Gender Stereotypes

Everyone has heard, and more than likely made, offhand remarks referring to things that are stereotypically male or stereotypically female. Comments to the effect of "Women talk too much," "All men think about is sex," or "Suck it up and be a man" are heard frequently enough that it has just become a norm in our society.

From the moment a baby is born, he or she is socialized to the gender roles of our culture. If the baby is a boy, he typically receives attire in blues and greens -- God forbid he receive a pink blanket when he'll have no recollection of it. The same goes for girls who receive things of a pink or purple nature. Then, of course, we even have dubbed "gender neutral" colors, like yellow.

As babies age, girls are given dolls and dresses, and boys are given cars or action figures. For many people, at least stereotypically, it's an awful thing and something must be wrong for one to play with the other's "assigned" things -- more so if a boy likes dolls and dresses.

Today, however, it is becoming more acceptable to blur the lines between genders. What this says about society remains to be seen, because there are still some people who have a very defined notion of what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman, and there are also people who will do whatever they can to be individual and unique.

Case-in-point ending.

Gay Marriage

Gay marriage is a subject that can be viewed as religious, political and a generally touchy topic for some people. In this entry, I plan to establish why exactly I think marriage should be available to anyone who wants to enter the commitment because I firmly believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry.


The most logical point alludes to the U.S.'s principle of the separation of Church and State. Often, reasons for keeping gay marriage illegal have to do with it being a sin or not the way God created man, and that's fine if you believe that, I suppose, but actions based on those views have no place in our government. Religion stays in the Church, and legislation remains in the State. The government does not try to tell churches, temples or mosques how they should act, so religion needs to stop affecting the government.

I realize that's a hard feat; our nation was born out of pilgrims who were persecuted for their religion, and our founding fathers were likely of Christian belief, but when they established the law of the land, church was not included. America is not a theocracy, and until it is such, believing someone is going to Hell is just not a good reason to abstain from federally recognizing two people who want to marry. If an individual church or other religious establishment does not wish to perform the ceremony, fine -- it's a privately owned place of worship. But gays should at least have the right to marry in more than 10 percent of the country.


Gays and lesbians are no different than any straight man or woman. I know this because I am sure there is nothing fundamentally wrong with me that justifies denying me the privilege to celebrate with whom I want to spend my life, and should saying that eliminate any of my potential credibility, then so be it. In the 1960s, the majority was hesitant about what the Civil Rights Act would do to the country, but today we can't imagine being without it. If our nation promotes equality and nondiscrimination, it is unjustified to be selective about to whom these values are applied.

Furthermore, permitting gay marriage will not, contrary to the belief of some, destroy the sanctity of marriage. Gays and lesbians do not want to get married so that they can get divorced. They want to get married for the same reason straight people should want to: love. As a society, we've moved past the time when marriage was more of an economic partnership or when a woman needed protection so she could focus on caring for her young. The point of marriage is that you have found as person that you love so much that you want to spend the rest of your life with, be there for, and share everything with them. The government does not have the right to deny that, nor do those who do not support it. It's either a personal matter, or it's between an individual and God.

I understand perfectly well that there will always be people who are homophobic or do not support gay marriage -- after all, there will always be racists, too. But it really comes down to a simple thing: If you're not a homosexual who wants to get married, it's not your business. It's not the government's place to deny one's right to pursue happiness either; check the Bill of Rights. Even if you are not in favor of it, you will not be adversely affected by two people who are happily in love, I promise. Even if they don't fit your preconceived notion of what a happy couple should be.





A light-hearted way to close the subject.

Marijuana Debate

Marijuana used to be legal. It used to be legal in a lot of places, and it was legal in the United States until about the 1930s when some people (Harry Anslinger among them) decided it was time to start reforming society as a reaction to the "Roaring Twenties."

Today, however, pot is illegal, as we all should be aware. In some places, it is acceptable to use it for medicinal purposes, but nowhere is recreational use permitted.

Why is this the case? According to an article on about.com, there are seven main reasons:

1. It is perceived as addictive.
2. It has "no accepted medical use."
3. It has been historically linked with narcotics, such as heroin.
4. It is associated with unfashionable lifestyles.
5. It was once associated with oppressed ethnic groups.
6. Inertia is a powerful force in public policy.
7. Advocates for marijuana legalization rarely present an appealing case.

