He’s Hot and Smart but She’s Just so Hot

Personally, I would never call a guy hot, unless I’m joking around. I wouldn’t want any of my mates to think wrongly of me. Don’t get me wrong, this discussion is not about masculinity, that is a long discussion for another day. This blog post is about a double standard that exists when we, as a society, talk about gender.

I won’t beat around the bush this time. I am going to say it straight. This is the article that I am going to be blogging about.I don’t even think I need to say anything, because I am sure after reading it, you will all see where I am going with this blog.

I am going to be using the word “model” as a general term here. I know the articles discusses times where the teacher was involved in pornography or prostitution but I will just leave all of that under the branch of the word “model.” I assure you that I am aware of the difference and do not believe that models are in the same business as porn stars or prostitutes.

Let us get right to it. Why can a man be a model and a teacher, while a woman cannot do the same. When a male teacher was known to also be a professional model he was nearly praised for being both. People saw him as sexy and smart, but when similar news was discovered about a female teacher she was shamed. How can a woman be sexy and smart? Doesn’t everyone know that women can only be born with a brain or a nice body? They can not have both, that would lead to ANARCHY!  People could not accept a model teaching their kids. As a female teacher, you have to abstain from anything that would make you sexy, for even posting pictures of yourself at the gym or in a body building contests could get you laid off.

There is no reason a woman should not be allowed to model and to continue being a teacher. Being a teacher does not mean giving up one’s life outside of work. I am sure that when I leave class or a lecture, my teachers leave and live their own life. They do not go into offline mode until they detect a student approaching their classes.

I do not see a problem with a female teacher expressing her sexuality outside of the class and within the boundaries of her personal life. We would be having a different discussion if either gender was expressing their sexuality within the class but that is not the case. If someone is thinking that being taught by a female teacher who was a model is going to “distract” male students from learning then that person has never been or hung out with a male student. It takes a lot more to distract a student who wants to learn than a “hot” teacher who is a model. Instead of it being a distraction, some students might even brag about it. “Yea my teacher is this gorgeous person, they are even a model. Yea I got a cool teacher.” The end. That is as far as being a model and teacher will make a difference for students. The double standard for genders needs to stop and it especially needs to stop in examples like these. There should be no double standard in the first place, especially in situations like these, where there exists no real reason for it.

PARADIGM THAT FITS?

This time I will use…..
Symbolic Interactionalism.

It was hard to fit a paradigm to this topic, because none of them really seem to fit. In this case, I decided to go with a weak connection this topic had to Symbolic Interactionalism. The media constantly depicts women as sexy and rarely as smart. However, when they do depict a woman as smart they do everything they can to suppress anything about them that might seem sexual. This makes people think of women as smart or sexy, but not as both. Most ideal men are shown as smart and good looking, which makes it okay for them to be smart and sexy. Since women have not been displayed in the same manner by the media, people cannot accept a woman as a smart and good looking person. If she does anything to sexualize herself, she must be a bit of a moron and therefore unfit to teach. The media uses women to symbolize sexuality and if a woman does not symbolize that sexuality, she is then depicted as smart. The media mainly uses women as objects of sexual desire. This would explain why only 9% of directors are female and why only 25% of the behind the scenes crew are comprised of women (including the role of director). Women are mainly involved on the camera and not behind it because they are mainly needed for their bodies, not their ability to be cameramen, directors and producers.  That kind of symbolism leads to a double standard for teachers in our society.

Is it Muslim-Americans or American-Muslims?

Before I get into this topic, I would just like to say this is coming from a European born white young male who moved to America in his early life and has lived in a Muslim community for most of that life. So I am, by no means, an expert on either side of this discussion, but I believe that being an American living in a Muslim community gives me a bit of experience to have a say in this hot topic.

I would also like to say that what I say in this post is, by no means, secluded to the Islamic belief and that other religions do suffer their own anti-religious troubles, but in this post I am just going to stay focused on Islam, hence the title.

So now that I can speak freely, hopefully without getting anyone mad let’s dive right into the topic.

In a word, the topic for today is Islamophobia. I believe this word is best described as an exaggerated irrational fear of Muslims. After all, phobia are by definition irrational fears of certain things. With the recent attacks on Paris, it is understandable that people would continually hate and fear Muslims. When a mass of people fear and hate something they are empowered by their numbers to rise against what troubles them. This results in an attack against Muslims wherever they are. People have been associating Muslims with bombs, violence and extremist behavior because of what they see on the news. As time passes and the attacks continue, this behavior only gets worse and more violent. This is what Islamophobia is, in both America and Europe.

