Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Gender.

I believe that ideologies of gender prove to be the very basis of nearly everything in our society. Family? There is a view that a family has to be conclusive of a mother, a father and a child. Mothers typically get custody over children and having two parents of the same sex is looked down upon. However in our contemporary society I believe that a family is defined as someone who will be there for you through anything, regardless of how you feel about that person. Advertisements and marketing these days are definitely gender specific- as we talked about in lecture, some ads are directed to make men feel more masculine and a lot of ads are angled at women cause they are essentially going to be doing the shopping in the family. Shopping is typically a feminine thing and men aren't supposed to enjoy shopping unless they're gay or "metro". It's unfortunate because I think that having great style and actually being able to dress yourself in the morning is a really attractive quality in a guy. Marriage and love are hot topics in our society because there are a lot of people who are still un-accepting to same-sex marriages and even love between the same sex. Basically, ideologies of gender impact nearly everything in our society whether we like it or not.

Monday, January 30, 2012

Ceren's post

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000178 EndHTML:0000003727 StartFragment:0000002744 EndFragment:0000003691 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/jenniferdeclue/Downloads/Blog%202.docx
Gender and Capitol

Women have been getting more freedom in their choice of occupations. Also, there are now, women occupying executive roles in businesses. Yet there still exist a problem with women not being treated equally in and with businesses in less developed countries. For example, my mothers friend was working in a global company and she had to give a meeting with her male co-worker to a company (a Muslim-based company). And while the men shook the male co-workers hand at the beginning of the meeting, they refused to shake the female co-workers hand, because they refused to believe that she was an equal of them, because she was a woman.

Ideologies

Many men believe that girls aren't as good as guys in basketball. I think that girls can be just as good in basketball as guys. Many women in the WNBA are better than the men in the NBA. I believe that it is unfair that women aren't allowed to be in the NBA. This is true.

Ideologies

In terms of advertisement, I feel that marketing toward women and men are two very different concepts.  I think there is a social fear for men to be soft while for women, there is a definite fear of being fat and ugly.  Advertisements for men tend to try to strike a point between fetishizing the flesh but still manage to connect desire with the product.  Women on the other hand are overly sexualized; the "sexy" dress as opposed to the suit.  Even the silhouettes of the clothing being designed in fashion cover the men in fabric that outline the form and display the muscle and therefore agonic power of the male form while women are given a more subvert power.

Irritating Ideologies


When I was younger, I always used to try to resist what I saw as the stereotypical limits of gender, whether it be in terms of advertising, shopping, family, or really any situation in which I felt society had unfair standards. I refused to buy (or wear) anything pink, because it was a stereotypically “girly” color. In gym, I was offended when the coach suggested I do push-ups with my knees touching the floor: “I don't do girl push-ups,” I snapped. If a male friend went out of his way to hold the door for me, I'd refuse to walk through and insist that he walk on first. Sometimes I took my stubbornness a little far, too but it all stemmed from my frustration at the way gender ideologies were so unequal in general society. Why should I wear pink? Why should I do 5 easier push-ups just because I'm a girl when I am perfectly capable of doing 5 “real” push-ups? Do men think that women are too fragile to open doors on their own?? Those were my thoughts at the time, and though I've become significantly more moderate in my views, those situations still bother me sometimes. I don't like that ideologies of gender and capitol affect almost everything; in marriage, for instance, a man is still expected to be able to provide for his wife. If I got married someday, I could not imagine acting as a housewife and being financially reliant on my husband. NO WAY. Historically, the man may hold the metaphorical wallet of the family, because that is how gender/capitol ideologies have evolved; but I can say for sure that in my house, I'll be earning money myself to keep in a wallet of my own!

Ideologies

       The ideologies we possess dictate how we perceive the world.  I believe that an ideology is something that can be changed or altered if an individual desires, and that an individual possesses different ideologies based on different subject matters. Furthermore, when the subject changes, the ideology may change as well.

       For instance, consider the following situation.  A male CEO of a company has a wife whose primary job is staying home and caring for their three, young children.  This man may believe that he is adhering to his individual ideological perception of gender and family - he is the man, so he has the big-time job to "bring home the bacon" while his wife stays home to be with the kids.  Since he is the CEO of, let's say, an advertising company, he knows how to target audiences and therefore appeal to select groups. When he's trying to reach the young, female audience, his company knows to employ the color pink over blue or red; on the other hand, when targeting young boys, this CEO knows to aim towards Hot Wheels over Barbie, and create a semi-macho tone of the advertisement over a lovey-dovey-like tone that girls may enjoy.

