In class last week, I read something that was written with a great deal of emotion behind it, about compliments. Or, rather, "compliments." You see the difference, right?
So, this week, let's continue that discussion here.
1. What was your gut reaction to what I read in class? Anger? Fear? Scorn? Something else?
2. Did what you heard change anything about the way you envision catcalling?
3. This question will require heroic honesty on your part, about what you believe. NO ONE WILL JUDGE YOU.
Do you think girls or boys are primarily to blame to the way women are treated by men in Oakcrest society, AND society at large?
Lots to think and talk about.
I look forward to your usual honesty, insight, and brilliance <3
Monday, September 21, 2015
Saturday, September 12, 2015
A Picture Worth a Thousand Words
Many teenagers don't read or listen to much world news. Who can blame them, really? It's depressing. For example, the stories all over the news about the Syrian refugee crisis has reached ultimate emotional overload--as evidenced when the images of a dead, Syrian toddler washed up on a Turkish beach went viral 2 weeks ago.
Many news media outlets have been criticized for televising those images, especially MSNBC and CNN, because the common line of thought is that the American people just don't have the stomach for that sort of thing. They might be right.
But, do you think images that are disturbing, shocking and even terrifying SHOULD be made public? I would like you to click on the link below. It will take you to a blog that I follow. The picture I am referencing is contained within the post. The post itself is interesting, and we probably will talk about it, but for now, you don't have to read it if you don' want to. The picture is disturbing--there is no question about that. You don't need to absorb the finer points of it if you don't want to. The question I would like for you to consider and write about is this:
Should images that evoke such visceral (this means "of the gut" as in--gut-wrenching) reactions be made public? What are the benefits? The drawbacks?
The Picture "Heard" Round the World
Many news media outlets have been criticized for televising those images, especially MSNBC and CNN, because the common line of thought is that the American people just don't have the stomach for that sort of thing. They might be right.
But, do you think images that are disturbing, shocking and even terrifying SHOULD be made public? I would like you to click on the link below. It will take you to a blog that I follow. The picture I am referencing is contained within the post. The post itself is interesting, and we probably will talk about it, but for now, you don't have to read it if you don' want to. The picture is disturbing--there is no question about that. You don't need to absorb the finer points of it if you don't want to. The question I would like for you to consider and write about is this:
Should images that evoke such visceral (this means "of the gut" as in--gut-wrenching) reactions be made public? What are the benefits? The drawbacks?
The Picture "Heard" Round the World
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)