Just thought this was interesting. BBC news reports Summit to discuss changing laws that out-laws homosexuality.
And giving the royal families' daughters equal rights to succeed to the throne as the royal families' sons .
The Queen kicks off this 2 day summit today.....
issue to be discussed include the human rights record of Sri Lanka - which is due to host the next summit - and moves to get rid of laws in some member states which discriminate against gay men and lesbians, our correspondent says.
He adds that there will also be discussions on proposals to change the laws of succession to the British throne, to give females heirs the same status as males. we have so far to go...
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Cinderella Ate my Daughter. reflections of...
The question was What's wrong with Cinderella? The answer is Nothing! It should be what's wrong with us?
There is nothing wrong with cinderella if we stop projecting everything on to our children or on to each other.
Cinderella is just a story just like "Polar Express" "God,it me Margret," and "Huck Finn". These stories are meant to entertain chidlren, they are not meant to be a study guide for kids with giant imaginations, depressed pre-teens or advantagerous boys during the great depression.
The largest part of the problem is that we just will not think for ourselves. And we tend to live our lives behaving ingenuious to what is implied,when we allow our kids to feed into this bull. We knew from the start that these stories were not just meant to entertain girls or boys. it is implied that girls should, work hard at home(slaving for her family) endure mistreatment with grace and wait to be saved by the most handsomest rich guy you can imagine. And just because you have him and you suffered gracefully, you will live happily ever after. This is true in Cinderella, Snow white, Sleeping beauty and even the new version of rahpunzia. And on the other hand it implies to boys they every girl is weak or lost with out them and their LOVE. That they are doomed to housekeeping, sleep/death, and/or (locked away)trapped. That only their Kiss (acceptance) can save us. HUH!!!
There is nothing wrong with cinderella if we stop projecting everything on to our children or on to each other.
Cinderella is just a story just like "Polar Express" "God,it me Margret," and "Huck Finn". These stories are meant to entertain chidlren, they are not meant to be a study guide for kids with giant imaginations, depressed pre-teens or advantagerous boys during the great depression.
The largest part of the problem is that we just will not think for ourselves. And we tend to live our lives behaving ingenuious to what is implied,when we allow our kids to feed into this bull. We knew from the start that these stories were not just meant to entertain girls or boys. it is implied that girls should, work hard at home(slaving for her family) endure mistreatment with grace and wait to be saved by the most handsomest rich guy you can imagine. And just because you have him and you suffered gracefully, you will live happily ever after. This is true in Cinderella, Snow white, Sleeping beauty and even the new version of rahpunzia. And on the other hand it implies to boys they every girl is weak or lost with out them and their LOVE. That they are doomed to housekeeping, sleep/death, and/or (locked away)trapped. That only their Kiss (acceptance) can save us. HUH!!!
Just wanted to share a thought.
We talked about Allies in class and it got me to thinking. We should think about what and how we sometimes oppress/suppress ourselves and/or each other.
I use to facilitate a Woman's Group called "Babylon Sisters" and our focus was on our responsiblity to women "both ourselves and others". I wrote this poem as a creed for our group.
The creed of Sisterhood
Sister
I am a friend to you, I am a friend to your soul, I offer you Peace, patience, Understanding, Empathy, Support, and Love.
I will not let you be a vermin nor a victim.
I will support your heart, your health, and your happiness
I will stand by you, and with you, but I will never support your habits.
I will never exploit you nor expose you.
I will do with you, for you, and because of you.
I will not harm you in words or in deeds.
I will not lie to you, for you, or with you.
I will always raise you up and never put you down.
We share a role in sisterhood all that is good for you is good for me.
I hurt if you hurt; I am healed when you are healed
Unity is the brace that holds us together.
With camaraderie, and solidarity I will protect your spirit, your legacy and your existence.
For I am:
A small part of you and every other woman that exist,
And you are a small part of me and every other woman that exist. Only together are we whole.
