Cole talks about indirectly influencing the creation of artwork. Nowhere other than the internet can average-Jane write about her stupid ideas and potentially have millions of people reading them. But this is not just an issue of numbers, it’s mostly an issue of permanence. The stupid poems that I wrote late at night as a final project for English last year could have just sat on my hard drive until they accidentally got deleted or corrupted. But now they are online, and furthermore there’s a big fat Creative Commons license slapped on them. Perhaps someone somewhere eventually will find them inspiring or interesting. Maybe they’ll want to share them with their friends or incorporate them into some other creative work. Or maybe my poems will be interesting to some historian several hundred years from now as they try to understand some aspect of the world that I lived in when I wrote them. Or maybe they will never be of any use to anyone ever. Well, that would have been the case had I simply left them on my hard drive. What have I got to lose?

Creative works are pieces of culture. Culture is a terrible thing to waste.

Pink uses satire to critique the portrayal of women as sexual objects in popular music videos, saying, in the first verse, “What happened to the dream of a girl president? She’s dancing in the video next to 50 cent.” This sets up a stark contrast between the image of a woman of power and the image of a woman as a sexy extra in a rap music video. We’re all familiar with the female extras in rap videos who are often present in huge numbers, with their slim figures and ample breasts, dancing provocatively and wearing next to nothing. They are there as symbols of the success and power of the male rappers. Their huge numbers help cement their place as expendable extras. They have no independence and their definition of self is dependent upon the man’s. Firestone calls this “surrogate identity” (147). De Beauvoir describes this same phenomenon, saying, “She is defined and differentiated with reference to man”(4).

Of course, male rap videos are the most extreme example of objectification of women in modern popular music, but even when a woman’s role in a music video isn’t just to dance in the background and look sexy, there are noticeable differences between representation of the sexes. Men sing about how rich they are and how many girls are chasing after them. Women sing about how in love they are, how depressed they are that they’ve broken up with their boyfriends, and how beautiful they are. Here again we see surrogate identity—all these topics have to do with women relating to men. Of course there is complexity and overlap here, especially recently. Also, in a way, it makes sense that a woman would take a secondary role in the narrative of a male artist’s music video because, after all, he is the main character.

And yet, the music video that tells the story of the male artist being swept off of his feet by a woman who approaches him and makes all of the right moves is conspicuously absent. Instead, we tend to see the same power structure as is present in our fairy tales: man actively seeks woman, woman is swept off of her feet. The man’s narrative about romance with the opposite sex is often more about a macho display of an ability to “pick up chicks” than it is about finding “the one,” and here again the simple numbers devalue the individual woman, who is a “sweet hookup” for the night, but ultimately expendable. Notice the visual that the idiomatic expressions “pick up chicks” and “to be swept off one’s feet” create—the woman is physically raised by the man, but she is put on a pedestal, like a trophy, intended to sit there and look pretty. The man acts, and the woman receives. The woman’s narrative about romance is much more monogamous and focuses on emotional attachment, rather than skill with “picking up a guy.” Female monogamy and female objectification are not unrelated. As Firestone argues, “Women’s ‘clinging’ behavior is necessitated by their objective social position”(152). Women’s “surrogate identity” and “need for approval” (Firestone, 147), which both contribute to “clinging,” can be thought of as products of a system that, to a certain extent, paints women as objects to be possessed by men.

If a female musical artist brags about anything, it’s her body, which is not empowering in the same way that a male artist’s song about his wealth or his female groupies is. This emphasis on physical sexual appeal strengthens the image of woman as sexual object. Two scenes in Pink’s music video reference Paris Hilton, who became famous by modeling and being in a sex tape. Appropriately enough, Pink’s references to Paris include the sex tape and a popular TV ad for Carl’s Junior that features Paris seductively washing a car. In these cases, the body is used to appeal to male viewers, which can send the message to women that this is the way to communicate with men. And yet, some artists are able to take this fact and spin it in a way that is empowering. For example, Fergie in “My Humps” by the Black Eyed Peas, talks about her romantic life in a traditionally more masculine way, bragging about how many men chase after her and buy her gifts because of her “humps.” Though Fergie certainly enjoys a certain power over the men in this video, it’s important to note that it’s a power that involves exploiting her sexual appeal, which, as we see in other media, especially film, is the only type of power that it is really acceptable for women to have, and furthermore, it’s limiting. Think of the femme fatale and the female CEO. Notice first that the former is far more prevalent, and the latter is almost completely absent in popular media. Also, notice how the former involves an empowerment that is inseparable from femininity, while the latter doesn’t—the femme fatale is thought of as a powerful woman while the female CEO is just a powerful person. The female CEO (or, perhaps, the CEO who happens to be a woman) does more to combat the dominant paradigm of woman as “Other” (de Beauvoir, 4).

