Freud in AP Psych

I first learned about Freud in high in AP Psychology. I do not remember Freud being a touchy issue but now I can see how some could take an offense to it. I remember one particular thing Freud believed: oral fixation. Therefore, an infantile oral fixation would be manifest as an obsession with oral stimulation; yet, if weaned either too early or too late, the infant might fail in resolving the emotional conflicts of the oral, first stage of psychosexual development and he or she might develop a maladaptive oral fixation.As a sixteen year old, I believed this concept was very funny, and I still do. Whenever people suck their thumbs, chew on the string of their sweatshirt, chew gum continuously, and bit their pens/pencils frantically, I think of Freud and wonder if these people developed these habits as very young infants. If oral fixation is true, mothers really need to pay attention to the amount of time they do or do not breast feed. It is interesting how Freud took a very simple concept, such as breast feeding, and made it into a cause of things like oral fixation.

Feminism & Marx

With what I took away from Marx is that he states that gender oppression is due to class oppression which creates this division between men and women. This leads to many of the current issues that we face, where women are mistreated in the workplace and are offered a less desirable position (with less pay) than men. This type of gender oppression can be seen as a type of racism - as the two races; males and females. It stays this way because this type of racism is in the interest of capital and the wealthy class.

Ideology

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

     

     The Ideology of gender representing that men and women are attitude of the appropriate roles, responsibilities and rights of their gender in society. It would be occurred in family, legal, political, economic, social. The Orient have a lot of ideology system their life. Base on the culture of the Orient which is include my home country South Korea, we have very strong stereotype and ideology of gender. For example, men should work for taking care of their family and women should raise child and house working.  During the understanding myself the ideology, I have a great example in my mind which is north Korea. North Korea is located in the Orient and also dictatorship. I am very well known person and I want to think about relationship between the ideology and dictatorship (North Korea) when I learned the ideology. This issue is because not only I am S. Korean but also this is really big issues. The ideology in North Korea completes their self-image as the center of a world revolution. As we see, the ideology concept by traditional and anti-feminism. So, the ideology of gender would many effects on the thought, men and women rights. 

Marxism

Marx believed that society can exist without any classes but he could not consider the gender as possible class. Of course, Marxism is not the only social belief that considered the women to have lower social position. The same concept has existed for many centuries. Early Marxists pointed out that the women were drawn from their homes to the work force in capitalism and considered as destroying sexual division of labor force. In this point, Marxism viewed that women working outside as not working correctly for the society and even destroying sexual division of labor force while Capitalism appreciated women's work force than Marxism considered as no value.

The Happily-Ever-After Marriage

As the ideologies of gender and capital developed in the history, different forms of social systems also showed their development. As pointed out in the section of “With and Against Marx,” there were doubts raised along with transaction from Capitalism to Marxism—did the improvement benefit the whole society, including men, women , and children, or just a portion of people, which were men? I support the argument that changes not necessary benefits everyone equally, for instance, the rise in income tax rate for the highest income tier people is not fair for them even though Bill Gates voluntarily support it. However, there is no paradise on Earth, and the improvement in the real circumstances in terms of gender and capital has grown big enough to be noticeable for everyone.

As an economics lover, I have to explain that there is no absolute capitalist or socialist economy, because everything is in between—sometimes tends to the right side and sometimes the left side. In socialist-capitalist country like the United States, it appears to be a capitalist place where men and women can have their own business while the government makes all citizens to share. At this point feminists have the power to exercise their right: work, have sexual choice, decide to keep pets instead of children, and pay 401(K). On the other hand, similar scene happens in the capitalist-socialist country like China. Even though feminism is not fully realized, the choices of women have been widen. Thus, many women are indeed satisfied with what they have; would you tell your children, “You dumb kid, are you happy with your McDonald’s? You should be sad and desperate because your rich friends are eating steaks in the high class restaurant at Beverly Hills!”?

Capitalism and Workplace

Although we have seen that men have control over women's labor power, it is more common to see harassment in today's workplace as women enter the labor market. Since women are seen as inferior to men, I would argue that the society has already define who fits into what positions. It is true that men dominates most of the supervision level in the organization, creating barriers for women to enter the leadership positions. As a result, men may tempt to think that women need them to achieve a certain position or to get a promotion. At some point, it will create opportunities for men to ask for sexual flavor as a form of reward. The tension between women and men in workplace remains to be an issue even though people claim both genders have equal opportunity in workplace. Women have been long struggling to improve their roles in the labor market. The problems they are now dealing with are the results of a capitalist society. Because of the sexual division of labor, most women only have access to jobs that are low-paying. To make further progress in this capitalist society, it is necessary to pay attention not only to the job status of women, but also to how they are being treated in the workplace.

