Male and Female Stereotypes

Culturally it is interesting the way masculinity is perpetuated. It seems that males are pushed to dominate society from a very young age. “Little girls, therefore, are encourage to think ‘nurse’ and boys to think ‘doctor’” (Kokopeli, Lakey 233). Patriarchy pushes men to be competitive and domianant and it seems that they are much more effective at using these tools compared to women especially in the presenence of women. It makes sense that the males would be more successful around women because women are not pushed to be dominant and competitive the same way that men are. These ideas of women have “weak” qualities is an idea that has been cultured into people from a young age since we live in a patriarchal society. Unfortunately it is hard to be culturally accepted if a female seems to have male qualities and a male has female qualities. Females are not praised for their competitiveness, physical size and musculature, or being dominant. On the contrary, they are ostracized. This is extremely hard for people to cope with especially in the gay community. It is as if our culture has created a male and female stereotype. To go against this stereotype is to become an outcast in society. The trouble with this also is that in our modern society does not suite these stereotypes. Men and women both are finding that they are required to fill different positions in careers that require the use of qualities that would be stereotypical of the alternate sex, which in turn creates cultural strain for these people.

Burmese Monks

The reason the Burmese monk demonstrations were so successful is because they leverage their power onto the opposition and forced the opposition to infuriate the public eye. This they did by protesting which would have worked well even if they had not been beaten. “To physically assault a monk is one of the greatest sins in Buddhism: this spared mass indignation and helped the movement grow far more quickly than it would have otherwise” (Fink 355). Here we see how these monks created tension to push the movement forward faster than it normally would have. These were the only group of people who could have had this impact, and they used this to their advantage. Even had they protested and not been beaten, it would have made a strong impact because Buddhist monks rarely protest. It is also interesting what the monks are asking for. Instead of asking for the government to lower food prices and transportation costs, they are, “Chanting the metta sutta of loving and kindness towards all beings” (Fink 355). This way they appeal to third parties as wanting equality and fairness and not asking for price changes. This seems that it would be better to interest third party action because it is more broad and encapsulates the bigger picture of what the protest is about. It is about human rights in general, not so much about good costs. The specifics of the movement are important, but with the media involved it would make sense and would appeal more to other people if the word getting out angered people enough to get involved with the movement.

Female Power

From the feminist perspective, “Self-defense is self-love” (James, 1982. p. 383). From a feminist view this may very well be true especially in a male dominated society. Today males hold positions of power in not only political arenas, but also socially. To a certain level, females are expected to cook, clean, and take care of children. “For women it often means replacing lifelong patterns of powerlessness and dependence with strength and confidence” (James, 1982. p. 383). Dependence on males to support them and be there. This dependence stems from society and a history of dependence of females on the male. In a sense it is biological as well. Women biologically have to depend on males to raise their children. It isn’t like in other species where the female can rear her children alone with no problem. A human child can arguably take 25 years to raise in modern day society and without help from the male this could be extremely difficult for a mother. The term single mother and the connotations tied to it are very true. The type of power woman have traditionally had also ties into a woman’s feelings of powerlessness. “Traditionally found in manipulation, cajoling, pleading, even in using her body to bargain for what she wants” (James, 1982. p. 384). This shows that a woman’s power is much more passive and is not active. This can be changed through many avenues, but first it needs to be recognized.

internet

After Sarah Worley came in to talk to us about the powers of technology it donned on me that it was a huge untapped resource for media. We are in an information age and all mediums should be used in getting nonviolent movements to be most effective. There are many advantages to using the internet and the technology available to us to work nonviolently. The internet and blogging are hugely important to use in getting others to see your view point and get on board a certain movement. Writing can appeal to a persons ethics on a certain topic which will bring them to want to help your movement. Blogging is very important because it puts information out there for anyone with an internet connection to access. This is similar to the way a newspaper article, book, or television commercial works in that information is getting moved from one person to another. The downside to using the internet to get information out is that it is much more impersonal. There is a certain significance that seeing someone face to face brings into a struggle or an argument. At the same time however, it is much harder to thoroughly cover a topic if a person is forced to think quickly without reading over what they have first written. There is also the option of creating a virtual protest. Basically clogging a network so much so that the other party cannot operate. This is also not personal, but it is effective because many more people can be involved especially from different geographical areas.

