Sgt. Pepper, Giroux

I'd like to start out with what I thought was Giroux's most pertinent quote to postmodernism.

"In Eastern Europe and elsewhere there is a strong call for the primacy of the political and the ethical as a foundation for democratic public life whereas in the U.S. there is an ongoing refusal of the discourse of politics and ethics" (384).

Here Giroux is talking about the non-activism of the American people. Dr. Rog used the example in class of the fall of the Soviet Union, and how it was due to the oppressed yearning for a voice. Giroux suggests that it is almost selfish of us to keep so quiet when we have so much opportunity to speak, but he also addresses the issue of why we keep so quiet. In our democratic society it seems almost like a waste to not utilize our freedoms, but how truly democratic is our society? In the same way Butler argues that women technically have the freedom of speech, but are hardly acknowledged, so goes the same treatment of the American people. While we do live very free lives, we have little power over the structure of our society. A perfect example of this is our presidential elections that will be held this November. While technically each citizen does have the right to vote, it is pretty clear that the results are decided way before any voting takes place. Do you think it was an accident that both the Democratic and Republican candidates last election (Bush and Kerry) both attended Yale University and were both part of the same secret society there? It really wouldn't have mattered who won; the same actions would have been taken either way. I guess what I'm getting at is that changing the structure of our society seems near impossible. The only way for it to happen would for people to start raising their voices again. While the "big men" do have a lot of power, I think if millions of citizens revolted against them something could get done.

Sgt. Pepper, Cixous and Butler

I loved the structure of class last Thursday. I think it emphasized the truths of Butler's theories better than anything else we could've done. By not allowing the men to speak, we were going directly against the hegemonic truth that white males are the dominant, prevailing group in the United States. For those 90 minutes, everything that society teaches us to believe no longer applied. And what became of it? Chaos. I thought it was important that Dr. Rog allowed the men to write down their thoughts, offering them a sense of what it's like to have some voice, but not much. By letting them speak their minds with no one necessarily hearing what they had to say, I think it provided a more accurate mirror of everyday life of women. It's important to note that women do have voices, but that they are practically silenced from the day they are born. In reality, women do also have the right to freedom of speech, but they do not have the power to actually make anything of it.

"Every woman has known the torture of beginning to speak aloud" (163).
I see a lot of truth behind Butler's quote here, having directly experienced it every day. As we women get older and start to realize the way society is really run, it is blatant that there is an obvious trend going on. Wealthy white males have always run the show, and they still do. I liked the idea Dr. Rog pointed out in the word "history," and how it can be broken down to "his-story." Now that our country has undergone a feminist movement, we have thankfully gained many rights we didn't have originally. Unfortunately though, now that we all of the same freedoms as males, people assume all is fixed, and aren't interested in it anymore. The truth is we do have a voice, but it's so small that you can barely hear it. And the boys in class on Thursday felt the torture.

Elizabeth Byrne -Giroux

Going into today's class I was uneasy as I couldn't formulate a pre class post. After class I learned alot about my self. I could have taken a shot at what I though Giroux was saying, but due to my lack of confidence in academics in and out of the classroom I didn't do a pre- class post. When we were talking about men and women, I thought to myself "is the reason I don't speak up in class is because I am a girl?" As the class continued I came to the conclusion that I don't think it is because I am a girl. I have grown up always being shy in classrooms and went to a boarding school where everyone was from what i thought, much smarter than me. However, as I continue to write this blog i am thinking- could it be because I am a girl and my inferiority or shyness in classrooms started a long time ago? 