gender ideologies

Ideologies for both gender has come a long way and has gone through a major change since advertising, marketing and the media came into the picture.  A long time ago, according to the Bible, men were supposed to work in the field and provide shelter and food for his family. On the other hand, women were supposed to give birth to children and take care of them.  Ever since Eve sinned, women has gone through many sufferings and humiliation.  Even today, women still suffer and are still considered a class lower than men and inferior to them.  The man is the king of the house who takes charge and provides income, food, and shelter for the family.  The woman is supposed to take care of the children and to look pretty and beautiful.  The multimedia industry has forever changed the image of a woman.  Broadcasting channel's such as MTV has downgraded the image of women.  They broadcast shows where they promote men to go out and hook up with girls and get wasted.  At the end, they are still considered cool because they are men and it's okay men for act that way.  On the other hand, you see girls hooking up with guys on television and getting wasted and they are judged because they are women and that females should not behave in that way.  The multimedia has seriously changed the perspective of gender and it will stay this way.  Women will forever have to look beautiful and slim, while men can pretty much do whatever they want because they are men.

I have been ignorant in recognizing the existing social, political, and economic systems in our society and everyday I am partaking in these systems. I really like Heidi Hartman's feminist, marxist critique of capitalism. It was brilliant that she as able to couple oppression of women and capitalism together in an "Unhappy Marriage." Instead of going along with systems in place, Hartman dares to point out flaws. She questions the very foundation of why do people go along with them in the first place or in Hartman's rendition, why people choose to fill these "empty places". Like Hartman, I want to break away from the norm and live out my own ideology. As society stands now it is merely impossible not play a role in the social, political, and economic systems already in place. So maybe making my own ideology is too radical, but I think the key is being aware and knowledgable that these systems are in place. Only through awareness will we begin to weaken the power and influence of these institutional monsters.

As recommended to me by my mom, there is a really great exhibit at the Skirball Center! The exhibit is called Women Hold Up Half the Sky and it a modern day look into the oppression of women all over the world.

Also I think this song is totally relevant to our discussion on capitalism and breaking away from different ideologies. Plus it is really good so listen (=

Helplessness Blues by The Fleet Foxes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mR8Z-gmK1g

Ideologies

In societies dated back in the agricultural civilization, women play little to no roles in politics, economy and any other forms of decision-making. The deterioration of the female status caused women to be subjected to menial homemaking duties and child-bearing, and they were perceived to be the weaker gender. The domination of men in the community have caused the notion that women are of less value and niche in their very own society; and women were constantly living in the shadows of the gender deemed more superior – men.

What most advertising agencies do nowadays is just intensifying and further stretching the gap between men and women. Women are still being represented by beauty (curves and make-up?), and men, luxury, wealth, and social status. We are so confined by the gender stereotypes that are highly publicized that we slowly begin to lose our sense of identity. People just grasp the widely-held concepts that represent their gender, because it is easier to conform than to explain themselves why they don't.

Ideologies

The ideologies for both the male and female genders dictates how each gender should act, what each gender should like, and whats in the media. For example, males are expected to be very masculine, at least what the media depicts as masculine. Men are expected to be the provider, the bread winner of the family, tough, and the protector. While women are expected to clean, cook, and watch the kids. They are expected to be live up to a certain image, such as being slim, having long hair, and wearing make up. It is because of these ideologies that marriages usually consist of the male gaining most of the income and women doing the cooking and cleaning at home. The media plays a role in this by targeting commercials or films that encourage these ideologies. We have commercials, ads, television, and films telling us what we should look like and how we should act. Commercials such as axe commercials that not only tell women they should like the women in the commercial, but also that men need to get with a lot of women. Although some expectations have been defied over the years, women now are beginning to be an equal source of income in some households, many of these ideologies are still being upheld by society.

Dr. Pepper 10

The ideologies of gender is what shapes the decisions, actions, and of ways of thinking of many people. From a person's personal space, to posture, tone of voice, and etc, ideologies of gender dictates this of all people of all culture. Men are expected to be the bread winner of the family, the person that makes decisions, protects women and kids, initiates in the pursuing of a partner, pay for dates, and more. While women are expected to take care of babies, gossip, be into shopping and fashion, take hours to get ready, love shoes, and more. These ideologies are reflected in everywhere. I recently was surprised and taken aback when I heard a commercial on the radio that explicitly stated out a simple beverage product is not for women. It was the Dr. Pepper 10 commercial that states that it is a man's drink. The reason why they have to market their product this was is because "diet" drinks are usually associated with women because we should be cautious about our weight. So for them to have a diet product for men, the product would have to have some calories, and also be distinctive from a woman's product. Ideologies will always be in our society, it doesn't seem like it can ever be eliminated.






