I know I’m a little late in response to the first podcast, but i figured that I’d give it a go anyway. I want to preface this post by saying that I’m not a crazy cat person and I totally understand that humans and house cats are not on the same wavelength, speaking in terms of mental apptitude. That being said, I’ve always believed my cat to be more or less (probably less) of a cognitive creature. No, he’s never spoken back (even though I do talk to him, which I’m a little ashamed to admit); however, he does exhibit one behavior that I believe to be humanistic… he WANTS things. It’s not the basic or instictual want, either. He wants things he doesn’t need to survive. In the morning when i walk out of my room or when I come home from work or school, he’s always vocalizing his excitment to have company even if his food bowl is full. This, in and of itself, leads me to believe that he gets lonely; which, in turn, leads me to believe that he has an internal dialogue of some sort. It’s obviously not english (even though I subconsciously think it might be) but it’s enough of a dialogue to exhibit wants. The story about Susan teaching Ildefonso to connect words to objects reminded me of this thought I keep having, “do animals other than humans have cognitive abilities greater than just ‘I need this or I die’?”

The section of the podcast where the mice need to find a biscuit to the left of a blue wall is surely enough evidence for me to realize that: no, my cat is not as smart as i think and, yes, i am indeed a crazy cat person. However, the section where Jill has a stroke and experiences a euphoric state of not knowing or caring while being in what she calls “La La Land” also entertains the notion that language isn’t necessary for thinking, per se. Although she was “thoughtless” she knew she was happy even if she couldn’t vocalize it. So here i am, staring at my pet while he stares back at me, wondering whats going on inside that head of his. Maybe he’s thinking the same thing… or he just wants me to scratch is ears. I guess we’ll never know.

Alright, so after deliberating a little bit, I decided to pick a topic I’ve been avoiding for multiple reasons: Feminism. While I’m inherently feminist in the sense of the word and it’s origins (I strongly identify with first wave – Charlotte Perkins Gilman, enough said – and second wave feminism, but third wave kind of starts to lose me, and I’m not entirely sure what the platform of today is), I’ve always preferred to think of myself as a “humanist,” because I want to encompass not just women’s issues, but LGBTQ issues and international issues as well (and I also believe that men, although significantly less than women, but still so, deal with the struggle of breaking performative roles and are limited by the expectations of society as well).

Interestingly enough, I’m not the only one with this view! I found that Sarah Jessica Parker told E! Weekly that she was not a feminist (http://www.ew.com/article/2016/08/04/sarah-jessica-parker-not-feminist). After scrolling further, I learned that she identifies with the word humanist. *cue eerie music and goosebumps* I 110% identify with everything she said. While I identify with the values of feminism (I want myself to have the same rights as men, duh), I’m not entirely sure if it’s still needed today as a label. There are going to be both misogynistic men and female chauvinistic pigs (FCPs) out there, and I believe no matter how much we educate people, they are still going to exist. But I love what SJP said about “If you’re a feminist, you’re just a normal person, and if you’re not, then you’re sexist.”

So I suppose my topic/question for class is: What exactly is the current wave of feminism? And is it still needed? Does dissent from the movement by women prove that we’ve reached a sort of “glass ceiling” on women’s rights, where most women do feel equal to men? How about women’s rights abroad? Shouldn’t feminists be focused on women in third world countries who have very limited rights?

I found a quiz on the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/feminism-project/feminism-typology-quiz/?tid=feminismseries) that would identify what kind of feminist I am, and apparently, I am a “Yes, but” feminist. And honestly, that’s how I feel.  Of the 95% of women who identify as feminist, but 16% identify as a “Yes, but” feminist. Some of the qualities of this sub-category include: believing feminism is not “focused on the changes they want,” does not “accurately reflect the view of most women,” “looks down on women without jobs,” and “unfairly blames men for women’s challenges.” While the last one is somewhere where I am personally unsure of where I stand completely on it, I believe the former three things.

So, I want to use this project as a way to educate myself about the historical and current conversations of Feminism, find where I stand, and hopefully contribute some new insight to contemporary feminism.

Interestingly enough, I found two photo banks with women holding up “signs” explaining why they do need feminism (http://whoneedsfeminism.tumblr.com/) and why they do not need feminism (http://womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/archive). I think the dichotomy is very interesting, and would like to study what creates this differences in opinion. While I more closely identify with the latter in most cases, there are some points on the other side that I identify with as well.

