Sunday, May 24, 2015
It's often argued that success isn't about who you are, but how hard you work. While those coming from financially sound families do have an upper-leg, the less fortunate ones have the opportunity to reach this same level through hard work and a good education. After all, we aren't solely defined by our home life, and the differences it allows to our character is relatively small. The problem is, as this comic argues, "...over the years all these little differences, they start to add up, to build into something bigger."
"On a Plate" accurately and profoundly expresses the implications of privilege. Closing these disparities isn't a matter of socialism, it's a matter of rectifying the fact that "equal opportunity" doesn't exist in this society.
Check out the whole comic here.
Monday, May 4, 2015
Privilege isn't usually isolated, many times, certain kinds of privilege are connected to others. White privilege, for example, connects to class privilege in many cases.This article breaks down information from the US Census Bureau and provides six easy-to-understand charts that illustrate six different building blocks in the bridge between white and class privilege.
See the full story on Upworthy.com
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Those who don't identify with a defined gender often have trouble finding a comfortable, judgement free place to use the restroom. It's a plight no cisgendered person has ever experienced, but it seems, for the most part, that when people cant specifically catagorize a bathroom patron's gender, tery generally tend to treat them with animosity. When bathrooms are inclusive too all genders, the boy-girl rules don't matter, and the pressure comes off.
For many of us, this isn't considered to be "big news," but it should be, because it speaks volumes about the progress that is being made in the LGBTQ movement. The white house's choice to add gender inclusive bathrooms to their blueprints is a symbolic leap taken by the Obama Administration in the name of protecting LGBTQ rights, and best of all, it's a permanent symbol that will remain in the white house even after President Obama leaves office.
Way to go, guys!
Sunday, April 5, 2015
This weekend everyone on my Facebook feed seemed to be up in arms over Jaden Smith wearing a dress to coachella. I don't really understand the cause of the hype. First of all, it looks more like an over sized T-shirt than a dress, and second, even if it was a dress, who cares?
Men always seem to be dressed in women's clothing under an absurdest context, but does it always have to be absurd? After all, society allows women to cross-dress with no problem. In the words of Mark Blechner, Author of Sex Changes: Transformations in Society and Psychoanalysis " Marlene Dietrich in a tuxedo was considered very erotic; Jack Lemmon in a dress was considered ridiculous." Similar reactions to cross dressing celebrities have been gauged throughout the years, but why? Why is there such backlash? Why do we have a reaction to it all?
NYU released an analysis of this issue in 2009, suggesting that it's all a symptom of a cultural stronghold of heteronormativity.
Heteronormativity is defined as the social norm that suggests that people fall into distinct, complimentary genders. However, when people challenge the behaviors assigned to their sex, their gender roles, this in turn challenges a prevailing societal norm. When a celebrity breaks social norms there is often a widespread, out of proportion response. That's why the internet practically blew up when Jennifer Lawrence cut her hair or Jaden Smith is seen in a not-so-masculine outfit. Our society conditions us to care more about it than it really matters.
But the reality is, people aren't solid blocks of gender. Females have masculine qualities, and males have feminine qualities. People cross the (imaginary) line of boy-girl rules on a day to day basis, and nothing bad has happened as a result of it. The negative repercussions start when the judgement comes in. It starts when hate is used to emphasize little differences in each other.
The concept of violating gender roles is the same as violating racial roles, or class roles. These designations do not exist, and we should not allow others to think so by consonantly reacting to the things that do not adhere to our norms.
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Last week I came across an article arguing that the word "thug" is the new "n----r."
Could this be true?
This Friday I also had the privilege of sitting in on a high school presentation of Dr. Neal Lester's "Straight Talk about the N-Word." During which, he talked about the connotations of the N-word throughout history, and why it is considered to be so offensive.
I learned that not only was it a word to express hate, but it was often just a commonplace word to describe African Americans. In early 20th Century pop culture, the n-word was usually paired with derogatory statements, pictures, or lyrics. The n-word wasn't just something people randomly yelled when they wanted to hurt African Americans (although it was frequently used for that purpose as well). It was a word used to demean and categorize a whole subgroup of people on a day-to-day basis.
I had already read the article before I went to this presentation, and as I listened, I thought of the similarities between "thug" today and "n-----" in the past.
"Thug" is a word used far too often to describe African Americans. Every time we see a black victim of violence, the media is always trying to justify their attacks by trying to prove they are "thugs." And what exactly is a "thug?" What does one have to do to be considered a "thug?" The answer depends on who you ask, but to get a basic idea, I looked it up on Google images. Here's what came up:
Notice anything they all have in common?
These are the over exaggerated images that come to mind when somebody tries to imagine a thug. Like the n-word, "thug" is a word encompassing a negative connotation, perpetuating the mistreatment of African Americans that is used in a commonplace context. Because of this, I am entirely behind the idea that "thug" shares nearly identical implications with the n-word.
Is "thug" the new "n-----r?" It could be, it's used just as commonly to say something very similar, but that's just my opinion. What are your thoughts?
Sunday, March 22, 2015
I am cisgendered. Which means that I can never fully understand what it feels like to misgendered, or how detrimental this can be to somebody's self esteem, but I do know that being recognized as the correct gender is a huge issue within the transgender community. This is why it is so important to be diligent in recognizing and supporting those who are transgendered or transitioning, and the very best way to do that is with our words. Specifically gender pronouns.
