Monday, October 29, 2012

RA#2



Title: From Fly-Girls to Bitches and Hos

Author: Joan Morgan

Date: 1999

Topic: Causes and effects of sexism in hip-hop music and culture

Exigence: To create a better and deeper understanding of why sexism is used in hip-hop music/culture.

Intended Audience: The general public, but possibly more specifically, females and feminists, and white people.

Purpose: To enlighten people as to why African-Americans might use derogatory language and action towards females in their culture.

Claim: To establish the healing and progress of females in the Black community, it will take more than simply stating that the misogyny of woman in hip-hop music is wrong and inappropriate; it will first take the acceptance and emotionally distancing of females from the presence of black male misogyny, and, second, the understanding of the origins of said misogyny before any other action towards healing can begin.

Main Evidence: Morgan states that, “As a black woman and a feminist I listen to the music with a willingness to see past the machismo in order to be clear about what I’m really dealing with” and that, “…good time in most of hip-hop is really alcoholism, substance abuse…they have no expectation to see their twenty-first birthday…” Morgan clearly sees that there is a lot more going on in the realm of hip-hop music and black men then just the objectification of the female gender, and the it truly is useless to just say, “Don’t speak like that about your sisters; it’s bad,” when the problems behind the objectification is rooted in problems that stem from things that go much deeper.

Pathos: Morgan made an emotional appeals to her audience by using direct and first person questions like in her writing that she states are meant for her hip-hop writing brothers; “ Why is disrespecting me one of the few things that make them feel like men? What’s the haps, what are you going through on the daily that’s got you action so foul?”(603). Morgan says these questions are intended for her “brothers” but seeing as it was audience that were the ones who ended up reading the questions, it was her audience that were put in the position to answer those questions, or at least to consider what it would mean to answer those questions, instead of the hip-hop singing black men that Morgan says the questions are for.

Logos: Morgan brings logic into this exert by making a direct quote from an actual hip-hop artist, Biggie Smalls, or Notorius B.I.G., stating, “I don’t wanna live no more/Sometimes I see death knockin’ at my front door…”(603) making it irrefutable for her audience to deny that the hip-hop artists that are accused of objectifying women are simply just that, and proving her point that there’s much more to them than just their objectification.

Ethos: Several times throughout her piece Morgan states that she is both a feminist and black female, “…Being black and a woman makes me very fluent in both isms…” (605). By make this statement, she makes her audience aware that her words is on that has a first person, non objective view, of the argument that is being made and is therefore on to be taken very seriously and without question.

My Response: Morgan did a beautiful job at drawing attention to an issue that I think is definitely one that is a sad reality of the world we live in today; males in the black community, like most other males all communities, has been made subject to many expectations and requirements as to what it means for them to be a man and to be made worthy by their peers and society. As well as being made subject to these expectations Morgan’s brothers have also been made subject to the oppression of America and all of its past, and existing, prejudices and racism, which demeans them as humans and provides them with even more difficulties and hardships to face on top of trying to be the machismo man that is expected of them by their own community. With this combination of oppressions, I’m sure that the demeaning of their sistas is one of the only ways present for the black male to feel like they are the man they feel like they need to be, and I think it is this that Morgan makes a beautiful point of drawing light on for her audience’s better understanding of her brother’s struggles.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

RR: Kimmel



                In an exert from a Michael Kimmel’s piece “Bros Before Hos”: The Guy Code, Kimmel describes some of the pressures and expectations surrounding man-hood and what it means to be a man. In this piece he starts out be describing what young men themselves think it means to be considered a true man, and what they believe is expected of them to portray true masculinity. He states some of the basic statements he receives from these men such as, “Boys don’t cry,” “It’s better to be mad than sad,” and “Size matters”. From these statements he goes on to describe where these phrases and beliefs stem from, and who imposes them upon each man; he describes how each man is afraid of one another's judgment, and how every man is looking for signs of weakness in one another, and how each man fears be portrayed as gay, or, in reality, portrayed as a weak, or as a failure in “Guyland”.        
                For Kimmel, some of the rules associated with “Gut Code” things such as, never expressing emotion or enthusiasm, not showing interest in things like art or music, not taking too much interest in what a woman has to say, not dressing too nicely, and showing an unquenchable sexual interest in women. For me, I feel like this is a lot of what I witness in men and their interactions with one another;  they always tell stories of their achievements and successes, they don’t necessarily always talk about women in an itemizing and material manner, but it is certainly rare when you hear a man talk about how emotionally connected and in love they are.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Final Polish: Proposition 30 Op-Ed


