This is going to serve as the empty space in which I can hopefully progress towards solving some of the problems at hand for the charity group, Place of Hope. My mother works closely with a local campus for neglected and abused children right here in Boca Raton. A charity group that is sponsored by Lamborghini, I was skeptical at first about how much good work was really being done in this group. Despite my ignorance, I was pleased to find out that Place of Hope has one many awards, one being ranked one of the best 11 charities of 2014 by the Huffington Post. This is some of the first research I have done on my own about Place of Hope, however I have volunteered there and have attended some meetings about how to improve the vision of the organization. Looking into some groups on campus that deal with charity organizations is not a bad place to get more ideas. The majority of these kids have been victims to sex-trafficking and other abusive crimes. I think if some of these kids could get on camera or on a radio show to tell their story, the impact could be unmeasurable. Living in such an affluent area such as Boca definitely has its advantages with contacts that have some of the deepest pockets on the planet. I really enjoy writing and hope that one day I can use the skills I have learned over the years to reach people on a deeper level. Publishing works can help send my voice to places I will never step foot. A newsletter is not a bad idea, neither is a brochure, but a well-reseached and contributed magazine could be the cutting edge way to get the message of Place of Hope to people who could make a significant impact. It’s not all about the banquets and showing up the other donators. Everyone can help. These are kids without families. There needs to be a way to show people that by just giving some of their time and energy goes so much further than can be realized from home behind a computer. There are so many different writing styles. I wonder what rhetorical writing style is the best for charitable organizations. There is a certain language and technique just like in any other kinds of sales. I hope to return back to this document and add more knowledge to my new path of helping create this vision in reality.

This week has been a really interesting week in the personal development of my topic for myself. This week I somewhat took a left turn on my topic of word aversion, and instead of looking at silly aversions like “moist” or “panties” and instead looked at the word aversion or even underlying hatred towards words like “Cop”, “Black”, or “Arab”. After looking into the news and the different developments of this issue that has become more media centered, I’m starting to get angry and scared. Seeing where our world is headed and seeing what is happening in the news is really bringing to my eyes the reality of this world today. I understand the concepts of fear and stereotypes but what I don’t understand is why we are letting the media morph our minds and their subjective reporting telling us who we should and shouldn’t be afraid of.  I remember when 9/11 happened and I was old enough to understand that I was no longer supposed to share what I believed at the time, I understood that people saw me and my family as a threat because all of a sudden Arabs were now all associated with fear. Seeing the struggle my family goes through at the airport just because they are darker skin and have Arab names makes me so angry. Angry because NO ONE should have to get judged based on a stereotype. It literally breaks my heart when I hear and see this. However for the first time in my life, I’m afraid. I’m afraid to tell people where I come from, and that I have Muslim family back home. It’s scary for me to just be me. But on top of this one issue with my family being Arab, my roommates are black. I fear that one day they will be racially profiled and that they wont come home. Growing up I knew the racism in the world, but now, now its making people do some very scary things. I think more then angry I am just scared to see how far this goes. There is not a day that goes by that this isn’t something running through my head, but Its this immediate aversion people are believing then getting to know the real person and who they truly are. The fears that I have now, I don’t think my family foresaw when they moved to this country, but even more so now, how much further is this going to go, how far will our country be led by its emotions and when will this fear be lifted?

From my previous posts you can tell that I love K-pop. But K-pop is what started the ball rolling on my interests in South Korea. From K-Pop, I transitioned to K-dramas. But that transition was not smooth from the beginning which is why, I’m surprised at myself that I love that genre of TV shows. K-Dramas are mini series unlike the American counterpart which are TV series (like the Big Bang Theory, Criminal Minds, etc.). They mostly have 16-50 episodes per show and have no recurring seasons. Unlike K-Pop, with their flash style that is reminiscent of American pop, K-dramas reflect their cultural values. Usually each show has an overall theme that matches it genre, but underlying themes like filial piety, respect for elders, etc. are apparent. Those underlying themes reflect the Confucian values that permeate their culture. This can be seen in simple things like the question  “how old are you?” or other various sayings with the same meaning that almost always comes up in the show. The reason is due to the fact that in their culture, you have different ways to address people depending on their age and status. For example, if the female lead is older than the male, then he is expected to address her by either noona (older sister/ older woman) or her name with the ssi (shi) ending (kinda of adding, Ms/Mrs.). Another point of interest is the cast of the shows.

