kcurran's blog

How are public schools in America funded? Through property taxes, right? Something that has been debated for a long time is how utterly and completely discriminatory this type of funding is. We emphasize equal education for everyone in America; access to quality education and materials. This, like other American propaganda, is false. We fight to not discriminate against people because of race, color, ethnic background, religion, etc., but one thing this country has no problem doing is discriminating against the poor.

Property taxes fund most, not all but most, public schools in America. This type of funding is completely unfair to schools that are in low income neighborhoods. Property values are extremely low and so the taxes that go to the school are also incredibly low. What does this mean for the children who go to these schools that are funded by poor neighborhoods? It means they don’t get access to books, safe buildings, and teachers can’t reach their full potential because they don’t have the resources. Students must go to school, read from extremely outdated text books, fear the building caving in on them, and don’t have access to helpful learning tools such as computers and smart boards. In addition, these schools have a high turn over rate for teachers because there is no incentive to work in these schools other than wishing to do something good in a kid’s life.

So what does this tell the children of inner city schools? It tells them they’re not worth the time and effort to buy new materials, to have a safe, sturdy building, to have quality resources. And even teachers don’t want to be in the school, so why should the children want to be? The message we send to these inner city kids is that we don’t care about them. Property taxes are an unreasonable way to fund public education because children are not getting equal education or an equal chance for education and that is not fair.

America is all about equal opportunity, but such a thing does not exist. It’s nearly impossible to succeed in poor schools funded by poor neighborhoods. The children in these schools don’t get the same education as children in wealthier neighborhoods. We look down these kids and teachers for performing poorly in school, for getting into criminal trouble, for being deviant. We try to make our public education system better. We try to “fix” inner city kids by putting them in juvenile hall and what not. Why is there such hot debate on whether schools should be funded by property taxes? It clearly is an utter failure and everyone knows that. But since this system only really, truly affects the lower class, no one cares. Equal opportunity is a joke for reasons like property taxes funding public schools.

I’m fairly certain that some of my family is racist. Discussion about black people and Arab, Islamic, or Muslim people always turns into a heated debate about social issues and terrorism. I think my family is close minded and stereotype way too quickly. I’ve long given up on trying to make them see different. It just turns into an argument and them calling me overly liberal. Over Spring Break I visited my family and unfortunately overheard a typical conversation about black people.

I’m not sure how the discussion on Sunday got started, but I tuned in when I heard my aunt say, “I’m sick of Obama and him wanting to give all of my money to those niggers.” My aunt can not stand social welfare programs. Welfare, social security, Medicare/Medicaid, and anything else that helps a person in need is completely unfair in her eyes. She’s angry that her tax money goes to helping out those who’re less fortunate. My aunt thinks that because she can pay for health care that everyone should be able to pay for healthcare. And if you can’t pay for these things then you need to get a second job.

Much of my family truly believes that poverty is 100% an individuals fault. And everyone who is on welfare is lazy and worthless. My family never talks about white people who are on welfare. They only talk about the “niggers” that steal their money through welfare. I find it irritating that they think that only black people are on welfare and that they just need to get a second job to get off of welfare and afford healthcare.

This type of thinking makes me really angry. People continuously believe in the American propaganda that you can do anything you want as long as you work hard. If you’re down and out you just need to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. It’s just not that simple. My family forgets about the family that those on welfare probably have. The fact that they are offered poor education, have mostly negative social interaction, live on the toughest streets in America, and have very limited access to transportation. I don’t necessarily want my family to become hardcore liberals or socialist, but I want them to understand that poverty is probably 80% a social problem and 20% the individuals problem. Fighting your way out of the perpetual cycle of poverty is close to impossible without the help of your fellow citizens and even then it’s extremely difficult. Being poor is also not a black attribute like my family seems to think. Just because you are poor doesn’t mean you’re black and just because you’re black doesn’t mean you’re poor.

If people continue to think like my family does, then racial and social stereotypes will stay forever. People need to stop stigmatizing the poor and realize that they’re life isn’t as easy as people think. Those on welfare do not just sit around all day on a couch waiting for the welfare check, of course some do, but that’s a vast minority. Until people start recognizing that poverty is largely a social problem then it will forever remain a serious issue in the world. This conversation reminds me of the article we read titled “What This Nation Really Thinks of Motherhood.” I’m reminded of the section about the “welfare queen” in particular. Those on welfare have been seen as the young, black, single mother who sits on the couch all day while the checks roll in. It’s depressing that people actually believe this falsehood and view helping people has a great burden to their check book.