Anyway, now that I have a better understanding of Giroux I think that I may be an exact person that Giroux is talking about. After what Rachel said in class about how she liked how classmates relate theorys to personal experience- I am going to try my best to give examples from life in regards to this essay. When he talks about pedagogy in west and how some where along the way the educational system has abandoned what is at the essence of the U.S - a full participant in democratic society.  When talking about this in the beginning of class really made me think about my role in this country and about how "every vote counts". My mom has registered me as a voter since I was 18 and I never have. I want to start with the fact that my mom registered me to vote-- showing a total lack of interest on my part to be involved with the future of the country in which i am a citizen of. Then in the past two years i have never voted. I know who my parents support and i think well i guess i could just vote for what they thing- but because i dont know much about politics i choose not vote because i dont have a stance either way. This is were the point that education needs to do something about the lack of interest. I am not blaming this on school or education because I believe it all my fault that i do not read more newspapers or familiarize my self with the world around me. However, I do think that somewhere throughout my time in school that i learned that i could do the bare minimum and still get by.  (once i got to college i quickly learned that i was not going to get by with that) Linking myself to teachers, I think that they also believe that they can get by with teaching children the bare minimum they need to pass the proper tests. 

Something else I found interesting was the quote "the limits of reason must be extended to recognizing other ways in which people learn or take up particular subject positions." (387) The things in class that were mentioned were experience, social, interaction, influence, and family. I am having trouble typing what I am thinking and not sure if this is correct link (someone please correct if i am wrong or has a better understanding of this quote) but along the lines of how the boys in the class couldn't see how women were inferior or how  Dr. Tillman or Dr. Cummings would have trouble running the experiment done in class the other day.  Leading to the idea that "critical pedagogy needs to create new forms of knowledge through its emphasis on breaking down disciplinary boundaries and creating new spaces where knowledge can be produced."(386)  

July-->Irigaray

I personally did not understand this reading at all, I don’t know if I was supposed to dig deeper into it or what. It talked about the male and female sexual parts, but it didn’t explain what it was comparing it to. Hopefully in class I will get a better understanding. I plan to continue this essay when I know what I am talking about.

ChittyChittyBangBang Giroux

Giroux's "Towards a Postmodern Pedagogy" is a very interesting article. Giroux challenges the traditional approach to education with what he calls a “border pedagogy". One of Giroux's main goals is to overcome the obstacle of "the other" and unite into one learning experience. Another difference in this border pedagogy approach is the importance of critical thinking. This is a way of thinking that CMC majors need to learn to do.

"This means providing students with the critical capacity to challenge and transform existing social and political forms, rather than simply adapt to them. It also means providing students with the skills they need to locate themselves in history, find their own voices, and provide the convictions and compassion necessary for exercising civic courage, taking risks, and furthering the habits, customs, and social relations that are essential to democratic public forms" (384).

I think this is a very important quote and that there is much more to education than text books. Experience provides education that text books and school teachers can't always give you. It is important to broaden your horizons and "take risks" in order to find out who you are. Giroux also addresses the issue of ethics and relations. In critical pedagogy focusing on differences can be very helpful in understanding how other social groups function in a democratic society and also how to interact with all of these other social groups. Overcoming racism and gender differences are essential in communicating and operating in a free democratic society. It reminds me of Derrida and the concept of difference vs. differance and De Saussure: "In language there are only differences". The same could be said about critical pedagogy.

I feel like I have been lucky with my educational experience and that I have viewed school similar to the way Giroux speaks about it. I weight my learning experiences inside and outside of the classroom equally. My life experiences sometimes help bring in knowledge I have been taught in school and it’s what makes the information really make sense to me. There are endless possibilities and education never ends. "What kind of citizens do we hope to produce through public education in a postmodern culture?" (385) I think that we want well rounded citizens who are experienced and look at life critically.

Starfish Giroux

Henry A. Giroux discusses education in a way I think directly links to this class, CMC 300. “Education must be understood as producing not only knowledge but also political subjects. Rather than rejecting the language of politics, critical pedagogy must link public education to the imperatives of critical democracy” 384. What Giroux is saying is education should not just be one person learning information, but a person being taught to look at the information critically. This reminded me of our class because the education we are gaining from it allows us to do just that. We are viewing the world around us, this postmodern society, with a critical mind.