The shows usually have their beginner/veteran actors/actresses and sometimes a K-Pop artist. The K-Pop artist will either make a guest appearance or have a role in the show. I know that in America, we have artists that end up in movies or they make guest appearances, but they usually end up being only good at being an artist, not an actor/actress. There are exceptions to the rule and South Korea has also proven that but their exceptions are opposite. Their artists tend to do well in both the dramas and music. It is rare when you find the artist doesn’t do well in the drama scene. This is because, K-Pop artists spend years training before they debut in any area. They train in the aspects required to be an artist and also train in their other interests, which may lead them to acting in a drama. Take the actor Lee Hong-ki for example. He is the lead singer of the band FT Island and has acted in a several dramas and movies. His singing, has reached millions of listeners from all around the world, which has also led them to checking out his acting. From there, its not a hard stretch to end up in k-drama world. The many fans of k-dramas, have created websites upon websites that are dedicated to showing the dramas as their airing and giving suggestions as to which ones you should try watching next. Their dedications and interest in the drama world, has help pushed k-drama to a global scale in which South Korea has reacted to. The South Korean government, has also started pushing k-drama sites as part of their tourist attractions. You can find stores that advertise where famous dramas have been filmed and even the merchandise from the drama can found in store. It has the same if not a bigger following than K-Pop. K-Pop and K-dramas were made global due to the Hallyu wave which in turn helped changed South Korea’s image as just a tech giant. Their image of a tech giant came about as part their recovery from the Korean War as they were rebuilding their country and the country’s growth was astonishing. In next week’s post we’ll see how their growth came about and how it put them on par with other leading nations.

A K-drama suggestion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBGgNOmIYsQ&feature=youtu.be

In class on Wednesday, Professor Mason brought up one of my favorite cartoon characters, Alice, and used her as evidence as how women in fields dominated by men are depicted are overly-emotional and unreasonably hysteric (fun fact: the word hysteria actually stems from the Greek word for uterus, and was used specifically to describe women’s emotional conditions, which were blamed on their physiology). Since I decided on Feminism as my topic of inquiry, I figured a great opportunity to address this would be through a blog post!

Professor Mason’s statement surprised me, because I had never considered to examine the cartoon through a “feminist” lens. Both my Dad (who is a computer scientist) and I are huge fans of Scott Adams and adore his comic strips, “Daily Dilbert Dose.” Alice has always been one of my favorite characters due to her bluntness and office tactics. I had never considered how Alice represents all women in these environments – I had only considered her as just Alice (especially since there are other recurring female characters who act vastly different from her).

So, I decided to go back through my saved stash of Dilbert cartoons and study her attributes and reactions across the board. I’ve attached some examples at the end of this blog post so you can get a feel for Alice as I argue on her behalf.

I had always perceived Alice as a woman who was just as smart as her male peers, if not smarter, and knew it. Thus, she becomes easily fed up with idiocy and doesn’t have any sort of filter when it comes to showing it. I never considered her outbursts to indicate any stereotypical volatility in the female emotional state – I just saw them as reactions from a smart individual fed up with those who refused to use their brains, would dodge work, or were just flat out stupid.

Alice is a character in a cast who all suffers from some sort of quirk or another. Dilbert is socially awkward, Wally is lazy beyond belief, Asok suffers from anxiety, the “Pointy Haired Boss” is unbelievably idiotic, and the list goes on and on. Alice’s trait is her anger, which stems from her intelligence and comes in the form of sarcasm and an incredibly short temper. I think including Alice in this canon, instead of posing her as the only “sane” worker, is very progressive because it puts her on the same playing field as her male peers. She’s not just the token female character – she has her own sense of humor she brings to the mix and a certain style to it. She’s her own person, with her own strengths and flaws. I believe her aggressive antics would be funny whether coming from a male or female character.