So what is significant about all of this? Representation of women in popular media plays an integral role in the behavior or women in our society. We get our image of femininity and female beauty from popular media. It gives us a goal to strive for. Of course, there is more complexity to this relationship—society must influence media in the same way that media influences society. However, what can be said for certain is that images in media and actions, behaviors, and ideals in society perpetuate each-other, increasing the influential power of social norms. Similarly, because this strong relationship between society and media exists, an effective way to create change in society is to change media.

Pink’s “Stupid Girls” speaks directly to these ideas. The narrative of the music video is framed around a young girl watching television, with a good angel on one shoulder and a bad angel on the other. The imagery on the TV starts with a classroom where a teacher is showing students how to act “ladylike,” instructing them on how to flip their hair back and reprimanding one girl for picking at her teeth. The little girl watching TV immediately imitates the girls on TV by flipping her own hair. This is a clear statement about the fact that girls, especially young ones, take their definition of feminine behavior from the images that they see on television. I described earlier how music videos perpetuate the same imbalanced power structure that we see in fairy tales. We’ve discussed in class the way that these fairy tales have a large impact on peoples’ characters because they’re heard during the early, formative years of peoples’ lives. I’d argue that images of women in popular media are just as impactful, and perhaps even more so because they are so much more culturally relevant, making them more real to the people viewing them. Also, let’s not underestimate the number of young girls who watch MTV over the shoulders of their big sisters, who want desperately to be older and are searching for what it means to be a mature woman.

The image of woman as passive sexual object places an emphasis on physical appearance. This is especially problematic because popular media presents a very limited view of feminine beauty; only skinny women with big boobs are seen as sexy. A huge burden is placed on women when the message is sent that success involves being physically attractive (and worse, attractive according to a very limiting definition), especially because physical appearance is largely genetic and difficult to change significantly. Most women end up feeling like they have“failed,” which is incredibly psychologically damaging.

Pink’s music video describes how this burden is incredibly destructive for women. The character undergoing cosmetic surgery and the one getting a spray-on tan both show the desperate (and expensive) lengths that women go to in order to be like the women they see in music videos and on magazine covers. Also, the scene with the bulimic girl throwing up in the bathroom speaks to issues of negative body image and eating disorders. There is a sense that women need to compete to have the skinniest body or the biggest boobs in order to get the attention of men. Both the character on the treadmill and the character in the bowling alley experience a lack of attention because other girls around them have more prominent breasts, and they have to be more showy in order to compete. These characters are obviously impacted by popular media’s image of beauty. These are characters that we have all met. The girl who runs over a guy with her expensive car and looks into the rear view mirror to see if he’s okay and ends up getting distracted in adjusting her lip gloss very accurately depicts several women that I grew up around, especially as a person who grew up in the affluent suburbs of Los Angeles. The same goes for the very last character that is shown on the TV—the trophy mom standing outside of her expensive house with her fancy car, Juicy Couture sweats, and her lifted face framed by long, blond hair. These are people that we have all met in our lives, and the fact that these characters are so real and relevant to us makes the viewer much more able to relate the absurdity of the “stupid girls” on screen to the absurdity of the women around them, and perhaps even themselves.

Here Pink gives us some hope for the future. The noticeably different character in the music video is the female president. She represents the opposite of the “stupid girl”—a woman with ambition and power that is unrelated to appearance and sexuality. There is also a brief image of a woman playing football. When the music ends, the little girl watching TV is presented with a choice between playing with a football or playing with Barbie dolls. Barbie represents an obsession with female appearance and an unattainable image of beauty. The girl listens to the good angel and chooses the football, showing the viewer that there are “smart people” out there.

