Reactions to my last Post

I was entertained at Dr. Stiltner describing my writing as "bracing" in my last post about Taylor Swift...I wanted to respond to his comments and questions and elaborate more on some of my ideas for my paper. It might move into the "scathing" category :)

Just to start, some definitions that you might need clarification on from my last post, as Dr. Stiltner pointed out!

Slut shaming: Simply put, the idea of shaming or attacking a women or girl for being sexual, acknowledging sexual feelings and pleasure, having sexual partners, or acting on sexual feelings.  From Alon Levy's "Slut Shaming," he puts it as "The implication that if a woman has sex that traditional society disapproves of, she should be shamed or made to feel guilty or inferior."  Though you've probably never heard the term before reading this (unless you're into feminism or sociology like I am), I'm willing to bet you've probably called a girl a slut at some point in your life, haven't you?

Rape Culture: We live in a rape culture.  To understand what this means (well, first you can re-read my post from the beginning of the semester on sexual assault), let's look at the explanation found in "Transforming a Rape Culture" by Emilie Buchwald, Martha Roth, and Pamela R. Fletcher:

A rape culture is a complex of beliefs that encourages male sexual aggression and supports violence against women. It is a society where violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent. In a rape culture, women perceive a continuum of threatened violence that ranges from sexual remarks to sexual touching to rape itself. A rape culture condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as the norm.

In a rape culture both men and women assume that sexual violence is a fact of life, inevitable as death or taxes. This violence, however, is neither biologically nor divinely ordained. Much of what we accept as inevitable is in fact the expression of values and attitudes that can change.

You probably don't automatically connect these ideas with the songs of Taylor Swift, but I will be expanding a lot further on these ideas as I continue to work on my paper.

Dr. Stiltner also asked: But what about the video?

In case you've never seen the music video to You Belong With Me (not that you're missing out), you can check it out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bKAaKwX5aA

As Dr. Stiltner pointed out after watching it, "It seems to be more about the nerdy girl trying to find her self-confidence. It doesn't make the "girlfriend" slutty, but certain very attractive, cool, and popular."

So, I'm going to point out what I find to be problematic about the video and how it connects to the ideas I discussed in my last post.

In the video (and in most of her other songs/videos), Swift casts herself as the proverbial outcast - in this case, "the girl in the bleachers." How does she do this in this video? By...oh, wow. Putting on a pair of very round, large glasses! Certainly these "dorky" glasses erase everything else that make Taylor attractive: long blonde hair, fair (read: white) and clear skin, big doe eyes, and thin.

But didn't you know?  Taylor Swift is just an average girl: don't worry, awkward adolescent girls, boys don't notice this hugely famous and gorgeous pop star either!

...Right, that's why almost all of Taylor's songs are about a different guy she dated.

And that's just it: all of Taylor Swift's songs are about boys. That is all she writes about.  That is all she pines over, all she desires.  Without a boy, Swift feels incomplete, and she's waiting around for the day she meets her prince charming and then she'll never have any problems ever again.  All Taylor Swift loves is boys. And you know what she doesn't love? Other girls. Know why? Because they steal her men.

How do they steal her men? Their seductive good looks and sexual availability.  Swift clearly lacks these things: she sings about how all she has to offer is her quirkiness, which means that though she's not beautiful, she can understand these boys in a way that these other beautiful, superficial, popular girls can't.

Here's the thing: Taylor Swift is beautiful. She, like many supermodels found in magazines, on television and the rest of pop culture, does not represent anything "average" about girls. 

In her single "Hey Stephen," Swift sings: "All those other girls, well they're beautiful, but would they write a song for you?"

What? Beautiful girls can't write songs? Is that what you're saying here, Taylor? I beg to differ: beautiful girls can write songs, but most beautiful girls (unlike you) don't have the supportive wealthy parents and resources that you were privileged with that allowed her to move from Pennsylvania to Nashville when they were 14 so they could get a record deal...

But do you want to know what part of Taylor Swift really allowed her to become as famous as she is?

She didn't (and allegedly still doesn't) have sex.