Sheila Robinson-Young
written 2007 © 10-21-09
I use to facilitate a Woman's Group called "Babylon Sisters" and our focus was on our responsiblity to women "both ourselves and others". I wrote this poem as a creed for our group.
The creed of Sisterhood
Sister
I am a friend to you, I am a friend to your soul, I offer you Peace, patience, Understanding, Empathy, Support, and Love.
I will not let you be a vermin nor a victim.
I will support your heart, your health, and your happiness
I will stand by you, and with you, but I will never support your habits.
I will never exploit you nor expose you.
I will do with you, for you, and because of you.
I will not harm you in words or in deeds.
I will not lie to you, for you, or with you.
I will always raise you up and never put you down.
We share a role in sisterhood all that is good for you is good for me.
I hurt if you hurt; I am healed when you are healed
Unity is the brace that holds us together.
With camaraderie, and solidarity I will protect your spirit, your legacy and your existence.
For I am:
A small part of you and every other woman that exist,
And you are a small part of me and every other woman that exist. Only together are we whole.
Sheila Robinson-Young
written 2007 © 10-21-09
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Quotes from M. Kimmel: What are little boys made of?
Reading this was like looking at one of those pictures that if you look long enough you see other things that stands out ,though you did not see it when you first looked. So this is a text written by a man about the dominate gender "males". after reading the text i just set and steared at it and here are a few quotes that jumps out of the page at you. Quotes like "There's a virtual war against boys", "America has been so focused on girls that we've forgotten about the boys" and "Feminists has wrecked boyhood" these qoutes are in reference to women fighting for equality, which is to say that the favoring of boys that has been going on over the years that leads to the need to fight for equality in the first place has done no harm to girls.
Other qoutes like "our educational systems forces naturally rambunctious boys to conform to a regime of obedience. With testosterone surging through their little limbs, boys are commanded to sit still, raise their hands and take naps". (just as little girls are.)"testosrone equals vitality,(it is as important in boys as estorgen is to girls). All we have to do is honor it and steer it into healthy directions". And the most far fetched quote was from Biddulph who explained boys refusal to listen to adult authority, by reference to the fact that "their ear canals develop in irregular spurts,"leading to a period of hearing loss". If this was true in any way it would not then be irregular as it would be a developmental stage for the human male speices. And Kindlon and Thompson writes in Raising Cain "the way to put boys on the path to a manhood of integrity, "we must contend with the culture of cruelty, that forces a boy to deny emotional neediness...". Emotional neediness is what we see when we insist that little girls not try to self pacifiy, when they want or need anything they can not have and we toddle them,pick them up and hug,rub and sooth them .
With all of this said there was a few quotes that stood out that was an asset to the subject. they were "the cause of all this posturing and posing is not testosterone of course, but privilege. " The real boy crisis usually goes by another name. We call it "teen violence, youth violence, gang violence, and violence in schools." Because lets face it boys are responsible for 85% of all violent crimes in American. And thanks to Paul Kivel who said "Raising boys to manhood means confronting racism, sexism, and homophobia both in our communities and in ourselves".
In all of this if we don't resolve ourselves to equality in the sexes (and in gender roles)doing the growing, learning and developing years we are short changing both our girls and our boys, understand that they will need each other as they proceed in this life.
Other qoutes like "our educational systems forces naturally rambunctious boys to conform to a regime of obedience. With testosterone surging through their little limbs, boys are commanded to sit still, raise their hands and take naps". (just as little girls are.)"testosrone equals vitality,(it is as important in boys as estorgen is to girls). All we have to do is honor it and steer it into healthy directions". And the most far fetched quote was from Biddulph who explained boys refusal to listen to adult authority, by reference to the fact that "their ear canals develop in irregular spurts,"leading to a period of hearing loss". If this was true in any way it would not then be irregular as it would be a developmental stage for the human male speices. And Kindlon and Thompson writes in Raising Cain "the way to put boys on the path to a manhood of integrity, "we must contend with the culture of cruelty, that forces a boy to deny emotional neediness...". Emotional neediness is what we see when we insist that little girls not try to self pacifiy, when they want or need anything they can not have and we toddle them,pick them up and hug,rub and sooth them .
