Gender neutral children

The story of Sasha being raised as a gender neutral child is quite interesting. Saha's parents from the time even before Sasha had been born decided they were going to raise their child gender neutral. Obviously, this is far from the norm and expectations of society. Bringing up Sasha as gender neutral alienated Sasha's parents more than it has alienated Sasha. Sasha's mother mentions how the people at their newborn classes thought of her as looney and would not give her the time of day. However, Sasha, although only 5, has received no criticism at all from her schoolmates despite wearing the female uniform. The most intriguing factor of the article is that Sasha is aware he is a male. The article does not go into great detail, but it would be interested to find out about Saha's take on the whole thing. Another interesting factor is Sasha's parents had made the decision to raise the child gender neutral for the benefits of the freedom from stereotypes, but admittedly, they are unsure of the future affects.‘It’s hard to say whether being raised gender-neutral will have any immediate or long-term psychological consequences for a child, purely because to date there is little research examining this topic,’ said Dr Daragh McDermott. Despite this, Saha's parents are confident of the benefits of being raised gender neutral can have. 

Storm's story, which has quite a bit less detail, has received great criticism. Directly from the article, Dr Harold Koplewicz, a U.S. child psychiatrist, said he was ‘disturbed’ that well-meaning parents could be so misguided.‘When children are born, they’re not a blank slate,’ he said. ‘We do have male brains and female brains. There’s a reason why boys do more rough and tumble play; there’s a reason why girls have better language development skills.’ The fact that doctor Koplewicz sees such a clear, distinct, and undeniable difference between men and women is obvious. The doctor even states the parents are misguided. The doctor's disapproval is clearly evident. 

Despite this one doctor's opinion, according to the US News and World report, experts say gender-neutral parenting encourages kids to learn and develop with more choices and fewer limitations – to feel comfortable expressing themselves without being held back by what boys or girls “should” or “shouldn’t” do. Clealry, "experts" opinion's do vary.

Overall, as the article mentions, parents are certainly not the only factor in raising a child gender neutral. There are countless other factors such as peers and media. So, raising a child gender neutral certainly has challenges. From my experience, my gender has played an incredibly large role in my life. Having 3 brothers, I was always told to "man up" and "act like a man". Being raised in that manner certainly had its benefits. I grew tough skin and learned many admirable traits such as making the best of a situation, and not pitying myself. On the other hand, this upbringing constricted me. I certainly was not as free as Sasha to make everyday choices. It is extremely difficult to say whether being raised gender neutral is a good thing. As stated prior, expert opinion's on the matter differ. There are certainly benefits to this practice, but I do find it a bit unnatural. Instead, we should urge our children to choose for themselves and explain to them from an early age how society often dictates our roles based off gender. That would be the ultimate. 

Modern Families and Modern Money Worries

The article "Modern Families and Modern Money Worries" begins by discussing how the families of the rich and poor are constructed in many different ways such as multiracial, single parent, multigenerational etc. But, the financial advice received by these diverse family constructs are all based off "traditional families". However, even though this advice can be somewhat useful, the needs of these different family structures differ.

The article explores Arnold Jenkins who is newly single father who was a former workaholic. He explains how changes in his life such as daycare expenses, diet and more have placed a financial burden on him. He worries if something were to happen to him, if his daughter would be able to be financially stable. The advice John Diel gives single parents is to focus on budgeting and benefits, which is in their control. Another man, Rylan Leese, explains how his mother was fiscally irresponsible, which lead to his financial difficulties, but was able to overcome these difficulties with the assistance of his wife and wife's father.

 Blended families also create issues for people. In blended families, the concern is often what's mine and what's ours. This issue is exacerbated when the will needs to be drawn up, and the family must decide what children receive the lion's share. One woman, Katherine Mitchell, met a her second husband who was a generous man and they were able to come to a mutual agreement on how to support Katherine's autistic son later in life.

Same sex families also create issues. Although the recent supreme court decision has relieved issues such as tax and healthcare, the issue of other family members not supporting the marriage is still present.

Multi generational families also carry financial burdens. One man whom was an avid golfer had to give up his hobby when he was given custody of his grandchild. Many other tax complications arrived from his new responsibility causing him to rethink his finances.

