Journal #6

     I have mixed views on the changing role of men in society, for I view the full equality of the roles of men and women as detrimental to society, while at the same time I believe that all citizens should have the same right to select their careers and activities solely because they are individuals, and not members of any class or group. So the way I can support this view is by recognizing that individuals have rights solely because they are individuals and citizens, not because they belong to any particular group or class. The individual has a right to choose his or her career and role, however it is not always the best for raising a family. So I would conclude this introduction to my personal beliefs by saying that an individual, especially a woman, has the right to make her own choices, however choosing to advance her career over her family is not always best for the development of her children.
     Ever since the beginning of the '70s, the roles of women with regards to the family and careers have been changing in an unprecidented way. Cultural expectations have changed in a way that now supports women who go to college and have a career while at the same time raise a family. I, however, do not see the opposite pattern for men in our society. Although women are now graduating college at a greater rate, I have not noticed a change in the societal expectations of men.
     The elitist Hanna Rosin might be quick to assume that because women are now earning more degrees than men, this means that men are on the decline. Just because a man doesn't earn a college degree doesn't mean that he cannot be successful in life. There are plenty of tradesmen who do not have a formal university education and who are making much more than teachers and other people with masters degrees. These jobs, which can include electricians, plummers, mechanics, entrepreneurs, and a host of other professions, carry a high degree of respect and importance in society, and will always be needed. It is also these jobs which have always been dominated by men, and due to their physical nature, they will most likely be dominated by men in the future. She also makes an attack at men based on how men are portrayed in movies, although it is common sense to know that just because something comes up in a movie doesn't make it true in real life. That is not only indicative of Rosin's lack of common sense, but a prime example of why the media today is so wrong when it comes to the portrayal of both genders.
     Because of today's fast paced society, our media has become so dumb in terms of the content and the advertisements. By dumb, I mean that all intelectual content has been taken out, and viewers are subjected to sensory overload, an orgasm for the eyes. The same has been happening with the increasingly narrow gender roles in today's media, where women are just sex objects and flirts who also take more pleasure in witholding sex from their man that actually having sex, and with men who are only interested in having sex with unrealisticly attractive women. In reality, the gender roles have become more mixed, and both men and women are interested in sex AND a satisfying emotional connection. Even with these trends, Rosin is still wrong when she says that men are portrayed as pathetic and impotent.
     Despite our modern culture, there is still value in the domestic role of some women, as the development of children is the most important role of any family. In most circumstances, men still make more money than their wives, so it would make sense for the woman to stay home provided the man's income is sufficient. Just because that same woman can go out and become a lawyer does not mean that her kids will be any better off.
     Yes, times are changing, and women certainly have the right to pick a path which makes them happy, but that is not always the best choice for the family. By empowering themselves, some women are putting their own children at a disadvantage by not being present in their development.

Podcast #4

     In this podcast, the speaker makes some interesting points on the civil rights movement, and covers a lot of material that we have already covered in class and in the homework readings. In class, we discussed the “talented tenth” that Du Bois had thought would lead the Black people up from poverty. He also mentions the contrast between Washington and Du Bois, something covered quite heavily, but I was surprised to learn that Du Bois also approved and supported Washington and vice-versa. 

     I agree with the speaker that the civil rights acts of ’64 and ’65 are crucial in enforcing equal protection under the law, and for protecting the original message of the constitution. I believe that the government should exist to protect our liberties and rights, and that is what was done in this case. Anything above that, such as affirmative action, I  disagree with on the grounds that it goes well beyond ensuring our rights. He also makes a highly debatable point that we have discussed extensively in the beginning of the year, that America is not in a “post civil rights age”, or post racial. He asserts that race issues today still matter and that there are some new civil rights that have not been protected. He calls this the 4th phase of the civil rights movement. 

    I disagree with the claim that there are still rights which are ignored and not protected. He mentions that gays are one of these examples, however, gays are not beaten up in the streets, denied access to any public place, or disenfranchised. Gays are just upset that they cant be a part of an institution which was created to raise children, something which a gay couple cannot produce. The tactic of many on the radical left today is to divide people up by class and to then pander to each, calling them the victims of some sort of oppression, and then handing out goodies in exchange for votes. This is in direct opposition to the spirit of the constitution which is supposed to unite us. 

     I would have to agree with what he calls the “conventional” view of the civil rights movement and say that there was both a good and bad side, and that the good side is what should be remembered and studied because of what it produced with non-violence. Dr King is rightly celebrated as the leader of this “good” side because of the non-violent movements he led so that many could get equal protection under the law. What did “black power” achieve? The bad side just incited violence while bringing up the divisions that most Americans wanted to put behind them. So the conventional view of history, in my view, is that way for a good reason.