Should women play as important roles in the military as men?

This BCC news article debates about women’s military roles in Australia. Recently, Australia abolished all restrictions on women’s roles in its military forces. If they are able to meet the entry standards, women are now not only able to serve in special forces units, but also front-line combat units. The proposal of this abolishment was based on the idea of equality among all sexes. According to Defense Minister Stephen Smith, this proposal “is a logical extension to the very strongly held view in Australian society that all of us are equal irrespective to our backgrounds and irrespective of our sex”, he also adds that “from this day forward…no combat roles, no front-line role will be excluded from an Australian on the basis of his or her sex…” However, there were objections and debates about this abolishment. Some argued that Mr. Smith was only using gender equality as a “political gimmick”. So the debate question brought up in this news article is whether women should have the right to play equal roles as men in the military. Currently in Australia, women are eligible for around 93% of military roles, including artillery duties.

The Wok that is involved here is ethics. The Australian government’s decision on abolishing restrictions is returning women their freedom of action in the military field. Before the law was abolished, some may argue that by restricting the roles of women in military forces, the government is limiting the freedom of action for women, and so limiting women’s human rights. Thus, the question on whether it is ethical for the government to restrict human rights comes into play. To what extent can the government limit people’s freedom of action and is it right to do so?

Also, another ethical issue involved here is gender discrimination and equality. By eliminating restrictions on women’s roles in the military, it is enforcing gender equality; therefore I believe that it is right for the government to abolish this rule. In my opinion, not allowing women to play as important roles as men in the army is similar to discrimination. By doing so, the army is basically sending out the message that they believe women are incapable in certain aspects compared to men. Of course, when the physical aspect is discussed, it is hard to use gender equality as an argument, because men and women are biologically built differently. Some may argue that women are generally more limited in strength and size compared to men. However, the same military standards and rules are applied to both men and women, therefore if a woman is able to play the same role as a man in the military, that means she meets the standard requirements, and so she is qualified. Thus, there should be no reason why a woman cannot fight in a certain unit, such as the special forces unit, if she is as capable as a man.


Gender equality is similar to racism, and both issues bring up the larger topic on human equality. Racism happens when a certain group of people from a certain culture discriminates or mistreats another cultural group, and so in racism, people are treated unequally as well. This brings up the question on whether humans should be treated equally or not. And in my opinion, everyone is the same in the sense that we are all humans, and therefore we all deserve to be treated in the same proper way.

Women Can't Drive

On September 28, 2011 Amnesty International reported that a Saudi woman has been sentenced to 10 lashes for challenging a ban on women driving. This was reported just two days after Saudi King Abdullah granted women the right to vote and run in municipal elections (in 2015). Under Saudi Arabia's strict Islamic laws, women require a male guardian's permission to work, travel abroad, or undergo certain types of surgery. There is no law banning women from driving, but there is a law requiring citizens to use locally issued licenses while in the country. These licenses are not issued to women, thus, making it illegal for them to drive. In May, pro-democracy protests swept through the region, women in Saudi Arabia campaigned for the right to drive. Some women have driven successfully on certain streets, while others said that they were stopped by the police who let them go after signing a pledge not to drive again.

This article highlights two ideas: women not having the right to drive and physical punishment. Should women be allowed equal rights as men? Do all humans deserve basic equal rights? To what extent should culture and religion play a role in a society? Is it ethically right to use physical punishment? What constitutes as a violation of human rights? In this case, ethics and emotion are involved. The women in this society want to have the same rights as men, however, are being punished for thinking so.

The knowledge issue I am going to focus on is should all humans be treated the same, with equal rights? We were all born from our mothers, will live our life in times of happiness as well as sadness, and later on, will someday cease to exist. If the person next to us was born in the same conditions (I mean he/she wasn't sent down from the heavens) and will one day die as well, why should one deserve more than the other? In regards to ethics, should there be a set of universal human rights? Because we cannot control the gender, culture, religion, social status, etc. we were born into, each individual should have equal rights as it is unfair to deprive an individual because of something they cannot control. However, sometimes cultural practices, tradition, and religion play a large role in the structure of a society. If one does not keep their place, how will the world function? As each layer of the food chain is dependent on another, perhaps keeping certain individuals in order reassures the function of an entire unit. Personally, I think that there should be universal human rights because as stated earlier, depriving someone of their rights because of something they cannot control is simply unfair. However, if individuals chose to abuse their rights, they should no longer be able to have them.

