In class we had a discussion about women being "butch" and I remember one person mentioning that women are "supposed" to be a certain way that is "obviously" not butch. Well according to The American Heritage Dictionary, butch is a slang term meaning Exhibiting stereotypically or exaggeratedly masculine traits or appearance. Used especially of lesbians and gay men. This term is offensive and based solely on a person's appearance. Before that class, I also thought of butch as meaning a lesbian woman with short hair. Even though I never use that word because honestly, how often does it come up?; I still associated it with lesbians and a short cropped haircut. I realize now that it is stereotypical and judgmental. However, in class the discussion came up about a woman being called butch because she is competitive, athletic, and strong. It is absurd to consider a female athlete a lesbian because she possesses these qualities. This issue relates directly to the "image problem" we discussed in class about a fear that all women athletes are lesbians. Really? I want to know who sat down one day and decided that in order for a female to be a strong competitor with great talents, she must be a lesbian. This concept is ridiculous and it forces female athletes to believe that they have to use the "feminine apologetic" to convince others of their sexual orientation. Homophobia is an issue in women sports that needs to be addressed. I think it's great that Jen Harris stood up for herself against that kind of discrimination. Also, I found an article that was written by Pat Griffin about the entire Jen Harris/Rene Portland situation. The link is below.
Settling Can Mean Victory
Monday, November 23, 2009
Asianization & Yao Ming - Week 11
In class we discussed the article by Barker and the idea that the "Asianization" of America has becoming a new phenomenon that has been sneaking up on us for several years. We made a list in class of several influences of Asian Americans in our culture and in sport. Personally, I think this is great. I really don't understand why it's made a big deal of. We are supposed to be "the melting pot," a country with blended cultures and pasts. I never realized the impact that Asian culture has actually had on the United States. It is everywhere, from candy to movies to food.
When it comes to Yao Ming, it seems like everything we have discussed has been so ready to focus on stereotypes of commercials or magazine covers and everything else that sets Yao apart from Americans. Yao has become what is referred to as a "model minority" and a contributor to globalization of the NBA. To me, the term "model minority" is equivalent to "model citizen" and that is just something that society views as what is right and proper. I don't feel like that is something positive as all. It is an expectation that you at societal standards and should be made an example of. Well, no one is perfect and that seems like an awful lot of pressure to put on someone.
The last thing I wanted to mention was the video we watched where Shaq did an interview and made a somewhat racist comment that was more of an act really. Even though he claims to have been joking, it could almost be seem as taunting. Also, if that was indeed a joke to Yao Ming, it should have been something that was said between them and that way it would not have offended any other person.
When it comes to Yao Ming, it seems like everything we have discussed has been so ready to focus on stereotypes of commercials or magazine covers and everything else that sets Yao apart from Americans. Yao has become what is referred to as a "model minority" and a contributor to globalization of the NBA. To me, the term "model minority" is equivalent to "model citizen" and that is just something that society views as what is right and proper. I don't feel like that is something positive as all. It is an expectation that you at societal standards and should be made an example of. Well, no one is perfect and that seems like an awful lot of pressure to put on someone.
The last thing I wanted to mention was the video we watched where Shaq did an interview and made a somewhat racist comment that was more of an act really. Even though he claims to have been joking, it could almost be seem as taunting. Also, if that was indeed a joke to Yao Ming, it should have been something that was said between them and that way it would not have offended any other person.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Athletes & Politics - Week 10
Are male black athletes being asked for too much? What is the line between being an athlete and a being a political figure? Is supporting an issue just another endorsement?
These questions seem to be increasingly important lately with all the hype about Lebron James declining to sign a letter condemning China for its role in the genocide in Darfur. The same thing happened to Michael Jordan when he refused to back a democratic African-American senate candidate. Michael Jordan paved the way for other athletes to remain apolitical and not publicly shares their views on controversial issues.
In my opinion, that is perfectly acceptable. Even though these two very powerful black, male athletes are sure to have a lot of influence, they shouldn't have to be subjected to using their influence over anyone. I think it's actually admirable that the athletes refused to back these issues because by doing that, whether it was the intended purpose or not, they would be persuading thousands of fans to have the same belief. People would certainly want to have the same views as their heroes and important issues should be decided on ones own. Everyone is capable of coming to their own conclusion without persuasion from Jordon or Lebron.
I think it is ridiculous for some people to assume that these athletes should have to take a stand on political issues simply because their good at basketball. It's a personal choice for them to voice their opinions and they should not be persuaded to use their position if they do not so choose. They sign a contract to play basketball, they sign contracts to endorse Nike and other sponsors, but they do not sign contracts that force them to back political figures and put their name to an issue.
These questions seem to be increasingly important lately with all the hype about Lebron James declining to sign a letter condemning China for its role in the genocide in Darfur. The same thing happened to Michael Jordan when he refused to back a democratic African-American senate candidate. Michael Jordan paved the way for other athletes to remain apolitical and not publicly shares their views on controversial issues.