That's right! Just listen to her song "Fifteen."  First of all, this song is the only one (that I can find, anyway) where Taylor actually has a female friend.  Because in all of her other songs, girls are just obstacles in the way of her finding true love.  But what happens to this female friend of Swift's? Clearly she didn't end up a famous pop star like Swift did. Why is that? She had sex. Before she was married. And then they broke up.

It's true: "Abigail gave everything she had to a boy, who changed his mind, and we both cried."

All Abigail had was her virginity.  And she gave that away before she was married, so she was destined to lose her boyfriend because of it.

Didn't you know? Relationships where a couple are having pre-marital sex never work out. They certainly never work out for reasons completely unrelated to and other than the fact that the couple is having sex.  Just don't have sex, and your relationship is set to last.  And you, too, can write songs about your sexually active friends who never become pop stars while you continue on your way to virginal success. 

And trust me, "Fifteen" is hardly the worst of Taylor's slut shaming songs that perpetuate society's virgin/whore dichotomy (exclusive to women, by the way. No one ever cares that the boys Taylor wants but can't have because they are too busy being seduced by these harlots must, then, also be having sex...odd). No, I give that award to her song "Better Than Revenge."

Let me tell you something - good luck finding Taylor in any color dress but white. It doesn't matter if it's award shows or her music videos. White. Because she is perfect and pure and virginal. Just like in Better Than Revenge's music video, which I can sum up for you: Taylor shows up to a party looking awestruck and doe-eyed in a white dress, where her innocence and purity makes the boy realize that she is actually what he deserves, and he leaves his date (girlfriend) who is wearing a red, more revealing dress for Swift and her virginal beauty.

This is literally the virgin/whore dichotomy. Images, colors and everything. There is nowhere for women to fall but on one side of this spectrum. 

Don't forget the wonderful lyrics to this song either, you don't even need the music video:

The story starts when it was hot and it was summer and...
I had it all, I had him right where I wanted him
She came along, got him alone and let's hear the applause
She took him faster than you could say "sabotage"

Oh, yeah. This guy was completely powerless to say no to this girl's sexual prowess. No fault lies with him. And sex is sabotage.

I never saw it coming, wouldn't have suspected it
I underestimated just who I was dealing with
She had to know the pain was beating on me like a drum
She underestimated just who she was stealing from

Read: Boyfriends are possession. Girls own them, and other girls can steal them. Boys are completely powerless, have no autonomy, and can't turn down sex, ever.

She's not a saint
And she's not what you think
She's an actress, whoa
She's better known
For the things that she does
On the mattress, whoa

That's right. Women who are sexually active are always deceitful. You can't be good in bed and have othe redeeming qualities, either.

Soon she's gonna find
Stealing other people's toys
On the playground won't
Make you many friends
She should keep in mind
She should keep in mind
There is nothing I do better than revenge

Boys are toys. Need I say more?


Here's the thing: these implications are not harmless.

Swift is perpetuating the idea that choice of dress and sexuality are intertwined, and that sexuality is something to be shamed.  The consequence of slut shaming is that this conception contributes and encourages rape culture, by supporting a rapist over a victim on the defense that the victim was "asking for it." The very idea of "asking for it" comes from clothing.  If a victim was wearing clothes considered to be revealing, then it is often claimed that she was purposefully drawing attention to herself and did not have the right to turn away sexual advances. Also prevelant in Swift's lyrics is the idea that men, when given the chance to have sex, literally cannot turn it down.  Though in her songs, Swift blames other girls for ruining her perfect relationship, in society this equates to men not being able to turn down sex even when the victim cannot give consent, thus leading to assault.

I'd also like to let Taylor Swift know that not all girls like boys, and not all boys like girls. Guess you can't relate to everyone, Taylor.

I'll take Nicki Minaj lyrics any day: "But fuck who you want, and fuck who you like" - as long as you get consent first. And don't let anyone make you feel bad about it either.

Feminism & Taylor Swift

The beginning of breaking down why I and many other people can't stand stand Taylor Swift. Specifically for this post, "You Belong With Me"...and this is only the beginning.


