men and women.

In this week’s class we discussed women. What, how or if women should even have really a stereotype. We cannot say that women are treated as equal as men because its obvious that we are not. The question overall is asking how should women be looked at in comparison to men? For example in the 50’s women were known as simply the homemakers, women would cook, clean, take care of children and look fabulous doing it. Also in the fifties people strived for the “white-picket fence” or the “American dream”. Another example of stereotyped women are different cultures, for Muslim women are treated extremely different then women in America. One thing stays the same in these example men are still stereotyped to be the “dominant” and “supporter” in the relationship. In 2014, women are for the most part are allowed to do anything a man can do, or can they. Yes, a woman can work in the judicial system or a woman can be a plumber. Even know a woman can do all the things a man can do they don’t get the same respect or most of the time even the same pay. In today’s society what do we do or how do we describe women in comparison to men?

In my opinion when it comes to jobs it should be simply the qualification and skilled the worker is to determine the pay. It might also depend on the relationship who is the more dominant person, there are relationship where the woman is more dominant and also makes more money. Then to the conclusion is really just based on the eyes of the beholder. I am all for women’s right but at the same time I still want a dominant man who can take care of me at the same time, buts that’s what I want. Some people just have different views on what or how a woman should act just

Ferguson

                                   Thinking about the events that happened on Monday with the Ferguson case being overturned and the officer not being indicted effected people in a good and bad way. Many people it was a race factor that affected the decision and some disagreed. I've noticed since the case was overturned that everyone is either divided racially or together mentally. So let me briefly describe the case and you tell me what you think. Michael brown and his friend were walking down a street after he stole some cigarillos from a convenience store. Darren Wilson a white police officer arrived at the boys location and told them to move to the sidewalk. An altercation occurred in the Darren Wilson's police car and a shot was fired but Michael brown got out of the car started running away in the opposite direction. Twelve shots was fired and only six but killed by the last fired shot. Witnesses reported that Michael Brown had his hands up when Officer Wilson came closer to fire the remaining shots. So do you think this situation is justified or not? Please answer this question in a philosophical way and use the current philosophers to answer as well. What would Sartre, Nietzsche, or Marx say and react to this situation? Would you riot or protest like those all over the country or quietly disagree with the methods used?

Intersectional Feminism

Blending perfectly the two topics we covered this week, intersectional feminism calls for women to realize that we need to be united not just among our peers, but among all women which includes those of other races, classes, religions, and especially transgender women. Most arguments against feminism are uninformed garbage that come down to "But men have it hard too, ya'know!!!" but intersectional feminism is an attempt to correct the one very valid complaint against the mainstream movement: it has largely ignored those that fall outside of "white and middle class."

A good definition of intersectional feminism is "The view that women experience oppression in varying configurations and in varying degrees of intensity. Cultural patterns of oppression are not only interrelated, but are bound together and influenced by the intersectional systems of society. Examples of this include race, gender, class, ability, and ethnicity.”

A big mistake we make, I believe, in trying to fight for equality, is that we try to fight for "a seat at the table." We try to force the system to accept us, to allow us to integrate ourselves into it. But why should we try to be accepted by such an awful racist, classist, ableist system? Why do that when that would mean leaving behind chunks of our sisters?

You'll often hear the statistic that women make 77 cents to a man's dollar for the same job and that is indeed true. However, what many people forget to mention is that if you take a closer look, black women actually make 64 cents to a non-Hispanic white man's dollar and and Latinas make 55 cents to a non-Hispanic white man's dollar. Feminism must be used to push for more than equality. We should call for justice.

We are half of the world's population and yet look at our representation in governments. How is that fair? Feminism is a call to everyone, include men, to stand up and demand fair representation, demand equality, demand justice. We are not less than men. Sexism did not end when women earned the right to vote less than a hundred years ago, in 1920. Racism sure as hell did not end when slavery ended or after the civil rights movement or after President Obama took office. We're all still fighting, and we can all make a choice to support a movement that calls for things to be set right.

The Man Box

As you may recall, on Monday we discussed feminist contributions to ethical theory. We made lists of characteristics that we would use to define a typical man and woman. Through our discussion it was pointed out how men and women are raised a certain way to such an extent that their are specific stereotypes of each that immediately come to mind such as men are supposed to make more money than women or men should be strong and protect women and so on. As for women, they should be seen as inferior to men and should be payed less and the like.  During this discussion I was wondering whether or not it could be said that their is a distinction between a man and a gentleman. I thought it over and realized that while a gentleman may not exhibit all the characteristics of  a "regular" man would, they are still men and they to an extent have the same characteristics of men. Which means they are trapped inside the man box.

As this shows, these are the characteristics men are taught to have as they grow up: protectors, decision makers, persons of power and control who do not cry openly or express emotion and notably, do not act like women. In the TED talk below, Tony Porter gives an explanation of why we have this "man box" and why it's an issue.

