Ghosts of Prejudice I

          There have been times and places when all human beings were equal. Sadly, such places and times are few and far apart. Yet, in many of those eras when humans were far too unequal, there was no common belief that humans are born inherently less than others- just a lingering belief that that was the way things should be, and always had been. We live in such a time. I now present to you the first in a series of short posts I will write about prejudices in our world today, why they came to be, and ponder why they still haunt us. 

Adam and Eve by Titian

Sexy/Pure: The Female Story

          Today, females are generally expected to be "pure" in order to be accepted. So-called sluts are viewed as the exception, not the rule, and abstinence is encouraged by many who see themselves as patriarchs. Yet, if we look into the past, it doesn't seem to have always been that way. 

          For starters, we have the bible. It's an obvious culprit- an ancient book (I'm not here to dispute whether God wrote it or not, we all can acknowledge that it's old) that is still regularly consulted. Although its readers may have good intentions, its sheer age makes it a perfect preservation site for outdated prejudices. 

          Looking at the very beginning of the bible, to the tale of Adam and Eve, it is obvious that Eve is portrayed as the impure one. It's she who submits to temptation, therefore "sin", and takes that fruit from the snake. Adam is good and upright even after his ejection from Eden, whereas Eve is the first sinner of the pair, a fallen woman. If this truly was the beginning of humankind, the portrayal of Eve was no good omen for women of the future. 

           In Greek mythology, we hear even more cries shouting that women are the slaves of desire. One story depicts Zeus and Hera, king and queen of the Olympian gods, respectively, arguing over who possessed more capacity for lust and pleasure: man or woman. Eventually, the pair consulted Tiresias, a man who had once been turned into a woman. He reported that women were ten times as lustful as men. (Hera blinded him in rage at this, as she wasn't the most merciful of the Goddesses.)

           Many other examples can be found throughout history of women being seen as uncontrollable sex-fiends: court records, literature, mythology, etc. Try finding some of your own information if you like- it's all out there. At some point, though, there was a change. Something happened that turned a woman from a "lustful animal" to a "pure angel". Our best guess is, it began partially with the Christian church. 

          Now, this isn't to say that the change was immediately, inherently bad. Church officials, when they began painting this image of the holy and innocent female, probably thought they were doing women a favor by giving ladies of status a more noble standard to hold themselves up against. Over time, the idea caught hold, and soon the tables were turned- the untrue stereotype of men being pure and upright while women were tainted and wild had turned into the untrue stereotype of men being slaves to their instincts, with women seen as innocent. 

          Wait- there's something strange here. Before, females were kept out of leadership positions because they were seen as sinners, more susceptible to temptation, whereas men were strong enough to keep their emotions at bay. Now, women must live up to an untainted standard, the phrase "boys will be boys" has fully integrated itself into the English language, the good, obedient wife is our societal ideal, and victim-blaming is common in rape scenarios. Despite this turnaround, women are still seen or treated as inferior by many. This switching may seem ridiculous, but with a bit of common sense, anyone can see that it exists. The question is, why? 

-Lily

Sources: Encyclopedia Britannica, the Book of Genesis

Food for Thought: Money, Money, Money

        I was born into a less than wealthy family. Money was definitely not the easiest thing in the world for us (it isn't for anybody.) Fortunately, a few years into my life, things took a turn for the better. I myself am in a financially stable situation, but I know it definitely isn't that way for everyone- and I know it won't always be that way for me. When I live on my own, the money situation probably won't be quite as cozy. And it's true: the overall U.S. poverty rate in 2011 was 15.0 (27.5 for blacks, 25.3 for Hispanics, and 9.8 for non-Hispanic whites). It looks like this country has a serious opportunity gap, as well as financial gap. But what exactly do we define as "poverty"?

Absolute Poverty:

          Absolute poverty is defined as a condition in which a person doesn't have the necessary resources for survival. Absolute poverty could, in theory, be defeated, if the necessary survival resources were provided to the poor. Poverty is usually measured in absolute terms in developing countries, where it is most common, but also can exist in wealthy countries if the vast majority of wealth is owned by a small minority. 

Relative Poverty:

          Relative poverty occurs when people are "poor" in relation to those around them. For example, in a first world country, poverty might be when a person is unable to afford what is widely available to other people, such as a telephone or electricity. However, in poorer countries, relative poverty could fall under the category of absolute poverty. The U.S. poverty guideline is $11,670 for households of one person. As I said before- 15% of Americans are under the poverty line. That's 46,000,000 people. Unlike absolute poverty, relative poverty cannot be eradicated, as destroying it would require equal distribution of wealth. 

More Info:

          Here's a video with more information about wealth inequality in the U.S, and why it's such a serious problem. But don't take it from me- do your own research and develop your own opinion. Or, if you live outside the United States, find out more about poverty and wealth distribution in your own county.

• Official statistics on poverty in the U.S.
• Article about the history of the fight against poverty in America from the New York Times
• The official Poverty USA website

What do You Think?

