Lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders (the LBGT community) have been fighting for equality of all sorts for years. As of November 7, nine states in the US have legalized gay marriage. This is an extreme accomplishment in the LGBT fight for equality that shows how much support this community has gotten over the years.
The "It Gets Better" project is a prime example of the group's acceptance. For the project, people make videos talking about why life gets better for the LBGT community as adults, much like Tim Gunn's video above. But, what I think proves the acceptance of this group even more is a recent article by Fox News. Fox News is a news organization that's widely known for publishing content with conservative reporting bias. Recently, the news organization published a story about a same-sex marriage at West Point's Cadet Chapel. What's special about this story from this source is that it's written in a completely neutral manner. If the conservative Fox News reporters can accept writing about gay marriage without any biases, I think that shows how far Americans have come in accepting the LGBT community.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Antifeminism: A Woman's Argument
We've all heard it: there are no good men left in the world. Any decent man worth dating must be taken. Women utter complaints like this every day, and we can't seem to figure out why good men aren't being raised anymore. Here's a new spin on an answer to the problem: women are to blame. A recent Fox News article states that the reason men don't want to get married anymore is that women are competing with the natural male instinct to provide for a family. Because of the rise of feminism, men are getting "pissed off"that they can't fulfill their biological role of protecting a women and children.
This article paints women as the bad people and tells us to "surrender to our femininity"if we want to find good men. What's most surprising about this? The article was written by a woman. More than that, this article was written by a woman who throws out years of work on research as credentials. Research, may I point out, that she wouldn't have been able to do if feminists in older generations hadn't gotten women out of the kitchen. As a woman, I find this writer's opinion especially offensive. Take a look at the video above. The Fox News reporter is just encouraging world views like that of the man in the video.
In a society where women have fought for years to gain equal footing in the workplace and the government, this reporter says we should throw all of that out the window for the love of men who don't see us as equals or as capable of taking care of ourselves. The logic just doesn't make sense. If we want a man to treat us right, why should we revert to the era where we were property (where men had every legal right to abuse us and not get punished)? Opinions like that of the Fox News reporter just tell men that women really aren't intelligent enough to think for themselves. The reporter is just sending the message to men that she, as a woman, is incapable of doing research and making recommendations based on sound logic. She's just perpetuating the problem of men thinking women are too emotional and irrational to handle any big-time thinking or problem solving. And what's worse about this entire situation? This woman is a journalist and is spreading this message worldwide via the internet. She's causing the mass media to paint negative pictures of women and telling them it's okay. And she even has research (made possible because of feminist movements) to back it up.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Obama: Not a racial breakthrough
When Barack Obama claimed his first presidential victory in 2008, the biggest news headline was that America had just elected its first black president. While this was true, it was also the most emphasized aspect of Obama's victory. That wasn't surprising, however, seeing as though Obama's campaign largely centered around his race. I was a sophomore in high school when Obama ran for his first presidential election. I wasn't that informed about the election issues, but I knew the economy was in trouble and I listened to the candidates' speeches when they came on television. The one thing I was completely aware of, however, was that Obama could be (and eventually was elected as) America's first black president. Why? Because he emphasized it in every single speech he gave.
Obama's victory has been labeled as one that has broken a racist social structure in America. But when we really think about it, has it? In my opinion, it hasn't. As I already mentioned, by emphasizing it in every speech he made, Obama made his race a key voting issue. While it was an extremely effective election strategy, I actually think it made the racial situation in America worse. Pointing out his race so much just drew more attention to the fact that being black made him significantly different than other candidates. In a country where black people fought for equality, we had a black presidential candidate fighting to be seen as not equal to other candidates because of his race. This is the very reason why it's flawed to call Obama's victory a racial breakthrough. Had Obama really wanted to break down racism in America, his strategy would've been to de-emphasize his race and promote the fact that he could be elected based solely on his platform. But since he chose to point out his race in every speech he made, changing America's views on racism clearly was not Obama's goal. If anything, Obama's victory just pointed out how traditional minorities are rapidly growing in America, and how much voting power they have as a group now.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Shaking up Tonto may not be effective
Johnny Depp is reinventing the character of Tonto for this summer's remake of "The Lone Ranger." Tonto, the faithful, Native American sidekick, has traditionally been portrayed under common media stereotypes for Native Americans. As can be seen in the video above, Depp says he's trying to shake up the traditional Native American stereotype by updating Tonto's costume. However, it doesn't appear that he's getting totally positive feedback from Native Americans.