Swift’s song illustrates the concept discussed in class of the sexual double standard
surrounding men and women. Her comparison between herself and the object of affection of her desired boy is consistently made by slut shaming, the degradation of a woman based on her
actual or perceived sexual activity. Essentially, Swift advocates the fact through her lyrics that a women’s sexuality makes her less credible. This idea has no male counterpart; in fact society often praises men for their sexual histories, associating it with the desired masculinity. The consequence of slut shaming is that this perception contributes and encourages rape culture, by supporting a rapist over a victim on the defense that the victim was “asking for it.” This idea of
“asking for it” often comes from clothing. If a victim was wearing clothes considered to be revealing, then it is often claimed that she was purposefully drawing attention to herself and did
not have the right to turn away sexual advances. Clothing is an important part of Swift’s lyrics in this song, as she implies that the differences in dress between her and this other girl justify her credibility as a more desirable, authentic partner.

Swift is propagated to be an example of an average girl held as a role model for young girls. This song portrays her as a jealous friend who directs her anger at another girl because she is dating the boy Swift wants, and in doing so she encourages young girls to do the
same. By idealizing a certain type of clothing and behavior, Swift is perpetuating the idea that a women’s choice of dress and her sexuality are intertwined, and that sexuality is something to be
shamed. These ideas are dangerous in that they perpetuate rape culture and encourage of double standard of what is considered acceptable behavior for men and women.

SHU Women's Bowling: Shamelessly Promoting Myself

For those of you who don't know, Sacred Heart women's bowling won the Northeast Conference championship this weekend! I had a great weekend and was named SHU athlete of the week. Here's some information about it, including me looking like a goof on camera.

Northeast Conference News: Women's Bowling Champions

SHU Athlete of the Week

Comments on my PI essay?

So I'm pretty sure we were supposed to make a post so people could review our PI essays?...If so, that's what this is for hahaha.

Health Insurance Isn't Sexist?

A follow-up to our brief contraception discussion in class.

Source: someecards.com

Trayvon Martin's Murder: Where are the activists now?

I mean, it was only two weeks ago when almost every white person I knew was tweeting about stopping a brutal African warlord from killing more innocent children. And they even took thirty minutes out of their busy schedules to watch a movie about dude. They bought t-shirts. Some bracelets. Even tweeted at Rihanna to take a stance. But, a 17 year old American kid is followed and then ultimately killed by a neighborhood vigilante who happens to be carrying a semi-automatic weapon and my white friends are quiet. Eerily quiet. Not even a trending topic for the young man.


—- Michael Skolnik.

Kony 2012: Research Your Cause

As I'm sure everyone knows, last week the Invisible Children Project put out a video then went viral within a matter of hours. Millions of individuls watched the half-hour documentary to "raise awareness" about Joseph Kony and children soldiers in Uganda. Many were moved enough to donate to the cause and were very vocal in their support. Unfortunately, it can be easy to be swept up in media frenzies: how much of this actually benefits the so-called cause?

I want to focus on the Kony 2012 campaign as well as Invisible Children as a whole, but from a more critical perspective. To be sure, social justice is a worthy cause and I am glad that more people are beginning to look into what life is like in other parts of the world. However, I am frankly disgusted by IC's portrayal of Africans as essentially helpless children in desperate need of a more civilized white Western culture to save them from themselves.

Think of this: is Kony 2012 really impacting Uganda...or is it really just impacting America? Specifically, wealthy white youth looking to feel good about themselves? The media frenzy, and its response, has been completely Westernized. Where are the African voices who are actually there? Kony 2012 is nothing more than a tactic for America to increase their military presence and control over Africa: the video makes it clear that military action is the clear way to solve the Kony conflict. What I (after a lot of research on my own, and many share my opinion) think is that the conflicts in places like Uganda are so incredibly complex, that Kony 2012 and its ramifications are dangerous oversimplifications. That is what I want to focus on for our project for the next half of the semester.

