You have to ask yourself, was it worth it?

I

“You have to ask yourself,

Was it worth it?”

My commander asks while

I slide the all too heavy

corpse into the Blackhawk’s belly. 

“Yes it was!”

Commands the same voice,

gruff, confident, all too enthusiastic.

My brother is gone

His new wife

now a widow,

but this dumb fuck over

Here thinks it was

Worth it….

Honestly,

I never replied to his question.

I will never reply.

I can’t.

I was,

always will be

too close to those trees.

17OCTOBER2006

I was 13 days from

Boots-on-ground

Back at home

where an old vet,

tears in his eyes,

would hand me 2 cold

McDonalds cheeseburgers,

shake my hand, and

tell me

“You are home, son,

It’s OK now.”

17OCTOBER2006

A green flash of

molten copper pierces one

side of the armored Humvee…

Only one side.

The liquid clapper,

It’s toll ominous, final,

left one soul to

Relive that deafening tone.

“Was it worth it, Ryan?”

“Was it worth it, Norm?”

“Was it worth it, Nate?”

You paid the price.

So, I ask you,

“Was it worth it?”

Your silence is resounding.

II

Is it my responsibility

to help pay this hefty bill?

Since no son of yours will

carry on your family name,

I named mine after you.

Since you can’t endure

the effects of PTSD,

I endure them for you.

Brother, you live within my heart.

Brother, you live

Within my heart.

You live within my heart, brother.

My heart is heavy

like your corpse

that warm desert night

with waking up in cold sweats at 3am

the memory of burning flesh and metallic blood

Seared into my mind

My heart is heavy

because you are there.

Your memory, brother,

can never be torn away,

Not the same way your

flesh once was.

“What is the price

I have paid?” I ask,

My voice trembling, weak.

It is nothing

Compared to the small

plastic bag of politics

Your life paid for.

“Was it worth it, Ryan?”

“Was it worth it, Norm?”

“Was it worth it, Nate?”

You paid the price.

So, I ask you,

again,

“Was it worth it, brother?”

…

Your silence,

Deafens me. 

My Problem is Not RIBS

My sexuality

Is not the

Spontaneity of a combustion reaction.

It is not the heated

Passion between Houston and Oil.

It is not a matter of adding pressure to

Oxidize difficult ores.

It is not like the

Gravity between two celestial bodies.

It is not a neat pattern of
Explosives designed for accurate execution.

It is not a matter of

Relativity and the time between moving objects.

It is not defined by the

Probability of random events.

It is not a force like

Magnetism drawing the needle towards North.

It is not an issue of selective

Permeability in a membrane.

It is not comparable to the forces of the earth causing

Intrusions of molten rock into small crevices.

It is not a simple diagram of

Supply and demand in spite of the high supply.

My sexuality is limited by

Thermodynamics

My sexuality does not have what is required

To break through the activation energy

Necessary for human intimacy.

On Freedom and Infringement: The Restroom of Your Choice

In class on Wednesday, Alli and I spoke about the transgender community. Upon beginning the presentation, I made reference to the restroom symbols and indicated their utility for denoting sex. For most, the symbols are useful; the distinction between sex and gender is minimal. The majority of people will find that the two describe the same characteristic, that the inner binary (that of gender) is in alignment with the outer (that of sex). But what of those for which the same is not true?

            The issue is complicated with various social and political implications. After the presentation last week, Brianne brought to my attention an article from NBC Philadelphia which concerns legislation pertaining to restrooms in all new and renovated public buildings in the city. The article can be found at:

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/LGBT-Gender-Neutral-Restrooms-206932591.html (Thanks, Brianne!). According to the article, signed into law by Mayor Michael Nutter, “The legislation requires that new or renovated city-owned buildings include gender-neutral bathrooms in addition to traditional men's and women's restrooms.”

            Certainly, this requirement is one not likely to be supported from all sides. In particular, though, a few points should be noted. The additional requirements place no pressure on private business to follow suit. Additionally, the legislation neither removes nor prohibits the traditional male/female restroom binary—those who wish to cavort solely with members of their own sex while in the restroom will remain free to do so.

            I mention the preceding qualifications to raise a question. Are such requirements necessary for this kind of legislation? Without gender neutral-restrooms, we must necessarily limit the freedom of individuals to use the restroom that aligns with either gender or sex. With gender-neutral restrooms, however, we invite criticism, surely, from those who feel the infrastructure caters to a minority and infringes on the complainant’s comfort level. In either case, some set of people will be discomforted and infringed upon. How do we seek to find the best possible solution?  

