As I mentioned in my email to you, I'd like to encourage anonymous posting this week. Maybe people will feel even more free to express their opinions and experiences (and we won't have any name/face confusion). I think that if you Sign Out from this blog and then hop back on, you ought to be able to post anonymously.
The topic is anything related to the issues addressed this week. Take some positive risks!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The second thing I had wanted to bring up was about the transgender or genderqueer population we read and talked a little bit about. I think this, for OSLs is the most mystifying of the LGBTQ population. It seems to be something we can’t quite stretch our minds around. I guess, for me, I don’t really try to, I sort of just accept it the way I accept that other people have a temper hotter than mine, or that prefer summer instead of winter; I can’t stand to wear heels, some girls wear them every day. Dr. Greenfield touch on it a little bit in class, with the mention of the “Fa Fa Fine,” from, I can’t remember where, but there are societies that encompass three (maybe more?) gender expressions. In Thailand they have “Katoi” that translates, somehow as “lady-boy,” and they are very present. The Katois are not lent social privileges as he mentioned the Fa Fa Fine were, but they are generally accepted as a part of their population. It was a very interesting dynamic in the classroom where they were pretty well represented. I had some classes of 7th graders that would have 8 or 9 out of 35. They had a pretty broad range of acceptance. Some of the younger ones were made fun of and some seemed to fit right in, they were often some of the brightest students in the class and generally hung out with girls, many of the older Katois were popular for their athleticism in school sports and for their participation in the school dramas. They also had a wide range of expression; while some wore powder and lipstick and played up an uber-feminine, dramatic, squealy flair, others dressed and behaved as the other boys did. They all, however, were required to wear their “sex-appropriate” school uniforms and at least at our school, there were no facilities provided specifically for them. I had never seen anything quite like it, and as I said, I’m pretty open to non-traditional things, this only opened me up even more. I did wonder, however, because there seemed to be no room for girls to behave/dress/express themselves this way. Lesbian was something that never came up and something I sensed, that nobody really talked about—especially not to foreigners. I would like to read some about it, from the Thai perspective, because I was only able to make assumptions about how everyone seemed to feel about it.
ReplyDeleteThailand is known for its terrific, affordable healthcare, but in particular for their expertise in sex change operation-I’m sure there is a better term for that-and it is commonly accepted that many of these boys will grow up, move to the city and become ladies. Anyway, I just wanted to share this insight into another culture and see what other people thought.
As an aside, I read an article in Newsweek after class that talked about the growing (and I think it said largest minority) Arab population in California. In light of the upcoming Census there is a movement called “check it right, you ain’t white” in which activists in the Arab community want to be recognized. One man interviewed said –I’m paraphrasing-- “since we are treated as ‘others’ we should be counted that way,” and that the presence of the Arab population needs to be reflected in the official count of the make-up of our country. Anyway…just thought it was interesting, and especially because of our wonderful and enlightening discussion on race and particularly “whiteness” the other week. It was definitely something I had never consciously considered—who’s “white” and who’s not.
ReplyDeleteI was really excited about our topic in class this week. I wish we could add more time on to this class sometimes to really dig in. There was so much to talk about and we barely skimmed it. There were several comments I had wanted to make. One I had wanted to share a snippet of something I heard on NPR while they were discussing the hearing on gay marriage. I don’t even remember the point the commentator was making, but a few select words jumped out at me. He blurted out something about marriage being a characteristic of having a “first class personal life.” First, I thought that was just a bit misguided, and I don’t like how he groups every single American (and I suppose other nationalities as well) into classes and distinguishes a hierarchy by personal relationships. There are definitely people in this country who do not want to get married, and we can psychoanalyze that all we want to, but I think it’s because we have given marriage such a lofty platform on which to stand that it has become a major goal for many, and it has gained this “first class” status by way of social, heteronormative hegemony. Everyone thinks that ultimately you should want to get married. That’s what everyone wants right? I don’t know…he was probably going to make a good point, one that I probably would have agreed with, but I guess I just took issue with him throwing out that phrase without unpacking it just a little.
sorry, that's all backwards. That's all anonymous me : ) Hope everyone has a great weekend!
ReplyDeleteA topic that was really interesting to me this week was the question of when someone is transgendered. I never thought of a tomboy or a metro guy as a transgendered person. For me, someone isn't transgendered unless they feel that they are a different gender than their natural sex. I've gone through the tomboy stage, mostly because boy shorts are crazy comfortable and have a lot more pockets, but never considered myself a male, so therefore I don't think I was transgendered at that time.