Organizing a Movement

It’s all about power. Taking the power of one group of people or person and shifting it to another. To do this, great organization is needed to utilize the people to put pressure on on group to shift the power to another. From a nonviolent perspective it is key to use love with power once a person has attained power. “King spoke eloquently about the importance of power and the need to combine it with love. ‘One of the greatest problems of history is that the concepts of love and power are usually contrasted as polar opposites… Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice’” (Cortright 192). Political power relies on two main factors of money and people (Cortright 192). This means that the organization of a group of people is imperative in gaining political power. Unfortunately most social organizations looking to advocate change, don’t have the same amount of money politicians do, so they must rely on their ability on the number of people they can successfully organize. Organization is changing drastically due to technology. The communication capabilities of the modern world far surpass those even a decade ago. However, the idea is still the same; “to mobilize people and resources for collective action” (Cortright 195) The internet has been irreplaceable in terms of getting word out about organizing a movement. A campaign against the war in Iraq was started via the internet in 2002. MoveOn organized meetings with Congress members who opposed war, and generated nearly a million signatures in under a week, and vigils in 140 countries. The internet was key because this medium of communication was able to get word out to millions of people within an extremely short amount of time and be easily available for translations to get word to foreign countries (Cortright 195-196). Common ground is also very important when organizing. A unity of the social group must be found for a cohesiveness to reach an ultimate goal.

Strategic Nonviolent Defense

This article was particularly intriguing in the way it defined the “two major conceptions of ‘nonviolent defense.’” Civilian base nonviolent defense seems a bit dodgy. Firstly, it isn’t pure because the article explains that this type of defense is used because it can get results, not necessarily because the advocates are interested or buy into nonviolent action. For this reason it seems that it is much less effective than social nonviolence. Civilain based defense seems to be used more as a weapon that can be called upon to make change or wage war nonviolently. This I feel is not true though. It cannot be used to make any changes. To take something that isn’t deserved or rightfully yours cannot be taken nonviolently.

Social nonviolence however takes a much different view. The concern isn’t having an available weapon or for personal gain, but more so to make changes on a social level such as freedom and equality. It is more concerned about the livelihood of a group of individuals. It is much more community oriented and makes the connection that violence is not simply, “‘Overt physical damage, or the threat of such damage, to actually persons.’” This type of nonviolence embraces the enemy as an entity that isn’t against us or evil. It takes a stance much more toward loving your enemy so they see the mutuality between us and them, me and you, enemy and ally. Civilian based defense has a huge problem to overcome and this is that by isolating and hating the enemy, there can never be a mutual ground on which to agree and find peace.

Civil Rights

Non-violent action is actually a war. The civil rights movement was a 10 year battle against injustice. The only difference is that a war can be fought and be successful for land expansion, power, or money, where non-violent action cannot. It was interesting the way non-violence can only be used when the enemy is doing something unjust. It was interesting the way King made the US look upon itself and uphold the country’s own values to eradicate segregation. It seems often times injustice gets out of hand not because of where a belief started, but where it ended. King quoted the constitution and talked about how all men were created equal, but this phrase had been grossly spun about and now segregation started. The movement was very successful in pushing people to relearn and reevaluate their own beliefs on the subject by being forced to look at what they were doing to the black population. King’s concept of creating tension is also intriguing. He talks about the way to initiate change is through creating enough tension for the other person to change. He used the media to put tension and pressure on the government as well as the racist whites by showing the world what was happening through the media.