If you are interested in researching this issues further - which I highly suggest you do before supporting any cause - there is so much information out there from perspectives besides that of Invisible Children's. Many of these sources are from people who either live or have worked extensively in Uganda and have experienced daily life there. I highly suggest the following:

Dangerous Ignorance: The Hysteria of Kony 2012
Kony 2012: My response to the Invisible Children Campaign
Kony 2012 and Invisible Children are Funded by Antigay Creationist Groups
The Daily What: More on Kony 2012
We Are Not Invisible: 5 African Women Respond to the Kony 2012 Campaign

Finally, I think this quote (taken from the video in my second link) puts a lot of things about this situation in perspective that we as Westerners need to keep in mind when choosing to support a cause:

“How you tell the stories of Africans is much more important that what the story is; because if you are showing me as voiceless, as hopeless [then] you have no space telling my story. You shouldn’t be telling my story if you don’t believe that I also have the power to change what is going on.” -Rosebell Kagumire

Meeting with bell hooks

As a distinguished speaker and well-known public figure, bell hooks is often invited to speak at colleges and universities across the country, and that's where I am today. I know it will be interesting to attend because as a black
feminist concerned with issues of racism, classism and gender, she is not quite
in line with most of the thinking that occurs here at Sacred Heart University. As I walk into the Edgerton Theater, I notice immediately that the audience is overwhelming female – what a
surprise. It is evident, however, that
bell hooks’ name has drawn a more diverse crowd than usual for our campus, as I see quite a few more people of color in attendance. Walking down the aisle to find a seat, I recognize a few professors, mostly from the women’s studies program. But for the most part I do not recognize most of the faces I pass, and I hear a lot of excited chatter about where they have come from to hear this legendary woman.

It is easy to see that she is used to being in front of a
crowd. As she steps up to the microphone, she carries herself with a clear sense of confidence that shows how comfortable she is with her place in the spotlight. Not one for suits or other
overly-professional outfits, she is wearing slacks and a bright sweater, with a few flashy bracelets. Even at sixty years old, hooks is eager to share her message of awareness and her passion for what she does is evident as she begins speaking. It is no surprise that she has made it her mission to educate others; she speaks of a love of learning that she has had
ever since she was young. Hooks, like many others, had dreamed of being a teacher and writer; however, her experience is different from many in that she lived through the integration of public
schools in the 1960s, something that profoundly affected her view of herself as well as her awareness of race in society. Soon, the audience is obviously captivated by her strong voice that
commands attention with its passion.

For hooks, education is not something that is confined to the classroom. Her speech emphasizes the importance of learning wherever someone is, recognizing that each different
circumstance has a lesson to be learned. When she concludes, I feel somewhat more hopeful than when I came, realizing as I applaud that although she talked about a lot of heavy issues,
she was able to frame it in a way that convinced the audience that they had the power to contribute to correcting these issues. This is what makes her such a captivating speaker – her ability to convince her audience that they are capable of being able to address the
problems that they see, instead of leaving them cynical or discouraged.

Feminism and Queer Theory Ruined My Life

This is so true. Once you start looking, you see problems everywhere.

Opinions: are you really entitled to yours?

"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." -Harlan Ellison

What do you think? How much to do you comment on things you haven't really looked into for yourself?

Birth Control Debate in the Media.

Surprise surprise! I love when men decide what I can do with my body.

Feminism is for Everybody - bell hooks

What impresss me the most about bell hooks is her desire to make her thoughts and concepts accessible to everyone. SO many public intellectuals' work can be hard to grasp; they often use detailed language and assume their audience has prior knowledge to their subject, which allows for them to speak in-depth. While I do believe such in-depth knowledge is important for critical thinking and analysis, it can be difficult then to successful convey a message or convince a broader, more inexperienced public. In her book "Feminisism is for Everybody," now widely held as a feminist classic, bell hooks is able to define feminism and its concept in a basic, accessible way so as to not overwhelm younger or unfamiliar readers.

One of the most important messages bell hooks discusses is that anybody can be a feminist - as long as they stand up to sexist oppression. In the second wave feminist movement, there was a large question of who was "really" a feminist and what the goals of the movement were as a whole. Some claimed that feminism could be as diverse as the individuals who made up the movement. That, bell hooks claims, is not the case. She makes it clear that one cannot support the oppression of women, or any policy that does so, and be a feminist. Her classic is example is that of the issue of abortion and feminism: she makes a steadfast distinction that one cannot be pro-life and a feminist. An individual can be as personally opposed to abortion as they wish, but they cannot advocate to take that choice away from everyone else.

