When it comes to my final project, I really would like to create a program that could be used in schools to discuss the power of language. There have been so many times when I have heard students refer to an object being "gay." Students are using words such as "gay," "faggot," and "retard" as a derogatory term. Students should become informed that this type of language is disrespectful and should not be used within the academic setting.

This program will obviously be geared towards high school students. From personal experience within a classroom, I have heard how often phrases like "that's so gay" is used. I would like to show these students how it feels to be called out for being different. People are using these terms in negative ways, further portraying the words as bad.

The first part of this program would be to ask for volunteers to come to the front of the group and have them leave the room. The students left would then write down negative comments on each of the person that left. When they come back to the room, the comments will be read out loud, not identifying who is being spoken about. This will show everyone that being called out for something is not fair.

Another point that needs to be brought up is that some people feel it is okay to use that type of language because they are only talking about an object and not a person. This could be a great time to bring up others words that started off with describing people but turned into something negative. No one wants something they can relate with to be something bad.

A lot of reports and research can be used to raise awareness. There was a time where there were psa's were used to promote the change. Many of those can be used and people can create their own. Statistics can be used to show how prevalent the gay community is within high schools and then people who can be affected by the language are all around.

Overall, a change needs to be made and the first and best place to start would be in high schools. Students are about to enter into the real world and need to learn that they should be tolerant of others and their language should be appropriate as well.

According to Martha McMahon, in her piece, "Resisting Globalization," the idea of globalizations is actually destroying small farmers, in particularly, women, who could potentially make a difference. She argues that the world of agriculture is one that is based off of class, race and gender. She states that "there is more food produced every year than the world's population could consume. People are hungry, it seems, because they lack access. They don't have money to buy food or access to land on which to grow it" (482). Essentially, what is happening is that in this world, everyone could potentially have enough food to survive on during their lifetime. The reason why people are going hungry is because they are not able to afford to buy the food or the land to grow food. The real problem behind agriculture is the economy.

She argues that those who are in power are white men. They are in control and only care about the economic aspect. Through globalization, food is being produced and controlled by huge corporations. These corporations are taking over and making the small farmers no longer important. They can no longer go head to head against these corporations. An interesting point made about these small farmers is that many of them are women. So in this field alone, globalization is causing women to become undermined and devalued. If these women were given a chance, they could gain more of a voice and ultimately more power to feed those who are need.

Another interesting point brought up Winnie Woodhull's piece, is that the fight for feminist rights is something that is not global, contrary to popular belief. She says that "given the global arena in which third-wave feminism emerges, it is disappointing that new feminist debates arising in the first world context mainly address issues that pertain only to women in those contexts. At their best, they attend to issues of race and class as they shape the politics of gender and sexuality in the global North" (255). It is interesting to think that women fighting for the rights of women are actually not on the same page. Many times, it appears that many are fighting for a "universal" fight that actually only pertains to a specific group. Globalization has made communication with others easy enough to where one sides argument can be told around the world, influencing others. The fight for feminist rights should be one that includes women from all different contexts. There should be a united front towards these rights for women around the world. And if used properly, globalization could potentially allow for this to happen.

In the piece, "Cuidad, Juarez," globalization plays out another interesting point. This tells the story of a young women who ended up going missing. She grew up in a place where there was not a lot of money. When she was just fifteen years old, she ended up going to work in a factory making cables for American products. She worked very long shifts for not a lot of money. The factory was her only source of income and was one day told she was not allowed to work because she missed the bus and arrived three minutes late. She was under constant pressure to do her job perfectly, for fear of being fired. Globalization has muffled women's voiced. They are no longer given choices or freedom to make their own decisions. For many, working in these conditions is only for survival. While globalization may appear to be a positive thing, for those working to provide for the rest of us, it really isn't.

Everyone has a Culture...

It can sometimes be easy to judge people based off of their culture. It happens ever so often. To many, culture is identity. It is something that everyone has. But when someone spends their entire life within a specific culture, others begin to not make sense. This confusion and difference in cultures is what makes it so easy for others to believe that other cultures are not as important. When this happens, conflicts can arise and issues can develop amongst groups. Different cultures are things that should be embraced, not judged upon.