My roommate and I were watching “The Tyra Banks Show” today and the episode was about girls and sex. There was a panel of eight girls that would answer questions such as, “Have you ever had unprotected sex?” “Have you ever had sex in a public place?” “Do you think alcohol makes sex feel better?” The girls answers were coupled with survey responses to the same questions from unknown teens. I’m unsure if those surveyed were only girls or both boys and girls.

Talk shows have done this type of show for years. Think about Maury and his ever popular obnoxious, loud, rude teen girls that want to have a baby, so they sleep with as many men as possible. Then Maury intervenes and changes their lives. Ricki Lake did shows like this and so did Montel Williams. It took me until just now to realize that these talk shows only focus on teen girls and sex and never on teen boys and sex. The talk show host always wants to turn the girls’ lives around and send them in the right direction. Teen girls shouldn’t have rampant sex.

None of these talk shows, at least to my knowledge, ever talk about teen boys and their rampant sexual activities. The only type of attention boys get on these talk shows when it comes to sex is when the host tells the teen girls that, “A boy will tell he loves you, you’re beautiful, you’re special, etc. just to get in your pants.” And this seemingly condemnation of male sexual activity is done in a joking matter, “Ha, everyone knows that.” This reaction places the blame on the female for believing such ridiculous things that everyone apparently knows are just lies. In effect, these hosts are (in)advertently telling girls that they’re stupid for believing such lies and that it’s their fault for falling for such foolishness.

In addition, by choosing to ignore male sexual activity, talk shows reinforce the idea that men should be wild sex maniacs while women should be the pure, virginal Madonna. The hosts of the shows, Tyra did this today, make the girls feel shameful of their many sexual encounters. They all end up crying on stage and leave feeling regretful and sorry. And what do the boys get to feel like? Accomplished, macho men. And they’re allowed to feel like this because no one condemns their sexual behaviors like they condemn women’s sexual behaviors.

Tyra’s show also made me think of the double bind that women are often trapped in and that is the Madonna/Whore bind. One must be virginal and pure, yet have sexual prowess. But if one is virginal they’re a prude and if one is sexual they’re a slut. On Tyra’s show they must be virginal, but at home they must have sexual prowess. Either way they can’t win.

In closing, this episode bothered me because it effectively tells me that I can’t have sex, I must be this pure woman while men can be sexual. It’s irritating that Tyra, the supposed crusader for empowering women, would do this type of show that sets limits on what women can be and do. Thanks, Tyra, you just helped in setting the feminist movement back 50 years.

Bowling Green is a bit notorious for dilapidated buildings. There’s South Hall with the supposed cock roach infestation. There’s University Hall which is beautiful on the outsides, but many students fear for their lives upon entering it. A little dramatic, but true nonetheless. Then there’s Hanna Hall. Hanna Hall is an old building on the old side of campus. Not only is it old, but it’s poorly maintained making it difficult for anyone with a disability to access it.

There is only one ramp leading into Hanna Hall. The ramp is very long, at least fifteen or twenty feet. If someone is in a wheel chair it will be difficult for them to get up the ramp. This is especially so for someone who may have a week upper body. After the person in the wheelchair gets up the ramp they must open an extremely heavy door. The door is even heavy for anyone without a disability. Once the person in the wheelchair gets inside the building they can only stay on the first floor because there is no elevator for them to reach the second and third floor. Students who cannot use stairs can’t take classes that are on the second or third floor of Hanna Hall, which is very unfair.

People who are blind or wheelchair bound will also have difficulty getting into the bathrooms. There is a step leading into the bathroom with a very narrow ramp leading into it. People in wheelchairs must be very careful going up and down, so they don’t fall off either side of the ramp. The blind also need to be very careful so they don’t slip off the side as well. The bathroom is also very small and cramped making it difficult for anyone with a disability to navigate their way through it. And there’s no handicapped stall.

The stairs leading into Hanna Hall are also very unstable. They’re chipped and uneven, which is dangerous for anyone who is blind or uses a cane, has leg braces, or uses walking sticks. People with the aforementioned disabilities may be able to use stairs, but the stairs surrounding Hanna Hall are particularly unsafe. Last year there was a set of stairs that were really broken and uneven. It was scary for me to walk up and down them. There was no way anyone with a physical disability could use those stairs. They would need to use a different entrance which may be inconvenient for them and again is not fair. The stairs were fixed half way through the Spring semester of 2009.

The inside of Hanna Hall is also very loud. Heaters and other mechanics in the building constantly clank and whir. This may make it difficult for anyone who is blind and uses their hearing to help them navigate areas.