This may be all well and good for some people. Actually, it is all well and good because there are plenty of people who believe marijuana should remain illegal. I am not one of them. As such, I will attempt to refute each point based on my opinion, or at least pose a question to possibly make someone reconsider.

1. Alcohol is also thought to be addictive, but as the Constitution proves, Prohibition was a failed movement. Just because something is addictive (and I don't believe marijuana is) does not mean it should be illegal. People cannot get proper help when they have an illegal addiction, so how is that going to solve anything?

2. As far as I know, people used marijuana for centuries to help alleviate pain; women even used it for menstrual cramps. Today, cancer patients are allowed to take it in some states, and they aren't complaining -- nor are they addicted.


3. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 drug, meaning that there's a high risk for its abuse. So in that way, yes, it is linked to other more dangerous narcotics like heroin, but the physiological effects of marijuana (cannibis) and heroin differ:

4. Ah, the lifestyle of the arts. Or the poor. Or the upper-class, white-collar family. Drugs bridge the gaps between ways of life that other things cannot. Stereotyping should never be a valid argument.

5. Oppressed ethnic groups? Maybe if they weren't oppressed, they wouldn't have felt the need to abuse drugs. But I'm sure even while they're oppressed, others were using marijuana too, they just were less likely to admit to it and consequently hid it better.

6. Intertia IS powerful in poltics, and people are afraid of change. But sometimes the status quo needs to be pushed. We wouldn't be where we are today if it wasn't. I've heard rebuttals stating that if we legalize marijuana, everyone would be getting high, and it would certainly be abused. I would say I agree, in some ways. Americans lack self-control in many cases, sadly, and I feel this would be one instance in which they take their hypothetical newfound liberty to an extreme. But on the other hand, the fatality rate of marijuana is nowhere close to heroin. And imagine the economical benefits that would come out of this new taxable market, given the current situation of our economy. Money is often a good incentive.

7. All I have to say about this is Well, I'm sorry you don't find relieving a cancer patient's pain appealing. That's cold.

Gitlow v. New York

Believe it or not, Americans have not always been entitled to their prized freedom of speech -- on a state level, anyway. Between the national acceptance of the Bill of Rights in 1791 and 1925, there was no legal reason that individual states had to allow residents that privilege. The reason for this is because the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law" (emphasis added). While Congress was bound by the Constitution to allow free speech, states were held to no such standard.

In 1868, however, the 14th Amendment was ratified in the wake of the Civil War. With its passing came what was eventually known as the Due Process Clause, which states No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. This amendment started the trend of holding states accountable for what the Constitution says, as well.

Now for the case.

In 1923, Benjamin Gitlow was one of four people indicted by the Supreme Court of New York under the charge of criminal anarchy. He was a prominent member of the Socialist Party and published a pamphlet entitled "The Left Wing Manifesto," and in New York, it's illegal to advocate violently overthrowing the government. He was tried and convicted. His case came before the Supreme Court due to a writ of error, which is issued by a higher court to a lower court requiring the record be submitted to check for error.

No court disputed the manifesto explicitly advocated overthrowing the government, and the courts both recognized that having freedoms of speech and of the press do not entitle one to absolute freedom. While the Supreme Court did acknowledge that for present purposes, we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press … are among the fundamental personal rights and ‘liberties’ protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States, it nevertheless upheld Gitlow's conviction because his pamphlet was still regarded as something that could incite a revolution. But his case, at least, began a trend of allowing citizens to appeal to the federal level if their basic rights were denied by the state.

So be grateful. If you had been alive anytime before 1925, there would have been no guarantee that you would have been entitled to freedom of speech in your state of residence.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Note One: The link to the editorial I chose is in the title.

Note Two: The main reason I chose the editorial is because I wanted to take the opportunity to present my opinion, not because I really want to critque Kaufman's. His was just the most effectively written of the ones I found.



As we should all be aware, Obama gave his very first State of the Union address last night. In his speech, he mentioned one issue I care very much about: Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the military. It was a brief mention, but nevertheless it was the concrete promise thousands of Americans have been waiting for. If Obama follows through on his word, DADT will be repealed this year.

David Kaufman's editorial takes a position. David Kaufman's editorial uses persuasive, inspiring language. Now, let's take it through these nine points we were told about in class.