Breaking out of Cycles

I found this article in The Atlantic, which featured an interview with Sherman Alexie, a prominent Native American writer. In it, he discusses a poem that influenced him to become a writer. The line that inspired him, from the poem "Elegy for the Forgotten Oldsmobile" by Adrian Louis, was "Oh, Uncle Adrian, I'm in the reservation of my mind." The rest of the poem is in the article I just linked, which you should read if you have time, it's really good. Sherman Alexie described his reaction to the poem:

I’d never seen myself in a work of literature. I loved books, always, but I didn’t know Indians wrote books or poems. And then to see myself so fully understood in one line of a poem, as though that one line of a poem written by someone else was my autobiography ... It was like understanding human language for the first time... I feel like I could start a church with that line. The number one tenet of that church? No cedar flutes. Also, no references to talking animals. And a concerted effort to get everyone off the res. What would be the symbol of my church? It’d be a broken circle. And that would be a positive sign. That break in the circle would really be an explosion of possibility. Indians always praise circles. But they actually are chain-links.

Alexie argues that Indians who grow up on reservations are trapped there in their minds, imprisoned by the cycles of poverty. I'd argue that this happens to many people who are subjugated or discriminated against: communities are formed, such as ghettos or reservations, and a strong culture emerges. But Sherman Alexie argues that the goal of "preserving culture" is not worth the continuation of suffering. This seems to be an argument against cultural relativism, almost -- he argues that human suffering is human suffering, regardless of the cultural forces that created it. That goes for Indians on reservations, women in Saudi Arabia, you name it.

Alexie also speaks to the influence of minority role models - if our media is saturated with one perspective (generally speaking, the affluent, white male perspective), people who don't fit in that category don't know where or how to express themselves. Going back to the beginning of this unit, if there are no women scientists around, little girls don't know that they can be scientists.

I also just really like the image of a broken circle to represent change -- we've been discussing revolutions and often arguing that they are cyclical in nature, but this paradigm seems to argue that true "revolutionary" change only happens when cycles are broken. And this is a good thing -- you can't move forward if you're just walking in a circle.

Top 10%

So we have been talking a lot about how revolutions have occurred for women as well as different races. This made me think of laws like Affirmative Action and other movements that make it easier for employers to "discriminate positively" or not just employers but also colleges. Recently race being used as a factor in college admissions is under scrutiny and many recent Supreme Court Decisions (Recent timeline of 2 Supreme Court Cases in Michigan and Texas: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/affirmative_action/).

Beginning in 1997 after a Court case over Caucasian students not being admitted to a Texas Law School over students with lower credentials (Hopwood V.Texas), the top 10% law is a law that states that any student within the to 10% of their graduating class in Texas and are residents of Texas can be admitted to a State School Automatically. It was created to help allow students into state schools who were qualified but not allow discrimination to occur based upon race. This law only allows admittance into the school not different colleges within the school, does not put in a plan to pay for school or anything like that. The theory behind it is that the top 10% should mirror pretty closely the diversity at that particular school as well as it applies to all schools so students from all over the state would gain admittance into the top state schools or just universities in general.

I never really thought much about the rule in high school, because I was in the top 10% and if I wanted to go to UT I could or if I wanted to go to Texas A&M I could, but when applying to schools my motive to apply to UT was very much so I could have a back up school for all of the other schools I was applying to and wanted to attend a lot more. I found out later that I had quite a few friends who were worried about getting into these schools, because even though their GPA's, SAT scores and activities were well within the range to be admitted into the school they were worried that they would not get in, because of the Top 10% law. Their dislike of the law stemmed from the fact that they said they went to a more difficult private school and a smaller class so our Top 10% was only 10 people and not the 100 at a larger public school,  so it was harder for them to get into the Top 10% at our school. They thought they were more qualified and would do better than students from rural schools or inner city schools, because they had developed the skills to succeed. They did have right to be worried in 2008 the number of top 10% students that were a part of UT's Freshmen class was 81%. Eventually, the law was changed only at UT that only 75% of the incoming students could be from the Top 10%, but that is the only school it changed at. (Figures from: https://www.texastribune.org/tribpedia/top-ten-percent-rule/about/).

So my question is, is this a fair method for trying to get diversity at the university level? Is it fair to students who go to rigorous high schools? Is this another type of discrimination?