“The language of critical pedagogy needs to construct schools as democratic public spheres. In part, this means educators need to develop critical pedagogy in which the knowledge, habits, and skills of critical rather than simply good citizenship are taught and practiced. This means providing students with the opportunity to develop the critical capacity to challenge and transform existing social and political forms, rather than simply adapt to them.” I think this quote pretty much sums up the critical media major. The critical media major educates us to develop critical pedagogy. We look at the world with a critical mind, and I notice that I actually am more critical when watching television, or even just looking at the world around me. I have learned to analyze the things I see. I have learned not to just accept them but think about them in depth.

Cuckoo Giroux

I think I have been spoiled in the aspect that I have always been in a school environment, well since middle school that promotes learning through experience and developing skills that will be useful in the real world. I really feel like through being actively involved has really enhanced my learning experience, I don’t know how I would have learned other wise. I also believe that this was only because I went to school that was so small. With a graduating class of 24 we were able to do so many more things that the public education system. With the focus being on personal achievements students learn so much more in the long run, while immediate outcomes are not always clear, but it should be important of who they will become rather than if everyone can score high on standardize test and meet all of the general requirements.



This reading highlights certain points that I have been making all last week when trying to fight to keep our house by explaining that through having us live together we are gaining experience that cannot be taught through reading a textbook. We are learning form past and our mistakes to improve what we have. Giroux writes, “providing the students with the opportunity to develop the critical capacity to challenge and transform existing social and political forms, rather than simply adapt to them.” While we do not do this on an external level, we are still learning through having the opportunity to challenge what is already in place. Through being in a local sorority we have to transform certain aspects to make things work, we cannot adapt to what has been done in the past because we would fall apart. We have to take everything and learn from it through actively being involved. Also with being small everyone has more of a chance to get involved in some aspect. Last year I had a position because I was nominated, it was something that I probably would not have stepped up to do but decided to anyways. It is through having a small part that I have decided to take on larger roles and become more of a voice for us. We have taken what Gioux is saying about our education system and have shown how it is effective.

Cuckoo 4/24

First off I really enjoyed today’s class……

Gender issues are something that woman have to fight against everyday. When it comes to jobs we have to fight harder to get the same job as a man even if we are more qualified because people do not like the idea of woman having power (I know this isn’t true in all cases but believe it to be true in many). In high school I did a project at a magazine and noticed that the majority of the higher jobs were held my men. This notion that men have to support the family and have the dominant voice is something that has been instilled into us since we were younger. Looking back to middle school I have always noticed that girls talk more when guys are not present. This is something that my school clearly noticed as well, there were times they would dived our class up based on gender because girls would learn better in environments with out guys.

I have noticed this to be true. My freshman year I was in art class that was manly upper classman guys, I think that there were three girls. Everyday going to that class I was so intimidated, I would keep to myself and do my work. It didn’t help that I am not one to talk all the time, but even the one sr. girl who was in the class and was close to the majority of the guys did not say much. They dominated the conversation. At times they would taunt me about why I didn’t talk a lot and I would quietly answer the continue on with my work. If this was a group of girls I know that I would talk more, I played varsity sports through out high school so as a freshman I was surrounded by older girls and while I did keep to myself I spoke up more and was not immediate by them.

This idea that men are suppose to be more dominate has been instilled in us since we were young. It is hard to break away from something that we have known for so long. So as we grow older we are still trying to fight to be heard or have more power because of precedent. It is because of the past that many people fall into what other see fit for woman to do because they are scared to step out of the boundaries that have been set. This was clear in class when some of them were frustrated that they could not talk. By placing this restriction on them I think made some of them possible want to talk more because they power to talk was taken away. They ability to dominate a conversation wasn’t possible.

