Final Project: Cultivating Racism

Also, here's a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL8IpO3xoGE&feature=youtu.be

Reply to Women Weren't Created to Be Like Men

I looked up what you said about men and women being created as equals in the Bible—and was surprised to learn that you were right! (I had no idea! After all those years of Bible school! Ashamed!) But then God says this in Genesis 3:16: “To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."” So I think this is the biblical justification for women being treated as below men, and is also the reason I can’t fully get on board with the Bible.

I think it’s true that men and women fall into certain stereotyped roles, and I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing. But the problem I have with it is that the expectations of the genders become too restrictive. If a woman joined the military or a man became a kindergarten teacher, the social order would be upset. And my question is, Why have such a rigid idea of the social order to begin with?

Of course, the answer is because stereotypes—which can be useful—make it so. I don’t think anyone should ignore stereotypes, but instead learn to look past them and gather other ideas to compare them with. It’s always dangerous when a society becomes too collectively conscious. Even though agreeing on social norms is what brings a society together, I think it can also be what tears a society apart if people refuse to think about things from a different perspective (even if they have no intention of taking that perspective). I hear your point and see its validity, but these concerns are the reason I think so many people are worried about gender stereotypes, and are the reason I am as well.

Reply to "Reality" Television....

I've had the same dilemma. While I don't like what reality TV shows present, I think I would still work for one. I don't want to be a screenwriter, so if I was working crew I would probably comfort myself by saying, "Well, they needed someone anyway.... I'm not really contributing to the problem." But that's the problem, isn't it? People need money, and they'll do what they have to to get by (or get what they want). That, besides the desire to be famous, has to be the reason the subjects of reality TV shows subject themselves to being filmed all the time. They've seen other reality TV shows. The cast of Duck Dynasty and Honey Boo Boo must know they won't be presented in the most favorable light. But they need the money. I think it's sad that people have to do that, both in front of and behind the camera, but that's how the world works I guess.

On other hand, I always assumed most if not all people understood what was really going on when they watched reality TV. I was surprised to learn from this class that that is not the case. I know the knowledge that reality TV is in no way reality didn't just come floating into my head by itself, but I can't remember where I learned it either. I've known it for so long now that it seems like the ever-present truth that everyone already knows. But sometimes I learn that other people don't actually know that yet, and I'm forced to think from a new perspective.

Reply to How Much is Your Life Worth?

*I couldn't figure out how to put the label on the comment, so I'm reposting my reply here.*

“Most would say [life is] priceless yet we are constantly putting a price on it.” I totally agree with you here. People are always worrying about how other people are spending their time and whether they're doing it the “right” way, while not considering that everyone is different. What is valuable to one person may not be valuable to another. Value, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

But since value is arbitrary, who’s to say what it is? I would say every individual. There will always be social contexts to base one’s judgment on, and those can definitely come in handy. Everyone wants to feel accepted in his or her society, and if people have to conform to some standards to be accepted, so be it. But it’s dangerous when people conform so much that they lose their true sense of self. And that’s why I argue against the idea of one strict value on life and how to live it.

Of course it makes me sad when I think someone is wasting his or her time when he or she could be "living life to the fullest"--but why do I get to say how that person should live his or her life? I don’t, so I shouldn’t try. The people I’m disagreeing with may very well feel they are living their lives to the fullest. I think it's an interesting thing to think about. And I also think it's important, because once people realize that everyone views life in their own terms, they become less judgmental. It’s hard to judge someone once you think of him or her as having equal rights as you. And we each know WE should be allowed to make our own decisions about what to do with our lives! Why not apply that idea to others? Amazing things could happen if everyone got to that place.

Is "Castle" going in the right direction?

I've really been enjoying this season of Castle, but the recent development in the show has disappointed me. When Beckett got the job in D.C. at the end of last season, I was all for it. After all these seasons of this will-they-won't-they tension, and then Castle and Beckett finally getting together (and the relationship progressing beautifully, in my opinion), I totally thought a long-distance relationship could work between these two. And it did in the beginning of the current season. Yes, it was a strain being so far apart, but both Castle and Beckett are mature adults who have really worked for this relationship. The long distance thing was totally working, Beckett was enjoying her job at the FBI, Castle was generally interfering at the 12th precinct but things were even going okay on that front--and then the writers felt the need to put in the tension of, "Is Beckett really happy at her D.C. job?"

Now, I know the writing on Castle has never been that great, but I thought it was the best it's ever been at the beginning of the current season because of Castle and Beckett being apart. Beckett was off doing her dream job while also maintaining a happy, healthy adult relationship. She wasn't letting a man or woman or situation or anyone hold her back in any way, but she also wasn't a bitch (which is what women are always worried about being when they're strong and independent). It was probably near-perfect writing.

She was the ideal role model for women and girls everywhere, right? I thought so. And then the writers or producers or whoever involved with the show felt the pressure to bring Beckett back to New York so the old dynamic of the show could be established. I love the old dynamic, but I had already gotten used to the new one, and loved it too. It felt right, and more importantly, it felt real. Their relationship was an example of something that could happen in real life.

I wish the writers hadn't written in a contrived way to get Beckett back to New York. Her storyline showed a woman living her own life while also being in a healthy relationship with a man. Castle was always very supportive and respectful of Beckett's wishes and decisions, and taking away what Beckett wanted most with sub-par writing seems like a step in the wrong direction to me.

My Issue with Pretty Little Liars

I've noticed that Pretty Little Liars does what a lot of other TV shows do, which is show its characters living the best in life without showing what they do to get there. When we discussed this in class, I thought of PPL right away. There are plot lines concerning money issues in different seasons, but these issues aren't backed up in the presentation of the show. All four of the girls are very fashionable, and they never wear the same outfit twice, even when their parents are going through money issues. None of the girls have jobs except Emily, who is the poorest of the four (although this isn't really addressed until season four). I understand that this is a TV show, and one that has characters that live higher class lifestyles, but it doesn't even attempt to be realistic. If Hannah's mom doesn't have money to pay the bills, how is Hannah still dressing in a different, expensive outfit every day although the viewer can clearly see that her closet isn't exploding with backed up outfits she's saving to wear? As Joanne Laucius cites, ""A princess...[i]s someone who is living a fabulous life with the latest stuff. But she really can't afford it.""" While all of the characters are made to be likeable (so no "narcissists" here, whom no one likes), I at least don't feel a connection with the characters because their lives are so different from mine. My favorite character is Emily because I can relate to her the most; her struggles with money are something that seems real to me. But even her struggles are glossed over in favor of the more interesting plot. "Real life" is only brought up in the show if it has some relation to the overall plot. The girls of Rosewood seem to live in a world that needs the extra drama that is the central plot simply because everyday life is too boring to focus on, while everyday life is idealized past the point of realism.