In “Stupid Girls,” Pink not only illustrates the issue of objectification of women in media and its impact on women and girls around the country, but also to propose a solution. As mentioned before, the relationship between media and culture means that the two perpetuate each-other, but it also means that they have the power to change each-other. By getting this music video on MTV, Pink has taken affirmative action in questioning and changing the imagery of women as objects with which we are bombarded daily. With some luck, this change in the media that we consume may help our society form a new image of femininity that involves personal empowerment and is not dependent upon sexual appeal.

Works Referenced
Jhally, Sut: Dreamworlds II: Desire, Sex, Power in Music Video
Pink (Alecia Beth Moore): “Stupid Girls”
Firestone, Shulamith: The Dialectic of Sex
de Beauvoir, Simone: The Second Sex (introduction)*

* page numbers taken from printout of this electronic version:

http://marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/introduction.htm

Originally written Oct 30th, 2008, for Bronski’s WGST10 at Dartmouth College

The postulate here is that the real value that the individual gets from an institution of higher learning is inspiration and empowerment, which is best attained through community collaboration and discussion.

In order for students to be empowered and inspired, they need to be freed from their studenthood. They need to become collaborators. In my institution, a mix of people of all ages gather around a table to discuss. There are no teachers. Sometimes someone brings a topic to the table. Maybe it’s necessary for mer to deliver a lecture in order to fully introduce a topic, but the lecture should always be followed with discussion. These discussions must be held with small groups, so that the air is casual and everyone is comfortable speaking. Also, small discussion groups force people to be engaged because it’s impossible to fade into the background.

Building a community is extremely important for creating meaningful discourse (no small talk, no formalities). Thus, my institution has mandatory on-campus lodging. There are regular social events that encourage everyone to get to know each-other on different levels and to have discussion outside the classroom. This is another opportunity for collaboration and inspiration. The construction of this community must be supplemented with visiting lecturers and collaborators. Variety of opinion is very important and must be actively sought out.

Spaces are very carefully established with purpose and these purposes are respected. There are spaces for discussion and collaborative work. There are spaces for socialization and recreation. There are spaces for quiet, solitary study and work. The atmosphere in discussion spaces needs to be casual to some extent. Relevant jokes and pop culture references can and should be made. However, the goal of endowing spaces with purpose is to avoid the potential for a group of friends to allow discussion to become unfocused. Usually it is the teacher that demands this focus. With no teacher, the group must self-enforce, and establishing purposeful space is helpful to this end. Discussion spaces will sometimes have an established topic before discussion starts. Other topics may come up, but they should be captured in writing and revisited later.

In keeping with Free Culture ideals, course materials are recycled whenever possible. Special attention is paid to avoid reinventing the wheel (though recontextualization can be useful, ie writing about an unoriginal idea but with the intent of reaching a new audience). Lectures, slideshows, and essays from sources like TED talks and MIT’s OpenCourseWare
(or anyone else’s OpenCourseWare) are commonly used to frame discussions and introduce ideas. Similarly, when someone prepares a lecture for the rest of the community, it is recorded, openly licensed, and published online for other institutions to use. Also, a special emphasis is placed on the study of the great books because of their brilliance and because of their importance to an understanding of popular culture and society.

An emphasis is placed on work (defined as the tangible product of working, like the way artists use it), rather than examination. In fact, there are no examinations or grades. However, in order to encourage people to take their work seriously, deadlines are set. They are set by individuals or groups who decide to take on projects. They are set just soon enough to be uncomfortable. Goals are right on the line between unattainable and possible. Peers are encouraged to dive in to a project headfirst, not quite knowing where it will go. Failure is seen as common and important for learning. Sometimes failure can be just as motivating as success. Projects are shared with the community, which is very useful for inspiring others to take on new outlooks and to start projects of their own. The community helps its peers to critique their work and debrief on the successes and failures in the process. Of course, all work is published online with an open license that allows redistribution and remixing so that others can benefit from it and time is not wasted reinventing the wheel.