Arianna Brown
October 9, 2012
English 2
Op-Ed: Proposition 30
            On November 6, 2012, a very important Proposition will appear on this year’s California electoral ballot; Proposition 30 will be a monumental landmark in determining the future of what California’s public education system will become or will continue to be. This coming fiscal year, the state budget will have to begin making either a continual $6 billion dollar cut that will initiate the balancing of the state budget, or it will have to generate that same amount through the increase of tax revenues. The current proposal for these revenues that is being made by Governor Jerry Brown, is to instigate new tax increases that would take effect almost immediately. The tax increases would include raising sales tax by a quarter percent for the next four years, until the end of the 2015-16 fiscal year, and raising the personal income tax of people who earn over $250,000, annually, for the next seven years, until the end of the fiscal year 2018-19(Attorney General of CA). Combined, the public and higher education programs of California make over half of the state’s budget, so it would, inevitably, be the first system to see a decrease in funding, and at that, it would also be the system that would see the greatest decrease, hence making it absolutely necessary for voters to come together this election day and vote yes on Proposition 30 to save California’s educational system.
            In the  Attorney General summary of Proposition 30, the general spending reductions for 2012-13 state that, if voters reject Prop 30 the cuts to be made will be as follows (in millions): schools and community colleges will receive a $5, 354 cut, UC’s a $250 cut, and CSU’s a $250 cut. With these sorts of cuts, public education, K-14, would be forced to make compensations for lack of funding by the state, which is about 60% of what makes up for the budget for community colleges. These compensations would come in the form of acts such as shortening the instructional school year, reducing the number of staff employed at educational facilities, and reducing enrollment. Actions such as these have already taken place in the San Francisco school district, K-12 public schools have already suffered a $500 decrease per student per year with the past 5 years, and without the passing of $6 billion revenue generating Prop 30, they will have to cut 10 days of their 2013-14 instructional school year and, inevitably, much more in the years to come(Garofoli). With these kinds of reductions the amount of attention received by each child will decrease, opportunities for asking questions and receiving the necessary amount of help will, most definitely, deteriorate; the children who already struggle in school, and who’s families don’t have the means of giving them an alternate education, or the appropriate kind of help they need to succeed, will fall behind the scenes, and go unattended to. They will be unable to get what they need to move up in the world and know what it means to be well educated and to possess a to understand what it means to be an effective, participatory member of society, able to obtain a fulfilling and satisfying career and lifestyle. In a system with minimal services, it will be the child who is deprived the most that will continue to be deprived; they will be the ones who find it the most difficult to break the cycle of poverty and will never know what it means to have the power of enlightenment.
           