With all of this said there was a few quotes that stood out that was an asset to the subject. they were "the cause of all this posturing and posing is not testosterone of course, but privilege. " The real boy crisis usually goes by another name. We call it "teen violence, youth violence, gang violence, and violence in schools." Because lets face it boys are responsible for 85% of all violent crimes in American. And thanks to Paul Kivel who said "Raising boys to manhood means confronting racism, sexism, and homophobia both in our communities and in ourselves".
In all of this if we don't resolve ourselves to equality in the sexes (and in gender roles)doing the growing, learning and developing years we are short changing both our girls and our boys, understand that they will need each other as they proceed in this life.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Gloria Yamato... something about the subject make it hard to name.
Racism's first name is Supremacy,
with out supremacy that is White Supremacy rascism can not exist.and we are all so clearly aware that it does exsit. and it is for the united States the foundation of the very instiutions in which the United States has been built on. But it is what it is, and to name it any thing else would be White washing it (no pun intented). I agree that Ms.Yamato has made a fine point in classifing rascism but i think that we are way past the point of needing to know what category someones hate for us, falls in. Rascism is by far one of, if not the worse afflictions on man, it's not only about opression but it is also about the moral depletion of a race based on the self-rightousness of another. It has been up-held for so long that society has become blind to it. They call it laziness, that call it unqualifed, they call it under-educated, they call it low-class, they call it lack of connections , they call it everything they can to keep the un wanted color out of the administrative level of most corprations, businesses, and instuitions.there is two organizations that works on dismantling racism one is www.westernstatescenter.org. the other is http://dismantlingrasicism.org for a short time i was in a change group for dismantling rascim in the workplace. it was not an easy task to undertake and was soon dismantled it self as as it was so rootfully put " an interference to the morale of the company. How easy it was to find a name to shut it down. P.s i partically agreed r disagreed with one thing Ms.Yamato said that "people who have not thought about or refuse to acknowledge the inbalance of power/privilage often wants to talk about the rascim of people of color. people of color accept blame out of habit. i find that it is not accepting blame out of habit more then out of servival.
with out supremacy that is White Supremacy rascism can not exist.and we are all so clearly aware that it does exsit. and it is for the united States the foundation of the very instiutions in which the United States has been built on. But it is what it is, and to name it any thing else would be White washing it (no pun intented). I agree that Ms.Yamato has made a fine point in classifing rascism but i think that we are way past the point of needing to know what category someones hate for us, falls in. Rascism is by far one of, if not the worse afflictions on man, it's not only about opression but it is also about the moral depletion of a race based on the self-rightousness of another. It has been up-held for so long that society has become blind to it. They call it laziness, that call it unqualifed, they call it under-educated, they call it low-class, they call it lack of connections , they call it everything they can to keep the un wanted color out of the administrative level of most corprations, businesses, and instuitions.there is two organizations that works on dismantling racism one is www.westernstatescenter.org. the other is http://dismantlingrasicism.org for a short time i was in a change group for dismantling rascim in the workplace. it was not an easy task to undertake and was soon dismantled it self as as it was so rootfully put " an interference to the morale of the company. How easy it was to find a name to shut it down. P.s i partically agreed r disagreed with one thing Ms.Yamato said that "people who have not thought about or refuse to acknowledge the inbalance of power/privilage often wants to talk about the rascim of people of color. people of color accept blame out of habit. i find that it is not accepting blame out of habit more then out of servival.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Compulsory Heterosexuality
First let me begin by saying that this was maybe one of the hardest texts i've ever read, so i'm glad i had not blogged about it before class. As i would had been very general and sparadic, as it is all the information is still bounce around in my head. However if it was just to get society thinking, it would have to have achieved it's purpose 100%. I won't say much because i am not well versed on the subject, So here is what i got out of it and here is where i stand. My argument on lesbian continum is (and i tread lightly, that it is only my uneducated opinion)that the author has come up with a very good theory of emotional relationships based on the needs of females over the course of their lifetimes, but it is all too convenient for me. With just the minimum understanding that i have thus far I think it minimize lesbian relationships verses Male homosexual relationships. I would like to believe that homosexual choices are made much the same way that heterosexual choices are made: there are true committed relationships where the couple falls in love with each other, Heart and soul(not just sexually) but emotionally and maybe even spiritually as well. and there are the hook-ups where the couples just go for maybe the one night stand, or the occasional romp (so to speak) and some times it's the "i'm here for no better reason but to be here, in a relationship with some one, oppose to being alone. However in any case i would think that they have given serious thoughts into being and identifing them selves as lesbians, as there is such a society backlash to exposing yourself, that it would be a shame to put your self in harms way unless you were committed to your position.