      The above circumstance is only an example, some people do possess the described ideologies while others do not.  Nonetheless, the above family describes a man who possesses particular ideologies, and those distinct ideologies significantly impact his life.  Thus, I am trying to show that a person's ideologies facilitate the choices we make on a daily basis.  Ideologies are very powerful and that is why they are so important to study and to be conscious of in relation to oneself and to others.

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Ideologies

Our ideologies are apparent in every spect of our culture bedcause they are the most convenient ways to address a target audience. A company creates a childs toy to be pink in order to conveniently and effectively attract the attention of girls everywhere. Not every single girl will want the item due to the fact that it has been made pink, yet enough will that it justifies the action. The population goes along with it because it allows for simple and clear sterotypes. The existence of anamolies is recognized and often allowed, yet the ideologies remain because of their convenience and empirically proven permanence.
The ideologies we have place for our culture have been built on hundreds, sometimes thousands, of years of behavior. Although roles have changed and women have been accepted into the workforce and other areas like voting and property ownership, the ideologies have been in place for so long that it becomes difficult, though not impossible, to alter them in any significant manner. As history has shown us, it takes more than a movement to change the minds of people everywhere. A black man can sit at a lunch counter meant only for white men, or a black woman can refuse to forfeit a seate on a bus for a white person; however it is another matter entirely for a population to agree that they have the right to. Women may be fully capable of holding the same position as a man, but to convince an employer of that is often a much more complicated undertaking.

Gender ideologies

Women have been degraded all over the world for thousands of years and they weren’t treated equally, because they had no rights to begin with. I believe that even though many of these inequalities between genders have been decreased, but there are still some ideologies left over. For instance, a lot of women are now working full-time and then coming home to work another full-time job. However, their household labor is generally unpaid, because everyone sees that as their responsibility. Also in advertisements we still see women being portrayed with those ideologies. For example, in the ads that are related to cleaning or cooking products, we always see women cleaning the house or cooking with using those products. However, we usually see men in the ads that are promoting “power”. I think one of the important reasons of these ideologies in social media is the audiences that are still thinking that way about gender, so media have to portray men and women with those ideologies.

Gender Roles, Ideologies, Change

In America the gender inequalities are slowly decreasing, and we have certainly come a long way since our young country was founded.  However there are other countries in the world where the gender roles are still very much the prevalent social structure.  In order to make true progress, does the world as a whole need to move forward?  Or perhaps it just takes one country to spark the change all over the world...
I like the quote from chicken run, the idea that the fences aren't just around physically, but also in our minds, blocking us from moving forward.  Our ideologies are so ingrained into us from infancy, that changing them is extremely difficult.  I know that I, personally, recognize the many faults in my ideology and self image, yet actually CHANGING those faults has proven extremely difficult.  It is true that an awareness of the problem is the first step, but after that, what do we really need to do to change?

Gender and Capital


In fact, I wrote about capitalism as my example for the first essay assignment for writing class. Some people could raise some questions why capitalism is related with women. I think capitalism is related not only by gender but also by class. Long time ago, women had not been treated as same as men were. According to the fact, women had not had any chances to be educated well. This condition consequentially divided men and women into two different classes. The polarization of wealth had set it and the gap between the rich and the poor had been getting bigger. Due to the target of the poor is women, they could not have freedom in society which is settled by capitalism. Fortunately, the situation seems to be better in modern society, but I still hope the problem will be solved perfectly pretty soon.

Gender issues in family

How do ideologies of gender and capitol impact systems like family, advertising, marriage, love, shopping?

Ideologies of gender impact family because of gender roles. For example, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's 5 year old daughter has been criticized lately for dressing as a boy. When Shiloh put on her brothers cloths Brad screamed at Angelina and told her to put her in a dress in fear magazines would gossip about her. Granted this is Hollywood drama, the question is: Do you let your child wear what she wants? or do you protect your child from being criticized by not letting them wear what they want? Either way this gender issue causes stress within the family. Some might say that the child should wear what she wants. But then we are brought back to professors point about the new born baby. Do you mind wrapping your baby girl in a blue blanket but explaining to everyone that she is in fact a girl?