This issue can be related with gay rights. On September 27, actress Leisha Hailey and her girlfriend kissed on a Southwest Airlines flight so were asked to leave. In this article, it is stated that the airlines threw them off on the basis that other passengers were uncomfortable by their actions. If this were a straight couple, would they have been thrown off as well for kissing? Would the passengers have minded if they saw a straight couple kiss? In both these cases, we see how a certain group—women in the first case and homosexuals in the second are treated differently than others—men and straight couples. However, could these people have chosen to be women or homosexuals? Should they be treated differently for this?

NASA Says Satellite Debris Fell in Pacific 

On September 25^th, 2011, a 13,000-pound satellite, which stopped collecting data six years ago, fell from space and landed somewhere in the Pacific. While its trajectory was tracked, and the point at which it started disintegrating was approximated, NASA didn’t know where the debris ended up. According to the article, there are currently 20,000 pieces of orbiting debris larger than a snowball that is being tracked by the U.S., that there are at least 750 satellites in space, and that more countries seek to launch satellites. The real-life TOK issue is whether it is responsible to launch more satellites.

An AoK involved is ethics. This is because every country should have a right to launch its own satellites. If the U.S. has around 400 satellites in space (which it does), then isn’t it only logical that other countries can have just as many? Why should some countries be excluded from their claims to the outer space? Also, launching satellites can provide us the means to observe outer space by collecting data, taking pictures, and such. On the other hand, with every satellite launched into space, not only does the chance of collision increase, but also the space debris left by humans. And since the number of satellites will be limited sooner or later (there is only so much space for the orbiting to be affective), then which nation/corporation gets how many satellites? The problem of space hasn’t been particularly alarming because it’s so distant and it seems unlimited, but this problem needs to be addressed more before space debris is out of control (there is currently no way to collect space debris, and space debris whiz at insanely fast speeds up to 17,500 mph).

Using the AoK of history to analyze, there has been no injury caused by space debris since the inception of the Space Age. However, the debris that currently circulates earth is pretty much all human-caused and so is only at a stage of building up. It is only a matter of time then, that space debris falling onto earth will hurt someone. At a speed like 17,500 mph, even a tiny speck of debris can destroy a satellite. Actually, this had happened before. In 2009, a drifting Russian satellite collided into a U.S. commercial satellite and caused 2,000 additional space debris. In 2007, China, during an anti-satellite test, used a missile to destroy an old satellite, adding 3,000 additional space debris.

Personally, I think that it is irresponsible to launch more satellites. We were fine before there were satellites, and we don’t immediately need more satellites (or perhaps it’s only fair to say that the society I live in doesn’t need more), so it seems that it’s out of self-interest that more satellites are being launched. The International Space Station is constantly dodging space debris, showing how dangerous it is already. Also, we do not know the long term consequences of our actions, so we should be more careful when launching things into outer space.

Recently, I read a relevant article that talked about how space debris is past the threshold. I’m not sure how credible the claim is, since who’s to say what the threshold for space debris is? However, that the topic has been brought up shows that it is a topic of concern. Other relevant topics would include our natural resources that are currently being depleted. Deforestation, ocean acidification (CO2 footprint), depleting food, water, and energy supplies, etc are all relevant because there is always the question of where the line between preservation and utilization of resources is.

The Irish Republican Army: Terrorists or Freedom Fighters

Is the Irish Republican Army a freedom fighting group or a terrorist organization?

Peter T. King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, presided over a series of hearings on Muslim radicalization. He has asserted that 85% of leaders of American mosques hold extremist views and that Muslims do not cooperate with law enforcement. His attitude towards Muslims has stirred a large amount of controversy, primarily due to his previous support of Irish Republican Army (IRA).