"Feminism is for Everybody" is also a greta introduction for the concept of intersectionality. Oppression does not work through a single system; rather, there are interlocking systems of oppression reinorced through patriarchy, such as racism, classism, and homophobia. In all of these, one group seeks control and is dominant to a minority group. Her main hope as an activist and author is to see information accessible to everyone, spreading information about feminism through commercials, magazes ads and billboards. Deconstructing the knowledge necessary to make informed choices about the society with live in, bell hooks continues to be an important figure in ending sexism in society today.

Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional, Overturning Gay Marriage Ban

The California gay marriage ban was struck down by federal appeals court today. Most of the headlines are slightly misleading; what this ruling means is that those individuals who were marriaed before the passage of prop 8 could not have their marriage taken away from them, not necessarily that new gay marriages will be legal. By ruling this legislation unconstitutional, the court upeld a 2010 decision by former Judge R. Vaughn Walker that found marriage to be a fundamental right protected by the Constituion. Opponents of same-sex marriage now have the opportunity to appeal this ruling and take the matter to the Supreme Court for the first time.

Though it remains unclear what this victory will mean for other states and potentially nationally if brought to the Supreme Court, it is still a victory. As the 9th Circle Court of Appeals stated on its ruling:
"Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”

5 Physical Descriptions of People Randomly Observed

1. How could you possibly fall asleep in the middle of the day in the UC? Must be a rough day.
2. With that dress, I'd think you were a student, not a professor.
3. It looks like you dumped a whole bottle of gel in your hair to get it to stay like that. Oh wait, I do that on a daily basis as well so no judgment.
4. Plaid and short hair? I wonder if you're gay?
5. You literally could not be wearing more pink if you tried.

“I want this out of me. This is not a part of me, and theoretically I can separate it all out and throw away the shit, but it’s never really gone. When will this finally be over?"

-Naomi "Nomy" Lamm


Does this quote mean anyting to you?

Sex Education in Schools

Sex education in public schools is often a subject laughed off or criticized by students and adults alike. While many recognize that they have learned next to nothing in these classes, no matter what the age level being taught to, adults are often reluctant to modify a curriculum so that students can actually be educated about important personal choices. Instead of seeing education as a way to arm students with the knowledge necessary to make healthy decisions, parents often perceive this as a “how-to” guide and assume that discussing gender and sexuality in a safe, educational space will instead encourage them to try it themselves. Abstinence-only sex education has received a lot of criticism for its alleged ineffectiveness; however, even most curriculums that expand beyond just abstinence still lack a lot of vital, unbiased information. The question of how sex should be approached in schools is an important one that affects millions of students and young adults, yet they are the ones that get little to no say in how the topic is presented to them.

Though recently abstinence-only sex education has come under heavy criticism for their lack of effectiveness, I found one on Opinion Exchange from 2010. The author claims that an abstinence-only curriculum has been shown effective by the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, and is also supported by the nonprofit, nonpartisan group the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. This curriculum is described as different from most abstinence-only courses, since it does not mention any religious language, and though it focuses on delaying sexual activity, it does not specify that sex is only acceptable in the context of marriage. The author claims it takes a more practical stance by teaching the effects of sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancy, rather than moral implications often used in other abstinence programs. She concludes that in any case, sex ed needs to be taken beyond “just a classroom talk,” namely that students need to have this conversation with their parents. This is a huge assumption: one, that all students have a safe home environment and an open relationship with their guardians, and two, that every parent is knowledgeable enough to provide their children with facts and accurate information. What about the students to which the above doesn’t apply? And abstinence programs still beg the question about what will happen when an individual does choose to become sexually active. Even curriculums which give the basic safe-sex message portray contraception as a back-up plan, remaining vague about how to properly use different types of birth control as well as how to obtain them. To me, it seems difficult to justify such lack of information to individuals who are going to eventually going to choose to no longer abstain.