In some ways, this proposal is just for a glorified book club. But I hope that these ideals (and others that result from reflection on this piece of writing) can be integrated into existing communities of learning, and that, with some work, new communities (or subcommunities within an existing institution) can be created with the intention of at least partial implementation of this system.

Certainly, as we move closer to a Free Culture, this system becomes more feasible.

I am sharing this because language is power. Having words to succinctly express ideas is extremely empowering to the individual, and extremely useful for any sort of movement. Queer children are tortured by their sexuality until they learn what “gay” or “queer” means, giving them the tools to make sense of their identity.

I think there are similarities between the free software and free culture movements and the gay rights movements (and I’m hoping to reflect on this in another post at some point), but there are also important differences. I say this simply to assert that I don’t claim that proprionormativity is directly related to heteronormativity. I’m simply borrowing the idea.

Examples of proprionormative statements:
“Downloading movies online is illegal.” (assumes that videos are published with closed licenses)
“Windows or mac?” (disregards other operating systems, most of which are open-source)

Surely we Free Culture activists see open source software and openly licensed (ie Creative Commons licensed) media as useful, perhaps even essential. But do we as a society see open licenses as “normal”? How does our language either support or challenge proprionormativity? Normality has to do with both statistics and internalized impressions that become manifest in our language. I argue that we can expedite the movement of openness into a realm of statistical “normality” by using language to assert a social normality (recall that heteronormativity is a real issue despite the statistical “abnormality” of queerness).

One might argue that openness is always going to be abnormal while copyright law is an opt-out system (as it currently is in the US). However, despite the way that the law is constructed, it is extremely common to opt in to copyright. Individuals and corporations almost always include copyright declarations with their work. There is just as much action involved in including a copyright declaration as there is in attaching a Creative Commons license. However, there is less choice involved, because people don’t understand that open licensing is a viable option. This is precisely why we must use language to combat proprionormativity.

Careful attention to our own language, and gentle correction of the language of others can provoke a paradigm shift in the way that we view creativity and technology. Right now, the assumption made by the lay person is that the more valuable zer work is, the more important it is that ze control the rights to copies and derivatives in order to “secure profits”. But we know that allowing people to share and remix only increases the value of a work, and that creators can monetize openly-licensed work. Through the careful use of language that challenges proprionormativity, we can progress society to a point where the average creator sees open licensing as “normal.” Once the artist is made aware that open licensing really is an option, the choice is obvious.

“Do you have a girlfriend?”
“You should totally come to this event, there are going to be lots of cute girls.”

I have no reason to be personally offended when people make statements which assume that I’m heterosexual. In fact, I do identify as heterosexual in most contexts. But I know that this assumed heterosexuality is counterproductive to society as a whole. The message sent is that there is something fundamentally off or odd about being queer.

I sometimes accuse people of making statements that are heteronormative. Some people rebut by pointing out that, given simple statistics, heterosexuality is “normal.” I would remind these people that they’re not likely to ask someone of unknown religiosity which local church they go to, despite the fact that Christianity is statistically “normal.”

Relatedly (and, in my opinion, more interestingly), when describing a singular, hypothetical person (or a person of unknown gender), we have a dilemma. “They” is grammatically incorrect, he/she is too long, and “one” is too cumbersome, often requiring sentences to be restructured. Most people just use “he” without even thinking about it. Even women. Indeed, this is traditionally the most grammatically correct option, although it’s probably the least politically correct. “When a person checks a book out from the library, he agrees to return it within two weeks.”

I’ve developed the habit of using the pronoun “she” to describe hypothetical people. I first noticed this being done by Cory Doctorow a couple years ago. A number of other great speakers and authors do this. This practice is brilliant because of the way that it stands out. The listener or reader notices how unexpected the use of a female pronoun is, then, if she thinks critically about it, she notices how absurd it is that male pronouns are so much more acceptable. “He/she” is more inclusive (and perhaps more PC) than “she,” but it doesn’t challenge the audience to reflect on the issue.