The personal problem I have with feminism is because I know a lot of people who attack other women for not being “feminist” enough – and I think that’s disgusting! Like, that’s the ANTI-THESIS of feminism! Feminists should believe that women have the capacity and right to make their own decisions, regardless of whether they agree with you or not. I can’t stand FCP’s, but if that’s how they want to uphold themselves, then fine – as a women, you’re allowed to do that.

At the same time, I realize I can’t despise feminism without learning more about it. I don’t want to put the women who support it in a large basket – I want to learn about the platform and if/how it is benefiting women in America, and then study it in an international context.

Okay, enough of my commentary (hopefully). Here is my research:

“Trickle Down Feminism” (https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/trickle-down-feminism). I could honestly annotate this whole article, but I’m going to try really hard not to. It’s saying a lot of things, so I’m going to highlight the main points: First, Feminists shouldn’t be focused on how high women can go in the workforce or if there is a “glass ceiling,” but instead be focused on uplifting the women at the bottom of the workforce (I agree with this; it makes me very mad that Meryl Streep, who makes at least 7 million dollars a year, is complaining about equal pay, when there are women who’s entire, life-long work effort would never even equal half that much). It also argues that people shouldn’t parade the growing numbers of women in the work force as a good thing, since they are primarily entering the poverty sectors. It also notes that how after the Great Recession, many women were displaced by men who lost their jobs in other sectors. This I find a true concern – the Recession could have reverted America back to the mindset that men need work first, not necessarily women. However, in the article, a feminist states “All work is gendered,” and I disagree with that. It talks about women primarily being janitors, but most of the janitors I have encountered in my life have been male – and I certainly do not consider that a gendered career. I believe that just because a career is dominated by someone of a specific gender does not make it gendered. I do agree, however, that it is important for women to advance their opportunities through education, and that they should have access to resources that will help them do so. But I believe this about impoverished men as well.  They also make a point that other feminists who are climbing towards that glass-ceiling are doing so on the backs of hardworking women in unfortunate circumstances, who they are not even giving a second glance. I particularly like this excerpt: “But that work still needs to be done, and, Poo notes, the conditions that have long defined domestic work and service work—instability, lack of training, lack of career pathways, low pay—are now increasingly the reality for all American workers, not just women. When we focus on equal access at the top, we miss out the real story, which historian Bethany Moreton points out, “is not ‘Oh wow, women get to be lawyers,’ but that men get to be casualized clerks.” The economy affects women, and perhaps more so than men, as women seem to be going into certain, low-paying professions more than men, but I believe if we help impoverished families as a whole, women’s conditions will improve. (I also eerily remember Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s essay, “Can the Subaltern Speak.” I’m a woman, but this subaltern is the lower-class women. Can I speak for them? Can I formulate opinions on how to help them without being patronizing?)

I’ve already written far too much, so I’m not going to even address the pay gap here, but it’s something I do want to do more research on. Personally, as of right now, I’m not sure if I believe there is a pay gap (Ivanka Trump said something very interesting about there being more a wage gap between “mothers” and working men, rather working women and working men, and I’d like to explore that). You can’t compare men and women in different sectors, different states, or even of different ages, because of seniority. It’s very hard to compare, and I look forward to reaching the numbers for myself.

Next Article: “Betty Friedan to Beyoncé: Today’s generation embraces feminism on its own terms” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/feminism/betty-friedan-to-beyonce-todays-generation-embraces-feminism-on-its-own-terms/2016/01/27/ab480e74-8e19-11e5-ae1f-af46b7df8483_story.html)

Alright, so this article said that the New Wave of Feminism is more focused on broadening it’s membership and ideology rather than with a shared struggle against oppression/identifying narrowly targeted enemies. And I think that’s what most Millennials see as a disconnect. In the beginning, it talks about how a college student doesn’t see Feminism as a political movement. It’s because we’ve already been indoctrinated with these beliefs, for the most part. It seems redundant to reiterate them. And maybe we’re reiterating them to the wrong community. Maybe we shouldn’t just be preaching this ideology at Universities, but instead hold a community outreach to lower-class, working women who may not have access to the ideas and resources that college-educated women do. The article also says that people are more likely to align with the terminology “the women’s movement” rather than “feminism.” People support feminist ideals, but not feminist labels. It is also arguing the definition of feminism has evolved after the past two generations, and women have their own, personal meanings of what feminism is.

