Blogging

            Blogging has been a relief for me, as I am a rather painfully shy person, blogging has given a way of communication that was not available to me before this class.  I have found myself fascinated with the voyeuristic side of blogging and peering into my peers’ thoughts, their hopes, dreams, and dislikes helps me to see people more realistically.  My sometimes bourgeois thoughts don’t get off the ground when I read someone’s realistic opinion then there are other times when I would want to say, “don’t believe the hype”. 

            The other thing this blogging has given to me is respect for my own opinions, to stand behind them whether they are quirky, senseless, or profound.  I am learning to trust what I think, though I am sure that I will continue to grow and change, for this moment I am learning to honor my thoughts and others’ thoughts.

            Blogging has also taught me the scholarship of other students and what is required of one who wants to learn.  Though no one was filled to the brim with negativism, I believe people taught me by honestly critiquing my work.  They gave me deeper things to think on and different ways of looking at situations.  I really think my classmates are brilliant and thoughtful people who are intellectually free and who reflect critically on social and spiritual issues. 

            Somehow in this environment I have even noticed my thoughts are becoming more logical and my understanding of simple literature concepts are becoming clearer.  I consider this the textural part of my education now.  This part is the something I can feel, the substance of my education.  I have tasted the good and the bad and it is laying a wonderful foundation within me these teachings are combining to create a rich impression that will carry me through the balance of my education.

Language

Is where I have learned to hide my mountainous thoughts

Where I dress myself daily with vocabulary that I am not well acquainted with

And it is where I preen before the mirror of me

Wearing frocks of lingo that are enclosed with fire, I look noble neither nesting on guilt or shame

Someplace where thought is more than an acquaintance

But is a real companion

A lover of what he said, and what she said, and what she said too

Mary Joyce Franklin

            “Your silence

Will not

            Protect you”

Some of us—

We dumb autistic ones,

The aphasics,

Those who can only stutter

Or point,

Some who speak in tongues,

Or write in invisible ink—

Sit rigid, our eyelids burning

Mute

From birth

From fear

From habit

For love and money

For children

For fear for fear

While you probe

Our agonized silence,

A constant pain:

            Dear Eshu’s Audre,

            Please keep on

            Teaching us

            How

To speak,

            To know

            That now

            “our labor is

            More important than

            Our silence.”

Gloria T. Hull for Audre Lorde

            Blogging has given me a way to destroy the fear and silence in me.  I will be forever

grateful.

     

The Culture of Cruelty

“The Culture of Cruelty”

I first found the article eye opening both to what some young boys and girls go through in the sweat of emotional development. 

There are so many differences not only between men and women, but between free and non-free peoples.  The giant leap into manhood, a leap filled with the potency of hope, shares the podium with a mound of other debilitating dilemmas that pay homage to a dangerous attraction - the mask of cruelty, which like cinema leaves its images trampled on the cutting board floor.

W.E.B. DuBois makes us aware of a “two-ness” when it comes to African Americans.  A double social identity, one lodged in the dominant White culture, the other found in the Black culture.  In one respect that “two-ness” is a conflicting identity that is familiar with what is necessary for survival in a dominant society of whites, but is also is trying to keep an African identity.  Assimilation is necessary for survival in this country, so here is a young boy who must negotiate his way through the valley of “The Culture of Cruelty” which necessitates more than an acquaintance with the dominant male image and autonomy, he must also understand survival demands he learn to “drop his eyelids” when challenged by Whites and in spite of everything, find a place where he is considered a man and yet be called by his name.

It is stated in the article, “Among themselves boys engage in continuous psychological warfare… creating an environment that pits the strong against the weak, …the power brokers against the powerless, and the conformity-driven “boy pack” against the boy who fails in any way to conform with pack expectations.”  My question lies in a murky area somewhere – if in fact the end result is institutionally to never be allowed acceptance even if the behavior a boy exhibits really does conform, the dangling carrot becomes the “boy pack” that he will never be  accepted into.  How then does that affect his position/status and where does that leave him within the culture structure he is trying so desperately to negotiate position?

I seriously wonder if “boys urinating on other boy’s belongings stemmed in simple “boy behavior”, or if it was a racial prank would a Black child’s reaction be racially motivated, or could that child ever see these pranks as simply “boy culture”.

“Boys who are under constant pressure to assert power or be labeled a weakling are more likely to level cruelty at others with little recognition of, or regard for, its emotional impact.  Boys are cruel, in part because they are afraid, and their need to defend against that fear is ironclad.”    Have we in this instance found the reason for physical abuse towards women or does this power assertion also turn on itself towards other men?  And if this is the case, can we accept this type of explanation for crime against women and is crime culturally and racially more evenly distributed now?  Does this window of understanding allow us to slacken our intolerance on crimes against women and children?  If striving for masculinity and equality lends itself to more pain perhaps we should be rethinking our cultural norms and becoming more intolerant no matter the cost.         

The Culture of Cruelty

“The Culture of Cruelty”

I first found the article eye opening both to what some young boys and girls go through in the sweat of emotional development. 

There are so many differences not only between men and women, but between free and non-free peoples.  The giant leap into manhood, a leap filled with the potency of hope, shares the podium with a mound of other debilitating dilemmas that pay homage to a dangerous attraction - the mask of cruelty, which like cinema leaves its images trampled on the cutting board floor.

W.E.B. DuBois makes us aware of a “two-ness” when it comes to African Americans.  A double social identity, one lodged in the dominant White culture, the other found in the Black culture.  In one respect that “two-ness” is a conflicting identity that is familiar with what is necessary for survival in a dominant society of whites, but is also is trying to keep an African identity.  Assimilation is necessary for survival in this country, so here is a young boy who must negotiate his way through the valley of “The Culture of Cruelty” which necessitates more than an acquaintance with the dominant male image and autonomy, he must also understand survival demands he learn to “drop his eyelids” when challenged by Whites and in spite of everything, find a place where he is considered a man and yet be called by his name.

It is stated in the article, “Among themselves boys engage in continuous psychological warfare… creating an environment that pits the strong against the weak, …the power brokers against the powerless, and the conformity-driven “boy pack” against the boy who fails in any way to conform with pack expectations.”  My question lies in a murky area somewhere – if in fact the end result is institutionally to never be allowed acceptance even if the behavior a boy exhibits really does conform, the dangling carrot becomes the “boy pack” that he will never be  accepted into.  How then does that affect his position/status and where does that leave him within the culture structure he is trying so desperately to negotiate position?

I seriously wonder if “boys urinating on other boy’s belongings stemmed in simple “boy behavior”, or if it was a racial prank would a Black child’s reaction be racially motivated, or could that child ever see these pranks as simply “boy culture”.

“Boys who are under constant pressure to assert power or be labeled a weakling are more likely to level cruelty at others with little recognition of, or regard for, its emotional impact.  Boys are cruel, in part because they are afraid, and their need to defend against that fear is ironclad.”    Have we in this instance found the reason for physical abuse towards women or does this power assertion also turn on itself towards other men?  And if this is the case, can we accept this type of explanation for crime against women and is crime culturally and racially more evenly distributed now?  Does this window of understanding allow us to slacken our intolerance on crimes against women and children?  If striving for masculinity and equality lends itself to more pain perhaps we should be rethinking our cultural norms and becoming more intolerant no matter the cost.