Last week, I decided that I’m going to take this a step further. I’m going to start using Ze. It’s even louder than “she” in it’s call to the listener to reflect on the message sent by pronoun use. I anticipate plenty of queries from friends and professors, and I’m excited and prepared to have those conversations. I also anticipate that adopting this practice will take quite a bit of time (to be honest, I have yet to become fully consistent with my use of “she”). While I’m still developing the habit, I see myself being accused of simply looking for attention or trying to sound smart. Well, you have to start somewhere, and anyway, the dialog is always useful. The exercise of altering word choice forces both speakers and

These are just words. But words have both implicit and explicit meaning. Word choice sends a message, and most of this message is processed and internalized entirely subconsciously.

You can either play in to the dominant paradigm, or you can challenge and subvert it. You can make the world a more open and accepting place where everyone, not just the average white heterosexual man, is “normal.” You can fix it, even if it ain’t broke.

I am a passionate and active person who is never content to accept the saying “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” I have recently made the decision to reject my Jewish education and pronounce myself atheist. I live a very counter-culture lifestyle that involves wearing clothing that I have either fabricated myself or purchased from a thrift store and altered, listening to experimental music, and refusing to engage in absurd social traditions. In reflection upon the rationals for all of these choices, I have realized that they share a common motive: to assert my social freedom. The following is my attempt to emulate the work of Friedan and King by diagnosing the social enslavement of our time. I then go a step further and explain how I attempt to free myself and others of this enslavement. I may be probing for problems that don’t exist, but I’d much rather make people think by pointing out possibly nonexistent enslavement than than allow potentially real issues to go unnoticed. It’s an activist thing.

Let’s first examine a potential infringement upon peoples’ freedom of thought: Christianity. Christian religious ideology has become so ingrained in American society that many people are forced to be Christian. In many communities in the mid-western US, one is not free to “come out” as an atheist for fear of social rejection, familial rejection, and loss of employment. Each of the 43 presidents of the United States, with the exception of John F. Kennedy (a Roman Catholic), was raised in a family with affiliations with Protestant Christianity. This same trend is seen in Congress and virtually all other political offices: being religious is necessary to get the vote. It is nearly impossible to be elected if one holds an alternative religious view because enough Americans feel so strongly about their religious convictions that they refuse to be lead by someone who does not share them. Just as the “closet” atheists of the central US are forced to conform to religious customs, politicians need to at least display a façade of religious affiliation, as do most corporations who’s clientèle include that majority of Americans who are religious. This infectious nature of Christianity is further augmented by the missionary mentality that is a large part of many sects. True, it’s one thing to force someone to have religious convictions and another thing entirely to pressure someone into pretending to be religious. However, giving the appearance of being religious perpetuates the cycle of agreeing to religious tradition and ideology that may eventually convince oneself, convince others, or, more importantly, convince one’s children to accept religious dogma. I should be clear here that I recognize that there are many different sects of Christianity with varying beliefs and customs. As such, the religious communities that I am referring to are the more conservative, extremist ones that, although uncommon in sunny So’ Cal, are surprisingly common in the Midwest and appear to be on the rise with the recent flux of conservativism in the United States.

Many of these religious communities indoctrinate children who are too young to develop their own personal beliefs, enslaving their thoughts from infancy. They are scared into submission with threats of eternal suffering in hell or bribed into conformation with the promise of acceptance by youth groups, other members of the church community, and Jesus.
But what’s so damaging about religious thinking? Christian doctrine includes condemnation of certain thoughts because of their “impure,” “sinful,” or “unfaithful” nature. This has created a religious culture of refusing to even be around evolutionist propaganda or homosexuals, much less keep an open mind about them, for fear of being contaminated with their sin. In this way, religious communities are often unable to freely consider both sides of an argument. Thus not only are people limited in their freedom of thought by being forced into religious thinking in the first place, but this religious thinking is itself often an infringement upon their freedom of thought.

I want to be entirely clear that I do not believe that being religious is always damaging to one’s freedom of thought. However, the problem lies in the way that religious dogma are imposed either upon children who are too young to develop their own opinions and who are not given both sides of the argument or upon adults who are forced to be religious in order to be accepted by society or because they, again, are simply not familiar with both sides of the argument. These people are unfairly limited in their freedom of thought.

