How Social Media is Distorting Activism

          In Malcolm Gladwell's article Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted he talks about the new interpretations of activism on social media. Social media is "our greatest source of new ideas and information." We can connect to a good deal of people and spread messages quickly. Social media is a great method of spreading awareness for certain causes and movements. It can even be used to donate and benefit to these causes. However this advocacy is often mistook for activism.
          Activism is organized and strategical action in order to reach a goal. The civil-rights movement was "high risk" and "strategic" activism. People were risking their lives to protest against segregation. The boycotts and sit-ins that they were participating in had to follow a specific script. If they say the wrong thing An important element of activism is its organization. Their must be a hierarchy or some form of leadership. This is extremely important because "How do you make difficult choices about tactics or strategy or philosophical direction when everyone has an equal say?"
           Gladwell does an excellent job using this his counter argument that social media is a good network to connect people and allow them to share ideas. These networks cannot be considered activism but they are not necessarily hurting the cause. Networks are often unorganized. Sometimes they can spread false information and they lack leadership. Without leadership they will get off task and the movement can be misunderstood. Gladwell makes the important point with the story of the man who lost his Sidekick. The social media networks can make an impact but it is not often for a very important cause.
          A movement that calls for big changes in society needs action. This action cannot be accomplished through social media. Action has to be going out and doing something. A small action such as sitting at a lunch counter has the potential to have a larger impact than 140 characters.

Beating Out Your Talents

While flipping through the New Yorker magazines in class on Friday this cartoon caught my eye.

At first I thought it would be a corny joke of some sort but really this cartoon had a pretty deep and real meaning. Victoria Roberts depicts a piñata at a therapy session and it says, "What is the point of being filled with gifts if they can only be beaten out of you?" I found this really profound because it is so true. Once people realize you are good at something they will always want you to do that thing. Some people do not realize that being good or talented at something does not mean that you are good at it. For example if someone is exceptionally good at soccer as a child they will be expected to continue playing throughout high school and college so they can get scholarships and awards because they are good. But if the person hates what they are doing then being pressured to continue playing can be very unhealthy. Society pushes people to find something they are good at and to continue doing that. But it is really more important to find something you love whether or not you like it and to do that. You should be happy doing whatever you do.

Feminism

In Roxanne Gay's essay Bad Feminist she talks about how she feels as though she is not a good feminist. Feminism by definition is the political, social, and economical equality of the genders.  It is called feminism because women are the ones being suppressed. Many people say they are not feminists but they believe in the equality of the genders. They do not realize that they are the exact same thing. People do not want to admit that they are feminists because a feminist has become a stereotypical type of women: angry, independent, and man-hating. Gay states that "essential feminism suggests anger, humorlessness, militancy, unwavering principle, and a prescribed set of rules for how to be a... proper, white heterosexual, feminist woman". Gay tells that she feels she is a bad feminist because she likes pink, she likes to wear dresses, she does know about cars, she's likes jewelry and weddings, she wants to have a baby, and is willing to make compromises in her career and writing in order to have a family. These are not the things that define someone as a feminist. Being a feminist does not mean hating men. It does not mean being able to do the things that men typically do so that you do not have to depend on men. It does not mean rejecting things that stereotypical gender rolls consider feminine. It does not mean you cannot wear make up or dresses. A feminists can be a stay at home mom, a successful educated woman, any woman, any man, any person who believes in the equally of the genders. Anyone who believes that a women should not be payed less than a man. Anyone can be a feminist there aren't any rules.                                                          

Disney Princesses

Most fairy tails follow a typical storyline girl meets prince, something goes wrong, the problem gets resolved, and the girl and the prince end up together. In Deborah Ross's article Escape from Wonderland: Disney and the Female Imagination she argues that this these stories objectify women and focusing the on only the goal of marriage. However we have to look at this from the context of the time period. A medieval woman marrying someone of their own choice out of love instead of because the marriage was arranged, would have been a huge female accomplishment. Today a big female accomplishment would be a women becoming a lawyer, doctor, CEO, or even president but in those days this sort of thing was impossible. Although a young child cannot completely understand this context they can learn important lessons. Belle teaches them that looks are not every thing. Ariel teaches them not to give up something important for a guy. Tiana teaches them to work hard to reach their goal. I would love to see more fairy tales that do not follow the stereotypical story line like Princess and the Frog based in a more modern era or Sherk (yes I do realize this is not Disney) told from the male point of view with a more comical tone. I think some people are slightly over analyzing these movies. I'm not saying that everything in them is completely right but why can't we just sing the catchy songs and enjoy the movie.

Salem Witches

     On Saturday Gabby and I went to Salem. It was really fun going into all the little shops (except when the guy in a Jason mask scared Gabby). I bought a really cool wallet with little math formulas on it. But more importantly we learned about witches. They don't run around with pointy hats flying on broom sticks. Being a "witch" is actually a religion called Wicca. They believe in the power of the elements earth, air, fire, and water. Each direction north, south, east, and west represents one of the element. They believe in a god and goddess of the elements. One line they use in their rituals is "so mode it be." The word mode is old english for must so this line is similar to amen. They believe that anything bad you do will come back to you 3 times 3 times 3 (27) times worse. They use their dominant side to welcome things in so they would carry their wallet on their dominant side to bring wealth. Their non-dominant side is to give things out so you might carry something that makes you happy on your non-dominant side to give off happiness. The idea of voodoo dolls work the same way if you put money on the voodoo doll and carry it on the dominant side you are welcoming in wealth. They uses spices to make "potions" to bring in or get rid of certain things. They believe in that their ancestor influence them and can help them. They bring gifts to their ancestors of things that they enjoyed during their lives.  It is really interesting to learn what they really believe and how our society interprets it to be so negative and evil. They really just believe in the power of nature and their beliefs are not that different from other religions.

John Oliver on Standardized Testing

On Last Week Tonight with John Oliver he discussed the standardized testing that states require students to take. He argued against the testing because it did not improve students performance. He used comedy and informal language to persuade his viewers to agree with him. He gave performance rates and other statistics but he said them in a very informal and conversational manner. His uses of jokes and comedic language kept people engaged. If this information was presented formally people would get board and not pay attention to what he is saying. He is able to keep people entrained while informing them on such an important topic.
Standardized tests are not accurate portrayals of a students intelligence. Tests are regulated and standardize too strongly that it does not suit everyone. Every student learns different and even the most intelligent student may not perform well on a test.

In order to truly determine ones intelligence you have to test them in a fair way. One student may be a great test taker while another is better at writing essays. You cannot judge an elephant on its ability to climb a tree or a bird on its ability to swim. It is impossible for them to perform well in a skill they are not meant to perform. Standardized test taking is not accurate assessment of students because not every student can take a test. John Oliver informs his audience that the tests do not work and are more hurtful than beneficial to students and teachers.