Strong Female Role Models? I Think what We Really Mean is Tough (Part II)

So I'm way late with this but here you go: the 2nd of two posts I've done on this topic. Read part one here

Note: I also use gender binaries such as women/men and male/female in this post for simplicity's sake, but I understand and recognize there are many more gender expressions and identities out there. 

The other big pitfall I've identified is that it goes along with the narrative that undermines women and our experiences over the centuries.

Because when we want more "strong female role models" that implies that there weren't very many to start with. And I know it must seem that way, but I think there have been examples of women exhibiting exceptional strength all along and we just don't identify that as "strong".

Part of the problem lies in our very conception of the word "strong". As of now, the word evokes images of extreme muscles, a large size, outward displays of power, loudness and we tend to think sort of thing is all there is to the word "strong". 

Women through the ages have more often shown a different kind of strong, not the overbearing, loud, dominating strength of size and power, but the silent strength of endurance. Of being treated like crap and being able to continue, of pushing through pain and surviving. 

Isn't THAT incredibly strong? 

Throughout history women have endured mistreatment, abuse, and/or violations to human dignity--does it not take monumental strength to make it through that?

Women have waited patiently and faithfully for months years, even decades for men to come home, (I'm talking about the past of widow's walks) doesn't keeping up that level of commitment, self control and hope not take strength? 

Wouldn't you agree that the world has let down women far more than men? Doesn't it require strength to be able to take disappointment? Doesn't accepting it and rising above it in order to try again require strength? Doesn't having your hopes crushed time and time again and still choosing to fight require strength?

Women have been strong all along. We just don't acknowledge this form of strength AS strength. 

So really what we're doing is undermining different forms of strength. 

We need more representation of female characters that are there for more than sex appeal (not because sex appeal is bad, but because it is not all that is valuable about a female), we need female characters that don't submit if they disagree, women that solve problems, women that are listened to and respected. 

But we need to be careful to not conflate better, more diverse representation with old systems so all that happens is a continuation of the problem. 

Samantha Wright, the weightlifter in question

The other side of this is that traits traditionally associated with women are often seen as negative/used to demean what a woman does. For example, a female weightlifter wrote a piece about being called "the cutest weightlifter" and it does bring up important points about how the value of women is underscored and our work is often not taken to be as important as our looks. 

Absolutely in Samantha Wright's case "cute" devalues her and what she does. So can we stop using it that way? 

Because why does "cute" have mean you're not being taken seriously? Why can't someone be cute and be taken seriously? In my view, so long as we give the most importance to the person's capabilities, it's okay to be a bit more superficial.

A message I seem to see a lot is that "cute" and "respected" or "taken seriously cannot go hand in hand. Well maybe they should start dating. Maybe we as a culture need to stop making those two things mutually exclusive, stop forcing people to choose between what might very well be two parts of themselves. 

I personally love being cute and because of the situation, I know I can take it as a compliment, but when I want to be serious, I want to be respected. And it is NOT right to tell me or other people that there must be a choice.

Once again you are getting reinforcements of the need to be tough, this kind of thinking drives the idea that toughness needs to be displayed for respect. 

The other thing I'm getting at here is that we need to stop associating traditional feminine things with "weak" or "bad". Weakness in itself is not bad, it's part of being human. What's bad is not being able to overcome weakness. But that doesn't make a person any lesser, everyone develops the ability at different rates. 

This is honestly probably half the reason why women are not valued as much as we should be: because femininity is not valued. But where does that leave people on whom gender roles fit and fit well? 

We need to change the conversation and show everyone can bring strengths to the table. 

And when we get there, everyone will benefit. 

Like this post? Then please press those g+1 buttons, share on social media and comment, I'd love to hear from you!

Strong Female Role Models? I Think What We Really Mean is Tough (Part I)

Note: I use gender binaries such as women/men and male/female in this post for simplicity's sake, but I understand and recognize there are many more gender expressions and identities out there. 

So here is an issue I first thought about around a year ago now. What the heck does "strong female character" or "strong female role model" even mean? 

And before you jump to tell me, "That's easy! Strong female role models are independent! They stand up for themselves! They... aren't weak!" 

I want you to pause for a second, because I don't know about you, but that sounds an awful lot like the tough guise society has and continues to encourage men to display. 