King, son of a New York City police officer and grand nephew of an IRA member was once quoted, at a pro IRA rally in 1982, as saying "we must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women, who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British Imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry." Later he also stated "if civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the IRA for it." (Ed Moloney, The Sun, 2005) He saw them as the "legitimate voice of occupied Ireland”

However, Mr. King "appears to spread blame for Terrorism to the entire population of American Muslims." (Scott Shane, New York Times, 2011) As one can see, Mr. King blatantly painted the American Muslim as supporters of terrorism, whereas the Irish American's were supporters of freedom fighters.
The labeling of an organization as a terrorist group versus a freedom fighting group is a highly significant issue of context influencing language that I would like to address in this discussion.

There does not appear to be a universally accepted definition of terrorism, however, the highly recognized source of the US Department of Defense provides the following definition of terrorism: "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." To qualify as a terrorist organization the organization cannot be an army belonging to any officially recognized state or government. Merriam-Webster defines a freedom fighter as "a person who takes part in a resistance movement against an oppressive political or social establishment" So Peter King chooses to view the IRA as freedom fighters but do they qualify as a terrorist organization. Well, according to both definitions the IRA could be categorized as either one. The IRA were in fact a resistance moment against the oppressive political and social British establishment in Northern Ireland. However, the IRA were also involved in politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets in cases such as their bombings of hotels and public establishments. The labeling of an organization as a freedom fighting group or a terrorist organization would lead one to embrace them or condemn them accordingly. An old saying argues that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. To many people, Irish Catholics in particular, the IRA represented opposition to British oppression and therefore were seen as heroes in contrast to others who would argue that the IRA is a terrorist organization. This, however, is merely due to the context they are embracing when they need to decide how they shall label a group that cannot be correctly labeled one and not the other.

In discussions with my mother’s family from County Limerick, it was evident from their recounting of IRA stories that during their childhood they perceived the IRA as freedom fighters and heroes. Stories of great grandfathers fighting off the "black and tans" in the early years of the 20th century and neighbor’s involvement in bank robberies on behalf of the IRA were told with pride and patriotism. I have been inclined to view the IRA as a freedom fighting group, fighting for a Republic of Ireland of 32 counties.

A strong example of the labeling being highly effected by context is in the recognition of the professional tennis player Andy Murray. Andy Murray is a Scot but in being a Scotsman is effectively British. In the early days of Murray's career with victory much of the British media and citizens alike greeted his victories with celebrations of a "significant British triumph" (Magnus Linklater, The Times) . On the contrary, every time he lost, he "could be consigned to the dank, sub-racist compartment that concluded that he was not really a British hero, merely a Scottish loser." This example, shows the that labeling and defining terms can never be definite and is highly subject to context.

Drug Therapies

Marcia Angell wrote an article a couple of months ago, titled "The epidemic of mental illness", in which she discusses psychoactive drugs as a cure for mental illness. Angell believes that drug cures, while becoming increasingly used in place of talk therapy, is an effective form of treatment, and almost always detrimental instead, to a person's health. However, there are also others who believe in the opposite, that we are able to cure mental illnesses more effectively with drugs. The reason for the controversial nature of this issue can be found in the limitations of the four ways of knowing: reason, emotion, sense perception and language.

Psychoactive drugs are considered an effective form of treatment because they appear to treat the symptoms of mental illnesses in a seemingly logical and scientific manner. For example, depression, a mental illness, causes a drop in serotonin levels. So-and-so drug increases serotonin levels. So-and-so drug is a cure for depression. However, this line of reasoning becomes flawed, because any type of reasoning is based on premises which we have to first accept. The drop in serotonin levels might not be a direct result of depression and merely the side effect of a change in another aspect. We are assuming that the drop in serotonin levels is either a result of or the cause for depression and by altering it, we can effectively cure depression.

Another limiting for the effectiveness of psychoactive drugs lies in emotion. When a drug is administered to a person, and the person reports that the mental illness or symptoms of it are going away, it might in fact be a result of emotion and not the drugs themselves. By believing that the drugs will effectively cure them might in fact be the more effective cure. When individuals are presented with the selective data and results of studies that 'show' how a certain drug can do this or that, they are more inclined to believe it, which is why drugs are advertised in that manner. Mental illnesses such as depression can be altered by changing one's thought process and the drugs merely give them the confidence, or the empathetic ability from the previous success stories, to actively change their thought process. Thus, this is more of a cognitive treatment than a biological (drug) treatment.