Fact. Kaufman's piece is certainly not data-based. However, as you are not allowed to be openly gay in the military, there would only be inaccurate data to collect regarding this subject. I wish he'd included the amount of money the government has spent on trials to dishonorably discharge gays and lesbians, but in my opinion, he relies more on logic.

Logical Conclusion. Well, I did just say I think he used logic, so I'm going to go with yes.

The other seven points are related more to grammar aspects of one's writing. I would critique him on jumping into abbreviations -- not everyone knows what LGBT and DOMA stand for, though I imagine most who read his piece would. I also think he should have better stated explicitly why this is a big deal and the right thing to do, regardless of what one's opinion on homosexuality is because many will obviously be upset if/when this comes to pass.

*************

Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell is long overdue. The United States is supposed to be one of the more forward-thinking countries of the world, but we are stuck on this issue of what gays can and cannot do. There is no good reason to tell someone he cannot reveal his sexuality if he chooses to. Other places of work are not allowed to discriminate based on orientation, so the military should not be allowed to either. The Pentagon's principal justification for the policy continues to be that the presence of openly gay and lesbian personnel would interfere with the military's ability to accomplish its mission. Why is it not just as distracting to wonder about who's gay and not be certain? If one is unsure and inquires of someone else, that's often how rumors get started, even among adults, and one would think that would be even more interfering than basic knowledge. Knowing someone is gay doesn't change anything; if you like someone and then he or she comes out to you, well, the person was gay yesterday, too. And other issues, like regarding how people will act in close quarters or even things like showering, are, frankly, immature. No one is attracted to everyone he or she meets, gay or straight.

In fact, I would argue that it actually disadvantages the military to keep DADT. To be gay in the military means thinking about everything you say, keeping phone calls to yourself, hiding pictures, being secretive when not on duty -- it's like living a double life. And always in the back of your head is the knowledge that if you let something slip, it could cost you your career. It's a lot to keep in mind, more than any heterosexual has to worry about his or her personal life. If I had the desire to join the military, I still wouldn't do it. I would be preoccupied first with making sure I was properly "in the closet" before I focused on anything else. I do not want to hide the way I live my life when I am proud of it.

The gays and lesbians who do serve, who joined knowing they'd have to stay or go back "in the closet," therefore surely must be individuals dedicated to their country so much that they are willing to take this risk, aware of the fact that if they let anything slip, it could mean the end of their career. Why would we threaten to discharge members, commissioned and non-commissioned, who are nothing but loyal to their country and want to serve? People with skills necessary to the wars in which we are involved have been discharged under DADT despite the fact that they are few in number (see, Dan Choi).

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a flawed, outdated policy that has more than run its course. Obama needs to make good on his promise to end it both for moral and tactical reasons. It is high time gays and lesbians are recognized as being no different than anyone else and therefore deserve the same privileges, and this is the opportunity to start that on a national level.

Really, France?

I have come across a few topics in the news lately that have decidedly gotten under my skin. They're issues that I, for once, feel I competently understand and have strong opinions on. As I have no other medium through which I may express my opinion -- I don't think a note on Facebook carries quite enough credibility for my taste -- I'm going to place it with the rest of my intelligent, academic thoughts. So there will be a couple of blogs like this.

On Tuesday, after six months of hearings, a ban has been recommended by Parliament in France that would prohibit Muslim women from wearing the niqab because Muslim women who wear the niqab were posing an "unacceptable" challenge to French values. The ban would prohibit Muslim women from wearing the niqab in schools, hospitals, government offices and public transport, but they would still be allowed to wear it in other public venues because banning it there would be constitutionally questionable.

France is home to Europe's biggest Mulim minority; there are approximately six million Muslims in France, a country with a total population of almost 65.5 million. Only 1,900 of the six million Muslims wear the niqab, according to the interior ministry. That's .0003 percent of the Muslim population and only .00003 percent of France's population. Why is the government raising such a fuss over a nearly infintessimal group of people?

But wait! you say. If it's such a small group of people, it shouldn't matter because it benefits the overwhelming majority. No, sorry. Every individual has certain basic rights that the majority cannot take away, as evidenced by the "majority rule, minority rights concept." This theory states (emphasis added): Minorities – whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate – enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove. This is an excerpt from a U.S. Department of State publication, and admittedly U.S. beliefs are not universally recognized as valid, but it is a valid concept in France. As a democracy, France is a country expected to treat these differences in identity, culture, and values as a challenge that can strengthen and enrich them, not as a threat.