In my opinion, that is perfectly acceptable. Even though these two very powerful black, male athletes are sure to have a lot of influence, they shouldn't have to be subjected to using their influence over anyone. I think it's actually admirable that the athletes refused to back these issues because by doing that, whether it was the intended purpose or not, they would be persuading thousands of fans to have the same belief. People would certainly want to have the same views as their heroes and important issues should be decided on ones own. Everyone is capable of coming to their own conclusion without persuasion from Jordon or Lebron.
I think it is ridiculous for some people to assume that these athletes should have to take a stand on political issues simply because their good at basketball. It's a personal choice for them to voice their opinions and they should not be persuaded to use their position if they do not so choose. They sign a contract to play basketball, they sign contracts to endorse Nike and other sponsors, but they do not sign contracts that force them to back political figures and put their name to an issue.
Brown Eyes, Blue Eyes - Week 9
In class we watched an experiment by a third grade teacher on her students. She divided them into 2 groups and gave each privileges equivalent of white person of that era in turn. If you haven't watched the entire series, you can do so here:
A CLASS DIVIDED
After watching the original experiment and then the reactions of the third graders as adults, I've concluded that this experiment really changed them for the better. There was no longer racial discrimination and prejudice. It is clearly that before the experiment the students find black people to be below them because their skin is white. They call black people derogatory names and refer to themselves as better because that is what they were taught to believe. It was so refreshing to see how they felt after the experiment. The students realized that they were only being treated that way because of the color of their eyes and that's not fair. Just like it's not fair to treat someone differently because of the color of their skin.
Another thing that I noticed is that on the second day the children were just so willing to accept that the teacher lied to them about the eye colors and the other ones were actually better. They were so willing to just accept their teacher's word for it. This is proof of why it's so important to set a good example for young children and teach them right from wrong at a very early age. Also, the test scores seemed to improve on the days that the children were more powerful. This proves that empowerment and encouragement plays a large part in education. Each child can do better if they believe they should.
All in all I think this was a great experience, however I do agree wit the teacher in saying I would hope that it wouldn't have to be used on children everywhere. Especially today. The experiment obviously had a great impact on those third graders and I hope that the effects will continue to reach everyone who has seen the videos.
A CLASS DIVIDED
After watching the original experiment and then the reactions of the third graders as adults, I've concluded that this experiment really changed them for the better. There was no longer racial discrimination and prejudice. It is clearly that before the experiment the students find black people to be below them because their skin is white. They call black people derogatory names and refer to themselves as better because that is what they were taught to believe. It was so refreshing to see how they felt after the experiment. The students realized that they were only being treated that way because of the color of their eyes and that's not fair. Just like it's not fair to treat someone differently because of the color of their skin.
Another thing that I noticed is that on the second day the children were just so willing to accept that the teacher lied to them about the eye colors and the other ones were actually better. They were so willing to just accept their teacher's word for it. This is proof of why it's so important to set a good example for young children and teach them right from wrong at a very early age. Also, the test scores seemed to improve on the days that the children were more powerful. This proves that empowerment and encouragement plays a large part in education. Each child can do better if they believe they should.
All in all I think this was a great experience, however I do agree wit the teacher in saying I would hope that it wouldn't have to be used on children everywhere. Especially today. The experiment obviously had a great impact on those third graders and I hope that the effects will continue to reach everyone who has seen the videos.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Athletes & Muscles - Week 8
After our class on muscular men and women athletes, I'm ashamed to say that my reaction was that I thought the men and women were just too much. I feel bad saying that because discriminating against someone based on appearance is something I'm most certainly against and I try my hardest not to do. However, I just don't understand why individuals want to make themselves look that bulky with muscles. The consensus in class seemed to be that fit and toned bodies were acceptable and desirable while overly muscular bodies were not. I think that is definitely due in part to our societal and cultural norms.
These norms play a direct part in the "ideal" feminine and masculine bodies. These ideals are what leads men to believe that they should have large muscles as a sign of dominance and women to believe they should have a tight, fit, contained body. These "ideals" are in place because we allow them to be and we accept them. The truth is that if we didn't embrace them, they wouldn't be our ideals and overly muscular men and women wouldn't be looked at by people with unapproving glances.
Another issue we discussed in class were the three predominant themes in Flex magazine; positioning reader as inferior, promise of transformation, and muscular body as a sign of hegemonic masculinity. After reviewing these facts alone, I know I most certainly would not be a subscriber. According to the themes, this magazine is trying to show you that the people in it are better and they are who you should want to be. I for one don't need someone to tell me how I should look and I'd hope that other people wouldn't want a magazine telling them either.
These norms play a direct part in the "ideal" feminine and masculine bodies. These ideals are what leads men to believe that they should have large muscles as a sign of dominance and women to believe they should have a tight, fit, contained body. These "ideals" are in place because we allow them to be and we accept them. The truth is that if we didn't embrace them, they wouldn't be our ideals and overly muscular men and women wouldn't be looked at by people with unapproving glances.
Another issue we discussed in class were the three predominant themes in Flex magazine; positioning reader as inferior, promise of transformation, and muscular body as a sign of hegemonic masculinity. After reviewing these facts alone, I know I most certainly would not be a subscriber. According to the themes, this magazine is trying to show you that the people in it are better and they are who you should want to be. I for one don't need someone to tell me how I should look and I'd hope that other people wouldn't want a magazine telling them either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
