Wow!!! I really liked the reading for tonight, mainly because I can totally relate to it. I love music and listen especially to hip hop and a little rap. Although a lot of songs are fun and innocent many send a derogatory message about women. And if we are ok with listening to it what does that say about us? This directed free write really calls attention to the women portrayed in these songs and pushes us to question why we deem this as “just lyrics”.



In the article “Louis Chude- Sokei charges the dismissals of “slackness” lyrics as either sexist or pornographic miss the point” (378). He justifies that through these lyrics women feel empowered by their sexuality and as a result by more records than men do. “Like Chude- Sokei, Carolyn Cooper argues that sexual topics in dance- hall lyrics provide an alternative to the denial of women’s sexuality in most popular music” (378). In other words these critics argue that the harsh and often ridiculous lyrics that we sometimes hear are in fact better than other music because we are being introduced to women’s sexuality. This according to them is not degrading or negative but makes women feel as if they have some sort of control with their sexuality.



I will be the first to admit that I too listen to music that talks about women either by calling them names or putting them down. Although I don’t agree with it I still listen to the song and not just one time. But when it comes down to right and wrong, derogatory lyrics are degrading to women and shouldn’t be so widely accepted. If a man referred to a woman as slut or a whore in person he would be in the wrong but if he sings it we all dance around. There is something very sad about that. These lyrics don’t empower women, they teach them to be way too open about their sexuality.

The Blow Out

It was Valentine’s Day weekend and sadly enough I had no date and no plans to speak of. Feeling bad for myself I agreed to baby sit for my boss. As I headed to his house I felt my steering-wheel start to vibrate and pull hard to the right. I swerved and managed to come to an awkward stop at the side of the road. Shaken I got out of the car and searched for the problem. It took only a moment for me to discover that I had a flat tire. Irritated I called my dad to ask for help.



Answering on the first ring my dad said he would be there to help. He got off the phone and started to leave his office. As he headed towards my stranded car he heard a load whooshing sound. Startled he pulled to the side only to find that he too had a flat tire. Mixed with emotions of frustration from his situation and not being able to help me he threw open the trunk in search of a spare. He was flabbergasted when he realized that his spare too was flat. Thinking quickly he called my aunt who drives the same exact car hoping he could borrow her spare.



He pulled out his cell and began to dial her number. When she answered he hastily explained the predicament he and I were in and asked for her spare. To his surprise she started laughing hysterically. A little agitated with her response he demanded to know what was so funny. Through her laughter she told him that about an hour ago she had run over a piece of sheet metal and her tire had been shredded. Thus her spare tire was currently in use until she could get a new one. Luckily my mom was able to pick both me and my dad up and eventually everyone’s tires were fixed.

Week 8 Blog Reviews

Nicole- To start, I liked your comment about love being something guys felt as well as girls. I think the common misconception regarding love is that it’s a “girl thing”. I completely agree with your thinking on the bio-chemistry of love and laughed at your reflection on men’s bad behavior. Your blog really ties into my essay and it helped me to write more. I also liked your view on the homosexuality of men verses animals. I too think that if animals are instinctively attracted to same sex partners, who’s to say mankind isn’t. Great job!!!!

Deirdre- Your blogs are really informative but allow the reader to formulate an opinion. I also completely agree with your theory on beliefs being a major factor of relationships. I hadn’t even considered that aspect and I felt you provided an excellent point of view. Also, I liked how you ended your blog with the question pertaining to why we cannot accept homosexuality. It gives your reader the ability to keep thinking even after you have finished your discussion. Good work.

The Gay Side of Nature

For years people have tried to understand the concept of homosexuality. Once considered a disease or mental impairment, being gay has been evaluated and theorized with the hopes of one day being explained. Even though it is more common it is still viewed as being abnormal and most hold the belief that something is “wrong” with gay people. Sexuality is a diverse and bewildering thing yet we are so quick to accept the notion that men belong with women and vice versa. In his article, Jeffrey Kluger presents a scientist that attempts to explain the rationality behind homosexuality.




The cognitive scientist Bruce Bagemihl has written a book called Biological Exuberance, in which he researches the sexual complexity of the animal kingdom. He has ultimately discovered that animal species frequently obtain same sex partners. “What’s more, same- sex partners don’t meet merely for brief encounters, but may form long-term bonds”. Bagemihl’s findings bring to light what is deemed “natural” in regards to human behavior. He argues that if animals naturally bond with the same sex then humans would have an equal capability to acquire the same bond. He continues to explain that acts of nature can be used to explain human behavior. Bagemihl writes “Animal sexuality is more complex than we imagined. That diversity is part of human heritage”. If birds, giraffes and monkeys of the same sex are emotionally and physically drawn to each other it pushes the issue of homosexuality amongst humans. If homosexuality is not a “choice” as so many people believe we must accept the theory that it is a natural part of life just as opposite sex relationships.