          Is poverty as severe of an issue as I made it out to be? More severe? What's the best way for dealing with poverty? If it affects so many people, why hasn't a good solution been discovered/put in place yet? No political party claims poverty to be a good thing. But relative poverty, at least, is an unavoidable part of our capitalist system. How can this problem ever be solved? Please, tell me (respectfully) your opinions and ideas in the comments! Do you plan to take any action against poverty? 

SOURCES: HTTP://ASPE.HHS.GOV

Rainbows for Russia: Muffins

          Ah, Rainbows for Russia. A much more challenging project than I had made it out to be. Do you know how long it took me to figure out how to make rainbow muffins? All month. All. Month. 

          However, I overcame several difficulties and created this masterpiece of a food. Granted, there is room for improvement, but it tasted good and looked pretty good so I am happy. Good lord, I am happy. I finally did it. *pants* I really need to work on my baking skills. Anyway, the point is that here they are: rainbow themed creations of my own making. I am dedicating these muffins to Russia, for their hosting of the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics and Paralympics- not exactly without a hitch, but without major disruptions. As proven by many Olympic Games in years gone by,  this is a pretty great accomplishment. More specifically, these muffins are dedicated to the LGBT community in Russia. People can debate the finer points of the reasons for this as much as they like, but it's generally agreed that it is not easy being a LGBT person in Russia. So for that, I make these muffins in their name. 

          Have any of you guys thought of making a Rainbow for someone or somewhere? If you have, please tell me about it in the comments. Thanks!

-Lily 

Rainbows for Russia

          I know it's been a long time, but I'm here as promised. I've been really busy as an important Science Olympiad even has been coming up and I've needed to take a lot of time to prepare for my events. Sincere apologies. 
          So, as I hinted at in my last post, I painted my nails rainbow. I did it for a reason, though, and you can probably guess that too. I wanted to show my support for the LGBTQ community- but more specifically, the LGBTQ community in Russia. 
          Being repressed kinda sucks. Being repressed in Russia, though I can only imagine, must suck a lot. In addition, Russia's been getting a lot of hate from the rest of the world due to some of the goings on at the Sochi 2014 Olympics- tough anti-gay laws, butchering of stray dogs, bad living conditions for guests, infected water- and true, none of these things are good, but they're not the entire country's fault. Claiming that's so is like to claiming that all Americans are responsible for the nation's economy issues and high obesity rates. True, some particular corporations and political parties carry a lot of the responsibility for these issues, but you can't blame the entire county. The same with Russia. 
          You guys know that I love it when the Internet puts positive things out into the world. I mean, who enjoys scrolling through your Facebook feed and coming across sad, depressing, or just mean-spirited words and images? Not many people, I'm guessing. If you do, you probably need some help. I hate it when that happens, personally. So when I noticed a pretty good number of rude and bigoted comments online directed towards Russia- the whole of Russia- I decided to take matters into my own hands. Literally. 
          I painted my fingernails rainbow, because rainbows are not negative. This fact is not up for debate. Rainbows are positive, and they're the most widely known symbol of support for the LGBTQ community. I painted my fingernails rainbow, because they are a positive sign of support for the LGBTQ community, and I painted them for Russia. Here you go, Russia. Have a rainbow, they're free.
          My project for the month of March is to make as many rainbow-themed things that are directed to Russia, and post them on the Internet. The goal isn't to necessarily make these things so that Russia will see them, but that there will be positive things on the Internet about Russia that don't put down other countries, either. If you'd like to help, just make something- write, sing, draw, sculpt, just create- that's rainbow themed. Put it out into the Internet, and comment on this post about it when you do. Bonus points if it's directed at another country. Double bonus points if that country's government is oppressive, especially to the LGBTQ community. Cookies if it's directed at Russia. Well, I can't actually bake you cookies, but you should definitely treat yourself to some. You deserve it. If you're posting to twitter, instagram, or any other site where hashtags are usable, tag it #rainbowsfortheworld, then hashtag the specific country or community that you're targeting. 
          Spread the word. Show off the rainbows. Let people know. I'll keep you updated on my rainbow journey throughout the month. We'll see what happens. 

-Lily
           

"The Games have Always Been a Little Gay", says Canada

          Despite never having been there, I've always held a fondness to Canada. Even during all the drama of this year's Olympics, the Canadian Institute of Diversity and Inclusion, which is dedicated to encouraging diversity in the workplace, decided to make this ad that only made me like the country even more. It features two luge sledders in morph suits doing... Well, you'll see what they're doing. Not only is the 33 second video hilarious, but it admittedly has a good point. Sorry, Russia.  

          Also, Facebook and other social media users are being encouraged to "Keep the Games Gay" by changing their profile pictures to the image below. Who thought that luge would be the key to supporting LGBT people in Russia? 

And here's a little hint at what my next post will be about with this magical mystery photo:

Oh, whoops. That's my cat. I meant this one:

Thanks for reading! Please like, share, and comment!