Going on to talk about working in a group of guys and them dominating is true, in the aspect of them not willing to listen to what the girls always have to say. More often than not when I am working with guys they like to take control by telling everyone what needs to be done and rarely like to listen to the opinions of others.

romulus Giroux

One word,  Harvard.  The best and worst can be found in the United States. 1 in 2 Americans do not complete high school, and the he last time I checked only about 27% of the population attained a Bachelor's Degree. College is an American rite of passage. College teaches a person how to think. "This means providing students with the opportunity to develop the critical capacity to challenge and transform existing social rather than adapting to them." (384) College also serves as a gateway to the professional class. To experience college is the stuff of movies. It takes you on a path of self discovery and awareness of all the things around you. At the age of 12 I was focused. I had imagined my reality differently from my family, I wasn't content. At times when I reflect on past, I feel like uncontrollably throwing up. I inspired myself to acquire knowledge, I knew I wanted to liberate myself.  To critically analyze  the world and the Universe is a hobby of mine. 

"Curriculum can be viewed as a cultural script that introduces students to particular forms of reason which structure specific stories and ways of life." (386)  People who do not make it through high school, live drastically different realities from their counterparts. They are burdened with influences unique to their individual lives. Of the kids who graduate high school, not all will be able to go, and a not everyone will make it. The type of education one gets will depend on factors such as the type of institution, its cost, size, location, campus, student body etc. There is hierarchy amongst American post secondary institutions. One's status becomes determined by his or her alma mater. 

A Bachelors can be hard to obtain, but essential. Shouldn't there be more people within the population who have a Bachelors?

Nichole Giroux

Education as Giroux explains it, is the answer to gaining greater knowledge and life skills in order to succeed in his critical pedagogy in different democratic spheres. I think that what he writes is not only valuable information but some that can be applied in various subjects. For example, I just finished my Environmental Literature class with professor Phalen and our topic of the course was finding the balance between ecology and democracy. Giroux writes about the importance of politics and ethics. One of the authors wrote about the land ethic which basically talks about finding democracy not only amid people but among the land too. In another one of my classes, American Politics, we were taught that in order to have a true democracy, all people have to understand that they are equal to ANY other citizen of those people… one person one vote. The same can and should be applied to the environment; why do we think we are so superior to plants and animals that we can kill them, move them, and not give them the same rights as humans. Well the same idea that I learned in Politics class can also be applied to this reading. The comments write about the expectation of universal material which strains resources to the limits. Finding democracy among people is important enough but finding democracy (im using this word to mean equality) among the global relationship is much harder.

Naturally, as we have been taught before, every past experience effects how we perceive the next thing. Then too, education systems in place will influence children to think one way or another about “specific cultural narratives” which Giroux points out as very important in filtering what kids might think after they are taught a lesson on school because they are the future owners of our fragile planet.

Jiggy Giroux

Giroux describes his critical pedagogy in the means of education as a the development of democratic public spheres. He believes that education is linked to a greater understanding of concepts and skills that create a well rounded, self suffient individual. I would have to agree with his notion of developing real skills that incourage risk, courage and personal voice. Often in our public education, even today, it seems like a factory of students all learning the same required information. Students lose the oppurtunity to find themselves in our present educational system that promotes a sense of unified learning, not individual acheivements. It is only at the college level that students begin to make real choices for themselves that allows for personal growth and discovery. Shouldnt this be happening earlier in the educational process? Were is the freedom to explore in public education up through high school? I believe that a transformation of the educational process will have to happen in order for our nation to continue growth and compeat with other nations. Though better than most countries, the US still needs to develop better systems of education that focus on the individual student rather than whole states and counties. Too much is put on preformance of large groups of kids rather than the personal education that takes place everyday. I think that having more career planning and thought earlier in the process would take so much pressure off college students who are still searching for careers. The school system needs to be a growth process that promotes achievement not just passing a class that you never wanted to take. Take classes you love and love what you do, our age is of constant requirments that leave students tierd of the schooling process.

