Event #2 - Wrestling With Manhood

Wrestling With Manhood: Boys, Bullying and Battering

The movie was about how the world of professional wrestling creates a culture of men being dominant. It’s about violence and power and more. Young men watch these shows and are influenced by it. Shows like WWF, RAW and Smackdown are some of the most popular shows on cable TV. What young boys and others don’t understand is that wrestling is fake and constructed to fit what the viewer wants. The wrestlers create their character and it becomes a soap opera for guys. Girls watch it too, but it’s geared toward males.

The movie was broken down into parts. The first section was Happy and Escalating Violence. Violence is the made question in wrestling. It gets young boys all into the fighting and sometimes boys apply what they see the wrestlers doing to real life. In the movie it shares how young boys have hurt and even killed other imitating wrestling moves. This is awful because these moves are actually fake. This relates to Kimmel’s “What Little Boys are Made of” when he says “Virtually all the books cite the same statistics: boys are four to five times more likely to kill themselves than girls, four times more likely to be diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, and 15 times more likely to be victims of violent crime”. Why would we show them more violence then? Or is this the reason why boys are more violent because they watching programs like wrestling? In the segment it continues to say how wrestling is like cartoon violence because no one really gets hurt, but the problem is, is that it all looks real.

The next segment is Glamorizing Men: Bullying. In the section it explains how to be a “man.” Wrestling models how men should be and everything is done through violence. The wrestling use violence, mentally subjugate, and verbally torture their opponents to win. And the person who wins is the “man.” What kind of message is this sending to young boys? That the only way to be a man is to be a jerk. Wrestling glorifies the bully. This reminds me on the Croteau piece on media. These are ideologies created by the media, and boys follow them.

Homophobia is a big topic in the film. Wrestling is very sexualized because the wrestlers wear very little clothing and are always in close contact with each other, but to be gay is looked down upon. The wrestlers use sexual moves and things to prove their masculinity to others. They insult other wrestlers masculinity and so on. They act as the police of masculinity. This relates to the other film that I went to The Bro Code, and how people in your life police masculinity as well.  There is a pair, Chuck and Billy, who are used to pick on as the “gay” wrestlers because they are a team. Their role asserts heterosexuality in the show.

Divas: Sex and Male Fantasy is also another piece of the film. The role of women in wrestling helps demonstrate heterosexuality. Before the 1990’s there really weren’t any females in wrestling, but now there are many Divas. They are used for entertainment, not so much of a role model to people. Their fights are different from the men’s, and usually the winner is always the woman who gets all the clothes off of the other. This is a really good way to show how women are equals. The way that these women show they have power is by getting men to look at them, and having large breast.

Finally the film talks about Normalizing Gender Violence. In society gender violence is a big problem, but wrestling just takes it to another level. In wrestling women are just there for men. This is all written into the scripts. The guy wrestlers force themselves onto the women and talk down to them. They say to the crowds that this is what the women deserve. In one scene of the movie one wrestler makes the women wrestler get down on the ring floor and act like a dog. But this is one of the most watched cable TV shows, I don’t get it. All these images show men controlling women and dominating them, and this is not the way it should be. 

Random Blog # 1

Last night I watched the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, a lot of people watched it too. It was pretty, and entertaining. They always have musicians sing live too. But what struck me most was when the models were talking about shooting the commercials and how they thought is was wonderful and shows how women are and blah blah. The commercials do not show how women are, in my opinion. They show a very small population of women, and this is what we're "supposed to" look like. What's really depressing about the show is that you see these beautiful women, but there's beautiful women who are short, or have curves. Why can't the models represent that?

Event #1 - Bro Code

The Bro Code; How Contemporary Culture Creates A Sexist Man (Thomas Keith)

The movie was about how our media today instills values and ideas about how men should be and about how men should act. It showed how everyday TV shows, movies, magazines and more portray men to be big, strong, successful, and powerful and the list goes on and on. The main focus of the film was to show how this idea is taught to today’s youth. Keith did this by breaking down the movie into four short segments. The segments were; Step 1: Train Men to Womanize, Step 2: Immerse Men in Porn, Step 3: Make Rape Jokes, and finally, Step 4: Obey the Masculinity Cops. Each step took you through how men learn to disrespect and put down women through media.

