..

The Only All Girls' Public School in New York City

Nicole — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:26:43 EDT

Feministing.com has this video up. Some of the commenters were bothered by the fact that the girls generalized too much about the differences between girls and boys (boys want to play video games and not read for example) and that the teacher suggests girls need to be taken out of their shells to be more assertive.
I think most of the comments shouldn't be taken as seriously given the girls in the video are eight years old and under and most kids at such a young age make generalizations about the other sex, even if it's just based on a couple of people they know (most often their brothers). As for the teacher's comment, I'm not sure if she means that girls are naturally more quiet or if it's more along the lines of preventing them from becoming that way as many do when they hit older grades.
But either way it's a cute video and definitely preferable to the all girls' schools in South Carolina. Plus, it gives parents of daughters in New York City an option that's better than most of the public schools.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVhzDJPxKKg

Get a Bachelor's Degree in Homemaking!!

Nicole — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:33:58 EDT

Southern Baptist Seminary is offerring a major in homemaking and they're not even trying to pretend that its purpose is for anything other than to teach women to be subservient to their husbands, the way God supposedly intended.

Men are not allowed to enroll in the program and there is no equivalent program for men. And why would there be? The "Professor" of one course gave a three hour lecture on the "glorious [sic] inequalities of life".

So, the women aren't only taught that men and women are not deserving of the same respect or oppurutunities in life, but also that this inequal situation is divine!

Must seperate always mean unequal?

Nicole — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 03:03:34 EDT

South Carolina is leading the way in experimenting with sexually segregated classrooms for middle and high school students but the classes that are offerred for boys and girls seem to be based on archaic gender "norms" that provide the boys with more team work and hands on learning, while the girls learn to evaluate cosmetic products for science.

Although I've always been unsure on how the affects of sex segregated schools and classrooms might influence how the children educated in them are able to deal with the opposite sex later in life in both professional and social situations, I've always found it somewhat appealing.

It isn't because of my thoughts on gender differences, or lack thereof, but because of the way that interactions between the sexes often distracts students from the primary goal--education. It may not be a panacea but in a single sex school or classroom, I'd think that some students of each sex would spend less time thinking about their appearance and would be less self concious when it comes to class discussions and extra curriculars, leading them to be more assertive in their strenghts and more likely to overcome their weaknesses.

Another non-trivial matter it could help ease is the prevalence of sexual harrassmet girls are often subjected to in schools. It's something that is common, often happens right under the teachers' noses but rarely gets reported and adequately dealt with. If girls are being sexually harrassed in school, they're more likely to suffer personally and academically.

Studies have also shown that girls tend to fare better in girl only environments, although unfortunately the results aren't as positive for boys in single sex schools.

I would still be interested to see how something like this works out in the state but without the difference in curriculum. I'm surprised that they're giving such different standards and lessons for each sex, especially right from the start.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071001/ap_on_re_us/single_gender_classes

Not the way Danny Tanner would do it.

Nicole — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:12:48 EDT

On Salon, Gary Kamiya recaps how he discussed the birds, the bees, and drugs with his teenage son...after taking a couple of hits from a blunt at a concert he brought his son to.

Why Animal Testing Is Humane and Necessary

Nicole — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:10:21 EDT

While I can understand attempts to get people to stop buying and wearing fur or leather and to stop eating meat, my understanding comes to a sharp halt when the issue of animal testing for medial research comes up. While animal activists and groups like PETA may be well intentioned, they are often very misguided. To fight for proper treatment of animals in labratories is a worthy cause but to try and totally prevent the use of animals in research is dangerous and immoral.

Differences in brain activity of conservatives & liberals

Nicole — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 02:54:19 EDT

http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2007/09/differences_in_brain_activity.php

The Rhetoric Around Addiction and its Implications for Those Who Need Help.

Nicole — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:11:53 EDT

Slate has an article criticizing recent congressional attempts to change the language regarding addiction in order to destigmatize it with the hopes that it will encourage more users to seek the help they need. The author's rebuke this attempt on a few basic grounds http://www.slate.com/id/2171131/pagenum/2/.

~That considering drug addiction along the same lines as a chronic brain disease diminishes the sense of autonomy in the user that is necessary for him/her to take the steps needed to quit their use because it implies that it is out of their control.

~ That if addiction were equivalent to other brain diseases like schizophrenia, the addict would not be able to make other choices in between their times of use.

<blockquote> Yet addicts rarely spend all of their time in the throes of an intense neurochemical siege. In the days between binges, cocaine addicts make many decisions that have nothing to do with drug-seeking. Should they try to find a different job? Kick that freeloading cousin off their couch for good? Register for food stamps? Most of the patients one of us treats hold jobs while pursuing their heroin habits.<blockquote>.