Since 1971, the French government has considered the marquis de Lafayette's "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" to hold constitutional values, so it is not ignored when it comes to French lawmaking. The Declaration states almost immediately that man has the right to liberty, and liberty "consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else."

The basis of liberty in France being established, it is evident that wearing a niqab presents no harm to anyone else. Others may not agree with the women who wear one, but they are not being hurt by seeing it. It is a violation of their natural rights to be told by the government what they may or not wear.

Better yet, why is the government targeting specifically Muslim women? The government already approved a ban on headscarves in school a couple years ago. France is a strictly secular society, yes, but that shouldn't mean it can dictate what people wear, even if one's clothing choice is based on one's religion. If the government is trying to eliminate conspicuously religious apparel from everything run by the state, I hope it's making sure to include cross and Star of David necklaces and target those Christians who believe in wearing modest-length skirts as part of their religion, as well.

Social Networking: My personal downfall

I succumbed to the social networking craze about halfway through ninth grade. It was MySpace, and I remember the occasion well. I didn't really want one to begin with; I didn't see the point in them. It seemed like too much work to design, and I'm not creative enough to come up with an intriguing new way to write about myself or my interests. I didn't even know who I wanted to meet. So for months, I refused. Eventually though, my friend Jessica convinced me that I did need one, and I found a generic, pre-made design featuring soccer. I was an avid player then.

For the first few months, I didn't do too much on it. I added some friends from school, added some who lived back in the States. (I was in Okinawa at this time.) I commented on people's profiles sometimes and occasionally tried to improve my profile to make it more representative of me. But back then, I wouldn't even post bulletins. I had my reasons, reasons I look back and "aw" over, but I was a very timid networker. In fact, I still am, but that's besides the point.

As a matter of fact, I will tell you the point. It became an addiction. I didn't want it. I didn't realize what was happening. Before I knew it, though, I was spending countless hours on MySpace, reading friends' profiles and bulletins, fixing my own profile, putting my limited knowledge of HTML to use. I wanted to keep in touch with my friends, and as any military brat can affirm, that is one of the great benefits of these sites. I've been able to maintain or rekindle friendships I'd otherwise surely have lost. But it's still an addiction.

Honestly, I know there's only so much you can do on MySpace. After awhile, it becomes aimless clicking, and checking peoples' profiles becomes stalking. (I am at least quite certain I never was at that level.) I don't know why I spent so much time on MySpace, but I did. And I must say, while I've moved about 85 percent of the way off of MySpace, the features added -- so reminiscent of one's Facebook had first -- make tween and teen social stalking so much simpler.

That last sentence brings up a new issue: MySpace vs. Facebook. Don't lie; you know you have your favorite. Mine for four and a half years was MySpace, and I was adamant about my hatred of Facebook and it's lack of customization. I have come to realize, however, that as one grows up, more and more often does he move to favoring Facebook. I still wish I could customize my profile, but I do appreciate the consistency that Facebook offers. Also, my friends are now considerably more likely to have a Facebook rather than a MySpace, so the convenience is a plus, too.

BUT! There is always a but. Now I'm addicted to Facebook. Horribly. You may say it's a lack of self-control, but I say it's a lack of anything better to do. Neither are a good excuse, but in my defense, I don't think about Facebook when in the midst of doing something "better." It's just always there. Even in class, 50-75 percent of students (my own personal estimate based on observation and assumptions regarding the average college kid) go on Facebook sometime during the hour if they have free use of their computer. Some kids even get it on their phone!! (I don't.)

With this frequent use comes the desire to make the site more "attractive" to potential subscribers. I present to you: Farmville and other Facebook applications!! I cannot stand them. I do not use them; I think they are a bigger waste of time than anything else on the site. You want a farm? Go plant a garden. You want a happy aquarium? Go buy a real fish. Get out of the virtual world and do something in the physical one.

Oh wait. That would take effort and responsibility. Obviously there's no time for effort because you frequent Facebook instead.

This seems like a lot, doesn't it? I think so, too, but I'm not done yet.

I also have a Twitter account.




But don't worry, that phase only lasted a week.