BubbaNub: Giroux

      Giroux's model for a "border pedagogy" is an interesting one that combines the politics of voice within a more critical framework of education.  I agree with Giroux as he examines the notion that "we have become a society that appears to demand less rather than more of democracy" (384).  Everyday we are bombarded by distractions and entertainment, which all come together to help us forget our rights and responsibility to our nation.  In Giroux's model, education would need to start as critical thinking, not just with the students, but also with the teachers.  Schools should be democratic public spheres where we critically examine our nation and have the opportunity to challenge and transform it rather than conform.

     Clearly today this is not the case.  A large portion of schools, particularly the under-funded urban schools, merely churn out more factory workers and ditch diggers who are unaware of the ideological processes that have shaped their future.  Critical pedagogy is a language, one that works to clarify the tainted language that is used on a daily basis.  By giving students and teachers this framework and the skills to properly analyze our society, we can begin to break down the root of sexism and racism.  Giroux says that we need to exercise our critical radical voice, because using the same language we are taught from the beginning condemns us to silence.

BubbaNub: 4/24

   In regards to Thursdays class, I do not know where to even begin.  The experiment as a whole, although interesting, could not accurately represent the point that Doc. Rog was trying to prove.  By silencing the men, the exercise became more of a game and as we all know it can be difficult to pass up good opportunities for a joke.  The fact that most men were engaged in their computers does not equal the assumption that they were uninterested in the female opinion.  Because writing was their only tool, it took more time to formulate their thoughts and get them out.  I am a male in the class, and while I did exaggerate and joke, I keenly listened to every female voice that was speaking, and in this I was disappointed.

     A majority of my comments attempted to facilitate the discussion and keep it pertinent to the original discussion.  However, I felt as though the female lead discussion steered itself towards superficial topics and tangents.  Only when Doc. Rog interjected did the discussion get back on course.  This could be due to a number of reasons.  As previous people have mentioned in their blogs, this could have happened because the females felt powerful, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Then again, maybe it is just a difference of opinion in the male/female psyche that lead me to consider their conversation as largely superficial.

ChittyChittyBangBang 4/24

"Every woman has known the torture of beginning to speak aloud" -Butler

Thursday's class was a very interesting experiment and I think proved exactly what Dr. Rog was aiming for. The term phallologocentrism represents the essence of language. It moves beyond the term we previously learned, logocentric. If you break down phallolocantrism, phallic stands for masculinity. This is the essence of the discussion and experiment performed in class on Thursday. Butler suggests that women have writing but men have voice. We live in a male dominated society where women often feel inferior. Women in CMC 300 even admitted that when working in a group that is primarily men they tend to stay quite and just follow because they find it difficult to get their voiced heard and taken seriously.

Dr. Rog decided to reverse these roles and let the women control the class’s conversation while the men had to purely listen and if they wanted to speak they had to write it down and pass it to a woman. At that point the woman could decide whether or not she wanted to acknowledge or read the man's comment. I was stunned by how dead on this experiment was with the realities of society according to Butler. The women felt empowered and began to speak more and interact loudly and efficiently. The men on the other hand were practically ripping their hair out due to frustration. Some of the men were often rude and forceful when trying to give women their comments completely disrespecting them like they have historically been known to do. The women embraced their new position and used it mockingly towards the men almost.

I also found it interesting that the men claimed (through written accounts) that they would not mind if their significant other made more money than them. I really do believe that at least for the majority of men, they would feel intimidated to the point that it could destroy the relationship, just like in Ariel's example. The men enjoy being the providers and the money makers because that is men's role in society; it is where their power derives from. I don't think men could handle giving up even a little bit of their power. Yes, women are not as silenced in society as they used to be. Women have gained status although the unequal mindset is still there in one way or another, and I am doubtful that it will ever fully disappear.

