you think it is good or bad that the Chicago public school teachers are on strike? Post in the comments below.

For more information, check out http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/does-it-pay-to-become-a-teacher/?smid=tw-nytimes

Burqa (Niqab) Ban

So currently in France, there is a law that bans women from veiling their faces in public. This law, though not stated directly, is intended towards Muslim women's face veils. According to the French Government, this law is in place so that women can be released from the religious oppression faced by them. But many of these women argue that this is an act of defiance against their religion, believing it infringes of their right to freedom of religion, and expression of this religion. Have their minds been corrupted? Or are we just being intolerant?

Personally, I agree with the latter. Yes, this is progressive for women, letting them free themselves, but this does not mean we can infringe on the religions of others. That's for the religion and the society itself to work out, not us. If they are facing discrimination for their beliefs, they are not facing equality. Some women have even reported being honked at, spat at, and beaten for their veils and Muslim beliefs. This law only furthers discrimination in their name. Let them express their beliefs. If they are in no way hurting themselves or others, it should be no threat to France, either. Sure, they may be overheated in summer, but that's their choice, not ours. Though I strongly agree that the Muslim belief of the face veil is extremely sexist towards women, putting a law up that bans it does nothing to help their case. It only makes their situation harder to deal with. There are other means of fixing this issue, and for the most part, as mentioned earlier, it is up to them if they want to work it out.

But I'd like to hear what you think. Do you think this law is progressive or backwards? Is France liberating women or discriminating against religion? Tell me your thoughts.

For more information, check out: http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/has-the-burqa-ban-worked-in-france/