~The authors argue that it diminishes the role a person's choices play in their affliction. <blockquote>it threatens to obscure the vast role personal agency plays in perpetuating the cycle of use and relapse to drugs and alcohol. <blockquote>

~And finally, it questions whether stigmas are necessarily bad because the social stigma can help motivate people to stop their destructive behavior.

I have a few problems with this.

Here we go.

Nicole — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 03:09:04 EDT

If you thought the coverage of Pelosi's wardrobe was bad...Link />
"She was talking on the Senate floor about the burdensome cost of higher education. She was wearing a rose-colored blazer over a black top. The neckline sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape. The cleavage registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn't an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable."

"The last time Clinton wore anything that was remotely sexy in a public setting surely must have been more than a decade ago".

"To display cleavage in a setting that does not involve cocktails and hors d'oeuvres is a provocation. It requires that a woman be utterly at ease in her skin, coolly confident about her appearance, unflinching about her sense of style. Any hint of ambivalence makes everyone uncomfortable. And in matters of style, Clinton is as noncommittal as ever."

Progressivism in Practice.

Nicole — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:31:09 EDT

One of the things I keep thinking about when weighing the democratic presidential candidates is who is more likely to ACTUALLY MAKE more progressive changes in office. I don't think it's just a matter of who is generally more progressive (based on their past records or rhetoric) or what the highlight of their campaign is, especially in the primary.

Without mentioning any names, I wonder if those who are promoting more bold progressive policies will change their tune to a more centrist tone during the general election if they receive the nomination, but more importantly, once in office will they have a harder time actually implementing their plans than a candidate who has been slightly more cautious/centirst from the beginning?

In other words, is the centrist candidate being smarter, not just for the sake of winning both the primary and general election but also because they will actually have a better chance to see through their plans once in office? Assuming the centrist candidate will be more successful in promoting their policies in office, couldn't it be possible that they may actually bring more progressive change? And if this is the case, then would it be a better option to vote for them in the name of pragmatism, or would it still be a better idea to vote for the candidate promoting the most progressive policies with the hope that their plans will succeed (even if you may doubt it).

Gendered Politics

Nicole — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 02:27:41 EDT

It would be near impossible to prevent commentary on the role gender plays in our perceptions of people with Hillary Cliton being the first female presidential candidate. But the amount of coverage it receives is ridiculous and extends not only to the other presidential candidates, but has gone as far as to label the two parties based on gender as well.

While many republicans have been trying to play up the republican candidate's super masculine featuresLink, and attempting to equate them with presidential qualifications (and simultaneously trying to feminize the democratic candidates as supposed proof of their ability to lead), Hillary is left with the task of becoming bi-gendered in order to remain gender neutral.

Hillary: Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.

Nicole — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:53:49 EDT

The NYTimes has a report on whether or not Hillary Clinton's faith is sincere or purely politically motivated and whether or not her religious beliefs (if sincere) are too liberal either way.Link />
First of all, without trying to sound too cynical, if Hillary is using faith based talk to reach out to voters, does that really make her any different than most other politicians? And if she's basically doing what any smart politician would, why does she receive more heat for it?

Second of all, in the article she's being criticized by some because her denomination has focused more on social issues than internal salvation; if a person's religious faith is going to play a role in their political decisions, isn't it better for the country if their faith is based on social progress than personal redemption? While Jesus saving Bush from alcoholism might have changed his life, it has no effect on how that will affect what he does for the country's citizens. And when religious politicians who focus more on salvation, it tends to just lead to an un-Christian like, condescending attitude at best and horrible policies at worst that try to control the aspects of a person's life the government should have no say in.

I really don't want another president who recounts their personal (two way?) discussions with God. And while I'd much prefer the religious talk be kept to a minimum in politics, it doesn't bother me if political allusions are used to reach out to those of faith as a common ground to reach shared progressive values.

Hormonal Changes of Expecant Fathers

Nicole — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:48:45 EDT

New research coming out on the physiological changes men go through during their mate's pregnancy and after their child's birth, throws the idea that men aren't natural caretakers right out the window. Link />Although the research indicates that higher levels of testosterone will make the person less attentive, it also found that men's testosterone levels drop after the birth of their chlld, which seems to increase the amount of attention and affection they give to it.

Although this article didn't mention it specifically, I know that women's testosterone levels tend to increase during and after pregnancy and I wonder if this helps increase their energy levels for child rearing (because testosterone increases energy) or if it's just a side effect with no specific purpose.