The Olympic Soap Opera that is Sochi 2014

          The Sochi Olympic Games has been full of drama so far, and the games haven't even begun (and no, I'm not talking about Lindsey Vonn's knee).

          I'll be happy to help keep you guys up to date on that from a world-improving standpoint. 

          Today, I'll talk about the Russian anti-gay law. For those a little uncertain on exactly what it means, the law passed in 2013 bans "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations" that could be accessible to  minors, effectively making it illegal to spread gay rights material or even suggest that same-sex relationships are equal to heterosexual ones. The law has caused outrage worldwide, and even the legendary Sir Elton John called out the country for this "vicious homophobia" on his official website, saying that "Whatever the intention of Russia’s homosexuality and pedophilia propaganda laws, I am absolutely clear from my own personal experience that it is proving deeply dangerous to the LGBT community and deeply divisive to Russian society." Here's a quick excerpt from his complete statement. 

          "The people I met in Moscow – gay men and lesbians in their 20′s, 30′s and 40′s - told me stories about receiving threats from vigilante groups who would ‘cure’ them of homosexuality by dousing them with urine or beating them up. One young man was stalked outside a gay club by someone posing as a taxi driver who tried to garrote him with a guitar string because he was a 'sodomite'. Everyone shared stories of verbal and physical abuse – at work, in bars and restaurants or in the street – since the legislation came into force last June. And, some of the vital work providing HIV prevention information to the gay community has been labelled 'homosexual propaganda' and shut down."

          However, it's not just bad news today- many countries, people, and companies have echoed Elton's sentiments. Here are a list of who is speaking up, and how. 

• AT&T- the company was one of the first Olympic sponsors to officially object to the law.
• The USA- among the official U.S. delegation to the games are gay former Olympians Caitlin Cahow and Brian Boitano, an apparent move to show disapproval of Russia's policy.
• Google- you've probably noticed Google's new Google Doodle (above left). Along with the quote from the Olympic Charter shown beneath it, makes Google's stance on the Russian anti-gay law quite clear."The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practicing sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play."  
• Human rights activists worldwide- protesters are speaking up across the globe for the right of LGBT people to live in peace and equality. 

          That's all for today, guys- stay in the Olympic spirit as the games begin, and don't miss the opening ceremony tonight! 

          -Fox

Sources: The Official Site of Elton John, NBC News, the Guardian, Philadelphia Daily News

Food for Thought: "Do What you Love"

          "Do what you love, love what you do." It's a common quotation now, and generally considered a pretty positive and inspirational thing to say. For my February Food for Thought, I decided to write about this. (See? February. Valentine's Day. Love. Do what you love. It goes togeth- oh, never mind.)

          Anyway, I first decided to write about it when I came across this article at Slate.com (courtesy of my mom. Thank you, mom. You make really good pancakes.) It's a little depressing, but an interesting opinion. For those readers who are lazy like me, I'll sum the article up with a quotation. 

          "Superficially, DWYL is an uplifting piece of advice, urging us to ponder what it is we most enjoy doing and then turn that activity into a wage-generating enterprise. But why should our pleasure be for profit? And who is the audience for this dictum?

DWYL is a secret handshake of the privileged and a worldview that disguises its elitism as noble self-betterment. According to this way of thinking, labor is not something one does for compensation but is an act of love. If profit doesn’t happen to follow, presumably it is because the worker’s passion and determination were insufficient. Its real achievement is making workers believe their labor serves the self and not the marketplace."

          Well. That's depressing. I can't say I agree with this rather pessimistic view on following your passions. Actually, I rather disagree. The article does have a point- in our society, the work of many is often unappreciated or assumed to be the work of one person- but I believe that DWYL isn't the cause of that. I don't think DWYL really about "disguising elitism as noble self-betterment", nor is that what it was originally intended to be. In my mind, DWYL represents that happiness doesn't directly correlate with money, and that if you keep working hard, making good choices, and following your passions, you're one step closer to happiness. In summary, it seems like DWYL is representing one ingredient to the "recipe to happiness", as opposed to representing the entire thing. Doing what you love is important to success, but there are other factors.

          I also found this contrasting opinion from John Green (go nerdfighters!) on writing (though his words apply to other forms of creating too) in the digital age. The opinions don't directly contradict, but definitely contrast overall. Here's the link. 

          Again, for my lazy readers, an excerpt: 

          "Every single day, I get emails from aspiring writers asking my advice on how to become a writer, and here is the only advice I can give: Don't make stuff because you want to make money- it will never make you enough money. And don't make stuff because you want to get famous- because you will never feel famous enough. Make gifts for people- and work hard on making those gifts in the hope that those people will notice and like the gifts.

          Maybe they will notice how hard you worked, and maybe they won't- and if they don't notice, I know it's frustrating. But ultimately that doesn't change anything- because your responsibility is not to the people you're making the gift for, but to the gift itself."

          What do you think? Who's right, and who's less right? Please post in the comments!

          Oh, and I couldn't find another royalty free picture that was related to my post, so here's a picture of a fluffy bunny.