On the other hand i feel that the Lesbian continum allows society to buy into the "lesbiaism is male envy or lesbiaism is cute syndrome". this is such a compulsory heterosexual stans; as by identifing lesbiaism as either cute or male envy it demeans the women's choices, it says that the women are either acting out and men are aroused and amused by it or the women hate them selves and just wants to be like men, so they attracts to other women just to experience what a man have. i personal don't think either of these things has any thing to do with a sexual orientations period.
On the other hand i feel that the Lesbian continum allows society to buy into the "lesbiaism is male envy or lesbiaism is cute syndrome". this is such a compulsory heterosexual stans; as by identifing lesbiaism as either cute or male envy it demeans the women's choices, it says that the women are either acting out and men are aroused and amused by it or the women hate them selves and just wants to be like men, so they attracts to other women just to experience what a man have. i personal don't think either of these things has any thing to do with a sexual orientations period.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Lawrence Meade
After giving much thoughts to Mr. Meade's comment that "if poor people behaved rationally, they would seldom be poor for long in the first place".
The best i could say about that is; that i truly hoped that that was not his professional opinion, less he be looking for another profession.
If our wealth was depended on just a matter of how we behaved. most of the poor would be at the top of the chain, as it is mostly the poor, common men that work the hardest, pays the most interest rates, and proved to be the most honest. while the wealthy sit down most of their work day, eating, drinking and talking, earning millions while basting on the back of a yacth while others steer, cook, pour, and serve them. and believe that for the most part they have no problem believing that their money make them more worthy of life and living. But of course that is just my voice.
On the other hand it was strongly depicted in the movie "People like us." while Tammy (for whom my heart went out to) showed more class then any of them. She lived within her means , did what she had to do to take care of her self and her children despite what they and others thought of it (she could sleep at night and face herself in the mirror) walking ten miles to work and ten miles home is as classy as one gets (yes, i know that that has nothing to do with CLASS, as they meant in the movie) but Tammy behaved as rationally as i would have, she needed to take care of herself and she did it the best that she could. I have no problem what so ever that she did not want to take welfare, as it is a haven for idleness, not because everyone who gets it is idle but because the programs themselves encouraged and embraced it for years, not only did they not allow you to work or have some items you do not get the chance to improve, you was either on it or you was off of it, so if you had three or four children like Tammy and you could not make $15 or more dollars an hour every day then you needed to stay on welfare because if you went out and made$7 an hour you needed to get off of assistance and pay back all while caring for yourself and 3 or 4 children. . I never understood helping those that don't help themselves but not helping those that trys to help them selves welfare should be support, not a crutch.
The most ill-rational thing i can think of is to sit back and allow others to do for you what you are responsible for doing for yourself. Entitlement is ill-rational!!!
In a capitalist society like ours, the deck is always stacked against the poor: for the most part if you are born poor, you are force to be educated in the worse funded and least supplied schools, receiving the least healthiest, least fresh foods, at the highest price (per), receiving the least amount of health care, and in return the least chance at a ivy-league education and even if you do get there you don't get the same fair treatment (per) situation, and then the least paying jobs (without a family name to go with everything else).
In my opinion, Tammy first of all behaved rationally for her situation, she needed a job to feed her family and she got one and kept it.