Tragedies and Solidarity

Unfortunately, tragedy has become all to normal in the society we live in. Each tragedy, whatever magnitude, calls for action. It calls for individuals to act in solidarity and pay tribute to all whom were harmed or killed. The tragedies in Beirut, Syria, and France are all devastating to me. No one possesses the power to take another's life. It is heart-wrenching each time a tragedy of any sort occurs, and I hope for nothing but peace going forward.

However, with all of this said, not every tragedy is equal to all people, right or wrong. This is a basic human instinct, and this is to blame for so many people showing more solidarity towards France then other countries. I will list examples of the mindset I am discussing.

1. Why are people more hurt when a family member dies than an outsider. Seemingly it should be just as tragic. But, as anyone who experienced the loss of a family member has witnessed, it is far more painful, than a stranger dyeing. For whatever reasons, it hits much closer to home.

2. Why do people feel more remorse when someone dies in a car accident, then a heroine overdose. In both instances, someone dies, but in the accident, people feel it was less the own persons doing. Therefore, many people feel more justified in being more remorseful towards the accident victim. 

3. Recently there have been many shootings in the US, and not nearly the support as shown for France. Why could this be? Likely, it is the fact then in the recent US shootings, it has been Americans shooting Americans. An inside job, a problem that stems from here and effects here. On the other hand, it is an outside job. An outsider coming in and creating havoc. There is something more unsettling when the problem stems from far away and is brought to the scene of the crime. 

Overall, the message I'm trying to convey is that not everyone sees every tragedy as equal. What happened in Beirut and Syria is sickening, but different from whats happening in France. France has a very similar culture, political system, ideals, and laws as the US does. An attack on France feels like an attack on the US. Most Americans had the same thought, if it happened to them, it could happen house. The French are more relatable. to Americans. The attack on France shook Americans, not because the French are privileged and a large majority white, but it felt like a personal attack. 

I am not saying that the outpouring to France is right or wrong, what I am saying is that the tragedies are different. No two events are the same. Right or wrong, the attack on France felt like an attack on America and freedom in general to many people. Should we show more support to others, ABSOLUTELY. But, showing solidarity for one, does not mean a lack of sympathy for another. Therein lays the issue people are failing to understand. Just as a family member dyeing FEELS more tragic than a stranger, the attack on France felt like an attack on America. Does media have an affect on this, yes. Does privilege have an affect, yes. But, everyone is free to support who they want, when they want, for whatever reason they want. 

Reality Television

Reality television could not be a more misleading title. Truthfully reality television is absolutely surreal. People are thrusted into manipulated environments that are extremely conducive two drama. In addition, producers skillfully select who would fit well together and create the most interesting situation. For example, The Real World is well known for casting very similar people for roles each year. Furthermore, the people in the show are well aware they are in a show. The fact they are ware they are entertainment causes people to act in ways they would not normally.

The show I chose to watch was the infamous Jersey Shore. In this reality show, strangers are placed into a shore house for a summer. The show features outrageous people who go through the entire range of emotions in one summer. The character I find to be the most interesting is Mike "The Situation".

The Situation is one of the most animated people on the planet. He constantly has one thought in his head, women. Throughout the one show, Mike has sex with several women, hooks up with more, and makes insensitive comments throughout. Mike is the typical alpha male. Rarely does he have a shirt on in the house, and outside of the house for that matter. Further, Mike enjoys insinuating drama in the house. In this episode, Mike tells Snooki inside information concerning the guy she is hooking up with. This information sets Snooki off. This makes Mike extremely pleased. Overall, Mike is a loud, obnoxious and stereotypical man who loves himself. Unfortunately  all of the males on the show are basically portrayed similarly. 

Here is a prime example of Mike being chauvinistic.  He is so concerned with women it is ridiculous. He prides on himself on his ability to pick up women stating he is so smooth. His obsession with women was extremely evident throughout the entire episode. 

Here is another example of Mike's obsession with women. However, not only does he state he is going to "bang" a girl, but this time he specifies a women that is taken. Again, Mike has no issue blatantly stating how interested he is in having sex with women.

Here is the most egregious example of Mike's attitude on the show. He uses the word pimp to describe himself. Moreover, not only himself, but his relatives. He believes that "pimping" running in the family is something to be proud of. The most obnoxious part is how he calls his obsession with women a business. Like it is his job. This example basically sums up Mike "The Situation".

