Renee Engeln sees the increasingly concerning epidemic of "beauty sickness" everywhere, particularly among the young women she teaches. These girls have been so indoctrinated by society that physical appearance is the most important asset they can have that their desire for beauty overshadows any of their other concerns. Engeln discusses this problem and offers solutions.
When Renee Engeln approached her graduate advisor and voiced that she would like to do some research on how media images of the "ideal" female figure might be affecting women, her advisor's response was, "Don't bother; smart women know better than to listen to the media." I was shocked at this response. Smart women know better than to look at an unnaturally beautiful model and desire to look like that? I found that more than mildly insulting since I have a nearly palpable sense of shame and longing when I see pictures of gorgeous women. It doesn't matter that I know this appearance is incredibly rare. I still want to look like that. How does that make me unintelligent? Insecure perhaps, but not unintelligent. Society and social media have conditioned women to be concerned about their appearance. Unfortunately, the focus is less on how to be healthier and more beautiful (i.e. exercising) and more on the message that you are not; these other women are. Engeln notes that society sends three very clear messages to women:
1. beautiful is the most important thing a woman can be
2. this (these pictures of models) is what you should look like
3. you do not look like this
These are such unhealthy messages to be sending to people. The only possible outcomes are defeat and depression. Society dangles an unattainable idea of "beautiful" far far over our heads. And it is not only the gullible women who feel a desire to look like these impossibly beautiful models.
Where did this idea of beauty come from? Decades ago, the most beautiful women were curvaceous. Now, the most iconic pictures of a desirable figure are those of the borderline anorexic Victoria Secret Angels. Is this due to the significant increase in weight and obesity? The heavier the common person is, the more desirable it is to be thinner? And why are women sooo much more concerned with their appearances that men? Why don't men have this incredible social pressure to be perfect? Is it because women simply tend to be more insecure and are therefore easier victims for advertising? But what came first then, insecurity or this pressure to be impossibly beautiful?
Engeln makes the point of just how much the idea of a woman's appearance consumes her thoughts. She performs an almost comical rendition of the constant string of thoughts passing through a woman's head (How does my hair look? Do I have skinny-arm? Is this shirt giving me a muffin top? etc.), but the funniest (or perhaps most disconcerting) thing about it is that it's completely accurate. Women, or at least the majority, particularly of young women, are hyper-sensitive about their appearance. And Engeln argues that if you are so busy concerning yourself with yourself, you aren't open to exploring the world around you. We should spend less time worrying about how we look and more time looking around us. After all, we absolutely care more about how we look than anyone else cares about how we look. We are the harshest critics of ourselves.
So then Engeln offers a few solutions. I thought her most interesting one was to stop ourselves from telling little girls they are pretty and instead complimenting them on another asset, like intelligence or kindness. We teach girls the exaggerated importance of appearance at such a young age, and we should make an effort to reverse this trend. However, this strategy would only work if everyone adhered to it - because right now, the girls who aren't being told they're pretty and only hear other girls being called that can only assume that they are not. Before we can even think of employing this new strategy, we need to convince adult women that appearance is not everything. After all, they are among those conveying this message to their daughters.
One final point of Engeln's I'd like to highlight is to view your body as the one whole, capable object that it is rather than picking it apart. Instead of saying your arms are too fat and your thighs are too wide, focus on the things this incredible vehicle is allowing you to do. Whenever I start getting down about myself, my mom reminds me to be thankful for the body I have rather than criticizing these insignificant details.
Every woman could do with some body confidence.
This blog is based on a TEDx Talk by Renee Engeln: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63XsokRPV_Y
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Sarah Kay: If I Should Have a Daughter...
Sarah Kay is a spoken-word poet. She presents her poems by speaking them rather than just writing them on paper. In this talk, she performs two of her poems, "B" and "Hiroshima," and explains the beauty of spoken-word poetry.
Kay kicks off the talk with her first spoken-word poem, a motivational story about what kind of mother she will be to her daughter in this often difficult life. And that's what it was: a story. It was not a poem in the sense that it rhymed or followed some particular meter; it was a passionate story that inspired the listeners and allowed us to connect with the speaker at some emotional level. In fact it threw me off a bit at first. It was only after she finished her poem and started the meat of her talk that I even realized the introduction was a spoken-word poem. To me, she just sounded like a very good motivational/inspirational speaker. But this is one of her main points: spoken-word poetry doesn't have to be difficult. It's not about following some particular poetic structure; it's about conveying one's thoughts in order to connect with other people in the room. Kay mentions that oftentimes many people feel like they're alone, but hearing and sharing these emotion-filled and often personal poems creates an immediate connection between people. Spoken-word poetry is accessible to everyone.