Johan Galtung

Galtung was intriguing the way he defined the different types of violence and what constitutes violence. I started thinking about this more after I had to rewrite my definition paper. I really like the way he describes the different degrees of violence. One example is shown here. “For ‘killing’ read extermination, holocaust. For ‘alienation’ read spiritual death. For ‘repression’ read gulag/KZ. For ‘ecological degradation’ read ecocide. For all of this together read ‘omnicide.’” I thought this was very interesting how he called alienation a spiritual death. That it does not hurt a person physically more that it kills their insides. It seems like the violence are in order from the worst to the least, and alienation comes before repression. This alienation also connects what he says to the other readings about the soul and God being a part of everyone and that religion breeds non-violence. So it may seem that by alienation, according to Galtung, that it could possibly kill a persons non-violent nature. It seems that it reaches the root of a person and destroys what is deepest inside. This makes sense that it would be the closest type of violence to actual death, extermination, and genocide.

A lot of what Galtung seems to propose is that the majority of violence is cultural and that repressing a persons freedom is violence. He talks about religion, which ties into alienation and the freedom of religion. In essence I suppose have religion repressed would in turn alienate these groups of people which would kill the deepest part of a person. His definition for violence is extremely broad and rightly so. “I see biolence as avoidable insults to basic human needs, and more generally to life, lowering the real level of needs satisfaction below what is potentially possible.” Never before had my mind been pushed further open on a topic I thought I already knew about. When I compared my ideas to this general definition, it pushed me to think of new ideas in the realm.

Negative or Positive Peace, and Women

I thought this article was particularly interesting considering we are predominately concerned with defining non-violence. It’s interesting the way Brock-Utne describes negative and positive peace as, “Negative peace means the absence of both organized (usually ‘war’) and unorganized personal violence” (pg. 3). I’m surprised there are proposed definitions for negative and positive. I feel like people mainly look at peace as something positive, but it also is true that peace is rarely defined except through the self. Violence as well is something that seems so clear cut at first, but once exposed to the different ideas of it and what constitutes violence or non-violence, a whole new field opens up. This I feel is also true for peace, but the 2 go hand in hand. Peace does not exist without violence and how does violence define peace. These are questions that have interested me greatly and am discovering through this course and writing blogs. Surprisingly there are connections made and beliefs materialize when ideas get written down through blogs and what not. I feel this is extremely helpful when creating ones own views on violence and peace.

This reading views peace from another angle which is interesting. The notion of women defining peace has never been something to think about. I always assumed peace was neutral, but this reading sheds light on this. A household can be peaceful, but if the peace is kept by violence and wife beatings in the privacy of the home, is the household still peaceful? From the outside it is perceived that way, but digging deeper is essential.

The Pacifist Tradition

I found it rather interesting that many of the sects in the U.S. colonies before the Revolution were predominately non-violent. The Amish, Church of the Brethrm, Mennonites, Nicholites, Moravians, Hogerenes, Schwenckfelders, Society of Friends, and the United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Coming all do not use personal violence. It is amazing to see the strength of religion in the circles of non-violence. Almost every non-violent organization and order has religious connections and uses God as the uniting factor against the oppressors. What I also found interesting which was slightly counter intuitive, was the fact that the majority of the army actually accepted these advocates of non-violence. It was the officers who were often harsh, but the general masses accepted these people, “It was the regimental officers who handed out the harshest treatment to noncombatants, while in many cases the lower ranks were friendly to pacifists” (pg. 7) The top command in Abe Lincoln and the Secretary of War both accepted these people and released them from service whenever brought to their attention. I thought this was also interesting that if the 2 people who were probably most influential in starting the war, were tolerant of these non-violent peoples, but others were not tolerant. It seems that if the Secretary of War is relieving these people from duty, then everyone else who is involved with the military should also recognize the beliefs of these people.