Sense perception plays an important role in this argument, because unlike physical injuries or illnesses, a mental illness takes root in the mind and cannot be observed for what it is, if it is in fact what it is. Drug treatments is seen as a magic fix to these internal problems, and is taken because of this. However, because we cannot observe mental illnesses, this also means that we cannot assess the level of effective drug therapy has on them.

Lastly, I believe that language is the main knowledge issue that suggests that drug treatment is not administered properly, if not simply ineffective. The DSM, a catalogue of mental illnesses have been steadily growing in size over the pat few years. Are more people getting mentally ill every year or are we just changing the definitions of mental illnesses to include more people? We need to make sure the focus is always to see the implications symptoms have for people and treat them in the most beneficial way. By labeling people with this or that illness, and then giving them a bunch of drugs to take according to how we stigmatize them is not going to be effective in the long run.

Is Baby Circumcision Wrong?

Circumcision, one of the most emotionally surgical procedures that has been long practiced on infant child to adult male all over the world and has become yet another focus and debate to where it raises ethical consideration. In an article in the Reuters, Dutch doctors urges the human right groups and politicians to raise their voices and discourage the practice of infant male circumcision claiming that it is a 'painful and harmful ritual' and violates children's rights. According to the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG), between 10,000 - 15,000 boys are circumcised in the Netherlands each year, mostly for religious reason and not always with anesthetic. They state that male circumcision involves the removal of all or part of the foreskin of the penis. It is a ritual obligation for infant Jewish boys, and is also a common rite among Muslims, who account for the largest share of circumcised men worldwide. Further in the story, the doctors also insisted that 'circumcision is an unnecessary procedure which violates the integrity of the child.’

The main issue that is raised in this article is whether infant circumcision is wrong or not. Should they even be circumcised at that early age? It raises the questions of age and consent as the infants are too young to give consent to the procedure. Thus bringing to the next question of who should decide whether the infant boy should be circumcised or not. The main area of knowledge that is involved in this real-life issue is ethics as it is concern the age issue of a child infant. While the ways of knowing that is present in this article is reason/logic. The Dutch doctors have used the reason that circumcision should be discourage on infants is merely because of the acknowledgement of the pain. While the babies can’t give consent to the procedure, they certainly can feel the pain of it. The surgical procedure is also embedded deeply with religious practices and habits. Is circumcision solely means of religious tradition or is it children’s right violation? It is considered a violation of human rights when consent is not given to the person even if it has been a religious tradition. However, as mention, an infant defined as a baby has not been able to even develop the thought of thinking let alone giving consent. Are the parents in this case responsible? Does the religious practice cancels out the ethical issue raised? No. I think, that it is immoral and wrong for an infant to be circumcised, 1^st because they can’t give consent and 2^nd more importantly is acknowledging the pain. The pain of circumcision is can only be felt firsthand by the infant himself. Therefore in this case, the parents should not be given the rights to decided circumcision on their newborn infant.

In related real-life issue, stem-cell research is an example of another issue that involves the AoKs of ethics. Stem cell research can involve the use of the human embryo to spinal stem cells. For example they are used in animal research to revive hearts, create new organs and as well as curing defect/disability such as paralyzed lower body or such. The use of the embryonic-cells involves the creation and destruction of it. A human embryo is considered to be a living aspect of life which thus brings the issue of ethic in hand. Is stem cell research merely for health benefits or is it destruction of a living thing. This issue is related to the circumcision issue because it involves the question whether the procedure is right or wrong?

Citations:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16776931/ns/health-childrens_health/t/cut-or-not-circumcision-controversy-flares/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/23/us-dutch-circumcision-health-idUSTRE78M3R620110923

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy

Guilty Until Proven Innocent?