ReplyDeleteSomeone in our small group brought up a distinction between a transgendered experience and a transgendered identity that I found very useful. It still begs the question "How many transgendered experience does it take before you consider yourself to have a transgendered identity?" but I still liked the differentiation because to me it personalized both. You decide what you are. Of course, at some point, society looks at a guy in a dress and labels him, whether he wants it or not or whether that label is correct or not...
ReplyDeleteInteresting that that doesn't seem to happen in Thailand. Thanks for that cultural comparison.
Glen Beck said that social justice in churches is akin to nazism and communism....thoughts and comments.
ReplyDeletehttp://abcnews.go.com/WN/glenn-beck-social-justice-christians-rage-back-nazism/story?id=10085008
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/12/beck.boycott/?hpt=C2
My opinion is that Glenn Beck makes a lot of money by riling people up, so he riles people up.
ReplyDeleteI was just thinking about writing something on the lesbian going to prom issue when I opened the email that Dr. Greenfield sent us. Very interesting topic for us to discuss because it directly relates to last week's class and being teachers. Should we take a stance on an issue like this? On the one hand, if you're going to have prom, you should let everyone come. On the other hand, how many students/parents are you isolating because of standing on "one side of the fence," so to speak? I'm really having difficulty thinking through this one, and want to know what you guys think about handling it as a teacher.
ReplyDeleteOh and as for Glenn Beck...I'm not sure Glenn Beck has the same definition of social justice that we work from in our class. I think he refers to social justice churches as being those that claim they are taking part of social justice. So while on the surface yes we want social justice, the article makes a good point that people have different definition's of social justice in the church and how to approach injustices. Should the church take a political stance on issues of social justice? That is the ultimate question for me that this article raises. My personal opinion shall remain anonymous even to the anonymous blog post.
I'm afraid of saying something that will be taken or heard wrong because I'm not very aware of some of the history or issues.
ReplyDeletehttp://queersunited.blogspot.com/2008/04/heterosexual-questionnaire.html
I also wanted to share this. We were given the heterosexual questionaire during one of the orientation activities in college. It does a good job of making you aware of heterosexual privilege.
I worry about offending because of my unawareness of some issues related to gender. It's so hard to know what might be offensive to someone that I just don't know to be careful about.
ReplyDeleteOne of the more eye-opening experiences for me was reading the heterosexual questionnaire in an orientation activity at college. It speaks volumes about heterosexual privilege.
http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2008/04/heterosexual-questionnaire.html
bah, apologies for the repeat, I didn't think it had posted this morning.
ReplyDeleteI thought folks might enjoy this article about Australia recognizing a gender continuum. However, if you read the article it is interesting to note that the author seems a little confused about what this means; does this person lack a gender, have an unspecified gender, or have both genders? We do seem preoccupied with finding an appropriate label.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/11/australia-is-first-to-recognise-non-specified-gender/
I read the heterosexual questionnaire that was posted a few posts up. Check it out. It is a very thought-provoking tool. I found the comments at the end of the questionnaire to be even more enlightening. There is battle ensuing over people's different thoughts and beliefs on the questionnaire. There is "gay-bashing" as well as "heterosexual-phobia" occurring. Is this discussion unlike the war that rages between democrats and republicans, conservatives and liberals, protestants and catholics? I'm not trying to make it seem more trite or belittling than it really is. I realize that sexuality seems to be a defining factor for human identity. Why is that the case? I read about Norrie in Australia who is neither male nor female and has finally found solace in being able to accept a state of gender neutrality. I am wondering though, is there something innate in the human psyche that makes them yearn to define themselves as one or the other gender. Is gender truly mutually exclusive or can it be more fluid? Is sexuality truly fluid or is it mutually exclusive? Why are some forms of expression of sexuality socially acceptable and others are not if morality/ethics are taken out of the equation. Whenever I hear the fact that sexuality should be expressed on an individual level I always wonder about things like pedophilia. Should that be an option on a questionnaire or would the majority of society agree that there is something deeply immoral and unethical about treating a child in such a manner? Questions of gender and sexuality are deeply philosophical and ethical as the ramifications of these have deeply detrimental effects on individuals and societies. Sexuality, no matter what others may think, is something that defines an element of humanity. Especially in a society that is very comfortable with icons of sexuality, sexualized views of particular people and groups, and a deep connection between commercialism and sexuality. The old adage that "sex sells" seems to be top priority in our modern day "progressive" world. I would argue that our fascination and really a better word would be "fixation" with the idea of sex has created a frenzied debate over the definition and social constructs of sex. My final question would be: Apart from "social constructs" of sexuality/gender/biological sexuality - is there a "natural construct" of gender/sexuality that defines these things in a completely separate manner. Maybe I could go so far as to say an "evolutionary construct" that would define the meaning of gender and sexuality?