In the article written by Horace Miner, he describes the inner workings of body rituals among the Nacerima. To a person not belonging to this culture, their rituals may appear to be extreme and grotesque. One might wonder why someone would even feel the need to go through such rituals. The Nacerima has a very interesting view when it comes to people's mouths. The Nacirema have an almost pathological horror of and fascination with the mouth, the condition of which is believed to have a supernatural influence on all social relationships"(2). To someone belonging to another culture, this is something that would be very strange. Here, people don't really put emphasis on mouths. Mouths are not seen as things that can ruin a person's life. Many find mouths powerful because they give us the power to speak. Something as simple as this difference may cast negative views towards this group of people. Because it is different, it becomes weird and strange, something others do not wish to take part of.

The Nacerimas also have different views when it comes to the human body. In their culture, A few women afflicted with almost inhuman hyper-mammary development are so idolized that they make a handsome living by simply going from village to village and permitting the natives to stare at them for a fee" (4). This idolizing of the human can be seen as demeaning to the woman involved. But in their culture, they are seen as powerful and are idolized. They are perfection personified. This showing of one's body may be seen by others as wrong, when it is simply the right thing to do in their culture. This too can cause negative views of the women and people of this culture. Not understanding the importance of a ritual to a culture can once again cause confusion and judgement, ultimately leading to harsh feelings towards a group.

In the case of Australia, laws were in place that caused turmoil and grief for those of the Aborigines. Children were taken from their families and their culture was degraded and looked down upon. Australia's parliament finally took a stand and made a public apology and declaring that their past treatment towards Aborigines will be righted. This apology shows that Australia is finally taking responsibilities for their actions and realizing the pain and torture that has been inflicted upon these people just because they were seen as different. This also shows that through educating and understanding the differences between cultures, peace may eventually occur. This is a huge step for a country to responsibility for their actions and realize that what they were doing was wrong. Australia's apology should help other countries and groups of people to take a stand and change the way certain cultures are treated.

Cultural identity is something that everyone has. We all have culture. No culture is more important than another.

“One wonders whether the insistence on early intervention was not at least partly motivated by the resistance offered by adult intersexuals to normalization through surgery. Frightened parents of ambiguously sexed infants were much more open to suggestions of normalizing surgery, while the infants themselves could of course offer no resistance whatever” (Chase 32)

This quote really raises an interesting question. When parents are forced to make this decision for their child, are they basing their decision off of their child’s need or for themselves? Are parents too fearful that they may be “blamed” for the child being “different?” If this idea of “normalizing” children becomes less important in society, it would be interesting how things, like this, would change. Maybe then, children can grow up and make the decision for themselves. They can decide to be one way or another or embrace their identity.

“The controversy publicly erupted in 1991, when organizers of the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival expelled a transsexual woman from the campground, or ‘The Land,’ announcing that the festival is open to only ‘womyn-born-womyn,’ a category designed to exclude transsexual woman” (Koyama 699).

This too brings up a rather interesting point. Is there really tension between feminists and transsexual women? One would think that because they are all fighting for the same cause that everyone would get along fine; that they would be united by one front. But does the fact that a woman used to be a man really a just reason to not let them become involved? And if feminists do feel the need to exclude transsexual women, then aren’t they, in fact, doing to others what they are trying to prevent for themselves?

"To me, gender is the poetry each of us makes out of the language we are taught" (10).

This quote really says it all. Out of everything that I read, this quote is one that is beautiful and eloquent. I'm not sure if it's just because it relates to literature and that is my field of expertise or because it speaks the truth. This world is not black and white. Many times there is more than just right and wrong, big and small, masculine and feminine. Our world is made up of ever varying shades of color. In today's society, we are taught that there if something, or someone is different, then they are in the wrong. Feinberg discusses the idea that sometimes being called "ma'am" or "sir" just doesn't fit. Along with having to check the box for male or female on documents.

Society needs to be in educated in the ideas that there is more than just male or female. Society is so concerned with being one or the other that it effects everyone's lives. If a child a female, than every quality she must posses should be feminine. The same goes for boys. Society becomes nervous when a little girl would much rather put on a pair of jeans and roll around in the mud with her brothers. People are stigmatized starting at a very young age.

If this pressure wasn't so prevalent in the world, people would realize that there is more than just meets the the eye. Feinberg describes the time she was kicked out of a hospital because they refused to treat her because she was different. This type of behavior is appalling. What's even worse are the people who think that they can change those who are different. According to the article "Group's challenge of gay to straight therapy praised by Miami professor" one person believes that homosexuality is a choice and if the person who is affected by the feelings try really hard to get rid of them, they can. It's as easy as that. All they need are prayers and Jesus. It's this close-mindedness that affects people everyday. By liberating oneself, others can surely follow and these thoughts and ideas can be put to rest.

