I really enjoyed the 10th podcast by Dr. Bezio. Thinking about the way we tell stories and who plays a role in them, I appreciated her discussion of visibility and representation especially. I think in a world where we are constantly flooded with seemingly endless amounts of media, it’s oftentimes overwhelming to dig into the real, emotional effects it has on us as individuals. The idea of both being and feeling seen stands out. Representation, for me, seems to be contingent on this. Seeing that of yourself in others is a powerful feeling. It’s both reassuring and comforting to know that not only people like you exist, but are also celebrated. This is true for “Black Panther” which Dr. Bezio discussed in depth. The massive positive response by the public for the movie exemplifies not only the importance of representation, but also the ways in which powerful stories create powerful social impacts.

On a much broader scale, though, I think that social media has allowed for the exponential growth of visibility and connection with communities. Take platforms like Tik Tok, where anyone of any background can be instantly connected with people across the world regardless of whether or not they have a following. In spaces like this, creators and viewers are brought into conversation with each other in really powerful ways. Seeing someone who looks like you or shares common identities has become as easy as clicking a button and opening an app. Beyond settings like movie theaters, we have the ability to feel affirmed and accepted in seeing that of ourselves in others who aren’t famous or widely known. This is an experience I’m sure other people have felt too. The comfort of knowing you are not alone is highly underrated.

I think the disparities of women in history is a really important topic that definitely isn’t talked about enough. As a WGSS minor, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the repercussions of the treatment and, oftentimes, complete disregard for women throughout history. And this extends far beyond women too, as this treatment has been the same for basically anyone who isn’t a rich, white man. Dr. Bezio talks a lot about this in the podcast so I won’t recap too much. But as far as being hyper-critical of history and the ways it has been recorded over time, that only goes so far. So much of our history as humanity has been lost in time as a result of the dominance of men. Now I could ramble on and on about this and the ways in which our history has been skewed simply by its construction, but I want to spend more time focusing on the emphasis on the “normal person.”

I don’t know if other people have had this experience, but when I was younger, I had big dreams of growing up and changing the world. I wanted to be the president, a big-name scientist, an astronaut, literally almost any big time profession that would leave my mark. But growing up, these dreams dwindled and I found myself feeling like every day I was closer and closer to failing my childhood dreams. And clearly I’ve adjusted my expectations and reconfigured my aspirations, but I still think about this a lot. This is why I found the podcast and reading so valuable. Thinking about invisible leadership and the work of many, contributions of the collective oftentimes far exceed that of one person. We place achievement onto the work or visibility of few, but making history is dependent upon all those involved. Especially in the 21st century where nearly every aspect of our lives is recorded to some degree, our collective visibility in the future as both groups and individuals will only be greater. Even if we still only remember the Great Men or people, it doesn’t seem like those who have been widely erased from history in the past will fall to the same fate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjJQBjWYDTs

I chose this advertisement as my favorite for a variety of reasons. In my life so far, I have found a lot of frustration with normative notions of femininity and “being girly.” Stereotypes regarding weakness and timidness not only affect how others perceive women and girls, but also their self-esteem. This is definitely something I have struggled with as I’ve grown up. In this ad, different demographics of girls are given the same prompts. The older demographic of girls, mostly people my age, when asked to “run like a girl” or act out another action, conform to stereotypical notions of what a girl should be: bad at running, weak, “soft,” and timid. But when these prompts are given to young girls, they show themselves working hard, “running as fast as they can,” and giving it their all. The ad continues to ask the question “When did doing something “like a girl” become an insult?” and the conversation progresses to discussing how young girls are severely impacted by the association between “like a girl” with weakness.

The ad is roughly 3 minutes long so I won’t explain the entire thing, but I think the message it carries is a really important one. The whole point of the ad is to disrupt the notion of girls being weak and to inspire confidence in women everywhere. I think this ad is especially effective as it not only portrays a strong and powerful message but it also instills those values into the brand. Not once are Always’ products mentioned and instead they focus on something much bigger: the confidence of the people who buy their products. Additionally, putting a message out for young girls everywhere to be proud of who they are and their “girly-ness” is something that I know would have gone a long way for me if I saw this when I was younger.

I chose this graphic because I found it relatable but also an interesting presentation of stress levels. The coronavirus pandemic has certainly been a source of stress for a great deal of people of the last year and with its impact on the human life, the economy, schooling, and nearly every other aspect of normal life, it is important to take its impact on mental health into consideration. Knowing this, I am inclined to believe the information that is being presented in this graphic. I am reminded of a statistics class I took in high school where we talked about how different graphs can actually be misleading when they are not presented in very clear cut and minimally artistic ways. In the case of this graphic, it makes sense to use the people symbols to represent the data as we are talking about stress impacts on American people. But, it is not completely clear where this data was collected. If you were to scroll all the way down to the page where the APA reports this data, they have multiple PDFs about their studies. The American Psychological Association is certainly a trustworthy source, but they are not super forthcoming about the methods in which they collected this data. If it were convenience sampling, say in one particular region, the results may be skewed and not applicable to the whole American population. I trust the APA and read about how they got their information based on what I read, but applying a critical lens to statistical reports is really important.