After Kay's introduction, she tells the audience to think of three things they each know to be true. And then she says that, if people were to share their lists, they would hear four things: one of their own same items, something completely opposite of one of their items, something they had never even heard of before, and a new angle on something they thought they already knew everything about. This stresses both the importance of sharing ideas as well as the disturbing notion that nothing is concrete; almost everything is a matter of perspective. Things we consider to be the most basic truths, completely irrefutable in our own minds, can be viewed very differently by other people. Even something as concrete as math isn't actually as objective as perhaps many of us believe it to be or would like it to be. In the one week of Advanced Calculus that I took at the beginning of this semester, my professor told me that in the field of (1, 0), 1 + 1 = 0, but of course it would make no sense to say 1 + 1 = 1 because that would imply that 1 = 0. That's when I decided I wasn't in the right class. My point is that arguably nothing is set in stone to the point that every person on this planet could agree that it's true. And that's a disturbing notion. But it also makes it important to share your ideas with other people in order to expose yourself to other perspectives. Can you think of one fact that has no counterexamples, one thing everyone can agree on?
Kay also talks about the three steps that were most crucial to her in becoming a successful spoken-word poet:
1. the moment she said "I can"
2. when she said "I will" continue to do this
3. realizing that she needed to grow and explore and take risks and challenge herself and incorporate herself into these poems while she was simultaneously changing and growing. This step never ends.
But these steps to success could be applied to any situation. In order to do the "impossible," you have to believe in yourself and have confidence that you can do it in the first place. Then comes perseverance and finally the beginnings of success with the recognition that one must challenge his/herself in order to grow. Kay uses poetry to work through things she doesn't understand, but there are many different avenues one could take in order to further discover oneself. It seems like someone certainly has to bare their soul in order to be as successful of a spoken-word poet as Kay.
This blog is based on a TED Talk by Sarah Kay: http://www.ted.com/talks/sarah_kay_if_i_should_have_a_daughter.html
Kay kicks off the talk with her first spoken-word poem, a motivational story about what kind of mother she will be to her daughter in this often difficult life. And that's what it was: a story. It was not a poem in the sense that it rhymed or followed some particular meter; it was a passionate story that inspired the listeners and allowed us to connect with the speaker at some emotional level. In fact it threw me off a bit at first. It was only after she finished her poem and started the meat of her talk that I even realized the introduction was a spoken-word poem. To me, she just sounded like a very good motivational/inspirational speaker. But this is one of her main points: spoken-word poetry doesn't have to be difficult. It's not about following some particular poetic structure; it's about conveying one's thoughts in order to connect with other people in the room. Kay mentions that oftentimes many people feel like they're alone, but hearing and sharing these emotion-filled and often personal poems creates an immediate connection between people. Spoken-word poetry is accessible to everyone.
After Kay's introduction, she tells the audience to think of three things they each know to be true. And then she says that, if people were to share their lists, they would hear four things: one of their own same items, something completely opposite of one of their items, something they had never even heard of before, and a new angle on something they thought they already knew everything about. This stresses both the importance of sharing ideas as well as the disturbing notion that nothing is concrete; almost everything is a matter of perspective. Things we consider to be the most basic truths, completely irrefutable in our own minds, can be viewed very differently by other people. Even something as concrete as math isn't actually as objective as perhaps many of us believe it to be or would like it to be. In the one week of Advanced Calculus that I took at the beginning of this semester, my professor told me that in the field of (1, 0), 1 + 1 = 0, but of course it would make no sense to say 1 + 1 = 1 because that would imply that 1 = 0. That's when I decided I wasn't in the right class. My point is that arguably nothing is set in stone to the point that every person on this planet could agree that it's true. And that's a disturbing notion. But it also makes it important to share your ideas with other people in order to expose yourself to other perspectives. Can you think of one fact that has no counterexamples, one thing everyone can agree on?
Kay also talks about the three steps that were most crucial to her in becoming a successful spoken-word poet:
1. the moment she said "I can"
2. when she said "I will" continue to do this
3. realizing that she needed to grow and explore and take risks and challenge herself and incorporate herself into these poems while she was simultaneously changing and growing. This step never ends.