ReplyDeleteInteresting post last anonymous person! My hypothesis for the previous question about fluidity of gender is that people have clung to gender separation because of purposes of procreation. Gender and sex are topics which are linked. The presentation in class mentioned that concepts of gender arise out of social concepts about people's biological sex. My opinion is that biological sex wouldn't have NEAR the importance to our society that it has if it wasn't necessary for the advancement of mankind. Due to this simple fact, we have defined who can date who because of how we are biologically formed.
ReplyDeleteNow, there is the issue of intersexism (hermaphroditism), but I think in general, our society tends to ignore this issue because these people are in the minority and it confuses our social constructs of gender that are based on the biology of the majority of people.
I'm not saying our social constructs are all good by any means... I'm just trying to explain why they exist as they are now. I have my own definitions of what a "man" is and what a "woman" is, but these are based on my own worldview. We all have images and ideas of gender, which is obvious based on the activities in class. We have some different views about gender, though! So, the continuum, in my mind, is formed by different worldviews. Hope that makes sense.
This might be a bit of a non sequitur, but the mention of pedophilia made me wonder. Are the things that people get hung up on with regard to sexuality matters of thought or matters of action? Pedophilia is, as a variety of desire, harmless, just ideas in some people's heads. It's when those ideas are put into practice upon actual children that they become harmful and illegal. There are, in fact, people with pedophilic orientations who understand that they cannot act out their sexual interests without harming others and, thus, refrain from doing so. Never the less, when a person is identified as a pedophile, he is regarded as worse than Osama bin Laden, even if he has never actually harmed another person. How difficult and stressful it must be for these people to know that they can never act on their ingrained desires, desires which they didn't choose to have and probably wish they didn't have. I don't envy those folks at all.
ReplyDeleteI think Anonymous two up makes a reasonable point about our constructs of gender, sex, and sexuality being based on procreation. However, I feel strongly that our notions of these things are also based on power. This, to me, is echoed in the ridiculous question "Who wears the pants?" that arises when confronted with SSL folks. It also came up in the "rules" activity we did in class. Hopefully, in a healthy relationship, the power dynamics are more balanced (and to me this would be a defining feature of such a relationship). But, as the links that Dr. Greenfield sent show, many of the popular messages are not healthy and smack of power dynamics.
ReplyDeleteClearly, my position as a female who has been on the receiving end of sexual assault is going color a certain amount of my understanding. However, I was struck in class when I had a strong reaction to Dr. Greenfield's mention of male sexual assault victims. I felt defensive and worried that he would focus the attention on a very small population, risking the recognition that has been raised about violence against women. This reaction surprised me since I thought I would have felt a sense of commonality with male victims (for lack of a better word). While I understand that sexual violence is all about power, I was struck at just how gendered it had become in my mind. I had spoken to other women about my experience and in a bizarre way have benefited from society's (incorrect) understanding that this happens to women (approximately 25% of women). You would think, given the "this is all about power" rhetoric, we could move beyond the gendered understanding of sexual violence and talk about sexual violence against anybody, not just women and children. I guess what I am trying to get at is this: do we frame sexual violence in gendered terms because at some level we can understand it happening to women, but not to men, because of the power differential assumed in our culture? How do other social identities intersect and influence this understanding?
I am sorry but I don't feel sympathy for a pedophile for being "stressed or having a difficult time" keeping their sick thoughts just as thoughts. Maybe I am reading your post the wrong way, but how is pedophilia "ingrained?" Is this based on the assumption that those who are molested will probably be molesters? So is a person who actually acts on these vile thoughts worse than the person who thinks them but "restrains" themselves. If you had used the context of imaging /planning a murder vs actually committing murder, I may have been with you. But when you deal with the sexualization of children and those who hold those thoughts, it is a hot button issue that I can't be impartial on.