Starting with Step 1. The media trains men to womanize. Keith describes how men are portrayed in media. They are always looking for sex, power, and control. They have to be telling women what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. Women are portrayed in these scenarios as objects of desire, or almost like something that is being hunted. Keith explains this by using MTV reality shows, mainly Jersey Shore. Jersey Shore reinforces theses patriarchal ideas that our society today still inhabits.

This reminded me of the Johnson piece we read. It is just another way to show how men are privileged over women, but with this culture there is never going to be any change if we don’t change the media.

Step 2: Immerse Men in Porn talks about how porn transforms the way that men look at women. In 1970 hardcore porn flourished and makes more money then many other big industries. Keith talks about how easy it is for boys to gain access to pornography because of the Internet. Now boys as young as twelve are being submerged into porn. Keith also mentions that girls will start watching at around age sixteen. It’s then continued to be explained how this is the sex education that boys are getting today, and the idea that women are sex objects is shown through this. The movie then talks about how there is porn that is extremely degrading to women, and more violent – hate porn.

I watched this movie well before we did our sex positivity blog and discussion and I don’t believe that porn is a bad thing, I just don’t think this is the way many boys should learn about sex.

Step 3: Make Rape Jokes is about how “boy culture” makes this okay almost. Keith talks about how this is a big issue. It has an impact on victims of rape and just shows violence against women. This should never be joked about in my opinion. These jokes are major problems on campuses. They make women more vulnerable, in the film there are even an idea, parties, trap the woman, and make her pass out. Achieving these things give guys status according to the film. Keith even mentions that there’s a no snitching rule. (In another class we watched a video about snitching, the culture is big in certain parts of cities and places).

Finally, Step 4: Obey the Masculinity Cops which is pretty much everyone who surrounds you. In this section Keith talks about how your dad, brothers, mothers, coaches and friends all reinforce how boys are supposed to act. This section also compares women to slaves, and mentions how women’s “love” is the only thing that will make a bad boy good.

This section reminded me of the Kimmel piece we read. How little boys are thought to be a certain way, like violent and muddy. But this isn’t the case, our culture definitely does submerge boys into an idea of how they’re supposed to be, and it is known to be true that men are at higher risk for violence then women, but this doesn’t mean we need to make is worse for boys by policing them. 

Talking Point #12 - Ayvazian

Hyperlinks
In Ayvazian's Interrupinting then Cycle of Oppression: The Roles of Allies as Agents of Change defines what being an ally: "a member of dominant group in our society who works to dismantle any form of oppression from which she or he receives the benefit". She then continues to describe how this person takes a stand for what they believe in. They may call out someone for saying something they don't like to hear, they challenge people to help others who may not have to the words to help themselves. When reading the article I googled ally, and I found good definitions and examples. I also found this video as well.

The company Accenture, is a global company that works with other companies to improve them, but they also work as allys to the people in their company. They want the people in their company to be able to feel comfortable in the workplace. I think this is a nice thing because it gets everyone involved in being helpful to one another. I think this ties in with Ayvazian because people in Accenture are working to help others. They are using ally behavior "taking personal responsibility for the changes we know are needed in our society, and so often ignore or to leave to others to deal with". 

Ideology

When scholars examine media products to uncover their "ideology," they are interested in the underlying images of society they provide. In this context, an ideology is basically a system of meaning that helps define and explain the world and that makes value judgements about that world. Ideology is related to concepts such as worldview, belief system, and values, but it is broader than those terms. It refers not only to the beliefs held about the world but also to the basic ways in which the world is defined. 

When I read this all I could think about was how commercials and ads were. They target people and most of the time we don't even notice what is happening in the ad. But all of of ads and media reflect what we value in society. If you look at a cleaning commercial 90% of the time you see a woman cleaning. Then something about a gym or even food there will be a man in it. It's the worldview of how the woman should still be in the home. It also relates back to our sex positivity reading, when White said how sex is everywhere today as well, and the media shows this the most in ads, movies, music, and so on. Then all theses messages get confusing because you never know what you're supposed to do and how you're supposed to act. 

Indeed, prominent politicians routinely identify mass media as a facilitator, and sometimes a source, or social problems. For example, on the campaign trail in 2000, presidential candidate George W. Bush suggested that "dark dungeons of evil on the Internet" were partly to blame for school violence (Komblut and Scales, 2000). And after the tragic shootings at Colorado's Columbine High School in 1999, politicians from across the political spectrum focused on violent video games as one of the causes of the violence. 