Inequality

As we discussed in class there is an obvious gender inequality around us. Women are looked at as delicate and men are looked at as tough, and why is this? Is it because women tend to become housewives and men are out in the world working? This is something that was very common but now the times are different, there are many women that work and still come home to tend to their families as well and that is something that is expected of them. On the other hand when is man is seen taking care of his child and doing housework he is highly praised for doing so. What is the difference between women and men doing housework? To me is it the same thing but society does not view it that way. It can happen that a job is not given to a woman because the company may be scared of losing money on her, only to train her and let her go because she is with child or they know that she will have frequent time off because of her kids.

Women get paid less than men even if they have the exact same job, but men will always be expected to protect the family in case of any danger. Women will have to bear through labor pains, raise kids and have a happy home, but men will always be expected to have a job to be able to provide a home and food for their family. Do you think that this is an equal trade? Will it ever be that men and women are treated the same and given the same opportunities?

Women in Innovation

As we discussed feminism in morality, I couldn’t help but think; why is it that after so many years of societal, technological, industrial, and medical progression women are still thought to be “not as good as men?” So many years of innovation have gone by that women have played a large part in and yet it seems, we still don’t get the credit or praise we deserve (I say “we” like I’ve made some ground breaking contribution to research. For the record, I have not…yet. But I digress.) For example, in 1938 a German woman named Lise Meitner was the first person to develop the idea of nuclear fission, which would later lead to the atomic bomb (http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/10/ada-lovelace-eight-inventions-women-erasure-credit.) She and her Scandinavian partner Otto Hahn, worked together in creating this deadly reaction. However, when an award was to be presented for this discovery, Hahn left Meitner’s name off the paper and proceeded to reap the benefits. I think this instance begs the question; if this woman has proven to be just as intelligent and driven as her male counterpart, why did she not receive the credit she deserved? If Meitner had been a man, would her name have gotten published as well? I think not.

There are a bunch of accounts of women creating life changing products and ideas, but no one seems to know that it is in fact a woman who created it. It seems as though every invention we can think of was created by a man. While it’s great that people are using their creative and imaginative abilities, it would be nice if every now and then we celebrated women’s contribution to innovation. Why do you think that women don’t receive nearly as much praise as men when it comes to the category of innovation?

A couple instances of female innovative contributions to the world I can think of are Amelia Earhart’s aviation voyage and Marie Curie’s discovery of radium.

The Office

While watching the episode of the Office one of the things in this episode about ethics stood out to me.  Towards the end of the episode the boss asks the question how do you say I told you so to someone you care about without sounding like a jerk or arrogant?  This is a real ethical question and moral dilemma.  How do you say I told you so to someone without sounding arrogant?  I think the best way is to try to warn them before it happens and if and when something does just let them learn the lesson their own way.  Try to refrain from mentioning it to them unless they bring that subject up.  Or do like in the episode and just make it better by putting them in a situation to make it right like making everyone attend a meeting on ethics or just being honest and letting your friends know the truth about a certain situation.

Morality is nothing but a reflection of our human nature. The values we apply to our ethical world is a distorted image of rational agents' capacity to give meaning to something. A more proper term would be moral relativism, which explains the value we give based on our perspective of life. The way we react to a moral dilemma is based on our view of the situation. There are contributing factors that influence our morality such as: religion, culture, education, etc. These factors help shape the lense in which we view life and it's surrounding; as a result of this we are able to reflect values that set the standards for morality. Since everyone is influenced differently, we don't always agree on the same moral values. Some moral values have more significance than others based on how they impact our lives.

Moral relativism helps explain why not all moral standards apply to everyone equally. The meaning we give to them is a reflection of our character, which explains why our perspective on an issue tends to vary. Do you guys agree that morality is relative? Or do you think it's based on set standards?

Office Relationships

One of the ethical problems in the show we watched today was interoffice relationships. Marx says one of the problems with capitalism is alienation from other human beings or coworkers. He says that we view each other only as competition. Do you think he would support interoffice relationships, like referring to your coworkers as family, or having sex to get cheaper office supplies and free food for everyone? 

This also would resolve another problem Marx has with capitalism like alienation from your species being. So, you would be acting the way you do outside of work at work. 

Disparity

According to Marx, there are reasons why the class struggle under capitalism is violent, for example the underling reason for the current violence in Mexico was essentially over the disparity between the classes, the rich and the poor. The 43 college students that were murdered in while protesting over this very subject matter, which in turn has incited protest and violence from the other citizens of Mexico, demanding the resignation of their current president, Piña Nieto. As a historical recurrence, nation’s leaders become greedy, complacent, and separate their selves from the needs of the poor, the people they’re supposed to lead. We see that over and over again in history, but we are seeing the people rise up to their leaders with more frequency lately. It is as if the people are starting to realize that the power is in the masses. The leaders fail to recognize that their source of power and wealth is derived from the Proletariat, the poor, the working class. Without us to generate an economy and society in which government leaders are necessary and rich people can amass wealth their status in life would not be possible.

“What one generation learns, the next one forgets” a truer statement has yet to be made. Look to our past to see our future.

Following pictures are from the protest held in Mexico on Nov 1^st.