ReplyDeleteI read, just within the last couple of weeks, about some survey in which one of sixteen college-aged males questioned (anonymously) freely admitted to having sex with a female either (A) through physical compulsion or (B) when she was drunk or otherwise intoxicated. The sheer number was pretty amazing, but what amazed me far more was that 6% of men surveyed had no problem admitting to another person that they had performed a sexual assault; they didn't feel like it was something which they should keep to themselves because it's a crime and just awful. Who are these people? Malignant narcissists, I suppose.
ReplyDeleteOf course a person who acts on unacceptable thoughts and harms another person is worse than a person who thinks about it, but doesn't do it. Thoughts, no matter how disturbed, are basically harmless so long as they are confined to the realm of thought.
ReplyDeleteAnd, unacceptable and disturbed though they might be, the sexual urges that a pedophilic person experiences are no more voluntary than those which anybody else experiences. That stuff operates at a level way below conscious choice. Actual behavior is voluntary and consciously controlled. Acting out on such thoughts is culpable. Merely having them is tragic and terrible to the person afflicted with them.
It is interesting that we've moved from talking about gender/transgender and heterosexual privilege, to sexual deviance. Why are these so connected? Is this further manifestation of the sexualization of "other" that DG had in his article?
ReplyDeleteThe pedophilia topic makes me think more generally about men in education, and the stigma (is that word too strong? what would be more appropriate) for guys in education, especially as they teach younger kids. Why is this? It is a shame to me that male teachers often have to be hyper-conscious of their behavior because of society's fear.
What is "deviance," though? Things which are now considered deviant may not always have been and things which are not now considered deviant once were. Obviously, I think it's good that sex with children is illegal, but not because it is "deviant." The reason it is illegal is because it is harmful to children.
ReplyDeleteI think we get into trouble by getting into terms like "deviance." It wasn't terribly long ago that same-sex sexual contact between consenting adults was "deviant" and illegal; when sexual offender registration laws were instituted in the 90s, many SSL people convicted of consensual contact were compelled to register as sex offenders.
Where this intersects with social justice, to me, is that we should discard concepts of "deviance." If we're hung up on what is normal, we end up defining a lot of people out of normal. Better to identify people who harm others and intervene against that.
It is interesting that someone posted about male teachers having to be hyperconcious of their behavior in the classroom. I agree with said poster that it is indeed a shame, as it most certainly will affect how effective they are as teachers. I never had a male teacher until I was in 8th grade, and I wonder about how or if other students and myself would have benefitted from having a male role model in our lives. Maybe there were no male elementary teachers because of the "stigma" mentioned above, or maybe they feared being seen as something other than macho (un-macho? is that a word?). Most of the male teachers I did have were coaches, and never thought of teaching as their main job.
ReplyDeleteThe whole transgender thing confuses me, mostly because of the different terminology. Out of all the things we have discussed in class, this is the hardest to wrap my head around. I too, fear that I may offend people and I try to keep quiet about these issues because of that.
In my experience most everyone has a moment of questioning their sexuality, usually during adolescence. I am very torn on the issue of openness about alternative lifestyles. I respect people who are adults or who have “always felt” that they lead an alternate lifestyle. But, I do not believe that introducing the possibilities of alternate lifestyles helps confused, scared and very impressionable adolescents (or younger) students. Kids need to have a baseline to start from. I believe that teaching with the current heterosexual focus is correct, as long as those who live alternate lifestyles are not demonized or labeled as “not a person”. I also believe that it is ok to mention or introduce “alternate lifestyles” when it is in the news (as in legality of same-sex marriage) or has a direct bearing on the subject being taught. If it comes up in a class discussion, I would address it, but in very general terms.
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting on the idea of deviance. I especially agreed with your final paragraph:
ReplyDelete"Where this intersects with social justice, to me, is that we should discard concepts of "deviance." If we're hung up on what is normal, we end up defining a lot of people out of normal. Better to identify people who harm others and intervene against that."
I used the word deviance on purpose to include the historic fluidity and also to ask (perhaps it was too veiled) if we went to pedophelia because in some peoples' minds pedophelia and homosexuality are tied together because they are (at least to some/many) sexually deviant today. I'm having a hard time understanding how pedophelia relates to the larger issues of gender, transgender, and sexuality (in it's relational construct) and the only thing I could come up with is the sexualization of the other or the (I believe unsubstantiated) link between homosexuality and pedophelia.