July 4-24-08

On Thursday, class showed me how life is from a different point of view. In class, my Professor, who is a man silenced all men present in the room, which created a discussion among all the women in the class. This exercise was based on Foucault’s theories about the woman’s voice in society. I thought it was so funny how the boys could not let the women control the conversation with interrupting with their written comments, I mean really is that hard to be inferior? Try being a woman for a week! Also, I felt like every time Dr. Rog suggested something that referred to the actions of the women, we actually stopped doing what we were doing and adjusted due to his opinions. Do woman like being inferior or is it in our nature? This question should be taken into consideration by all females because we are the only ones who have an issue with the way were being treated and the only ones who can fix it!

As one can see, I personally agree with Foucault because men are superior in modern society due to their hierarchy positions that they hold. For example, the president of the United States has always been a man because the population feels comfortable with a strong and forceful individual controlling and securing their lives. The media shapes the population’s minds into thinking how a man or woman should be perceived by different individuals. After generating a common ideal about the duties and emotions of the two opposing sexes, they raise their offspring according to the opinions of the hegemonic forces. One way an individual may show that they are convinced is by buying their baby boy G.I. Joes and the baby girl Barbie Dolls. Both of these toys signify masculinity and femininity, which is the object of the parent. Does a child really understand what kind of toy they are playing with?

NewYorker 4/24

From reading everyone's post class reactions, and hearing about class from a few friends, I wish I was able to be there in person. The experiment sounds like a great idea, and very creative. This made me think of an experiment the GLBT club in my high school did. Everyone that was a member was not allowed to speak at all the entire day, representing the forced silence of those that are too afraid to come out of the closet. They get silenced by a society that is against them (whether that is true or not), and not everyone feels comfortable coming out, especially in high school where people can be very judgemental. But being a woman in this day and age, I have never felt discrimminated against. I know we are not equal to men all the time (by some standards), but I have been able to do what I want to do in life so far - play sports, go to school, get a job, own a car, etc. Although this wasn't the case several decades ago, we have certainly made strides.
But when I was thinking about it, sometimes I do get a little more shy or uncomfortable to say certain things around guys. Of course the dynamics change and the conversation changes with an all-girl group or a co-ed group, but isn't that the same way for guys too? They definitely have different conversations when they are all male rather than if they are with women too. But is that because society does that to us? Or there are just life issues that one gender would rather discuss than another - hm, maybe again because of the stresses of the "norm" of the gender.
This issue could go even further, by recognizing how some high schools seperate the boys and the girls for phys ed class, but then bring them back together for academics. A social issue, or a physical one? Or what about all boy schools and all girl schools? Do the tests show that girls study better or are smarter without the intimidation of men? Or vice-versa? Since I have been in co-ed education all my life, I cannot say. But I know I like being surrounded by both genders to get a full scope of answers and opinions.

romulus 4.24

The men of CMC 300 would have lead a dynamic conversation. Having no voice was an ego blow that completely shook my reality. Choosing to be quiet is a completely different from it being mandated that you are. Its brutal not having a voice, and as Lisa noticed the majority of the boys including myself lost interest in the class discussion. I spent my time on multitasking on the Internet. I was utilizing AIM and Facebook's new hangout to establish communication with one of the girls in the class. It took some time but I was successful.
The topic of confidence was interesting to me. I had always dealt with self esteem issues. I was easily intimidated by everyone for numerous reasons, but a series of changes helped me overcome that. My first car wreck marked a new chapter in my life. I remember being on the side of the road crying hysterically about two things. My car and my life. It was a reality wake up call. I almost wiped myself out, and made me realize that I wasn't living up to my full potential. It took a few months to fully recover, but I came out much happier.
Spending an entire week with a best friend, Sasha, also market a another chapter in my life. I embraced my identity and discovered a community in which I dreamt about. That was the week I broke out of my shell. I let myself explore and engage.
This academic year witnessed several experiences that significantly reshaped my mentality. Some more extreme than others, but decisions, agents, etc. working to correct personal imperfections. I knew where my problems stemmed from, including my lack of confidence, so I initiated on a journey to destroy the old me.
I do not understand why sex is a determinate in a persons confidence.

