Quickwrite #11

I thought the video was very interesting. I've seen people pose the question, would men say the same thing to women on the street and to their mothers? I think some people separate the dignity of a human being from the dignity of someone they know. Most people who catcall and yell things at people on the street probably wouldn't do the same to mothers, sisters, friends, and girlfriends. Certain places are much worse than others, and it is honestly insane to think the practice of catcalling and street harassment hasn't gone out of style. I know very few people who like being yelled at on the street, or having vulgar and disgusting things said at them as they walk by. It often is targeted at young women, who often feel vulnerable and repulsed by the "compliments". In my own personal experience, it can truly make you feel disgusting and wrong, sometimes just really mad. The first time I was catcalled was when I was 14. Then over the course of three years I have accumulated experience with dealing with street harassment. It is hard to retaliate or defy the person yelling at you, because often you would be alone. They is also the element of safety that should be taken into account. I carry pepper spray on my keychain for times when I feel in danger, and try to keep walking by.

Quickwrite #10

So, what do you think? View YouTube.com: "'Slap her': Children's reactions" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2OcKQ_mbiQ) and then reflect on how you feel about how these Italian children reacted to the topic – Would anything be different if they were American children? Why or why not? Explain.

I think, or at least I would hope, that young American boys would feel the same way about violence. I think that the reason why little  boys are taught not to hit girls is flawed in both ways. Some of the responses were valid like "Jesus does not want us to hit each other" or "I'm against violence", but some were just "don't hit girls they are too pretty". Everyone should be taught as children that despite physical differences, violence inflicted on another human being is wrong. I think many people understand that now, but teaching little boys not to hit pretty little girls never works. After a while they aren't just little girls anymore and people forget about childhood innocence. Anger heats up and the "don't hit a girl" ideology fails. A non0violent approach to raising children is always best, but not for the reason that little girls are too weak and too pretty to be hit. Be that as it may, teaching children not to hit girls because they are girls is still better than the alternative. 

Quickwrite #9

So, what do you think? View YouTube.com: "These Disney Princesses Will Creep You Out, For A Good Reason" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VM9uT636o0) and/or "Domestic violence campaign uses Disney princesses" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC3j7w4FT88) and then reflect on how you feel about the use of Disney princesses in a domestic violence campaign – Is it appropriate or inappropriate to use these childhood figures to communicate an adult message? Explain. 

I agree that domestic violence is a horrific and underestimated crime. Just the fact that 1 out of every 4 women will experience violence from an intimate partner is a shocking statistic, but it goes so often unreported and untreated. I think that because the disney character drawings are getting so much attentions speaks volumes to it's intent. The artist wanted to create a splash, to bring awareness. We are seeing in now if our class, news covers and articles have been reading it, and now we are all having a discussion and thinking about the issue. This is reason alone to attest to the effectiveness of the use of disney character art in a campaign. It's a though provoking subject matter, and I think the images are not obscene. 

quickwrite #8

So, what do you think? View YouTube.com: “Super Bowl 2015: Domestic Violence PSA” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_zWIVRIWk) and then comment on the issue of domestic violence, especially on the difficulty of reporting. Explain.


I think the ad was really well done. I think it was a way to speak out about the threat and fear without explicitly showing it. I would assume a more to-the-point ad could be triggering for some people, but I can still appreciate the subtlety of it. At first it sounded weird and then the tone of the music and lighting changed to show the true nature of the call. I have seen and heard about reporting domestic violence, and how hard it can be when the partner is still in the house or room or wherever and posses a threat. I have heard that there are now ways, like shown in the video, to have the person report it in an undetectable way. If someone is scared or hurt and their partner's had acted out in an abusive way, it is easy to see that calling the police openly would only worsen their anger and aggression and put that person in more danger.  I remember reading an article in a magazine at the airport a while back, it was focusing on the issue of guns in relationship. It stated that the likelihood of a domestic abuse situation turning to murder increases by 5 times for a women in abusive relationships when firearms are present or owned. Although this relates specifically to gun owners in relationships, it just shows the very real danger of escalation in a violent attack. This can be caused by a person trying to report an issue, and the abusive partner acting out of anger because they are reporting it. When I heard that the call in the ad was a real call, that made it so much more real. The 911 operator took a while to catch on to the "code" the woman was trying to use. I'm glad he eventually got her help, but it shows just how hard it can be.

Quickwrite #7

Quickwrite #7: So, what do you think? Read the following statement on marriage by a former TV show star and then, rather than agree/disagree and defend your position, try to understand his point of view and then comment on this statement in light of what you have know of marriage. Explain.

A lot of people don't know that marriage comes with instructions... And, we find them right there in God's word... [Husbands are] to love their wives and not to tell their wives that they need to submit to them... Wives are to honor and respect and follow their husband's lead, not to tell their husband how he ought to be a better husband... When each person gets their part right, regardless of how their spouse is treating them, there is hope for real change in their marriage.

I think that I somewhat agree and disagree. I think that his view of spouses as equals is both respectful and just, however I differ in opinion in regards to his second statement. I completely disagree with his idea that a husband "leads". I don't think it is entirely radical or "too feminist" so see a relationship as equal parts, acting symbiotically. When he says, "not to tell their wives they need to submit it them" and then in the same statement imply husbands are meant to lead he basically contradicts himself. I can see how an interpretation of the bible might suggest a husband-led marriage, but I think that forcing a wife or a woman into any submissive or "following" role is against the idea of "love thy neighbor" and various religious teachings that say to give dignity to the human person, of any gender. Also, when he says "not to tell their husband how he ought to be a better husband" is more reminiscent of an unhealthy relationship. If anything, partners should work together to better themselves, and be the best person both for their spouse and the world in general. It is my belief that anybody should accept change, especially when one partner is upset with the way they are treated or something of that sort. Their "part" in a relationship is not dependent on the ancient roles that are set in society. If partners follow a leading/following style relationship, one person is bound to be disrespected as human being. One person is not more valuable in the relationship than the other, and communication is crucial.

Quickwrite #6

So, what do you think? Comment on the film adaptations of A Raisin in the Sun, the 1961 version starring Sidney Poitier and the 2008 version starring Sean Combs.

I was not there for most of these films, but from what I have seen it looked fairly accurate. I don't quite know how to comment on it because of my absence.

Talk about the "Good Times" episode.

I liked the tv show, it was an interesting sit com style that I have never been exposed to. I think it shared similarities to A Raisin in the Sun, it was about receiving money to purchase a new home, and running into issues to get it. Overall, the family had their differences but they all wanted a common goal. At the end, they weren't able to buy the new home because of gentrification. However, despite that, the family stuck together and remained happy because they were together and they knew that one day they could achieve their dream.

Quickwrite #5

So, what do you think? Should Walter Lee have accepted the money from Mr. Lindner? Why or why not? Explain.

I think that it is hard to do either. On one hand, racism with exist despite the money, and accepting it wouldn't change their social status. If anything, taking money from Mr. Linder would be interesting, because at the end of the day Mr. Linder is on the wrong side of history and he is losing money. The money would help their family considerably, and would allow them to move up as long as Walter changes. A part of this change would mean that Walter would need to "man up" and change himself. This change would also demand Walter to deny the money and take control of his own life but the lives of the family. Social changes don't occur as long as old, rich, white people keep buying their power. Denying the money made a statement that Walter and his family will make a stand against the rich, old, white people that want to buy power.