But these steps to success could be applied to any situation. In order to do the "impossible," you have to believe in yourself and have confidence that you can do it in the first place. Then comes perseverance and finally the beginnings of success with the recognition that one must challenge his/herself in order to grow. Kay uses poetry to work through things she doesn't understand, but there are many different avenues one could take in order to further discover oneself. It seems like someone certainly has to bare their soul in order to be as successful of a spoken-word poet as Kay.
This blog is based on a TED Talk by Sarah Kay: http://www.ted.com/talks/sarah_kay_if_i_should_have_a_daughter.html
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Ken Robinson: How Schools Kill Creativity
In this humorous yet highly convincing talk, Ken Robinson emphasizes the fact that current education systems squelch creativity rather than foster it, hindering original ideas and potentially revolutionary solutions to problems of the future.
The first bit of irony is that the purpose of school, of public education, is to prepare people for a future which not a single person can possibly know anything about. This was Robinson's point at least. And while it's perfectly true, it also does well to mention that as school-aged children are the future, the way we educate them directly influences the future. The future is not independent from human's influence since we intentionally shape the world around us to suit our needs. But I suppose what he is saying is that we need to change the way we teach children so that they have the appropriate tools to solve the global problems which we are currently creating for ourselves.
Robinson also points out that school kills creativity by making incorrectness the worst possible thing. Young children are not afraid to be wrong; public school teaches them out of this. And one can't possibly think of original ideas if they are afraid of being wrong. Beyond that, from personal experience, I can say that a fear of being wrong prevents me from even admitting that I don't understand something because I'm afraid of judgment form the other students: is anyone else not understanding this? Will I sound stupid if I ask and it turns out I'm the only one who doesn't know the answer? Then what will my teacher think of me? This is the attitude public school has imbibed in us. Red is even viewed as a negative color because of the fact that many teachers correct (and therefor mark incorrect answers) in red.
I thought it was a very interesting point that education started during industrialization, when people needed to learn maths and sciences in order to get a job. This dictated the subject hierarchy which is still the foundation of public education today: first math and language, then the social sciences, and then only art at the bottom. There is a definite stigma against the arts. Anyone will tell you not to major in art because there're no jobs in the field, and art majors are stereotyped quite heavily by other college majors. However, although Robinson argues against it, I tend to agree that there is not much future in art as a profession. One can only be a very successful artist if they are one of the best and become quite famous. The sciences and technology-related fields are still in the highest demand as we continue this technological revolution. But maybe Robinson is saying that there would be a future in art as a profession if only it wasn't so stigmatized and was actually encouraged in school. However I still feel that, when it comes down to it, jobs in technology are still going to be in greater demand than those in entertainment. Although there is an ungodly amount of money generated by entertainment, it's controlled by comparatively few.
That being said, I make no qualms with Robinson's argument that public schools suppress and eventually destroy creativity. But what sort of incredible revolution of education would be required to accomplish such a feat as inspiring creativity? Grading systems can't completely go out the window. And objective subjects are still a necessary part of one's education. Perhaps this is a pessimistic view, but I find it highly unlikely that the education system will change any time soon. It's been embedded too deeply into our culture. As Robinson said, education goes deep with people, as deeply as religion or money.
This blog is based on a TED Talk by Ken Robinson: http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
The first bit of irony is that the purpose of school, of public education, is to prepare people for a future which not a single person can possibly know anything about. This was Robinson's point at least. And while it's perfectly true, it also does well to mention that as school-aged children are the future, the way we educate them directly influences the future. The future is not independent from human's influence since we intentionally shape the world around us to suit our needs. But I suppose what he is saying is that we need to change the way we teach children so that they have the appropriate tools to solve the global problems which we are currently creating for ourselves.
Robinson also points out that school kills creativity by making incorrectness the worst possible thing. Young children are not afraid to be wrong; public school teaches them out of this. And one can't possibly think of original ideas if they are afraid of being wrong. Beyond that, from personal experience, I can say that a fear of being wrong prevents me from even admitting that I don't understand something because I'm afraid of judgment form the other students: is anyone else not understanding this? Will I sound stupid if I ask and it turns out I'm the only one who doesn't know the answer? Then what will my teacher think of me? This is the attitude public school has imbibed in us. Red is even viewed as a negative color because of the fact that many teachers correct (and therefor mark incorrect answers) in red.