This article also talks about how, “The general public accepted pacifism… more easily during the Civil War than during the Revolutionary War because people had even more familiarity with the idea” (pg. 6). This is rather intriguing because it is similar to the way my views have changed since taking this class. Before I was introduced to these ideas of pacifism and non-violence I was much less likely to take concern of the people who were advocates and those would simply refused violence. I used to feel like there was always a time and place for violence, but now I’m reassess my views.

Gandhi and MLK

It was very interesting to know that MLK studied Gandhi pretty extensively and based a lot of his non-violent ideas off him. At one point he says, “Mohandas Gandhi had ‘brought the British Empire to its knees’, adding, “Let’s now use this method in the United States’” (pg. 51). I feel like MLK used many idea from Gandhi such as loving your enemies (the title of this chapter) and using this weapon of love. We again see the enemies of a non-violent party using love and turning the enemies view upon themselves. By resisting non-violently, the whites at first respond violently and use intimidation tactics, but eventually they abandon these because they don’t get the results they want. Which brings me to something else that underlies the non-violent resistances in general. Non- violence, active pacifism, and this weapon of love, are never used to gain power, land, or bragging rights. It seems that this tool can only bring about what is just because it’s methods generate a mutual agreement between the oppressor and the oppressed. Gandhi’s ideas of knowledge and love I feel make sure that non-violent action can’t be used to gain something that isn’t a just cause. MLK also states, “For what we are doing is right. What we are doing is just. And God is with us” (pg. 47)

What Frederick Douglass Helped Me Realize

Firstly this reading was one of the most powerful speeches I’ve read (not that my speech reading is especially extensive). It did make me think about the modern day Fourth of July celebrations that people practice every year. I started thinking what was I celebrating and do I agree with what is going on in this country, because I am celebrating by lighting fireworks or partying etc. I also realized that civil disobedience could be protesting the 4^th of July, which it seems is similar to what Fredrick Douglass is doing in his speech. I wasn’t born here, I don’t live in an area of the U.S. that is patriotic or connected to the old area of the U.S. in any way. I am in fact in one of the most secluded areas of the U.S., however the 4^th of July is one of the biggest celebrations of the year.

I’m celebrating the freedom the that U.S. gives to it’s citizens compared to other countries, even the other countries in the western world. Compared to most countries in Europe and the Canadian provinces, the U.S. citizens pay a significantly less amount of money towards income taxes. I am celebrating the capitalist society our country was founded on. I’m celebrating the ease and safety which I can walk through the streets at any time of day, and the security I have over my own possessions. I celebrate our higher education system as well as our lower school system (even though it is greatly flawed) compared to other countries we have it so well. I celebrate how grateful I am to have been born into these circumstances and made possible by the policies and laws set in place by the U.S.

William James

This reading about William James was very interesting to read because where most of the other articles and authors that we have been reading argue for nonviolence and against violence where James argues for it and says that society actually needs war for certain things. He says that because it is such a big part of the globe that it is in some sense a positive. “The military ideals of hardihood and discipline would be wrought into the growing fibre of the people; no one would remain blind as the luxurious classes now are blind, to mans’s relations to the globe he lives” (James 183). In this sense, it does open the eyes of the upper class to the hardships the lower class has gone through to make the world what it is. However, it seems that firstly the upper class also are involved in wars. In fact it used to be that only the upper class could participate in wars. James relates wars to a series of blue collar jobs that the upper class doesn’t usually take a part in. I agree with him where he says that the upper class would be more suited to raising their children to be more conscious of the globe as a whole. It is surprising that he relates them to war though. For these blue collar jobs are similar to war only in that they are a physical struggle. They however don’t force people to kill others which can cause serious psychological damage to the people involved in war. The discipline in war is also very constructive James claims. This is true, but the discipline can be found in other areas of life that don’t deal with the whole picture that wars do. He quotes H.G. Wells who says war takes people out of the ugly street life that people are often involved in. The argument then comes to be what is more damaging to a person? The possibility of killing or being killed or living in an environment where other violence occurs daily?

