Dion's Blog

Reading the article made me remember that I had to do a sort of  service learning project at my high school 11 years ago.  I forget exactly what the rhetoric they used to explain the purpose and what I was to get out of it.  I just remember not being able to pick something I cared about and so my aunt picked the topic of homelessness and I volunteered at a shelter and a place that provided homeless people items to use and I think I might've even interviewed a homeless person as well.  I don't remember it well because my Aunt did pretty much everything.  I don't blame her because she was concerned that this was a requirement and I wouldn't graduate. Perhaps, like the article suggests, if part of the requirement was looking at the reasons for something like homelessness exists then perhaps I could of come up with doing the topic myself and motivated enough to do it myself as well.  I do much better with looking at reasons for things then drawing passio...

Growing up in school I learned from other kids that "gay" was an insult.  It was not something you would want to be called.  I picked up the habit of calling things that were subpar, lackluster, or unwanted "gay".  I think it still slips out sometimes depending on who my company is but nowadays I am more cautious about saying the word mainly to not offend someone.  But not in the offend someone "hurt someone's feelings" kind of way but more like the not offend someone or "you could lose your job or be excommunicated" kind of way.  It's funny because I don't think I have ever actually hurt someone's feelings by uttering that word but I have had people get mad over how other people might feel about that word. Still, I see how perpetuating gay as something bad is not a good thing.  Because it does increase the likelihood of others to bully those who are gay.  I do see what the article is saying about people with influence ...

Is this an acceptable depiction of a teenage girl or does it promote something unhealthy? Linda Christensen builds off of the idea that children's stories and cartoons provide a "secret education" that shapes the perceptions children have about themselves and others.  She argues for an analysis of these shows to peel back what the "secret education" the shows give to children really is.  She emphasizes looking at what categories of humans are involved, what categories have what roles and what characteristics, how the different categories are portrayed, and what message might a child take away from the portrayals.  She also further argues for people to take action and bring attention to these subtle messages to the those who have more control, i.e the parents of the children who watch these shows, the writers, directors, and producers who have say in the content, the stations who show these shows ect. My problem with promoting this idea of looking for ineq...