The more I think about it, the more I feel like the idea of "strong females role models" in its current manifestation really just means tough women, (And I'm not saying that there aren't tough women, tough women are bad or that representing tough women isn't important, a diverse range of the representation of females is essential.) it's just that this approach has many pitfalls to it. 


There is a lot of pressure on women these days to break free from gender roles, be independent, stand up for themselves etc and taking the argument from above one step further I'm almost inclined to argue this idea of "strong female role models" is actually in some forms a veiled way to try to get women to act more like men.   


Because what literally seems to be happening is that we're pushing aspects hypermasculinity on women. And that just seems like all kinds of backwards and wrong doesn't it? 

And I'm not arguing that it's bad for women to be all these things. I'm arguing that it's bad to put pressure on women to be these things just as it is bad to pressure men to be these things, especially when they are not. 

We know hypermasculinity can be absolutely

toxic. We know it contributes to intimate partner violence, we know it contributes to the disgustingly high instances of rape in the Americas, we know that it boxes boys and men in, in addition to making life for women a whole lot harder. 

In short, we know that in the end it's not good for ANYONE. (I get the argument that if it wasn't good for anyone, it wouldn't exist, but I'm saying that even though it can be beneficial to some, in the end, the disadvantages cancel out any advantages there may appear to be) 

So how the heck can it POSSIBLY be good to be pushing it onto women? 

We're starting to tell both men and women that it's not okay to have vulnerable moments, it's not okay to lean on another, that having relationships and not being completely independent is weak, wrong. 

It's like we're trying to create a world where everyone is in their own separate bubble, where we only interact when we have to, where we bottle everything up and take care of whatever we're feeling alone. 

And I have to say that would probably the worst thing ever. 

I've come to realize loving, connecting with other people and beings is one of the most fulfilling things a person can do. 

And that's not to bash alone-time, that is also super important. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that both connecting with others and having time for yourself is really important and as of now, it seems like we're focusing much too heavily on turning everything into alone. 

There's already so much violence and hate out there, we don't want to push this tough guise onto women, too and create the same problems with us as there are with men. 

Because in the end, not only does pushing toughness make it more likely for the individual to hurt others, but it also hurts them too.  

We don't necessarily have as much to say on this subject for women as for men, but at the very least, it's made it so at least one female in the spotlight is or was so afraid of being characterized as "weak" (and therefore bad role models or whatnot) that she refused to call an ambulance even when she feared she was dying. (And yes one can argue on both sides whether or not she is a good role model, but that is not the point).

I'd like to take a moment here to shine a spotlight

 on the way this adversely affects Black women specifically. 

The "Angry Black Woman" stereotype creates a lot of problems for them. It means it's a lot easier for them to be considered aggressive or angry, it means instead of listening to them people often get freaked out and tell them to "calm down" yet when a man does the same thing he is "assertive" and applauded for it... Double Standard anyone? 

However what might be the biggest thing is that not all Black women want to be strong all the time, but because of the stereotype  they are treated as if they are and so that becomes their only choice. 

And everyone knows about how exhausting it is to constantly play the role of someone you're not. 

This is just one of several ways Black women's voice's are erased.

So the next time you're speaking to someone, especially if it's to a minority about the oppression of minorities, just stop and listen for a moment. You are entitled to an opinion of course, but they are also entitled to theirs and if they aren't given the chance to express that opinion you are taking part in the oppression. 

As my friend's really awesome mom taught him, when trying to have a fair conversation you need to listen to what everyone else has to say in addition to spewing out what you believe. 

Like this post? Then please press those g+1 buttons, share on social media and comment, I'd love to hear from you! Look out for Part II coming in a week or so. (I promise)

For The Love of Teachers

 

Hey Internet, it's been a long time. I'm really going to try harder to do these more often, there's so much to talk about. 

So since school started today for us Canadians I wanted to write about something I've been seeing more and more often that has been really bothering me and that is the way kids treat teachers. This mostly pertains to high school since that is the experience I'm immersed in right now, but I'm sure there are echoes of this in other places.

As a student I know just as well as the next kid that it sometimes seems like teachers are some kind of strange alien species that don't exist outside of school.

That sometimes it seems like they are torturers and you are the victim.

Here's the thing though, they aren't.