I can understand why people feel the need to blame things like the Internet and violent video games as factors of school violence, but it's really a very small factor. School violence is a bigger issue then just the violent video games people my play. Many more people play those games and don't really take it to real life. I think politicians most of the time are just trying to distract people from real problems. Why not focus on gun control, instead of the violent video game? 

This articulation is accomplished, in large part, by the fact that popular media, particularly television and mass advertising, have a tendency to display a remarkably narrow range of behaviors and lifestyles, marginalizing or neglecting people who are "different" from the mass-meadiated norm. When such difference is highlighted by, for example, television talk shows that routinely include people who are otherwise invisible in the mass media - cross-dressers, squatters, or strippers - the media can become part of a spectacle of the bizarre. 

We normalize behaviors. Most of what is on TV is "normal". It's a man and a woman together with kids, even single parent hood is becoming more normal in shows. But when there is a show of even a character in a show that is gay they act os comic relief most of the time. Today we do have more television shows that portray different types of families and people, but it's taken this long to finally see some change. People still watch shows like Maury to see all the chaos of peoples life, because we find this entertaining, but just as Croteau says it becomes "a spectacle of the bizarre".

Election Post

Today was my first time voting. It was pretty cool, and I got a sticker. :) When voting today, I noticed that I was the only young person there. I think more people should have gone out, and voted in my town.
I've been watching the news for a while now (I watched most of it with Mike too), and so far its still a guessing game when it comes to who will win. My house wasn't really that exciting either, no one was flipping out at the news or anything. But I just found out that Elizabeth Warren beat Scott Brown. Good news! (I do live in Massachusetts). Right now they're showing her give her victory speech. It's almost tough to pay attention to everything because there are so many things popping up on the TV screen.
The whole experience today was exciting though. I've never been so involved with an election. I certainly didn't pay this much attention to the last election, but then again I was only 16 then. I liked being informed though, and knowing what is going on in the country, and in my state. I like how my vote today counted.

Talking Point # 9 - Sex Positivity

Sex-positive movement: "an ideology which promotes and embraces open sexuality with few limits beyond an emphasis on safe sex and the importance of informed consent." After reading the Wikipedia page about sex-positive feminism and Rachel White's blog, sex-positivity is being comfortable with what you find sexually attractive, or even if you don't find anything sexually attractive. It was a little confusing.

The politic issues on the Wikipedia is what really stood out. The movement started in response to anti-pornography, many feminist thought that pornography was one thing that oppressed women. Gayle Rubin says "that anti-pornography feminists exaggerate the dangers of pornography by showing the most shocking pornographic images." The page then continues to say how by showing these images anti-pornography feminist give the wrong message to people. That these images are portrayed differently when taken out of context, and look like rape or other things are taking place. The sex-positive feminist believe that pornography is important to women and to men. They don't believe that it is hurting anyone to see it. The Wikipedia then continues to talk about sex work, BDSM. I like how it also talks about sexual orientation saying that "sex-positive feminist believe that accepting the validity of all sexual orientations is necessary in order to all women sexual freedom." I that everyone should be able to feel comfortable with who they are so they can figure out their sex-poisivity.

In "The Frisky", I do like how White goes through her blog. Most of her points I completely agree with. I believe that we glamorize sex all the time. Society trains us to do this, and sex is everywhere today. White continues with Slut-shaming. She says that people do this all the time, and that most of the time we don't even realize it. When people say that some is a slut because they take the pill (this is so frustrating, because women take birth control for many more reasons then just to not get pregnant. It's annoying how people think if someone is on the pill they're a crazy sex animal). But we don't just do this when we talk about the pill, we slut-shame when we say it was someones own fault when their nude photos got released without their permission. We say they shouldn't have taken them in the first place. We judge people all the time, and we really shouldn't. We don't know why people do things, but it's really only their business anyway. Finally, when White talks about how intimacy is complex. I like how she explains how sex can be easy for some people and harder for others. That is can be a big deal to share your body with someone else, and so on. I don't think many people take this into consideration, and this is because of our culture being so full of sex, that it almost feels expected that sex should be easy, but everyone is different, and needs to find these things out for themselves.  