But that’s my whole question: If everyone has a fractured, personal meaning of what feminism is, does that mean feminism still exists? Does that mean we can purport it and instill it in future generations, when not everyone is on the same page?

That’s all I’ll say on this one, but it was a really rad article and I hope I can reference it in my essay.

Okay, I swear I have more on my reading list that I have skimmed and topics that I plan on looking further into, but if I continue at this rate I’m going to write an essay, so I’m just going to do a summary (heh, yeah right) of one Academic article and call it a day.

“Girlfight the Power: Teaching Contemporary Feminism and Pop Culture” by Alyson Bardsley featured in Feminist Teacher (accessed through JSTOR)

So, I typed “Contemporary Feminism” into JSTOR and the most recent article was from 2006…not quite sure how to feel about that. I’ll obviously use some different databases to research more recent ones, but I think the article has some pretty good points that I want to delineate.

In the article, Professor Bardsley teaches a course on Third Wave Feminism, and learns that it’s a lot more than the “Riot Grrl” movement (and I’m kind of in the same boat as her before she learned all the different dimensions, that’s the only paramount characteristic I am familiar with). I learned that the Third Wave Movement branched from the second wave, because women found it too “anti-sex/heterosexually based” and frankly, too boring. Third Wave provided an ultimate venue for self-expression, including body art, new clothing styles, do-it-yourself projects, writing, etc. etc. The article mainly gave me a wealth of pop culture to review regarding Third Wave Feminism, including the movie Girl Fight and other gems such as the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer, some bands, magazines, and scholarly articles.

I really look forward to the weekly, informal writings, so I can pick an article and just dissect it entirely! This was too much information for me to cover effectively (I don’t know how I passed Communicating Business Info, I’m one of the least concise people I know), but I hope I did you justice, Professor Mason.

For my topic, I will be writing about Superman. From what I understand, we will be writing multiple pieces about the topic.

Since I was 12 years old, I have been enthralled by The Man of Steel. The powers, the morality, and the adventures resonated with me and continue to thrill me to this day. He has and forever shall be my hero. The great thing about a character as enduring and culturally significant as Superman is that there will always be some sort of discussion about him. For decades, people have been comparing Superman to Jesus Christ and it is easy to see why they would make that connection. He is the savior of mankind, he fights against the evils of the world, and he preaches messages of peace, justice, and truth. In 1992’s The Death of Superman comic book story arc, Superman not only died, but sacrificed himself for the good of the world, much like Jesus Christ died for to pay for the sins of the world. Though Superman would not return for over a year, he did in fact rise from the grave. In nearly every film adaptation of the Superman story – from 1978’s Superman: The Movie to 2013’s Man of Steel – there have been shots that invoke thoughts about the Man of Tomorrow’s parallels with Jesus Christ. Shots of Superman in a crucifix pose floating in the air, segments featuring the Last Son of Krypton overlooking the planet as a watchful protector, and sequences of Superman using his super senses to monitor much like an omnipotent being would.(http://www1.cbn.com/movies/superman-and-jesus-supermans-origin-and-parallels-jesus)

However, others argue that Superman is more of a Moses allegory. His story fits more in line with the tale of Moses. This debate has been going on for decades and as a comic reader and an avid Superman fan, I would like to write about and discuss the parallelism as well as examine the significance of the religious ties. I am very familiar with the character’s creation and the proverbial ingredients combined to create the world’s first super hero, and while many people are set on the Jesus allegory idea, I am a firm believer that Superman most closely resembles an allegory for Moses.

Assuming that there are multiple pieces on the same topic, I will also be examining Superman’s relevance. It is not secret that Superman is a popular character, but there have been numerous points in history where he was on the edge of going out of style. Regardless of how many close calls there have been, the character has endured. There is a reason that Superman remains a part of popular culture to this day. Some despise the character while others love him. Some believe he endures because of the ideals he represents, and others believe he endures because he is a pop culture phenomenon.(https://www.theodysseyonline.com/superman-more-relevant-than-ever)

Since moving to Florida I have taken a notice to the expansive amount of confederate flags being flown and stickers on trucks—sometimes the trucks even have flags. I’m looking forward to researching this topic so I can articulate, even if just mentally to myself of how this is a foul mess and prevent me from going into apoplexy while driving.