The other editorial, by Family Planning Plus, advocates the need for more comprehensive sex education. The author states that curriculums that revolve around abstinence are not only ineffective, but “might cause harm by providing inadequate and inaccurate information, resulting in failure to use safer sex practices once intercourse is initiated.” She discusses the own experience in the sexual health field, and the young girls she sees as patients who have made poor choices not because of laziness, but because of lack of knowledge of misinformation. She affirms the idea that though conversations with parents are ideal, it is just not the reality. She suggests that it is not that young adults do not want information and to have their questions answered –it is just that they often do not have a reliable source. It is important to point out that those teenagers who become pregnant are more likely to have children who also become pregnant young. To me, this illustrates a continuance of a lack of knowledge – a cycle that a comprehensive, inclusive sex education curriculum from a source outside the family has the potential to break.

Both of these editorials are addressing a reality: the fact that teenage pregnancy and the spread of sexually-transmitted infections is a problem in our society today. Both also acknowledge that abstinence is important, and that it is the only way of fully preventing pregnancy and the spread of infections. The difference is that one address what happens after abstinence, and one does not. The biggest flaw I saw in the first editorial supporting a new abstinence program is that although it focusing on delaying sexual activity and was allegedly somewhat successful in doing so for some students, eventually almost everyone will choose to become sexually active. Even if this is delayed till the individual is older, or even till marriage, the odds that in that time span that this individual has learned how to properly choose and use birth control, how infections can be transmitted and what the signs are, and knowledge about reproductive health seems slim to me. Knowledge doesn’t just happen, it is acquired through education, which is what the second editorial points out. The main message of the abstinence editorial is to “keep kids healthy.” Kids need to be taught how to be safe and keep themselves healthy – it is not something that happens on its own, and it doesn’t even always come with age. Leaving out important information in hopes that this lack of knowledge will discourage students from wanting to have sex isn’t keeping them healthy; it is stopping them from being able to make the healthiest decisions for themselves.

After reading these articles, I realized how lacking most youth are in terms of having access to educate themselvesabout their own body. This says a lot about our society and how we perceive bodies and sex. Sex education has the opportunity to talk about a lot of important issues, like consent, sexuality and gender diversity, and how to engage in sexual activities in a healthy manner. Right now, most sex ed curriculums are very exclusive in terms of heteronormativity – students are never taught that it is okay to be gay, and if they are gay, how those students can stay safe and healthy. The concept of consent is essential for everyone to making good sexual decisions, and yet it too is often overlooked. The way sexual activity is portrayed in most sex ed classes, especially in abstinence courses, is that it is something to be frowned up, that choosing to engage in sexual activity somehow says something about your character or morals. I think the way this message is juxtaposed with the hypersexualized message prevalent everywhere in society can be damaging to a lot of youth. Knowledge can be a way for students to feel confident in themselves, their ability to make the best decision, and be able to discern the mixed messages they receive about intimacy and sexuality from society.

Public Intellectual - bell hooks

The public intellectual I've picked to look at is Gloria Watkins, better known by her pen name bell hooks (intentionally uncapitalized). She is an author as well as a social activist, and as a postmodern feminist she focuses on the intersectionaly of race, class and gender and how certain groups are systematically oppressed by these categories.

I really like her because even though she is a public intellectual (something that is often grounded in elitism), she is able to reach a wider range of audiences by using different media: books (with easy to understand language and not overly intellectual), magazines (both scholarly as well as popular) as well as appearing in various documentaries. Feminists often use her definition of feminism, a term often difficult to define because it encompasses so many aspects that are often controversial: "Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation and oppression."

Here is an excerpt from her book Yearning: Race, Gender and Cultural Politics:
http://www.mariabuszek.com/kcai/PoMoSeminar/Readings/hooksPoMoBlckness.pdf

And here is her entire book which is what helped me get into feminism, Feminism is for Everybody
http://excoradfeminisms.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/bell_hooks-feminism_is_for_everybody.pdf

Responses to Sexual Assault

On Monday, the entire Sacred Heart community received an email informing them of the report of a sexual assault by a student. When I read it, I cringed, for more than one reason. Sexual assault and rape are some of the most traumatic things an individual will ever have to deal with. It stays with the affected individual for their entire life, and nothing can undo that after the fact. But already I was preparing myself for the ignorant comments I knew I was going to hear as my peers started to discuss what happened.