Now let my try and drop some “Sceptic” common sense. If you see a black man on T.V. commit a crime do you go around thinking all black man are violent criminals? No, you use your wonderful sense of logic and realize one black man does not speak for all black men. I realize there are people who do get paranoid around black men; so let me throw my logic into another race’s ball park. If you see a white man abuse his wife, does that mean all white men abuse their wives? Well, I hope not because my future spouse would hate me. In other words, no. Again you will all use the beautiful gift of common sense and realize one white man does not speak for all white men. So logically, a conclusion we can make about Muslims is that…… (I hope you all know what I am going to say)

One Muslim does not speak for all Muslims. The actions on the few should not speak for all the representatives of a religion. The attacks, focused on random Muslims, should be focused on the radicals, not the commoners.

Now let me address my title which was inspired from this article.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/10/3748058/chapel-hill-anniversary/

They are American-Muslims. They are just as American as the next non-Muslim American. They reside in this country for numerous reasons, none of which involves “world domination”. Just because they do not enjoy certain things, such as alcohol, does not mean they need to stay sober to continue plotting the designs for their evil doom-inator machine. It is against their religion to drink alcohol, and to my surprise not many people know that. In the aforementioned article, a man opened fire and killed 3 American-Muslims over a parking dispute. Yup! You read that right. A man killed someone else over a PARKING dispute. If the people killed were just Americans, which they are,and not labelled as Muslims, this case would have been shut in a relative instant. There is absolutely no excuse for killing three people over a parking space. I might understand it if they de-floured his daughter (assuming he has one) because that could be a heat of passion thing. Let me just reinforce what I just said, I would understand it but I would not approve it. Murder is wrong whatever the reason is.

Islamophobia should be wrong as well. There is no reason to hate Muslims. Instead it should be “extremaphobia” (and yes I do have the power to create any word I want). Hate should be focused on extremest, not the participant of the same religion as the extremists. That is something I am confident all Americans can get behind, and yes that even includes American-Muslims because, believe it or not, they do not like the extremist of their religion either. Most Muslims have a peaceful understanding of their religion. Do not let radicals color the majority view of Islam. Do not let Islamophobia get out of hand to the degree where all Muslims would have to officially register as Muslims. The idea of registering all Muslims is an idea straight out of a comic book. More specifically from Marvel’s Civil War comic in which all superheroes were forced to officially register as superheroes. The person who opposed this idea was non other than Captain America. Even in the comic book, the ridiculous idea of registering specific American citizens, is ridiculed by the symbol of American ideals (Captain America). If the thought of using comic book ideas is not real enough for people to see how idiotic and Un-American registration is, allow me to pull an example from history. You all know where I am going with this; The Nazis in WWII forced the Jews to undergo a certain kind of registration only to eventually be lead to a horrific fate. Is that the same fate that America should be headed for? I would say no, I think one Holocaust is enough for our history books, I really do not feel like making future children learn about two Holocaust in history.

PARADIGM THAT FITS?

This time I will use…..
Symbolic Interactionalism.

Similarly to my last post the media consistently displays Muslims as radical. When open the T.V to a news channel you do not see the calm and normal speaking Muslims because that is boring. Not even I would want to watch that. Instead you always see the Muslims that are screaming at the top of their lungs about something, or you see them acting violently. The media often portrays all Muslims as the bad guys in a biased point of view. When this is all that people see and hear about Muslims, Islamophobia is bound to develop. the violence shown and associated with Muslims on T.V. leads people to associate any Muslim with violent and Anti-American activities.

A Pretty NORMal Sociology Class

You see what I did there with the title, don’t you. Clever huh! Shh though. We will talk about it in just a little bit.

So had my first sociology class. Well technically it’s the third, but it’s the first one that I will be blogging about. So let’s just all pretend it’s the first. SO,  I had my first sociology class and learned quite a few things.

I learned about industrial and post industrial societies. I always thought developed countries were considered industrial countries but now I realize that most are post industrial countries. America and most of Europe can be considered a post industrial nation, in which we care about information exchange more than building infrastructures. i I would have never imagined there is something called post industrial. I always assumed industrial societies were the pinnacle of human societies. I guess you could argue a Utopian society is the pinnacle but they don’t exist as of yet, so let’s just not consider that. This was discussed for about 5 minutes in class but it is one of the things that stuck with me after class. I could sit here and write about all the things I learned from the 3 hour class, but that would take a chunk of time and would turn this blog into more of a pseudo-lecture.