Article: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/troy-davis-executed-parole-board-denies-clemency-131916604.html

Troy Davis, 41, was convicted in 1989, of the murder of Mark Allen MacPhail, an off-duty Savannah Ga. Police officer. MacPhail, who was running to the aid of a homeless man being pistol-whipped, was shot three times before he could draw his weapon. Davis has always maintained his innocence and those that have testified against Davis have recanted, saying that they were pressured into their testimony by the police. This case has thus far, garnered much international attention in that there are significant doubts over Davis’ guilt. The only evidence that we have that could justify Davis’ prosecution aside from eye

witnesses, is that the shell casings recovered from an earlier shooting linked to Davis matched with those at the scene of MacPhail’s murder. The question that arises from this article aside from whether or not Davis should be held responsible for the murder is how do we know what we know? And how do we know, if what we know is valid or not? For humans, there are four ways of knowing-language, perception, reason, and emotion. Language is a way of knowing via communication.

We know things because we have been told so, or have read of it somewhere, and language is the median with which this information travels by. However, language is extremely vague in that some words can have more than one meaning, and can be used in conjunction with literary techniques like irony/satire which can confuse people. Therefore, language is based solely on what the individual believes in, because a skilled speaker or writer can manipulate language to tie into what they are arguing for extremely persuasively.

Another way of knowing is based on sense perception-our five senses. Our senses are prone to deception in that our senses were made to manipulate what we see to make sense. Our ears only pick up certain range of sounds, because that is all that is important to our survival. Our tactile, olfactory and sense of taste are all convoluted so suit our needs, and are not applicable in providing evidence for a crime scene. Our visual sense, which we rely on the most, is the most convoluted of them all. Take for example these optical illusions. This is proof enough that eye witness testimony in a court hearing is extremely doubtful.

Adding to our senses not being able to pick up everything, it is also prone to distortion by emotions and prejudices. Brown and Kulik’s 1977 study of Flashbulb memories show that humans tend to connect two completely unrelated things together. In the study, a bright flash from the flashbulb was said to remind the participants of a deceased relative.

Reason is another way of knowing that seems to be more reliable, because it is based on reason and logic. Reasoning is probably the most straightforward and certain method of knowing, in that it doesn’t rely on human qualities that can distort our overall view of the situation. However, in cases like that of Davis’, where there isn’t much evidence at all, reason is difficult to put into application. From what we can discern from the limited amount of evidence, is that Davis is a suspect, nothing more, nothing less. The shell casings have been shown to be related to him and to MacPhail, and previous testimonies have recanted, leaving us with less and less evidence supporting the prosecution of Troy Davis.

Lastly, another way of knowing is through emotions. Although it might seem paradoxical at first, emotions actually help us make decisions in that it is the main way with which humans judge things. Our emotions tell us that killing police officers is a bad thing, and so it must be dealt with it. Intuition is a major part of knowing in that although it might not seem reliable, often has grain of truth in it. When we feel something burning into the back of our head, it is not necessarily someone holding a torch onto it, it could be someone staring intensely, but creates the same emotional output. Emotion is not a very reliable way of knowing, but it can make the difference in condemning a man to death if the intuition of a majority says that he or she is innocent.

The story of Troy Davis shows the flaws of the judicial system, in that with minimal evidence, a prosecution can go either way. Although it is true that the probability of having every single piece of evidence is quite low, this just goes to show how flawed the system is. This article relates to the movie/play, the twelve angry men. ‘The twelve angry men’ is about twelve jurors who have to decide the fate of a young man convicted of murdering his own father. The only evidence that they begin with, is the auditory evidence that old man living a floor under where the murder occurred gives, and the visual evidence of the woman living across the train tracks from the scene of crime. The issue that they had to deal with as well was that there wasn’t enough evidence to support either side, and even when they voted guilty at the start, most of them had a reasonable doubt that surfaced one by one, as the architect explained his view. So the question we are left with now, is whether it is better to convict someone of a crime when there is reasonable doubt suggesting otherwise, or let them go free, when the limited amount of evidence points to the suspect? I think that it is better for the suspect to be deemed not guilty if there is a reasonable doubt, because the judicial system is based on innocent until proven guilty.