Driving Nonmovements Home

We began this unit on women's rights and ended with the Arab Spring.  It is interesting to see the two of them merge together in the fight for Saudi Arabian women to drive.  Manal al Sharif is just one example of the women who are standing up against the social and political norms to claim their rights.  This TED talk is from the summer but just this last weekend some women in Saudi Arabia continued their challenge:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/26/saudi-arabia-woman-driving-car-ban

For me one of the most amazing things about the ban on woman drivers in Saudi Arabia is, as al Sharif says, there is no actual law against it, only custom and tradition.  The nonviolent demonstrations by these women make me wonder if their fight falls within Asef Bayat's definition of a "nonmovement" or if it is more organized and homogeneous.  My question to everyone is if you believe these women will be more successful fighting an oppressive society by organizing together and acting as one or remaining dispersed and individual.  The nonmovements outlined by Bayat that define the Arab Spring have proven successful at toppling repressive regimes.  Can they also topple repressive societies?

Convergence

Something that really struck me during the Privilege Walk on Wednesday was how different our backgrounds are from one another.  Yet there we are week after week, sitting in the same room at the same time, having the same conversation.  Even more striking: think of how different any of our backgrounds are compared to someone living across the world. 

Given our distinct backgrounds, I think we take it for granted how easily we can speak to one another.  This is possible because we adhere to a similar paradigm and have a common language, understanding, and mutual desire to listen. 

In the context of establishing universal human rights, I think an endeavor such as this is only successful if some mutual framework, or paradigm, is established that can cross cultural boundaries.  In class, my first thought is: here are my fellow Mines students.  But when I look outwardly – when I read a poem about a mother suffering in a refugee camp or listen to stories of witness emerging from revolutions – my first thought is: here is a fellow human.  I think it is important to see beyond the first and most obvious thread of commonality.  Doing so helps us to better empathize, understand, and work collaboratively with people regardless of culture or background. 

Here is an interesting article I read a couple weeks ago: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/a-yo-yo-ma-project-brings-together-musicians-from-warring-nations/280458/

I’d also encourage you to watch the video of their performance; the musicians do a great job of harmonizing given the diversity of instruments. 

The goal of this ensemble is to “foster cross-cultural understanding through music, education and cultural entrepreneurship.”  Music is a common language.  A smile in one part of the world is interpreted as a smile in any other place.  These are just a few of the methods which “provide a framework for how intercultural understanding and empathy can be forged even outside the realm of musical collaboration.”  I think the same can really be said for any of the arts and sciences.

Is it necessary to have a common paradigm or mutual framework for universal human rights to be adopted and fulfilled by all?  What are some other unifying paradigms that can span across cultures and unite us with others?  Despite all of our differences, how can we converge?  