I debated whether or not to post this because I don't want to be inflammatory just to rile people, but I do think that we need to talk about these topics if for no other reason than to figure out what is going on. I hope that the folks who are confused will post their confusions in an effort to work them out; not just for them, but for all of us who may be confused about the same things and not know it because it isn't something they've thought about or it frames an issue in a new way. Or for those who know to share their knowledge if they are so inclined. We can't figure it out if we don't talk.
I heard that study about 1 in 16 college age men freely admitted to rape (in different terms) on NPR earlier this month. Thought others might be interested. It's pretty disturbing and sad to have what sounds like decent research to support their claims.
ReplyDeleteThis is the audio link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=124272157&m=124303291
For those who would rather read it:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124272157
In class we were talking about what the right label/identification was for folks and I have to admit, I was thinking "Why does it matter? Just let people live their lives." Ah-ha. My heterosexual privilege just came up and smacked my in the face, though. I saw an ad about the census, encouraging Taiwanese-Americans to check the "other Asian" box on the census and write in Taiwanese... and it made sense to me. You want to be recognized so you can have political power, receive government money (and support for your causes), and, well, be recognized. Embarrassingly, this did not translate right away to our gender/relational orientation until I saw this
ReplyDeletehttp://act.credoaction.com/sticker/queerthecensus/?rc=fb.share.box
posted on facebook. And it clicked for me. There is a need for the label and I didn't recognize it in part because of how pervasive heterosexual privilege is. So, I get that now.
However, can we ever really find a correct label? Wouldn't it be better to work toward acknowledging that the labels are not even close to perfect? Or, even better, wouldn't it be better if we took folks seriously without asking if they were part of a large enough group? How do we do that? Wow, that sounds depressing because it is so big, but it is oddly exhilarating to me, because as teachers, I think we can be a first step (or at least early step) in setting up a paradigm of acceptance and inclusion. This census thing really has me reeling...
They meant Taiwanese of ethnic Chinese descent. But in trying to find out if there was any effort to distinguish, I stumbled on this article and thought it was an interesting and informative perspective on the need to legitimize one's identity. Interesting to think about in other contexts as I fill out my census form...
ReplyDeleteSorry, I forgot to paste the link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.8asians.com/2010/03/08/psa-write-in-taiwanese-on-the-2010-us-census/
Hi All ... I agree, last class was an interesting topic and I wish we were able to explore it more. I wanted to bring notice to the current issue of The Economist. The topic of the entire magazine is ... Gendercide ... Where are our girls?
ReplyDeleteI bought the magazine and it was pretty interesting, great read!
Hey class,
ReplyDeleteFor those who watched the CNN coverage of the "Her Name was Steven" documentary, I’m sure you’ll agree it was mind-boggling and completely in sync with our class discussion on transgenderism.
Susan Stanton doesn't seem much different than any other woman: She struggles with her weight, she tries to balance her career with being a parent, and she worries about her teenage son, Travis, who is just learning to drive. But Stanton has been a woman for only about two years. Before this she was …Steven.
In 2007, Largo, Florida, City Manager Steven Stanton, announced he planned to become a woman. Stanton—who knew very little about the transgender community—practically became the poster child for the transgender rights movement. Stanton agreed to participate in the documentary to "put a human face on [something] people still have a profound misunderstanding of," she says. Stanton's 2007 announcement came as a shock to the city of Largo, Florida, who had known Steven Stanton as their city manager for 14 years.
The city manager was promptly terminated and Stanton's marriage ended. After transitioning to Susan, she became a pariah in the transgender community for her wavering position on whether all transgender people should be federally protected, as well as her decision not to sue the city of Largo for her termination. But her relationship with her son, Travis, never wavered. Travis' acceptance of his father is a central part of the CNN documentary. Stanton underwent gender reassignment surgery in 2008. Travis still calls Stanton "Dad," which Stanton says does not bother her, even when Travis says it in front of other people.
Like many transgender people, Stanton struggled with serious depression and suicidal thoughts during her transition. The loss of her job and her marriage seemed to be the two most difficult side effects of the process. She credits her faith with helping her not internalize anger after losing so much during the transition process.
Stanton says her journey to become a woman does not mean she wants to forget about her life as a man."For the most part—most things I do in my life—the fact that Susan used to be Steven is totally irrelevant," Stanton says. "But it's very much part of who I am. I don't think you can ever deny your human story."
For those who watched the documentary, I’m curious to know some of your thoughts of Stanton’s relationship with Travis and some general comments of the overall effects of transgenderism on society.
