The life of a transgendered individual is undoubtedly a confusing, hectic one. They battle each day and night guessing which sex they can truly identify with. Beyond that, their days can be marked by humiliation and trauma, as we all know how society can be rather harsh on unique individuals who don’t look, act, think, and dress as we do. But what makes it especially hard on transgendered humans is the fact that the law does not always completely protect the reality of their situation. When you go to the doctor’s office or fill out a college application, there are specific indicators for male and female, but that is all. How then, does a person who can physically identify with two genders, supposed to carry out their everyday lifestyle without constant reminders of their ‘differences’? The truth of the matter is that their life is hard, and it will keep getting more and more difficult so long as the government does not intervene and ensure equal rights so that their everyday living situation can run smoothly. Mr. Devoureau’s case is truly a hurtful one. As he states in the article, he has always identified himself as a male, even at the early stages of life. Despite his female body parts, Devoureau made a lifestyle decision when he decided to completely and physically become a man. After that was said and done, there should never be a question about someone’s gender. A person deserves to live out their lives under the identity that they choose, and nobody has the right to question that. El’Jai’s case is shocking to me, as I never figured that an industry had the right to question a person’s gender despite their documents having explicit definition of his sex. In my opinion, once your birth certificate, social security, and all other identification documents qualify you as a certain gender, no human being has any standing to question it, despite your personal history. It is painful being fired from a job on the grounds that ‘you are not the gender you say you are,’ because for Mr. Devoureau, and many other transgenders across the world, they identified themselves with a gender at a young age. How can somebody question the person you have been for the better part of your lifetime?

The use, or rather misuse, of the word ‘retarded’ occurs far too often throughout our society. Just as people often misrepresent the gay community by using ‘gay’ with a negative connotation in their dialogue, I cannot count the amount of times I have received the response ‘that is so retarded’ after acting poorly or making a mistake. What people fail to realize is that these words represent an entire population within our society. It had been so casually used that people do not realize the extent of the harm they are causing. Why do we assume that retardation, or homosexuality for that matter, are attributes that put people beneath us? There is some negative social force that leads people to believe that they are superior in some way, thus resulting in their use of these terms in a negative aspect. Though I don’t believe people are purposely trying to cause harm, I do think that there is a lack of education that make them realize what they’re doing, and how they use certain terms, is wrong. I too am guilty of using the term retarded in the wrong context. Similarly to the woman in the video, I often refer to myself when using it. This, however, does not make it acceptable by no stretch of the imagination. Although it would certainly be difficult to eliminate the word from the English language altogether, I feel as though these campaigns and spreading the word about its harmful impacts of the mentally disabled community is a good start in the right direction. It is surprising to me that public figureheads and political leaders would use the term so cavalierly. Not only does this come off as unprofessional, it is extremely inappropriate. As someone who is supposed to represent the nation as a whole and make decisions on our behalf, it is frightening that certain leaders can be so ignorant and inconsiderate of a certain population across the world. This goes far beyond the use of the term ‘retarded’ with friends, because it sends the message to a greater amount of people and gives the impression that its use is okay. These people are supposed to be role models, however they are not engaging in role model behavior.

It is no surprise to anyone that negative news stories about tragedies, war, death, and despair constantly infiltrate the media and flow heavily into households across the world. While some see this as a way to educate and warn society at large, others may consider such concentration on negative incidents, without much regard to the positive occurrences, portrays the daily world in as a painfully dangerous place. The reality of the situation though, is that all of this crime does not statistically occur in the same proportion that the media focuses on it. Why then, do they care so much about painting such a fearful picture of society? Of course, it is very important to warn the public at large of the dangers that exist, however there is a fine line between warning and scaring. In my own home, Fox News Channel is booming from the living room television for a significant portion of the day. Meanwhile, CNN and MSNBC are simultaneously being recorded so that my mother does not miss a beat. Besides all the political banter, all I hear all day is tragic stories of war, crime, drug abuse and so on. As a result, each time I leave the front door I am told not to forget to lock my doors, call when I arrive, and ‘be careful.’ In fact, as I write this blog from a hotel room off campus, my mother calls to warn me ‘not to wander the halls alone.’ But really, what are the chances I will be abducted in the Residence Inn? Slim to none, I’d say. The truth of the matter is that instilling fear is what brings in revenue. The media knows that tragedy occurs, and people will react. We have the innate inclination towards fear and yearn to learn more. It’s somewhat like a train wreck; you don’t want to look but you have to. The fact that us as a society feed into the predominance of violence in the media is the perpetuating factor that boosts their revenues and keeps us fearing our own front lawns. I can’t tell my mother enough to turn off Fox News Channel, but until then her paranoia will continue as she checks in with a daily phone call to make sure I don’t take taxi cabs alone or walk outside in the middle of the night.