I was also reminded of this during Dr. Bezio’s podcast. If we are not critical and engaged with the information we consume, we may very well misinterpret what we are hearing. And this is especially true for our generation where we are exposed to such massive amounts of information every day on the internet that it is really challenging to look into sources and check the reliability of everything we read. We have been somewhat conditioned to assume that the sources we read, especially those that adhere to our personal opinions, are factual.

I thought the discussion of drug use and drug users in Dr. Bezio’s podcast was really interesting and an important lens to apply to the discussion of “making assumptions.” In a lot of ways, assumptions are a very uncontrollable habit that humans have abided by for survival. Judging something to be unsafe or dangerous keeps us alive. It’s instinctual, but the perpetuation of incorrect assumptions is really dangerous. For example, the historical assumption of people of color being more likely to be drug users and sellers has created not only massive disparities in our justice system but has also deeply racialized other institutions, especially those concerning mental and physical health. Further, the repeated stereotypes throughout history make them seem correct because “that’s just the way things are.” This mentality is deeply damaging as it restricts us from being critical of not only our history but also our present-day reality. Questioning the structures which surround us, notably the justice system and its deeply rooted history in racist practices, is vital to the wellbeing of our nation. I would argue the only safe assumption to make is that nothing is as it seems. Assuming one thing of someone may not only limit their abilities but also limits our expectations and beliefs in them. This is true for the conversation about drug usage especially as it relates to homeless populations in the US. Perhaps if we as individuals and society did not assume that homeless people are homeless because of their work ethic and drug usage, we would be able to uplift these communities and support them in finding jobs, healthcare, homes, and stability. Assumptions inhibit us from seeing the best in others and in ourselves.

Looking over which of the different IAT tests I wanted to take, I selected the Able vs. Disabled bodied bias test. Having struggled with a structural hip problems for a significant portion of my life, I have experienced what it is like to be temporarily disabled. Thankfully now, after multiple surgeries, I am healed and working my way back to being completely able-bodied again. No, I am not nor was I ever actually “disabled” in the sense that many people think of it, but I have received disability accommodations and extra support when needed because of my hip. But most if not all of my friends are able bodied, so we differ in terms of our experiences. Additionally, I have found that for some people, including myself, being “able” is a category that is fluid. For some it isn’t, but for others it is. That is why I decided to select that particular test to evaluate my own biases and compare them to my experiences.

The test showed me that I have a moderate automatic preference for able bodied people. I’m not sure quite how they determine that result but I’ll take it for what it is. There is something really uncomfortable about confronting bias, especially being told what your biases are. But consciousness is really important. Dr. Bezio’s conversation about media representation and breaking stigmas and stereotypes makes this clear. Being aware that we all have implicit biases (rooted in our “lizard brains”) is the first step towards disrupting them in ourselves and society at large. Listening to new music or watching a TV show may help us break down biases and being conscious of them in the first place is a great start. Being aware of a problem is always the first step to fixing it. So even if I feel uncomfortable with my own biases, I’m working to fix them!

Having listened to the podcast assigned as homework, I am reflecting back on a conversation I had in my Intro to International Relations course last fall. We discussed cultural relativism in depth but not quite in the same lens of ethics as discussed in the podcast. Cultural relativism as a topic has always interested me greatly. How are we to determine a right and wrong in the world when so many factors lead people to believe one or the other? What are the steps necessary to make the world a better place when we can’t even agree on what constitutes better or worse? Sure, there are times in which certain actions, such as murder or terrorism, have consequences which severely impact human good. So we can agree that those are bad. But there is so much in between that requires evaluation, and the frameworks which surround those evaluations are greatly important.

When discussing circumcision on the podcast this idea was made especially clear. What is it about male circumcision that makes it more socially acceptable than female circumcision or mutilation? For one, removing the female clitoris, a major sex organ, is, to me, pretty problematic. But just because I think that doesn’t mean that a woman who wants to undergo the ritual shouldn’t. But just because male circumcision isn’t quite the same doesn’t necessarily make it okay. Clearly, I’m not the only one who has tried to reconcile this debate.

I think in the grand scheme of things, it is dependent upon the natural evolution of ethics. In the reading, there was a brief mention of slavery being bad when introducing noncognitivists. We can all agree that the ownership and exploitation of any persons is bad. But at the time of slavery in the US, that wasn’t considered an ethical wrong. It took the development of ethics and morals alongside resistance, protest, and war to give way to a new way of thinking amongst people in the US. This evolution of ideas, customs and norms was greatly important and still is for so many other topics. The interrogation of good and bad, right and wrong, and so on and so forth, is what matters most in my opinion.