Friday, November 26, 2010

Seperating classrooms?


Restak has a lot of evidence to back up his claim that girls and boys think differently from each other. Boys are much more tactile, as in they learn better through using their hands. This includes things like making large projects or models. Girls, on the other hand, learn better through sitting and listening to a teacher. Restak stats that elementary schools are geared more for teaching girls, while universities are more for boys. Of course, this is not how the schools were supposed to be set up, but what would happen if we educated boys and girls differently depending on their sex?

Let’s go over the positives of this first. Separating the education of boys and girls would give each child an equal opportunity for success. By focusing how each child learns differently will enable the children to learn at the same rate, and help them succeed in their studies. This will earn higher grade averages and reduce the hyperactivity. The girls and boys will also have fewer distractions if they are separated. The boys will be less hyper, and therefore be able to focus while the girls will not be distracted by the disruptions of the boys and therefore will focus also. Academically, this may be a good idea for the educational systems to look into.

But there’s always a con to every pro. Although this will increase children’s grades, it will cause social problems. Discrimination between boys and girls will increase in school children. The boys and girls may not understand why they are separated, and therefore assume that they are better or completely different from the opposite gender. Even though this already happens in schools today, the amount will increase if the children are separated based on sex. They may not receive the social skills they will need in the future in dealing with other people and especially the opposite gender. Girls will more so play with girls, and vice versa with boys. They may also not learn skills they would need in the future because of how differently girls and boys learn. Boys may not learn how to take verbal direction and girls may not learn how to learn by doing. 

This idea is a good one, but it can have significant changes in a child’s life. I believe that we shouldn’t separate schools entirely, but we should gear the educational system equally so that both genders would be able to succeed. Schools should split the work half and half; Half the work should be paperwork, sitting and listening to the teacher or reading from the text. The other half should be more hands on projects, such as making models or doing projects. This way, there is less stress on the boys to pay attention in class, and more of a challenge for girls. It evens the playing field, and makes it so both genders have a chance to succeed. It will also reduce the hyperactivity in boys and prepare girls for task they may have in the future that would prove challenging if they are not skilled with their hands.

Friday, November 19, 2010

Whose responsible?


I believe that the artist is mostly responsible for being a role model for children, if that is the target audience they want. It an artist is making music and trying to be a role model for children, they are entirely responsible for being a role model to what they do. The artist chooses what they create, how they dress and how they act in front of people. All artists should take into account who may be watching or listening to their creations, and should be ware that children are being exposed to it.
If an artist wants to be a role model for children, they are taking full responsibility for what they expose the children too, and should think about the appropriate way to dress, behave, and what they can include in their material. They control how they are, and how they appear to the world, and in the end it is their say so on what they expose the world to. If they say they want children to listen to their stuff and then run around almost half naked, they are ultimately responsible for the children who watch. An artist needs to remember who is their main target audience in order to write and act appropriately.
If an artist doesn’t say they are a role model for kids, then they can’t be held responsible for what the kids watch. That is the parent’s responsibility. The parents should be the ultimate censorship for their children. If they do not want their children watching something, they shouldn’t allow their children to see it. If the artist doesn’t claim to be a role model for the kids, then the parents cannot blame them for ‘corrupting’ their children. Parents can keep their children from watching material they don’t want the kids exposed to, and if they don’t put any blocks or restrictions on the children, they can’t get angry and blame the artist.
Mostly, it is the parent’s responsibility, because they should control what their kids see and hear. Parents should take responsibility if they’re child is exposed to something that they find offensive, especially if they took no precautions to stop their children.  The parents that do take precautions, and make sure they let their children watch only what they deem appropriate have little to know problems with the sometimes offensive stuff artists will say and do. The artists should not be blamed for expressing themselves, unless they called themselves a role model for kids.
And even in that case, the parents should still be involved with their children’s lives. That way they can see who is an appropriate model or artist for their child to see. This way, even if their child is exposed to something they think if offensive, they can stop it or explain it to their child so that they understand it. Parents are an important part of children’s lives, and if they don’t censor what their child watches, then they can’t complain about what’s on the media.

Whose responsible?


I believe that the artist is mostly responsible for being a role model for children, if that is the target audience they want. It an artist is making music and trying to be a role model for children, they are entirely responsible for being a role model to what they do. The artist chooses what they create, how they dress and how they act in front of people. All artists should take into account who may be watching or listening to their creations, and should be ware that children are being exposed to it.
If an artist wants to be a role model for children, they are taking full responsibility for what they expose the children too, and should think about the appropriate way to dress, behave, and what they can include in their material. They control how they are, and how they appear to the world, and in the end it is their say so on what they expose the world to. If they say they want children to listen to their stuff and then run around almost half naked, they are ultimately responsible for the children who watch. An artist needs to remember who is their main target audience in order to write and act appropriately.
If an artist doesn’t say they are a role model for kids, then they can’t be held responsible for what the kids watch. That is the parent’s responsibility. The parents should be the ultimate censorship for their children. If they do not want their children watching something, they shouldn’t allow their children to see it. If the artist doesn’t claim to be a role model for the kids, then the parents cannot blame them for ‘corrupting’ their children. Parents can keep their children from watching material they don’t want the kids exposed to, and if they don’t put any blocks or restrictions on the children, they can’t get angry and blame the artist.
Mostly, it is the parent’s responsibility, because they should control what their kids see and hear. Parents should take responsibility if they’re child is exposed to something that they find offensive, especially if they took no precautions to stop their children.  The parents that do take precautions, and make sure they let their children watch only what they deem appropriate have little to know problems with the sometimes offensive stuff artists will say and do. The artists should not be blamed for expressing themselves, unless they called themselves a role model for kids.
And even in that case, the parents should still be involved with their children’s lives. That way they can see who is an appropriate model or artist for their child to see. This way, even if their child is exposed to something they think if offensive, they can stop it or explain it to their child so that they understand it. Parents are an important part of children’s lives, and if they don’t censor what their child watches, then they can’t complain about what’s on the media.