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iuG1OpnHP8

"Princesses"

The way we advertise products to society has a profound impact on gender ideologies, and vice versa. I can’t think of a better example than the Disney Princesses. In 2000, the marketing of the Disney Princesses together has resulted in the fastest growing brand in the company’s history, exploding into the massive franchise that exists today. After reading Peggy Orenstein’s Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches From the Front Lines of the New Girlie-Girl Culture, I learned that by 2009, the Princesses has amassed more than $4 billion in revenue. Disney relies on the image and legacy the Princesses have made on society to continue their record sales. But these seemingly innocent characters have exposed young girls to the skewed gender ideologies of our society. Growing up with these stories that place a great importance on physical appearance and dependence on a man, girls are struggling with the pressure to be “perfect”, to be pretty and smart, and to have it all. The media has a greater influence on our ideologies than we would like to believe. Advertising that is directed towards young children perpetuates these ideologies to the upcoming generation, and our society allows this to happen. Maybe because we can’t possible stop the powerful franchise that is Disney, or maybe we don’t look deep enough to realize the gender roles they are perpetuating, or maybe we are ignorant to the effect on our children. Regardless, these Princesses, and other “girly” toys, are making it increasingly difficult to shed our ideologies of women as submissive to, and dependent on, men, as well as the increasing importance of physical appearance and femininity.

The ideology in our lives

Ideology now play a vital role in our daily lives, even though it does not deserve it. Whenever we open the TV, read the magazine or search on the website, numerous advertisements tell us how women should lose weight, make themselves up as well as dress up in order to be "perfect". These types of photoshoped imagines mislead women that they will be attractive only if they look like those gorgeous models. Actually, being skinny, using too much cosmetics and wearing high heels for a long time are absolutely bad for people's health, but why women are not tired of chasing artificial beauty? Because men want them   look in that way. Then women give up their fortitudes in order for a slim build; cover dramatic makeup on their natural face; suffer from the pain that high heels bring to them. Is it really necessary for women to equip themselves those unhealthy items? Why not live in a more comfortable and natural way?

How could women break out from social ideology

Social Ideology is the culture root of women’s oppression in class. In the modern world, it is not enough to say that women are subordinate to men only by the harsh economic exploitation and family exploitation. The spiritual shackle such as housework, pregnant, sex had already made both men and women accustomed to and the image of feminine characteristics had inserted in peoples’ minds for long. Marxists argued that a female must realize how they are shaped by the patriarchal society and capitalism and how these two factors affect them. To reach this standard, they have to gather up and form to group in order to gain identification of being female. This example also appeared in the movie born in flame where we found it is not impossible to solve the problem by individual. Women no longer distain their own ability when they join the group. Instead, they, as a group, realized their value and discover that it is not they are wrong, it is the society goes wrong.

ideologies of gender

Ideologies of gender and capitol impact all systems in life.  There is no way of getting around it.  Advertisements tell us what to buy and what our lives and relationships should be like.  These ideologies of gender often seem to be quite damaging to women.  However, I think that the absolute destruction of gender categories may be harmful.  In Canada, there is a family that is raising a “genderless baby.”  The parents are refusing to tell anyone the gender of the baby when asked.  The parents want their baby, Storm, to make choices for his or herself about who he/she wants to be.  They don’t want their child to have to be unnecessarily influenced by outside pressures to be something he or she does not want to be.  They home school their two older sons, Jazz, and Kio.  They children are allowed to decide for themselves what they want to learn, how they want to dress, style their hair, and many other choices that are usually determined by the parents of young children.  The boys wear anything from pants to tutus and often wear their long hair in braids.  However, Jazz is already faces some difficulties at just 5 years old.  He hears little girls at the park saying they don’t want to play with the “boy-girl” and he is saddened and offended when people think he is a girl.  So maybe gender categories and ideologies are useful to a certain extent, but they need to be transformed.  At the current moment, they are limiting, and often damaging.  If ideologies of gender were changed by advertising, starting in the family at a young age, then perhaps some progress would be made.  

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389593/Kathy-Witterick-David-Stocker-raising-genderless-baby.html

Gender and Capitol

With marriage in mind, I believe that the idea of gender and capitalist ideology have many and tremendous impacts on relationships between men and women. With the idea of gender, individuals in a marriage will feel the pressure to play the role of the gender that is identified with their sex in the respective culture. In the United States it is usually the man who is expected to fulfill the role of the primary bread winner for a family while the woman is expected to be a mother, and a wife at some point in the relationship. However, what if the man and woman are free spirits that do not conform to societies idea of a responsible man and woman and instead look to live single lives? These individuals are often ostracized because they do not conform to what society has come to see as the characteristics that any normal man or woman should exhibit. With the idea of gender, people go into relationships with a preconceived notion of what they are supposed to be rather than what they want to be.