In high school marks matter and often kids are demanding to get assignments and tests back and that's understandable. One thing I think is less understandable, however, is complaining when things don't get back to you in what you feel is a timely manner.

I mean giving something in and getting it back months later is not reasonable, but a week, two, three? Your mark you get on it is the same no matter how quickly you get it back. 

And that brings me to the next thing. 

When you don't get the mark you want, often the immediate reaction is to blame the teacher. It's because this teacher is an ass, that they mark too hard (and granted there are plenty that are and/or do). 

That's not so much a big deal, but what worries me is that we often don't look inward. We don't ask "What did I miss", "What could I have done better?", "What did I not do enough of" we tend to push it on the teacher. 

But asking these kind of questions in life is the only way that we'll grow as individuals.

It seems nowadays the teacher-student relationship is this weird "I serve you, and you'd better serve me back"  kinda thing, but it really shouldn't be . 

The thing is, teacher's don't owe you anything. 

The good ones care, and they care a lot so they try to help you and do what you want them to, like give your things back quickly.

But they don't have to do that.

All they really have to do is get the curriculum into your head. 

They don't have to stay up to plan some fun way to do that, they don't have to offer extra help, they don't have to decorate the classroom so it could inspire you, they don't have to make you photocopies when you lose your papers, they don't have to supervise extracurriculars so school is at least sort of fun.

Yes school is like torture sometimes, but if you just think about it for a moment, I think you'll realize there are plenty of other examples of nice things teachers do for us. 

Don't you think we should give at least some of it back? 

I've gotten to see a bit of the behind-the-scenes of teacher life, and you know, they work hard. 

The least you can do is respect that. So don't leave your freaking handouts everywhere, some teacher spent a long time making them. 

Listen when they're teaching a lesson, you don't know how long it took that teacher to prep it. Plus it might just be a little bit more amusing than twiddling your thumbs, and you might just -- gasp -- learn something!

And finally, CARE. They've worked hard to have a good lesson ready for you and seeing it fall onto unresponsive faces is probably the thing that discourages and depresses teachers the most. 

There's something up with the kids in school these days, I've heard so many complaints from teachers about how we just don't seem to care anymore. 

And that's scary. 

How are we going to get anywhere as individuals and a population if we don't care, if we're not driven, if we don't have goals? 

So I guess my main message is that we can be a heckuva lot better students and that would be a heckuva lot better for us. 

We should stop being so tough on teachers for not giving us what we want; stop hurting them by not respecting them and what they do for us; and to not take their kindness for granted. They aren't there to serve us, they're there to guide us. 

Teachers are such important and great people. For me personally, they've been much needed allies, people to ask for advice, and have helped me discover some of my passions in life. So don't you think they deserve more than we're giving them right now?

There are absolutely bad ones that merit complaints, but don't let that attitude bleed into your interactions with other teachers. 

In the end they are only human, people who have feelings, make mistakes, and have their lives to live. Whether or not that always seems the case. ;)

Please press those g+1 buttons if you liked this!

A Letter to Canada

O Canada. You are the country that raised me and gave me a huge part of who I am. I love the life I have because of you and you've given me so many good memories. You turn 148 today, but Dear Canada, this Canada Day I have to say that you've broken my heart.

I know I'm pretty late, but I just found out about Bill C-24 and I can't tell you how upset it makes me. (For those of you who don't know about this bill, you can find more information on it here and sign the petition to stop it here). 

*Note: I am aware that Bill C-24 also applies to those with dual citizenship, I've written this from the angle of someone not born in Canada because that is my experience. Much of this likely still applies to those that are compromised due to their dual citizen status/qualification. 

Dear Canada Bill C-24 makes me feel unwanted, and dehumanized. You're telling me that because of who I am, I am less worthy of rights, and in turn, dignity. That the truth of who I am, my identity, means I am not and can never be a "true", "proper"  Canadian. 

Dear Canada, you have literally made it so that certain people are considered "better" by birth. I thought we'd realized that was not right a long time ago. 

Dear Canada, why does the fact that I was not born here make my citizenship mean less? Why is it okay to single me and people like me out and make it so we have less rights? How can you persecute us for who we are? (I won't get into it, but that's getting into dangerous territory, you know. Many of the worst tragedies in human history started because of this.)

O Canada. Why do you think that we wouldn't stand by you when we are the ones that chose you. We wanted you. And every day it seems you want us less and less. 

O Canada how could you do this to us?

O Canada do you not know how hard it already is? 

It's hard giving up everything you've ever known.

It's hard having to walk around knowing that people see and judge you immediately as "different".

It's hard feeling left out because there are always those that don't make you feel wanted (there's a reason we tend to stay with those of similar background and not completely mix into society you know).

It's hard having to struggle to figure out which way to reconcile your roots and this new you you've found in this new country you love, to figure out which combination feels right, and trying to not lose who you are.

It's hard having to wonder if it's wrong that you've given up pieces of your culture, if you've given up pieces of you that you shouldn't have. 

And still you push on. 

Because you have to. 

Because you're changed now. And if you go back to where you came, you'd be too Canadian to fit in. 

It's hard being in that strange in between, not feeling like you belong. Too Canadian to be what you were, too other to be Canadian. 

O Canada do you not see how hurtful you're being? Many of us already don't feel like we belong, and now you've added another thing to separate us. you're practically telling us we'll never be good enough to you. Divided we fall, no? It's united we stand. 

Dear Canada I believed in you.  I believed you would always be that beacon of hope and goodness you've become celebrated for. But you failed me and I feel like my foundation has been shaken, you've failed me and so many others that believed in you, too. 

Dear Canada, the trope is that we came here for a better life. But is that really so? I know, and know of so many people that were medical doctors or held doctorates who have to work the lowliest jobs over here. Many of us give up better lives to be here. If anything we came here for the freedom, for the rights that were supposed to be afforded to all of us and recognized. That's the greatest thing we have here and you're taking that away. 

O Canada don't you see this is how you get people to hate you? You make them other. You single them out as not worthy. And it hurts. And out of hurt can grow resentment. Out of resentment, all those things you are trying to avoid. People will wonder "why should I love a country that does not love me, that does not want me". You've given them a reason to no longer want to be good to you. 

O Canada do you really think it's worth it? Sure it might make it easier to deal with a couple terrorists but in the process you have alienated and attacked millions of good people. 

Dear Canada, we know this was likely something cooked up to persecute Muslims. First off, you are horribly misguided there -- a Muslim is just as likely to be a good person as any other; and second, you are hurting far too many in this endeavor to make it worth it.

O Canada, you are better than this. You know discrimination is wrong. 

O Canada I leave you with this: I can't love you if you turn your back on me; and I can't be a good Canadian if you don't give me the chance. 

No it is NOT Man Hating, Here's Why

Graphic from an article titled "Five Reasons to Teach Feminism in High School"

Hey readers! Long time no see (like over a month... whoops, *sheepish laugh*)  Sorry about that, I've just been really busy, and tbh lazy so I haven't gotten around to doing a new post, but I had some time today so I thought I'd put something up. So without further ado:

No it is NOT man hating. Here's why:

Nowadays topics such as gender inequality, gender-based violence and intimate partner violence seem to be getting more and more attention, and before I say any more, I have to say that is AWESOME. 

Without a doubt it's great, but like many awesome things it does not come without hurdles, in this case, I think the biggest one is that sentiment that keeps on showing up that varies but essentially goes like this: "But what about the MEN?" 

Those who take it even further will even say "xxthing happens to everyone, the fact that you are only concerned about the women PROVES your misandry." 

I'm not saying that misandry does not exist; I'm not saying that men's problems are not important; and I am certainly now saying men are never mistreated, it's just that what you're really doing in making a comparison like that is comparing apple to oranges. 

I'm going to start by looking at that specific

argument and I'll talk about why -- though it seems like it is -- it is actually not logically valid. 

The main thing is, the argument is based on the assumption that men and women are on the same level in society, that men and women hold the same power and can access the same amount of privilege, and that is simply not true. 

(For those of you who might want to better understand the concept of "privilege", you'll find some good stuff here, but essentially what it is is that certain groups have more advantages/certain groups are more disadvantaged in society because of certain things about them.) 

Elena Serova recently became the first Russian Cosmonaut aboard
the ISS and the media asked her about her hair...

Men still hold most of the power in society (it helps that most politicians are men). They tend to be taken more seriously -- when a man does something great, the media doesn't tend to totally disregard that and ask about their hair, and of course there is the infamous wage gap.

Just by being male, males don't have to deal with a lot of things that can hold them back. When have you ever seen anything about politicians trying to impose laws on a man's body?

This is not to say that men don't suffer, they are just privileged with not having to deal with certain things.

So giving more aid to women in an issue that affects both genders is not misandry, because women need that aid to level the playing field and make things fair. 

Think of it this way. Say there are two towns on

the coast and a tsunami is headed their way. Both villages are the same distance from the shore, but one is a couple hundred metres higher in altitude than the other (this would represent privilege). 

Does sending more aid for the village lower down after the tsunami mean you're mistreating the village higher up? 

No! The village lower down would require extra help to get on its feet compared to the one higher up, since it would be affected more because of its lower position. It's only fair, it's only right to send more help to the village lower down because they need more.

It's the same way with men and women. Women are disadvantaged compared to men, and because women started off disadvantaged, to make things fair, women would have to be given more help with the issue. 

Emma Watson gave a beautiful analogy recently in a conversation with HeForShe, stating that the human race is like a bird and right now, one of its wings is clipped, so we can't fly as high as we're capable of. 

Taken from a Huffington Post Article

Before we can really move ahead and make things better for all people, we need to even things out so women are not disadvantaged by just being women, so women's lives are better, so we can help the human race soar. 

If we keep giving the same amount of support to both sides, we're never going to reach what is fair -- an even playing field -- so though it is unequal to help women out more than men, right now we need that in our journey toward what is right.

Because as I discussed in this post, we don't need equal, we need equitable.  

It's the same the other way around too. For example with the issue of the objectification of women, there are a lot of indignant cries about the fact that men are also objectified. 

This is true, but the objectification of men does not hold the same detrimental effects to men as the objectification of women does to women. 

Here's another analogy to help see why: imagine that a man and a woman are both standing on some sand. They are the same height, but the woman is standing in a hole dug out in the sand. Two mean people come along and one starts kicking sand at the man and the other starts kicking sand at the women, the two people do this at the same speed. 

Who would be buried by sand first? The woman, because she started off partially buried, she started off disadvantaged.

Similarly, with the objectification of women, even though the same thing is being done to both genders, the effects are for worse and far more concerning when it's being done to a woman because women started off with less privilege; and when men objectify women it has a greater effect than when women do so to men because there is that imbalance of power.   

We simply can't say that because something happens to both genders, that not including what happens to the men in the conversation is mistreating them. It just doesn't apply the same way and doesn't incur the same results because of the imbalance of power privilege.

I'll be real, I'm kind of sick of hearing about
women too. All the time it's just a string problems that women face, but my question is, why have things not changed already? We talk about these issues over and over until they seem overdone, still it's hard to find some concrete evidence of change. 

And when it does happen to both genders it bothers me when they make it seem like it only happens to women

But in the end, you can't forget that things like gender roles contribute to the plights of men and that conversations around violence against women, for example, work to break gender role expectations for BOTH men and women, so though the focus is not on men, these campaigns "for women" are working to make things better for men as well. 

I think just as a society we need to have an understanding that though, in general, women are portrayed more often as the recipients because we are the ones experience these negative things more often, we are not the only victims. We need to understand that the problem is not men, but bad people of ALL genders. 

Please share and hit those g+1 buttons if you like this post and/or my blog. And as always, I'd love to hear your opinions so share them with me in the comments! 

What Causes Someone to Perceive One Thing When an Entirely Different Thing is Happening?

So originally I had this lined up to be one of the first blog posts, for whatever reason that didn't happen, but here it finally is.

It all started when I read this article titled "I Was Taking Pictures of my Daughters. A Stranger Thought I was Exploiting Them" I've linked the article there for you, but essentially it's the story of an interracial family, a white couple had adopted two girls from China, and at the time the event occurred they were 16 and 17, young women. The father was taking pictures of his girls on the deck of the ferry en route to their annual vacation spot, and they were doing so for a while, trying to get the perfect shot. Then a random man comes by and asks the girls if they are alright. It took them a while to understand, but then they realized that the stranger thought the girls were being exploited and photos were for something not very great. 

It was then revealed that the man works for the Department of Homeland Security. (This is going to be part of something I discuss later)

What to question here is of course the role of race and racial profiling Had they not been an interracial family it's unlikely the man would have perceived the picture taking to be suspicious. 

And for me, it also seems like a good example of the separate/different/other mentality that race, for whatever reason, still evokes. From what I read in the article, it seems like the automatic assumption taken from the presence of different races was that different race = different and cannot equal a group that's together. 

Lately, in my probe into race and what it still means in society today, I've come to realize that it seems to be some kind of insurmountable barrier of difference. 

Race is likely the first thing a person notices about

someone else and yeah it makes sense that there's an initial thought of difference, but it almost seems like to a lot of people, the difference in race almost negates any other similarities. 

It isn't a really prominent in-your-face thing of course, it's more under the surface, manifesting as Microaggressions. 

For an example I'll turn to the way non-white people in Canada or the US are sometimes told to "go back to where they're from" even though that person might be a 5th generation immigrant who speaks perfect English and the only tie they have with the country their family's from is the way their features look. 

As well, I think it demonstrates how, though supposedly interracial marriages/families are on the rise, families different from the traditional mother and father of the same race who have a baby together dynamic are still often not perceived as what they are (as in families and not just people  who just happen to be in the same place/people involved in a sinister situation.).

But more than, that I think this situation that befell this interracial family illustrates how broken our trust in our fellow humans are. 

The author of the article wrote a question near the end that has become the title of this post: What causes someone to perceive one thing when an entirely different thing is happening? 

My answer? I think it's simply: because we've been taught to; because we've taught ourselves to. 

We just hear about so many negative things that other people are doing - this person was stabbed today, that person was shot; this conflict has killed XX thousand people, that terrorist group is threatening to do XYZ. We're constantly bombarded by awful news, is it a wonder that we are so suspicious and unable to trust in the benevolence of our fellow humans? 

The world we live in, the way people act and treat others has caused us to be very paranoid and suspicious of others' actions. We feel this need to "protect ourselves" from others. 

A perfect example is something that happened to me over the summer. I met a friendly old man one day when I was out walking around in my neighbourhood and the whole time he was talking to me I kept on thinking, "Oh my gosh what am I doing? What if he's a murderor / pedophile / psychopath / some other type of person that might mean me harm?" 

It turned out one of my friends actually knew him and she assured me he was harmless. Afterward I felt really saddened that the world has made it so the first thing we think when we meet a stranger is that they may harm us. 

And the thing is, I'm just a teenager. 

I haven't been exposed to as many malicious actions as an adult would have, and what I've seen is definitely nowhere near what the man that worked for the DHS has. Yes, he did not handle the situation very well since he didn't account for the possibility of things not being the way he perceived them to be, but can you really blame him? 

Working in the field he does, he must have see a LOT of people doing terrible things to others, and people in fields like that must have a particularly warped perception of how awful people really are to others (And it really isn't as bad, apparently we might just be in the most peaceful time of human existence) because they see malevolence more frequently and possibly to a greater degree than most people. 

It's like when you first find out about something you hadn't previously known about, all of a sudden you spot it everywhere, even in places where you hadn't realized it was before. Or when you're really familiar with something, you see it really easily. 

We are programmed with a strong will to survive, with that comes with fear for the welfare of ourselves. And, just in general I think we are creatures filled with fear -- we fear the unknown and we fear what may hurt us and those we care about. 

Add in all the terrible things we keep hearing about that other people are doing, that makes us start to fear others, and because we're so bombarded by bad things that are happening, I think that's led our brains to constantly make connections to the malicious when (at least I hope ) most of the time what's happening is actually benign. 

And if we take it a step further, maybe we even fear ourselves, because we ask "Well what's the difference between me and that person doing terrible things? Could I do terrible things like that?" and the lack of a biological difference that would render it impossible for you to be as awful as "them" might disquiet you. 

Of course, most people don't like to feel that way, most people would rather the problem be solely outside of them, most people want something or someone to blame. That way, you can get a weapon, take self defense or whatever and "protect yourself". It's a heck of a lot easier than grappling with the darkness inside of you, than explore your deepest darkest parts.   

So in addition to our already uneasy feelings toward others, we might try to project our own darkness onto others. 