2ndly, ill-rational behave was the group of upper-middle class blacks who knew what it was to be oppressed getting to what they looked and longed for just to oppress others by keeping them out of their club (Jack and Jill)
3rd, was the red necks, there is just nothing wrong with liking your way of life. money is not everything and there was no indication that they were lacking for anything. they seemed more likely to stick together rather then to try to back stab their neighbor for something they wanted just for the sake of having it.
4th, the yuppies going to a dive, they were just so condescending. thinking that they fit in and was not only entitled to invade others place but to fake there acceptance. (tomorrow if they saw XYZ walking into their country clubs would they remember them and go buy them a drink, introduce them to their fathers and have lunch?
5th if a man was 30 years old and born into money, had never had a job,and his parents provided for him ,no one thinks he's a bum, but if he was born into poverty and never held a job and his parents provided for him he is a good, for nothing bum. go figure.
The best i could say about that is; that i truly hoped that that was not his professional opinion, less he be looking for another profession.
If our wealth was depended on just a matter of how we behaved. most of the poor would be at the top of the chain, as it is mostly the poor, common men that work the hardest, pays the most interest rates, and proved to be the most honest. while the wealthy sit down most of their work day, eating, drinking and talking, earning millions while basting on the back of a yacth while others steer, cook, pour, and serve them. and believe that for the most part they have no problem believing that their money make them more worthy of life and living. But of course that is just my voice.
On the other hand it was strongly depicted in the movie "People like us." while Tammy (for whom my heart went out to) showed more class then any of them. She lived within her means , did what she had to do to take care of her self and her children despite what they and others thought of it (she could sleep at night and face herself in the mirror) walking ten miles to work and ten miles home is as classy as one gets (yes, i know that that has nothing to do with CLASS, as they meant in the movie) but Tammy behaved as rationally as i would have, she needed to take care of herself and she did it the best that she could. I have no problem what so ever that she did not want to take welfare, as it is a haven for idleness, not because everyone who gets it is idle but because the programs themselves encouraged and embraced it for years, not only did they not allow you to work or have some items you do not get the chance to improve, you was either on it or you was off of it, so if you had three or four children like Tammy and you could not make $15 or more dollars an hour every day then you needed to stay on welfare because if you went out and made$7 an hour you needed to get off of assistance and pay back all while caring for yourself and 3 or 4 children. . I never understood helping those that don't help themselves but not helping those that trys to help them selves welfare should be support, not a crutch.
The most ill-rational thing i can think of is to sit back and allow others to do for you what you are responsible for doing for yourself. Entitlement is ill-rational!!!
In a capitalist society like ours, the deck is always stacked against the poor: for the most part if you are born poor, you are force to be educated in the worse funded and least supplied schools, receiving the least healthiest, least fresh foods, at the highest price (per), receiving the least amount of health care, and in return the least chance at a ivy-league education and even if you do get there you don't get the same fair treatment (per) situation, and then the least paying jobs (without a family name to go with everything else).
In my opinion, Tammy first of all behaved rationally for her situation, she needed a job to feed her family and she got one and kept it.
2ndly, ill-rational behave was the group of upper-middle class blacks who knew what it was to be oppressed getting to what they looked and longed for just to oppress others by keeping them out of their club (Jack and Jill)
3rd, was the red necks, there is just nothing wrong with liking your way of life. money is not everything and there was no indication that they were lacking for anything. they seemed more likely to stick together rather then to try to back stab their neighbor for something they wanted just for the sake of having it.
4th, the yuppies going to a dive, they were just so condescending. thinking that they fit in and was not only entitled to invade others place but to fake there acceptance. (tomorrow if they saw XYZ walking into their country clubs would they remember them and go buy them a drink, introduce them to their fathers and have lunch?
5th if a man was 30 years old and born into money, had never had a job,and his parents provided for him ,no one thinks he's a bum, but if he was born into poverty and never held a job and his parents provided for him he is a good, for nothing bum. go figure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)