The design of this building reminds me of the class lecture in which we discussed how building were built with healthy, strong, and non-disabled men in mind. Doors are heavy, there are unnecessary steps to get into the bathroom, there’s no elevator, there’s dangerous steps, and there are narrow walkways. Hanna Hall is truly designed for the strong, healthy, and non-disabled male, which is frustrating because less than half of the population are non-disabled men. Whoever designed the building didn’t even think about those who have a disability when he designed the building.

We all know Barbie by Mattel is geared toward girls like G.I. Joe is geared toward boys. Barbie reinforces the impossibly perfect figure; big hips, tiny waist, big boobs, little feet, and long, flowing blonde hair. While G.I. Joe reinforces toughness, strength, and the importance of muscles. Several Barbie toys from the past reinforce what girls should aspire to be. There was pregnant Barbie, Littlest Pet Shop Barbie, Glam Barbie and countless others. Barbie told, and still tells girls, they need to be shaped perfectly, be caring and loving, and above all be beautiful. However, one particular Barbie model took reinforcing gender stereotypes a step too far.

In 1992, Mattel came out with Teen Talking Barbie. This Barbie was programmed to say four out of a possible 270 phrases, such as “Let’s go shopping!” “Will we ever have enough clothes?” “Do you have a crush on anyone?” and “I’ll always be here to help you!” Although these phrases are exceptionally irritating for any woman, Mattel added the following phrase that really pissed off women’s groups all over the country, “Math class is tough!”

Barbie itself already promotes a disgustingly unrealistic body image that society has always forced upon women. Phrases like “I’ll always be here to help you!” reinforce the idea that women are care takers and need each other for support, that they always need help from someone, man or woman. And of course G.I. Joes are self sufficient tough guys. “Do you have a crush on anyone,” also serves to reinforce the idea that women always need to have a relationship. And if you’re not in a relationship, then you’re always looking for the next one to come along.

The aforementioned phrases could potentially be defended as pro-feminist or harmless all together. But there is no pro-feminist argument, that I can think of, for the phrase “Math class is tough!” This phrase does nothing to encourage the young girls that are most likely to play with this doll. There is a substantial gender gap in the math and science department with boys seeing greater achievement than girls. “Math class is tough!” only serves to further widen this large gap. Girls aspire to be like Barbie and if Barbie doesn’t do well in math, then why should they? It merely reinforces the stereotype that math is for boys and girls will always be terrible at it.

I don’t know what the makers at Mattel were thinking when they thought it was a good idea to have Barbie say such ridiculous phrases, especially “Math class is tough!” Is it really that hard to have Barbie say something like “I love school!” or “Let’s go to the movies!” Anything that isn’t so obviously gender specific and stereotypical. Mattel should be ashamed at their complete idiocy in creating this toy. Hopefully, they learned a lesson from its utter failure. If not, then I’m sure the next phrase out of Barbie’s perfectly plastic lips will be, “I throw up at least four times a day!”

Picture of toy:

Works Cited

“Barbie.” Wikipedia. 20 Mar. 2010. Web. 25 Mar. 2010. http://en/wikipedia. org/wiki/Barbie.
“COMPANY NEWS: Mattel Says It Erred; Teen Talk Barbie Turns Silent on Math.” The New York Times. 21 Oct. 1992. Web. 25 Mar. 2010. http://www/nytimes.com/ 1992/10/21/business/company-news-mattel-says-it-erred-teen-talk-barbie-turns- silent-on-math.html?pagewanted=1.
Crosnoe, Robert, Catherine Riegle-Crumb, Sam Field, Kenneth Frank, and Chandra Muller. “Math Class is Tough; Wanna Have a Pizza Party?” Prevention Action. 22 Feb. 2008. Web. 25 Mar. 2010. http://www.preventionaction.org/research/math-class-is-tough-wanna-have-a- pizza-party.
Leo, John. “The Indignation of Barbie.” U.S. News & World Report. 4 Oct. 1992. Web. 25 Mar. 2010. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/921012/archive_ 018466.htm

On April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold opened fire on their school in Littleton, Colorado killing twelve students and one teacher and wounding twenty-one others. The massacre left America stunned and searching for answers as to why these two killed. Some blamed music, particularly Marilyn Manson. Other’s blamed video game violence, movie violence, lack of social skills, access to guns, America’s love for guns, etc. People, especially the media, were tireless in their quest to find answers. In the documentary film Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore attempts to answer the questions surrounding why Harris and Klebold went on their shooting spree. He then broadens his task to discovering why America has the most gun violence out of any other developed country in the world.