I also researched her Wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_(Dilbert)), to see how they described her: “Alice is depicted as being one of the hardest-working engineers in the comic. She was at one time the highest paid engineer in the company, and on another occasion she was feted for receiving her fourteenth patent. She stands in contrast with Wally, who does no work and receives nearly the same reward. Alice suffers all the problems of being a female engineer. She has no tolerance for the discrimination she experiences, but she has little sympathy for other women who claim to be the victim of such discrimination, generally considering herself to be better than them.” (Don’t worry, I’m not counting this in my word count! I just figured it would be easier to copy and paste than paraphrase)

I find Alice a strong, self-reliant woman whose intelligence is often underappreciated. Instead of being rewarded for her contributions, she’s just asked to take on more work and continue to deal with the “idiots” that aggravate her so much (such as her verbally berating the “Inexperienced Guy”). She doesn’t try to hide this annoyance; instead, she speaks her mind. I think this is where she parts with the “stereotypical” women, because a trait found in most women is they don’t always say what they mean and they cause men to play guessing games. Alice is the complete opposite, where she lets everyone know exactly how she feels about them, and speaks things most people would be terrified/ashamed of saying out loud.

But, I have to play Devil’s Advocate. Did Alice’s flaw have to be her short-temper and sharp tongue? Is Scott Adams trying to make a statement on the conduct of women in the professional realm? (I tried finding statements from him regarding Alice, but I couldn’t find any, but I personally think that Mr. Adams is not blind to the challenges women face in the business/engineering world and highlights them in his cartoons, including some of the ones attached). I think he could have made Alice lazy (there is an unnamed female secretary who irritates Alice because she shows no initiative) without there being the same outcry, but I feel if she had the anxiety Asok displayed, that would be even more offensive, showing that women can’t handle high-stress environments. And of course, if she was as dumb as the Pointy Haired Boss, it would also be an insult, showing women can’t think for themselves. She could be socially awkward like Dilbert, but I find Dilbert to be a rather bland character (despite his obvious engineering prowess).

There is Tina the Technical Writer (who is the black-haired, purple shirt lady in one of the cartoons below, complaining about Alice’s humor), and I have personally considered her a relatively bland character who serves as a tool to exploit Dilbert’s social ineptitude, and is a relatively normal person amidst the social chaos. But after reading a bio description of her on the Internet, I found that she “believes any conversation within hearing distance is intended as an insult to her profession and her gender.”  I think that she serves as a foil to Alice to show conflicting stances on feminism, and that of course her disposition is exaggerated, because the entire universe is based on utter satire.

When you take into consideration that all of these characters are caricatures, Alice is still an impressive individual because she is intelligent, hard-working, driven, and relatively successful in her career. (Her dating life is another story, although it is considerably more successful than Dilbert’s and her other co-workers). Her short-temper and foul language just make her human; a character without flaws is boring. Many office folk find her outcries the highlight of their day before they delve into their own redundant activities.

I think Scott Adams isn’t entirely blind to the female dynamic in the office either, and pokes fun at it in various ways. In one of the cartoons, Asok, a man who is established as non-white (but his ethnicity is never specified), uses the “racist” card to win all arguments. Until he meets Alice, who provokes a stale mate with the “sexist” card. While his cartoon doesn’t show whether he takes a stance on whether he supports lofty words like this being thrown around, he does have Alice embrace her gender and use it to her advantage. There is also the “Social Networking” cartoon, where the male boss encourages Alice to network, but when she tries to, she is automatically assumed to be “hitting on” her superior. Here he sympathizes with women who are thrust into this position, acknowledging that it happens, but in successive cartoons, Alice  defuses any accusations by simply saying, “Relax, it’s just Networking,” rather than getting all offended (although she’s reasonably ticked off). Then there is the fact that Alice is holding tools as she announces she is the highest paid engineer in the department. Dilbert asks the question that we’re all thinking: are the two related? And I do have to wonder: would I ask that same question if Alice was male? And I think I would, if that male had the same aggressive disposition Alice is portrayed to have.

Alice is also used to point out deficiencies in male culture, such as in the cartoon with the Robot, where she programs an unsuspected “defect” into the robot by having him be interested in male hobbies and think like a man. I think the fact that Scott Adams consistently pokes fun at both genders throughout his cartoons show that his intention in crafting Alice to be someone who easily flies off the handle isn’t to be intentionally offensive to the female engineering community.

