First Racism, Now Fatism?

I'll admit it; I spend way too much time on glamour.com. I think I've been on this website for the past hour and a half, reading nothing but articles and blogs on body image. I'm not sure how many I've read but I lost count after the first four pages of links. (Yeah, I know I don't have a life.) When I started reading these articles, on the site's Health and Fitness blog "Vitamin G," I was expecting a bombardment of posts from super-fit women, instructing me on how to lead a healthier life. Considering the fact that my last workout was an uncountable amount of months ago, you could imagine I was a little bit intimidated.

In reality, the site was overflowing with feel-good articles about how to feel good about yourself no matter what your size (I'm not by any means calling myself fat, but it's always comforting to know that women of all shapes can feel comfortable in their own skin). Reading for hours, I began to feel hopeful about the future of American style, the downfall of the super-skinny modeling cliche, and the constantly body-conscious attitude of almost all women today. It all put me in a really great mood, to be honest. That is, until I came along an article that included the following quote on "fattism" (discrimination against obese people) from British journalist Amanda Platell.

"I am a fattist. I find obese people unappealing in almost every regard. They are physically unattractive, they lead unhealthy lives,they take up too much space on public transport, and (most of all) they are a strain not only on their clothing but on NHS resources. The secret of their size? Their outsized appetites are matched by a lack of self-control and even less self-respect."
-Amanda Platell, Daily Mail

A waste of space? A waste of resources? ...Really? When blogger Sarah Jio (the author of the post) refers to Platell's views as a "lack of compassion, understanding...humanity," I couldn't agree more. A hater is a hater, no matter what justifications they may think they have. Could she be compared to the racist characters of Huck Finn? Certainly. (Fun fact: Platell has also been accused of homophobia and racism in the past.) Platell justified her hate for overweight people by claiming that every single one of them could be skinny if they wanted to be. She bashes those with "fat genes" and "heavy bones" to justify her hate with the fact that she herself has "fat genes," and yet she has combated them her whole life and made the commitment to stay thin and look young. And congrats to her.

All I'm saying is how does she expect overweight people to want to follow in her footsteps to staying thin when all she does is bash them? Does she really think that it will propel them to be more active? Rather, it would probably have the opposite effect entirely. It's necessary to feel comfortable with yourself and your body before you can think about changing it. Maybe bashing fat people makes Amanda Platell feel better about her own body and what she's done for it, but it's a really sad way to cope. Maybe Amanda should start reading glamour articles (like this one), and stop being such a hater. It's not helping anyone.

Huck vs. Jim: Some Commentary on Racism and the N-word

I wouldn’t think nuff’n; I’d take en bust him over de head. Dat is, if he warn’t white. I wouldn’t ‘low no nigger to call me dat” (67). – JIM

In many of our recent class discussions on the controversial book Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, we have focused deeply on whether or not the beloved main character, Huck, is really a racist through his frequent use of the n-word in the book. While it is true that Huck is only a young boy of thirteen or fourteen, and very impressionable, much of the class has argued that that has no bearing on whether or not his use of the word is justifiable. Huck uses the word constantly, he knows that is a derogatory term, and that makes him a racist, just like everyone in America at the time. Right?

At the same time though, Jim, almost as prominent of a character as Huck (though African American), seems to use the word as openly as Huck does. The question I mean to raise is, who is more impressionable: Huck or Jim? Why is Jim's use of the n-word justifiable while Huck's is not? In class, we almost view Jim's use of the word as sad because he's been raised to think in such a derogatory way about his own race. Huck may not be African American, but he was raised under the same influence that Jim was. Can he really be held accountable for his actions?

Talking about this in class made me think a lot about the use of the n-word in modern society. It seems that the only people that find it acceptable to use the word are African Americans themselves. Famous rappers (with an extremely large target audience) use the word more than anyone else. I know plenty of young people, even several students from New Trier, that put on a "ghetto" image in order to appear different from their peers; they listen to rap music and they even use the n-word like the rappers they admire. These students are almost never African American; but they're just repeating the words of their favorite rappers; what's wrong with that? If we can call Huck racist for being an impressionable young boy, isn't it only fair to call anybody who sings along or listens to rap music containing the n-word racist too? Not to say that a high-school student shouldn't know better than to go around whipping out derogatory language like nothing, but personally I think that it's more up to the African American rappers; the adults in the situation, to realize the effect they're having on ALL kinds of societies, and take responsibility for it.

Performers today push the envelope with the n-word; rapper Nas (pictured above) even fought to title a 2008 album "Nigger." Thankfully, his label didn't allow it and the album was released untitled. (How would white people have referred to that album on TV and when talking to one another without getting beat up??) These rappers may think that they are "taking pride" in their race by demeaning themselves, but in reality, they're only keeping alive a horrible term that should have died long, long ago.

Money DOES Buy Happiness. (It's Proven!)

