So I watched this show called “Flip This House” and this husband and wife were remodeling a house together. The husband wanted to do the house as cheaply as possible, but the wife wanted to do some more costly designs. So when the wife circumvented her husband’s authority and bought some expensive materials for the kitchen remodeling, her husband went ballistic.
The whole fight that ensued between the two was a great example of machismo. They fought verbally at home one night, and he kept yelling at her because she “didn’t get” the basic principles of business. And one of his biggest peeves was that she did something without his approval. When I was watching it, I kept wondering if he always sought her advice before doing something major. And then brought that up. He had no reply.
The next day he showed up to the construction site and destroyed the lawn and acted like a total maniacal jerk. Crazy aggressive. One would assume that his wife would be horrified. No, she was won over by his “passionate” display of conviction.
One thing I wonder as I watch this is whether most people watching it think the relationship is dysfunctional, as I do, or if they think it is a good example of “compromise” making a relationship work.
Then I was watching another episode (I’m kind of addicted to these shows) with another husband and wife. It was interesting. They did argue at times, but they always talked things through. Never actually fought. They listened to each other and they managed to get their work done. To me they were a much more exemplary couple; they compromised after discussion and looking at things from the other person’s point of view, not by giving in to a tantrum.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Blog 4
One of the things that we’ve read about in this class is ableism, which is something I had not really thought much about prior to this class. But then this week at work I was presented with a situation that I thought really was a case of ableism.
About a month ago, a young woman who was working in my area began to have some convulsions because she is diabetic and the work had been particularly grueling and hot that night. At least, when I was told that the incident was due to her being diabetic, I assumed it was due to the exhausting work conditions. But then this week, my immediate boss came up to me and told me that the supervisor had just come to her to tell her that she should pay particular attention at break time to the woman who had fainted to be sure that she was eating and drinking. The supervisor had determined that everyone needed to watch this girl because, according to the boss, the girl reportedly had not eaten or drank much at break – like diabetics are supposed to. So the boss deduced that the girl must have purposely sent herself into some type of seizure.
To me this seems definitely like ableism because why would you just assume that someone with a disease is using it to her “advantage.” Besides, would a person really do something life threatening in order to avoid having to clean up some marshmallow machines? Highly improbable. So at break I sat down with my immediate boss and told her that I thought it was absurd to listen to the supervisor because it was obvious a bias. The whole thing made me think about how often I have heard people say that so and so used an illness or a disease to get out of something, yet whenever a “normal” person randomly gets sick no one ever accuses them of anything but bad luck.
About a month ago, a young woman who was working in my area began to have some convulsions because she is diabetic and the work had been particularly grueling and hot that night. At least, when I was told that the incident was due to her being diabetic, I assumed it was due to the exhausting work conditions. But then this week, my immediate boss came up to me and told me that the supervisor had just come to her to tell her that she should pay particular attention at break time to the woman who had fainted to be sure that she was eating and drinking. The supervisor had determined that everyone needed to watch this girl because, according to the boss, the girl reportedly had not eaten or drank much at break – like diabetics are supposed to. So the boss deduced that the girl must have purposely sent herself into some type of seizure.
To me this seems definitely like ableism because why would you just assume that someone with a disease is using it to her “advantage.” Besides, would a person really do something life threatening in order to avoid having to clean up some marshmallow machines? Highly improbable. So at break I sat down with my immediate boss and told her that I thought it was absurd to listen to the supervisor because it was obvious a bias. The whole thing made me think about how often I have heard people say that so and so used an illness or a disease to get out of something, yet whenever a “normal” person randomly gets sick no one ever accuses them of anything but bad luck.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Blog 3
It's funny that when people think of academia, they think of people with broad knowledge and experience, but it seems that is somewhat of a myth. In the last couple of weeks I have been witness to and heard of two extremely sexist professors’ remarks.
The first instance was in one of my classes in which we are reading a Jane Austen novel. The professor began discussing Austen’s own view of feminism, and according to the professor, her view on feminism was more advanced that “some” (meaning all) feminists today. What was Austen’s view? According to this professor, she viewed the oppression of women as also creating oppression for the men of society. And the reason this is an advanced feminism? Because “some” (again all) feminists today believe that men have had their turn to rule the world and now women should have complete power. To add to the loveliness of this narrow view of feminism is the professor’s constantly talking about celebrating diversity.
