Cook the Kids and Take Care of the Food

After looking much deeper into a children's toy than I had ever hoped with Emily Prager's "Our Barbie's, Ourselves," there were many things I came out agreeing with, but there were a few points made that I found more than a little obnoxious and farfetched .

First, I do agree that there are certain unfair standards that society has impressed upon women; a woman must have big breasts, a tiny waist, the overwhelming desire to cater to a man's every need, etc. Barbie clearly does not help to get rid of these stereotypes in any way, especially considering how dolls have looked in the past. In comparison to the asexual dolls of early America, the way that Barbie promotes the unfair beauty standards of today sticks out like a pink elephant to most feminists. Many would prefer the Madame Alexander dolls of the 50's, the ones that as Prager puts it, "represented the kind of girls who looked perfect in jodhpurs, whose hair was never out place." Prager's rhetoric here paints a picture of a time when women were not only admired for their beauty but also their independence. It is also important to note that the beauty that was admired during the mid-20th Century was much classier and conservative. I know it's hard for everyone to believe, but once upon a time, beauty wasn't based on how much skin you could expose without Jesus having to come save you from being stoned for prostitution.

Despite the fact that I agreed with her thoughts in regards to perpetuating unfair beauty standards, I found Prager's comments on Ken laughable. There was one thing throughout this section that she clearly did not understand: Neither Barbie or Ken have genitalia because, as Prager should've learned in middle school health class, breasts are not actually reproductive organs. She ends her essay by making the claim that by not having a penis, Ken was portrayed as being more powerful than Barbie, and that as sexual as Barbie may be, she would never be able to turn Ken on. But she fails to note the fact that the same injustice is affecting Ken. She is blind to that fact that Ken is designed as the model of a perfect man, creating a body image that, like Barbie, will almost never be able to be attained. And since Barbie is also lacking genitals, Ken is stuck in the same depressing reality as Barbie, because he too will never be able to please his significant other, no matter how attractive he is.

Defining Race

In one of the most interesting discussions of this year so far, we began to talk about whether or not race is a social construct. Until this week, this is not something I had not really considered. Before, I thought of race as just a fact of nature; that everyone is a certain race and that sometimes they are discriminated against because of it. However, what I had not considered was the idea that race is not at all biological, but instead entirely defined by society.

As I have thought about this concept, it has started to make more sense to me, however, I believe that this is only true to an extent. One cannot say that society has entirely constructed race, because race is still defined by the color of your skin, not the other way around. Race is definition biological because it is genetics that turn your skin a certain color.  Since your skin color is what makes you a certain race, there is no denying that and its core, race is biological.

I believe it more accurate to say that the treatment of races is entirely a social construct because society has undoubtedly created countless stereotypes and limitations against almost every race there is. African Americans have not and will most likely never be treated the same way as Whites because of the sense of entitlement and superiority that white people created for themselves long ago. Race is shown as social construct here because there is nothing and never was anything that made any race inherently better than another. It was those races that decided this for themselves, and since they had the majority of people, and at many times, violence on their side, they were able to assert themselves as the superior race.

An extension of this idea of race being a social construct is that race is also fluid in a way. This idea is shown in pg 11 of Maus Volume II. In this page which opens the second volume, Art Spiegelman depicts himself a having a conversation with his French wife on how which animal should represent her in the comic.  She initially suggests a bunny rabbit, but then offers up the idea that she should be represented as mouse because of the fact that she converted to Judaism.  Though ethnically French, Art's wife identifies more as a Jew because of the life choices that she has made. Spiegel clearly included this passage just to make the point that since race is something that society has created and is not dependent on the color of our skin, we have the freedom to change in whatever way we choose.

What Makes Maus so Effective

Going into this week, many of us had the idea in our heads that comics are only to be used for laughs and light entertainment. This accompanied by the idea placed in my head by school that any books with pictures in it are inherently less intelligent and informative, made me very excited to see how the holocaust would be portrayed in a more comical and allegorical way. After I had begun reading I was instantly stunned to see that, although it was simply a retelling of a holocaust survivor’s experience in Auschwitz, it was so much more captivating and powerful than other written account of the holocaust that I have read.

