Articles for the Week of April 12th

Konner, Melvin. "The End of Male Supremacy." The Chronicle Of Higher Education. Web. 12 Apr. 2015. http://chronicle.com/article/The-End-of-Male-Supremacy/228769?cid=megamenu

“The End of Male Supremacy”

            This article provides a rare view on gender equality: that women are actually superior than men. Melvin Konner argues that it is not simply cultural or environmental, but in fact genetic and scientific that women are the superior sex. He shows actual factual evidence to support his claim of female superiority. He also brings up and shows multiple scientific and social aspects of his main point, that women are the stronger and more powerful gender in the ways that matter the most in the modern world, and when looking towards the future.

            Frankly, I found the most interesting thing about this article was that it was written by a male; he basically trashes the entire male population of Earth multiple times throughout the article, asking why men were even created in the first place, showing the major problems that they have caused socially in a global aspect, and arguing that male dominance is slowly going to disappear globally. He even went so far as to call the male gender a disease, a birth defect; I thought this was rather interesting, considering the author himself would then be a birth defect. This article shows the much rarer pole in the gender equality issue; all you typically hear about now is how men think they are superior, and women are fighting to be equal to them. This third opinion, that women are in fact superior, is much harder to find, considering women have unfortunately been the suppressed gender since basically the beginning of time. But this article, and ones like it, provide a unique point of view that definitely opens one’s mind to not only the social aspects of gender equality, but the scientific ones. And, most effectively, it leaves you wondering who’s really right in the end; I found it to be interesting, but I do not think one can say that one gender is overall superior to the other.

Kolpack, Dave. "Shop: Ban of Those Who Nixed Gay Rights Bill Served Purpose." ABC News. ABC News Network. Web. 12 Apr. 2015. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/shop-ban-nixed-gay-rights-bill-served-purpose-30261954.

“Shop: Ban of Those Who Nixed Gay Rights Bill Served Purpose”

            Joe Curry, a worker-owner at a coffee shop in Fargo, North Dakota, recently created a ban on North Dakota lawmakers in response to them opposing a bill that would have prevented discrimination against members of the LGBT community. He announced the 55 Republican state House members that opposed the bill in the newspaper, along with making a sign saying that they were banned from his shop unless they were accompanied by a member of the LGBT community. Many people, including government representatives, responded positively to the ban, commending Curry for protesting discrimination of the LGBT community; others were upset by it and continued to stand by their view on the bill. The ban and coffee shop gained a lot of attention and support on social media, particularly receiving praise and commendation from the LGBT community.

            I thought this article was a great way of promoting LGBT rights, because instead of a protest with people yelling on the streets, demanding equality, Curry created a ban for his own shop in protest of the rejection of an anti-LGBT bill, posted it publicly, and many got a good laugh out of it in the end. No one was severely hurt, no one did anything illegal; it was simply a way of peacefully promoting LGBT rights. I think this article highlights one of the most important things to remember when taking a stand on a social issue, especially this one: one should always try to solve the problem with love, not hate. As cheesy as it may sound, I think that what Curry did was a great way of receiving positive attention and support in the media, and it was by all means a thousand times better than standing in the representatives’ front lawns, demanding that they change their minds. I fully support the LGBT community, but I think there is a right way to go about the fight for gay rights, and many resort to violence and angry protests, which really just makes them worse off than they started, and no better than the people on the other side of the street yelling that being gay is a sin. Even a tiny coffee shop peacefully promoting LGBT rights made the news across the world; this article hopefully opens the reader’s mind to realize that violence and angry protests are not the most effective way to fight for equality.

Dann, Carrie. "Hillary Clinton: 'I'm Running for President'" NBC News. Web. 12 Apr. 2015. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-shes-running-president-2016-n340011.

“Hillary Clinton: ‘I’m Running for President’”

            The event discussed in this article is exactly what you think it is: Hillary Clinton’s recent announcement that she is running for US President in 2016. The article includes a video posted on Clinton’s website, in which she appears, announcing at the end that she will be running for president. She immediately received tons of positive support from all over social media, and President Obama himself said that she would be an excellent choice for president. Clinton’s announcement also brought criticisms from a few Republicans, who pointed out flaws in her foreign policy.

            Despite the fact that this article’s main purpose was to focus on the political aspect of Clinton’s announcement, I think that is interesting that not once in the article was it mentioned that Clinton, if successful, would become the first woman President of the United States. There is a good side and a bad side to this, and I think the bad side is very rarely discussed but still could emerge as an issue, if it hasn’t already. The clear pro is that Clinton’s presidency would bring in a huge push for women’s rights in America, and because of our nation’s massive sphere of influence, the entire world. But one has to be careful when predicting the outcome of Clinton’s presidency; every woman, and quite probably every man, in the United States will want to immediately vote for Clinton based only on the fact that she is a woman, even though her policies might be terrible and her presidency could make the US economy plummet. After the announcement was made, I heard my mom telling my younger sister how she was going to vote for Clinton, “because imagine how amazing it would be to have a woman President.” I have no idea what kind of politician Clinton is, but this could become a general issue with elections: the “oppressed” candidate takes the win, solely because they are generally favored by the politically oblivious public. We have our first African-American president now, and I don’t think anyone (especially me, being the least politically-involved person in America) can accurately say how much influence Obama’s race had on him winning the election, but it is impossible that his race had no influence whatsoever on his campaign. It is a similar scenario with Clinton, and I can imagine it will be the same when the first LGBT presidential candidate emerges. Political efficiency as president aside, I believe Clinton already has quite an advantage over the other candidates, simply because 50% of the American population are females that want equal rights, and most of the other 50% are male advocates for those rights.