I now refuse to be identified as Jewish. Though I will always be a proud, cultural Jew, I am not a religious Jew, and I believe that it is important to voice that. This is my attempt to remedy the ailment of people being forced into faith for fear of social rejection. It’s a small contribution to the construction of a social atmosphere that is more accepting of atheists. I also take any chance I get to engage in dialog about religious ideas, even with strangers. In doing so, I hope to expose them to arguments for evolution (often citing the work of Richard Dawkins) or gay rights that their church communities may neglect to share with them, allowing them to take a more educated stance that considers both sides of the argument. I also listen to their religious arguments and ask them for suggestions for religious propaganda to read. Then I read it. I also often quote bible passages or religious propaganda. This is to assert that I am truly listening to and interested in their ideas, which I hope will inspire the same treatment of mine, which may remedy the issue of religious thinkers refusing to examine “sinful” thoughts. Finally, I do my best to advocate parent-child and student-teacher relationships that emphasize how to think and not what to think and encourage peaceful disagreement of opinions. I believe that this will help children develop their own beliefs and not be swayed to simply accept those of their parents or communities, securing their freedom of thought.

Let’s next examine a potential infringement on peoples’ freedom of individuality or freedom of self, social norms. In a similar way to people being forced to adopt religious ideologies in some communities, people are expected to cast their characters in the mold of a social group. The norms of the social “clique” system force people into an all-or-nothing alliance with an individual social group. Members of the black community may feel that it is necessary for them to play basketball and learn how to break dance or otherwise “act black” in order to be accepted. This is of course not to say that any black person who plays basketball is a victim of his social expectations, but the simple commonality of the culture of black basketball players is enough to ensure that there are plenty of black people that are being unwillingly forced into it. Women are pressured from infancy to “act girly” by wearing certain clothes, wearing makeup, and eventually “flirting” with boys. This is in large part the cause of the eating disorders that plague teenage girls who feel that they are failing to stay within the guidelines of how a girl should be. Even social groups with voluntary entrance have overly binding codes of conduct: Hipsters never watch MTV, goths never do ballet, and jocks never, under any circumstances, watch chick-flicks, all for fear of being rejected by their respective social groups. Another interesting example of this societal forcing of people into molds lies in the gay community, just like any other community, is plagued by its stereotypes, though perhaps even more so because of its rapidly developing nature.

As leading a homosexual life has become more socially acceptable due to increased commonality and media attention, some extreme stereotypes have been developed. The arm-flailing vision of homosexuality that we are shown by Jack of Will and Grace or the Fab Five of Queer Eye seems to have become the popular image of what it is to be gay. Though this view is entertaining, I worry that members of the gay male community may feel that emulating this persona is their only way of being confident in their homosexuality or of being accepted by the gay community. I of course do not mean to suggest that all gay men who act this way are just copying what they see on TV, I am, again, simply pointing out that the commonality of this stereotype gives it the potential to be imposed upon others. One response to this stereotype has been to assert a new “butch” persona to counteract the common “femme” one. This same dynamic of “butch” vs “femme” exists in the lesbian community. This creates a pressure to pick a side and ignores the fact that being romantically attracted to the same sex does not need to have any effect on one’s comportment. Another problem is the common sexual orientation scale that is limited to gay and straight, with little recognition of intermediate stances. Only recently has the word “queer” been re-appropriated to be a politically-correct, all-encompassing term for not-entirely-straight sexual orientations (with some people even arguing that nobody is “completely” straight). The “butch” vs “femme” mentality and the limited sexual orientation scale both contribute to a culture that attempts to force gays into a mold, often forgetting that the only requirement to be gay is to be romantically attracted to the same sex.

I’m a straight male that wears tight t-shirts and jeans. I am comfortable with socializing with homosexuals and commenting on the appearance of other guys. One reason for doing this is to give the homosexual lifestyle a well-deserved chance so that I can be sure that I am not simply ignoring an undiscovered gay side of myself. But this also serves to blur the line between gay and straight males and create a social atmosphere where a straight males don’t feel that they have to steer away from “gay” personality traits and gay (or “queer”) males don’t feel that they have to deny their “straight” personality traits.

