Blatt, Rachel. Wombs For Rent? Thesis. Brown University, 2009. Brown University. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <http://www.brown.edu/Faculty/COSTS/documents/BlattFinal_Thesis.pdf>.
Frame, T. R. Children on Demand: The Ethics of Defying Nature. Coogee, N.S.W.: UNSW, 2008. 11 Sept. 2012.
Markens, Susan. Surrogate Motherhood and the Politics of Reproduction. Berkeley: University of California, 2007. 11 Sept. 2012.
Mohapatra, Seema. "Achieving Reproductive JusticeIn the International Surrogacy Market." Social Science Research Network. 18 Aug. 2011. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1911718>.
Smith Rotabi, Karen, and Nicole F. Bromfield. "Will Global Surrogacy Be Regulated?" RH Reality Check. 07 July 2010. Web. 27 Sept. 2012. <http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/07/07/will-global-surrogacy-regulated>.
Twine, France Winddance. Outsourcing the Womb: Race, Class, and Gestational Surrogacy in a Global Market. New York, NY: Routledge, 2011. Print.
Monday, September 17, 2012
6: Truth Behind an Ad
When I first saw the ads developed by Monsanto, I thought that they were PSA's, but after looking into the American Farmer I quickly realized it was all an effort to disguise the leading biotechnology company's true motive; money.
Monsanto is probably best known for their production of Agent Orange and that didn't have the best outcome. Over the years they have been doing everything in their power to attract positive attention. In 2001 it looked like they had, by being the first to genetically alter a plant cell and winning the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. With that territory, came their business model. Creating patents on everything that had the slightest connection to the plant breeding society. These patents allow Monsanto to continuously reap the benefits of the companies research.
The Patents can be seen in almost every aspect of farm life. Monsanto claims to fully support small town farmers, but in reality they are going behind the scenes and suing them into bankruptcy for using Monsanto's products without buying the rights to that product. In the case of Monsanto VS Schmeiser, Monsanto claimed that it didn't matter if whether or not Schmeiser knew he was using their product in his field, he had to pay them $15 per acre for using the product.
Countless documentaries and research articles have been made against Monsanto and the truth in the company's motives. The ads Monsanto has put out of The American Farmer are merely an act to regain a positive image. As the public, it is our job to look at these ads and actually research the companies who put them out there before siding one way or the other. If a nuclear weapons plant created a "Peace Campaign" against war, that would raise question right?
Monsanto is probably best known for their production of Agent Orange and that didn't have the best outcome. Over the years they have been doing everything in their power to attract positive attention. In 2001 it looked like they had, by being the first to genetically alter a plant cell and winning the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. With that territory, came their business model. Creating patents on everything that had the slightest connection to the plant breeding society. These patents allow Monsanto to continuously reap the benefits of the companies research.
The Patents can be seen in almost every aspect of farm life. Monsanto claims to fully support small town farmers, but in reality they are going behind the scenes and suing them into bankruptcy for using Monsanto's products without buying the rights to that product. In the case of Monsanto VS Schmeiser, Monsanto claimed that it didn't matter if whether or not Schmeiser knew he was using their product in his field, he had to pay them $15 per acre for using the product.
Countless documentaries and research articles have been made against Monsanto and the truth in the company's motives. The ads Monsanto has put out of The American Farmer are merely an act to regain a positive image. As the public, it is our job to look at these ads and actually research the companies who put them out there before siding one way or the other. If a nuclear weapons plant created a "Peace Campaign" against war, that would raise question right?
Monday, September 10, 2012
5: Beware of your Sexuality
SLUT: a promiscuous woman; especially : prostitute
That is the definition given by the online Merriam- WebsterDictionary. Not really what most women would want to be referred to, right? Well, more and more women are becoming used to that word. SlutWalks, however, around the country and world are aiming to stand against the word and it's most common usage. SlutWalks are trying to "reclaim' the word slut, to disarm it's derogatory nature and to create a unity within the men and women who have been disrespected by the word. It's working to change the worldview of what the word "slut" most commonly represents.
