Women's Rights in 2013 (As seen by Mia Levy)

Women gained a lot of rights for their gender during the Civil rights movement. They altered the way America was run from redesigning the constitution to allow women the right to vote to persuading the military to allow women to join them. Yet after those few rights were won over the boycotting and petitions have slowed down. Which makes sense, women are allowed to do almost anything they aspire but there are still an alarming amount of things underground that our society simply overlooks.

If you have the time and interest please spend the next three minutes and forty seconds of your life watching this video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NswJ4kO9uHc

This gender debate is considered a huge quagmire which is understandable. If we choose to completely eradicate gender stereotypes then we get rid of not only the bad but the good too. Men should be allowed to hit women for example even though the stigma is that this is forbidden because of the evident strength difference. This strength difference is something controlled by genetics, there is nothing we can do to make that equal. Take for example how women are not allowed to fight in the armed forces and the reason for this is that they simply do not have the strength or stamina that a man does, combined with the problems sexual tension could cause during attacks (Its instinct for a man to protect a women before another man). There’s a very thin line between getting rid of gender roles and getting rid of the difference between the x and y chromosome.  We can’t forcefully alter one of those, but there are a lot of stigmas we can. 

Why haven’t we ever had a women president? Just think about that for a little. Because no women has run before that possesses the capabilities? Or because the comfort of a man in an authority position is what America gravitates too? As seen in the video I do think it boils down to the way the media portrays them, for example in recent years using sex to advertise has burgeoned in America.

Take for example this song:
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/09/17/from-the-mouths-of-rapists-the-lyrics-of-robin-thickes-blurred-lines-and-real-life-rape/
or this one:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/the-hills/girls-education-campaigner-calls-for-ban-on-sexualised-bruno-mars-song-8216gorilla8217/story-fngr8i1f-1226717666010
or the criticism said to this newscaster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUOpqd0rQSo

Yes these references we all know are considered morally wrong, but the upsetting thing is not enough people take physical action. Why haven’t people stopped going to Jack in the Box or buying AXE body spray as a way of telling them their commercials are offensive? Why doesn’t society stop listening to artists such as Bruno Mars or Robin Thicke as a way of telling them their work is disrespectful? 

I believe the stigmas starts at young age where we subconsciously ingrain these roles into our children. The princess needs to be rescued, a man needs to provide. “You’re a man, stop crying.” “You’re a lady, cross your legs” and as a child gets older it only becomes worse. A man should pay for his date, a women should wear makeup to make her face flawless to attract a man.
Take a look at this article for more information:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/how-to-talk-to-little-gir_b_882510.html
or take a look as to why girls are undervalued:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michaela-haas/oh-boy-the-antigirl-bias-_b_884399.html

Yet it’s not just men who undervalue women, but we do as well. Take for example the certain craze adolescent girls partake in, which they stalk male celebrities such as Justin Bieber or One Direction. There are plenty of instances where young girls say extremely sexual things towards these men, where the spend hours trying to get one of these boys to follow them on twitter. They ignore the dignity and respect they’re entitled to. You do not need a man to feel whole. The first step in earning respect from others is to respect yourself

We have the power, now let’s just make the change."

To find more articles like this one please checkout:
http://inlocopolitico.wordpress.com/

Fight or Flight

             Plato's Allegory of the Cave and Sartre's No Exit both deal with major character flaws in the human race that have transcended from generation to generation. Both author's use humans placed in unsatisfactory situations. One being stuck in a cave for eternity and the other stuck in a hotel room. The interesting thing about these two stories are the characters themselves. When placed in their unsuitable enviorment a denizen from the cave reacts much differently then Garcin in the hotel room, the two different outlooks further along their specific author's theme, tone, and philosophy.
               Take for example a slave witnesses one of his fellow slaves defy their metaphysical situation and venture out of the cave. Now this is unheard of, the slave will retreat into a state of shock. The instant reaction will be to flee to the humans placed next to them. Even if the freed slave is happy the other slaves have such an addiction to codependency that they lack the skill set to leave the comfortable cave. It all leads back to the human tendency to fear change. This ultimately proves another point Plato is saying through his allegory, that we do not know the reality of the world we live in until we have seen others. So does this prove the point that maybe our reality is completely different then the man next to us is? This also settles the continuous tone of uncertainty carried out by all the slaves. 
                Now Garcin would take a much different approach. Watching a counterpart exit the "hell" he is placed into would almost anger him. He would take the 'fight' approach and demand to know why he would not be allowed to leave as well after his certain try to follow. This is the difference between Sartre and Plato. Sartre's characters describe a completely different flaw, that their independency does not provide them with the skills to live comfortably with others. Even to the point where they are so arrogant that being forced to spend 24 hours a day with themselves almost makes things unbearable, their so disgusted with the human race that they are unable to be around it. This provides evidence to the point that, "Hell is other people."
This also adds onto the vainglorious tone carried throughout the entire story.
               When analyzed it seems as though Plato and Sartre told completely different stories that showcased different flaws in ourselves. Yet this by itself is another flaw we have. The ability to over think. Sartre and Plato told the same story, a story about a tragic human flaw. A flaw that makes us less of a person. Even though these flaws are different, does it really even matter?