14-Year-Old Gone Wild Stabbing 37 Classmates

A 14-year-old girl from Jose de Choudens middle school in Puerto Rico went on a playground holding a syringe, stabbing 37 classmates from 12-to-14-years-old. According to the Education Secretary Jesus Rivera Sanchez's testimony, she described the girls behavior as " [the girl] would stab one, run, stab another, run, like it was some sort of joke". The Health Department said that the they were not sure the syringe was contaminated; but the 37 victims were gathered at a convention center to be examined for HIV and hepatitis C supplied with preventive medications.

Based on the Justice Department spokesman Fidel Rodrigruez, no charges had yet been filed because her motives were not clear, however, judges decided she had been suspended from school due to her lack of honesty to the police officers. When the officers were asking the girl how she managed to obtain the syringe, she said she found it; but soon after, she changed her speech and told the investigators that she stole an unused needle from a relative's hospital to have her ears pierced.

The Puerto Rican Justice Department officials has recently been debating whether there should be charges against the girl's inappropriate actions. As one of the social workers tried to determine a motive, he said that it was not clear why she attacked her classmates. In the parent's perspective, they would argue that the girl should receive more than just a suspension from the school. It would only seem logical that a murderer were to be kept in a juvenile prison until all 37 victims receives a negative test result. However, according to the CRIN (Child Rights information Network) in Puerto Rico, there are neither any Regional Laws nor any National Laws in the database relating to this country. This being said, do the judges put charges on the girl based on adult laws, which could possibly result in heavier charges? Now, looking at the CRC (Convention on the Rights of the Child), one of the laws for Children Rights states"Safe exposure/access to leisure, play culture, and art"; those who violate the CRC in a lighter degree usually receives a fine or imprisonment for not to exceed 10 days. However, recognizing the vulnerability of children, one might say that children rights should be dealt with special attention; in other words, suspension is more than enough to serve as a punishment for the girl.

In addition to the issue of children rights, the definition for "children" is a matter of debate. According to the US Law, it sates that " A child is any human being below the age of eighteen years", however, according to Cornell University, the term "child" doesn't exist within a range; basically, there is no exact definition to explain the term "youth, teenager, or adolescent" because it is almost impossible to measure one's maturity level with a standardized test. But if the definition of children is not established, how is fair to charge the girl?

In my opinion, the girl has received the punishment she deserves, nothing more than that should be charged on her. First, the girl does not understand the danger involved in a syringe, therefore, she has no intentions of harming her classmates on purpose. Second, in the article, they only reported that she stabbed 37 kids, but have they considered that the girl might have stabbed herself accidentally? And if she did, wouldn't she become a victim as well? Third, the girl shouldn't take full responsibility of this entire action. Since the rampage happened at school, where were the supervisors? Shouldn't the supervisors take partial responsibility of this?

Besides the issue of children rights, there are many other issues that are related to that matter, for instance, minimum driving age. Because the known minimum driving age isn't standardized in each country, the consequences for illegal driving are different. Similarly, when the definition of children is diversified, the degree of charges set on one is relatively difficult to decide.

No, I shan't pronounce you man and man

On July 24th, 2011, same sex marriage was legalised in New York State after the vote on the matter was approved 33 to 29 by the Senate. Though many Republicans ceded and voted "yes" on the bill that allowed for Adam to marry Steve, they have, at the same time, been desperately fighting for the protection of religious institutes from being forced to marry the same-sex couples. Though the article was mostly a celebration of how the gay community had come back from its crippling defeat in 2009 and has now made same sex marriage legal in one of the most symbolic states (city more like, New York) in the world, it does bring up the issue that surrounds the question of gay marriage in general.

