Ignorance Gang???

"Is their refusal to think about any of this the product of actual thought, or is it just that they don't want to think about it?" 

Although Wallace was talking about the ethics of eating lobster, this question can be posed to Americans on a variety of issues. Sadly, a lot of us choose to remain in the dark about current events just to maintain a shroud of blissful ignorance over the world's harsh realities. In fact, this is such a widely-known phenomena, Harvard professor (and five-time Jeopardy winner) Tom Nichols branded it the American Cult of Ignorance.

An American writer Isaac Aminov commented that the United States is unique in it's false notion that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge". That couldn't be more true. These days, in an era when facts are "alternative" and news is "fake", the mic is being given to the ignorant way too often. But although there has been a rise in giving too much publicity to uneducated opinions, Americans are generally notorious for not being publicly aware. Here, we have the Cult of Ignorance, whereas in Asia it's a Cult of Intelligence.

Speaking on what I notice in Troy High, no doubt are the students here extraordinarily intelligent. The only condition is it's academic. Some of the smartest people I know still don't know general global affairs, like the Israel-Palestine conflict. In fact, many students here get uncomfortable when politics is discussed in the classroom. Recently, in my AP Government class, while discussing the Florida shooting and gun control, a student explicitly asked to "get back to the notes" since it's "AP gov, not AP debate". In my opinion, talking about modern issues is crucial, not only to foster change in our future, but also to allow ourselves to think about others than ourselves. Oftentimes, we only listen to noise that affects us, and if that trend continues, then our brand will change from Cult of Ignorance to Cult of Selfishness. 

At the end of the day, staying "woke" saves you from public embarrassment. Read the news so there's no chance that this could be you:

 

This Blog Post is the Very Least

Once upon a time, I was sitting in my English class. Everyone was discussing a piece I found really interesting, "I Want a Wife". The rhetoric was mostly the same: women have unrealistic expectations imposed on them as potential spouses. Not only do they have to "take care of (...) children" (539), but they have to deal with the hypocrisy of their entitled husbands. One thing I noticed about the piece is that it got increasingly preposterous in the qualities wives are expected to have, my personally favorite line being "I want a wife who understands that my sexual needs may entail more than strict adherence to monogamy. I must, after all, be able to relate to people as fully as possible" (540).

Anyways, while the discussion was very intriguing, I found myself getting more and more distracted. Why, you ask? Well, I was drinking the best creation of the lunchroom snack bar. I continually sipped the peach mango smoothie -tangy yet sweet, smooth but also rich- as the analysis progressed. Today as I'm writing this blog, its glory is still implanted in my taste buds. Jesus! If only I had that smoothie right now! Also I really miss the cookies from the school store.

Women Shouldn't Mark Women

According to Alfre Woodard, an actress worries "about eyelashes and cellulite, and women who are actors worry about the characters we are playing" (#). Regardless of my opinions regarding gender specific pronouns, when I read the first half of the quote, I looked like this:

This quote displays the notion of internalized misogyny many women hold. In Woodard's view, women who act that choose to be called actresses will automatically be superficial and materialistic. But in my opinion, I don't see why one has to generalize another group of women to validate their own "category". While lifting up those women that want to be called "actors", Woodard is actually simultaneously belittling women called "actresses".

Why do these two facets have to always be in conjunction? Working women downgrade the importance stay-at-home women, and stay-at-home women downplay the efforts of those in the work force. If women are lifting up curvy bodies, they're bringing down "skinny b*tches" (see Nicki Minaj's "Anaconda"). And before this sounds too much like Taylor Swift's "why can't we all just be friends" rhetoric, it's curious to think about where and when this idea of competing avenues of womanhood surfaced.

Anyways, for me, it's different if it's valid. I don't support all women just because they're women. If I was living during Marie Antoinette's era, I wouldn't be chanting "slay queen!!" as she starved innocent peasants. Last year, women who didn't support Hillary Clinton's politics simply didn't vote for her, even though she was a woman. These are valid reasons to not unconditionally support all women, but their validation only comes from actual reasoning. If women, such as Woodard, generalize countless others without any purpose than just to lift themselves up, they shouldn't call it progressive.

At the end of the day, according to Roxanne Gay (wink wink), author of Bad Feminist, "feminism is grounded in supporting the choices of women even if we wouldn't make certain choices for ourselves". (And yes, I said the F word)

Breathe.. just breathe.

Actually, it's that simple in reality. So on the question of being called "actress" or "actor", regardless of the answer, perceptions of character shouldn't change. In fact, the irony of it all lies in the fact that Woodard just marked women herself. To that I have to say: be the change.

"The Big Sick" Critique

What did you do this early release day? Great, cool; well me, I spent those extra two hours of freedom watching this movie:

Essentially, this loosely biographical movie is about a Pakistani-American man child (Kumail Nanjani) who falls in love with a terminally ill white girl (Emily), much to the distaste of his traditional parents. I'll admit this film is (to an extent) groundbreaking, with a Muslim protagonist who's used to "being ever the suspect" due to his appearance (Staples 545). A specific scene parallels Staples being stereotyped as a thug with Nanjani being stereotyped as a terrorist sympathizer, and having to explain "his stance" on 9/11. Although this representation is important, the portrayal of my specific demographic is a tired and over-played depiction.

Throughout the film, Nanjani is bombarded with countless rishtas (marriage proposals) of Pakistani women coordinated by his mother. The first instance shows a wide eyed girl who comes prepared knowing all sorts of trivia about Nanjani's favorite show, "The X-Files". This scene is clearly used for comedic effect, and ends with a disturbed Nanjani now even further unconvinced about arranged marriage. The film is continually sprinkled with different rishtas visiting, handing him their picture to put in his peculiar box of lost prospects, and being rejected. The last one ends with Nanjani finally confessing his love to Emily to a Pakistani woman who's genuinely interested in him. This whole plot line had me like:

Let's get a couple things clear here. In this film, Nanjani is a full time Uber driver, part time struggling comedian. Not to belittle his occupation, but why is he shown as a catch and the Pakistani women as struggling to find matches? This narrative is reminiscent of Aziz Ansari in Master of None (if anyone even watches that), and is SO tiring. He literally has a one man play about the history and significance of Pakistan, and at the same time is too good for any girl with an accent. The best part is that to prove his love to Emily, he presents her with the metaphorical ashes of Pakistani women.

ARE Y'ALL HEARING THIS??

Not only does he make these women sound unwanted, but expendable and useless. The biggest irony lies in the fact that in reality, no one would want him as a potential suitor in the first place. We've been giving the free hand to entitled brown boys to morph the narrative for a while, and it's high time South Asian women tell our stories, from our perspective.