Cinderella Ate My Daughter - Orenstein

Extended Comments

I like how Noelle put Orenstein's main argument that we are not teaching girls how to be a girl, but instead on how to be a princess. The Disney princess just teaches girls how to be feminine (and what femininity should look like), how they live the fairytale, and finally how they must get the perfect man. It's tough to deny this of a little girl though. I was Belle from Beauty and The Beast for Halloween at least three times when I was younger. I watched every Disney princess movie too. I lived in the fairytale world and wanted my "prince charming". But is this really the example we should set for little girls today? I don't think there's anyway around it. When I think of fairytales though, it's always the princess being saved by the hero, or the prince. Very rarely is it the other way around.

I like how Noelle's blog continues to go on about how we only see one type of princess. They're always beautiful, have long hair, are skinny, and so on. I love how she brought up how we've yet to see a bald princess, or a plus size princess. Why must everything that we do revolve around the way people look. I don't think someone's beautiful just because they have all the physical characteristics of a princess, or prince. I don't think this sets the right example for little girls because it shows how they can only be happy if they look like a princess, and that is not the case. A better lesson to teach is how to be happy with yourself no matter what you look like.
Finally when Orenstein talks about how pink is coded in little girls DNA. I don't know if this is completely true, I know a lot of girls who really don't like the color at all. I like the color a lot. I think it stands out just because its light and bright compared to other colors though. I don't believe I've been programmed to love the color pink. I think society has just forced pink on girls. If you walk into a baby shower for a little girl, the entire room is wall to wall pink! The color has been chosen even before the little girl has the chance to decide for herself.

"What Are Little Boys Made Of?" - Kimmel

 Quotes

"Gurian argues that as feminists have changed the rules, they've made boys the problem. By minimizing the importance of basic biological differences, and establishing girls' standards as the ones all children must follow, feminists have wrecked boyhood." (157)
I don't believe that feminists have wrecked boyhood. Little boys still run around and play, just like little girls do. It's just not acceptable for them to be violent (which it shouldn't be anyway). I don't think we're holding boys to girls' standards as well. I don't believe that we're trying to make them feminine, just well behaved. And what makes these standards girl standards? Is it because they aren't rough, or violent?

"If all the boys are white and middle class, at they're not all straight. Most therapists treat homosexuality casually, dropping in a brief reference, "explaining" it as biological, and urging compassion and understanding before returning to more "important" stuff." (158)
Why do all these writers only briefly mention homosexuality? If they're so involved with talking about how boys should be boys, why not give this more say? These authors only talk about testosterone, and how boys are wild and crazy. Not all boys are like this either. It seems as though they are as restricting as they say feminism is on men. They're only talking about a certain type of boy, not all of them. This isn't fair.

The books that are written with an understanding of male privilege - and the need to challenge it - are the ones that offer the most useful tools to improve boys' lives.... Feminism encourages men - and their sons - to be more emotionally open and expressive, to develop empathic skills, and to channel emotional outbursts away from violence." (159). 
This relates to the Johnson piece we read, because it was about how males need to recognize that they have power and privilege. The authors of these books Kimmel talks about need to recognize that male privilege needs to be changed, and that the people that will change it are the people who have it themselves. Feminism should encourage men to be more emotional. Many men (I know) don't show many emotions, and I think this is part of the reason that men can have outbursts. Women can also bottle their emotions up as well and have outbursts, but it is excepted socially for women to be emotional. Why can boys and men be this way too?

                                                 Is this what boys should look like?

"The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House" - Lorde

Argument

Audre Lorde argues that there are differences between women, even feminists. Lorde shares how these differences are about "race, sexuality, class and age". She continues to explain how women are even discriminated against on an academic level where if they are not from a certain class, or particularly a white feminist, they are not asked to participate in events. Also how their work only gets published in different circumstances. Lorde states "those of us who stand outside of the circle of this society's definition of acceptable women; those of us who have been forged in the crucibles of difference - those of us who are poor, who are lesbians, who are Black, who are older..." this quote explains how she views the differences. She explains how these are the people who are different, and will be different, because of power and privilege of other people. She then continues to explain how theses differences can lead to greater things, and strength. She explains how white feminists deal with the difference and the oppression. She tells the reader how academic feminists fail to see "difference as strength", also like they want to just be equal so bad, that they forget difference is what units them too. Finally Lorde says, "...white feminists have educated themselves about such an enormous amount over the past ten years, how come you haven't also educated yourselves about Black women and the differences between us - white and Black - when it is key to our survival as a movement?" This I think is her main point. Why isn't everyone united just for one cause. All women are trying to become equal so why do we have to "fight" among ourselves, when the real fight is just for equality of everyone.

Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence - Rich

I'm going to try my best at this.. This text was confusing.

According to Rich compulsory heterosexuality means that we are obligated to be heterosexual. That society trains us to be this way and only this way. It is only okay to be heterosexual in our society, and Rich explains how lesbians are not equal to straight people. Rich explains how lesbians often have to hide their orientation so they aren't discriminated against in the workplace. She even states that lesbians have been fired from their jobs, and that they are even fired from institutions that were created by feminists. She also shares how feminist literature is mainly heterosexual, and does not mention lesbians. 

Rich explains lesbian existence by saying how lesbians don't really exist in society. She talks about how there is never any mention about lesbians, in society or in literature. Rich mentions how there is "a scale ranging from deviant to abhorrent or simply rendered invisible", to describe lesbians. She continues to explain this through many articles and books that she has read, and it gets more confusing. 

Exploring - Talking Point #4

When looking through the websites I found some interesting things. Like when looking through The People Like Us page I found the stories page. It was interesting to read through the stories that PBS had posted, but what was more interesting were the stories that people posted themselves. Many of the stories had a common thread too, they all talked about being part of the "blue-collar" or "elite", but having some type of problem when they were there, or with the class in general. When looking through the Center For AWorking - Class Studies page I read "What is Working - Class Studies?"it was interesting to know what "working class" is and who identifies with it. What I found most interesting is how many people identify with the working class. About half of the country does. How does the other half of the country identify? (I don't know). I'm a part of the working class, and so are my parents. I don't know if I've ever identified that way until now. It was interesting though to get a different point of view on what the working class was, compared to how people talk about it.

I do believe that economic inequality is a feminists issue. Most women in higher paying jobs still don't get paid as much as men doing the same jobs. (This sometimes even happens in lower paying jobs). Women still have to fight for equality in the work place, even though we have already been trying to gain equality. Women don't hold many CEO jobs either, when they are defiantly more than capable. Economic inequality is a feminist issue because women are still thought to only be mothers, but now mothers are also providers for their families as well. Having inequalities makes it much harder for women to make money to provide for their children (many of the PBS stories expressed this as well). Feminist are also fighting for the equality of others in the workforce as well, and those bring up different issues too.

Mitt Romney and "Legitimate Rape"

The Huffington Post article Mitt Romney Distances Self From Todd Akin's 'Legitimate Rape' Comments shares how Romney is not opposed to abortion when it comes to rape. The article also explains how he, and his running mate Paul Ryan, are trying to distance themselves from what Todd Akin said. Akin said that women have the ability to shut down their reproductive systems when they are being "legitimately raped". Ryan also worked collaboratively with Akin in a bill that defines what is legitimate rape, and wants to only allow abortion in rare cases. They say that they aren't hurting the person who has been raped with these laws and bills, and that the rapist should be the one who is punished. (I agree that the rapist should be punished! I also believe that making a women, or a young girl carry the baby of someone who raped her could be a form a punishment as well.)
The article wants to let you know that Romney does not agree with this, but it doesn't really back up Ryan on the subject. Ryan is still seen to be only "pro-life" and does not want any abortion to be legal at all. The only exception that Ryan allows abortion is when the mothers life is at risk. The article to tries to make clear that Romney does support abortion in case of rape, incest and when the mothers' life is at risk.

Heres a link to a video that states Romney's view. (I couldn't get the video embedded!)

It's hard to be clear on the subject when you hear so many different views on what Mitt Romney's stance on abortion is. Many also believe that his stance changes all the time. I don't know what is true, but I would hope that if elected he would think about all the women who live in this country, and allow them to decide what to do with their own bodies.