Initially, I needed more information to what the confederate flag is. Where it came from. What was the initial reading? I learned that there were many flags, but the confederate flag was actually a battle flag for E. Lee. Also, I have had the chance to look at some interesting reasons of why this is appropriate. This also made me consider some of the monuments that are still in Florida that are being defended—I will need to look further into this.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/a-brief-history-of-the-confederate-flag/6586196

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/confederate-flag-always-racist-119481

While doing my research I was immediately hemorrhaged with flippant opinion based pieces, some coherent and others belligerent. Although this seemed counterproductive, I think it is immensely important that I get a feel on both sides and attempt to be as objective as possible. As much as I would like to troll, it is important that I find an understanding of where both sides are coming from. Some of the points are moot, and this statement is related to irrational statements made by both sides. I’ve included some links below.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-the-confederate-flag-racist

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/us/confederate-flag-myths-facts/index.html

I’ve decided to bring in some media into this research, some of which contain interviews. What was most disturbing was, the viewpoint of some of those being interviewed. Many of the people were oblivious—some even discounting the horrors of slavery others explaining that their families who owned an individual were truly different. I am going to have to find further interviews and sources, my sources are becoming one-sided, southern and white washed. I need to find more diverse bloggers and opinions.

I have found some academic journals in relation to the topic relating to political correctness, from ten years ago. Which is interesting to me, because this term has just recently seemed to spawn out of nowhere to negatively refer to people are attempting to not be … disgustingly rude or bigoted individuals. The conversations introduce black churches and movements  attempting to ban the presentation of the confederate flag in government/public places. I really would like to touch this topic to blacklivesmatter and how certain individuals don’t think it’s necessary and founded idea.

Webster, Gerald R., and Jonathan Leib I. “Religion, Murder, and the Confederate Battle Flag in South Carolina.” Southeastern Geographer 56.1 (2016): 29. Web. 13 Sept. 2016.

Smith, J. D. (2004). Robert E. bonner. colors & blood: Flag passions of the confederate south. princeton: Princeton university press, 2002. 223 pp., ISBN 0-691-09158-7. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 46(2), 419-421. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/212682148?accountid=10902

Carpenter, L. (2001). Old Times There Are Best Forgotten: The Future of Confederate Symbolism in the South. Callaloo, 24(1), 32-37. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3300447

I want to transition my research into a broader sense in relation to the incident of sports players not kneeling for the national anthem… Peaceful protest working for a still subjugated people. With the inclusion of recent police reports and fatality statistics. I think this could be a solid end of the paper.

My topic is about a world without using money. There is a term for it which is called barter in which it is the exchange of any goods and services without using money. Way back before money existed, our world used this kind of system and i am wondering if the government would have used this system, could our problem vanish? According to Jacques Fresco who is a visionary and architect, explain in a 10 minutes clip youtube video of “imagine our world without money” that our world is already collapsing because machine is already replacing human labor work in which case machine are cheaper and easier to do the manual work. Nevertheless, another youtube video of “Imagine a world without money, debt and slave” that having machines to do our manual labor is a good thing in which case we should celebrate since machines do it more efficiently and easy. I think that the world would have been so much better with this kind of system because not only money would not be involve, but the exchange of goods and services of what I want to exchange can estimate the value of it without using any money.  Meanwhile, Jessica Toothman is a blogger at HowStuffWorks.com write her blog of “What would a moneyless world would like”  proposed that a moneyless world can be function on a gift economy in which people receive and give goods and services freely instead of paying for it.  In addition, I was thrilled to learn that this method is used in real life by the people of Anuta which is an island in the southeastern part of Solomon Islands. This modern gift economy they maintain is called Aropa in which people share everything from land to food which result a better society for them with world peace. This method could work mostly for farmers and fisher man because not all people would want to work in the heat; however, if the government tries to enforce this new method people would have to give up technology because using machines to do our farms would cost a lot of energy in which it might be expensive. I want for the world to be a better place and if we have to live without using technology or money I would be glad to be part of this world because I know money and technology can not bring world peace or solve all my conflicts.

http://money.howstuffworks.comhttps: