John Green's Looking for Alaska has a very misleading title. I delved into the booking expecting sled dogs, cold weather, and Inuits. The book actually focuses on a teenage guy going to a new school, a prep school for intelligent and apparently mentally unstable teenagers.

    Green jumps right into the thoughts of our teenage outsider and takes us on an adventure of epic proportions. We explore all the facets of teenage delinquency and enjoy the stereotype that focuses every male character in the book on what females "have to offer." Note: I am not a cliche teenager, I may be lazy, but I don't break rules, so this book is a wild ride and a very detailed insight to everyone else's brain. Ew. This book is gross yet enjoyable. Perhaps I should go back to children's books. Within the story's introduction, we meet Miles "pudge" Halter, Miles only to his parents. Through his eyes we uncomfortably ease into delinquency and illegality present in Mile roommate, Chip, and his friend, Alaska. Following multitudes of mischief and pranks, Alaska is accused of a pseudo-crime against other students, ratting. In redemption, Alaska plans a huge prank that would shake the foundation of any kind of mistrust in Chip "the Colonel." This masterful prank represents the climax; and in truth, I wish I had thought of something so devious in our high school. In dramatic conclusion, Alaska shows her true color, and frankly, it's faded. All the while during all of her pranks, they were used as a distraction from her depressive secrets and past. Finally, her self blame and "mistakes" in the past come back to slap her in the face. As a repercussion, she makes a stupid decision, and consequently pays for it with a gift that is only meant to be given once, her life.

    Many major game changing things about boys and girls erupt in this novel. First of all, no matter who is portrayed as stronger among the gender differentiation, there is always an Achilles heel. Alaska, the sex addicted female allowed to choose her own name is essentially a ring leader of everything that happens. Though Alaska, Colonel, the master prankster, and our point of view, Miles "Pudge" Halter all may seem to work together, be carefree, and flawless, it is their own mental instability that, from the beginning, attaches the readers, leaves us waiting and eventually emotionally destroys us.

Gender Roles in Christianity

current Connection 3.2
       Gender Roles in Christianity


      We are born as male and female, however we would not align to any gender roles of man and woman were they not taught to us. In "Gender, Gender Equality, and the Church," Nantondo Hadebe clarifies the source of what we know as gender roles to be "though church/cultural teachings" that we learn to become the separate Man and Woman. We may be born with different genitalia, defining male ad female, and perhaps different mind sets; however, without a rigid cultural expectation, we are simply humans.

      Hadebe notes that within the Church, the church commonly defined religious gender roles as "Gods will." Let's remember the crusades and the Middle Ages. If the Catholic Church said something was "God's will," it might as well have been. Faithful people will follow that which they think is from God. But honestly, the Catholic Theocracy invented purgatory, forgave predetermined sin, and allowed murder so long as it was confessed. These people were not exactly level-headed. These people, unaware of their folly, we're succumbing to the expectation of society.

      Woman were created second to a man. Nantondo makes the point that women were depicted primarily "as secondary role players in God's plan for humanity." Women were created from the side of man. Women were not created from the foot, the head, the back, or the chest. Women were created to be of equal value. This does not change the fact that women have different uses and strengths than man. If man could do it all himself, there would have been no use for God to create Eve, Adam's life companion.

      The author, Nantondo Hadebe, argues that "Jesus, a man" is the best physical representation of the Gender of God. In the Christian Bible, very little of the contributions by women are accredited as much as their male counterparts. Adam, a male, was the first created human. The apostles, the disciples, Jonah, Noah, Isaac, Solomon, Saul, and many more were all male. There is a definite male bias in the basis of Christianity. The Bible can be interpreted in many ways; however, in doing so, we have collectively, over time, come to conclude that men, and only men, are meant to lead the church.

      I've grown up in a Church of Christ. This denomination of Christianity is a very close relative and bears many similarities to the Catholic Church. There has never been a woman to get up and speak at the pulpit. I have grown up in a church led solely by men, and therefore I have always aligned to similar beliefs that God is, by non-physical appearance, male. To me this is how Church should be. Women work in their strength area, teaching the children, while men, though not technically dominating, do assume the leadership roles.

      All of these example bring us back to one point. Men and women are of equal value, and should be treated as equals, though men and women do have very different strengths.



I had trouble with the link function, here is the source should the hyperlink fail:
http://ecumenicalwomen.org/theology/academic-articles/gender-gender-equality-and-the-church-by-nantondo-hadebe/




 

.

The Real Man Right Where He Belongs

Society has established specific requisites and norms for the male gender's cultural role. Will Meek outlines the rules to masculinity in his study of the psychology and expected psychology of the male population. Among all manly thought process, our expected male ideology is to strive for dominance and succumb to our more primitive thought patterns and traits.

Meek notes the need for men to be the only, purely dominant leaders and to "stay in control." At first I might write even this off as primitive. I make the conclusion on that point that we are then primates. It is entirely natural for men to be most comfortable in their dominance. Masculinity, by tradition, has been defined as the ability to stand as the protector and provider.

There are plenty of debates on the "nature and nurture of gender roles." Plenty of humans want to argue whether it's okay for the woman, the nurturing wife, to be the primary money-earner. Most that are aligned with tradition will take that argument to their deathbed with the firm stance that men should financially dominate and fully support the family.

Categorizing males all too specifically, Meek differentiates between "biological sexual or personality traits and complete cultural constructions." We must be aware of the clear asymmetries between that which is found naturally in the male and what is formed out of smoke by some opinionated group of humans. What we cling to and follow are the offspring of our twisted surroundings. We are expected to hide feelings, be purely dominant, self reliant, unfeeling animals forever lusting after sex and greater achievement. The real man does not need to become a disciple of the man-cult of our culture. Hypothetically, the real man focuses on primal instincts of protecting and providing for his family. He would still be comfortable with his feelings, and not necessarily strive to constantly be dominant, a fight I often have with my sibling and father that usually ends negatively.

I often think about what life will be like as a father. I think about how I will raise whatever children I have, and how my parents have shaped my opinions and led me in such a way that I will one day feel capable to lead. I've resolved to not succumb to the man-cult driven by society, but rather to forge my own perspective and not shove it down everyone else's throat.

Masculinity may never again be what it initiated as. Our society has warped and molded the minds of children and struggling adults alike to the point that now those who can be considered truly masculine have become a minority. We will reach a day when Christianity, the best guide to fatherhood, will almost completely disappear. At this point, men may cease to exist and be replaced by feminine wannabes in an exponential plummet of true masculinity unto oblivion.

http://www.psychologyofmen.org/index.php?itemid=6

Money Weighing Us Down?

The Burden of a Bad System

The weight of decisions is ridiculous for those who make decisions for large groups of people. Who makes the decision to ban guns in America, or rather, tries to? The burden of it all and the effects are tremendous. Now what about raising minimum wage. Somebody has to orchestrate that decision. They are afforded the burden of everything lost and gained by the people, and for the people.

Brad Knickerbocker of Yahoo News relates that “the political fight over minimum wage is a familiar one.” Naturally, those who are at the bottom of the workforce simply want a raise so they can survive the world by flipping burgers. So many ignorant Americans don’t realize that SpongeBob is in a stepping stone job; from there you are meant to go up! People have been urging such a wage increase over and over for several years, and over and over they’ve succeeded.

“The California Chamber of Commerce calls their new law [that will increase their minimum wage] a “job killer.” For once a semi- political bod has made a good call in California! Their Chamber of Commerce is absolutely correct. What happens when a bunch of entry level employees hear that their minimum wage will be increased substantially? Naturally, they’ll be excited for their monetary increase, they might even celebrate. What they do not realize is that any happiness will be in vain. A higher pay also can mean less benefits, less hours and less jobs entirely.

John Kabateck of the Nation Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) warns that “small business owners will be forced to make tough decisions including reducing employee hours, cutting positions entirely, and for many, closing their doors entirely.” What about all the people who haven’t had a chance to enter the workforce yet. What about all the 14 and 15 year old looking to start work soon. How hard will it become for any of them to even land what used to be a walk- in job? Such a thing would and will become nearly impossible.

Over the entire time I have been reading about this, I have honestly thought of myself. I am actively searching for a job. Let me tell you, it is hard enough as it is. I know what’s going to happen when the minimum wage increases. It may result in me going in to college unable to even come close to supporting myself.  Why? This would take place almost entirely because finding a job would be impossible.

If anything, the minimum wage should be decreased. The young Generations Y and Z need to learn the value of their work. Flipping burgers deserves very little reward. It doesn’t take much to do. Therefore, you shouldn’t get much in return. I see so many of my peers complaining and advocating higher wage. Why can’t they accept and show gratitude for already earning much more than the work is worth?

Parents Make Excuses. Period.

        Ron Clark of CNN describes the point of view of teachers toward parents in "What Teachers Really Want to Tell Parents." Parents of students, especially those with children who exhibit an apathetic attitude in high school seem to only force their will on the teachers. These caring parents are naturally trying to help their children succeed in school. There is one problem; they are doing it entirely wrong.

        Teachers are hoping and praying for parents to "stop making excuses." No student will succeed if that student is not reasonably challenged. If the student is not accustomed to suffering the consequences of failing and simply runs to daddy for help every time he or she gets a bad grade, he or she will suffer in any class. Parents are making excuses for failure. This is not success; even if you formulate some excuse, the student still deserves the bad marking for his failure.

        Clark states that the students, through their parents bad habits, will "not {[develop] a strong work ethic." Imagine this: an entire generation of high school graduates with too little or too weak of a work ethic to make any sort of progress in life whatsoever. when that day comes, America is done for. If there is not progress, we are as good as dead. Progress requires work. I know from personal experience the positive side of work. While many of my friends, slackers and distracted individuals alike, are struggling and complaining through secondary school, I've been somewhat taught to have a stronger work ethic. My parents have never made excuses for me, and I have learned from my mistakes. As a result, while many of my friends will not go on to do anything significant with their lives, I am already independently studying Quantum Physics and may have a potentially bright future in the subject.

        Ron Clark advocates the point that getting in trouble for your mistakes "builds character and teaches life lessons." Some students sway their teachers and parents so easily that they can skate by through school. I once was very fond of that idea, as it was once very easy for me. As I grew older and matured ever so slightly, my perspective changed. I gave up brown-nosing teachers for better grades and actually began to try. I failed several times, and I deserved every single failure and every single consequence of my failures. It is only right for students to fail, for if they do not learn to get back up after failing, they may never succeed when they face the real challenge: life.

        There needs to be a big change in education. Tons of people would agree, but perhaps it would be easier to make minor changes first. The first change is with the parents, either help the teachers challenge your child, or get out of the way. Better yet, could teachers, the educators that are paid to put stress their pupils, as a whole be harder on students? Sure, but how are we going to tell which ones actually care about the difference they are making in the futures of students, and ones that simply are just waiting for the paycheck.

Starbucks and StarBangs?

Starbucks and StarBangs?

        Poppy Harlow and James O'Toole of CNN describe Starbuck's CEO Howard Schultz' message of "no guns" in buildings of the highly popular coffee business. In "Starbucks to Customers: Please Don't Bring Your Guns," CNN writers propose yet another red flag example of a highly controversial topic. The critical question is why would anyone want to risk the safety of customers by even asking do-gooders not to bring their weapons, when even these weapons can be used in defense.

        The secret behind the story is that the "Newtown Coalition for Corporate Responsibility" may have been the driving force behind this potentially weak willed CEO's major statement. Newtown, as many of us know, was the site of a mass shooting within the Sandy Hook Elementary School. Ever since the shooting, activists have been calling for gun bans in all sorts of establishments, from parks, cities, public transportation and apparently even coffee houses.

        Schultz believes that guns "should not be part of the Starbucks experience."  Carrying a gun has little more effect than a cellphone or a laptop being brought in. Firearms are tools; they are not waved about but rather only used when necessary. In example, a man could walk in with a small subtle armament tacked on his belt. He buys his coffee, perhaps decides to stay and drink it or leave. Having a gun on your hip doesn't effect anyone around you unless it must be used or even shown.

        Schultz doesn't want to put customers in the situation of "having to confront somebody who's carrying a weapon." For all we know, our preachers could have a Colt .45 under their Sunday morning suits. These are the good owners. The bad gun-wielding folk will do what they please. I'm not sure why the baddies would go into one of the most expensive coffee houses to steal a $10 8 oz. coffee but if they were to do so, they might just pull out their piece. If the rule-following, do-good gun owners aren't allowed to carry, who's going to have control of the situation? That's right, the bad one will be in control.

        As previously mentioned, all of the shock of gun bans in varying locations could very well be related purely to the Sandy Hook incident. This incident could be used as a perfect example of my point. Of course it was terrible, and we all wish it hadn't happened, but it did. Even more so outraging, it could have been stopped much quicker if more people on site had concealed firearms. Now that it did happened, government and activists alike encourage the same fallacy that was made that cause the lack of prevention of the Newtown shooting.

        What is America thinking? Do people not realize that wisdom is found in learning from one's mistakes? We've made the mistake of limiting Second Amendment rights, now we need to allow America to protect themselves.

The new 'dropping the A-Bomb'

In the future, people imagine everything from starships and robots to super powerful medicine will exist. One of the key points to this is antimatter, which makes up both sci-fi weaponry and even powers Star Trek's USS Enterprise. The question is: is potentially destroying the Earth really worth a few little science experiments? Swiss physicists reported after dropping a portion of antimatter that "The world didn't blow up, but there were some tiny explosions." One previous theory regarding antimatter was that if matter came into contact with it, in the process of cancellation, a black hole would periodically form. In other words, the world would blow up. This breakthrough in science may be the key to our future. Luckily, these scientists weren't testing antimatter to see if it created a black hole, but rather testing gravity. They had an assumption that due to the fact that matter will be pulled(by gravity) to a larger chunk of matter in a vacuum, and since antimatter is, well, the opposite of matter, the "ball of antimatter [would then] fall up."

I know that the moment I understood exactly what was being tested, my mind was racing. I automatically decided that if indeed antimatter 'fell up' we could easily have a new form of propulsion in our sights. In explanation, we could, in the case of antimatter falling upwards, tether a chunk of antimatter to an engine, and bombard it with matter in the direction we wish to go. 

What are the possibilities of this 'new' quantum physical concept? It's very prospective, though testing on earth or near it could be very dangerous. These Switzerland scientists were hoping to use gathered information to better understand "how the universe developed after the Big Bang." So are we going to leave it to a bunch of atheists to potentially destroy the world? Is understanding something that won't help us directly really worth this much of a risk? Even though these scientists with all their skill have been experimenting in an entirely safe and cautionary way, what happens if there's an accident? In their published report, they mentioned "tiny explosions." These explosions were the product of just a few anti-hydrogen particles, imagine what happens if they decide to make heavier elements and drop them. Bigger explosions, maybe even some new anomalies. The point is, Chernobyl was an accident, next, CERN, there laboratory might just 'dissapear.'