Privilege, Power, and Difference - Johnson

Reflection

Both text make to think of where I stand in society today. In Johnson's piece he talks about "the diversity wheel" (17) and he tells us to sit and take the time too see where we fall in it. If i put myself in the wheel, I am female, French-Canadian, white, twenty years old, heterosexual, and physically able. In the outer part of the wheel I am single, have no children, I'm middle-class, and a full-time student. I have a part-time job. I have lived in Massachusetts my whole life. I am Catholic, but not practicing. I am not involved in the military. As Johnson further explains "As you reflect on the results of this exercise, it might occur to you (as it did to me) that the wheel doesn't say much about the unique individual you know yourself to be, your personal history, the content of your character, what you dream and feel. It does, however, say a lot about the social reality that shapes everyone's life in powerful ways." (18) I never really took the time to think about how people judge me. People tend to judge me on face value (what they can see just from my appearance), they don't judge me really on what I believe (that is until you get to know me, then maybe people do). These are also things that society has shaped as well. I knew this while reading and Johnson states a lot that society has shaped the way that we judge people. Society says that if we aren't male, or white that we are not equal. Women still today get paid less then men do. Also, when I read this part of the text about "the diversity wheel", I didn't realize that I was privileged in a way. That I am white, and heterosexual (I'm not a male, so I don't have that privilege), and that these bring opportunities to me without me even knowing. It's not something that I ever really thought about. Johnson continues to go on and explain what would happen if one day we woke up and our "diversity wheel" shifted (this reminded me of our Thoughts on the Beginning exercise). Just little shifts in the wheel could change all the privileges that I may have. It was a lot to think about while reading the text.

When I was reading the text this morning I had the show Sunday Morning on. This piece about Ellen DeGeneres came on, and I though it related to both texts that were read for this week.

"A Tsunami in History" from The F-Word: Feminism in Jeopardy - Rowe-Finkbeiner & "Fear or Feminism" - Hogeland

Quotes

1. "The first wave of women's movement is significant, however, not only because women obtained the right to vote, but because their work helped change the perception of women from voiceless dependents to independent thinkers with a valid voice in shaping the country." (23)
This quote explains how important it was for women to obtain the right to vote. The first wave of feminism broke the ice for women. It allowed them to move on and fight for different aspects of their lives. Just because women were able to vote didn't mean that they were equal to men. As Rowe-Finbeiner's piece continues she talks about how women fought for rights to their bodies, equal pay in the workforce and more. The first wave of feminism gave women the courage (not all women) to stand away from men, and think for themselves.

2. "It's been suggested that America today lacks a broad-based women's movement because we are in a time of "postfeminism," with the fight for equality and respectful treatment over and done.Yet women still face social and economic inequalities each day: the glass ceiling has only cracked not broken; and there is a persistent wage gap between women and men, and an even-lager wage gap between mothers and nonmothers, with single mothers taking the largest wage hits of them all". (32)
This quote explains how even though people believe we are "postfeminism" we are actually in the third wave of feminism. Today we still struggle with inequalities with women and men. The quote gives the feeling that there is still a lot to do and that women today need to participate. Rowe-Finkbeiner continues to explain how this generation doesn't want to participate in feminism. Even after all the women before in both the first and second waves have done for us, with voting and equal opportunities for jobs, there is still gaps. I know that in many companies women never get CEO positions, or that women in higher places in cooperations still get paid significantly less than men do. The quote shows how women still need to fight to be equal even if people think we are past feminism.

3. "Feminism is one of the few movements int the U.S. that produce nonacademic intellectuals - readers, writers, thinkers, and theorists outside the academy, who combine and refine their knowledge with their practice." (Hogeland 31)
This quote from "Fear of Feminism" explains how feminism is a movement and thought that was not created of a foundation of education. Women were not allowed equal rights to education when the movement first started. It was based on the fact that women wanted equal rights to men. I find this quote to be truly amazing, because these women who started the movement were so radical to come up with these ideas. I believe this quote really shows how even if you are not an intellect that you can still participate in the movement.

Hey! :)

Hi guys,

My name is Jessica Parenteau and this is my third year at RIC.  I live in Blackstone, Massachusetts, which is on the Rhode Island border, about thirty minutes from the college.  I spent a lot of time at the Cape this summer, and enjoyed the beach. Something that's different about me is I have Celiac Disease, so that means that I can't eat anything with gluten in it. I haven't eaten a real piece of pizza in a while, but that's okay with me. I decided to take this class because it sounded interesting, and the issue of gender pops up everywhere in society today. When I'm not in class or going to other classes, I like to read, bake, and listen to music. That's just a little about me. I'm looking forward to a good semester. 

Jessica :)