I believe capital also has a similar effect in that it allows a person to wrongly equate the accumalation of financial capital with true success based on what society has told them. In the United States it has been said and heard countless times that the American dream is owning your first home. So, the dream is to acquire capital. 

Look your post. Now look at me. Now back to your post. Now back at me.

While this does not necessarily comment on the gender roles indicated in the Old Spice commercials (the gearing towards women through clever writing and a mish-mosh of cliched girl-friendly fantasies, the casting of the manliest man's man, etc.), it does discuss the brilliance of the marketing campaign used which helps to prove my point that advertising is a bit more complicated than one might assume. It talks about how the Old Spice ad campaign was the first ad campaign to really tap into all the possibilities brought up by new social media websites, a tool which is now used in most advertising campaigns today. By doing so, it was able to connect with its customers on a personal level, allowing thousands of new Old Spice buyers to develop a personal relationship with Isaiah Mustafa (the man in the commercials), perpetuating how men and women "are supposed to" relate and interact with a traditionally good-looking, attractive man; the men wanting to emulate him and the women lusting after him. So that relates to gender roles.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1737010/thank-you-economy-gary-vaynerchuk-old-spice-man

Contemporary Consumer Advertising

Advertisements are radically affected due to the effects of capitalism. As consumers today, we can observe the massive amounts of tactics big corporations try to use in an attempt for us consumers to buy their products. Due to this massive amount of exposure, advertisements use familiar icons to shape their consumers. Corporations use familiar and repetitive images to make their audience subliminally associate their product with something they cherish already. For example, many advertisements use religious influences, like the infamous nativity scene, to get the public to associate their certain product to be innocent and wholesome.


All in all, advertisements use an asset of emotion to make their audience connect with their product in an attempt to persuade them to buy their product. This is a long tradition of capitalism: to do whatever it takes to make the most amount of capital.

School - (n.) a place where a reduced form of capitalism take place

After our discussion yesterday, my mind was all over the place (this seems to be becoming a consistent pattern). We concluded that our society is money-driven. How did we evolve to this standard? I understand that it may be attributed to a combination of factors: the media, popular culture, etc. However, the more I thought about it - the more I realized that we are trained for this society when we are in school.
Think about it - replace dollar signs with G.P.A.s, paychecks with report cards, and bosses with teachers - and you have a mini capitalist society. From an early age, we're taught to work towards something that society deems vauable. In school it's grades and in the "adult" world, it's money. Yes, grades can be linked to working to eventually get money, but it is the ideology that this system instills in us that has such a tremendous effect.
I've been duped. In the UK - you don't have to take GE's and you don't get grades/G.P.A.'s in university. Once you have been accepted into university, you are trusted to be responsible for your own decisions - so you pick your classes. You're given a cumulative exam at the end of each year, and as long as you pass - you're allowed to continue working towards your degree. Why is it, in America, students are told which classes they need to take, they are given exams every month, and they are given a G.P.A.? G.P.A.s make us competitive with each other, just like people in the marketplace are in constant competition. Exams every month give us practically no down time - which correlates to the workaholic norm our society is beginning to take on. Finally, school telling us which classes are important is similar to how society tells us what is important. Higher forces - media, popular culture, politics, economy - deem what is important in a capitalist society.
The irony is, in a G.E. class where I will be getting a grade which will influence my G.P.A., I am discovering the truths of our society.

Marxist Feminism

(This is the first time my title is not a question.)

EXCEPT after this week's readings I feel like I have nothing BUT questions. Much of what we read and talked about in section was the fact that women as a class were not adequately dealt with under traditional marxist ideology, especially in the economic notions that go into society-supported unions, like marriage. I agree with the idea that we need to focus on women's place and women's labor and how that is valued in society, but I also am wondering what this means personally for my future. Is getting married conforming to an antiquated notion designed to cloister me in the home, even if I work and have a life independent from my spouse? How will I be seen by people who do not spend so much time thinking about society and its constructions. (Will I have my mom walk me down the aisle now, since she was the one there with me in life the longest? Probably...) I feel like every article/essay posits the problem in a different way, some complementary and some radically different. But none of the answers are fully satisfying.

How do we go about changing the state of things now that we see what some problems are, but maybe not the ultimate root cause? Is it too far back to deal with, do we shrug it off and say it doesn't have that much effect if we don't think about it or give us power?