I also make my own clothing. This is my attempt to create my persona from scratch. By making my own clothes or altering clothes that I buy from thrift stores, I am taking ownership of this aspect of my persona; forming it myself instead of casting myself into a pre-existing mold. Another way that some people go about doing this is using social networking tools such as myspace, facebook, or second life, where one can literally craft one’s own persona from scratch without the limitations of one’s uncontrollable traits (such as gender and skin color) and without the pressure to “fit in” with their immediate surroundings, as there is a lively community for every type of person on the internet.

Maybe I’m just another Green Day-loving counter-culture angsty teenager who lashes out against society and breaks the rules just to be “cool”. But this much is for certain: People who follow the rules rarely make history. I take my freedom very seriously, and I am not content to be “free enough.” I hope to live a life of example that will persuade people to question things. I hope people will be persuaded to question the beliefs that they were brought up with by seeking to understand the other half of the argument instead of rejecting it. I hope people will be persuaded to disappoint society by living outside their social stereotypes and creating their own mold to cast their character. Most importantly, I hope people will be inspired to “fix it,” even if it “ain’t broke.”

Art is a pointless exercise of mass-producing images of items that are far better viewed in person. Perhaps a photo may be of use to one who cannot physically see something in person or who wishes to remember a certain event. Some may argue that photography is an art, but I assure you that the unusual close-ups and blurry images that I have heard called “art” are nothing more than the play of a child who does not know how to properly use a camera. The same goes for the many “abstract” drawings or sculptures that I have seen. If I fell asleep with a pen in my hand and woke to find my mattress covered with random spots, would that be considered “art”? This kind of work is nonsensical and should have been early outgrown. Children call it play, us adults call it a mess.

Granted, not all art is of this random abstract nature, some is realistic, such as a bust or painting of a human. The creation of such things is of course a waste of time, as with the use of a camera one can capture an image immediately. Such things as bowls created with clay are inefficient, as machines could be made to do the repetitive work that humans are not meant to. I wish only to keep the students focused on their work, as I know they value their education above all. Instead of performing the repetitive tasks behind art, students should spend their time working math problems.

I have heard such words as “self-expression” and “emotion” when describing art. This makes very little sense, as I cannot see how the random placement of stains on a piece of paper can possibly express emotion. If one would like to express an emotion, I welcome the writing of a formal essay or letter to one who can help to eliminate this, as all emotions are simply distractions that must be overcome to maintain an efficient work schedule. A peer once said to me that the use of art for “expression” can help some students to stay healthy and deal with their emotions. What a misunderstanding! Said person must have obviously wasted far too much of their time on art and not had a chance to learn of the true order of things. It simply makes no sense that spending time dirtying perfectly good paper will help a person to deal with emotions. Obviously if a person is too distracted by their emotions they are not fit to attend our prestigious school. I recommend the complete extermination of such emotions. We all know that to ignore is to destroy, which is why the communication of such things is only contributing to the problem and is also the reason why we should never ignore our studies. If such “expressiveness” is discouraged early in a child’s education, it can be eliminated and no longer pose a threat to the studies of our bright students.

There is of course the theatre, which is another of these arts. Students spend time memorizing lines and movements to perform them all in order flawlessly in front of spectators. This is inefficient, as with the use of a video camera, the set, words and actions could be shot one by one, with segments containing errors simply re-done or edited with the use of a computer. By this method the students would only need to perform their parts once and not necessarily in the correct order, and the film could be assembled and watched an infinite number of times thereafter.

Most of all, I cannot express enough my fear for the safety of the students around art. If it is indeed true that these students are being expressive and emotional and even communicating new ideas to people with art, the civil order of our school could be at risk. Expression of new ideas yields opinions, which create disagreements and divisions. Divisions create disputes which can erupt into attacks to power, resulting in the upheaval of order. The students will begin to question the authority, and attempt to change their position or the truths enforced by their superiors. It is for this reason that our one true system must be understood by all students.

If all students can understand this system, we can work constantly on math problems. The need for motion would disintegrate as we developed machines to feed us. Language would become obsolete, as all people would communicate with math via computers. Eventually our programs would become so sophisticated that we wouldn’t even need to think and we ourselves would become obsolete, creating a golden age of computerized rule and ultimate efficiency. I see no place for art on the path to this golden age.

interest sparked by this article

Especially interesting to me is the second half of the virus of faith.