Many scientists dispute Bruce Bagemihl’s claims with the explanation that sexuality is used differently amongst animals. Because species lack verbal communication they in turn use sexual behavior for “alliances and appeasing enemies, all things animals must do with members of both sexes”. Bagemihl responds to this by referring to the animals such as the graylag geese and bears that stay with their same sex partner for years and have been known to form family units with them. As it stands, homosexuality is still a conflicted issue. Many still believe that being gay has nothing to do with natural human nature but is a chosen lifestyle. But Bruce Bagemihl brings an enlightening view to homosexuality and allows us to open our minds to sexual behavior by watching animals in the wild.

Peer Group Blog Review

Peer Blog Reviews

Deirdre- I really liked reading your blogs. You offer significant information and make valid points throughout your reading. I like how you mentioned if women and men could come together as far as their differences are concerned they could have a better relationship. Your writing is simple and easy to follow. I look forward to reading your essay next week. Hopefully I will have more suggestions for you!!!!

Nicole- I liked that you had a lot to say this week. You have good technique and allow your reader to really understand where you are coming from. I really liked your ideas on monogamous relationships and found your insights on population surplus to be completely accurate. Good job Nicole!!! Can’t wait to read your essay!!!

Pg 310 #1

In her essay “Can’t Do without Love: What Science says about those tender feelings” Shannon Brownlee expresses the scientific notion that a man and women’s instinct to love “is written into our biochemistry”. Her article explains that humans were not only designed to procreate but to actually fall in love. And as such the loss of love can have devastating results to the human body. Brownlee notes that the emotion of love started with motherhood with a chemical called oxytocin. This same chemical, researchers believe “helps fuel romantic love as well”. Brownlee continues by saying that it is not unlikely that two people who enjoy being around each other will produce endorphins and when they are separated they will in effect miss that feeling.




Helen Fisher’s article “After All Maybe It’s…..Biology” follows in sync with the idea that love is based more on biology and chemistry than most people acknowledge. She takes a different angle by discussing the mating rituals of men and women. She compares the tactics used by human beings to that of similar mammals. She writes “Then there is the swagger with which young men often move to and fro. Male baboons on the grasslands of East Africa also swagger when they foresee a potential sexual encounter”.



As I read these articles I began to question my own reasoning behind the concepts of love, attraction and courtship. If these are the affects of biology, people’s beliefs regarding such things would be changed dramatically. For instance if two people were to meet, instead of looking for “chemistry” such as attraction, commonality or humor they would actually base their feelings off of a biological reaction. Love would not be considered an emotion but a chemical balance between you and another. This in turn could very well change our behaviors and cultural expectations. If people looked at love as a biological element they would seek different mating rituals or possibly not try to mate at all.

Marriage and Relationships

# 2
In his essay Robert Wright states “Lifelong monogamous devotion just isn’t natural, and the modern environment makes it harder than ever”. This statement ultimately sums up Wrights beliefs on marriage and monogamous relationships. He goes on to explain that a key component to divorce is the “modern obstacle to lasting monogamy”. Marriage is deemed a monogamous relationship between two people and when one of those people strays, the monogamy is gone thus leading to a failed marriage. As the divorce rate climbs to an all time high, often due to cheating spouses, we must ask ourselves why the idea of monogamy is being cast aside. And if Wright is correct in believing that marriage cannot survive in modern society should it be preserved or abolished?


As discussed in last week’s reading, marriage at one time was not so much a relationship, as a way of life. People married to produce children and in turn created a unit to survive. Today, marriage is a choice and is less demanded or expected. However as the need to marry has dwindled so has the expectation to actually remain married. Till- death- do- us- part has become mere talk and divorce is now the norm. Evolutionary psychologists have studied “the process of natural selection” and have theorized why humans are drawn to marriage and why they are deterred from it. As humans we are apt at one point in time to fall in love, the problem with human nature is that we are just as likely to fall out of love. Psychologists believe that this natural behavior is affected by our environment. “In particular, evolutionary psychology shows how inhospitable the current social environment is to monogamy”. Society has pushed the notion that cheating is acceptable and furthermore has encouraged the behavior with movies, billboards and the internet. Such things offer naked and provocative images of the opposite sex which in turn leads a partner’s mind to lose interest in their spouse, according to evolutionary psychologist Douglas Kenrick.



