Yesterday I took the shuttle to Target and the driver opened up to me about his frustration working with the Administration at Lafayette. He elaborated on how the college tracks the shuttles and scolds them for being even a minute late when they do not always afford the drivers enough time to get to stops due to traffic. He also mentioned to me how the driver’s were not allowed to use the restroom because this would further delay the schedule. The bus company had to speak up for these simple human rights for their workers to our administration. It reminded me uncomfortably of The Hunting Ground. The hierarchy of people in the college system seems ever more clear. In The Hunting Ground, Dick highlighted how the rights of athlete students as well as fraternity members are held to a higher prestige than regular female students. In the same way, (presumably) the comfort and connivence of the students are held at a higher level than that of the workers, like this bus driver. It seems ridiculous that bathroom breaks haven’t built in for drivers that have to drive for 5+ hours. It also feels very contradictory from the goals and values of a liberal arts college.
It’s all about intent right? I didn’t mean to be racist when introducing my black friend as “my black friend” and because I’m not wanting to be racist its ok to TOTALLY BE RACIST. I think the problem with vines that deal with seterotypes is that today racism is much more insidious, it lives in irony, microaggresions, and the way we use language. Now that we can’t actually say racist things, they’re coming out in irony by pretending to say racist things, which perpetuates those stereotypes and essentially makes no progress in moving towards a place where we don’t have those subconscious biases. To quote Lindy West: “People in positions of power simply cannot make jokes at the expense of the powerless.” I attached some easy read articles with videos that I think are really on point. http://jezebel.com/5905291/a-complete-guide-to-hipster-racism
I thought that it was really interesting how when we watched “The House I Live In” we discussed how the information presented in the documentary could be used as incriminating evidence and the subjects in the documentary are in danger of being prosecuted. However, when we viewed “Inside Job” that wasn’t mentioned at all even when the crimes of manipulating the economy (I believe) are significantly more severe than drug use. I feel like we have a certain bias towards educated vs. non-educated people manipulating the system. All the people in Wall Street are educated and manipulate the system in their favor while putting millions of people at a disadvantage and no one is quick to anger with them and call for justice. However, it’s so easy for people to demonize crimes committed by less educated people and be enraged that they dare test the system. I think there are many factors leading into this phenomenon, (race, class, education level) but it makes it no less disturbing.
Okay, so I was honestly a bit offended when someone said that the plaque that said it’s not hard to work twice as hard as a man was said to be man hating. That’s not the meaning of that, or the feminist movement at all. What was being said is that men can accomplish much progress by doing the bare minimum. For women to accomplish the same recognition they have to do twice as much work. For instance, relate this to grades: both a man and a woman wrote a paper that was graded an A but the man wrote a B worthy paper. He didn’t try as hard but accomplished the same feat. It’s like playing a video game on easy. It’s the same game but not as much effort is required to succeed. Becoming so hyper-offended at a humorous saying is also really disturbing. Of all the misogyny present in the world, are men really so insecure that they can’t take a well-mannered joke? There were at least 20 times more offensive things said towards women and this was the comment that we chose to get offended about. Because that would totally throw off the whole world order if a woman was somehow legitimately acknowledged for her accomplishments and was gratified in being smarter, or at least more hard working, than a man.
We often associate animation with child content, which is why this very serious topic seemed to clash with the presentation style – until further examined. A lot of the themes covered in the film like war, isolation, being uprooted from your home country and being put somewhere where you don’t belong can make individuals feel as if they are helpless, almost like children. Portraying this story through animation helped convey this sense of helplessness, where the world doesn’t even abide by the laws of physics and literally anything can happen.
I felt that the black and white coloring also represented how difficult it was to tell two sides apart during war time. Mr. Satrapi mentioned how people had begun to forget what they were fighting for as they ended the war. If you aren’t even sure what side you are on, how can you tell you enemies from your allies? The black and white painted all people with the same coloring; they are all fundamentally humans. With black and white coloring, even racial lines are invisible. The only differences are the clothing, which is an artificial layer over their being. Ultimately, I felt a them in Persepolis was that all people are people and the lines we draw to separate ourselves aren’t visible.
A slightly different view of the plethora of animals in Children of Men was that humanity had degenerated to the point that people treated the killing of others as no more than slaughtering an animal. There was also the juxtaposition of humans in cages with animals running around on the streets. The value of human and animal life is obviously skewed. There is almost a sense that since humans can no longer reproduce they don’t need another human companion and a pet is superior.