Gender and Capitol

Idealogies of gender and capitol/(al?) impact our daily lives through systems like family adverstising marriage love and shopping, by sort of laying out a foundation upon which people are expected to act upon. Gender idealogies dictate and really try to push for differences between what men and women should value in their lives. In america, we strive to fit in with typical american households, where there's the all american boy and all american women that are roles generated for everyone to follow. Men are supposed to be manly and consume large amounts of meat, beer and watch sports, while women are supposed to love being housewives and enjoy things like cooking, sewing, shopping and make up. Different products are marketed to the different sexes, ages, and sometimes even races. The concepts of gender are both used to target certain demographics based on societal norms and stereotypes, but at the same time, end up creating and propagating what's perceived to be male and female in order to make money off those they believe will consume them. It also creates stigma for those who enjoy something that is primarily marketed to a certain sex. Gender also affects ideas of love and what role the men and women are to play in a relationship. When you watch stupid romantic comedies, the women, though dependent with self sufficient jobs, recieve backlash from their friends and family for not having a man in their life to sort of take care of them and submit to, because men are "supposed to be the breadwinners". While the men, are presented as strong and manly and tough, and be the reasonable one OR the jealous one, and she goes ahead and goes "weak in the knees for him". Though the men may not always be tough, they usually have muscle tone and have humor, and give girls sort of a template on which to base their choices on, while the men set out for the girls they seemingly can't have, because the women are a prize to be had. Both men and women are portrayed in movies, advertising, music as highly sexualized/vigorously masculine or feminine beings and being outrageously attractive, based on whatever has been agreed is attractive to the society. In some asian countries, very feminine men are revered.  Today women's salaries are just as important as men's in terms of bringing income, yet women still generally desire a "successful man" who earns alot.

Gender and Capitol


I believe the gender inequalities have been decreasing since many women are entering the workforce and involved in social activities. More and more women are entering the workforce and it has changed traditional conservative society. Even in Asian countries, during the nineteen-sixties and nineteen seventies, 
more women began to work outside the home and, for this reason, 
people in the women's rights movement believed that men should do more to help care for children. It has been naturally accepted to the society. For career, women have same opportunities as men have and they are evaluated by their abilities as a fair standard in their job. 
The influence of women in working place is also fastly growing. However, women’s social activities are still restricted in some countries. For example, women seeking a political career in Muslim societies have a long way to go, specially in ultra-conservative countries like SaudiArabia. 
Also, many working mothers have problems with taking care of their children. These are not easy to solve and need more time, but it will move toward according to worldwide trends, gender equalities.  

Gender ideologies

In my Writing-140 course, we are exploring the portrayal of women athletes in the media. Advertising campaigns rarely highlight the physical dominance or competitive spirit of female athletes, they rather illustrate women’s femininity and daintiness by adorning the subjects in form-flattering clothes or unrealistic makeup. These campaigns do remarkably well for women hoping to heighten their sexual vitality will be attracted to these products that supposedly promise amplified femininity. The ideology that women in the sports sphere are supposed to be composed in both appearance and mannerisms undermines the physical greatness that these women have achieved. Thus, the female athletes face a huge obstacle in being able to compete and attain as high of a level of achievement compared to male athletes. For example, male athletes can express frustration or happiness when competing and it is viewed as energetic and enthusiastic while female athletes’ expressions of emotion are looked at as masculine or aggressive.

Gender and Capital

Gender roles have progressively diminished as we've moved throughout history. Today, the lines that separate what men and women can do are closer than ever. An example of this can be seen in the demographic change of the labor force. While there are less women in high-senior level paying jobs than men, women now outnumber men in the workforce. As time progresses, we will see the number of women in executive positions increase. Sexism has diminished in the workplace, but the advertising campaigns that most of these companies use support traditional genders, like the male breadwinner and the nurturing mother. Car commercials and 401k plans are geared toward a male consumer, while cleaning products and food often portray a mother taking care of her family. The stereotypes used in these advertisements  certainly do not characterize the majority of people, but they do portray an the image of the "Classic American Family, which many people connect with and strive to fulfill.