            Mr. Lowenthal, a former professor at CSU Long Beach, stated that, “… he too longs for the days when the quality and affordability of California’s public colleges helped make our state ‘the West Coast version of Ellis Island’…” and he stated that, “We don’t have unlimited resources…That paradigm is gone” (Blumenstyk). When someone with this much insider knowledge of our educational system states that our schools are facing a time of crisis, it would be foolish not to take his opinion with the utmost amount of gravity and severe amount of importance. The opposition would argue that government is not to be fully trusted with more revenues of any sort, due to its poor spending within recent years; spendings such as the funding of things like the $68 billion bullet train that’s started being built, of which only $13 billion dollars of its funding identified, and also spending like that of the $54 million dollars that was held onto by the state parks, system while in the face of many of their sites being shuttered (Skelton). The opposition to Proposition 30 would also argue that is selective and unfair for the government to raise income taxes, strictly the rich, and that doing so would be a form of segregation, preaching that old as time argument that the rich should not be punished for their success and, potentially, hard work. For those who are better-off and have benefited the most from California educational system, it would be in their best interest, and, hopefully, their better nature, to give something back to the future of California, and to help provide that that has clearly helped provide for them in such an abundant way.  Likewise, it would be a silly prospect to sacrifice our educational system under the pretense that the public has not been copiously satisfied with what the government has spent some of state revenues on in the past and therefore use that as a reason to disregard Prop 30 and the non-relating benefits it will provide. Although both of the opposing arguments made have definite elements of truth to them, but, as Mr. Lowenthall stated, we’ve moved past the time in which we have the choice to not take action to save the best resource we have to offer our children because the reality is that the state of California, like the majority of the United States, is in a severe economic crunch.
As a student of the California public educational system, I know firsthand that the schooling I partook in during my K-12 experience could’ve been far more interactive, and could have done a lot more outreach to children who had a hard time with getting distracted and staying motivated, such as I did. Being an older sister of both a child who’s attending public high school and is excelling incredibly, and of another who’s finding hard to find any motivation whatsoever to do well and succeed, I am given a very clear view as to how it’s success and prestige in the class room that’s acknowledged most, and how it’s the children who are considered “failures”, that is in an academic and social outlook, who are the most unacknowledged, and, instead of being acknowledged and offered assistance, are left to remain as “failures” before being given any appropriate help to succeed. In my youngest brother’s case, it is the proactivity and knowledgeability of my mother that has kept him from going unnoticed by in his academia and by his schools, which would have otherwise let him remain unacknowledged while putting him through the system without helping him find a way to become truly successful so he can get by in real society and in life. My brother turned out to be very lucky in that he was fortunate enough to have a mother who works in county jobs that allowed her access to programs offered within the school districts where we lived that she could use for his success, but his situation makes me realize that for children whose parents don’t have as much direct access to the recourses my mother does, it would be very difficult for that child to obtain the help that my mother is providing for my brother. With the potential loss of so much educational funding and backing it would be the children like these that would be left almost hopeless to receiving the resources they’d need to obtain a better education and better life.
California is no longer a state that possesses the liberty to debate whether it’s right or wrong to exclusively tax the rich, or whether the state has done a good enough job with previous spending in the face of the future election and Proposition 30. Gov. Jerry Brown, states, “This is not about any other issue. It’s not about the environment, it’s not about pensions, it’s not about parks. It’s about one simple question: Shall those who’ve been blessed beyond imagination give back 1 or 2 or 3 percent for the next seven years, or shall we take billions out of our schools and colleges to the detriment of the kids.” (Skelton) Gov. Jerry Brown realizes we can only ask ourselves if it’s really come to that time in which the direction that California and its citizens choose to take at this fork in the road is either the one in which we abandon our values, and stop ensuring each child in California as much opportunity as we possibly can, to move away from a life of poverty that they were potentially born into, or to take the direction in which we let that opportunity demise. He realizes that we are confronted with the opportunity to either save the future of California’s schools and the futures of the children who attend them, or to let them go short funded, forcing them to demise in such a way that they would not be able to provide full opportunities and benefits that an education can provide to our children the future of our state of California.





Work Cited
Blumenstyk, Goldie. "If Prop 30 Fails, Then What?" Editorial. The Chronicle of Higher Education [Washington D.C.] 17 Aug. 2012: 31. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 Sept. 2012. <http://0-web.ebscohost.com.library.cabrillo.edu/ehost/detail?sid=9210a729-1f3f-4358-9578-471c5b7fd39c%40sessionmgr15&vid=5&hid=11&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWNvb2tpZSxpcCx1cmwmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZlJnNjb3BlPXNpdGU%3d#db=a9h&AN=78857634>. Garofoli, Joe. "Teacher Contract Tied to Tax Measure." Editorial. The San Fransisco Chronicle [San Fransisco] 3 Aug. 2012: PC1. Newspaper Source Plus. Web. 23 Sept. 2012. <http://0-web.ebscohost.com.library.cabrillo.edu/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=11&sid=072ac2eb-b458-457d-a5c8-e1255104a2b2%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWNvb2tpZSxpcCx1cmwmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZlJnNjb3BlPXNpdGU%3d#db=n5h&AN=78248093>. Skelton, George. "Taxes Just Part of Picture; Voter Perceptions and Pensions Also Tie into Brown's Push for Prop. 30." Editorial. Los AngelesTimes [Los Angeles] 30 Aug. 2012: A.2. ProQuest Newspapers. Web. 23 Sept. 2012. <http://http://0-search.proquest.com.library.cabrillo.edu/nationalnewscore/docview/1036835499/1391857C40328DE6F49/9?accountid=39584>. 