I heard about a cool movie this weekend: This Film Is Not Yet Rated. The film dissects the MPAA's rating system for movies. There's a lot of intriguing points and themes, but one that pertains to this discussion is the rating systems' treatment of homosexual love scenes.
ReplyDeleteThe MPAA claims that it doesn't censor movies, and technically it doesn't, but it is much more likely to give movies that depict SSL love scenes an NC-17 rating than movies that depict OSL love scenes of the same graphic nature. Even movies with violent OSL sex scenes get R ratings while movies with romantic SSL scenes get tagged as NC-17, which automatically signifies pornography to most people.
Anyway, I thought it was an excellent example of institutional prejudice against homosexuality. And it's interesting...television programs are actually censored, and you'd think outright censorship would be much worse than a rating system, but at least outright censorship requires censors to say precisely what they don't approve of and why. This way, the writers can fight back and get creative in slowly advancing the story lines they want to share.
I had totally forgotten about This Film In Not Yet Rated -- Great movie! I definitely agree that is it does a great job unveiling the institutionalized heterosexism. I also found their discussion of the MPAA's view that women receiving pleasure during sex is worthy of an increased rating, but male-centric sex seems not to catch their eye, fascinating. I, too, was struck by the notion that censorship might actually be a more transparent way to "rate" films.
ReplyDeleteI strongly encourage folks to rent the movie, but here is a link to it in sections on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0AowYQKfTM&feature=PlayList&p=C617686650B795B0&index=0
I'd like to respond to this post:
ReplyDelete"The pedophilia topic makes me think more generally about men in education, and the stigma (is that word too strong? what would be more appropriate) for guys in education, especially as they teach younger kids. Why is this? It is a shame to me that male teachers often have to be hyper-conscious of their behavior because of society's fear."
SO TRUE. Thank you for mentioning this, even though we've all gone far off the original topic at this point.
A little personal story...
I taught for an elementary after school program many years ago. At one point some kid who didn't attend after school decided to spread a sexual rumor about me (I was maybe 25 at the time) and a 6th grade girl who did attend our program. Apparently it was some sort of vengeful prank on the young perpertrator's part toward the girl, but it was not funny to me or anyone else. It was very, very serious business to me.
The girl was appalled, as was I, and I can still clearly recall the day we both sat down to talk about it with the program director. Even though this was NOT a case of me being accused of something (on the contrary the girl and I were fellow victims in the matter) - it still had long lasting repercussions for me emotionally.
First of all, it disgusted me and angered me.
Secondly, it frightened me. In fact, I came close to quitting, but didn't. In the end it was fine, and the school handled everything really well.
Thirdly, it made me question my choice to teach children altogether - something I have done ever since, even now to a lesser degree.
There is definitely a certain stigma attached to being a male teacher, especially one who teaches younger kids. For some reason that I don't fully understand, teaching is often thought of as a "feminine" profession. And it has the low pay and relative lack of appreciation to go along with it.
When a male dares to enter that arena, he is met with suspicion, and perhaps even animosity. After all, aren't men supposed to do "important" work and make big money? How dare a male cross the line into "feminine" territory, how dare he (to some degree) throw away some aspect of male privilege. Clearly, some facets of the social unconscious seems to think there must be something "wrong" there. What a shame.
My friend is excited about the possibility of a new job at company that is managed by Martine Rothblatt. She is a very talented executive whose story warrants her own wikipedia page. Her accomplishments are many, and are certainly more lengthy and interesting than her sex reassignment or her role as an advocate for the transgender world, but this is our topic of the moment. So in the spirit of "Black History month," I offer you Martine Rothblatt, an interesting and accomplished woman. Google and Explore.
ReplyDeleteYesterday's presentation reminded me of something I read last week relating to poverty, obesity, and malnutrition:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/nyregion/14hunger.html?scp=1&sq=obesity%20hunger%20paradox&st=cse
Poor folks' diets are calorie-heavy and nutrient poor. It's not surprising, but it's interesting to see some numbers.
I got an email about this http://www.fi.ncsu.edu/calendar/friday-institute-events/2010/04/15/joseph-d-moore-distinguished-lecture-series/ at the Friday institute tonight. The talk is about "a comprehensive new synthesis of educational, behavioral and social science research of the effects of schools' racial and socioeconomic composition on mathematics learning"... sounds pretty interesting to me! Too bad it's during my methods class and I can't go, but I thought some of you might be interested in the talk or the topic.
ReplyDelete