Gender and Capital

Just as Capital creates different places (such as positions in the workplace) indifferent to the individuals who fill them, the categories of maxist analysis, class, reserve army of labor, wage-laborer, do not explain why particular people fill particular places. They give no indication why woman are subordinates to man inside and outside the family and why it's not the other way around. Some argue that the cause for this is our difference biologically. But I argue that woman are also the cause of their subordination to man in the society. Woman expects to be with man who are successful. This creates a competition among man in the society. They want to dominate so that they can maintain their status quo. If man have to stop their domination they will loose their status quo and they believe they'll also loose woman. The man domination is human made and it's a cycle. Until woman stop dividing man into different classes, man will not stop their eny to dominate.

Gender Ideologies in Advertising

Gender ideologies, however weakened they may seem, are still present in today’s society. Although there is much more of a focus on promoting gender equality, it is clear from the many advertisements that intrude on our daily lives that women are still trapped in the domestic sphere. Most, if not all, commercials and advertisements for cleaning products are directed at a female audience. Whether the advertisement features a woman using the cleaning product or a man unsure of what to do with it, these commercials all suggest that women are the gender meant to be cleaning in the home and men do not belong in this field of life. These commercials are harmful in the fight for gender equality because they mindlessly promote the ancient ideologies that have kept women in the domestic sphere for so long.

Gender and Capitol

Gender inequalities are reduced in today’s society and family wage is no longer based on sexual division of labor. However, many ideologies of gender roles and capitols still remain. It true that women’s labor force increased and women’s wages are equivalent to men’s, but women are still primarily responsible for household labor. In advertisements, women and men are still portrayed doing the stereotypical roles; men are the workers while women are housewives who cook, do housework, and take care of children. The ideology of a typical household with wife and children dependent upon a male breadwinner still remains. Also, ads ensure that women are portrayed housewives and mothers in the family. Women are also shown in advertisements and commercials as teachers and nurses, based on the stereotypical nurturing roles that women play in these jobs. However, nowadays women also take on non-nurturing jobs. These show that today ideologies of gender and capitol still remain.

Gender and Capitol

I recently started a new job and had to help the business move office locations. On the day of the move, I noticed that there were three male workers and one female worker. She was helping move furniture pieces that were just as heavy as the pieces that the men were moving, but she seemed distinctly out of place. I saw several people attempt to try to help her, though they did not rush to assist the men. Others did not try to help but they would periodically glance in her direction, as if not trusting her to be able to manage the heavy loads.

I find it very troublesome that, even in such a modern and advanced society, we still seem to follow a set definition of gender roles. Advertisements are often geared toward women because the companies assume that women are the consumers and men are the producers. Jobs are often identified to be either male or female defined and, oftentimes, the people that are hiring allow themselves to be swayed by these old associations. Men become doctors, women become nurses. Men become construction workers, women become office secretaries. Sure, many women are attempting to break out of these stereotypes but a male-dominated society makes it much harder to achieve equality. Capitalism, in a sense, operates on this exact nature of gender roles. It separates men and women in an inherently unequal way. Gender roles have come a long way but there is still change that needs to happen before males and females are truly on the same level.

Gender and Capitol

Recently, major gender inequalities have diminished among most aspects of our daily lives. Women are now able to work in business' around the world and men are able to stay home with the family. Divorce now goes both ways. Men are beginning to involve themselves in the lives of their children just as much as women. Shopping is no longer a woman's "sport", and we now see just as many shoes available for men as women. However, advertising and the media still like to stereotype the desires of both genders, feeding to the mental process of finding a partner. Women see strong, hardworking men in every advertisement that is supposed to appeal to their needs. Likewise, men are showered with images of thin women who are the perfect "housewife"; cleaning, taking care of the kids. Women are still advertised as the caretakers while men are the workers. Of course, there is a reason that the media and advertisements appeal to these senses; our desires are still largely linked to stereotypes of gender differences. Women want to be financially taken care of even if they have the ability to support themselves, while men want constant attention, whether it is being cooked for or cleaned after. These are stereotypes that our desires are constantly searching for, and they will not disappear until our view of the opposite sex changes. In the past, this was a physical battle that needed to be fought. Today, the battle is mental.