Dawkins makes some sweeping generalizations and shows a disgusting lack of compassion, but he also has some very valid points.

The root of all evil is not religion. many peaceful people are religious, and many violent people are non-religious. Faith, however, presents more of a dilemma. The nazis were faithful to hitler, and terrorists are faithful to their causes. However, gandhi was faithful to his causes and his people and his ideals. Perhaps then the question is not faith exactly, but blind faith.

Some religious people are faithful because of a continuing critical thought process that considers other belief systems and allows critical questioning of their own beliefs, which leads them to the personal conclusion that their faith is right for them. This is good.

However, some religious people are faithful because they were “raised that way”, because their parents “told them so”, because they live in an isolated society where contact with other belief systems is cut off, or even because they are threatened from an early age with severe punishments in this life or the afterlife. This “forced faith” is unhealthy, and it’s probably from this kind of faith that terrorism and nazism gain support.

The question of the fairness of indoctrinating a child with religious beliefs is a difficult one. Parents have a right, and perhaps even a responsibility to educate their children about their heritage. Some important restrictions, however, must be applied. The enforcement of education by refusing access to other ideas and information is obviously unhealthy to a young mind because it destroys the ability to think critically and results in “forced faith”. The use of hell as a threat, as discussed in the “The Virus of Faith” can be considered psychological abuse, and furthermore the use of heaven as a bribe is questionable as well. A personal belief in heaven and/or hell is not necessarily unhealthy, but attempting to scare a child into adopting a belief system undoubtedly is, especially if the child is told that her very conception and birth was a sin. This is not to say that all churches do this, this is to advocate caution against it. The playing field is already unleveled because religious education facilities are free to criticize science although public educational facilities are prohibited from criticizing religion.

Some may argue that it is important to teach a child religious doctrine in order to teach them morality, and some people may even insist that without a fear of supernatural repercussions, one has no motivation to live a just life. However, the concepts of compassion and morality can be taught outside of religious doctrine, and some scientists, for example the one in the film, believe that morality and the idea of “do unto others as you would want others to do unto you” is a natural “instinct” of humans, developed and passed down guided by Darwinian principles to allow humans to function well in groups.

A religious community, like any other community, can be very enriching and help to spread knowledge, promote discussion, and bring people together to give them a sense of belonging and home. However, imagine the observation made in Supersize Me, that McDonald’s Play Places help associate a warm fuzzy feeling with McDonald’s so that adults will have an urge for a burger when they see the golden arches. Could a religious community hold youth activities for the purpose of subconsciously associating “family” with their community or faith, thus securing the continued patronage of it’s youth and their future generations?

One may argue that the “problem” that I am getting at is extremist religion. However, I would rebut that even moderate religious faith can be damaging on an individual level if it is “forced faith”. If a moderately religious person is faithful because they feel that they have no other options because of peer pressure from their community or family, or even if they are unaware of any other options outside of their faith because of the isolation of their community, then that person’s thoughts or actions may be restricted by their faith. She may not be able to marry outside of her faith, attend school outside of her faith, or support any kind of cause that her religious community shuns. She could become trapped within her religious community and religious belief system until she was (ironically) “saved”. This situation has been compared to homosexuality, in the sense that some people who are personally non-believers are forced by their community to remain “in the closet”.

So if the “problem” is “forced faith”, what is the solution? An early encouragement of critical thinking is essential for children, and, along with a healthy dose of exposure to outside cultures and belief systems will allow a person to develop their own personal belief system as opposed to simply inheriting one from their parents or community. Also, a healthy religious community is one that is compassionate toward religious and non-religious people, even if the non-religious ones are former community members. A religious community must be supportive of its members’ decision to leave, just as a nonreligious community must be supportive of converts away from faith, and converts into faith. Communities must assert that atheism is an option, just as communities must assert that homosexuality is an option. Freedom is a key word here. Freedom of action and freedom of thought. If a person is religious by “voluntary faith”, then they are free. If a person is non-religious by voluntary non-faith, then they are free. Perhaps then the root of all evil is enslavement.