I feel like the more I progress in this class, the more aware I am in every advert I see or movie I watch, of how we're being told to act and live. But rebelling against it doesn't change society, it just makes me aware that I'm swimming upstream, and maybe gives my friends a headache when I share my thoughts with them. It's easier to blind ourselves because once we start to see, we see the problems in every minuscule instance of gender relations (that frat party theme of Librarians and Barbarians...) and you don't know how to keep acting like everyone knows it's just a joke. Because some people think it's not. Three girls were raped around campus this weekend, one in the middle of the street after being drugged... and when passers-by simply think that a girl is being loose and dumb and walk along, we're paying a big price. How do we change and find a balance between giving people the freedom to "be what they want" while at the same time realizing everything we've been programmed to want is an artificial construction? Where do we go from here?

(Comment and challenge as you please.)

Ideologies and Gender

Gender and capital ideologies have become more evident to me in systems like advertisements ever since I've started taking this class. I didn't realize how much of an impact they had until we started closely analyzing capitalism and marxism and how they related to gender. In advertising, women are viewed as the primary targets since they are the main consumer audience, even if the product is for men. Many advertisements are geared to either make women want to improve their man with the product advertised or to make men want the product so that they can get more women/feel more masculine. Like in the newest Dr. Pepper ad, they have a guy who seems like he's trying to emulate Rambo in an action movie like situation, doing stunts and acting extremely masculine. The main point of the commercial is that women don't like those kind of situations, which is why Dr. Pepper is a men's only drink. The commercial is blatantly stating that this drink isn't for women and yet, will still have a consumer pool that will consist of both men and women, hence gaining a profit even from women when they are obviously being undermined in the commercial by the slogan. When I first saw the commercial, I was kind of taken back by how straight forward the message was. I was curious as to why Dr. Pepper would even take that approach to their advertising campaign since it seems like a pretty popular drink with both genders. However, this is how gender and capital ideologies influence systems like advertising. Companies know they can still gain a profit even with overtly "sexist" advertising.

more on patriarchy

This week, I decided to do a little bit more research on patriarchy since many people in the class had never really seen the word before. A Patriarchy, in general, is a social system in which the male gender role has the primary authority and governs social organization. In patriarchal societies men hold authority over women, children and property. Because it stands for the institutes of male power and privilege it allows for gender inequality and female subordination. Patriarchy has not only been used socially but it has also been represented legally, politically and economically. Despite that our own society has moved towards a more egalitarian social system, I still believe that we are very much governed in patriarchal ways.  From a feminist perspective, patriarchy is an unjust social system that is oppressive to all women. Carole Pateman, a feminist political theorist has explained "The patriarchal construction of the difference between masculinity and femininity is the political difference between freedom and subjection". If women want to have the freedom to have power and be successful they need to first realize the inequalities that lie within a patriarchal society. Despite that currently more women are working in (originally male) positions, they are still being paid less on the dolar because they are females, thus continuing this idea that men are given more power in society and thus have the ability to control and dominate women. There is currently no single answer for why patriarchy has become such a popular social system, however there have been multiple theories. Sociologists believe that social and cultural conditioning is partially responsible for establishing male and female gender roles. According to sociological theory, patriarchy is the result of sociological constructions that are passed down from generation to generation. However another opinion is that social behavior is primarily determined by genetics, and patriarchy arises as a result of inherent biology rather than social conditioning. It is important that society is studied in order to determine the explanation for the existence of patriarchy so we can find a way to end it and thus begin to work towards a solution for female oppression and gender inequality.

Jessica's Revolution Post

 In every year, there are always many things that brings about change. These changes can have a large impact on a structured event that can also be categorized as a revolution. One of the most important revolution s that has an effect on nearly everyone today, started with the bursting of the housing bubble in the United States. This then cause a chain effect that brought the world economy in turmoil. The revolution in this case is act of the government to solve this problem and to prevent the problem from happening in the future. The changes the revolution has brought has made has cause the laws to be more strict and also shows the flaws in this rules that is set by our society.

Revolution

“They say that the best weapon is the one you never have to fire. I respectfully disagree. I prefer the weapon you only have to fire once. That's how Dad did it, that's how America does it, and it's worked out pretty well so far. Find an excuse to let [Jericho] off the chain, and I personally guarantee, the bad guys won't even wanna come out of their caves”

This is a line by Tony Stark, CEO of the multibillion-dollar weapons production company Stark Industries, from the popular marvel movie Iron Man. Based on this concept, his company created Jericho, a weapon much more destructive than any other, in the hopes that it would allow the US to draw concessions with their enemy. I feel that this mindset, and the idea where “peace means having a bigger stick than the other guy” (also another quote from Stark) really reflect our attitudes towards revolutions, an idea, which, sadly, indicates the presence and use of violence.

