Lately, I have noticed several of the scholarly articles we read throughout CAP generally convey similar messages. Messages pertaining to how we view the world we live in and the people within it, ultimately allowing us to do so with a more empathetic and open mind.

CAP Law & Society introduces us to historical and contemporary instances when ideas of legality and humanity come into conflict. Critically and thoroughly studying the topics we do then leads us to think about our own personal places in a much larger context.

This week we read Carrie Dawson’s “On Thinking Like a State and Reading (about) Refugees” I found this article to be quite similar to an article we covered in History 105 prior to this week. Danika Medak-Saltzman’s, “Transnational Indigenous Exchange: Rethinking Global Interactions…”(link to article) likewise discusses how scholarly portrayals of a minority group often lead to misconceptions of them that we believe to be true. Dawson confers about how literary works invite us to read refugees while Saltzman discusses how the historical archival materials we study are all from the colonial vantage point and generally go unchallenged. Both argue that because of this we do not allow such “minorities” to have agency. Saltzman states “we must read with the goal of revealing rather than obscuring Natives” and Dawson correspondingly states we must adopt the perspective of “We Refugees” rather than thinking like a state which allows for an “othering” of migrants.

Essentially, both articles suggest we must scrutinize our instrumentalized reading practices and their utter failure to account for the humanity of their subjects.  Saltzman particularly raising the possibility of exploring the minority consciousness, while Dawson additionally agrees stating “such forms of representation deny the very particulars that make people something other than anonymous bodies.”

What we study in CAP plays off one another in the scholarly community, which intrigues me. In high school I  loved when I learned similar concepts through the lens of different, and distinct subjects. I had no idea what CAP really was upon registering, so again being able to study major issues through a historical, anthropological, political and legal lens is something I genuinely enjoy.  8 months into studying in CAP and I feel as though I see and understand society with a new heightened awareness. I can’t wait to become more educated and see where that takes me.  One of my favorite concepts “sonder” is something I often see within the coordination of our classes.

Sonder – n. the realization that each random passerby is living a life as vivid and complex as your own—populated with their own ambitions, friends, routines, worries and inherited craziness—an epic story that continues invisibly around you like an anthill sprawling deep underground, with elaborate passageways to thousands of other lives that you’ll never know existed, in which you might appear only once, as an extra sipping coffee in the background, as a blur of traffic passing on the highway, as a lighted window at dusk.

Today while scrolling through my Twitter timeline I came across an article that both engrossed me and exasperated me simultaneously. While it has little to do with what we’re currently focusing on in What We All Long For,  I decided to use this blog post to rant about it.

The article is called “The Ugly Truth About Feminism” and rather than argue feminism vs anti – feminism I’d rather play devils advocate and play around with both sides of the argument. The author of the article, Nicholas Patrick, claims to have been “an absolute feminist” until he realized that “some feminists fight extremely unfair and sometimes even emasculating.” He claims to only have supported it to avoid being chauvinist, feeling obligated as  a white man to join the movement.  He continues to write about the very line between what is worth fighting for and what he considers offensive when it comes to the feminist agenda. However, I question how much offence men really take from feminism when we live in a clear patriarchal dominated society. I mean, what’s so offensive about wanting equal political, economic, social and overall human rights between the genders?

Patrick continues to discuss aspects of feminism that he finds to be unfair, including the demand of equal pay. He refutes the argument on the basis that pay should be  based solely on performance, and that just because “Serena Williams is a girl does not mean she is entitled to the same pay as Usain Bolt.”  Such a comparison makes me wonder if Patricks claims against feminism root from ignorance since a feminists’ demand for equal wages are in regards to men and women with the same position in the work force. Additionally, it sheds light on the fact that men receive more, and higher promotions much more often than women in the work force. My knowledge on the topic of feminism arising from my course Gender, Race, Sexuality & Social Justice – Women’s Studies. With that in mind how can Patrick compare Serena Williams and Usain Bolt given they compete in different sports entirely, thus the better performer cannot be accounted for given Usain Bolt is not a tennis player and vice versa. Furthermore Patrick does bring up a curious statement on the topic: “It doesn’t matter whether we are men or women, we are supposed to be paid based on our performance. If men and women can perform at the same level, then they are paid the same. If a man performs worse, he should be paid less. And that is what we should all be fighting for. There shouldn’t be any sense of entitlement here from either gender.” 

I concur with the aforementioned excerpt from the article as feminism is fighting for equality, and does not dignify any “anti-men” concepts. Females, nor males should feel “entitled” over the other gender. If men must view women as equals,then women, including vehement feminists, must comply with the same.

Again, while Patrick makes some interesting and clever accusations on the “Ugly Truth About Feminism”, he also makes some very uneducated ones, including:

“…if I were to push further, and based on this argument on equality in spite of ability (or lack thereof), why should women and children be the first to be rescued? Aren’t we discriminating against the men? If women want the same advantages, they should be susceptible to the same disadvantages as well, right? If you don’t want men to dominate you, what makes you think we want you to dominate us?”

I believe Patrick is taking feminism, twisting its very goals, and playing it so that men are deemed the victims in modern society. This is absolutely and completely false. Today’s feminist movement is not working towards one gender dominating the other, it’s not man vs. woman, it’s simply working towards men and women being able to coexist wholeheartedly and equally.  Overall, the article spiked my interest and inner passion in regards to equality amongst the genders. I posted the article to Facebook informing my fellow friends that:

“Selective feminism is not a thing, educate ya selves. Don’t let a select group of unreasonable feminists ruin the image of a necessary cause. It is a giant brick wall standing in the way of progress, where we should be making a real change together”

I stick by my statement ^