I cannot imagine how any person would be curious as to what it is like to simulate such depraved actions with a controller. There is no merit or value to a disgusting game such as this, and it will only seemingly perpetuate the devastating and brutal act of rape. Although some can argue that these video games may serve as an outlet that prevents such behavior from occurring in reality, I feel the reality of the situation is quite the contrary. Engaging in such actions, whether it is done with a controller or with one’s own body, means the thought of doing so is circulating through a person’s mind. The establishment of this game alone is rather shocking. I personally would be embarrassed to create such a controversial form of entertainment. The bottom line is, there is no purpose for an excuse to inflict violent rape upon an animated character and watch as you control the brutality. This issue should certainly be taken more seriously, as it is severely disrespectful towards humanity in general, not to mention victims of rape across the world.

I was instantly struck by this video for a multitude of reasons. First and foremost, it is astonishing to me that culture can vary so distinctly from one country to another. The idea that such a disturbing and taboo topic such as rape can be twisted into a form of entertainment without heavy government prevention was certainly shocking. I feel as though such disregard towards a sensitive subject would not be acceptable in our own society. Although violence and immoral action is often the baseline of mainstream video games today, this video has proven that things have been taken too far.

After watching this painful video, I am astounded to think that problems derived from such narrow minded ideals exist and permeate our society today. It is devastating to realize that family values and morality do not have a stronger impact on policies that are currently in place regarding immigration and citizenship. I feel as though our society needs a well over due reality check, as it is almost sickening that a government, which is supposed to protect us, can have the power to tear a unified family apart. Their purpose, therefore, becomes questionable if their actions can cause more harm than good. As a culture, I feel as though people have become increasingly more understanding of homosexuality and their desires to solidify their relationship through formal recognition or marriage. It is confusing then, why the government cannot transform their age old policies in a way that better reflects core American values. We as Americans place an immense emphasis on family values, however issues such as these really contradict what we seemingly believe in. We need to open our eyes to lifestyles that do not necessarily emulate ours. There is no such thing as the normal or quintessential family, and such diversity should be commended. It is so evident that these children see no deviation from the norm when they look at themselves as a whole. They love their mothers just as those with heterosexual parents love their own. I find it hard to believe that as a nation, we have failed to recognize that and can knowingly cause such harm. The truth of the matter is frightening, and changes should be made that coincide more with today’s unique and diverse society.

In this witty and outlandish version of a ‘love song’, the artist Tim Minchin is poking fun at the idea of true love, fate, and even soul mates. Throughout society, there seems to be a prevalent notion that there is only one person for you to spend the rest of your life with and you will inevitably meet them when the time is right. The media and entertainment industries continue to perpetuate this idea with your typical Taylor Swift love songs and episodes of various romantic sitcoms that infiltrate people’s minds throughout the nation. However, this song exposes an idea that not many people stop to consider when it comes to relationships. If it were true that there only existed one true love for each individual amongst the entire world population, what do you suppose are the chances of someone coming to meet that special individual? Realistically speaking, it does not look promising. The personal trouble of finding true love or ones soul mate thus becomes a public issue as everybody is scrambling to find that one person whom they are meant by fate to spend the rest of their lives with. Minchin bluntly states in his music however, that if he had not come to meet his wife than chances are he probably may have met someone else. That is not to say he doesn’t love his partner, but just goes to show that they came together by some force of invisible strings. Sure, he may be with someone else if it weren’t for him meeting his own wife, however his happiness with this true love was a force of nature that goes beyond explanation. As he notes in the song, life may have been very different if he had not cheated in previous relationships, which goes to show that every action you make has an impact on the future and we are constantly being these invisible strings that force us to act.

It in inevitable that even the most basic freedoms known to mankind are taken for granted. As we’ve stated time and time again, some liberties have become so innate in our lifestyles that individuals cannot even fathom the thought of existence without them. And so they don’t. Nobody stops to think for a second about their right to hit the snooze button four times before waking up or their freedom to choose to brush their teeth first, or perhaps a take a bath. All of these exercises of basic liberties occur before breakfast, yet free society is blind to such minute yet unnoticeably valued liberties. Then we consider the mindset of a prisoner, who has been removed from the blind side and forced to recognize what life without such seemingly insignificant freedoms feels like. This, as we see in the article, ironically has a way of truly exposing an individual to freedom; that is, freedom of their mind. When one is removed from the lifestyle that they have acclimated into so much such that they pay no mind to freedom, they experience a newfound understanding of what it means to be free. Unfortunately though, it may be too late for them to utilize such enlightened thinking in the real free world. The reality is, therefore, that we have the truly free individuals locked up in prison. The free citizens who are trapped in their inability to truly grasp how fortunate it is to be free are actually quite the opposite of free. We are fish that do not realize we’re in water, and therefore do not appreciate the multitude of overlooked liberties that add to the value of our lives. In this outrageous sense, it seems as though prison is actually the tool that allows an individual to see the free world. Who would of thought the institution was capable to spurring such intricate thinking. If only free society could find a way to really understand what it means to be free, we would all appreciate the value of life on an entirely new level. And truth be told it’s the simplest level of freedom when you actually realize it’s the freedom in your own mind.

While I find many of the ideas laid forth in this letter moving and thought-provoking, I have to ask myself about the validity of this prisoners statement, "prison teaches you one thing, how to be a prisoner." While I lack the ability to have personal insight on the above thought, I have to question whether this point is completely valid based on the theme of the letter. It seems as though the prisoners experience over the past 22 years has given him the chance to grow, reform, and reflect. He claims that he has transformed from a rebellious child, stupid young adult, and mellow middle ager. In my opinion, you cannot experience such reforms and changes without having learned something first. Sure, prison did not teach him first hand, but prison has allowed him to teach himself. He also states that had he been free, he may not even consider his moral compass to such the extent that he does given the time he has to reflect. Based on his thought process throughout the letter, I feel as though the prisoner has learned a lot, not only about himself, but also about the world as a whole. Although he is deprived of various situations that would help determine his own moral compass, he has proven that self-examination can do a lot to help one learn and grow. Would he have come to such conclusions about life had he not been given a lifetime sentence? That is hard to determine, however it is narrow-minded to think that prison has not taught him anything but how to be a prisoner. Prison is not an environment that encourages change or reform. It will not make someone a better person on its own, but the environment can spur self-thought in a way that teaches an individual what the world cannot show them. This prisoner questions his ability to measure morality, however it seems as though he has a better grasp on the idea than most free members of society do. If you ask me, prison has taught him a lot about himself that most people could benefit from if they truly took the time to engage in such introspective thinking.

After our class lectures on suicide, I agree in many ways with the ideas set forth in this post. Based on the ideals of egotistical and anomic suicide, I believe that the act of suicide in any given circumstance is not solely an individual action but rather a result of one’s position in society and the impact of “invisible strings” that sway their decisions. Soldiers, as stated before, have a much greater likelihood of taking their own lives after combat. This statistic alone illustrates how a trend forms based on a person’s livelihood and thus they are not making the innate decision to kill themselves; they have been predisposed to such an idea by the natural pull of society’s placement. Sure, soldiers will argue that they can no longer deal with the painful images of the past and come to terms with the atrocities that have occurred in battle. However, when they return to a moralistic society based on normality, they in a sense experience culture shock and the grueling memories have a much greater impact because they are surrounded by individuals in a lifestyle in which the actions that they may have carried out overseas are not considered moral or acceptable. Soldiers then carry a heavier burden, not only with the sense of loneliness as stated above, but a sense of regret because those who cannot grasp the idea of killing or fighting surround them daily. Here is when the thoughts of suicide begin to set in, and this is why suicide is often mistaken for an individually driven action. However, the individual is not the driving force behind this decision. Knowing that there exists a higher suicide rate among soldier displays the idea that they are not acting by their own judgment, but something is society that we cannot fully understand impacts a person’s ability to rationalize the situation after a certain life experience such as war. The invisible strings are therefore working in ways that are beyond the soldier’s power, and they cannot control their pre-disposition to suicide because it tends to occur naturally after exposure to that specific sociological situation.