Yes, there have been a few revolutions that were achieved through non-violent methods such as the Indian Independence movement led by Gandhi. But I think now, and in the future, technology is so advanced, versatile and available to all, the means and the power are no longer solely in the hands of a certain group of people, and people have the ability to act. And the many systems and establishments we’ve created have become more intricate, so a lot more is at stake. Thus, humans have a greater tendency to become violent and aggressive than ever before, and in the future they would become even more violent and aggressive. Although violence is not necessary for change, it is inevitable. 

thoughts on readings

This week, the readings mainly focus on the relationship between Marxism and feminism. Though the three writers all hold different opinions towards this issue, they share one common idea that Marxism has limited understanding on women's oppression, because Marxism focus exclusively on the production of things while ignoring the production of people.  The three writers all come up with some great ideas to solve social problems for women, but honestly,  I find that some point in articles are too idealistic to come true. For example, they hold negative attitudes to capitalism, as it has never been able to acknowledge the value of women's labor. However, I believe since capitalism has been in control of human society for thousands years, it is reasonable somehow. I'm not mean capitalism is perfect, but at least it had improved economy  a long time before. The feminism is always arguing  for equality between men and women for decades, but the fact is that so far they never truly reach their goal, so I doubt if the revolution that they suggest is really a good way to improve women's social status. After all, these three feminisms just talk about their theories on paper, which never be applied in daily life yet. Nobody knows whether their ideas are practical or not. Maybe we can try some other solutions rather than revolution to this hard problem.

Is revolution always the best way to solve problem?

The surging waves of revolution have swept across the world more extensively than ever. Some people asked for freedom and others called out for jobs. Some uncovered a new world, while some shipwrecked on the wilder shore of farce. Normally, people who want to achieve the same target concentrate to fight for their rights. However, the growing trend for people to participate in revolution is in part of a reflection of their wants to release emotional tension, go upon the scamp or even just for fun.

Something happened in my high school just showed this trend. Student gathered to protest against the unsavory meals offered by school restaurants. They stopped going to restaurant and put up slogans. They were really brave to act like that, but it was surely not the proper and effective way to achieve their goal that aiming for better food. Why not just wrote a letter and bring it to the headmaster’s office directly? Why not asked student union for help? Why not do surveys to calculate the satisfaction rate to present believable evidence? Were they really trying to solve the problem or just trying to involved in a fancy or so called, cool activity?

      Solve problems should be the final goal of a revolution. Expressing anger should be a part, but solely fastening on the emotion only cause problems and affect others.

Revolution

Revolution, as how I understand it, is a direct way of addressing a collective opinion with the intention of initiating transformation. It happens because there are always people out there who believe that the society deserves something better, and that they have the ability to make an impact. In 'The Meaning of Social Revolution' by J. Milne, it was written that (social) revolution occurs due to the attitude of consciousness and concern amongst the people towards the society they are living in. On one hand, there are people who are very comfortable and content with what they have, but on the other hand, people want change. The discontent may arise due to inequality and injustice; and people who are at the losing end would be compelled to fight for what they want. Revolution may instill fear. Bloodshed and chaos are bound to happen, but the underlying context of revolution reflects the desire and the intensity of need for progress. The society occasionally needs this very group of people to manifest the notion that progress and the betterment of our kind is measured by our willingness to confront and strive for our needs as a society.

revolution is impossible without violence

I believe that revolution is impossible without violence. As we all know, Gandhi led a nonviolent revolution. Some of Gandhi's tips on having a successful revolution was to be pro-active, nonviolent and to have massive numbers.  Gandhi was a successful leader and was successful in leading a nonviolent revolution, but was the revolution really nonviolent? I've heard some people say that Gandhi was more violent than Hitler, which I don't believe, but because of him, British imperialism lasted longer in India through Gandhi's actions. Gandhi and his followers were leading a nonviolent revolution, but I'm sure that some of the people that were opposing the revolution used violence.  A good example is the occupy movement.  The protestors in this movement were completely harmless, yet they were treated with violence and cruelty.  Today, with the help of social media, we are able to capture and witness every violent event because of YouTube. Back then during the Gandhi revolution, there was no YouTube or cell phones that could capture the behind the scenes of a revolution or any event taking place.  Today, before you know it, the event that occurred 3 minutes ago right in front of you is already on YouTube. A revolution always leads to violence because of the people who are against the revolution. If the Gandhi revolution was violent, every other revolution would be violent.

Violence and Revolutions

There were revolutions all throughout the 20th century. Revolutions to make love, not war. Revolutions for civil rights and equality. Revolutions against the Vietnam War. There was plenty of violence involved in all those. Now, with the evolution of media and technology, revolution has only become more risky. More people are able to become more involved and aware of world issues now with social media like Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr. They can voice their opinions and share it with the entire world. With politics, we are kept more up to date on government issues and political rulings than ever before. Because of all this exposure, there are more tendencies for misunderstandings to take place, hence more problems created, resulting in more violence being put into action. Even in seemingly peaceful protests, violence will be taken to keep things under control.

