Femininity a Sacrafice?

Bartky starts her argument by sayinf a woman has to make sacrifices to be a feminist. They have to change everything they are for the cause. They have to play the victim of sexism for their cause and I think this is wrong. I understand her argument about being a victim, after all if there were not some sort of injustice their would be no cause, but to "radically alter our consciousness"? I believe in equal treatment of women and if I ever find myself in a situation where I am discriminated against because I am a woman you can bet that I will fight the injustice. Forgive me woman kind but I will not however lose all sense if myself in that fight. I believe that every woman has a right to act how they want in regards to feminist behaviors. The book talks about women being alienated from their bodies to be objectified and I think this only happens when a woman allows it to. This fight for equal treatment starts with each and every women acting responsibly and deserving respect. If respect is not commanded through action by a majority of individuals the whole gender will suffer the unfairness. The book does not account for, at least in the reading I have done so far, every woman acting responsible in society to better the world view of what a woman is. Feminists may fight for the cause but until all women act for themselves I do not think the injustice will go away.

Colonized Prisoners

After colonization the nation is still at rest. Fanon argues that the indigenous people are never really a part of the new colony. The colonists are always looking for new ways to oppress the colonized, use the colonized, or keep the colonized out of their new society. Even after the colonized people revolt the proletariat stamp out the threat and do nothing to alleviate the tension. The proletariat, which Fanon says is anyone who benefits from the new settlement, encourages the separation from the indigenous people through negative propaganda, police repression, traditions ridiculed, elders discredited, and land taken. Even when the people revolt the colonists have more power and kill the uprising by killing the leaders. To me this sounds like prison. In Foucault's book about discipline he describes prison as a place that keeps people separate, discourages organization, strong police presence to scare and stamp out uprisings and more similarities. No person should feel like a prisoner in their own community. In fact prison would seem better than what these people had to put up with. At least in prison everyone was on a level playing field and there was a chance of getting out of the system.

Foucault's 7 steps to a Successful Prison

1) Transform Behavior 2) Isolation/separation 3) Punishment of individuality 4) Work
5) Education 6) Qualified Staff 7) Supervision
Foucault rationalizes that a successful prison is one that is free to function as it sees fit in the best interest of the prisoner's rehabilitation process. I would agree with this. Unfortunately there are so many unsuccessful prisons in the US because this is not the case. Foucault himself acknowledges the fact that prisons create delinquents through their various constraints. I find that today this is especially true. Punishment is currently subject to a judicial system that, in my opinion, is too soft on offenders. Prisons are so overpopulated that the 7 successful prison guidelines could never be fully realized, not to mention the dwindling funding for prisons. Instead prisons serve more as a purgatory type place between crimes. A prisoner commits a crime, serves their time, then is released just to commit more crime. 67% of released criminals commit crimes within three years of their incarceration according to a NY Times article. (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/03/us/study-shows-building-prisons-did-not-prevent-repeat-crimes.html?pagewanted=1) If prisons were free to punish criminals according to their crime, violence, behavior, or whatever maybe this rate would be lower. It is not the prisons fault that crime rates are so high and criminals are not being reformed, it is the systems fault. Until the judicial system fixes its laundry list of flaws Foucault's ideal prison/discipline model will never be realized and prisons will never be effective.

Conditioning Foucault Style

I find this text hard to understand and follow. I believe what is being said is how humans are conditioned to do certain actions. He gives the example of the soldier being able to hold himself as a solider and be respected. I think the point of this is to explain how people react when they are given a job or put in an environment. If a soldier is thrust into battle he is going to figure out how to use his gun out of survival. Soldiers were taught to march and act orderly, a form of conditioning. By giving each person a job the whole functioned better. This is kind of different than today because of the fact that soldiers are not held to the same standards. Marching is a less important skill to have on today's battlefields, weapons have changed, and the stigma of being a soldier have changed. Soldiers are no longer looked at as rare public heroes until they are killed in action, which is a shame. They do not go everywhere in uniform, and they don't see being a soldier as a glory filled position, it is a job.

*4/14/10- After more thought and consideration from class I understand better. The point is about conditioning of humans and how order dictates behavior. I still do not think this is as strict of a factor today compared to a hundred, even fifty, years ago. Soldiers are drilled hard core but they have to be much more diversified today. Current battle fields are not about lining up and shooting, they are about strategy, technology, skill, and improving positions with the least amount of exposure. Soldiers have to be trained in communications and most do not even see an actual battle field. While I understand the concept of discipline and the example I think Foucault needs to (if he is still around) address modern ways of discipline, like the teaching of technology.

Totalitarianism the Horror

Arendt explains that the best example of totalitarian rule is the concentration camps. That nothing else can ever be compared to the horror that occurred there because the Nazis made it so. Hitler outright said that he had to create a situation so unbelievably awful that people overlooked it as a lie to really get away with committing such atrocities. My friend works for a Jewish museum in Indiana where the director and founder of the museum is a concentration camp survivor. Recently she took my friend with her to the anniversary of the closing of the camp she was in in Poland. My friend, who has never had trouble talking about anything before, was speechless when I asked what it was like. She said that just being on the ground that such terrible things happened on was an indescribable experience. The isolation Arendt talks about in the book seems, to me at least, unfathomable. How can so many people be corralled in one place and not have any idea what is going on? Why did so many people overlook what was going on? How could so many people assist in these horrible things? My friend understood these when she came back from Poland. The only way she could describe it was the atmosphere; the pictures, the stories, the memories, they made her better understand what really happened.

Totalitarianism

As bad as I can imagine Totalitarianism to be, from what little I previously know about it, would suggest that everyone's common sense would agree that it is a bad thing. Yet it also seems to me that Russia is heading down that path again willingly. The book describes the Totalitarian movement as getting its power from the masses, which Russia has. Putin is pulling strings behind the scenes leading Russia down, what we would consider, a dark path. But the masses of Russia are OK with it, they know the hardship from the past decades and Putin has offered them relief so they are taking it. If history repeats itself Putin might very well lead like Stalin and the Russian people would go along with it. In fact Russians now see Stalin as a hero for the country despite all the horrible things he has done. Putin is breaking down the classes, like the book talks about, and the masses are responding by allowing him to keep expanding his power. Granted unlike Totalitarian leaders Putin cannot be readily replaced without his system and support falling apart, but his support is so great among the Russian people that his plans and ideals for the country are what is really bonding them all together. I just keep thinking of the Winter Olympics here. The Russians did pretty bad in all the areas they were expected to excel at so Putin fired the team management and coaches. With the next Winter Olympics being held in Russia Putin was worried about losing national pride in the team, which in turn means national loyalty. Totalitarian society is willingly accepted by those that live under those ideals whether we think they are right or wrong.

Marx on materializim

The idea of the worker as a commodity has never crossed my mind before. Marx makes the argument that people work to produce goods in order to get money. In effect they are selling themselves as labor and thus turning them into commodities. I have never thought of it like this but it is absolutely true. In a country where most of our industry has turned to service related industries people do have to sell themselves. People do it every day. While Marx was thinking more along the lines of hard labor workers, today's society still does the same thing. Every day when a business man puts on his suit it is because he has to sell himself to his employer or client. Sales people have to gain personal trust by selling their image and experience. Even looking at resumes as an example, they are basically just menus for employers to pick the best entree. It is this ideology, that people need to sell themselves to make the most money, that is perpetuating the problem of alienation among society.