"Real rights are a result of performance of duty" -- Gandhi

Now that the class is focused again on human rights, I want to pose a question.  You have all been reading a lot about human rights, and discussing interesting things on the blog like, what rights we would like to have, what we really need, whether access to information ranks with access to basic physical needs and the like.  My question for you is:  are there any responsibilities that go along with these rights?  I think these fall into two categories: the responsibilities on the people who already have the rights towards the ones who don't; and responsibilities of everyone getting or having the human rights towards everyone else (in a good citizen sense.)
The American jurist Hohfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Newcomb_Hohfeld) observed that one person's rights mean another person's duties.  For example, if everyone in Uzbekistan has the right to fresh, potable water, then it becomes a duty of many other people to a) depose the ruler who is using all the aid money to put gold toilet seats in his marble palace -- this is true, by the way; he takes massive aid money and puts it into his palace, which really does have gold toilet seats, while his people drink from muddy, piss-filled rivers -- b) to re-structure a government so that people will receive that aid money, c) send in a a bunch of engineers and cement to build water projects, as well as a d) host of social analysts to communicate with the Uzbeks and see what kind of water purification projects they actually want and will use and won't dismantle for parts in a year or two as has happened in so many well-meaning but externally imposed development projects.  And e) pay for all of that.
That's a lot of duty heaped on the shoulders of other people.  Some of whom may be you.
Implementing universal human rights probably means reduction in lifestyle as well.  For example, if the people of the Niger Delta were right now granted the rights to clean water and to not have their land and fishing grounds destroyed by the near daily oil spills that occur, and the oil companies operating there had to fix their systems and clean up the spills, the price of gas would probably go up to something closer to $10/gal.  A lot of what we enjoy in this country, from coffee to petroleum products to coffee to the vastitude of awesome little tech machines, is priced based on the very human rights violations we seek to eradicate.  So human rights is not just a code of behavior for people who are violating human rights; it is a very broad global code, saying, in essence, you will put money, a lot of money, towards paying for what it would really cost to have an iphone if it were produced in countries that paid a livable wage and disposed of somewhere other than the beaches in Bangladesh where some child is going to be exposed to toxic waste picking it apart for scrap.  And sneakers.  And coffee.  And gas.  All of that stuff will get much, much more expensive if we commit to uphold human rights, and there are not going to be corresponding salary increases, because that money is going to fix the human rights situation, and not into the pocket of someone who can hire you.
Then there is the idea that a person should not be entitled to stuff without making a contribution.  I'm thinking of a story of an old Zen master, who insisted on working in the garden every day.  But he was old and weak, and his disciples worried for his health, so one day they hid his tools.  The old master said nothing but went to bed without eating.  This was not the result the disciples had hoped for. Finally after three days of this, they asked the master why he was now starving himself, when all they wanted was for him to take it easy.  He said, "No work, no food."  They gave back the tools.  Obviously this does not apply to people who are not capable of contributing, like infants, but what about people who are?  In the context of all these promises of human rights and goals that we want to reach on human rights, will we be like the disciples who want to give things for free, or like the master, who insisted that there is no right without a duty fulfilled?
I'm not strong in math, but it seems to me that the output required (achieving a high, universal standard of human rights) needs to be balanced by the input (new concepts of duty and of how we are all going to act and what we need to contribute.)
So, is there a point where human rights should be dependent on human conduct?  Which rights?  What conduct?  

Not for girls, not for boys

I saw this article on Facebook when I got home and its relevance to a variety of topics we have been discussing really jumped out at me. The article can be found here:

Understanding Boys, Understanding Girls.

I hope you spend a few minutes reading it, as I would be really interested to hear what you're perspectives are. I know many of the women in our class wrote their papers on women in science or other issues related to gender inequality. I think it is important to realize that the gender norms are oppressive to both males and females, even if females have other difficulties due to males being in more positions of power.

I think this article helps point out that the negative expected gender roles of men actually contributes to the negative gender roles assigned to women. I also really like the idea of, in addition to having empowering conferences for young girls, to have a similar space for boys where they can unlearn the social push towards being overly competitive, violent, and ignorant. My sister was once complaining about how on TV sitcoms you have these smart, beautiful women married to these stupid football watching beer-bellied men who sit around and watch TV all the time.  After discussing for awhile we realized that both genders were being insulted and negatively stereotyped.

I thought the most powerful part of the article was when the speaker described a certain type of man and many of the girls felt they would be made fun of, but all of them thought they would make an ideal partner. The boys agreed they would be made fun of, and thought that the girls would not be attracted to them.

What are your reactions?

What is the next revolution?

What is the next revolution?  What revolution would you like to see? 
I posed this question to my sister and sister in law who are both surgeons, and asked them to consider medical journals from 100 or 200 years ago that didn’t even include hand washing or sterilizing instruments.  Those developments revolutionized medicine.  I asked them to then think of 100 years in the future and what would have been developed and what we would now consider barbaric.  They both thought for the same 30 seconds and then replied in unison, “remote operations.”  They explained, “The operating field would be so much more sterile if the only person in there were the patient.”

Imagine yourself looking back upon now from 100 years in the future.  What have we realized?  What revolution do you envision happening?  

McBride in the (pseudo) news

Last week and two weeks ago, our class visitors included Oredigger reporters. Benjamin Elliott and Jessica Deters wrote articles regarding our revolution panel discussions. Though perhaps not professional journalists, I thought they did a pretty nice job.

The print copies should be available around campus and I'll bring a few to class tomorrow, but here are the links.

The October 9 panel:
http://oredigger.net/news/8-news/3004-those-who-were-there-class-hears-about-revolutions-from-eyewitnesses.html

The October 16 panel:
http://oredigger.net/news/8-news/3001-behind-the-headlines-mcbride-panel-offers-insight-into-arab-spring-revolutions.html

Is the Internet a Basic Human Right?