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Gender and Capitol



Even today, when the gender inequalities have significantly been reduced as a result of feminist movements, I believe there seems to be some ideologies that have remained in effect. Although women today have more opportunities than they have had in the past, there seems to still be barriers between the two genders, even at the workplace. For example, it is very rare that I see women construction workers. This may be because most women themselves may see themselves as not physically suitable for the job or it may be that employers know that men would be better at the job. I believe that something like this is a controversial issue. Most employers would like to hire workers that do the job efficiently and it has been theorized in science that men are physically stronger. So this raises the question whether hiring males as construction workers over women is because of gender discrimination or simply because they want more profit and their work to be done quickly and employers are relying on the science theory that men are stronger. Another present day situation is that women are still considered to be primary caretakers for children in households even if both partners are holding jobs, and even if the woman in the house earns more.  This shows that the ideology that women are domestic caretakers still remains; however now they play an active role outside the household as well. In addition, many advertisers today target women in ads, whether it is an item for anyone or anything; they seem to attribute the term “consumer” with women mostly. So, even today many of the ideologies of gender and capitalism are connected and remain standing .

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Revolution

Revolution described a fundamental change in power or organizational structure.  I don't see any problem with the current power structures that would require a violent revolution.  But there are some recent issues I've seen that I believe shows a changing mindset in the government.  The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 takes a policy of "Anti-Terrorism".  This allows anyone who commits what is determined to be a "belligerent act" to be detained without trial.  I see this is an overreach of power and the passing of this Act could start a revolution.  Another recent problem that sprung up was SOPA, which allows for the control of copyright material on the internet.  People achieved success in preventing this through a mass protest and signing petitions.  This revolution required no violence to see results, and I take this as an example of violent revolution being an unnecessary factor in causing change.  Revolution occurs when people's freedom and fundamental rights are threatened, which I have only seen in recent years.  The conditions of our society are not enough for any sort of massive organized rebellion that is necessary for revolution.

Monday, January 23, 2012

Nonviolent Revolution


Born in Flames was certainly interesting in its depiction of revolution, although I didn't agree with all of the movement's methods—for instance, the use of violence. I thought for a while about whether revolution can actually be achieved without some amount of violence, and I was about to admit that there was no possible way, until this past week provided a potentially viable counter-example. SOPA and PIPA, two Congress bills which seek to stop the illegal exchange of copyrighted material online, have received a great deal of attention in the past few weeks. Under these laws, websites would be made responsible for any user-generated links or content posted, and said websites could be shut down at will by the government—without due process. The language of the bills is so vague that sites like Etsy, Kickstarter, and Flickr could be shut down, and sites such as Youtube and Facebook would be devastatingly affected. Essentially, these bills would destroy the Internet as we know it, curtailing creativity, smothering sharing, and making people unwilling to invest in an area with such excessive restrictions. This opinion is shared by many, many Internet users, as illustrated by the “blackout” on January 18th; Wikipedia, Reddit, Etsy, Google, Wordpress, Wired, Tumblr, and more than 115,000 other sites either completely shut down for the day and/or posted messages asserting their opposition to SOPA and PIPA. Meanwhile, all opponents of the bills were urged to call their representatives and inundate their offices with calls to make it clear that the citizens of the U.S. would not stand for Internet censorship. The media has dubbed it as the biggest online protest ever, with millions of participants. You can view some of the estimated statistics here: http://www.sopastrike.com/numbers. After this (peaceful) revolution, Congresspeople's positions on the two bills shifted radically towards the side of opposition, and SOPA and PIPA have been put on indefinite hold. Not all revolutions are good, but this one—accomplished with the unity of citizens against censorship and against the crippling of the web—was certainly positive, and did not require any violence whatsoever. It is yet to be seen whether the demonstration will continue to succeed in the long run; the bills, or some form of them, will likely be back. But I would like to believe that some revolutions can succeed permanently and peacefully, and I would like to have faith in the power of the people over unfair legislation.

Revolution

Revolution has achieved success in the past. Large displays including violence have always gotten attention; however, I do not think that violence is necessary to instigate change. For example, Gandhi led a nonviolent revolution advocating for independence. His method relied upon passive resistance. He and those who followed him did not outwardly fight, but they did stand up for their rights. In the end, they achieved their goal, thus proving that Gandhi’s method was successful. I do not think revolution needs to be physically dangerous, but I do think revolution is necessary in many cases to broaden how each individual thinks. Each person should have equal opportunities no matter who that person is. No one should be either considered inferior or be forced into submission because of race, class or gender, and if one is, a change needs to be made and mindsets need to be altered. I do believe that violence is used in many occasions because those revolting become exhausted with their constant fight and those they stand up against refuse to listen. It is difficult to persuade an individual to change his or her beliefs when he does not want to listen, but would violence really make him understand the plight of those who fight? I feel as though appealing to a person logically is much more successful in having him understand in the long run versus having a large display of violence shocking society into making some changes. When they are forced into making new laws to accommodate a changing population, the discrimination is still present even when the laws are made.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Revolution

