Most interesting feature item

I'm writing about the current state of patriotism in our country, specifically in terms of students utilizing their voices in the form of protest. It blows my mind that citizens of this country (especially citizens who are in positions of authority) harass and belittle others for utilizing his or her 1st amendment rights. This happens more than I ever imagined on a daily basis.

Nobody to somebody

With Marc Lamont Hill's many references of colorful violence in our cities, laws, and policies, he does not seem to leave enough tangible solutions for his audience. Maybe it is too naïve to mention there are absolute solutions to such horrific hatred and lawlessness in our society today, but I feel it would be more naïve to leave the state of our country unanswered.


I went back a second time and reread some of Hill's accounts that specifically stayed with me each day as I drove to work or walked my dogs at night in my neighborhood as I asked myself how some are protected and some are not. I tried to record as many answers as I could to the concerns of our nation, and the following includes a few (maybe naïve but at least attempted) solutions from my stream of consciousness:


One: Body cameras. There is talk and some action for police everywhere to wear cameras, and why not? This can solve a number of issues, including useless hearsay that can land a person on death row. Cameras show evidence, and evidence leads to solutions. If the evidence points to the law enforcement officials abusing privileges and law, then at least public officials and policies can be exposed, revised, and improved. Which leads to my second point.


Two: Public Policy. Policy makers should evaluate the language used when commanding police officers and other officials to follow duty. Maybe there is racial intent (or non-intent) in the commands that police officers are following. IF that is the case, how are we condemning police officers more than policy makers? After all, the democratic policies are supposed to be followed strictly as a government worker. I can be wrong in all of this, but language, as we know, can be ambiguous, and ambiguity can lead to dangerous paths, especially in a boiling society.


Three: Relationship and Racial Bias Training for police officers. In the state of Florida, police officers had to undergo racial bias training via simulators before going back into the field. Studies then showed evidence that the same police officers had reduced bias on duty. Maybe this is a stretch, because how can we truly assess reduced bias unless someone is following the officer daily? Yet, at least this is one way to TRY to eliminate unnecessary subjective natures in society. Also, what if we could train police officers to have relationships with citizens first and foremost. We should get them training in empathy and policy at the same time. Not all citizens fit the criteria of incarceration, after all.


In the end, our society needs one another, whether through policy, protests, or empathic understandings. How we get there is a matter of how each person treats the stranger sitting next to him or her.

The media, women, and gender obsession

I'd say there are far fewer fictional shows out there that adequately, rather than inadequately, reflect the real trials in life as a woman, but there are some. Cristina Yang from Grey's Anatomy and Laverne Cox (mostly known from her role as Sophia Burset on Orange is the New Black) are respectable and real to me.


However, the first character my mind initially gravitated to is Carol from the Walking Dead, one, because I love that show, and two, because she's a true "bad ass" woman. *Side note- please don't read my appraisal of Carol below if you only read the comics, because she is quite different in those, and I would not classify her in the same way as I am about to from her role in the series.


Carol started the show as an abused wife and mother who was pretty much completely dependent upon her husband's decisions. After the crew had trouble searching for her lost daughter Sophia, viewers looked at her as the "weak link," and many suspected she would be killed by the end of the first, if not second, season. Yet, she lasted all the way into season six (well, that's where I am at, so shhhh if she dies, please).


Carol transforms from a passive character who lacks confidence and a voice into a strong, sensible female leader who saves Rick's gang even after she's kicked out a couple of seasons later.


We first see Carol's sense of strength when she asks if she can kill her husband (after he was bitten, of course) in season one. She repeatedly stabs him and it's evident she's asserted herself into a new role, one that is more independent and fearless. After that, she guides her daughter (for a short period of time before her daughter "runs away") and she figures out how to survive as a person, not just a female, in this new post apocalyptic world.


While Carol suffered extreme loss, as most females (heck, most everyone) in this world do, she learns to embrace her setbacks and comes out strong. She doesn't sleep around with the leaders of the new world like Andrea and Rick's wife did with the Governor and Shane in order to rise to the top. Carol does encounter rough situations and needs to make tough decisions throughout the seasons. Remember when Carol had to shoot the child Lizzie because she was a threat to everyone? Talk about pulling at a "female's heartstrings."


No, Carol does not fit the mold of an enlightened sexist female. She fits into her own category: strong, determined to survive, and logical. Those are characteristics any person, no matter the gender, would be happy to have. And so far, Carol is the only surviving original female since season one. I'm crossing my fingers this streak continues!

Writing about an idea from Douglas' book?

I noticed some members of our class are interested in writing a feature that stems from Douglas' ideas in Enlightened Sexism.

Below is Time's short 2010 Q&A with Douglas that I thought covered her overarching themes from the book. It specifically mentions what Douglas thinks of the "economic plight of women today, the dangers of powerful female TV characters and the future of feminism." 

Use or lose. I just thought it might be handy for some of you as you research in the next few weeks. :)

Time's interview with Douglas