Why Not Feminist Capitalism? Thoughts on Michéle Barrett

I found Michele Barrett's essay "Capitalism and Women's Liberation" interesting, yet incomplete. Certainly, she presents a thoughtful statement on her perceived shortcomings of capitalism in terms of female equality, and she articulates rather clearly why she does not believe anything other than token progress can be achieved under a capitalistic system; however, her alternative--socialism--is little improvement, if any.

Capitalism, she argues, is not diametrically opposed to feminism; there is nothing inherently unequal about the implementation of capitalistic economic theory. Our historical record, however, leads her to believe that we have proven incapable of producing real equality under capitalism. In short, though capitalism is not responsible for current gender inequality, it is also not capable of challenging it.

Her solution is socialism, or at least a certain flavor of it. She argues that the "actual or assumed dependence of women on a male wage", the unequal distribution of domestic work and childcare, and the "ideology of gender" would all need to be seriously challenged and transformed before feminist equality is achieved--and, by extension, our commitment to capitalism needs to be revised. The fault in her argument--or, at the very least, a glaring non sequitur--is the jump she makes to socialism. The things she proposes need to be changed do not necessarily require a deviation from capitalist economic principles. Ending women's reliance upon a male wage, for example, can begin to be achieved by ending, by law, all forms of discrimination against women in the workforce and granting fair and equitable child-care leave to both parents, not necessarily by tearing down  and restructuring the economic foundations of the Western world.

Of course, I have the benefit of hindsight, but the supposed Worker's Paradise (the USSR) was just as rife with unrest, gender inequality, fear, and oppression as any other country, if not significantly moreso. Is this not a sufficient counterexample?

The question, then, is this: Why can we not simply work to change the underlying ideologies of our society vis-á-vis women in the workforce, politics, and the family? Why does any "real" improvement in the system require abandoning capitalistic principles? What we need is not socialist equality; what we need is to completely rethink society's presumed and enforced gender roles.

What we need, in a sense, is a "feminist capitalism."

Grass-Routes

In Barrett's article, she voices that she "would tend to be somewhat critical of the view expressed by the authors of the Beyond the Fragments that the libertarian, grass-roots style of the women's movement could be taken as a model for a new socialist organization form." She also states that she "would not see the potential benefits of some kind of alliance as consisting in what each movement could learn from the other in these respects." These two characteristics of some feminist movement efforts seem to recall the structures championed by the Occupy Movement today. It's grass-roots, non-conservative, and proposes new demands which would ideally, for those participating in the movement, create a new social organizational form. The Occupy Movement is also somewhat hard to define, and as such is often referred to as a joining of movements that are there to learn from one another. While that approach (for both feminism and the Occupy Movement) sounds ideal and feasible, Barrett points out that such a movement would be lacking something exceptionally important: "The more urgent question to be asked is whether there are political objectives in common that might constitute a basis for a relationship." Her concerns, then, of having such movements be the models for practical change stem from the understanding that they lack political direction. The movie Born In Flames that was screened in class earlier this week also expanded on this point. Though the women featured in the film all desired some kind of change, the groups were unable to fully function as a unified force, partially because they were unsure of what exactly their overall, practical, tangible goal would be. Without defining a direction, it's often very hard to organize and make effective the efforts of large numbers of people, especially if it is unclear as to where (or what) their final destination would be.

What is causing success?

Barrett explains that there are three things that must happen in order for women to be liberated from their oppression without totally destroying capitalism. The labor and childcare responsibilities must be deconstructed systematically, women need to no longer be actually or assumed dependent on men's wages, and the ideology of gender must be changed. This is all according to Barrett, in the 80s. Today, the classical family structure where the woman stays at home and the man wins bread is much less common. It is easier for women to get better jobs (there are women among the richest people and CEOs of the world), and higher social positions (see: the current and last presidential races). We haven't completely switched to gender neutrality, nor what Barrett was hoping for, but we are much closer (and perhaps still on our way). What, then, has been the cause of this change? It could be that feminism is effective, that one or more of Barretts points are actually happening, or simply that we are becoming farther and farther from the causes of the current 'oppressive' structures.

Revolution and Violence

Before few decades ago, there was not such a concept that revolutions could take place without violence. Revolutions would rather refer to coup d’état or rebellion. The reason that revolution only arose in violence was that the media did not exist. Nowadays, politicians are afraid of the media because the media delivers the news where everyone gets to know. Without media, people only could have acted directly to government to show their opinions which easily led to violence.

With media, people are able to express their opinions through the media much easier and others can involve into acts much easier. Most successful and well-known cases are Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. They carried out a non-violence movement against British and American rule, respectively, making successful political revolution. 