In todays world the first thing that comes to my mind is the depression that the United States is in. I tie this into the meaning of todays revolution by the fact the people of United States have the "freedom of speech" and have the right to vote but that can only do so much when the real power is in the political positions that pass taxes, laws and so on. When this depression started I personally think of it as a revolution. At first when this depression occurred stories of acts of violence and people slaughtering their families so they wouldn't have to suffer were happening was all over the news but violence can only do so much in trying to create a new revolution. Getting a point cross in order for change is definitely going to be an "aggressive, forceful" act but I don't think the actual act for blood is necessary. When people were adapting to the revolution of the depression and figuring out that ones blood wont change the system we have today, people I believe as a whole became more intelligent in the United States. The pressure for getting a degree from a university has never been more important in todays society meaning only good things can come in the future with a higher intellectual and educated society. This brings me to the occupy movement I believe it is a very viable platform. The rebellion of thousands of people its what it takes to make news and get people to notice but it would be something more special if MILLIONS of MILLIONS people did such a thing to get a point cross. Todays system can ignore thousands in an occupy movement knowing that those people will eventually give up and move on with their lives but its really hard to maintain homeostasis with millions of people fighting the system. Any revolution should have the right to want change but they cant get greedy and want it all perfect but be understanding and accept what is changed for the better and adapt to the rest.

Revolution

I personally think that revolution is not necessary for countries like the United States, but there are still some issues that need to be revolutionized in some other countries around the world. For instance, in a country like Iran almost everyone wants a revolution to happen, because people don’t have freedom over there. And government has everything under its own control. Even 2 years ago after the election, as it was shown in the news, a lot of people got killed only because they believed that the election was unfair and they were looking for their votes by protesting. And Iran is just one example out of many other countries. However, I believe that revolution shouldn’t come with violence, because we want things to get better by revolution. It would make no sense if the cost of revolution is the live of the innocence people who wanted it. But at a same time as we discussed in the class, I know that it’s far from reality to have such a chance to be able to make that happen without hurting a group of people.

The 21st Century

In a time such as ours, when the worlds population is increasing at a rate of 78 million people a year and the amount of technical information is doubling every two years, we don't have time to peacefully solve our problems. Yes, in an ideal world this would be the best solution: to sit down with our enemies and find a common goal that would satisfy all parties involved. However, our world is evolving at such a rapid rate that every decision we make today affects the children of tomorrow. Therefore, if something needs to be fixed in the world, action needs to be taken today. Revolutions can be torturous for many families around the world as loved ones put their lives in danger to fight for what they believe in, but it is a way that people of today make people of yesterday listen to what needs to be fixed. The idea of change is rarely pleasing among people of power, so if they wont agree to listen we need to make them listen. This is why revolutions are increasing in popularity as the 21st century progresses. New ideas are forming everyday while old views are growing extinct. This is an era of change, and we have the strength to fight the populations that are unwilling to evolve with the world. So if you feel compelled, stand up and make yourself heard; it's the only way to better the world of tomorrow.

Revolution of Different Forms

John F. Kennedy once said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Like most people, my first instant association with revolution is violence and war. When I stop and attempt to contemplate a non-violent revolution, it seems to be an unattainable concept. However, upon further reflection, I believe that a peaceful revolution is indeed possible. Peaceful acts can accomplish change just as well as violent ones, but there is a major difference in my opinion: time. When it comes to a peaceful revolution, the change that the people hope to accomplish may be slower than that of a violent revolution. It takes time and organization to get a strong message across peacefully, but many times people are impatient and desire an instantaneous effect. Violence seems to accomplish that much faster, but at what cost? Violence sends such a clear and powerful message through the loss of human lives. The message is strong, but I for one would rather spend more time pursuing change than lose so many valuable people to a cause that makes its case through violence. So, is a revolution necessarily violent? I believe not but, sadly, most people do not spend enough time reflecting on other options to see behind the facade of violence that we have come to associate with change.