While I was surfing the net today, procrastinating before starting to prepare for the final tomorrow (eek!) I came across an interesting looking article on my homepage. The article, which was linked "rich worry their kids are spoiled" actually made me laugh silently to myself when I first looked at it. Rich kids? Spoiled?? How could this be! I thought sarcastically, while clicking on the link to read the seemingly ridiculous piece.

The survey first states that 35% of wealthy American parents believe that their children may be "too spoiled and have too many material possessions." While I'm living in Evanson for the time being, I did go to Sears School in Kenilworth (as do my younger brother and sister right now) and I know how spoiled rich kids can be. I was always lumped into that "rich Kenilworth kid" group when I got to New Trier, and it's probably one of the most annoying stereotypes out there.

As I skimmed through the article, I came across another tidbit that I found particularly interesting. Of those surveyed, 2/3 have "developed a greater appreciation for the non-material wealth in my life" and half said they "feel more centered because the recession has given me an opportunity to re-evaluate my priorities." People are actually becoming happier during the recession? Talk about a shocker!

I then thought to myself, I wonder if people with less wealth really are happier than extremely wealthy Americans? So I googled it, in hopes of writing an amazingly happy-go-lucky blogpost about how money really DOESN'T buy happiness! (I was pretty excited, as you can tell.) However, the study that I found is not necessarily as optimistic as my initial thoughts were.

In an article called "The Economics of Happiness," I found that families with yearly incomes of $150,000 or higher (top 10% in the country) had a reported 53% feeling "very happy." Good for them! Wow. This was, of course, compared to less than half that amount of happiness in the lowest 10% of Americans. I found this piece of information very sad, and I was forced to change the title of my blog post to read that money DOES in fact buy happiness.

It's weird, because I feel like I always hear about the people with the least getting the most out of life- countries like Bhutan measuring their people in GDH (Gross Domestic Happiness) rather than Gross Domestic Productivity. Being happy is being productive anyway, isn't it?

It's not like I'm going to go around believing that I won't be happy until I receive my brand new HDTV, but that survey really did kill my mood a lot. Just a little more finals week joy :)

FinalsWTF

It's exactly 1:12 am right now. I have school today! Aaand, I have

finals

tomorrow.

Finals tomorrow, and I have homework due in every class today. What's up with that?? I've been listening to the same six songs on repeat for the past three hours, and before it has even begun, I'm starting to get a little sick of this whole finals week thing. Winter break was nice and all, but can you actually call that two weeks of nothing a break?

Oh yeah, sure I'll go ahead and take two weeks off to do something fun- but while I'm at it, I have to remember not to forget everything I've learned in the past seventeen weeks of school, because we'll all be tested on all of it when we get back! :)

Not only should teachers be a little bit sympathetic to the fact that students like me haven't even gotten on a decent school sleep schedule yet since the break, but maybe New Trier needs to rethink their whole first semester finals outlook. Maybe, just maybe, New Trier would be a better place if every class was a little bit more like American Studies.

Talking in class about standardized tests made me rethink everything I'd ever heard about them. Not that finals are standardized tests, but in many ways they are. If I believe that I've learned a lot in a class this year, what's the need to be given a multiple-choice test on it? It's setting students up for disaster. These multiple choice tests are designed to trick students. Isn't that quite the opposite of what teaching is supposed to be about?

I understand that this post may come off very angry and very obnoxious, but I thought that teachers were supposed to encourage their students to take risks, not throw them curveball questions from twelve weeks ago and call it 20% of their final grade.

Our American Studies final is something that I'm actually pretty excited for right now, because I guess I'm not looking it as an evaluation of my knowledge as I'm looking it as an evaluation of our class structure. I love this class, and I hope I'll be able to represent it well when time comes to write my essay tomorrow.

Well, I guess I should go then. I'm about 80% done with my homework and I'm pretty sure that's the same amount of my brain that's already asleep.

Creativity and Competition at New Trier

Our class discussion about creativity being rewarded and discouraged in schools made me think a lot about what aspects of my own academic experience allow me to be creative, and which do not. The consensus that I've reached is that, from my personal experience at least, New Trier provides many academic opportunities that can serve as creative ones as well. For example, Dance Day, LitFest, our extensive and extremely successful music program, and of course, the art department.

Art has been a major part of my life for as long as I can remember, and although sometimes many New Trier art students can be really intimidating, the program offered here is a really great thing. While I'm looking to apply to AP Art next week (aah!), I know that even if I don't get in, there's still so much I can learn from any of the other art classes offered at New Trier that I could take instead.

New Trier has a reputation of breeding the best of the best; our student excel at everything they do, more than any other school's excelling students. Always. Why would a student choose to try something new when they know that there's already a pre-existing 50 students who will be better than them at it? Competition is, without a doubt, the greatest limitation on creativity at New Trier I can think of. While New Trier's "competitive spirit" (to put it kindly) can put a damper on creativity, and encouraging students to participate in new activities, it's the amazing programs we offer that allow students to become the "best of the best."