Moore provides us with some incredible statistics. In the U.S. 11,127 people a year are killed in gun violence. The number two country for gun related deaths is Germany with, get this, 381 gun related deaths a year. It’s utterly shocking. Moore embarks on a quest across the U.S. and Canada, with 165 gun related deaths per year, to figure out why America is so violent. Is it because Canada has less guns? No. Canada is as enthusiastic about guns, if not more, as America.

Moore then investigates if it’s perhaps because of America’s violent history. Again, false. Germany and the Holocaust, the Roman Empire, European Colonialism, the French and Napoleon, etc. Well, may be it’s because Americans play more violent video games and watch more violent films. False. Canadians and the rest of the world are just as enthused about the next Hollywood slasher film or Arnold Schwarzenegger action film as Americans are. And Japan, who has 39 gun related deaths per year, manufactures most of the violent videogames Americans play!

After heavy investigation, Moore concludes, although not definitively, that Americans are paralyzed by fear. And fear makes us buy guns and shoot each other without thinking. And who manufactures this fear? The media. Over the years crime rates have declined significantly, but fear of crime has increased 600%! And media coverage in the last few years have increased their coverage of murder and crimes 140%. We should be afraid of non-descript black men, we should be afraid of brown people because they’re just waiting to blow us up. We should be afraid to walk outside at night because something bad is sure to happen. We should lock our doors at night so the boogie man won’t get us. Moore believes that we as a country we are controlled by fear that the media induces. In Canada, the news coverage is not run by the motto, “If it bleeds, it leads.” It’s news about the government and informative, thoughtful news. People in Toronto, one of the most heavily populated cities in Canada, even leave their doors unlocked at night.

So, how is Moore’s film related to feminism? A major focal point in the feminist movement is the elimination or near elimination of violence. Not only against women, but against our fellow human beings in general. I think many times women’s groups advocate against violent movies and videogames because either that’s the sole reason or the biggest reason for violence, which I’m skeptical about. Feminist groups also find that guns and the availability of guns causes violence, but guns are just as accessible in many other parts of the world as they are in the U.S., as Moore points out, and the gun violence in those places doesn’t even rival the gun violence in the U.S. I think Moore does an incredible job of forcing people to think about other reasons for the violence besides the ones we’re so quick to jump on and accuse. I think feminist groups can really benefit from this new perspective by taking up a cause in trying to change the media in other ways besides the elimination of violence in movies, music and videogames. Maybe the media really does make us extremely fearful and this fear causes us to act in violent ways. And maybe it doesn’t. But either way it’s an interesting point that Moore makes and I think the idea is worth feminist groups investigating it further themselves.

Watching television can be really irritating sometimes. Every time a commercial break comes on I cringe at the horde of advertisements that overwhelm my senses. What’s worse is that every commercial break has specific products geared toward enhancing and reinforcing gender stereotypes. Who do you see in cleaning commercials like Swiffer, Bounty, and Febreeze? Who do you see needing to “slim down” and “get toned?” And who needs to bulk up, get more muscle, become more cut and tough?

I have yet to see a commercial promoting some sort of cleaning product that is not centered around a woman. The woman buys the product and the woman uses the product. In many cases the husband or man comes home, presumably from work, and is happy to find his home smelling clean and fresh. This is typical of many Febreeze and Glade commercials. Glade takes it a step further and the woman is dressed in a dress and high heels. Lysol commercials boast the safety of their products around kids and pets. The woman is interacting with the baby and cleaning up after it and the husband is no where to be found. And even if men are featured in commercials advertising cleaning products, they typically clean up wrong or use the wrong product and the woman has to come in and show him how it’s done. With laundry detergent commercials women are clearly cleaning men’s clothes, kids clothes, and their own. What do these type of commercials tell us? Men don’t belong in the house, cleaning up after themselves and their families. Nay, that’s a job for the woman of the house. These commercials typify this gender stereotype that will never be broken unless companies start targeting men and women equally. And power tools and lawn mowers target men in the same way. These are manly tasks that should only be performed by men. Women might break a nail.

