Week Two-Second

Last weeks discussion has brought up a few different things for me; the concept of agency and discourse mainly caught my attention.
So agency is a way of thinking about power, and having the ability or option to choose and act for yourself? I think, and obviously gender plays a huge part in that. With that we talked about careers and the discussion on maternity leave, and the lack thereof in America really gets me. I think its absolutely ridiculous that women are forced to chose between kids and a career and our workplace condones this forced choice by the constraints on maternity leave and the negative consequences many women face when having children. Many people have the notion that America is the most advanced nation but compared to the Nordic and other European countries we are still way behind on our views on the private/public sector. I think its really pathetic actually that people can deem being a mother or housewife to be any less demanding, useful, difficult, stressful and equally rewarding as a full-time white collar career. Anyone who has ever even babsysat recognizes how difficult it is to raise a child, let alone many, and to still have a career on top of that? Award-worthy. Yet women do it all the time without recognition and all the additional setbacks with regards to less pay, glass ceiling, all that.
In regards to discourse and the narratives we tell about ourselves, I think language is such an interesting concept that I never even really consider. Simply the words that we use to describe everyday common practices are so gendered that it becomes ingrained and hard to even realize until you sit down and really pick it apart. The feminist article made a good point that the worst insult most of the time is feminine related. I dont really know much about the whole language concept, but i think its a really interesting topic that I want to look into more.

Week Two

With regards to the reading, "You're a hardcore feminist, I swear", I had some mixed feelings. On one hand I completely agree with her that being a feminist doesnt automatically mean you adhere to the list of "antis" that she provided, and can be liberating in the sense that you don't have to feel pressured to be the girls on the magazine. Actually I guess I completely agree with what said, it just sort of rubbed me the wrong way. I think growing up in an all-girls household with very strong-minded women I've kind of been born into being a feminist without really realizing it. It was always made very clear to me that my only real focus was to find something in life that allowed me to be completely independent and never ever totally reliant on a man. Having this drilled into my head, I never even really considered some of the roadblocks or glass ceilings that I might encounter because I am a girl. I've always been taught that my success was directly related to my amount, or lack thereof, of effort. I guess the only thing that I really didn't like was how she seemed to be saying 'DUHHH' the whole time-yes it definitely drove her point home, I guess for me it just had more of a condescending rather than empowering feel to it. However regardless of my personal opinion, I realize that most girls, especially internationally, have not grown up in the same borderline man-hating environment that I have and therefore this reading could hit home in a very different way. Overall I obviously agree that gender equality is something that must be acheieved, and yes there has been significant progress but the process should still be in motion.

Week One

So after reading Chapter 6 of Chris Barker's book and then having the discussion in class on Thursday, there's a few things I noticed and thought were interesting. First of all the concept of identity I think is thoroughly fascinating and often overlooked not only in the field of conflict but in everyday life. I agree with Barker in that most times we generalize identity to be some 'universal and timeless core of the self which we all possess'. Inherent in that statement is the notion that identity is unchanging and although everyone has their own unique 'identity', it remains the same throughout their life. This train of thought he called 'essentialism'. I agree with what he called 'antiessentialism' which argues that identity is not some 'constant to be realized' but something that is actively constructed and subsequently changed with every decision and action that we take. In relation to our discussion I thought it was interesting that everyone's 'societal ideal woman' was almost exactly the same. Granted there were some discrepancies and some pushed the envelope farther than others but overall they all hinted at the same blonde bombshell with limited brainpower. I think that furthers the notion that we as a society glob identity into one solid group with rigid and unchanging characteristics. However our group also talked about the fact that there are different 'ideal women', and each of us had very different ideas about what characteristics made a woman 'ideal'. Talking in groups it was good to see that each of us had our own unique concepts of identity and 'idealness' but in general i think the activity did a good job of bringing to light how our society generalizes and solidifies the concept of identity and 'idealness'.