I personally don't think that I am the best of the best when it comes to my art, so it took me a while to decide whether or not to even actually apply for AP Art. I knew I'd hate myself if I didn't even try, but spending a whole year with gifted art children could be just as damaging...In the end, I've decided that my goal for this whole is to not let other students get in the way of my personal improvement. I will not compare myself to other artists, I will only compare my work to my own previous work. And I will be proud of myself.

Have you ever shied away from doing something because you were afraid of embarrassing yourself, especially in the competitive world of New Trier? Or are you a person who can try new things easily?

The Vulnerability of Children

After the discussion we had in class today, I was left thinking a lot about the vulnerability of children and how it's exploited by the media and by corporations. It really surprised me when the lady in the documentary (Lucy, I believe?) claimed that she didn't care about the moral repercussions of her job pretty much because it's what she was asked to do and it made her money. Personally, I think that using children as a ploy to get their parents to buy them things is extremely immoral, because it takes advantage of a parent's emotional attachment to their child. Of course, if a child nags their parent enough, their parents are bound to buy them what they want (unless these parents seem to have an extreme kind of self control that I definitely don't...) When it's two parents (or in growing cases, only one) parent up against their child, backed by millions of dollars worth of marketing, as well as their child's peers, who do you think is going to win? There's only so much a parent can take.

These corporations are taking advantage of the vulnerability of children in that they are easily influenced and led to believe that they need toys that they definitely don't. Of course that's immoral; it's taking advantage of a person based on age. Could these corporations use similar marketing ploys to take advantage of the weaknesses of elderly people? Probably not...and yet taking advantage of a child's undeveloped brain is considered ethical and "fair."

The kinds of commercials targeted at small children scare me sometimes.

Not only are they way too fast-paced and crazy, it's actually hard to take your eyes off the screen. Watching TV with my 10-year-old brother makes me fear for his future. Characters in TV commercials can be shown displaying extreme happiness when they're exposed to the product being marketed, and yet in some cases they can also be seen going to a drug-like withdrawal from the products when they're taken away. (Sonny from the Cocoa Puffs commercials, anyone?). This kind of advertising is harmful to children's impressionable minds because it leads them to believe that they actually need these products, not only for fun but for survival. They're taught that money can buy happiness, which as we all eventually learn, does not.

Among tons of other issues I had with our class discussion today (and yet failed to acknowledge at the time, as usual), I feel really strongly that targeting children is a really low way to get products sold. It's immoral and unfair not only to parents but to the unsuspecting and extremely targets. I don't know what kinds of steps could be taken to ban this kind of advertising but maybe someday corporations will realize the horrible influence they are on our nation's growing generations. (Wishful thinking I guess.)

The Modern Family: Boys vs. Girls

My younger sister and I have an older brother and a younger one; four children, two parents (if separated), one family. Over the break, I've found myself spending a lot of time at home, just hanging out with my family. We hosted a Christmas Eve dinner at my mom's house, and it was that night that I realized something really weird about my own family dynamic (and I'm assuming that of many others).

When setting up for dinner, it was mine and my younger sister's responsibility to help prepare the food, set the table, serve everyone, and do all the dishes following the meal. And what did my 10-year-old and 18-year-old brothers do during all of this? Play video games in the family room, of course.

First of all, it's called a family room for a reason; it's not for you to monopolize everyone's time and viewing space with your pointless brain-melting video games (I'm not sure which is more pathetic, the 10 year old or the ADULT 18 year old). Secondly, is this really what we want a boy's place in the modern family to be?

Personally, my mother is a very very old-fashioned woman. She believes 100% that there are certain jobs better suited for men and ones designed for women. And according to her, if there is a job available in the kitchen, a woman should always be the one to take it. Men have better things to worry about! (Like in this case, Assassin's Creed). Considering the fact that she's a single mother working to raise four children primarily on her own, I never had expected this from her...

Anyway, this whole Christmas Eve not only enraged me (bad timing, right?) but it also made me question my family dynamic entirely. If my sister and I are responsible for all of the homekeeping, what are my brothers responsible for? Not to seem bitter or anything, but I do my fair share of work, why shouldn't they?

In the past (where my mother seems to be living), I guess it was normal for women to stay home, raise children and take care of the house while men went out, pursued jobs, and made money to support his family. If this was still the case today, wouldn't it be true that boys should be held to a higher academic standard than girls? Shouldn't they be urged to get jobs at a younger age?

I don't know about other girls in our American Studies class, but at home I find myself and my sister held to exactly the same (if not higher) academic standards than my brothers. I'm also the only child in my family to have/ever have had a job...my brother is 18. Tell me this doesn't sound weird.

I'm not really sure what I'm asking for out of this situation, but I really feel like this modern family dynamic focuses much more on molding young women than molding young men. I know that women have a lot more opportunities now than they did before, and that the amount of stay-at-home dads are increasing, but I can't help feeling the way that I do.

I apologize if this post is a little bit rant-y, but I'm wondering if anyone feels the same way I do. When parents choose to mold their children into ideal modern citizens, how are the upbringings of boys and girls different? Why is so much more stress put on girls becoming ladies (as far as I can tell) than boys becoming men?