I thought it was a very interesting point that education started during industrialization, when people needed to learn maths and sciences in order to get a job. This dictated the subject hierarchy which is still the foundation of public education today: first math and language, then the social sciences, and then only art at the bottom. There is a definite stigma against the arts. Anyone will tell you not to major in art because there're no jobs in the field, and art majors are stereotyped quite heavily by other college majors. However, although Robinson argues against it, I tend to agree that there is not much future in art as a profession. One can only be a very successful artist if they are one of the best and become quite famous. The sciences and technology-related fields are still in the highest demand as we continue this technological revolution. But maybe Robinson is saying that there would be a future in art as a profession if only it wasn't so stigmatized and was actually encouraged in school. However I still feel that, when it comes down to it, jobs in technology are still going to be in greater demand than those in entertainment. Although there is an ungodly amount of money generated by entertainment, it's controlled by comparatively few.
That being said, I make no qualms with Robinson's argument that public schools suppress and eventually destroy creativity. But what sort of incredible revolution of education would be required to accomplish such a feat as inspiring creativity? Grading systems can't completely go out the window. And objective subjects are still a necessary part of one's education. Perhaps this is a pessimistic view, but I find it highly unlikely that the education system will change any time soon. It's been embedded too deeply into our culture. As Robinson said, education goes deep with people, as deeply as religion or money.
This blog is based on a TED Talk by Ken Robinson: http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
This American Life: Switched at Birth
In short, this episode of This American Life tells the story of two girls who were unknowingly switched at birth and the implications it had on their families when the mother of one of the daughters finally admitted to knowing about it 43 years later. Mary Miller and Kay McDonald gave birth to their daughters at the same hospital on the same day; Mary Miller ended up taking home Kay McDonald's biological daughter, Marti, and Kay McDonald took home the Millers' biological daughter, Sue. Once they got home, Mary Miller noticed something was a little off and told her husband that they had the wrong baby, but her husband, unconvinced and not wanting to offend their doctor, told her that it didn't matter and to forget about it. So she kept quiet for 43 years.
This story gives great evidence for how important "nature" is versus "nurture." Marti, biologically the McDonalds' daughter, was always outgoing and popular unlike her less attractive and more serious Miller family members while Sue was always a bit introverted and more serious compared to the fun-loving McDonalds. Despite the girls' upbringing in different households, they displayed similar personality traits to their biological families. This begs the question as to how significant of a factor nurture actually is. Disregarding extreme influences, like being brought up by violent drug addicts or by a series of neglecting foster parents, how much does one's raising effect their personality? This story would suggest that it plays a very insignificant role. Once the switch is out in the open and the sisters start talking to their biological siblings, they immediately click more than they ever did with their non-biological siblings. It is rather bizarre to consider that much of our personalities are pre-determined by the chemical coding in our bodies, not necessarily by our upbringing.
Branching off of this point, I'd like to bring up the possibly taboo subject of how unattractive people are treated versus how attractive people are treated and their corresponding reactions. Throughout the duration of this episode, one gets the impression that Marti and the McDonalds are rather significantly more attractive than Sue and the Millers. It just so happens that the McDonalds are also significantly more light-hearted and outgoing than the odd, serious, and strict Millers. Do you think there is any correlation? In general, it seems that more attractive people are in fact more popular. Perhaps because people are already more prone to like them on a first impression, they have fewer insecurities throughout their development, leading to more confidence and charisma than otherwise. Furthermore, it is not too often one sees a very attractive person who isn't relatively popular and well-liked. There is clearly some correlation between attractiveness and popularity even if it's uncomfortable to admit. But how about attractiveness and let's say...relative "oddness"? Perhaps if people are less likely to talk to you due to your looks, you develop less socially?