Revolution and War

Although some people are against war and violence, I believe that it is critical to keep a country alive. Sometimes a country has to fight for what they want. In regards to a revolution I believe that you can't have a revelation without violence because if you use verbal tactics it would take too long to get the publics attention. You need to catch the attention of the audience and the only way to do that in a  short period of time is to use violence. In other words its stronger.

Revolution

I feel as though any type of change will always meet resistance. People grow very comfortable with the status quo, and do not want to rock the boat or shift from what they're used to and they will fight to protect it. I also feel that if something isn't working and people aren't having their needs met then something must be done about it. Constant changes are always needed to keep up with the times which is why there are debates about changing the law and it's written in the constitution that we have a right to rebel against and unjust government if it stops serving the interest of those governed.
As far as whether or not violence is necessary, I oppose the use of harming innocent people, but violence has helped get the point across to people when they refuse to listen or it at least grasped the attention of the media and thus reaches even more people (such as terrorism, 9/11, the olympic games of 1972 where people were held hostage). At the same time, people who have tried to do peaceful demonstrations have been met with violence from those in power, such as the freedom marches, or protestors where people were harmed by the police and or military. Violence can help or hurt a cause.
Revolution needs one side to fight for it, and the other to compromise or submit to change. No growth ever came without some form of pain. I don't think changes can be abrupt where you wake up one day and say "all gays can be married now" but it happens gradually as people become more educated and concerned or as values shift one way or the other. Revolutions don't happen over night.

Revolution

Has a revolution occured? I think it has, revolution means an overthrow and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. There has been many revolutions; American, Industrial, Agricultural, etc. Every revolution has their specific goals they are trying to reach. For example, Born in Flames, the women were fighting for their rights; equality is what they were trying to reach. Discriminating becasue of their sex and gender is never acceptable, women can do the same activities men can do. What does revolution look like? Depending on if the goal was acheived kindly, revoltuion can be done in an respectful and positive manner. But for the women in Born in Flames they had to use viloence because the men were not respecting and taking their revolution seriously. It is easier to get things done using violence because people respond quicker and know that it is serious. There is no other alternative than violence because people in this world are stubborn.

Effective Revolutions

The question of a revolutions dependence upon violence for success is based on multiple factors; the most important of which is the scale of the revolution. Change can be made through passive means when relative improvement is trivial. However, for a major change to occur, physicality is necessary. It is not enough to speak of the desired goals without moving into action and pursuing them. With any movement there will be a counter and without some amount of force, no progress can be made to overcome the opposition. The static condition of the world with which protestors are dissatisfied cannot be altered without the introduction of a new impulse. This is most effectively achieved through violence for large scales. It is inefficient to attempt to discuss with and convince others into agreeing with and supporting new ideas. That may be sufficient when the opposition is a couple hundred people or less. However with a movement such as feminism that is attempting to convert roughly half of the population; large scale events that can quickly reach out to thousands, or millions, of people are a necessity.

Revolution

I think that revolution can come in many forms, political, social, and so on.  However, I do think that violence tends to go along with any kind of drastic change.  Sometimes violence comes on the part of the revolutionaries, when they believe they must wage war against the established system in order to achieve their goals.  Other times the violence comes from the resisting side.  Peaceful protesters asking for radical change will often incite violence from the establishment who wants to stop them from speaking.
I would also say that revolutions are constantly happening.  As soon as one revolution succeeds and becomes the establishment another will begin with the intent of overthrowing it.  Of course it isn't always easy to see the revolutions, and the same type may not always follow the one before it. (For example: A revolution such as the Civil War (successful or not, I would still consider this a revolution) was followed by a social revolution like the Civil Rights Movement.)  But I do think that nearly every revolution has had violence at some point.  With the exception, perhaps, of the Digital Revolution, if one considers that a  real revolution.

Revolution

       Revolution is something that can occur on many different levels - be it locally, nationally, and even globally. Location and size are two important variables in a revolution, but there are also many different types of revolutions. For example, social, cultural, and industrial revolutions have all swept the world at least once. Despite these many factors, I have come to identify revolution as a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favor of a new system.

       In relation to this definition, the people who participate in a revolution are opposing the current governmental system, and when those in power are rebelled against, they often respond by means of violence in order to keep control. Because revolution often implies the opposition of at least two forces, violence may seem like the only way to settle the disagreement. Using violence is easier and quicker than trying to amicably come to a compromise. For this reason, I think violence will always be one of the first potential solutions people use when faced with a revolution.