What makes Maus so effective, is the way that it uses cartoonish and hyper-realistic images to convey the inhuman and unbelievable events that occurred during this time.  For example, on page 72 of the second volume, Vladek describes the gruesome process of burning alive many of the prisoners in the camp. While I personally was already aware of the fact that this went on, this page brought it to life in a whole new way. The strong imagery found here brings a completely different sense of understanding to the reader, as Spiegelman describes how the “fat from the burning bodies,” was “scooped and poured again so everyone could burn better.” This is really brought to life because in the bottom panel, the actual process of burning the prisoners alive is depicted. What makes it so impactful is the way that Spiegelman used exaggerated, almost cartoonish flames that seem to swallow up the prisoners as they let loose their raw and animalistic cries for help. Something this powerful cannot portrayed in a photograph because as devastating as seeing an actual photograph of an actual person being burned alive is, it could never capture what that person is truly feeling in that moment. What that person is feeling can no longer be explained in words or in a realistic photograph because the feelings that one must feel at the point are not fathomable or human, as humans at that point are reduced to nothing more than a helpless rodent in the moment before it is crushed by a mouse trap. 

Thoughts on "This is Water"

This week, I was pleasantly surprised to find that David Foster Wallace's "This is Water," was one of the most interesting and thought provoking things I'd ever read.  What intrigued me most was not only his unique voice and use of examples and stories, but also the many different layers that it has, especially given the context it has in Wallace's life.

When reading this for first time I was instantly captivated by the ideas that it conveyed. One of the most interesting ideas he presented was the idea that our "natural default-setting" as people, is to always be worrying about ourselves first.  I personally find that to be profoundly true. There is not a single person in the world who can disagree with that statement, because no one will ever be able to see the world through eyes other than their own so there is no way one can make any decision without first thinking about themselves. Even those who are looked up to for their generosity, people like Bill Gates, first have to make sure that they are secure in their own lives before helping out others. If you always put others' needs in front your own, you can easily be taken advantage of, and will never be truly happy.

After reading this article and being thoroughly interested in Wallace's ideas, I went back to the beginning and read the background information on his life.  After reading all about his accomplishments, the paragraph ended with the startling fact that three years after giving this speech, he committed suicide.  Reading this changed the entire meaning of the speech for me, giving a dark undertone that I had not seen before.  After knowing he ended his life, it lets the reader in on how empty and confused he was during his life.  For example, near the beginning of the speech he warns the audience, “If at this moment, you're worried that I plan to present myself here as the wise old fish explaining what water is to the other fish, please don't be.  I am not the wise old fish." Before knowing the background information, this statement seems to be almost comical.  However after knowing the issues he had been dealing with, it shows his views in a whole new light.  Statements like this almost seem like a cry for help and it makes me uneasy to see that although he is a “genius,” he is just as confused and blind as the rest of us. He continues on to talk about how to be truly happy and free, but if he had it all figured out, then why was he still so unhappy that he felt had to end his own life? If he can’t follow his own advice, then what made him think that anyone else can?

How Donald Trump Would Interpret the Ideas of Henry David Thoreau

The past year or so has undoubtedly been one of the most turbulent election seasons of this century.  Although the majority of voters are now finding themselves trying to decide who is the lesser of two evils, it is undeniable that this election has sparked a political revolution that will most continue to evolve and grow. The primaries this year were unique in that they presented two anti-establishment candidates in Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Many were captivated by Bernie’s non-traditional views on social and economic issues, proving to be the most successful socialist in the elections of recent years. Trump gained an even larger following by somehow reaching all of the angry, ignorant, and bigoted people in the US and getting them to support his pursuit to “Make America Great Again.” He somehow managed to win the Republican nomination without any real political knowledge and without ever laying out a clear plan, other than his outrageous ideas about building a wall on the Mexican Border.

So as I read Henry David Thoreau’s, “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” I noticed themes similar to the anti-establishment ideals that struck a chord with so many during this election season.  This made realize that Trump’s views seemed to be a sort of misinterpretation of Thoreau’s ideas (although given his level of intelligence, I’m quite sure that Donald Trump has never read anything by Thoreau).

As stated by the title, Thoreau believes that it is our “duty” to question and be disobedient to our government.  Similarly, Donald Trump is doubting the government quite a bit, preaching against dirty politicians like “Crooked Hillary,” and promising to make big changes in things like trade agreements that he feels are ruining this country. Both seem to have the idea that doubting the government is necessary and good. However, Thoreau makes statements like, that in regards to government reforms, “the remedy is worse than the evil,” and poses questions like, “Why does [the government] not encourage its citizens to be on alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them?” Meanwhile, Trump interprets this idea of questioning the government as going to the ends of the Earth to prove that Barack Obama is not actually a natural-born US citizen, even after Obama has given sufficient proof that he is. So while Trump clearly has the wrong interpretation of “Civil Disobedience,” the ironic fact still remains that Thoreau was the one thrown in jail for his beliefs.