However, I think it's important to try and figure

yourself out, because it's only then that you can change yourself for the better. If you recognize you are probably capable of doing awful things you'll realize something you might consider doing as awful BEFORE you do it so you can prevent it from happening. 

If we want society to be better, we need parts - people - that are as good as they can be. 

So moral of the story, things aren't always as they seem to be, check your biases and if you choose to do a great thing and try not to be a bystander, just try to be sensitive and approach things in a way that allow you to be wrong while causing minimal damage. Recognize that we are all human, for better and for worse, but you don't have to let the worse define you. 

As always, please hit those g+1 buttons if you like this post (hit the one at the bottom of the post)/blog (hit the one at the very top of the page), and I'd love to hear people's opinions on this, please share them with me in the comments. 

As well a quick Poll: Do people prefer long posts like this one or shorter ones such as the few I put up before this one? Or should I have a mix of both? Tell me that in the comments too. :) 

- Maggs 

“Slap Her": Children's Reactions

    

So this is a really nice, (though not without flaws) social experiment conducted in Italy that I think serves to open up the conversation about males being socialized to be violent.

   

Not a single one of the boys here was willing to slap her, so where and why does the problem of males acting violent toward women start? (And yes it is still a prevalent issue, and you can find proof here, and here, and if you google it you'll find thousands more) 

In all honesty it was much nicer to see responses like "I'm against violence" that did not mention gender as opposed to "you shouldn't hit a girl" or "I can't hit her because she's pretty", because while the 2nd and 3rd examples represent something good in that these boys are expressing that they are against being violent toward females, it doesn't represent being against being violent at all. 

The last example also represents how indoctrinated in society the idea of assigning value to females based on their looks is, which is total BS. 

It's really cool that these boys are against hitting the girl, it really is, but in order for violence to stop being such a big issue we need to teach young people to not be violent for the right reasons, namely because it harms the other person and we should be empathetic toward those around us. I think it's only when we teach people to think a little more about how things will affect others that we're going to get concrete results in trying to make sure people stop hurting other people so much. 

And before anyone calls misandry, (and I do have a post lined up addressing this, so be on the lookout for that!) my next point is that I think it's important that we teach all kids to not be violent at all and not just to not be violent toward a group. Violence against women is a more prevalent issue, but I don't think the latter method is going to do much to help society, we shouldn't give off the impression that we think male-male violence is okay, because that isn't either.

So one final thing I want to mention: someone in the comments section of where I first found this video brought up a point that I think is really important to note: all the boys were okay with reaching out to touch Martina without asking if she was okay with it. 

That speaks a lot to what our societies teach kids about consent, which is namely not much. There is no doubt a lot of importance in teaching kids to be non-violent, but we also need kids to know that you shouldn't go about invading people's space whenever you feel like/without knowing that they'd be okay with it; that women are not there for guys to touch and do whatever they please with. 

Well what do you know, this one turned out kinda legit blog-y post like, consider it a thing to tide you over until the next time I dig deep into an issue. :)

Once again, I'd love to know people's opinions on this, so please share them with me in the comments. 

As always, please hit that g+1 button at the bottom of the post if you liked this, and if you like my blog please press the g+1 button at the very top of the page.

Thanks!

Love,

Maggs :)

Another Inspiring, Must-Watch Speech from Emma Watson

Emma Watson is honestly making me love her so much. This is her speech for HeForShe IMPACT 10x10x10 Program at the World Economic Forum 2015

   

She makes a small joke about it in this speech, but she truly writes such great speeches and delivers them in such a passionate, moving way. 

For those of you who are regular readers of my blog: first thank you, it's really cool that you would take your time to read the stuff I write about. Second, the end of the semester has kept me uber busy, so sorry about putting zero things up. And I know this isn't very much either, but it's (sort of?) something to tide you over right? 

Rest assured I have a lot of things planned, I just don't really have the time right now. 

Look out for something on Tuesday though! I'll be finished my exams and should have a lot more time. 

Stay Awesome!

- Maggs :)

You Don't Agree with Someone? That's Totally Fine, but Here's What to NOT do About it

I thought this was an appropriate post to put up today considering everything that's been happening in France, primarily Paris, lately.

The world is outraged, horrified, and saddened by these tragic events, and before I go into the main idea of this post I thought I'd do my part in stopping the spread of Islamophobia in it's tracks. 

