Journal Entry #9
Oklahoma Senate believes that life begins at the moment of conception. Because of that thought, an anti-abortion statement was accepted today, after ONLY TWO HOURS of discussion.
When it comes to debates and abortion, I’m pretty sure there is a lot more to say than two hours worth of discussion. The white, rich men of Oklahoma could have talked about all of the women who will now either have to travel to find a safe, legal place for abortions OR unwillingly keep their babies. Oklahoma could have considered the many factors that are built into the option of abortion such as poverty stricken women who cannot financially afford to keep their babies to term, or the fact that many soon-to-be-mothers are too YOUNG and too emotionally UNSTABLE to properly and healthily bring a baby into the world.
The Personhood Act is “an act against unborn children for men to waste sperm.” This statement confuses me because it does not discuss the fact that the Senate plans to PROBE INTO WOMEN’S PRIVATE LIVES and make choices for them. If a woman wants to choose to better her life, she should have every right to make that choice, sans Oklahoma’s ridiculous and outrageous requests and “pro life” prerogatives.
Journal Entry #8:
In Chapter 5 of our class’s text, we discussed the differences between controlling our bodies with the freedom of self-expression and controlling our bodies based on the culture’s social injustices. I would like to believe that my choice to get a nose piercing or sketching out an idea for a new tattoo is fully my choice to alter my body in what I see as a “positive” change. However, it is based on a commodified culture. Piercings, tattoos, and wacky hair colors, on a surface value, are a cry to be a “new” person or break from a social norm, but these changes are expensive and culture probes us to try these things. Many of my friends pierced their noses before I made the choice to do so but at that time, it was still seen as a popular and very expensive choice. ($60!)
Journal Entry #6
Jan Hoffman wrote this piece in 2009 for NY Times, but today in my Contemporary Social Issues class, we discussed the reasons why today’s generation incorporates acceptable opinions vs. previous generations (i.e. schoolboard administration / teachers / faculty members) who disagree with the freedom to dress.
Schools should only interfere in apparel harms or could threaten another student or faculty member. Hoffman writes, “a dress code rule that a boy’s hair may not be ‘longer tan the bottom of a regular shirt collar.’” This idea contributes to the world’s heterosexual norm everyone should pay attention to. Our Women’s Studies book includes Coredlia Fine’s “Unraveling Hardwiring” piece which talks about the nature vs. nurture debate. Previous generations often see cross-dressing or drag apparel as a corrupt environment and that the people who choose to do so are going against the “natural” or “normal” ways to dress.