My perceptions and opinions on rape were fundamentally changed last spring when I took an intro to sociology class. We were assigned a reading dealing with the frequency of rape cases reported in fraternity houses, and had to write a reflection afterwards. My own reflection wasn't anything particularly special; I wrote about how it was generally horrifying and needed to be corrected, but that it didn't really resonate personally with me because I had never been raped and didn't know anyone who had been. I wrote that I didn't feel particularly threatened because I generally don't put myself in "dangerous" situations like that. My professor, who I now admire greatly, came in next class after reading our reflections and was furious at what we'd written. We spent the rest of the class learning about the effects of living in a rape culture that perpetuates victim-blaming.

Girls: think of all the rules you've learned to stay "safe" when you are going out. We've all heard them: stay with your friends. Don't leave your drink unattended. Watch the way you dress. These so-called rules reinforce one message: that women can "protect" themselves from being raped. Thus, if a woman gets raped, it must be because she failed to protect herself adequately.

But who is actually responsible for rape? Rapists.

I am tired of hearing people say it is all or at least "a little bit" of the victim's fault - she shouldn't have been at that party, she shouldn't have been drinking, she shouldn't have been dressed a certain way, she shouldn't have agreed to go home with those two guys. None of that is an excuse for the rapists' decision to take advantage of this girl.

I will never forget what my sociology professor told us: "You cannot get raped until someone rapes you." You can be falling down drunk, you can be naked, you can be in a bad part of town: none of that gets you raped. Rape only occurs when a rapist makes a decision to engage in sexual activity without consent. You can get raped wearing any type of clothing, in any location, and in fact women are mostly likely to get assaulted by someone they know, not a stranger. Individuals who are drunk cannot give their consent.

I am not telling anyone to not take care of themselves. I am not saying that making risky decisions is a good idea. I am not telling anyone to not be as safe as possible. I am saying that nothing can excuse rape. It is illegal, and victim-blaming only misses the true root of the problem. I am only saying this - the only "rule" about preventing sexual assault, the only way it will ever stop, is teaching don't rape.

Reaction to State of the Union

The President's state of the union address is a tradition every year to evaluate the progress that has been made as well as address issues that have yet to be handled. Regardless of a president's political party, it always sets them up for intense scrutiny from opponents as well as a message for their party to rally around. Regular citizens who either support or dislike the president and his policies tune in to hear how the country overall is faring and what they should look for in the future.

On my part, I was impressed with Obama's stance on education. I think that raising the compulsory education age law to 18 is a practice that can only benefit students and society overall. Forcing students to stay in school longer shows that there is no benefit in slacking; raising expectations often leads to raised results in the classroom. Additionally, his focus on teachers was also a good message, at a time when many are convinced that the education system itself is largely broken, and many recently graduated Masters students hoping to teach cannot find jobs anywhere at the moment. Jobs are certainly almost always an important topic in state of the union speeches - people want to hear that job opportunities still exist. When they don't, it is often a major backlash on the president's administration as well as his party as a whole.

Going along with jobs, finance as a whole and particularly taxes also never fail to be the focus of this speech. This is probably especially important this year, with the Republican candidates coming under fire for their questionable tax rates. Obama mentioned that 98 percent of American families make less than $250,ooo dollars a year; that is a powerful percentage. It seems that if one is of the opinion of "for the greater good," tax cuts for the middle class are something that can make a huge difference. However, if it was as easy as it seems, then why has it still failed to become a reality?

What I found lacking in Obama's speech was mention of the LGBTQ community and the progress made thus far in equality. With the upcoming election approaching quickly, I think this might have given Obama a decisive edge with some voters, as it is an issue that has polarized the two parties since the last election.

Sh*t people say to feminists

A few weeks ago, a video went viral called "Shit girls say," which resulted in a lot of spin-offs of the same idea. It ended up turned into "Shit ____ say to ____ ," the most popular of which was "Shit white girls say to black girls." A lot of these are really well done - they point out offensive things said to minority groups all the time that many do not even realize are offensive.