Violence and Revolutions

A revolution typically consists of protests and outbursts from a large group of people. Violence "is not the answer" but I feel that when people are extremely passionate about something they are willing to go to the extreme. Revolutionists tend to have such strong feelings about what they're fighting for that they are willing to go above and beyond to show the world what they want and to get what they want. Violence can often come from the people that do not believe in what is being fought for. People may "lose their cool" when the comfortable norms of their lives are being challenged. Humans do not typically like radical change which is the change of a revolution. Lives will be tampered with and many will become very defensive to fight back for their own rights. When a large group of people are pushing against another large group of people there will most likely be violence. Being violent seems to be natural. It is the result of rage and anger and discomfort. I can see how revolution and violence go hand in hand but it could possibly be unnecessary. Being unnecessary doesn't mean that it isn't going to happen. It will happen and the world is used to watching people beat each other or shoot each other. It is not right but it is humanly and this is the sad reality of fighting for one's rights.

Revolution and Social Media

As social media becomes more popular, revolutions in the digital age can be powerful and influential. Unlike the past, people across the globe are able to start campaigns with a click of a button. Social media has become a platform connecting people who fight for the same believe. For instance, there are LGBT groups in Facebook that are dedicated for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities. Through the social network, they can effectively promote their events. I have seen groups seeking people's signatures in order to defend or go against the proposed laws. The idea is that once a discussion is started, the words will go on and spread across the world. In that sense, revolutions can definitely be done without involving physical violence.
However, there are always hate and ignorance to the minority groups. Knowing that people should be treated equally, "haters" will now have the opportunity to offend these groups intentionally through the social media. Once they are involved, things become more complicated and the revolution may lose its meaning. Despite what people say about the negative side of the social media, I personally view it as a powerful tool for revolutions in the future.

Blast in Mind

In 2012 today, I would describe “revolution” as necessary steps to improvement as it always was. When the power of society or politics overwhelms the will of people, revolution is a very important tool to rebuild the bridge between reality and ideal life.

Compared to nowadays, revolution was more difficult in a few decades ago. In “A Black Feminist Statement,” issues of conflict in race and gender are clearly described. In the era where there was no Barack Obama or Aung San Suu Kyi, any aspects other than the tradition were generally not accepted, so the black and women had no way to express their will in a way that the dominant would listen to—unless revolutions, as strong and powerful as imagined in “Born in Flames,” happen. Even though the film was more like a fantasy, it fully describes the message of feminist and finely expresses the blasting power of this message, bringing the audience to reconsider why black and white, men and women, are not treated fairly.

As we are enjoying the freedom resulted from the revolution in the last century, we have to remember the revolution has not ended yet. Many people misunderstand that revolution is equal to violence. No, it is not. I would say violence is one of the byproducts of some revolutions as revolution can also happen peacefully—through literatures, elections, or thinking in our mind.

Factors Contributing to the Success, or Failure, of a Revolution

There are many factors that influence the progress and success of a revolution. Government influence, society, race, gender, and class all play a role in shaping the outcome of a revolution and the actions of its people, and under certain circumstances, it is possible to have a nonviolent revolution. For example, the Peaceful Revolution of 1989, a series of nonviolent political protests by the people of East Germany against the power of the German Democratic Republic, remained peaceful throughout its time. These nonviolent protests became a key component that eventually led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of East Germany’s authoritarian regime. But the factors that allowed these protests to remain nonviolent included the collective power of the people against their oppressive government. The large number of protesters is a testament to the views of the majority, who wanted free elections and a true democracy.

However, the women in Born in Flames did not have the support of all the people, and struggled with the effectiveness of the revolution leaders to inspire and control the people. The reason Radio Regazza, Phoenix Radio, and the Women’s Army in Born in Flames resorted to violence is because of their social handicaps. As women, they were already faced with a disadvantage when they tried to spark a revolution in New York City, at a time where women were unemployed, suppressed by the government, and victims of violence. Honey and her followers of Phoenix Radio are faced with an even bigger obstacle as double minorities. As African-American women, they face oppression on multiple fronts. Their struggles are summarized by the Combahee River Collective in their Black Feminist Statement: they “do not have racial, sexual, heterosexual or class privilege to rely upon, nor do we have even the minimal access to resources and power that groups who possess any one of these types of privilege have” (The Combahee River Collective). Even when Radio Regazza and Phoenix Radio join to form the Phoenix Regazza Radio, they are forced to escalate their actions into violence to draw attention to their cause, eventually resorting to terrorism to make a statement. Considering all these factors, the women in Born in Flames were unable to keep their revolution peaceful because without the people’s support and facing government oppression, a revolution cannot lift off the ground.