So let’s get to the main part of today’s blog post. If you are a smarty-pants you probably already know what I am going to blab-on about, don’t you? But, if you are a NORMal-pants don’t fret I will tell you.

Today I will be blabbing about Societal Norms.

Norms are acceptable behaviors. What would you expect from a middle aged Asian man in a clean pressed black suit? Would you expect him to speak English? Would you think it NORMal (ok I promise last time ) for him to touch himself inappropriately while on a train? Is it an acceptable behavior (see I avoided the word normal) for him to walk up to everyone wearing a red shirt and scream at the top of his longs “VENI VIDI VICI”? Well. you would probably answer “Probably, NO, The hell does that even mean”?

We each have expectations of what is normal in society. This can vary from culture to culture. For example, an American and a lazy European (me) would think it normal to drive car for 5 minutes to get to a close store. However, that same middle aged Asian man may think it weird and believe that a bike is a more normal method of transport for that distance. So each person has their expectations for societal norms. However, it seems that these societal norms may also change depending on who we see do them. A light of example of this would be seeing an Asian man (yes the same one, don’t worry he’s been taking his meds) eating a rice dish and a black man eating fried chicken drumsticks (Just using common stereotypes, no need to bring out your inner keyboard warrior to do battle with me). Most Americans would think this normal, they (we) expect an Asian to mostly consume rice and a black man to consume fried chicken. (Again just stereotyping) However if we saw the two sitting side by side eating opposite meals, someone might crack a joke, because it is not what we consider normal. Another example, a more touchy one at that, would be constantly checking your pockets in a predominantly black neighborhood because you expect every passerby to be a criminal. You could argue that I am talking about racism and not societal norms, but I would refute “Is not racism a form of societal norms?” Racism is just the norms we have, or the expectations we have for each race. Racism is a form of NORMalization of an array of dynamic behavior from racial groups that benefit the dominant race.

Well I have been discussing examples, let me show you all something I found that might make the examples a little more real. This YouTube video encompasses what people believe is normal for a white american family and a black american family. This hopefully also encompasses what I have been trying to explain about norms.

So apart from the sappy music (bleh!), that was harsh right?

Well that is the norm, what can you do?

So according to the video, it is absolutely normal for a black american family to beat their child, however it is abNORMal (sorry couldn’t help myself) for a white american family to beat their child. No one dared to stop the black man from beating his child, but armies rose to stop the white man from beating his child. Even black people stopped the white man from beating his child.

You may argue that the change in location attributed to the lack of action against the black father, however it does not refute that people consider it a normal action for a black family and an abnormal one for a white family. How come black people can beat their kids and white people can’t, that not fair, I want to have the same right to beat my probably white child when I’m grown. (joking 100%)

In the 21st century, should it not be abnormal for ANYONE to beat ANY child? The norm in the United States and most European countries is that children should not be beaten. I mean a slap in the head every now and then for horrid behavior is acceptable in Europe but not to the degree shown in the video.
I know I am not alone on that.

Anyhow back to the point, one can say (with a bit of a stretch) that American societal norms allow black children to be beaten, but not white children. The norm in America is not that no children should be beaten. It is that no white children should be beaten.

Is this because people fear interjecting in the business of an apparently violent black man, or is it because people feel the need to protect a white child but do not think a black child needs the protection. It could even be that some people think the black child did something horrible that is worthy of a beating, another for of the norm; assuming that the black child did something bad.

There could be other reasons, however these are the two that occupy my thoughts.

 

PARADIGM THAT FITS?

So each blog will be analyzed through a paradigm. This time I will use…
Symbolic Interactionalism.

In the media, black men are mostly portrayed as violent. White men are also portrayed as such, but black men are stigmatized with the mark more so than white men. If the media is consistently misrepresenting black man as violent and dangerous, then people tend to believe that is the truth. For most of society, a violent black man is normal. This norm is powerful enough for society to ignore the black man hitting his child, because it is what people expect. When they see a black man (the symbol) they will most likely link him to a violent tendency. To them is just a simple part of the norm for black man to be violent because they have been accustomed via the media to associate a black man with violence.

PS: I do apologize to all of you for making this post so long winded.I hope it did not make people flee. I will try to shorten my future post. This post was much longer, took me a good hour to make it like this.