Another point that sharply and rather uncomfortably stands out is that Mary Miller seems to be quite an interesting character. Before listening to the last third of the podcast, I thought she was utterly insane. Why on earth didn't she do something to change the fact that she brought the wrong baby home? Why decide to turn everyone's life upside-down 43 years later? Even after hearing the explanation in the third part that her husband was apparently controlling and did not allow her to make a fuss until he himself saw Sue's family resemblance 43 years later, I do not forgive her for her decision. Or at least I still don't like her - maybe that's it. She had a cold, factual way of breaking the news to the daughter she raised, Marti, that made Marti feel like she was trying to push her out of the family. She even wrote to Marti using the last name "McDonald." At the same time, Mary and the rest of the family eagerly invited Sue into their lives because they had known for a long time that she was their real daughter (it turns out even the other Miller kids figured Marti wasn't really their sister). How could they just shove aside Marti like that? After all they did raise her; she's theirs. I wouldn't think that biology alone would give someone such a claim to another person they've never met. And for being the wife of an evangelical preacher, she doesn't seem like a particularly good Christian. She kept someone else's baby knowing it wasn't hers, claiming that it was "God's will," she selfishly contorted the lives of two families by breaking the news 43 years later (as soon as her husband would let her) simply to get the burden off her chest without thought to the negative repercussions on others, and she vainly and cruelly told Marti that she never expected much from her because she wasn't actually theirs. Yeah, I guess you could say I just don't like her. But putting all of that judgment aside, what would you have done in her situation? No, I can't even take that question seriously. I think any sane person would have known to go to the doctor and express the concern that they gave her the wrong baby.
But at least it made for an interesting story.
This blog is based on an episode of This American Life: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/360/Switched-At-Birth
This story gives great evidence for how important "nature" is versus "nurture." Marti, biologically the McDonalds' daughter, was always outgoing and popular unlike her less attractive and more serious Miller family members while Sue was always a bit introverted and more serious compared to the fun-loving McDonalds. Despite the girls' upbringing in different households, they displayed similar personality traits to their biological families. This begs the question as to how significant of a factor nurture actually is. Disregarding extreme influences, like being brought up by violent drug addicts or by a series of neglecting foster parents, how much does one's raising effect their personality? This story would suggest that it plays a very insignificant role. Once the switch is out in the open and the sisters start talking to their biological siblings, they immediately click more than they ever did with their non-biological siblings. It is rather bizarre to consider that much of our personalities are pre-determined by the chemical coding in our bodies, not necessarily by our upbringing.
Branching off of this point, I'd like to bring up the possibly taboo subject of how unattractive people are treated versus how attractive people are treated and their corresponding reactions. Throughout the duration of this episode, one gets the impression that Marti and the McDonalds are rather significantly more attractive than Sue and the Millers. It just so happens that the McDonalds are also significantly more light-hearted and outgoing than the odd, serious, and strict Millers. Do you think there is any correlation? In general, it seems that more attractive people are in fact more popular. Perhaps because people are already more prone to like them on a first impression, they have fewer insecurities throughout their development, leading to more confidence and charisma than otherwise. Furthermore, it is not too often one sees a very attractive person who isn't relatively popular and well-liked. There is clearly some correlation between attractiveness and popularity even if it's uncomfortable to admit. But how about attractiveness and let's say...relative "oddness"? Perhaps if people are less likely to talk to you due to your looks, you develop less socially?
Another point that sharply and rather uncomfortably stands out is that Mary Miller seems to be quite an interesting character. Before listening to the last third of the podcast, I thought she was utterly insane. Why on earth didn't she do something to change the fact that she brought the wrong baby home? Why decide to turn everyone's life upside-down 43 years later? Even after hearing the explanation in the third part that her husband was apparently controlling and did not allow her to make a fuss until he himself saw Sue's family resemblance 43 years later, I do not forgive her for her decision. Or at least I still don't like her - maybe that's it. She had a cold, factual way of breaking the news to the daughter she raised, Marti, that made Marti feel like she was trying to push her out of the family. She even wrote to Marti using the last name "McDonald." At the same time, Mary and the rest of the family eagerly invited Sue into their lives because they had known for a long time that she was their real daughter (it turns out even the other Miller kids figured Marti wasn't really their sister). How could they just shove aside Marti like that? After all they did raise her; she's theirs. I wouldn't think that biology alone would give someone such a claim to another person they've never met. And for being the wife of an evangelical preacher, she doesn't seem like a particularly good Christian. She kept someone else's baby knowing it wasn't hers, claiming that it was "God's will," she selfishly contorted the lives of two families by breaking the news 43 years later (as soon as her husband would let her) simply to get the burden off her chest without thought to the negative repercussions on others, and she vainly and cruelly told Marti that she never expected much from her because she wasn't actually theirs. Yeah, I guess you could say I just don't like her. But putting all of that judgment aside, what would you have done in her situation? No, I can't even take that question seriously. I think any sane person would have known to go to the doctor and express the concern that they gave her the wrong baby.
But at least it made for an interesting story.
This blog is based on an episode of This American Life: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/360/Switched-At-Birth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)