But then we have to ask, is it sub/unconscious (I’m never sure which to use after learning Freud)? I don’t know if there’s a way to prove it. I don’t think so, because he doesn’t consistently make all of his female characters angry. Annoyed to some extent, yes, but all the characters in his cartoon are. But if it were somehow proven that he sub/unconsciously made Alice the way she is because that reflects a detrimental female attribute, how does that affect society? Does that limit women in any way? Is Alice affected by a “glass-ceiling?” I believe she certainly isn’t getting the respect she deserves – but the same goes for Dilbert as well. I don’t know the answers to these questions, but hopefully after studying the subject in more detail this semester, I can think of some.

I think it would also be interesting to perform an in-depth study of the evolution of Alice’s character. In the older cartoons, I found a lot more instances of Alice being violent and invoking her “Fist of Death” (two are attached: one involving her work being used as a “back-up” and the other using her “eye cannons”). In the newer cartoons (circa 2010), however, Alice is more likely to explode verbally or berate people with a horrendously hurtful sarcasm than to physically harm anyone. Does this represent a sophistication of her character of some sorts? Does this reflect the workforce and a change in which women present themselves? Or has Mr. Adams’ humor just evolved with his age?

Just so I actually engage in some critical thought in this post, I think a person’s interpretation of Alice also has to do with whether they think gender is performative, or inherent. If one considers gender strictly performative, then I do not believe Alice has any defining “female” attribute, besides whenever she uses her gender to get what she wants or have the final say in arguments. I believe her behavior can translated to someone who is physically male, without him appearing effeminate. With that being said, I don’t believe her current behavior limits her as “butch,” either. She’s just an intelligent individual who is easily pissed off.

But, if you view gender as being inherent (meaning directly related to your genitals/hormones), then I can see how there might be some offense taken from Alice’s behavior, because of the whole hysteria thing I explained in the first paragraph (why is that so much further than I thought it was…?). Does Alice act the way she does because of her hormones, not simply because that’s who she is? Has Scott Adams crafted her with women’s mood swings and other “symptoms” in mind? Or is she a consistently irritated person, because of a consistently perennial “problem” of simply being female?

I personally feel like that belief is so archaic, because despite all having the same hormones, women’s personalities are so vastly different. Some women are aromantic, some don’t have any emotional attachment to children, some can be angry all the time, cry at everything, or completely apathetic. Just because Alice happens to be angry doesn’t mean it necessary speaks for her sex/gender; I’ve always seen it as it just speaking on behalf of her character (however questionable it may be, at this point).

I think these questions also raise a larger question of how women today want to be represented in different ways, and what this means for feminism. If a female character falls in a trope, does that cause her to limit female development and behavior by propagating a certain behavior or belief? Even if there are a substantial number of women who still belong in that trope, such as the house-wife? Even if there are other characters who are starkly different from this trope in circulation? How do women feel about this? Do they care?

I think the main question in regards to whether Alice is a healthy expression of female character is: are women in business/engineering/male-dominated professions consistently being represented this way, when in fact, it is completely inaccurate. I don’t know. Maybe they are, and if so, then I will renounce Alice and advocate for a new character who breaks those confines of female portrayal.

To be honest, I don’t know how women are represented, because there are so many different representations in circulation. But hopefully throughout reading on contemporary feminism and reviewing all sorts of media, I’ll gain a better understanding of how society sees women. But as for now, I still love Alice as a character, I don’t find her in opposition of feminism (even though she displays tendencies of being a female chauvinistic pig, by not having sympathy for women who play the female card and always bring up talk of discrimination when it is not relevant), and will continue to enjoy reading about her mishaps and laugh at her cleverly construed one-liners.

These are just my personal opinions (and probably biases, too), and I hope my presentation was cogent enough (I may come back and edit this, but I feel like that’s anti-organic, so I’m not sure). If you end up reading this Dr. Mason and would like to critique Alice’s character and turn-over any of my insights/arguments, I would be absolutely pleased! 🙂

Hope anyone who comes across this enjoys the cartoons at least, even if they don’t have patience to read my ramble.