The word is often used coinciding with rape. I don't agree with the view that women who dress provocatively or sleep around makes the rape their own fault. No, like what Shaista Aziz says in her interview for The Gaurdian, it's not what one wears that attracts a rapist, but the need for control of a situation that attracts the rapist.
Don't get me wrong though, we as women and even as men need to be aware of the clothes we wear and what kind of subliminal message that sends to others. Even if we don't mean to send a specific message, the things we wear and how we wear them can trigger things in other people. Dressing how you want is totally your control, but you have to remember that you make be provoking something that you cannot control.
As a woman, I do take into account how what I wear will make others feel about me. All girls do, I think. But when it boils down to it, I am ultimately putting on what I think I look best in for that occasion, Sometimes, that might give others around me the wrong impression, but clothing is not what defines someone, its merely just a piece in the puzzle.
I guess the moral of the story is: Dress how you want; Be aware of the affect you have on other people. Judgement is always going to be passed, the best we as humans can do is work hard on ourself to change that. How we feel and how the world views certain people can only be changed by changing yourself first.
That is the definition given by the online Merriam- WebsterDictionary. Not really what most women would want to be referred to, right? Well, more and more women are becoming used to that word. SlutWalks, however, around the country and world are aiming to stand against the word and it's most common usage. SlutWalks are trying to "reclaim' the word slut, to disarm it's derogatory nature and to create a unity within the men and women who have been disrespected by the word. It's working to change the worldview of what the word "slut" most commonly represents.
The word is often used coinciding with rape. I don't agree with the view that women who dress provocatively or sleep around makes the rape their own fault. No, like what Shaista Aziz says in her interview for The Gaurdian, it's not what one wears that attracts a rapist, but the need for control of a situation that attracts the rapist.
Don't get me wrong though, we as women and even as men need to be aware of the clothes we wear and what kind of subliminal message that sends to others. Even if we don't mean to send a specific message, the things we wear and how we wear them can trigger things in other people. Dressing how you want is totally your control, but you have to remember that you make be provoking something that you cannot control.
As a woman, I do take into account how what I wear will make others feel about me. All girls do, I think. But when it boils down to it, I am ultimately putting on what I think I look best in for that occasion, Sometimes, that might give others around me the wrong impression, but clothing is not what defines someone, its merely just a piece in the puzzle.
I guess the moral of the story is: Dress how you want; Be aware of the affect you have on other people. Judgement is always going to be passed, the best we as humans can do is work hard on ourself to change that. How we feel and how the world views certain people can only be changed by changing yourself first.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
4: Shelby-ism
When it comes to political ideals and thinking, I’m not one
who normally jumps in and gives my piece. I’m actually pretty quiet and relaxed
about most things people raise hell about. Sure, I have my own opinion about
things, but I don’t think it’s anything to get excited about. I try not to put
myself in a specific subgroup like “Republican” or “Democrat” because most of
the time I don’t fully agree with any party.
When I took the test, it put me in a group that most would
cringe at if they saw it. I was put in the Liberal- Authoritarian group, or
Communism. But I realized that it might not be such a bad thing. Communism puts
the community’s needs first, which is something that I’ve done my whole life.
Being the oldest in a large family practically trains you to think of the group
before yourself. You lose all individualism with that. I don’t however see
myself as being all in when it comes to the place I was put. Communally rather
than individually isn’t always how it should be. Some people’s needs outweigh
the needs of everyone else and need to be looked out specifically instead of
generally.
So, by taking the test, looking at the readings, and
thinking about where I thought I stood, I realized that I’m more of a melting
pot of sorts. I take in what every one is saying and trying to get others to
believe and piece it together to make my own. Not one party or group is 100%
right on any subject, so putting yourself in with them fully is a HUGE
commitment, almost bigger than marriage. Where you set yourself can define you
for the rest of your life. I don’t think I’m interested or ready to make that
kind of commitment when it comes to what I believe for the rest of my life. So,
for right now, I guess I’m in my own one-man philosophy, Shelby-ism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)