Robert Wright’s essay has provided prime examples of why marriage is so difficult and often doomed to fail. However, there is still something to be said for the purity and devotion between two people. The commitment of marriage is what separates us from animals. Instead of continuously jumping from mate to mate, we as humans maintain the capability to have a lasting relationship with one specific person. Marriage is a gift and should be preserved as one. Instead of dismissing marriage because of its potential problems, we should acknowledge the difficulties and attempt to overcome them. The mind is an incredible thing and often it cannot be explained why it acts a certain way, but if we are capable of loving then we are capable of working through our issues especially when they concern our marriages.

WEEK 6 BLOG REVIEWS

Deirdre Cienki – Deirdre, I really liked reading through your blogs for last week. You have great writing skills and your points are reflected in a smooth and non confusing way. I thought you made a great point when you talked about homosexuality today as well as forty years ago. I have often been undecided as to whether homosexuality is a chose or purely biological. In regards to your movie review, I have not actually seen “Wild Hogs” but I felt you did an excellent job of explaining the film. I also liked how you were able to compare your movie to that of “Thelma and Louise”. Great job!!!!!

Nicole Erickson- Nicole, your writing reminds me a lot of my own; it is short and to the point. You have great vocabulary and your blogs really reflect that you understand what you are reading. I liked how you mentioned the different advances in technology that are no doubt changing our lives. Moving on, I love “A League of Their Own”. It is one of my favorite movies and I thought you put an excellent spin on the “real wild women” theme. You are very creative and I can’t wait to read more. Keep up the good work!!!!

DIRECT ED FREEWRITE


As I read this week’s article I found myself nodding along and even laughing at how accurate the author was. In her essay Deborah Tannen attempts to explain the differences between the opposite sex and how it relates to communication. She suggest that because men and women place different values on communication, more often than not there is conflict within a marriage or relationship. Women view communication as a vital and intimate part of a relationship while men only talk when they have to. I have experienced this first hand as I am sure most women have.



In her writing, Tannen describes a man who is talking at a party to some friends while his wife sits silent by his side. The man dominated the conversation throughout the night and towards the end remarks that his wife is actually the more talkative of the two of them. This little story fits me and my boyfriend perfectly. As a business owner, my significant other has been given the gift of gab. In social situations he can talk for hours about nothing in particular but as soon as were alone he’s lost for words. I used to become so angry and hurt by his actions and my resentment would do nothing but cause conflict. I had to learn to accept that men are just different. They see communication as a mere tool only to be used when need. As a woman I see communication as way to relate to one another, just as Deborah describes.



Deborah Tannen’s article gave explanation to many of the conflicts that I along with many other women have encountered. Everything we say, feel, think or even portray with our body language is opposite from each other. Men were built to act a certain way as were women. I think if we as men and women could acknowledge how different we are and work around our differences there would be a lot less conflicts.

CAPITALISM AND GAY IDENTITY

I have to say “Capitalism and Gay Identity” has been my favorite reading. D’Emilio discusses a variety of points and argues a perspective I have never considered in regards to gay and lesbian identity. He explores the relationship between homosexuality and growing capitalism. According to D’Emilio the rise of capitalism caused the reliance on family to dwindle. With the ability to “sell our labor power for wages” work could be found outside the home. Men were no longer forced to tend their own land and therefore the need to marry and produce more children to work, did not exist. D’Emilio says that this demolishing of the family unit was an opening for gay identity. Once the idea of creating a family became a personal decision rather than a required one, sexuality could be something of pleasure and not just procreation. Thus different sexual identities appeared.



It is no secret that the typical American family has changed dramatically throughout the years. Some argue that this change can be attributed to the “revolutionary shift in our economic and social lives”. Let’s face it, computer technology, science, capitalism it all plays a factor in today’s standard family. As D’Emilio’s essay describes, the average family, back in the day, consisted of a mom, dad and seven to ten children. Every day was work and each member of the family had a vital role. They depended on each other for food, water, shelter and clothing. However as technology enhanced it pushed the family apart by giving us the means to be independent.



As we look at today’s family we see that there are a lot less children and often there is a broken home where the family has been split up. Men and women marry later in life if at all and sometimes live together without even being married. The standard American family is based on completely different criteria than that of a previous generation. Although these families are still units within themselves the dependency has dropped considerably. One could argue whether the results of capitalism and technology have been positive or negative but the fact remains things have changed. And as long as technology grows things will constantly be changing.