This is a short but interesting TED Talk by Kostas Grammatis, in which he discusses his belief that free universal internet access for every person on earth would not only be hugely beneficial, but should be considered an imperative basic human right.  He states that "The internet is a tool that helps people to help themselves.  We believe the internet is a basic human right."  In fact, at least five countries follow his belief by legally protecting their citizens' right to Internet access, including Greece, Spain, France, Finland, and Estonia.  Kostas presents a few plans for how we can bring this into existence, including: lobbying government and industry to provide free segments of their network, building our own new networks, or buying existing infrastructure and re-purposing it for the cause of free internet access for every person on earth.  Whether this is accomplished by governments, billionaires who look to leave a legacy, or worldwide fundraisers, Kostas and the people he works with to pursue this goal believe that it is imperative because access to the internet is a basic human right.

I agree that if done properly (as in, those given internet for the first time are also taught how to use it - mainly, how to sift through misinformation), then universal internet access for everyone in the world would be immensely beneficial.  This should be considered a top priority for all privileged countries and people who have the ability to share this information tool with the rest of the world.  Some support for this idea presented by Kostas included the story of Neda Agha, who was shot and killed by Iranian forces simply for demonstrating. This was the most widely viewed death in human history, thanks to the internet.  However, it strengthened the revolution in Iran so much that the government decided to "turn off" the internet.  Some say this lack of internet was one of the main factors leading to the slow down and eventual stop of the revolution.

A similar case was after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, and a project ensued to bring free wifi to everyone on the streets.  Chris Drake, the WiFi Project Manager for New Orleans, said "You would have thought you were bringing starving people food from the reaction on the street."

In another part of the world, internet is also viewed similarly as a human right by Michael Somare, the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, who said “We envision to empower our people…through the power of information to enhance their quality of life and to be on par with their peers in developed urban centres and peoples of this world."

Many of the above examples present internet access not only as a powerful and influential source of information, but also as a driving force for revolution, a means by which to enhance quality of life, and even as comparable to "food for starving people."  Still, I find it hard to convince myself that access to the internet can actually be considered a basic human right rather than simply an amazing technological tool used to spread the world's information among all of its people.  I guess to decide whether we can consider the internet as a basic human right, we must go back to discussions we had previously in class about whether human rights are something that all people are born with - therefor are inherent, extremely basic, and concrete - or whether new developments in science, technology, and society lead to the creation of new human rights.  Of course, we have seen that the development of society has caused us to materialize and agree upon many basic human rights, but we also found that these rights tend to differ among multiple societies and cultures.  Does this mean that some human rights are universal, while others are contextual?  Just because something (such as the internet) is extremely beneficial to all of mankind, does that mean all humans have the right to have it provided to them for free at the cost of others who are more privileged?  Does taking the internet away from people violate their human rights to the same extent as more concrete examples of this, such as taking away their freedom and enslaving them to a life of servitude?  If not, then does that mean the internet should not be considered a basic human right, or does it simply mean that some human rights are weighed more heavily than others?

Buddhism - A Revolution in Ancient India

It has been really a fascinating experience for me to hear you guys share your thoughts and discuss so vividly on topics which are of great importance. Let me now share a bit of history of the country from where I belong.

As you all must be aware, Hinduism has been the most dominant religion in India for many centuries now, although the term "Hindu" came much later. It originated from the word "Indus", a very famous river which flows from Tibet, through North India, and finally to Pakistan. So the people residing south of Indus river were called the "Hindus". The ancient religion in India was called "Sanatana Dharma", or the "eternal way". It is believed that sages and monks in the very early days had gone to a recluse in the forests, and meditated to realise the "truth", which were put in the form of writing in the religious scriptures such as Vedas, Upanishads, etc. around the period 1000-1500 B.C. But through time, the original philosophical ideas were replaced by rituals and sacrifices which became of utmost importance. The upper caste of "Brahmins", or priests, started exploiting the society to a great extent. The knowledge of the Vedas and Upanishads were only restricted to the Brahmins, and the common people had only access to the interpretations made by the upper caste. As expected, they used it for their own benefits. The lower caste ("Shudras") and the untouchables faced the tyranny of both the Brahmins and the rulers and warriors (Kshatriyas).

At this important junction, Lord Buddha came into the picture. He was born in a royal family, in "Kapilavastu" in present-day Nepal. At the age of 29, he experienced for the first time the harsh realities of the society, and so left home to lead an ascetic life. After intense meditation, he attained "enlightenment", and henceforth was called "Buddha" or the "awakened one". He began travelling and teaching a diverse range of people, from nobles to outcast street sweepers. From the very beginning, Buddhism was equally open to all races and classes, and had no caste system, which was one of the main causes of its expansion in the society, at the cost of Hinduism. Buddhism spread rapidly all the way to Greece, South-East Asia, China and Japan.