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Prop 30 (op-ed): Final Draft


Arianna Brown
October 9, 2012
English 2
Op-Ed: Proposition 30
            On November 6, 2012, a very important Proposition will be on this year’s California electoral ballot; Proposition 30 will be a monumental landmark in determining the future of what California’s public education system will either become or continue to be. Come this fiscal year, the state budget will have to begin making either a continual $6 billion dollar cut that will initiate the balancing of the state budget, or it will have to generate that same amount through tax revenue increases, the current proposal of which, by Governor Jerry Brown, is to instigate new tax increases that would take effect almost immediately. The tax increases would include the raising of sales tax by a quarter percent for the next four years until the end of the 2015-16 fiscal year, and raising the personal income tax of people who earn over $250,000 annually for the next seven years, until the end of the fiscal year 2018-19(Attorney General of CA). Combined, the public and higher education programs of California make over half of the state’s budget, so it would, inevitably, be the first system to see a decrease in funding, and at that, it would also see the greatest decrease, hence making it absolutely for voter to come together this election day and vote yes on Proposition 30 to save California’s educational system.
            In the  Attorney General summary of Proposition 30, the general spending reductions for 2012-13state that if voters reject Prop 30 the cuts to be made will be as follows (in millions): schools and community colleges will receive a $5, 354 cut, UC’s a $250 cut, and CSU’s, also, a $250 cut. With these sorts of cuts, public education, K-14, would be forced to make compensations for the lack of funding by the state, which makes up about 60% of the budgets for community colleges in California. These compensations would come in the form of acts such as shortening the instructional school year, reducing the number of staff employed at educational facilities, and reducing enrollment, like in the instance of San Fransisco K-12 public schools, who, if Prop 30 doesn’t pass, will have to cut 10 days of their 2013-14instructional school year have already suffered a $500 decrease per student per year and will, inevitably suffer much more in coming years with the potential of  $6 billion dollars missing from the budget(Garofoli). With these kinds of reductions the amount of attention received by each child will decrease, opportunities for asking more questions and receiving the necessary amount of help will, most definitely, deteriorate, and the children who already struggle in school, and who’s families don’t have the means of giving them an alternate education, or the appropriate kind of help they need to succeed, will fall behind the scenes, and go unattended to, and therefore they will be unable to get what they need to move up in the world and know what it means to be well educated and possess the ability to understand what it means to be an effective, participatory member of society, with the ability to obtain a fulfilling and satisfying career or lifestyle. In a system with minimal services, it will be the child who is already deprived the most that will continue to be deprived and will find it most difficult to break the cycle of poverty and never know what it means to have the power of enlightenment.
            Mr. Lowenthal, a former professor at CSU Long Beach, stated that, “… he too longs for the days when the quality and affordability of California’s public colleges helped make our state ‘the West Coast version of Ellis Island’…” and he stated that, “We don’t have unlimited resources…That paradigm is gone” (Blumenstyk). It can be safe to assume that when someone with this much insider knowledge of our educational system states that it’s facing a time of crisis, that his opinion is one to be taken with the utmost amount of gravity and severe amount of importance. The opposition would argue that government is not to be fully trusted with more revenues of any sort, due to its poor spending within recent years; spendings such as the funding of things like the $68 billion bullet train that’s started being built, of which only $13 billion dollars of its funding identified, and also things such as the $54 million dollars that was held onto by the state parks system while in the position of many their sites being shuttered (Skelton). The opposition to Proposition 30 would also argue that is selective and unfair for the government to raise income taxes on strictly the rich, stating that to do so would be a form of segregation, preaching that old as time argument that the rich should not be punished for their success and, potentially, hard work. Both of these arguments have elements of truth to them, but we’ve moved past the time in which we have the choice to not take action to save the best resource we have to offer our children and our future the reality is that the state of California, because we, like the majority of the United States, are in a severe economic crunch. For those who are better-off and have benefited the most from California legislation, it would be in their best interest to bear, and, hopefully, in their better nature, to give something back to the future of California and help provide that that has clearly helped provide for them in an abundant way.  Likewise, it would be a silly prospect to sacrifice public education under the pretense that the public has not liked what has been done with government spending in the past and therefore should see that as a good enough reason to disregard Prop 30 non-relating benefits it will provide.
As a student of the California public educational system myself, I know firsthand that even the schooling that I partook in in my K-12 experience could’ve been much more interactive and done much more outreach to children like me, who had a hard time with getting distracted and staying motivated. Along with this, there’s also the fact that in being an older sister of both  a child who’s currently attending public high school and who’s excelling incredibly, and of being an older sister to another who’s finding hardly any motivation to do well and doing very poorly, I see even more so how the need for outreach and benefit programs for students in need, are ever increasing and necessary in our ever changing and fast paced world. I see how it’s success that is acknowledged most in the class room, and how children who are “failures”, that is to say in an academic and social meaning, are those who are left the most unacknowledged and forgotten about, and are left as “failures” before they’re given any sort of appropriate attention and/or assistance. I know for a fact that if it wasn’t for my mother being as proactive and knowledgeable as she is for the welling of my youngest brother and the prospect of his future, the schools that he’s been attending, would absolutely let him go unacknowledged and continue him through the system without so much as a second glance to helping him find a way to succeed. It’s in stories like this that I begin to see what would happen in the case of a child like my youngest brother, in which their parent didn’t have the knowledge or the recourses to demand and get more out of the system to see that said child would find a way to success the way my mother is doing for my brother. It’s for children like those that the loss of so much educational funding and backing would show its worst and most disappointing effects.
California is no longer in a place in which the liberty to debate whether it’s right or wrong to exclusively tax the rich, or whether the state has done a good enough job with previous spending, is something that we really possess. Gov. Jerry Brown, states, “This is not about any other issue. It’s not about the environment it’s not about pensions, it’s not about parks. It’s about one simple question: Shall those who’ve been blessed beyond imagination give back 1 or 2 or 3 percent for the next seven years, or shall we take billions out of our schools and colleges to the detriment of the kids.” (Skelton) Gov. Jerry Brown realizes that it’s now come to a time in which politics and our pride have to be set aside, and the only question that we can really ask of ourselves is whether or not we’re ready to sacrifice the educational system that’s been so successful and renowned here in our state of California. He realizes that we can only ask ourselves if it’s really come to the time at which the direction we choose to take at this fork in the road is the one in which we either abandon our values of making sure that each child in California has an optimal opportunity to move away from the potential poverty or turmoil that they were either born into or that they obtained through some series of unfortunate events that could never had been in their control in the first place, or to let that opportunity demise. He realizes that the question with which we are confronted with in the face of this November’s ballot of propositions is not to do with the government’s past spending, or the segregation of tax increases, but that it is strictly to do with our desire to either save the future of California’s schools and the futures of our children who attend them, or if we are to let them go short funded and demise in such a way that only a small part of our population will be able to take part in the benefits and well-beings of receiving a complete education and to allow only that few to keep the future of California as bright and promising as we have the potential to see it today. 