The very first issues that comes up is language. As one of the few Democratic opponents mentioned, “God, not Albany, has settled the definition of marriage, a long time ago.” (Rubén Díaz Sr.) I make this point not (necessarily) because I believe that marriage is defined as a holy union of a man and a woman sanctioned by the name of God, but because this viewpoint is one that exists (and has been practiced in North America and Europe for quite some time). The definition of marriage varies greatly between people of different time periods, societies, and cultural backgrounds. Same sex unions have existed as far back as the Ancient Greeks while certain groups and cultures practice polygamy and polyandry while there exist as well a minority of people who are legally married to animals or inanimate objects as well. The one-man-one-woman definition, though common and more widely accepted in today's world, is certainly not the only one. Right now, across the United States, the definition of marriage is being questioned. Opponents of gay marriage often cite that the definition of a marriage is a union between a man and a woman, stating that two women or two men entering matrimony would make (to them) no logical sense. Proponents of same-sex marriage have argued that the definition of marriage is ever changing and that prior to 1967, the definition of a marriage in the United States also concerned the matter of whether or not the people in question were of the same race. The very most fundamental question that comes up here is: who gets to decide on the definition of marriage?

In 2008, California also underwent a debate of the dilemma mentioned above a la Proposition 8, where the state petitioned to change the definition of marriage back to including only heterosexual unions. After Proposition 8 passed, Perry v. Schwarzenegger challenged the ballot's results as unconstitutional, essentially saying that just because a large amount of people say something is so does not make it so. On the other hand, what Rubén Díaz Sr. is asserting is that the government should not have the right to change the definition of marriage.

The struggle between the government and the individual also appears in this instance with the issue of whether or not religious institutions should be forced to sanctify same-sex marriages in New York. The First Amendment was created to prevent religious intolerance and the favouring of one faith over another. On this basis, religions that are against same-sex marriages should not be allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples wanting to get married because if they were, then it would be akin to religious favouritism. However, at the same time the Amendment also goes the other way to protect the rights of those religious groups not wanting to marry the same-sex couples because it is against what they believe. So then what? The Marriage Equality Act supported protecting the rights of the religious institutions in this case, but that's just the result of the legislation and not necessarily the best solution to the issue at hand.

Everything boils down to the idea of individual rights versus the rights of the masses and the power of the government and the rights of the masses. I differentiate between the two due to a subtle nuance in idea. For individuals versus the masses, it's the question of to what extent should individual rights be protected against the will of the larger community. Individuals do have rights, but at what point do these rights need to be compromised on in order to maintain the welfare of the majority? For the masses versus the government, it’s the question of definition. Who gets to decide what is right and wrong? Who decides what is and is not? Should the power to define lie in the hands of the selected few (who are trusted to make the right decision), or the many who are actually affected by the outcome? If the government were given free reign over defining things and making decisions, society would instantly become (even more of) a reflection of Orwellian dystopia (than it already is). But if the masses were to decide, then society would be governed by mob rule and those not in the majority will never be safe.

In this instance, I do agree with New York's decision to legalise gay marriage as well as protect religious institutions from being sued should they not want to hold services because I do not believe that the change of the definition of marriage in this instance will directly harm any of the religious institutions that are so fundamentally against same-sex marriage. As for protecting said organisations, even though I agree with same-sex marriage, it's still necessary to protect and respect the opinion of those who do not. However, for that to work, there should also be a distinction between a marriage sanctioned by the religious institution in question and by the state of New York.

This issue also relates to California's petition to outlaw performing circumcision on minors (though there are some technical differences, since it does involve a controversial procedure that can easily go awry), where it's honestly a question of who gets to choose what is right and whether or not the protection of individual rights are overstepping its bounds. It's the eternal question of how far are we allowed to push our individual rights before it infringes upon those of others and whether or not the masses should have the power to govern. Either way there is no right answer and the best course of action would probably be to tread softly and try to hurt as few people as possible in the process.

image source: http://www.helyn.com/lesbian_wedding_cake_toppers.htm

article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/nyregion/gay-marriage-approved-by-new-york-senate.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Domestic Abuse is the New Black (Shock Advertising)

In 2008, Duncan Quinn, a high-end fashion designer, released an advertisement that stirred up much controversy. As seen to the left, it showed an unconscious woman not fully dressed laying on a car with her head bleeding, while a man stood smiling behind her with a necktie around her neck. Apparently this was published several times in popular fashion magazines such as Vogue. This was supposedly supposed to advertise the suit, although there is no reasonable vindication as to why the suit had to be advertised in such an obscene manner. 