But surprisingly, after a few centuries, Buddhism started to decline. As a matter of fact, it almost got eradicated from India, the very place of its birth. There are various reasons for the decline of Buddhism, including external invasions which India had to face. But predominantly, historians consider the decline of Buddhism due to the emergence of three important leaders, Adi Shankara, along with Madhvacharya and Ramanuja, who helped in reviving Hindu philosophy in India. These leaders borrowed a lot of ideas which was formulated by the Buddhist philosophers and thus incorporated a lot of changes in Hinduism.

We thus see a "cyclic" nature of "revolution" which was discussed in the earlier classes. A religion, which came into being as a revolution to the existing  order, faded away in the course of time. Ironically Hindus still regard Lord Buddha, the revolutionary, as one of the incarnations of their God "Vishnu"!

Was the American Revolution a true revolution?

During last week's class, our panelists agreed that those who begin a revolution rarely if ever take power after the revolution. This brought to my mind our discussions after reading Arendt on whether or not the American Revolution qualified as a revolution.

I thought it would be interesting to combine these two conversations and look at whether our new criterion can clear up our old question.  My conclusion is that the American Revolution does not share the power change characteristic and thus may not be a revolution.

Let's take a look at the leaders of the American Revolution and the early United States.

This is Paul Revere's famous engraving of the Boston Massacre. Of course, the actual incident didn't look much like this, but one American wrote that the "foundation of American independence was laid" by the event. That American was John Adams, who served as defense attorney for the British soldiers, despite his own political leanings. It's hard to trace who was really  "in charge" of the Boston Massacre, probably because no one was. However, it's interesting to note Adams' early appearance.

At least in a basic conception of US history, the next major action by Americans leading to the Revolutionary War was the Boston Tea Party. It was spearheaded by the Sons of Liberty, supported and arguably led by Samuel Adams (John's cousin).

The next year, both Adamses were appointed to the First Continental Congress. In 1775, both were also selected for the Second Continental Congress. That body is most famous for writing the Declaration of Independence and appointing George Washington as head of the army. (Here's a painting of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It was painted long after the event, but it's a nice visual aid.)

. 

Noticeably, there are two future presidents in the group at the front (the Declaration committee).

After the war, when the Articles of Confederation needed replacing, General George Washington returned to act as president of the Constitutional Convention. After the states ratified the Constitution, Washington was of course elected president.

While some of the leaders of the revolution faded into relative anonymity (when was the last time you thought about Richard Henry Lee?), the first four presidents served in Congress during the war. Thus, the leadership of the revolution became the leaders of the new nation, representing a difference between the American Revolution and the revolutions discussed in last week's panel.

Static leadership does not absolutely rule out the American Revolution from consideration as a revolution, but it is worth adding to the discussion.

(Source-wise, I referred to Wikipedia and to my delightful high school history notes. The pictures are both public-domain, but I found them on Google Images.)

What You Don't Say

http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_breel_confessions_of_a_depressed_comic.html

One of the things we talked about near the end of the last class centered around the idea that pressures from society and our peers restricts our ability to express our thoughts. Several revolutions have arisen from conditions of censorship whether it be censorship of books, teachings, or an individuals words. Some revolutions arise from what the government or society considers "dangerous thoughts" that will upset the current order of things.

As society transforms, it becomes acceptable to speak words that might have been hushed in a different place and time. Certain social stigmas exist through which individuals are not truly free to express themselves. Several decades ago, many Americans found it unacceptable for individuals to admit to being gay or lesbian. Fortunately, this is no longer the case; but what other social stigmas still exist today? Think about the things that you have wanted to say but that you know you can't because of our society's reaction to them.

One problem in our society is understanding mental illness. I saw evidence of this in our discussion of the mathematician John Nash in the movie A Beautiful Mind. The discussion centered around conditions in which a certain scientist's work may or may not be credible, and we discussed how his schizophrenia may have affected his work. However, saying his schizophrenia is cause for questioning his work is like saying, "Her paper cannot have good science because she has diabetes" or "He couldn’t possibly have credible work; he suffers from liver damage." Mental illness is difficult to understand, but it is an illness just like any other medical condition from which people suffer. Treating mental illnesses differently from other illnesses resulted in actions like those seen in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Conditions have improved with regards to mental care in the United States since then, but the social stigma still exists. 