The word "feminist" for some reason tends to create surprisingly strong responses. If I tell people "Oh, I'm a feminist," a lot of people basically judge me even if I haven't said anything else, or they don't even know me. The responses in this video are actually so incredibly common, I have heard almost all of them. Feminists probably aren't what you think - I encourage people to find out things for themselves and look past common misconceptions!

Other Blogs I Enjoy

Some of my favorite blogs that I think address a lot of important issues are:

www.iamateenagefeminist.tumblr.com:
The title is pretty self-explanatory. This blog is run by a very well-spoken feminist who address issues such as gender equality, sexuality, rape culture, abortion, affirmative action, oppressive language, and cultural appropriateion.

www.reasonstobealive.tumblr.com
Also pretty self-explanatory; this blog has helped me a lot since I suffer from depression. It lists a lot of little things that are taken for granted in daily life.

www.letterstoscarlett.tumblr.com
I love the idea of this blog. It was started by two parents for their younger daughter and chronicles their day to day life. Each day has a new picture and description about something in particular that day, for Scarlett to read when she gets older, so she can see how she grew up.

For me, simplicity in a blog is what I like best. I don't like clutter in a format, and anythin that has a lot of tags and allows you to search easily makes it a lot easier to find what you are looking for. As you can see, Tumblr is my first choice for a lot of blogs and part of this is because reader participation is so easy. Any can respond to what's posted by "reblogging" a post onto their own blog and adding commentary. I tend to follow blogs with a more specific purpose, or at least a bigger theme, such as the one I've listed, because I think it's easier to understand the author's opinions.

For my own blog, I'm not sure what direction I'll be going in, but I do like to talk about feminist issues - which are issues that affect everyone, regardless of gender. That being said, I usually have more things to say about issues like sexism, sexuality, and gender. I also am Catholic, so I sometimes surprise people with the opinions I have on certain issues. Mostly I would just like my blog to cause whoever reads it to think a little bit, and maybe start to question why exactly some things that many never notice appear the way they do in society.

Reaction to "Lions for Lambs"

Though the war in Iraq has officially concluded with the last troops having returned home last month, what happened during the war and its present aftermath remains controversial, to say the least. The movie "Lions for Lambs" produced in 2007 highlights the many pitfalls throughout the war's duration and the harsh criticism it brought upon the American government, leaving many to question what in fact "democracy" truly means. The movie follows three different but interconnected storylines, and it is evident that each character has formed their own opinions on the righteousness of the war and the leadership in America, and as with many Americans still today, those beliefs are often passionate and personal when questioned.

The character that I related too most, and saw a reflection of many of my peers in, was the gifted student left disillusioned by the current state of affairs. Having literally grown up with this war and the threat of terrorism, those children who are now in college have seen so many failed efforts to "beat" the terrorists. But what would really have defined winning? The senator defined it as eradicating the Taliban. For me, I think that hiding behind the image of the dictatorial Taliban became a huge problem in losing popular support at home for the war. Are the Iraqis better off without such a ruler? I definitely think so. But the war failed to address the wide-scope of what a "terrorist" is and essentially never got to the root of the problem. Which is why pulling out was seen as victory enough by the troops lucky enough to leave and come home.

The most problem I had with a character was the senior reporter Janine. She asked well-thought out and well-worded questions, questioned the logic of the senator, and voiced her displeasure and her professional opinion in how she wanted to write the story, which would have made her boss look undeniably unfavorable. However, her boss shoots her down without even attempting to listen to her justifications. Her response is written off as "women's intuition" and her emotions, though valid, are scoffed at, even though she is clearly an experienced reporter. It is clearly a sexist portrayal in that it gives the message that women cannot possibly know or understand a problem better than men - and if she disagrees with them, she is automatically written off as overly-emotional and unaware of "how the world works."

The movie did make me question my own sense of purpose in my life, as I do believe the professor did ask some really intriguing questions about his student's gifts and what he planned to do with them. I could not help but think of all the times in our core classes at Sacred Heart we have attempted to answer the question "What does it mean to live a life of meaning and purpose?" What role does patriotism play in that, and how responsible are we for our country's actions? Though it did raise some profound questions, it did not really stand out to me from any other criticisms of the war through the media, of which there remains an abundance.