<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener("load", function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <iframe src="http://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID=14638627&amp;blogName=The+Highest+Form+of+Hope&amp;publishMode=PUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT&amp;navbarType=BLUE&amp;layoutType=CLASSIC&amp;searchRoot=http%3A%2F%2Fjam199.blogspot.com%2Fsearch&amp;blogLocale=en_CA&amp;homepageUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fjam199.blogspot.com%2F" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" height="30px" width="100%" id="navbar-iframe" allowtransparency="true" title="Blogger Navigation and Search"></iframe> <div></div>

The Highest Form of Hope

... not just wishful thinking

 

Feminism Fell Short


"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." - Cheris Kramarac Paula Treichler

Feminism. There are not many words in the English language that egnite such passionate reactions. Feminist have been seen as liberators, baby killers, proponents of democracy, proponents of communism, pro-family, pro-choice, moral, immoral, modest, slutty and on and on and on.
It's important to realize that feminism does not necessarily point to one set of values or beliefs (though there are definately core beliefs). There are many "sects" of feminism. Some feminists believe that men and women are psychologically identical, others believe that men and women are intrinsically different. Some feminists look to indigenous cultures where a women's ability to bring life into the world gave her power within the community - they see a women's traditional role as an extremely powerful one. Others look to a future where there will be no prejudice based on gender. Just as the term "Christianity" can represent different things to different people, so feminism is varied and often misinterpretted.
The core belief of feminism is the quotation above. This harkens back to the sufferage movement when women went to court in order to prove their personhood to obtain the vote. Legally, at that time, women were not techniquely "persons". Women voting may seem like a no-brainer, but think of the impact on the politicians of the time. Now you had doubled the electorate. Quite revolutionary.
The sufferage movement has been referred to as the first wave of feminism. It was a movement that addressed the concerns of middle-class women, most of whom were mothers and homemakers. The second wave came with the sexual revolution. This movement is the one we commonly accociate with bra-burning, pro-choice, anti-morality, anti-family, etc.
I really do owe a lot to the second wave of feminism (as I do the first). I see a lot of good in it. Feminism has really changed the way we view women, whether you fully agree with it or not. It has made significant progress within the realms of psychology, theology, medicine, art, social work, education, and law. It's brought about the acceptance of birth control, more women attending University, a greater understanding of women's health, and its spoken against violence and pornography.
But feminism has some significant problems. At the foundation of the feminist doctrine, partriarchy is to blame for the world's ills. Yes, patriarchy is bad - but it's a misdiagnosis of the roots of evil in the world. When you misdiagnose the illness, you will only end up treating the symptoms and ignore the disease. I would argue that something else caused patriarchy (namely our separation from God), which in turn causes problems for women and men all over the world.
Another significant problem with feminism is that it has failed to become relavant. Feminism as we know it today works best within a white, middle to upper class, North American context. It has not made itself applicable to the vast majority of women in this world. Feminism values individuality. This on its own shuts out billions of women who come from cultures where all members of the family are expected to make decisions out of the group interest. Feminists have devalued some of the choices that women intentionally make - for example, the decision to be a stay-at-home mom- and thus these women are segragated from the benifits of feminsm. Feminism has also failed to connect with men. Now I know this might seem a little strange but feminism is not just for women. Feminism deals with gender issues. Now it's not all about "boys should play with dolls", but it's that gender roles confine men as well as women. An example of a social pressure on men is our society's idea of the successful man. He must have power, wealth, by which he will be a good provider. The message that men are also victims of unfair gender expectations has been lost in the idea that feminism is actually anti-male.
I am left with the question "can I define myself as a feminist?" Well, I believe that women are people - so yes. But I don't believe that patriarchy is the root of inequity - so no. I guess this might be one of those post-modern things where I am left with no definate answer. I'm okay with that.

So what do you think about feminism?
What are the benifits?
What are the costs?
Has feminism made this world better or worse?

 
 

How photography changed the world...

Freedom!
I am finished my homework! Now I can waste time for the next hour or so waiting for my photography class to start.

Photography is the world's most popular hobby. We use it to document family milestones, create things of beauty, reveal the uglinest of war, advertize cars and stalk celebrities. No innovation in media has been as revolutionary as the photograph (because phoography is what film and television are based on). In this, our culture has jumped from a focus on the written word to a fixation on the image. Photography has completely changed how we percieve ourselves and the world at large.