I think it's important for everyone to watch the video I inserted above. The speaker Kevin Breel summarizes how there needs to be a change in our thinking when it comes to mental illness, specifically depression. As part of a generation that sees depression daily in our friends, teachers, family members, and neighbors, I have sought to become more educated about the illness and the difficulties faced by those with depression and to explore my major (Biochemistry) to know how the disease develops, how it can be treated, and why we as a society are scared of it. The following article helped me to understand immensely not only the way the majority of people view depression but also the way people with depression view themselves. It is available at the following link: http://www.everydayhealth.com/health-report/major-depression/facing-social-stigma-of-depression.aspx

Think Outside the Box

http://www.flickr.com/photos/83140093@N08/7609536984/

Last week we examined several famous women in science. While discussing Emmy Noether, a mathematical physicist, one of my classmates remarked that perhaps she was able to be so successful because she had special insight into the subject as a woman. When this statement was made there was an air of general agreement in the room - perhaps her female brain DID give her an advantage in her male dominated field. Yet one student made a counter point: what if he had instead suggested that a male scientist had some sort of advantage in his field due to special properties in the male brain? I imagine this would be taken as offensive by many today.

This begs the question, in the process of shedding old social norms for women, do we also need to do the same for men? A TED talk by Tony Porter makes a call to men to do just this.

He calls the collective socialization of males, the "Man Box". Contained within this box are the often unspoken expectations which we hold to men. These expectations limit the emotions men feel they can express and force them to act out others that they may not otherwise. Porter gives several examples of instances in his personal life where he has been constrained by this Man Box. One example came from the death of his younger brother. After his family drove from the funeral, his father stayed behind in the car with him and began to cry. Of course, burying your son must be a traumatic and highly emotional experience for any father. Yet, Porter's father had not cried in front of anyone until that point in the car. His father would not let himself show what he perceived as weakness to any of the females in the family. Instead of accepting this showing of grief, his father apologized for this action and praised Porter for not letting himself cry. As a male, his father was constrained by his Man Box, where women were given freedom to express themselves.

Another example of this limitation comes to mind, the role of men in child rearing. The typical role of a male in a nuclear family was that of financial provider. This left care of the household and children to the female. As women have gained more opportunities, this role has shifted. More households today are dual income, indicating that both parents are now working and presumably also sharing care of the household. Yet, as we discussed in class, there still seems to be a social expectation for women to serve as the caretaker of the children. Obviously this restricts women, but does it not also rob men of the invaluable life experience of being highly involved in raising a child? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about one third of married fathers are a regular source of care for their children. The amount of fathers who serve as the primary source of care for their children lies below 1%. I do not believe men to be any less capable of caring for children than women, and I was unable to find any sound research to say otherwise. Why then aren't more men participating as actively as women when it comes to their very own children? I suspect that it has to do with lingering societal gender roles and, consequently, a Man Box which does not allow for men to experience caring for their children in the same way women do.

The feminist movement has come a long way in the last few centuries and its focus on women's rights should continue. However, if we are to truly build a society were its members are equal regardless of gender, we must reevaluate the social expectations we hold for BOTH women and men. We do not live in the same environments which formed these roles and it is detrimental to individuals of all genders to place their behavior in a metaphorical box.

(Note: I was unable to access the primary U.S. Census Bureau data due to the government shut down and took my data from a secondary source: National At-Home Dad Network)

The importance of diversity

We like to discuss how important it is to think about the social impacts of engineering and science. We have also said how important it is to train engineers in social sciences in order to compliment their training to make such connections.

I agree with this thought process. But I think it is also important to discuss why all engineer/science types do not need to delve into these "soft sciences."

To simplify things we will consider a square and a circle. Now, the square looks like a square and has attributes like a square. It acts like a square. It feels like a square. The same goes for the circle and all things that circles encompass.

One person might say a square is better than a circle, while another says circles are better than squares.

Who is correct? Is it even important that one is better than the other?

The fact is, squares are only good as squares and circles are only good as circles. In order to build something that has the sense of both squareness and circleness, it is important to have both.

Society is something that is comprised of many different attributes. In a sense, it has square attributes and circle attributes, along with a myriad of other attributes. It is not important which attribute is most important because without all of the different parts, it would not be this lovely thing we call society.