Friday, November 12, 2010

Did we evolve?


For centuries now, men and woman have been stereotyped, cast into roles and expected to act a certain way to be ‘normal’ in society. Thankfully, it seems to have gotten easier and easier on both genders with the passing years, but there are still stereotypes and ‘rules’ that genders have to follow.
Today, I’m going to say the movie we watched in class was made in the seventies. Just because not much has changed from the 1990s to now. Since the seventies, I don’t think much has really changed in the dominance factor for men and women. Sure, now a days woman can be much more independent and treated equally in the workplace and in schooling, but most people still see woman as the stay at home mothers or the men as the one who make all the decisions and go off to make the money. If a man stayed at home and took care of the kids, most men would call him a wimp, or that he doesn’t wear the pants in the relationship. If a woman goes out to become a dominate person, she could be seen as a jerk, or too demanding.
Even though we have blurred the lines, the line is still there. It takes years for a society to accept changes. There are still expectations for men and woman. Lets take dating for example. Most of the time, it is expected of a male to ask the girl out, to make the decision, to instigate the first kiss and to propose. It is expected the men be dominant in the relationship. Now, I know many woman ask men out, and start the first kiss, even propose. But because society sees it as a male thing, a female who may ask a male out might be seen as a slut, or too dominant.
This dominance issue is still going on today, and I see it everywhere. My mother mostly makes the decisions in my house, and because of it my dad gets made fun of by his friends., even though theres no reason for the teasing.  Men are more dominant in movies and tv shows, as the movie explained, while woman are still seen as the brides.
The only thing society has changed from the time the movie was made until now is the technical terms. Men and woman get treated equally in voting, work, school, government, etc. Woman and men are allowed to go out and get the same job and get the same pay. In work and school there is no gender dominance, because women have proved they could do just as much as men. But socially, the ‘rule’ still shows that people expect men to be more dominant, the bread winners, the decision makers. As I have said before, it takes years for a society to accept equality as a social norm. I still see racial discrimination socially, even though everyone of every race is completely equal and has equal rights. So there is still gender discrimination socially, meaning we still have the gender standards of men being dominant and woman submissive.

Friday, November 5, 2010

Gender Stereotypes


‘Written On The Body’ is a book I normally wouldn’t read, and personally, I didn’t find it all that interesting. The only thing I enjoyed was the fact the narrator’s sex was undetermined through the entire thing. The narrator took very careful thought into what they described the narrator to keep it hard to determine. And, as curious humans in need of answers, most would have a hard time not placing a gender to such a narrator. 

But how can you place a gender to something when there is no real evidence?

I agree with Rubison on how the only evidence people can come up with about the narrator being female are stereotypical traits that we would expect a woman to have. For example, one author writes how the narrator is a female because she likes Louise’s leg stubble. Now, I haven’t met anyone who likes that, but I highly doubt that only a woman could like leg stubble. It is stereotypical, because we have set the stereotypical man character to like smooth, shaved legs. And a man, in a story, who may not mind if his sexual partner has shaved or not may be a strange idea to some readers. But it is a stereotype for a reason. Men can like stubble on legs just as much as a woman could. 

There are two other reason mentioned that the narrator may be female because of the stereotypical traits.  One reason was because the narrator ‘sits down to urinate.’ Now, I won’t go into too much detail with this one, but I’m pretty sure both men and woman (if a man tried hard enough) could sit do urinate. It is stereotypical to believe only woman do this, and therefore it isn’t a valid argument. The last argument is that the author normally doesn’t pick a male main character, and mostly writes lesbian literature. As a writer myself, I understand how tiring it can to continue to write the same thing over and over, whether it be the same genre, same character types etc. People can’t be locked into doing the same thing over and over again, or it becomes like an office job. We get tired of doing the same thing over and over. So what do most people do? They try to spice it up a little, or do something different. Winterson, I believe, was just trying out a different idea from what she usually writes.

Stereotyping is something most people do every single day, and I know we’ve already blogged about this once, but it is a hard habit to break. I couldn’t help myself as I read the book, placing different things the narrator did into stereotypes of male and female. But I believe that this is why Winterson gave us a genderless narrator, to show us that the story can be just as good even if we don’t know the gender of a character. Placing the narrator as a woman or a man would have changed the experience of how we read the book, and would have given us expectations and limits for the narrator.  Without a gender, we can’t place them in the restrictions of stereotypes, and therefore we get an entirely new character and reading experience.