The other occurrence of sexism from a professor happened to my best friend when she went to a professor to ask for some advice. She had emailed the professor telling him that she wanted to meet with him because she wanted to do some more in-depth work in her field of study and he is one of two professors at IPFW that works in that area. So she met with him for about an hour, and she had what she considered a decent meeting until right at the end. Before she left, he felt the need to tell her that in her email she came off as overassertive and arrogant. One might wonder in what way she was overassertive and arrogant; well, apparently she had told him in her email that she was “very determined” to succeed in her field. That’s all it took for the professor to think of her as overassertive. I find it hard to believe that if it were a man who went to a professor with an assertive attitude that the professor would feel it appropriate to advise him that a more docile attitude was needed.
Both of these professors are huge disappointments to me. These two men make me think of the quote by Sir Francis Bacon that “knowledge is power” in a new way. With knowledge one can become helpful or with it, one can also stifle others.
The first instance was in one of my classes in which we are reading a Jane Austen novel. The professor began discussing Austen’s own view of feminism, and according to the professor, her view on feminism was more advanced that “some” (meaning all) feminists today. What was Austen’s view? According to this professor, she viewed the oppression of women as also creating oppression for the men of society. And the reason this is an advanced feminism? Because “some” (again all) feminists today believe that men have had their turn to rule the world and now women should have complete power. To add to the loveliness of this narrow view of feminism is the professor’s constantly talking about celebrating diversity.
The other occurrence of sexism from a professor happened to my best friend when she went to a professor to ask for some advice. She had emailed the professor telling him that she wanted to meet with him because she wanted to do some more in-depth work in her field of study and he is one of two professors at IPFW that works in that area. So she met with him for about an hour, and she had what she considered a decent meeting until right at the end. Before she left, he felt the need to tell her that in her email she came off as overassertive and arrogant. One might wonder in what way she was overassertive and arrogant; well, apparently she had told him in her email that she was “very determined” to succeed in her field. That’s all it took for the professor to think of her as overassertive. I find it hard to believe that if it were a man who went to a professor with an assertive attitude that the professor would feel it appropriate to advise him that a more docile attitude was needed.
Both of these professors are huge disappointments to me. These two men make me think of the quote by Sir Francis Bacon that “knowledge is power” in a new way. With knowledge one can become helpful or with it, one can also stifle others.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Blog 2
For the last couple of weeks I have been reading works by and doing research about Charlotte Perkins Gilman, who was a socialist and feminist activist in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. She’s really a fascinating person because she used literature to expound many of her feminist ideals. She’s definitely most known for her short story “The Yellow Wall-Paper,” which is a very wonderful story that still has relevance today.
The story is written as the diary of a woman who has been taken to a country estate for a “rest cure” for “nerves” which resembles something more like depression. It’s a complex story about how the nameless narrator is treated by her husband and by other males – mainly they tell her what to do. As she sits in this old empty house, she starts to see things in the wallpaper. What drives her toward madness is the presence of a woman trapped behind the wallpaper fighting to get out. The end of the story doesn’t have a happy ending – the narrator goes completely mad, but Gilman as an author uses that to make a point. She used fiction to make her audience understand that women’s subjection to male dominant culture destroys the identity of the individual – she never really formed one.
The story is relevant because, just as the wallpaper symbolically trapped the narrator, women and other groups are still barred from developing their individuality. It’s really incredible to me that the story was written over 100 years ago, and yet the subject still has meaning for audiences today. For anyone who hasn’t read it, I highly recommend it. It’s very much like an Edgar Allen Poe story, but with great social significance.
The story is written as the diary of a woman who has been taken to a country estate for a “rest cure” for “nerves” which resembles something more like depression. It’s a complex story about how the nameless narrator is treated by her husband and by other males – mainly they tell her what to do. As she sits in this old empty house, she starts to see things in the wallpaper. What drives her toward madness is the presence of a woman trapped behind the wallpaper fighting to get out. The end of the story doesn’t have a happy ending – the narrator goes completely mad, but Gilman as an author uses that to make a point. She used fiction to make her audience understand that women’s subjection to male dominant culture destroys the identity of the individual – she never really formed one.
The story is relevant because, just as the wallpaper symbolically trapped the narrator, women and other groups are still barred from developing their individuality. It’s really incredible to me that the story was written over 100 years ago, and yet the subject still has meaning for audiences today. For anyone who hasn’t read it, I highly recommend it. It’s very much like an Edgar Allen Poe story, but with great social significance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)