The commercials that irritate me even more are the commercials that advertise weight loss and body enhancement. They are always geared toward women. Women need to get smaller, thinner, and more fit. You can never be to small! Being over weight is not acceptable. Nobody likes being fat and nobody will like you if you are fat; therefore, you need our product. Your body isn’t good enough for society’s standards. You can’t possibly feel good about yourself unless you slim down. You can never be too skinny. You can always drop a dress size. And even if you’re already thin… well, you still need to maintain that perfect figure. One thing that is completely acceptable being large are boobs. Boobs can never be too big. And if they’re not big, then you should feel insecure and uncomfortable because no man likes small boobs. And if you can’t afford plastic surgery, then just take “natural breast enhancement.” You’ll be pleasing men with every pill! Finally, Dove just came out with a new commercial. It’s advertising the irritation women feel when they just shave their armpits and then put deodorant on. The commercial features a violinist who’s complaining about the irritation and she has a performance that night. Dove has a line in the commercial that goes something like this. “And of course she has to shave her under arms.” I’m annoyed by this because she doesn’t have to do anything. But of course, society will look at her funny and judge her because she chooses to do something different. Whoever came up with the idea of women dragging sharp object across their legs and under arms really sucks. There’s no other way to say it, he, I’m sure it’s a dude, just really sucks.

Lastly, there are commercials that target men specifically. These commercials are usually the “total gym work outs.” Here’s a machine that will get you buff, strong, tough, and a real man. Real men aren’t thin and scrawny, they’re big and beefy. You’ll be pushed around and walked on by women if you can’t open a jar of pickles. You’re pathetic and weak and emasculate if you aren’t strong and muscular. After all, you have to be able to protect your super thin, big breasted women, right? If you can’t do that, then you aren’t a real man. You can always be bigger, stronger, and have more testosterone. And, of course, you’re probably gay if you’re not beefy and strong.

Commercials endlessly reinforce stereotypes that the feminist movement has been trying to break down for years. Women belong in the kitchen and the house with their cleaning products and men belong in the yard with their manly drills and hammers. If the media would stop making these commercials gender specific, then the feminist movement will gain much ground that they have been trying to gain for years. But until the media truly embraces the idea that women can be big and still love themselves and men can be scrawny and still be real men, then reaching full equality will be forever stunted.

I recently finished a play called Miss Julie written in 1888 by August Strindberg. The play centers around Strindberg’s misogynic ideology. After a series of unfortunate marriages and relationships, Strindberg’s hatred and contempt for women all but boiled over and he wrote a series of plays that essentially demean and attempt to show women as weak and worthless creatures. Strindberg actually wrote Miss Julie and a few other plays in response to Henrik Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House, in which a woman asserts her power and takes control of her life. Strindberg, as many others were, was completely appalled by Ibsen’s progressive works and decided to add his two cents, and, thus, Miss Julie was created (Worthen 572).

The play centers around two characters, Miss Julies, the daughter of a count, and Jean, her servant. Christine is another servant in the house and plays a minor role. The characters are all at the Count’s home and there is a Midsummer’s Eve party. Miss Julie apparently engages in very risqué behavior such as dancing and is sick as is revealed by Jean and Christine in the beginning. Miss Julie soon enters and her and Jean flirt until Christine finally falls asleep. They share life stories in which Miss Julie reveals she wishes she wasn’t upper class and Jean wishes he were upper class. The party guests suddenly approach and Jean and Miss Julie hide in his bedroom. They emerge late and it is implied that they’ve had sex. Jean suggests that the only way to fix what has happened is to run away together. A power struggle between Jean and Miss Julie ensues. Christine returns and Miss Julie begs Christine for help and she refuses. The count arrives home and Jean orders Miss Julie to kill herself and she exits.

A major way in which this play relates to ideas about gender is Strindberg’s obvious belief in the idea that women are unequal to men, which is also a major theme in the play. Strindberg makes this theme very clear in his preface to the play. He describes Miss Julie has having “a weak and degenerate mind” (Worthen 574) and a “victim of superstition…. that woman, that stunted form of human being, standing with man, the lord of creation, the creator of culture, is meant to be equal of man or could possibly, she involves herself in a struggle with him in which she falls” (Worthen 576). Miss Julie was raised genderless by her mother who was a feminist and a “man-hater.” She was made to do “boys work,” like take care of the horses and stables and slaughter animals. In fact, that’s how the entire estate was run. Women did “men’s work” and men did “women’s work.” Miss Julie says that the “whole place fell to pieces, and we became the local laughing stock” (Worthen 589). That is, until Miss Julie’s father took over and fixed everything. Strindberg attributes all of Miss Julie’s problems, and her eventual downfall, to the “half-woman” who reared her and her father’s failure to properly rear her. Miss Julie is also on her period and both in love with, yet disgusted by Jean. In other words, she has problems with her sexual desire. Strindberg alludes, with all of these symptoms, that Miss Julie is hysterical, hence why Christine and Jean think she’s sick in the beginning of the play. Miss Julie could never be a proper woman because she inherited the feminist and man-hating tendencies of her mother. And her father failed to rear her properly, so Miss Julie could never be a “proper woman.”