This advertisement was somewhat widely discussed in 2008/ beginning of 2009 when it was first released, and surprisingly some people defended Duncan Quinn's advertising campaign. Those that have no problem with this advertisement claim that it is merely "artistic expression" and should not be seen as an advocation of domestic abuse, but some form of art. However, others see this as an obvious symbol of abuse and are greatly offended by it. Some were victims of domestic abuse themselves, and were trying to recover, but happened to stumble upon this advertisement and claimed that it brought nightmares, bad memories, etc. These arguments address the language, emotion, and sense perception Ways of Knowing.

What is considered as "art"? Can the nature of the advertisement be justified in that it could be interpreted in a different way the photographer intended it to be? Should it have been approved to be published by fashion magazines back in 2008 because it caused emotional and mental harm in victims of domestic violence? 

According to dictionary.com, art is "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing or of more than ordinary significance". It would be easy to say that there is nothing beautiful about domestic violence, but there are some who find sexual pleasure and perhaps, beauty in being in the woman's position. Possibly they would find nothing disgusting about this advertisement. Nevertheless, in my opinion, it seems like the photograph is suggesting the woman was beaten without her consent or desire. If you look closely, it looks as if there is blood on the car from her head, as if the man killed her or at least caused a great amount of damage to her body. Even if this was considered "beauty" to some, it is not legally acceptable for a man - or a woman - to commit such violence towards another human being. If this photograph was accepted as art, it still should not have been published in internationally recognized fashion magazines because it suggested such an illegal activity. I believe that the limit to what art can be is where it meets law. Would a vulgar photograph of a child being forced in sexual activity be allowed to be published in magazines merely because it was considered "beautiful" and therefore as "art" to some?


Another argument those that find no wrong in the photograph is that many people interpret the message of the photograph differently than what it was intended to really mean. They say that the man could in fact be a "private investigator" showing up at the scene of the crime. Is he smiling because he has found the scene of the crime and is one step further to solving the case? Or is he smirking because he enjoys beating women? To some, the image itself suggests such an appropriate and crude situation that it seems to almost "glamorize" abuse. I don't understand how this sort of photograph would make consumers want to go out and buy a Duncan Quinn suit. Is it because he looks like a "hero"? If so, Duncan Quinn could have portrayed the man in a different situation: saving a woman who's actually conscious, instead of finding a half-naked woman who's either dead or unconscious. Even if a man was not in the photograph, images of half-naked women that look unconscious or dead should not even be released to the public by professionals. Suggestive but vague advertisements like these should not be released to the public because it is obviously going to be subject to a lot of misinterpretation from a majority of the consumers. Misinterpretation (assuming that the photograph was not intended to promote or portray domestic abuse) also led to emotional distress from some consumers that had previously been victims of domestic abuse and was trying to recover, until they saw this advertisement.


This form of advertising is called shock advertising. It is a technique some companies use to catch the consumer's attention by using an image or words that would usually offend, shock, disgust, etc. the average person. Assuming that you (the reader) did not know what Duncan Quinn was and saw the photograph in the beginning of this post (because I'm sure it caught your attention), what would you think? If I personally was not given the explanation of the photograph before seeing it, I would have never assumed it would be an advertisement for such a high-esteemed fashion designer. At least the shock advertising worked, but I believe Duncan Quinn went too far. 


There have been many more different instances with shock advertising that induced much discussion. The most recent one also in the fashion/modeling industry was brought about by the "Bruised Barbie" pictures in September 2011. A photographer named Tyler Shields took 100 "limited edition prints" of Glee's Heather Morris, in which she was wearing in a 1950s housewife dress and had a realistic purple bruise on her eye. Also in 2008, there was an ad campaign (also a controversy about whether or not it was real)  for Running Free, an athletic apparel brand. There were 3 photographs of 3 different women, one with two bruised eyes, another with a broken nose, and the third with a puffy, bleeding upper lip. The tagline stated, "Support bras, now available". Perhaps in both situations, the photographer was trying to put beaten women in a lighter light. But there is always a limit and a line that any advertisement or piece of art should never cross.