Jiggy 4/27

This weeks class showed the fustrations that women must feel in everyday situations by the silencing of the men in the class. I found the experiment to be affective in annoying the men and giving alittle taste of the struggles of the women in our western culture. I did have many problems with it, it was by far not perfect. For one the experiment showcased the instant abuse of power by women. The experiment should have showed that once power was givin to the women that they were more responcible then men have been, but it was the oppisite. Once in possession of the power they quickly began to like the feeling, keeping the male voice surpressed. This shows how it is human nature to hold and keep power, maybe for once women can see that the power of voice is not something to give up. I dont think that there is any setting, however, where the female voice is completly silenced in our modern world. The issue is more of speaking out and up to the ideas that females have. I could have spoken on thursdays class, the power to speak was only taken away in the written rule sence. Speach is powerful and can at no time in our culture are women asked not to speak, they just dont speak up. I believe that the experiment can be useful but also is a product of a male dominated society. The experiment was put on by Dr. Casey and without his permission would have never taken place. This further takes the side of a male dominated soceity were the male makes and decides the rules. The real world meaning to an experiment like that would have been if Dr. Casey had said nothing and the girls in the class said that they wanted and took control. This is what the real world is really like, having to step up against authority and male domination to get a female voice heard. The world is not a classroom in many cases and the ability to have experiments is a luxury we pay 45,000 a year to have. In order to make real change the urge to speak out and up has to come from within the female voice and push society to a new and greater level.

DetectiveDanny 4/24

Our little experiment in class on Thursday made me realize a few things about gender relationship dynamics. Once the experiment was proposed, the women immediately latched onto their new found power without questioning the morality of the exercise. No where in American society today are women arbitrarily silenced like the men were, yet they made it seem like somehow the tables were all of a sudden turned. They felt like they were getting back at us, when all we ever did was be born male. We never purposely oppressed anyone in class, Dr. Rog has been very good about making sure everyone who wants their voice to be heard gets to talk.
I also realized that no matter how hard we try, it is almost impossible to truly understand the opposite sex. Our brains work differently and there will always be a gap, as the boundary between genders is too far to successfully cross with a class experiment or anything else.
Also, this experiment reminded me of a video I saw in one of my psychology classes starring Dr. Zimbardo of Stanford University. He randomly assigned people to be a guard or a prisoner in a fake prison. After a while, the guards started acting like mean guards and the prisoners became depressed and submissive. All of a sudden the girls thought they had some new ability to be heard, so they speak up louder and more often.

sawsaw 4/24

I was very fascinated with the content of Thursday's class. I found it to be very interesting and insightful. There were many things I learned about the women from the exercise we did. First, I learned that women are much more comfortable sharing their views and opinion with other women. As soon as Dr. Rog started the exercise, I saw a big difference in the amount of discussion and participation. We were more willing to share our true feelings and express different ideas and opinions we had. This showed me that women are more confident in numbers. They were less intimidated by what men think and are much more willing to stand up to a man. The second thing I learned was that men are unlikely to listen to a women unless they are forced into certain circumstances. During the majority of the exercise the men were either ignoring what the women were discussing by going on their computers or working on other things or they were tuning out the women and focusing on their counter argument. This shows me that men are disrespectful to the views and opinions of women if they are different from their own. Another important thing I got from this exercise was that women almost always look to men for power. Even though the women had the power throughout the entire class, they were still waiting on the men to share their opinions or gain acceptance on their ideas. This shows that men have a certain stronghold on women. Women's insecurities were evident in the fact that they still wanted to hear ideas from the guys and still valued what they said. Although this exercise was intended for the guys to understand and experience what women have been faced with, this exercise showed me a lot of things about women. I learned a lot of valuable things about myself and about women as a whole.