Perpetuating Online Sexism Offline Summary

The article begins by discussing how the internet is filled with hostility, especially towards women. This often takes the form of a hostile environment caused by sexist jokes which further perpetuates the issue of sexism.

The author discusses how hashtags have had a major influence on sexism on social media. Although some with positive messages, most hashtags related to sexism were derogatory towards women. Since Twitter is an anonymous site, the author explores the role anonymity plays is online sexism. The factors of the study the author explores are invisibility, a synchronicity, minimization of authority, dissociative anonymity, and solipsistic introjection. The author demonstrates how a study showed people were much more likley to be hostile, on many different platforms, if they were anonymous.
The author explains how he is conducting an experiment concerning online sexism. For this experiment there are many variables such as male or female, whether the person is anonymous or not, and whether the user is the original tweeter or retweeter. The test was 3-parts, concerning different theories within online sexism.

The results of the test were significant factors being sex, anonymity, and level of interactivity. The results also showed online sexism is pervasive, and effects offline sexism. The author also mentions the inherent limitations of the approach.

Social Networks

Prior to this blog topic, I never truly concerned myself with the images people presented on Facebook. I took a much more face value approach and never thought much into the motive or reasoning for what people posted. However, once I began to think about it, I cam to some interesting conclusions.

In life in general, people desire to portray themselves in some sort of way. Whether they are able to achieve this objective depends on a great deal of factors. What makes it difficult for people to achieve their desired images is real life interaction. Not only the words we use, but how we say them, mannerisms etc. People may desire to have this tough exterior, but being mean is extremely challenging if someone is not truly cold-hearted. People may wish to seem kind and generous, but if they are not so altruistic, their actions may come across as more selfish than selfless, and in their own best interest. However, social media can overcome this issue, as it is still somewhat genuine, but still detached from real life.

People on Facebook undoubtedly portray themselves in the way they desire to be seen by others. I have noticed people who tend to be portray themselves as tougher post videos of fighting, trash talking, and things of that nature. People who wish to be seen as caring post videos of babies, humans of New York, and other sensible items. There are very few overlaps between people who attempt to categorize themselves. By this I mean rarely do the people who post school fights share a buzz feed article. As far as gendering, I have not notice a trend between gender and types of profiles. The connection between the way people wish to be seen and their profile pictures have much greater correlation.

The best indicator to me for my theory of self-representation is my own Facebook page. As I think back on many items I've posted and shared, they certainly have been aimed at representing myself in a certain way. For example, even if I read a political article I like, or see a political video and find it fascinating, I won't post it. I have no desire to express my political views in such an open forum. In general, I like to hold my cards to my chest as much as possible, as I feel divulging information can often expose weaknesses. So, on Facebook, I will only post something I feel will not open me up to negative ramifications,but rather portray the view of myself I desire. 

Overall, I do believe Facebook serves as a virtual personality, but does not summarize the people they represent. Facebook is a constructed image, one that the user can concoct over time, as opposed to real life where a response is immediate. This time lag allows people to present themselves in they way they desire, not the way they really are. 

To See and Be Seen Summary

In the article "To See and be Seen: Celebrity Practice on Twitter", the author investigates the ever changing landscape of how celebrities interact with the commoners. In less recent times, the understanding and perception of celebrities was mediated through publicists and managers, but in recent times, celebrities can now interact more personally with their audiences through outlets such as Twitter. Since mainstream culture is clearly affected by these celebrities, they now have a more direct effect on culture, a less scripted and censored effect. 

Interestingly, the author refrains from calling celebrities, celebrities. Instead the phrase "celebrity practitioners" is used. This is because the author believes being a celebrity is a practice, and therefore should not be used as a noun. 

Twitter is a social media outlet, which allows celebrities to interact with their followers in a limited amount characters. However, Twitter does not cease the interaction there. What makes Twitter such an appealing platform is the ability for the everyday person to respond to these celebrities. Either through a direct message, or a reply tweet. This creates an intimate feeling, one that facilitates a two way relationship, instead of one way street. This is where the power of twitter lays, according to the author. 

Moreover, Twitter creates a feeling of a first person experience, as opposed to a filtered, less genuine experience. This leads to a perception that one truly has an insight into the celebrities world, through a picture or phrase. Overall, the author argues this somewhat direct interaction is widening the power differential between fans and their audiences. This new dichotomy Twitter has created has undoubtedly changed the relationship between celebrities and everyone else.