Title IX was officially enacted in 1972 as a part of the Education Amendments of that same year. The official definition of this act is that it "forbids sex discrimination in all university student services and academic programs including, but not limited to, admissions, financial aid, academic advising, housing, athletics, recreational services, college residential life programs, health services, counseling and psychological services, Registrar's office, classroom assignments, grading and discipline." This was a giant step in a great direction, at least in my opinion, but how affective has this actually been. As a starter, if one were to compare the actual number of people who watch the NBA as opposed to the WNBA, the number is almost unbelievable. With men's sports still way more respected than women's in our society today, how affective was title IX in all actuality. When it comes down to it, whether it's a professional league, a collegiate league, or even a league within a high school such as varsity and junior varsity, male sports seem to dominate over women's in every area. This is simply the way it's been for decades and hasn't ceased to change, even with such things as title IX being enacted. It was during a group activity in class that a fellow female classmate revealed a true story that directly exposes the horror that is the dominance of male sports in a society. The classmate told me of an instance in which a girls' sports team had won a championship, while the male team equivalent had lost much earlier in the season. Even with this being the case, my classmate told me that no announcement had ever been made to congratulate the girls team on their victory, while daily updates were sure to be told on any and all male sports, even if the outcome had been a loss. I will never actually directly be able to see the way in which girls are affected by this, but through such stories as this one, it is clear to see the truth about our society today.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Between Barack and a Hard Place
With Barack Obama having won the Presidency, America has seen a turning point within the political system, in that the first ever black president has finally been elected. But what exactly does this mean in the larger picture? Is discrimination a thing of the past? Does racism no longer exist? Tim Wise attempts to answer these such questions in his book "Between Barack and a Hard Place". Wise mainly argues that with this election, America has not successfully seen an end to racism in this country. A majority of the white people who elected President Obama only did so because he is not seen as the stereotypical black man that is seen throughout our society today. Stereotypes plague the African American community these days, and I am still surprised at the large amount of whites that actually did choose to vote for Obama. Basically, Wise points out the fact that the only way Obama was able to secure his spot in the presidency was to give in to white standards, seeing as to he would already be guaranteed the vote of the majority of the African American Community. Racism is still potent within our society today, and can be seen around us within daily situations. I feel as if these social perceptions will never fully be erased off the minds of every citizen in America, yet at the same time we have come very far to reach this point. I mean honestly, the difference between society in 1965 and 2005, don't even seem as if they are on the same planet as one another. With no cure in sight, racism will surge on in the alley ways of modern America, while Obama sits happily in the Oval Office, perhaps having achieved the right to the last laugh.
Hilarious shirt, just released by heavy metal band
In The Service Of What????????
Within this article the two authors (Kahne and Westheimer), are speaking about two different types of services that an individual can become involved with. According to the authors, the different types of service learning, when practiced properly, can directly lead to different social as well a personal outcomes. The basic argument is that each one of these two different forms of service learning, shine a different outlook on what it is to be a citizen.
The first type of service learning that is mentioned is a charity-based service. This is a service that involves an individual sacrificing his or her own personal time, in order to benefit other individuals in need, thus performing a majorly important civic duty. Any form of volunteer based work will fall under this category of service learning.
The second type of service learning that is mentioned within the article are known as changed base services. The authors include that this type of service will help to push the students involved towards a strong democracy. By performing this type of service learning, students will get a hands on look as to what the world is really like, resulting in the formation of perceptions of society that are based off of actual experience that the students were able to gain hands on.
I was very interested when listening to the reasoning's these men had put together within the separate comparisons of both types of service learning experiences. I feel as if the majority of what these men are saying is completely true, and that many students who have gone through either one can easily agree to the validity of this article.
just thought this was great
Unlearning the Myths That Bind Us
Have you ever wandered while looking back at the many cartoons and children shows that you've watched during your adolescence, whether or not they have had a serious impact on the person that you have become, and now are today? Linda Christiansen can help to show you that there is more to this than meets the eye at first, helping individuals to understand where certain outlooks and attitudes towards particular subjects may have really come from. Christiansen argues that a majority of children's cartoons, shows, and movies all contain subliminal messages throughout them that directly affect perceptions later on down the road in adulthood.
For the most part a child will grow up ever even thinking about how the shows they had watched as children affected them in anyway. Christiansen says that this is because the messages that these shows contain become so deeply embedded, that it is even difficult for the victim of the messages to clearly see the outcome. Many students who have been told this theory reacted very poorly, many saying that they felt as if they had been deceived and lied to. These students feel strongly about the hypothesis, and as a result have a deep blame placed on any and all of the kids shows that they feel have actually stuck with them throughout adolescence, and affected their mental perceptions.
I am not quite sure if Christiansen is saying that these messages just simply exist and have an effect, or if she is saying that the makers of these shows directly include such messages with a goal of embedded them in young children's mind. I feel as if this is very wrong, and that the messages aren't planted on purpose. I do agree however, that these messages absolutely exist, and I feel it is directly because of the way children have the tendency to become infatuated with particular things that the messages are able to stick with them for so long, affectively affecting them down the road.
Have you ever wandered while looking back at the many cartoons and children shows that you've watched during your adolescence, whether or not they have had a serious impact on the person that you have become, and now are today? Linda Christiansen can help to show you that there is more to this than meets the eye at first, helping individuals to understand where certain outlooks and attitudes towards particular subjects may have really come from. Christiansen argues that a majority of children's cartoons, shows, and movies all contain subliminal messages throughout them that directly affect perceptions later on down the road in adulthood.
For the most part a child will grow up ever even thinking about how the shows they had watched as children affected them in anyway. Christiansen says that this is because the messages that these shows contain become so deeply embedded, that it is even difficult for the victim of the messages to clearly see the outcome. Many students who have been told this theory reacted very poorly, many saying that they felt as if they had been deceived and lied to. These students feel strongly about the hypothesis, and as a result have a deep blame placed on any and all of the kids shows that they feel have actually stuck with them throughout adolescence, and affected their mental perceptions.
I am not quite sure if Christiansen is saying that these messages just simply exist and have an effect, or if she is saying that the makers of these shows directly include such messages with a goal of embedded them in young children's mind. I feel as if this is very wrong, and that the messages aren't planted on purpose. I do agree however, that these messages absolutely exist, and I feel it is directly because of the way children have the tendency to become infatuated with particular things that the messages are able to stick with them for so long, affectively affecting them down the road.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv2LCSJcDaE
Looking back now, this show may have had an affect on me
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)