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.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
3: Reforming Education
Its purpose was to reform society using reason and logic
through science, Immanuel Kant called it, “mankind’s final coming of age, the emancipation
of the human consciousness from an immature state of ignorance and error.” The
Age of Enlightenment was a time of rising philosophy, understanding of nature
and science.
According to Matthew Taylor in his 21st Century Enlightenment,
we, as a society, are drifting away from this idea of an enlightenment period. We
must start living differently to think differently. Taylor believes that a
reform is necessary to get to an understanding of who we are, who we need to be
and who we might aspire to be, 21st century enlightenment. The video explains
that education needs to be updated and adapted to a new way of thinking. He
thinks that education being our most valuable resource is now a cliché, which
Sir Ken Robinson touches on in Changing Education Paradigms. Robinson states
that the current system of education was designed by a different age, so it can’t
apply fully to this day and age of learners. He believes that we need to go in the opposite
direction.
Right now education is trying to meet future needs for today’s
youth by doing what they did in the past. This system is alienating millions of
children, Robinson goes on to explain. Students are put through a factory line
to get through school, separating students strictly by age, not ability or
interests like he believes they should be. If organized by what students are
interested in and enjoy then their ability to learn rises. Also, he states that
we need to get back to “divergent thinking” or get back to seeing lots of
possible answers to a question. “We have to think differently about human
capacity, great learning happens in groups, which leads to growth.”
I have to agree most with what Sir Robinson talks about in
his video. Our education system is very, very flawed. Many kids are becoming
more and more alienated by the strict regime of today’s way of schooling kids
and young adults. He talks about children being scolded for being distracted by
the most stimulating period in history from the, what he calls, boring stuff. I
think for education to be fun, exciting and effective. The people in charge
need to be open with the fact that not everyone is interested in the same
things. We need a system that takes into consideration the many different ways
people learn and the many different things one could be interested in and good
at.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
#2: Susceptible Minds?
Coercion is something that is imposed on us, making us think
that whoever is doing the coercing is looking out for our best interest, whether
it be our parents, bosses, or authorities. Douglas Rushkoff explains in “Coercion: Why We
Listen to What ‘They’ Say” that we have people trying to influence what we do,
buy and believe everywhere.
One point he does make is that most of us can tell when we
are being influenced. We get this feeling of paranoia that we aren’t making the
decision on our own free will and we can then block out the point the coercer
is trying to make. However, as it becomes easier to recognize the techniques of
coercion, new techniques are being developed. “Every effort we make to regain
authority over our actions is met by an even greater effort to usurp it,”
Rushkoff states.
But I am not totally convinced that the advertisers and
publicity people have my generation completely influenced to what they want us
to do, buy or believe. We were raised in the age where we have ads and people
trying to tell us what we need to do constantly coming our way. Our minds
trained us to ignore most of what we come into contact with when it comes to
coercion.
Don’t get me wrong though, Rushkoff did a very good job of
using the techniques that he was describing throughout the text seemingly
unnoticed to get his point across to the reader. He mixed humor in with the terrifying
“they” to ease our thoughts just enough to send us into his next rant. He gave
us rhetorical questions to make us feel like we were actually participating and
using our own free will to agree with what he was saying. Then he made it
personal. He asked us to think about the authorities in our own life so we
could identify with the threats he was feeling.
I then understood what his point of the whole piece was. It was
to realize that once you put yourself in the situation the authority is
describing, that is when you are most susceptible of coercion.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
#1: Evolutionary Writing
"Summary: Theory for Beginners" is a piece written to explain the importance that writers and artists have on the world. Words and stories play an important part in the evolving and creating of someone's views and standpoints on different subjects. The author, Michael Ryan, goes through 15 different ways criticism is involved in our world and everyday thinking.
The insights that had the biggest affect on me were the first and fifteenth, which happen to coincide. The general idea portrayed in both is cultural adaptation. In the writing Ryan explains that much of what we know as culture has been shaped by the stories that we, as humans, tell each other. He uses what many know as the golden rule to explain this. Those stories influence our lives and can even change what we believe and how we act. Cultural norms are created by our stories and change and adapt to the need of the majority. He goes on to explain that what stories do is help us understand how life works and organize that understanding into different categories. Who tells the stories has a huge influence on what is told and how the culture will be shaped. Stories told and words used are such a powerful influence on what people believe and how they act, criticism is necessary to change norms and keep the evolution of culture moving forward.
Ryan also makes a good point when describing how many view the world, culture and history as very one dimensional, most don't look at all of the of the events or actions that lead to the end result. For example he uses the word "terrorism" throughout the piece as a word that people us to sum up and simplify a very complex thing.
However, Ryan's verbal bash on capitalism rubbed me the wrong way. Contemporary Theory views capitalism as something that is only good for the greedy, money- hungry owning class. But what he fails to mention is all the benefits capitalism actually gives us. Sure, capitalism is based mostly on greed, but that greed between the human race creates competition, leading to what the whole piece seemed to be about, evolution and adaption. The sometimes healthy, sometimes not so healthy, competition helps advance society and changes society. Also, capitalism isn't a monarchy, you aren't always born on top, and everyone has a chance of being a part of the owning class. To be on top, you have to work to be there.
Criticism helps evolve the relationships we have among ourselves and with our world and Ryan's work helped me understand that more fully with his 15 insights to Contemporary Theory. It showed me the effects that writers and story tellers actually have on the word and it's people.
The insights that had the biggest affect on me were the first and fifteenth, which happen to coincide. The general idea portrayed in both is cultural adaptation. In the writing Ryan explains that much of what we know as culture has been shaped by the stories that we, as humans, tell each other. He uses what many know as the golden rule to explain this. Those stories influence our lives and can even change what we believe and how we act. Cultural norms are created by our stories and change and adapt to the need of the majority. He goes on to explain that what stories do is help us understand how life works and organize that understanding into different categories. Who tells the stories has a huge influence on what is told and how the culture will be shaped. Stories told and words used are such a powerful influence on what people believe and how they act, criticism is necessary to change norms and keep the evolution of culture moving forward.
Ryan also makes a good point when describing how many view the world, culture and history as very one dimensional, most don't look at all of the of the events or actions that lead to the end result. For example he uses the word "terrorism" throughout the piece as a word that people us to sum up and simplify a very complex thing.
However, Ryan's verbal bash on capitalism rubbed me the wrong way. Contemporary Theory views capitalism as something that is only good for the greedy, money- hungry owning class. But what he fails to mention is all the benefits capitalism actually gives us. Sure, capitalism is based mostly on greed, but that greed between the human race creates competition, leading to what the whole piece seemed to be about, evolution and adaption. The sometimes healthy, sometimes not so healthy, competition helps advance society and changes society. Also, capitalism isn't a monarchy, you aren't always born on top, and everyone has a chance of being a part of the owning class. To be on top, you have to work to be there.
Criticism helps evolve the relationships we have among ourselves and with our world and Ryan's work helped me understand that more fully with his 15 insights to Contemporary Theory. It showed me the effects that writers and story tellers actually have on the word and it's people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)