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

rough draft.


Op-Ed: Proposition 30
            On November 6, 2012, a very important Proposition will be on this year’s California election ballot; Proposition 30 will be a monumental landmark in determining the future of what California’s public education system will become or continue to be. Come this fiscal year, the state budget will have to either begin making a continual $6 billion dollar cut to start the balancing of the state budget, or it will have to generate that same amount through tax revenue increases, the current proposal of which, by Governor Jerry Brown, is to initiate a tax increase that would take effect almost immediately. The tax increases would include the raising of sales tax by a quarter percent for the next four years until the end of the fiscal year 2015-16, and raising the personal income tax of people who earn over $250,000 annually for the next seven years, until the end of the fiscal year 2018-19. Combined, the public and higher education programs of California make over half of the state’s budget, so it would, inevitably, be the first system to see a decrease in funding, and at that, it would also see the greatest decrease.
            In the  Attorney General summary of Proposition 30, the general spending reductions for 2012-13 if voters reject Prop 30 are stated and are as follows (in millions): schools and community colleges will receive a $5, 354 cut, UC’s a $250 cut, and CSU’s, also, a $250 cut. With these sorts of cuts, public education, K-14, would be forced to compensate for lack of funding by the state, which makes up about 60% of the budgets for community colleges. These compensations would come in the form of acts such as shortening the instructional year for schools, reducing enrollment in community colleges, and increasing restrictions on attempting and repeating courses so as to reduce the overall demand on the community college system. Inevitably, with these kinds of reductions in our public schooling system along with things like reducing the number of staff employed at educational facilities, the quality in the education that the children will receive in their education will be reduced. The amount of attention received by each child will decrease, opportunities for asking more questions and receiving more help will, most definitely, deteriorate, and those kids, who struggle in school, and who’s families don’t have the means of giving them an alternate education, or who aren’t able to give them the right kind of help, will fall behind the scenes and will go unattended to, and therefore unable to get what they need to move up in the world and become a well educated and knowledgeable person in the world who understands what it means to be a member of society, and what it takes to earn a career. In a system with minimal services, it will be that child who is already deprived the most that will continue to be deprived and will find it most difficult to break the cycle of poverty and will never know what it means to have the power of a decent education.