While I appreciate Depp's trying to shake up the traditional Native American stereotype, I don't know how effective his effort will actually be. The fact of the matter is that he's still playing the role of the Native American sidekick whose name, in Spanish, literally translates to "stupid." Depp can try all he wants to shake up the image of the character, but he can't change what role the character plays in the overall movie script. For this reason, I doubt Native Americans will be seen in a much more positive light after this film releases in Summer 2013. If anything, this might awaken stronger stereotypes and discrimination against Native Americans in the younger generation that hasn't been exposed to the idea of the "stupid" Native American yet.
Friday, November 2, 2012
The young and the stupid
Today's young adults are constantly stereotyped as being stupid and unconcerned about the world around us. Hollywood blockbusters such as "Mean Girls" worsen the problem by reinforcing the image of airhead teenagers who turn into incompetent adults. In the clip above, the character Gretchen Weiners gives her own unintelligent interpretation of Shakespeare's work. Weiners is supposed to be a junior in high school, yet her English term paper fails to even come close to a thoughtful analysis of "Julius Caesar."
These portrayals of teenagers harm our reputation as young adults. Personally, I know adults underestimate my intellectual ability based on my peers. It doesn't matter how high my GPA is or how many accolades I earn, I'm still lumped with my peers when adults talk about how lazy and incompetent my generation is. What's worse is that my generation isn't doing much as a whole to kill these assumptions. Instead of defending ourselves when we hear these stereotypes, many of us turn around and argue that our elder generations are too old to understand how the world works today. In this case, it's not just the film industry's fault for giving us a bad reputation. It's our fault for not standing up to shed the stupid teenager stereotype for ourselves.
Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said in a debate this week that he believes pregnancies resulting from rape are part of God's plan, which is why he only supports abortion if a mother's life is in danger. Mourdock's comment has received tremendous backlash from the public, but what's sad is that he's not the only one who makes his personal religious beliefs part of his campaign. The issue of limiting abortion has become a large part of the traditional Republican platform today.
The problem with Republicans trying to limit abortion is that they're pushing their personal beliefs on everyone else to the extent that it's become all some people know about Christianity. They're sending the message that their interpretation of the Bible and Christianity is what is correct. Because of these candidates, it seems that all Christians today are given the label of "abortion haters." I know plenty of Christians who support abortion. Some of those people are my family members, who often find that others have misconceptions about their belief systems because of the political uproar. When candidates and lawmakers try to push their religious beliefs into law, more social divisions are created, which contributes to inequality in our society. In a country where freedom of religion is supposed to be a fundamental right, these lawmakers are making it harder for people to understand exactly what Christianity is--a diverse religion with many different interpretations and denominations. Stereotyping anyone isn't right, and it's shameful that our own candidates and lawmakers are contributing to the stereotyping of Christians.
The issue of affirmative action is being brought before the Supreme Court again. The Supreme Court will decide whether or not affirmative action is just during its session this year, thanks to Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Abigail Fisher, a 22-year-old woman, was denied admission to the University of Texas in 2008. Fisher said she was denied admission because she is white and hopes "that they’ll completely take race out of the issue in terms of admissions." Affirmative action has been a highly debated topic for many years. The whole purpose of the policy was to ban discrimination of people because of their race or gender. In 1978, the Supreme Court decided that affirmative action was legal, as long as quotas weren't used. The thing is, the very policy of affirmative action hinders our ability to move past race and gender discrimination in America. As we should all know, not all people of the same racial background or gender think and act in the exact same way. I am a white female, just like my roommate, but she and I have entirely different interests and opinions. We do not act alike, and we don't approach projects or work in the same way either. If we were stereotyped based on our race and gender, people would end up with a flawed conception of our actual personalities. When universities are required to consider race and gender during the admissions process, that sends the message that stereotyping people is okay. If America is supposed to be a land where all people are created equally, then stereotyping shouldn't be allowed, much less encouraged.