People deserve to live the way they want, no matter what. No one else has a say as to what one can or cannot do.

Let's Hear a Story....

After reading Allison's memoir and the pieces by Clarkson and Chrenshaw, it makes one wonder how violence is interpreted when based off of the woman's identity. When it came to all three writings, violence against women was obviously portrayed in a very negative way. But, they brought up the different ways in which women from different backgrounds are affected by the violence. The most interesting aspect of women and violence came from the article written by Chrenshaw. She focused on the idea that women, especially those who were immigrants, were more likely to be impacted by violence, due to the fact that they are less able to communicate their issues.

Chrenshaw discusses the idea that women who are immigrants are more likely to face violence due to their fear of deportation. They are threatened everyday with remarks that if they do not do as they are told, they will be sent away from the "new" life they are trying to make for themselves. These women are faces with a losing situation. They will either lose they life they want to make or lose their dignity in the face of a man.

Another interesting point brought up in the article was that battered women who were of the poorer class and who identified with being "non-American," had a much more difficult time trying to find help. They would be sent away due to the inability to properly communicate with English speakers. Shelters sent women away because they felt that since communication was difficult, they would never be able to tell their story and fully cope. Essentially, these shelters are sending away women in need. They are discriminating against those who are "different," when in the end, a non-English speaking women who is beaten by her husband and left homeless on the street, is facing the same difficulties as one who speaks English. All in all, they need and deserve help.

One other interesting point brought up in the readings was that the violence towards women seems to occur because the beatings and rape represent power. The men are trying to take control over women and the way they can do that is through berating and belittling them through physical, emotional and sexual abuse. This abuse is predominately seen in war, as stated by Clarkson. "They have spread terror through the population by looting and burning villages and raping and murdering their inhabitants. Throughout the fighting many people fled into the bush, where they hid, afraid to come out" (613). Through the use of violence, these men are instilling fear in others. This shows the people that they are in control and can do anything they please. Every person loses their identity. Everyone is the same to these men and they will do anything to hurt them.

Overall, identity can affect the way violence affects people. When people face differences, they are treated differently. They struggle with trying to fit into the "norm." They face difficulties with others believing their stories, when it seems that some of the best ways to deal with these situations is to tell one's story.

Please check one. What is your race?

1. Caucasian

2. African-American

3. Asian

4. Pacific-Islander

5. Other

On any given scantron sheet, it is not uncommon to find a question like the one above. But what if the person is a blend of different ethnicities and cultures? Are they supposed to simply chose one? What if they feel more comfortable with one "identity" over another? Why must we all be lumped into categories based off of one dimension?

After reading the articles, it appears as though the major themes relate to the idea of identity. In today's society, we put too much focus on the physical identity and characteristics of people. It is not uncommon to take one look at a person and suddenly categorize them, based solely on appearance. It is this emphasis on a person's outside that affects the individual and how people see them. They are simply pressured into becoming the person they think that everyone else sees. This is when individuality becomes scarce and is taken away.

According to the article written by Evelyn Alsultany, she states that "my body become marked with meaning as I enter public space. My identity fractures as I experience differing dislocations in multiple contexts" (292). This raises a very interesting point. People who can relate to different ethnic groups or races can essentially be picked apart and separated. Depending on the location of that particular person, they may either be berated or celebrated due to the identity the other people see them as. The first thing people will do is categorize someone based on appearances. If someone appears to fit the category of being "Jewish," that is ultimately the way they will be viewed and depending on the situation, that is how they will be treated. Society truly does judge. Appearance is everything. Appearance is identity.

Along with this idea of identity, Lauren Martin raises an interesting point in her piece. She says "Those of us who are not easily identified as Other are privy to information that is not readily available to those who cannot-or do not-pass. That is, we are witnesses to what 'you' really this of us, whether we want to hear or not" (9). Sometimes, "mistaken" identities can cause for "the truth to come out. In Martin's case, those around her did not know that she identified with the Jewish culture. Because of this, people would say very anti-Semitic remarks. This gave off the impression that what they say is what they believe. Since they believe there is no one to offend, they can say whatever they want. They don't take much consideration that identity is not always as clear as it seems. It also makes one wonder what how people would change if they knew someone true identity. Would they change the way the interacted? Would they act fake and cover their true selves?

Identity cannot be one answer. Everyone can identify with certain groups. It can change throughout ones life. People are always evolving. There is no clear cut rule to identity. Everyone is not what they may seem on the outside. No one should feel pressured to belong to one clear cut group.