Either way both parents physiologically respond to the birth of a child equally (both also have higher levels of corisole after which increases levels of stress which some suggest is there to make them more concerned for the well being of their child), putting aside the notion that men are not fit for child rearing; if anything the research indicates that ancient men who stuck around to help with the kids instead of hunting and fighting would have been doing their progeny a greater service in both the short and long term.

Give me the money.

Nicole — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:04:29 EDT

Daniel Gross is right. Giving money as a wedding gift makes perfect sense. In New York City, it has always been the norm (and until I was told otherwise I thought it was the norm all over the country). If you think of the scene in Goodfellas where the couple receives card after card filled with cash to put in their bag, that's how it typically goes even for non mafiosos.

It's been that way for a while but it makes more sense now than ever given how ridiculously expensive weddings have become matched with the fact that many couples are living together before they marry anyway.

Buying things off a bridal registry to help the couple get the things they'll need in their home isn't a bad idea if they are in need of most of those things, but by giving them money, they can use that to buy what they wish anyway.

But they can also use it for their honeymoon as the couple in the article did, which is a fabulous idea because really that's going to be the main part the couple will enjoy and remember (and can help relieve them of the stress they had from planning the wedding).

Or for the more practical couples like my aunt who recently married, they may just want to bank the cash because they spent so much on the reception to begin with.

It wouldn't be considered tacky for someone to give cash as a graduation gift, so why as a wedding gift? Why does our culture pretend love is something completely seperate from everyday life?

Something that actually matters about the Paris Hilton story.

Nicole — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 23:32:23 EDT

I'm proud to say this is the only article I've decided to read about her and the situation thus far.Link

Cosmetic Surgery

Nicole — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 03:20:46 EDT

While out for drinks last night, my friends and I somehow came across the topic of hair removal (the different methods we've tried, which works best etc.) and the next thing I knew, we were all talking about different cosmetic procedures we'd considered having done.
At first it was just permanent hair removal methods or scar removal but the next thing I knew we were talking about nose jobs and breast implants.

And although none of us are by any means wealthy, and we're all healthy and smart, we all had at least one certain procedure in mind that we felt we wanted badly enough to spend our hard earned money on (not to mention going through the medical process for).

I had always been against plastic surgery on principle growing up, even as I at times played with the idea of getting certain things done. And I still feel somewhat saddened when I hear of people getting it done because I wish people could just be satisfied exactly as they are. And I feel like I SHOULD be against it from a feminist perspective. But the more time goes on, the more understanding, if not completely open, I feel towards it.

Thoughts on Nuclear Energy?

Nicole — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:49:38 EDT

I'm just curious what people think. From what I've read on it so far it seems the most logical way to go but a lot of people seem really skeptical about it. Most presidential candidates seem "open" to it but few seem to be really embracing it, while many are really open to using things like ethanol even though ethanol, especially ethanol from corn, isn't nearly as beneficial and could even cause worse problems for our country and world.
The only arguments against nuclear power that are understandable regard how to safely get rid of waste and whether or not we'd be able to build enough nuclear energy plants fast enough to make it feasible in the near future to go completely nuclear. But from what I've read neither seem to be major issues and it seems to be the cheapest source of energy; it's renewable and best for the environment save for things like wind energy which aren't really reliable.

How Should We Measure an Immigrant's Worth?

Nicole — Mon, 28 May 2007 02:50:42 EDT

The immigration bill currently being debated in congress would do away with E-B1, which has traditionally let extraordinary people become citizens faster due to the current point system being considered which places higher value on skills easily measured, such as holding a college degree or being fluent in English. Link />

Don't be slutty, starve yourself like a classy lady would.

Nicole — Fri, 11 May 2007 00:36:53 EDT

Link />I for one would rather see women walking around in nothing than thongs and heels than becoming emaciated, pretending it means they're above it all.

Context Matters: The Difference between Don Imus and Bill Maher

Nicole — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 02:28:21 EDT

The context of a "joke" is really important because the context of the joke speaks volumes about what the person of the joke is saying. I am one of the people who never heard of Don Imus before this story broke out, so it'd be wrong for me to analyze him or his show overall. However, I do understand that while he was a shock jock, he also discussed serious issues on his show and had many guests who are influential in society. But either way, his "joke" about the women basketball players was wrong because of the fact that the only way to find calling a person a deragatory word funny is if you find something funny/wrong with the group the word refers to.

Political Correctness Versus Common Decency

Nicole — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 23:16:49 EDT

I don't know how many times I have to hear people tell me to relax for getting upset and/or telling them what I think they're saying is offensive.

When my friend told me about some "faggot" trying to hit on him and I told him how I felt about people using words like that, he told me to chill with the political correctness because we were just having a casual conversation and that I know he doesn't hate gay people so I should have "just let it slide".