       For example, in Born In Flames, the women seeking a revolution started their revolutionary pursuits by using non-violent methods, but when they were not taken seriously and no one acknowledged them, they were forced to turn to violence. Even when the armed women approached the male newscasters, the men thought it was all a joke. This part of the film showed the prevalence, and sometimes necessity, of violence in a revolution, but it also demonstrated that women were forced to use violence in order to get people to listen to them and take them seriously.

       Because weapons are so easily attainable, I think that violence will always be a factor in revolution and revolutionary pursuits because of how easy it is for individuals and organizations to obtain weapons.

Revolution

Black feminists have to fight for the issues concerning the equal rights for woman. But they also have to be involved in the fight for liberation of oppressed people including man. They should be carefull so that they can't be seen as distancing themselves in the struggle against the liberation of everyone. They have to fight with the men on issues including the liberation of all people, but they also have to fight for the issues that involve the relationship between man and woman. The oppresion is systematic. It comes through sexism, class, capitalism and other forms. Woman in Born in Flames protested peacefully but the status quo was not changing. In order to change the status quo they used violence. It does not mean that violence is always a result of the protest against legitimate issues. There are also opportunists that will use violence to fullfill their desires during the protest. But overall people use violence because they don't feel that their voices are heard.

Revolution

I do not believe that a true revolution can occur without the use of violence. Revolution is the conflict between two extremely contrasting viewpoints, often where an oppressed group of people act to advance their place in society. The goal of the wealthy and privileged is to maintain the status quo while the groups of long-suffering seek to evoke great change, so naturally tensions run high between the two sides. Neither group will likely change their stance on the issue, so violent force usually ensues. Common examples are the Roman Slave Rebellion,  the Mexican War of Independence, the French Revolution, the Boxer Rebellion, and the American Revolution. All of these instances showed two differing views result in a violent clash.

Revolution

Things are changed. However, if people believe the things only can be changed when they use force, then a revolution occurs. A revolution always bring conflicts and violence between people because the revolution is usually against for the value which its society have pursued. For example, same-sex marriages have always been controversial in this society. About 10 years ago, it seemed almost impossible that same-sex marriage advocate would be protected and save their right. However, currently 6 states officially allow the same-sex marriages. It is a great revolution which the advocates have dreamed. They have fought for a long time against for prejudice and violence from the public. I think, sometimes, the equality and freedom of minority in society can be achieved only by a revolution rather than peaceful changes. If we just let this society adapt them by itself without any force, It will take forever because people tend to dislike the change of their value.    

Revolution

I do not think America is in need of a revolution. As we discussed in class, it’s essentially impossible for revolution to occur without violence. While I think there are many problems that need fixing including issues surrounding gay rights, women’s rights, the economy, distribution of wealth, prejudice and stereotypes, I believe revolution would cause unnecessary pandemonium. These issues, as well as many others, require attention and should be discussed and fixed and although it will be a long process, and may require many lifetimes, these problems will change over time whereas a revolution may cause irreversible damage and setbacks that could be too difficult to overcome.

Revolution




In fact, I have heard many times about black feminists and I am now actually interested in gender studies because I am indirectly involved in and they are ongoing issues in modern society. However, I did not have chance to learn about them in detail. Fortunately, by reading a book thought it is for a class, I got a great chance to recognize how black feminists were organized and since when. In addition, it was interesting to know about what they are actually struggling for in order to assert their rights which black women justly should have. Taking this opportunity, I hope I will be helpful for them in the future.

revolution

Can equality of black women be something that can happen in the world? In the Black Feminist Statement, it mentions how difficult women’s struggles were. Black men got the right to vote way before black women. It was a disconcerting to me that men were not equal to women and men can abuse female and further blame women for rape back in the 1980s. For example, white men could rape black women as a weapon of political repression. Black women have to experience and struggle against racism, sexism, and classism. In class we discussed how black women’s liberation means the liberation for all. But in order for the equality to be reached, I believe revolution should be the only method to end oppression. What would the world be like if revolution really happen? Would violence be the only way to deal with conflicts? I believe violence is not necessarily the right way to change the rights for black women; even if violence is used, can equality for black women be reached? Not necessarily. I believe it is not impossible to establish equality between genders peacefully without violence. It just takes a long while for society to change.