Nonviolence in the Talmud

This is a reading I resonated particularly well with from the first line, “The doctrine of nonviolence affirms that our humanity unites us more than our conflicts divide us” (Kimelman 1). Also, “If man returns evil for good, evil will not depart from his house” (Kimelman 2) This ties into the same way Gandhi uses another violent persons weapon against himself. By using good to combat evil, it deters the other person (who hopefully has a conscious) from using evil back against you. Also by using good against it evil, it stops evil from being the putrid disease it already is and doesn’t infect you as well by turning evil to repel another.

It is interesting the way good effects people. In the same way evil and violence spread, good spreads as well. It seems however that people are less receptive to the spreading of healthy causes. For example, most people if hit, yelled at, scorned, or made fun of in a mean way, the initial response in the majority is to counter with the same type of actions. Good doing also has this effect on people, but on a much smaller scale. Acts of kindness towards others who deserve are much less common than acts of violence are on people who are labeled to deserve it. Strangely so when many of the readings agree in the fact that humanity in general is nonviolent in nature. In this sense it seems that there much be a façade of evil that when scratched enough will bring out the kinder side of people. It seems society plays a huge role in this as well in terms of the media that people fill their thoughts with. Often times violence is the whole premise of movies, which is glorified, or simply ignored. Is there a possibility to turn this media in the other direction? Violence is also much more dramatic, so in turn it gets more attention from society. The mind is powerful and often makes thoughts a reality if possible.

"Who's Being Naive"

I was extremely surprised about the views that Tim Wise takes in he short article about the naivety of peoples views on war. Mainly because I disagreed with him on many of the points he made. For example, “Those of us who doubt the likely efficacy of such a campaign, and who question its fundamental morality are not only insufficiently patriotic but dangerously naïve” (Wise 193) People are taught in school to challenge and ask questions about certain behavior of the government, especially when it concerns the tax dollars off all the citizens who pay them. Also how does it make a person less patriotic if they don’t agree with a war the government has waged? Patriotism does not have to do with agreeing in everything the U.S. partakes in. Plus according to the popular vote, the majority of the population didn’t even vote for Bush who’s preemptive war Wise is talking about.

Another example is when he says, “To be realistic is to say ‘we tried peace and failed.’ To be naïve is to ask when, exactly did the U.S. try peace: in religion, or specifically in Afghanistan” (Wise 195). If he thinks we realistically “tried” peace he should relearn the meaning. How often has the U.S. been involved overseas in conflicts that weren’t ours and sold weapons to one side to indirectly fight an enemy? In fact, there isn’t much history in the U.S. record books that isn’t full of violence. If we were actually interested in trying peace, we wouldn’t have billions of dollars put in national defense annually or keep hordes of weapons, not only in our country, but dominate the lands of others with our military presence.

Jim Crow Laws and Faith

The readings for today about the Jim Crow laws and life in the south have been particularly intriguing to me as I have not read many first hand accounts of life in the south after the civil war. I’ve known about the segregation, but this reading about Ruby Hurley opened my eyes into the every day life of living in the south in the mid 20^th century. “I’ve had it. Because every time I picked up the telephone it was a threatening call, and when I’d go home, I never knew whether it was going to be a bomb” (Raines 135). The psychological effects must have been extremely dangerous as well. Hurley describes how her will was so affected by the laws and the segregation that occurred in every day life, that she simply “Could not eat in Jim Crow places” (Raines 135) Going in and out of the doctors office and being told “There isn’t a thing wrong with you physically. It isn’t a thing, but these… niggers and white folks. That’s all that’s wrong with you” (Raines 137).