The greatest myth of the photograph is that photographs represent reality. And I don't mean that picture of you where you look 15 pounds heavier than you actually are. True, the photographs are based on "real" things, but they are still the creation of the photographer. The photographer chooses which image to show, how to develope it, in what context it will be portrayed. We do not know what happenned before or after the photograph was taken. Some would argue that photographs represent reality no better than an abstract painting. For this reason, western art moved away from realism at the turn of the century. What was the point of depicting something realistically when a photograph could be taken? Still, if photographs could be manipulated as much as a painting, perhaps "reality" was not the point of art. Photography can represent reality, but it can be misinformative.

But still we expect that photographs represent reality.
Photojournalism is a prime example of this.

During the American civil war, the public was shocked by the photographs of battle dead published in the newspapers of the time. This was the first time war had been photographed for the public. Before this, war was removed to glorious stories of heroism and valor. Photographs began to reveal the truth. And indeed we began to expect so. This transfers over to television and movies - we are conditioned to expect that photographs will not lie to us, especially in the realms of journalism.

Another interesting facit of photography is the de-mystification of the image. I think about my favourite art books. They are filled with masterpieces from all over the world, but completely accessable to me. But something is lost. Before photography, art was one of a kind. It could only be seen in its context. The roof of the Sistine Chapel could only be seen in the Sistine Chapel. But now, it can be cut and pasted. Removed from its context, we remove part of the meaning.

The same goes for widely publicized pictures of celebraties. The person is removed from their context. They become a product mass produced for consumption. They loose all meaning as a human being. This is was Warhol was getting at in Marilyn Diptych.

Anyway I'd like to throw this question out there if you'd like to start a discussion:

How do you think photography has changed the world?

 
 

Human


Today I finally finished Shake Hands with the Devil. I read through most of it prior to internship, but I never got around to the last few chapters until today. Over the holidays I've been reading a couple books at the same time - some history, philosophy and theology. But this book was so unlike the others. It was a bit jarring to make a leap from books that dealt mostly with the inner life of philosophy, thought, and theology into a book that delves so deeply into the nature of evil.

If you want to learn about evil, this is the book to read. You become overwelmed with the meticulous detail of Dallaire's account - it is too much information to actually digest. On every page a moral failing. There is an undenialable sense of guilt and shame the reader is left with by the end of this book.

During my unit on the Rwandan genocides, I gave an essay question on the exam: "who is to blame for the Rwandan genocide?". Dallaire addresses this question in his conclusion (I wish I had read it sooner). He of course places the major blame on those who actually committed and planned the 100 days of terror. Secondly he places responsibility on France and the US. Thirdly, the UN (including himself) and Belgium. But he summarizes the issue of blame by stating that there is too much blame for any group of people to carry. That Rwanda was a failure of humanity; essentially everyone's hands have been bloodied through apathy. He makes a very bold point in confronting the dangers of moral relativism in international affairs:

"How do we pick and choose where to get involved? Canada and other peacekeeping nations have become accustomed to acting if, an only if, international public opinion will support them - a dangerous path that leads to a moral relativism in which a country risks loosing sight of the difference between good and evil, a concept that some players on the international stage view as outmoded. Some governments regard the use of force as the greatest evil. Others define 'good' as the pursuit of human rights and will opt to employ force when human rights are violated. As the nineties draw to a close and the new millenium dawned with no sign of an end to these ugly little wars, it was as if each troubling conflict we were faced with had to pass the test of whether we could 'care' about it or 'identify' with the victims before we'd get involved. Each mission was judged as to whether it was 'worth' risking soldier's lives and a nation's resources. As Michael Ignatieff has warned us, ' riskless warfare in pursuit of human rights is a moral contradictrion. The concept of human rights assumes that all human life is of equal value. Risk-free warfare presumes that our lives matter more than those we are trying to save.'

"Several times in this book I have asked the questions, 'Are we all human, or are some more human than others?' Certainly we in the developed world act in a way that suggests we believe that out lives are worth more than the lives of other citizens of the planet. An American officer felt no shame as he informed me that the lives of the 800,000 [now estimated at over a million] Rwandans were not worth risking the lives of ten American troops; Belgians, after loosing ten soldiers insisted thet the lives of Rwandans were not worth risking anoth single Beligan soldier. The only conclusion I can reach is that we are in desparate need of a tranfusion of humanity. If we believe that all humans are human, then how are we going to prove it?"