As Everyday Feminism argues, using the correct gender pronouns is essential to becoming an effective ally for the LGBTQ community. People want to be called the right pronouns. It sounds like an easy concept to grasp, after all no "sir" wants to be called "ma'am" and the same applies in vic versa. But misgendering means a whole lot more to those who are transgendered. Like I said, I personally believe that this is a feeling no cisgendered person can come close to fully understanding, however, this is an article that really put things into perspective for me. It's called "What You Are Actually Saying When You Ignore Somebody's Gender Pronouns" Check it out!
As Everyday Feminism argues, using the correct gender pronouns is essential to becoming an effective ally for the LGBTQ community. People want to be called the right pronouns. It sounds like an easy concept to grasp, after all no "sir" wants to be called "ma'am" and the same applies in vic versa. But misgendering means a whole lot more to those who are transgendered. Like I said, I personally believe that this is a feeling no cisgendered person can come close to fully understanding, however, this is an article that really put things into perspective for me. It's called "What You Are Actually Saying When You Ignore Somebody's Gender Pronouns" Check it out!
Sunday, March 15, 2015
As one who grew up in a Hispanic family, operating among a multi-language environment was never anything strange to me. I have members of my family who are fluent in both English and Spanish, and others who can only speak one or the other. For most of my life, I operated under the belief that the language somebody spoke just was. I never really focused on the fact that I could understand my mother when she was talking to my aunts, but I couldn't understand my grandmother when she was talking to my great aunts. To me, all these verbal barriers weren't a matter of inferiority vs. superiority, it just meant that I couldn't understand certain people's gossip. However, it has recently come to my attention that as a society, we do value those who speak the same language as us a little more than we should.
The multi-language warning label on your hair dryer may lead you to think different, but America mostly operates as a single-language country. For those who don't speak English, it is difficult to do day-to-day tasks that require communication, an uphill battle to get an education, and nearly impossible to get a well-paying job. On top of this, many who face this language barrier in America are personally attacked for failing to learn our "mother tongue." This is a form of discrimination called linguiscism. We've all heard somebody at one time or another say that only "true Americans" speak English. While many of us don't have such extreme tendencies of liguicism, we all have some kind of unconscious bias when we encounter people who don't speak the same language as us, or who have accents that make them difficult to understand.
Whether its a completely different language, or some different dialect of American English, a lack of fluency in our own language often goes hand-in-hand with being labeled incompetent or uneducated.
I met my turning point in linguistic perception when I was seventeen years old. I asked my mother why none of her siblings were fluent in Spanish, and she said the reason why was because they were banned to speak Spanish in their house. My grandfather, the grandson of Mexican immigrants, was often bullied for his lack of fluency. To him, banning Spanish was not only a form of protecting his children, but a way of guaranteeing their success. Since then, I have been told by many of my Hispanic peers that the same thing has happened in their household.
It is shameful to see just how far we let lingucisim get by. In privilege talks, linguiscism is mostly scanned over, but it is one of the most prevalent forms of discrimination in our country.
Linguiscism is a difficult concept to combat, because many feel that the only way to counter it would be to learn as many langauges as possible so that we can all understand each other. While that would be great, that is not a realistic expectation for most people. Honestly, just like any form of discrimination, the very best first step one can take is to practice empathy and to watch for the unconscious bias within oneself. Tolerance isn't a quality exclusive to multi-langauged individuals, and this extension of empathy can mean far more than any words ever could. When we allow these actions speak louder than words, the dialect we're using hardly even matters.
The multi-language warning label on your hair dryer may lead you to think different, but America mostly operates as a single-language country. For those who don't speak English, it is difficult to do day-to-day tasks that require communication, an uphill battle to get an education, and nearly impossible to get a well-paying job. On top of this, many who face this language barrier in America are personally attacked for failing to learn our "mother tongue." This is a form of discrimination called linguiscism. We've all heard somebody at one time or another say that only "true Americans" speak English. While many of us don't have such extreme tendencies of liguicism, we all have some kind of unconscious bias when we encounter people who don't speak the same language as us, or who have accents that make them difficult to understand.
Whether its a completely different language, or some different dialect of American English, a lack of fluency in our own language often goes hand-in-hand with being labeled incompetent or uneducated.
I met my turning point in linguistic perception when I was seventeen years old. I asked my mother why none of her siblings were fluent in Spanish, and she said the reason why was because they were banned to speak Spanish in their house. My grandfather, the grandson of Mexican immigrants, was often bullied for his lack of fluency. To him, banning Spanish was not only a form of protecting his children, but a way of guaranteeing their success. Since then, I have been told by many of my Hispanic peers that the same thing has happened in their household.
It is shameful to see just how far we let lingucisim get by. In privilege talks, linguiscism is mostly scanned over, but it is one of the most prevalent forms of discrimination in our country.
Linguiscism is a difficult concept to combat, because many feel that the only way to counter it would be to learn as many langauges as possible so that we can all understand each other. While that would be great, that is not a realistic expectation for most people. Honestly, just like any form of discrimination, the very best first step one can take is to practice empathy and to watch for the unconscious bias within oneself. Tolerance isn't a quality exclusive to multi-langauged individuals, and this extension of empathy can mean far more than any words ever could. When we allow these actions speak louder than words, the dialect we're using hardly even matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)