I also like the faith in a higher power o so many oppressed people have. For example, “Lord moves in mysterious ways wonders to perform, because his body was not supposed to come up the it was weighted down” (Raines 133). It is interesting how anything that goes the way of an oppressed group can be related to God. This is an extremely strong practice because instead of wiping off beneficial happenings as luck, fate, or destiny, they put there belief in a higher power which also unites a group of people under a single entity. This also ties into the way Gandhi looked at how people were all interconnected through love and truth. Often times oppressed groups realize this and it makes their bond stronger, which helps to fight against the oppressors. “The claims of human brotherhood,/ And each return for evil,, good,/ Not blow for blow;/ That day will come all feuds to end./ And change into a faithful friend/ Each foe” (Frederick Douglass 4^th of July). This shows the interest of the oppressed not to return oppression, but turn foe into not just a neutral person, but a faithful friend.

Satyagraha

I really like the way Gandhi describes satyagraha more as a practice, philosophy and a way of life. I feel in that way it is similar to Nhat Hanh’s views of the interconnectedness of the people in the world, and that love is the underlying factor. Gandhi explains that satyagraha is part of the soul and how love and truth are the most important parts of the soul and in that case satyagraha as well. Gandhi believed that satyagraha and the essence of non-violence is essential to all religions, and in that case, it applies to all the people religious people in India, that we just need to realize this. He gives on example that is especially intriguing is one that he uses of a father and his son. The idea is that a beaten son conquers his fathers anger through love and submission, and the father actions are also out of love. It is surprising the love Gandhi shows to the oppressors. How even their actions are out of love and that they just need to be shown the truth. The truth it seems, is something that is mutual and it isn’t about imposing 1 truth upon another persons, but more so about how the knowledge of both sides will help to creates ones own truth. Realizing the truth is how people will find what is just or unjust and opening a persons eyes to view something from a different perspective will change them. Similar to how viewing different situations from a non-violent perspective will greatly impact the type of action taken in a situation.

"Means and Ends"

I took particular interest in the reading “Means and Ends” as I feel, my education for the most part has been taught from the perspective of the end. This Machiavellian point of view I now realize is a much more extreme and violent than I realized in the past when I was first introduced to his ideas in high-school. One could go as far to say that before I started taking this class, I believed that “In fact, rarely is war considered bad at all... but that it is a necessary evil or that is acceptable as a means to some other end.” Peoples beliefs are ever changing, and where as the previous quote would have summed up my views towards war in the past, these following words are much more accurate to my current view. “War is never valued as good in itself; war has no intrinsic value.”

This article opened up what I accepted as a way to get certain results, and while I am necessarily a pacifist, parts of this article appeal more to me now than Machiavelli ever did in the past. For example, “All pacifists regard war as immoral by its nature and go beyond.” Now the question of can violence be justified in certain situations it the question I am constantly going back to. Of course one can always set up a fictional situation where violence can be the only way out, but do many of the real life situations people face daily demand violence to get a just end? As these questions are applied to real life situations I realize more and more that Ferdinand Lassalle had it right when he said, “Show us not the aim without the way/ For ends and means on earth are so entangled/ That changing one you change the other too;/ Each different path brings other ends into view.”

Nhat Hanh

The article "Working for Peace" was extremely intriguing in the way it provided a philosophy or rather a practice that can be implemented in every day life. How the little things in life can be treated with care and compassion. I also really like the way Nhat Hanh says that often times, the context people grow up in creates a certain type of lifestyle, and until a person opens up to the idea that anyone could have turned into a Thai pirate had they had the same upbrining. “I saw that if I had been born in the village of the pirate and raised in the same conditions as he was, I am now the pirate. There is a great likelihood that I would become a pirate.” He further elaborates on how we can’t simply eliminate the pirates by violence because this would put the blame onto us.

I also really like how Nhat Hanh explains the interconnectedness of the world and the economy. For example, “For instance, when you eat a piece of bread, you may choose to be aware that our farmers, in growing the wheat, use chemical poisons a little too much. Eating the bread, we are somehow co-responsible for the destruction of our ecology.” Is this indirect violence to ourselves and others by not informing them? I feel that point of view may be a little extreme, but the question is where to draw the line.