The actions of these extremists SHOULD NOT IN ANY WAY be taken to reflect the beliefs and ideologies of all Muslims. These individuals are extremists, they, quite frankly, use religion as an excuse to do awful things. (Or at least delude themselves into thinking what they're doing is right because of religion). It is illogical and unfair to tie the general Muslim population to extremists. 

Ahmed Merabet, The Muslim police officer that was killed

In fact, one of the officers killed on Wednesday was Muslim, he died protecting Charlie Hebdo's right to free speech. If you haven't already, I encourage you to look deeper into the double standards, and additional perspectives that mainstream media might not be providing.

Onto the body of the post:

Originally, this post was to come right after the Good Drowned out by Bad Post (And it'd still probably be of use to read that one before reading this one), but things changed. 

Let me begin by saying that people deciding it's okay to threaten somebody over exercising their right to freedom of expression is something that bothers me to no end. 

First off, it's seriously not cool to threaten someone period. 

Second, there is a person on the receiving end, a person who has feelings just like you, and your threat, whether you meant it or not, can make them feel unsafe, and EVERYONE is entitled to feeling safe.

It just makes absolutely makes no sense. Somebody expresses themselves, and maybe it hurt your pride, maybe it offended you, but are those grounds to threaten that person's well-being? 

To me at least, it seems like doing so is just WAY overcompensating for the harm that was inflicted on you. 

Because it's not like it's threats such as "I will slap you" It's things like "I'll kill you", "I'll rape you" (particularly common when directed at a woman) and "I hope you get Ebola". 

For me, this seems to show either calculated malice, or ignorant insensitivity (or both). 

And I've seen all of these threats made myself. The Ebola one was during a time where the Ebola outbreak was a really big thing, and it was directed toward Taylor Swift on a commercial she'd done for Diet Coke. 


The person said they hated Taylor, and wished the disease upon her. First off, how do you hate someone you have likely never met? Why would you bother to hate someone you don't know?

Second, I think it's a pretty good example of a very troubling trend with these threats. 

There will always be the generic "I will kill you", but it's things like "I will rape you" and "I will post personal photos of you" that really bother me, because regardless if they are empty threats, it displays a level of thought and deliberation on how to violate the person so that they feel as awful as possible.

Morals should not end up like this monitor

We need to move away from that, we need to stop being so negative and hateful. Yeah people's opinions can be misinformed and awful, yeah they can mean change and that can be scary, but we shouldn't be willing to throw morals out the window because somebody said something. 

And even if the person making the threat doesn't mean to go through with it, it could inspire somebody that would go through with it. 
  
Words might not be able to do much by themselves, but they can serve as ignition for scary things - after all, it was words that started and allowed some of the worst events in human history to happen.

"Yes we all have the right to an opinion, and freedom of expression and they're great things, but we don't always have to use them."

  
Many of those threats are made thoughtlessly on the internet, and that's one sucky thing about the web, what happens there seems less "real", so doing something online doesn't seem like a big deal. (rhyming unintended ;))

But the fact of the matter is that it is. It means

people feel the need to leave their homes, and if people go through with the threats, it means people are hurt. 

There are appropriate ways to express dissatisfaction with an opinion, and threatening the person that holds that opinion is NOT on of them. 

So people if we could all please just take a moment and consider what we're doing before we say/post/tweet/text etc. something? And this I mean to apply to all scenarios. Because so many hurt feelings and hurt feelings that lead to awful events can so easily be avoided. 

And this is not to say I'm cool with people expressing harmful, violent opinions. Yes we all have the right to an opinion, and freedom of expression and they're great things, but we don't always have to use them. Nobody is forcing you to speak your opinions, and if it's not going to do any good expressing it, then maybe you should consider not expressing it at all.

At the end of the day, we need to make sure it's our moral compass that guides us, not anything else, because only then can everyone live a better life. 

If you liked this post, please hit that g+1 button at the bottom. If you like my blog in general, please hit that g+1 button at the very top of the page. 

I'd love to hear what you people think, so share your opinions with me in the comments! :) 

Just a heads up, exams are coming up and I'm not going to be able to guarantee the usual post a week for the next bit. I might share some pictures or songs or something, but legit blog-y posts might take a while. 

Until next time!
- Maggs :)