In society, engineers are needed as well as human resource professionals and public relation specialists. Society needs mechanics, builders, cash register workers, police and firemen, as well as mothers, priests, and chiropractors. To say that one is more important than another is to say society is malfunctioning at some level and needs to be "fixed."

So, yes, it is important that we have engineers that think about social impacts. But to say that all engineers need to have social wherewithal to be considered good engineers seems to sell short the amazing diversity of culture.

The Importance of Engineering's Social Impacts

Why do so few engineering curricula spend significant amounts time on the social impacts of engineering work? At Mines we take NHV and Human Systems, and then we have to take three other LAIS/EBGN electives. That’s it. And even though that is a mere five classes (not even enough to receive a minor), so many within the student body find it tedious.

As far as I see it, engineering is the application of research based sciences so that the technologies and knowledge can be used to benefit people in some way. This could mean safer technologies in dangerous jobs, more fuel efficient machines, more effective methods to extract dangerous substances from water, and so many other applications. Why do so many of my peers moan and groan about these classes that are trying to get them to open their eyes to what is ultimately the whole reason they have a job? If we did everything perfectly for everyone, we wouldn’t need engineers!

It was brought up that often engineers shouldn’t have to think about the social side, that’s what people in public relations and marketing are for. I think that’s a copout answer. Assuming someone else will do the job you should be contributing to could end in a tragedy or negative community backlash. If you’re the one proposing this technology, you need to understand the importance and the implications of your engineering. Very few know better than you about how this thing works; why waste time training someone in PR to understand the science so they can analyze the social factors? You already know the science; push yourself to analyze the social factors!

As I approach my impending graduation, I find myself looking for companies that understand the importance of the social implications of their work. We do not engineer in a vacuum; someone out there will be affected by the work we put out there. I realized very recently that I would love to work in a multi-disciplinary corporate social responsibility role. I want to work on a team that looks at issues plaguing our stakeholders and use my technical skills to engineer a solution where it’s possible, or use my “soft skills” to communicate a solution that both sides can agree to. I see no purpose in struggling through four years at Mines just to ignore the 7 billion reasons I entered this field in the first place.

Dolls, Lego's and Women in STEM

 

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=196605763&m=196911697

NPR's Neda Ulaby released a segment this summer on the new Lego Friends line, a group of Lego sets marketed specifically for girls. This would make sense considering that 90% of all Lego users were boys. Of there were always girl's who loved there Lego's but especially since the 1990's these "pre-engineering" toys were specifically marketed for boys with male figures and male themed sets. Little to no Lego characters were women and some proponents for the toy claim that some of the figure are androgynous and they can just "pretend they're girls". As a child I loved Lego's and can relate to this frustration many parents and children feel. I remember pretending some of the figures were girls so in some way my gender could be included; I remember searching for sets that weren't so clearly shoving "boy interests" down my throat. This advertising was unashamedly focused solely on boys, even in commercials saying things like "Boys everywhere love this!" and "Discover the new Lego boys!" in commercials like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pN46P0iRvHI

This common problem. would make the company's push to include girls seem very forward thinking and would help to bridge the traditional gap between girls and Lego's. For decades young girl's have been conditioned to play with dolls an dress up sets and while topically there is nothing wrong with these toys they do create a distinction from the boys who are encouraged to play with building sets and toy computers. And now that these boys and girls have grown up we wonder why so few of those girls pursed STEM careers. While there are many different factor's playing into career choice we cannot avoid these obvious correlation in imposed childhood interests; boys are thought to build an think while girls are taught to think about clothes, motherhood,  and homemaking since birth. As a consequence of this phenomena many hailed the new Lego sets as an important step in encouraging young girls to step outside their traditional gender roles and introduce them to the early skills and interests that can lead to a love of science.  

Despite these hopefully aspirations the sets have been criticized for reinforcing these gender roles rather than truly breaking them down. Lego has been criticized for everything from the sets' focus on traditional girl roles (house sets, shopping malls, etc.) to the fact that the girl dolls cannot move their legs independently like the boy figures (usually because they're wearing skirts or dresses). Critics say that this is not a step forward but rather a continued division with marketing now on both sides. One of the segment's final questions is why can't they make Lego's that both girls and boys can enjoy instead of strictly defined gender sets? Is this slow movement towards progress understandable or is Lego really in the wrong here?