Seeing to believe

This week I've been talking to a lot about people about what they're gonna do after graduation. I'm moving to Austin, and that's basically what I've got figured out. Despite the fact that I'm leaving Ithaca College with $80,000+ in debt, I don't much more about what the future will hold. But more and more, I'm getting nervous. Most of my male friends already have jobs lined up, especially the business students. Of course, I could have been a business student if I wanted those same opportunities but that was not the path best suited for me. But then there's my female roommate, a hard-working, incredibly intelligent business student. She recently went through the interviewing process and finally landed a job with a starting salary of $40,000-- not too bad I know, but compared to my male friends who are making at least $65,000 its a bit frustrating. The difference in pay between men and women has gone down over the years, but the fact still remains: women are making less money than men doing the same jobs.

In an article I recently read from 2010, the discussion of women in the workforce turned to education. A point was made about the presence of women in liberal arts colleges, claiming the dominance of women in arts and humanities. Earlier this semester, our class discussed the prevalence of women in jobs involving the sciences: chemistry, biology, etcetera. A speaker came to our class and she asked us to close our eyes an picture a scientist. Most people in the class envisioned a white man in a white lab coat.

Now close your eyes and picture a billionaire. Who do you see?

From the other side...

At the Correspondents' Dinner, Seth Meyers' had quite a few jokes up his sleeve but one in particular caught my attention: "The White House Correspondents' Association is an organization of journalists who cover both The White House and the president, but earlier Sen. John Kyl told me 90 percent of what they did was abortions."

Despite how great it was to see smug rich men get completely put into their place, the realities that act as inspiration for these jokes is quite depressing. In class, we watched the documentary 12th and Delaware, made by the same ladies who brought you Jesus Camp. This documentary exposed the binary nature of the abortion debate and the extreme measures taken by both sides (admittedly, more attention is given to the extreme measures taken by the pro-life camp). But what this documentary really made clear to me was the need for empathy and understanding in our debate and thinking. I find it difficult to empathize with any criticisms given by men regarding abortion because men do not have uteruses therefore they lack the ability to be in the physical situation of being pregnant.

But, I am not a devout Christian, or even very religious at all, so my challenge is to see abortion through a new light. This is a difficult struggle because above all else, I believe in a person's right over control of his/her own body.

Rethinking Violence

Yesterday, Osama Bin Laden's death was announced to us by our president. Obama's speech was a carefully structured string of sentiments that was meant to calm our nation's fears, denounce the enemy that took the lives of our people, and ultimately, reaffirm the US as the greatest country in the entire world. I will make no secret of how I feel about our president, despite all of his shortcomings, I have the utmost respect and hope for his vision as our leader. Yet, the death of Bin Laden and the reaction of our country is still a bit alarming. A close friend of mine lost his father on September 11, 2001, he was a firefighter who sacrificed his life to save others. My friend believes justice has been done with the death of Bin Laden.

I stumbled upon this quote in many of my friend's facebook statuses, blogs, twitters, etc:

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." --Martin Luther King Jr.

Besides the fact that this quote was actually never spoken by MLK, I tend to appreciate the meaning. I won't lie, I also have personally rejoiced in the death of this horrible person that took so many innocent lives. But more and more, I think of how this momentous murder is acting as a sort of huge billboard advertisement for militarization, violence, and murder itself. There are so many controversies today that center around the very validity of violence: the death penalty, Guantanamo Bay, the use of drones, and our own imperialist foreign policy, and yet the threat of normalizing violence is still underreported. Our lives our becoming militarized more and more every day, so much so that we don't even realize or care. But we should! As an American, I have the privilege of living in peace; I don't have to be scared to walk outside, or be fearful of the safety of my loved ones. But as a feminist, I know that the militarization of our everyday lives is extremely connected to the structure of patriarchy that dominates the US, so much so that it is actually perpetuating this structure of inequality. Promoting violence as a means to achieve peace seems quite contradictory, yet it hasn't been seen that way by the majority of our leaders, past and present. Despite all this, I still struggle with this moment in history. Bin Laden's death won't bring back all those who died because of him, but still there's some feeling of relief associated with his murder that I can't shake, and it is this internalization of violence that makes me nervous about the future of our country.

In the wake of recent legislation aimed to cut funding to Planned Parenthood and further limit the the access to abortions in the United States, I thought this article was interesting and eye-opining, especially if we are to think more inclusively in our feminisms.

Right to Life in Guatemala

All Natural?

In recent class discussions, I've been thinking a lot about the term 'natural.' In talking about the environment, there are many perspectives that have intrigued me. If humans are natural than how can anything we do be unnatural? Conversely, humans as natural creatures need to recognize the manmade negative impact on our natural environment-- forests, oceans, etc. Ecocritics, or environmental critics, are those that aim to examine the relationship between the environment and humans. However, these critics often view inequalities in our society as results of our impact on nature, not as results of social constructions of hierarchy and privilege --- and if they do acknowledge this as a reason, they place the environment as a more important cause for the moment. I'm not quite sure how I feel about all of this debate. More and more, I am troubled by the idea of our environment completely falling out from under us, withering away from the chaos we force upon it. But I am equally and more frequently troubled by the inequalities presently and historically perpetuated in our society through systems of privilege. I mean, if we aren't going to have an earth to even be equal on then what would be the point of trying to combat inequality? What do you think?

Which came first, the soup or the pot?

I just finished every season available to watch of Mad Men and besides anxiously awaiting its return in order to see how the plot will progress, I am equally excited to continue learning about life in the 60s. The show slightly began tying in references to the Civil Rights movement, and Peggy Olsen (Elizabeth Moss) is grappling with the idea of civil rights and her role and status as a woman. This post will be short since I simply wanted to share this quote from the show that I found so completely thought provoking. Peggy is talking to a friend (who happens to be a lesbian) about why the men she dates can't deal with her work schedule.

The friend says: "It's like men are this vegetable soup. You can't put them on a plate or eat them off a counter so women are the pot. [Women] heat them up, they hold them, they contain them. But who wants to be a pot? And who the hell says we're not soup?"
Peggy disagreed with this quote, what do you think? This quote is obviously rooted in a historical context, but I think the sentiment is still relevant. Do you think today women have become the soup?

Work, work, work

More on Mad Men...

The relationship between men and their secretaries during the 1960s, especially in the advertising field was something that particularly interested me. These women are made to keep the secrets of their boss no matter what, whether it be about a secret affair, a drinking problem, etc. As of 1996, 98 percent of secretaries, unfortunately this was the most recent statistic I could find. What implications does being a secretary still have when you are a woman today?

Here's some interesting articles I found regarding this discussion:

Women in the workforce

More male secretaries, please!